Arth Of War

03-09-2005, 11:26 PM

QUOTEPS: This Dharamyuddha - reminds me of Asterix and Obelix in Brittan. Where the Brits decide to drink tea - in the middle of a war at 3 PM - while the Gauls are wondering who's going to be fighting the Romans. <!--emo&

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/rolleyes.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='rolleyes.gif' /> 
Have the complete series <!--emo& Big Grin

--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' />, Goscinny credits Cesar's victories to this quaint custom.

Back home, I wondered about fight between Ghatotkacha and Karna which began at night. Didn't the rules of the Kureskshetra war forbade battle between sun-down and sunrise?
Ghatotkacha's death

**acharya** · 03-09-2005, 11:42 PM

India: The Home of Gunpowder and Firearms â By G R Josyer
(source: Diamonds ; Mechanisms ; Weapons of war ; Yoga sutras - By G.R. Josyer).

In every inquiry which is conducted with the object of proving that a certain invention has been made in any particular country, it is of the utmost importance to show that so far as the necessary constituents of the object invented are concerned, all these could be found in the country credited with such invention.

The ordinary components of gunpowder are saltpeter, sulphur, and charcoal.

1. It is now generally admitted that the nitrum which occurs in the writings of the ancients was not saltpeter, but natron, i.e. sodium carbonate; the latter word is nowhere extant in Greek or Roman literature, though the words nitrum and natron are no doubt in their origin identical.

The word neter occurs twice in the Bible. It is described as an alkali, which was used as soap: âFor though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much sope, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord God.â (Jerem. Ii. 22); and âAs he that taketh away a garment in cold weather, and as vinegar upon nitre, so is he that singeth songs to an heavy heart.â (Proverb xv. 22).

Herodotus mentions nitrium as litron in his description of the embalming of dead bodies as practiced in Egypt. Pliny repeatedly speaks of nitrum, and Galen records that it was burnt to strengthen its qualities. This would have had no effect if applied to saltpeter. There is no doubt that, had the ancients known saltpeter, its oxidizing properties would soon have been discovered by them, which is the most important step towards the invention of gunpowder.

The word natron was introduced into Europe from the East by some European scholars who had been traveling there about the middle of the sixteenth century, and who had thus become acquainted with this salt; and though the word natron was originally used there for denoting saltpeter, its other form nitrum has been since assigned it; however, as we have seen, the nitrum of the ancients is quite different from our nitre, which is saltpeter (potassium nitrate).

Native saltpeter, i.e. saltpeter produced by entirely natural processes is very scarce, so much so that the inventor of nickel, Freiherr Axel friedrich von Cronstedt (1722-65) was unacquainted with it. It is found especially in India, Egypt, and in some parts of America. Since the introduction of gunpowder in European warfare saltpeter has been manufactured wherever native saltpeter could not be obtained from the difference on walls (sal murale) and other sources; this exudation, together with all the other artificial modes of producing saltpeter, became a perquisite of the sovereign, and this saltpeter regale grew in time into as obnoxious a burden to the people as the hunting regale. The saltpeter regale is first mentioned as having been exercised in 1419 by Gunther, Archbishop of Magdeburg.

The little knowledge possessed by the ancients of chemical science, their utter ignorance of chemical analysis, accounts for their not improving, or rather for their not being able to improve the materials at their disposal and discovering the natural qualities of the different alkalis in their possession.

Throughout India saltpeter is found, and the Hindus are well acquainted with all its properties; it is even commonly prescribed as medicine. India was famous for the exportation of saltpeter, and is still so. The Dutch, when in India, traded especially in this article.

In Bengal, it is gathered in large masses wherever it efforeces on the soil, more particularly after the rainy season. In the âSukranitiâ saltpeter is called suvarcilavana, well shinning salt. The Dhanvanatri â nighantu describes saltpeter as a tonic, as a sonchal salt; it is also called tilakam (black), krsnalavanam and kalalavanam. It is light, shiny, very hot in digestion, and acid. It is good for indigestion, acute stomach ache, and constipation. It is a common medical prescription.

2. Sulpher, the second ingredient of gunpowder, is also found in India, especially in Scind; it is, and was, largely imported into India from the East. It is well known and received its name from its smell, being called gandha or gandhaka smell, or in this case as it has not a good smell, rather from its stench. Its quality differs with its color, according as it is white, red, yellow, or bluish. Though sulphur is a very important part of gunpowder, gunpowder is in some parts in India even prepared without it. Sulphur was always in great demand in India, and in medicine it is often made use of.

3. Charcoal is the third component of gunpowder. Its constitution varies necessarily with the plants which in the different countries are used in its manufacture. In Prussia the coal of the alder, limetree, poplar, elder, willow, hemp, and hazel is used for powder. The charcoal of willow trees is especially esteemed on account of its excellent qualities. In the Sukraniti the arka (Calatropis gigantean), the snuhi, snuhi or snuh (Euphorbia neriifolia), and the Rasona (Allium saticum) are given as the plants whose charcoal is best fitted for gunpowder.

(a) The arka, gigantic swallow wort, is a common bush growing in great quantities all over the country. It has a very good fiber, and is regarded by the natives as possessing most powerful and useful qualities. If the arka is used with discretion when iron is being forged, it contributes greatly to the excellence of the Indian steel. It is applied against epilepsy, paralysis, dropsy, etc. Its milky juice is smeared on wounds. It is a common sight in India to see suffering people applying it. The root is also used against syphilis. Its charcoal is very light and much used for pyrotechnical preparations, and its qualities in this respect are so well known that every school boy is acquainted with them and prepares his own powder and mixture from this plant. Its name in Tamil is erukku, in Malayalam eruka, in Telugu jilledu, in Bengali akund, and Hindustani mudar or ark.

(b) The snuhi, snuh, (triangular spurge, kalli in Malayalm pasan kalli in Tamil, bontajammudu in Telugu, narashy, seyard in Hindi and narsy in Bengali) grows like the arka in waste places all over the Indian Peninsula. The qualities of this plant for pyrotechnic displays are as well known as those of the Calatropis gigantean. Dried sticks of this plant are scarce. It is widely used as a medicinal plant, externally against rheutmatism, and internally as a purgative; it is given to children against worms.

Â© The rasona is a kind of garlic; the Marathi equivalent is lasuan. Its botanical name is Allium sativum.

The prescription for making gunpowder is, according to the Sukraniti, as follows:

Mix 5 parts of saltpeter with 1 part of sulphur and 1 part of charcoal. The charcoal is to be prepared from the arka snuhi, and other similar plants in such a manner that during the process the plants are so covered that the smoke cannot escape. The charcoal thus obtained must be cleaned, reduced to powder, and the powder of the different charcoals is then to be mixed. After this has been done, the juice of the arka, snuhi, and rasona must be poured over the powder which is to be thoroughly mixed with this juice. This mixture is to be exposed and dried in the sun. It is then finally ground like sugar, and the whole mixture thus obtained is gunpowder!

The proportion of saltpeter varies, as some take 4 or 6 parts instead of 5, but the quantities of sulphur and charcoal remain unaltered. These two are the usual recipes. Nevertheless the mixture is often changed when the gunpowder is to be of a particular color or if it has to serve a special purpose. The three principal ingredients are mixed in different proportion, and realgar, orpiment, graphite, vermilion, the powder of magnetic iron oxide, camphor, lac, indigo, and pinegum, are added to the compound according as they are required.

