History of Violence in Buddhism January 16, 2010
Posted by tkcollier in Religion.Tags: Buddhism, Islam, Religion
trackback
Armed Buddhist monks in Thailand are not an exception to the rule; they are contemporary examples of a long historical precedence. For centuries monks have been at the helm, or armed in the ranks, of wars. How could this be the case? But more importantly, why did I (and many others) hold the belief that Buddhism=Peace (and that other religions, such as Islam, are more prone to violence)?
It was then that I realized that I was a consumer of a very successful form of propaganda. Since the early 1900s, Buddhist monastic intellectuals such as Walpola Rahula, D. T. Suzuki, and Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, have labored to raise Western awareness of their cultures and traditions. In doing so, they presented specific aspects of their Buddhist traditions while leaving out others.
You have monks taking up arms and marching in the Russo-Japanese War, or earlier messianic battles in China when they thought killing people would bring them closer to enlightenment (a Ten Stage Process). Buddhists have fought against non-Buddhists, or other Buddhists. Japanese Buddhists fought to cleanse the impure Buddhist lands in China and Korea. Thai and Burmese fought for centuries against each other, each claiming religious authority as Cakravartins. This is what the book covers.
via Monks With Guns: Discovering Buddhist Violence | RDBook | ReligionDispatches.
The recent bloody violence in Sri Lanka and Thailand are but examples of this. Yes, Sri Lanka’s violence has traditionally recognized political and cultural components to it, but the Janata Vimukti Peramuna had very clear religious motivations voiced during their assassinations and calls to exterminate the LTTE.
Shaku Soen and D.T. Suzuki, along with Paul Carus, were instrumental in bringing Japanese Zen to this country. There is a long history of this, covered quite well by Verhoeven in “Americanizing the Buddha.” And lets not forget that Suzuki and his teacher Soen were at the vanguard of Japanese militarism during the Russo-Japanese and second World Wars. In Suzuki’s own words, Buddhism must protect the nation.
Walpola Rahula did the same for Sri Lankan Buddhism in the United States, and he had similar concepts of religiously justified violence in Sri Lanka.
In a way, I wish I could return to that dream of Buddhist traditions as a purely peaceful, benevolent religion that lacks mortal failures and shortcomings. But I cannot. It is, ultimately, a selfish dream and it hurts other people in the process.
Buddhist Warfare certainly contributes to the broader discussion of religious violence, but on a more intimate and local level, I hope this collection will effect some significant change in the way Buddhism is perceived in the United States. Only time will tell.
In the end, what I find odd is how we try to displace a very long and lengthy history as anecdotal or enigmatic examples of people gone awry, instead of seeing the nature of religious violence present in Buddhist traditions (as well as others)
There is a difference between a religiously incited or grounded act of violence vs an act of violence by a person of a certain religious background.
Wars and conflicts occurred throughout history, and Buddhism-predorminant countries are not an exception. This does not mean that it is motivated by or grounded in the religion.
Compare that to Abrahamic faiths where scriptural sources can be explicitly used to justify and even sanction such violence. There is no comparable basis in the Buddhist teachings for such violence.
Throughout history, wars are mostly fought by men. Does that mean that the male gender necessarily sanctify such violence or that these wars were fought in the name of man? So should we start calling these, the Man World War?
I think that all religions have the potential to turn people into killers. But does this mean that the wisdom of those religions should be rejected completely?
TK Collier makes a good point that no religion is immune from violence and despotism. But he reveals something about his mindset from the statement: “I hope this collection will effect some significant change in the way Buddhism is perceived in the United States. Only time will tell.”
He obviously thinks that because there have been and to some degree, still are some Buddhists who advocate violence, then Buddhism is completely “bad” and everyone should see this. It seems he is implying that Buddhism is bad for society.
I have to disagree with this. I believe that Buddhism has helped many thousands of people to realize just how precious life is, and to honor it. Its certainly helped me to become a better person. I am much less selfish, and I truly care about others in a way that I never knew was possible. I won’t even kill an ant now, at least not on purpose.
