Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Burma Today
ThailandTom
Veteran
So I don't know about about the rest of the world, but Burma is high up in the news today here in SE Asia because of riots, Buddhist protestors VS Muslims. This link does have some disturbing content so be aware of that. I have even seen monks carrying out thrashings with sticks and rallying against Muslims.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22243438
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22243438
0
Comments
Nothing I can get has anything other than Boston news, as usual. I wish we could get BBC news here.
Jonathan Swift
What do you mean by "those people"?
You need to define your terms.
Maybe this gives us some insights
http://buddhism.about.com/b/2013/04/17/understanding-buddhist-violence-in-burma.htm
People are people, people are buddhists, buddhists are people...
They are awful people let lone real Buddhists. Even the best of people "mess up" you're right but not on that level, I'm sorry scorning murderers is not being judgemental it is being fair.
But, in terms of judging who is or is not Buddhist, who died and made you Dali Lama (so to speak)? And who will you be judging next and for what behavior? It becomes a very slippery slope. What if someone said to you, "You're not a real Buddhist because you sit around judging whether others are real Buddhists"?
And just for the record, I have seen situations where violence has brought closure to the violence of others. Cliches are not always true.
You must be the first people I have spoken to this with and think it is possible to do all this and be a Buddhist, I told a bunch of people about what they are doing and they all agreed that they must be "shit Buddhists" and quite frankly there's no saying they aren't.
The Muslims aren't spread evenly thoughout the population as (in part at least) Islam and Buddhism are distinct and the cultural roots of the ethnic groups are also relatively distinct.
It is estimated that Muslims have been in Burma for over a 1000 years.
Very broadly, though there are Muslims in all walks of life in Burma, historically there were many Muslims (undoubtedly a disproportionate number pro rata) in positions of 'power' and responsibility such as in education, government administration, port, trade and tax authorities, alchemists and / or healers and even the King's elite guard.
During British occupation, Indian Muslims were encouraged to immigrate and were in turn provided with mid-management positions with significant social and economic advancement above the majority of the population.
This resentment is now being manipulated by groups vying for power to mobilise the majority.
The ugly face of nationalism.
I agree that "They are killing out of discrimination" and that it "is just horrible".
You "told a bunch of people this and they all agreed that they must be shit Buddhists". Okay, you told a "bunch of people" something and they agreed with you. That makes it true? Every word out of the mouth of The Eccentric is truth. Interesting.
And finally, you missed my whole point (as you often do). You are not (as George Bush said) "the decider" of who is or is not a Buddhist. It's not your job. You don't the power.
Buddhists can and do do a lot of things. This idea that Buddhism and Buddhists are all pure and walk around aglow with goodness is nonsense. As another person posted, Buddhists are still people. Just as often misguided as the people in any other religion.
What I have said repeatedly is -- you are not the decider of who is or is not a Buddhist.
If you want to say they are breaking precepts, I will say okay.
If you want to say they are not behaving as Buddhists should behave, I will say okay.
When you say they are not Buddhists, I will say that decision is above your pay grade.
As I tell my kids all the time, sometimes what you say is overshadowed by how you say it. It is true, it is very hard to attempt to read the tone of text. Just be cautious about how your tone is coming across, because at least from my seat, your tone, @TheEccentric, is often difficult to swallow and comes across as very judgmental and very "all-knowing." You state your opinion as fact rather than opinion, and that has a big impact on how people receive what you are trying to say.
Even more troubling is this "969" slogan now used by the forces determined to force all Muslims out of that country. It's supposed to represent the "three jewels:" the nine attributes of the Buddha, the six attributes of his teachings, and the nine attributes of the Sangha, or monastic order. This number is painted on burned out Muslim homes and shops and that should make every Buddhist sick to their stomach.
Yes, I know it's complicated by ethnic tensions and the Buddhists can point to some crimes by Muslims in the past as instigating some of the violence. But, let's compare the muted reaction of the world-wide Sangha to what we'd be saying if it was a 90% Muslim country burning the homes of a tiny Buddhist minority.
We have to ask ourselves, if some tiny part of us isn't thinking, "About time the Muslims are on the receiving end of the intolerance and violence for a change."
In honor of all those who have lost their lives, their loved ones, their tempers, their humanity: may all beings be free from suffering.
These monks and their lay supporters are conducting hate campaigns and pogroms. I am really curious to know what scriptures and teachings they refer to in order to justify their actions. I have yet to see a passage in the suttas or commentaries where the Buddha or any of his noble disciples are recorded as justifying violence against others.
If a certain group of Burmese "Buddhists" aren't following and practicing the dhamma, then who cares what they call themselves? The label is meaningless.
I think that most of us here, look at Buddhism and we think so much about the Dharma we can't imagine someone saying "I am Buddhist!" and then committing such acts. But if you look at all religions, it's present in many of them. In Christianity how many people say they are Christians yet don't follow the 10 Commandments? Don't love their neighbors? Don't treat people with respect and care and leave God to the judging? Just because someone calls themselves something doesn't make it true. I identified as a Christian for a long time, but I was really never a Christian. I imagine there are plenty of people in the more Buddhist countries who are the same. They are "Buddhist" because that is how they grew up and it is part of their identity but it doesn't mean they are really Buddhist. I'm not saying they are or aren't, just making the comparison that since we see it so much in Christianity that perhaps it carries over in Buddhist countries as well. Most of us here found our way to Buddhism. We chose it. Most of the people who are monks in these countries don't seem to choose it so much as it is chosen for them when they are still very young.
