Buddhism and violence

[Copernicus]

Of all the religions in the world, Buddhism has always struck me as the least likely to spawn civil violence. That does not mean that Buddhists are less likely to engage in movements of civil disobedience, but the religion itself does not seem to carry with it the same kind of extreme authoritarianism that you get with more god-based religions. (Most Buddhists are at least nominal theists, but the religion itself does not officially promote worship of gods.)

Occasionally, though, we do hear of sectarian violence that involves Buddhists committing violence, and even atrocities. The latest story about clashes between Buddhists and Muslims in Burma is a case in point. How do Buddhists who engage in such violence rationalize it? Is there any doctrinal basis for committing acts of violence, as there seems to be in Christian (i.e. "just wars") and Muslim (i.e. "jihad") doctrines?

 

[Nooj]

The Japanese Buddhist schools (Zen, Nichiren, Pure Land) supported Imperial Japan and they theologised righteous violence. Brian Daizen Victoria has an interesting book called 'Zen at War' about it.

It's not at all clear that Buddhism is actually opposed to a just war or even religious violence. For ordained Buddhist monks, it's stated in the Vinaya that they should not kill. But what about the vast majority of Buddhists, the lay people who do not live in a monastery?

What about self-defense? Should the Chinese Buddhists not have fought back against the Japanese invaders?

 

[Chisti]

The Buddha never advocated self-defense or just war doctrine. He was an absolute pacifist.

 

[Caladan]

There are several instances that I know of in which Buddhists are engaged in violence, including monks in East Asia. It may include inter-ethnic tensions and ethnic cleansing in Bhutan, or even Thai monks arming themselves with guns and openly discussing sectarian tension with Muslims, Sri Lanka Buddhist monks violence against Muslims, I also know of a case in which a Thai monk was involved in leading a children sex slavery ring. No religion seems to be without violence or strife in the real world, beyond ideals, this includes Buddhism. All religious doctrines at the end can justify ethnic tensions and social strife, especially in underdeveloped regions which have suffered from neglect.

 

[Chisti]

There are several instances that I know of in which Buddhists are engaged in violence, including monks in East Asia. It may include inter-ethnic tensions and ethnic cleansing in Bhutan, or even Thai monks arming themselves with guns and openly discussing sectarian tension with Muslims, Sri Lanka Buddhist monks violence against Muslims, I also know of a case in which a Thai monk was involved in leading a children sex slavery ring. No religion seems to be without violence or strife in the real world, beyond ideals, this includes Buddhism. All religious doctrines at the end can justify ethnic tensions and social strife, especially in underdeveloped regions which have suffered from neglect.

Buddha never taught violence.

 

[Caladan]

Buddha never taught violence.

Neither did Jesus. But both Christianity and Buddhism have been historically and presently engaged in strife.

 

[DreadFish]

As is generally the case, some people are violent or greedy or hateful. And in these cases, somtimes these people who are violent or greedy or hatefull, are also Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, or Hindus.

The cases with Japan are not explemplary of Buddhism because, like with many other religious institutions, the temples in Japan have had a history of political association. Likewise, the Japanese culture has a history of violent inclinations. In the feudal era, temples had armies of "sohei" warrior monks who sometimes battled along side certain clans.

Anyway, institutions have a history of corruption, but the attributed words of Gautama Buddha always recommend against violence:

Spoiler: Lots of quotes

A man may plunder as long as it serves his ends, but when others are plundered, he who has plundered gets plundered in turn. A fool thinks, 'Now's my chance,' as long as his evil has yet to ripen. But when it ripens, the fool falls into pain. Killing, you gain your killer. Conquering, you gain one who will conquer you; insulting, insult; harassing, harassment. And so, through the cycle of action, he who has plundered gets plundered in turn.
— SN 3.15

And how is one made impure in three ways by bodily action? There is the case where a certain person takes life, is brutal, bloody-handed, devoted to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. He takes what is not given. He takes, in the manner of a thief, things in a village or a wilderness that belong to others and have not been given by them. He engages in sensual misconduct. He gets sexually involved with those who are protected by their mothers, their fathers, their brothers, their sisters, their relatives, or their Dhamma; those with husbands, those who entail punishments, or even those crowned with flowers by another man. This is how one is made impure in three ways by bodily action... — AN 10.176

The first precept:
I undertake the training rule to refrain from taking life.
— Khp 2

"A monk who has been accepted should not deprive a living being of life, even if it is only a black or white ant. Any monk who purposely deprives a human being of life, even to the extent of causing an abortion, is not a contemplative, not a son of the Sakyan.
"Just as a solid block of stone broken in two cannot be joined together again, in the same way a monk who has purposely deprived a human being of life is not a contemplative, not a son of the Sakyan. You are not to do this for the rest of your life."
— Mv I.78.2

