The violent Buddhists or violent Buddhism, the unspoken reality!

[firedragon]

Well, some would consider it ironic that some Christian missionaries including St. Philip de las Casas along with an Indian missionary were "crucified" by Buddhist persecutors in Japan as early as the 16th century, in Nagasaki, not that close but close to where the bomb fell. They were named saints for their martyrdom. Many many Christian missionaries were killed by the Japanese regime, in the name pf Buddhism.

The general Buddhist Panchaseela, or the five tenets/humble practices or how ever you wish to translate it is this.

1. Panathipaathaa veramani sikka padan samaadhiyaami
2. Adhinnaadaana Veramani ......
3. Kamesumichchachara veramani....
4. Musawaadhaa veramani
5. Surameraya majjapama dhattaanaa

No killing the living, no stealing things, no fornication, no lying, no intoxication.

Well, its very simple. This is a summation of what Buddhists should typically live by, but in general practice they take a vow on regular basis in a temple or at a ceremony to behave this way for a particular time at least. The point is, these are the precepts. But then again, the revival of Buddhism in countries have been used for revolutions, fighting back, persecutions, bigotry, murder, mass murder, riots, etc etc.

Quoting a "historical Buddha" which is actually a perceived historical buddha, the clergy if needed would say that the Buddha never preached Ahimsa to the rulers because war and violence was a given. Thus, from a Buddhist perspective this discourse does appear where in times of difficulty or suffering (Dhukka) what you would called "righteous or just wars" are perfectly permitted. Well, at least this is how those who wish to propagate some political drama would portray Buddhism as when the time comes. This type of thought was used to fight against foreign invasion like of the British empire which of course the British crushed like mosquitoes and called them terrorists, but they used Buddhism to spring up courage in their fellow country men to fight against the Gun Wielding britisher. Yet now, in countries like Burma, Sri Lanka and Thailand they are using it for their more violent political agenda against non-Buddhists or non-nationalists as they coin it predominantly.

Can such a passive philosophy like this be transformed to act monstrously? How does one think? What else could be transformed into pacifism and militancy so malleably?

 

[JustGeorge]

Can such a passive philosophy like this be transformed to act monstrously? How does one think? What else could be transformed into pacifism and militancy so malleably?

A violent person will seek out a violent way of interpreting things. This is not limited to scriptures, but all areas of life. They will see other people as being a threat, because they have within them that 'threat' that they imagine. They will pick out any grain of hatred in something they read or experience, because that is what appeals to them.

Likewise, a peaceful person will interpret things in a peaceful and loving manner.

 

[Windwalker]

Can such a passive philosophy like this be transformed to act monstrously? How does one think? What else could be transformed into pacifism and militancy so malleably?

Yes. Just look at how Christianity acted monstrously throughout history. Hell, even today, so-called Christians have declared a war on culture. War is violence. Not the way of Jesus, yet, here they are, hating and even killing others that are different than themselves, all the while praising the Lord and thanking Jesus for their violence.

See long prayer to Jesus by those who violently, and lethally stormed the Capitol building, beginning at 7:55 second mark:

 

[Secret Chief]

Can such a passive philosophy like this be transformed to act monstrously?

Are you saying Buddhism is passive?

How does one think?

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are asking...?

What else could be transformed into pacifism and militancy so malleably?

Are you saying the Buddha promoted pacifism?

 

[King Phenomenon]

Yes. Just look at how Christianity acted monstrously throughout history. Hell, even today, so-called Christians have declared a war on culture. War is violence. Not the way of Jesus, yet, here they are, hating and even killing others that are different than themselves, all the while praising the Lord and thanking Jesus for their violence.

Without religions violence would still exist unfortunately. It’s quite possible it could even be worse. It’s a nice little place to put the blame

 

[firedragon]

Are you saying the Buddha promoted pacifism?

I believe that Buddhism teaches a pacifistic philosophy.

 

[sun rise]

Can such a passive philosophy like this be transformed to act monstrously? How does one think?

