The Buddha Taught Nonviolence, Not Pacifism

The Buddha Taught Nonviolence, Not Pacifism

The Buddha Taught Nonviolence, Not PacifismArticle
Paul Fleischman
Spring 2002

If you haven't already, join our mailing list to receive quarterly articles in your inbox.
PrintFriendly

Paul Fleischman is a psychiatrist and a Teacher of vipassanā meditation in the tradition of S.N. Goenka. He is the author, among other works, of Cultivating Inner Peace and Karma and Chaos.

In the wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, I have found myself musing about non­violence, its contributions, its limits, and its place in the Buddha’s teaching. I have also been surprised to hear many of my acquaintances confuse the Buddha’s teach­ing of nonviolence with pacifism (which I will here take to mean the objection to any kind of violence for any reason), so that, due to their confusion, they find themselves either rejecting nonviolence as hopelessly naive and inadvertently destruc­tive, or embracing the politicized group allegiances of pacifism, which they imagine incorrectly to present what the Buddha taught.

The Buddha did not intend to form either a religious or political position, nor a philosophy of society. Historically, he lived before the era of organized, sys­tematic theorizing about the human collective. He addressed himself as an indi­vidual to individuals. Even when he spoke to large groups, as he frequently did, he focused on individual responsibility. He understood every group—for example, the democratic states that existed in the India of his times—as resting upon the insight, conscience and actions of each of its participants. He had no theory of, nor belief in, supervening collective struc­tures of society or government that could amend or replace the bedrock of indi­vidual choice.

Rather than a theologian or a systems thinker, the Buddha was a liberator, a spiri­tually attained practitioner and teacher of the path to nibbāna, freedom from hate, delusion and fear. His goal was to help as many beings as possible live in equa­nimity, harmony and loving kindness. He was against all embracing belief systems—a position that confounded many of his contemporaries, and that still puzzles people today who want to understand what “ism,” what philosophy, he pro­pounded. Many people still yearn to find in his words some “Buddhist fundamen­talism” by which they can anchor ideo­logical convictions and security against the turmoil of life.



The “Dhamma,” or path to liberation for which the Buddha was spokesman, is not an idea but a mode of conduct and a way of life that leads to personal realiza­tion. Its goal is to release its practitioners from authorities and ideologies, not anarchistically or capriciously, but through training, by deepening their personal ex­periences of the nature of their true self and its ethical implications. It is through these long cultivated, gradually deepening experiences that the Buddha led his fol­lowers to autonomy from ideas philoso­phies, scriptures, even from himself. His classic similes focused on direct tangible experience. Like a man from whom a poi­soned arrow is removed, the student of Dhamma will experience relief from pain. Like a man who eats nourishing food, the student of Dhamma will know the taste of liberation. These direct experiences of life’s meanings and values are the Buddha’s teaching. Many practitioners of Dhamma do not call themselves “Buddhists,” just as the Buddha never did.

Morality is the first guidepost on the path the Buddha taught. Why is morality given so much initial attention in a non ideological, experiential path?

In order to see oneself, to know one­self, to experience one’s own true nature, one must focus observation repeatedly, continuously, as a lifetime practice, on who one really is. This lifestyle of awareness, meditation, and observation requires openmindedness—hence the Buddha’s emphasis on freedom from rigid beliefs—but the path also requires patience, calm and integrity. To make mindful observa­tions of oneself as a way of life, one needs a steady, focused mind. This can only be obtained when honesty, harmony, mod­esty and sincerity are already adhered to. It is for this reason that whenever the Bud­dha taught Dhamma, he started with the five moral precepts: not to steal, lie, use intoxicants, commit sexual misconduct… and not to kill. Nonviolence is a prereq­uisite to, and the first step of the Buddha’s teaching. It appears not as a belief, but as a practical necessity to the intentional and aware path of Dhamma. Initially, for the student of the Buddha, nonviolence is a psychological necessity for self-develop­ment.


The Dhamma…is not an idea but a mode of conduct and a way of life…

However, this utilitarian and personal introduction to nonviolence as a moral precept is only the surface layer of the Buddha’s teaching. Continuing to eschew ideology or philosophy, the Buddha’s guidance was toward experiences that deepen discernment. The student is led to the point where he or she sees them­selves clearly through the practice of medi­tation. What happens to the moral pre­cept of nonviolence when a person has lived a way of life that directs them to encounter the transience of personal ex­istence, the insubstantiality of ourselves, of our perceptions, of our viewpoints, of our history, of our world? Is there any value or meaning to nonviolence for a small, temporary being, born out of past causes, destined to live briefly then die, a passing aggregate of mind and matter scintillating for a moment in the vast cor­ridors of endless time?

As a student of the Buddha matures on the path, he or she opens to new per­spectives, and the mind becomes more able to see various viewpoints simulta­neously. The path the Buddha taught is a deepening realization, without reduction to doctrine. Experiential apprehension of nonviolence replaces mere moral adher­ence to it. In the depth of realization of personal impermanence, certain truths become self-evident. All things are im­permanent; all beings are transient; all be­ings suffer the common experiences of loss, decay, death. While each person, plant, or animal, has its own causes, its own seeds, that brought it into being, all share the bond of birth and death. Ulti­mately, nonviolence is a recognition of the simple facts that the quality of our life is the same as the quality of our moment-to-moment thoughts and feelings, and that enmity, hatred and violence never im­prove our state of mind. Just as a man would not seethe with violence against his own body, he wouldn’t harm himself by seething with violence…period. Libera­tion means nonviolence.

The Buddha’s path begins with behav­ioral acquiescence to vows not to kill, but it culminates in an identification with nonviolence as the essence of what liberates the mind and heart from hate, fear and self promoting delusion. “All fear death. Comparing others with oneself, one should neither kill nor cause to kill.” [Dhammapada 129] Nonviolence is the essence of what the Buddha taught. Non­violence is liberating because in each and every moment that it suffuses one’s mind, in that moment the mind feels compassion, identification and empathy with other beings.

For the Buddha, nonviolence is a pre­cept that enables the journey to experi­ence the root meaning of itself. Initially, the student obeys the precept of nonvio­lence. Eventually, he or she comes to embody nonviolence as a cherished tone quality of life.



II

Here are two key differences between nonviolence as taught by the Buddha, and pacifism. First, the Buddha did not teach social and political phi­losophy; and second, he taught a path of life, not a blanket ideology. Guiding each interested individual to walk the path, the Buddha encouraged a pure mind that seeks the least harm. He recognized dif­ferent levels of personality development, different social roles and obligations, different responsibilities and necessities in­cumbent on different individuals according to their history and choices. The Bud­dha taught people according to their “karma.”

Himself a member of the warrior caste, the Buddha maintained cordial re­lations with kings. Numerous suttas in the Pali Cannon record his conversations with Kings Pasenadi and Bimbisara. Shun­ning political involvement, the Buddha never advised his royal students to con­vert their kingdoms into democracies, de­spite the fact that many local states were in fact kingless republics. Although we have on record numerous discourses that the Buddha gave in the presence of, or even directly to, royalty, he never counsels them to abandon legal administration with its attendant consequences and punish­ments for crimes, nor to abandon war­fare and protection of their state.

In a poignant conversation that oc­curred when both the Buddha and King Pasenadi were 80 years old, the king praises the Buddha, his teaching and the conduct of his followers, while describ­ing himself as “… an anointed warrior-king, able to have executed those who should be executed….” After the king de­parts, the Buddha comments to the medi­tators around him that the King’s insights were “monuments to the Dhamma” that should be learned and remembered as “fundamentals of the holy life.” [Majjhima 89] This passage clarifies that the Buddha neither condemned nor even rebuked the king for his fulfillment of the kingship, with it dire responsibilities.


Ultimately, nonviolence is a recognition… that enmity, hatred and violence never improve our state of mind.

A similar window into the early and ancient interpretation of the Buddha’s teaching comes from King Ashoka, who lived several hundred years after the Bud­dha, but who is credited as being the great­est Buddhist king both in the extent of his influence and in the depth of his understanding of Dhamma, and who is responsible for the famous edicts carved in rock, which constitute “the oldest surviving In­dian written documents.” These wise and humane passages, which imply a level of civilized conduct to which humankind still aspires, praise such virtues as self-exami­nation and religious tolerance. They are based on Dhamma—the universal path to liberation—and never mention Buddha or “Buddhism.” Explicitly banning ani­mal sacrifice (which had been the fore­most religious ritual before the Buddha’s time), the edicts praise non-harmfulness but stop short of rigid absolutism: “Not to injure living beings is good.” Although Ashoka’s conversion to Dhamma led him to abandon military conquest (of which he had already done a lifetime’s share), and to claim conquest by Dhamma is the only true conquest…,” he did not, accord­ing to an authoritative historian “…abjure warfare, never abandoned armies…and he avoided disastrous pacifism…retaining the option of capital punishment…” There is no reason to imagine that the Buddha ever encouraged those of his students who held administrative responsibilities to promul­gate an anarchic abnegation of govern­mental function.

In a brief discourse, the Buddha is challenged by a general who claims that Dhamma is mere passivity. The Buddha replies that he teaches inactivity in regard to unwholesome things and “activity by way of good conduct in deeds, words and thoughts.” There is no further blan­ket position taken towards government, warfare or the karma of Generals. What constitutes good conduct is left to the General’s discernment. The Buddha gave the principle, not the details of the infinite varieties of interpretation and application.


The student of Dhamma seeks the least harm at all times.

None of this, however, justifies hatred or violence in service of personal goals or gains. For the government servant who, for example, as a soldier must kill, the Buddha implicitly asks of him two ques­tions. The first is: “Can you do this task as an upholder of safety and justice, fo­cused on love of those you protect rather than on hate for those you must kill? If you are acting with vengeance or delight in destruction, then you are not at all a student of Dhamma. But if your hard job can be done with a base of pure mind, while you are clearly not living the life of an enlightened person, you are still able to begin walking the path towards harmony and compassion.” The Buddha’s ethics clearly allows differentiation between situations like American soldiers fighting to liberate the concentration camps at the end of World War II, versus death camp guards and mass murderers. If the sol­dier is acting in a protective, pure hearted way of life, he may be an agent of justice who simply is the vehicle by which the karma of the murderers ends in their own death.

