Buddhism By The Sword?

[Brucenkhamen]

My 25 satangs worth is not to do with the spread of Buddhism by the sword (violence) but it's spread by totally non-violent means. I read many years ago (please don't ask for references as it was a book (a book?) and a long time past) that the only instances of violence in Thai Buddhist culture were the sacrifices made at the gate of new temples. Apparently the victims were laid in a trench across the temple gateways and crushed to death by a large slab of stone. I can't remember if this was a general thing or confined to one particular area of the country.

Anyway that is what stuck in my mind from what I read and any comments etc will be most welcome.

I would be surprised if this were true so would be interested if someone can dig up something concrete on this topic.

Even if it were true I think Xangsamhua's analysis is correct, Thai Buddhism is a mixture of Buddhism and the beliefs prevalent in Thailand beforehand (including Hinduism). This practice would have come from those, unless of course there is evidence of it happening in other Buddhist countries I suppose.

[Xangsamhua]

I'm not sure to what extent Christianity has been directly propagated by the sword either.

I'm not sure about Islam either:

http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/opinion/?id=17579

----

Interesting link, though the piece is somewhat polemical. As I understand it, there was a period of military expansion following the Prophet's death that extended throughout the Arabian peninsula and the fertile crescent, leading to the foundation of the Umayyad Caliphate in Damascus and the subsequent push into North Africa. The point of all this, apart from forward defence of the Muslim heartland, was to bring these territories into the House of Islam. Inhabitants of conquered territories who were not Jews or Christians would have been strongly advised to embrace Islam.

Jews and Christians were generally treated with respect in Muslim states, except for a period from the late 11th to the 13th century under the Almoravids and Almohads in Spain when non-Muslims were treated harshly. Pogroms against both Christians and Jews were unleashed in Muslim Spain in the 11th century.

Under the Ottomans Greeks, Armenians and other Christian communities as well as Jews had an influential role in commerce, finance, administration and so on. Indeed, even under Saddam Hussein, Chaldean Christians were a favoured group in government service. Generally it would appear that Muslim states were far more tolerant of Jews than Christian Europe, which, as we know, has an appalling record of anti-semitism. However, in the early days, I think it is fair to say that the House of Islam was extended if not by military means then at least with military backup and that no one in the region would have seen anything untoward in this. Of course, one must not forget that many, including children of the book, would have been attracted to Islam anyway once they heard about it and would have submitted without the threat of violence.

[traveller5000]

Interesting that Chrstianity has been brought into this thread. Anything that has had violence involved in it is not TRUE Christianity! Many words of scripture apply: turn the other cheek, love thine enemies, he who lives by the sword shall perish by the sword, etc. True Christianity would only try to spread itself through love and good works. Everything else is abomination, and certainly not Christian!

The nail has been firmly hit on the head in previous posts. The wars fought in the name of any religion are about power and wealth and ownership of land, etc, not religion!

I agree with you that anything that has had violence involved in it is not TRUE Christianity.

Trouble is, where there's smoke there's fire.

If Buddhism appears to have gone through a 2500 year history of not spreading through violence what went wrong with Christianity that people moved so far away from this important part of it's teaching?

Whereas Buddhists have moved away from many aspects of the original teaching now and in the past it appears to have never moved away from non-violence.

An interesting observation.

I don't quite agree with the statement that "anything that has had violence involved in it is not TRUE Christianity". The obvious example is the torture event of the crucifixion, some extreme violence going on there.

Perhaps, do a study involving two groups of people unfamiliar with Buddhism or Christianity. Get group A to watch any movie about the life of the Buddha 1000 times. Then get group B to watch "The Passion of Christ" 1000 times. I would expect group B to later exhibit more violent tendencies because of the violent nature of the movie.

The Buddhist scriptures emphasise no such violence AFAIK. Perhaps this complete lack of emphasis can account for the differences.

[suegha]

Er, the violence at the crucifixion was done to Jesus by the Romans! So I don't understand the point you're trying to make Traveller5000!