What else could be transformed into pacifism and militancy so malleably?

@JustGeorge summed it up for me. Another way of saying it is that most people don't really take their religions seriously enough to have their behavior modified by their purported beliefs.

What happened in Japan is of course not unique.

In the US, we have a perfect example of how a scripture can be used two ways - by those who refused to go to war based on religion and those who went to war based on religion. We also had both sides of the Civil War use the Bible.

Of course, that scripture and others such as the Quran can be cited to prove whatever someone seeks to prove.

In Japan, there's a significant connection between Bushido, the way of the Samurai, and Zen Buddhism although other beliefs also were part of Japan at the time.

As to it being "monstrous" as asserted in the OP, wikipedia notes that the rulers were afraid of Japan becoming a colony with religion as the "tip of the spear". So to them it was a matter of regime survival. China is the current example of how fear of religion motivates rulers.

I've yet to find a more horrible/monstrous execution than done in Britain where those adjudged guilty were hanged, drawn and quartered.

Spoiler: grusome explanation of "drawn"

Drawn means to cut open their stomachs while they were still living the remove their organs.

 

[Windwalker]

Without religions violence would still exist unfortunately. It’s quite possible it could even be worse. It’s a nice little place to put the blame

Believe me, I understand this. But those who are violent, can quite easily be manipulated by religious sentiments. They aren't really awakened spiritually, but are fantacts about their beliefs. They can find the same excuses in Nationalism, and so-called "patriotism", which serves as a rallying cry for their violence. Being told you're on the side of good, is all they need to justify their violence and hatred of others.

True patriots, respect others rights. True Christians, allow for diversity of views. Religion historically, has been used to manipulate the weak in faith, as you can see in that video I linked to in my previous post.

Watch beginning at 7:55

 

[sun rise]

I believe that Buddhism teaches a pacifistic philosophy.

I found a BBC article that has a classic and I believe accurate explanation:

But however any religion starts out, sooner or later it enters into a Faustian pact with state power. Buddhist monks looked to kings, the ultimate wielders of violence, for the support, patronage and order that only they could provide. Kings looked to monks to provide the popular legitimacy that only such a high moral vision can confer.

The result can seem ironic. If you have a strong sense of the overriding moral superiority of your worldview, then the need to protect and advance it can seem the most important duty of all.

Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?

 

[King Phenomenon]

Believe me, I understand this. But those who are violent, can quite easily be manipulated by religious sentiments. They aren't really awakened spiritually, but are fantacts about their beliefs. They can find the same excuses in Nationalism, and so-called "patriotism", which serves as a rallying cry for their violence. Being told you're on the side of good, is all they need to justify their violence and hatred of others.

True patriots, respect others rights. True Christians, allow for diversity of views. Religion historically, has been used to manipulate the weak in faith, as you can see in that video I linked to in my previous post.

Watch beginning at 7:55

What came first? The act or belief?

 

[Windwalker]

What came first? The act or belief?

The heart. The heart comes first. Beliefs come second. Actions come next.

 

[Secret Chief]

I believe that Buddhism teaches a pacifistic philosophy.

Ok. I would say the Buddha promoted non-violence, not pacifism.

 

[sun rise]

The heart. The heart comes first. Beliefs come second. Actions come next.

In the idea, yes.

In many who do not have an awakened heart, the thought is parent to the emotion which is parent to the act.

 

[sun rise]

Ok. I would say the Buddha promoted non-violence, not pacifism.

How do you distinguish between non-violence and pacifism?

 

[Secret Chief]

But however any religion starts out, sooner or later it enters into a Faustian pact with state power.

The Buddha spent most of his life living under the patronage of a king.

 

[Secret Chief]

How do you distinguish between non-violence and pacifism?

I would say that the former is attempting to live causing the least amount of harm, given ones circumstances, pacifism is an ideology of never committing violence in any circumstances for any reason. The Buddha taught no overarching ideology, he didn't tell soldiers or kings to give up their weapons. What I may be able to refrain from, a soldier may not.