There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans.
— AN 8.39

So, point being, no taking life according to the teachings

 

[Caladan]

Thumbs up for using a spoiler when quoting the relevant verses from the scriptures.
In regards to verses or the ideal founder of a faith in the distant past, on many occasion there is a world of difference between the mythological ideal and reality as we know it, including in matters of gender issues, politics, ethnic tensions, etc.
Buddhism has not been free from criticism of gender inequality, ethnic strife, ethnic cleansing in places in which Buddhism is state religion, and other cases. This is the naked reality, beyond the ideal. And in this case, it doesn't help anyone to try to build a case by saying 'Buddha never taught violence'.

 

[DreadFish]

Thumbs up for using a spoiler when quoting the relevant verses from the scriptures.
In regards to verses or the ideal founder of a faith in the distant past, on many occasion there is a world of difference between the mythological ideal and reality as we know it, including in matters of gender issues, politics, ethnic tensions, etc.
Buddhism has not been free from criticism of gender inequality, ethnic strife, ethnic cleansing in places in which Buddhism is state religion, and other cases. This is the naked reality, beyond the ideal. And in this case, it doesn't help anyone to try to build a case by saying 'Buddha never taught violence'.

Just for clarification, I dont intend to build a case, Im simply answering the OP:

How do Buddhists who engage in such violence rationalize it? Is there any doctrinal basis for committing acts of violence, as there seems to be in Christian (i.e. "just wars") and Muslim (i.e. "jihad") doctrines?

There is not a doctrinal basis for violence or any other harmful action in Gautama Buddha's teaching. Any violence commited by a Buddhist is of their own volition as an intelligent being under the influence of various conditions.

Personally, I look at the teaching of Gautama Buddha as the teaching of Gautama Buddha (which I consider to be very relevant to anyone), and Buddhism as Buddhism (which is not always relevant to anyone). If someone is following the teaching, they will not commit harmful actions, but plenty of people might commit harmful actions in the name of Buddhism.

 

[Chisti]

Neither did Jesus. But both Christianity and Buddhism have been historically and presently engaged in strife.

Then don't blame Christ or Buddha.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Japanese Buddhist schools (Zen, Nichiren, Pure Land) supported Imperial Japan and they theologised righteous violence. Brian Daizen Victoria has an interesting book called 'Zen at War' about it.

It's not at all clear that Buddhism is actually opposed to a just war or even religious violence. For ordained Buddhist monks, it's stated in the Vinaya that they should not kill. But what about the vast majority of Buddhists, the lay people who do not live in a monastery?

What about self-defense? Should the Chinese Buddhists not have fought back against the Japanese invaders?

No revealed religion teaches violence including the teaching of Buddha; and founders of revealed religions without exception were all moderate and rational persons. When attacked aggressively by the evil forces to eliminate them they have a right to justly fight back.

Buddha explained it in a sense.

 

[paarsurrey]

The Buddha never advocated self-defense or just war doctrine. He was an absolute pacifist.

I don't agree with you.

 

[paarsurrey]

Neither did Jesus.

I don't agree with you.

 

[paarsurrey]

If someone is following the teaching, they will not commit harmful actions, but plenty of people might commit harmful actions in the name of Buddhism.

I agree with you.

 

[paarsurrey]

Then don't blame Christ or Buddha.

I agree with you

 

[Nakosis]

If someone is following the teaching, they will not commit harmful actions, but plenty of people might commit harmful actions in the name of Buddhism.

I suspect anyone is capable of letting their emotion/ego get the best of them regardless of who's teaching they are trying to follow.

If you keep seeing people you care about getting hurt, I'd imagine it's difficult to remain a pacifist.

 

[sandandfoam]

If you keep seeing people you care about getting hurt, I'd imagine it's difficult to remain a pacifist.

The difference between non-violence and pacifism is often overlooked.
Non-violence does not require inaction or passivity. It also works.
Of course I don't expect you to agree - so if you feel tempted to invoke Hitler save yourself 10 pages

 

[Caladan]

Then don't blame Christ or Buddha.

You are the only one who is uber-defensive about the Buddha here. The rest of us are discussing Buddhism and Buddhists. Buddha is shrouded in myth and ideals, as opposed to real Buddhists in today's world.

 

[Perseveranze]

Bhuddist probably would cease to exist if they didn't use violence (as a means to defend themselves). They have been pretty easy to conquer I guess.

 

[F0uad]

Last week a bus full of Muslim guys(10) were killed by Buddhist people who thought that one of the guy who raped a women was in there but he wasn't, the rapist wasn't even Muslim after investigation.