On Serving One’s Country
Jul 01, 2023 06:00AM ● By Paul Chen
It’s Monday morning of production week, and I am at the courthouse servning jury duty. Given that my mind is focused on civic duty and that this is the July issue, it seems a good time to contemplate the nature of serving one’s country.
In America, we tend to interpret “service to country” as “serving in the military.”
Obviously, there are an infinite number of ways Americans can serve their country, but with the war in Ukraine in its second year and no end in sight, with tensions between China and the U.S. on the rise, and with life in the U.S. becoming increasingly violent, the age-old question of “when to go to war” can’t be far from many minds. I look to world religions for context.
Obviously, there are an infinite number of ways Americans can serve their country, but with the war in Ukraine in its second year and no end in sight, with tensions between China and the U.S. on the rise, and with life in the U.S. becoming increasingly violent, the age-old question of “when to go to war” can’t be far from many minds. I look to world religions for context.
Interestingly, the Hindu scripture, the
Bhagavad Gita, discusses the prospect and
conduct of war against one’s own cousins.
The conversation between Krishna and Arjuna concludes with the determination that some wars are just and that one is obligated to fight them. However, there is a Himalayan caveat. Krishna tells Arjuna:
When you have made pleasure and pain
the same–also gain and loss, and victory and defeat,
then join yourself to battle;
and in this way, you will not cause harm.
In an essay, political theorist Sreejith Sugunan, Ph.D., writes:
According to Krishna, Arjuna should partake in war when his conduct in the battlefield is devoid of ‘passion and hatred’ and instead exhibits a sense of ‘restraint’ as it is only ‘the one who thus restrains the self, and who governs the self, attains peace.’ Seen from this perspective, the Gita’s message on the combatant’s disposition during war is more fundamental to the text than all the justifications it provides for waging war. This is because, as Krishna suggests, one who does not embody the spirit of peace, restraint and calmness in the midst of war is unworthy of being called a warrior and can only cause ‘harm…’
If such were the requirements of all who fight, there would be, practically speaking, no fights—after all, how many of us are that spiritually advanced? And if we were, wouldn’t we find other ways to solve differences?
The other tradition that I have a fair amount of familiarity with is Buddhism, and I have not found anything in Buddhist scripture that justifies war; the dictum to do no harm is absolute.
There is, however, a story of the Buddha when he was not yet fully enlightened, killing a fellow passenger on a ship. With clairvoyance, the Buddha could see that this passenger was intent on killing everyone on the ship. The pure Buddha Mind produces only pure intent, so, with compassion as his only motivation, he slayed the passenger. His compassion toward the other passengers is clear as he saved them from certain death, but perhaps even more grand is the supreme compassion he bestowed upon the passenger he killed. For if Buddha had not done so, the killer would have taken on huge amounts of negative karma that would have resulted in enormous suffering over a very long time. Instead, knowing that he was far more able to mitigate the consequences of his own non-virtuous actions than the would-be killer, Buddha took on the karma that would have befallen his shipmate.
In Christianity, St. Augustine promulgated a just war doctrine, but his words bring to mind Krishna’s criteria that one must meet before taking up arms: “We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.” The BBC, in a piece on the ethics of war, wrote that Augustine “stated that Christians did not have the right to defend themselves from violence; however, they could use violence if it was necessary to defend the innocent against evil.”
It would seem that at least three of the world’s great spiritual traditions suggest that a country’s choice to take up fighting and killing is rarely, if ever, justified—even less so for launching a full-scale war—and that the requirements for individuals to join the prosecution of such wars is even more demanding. Thus, we must ask ourselves: What better and more productive ways might there be to render “service to country”? Can anyone doubt that if the Peace Corps were funded at the level of the Pentagon that the world would be a much better, much safer place? ❧
Publisher of Natural Awakenings Atlanta since 2017, Paul Chen’s professional background includes strategic planning, marketing management and qualitative research. He practices Mahayana Buddhism and kriya yoga. Contact him at [email protected].
The conversation between Krishna and Arjuna concludes with the determination that some wars are just and that one is obligated to fight them. However, there is a Himalayan caveat. Krishna tells Arjuna:
When you have made pleasure and pain
the same–also gain and loss, and victory and defeat,
then join yourself to battle;
and in this way, you will not cause harm.
In an essay, political theorist Sreejith Sugunan, Ph.D., writes:
According to Krishna, Arjuna should partake in war when his conduct in the battlefield is devoid of ‘passion and hatred’ and instead exhibits a sense of ‘restraint’ as it is only ‘the one who thus restrains the self, and who governs the self, attains peace.’ Seen from this perspective, the Gita’s message on the combatant’s disposition during war is more fundamental to the text than all the justifications it provides for waging war. This is because, as Krishna suggests, one who does not embody the spirit of peace, restraint and calmness in the midst of war is unworthy of being called a warrior and can only cause ‘harm…’
If such were the requirements of all who fight, there would be, practically speaking, no fights—after all, how many of us are that spiritually advanced? And if we were, wouldn’t we find other ways to solve differences?
The other tradition that I have a fair amount of familiarity with is Buddhism, and I have not found anything in Buddhist scripture that justifies war; the dictum to do no harm is absolute.
There is, however, a story of the Buddha when he was not yet fully enlightened, killing a fellow passenger on a ship. With clairvoyance, the Buddha could see that this passenger was intent on killing everyone on the ship. The pure Buddha Mind produces only pure intent, so, with compassion as his only motivation, he slayed the passenger. His compassion toward the other passengers is clear as he saved them from certain death, but perhaps even more grand is the supreme compassion he bestowed upon the passenger he killed. For if Buddha had not done so, the killer would have taken on huge amounts of negative karma that would have resulted in enormous suffering over a very long time. Instead, knowing that he was far more able to mitigate the consequences of his own non-virtuous actions than the would-be killer, Buddha took on the karma that would have befallen his shipmate.
In Christianity, St. Augustine promulgated a just war doctrine, but his words bring to mind Krishna’s criteria that one must meet before taking up arms: “We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace.” The BBC, in a piece on the ethics of war, wrote that Augustine “stated that Christians did not have the right to defend themselves from violence; however, they could use violence if it was necessary to defend the innocent against evil.”
It would seem that at least three of the world’s great spiritual traditions suggest that a country’s choice to take up fighting and killing is rarely, if ever, justified—even less so for launching a full-scale war—and that the requirements for individuals to join the prosecution of such wars is even more demanding. Thus, we must ask ourselves: What better and more productive ways might there be to render “service to country”? Can anyone doubt that if the Peace Corps were funded at the level of the Pentagon that the world would be a much better, much safer place? ❧
