I want to go back to something I mentioned in the last post, which is the degree to which Buddhism might be held responsible for the actions of its most deluded members. Book reviewer Katherine Wharton mentioned the 6th century Chinese monk Faqing, who led his cult followers on a murderous rampage. Wharton writes,
In 515 AD, Faqing declared the arrival of the new Buddha and led more than 50,000 men to war. "When a soldier killed a man he earned the title of first-stage Bodhisattva (Buddha-to-be). The more he killed the more he went up the echelon towards sainthood . . . the insurgents were given an alcoholic drug that made them crazy to the extent that fathers and sons no longer recognized each other and didn't think twice before killing each other; the only thing that mattered was killing."
This is accurate, as far as I know, although I suspect the 50,000 figure is a tad inflated. I gather from other sources that Faqing decided he was an incarnation of Maitreya, the Buddha of the future realm. He left his monastery, married, and whipped up his followers into attacking "demons," mostly government officials and other Buddhist monastics. When Faqing's cult soldiers captured a monastery or convent, they slaughtered the monks or nuns and destroyed the icons in it. And if a soldier killed ten "demons," he was promoted to the rank of "Tenth-Stage Bodhisattva."
I had stumbled into Faqing in my reading long before he turned up in Wharton's review; he's not exactly a secret. But can Faqing's murderous rampage be blamed on Buddhism? or on sociopathy? He utterly disregarded the Precepts and any other teaching I can think of, so what was "Buddhist" about Faqing's cult beside their vocabulary?
Let's talk about Maitreya. My understanding is that Maitreya was mentioned by the historical Buddha only briefly. In some distant future time when the dharma has been completely forgotten, some loving one ("Maitreya") would come along, re-discover it, and teach it once again. And I believe that's about all he said, as recorded in the Pali Canon.
But human neediness is always driving us to grab onto things, and for some people Maitreya pops out of the Pali Canon like a jack-in-the-box, waving a sign saying "grab me." The belief in some messianic future Daddy-God who will come along and save us from ourselves is too irresistible, I guess, even though such a belief contradicts just about everything the historical Buddha taught. So there have been lots of Maitreya cults, going back to the early 1st millennium CE, ranging from the mildly innocuous to Faqing.
In medieval China, it was common for emperors and warlords to evoke Maitreya to claim legitimacy for their authority. Maitreya appears in Chinese folklore as the "laughing Buddha," Pu-tai. He plays a role in many of the Mahayana sutras, and I understand he is a tantric deity of Vajrayana. Some of these roles are fully compatible with Buddhist teaching, and some are not. And sometimes Maitreya is assigned a role that is no more Buddhist than the Pope.
Today, there's a, shall we say, colorful gentleman in Europe named Benjamin Creme who insists Maitreya is alive now and frequently appears on American television. The late Elizabeth Clare Prophet wrote a book about Maitreya ("The Coming Buddha Who Has Come") that seems to have broadly hinted she was Maitreya. I understand L. Ron Hubbard once claimed he was Maitreya.
If you have time to kill, google "Maitreya antichrist" someday. Apparently there is a widespread belief on the Christian Fringe that Maitreya is the Antichrist. And he is not only alive now, but he has a job with the Obama Administration.
However, I'm not aware of "establishment" Buddhism ever portraying Maitreya as a messiah, never mind one that calls for mass murder. The historical Buddha did not preach a doctrine of eschatology, some future destiny for the world or mankind. Time for him did not begin and end, for one thing. In some schools, in fact, linear time is thought to be an illusion.
I think it can be argued that Maitreya often is entirely removed from the context of Buddhism, and Buddhism can't be held responsible for that. Further, not everyone who uses vocabulary taken from Buddhist texts is under the influence of Buddhist teaching, as Faqing exemplifies. Certainly, Buddhist history has its share of miscreants who used Buddhist teachings and institutions as a cover for their misbehavior, and many more who were led astray by misunderstanding the teachings. But Faqing strikes me as a plain psychopath.
But where does religion end and pathology begin? Is the white supremacist movement Christian Identity a manifestation of the "dark side" of Christianity? Or are racists somehow manipulating Christianity to justify their racism? What about Jim Jones or David Koresh? I understand some psychiatrists think Jones and Koresh suffered from narcissistic personality disorder, which can be found in any human population, I understand, regardless of their religious beliefs.
It's common to blame everything harmful done in the name of religion on religion. Sometimes religious teachings are to blame; sometimes religion is co-opted. The recent controversy over an Islamic center in lower Manhattan touched off a hot national argument on how much Islam, and all Muslims, are responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks, for example.
Christopher Hitchens argues that religion is somehow responsible for all the mass atrocities of human history. What about the atrocities committed by Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin, both atheists? Simple; Hitchens argues that Stalin and Mao created "political religions." If you follow Hitchens much, you see that he views all religions as forms of fanatical dogmatism, and all forms of fanatical dogmatism are religions. No exceptions. Hitchens is fanatically dogmatic about this.