However, the Buddha’s teaching im­plies a second question for soldiers, po­lice and all of us.



III

Fundamental to the Buddha’s teach­ing is the concept of volition or “kamma” (often rendered in English as “karma.”) Our quality of life is a prod­uct of our choices. Every major choice in life entails commitments, limitations, and consequences. Although no consequence is permanent—because liberation from all kamma is possible, though it may take life­times, even millions of them!—a man who accepts the kingship or who becomes a soldier also accepts the responsibilities in­cumbent upon the role. He can be a good king and improve his own lot as he pro­vides security and justice to his subjects, and he can meditate and thereby take steps on the Path of Dhamma, but he cannot claim the exemptions and privileges of a “Bhikkhu.” Implicitly the Buddha asks us all to examine our fundamental position in life, our deepest choices.

According to the Buddha, a commit­ted student of his path by definition practices nonviolence, but those who have not chosen this role may, or must, fulfill other social roles and follow other precepts. The Buddha’s teaching asks us all to consider whether we are ripe to take up the re­sponsibilities and limits incumbent on the life of a committed practitioner of Dhamma.

Therefore, while the Buddha never lec­tured at his longtime student, King Pasenadi, to forsake his throne, when the aging king felt death closing in on him, he concluded, with the help of the Buddha’s questioning, “There is no scope or use for battles when aging or death are closing in…what else can I do but walk in Dhamma?” So different choices are appropriate for different people and for different life stages in the same person. The Buddha respected and befriended King Pasenadi while he remained king, and the king mirrored that mutual respect and persevered as a student of the Buddha while continuing with Royal prerogative and problems; until the king, based on his own insight and volition, ripened to a new level of commitment to Dhamma and to nonviolence.

It is to serious, committed meditators, who are lifelong practitioners of moral precepts, daily meditation, and a purified mind, that the Buddha gave his often quoted, stunning guidance on nonviolence, “Even if bandits brutally severed him limb from limb with a two handled saw, he who entertained hate in his heart on that account would not be one who followed my teaching.” [Majjhima 21] Please note that this famous passage does not preclude skillful and vigorous self-defense that is free of hate.

The committed meditator is not only nonviolent, but is also a witness to non­violent potential in daily living. This again expresses “…activity by way of the good…” as the Buddha advised the gen­eral. By example and in speech, the com­mitted meditator seeks the least harm for all beings in all situations. On the other hand, this lifelong practitioner of Dhamma does not promote him or her­self as a political leader. His or her wit­ness is personal, exemplary and public, but not power seeking nor self promotional. Two key criteria the Buddha imposed on himself and his followers were: never to speak for the sake of worldly advantage, and never allude to yourself.


The ethics of a committed meditator spring from a whole life of the practice of self-examination.

According to the positions one has un­dertaken, different relationships to nonviolence evolve. The committed medita­tor purifies his or her mind so that all violence becomes impossible, but he or she does not automatically condemn the gov­ernmental servant who diligently seeks to ascertain justice while defending society against violence, and who is thereby oc­casionally called to the use of force. When asked whether a judge should abjure capital punishment, Mr. Goenka replied that the judge should uphold his legitimate judi­cial functions, while at the same time work­ing for the long-term elimination of capital punishment.

The Dhamma is not an ideology but is a set of tools for assessing one’s own volitions, responsibilities, feelings and be­haviors, in order to align them with non­violence, according to one’s abilities and capacities. As a group, serious practitio­ners of Dhamma form a voluntary set of devoted, non-violent witnesses who give a ballast to the reactive society around them. The Buddha’s teaching of nonvio­lence for serious meditators makes them properly defined as what American Selective Service calls “conscientious objectors” to war.



IV

Freud echoed conventional wisdom when he wrote that civilization con­sists of good conduct despite the wayward unconscious trends of the human mind. The Buddha stepped outside of convention when he insisted that the mind, not conduct, was the true target of transfor­mation. For him, nonviolence is an essen­tial rule, a culmination of a meditative way of life, a product of individual choice and position, and a non-stop, non-situational way of being.

Here is another key difference between the Buddha’s nonviolent position and pacifism: nonviolence is continuous, a perva­sive and quotidian effort. Before and after any war, before and after outbreaks of violence, the student of Dhamma, the committed meditator, lives the life of non­violence towards his friends, acquaintan­ces, animals, trees and food. He even “…holds himself aloof from causing in­jury to seeds or plants.” The student of Dhamma seeks the least harm at all times. Realistically as a surgeon she may have to incise her patient’s body, or as a police­man arrest the armed robber, or as a teacher, discipline the unruly student. Re­alistically, in the ambiguous rough-and-tumble of house holder’s life and public discourse, the student of Dhamma may need to call upon difficult decisions, unpopular stances, and unflattering sentences; and he or she will be called upon also to recognize the complexity and ambiguity that rests on the shoulders of those who have positioned themselves to make de­cisions in a world of turmoil and suffering. But the lifelong devotee of Dhamma understands that the goal of every mo­ment is to generate empathy and com­passion, to minimize anger and hate.



This double layer is part and parcel of the Buddha’s teaching: to generate skillful, maximally beneficial conduct simultaneously with affiliative, non-retalliatory, identifitory feelings. Nonviolence is only the surface layer of a heart of love and compassion. Few honest people can say they feel nothing else, but for the student of the Buddha’s path, for the practitioner of Dhamma, a pure heart is the goal of every moment, no matter how many thou­sands of times one’s real feelings fall short of this ideal.

Due to this focus on volition, Dhamma awakens its practitioners to con­tinuously assess one’s own state of mind, and not just to act. What appears to be noble restraint from retaliation may only be fear or expeditious tactics. What ap­pears to be strong defense of helpless people may only be ego-boosting aggres­sion. The Buddha’s primacy on intention allows him to consider a proper role for benign force, as Dr. Olendzki has shown in his analysis of the Buddha’s discussion of how a parent must act if a small child were choking on a pebble [Insight, Fall 2001]. In this case, even drawing blood could be compassionate. Nonviolence has room for strong actions whose origins rest in concerned and caring motives.

Similarly, passive, acquiescent enabling of violence is not Dhamma. We have seen how the Buddha reassured the gen­eral that Dhamma is not inactivity. We have also seen how speaking up on be­half of Dhamma is part of the definition of a committed meditator. If one truly believes that qualities of heart and mind constitute enlightenment, and that the high­est welfare for all beings is a life of har­mony and peace, then permitting some­one else to perpetrate harm without con­sequences is not nonviolence.

For the committed disciple of the Buddha’s path, it is essential not only to refrain from killing, but also to refrain from encouraging others to kill. The Bud­dha addressed this problem regarding veg­etarianism, where the path contained the sometimes contradictory advice to accept whatever food is given to you, yet also not to kill or cause animals to be killed. The conclusion to this problem was: one should never eat meat of an animal killed intentionally on one’s behalf, since this would be encouraging others to kill; but if meat already is present in the food not specifically prepared for you, but now offered to you, one should just accept the gift as given.

This quaint example shows both the seriousness of the concern not to induce others to kill, but also the pragmatism and flexibility with which it was interpreted. How does this apply to the follower of the Buddha, who encourages police or army to protect the civil order? Isn’t he or she encouraging others to kill on one’s own behalf? Conversely, if the practitio­ner of Dhamma passively allows, permits or facilitates violence, isn’t this encourag­ing the violent perpetrator on his destruc­tive and downward course?

The Buddha’s path of nonviolence guides us through a personal scrutiny, not a pat answer, taking systematic mediation as our most penetrating tool, how to avoid killing, and to be spokespersons for Dhamma—neither violent nor passive. To the extent that one has extracted oneself from lifestyles of force—such as military service—and to the extent that Dhamma has become a committed way of life, then Buddha’s answer, by speech and example, is unambiguous: The Buddha promoted nonviolence by spreading Dhamma in its fullness, not by focal political activity or “single issue” thinking. Through exem­plary lifestyle, through self-restraint, through verbal explanation, the follower of the Buddha acts on behalf of the good.

The historical record contained in the Pali Canon describes the Buddha as finding a middle path between involvement in specific political issues—which he never did—or complicitous acceptance of injustice—which he also attempted to avoid. Never a direct critic of particular govern­ments or policies, he was assertive and forthright in teaching Dhamma, the way of life.

Ultimately, right speech is described by the Buddha as : “Thus does he live as one who binds together those who are divided…a peacemaker, a lover of peace…a speaker of words that make for peace.” Well spoken speech has five marks: it is timely, true, gentle, purposeful and kind-hearted. While the Buddha is described as participating in public presentations of his experiential, dogmaless Dhamma, and thereby disagreeing with other peoples’ practices or traditions, he never did so with an oppositional, conversional fervor. He did not indulge in the excited prophetic banner of charismatic religion or of youthful fidelities. He expressed his non-violent ethic but he did not campaign for it. His tone, topic and style were uni­form.



V

We now see the Buddha’s teach­ing of nonviolence as a sieve, through which his students filter the particles of reality. To the extent that one is committed to the path, everything must be passed through this sieve, which de­mands of us to examine our choices, our own inactions. In response to one event—for example, the terrorist attacks of Sep­tember 11, 2001— different sincere followers of the Buddha’s way may find themselves arriving at different positions, because each of them is working with a mirror of self-insight rather than with a political formulation. One Dhamma practitioner may see force as the best method of saving the most lives; another may see force as misguided revenge. In fact, in the complex series of actions that followed, force may have indeed oper­ated as preservation against further de­struction as well as a vengeful retaliation, both.


