I studied a lot of Buddhist history in college and grad school and I don't remember reading about a lot of Buddhist violence in the past. Was that because there wasn't any? Well, after reading this article, I suppose so, because the author fails to cite even a single example of pre-modern Buddhist violence. Historically, Buddhism has been quite peaceful. You'll have to look for the reasons for the Buddhist violence in today's Burma somewhere besides Buddhist history, doctrine and practice.
13
Dan Arnold and Alicia Turner have presented thought-provoking ideas. My comparative religions professor explained the difference between the religious founders' teachings and self-proclaimed followers' beliefs and behavior. The genocidal actions of Buddhists against the Rohingya reflects this difference.
The Quakers are one of the peace churches, yet Richard Nixon exterminated millions in Southeast Asia during the Vietnam holocaust. The Christian George W. Bush is a member of the one-million human beings club. The perpetrator of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima nuclear holocausts was also a Christian. The American government, which has exterminated millions and millions of innocent people, was founded by Christians.
If all we knew are Jesus' teachings, we would be just as surprised about the behavior of Christians as that of Buddhists.
From Moses' teachings, we cannot guess that the perpetrators of the Palestinian Oppression were Jewish.
And from Mohammad's teachings, we cannot guess the religion of the perpetrators of the Armenian Holocaust.
Most religious people more or less obey the founders' rules, but when involved in government, politics and the desire for power overwhelm religious beliefs, leaving only divisions in society which government exploits, leading to some of its worst evilisms.
Government shows us humanity at its worst. As long as we suffer from this disease, we will never lack mass graves or crematoria for us to visit.
17
another way to see it is: There aren't any 'good' religions. There are only bad religions, worse religions and totally horrific religions.
13
Need more proof the Buddhists can be no less cruel and discriminatory than others? Look at Bhutan's ethnic cleansing in the 1990s of a hundred thousand people of Nepalese origin. They lived in refugee camps in Nepal for a long time. Most have been sent away to far-away western countries as refugees. Many have settled in the US. Google "bhutan ethnic cleasning" to see the Human Rights Watch article on this.
This from a country that coined "Gross Human Happiness" as a measure of their success. Gross indeed, when your happiness is an extraction of others' misery.
8
Modern Buddhism as a cultural practice isn't a philosophy (to which a person consciously commits), but a religion. The capacity for violence in the face of peaceful tenets may be used as one of the distinguishing features of religions.
6
When I move to Thailand to teach English years ago, I started in the middle of the school year. I wondered why they hired me then. I was told that the teacher I was replacing was from the UK. She was a vegan, and she assumed that Thai people didn't eat meat because they were Buddhist. After all, the first precept of Buddhism is "Do not take life." Incredibly, moved to a new country on that assumption, without even making sure first. I had to wonder, if the circumstances were reversed, would she have assumed that everyone in any Christian country would let themselves be robbed because Jesus said, "If a man wants to take your coat, give him your shirt?"
I often remember that incident when I hear people talk about the violent things Muslims "Have" to do because the Qur'an tells them so.
7
Buddhism, like Hinduism and Judaism, can be a philosophy, and is more of it, than other religions (which can be also, but aren't as much). Humans of course are always humans, prone to violence. It's all about a matter of degree and the degree to which the practice of the philosophy or religion actually causes violence. I don't think atheism leads to violence because of the Soviet example, and I don't think Buddhism leads to violence because of the actions in Sri Lanka or Burma.
There may be a causal connection in some other instances with other religions (there are a couple of big examples) so I think it's a matter of degree and making the distinction between philosophy vs. religion, between human actions for other reasons in the name of religion vs. actions motivated by the religion or philosophy.
--Ram
2
Great article. I am not a Buddhist. But I feel bad for the good buddhist practitioners. Just because of few groups of arrogant people throughout history, the whole religion is getting a bad name. All religions are great and they were meant to elevate human beings. But unfortunately due to some few people who are extremists, the whole religion gets bad name. You take any religion.
3
This is a very thoughtful discourse. In the comments, one misunderstanding I see repeated is the idea that all religions at their fundamental level preach peace and love. As examples, the Jewish Scriptures places emphasis on the chosen people with laws for warfare. The emphasis is on worshipping the one true god of the Hebrews and obeying his laws. It is not a religion for spreading peace. Christianity is really a reinterpretation and an adaptation of the Jewish scriptures where much of the original meaning of the Jewish scriptures has been altered by Paul. Even then the essence of the Christian writings is not on peace but on salvation from sin. Accordingly, God did not send his only begotten son to bring peace but to bring salvation for sinners. Similarly, Muhammad did not come to bring peace but a religion of submission to the one true God. His mission was to end idolatry and to spread the teachings of the one true god. So, those who believe that all religions, at a fundamental level, promote the same thing, peace, are ignoring the religious texts that those religions are based on. Living in the modern world, most of us have come to agree with the values of fundamental human rights and the idea of peaceful coexistence, live and let live, but that is not the core principles of the Bible or the Qur'an, as examples.
20
And yet again the colonizing Europeans are to blame for everything wrong in this world. Such a lazy fallback for all scholars and so consistent.
The author notes:
"There is a philosophically problematic presupposition that also figures in widespread surprise at the very idea of violence perpetrated by Buddhists — that there is a straightforward relationship between the beliefs people hold and the likelihood that they will behave in corresponding ways."
How about
There is a philosophically problematic presupposition that figures carrying out violence, Buddhist, Muslim or otherwise, are beholden to a straightforward relationship between the beliefs colonial elites offered 50-150 years ago and the likelihood that Mynanmarans will behave in corresponding ways today, and forever more."
To add. Was there not religious, tribal or other sectional violence before any Brit set foot in the region? Of course there was. Its not religion, no. Its Europeans. How convenient.
12
The problem with Buddhism is the "middle path" between violence and non-violence. This implies that some form of violence is OK. That's why most Buddhists engage in the slaughter of animals for food. They must define what acceptable violence is.
3
It is surprising to be surprised often.
2
We know of Buddhists who have self immolated in the most extreme measure of protest -- however, a Buddhist suicide bomber is almost an oxymoron. That said it is undeniable that Buddhists have been mobilized by a virulent nationalism -- and in this regard, as a religion as opposed to a practice, it is like other religions.
3
A very well-researched and substantial article --way beyond most of the stuff currently published by daily media. But it misses one key factor -- provocation. This is manifest in the destruction of the Buddhas at Bamiyan in Afghanistan by the Taliban regime and the formation of an Islam-inspired Rohingya separatist movement that triggered the recent attacks on the Rohingya by attacking government police and army posts.
There is another factor which is not ignored but not brought specifically. The Rohingya and native Burmese (as well as other minority groups such as the Shan) are ethnically very different in culture and appearance.
This is another major factor in each side thinking of the other as "the other" making it more likely for such violent acts to be committed.
9
Article covered India, srilanka, Myanmar and many more countries but forgot/ignored Nepal (Born place of Buddha and Buddhism). It also missed a great example of Maoist insurgency for about 10 years and concluded in peace agreement.
4
Most instructive is the authors’ emphasis on invidious bureaucratic distinctions imposed by the British colonial regime. All too reminiscent of what the Belgians inflicted upon Tutsi and Hutu in Rwanda: sowing the seeds of later resentments and antipathies. The unrelenting hostility of the Burmese military regime to numerous ethnic minorities is also worth noting, only taken to an extreme regarding the Rohingya: first concentration camps, then liquidation. Religious ideals take a back seat the moment politics rears its ugly head.
5
Religion does not exist in a vacuum. It is always practiced by a human being, who often fall short of whatever worthy ideals a religion may hold. That's as true of Buddhism as of any other faith. But this article, in response to over-simplistic stereotypes of Buddhism, merely presents another over-simplistic view of Buddhism.
First, how much does Buddhism even have to do with the violence in Myanmar? The article seems to speak of the oppression against the Rohingya purely in terms of Buddhist versus Muslim. However, the relationship between Rohingya and the rest of Burma has a lot of ethnic and political baggage as well. Is this even a religious conflict?
Second, how committed to Buddhism are those in power within the Burmese regime? While I am not an expert in Myanmar, I did grow up in a predominantly Buddhist society. Just as there are many Americans who have little to do with Christianity despite it being a dominant religion in the US, there are plenty of people who live in Buddhist societies who pay little to its teachings. Even more so, as Buddhism, unlike monotheistic Abrahamic religions, don't really focus on the sectarian identity. How much do Buddhist teachings figure into the politics of Myanmar?
It seems to me the authors, with a Western academics view of Buddhism and little first-hand experience of Buddhist societies, are making over-broad stereotypes in an article supposed to dispel such stereotypes.
13
In Nepal there is a problem with communal violence when there is an unexpected death of a person in a hospital. The family will gather a crowd and "thrash" the doctor - i.e., beat them up. Since 2011 I work with a small NGO there that teaches hospital personnel to de-escalate violence and mitigate these episodes. When I describe this to other Westerners I am met with disbelief - "How can that happen? All the Nepalis are such nice people and Buddhist too!"
To explore this I wrote my second book, "The Sacrament of the Goddess" exploring one such episode in depth. I concluded that the confusion stems from the teachings of a small number of "Buddhas" - wise old persons who were admonishing the people in their community. Not every Buddhist is a Buddha. The Buddhas were preaching to their own people precisely because it is a problem. The Buddhist message has spread worldwide, it promotes peace, and advocates for anger management, and it is an immense contribution to world cultural heritage. But these have always been a goal for Buddhists, not the day-to-day reality.
11
Jesus was held up to be an icon of nonviolence, but his adherents have been some of the most brutal warriors in history. American Christians rain fire down from above on people all around the world.
Religion doesn't make pacifists--pacifism, love, compassion, and values do.
19
The nation of Myanmar has maintained am army - for quite a while. Apparently this nation has decided that it would defend itself using military force (and possibly using its military for more than self defense. Not all Buddhists are monks, either. Many Japanese embrace Buddhist belief but throughout their history have also had a long tradition of armed conflict.
5
Trivial point, but the Sri Lankan scriptures are in Pali, and they would say 'dhamma', not 'dharma'.
2
All things being equal
the good will do the best they can
the bad will do the worst they can
but, if you want good people to
do evil things, you need religion
7
Faith is usually informed by beliefs- not logic- and is much more deeply seated. For an example try to discuss sea level rise with many Evangelicals and you get "God promised not to destroy the world by flood again"- not anything based upon scientific study. Normal, otherwise intelligent people buy into this stuff.
Then you have those motivated by belief willing to go to the extremes of murdering a Doctor in his Church foyer on a Sunday morning or shooting up a clinic or any other set of radical actions. Others follow their families and employees around town and publish their addresses. Here is America many politicians are afraid to call some of what is done by the extreme fringe of the anti-abortion movement terrorists.
The most amazing thing about religion is that no matter what family you are born to, they worship the "right" or "real" god(s). Apparently every faith differing family on planet earth has it wrong. They all do agree about Atheists and Agnostics as we are all supposed to burn in hell or whatever.
All this shows is that practitioners of Buddhism are just as capable of going off the deep end as the followers of any other faith.
6
South and Southeast Asian Buddhism, especially in Burma, for many centuries has placed central importance on the king's possession of holy Buddhist relics, such as his body-relics (bones, hair, teeth). These were, and are, housed in structures we today identify as pagodas. The most famous of these is the Shwedagon Pagoda in Rangoon (Yangon). A warlike king such as Alaungpaya or Hsinbyushin in the 18th century would commemorate his bloody conquest of a country through his patronage of the major pagoda in the territory - most important was the installation of a hti, or "umbrella," on the pagoda's summit.
This brand of "royal Buddhism" was not concerned so much with ethical principles or compassion as with the acquisition and retention of power, symbolized by possession of the pagoda. Some kings built pagodas of their very own from scratch. During military rule since 1962, Burma's modern rulers have followed the ancient practice. For example, post-1988 junta chairman Gen. Than She not only built a new capital city at Naypyidaw, but also built a replica of the Shwedagon, called the Upattasanti Pagoda, as a center of regime-sponsored Buddhist ceremonies.
Gautama Buddha was not a pacifist, and certain institutions, like the storage of his relics in a pagoda (much like veneration of holy relics in medieval Europe) were used by rulers in Buddhist countries to justify bloody wars of aggression. So it is indeed no surprise that Buddhists can be as violent as Muslims or Christians
4
Why indeed are people surprised? Christianity is not adhered to by some Christians. And so it is with all religions. Buddhists are human beings and as such, one finds the entire gamut of characteristics. Yes, the teachings are of peace, and we do have role models such as the Dalai Lama, but even he has his detractors. If Buddhism is practiced as it is "preached," then this religion (some prefer to say science of mind) is absolutely perfect for our present times. Buddhism tells us to look at our minds clearly, not only through meditation but throughout our daily lives, and to take responsibility for our thoughts which in turn propel our actions. Buddhism also teaches that in every living being, goodness is at the heart of each being. We are not born in sin, but through our own efforts we make choices, both good, bad and neutral. And we have the choice to be compassionate and loving or not. We reap what we sow, depending on our thoughts and actions.
7
Why do the authors of this op-ed claim to discuss Buddhism and violence, and then ignore what Buddhism itself says about violence ... ?
Why, when it comes to the question of what causes human violence, merely using an extremely vague reference to 18th century Western philosopher Kant, and claim that we actually ignore its causes ... ?
It's especially amazing to notice this kind of absence when you know that in the meanwhile, scientific studies have shown that the extent to which people are able to behave in a compassionate way towards others is directly linked to the extent to which they have been able to cultivate self-compassion ... and THAT is precisely an idea that Buddhism teaches, contrary to many other "religions".
Add to that the fact that it's precisely within Buddhist traditions that meditations techniques were developed that - again according to scientific studies - allow people who regularly practice them, to become more self-compassionate, and it becomes even stranger that this article doesn't address any of this.
That means that ANY political situation where the quality of teachers training people in these techniques, goes down, increases the risk that people will become more violent (towards themselves, and others).
Myanmar was colonized and then ruled by a military dictatorship for decades, so the quality of education clearly went down too ... and THAT may explain the current round of violence far better than some unknown "subconscious" phenomenon ...
35
Ana writes, "scientific studies have shown that the extent to which people are able to behave in a compassionate way towards others is directly linked to the extent to which they have been able to cultivate self-compassion ... and THAT is precisely an idea that Buddhism teaches, contrary to many other 'religions'."
Ana, as an admirer and (attempting!) practicer of mindfulness meditation myself, I appreciate you bringing it into the discussion more prominently. But your repeated claim that *this* is what Buddhism essentially is, and that it's unique to Buddhism, don't hold water in my view.
Note that the authors (both professors of religions) addressed the origins of mindfulness training—see the paragraph about the rise of it in the last two centuries, esp. through the contributions of Ledi Sayadaw, bringing monastic practice to lay people. As you may know from your mindfulness studies, since at least the mid-20th century, Christian mystics have embraced Buddhist practice and brought it to lay spirituality. But the embrace didn't come out of a vacuum; rather, there is significant overlap between this part of Buddhist practice and meditative practices among early Christian mystics.
I don't believe Buddhism alone has made this discovery, nor that it has always been central to it; rather, it happens to have emphasized it at a time when it could be broadly disseminated.
6
@ Tom
I didn't write that meditation is what Buddhism "essentially" is. Like all religions, it's almost impossible to designate one or the other "essence".
What do is certain though is that the VERY specific meditation techniques that increase compassion through increasing self-compassion, have been invented only in Buddhist traditions, not in Christianity.
Christian theologies propose the exact opposite of self-compassion: the "mea culpa mea culpa mea maxima culpa" idea, that Christians repeat each Sunday, refers to the idea of original sin. Self-compassion, on the contrary, is based on the idea that at our very core, all human beings are essentially "good", and only want to be happy.
Over 2,000 years, Buddhist have investigated HOW to become happy, here and now, and have developed a very sophisticated method of meditations that indeed only existed within Buddhism, until the West recently has started to take them over.
And since the 19th century Christians have become Buddhist monks too - sometimes even without giving up their Christian faith, by the way, which is yet another thing unique to Buddhism: you can become a Buddhist all while remaining a follower of another religion.
The scientific studies that prove that meditations develop compassion networks in the brain, only obtained this result for specifically Buddhist types of meditations though.
What early Christian monks called "meditation" is an exercise in uniting yourself with God, which is quite different...
4
There can be no Biddhism without human beings. And, as history has amply demonstrated over the millennia, human beings are pretty consistent in their approach to "others". We know ourselves well enough to have no excuse for posturing as better that those "others" be they non-believers or Democrats or Republicans.
Smugness and intolerance are words we like to apply to "others".
"When will we ever learn," goes the song...
4
To which one can a line from another song from those bygone years ... "go ahead hate your neighbor, go ahead cheat a friend, do it in the name of heaven you can justify in the end."
2
Westerners have inherited the more philosophical aspects of Buddhism, the ''science of the mind'' as it has been mostly transmitted by writing. The eastern versions have been mostly transmitted orally, so they have evolved with folk religions and local culture.
3
The structure around any spiritual practice or religion is always a degradation of the actual teaching of the practice or religion. People in a power structure are involved and generally act in the best interest of the religion, school or themselves. When that is in opposition to the teaching, the teaching suffers. The subversion of spiritual teachings to the structure of religion has gone on forever. The most elevated and enlightened, when threatened with any kind of dissent, will attack those involved in vicious ways. The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind. I guess we shouldn't equate Buddhism with Buddhists or Christians with Christianity. Individuals can certainly uphold the beliefs, but structures and organizations never do.
2
What destroys religion is dogma. It matters not whose religion. Dogma arises with a priestly caste that holds the answers, the mysteries, the keys to the kingdom comes to power. They control the masses. They tell the followers what to believe and how to enact it. They also tell what happens when you don't.
The Crusades are an example as is the Inquisition. Also, the missionaries that accompanied armies of invaders during the colonization of much of the non-European world. They didn't bring the teaching of Christ as much as the dogma of the church. Dogma is rigid, unyielding, and all too often violent.
2
When any sizable group of people holds unprovable beliefs that are essential to their emotional or psychological well-being, violence will eventually happen.
5
Religion and Theology is all made up. Fabricated out of whole cloth. There is no empirical evidence for any religious belief...NONE.
Individuals that adhere to and hold true such absurd, ridiculous beliefs are capable of believing almost anything and often engage in the most reprehensible behavior.
3
Power corrupts Buddhists as efficiently as it corrupts anyone else. You'd have to be well beyond naive to expect anything different.
6
This is a sad commentary of how "organized" religion has bastardized the true teaching from the original founder. Buddha and Christ, both very peaceful religious founders who practiced what they preached, would be turning in their grave if they knew what is being done in their name. There is enough information on how to lead a good peaceful life. Read it, learn it and follow it, but don't be lead astray by false preachers out to make a buck on those beliefs!
4
Interesting essay with viewpoints worth exploring. But why do you put backwards and superstitious in quotes? And where are the European societies where vilification of Islam is widespread?
1
When a religion is criticized because its adherents are primitive, violent, bigoted, or sexist, defenders will jump and cry: but that is not what the texts say, that is just the ignorant being ignorant in their practice of the religion.
One has to look at the faith as it is practiced. Not what it was or might have been.
1
Forget mindfulness. The mindlessness of the followers of tyrannical leaders of religion - a minority who capitalize on the absolutist unquestioned nature of religion and dogma. No wonder tyrants and dictators like to exploit religion for their own ends.
Just look at a non-believer like Putin who finds religion in a post Soviet era. Trump in his post-civilian life is now emulating Putin with evangelicals who praise him mindlessly in the oval office to leverage absolutism over their followers. Look at the abusive use of evangelicalism, like the abusive use of Buddhism, to vilify all Muslims and other minorities.
Who knew that the descendants of an oppressed and murdered peoples because of and based on their religious identity would within a few decades perpetrate similar subjugation and atrocities of others using their religion as a Biblical pretext and right while ignoring calls for peace by many of those who had helped them. I thought theirs was a religion of peace and tolerance. Its as if because others did unto them, they can do the same onto yet others - running riot on their own Commandments.
And then we have so called religious leaders like Farrakhan a week ago spewing hateful drivel under the cover of his religion.
1
Because Buddhists have delusions.
Buddhas do not.
2
Humanism is intrinsic to Buddhists but dont take them for mugs. You will remember Vietnam. The jihadist terrorists of the Rohingya believe in another great religion which preaches ritual slaughter by throat slitting of all non-believers. Humans, even Buddhists, are not goats, offerring their throats to these preachers of hate. They are fighting back.
4
There are certain tenets in Buddhism, including peace, kindness, meditation, etc. Why would we not be surprised by the behavior of the Myanmar Buddhists?
But perhaps I give the Buddhists too much credit. Tibet was a repressive, obscurantist, medieval slave state under the The Buddhists until the Chinese takeover.
Do not forget, Grasshopper -- we are all still human.
2
We're surprised because Buddhism is not an inherently violent religion. Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are filled with violence and misogyny, and all three encourage its adherents to harm people. That's the difference. Those religions tell you to throw stones at people for whatever reason, Buddhism tells you to go sit under a waterfall and relax. It's all about reflection and meditation. That's why violent Buddhists are so rare throughout history.
3
Useful background. Also important to see the intersection of race with religion, especially in a country at the intersection of many ethnic and racial groups. There are Muslims in Yangon who are integrated and accepted in a way the dark-skinned Rohingya are not. One piece of colonial legacy is an enduring preference for whiteness.
1
I have known many Americans who espouse Buddhist beliefs and talk a great game about tolerance and peace while in practice are quite the opposite. It seems the so called mindful community has co-opted Buddhism as a go to belief system whereby they identify themselves as spiritual but not religious. Witness the throngs who clamor to attend an event with the Dali Lama. Granted these folks are no different than our right wing Christian community who speak of Jesus and support Trump.
2
Frank,
I heartily disagree! The Dalai Lama is a wonderful down to earth person and teacher who is wise and compassionate. He also has a sense of humor and humility--these traits are what bring thousands to hear him speak. Please listen to his message before you make judgments about him.
Respectfully
Ann
Any ritualized belief system - from Catholicism to Buddhism - caters to base instincts. People are good despite religions, not because of them.
3
I think what is needed is a clearer definition of just what religion is. Since the evolution of the human condition, all religions are really nothing more than human mental constructs addressing that condition.
I can state that I base my mental construct upon current human knowledge and secular interpretations of selected Buddhist teachings; Four truths, Eight fold path, Impermanence, etc. This construct provides me a practice to help steer me in the right direction as I go through life. I can identify as both atheist and religious, and I have no need to claim a title such as "Buddhist", or "Muslim".
I think it would be helpful if we quit dividing ourselves into "Religious", and "Non Religious".
