Violence in Eastern religions

[IndigoChild5559]

This thread is not meant to bait or degrade any other religions. It simply asks a question that I sincerely want to know the answer to.

Eastern religions have a reputation for being peaceful. But lately, it seems that it is always in the news about violence by Eastern religions.
1. You have violence by Hindus against Sikhs, Christians, and Muslims.
2. You have the ongoing genocide against the Rohingyans committed by the Buddhists of Myanmar.

WHY?

 

[Vinayaka]

Honestly, I don't understand the situation in Myanmar. It seems so stupid, and I can't figure out any good reason. Perhaps there aren't any. I always try to figure out the two sides to the story, but it sure seems one-sided at this point.

Much of the violence in India is retaliatory, (the reason that is given by the perpetrators, often not justified) but individuals do take it to extremes. I see no need for it whatever, yet understand how revenge, especially if played out over several generations is a trait some humans can fall into. Surely there are better ways.

Much violence is retaliatory with the excuse that 'they started it,'. Not valid in my view. Even if they did start it, a better question is, 'Who will end it?"

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Honestly, I don't understand the situation in Myanmar. It seems so stupid, and I can't figure out any good reason. Perhaps there aren't any. I always try to figure out the two sides to the story, but it sure seems one-sided at this point.

Much of the violence in India is retaliatory, (the reason that is given by the perpetrators, often not justified) but individuals do take it to extremes. I see no need for it whatever, yet understand how revenge, especially if played out over several generations is a trait some humans can fall into. Surely there are better ways.

Much violence is retaliatory with the excuse that 'they started it,'. Not valid in my view. Even if they did start it, a better question is, 'Who will end it?"

Myanmar is not a modern democracy. It does not have freedom of religion, speech, etc.

The backdrop is that Myanmar was colonized, and now it is free. It wants to rid itself of all the shreds of colonization. One of the things that happened is that early during the colonial period, the Rohingya migrated to the area and for all practical purposes became part of the landscape. They have now been there for many, many generations. Myanmar is their home. However, the Burmese only want those peoples and those religions around who were there before the colonization. They consider the Rohingyans to be invaders. This part so far makes sense.

What happens after is where the racism and religious persecution takes over. They basically demonize the Rohingyans. Thus, it stops being a matter of what to ethically do when an invader has become part of your landscape for generations, and becomes free fall about all the evil things you are permitted to do to a monster.

 

[sayak83]

This thread is not meant to bait or degrade any other religions. It simply asks a question that I sincerely want to know the answer to.

Eastern religions have a reputation for being peaceful. But lately, it seems that it is always in the news about violence by Eastern religions.
1. You have violence by Hindus against Sikhs, Christians, and Muslims.
2. You have the ongoing genocide against the Rohingyans committed by the Buddhists of Myanmar.

WHY?

Same old reason.
Violent criminals and groups seek to justify their crime in the garb of religion.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This thread is not meant to bait or degrade any other religions. It simply asks a question that I sincerely want to know the answer to.

Eastern religions have a reputation for being peaceful. But lately, it seems that it is always in the news about violence by Eastern religions.
1. You have violence by Hindus against Sikhs, Christians, and Muslims.
2. You have the ongoing genocide against the Rohingyans committed by the Buddhists of Myanmar.

WHY?

Bushido as well. ;0)

It should not come as a surprise considering violence is an aspect of human nature. There's not a single organism in nature that I know of, that isn't prone to that in some capacity.

It's an unrealistic view if a person thinks Eastern religion is for one reason or another immune to our instinctive tendencies as a species to engage in violent actions .

 

[Jainarayan]

WHY

Because humans regardless of religion have a violent streak. They will use it for any or no reason, unfortunately. And as @Vinayaka pointed out, much of it in India is retaliatory. I don’t condone it, but I think I can understand it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

About Rohingyas: They got into the trap of establishing an Islamic nation because of Pan-Islamism and thereby got the beating. They should have made amends with the Buddhists for their previous actions, which also included Buddhist massacres.

About Hindus: Both sides are responsible for conflicts, basically because of local politics. The Hindu party BJP and the the other a pseudo-socialist party SP representing a prosperous powerful land-owning caste (Yadavas) and supported by Muslims. The Hindu party succeeded spectacularly in the 2014 national elections getting 71 seats out of 80. They repeated the success in 2017 by securing 325 seats out of 400 in the Uttar Pradesh state elections. Uttar Pradesh is India's largest state with a population of some 220 million. It is said that whoever wins Uttar Pradesh rules the country.

To defeat the Hindu party, all other parties (all of them dynastic - Indian National Congress of Nehru-Gandhis, Socialist Party of Yadavas and the Bahujan Samaj Party which represents another powerful caste, the Jatavs) are trying to form a common platform. We have the national elections in May 2019. These conflicts are likely to continue at least till that time and perhaps beyond that time too because we will have the State election again in 2022. Democratic politics is a major factor of communal unrest in India.

