5 ms·

Not sure why monks or buddhists would be expected to behave differently than any other humans. Even Tibet under independence operated a brutal theocratic feuda

by ty6853 1y ago

Not 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 ago
Perhaps because they are generally expected to have control over their desires, exercise mental discipline.
- jeanlucas 1y ago
  That doesn't mean being passive to everything.
  - ToValueFunfetti 1y ago
    But it does mean being passive to the sort of urges that might drive violence against a minority religion.
    - jeanlucas 1y ago
      Nope, 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 ago
  Catholic 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 ago
    I 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 ago
      That 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 ago
  The 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 ago
  The same was expected of the Spartans.
Mistletoe 1y ago
You don’t know why Buddhist monks would be expected to behave differently?
- ty6853 1y ago
  Not 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 ago
The 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 ago
  Are 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 ago
    No, 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 ago
    No - 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 ago
  I'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 ago
For 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 ago
  That'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 ago
    It'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 ago
      But 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 ago
Independent 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 ago
People's behavior may actually be influenced by the texts they swear to follow.

by ty6853 1y ago

Not 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 ago

Perhaps because they are generally expected to have control over their desires, exercise mental discipline.

jeanlucas 1y ago
That doesn't mean being passive to everything.
- ToValueFunfetti 1y ago
  But it does mean being passive to the sort of urges that might drive violence against a minority religion.
  - jeanlucas 1y ago
    Nope, 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 ago
Catholic 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 ago
  I 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 ago
    That 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 ago
The 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 ago
The same was expected of the Spartans.

Mistletoe 1y ago

You don’t know why Buddhist monks would be expected to behave differently?

ty6853 1y ago
Not 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 ago

The 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 ago
Are 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 ago
  No, 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 ago
  No - 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 ago
I'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 ago

For 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 ago
That'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 ago
  It'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 ago
    But 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 ago

Independent 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 ago

People's behavior may actually be influenced by the texts they swear to follow.