I want to call your attention to a discussion at Religion Dispatches over a new book, Buddhist Warfare. I haven't read the book and so cannot comment on it, but at Religion Dispatches one of the authors, Michael Jerryson, explains how he came to write it.
He went to Thailand to study Buddhist social activism. But in 2004 violent attacks against Buddhist monks and laypeople broke out in southern Thailand and have continued since. Jerryson was disillusioned that monks were more concerned with survival than with peacemaking. Many monks carry firearms these days, he writes. Armed soldiers who are also fully ordained monks are living in the monasteries to protect them.
Jerryson now thinks that portrayal of Buddhism as a "peaceful" religion amounts propaganda, and he thinks people need to be educated about the religion's "dark side." The depiction of Buddhist monks as otherwordly mystics, common in the West, robs them of their humanity, he says.
I think there's a lot of truth in that last sentence, and that depiction of Buddhist monks in western popular culture often is more romantic than real. However, my impression is (I'm saying this without reading his book, remember) that Jerryson is overreacting to the loss of his innocence.
It is not overstating the case to say that a civil war between Muslims and Buddhists is going on in southern Thailand. Soldiers accompany monks on alms rounds to protect them -- as in the photo, which I used to illustrate another blog post almost two years ago. I monitor news about Buddhism from around the world, and hardly a day goes by without another news story about Buddhists being killed in violence in Thailand. That monks living in the middle of this violence are fearful, and get caught up in it, shouldn't be that surprising.
One of Jerryson's commenters pointed out that it's a common practice in Thailand for all young men to live as monks for a short time, then leave the monastery and return to lay life after a few weeks or months. One suspects some of these young men put in their time as monastics mostly because their families expect it of them, and that they aren't all that committed to it.
It's also true there is a long tradition of warrior monks in Buddhism, although that is possibly more true of Mahayana than of the Theravada Buddhism in Thailand.
For example, Chinese engravings dating from the 7th century show the martial arts monks of Shaolin fighting off bandits and taking part in the battle of Hulao in support of the Tang Dynasty. In medieval Japan, many of the large monasteries were protected by armies of warrior monks who sometimes did battle with monks of other schools. Some Japanese Buddhist sects supported Japan's aggressive militarism that lead to the attack on Pearl Harbor and the battles of the Pacific theater in World War II.
So, Buddhism does not have a spotless reputation regarding nonviolence. And those are just a few examples of violence or support for violence in Buddhism in its 2500-year history; I can think of a few more.
The claim made by some Buddhist historians is that Buddhism never waged a war of conquest to convert other people to Buddhism, and I think that is true, but even that could be challenged. Buddhism certainly benefited from the conquests of the Emperor Ashoka, for example. On the other hand, Ashoka didn't convert to Buddhism until much of his military career was behind him, and by all accounts he never forced his subjects to convert to Buddhism.
I'm sorry that Religion Dispatches doesn't have hyperlinks to individual comments, but do scroll down to read the comment by geschickt titled "Dispatch Difficulties ...." It's a nice response to the article.
Photo Caption: A Thai soldier guards Buddhist monks.
Photo Credit: Chumsak Kanoknan/Getty Images
Indeed, one of Buddha’s advice to his monks was that they could defend their life if necessary, since only in this life a person is capable of reaching the ultimate goal. He excluded the arhats who “had done what had to be done” and who could therefore lay down their lives without further consequences.
As for warrior monks. Indeed the Mahayana has more examples of warrior monks than the Theravada has, e.g. in Korea where both kings and laity demanded that the monks should help defend the country. Disobedience amounted to loss of livelihood at the least. A disobedient monks became to be seen as a coward and bad monk who lacked compassion. So as a consequence monks included the practice of martiality into the bodhisattva-path where one takes vows that say that one should do anything to help and protect living beings, even if this amounts to breaking a vow of ahimsa.
It’s not a practice that belongs to the earliest strand of Buddhism; it rather has to be considered against the backdrop of regional life and culture.
Nothing is static. Even Buddhism is a living thing that changes all the time. It’s good to read the book, it’s even better to pack your bags and meet the culture, and refrain from being judgemental until you have the picture complete. It can take years, that’s my experience.
Where then do you draw the line? Now the monk carries the gun for protection. Next year they will use them to protect others or to help relieve a greater evil.
Wrong the use of violence is not the Buddha’s teaching. Didn’t the Buddha teach that even when your enemies were hacking you to bits that you were to love them?
I always equated Quakers as Christian Buddhists but after reading this the Quakers have the moral upper hand.
