Sri Lanka to demolish mosque & Hindu temple due to the demands of Buddhist Monks

B5C

Sri Lankan officials have decided to demolish a mosque and a Hindu temple after a group of Buddhist monks and their supporters demanded their removal from a Buddhist sacred area.

Ruling party MP Lakshman Perera said on Monday the places of worship and other buildings will be relocated to sites outside the designated sacred zone within six months and Muslim politicians had accepted the plan.

Thousands of Buddhist monks and lay supporters stormed the mosque in the central Sri Lankan town of Dambulla on Friday, saying it was constructed illegally.

They forced their way into the building and damaged some furniture, dispersing only after officials promised a solution on Monday.

Mohamed Saleemdeen, a board member of the mosque, denied it was an illegal building and said it had been there long before the area was declared a sacred zone about 20 years ago.

He said his father and grandfather were officials at the mosque.

Buddhism is Sri Lanka's state religion and monks wield power in political and social affairs.

http://bigpondnews.com/articles/World/2012/04/24/Sri_Lanka_to_demolish_mosque_742840.html

One of my reasons I don't like religion in Buddhism it brings the fundamentalism in EVERYONE!!

Victorious

Yepp this makes me wanna get a bulldozer and run some of these idiots over... with metta of course.

No seriously.

This is really depressing. The Muslims in Sri Lanka have always been the bigger person. They are the total opposite of the fundamentalist picture painted of Muslims in the West. Tolerant and patient and always giving in were they have no reason to.

I am very liberal on who can call themselves buddhists but in these cases I totally deny that these people are buddhists.

No way I am going to give them that.

/Victor

Gui

so it goes

seeker242

In EVERYONE? You sure about that? Seems a bit much don't you think?

RichardH

Yepp this makes me wanna get a bulldozer and run some of these idiots over... with metta of course.

No seriously.

This is really depressing. The Muslims in Sri Lanka have always been the bigger person. They are the total opposite of the fundamentalist picture painted of Muslims in the West. Tolerant and patient and always giving in were they have no reason to.

I am very liberal on who can call themselves buddhists but in these cases I totally deny that these people are buddhists.

No way I am going to give them that.

/Victor

Maybe it is a good idea to own it? .... and say ..Yes.. these people are not just some fringe group but are, no doubt, part of the Buddhist establishment in a very Buddhist country. Buddhists who probably have a very clear idea about what real Buddhism is... and.... they are are being like this?

It's good practice. Whatever crap is out there, is in here.

Amelia

Sri Lankan officials have decided to demolish a mosque and a Hindu temple after a group of Buddhist monks and their supporters demanded their removal from a Buddhist sacred area.

Eh... does not seem right to me. But who am I to decide?

I am very liberal on who can call themselves buddhists but in these cases I totally deny that these people are buddhists.

And who are you to decide that? I have committed myself to the path for now, and I call myself Buddhist-- but when I deviate from that path through delusion, am I no longer a Buddhist? They have committed themselves to the path, many of them truly want to save all beings. They are perhaps just acting in delusion, which no one is free from.

Cinorjer

If we claim the right to look at other religions with a critical eye, then the fair thing to do is look at our own religion using the same standards. If Buddhist monks are involved in harmful and intolerant actions such as in this case, then no excuses. There is something terribly wrong with the Dharma as it is preached and practiced in Sri Lanka. Also, it is not exactly the first time the temples have gotten tangled with national sectarian violence in the sweep of history. It wasn't right then and it's not right now.

To be straight, the entire concept of a "sacred area" where only Buddhism is allowed to be practiced is a perversion of our basic principles of inclusion. What gives any Buddhists the right to declare this particular piece of land now belongs to us, and you have to tear down your own holy place because it defiles our sacred land??

If Muslims were to do the same thing to one of our temples or shrines, the entire Buddhist world would be up in arms. But here, we shake our heads and want to find justification.

These are people in Buddhist robes confusing the robe for the Dharma. I hope someone there brings them to their senses before more damage is done.

Bekenze

Sri Lanka is known to have "militant Buddhists." We all got our crazies.

Victorious

Sri Lankan officials have decided to demolish a mosque and a Hindu temple after a group of Buddhist monks and their supporters demanded their removal from a Buddhist sacred area.

Eh... does not seem right to me. But who am I to decide?

I am very liberal on who can call themselves buddhists but in these cases I totally deny that these people are buddhists.

And who are you to decide that? I have committed myself to the path for now, and I call myself Buddhist-- but when I deviate from that path through delusion, am I no longer a Buddhist? They have committed themselves to the path, many of them truly want to save all beings. They are perhaps just acting in delusion, which no one is free from.

I am me. Buddhism is mine and they are my people and I bloody well expect better of them. Specially those fools dressed up as Monks.

There is even a Buddhist Monk Party going for elections! That is not deviating from the path. That is destroying the path.

Many of the temples I have visited have TV and you can see monks watching cricket if there is a game on!

WTF!?

I say run those temples over with a bulldoser and be done with it.