Nonviolence as the Buddha taught it was directed at each interaction in each moment…

For all practitioners of Dhamma how­ever, the core questions are the same: “How can I, given my position, abilities, development and flaws, best bring to bear nonviolence in my wishes, word and deeds?” The ethics of a committed medi­tator spring from a whole life of the prac­tice of self-examination. Lacking one fixed relationship to state or government, the lifelong Dhamma practitioner may move between cooperation, distance, wit­ness and correction.

Even with its clear verbal discourses and its vivid example of the Buddha’s life, the Dhamma is not easy to apprehend because it does not conform to thought systems or preconceptions. Though it emphasizes right action in society, it dif­fers from issue-specific politics or social work. Though it emphasizes nonviolence, it differs from pacifism. It is an embracing systematic teaching that places non-violence at the cornerstone of its foundation, but it is unaligned with gov­ernment, movements or religions. It is knowable only as a way of life embed­ded in meditative insight. It is often de­scribed as an absence rather than a pres­ence—an absence of hate, ill will and de­lusion, an absence of viewpoints and be­liefs. It is a clearing away of self-absorp­tion that is the root of suffering.

The Buddha never claimed he could bring peace to the whole world. The nar­cissistic time-scales of the pre-scientific scriptures of the West never occurred to him. He saw that suffering beings are limitless in time and space. The Buddha speaks to us from his position within an endless universe in which our current struggles for peace are not triumphal but eternal. But he also rejects defeatism or cynicism and promises this: a practical path to reduce suffering, which includes a generous dispensation of itself to others.

Nonviolence as the Buddha taught it was directed at each interaction in each moment but was not a comforting myth for denying inescapable truths. Dhamma is a long path, a footpath, rarely culmi­nated by the rare few, and not a fantasy exit from the exigencies of the human condition. There are no global solutions even hinted at anywhere in the Buddha’s dispensation of Dhamma. His followers practice non-violence because it anchors them in alertness and compassion, ex­presses and reinforces their own mental purification, builds identification with other beings, human, animal, even seeds; and because it is their most cherished realization: mind matters most; cultivation of love, peace and harmony is always the only irrefutable doctrineless meaning that people can experience.

In times of war and times of peace, every day, the committed meditator dwells in love and compassion, radiated outward to all, to those who are alive, or who once were, or who will be; to those who are human or to other living beings; to those who intend good and to those who in­tend harm, not agreement but loving kind­ness is sent.

It is through devotion to nonviolence as a compass that one sees glimmerings of nibbāna along the horizon. Who would prefer a heart of hate to a heart of love?

This article is excerpted from a longer essay by the same title, published by Pariyatti Press. The full essay may be obtained by contacting Pariyatti.

[This publisher, by the way, is an excellent source for hard-to-find dhamma books. —ed.]

If you found this article helpful, please consider supporting the work of BCBS.

How Bill Gates Premeditated COVID Vaccine Injury Censorship « Aletho News

How Bill Gates Premeditated COVID Vaccine Injury Censorship « Aletho News

How Bill Gates Premeditated COVID Vaccine Injury Censorship

By Dr. Joseph Mercola | March 30, 2021

In 2000, everything about Bill Gates’ public persona changed. He morphed from a hardnosed and ruthless technology monopolizer into a soft, fuzzy and incredibly generous philanthropist when he and his wife launched the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.¹

It was a public relations coup. May 18, 1998, the U.S. Justice Department, in collaboration with 20 state attorneys, filed an antitrust lawsuit against Microsoft.² At that time, the company was 23 years old and was ruling the personal computer market. The Seattle Times described the fallout from the antitrust lawsuit:³

“The company barely escaped being split up after it was ruled an unlawful monopolist in 2000 for using its stranglehold on the PC market with its Windows operating system to cripple competitors, such as Netscape’s Navigator Web browser.”

How would the world be different today if the company had been split? Yale law professor George Priest described the antitrust lawsuit as “one of the most important antitrust cases of its generation.”⁴ In 2002, a court settlement placed restrictions on Microsoft to curb some of its practices for five years.

It was later extended twice and then expired May 12, 2011. The lawsuit had a dramatic effect on “the emergence of an entirely new field called IP (intellectual property) antitrust,” Iowa law professor Herbert Hovenkamp told the Seattle Times.⁵

Later, large sums donated from the foundation made the news multiple times, including $9.5 million to GAVI (Global Alliance for Vaccines), a second $7.5 million to GAVI and $6.8 million to the World Health Organization in 2017.⁶

By June 2020, in the middle of a global pandemic, the Gates Foundation’s donations totaled 45% of WHO’s funding from nongovernmental sources.⁷ Once mainstream media’s attention was no longer on Gates’ antitrust activities and focused on the philanthropist actions of the foundation, Gates publicly turned his attention to vaccinating the world, long before COVID-19.⁸

Event 201: A Preplanned Pandemic

In a deep dive into the Gates Foundation’s charitable donations, The Nation found there were $250 million in grants to companies where the foundation held corporate stocks, including Novartis, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Sanofi and Medtronic. The money was directed at supporting projects “like developing new drugs and health monitoring systems and creating mobile banking services.”⁹

What Gates had discovered was an easy path to political power, allowing him to shape public policy without being elected to office. In other words, favorable headlines could be bought with charitable contributions.¹⁰ One event that Gates has personally supported and participated in was Event 201.¹¹

Writing in The Defender, Robert Kennedy Jr. describes the exercise that Gates organized in October 2019. Many high-ranking men and women with governmental authority participated in Event 201, which coincidentally simulated a worldwide pandemic triggered by a novel coronavirus, just months before SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, changed the world.¹²

They included representatives from the World Economic Forum, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Johns Hopkins University Population Center, the World Bank, the Chinese government and vaccine maker Johnson & Johnson. During the event, the group developed strategies to control a pandemic, the population and the narrative surrounding the event.

At no time did they investigate using current therapeutic drugs and vitamins or communicating information about building immune systems. Instead, the aim was to develop and distribute patentable antiviral medications and a new wave of vaccines.

As Kennedy reports, Gates spoke to the BBC¹³ April 12, 2020, and claimed these types of simulations had not occurred, saying “Now here we are. You know we didn’t simulate this; we didn’t practice, so both the health policies and economic policies … we find ourselves in uncharted territories.”

Yet, videos of the event are available¹⁴ and Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security released a statement naming the Gates Foundation as a partner in sponsoring the pandemic simulation.¹⁵ It seems strange and alarming that a man with the responsibility of running the Gates Foundation and the powerful influence he has over global public policy decisions had forgotten an exercise he organized only six months before the interview.¹⁶ Or was it deception?

Uncanny Prediction or Planned Event?

During the pandemic exercise, the global experts “modeled a fictional coronavirus pandemic.”¹⁷ After questions arose about whether the exercise had “predicted the outbreak in China,” Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security released a thinly supported statement, saying:¹⁸

“… the exercise served to highlight preparedness and response challenges that would likely arise in a very severe pandemic … Although our tabletop exercise included a mock novel coronavirus, the inputs we use for modeling the potential impact of that fictional virus are not similar to nCoV-2019.”

Kennedy characterizes the fourth simulation in Event 201, writing that “the participants primarily focused on planning industry-centric, fear-mongering, police-state strategies for managing an imaginary global coronavirus contagion culminating in mass censorship of social media.”¹⁹

The transcript of the fourth simulation shows that the participants discussed communication strategies using dissemination of information and censorship on social media.^20,21 Communication strategist Hasti Taghi, who works for a major media company and leads strategic initiatives with the World Economic Forum,²² said:

“So, I think a couple of things we have to consider are even before this began, the anti-vaccine movement was very strong and this is something specifically through social media that has spread.

So, as we do the research to come up with the right vaccines to help prevent the continuation of this, how do we get the right information out there? How do we communicate the right information to ensure that the public has trust in these vaccines that we’re creating?”

The question the group undertook wasn’t how to communicate the truth about the vaccine development, manufacture and distribution, but rather how to “communicate the right information to ensure the public has trust in these vaccines that we’re creating?”

The issue of gaining public trust to take a vaccine was significant in this simulation, even though the U.S. population is well indoctrinated in the perceived value of annual flu shots and childhood vaccinations. In fact, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a list of 26 different types of vaccines currently in use in the U.S.

In addition to the long list of recommended childhood vaccinations, there are adult vaccines against shingles, tetanus and pneumococcal pneumonia that are routinely given. Why, then, did the global experts in communication and control believe communicating the “right information” would be necessary to “ensure the public trust”?

Group Calls for Social Media Censorship

This was only one of the highly predictive conversations during Event 201 that played out in 2020 as the global COVID-19 pandemic unfolded. George Gao, director-general, Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention,²³ predicted:²⁴

“By and long, we have more cases in China and also death cases reported. And also, my staff told me that before there’s misinformation and there’s some belief. People believe, ‘This is a manmade … some pharmaceutical company made the virus,’ so there’s some violations of human … That is because of this misinformation.”

Others agreed with the need for social media censorship as it may pertain to the spread of “disinformation” about the pandemic or vaccines and vaccine injury, without regard to the source. The idea was to remove any information that did not align with the government’s mandates and ideas. Kevin McAleese, who is a communications officer with a Gates-funded agricultural project, said:²⁵

“To me, it is clear countries need to make strong efforts to manage both mis- and disinformation … If the solution means controlling and reducing access to information, I think it’s the right choice.”

During the ensuing conversation, Tom Inglesby, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security,²⁶ replied, “In this case, do you think governments are at the point where they need to require social media companies to operate in a certain way?”²⁷

At each step of the simulation, the global “experts” agreed that information censorship through media platforms would be necessary to control the flow of the “right information” in order for people to willingly follow the leader.

What is interesting about the transcript from Event 201 is that what was planned and shared was frighteningly close to what has happened since January 2020. It may have been a coincidence to predict one or two major public health decisions, but it appears that the group was either phenomenally prophetic or they shaped the decisions and events of 2020 from behind the scenes.

Framing the Vaccine Message to Trigger Action

From the outside, the driving force behind economically devastating lockdowns, warp speed vaccine development and population control and surveillance strategies has been to “flatten the curve” and lower the death rate of SARS-CoV-2. Yet, as I and others have exposed, when these strategies are analyzed, it’s apparent there is more than what meets the eye.