Have you seen the movie “Unbreakable” with Bruce Willis. He was the extreme lucky person on earth. He never got hurt or sickness of any kind. Samuel Jackson played the other character who is completely opposite. Both present the two extreme of our life on earth.
Monks are no exception. A few extreme ones spent all their life helping others. Then there are other opposite extreme spent all their life helping themselves. I have seen monks in the airport walking around with laptops and cell phones. How sad!
May be monks should be graded like restaurants in Los Angeles County. “A” would be the best and “F” is either shutting down or pay huge fine. I bet a lot of Buddhist temples will be out of bussiness!
As to the use of violence by a Buddhist…it is the mindset that is the issue at hand. One can defend themselves with no evil intent..its just basic reactionary technique which is done with a calm cool mind not one of vengence and hatred. This is why there are “warrior monks.” Myself being a Buddhist priest and martial artists, I see no issue except in the completely unbalanced mind of onlookers who don’t even use the most common of sense that animals have to defend and survive. A dead or maimed Buddhist does no one any good, especially themselves. The sutras that talk about having love for someone cutting you up focus on the mindset. The Buddha also told us to defend ourselves. It is all situational.
In fact, the action of defending oneself can be seen as a help to others who are set on violence. Having to deal with another who might just as well beat you in the end in such violent behavior is a good lesson for criminals to learn. They will think a second time before attacking another for fear of them being a martial artists or carrying a gun or some mace. You are in fact doing them a favor changing their behavior, regardless of the fact it took violence. That is the way the real world works and not some pie in the sky fantasy that is projected upon Buddhism as a religion.
We must remember that all the good intentions of all the pacifist in the world mean nothing before an invading army. Look at history…Buddhist have died by the tens of thousands before invading armies and were lost to the sword. It is the threat of violence which stabalizes the borders which we are lucky enough to be within where we have the freedom to be non violent. So lets not snub our noses up at the mere thought that violence might very well be needed in the end.
I read an interesting comment from HH The Dalai Lama in his book on Compassion- he greatly believes that the major world powers should work towards “demilitarization”, but should also create “police forces” that can respond to specific acts of violence. As always, coming from my perspective as an “extreme novice” in walking the way of the Buddha, this strikes me as a very brilliant solution to the reality of human existence- unfortunately, conflict is a part of our life. Our ‘compassion’ leads us to ’see’ the evil that can be created by ‘hurray for my side’ thinking, but ‘wisdom’ shows us that in some circumstances, force must be employed to ensure the greater good. with very deep respect to you, Barbara, I think focusing on whther someone is ‘armed’ or not is not as important as ’seeing’ what that person’s state of mind is- do they feel ‘empowered’ by that firearm? That to me is an extremely dangerous feeling, no matter who feels that way, Buddhist monk or Muslim extremist. On the other hand, if the firearm is considered a possible tool of defense in an extreme life or death situation, then I would argue that state of mind is more in keeping living within our reality, while practicing good towards all beings. In my opinion, no one who claims to be a Buddhist would delight in the possible taking of life. But a Buddhist to me, also should live life with a degree of knowledge and wisdom of the human condition. Oh well, once again, i’ve said too much. take care.
The Shambhala lineage’s creation of the Dorje Kasung as a means of offering a safe container within which the teaching of Buddha Dharma can happen, has always seemed to me a very skillful approach to this issue. The idea is that the Dorje Kasung root their actions of service & protection in a kind of feminine energy — like a mother protecting her children. Becoming a member of the Dorje Kasung is a process undertaken as a spiritual path, in and of itself — and has much to do with learning how to relate skillfully to the energy of aggression.
As I understand it, the Dorje Kasung are meant to serve a function similar to that of Dharma Protectors — a class of beings (found particularly within the Tibetan tradition, I believe) who exist in subtle realms — who once were enemies of the Dharma, but now have taken a vow to protect it.
There have already been some strong criticisms of Michael Jerryson’s approach to this topic on various blogs. Example:
http://egregores.blogspot.com/2010/01/buddhist-warfare-is-buddhism-religion.html
Beyond that the co-editor, Mark Juergensmeyer, has been taken to task on previous statements and publications on this same subject in no less a journal than the Harvard Divinity Bulletin.
http://www.hds.harvard.edu/news/bulletin_mag/articles/35-23_cavanaugh.html
The crux of the criticism has to do with the “Secularist” approach used by these scholars. It is strongly in line with the religion bashing of the New Atheist line of evangelism.
