By launching his undeclared war on Iran, Donald Trump has initiated one of the most consequential decisions of his second presidency. His fateful move will affect his legacy, his country, and the nations touched by this assault on the Iranian regime for decades to come. He owns this choice, although he was not authorized by Congress to declare war, did not approach the UN to make the case for an all-out US-Israeli operation, and has deployed contradictory and unclear justifications for this new conflict.
With the slaying of Iranian supreme leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei, some op-eds, commentaries, and analyses range from nationalistic triumphalism to sober, calculative realpolitik, as well as, for some writers, a sincere, righteous belief that Israel, the US, and regional partners are better off. Consider these headlines in mainstream US newspapers: “Trump and Netanyahu Are Doing the Free World a Favor” (Bret Stephens in The New York Times); and “At last, the credibility of U.S. deterrence is being restored” and “Thanks to President Trump, the hour of Iran’s freedom is at hand” (George F. Will and Reza Pahlavi respectively in The Washington Post).
Even writers who are cautious about what comes next have qualified their concerns about the Trump administration’s bombast and apparent lack of long-term planning (especially in regard to regime change) with an acknowledgment that the world is better off without Khamenei around. This is even as, per reporting by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s news site: “. . . cogs have been churning for years, if not decades, to ensure its [the regime’s] survival in the event it was decapitated.” (ABC News)
While there is deep and fiery disagreement about the future, celebration (or at least approval of) Khamenei’s slaying is a common theme in many outlets. The killing of Iran’s theocratic leader does pose an uncomfortable ethical question: in what circumstances is a killing justified? Is it good to kill a tyrant because he did many bad things?
The justification for war and killing in the Western Christian tradition has roots dating back to Saint Augustine (354–430 CE), who suggested that the idea of a “just war” was always relative in a fallen world marked by original sin. In Letter 138, written in 412, the Doctor of the Church suggested that to be truly just “. . . a war would have to be waged for the benefit of the adversary and without any vindictiveness, in short, out of love of neighbor, which, in a fallen world, seems utopian.” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Furthermore, war must be defensive and properly declared, criteria that the killing of Khamenei and broader attack on Iran seems to fall short of.
The idea of fighting a war out of “love of neighbor” reflects a similarly utopian formulation of violence in the Upayakausalya Sutra, in which a captain of a ship called Great Compassionate decides to kill a robber planning to kill 500 merchants. The slaying was done out of enlightened compassion because the bodhisattva knew that if the prospective thief carried out his evil plan, the karmic consequences would fall upon him and he would suffer in the hell-realms for eons. Much better that the bodhisattva take on this karmic debt and suffer, almost Christlike, in the slain (but now free from a lower rebirth) individual’s place.
Killing and war can be justified at the very highest level of Buddhist practice, whereupon one assumes the terrible karma that would have otherwise fallen upon the perpetuator. East Asian esoteric and Himalayan Vajrayana Buddhism even offer spiritual and magical artillery to get the job done. Yet there is no joy in taking on this karmic burden, because without considerable repentance and cleansing of impurities, one will most certainly fall into the hell realms for summoning supernatural forces to kill one’s foes. Killing a “bad person”—a simplistic characterization from a Buddhist perspective—in hope that it somehow leads to something better is not a Dharma-informed attitude. Slaying a living being, let alone hundreds or thousands, must be done with a clear pathway to actually benefiting the land or country those beings are in.
This is an excruciatingly difficult call to make—a deliberately high bar that the Upayakausalya Sutra and Augustine made precisely because violence is so attractive to deluded beings and eminently easy to justify.
Buddhist history is replete with examples of clergy and Buddhist kings or leaders opting for war, defying a simplistic adherence to the idealistic, theoretical view that is grounded in the highest conception of Buddhist ethics. Esoteric master Amoghavajra (705–74), who worked for three emperors of the Tang dynasty (618–907), seems to have accepted or even rejoiced in his duty to protect the monarchy. Emperor Suzong (711–62), who petitioned Amoghavajra to unleash dread wrathful deities like Yamantaka and Acala to subdue and curse the imperium’s rebellious traitors, would have argued that this was what the Indian-born tantric adept and his disciples were in China for: to protect king and country. Amoghavajra would have agreed: in one letter to his sovereign, he hoped that his tantric rituals would lead to “enduring peace and tranquility.” (Goble 219, 179)
In other words, the righteous cause to preserve the state (and, by extension, the Dharma hosted by the state), was worth the karmic burden for Amoghavajra. In a similar vein, for the Israeli nation, which justifiably tolerates no threats to its survival, targeted assassinations and other morally dubious means of destroying its enemies have always found government and media justification, domestically and internationally. Currently, public support in Israel for incapacitating Iran’s regime is at an all-time high. When national survival is at stake, religions are willing to accommodate calls to violence. This has also been the case in Myanmar, where the Rohingyas have been cast as threats to the country by certain Buddhist leaders.
