Why are there no Buddhist extremists?

They’re Buddhists. It is their way.

Good question.

The most extreme thing I’ve ever heard about a Buddhist doing is setting himself on fire to protest the Vietnam War during the 1960’s.

Were the Japanese responsible for Japan’s actions leading up to and during WW2 Buddhists?

Japan has 2 main religions Buddhism and Shinto. The extremists that instigated the attacks that led up to WW2 were fomenting nationalist pride based on the Shinto beliefs, in my opinion. But I’m up to being proved wrong on that point.

You might be right.
Perhaps the Japanese Buddhists opposed the war, but I’m not sure either.

I’m tempted to invite Hasn’t Been to this thread.

Please do.

Probably because their beliefs are based on true morals and ethics, or something? They’re obviously doing something right.

I went to AB and sent him a link to this question.
I don’t think he’s posted at Fluther in awhile.

This Buddhist looks pretty extreme to me:
http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/2009/04/10/iconic-images-of-human-rights-violations-2-self-immolation-of-buddhist-monk-in-vietnam/

Buddhism is a religion, philosophy and/or way of life that is founded upon the acknowledgement of the interconnectedness of all human beings and all other living creatures to one another. It is the failure to acknowledge the integratedness of all life that results in extremism, so by definition, one would have to live in a very unBuddhist-like way before one was capable of carrying out these acts.

But he is only hurting himself.

It’s because Buddhist are so chill….. I love Buddhist.

Well East Asian history is as violent and bloody as befits them, as humans. Not especially so, but nor were they living in enlightened peace for the thousands of years before the Euros showed up!

The primary difference is that violence was never (as far as I know) committed “in nomine” –
“in the name of” Buddhism.

This is because there is no “God”, whose “Will” could be appropriated to justify ones own cause.

These religions are ‘deterministic’, meaning that people believe, above all else, “what will be, will be” in the grand scheme of things, and that this is the natural order of things.
which, incidentally, is why the Chinese are so obsessed with the idea of luck, and, by extension, gambling… </opinion>

Thus, the vast cogs and wheels of world history are perceived as nearly impossible to meaningfully influence, and also personally un-worthwhile. So, the idea of “God’s Will” literally has no meaning, as the whole worldview of determinism precludes the existence of a purposeful God, and, indeed, any purpose to an individual’s existence, besides working towards the achievement of internal enlightenment and escaping the purgatory known as Earth. Everything else that happens in the course of his existence is incidental, and just a tiny but essential part of the Cosmic Clockwork.

Why commit acts of violence in the name of some unearthly higher cause, when:
a) the world is going along it’s own course, no matter what any God wants, or not?
b) the entire point of your existence is to resolve all internal conflict and escape forever?

For one thing, I don’t believe Buddhists are out prosthelytizing “the only true religion.” I mean, when was the last time you saw one in a car with a “Convert or Die” bumper sticker on his car?

Look into it a little.

To be an extremist would require that one embrace a particular point of view and violently reject others. In Buddhism, that’s seen as a tremendous obstacle to the fundamental purpose of spiritual practice: seeing the impermanent and selfless nature of all things.

The Buddha said, “To be attached to a certain view and to look down on other views as inferior—this the wise men call a fetter”.

He cautioned over and over again against clinging to even his own teachings. He said, “Even this view, which is so pure and so clear, if you cling to it, if you fondle it, if you treasure it, if you are attached to it, then you do not understand that the teaching is similar to a raft, which is for crossing over, and not for getting hold of.’

Opinions harden one’s perception of separation from those who hold different views, whereas the Buddhist practitioner is working to transcend that perception.

His Holiness has said that he thinks everyone should follow their own religion, he does not think that westerners need to convert to Buddhism. He certainly does not approve of jihad.

@Harp I was just thinking, “I wish Harp were around to answer this and there you are!” That’s enough to make a Buddhist out of me!

Someone responded to one of my answers and said that “Buddhism isn’t a religion”. How would Harp respond to that?

Got to correct my punctuation on my quip. Edit: I was just thinking, “I wish Harp were around to answer this” and there you are!

Sorry for the diversion; it just bothers me. (Damn editing time limit!)

@janbb Only a buddhist extremist would have caught that. :)

There are many variables here but the Abrahamic religions are more violence prone because they emphasis faith over works. Because blind faith or strong belief is the main focus with many “religious” people unbelievers (who are all hellbound) are a lower life form. Bad actions (according to orthodox Christianity) do not land you in their “hell” but lack of belief. Because the main emphasis is on faith over works I guess many over the years have felt that “the end justifies the means”.