As to this collection it seems to simply be a grouping of some of the papers that Juergensmeyer was using in a graduate seminar on Religion and Violence.
http://www.juergensmeyer.com/?q=node/52
The content of this course and related others (I’ve read a number of the required readings listed there) is firmly anchored in the secularist camp and the overarching theme is that religion is the cause of violence. Not just any religion but all religions.
That Jerryson was so disabused of his naive assumptions about Buddhism while in Thailand seems to have set him on a warpath against all religion in general.
I’d like to see him try to take on Jainism with that mindset. It would require mental contortions of unprecedented proportion.
Oh, come on NellaLou, you think egregores has “strong criticisms of Michael Jerryson’s approach”? The guy on that site didn’t read the book, and I assuming you didn’t either.
Mark Juergensmeyer didn’t write a chapter in the book– so you are attacking ad hominen someone who is not even present in the book. How is this productive?
All it looks like you did was google and cherry pick what you wanted to prove a point to take down a book you never read.
Graduate Seminar– c’mon. It says on that site that the purpose of the seminar was to “explore recent writings on this subject in general and on religious violence.” So the professor offered one of his graduate students (who has a Tibetan name) a chance to examine the subject of Buddhist Warfare. This is dangerous?
You have not done the required readings, since if you had, you would know Juergensmeyer never says that religion causes violence. Global Rebellion, Terror in the Mind of God, all of these books he has written has not said this. He argues that religion is used to justify violence.
I don’t know what is worse– you attacking something you have not read, or you expressing views that are completely vapid of any substance other than to attack. If you want to look at some critical things about the volume, why don’t you cite critical sources related to the book. Like, say, people who actually wrote chapters?
Such as Steven Jenkins, who gave a lecture at Berkeley:
http://podcast.shin-ibs.edu/
Or heck, why not even read one of Jerryson’s articles on the subject: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3280420
I mean, the guy writes a volume about a genocide against Mongolian Buddhists– looking at their persecution– and then puts this volume together you suddenly think the guy is on a “warpath?”
The only people who seem like they’re on a warpath of you and that egregores guy– neither of whom have read the book.
108maya — have you read the book, and do you practice Buddhism or are otherwise reasonably familiar with its history? Because Jerryson’s claims about a “dark side” to Buddhism and that people like D.T. Suzuki and Walpola Rahula were “propagandists” really did strike me as the overwrought reflex of someone whose hopeless and juvenile naivete was just shattered.
Barbara– yes I have read the book and I feel reasonably familiar with its history, though I am not a historian. Christopher Mohr is another blogger who has read the book and you can see his comments on http://blog.beliefnet.com/onecity/2010/01/forthcoming-buddhist-warfare.html.
I think part of the problem we’re having is how to interpret Jerryson’s word, “propaganda.” This– by the way– is not a word he uses in the book. If he means there is a subversive and illicit manipulation of facts/information about Buddhism by Rahula, Suzuki, or the 14th Dalai Lama, I would have a strong problem with it. However, if he simply means that information is by itself propaganda, and that religious adherents will always seek to promote their own religion, I think this is an unavoidable matter (and one Foucault writes extensively about).
None of these people write about the violence tendencies and they certainly paint Buddhism (universally) as a pacifistic religion. I would say a Christian minister or a Imam would do the same for their religion.
108maya
Jerryson used the word “propaganda” in his Religion Dispatches article, and use of that word when you just mean “information” is a tad inflammatory. And the fact is that Jerryson is disingenuous when he implied that people like Walpola Rahula lied about Buddhist history. The claim was that Buddhism has never initiated wars of conquest for the purpose of converting people to Buddhism, meaning there is no Buddhist equivalent of the Crusades, which as far as I know is true.
As I said in my blog post, there have been times Buddhism has been advantaged as a result of war, and also some examples of intra-Buddhist armed conflict, but none of this was any big secret. There is some deadly anti-Buddhist violence going on in southern Thailand, and the rules for monks from the beginning have always permitted them to defend themselves, with force if necessary. Further, the tradition of “warrior monks” was hardly hidden, as any devotee of kung fu movies can attest. The shameful episode of Buddhist support for the militarization of Japan in the 1930s also has been much written about already. It’s way old news.
My impression from the Religion Dispatches article is that Jerryson’s real issue is that his delusions were shattered, but the fault for that is in Jerryson, not Buddhism. Perhaps the book is more tempered, and the Religion Dispatches article was jazzed up to hype the book.
None of these people write about the violence tendencies and they certainly paint Buddhism (universally) as a pacifistic religion. I would say a Christian minister or a Imam would do the same for their religion.
