Buddhist Violence.
Victorious
Grim Veteran
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/06/19/world/asia/sri-lanka-muslim-aluthgama/
I have nothing really to say. We discussed sexual misconduct by monastics in the dark side of buddhism thread but this is as bad.
Just wanted to inform so that it becomes clear why there are sangha rules againt Monks getting involved in worldly matters like politics.
Specially see the rethorics when BBS is confronted for starting the riots.
"The allegations against BBS, he said, were "an attempt to bring disrespect to Buddhist clergy and Buddhism."
These people are no monks but are still a disgrace for the Sangha.
Sorry for posting so much negativity here but I feel it is justified. Don't get me wrong I am still a Fanatical Buddhist but not this kind of Fanatical Buddhist.
/Victor
Comments
Human violence is the real issue, IMO, and that here it's wearing Buddhist robes and calling its individuals monks doesn't make it 'buddhist violence', as if there were special kinds of violence, like Jewish violence or Plumber's violence.
I agree with it being a complete disgrace but don't see how it is particularly 'wrong' as it is being done by Buddhists.
Even 'Buddhist' is just another adjective with an intent to distinguish one person or group from another. The Buddha wasn't a Buddhist. This is my line of reasoning that causes me to NOT question the goodness or truth of the Buddha's teachings because some people calling themselves Buddhist monks commit atrocities.
It's been quite a lot more difficult for me to separate out Christians, Muslims and Jews from their acts of violence, but I would be just as much in error if I didn't.
Unfortunately, how we see it is one thing and how the world sees it is another.
Already Christians I know are pointing fingers. I mean come on.
/Victor
As I've said before, being human, 'Buddhists' are just as likely to commit acts of violence as anyone else. Buddhists aren't inherently less prone to committing acts of violence than non-Buddhists. Being skillful in our actions of body, speech, and mind is something we have to work at.
So what?
Point back. Tell them no human on the planet is devoid of violent tendencies. The only difference is the degree of personal self-control.
Even God was violent, and so was Jesus (he kicked up one hell of a temper tantrum in the temple....)
So what's their point?
There is Buddhism as a spiritual path and Buddhism as a tribal identity. Buddhism as tribal identity is no better or worse than any other factor like language, skin color, or race that is used to identify who belongs in the tribe.
Unfortunately, religion is a huge tribal marker throughout history. This isn't the first time a Buddhist culture or nation mixed religion and politics.
I think it's the hypocrisy that's most damning. If a group of people purport to embrace certain principles as a way of life, then ignore those in some situations, we and the world ought rightly to be aghast (when death and destruction are involved).
I don't know that they are so much ignoring them as they are twisting them to meet their needs rather than investigating the conflict within themselves. Just like Christians do that we like to point out so often.
"Already Christians I know are pointing fingers. I mean come on."
Again, like we often point fingers at them. Whatever. It doesn't bother me one bit who points fingers at who over the acts of some. It doesn't matter to me what kind of Buddhists other people are. I know what my practice means to me, and what millions of people around the world view is something I cannot control. Unlike my own practice. Also, the violence in Sri Lanka has been discussed in other threads here. It has been on-going for quite a long time. Just saying if you want to read more about it in previous discussions here, there are threads that exist.
There is enough insanity to be concerned with, North Korea missiles, bombs between Palestine and Israel, the turmoil in the US between citizens continues to get worse, our supreme court has lost it's mind, violent groups continue to make progress towards taking Baghdad, citizens are still being gassed in Syria. I'm not too worried about what Christians think about me as a Buddhist.
That was my point really. Of course I pointed back!
.
@karasti
Normally I am not bothered either. But this is a little bit too close for comfort and a little bit too ugly to ignore.
What other threads are you referring to?
Peace
Victor
I see the search function isn't working right now, so I can't look them up (and do not want to sift through dozens of pages to find them). But I know we've talked about the violence there as well as in Burma and the "Buddhist Bin Laden" there.
Sometimes we're our own worst enemies.
People "pointing fingers" in situations like this are often the results of misplaced expectations and perceptions. They are led to believe that Buddhism is a religion of peace and Buddhists are peaceful folk. This sort of idealism doesn't bear out in the real world where humans are still very human and ideals are essentially meaningless.
I choose to steer clear of discussion where Buddhism is promoted as some kind of lovie-dovie, above-the-fray belief system. I know that's a dog that won't hunt. People are people and will be judgmental of anything. So, when they come to me, pointing to Sri Lanka or Thailand and saying they thought Buddhism is a religion of peace, I can say, "You didn't hear that from me.".
