4 ms·

Buddhism is politically quietist traditionally, but Abrahamic religions are politically activist, so Western reception of Buddhism requires transforming it into

Buddhism is politically quietist traditionally, but Abrahamic religions are politically activist, so Western reception of Buddhism requires transforming it into “engaged” Buddhism. It’s hard for someone raised in the West to look at Nazis and just shrug and say that they can only kill the body but not the soul, but that is more or less what Buddhists before 1800 would say.

krapp 6y ago
>Buddhism is politically quietist traditionally, I am not a scholar but what little I know of East Asian history strongly suggests otherwise, particularly in Japan, where even today one of the biggest and most active political parties (Komeito) is just the political wing of a Buddhist sect (Soka Gakkai.) Any religion which is adopted by the elite class becomes politically active. Buddhism is no different that Christianity, Judaism or Islam in this regard.
- earthboundkid 6y ago
  Komeito is post-war, so doesn’t constitute a counter-example. Buddhists pretty much had the opinion that a king who supports the sangha is a dharma king, whatever other sins he’s committing. The important thing is that the king pays the monastery for his legitimation. Beyond that, they’re not greedy. The king is probably going to hell for 10 million years for all the mayhem he’s causing. No need to be rude about it.
bodhiwatva 6y ago
Are you aware that a sect of Theravada Buddhism has been perpetuating genocide against the Rohingya population of Myanmar for almost 5 years now? How about the dozens of self-immolations performed by Tibetan Buddhists to protest China's annexation of their homeland? Honestly, it's hard not to think of Buddhism as a religion which is traditionally politically activist. Wasn't Siddhartha himself a wealthy prince who only left his life of comfort and privilege after being shocked by the injustice and pain that he saw when he stepped out of his ivory tower?
- AmericanChopper 6y ago
  Not sure why you’re being downvoted. Myanmar had had an issue with Buddhist militias for years now. https://www.wsj.com/articles/buddhist-violence-portends-new-threat-to-myanmar-11546626324 https://www.wsj.com/articles/buddhist-violence-portends-new-... The parent comment just the typical western romanticisation of eastern religion. Why are our religions so bad and corrupted, while those mystical buddhists are so pure and enlightened?... It’s just nonsense really.
  - earthboundkid 6y ago
    Who says quietism is good? Or romantic? It seems to me that the Romantic vision is of an exotic kingdom where the state and religion are a utopian whole. Look, you can be against Orientalism without pushing nonsense like all religions just being the same under the skin. Religions are really different from each other, because they do different things in their societies. Some things are the same in all or most societies because we are all humans, but there’s also a lot of cross society diversity and you can talk about those differences by making sweeping generalizations. Yes, generalizations are simplifications and can be done poorly, but if you try to do without them, you just have to give up on understanding anything at all about humans.
    - AmericanChopper 6y ago
      I’m not saying simplifications aren’t valid. I’m saying this simplification is simply wrong. Theologically Buddhism is not a quietist religion. Buddhism has both communal and vocal worship rituals (mantra chanting). It has some quietist rituals, like meditation. But you can’t just pick one aspect of a religion and say it describes the whole thing. Otherwise a contemplating monk would make Christianity quietist too. In terms of social issues it’s certainly not quietist either. Some Buddhists will argue that Buddhism is apolitical, and others will argue the opposite. I’ve heard Christian priests take either side of that issue too. Then when you put theology aside, it’s not quietist in practice either. Any place that you have a large population of Buddhists, you’re going to have Buddhist political activism (which is more to do with them just being people, rather than specifically Buddhists). The simplification only makes sense when viewed from the misinformed, romanticized perspective.

krapp 6y ago

>Buddhism is politically quietist traditionally, I am not a scholar but what little I know of East Asian history strongly suggests otherwise, particularly in Japan, where even today one of the biggest and most active political parties (Komeito) is just the political wing of a Buddhist sect (Soka Gakkai.) Any religion which is adopted by the elite class becomes politically active. Buddhism is no different that Christianity, Judaism or Islam in this regard.

earthboundkid 6y ago
Komeito is post-war, so doesn’t constitute a counter-example. Buddhists pretty much had the opinion that a king who supports the sangha is a dharma king, whatever other sins he’s committing. The important thing is that the king pays the monastery for his legitimation. Beyond that, they’re not greedy. The king is probably going to hell for 10 million years for all the mayhem he’s causing. No need to be rude about it.

bodhiwatva 6y ago

Are you aware that a sect of Theravada Buddhism has been perpetuating genocide against the Rohingya population of Myanmar for almost 5 years now? How about the dozens of self-immolations performed by Tibetan Buddhists to protest China's annexation of their homeland? Honestly, it's hard not to think of Buddhism as a religion which is traditionally politically activist. Wasn't Siddhartha himself a wealthy prince who only left his life of comfort and privilege after being shocked by the injustice and pain that he saw when he stepped out of his ivory tower?

AmericanChopper 6y ago
Not sure why you’re being downvoted. Myanmar had had an issue with Buddhist militias for years now. https://www.wsj.com/articles/buddhist-violence-portends-new-threat-to-myanmar-11546626324 https://www.wsj.com/articles/buddhist-violence-portends-new-... The parent comment just the typical western romanticisation of eastern religion. Why are our religions so bad and corrupted, while those mystical buddhists are so pure and enlightened?... It’s just nonsense really.
- earthboundkid 6y ago
  Who says quietism is good? Or romantic? It seems to me that the Romantic vision is of an exotic kingdom where the state and religion are a utopian whole. Look, you can be against Orientalism without pushing nonsense like all religions just being the same under the skin. Religions are really different from each other, because they do different things in their societies. Some things are the same in all or most societies because we are all humans, but there’s also a lot of cross society diversity and you can talk about those differences by making sweeping generalizations. Yes, generalizations are simplifications and can be done poorly, but if you try to do without them, you just have to give up on understanding anything at all about humans.
  - AmericanChopper 6y ago
    I’m not saying simplifications aren’t valid. I’m saying this simplification is simply wrong. Theologically Buddhism is not a quietist religion. Buddhism has both communal and vocal worship rituals (mantra chanting). It has some quietist rituals, like meditation. But you can’t just pick one aspect of a religion and say it describes the whole thing. Otherwise a contemplating monk would make Christianity quietist too. In terms of social issues it’s certainly not quietist either. Some Buddhists will argue that Buddhism is apolitical, and others will argue the opposite. I’ve heard Christian priests take either side of that issue too. Then when you put theology aside, it’s not quietist in practice either. Any place that you have a large population of Buddhists, you’re going to have Buddhist political activism (which is more to do with them just being people, rather than specifically Buddhists). The simplification only makes sense when viewed from the misinformed, romanticized perspective.