It seems peculiar that gun-powder should not be mentioned in some Sanskrit works, but it is most probable that the very common occurrence of gunpowder interfered with its being regarded as something extraordinary and worth mentioning. The actual mode of preparing the different sorts of gunpowder may, on the other hand, have been kept a secret in certain classes. Explosive powder either used for rejoicings as fireworks for discharging projectiles was known in India from the earliest period, and its preparation was never forgotten.

In an extract taken from the Mujmalut Tawarikh â which was translated in 1126 from the Arabic, into which language it had been translated a century previously from a Sanskrit original â we read:

âthat the Brahmins counseled Hal to have an elephant made of clay and to place it in the van of his army, and that when the army of the king of Kashmir drew nigh, the elephant exploded, and the flames destroyed a great portion of the invading force. Here we have not only the simple act of explosion, but something very much like a fuse, to enable the explosion to occur at a particular time.â

Vaisampanyana mentions among the things to be used against enemies smoke-balls, which contained most likely gunpowder, and which are according to the explanation proposed by his commentator made of gunpowder.

The following stanza, which is taken from the Rajalakshminarayana-hrdaya, a part of the Atharvanarahasya, is no doubt a clear proof of the fact that the Hindus were familiar with gun powder at a very remote period:

âAs the fire prepared by the combination of charcoal, sulphur, and other material depends upon the skill of its maker so also may thou, O! representative of knowledge (Lakshmi), by the application of my faith manifest thyself quickly according to my wishes.â

The Sanskrit word for gunpowder is agnichurna, firepowder, which is occasionally shortened to churna. The Dravidian languages have all and the same word for medicine and gunpowder; in Tamil marundu, in Telugu mandu, in Kanarese maddu, and in Malayalam, maruna. Occasionally the word gun (tupaki) is prefixed to remove any doubt as to what powder is meant. In Malayalam, the word vedi, which means explosion, is prefixed. The Chinese crackers are called by the Tamilians Sini vedi â Chinese crackers â to distinguish them from the Indian crackers. The word marunda is most probably derived from the Sanskrit past participle mardita, pounded, in the sense of different ingredients being pounded together, as a medicine powder. The meaning of gunpowder is then in a special sense derived from the general expression. The Dravidian equivalent of churna is Sunnambu in Tamil, Sunnamu in Telugu, chalk.

Two kinds of firearms are described in the Sukraniti, one is of small size and the other is of large size. The former is five spans long, has at the breech a perpendicular and horizontal hole, and sights at the breech and muzzle end of the tube. Powder is placed in the vent, near which is a stone, which ignites the powder by being struck. Many dispense with this flint. The breach is ell wooded and a ramrod compresses the powder and ball before the discharge. This small musket is carried by foot-soldier.

A big gun has no wood at its breech; moves on a wedge in order to be directed towards the object to be shot at, and it is drawn on cars.

The distance which the shot travels depends upon the strength of the material from which the gun is made, upon the circumference of the hole, and the gunâs compactness and size. The ball is either of iron or lead or of any other material. Some big balls have smaller ones inside. The gun itself is generally of iron, occasionally also, as we have seen in the Nitiprakasika, of stone. The gun is to be kept clean and must be always covered.

The term used for gun nalika (nalika) is derived from the word nala a reed, a hollow tube, which is another form for its synonyms nada, nadi, or nadi; in the same way nalilka corresponds to nadika. Considering that the guns were in ancient times made out of bamboo, and that some bamboo guns are still used in Burma, the name appears both appropriate and original. That the idea of bamboo being the original material for guns was still in the mind of the author of the Sukraniti seems to be indicated by his calling the outside of the stock of a gun bark (tvak).

In all European Sanskrit dictionaries the word nalika has been rendered as stalk, tube; arrow, dart, etc, but the third significance is not given; though it is one which is known to every learned Pundit. At the outset every body can easily see that the meaning of arrow and of gun can be rightly applied to a reed; the arrow is a reed which is discharged as a missile, and a gun is a reed out of which missiles are shot.

In the sholkas 21 and 24 of our extract of the Sukraniti we read that a king should keep on a big war chariot two large guns, and in sholkas 31, we are further informed that his beautiful iron chariot should be furnished with a couch, a swing, and among other things also with sundry arms and projectile weapons.

This tallies with an account concerning the fortifications of Manipura, as described in J. Talboys Wheelerâs History of India: âOn the outside of the city were a number of wagons bound together with chains, and in them were placed fireworks and fire weapons, and men were always stationed there to keep guard.â The above mentioned statement appears to rest on good authority, as the Sukraniti declares, that the wall of a fortress âis always guarded by sentinels, is provided with guns and other projectile weapons, and has many strong bastions with proper loop-holes and ditches.â

In the second stavaka of the Bharatacampu composed by Anantabhatta, some three hundred years ago, we find the following simile: âThe fierce warrior who killed his enemy with heaps of leaden balls, which emerge quickly from the gun lighted by a wick, is like the rainy season which killed the summer with hailstones which descend quickly from the gun lighted by a wick, is like the rainy season which killed the summer with hailstones which descend quickly from the rows of black clouds lighted by lightning.â

While the verse just quoted from the Bharatacampu reveals an intimate knowledge of firearms, yet its apparent recentness may be alleged as an objection against its being produced as an authority for the existence of firearms in India at an early period. To obviate such further objections as sloka will now be given from an undoubted early poem, the Naisadha which describes the adventures of Nala and is generally ascribed to one Sriharsa, a Brahman, who must not be confounded with Sriharsa, the King of Karmira. It s date goes back to the twelfth century. i.e., before the introduction of firearms into Europe. The verses in question run as follows: âThe two boys of Rati and Manmatha (Cupid) are certainly like her (Damayantiâs) two elevated nostrils.â To leave no doubt that guns are meant here, the learned commentator Mallinaatha explains nalika as the Dronicaapa, the projectile weapon from which the Dronicapaastra, a dart or a ball is discharged, an expression, we have already noticed in Vaisampayanaâs Nitiprakaasika.

On the other hand it is doubtful whether the asani missile, which was given by Indra to Arjuna and which made when discharged a noise like a thunder-cloud, alludes to firearms, as Von Bohlen explains it.

In the first book of the Sukraniti we find it stated that the royal watchmen, who are on duty about the palace, carry firearms. The Kamandakiya, acknowledged as one of the earliest works on Nitisastra, says that âconfidential agents keepingnear the king should rouse him by stratagems, gunfiring and other means, when he is indulging in drinking bouts, among women, or in gambling. It seems from this statement that the practice of firing guns as signals was in vogue among the ancient Hindus, if we can trust the evidence of one of the older Sanskrit writings.

In the preface to a Code of Gentoo Laws or Ordinations of the Pundits: From a Persian translation, made from the original, written in the Shanscrit language, occurs the following passage: âIt will no doubt strike the reader with wonder to find a prohibition of firearms in records of such unfathomable antiquity; and he will probably from hence renew the suspicion which has long been deemed absurd, that Alexander the Great did absolutely meet with some weapons of that kind in India as a passage in Quintus Curtius seems to ascertain. Gunpowder has been known in China, as well as in Hindustan, far beyond all periods of investigation.

