Buddhist Terrorism - no longer a myth

[INDIC]

There is nothing called Buddhist terrorism, its purely ethnic in nature.

 

[LaBong]

mix of both..hate against Muslims in particular and hate against non mongoloids..as you say...

Burmese are xenophobic towards all minorities. Previously Indian(mostly Tamils) and Chinese origin people were target and had to flee to India and China respectively. However Rohingyas have nowhere to go since their place of origin, now Bangladesh, woudn't accept them.

 

[lkozhi]

These are people between bangladesh and myanmar. So if bangladesh opens up and allows them in issue is solved.

 

[Shivani Malhotra]

This is really heart wrenching.Innocent people are dying without a reason.I don't hope much from UN on this.Wish muslim nations put some pressure on Burma so that it can be sorted out peacefully or Bangladesh must crush Myanmar.

 

[kobiraaz]

.Buddhism explicit forbids violence.

Violence is found in all religious traditions, and Buddhism is no exception. This may surprise those who think of Buddhism as a religion based solely on peace. Within the various Buddhist traditions (which Trevor Ling describes as “Buddhisms”), there is a long history of violence. Since the inception of Buddhist traditions 2,500 years ago, there have been numerous individual and structural cases of prolonged Buddhist violence.

shield 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 many hold the belief that Buddhism=Peace (and that other religions, such as Islam, are more prone to violence)?

It was 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.

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

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.”

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”:

In the Zen sect in Japan, they interpreted the argument for taking another’s life as “attempting to bring the other’s Buddha nature to life” (Buddha nature exists in virtually every living being), “by putting an end to the passions that lead astray…”

They make killing an act of charity

General conceptions of a basic Buddhist ethics broadly conceived as unqualified pacifism are problematic. Compassionate violence is at the very heart of the sensibility of this sutra. Buddhist kings had sophisticated and practical conceptual resources to support the use of force…The only killing compatible with Buddhist ethics is killing with compassion. Moreover, if a king makes war or tortures with compassionate intentions, even those acts can result in the accumulation of vast karmic merit.

Another oft-invoked argument to justify killing is the claim that, when the the dharma [i.e. the Buddhist religion] is threatened, it is necessary to ruthlessly fight against the forces of evil…promoting the need for violence in order to preserve cosmic balance

In another passage, this same sutra (scripture) declares that there is no reason to observe the five precepts [the first of which is the taking of life], or even to practice good behavior, if protecting the Real Law is in question. In other words, one needed to take up the knife and the sword, the bow and the arrow, the spear and the lance [to defend the faith]. ”The one that observes the five precepts is not a follower of the [Mahayana]! Do not observe the five precepts–if it concerns protecting the Real Law

The Nirvana Sutra reads:

The [true] follower of the Mahayana is not the one who observes the five precepts, but the one who uses the sword, bow, arrow, and battle ax to protect the monks who uphold the precepts and who are pure

To protect Dharma [Buddha's teachings], he came to the defense of the monks, warring against the evil-doers so that the monks did not suffer. The king sustained wounds all over his body. The monks praised the king: “Well done, well done, O King! You are a person who protects the Wonderful Dharma. In the future, you will become the indispensable tool of Dharma.”

; Buddha declared:

When the time comes that the Wonderful Dharma is about to die out, one should act like this and protect the Dharma. I was the king…The one who defends the Wonderful Dharma receives immeasurable recompense…

Monks, nuns, male and female believers of Buddha, should exert great effort to protect the Wonderful Dharma. The reward for protecting the Wonderful Dharma is extremely great and immeasurable. O good man, because of this, those believers who protect Dharma should take the sword and staff and protect the monks who guard Dharma…

Even if a person does not observe the five precepts, if he protects the Wonderful Dharma, he will be referred to as one of the Mahayana. A person who upholds the Wonderful Dharma should take the sword and staff and guard monks

Buddha says in the Nirvana Sutra:

If any man, woman, Shramana, or Brahmin says that there is no such thing as The Way [i.e. Buddhism], Enlightenment, or Nirvana, know that such a person is an icchantika. Such a person is one of [the demon] Mara’s kindred [Mara = the Lord of Death]. Such a person is not of the world…

The Nirvana Sutra reads:

The Buddha and Bodhisattva see three categories of killing, which are
those of the grades 1) low, 2) medium, and 3) high. Low applies to the class of insects and all kinds of animals…The medium grade of killing concerns killing humans [who have not reached Nirvana]…The highest grade of killing concerns killing one’s father, mother, an arhat, pratyekabudda, or a Bodhisattva [three ranks of Enlightenment]…

A person who kills an icchantika does not suffer from the karmic returns due to the killings of the three kinds above. O good man, all those Brahmins are of the class of the icchantika. Killing them does not cause one to go to hell.

The Buddha says in the Nirvana Sutra that icchantika’s status is lower than that of the ants:

[T]he icchantikas are cut off from the root of good…Because of this, one may well kill an ant and earn sin for doing harm, but there is no sin for killing an icchantika.

the Buddhist tradition offered sophistic justifications for killing and war:

[H]ow can one kill another person when…all is emptiness? The man who kills with full knowledge of the facts kills no one because he realizes that all is but illusion, himself as well as the other person. He can kill, because he does not actually kill anyone. One cannot kill emptiness, nor dest

Furthermore, killing is sinful because of the evil it creates inside the killer’s mind. But, a true yoga master can train his mind to be “empty” even while he kills. If the killer has “vacuity” of thought, then the murder “did not undermine the essential purity of his mind” and then there is nothing wrong with it. [26] In other words, killing can be excused if it is done by the right person, especially a “dharma-protecting king”.