[PeaceBlondie]

An interesting observation.

I don't quite agree with the statement that "anything that has had violence involved in it is not TRUE Christianity". The obvious example is the torture event of the crucifixion, some extreme violence going on there.

Perhaps, do a study involving two groups of people unfamiliar with Buddhism or Christianity. Get group A to watch any movie about the life of the Buddha 1000 times. Then get group B to watch "The Passion of Christ" 1000 times. I would expect group B to later exhibit more violent tendencies because of the violent nature of the movie.

The Buddhist scriptures emphasise no such violence AFAIK. Perhaps this complete lack of emphasis can account for the differences.

traveller5000, by your reasoning, watching "Schindler's List" a thousand times would cause group C to exhibit more violent tendencies, and apparently prove that the Jewish faith was essentially violent for 2,500 years prior to 1944. Nope.

The Buddha and the Jewish Christ were some of the best examples in all history of nonviolent men who taught nonviolence. That has not kept their 'disciples' from killing for their country. It has, however, kept nominally Buddhist countries from waging conquest for the excuse of spreading Buddhism. And, Jewish nonviolence kept Judaism almost completely nonviolent for 2,500 years.

[traveller5000]

Er, the violence at the crucifixion was done to Jesus by the Romans! So I don't understand the point you're trying to make Traveller5000!

The point is not whether the good guys do the violence or the bad guys do it, but that it exists, it is extremely violent, and it central to the religion. Even if the good guy triumphs over evil in the end.

Ok. Imagine someone trying to make a movie to demonstrate peace, love and harmony.... with a torture scene in it! It seems to me to be counter productive.

Like the cross around the neck. after all, its original and practical purpose is as an instrument of torture.

Compare it to the symbol of the Buddha in meditation found in the home of Buddhists. It is truly a peaceful image.

traveller5000, by your reasoning, watching "Schindler's List" a thousand times would cause group C to exhibit more violent tendencies, and apparently prove that the Jewish faith was essentially violent for 2,500 years prior to 1944. Nope.

Nope indeed - you have missed the point. Schindlers List is not central to the Jewish religion in the way the Crucifixion of Christ was to Christianity.

Edited April 18, 2008 by traveller5000

[jdinasia]

LOL

The crucifixion is not about the violence it is about the sacrifice. People can't really be so daft as to not understand that can they? It would be like looking a Gandhi's life without looking at the violence that surrounded him.

[traveller5000]

I found this article

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/bu...thics/war.shtml

with my first google search (religion war Buddhism)

Thank you. I read the article, but didn't find that it answers my question. Do you think it does? If so, I am sorry to be so slow, but could you please explain what answer it gives to my question?

No, I agree. His googling antics didn't seem to answer your question.

[slept]

Why so many people are searching answers for non-sense questions?

They want to look smart?

I may be wrong but I got the impression that Rasseru asked this question because he was researching this topic, maybe he is writing a thesis or something. Obviously it's not going to help anyone walk the Buddhas path.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think his question is nonsense.

Brucenkhamen, instead of explaining why his question is nonsense, give me sample of usefulness arising out of the answer he may found.

Life is short Brucenkhamen, you are smart enough to know why you are born as a human, aren't you?. You are lucky to come across buddhism, why wasting your time with these nonsense questions.

It's bad enough if this is for his personal curiousity, it's even worse if this is his thesis for Phd. :-)

Why does't he choose a better topic such as "How christians mis-intrepreted the bible (starting from the genesis)?"

If Christians didn't make the wrong turn, you wouldn't have come to learn buddhism. Now you are making a wrong turn again with Buddhism.

[Brucenkhamen]

Brucenkhamen, instead of explaining why his question is nonsense, give me sample of usefulness arising out of the answer he may found.

The usefulness is that if in fact Buddhism has gone through a 2500 year history without attempting to gain converts through violence when most if not all other religions have then there is about Buddhism that is special.