The word firearms is literally Sanskrit Agnee-aster, a weapon of fire; they describe the first species of it to have been a kind of dart or arrow tip with fire and discharged upon the enemy from a bamboo. Among several extraordinary properties of this weapon, one was, that after it had taken its flight, it divided into several separate darts or streams of flame, each of which took effect, and which, when once kindled, could not be extinguished; but this kind of agnee-aster is now lost. Canon in the Sanskrit idiom is called Shata-ghnee, or the weapon that kills a hundred men at once, from (Shata) a hundred, and (ghnee) to kill; and the Purana Shastras, or Histories, ascribe the invention of these destructive engines to Vishwakarma, the architect who is related to have forged all the weapons for the war which was maintained in the Suttva yuga between Devta and Asur for the space of one hundred years.â

And again we read in page 53 of the same works: âThe Magistrate shall not make war with any deceitful machine, or with poisoned weapons, or with cannon and guns, or any other kind of firearms; nor shall he slay in war a person born an enunch, or any person who putting his hands together supplicates for quarter, nor any person who has no means of escape, nor any man who is sitting down, nor any person who says. â I am become of your party,â nor any man who is asleep, nor any man who is naked, nor any person who is not employed in war, nor any person who is come to see the battle, nor any person who is fighting with another, nor any person whose weapons are broken, nor any person who is wounded, nor any person who is fearful of the fight, nor any person who runs away from the battle.â

As these passages are so often quoted without their origin being stated, it may at once be remarked that the prescription about the use of arms and the treatment of persons is a free translation from the seventh book of the Institutes of Manu, vv. 90-93.

The meaning of arrow (sara, baaba) is much wider than is generally supposed. It was, and became more so in time, the usual term for any missile, whether it had the shape of an arrow or not; in the same way as the word Dhanu signified, in course of time every missile or weapon, so that the Dhanurveda, the knowledge of the bow comprised the knowledge of all other arms.

For instance, the shot out of a gun is called a sara, as we have seen when describing the nalika, but it may be a ball and not an arrow. A rocket is generally styled a baana (compared the Hindi term bana rocket); and banapattrai in Tamil, or banapatra in Telugu denotes a gunpowder or firework factory.

A comparison of the context of the Manavadharmasastra with those of the Sukraniti and the Nitiprakasika make it clear that Manu alludes to firearms. The Sukraniti runs in our extract as follows:

A king, bearing in mind the six principles of policy and the designs of his enemy and his own, should always kill his enemy by fair and unfair fighting.

When the king gladdens his soldiers on the march with a quarter extra pay, protects his body in the battle with a shield and armor;

Has induced his soldiers to drink up to a state of intoxication, the strengthener of bravery, the soldier kills his enemy with a gun, sword, and other weapons.

A charioteer should be assailed by a lance, a person on a carriage or elephant by an arrow, an elephant by an elephant, a horse by a horse.

***

G R Josyer is also the author of Vymaanika Shaastra Aeronautics of Maharshi Bharadwaaja - By G. R. Josyer International Academy of Sanskrit Research 1973). For more refer to chapter on Vimanas

(source: Diamonds ; Mechanisms ; Weapons of war ; Yoga sutras - By G.R. Josyer).

**acharya** · 03-09-2005, 11:50 PM

QUOTE(rajesh_g @ Mar 9 2005, 05:50 AM) <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Viren @ Mar 9 2005, 09:11 AM) Thanks for the effort Anand K. A great topic for discussion.

From a little I've read about Arthashshastra or Art of War (or say Prince), there's very little reference of 'just war' or 'moral war'....why is that? 
This is an important question.. Methinks (from my very little knowledge) that this concept of "just war" was Augustine's concoction. Xtianity had employed too many rhetorical tricks and were running into a good dose of reality and needed a theological basis to now go and wage wars. But they were now in a fix -> they had to reconcile their previous rhetorics with realities and hence augustine came up with this "just war" concept.

Perhaps Buddhism also faced a similar problem ? And hence the mahayana split ? Can experts comment on how mahayana justifies violence ? </div>

Arthashastra clearly says that to preserve the state all methods including ruthless methods and trickery has to be used. There is no morality when preserving the state since sustainable civilization is the ulitmate goal.

03-10-2005, 12:28 AM

Can the philosophies or beliefs (used loosely) about war be categorized into three, then?

1. Holy War: Belief that war is an instrument of divine power and destroy those opposing divine will with a missionary zeal. Individuals, groups, nations must apply decisions about violence to coerce or wipe out *Others* in the process. [Augustine/Aquinas, Muhammad & Marx/Lenin]

2. Realism: Belief that war is a matter of power, security, self-interest, and in the larger interest of the subjects, (hence a necessity) largely making moral analysis irrelevant. Political, Social and Economical factors considered in managing warfare.
[Vishnugupta]

3. Pacifism: Belief that all war is intrinsically evil and can never be justified. [Gandhi]

Sunder · 03-10-2005, 12:43 AM

QUOTE(acharya @ Mar 9 2005, 11:50 PM) Arthashastra clearly says that to preserve the state all methods including ruthless methods and trickery has to be used. There is no morality when preserving the state since sustainable civilization is the ulitmate goal. 
Both Sun Wu, and Chanakya make it crystal clear that the CAUSE of war has to ALWAYS be just. The Methodologies of war need not be just in the 'conventional sense'. The rules of engagement in a war, changes with the changing parameters. Thus, to impose Civilian interpretation of fair-and-just on to the battle field is not appropriate.

The quicker a war ends, the better for both the warring kings. If war, on the other hand is waged for unjust reasons, and without the support of the people, in the long run, it leads to the ruin of the emperor (this is mentioned in Bing Fa and the ArthaShastra.)

03-10-2005, 03:09 AM

QUOTE(Sunder @ Mar 10 2005, 12:43 AM) The Methodologies of war need not be just in the 'conventional sense'. The rules of engagement in a war, changes with the changing parameters. Thus, to impose Civilian interpretation of fair-and-just on to the battle field is not appropriate. 
What I have posted on BRF directly relates to what Sunder has so eloquently expresses above.

QUOTE(AJay on BRF)The MB war itself was inevitable as is the war between India and Pakistan. My premise is that Pakis are going to impose a war on India sooner than later, which presumably is why this thread exists as well.

Since I am simple person, my views are admittedly simple (even simplistic). This is how I see the relevance of MB without all of the high faluting moral, philosophical and theological questions of war and the conduct of state craft.

Krishna was the proto-Chanakya who won the war without fighting in it.

1. A mercenary army is of no consequence - Krishna's Yadu sena fights on the side of Kauravas. "Mercenary" can be interpreted as an army of conscripts or a non-voluntary (drafted?) army.

2. Try to infiltrate the highest levels of your opponent's leadership with advisors who are going to act on your behalf at the crucial moments of the war - Salya served this purpose by "Salya sarathya" of Karna. During the critical moments, Karna's confidence is sapped by his charioteer. Vidura is the other.

3. Get powerful people on your side who are percieved to be impartial but would act in your favor at the critcal moment - Krishna, who maintians an appearance of impartiality, for all practical puposes is a Pandava pakshapati

4. You cannot fight two wars at the same time - When Dharmaraja is engaged in the gambling match with Duryodhana, Krishna is defending Dwaraka. All he coudl do to help Pandavas is some platitudes.