In July 2020, Yale University²⁸ announced a study of the trigger words and phrases that would have a higher likelihood of promoting an otherwise individualistic society to quietly follow mandates (not laws) to control behavior. The phrases tested were believed to be most successful at conveying feelings about health, helping others and fear.

The hope was to manipulate behavior in such a way that it lowered the governmental risk for riots and dissidence. The study was conducted by Yale University using 4,000 participants who were randomized to receive one of 12 different messages. After the message, they were then evaluated to “compare the reported willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine at three and six months of it becoming available.”²⁹

The primary outcome of the study was to find the right combination of phrases and messaging that would increase the number of people who got the vaccine. The study began July 3, 2020, and the last participant underwent testing by July 8, 2020.³⁰ To date, the results of the study have not been published.

The president of the U.S. announced in July 2020 that there would be an “overwhelming” vaccine campaign launched by November 2020.³¹ In December 2020, the National Institutes of Health released a COVID-19 vaccination communication recommending behavioral and social science actions that might address vaccine hesitancy and increase the number who take the vaccine, including:³²

• Framing accepting a vaccine as a social norm including “promotional materials that induced peer pressure to vaccinate.”
• Encouraging those who vaccinate to share their positive experience on social media.
• Nudging a person into accepting the vaccine by making it convenient and easy, leveraging electronic portals to send messages and using competition, gamification and incentives to encourage behavioral changes.
• Assessing the values of the target audience and then embedding those values into messages about vaccinations. Examples might include being a protector of the community, building on desires to go back to normal activities or as a way of enacting equality and social justice by protecting vulnerable people.

In other words, many of the messages that you’ve been seeing in the media and your doctor’s office have been designed to trigger emotions that would lead you to take the vaccine. These same pressure tactics are not routinely used in the media for some of the more common adult vaccinations including pneumococcal, tetanus, hepatitis or shingles vaccines.

It’s Time to Speak With One Voice and Fight for Freedom

As I’ve written before, what we lose as a society when we acquiesce to these mandates and controls will be exponentially harder to get back. One of the freedoms we give away is allowing our thoughts and beliefs to be censored on social media without fighting back.

It is essential to safeguard your constitutional rights and civil liberties against unlawful overreach, and yet many appear to be willing to give up easily. Although the government has a duty to protect the health and welfare of its citizens, this must be balanced against the loss of civil rights and liberties.

We’re currently facing a battle of freedom versus tyranny. For example, multiple studies have demonstrated that long-term lockdowns are clearly not in the public’s best interest.^33,34 Instead, it’s tantamount to abuse. And yet many have gone along with these mandates, which were not laws.

It’s vital to understand that the vast majority of information you consume in mainstream media is carefully designed propaganda that has been crafted from nearly two decades of personal data collected from you.

Although Yale University undertook a study with 4,000 participants for a COVID-19 messaging campaign, that data had been gathered and collated through your use of social media.

As I have carefully identified in many previous articles, this plan will result in a progressive loss of your freedom and liberty that eventually results in tyranny and slavery. It is crucial to be vigilant and seek the truth so that you can understand how to distinguish between fact and a fictional narrative that promises you liberation but eventually enslaves you.

My newest book, “The Truth About COVID-19,” will be available April 29, 2021, on Amazon. In it, I investigate the origins of the virus and how the elite has used it to slowly erode your personal liberty and freedom. In addition, I’ll also show you how to protect yourself against the disease and what you can do to fight back against the technocratic overlords.

Sources and References

• ¹ Britannica, Gates Foundation
• ² The Ringer, May 18, 2018
• ^3, 4 Seattle Times, May 12, 2011
• ⁵ Seattle Times, May 12, 2011, Breakup avoided para 2
• ⁶ Spears, October 17, 2017
• ⁷ Devex, June 5, 2020
• ⁸ The Seattle Times, November 23, 2020
• ^9, 10 The Nation, March 30, 2020
• ^{11, 12, 19, 20} The Defender, March 11, 2021
• ¹³ YouTube, April 12, 2020
• ¹⁴ YouTube, March 13, 2020
• ^15, 17, 18 Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security
• ¹⁶ Center for Health Security, Event 201
• ²¹ Event 201, Transcript September 23, 2020, page 9
• ²² Center for Health Security, Hasti Taghi
• ²³ Event 201, George Fu Gao
• ^24, 25, 27 Event 201, Transcript September 23, 2020
• ²⁶ Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, Tom Inglesby
• ^28, 29 Clinicaltrials.gov COVID-19 Vaccine Messaging, Part 1, Identifier: NCT04460703 Study description
• ³⁰ Clinicaltrials.gov COVID-19 Vaccine Messaging, Part 1, Identifier: NCT04460703 Study design
• ³¹ Reuters, July 30, 2020
• ³² National Institutes of Health, COVID-19 Vaccination Communication, starting page 16
• ³³ University of Waikato, June 2020
• ³⁴ European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 2021; doi.org/10.111/eci.13484

Buddhism: A Pathway to Peace and Conflict Resolution

Buddhism: A Pathway to Peace and Conflict Resolution




Hoya Paxa
Buddhism: A Pathway to Peace and Conflict Resolution

By: Harshita Nadimpalli

June 24, 2016

On June 22, the Royal Thai Embassy and the Berkley Center invited two Western-born Theravada Buddhist monks, Ajahn Pasanno Bhikkhu and Ajahn Jayanto Bhikkhu, to share their perspectives on how Buddhist principles are relevant for conflict resolution and peace. The event was moderated by Katherine Marshall, senior fellow at the Berkley Center for Religion, Peace, and World Affairs and executive director of the World Faiths Development Dialogue.


Ajahn Pasanno shared that in a world of human suffering and conflict, Buddhism teaches that individuals must first understand their own personal suffering and understand their own hearts. Only then can an individual understand and empathize with others; otherwise, he said that empathy becomes theoretical. Ajahn Jayanto, too, addressed how Buddhist principles of peace and communal harmony stem from individual responsibility and individual recognition of oneself; lack of individual reflection can make us numb to the suffering and condition of the community around us. He reminded the audience that “we are all brothers and sisters in suffering,” and that although we can get caught up in our ideals, it is important to recognize that we are no different or better than any other individual. We are all caught in the same problem of human suffering in this world, and although we are born into different situations, we share a collective responsibility to address the problem of suffering and conflict in the world. Ajahn Jayanto then explained that the roots of outside conflicts, on a larger scale, stem from the same things that drive our personal conflicts, such as greed, desire, etc. So when we understand ourselves, that increases our capacity to understand conflicts and better equips us to judiciously respond to those.

Ajahn Jayanto used a metaphor of a sinking ship to further illustrate this point. When a ship is sinking, everyone who is onboard must work to save the ship, and each person has a different role; some may have to use buckets to bail out the water, some may have to work on fixing the holes in the ship, etc. Thus, each individual has a unique role in addressing complex problems, whether it’s a sinking ship, or violence and conflict in the world. Understanding that role through self-awareness and self-reflection is what Buddhism encourages each individual to start with in the journey to bring peace to the world.

Another theme that Ajahn Pasanno addressed was that humans have a desire to always know what is right or wrong and to define everything as either black or white. But human relationships and conditions are often gray, and it can be difficult to accept this, and be comfortable without forcibly categorizing everything. At the event, I could sense a deep inner peace that the monks possessed that stood out from the rest of the room; it wasn’t nonchalance, but rather, it was this exact ability to organically embrace the present situation that Ajahn Pasanno had described.

When asked about the role Buddhism plays in the state, Ajahn Pasanno stressed that with his experience in Thailand, Buddhism does not engage with the state or directly become involved in the political process; although sometimes, Buddhist monks are consulted for advice. He expressed that when religion becomes tied to a state or state policy, it loses its autonomy and its ability to have “spiritual gravitas.”

Finally, addressing religious extremists, Ajahn Jayanto said that some people point out all the harm that religiously-affiliated people are doing in the world; but it is equally easy to point out all the harm that non-religious people do as well. So it’s important to focus on the individual, rather than their affiliation, and not attribute actions of an individual to an entire group of people made up of countless more distinct individuals who are not doing harm.

What resonated most with me was when Ajahn Pasanno said, “The Buddha didn’t actually teach Buddhism...he taught the way of human understanding.” This event reminded me of the importance and role of the individual in creating peace, because often, the focus is on what governments and institutions can do as whole organizations to create change. But each organization is made up of individuals and is only as strong as the individuals it is composed of, and thus, we cannot ignore individual responsibility. Individual respect and empathy transcend the boundaries of religion as we strive towards cultivating a more peaceable world.

원효의 화쟁사상

원효의 화쟁사상

Ⅰ.序論

원효 사는 의상과 함께 신라의 이 거승으로 한 정신 지도자이며 민족 역사상에서 보기 드문

인이며 성자이다.

그 다면 먼 그의 사상을 알기 에 그의 생애부터 간단히 살펴볼 필요가 있겠다.

원효는 신라 진평왕 39년에 태어났으며 속성은 설씨이고, 이름은 서당이다. 태어나면서부터 매우 특하 으며 10 에 출가하 다. 출가 후 그는 의상과 같이 당으로 유학을 떠난다. 가는 도 에 ‘해골물’을 마시고 모든 것은 마음뿐이라는 진리를 깨치고 당 유학 길을 포기하고 다시 신라로 돌아와 생교화에 힘쓴다. 원효는 운융무애한 일심을 몸소 깨닫고 스스로 무애인이라 칭하고, 마음에서만 아니라 행동에서도 무애로 움을 얻으려 했다. 그래서, 그는 그때부터 속인의 모습으로 술집이나 창가에 들어가 놀기도 하고, 도살장에 도 들어가며 거기에서 뛰고 춤추며 ‘무애가’를 부르는가 하면, 때로는 한 한 곳에서 좌선을 하는 등 도무지 일정한 형식이나 규율에 매임이 없었다. 원효의 이러한 행동을 당시의 사람들, 더구나 일반 승려들조차 이 해하지 못하 으며, 당시 임 님께서 인왕백고좌회를 열고 국의 석학고승들을 모집할 때도 원효의 사람됨 을 이해 못하는 승려들의 반 로 그의 높은 학덕에도 불구하고 제외되었다. 훗날 원효는 이를 빗 시를 읊기도 했다. 1)

원효는 무애가를 부르고 다니다 요석공주와의 사이에 설총을 낳는다. 이후 자각 성지의 높은 종교 각 체험과 무애도의 실 을 성취한 후, 그의 장년 시 를 불교의 화를 해 국 각지를 순회하고, 불교의 진리를 들이 쉽게 알아들을 수 있는 가요나 춤에 담아 하는 등 헌신하 다.

