Interesting aside: Origin of the twin terms jus ad bellum/jus in bello Looks to be an interesting paper...
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>
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.
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 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
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!}
~Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica Summa Theologica | Christian Classics Ethereal Library Awesome site, Seattlegal! Thank you *very* much!
Found this: Akal Sangat Dasam Granth - SikhiWiki, free Sikh encyclopedia. ********** Gorakshanath - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Mahasiddha Gorakshanath I find this last sentence intriguing, I wonder what Vajra might say concerning this? 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 ) "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
I don't get the same meaning out of them at all. The quote from Mathew sounds rather sinister to me. It reminds me of the concept of divide and conquer.
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.
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
