the Warrior Philosophe revisited

juantoo3

....whys guy.... ʎʇıɹoɥʇnɐ uoıʇsǝnb
Messages
9,508
Reaction score
1,795
Points
108
Location
up to my arse in alligators
I. LAYING PLANS


1. Sun Tzu said: The art of war is of vital importance
to the State.

2. It is a matter of life and death, a road either
to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry
which can on no account be neglected.

3. The art of war, then, is governed by five constant
factors, to be taken into account in one's deliberations,
when seeking to determine the conditions obtaining in the field.

4. These are: (1) The Moral Law; (2) Heaven; (3) Earth;
(4) The Commander; (5) Method and discipline.

5,6. The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete
accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him
regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.

7. Heaven signifies night and day, cold and heat,
times and seasons.

8. Earth comprises distances, great and small;
danger and security; open ground and narrow passes;
the chances of life and death.

9. The Commander stands for the virtues of wisdom,
sincerely, benevolence, courage and strictness.

10. By method and discipline are to be understood
the marshaling of the army in its proper subdivisions,
the graduations of rank among the officers, the maintenance
of roads by which supplies may reach the army, and the
control of military expenditure.

11. These five heads should be familiar to every general:
he who knows them will be victorious; he who knows them
not will fail.

12. Therefore, in your deliberations, when seeking
to determine the military conditions, let them be made
the basis of a comparison, in this wise:--

13. (1) Which of the two sovereigns is imbued
with the Moral law?
(2) Which of the two generals has most ability?
(3) With whom lie the advantages derived from Heaven
and Earth?
(4) On which side is discipline most rigorously enforced?
(5) Which army is stronger?
(6) On which side are officers and men more highly trained?
(7) In which army is there the greater constancy
both in reward and punishment?

14. By means of these seven considerations I can
forecast victory or defeat.

15. The general that hearkens to my counsel and acts
upon it, will conquer: let such a one be retained in command!
The general that hearkens not to my counsel nor acts upon it,
will suffer defeat:--let such a one be dismissed!

~from the Art of War by Sun Tzu

Art of War by SunTzu [SunZi] -English Hypertext
 
Last edited:
Interesting aside:

The terms jus ad bellum and jus in bello did not exist in the Romanist and scholastic traditions. They were unknown to the canon and civil lawyers of the Middle Ages (glossarists, counsellors, ultramontanes, doctors juris utriusque, etc.), as they were to the classical authorities on international law (the School of Salamanca, Ayala, Belli, Gentili, Grotius, etc.). In neither period, moreover, was there a separation between two sets of rules — one ad bellum, the other in bello. [2]

From earliest times, the Western tradition sought to place war in a legal framework by formulating a doctrine of just war [3]. The aim was to reconcile might and right, Sein and Sollen, by making the former serve the latter, or by curtailing might with right. On the basis of those premises, war was seen as a just response to unprovoked aggression, and more generally as the ultimate means for restoring a right that had been violated (consecutio juris) [4] or for punishing the offender [5]. The material causes for which a just war could be waged fell into four categories: defence, recuperation of property, recovery of debts and punishment. An act of war was considered lawful if it was just; and it was considered just if it met the conditions enumerated above.

Origin of the twin terms jus ad bellum/jus in bello

Looks to be an interesting paper...
 
Just war is a concept closely associated with Christian thinking regarding the resort to and conduct of war, but all the world's major religions have addressed the issues associated with warfare and have contributed to the development of notions of restraint and discrimination. The modern concept of just war draws not only upon these religious traditions, but also upon more recent approaches to the question of the laws of war. In the 19th and 20th centuries, thinking about the morality of war became as much a problem for secular ethicists, international lawyers, and advocates of universal human rights as for religious thinkers.

Early Christians were fundamentally pacifist. Accepting no distinction between murder and killing in war, they were convinced that any killing—even in self-defence in war—was wrong. A fundamental shift began when Constantine converted to Christianity and then, in 313, made the Roman a Christian empire in the Edict of Milan. As the ‘official’ religion of a martial empire, Christianity began to move away from the seeming unworldliness of absolute pacifism and began to wrestle with the possibility that war might, in certain circumstances, be both politically necessary and morally justifiable. The idea of fighting a ‘Christian war’ took several centuries to develop, and it was not until the end of the Dark Ages that the first indications of just-war thinking began to emerge. Relatively quickly thereafter, the two strands of just-war thinking began to emerge: jus ad bellum, concerning the resort to war, and jus in bello, concerning conduct in war.
just war: Definition from Answers.com

<disregarding the elementary error presuming Constantine's conversion, I think there may be some element of consideration worthy of meditation here>
 
See for example Saint Augustine, De civitate Dei, I, 1, and Epistula CXXXVI.

