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
emptysongglass · 1d 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]
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 · 1d 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 · 1d 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 · 1d 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 · 1d 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 · 1d 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 · 1d 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 · 1d 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 · 1d ago
You won't be able to cite anything from Pali Canon that justifies it.
The Five Precepts, starting with "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from onslaught on breathing beings," make no exceptions, under any circumstances.
Here’s a verse from the Dhammapada, the short poetic summary of the Buddha’s teachings:
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.
jasonm23 · 12h ago
I mean... they are in comparison, but not to the extent many imagine, it's a matter of degree.
dev_l1x_be · 1d 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.
arp242 · 10h 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.
garylkz · 1d 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 · 1d 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 · 1d 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...
emptysongglass · 1d ago
Mahayana and Vajrayana are both branches of Buddhism that venerate texts most scholars of repute hold in very dubious regard. They came long after, and are stylistically distinct from, the Pali Canon.
> A. K. Warder notes that the Mahāyāna Sūtras are highly unlikely to have come from the teachings of the historical Buddha, since the language and style of every extant Mahāyāna Sūtra is comparable more to later Indian texts than to texts that could have circulated in the Buddha's putative lifetime. Warder also notes that the Tibetan historian Tāranātha (1575–1634) proclaimed that after the Buddha taught the sutras, they disappeared from the human world and circulated only in the world of the nagas. In Warder's view, "this is as good as an admission that no such texts existed until the 2nd century A.D."
I certainly do regard the actual expressions of faith by its many communities, but not all are correct, and one need look no further than to compare the actual root texts to the monstrous actions of people determined to burn the world down in its name. You are invited to do so for yourself, as the Buddha has always done, and compare the words to the actions of those who claim lineage.
> na haneyya na ghātaye
There is the Pali in a handful of words. Now you have the tools to discern for yourself: what does it tell us to do or not to do?
ivm · 1d ago
Not him, but you can look up what Theravada is.
dragonwriter · 1d 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.)
ivm · 1d ago
Yes, it goes as far as some Theravada traditions not giving much attention to Theravada's own commentary corpus, which was added centuries after the Buddha's life.
The "let's go back to origins" approach is not a Western invention, the existence of Chan/Zen proves it quite clearly.
vjerancrnjak · 1d 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.
KevinMS · 1d ago
> Buddhism is anti-violence.
Then Shaolin monks have some explaining to do
croisillon · 1d ago
wha... why did you read the linked paper? we're here to discuss article titles, no one reads them before!
baxtr · 1d ago
my 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 · 1d ago
haha, 5% of 5%, i guess it's the same for me
jasonm23 · 12h ago
key takeaway:
when state privileges group $X ... a $sample_size of members of $X abuse their privilege.
Who knew!
crop_rotation · 1d ago
Such premises make sense in aggregate and compared to a baseline. They are not universal truths nor can they be.
ty6853 · 1d 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.
emptysongglass · 1d 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.
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.
ivm · 1d ago
Unlike some other teachings, the Dhamma is not open to "interpretations": it's pretty explicit and not metaphorical at all. People twisting it for their ends simply produce counterfeit Dhamma that has nothing to do with the Buddha.
alephnerd · 1d ago
> People twisting it for their ends simply produce counterfeit Dhamma that has nothing to do with the Buddha
Sure, but at the end of the day, it is state backed Sanghs that set the tone, and the largest Sanghs (Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Thailand) have aligned with an ethnonationalist view due to historical conflicts with Christian and Muslim evangelism, and how intertwined Buddhist revivalism was with their anti-colonial movements in the 19th and 20th century.
Buddhism in Western countries feels more "highbrow" and "humanist", but in the majority of countries where Buddhism has explicit state backing, it is majoritarian in nature due to the revivalist and anti-colonial movement in the 19th and 20th century, and it is those states that will set the tone for the religion, not a couple dozen thousand Westerners (excluding diasporas as they continue to follow their homeland traditons).
ivm · 1d ago
This is false because you're painting with overly broad strokes in the attempt to prove the point that "Westerners" don't get the reality on the ground in Buddhist countries (many don't, some do).