5. Eliminate powerful potential allies of your enemy as soon as you can on any pretext possible - Jarasandha vadha, Sishupala Vadha

6. Try to get your enemy to sacrifice his most powerful weapons against your expendable assets - Ghatotkacha is instigated into an all-or-nothing battle with Kauravas in which to save the day Karna had to use Vajra on him rather than on Arjuna.

7. Sap your enemy's confidence while building up your own fighters' morale - Karna's education is incomplete with Parasurama who in all probability is a friend of Krishna, which is symbolically represented as both of them being different avataras of Vishnu.

On the other hand, when Arjuna loses confidence, he is propped up and in fact he is told that "Bhisma, Karna and Jaydratha are already killed by me" by Krishna. It is probable that Arjuna fears these three most and has been told in an elliptic fashion that he has nothing to fear as their deths are already planned and would come to pass.

8. Do not force a war on your enemy unless you have the necessary resources to trounce the said enemy - This is the reason why Dharmaraja does not stop gambling. Had he stopped, then Duryodhana would have decalred war on Dharmaraja on the pretext of his not following Kshatriya Dharma (by refusing to gamble). Since Pandavas' most powerfu l ally Krishna is enaged in a fight of his own survival, there was no way Pandavas would have won that one.

9. Strategic retreat and regrouping is better than a certian defeat - Pandvas agree to lie low for 13 years.

etc.

Gudakesa

I know the story of Satyaki and Bhurisravas. Bhurisravas - an Maharatha - is injured and faints on the battle field, and even after Satyaki - who is a Mahartha himself - is counseled against such an ignoble act, he goes and beheads the fainted Bhurisravas. While you view it as moral question, I view it as the prepearation to kill Bhurisravas' brother (or it is his son - I forget). This act of Satyaki provokes Bhurisravas' brother to come fight with Satyaki who in turn kill sht ebrother as well.

While I am not a fighting man, I can see how one can get caught up in the heat of the moment. If I am placed a situation of kill or get killed, I can tell you one thing - questions of morality would not be at the top of my mind. I would be concentrating on my survival. Any case, that is theoretical onlee.

03-10-2005, 04:53 AM

Guroos,

1. I would not refer much to Sun Tzu's concepts primarily because I cant read the originals and just the translations. Problem with translations is that its hard to understand what he was really trying to say and what were the inherent assumptions. For example would Dharma Yudha xlate well as holy war ? Would Dharma Yudha translate as a just war ? To me (intuitively speaking) it doesnt register very well. You guys know way more then I ever will when it comes to scriptures so this is just an intuitive ramble.

2. Small clarification - when i said augustine cooked up just war concept i didnt mean that everybody else was waging unjust wars. Can we not have "not unjust" wars ? Again intuitively speaking methinks augustine (& others) were probably forced to explain or derive the concepts of "just war" since they were placed in precarious position of pontificating first and then facing realities later.

3. Methinks Jainism and Buddhism would probably be better for us to look at since we can probably understand them better then xtianity or Sun Tzu as these are bhailog. What would be interesting is to look at how buddhism transformed from this hardcore pacifism into Samurai cultures ? Were there any Jaina kingdoms that had to deal with realities or its popularity remained with traders who never had to deal with realities of statecraft and day-to-day survival ? How is the concept of rakshak devas explained ? How did jainas feel about funding the wars that hindu kings waged ?

4. MKG would have been interesting if he had lived to see 25 more years. Is it possible that he employed his rhetorics as a practical ploy to expose the brit hypocrisy (white mans burden) ? He probably knew he had to open that particular front and play the white mans game against him as he was forced to live within their framework anyway ? After independence however things would have been different ?

Sorry for ramblings..

03-10-2005, 05:20 AM

I am still intrigued by the coalition cobbled together by the two opposing camps in MB. My questions are as follows:

- It is said that 'Kshatriya' dharma is to wage war. Does it also say that 'Kshatriya' dharma is to wage a righteous or just war? If yes, how do you determine which is the just war and which is the just/righteous party? If no, then why do we want to discuss the 'justness' of Pandavas in MB? Because then only the victor can claim 'justness' of his cause - after having vanquished the enemy.
- If the answer to the above question is 'yes' then how did the Kaurav camp manage to get a huge coalition on its side - on what basis of morality and justness?

It could be that the participants were bound by a common interest and/or a bond of friendship/kinship or were beholden to either party and that is why they fought with that party. There wasn't much of justness or riteousness to start with but was later added to it after Pandav victory.

Sunder · (This post was last modified: 03-10-2005, 06:31 AM by Sunder.)

QUOTEDoes it also say that 'Kshatriya' dharma is to wage a righteous or just war? If yes, how do you determine which is the just war and which is the just/righteous party? 
Arthashastra talks about KootaYuddha (covert warfare), use of mercenaries, use of assasins, and also arson. Kshatriyas are taught to fight FOR justice, and not by just means.

If suppose, a Kshatriya had a trustworthy protectorate and suddenly wants to usurp his kingdom, squishing his army or breaking treaties without warning, or invading friendly territories etc are unjust wars. On the other hand, finding the MOST EFFECTIVE way to thwart enemies by forging alliances, eliminating a wicked king, expanding territories thru peaceful means (rajasuya) or thru war is still fine.

The utmost priority of a Kshatriya was to fecilitate Dharma in his kingdom, and to make sure that Law and Order was maintained.

Sri Bhagavaan, in the Bhagavad Geetha, mentions seven qualities that are in-born to a Kshatriya. Shouryam (Heroism), Tejas (Brilliance), Druthi (Ability to remember lotsa things, or be determined), Dhaakshyam (Resourceful?), Yuddhe Apalayanam (not running away from confrontation), Dhaanam (Generosity), Ishwara Bhaavam (Being Majestic; High power Leadership etc).

Defending any war that's forced on you is just. Protecting your subjects is the foremost reason to go to war. Pre-emptive war is Dharma Yuddham.

BTW, Dharma Yuddham is not a war fought by Just MEANS, but a war fought to attain Just ENDS. If Dharma prevails at the end, it is Dharma Yuddham.

QUOTEhow did the Kaurav camp manage to get a huge coalition on its side - on what basis of morality and justness? 
Kauravas (aka Dhaartharashtras) had a lead-start advantage with a standing army of Hasthinapura and Indraprastha together. They did not have to start collecting ppl from scratch. They also had enough money to get alliances. Angaraaja Karna too had done a Dhigvijaya yatra to collect some minor kings for Dhuryodhana. Also the Kauravas had negotiated with Krishna Vasudeva for his Narayana sena.

Pandavas relied on the allies like Drupadha, and his allies. They did not have much to offer except Dharma (i.e. their stance that they had the right to Indraprastha.) The battle of Kurukshetra was fought for Dharma, not thru dharma.

03-10-2005, 07:30 AM

A few comments:

While watching MahaBharath on TV, I had rooted strongly for Karna. Even though everyone knew his fate. I still rooted for him.

Now to the main point: IMVVHO, Dharma may be about right or righteousness from a state's POV but from an individual POV Dharma is different for everyone.

For example, Karna knew he was on the wrong side of Dharma, yet he chose to sta on that side. I think this is because it was his Dharma to support his friend.

