Buddhist communities, regardless of denomination, uphold specific ideals of social and political justice. Arguably, the most prominent of these principles, one which is commonly recognized by the Western world, is non-violence. In the present day, Buddhism continues to hold the moral precept of non-violence to a great extent; however, if this principle is so central, why then, have Buddhists in Myanmar and Sri Lanka contradicted the crucial teaching of the Buddha and the virtue of ahimsa, or ‘not hurt,’ one that is essential to Jainism, but also corresponds to Buddhism non-violence precept? More to the point, why have Buddhist monks attacked Muslims residing in these geographical locations? Simply put, it is essential to recognize the injustice
…show more content…
There is no complete answer to this question as assumptions can be made, but nothing conclusive can be stated, the answer is within each individual who engages in said violence, and an answer that may be different to each person. In actuality, no Buddhist teaching encourages perpetuating violence, so it is unreasonable to place blame on the tradition itself for indeed, it is difficult to identify any plausible rationale for violence within Buddhism by reflecting on the first precept. Undeniably, those causing violence and harm to others is not acceptable, but it is clear that such attacks are not carried about by the majority of Buddhism, thus, this should not taint the image of the tradition, instead, it should be addressed in a way that considers the lives of Muslims being attacked, and further, attempts to find the root of the problem that prompts this militant sect to engage in violence. Following a religion that constantly preaches peace does not translate to being non-violent. Although Buddhist leaders and Scriptures greatly emphasize the importance of not harming others, people within Buddhism may still carry out acts of violence for they are not necessarily motivated by their tradition, there are, perhaps, internal and external conflicts and influences that lead to them committing such misfortunes. Again, without taking away from the tradition, it is crucial to be aware that the …show more content…
Although the Buddha did not directly address many social issues important to the present day, his committed followers, in their own ways, are still proponents of non-violence. In Buddhism, non-violence is not merely “blind faith,” as it is much more than merely accepting because a higher authority said to, instead, it requires thoughtful, effortful, and sincere concern for human social existence.
If Muslims have doubts that Buddhism teaches non-violence as a result of violent incidents targeting Muslims in Myanmar, the only simple solution is for them to engage in interfaith dialogue as without communication, misunderstanding will ensue, and conflicts will persist. Indeed, it is better for Buddhist and Muslims, and even those of other traditions, to come together on the path of peace. In truth, peacemaking is an imminent, common responsibility mandated by the interdependent nature of our existence and should be shared by every one of us. With regards to life in the twenty-first century, it is important to work together and learn together as peace is available in every moment, in every breath, in every
There is no complete answer to this question as assumptions can be made, but nothing conclusive can be stated, the answer is within each individual who engages in said violence, and an answer that may be different to each person. In actuality, no Buddhist teaching encourages perpetuating violence, so it is unreasonable to place blame on the tradition itself for indeed, it is difficult to identify any plausible rationale for violence within Buddhism by reflecting on the first precept. Undeniably, those causing violence and harm to others is not acceptable, but it is clear that such attacks are not carried about by the majority of Buddhism, thus, this should not taint the image of the tradition, instead, it should be addressed in a way that considers the lives of Muslims being attacked, and further, attempts to find the root of the problem that prompts this militant sect to engage in violence. Following a religion that constantly preaches peace does not translate to being non-violent. Although Buddhist leaders and Scriptures greatly emphasize the importance of not harming others, people within Buddhism may still carry out acts of violence for they are not necessarily motivated by their tradition, there are, perhaps, internal and external conflicts and influences that lead to them committing such misfortunes. Again, without taking away from the tradition, it is crucial to be aware that the …show more content…
Although the Buddha did not directly address many social issues important to the present day, his committed followers, in their own ways, are still proponents of non-violence. In Buddhism, non-violence is not merely “blind faith,” as it is much more than merely accepting because a higher authority said to, instead, it requires thoughtful, effortful, and sincere concern for human social existence.
If Muslims have doubts that Buddhism teaches non-violence as a result of violent incidents targeting Muslims in Myanmar, the only simple solution is for them to engage in interfaith dialogue as without communication, misunderstanding will ensue, and conflicts will persist. Indeed, it is better for Buddhist and Muslims, and even those of other traditions, to come together on the path of peace. In truth, peacemaking is an imminent, common responsibility mandated by the interdependent nature of our existence and should be shared by every one of us. With regards to life in the twenty-first century, it is important to work together and learn together as peace is available in every moment, in every breath, in every