Technically, Buddhism is not a single religion, and even Theravada is not a monolithic tradition to get "the tone set by states". If anything, worldwide Buddhism is quite decentralized, and this has played a key role in preserving the Dhamma from being co-opted by state agendas.
emptysongglass · 1d 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.
scottLobster · 1d ago
And now we're in a Buddhist version of Ghandi's comment that "Your Christians are so unlike your Christ"
If we say "we expect followers of X religion to be nonviolent because their holy texts explicitly say so" then I guess there aren't many religious people in the world. I see no reason to expect a self-identifying Buddhist to be less violent than a Christian or Muslim beyond pop culture stereotypes.
emptysongglass · 1d ago
If I were a human who came from a warrior culture that revered battle as the One True Way to find liberation, I would fully expect that human to be more violent than one who has dedicated their life to a non-violent religion. Do you really believe otherwise?
alephnerd · 1d 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.
emptysongglass · 1d ago
It is not an interpretation, it is a translation. I could just as well quote the Pali directly, which offers no such justification for the inherent violence you appear to claim (emphasis my own):
> Sabbe tasanti daṇaḍassa sabbe bhāyanti maccuno
Attānaṃ upamaṃ katvā na haneyyana ghātaye. Sabbe tasanti daṇaḍassa sabbesaṃ jīvitaṃ piyaṃ
Attānaṃ upamaṃ katvā na haneyya na ghātaye.
> 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.
I never denied "majoritarianism". I denied that Buddhism condones violence, both in a plurality of Buddhist cultures and in the suttas themselves.
emptysongglass · 1d ago
> And denying that Buddhist violence (that too backed by mainstream Buddhist ideologues in the largest Buddhist practicing countries in the world) is ridiculous.
You appear hellbent on conflating humans doing bad things on behalf of religious causes with Buddhism itself, which does not, in any way, condone any of the acts you've highlighted.
> $massacres highlights a significant strain of violence in Buddhism
If I tell you that a book that declares in the strongest possible language that no harm shall be done to rabbits was in fact a trick of the demiurge and that only true believers could discern the true message for why the mass murder of all rabbits in the world was good and then I tell you that I am the Prophet of the Book, the religion and its teachings would not change. I would just be some idiot who had murdered all the rabbits in the world.
The one who had lied and cheated and schemed would be responsible, not the author of the book or their teachings. They would have created a Bizarro World of their own creation that took its root in the misery of their own heart.
This Bizarro World is not Buddhism, was never Buddhism, and could not be Buddhism and I have the evidence from the words themselves that Buddhism is not of genocide, of hatred, and of bloodshed.
alephnerd · 22h ago
I'm not saying Buddhism (as in the precepts and tenets of the dharm) is warmongering, but a significant portion of organized and mass Buddhism does accept warfare as acceptable based on their own interpretations.
The issue I (and others in this thread) am taking offense to is saying "Buddhism" as an organized religion is opposed to warfare, when several major and mainstream Buddhist movements view warfare as acceptable.
And denying the impact of Anagarika Dharmapala and the anti-colonial movement in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Thailand had on that lens is ridiculous.
And don't get me started about Tibetan Buddhism (yes, a completely different tradition than Theravada Buddhism, though even Theravada Buddhisms have incorporated local traditions), when the SFF and ITBP have very successfully merged the protection of Tibetan Buddhism with combat service back in my ancestral state, and how both Chinese and Indian state organizations have been playing a great game around the core fundamentals of Tibetan Buddhism itself.
And you are clearly disregarding a paper written at NTU by scholars who specifically studied the rise of Buddhist nationalism in South and Southeast Asia.
emptysongglass · 9h ago
Buddhism as an organized religion is opposed to warfare. That is the mainstream and majority view and practice. It derives its legitimacy from the Buddhist suttas. The First Precept — "I undertake the precept to refrain from taking life" — is universal across Theravāda, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna traditions.
Nationalistic deviations exist, have existed and will likely continue to emerge. These are Buddhist in name only — political appropriations of a tradition that fundamentally rejects violence.
The Buddha's teachings are available to anyone, can be practiced by anyone, and are unbound by culture, nation, or ethnicity.
> The ocean doesn’t accommodate a carcass, but quickly carries it to the shore and strands it on the beach. In the same way, the Sangha doesn’t accommodate a person who is unethical, of bad qualities, filthy, with suspicious behavior, underhand, no true ascetic or spiritual practitioner—though claiming to be one—rotten inside, festering, and depraved. But they quickly gather and expel them. Even if such a person is sitting in the middle of the Sangha, they’re far from the Sangha, and the Sangha is far from them.
