Buddhist Violence Doesn't Exist

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
retrofuturist
Posts: 27839
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Buddhist Violence Doesn't Exist

Post by retrofuturist »

Greetings,
Dhammanando wrote:In the Jātaka verses these mostly occur in connection with some miscreant (usually Devadatta) getting zapped by the utterance of a saccakiriyā (e.g., “Etena saccavajjena, muddhā te phalatu sattadhā!” — “By this utterance of truth may your skull explode into seven pieces!”) spoken by one of the Buddha’s future leading disciples

.....

Unlike some of his modern western admirers, the Lion of the Sakyans (as one would expect of a kṣatriya) is no advocate of simple-minded hippie pacifism.
Perhaps this speaks more of the authors of the Jātaka verses and their degree of enlightenment with respect to that of the Tathagata.

:buddha1:

If there's grounds for violence in a mind rooted in non-greed, non-aversion, non-delusion, I've not discovered it.

Metta,
Retro. :)
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
User avatar
mettafuture
Posts: 475
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:13 pm

Re: Buddhist Violence Doesn't Exist

Post by mettafuture »

Dhammanando wrote:Then the Blessed One said to Ambaṭṭha the Brahman: ‘Then this further question arises, Ambaṭṭha, a very reasonable one which, even though unwillingly, you should answer. If you do not give a clear reply, or go off upon another issue, or remain silent, or go away, then your head will split into seven pieces on the spot.
Did the Buddha ever split anyone's head "into seven pieces", or instruct his disciples or followers to perform such an act?
Unlike some of his modern western admirers, the Lion of the Sakyans (as one would expect of a kṣatriya) is no advocate of simple-minded hippie pacifism.
I never said he was, but I highly doubt he was an advocate of violent murder either.
Kabouterke
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 8:04 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Re: Buddhist Violence Doesn't Exist

Post by Kabouterke »

Lazy_eye wrote:I don't think one has to be a simple-minded hippie pacifist to oppose the pogroms that are going on in Burma -- or the participation of certain elements among the Buddhist clergy. That's simply a matter of basic morality. If the Venerables involved think they are demonstrating their enlightenment in this way, or delivering some sort of Dhamma lesson, then enlightenment has no meaning and the Dhamma is nonsense. One might just as well join the Mafia.
Honestly, I don't really think spreading the Dharma is the first thing on their minds.

I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt and think that all Buddhist monks and nuns, of whatever sect, are the old, docile but jolly men and women that brought Buddhism to the West, who came with an unflinching desire to spread the dharma. As much as I would love share the opinion of the OP and believe that somehow Buddhism is somehow a notch above the rest, being a social policy analyst, I can't allow myself to ignore the fact that in Theravada countries especially, Buddhism still has enormous political and social influence and power. There are monks who want to work their way up and use their position to exert influence.

In some Theravada countries, Buddhism is a highly salient element of identity and politics. It forms the basic foundations of ethnic identities. The distinctions between religion, politics and ethnic group gets blurred, such as the adoption of Buddhism as the official religion of Myanmar. Believe me, they didn't pass that legislation just because they like to meditate a lot. There are also upwardly mobile and ambitious monks who have their own agenda and get themselves into politics. Some of these monks go on to lead movements and because of their highly respected position in society, and because they share the same ethnic hatred in society, they gain followers. They start taking actions against the other group, legal or not, and the other group starts feeling marginalized and threatened. Et voilà, you've a religiously-charged ethnic conflict. You see this wherever on earth there are mutli-national or mutli-ethnic societies especially if they have strongly religious populations, and even more so if they have different religious sects or religions. Myanmar, for instance, has basically somehow managed to hide from the past 50 years of economic hypergrowth that other countries in the region have experienced. I mean, as you've probably heard, Coca-cola is finally making its first foray into the country. While their employment and literacy rate isn't too shabby, their level of general education and quality of life is still very low. You put multiple highly-diverse ethnic groups in the same borders to fight over a limited amount of resources, and all of those factors only reinforce the likelihood of religiously-based conflict. If you live out in the country, you are illiterate and you have no true formal education, it doesn't matter what the sutras say or not, because you probably don't have access to them (if you can read them): you look up to the monks at your temple as speaking the truth, whether it is in line with Buddhist orthodoxy or not. And so violence gets carried out in Buddhism's sake, even if the act itself flies in the face of Buddhist teaching. So, I don't really understand what the use is of playing semantics "Well now, was this reaaaaally Buddhist violence? Because technically speaking, it can't exist." It doesn't matter if it can't, those extremists are committing violence in the name of Buddhism, whether the majority of people approve of it or not.