이러한 그의 노력으로 불교의 진리가 그들의 생활 속 깊이 고들 수 있었으며, 귀족, 천민의 구별을 월 한 생활불교로 발 할 수 있었다. 원효의 함은 그의 여러 사상에서 엿볼 수 있는데 본 에서는 그 화쟁사상에 해 알아보려 한다.

Ⅱ.本論

1. 화쟁사상

이는 모든 논쟁을 조화시키려는 불교사상으로 신라시 원 과 자장에서 비롯되어 원효에 의해 집 성 되었으며 근본원리는 극단을 버리고 和와 諍의 양면성을 인정하는 데서 출발하고 있다. 이러한 원효의 화쟁사상을 엿볼 수 있게 하는 것으로 먼 그의 여러 서를 들 수 있다. 먼 『十門和諍論』을 들 수 있는데, 여기서 그는 화쟁의 내용을 10문으로 분류한다.2) 『涅槃宗要』에



1) 옛날 백개의 석가래를 구할 때에는/ 참여할 수 없었는데,/ 오늘 하나의 들보를 가로지르는 데는 / 오직 나 홀로 구나./ 「 강삼 매경」을 강설하는 법당에서 구름처럼 몰려든 청 을 보며 지은 시다. 교재 『한국철학사(道家․佛家哲學), 60p

2) 이 책의 문이 다 하지 않아 10문제 해서는 후 내용과 다른 술들을 통해 추정할 뿐인데, 이는 三乘一乘․空有異執․人法異執․三性異義․五性成佛․二障異義․涅槃異義․佛身異義․佛性異義․眞俗異執의 화쟁문 등으로 간주된다. 원효는 三乘과 一乘, 空과 有, 眞과 俗 등의 異執과 異諍을 화해시키고 회통시키고 있는 것이다. 이 十門의 십이라는 수는 화엄에서의 원만수이니 無盡 의 의미이다.

서 『涅槃經』의 핵심 내용인 열반을 드러내는 방편 한 화쟁을 통해서임을 엿볼 수 있다.[1]) 이 외에도 그 여러 서에서 그의 화쟁사상을 엿볼 수 있다.

화쟁 사상이란 “뭇경 의 부분 인 면을 통합하여 온갖 물 기를 한 맛의 진리바다로 돌아가게 하고, 불교의 지극히 공변된 뜻을 열어 모든 사람들의 서로 다른 쟁론들을 화회(和會)시킨다."[2]) 즉 모든 것이 물에 기름처럼 분리되고 서로 배척하는 것이 아니라 서로 섞이고 녹아 회통하는 것, 한 마디로 마음을 히 하 여 남을 껴안아 서로 받아들여 화합하는 것이다.

원효의 화쟁 사상을 이해하려면 시 상황의 이해가 필요하다. 원래 부처님께서 말 하신 참뜻은 하나이 건만 당시의 시 상황은 사람에 따라 종 에 따라 무도 다양하게 해석하여 서로 자기의 이론만 옳다고 다투는 상황이었다. 이에 원효는 ‘하나의 마음’으로 돌아가 모든 생명에게 이로움을 주는 삶의 요성을 강 조하며 립하는 여러 종 를 통합하고자 했으며, 이에 따라 원효는 화쟁의 논리로 각 종 의 서로 다른 이 론을 인정하면서도 이를 보다 높은 차원에서 통합하고자 했으니 이것이 화쟁 사상이다.

2. 화쟁의 근거 : 一心

에서 살펴본 원효의 화쟁사상의 근거는 바로 하나의 마음, 즉 일심이다. 원효는 일심의 근원으로 돌아 갈 것을 히 강조하고 있다. 『 승기신론』은 一心二門으로 되어있다. 이문(二門)이란 진여문(眞如門)과 생멸문(生滅門을) 말한다. 그런데, 원효는 더럽고 깨끗한 모든 법은 그 본성이 둘이 아니고 진(眞)망(妄)두 (二)문(門)이 다르지 아니하므로 일(一)이라하고, 그 성품은 스스로 신기하게 이해하므로 심(心)이라 하며, 진리는 말을 여의고 사려가 끊어졌으므로 어떻게 지목하여 부를 것인가를 몰라 부르기 쉽게 일심이라 하 다는 것이다.[3][4]) 일심은 본래 정멸이지만 생은 무명에 따라 분별망상을 일으켜 이 번뇌의 물결에 따라 육 도에 윤회를 거듭한다는 것이다.

일심은 우리들 앞앞이 갖추고 있는 본래의 마음이며 이 마음이 바로 깨친 바탕이기도 하다. 하나인 마음 은 더러움과 깨끗함이 둘이 아니고 참과 거짓 한 서로 다르지 않기 때문에 하나라고 한다.6) 일심은 주 (나)과 객 ( 상 세계)의 구별을 떠난 무분별의 마음을 말한다. 『화엄경』에 ‘삼계유심 만법 유식’ 이라는 말이 있다. 삼계(색계, 욕계, 무색계)는 본래 모든 분별을 넘는 진여일심의 경계이지만 우리들 속의 분별심 때문에 우리 앞에 수만가지 상들이 나타난다고 하는 것이다. 원효가 해골박에 썩은 물을 마 시고 바로 화엄경의 내용, 모든 것은 내 마음속에 있는 것을 깨달은 것이다. 즉 깨끗한 것과 더러운 것, 좋 은 것과 나쁜 것을 분별함으로 쾌, 불쾌의 감정에 흔들리고 괴로워 하는 우리의 마음은 본래 일체 분별에서 자유한 일미평등의 평화스러운 마음, 곧 진여일심이며 원효는 이를 직 체험하 던 것이다. 원효는 이러한 마음의 근원, 일심이 구에게나 깃들여 있으며 이러한 마음을 회복한다면 구나 극락에 갈수 있다고 했다. 회복의 수단으로 육바라 의 실천을 강조한다.

이상의 내용을 간추려 보면 원효의 화쟁사상을 크게 세가지 에서 요약할 수 있다.

첫째 형이상학 에서 세상 모든 것은 일심에서 비롯되므로 모든 립 인 이론들은 결국 평등하다는 것이다.

둘째 언어철학 입장에서 화쟁은 언어로 표 된 이론을 상으로 하므로 진리를 달, 는 왜곡하기도 하는 언어 자체의 성격에 해 정확하게 악하고 언어에 집착하지 않으면 이견의 립에서 벗어날 수 있다는 것이다.

셋째 윤리 태도로서 자기의 견해만 맞다고 하는 아집․집착을 버릴 때 쟁론이 해소된다는 것이다.

Ⅲ. 結論 

이상과 같이 원효의 화쟁사상을 살펴보았다. 원효의 사상을 아무리 머리로 이해하려해도 실로 복잡하고 어렵다는 것을 알았다. 알 듯 하다가도 처음 보는 단어처럼 생소하고 멀어져 가는 느낌을 받기도 했다. 짧 게 나마 결론을 지어보면 다음과 같다.

그의 사상은 여러 술 등에서 볼 수 있듯이 그 어느 한가지를 가지고서 그의 사상을 변시키기 쉽지 않 으나, 그 사상을 피력하는 기본 인 태도는 화쟁의 입장이라 할 수 있겠다. 이러한 원효의 화쟁사상은 일심 에 근거를 두고 있으며 통일신라 후의 여러 종 들의 난립과 갈등을 화해시키고, 무엇보다 민 의 고통을 해결해 주려 노력했다. 이는 오늘날 우리가 직면하고 있는 수많은 갈등과 모순을 풀어나가는 방안을 모색하 는데 시사해 주는 바가 크다고 볼 수 있겠다.

를 사는 우리는 늘 상 사회생활이나 단체생활에서 자기와 동조자의 견해는 옳고, 남의 견해는 그르다 고 업신여기고 때론 얕잡아 보기도 한다. 원효는 이러한 소견이 좁은 사람을 두고 『십문화쟁론』에서 갈 구멍으로 하늘을 보는 것에 비유했다. 자기만 옳고 남은 그르다고 하여 남의 법은 받아들이지 않으면 이런 사람들을 크게 어리석은 사람이라고 하 다. 우리는 주 어디서든 립과 반목을 경험하고 살아가고 있다. 종교간의 갈등, 국가간의 립, 개인 이기주의, 집단 이기주의, 지역이기주의, 노사분규 등등 만 뜨면 팽팽 한 립을 보며 산다.

이러한 실 속에서 원효의 화쟁사상은 큰 가르침을 다. 원효의 말 처럼 마음의 근원을 회복하여 마 음을 깊이 통찰하고 일체의 차별상을 없애고 만물이 같이 평등하다는 것을 깨쳐 만물을 차별없이 사랑하 는 자 비의 마음을 얻어 구나 어디에도 걸림이 없는 무애의 삶을 살아갈 수 있다면 다툼도 화도 쟁 도 없는 구나 동경하고 있는 고요하고 평화로운 삶을 살수 있지 않을 까 그려본다.

※ 참고문헌

1. 황 선 편 , 『원효의 생애와 사상』, 국학자료원, 1996.

2. 정용선, 『한국의 사상』, 한샘출 사, 1994.

3. 한국동서철학연구회, 『東西哲學通論』, 문경출 사, 1993.

