Talk:Buddhism and violence

Asian tribune article

• http://asiantribune.com/news/2012/10/21/letter-america-buddhist-terrorism-–-no-longer-myth

The article claims the khmer rouge was buddhist. If the khmer rouge were buddhist then the BJP is made out of fanatical islamists.

• The Khmer Rouge regime relentlessly pursued the systematic destruction of Buddhism from Cambodian society. Between 1970 and 1973, nearly a third of the country's 3,369 monasteries were destroyed, although many may have fallen ...

• Following the Khmer Rouge victory in 1975, all temples and monasteries throughout Cambodia were closed, and Buddhist activities and rituals were forbidden, including those concerned with burials and commemorating the dead.

• The Khmer Rouge had been pointing to the burden that around 60,000 unproductive monks placed on the country. Additionally, Buddhism was recast as a foreign, hence 'unpatriotic' religion, with origins in Thailand," and the morality of the monks was openly criticized.

• Pol Pot's soldiers also attacked Khmer institutions from the precolonial past, including the sangha, the Buddhist order of monks. In a systematic manner the Khmer Rouge attempted to obliterate Buddhism from Cambodian society, destroying

• 27 * * The 1948 United Nations Convention on Genocide can be applied to the Khmer Rouge regime's persecution and slaughter of three categories of Cambodian victims: "religious groups" like the Buddhist monks; "ethnical or racial groups" ...

• Equally traumatic to many Cambodians were the massive desecration and destruction of Buddhist temples, the forced ...
  • all of these quotes are about the implementation and aftermath. Many of the initial supporters and participants in the Khmer Rouge were Buddhists (and Buddhist monks). This does not mean they were involved in the violence of the Khmer Rouge, but they were involved in its creation, with a very sad and brutal turnaround (from socialist, equality aspirations to genocide). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.76.233 (talk) 06:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

In Thailand, violence is only between Malays and Thais. There is no violence between Chinese muslims in Thailand and Buddhist Thais, or between Tai muslims and buddhist Thai

this article written by a Chinese muslim notes Thailand's liberal policies towards chinese muslims, granting them citizenship and contrasts it with how intolerant Myanmar is. the thai king visited mosques and presented them with qurans[1]

The former commander in chief of the Thai military was muslim General Sonthi Boonyaratglin

The soldiers in southern Thailand are there to protect innocent Buddhists such as school teachers, children and monks from terrorism against them. Such terrorism has been observed and documented over many years. The soldiers do not initiate violence. [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.97.110.196 (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Rajmaan (talk) 18:10, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 1

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved Tiggerjay (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

---

Violence in Buddhism → Violence by Buddhists – This article is about acts of certain Buddhists rather than activity taught in Buddhism PHEONIXTER 06:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose That might be the majority of the content at the minute, but that shouldn't limit the scope of the article: [If ordered to] march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war [now under way] 89.100.71.14 (talk) 11:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with the IP; I think the AfD resulted in a rename precisely to try to shift the scope of the article to better resemble, say, Christianity and violence. This would be a much more valuable article if we can discuss theology and philosophy, rather than listing incidents of violence. See this Snopes page and the Guardian piece it links to. Many Westerners conflate the positions of the current Dalai Lama with a universal Buddhist view, which seems incorrect. Trying to make the content fit the name, rather than vice versa, is our best hope of an encyclopedic article, rather than a sectarian timeline. --BDD (talk) 18:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of Christianity and violence, modelling this article's opening line on the opening line from the corresponding christianity article ("The relationship of Christianity and violence is the subject of controversy because some of its teachings advocate peace, love and compassion, whereas other teachings have been used to justify the use of violence") might be a good way to get the article off to a neutral-ish start. 89.100.71.14 (talk) 22:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support There is no single theory of just war in Buddhism. This title will accurately show that this article is a conglomeration of unrelated events. Shii (tock) 07:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose there are multiple sources which support war etc.. in Buddhist theories, It will take some time to apply those, at once a entire article cannot be written, it will require some time to update all of those, thus i urge th editors to rather wasting time on article name, help the article by applying cited text. Regards :)--Omer123hussain (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, while i originally afd'd this article, I think enough evidence is present to justify an article on violence in buddhism, and i do like the name as it is now. Violence by Buddhists could include acts entirely separate from the teachings, just like "violence by christians" could include any murder committed by a so called christian for any reason whatsoever. the current name doesnt have to mean that violence is advocated formally by many buddhist sects, only that there is at least some historical pairing of buddhist teachings/culture and violence. I do think the article will be finally be NPOV when sources are found to show the actual degree to which violence is a factor in buddhism, esp. if sources have compared it to other religions accurately. at this point, the lede makes it seem like buddhism is an incredibly violent religion, absolutely on a par with christianity and islam, which is simply not true. I dont have facts to back this up, but i would say that for every citation of a passage in a buddhist text supporting violence, we would find probably 10 to 1000 similarly significant ones in christianity or islam, with a corresponding reversal for passages supporting nonviolence. just look at the old testament, which has never been formally condemned or redacted by either religion (or judaism) for its insanely murderous passages. I disagree (again, without solid facts) with Omer that there are multiple sources which support war in buddhist theories. Buddhism is at its core a nonviolent religion, more so than even christianity, and thus while the article can and should stand, its not going to ever be "see, buddhism is just as violent as every other major religion, with an equal number of dead people it is responsible for".Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Aum Shinrikyo