The fanatic Hindus thought that they have a free hand with a sympathetic government in Delhi and the State. They have indulged in atrocities in the matter of cow-slaughter, which is banned in the state by law. But Muslims have persisted with that to incite the Hindu majority or because of economic reasons. So they are also to be blamed. However, the Indian Supreme Court has come heavily against the lawless lynchings of supposed violators of the cow-slaughter ban by such vigilantes.

 

[DanishCrow]

This thread is not meant to bait or degrade any other religions. It simply asks a question that I sincerely want to know the answer to.

Eastern religions have a reputation for being peaceful. But lately, it seems that it is always in the news about violence by Eastern religions.
1. You have violence by Hindus against Sikhs, Christians, and Muslims.
2. You have the ongoing genocide against the Rohingyans committed by the Buddhists of Myanmar.

WHY?

Try to read Arjunas Doubt from the Upanishads. Essentially, the question of fostering peace vs. fulfilling feudal obligations is very, very old in all religions.

In Arjunas doubt, the hero Arjuna asks Krishna on the eve of a terrible battle between brothers if it's more important to obey his duties as a member of the noble warrior caste (religious law) or to not acquire bad karma by killing other living things (a more compassionate approach), and Krishna scolds him for worrying about the permanence of a single life when his place is to be a warrior. Arjuna is not satisfied with the answer, and continues debating the god.

As such, there are arguments for both sides in hinduism.

The genocide in Myanmar is commited by the Than (spelled?) sect of buddhists, that are strongly co-opted by nationalist militias. In Imperial Japan, an entire sect of Zen-buddhism was turned towards justifying the invasion of China as a supreme example of compassion, since the sect held that the Emperor was a buddha figur! Complete nonsense by a modern buddhist interpretations, but also a good example of how nationalism and hate perverts religious movements even in the East.

It's hard to conclude on, but I would say that the warrior monks and genocidal burmese are people who use religion to persecute their own biases, much like we see it happening everywhere in the west.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's hard to conclude on, but I would say that the warrior monks and genocidal burmese are people who use religion to persecute their own biases, much like we see it happening everywhere in the west.

You are ignoring the massacre of Buddhists by Rohingyas as also of Hindus, who unfortunately get caught in the middle of the Buddhist and Muslim fight.

"The Arakan massacres in 1942 involved communal violence between British-armed V Force Rohingya recruits and pro-Japanese Rakhines, polarizing the region along ethnic lines."
"some Rohingya elders who supported a jihad movement, founded the Mujahid party in northern Arakan in 1947. The aim of the Mujahid party was to create an autonomous Islamic State in Arakan"
Rohingya people - Wikipedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

In Arjunas doubt, the hero Arjuna asks Krishna on the eve of a terrible battle between brothers if it's more important to obey his duties as a member of the noble warrior caste (religious law) or to not acquire bad karma by killing other living things (a more compassionate approach), and Krishna scolds him for worrying about the permanence of a single life when his place is to be a warrior. Arjuna is not satisfied with the answer, and continues debating the god.

Nice that you have studied Gita, and I should say in some detail and given a thought to it.

The question was very simple. Would one do his/her duty or be influenced by the fact that doing that duty will harm a relative? Krishna's answer was clear cut - Don't be influenced by anything, relationships, victory or defeat, loss or gain, praise or blame, happiness or sorrow - just do your duty.

"Sukha-duḥkhe same kṛitvā, lābhālābhau jayājayau;
tato yuddhāya yujyasva, naivaḿ pāpam avāpsyasi." BG 2.38
(Do thou fight for the sake of fighting, without considering happiness or distress, loss or gain, victory or defeat - and by so doing you shall never incur sin.)

"Yoga-sthaḥ kuru karmāṇi, sańgaḿ tyaktvā dhanañjaya;
siddhy-asiddhyoḥ samo bhūtvā, samatvaḿ yoga ucyate." BG 2.48
(Perform your duty equipoised, O Arjuna, abandoning all attachment to success or failure. Such equanimity is called yoga.)

 

[ajay0]

This thread is not meant to bait or degrade any other religions. It simply asks a question that I sincerely want to know the answer to.

Eastern religions have a reputation for being peaceful. But lately, it seems that it is always in the news about violence by Eastern religions.
1. You have violence by Hindus against Sikhs, Christians, and Muslims.
2. You have the ongoing genocide against the Rohingyans committed by the Buddhists of Myanmar.

WHY?

There is also inter-caste strife and violence in India for petty reasons.

Certain people identified with a certain caste due to conditioning look down upon other castes even to the point of conflict and violence. It is a sad but regular occurence in India.

So Hinduism is not a peaceful religion even it may have a reputation for being peaceful.

I would say Jainism is a deeply peaceful religion and I have never heard of conflicts by them of a sectarian or religious nature.

 

[Vinayaka]

There is also inter-caste strife and violence in India for petty reasons.

Certain people identified with a certain caste due to conditioning look down upon other castes even to the point of conflict and violence. It is a sad but regular occurence in India.

So Hinduism is not a peaceful religion even it may have a reputation for being peaceful.

I would say Jainism is a deeply peaceful religion and I have never heard of conflicts by them of a sectarian or religious nature.