Moving on, Yudh is about protecting Dharma........whether the yudh is fought justly or unjustly is not important.

Over n' out!

03-10-2005, 09:06 AM

But wasn't Karna's loyalty was first and foremost towards Duryodhana over and above everything else? What was his exact role during the game of dice and the subsequent events? Believe he was there with Duryodhana, Shaukini and Dushasana.

Added later .......(typing from C Rajagopalachari's book - pg 113 in 44th edition)
This is Karna at the dice game saying..
QUOTE O Vikarana, forgetting that ther are elders in this assembly, you lay down the law though you are but a stripling. By your ignorance and rashness yhou are injuring the very family which gave you birth, just as the flame generated by the arani destroys its source, the stick. It is an ill bird that fouls its own nest. At the very beginning when Yudhishthira as a free man, he forfeited all he posessed and that, of course, included Draupadi. Hence, Draupadi had already come into Sakuni's possession. There is nothing more to be said in the matter. Even the clothes they have are now Sakuni's property. O Duhsasana, seize the garments of the Pandavas and the robes of Draupadi and hand them over to Sakuni.

03-10-2005, 09:35 AM

Profound insights by Swami Vivekananda in his essay "East and the West".

QUOTE"Yield not to unmanliness, O son of PrithÃ¢! Ill cloth it befit thee. Cast off this mean faintheartedness and arise. O scorcher of thine enemies." (Gita, II. 3.)

"Therefore do thou arise and acquire fame. After conquering thy enemies, enjoy unrivalled dominion; verily, by Myself have they been already slain; be thou merely the instrument, O SavyasÃ¢chin (Arjuna)." (Gita, XI. 33.)

In these and similar passages in the Gita the Lord is showing the way to Dharma. Of course, work is always mixed with good and evil, and to work, one has to incur sin, more or less. But what of that? Let it be so. Is not something better than nothing? Is not insufficient food better than going without any? Is not doing work, though mixed with good and evil, better than doing nothing and passing an idle and inactive life, and being like stones? The cow never tells a lie, and the stone never steals, but, nevertheless, the cow remains a cow and the stone a stone. Man steals and man tells lies, and again it is man that becomes a god. With the prevalence of the SÃ¢ttvika essence, man becomes inactive and rests always in a state of deep DhyÃ¢na or contemplation; with the prevalence of the Rajas, he does bad as well as good works; and with the prevalence of the Tamas again, he becomes inactive and inert. Now, tell me, looking from outside, how are we to understand, whether you are in a state wherein the Sattva or the Tamas prevails? Whether we are in the state of Sattvika calmness, beyond all pleasure and pain, and past all work and activity, or whether we are in the lowest TÃ¢masika state, lifeless, passive, dull as dead matter, and doing no work, because there is no power in us to do it, and are, thus, silently and by degrees, getting rotten and corrupted within â I seriously ask you this question and demand an answer. Ask your own mind, and you shall know what the reality is. But, what need to wait for the answer? The tree is known by its fruit. The Sattva prevailing, the man is inactive, he is calm, to be sure; but that inactivity is the outcome of the centralization of great powers, that calmness is the mother of tremendous energy. That highly Sattivka man, that great soul, has no longer to work as we do with hands and feet â by his mere willing only, all his works are immediately accomplished to perfection. That man of predominating Sattva is the Brahmin, the worshipped of all. Has he to go about from door to door, begging others to worship him? The Almighty Mother of the universe writes with Her own hand, in golden letters on his forehead, "Worship ye all, this great one, this son of Mine", and the world reads and listens to it and humbly bows down its head before him in obedience. That man is really â "He who has no enemy, and is friendly and compassionate towards all, who is free from the feelings of 'me and mine', even-minded in pain and pleasure, and forbearing." (Gita, XII. 13.) And mark you, those things which you see in pusillanimous, effeminate folk who speak in a nasal tone chewing every syllable, whose voice is as thin as of one who has been starving for a week, who are like a tattered wet rag, who never protest or are moved even if kicked by anybody â those are the signs of the lowest Tamas, those are the signs of death, not of Sattva â all corruption and stench. It is because Arjuna was going to fall into the ranks of these men that the Lord is explaining matters to him so elaborately in the Gita. Is that not the fact? Listen to the very first words that came out of the mouth of the Lord, " â Yield not to unmanliness, O PÃ¢rtha! Ill, doth it befit thee!" and then later, " â Therefore do thou arise and acquire fame." Coming under the influence of the Jains, Buddhas, and others, we have joined the lines of those Tamasika people. During these last thousand years, the whole country is filling the air with the name of the Lord and is sending its prayers to Him; and the Lord is never lending His ears to them. And why should He? When even man never hears the cries of the fool, do you think God will? Now the only way out is to listen to the words of the Lord in the Gita, " â Yield not to unmanliness, O Partha!" " â Therefore do thou arise and acquire fame."

Now let us go on with our subject-matter â the East and the West.

First see the irony of it. Jesus Christ, the God of the Europeans, has taught: Have no enemy, bless them that curse you; whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also; stop all your work and be ready for the next world; the end of the world is near at hand. And our Lord in the Gita is saying: Always work with great enthusiasm, destroy your enemies and enjoy the world. But, after all, it turned out to be exactly the reverse of what Christ or Krishna implied. The Europeans never took the words of Jesus Christ seriously. Always of active habits, being possessed of a tremendous RÃ¢jasika nature, they are gathering with great enterprise and youthful ardour the comforts and luxuries of the different countries of the world and enjoying them to their hearts' content. And we are sitting in a corner, with our bag and baggage, pondering on death day and night, and singing, â Very tremulous and unsteady is the water on the lotus-leaf; so is the life of man frail and transient" â with the result that it is making our blood run cold and our flesh creep with the fear of Yama, the god of death; and Yama, too, alas, has taken us at our word, as it were â plague and all sorts of maladies have entered into our country! Who are following the teachings of the Gita? â the Europeans. And who are acting according to the will of Jesus Christ? âThe descendants of Shri Krishna! This must be well understood.

I sincerely suggest forumites read this essay - mostly the first section (the later sections about food/clothing are interesting and insightful too) since it clears up a lot of confusion about Dharma, Moksha etc.

03-10-2005, 11:58 AM

Excellent article nachiketa! Great posts from Sunder and Rajesh G!

Mudy, thanks for the note â I did get a chance to look up AS this evening â found what I was looking for regarding the different kinds of war. I could not get to your link â help!

I have to agree with the first point that Rajesh G makes, regarding translations:

dharmaâderived from the Sanskrit root dhr meaning to hold up, to carry, to bear, to sustain. Human society, for example, is sustained and upheld by the dharma performed by its members.

The word Dharma also has personal spiritual connotations, in spite of this and other meanings, we cannot translate Dharma Yudha as holy war!

Among most sexually reproducing species there are different ways in which battles are fought over territory and mates: some are to death, others are mere shadow boxing, etc. In a similar way, I wonder if this concept of Dharma Yudha and/or Prakasha Yudha or what I call âBattle till tea timeâ became the choice method of warfare among the Hindus, which reduced the whole art and the syntax of war to a symbolic ballet. These stage managed games were so rule ridden, that they are almost useless exercises when faced with a motivated and ruthless enemy.

