Posted on 04/15/2009 10:01:58 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Like many former residents of Bangkok, I have been watching the country's slide into virtual civil war with a mixture of incredulity and tetchy disillusion. It is hard for us to think of one of the world's only truly Buddhist states descending into a chaotic thuggery that would, alas, be less remarkable elsewhere. But why? Is it because of misperceptions we have about Buddhism?
Buddhist violence--or violence committed by Buddhists, more properly speaking--is a strained concept for us, to put it mildly. I can easily imagine being assaulted by an infuriated Christian or by a hysterically outraged jihadist, by a Zionist even, at a pinch--but by a Buddhist? What would you have to say to get him mad? Deny transmigration?
I confess that I rather like the idea of an ax-wielding Buddhist thug. It would prove, at least, that stereotypes are stereotypes. Ever since America switched on to Zen, that exceedingly odd variant of Buddhism propagated by the tireless and slightly loopy Japanese writer D. T. Suzuki, among others, we have thought of Buddhism as being inseparable from an exemplary nonviolence.
In some senses, the question is self-answering. If I had entitled this column "Are Baptists Violent?" I would receive 20,000 incoherently enraged rebuttals threatening to enslave my children and rearrange my anatomy within 10 minutes. But Buddhists, if they disagree with you, are more likely to write in with respect, manners and a sense of humor. Rage is not their thing.
Yet our ideas about Buddhism are vague and wobbly for the most part, and our converted boomers who preach its virtues bear little resemblance, say, to the tattooed denizens of a Bangkok slum,
(Excerpt) Read more at forbes.com ...
I believe the violent ones are.
So when has that happened in the past century?
As for violent Buddhists - yes, they exist, just like violent anything else.
People lie..... first to themselves and sometimes to others too..
"A person in a Mask is often up to no good".. -movie "Princess Bride.."
Haven’t you ever seen “Kung Fu”?
Snatch the pebble from my hand, grasshopper.
That exhibits a naked bigotry.
Exactly.
To really know how violent someone with a religious belief can get himself/herself to to be, while justifying the same, look to his/her religion’s scriptures.
Islam’s Muslims are squarely the odd ones out, in that regard.
Good reply. Although it made my logic circuits hurt I read the whole article. If the author was trying to make a point I clean missed it.
Fundamentalists of all theologies are violent - because their beliefs are so strongly rooted in fear. There are fewer “fundamentalist Buddhists” than exist in other religions, but no doubt a few exist - accompanied by a larger number of garden variety thugs who use Buddhism as a cloak of respectability for the violent acts they were planning to commit, anyway.
He’s very bigoted. This is another fool who has too much freedom, and never reads a book or learns from history.
"Only if you snatch the pebble from their hand"...Master PO (Kung Fu)
Yes Grasshopper, they hate it when that happens.
Yes. Typical view that something different must be better. Even a superficial look at Thai history will show Thais have never been pacifists. It is very rare for a Thai to back down from a fight. The writer is obviously living in a fantasy land.
The grass is always greener on the other side and all that. No different than Asians who think Christianity is somehow perfect without any problems.
Or more accurate, "Not all Buddhists are Monks"
D. T. Suzuki was a “fundamentalist” Buddhist? Really?
Lawrence Osborne is engaging in Buddhist apologetics. How charming!
For him to write that “Buddhist violence — or violence committed by Buddhists, more properly speaking — is a strained concept for us, to put it mildly” shows his ignorance of the history of Buddhism.
For many centuries, Zen buddhism was the religion of choice for the oh-so-peaceful warrior class of samurai in Japan. More recently, Zen and Pureland buddhism played a key role in providing ideological justification for Japanese imperialism in China and elsewhere. And, dare I say, for the Pacific War. Brian Daizen Victoria has provided extensive proof of this in his books _Zen at War_ (now in its second edition) and _Zen War Stories_.
Anyone who has kept up with the situation in Sri Lanka, where there is a bloody conflict between the Buddhist Sinhalese and the non-Buddhist Tamil Tigers, knows that the idea that Buddhism is a cute and fuzzy and peaceful religion is complete bilge. The Sri Lankan Buddhists not only support or participate in the bloody counter-insurgency; the justify their violence by quoting Buddhist “scripture.”
There are many more examples. For Osborne to cry “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!” betrays either a deep ignorance or a fundamental intellectual dishonesty on his part.
violence has nothing to do with religion re: the religion of peace. rednecks(akacountry boys) are not violent, but go to any county fair and walk up to somene and shove him in the shoulder and you are going to be in a fight. That is what just happened here, a third group in blue shirts came in and started some trouble in Pattaya, then changed to red and went to Bangkok and started a fight with the army. look into outside sources who are able to publish the truth such as Bangkok Pundit
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.