But, we've really got to stop thinking that Buddhists or Buddhism exists in some sort of political/economic/social vacuum. We just have to realize that Buddhism is a religion, just like any other, and that its body of followers are also susceptible to human tendencies, just like any other.
Last edited by Kabouterke on Fri Jun 07, 2013 12:42 am, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
Dhammanando
Posts: 6490
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:44 pm
Location: Mae Wang Huai Rin, Li District, Lamphun

Re: Buddhist Violence Doesn't Exist

Post by Dhammanando »

retrofuturist wrote:Perhaps this speaks more of the authors of the Jātaka verses and their degree of enlightenment with respect to that of the Tathagata.
For anyone interested, here is a link to the Paṇḍara Jātaka, wherein Sāriputta, then lord of the nāgas, slays Devadatta, then an evil ascetic, with the approval of the Bodhisatta, then lord of the garuḍas.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j5/j5011.htm
If there's grounds for violence in a mind rooted in non-greed, non-aversion, non-delusion, I've not discovered it.
Non-delusion (amoha, paññā) in the Jātakas is for the most part represented as a sort of Solomonic shrewdness and acuity in analysing and understanding situations and people, coupled with a practical prudence that enables a Bodhisatta to deal optimally with life's vicissitudes. Sometimes an optimal outcome cannot be achieved while keeping one's hands clean, in which case the Bodhisatta takes a proportionalist approach (much as dhammika rājās are expected to do). As the Bodhisatta is as yet unawakened, we shouldn't expect his paññā to be of the level that permanently eradicates kilesa and the harmful actions that issue from kilesa.
Rūpehi bhikkhave arūpā santatarā.
Arūpehi nirodho santataro ti.


“Bhikkhus, the formless is more peaceful than the form realms.
Cessation is more peaceful than the formless realms.”
(Santatarasutta, Iti 73)
User avatar
mettafuture
Posts: 475
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:13 pm

Re: Buddhist Violence Doesn't Exist

Post by mettafuture »

Kabouterke wrote:As much as I would love share the opinion of the OP and believe that somehow Buddhism is somehow a notch above the rest, being a social policy analyst, I can't allow myself to ignore the fact that in Theravada countries especially, Buddhism still has enormous political and social influence and power. There are monks who want to work their way up and use their position to exert influence.
A large group of mathematicians go out and start killing and oppressing people in the name of Calculus. Would it make any sense to categorize these acts as "Calculist violence", or would it be more appropriate to say that a group of people, who in no way represent what Calculus stands for, are going out and using Calculus to justify their hostile, political agenda?
Last edited by mettafuture on Fri Jun 07, 2013 12:40 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 996
Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2009 3:23 pm
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: Buddhist Violence Doesn't Exist

Post by Lazy_eye »

Kabouterke wrote: But, we've really got to stop thinking that Buddhists or Buddhism exists in some sort of political/economic/social vacuum. We just have to realize that Buddhism is a religion, just like any other, and that its body of followers are also susceptible to human tendencies, just like any other.
Hi Kabourteke,

I found your analysis informative and helpful in understanding why such situations have arisen, and from a sociological point of view it seems to me you're correct. I don't dispute the fact that Buddhism has a political/economic context, or that its body of followers is subject to human frailties.

It's true that the statement "Buddhist violence doesn't exist" presents some ambiguities. I think we can make the topic under discussion a little more focused if we ask instead: "is committing violence consistent with the Buddha's teachings?" For a serious practitioner or follower this is really the significant question. All kinds of people can call themselves Buddhists; this in itself says nothing about the quality of their engagement with Dhamma.

Political and social realities don't exempt clerics from their responsibility to present the Buddha's teachings accurately. And I think it's important to note here that we are not simply talking about the normal push-and-pull that can be expected in religious communities. We are talking about a really egregious conflict with the most basic tenets of Buddhism. A monastery could be reasonably expected to discipline or expel a monk who was found to be running a brothel or trafficking in liquor; should we not expect the same for those who organize hate campaigns or participate in acts of murder?
Kabouterke
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 8:04 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Re: Buddhist Violence Doesn't Exist

Post by Kabouterke »

Lazy_eye wrote:
Kabouterke wrote: But, we've really got to stop thinking that Buddhists or Buddhism exists in some sort of political/economic/social vacuum. We just have to realize that Buddhism is a religion, just like any other, and that its body of followers are also susceptible to human tendencies, just like any other.
Political and social realities don't exempt clerics from their responsibility to present the Buddha's teachings accurately. And I think it's important to note here that we are not simply talking about the normal push-and-pull that can be expected in religious communities. We are talking about a really egregious conflict with the most basic tenets of Buddhism. A monastery could be reasonably expected to discipline or expel a monk who was found to be running a brothel or trafficking in liquor; should we not expect the same for those who organize hate campaigns or participate in acts of murder?
Hi. Yeah, I definitely think you're right. The acts that are being carried out in the name of Buddhism are much more egregious than just "minor offences", and have been clearly go against the Buddha's teachings. I think we can all agree on that at least. :tongue: But, my work focuses on (mostly European) ethnic conflicts, and to tell you the truth... I don't know how you can get a group to reprimand itself when a part of society actively supports those efforts, even if it is a small minority.