Is this what happened with the advent of the Islamic invasions into India? I grew up with stories of Hindu kings defeating the marauders but pardoning them, only to be eventually put to death by the very looser that we defeated. My family's, grandmotherâs, version of MB for example had rules like: one could not kill a man while pissing, shitting, eating, copulating, etc. How far was this true?

I have wondered if our so called pusillanimity in the face of invasions is perhaps our misunderstanding of the external, opposed to our âBattle till tea timeâ syndrome, nature of war that the mlecchas brought to our doorstep. Perhaps this is why our kings defeated the invaders but let them have their lives back as good Kshatriayas were brought up to do. This strategy was brilliant in a "federation of states", but was a collosal failure against an external enemy. Our good Hindu Kings considered the invaders Kshatriayas as well, and did not recognize them for the malignant and retrograde forces that they wereâ¦.. We are still commiting this same blunder today!

Sunder · 03-10-2005, 02:22 PM

QUOTE(pulikeshi @ Mar 10 2005, 11:58 AM) I wonder if this concept of Dharma Yudha and/or Prakasha Yudha or what I call âBattle till tea timeâ became the choice method of warfare among the Hindus, which reduced the whole art and the syntax of war to a symbolic ballet. 
The Ritual part might well be the "Documented" part. For we know that not every strategy was documented - specially in India where we have a very strong tradition of orally passing down teachings, and memorizing highly complex concepts without using a single pen/paper. (Indian orchestra for example do not play from written down notes and definitely do not play to the tunes of a "Conductor".)

My recollection of earliest and dramatic blow-by-blow account of a large war is the Ramayana. The war is highly coherrent, and from Rama's side it has fixed and definite rules of engagement. Ravana's side has covert warfare (specially Indrajit) and sometime psycological warfare too (Indrajit cutting asunder Devi Janaki's lookalike.)

Yet, Sri Rama's army, which had inferior weapons, and the disadvantage of unfamiliar terrain - and which laid siege of Ravana's City emerged victorious - with the help of a fifth-column - Vibheeshana.

If you need to analyze Dharma Yuddha, analyze the Rama-Ravana War. It's an excellent specimen for analysis.

03-16-2005, 01:41 AM

Interesting article by Rajiv Malhotra Gita on Fighting Terrorism
QUOTEIn the Bhagavad Gita, God appears in human form as Krishna, to guide Arjuna in the fight/don't fight dilemma that Arjuna faces. What might this 18 chapter holiest of the Hindu scriptures teach us in the dilemma we now face concerning global terrorism? Krishna's advice fits neither of the two extremes that are presently dominating the media debate: At one end are the majority of Americans who promote revenge against the terrorists, as a notion of justice - an eye for an eye. At the other end is a minority of anti-war activists who want no violence, and instead advocate that the US should take the blame for having caused hatred against itself. The Gita's message rejects BOTH these. Its short-term message for this situation pertains to the ethics of war, and its long-term message calls for systemic changes required by both Islam and the West in order to harmonize humanity.

03-17-2005, 12:20 AM

Dr. David Frawley's Yoga, Ahimsa and the Recent Terrorist Attacks

03-18-2005, 04:36 AM

The Place for a Righteous War in Buddhism

http://www.buddhistinformation.com/place_f..._war_in_bud.htm

QUOTEThis paper will not attempt to come to any conclusions about the justifiability of the claims of the two contending parties. Its objective is to go back to the canonical Buddhist sources and to examine whether the normative principles of canonical Buddhism can be invoked in favour of a righteous war involving the protection of Buddhism. An attempt will be made to present as far as possible all the material relevant to the issue. When all the material is presented one might find that it is not surprising that people who profess to be Buddhists also advocate war and directly participate in war. It is not a new phenomenon but one that Buddhism implicitly recognized as a possibility even during the canonical period.

There is no doubt that the ultimate goal of Buddhism is to overcome conflict primarily at the level of individual consciousness. This is evident from the answer that the Buddha had given to a person who questioned him about the doctrine he propounded. The doctrine of the Buddha is such that one who lives in accordance with it succeeds in living in the world without coming into conflict with anyone [na kenaci loke viggayha titthati].[3] The Buddhist path of moral development is described as the noble and incomparable path of peace [anuttaram santivarapadam]. The requirements of the Buddhist path are considered to be fulfilled when one's mind attains perfect peace [santim pappuyya cetaso]. Nibbana, the utimate attainment can be described as the attainment of inner peace [ajjhanta santi].

According to Buddhism, the foremost truth about the human condition is the existence of dukkha. The term dukkha connotes all disappointments, frustrations, discontents, unhappiness as well as the unsatisfactory state of affairs characteristic of the world of mental and physical nature. The persistence of dukkha in all its different forms is dependent on the activity of unwholesome mental processes referred to in Buddhism as asava [influxes], anusaya [latent evil] and kilesa [psychological defilements]. All inner psychological conflicts as well as conflicts produced in society are traced in Buddhism to these psychological causes. All wars, according to the Buddhist view, originate in the minds of people. The behavior of the large majority of living beings is determined by the mental processes referred to in Buddhism as unskilled or unwholesome [akusala]. Conflict in society is therefore, considered in Buddhism to be endemic. The Sakkapanha Sutta draws attention to this as follows:

Devas, men, Asuras, Nagas, Gandhabbas and whatever other different kinds of communities are there, it occurs to them that they ought to live without mutual hatred, violence, enmity and malice. Yet for all they live with mutual hatred, violence and malice.[4]

The intensity of the miseries produced when conflicts arise in human society is described in the Mahadukkhakkhandha Sutta as follows:

Having taken swords and shield, having girded on bow and quiver, both sides mass for battle and arrows are hurled and knives are hurled and swords are flashing. Those who wound with arrows and wound with knives and decapitate with their swords, these suffer dying then and pains like unto dying.[5]

In several contexts including the above the Buddha explains the psychological origins of such conflict.[6] Conflict is explained in these instances as a consequence of an unenlightened response to one's sensory environment. As long as people lack an insightful understanding of the mechanical nature of the reactions to the sensory environment produced by unwholesome roots of psychological motivation conflict in society cannot be avoided. Buddhism traces conflict in society to certain instinctual responses of people such as the attraction to what is pleasant, the repulsion against what is unpleasant, the pursuit of what gives pleasure, the psychological friction against what produces displeasure, the great desire to protect one's own possessions, the irritable feeling experienced when other persons enjoy possessions that one is incapable of acquiring, competing claims on limited resources, ideological disagreements involving dogmatic clinging to one's own view and so on. The selfish pursuit of sense pleasures [kama] is considered as the root cause of conflict. Where there is sympathetic concern, compassion, sharing, charitableness and generosity conflict can be minimized. The latter attitudes, however, are not instinctive. They need to be cultivated through proper reflection and insightful understanding.

It is evident that in instances such as the above where Buddhism refers to conflicts, their source as well as their consequence is considered to be evil and undesirable. The unwholesome impulses that generate conflict as well as the unwholesome psychological states and patterns of behaviour that grow and become manifest in situations of violent conflict negate righteousness. It would, therefore, imply that there cannot be a righteous war from the Buddhist point of view.

