I mentioned to a friend at lunch today that I've been thinking about military chaplaincy as a potential future career and she asked the obvious question: "How does that square with your Buddhist beliefs?"
It's actually a really difficult question to answer because I'm not entirely sure. At a surface level it seems like being in the military, supporting even tacitly the "war machine", wouldn't be compatible with Right Livelihood. You really shouldn't be involved in work that leads directly to the deaths of beings and that's kind of the business of the military.
At the same time, isn't it a positive thing to pursue a profession in which you deal directly with the suffering of others? Isn't it part of Right Livelihood to get right into the thick of it, the muck of human experience, and help those who are unfortunate enough to have found themselves caught in a series of events that led them into that situation? I feel like we should feel compassion for those who felt like they had no other options but to join the military. We probably should feel even more compassion for those that enjoy the idea of killing and join the military to do so. Imagine the mountain of negative karma they're accruing.
Which isn't to say I don't have personal motives in considering military chaplaincy; it's not all compassion. The idea of retiring in twenty years with a good pension and benefits is incredibly attractive. I like that I could be retired by the time I'm fifty and have the rest of my life to dedicate to Dharma practice. Who knows, maybe I could even go into serious solitary retreat. Even if that's not the case and I have other responsibilities, a wife and children, I could still do a lot with that time. I could start a retreat center, travel, teach in my spare time, go back to school, do shorter solitary retreats, or at the very least just dedicate more time to Dharma practice.
I also think there's something to be said for the reasons an individual does something as more important than what happens incidentally. According to the Dharma, in order for karma to be complete there has to be intent behind the action; to my knowledge, incidental acts don't accrue karmic consequences. So, if my intent going in is to help individuals caught in that situation, shouldn't that override any unintentional support?
Ultimately, it doesn't really matter what I think. I've got years before I have to make this decision and when it comes time to make the decision, I'll ask my gurus what I should do and follow their advice. It's just an interesting question to kick around until then.
Hi Justin - I found you via twitter... I too have thought about Buddhist military chaplaincy. Right now I'm satisfied in going the academic route alone, but it will likely always be an option for me (at least chaplaincy in some form). Here's a link to some of my ruminations and further resources: http://americanbuddhist.blogspot.com/2008/05/military-buddhist-chaplains.html
ReplyDeleteBuddhist_philosopher: I've also given academia quite a bit of thought as a future career and I think there's a lot about it that's positive. I like the idea of teachings others and devoting a decent amount of my time to research and thinking about what interests me. Maybe that's a romanticized vision of what a professor does. Either way, I've got some years to go before I have to make that decision, but I appreciate your thoughts on the matter as well.
ReplyDeletehello :-) regardless of whether or not such a career would be up to par w your religious beliefs, what about the universal morality of it all? by associating yourself w a military institution you are, whether you like it or not, contributing to the historical and transcendant war machine of the US and thus that of the world at large.
ReplyDeletebut i get that the benefits are attractive. it's actually sad that (our) government spends so much on the military, turning it it into powerful employer.
witherawaygovernmnetandleaveplacetothefreemovementofpeoplealwaysandeverywherebecauseculturewillnaturallycreateitsownborders.
(congealing phrases is my way to point out truths that are too radical to be considered in view of our contemporary world.
p.s. i like your blog and writing style! it's impressively collected yet persuasive :)
I'm not sure I really accept a universal morality. At the end of the day, my ethics are informed by the idea that each individual is responsible for his or her actions and not actions or individuals associated with them. For example, I'm American, but that doesn't mean I'm ethically responsible for what America as a whole does.
ReplyDeleteMy question, at least as I view it now, is more about the American military and, to a degree, my impact on individual soldiers. What if chaplaincy is giving soldiers peace-of-mind so they can be at ease and efficient in their job of waging war? Is supporting people who engage in negativity itself negative? If I buy meat from a butcher, I'm in some way responsible for the killing of the animal? Indirectly, I'd say yes. But then does the merit of helping the people in that situation outweigh that?
Thanks for the post and the compliment!
societal consciousness is a super powerful force though! historical destructions of human life and thought (i.e. hiptserism, genocides, holocausts....) were not made possible by the morality of the single individuals that appeared to lead them in image (i.e. popular icons (Mumford and Sons), political leaders (Hitler), but by the mass popular support that associated itself with the cause. even the most thoughtful of men have a one-track mind to some degree which means that the impending danger of mass support for even the most mindless, immoral or murderous of movements is always just around the corner.
ReplyDeleteI think "societal consciousness" is a new-agey sounding term. Sure, there is an influence that society exerts on the individual; we're conditioned by the predominant ideas and opinions with which we grow up. However, I also think that the individual is responsible for their actions. This isn't about the individuals who lead movements but about the fact that movements are about individuals who make up a group.
ReplyDelete