It's like the cluster of terrorist attacks in the West between 2000-2010.... people were crying out for Islam to take a stand, pick up the flag and be on the forefront of weeding terrorism out of the religion. But, it's really difficult to even find one person or group of people who everyone would respect and listen to.
User avatar
mettafuture
Posts: 475
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:13 pm

Re: Buddhist Violence Doesn't Exist

Post by mettafuture »

Lazy_eye wrote:I think we can make the topic under discussion a little more focused if we ask instead: "is committing violence consistent with the Buddha's teachings?"
This is indeed a more nuanced way to look at this topic.

As far as I've seen, evidence to support such a correlation has yet been presented.
A monastery could be reasonably expected to discipline or expel a monk who was found to be running a brothel or trafficking in liquor; should we not expect the same for those who organize hate campaigns or participate in acts of murder?
If that monastery was established in accordance with Vinaya Pitaka, absolutely.
Kabouterke
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 8:04 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Re: Buddhist Violence Doesn't Exist

Post by Kabouterke »

mettafuture wrote:
Kabouterke wrote:As much as I would love share the opinion of the OP and believe that somehow Buddhism is somehow a notch above the rest, being a social policy analyst, I can't allow myself to ignore the fact that in Theravada countries especially, Buddhism still has enormous political and social influence and power. There are monks who want to work their way up and use their position to exert influence.
A large group of mathematicians go out and start killing and oppressing people in the name of Calculus. Would it make any sense to categorize these acts as "Calculist violence", or would it be more appropriate to say that a group of people, who in no way represent what Calculus stands for, are going out and using Calculus to justify their hostile, political agenda?
With all of these milliosn of posts I've written today, I tried to show that I actually agree with you. I don't believe they are real Buddhists. But you said it yourself, they oppress people in the name of Buddhism. They did it in the name of Buddhism, full stop. There's just no debating about that. As far as politics, news and conflict goes, it's what's done in the name of Buddhism that counts. Yeah, I think it would be fantastic if the Muslim minorities in Myanmar were wise enough to say "Well, I understand the Buddhism very well, and I know that Buddhist violence technically can't exist, so I am just not going to retaliate my aunt who just got murdered because she accidentally bumped into a monk and knocked his offerings onto the floor. And they totally stripped us of our rights and negated our religion. And they sometimes come and totally destroy our families' houses and all, and systematically execute our political and social leaders, and they say they do it in the name of Buddhism, but you know, that doesn't really exist. So let's all just cool down."

Even if the Muslim minorities were that wise, it just doesn't matter at that point if such a thing as Buddhist violence existed. You retaliate on the other group. For them, for everybody it was "Buddhist violence": it came from a group that is Buddhist. Someone says they burned your house down in the name of Buddhism, you have all the reason in the world to believe what they say. In these situations, content is completely irrelevant and has everything to do with the name. The only thing they have in their heads is "We, the Muslims" must retaliate on "They, the Buddhists." EVEN IF you weren't religious, you'd still retaliate and it would be called "Muslim" or "Buddhist" violence. Their religion is inseparable from the ethnic group. You've really got to put your head in their society for a minute. It's kind of like that "one drop" policy you Americans had back in the day. It doesn't matter if you are actually black or not, if your great-great-grandfather was black, you were black, too. It doesn't matter if the person who killed your Aunt was a practicing Buddhist or not, it was done by them, one drop, and they are the Buddhists and is therefore "Buddhist violence."

We can sit here and talk about what should be, but unfortunately politics just hasn't worked like that.... ever.
Last edited by Kabouterke on Fri Jun 07, 2013 1:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
Kabouterke
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Jun 04, 2013 8:04 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

Re: Buddhist Violence Doesn't Exist

Post by Kabouterke »

mettafuture wrote:
Lazy_eye wrote:I think we can make the topic under discussion a little more focused if we ask instead: "is committing violence consistent with the Buddha's teachings?"
This is indeed a more nuanced way to look at this topic.

As far as I've seen, evidence to support such a correlation has yet been presented.
Is it necessary to find evidence of that? I think everybody here's in agreeance that committing violence is not consistent with Buddha's teachings.
User avatar
mettafuture
Posts: 475
Joined: Tue Jan 19, 2010 10:13 pm

Re: Buddhist Violence Doesn't Exist

Post by mettafuture »

Kabouterke wrote:But you said it yourself, they oppress people in the name of Buddhism. They did it in the name of Buddhism, full stop. There's just no debating about that. As far as politics, news and conflict goes, it's what's done in the name of Buddhism that counts.
You didn't answer my question.

