
Buddhism can be as violent as any other religion - DiabloD3
https://aeon.co/essays/buddhism-can-be-as-violent-as-any-other-religion
======
pcurve
I was hoping the article would back up its claim based on what's actually in
the content of Buddhism teaching.

On the contrary, the entire article is based on various accounts of actions
taken by people that happen to be Buddhist.

Some religion condones violence under certain conditions. This article doesn't
mention that about Buddhism. Article title is click bait.

~~~
jaldhar
I don't know enough about Buddhism to judge if the article is accurate but
separating out teaching from people sounds rather "Protestant" to my ears.

In Hinduism which I know more about we have the concept of karma. Karma is
action. It can be ritual action. It can be war (As Arjuna is taught in the
Gita) or it can be writing a comment on Hacker News. These actions have
different goals but conceptually they are the same type. What we call Hinduism
is the sum total of what "people that happen to be Hindu" do. I expect
Buddhism is like this too.

------
namlem
Buddhists can be as violent as members of any other religion, but you cannot
possible make the argument that Buddhism supports violence in any way. If you
pick up a holy book from any of the Abrahamic religions, you will find no
shortage of calls to violence. The same cannot be said of Buddhist teachings.
Attributing this violence to Buddhism rather than to ethnic tensions is
misguided.

~~~
srean
[https://www.bible.com/bible/1/DEU.13.kjv](https://www.bible.com/bible/1/DEU.13.kjv)

13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put
him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

13:10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath
sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of
the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

------
eraserj
Misleading title. Buddhism, as any other religion, can't be violent. Only
ignorant non-practicing people can be. Some rogue monks do not represent a
religion, they're just another tool of the Thai junta, just like the Pakistan
governement is instrumentalizing muslim leaders into terrorism for political
motives.

~~~
gonvaled
Let me rephrase your statement: “religion can not be violent because by
definition it is not violent. Any violent element is instrumentalisation of
religion, and not religion, by definition“

~~~
Razengan
Religion can definitely be violent, unless you mean it cannot because an idea
cannot take actions, people do.

Consider this simplification:

• Religion A holds all life to be sacred.

• Religion B mandates ritual animal sacrifice.

How are the adherents of A going to view B as anything but violent?

[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sacred_cow2.jpg](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sacred_cow2.jpg)

~~~
srean
Adding this because it is not very well known. Cows have never been on that
universal "do not slaughter" list of Hindus that it is now made out to be.

Tenets of Hinduism contain cow slaughter rituals. One can argue though that
these rituals were special cases and not frequently practiced. Even if we
leave such rituals out, beef eating have not been something that would have
raise eyebrows in certain Hindu population. Even the so called caretakers of
teachings of Hinduism, the Brahmin caste have freely consumed beef in for
example Kerala. The current wave of beef ban is just one part of the insular
but politically empowered right wing population imposing its morality on the
other.

~~~
jaldhar
If by "tenets" of Hinduism you mean texts which have not been considered
imperative for at least two millennia then maybe but let me remind you that
Hindus are not "people of the book". You can accuse Hindutva types of many
things but in this case their view is completely mainstream.

As for the past instead of text-juggling let's look at archeology. Do
excavations in India indicate people in ancient times ate more meat? Yes. Beef
in particular? No they don't.

~~~
srean
> If by "tenets" of Hinduism you mean texts which have not been considered
> imperative for at least two millennia

That's a little disingenuous (not you in particular) because if anything is
mentioned in those books they fall over themselves to mention them.

You indeed bring up an important point, there is no analogue of a Bible or
Koran in Hinduism. I find Vedas/Upanishads to be more foundational while
others might consider the much younger Gita more important. This grafting of
the notion of a 'book' by British led to hilarious practices: swearing on the
Gita in court. This means little to a Hindu although the British tried hard to
evoke the response they wanted.

I am not claiming beef was a regular diet through Hinduism hinterland. I am
saying that there is nothing in the religion that sanctions it. I think oral
and written tradition are the more appropriate tool to use here (than
archeology) and there is enough examples in that document beef as a part of
diet (again not across the entire Hindu land).

~~~
jaldhar
> "if anything is mentioned in those books they fall over themselves to
> mention them."

As a Pandit whose education in Sanskrit was strictly on classical lines I
definitely get a "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right" feeling in
Indian cultural arguments.

> I find Vedas/Upanishads to be more foundational while others might consider
> the much younger Gita...

By much younger you are still talking about about atleast 2000 years even by
the most conservative estimates. But anyway, I wouldn't consider any of those
as foundational outside of specialists such as myself. For the man in the
street, insofar as any books could make that claim, it would be the Puranas,
Mahabharata, and Ramayana that guide him. Even as a Brahmana most of my
activities are Puranic and Tantric. Vedic maybe 25%.

> I am saying that there is nothing in the religion that sanctions it.

Now we are back to defining what "the religion" is. Obviously there are a good
number of people (including myself) who think it does prohibit it.

> I think oral and written tradition are the more appropriate tool

Again the problem is whose traditions and how are they recorded/interpreted.
As a counter we can point out that Muslims considered throwing the corpse of a
cow into a mandir a particularly good way of desecrating it. The Sikh Gurus
considered cow protection a justification for rebelling against the Mughals.
The sepoys rebelled against the British because of suspicions that beef fat
was greasing their bullets. How much weight to give to each example?
Archaeological objects are less susceptible to ideological manipulation.

~~~
srean
You raise good points to debate on and really appreciate the non politicized
discussion. I cant speak for you but it seems that we might end up agreeing
that the beef eating question has nuances and not a open and shut case.

Regarding the Puranas, Mahabharata, and Ramayana being guides, I have reasons
to be cynical. People are guided by what people tell them what they are
supposed to do and feel as a Hindu. Often by people who have axes to grind.

I am curious to know about your opinion on beef eating practices of Kerala
Hindus including Brahmins (or Pandits if you like although that would be a
rather unusual phrase to use in this context). Some start hyperventilating
that its all Muslim influence, or the influence of European colonizers.

~~~
jaldhar
FWIW I'm Gujarati so I really couldn't say. All the Keralites I've met have
been vegetarians but its a small sample.

------
louithethrid
I would now exclaim that any budhistic violence is no true scottsman religion,
but im so free of passion and emotion, i just let it slide.

------
bendermon
Lee Kuan Yew (the late ex-Singapore PM) on this:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9S6bJDqRHQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9S6bJDqRHQ)

------
yowkow
Very True. The Tamil genocide in Sri Lanka happened with active participation
from Buddhist monks!

------
jlebrech
it's only violent because it needs to be.

~~~
mythrwy
I think that's what every entity engaged in violence says though.

