Radical Buddhism

[steve_bnk]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-27107857





'...Named as Naomi Michelle Coleman,she arrived on a flight from India on Monday and was arrested at theairport after the tattoo of the Buddha and a lotus flower on herright arm was seen.


She is being held at an immigrationdetention camp until her deportation.


The authorities are tough on perceivedinsults to Buddhism, the religion of the island's majority ethnicSinhalese.


Sri Lanka is particularly sensitiveabout images of Buddha. The authorities regularly take strict actionwith regard to the treatment of the image...




Last March another British tourist wasdenied entry at Colombo's international airport because immigrationofficials said he had spoken "disrespectfully" when askedabout a tattoo of the Buddha on his arm.


He later spoke of his "shock"at the incident, insisting that he himself followed Buddhistteachings and thought a tattoo was an apt tribute. …

 

[The Paul]

...He later spoke of his "shock"at the incident, insisting that he himself followed Buddhistteachings and thought a tattoo was an apt tribute. …

Religious people like to pretend that secularists are oppressing them, but as soon as secularists aren't in charge they start getting actually oppressed.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

More like radical Buddists. Is there anything in Buddhism (Four Noble Truths, Eightfold Path) that could be extrapolated into radicalism?

 

[blastula]

Right, they're not true Buddhists.

 

[boneyard bill]

I think we need to keep in mind that Sri Lanka has just ended decades of civil war between the majority Singhalese, who are Buddhists, and the minority Tamils who are Hindu. In the context of that war, attacks on Buddhism were political acts. I think that probably has a lot more to do with the present situation than any Buddhist fundamentalism or anything like that. To be anti-Buddha in any way could be interpreted as a subversive act.

 

[Underseer]

I think we need to keep in mind that Sri Lanka has just ended decades of civil war between the majority Singhalese, who are Buddhists, and the minority Tamils who are Hindu. In the context of that war, attacks on Buddhism were political acts. I think that probably has a lot more to do with the present situation than any Buddhist fundamentalism or anything like that. To be anti-Buddha in any way could be interpreted as a subversive act.

It's still inexcusable, particularly in light of the horrible things they did to the Tamils.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Right, they're not true Buddhists.

No, no, they can be Buddhists, they can be true Buddhists, but it's not Buddhism that's driving this behavior. They're just being poopy heads.
And there can be buddhist poopyheads, and christain poopyheads, and atheist poopyheads, and muslim poopyheads, and so on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Right, they're not true Buddhists.

Eh? The Bible contains god condoned violence. The Qu'ran contains god condoned violence. The Four Noble Truths and Eightfold path contain no higher deity condoned violence or any kind. Buddhists can clearly be capable of bad acts, but the acts are clearly not condoned by Buddhism itself.

The OP title is about "radical Buddhism". My reflection was how exactly could Buddhism be radicalized towards violence?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Right, they're not true Buddhists.

Eh? The Bible contains god condoned violence. The Qu'ran contains god condoned violence. The Four Noble Truths and Eightfold path contain no higher deity condoned violence or any kind. Buddhists can clearly be capable of bad acts, but the acts are clearly not condoned by Buddhism itself.

The OP title is about "radical Buddhism". My reflection was how exactly could Buddhism be radicalized towards violence?

WTF? Something is "condoned by Buddhism itself" when a Buddhist interprets Buddhist teachings to condone something. It's the same way that Christianity condones democracy and freedom and Islam condones equal rights for women.

If some Buddhist interprets a Buddhist teaching in a way that radicalizes it towards violence, then saying they're not "true" Buddhists is as counter-factual as saying that those who are for/against gay rights aren't "true" Christians. People's interpretations of religious teachings are infinitely more important than what an objective reading of those teachings might or might not say.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

WTF? Something is "condoned by Buddhism itself" when a Buddhist interprets Buddhist teachings to condone something. It's the same way that Christianity condones democracy and freedom and Islam condones equal rights for women.

I'm saying that Buddhism, the two primary docs from it, are impossible to be radicalized towards violence. If someone takes violent actions, it is based on something entirely unrelated.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

WTF? Something is "condoned by Buddhism itself" when a Buddhist interprets Buddhist teachings to condone something. It's the same way that Christianity condones democracy and freedom and Islam condones equal rights for women.

I'm saying that Buddhism, the two primary docs from it, are impossible to be radicalized towards violence. If someone takes violent actions, it is based on something entirely unrelated.

Well, there's centuries' worth of warrior monks fighting at the forefront of battles who'd probably disagree with you about that, though. However, I'm sure that none of them were ever real Buddhists.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

WTF? Something is "condoned by Buddhism itself" when a Buddhist interprets Buddhist teachings to condone something. It's the same way that Christianity condones democracy and freedom and Islam condones equal rights for women.

I'm saying that Buddhism, the two primary docs from it, are impossible to be radicalized towards violence. If someone takes violent actions, it is based on something entirely unrelated.