Anyone can do anything in the name of anything.
With all of these milliosn of posts I've written today, I tried to show that I actually agree with you. I don't believe they are real Buddhists. [..] For them, for everybody it was "Buddhist violence": it came from a group that is Buddhist.
So which is it? Are they Buddhists, or not?
Someone says they burned your house down in the name of Buddhism, you have all the reason in the world to believe what they say.
If a mathematician says they burned your house down in the name of Calculus, we have all the reason in the world to believe what they say...

A more accurate headline for these news articles would read "Violent mob posing as Buddhist monks terrorizes Muslim minority."
Kabouterke wrote:
mettafuture wrote:
Lazy_eye wrote:I think we can make the topic under discussion a little more focused if we ask instead: "is committing violence consistent with the Buddha's teachings?"
This is indeed a more nuanced way to look at this topic.

As far as I've seen, evidence to support such a correlation has yet been presented.
Is it necessary to find evidence of that?
If you want to give credence to the concept of "Buddhist violence", yes. Without it, you just have a group of people, with no clear religious affiliation, doing violent acts while posing as Buddhists.
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Buddhist Violence Doesn't Exist

Post by chownah »

Buddhist violence doesn't exist? Depends on what you mean by Buddhism. Buddhist violence exists to the extent that Buddhism is people.....if Buddhism is viewed as a dogma then, of course, Buddhist violence does not exist.

It is amazing how ambiguity can lead one into argumentative befuddlement!

chownah
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Buddhist Violence Doesn't Exist

Post by binocular »

mettafuture wrote:Those descriptions aren't "violent." They're reality. It's a fact that were are all subject to old age, illness, and death.
The Bible also talks of reality. And reality is that people sometimes persecute and kill people and do all kinds of other ugly things.

Throughout history, Buddhism actually has gotten a bad reputation for focusing so much on greed, anger and delusion, for talking so much about aging, illness and death.

Perhaps some could take AN 4.111 to extremes, for example:
By using the words of a horse trainer to justify murder?
Like I said: if taken to extremes.

-- The Buddha's response, which was an advocation of silence, not violence.
Sure, but it's a statement that someone could misconstrue as "If others do not convert to your religion, kill them."
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Buddhist Violence Doesn't Exist

Post by mikenz66 »

retrofuturist wrote:
Dhammanando wrote:In the Jātaka verses these mostly occur in connection with some miscreant (usually Devadatta) getting zapped by the utterance of a saccakiriyā (e.g., “Etena saccavajjena, muddhā te phalatu sattadhā!” — “By this utterance of truth may your skull explode into seven pieces!”) spoken by one of the Buddha’s future leading disciples

.....

Unlike some of his modern western admirers, the Lion of the Sakyans (as one would expect of a kṣatriya) is no advocate of simple-minded hippie pacifism.
Perhaps this speaks more of the authors of the Jātaka verses and their degree of enlightenment with respect to that of the Tathagata.

:buddha1:

If there's grounds for violence in a mind rooted in non-greed, non-aversion, non-delusion, I've not discovered it.

Metta,
Retro. :)
I believe the quote that Bhante gave is from the Majhima Nikaya...

:anjali:
Mike
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Buddhist Violence Doesn't Exist

Post by binocular »

Kabouterke wrote:Is it necessary to find evidence of that? I think everybody here's in agreeance that committing violence is not consistent with Buddha's teachings.
There is use of force, and there is violence. The two are not the same. Use of force isn't always violent, while violence always implies a use of force of some kind.

retrofuturist wrote:If there's grounds for violence in a mind rooted in non-greed, non-aversion, non-delusion, I've not discovered it.
One should protect the Dharma, should one not?

In Tibetan Buddhism, they have the Mahakala as the protector of the Dharma. He doesn't look particularly harmless, nor is he intended to be so.

Lazy_eye wrote:I don't think one has to be a simple-minded hippie pacifist to oppose the pogroms that are going on in Burma -- or the participation of certain elements among the Buddhist clergy. That's simply a matter of basic morality. If the Venerables involved think they are demonstrating their enlightenment in this way, or delivering some sort of Dhamma lesson, then enlightenment has no meaning and the Dhamma is nonsense. One might just as well join the Mafia.
Pacifism simply isn't universally viable.
We live in a kill-or-be-killed world. One cannot ignore that.

If the reports are true (although there is some reason to believe they aren't, as noted in the other recent thread on this topic), I don't condone the behavior of the monks, but I can understand how it can come about and why in some circumstances, it is the only course of action that has some chance for ensuring one's survival against an opponent.


Gandhi's passive resistence worked only because the British were moral enough to get disgusted by killing people who did not resist in a physical way. Someone less moral than the British, such as the Nazis, did not get disgusted and did not stop.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Post Reply