All tremble at punishment, all fear death. Likening others to oneself, neither slay nor cause to slay. (Dhammapada 129)

To suggest that Buddhism, or at least some Buddhists, are complicit in (alleged) genocide would seem not only preposterous, but would call into question the sanity of the person making such a claim. Yet, while I leave the question of my sanity for readers to decide, I nevertheless assert that there are those who identify as Buddhists and who are now complicit in genocide. How could this be?

Let me begin by first putting my assertion into context. The context I refer to is the emergence of Buddhist chaplains in the US military. Although there were attempts to create a Buddhist chaplaincy in the US Army as early as the Second World War, these attempts failed, inasmuch as they were made by Japanese American Buddhists whose Japanese ethnicity made both them and their religion suspect. According to Greg Robinson, professor of history at the University of Quebec in Montreal, then Assistant Secretary of Defense John J. McCloy feared that negative American perceptions of Buddhists would compromise the reputation of the all-Japanese American Army units formed to fight in the European theater.

Thus, it was not until 1990 that the American military resolved to make plans for the inclusion of Buddhist chaplains in its ranks. In August of that year, the Institute of Heraldry produced a rank insignia, taking the Dharma Wheel or dharmachakra as its emblem.

The Buddhist Churches of America, affiliated with the Nishi Honganji branch of the Jodo Shin (True Pure Land) school in Japan, would be recognized as the sole organization allowed to nominate Buddhist chaplains. Lieutenant Junior Grade Jeanette Gracie Shin, an ordained priest in that school, became the first formally recognized US Buddhist chaplain in 2004, serving as a United States Navy Chaplain stationed at Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton in California. In working with service members, Shin stated that she helped them relax, meditate, and learn about the history of Buddhism.

Lt. Shin recognized there might be Buddhists who would criticize her role in the military in light of the requirements associated with Right Livelihood and obedience to the first precept, to refrain from taking life. For this reason, in a January 2008 Dharma talk titled: “Shakyamuni: The First Warrior,” Shin noted: “Siddhartha Gautama (his birth name) was born into the kshatriya varna or caste of ancient India/Nepal. This was the caste of the warriors, the rulers and aristocrats of ancient India. . . . The Buddha’s Enlightenment was described as a ‘battle’ between himself and Mara, the embodiment of death and evil. . . . The ancient texts emphasize the need for determination, sacrifice, and courage for Buddhists to follow the path of [the] Buddhadharma, to bear up under hardships in order to achieve the highest goal a human being can attain: to conquer death, fear, ignorance, evil, and thereby attain liberation. The qualities of a good warrior are exactly the qualities needed for a serious Buddhist practitioner,” (emphasis mine).

Capt. Somya Malasri, a former Thai monk, is a Buddhist chaplain in the US Army. Like Lt. Shin, Capt. Malasri was also anxious to justify the Buddhist rationale for warfare. He wrote: “A lot of people ask if a Buddhist can be a soldier because the first precept is no killing. The answer is yes. You can protect yourself or sacrifice yourself to do the righteous thing. You can sacrifice yourself to protect your country because if there’s no country, there’s no freedom, and you cannot practice your religion. In Buddhism, if you go to war and kill others, it’s your duty, not your intention to kill other people. If a person dies of your intention, and you have anger, that is wrong in Buddhism. When soldiers go to war, they don’t have any intention to kill others and they don’t have hatred in their minds,” (emphasis mine).

While there are still only a few Buddhist chaplains in the US Air Force, October 2007 saw the dedication of the Vast Refuge Dharma Hall Chapel at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs. This chapel came about as a result of a request made in 2004 by a graduate of the Academy’s first Class of 1959, Wiley Burch. Burch, now a Buddhist priest affiliated with the Hollow Bones Rinzai Zen school, requested that a multipurpose room in the lower level of the Cadet Chapel be transformed into a Buddhist chapel.

At the Chapel’s dedication, Burch said: “I understood there was a possibility or a place for Buddhism in the military. I understand the culture very well, and I understand the diversity of it. From that place, rather than being hard and coming in against, I came in willing to accept all. That’s a Buddhist teaching, not to set yourself up against things so much as to just be, we say, like clouds and like water, just flow. . . . Without compassion, war is nothing but criminal activity. It is necessary sometimes to take life, but we never take it for granted.”

The Academy’s Buddhist program leader, Sarah Bender Sensei of the Springs Mountain Sangha, added: “People in the military come up—for real—against questions that most of us just consider abstractly. The questions of Buddhism are the questions of life and death. So where else would you want Buddhism than right there where those questions are most vivid?^”

One American Buddhist chaplain for whom the questions of life and death were far from abstract was Lt. (now Captain) Thomas Dyer, the first Zen Buddhist chaplain in the US Army. While serving with the 278th Armored Cavalry Regiment, Lt. Dyer provided meditation instruction to soldiers stationed at Camp Taji in Iraq, a base that came under frequent attack by Iraqi opposition forces (a video of a workshop conducted by Lt. Dyer at Camp Taji is on YouTube). Dyer subsequently explained the relationship of Zen to Buddhism as follows:

Primarily Buddhism is a methodology of transforming the mind. The mind has flux in it or movement, past and future fantasy, which causes us not to interact deeply with life. So Buddhism has a methodology, a teaching and a practice of meditation to help one concentrate in the present moment to experience reality as it is. . . . Zen practice is to be awake in the present moment both in sitting and then walking throughout the day. So the idea is that enlightenment will come from just being purely aware of the present moment in the present moment. (YouTube)

In hindsight it can be said that Lt. Dyer’s meditation session on the battlefield marked the beginning of Buddhism’s complicity in alleged genocide. Why? Because, like many knowledgeable commentators, Dennis Fritz, a former Pentagon insider, made it clear in his recent book, Deadly Betrayal (2024), that the 2003 US invasion of Iraq took place under totally false pretenses. That is to say, Saddam Hussein had no weapons of mass destruction, nor did he have any connection to the terrorists who attacked the Twin Towers in New York City. In short, Iraq presented no threat to the peace and security of the US.

Instead, Fritz revealed that the whole operation was the creation of so-called neoconservatives in Washington, DC, who responded to Benjamin Netanyahu’s request to dispose of the leaders of Iran, Iraq, and Syria because of their opposition to the Zionist plan to rid Israel of its indigenous Palestinian inhabitants as well as enlarge the country. Thus, when Lt. Dyer taught soldiers prior to going into battle to be “purely aware of the present moment,” he was assisting the Army in creating a very desirable state of mind. Namely, a state of mind in which soldiers were freed from questions of individual moral choice or responsibility even as they unjustly killed those whom they had been ordered to regard as their enemy. Needless to say, Lt. Dyer said nothing about the basic Buddhist precept to abstain from killing.

Of course, the argument can be made that with some 5,287 Buddhists serving in the US military as of June 2009, there is a clear need to address the spiritual needs of Buddhist soldiers. It can also be said that the emergence of Buddhist chaplains in an increasingly multiracial, multicultural US military was an entirely natural, even inevitable process. Further, in light of institutional Buddhism’s millennial-long history of involvement in, if not support for, organized warfare in those Asian countries where it flourished, why should the US military be any different?

Nevertheless, the question must be asked: what has been the spiritual cost to Buddhism, especially its ethical teachings, for its long and ongoing history of subservience to the state, most especially state-initiated warfare. What happens to the teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha when the chaplains ministering to Buddhist soldiers are themselves in the military’s chain of command, wearing an officer’s uniform and receiving an officer’s salary. Are they not thereby prioritizing their own nation and its national interests alongside, if not above, the teachings of their faith?

In the case of the Buddhist military chaplaincy in the US, it can be argued that the price of Buddhism’s acceptance has been the same as for all other faith traditions. A 29 August 2004 Associated Press article described the role of military chaplains as follows: “As American troops cope with life—and death—on a faraway battlefield, military chaplains cope with them, offering prayers, comfort and spiritual advice to keep the American military machine running. . . . Chaplains help grease the wheels of any soldier’s troubled conscience by arguing that killing combatants is justified,” (emphasis mine).

In light of the above, it is clear that the problematic aspects of a Buddhist military chaplaincy extend far beyond the Buddhist chaplains introduced in this article. A good argument can be made that the core of the problem lies in the military chaplaincy system itself, for all military chaplains, regardless of faith, are required to unconditionally support the mission of their respective country’s military: to kill or otherwise incapacitate all enemies, domestic and foreign.

In the case of the US, one need only think of what would have happened to any Buddhist chaplain who dared in a Dharma talk to openly question, let alone criticize, the invasion of Iraq. Had a Buddhist chaplain questioned the grounds for the invasion, let alone its justness, how long would military authorities have allowed that chaplain to minister to the spiritual needs of soldiers before ousting her or him from military service? Needless to say, this question can, and should, be asked of military chaplains of all faiths.

Further, there is no need to ask what American Buddhist chaplains could have done in the event they came to the conviction that the second US invasion of Iraq in 2003 was based on falsehoods (as it was). If morally challenged, they could have resigned their commissions as is their right. However, to the best of my knowledge, none of them did. Rather, they appear to have accepted the old dictum of “my country, right or wrong,” ignoring the commitment of their faith to truthfulness let alone non-killing and compassion.

Needless to say, the belief in “my country, right or wrong” is one expression of nationalism or, as some would say, the tribalism of the modern era. When Japan launched its full-scale invasion of China in July 1937, Chinese Buddhists requested their Japanese counterparts to speak out against the invasion. In response, on 28 July 1937 the pan-Buddhist Myowa-kai wrote: “In order to establish eternal peace in East Asia, arousing the great benevolence and compassion of Buddhism, we are sometimes accepting and sometimes forceful. We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of ‘killing one in order that many may live,’” a reference to skillful means. The Myowa-kai’s position contributed to the deaths of an estimated 20 million Chinese.

On the one hand, it is true that in recent years we no longer see Buddhists in one country using their faith to support the invasion of another country. However, in predominantly Buddhist countries such as Sri Lanka and Myanmar, we now find sangha leaders endorsing the use of violence in the suppression of non-Buddhist minorities in their countries. Thus, by no means has the question of what may be termed “ethnic nationalism” disappeared as a matter of concern. This is despite the universally recognized teaching that the Buddhadharma is concerned with relieving the suffering of all, regardless of ethnicity or nationality.