Can violence in the name of national survival be philosophically congruous with Augustinian ideals or Buddhist skilful means? This question is being asked across the world, and global and American support for the US government’s prosecution of the war is much more ambivalent because the Trump administration’s characterizations of Iran as an imminent threat against the US simply do not hold water, according to The Wall Street Journal.
The teachings of cause and effect, interconnectedness and causality, and ethicized karma are much more useful than many advocates of conflict might want to believe. Hearteningly, Dharma initiatives for peace have been making headlines across the Buddhist media, including a 3,700-kilometer Walk for Peace across the US—with rescue dog Aloka becoming an unexpected social media star—as well as a major Dhamma Yatra for peace in India. In November, Bhutan hosted an unprecedented Global Peace Prayer Festival, with its Central Monastic Body intending to hold one annually. There is a sense, perhaps, that humanity’s need for the energy of peace is more critical and urgent than ever.
War always poses a difficult, interconnected question. The decisive answer, for modern Buddhist leaders, will and should always remain pro-peace: rather than prosecuting a pre-emptive war, we should embrace our power to establish proactive peace.
References
Geoffrey C. Goble. 2019. Chinese Esoteric Buddhism: Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition. New York: Columbia University Press
We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. By clicking “OK”, you consent to the use of ALL the cookies. However, you may visit "Cookie Settings" to provide a controlled consent.
FEATURES
Buddhistdoor View: The Killing Bodhisattva: Can Purposeful Ending of Life be Justified?
By launching his undeclared war on Iran, Donald Trump has initiated one of the most consequential decisions of his second presidency. His fateful move will affect his legacy, his country, and the nations touched by this assault on the Iranian regime for decades to come. He owns this choice, although he was not authorized by Congress to declare war, did not approach the UN to make the case for an all-out US-Israeli operation, and has deployed contradictory and unclear justifications for this new conflict.
With the slaying of Iranian supreme leader Ali Hosseini Khamenei, some op-eds, commentaries, and analyses range from nationalistic triumphalism to sober, calculative realpolitik, as well as, for some writers, a sincere, righteous belief that Israel, the US, and regional partners are better off. Consider these headlines in mainstream US newspapers: “Trump and Netanyahu Are Doing the Free World a Favor” (Bret Stephens in The New York Times); and “At last, the credibility of U.S. deterrence is being restored” and “Thanks to President Trump, the hour of Iran’s freedom is at hand” (George F. Will and Reza Pahlavi respectively in The Washington Post).
Even writers who are cautious about what comes next have qualified their concerns about the Trump administration’s bombast and apparent lack of long-term planning (especially in regard to regime change) with an acknowledgment that the world is better off without Khamenei around. This is even as, per reporting by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s news site: “. . . cogs have been churning for years, if not decades, to ensure its [the regime’s] survival in the event it was decapitated.” (ABC News)
While there is deep and fiery disagreement about the future, celebration (or at least approval of) Khamenei’s slaying is a common theme in many outlets. The killing of Iran’s theocratic leader does pose an uncomfortable ethical question: in what circumstances is a killing justified? Is it good to kill a tyrant because he did many bad things?
The justification for war and killing in the Western Christian tradition has roots dating back to Saint Augustine (354–430 CE), who suggested that the idea of a “just war” was always relative in a fallen world marked by original sin. In Letter 138, written in 412, the Doctor of the Church suggested that to be truly just “. . . a war would have to be waged for the benefit of the adversary and without any vindictiveness, in short, out of love of neighbor, which, in a fallen world, seems utopian.” (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) Furthermore, war must be defensive and properly declared, criteria that the killing of Khamenei and broader attack on Iran seems to fall short of.
The idea of fighting a war out of “love of neighbor” reflects a similarly utopian formulation of violence in the Upayakausalya Sutra, in which a captain of a ship called Great Compassionate decides to kill a robber planning to kill 500 merchants. The slaying was done out of enlightened compassion because the bodhisattva knew that if the prospective thief carried out his evil plan, the karmic consequences would fall upon him and he would suffer in the hell-realms for eons. Much better that the bodhisattva take on this karmic debt and suffer, almost Christlike, in the slain (but now free from a lower rebirth) individual’s place.
Killing and war can be justified at the very highest level of Buddhist practice, whereupon one assumes the terrible karma that would have otherwise fallen upon the perpetuator. East Asian esoteric and Himalayan Vajrayana Buddhism even offer spiritual and magical artillery to get the job done. Yet there is no joy in taking on this karmic burden, because without considerable repentance and cleansing of impurities, one will most certainly fall into the hell realms for summoning supernatural forces to kill one’s foes. Killing a “bad person”—a simplistic characterization from a Buddhist perspective—in hope that it somehow leads to something better is not a Dharma-informed attitude. Slaying a living being, let alone hundreds or thousands, must be done with a clear pathway to actually benefiting the land or country those beings are in.