 

[firedragon]

I found a BBC article that has a classic and I believe accurate explanation:

But however any religion starts out, sooner or later it enters into a Faustian pact with state power. Buddhist monks looked to kings, the ultimate wielders of violence, for the support, patronage and order that only they could provide. Kings looked to monks to provide the popular legitimacy that only such a high moral vision can confer.

The result can seem ironic. If you have a strong sense of the overriding moral superiority of your worldview, then the need to protect and advance it can seem the most important duty of all.

Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?

Interesting article. I read it.

You see, curiously in this BBC article it writes about a certain king called Dutugemunu in this country called Sri Lanka who apparently took some number of monks to a war against a "non-buddhist" king. Well, it is fact that it is indeed written in the history books, but this war was against an Invader king called Elara from India. Thus, just saying he was non-buddhist is kind of a half truth. I dont know or think that the author intended to mislead anyone, but I do believe these finer details are quite important. There is a lot more to these problems than one learns from the surface.

But good article. Thanks for that Sun Rise.

 

[firedragon]

Ok. I would say the Buddha promoted non-violence, not pacifism.

Can you please explain the difference and what teachings of the Buddha, from which standard or teaching do you get this from?

 

[Secret Chief]

Can you please explain the difference and what teachings of the Buddha, from which standard or teaching do you get this from?

I differentiated in a post above.
As to teachings, Buddhism is a gradual path, it is for the individual, it is not an ideology. This kind of thrust runs through the dhamma. The precepts are intended as goals and /or guides, they are not hard and fast rules. To take killing for instance. It is not possible to live and not kill, albeit perhaps unintentionally. We all can only strive in our own way, guided by the precepts. As I said earlier, the Buddha lived under the patronage of a king, who oversaw wars and punishments for crimes. Sure the Buddha taught against violence but our own circumstances (kamma-phala) impinge on our actions and options.
If you're looking for sutta references I'm probably not your man. Sorry.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Well, some would consider it ironic that some Christian missionaries including St. Philip de las Casas along with an Indian missionary were "crucified" by Buddhist persecutors in Japan as early as the 16th century, in Nagasaki, not that close but close to where the bomb fell. They were named saints for their martyrdom. Many many Christian missionaries were killed by the Japanese regime, in the name pf Buddhism.

The general Buddhist Panchaseela, or the five tenets/humble practices or how ever you wish to translate it is this.

1. Panathipaathaa veramani sikka padan samaadhiyaami
2. Adhinnaadaana Veramani ......
3. Kamesumichchachara veramani....
4. Musawaadhaa veramani
5. Surameraya majjapama dhattaanaa

No killing the living, no stealing things, no fornication, no lying, no intoxication.

Well, its very simple. This is a summation of what Buddhists should typically live by, but in general practice they take a vow on regular basis in a temple or at a ceremony to behave this way for a particular time at least. The point is, these are the precepts. But then again, the revival of Buddhism in countries have been used for revolutions, fighting back, persecutions, bigotry, murder, mass murder, riots, etc etc.

Quoting a "historical Buddha" which is actually a perceived historical buddha, the clergy if needed would say that the Buddha never preached Ahimsa to the rulers because war and violence was a given. Thus, from a Buddhist perspective this discourse does appear where in times of difficulty or suffering (Dhukka) what you would called "righteous or just wars" are perfectly permitted. Well, at least this is how those who wish to propagate some political drama would portray Buddhism as when the time comes. This type of thought was used to fight against foreign invasion like of the British empire which of course the British crushed like mosquitoes and called them terrorists, but they used Buddhism to spring up courage in their fellow country men to fight against the Gun Wielding britisher. Yet now, in countries like Burma, Sri Lanka and Thailand they are using it for their more violent political agenda against non-Buddhists or non-nationalists as they coin it predominantly.

Can such a passive philosophy like this be transformed to act monstrously? How does one think? What else could be transformed into pacifism and militancy so malleably?

You can't have Buddhism without including things like violence and terror. There is no separation but those are rather extreme and indicates things out of harmony.