Anyway -- personal and social pathologies often express themselves through religiosity. I argue that religion is often not the cause of the pathology but the handiest mode of expression of it. And, of course, when pathology gets hold of religion, religions gets twisted around to meet the ends of pathology. But if all religions were banished from the earth tomorrow, I believe pathology would just find another "host," so to speak.
Further, when you are talking about what a particular religion is or is not responsible for -- are you talking about the original teachings of the revered founder? Are you talking about the institutions that came after? Are you talking about folk beliefs that cultures mix into their religions but which have nothing to do with what the revered founder taught (see, for example, Nats)? Are you talking about the acts of everyone who self-identifies as followers of that religion, however superficially? Are you talking about some rogue psychopath who used some bastardized version of the teachings to manipulate his followers?
If you look at all of the terrible things done by humankind in the name of one religion or another, you could probably excuse a large part of them by claiming they are corruptions of religion, not the fruit of religion. Not that I knew Jesus personally, but I imagine he would not have approved of the Inquisition, for example. But then, the Inquisition was authorized by the most powerful Christian institution of its day, so it was not the action of a rogue psychopath forming a cult. There's not always a clear, bright line between those bad acts for which religion is at least partly responsible, and those for which it is not.
But some examples of religious history are not so ambiguous. Faqing was clearly not constrained by anything the Buddha taught, and if Buddhism had never reached China there's no reason to think he would not just as easily have adopted Taoism or Confucianism as an excuse for acting out his psychopathy. Or made up a whole new religion, for that matter. Koresh and Jones likewise. Would Torquemada have found another outlet for his cruelty without the Inquisition? Possibly, but perhaps not one that was so socially acceptable.
Bottom line, I argue that Faqing is not representative of Buddhism, and hauling him out of historical obscurity to exemplify the violent tendencies of Buddhism is, to me, intellectually dishonest.
Well said.
“I believe that “X” is true.” “I believe that “Y” is false”. This is the basis for religious belief. It is a form of delusion from the start. So whatever follows whether it be mass killings or killing an abortion doctor, or trying to change the educational system to include creationism, to some supernatural human/being coming to earth to save us all, to believing the scriptures are the words of god or the founder of the religion they never intended to start, to believing that the universe cares especially about you personally. Belief is fabricated to suit the needs of the individual or a group of people to act the way they want to.
The practice of Buddhism involves acknowledging our beliefs, and belief systems. Seeing them for delusive wishful thinking, our excuses for negative emotions. Then dropping the whole behavior of manufacturing beliefs of any kind. The range of erroneous belief systems covers every aspect of life. Politics, who we are, why were here, the person your in love with….you name it, belief has a role to play, and so to some degree everyone is a bit of a “sociopath”. Because they live and act out fantasies they are making up in their minds.
“If you follow Hitchens much, you see that he views all religions as forms of fanatical dogmatism, and all forms of fanatical dogmatism are religions. No exceptions. Hitchens is fanatically dogmatic about this.” – This made me laugh so hard! Thank you.
It never fails to amaze me that misinformed authors such as Wharton can gain national readership and make lots of money for being so stupid. So often it seems the emporer has no clothes. Thanks for exposing this. By the way, Elizabeth Clare Prophet was a good example of silly Personality Cult as opposed to any kind of useful spiritual activity. Maitreya is known in the Mahayana scriptures as the next Wheel-Turning Buddha, the 5th of about a thousand in this era. Far above any dingbat claiming his identity.
I like how detailed your blog is. I am studying Buddhism in class right now and I have a project due on Monday. I need to contact someone who either strongly follows Buddhism or someone like yourself who has studied it in depth. For this project, I need to have either a phone or Skype interview. Would it be possible for me to contact you or do you have someone else that I can contact that fits this profile? I would greatly appreciate your help. Since this project is due on Monday, I need this done as soon as possible. Thank you very much.
Anna — Sorry, I cannot do an interview, as I’m dreadfully busy/tired right now. If someone else wants to volunteer, they can speak up.
I agree with Kyle I am still laughing at the Hitchen’s section. Great article Barbara!
“The practice of Buddhism involves acknowledging our beliefs, and belief systems. Seeing them for delusive wishful thinking, our excuses for negative emotions. Then dropping the whole behavior of manufacturing beliefs of any kind.”
I agree that there are all kinds of “erroneous belief systems” — based in avidya (the first of the 12 nidanas) — that condition our samsaric lives/behavior. I also agree that “acknowledging our beliefs” — in the sense of becoming conscious of the belief-forming process (and so rendering beliefs transparent in a way that allows us to remain free in their presence) — is an important aspect of Buddhist practice (vipassana/insight meditation is especially useful in this regard).
But I’m not sure about “dropping the whole behavior of manufacturing beliefs of any kind” as being something that Buddhism advocates; particularly since the word “belief” can point to more than just “delusive wishful thinking, our excuses for negative emotions.”
Yes, deluded thinking which gives rise to toxic emotional states (what Pema Chodron, most famously, refers to by its Tibetan name: Shenpa) is something to be decreased.
Yes, a capacity to perceive non-conceptually (via sensory, mental & yogic direct perception) is something to be cultivated.
