[Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist Intolerance?

[curt]

A minority religion can practice intolerance in at least three ways - 
all of which are found in early (pre-Constantinian) Christianity:

(1) Literal iconoclasm against holy objects, places and persons of the 
predominant religion(s). In other words, violent criminal acts ranging 
from vandalism to arson to murder. Even a lone individual can do such a 
thing. These acts do not require any particular "position" or "power" in 
society. The same goes for the next two.

(2) Intolerance "against your own kind." Heresy hunting was already a 
popular sport among Christians before they had any political power.

(3) "Theoretical" intolerance. Does a religion make an explicit claim to 
have a monopoly on the truth? How much room, if any, is there in the 
theology of a given religion for accepting the legitimacy of other 
religions? Does a religion vigorously promote itself and require new 
members to renounce all other religions?

#1 is pretty clear cut - but the other two require more nuanced 
distinctions. For example - when you read Hakuin's tirades against 
"silent illumination Zen" this starts to sound an awful lot like #2 
above. I think that arguments can be made either way - but in the end I 
am convinced that a clear distinction can be made between, say, an 
Irenaeus, on the one hand (see his "Against All Heresies"), and a 
Hakuin, on the other hand.

The third kind of intolerance above can, I think, be objectively 
measured using the criterion of whether or not a religion allows its 
members to belong to other religions. In some religions even mentioning 
such an idea will draw blank stares - that is a bad sign.

There is more than enough data to conclude that there is no direct 
correlation between being a "predominant" religion and being intolerant. 
In fact - the very phenomenon of a "predominant" religion needs to be 
examined more closely. Prior to the rise of Christianity, for example, 
there was in fact no "predominant" religion in the region known as the 
oikoumene ("known world"). The same could probably be said of India 
today if it is granted that Hinduism is not a single religion but rather 
a rich, tasty (and highly nutritious) stew of overlapping religious 
movements.

I agree that Tibetan Buddhism provides one of the most important areas 
for studying tolerance/intolerance in Buddhism. In Tibet the Buddhists 
established a full-blown literal theocracy in which there was "not one 
hair's breadth" between religion and the State - but at the same time 
there was tremendous freedom of expression and variety within Tibetan 
Buddhism. And while I think it's clear that Bon was in some ways 
suppressed it nevertheless survived more or less intact (although 
greatly diminished) - unlike, for example, any of the Pagan cults of the 
Roman Empire (which, were either utterly annihilated or perhaps survived 
in extreme secrecy under circumstances such that today any claim of 
"continuity" is extremely tentative). For that matter, all of the 
non-Nicene versions of early Christianity were wiped out, too. Points 
should be given (or subtracted, depending on how you look at it) for 
thoroughness, efficiency and zeal when it comes to intolerance.

But right behind Tibetan Buddhism should come Theravada. In the parts of 
Asia where Theravada today holds sway there used to be a much wider 
variety of Buddhisms - where did they go? Did they die of natural causes 
or was there foul play?

- Curt

David Fiordalis wrote:
>
>
> On 10/17/06, *Bradley Clough* <bclough at aucegypt.edu 
> <mailto:bclough at aucegypt.edu>> wrote:
>
>     Based on a helpful distinction drawn by some others who have
>     responded, I'm looking more for instances not of doctrinal critique of
>     other religions, but actual cases where Buddhists actively practiced
>     intolerance, where they actively worked to prevent others from
>     practicing their religion. Thus far, I'm finding that Buddhists have
>     often been most intolerant towards other Buddhist schools, as opposed
>     to other religions, which is interesting. If you have any further
>     thoughts on the matter, I would welcome them!
>
>
> I wonder what conditions are necessary for the type of intolerance you 
> describe. In other words, what position would Buddhism have to occupy 
> in a society in order to be able to work actively to prevent others 
> from practicing their religion? If Buddhism were not the dominant 
> religion in a particular culture or society, wouldn't its strategies 
> of engagement with other, perhaps more dominant religions be 
> different? Can a religion in the minority still be called intolerant, 
> or would such a minority religion need to tolerate the religious 
> majority by necessity?
>
> As an aside, I wonder if you've thought at all about Tibetan Buddhist 
> attitudes towards the Bon religion.
>
> Best,
>
> David Fiordalisi
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>