"Indeed, our own perception of Buddhism as peaceful and tolerant may itself contribute to a global discourse that has, among other things, represented Muslims as less than full citizens — indeed, less than fully human — in Myanmar as in many other places."
The author's premise about the negative aspects of religions is colored by his belief that any negative consequences of colonial rule are never diminished by time.
As a Buddhist teacher of mine said many years ago--basically do not be naive or romantic about so called "Buddhist Countries"--they are some of the most violent on earth. This is the human realm. The expectation that there's no shadow side to Buddhism is naive: it is the naivete that goes with only wanting to "import" the "good stuff" from other countries, without fully examining the entire culture and history.
2
I've been doing Buddhist practice since 1996. Between 2013-15 I spent 12 months total in Myanmar in retreat, and had a two-month gig as an ESL teacher. I witnessed a rally by the Buddhist nationalist organization 969, and I watched as my students pumped their fists in response to 969's anti-Muslim message.
I don't claim "expert" status, but as an active Myanmar-watcher I want to mention three incorrect points.
1. The authors use the term "self-centered" in the popular sense of a character defect--e.g., a selfish/narcissistic individual. This is very different from the Buddhist meaning of "no phenomena lasting long enough to be called 'self' because they are constantly arising and passing away." An important distinction!
2. I've never seen evidence indicating that Ledi Sayadaw taught meditation to the Burmese laity out of concern that Buddhism was in danger of being lost. If you have evidence to that effect, please share it. Please also look for evidence of his having very different motivations for his actions.
3. I don't see how the rest of your text leads logically to your final paragraph. The sentence strikes me as an excellent topic sentence--you might be able to make a convincing argument, but without supporting sentences, I don't see the connection.
I have very mixed feelings about this article. The insights you offer regarding "that's just the way people and religions work" are unremarkable--nothing new, though they do need repeating.
7
Maybe Western intellectuals don’t get to decide what Buddhism is or isn’t.
4
The events in Myanmar are troublesome, even compared to the atrocities, genocides and holocausts that the Levantine religions brought us, because it's completely antithetical to the Buddhist teachings that tells us not to cling to things like rituals, ideology or even to the Buddhist teaching itself. (Hence the teaching to kill Buddha if you meet him).
I wouldn't call what we practice a modern version of Buddhism, btw. It's more like back-to-basics Buddhism that is supposed to be ideology-free. If you substract the new age things like universal love and harmony, etc., that is.
2
People do terrible things.
2
Nothing is as easily exploited for evil as religion!
Absurd answers handed down by priests and demagogues and grifters to dull inquiring minds which are then easily manipulated to set upon the forces of any resistance to their power objectives.
Anger and ignorance fueled by the ultimate drug - Individual Salvation!
3
So far, the only truly pacifist religion appears to be Pastafarianism.
1
Its irrational hatred for all kinds of religion doesn't bode very well though ... so maybe it's simply because Pastafarians don't have any political power (yet) that they've not killed yet ... ?
jainism
2
Extremists of any kind can turn peace into war. The philosophy of Buddhism, Hinduism, Christianity and Islam are peaceful in theory. It is those who practice it, and tailor it to their way of thinking, that causes the strife.
4
Wow, a religion with hypocritical followers. What a revelation.
7
Well, the Buddhist religion doesnt try to spread itself through force, doesnt try to convert nonbelievers, doesnt try to kill nonbelievers, doesnt try to kill homosexuals, adulterers or others who fail to live up to the codes, and isnt based on a holy text thats filled with glorification of murder and vengeance. So there is some justifiable basis to their reputation for pacifism.
17
All religions teach virtue, but all religions also attract the biggest bigots and zealots who think they have all the answers. This is the true nature of religion.
6
Or, could it be the true nature of human frailty?
1
Let's not forget that before the examples of Buddhist violence in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Tibet, and Thailand, there was Cambodia. Cambodia is 95% Buddhist and in the 1970s witnessed genocide perpetrated by the Khmer Rouge. This genocide was the largest since WW2. This was Buddhist on Buddhist violence driven by ideology; peace and tolerance were nowhere to be found for a long time in Cambodia. In the end tribalism trumps everything your religion may have taught you however noble.
5
The Khmer Rouge (Pol Pots gang) were not Buddhists ; their tutors and arms suppliers were the Maoist Chinese , who had just eliminated Buddhist and Taoist religion from China during the Cultural Revolution. These same Chinese drove the Dalai Lama from Tibet and killed millions of Tibetan Buddhists in a genocidal war that's still on going.
8
"Most adherents of the world’s religions claim that their traditions place a premium on virtues like love, compassion and forgiveness, and that the state toward which they aim is one of universal peace."
Such a poorly researched opening demands a little push back. Not all religions claim they place a premium one the qualities listed above. Many center on unquestioning adherence to rules written by ancient savages. Comparing the texts of religions gives us insights that unschooled banalities do not.
One would be hard pressed to justify violence in the name of Buddhism by referring to it's texts and writings. Of course, Buddhists being human, can be moved to violence by any number of injustices. However given Buddhist philosophy violence isn't what one would expect
1.6 million Tibetans have been murdered by the Chinese since they were conquered in the 50's. Not one Tibetan suicide bomber has considered it their religious duty to slaughter innocents in a pizza parlour or on a civilian bus.
Islam, on the other hand, calls for the use of violence as a tool of conversion. Violence is also called for in a number of areas of life that the other Abrahamic religions seem to have, for the most part, out grown. The oppression of minority ethnic groups and religions are called for in the Koran and the hadith.
Violence and oppression against women, the murder of gays, the dismemberment of minor criminals and weekly beheadings find no constraint from the Koran.
18
I disagree with the author that mindfulness meditation is 'blandly nonreligious.' This prayer-like act to achieve a type of supposed spiritual transgression or awakening is no different than a baptism, chant, davening, bowing East to Mecca, counting rosary beads etc...Any devout atheist should be opposed to such a silly act. There is nothing new under the sun.
2
Except that thousands of scientific studies have in the meanwhile proven that regularly practicing different types of mindfulness meditations effectively increases the neuronal networks in the brain responsible for compassion, self-compassion, and inner peace and non violent behavior ... whereas there are NO studies proving that baptism produces such a profound modification too.
It's as irrational to systematically reject no matter what that has been invented inside a religious tradition as it's irrational to reject no matter what scientific proof simply because it contradicts one or the other religious dogma, remember ... ?
And as your comment shows, there are indeed "devout" atheists, who cling to the desire to reject all religions in the exact dogmatic way they imagine all people adhering to other religions than atheism do ...
For an overview of those studies, see for instance the books of Kristin Neff (psychologist at the university of Texas), Mark Williams (idem, at Oxford University), Daniel Goleman or Matthieu Ricard, to only name a few.
Appreciating science starts with accepting that there will CONSTANTLY be "new under the sun", as long as there are scientists taking their job seriously ... ;-)
22
The physical and psychological benefits of mindfulness practice have been documented by numerous empirical medical studies. There's nothing "prayer-like" about it.
And I think you mean "transcendence," not "transgression."
3
Buddhism, like any of the other of the the word's great religeons dictates the moral behavior of the follower, which is, like the others, demands compassion, empathy, kindness. Buddhism also tell us to be compassionate to all creatures. Okay...we get that. But most people, Buddhist or not, do not live the life of a martyr or devotee. They lead a life which in a general sense is in line with the religious imperatives, but they are human after all. Humanity, like the great apes, is generally peaceful, but not always, and no matter what religion a person espouses there is no escaping they will "sin" (Christianity), create "infidelities" (Islam), "be in delusion" ( Buddhism). For most of us religion is a set of rules we endeavor to follow as best we can, not something we actually do follow.
Yet another reason to eschew all forms of organized religion. Study the philosophies of the founders, yes. Belong to the "church." No thanks.
1
If you start with "people are crazy" and go from there, it isnt much of a surprise that Buddhists would be able to be just as obnoxious as anyone else because like all people they have the full complement of human behavior. Like the Amish, the general reputation is peacefulness to the general public but who knows when the chips are down.
It is also a surprise that Christians who claim to follow the teachings of Jesus support torture, minors with military weapons, and Donald Trump. Any cultural association with religion or casually accepted fundamentalisms have nothing to do with actual practice but are just another type of tribalism.
5
Who is surprised? What Western stereotype? This has been widely known at least since Brian Victoria's Zen at War (1997).
1
Just because violent tendencies of a group of people depend, partly on, wars, political history, economic forces, and social structure, doesn't mean all religions are equally violent. Believing it would be engaging in false equivalency.
Muslims, as victors, have a long history of killing, and destruction and pillage of religious symbols and property of conquered people. As an opposite example, we, Americans, would kill to win a war, but subsequently, we help the defeated rebuild their countries.
Yes, their are examples of history of violence by people of all religions, ethnicity, and nations, but we shouldn't paint them all with a broad brush.
8
Ever notice the striking inverse relationship between the talk and the walk of all the world's religions, including Buddhism et al?
Fact is, they sell peace retail, then kill wholesale, all in the name of peace.
So, no, I doubt there is surprise at Buddhist or religious supported killing.
The nation carrying out the surprise attack at Pearl Harbor was heavily influenced in war by Buddhism. Books have been written on that subject.
The history of war and religion can't be separated, each feeding off the other.
2
Buddhism is the more acceptable religion among those with an intellectual or nihilistic/iconoclastic view of the universe in western societies. It is still a religion with its uniforms, shaved heads, icons, liturgies and rituals. When we say we are Buddhist or any other religion we open ourselves to conflict with those who do not share our beliefs. This happens with all religions and has been responsible for many horrible wars and genocides. Civilization will move forward when we stop identifying ourselves by religion, politics, profession or gender.
All religions have killed or continue to kill. Portrayals of Buddhists wearing a white outfit and gingerly moving a bug outside the house, instead of killing it, are a complete illusion. In reality, Buddhists as well as other religious folks, have no qualms in killing their fellow humans for fear of their practices, beliefs or non-belief. Working towards non-violence, understanding the sciences, and having an unending need to understand our environment and our fellow man, are key to peace.
2
Here's the thing though: it's precisely Western scientific studies that have in the meanwhile proven that the only cultural tradition to have developed truly effective techniques (= techniques changing brain structure and behavior in a scientifically measurable way) increasing peaceful behavior towards yourself and others, is Buddhism.
And that is just one more proof refuting the hypothesis advanced by certain "atheists" that all religions would be inherently irrational/anti-scientific/violent etc.
It's not "religions" that kill, it's human beings. So when science proves that meditation techniques invented within a Buddhist religion are exactly the tools we need in order to increase world peace, are you prepared to walk the walk and give up your prejudice against religions in general, in the name of science ... ?
The Dalai Lama for instance is, as he already claimed that the day that scientific studies would prove one of the basic tenets of Buddhism to be false, he'll immediately scrap it from what Buddhist are supposed to cultivate and consider to be true.
How many self-proclaimed atheists have the courage to do so too ... ?
Just askin' ...
1
I suppose every religion preaches compassion and love toward fellow humans (Christianity famously teaches you to turn the other cheek) and many wars have been fought in the name of and in defense of religion "under threat" (Crusades, anyone?)
Buddhism, which is an offshoot of Hinduism, is NOT a religion by a "way of life". The meditative practices are meant to give you inner strength and peace of mind, and courage to confront threats to your existence. The latter explains the "violence" exhibited by certain Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka and now in Myanmar.
Peaceful coexistence implies that the person you want to coexist with believes in peace, not in getting rid of "infidels" who do not believe in your creed. Certain adherents of Islam subscribe to the concept of "Jihad" against infidels who do not set store by prophet Mohamed. This perceived threat is at the root of the problem we are witnessing in Myanmar and witnessed in Sri Lanka.
Context is everything.
4
I believe that the basis for this article and the political classification of this conflict between Myanmar people and the Rohingya is totally incorrect. It is not a religious conflict even though Myanmar people believed in Buddhism while the Rohingya's are Muslims. They are two distinct ethnic and racial groups, Asians v.s. Into. They live apart in every respect throughout their lives, they speak different languages, have customs and religion separately. Myanmars are more Asian by culture and race, while Rohingya's are more akin to Indians, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans. Rohingya's migrated to Burma in the recent past through European colonialism, when tribal boundaries were redrawn by colonial masters. Myanmar is a small country, only recently coming out of a dictatorship. Given all these differences between the two peoples living in small country, it is not surprising that conflict is taking place. Given the big differences between the two peoples, the solution is for the Western World to step up to help the Rohingya's to resettle in their countries. But, to continue to see this as a religious war is not seeing things as they are. Buddhism does not advocate violence, neither does Christianity or Muslim. Conflicts come out of the need for economic survival and social disparity. Europeans who colonized the world had slaughtered many indigenous people and yet no one claimed it as a religious conflict.
6
Anyone can call him/herself "Buddhist" (witness Soka Gokai, Zen, and other Mahayana "Buddhisms"). Luckily, scholarship suggests that what the Pali Canon is a fairly close approximation what Gotama Siddhartha actually taught, i.e. Buddhism rather than "buddhism." We should not be surprised that these teachings have been corrupted and/or altered over the centuries, nor should we be surprised that when the teachings become State religions, any number of insanities may result (Japanese zen during WWII, the current Myanmar violence, etc.). However, it is truly astonishing that this has happened so rarely as compared with all other major world religions (possible exception is Baha'i but I don't know enough make that claim). The point is that religions differ. Ideas matter. Is is very difficult to be violent in the name of Buddhism. To be a fundamentalist, extremist Buddhist (or Jainist) for that matter, is to be the least worrisome individual on Earth in terms of causing harm to others. "Buddhist" monks do all sorts of things in so-called "Buddhist" nations, because being a monk for a period of time in such societies is a status not a spiritual calling. To compare Buddhism to religions whose "noble aspirations" include slavery, torture, murder, death penalties for talking back to parents or having the wrong kind of sex, and on and on and on is disingenuous. Buddhism IS a uniquely peaceful and tolerant religion, even if "buddhism" and "buddhists" are not.
3
People who make "buddhist" their identity, ascribing to their tribe all of the most superior virtues, need to spend more time in meditation, ie. self reflection.
1
No student of medieval Japan suffers from the absurd delusion that Buddhists are always peaceful. Medieval Japanese Buddhist monasteries had their own armies and regularly fought each other for power. A highly sophisticated Indian professor, who was a colleague and friend of mine a few years ago at an obsessively PC liberal arts college, delighted in literally mocking the absurd "California" stereotype that somehow Indians are more "spiritual" than Americans. Instead, my friend assured his students, Indians in general are in general much greedier and more materialistic than "spiritual" Americans, and are, in fact, among the least "spiritual" people on earth. Flattering stereotypes of other peoples are always designed to flatter US for feeling aligned with our fantasies of the "other," when the actual others would very often not just find our stereotypes ludicrous but would also explode them happily right before our lying eyes.
4
As soon as a person or people thinks that his religion is better the ground is sown for coercion. And, in all truth, some religions have buried in their tomes messages of intolerance to nonbelievers. Buddhism does not as far as I know, but I could be wrong. So being religious per se if anything promotes action against others, or permits a victimization. The bottom line regarding personal religious choice, should always be- don’t expect me to share your epiphany. Definitely not tribal identification.
2
Good piece. What it comes down to is the difference between the Buddhist practice of meditation as a path to enlightenment that leads, ultimately, to peace between peoples, and Buddhism as a label adopted by tribal cultures that are not always able to fully practice its precepts. In Burma, as almost everywhere there is postcolonial strife, the Brits worked very hard at creating minefields of discord that linger to this day. But the bottom line is that it is impossible to be a true Buddhist if one practices any sort of hateful behavior. As the Tibetan Buddhists say: "Anyone might have been your mother in a previous life. Treat them accordingly." Hate is, above all, a symptom of the suffering that the historical Buddha attempted to enable all people to transcend. Unfortunately, some "Buddhists" never got the message -- which is why their behavior seems so glaringly incongruous with our sense of Buddhism as a path to peace and enlightenment.
1
As we all know all religions are fake but still are followed to impress family and the boss - Hitler Germany was very Roman Catholic meanwhile blaming the Jews that they crucified Jesus, etc.
Better to recognize the emptiness of religion and understand the basic focus of all living creatures: divide and concur.
3
Well duh!
1
Who's "we" in the title? The two authors? The Times editors? Are they patronizingly saying "we" and mean "you, the uninformed readers"?
1
The rape of Nagasaki was perpetrated by Buddhists. So was the slaughter of Muslims during the partition of India and Pakistan.
Are you sure you are not confusing Hindus with Buddhists?
Having committed to Buddhist practices for the past four decades I think that the essence of what is shared here goes right to the heart of
Buddhist "ideals". One has to apply the practices and be willing to engage in the path that has been proscribed over the millennia if there is going to be "peace" from within. Self deception is one of the largest challenges in pursuit of the path of liberation from "dis-ease" or samsara. If we are unwilling to apply meditation or the lessons learned from great teachers that anger and "dis-ease" will undermine us and remain an illusion on a far horizon.
When all is said and done this is a fair and well examined matrix of culture, history, and perception that leads us to this moment.
1
The problem with religion , any religion are those that interpret the faith ; Christianity itself is not as the early church that Jesus founded . There was a splintering of beliefs and difference of opinion . The same can be said for Islam , Buddhism , and the Jewish beliefs , which is the basis of Christianity and Islam . Disagreement abounds , different sects are formed and eventually it is man himself that politicizes religious beliefs. It is best to honor our creator by sanctifying all life and respecting each others beliefs whether we agree or not . Violence perpetrated in the name of any religion is not religious .
1
There is little doubt that the human mind has depths science is far from penetrating, and many folks have found access to the recesses of their minds by meditation and various mindfulness practices. Perhaps these experiences affect their daily interactions with other humans, perhaps breeding tolerance and empathy.
These interior experiences are not what organized religion is about, however, and is not what the authors have addressed.
Rather, the focus here is upon teachings in various religions as to good conduct, and the ability of followers to behave according to these percepts. The authors’ thesis is that humankind is fallible, and often violates the codes they claim to believe in. The authors attribute this failure to subterranean motivations opaque to the followers that drive them away from the behavior they claim to believe in.
History is replete with examples corroborating this thesis.
A question not raised here, however, is whether religions themselves contribute directly to the wayward tendencies of humankind? That is very probably the case, because religions discount the rational in place of the mystical, opening the way for irrational behavior. The unscrupulous have proven very adept at leveraging this distrust of common sense to excite behavior abhorrent to all humankind.
2
On my comment, meant to say "So was the slaughter of Muslims perpetrated by Hinduism" during the partition of India and Pakistan. Nobility of philosophy shouldn't be confused with the dogmatic practices of believers. But the argument that fans of organized religions make that "If they are doing bad things that is because they aren't following the religion" ignores judging a religion by its results rather than its theory.
3
The slaughter was reciprocal, sadly.
2
I agree with the author's summary that you are what you practice, rather than what you say, which comes in the fifth paragraph from the bottom. I look at the menus of many allegedly Buddhist countries and scoff. Nothing but meat and seafood dishes dominating the menu. A Buddhist is first and foremost a vegetarian, which goes hand in hand with the sentient beings and non-violence. Restaurants affiliated with Buddhist temples are always vegetarian. The adherents come from many Asian countries, whose cuisines are mostly anything but Buddhist. This is, in my opinion, more complicated than saying many Jews don't keep kosher, or that not all Catholics go to confession.
As other comments on articles about the Rohingya have mentioned, maybe the Burmese sic Myanmars are simply fed up with their Islamic neighbors. How many Muslim countries are there? How tolerant are many of them to other religions? What are the birth rates for the Rohingya, are their numbers deemed a threat to dwindling vital resources which triggered the current wars in Syria and Yemen? What of the history of East Pakistan?
The situation is more complicated than the authors admit. Geopolitics isn't philosophy. Expect more of this going forward with climate change while the numbers of humans continues to surge upwards. Don't listen to those who claim we'll be fine with 11 billion. Malthus was right, or rather will be eventually.
5
"A Buddhist is first and foremost a vegetarian",
But Buddha was not a vegetarian. however, he insisted that his followers should not eat any kind of meat or fish, even those not included in the 10 types, and that even vegetarian food that has been touched by meat should be washed .
The Dalai Lama is not a vegetarian, in fact, most Buddhists are not vegetarians,
3
@Ana Luisa: A debate over the status of the question of “Does God exist” is not what’s going on here. Rather, the discussion is about the failure of folks to follow the teachings of their faith. That failing is attributed by the authors to subconscious motivations opaque to the followers.
This thesis seems valid to me, but doesn’t go far enough.
My view is that the emphasis of each religion upon its own mystical supremacy undermines the rational mind and masks facts in clear evidence that would discourage intolerance of others.
2
1. Buddhism isn't emphasizing "its own mystical supremacy". And only monotheistic religions claim to have privileged access to the one and only truth about religious topics such as the existence of a god, the creation of the universe etc.
2. Science has shown that failing to behave in a compassionate and peaceful way towards others even though you adhere to a philosophy/religion that preaches peace and tolerance, has a very precise and in the meanwhile well-known cause: it's due to the lack of practicing exactly the kind of meditations that Buddhism and Buddhism alone developed.
That's why it's a bit strange that IF the authors want to discuss the relationship between a religious tradition and violence, (1) it doesn't address those scientific studies concerning this particularly tradition but instead invokes "subconscious motivations" that are called "opaque", and (2) comments like yours start to claim (as you did in your previous comment) that all religions are necessarily irrational.
1
Excellent and erudite essay, but we need look no further than the embrace of Donald Trump by Evangelical Christians to see that more often than not, people do not practice what they preach.
3
I can think of no one more xtian than a trump supporter.
1700 years of murder, rape, theft, genocide and oppression in the name of their little blood spattered god
So, what the author is saying is that people are people regardless of geographic, demographic or religious affiliation. Is that it?
Some people are good, and some people (usually male) are poisoned as a result of testosterone overload attached to dogma and become violent for reasons beyond their comprehension. Is that it?
If that's it, we knew that.
7
I'm afraid that indeed, that's it.
And that's a bit sad, because IF you want to discuss Buddhist theory and the effect of practicing Buddhist meditation on your own inner and outer peace, it's not as if there aren't any scientific studies that do exactly that.
Moreover, they all tend to show that PRECISELY when it comes to learning how to be less violent against yourself and others, and developing neuronal networks in the brain that translate into less violence and more happiness and compassion, it's precisely meditation techniques developed within Buddhist traditions that are extraordinarily effective, and much more so than what other cultures managed to discover and develop until today.
Of course, you do have to PRACTICE those techniques on a regular basis. Just standing in front of a Buddha statue and throwing a flower won't be very effective ... but that, as you say, we already knew.