Belnova removed a section about Aum Shinrikyo, specifically the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway. It was restored by an IP, and I've removed it again. I hadn't heard of Aum before, but looking over their article, it seems like a real stretch to call them a Buddhist organization. Besides being a terrorist organization, they primarily seem to be a syncretic religion, and the founders' claims suggest a stronger connection to Christianity than Buddhism. I'm also motivated by my desire to change the scope of the article to better reflect the title, as I've expressed in the section above. Interestingly, I see the IP agrees with me on that point. What do other editors think? --BDD (talk) 22:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

The removed material didn't just include mentions of Aum Shinrikyo. It also included references to that "In recent decades, there has been Buddhist terrorism in Japan" without mentioning aum specifically; an explicit reference to Aum as a "radical-Buddhist terrorist cult"; a further explicit reference to aum as committing "buddhist terrorism"; and a reference stating that many buddhist leaders in Japan consider aum to be pseudo-Buddhism, which provides context to show that some people don't consider aum to be truly buddhist. However, the fact that some buddhist groups like to distance themselves from aum doesn't necessarily make the group any less "Buddhist." Plenty of different Christian denominations consider themselves to be the "one true church" of Christ. That doesn't mean that we take the side of one particular denomination and declare the others to not be Christian. 89.100.71.14 (talk) 22:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

However, the fact that some buddhist groups like to distance themselves from aum doesn't necessarily make the group any less "Buddhist." Yes it does, unless if Buddhism has absolutely no meaning in the Japanese context. Calling Aum "Buddhist" threatens to make any talk about Buddhism incomprehensible. Shii (tock) 07:05, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Calling Aum "Buddhist" threatens to make any talk about Buddhism incomprehensible. How so? Who appointed you the arbiter of what is and is not buddhism? There are already reliable sources referring to them as buddhist cited in the article. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"Who appointed you the arbiter of what is and is not buddhism?" Gee, I don't know, I've only lived here for four years, know the language, and have a B.A. in Japanese religion. Even if you want to define everything your way, words do have common meaning in a given cultural context. Buddhism in Japan refers to a specific number of preexisting sects. Not all of these are very nice sects-- see Soka Gakkai-- but there is a word for groups like Aum, and that is Shinshukyo, a separate category from Buddhism both in the popular mind and in academia.

"There are already reliable sources referring to them as buddhist cited in the article." No there aren't. Look at the three sources you gave.

1. Encyclopedia of Christianity. Not RS for this claim.

2. "Is Religion the Problem?" by an expert on religious terrorism. This is RS, but it identifies Aum as "pseudo-Buddhism", which is correct. I don't know where you get off transforming "pseudo-Buddhism" into Buddhism.

3. "Understanding terrorism in South Asia". Not RS for this claim. Shii (tock) 16:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Number 1 is a reliable source.

Number 2 does not call Aum "pseudo-Buddhism." It states "This position—that religion is essentially innocent—is supported by many mainstream religious leaders in the faiths in which violent occurs. In these cases they do not explain away the religious motives of the violent activists, but they deny that these extreme religious groups represent the normative traditions. Most Buddhist leaders in Japan, for instance, distanced themselves from what they regarded as the pseudo- Buddhism of the Aum Shinrikyo sect." Seeing as you agree that this is a reliable source, I assume you'll have no objections to my restoring it.