This is an excruciatingly difficult call to make—a deliberately high bar that the Upayakausalya Sutra and Augustine made precisely because violence is so attractive to deluded beings and eminently easy to justify.
Buddhist history is replete with examples of clergy and Buddhist kings or leaders opting for war, defying a simplistic adherence to the idealistic, theoretical view that is grounded in the highest conception of Buddhist ethics. Esoteric master Amoghavajra (705–74), who worked for three emperors of the Tang dynasty (618–907), seems to have accepted or even rejoiced in his duty to protect the monarchy. Emperor Suzong (711–62), who petitioned Amoghavajra to unleash dread wrathful deities like Yamantaka and Acala to subdue and curse the imperium’s rebellious traitors, would have argued that this was what the Indian-born tantric adept and his disciples were in China for: to protect king and country. Amoghavajra would have agreed: in one letter to his sovereign, he hoped that his tantric rituals would lead to “enduring peace and tranquility.” (Goble 219, 179)
In other words, the righteous cause to preserve the state (and, by extension, the Dharma hosted by the state), was worth the karmic burden for Amoghavajra. In a similar vein, for the Israeli nation, which justifiably tolerates no threats to its survival, targeted assassinations and other morally dubious means of destroying its enemies have always found government and media justification, domestically and internationally. Currently, public support in Israel for incapacitating Iran’s regime is at an all-time high. When national survival is at stake, religions are willing to accommodate calls to violence. This has also been the case in Myanmar, where the Rohingyas have been cast as threats to the country by certain Buddhist leaders.
Can violence in the name of national survival be philosophically congruous with Augustinian ideals or Buddhist skilful means? This question is being asked across the world, and global and American support for the US government’s prosecution of the war is much more ambivalent because the Trump administration’s characterizations of Iran as an imminent threat against the US simply do not hold water, according to The Wall Street Journal.
The teachings of cause and effect, interconnectedness and causality, and ethicized karma are much more useful than many advocates of conflict might want to believe. Hearteningly, Dharma initiatives for peace have been making headlines across the Buddhist media, including a 3,700-kilometer Walk for Peace across the US—with rescue dog Aloka becoming an unexpected social media star—as well as a major Dhamma Yatra for peace in India. In November, Bhutan hosted an unprecedented Global Peace Prayer Festival, with its Central Monastic Body intending to hold one annually. There is a sense, perhaps, that humanity’s need for the energy of peace is more critical and urgent than ever.
War always poses a difficult, interconnected question. The decisive answer, for modern Buddhist leaders, will and should always remain pro-peace: rather than prosecuting a pre-emptive war, we should embrace our power to establish proactive peace.
References
Geoffrey C. Goble. 2019. Chinese Esoteric Buddhism: Amoghavajra, the Ruling Elite, and the Emergence of a Tradition. New York: Columbia University Press
See more
Iran’s next supreme leader may have been waiting for this moment to rise (ABC News)
Augustine of Hippo (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Letter 138 (A.D. 412) (New Advent)
Trump’s Case for War With Iran Faces Growing Scrutiny (The Wall Street Journal)
Related features from BDG
Buddhistdoor View: The Global Peace Prayer Festival in the Bigger Picture of Bhutan’s National Agenda
How Should a Buddhist Face War?
Related news reports from BDG
Buddhist Monks’ Walk for Peace in India Reaches Hyderabad
Buddhist Monks Complete Historic Walk for Peace to Washington, DC
Buddhist Monks on 100th Day of Walk for Peace Across the US Reach Richmond, Virginia
Buddhist Monks Pass the Halfway Mark of Their “Walk for Peace” Across the US
Buddhist Monk has Leg Amputated After Accident on Peace Walk
Update: Buddhist Monks Resume Walk for Peace Across US After Two Injured in Traffic Accident
Buddhist Monks on 3,000-Kilometer “Walk for Peace” Stop in Houston to Promote Unity and Compassion
Related blog posts from Tea House
Augustine and Amoghavajra—Military Chaplaincy, Grand Strategy, and Buddhist Morality
Buddhistdoor Global
All Authors >>
Related features from Buddhistdoor Global
Buddhistdoor View: Revisiting Buddhist Views on Animal Welfare after Thailand’s Chatuchak Market Fire
Science Fiction: The Creative Battlefront for Human Dignity
Meditating: the Art of Everydayness
Mithuru Mithuro – A Compassionate Friend to Drug Addicts in Sri Lanka
Ven. Pomnyun Sunim: Buddhism in a Divided World
Related news from Buddhistdoor Global
University of Naples “L’Orientale” Hosting Spring Hybrid Lecture Series from March to May
Buddhist Monks Pass the Halfway Mark of Their “Walk for Peace” Across the US
17th United Nations Day of Vesak Event Canceled over Coronavirus Risk
China Plans to Protect Tibetan Plateau Ecosystems with New National Park
Tsuru for Solidarity Takes Peaceful Action to Protest Mass Detention of Immigrants in the US