3 ms·
The premise that Buddhism is anti-violence feels like a misunderstanding on itself. The paper addresses this well, Buddhist ethics are situation and pacifism i
by jeanlucas 1y ago
The 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...
- BartjeD 1y agoChristianity is also anti-violence. <insert-any-other-regilion-here> is ... I'm not sure how you can even qualify an idea or religion as violent or anti-violent, other than by the behavior of it's adherents. It's clear to me there are violent fanatics in all reglions, I can't believe I have to make THAT argument here.
- emptysongglass 1y agoBecause Buddhism is explicitly anti-violence. It does not emerge from a vacuum. The Buddha himself explicitly, insistently, and repeatedly stressed this. It's in the very scriptures all of Buddhism is built on. Buddhism is not an idea. The existence of violent fanatics across all religions does not, in any way, invalidate this, because they are people acting in the name of a religion that contrary to their actions stresses, ad nauseum, non-violence in its foundational texts.
- alephnerd 1y agoMost regional traditions of Buddhism allow for the use of violence with justification, just like any other religion. Buddhism (and to a certain extent Hindusim) are treated with an orientalist view where Westerners assumes they are somehow more "peaceful" than their religions, but they ain't.
- emptysongglass 1y agoThis is simply not true. Most regional traditions of Buddhism do not allow for the use of violence with justification and, regardless, the Buddhist suttas do not provide any such justification.
- alephnerd 1y agoAt least in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Thailand, modern Buddhism adopted a number of innovations and interpretations from the Buddhist revivalist movement lead by Anagarika Dharmapala in Sri Lanka back under colonial rule, and all use the Upayakaushalya Sutra to justify their violence as for the "greater good".
- jasonm23 1y agokey takeaway: when state privileges group $X ... a $sample_size of members of $X abuse their privilege. Who knew!