The only instance in which Buddhist canonical sources speak of victory or conquest through righteousness is where reference is made to the political principles of a cakkavatti who conquers territory not with the force of arms but through principles of morality. The idea of a just or righteous war [dharma yuddha] involving the use of weapons of war and violence is conspicuously absent in the Buddhist canon. The Buddha countered the prevailing belief that soldiers of war who fight for a cause could, as a consequence of their rightful performance of duty, aspire to attain a heavenly rebirth if they succumb to their injuries while in combat. According to the Buddha one who fights a war does not generate wholesome thoughts but thoughts of malice and hatred, which are absolutely unwholesome.[7] Therefore, their future destiny will be a woeful one, which is in accordance with their unwholesome kamma.

The Atthakavagga of the Suttanipata speaks of conflicts, debates and disputes prevalent among people who pursued the religious life, dogmatically clinging to mutually contradictory opinions or theories on the nature of the good life. Although the context in which such disputes are mentioned did not involve any armed combat, the Buddhist analysis of the psychological conditions that determined them can be seen to be applicable to all situations in which disputes arise. The Buddha's observations on the psychological and behavioural processes that operate in situations of conflict are very relevant to instances in which people argue in favour of righteous wars. There is no doubt that in the modern civilized world, war or aggression motivated by imperialist and expansionist intentions is subjected to universal condemnation. Similarly deprivation of human rights and oppression of the weak by the strong is also widely open to moral condemnation. However, it is to be noted that attempts are made by each party that is currently engaged in war to show that violence is the only alternative available to achieve what is perceived by each as the righteous cause. The point made by the Buddha in this connection is that people are psychologically incapable of forming opinions about what is right and wrong, just and unjust, righteous and unrighteous while being immersed in their defiled psychological condition. They may express strong convictions about what is just and right, but when objectively examined they turn out to be mere rationalizations of their pre-conceived notions, desires, cravings, likes and dislikes. When the unwholesome roots of motivation are removed conflicts and disputes no longer arise. When people make decisions about what is right and wrong, just and unjust while they are still affected by the roots of evil, greed, hatred and delusion their judgments are mere rationalizations. What we may conclude from this is that Buddhism allows no place for righteous wars.

The Buddhist canonical standpoint elucidated above shows clearly that the psychology of war is antithetical to the psychology of Buddhist liberation. Liberation is ensured only by the elimination of greed, hatred and delusion. War, whatever form it takes, is produced by greed, hatred and delusion and other ramifications of these basic roots of unwholesome behaviour. This would imply that if every Buddhist pursued the Buddhist goal of liberation there should be no wars in Buddhist communities. But can we reasonably expect this to happen? The Pali canon itself bears evidence that even the Buddha did not expect it to happen. It would be totally unrealistic to entertain such an expectation.

A Buddhist community, like any other one consists of people of different degrees of moral development. Ordinary lay Buddhists are referred to as persons who enjoy the pleasures of sense [kamabhogino]. Here we should note that the pursuit of k[ma [sense pleasures] is seen in Buddhism as the most proximate psychological cause of conflict. Disputes arise even between members of the same family, of the same caste, race or social group, between nations etc. due to the pursuit of kama. People who are engaged in this pursuit are not liberated beings in the Buddhist sense, for, they are not free from the roots of evil, greed or lust, hatred and delusion. The Mahanidana Sutta describes, in terms of the Buddhist doctrine of dependent origination, how people are driven to conflicts as a result of seeking to secure their cherished possessions. People are strongly attached to their material possessions, their cultural traditions, their belief systems, their values, etc. If they perceive a threat to any of these things to which they are attached the natural tendency is to be drawn into conflict. This is why Buddhism considers conflict as an unavoidable evil in society. Even the Cakkavatti ruler conceived in Buddhism as one who rules according to the principles of justice does not disband his armies. For, he too had secular duties to perform as the guardian of his citizens. This shows that Buddhism does not envisage a society in which the necessity for engaging in war never arises. Perhaps the implication is that even a righteous Cakkavatti who will not engage in wars of imperialist aggression, would need to fight in self-defense.

In Buddhist canonical mythology there is reference to two types of celestial beings, one representing the righteous, the devas, and the other representing the unrighteous, the asuras. The two groups are mentioned as engaging in war from time to time. The battlefront of the devas against the evil asuras was led by Sakka, the most devout Buddhist god. Sometimes Sakka is represented as ordering the leaders of his armies like Suvira and Susima to act vigilantly and effectively against the aggressive enemy forces. However, in such instances Sakka concedes the fact that the Buddhist goal of Nibbana is of much greater worth than the victory over a mundane conflict.[8] Sakka himself, advices the combatants on his side that when they are overcome with fear in the battlefield, confronted by the advancing enemy forces, they should take courage by looking towards the might and glory of Sakka or that of any of the other powerful gods in order to be rid of their fear. The Buddha says that by this means they will not always be rid of their fear because neither Sakka nor any of the other gods, is free from lust, hatred and delusion. They can all be overcome by fear and flee in the face of a threat to their lives. The Buddha says that his bhikkhu disciples who may be overcome by fear when they battle against the inner foes of the mind meditating in desolate places may look towards the Buddha to be rid of their fear. In this case they would indeed succeed, for the Buddha is free from lust, hatred and delusion and therefore would not be overcome by fear, or flee in the face of danger.[9] In another instance Sakka speaks to the Buddha about the joy and happiness he experienced by becoming victorious over asuras after engaging them in war. But Sakka says that the joy he experienced then was associated with the victory obtained from violent armed conflict and therefore did not conduce to the Buddhist goal of liberation. He contrasts that joy with the joy, which is free from any associations with violence that he experienced after listening to the good teaching of the Buddha. That he says, is joy that leads to disenchantment with all worldly things and to the ultimate peace of Nibbana.[10] In these instances it is implied that armed conflict is not compatible with any serious commitment to the Buddhist goal of liberation, but may on occasion be unavoidable in the case of people dealing with mundane affairs. Even the pious Buddhist god Sakka, as a participant in mundane affairs, was no exception to this.

The points highlighted in the above discussion should not be taken as implying that Buddhism places no moral restrictions on people who are concerned with mundane affairs in going to war. War involves violent behaviour on the part of those who directly participate in it, and violence proceeds from malice and hatred whether it is motivated by the desire to achieve what is conceived as a just cause or not. Therefore the canonical teachings often emphasize the importance of conciliatory methods of resolving conflicts before embarking on war. The ethical teachings of the Dhammapada maintain that hatred can never be appeased by hatred and that it can only be appeased by non-hatred.[11] Anger ought to be won over by non-anger, and miserliness by generosity.[12] Forbearance and non-injury are considered as cardinal virtues of rulers. The Buddha himself had intervened in situations where people had thought of resolving their problems through war, and persuaded them to resort to peaceful and conciliatory methods of resolving conflicts, drawing their attention to the intrinsic worth of human lives.[13] From the Buddhist point of view, most wars are a consequence of the collectivized emotions ruling over a sound sense of judgement. The teachings of the Buddha contain immensely valuable principles that can be applied for the purpose of educating people for peace. Attention has already been drawn to the role of unwholesome emotions, the various obsessions, prejudices, psychological complexes and pre-conceived notions that influence people's judgements. Collective delusion and ignorance often play havoc in society. A great deal of human suffering is produced as a consequence of improper reflection [ayoniso manasikara]. If some of the principles of proper reflection [yoniso manasikara] introduced in the Buddhist teachings are clearly identified and really applied in social thinking and behaviour, it might be possible to reduce the tendency to seek to resolve disagreements through violence.