4. 교재, 『한국철학사』

5. http://dreamwiz.com

6. http://Tms.inchon-mah.ed.inchon.kr

7. http://members.tripod.co.kr

8. http://myhome.netsgo.com/buddihismsc

9. http://von.ulsan.ac.kr

10. http://zen.buddhism.org/zen/wohyo.html




[1] ) 이경은 불법의 大海이고, 方等의 秘藏이니, 그 교됨은 측량하기 어렵다. 진실로 넓어서 끝이 없고 깊고 깊어서 바닥이 없다. 바 닥이 없으므로 다하지 못함이 없고 끝이 없으므로 다 포섭하지 못함이 없다. 여러 경 의 부분을 통섭하고 만류의 一味에 돌아가 佛意의 至公을 열고 百家의 異諍을 화해시켜, 드디어 시끄러운 四生으로 하여 無二의 實性에 돌아가게 하고 꿈꾸는 긴 잠을 大覺의 극과에 도달하게 한다.


[2] ) http://www.dharnet.net, 2 p.


[3] ) 황 선 편 , 『원효의 생애와 사상』, 국학자료원, 1996, 484 p.


[4] ) 교재, 『한국철학사』, 66 p .

'화쟁'이란 무엇인가? - 불교신문

'화쟁'이란 무엇인가? - 불교신문



'화쟁'이란 무엇인가?

장영섭 기자
승인 2019.06.28
화쟁사상
​김영일 지음 혜안​



화쟁(和諍)은 불교계가 만들어낸 최고의 사회적 가치 가운데 하나일 것이다. 정치인들은 여야 할 것 없이 한목소리로 화쟁을 외치며 국론통합을 강조한다. 불교를 믿지 않더라도 누구나 한번쯤 화쟁을 들어봤을 법한데 그 구체적 의미나 과정에 대해서는 모르는 사람들이 적지 않다. <화쟁사상>은 화쟁에 대한 종합설명서를 자임하는 책이다.

알다시피 화쟁의 개념을 최초로 창안한 인물은 신라 원효대사다. 당대 동아시아의 으뜸가는 철학자였던 스님은 <십문화쟁론(十門和諍論)>>이란 저술에서 화쟁을 기반으로 당시 불교의 다양한 종파를 통합했다. 삼국통일 이후 민족의 조화와 공영에도 이바지했다.

<화쟁사상>의 저자인 김영일 동국대 연구교수는 한양대 법학과를 졸업하고 동국대 대학원 불교학과에서 박사학위를 받았다. 논저로 ‘원효의 화쟁논법 연구’, ‘원효와 지눌의 돈점관’, ‘도신과 원효의 수행관’ 등의 논문을 낸 ‘원효’ 전문가다. 책은 화쟁사상을 지속적으로 탐구해 온 저자가 그 결실을 독자들과 함께 나누고자 서술한 것이다.

원효의 삶에서 화쟁사상이 어떠한 의미가 있는지, 지금까지 학자들은 어떠한 연구를 하였는지, 그리고 이 책은 어떠한 내용을 서술하고 있는지에 대해서 적고 있다. 특히 화쟁의 여러 사례를 분석해 원효가 도대체 어떻게 화쟁을 했는지… 그 방법에 대해 소개하고 있다. 스님이 잡다한 학설을 화쟁하는 데 바탕이 되었던 방대한 사상적 근거에 대해서도 살펴볼 수 있다.

김영일 교수는 “올바른 이치를 알지 못해서, 자신만의 좁은 견해에 얽매어, 갈등과 분열로 멍든 지구촌을 바라본다”며 “전체와 부분이 진정 상생할 수 있는 방안의 하나로 원효성사(聖師)의 화쟁사상을 생각해봤다”고 소감을 전했다.
저작권자 © 불교신문 무단전재 및 재배포 금지

화쟁사상(和諍思想) - 한국민족문화대백과사전

화쟁사상(和諍思想) - 한국민족문화대백과사전

화쟁사상(和諍思想)

불교개념용어

 모든 논쟁을 화합으로 바꾸려는 불교교리.   

대승기신론소

분야

불교

유형

개념용어

모든 논쟁을 화합으로 바꾸려는 불교교리.

우리 나라 불교의 저변에 깔린 가장 핵심적인 사상이다. 불교교단의 화합을 위한 화쟁과 불교교리의 화쟁으로 대별된다. 교단의 화합을 위한 화쟁은 불교의 계율에 잘 나타나 있다.

불교 교단을 뜻하는 상가(saṅgha, 僧伽)는 화해, 화쟁의 의미가 있다. 

우리 나라의 승려들이 구족계(具足戒)로 받는 비구 250계, 비구니 348계 중에서도 두번째 군(群)에 속하는 승잔계(僧殘戒)에 화합을 깨뜨리는 것을 경계한 몇 가지 조목이 보인다. 이들 소승계에서는 화합을 깨뜨린다 하여 승려의 직을 박탈하는 바라이죄(波羅夷罪)로 규정하지는 않았다.

그러나 대승의 보살들에게 주어지는 보살계에는 승단의 화합을 깨뜨리는 죄를 바라이죄로 다루어 엄히 다스리고 있다. 보살의 십중대계(十重大戒) 중 제6인 ‘사부대중(四部大衆)의 허물을 말하지 말라[不說四衆過]’, 제7인 ‘자기를 칭찬하고 남을 헐뜯지 말라[不自讚毁他]’, 제10인 ‘삼보(三寶)를 비방하지 말라[不謗三寶]’ 등의 3계가 이에 해당한다. 신라의 고승들은 승단의 화합을 깨뜨리는 이들 계들을 집중적으로 연구하여 교단의 기강을 바로잡는 데 크게 노력하였다.

---

특히, 원효(元曉, 617-686)는 보살의 십중대계 중 자찬회타계를 범하는 것을 가장 큰 허물로 보았고, 승단의 불화합이 이로 말미암아 생기는 것이므로 특히 경계해야 한다고 주장하였다. 또, 비구계와 비구니계에서는 쟁론을 없애는 일곱 가지 멸쟁법(滅諍法)을 두었다. 승단에서 쟁론이 일어날 때는 그 해결점을 국법이나 속인에게 맡기지 않고 이 멸쟁법에 의해서 다스리게 되어 있다.

내용은 

① 본인이 있는 데서 잘못을 다스려라, 

② 쟁론이 있을 때 잘못을 기억하게 한 뒤 죄를 다스려라, 

③ 정신착란으로 논쟁을 일으켰으면 정상으로 회복된 뒤에는 묵인하라, 

④ 마땅히 본인의 자백에 의하여 죄를 다스려라, 

⑤ 마땅히 죄상을 추구하여 죄를 다스리되 반드시 다수결에 의하여 단죄하라, 

⑥ 승단 내에서 파당싸움이 벌어져 잘잘못을 오랫동안 가리지 못할 때는 풀로 땅을 덮듯 불문에 붙여라 등이다.

더 나아가 승가교단의 단체생활의 화합을 위한 

보다 적극적인 육화경(六和敬)이 제정되어 실천되고 있다. 

육화경의 덕목은 신화경(身和敬)·구화경(口和敬)·의화경(意和敬)·계화경(戒和敬)·견화경(見和敬)·이화경(利和敬) 등이다.

신화경은 함께 예배하여 몸의 업을 닦는 것이고, 

구화경은 함께 찬영(讚詠)하여 구업(口業)을 닦는 것이며, 

의화경은 같은 신심(信心)으로 의업을 밝혀가는 것이고, 

계화경은 똑같이 불계(佛戒)를 실천하여 불법을 함께 따르는 것이며, 

견화경은 함께 모든 법의 공(空)한 이치를 바로 보고 실천하는 것이고, 

이화경은 의식을 함께 하여 이익을 고르게 나누는 것이다.

이 육화경을 실천적인 측면에서 구체적으로 표현하여 선종을 중심으로 새롭게 제정되었는데, 이는 우리 나라에서도 승단의 화합이념으로 크게 신봉되었다. 

이것을 살펴보면 

몸으로 화합함이니 함께 머물러라[身和共住], 

입으로 화합함이니 다투지 말라[口和無諍], 

뜻으로 화합함이니 함께 일하라[意和同事], 

계로써 화합함이니 함께 닦아라[戒和同修], 

바른 지견(知見)으로 화합함이니 함께 해탈하라[見知同解], 

이익으로써 화합함이니 균등하게 나누어라[利和同均] 등이다.

교리의 화쟁은 우리 나라 불교의 가장 큰 특징이다. 

이 화쟁사상은 신라의 원광(圓光, 542-640)이나 자장(慈藏, 590-658)에서부터 그 연원을 찾을 수 있다. 

원광은 세속오계(世俗五戒)를 제정할 때 불교의 승려이면서도 유교를 비롯한 그 시대의 상황에 맞는 윤리관을 제시하였으며, 

「걸사표(乞師表)」를 지어 신라에 이익이 돌아오게 함으로써 모든 것을 원융(圓融)의 바탕 아래 무쟁(無諍)으로 나아가게 하는 기틀을 마련하였다.

또, 자장은 종파분립을 초월한 통화불교(統和佛敎)의 길을 걸음으로써 

우리 나라 불교를 중국 불교와는 다른 독특한 불교로 이끄는 데 크게 공헌하였다. 

그는 계율생활을 엄히 다스려 교화에 진력하였지만, 

계율종(戒律宗)이라는 종파를 따로 개종(開宗)하지 않았고, 

오히려 화엄사상이나 신라불국토사상(新羅佛國土思想)에 더 큰 비중을 두었다. 

그리고 섭론종(攝論宗)이나 정토교(淨土敎)에도 적지않은 관심을 가짐으로써 종파의 분립 없이 통화불교로 교화에 진력하였음을 알 수 있다.

원광과 자장에 의하여 싹이 튼 화쟁사상은 삼국통일을 전후한 시기에 원효에 의하여 집대성되었고, 일찍이 그 어떤 불교인도 이루지 못하였던 화쟁의 논리를 확립시켰다.

