4 ms·

> 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 h

> 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 ago
Christianity 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 ago
  Because 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 ago
    Most 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 ago
      This 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 ago
        At 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".
        ivm 1y ago
        When discussing religion, it’s important to not mix up three rather different things: 1. The teaching itself 2. The clerical institution, often fused with and distorted by state power 3. The practice as understood and lived by ordinary people
        alephnerd 1y ago
        I disagree. It is always 2 and 3 that sets the tone of a religion because humans have a way of corrupting everything we touch. 1 always remains "highbrow" and isolated from the stresses of 2 and 3; and it's 2 and 3 that set the tone of a religion.
        ivm 1y ago
        That's human problem, not the teaching's problem. Some monks managed to behave badly even during the times of the Buddha. The problem of the discussion here is that some participants are claiming that Buddhism is not anti-violence which is like going around claiming that Christianity/Islam is not anti-polytheism.
    - ivm 1y ago
- dev_l1x_be 1y ago
  >> <insert-any-other-regilion-here> is Factually incorrect. Many religions are explicitly against another religions and degrade any non-believers, just like Hitler did with jews to make the general public do horrid things.
vjerancrnjak 1y ago
There's branches like "Middle Way", Dzogchen or Zen where there's a line drawn. Conventional truth, where violence/nonviolence have meaning and importance, and ultimate truth where both are empty of their essence. Of course, this does not mean Buddhism is for violence in the common sphere of human activity.
garylkz 1y ago
Buddhism encourages non-violence, it's not strictly enforced, but there will be consequences when they die. Then again, just because some people's doctrine does not encourage violence doesn't give others a free ticket to bash on them for doing so.
- emptysongglass 1y ago
  Again, this is incorrect. I have cited direct sources of Buddhist scripture that unequivocally denounce and condemn violence in all forms. Encourages is far too weak a word to describe Buddhist scripture on the topic, which uses strong language in every case. Prohibitions against violence are enforced by the Vinaya, which is the code of ethics all monks must follow.
  - dragonwriter 1y ago
    I've noticed you repeatedly in this thread treating Buddhism with a kind of pure scripturalism and disregard for the actual expressions of faith by the community professing it that resembles the (relatively novel even within Christianity) approach of Fundamentalist Protestantism to the Christian Bible, and I wonder if there is any basis with Buddhism itself for this or...
    - ivm 1y ago
      Not him, but you can look up what Theravada is.
      - dragonwriter 1y ago
        Are you claiming that the sola scriptura-like approach is actually an element of Theravada Buddhism or that the positions being defended with that approach are actually the distinct tenants of Theravada Buddhism? (I mean, I get from the repeated references to the Pali Canon that the arguments—framed as general to Buddhism—are likely Theravada-focused, but that doesn't really answer the question I was asking.)
KevinMS 1y ago
> Buddhism is anti-violence. Then Shaolin monks have some explaining to do
arp242 1y ago
It's been my observation there is often not that strong of a correlation between what religious texts say and how its adherents behave, especially when it comes to matters such as this. We can have a semantic discussion about what "Buddhism" in "Buddhism is anti-violence" means exactly (What the text says? What scholars (which?) interpret? How Buddhists (which?) behave?), but that's kind of a boring discussion. IMHO "$religion is anti-violence" (or "$religion is violent", for that matter) is not that important.

BartjeD 1y ago

Christianity 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 ago
Because 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 ago
  Most 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 ago
    This 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 ago
      At 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".
      - ivm 1y ago
        When discussing religion, it’s important to not mix up three rather different things: 1. The teaching itself 2. The clerical institution, often fused with and distorted by state power 3. The practice as understood and lived by ordinary people
        alephnerd 1y ago
        I disagree. It is always 2 and 3 that sets the tone of a religion because humans have a way of corrupting everything we touch. 1 always remains "highbrow" and isolated from the stresses of 2 and 3; and it's 2 and 3 that set the tone of a religion.
        ivm 1y ago
        That's human problem, not the teaching's problem. Some monks managed to behave badly even during the times of the Buddha. The problem of the discussion here is that some participants are claiming that Buddhism is not anti-violence which is like going around claiming that Christianity/Islam is not anti-polytheism.
  - ivm 1y ago
dev_l1x_be 1y ago
>> <insert-any-other-regilion-here> is Factually incorrect. Many religions are explicitly against another religions and degrade any non-believers, just like Hitler did with jews to make the general public do horrid things.

vjerancrnjak 1y ago

There's branches like "Middle Way", Dzogchen or Zen where there's a line drawn. Conventional truth, where violence/nonviolence have meaning and importance, and ultimate truth where both are empty of their essence. Of course, this does not mean Buddhism is for violence in the common sphere of human activity.

garylkz 1y ago

Buddhism encourages non-violence, it's not strictly enforced, but there will be consequences when they die. Then again, just because some people's doctrine does not encourage violence doesn't give others a free ticket to bash on them for doing so.

emptysongglass 1y ago
Again, this is incorrect. I have cited direct sources of Buddhist scripture that unequivocally denounce and condemn violence in all forms. Encourages is far too weak a word to describe Buddhist scripture on the topic, which uses strong language in every case. Prohibitions against violence are enforced by the Vinaya, which is the code of ethics all monks must follow.
- dragonwriter 1y ago
  I've noticed you repeatedly in this thread treating Buddhism with a kind of pure scripturalism and disregard for the actual expressions of faith by the community professing it that resembles the (relatively novel even within Christianity) approach of Fundamentalist Protestantism to the Christian Bible, and I wonder if there is any basis with Buddhism itself for this or...
  - ivm 1y ago
    Not him, but you can look up what Theravada is.
    - dragonwriter 1y ago
      Are you claiming that the sola scriptura-like approach is actually an element of Theravada Buddhism or that the positions being defended with that approach are actually the distinct tenants of Theravada Buddhism? (I mean, I get from the repeated references to the Pali Canon that the arguments—framed as general to Buddhism—are likely Theravada-focused, but that doesn't really answer the question I was asking.)

KevinMS 1y ago

> Buddhism is anti-violence. Then Shaolin monks have some explaining to do

arp242 1y ago

It's been my observation there is often not that strong of a correlation between what religious texts say and how its adherents behave, especially when it comes to matters such as this. We can have a semantic discussion about what "Buddhism" in "Buddhism is anti-violence" means exactly (What the text says? What scholars (which?) interpret? How Buddhists (which?) behave?), but that's kind of a boring discussion. IMHO "$religion is anti-violence" (or "$religion is violent", for that matter) is not that important.