[Buddha-l] Dharmapala

[L.S. Cousins]

Dan,


> Fourth, Richard's attempt to draw a line between "ideal" Buddhism 
> (which he
> would like to believe is pacifistic) and messy doings by Buddhists (which
> may from time to time not live up to that ideal) is simply another 
> form of
> denial of the sort of evidence this book brings forward. There are
> important, even pivotal sutras, that -- (not) surprisingly (?) -- are 
> cited
> in a variety of places and types of Buddhism that not only permit 
> violence,
> but insist on it, for the preservation of the Dharma. Whoever thinks this
> idea is an aberrant, or scarce occurrence, needs to read the book.
>
As far as I know, there is no sutta in the Pali Canon which authorizes 
violence in the way you suggest and much which clearly rejects it. So 
you really cannot dismiss Richard's comments so glibly. The situation 
for the early Mahāyāna is less clear but might be the same.


That violence has occurred throughout the last two thousand years of the 
history of Buddhism in various different ways is hardly surprising and 
has been  well-known to scholars for a very long while. The suggestion 
now being made that this is a new discovery seems to me to be quite 
ludicrous and perhaps motivated by the usual attempt that people make to 
puff up the importance of their own research.

> Seventh, from my own point of view, the premature conclusion that 
> Buddhism,
> because it did not avoid or forbid violence absolutely is therefore no
> different from Christianity and Islam (the other two major global 
> missionary
> religions) will only be properly dispelled when the actual history of
> violence in Buddhism -- with its attendant theoretical and institutional
> dimensions -- are fully fleshed out. While in the main there is no
> comparison, in my opinion, in terms of range, severity, fanaticism,
> instititutional acceptance, etc. between Buddhism and the other two, the
> reason for that can only be clarified with further study.
>
I agree.

Lance