원효는 많은 글을 썼지만 문자나 형식에 사로잡혀서는 안 됨을 강조하는 한편, 

불교의 궁극적인 목표는 깊은 철학과 함께 항상 중생을 구제하는 데 있다고 하였다. 

평등 가운데 차별이 있으며 차별 가운데 평등이 있다는 화엄(華嚴)의 사상을 쉽게 풀이한 「무애가(無碍歌)」를 지어 뭇 사람의 관심을 끄는 가운데, 

때와 장소를 가리지 않고 큰 표주박을 두드리면서 노래하며 이 거리 저 마을에 나타남으로써 불교를 생활화하는 데 힘을 기울였다.

평화와 화합이 깃들인 신라사회를 건설하고자 하였던 원효는 대중과 함께 살고 고락을 같이하는 가운데 어떻게 하면 대중에게 더 많은 복을 가져다 줄 수 있는가에 마음을 기울였던 것이다. 화쟁의 원리에 입각하여 행동하였던 그는 저술활동에 있어서도 화쟁사상의 천명에 큰 힘을 기울였다.

불교사상에 관한 것이라면 대승·소승을 막론하고 무엇이든 읽고 연구하면서 사색과 체험을 통하여 완전히 자기의 것으로 만들고 그 이해한 바를 남김 없이 글로 표현하였다. 

그리고 경전마다 종요(宗要)를 지어 그 경전의 특징적인 요지와 함께 다른 경전과도 서로 화합할 수 있는 화쟁의 원리까지 제시하였다.

불교의 이론은 대체로 연기론(緣起論)과 실상론(實相論)의 둘을 바탕으로 해서 무궁무진하게 전개되어 인도에서는 부파(部派)를, 중국에서는 많은 종파가 성립되어 각각의 종지(宗旨)를 고집하는 경향이 두드러졌다.

그런데 원효는 그 어느 교설이나 학설을 고집하지도 버리지도 않았다. 그는 언제나 분석하고 비판하고 긍정과 부정의 두 가지 논리를 융합하여 보다 높은 차원에서 새로운 가치를 찾았다. 모순과 대립을 한 체계 속에 하나로 묶어 담은 이 기본구조를 가리켜 그는 ‘화쟁(和諍)’이라 하였다. 통일·화합·총화·평화는 바로 이와 같은 정리와 종합에서 온다는 것이 그의 신념이기도 하였다.

화쟁은 그의 모든 저서 속에서 일관되게 나타나고 있는 기본적인 논리이다. 마치 바람 때문에 고요한 바다에 파도가 일어나지만 그 파도와 바닷물이 따로 둘이 아닌 것처럼, 중생의 일심에도 깨달음의 경지인 진여(眞如)와 그렇지 못한 무명(無明)이 둘로 분열되고는 있으나, 그 진여와 무명이 따로 둘이 아니라 하여 『대승기신론소(大乘起信論疏)』에서 화쟁의 원리를 제시하였다.

『열반경(涅槃經)』에서는 모든 중생이 부처가 될 성질을 지니고 있으므로 다같이 성불(成佛)할 수 있다고 하는 한편, 악한 짓만을 일삼는 무리인 일천제(一闡提)는 성불할 수 없다고 설하였다. 중국의 법상종(法相宗)이 일천제의 성불을 영원히 불가능한 것이라고 주장한 데 반하여, 원효는 폭을 넓혀 마음의 핵심인 아뢰야식(阿賴耶識)에는 본시 부처가 될 요소인 무루종자(無漏種子)가 있는 것이라 함으로써, 『열반경종요』에서는 일천제도 성불시키는 화쟁의 솜씨를 보였다.

원효가 화쟁에 자주 사용한 방법의 하나는 차원 높은 은밀문(隱密門)과 보다 차원이 낮은 현료문(顯了門)의 두 문을 설정하는 일이었다. 불교수행에 있어서 근본적인 장애를 가져오는 소지장(所知障)과 번뇌장(煩惱障) 등 이장을 끊는 일은 매우 중요하므로 『대승기신론』과 『유가사지론(瑜伽師地論)』에서도 다같이 이 문제를 다루었지만 그 견해는 서로 달리하고 있다.

이에 원효는 『이장의(二障義)』를 지어 대승기신론과 유가사지론의 두 논설을 각각 현료문과 은밀문으로 설정하고, 현료문에 의해서는 은밀문의 소지장을 설명할 수 없어도 현료문의 이장은 번뇌장을 가지고 능히 설명된다고 함으로써 두 논설을 하나로 묶었다. 원효가 주창한 화쟁사상의 근본원리는 인간세상의 화(和)와 쟁(諍)이라는 양면성을 인정하는 데서부터 출발한다.

화쟁은 화와 쟁을 정(正)과 반(反)에 두고 그 사이에서 타협함으로써 이루어지는 합(合)이 아니라, 정과 반이 대립할 때 오히려 정과 반이 가지고 있는 근원을 꿰뚫어보아 이 둘이 불이(不二)라는 것을 체득함으로써 쟁도 화로 동화시켜 나간다. 천차만별의 현상적인 쟁의 상태도 그 근원에서 보면 하나로 화하는 상태에 있을 뿐임을 체득한 원효는 이 원리에 따라 진망(眞妄)·염정(染淨)·이사(理事)·공유(空有)·미오(迷悟)·인과(因果) 등을 불이의 화쟁론으로 전개시킨 것이다.

이와 같은 원효의 화쟁사상은 이후의 우리 나라 승려들에 의하여 계승되었음은 물론, 중국의 법장(法藏, 643-712)과 징관(澄觀, 738-839) 등에도 큰 영향을 미쳤으며, 일본에서도 크게 신봉되어 (善珠, 723-797)·명혜(明恵, 1173–1232)·응연(疑然, 1240–1321) 등은 그의 설을 그대로 계승하고 있다.

원효의 화쟁사상을 계승하여 널리 선양한 고려시대의 고승으로는 의천(義天, 1055-1101)이 있다. 그는 원효의 화쟁사상이 『법화경』의 회삼귀일사상(會三歸一思想)과 그 맥을 같이하는 것임을 파악하고, 천태종(天台宗)을 창종(創宗)하여 화엄을 비롯한 여러 교학과 선을 일치 통합하고자 하였다.

그는 화엄종에 속한 승려였지만 당시 화엄종과 법상종에서 각각 성(性)과 상(相)의 문제를 놓고 오랫동안 쟁론을 계속하였으므로 성상융회(性相融會)를 내세워 이들을 화쟁시키고자 하였다. 나아가 지관(止觀)의 수행을 중시하는 천태종을 창종하여 선종과의 화쟁도 꾀하였던 것이다. 그의 교관병수사상(敎觀幷修思想)은 화쟁의 원리를 가장 잘 채택한 것으로, 우리 나라 불교의 한 전통적 특징을 이루게 되었다.

의천이 교의 입장에서 선을 수용하려고 하였던 데 반하여, 지눌(知訥, 1158-1210)은 선을 중심에 두고 교를 통화하려 하였다. 그는 참된 것과 속된 것을 엄격히 구별하였으나 그것이 둘이 아님을 잊지 않았고, 선종의 승려로서 평생을 참선에 몰두하였지만 틈틈이 불경을 읽는 것을 게을리하지 않았다. 그리하여 지눌은 부처의 뜻을 전하는 것이 선이요 부처의 말을 깨닫는 것이 교라고 믿었기 때문에 선과 교는 서로 떨어질 수 없고 함께 닦아야 한다고 본 것이다.

그래서 당시 세상사람들이 부처의 참뜻을 모른 채 선종이니 교종이니 하고 싸우는 것을 막고자 하였고, 그 무의미한 논쟁을 매듭지어 참다운 수행의 길을 걷게끔 하기 위하여 일생 동안 노력하였다. 오늘날 지눌을 선교합일(禪敎合一)의 주창자요 정혜쌍수(定慧雙修)의 구현자라고 말하는 것은 그의 화쟁정신에 입각한 것이다. 그 이후 우리 나라 불교는 선과 교를 함께 닦는 정혜쌍수의 전통을 계속 유지하게 되었다.

또, 조선 초기의 고승 기화(己和, 1376-1433)는 불교 내의 화쟁에서 한 걸음 더 나아가 유교와 불교와의 화쟁을 도모하고자 하였다. 유불의 논쟁은 고려 때부터 계속되어 온 것이었지만, 고려시대는 불교를 국교로 삼았기 때문에 논쟁이 크게 문제시되지 않았다. 그러나 조선왕조가 억불정책으로 불교를 핍박하자, 기화는 『현정론(顯正論)』·『유석질의론(儒釋質疑論)』 등을 저술하여 억불의 부당성과 함께 유불도 3교의 회통을 천명하였던 것이다.

『현정론』의 첫머리에서 유교의 오상(五常)과 불교의 오계(五戒)를 비교하면서 불살생(不殺生)은 인(仁)이요, 부도(不盜)는 의(義)며, 불음(不淫)은 예(禮)요, 불음주(不飮酒)는 지(智)며, 불망어(不妄語)는 신(信)이라고 하였다. 그리고 유교에서 사람을 가르치는 방법은 주로 정형(政刑)으로 정형적 교육에는 상벌이 따르고 상벌은 일시적인 복종만을 조장시키는 데 반하여, 불교는 인과법을 가르치기 때문에 각자가 스스로 깨닫고 자각적으로 심복(心服)하게 된다고 주장하였다.

이어 그는 세상에는 여러 가지 종류의 사람들이 있어서 상벌로 지도해야 할 사람들도 있고 인과법으로 지도해야 할 사람들도 있기 때문에, 유교나 불교가 둘 다 필요하다는 화쟁론을 전개하였다.