So the "real news" here isn't that there are violent political conflicts where Buddhists commit violence too. The real news is that there is ONE culture and religious tradition that managed to invest tremendous time and energy in investigating the human brain and in developing tools that IF practiced, increase peaceful behavior in a scientifically measurable way, and that's Buddhist culture. So THAT is what should be discussed here, once the topic of the debate is whether people correctly associate Buddhism and peace, and IF you want to go beyond widely known truisms ...
26
Yeah, right, true Jay, but so eloquently expressed and,
for me at least, revelatory in that it explores the historical impact of colonialism in artificially defining each groups adherents with traits and practices that muddy the waters for those of us who have been taught some of these stereotypes.
1
Yep, and you said it better than the article does IMO.
But I think it does deserve to be said again and again, since people seem to be wanting to find external reasons for their violence and anger (I'm not perfect either).
This article ties itself up with its convoluted logic. In Islam, the Koran is frequently used to justify a war or other acts of violence. Followers of buddhism are not invoking buddhist texts to wage a war, or to inflict violence on the Rohingya, and that is the key difference between religions that are primarily pacifist versus those that are not. When Myamnar buddhists inflict violence, it should be seen as an act of humans in general - maybe in what they believe is self-defense: Islamic civilizations have had a well known track record of being aggressive and violent in the past. When Islamic rulers conquered India during the middle ages, they murdered all the monks at various buddhist learning centers. Buddhism was flourishing in all of south east Asia (Malaysia, Indonesia and others), all of which became muslim nations later. So Buddhists may have something to fear from Islam based on their knowledge of history.
23
The notion of a "just war" exists in all religions and most philosophies.
And since Judaism linked religion to the notion of one absolute truth (notion then taken over by Christianity and Islam, the other two religions "of the book"), religious wars, where people are physically attacked just because they adhere to a different religion, happened time and again too.
So it's absurd to believe that Islam would somehow be inherently violent, or more violent than other religious because being based on a doctrine that condones religious violence.
By the way, you could easily have fact-checked that idea, instead of generalizing pictures in MSM and right-wing media alike showing Islamic terrorists today, as Muslim texts literally write that NO one should be converted to Islam "through the sword".
Yes, throughout the Middle Ages vast parts of Europe and the Middle East were governed by hundreds of local princes who constantly went to battle with their neighbors in order to expand their (tiny) territory, and at that time the official religions in those regions were basically Christianity and Islam.
But once political and economical situations changed, both religions were perfectly able to produce politicians presiding over long periods of peace and economical, scientific and cultural thriving.
Conclusion: what happens to the Rohingya today is linked to Myanmar's recent political history, but cannot be explained by the simple fact that the Rohingya are Muslims ...
Your fifth paragraph seems limited and I think mischaracterizes history. The spread of Islam into the Indian subcontinent was primarily through violent conquering rulers from the west - Persia, Afghanistan and beyond. The local populace adhered to Hindu philosophy (Vedas, Upanishads, Gita), ritualistic practices and their many Gods. Similarly Buddhist philosophy and practices. I am not aware there are any records of corresponding attempts to spread these religious ideas westwards through violence. And the spread of Buddhism eastward was essentially through monks traveling to and from the subcontinent. So there is a difference in philosophy -- proselityzation by force does not appear to be a uniform characteristic of all religions.
2
Concept of "just war" exists in most religion, but not in Buddhism (I challenge you to show me where that is written), hence my assertion that buddhism is fundamentally a pacifist religion compared with Islam. When in history has a Buddhist king set out, with a buddhist army, to conquer foreign lands? Buddhist violence in both Myamnar and Sri Lanka were directed at insurgencies (Rohingya and Tamils respectively). I was not making the point that Islam is inherently more violent, though history suggests it is, owing to its origins. The religion was created amidst warring tribes in Arabia, and therefore several passages in the Koran reflect that reality; and those passages are used to justify violence today.
2
Several generally well-informed friends of mine have had difficulty grasping that today there are some communities of violent Buddhists. I have replied that for over 2,000 years there have been such communities, although many Buddhists are not of that ilk. That's simple history. Admittedly, such Buddhists reject the teachings of Buddha. But that's normal among human beings. Think of the tens of millions of American "Christian fundamentalists" who utterly reject Jesus, vastly preferring instead hatred and lies.
4
All religions can be violent but this is the least important aspect of them. Violence is part of being human. It is, rather, how and why violence is deployed that makes a difference. Buddhism has inspired great civilizations and produced great art and philosophy. It also has some negative (from my point of view) features: pietism, passivity and renunciation of the self. The conflict in Burma is undoubtedly cultural and ethnic but it is also religious because the basic worldview of Buddhism is very different from the core beliefs of Islam, which is aggressively proselytizing and exclusionary. In the abstract, I would root for Buddhism against Islam; in practice, the conflict has devolved into a bloody persecution of a minority and needs to be stopped and resolved by political means. Once it is done, Buddhism and Islam can continue their theological dispute and people can take sides in whatever way they choose.
2
When religions migrate they are colored by the places they set new roots in and vice-versa.
When those places have adherents who are culturally, economically, politically and/or militarily oppressed, then they respond like all people do by fighting for survival.
But it's not because of the religious practice of individuals, it's a sociopolitical response.
Americans are thus likewise surprised to find how peaceful the Muslims of SE Asia are compared to those of the Middle East. But that's what 1,000 years of crusades from the West will do.
5
Professor Arnold urges us to see that all of us-even the supposed best or "peaceful" among us-are subject to the same failings. Even if continually falling short, we should try to be "better" versions of ourselves and see that all of us are just trying to make our way as best we can. As my wife says, "Be a better dog."
There do is good news though: for decades now, Western science has been proving time and again that we don't just have to sit down and then hope that somehow we'll become a better person, as it's precisely Buddhism that for more than 2,000 years has been experimenting with different tools allowing us to cultivate innate skills such as empathy, compassion, peace and self-compassion, AND that has discovered and developed EXACTLY those kind of tools.
So how can you discuss the topic of Buddhism and peace without referring to any of those studies, as Professor Arnold here nevertheless does ... ?
All that this op-ed says is that if you don't regularly practice what you preach, you may tell us that you believe in peace but you probably won't adopt any seriously peaceful behavior ... but WHO didn't know something like this already ... ?
This is a great comment, and we should all take responsibility for our failings: "Be a better dog." Previous comments have been quick to paint all religions as bad. We need to remember that faith in naturalism is also a religion. Many atrocities were committed in the 20th Century in the name of secular-isms. One only needs to look at Nazi Fascism, Communist Gulags, Kymar Rouge to name a few.
1
At their core, almost all religions preach tolerance and peace. The problem, is that people identify with a religion, but they do not practice its core tenets. Identifying with a religion is, in essence, a closed set theory: since we are right, they are wrong. This is just one more thing that makes "them" other; makes "them" less than human; makes "God" on our side and not theirs; and, therefore, makes it OK for "us" to do whatever it takes to rid "us" of "them".
So our noblest aspirations and thoughts get corrupted by our own nature.
As Monty Python put it, "...there must be intelligent life somewhere, cause there's bloody all down here on earth."
2
Why are we surprised when religious people are violent? Why is religious superstition a sacred cow to Americans? Because Americans love to adhere to oversimplified understandings of complex things. We may be just like every other people on Earth for this ball & chain of human nature. The consternation over our lack of understanding arises because we are so free, supposedly so well-off and therefore so able to be more well educated than other people more bound up in subsistence.
Nobody likes to think fo themselves as unwise. However Socrates laid down the measuring mark of wisdom as, "being reasonably aware of what you do not know." This takes some humility, not exactly an American point of pride.
2
Perhaps Profs. Arnold & Turner are confusing the finger with the moon
To be clear, they are right a lot heinous acts were committed in the name of religion. And sectorial dispute and violence are not uncommon. Thinking Buddhism can be a refuge from human follies is indeed a denial. However, Buddhism, like many other religions, as a belief is indeed about nonviolence
I cannot stress enough that this response is not rebuttal of Mr Arnold's and Ms Turner's observation. In fact, even the great Indian Buddhist king, Asoka, has forced conversion with violent means. And some Tibetan linages were wiped out. That said, Buddhism, like other great religions, also offers profound peaceful experience. For instance, Tibet used to be rather barbaric. Since the introduction of Buddhism, it has become more peaceable, at its own peril
A lot of people may know Kalachakra Tantra. The 14th Dalai Lama has dedicated it for World Peace. But textually, it too has some twilight language. Perhaps it was inspired by the sacking of Nalanda (my own theory). However, this twilight language has been toned down
Ultimately though, thinking religion, be it Buddhism or Islam, as a product misses the process in which a person is transformed. Literalists, or fundamentalists, who cannot go beyond the internal struggle, jihad, if you like, and thought their opponents were external will be the real trial for them to realize their spiritual life
To wit, one must separate the superficiality from spirit of it
2
A very thoughtful article and, it seems to me, essentially correct. Thanks for the history lesson and the philosophy lesson (both Kant and the Buddha) . . . Philosophy should be able to engage meaningfully with current and historical events and offer useful insight (just as the study of history corrects many easy philosophic errors). The authors here hit the mark.
3
You cannot possibly discuss the topic of a potential link between violence committed by Buddhist and Buddhist theory without mentioning the scientific studies that address exactly this kind of issues.
If you decide to ignore them, as this op-ed does, you simply remember that Buddhists can be violent too, which then allows readers who tend to associate religion with violence to see one more reason to stick to their beliefs - often precisely in the name of science/rationality, ironically enough ... .
For decades now, scientific studies examining the effects of all types of meditation techniques developed within Buddhist traditions on the brain, individual happiness and inner peace, and compassion, have proven time and again that indeed, that is EXACTLY what those meditation practices increase significantly, over time (and of course IF practiced regularly - who has ever believed that finding peace a nice idea is enough to become a truly peaceful person in daily life yourself ... ?).
Moreover, no other "religious" tradition NOR scientific discipline has been proven to have developed such effective techniques and tools yet.
So yes, people correctly associate Buddhism with peace and tolerance. And that also means that it's SCIENCE that has proven that "religion" and "peace" do CAN go together, contrary to what many self-declared "non believers" ... believe.
3
It may be that meditation practices increase tolerance and empathy. And it may be that the techniques prescribed by Buddhism are helpful in reaching such a state of mind. But all this has nothing to do with the authors’ observation that followers of every religion fail, at times, to pursue laudable objectives proclaimed by their religion and ostensibly espoused by their followers. That lapse may apply to some following the Buddhist practices as well.
The thesis is that these lapses occur because of subconscious impulses opaque to the follower.
One might then ask: What role does the religion play in inhibiting these destructive departures from principle?
My view is that in fact the parochial aspect of each religion in supporting the view that some or another particular religion is preeminent in its grasp of the mysteries of the universe is fundamentally intolerant.
Possibly that applies to science itself, although so far science has only assisted warfare and not instigated it.
History shows time and again that this opening to intolerance is readily exploited by the unscrupulous for political advantage and to condone the most vile activities.
1
@ John Brews..
You ask: "What role does the religion play in inhibiting these destructive departures from principle?"
As science has shown, in the case of Buddhist religion, it's religion itself that provides people with the techniques that any human being HAS to practice if he/she wants to become more peaceful.
So thanks to science, we now no longer have to suppose, as this op-ed does, that what makes preaching peace effective and what doesn't help at all, is somehow only known in our "subconscious", as we now know that it has to do with certain very specific PRACTICES.
Do those, and you'll become more peaceful, over time. Don't do them and just stick to finding peace a nice idea, and nothing will change, probably.
So it's actually not a matter of sticking to "principle" or departing from it. It's a matter of having understood how and why to meditate, and once you clearly did, you start practicing, and then the effects are there.
Apart from that, your hypothesis that any particular religion considers itself to be superior to all other religions is simply false. Read for instance Jan Assmann's books on this issue, and you'll see how this idea ONLY characterizes the 3 religions of the book (Judaism, Christianity and Islam).
You can be a Catholic, for instance, and REMAIN a Catholic all while become a Buddhist monk and be accepted as a Buddhist by Buddhists - but for Catholics, you'll have to choose.
@Ana Luisa: it would seem from the perspective that following Buddhist practices results in tolerance and empathy, that in those historical instances where Buddhists have engaged in violence and purges, they simply have failed to practice their Buddhist techniques diligently? Not, it seems to me, so different from the behavior of followers of other religions who have lapsed in following the teachings of their faith.
Religious intolerance is universal and spares no one.
5
OK, so we are not what we preach. Tell me. what is wrong with Buddhist psychology of mindfulness and understanding of self, or a reach for Peace, Harmony, and Contentment. At least it's an intelligent and rational human effort to become a better human person. We in America revere Success, Abundance, and Happiness. I guess no one can accuse our people of personally underachieving! Compete, compete...compete more!
2
Buddhism, like other universalist religious and secular worldviews, is a response to human nature (broadly defined) and the "world" (history, culture, politics, etc.) Let's call both of these imprecise terms--human nature and the world--another imprecise term, "life". If life was actually rooted in, and reflective of, universalist belief systems such as Buddhism and Christianity, there would be no need for them. Life itself would express and embody the purpose and value of life.
Before I forget, please give my regards to Mr. Hobbes and Mr. Kant.
1
Why are we surprised when "Christians" are violent? (1 million civilians dead as a result of the Iraq/Afghan wars, for example. Vietnam.)
2
I thought those were Americans in that war and not Christians? Did they fight under the Vatican flag or the US?
1
I'll take someone who espouses non-tolerance and fails to live up to it over someone who openly espouses intolerance and, as a means of defending or promoting a true faith, violence.
3
We are surprised when Buddhists are violent because there's nothing in the Poly Cannon that commands Buddhists to go out and commit violence. Buddhists are human beings and are in principle just as violent as anyone else. But doctrines matter, particularly if practitioners take them seriously.
Take the Jain religion. The core of the Jain religion is non-violence. They are obviously vegetarians, but most Jains abstain even from eating plants where it's necessary to kill the plant to eat it (so no onions, eg). The most orthodox Jains sweep the ground in front of them and cover their mouths with cheese-cloths so avoid killing even invisible insects. Any Jain who engages in violent behavior will be doing so DESPITE his religious doctrines, not because of them.
Buddhism obviously describes a wide variety of doctrines and practices, founded on thousands of different Sutras, but the core of Buddhist doctrine doesn't contain, for example, commandments to murder apostates, keep slaves, engage in genital mutilation, etc that are so common in the Abrahamic faiths.
So the surprise when Buddhists are violent is at least somewhat justified.
9
I meant to type "Pali Canon" but somehow that came out as Poly Canon. Not sure why!
2
I am always astonished by the breathtaking naivety of thinking that Buddhists should somehow be exempt from acting like people. I am also amazed by stridently atheistic, humanist thinking I see sometimes that religion is always at the core of problems. Take away religion, and violence and war would somehow magically disappear. The problem is people and power, regardless of religions or ideologies. Those just provide window dressing to the wars and conflicts. Which are probably all mostly based on economy, power, and fear. Fear of losing what you have, fear of losing grazing or cultivable, fear of losing access to water, fear of losing a future for your children, all combined with the insatiable greed and appetite of humanity.
I strongly suspect that if humanity had never had religion, it would still have been just as horrendously bloody. Chimps are not evoking sacred texts when they massacre a neighbouring chimpanzee community...
8
Buddhism at its root was never a religion. According to the Pali Canon and other writings by and about the Buddha at the start of this practice, his aim was to discover and to teach a way of life that would alleviate suffering.
The concept of worship, reincarnation, and other beliefs attributed to Buddhism, and the wide range of sects, are remnants from tribal practices and religions that were folded in as the practice spread.
Buddhism, like other systems of its kind, including actual religions, has become a product of its time and place wherever it is practiced now. And tragically that includes power, fear, and the eradication of the other.
6
Unfortunately, reports of the violence against Rohingya in Myanmar exploited the words "Buddhists / Buddhism" in sensational headlines, turning up the heat of religious conflicts and at the same time denigrate the Buddha's teachings. Hidden behind the sentence is: See, they are no better. Our religion is the best. Hubris.
The words "Buddhism" & "Buddhist" are merely identity labels. The Buddha rejected personal identity as a "delusion", a fabrication out of inherent human ignorance. The Buddha summarized Self-hood and reality: All is "Not Mine", "Not I Am", not the "SELF".
Accordingly the delusion of Self-hood is the root of all problems. The twin evil (1) "Self-interest" (driven by greed, desires and possessiveness) (2) "Self-Righteousness" (driven by one's ideology, faith, view, perspectives, upbringing, which in turn shape "Self-Identity") - these two account for ALL human conflicts and violence.
It's important to understand that all human beings are inherently delusional and embrace the "Self-hood", all carry what the Buddha called the three poisons of the mind: Greed, Ill-Will, & Ignorance (Delusion). Humans are up to no good. It is to be expected. Only a minuscule number of human beings will endeavor to cultivate spiritually (meaning inwards) to get rid of the poisons. Until they accomplished such lofty goal, it does not matter if one is labelled a Buddhist, a Christian, a Muslim, a Jew, a Hindu, and whatever, they are capable of doing very bad things.
6
"the Dalai Lama’s fellow religionists to heap destruction on the false teachers of rival sects" lacks depth:
The Dalai Lama has condemned the minority Gelugpa Shugden worship and has for his pains been attacked all over the world with help from Chinese Communist Party; at his teachings he has said Shugden worshippers should not attend his teachings which advocate tolerance and loving kindness.
Also not mentioned is the Rohingya siding with the British Raj during Burma's independence struggle and invitation to Pakisthan to liberate the Rohingya state which actually used to be an independent kingdom whose tribal people now are mostly Christians.
What is curious is that when Burmese Buddhists attack Rohingyas it is termed as "Buddhist attack" but such identification of religious affiliation is not used for other Religions.
The Buddha's Ten Commandments of the Awakened Ones includes: Do not kill, do not steal and do not commit backward sexual acts. So how do you justify the usage of Buddhist attacks?
Of course Buddhists are attacked and killed in Muslim communities but I don't think it will serve to detail them here.
6
The only surprise here is that there is supposed to be one. Religion is to the human as plutonium is to the bomb, it is a destructive force magnifier. If you've read Christopher Hitchens, "god Is Not Great" (yes small "g") you understand that "religious thinking" contains three very ugly elements:
1. Hero worship.
2. Unassailable dogma.
3. Thought criminalization.
Even if a notion of a god or super heroic being were true, which it is not, subjugating oneself to it is an abandonment of higher human purpose that inevitably leads to some form of totalitarianism. Read Hitchens' book!
For the record Buddhists invented the ultimate violent death cult, the suicide bomber, both under the Imperial Zen version kamikaze and in Sri Lanka. This article is not stern enough in admonishing readers for their too easily assumed Western presuppositions, a stronger bit of stick would have been beneficial here.
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." - Blaise Pascal
2
Although this essay provoked discussion of whether Buddhism is less prone to violent abuse than other religions, that is not the authors’ focus. Rather, they emphasize that, whatever the faith, its followers often fail to practice what is preached due, they say, to motivations of a subterranean sort that are opaque to them.
These observations are undeniable.
But what is not discussed is that the failure to be rational and observant of fact is exacerbated by the mystical emphasis of all religions that undermines common sense, emphasizing instead revelation, revealed truth, and belief in imaginary events defying ordinary experience, like resurrection, virgin births, and miracles. The door is opened to the unfortunate subterranean opaque parts of the brain that rationality is meant to govern.
This subversion of rationality by religions is exploited to political advantage throughout history by unscrupulous leaders claiming religious vindication for outrageous acts.
That is the more basic issue about religion; more significant than the comparisons of one religion with another.
2
Except that the only religions using the idea of a "revealed truth" are the three "religions of the book" (Judaism, Christianity and Islam). There is no God telling The Truth to the Buddha, in Buddhism. The Buddha is simply a man who experimented with meditation techniques until he discovered how some of them are utterly effective when you want to increase inner and outer peace (as in the meanwhile confirmed by Western science, by the way).
The funny thing with people rejecting "religion" in the name of "rationality" is that they tend to blindly believe their own hypothesis about religion, without doing any serious, rational fact-checking.
And as soon as you study Western philosophy, you'll see that ALL philosophies, whether they use the notion of god or not, include statements about things that cannot be scientifically verified/falsified. That's precisely what distinguishes a philosophy from a scientific theory.
Finally, you seem to ignore that from a scientific/rational viewpoint, absence of proof is not proof of absence. We'll probably never have any scientific evidence proving the existence of a monotheistic god, AND we'll never have evidence proving that such a god does NOT exist. So that's where philosophy enters and where discarding ANY hypothesis is a philosophical choice, in other words equally "rational". The only irrational thing to do here is to want to blindly believe that only ONE hypothesis can be true, and to declare such a blind belief "rational" ...
1
"Suffering follows upon the heels of wrongdoing," said Buddha, "as the wheels of the cart follow upon heels of the ox."
As the support of American Evangelicals for President Trump illustrates, no religion or philosophy has a monopoly on the radical departure of their alleged adherents from the tenets of their founders.
2
There is a piece of colonial history at play. The British ruled Burma by bringing Hindus from India to be the civil servants. When the British were ousted, the Burmese expelled the Hindus in what today would be called an ethnic cleansing. It was brutal. Few Hindus remain in Myanmar. Colonial powers often used one ethnic group against another to maintain its own power. This has left deep scars that can overpower the better angels of those who remain in countries, after the colonizers leave. Myanmar is an especially sad version of this.
2
Religiously speaking, I think this is an argument for ethics over wisdom.
Buddhism has basic ethical principles, but it mainly stresses that people should meditate their way to enlightenment, with the creation of a peaceful world as a side effect.
Judaism has always emphasized ethics, rules, sometimes legalistic-sounding arguments about the right way to behave in every situation. The idea is to create wiser, more compassionate people by having them perform better behaviors. That's in contrast to creating better behavior by first having everyone become wiser and more compassionate.
In Judaism, the Almighty tells people what to DO more than It tells them what to BELIEVE.
3
The remarks about the Dalai Lama lack context. The Dalai Lama, some years ago, advised his followers from worshipping a deity (Dorje Shugden) that he considered to be potentially dangerous. It was advice, not a mandate. Nonetheless, certain followers wanted to keep on worshipping this deity. This schism became politicized, with (overwhelmingly) Western followers demonstrating against the Dalai Lama and denouncing him for supposed 'lack of religious freedom.' China of course has leapt into the fray, to encourage division among the Tibetans.
7
The Dalai Lama has also already said that IF one day science would prove one of the basic tenets of Buddhist theory to be wrong, he'd immediately scrap it and ask Buddhists to no longer think of it as being true.