I would say that's worth exploring and offers hope in a world where man finds it hard to rid himself of violence and religion seems tio fuel it rather than provide an antidote for it, don't you?

Life is short Brucenkhamen, you are smart enough to know why you are born as a human, aren't you?. You are lucky to come across buddhism, why wasting your time with these nonsense questions.

Yes life is short, but if I worried about every little thing as to whether it is contributing to my progress towards enlightenment I'd be a neurotic Buddhist indeed. I'd suggest this thread has been vastly more useful than, say an hour in front of the TV.

It's bad enough if this is for his personal curiousity, it's even worse if this is his thesis for Phd. :-)

Why? do you think University education is evil or something?

Why does't he choose a better topic such as "How christians mis-intrepreted the bible (starting from the genesis)?"

If this were a Christianity forum that would be a better topic, but it's not.

If Christians didn't make the wrong turn, you wouldn't have come to learn buddhism. Now you are making a wrong turn again with Buddhism.

That might be true of some of us but I think most of us came to Buddhism because of the merits of Buddhism rather than the failings of Christianity.

So please educate us, what would be the right turn?

[sabaijai]

To echo Brucenkhamen's sentiments, we're not here to bash Christians or adherents of any other religion. A little comparative religion is OK, but let's keep the focus on Buddhism. And this is a great topic

Life is short Brucenkhamen, you are smart enough to know why you are born as a human, aren't you?. You are lucky to come across buddhism, why wasting your time with these nonsense questions.

And why are you wasting your time attacking a fellow thaivisa.com member? Shouldn't you be out getting enlightened?

[Plus]

Buddhism is a relatively small religion. You can't talk about its "spreading" by non-violent means, it's more like shrinking.

It's of course true that Buddhists don't have the need to convert infidels for their own sake like Christians or Muslims do. Maybe that's why there are so few of them in the world. Come to think of it - it's difficult to find a presentable, peaceful Buddhist country. Burma, Laos, Sri Lanka - what kind of role models are those? Even Japan hasn't become pacifist until Christians forced them.

[PeaceBlondie]

Buddhism is a relatively small religion. You can't talk about its "spreading" by non-violent means, it's more like shrinking.

It's of course true that Buddhists don't have the need to convert infidels for their own sake like Christians or Muslims do. Maybe that's why there are so few of them in the world. Come to think of it - it's difficult to find a presentable, peaceful Buddhist country. Burma, Laos, Sri Lanka - what kind of role models are those? Even Japan hasn't become pacifist until Christians forced them.

Pacifist Christianity (Quakers, Amish, most Mennonites, Hutterites, Church of the Brethen, etc.) are also very small denominations, and not known for proselyting, nor for rapid growth since about the early 1600's. Successful religion or philosophy is not correct simply because it has more adherents or is more violent. If anything, the models of Buddhism and pacifist Christianity that present the best models are not national, nor popular, and may be strict or rigorous in its non-violently enforced demands upon moral behavior.

[CuriousGeorge77]

I think that whomever said that it has to do with the different role of Eastern religions vs Western religions is on track.

Eastern religions are generally regarded as a path, a way to get somewhere, and the idea of reincarnation is prevelant. Each person is part of God and is fundamentally good. Bad things come from misunderstandings and having inaccurate philosophies. The primary urge is happiness.

Western religions are sorta like knowing the secret knock at the door. When someone dies, their either go to Heaven or hel_l and then they stay there forever. It gets harder to generalize at this point, but the idea is that the Earth is a corrupting place, and the onus is for each person to shed their badness and become good.

This latter philosophy means that it makes perfect sense for someone to torture someone else in the name of goodness. They are evil and wrong, and the only way to save their soul is to convert them. For Easterners this would make no sense at all. It wouldn't fly as a rationale for war.

However, wars are invariably fought for resources. They are expensive and dangerous and unpredictable, and no leader in their right mind would start a war that did not have its grounding in practical affairs. The Crusades, for example, happened in part because of nobles competing for the throne. If there was a war, some of them would have to go, and hopefully not come back.