The eastern religions or pagan religions emphasis works over faith, they are more of a spiritual nature than the Abrahamic religions. I think Ghandi himself was quoted as saying “I love your Christ but dislike your Christians”. There are exceptions here (usually political rather than religious reasons or revenge) but for the most part this is why more spiritual religions that emphasize works over faith seem (and usually are) less violent.

Because Buddhism is the real religion of peace, at least from my own limited understanding. Not Christianity, Islam, or Judaism.

@Adirondackwannabe People (mostly non-Buddhists) have argued for centuries about this question. Buddhists themselves tend to find it beside the point. It comes down to how one wants to define “religion”, doesn’t it?

“Religion” is a very charged word. It has acquired a strongly negative set of associations that have little to do with its formal definition, and so there’s a scramble among “spiritual” practitioners to distance themselves from the label. Many Christians, for example, who go to church regularly, vehemently deny that they belong to a religion. To them, “religion” means something more rigidly institutional, like the Catholic church.

But one commonly accepted definition of “religion” used by academics is based on the “4 C’s”: creed (a set of beliefs), code (a prescription for conduct), cultus (a set of practices), and community (significantly, God doesn’t explicitly enter into this definition, because theism falls under the category of creed). A given religion may be heavy on some of these and light on others, but will have all in some form.

Buddhism, for instance, is very light on creed (beliefs), but they’re not entirely absent. One simply isn’t supposed to take them at face value, without verifying them empirically (at which point they’re no longer beliefs, strictly speaking, but experience). Buddhism’s code of conduct is the precepts. Its cult (practices) are also loosely defined, but include at a minimum the mindfulness and concentration elements of the Eightfold Path. Buddhism’s community is the sangha which in its broadest sense, is the community of all beings, but is often used to refer just to Buddhist practitioners.

@Harp Thank you very much.

There are.

@JustmeAman Really? Documentation please.

@JustmeAman “Is not!” —__—;

Buddhism is a philosophy not a religion for one, and, it is all about acceptance, beingness, not iconic worship.

There is no-one and no-thing to protest.

Anything can be done to extreme.

@eden2eve but why have some things not? —__—;

@The Idler
How do we know they have not? Unless I was intimately acquainted with many adhearants of a particular system of thought, I would not presume to know how various individuals exercise their lives in the context of their beliefs. The only people I would trust to answer this question accurately would be somone who has lived this philosophy for a long period of time, and who knows many others who have so lived. Even then, I’d have to have some way of knowing that this individual was able to be objective in their opinion.

This is one of my disagreements with many people here. Too many decide (and judge) how others believe or how they feel without adequate information or experience with their choices or their beliefs, or true understanding of them.

One of the reasons I remain on this site is that it gives me an opportunity to learn directly from people of different beliefs from my own what they actually believe and why. This is information I value, as it helps me to refrain from judging that which I don’t completely comprehend.

I think… no, KNOW that I would see far fewer misconceptions stated, and less judgment taking place, if people were more careful to be sure of their facts, and would refrain from making judgements about people, things and ideas which they do not have sufficient experience or information to understand.

@Trillian @The_Idler

Why would I provide any Documentation? There are extremists in everything on Earth. If nothing else then they are extreme in Buddhism… Besides Documentation is in the eye of the beholder only. I can give you web site after web site or I can make up a web site and then give you Documentation until the cows come home. Why would I take Documentation over my personal experience and that which I know?

“There are extremists in everything on Earth.” Fallacious statement.
Buddhism, by definition, does not lend itself to extremism. Nor can you prove a ridiculous statement like “There are extremists in everything on Earth.”
So you just throw out a statement which you cannot in any way back up, prove or quantify. You need to be able to prove what you say or resign yourself to the kiddie’s table where; “Did not.” “Did so.” are still accepted means of argument. At the grownup’s table, facts are required. What personal experience do you have with an extreme Buddhist?

@Trillian A little judgemental there… LOL You just don’t get it do you? I don’t have to PROVE anything. My statements are mine alone and are self evident. I don’t rely on just reading or someone saying this or that. I think you ought to look at the growing up a little factor on your own. I am not here to argue I’m answering a question with my personal experience and knowledge. I can say the same for you and there is NOTHING you can PROVE. Facts are in the eye of the beholder and are NOT required. What is a fact? I have lived with an extreme Buddhist so yes I have personal experience and I don’t have to convince you nor answer to you. I would take your judgements and look into a mirror. Have a great day.

