Violent Buddhists in Myanmar?

[Dog Breakfast]

I've been keeping abreast of the clashes in Myanmar between Muslims and Buddhist, and I have to say I'm a little surprised to hear about Buddhists behaving so violently, though that may just be the fact that I don't know very much about it.

Christianity and Islam have a sort of violent streak, at the very least it's a little bit ambiguous in their books as to under what circumstances violence is acceptable, so it's a little bit hard to say whether violent Christians or Muslims are being hypocritical necessarily, but what about violent Buddhists? Is it less ambiguous whether a violent Buddhist is being hypocritical? What do you think?

 

[A'isha]

I've been keeping abreast of the clashes in Myanmar between Muslims and Buddhist, and I have to say I'm a little surprised to hear about Buddhists behaving so violently, though that may just be the fact that I don't know very much about it.

Christianity and Islam have a sort of violent streak, at the very least it's a little bit ambiguous in their books as to under what circumstances violence is acceptable, so it's a little bit hard to say whether violent Christians or Muslims are being hypocritical necessarily, but what about violent Buddhists? Is it less ambiguous whether a violent Buddhist is being hypocritical? What do you think?

Like the conflict in Sri Lanka (which also involved militant Buddhists), the violence is at least as ethnic as it is religious. Like the Hindu and Christian Tamils, the Muslims of the Rohingya minority in Burma are not just different religiously from the Buddhist majority, but ethnically as well.

 

[angrysoba]

I've been keeping abreast of the clashes in Myanmar between Muslims and Buddhist, and I have to say I'm a little surprised to hear about Buddhists behaving so violently, though that may just be the fact that I don't know very much about it.

Christianity and Islam have a sort of violent streak, at the very least it's a little bit ambiguous in their books as to under what circumstances violence is acceptable, so it's a little bit hard to say whether violent Christians or Muslims are being hypocritical necessarily, but what about violent Buddhists? Is it less ambiguous whether a violent Buddhist is being hypocritical? What do you think?

I think that Thailand has plenty of violence despite it being a Buddhist nation, and Cambodia has certainly had a violent history and not just with the Khmer Rouge either. I think the best thing to say is that Buddhism is no innoculation against violence. In some cases violent Buddhist cults have perpetrated massacres such as the Aum Shinrikyo Cult which, while it can easily be argued is a very perverted form of Buddhism, still believes itself to be Buddhist.

 

[Manopolus]

They aren't Zen Buddhists for the most part, so it isn't the style of Buddhism we're most familiar with in The West. They're of the Theravada tradition, and many of their groups have some older spirit worship traditions mixed in. I'm not enough of an expert to know how much difference this makes, but it might be pertinent (might not, too).

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Another thread here (no one really posted in it ).

It is definitely at odds with Buddhist teachings that are all about loving-kindness and peace over hate and violence. Like, so at odds I don't see how it works, exactly, except that a lot of people are going to be culturally Buddhist but not exactly scripture-limited. Except they are led by a monk, so...

 

[mijopaalmc]

Another thread here (no one really posted in it ).

It is definitely at odds with Buddhist teachings that are all about loving-kindness and peace over hate and violence. Like, so at odds I don't see how it works, exactly, except that a lot of people are going to be culturally Buddhist but not exactly scripture-limited. Except they are led by a monk, so...

One would think that the Tsukasa Buddha woud have an answer. Maybe we should ask the Mikasa Buddha, but he's liekly to have the same answer. As they say in Spanish, "Mikasa es Tsukasa."

 

[Dog Breakfast]

Another thread here (no one really posted in it ).

It is definitely at odds with Buddhist teachings that are all about loving-kindness and peace over hate and violence. Like, so at odds I don't see how it works, exactly, except that a lot of people are going to be culturally Buddhist but not exactly scripture-limited. Except they are led by a monk, so...

Boy, how did I miss that? Saydaw Wirathu sounds like a real nutcase. I am very curious as to where he read that what he is doing is okay.

 

[Bikewer]

Despite ideals of non-attachment and doing no harm, there is a long tradition of Buddhist activism and political action and even revolution.
We in the West think of the Shaolin Temple as a haven for martial arts students as in the TV series Kung Fu...
Actually, these temples (several were burned down) were often a hotbed of revolution and seditious plotting.
In Chinese history, various types of revolutionaries would take shelter in the monasteries if the "heat" got a little too great, apparently retreating into the monastic life.
Of course, one could continue plotting behind the temple walls....

There were some interesting scholarly articles published years ago in Inside Kung Fu on this history....At one time or another several versions of the "Shaolin" were burned or destroyed by warlords or nobles who were concerned about this political activity.

More recently the Tibetan Buddhists have been involved in a number of "actions" against the opressive Chinese.

 

[Dancing David]

I've been keeping abreast of the clashes in Myanmar between Muslims and Buddhist, and I have to say I'm a little surprised to hear about Buddhists behaving so violently, though that may just be the fact that I don't know very much about it.

Christianity and Islam have a sort of violent streak, at the very least it's a little bit ambiguous in their books as to under what circumstances violence is acceptable, so it's a little bit hard to say whether violent Christians or Muslims are being hypocritical necessarily, but what about violent Buddhists? Is it less ambiguous whether a violent Buddhist is being hypocritical? What do you think?