And there's a reason why the head of Tibetan Buddhism can be so confident when it comes to science - and compared to for instance many of today's Evangelicals or fundamental Muslims - and that's because it's precisely scientific studies that have for decades now proven how effective meditation is as a technique allowing the human brain to develop neuronal networks that increase peaceful and loving behavior - towards oneself and towards others.
Of course, it goes without saying that without regular practice, those neuronal networks will NOT develop, so of course you can CALL yourself a Buddhist and regularly practice some religious rituals all while not seriously practicing meditation, and in that case you'll have as many inner conflicts and violent behavior towards others as any other person who doesn't train his compassion and self-compassion skills ... .
What is amazing though is the very fact THAT Buddhism has been able to focus on developing those tools for thousands of years already, AND has discovered techniques that are now proven to be truly effective. And that's why it's perfectly correct to associate Buddhism and peace and tolerance more than what is the case with other religions.
1
A fundamental human characteristic is to be driven by visions of "us" and "them" defined by cultural constructs - race, language, religion, nationality. The great monotheistic religions teach loving kindness to believers and often death or certainly mistreatment for others. All cultures have pejorative words and images of "others." Caste Hindus traditionally despised "mlechhas" and "untouchables" as unclean; Muslims looked down on "infidels" ("kafr"), Christians on pagans, and Jews on Gentiles, not to speak of Christian wars and persecutions of Jews or the Crusades. The wars of nationalism were driven by the new "religions" just like the tortures and famines and massacres of Communism. And there are the temptations of power and compromise - like currently afflicting the much-praised Aung San Kyi. Human life may be longer than in the time of Hobbes, but for many it's still nasty and brutish.
7
A rather solipsistic analysis of the situation in Burma, as if all could be attributed to bad faith (in the Sartrian sense) conceptual imaginings by Buddhists (with a little instigation from British colonialism, the only external factor taken into account), while absolutely nothing about the history of muslim communities in Burma, nor the violence *by* muslims (which instigated each of the reactions by the Myanmar military and communities -- like killing a monk in the marketplace, or the attack on police stations) seems to play a role. Perhaps a subjectivist understanding of Buddhism -- that the world is how one imagines it, rather than seeing it as it is -- is misleading the authors.
It is true that historically Buddhists, including monastics, have been involved in violent activities, and there is a discourse within Buddhist ethics debating when violence might be necessary or condoned (the bar is set very high), but Buddhists in Asia are aware of the history of muslim-buddhist interactions; that much of Central Asia, and the eastern middle east, was Buddhist until between the 8th and 13th centuries Muslims eradicated them with virtually no violent resistance, much as the Taliban destroyed the Bamiyan Buddhists in modern times. Tibet was spared due to its inaccessibility and the fierce reputation of its warriors. Imagine if today Buddhism rather than Islam had prevailed in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkistan, etc. Buddhists today are drawing the line on Islamic expansion.
8
All religions are human institutions and, as we all know, humans are horrible.
3
A thoughtful and insightful article. Buddhism, like many religions, cultivates our communitarian nature as a check on an ego that would otherwise run roughshod over it. As the article points out, beliefs without action are fragile and insufficient to prevent violence and injustice. In the end, it's our actions that shape the world we live in, whether it's called karma or not.
4
It is not surprising when an institution associated with a religion, in this case the regime in Myanmar and Buddhism, perpetrates violence against a minority group. This is an age-old practice that has more to do with consolidating power and throwing bones to the masses than religious differences. Yes Japanese Zen Buddhist monks blessed Kamikaze pilots as the took off on suicide missions. But overall, there are fewer examples of aggressive Buddhist regimes engaging in imperialism than Islam or Christian regimes. the core Buddhist teaching of not to harm, as well as not to overtly proselytize, have limited that practice. On the other hand it rather easy to identify cases where Islamists have attacked Buddhism violently, e.g. the Taliban destruction of ancient Buddhist statues or the 1985 bombing of the 8-9th century stupas at Borobudur in Indonesia by a muslim fanatic. Islam is a religion grounded in creating a world caliphate, and while most Muslims eschew violence, the religion, as with mission-zeal Christianity has a firm basis in doctrine to conquer and convert.
The situation in Myanmar has more to due with pitting one 'tribe' against another, feeding 'meat' to the masses, creating conditions to firm up power than any Buddhist beliefs.
4
If you start with the assumption that religion is inherently bad, than the logic makes sense. If you recognize that the burmese people have been invaded and their culture "managed" 4 different times in the last two centuries, then staving off this wave of genocidal invaders is moral necessity, regardless of religion.
4
The British colonizers division in Burma reminds me of what the Belgians did in Rwanda with the Hutus and Tutsis. Similar to what is happening in Myanmar, the division in Rwanda was a significant reason for the genocide in 1994. By dividing people into distinct camps, it makes it so much easier to hate those who are different.
I hope we can learn from this and avoid dividing each other, either by left/right or white/nonwhite or whatever. Division will only lead to hatred, so we need to be able to work with those who are different.
3
In Myanmar, apparently the British didn't know/accept that Buddhism isn't a religion comparable to Christianity, but a "religion" where you can perfectly be a Buddhist AND a Catholic/Muslim/... at the same time.
I ignore for how many people that was concretely the case when the British invaded Myanmar, but imposing a choice between both doesn't make any sense and illustrates how ignorant those invaders actually were.
And the same indeed goes for Rwanda, when it comes to ethnicity. The 19th century West imagined Africa as a continent full of "tribes", and as a consequence wanted to know to which tribe individuals living with the borders created by Western invaders belonged.
Problem: being a Hutu or Tutsi didn't have anything to do with "ethnicity". You were called a Hutu or Tutsi according to whether you were either belonging to a group cultivating the lands or raising cattle. It was a distinction related to a PROFESSION, basically.
Belgians unfortunately didn't have the curiosity to fact-check their own prejudices, and as a consequence turned those people into strictly divided ethnicities. So here too, it's the West that created a society and politics dividing people. Add to that the fact that the IMF savagely destroyed Rwanda's economy, during the decade before the genocide, and what happened is what happens in all societies (human or animal) where resources become scarce and survival difficult: minorities get killed.
1
I think it was actually the Germans that did that.
@ Moira Rogow
"Rwanda and neighbouring Burundi were assigned to Germany by the Berlin Conference of 1884, and Germany established a presence in the country in 1897 with the formation of an alliance with the king. German policy was to rule the country through the Rwandan monarchy; this system had the added benefit of enabling colonization with small European troop numbers. The colonists favoured the Tutsi over the Hutu when assigning administrative roles, believing them to be migrants from Ethiopia and racially superior. (...)
Belgian forces took control of Rwanda and Burundi during World War I, and from 1926 began a policy of more direct colonial rule. The Belgians modernised the Rwandan economy, but Tutsi supremacy remained, leaving the Hutu disenfranchised. In 1935, Belgium introduced identity cards labelling each individual as either Tutsi, Hutu, Twa or Naturalised. While it had previously been possible for particularly wealthy Hutu to become honorary Tutsi, the identity cards prevented any further movement between the groups."
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_genocide
This is brilliant, and it sounds spot-on from my perspective as an American Zen Buddhist. I know that Zen history is full of violence, but Westerners I talk to assume that Zen, and Buddhism in general, is uniquely peaceful.
3
It IS uniquely peaceful, in that it's the only "religion" to have developed techniques for truly (= in the meanwhile scientifically proven) cultivating and achieving inner and outer peace.
And of course, you don't have to be a genius to know that if you don't practice those techniques, you'll end up with little inner/outer peace ... ;-)
Christopher Hitchens, may he rest in peace, was right. Religion poisons everything.
5
If we were to strip away the cover of religion as motivation for violence against others, how would we justify such violence? Would we be candid with ourselves and admit that we are, by nature, limited to tribal affiliation of a small band of humans? That, despite our accomplishments as a species, we have not evolved to dispense with the fear of the "other" as a threat to our survival. That we are incapable, at this point in our cognitive and emotional evolution to realize the self-destructive nature of our self-interested behavior. We are capable of mindfulness, but incapable of being mindful that the "others" need exactly what we need. Air, water, food and shelter. And what all of us desire. Love, joy and peace.
2
John Lennon said it best in his song-'imagine',
religion and nationalism are the two forces
that diminish the prospects of peace in the
world. Even if the religion is eliminated, the
forces of nationalism will continue to perpetuate
violence of one group against the other. This is
the reason peace is so difficult and remain the
aspiration of humanity.
2
That Buddhist meditation is recent and “novel” is a
facile simplification. Japanese Soto Zen Buddhist
zazen, or meditation, has roots not only in Chinese
Ch’an traditions that go back to the seventh century
CE, but also to the Indian Buddhist philosopher
Nagarajuna, around 200 BC.
3
Do not kill.
Do not steal.
Do not lie.
Do not abuse your sexuality.
Do not abuse drugs or alcohol.
These are Buddhist precepts as much as mindfulness, meditation and avoiding attachment..... adherents of "Buffet Buddhism" in North America need to look at more of the "Buffet." and also
Why is no one surprised by the condoning and perpetrating of violence by
"Christians?"
6
We're shocked because we hoped that at least a few of us are not dirty little monkeys totally out of control. Evidently that is not the case.
3
Corrected link:
"If you meet the Buddha, kill him.”– Linji
http://www.dailybuddhism.com/archives/670
Violence works: https://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2010/03/thich-quang-vietnam-browne ; https://www.ap.org/explore/the-burning-monk/
1
The author states: "The widespread embrace of modern Buddhism is reflected in familiar statements insisting that Buddhism is not a religion at all but rather (take your pick) a “way of life,” a “philosophy”.... ”"
In fact, the actual Buddha did not espouse religious tenets, but did teach a philosophy. It was only later that religious rites and practices got added to that philosophy (e.g., the rituals the author names). This is similar to what happened to Daoism (Taoism), where it was a philosophy that got converted much later into a religion.
The main difference between these religions and Western religions (the Judaism, Christianity, Islam trilogy from the same root) is that the were not founded by people claiming that others must be converted into that religion or were damned. The spread of Buddhism from India came mostly through trade, not missionaries followed by soldiers. It is this history of not conquering nations in the name of religion (e.g., "Onward Christian Soldiers") that contributes to the view of Buddhism as peaceful in comparison.
All that said, I agree with the author that there is a huge difference between espousing a religion and actually trying to live by the tenets. I think atheists are much more peaceful, in general, than religious people, since we don't assume that anything we do can be made up for by spouting prayer or living a few more imaginary lifetimes. But also like the author said, generalities of any type are suspect.
2
Correction. Judaism doesn't say that anyone should convert to Judaism; it's not a universalist religion. That's why people often say that Judaism is the tribal religion of the Jewish people. The Torah itself says that the righteous of all nations have a place in the world to come. And the Torah is full of godly people who aren't Jewish, and there's no indication that they'd be better off becoming Jewish.
Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism are very different. They are all universalist religions, meaning that they are supposed to be the truest, best path for everyone to follow.
2
Jake,
Point taken about Judaism (I was just going by them considering themselves "God's chosen people", though I'm not familiar with the Torah).
I would not lump Buddhism in with Christianity and Islam; however, as the founder espoused a philosophy, not a religion. He never claimed to be speaking for "God".
What people do in practicing religion is often very different than what the religious founders taught, which is, I think, the point of this article. I was merely trying to point out that the authors make it sound like Buddhism as a philosophy (not a religion) is a relatively modern invention, but it really started as a philosophy and got turned into a religion.
Also, I would not lump Buddhism in with Christianity and Islam, as the worldview is so much different. The three Western religions share a belief in the same "God", even if they have completely different takes on it in their original scriptures. The original scriptures of Buddhism don't discuss a god or gods. That came later.
3
Once again, there has never been any proselytizing in Judaism. Indded it a ancient principle. stated thusly, by Jeremiah: "My House is called a House of G1D for all the nations!" You've never seen Jews on street corners stopping people and asking if they wished to be 'saved.'
The Jewish People are a tribal people and as all indigenous tribes, have a unique calendar, mode of dress, diet, language, Oral Traditions as well as Written Traditions, unique way to address the ineffable. "Judaism" is a modern western construct. not an original one and only emerged as a result of conquest and exile.
1
Well done.
Most articles on religions give me hives.
This one didn't, so there was something in it that I heard and will consider later.... which is about all one can desire from/about a religious writing.
Two points: One, I am atheist. I have yet to find a religion/religious philosophy that has any respect for those who DON'T believe in a metaphysical universe. And, let's face it: "Reincarnation" is about as metaphysical as it gets. As an atheist I've always found that any system that requires one to be recycled over and over before you finally "get it" is simply being a dodge for a lousy set of empirical laws. The 200-hundred years of Imperial Colonialism made great use of that kind of belief. It simply meant that they never had to work too hard to improve anyone's life.
What is really nasty are the modern-day countries that lay their present-day lousy laws at the doorstep of "Colonialism". "Oh, those nasty ____! It's all their fault!" Almost every country was given independence over 70 years ago. How much longer do they get to blame forces no longer there?
Which brings us to Point Two: The legal status of females in their countries.
As a female that is not equal by law in this country, the USA, because of the "Christian religion" I can only envy Japanese women who ARE Constitutionally equal. They are, because WE wrote that Constitution. But in this country, the right Christianists said: "NO way! God says -!"
I suppose I could just whine that we were once a colony....?
4
Where do you get the idea that women are not equal before the law? This is just not true.
Moria: On March 22, 2017, Nevada was the 36th state to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment to the Constitution. That means that only 2 more states are needed to make equality the law.
Your state, Texas, ratified it on March 30, 1972. However, because some states rescinded their passage and others still have not ratified it, that is why the State of Texas has had such a field day messing with women's rights, especially reproductive rights. Because you are not Federally Equal, any rights you have are up for grabs.
Now, before you shoot from the hip and infer that I am a liar, you need to educate yourself on the status of the ERA.
Pay particular note to the "time limit" that was put on the ERA by Reagan. It was hogwash. The 27th Amendment which was passed under his administration was 203 years old. Reagan simply made up a "rule" on a time limit.
That is how and why Nevada was able to ratify the ERA last year.
You're a woman.
You should know all this.
And, it is true.
1
as a human construct, religion is as prone to abuse as any other. the US, Israel, the entire muslim middleeast, and a host of other nations are under the heel of ignorant religious minorities that care nothing about anything but domination to the force of making others bow to their "god". humans need to embrace the fact that we are potentially capable of reason.
2
When scholars get ensnared in their craft. I would like for the writers to also consider the effects of modern Islam which during my lifetime has shown a significant and growing bent towards the worst kind of violence against 'infidels'. ISIS and its destruction of many ancient Buddhist shrines and sculptures that fell under their control. When one Muslim sect slaughters another Muslim sect (Sunni vs, Shia) and any number of other examples of Muslim against Muslim violence (Turkey and the Kurds for one) - where do Buddhists see themselves in the hands of a growing Muslim population that might become a potential Muslim majority?
7
Take for example some White Christians' treatment of Black Christians. They worship the same God and read the same Bible, yet the tolerance some White Christians show to their Black counterparts is sorely lacking.
Hypocrisy is abundant. White Christians claim "We are all God's children," yet some will sell a house and move away once Black Christians, their brothers and sisters under God, move nearby.
It is in the heart that we must seek tolerance and compassion, not in any belief system known to humankind.
1
There do is a reason why people correctly associate Buddhism with "tolerance and peace" though, and that's the fact that it has in the meanwhile been scientifically proven that the meditation techniques developed by and within Buddhist traditions actively increase inner peace, self-compassion and compassion (in a way that can even be measured by modifications in the brain).
No other "religious" tradition developed techniques that are that effective, even though all religions indeed cultivate notions of love and peace.
And if you accept the idea that all human beings fundamentally desire to be happy, it seems as if only Buddhism has investigated that desire to such an extent that for more than 2,000 years already, techniques to increase happiness (individually and collectively) have been tested and then cultivated.
You could even argue that the only truly scientifically valid "psychology" today is the one invented by Buddhism.
But that also means that in order to become non violent and happy, as an individual, you have to practice those techniques, and practice a LOT.
Compare that to our Western, 19th century view on psychology, were we are supposed to be non violent and happy without doing anything, and then to see a psychotherapist when we have a really big problem, who should then fix it in a way doctors cure physical illnesses ...
Conclusion: of course you have to practice, if not violence will erupt sooner or later, whether you call yourself a Buddhist or not ...
2
"No other religion..." The Jewish Tradition has meditation practices going back to Biblical times. I commend "Jewish Meditation" by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan.
@ Rabbi Moshe Pesach Geller
As far as I know, all three "religions of the book" indeed insert exercises called "meditation" into the daily practice of monks and priests too (Christians did so as soon as they founded monasteries, in Middle East deserts in the 4th century).
But - again, as far as I know - those don't have a lot in common with the meditation techniques developed in Buddhism, which are part of a highly elaborate psychological theory, and are not just isolated exercises, but together form a highly detailed training program.
Finally, I don't see any "self-compassion meditation" exercises in the religions of the book, which seem to cultivate a very different notion of love - one where loving yourself somehow seems to be evident and natural, and all that is needed is to learn to love others in the exact same way (and without ever explaining what that means ...).
So I do think that this is something unique to Buddhism - whereas the religions of the book, in the West, have invented something very unique and useful to all human beings too: science ...
Who is surprised? Not any of us who know who are persecuting the Muslims of Myanmar.
2
it is patronising of Westerners in the extreme to expect Buddhists to be the harmless, playful dolphins of humanity
7
Wow - what a load of nonsense, this article and all its comments.
The crisis in Myanmar is the result of white supremacists - not colonialists, supremacists - exploiting the good nature of otherwise peaceful people for political and economic gain.
Divide-and-conquer is about as far as white political theory ever advanced in the brief timeframe their fossil-fueled civilization left their oily stain on history.
The Rohingya belong in Britain, as do all the other African, Asian and Middle Eastern people displaced by these idiots - who for centuries have systematically set out to weaken and cripple those whom they have always regarded and treated as inferior.
The root cause - as with so many other crises today - is white people and their oblivious attitude and profoundly disrespectful behavior toward the people of rest of the world.
This is the reality that the world is now awakening to - and only a fool would deny the extent to which decades and centuries of suppressed anti-white anger has been building up and is now exploding.
Only a deluded fool would fail to see that Hindus, Muslims and Buddhists all equally resent and harbor deep-rooted but displaced anger toward these white saboteurs of their cultures and communities.
But as long as they keep parading their women dressed in yoga pants spouting pseudo-Buddhist-vegan nonsense who is ever going to draw a red line, right?
4
This article is very shallow, and knows little about Buddhism. To just allay fear of my biases, I am not one, and have never dallied with Buddhism. But a sophisticated understanding is required to know what is going on.
First, there are largely two major schools of Buddhism. The Mahayana Buddhism (largely practiced in Tibet, China, Korea, Japan etc.) is much more peaceful because it is also individualistic. It calls for self exploration and therefore has appealed to the West who have left Judeo Christian religions but still seek a connection to a transcendental idea. The other is Theraveda, which is in Myanmaar, South East Asia, Sri Lanka. It is much more doctrinaire and is collectivist, the Sanghas or the monastry. This strain of Buddhism therefore developed deep political ties with the rulers, just like the Catholic Church did in Europe. This religion, by the nature of its composition is bound to be more careful about its collective identity, and therefore more prone to conflict.
You can observe the response of the Tibetans and the Sinhalese/Thai/Burmese and find clear differences in their approach to dealing with an adversary.
But there are more layers to this. Of course the Rohingyas have not been very peaceful, indeed, terror has been present in the territory ever since India got divided seeding fears of a bifurcation of Burma along religious lines. Note that this territory borders what was once Pakistan. A conflict needs two sides, here both are available.
2
Burma's Rohingya Genocide is not about Buddists...it is about brutality born from a corrupt military government that wants to control a colonial economy. Obama lifted sanctions too quickly when Burma's military let Aung Sung Suu out of her house. She is powerless, apparently clueless. and has done nothing to stop the insurgencies in the Kachin State, the Kayah State, the Kayin State, or the Rakhine State where the weakest ethnic group - the Rohingya - are currently being slaughtered. Arnold and Turner do Americans unfamiliar with BURMA a great disservice couching this mess they call Myanmar in religious terms. These 'scholars' ignore America's mistake in lifting the '8888' sanctions, the violence all over the darn country, the military Kleptocracy, and Aung Sang Suu's impotence - all to make a meaningless secular point about a religion. What a waste of NYC column inches.
2
Thank you for this explanation, Professor Arnold - an analysis like yours about the Rohingya genocide from the paper of record was long overdue.
2
The deadliest holocaust of World War II were the 30 million Chinese left dead by the Japanese Empire. While Korea was once a Japanese colony, Japan sought to turn China, Southeast Asia and the Indo-Australian archipelago into Japanese colonies.
See "War Without Mercy: Race and Power in the Pacific War" John Dower
2
You might also add to the list of Buddhist violence the ethnic cleansing of Nepali Hindus by the Buddhist majority in Bhutan.
4
Buddhists are peaceful is a myth.
The countries with Buddhist majorities have indulged in mass atrocities and decimated minorities in Sri Lanka, Burma, ditto, the Japanese in WW2, with wars in China & Korea.
Even in India, the most violent group is called "Dalit" who largely practice Buddhism, yet use mobs to attack and loot.
The king Asoka spread Buddhism by mass massacre and forced conversions.
3
"Why have religious beliefs at all?"
J. Krishnamurti (1895-1986)
2
Just wanted to add a fact that Buddhists need to protect themselves too from Saudi money sponsered violent Islamist radicalism throughout the world. Nalanda University, the oldest Buddhist university was destroyed and all the ancient texts and books were burnt by a Turkish Muslim invader Bakhtiyar Khilji in 1193. This university is the birth place of all far east buddhist countries, who used to send scholars for study, from Japan, China, etc. So you see, peaceful Buudhists could not protect themselves at that time, got slaughtered. Times have changes and I am sure no one wants Buudhists to repaeat Nalanda hoistory against violent Islamic radicalism everywhere in the world. Point to be noted, that Islam was never peaceful even in 1193, showed full hated against other religions almost since birth.
5
Any Religion is a drug of the masses. Don’t do drugs kids.
2
the "Rohingya Muslims" have been violently trying to create a separate Islamic Republic for themselves ever since the 1940s(the exact same way Muslims have violently successfully done to India after deciding they did not want to be part of a Hindu/kafir majority country) look up the "two nation theory".
Despite this, Myanmar allowed these people to remain in the country.
Myanmar issued a 2-child policy on the Rohingya Muslims but they refused to follow it and the Rohingya Muslim women continued to give birth to 8+ babies each, rapidly outbreeding Myanmar's non-Muslim women who only gave birth to 1-2 children on average.