I'm still looking for a reasonable (that is, free and accessible) English translation of St. Augustine's "City of God." I also see frequently referenced that Thomas Aquinas also had some to say to the matter of Just War, expanding on Augustine's comments, but again the resources are notoriously second hand so far in my search...

time out for comments...
 
You might want to research the the Sikh religion as much ado is made about "the warrior saint". In fact, and I'm not 100% sure of this, I believe that all Sikhs are supposed to strive to be warrior saints.

You also might want to look into the religion of the Gurkha and their founding warrior saint Guru Gorakshanath.
 
You might want to research the the Sikh religion as much ado is made about "the warrior saint". In fact, and I'm not 100% sure of this, I believe that all Sikhs are supposed to strive to be warrior saints.

You also might want to look into the religion of the Gurkha and their founding warrior saint Guru Gorakshanath.

Thanks for that, will do.
 
It is natural to consider war from either the point of view of victory or defeat or even if it is indeed ever justifiable. But the deeper question is if there is a choice? Are we perhaps just unconscious results of "force" as expressions of our "being" as it manifests in the world? Then, regardless of platitudes, wars will cyclically repeat as a normal reaction to planetary conditions.

I don't know of anyone that has understood this question better than Simone Weil. Her essay on the Iliad though debated, is considered in many universities as the finast commentary yet and offers much food for thought since it questions who its hero really is. For Simone it is Force itself.

Bryn Mawr Classical Review 2004.02.24

It is certainly true that, the more frequently Weil quotes the Iliad, the more convincing she is. For most of the essay, she uses passage after passage to ground her central claim that the Iliad is above all a clear-eyed witness to the effects of force on the human spirit. Elaborating on her opening assertion that "The true hero, the true subject matter, the center of the Iliad is force," she makes a series of related points: the poem's many detailed accounts of death on the battlefield, with their focus on individual body parts, document the way force reduces human beings to things; sympathetic depictions of displaced and enslaved victims of warfare show that this dehumanization can apply as well to the living; victors are as much subordinated to force as the conquered, since it seduces them into a blind confidence contradicted by the ever-seesawing fortunes of war; the Iliad records the pervasive effects of force with a deep sorrow (which she terms "amertume" or "bitterness") that is entirely without partisanship, "all that is destroyed is regretted." With these observations, Weil provides a powerful, irrefutable counter to any reading of the Iliad that sees it as simply a celebration of warfare or a partisan glorification of the victorious Greeks. In the last few pages, however, she floats free from the text to offer a sweeping set of generalizations about the Greek spirit, which assimilate Greek culture to her own Christianity. "The Greeks had a force of soul that allowed them, for the most part, to avoid self-delusion; they were compensated for this by understanding how to attain in all things the highest degree of insight, purity, and simplicity." This spirit was also found in the Gospels, but nowhere else: it eluded the Hebrews and the Romans and was quickly lost in the contaminating later history of Christianity. Clearly, the breathless reader can only learn from these pronouncements what the past meant to Weil, as she formed it into a personal spiritual map.

How a young woman in her early thirties can grasp this is beyond me since it isn't common knowledge. But in one essay she has established the relationship between Christianity and Greek thought.

The world is the world and is governed by power and force. In reality war has no heroes of villains but just the natural result of "force" that has diminished people to "things." A hero or villain is defined by subjective standards and whose side one is on. But the objective reality is that war is the result of blind reaction where the only hero can be "force."
The author of the article doesn't understand that the Iliad is written on different levels. Of course it must be entertaining and speak to societal interests. but behind it lies the objective truths it is written to reveal. This is the concern of those like Simone that seek to grasp the phenomenon of war
 
I'm still looking for a reasonable (that is, free and accessible) English translation of St. Augustine's "City of God." I also see frequently referenced that Thomas Aquinas also had some to say to the matter of Just War, expanding on Augustine's comments, but again the resources are notoriously second hand so far in my search...

time out for comments...
Here you go, juantoo3 :)
Book Information | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
For Thomas Aquinas on war, try here (Question 40 from his Summa Theologica)
{Btw, www.ccel.org, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, is a great resource!}
 
In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rom. 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [*The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1]): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."

~Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica

Summa Theologica | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Awesome site, Seattlegal! Thank you *very* much!
 
You might want to research the the Sikh religion as much ado is made about "the warrior saint". In fact, and I'm not 100% sure of this, I believe that all Sikhs are supposed to strive to be warrior saints.

Found this:

Lord, as a Sword, you are the conqueror of lands, destroyer of falsehood,
the ultimate decoration of the warrior.
Your arm is indestructable, Your brightness resplendant,
Your radiance and lustre dazzling like the sun.
You bring joy to the saintly, fear to the wicked,
the sinners You scatter; I seek Your shelter.
Hail! Hail! to the Creator, Sustainer of the Universe,
Protector of the creation, Hail to the Sword.

Guru Gobind Singh (DG p. 39)

Akal Sangat

Take the composition Var Bhaguti Ji Ki, this tells how the godess Durga Devi was called upon by Inder Devta to help him in destroying the demons Sumb and Maha Kahsur and their legions. First and foremost Guru Ji bows and pays homage to Sri Bhaguti (God) and then recounts the names of the nine Gurus. He then says that you (God) created the world and that it was from you that Durga, Sri RamJi and Baghwan Krishan Ji got the strength to destroy their enemies.

(Var Sri Bhaguti Ji)

First and formost I remember Bhaguti Ji and then set my mind on Guru Nanak. Then I seek the help of Guru Angad, Guru Amar Das and Guru Ram Das. Arjan, Hargobind and (Guru) Har Rai be remembered. Sri Harkrishan be meditated upon whose mere glimpse removes all sorrows. (Guru) Tegh Bahadur be remembered as it causes home to flourish. They all help me at all times.

The Lord first created Khanda, the double edged sword and then his manifest world. Having created Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva, He created the entire play of Kudrat (manifest world). He created the oceans, mountains, earth and sky which stands above, unsupported by any pillars. He created both gods(deities) and demons and then created polemic. It was You who created Durga so as to destroy the demons. Rama also took strength from you to kill Ravan with his arrow. Krishan also got strength from You and thus threw down Kansa by his hair. Many great deities and ascetics underwent hard austerities, but none could fathom thy greatness.


As can be seen from this opening passage that Guru Gobind Singh Ji draws all his strength and inspiration from the one formless God, Akal Purkh. He says that Durga was created by You, O Lord. How then can Guru Ji be worshipping Durga ?

Dasam Granth - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia.

**********

You also might want to look into the religion of the Gurkha and their founding warrior saint Guru Gorakshanath.

Gorakshanath - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sri Gorakshanath, a disciple of Matsiendranath, was born in the 9th century in Panjabi. He was also a follower of Anama Prabhu and Sri Dattatreya.

As well as Matsiendranath he is considered the founder of doctrines “Hatha-vidya”, Laya-yoga, Nada-yoga and Kundalini-yoga, the founder of yoda's orders of kanphatas, nathas, gorakhanathas and kaulas, forming the largest Indian tantra tradition. In the Buddhism he is esteemed as one of the founders of the Himalaya Vadjrayana's lines.

Mahasiddha Gorakshanath

I find this last sentence intriguing, I wonder what Vajra might say concerning this?

Goraksha-Paddhati

Goraksha Paddhati

I skimmed through this, but I didn't see anything that relates to the subject at hand. I see that Gorakshanath is credited with a number of writings, perhaps TealLeaf would be kind enough to steer us to the one(s) related to this subject at hand?

***********

BTW, thank you to everybody so far! Some really good stuff!
 
Hi Juantoo —

On the supposed 'paradigm shift' under Constantine, I would not be so sure. He chose Christianity because it had already permeated ever level and sphere of civilised society, and its integral cohesion across social boundaries outstripped anything else the Roman world had to offer.