On the other hand, there are examples of utter barbarity perpetrated directly and clearly in the name of religion and religion only in the Crusades - For example, there was a point when the leaders tried to stop the army in the 1st Crusade. The army was utterly fanatic and pressed on to Jerusalem, despite their leaders. So, you can't really rule out fundamentalism as a direct cause of war, IMHO. Granted, the fanatics were fanatic after being driven to fanaticism in order to start a war for secular reasons, but still....

[PeaceBlondie]

Until it went to Europe (Macedonia), Christianity was an Eastern, Asian religion (like Judaism). It was, indeed, perverted by the lust of Europeans who wanted to wage war in the name of Jesus, which is utter twaddle. The New Testament cannot justify the spread of the Gospel by the sword. To argue otherwise, you are arguing against the perversion of the message, not against the original message and Messenger.

Thankfully, Buddhists seem to quickly understand that the Lord Buddha was a pacifist, and that warring in the name of Buddha would also be utter twaddle, especially if one of the main reasons for conquering was to force Buddha's teaching upon non-believers. It took Christianity about 1,000 years to stop Crusading.

[Rasseru]

Why so many people are searching answers for non-sense questions?

They want to look smart?

I may be wrong but I got the impression that Rasseru asked this question because he was researching this topic, maybe he is writing a thesis or something. . . . .

Perhaps you'd like to explain why you think his question is nonsense.

. . . . . It's bad enough if this is for his personal curiousity, it's even worse if this is his thesis for Phd. :-)

Why does't he choose a better topic such as "How christians mis-intrepreted the bible (starting from the genesis)?"

To help set at least some minds at ease, I am not writing a thesis or anything of the kind. I asked my question simply because it is one question (of many) that interests me about the world, and Buddhism in particular. In that sense it was, yes, for my 'personal curiosity', but I am at a loss to understand your view, slept, that it is bad for me to ask a question for that reason.

I am not particularly interested now, by the way, in Christian misinterpretation of the Bible, and if I were to develop one day an interest in the subject, I would not ask my questions on a forum about Buddhism

Edited April 20, 2008 by Rasseru

[suegha]

Er, the violence at the crucifixion was done to Jesus by the Romans! So I don't understand the point you're trying to make Traveller5000!

The point is not whether the good guys do the violence or the bad guys do it, but that it exists, it is extremely violent, and it central to the religion. Even if the good guy triumphs over evil in the end.

Ok. Imagine someone trying to make a movie to demonstrate peace, love and harmony.... with a torture scene in it! It seems to me to be counter productive.

Like the cross around the neck. after all, its original and practical purpose is as an instrument of torture.

Compare it to the symbol of the Buddha in meditation found in the home of Buddhists. It is truly a peaceful image.

traveller5000, by your reasoning, watching "Schindler's List" a thousand times would cause group C to exhibit more violent tendencies, and apparently prove that the Jewish faith was essentially violent for 2,500 years prior to 1944. Nope.

Nope indeed - you have missed the point. Schindlers List is not central to the Jewish religion in the way the Crucifixion of Christ was to Christianity.

Traveller, you don't really know or understand what you're talking about! As for the cross around the neck, how many Christians would do this? It's a graven image strictly forbidden by the bible! Certainly not a symbol of true christianity! If you remember my point about true Christianity.

[CuriousGeorge77]

Until it went to Europe (Macedonia), Christianity was an Eastern, Asian religion (like Judaism).

Judaism has never IMHO, been an Eastern Religion, except insofar that it is East of Europe. My thinking is that India Eastward is the are that constitutes the "East"

It was, indeed, perverted by the lust of Europeans who wanted to wage war in the name of Jesus, which is utter twaddle. The New Testament cannot justify the spread of the Gospel by the sword. To argue otherwise, you are arguing against the perversion of the message, not against the original message and Messenger.

