Buddhism and Violence

Within all religious traditions, there is always an inconsistency between the ethical demands of the teaching and the practical implementation of those teachings. This is is most obvious in theistic traditions, but is also clear even in Buddhism. The failure even of Buddhists to follow their own moral parameters has occasionally been highlighted to me since I arrived in Sri Lanka. One prime example of this was when we visited the famous Tissamaharama Stupa - perhaps the oldest stupa in Sri Lanka (so old, the clay is bound together with honey).

A common sight in Sri Lanka - as with most developing countries in Asia - is the presence of a huge number of malnourished, scrawny and mangy dogs. These flea-bags roam the streets of Colombo day and night looking for trash (provided in plentiful supply) to nibble on. They often move in packs and universally look depressed and dying. They are, of course, a pest and cause all sorts of problems for locals. Consequently they are often shooed away whenever they happen to wander onto private property. However, at the Tissamaharama Stupa, we found one particular stupa- attendent savagely whacking a dog with a piece of wood busy driving it from the vicinity. This seems odd, since ostensibly a religious site is meant to be a place of peace and harmony. In Buddhism, it is a venue that is intended to be peaceful and an ideal of serenity and non-suffering. So it seems quite inconsistent to be beating animals in a pansala (temple) and especially at the venerable Tissa Stupa.

One poor creature near the Tissa stupa:



Ronnie rescuing a dying pup:

Dying pup eating buffalo curd:

Assaulting helpless animals might not stir one's moral convictions of course, so let us instead consider the practice of alms giving. Within the ordinary, modern Buddhist schema, one should treat monks with the utmost veneration. They are the symbol of learning and represent a striving towards moral perfection. They should, it will be argued, be respected on account that they have given up their life of comfort for a simpler - in fact, ascetic - existence that is highly rigorous and difficult. If any of these qualities were true, then I would agree that monks should be respected and highly regarded. However, like any other monastic tradition these qualities are often - perhaps usually - not demonstrated. One should not assume - as many Buddhists do - that monks should be prima facie respected since they do not know if they are really any good at being monks. This notion is cognitively non-sensical to most Buddhists, but I happen to believe that any layperson who takes Buddhism seriously should be very careful about what monk he or she respects and venerates. This is because failure to do so is precisely un-Buddhist. Doctrinely, the Buddha claims that monks who fail to follow the Viniya (monastic code) in a strict way should be rejected from the Sangha (monk body). Furthermore, he suggests that a person - in general - should be rated only on their moral worth, not on birth and not on social status. The monk is meant to be respected because he is moral. So surely, if he fails to be moral then he is not really a monk and therefore should not be venerated. Philosophically, this is conducive with the empirical nature of Buddhism, i.e. that one should only believe what is justified through the senses. So if one cannot be certain of a monks rectitude, one should not worship or venerate him. This, it woudl seem is entirely Buddhist.

A fine example of this is a case I encountered when I was providing a course on Buddhist philosophy at the University of Auckland last year. Two Taiwainese nuns attended initially with great interest. It soon became clear, however, that they were the worst students in the class. First, they only showed up for two classes and second, they talked throughout. Clearly, based upon their conduct they could not be venerated nor regarded as virtuous Buddhists.

One other obvious un-Buddhist practice in Sri Lanka are the numerous politically active monks who promote violence against Tamils and often participate directly in violence against Tamils, NGO's and other parties. Consider this article from the "Colombo Pages"

Jan 12, Colombo: ZOA Refugee Care, a Dutch Christian aid group said that their office was stormed today by hardliner Buddhist monks belonged to the Jathika Hela Urumaya (JHU) party. The NGO is under suspicion by Sri Lanka military for providing assistance to the Tamil rebels in the Eastern Province of Sri Lanka.
They say that the monks reportedly threatened them to leave the island. Around 8-10 Buddhist monks from JHU with 70-80 supporters rushed into the premises, took the attendance registers and some keys and photographed everybody, said a ZOA official.(www.colombopage.com/archive_07/January12140400SL.html)

(NB - note that the manner that this article is written is not necesarilly objective since all media is essentially government operated or monitored. For example, the aid group might be regarded as "pro-Tamil" in the sense that they are aware that a huge number of refugees are Tamil, but not "pro-LTTE". Helping Tamils and helping the LTTE are purposefully conflated in this sense. There is nothing new in this kind of state-run reporting of course. Also consider early CNN and Fox coverage of the current Gulf conflict).

Obviously these activities are thoroughly un-Buddhist, and monk political parties have had a history of promoting violence against Tamils and seem to have a great deal to do with domestic policy in Sri Lanka specifically around the so-called "problem up north". One would assume that if monks and Buddhists were to promote anything it would be Ghandian non-violence and not nationalistic, racist propaganda. In this sense, the first thing they would do would be to want peace and harmony. They should do their utmost to discourage violence and, in fact, condemn it since it results in the greatest sin in Buddhism: the generation of suffering. In this sense, these monks - again - can only be regarded as non-monks and as particularly sinful Buddhists.