Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?

BBC ^ | May 1, 2013 | Alan Strathern

[ifinnegan]

First paragraph excerpt:

Of all the moral precepts instilled in Buddhist monks the promise not to kill comes first, and the principle of non-violence is arguably more central to Buddhism than any other major religion. So why have monks been using hate speech against Muslims and joining mobs that have left dozens dead?

[Jack Hydrazine]

Were they celebrating Beat A Muslim Day?

[Chgogal]

They are fighting back, that's why idiot leftwingnuts at BBC.

Part 2: Buddhists make the best targets

http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/asia-pacific/thailand/110721/buddhists-arms-part-2

THAILAND: Muslims in the South are slaughtering Buddhists in order to ethnically cleanse the area (WARNING: Graphic Images) - YES, THESE PICS ARE VERY GRAPHIC.

http://www.barenakedislam.com/2012/02/13/thailand-muslims-in-the-south-are-slaughtering-buddhists-in-order-to-ethnically-cleanse-the-area-warning-graphic-images/

Monks in Myanmar & Thailand protest over attacks on Buddhist temples and homes

http://www.asiantribune.com/news/2012/10/06/monks-myanmar-thailand-protest-over-attacks-buddhist-temples-and-homes

[Jack Hydrazine]

I’d say it probably goes back further than that to somewhere in the Middle East.

[Jack Hydrazine]

Quote at the end of the article.

“People believe radical Islam to be at the centre of the many of the most violent conflicts around the world.”

Only 98% of conflicts around the world involve Muzzies.

[Jack Hydrazine]

Buddhism started out as a secular philosophy and as it moved north into China is when gods were attached to it and other religious aspects.

[Jack Hydrazine]

They are coming from Indonesia which is the country that has the largest Muzzie population in the world.

They are also on the Phillipine island of Mindinao causing problems there.

[Cronos]

the principle of non-violence is arguably more central to Buddhism than any other major religion.

The author of the article got it wrong -- non-violence is central to Jainism far more than buddhism

[TigersEye]

I know. That’s why I reframed it as “non-aggression.” We are not pacifists.

[JimSEA]

Good point. The now somewhat liberated Burmese press and the Thai press give a better perspective certainly.

[TigersEye]

I had a feeling that that was the case. It was the western press, primarily the liberal European press, that willingly regurgitated anything and everything Mao’s politburo spat out about their invasion of Tibet. The western press has been any enemy of freedom and truth for a long time.

[dennisw]

What are not more Buddhist monks attacking Muslims? This should be the question.

[Candor7]

Buddhists do defend themselves. Its actually traditionally so if one examines the histories of Thailand, Burma, Buthan India and Tibet. Ashoka Maharaja was one of the greatest of Buddhist kings in India, yet he created his kingdom through conquest.

It is just the liberal , Western interpretation of Buddhism that dictates that Buddhism does not countenance the activity of destroying. In fact Buddhism has many protective principles that vindicate the use of destruction in order to preserve a Buddhist nation or community.The ancient Tibetan Buddhist warrior, Gesar of Ling is a prime example.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Epic-Gesar-Ling-Coronation/dp/1590308425/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1367919056&sr=1-1-fkmr0&keywords=Gesar+Korman+Robin

Islam has been a constant historical enemy of Buddhism.In Sri Lanka, Buddhists have been protecting themselves against Muslims for hundreds of years, and they will continue to do so.

The idea of a burgeoning Buddhist “ non violence” is only modern wool gatering of Western liberals who redefine Buddhist history as appropriately non violent, although non violence is an essential part of the path of practice of the Buddha-dharma, this is a matter of personal choice of every Buddhist, not a matter of an imaginary , imposed liberal Buddhist catechism.

[tomkat]

It took less than the two sentences of the excerpt to recognize the mewling voice of another clueless dhimmi shuffling off to the slaughter.

Dhimmicrats              precisely

[arthurus]

The Phillipines have been engaged in civil war, open or muted for centuries with their Mohammedans in Mindanao. The Moslems in Myanmar and Thailand Kra are Malays.

[ThanhPhero]

My experience with Buddhists in Việt Nam is that they are eminently practical people. They are not blinded by religious tenets of cultural assumptions. In VN they were able to see how capitalism works among the Catholics and changed their way of relating to others to emulate Christians. They turned into astute businessmen, too. They are pacifist until they ascertain that it is going to get them killed off. Then they pick up guns.

[ThanhPhero]

In Việt Nam there is a small number of indigenous Moslems. They are a few Khmers and the remnants of the old Hindu Cham civilization that flourished in the south until it was overwhelmed by the Kinh (Viets) from the north. Their Islam is as Indonesian Islam was a century ago (and still is in some of the remoter places) and as much Buddhism is in VN now, an overlay on a basically pagan culture. The government is very leery about allowing outside Mohammedans to influence them directly.

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

Buddha wasn’t a Christian, but Jesus would have made a good Buddhist, and he was Jewish...

[Sir Francis Dashwood]

It is just the liberal , Western interpretation of Buddhism...

Just like the liberal, Western interpretation of Christianity!

They would have us think Jesus said to 'spread the other cheek.'

Now, you know why liberals promote homosexuality and appeasement of tyrants.

[Resolute Conservative]

Payback.

[Candor7]

Now, you know why liberals promote homosexuality and appeasement of tyrants.>>>>>>>>>>>>

Exactly and history proves it to be so.

Good read:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/05/barack_obama_the_quintessentia_1.html