Based on the New Testament, sure. However, there is enough in the Old Testament, such as the actions of (the fundamentalist) Ezekiel, that at least set some form of precedent, when he said stuff like "Thou shalt not marry anyone who isn't Jewish", etc etc... The foundations of "I'm right and therefore you are wrong" go back mellinia, and that is a fundamental difference between Western religions and Buddhism.

I don't want to get off on a Christian tangent, other than to say that there is a lot of great stuff in the Bible, but, IMHO, you can't take it out of context or cherry pick the parts you want.

Buddhism is no less prone to deliberate misinterpretation than Judeo-Islamo-Christianity is. Thus, the argument that Buddhists are less prone to misinterpret it is essentially a restatement of the question. Thats why I suggested that there is something more fnudamental to this.

[PeaceBlondie]

Imagine that some leading Buddhist scholar in year 2556 comes up with a war-mongering, Buddhist-killing, Crusading form of Buddhism. I doubt it would be generally accepted. Yet, Augustine and Aquinas managed to do that to Christianity, and Zionism did that to Judaism. I hope it is far less likely to occur in Buddhism.

[Brucenkhamen]

Imagine that some leading Buddhist scholar in year 2556 comes up with a war-mongering, Buddhist-killing, Crusading form of Buddhism. I doubt it would be generally accepted. Yet, Augustine and Aquinas managed to do that to Christianity, and Zionism did that to Judaism. I hope it is far less likely to occur in Buddhism.

Putting aside whether a religion encourages violence or not what is needed before violence is even considered is fuel for the fire.

Religions that have a history of violence, whether that's an excuse for economic gain or not, typically have a need to be right, the idea that what I believe is right therefore anybody who doesn't believe the same as me is wrong. This is the fuel for the fire.

This is not so evident with Buddhism, which is why different forms of Buddhism that arose in different countries historically are a mixture of the local practices at the time and Buddhism.

I think Hinduism is the same in this respect.

From the Buddhist point of view skillful action is equally skillful action whether that's motivated by the teachings of Jesus, Buddha, or Mohammed.

From my point of view effort spent by a Christian or Muslim in prayer, purifcation of the mind, or good works is never wasted, if he later practices Buddhism he'll have that history of skillful action to build on. Wheras to some Christians and most Muslims the time and effort I've been spending following the Buddhas path is of the devil and must be renounced.

[bankei]

There are plenty of cases involving Buddhists and violence, even involving monks.

See the Mahavamsa about Sri Lankan kings killing Tamils, around 200BC.

Even in modern Sri Lanka there are Buddhist monks that advocate war, and the killing of Tamils - do a search on youtube and you can see various videos with monks openly supporting this.

Thai/Burmese wars over the centuries often involved Buddhist elements. I remember one where the victor stole the Tipitaka from the loser and paraded it around boasting how they were more worthy, had more merit etc. Similar things happened with Laos and Thailand. Many of the Buddha statues were stolen and moved around - eg the Wat Phra Kao one.

Then there is East Asia. Monks at the lengendary Shaolin temple were engaging in war. They had joined various armies at various times for political reasons, then they gradually developed a reputation for martial arts. Various other non-shaolin monks in China also engaged in violence, with many fighting the Japanese early last century.

Korean monks did the same with monks soldiers fighting the Japanese invaders during the Imjin wars, during the 1600s I think. Sometimes today you can even see violent clashes with Korean monks on TV

In Japan there is a long history of monks/priests from different political factions fighting, especially in the Kyoto area in the temples around Mount Hiei.

Many Tibetan monks also were involved in the fighting of Chinese during the invasion, and even now.

Don't really know of any cases where people were forced to convert to Buddhism, but the Soka Gakkai/Nichiren mob were pretty famous, many years ago, for their attempts to force conversion to their sect. All other Buddhisms were wrong according to some of them.

The Thai government also used religion to try to tie in the Hill Tribe people. Monks were sent up the mountains and the people were taught useful things such as how to bow to monks and 'taam bun'.

[traveller5000]

Traveller, you don't really know or understand what you're talking about! As for the cross around the neck, how many Christians would do this? It's a graven image strictly forbidden by the bible! Certainly not a symbol of true christianity! If you remember my point about true Christianity.

excuse me.