The expelling of the r-Muslims finally happened after Buddhist(&Hindu) girls started getting kidnapped, gang raped, &murdered by groups of Rohingya Muslims living in Myanmar
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-18395788
when authorities tried to arrest these criminals and the leaders of the violent separatist groups for their crimes, those criminals were continuously hidden &protected by the Rohingya Muslim community. THAT incident is when chaos broke loose.
The reason for Myanmar's extreme reaction is bc-
Afghanistan, Tarim Basin(Xinjiang) China, Central Asia, &many parts of Pakistan were Buddhist lands before Muslims invaded & forcefully converted everyone to Islam.
& when Muslims invaded India, they even burned down "Nalanda" the most famous Buddhist monastery in the world.
6
Christianity has proven to be an incredibly violent religion throughout history. Christians rarely follow Christ’s teachings. Buddhism is no different. Both are rank hypocrisies.
There are 80,000 sects of Buddhism.
It is way too variegated to draw broad conclusions, except for a few - karma is real; anger, stupidity and greed are the three poisons; violence (manifest anger) is a totally non-Buddhist activity.
Those who perpetrate such violence can call themselves Buddhist if they want, but they are not.
Their karmic pay-back will be heavy.
nam myoho renge kyo
There has been more suffering, death, and destruction in the name of religion than for any other reason.
2
Dear Jack,
I don't know. WW1 and WW2 did not have anything to do with religion.
3
Tell that to the victims of communism and Nazism.
gPickard. The Jewish persecution???
1
To understand spread of Buddhism, consider a bit of history. Buddhism originated in India around 5th century BC (500 years before Jesus' birth).
Buddhism spread all over the Indian sub continent, central Asia and southwards, peacefully, mostly through merchants, monks and Indian rulers (who previously brought Hinduism to SE Asia.
"Buddhism reached Southeast Asia both directly over sea from India and indirectly from Central Asia and China in a process that spanned most of the first millennium CE".
Buddhism spread in Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon) primarily because of Mauryan Emperor Ashok, who send his own offsprings down south (260-218 BC). Alongwith them arrived people from his kingdom (current Odhisa). Ironically, many of these hard core Sri Lankans who rejected and abused Tamils would be shocked to trace their roots to India. LOL
"Buddhism is thought to have entered Southeast Asia from trade with India, China and Sri Lanka during the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries. One of the earliest accounts of Buddhism in Southeast Asia was of a Theravada Buddhist mission sent by the Indian emperor Ashoka to modern-day Burma in 250 BCE. The mission was received by the Mon kingdom and many people were converted to Buddhism."
"In the twelfth Mahayana Buddhism developed in Northern India and traveled through Tibet, China and into Vietnam, Indonesia and beyond".
Violence in Buddhist nations (incredibly brutal) is nothing new: Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Burma.
2
Jews, Christians, and Muslims share the Old Testament.
And their extremist also share the idea that women are subservient to men.
They stone a woman to death for adultery in the Bible. I never saw where they stone a man to death for adultery.
But I don't blame the religions rather it is the type of men who want to do this and use religion to justify it.
1
Dear Independent,
To be clear under Mosaic Law both parties to adultery were to be stoned to death; however, as you may know when Christ came he forgave sin rather than punishing sin. Remember the women he rescued from the religious authorities who wanted to stone her.
It is interesting to note in that story that indeed the man was not present. Sadly, it just shows that religious leaders can be as evil as anyone else. Jesus shamed them into letting her go.
1
I've met Americans who are absolutely shocked to learn that some Buddhists actually eat meat. Quelle horreur!
I don't know why we equate Buddhism with being saintly.
They too are humans just like the rest of us.
American Buddhists can at times seem a bit too high horsey or self absorbed.
Just like pious followers of any religion. Special or chosen.
2
There is nothing bland about mindfulness.
It makes you aware of a myriad of things, like the obvious "jabs" and slantedness in your writing.
These "Buddhists" have no more relationship to the teachings of the Buddha than the "Communists" of the old Soviet Union, China, etc. do to the teachings of Marx and Lenin. It is the expropriation of an established and respected name to a philosophy and/or State, but without compassion and/or ideals behind the name. It has and will continue to do damage, hopefully not irreparably, to an inspirational and aspirational ideal.
57
No religion, the same as no nation, is really that much different than another. In other words, we're all human. Buddhism indeed has often been mythologized as being a particularly passive, non-violent faith, but as the author reminds us that did not stop a lot of virulent anti-Hindu (Tamil) violence by Buddhists in Sri Lanka. I love Sri Lanka, lived there for five years in the 1980s coinciding with the start of the 30-year civil war, and also returned there in 2011 after the war ended for a brief consultancy. It is a bit unfair, but we Americans coined a phrase during the conflict that was transposed directly from our own Vietnam experience. In place of the ludicrous "Kill a Commie for Christ" refrain from the Vietnam war, we coined the refrain "Kill a Tamil for Buddha." Now, mind you, the Tamil Tigers were no piece of cake either, although their fighters were more ideological revolutionaries than religiously (Hindu) motivated.
2
....and you might add by extension no more relation than most Christians have to the actual teachings of Christ. What you don't say is that we don't know whether the Buddha or Christ lived their own teachings or whether they were as hypocritical as many of their followers are today.
1
Exactly. The perpetrators of racial violence in Myanmar are not Buddhists, they only claim to be so. They live and act with uncontrolled minds and as a result inflict mortal harm on others and--as they will ultimately see--themselves. To some extent the article and comments here dismiss the power of Buddhist meditation no doubt because they have no first hand experience with it. While Western Culture has popularized meditation with some positive effects, it has also succeeded in diluting it. In Myanmar, Buddhist meditation is still taught with its original power by teachers with a lineage going back to the Buddha. To anyone who has experienced it, this is indeed a powerful, purifying and life-changing tool. Unfortunately those perpetrating the violence in Myanmar are not practitioners. If they were, this would not be happening.
2
Wirathu, the Nazi-like Myanmar monk, had been in jail for hate speech until the military cracked down on Buddhist monks demonstrating in 2007. He was released and made head of an important monastery. Slick videos promoting hate were produced with the help of anti-NLD crony businessmen and elements of the security forces. There is anti-Muslim sentiment but it was fanned and forced by hiring thugs to start violence, including in Rakhine. Religion is being used cynically and effectively to weaken opponents in a political fight.
Does power always trump spirituality?
I think only Richard Gere and Gwyneth Paltrow are surprised to discover Buddhists can be violent. The rest of us know they're just people.
2
When/where the philosophy of Buddhism turns “religious”, Buddhism becomes just as violent as any other religion. Why be surprised?
Apparently, this article is so well written and well conceived that it is opaque to the trolls. Respect to those who have left the intelligent and insightful comments that accompany this article.
The "surprising" atrocities perpetrated by Buddhists in the name of Dharma represent a much more generalized problem: Religion is inherently prone to abuse and corruption by leaders and others who pervert it as a tool to control people and gain power for themselves.
In recent years our attention has been focused on the abuse of Islam. The Taliban and Saudi Wahhabists enforce a version of Islam centered on submission to their authority rather than the submission to God proclaimed by Mohammed in the Koran. It's not Islam, as practiced by a billion or so peaceful believers, but Islamism, an un-Islamic perversion practiced by demagogues.
In our own country, self-proclaimed Evangelical Christians seem to have forsaken the teachings of Jesus in favor of Ayn Rand, to control and shear large flocks. And the Republican Party, the Party of the Rich, has in turn embraced the Evangelical form of Christianity, as those flocks serve the party's need for millions of sheep eager to vote against their own interests. Again, this is not the Christianity that Jesus and Paul taught, but Christianism cynically exploited for power and authority.
I'm not one of those evangelical atheists who consider this ubiquitous abuse as irrefutable proof that religion is purely pernicious and must be eradicated. Religion does have benefits and beauty. I would seek to make people aware of the abuse, so the abuse can be curbed and its perpetrators properly dealt with.
4
Dear Ted,
I agree with everything you said except that religion should be eradicated. You seem to imply that the world would be better off without it.
But as we all know, some very prominent atheist coopted their secular movements to amass power and slaughtered millions in the process of trying to eradicate religion.
Those jolly fine fellows like Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot...
2
gpickard, I guess I wasn't clear in stating that I'm NOT an atheist who believes religion should be eradicated. Even if I wanted to eradicate it, and had the power to do so, it couldn't be eradicated any more than King Cnut could stop the tide from rolling in. Something would take its place, in the way the Kim dynasty in North Korea has eradicated foreign religions and replaced them with fanatical worship of the Kim dynasty. In that case, the Kims have completely subverted the apparent inherent human drive that leads to religion for their own exclusive use. Rather than eradicating religion, they have created one specifically to control and oppress their population, in what might be the most extreme current example of religious abuse.
What I'm actually advocating is awareness of all facets of religion. Religion can empower and inspire people. It can also destroy people. Awareness of the abuse potential and how it is so often abused may be what's needed to protect people from that abuse, or at least to mitigate it.
2
The fact remains that one fundamental tenant of Buddhism is the "absolute equality of all sentient beings". Another is that we suffer because we are ignorant of our misconception of ourselves. Violence against Rohinga Muslims may characterize human nature, but does not exemplify Buddhism. It is impossible to "work for the benefit of all sentient beings" another Buddhism vow, while murdering someone.
Om Mani Padma Hung!
1
Religion has historically been the greatest perpetrator of violence in the world, even more so now.
I wish people would give up these primitive actions and the fantasies behind them.
1
Dear Roy G. Biv,
While evil men have appropriated religions, turning them to violent means for amassing power and wealth, it is also true that godless men like Mao, Lenin and Stalin to name a few have done much the same in the name of secular progress.
Men have been slaughtering men for millennia and often use religion to buttress their arguments. But again it is men not religion per se that is at fault.
2
Can't say I agree with you. Communism has millions of victims, but no religion in it at all.
People are surprised Buddhists are violent because Buddhists are usually not associated with nationalism. When any population adopts a nationalist identity, it becomes violent. When any nation is ruled by Buddhists, it becomes impoverished and dedicated to the aggrandizement of the priests greed and sexual perversity, like Buddhist Tibet was before it was liberated. Buddhists are as susceptible to every human weakness as any religious adherent, but because Buddhism is not a Western religion, its righteous unrepentant sinfulness is not as well known as Christian sinfulness.
"societies in Europe and North America, where the vilification of Islam and of immigrants ..."
It takes most of the essay for Arnold to show his hand. What he does not tell us is that Buddhists have generally been on the receiving end of Muslim aggression: Muslim invasions have essentially eliminated Indian Buddhism, razing the famed Nalanda monastery and forcibly converting people (whose descendants now re Indian Muslims). Only a few years ago, Taliban dynamited the amazing statues at Bamiyan. In nearby Bangladesh, ISIS and al Qaeda sympathizers are busy assassinating secular public figures.
The ethnic cleansing of Rohingyas has as much to do with Buddhism as Cortez's conquest of the Aztecs had to do with Christianity. That is, nothing.
3
In order to be cogent, this essay needs to be cut 90%.
2
An excellent read and understanding of issues that plague all religions, not just Buddhism. All great religions have an underlying message of peace, harmony and aim to moderate human impulses and failings. The author is correct in stating that there is huge difference is accepting the central tenet or belief system of a religion and actually living it. The first is easy. The second is very hard. All religions are great. All religious people are all too human.
60
Not "All religions are great". It's almost like saying "All religions are the same". Religions are destructive. Religions polarize people.
There is some truth to say that Buddhism (more precisely the teachings of the historical Buddha) is NOT a religion. Buddha rejected the existence of a Creator God (although not the existence of consciousness forms in other time-space dimensions). Buddha did not endorse faith without investigation and first-hand experiential verification. Bottom-line, Buddhism is really NOT a religion.
4
I watched the movie “Lincoln” where this fact you state in your article is glaringly obvious. Men who called themselves Christians wanted to keep slavery alive. Jesus would never accept slavery. This also reflects on what is going on today in America. The same people who want to shove refugees and Muslims out of America will go to church and profess to be Christian. Christ taught love and tolerance. I am as shocked as anyone about the intolerant leanings of some Buddhist, but shouldn’t be.
Buddhists may be violent. Buddhism is not.
3
Disclosure: I am not a Buddhist.
Comparing Buddhism and Buddhists to Christianity and Christians or to Islam and Muslims is misguided . While individual or even group failings may be found in all religions and ways of life, not all such failings are equal or even comparable.
Christianity and Islam spread worldwide through Conquer and Conversion (forced, coerced, or incentivized). Crusades are a part and participle of these two religions. Worldwide Wars have been fought in the name of these religions. You can't say the same things about Buddhism.
What happened in Myanmar cannot be compared to what happened around the world in the name of other religions. Burmese did not set out to conquer other nations and they do not proselytize. We cannot ignore the violent history of Islam from the time of its birth. Islam invaded, conquered, occupied, and pillaged non-Islamic nations and converted non-Islamic populations to Islam forcibly. Even China nd Russia are not immune to this.
Therefore, the conduct of Burmese people (violence against Rohingyas) should not be construed as organic to Buddhism but rather as a reaction of immigrant Muslim populations. Such behavior could be called violent and even ethnic cleansing but then the same violence and ethnic cleansing has been taking place for centuries in just about ALL Islamic Nations from Bangladesh to Saudi Arabia.
2
I feel the surprise here is caused by not understanding the difference between what Gautama preached and Buddhism as a religion. Alas, there are great differences between the practices of a religion and the original noble principles it claims to be based on in most, if not all, religions. Paradoxically, the more one deems themselves devout, i.e., a fundamentalist, the greater the divergence between what they mouth, and their true beliefs and actions. For instance, the divergence between what Jesus actually preached, i.e., love they neighbor, and the history of Christianity with its inquisitions, crusades, blessing of bombs, etc.
The crux of the problem is religion itself. Regardless of any other contributing factor religions almost always increase the divisions between people, especially by creating in its followers the deadly conviction that they are superior to all who belong to a different religion.
105
The crux of the problem IS PEOPLE, everything else both good and bad falls out from that, including values and beliefs, how they are acted upon or not, how like sheep we may follow - or be duped. This applies to every human on earth.
Specific to Buddhism, I have personally witnessed through my travels into the populous as well as remote areas of countries like Taiwan, China, Cambodia, Laos, Vietnam, Thailand, Myan Mar that it's incredibly varied in beliefs and practices - and adapted to and infused with local ethnic and tribal beliefs and traditions to an astonishing degree, much of it admirable, some of it down right scary, violent. That based on time with monks and nuns and lay city dwellers as well as residents of remote villages. Buddhism gets significantly more tribal infusion in the latter, like Buddhism and 'Nats' in Myan Mar. In Myan Mar a Buddhist monk advises me that a woman's period is punishment for the alleged killing of a medieval princess, while in a village I sit with a monk who takes precious money from a village woman for a religious token he gives her to ward off evil.
Such can be described about people all over the world, and how they are lifted up or abused by what they subscribe to or are duped into by others, traditions and such.
I personally choose the core Buddhist philosophy, yet even that is different wherever you may go, even here in the US where many indulge in a very fairy-tale sense of it.
2
I would say that the problem is not religion, but belief. Religion shouldn't be based on belief or faith. It should be about the practice of bathing in the absolute truth of life. It should be about getting to the point where all doubt has been destroyed. The Buddha taught that this comes with the dropping off of all thoughts and beliefs and assumptions––even so-called apriori ideas. But then people, as they are wont to do, turn his teachings into beliefs. Whenever this happens people stray from the original teachings of the Buddha. They become lost. And they do stupid things like commit genocide.
I'm not surprised at all. Anyone who has seen the brilliant documentary 'Anger Management' knows how tough these Buddhists can be.
Buddhists are very loving and compassionate towards animals like chicken, cows, lambs, fish and even eggs. But they are not that compassionate towards human beings if they are non-Buddhist. The Buddhists priests who are called MONKS, are encouraging these genocides. Even Dalai Lama is very silent.
GOOD BYE AHIMSA.
I found this piece to be a somewhat interesting and mostly inoffensive perspective on the apparent dichotomy between the contemporary buddhist philosophies that are lately becoming more influential in western culture (espousing nonviolence and tolerance among other things), and what has come to light about the violent actions of certain Buddhist institutions in context of sociopolitical regional turmoil...
But you really couldn't come up with a better title than the click-baity and borderline bigoted 'Why are we surprised when Buddhists are violent'??! Surely you must realize how awful the whole format sounds -- 'Why are we surprised when [insert race/religion/people you wish to ridicule] are [insert offensive generalization ie lazy/violent/duplicitous/etc]'!! I personally identify with Buddhism and its teachings (and abhor the violence perpetrated against the innocents in Rohingya); having read the article I fully understand the authors are not being offensive or generalizing about Buddhism, and likely intended this title to have a different connotation. But you've certainly done yourselves no favors with this overly casual and tone-deaf title.
2
"While few sophisticated observers are shocked...."
While I don't feel particularly sophisticated when it comes to religion I would be surprised if Jainism proved to be violent in practice.
1
This essay informs us on two levels, at least.
One, it tells us more about Buddhism than many of us who read this feature regularly would probably claim to know-- especially its history of varied political adaptations from place to place.
Two, it draws us into the intersection of philosophy and psychology in a context that is helpful for living in this globalist age.
Thank you and congratulations.
1
I was happy to read this. It addresses a topic that has concerned me for awhile. How could the pacifist Buddhists of Myanmar be so brutal towards the Rohingya? It was fascinating to learn about the political circumstances that have influenced Buddhists' relations with others and that this is not the first time Buddhists have been violent.
But the article fails in its prescription: more Buddhism. "To be really changed by a belief regarding one’s relationship to all other beings, one must cultivate that belief — one must come to experience it as vividly real — through the disciplined practices of the Buddhist path...all of us — even those who are Buddhists — are deeply habituated to self-centered ways of being. Indeed, if that weren’t the case, there would be no need for Buddhist practice; it is just because people everywhere...are generally self-centered that it takes so much work — innumerable lifetimes of it, according to many Buddhists — to overcome the habituated dispositions that typically run riot over our stated beliefs." So Aung San Suu Kyi just needs to meditate more, is that it?
The dogma of religion - any religion - supports the lie that true believers have a hotline to righteousness that the lazy lack. The ubiquity of religion is proof only that human beings have a biological longing for a divine parent, so we invent one. Religions are tribes that preach peace, but behave violently. If people could be "better Buddhists," they'd have done it by now.
77
I hope that in that case you'll admit that you're a religious person yourself, based on your own definition of "the dogma of religion" ... ?
Because what you're doing here is providing NO evidence at all supporting your hypothesis concerning that dogma, whereas in the meanwhile, there are thousands of scientific studies proving that indeed, the meditation techniques developed by Buddhism actively increase inner peace and happiness, self-compassion, and compassion for others.
In case you'd really not want to become a "true believer" in the sense of someone who has "a hotline to righteousness that the lazy lack", here's where you could start in order to update your information a little bit:
- "Search Inside Yourself", by Chade Meng-Tan (a Google engineer - and Buddhist)
- "Self-compassion" by Kristin Neff (a Texas university psychologist - and Buddhist)
- "Mindfulness" by Mark Williams and Danny Penman (Williams founded the Oxford Mindfulness Institute)
Those three books provide a quite representative overview of what scientific studies concerning meditation (= all kinds of very specific meditations, and the "psychological theory" behind them) have recently proven.
You could also read Matthieu Ricard (PhD molecular biology + Buddhist monk), who's according to scientific studies the "happiest person in the world" (= whose neural networks for "happiness" have been trained so intensively that they are much bigger than what has been measured in any other person until today).
2
I think your concluding sentence is the very essence of what requires Buddhist practice. I appreciate that notion. A simple but profound insight into realizing "enlightenment" is fully acknowledging how "completely human" we can be. One of my favorite metaphors that my teacher emphasized over and over was the "mud of neuroses and all that angers us regarding ourselves is the fertilizer for the "flower" of enlightenment. Theism is an additional challenge to all religion. Buddhism has incorporated it as well. It lets us fall into a trap of hope & fear or right & wrong. If we externalize those notions and not look within at the shared relationship of these ideas polarization and conflict arise. There is nothing outside of ourselves that will "save" us. We have to come to grips with those natural tensions.
My last comment is a question for thought and contemplation. Where outside of the "tribalism" of religion per se do we develop the moral guidelines and ethics that inspire humanity towards a livable and sustainable future?
2
It should be noted that true Buddhism lacks an inherent dogma and does not denigrate non believers in any way. Non practitioners are not deemed to be "lazy" or unrighteous.
3
I too know people who adopted Buddhism because they had the mistaken belief that it was a religion immune from negative human behaviors. I could not believe the naiveté of these folks, some of whom went to our country's best universities. They were well meaning, but blind. And I wonder if they would have become Buddhists at all if they knew that this religion was as vulnerable as any other to humanity in all its forms.
5
Why is mindfulness meditation 'blandly nonreligous?'
It has to be 'religious' - whatever that is - to be worthwhile?
Meditation is positive, anywhere, anytime, anyhow.
3
Interesting article that reminded us about "violence in Buddhist societies" such as Sri Lanka, Thailand and even Tibet, but somehow managed to overlook the violence in Cambodia. Buddhism and violence are incongruent. Period.
1
Interesting effort to define Buddhism by quoting Kant. If some people calling themselves Buddhists have abandoned the Four Noble Truths and strayed from the Noble Eightfold Path that doesn't negate the underlying Buddhist spiritual effort to rise to a spiritual level above those material motivations that could encourage violence.
5
Of course people who are Buddhists can be violent, especially if they feel their way of life is under attack. But that also goes for just about everyone else on the planet. But what distinguishes Buddhism from other religions such as Islam and Christianity, is that Buddhism is not a proseletyzing religion. They might beg alms from you, but they will not try to convert you. They have no particular urge to force their religion on the rest of humanity. Which is why you rarely hear of wars fought in the name of Buddhism, although wars fought in the name of Islam and Christianity have been the steady bane of history.
3
All religions embrace violence when they discover that someone disagrees with them. Religions are not bastions of reason - they base their entirety on some fantasy, which for Islam and Judaism and Christianity is the existence of some unknown, unknowable, unvisible, unphysical being; for Buddhism, it's an "endless cycle of rebirth" and the transmission of [something] from one sentient life to another, until "Nirvana" [somehow] happens. Since neither the item that persists across rebirths nor the precise determination of how to trigger Nirvana are specified, this leaves Buddhism in the same class of beliefs as Islam, Judaism, and Christianity - belief in a fantasy that cannot be proven. As such, it belongs in the realm of 3-yr old children, not in the world of adults.