@JustmeAman : You asked, “What is a fact?” My dictionary says that a fact is “a piece of information presented as having objective reality.” Please provide some facts to back up your statements.

Why are there no Buddhists who are blowing themselves up in acts of terror? Why haven’t Buddhists committed genocide? Why aren’t Buddhists marching in the streets burning the flags of other countries and calling other countries “the great Satan”?

Why aren’t Buddhists terrorists?

@hawaii_jake Do you have kids? I learned long ago not to try to reason or argue with children. They look like small adults, but they aren’t.

@Trillian : Yes, I have kids, but this is the adult world we are playing in, and we are playing by adult rules. I have said my piece. We’ll see if more is required.

@hawaii_jake

Do you know that there is not a Buddhist among all those you just listed? So I take it by your definition that an extremist is a terrorist and is judged an extremist because of the reasons you are stating? So anyone not in your list about marching in the streets, burning flags, committing genocide is not an extremist?

There’s a fallacy called the “No true Scotsman” fallacy, which goes like this: “No true Scotsman puts sugar in his porridge. Angus puts sugar in his porridge, therefore Angus is not a true Scotsman.” The original premise overreaches, so the conclusions that flow from it are questionable.

It’s tempting to say that no true Buddhist would engage in extremism, but then you would have to account for a few conspicuous cases of Japanese Zen teachers stirring up pro-war sentiment (and even antisemitism) in WWII. We could sidestep this by saying that they weren’t true Buddhists, but perhaps that’s too facile.

Life is messy. It often puts the lie to categorical assertions. All the more reason to avoid them.

[mod says] This question has been chosen as our Question of the Day!

@JustmeAman Yeah, we all know the question was a generalisation, but it’s a slightly more attractive and manageable question title than,

“Why has faith-based extremism exhibited the general tendency, over the past few hundred years of public recorded history, to occur significantly more frequently and strikingly in societies structured around the non-Buddhist major religions?”

Thankfully we can use common sense and answer the question in a manner that assumes the question asker is not claiming to know the complete and detailed history of every Buddhist that ever lived, and therefore is not a complete idiot. It’s these little subtleties of communication that allow adults to converse and discuss in a far more efficient and less clumsy manner than, say, children or lawyers.

! agree with @Harp

Never say never.

The Hare Krishna sect was pretty disliked for choking the airports with robed monks pandering carnations for donations. lol
Havn’t seen those guys around in a long time.

OK, @hawaii_jake can you still edit the question to say:
“Why has Buddhist Extremism had a comparatively minuscule effect on the world, as compared to that of Abrahamic religions?”

Just to shut up all this semantic bullshit and get the discussion back to the real point in consideration: Why Buddhism has produced a relatively minuscule and unknown amount of extremism, when compared to the Abrahamic religions.

There are extremists. I have met some.

However, Buddhism is born out of a rejection of extremism and fundamentalism. It’s called “The Middle Way”. It’s harder, although not impossible, to be extreme about not being extreme.

Buddhism can be both a religion and a philosophy. The various schools of thought certainly become more religious, but the base thought is rather minimal. There is no god and followers are cautioned against worshipping the Buddha.

Buddhism also promotes non-violence, which includes thoguht, word & deed.

Hard to be extremeist if you think and speak and act gently.

@The_Idler Yes, I can accept that amended question. I was also thinking the question should have been merely, “Why are there no Buddhist terrorists?”

A Buddhist extremist would get upset when I debug my computer.

@filmfann Why?

Because all Buddhist are EXTREMELY non-setreme.

Where IS that Badger badge???????

@filmfann That was hilarious. How dare you kill that bug! That was a transmigrating soul with as much right to life as you!

Thank you @Idler I agree with you and I’m not trying to cause a problem so YES I do agree with the upper statements about Buddhist’s and that the majority of the time they are very peaceful and that because of that I practice Buddhism and do lots of Meditation. Great look at the question and I hope I didn’t cause too much grief. Kudos to you Idler. Smile

@Harp, Harp, Harp! Welcome back! You’ve been much missed.

@Harp ” The Buddha said..” Oh, the stench of the personality cult.
Welcome back. :-)

I just have to add my ultimate explanation to this older topic.

“The central message of Buddhism is not Every man for himself” (Wanda, to Otto in A Fish Called Wanda)

@Blueroses : I love that movie