8 ms·

Buddhism can be as violent as any other religion

17 points by DiabloD3 10y ago

eraserj 10y ago
Misleading title. Buddhism, as any other religion, can't be violent. Only ignorant non-practicing people can be. Some rogue monks do not represent a religion, they're just another tool of the Thai junta, just like the Pakistan governement is instrumentalizing muslim leaders into terrorism for political motives.
- yowkow 10y ago
  I see your point. However, the fact that _monks_ who should embody everything that Buddhism has to offer, participating, and if fact inciting such violence does need to be looked at. Have you see Christian missionaries that have incited such violence anywhere?
- gonvaled 10y ago
  Let me rephrase your statement: “religion can not be violent because by definition it is not violent. Any violent element is instrumentalisation of religion, and not religion, by definition“
  - Razengan 10y ago
    Religion can definitely be violent, unless you mean it cannot because an idea cannot take actions, people do. Consider this simplification: • Religion A holds all life to be sacred. • Religion B mandates ritual animal sacrifice. How are the adherents of A going to view B as anything but violent? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sacred_cow2.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sacred_cow2.jpg
    - srean 10y ago
      Adding this because it is not very well known. Cows have never been on that universal "do not slaughter" list of Hindus that it is now made out to be. Tenets of Hinduism contain cow slaughter rituals. One can argue though that these rituals were special cases and not frequently practiced. Even if we leave such rituals out, beef eating have not been something that would have raise eyebrows in certain Hindu population. Even the so called caretakers of teachings of Hinduism, the Brahmin caste have freely consumed beef in for example Kerala. The current wave of beef ban is just one part of the insular but politically empowered right wing population imposing its morality on the other.
      - jaldhar 10y ago
        If by "tenets" of Hinduism you mean texts which have not been considered imperative for at least two millennia then maybe but let me remind you that Hindus are not "people of the book". You can accuse Hindutva types of many things but in this case their view is completely mainstream. As for the past instead of text-juggling let's look at archeology. Do excavations in India indicate people in ancient times ate more meat? Yes. Beef in particular? No they don't.
        srean 10y ago
        > If by "tenets" of Hinduism you mean texts which have not been considered imperative for at least two millennia That's a little disingenuous (not you in particular) because if anything is mentioned in those books they fall over themselves to mention them. You indeed bring up an important point, there is no analogue of a Bible or Koran in Hinduism. I find Vedas/Upanishads to be more foundational while others might consider the much younger Gita more important. This grafting of the notion of a 'book' by British led to hilarious practices: swearing on the Gita in court. This means little to a Hindu although the British tried hard to evoke the response they wanted. I am not claiming beef was a regular diet through Hinduism hinterland. I am saying that there is nothing in the religion that sanctions it. I think oral and written tradition are the more appropriate tool to use here (than archeology) and there is enough examples in that document beef as a part of diet (again not across the entire Hindu land).
        jaldhar 10y ago
        > "if anything is mentioned in those books they fall over themselves to mention them." As a Pandit whose education in Sanskrit was strictly on classical lines I definitely get a "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right" feeling in Indian cultural arguments. > I find Vedas/Upanishads to be more foundational while others might consider the much younger Gita... By much younger you are still talking about about atleast 2000 years even by the most conservative estimates. But anyway, I wouldn't consider any of those as foundational outside of specialists such as myself. For the man in the street, insofar as any books could make that claim, it would be the Puranas, Mahabharata, and Ramayana that guide him. Even as a Brahmana most of my activities are Puranic and Tantric. Vedic maybe 25%. > I am saying that there is nothing in the religion that sanctions it. Now