Number 3 is a reliable source. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 18:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

We can say source X is or is not reliable all day and not get anywhere. How about explaining why it's so? I would think the Encyclopedia of Christianity is unreliable in the first case since Aum is clearly a group influenced by both Christianity and Buddhism. As I've said before, it appears to draw more from the former. A Christian encyclopedia would have ample motive to distance Aum from Christianity. --BDD (talk) 19:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

An encyclopaedia of christianity isn't the same thing as a christian encyclopaedia. Just because a work is about a subject doesn't mean that it sets out to defend that subject, or to talk about that subject uncritically. For example, just two pages after the reference to aum, the authors state "Christian ethicists paul Ramsey and Reinhold Hiebuhr and christian just war theorist James Turner Johnson have also, in various ways, left the door open to the use of nuclear weapons, even when their use would harm population centers." 46.7.236.155 (talk) 20:30, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you seriously claiming that two books about South Asia and Christianity are reliable for whether a group is Buddhist? I will take this straight to WP:RSN. Shii (tock) 22:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

"We may have evangelical lay Buddhists making changes to this website with personal intentions, and this is disturbing. It is probably connected to this post. Having a bachelor's degree in Japanese religion does not make someone an expert-- nor does someone claiming that s/he is a practitioner. If users are citing scholars who have doctoral degrees in Japanese religion or Religious Studies, this would be much more substantive (and hopefully less emotionally and personally motivated).

Looks to me like we may have WP:SYNTH on Wikipedia, which is a far worse problem. " If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources. " Shii (tock) 00:28, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no synthesis involved. You just seem to be adamant that this article will be free of any mention of aum shinrikyo, regardless of any other considerations. 46.7.236.155 (talk) 09:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The article should not be making up its own assertions about violence in Buddhism. It should be using reliable sources that discuss the subject of violence in Buddhism and not "violence in religious groups -> religious groups linked to Buddhism -> therefore violence in Buddhism" which is WP:SYNTH. Shii (tock) 12:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The article isn't "making up its own assertions." Reliable sources are being used and there's no synthesis involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.7.236.155 (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I am concerned about the editing taking place on this talk page. I had posted last year on this page that Ian Reader-- a scholar of Japanese religion -- provided solid evidence on how Aum followers saw themselves as Buddhist (and cited several other credible sources). These were removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.76.233 (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Violence in Buddhism → Buddhism and violence – The name "Buddhism and violence" suggests a broader look at buddhism's relationship with violence, and is consistent with other similar articles e.g. Christianity and violence and Islam and violence 46.7.236.155 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC) 46.7.236.155 (talk) 15:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment please note there was a prior discussion that was recently closed regarding a similar name change. Tiggerjay (talk) 03:57, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment but a very, very different proposed title. Red Slash 23:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support clear, neutral, consistent, sensible. Red Slash 23:58, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support is keeps it more neutral and it aligns with the other existing articles that are already listed. Helpsome (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article criticism

Barbara O'Brien has written an article for About.com,Buddhist Violence, Real and Imagined, which has some very valid criticisms about this article. Helpsome (talk) 16:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This has already been linked to: [3] 46.7.236.155 (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Barbara O'Brien is a blogger and an American Soto Zen practitioner. I do not see how points on her blog have more relevance than the sources currently on the site. Her arguments about Aum merely pit her authority to that of published scholars, and the bulk of her dismissal like that about Ketsumeidan in which the only sources she provide are herself with attributions such as, "and as far as I know" do not carry much force. What is interesting to note is that she is a practicing Buddhist of Japanese lineage, and seems to attack all sources that take critical critiques of/about Japanese Buddhism (Brian Victoria's work, Aum, Ketsumeidan). Because of this, her works comes across as apologist rhetoric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.56.112 (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I think a criticism I might have is that the information is mostly too weighted to recent history, nothing on the Sōhei so far as I can tell, and that including Aum Shinrikyo is questionable.--T. Anthony (talk) 03:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how Ian Reader's articulations of Aum Shinrikyo (or that the group itself claimed itself as Buddhist) makes the evidence "questionable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.187.212.107 (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not criticizing any specific individual so much as saying that Aum, as I understand it, is a somewhat syncretic movement that doesn't fit simply as "Buddhist." (As a syncretic movement it could deem itself Buddhist and deem itself other things too, which maybe it did) Neither the article on it, nor the category on it, are placed in a Buddhist category by the looks of it.--T. Anthony (talk) 04:40, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Myanmar