In every context that matters, when the devout followers of a childish fantasy smack up against anyone who disbelieves their fantasy, a violent response is likely. Because childish believers in a fantasy do not have reason to guide them - they are guided by emotion, and that only ever leads to the use of physical force.
112
Close but not a winner - the strength of my belief is inversely proportional to the lessening of yours. Co-existence is a fantasy. That's religion. Other than Judaism they are all proselytizing dogmas dependent on obliterating competing belief systems within the reach of ever extending arms.
2
I feel a need to voice my disagreement with some of your assertions because I do not think that you understand Buddhist teachings well enough to critique them: There is no transmission of anything from one life to the next, the idea that there is "something" that is reborn is, according to Buddhism, illogical. The concept of rebirth is much more complicated than this and is frequently misunderstood. The entire religion is based on logic - debate and deductive reasoning are at the core of all its principles. Nirvana does not "happen," it is a state of knowing the nature of reality. Westerners often substitute the idea of Nirvana with the concept of Heaven - but this culture bound and incorrect. The Buddhist path toward this knowing is very well described, taught, and debated amongst the schools of Buddhist thinking.
I think the issue of fantasy is less about the nature of religion, but more about how people distort that religion to meet their own psychological needs and how societies use these distortions to maintain control of their populations.
4
"Since neither the item that persists across rebirths nor the precise determination of how to trigger Nirvana are specified..."
Actually, this is 100% false. Both are clearly laid out in Buddhist teachings.
9
Two things here.
1. If you want to show that as many people have killed in the name of Buddhism than that there have been people who have killed in the name of other religions, we need facts and numbers, not some vague references to Buddhist countries involved in violent conflicts, as you don't always choose to be attacked or not.
2. If you want to refute the hypothesis that religions' doctrines have a real, tangible effect on how most people adhering to that religion behave - which is what you seem to want to refute here, as your reference to Kant suggests (and even though Kant never claimed something like that, as far as I know), you cannot just remember that "people" tend to associate Buddhism with "tolerance and peace", you have to 1. show how these notions are more present in Buddhist texts and rituals than in those of other religions, and 2. that when it comes to being tolerant and peaceful POLITICALLY, countries governed by Buddhist don't tend to be more peaceful than others, over time.
Instead, this op-ed merely remembers that of course, between adhering to a religion and practicing it in your daily life, there's a difference. It's actually because of this OBVIOUS difference that all religions ask their followers to practice daily in the first place. Religions offer IDEALS, and paths to implement those ideals in real life. Even a child knows that - and I don't see any philosopher - whether a determinist or not - who disagrees on this either ...
2
I am not sure what this article aims to do. Is it a comparative analysis of which religion/way of life is violent and which is not? Is it trying to suggest that we should be shocked that Buddhists might be violent? Socioeconomic pressure, population pressure, oppression or outright discrimination can push any group of people to the limit. Imagine if Texas was subject to the oppression that Tibet has been at the hands of China - what do you think would happen?
1
This is a very well written and thought provoking piece. For me, it boils down to the essential difference between religion and the deeper concept of faith. At it's core, Buddhism is non-violent. So is Christianity, but again, only at the core. If one considers the core teachings of both the Buddha and the Christ, they are remarkably similar, and one is led inexorably toward peace. The same is true of the prophet Muhammed. The problem is "religion", which is really a prescribed set of practices and rituals based in cultural norms and the teachings of men often far removed from the original prophet. The more that people of true faith seek inner peace, the more they will come together, different religious traditions notwithstanding. May the world eventually evolve to the point where "religion" is no longer an excuse for unspeakable cruelty. Deep faith, leading to love, is our only way out.
167
If Christianity were non-violent at its core than wouldn't most Christians be non-violent? At its core, religion is a set of evidence-free dogma, and having faith in a religion that is clearly neither verifiable nor any more right or wrong than any other means that to maintain faith the faithful often must disparage the religions of others -- and often the more alike another religion is, the more important it is to disparage it.
I've never heard another religion disparaged at (Jewish) services. Ever. Look into it.
"Deep faith, leading to love, is our only way out."
No, it isn't. In fact, the sooner we get beyond the idea of "faith", the better. And what could "true faith" possibly mean?
"The problem is 'religion', which is really a prescribed set of practices and rituals based in cultural norms and the teachings of men often far removed from the original prophet."
There is no reason whatsoever to suppose that there even ARE "original teachings" of these men called "prophets", or in any case, that any of them were especially insightful in a way that countless thinkers - known & unknown, before, during, & since - were not.
Matt is describing "practices and rituals based in cultural norms and the teachings of men" as though that was some kind of divergence from the "true path", but it IS the path.
As Frederick Crews has said, "There is no such thing as deep knowledge, in the sense of insight so compelling that it needs no validation. There is only knowledge, period. It is recognizable not by its air of holiness or its emotional appeal but by its capacity to pass the most demanding scrutiny of well-informed people who have no prior investment in confirming it."
It is the work of all of humanity, and the further removed from any "prophets", the better.
The sort of cultural appropriation typified by American “Buddhism” (yoga, mindfulness, etc.) has always been its main appeal. The history of western religion (in particular Christianity) teaches us humility before the vast complexity, variation and doctrinal impurity of any live religious tradition. This complexity and richness does not allow the believer to pick and choose tenets and pretend that he or she has not simply concocted his or her own private creed. Hence the familiar seductions of what Edward Saïd called Orientalism. My old philosophy teacher Joan Stambaugh used to point out to her friend Martin Heidegger what she fancied were similarities between his philosophy and the teachings of Buddhism and Daoism as she knew them. Mindful of the prohibitive difficulties faced by a Westerner trying to adequately understand and assimilate Eastern languages and culture, Heidegger had a standard response (a favorite German folk saying): the German peasant (Bauer) doesn’t eat what he doesn’t know.
"That doesn’t mean that we should (or can) jettison all reference to our stated beliefs, reasons, rationality; indeed, Kant also cogently argued that despite the efforts of all manner of determinists, we cannot coherently explain these away (for any attempt to explain away our rationality would itself represent a use of that faculty)."
Uh ... what?
"Determinism", in philosophy, refers to a particular "ontology". It states that ALL events happening in the world were "determined" to happen that way, in other words, that there's always a reason that explains WHY they happened.
Many determinist philosophies reject the possibility of human freedom/liberty, which they defined as the absence of being "already" determined to do this or that before you actually do so. We are NOT determined, anti-determinists stated, as we have real moments of choice, where what we do depends only on what we decide to do and nothing inside or outside of ourselves forces/determines us to do this rather than that. Most Christian types of morality are based on this kind of anti-determinist view (which makes it possible for a Christian God to "judge" individuals).
Leibniz and Spinoza, however, are examples of determinists who maintain the idea of human freedom, they simply define it differently. To them, the feeling of having a choice merely means ignoring WHAT will determine how you'll choose.
NO philosopher, however, ever claimed that our beliefs/reasons don't have any influence on our behavior..
The essay states: “We should thus be wary of any narrative on which historical events are straightforwardly explained by the fact that the people in any society hold whatever religious beliefs they do.”
The authors’ thesis, more or less, is that humans are imperfect creatures and won’t live up to the percepts of their beliefs. While the imperfection of humankind is evident, in fact religions of all stripes inculcate a mythical take upon the universe that discounts human rationality in favor of “true” wisdom, revealed truth, etc. The authors do not confront the role of “beliefs” in subverting fact and logic.
Here religion can be seen as exacerbating the failings of humankind. As persecutions and religious strife exemplifies daily and over centuries, religious subversion of common sense is readily exploited for vile ends.
2
There are a religion's writings and there are the actions of its believers; both render an historical sense of the religion's cumulative influence, good and bad, "in the world." Some religious texts are manifestly less hateful than others--a fact taboo to discuss. Yet there are also the actions of a religion's adherents, which may rival or surpass more textually-violent religions, and vice versa. In the end, only when people truly realize that religion is a monumental, historically-entrenched, culturally-imposed distraction--often a deadly one, at that--from truths that have no truck with any religion and that bear greater transformative power, will the veil currently masking the absurd, tragic ignorance of human hatred and folly fall away.
4
While we shouldn't ignore the potential for any religious group to turn violent, we also shouldn't paint false equivalencies. Yes, Buddhism is prone to violence. But, on the whole, its teachings, and therefore its adherents, are far LESS prone to violence than those of the Abrahamic traditions. No religion has zero violence. But one cannot seriously argue that the language of the Quran, the prevalence of Imams and scholars who take that language seriously, and the inherently political/institutional nature of Sharia do not make Islam significantly more prone to violence, and prone to more severe violence, than do the teachings and leaders in Buddhism. Discriminating against people on that basis is dangerous, but so is painting false equivalencies.
6
The population in Myanmar may call themselves buddhist, but a buddhist cannot seek to harm life, as Myanmar is doing to the Rohingya.
buddhism is not a faith like most other religions; it is rather a practice. in order to practice buddhism, one must adhere to the five buddhist precepts, which include (1) not harming any life, (2) not lying, (3) not stealing, (4) not engaging in sexual misconduct, and (5) not getting intoxicated. people can call themselves buddhists until the cows come home, but they aren't buddhists unless they adhere to the five precepts.
101
This strikes me as being something of a "no true Scotsman" argument, which can be applied to adherents of almost any major religion. You can say that anyone who fails to follow the lay precepts of Buddhism is not a true Buddhist, or that anyone who fails to turn the other cheek when attacked is not a true Christian, or that anyone who eats shrimp is not a true Jew, but there are plenty of people who identify with religions whose rules they do not regularly obey. Indeed, those who do scrupulously follow all the rules of a religion are likely to be viewed as fanatics by the majority of their fellow believers (and by others, as well).
4
Your post is the literal incarnation of the "No True Scotsman" logical fallacy.
http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/no-true-scotsman/
"An argument similar to this is often arises when people attempt to define religious groups. In some Christian groups, for example, there is an idea that faith is permanent, that once one becomes a Christian one cannot fall away.
Apparent counter-examples to this idea, people who appear to have faith but subsequently lose it, are written off using the ‘No True Scotsman’ fallacy: they didn’t really have faith, they weren’t true Christians. The claim that faith cannot be lost is thus preserved from refutation. Given such an approach, this claim is unfalsifiable, there is no possible refutation of it."
1
This is a common argument across all religions. The true believers are good, therefore, the people who do bad things in the name of the religion aren't really members of that religion. You can substitute Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and every other religion that's ever existed. You can even hear people making the same comment about atheism.
The result is a tautology: all followers of the religion are good, because you have defined away anyone who isn't. The frequent corollary is that since all followers of the religion are good, the religion makes people good and should be forced on everyone.
1
A thoughtful, thought-provoking, essay that "takes everything into account except the disposition of the enemy."
Maybe, the Rohingya were totally peaceful, minding their own business, and the Buddhists simply descended upon them, to do unprovoked violence. But, that is very hard to believe. Not least because it would mean that the Rohingya behaved unlike every other Muslim community on earth, even where they are a small, invited, minority, like in France, Belgium, Germany, and Swede (where even the NY Times recently reported on Muslim violence).
We need to see a fuller analysis of the horrors in Myanmar.
15
Whether or not my Buddhism is deracinated, it does actually predate Dan Arnold himself, I can still view this article as very shallow on all fronts except perhaps deracinated "Kantism". To read to the bottom and find out that it was commissioned, well that changes the assessment of the scholarship in it from shallow to appalling.
Start with the notion that because Buddhism in modern Myanmar is Indic, that it has much to do with the Buddhism either in the West or in India, which is Mr. Arnold's specialty. Add to that the curious irony of condemning the antisyncretic British colonists for putting each person in a singular religious category coming from someone who judges all exercises of the mind by reference to Immanuel Kant.
And then add in the incredibly shallow understanding of the multiple social, economic, religious, and other influences that led to this conflict. Lived peacefully together for generations? On what planet's version of Burma?
So it is totally unsurprising to get, in the penultimate paragraph, a distinctly American slide into throwing the Myamar Buddhists in with a supposed worldwide "vilification of Islam and immigrants". The only thing missing from that paragraph was the usual incantation about there isn't a such thing as an Islamic terrorist because "Islam is a religion of peace." But I guess even the authors would have seen that such a statement would contradict their first paragraph.
Hard to believe this is written by scholars.
12
To throw away scholarly research or writing because it was "commissioned" is ridiculous. In the modern era, everyone needs money to put food on the table, and scholars don't work for free. In that sense, all modern research in science, medicine, engineering, philosophy, and art is commissioned. Scientists apply for grant funding from the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, NASA, and many other branches of government and private institutes. Artists receive funding from the National Endowment for the Arts and many other organizations. Yes, one wants to assess the source of the funding.... I would not trust writings funded by fossil fuel companies arguing that global warming is not caused by humans, nor would I trust statements funded by a tobacco company that cigarette smoking is not harmful. But c'mon, this article is not in that league. The fact that you claim it is without justification betrays the shallowness of your argument.
1
I'm not throwing it out because it was commissioned, I'm saying it is shallow at best but once you find out they actually got paid for it, it's appalling, meaning that for commissions you are supposed to do more academic scholarly work, so you don't get the liberty of doing an advocacy piece or a throwaway.
As for the shallowness of my judgement, you're just as entitled to that opinion as I am to mine of the authors.
What is wrong with the authors' work is what I cited: This conflict is not a sudden crisis coming from generations of living in harmony at all, and it's not principally a religious dispute at all, either. And, of course, after making the claim that all religions are practiced by people and some people are violent so there are no totally peaceful religions -- a truthful claim -- they went on to act as if any facing off against Muslims was part of a worldwide denigration of "Muslims and immigrants." The use of the term "immigrants" is curious given the roots of the conflict in Myanmar and who is claiming they are or are not "immigrants". The notion that all over the world, Muslims are only ever the victims of ill feeling between religions is not just an insult to intelligence, but a careless and unthinking mixing of a U.S. event stream with one 12,000 miles away with different players and antecedents.
The writer expresses a misunderstanding of religion in general and Buddhism in particular. As an SGI Nichiren Buddhist for 34 years I have studied these seeming contradictions. Religion has, as its foundation, the belief in the preciousness of all life. Everything else must be built on top of that foundation. When we depart from that foundational belief we are no longer practitioners of religion. It is easy to call ourselves a Buddhist, Christian, Muslim or other group. The people who kill abortion doctors are not Christians- they are people with dark impulses who use religion as a pretext for those dark impulses. The people who hijack and fly planes into buildings while yelling "God is Great" are not Muslims and so called Buddhists who kill Rohingya be they monks or lay people are not Buddhists. Practicing Buddhism means living the teachings. This is difficult to do in our polarized and violent world. Being religious is living in service to humanity while striving to transcend our "lesser selves" and reveal our "greater selves" to embrace all life as equally precious. Buddhism elucidates our deep interconnectedness with all life. Therefore, harming another is harming ourselves while poisoning the pool that we all inhabit.
20
I earnestly hope to see an op-ed piece similar to this one that covers modern "Christianity." Particularly Evangelical Protestantism. Pence and Friends are dangerous theocrats posing as conservative bastions of decency when they are far, far from it. Please bring those facts to light. We don't need a theocracy, and "sin" is not what is breaking our country apart. On the contrary, it is greed, ignorance, and meanness and it is everywhere.
33
Speaking as a practitioner of 45+ years, I will say that central and essential to Buddhist practice is to do no harm. Nonaggression is key, and the practices in any form of Buddhism lead a person to search inside for ways to cultivate it. While other religions speak of love and loving kindness, Buddhism makes this particular point important as part of one's focused work on oneself. That said, such practice is difficult for human beings even in monastic settings, as we all have habitual ways of behaving, unconscious and mindless.
Westerners have as examples of religious violence the Crusades, the Inquisition, witch burnings, etc., of the Catholic Church, and the violence committed by Muslims in the earlier part of the religion, when conversion by sword swept parts of Asia. While Buddhism certainly has examples of violence, as you mention, it has no history of sweeping conquests or wars in service of conversion. I think this, combined with the popularity of some teachers such as the Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hanh, leads Westerners to expect an exotic peacefulness from Buddhism. This fascination with what is perceived as peaceful has led to the trendy use of mindfulness mediation without the context of the religion. It's sweet, but naive. Buddhism properly practiced is hard work, and people stumble along its path. What's happening in Burma is shocking by any standards and has been condemned by Buddhist leaders. Let's support its end regardless of religious beliefs.
16
Remember in the Eighteenth Century that a lot of intellectuals, Voltaire among them, would always pose Islam as superior to Christianity? Mozart took up this theme in the Abduction from the Seraglio, for example. Islam was displayed as tolerant, serene, full of sweet reason and so forth--a notion put paid to by even most recent events.
In the sixties of the 20th century, the same model was imposed upon Buddhism and Yogic meditation and thought, as a contrast to the warlike Judeo-Christian materialist culture of the West. Remember the famous, "Autobiography of a Yoga?" And the counterculture folks trying to levitate the Pentagon?
Now another dream dies.
5
The "clan" always seems to prevail over any philosophical or religious belief sets. Human behaviour unfortunately is very much pre-programed and sadly, very difficult to change, despite our best intentions.
3
Shocked by Buddhist violence? I am shocked by Christian tolerance of war, weaponry, capital punishment, etc. So called religious people seem infinitely malleable regarding the actual practice of their beliefs. Understanding the political role of Buddhism in Japan during WW2 and now in Burma only highlights the difference between doctrine and the 'will to power' that religions are no less susceptible to than political parties.
15
Fair points, but there is a distinction to be made between religious violence and violence within communities of different religions.
It seems to me that polytheistic and non-deist religions have never even approached the level of widespread violence that has been wreaked on the world in the name of monotheistic religions.
6
Another myth is that colonialism is the root of all evil; in fact people behave badly all the time, including well before colonial empires got started.
Stop blaming Queen Victoria. The people responsible for the atrocities in Myanmar - as anywhere - are the people who commit them.
10
What's surprising is that some people are surprised by this. I imagine it's rooted, in part, in our moral vanity: "my religion (spiritual system, etc.) doesn't do those bad things." But the reality is that aside from all that is good in all religions, they are also another manifestation of the tribalism that is part and parcel of being a human being. And as we know, tribalism can often lead to very ugly and ignorant behavior. In this regard, religion is synonymous w/ any other tribe we may identify with: ethnic/racial; country of origin; political beliefs; sexual/gender orientation; etc. The best thing we could do as a species, which the Buddha would probably approve of, is to move away from this delusion of identification.
2
This may be a matter of semantics, but is a person a Buddhist because they call themselves one, or are they a Buddhist because of the way they lead their life? I would ask the same question of Christians here in the west. Most of those who self-identify as one or the other fail the most basic tests of the religions they identify with. In their core beliefs, both are peaceful "religions" or philosophies. In fact, it may be that Christ came back to Palestine after having studied Buddhism. You can see these eastern influences in the Beatitudes.
I have not been surprised that "Buddhists" in Myanmar have acted the way they do. In my mind they are Buddhists in name only. I wish this distinction had been made more clear in this essay. The authors sort of get at this point when discussing human self-centeredness.
4
The toxic discourse in the west, that frames the ethnic conflict in Myanmar in facile religious terms of "bad guys" Buddhists against "good guys" Muslims is itself a crime, one perpetrated by the western media. It risks setting at loggerheads two communities that have no inherent conflict with each other. Furthermore, it is a form of neo-colonialism, in which western media impose a western interpretation on actions that most Burmese see as a border conflict with the neighboring Bengalis.
All conflicts are tragic and sad, and all victims are sympathetic. But we in the west have no business taking sides in what is in large part a civil war between neighboring populations of different races, ethnicities, and cultures competing over scarce land, and in which recent immigration has apparently tipped the balance of what had been a historical tolerance.
This western presumptuousness is compounded by the fact seems to be a hidden agenda at work here. Finally, after the relentless barrage of news in which misguided extremist Muslims have wreaked havoc on civilized society, butchering innocents all over the world, the media now see a way of "balancing" the news by focusing on the Muslim victims in Myanmar in an excess of one-sided reporting. Perhaps, like doctors, journalists should also be guided by the rule that first, they should do no harm.
It's been my experience that the people who transition out of one religion and into another - from Christianity to Buddhism, for example - tend to gravitate toward the more pure form of the religion or practice and are its best adherents. It's like a fresh start without the baggage. But my experience with a Theravada temple was that the people were no different than the folks at a Christian congregation: gossipy, backstabbing, adulterous, dishonest. Maybe if we all jumped out of our religion and into the next best one for us, we could restore some integrity into religious practice and belief.
6
Once again, we find religion a very powerful tool for oppression. The historical record of war, atrocities, genocide and oppression perpetrated in the name of religion is so pervasive and vast that it seems a strikingly ingenuous when it is claimed that such perversion is merely an aberration form the "peaceful" nature of any religion.
2
This article brings to mind the Buddhist proverb: "Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water"
4
Thank you for this well written and thoughtful piece.
My personal experience is that religious people often seem terribly ignorant of the history of religions, even or perhaps especially their own. And they are therefore often surprised if not outright doubtful to learn of all the terrible things that have inevitably been done by supporters of their religion throughout the ages.
5
Thank you for confirming that my Vajrayana practice is not some postmodern "ecumenical" fad. It does indeed include "rituals, relics, and rebirth" but first and foremost is the principle and practice of bodhicitta, loving kindness, for the benefit of ALL BEINGS. It is fundamental to the Dharma, the teachings of Buddha. To practice Buddhism without it is like a Christian ignoring the Golden Rule in favor of some intolerant political doctrine, e.g. the Inquisition.
3
Source of all faiths is one, our Creator. As such, the basic tenent of all faiths directs all humans towards peace and submission to our Creator. It is us humans who have then corrupted it to serve our greed.
Article glosses over the facts of Japanese cruelty in China and Korea and in WWII -- which was beyond the pale, often gratuitous and on a scale far larger than anything that's happening in Myanmar today.
81
Japan is both a Shinto and Buddhist country, so using it in the context of this discussion isn't quite so straightforward.
2
Shinto is not the same as Buddhism.
2
In the early 20th century, Japan's military rulers made a concerted and successful effort to subordinate Buddhism to a militarized, nationalistic version of Shinto. The events you mention, while a stain on Japanese history, were not really done in the name of Buddhism, though it is certainly likely that many atrocities were committed by Japanese people who considered themselves to be Buddhists.
3
When I lived in Seoul, rival Buddhist monks fought it out in the streets of Seoul one year.
4
Yes, but.....
Still confounding not to have heard from the Dalai Lama and Aung San Sui Kyi decrying the violence against other sentient beings - and sadly disheartening.