we are back to defining what "the religion" is. Obviously there are a good number of people (including myself) who think it does prohibit it. > I think oral and written tradition are the more appropriate tool Again the problem is whose traditions and how are they recorded/interpreted. As a counter we can point out that Muslims considered throwing the corpse of a cow into a mandir a particularly good way of desecrating it. The Sikh Gurus considered cow protection a justification for rebelling against the Mughals. The sepoys rebelled against the British because of suspicions that beef fat was greasing their bullets. How much weight to give to each example? Archaeological objects are less susceptible to ideological manipulation.
- sorokod 10y ago
  Visit Burma for a counter example. Or Israel.
- ue_ 10y ago
  The Buddhist Pali canon is filled with remarks of non-violence and non-killing by the Buddha at every turn. One cannot claim that Buddhism is a violent religion based on this. Monks in the Theravada tradition are disallowed from eating meat given to them if they know or suspect it had been killed for their puspose, for example.
- guitarbill 10y ago
  If you think that religion can't be violent, but politics can, I'm assuming you think they're separate. But to quote the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini: "Anyone who will say that religion is separate from politics is a fool; he does not know Islam or politics."
yowkow 10y ago
Very True. The Tamil genocide in Sri Lanka happened with active participation from Buddhist monks!
jlebrech 10y ago
it's only violent because it needs to be.
- mythrwy 10y ago
  I think that's what every entity engaged in violence says though.
jlebrech 10y ago
only Islam "the religion of peace" can force followers of an actual peaceful religion to take arms.
- srean 10y ago
  Remove only and replace Islam by Abrahamic and I will come close to agreeing.
  - thoughtcrimes 10y ago
    Pretty sure anyone who uses the word "Abrahamic" has never read the Bible.
  - srean 10y ago
    *Abrahmic
    - jlebrech 10y ago
      Abrahamic was correct. It's a bit unfair to other abrahamic religions, wars since the enlightenment were imperialistic and not religious, Islam hasn't had an enlightenment yet, but it can be argued that it's an imperialistic movement.
      - srean 10y ago
        > Islam hasn't had an enlightenment yet, It had a pretty good one, but then got lost. Searching with "Islamic golden age" will get you started.
bendermon 10y ago
Lee Kuan Yew (the late ex-Singapore PM) on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9S6bJDqRHQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9S6bJDqRHQ
pcurve 10y ago
I was hoping the article would back up its claim based on what's actually in the content of Buddhism teaching. On the contrary, the entire article is based on various accounts of actions taken by people that happen to be Buddhist. Some religion condones violence under certain conditions. This article doesn't mention that about Buddhism. Article title is click bait.
- jaldhar 10y ago
  I don't know enough about Buddhism to judge if the article is accurate but separating out teaching from people sounds rather "Protestant" to my ears. In Hinduism which I know more about we have the concept of karma. Karma is action. It can be ritual action. It can be war (As Arjuna is taught in the Gita) or it can be writing a comment on Hacker News. These actions have different goals but conceptually they are the same type. What we call Hinduism is the sum total of what "people that happen to be Hindu" do. I expect Buddhism is like this too.
louithethrid 10y ago
I would now exclaim that any budhistic violence is no true scottsman religion, but im so free of passion and emotion, i just let it slide.
namlem 10y ago
Buddhists can be as violent as members of any other religion, but you cannot possible make the argument that Buddhism supports violence in any way. If you pick up a holy book from any of the Abrahamic religions, you will find no shortage of calls to violence. The same cannot be said of Buddhist teachings. Attributing this violence to Buddhism rather than to ethnic tensions is misguided.
- thoughtcrimes 10y ago
  You shouldn't put Islam and Christianity in the same category. It says nowhere in the Bible to go out and kill in the name of your religion.
- srean 10y ago
  https://www.bible.com/bible/1/DEU.13.kjv https://www.bible.com/bible/1/DEU.13.kjv 13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