If any philosophy, or religion can get people to care about others more and to see the sacredness of life, then that religion or philosophy has the potential to end all wars.
Its sad that there are those who misinterpret their religion or philosophy in such a way that it makes them do harm to others, but this is a human phenomena, not necessarily an inevitable outcome of that religion.
I think people have a tendency to need to be “right”. This desire to be right and to be the “holder of the truth” is the main driving force behind jihads and crusades and the like. But just because people have this tendency, and it can drive them to murder those who believe differently, it doesn’t mean that the religion is the cause of the violence.
IMHO: Until we can learn to love other people as much as we love our own children, we will have violence, and war. I like to think we will evolve beyond this stage of self destruction, and someday will see all other humans as our brothers and sisters, not our enemies.
In1973 in Thailand, Thai monk Kittivuddho Bhikkhu declared
in a radio interview that “it is not a sin to kill a communist,” proclaiming that his Thai nationalism took precedence over his Buddhist practice. In this case, many of the “communists” murdered in cold blood were completely unarmed students.
The “purity” promoted and espoused by followers in some religious traditions (such as Thai Theravada Buddhism) has deadly potential – potential not necessarily due to the religion itself, but rather, due to the “human-ness” of some followers. It seems all too often that some people can not help but translate the purification of one’s mind-body to that of an ethnic/political/national body. This is the real problem.
“There is a difference between a religiously incited or grounded act of violence vs an act of violence by a person of a certain religious background.”
I apologize, but this justification seems to make absolutely no sense to me.
“Compare that to Abrahamic faiths where scriptural sources can be explicitly used to justify and even sanction such violence. There is no comparable basis in the Buddhist teachings for such violence.”
There is the violence involved in purification of one’s self, which often, for some reason among men and women, translates over to violence committed by or against a state/political group or ethnic/racial group.
…justified in terms of “purification”.
And I’m not referring to all men and women, just some. However, there seems to be a good dose of nationalist sentiment held by many Thai Buddhists these days.
THEY ARE HUMANS FIRST , BUDDHIST SECOND .
HUMANS FIRST , CHRISTIAN SECOND
HUMAN FIRST NAZI SECOND ,.
all organisations are hyjacked in the name of human wars , including religions. Theres as much difference between chinese and soviet communism as there is in swedish and american capitalism . Tibetan buddhism is worlds apart from japanese zen buddhism .If the mormons had been around in the middle ages they would probably have crusaded. Religion in war is usually a secondary or tertiary thing, just a means to polarise different groups. There is nothing inherently warlike in religious dogma . When a religious group like the jesuits become a strong influence then they will be part of all aspects of society (including finance +war ). st augistine outlined his view of a JIHAD or holy war. Jesuits used to be ordnance experts on the battle field. But the philosophies of religion are rarely forwarded by conflict.
In zen buddhism , the sword that kills becomes the sword that saves . ( may sound like a cop out ).
For the samurai , zen became their philosophy in all manners. They were trained to maintain Absolute self control and restraint in times of trouble . the sword became an instrument only to be used in the most extreme circumstances . Early on a famous samurai went to a master for teaching and asked if heaven + hell existed , The zen master deliberately insulted him , He began to draw his sword . the master said “here opens the gates of hell” . so the samurai sheathed it . the master said “here open the gates to heaven ” .
Buddhism doesnt profess belief in deities or a “GOD” . When a person believes in a God , it opens up a huge arena for belief in almost anything , and JUSTIFICATION for almost anything.
Buddhism unlike judeo christian religions are progressive .
“Great faith and great doubt” .
“Faith” in the ability to achieve “liberation” , and “doubt” ; to question every aspect of the philosophy.
theres 4 christian gospels . Theres 84,000 buddhist scriptures.
Christianity was CREATED + moulded for political ends and highly controlled . The opposite is true for buddhism , hence the vast amount of writings which WERE NOT burnt along with their heretical authors
Thank you so much for the authors of this book. Very valuable indeed. Great piece of history to keep and read. Very true!