Are Buddhists Dangerous?
lobster
Crusty Veteran
As you probably know the Dalai Lama is a 50% vegetarian, only eating meat every other day. So he is more dangerous to animal welfare then Hitler in that regard. Is the Dalai serioustly trying to bring back feudal theocracy to the Chinese Highlands (Tibet) ... tsk tsk, Chenresig for future Dharma Queen? Not in this Kalachakra ...
In other areas we have the usual Dharmaists terrorising Hindus (Sri Lanka), Muslims (favoured political punchball at the moment) and the usual centuries old Dharma inter-sect rivalry. Come all ye faithful, let's find an enemy?
So far I feel Buddhists are only surpassed for benign behavour by the Jains, the Pastafarians and militant atheists and [insert long list]
I have to call the Theravadins 'elders' or they get all caught up in politically correct labelling ... but they put up with a bit of name calling without pulling out their hair ... if they had any ... 
I feel that right speech might involve a seasoning of 'wrong' ... that is hardly dangerous ... or is it?
Be kind, not that I deserve it but you might ...
Comments
Buddhist practice is definitely subversive! Red pill or blue pill?
Anybody who holds beliefs and actually believes them is dangerous. The minute we create labels, there are those who fall outside of those labels. The "others"
We conveniently forget we are all just a species of animal on a planet. One species.
Buddhist is just a made up concept.
@lobster
To be completely honest, this is my main hesitation about affiliating with a temple. I simply practice core things and leave it at that. I do not claim a school or sect. Though I use the word Buddhist at times, a more accurate description would be that I follow the core principles of Buddhism. I have long looked down upon labelling. As mentioned above, as soon as one is applied, fences are built.
This is a bit off topic, however, it is one of the reasons I do not support any of the so-called "pride" movements. They generate boundaries and limits. I call it voluntary segregation. If any such pride movement were to occur, I would at least prefer it be human pride.
To answer more directly, however, your question would be better worded as "are people dangerous?". Some are and some are not. Any affiliations one may have, whether religious, political, or otherwise, will undoubtedly produce both dangerous people and non-dangerous people. There is also the questions of "how dangerous?" and "dangerous to whom?".
Thanks guys, I feel religion and strong beliefs do create 'other' and sometimes lead to dangerous people venting their destructive tendencies ...
My own feeling is that Buddhists in the West are often more eclectic, critical and can be less impressed by institutional authority. I hope that turns into a western tradition ... I do prefer Buddhists to most 'other' religious groups [oops?]
I've been following the Tibetan tradition for a couple of years now and love it!
But I am a bit perplexed by some of the infighting between groups etc.
I understand that there's obviously lots of history to it but it is the one thing about this tradition that I just don't get.
Why can't everyone just be friends
"Are Buddhists Dangerous?"
I don't know about dangerous, but at times they can be quite a "thoughtless" bunch, if you ask me...
If I may offer an opinion, (I'm new to the forum, and new to the practice) Buddhists are human, so therefore, yes, potentially dangerous.
The moment anyone accepts a label as something definitional to their identity, one has immediately placed oneself into an ingroup as opposed to an "other" outgroup. That other, as other, then can become the scapegoat, the target, the victim, or the victimizer, ultimately a way of pushing blame and responsibility of the inevitable suffering of the human condition onto others.
It really shouldn't be a surprise that some Buddhists cause harm, isn't it a lesson from the Buddha, that this is exactly what it is to be human? To suffer, and (consciously or inadvertently) to cause suffering?
It's disappointing, perhaps, that people who claim to follow such a noble and wise path succumb to pettiness, oppression, and violence, but no more surprising than when it happens to people who claim different spiritual identities.
That's my response to the question, anyway.
@Lobster
Since human history is largely the record of just how dangerous we all are, we might as well forget about comparing ourselves with anyone else. Well at least I don't X,Y & Z.