17 points by DiabloD3 10y ago

Misleading title. Buddhism, as any other religion, can't be violent. Only ignorant non-practicing people can be. Some rogue monks do not represent a religion, they're just another tool of the Thai junta, just like the Pakistan governement is instrumentalizing muslim leaders into terrorism for political motives.

yowkow 10y ago
I see your point. However, the fact that _monks_ who should embody everything that Buddhism has to offer, participating, and if fact inciting such violence does need to be looked at. Have you see Christian missionaries that have incited such violence anywhere?
gonvaled 10y ago
Let me rephrase your statement: “religion can not be violent because by definition it is not violent. Any violent element is instrumentalisation of religion, and not religion, by definition“
- Razengan 10y ago
  Religion can definitely be violent, unless you mean it cannot because an idea cannot take actions, people do. Consider this simplification: • Religion A holds all life to be sacred. • Religion B mandates ritual animal sacrifice. How are the adherents of A going to view B as anything but violent? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sacred_cow2.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sacred_cow2.jpg
  - srean 10y ago
    Adding this because it is not very well known. Cows have never been on that universal "do not slaughter" list of Hindus that it is now made out to be. Tenets of Hinduism contain cow slaughter rituals. One can argue though that these rituals were special cases and not frequently practiced. Even if we leave such rituals out, beef eating have not been something that would have raise eyebrows in certain Hindu population. Even the so called caretakers of teachings of Hinduism, the Brahmin caste have freely consumed beef in for example Kerala. The current wave of beef ban is just one part of the insular but politically empowered right wing population imposing its morality on the other.
    - jaldhar 10y ago
      If by "tenets" of Hinduism you mean texts which have not been considered imperative for at least two millennia then maybe but let me remind you that Hindus are not "people of the book". You can accuse Hindutva types of many things but in this case their view is completely mainstream. As for the past instead of text-juggling let's look at archeology. Do excavations in India indicate people in ancient times ate more meat? Yes. Beef in particular? No they don't.
      - srean 10y ago
        > If by "tenets" of Hinduism you mean texts which have not been considered imperative for at least two millennia That's a little disingenuous (not you in particular) because if anything is mentioned in those books they fall over themselves to mention them. You indeed bring up an important point, there is no analogue of a Bible or Koran in Hinduism. I find Vedas/Upanishads to be more foundational while others might consider the much younger Gita more important. This grafting of the notion of a 'book' by British led to hilarious practices: swearing on the Gita in court. This means little to a Hindu although the British tried hard to evoke the response they wanted. I am not claiming beef was a regular diet through Hinduism hinterland. I am saying that there is nothing in the religion that sanctions it. I think oral and written tradition are the more appropriate tool to use here (than archeology) and there is enough examples in that document beef as a part of diet (again not across the entire Hindu land).
        jaldhar 10y ago
        > "if anything is mentioned in those books they fall over themselves to mention them." As a Pandit whose education in Sanskrit was strictly on classical lines I definitely get a "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right" feeling in Indian cultural arguments. > I find Vedas/Upanishads to be more foundational while others might consider the much younger Gita... By much younger you are still talking about about atleast 2000 years even by the most conservative estimates. But anyway, I wouldn't consider any of those as foundational outside of specialists such as myself. For the man in the street, insofar as any books could make that claim, it would be the Puranas, Mahabharata, and Ramayana that guide him. Even as a Brahmana most of my activities are Puranic and Tantric. Vedic maybe 25%. > I am saying that there is nothing in the religion that sanctions it. Now we are back to defining what "the religion" is. Obviously there are a good number of people (including myself) who think it does prohibit it. > I think oral and written tradition are the more appropriate tool Again the problem is whose traditions and how are they recorded/interpreted. As a counter we can point out that Muslims considered throwing the corpse of a cow into a mandir a particularly good way of desecrating it. The Sikh Gurus considered cow protection a justification for rebelling against the Mughals. The sepoys rebelled against the British because of suspicions that beef fat was greasing their bullets. How much weight to give to each example? Archaeological objects are less susceptible to ideological manipulation.
sorokod 10y ago
Visit Burma for a counter example. Or Israel.
ue_ 10y ago
The Buddhist Pali canon is filled with remarks of non-violence and non-killing by the Buddha at every turn. One cannot claim that Buddhism is a violent religion based on this. Monks in the Theravada tradition are disallowed from eating meat given to them if they know or suspect it had been killed for their puspose, for example.
guitarbill 10y ago
If you think that religion can't be violent, but politics can, I'm assuming you think they're separate. But to quote the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini: "Anyone who will say that religion is separate from politics is a fool; he does not know Islam or politics."

yowkow 10y ago

Very True. The Tamil genocide in Sri Lanka happened with active participation from Buddhist monks!

jlebrech 10y ago

it's only violent because it needs to be.

mythrwy 10y ago
I think that's what every entity engaged in violence says though.

jlebrech 10y ago

only Islam "the religion of peace" can force followers of an actual peaceful religion to take arms.

srean 10y ago
Remove only and replace Islam by Abrahamic and I will come close to agreeing.
- thoughtcrimes 10y ago
  Pretty sure anyone who uses the word "Abrahamic" has never read the Bible.
- srean 10y ago
  *Abrahmic
  - jlebrech 10y ago
    Abrahamic was correct. It's a bit unfair to other abrahamic religions, wars since the enlightenment were imperialistic and not religious, Islam hasn't had an enlightenment yet, but it can be argued that it's an imperialistic movement.
    - srean 10y ago
      > Islam hasn't had an enlightenment yet, It had a pretty good one, but then got lost. Searching with "Islamic golden age" will get you started.

bendermon 10y ago

Lee Kuan Yew (the late ex-Singapore PM) on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9S6bJDqRHQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9S6bJDqRHQ

pcurve 10y ago

I was hoping the article would back up its claim based on what's actually in the content of Buddhism teaching. On the contrary, the entire article is based on various accounts of actions taken by people that happen to be Buddhist. Some religion condones violence under certain conditions. This article doesn't mention that about Buddhism. Article title is click bait.

jaldhar 10y ago
I don't know enough about Buddhism to judge if the article is accurate but separating out teaching from people sounds rather "Protestant" to my ears. In Hinduism which I know more about we have the concept of karma. Karma is action. It can be ritual action. It can be war (As Arjuna is taught in the Gita) or it can be writing a comment on Hacker News. These actions have different goals but conceptually they are the same type. What we call Hinduism is the sum total of what "people that happen to be Hindu" do. I expect Buddhism is like this too.

louithethrid 10y ago

I would now exclaim that any budhistic violence is no true scottsman religion, but im so free of passion and emotion, i just let it slide.

namlem 10y ago

Buddhists can be as violent as members of any other religion, but you cannot possible make the argument that Buddhism supports violence in any way. If you pick up a holy book from any of the Abrahamic religions, you will find no shortage of calls to violence. The same cannot be said of Buddhist teachings. Attributing this violence to Buddhism rather than to ethnic tensions is misguided.

thoughtcrimes 10y ago
You shouldn't put Islam and Christianity in the same category. It says nowhere in the Bible to go out and kill in the name of your religion.
srean 10y ago
https://www.bible.com/bible/1/DEU.13.kjv https://www.bible.com/bible/1/DEU.13.kjv 13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. 13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.