4 ms·
Monks Behaving Badly: Explaining Buddhist Violence in Asia
- ty6853 1y agoNot sure why monks or buddhists would be expected to behave differently than any other humans. Even Tibet under independence operated a brutal theocratic feudalist system.
- n1b0m 1y agoPerhaps because they are generally expected to have control over their desires, exercise mental discipline.
- jeanlucas 1y agoThat doesn't mean being passive to everything.
- ToValueFunfetti 1y agoBut it does mean being passive to the sort of urges that might drive violence against a minority religion.
- jeanlucas 1y agoNope, it doesn't, the idea that being a monk is just being happy and let everything pass is a wrong reading of Buddhism.
- crop_rotation 1y agoCatholic Priests have been expected to be celibate so clearly expectations over human behaviour don't mean much on long term and many people.
- HideousKojima 1y agoI mean if you break it down per capita, Catholic priests are far less likely to sexually abuse kids than school teachers are, so there's likely some sort of effect on behavior (and/or selection effects amongst those who choose to become priests and teachers).
- crop_rotation 1y agoThat is why I said "on long term and many people". Buddhists also over a long time period and in aggregate compared to other religions do seem non violent.
- garylkz 1y agoThe whole point of becoming a monk is to try to have control over their desires, exercise mental discipline like how Buddha does. If one is already able to achieve all of that they won't even need to become a monk, because they've already achieved what they wanted to.
- PaulHoule 1y agoThe same was expected of the Spartans.
- Mistletoe 1y agoYou don’t know why Buddhist monks would be expected to behave differently?
- ty6853 1y agoNot really, again under independence from external government control the monks quickly organized a brutal fuedal system holding most the non-monks in serfdom, I don't know why their brutality would change post cold war. And again I'm not singling out monks in particular, lots of non-buddhists did that too as did the Chinese that conquered them just under a more intellectually polished reasoning.
- devmor 1y agoThe west in general has a warped view of what Buddhism is thanks to popular media framing all of it as the same nonviolent, humble, peace-loving sect.
- no_wizard 1y agoAre you implying they're actually a violent, non-humble, peace hating sect? Edit: I was asking sincerely, I have trouble discerning meaning with statements like this sometimes. I apologize for the confusion, and I didn’t mean any accidentally implied negative sentiments toward OP. I thought there may have been a relatively unknown history behind the statement
- HideousKojima 1y agoNo, his comment seems to be pretty clearly framing it as "not a monolith". Much like how Native Americans are often depicted as peaceful "noble savages" living in harmony with nature when some tribes might have fit that description while others were intentionally setting massive forest fires to drive out game, ripping people's hearts out in human sacrifices, etc. It's silly to describe the inhabitants of two continents as a monolith in the same way it's silly to describe all adherents of a massive religion (especially one without any central governing authorities) as a monolith.
- devmor 1y agoNo - I am noting that there are several sects of Buddhism with very different practices and cultural norms that even vary by regions claiming to practice the same beliefs. For example, if you look at Thai Buddhism during the era that produced Pol Pot, you would see that fairly intense violence was a cultural norm as long as it was being used as a tool to teach or discipline rather than in anger.
- ZoomZoomZoom 1y agoI'm not sure there's a context in which you can call Buddhism a "sect". Perhaps you think this word means not what it does.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- emptysongglass 1y agoFor one, because the suttas all state multiple times, directly, with no room for interpretation, that you shouldn't harm others. >All >tremble at the rod, > all >are fearful of death. >Drawing the parallel to > yourself, >neither kill nor get others to kill. > >All >tremble at the rod, > all >hold their life dear. >Drawing the parallel to > yourself, >neither kill nor get others to kill. — Dhammapada 129–130 >A disciple has faith in that teacher and reflects: 'The Blessed One in a variety of ways criticizes & censures the taking of life, and says, "Abstain from taking life." There are living beings that I have killed, to a greater or lesser extent. That was not right. That was not good. But if I become remorseful for that reason, that evil deed of mine will not be undone.' So, reflecting thus, he abandons right then the taking of life, and in the future refrains from taking life. This is how there comes to be the abandoning of that evil deed. This is how there comes to be the transcending of that evil deed. — Samyutta42.8 And on and on and on. [1] You would absolutely expect other humans, who might live by codes with no such prohibitions, to behave differently. [1] https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/nonviolence.html https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/nonviolence.html
- alephnerd 1y agoThat's just an interpretation by a Gora. I can give you a similar interpretation by Wirathu or Anagarika Dharmapala that justifies the use of violence against those who supposedly stray against the path.
- emptysongglass 1y agoIt's not an interpretation. It is the foundational suttas of all of Buddhism themselves, which I have linked to. The Pali from which they are translated contain the same explicit prohibition against violence. Quoting Buddhist theologians and scholars is not the same as quoting the suttas themselves, which I have done. Please stop making false claims here.
- alephnerd 1y agoBut the theologians (and mainstream ones at that) are the ones that set the tone and interpretation of a religion. Just like how you quote a western raised and educated theologian's interpretations and translations. This isn't to say Buddhism is a violent religion, but to deny that there is a very mainstream thread of majoritarianism in two of the largest Buddhist countries is ridiculous. Edit: Cannot reply, but every group that uses a majoritarian lens in Buddhism uses the Upayakaushalya Sutra to justify their violence as an action for the greater good. Fundamentally, a religion is about the interpretation, not the texts themselves. And denying that Buddhist violence (that too backed by mainstream Buddhist ideologues in the largest Buddhist practicing countries in the world) is ridiculous. The 2019 riots in Sri Lanka, the Rohingya genocide, the whitewashing of the Burmese and Thai Military juntas, the whitewashing of dictatorship in Sri Lanka, and multitudes of other similar actions by the majority of the Sangh in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Thailand highlights a significant strain of violence in Buddhism just like any other religion.