If you wish to discuss Christianity, please try and relate your post to Buddhism in some way in your future posts. Thanks.

Edited April 21, 2008 by traveller5000

[Rasseru]

There are plenty of cases involving Buddhists and violence, even involving monks. . . . .

Yes, but, to repeat, my question is not about whether Buddhists have been involved in violence (which I knew), but whether they have used violence as part of an effort to spread acceptance of and belief in Buddhism among those who do not already accept and believe in it.

Don't really know of any cases where people were forced to convert to Buddhism, but the Soka Gakkai/Nichiren mob were pretty famous, many years ago, for their attempts to force conversion to their sect. All other Buddhisms were wrong according to some of them.

Did they use violence against others to that end?

[mike_rad]

Yes, but, to repeat, my question is not about whether Buddhists have been involved in violence (which I knew), but whether they have used violence as part of an effort to spread acceptance of and belief in Buddhism among those who do not already accept and believe in it.

I'd be very surprised if they did.

Did they use violence against others to that end?

Perhaps the closet you will come is in the Jataka Tales, when the Buddha was on a ship and, due to his psychic powers, he came to learn that one man was planning to kill everyone else on board.

So, in order to save this would-be murderer from such terrible bad karma, the Buddha killed him.

----

[suegha]

Traveller, you don't really know or understand what you're talking about! As for the cross around the neck, how many Christians would do this? It's a graven image strictly forbidden by the bible! Certainly not a symbol of true christianity! If you remember my point about true Christianity.

excuse me.

If you wish to discuss Christianity, please try and relate your post to Buddhism in some way in your future posts. Thanks.

Then maybe you can stop making incorrect statements about Christianity. Thanks.

[traveller5000]

Traveller, you don't really know or understand what you're talking about! As for the cross around the neck, how many Christians would do this? It's a graven image strictly forbidden by the bible! Certainly not a symbol of true christianity! If you remember my point about true Christianity.

excuse me.

If you wish to discuss Christianity, please try and relate your post to Buddhism in some way in your future posts. Thanks.

Then maybe you can stop making incorrect statements about Christianity. Thanks.

Incorrect or not we can discuss about this and get to the bottom of it.

But if you break the forum rule it becomes increasingly difficult for me and others to engage in discussion, as the burden is on us to respond to your post and relate it to buddhism in order to not also break the forum rule.

In case you are not aware here is the relevent rule:

"Posts about other religions, eg, Christianity, Islam, etc, or about the existence of God, intelligent design, creation, etc are allowable only when expressly discussed in the context of Buddhism."

I've noticed many of your posts in this forum don't meet this criteria.

[clausewitz]

Yes, but, to repeat, my question is not about whether Buddhists have been involved in violence (which I knew), but whether they have used violence as part of an effort to spread acceptance of and belief in Buddhism among those who do not already accept and believe in it.

I'd be very surprised if they did.

Did they use violence against others to that end?

Perhaps the closet you will come is in the Jataka Tales, when the Buddha was on a ship and, due to his psychic powers, he came to learn that one man was planning to kill everyone else on board.

So, in order to save this would-be murderer from such terrible bad karma, the Buddha killed him.

----

That story is found in mahayana Buddhism. It is not in the Jataka Tales.

[Plus]

Is the OP asking specifically about Theravada history?

[garro]

I think these Buddhist-bashing threads are becoming dull. I find it strange that non-Buddhists are so interested in the Buddhist part of the forum. If posters came to learn a bit more about Buddhism it would be fine, but they don't - they come to bash it.

I doubt that similar attacks would be tolerated on a Christian/Islamic/Hindu or other religious thread.

Edited April 22, 2008 by garro

[camerata]

I've noticed many of your posts in this forum don't meet this criteria.

Let's leave moderating to the moderators and quit talking about Christianity. The topic is Buddhism by the Sword. Any more off-topic posts will be deleted.