Simply doing our** own** practice of ceasing from evil/doing only good and purifying our heart, at least will make us less dangerous than we were when we were not practicing this way while also limiting the ego's tendency to pat ourselves on the back for being a better Buddhist than someone else..
Two thoughts:
1) Being human, 'Buddhists' are just as likely to be 'dangerous' and commit acts of violence as anyone else. Buddhists aren't inherently less prone to these things than non-Buddhists. Being skillful in our actions of body, speech, and mind is something we all have to work at.
2) Labels are conventions, and as such, they're conventionally useful. As with all things, there's danger in clinging to a label; but just from a day-to-day communicative standpoint, life would be terribly absurd if we all tried to do without them entirely.
Some labels are labels of convenience, which communicate an aspect of something, and I don't think that's inherently negative, unlike those motivated by greed, aversion, and delusion that actively try to exclude others (e.g., hate groups, racist language, etc.). Also, I think there's a good argument for certain groups to self-identify, especially if said groups are being oppressed and discriminated against by others who treat them unfairly and/or harm them.
Before the LGBTQ community started to really self-identify and organize as a group, for example, they suffered hundreds of years of oppression and abuse, having to often live their lives in secret. Not only was same-sex marriage illegal almost everywhere, so were public and private displays of affection. One of the heroes of WWII, Alan Turing, was chemically castrated by his government for the terrible crime of, gasp, being gay. But now, after becoming more public as a group, they've been able to make great strides in equality.
I think the same is true with things like the Black Lives Matter movement—these kinds groups coalesce because of a certain need within a certain community; and I think they'll continue to be necessary until those needs are finally met.
Thanks guys.
There is a Buddhist tradition that Buddhism is a religion of friendship and good company. That I feel should be as inclusive as possible which makes for a 'dangerous' counter to the 'divide and conquer' mentality of our imperial evangelical friends.
I like to make friends in the hell realms, especially for halloween ...
http://www.exoticindiaart.com/article/wrathful
However befriending the demonised may be a little too 'other' for some ...
So I suppose the befriending has to start with the small wheel (Hinayana) of our own cycle and circle and expand from there ...
Here is a message from Mahatma Jeremy Corbyn
Of course Buddhists are dangerous.
Many Buddhists have a strong tendency to insist on questioning blind belief
Many Buddhists tend to be independent
Many Buddhists are not above challenging 'authority' or 'experts' when 'authority' or 'experts' are off the mark
Many Buddhists, when someone says 'The truth shall set you free.', want that person to define what he or she means by 'truth' and who's 'truth' the speaker is talking about.
Worst of all, many Buddhists insist on open-mindedness, respect and compassion for others.
These are the very traits of dangerous people indeed.
Peace to all
_"Are Buddhists Dangerous?
They are a danger to them selves
Yes, it's a shame, even Buddhists are prone to sectarianism at times. It's a bit silly really, there has been so much mingling and cross-pollination down the centuries that the different schools are inextricably linked, and of course they all derive from a common source.
For example "Zen" derives from "Chan" which derives from "dhyana". The dhyanas are the meditative states described in the suttas, which means that Zen is really an offshoot of Theravada. He he he..
I'm not sure that all beliefs are dangerous. The belief that we are all one species, is a belief, too. I think there is a difference between "beliefs" that come from our core/true nature, from our innate Buddha-ness, is different than external beliefs. If that makes any sense. Some beliefs come from a place of honest love, of a basis on the 8FNP for example. Or on the basis of the foundational teachings of Jesus. But there is a lot of crap that gets in the way, too. If I can practice/live beliefs from the place of love that Buddha and Jesus and others taught, I don't think that is a bad or wrong thing. Because it's just love and compassion. It's not telling other people they are wrong. Even if they tell you you are wrong. You can't go wrong with love.
I'd have to go with Sam Harris on this one: not all religions are equal. Jesus may have done some good things, but the majority of Christianity is not really teaching love and compassion... mostly fear. Fundies (and even less-fundy Christians) want people to be converted to Christianity out of a weird twisted compassion/fear combination - they "love" non-Christians so much they don't want them to burn under God's judgment for eternity or live a life guided by Satan, so they shove their beliefs down your throat and try to convince you based on fear of a God.