I think it is unfair to look at violence without looking at the population of places. Statistical distortion comes into play when you compare a religion of 10 million with one of a billion. The pure number does not show the ratio.

 

[ajay0]

I think it is unfair to look at violence without looking at the population of places. Statistical distortion comes into play when you compare a religion of 10 million with one of a billion. The pure number does not show the ratio.

And what makes you think that all violence is meticulously recorded and documented in India.

 

[Marcion]

In a society that is comparatively economically prosperous and peaceful with a judicial system that works free of corruption and with strong laws against the free use of weapons the private use of force is strongly disapproved of unless used in clear self-defence against an attacker. You can think of countries like Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and Japan that have very low rates of violent crime.

In nations where the judicial system is still corrupt, where there is a lot of poverty and corruption in general there will be more violence, especially sectarian types or violence between religious communities, tribes and competing ideologies but also violence against women etc.. India but also Africa have a lot of this sort of violence just like they have a lot corruption and economic injustices.

The sectarian violence in India is not inherent to the religions or spiritual philosophies coming from India though. India has the highest percentage of vegetarians of any nation and the most sophisticated set of moral rules. Jains even walk around with their brushes and masks so they will not step on any insect or accidentally swallow one and some of them will not even kill any plants for food.
There is also a lot of sectarian violence that is motivated by political opportunism. If you stir up hatred this can help you to win elections eventhough people distrusted your party before the period of violence was started.

On the other hand India and perhaps Africa and South America are also quite "tantric" places compared to the West, there is little room for weakness or dependence on others even if people are handicapped, struggling in general is a part of life and this also means that bad people with bad intentions will sooner use violent force against innocent people.

It seems confusing or contradictory to an outsider (like myself), Brahmins cruely discriminating against lower castes or castless people and yet avoiding even taking onions, red lentils, black tea, mushrooms and garlic to keep their mind free of crudeness.
In that respect most of hinduism has a very crude strike in its caste system and discrimination of women and lacks a strong commitment to supporting people who are vulnerable and disadvantaged. Violence can thrive easier in a society that lacks general compassion (there's a partial parallel here to the same mentality in the USA).

 

[Vinayaka]

And what makes you think that all violence is meticulously recorded and documented in India.

Where did I say that? I don't know where you got it. Obviously not all violence is documented anywhere.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This thread is not meant to bait or degrade any other religions. It simply asks a question that I sincerely want to know the answer to.

Eastern religions have a reputation for being peaceful. But lately, it seems that it is always in the news about violence by Eastern religions.
1. You have violence by Hindus against Sikhs, Christians, and Muslims.
2. You have the ongoing genocide against the Rohingyans committed by the Buddhists of Myanmar.

WHY?

What do you mean “lately?”

 

[DanishCrow]

Nice that you have studied Gita, and I should say in some detail and given a thought to it.

The question was very simple. Would one do his/her duty or be influenced by the fact that doing that duty will harm a relative? Krishna's answer was clear cut - Don't be influenced by anything, relationships, victory or defeat, loss or gain, praise or blame, happiness or sorrow - just do your duty.

"Sukha-duḥkhe same kṛitvā, lābhālābhau jayājayau;
tato yuddhāya yujyasva, naivaḿ pāpam avāpsyasi." BG 2.38
(Do thou fight for the sake of fighting, without considering happiness or distress, loss or gain, victory or defeat - and by so doing you shall never incur sin.)

"Yoga-sthaḥ kuru karmāṇi, sańgaḿ tyaktvā dhanañjaya;
siddhy-asiddhyoḥ samo bhūtvā, samatvaḿ yoga ucyate." BG 2.48
(Perform your duty equipoised, O Arjuna, abandoning all attachment to success or failure. Such equanimity is called yoga.)

Thank you! It's not common among norse heathens, but I'm privileged enough to take a Religion 102 course on the side, where hinduism is on the curriculum. It's really interesting how many parallels can be drawn to my own germanic-nordic sagas in the vedas, puranas and gitas, but perhaps that is for another thread

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahmins cruely discriminating against lower castes or castless people .. discrimination of women and lacks a strong commitment to supporting people who are vulnerable and disadvantaged.

Now that is a evangelist canard. Brahmins are just 4% of the population. Brahmins have no power to persecute anyone, more so in South India, where actually, they are the persecuted. And we have the SC/ST act where just a complaint from SC/ST is enough to put the person in prison (of course, the Supreme court is debating its provisions). That may have been the situation at one time, but now the perpetrators of the violence are not brahmins but Rajputs and the so-called 'Other Backward classes' - Yadavas, Jats, Patels, etc. You would perhaps know better about South India as to who are the persecuted and who are the percutors. What Hinduism was lacking has been done by the Indian Constitution which was formulated by a Hindu majority..

 

[Marcion]

Arundhati Roy has this to say about violence in India and the militarisation of the state, turning it into a Hindu state that surpresses its many minorities and political activists:

Arundhati Roy: The U.S. Is Growing Closer to India Militarily as Modi Expands Crackdown on Dissent | Democracy Now!