또한, 조선시대 불교의 중흥조라 일컬어지는 휴정(休靜, 1520-1604)은 지눌의 정혜쌍수를 계승하였을 뿐 아니라, 선과 염불의 일치를 주장하여 선과 교와 염불의 조화를 정착시켰다. 그 뒤 조선시대에는 이 셋을 함께 공부하는 사상적 조류가 계속됨에 따라 우리 나라 불교는 종파를 중심으로 한 사상적 논쟁이 거의 없어지게 되었다. 또한, 조선왕조 500년의 억불책 속에서도 불교가 그 혜명(慧命)을 전승할 수 있었던 것도 이 화쟁사상에 근거한 것이다.

그들은 왕실과 유생들의 탄압을 쟁으로 맞서기보다는 화의 정신에 입각하여 쟁을 이겨나갔고, 오히려 쟁을 화로 승화시켜 그들을 교화시켰던 것이다. 화쟁사상은 절대자유와 평화완덕(平和完德)을 그 이상으로 삼은 것으로, 석가모니 이후 우리 나라 불교에서 꽃피우게 된 금자탑으로 평가되고 있다.

 참고문헌

• 한국의 불교  (이기영, 세종대왕기념사업회, 1974)

• 『불교계율해설(佛敎戒律解說)』(묵담,법륜사,1982)

• 한국불교사연구  (안계현, 동화출판공사, 1982)

• 한국화엄사상연구  (동국대학교 불교문화연구소, 1982)

• 한국불교철학의 어제와 오늘  (정병조, 대원정사, 1995)

• 『화엄일승사상(華嚴一乘思想)의 연구』(요시즈 요시히데(吉津宜英),대동출판,1991)

• 「한국불교의 화사상(和思想)연구」(김운학 외,『불교학보』 15,불교문화연구소,1978)

 집필자

집필 (1997년)

김상현

[출처: 한국민족문화대백과사전(화쟁사상(和諍思想))]

A Buddhist Approach to Interreligious Conflict and Harmony | Buddhistdoor

A Buddhist Approach to Interreligious Conflict and Harmony | Buddhistdoor

A Buddhist Approach to Interreligious Conflict and Harmony

By Rev. T. Sumiththa TheroBuddhistdoor Global | 2020-03-20 | 

Rev. Sumitha Thero is the spiritual advisor and founder of the Sri Lankan Buddhist Cultural Centre Hong Kong (SLBCCHK).

Interreligious disagreements and conflicts have dominated local and global politics for millennia. The Buddha himself encountered religious conflict, not only among different religions but even among different fraternities or schools within the same religion. Many of us acquire a faith tradition based on our upbringing and believe that our particular scripture is the most trustworthy. If taken to the extreme, this clinging becomes a cause of violence that threatens world peace. Religious conflict has led to a common secular assessment of religion as doing more harm than good in the world.

We should not be satisfied with concluding that an elephant is huge just because we see big footprints on the ground. In order to confirm the size of the elephant, we need to investigate further and see for ourselves the elephant itself. In the same manner, we need to be open-hearted in our investigation until we see for ourselves the realities within religious scriptures, without taking extreme positions.

Religions share the same goals in seeking absolute truth. All humans face the same existential sufferings: sickness, aging, and death. Different traditions offer contradictory and conflicting solutions, but in the end, all orthodox traditions accept that the absolute truth is ineffable and hidden. Unfortunately, irrational followers insist on the supremacy of their specific version of this unseen truth. Some of them are not even aware of the difference between conversion and coercion, with the latter culminating in the logical extreme of terrorism or violence. The Buddha said that the person who misunderstands the teaching faces the greatest and severest danger.

Historically, Buddhism emerged as new religious movement in a context of diverse and competing schools of thought; Indian Buddhist literature acknowledges this. Jain texts also make references to a plurality of views that can be considered religious views at the time. We find in the Brahmajala Sutta 62 philosophical views or religious approaches to life. There was a religious revival during the time that Buddhism came into being. The fifth century BCE bore witness to competing religions, many of which were hostile to each other, from verbal debates to public confrontations.

Hostility against other schools was not uncommon during the Buddha’s time. We can find references in the Pali Canon in which the Buddha responded to Brahmins and wandering ascetics who sought to attack the Dharma. Some Brahmins sought to debate with the Buddha or tried to persuade potential disciples from converting to the Buddhadharma. They saw the Buddha as someone who was destroying the social order established by Brahmins. During the early career of the Buddha, they accused him of making women widows by asking their men to become monks. Buddhist literature also records conspiracies to discredit the Buddhist order through manufactured scandal or slander. Religious antagonism then was not very different to today. Where we find religious hostility or armed conflict in the world based on religious identity, Buddhism sees issues of identity, the self, and attachment to self-understanding.

In contrast to the hostile attacks against his own tradition, the Buddha never imposed his beliefs on others, even after securing the support of local kings or powerful businessmen. He consistently refrained from insisting that others swear to practice his doctrine. We can see the Buddha as an exemplar of interreligious harmony because he was sensitive to the broader social and cultural context in which he lived, which was a Brahminical one. 

However, if conflict only spurs further conflict, then what resolution or end can there be to interreligious disputes? Most references to interreligious conflicts in the Buddhist canon direct the follower to present arguments in a logical manner that helps the “opposing” party to reach their own answer in a rational and logical manner. The way the Buddha and his great disciples responded to hostilities with other religions are exemplary models for how we can resolve confrontations today.

The first sutta of the Digha Nikaya has an important reading regarding the Buddhist attitude toward religious differences. 

In the Brahmajala Sutta, where these different ditthis (views) among the 62 are mentioned, the Buddha notes that dogmatic grasping of any view is not conductive to the religious goal he prescribed. In the sutta, he was not committed to founding one more sectarian dogma. The emphasis in the sutta is on transformation of the person, the development of the inner nature of the person, a kind of very evident change in the experience of the spiritual path, not just dogma and theory.

The Buddha was probably challenged by the religious groups referenced as Parivrajakas (wandering ascetics), Nighanthas, and Brahmins. They sometimes confronted the Buddha with ideas about creation and the afterlife. In such situations, Buddha did not emphasize “winning” the argument, and therefore did not even always engage in such situations as his teaching mainly focused on teaching the path to end the suffering of samsara.

In the Pasura Sutta, a combative individual called Pasura challenged the Buddha with the intention of discrediting him. The Buddha refused to participate because Pasura was not interested in an honest discussion, saying: “I don’t cling to a view, and I will not engage with someone who is defiled with anger and hatred.” In other words, conflict is not only intellectual. A person whose mind is free from defilements cannot move with one whose mind is not.

The Kathavatthu Sutta examines how discussions and debate can be conducted productively and in good faith. The different parties are fit to talk only when they have certain qualities. The sutta reveals how a wise man talks: 

• “Those who discuss when angered, dogmatic, arrogant, following what’s not the noble ones’ way, seeking to expose each other’s faults, delight in each other’s misspoken word, slip, stumble, defeat. Noble ones don’t speak in that way.”

• The person, when asked a question, gives a categorical answer to a question deserving a categorical answer, gives an analytical answer to a question deserving an analytical answer, gives a counter-question to a question deserving a counter-question, and puts aside a question deserving to be put aside, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.

• The person, when asked a question, stands by what is possible and impossible, stands by agreed-upon assumptions, stands by teachings known to be true, stands by standard procedure, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.

• The person, when asked a question, doesn’t wander from one thing to another, doesn’t pull the discussion off the topic, doesn’t show anger or aversion or sulk, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.

• The person, when asked a question, doesn’t put down [the questioner], doesn’t crush him, doesn’t ridicule him, doesn’t grasp at his little mistakes, then—that being the case—he is a person fit to talk with.

The “ten philosophical issues” of Indic thought were hotly debated during Buddha’s time. Sometimes people came to argue with the Buddha on these issues, but the Buddha refused to participate in any conversation with someone did not meet the Kathavatthu Sutta’s criteria.

One common way to promote interreligious harmony is by admitting that every religion is true. Buddhism does not maintain this view. Furthermore, this method of promoting harmony, while well-intentioned, does injustice to all parties. 

The Buddha clearly maintained the uniqueness of his teachings from those of other teachers. He agreed with them often on their morality or ethics, but he disagreed with them on metaphysical matters and on the extinguishing of existential suffering.

There were masters and sages who had studied diverse religious theories at that time, so they are referred to as “those who have studied the theories of other religions.” What the Buddha found disturbing was partisan or sectarian demolishing of the values of other religions. The idea is not simply to win an argument or score points, but to understand things as reliably as possible.

Buddhism encourages conflict resolution through education because Buddhism trusts in our capacity to perform good deeds with the correct information. 

This “voluntary” ideal appeals to people to look and see for themselves. 

Obviously, education doesn’t only mean the cultivation of some academic or professional expertise. 

Outside of the professional spheres, there is a wider ethical duty attached to each profession; namely, the good or harm that can follow as a consequence of human actions. 

Because of this “karmic” aspect, Buddhism understands education as the only way to discern right and wrong. 

Where ethical concern is lacking, technological advancements can be applied recklessly or incorrectly, and scientific progress can be self-defeating.

Science and technology do not investigate the ethical value of one’s desires and wants; they simply strive to meet them. Without this ethical assessment, science and technology can be misused to fulfill human desires that are destructive and harmful. If there is no ethical reflection regarding life and the nature of life, things may be too late by the time the technology is developed. 

It may well be that Buddhist reflections on human dignity and well-being are even more relevant today than in the distant past. 

We have developed so many technologies that are transforming what it means to be human that, without spirituality and ethics, we are rapidly reaching a point of no return.

There are very rare instances where Buddhist society has used religion to justify conflict with other religious groups, including forcible conversions. However, this is not an inherent characteristic of the Buddhist tradition. Even in the contemporary West, Buddhism remains attractive not due to its military or economic power, but through its appeal to logic, reasoning, and sublime spiritual teachings.

----

Buddhistdoor Global Special Issue 2020

Buddhism and Conflict Resolution 

Tags:

asian philosophybuddhismbuddhist historyconflictdebateindian buddhisminterfaithinterreligious dialogueinterreligious encountersphilosophyphilosophy of religionThe Buddha

Categories:

CommentaryInterfaithPhilosophy and Buddhist StudiesSocial EngagementTheravada