[MD] Zen at War

[David Thomas]

All,

For quite some time many here have had their knickers in a knot over
Marsha's interpretation of Pirsig's work vis-à-vis Buddhism. The latest
pissing and moaning centers around this:

[Pirsig ZaMM pg 82]
Phædrus raised his hand and asked coldly if it was believed that the atomic
bombs that had dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were illusory. The
professor smiled and said yes. That was the end of the exchange.
Within the traditions of Indian philosophy that answer may have been
correct, but for Phædrus and for anyone else who reads newspapers regularly
and is concerned with such things as mass destruction of human beings that
answer was hopelessly inadequate. He left the classroom, left India and gave
up.

[Dave]
If Phædrus was so disgusted with Eastern philosophy then; Why was it so
imperative to marry it to Western philosophy later on? And why pick the most
militant leaning of all Buddhism's, Zen. Was he so socially and historically
unaware of the Oriental history that he did not understand that "Zen and the
Art of Archery." in historical terms was really,  "Zen and the Art of
Killing People with a Bow and Arrow" If philosophy in Western societies was
deemed so critical to their underlying social problems; Why was Zen not
evaluated vis-à-vis Eastern societies and their historic social problems?
You know observe, like empiricism is supposed to do?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_at_War

It's not like the information wasn't available. The D.T. Suzuki mentioned
negatively on this website published "Zen and Japanese Culture" in 1938
which was is based on lectures given in America and England in 1936. It was
republished for the mass market in English in 1959. Roughly 1/3 of the book
deals with Zen's adoption and use to cultivate warriors over a period of
1300 years until Japan emerged in the Meiji  period (1864) as an aggressive,
militant, nationalist society that waged imperialist wars upon its neighbors
until they were finally stopped by Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

>From Suzuki's second chapter, "Zen and the Samurai" we read:

"In Japan, Zen was intimately related from the beginning of its history to
the life of the samurai. ...Zen has sustained them in two ways, morally and
philosophically. Morally, because Zen is a religion which teaches us not to
look backward once a course is decided upon; philosophically, because it
treats life and death indifferently."

"In those days we can say that the Japanese genius went either to the
priesthood of to soldiery. The spiritual cooperation of the two professions
could not help but contribute to the creation of what is now generally known
as Bushido, "the way of the warrior."

"What finally has come to constitute Bushido,... [is] loyalty, filial piety,
and benevolence...and to always be ready to face death, that is, to
sacrifice oneself unhesitatingly when the occasion arises."

We see this bending of the national psyche of Japan to this Zen philosophy
prior to and during WWII is akin to the fanaticism of radical Islam today.
The individual, the self, both yours and your enemy's is nonexistent, there
is no shared humanity, only duty to the "Ideas" of loyalty and filial piety
to your society. This maybe a great strategy when you are on the attack but
when you are losing and your defeat is all but assured, it appears as sheer
madness. A complete national loss of "rationality." And that can scare the
fuck out of your enemy causing them to treat you and you treated them. "Tit
for Tat" psychology.

What we observe, empirically, is when "Zen [as] a religion which teaches us
not to look backward once a course is decided upon," it flies fully in the
face of pragmatism with most always disastrous consequences.

>[DMB]
> I think it would be safe to say that being murdered by atomic weapons or by
> genocide would count as a violation of human rights. As Pirsig points out even
> with respect to imposing the death penalty on a convicted murderer, the
> evolutionary growth and the intellectual freedom of dead people is extremely
> limited. Kaput.
> 
> Marsha's answer isn't just incorrect. It's also morally bankrupt - if not
> completely devoid of morality - and the cold-heartedness of it is downright
> creepy. 
[Dave]
Right " it is more moral for an idea to kill a society than it is for a
society to kill an idea."(Lila-77) Always and forever absolutely moral. For
instance Pirsig claims "communism" is a high quality, morally supreme
intellectual pattern. Why then does Andre place three of the heroes of this
movement on his list below? I thought you were congenital twins.

Perhaps you might enlighten us on why the murder of of the men and women of
Pearl Harbor by enlightened Zen warriors was a good, a moral thing, while
the use of atomic weapons at Hiroshima and Nagasaki is a violation of human
rights. Oh, oh, I know, because Americans did it. And Pirsig has made it
quite clear what an awful, degenerate places are those under sway of Western
Philosophy. Look at how it ruined his life. I'm not sure who's whining is
more morally repugnant, yours or his.

Just to refresh memories: http://www.japan-guide.com/e/e2129.html

"On July 27, 1945, the Allied powers requested Japan in the Potsdam
Declaration to surrender unconditionally, or destruction would continue.
However, the military did not consider surrendering under such terms,
partially even after US military forces dropped two atomic bombs on
Hiroshima and Nagasaki on August 6 and 9, and the Soviet Union entered the
war against Japan on August 8.

On August 14, however, Emperor Showa finally decided to surrender
unconditionally."

I would suggest that the dropping of the bombs was analogous to a Zen
teacher slapping a student up side the head (and all the other similar Zen
stories). It is was sufficiently outrageous and shocking to bring them back
to reality. They became nationally "enlightened."  Oh by the way it worked.
They now are a democratic society that is the single beacon of social and
economic stability in all of Asia. And Zen's power over Japan's society has
waned to the point that many orders sole support is charging to maintain
cemeteries and presiding at funerals.

>[Andre]
>May as well discuss whether the actions of a Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol
>Pot, Mugabe, Idi Amin, Nixon, Bush and many others, (responsible for the
>killing of over 100 million people during the last century) were
>'conditionally', or 'like an illusion' real or not.

Hey Andre, what can I tell you that's Zen. Pirsig picked it, Marsha didn't.
Remember, communism is a high quality intellectual pattern who's source is
undefined Dynamic Quality and is subject to no moral authority except
itself. 

Oh, to be accurate to your interpretation of Pirsig, don't you both need to
include every American president from, say, Washington? They're all a bunch
of murderers, war makers.  Killing off all those potential morally superior
intellectual patterns, spontaneously blooming from undefined quality. Except
of course if the people killed are like Lila and Rigel who are intellectual
nowhere.

Every wonder why Buddhism has been charged with nihilism for eons?

I know, I know, just like Pirsig, it all been a big misunderstanding.

Tell that to my father's generation who fought, died, and had their lives,
body's, and head's fucked up in the Pacific theater.

Get real,

Dave