Let's Bury The Mistaken Notion There Aren't Any Buddhist Terrorists, Okay?

[KittyWampus]

I've noticed several DU'ers say terrorism/extremism is a "Muslim" thing (and maybe Christian) and then insinuate there are no Buddhist extremist or terrorists. This is incorrect-

How An Extremist Buddhist Network Is Sowing Hatred Across Asia:

http://time.com/3090990/how-an-extremist-buddhist-network-is-sowing-hatred-across-asia/


Extremism Rises Among Myanmar Buddhists:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/world/asia/extremism-rises-among-myanmar-buddhists-wary-of-muslim-minority.html?pagewanted=all

[muntrv]

1. I believe Sri Lanka had Buddhist extremists during its civil war.

[samsingh]

2. i don't hear about too many attacks from them

[KittyWampus]

3. you don't hear about too many abducted black children either...

[Avalux]

4. Then they're not buddhist. Extremism can occur anywhere, in any group.

A religion or philosophy that's been twisted into a vehicle of persecution and violence is no longer as labeled.

In the cases you use as examples, these monks (or posers) may call themselves buddhists, but hatred of other people and acts of violence have nothing to do with buddhism.

In fact, the words "extremism" and "buddhism" together are an oxymoron. Buddhism is the middle way; the path of moderation.

That may be why some DUers think there aren't any.

[KittyWampus]

5. Well, then DU'ers begin the "No true Scotsman fallacy".

[Avalux]

8. I don't know what that is. Care to explain? n/t

[Electric Monk]

12. No True Scotsman

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/No_True_Scotsman

No True Scotsman is a logical fallacy by which an individual attempts to avoid being associated with an unpleasant act by asserting that no true member of the group they belong to would do such a thing; this fallacy also applies to defining a term or criteria biasedly as to defend it from counterargument which can be identified as a biased, persuasive, or rhetorical definition. Instead of acknowledging that some members of a group have undesirable characteristics, the fallacy tries to redefine the group to exclude them. Sentences such as "all members of X have desirable trait Y" then become tautologies, because Y becomes a requirement of membership in X.

[Avalux]

18. Interesting, thanks. n/t

[Fred Sanders]

22. So No False Scotsman would be painting an entire group by the actions of a few? The opposite but

similar logical fallacy? Not actually sure either are actual logical fallacies, more like both lack common sense.

[linuxman]

14. Here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

[m-lekktor]

13. exactly. nt

[NewDeal_Dem]

28. buddhism has been lots of things over its history.

Prof. Jerryson writes in Monks With Guns: Discovering Buddhist Violence of armed Buddhist monks in Thailand. He notes that the West’s romantic view of Buddhism shields an extensive and historical dimension to Buddhist traditions: violence.

Armed Buddhist monks in Thailand are not an exception to the rule; they are contemporary examples of a long historical precedence. For centuries monks have been at the helm, or armed in the ranks, of wars. How could this be the case? But more importantly, why did I (and many others) hold the belief that Buddhism=Peace (and that other religions, such as Islam, are more prone to violence)?

He then answers his own question:

It was then that I realized that I was a consumer of a very successful form of propaganda. Since the early 1900s, Buddhist monastic intellectuals such as Walpola Rahula, D. T. Suzuki, and Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, have labored to raise Western awareness of their cultures and traditions. In doing so, they presented specific aspects of their Buddhist traditions while leaving out others.

It should be clear that such “propaganda” need not necessarily be construed as something sinister. Proponents of other religions–including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam–will, for obvious reasons, often give a positive spin to their faith traditions. Many Buddhists believe their history to be relatively peaceful, because they view their religion to be so. This is no different than Muslims claiming that Islam is “the religion of peace”.

Buddhism’s relative inconspicuousness shields it from the harshest blows of public criticism. Case in point: the Bible and the Quran are well-known and easily accessible to the public. Finding the violent verses in them is just a click away on the internet. Meanwhile, Buddhist scriptural sources are more obscure, at least to the average Westerner. Most people don’t even know what scriptures Buddhists follow, let alone what is contained within them.