Well, there's centuries' worth of warrior monks fighting at the forefront of battles who'd probably disagree with you about that, though. However, I'm sure that none of them were ever real Buddhists.

Feel free to quote something from the Four Noble Truths or The Eightfold Path that can be twisted to intolerance or violence.

Radical Buddhists, but there is no radical Buddhism.

 

[Perspicuo]

WTF? Something is "condoned by Buddhism itself" when a Buddhist interprets Buddhist teachings to condone something. It's the same way that Christianity condones democracy and freedom and Islam condones equal rights for women.

I'm saying that Buddhism, the two primary docs from it, are impossible to be radicalized towards violence. If someone takes violent actions, it is based on something entirely unrelated.

... called human nature.

If homeopathic doctors started to do violence against mainstream doctors, would that be a problem with homeopathy?

As far as I know (which is very little, since I haven't read the whole Tipitaka), Buddha never said something like "I have come to bring not peace but the sword".

Buddhism is a religion, and as such, its followers will be compelled to find some things "sacred" and therefore get very fussy when people treat their sacred stuff with what they perceive as disrespect.

If there really was a "historical Siddhartha Gautama" underneath the fantastic embellishments, he must have been a real nice guy who didn't like violence of any kind or squeamish idiocies, like getting all fussy about tatoos.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Feel free to quote something from the Four Noble Truths or The Eightfold Path that can be twisted to intolerance or violence.

Radical Buddhists, but there is no radical Buddhism.

I couldn't quote you any of those about anything. My level of knowledge about Buddhism isn't relevant, however. It's Buddhists' level of knowledge about Buddhism which is relevant.

There is no Buddhism beyond how Buddhists act. If they feel comfortable enough with violence to spend centuries having warrior monks fight in battles in every conflict in any of their countries, that's good enough for me.

You seem to be saying that all of these people were wrong about their religion and/or were some kind of hypocrites by being part of a caste of fully ordained soldiers within Buddhist monestaries. Am I understanding your argument correctly or is that not the case? If it's not the case, how is it that you reconcile all of these Buddhist monks participating in violent conflicts as their job within their faith with a religion that in no way condones violence?

 

[blastula]

Right, they're not true Buddhists.

Eh? The Bible contains god condoned violence. The Qu'ran contains god condoned violence. The Four Noble Truths and Eightfold path contain no higher deity condoned violence or any kind. Buddhists can clearly be capable of bad acts, but the acts are clearly not condoned by Buddhism itself.

The OP title is about "radical Buddhism". My reflection was how exactly could Buddhism be radicalized towards violence?

The Four Noble Truths are no more the end all of Buddhism than "love your neighbor as yourself" is the totality of Christianity.

I hate to say it, but Tom Sawyer has it right. Buddhism is what Buddhists do and believe, not what you think they should do and believe.

 

[boneyard bill]

I think we need to keep in mind that Sri Lanka has just ended decades of civil war between the majority Singhalese, who are Buddhists, and the minority Tamils who are Hindu. In the context of that war, attacks on Buddhism were political acts. I think that probably has a lot more to do with the present situation than any Buddhist fundamentalism or anything like that. To be anti-Buddha in any way could be interpreted as a subversive act.

It's still inexcusable, particularly in light of the horrible things they did to the Tamils.

I wasn't proposing to offer an "excuse." I was trying to suggest that the issue probably wasn't as religiously motivated as some people were suggesting.

However, as excuses go, I don't think that is necessarily a bad one. And certainly, what they did to these offenders doesn't bear any reasonable comparison to what they did to the Tamils. (But, then again, the Tamils resisters fell far short of saint-hood themselves.

After decades of ethnic civil war, it shouldn't be surprising to find the authorities a bit sensitive to potential triggers to more violence.

 

[abaddon]

There is no Buddhism beyond how Buddhists act.

"There is no humanism beyond how humanists act. [So if some humanists behave badly against fellow humans, that becomes what humanism is.]"

Who agrees with that statement?

Had there been decades of humanists behaving badly against fellow humans, they'd absolutely have been hypocrites. So, yes, centuries of hypocritical "Buddhist warriors"… No surprise there, hypocrisy is a feature of humanity.

The Four Noble Truths are no more the end all of Buddhism than "love your neighbor as yourself" is the totality of Christianity.

Philosophically, they are. All the rest of "the teachings" are elaboration on them. It's far more consistent philosophically than Christianity, and it's correctly described as a humanist philosophy.

Buddhism is what Buddhists do and believe, not what you think they should do and believe.

Depends on how you want to define the term "Buddhism". Philosophically or sociologically.

Buddhist warriors got their justification for violence from other influences than Buddhism. Bushido in Japan, other warriors codes in other countries. There's no getting it direct from Buddhist thought.

 

[blastula]

^Circular^∞

 

[aupmanyav]

One who has a tattoo which is not derogatory, is not an enemy. Sri Lankans and Thais (if they do it) should understand. The lady had a nice large tattoo.