chee1a1@jetson.uh.edu (12/19/90)
(I hope the following will help someways in the discussion on bloody buddhist, non-violence and buddhists or whatever) Violence and Buddhism. Before elaborating on these subjects to find out about the truth. Let me deal with some issues at a macro level. Our idea of anything depends on how we conceive it or how we understand it, which for some depends on how she/he came across it. This can be seen clearly in some western interpretations of buddhism. To some the introduction to buddhism comes through the criticisms of buddhism done by others to achieve their ends (this could be political,religious etc.). Some would like to introduce the political violence in Asian countries as a result of the lack of support given by buddhism to non-violence. Actually, the violence in the 'pre-dominantly buddhist' countries in the modern times is due to their lack of regard to the buddhist values. Sociologically, these societies are trying to embrace new values while not giving any thought or a chance to their traditional and/or buddhist values. So in this process, their values in general are placed upon crass materialism, (and use of alchohol, eating meat etc. as display of status symbols, strength and maturity and so on) and non-buddhistic values. I am not claiming that all the social ills in those countries are due to these, but these are major contributors to the problems. So the west is scientifically finding and trying to solve the problems of alchohol and drug abuse, eating meat and stress etc., some in the east are trying to embrace the 'rejections' in west as symbols of development. (this is actually a different subject). In one way, buddhism is criticised by some for its 'allowing' of violence. On the other hand, some criticise buddhists being non-violent e.g. sayings like 'crazy vegetarian buddhists' etc. Therefore, in general, criticisms for the sake of criticism do not lead anyone anywhere. Therefore, trying to see the truth is more helpful than defending against these criticisms (defend in the literal sense). Historically, at a macro level the most widespread use of buddhist thought and practice was achieved through totally non-violent means, not through holy wars, religious wars, destabilizing other religious societies through violence, or killing of religious leaders etc. Individually, a buddhist cannot claim to be a praciticing buddhist unless violence is given up. In the place of violence and cruelity, compassion and loving kindness is cultivated by a buddhist. This compassion and loving kindness,referred to as karuna and metta, are taught extensively, encouraged and empahsised in buddhist teachings. Buddha while showing the advantages of intense practice of metta not only showed that one can attain the final goal of enlightenment thorough this practice of metta but also showed the other benefits of metta (such as being liked by others etc.). On the other hand, a quest for enlightenment for a buddhist begins out of compassion (karuna) for himself and/or others. Psychologically, compassion (which is a basis of non-violence) is the opposite of cruelity (which is a basis of violence). Furthermore, loving kindness (or metta - which is a basis for non-violence) is the opposite of anger (which is a basis for violence). Therefore, for a practicing buddhist, non-violence is a basic practice. Not only kindness directly, but also the buddhist precepts are based on the concept of non-violence. Observation of the precepts of abstaining from killing, stealing etc. are practice of non-violence also. One could argue saying that this buddhist disciplines are not rigid. I think this is a misinterpretation of the individual freedom and freedom of thinking emphasised in buddhism. A buddhist follows the discpline out of free will and *not out of fear* (of some 'person', or punishing authority etc.). This freedom is emphasised in order to encourage and facilitate learning and wisdom. On the other hand, because of this freedom in buddhist thinking a really practicing buddhist can adhere to discipline more with awareness. (After all what has the world achieved in general through rigid imposition of rules of conduct by use of fear,authority,punishments etc.? There may be apparent 'discpline' in the short run, but has produced hypocrisy and more problems in the long run) Another argument brought against buddhism is that it is only for attaining enlightenment. Yes, the buddha taught the dharma for the enlightenment of the people. But he did not overlook the lay people who has to lead a worldly life. Therefore, there are numerous teachings of the buddha which gives guidelines for a successful worldly life. All of these teachings also encourage not harming others, doing your duties properly to others, leading a righteous life etc. Bandula Jayatilaka