the Buddhist who denounced Christianity

genkaku

Of possible interest is this article about Dhammaloka, an Irishman with a credible claim to being the first western Buddhist monk. His popularity in Southeast Asia was not shared by the authorities, who twice had him up on charges of sedition. In 1910, the charge arose after "he publicly accused Christians of being immoral, violent and set on the destruction of Burmese tradition."

BhikkhuJayasara

I had heard of a monk being ordained before 1900, interesting, thanks for the link.

I'm not a huge fan of the whole denouncing Christianity thing though.. although this reminds me a lot of the whole issue going on in Burma with Muslims today. Monks getting involved with national politics is just.. bad.

genkaku

@Jayantha -- I'm not a big fan of denunciation either but the historical record of 19th- and early 20th-century Christian approaches on the Asian continent lend some credibility to the observation, "if the shoe fits, wear it." "Uppity" is not too harsh a word.

Cinorjer

I'd never heard of this guy before. Considering he lived during the height of the colonial repression when the entire world was being raped by the European armies backed by the Christian missionaries who said God wanted those savages to be converted, I'd say his attitude was understandable. Nothing like being proven right by history.

"One, he was a Westerner but a Buddhist monk and secondly, he made speeches that were controversial denouncing Christian missionaries and European colonialism."

BhikkhuJayasara

genkaku said:

@Jayantha -- I'm not a big fan of denunciation either but the historical record of 19th- and early 20th-century Christian approaches on the Asian continent lend some credibility to the observation, "if the shoe fits, wear it." "Uppity" is not too harsh a word.

Cinorjer said:

I'd never heard of this guy before. Considering he lived during the height of the colonial repression when the entire world was being raped by the European armies backed by the Christian missionaries who said God wanted those savages to be converted, I'd say his attitude was understandable. Nothing like being proven right by history.

"One, he was a Westerner but a Buddhist monk and secondly, he made speeches that were controversial denouncing Christian missionaries and European colonialism."

There is no doubt the West forced open the east's legs and raped the hell out of her, The Chinese still make many movies in their cinema about that period(btw they make great movies(not just kung fu either), much better then Hollywood these days). It was a rough period for the East no doubt, but It doesn't feel like dhamma to denounce the actions of others like that, it feels like nationalism and religious fear(oh no if all the people become Christians who will be left to provide for the monks!)

genkaku

@Jayantha -- Point taken ... everybody's got an ox they don't want gored. But I see nothing amiss in saying "no" to human unkindness. Some may wriggle and fidget and squirm in an attempt to make lemonade out of every passing lemon, but sometimes honesty works better.

Simonthepilgrim

Let us all be careful of the beam in our own eye, the vile history of which we are heirs. We should not ignore that there is not a single country, nation or state (including Tibet) which has not expanded through foul and sanguinary deeds. It is all too easy to throw stones at Christianity (or Judaism or Islam or Hinduism, e tutti quanti) and ignore how badly our rulers have behaved - and continue to do. The important thing is that we make all possible efforts to end current vileness rather than indulging in anger over things in the past and beyond change.

genkaku

The important thing is that we make all possible efforts to end current vileness rather than indulging in anger over things in the past and beyond change.

@Simonthepilgrim -- Sometimes a bit of cranky can oil the wheels of redemptive action.

matthewmartin

Religious criticism is difficult to do well. Never criticizing anything ever, sends a message that everything is equally valid. And it isn't. The Aztec religion, that involved mass human sacrifice-- there is something worth condemning there, both the people and the doctrine.

The knee jerk reaction to say, well, Buddhist are violent, too, sounds like an informal logical fallacy. I don't see the merit in self flagellation for things I didn't do.

And in most criticism doesn't spend much time distinguishing between doctrine & it's consequences and people who ascribe to a doctrine. Any one can subscribe to a doctrine & fail to implement it, or do something bad unrelated to doctrine & that doesn't say much about a given doctrine.

Do on the charges... "Christians of being immoral, violent and set on the destruction of Burmese tradition."

Christians don't subscribe to Buddhist morality. So I suppose all religions can say this of each other, except if you are a universalist and suspect that the moral systems of all religions are somehow the same. I don't think so, but opinions may vary.

Violence. Christianity doctrinally isn't especially pacific unless you're a Quaker, and the Episcopalians aren't Quakers-- those guys had to flee to the US.

Destructive of others traditions. That is the whole point of evangelism. By the record of evangelists, the post conversion Christians have to discard their pagan beliefs, pagan family law, and so on. Buddhist evangelism historically led to post-conversion believers merging their existing religions & customs with Buddhist ones.