I've had to remove this section, almost all of the text was directly copied from copyrighted sources. There was a little bit that was ok, but that tended to amount to one or two sentences, and became meaningless when the rest was removed. However, to help with rewriting, the sources used were:

• "Buddhist monk uses racism and rumours to spread hatred in Burma". The Guardian. 2013-04-18. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
• "Myanmar govt targets 'neo-Nazi' Buddhist group". The Straits Times. 2013-04-08. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
• "Is 'nationalism' solely to blame for Burma's latest anti-Muslim violence?". Asian Correspondent. 2013-05-30. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
• "Massacre in Central Burma: Muslim Students Terrorized and Killed in Meiktila". Global Research. 2013-05-26. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
• "Massacre in Central Burma: Muslim Students Terrorized and Killed in Meiktila". Global Research. 2013-05-26. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
• "Fresh communal riots in Myanmar". Bangkok Post. 2013-03-25. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
• "Buddhist mobs spread fear among Myanmar's Muslims". Yahoo News. 2013-05-30. Retrieved 2013-05-30.
• "Is 'nationalism' solely to blame for Burma's latest anti-Muslim violence?". Asian Correspondent. 2013-05-30. Retrieved 2013-05-30.

Bilby (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Biased Article

I'm a little disturbed at how deeply biased and subjective this article has been written from the very beginning, it's as if it's more an attack on Buddhism itself rather a clear and objective analysis on how some Buddhists use violence. For example, the article tries to present Burmese Buddhists as almost equivalents to the Nazis and their treatment of Jews in WW2, but is this really the case? You do know that there has been extreme instances of Muslim violence against Buddhist civilians as well, do you? Burmese-Buddhist monk Shin Thawbita was brutally assaulted and then his genitals were cut off and he was then burned alive by a Muslim mob in Meikhtila. Why doesn't the article neglect to mention this in relation to Buddhism and violence? Or at least the historical Muslim violence that drove Buddhism to extinction in modern-day regions of Afghanistan, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh?

Also, according to the history, this article itself is only a few months old, and the creator of the article himself identifies as an Indian Muslim, Omer123hussain, who wrote this in the description: "created article about Buddhist terrorism, on the latest organised accrocites happened in srilanka and burma", hardly an objective overview of the topic, is likely to lean in favor of Islam over Buddhism, and less likely to create articles regarding Islamic violence against other religious minorities in Asia.

My main objection is all of the article content seems basically to be pieced together roughly and loosely, without any real or clear deeper analysis or argumentation. Just take the Tibet section, for example - does it mean to imply the evil Buddhists are just a bunch of brutal terrorists being put in their place by the innocent Communist Party? All the incidents listed here are very selectively taken, and very debatable in themselves. The first section lists a call for "Muslim extermination"; who said this, and to whom, and where and why? Furthermore, has such a genocide actually been attempted, as is implied? All these are issues I think need further background and exploration. Jared1219 (talk) 18:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

And there's another issue - this article fails to examine the instances of "violence" in relation with Buddhism in other Asian lands where it has a strong following, such as China or Korea, or even India itself, both in ancient and modern times. Have Buddhists there also shown the same kind of violence as the article purports they demonstrate in say, Burma or Tibet? Jared1219 (talk) 18:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, the article is pure WP:SYNTH, but we already tried to delete it and failed. Some people seem to think any removal of content is censorship. Shii (tock) 16:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

This article needs more critical development and cohesion. I concur on this, as so it needs more people to add to it and help it develop. However, it is not necessarily a problem of bias, but rather I feel some of the arguments on this Talk Page are bias-driven. Rohingyas were stripped of their citizenship in the 1980s, and in the last couple years they have been labeled non-citizens without rights. This process of stripping citizenship and scapegoating of a small minority (4% are Muslim in Myanmar- who are labeled as the financial wielders who will 'take over' the country) has a lot of similarities to the rhetoric against the Jews leading up to the Jewish Holocaust. There has been extensive examination of Neo-Nazi support in Myanmar by 969 supporters-- this was covered in a BBC Beyond Belief episode in August, and commented by multiple journalists (and scholars are now writing on it). The fact that this information is not integrated into the article is a problem, not the assertion of Nazism in Myanmar. My point in bringing this up is to show how there is important similarities, not biases, at work.