I don't have to be Buddhism's defender.
There is an article here that has been discussed on the threads here before
http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-22356306
And these, they are headlined about Burma but if I remember right there was discussion about Sri Lanka as well. There are others, these are the only I could find via a quick google search:
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/18547/burma-today
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/19099/about-the-monk-leading-the-problem-situation-in-burma
http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/18754/burma-s-government-hoping-muslims-drown-in-typhoon
The article from that link doesn't say why those Buddhists are being violent. It only says Buddhists did this and that. I like to know the whole story before drawing any conclusion. Some medias only report only one side of the story. I am not trying to take side. I am sorry for those victims. Their suffering is no different than my own.
I am not sure if was reported in the US medias, but I read it was started by muslims. They raped and slit the throat of a young girl. That is how it started. But I still believe people should not go too far.
@Meatball so look it up, lol. There are dozens, and even hundreds of articles online. I'm not going to look it up for you. It was just an interesting article because it combined both the issues in Burma and Sri Lanka. My understanding is that most of the problem is that the Buddhists (the ones in question) believe that the Muslims will "taint" the Buddhist purity of the areas, they want to keep it Buddhist. Not a mix of anyone else. They feel Buddhism is threatened and that they are defending it. But that is the conclusion I drew from the reading I did (which hasn't been extensive).
The reaction to the murder of a young girl is just an excuse to them to do what they are doing. Just like the flare up with Palestine and Israel is about the kidnapping of the 3 Israeli teens and the burning alive death of the Palestine boy. They use those poor people as an excuse to flare up such violence that has a lot of underlying tension due to other, more complicated, reasons.
I don't think it was excuse to kill more Muslims. I think that the way they killed that little girl, started the chain of motion. One anger gave birth to another and it became out of control. Those emotionally charged monks and lay people forgot buddha's teaching on how to defeat hatred.
Sorry about that, I didn't mean to suggest that is what you meant by any means. Just that those who are using that as an excuse to perpetrate further violence on others (especially others not involved in the crime against the girl) are kidding themselves if they think that is the reason they are fighting.
Though, why should we expect any different of Buddhists than we do of Muslims, Christians, or anyone else? Every religion has violence within it, and has violence in it's past which goes against the teachings of their religion...yet it happens anyone. I'm not sure why we are always so surprised when Buddhists misbehave. They are no more less likely to do so than any other religious members who are disregarding the foundational teachings of their claimed beliefs.
I read about the flareups of anti-Muslim mob violence also, and it always says something like "started by rumors of..." or "a Muslim shopkeeper was accused of..."
Reminds me of the lynchings in the USA south that always started with "rumors of" or a black man "arrested and accused of raping a white woman", etc. Did it actually happen? It's impossible to know in this sort of arena. And of course, all those innocent Muslims had nothing to do with the supposed crime that started the riots, anyway.
I did read where the Dali Lama at last publicly called for the Buddhists of Myanmar to stop the violence against the Muslim population. But of course, unlike the impression people in the West have of him as some sort of Pope, he has no authority over those Temples.
I know, I know
. . . but since when is a belief system we ourselves do not share (or find offensively delusional) an acceptable judge?
A step further . . . what are they judging? Nonsense -- the nonsense being that there is such a thing as 'buddhist violence' and that this has ANYTHING to do with people who use the Buddha's teachings as a method to diminish or end theirs and other's suffering.
Christians are attacking a phantom! Let 'em at it, whoop de doo, it would be entertaining if it weren't such a waste of human effort.
This has been true about Christianity since probably its birth. If you read a red-letter edition Bible (that is, one that highlights what Jesus actually said in red), it paints a very different picture, and yet... people somehow have used the religion he inspired for too many examples of violence to count. Like others have said, the common denominator is humanity and their ability to muck everything up.
An awakened one would not see it with your eyes @Victorious. Come on, I am going to challenge you, what are you really getting down to here as the root of your suffering or frustration,. Buddhists as humans, or buddhists as aspirants, or buddhists as ignorant humans, or buddhists as YOU.
Of course he is @anataman, and many of the things we grow take a village.
Then again, this is true about most inquiries, the goal of reaching an answer or conclusion satisfying the discomfort of the person asking. Imagine all those particle physicists writhing in their Hadron collider, shooting photons through slits!
Sorry - I don't get what you are saying @Hamsaka - please clarify your statement for me - I am pretty stupid, as others have made clear in the past...