— Anguttara Nikāya 8.19
What is it to be unethical? The First Precept, which prohibits the taking of life, is the first qualification of an ethical person and the first qualification to be a member of the Sangha: the community of Buddhist practitioners that includes laypeople, monks and nuns.
You continue to play a game of qualifying Buddhism under what cannot be qualified. When pressed for first-party sources justifying violence in Buddhism, you come up empty-handed and instead return to nationalistic violence flown under a false flag that is an abomination to Buddhism. You go on to then state that a majority of organized Buddhist faith allows for warfare and violence, which is false. It simply is not true that a majority of Buddhist denominations agree that warfare and violence are acceptable means of conduct.
n1b0m · 1d ago
Perhaps because they are generally expected to have control over their desires, exercise mental discipline.
crop_rotation · 1d 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 · 1d 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 · 1d 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 · 1d 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 · 1d ago
The same was expected of the Spartans.
jeanlucas · 1d ago
That doesn't mean being passive to everything.
ToValueFunfetti · 1d ago
But it does mean being passive to the sort of urges that might drive violence against a minority religion.
jeanlucas · 1d 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.
DanielVZ · 1d 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 · 1d ago
People's behavior may actually be influenced by the texts they swear to follow.
Mistletoe · 1d ago
You don’t know why Buddhist monks would be expected to behave differently?
ty6853 · 1d 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 · 1d 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.
ZoomZoomZoom · 1d 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.
devmor · 1d ago
I did not call Buddhism a sect. I stated that most of the west perceives all of Buddhism as the same sect (of Buddhism).
no_wizard · 1d 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 · 1d 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 · 1d 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.
> [...] 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 · 1d ago
People, 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.
garylkz · 1d ago
When 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
perching_aix · 1d ago
This 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).
ajross · 1d ago
Also 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.
Or state violence benefits from bringing religion along
sam-cop-vimes · 1d ago
I'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 · 1d ago
Religion 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 · 13h ago
There 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 · 1d ago
But this is exactly what happens in a democracy: majority rule. You can't separate religion from state in this sense.
stonemetal12 · 1d ago
Why 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.
_glass · 1d ago
I 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).
alephnerd · 1d ago
It'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.
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
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
[2] https://books.google.dk/books?id=iAy5jsBAF0oC&pg=PA181&redir...
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
The Five Precepts, starting with "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from onslaught on breathing beings," make no exceptions, under any circumstances.
Here’s a verse from the Dhammapada, the short poetic summary of the Buddha’s teachings:
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.
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.
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.
> A. K. Warder notes that the Mahāyāna Sūtras are highly unlikely to have come from the teachings of the historical Buddha, since the language and style of every extant Mahāyāna Sūtra is comparable more to later Indian texts than to texts that could have circulated in the Buddha's putative lifetime. Warder also notes that the Tibetan historian Tāranātha (1575–1634) proclaimed that after the Buddha taught the sutras, they disappeared from the human world and circulated only in the world of the nagas. In Warder's view, "this is as good as an admission that no such texts existed until the 2nd century A.D."
I certainly do regard the actual expressions of faith by its many communities, but not all are correct, and one need look no further than to compare the actual root texts to the monstrous actions of people determined to burn the world down in its name. You are invited to do so for yourself, as the Buddha has always done, and compare the words to the actions of those who claim lineage.
> na haneyya na ghātaye
There is the Pali in a handful of words. Now you have the tools to discern for yourself: what does it tell us to do or not to do?
The "let's go back to origins" approach is not a Western invention, the existence of Chan/Zen proves it quite clearly.
Of course, this does not mean Buddhism is for violence in the common sphere of human activity.
Then Shaolin monks have some explaining to do
scan HN page => go to discussion based on article title (5%) => go to actual article based on discussion (5%)
>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
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.
Sure, but at the end of the day, it is state backed Sanghs that set the tone, and the largest Sanghs (Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Thailand) have aligned with an ethnonationalist view due to historical conflicts with Christian and Muslim evangelism, and how intertwined Buddhist revivalism was with their anti-colonial movements in the 19th and 20th century.
Buddhism in Western countries feels more "highbrow" and "humanist", but in the majority of countries where Buddhism has explicit state backing, it is majoritarian in nature due to the revivalist and anti-colonial movement in the 19th and 20th century, and it is those states that will set the tone for the religion, not a couple dozen thousand Westerners (excluding diasporas as they continue to follow their homeland traditons).