As this article is on Buddhism and Violence, it is not supposed to talk about the Muslim violence against Buddhists-- which is certainly present as well. Hence, I do not think the point above about failing to cite Muslim-violence here is relevant. Also, since this page focuses on episodes/examples of Buddhism and violence, it is going to be selective. In this vein, I do not understand the above point "All the incidents listed here are very selectively taken, and very debatable in themselves." All this said, -- Muslim violence did not drive "Buddhism to extinction in modern-day regions of Afghanistan, India, Pakistan and Bangladesh." This is a popular Buddhist-held belief that has no historical validity (see Elverskog's Buddhism and Islam on the Silk Road, http://www.upenn.edu/pennpress/book/14726.html, which I believe Michael Jerryson notes in his work, "Buddhist Traditions and Violence"). This is not about censorship, but blocking concerted apologist voices from obfuscating/eliminating the chronicling of history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.61.76.233 (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

guessing the unsigned IP above is one of the Muslim users who'se helped make the page? look, there was A HUGE debate earlier, (more about other stuff thoug) i still remember, this page was named "Buddha terrorism" or something a yr ago. from, from ur edit to reza aslan's pg, the iranian-american who defends islam, i'm guessing you're a similar muslim apologist? i personally think Jesus better than both, K.O.s, i have budhist and muslim friends though in real life. not taking sides, think both buddhist + islam articles on wiki are really biased, but its not a place for expert scholars anyway. anyway, cheers, salaam. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.88.52 (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Identification and Buddhist violence

"One of the core element that draws Buddhists into the social realm of violence is their identification: "I am a Buddhist," which requires the distinction between those within and outside the imagined community." ---this is of clear rhetorical format and inappropriately styled for Wikipedia. Belnova (talk) 22:08, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Belnova. I would agree that it isn't approprate, but for other reasons. Namely, a) it is too niche to belong in the lead, and b) it is really more a of a throw away comment in the source anyway. I am going to be bold and go ahead with the removal. Cheers Andrew (talk) 23:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Links

]>> The violent side of Sri Lankan Buddhism(Lihaas (talk) 19:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)).

Very biased article

This article violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and its Verifiability policy by having a negative bias towards Buddhism and being poorly cited.The following would being an example of bias in this article."In the 1970s, Buddhist monks like Phra Kittiwuttho argued that killing Communists did not violate any of the Buddhist precepts (Jerryson 2011, 110)."So it's bad the Buddhists were fighting against the Communist party which had murdered innocent people? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thefalseprophet1 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm pretty anti-Communist, but the lives of Communists still have value and ideally killing them should only be necessary in cases of self-defense. But anyway whether it's bad or good or mixed I think the point is that it's a Buddhist justifying violence. Possibly a bit more context for some of these things might be relevant, but if a Catholic priest justified killing Communists, as I'm sure some did, I think it would be treated as or more negatively by this site. Even if said Catholic priest was of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church and knew those facing Communist persecution.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

• Our personal feelings matter very little, and rightly so, but if we were to try documenting every act done by every religious group, then Christianity would be at least one hundred pages long. And let's not get into Islam, which at least in modern times is even more extremist (or prone to extremist interpretation) than the former. If this page is a legitimate one, then what about "Gnosticism and violence" or "Paganism and terrorism"? Should we also endeavour to create such articles as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabsharo (talk • contribs) 22:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Christian terrorism is significantly longer than this article as is Christianity and violence. Category:Christianity and violence has ten sub-categories. Category:Islamic terrorism has 20 sub-categories while the Islamic terrorism article is over a 100K. Islam and violence is around 70K and Category:Islam and violence has twelve sub-cats. There is no Category:Buddhism and violence and Category:Buddhist terrorism has only one article. (Hindus and Sikhs are maybe getting somewhat "benign" treatment, although there is a Category:Hindu terrorism but more in terms of nationalism than religion. Category:Khalistan movement is also maybe listed more as nationalism than religion)--T. Anthony (talk) 04:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Weaseling and lack of content

The article said: There are ample doctrinal sources that provide Buddhists with a justification for violence such as the Mahayana Chinese version of the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, Upayakaushalya Sutra, and the Kalachakra Tantra.