It sounds like using Buddhism as an identity might be the issue here. Are you affiliated with that group? Are you Sri Lankan? Maybe you are, and I don't know... but I am not, and therefore, while I, of course, agree that it is sad and not in line with the Buddha's teachings, I do not feel personal responsibility just because we both consider ourselves Buddhists. I only take personal responsibility for that which I do and refuse to bear the weight of people who it sounds like study something very different from that which I study. Those who committed slavery (somehow?) used the Bible to back up their actions, yet I know no Christians today who would take personal responsibility for them, despite their common religion.
@zombiegirl - That sums up the uneasiness I have with this thread.
Sorry
I mean I agree with you, AND thus we are all here helping each other with what amounts to be, at best, personal issues with the Dharma as it impacts us. And that what may give rise (condition) the questions in the first place is dukkha. And then I thought of all the particle physicists and their personal dukkha that would lead them eventually to shooting photons through slits to see where they go 
.
Wow that was even weirder. So what I meant is that dukkha and the papanca it perpetrates sure does lead us in many directions!
What lightheartedness! I love you @Hamsaka!
I am not 100% sure, but I believe I recall from the Dark Side of Buddhism thread, that @Victorious does have ties to Sri Lanka, or is from there.
But I don't want you to have my babies! well not in this life any way ... \ lol / ...
I wasn't sure either, which is why I left that caveat. But regardless, I certainly wouldn't take responsibility for everything that Americans do either.. hahahahahhaha... no.
Heavens no, LOL. But, the rest of the world often looks at it this way, just like many in the world will say "oh, Buddhists aren't so peaceful, are they?" Except few people are likely to even see the articles, they aren't exactly on the front page most of the time. But those that do will use snippets like that to reaffirm their own beliefs/their ego's position. Which is really what any of this is about. Buddhists versus Muslims, Israelis versus Palestinians, republicans versus democrats, Christians versus everyone else. No one can be responsible for anyone else's ego. But some times, it feels more personal than others and I'm sure that is where the OP is coming from. Doesn't mean we should take responsibility for them just because we share a label, like you said. I totally agree. I don't worry much what Christians or anyone else thinks of me. I have enough work to do with how I think about some of them to worry about the reverse most days.
Certainly so. And we should be equally aghast at that. The point is not that mayhem created by Buddhists is more or less condemnatory, than that by other religious groups. Violence by people who claim to live by non-violent tenets is more deplorable to me, than violence by, for example, atheistic nihilists. Just sayin.
You are totally right about that. We do live in the age of the sound byte... Where people will repost rage at Onion articles without doing the simplest of research that would easily point out that it is a completely satirical website. But at the end of the day, in regards to the OP's post, any finger pointing is so easily returned by just asking if said fingerpointer takes responsibility for all that their religion/country/etc does as well. Insight should likely follow. We can't stop these things from happening. All we can do is what we can and hope that we lead a good example.
@karasti thanks for the links.
Righteous indignation. Self defence violence. Partisan religion. Clique identity.
Shall we hate all that or expect it and be independent of it?
Can we be independent of our State and inner state? Do we feel sympathy for perpetuators and victims?
How easily we are riled, how quick to take a side. How hard to be independent of sides, independent of our arising affiliations. :wave: .
No problem, this old broad is complemented, nonetheless
I lean toward the 'expect it and be independent of it', for lack of anything to do otherwise. I could rail and protest more than I do in a much more energetic way, but it feels kinda stupid marching around, shouting memes and holding a posterboard.
Yet if certain women in our history sat back expecting and independent of it, I wonder if women would vote or be in control of their tendency to reproduce? This is where I get bolluxed up.
The "new atheism" as begot by Hitchins et al (we had a thread on that recently) is in all its pushy arrogance, important for the overall wellbeing of our race as human beings. As is women's reproductive rights (unless men want them), women's equality as citizens, gay marriage, ad nauseum.
I used to stand at the Gay Pride Parades agog at the flaming queens and Naked Boobies on Bikes and wish they'd like, tone it down a bit but we're a complacent species when our tummies are full, our kids are safe and healthy and we can get money out of ATMs. It might take a metaphorical bomb to go off and a whole float full of ladyboys causing grandmothers to faint in the street.
So I'll be a 'new atheist' to the best of my ability and say Heck, @lobster, I just don't know
.
As for sympathy for perpetrators and victims, the difference is often difficult to discern. The easier we are to rile and quicker we are to take sides are massive impediments to discernment, but that's nothing new.