Those who disregard these vows cannot be called Buddhist the 3rd vow of taking refuge is to cease intentionally harming others.
These people engaging in these non virtuous actions are foolish indeed, Nothing justifies this violence toward others. This non Buddhist behaviour is greatly shameful.
The danger is saying someone is or is not a "true" Buddhist. Because, where does that stop. He's a Mahayana Buddhist, so he's not a real Buddhist. He doesn't meditate daily, so he's not a real Buddhist. He doesn't go the temple regularly, so he isn't a real Buddhist. He doesn't contribute to the upkeep of monks, so he's not a real Buddhist. And I've hear all of those comments in real life.
In a broader scope, I just wanted to also comment that what's happening in Burma now exemplifies why I feel monks out to stay out of politics. There were monks involved in the Thai Redshit riots 3 years ago (yes, I know it's supposed to be Redshirt), and I thought it was a horrible precedent.
There is simply no room for extremism in the Middle Way.
The 5 precepts(pancasila) is a good place to start. Although they are training rules - harming others is clearly wrong. In any case the pancasila is not in any way unique to any religion. As Buddhist, it is important to clearly make a stand that such actions are not acceptable. Otherwise a Buddhist militant/fundamentalist/extremist/zealot becomes part of the lexicon and there is no place for extremism in the Middle Way. BTW only my practice is right and others are mistaken is also a form of extremism.
Bend and bow. Buddha Rulez.
I initially found this very shocking that people could misunderstand the teachings of the Buddha so greatly to behave like that... but then again... I've seen a lot of violent misunderstandings from Christians and Jesus certainly taught peace. Humans are the common denominator here... we have the potential to mess everything up, heh.
I've already had one conversation at work where someone wanted to know why the Dali Lama didn't order these monks to stay in the temples and stop fighting. Most people in the US at least really do think that monk is like the Pope of all Buddhists.
@Cinorjer but as we've seen just here, people (and even their teachers) do not always agree on exactly what the 5 precepts cover, what they mean and how a person is to undertake them. I'm not saying that monks such as these in Burma can some how claim to take the precept against harming others and some how turn it around to make what they are doing and saying ok. But I bet in their minds and their leaders minds, it does. I'm just saying it's rarely a simple thing. We all find ways to justify the opinions we hold and behaviors we perform. How many people claim to be Christian and support so much military action? How many Christians support the death penalty? And so on. They shouldn't, because it says clearly that they shouldn't, yet they find ways to justify it. We all do. So I think the only thing we can do is all of us can look at the things we justify and why we do so. That's part of investigating ourselves and our beliefs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22023830
Are all the allegations (against the Muslim population) true?
Maybe, maybe not.
Are all Buddhist monks from every temple/sangha in Burma involved in this violence? Absolutely not. There appears to be ONE monk leader with only a relatively few followers involved, according to this report. Of course the media plays up the "Buddhist monks" angle... Isn't religion always played up- whether that's the point or not??
I'm not condoning the Buddhist reactions and violence. I'm not condoning the Muslims either. IMO, I don't believe any Buddhist monk should be involved in politics and/or this kind of violence. But then again, they (the 'Buddhists') are reacting out of fear.
Is their fear justified? Maybe, maybe not.
And monk or not, they are citizens just the same, with the right to have a say in their society, no?
Radical Muslims do not have to have the majority (numbers) to greatly influence or change the political or societal atmosphere of an area. We all know that.
Are the Buddhists fighting against "radical" Muslims... or just plain ol' folks - who happen to be Muslims? Ahhh, this is where perceptions differ. What is the truth? I don't know. Do any of us (many thousands of miles away) really know?
Maybe the Buddhists have reasons to be on the defensive, and to fear what has gone on. Maybe Buddhist citizens are being looked down upon, treated unfairly in business/commerce in which the Muslims are claimed to dominate. Maybe Buddhist women or children have been raped and terrorized. Is (this) violence the only reaction that will work in the long run? I don't know. Do any of us (many thousands of miles away) really know? :::shrugs:::
The world is not black and white. Each side involved in any bloody battle feels justified in their offense - - or defense. Careful whose side you jump on, just because one side wears red robes or one wears black ones.
Get a load of this quote, Matthew 10:34-36
"Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law"
In contrast, Buddhism centres on compassion above all else. But what about exercising right action in order to root out the enemies of compassion? Or must everything be done through compassionate means?
Just as it was predicted that when Christ was crucified the temple would fall and be rebuilt in 'three days'... Christ was symbolic of the temple.
We often use similes and idioms such as 'heads will roll', 'like a duck to water', 'walking on eggshells'.... we use them to colour speech and illustrate something pictorially....
I have listened to hundreds of Preachers in my life, and it seems the Bible is whatever people want it to be. There's certainly as much violence and hatred expressed in the OT as anything the Christians like to quote out of the Quran to prove a Muslims "violent nature", something I try to point out when faced with someone who likes to throw those quotes around.