Ample is about my favorite weaseling word when there is no backup offered. Proper backup here would mean what experts say and which sources they point to. It should be elucidating to hear what kind of violence is meant. And I hope we will not be offered tantric texts at face value. Experts avoid that. -- Zz (talk) 17:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The entire article is "weasel words" and to an expert in the subject it is totally laughable. This article doesn't deserve to exist. Shii (tock) 22:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Conflict with the sources about Aum Shinrikyo

Aum Shinrikyo is not Buddhist, is a syncretic new religion, it was a discussion about the reliability of the sources here before, there is a conflict with the sources about it here with the sources of his Wikipedia page, here says that the cult is based upon Buddhist ideas and scriptures, but in the sources of its wiki page says it's a syncretic belief system that incorporates facets of Christianity with idiosyncratic interpretations of Yoga, and the writings of Nostradamus. So, who is correct? Rupert loup (talk) 00:12, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits

So recently I started to work on the page and provide cited information on BBS and the response has not been positive. Since you are reverting, would you like to explain how putting cited material on BBS is undue weight specifically on a page titled "Buddhism and violence"? Right now it looks like BBS is a polite tea society, and the cited material strongly indicates otherwise. Ogress _smash! 04:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ogress. Thanks for coming to the talk page. And of course I am happy to elaborate on my rationale for reverting your additions. My concern is that the article is not being developed as an encyclopedic account of the relationship between Buddhism and violence. Instead, it is being increasingly populated with examples, often detailed, of instances where those identifying/identified as Buddhist have committed acts of violence. Not all characteristics of said events are relevant here. A handful of case examples is fine, but really only those features that illustrate the connection between this religion and violent actions have a strong justification for inclusion. In short, it is exactly because the page is tilted "Buddhism and violence" and not "list of violent events involving Buddhism" that I have reverted your additions. Without that extra connection to the article topic it is just the redundant inclusion of material covered elsewhere (e.g. here and here). Does that makes sense to you? And what do others think? Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:42, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree; I'm apparently not the only one given that there is an IP editor trying to post more here as well (no, not me). BBS still is not described as the ethno-religious fascist hate group it unequivocably is; they were responsible for the 2014 riots. The section on Tibet is extremely weak; I added in the dopdop with a cite and BOOP! deleted. That section does not need cited material deleted from it, especially not about gangs in the monasteries. Ogress _smash! 18:17, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ogress. Thanks for your reply. Unfortunately though, you haven't really engaged in this discussion in the way we need. You have described what you want to see included, but haven't engaged with why you want that material included. More specifically, your response doesn't speak to what such inclusions would add to an encyclopaedic coverage of the connection, or not, between the Buddhist religion and violence. As described above, this is what is at the heart of my undue weight concern. I would invite you to reply again along those lines. Cheers Andrew (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@U3964057: "Violence in Buddhism refers to acts of violence and aggression committed by Buddhists with religious, political, and socio-cultural motivations." Modern organised hate groups strongly affiliated with Buddhism utilitising Buddhist socio-cultural political power and rhetoric to precipitate mass violence against non-Buddhists absolutely should be covered in an article about violence in Buddhism. Are you kidding? Why do I think an article about violence in Buddhism should cover violence in Buddhism? "I just don't like it" is kind of the opposite of what I'm saying, bro. Ogress _smash! 01:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ogress. I happily agree that this article should cover violence in Buddhism. What I don't think the article should do is attempt to cover all aspects of all instances where violence has been connected to Buddhism, which is the implication of your language. Now presumably you don't actually think that, so what we need to do is talk about where to draw the line. Does this make sense? And do you see how you haven't thus far engaged with that issue? I have suggested at the outset that additions should be restricted to those that "illustrate the connection between this religion and violent actions". You haven't provided any sort of response to this. Are you not happy with this? If not, what alternative benchmark would you suggest? This is the why we need to talk about. I.e. why should particular material get included/excluded? Cheers Andrew (talk) 03:32, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"Those that 'illustrate the connection between this religion and violent actions'" means what, exactly? That's a nebulous statement. You want to separate 'Buddhists who do violence' from 'the tenets of Buddhism and violence', but the history of this page shows previous discussions on this topic have concluded that it is impossible to do so and not ideal to do so. Ogress _smash! 07:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ogress. Thanks for asking for the clarification, although in your next breath you seem happy to tell me what it is that I mean. Anyway, you are sort of on the right track. My feeling is that this article should explore and explain the relationship(s) between Buddhism and violence. That doesn't have to be limited to the tenets of Buddhism, but that would be one area that I would think the coverage could be expanded. Is that clear? Again, you were close-ish.