/Victor

Arthurbodhi

Sri Lankan officials have decided to demolish a mosque and a Hindu temple after a group of Buddhist monks and their supporters demanded their removal from a Buddhist sacred area.

Eh... does not seem right to me. But who am I to decide?

I am very liberal on who can call themselves buddhists but in these cases I totally deny that these people are buddhists.

And who are you to decide that? I have committed myself to the path for now, and I call myself Buddhist-- but when I deviate from that path through delusion, am I no longer a Buddhist? They have committed themselves to the path, many of them truly want to save all beings. They are perhaps just acting in delusion, which no one is free from.

I am me. Buddhism is mine and they are my people and I bloody well expect better of them. Specially those fools dressed up as Monks.

There is even a Buddhist Monk Party going for elections! That is not deviating from the path. That is destroying the path.

Many of the temples I have visited have TV and you can see monks watching cricket if there is a game on!

WTF!?

I say run those temples over with a bulldoser and be done with it.

/Victor

Buddhism is yours?

snGus

Just because a person calls him/herself a Buddhist it does not mean he/she is actually a Buddhist. I don't know how the Sri Lanka political scenario is but as there is a good portion of its population that is composed by Buddhists. Thus non-Buddhists with political interests will obviously pretend to be Buddhists by dressing themselves as Buddhist monks and using this costume to make the probably poor and uncultured people accept their actions and decisions. Real Buddhists should wish that these people leave this attitude and find peace and happiness and switched to a non-political but more tolerant and skillful way of living.

Sile

I think that without being there, it's pretty hard to know what is happening. Reports are saying the mosque is on land belonging to a Buddhist temple (which one?), and that despite a national-level order in 1982 for no further expansion, the mosque recently began a new expansion project. The mosque claims it is a refurbishment of an existing structure; the temple alleges that a current, small structure is being rebuilt into something much larger.

Despite appearances, this sounds like land dispute, not so much a religious dispute. But violence in any dispute is definitely against Buddhist principles, regardless; not sure what has occurred, but the 2nd link below gives some detailed bickering:

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/04/23/srilanka-mosque-idINDEE83M03820120423

http://groundviews.org/2012/04/24/deed-of-mosque-in-dambulla-and-photos-of-damage-how-is-this-structure-illegal/

B5C

Just because a person calls him/herself a Buddhist it does not mean he/she is actually a Buddhist. I don't know how the Sri Lanka political scenario is but as there is a good portion of its population that is composed by Buddhists. Thus non-Buddhists with political interests will obviously pretend to be Buddhists by dressing themselves as Buddhist monks and using this costume to make the probably poor and uncultured people accept their actions and decisions. Real Buddhists should wish that these people leave this attitude and find peace and happiness and switched to a non-political but more tolerant and skillful way of living.

WARNING!! You are entering to the realm of the "No True Scotsman."

Cinorjer

I think that without being there, it's pretty hard to know what is happening. Reports are saying the mosque is on land belonging to a Buddhist temple (which one?), and that despite a national-level order in 1982 for no further expansion, the mosque recently began a new expansion project. The mosque claims it is a refurbishment of an existing structure; the temple alleges that a current, small structure is being rebuilt into something much larger.

Despite appearances, this sounds like land dispute, not so much a religious dispute. But violence in any dispute is definitely against Buddhist principles, regardless; not sure what has occurred, but the 2nd link below gives some detailed bickering:

http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/04/23/srilanka-mosque-idINDEE83M03820120423

http://groundviews.org/2012/04/24/deed-of-mosque-in-dambulla-and-photos-of-damage-how-is-this-structure-illegal/

No, it's a religious dispute, as far as religion is used in this case to define the two populations. Does anyone here believe the local Buddhists would have a problem with any other structure but a mosque? It's just being argued as a property dispute to give the government some sort of legal leg to stand on in tearing down a mosque that has been there legally for a long time. One article I read pointed out there are bars being operated in that same land the government claims belongs to the temple, and the monks have no problem with that.

Nobody is asking the obvious question, which is why it's such a huge crime for a small mosque be in that town now and why they don't have the right to expand their building, if that's what they want to do? Has the government ever stepped in and banned a Buddhist temple from expanding? Of course not. So underlying this is the belief that a larger or nicer mosque would attract the wrong sort of people, ie Muslims. Want to bet this town that now "belongs" to the temple won't have any Muslims allowed to rent a home there or open up shops, either? It's segregation pure and simple. I've seen it in action here in the US too many times to not recognize it when I see it.

As long as the Sri Lanka government is officially Buddhist and actively supports their own people while marginalizing the minorities, there will be problems. Unfortunately, it's what humanity does. There aren't any real bad and good guys here. Just people with their tribal instincts.

RichardH

It is about religious chauvinism... They are real Buddhists... Buddhist chauvinists.

Where the OP goes off IMO is in the suggestion that it is Buddhism as a religion that is the problem. Intolerance, chauvinism, attachment to a view... a position, believing you are in possession of the Truth.... that is a universal problem we all have, religious or non-religious. Absolutism can be religious or non-religious.