The Buddhist canonical and post-canonical texts not only provide the religious justifications for war and killing, but provide examples of meritorious holy figures who engaged in it, examples for all Buddhists:

Celestial bodhisattvas, divinized embodiments of the power of enlightened compassion, support campaigns of conquest to spread the influence of Buddhism, and kings vested with the dharma commit mass violence against Jains and Hindus

 

[Safriz]

Dont forget..
Most forms of martial arts originate from buddhist monasteries...
So they do have links with violence.

 

[LaBong]

^Above copy pasted article from ****** website consists of mainly made up texts or attributed to Budhha after his death. Budhha never said any of things himself.

 

[Azazel]

Violence is found in all religious traditions, and Buddhism is no exception. This may surprise those who think of Buddhism as a religion based solely on peace. Within the various Buddhist traditions (which Trevor Ling describes as “Buddhisms&#8221, there is a long history of violence. Since the inception of Buddhist traditions 2,500 years ago, there have been numerous individual and structural cases of prolonged Buddhist violence.

shield 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 many hold the belief that Buddhism=Peace (and that other religions, such as Islam, are more prone to violence)?

It was 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.

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

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):





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”:









The Nirvana Sutra reads:




; Buddha declared:



Buddha says in the Nirvana Sutra:


The Nirvana Sutra reads:



The Buddha says in the Nirvana Sutra that icchantika’s status is lower than that of the ants:



the Buddhist tradition offered sophistic justifications for killing and war:



Furthermore, killing is sinful because of the evil it creates inside the killer’s mind. But, a true yoga master can train his mind to be “empty” even while he kills. If the killer has “vacuity” of thought, then the murder “did not undermine the essential purity of his mind” and then there is nothing wrong with it. [26] In other words, killing can be excused if it is done by the right person, especially a “dharma-protecting king”.

The Buddhist canonical and post-canonical texts not only provide the religious justifications for war and killing, but provide examples of meritorious holy figures who engaged in it, examples for all Buddhists:

I would like to see the source you copied this from.I can't reply without seeing the full source.

 

[kobiraaz]

^Above copy pasted article from ****** website consists of mainly made up texts or attributed to Budhha after his death. Budhha never said any of things himself.

I don't know. But they are quoting Nirvana Sutra and western researchers. Its crystal clear that Myanmar Buddhist follow their scriptures, not your Dalai Lama!

 

[Sashan]

I don't know. But they are quoting Nirvana Sutra and western researchers. Its crystal clear that Myanmar Buddhist follow their scriptures, not your Dalai Lama!

That is the fact if there is an element of truth in what you have posted. Not Lord Buddha's

 

[Avisheik]

Violence is found in all religious traditions, and Buddhism is no exception. This may surprise those who think of Buddhism as a religion based solely on peace. Within the various Buddhist traditions (which Trevor Ling describes as “Buddhisms&#8221, there is a long history of violence. Since the inception of Buddhist traditions 2,500 years ago, there have been numerous individual and structural cases of prolonged Buddhist violence.

shield 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 many hold the belief that Buddhism=Peace (and that other religions, such as Islam, are more prone to violence)?

It was 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.

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

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):





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”:









The Nirvana Sutra reads:




; Buddha declared:



Buddha says in the Nirvana Sutra:


The Nirvana Sutra reads:



The Buddha says in the Nirvana Sutra that icchantika’s status is lower than that of the ants:



the Buddhist tradition offered sophistic justifications for killing and war:



Furthermore, killing is sinful because of the evil it creates inside the killer’s mind. But, a true yoga master can train his mind to be “empty” even while he kills. If the killer has “vacuity” of thought, then the murder “did not undermine the essential purity of his mind” and then there is nothing wrong with it. [26] In other words, killing can be excused if it is done by the right person, especially a “dharma-protecting king”.

The Buddhist canonical and post-canonical texts not only provide the religious justifications for war and killing, but provide examples of meritorious holy figures who engaged in it, examples for all Buddhists:

Buddha never said those things. I think the website you got this from is biased.

 

[Kloitra]

I would like to see the source you copied this from.I can't reply without seeing the full source.

Warrior Monks: The Untold Story of Buddhist Violence (I) | loonwatch.com

This is the site he plagiarized from.

 

[Avisheik]

Dont forget..
Most forms of martial arts originate from buddhist monasteries...
So they do have links with violence.

Martial arts originated for self defence, at last resort. Not killing people senselessly.

All religions have links to violence. The biggest bengali empire ever was pala empire and it stretched from bengal to afghanistan. Certainly it couldnt have been achieved without violence

 

[kobiraaz]

Buddha never said those things. I think the website you got this from is biased.

collected from Professors Michael Jerryson and Mark Juergensmeyer's book Buddhist Warfare

Warrior Monks: The Untold Story of Buddhist Violence (I) | loonwatch.com

This is the site he plagiarized from.

what a discovery man. Also teach others how to use google!!

 

[LaBong]

I don't know. But they are quoting Nirvana Sutra and western researchers. Its crystal clear that Myanmar Buddhist follow their scriptures, not your Dalai Lama!

http://www.nirvanasutra.net/convenient/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra_Yamamoto_Page_2007.pdf

Here's the Nirvana Sutra. Couldn't find any of the things you quoted by searching with keywords.