In terms of your follow up claim that there is a consensus that for this page such an approach is "impossible", I don't see where you are getting that from. In fact, my reading of this talk page suggests the opposite. Take this move proposal for instance. There we see a suggestion that the article be renamed "violence by Buddhists" to reflect the fact that the article is lacking in analysis and is instead largely an unstructured list article (along the lines you seem to be happy with). In response we see numerous editors oppose the proposal, instead advocating for article improvement toward coherence and examination (e.g. "This would be a much more valuable article if we can discuss theology and philosophy, rather than listing incidents of violence", BDD). Do you see that theme? If not, can you let me know how you have got your alternative impression? Cheers Andrew (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Work needs to be done on systemic issues of violence, but that does not mean we should skip sections discussing systemic Buddhist violence being done right now. The article needs expansion regarding the place of violence in the teachings of the various schools of Buddhism; and yet, there is terrible, organised violence being directed at non-Buddhists by 969, BBS and other groups. We can't ignore including stuff like that. I never advocated for a list of violence; what I did was try to expand specific sections to expand on "the BBS made some protests", which is ridiculous to the point of 'why is this even on this page? why not just delete it?' And we cannot detach the practice and theory of Buddhist violence from each other; pretending theory and practice are separate is sophistry. Any theory of violence in Buddhism has to take into account Nichirenism, 969ism, BBS, Japanese temple armies, and dop-dops. Ogress _smash! 02:23, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Ogress, you now seem happy with the attempt to explore and explain the systemic links between Buddhism and violence, which seems like a complete turn around from your position two days ago that "it is impossible to do so and not ideal to do so". Am I missing something here?

You also seem to be continue to be confused about my position. I don't think there is anything in the above that suggests that I wish to detach instances of violence related to Buddhism from any theories that explain those relationships (Frankly, I don't even know what that means). My position is simply that the topic of the article should be the latter, and consequently that any mention of the former should do so in service of an encyclopaedic coverage of that topic. You appear to disagree, but I don't know why (particularly given your recent inconsistency). You just seem to insist that all historical and contemporary violent events need to be covered in the article in detail, which does leads us toward a list style article. And yes, while I know you haven't advocated explicitly for this, this is the implication of your language here.

Maybe the best thing to do now is to try and get a bit more of an understanding about where your head is at. Can you answer me this: do you agree that the article topic is, or at least should be, the relationship between Buddhism and violence? Cheers Andrew (talk) 03:41, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The title of the article is "Buddhism and violence". That does not mean we are going to avoid talking about actual, organised violence currently being perpetrated by Buddhists. Ogress _smash! 08:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ogress. Thanks for the answer. That's great. And yes, I agree that there is no reason that coverage of particular instances of violence cannot be a part of this article (as I said at the outset). Moving on then, do you also agree that this article should not aim to, in addition to covering the relationship between Buddhism and violence, be a detailed journal of all such instances of violence? Cheers Andrew (talk)

U3964057, how many times are you going to ask the same question? Ogress _smash! 04:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. Ogress, if you think I have asked this before then it seems notable that you have not yet provided an answer. Anyway, I'll ask again; do you also agree that this article should not aim to, in addition to covering the relationship between Buddhism and violence, be a detailed journal of all such instances of violence? Cheers Andrew (talk) 05:17, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

So... ad nauseum, then. Good to know. BTW I already answered this repeatedly and you are clearly obfuscating for ownership reasons as you are not listening to other editors. Ogress _smash! 07:57, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Intro

The intro has been watered down to make it seem as if the existence of Buddhist sanctioned violence is open to dispute, but the text from this book makes it clear that existence of Buddhist violence is not open to dispute: (the link takes you to google books where you can read large sections of the book): Buddhist Warfare by Michael Jerryson... WillMall ~(P&~P) (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi WillMall ~(P&~P). I wouldn't read it that way. Instead I think that the lead suggests that the often presumed strong connection between Buddhism and peace is open to dispute. Do you see that interpretation? Anyway, it seems innocuous to me, but you could always have a crack at changing it if you are still concerned. The worst case scenario is that your change will be reverted. Cheers Andrew (talk) 01:21, 25 May 2015 (UTC)