Sile

Right..I guess it would be like saying the a troubles in Northern Ireland are a religious problem; most people outside Ireland have, I think, been taught that or absorbed that concept. In reality, it's much more an ethnic, cultural and class dispute between the Irish and the government-imported Scottish, instigated and exacerbated by the English. Three religions are involved, and though the differences in religious belief add fuel to the dispute, the source of the violence is not religious doctrine.

If a Presbyterian church in Derry tried to expand a new wing on or into land also occupied by a Catholic church, even if that land also contained a pub, the Catholics would raise a hue and cry--but it wouldn't be because the offending church was Protestant; rather, that the offending structure belongs to an old enemy, who is an enemy for many historical reasons.

It's easy to assume religion is the problem, but more often than not the differences between any historically-warring factions, at least those who have lived side by side for generations, are based on far more than simple religion. By the time one gets to the point of killing ones neighbor, generally there are many personal animosities which have built up, imho.

I'm curious why the mosque would be built on old Buddhist temple grounds, but maybe that area was sacred to both people? Seems like the govt has made its share of mistakes here...allowing the mosque, then banning expansion, then forcibly relocating. Certainly the Sinhalese response seems completely wrong at this point.

I guess I just feel it's rare for cultures to have one, single difference which accounts for violent conflict, and on which that conflict can then be easily blamed, or by which it can be easily solved.

person

I remember hearing a distinction in the way a religion can be followed either as a living tradition or a dead one. A living tradition is meant to be lived and applied to ones life and is open to interpretation based upon the circumstance, or relys upon the spirit of the teaching. A dead tradition is one that adheres to the letter of the law, the words and explanations are to be followed precisely. The Buddhists above sound to me to be practicing dead Buddhism.

vinlyn

No, it's a religious dispute, as far as religion is used in this case to define the two populations. Does anyone here believe the local Buddhists would have a problem with any other structure but a mosque? It's just being argued as a property dispute to give the government some sort of legal leg to stand on in tearing down a mosque that has been there legally for a long time. One article I read pointed out there are bars being operated in that same land the government claims belongs to the temple, and the monks have no problem with that.

Nobody is asking the obvious question, which is why it's such a huge crime for a small mosque be in that town now and why they don't have the right to expand their building, if that's what they want to do? Has the government ever stepped in and banned a Buddhist temple from expanding? Of course not. So underlying this is the belief that a larger or nicer mosque would attract the wrong sort of people, ie Muslims. Want to bet this town that now "belongs" to the temple won't have any Muslims allowed to rent a home there or open up shops, either? It's segregation pure and simple. I've seen it in action here in the US too many times to not recognize it when I see it.

As long as the Sri Lanka government is officially Buddhist and actively supports their own people while marginalizing the minorities, there will be problems. Unfortunately, it's what humanity does. There aren't any real bad and good guys here. Just people with their tribal instincts.

Kudos to you Cinorjer, for telling it plain and simple. Let the chips fall where they may.

Victorious

I am me. Buddhism is mine and they are my people and I bloody well expect better of them. Specially those fools dressed up as Monks.

There is even a Buddhist Monk Party going for elections! That is not deviating from the path. That is destroying the path.

Many of the temples I have visited have TV and you can see monks watching cricket if there is a game on!

WTF!?

I say run those temples over with a bulldoser and be done with it.

/Victor

Buddhism is yours?

Yepp it is mine. I own it and I aint selling.

/Victor

Arthurbodhi

Then a lot of people are using it without your permission.

By the way, my first reaction to this issue is not so different that yours.

Blessings

Victorious

Then a lot of people are using it without your permission.

Blessings

Oh thats alright. Using is alright with me. But when they abuse it I get a little bit mean.



Peace!

Victorious

Maybe it is a good idea to own it? .... and say ..Yes.. these people are not just some fringe group but are, no doubt, part of the Buddhist establishment in a very Buddhist country. Buddhists who probably have a very clear idea about what real Buddhism is... and.... they are are being like this?

It's good practice. Whatever crap is out there, is in here.

@RichardH

Thanks for the reminder. It really is a shortcomming of mine to get so upset by this.
But... It is just that I know what combination of mindsets and occurances problably led to this in a way I can not explain here. And I know how little it would have taken to avoid it.

The most frustrating thing is that those that are supposed to be the spiritual leaders and idols of Buddhism sink so low. And also depressing is the fact that (some) people are not wise enough to see through them. Blinded by authority and blind belief in spite of Buddhas teaching!

What Irony!

How sad.

/Victor

Cinorjer

I'd like to think there are plenty of Buddhists, lay and monks, who take the Dharma seriously over there and disagree with what's going on. We wouldn't be hearing about them. I did a google and the only real evidence for this I could find is from a blog by a young Buddhist over there http://indi.ca/2012/04/dambulla-mosque-to-be-moved/

Not that this excuses Buddhists. True compassion would be for monks who acknowledged the right of Muslims to exist to stand between the mob and the mosque. Given universal human behavior, not going to happen.