But thoughts in and of themselves are not the problem. Spoken/written language — generally considered to be a very useful tool — obviously depends upon naming/labeling of “things” and then using the thinking process to manipulate those “things.” And while it’s possible to enter, via meditation, into formless realms which are utterly devoid of thought, most teachers advise against taking up long-term residence there. The problem, from the perspective of Buddha Dharma, is taking the thoughts to be “real” and using them to reinforce our egoic notion of “who we are.”
(cont’d from above)
And until we reach the Mahasiddha stage, and so are stable in our capacity to perceive non-conceptually, i.e. to perceive reality directly, it’s necessary to use at least provisional beliefs to navigate through our daily life. Related to in a healthy way, these are akin to scientific hypotheses: They are ideas/beliefs about “how things work” that are adopted provisionally, and then, in response to our actual experiences, revised accordingly.
Good article. Maitreya Bodhisattva is residing in Tusita Heaven, the fourth of the six sense plane heavens. The lifespan in Tusita according to the Theravada commentary is 4,000 celestial years or 576 million Earthly years. A Theravada scripture describes our Buddha as a Bodhisattva having reached the end point of his lifespan in Tusita when he was requested to be reborn on Earth to become the Buddha. Maitreya is believed by all Buddhist traditions to have had a lifetime during Buddha’s life and presumably several lifetimes in our species. I do not think that one destined to be the next Buddha for our galaxy would try to hog the stage during the dispensation of the previous Buddha. That would not be selfless. I had a vision-dream once that showed that all Buddha worlds evolve virtually identical geography and the same races (though the human height varies according to the commentary). All All traditions agree our Buddha dispensation will end within a few thousand years and 576 million years is a long time until the next teaching Buddha; thus we all should practice Buddhist study, precepts, generosity and meditation to attain inner freedom before the dark time of no Buddha teaching comes.
The only time we don’t have some sort of faith is when we realize omniscience. People who claim to be without beliefs are truly self-deluded. Even to doubt every facet of every moment is to believe in the efficacy of such (actually impossible) doubt.
So as history will record for future generations,
in the early years of the 21st century
George W Bush, born again Christian
blessed by Billy Graham,
a holyman,
& his Vice – Dick,
a Methodist
waged a holy war against Iraq
& got great profits
& praise from a greatful nation.
This murderous monk is just one in a long line of people who have misused religion for their own reasons. Jim Jones and David Koresh, if I remember correctly, convinced their followers they were Jesus or even God. Many other cult leaders have gotten their followers to at least sell their possessions and gather to wait for the apocalypse. The founder of the Jehovah’s Wittiness did this at least twice. Charlie Manson’s cult, though small, thought he was Christ in some manner – though the drugs might have helped. I believe the Jewish establishment thought Jesus was a cult leader; there were lots of Jewish mystics running around at the time. So the examples are endless.
The main difference between true religion and a cult, at least for me, is that a religion acknowledges free will, and does not try to usurp it by pronouncements that the leader is in some way holy or divine themselves. A religion asks for moral and financial support, but not complete submission (except say a monastic order). A religion allows people to leave without penalty either now, or in some spiritual retribution.
I recognize that the Roman Catholic Church, may have violated some of the above in it’s past, or even present. This is why some Protestant fundamentalists call it a Cult. I don’t necessarily agree with that but that is a matter of degree.
I found your story very interesting; I was always under the impression that Buddhism had never inspired any war. And it still hasn’t. This guy was no more Buddhist than Jim Jones was Christian. Actions speak louder than words, now or in the next life.
Anna, I’ll help you out if you need. You can find my contact email on my blog.
Hello all-
Important things always first-
Barbara, please accept my most sincere condolences for you concerning your feline companion.
Concerning ‘intellectuals’- I think that since the late 19th/early 20th century, some intellectually minded people have always been skeptical of anything, such as ‘religion’ that cannot be analyzed and proven or disproven in a laboratory, or that can pass the rigid scrutinity of the ’scientific method’. This skepticism I think has evolved to the point where some feel they must tear down any spiritual type practice by ‘exposing’ any contradictions that can be found in that practice. If a religion or spiritual practice is ‘promising’ something that is fradulent, and is taking advantage of people, or is currently manipulating it’s members into violence, then certainly those practices should be exposed. But taking a concept of ‘emptiness’, of ‘no mind’ and somehow claiming that the ‘concept’ is to blame for a sociopath’s actions to me is absurd. Buddhism is Buddhism- certainly some ‘Buddhists’ in history have done horrible things, just as some ‘Christians’ have in the name of their religion. ‘Intellectualism’, for lack of a better term, is not spotless- ‘intellectuals’ who became Communists or Nazis in the 20th century did horrible things in the name of ‘humanism’- especially against those who practiced religion.
Nice post, very well written
John, I think that is a great point you made about atrocities done in the name of (secular) humanism.
religeon is designed to leed a person back to their original state. running down anyone’s belief is wrong. anything that teaches the well being and benefit to life is truth. love is the key.