As a consequence, many modern-day Buddhists believe that their scriptural sources are in fact devoid of violence, that this is a problem only of the Bible or the Quran. But, Prof. Stephen Jenkins points out that this is just not the case. In fact, “Buddhist kings had conceptual resources [in the religious texts] at their disposal that supported warfare, torture, and harsh punishments.” [2]

For example, the Nirvana Sutra, a canonical Buddhist text, narrates a story about one of Buddha’s past lives: in it, he kills some Hindus (Brahmins) because they insulted the Buddhist sutras (scriptures):

The Buddha…said…”When I recall the past, I remember that I was the king of a great state…My name was Senyo, and I loved and venerated the Mahayana sutras…When I heard the Brahmins slandering the vaipulya sutras, I put them to death on the spot. Good men, as a result of that action, I never thereafter fell into hell. O good man! When we accept and defend the Mahayana sutras, we possess innumerable virtues.” [3]

Porf. Paul Demieville writes:

We are told that the first reason [to put the Brahmins to death] was out of pity [for them], to help the Brahmans avoid the punishment they had accrued by committing evil deeds while continuously slandering Buddhism. [4]

Here we arrive at a disturbing theme found in Buddhist thought: “compassionate killing”. Killing is normally forbidden because it is done with evil intent (hatred, vengeance, etc.), but if it is done with “compassion”, it becomes something permissible, even praiseworthy.

The Buddhist does the unbeliever a favor by killing him, “an act of charity”:



http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/07/warrior-monks-the-untold-story-of-buddhist-violence-i/

[JI7]

6. part of it is it is seen as issues within the those countries

and it's not really a threat to places like the united states, europe etc.

[JHB]

7. Everyone forgets that a lot of samurai were Buddhists n/t

[Avalux]

16. Yes.

The philosophy (I prefer this term as there's no diety) morphed and splintered over centuries from the original teachings, as it spread through Asia. In Japan, it was really only practiced by the elite and the warriors (or, their version of it).

Zen Buddhism was popular with the Samurai because it was a powerful tool to keep fear of death at bay.

Unfortunately Buddhism has not been immune from adaptation, and has been used for other purposes than attaining enlightenment.

[Coventina]

21. Buddhism does not forbid violence. It only calls for compassion.

It might sound contradictory, but it really is not.

What is the most compassionate action to take?

Sometimes, it is an action that requires violence.

A favorite example is to imagine an opportunity to kill Hitler.

Killing Hitler would be violent, but prevent more violence from taking place. It is the more compassionate action. Also, you are preventing him from further incurring more karmic debt, than if left to his own devices.

The philosophy of Zen Buddhism recognized this, and it was adapted into warrior culture.

Being the best warrior you could be could reduce violence. Although, it was always recognized that there would be a karmic debt to be paid.

There are no "get out of jail free" cards in Buddhism.

[NewDeal_Dem]

29. there's violence in the history of indian buddhism violence in the history of chinese buddhism

violence in the history of Buddhism generally, up to the present day.

you're saying something like 'only the original, newborn Buddhism is the true buddhism'

like we could recognize that true ancient Buddhism even if it were the case.

the emperor ashoka, convert to Buddhism, supposedly ordered the murder of 100,000s of jains for disrespecting Buddhism. "non-violent' Buddhism was intertwined with the state and state violence almost at the foundation, just like Christianity, another 'non-violent' religion.

[MohRokTah]

9. There is no religion on the face of the planet immune from extremism.

That's the nature of religions.

[nichomachus]

17. I know I'm terrified of those Unitarian terrorists

They kidnap you, tie you up, and force you to be in a discussion group on world peace. Horrifying.

And don't get me started on those terrorist Quakers.

[MohRokTah]

19. Because obviously no Unitarian or Quaker is in prison.

Nixon was an avowed Quaker.

[nichomachus]

20. I don't even know what that means

So everyone who is in prison is a terrorist? Mind numbingly stupid statement.

[LanternWaste]

32. Nature of humanity... to be a wee bit more accurate.

Nature of humanity... to be a wee bit more accurate-- that nature often rationalized or justified by religion, politics, nationalism, philosophy, or any of the vast hosts of imaginary constructs we all of base tend to base our daily lives on.

[Coventina]

10. Every religion has bad actors. I've defended Buddhism on many occaisions here on DU but never

claimed that Buddhism is violence-free or without radicals and extremists who engage in terrorism.

One thing to note about the two movements you mention: They are both very tightly tied to nationalism.
Their violence and terrorism is focused on minorities that they see as a threat to their own religion, culture, and homeland.

IT IS WRONG AND I AM NOT EXCUSING IT!

However, it is a very different kind of conflict than, say, fatwas calling for death on authors, artists, publishers, etc. who "insult" the Buddha or his teachings.