- DanielVZ 1y agoIndependent from history people will form a simplistic view of Buddhism at face value and will form expectations accordingly. Of course I’d expect them to behave differently if all I’ve heard about them is that all life is sacred and that they don’t even kill bugs, live a life of contemplation, etc. That’s why they are expected to behave differently. But yeah you are right that in the end based on history you can’t expect them to behave any differently.
- tim333 1y agoPeople's behavior may actually be influenced by the texts they swear to follow.
- garylkz 1y agoWhen people are doing something "in the name of religion", it's possible that they are just trying to justify their actions to achieve certain goals
- ajross 1y agoAlso true when people are doing something for any other reason, though. People providing a self-aware and appropriately cynical justification for their actions is the extremely rare exception. The rule is contorted rationalization for selfish nonsense.
- perching_aix 1y agoThis is true even beyond just religion. Stated and actual goals can and not too rarely do differ, as one cannot see into people's minds (for now).
- jeanlucas 1y agoThe premise that Buddhism is anti-violence feels like a misunderstanding on itself. The paper addresses this well, Buddhist ethics are situation and pacifism isn't absolute nor it means to accept whatever others do. Pacifism *is not* passivism. Plus, Buddhist states may twist what means to be a monk, after all, being a monk becomes a position of power in a religious state... Just like in any other religion. 10/10 paper
- croisillon 1y agowha... why did you read the linked paper? we're here to discuss article titles, no one reads them before!
- baxtr 1y agomy funnel is somewhat like that: scan HN page => go to discussion based on article title (5%) => go to actual article based on discussion (5%)
- croisillon 1y agohaha, 5% of 5%, i guess it's the same for me
- crop_rotation 1y agoSuch premises make sense in aggregate and compared to a baseline. They are not universal truths nor can they be.
- emptysongglass 1y ago> The premise that Buddhism is anti-violence feels like a misunderstanding on itself. Buddhism is anti-violence. I can't believe I need to make this argument here. Folks, if you're going to make statements, please do your research first. [1] > Gananath Obeyesekere, Emeritus Professor of Anthropology at Princeton University, said that "in the Buddhist doctrinal tradition... there is little evidence of intolerance, no justification for violence, no conception even of 'just wars' or 'holy wars.' ... one can make an assertion that Buddhist doctrine is impossible to reconcile logically with an ideology of violence and intolerance" [2] [1] https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/nonviolence.html https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/nonviolence.html [2] https://books.google.dk/books?id=iAy5jsBAF0oC&pg=PA181&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false https://books.google.dk/books?id=iAy5jsBAF0oC&pg=PA181&redir...
- sam-cop-vimes 1y agoI'm glad this study has been done. I haven't read the article in its entirety, but seems like a powerful argument for separating religion from state if a stable democracy is the goal.
- ty6853 1y agoReligion is largely a belief in a way of living life. Democracy happens to be the most powerful religion at the moment, heretics can be imprisoned for life such as William Pickard was for manufacturing LSD and sinning against the belief of the congregation. People who disavow themselves entirely of the religion of democracy are laughed at ('sovereign citizens') while those priests who pretend to practice it while violating the tenants ('cops') are revered. 'Democracy' (in practice a republic in places like US) is just a different religion. Without the devoutism of a segment of powerful 'believers', the religion in power switches to a different one.
- perching_aix 1y agoThere would be an unfathomable amount to pick apart on this, but among the many thoughts in here, > those priests who pretend to practice it while violating the tenants ('cops') are revered. vs. mentions of US and US events is the most strikingly conflicting one.
- jsbg 1y agoBut this is exactly what happens in a democracy: majority rule. You can't separate religion from state in this sense.
- jollyllama 1y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chin_people#Human_rights_violations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chin_people#Human_rights_viola...
- engineer_22 1y ago> [...] the Chin—an mostly Christian minority in a predominantly Buddhist Myanmar—have faced systemic ethnic and religious persecution. The Tatmadaw and successive military juntas, including the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) have committed widespread abuses, including forced labor, torture, arbitrary detention, and extrajudicial killings.
- clarionbell 1y agoPeople, in general, have only very vague idea of what rest of the world is like. In this case, this leads to incredible number of misconceptions about eastern religious traditions in general, and Buddhism in particular. Anyone who thinks that Buddhism makes people somehow incapable of violence should look up history of Indochinese peninsula. Despite the fact it's one of the most Buddhist areas in the world, local kingdoms had no problem fighting each other, just like those in Europe or anywhere else.
- PaulHoule 1y agoI think mixing state and religion leads to violence everywhere. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_wars_of_religion
- yread 1y agoOr state violence benefits from bringing religion along
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- stonemetal12 1y agoWhy is Buddhist violence even surprising? Wether it is centuries old orders of warrior monks or samurai using Zen to disassociate as they fought, Buddhism has quite the history of violence.
- alephnerd 1y agoIt's just ethnonationalism mixed with a healthy dose of Islamophobia (or Sinophobia in the Japanese movement's case) like anything else. A number of the Buddhist nationalist movements in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, and Japan had/have ideological links with Hindutva and the National Conservative movement as well.
- _glass 1y agoI think it is a great insight that every ideology can be turned violent. I first heard this where Zizek cites the book has a story from: "During World War II, Zen Buddhism provided a strong foundation for Japanese militarism, including Imperial Japan's use of suicide warfare."[1] Where a Japanese soldier in WW2 wouldn't do the killing, but his sword (?) This is seen that all ideology can be turned violent. [1] Brian Daizen Victoria, Zen at War (New York: Weatherhill, 1997).