Before this discussion is concluded it seems appropriate to mention one last point about the Buddhist canonical accounts relating to war. Where one of the parties engaged in war is considered as righteous and the other as unrighteous, the Buddhist canonical accounts highlight the ethical qualities of the righteous party by showing that although they are compelled by circumstances to engage in war for the purpose of self-defense, they do not resort to unnecessary acts of cruelty even towards the defeated. The righteous party in war avoids harm to the innocent and is ready to pardon even the defeated enemy. Skillful methods are adopted in order to cause the least harm. Where the enemy could be defeated without injury to and destruction of life those skillful means to do so are explored to the maximum.[14] An example of this aspect of the ethics of war is found in Buddhist mythology where the wars between the righteous Devas and the unrighteous Asuras are mentioned. According to one story, on one occasion the Devas were defeated by the Asuras and they had to flee from the battleground for the protection of their lives.[15] As they were taking to flight for fear of the enemy they had to cross the Simbali forest. As the armies crossed the forest a large number of nests of Supannas built on tree tops were in danger of being broken and falling into the ocean as the tree tops were getting crushed by the fleeing armies of the Devas.[16] It is said that the armies headed by Sakka, turned back through fear of harming innocent beings not caring for the risk they were facing due to the pursuing armies of the Asuras. In another mythical story, the Devas become victorious over the Asuras and the king of the Asuras, Vepacitti was taken prisoner and was brought to the territory of the Devas, driven in Sakka's chariot by his charioteer Matali, Vepacitti's limbs all bound with chains. Vepacitti turned to be extremely abusive using harsh words against Sakka, the king of the Devas. Sakka, however, did not retort, and the driver of Sakka's chariot was curious to know whether Sakka's behaviour was due to fear or to weakness. Sakka responds saying that he is not so stupid as to retort to a foolish person like Vepacitti. Endurance of the abuses of a foolish person, according to Sakka, is a greater strength than retaliation. The last line of the verses where this canonical myth is introduced says "the person who does not express anger in return for one who expresses anger wins a war which is difficult to win" [kuddham appatikujjhanto sangamam jayati dujjayam].[17] While mentioning instances in which even the righteous are compelled to fight wars, Buddhism shows the striking difference between the behaviour of the righteous and the unrighteous even when they are warring parties. The canonical teachings also draw attention to the fact that in war, victory brings forth hatred [jayam veram pasavati]; the defeated lie in grief [dukkham seti parajito]; the one who is calm or of pacified mind puts aside both victory and defeat and lies in comfort [upasanto sukham seti hitva jayaparajayam].[18]

In summing up the inquiry into the question whether there can be any reasons in favour of a righteous war according to the canonical teachings of Buddhism, it should be reiterated that war, according to Buddhism is necessarily evil. Anyone who engages in it is compelled to commit acts of violence at least against the enemy who needs to be subdued. Participation in any kind of violence is absolutely out of the question for those who seriously pursue the goal of Nibbana. Their only option is to win over those who are cruel and violent through kindness and compassion. Wars and conflicts are endemic in society, due to the strong tendency of people to protect their own possessions with miserliness [macchariya] and due to the jealousy that affects people who are deprived of certain possessions enjoyed by others. More often than not, attempts to justify violence could be mere rationalizations of self interest. Buddhism grants that the large majority of people who are engaged in mundane affairs, although they may be devout Buddhists, and may be to a high degree righteous people, [as exemplified by the mythological stories of Devas headed by Sakka going to war with Asuras] are sometimes compelled to fight wars. The Buddhist teachings, by means of mythological tales and story telling homilies attempt to introduce a sense of morality and a concern for justice and fair play even in situations where people are compelled to fight wars. Reflection on the Buddhist canonical teachings outlined above by all Sri Lankans who cherish Buddhist moral values could be useful and important in the context of the current conflict.

05-10-2005, 08:01 AM

Army tests new War Doctrine in exercises QUOTEGag (Jalandhar), May 10 (PTI): The Indian Army tested its new War Doctrine on short-duration intense wars in the nuclear backdrop baring a whole range of newly-acquired force multipliers from battlefield satellite imagery to UAVs and night vision capabilities.

Troops from the Infantry, Armoured and Mechanised formations carried out fast battle manoeuvres as part of war games code-named 'Operation Vajra Shakti' on either side of the Sutlej, just 110 km. from border with Pakistan, for nine days, fighting operations conducted in pitch darkness.

"This exercise has demonstrated that the Indian Army is more than ready to face any challenges thrust on us," Chief of Army Staff Gen J J Singh, told reporters at the site of the war games.

An Infantry Division and an independent Armoured Brigade participated with air element testing fire-and-move capability of the smaller elite strike formations against a nuclear environment backdrop, army officers said. For the first time, army tested its battlefield satellite real-time imagery to map the entire built up terrain of the exercise area comprising Jalandhar and its outlying areas like Nawashahr, Nakodar and Moga.

The Israel-built Loros radars, which enable commanders to get on moving television screen about 30 to 40 km. area around the battleground, were also tested in operational conditions for the first time.

05-22-2005, 02:47 AM

STRATEGIC THINKING IN ANCIENT INDIA AND CHINA: KAUTILYA AND SUNZI
Ancients on War

**acharya** · 05-22-2005, 03:13 AM

The age of conventoinal warefare is over.
IT IS THE AGE OF KUTAYUDDHA NOW IN THE 21st CENTURY

Although the AS puts a great deal of emphasis on devious warfare (kutayuddha), it prescribes that if a king has a clearly superior force and other factors are favorable, he should engage in open and rule-bound warfare (prakashayudha). Obviously in Kautilyaâs mind, a certain amount of odium continued to be associated with devious warfare. For it involved among other things attacking the enemy when he was vulnerable, feigning retreat to draw out the enemy into a trap, using elephants to break up closed ranks, attacking one flank and then the other, tiring out the enemy with oneâs inferior troops first and then attacking with superior ones, laying ambushes, attacking at night to deprive enemy soldiers of their sleep and then attacking them during the day with fresh troops, attacking the enemy troops when they were facing the sun and so forth. All such tactics are routine now but they were regarded as exceptional in Kaulilyaâs time.

The term koota, in the context of hunting, was used for a trap or snare. Consequently, in the context of warfare, it came to mean ensnaring or trapping the enemy. This included the use of magic spells and such other occult methods. (Sunzi decidedly rejected that use.) And when it came to weaponry prevalent in those days, it included the use of poisoned arrows, fire arrows and such other unauthorized weapons which could bring about destruction of men and property on a large scale. Other methods included poisoning of the enemyâs water sources, attack by stealth, enticing the enemy into an unfavourable position, bribery, assassinations and attacks at night.

Almost every single war described in the epics and the puranas incorporated at least some of these forbidden methods. Sometimes, only one side is said to have done this. In the Ramayana, for example, the raksasa side is said to have resorted to koota methods. In the numerous wars fought between the devas and aasuras the latter are always accused of having used unethical methods. In general, it seems that such methods we attributed to the side which was technologically superior but nevertheless lost the series of wars in the end. The didactic message of these classics was that righteousness always emerged victorious. A few epics like the Agni Purana, however, condoned the use of koota methods by the weak as a last resort.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?