It is sad...

 

[Dog Breakfast]

Despite ideals of non-attachment and doing no harm, there is a long tradition of Buddhist activism and political action and even revolution.
We in the West think of the Shaolin Temple as a haven for martial arts students as in the TV series Kung Fu...
Actually, these temples (several were burned down) were often a hotbed of revolution and seditious plotting.
In Chinese history, various types of revolutionaries would take shelter in the monasteries if the "heat" got a little too great, apparently retreating into the monastic life.
Of course, one could continue plotting behind the temple walls....

There were some interesting scholarly articles published years ago in Inside Kung Fu on this history....At one time or another several versions of the "Shaolin" were burned or destroyed by warlords or nobles who were concerned about this political activity.

More recently the Tibetan Buddhists have been involved in a number of "actions" against the opressive Chinese.

Interesting, I didn't think about martial arts, which I'm sure plenty of Buddhists have taken part in over the years. I believe such things must have beentraditions added later on that conflict with Buddhism's original thrust, and jibe with the natural violent tendencies in our species.

It is sad...

Yes, and I hope one day soon we will be reading stories about cooperation between members of the two groups to stop the violence.

 

[Dancing David]

Interesting, I didn't think about martial arts, which I'm sure plenty of Buddhists have taken part in over the years. I believe such things must have beentraditions added later on that conflict with Buddhism's original thrust, and jibe with the natural violent tendencies in our species.



Yes, and I hope one day soon we will be reading stories about cooperation between members of the two groups to stop the violence.

Pssst ,it seems to me as beings humans are by and large non violent, look at a city and how many interactions are violent.



Bodhidharma though the monks were getting fat so he had them start working out.

 

[Ryokan]

Bodhidharma though the monks were getting fat so he had them start working out.

The other way around, really. The monks at Shaolin did nothing but sit in meditation all their waking hours, so when Bodhidharma arrived they were feeble and weak. He had them do martial arts exercises with staffs as a way to train their bodies as well as their minds.

 

[Dancing David]

The other way around, really. The monks at Shaolin did nothing but sit in meditation all their waking hours, so when Bodhidharma arrived they were feeble and weak. He had them do martial arts exercises with staffs as a way to train their bodies as well as their minds.

So I used a little poetic license...

They were flabby, not fat. They were also being attacked by bandits on the road.

 

[Weak Kitten]

While I myself have not read it apparently Teeth and Claws of the Buddha is a good history of militant Buddhism in Japan. I do not know if it goes into the political fighting between Shinto and Buddhism, which could also get quite violent at times.

 

[Dog Breakfast]

While I myself have not read it apparently Teeth and Claws of the Buddha is a good history of militant Buddhism in Japan. I do not know if it goes into the political fighting between Shinto and Buddhism, which could also get quite violent at times.

That looks like a fascinating book. I guess there is plenty of evidence that, surprise surprise, Buddhists are probably not much less violent than the general population. This is unfortunate to learn, because I always secretly wished there was some religion or ideology that completely annihilated violence, since violence sucks, and my western imagination sort of placed Buddhism in that area without giving it too much scrutiny.

 

[Weak Kitten]

I understand Dog Breakfast. I had a similar feeling until a friend of mine with a love of Japanese history corrected my assumption.

The problem with religions is that they always end up with power over people. Jerks are attracted to things which give them power over people. Thus jerks end up running religions and messing them up no mater how positive their original message may have been.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

The interactions between The Japanese State and Japanese religion is quite interesting hostorically. Like the reason why Japanese priests can marry, or the (near) universal WWII report.

Anyway, I think part of the disconnect had to do with convert versus native Buddhists. But that is a touchy and complicated subject.

 

[MattusMaximus]

One would think that the Tsukasa Buddha woud have an answer. Maybe we should ask the Mikasa Buddha, but he's liekly to have the same answer. As they say in Spanish, "Mikasa es Tsukasa."

 

[Manopolus]

That looks like a fascinating book. I guess there is plenty of evidence that, surprise surprise, Buddhists are probably not much less violent than the general population. This is unfortunate to learn, because I always secretly wished there was some religion or ideology that completely annihilated violence, since violence sucks, and my western imagination sort of placed Buddhism in that area without giving it too much scrutiny.

That's almost a religious position in its own right. Personally, I think that strife is actually occasionally necessary -- don't ask me to support that; it's just my intuition speaking. I generally tend to avoid physical violence in my own life. I don't even mean this in the sense of right prevailing over wrong... I just mean the strife itself is necessary in some way for a healthier society... like to release some sort of tension that builds up otherwise and doesn't go away or something.

 

[MattusMaximus]

That's almost a religious position in its own right. Personally, I think that strife is actually occasionally necessary -- don't ask me to support that; it's just my intuition speaking. I generally tend to avoid physical violence in my own life. I don't even mean this in the sense of right prevailing over wrong... I just mean the strife itself is necessary in some way for a healthier society... like to release some sort of tension that builds up otherwise and doesn't go away or something.

I think we'd all be a bit better off if instead of killing each other off to "relieve the tension" more people just screwed each others brains out