Here is a very refreshing message for the terrified crushed Hindu and SIKH "EUNUCHS" living in PARTITIONED India (BROKEN BHARAT) with NONE daring to say, "Why do we have PAKISTAN ON OUR LEFT AND BOGUSDESH ON OUR RIGHT?" OR "WHAT THE HELL ARE THE MOHAMMEDANS DOING IN PARTITIONED INDIA?" The Hindu nation ought to MILITARISE themselves FAST, and bring back GRURU GOBIND SINGH JI and put him in the CONSTITUTION of BHARAT. Smash the secular shackles that are meant only for the Hindus in PARTITIONED India.
Serve notice on the likes of SONIA KHAN, "QUIT INDIA, OR EMBRACE THE SIKH FAITH. WE ARE NOT MEANT TO BE COOLIES OF ITALY."
......................THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
I'm a Buddhist, but Not A Pacifist in War on Terror
....................By WOODY HOCHSWENDER
The events of last September have antiwar activists, Buddhists, and assorted doctrinaire lovers of peace in a bit of a twist. Here was an unprovoked warlike act, carried out with chilling premeditation, against innocent civilians, with a tremendous loss of life. Against such a quintessential evil, how could one not strike back?
In this connection, the New York Times recently reported that Buddhism, a religion known for its respect for the sanctity of life, had become markedly less popular since last September. As evidence, the article cited a decline in attendance at speeches by the Dalai Lama. It was suggested that Buddhism, with its implicit pacifism, somehow did not suit the circumstances of the moment.
As a practicing Buddhist for more than 26 years, I believe this view is shallow and erroneous, and that the cause of world peace is flourishing brilliantly, right now, as we speak. The 13th-century Japanese monk and reformer Nichiren, the founder of the Buddhist school I follow, once wrote: "When great evil occurs, great good will follow."
The events of September were shattering, but they also unleashed a tremendous outpouring of courage and compassion -- at Ground Zero itself, in the minutes and hours after the attacks, and around the world in the months that have followed. The response of police, firefighters, and ordinary civilians was nothing less than astonishing. The terrorists, far from piercing the heart of our civilization, somehow tapped into a wellspring of bravery, selflessness, and concern for others that many had forgotten even existed.
This accords exactly with the teaching of Buddhism. The words Buddhism and Buddha, aside from their religious connotations, are also ancient terms used to describe universal human qualities, particularly courage and compassion (and wisdom, of course). To many, the selfless acts of rescue workers in the wake of the attacks have attained a striking, almost mythic significance. Their bravery and compassion seemed virtually inexhaustible.
This is an important point. In Buddhism we call this "infinite compassion," a quality we seldom see or experience in normal, everyday life, but which is always there, lying dormant, beneath the surface, like a rosebush in winter. And this is also one of the more concise descriptions of what a Buddha is: a being of infinite compassion. Amid the tears and tragedy, astounding numbers of people have manifested this Buddha nature, or whatever you wish to call it, within their own lives.
Which brings us back to the question: What about striking back? The notion that Buddhism entails a sort of absolute pacifism is a difficult one. I think it is grounded in the popular Western view that all Buddhists are monks, that is, people who have retreated from society in order to create some sort of inner, meditative perfect world. But Buddhism is not monolithic; not all Buddhists think alike. Those from a strong monastic tradition, like Tibetan Buddhism, whose spiritual leader, the Dalai Lama, has come to be associated in the media with American Buddhism, do often adhere to a kind of absolute pacifism that is difficult for the average person to live by.
That is the kind of pacifism that forswears any type of violence under any circumstances. For example, in the nation of Bhutan, a Buddhist theocracy in the Himalayas, when construction workers begin excavating a building site they first painstakingly remove all the earthworms in the soil they are about to disturb. Such a reverence for life is rather extreme, to say the least, and we can safely presume that among the peace advocates and demonstrators today there are people who occasionally swat a fly or smash a mosquito.
While it is true that Buddhism is a philosophy closely associated with pacifism -- and a constant regard for the preciousness of life is certainly at the core of its teachings -- it is also an eminently logical religion. Buddhism is reason.
So what is a reasonable person to do? Nothing? Most of the peace activists I know subscribe to a belief roughly similar to Mohandas Gandhi's "passive resistance," that is, substituting some form of nonviolent mass protest, combined with respect and understanding for the enemy, as an alternative to war. But Gandhi (who was a Hindu) insisted that his method of resistance -- which he termed satyagraha, from two Sanskrit words meaning "holding firmly to the truth" -- should only be used if it held out some prospect of being effective. There were cases in which satyagraha would be futile, Gandhi said, but resistance to evil was obligatory in all cases.
Passive resistance isn't going to work with the Islamic terrorist network. Terrorists actually depend to some extent on passive resistance, just as they probably had a good idea beforehand of what the behavior of the passengers and crew on the flights that crashed into the World Trade Center and Pentagon would be.
Absolute pacifism barely exists in the real world. None of the antiwar folk that I know object to the idea of a police force in their communities (although some are critical of police procedures). If there were a hostage situation in their local school, and a maniac were brutally killing teachers and pupils one by one, very few so-called pacifists would say the police should not use force. And if police sharpshooters were to draw a bead on the murderer, who was about to kill another innocent child, few would advocate that the police hold their fire.
Frankly speaking -- and I speak for no one but myself -- if you put a rifle in my hands and somehow got Osama bin Laden into the crosshairs, I, as a Buddhist, would endeavor to place the bullet right between his eyes.
(COMMENT BY A JAIN, ONE OF THE NON VIOLENT HINDU SECTS WHO WERE WIPED OUT IN KARACHI, LAHORE, QUETTA, PESHAWAR, DHAKA AND CHITTAGONG IN 1947, and WHO IS STILL BREATHING IN BROKEN BHARAT:
"IF YOU PUT A RIFLE IN MY HANDS AND SOMEHOW GOT NEHRU, GANDHI AND JINN INTO THE CROSSHAIRS, I, AS A JAINI, WOULD ENDEAVOUR TO PLACE THE BULLETS RIGHT BETWEEN THEIR EYES.")
Mr. Hochswender, a former reporter for the New York Times and columnist for Harper's Bazaar, is co-author of "The Buddha in Your Mirror" (Middleway, 2001). - -