2
Rohingas are considered to be illegal immigrants, what about the illegal immigrants on our shores from the south. Are we treating them with respect and love?
"...Speaking to journalists in North India, the Tibetan spiritual leader expressed his grief over the ongoing violence inside Buddhist-majority Myanmar on Friday, saying the Buddha would have "definitely helped" the Rohingya.
"They should remember, Buddha, in such circumstances, Buddha (would have) definitely helped those poor Muslims. So, still I feel that (it's) so very sad ... so sad," he told reporters.
You now stand un-confounded.
https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/11/asia/rohingya-dalai-lama-myanmar/index.html
2
We are what we do, not what we say. It is the easiest thing in the world to wax eloquent on the virtues of one religion or another but the only criterion that meets the test is how one treats one's fellow human beings, particularly those who cannot fight back or those who cannot do him or her any good. I have visited the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. The horror I saw inflicted on these haapless people by 'peaceful' Buddhists defies imagination. No religion has a monoploy on peace or truth. Only in practice do we show how good, or not, our respective religions are.
6
The authors' straw-men "we" should have been reading my blog. I was pointing out the issues with the Rohingya people and the idolization Aung San Suu Kyi by some in the liberal American white Buddhist convert community years ago, as well Mc Mindfulness and the attempted co-option of Buddhism by capitalism, and a host of other issues.
My blog "Notes in Samsara" is mostly dormant now, but this has all been covered. It would help for the authors to stop perpetrating tropes in this regard though.
2
Dear Professors Arnold and Turner,
The point of your essay is no surprise to individualists who take the irrationality of our species as a given, but it likely a source of consternation for those given to the twin delusions of scientism and ideological fanaticism, in which mansions of reason are built on foundations of sand.
The noblest notion on earth won’t constrain a psychopath, and the most savage circumstances in creation won’t deter a saint.
Cordially,
S.A. Traina
7
Women really need to stop perpetuating so much violence around the globe! Throughout time, our innocent men have had to go out and do the slaughtering and raping and torturing at the behest of their cruel female masters. If only men could run societies and religions all over the world instead of women! Perhaps then we could include them among the complicit, but for now we must lay all the blame at women’s feet since clearly women run the show and have always run the show. Perhaps it is not religion or culture or colonialism but simply some inborn tendency toward violence almost exclusively expressed in the female sex? If only they would release some of their grip on power across the globe and learn some of the humility of their male counterparts—perhaps then we could learn to work through our problems as though we are all in this together, all neighbors, brothers, sisters, family. I don’t think women will ever change though. At least they will not change as long as we continue to ignore the real common denominator in global violence.
Buddhist violence on a significant scale appears only in Hinayana (lesser vehicle) nations like Sri Lanka, Burma, and Thailand and not in Mahayana (greater vehicle) nations like Japan and China.
In emphasising personal salvation rather than collective salvation, Hinayana Buddhists may have lost the plot.
You can't change human nature no matter what creed they follow.
I think that whenever a "religion" (i.e., a set of beliefs about the supernatural basis of human life and morality) becomes organized, the preservation of the organization for its tribal benefit becomes more important than the beliefs underlying it. So I personally evolved from dogmatic Catholicism to Quakerism to agnosticism to scepticism. I attempt "mindful meditation" to lessen emotional stress. And, perhaps, to hope that, if there does exist some reality beyond my perceived conscious, it exists in the union of everything, conscious or not.
4
While this article brings up a number of important points, it errs in consistently referring to "Buddhism" as if it were one thing -- which is in many ways the main error in thought behind the attitudes it criticizes. While there is certainly some overlap in different branches of Buddhism, the tenets are very strongly different. This is also why it is important not to think of all Buddhism as religious in the usual sense, as (for instance) there is no sense of the divine or of prayer in Theravada tradition.
And this is why we are and should be shocked by what has happened in Burma, where Theravadan Buddhists have engaged in and justified atrocities and inhuman practices, ones directly against their tenets. But what is also striking is that there is essentially no way that this can be justified within that discipline's world-view -- and this does stand in contrast to religions defined in other ways, which may have love as one component but have other less admirable ones (often found in their scriptures). The Burmese excuses do overlap with other religions' where they claim that their actions are necessary to "defend Buddhism." But those on the outside can see that what is going on is primarily crass racism and xenophobia. And sadly, simply identifying as Buddhist is not a magic shield against such attitudes.
9
excuses,excuses!!!
go to any religious person or site and their belief is that they are best and the most humane thing there is;look around and smell the roses!
1
Buddhists by and large are the most peaceful religious group. "Violent Buddhist" is an oxymoron considering Buddha forbid all forms of violence even in self defense.
So when so called Buddhists do become violent it is usually with very good reason.
What's happening in Myanmar is not shocking if you knew what pushed the govt to retaliate with such force.
&Your western liberal mainstream media will most likely never never report the other side of the story.
Also Sri Lanka's war was an ethnic conflict between the Tamils and Sinhalese not a religious war. I know this because my mom is Sri Lankan Tamil Hindu who escaped to India during the war.
32
Christianity says one should love their enemies and turn the other cheek rather than engage in self-defense. Yet no one is surprised by Christian violence.
Christianity also has several contradicting verses in its holy books instructing to wage war.
Jesus himself flipped tables &whipped people to put them in their place.
You won't find contradictions like that in Buddhism.
Buddhists are no different than other religionists . They are willing to use violence to promote their view of the "right" religion. Particularly in Burma/Myanmar, the Buddhists have been involved of all the non-buddhist minorities in the country since the japanese invasion during the Second World War. The Buddhists murdered and raped the non-buddhist minorities in concert with the Japanese. The karen and Kachin Hill people are as brutally suppressed as the Moslems. Ang sang sui chi fooled us all for years but she has now revealed her true self, a a supporter of the Buddhist murderers.
The Buddhist tradition starts with a story, and the story starts this way: the prince abandons his wife and children to seek Enlightenment. In other words, putting self above social obligations. Knowing history is as important as knowing what the beliefs of a religion amount to. After thinking of myself as a Buddhist for a couple of years, and then ditching it, I continued to study its history. Like the history of Christianity, Islam, and atheism, acts speak stronger than poses. Thanks for this article. If Americans were not so insular they would know more world history, and would not be shocked by Buddhist violence. And it they knew sects, they would find that Buddhist sects can be matched one-to-one with Christian sects, probably reflecting the general human condition and the many choices people have to deal with our complex world. I hope all these religions and atheism continue to evolve to be less patriarchal, violent, and insular.
20
…"the prince abandons his wife and children to seek Enlightenment. In other words, putting self above social obligations." You might re-study and reconsider the Buddha's motives.
1
The Buddhist tradition does not start with Siddharth's renunciation. It does not even start with Siddharth's attainment of "dukha-nirodha" or "cessation of dukha" and of his becoming the Buddha. It start with his decision to teach his insights and with his efforts to turn it into a discipline ("vinaya") for individuals interested in practicing it to attain "kilesha-nirodha" themselves.
While we are all free to draw our own conclusions, they often reflect our own predilection. The central idea associated with Siddharth's story of renunciation from the Buddhist tradition's perspective is not "putting self above social obligations." It is about showing how a very wealthy individual whose life is filled with pleasures almost all of us crave (and many kill for) can still not be content and still be subject to some of the greatest afflictions of life for which the remedy is not more indulgence. The way you frame it might lead one to think that the central story of Christianity is to "promote torture and death to oneself needlessly like its messiah seems to have done knowing well beforehand how the Romans would tackle that behavior."
Yes, it is correct that during his lifetime the Buddha's spent much of his time on training "monks" (or "bhikkus" aka beggars) who had given everything up (at least prima facie) in their quest for solace from dukha. To flip it around is to miss the point !
1
Religion seems to confer a confidence among its adherents that they understand the true nature of morality. That’s why religion should be seen as the menace it is. Long live Plato.
39
My only "credentials" for commenting on this is that I was once stationed in Thailand for four years and have been married to a devout Buddhist for 49. I have seen, up close and as the author says, very little correlation to a set of beliefs and the actions of its believers.
Thai pirates, for example.
Thai boxing, for another.
The need for Thai police, the....
10
Any religion can become co-opted and corrupted by political ends. This is what has happened here. The more aligned a religious practice is with the political state, the more likely this is to happen. True Buddhist practice does not involve temples or priests. It is a faith bassed on the spiritual guidance and teachings of The Buddha, Siddhartha Guatama. I am a member of The SGI USA we are a lay organization committed to world peace which we believe begins with the individual practice of chanting and studying to create personal and ultimately universal happiness for all people and the planet. This type of hatful ignorant and intollerant behavior in Mynar is antithetical to any uncorrupted buddhist practice. But buddhism, like all faiths, has had its dark days. The SGI's lay practice has emerged from centuries of such darkness. I embrace it because it understands the evil that can come out of such top down organizations. As individuals we must all work towards revealing and embracing our buddha nature. This is the only "right" path. But as humans we must struggle in the world littered with corrupt and evil practices. Yet we all have a "buddha nature," some are just not on the "right" path to reveal this.
9
Religion is either tribal or transcendent. You're either stepping into an identity or stepping out of it. When you're born into a religion, it's tribal by default. When you adopt one, e.g., Buddhism by a Westerner, it's letting go of a social identity. And embracing yet another? The wheel turns.
6
Thank you for this excellent article. I'm retired and spend most of my time in Southeast Asia. People back in the States heap abuse on me whenever I tell them that Buddhism is no less violent than any other religion. I have seen videos of Burmese Buddhist monks speaking venomously of the Rohingya. I'm a vegetarian, and I thought that most Buddhists would also be vegetarians (some are, of course). The Buddha forbade killing. As explained in the book on Buddhism found in SE Asian hotel rooms (sort of the Asian version of the Gideon Bible), the rule has been reinterpreted; you can eat meat if someone else kills it. Many of the monks you see at temples are 'sort timers'. They stay a few years for an education and leave. In Myanmar, school children will shave their heads and put on robes for a week of school vacation. I'm not saying that Buddhists are 'bad', I'm just saying that Buddhism is not very different from other religions. I think that in the US, Hollywood has given Buddhism a patina of glamour. This is just my PERSONAL belief, but I think the world would be a lot more peaceful without any of these religions.
38
It is impossible for Buddhism or Jainism to be violent as both of them are 100% inherently pacifist philosophies.
You can't say the same about Christianity Islam and most other religions in the world which allow and instruct their followers to use violence under certain circumstances.
John D: What you're saying doesn't make sense to me. Christianity is inherently pacifist (turn the other cheek) but it brought us the Crusades. We are talking here not of religious philosophy, but of the practice of religion. Buddhists are not pacifists as is demonstrated by their attacks on the Rohingya. My guess is that some number of Jains participated in violence against Muslims at the time of the Indian partition. I would also point to Tibetan Buddhism. The Dali Lama was forced to leave Tibet because the Dali Lama's brothers, and others in the Tibetan elite, conspired with the CIA to launch a coup that would lead to an independent Tibet. Planning a coup with the CIA is not an act of pacifism. (As far as I know the Dali Lama himself was NOT involved.) Religious philosophies are almost all pacifist (an argument can be made that this is true of Islam also) but religious practice is almost never pacifist. (I'd like to think that Quakers are an exception but I'm not certain).
1
Christianity might contain some pacifist verses about turning the other cheek, loving your enemies and the like, but it also contains several contradictory verses in its holy books instructing to wage war and murder. Jesus himself didn't hesitate to flip tables and whip people to put them in their place.
You won't find those kind of extreme contradictions in the Buddhist or Jain holy scriptures.
Even after the partition of India Muslims are literally the only religious group to somehow push even Jains to become violent.
https://www.google.com/amp/m.sify.com/news/50-injured-in-meerut-jain-mus...
Don't you find it odd how everywhere in the world Muslims exist they manage to get themselves into conflicts with literally every other group of people??????
This is a great article with good scholarly approaches to the issues. People in the West are surprised because they do not know the history. Most will continue to be surprised because they will not read this article or any others of similar depth. They consume mindfulness mindlessly and accept broad generalizations and the marketing that purposefully tries to separate religion from the practices of meditation. The simplified, culturally appropriated methods marketed in the US play on the desire to be "spiritual, not religious" and use stereotypes of calm figures in yoga poses or in the lotus. We see the violence in our society, and romanticize that it is better elsewhere and in these places with peaceful philosophies and whose flaws we don't know. We prefer to deny the violence in human nature and blame things like organized religion for own own abuse of religion. We should be much more critical about how mindfulness is exploited here for profit. The over-simplification leads to ignorance, and that leads to surprise when others behave as we only thought we could.
7
The sort of cultural appropriation typified by American “Buddhism” (yoga, mindfulness, etc.) has always been its main appeal. The history of western religion (in particular Christianity) teaches us humility before the vast complexity, variation and doctrinal impurity of any live religious tradition. This complexity and richness does not allow the believer to pick and choose tenets and pretend that he or she has not simply concocted his or her own private creed. Hence the familiar seductions of Orientalism.
5
Yoga is not a Buddhist tradition
3
Christianity teaches humility? on what level and where?
The vast slaughter in the name of jesus over 1700 years is an act of humility?
The hundreds of years of war between one xtain sect and another, Humility?
The belief jesus is coming in this life time (because he must meet meee) humility?
There is nothing humble about xtianity aside from it's false modesty about it's own morality
Sanjay, the Buddha learned from the best yoga and meditation teachers of his times. He himself chanted the gayatri mantra. He distilled what he learned from his previous teachers and from his own insights and opened his teachings to include all castes. His disciples were mostly merchants and traders, and kings and rulers, both men and women. What he offered to everyone regardless of their caste or religion, was ancient wisdom previously limited to the upper castes.
Really thoughtful piece, with the fairly obvious conclusion: Buddhists are human and susceptible to the same frailties as all humans. What the essay fails to point out is the actual reason that Westerners and others are surprised by the violence and bloodshed at the hands of Buddhists in Myanmar. The shock comes from the fact that Buddhist sacred texts are completely bereft of parables or anything else that would provide adherents to commit despicable acts in the name of the religion. Christian, Hebrew and Muslim sacred texts are, of course, riddled with language that not only gives cover to these acts, but encourages them. That's what so shocking about the violence in Myanmar. The Buddhists in Myanmar are completely freelancing their hate-laced behavior.
11
Yes, Buddhists can ignore their own ethical teachings just as well as anyone else can, such as this from the first chapter of one of the most popular Buddhist scriptures, the Dhammapada: Hatred is never appeased by hatred in this world. By non-hatred alone is hatred appeased. This is a law eternal.
14
As a person who has traveled extensively in SE Asia, including Myanmar, I can say that most ordinary people there are just like the so-called Christians here who go through the motions, Church on Sunday, alms for the Buddhist Temple etc. and then forget about the actual teaching for the rest of the week. To really be a Christian or Buddhist, you have to have an ongoing daily practice, otherwise it's just fluff to ease you conscience. The Myanmar military has stoked a lot of Nationalist sentiment that has emblodened it's citizens to justify the cruelty inflicted upon the Rohingya. The rise of nationalism round the world has had
negative consequences on the minority populations in other countries as well, though maybe not always as violent and shocking.
14
Buddhism in the West is a minority religion, largely the province of individual intellectuals seeking a kinder way, who face no external threat to their practice. They are thus free to focus on meditation and inner peace. Asian Buddhism, by contrast, is a religion of families, of generations, of the whole society and country, of its citizens and rulers, of its army, and of its history and destiny. The difference is huge. Add that Asian Buddhist countries are surrounded and menaced by vast, populous, powerful Muslim nations, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Indonesia which are not known for their religious tolerance. We all remember the ancient Buddhist statues carved into a mountain that were gratuitously blown to bits by Islamic militants.
23
Interesting point of view. But people are people, regardless of religion. Push them enough and they will push back. Buddhism seems to be the strongest local organization around which people can rally.
As for Buddhism, it is as diverse as Christianity with the number of sects and the various beliefs within those sects.
As for violence in Buddhism, I am surprised that the warring monks of China and Japan are not mentioned. Kung fu, after all, comes from Bodhidarma, the founder of Ch'an Buddhism, which becomes Zen in Japan, the choice of the samurai class.
To place the onus of violence on Buddhism seems to ignore the human condition.
4
bushido was the code of the samurai
For Buddhists, as for others, 'religion' or a belief system tends to be a philosophical-standing situation, when material life intrudes. So it goes.
The Stone is a wonderful agent and this article is perhaps one of the better ones.
The idea that religion and politics of government should be separate as spelled out in our constitution is a new one adopted by our founding fathers as a response to the very ideas spelled out here so well. But as we have seen religion and politics are not so easily separated as they become tools for our desires and subject to human nature. Religions through out the ages have tried to deal with greed, anger, and stupidity as well as enlightenment , but have always fallen short as we have fallen short of seeing ourselves and our motivations as pointed out so well here.
In Japan the samurai ethic of nationalism and self control were girded by Zen Buddhism which emphasized controlling human desire, but then became a vehicle for violence, xenophobia, the suppression of lower classes and separation. These things were not seen as things to need changing, but only as vehicles of political necessity. But these trends were obvious in every society, note our Protestant and Catholic histories, and our constant war fare.
So much to say here, but in the end it is human illusion and nature that causes our suffering, something the Buddha would no doubt agree with, and also true that the answer to this suffering also lies within us the essence of which lies in humility and compassion for ourselves and others.
9
"Religions through out the ages have tried to deal with greed, anger, and stupidity as well as enlightenment
not really sure what history books you have been reading but...
Religions and been the center of greed, anger, stupidity violence and oppression. As far as the enlightenment went, secular societies were sick of religious over reach and reigned them in - not the other way round.
the catholic church didn't recognize Galileo until 1992
1
Humans, at least of the unenlightened variety, have an unfortunate tendency toward violence. We build illusory walls between ourselves and others and fight to protect our group at the expense of others. What drives us to do this? Call it Buddhism, call it politics, call it whatever you like. At the end of the day, they are just equally illusory labels that all boil down to an aspect of human nature that we must continue to confront within ourselves.
7
This is a very astute analysis of the Achilles heal in all human endeavors! Hubris is always lurking and masking itself as righteousness, perhaps no where more dangerously then in our attempt to provide "the" answers to life's mysteries. This doesn't mean we must be agnostic in our inevitable quest for "what's it all about", but it does mean we have to take seriously the admonition of Pogo: "We have found the enemy and he is us."
5
A very good article, and long overdue, though to suggest that the people in Myanmar perpetrating this tragedy against the Rohingya are representatives of Buddhism falls short of the mark.
As a Buddhist lay person of 10 years, I have founded the following concepts to guide my life which are intrinsically lacking in the perpetrators of violence in Myanmar or anywhere that people call themselves "Buddhists:"
1) The understanding of,and the sensitization to, the causes of suffering in one's own experience and, ultimately, in others;
2) The cultivation of "equanimity" recognizing the equality of all beings and their inherent wish for happiness and the elimination of suffering;
3) The recognition of all people and things as "dear" and worthy of concern unconditionally.
All of this takes time and, in the traditional sense, lifetimes. The perpetrators of violence in Myanmar or elsewhere who call themselves "Buddhists"who fall short of these basic truths still have a ways to go.
10
An excellent article. It ultimately points out that people are people, and that the "marketing" of groups and religions as pacific or violent becomes fodder for people to sell their current agendas. In the case of Myanmar, the genocide of Muslims by Buddhists has found its cadre of apologists.
While it is our moral obligation to promote justice and heal the world, it is always better to start closer to home. And, by focusing on countries where we can make a difference because we have influence. One such country is Israel, which is stronger than ever and is degrading and dispossessing its native non-Jews (Muslim and Christian Palestinians) without consequence. The "Israel Lobby" assures that the Israeli point of view prevails and that discussion is muzzled. Until this is addressed, our moral standing to criticize others in limited.
4
" One such country is Israel, which is stronger than ever and is degrading and dispossessing its native non-Jews (Muslim and Christian Palestinians) without consequence. The "Israel Lobby" assures that the Israeli point of view prevails and that discussion is muzzled. Until this is addressed, our moral standing to criticize others in limited. "
One should know what is going on before spreading arab propaganda/
there are 2 dozens American sounding lobby groups representing SAudi in the USA. The Americans petroleum institute alone as 3x the budget of the clearly labeled AIPAC. which doesn't seem to enter the conversation
As far as disenfranchising their "native muslim and xtian " populations, that is a flat out lie
the only free arabs in the ME are in Israel.
Go spread Saudi propaganda among the college kids- they know crap too
I suspect people are confused about the difference between perpetrating violence, and resisting tyranny. The prohibition of the former, and the importance of the latter - is part of Buddhist philosophy.
There are some major, far reaching consequences to not knowing the difference.
If Burmese people do not want to submit to Saudi financed clerics, intolerance, and violence, convert immediately to Islam, destroy every vestige of their own religion, and become a wahabi outpost, these kinds of things happen even when they are plain horrifying.
7
It seems to be against some sort of rule that one can not discuss the aggression of islam around the world
2 dozen Saudi lobbying groups with American sounding names are spending millions trying to convince islam is a religion of peace
1
A basic rule of communication his never tell someone what they believe. It's is really annoying, at best. "Modern buddhism" isn't a religion. It is a practice. Aside from that, this is an interesting and informative article, so i was surprised that there was no mention of fundamentalists. Every religion has them and they cause the same problems everywhere.
12
Ultimately it is not religious truths or doctrines followed by adherents but politics and numbers. The long held proposition in many Faiths, e.g Buddhism in decline or Islam in danger or Christians under threat is baseless but provides a great "battle cry". It has become fashionable to ask about Rohingya Muslims in Burma, but what about the tiny Christian communities in the Middle East, the Yazidis in Iraq, the Zoroastrians in Iran, the Hindus in Bangladesh and Pakistan? Non Muslims in Saudi Arabia, all of whom are expats enjoy no rights while living or even in death. When looking at these issues from a more wholistic perspective Western scholarship, intellectualism and media analysis needs to adopt a different worldview untainted by its own religious (Judeo Christian) biases.
4
I'm going to guess part of the problem of violence and hatred by Buddhists is coming from economic uncertainty and struggle. That's what's happening here, in America. Trump is our President because he scared so many already frightened people by using 'the other' as scapegoat. Whether it was immigrants or people of color or Muslims or liberals or Hillary, Trump was the epitome of an angry, vengeful, hateful bully. We wanted this. So do some Buddhists, I guess. Their lives are too filled with uncertainty and struggle and wondering how to survive and possibly even have a good life with a home, safety, a job, education, health care, you know, the basic necessities that so many of us lack.
I love the Dhammapada, the teaching of the Buddha. 'Mind fore-runs all conditions; mind is chief', is how one translation begins. And, it goes on to help us learn to be without desire, or at least temper them.