So what would you have had Rahula write in “What the Buddha Taught”? A disclaimer that even though Buddhists honor non-violence, sometimes they are violent? And that though they vow to not kill, not steal, not misuse sex, not lie, not take intoxicants, etc., sometimes they do those things? Isn’t that kind of implied in being “human”?
Hmm… I see your point about it being inflammatory– but then again, it is a point about how to see information. But gets into semantics, since the article does not go indepth about this.
What he does write is this: “Since the early 1900s, Buddhist monastic intellectuals such as Walpola Rahula, D. T. Suzuki, and Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, have labored to raise Western awareness of their cultures and traditions. In doing so, they presented specific aspects of their Buddhist traditions while leaving out others. These Buddhist monks were not alone in this portrayal of Buddhism. As Donald S. Lopez Jr. and others have poignantly shown, academics quickly followed suit, so that by the 1960s U.S popular culture no longer depicted Buddhist traditions as primitive, but as mystical.
Yet these mystical depictions did not remove the two-dimensional nature of Western understanding. And while it contributed to the history of Buddhism, this presentation of an otherworldly Buddhism ultimately robbed Buddhists of their humanity.”
I do not see him as saying these important figures were “lying.” If you do think so, I would say you are reading into this section. What I do see is the implication that these people are portraying only some aspects of Buddhism, “while leaving out others.”
Jerryson writes about a covert operation of military monks– so this is a secret, at least in the Thai context. The chapter on Tibetan Buddhism implies a secretive process, as is the chapter on Mongolian Buddhism. Much of the chapters display new information, such as Xue Yu’s on the Korean War.
I definitely agree, the Dispatch article is more “jazzed up,” than the book. But this might be what is needed to wake up the people writing about religion and violence. Like you said, much of this is old news, but it is never brought into the discussion of religion and violence except for a minute few (such as Juergensmeyer).
As for Rahula, Suzuki and the rest, I think it is more the way introductions and others (modeled off these scholars) have presented the traditions. It’s rather sad actually when you scroll through the introductions and they pretty much make Buddhism into a big giant text of doctrine (instead of people).
The thing is, 108maya, Jerryson comes across as a child who just learned there is no Santa Claus, and now he’s on a crusade to tell the world the truth about Christmas.
This guy goes to Thailand with a lot of naive, unrealistic ideas about Buddhist monasticism. He goes to study monks but doesn’t bother to learn the Vinaya-pitaka, the rules of the monastic orders written down in the 1st century BCE that are to have come from the Buddha. Among other things, the Vinaya clearly says monks may defend themselves if attacked. That’s from the Buddha himself, as far as Theravada monks are concerned. He seems utterly ignorant of Buddhist history, which doesn’t hide the tradition of warrior monks. Hasn’t he ever seen a kung fu movie, for pity’s sake?
And then when the monks don’t conform to his really wrong-headed expectations in the face of very real mortal danger, he turns on them and wants to tell the world about the allegedly hidden “dark side” of Buddhism, which was never really hidden, just that he had believed in a fairy tale instead of reality.
As far as the early teachers in the West are concerned, it’s a matter of proportion. Rahula says very little of the Vinaya in his books, or at least the ones I have read. Among other things, the Vinaya has long, detailed, elaborate rules about how monks obtain cloth for their robes. Wow, how could he have left that out! It goes on for pages and pages! It’s a really big deal!
But you know what? Laypeople don’t need to know this stuff. Rahula was trying to explain the basic doctrines of Buddhism to westerners, and you don’t need to know the monks’ robe cloth rules. Same thing for the rules about how monks may defend themselves. I’ve been in formal Buddhist practice since 1988, and there are all kinds of teachings and rules I’m still learning about.
What do beginners need to know to understand Buddhism? I would say monk self-defense rules come really far down on the list. Trying to grapple with the Four Noble Truths, the skandhas, the teachings of dependent origination — that’s a huge amount of essential information to take in. Believe me, it’s what I do here, and I know how difficult this is. If someone asked me to write a beginner’s manual to Buddhism, I wouldn’t discuss the warrior monks or the self-defense rules either.
I can see that Rahula and others maybe cast a little bit of a rosy glow around Buddhist history as they presented it to westerners for the first time. I also agree that western pop culture has romanticized Buddhist monks. But Jerryson’s reaction to this is way off the charts. It’s out of proportion. It’s mostly a reflection of his own previous naivete.
“Among other things, the Vinaya clearly says monks may use deadly force in self-defense.”
I know of no such provision. Where in the Vinaya does it say this?
“Among other things, the Vinaya clearly says monks may use deadly force in self-defense.”
I do not know about this provision. Where in the Vinaya does it say this?