Furthermore, lurking in the background is the question many soldiers and non-soldiers alike have asked themselves in the face of war: what would the founder of my faith, Shakyamuni Buddha in this case, have done or at least expect me to do? This is a particularly vexing question for Buddhists, since Shakyamuni Buddha is recorded as having personally gone to the battlefield to prevent wars on two occasions. In the first instance he is said to have successfully reasoned with potential belligerents on both sides over the division of a river’s water in a time of drought, thereby preventing a war.

In the second instance, Shakyamuni Buddha is recorded as having repeatedly attempted to non-violently dissuade a neighboring kingdom from attacking his homeland. Ultimately, however, he realized there was nothing further he could say or do to prevent the attack. Although raised a warrior with numerous followers at his command, he therefore ceased his efforts, resulting in the near total destruction of his homeland—the city-state of Kapilavastu. This latter episode suggests that for Shakyamuni Buddha the use of violence, even in a war to defend one’s country, was unacceptable, a very high standard indeed.

Of course, no one can be certain that these stories concerning Shakyamuni Buddha’s personal intervention on the battlefield are historically accurate. Nevertheless, their inclusion in the Buddhist corpus indicates, at the very least, the existence of longstanding Buddhist antipathy to warfare, apparently beginning with its founder. On the other hand, over the centuries Buddhists have a long record of collaborating with wars initiated by the political leaders of their day. Thus, as with many faiths, it can be argued that Buddhism is no exception to the clash between theory (or doctrine) and historical practice, at least on the part of later Buddhists.

The almost unchallenged presence of Buddhist chaplains in the US military suggests that this clash is far from over. For those who believe that Buddhist soldiers, like others, deserve access to the teachings and nurture of the Buddhadharma, one possible solution would be to continue to have Buddhist military chaplains, but such chaplains would not be part of the military and subject to its commands. These chaplains would then be truly independent and free to teach the Dharma according to their understanding. This would, however, require other Buddhist groups to underwrite their expenses. This seems very unlikely to occur anytime soon.   

As for the larger question of Buddhism’s relationship to war and violence, this is ultimately something each and every Buddhist must decide for themselves, while taking into account the Buddha’s fundamental commitment to non-violence. That said, how does anything written to this point prove that today, Buddhism, in the form of US Buddhist military chaplains, is complicit in genocide—in other words, the genocide that Israel is allegedly perpetrating against Palestinians in Gaza and beyond?

As newly promoted Lt. Commander Ilduk Kim recently made clear in her 25 October article for BDG, there are now Buddhist military chaplains serving aboard US Navy ships at sea. Thus, with a large number of Navy ships currently stationed in the eastern Mediterranean off the coast of Lebanon and near Iran, it is possible, if not likely, that Buddhist chaplains are on board one or more of these ships. Purportedly, these ships are present in order to defend Israel from attack, most especially from Iran.

In this author’s opinion, Iran has attacked, and threatens to attack, Israel, for one main reason: to end Israel’s dispossession and oppression of the Palestinian people as epitomized in its allegedly genocidal policies in Gaza and beyond. Thus, the reality is that the Navy’s “defense” of Israel, when combined with US supplied bombs and other weaponry, actually serves to enable Israel to continue its alleged genocide.

Lt. Commander Kim is described as being sustained as a chaplain by the meaningful interactions she has with sailors and marines,  guiding them through difficult times with mindfulness and meditation techniques. Her gentle-yet-firm approach, we are told, is a lifeline for many, offering relief from the stress of military life.

At present, there are clearly many US military personnel, men and women, who are in the midst of great stress in their military life. This is because they are wrestling with their consciences over the supportive actions they have been ordered to undertake on behalf of Israel. One vivid example of this stress occurred on 25 February,  when Aaron Bushnell, a 25-year-old serviceman in the US Air Force, died after setting himself on fire outside the front gate of the Embassy of Israel in Washington, DC. Immediately before his act, Bushnell stated: “I am an active-duty member of the United States Air Force. And I will no longer be complicit in genocide.”

While I have no knowledge of Lt. Commander Kim’s thoughts regarding Airman Bushnell’s death or Gaza, in light of the war-affirming positions of the numerous Buddhist chaplains introduced above, I fear I may already know the answer. If so, I cannot help but conclude that until, and unless, Buddhist military chaplains are united in rejecting US military support for Israel’s alleged genocidal actions, they cannot escape the charge made at the beginning of this article, that at least some Buddhists are complicit in alleged genocide. And by the silence and lack of concrete action on the part of many, but by no means all, Buddhists, so are we all.   

See more

USAF BUDDHIST CHAPLAIN BADGE
Meditation Workshop (YouTube)

Related features from BDG

First Female Buddhist Chaplain Promoted to Lieutenant Commander: A Trailblazing Journey of Faith and Service
Does Buddhism Hold the Instincts for War?
Nationalism: Collective Selves and the Promise of Buddhaland