Technically, Buddhism is not a single religion, and even Theravada is not a monolithic tradition to get "the tone set by states". If anything, worldwide Buddhism is quite decentralized, and this has played a key role in preserving the Dhamma from being co-opted by state agendas.
Quoting Buddhist theologians and scholars is not the same as quoting the suttas themselves, which I have done. Please stop making false claims here.
If we say "we expect followers of X religion to be nonviolent because their holy texts explicitly say so" then I guess there aren't many religious people in the world. I see no reason to expect a self-identifying Buddhist to be less violent than a Christian or Muslim beyond pop culture stereotypes.
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.
> Sabbe tasanti daṇaḍassa sabbe bhāyanti maccuno Attānaṃ upamaṃ katvā na haneyya na ghātaye. Sabbe tasanti daṇaḍassa sabbesaṃ jīvitaṃ piyaṃ Attānaṃ upamaṃ katvā na haneyya na ghātaye.
> 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.
I never denied "majoritarianism". I denied that Buddhism condones violence, both in a plurality of Buddhist cultures and in the suttas themselves.
You appear hellbent on conflating humans doing bad things on behalf of religious causes with Buddhism itself, which does not, in any way, condone any of the acts you've highlighted.
> $massacres highlights a significant strain of violence in Buddhism
If I tell you that a book that declares in the strongest possible language that no harm shall be done to rabbits was in fact a trick of the demiurge and that only true believers could discern the true message for why the mass murder of all rabbits in the world was good and then I tell you that I am the Prophet of the Book, the religion and its teachings would not change. I would just be some idiot who had murdered all the rabbits in the world.
The one who had lied and cheated and schemed would be responsible, not the author of the book or their teachings. They would have created a Bizarro World of their own creation that took its root in the misery of their own heart.
This Bizarro World is not Buddhism, was never Buddhism, and could not be Buddhism and I have the evidence from the words themselves that Buddhism is not of genocide, of hatred, and of bloodshed.
The issue I (and others in this thread) am taking offense to is saying "Buddhism" as an organized religion is opposed to warfare, when several major and mainstream Buddhist movements view warfare as acceptable.
And denying the impact of Anagarika Dharmapala and the anti-colonial movement in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Thailand had on that lens is ridiculous.
And don't get me started about Tibetan Buddhism (yes, a completely different tradition than Theravada Buddhism, though even Theravada Buddhisms have incorporated local traditions), when the SFF and ITBP have very successfully merged the protection of Tibetan Buddhism with combat service back in my ancestral state, and how both Chinese and Indian state organizations have been playing a great game around the core fundamentals of Tibetan Buddhism itself.
And you are clearly disregarding a paper written at NTU by scholars who specifically studied the rise of Buddhist nationalism in South and Southeast Asia.
Nationalistic deviations exist, have existed and will likely continue to emerge. These are Buddhist in name only — political appropriations of a tradition that fundamentally rejects violence.
The Buddha's teachings are available to anyone, can be practiced by anyone, and are unbound by culture, nation, or ethnicity.
> The ocean doesn’t accommodate a carcass, but quickly carries it to the shore and strands it on the beach. In the same way, the Sangha doesn’t accommodate a person who is unethical, of bad qualities, filthy, with suspicious behavior, underhand, no true ascetic or spiritual practitioner—though claiming to be one—rotten inside, festering, and depraved. But they quickly gather and expel them. Even if such a person is sitting in the middle of the Sangha, they’re far from the Sangha, and the Sangha is far from them.
— Anguttara Nikāya 8.19
What is it to be unethical? The First Precept, which prohibits the taking of life, is the first qualification of an ethical person and the first qualification to be a member of the Sangha: the community of Buddhist practitioners that includes laypeople, monks and nuns.
You continue to play a game of qualifying Buddhism under what cannot be qualified. When pressed for first-party sources justifying violence in Buddhism, you come up empty-handed and instead return to nationalistic violence flown under a false flag that is an abomination to Buddhism. You go on to then state that a majority of organized Buddhist faith allows for warfare and violence, which is false. It simply is not true that a majority of Buddhist denominations agree that warfare and violence are acceptable means of conduct.
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.
But yeah you are right that in the end based on history you can’t expect them to behave any differently.
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.
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
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.
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.
'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.
> 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.
[1] Brian Daizen Victoria, Zen at War (New York: Weatherhill, 1997).
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.