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