Christians were in the legions, for example, prior to Constantine's assent to power, although not in any great number (Mithraism was far more suited to the warrior disposition).

I think St Augustine formulated the first theological treatise on war, but then he was in North Africa when the world was falling apart around him.

+++

On the Hindu Tradition, I dug up this (from a somewhat generic online resource):
"Any of the four traditional social classes of Hindu India. One of the hymns of the Rigveda declares that the Brahman, the Kshatriya, the Vaishya, and the Shudra issued forth at creation from the mouth, arms, thighs, and feet of Prajapati. Traditional lawmakers specified a set of obligations, observed mainly in theory only, to each varna: the Brahman, to study and advise; the Kshatriya, to protect; the Vaishya, to cultivate; and the Shudra, to serve. An unofficial fifth class, the pancama, was created to include certain untouchables and tribal groups falling outside this system. The relationship of the caste system to the class system is complex; individual castes, of which there are dozens, have sought to raise their social rank by identifying with a particular varna, demanding the associated privileges of rank and honour."

I have some references (I think) with regard to the Kshatriya tucked away somewhere, I'll try and find them.

+++

In Japan, Miyamoto Mushashi's "The Book of Five Rings" (Go Rin No Sho) is a classic along with Sun Tzu. This version is the first Victor Harris translation. I should support him as part of my own martial arts community, but I have to say the Thomas Cleary translation is much better.

The Hakakure "Hidden by Leaves" is another classic, written by a right-wing conservative samurai bewailing the passing of the age of the 'stalwart man' as lasting peace made its presence felt in Japan (he was refused to allow to perform junshi, suicide to join his master in death). Excerpts here.

(Chapter 11, by the way, covers the right way for an older samurai to court a younger samurai :eek: )

"The Way of the Warrior is Death" is the oft-quoted dictum of the text, a great sound-bite, but nonsense as it is commonly understood.

Zen and Confuscianism had a lot to do with the 'restructuring' of the warrior image that took place under the Tokugawa Shogunate (1600-18something).

+++

Thomas
 
Lord, as a Sword, you are the conqueror of lands, destroyer of falsehood,
the ultimate decoration of the warrior.
Your arm is indestructable, Your brightness resplendant,
Your radiance and lustre dazzling like the sun.
You bring joy to the saintly, fear to the wicked,
the sinners You scatter; I seek Your shelter.
Hail! Hail! to the Creator, Sustainer of the Universe,
Protector of the creation, Hail to the Sword.

Guru Gobind Singh (DG p. 39)

Matthew 10

34"Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn
" 'a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law -
36a man's enemies will be the members of his own household.'[e]

Do these mean the same thing?
 
That passage is referencing Micah 7:6.

Well that too could be interpreted as being rather sinister.

I am reminded of the story of Romulus and Remus where the moral of the story is that loyalty to the state comes above loyalty to family. The story of Cain and Able could be said to be similar only with a good helping of guilt thrown in.

So they divide and conquer families in the interest of the state but of course the state/economy/organized crime is most probably run by an oligarchy of fairly intact families.
 
Just some extra references....
Gwynne Dyer said:
...And so the recruits emerge from their initiation into the system, stripped of their civilian clothes, shorn of their hair, and deprived of whatever confidence in their own identity they may previously have had as eighteen-year-olds, like so many blanks ready to have the Marine identity impressed upon them... pg42

...The invention of armies required more than just working out ways of drilling large numbers of people to act together, although that was certainly part of the forumula. A formation of drilled men has a different psychology--a controlled form of mob psychology--that tends to overpower the personal identity and fears of the individual who make it up... pg102

--- from the book War: The Lethal Custom

Wikipedia.org said:
...Alexander the Great would leave a number of his men behind in each city to introduce Greek culture, control it and oppress dissident views as well as interbreed...

...Before attacking a settlement, the Mongol generals demanded submission to the Khan, and threatened the initial villages with complete destruction if they refused to surrender. After winning the battle, the Mongol generals fulfilled their threats and massacred the survivors....

-- from the article Psychological Warfare
 
Context is also important in applying spiritual principles. There is a time to turn the other cheek, and there is a time to drive out the money-changers. There is a time to be a pacific buddha and there is another time when it's going to be appropriate to stand up and be a shambhala warrior.

~originally quoted by Pathless
 
Back
Top