IMO that's far from the compassion that is taught in Buddhism, which is based on rational real-world (and rebirth I suppose) results and realms that we can actually experience.
I know some Christians who exude what Jesus actually taught (which wasn't so different than Buddha). I was referring to those who actually get it and not the ones that live by the fear and judgement. Not all Christians, which is why I specified what Jesus taught. Not what the bible or church teaches.
It is an unfortunate reality that even Buddhists are not exempt from the temptation to go for the knife or gun. Any teaching can be bent (deliberately misinterpreted) by greedy and unscrupulous individuals. Zealots can be found and mayhem ensues.
However, the tendency of Buddhism is away from the extremes.
The calamities in the Mid-East and elsewhere (USA, for example) show us the tragic traps of misguided and/or ignorant (blind) faith.
Even in the secular world, it is very important to not take what is given as facts or 'truths' without question. While there are notable exceptions, Power tend to covet it's power and does what is 'necessary', including propaganda, lies, coercion and (if deemed necessary) violence to maintain or increase that power.
Such power is false power, a delusion of the darkness, what is sometimes referred to as 'fundamental darkness'. People who wield such power (secular and sectarian) are like untrained blind men wielding swords and staffs. They are ignorant and uncaring of the mayhem and suffering they inflict.
It is our battle to overcome the fundamental darkness within ourselves and within the society in which we each live. This is the real battle, with no quarter. It is the battle of the heart and the mind.
Yep, definitely too much coffee.
Peace to all
Now you get's it
Dharma Jihad.
We are Buddhist. We haz coffee. We haz plan. We are kind. We iz a danger to samsarians.
Thanks guys.
Well said.
http://www.theonion.com/article/buddhist-extremist-cell-vows-to-unleash-tranquilit-34623
I iz off to sharpen my sword. First stop tongue removal. Then off to give a peace of my mind to the dharma heretics, then chop my arm off to see if Bodhi Dharma is coming out of his cave.
Then off with my head to make a nice body offering for the hell realms.
Busy. Busy.
To cling in humanity is both stupid and dangerous.
Vas ist das 'cling'?
People are soooo interesting!
To live is dangerous, but what a ride!
"I burn my candle at both ends,
It will not last the night;
But ah! my foes, and oh! my friends -
It gives a lovely light!"
First Fig
BY EDNA ST. VINCENT MILLAY
"Are Buddhists Dangerous?"
Only if cornered (if cornered they might well mantra you to death)
On a somewhat more serious note.....
Buddhists who are sticklers when it comes to the five precepts can be quite a handful....Especially the do no harm "not killing" one....
If one takes into account living next door to one who won't control the rodent population sharing their abode and the population out grows their place and start to infest the neighbour's property, gnawing through plastic water pipes and electrical wires in the roof, causing flooding and fires, not to mention their bad table manners, after dining out on the rubbish in the bins and then walking all over the kitchen, urinating and defecating on cooking eating and drinking utensils....
Who in their right mind would want one of 'us' living next door-we're our neighbour's worst nighmare
(This reminds me of a thread a while back -A Buddhist moves in down the street.... "There goes the neighbourhood" )
Well said.
I feel this is part of the 'mind your own circle' of influence that purifies our personal being. Good advice. Better/worse/changing is the only certainty and sharing in this flux requires a degree of discipline and restraint that only the post Dairy Lama [Peace and Blessing on her Wafer Cone] can contemplate.
The danger for me is the spiritual hunger for development and improvement rather than for a shift of perception into being attentive.
As it says in the Lobsterian Bible 'Be Still and know I Am Cod'
It is why the wise are often considered ignorant and quite happy to be free of the dangers of swimming with sharks, dancing with wolves or prancing with poseurs ...
... and now back to the Buddhist Flamenco ...