In America, our love of money has helped elect a self-styled billionaire; regardless of how dishonorable and mean-spirited he is. And a liar. Our liar-in-chief would not do well with the Buddha. Truth, peace, harmony, naturalness are the virtues. Not avarice.
Buddhism has many great virtues; but many Buddhists do not practice those. Christianity has many great virtues; buy many Christians, like the President and his evangelical supporters, also choose not to follow these.
21
Buddhism is a religion likely to be violent as any other, supposing we are discussing the capacity of religions to be violent and setting aside the question of what they contribute to peace?
My experience of world history and of having lived in the Far East, and of having met many Asian immigrants to Western countries is that Buddhism unquestionably has the best track record of all the major religions for lack of violence. One look at world history demonstrates that the emergence and spread of Buddhism from India did not lead to the places in which it spread becoming more violent and in turn spreading out beyond their borders, which is to say it did not inflame the Far Eastern nations, take them on anything like a crusade of conversion. In fact the entire East, Hindus as well, have a good track record of staying put, not pushing out beyond borders, and I have no doubt that scientifically it can be demonstrated that Asian immigrants are the most law abiding citizens in the nations which receive them, and that if you're ever stuck in an elevator with a number of other people, hope all those people are Asians because calm and uniformity of respect is most likely exist in tight places when the people are Asian.
I would go so far as to say that not only is Buddhism the least violent religion but that Asians themselves appear the most feminine and calm people for all historical subordination of women in their societies and for all ruthless, eat anything, dietary habits.
I, like so many others, have spent much of my life searching for answers and trying to improve myself. During that time, I've studied various branches of the Christian, Hindu and Buddhist traditions. I've even spent a very short time poking around the edges of the now hyper-fashionable atheist tribe.
While engaged in my spiritual studies and practices, I've met many admirable people and participated in remarkable communities. I've also met some nasty types and seen communities turn angry, argumentative and even vindictive. I still passionately believe that a spiritual search is worthwhile, but I've seen enough of the dark side of these beautiful traditions to know that we are all prey to human foibles.
I've been on been on many silent retreats, I have meditated daily nearly every day for over 45 years, and attended innumerable religious ceremonies, especially in the mainline Christian and Buddhist Vipassana traditions.
During these years of study, I've met or attended seminars and events by many extraordinary people such as Thich Nhat Hanh, the Dalai Lama, Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan, John Shelby Spong and innumerable remarkable lay people. I've also been exposed to some nasty behavior both in others and in myself.
None of these efforts have resulted in my attaining grace or enlightenment, though they have brought me much peace and comfort. I'm still very far from perfect, but I believe my life is richer and I'm marginally better as a result of this spiritual work.
3
"This modern form of Buddhism is distinguished by a novel emphasis on meditation [...]"
I agree with much of what you've said about the religion, especially the form that's been tailored over the last century or so to the West's predispositions. The modern Western appropriation (read: redefining) of the word "mindfulness" (sati, in Pali) is especially unhelpful to those who have taken up the Buddhist, or even the Buddhist Lite, practice.
But I have to take issue with your calling any Buddhist emphasis on meditation "novel." Seven factors of the Nobel Eightfold Path-- right view, right resolve (/intention/thought), right action, right speech, right livelihood, right effort and right mindfulness-- are all supporting pillars of right concentration, which is achieved through meditation. This Nobel Eightfold Path was a foundational teaching of the Buddha, and an absolutely necessary one for all his students, for the elimination of suffering.
21
I've been involved in Tibetan Buddhist communities in NYC/DC for 30 years and am convinced that a majority of those in the community are "Buddhists" for social and cultural reasons and not because they truly believe in the precepts of Buddhism or have any real desire to do the work needed to become more compassionate. Most of these people are well-educated, reasonably affluent and moderately liberal. As far as I can tell, they have the prejudices and lack of concern for those they perceive as different from themselves and particularly harsh attitudes toward the homeless, the poor and immigrants.
Nobody who claims to be Buddhist "owns" Buddhism and many who claim to be Buddhist don't practice Buddhism. In this, they are like Christians....
53
The authors are correct in pointing out the variations within a tradition as well as the variations in the degree of commitment of its practitioners. But it doesn’t follow that all traditions are equally violent. This is more of a historical or sociological question and needs to be answered by statistical analysis of rates of violence from culture to culture. In The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, the political scientist Samuel Huntington did this (among many other things) and found that Muslim societies tend to be more violent than others. Someone with the requisite expertise should do the same for Buddhist societies. I would be curious to learn the answer.
36
I have not read Huntington but am aware of his ideas regarding an impending conflict among civilizations. However, I find the notion that a "statistical analysis of rates of violence from culture to culture" leads to the conclusion that Muslim societies tend to be more violent troubling.
First, it conveniently plays into current and historical Western prejudices.
Second, how does it square with the fact that two world wars that cost hundreds of millions of lives were largely fought by non-Muslim belligerents?
Third, theoretically non-religious communist societies such as the Soviet Union and Mao-era China were responsible for at least another 100 million deaths.
Fourth, does America's comparatively high rate of inner-city crime get factored into these analyses?
Fifth, there are many Muslim societies throughout the world, from Indonesia to Saudi Arabia to Morocco and beyond. I'm not sure one can paint these communities with such a broad brush.
9
The version of Buddhism that we in the West have adopted is a later, Mahayana adaptation of the original teachings. This was an evolution in the teachings, through the Madyamaka philosophy of Nagarjuna's "Middle Way," and the eventual development of the Philosophy of Emptiness by Je Tsongkapa in 14th Century Tibet. This resulted in the Gelugpa school of the Dalai Lama.
Some also speculate (myself included) that Tsongkapa's highly innovative philosophical reflections on the nature of reality were a major influence on contemporary post-Kantian western philosophy.
So, it would seem natural that these two trends from West and East would meet at this point in history to influence how we have come to see the "self," its relationship to the world, and quality of the global community we are co-creating.
9
I ran across this when some friends with marked Buddhist sympathies hosted a young woman from a Buddhist country (which I will not name) and were surprised that she seemed much more interested in materialism than the teachings and precepts of Buddhism. It is similar to my reaction when I meet a self-identified Christian and am surprised when they espouse bigotry or sing the praises of assault weapons, even though that seems totally contrary to the teachings of Christ. Lets face it, as Jacques Ellul pointed out long ago, most people who identify with a religion are actually identifying with the social and cultural aspects of the religion, not the actual core teachings. Religion has become for many world-wide just another tribal identity.
346
Stan, what is the Jacques Ellul reference, if you would be so kind? (I've been researching a book on religion, politics, and social/cultural systems).
This is so true, and the core teachings never have anything to do with the bearded dude in the sky, which is what people always seem to talk about. Consequently we are all too willing to throw the baby out with the bathwater. All religions, after the cruft and gobbledygook, point to the same basic truths about conduct and caring and what it means to be human. They are very useful but seem to be permanently obscured by the tribalism you mention.
We're all the same tribe underneath.
2
there is nothing in Buddhism that challenges modernity
there is nothing in Christianity that challenges:
slavery
treating women as property
genocide
infanticide
or any other horrific crimes with which xtians are associated
My first word on the subject is that I have great respect for Buddhism. That can also be taken as my last word. In-between, however, I recognize that it has its faults.
It's not just that Buddhist tradition, like other religious traditions, is a human affair. Even its scriptures show disappointing traces of the human hand, and not only in peripheral matters. I'm thinking particularly of the progress to enlightenment through reincarnation made by a Bodhisattva, one who is destined to become a Buddha. Such a being, it is taught, possesses certain "advantages" that include no longer being born as a female but always as a male, and being born free of physical defects. Buddhism explicitly associates perfect enlightenment with unblemished physical beauty.
Of course, that association was easy for human minds to conceive and to accept fifteen or so centuries ago, so there it is. Happily, Buddhism has much more than that to contribute to the world.
19
Often children born with defects are seen as a blotch on the family, because someone in the family must have done something wrong for this to happen. Often they are put up for adoption.
1
"... no longer being born as a female..."
It is my understanding that the difference between a Buddhist monk and a Buddhist nun is 100 laws. There are 100 laws that a monk must follow... and there are 200 laws that a nun must follow, because she is so inherently "unclean".
Worse, I'll paraphrase a tale on the Buddha that I read 50 years ago in my Britannia.
The Buddha told his cousin that he had come up with a perfect religion that would last forever but no women were to be allowed to join.
His cousin was horrified. You can't do that - you MUST include women, he told him.
And the Buddha replied with a sign, "Oh, all right. But now it will only last 500 years."
Buddhism also equates "perfect enlightenment" with being "MALE".
Sorry, Buddha, but I don't consider myself to be "inferior" based on which set of genitals I was born with. Yes, I understand that every religion demands that one consider "females" as "inferiors". I guess that's why I'm atheist.
And, curiously, I suspect that 15 centuries ago, there were many women who agreed with me... and, there are even more of them today.
2
While the main point is well-taken, it's also widely understood: humans will be humans. What I find problematic is that in a column explicitly about philosophy, the only philosopher cited in an article about a non-European tradition with an exceptionally long philosophical lineage is a European: Immanuel Kant. The section on the lack of self-transparency where Kant is used can be easily phrased in Buddhist terms (after all, the self and our lack of insight into its true nature is a central concern of Buddhism) but you chose not to do so. Which in turn cements my view that the Stone isn't a public philosophical forum but a propaganda vehicle for Euro-American ethnobeliefs. Just to be clear, I am not a Buddhist.
28
Yet someone reading this article, who knew nothing about either historical Buddhism or Western philosophy, would have learned much more about the former than the latter. A lot of that reflects poorly on European (if not also American) colonial behavior. While it may have been culturally appropriate to cite Buddhist philosophers in place of (or in addition to) Kant, do you have any disagreement with the ideas of Kant's that are actually used in the piece?
5
#Rahesh: You might usefully refresh your reading of this essay. In particular, the following lines seem to contradict a core criticism you offered here that by citing Kant the authors have ignored eastern thinkers:
"Buddhist thinkers have typically emphasized that there is a profound difference between merely assenting to a belief (for example, that all sentient beings deserve compassion) and actually living in ways informed by that belief. To be really changed by a belief regarding one’s relationship to all other beings, one must cultivate that belief — one must come to experience it as vividly real — through the disciplined practices of the Buddhist path."
"What I find problematic is that in a column explicitly about philosophy, the only philosopher cited in an article about a non-European tradition with an exceptionally long philosophical lineage is a European: Immanuel Kant."
It's not problematic for me. Kant's observation is helpful in elucidating why compassion -- and forgiveness -- are so often difficult. I'm very appreciative for this insight.
1
As a long time member of Soka Gakkai International (SGI), a lay organization of Nichiren Buddhism, I find the author's premise essentially correct.
We are all human beings who, moment to moment, experience many different life states. The purpose of our Buddhist practice is to challenge our more base impulses and polish our lives by helping others (this is the process of "Human Revolution" as defined by the SGI's president, Daisaku Ikeda).
As has been mentioned in other comments, many Americans purport to believe in the teachings of Jesus, who advocated offering one's other cheek if a perpetrator struck the other one. Yet, our human impulse is to strike back when struck. As Buddhists, we are seeking to change that dynamic entirely and build a more peaceful world that truly respects the dignity of all human beings.
52
Wonderful, illuminating article - lots to think about.
10
A giggle is, the often mentioned in Thailand regarding not killing, that taking a fish out of water doesn't kill it. It simply dies.
5
Yes, I am one of the many who did have this consternation about the Buddhists' extreme violence in Myanmar, and found this article extremely enlightening. As usual, roots of major grievances can be traced to the Imperialist West, with its usurpation of so many native societies. Shame on us, the original perpetrators.
7
You can hardly blame the west, this has been going on for centuries and also happens in countries that did not have colonial experience. Please, read and open your mind.
1
Yes, the entire area was violence-free until the Westerners showed up. What a shame. Our ignorance, that is.
1
You wouldn't be surprised by what's happening in Myanmar if you knew the other side of the story as to what pushed the Buddhists to viciously retaliate with such force.
&Your western mainstream media will most likely never report it.
1
This article is full of wisdom and I very much appreciate its presence in the Times. Many or most of us sometimes fall for the much too simplistic notion that belief y leads inevitably to behavior x. Life, and human motivations, are far too complex to make that true.
Still, wouldn't it be correct to say that when it comes to behavior both good and horrendously tragic, religious beliefs have often been a primary or major motivator and that without those beliefs, many events would not have occurred?
When it comes to behavior, in other words, isn't conviction that one has "The Way," and that "The Way" has been provided by a supernatural overseer often the tree trunk that breaks the camel's back?
Not to pick on Muslims, but would there be an ISIS without Islam?
Would there have been a 9/11 without Islam?
Wouldn't, say, the intractable situation in the Middle East be more easily solved sans the convictions of three religions' adherents that each one should have precedence over the other and that a Supreme Being has willed it so?
38
No mention of the long, long history of Christianity & violence in the name of Christianity?
1
I'd like to see where the Jews said they should have preference over anyone. If the warring parties laid down their arms today that would be the end of it. Maybe read about Judaism first before forming an opinion.
The problem is religious tribalism. Only by respecting all life and imposing laws based on foundational principles will tragedies be prevented. There's no sense in debating the merits of Buddhism when those who are ethnic Buddhist defend their turf with violence. I have found the woo woo crowd here embrace the so called spiritual practices of the east and imbue them with almost magical qualities. If you want to find your true moral north live with a simple principle of love and kindness.
65
What Karen wrote, except more Quaker-y.
(I love that she is writing from a town called Commerce.)
The failings of one Buddhist does not discredit the practice of another's. To "live with a simple principle of love and kindness" is a pretty nice description of the reason for non-dogmatic Buddhist practice. Thank you…
2
Karen, I agree with your first sentence, but am disturbed by the logic of your third. Is it wise to assert that the bad behavior of a group of people who claim to follow a given teaching makes an assessment of the value of that teaching useless? I fear your argument lets us all of the hook too easily. Also, your denigration of "the woo woo crowd" feels to me like the kind of tribalism you yourself lament. I fear I might be one of these people you are belittling! It seems the important questions, once we push past our superficial reactions to how a group of people talks, dresses (or maybe smells), should be: what teaching are these people following? How are they following it? Are their actions beneficial to themselves and others? I agree with your conclusion: love and kindness are what matter.
1
Any reading of the Koran would contradict how "perception of Buddhism" might contribute to a negative view of Muslims as "less than full citizens." The authors disparage views such as, Stephen Batchelor, who has written that Buddhism is becoming more a culture of practice and mindfulness rather than a religion. How Buddhist history in colonial Burma has contributed to its current support of the violence in Myanmar does not render the world-wide practice of mindfulness and Buddhist teachings (in all their variety) into bland irrelevance, as the authors imply.
8
One might suggest that these authors commit themselves to this blandly irrelevant practice and experience how it could change their days.
This is generally a good article that "nails" the stereotyping of Buddhism and Buddhists, and some of its origins - stereotyping that exists both inside and outside Buddhism. It's weak point is at the end where it blames the stereotyping, the actions of the Burmese, and some other anti-Muslim thinking, all on colonialism... Yes, colonialism helped lay the groundwork. But for each of these there are many contributing factors. Above all, those who commit wrongs are responsible for them. It is such a common trope to find the cause of all wrongs in a single factor like colonialism - source of all evil. This avoids putting responsiblity on those actually DO the negative acts...
101
So true
The real reason for some anti-Muslim thought is some Buddhist countries is because Afghanistan, Tarim Basin(Xinjiang) China, Central Asia, &many parts of Pakistan were Buddhist lands before Muslims invaded & forcefully converted everyone to Islam.
& when Muslims invaded India, they even burned down "Nalanda" the most famous Buddhist monastery in the world.
Combined with present day Muslims frequent habit of waging war for a seperate country for themselves almost every time their popular reaches past a certain percentage.
3
Religion has become a source of nationalist self-identification, rather than being rooted in the religious doctrines themselves. It is only one more way of differentiating ourselves from others, and establishing a hierarchy of value. When Hindus fight Muslims do they do it because their religion tells them so? Not at all. Rather, they are defending their turf based on conceptions of the inferiority of the other. In America, we should understanding the basic underlying premises that promote this kind of behavior.
57
Was religion not always a source of artificially imposed, nationalistic self-idenfication, another tool used by the ruling elite to corral and police the servile masses. Why and how was Judaism used to unite the 12 tribes under David and Solomon? Why else did the Roman Empire adopt its offshoot, Christianity, as the state religion of the revitalized, more centralized empire centered in Constantinople? Why did the Arab hordes force conversion to Islam within their spreading empire? Why else?
2
The authors’ pointing out the “profound difference between merely assenting to a belief... and actually living in ways informed by that belief,” brought to mind Bill Maher’s remark about most American Christians, that they’re not actually “followers” of Jesus, but rather, merely, “fans” of Jesus. An observation that, sad to say, apparently cuts all ways.
264
The authors write "To be really changed by a belief regarding one’s relationship to all other beings, one must cultivate that belief — one must come to experience it as vividly real — through the disciplined practices of the Buddhist path."
Actually, the one thing that makes the Buddha's teaching different from all other religions is that we would be wise not to cling to, or hold fast to, any belief whatsoever. Holding on to beliefs is the problem. To do so is to dwell in the conceptual aspect of our experience, which is ultimately illusory. Were the people of Myanmar to fully understand the teachings of the Buddha they would be free of all fear, hatred and anger, because fear hatred and anger arise out of clinging to illusory beliefs about reality.
But they shouldn't be blamed for not understanding the Buddha's teachings. They are extraordinarily subtle, and they go directly against our common sense way of the seeing the world––which sees the world as being divided into separately existing things that remain themselves over time. Overcoming this delusion is, unfortunately, a rarity.
40
Last September when speaking to some journalists in North India about the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar, the Dalai Lama said this:
"They should remember, Buddha, in such circumstances, Buddha (would have) definitely helped those poor Muslims. So, still I feel that (it's) so very sad ... so sad," he told reporters. But fellow Nobel Laureate Aung San Suu Kyi would not do the same, that is politics.
61
There are some very valid points the article makes. The fact that from the time of the Buddha the Buddhist discipline (vinaya) is the primary means by which the tradition has sought to cultivate the ideas of non-violence and compassion central to its teachings. That very fact recognizes that it is easy to talk "peace" than it is to be "peaceful" (dukha-nirodha). That one does not, somehow, become free of "defilements" (kilesha-nirodha) simply because one adopts a ritual, a role, or a religious belief.
However, there are some very important ways in which Buddhist tradition (as well as Jaina tradition) differs from Abrahamic systems like Islam. Neither the exemplars (like the Sakyamuni Buddha or the Jain Tirthankars) nor their teachings condone violence - especially taking of life - on any grounds ! There is no excuse of a "righteous war" or "Self defence". That even such clear precept and example cannot prevent humans who claim to follow them shows how prone we are to violence and how quickly we make excuses to justify them. The Buddha and the Buddhist tradition, like the article indicates, recognize this and provide a path out of it. I am not sure if other religious tradition - especially of the Abrahamic variety - do that. Whether that, statistically, changes outcomes too much at level of lay populations in debatable, but still, it is a point to be kept in mind!
7
The seeming paradox of love and compassion within groups, but violence directed outward toward others, derives from our evolved psychology as individuals, and as participants in the evolved cultures of human groups, that are both in part adaptations to compete against others. We thus celebrate the kindness of kin and those of our kinds and stigmatize the cruelty of outsiders while blind to our own directed toward them. Organized Buddhism will not escape this 'karma' until it recognizers it for what it is.
6
This is a brilliant article. It is high time this was laid out for the public. The illusions regarding Buddhism are rife in the west these days leading to fantasies
about there being somewhere we can look for perfection in this world where we produce so much suffering for ourselves and others.
Thank you for this.
See The Taming of the Demons by Jacob Dalton for a close academic look at the origins of Tibetan Buddhism.
Thank you both.
31
There is "perfection in this world", Kate, depending on how one perceives "perfection". When we define it in the limits of Human Time and Human Space ("suffering for ourselves and others"), it can be a difficult concept. When we step back, the view changes. There are misguided, dogmatic-based Buddhists just as there are misguided, dogmatic-based "followers" of other practices.
"Once in a while we get shown the light in the strangest of places if we look at it right." Jerry Garcia
Buddhism forbids all forms of violence, even in extreme cases of self-defense, that does not mean all Buddhists are nonviolent or closely follow Buddha's teachings of "ahimsa" or nonviolence that include many Buddhist monks. Sri Lanka's tragic civil war is a good example in recent history. Jesus Christ preached nonviolence but many Christians are not and many Christian countries are violent. Look at the gun violence in America, How many Christians are practicing the nonviolent philosophy of Jesus in this country?The Republican party is overwhelmingly white and Christian but they do not want gun control. The problem is not any religion but politics, politics should not be mixed with religion. Just because a country is Buddhist, do not expect that people there are going to be pacifists.
92
Padman, Americans have embraced Buddhist inspired practices by busloads and boatloads. Especially Jewish Americans who form the bulk of Buddhist teacher leaders of some kind. Yet, America remains the most violent nation on earth given its military engagements outside its borders and its high violent crime related to mass gun killings, within its borders. Everywhere else in developed countries people are scratching their collective heads, how did Americans get it so Wrong! What is the point of Buddhist retreats, yoga studios, feigning to instill inner peace, when outwardly Americans remain stubbornly gun clinging. Americans watch violent shows on TV and movies for entertainment. They allow their young impressionable toddlers to be exposed to violent video games, just for distraction, to keep them off the parents hair and hands!!
2
Forbids? Who's the enforcer?
1
True contemplative practice has as its goal awakening from the delusion that we are separate. When we begin to see through this cloud of delusive separation, genuine compassion naturally emerges. It is one thing to identify with Buddhism as yet another label that separates you from others. It is quite another thing to practice the backward step and realize our truly interdependent and inseparable nature.
160
It is the only tradition I know of that considers attachment even to itself as a fetter and as a hindrance ! Of course, a monk will probably be happy to reach that level of advancement where the "dhamma" itself is a barrier to "dukha nirodha" or "nirvana" but it shows how clear-eyed the tradition and its teachings are, and how persistently and profoundly they speak of the negative consequences of such attachments (including, sadly, violence against humans in its name.)
18
This is a beautifully written comment. It reminds me very much of a verse from the Bhagavad Gita:
Seeing himself as in all others
And all others as in himself
He does not harm himself by himself
Thank you
1
If you find the Buddha. Kill the Buddha. I think thus I am conscious. The “I” is an illusion. Following the path will result in the loss of the “I” and ego. Temporarily. In that mental state I find I do not need them to function well.
1