One is a sort of conflict that has been going on since different groups of humans began living together.
The other is a fight against modernism, secularism, and free thought.

It's two very different sorts of conflicts. So, I think this might be why many think that "Buddhist terrorism" doesn't exist. It actually doesn't - on an international scale. (Though, that could change, Buddhists are as corruptible as any other human beings).

I practice compassion for all victims of violence, and decry the suffering of all of them.

My religion is kindness.
- His Holiness, the Dalai Lama

[JI7]

26. yes, i think this is why islam stands out. it's not just within their own countries

it's some old person in the US saying he is going to burn the quran and people in other places start start getting violence over it.

[NewDeal_Dem]

30. the emperor ashoka had hundreds of thousands of jains murdered because one of them

disrespected Buddhism.

I think these arguments about which religion is violent, which isn't, are pointless. they all have been, at some point in history.


The militant side of Thai Buddhism became prominent again in 2004 when a Malay Muslim insurgency renewed in Thailand's deep south. Since January 2004, the Thai government has converted Buddhist monasteries into military outposts and commissioned Buddhist military monks and give support for Buddhist vigilante squads (Jerryson 2011, 114-141).[2]

The oldest militant organisation active in (Burma) is Democratic Karen Buddhist Army (DKBA), headed by a Buddhist monk U Thuzana, since 1992.[7] In the recent years the monks, and the terrorist acts, are associated with the 969 Movement particularly in Myanmar and neighboring nations.[8][9] "969" refers to numbers associated with the Buddha, his teachings and monkhood (also known as Bhikkhu). As of 2012, the "969" movement by monks had helped create anti-Islamic nationalist movements in the region, and have urged Myanmar Buddhists to boycott Muslim services and trades, resulting in persecution of Muslims in Burma and Buddhist mob calls for a Muslim extermination.

Buddhist violence in Myanmar are the ethnic terror attacks, particularly against the Rohingya people and other Muslims in the region. The terror attacks were motivated by Buddhist monks (the prominent among whom is Wirathu) with the creation of the 969 Movement.[11] The violence reached prominence in June 2012 when more than 200 people were killed and around 100,000 were displaced.[12][13] According to the Human Rights Watch report, the Burmese government and local authorities played a key role in the forcible displacement of more than 125,000 Rohingya and other Muslims in the region. The report further specifies the coordinated attacks of October 2012 that were carried out in different cities by Burmese officials, community leaders and Buddhist monks to terrorize and forcibly relocate the population. The violence of Meiktila, Lashio (2013) and Mandalay (2014) are the latest Buddhist violence in Burma

etc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

[Coventina]

31. The actions of Ashoka would fall under government tyranny, not terrorism.

The OP was about terrorism, not any or all violence.

Of course Buddhists have been violent - they are human beings and humanity is a violent species.

I am very aware of the situation in Thailand - which began with Muslim terrorism. The Buddhists have responded in kind. That isn't right, of course, or enlightened, but it is very human.

I already addressed the situations in Burma and Sri Lanka in the post you responded to, so I would refer you to that rather than repeating myself.

[braddy]

11. It is the scale that matters, when something becomes truly

dangerous and international, then people take notice.

Buddhists terrorism doesn't threaten me.

[linuxman]

15. Wow.

It's almost as if human nature overcomes the imaginary moral straightjacket attributed to followers of ANY religion.

Well I'll be...

And here I was thinking we could just involuntarily convert all of our violent criminal offenders to Buddhism. Problem solved, right?

Fuck. Back to the drawing board.

[Warpy]

24. Well, training in deep meditation has reduced violence

while they're in the joint. Unless they continue it outside, it doesn't do much good after they're released.

[Warpy]

23. Some nominal Buddhists follow it like a folk religion

without any real exposure to the teachings, just like some nominal Christians here follow the folk religion, relying heavily on the myth, without following any of the teachings or even being unaware what those teachings were.

You bet there are Buddhist terrorists. They're just as Buddhist as the KKK and Christian Identity are Christian.

[JI7]

25. like christians who mostly go to church during things like christmas, easter and celebrate those

holidays . they might wear a cross. for things like weddings, funerals they will have the ceremony through their church.

and the buddhists who mostly like to hang prayer flags, meditate , and all the other fun stuff.

i actually think the above situations are ok as it is often just part of tradition and harmless. and it's good they don't take things too seriously.

[NewDeal_Dem]

27. along with the fantasy that buddhism is a non-violent religion.