[Buddha-l] Buddhism and forced conversion

[Curt Steinmetz]

It is also very illuminating to look at the case of the monk Tao Sheng 
(360-434). When the Mahayana Parinirvana Sutra was first translated into 
Chinese, Tao Sheng said that this official translation was wrong, 
because it attributed the doctrine of the existence of icchantikas to 
the Buddha. Tao Sheng insisted that the Buddha had never taught that 
doctrine.

Tao Sheng was informed politely that it was not up to him to decide what 
the Buddha should have said: the Sutras contain the words of the Buddha 
and that is that. Tao Sheng reiterated that his belief was that the 
Buddha did not, in fact say this, and that, therefore, either the 
translation was wrong or the text it was based on was corrupt. This went 
on, back and forth, for some time and eventually Tao Sheng was invited 
to leave the monastic Sangha if that was how he felt about it, and then 
he was shown the door. He went home. That was it. No imprisonment, 
torture, execution or any of that sort of thing.

And then a couple years later a new revised translation based on a more 
complete original text came out -- and it exonerated Tao Sheng, who was 
promptly reinstated and promoted (he was put in charge of teaching the 
Mahaparinirvana Sutra).

In Buddhism, a doctrinal dispute over Buddha-Nature is equivalent to a 
dispute over Christology in Christianity. Between the years 325 and 550 
a minimum of 25,000 Christians were murdered by their fellow Christians 
in the course of disputes over Christology. [See Ramsay MacMullen, 
"Voting About God In Early Church Councils", 2006 -- in particular, see 
Chapter Five, "The Violent Element."]

Curt Steinmetz

Piya Tan wrote:
> Dear Lance,
>
> Thanks for the sobering words.
>
> The "head-splitting" reference is actually  found in about a dozen sutta
> references, and a few more in the Jatakas and Miln. However, none of them
> were ever effected, unlike in the BrhadAranyaka Upanisad (BU 3.9.26) see
> Brian Black ("Ambattha & Svetaketu," 2007:23).
>
> I think the head-splitting remark is (was) merely a figure, like in East
> Asia, someone might say "You will lose your face," or something to that
> effect.
>
> I have included a short study on this figure in my annotated translation of
> the Ambattha Sutta.
>
> With metta & mudita,
>
> Piya Tan
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 17, 2010 at 5:34 PM, L.S. Cousins <selwyn at ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>   
>> As regards forced conversion, there is a major difference between
>> Buddhism on the one hand and the Christian or Islamic religions on the
>> other. Similarly between Buddhism and such religions as Marxism. For
>> Christianity and Islam forced conversion has played a very major role in
>> their history, although other means of conversion have also played their
>> part. For Buddhism it has played only a minor role. It is essentially
>> sporadic and atypical. There certainly are examples. Indeed it would be
>> surprising if there were not, given the vast history of Buddhism and the
>> great variety of ideas and practices subsumed under that heading.
>>
>> Inevitably those who would like to tar all 'religions' with the same
>> brush want now to argue that somehow forced conversion is a part of
>> Buddhism from the start. One technique for doing so is to extend the
>> meaning of the term 'forced conversion'.
>>
>> They have a problem with the earlier Buddhist literature because despite
>> the large size of the literature and its very varied content there is
>> very little to support such an idea. So we see the story of the yakkha
>> with the vajira weapon cited as some kind of example of forced
>> conversion. This is really quite peculiar. Even if it were, we should
>> note that this occurs in one passage (pericope) found only in two suttas
>> in Pali and in parallel versions in other languages. In other words, it
>> is something very rare and quite possibly a rather late addition.
>>
>> How this passage (or others) are (mis)interpreted in later times is of
>> course quite irrelevant to the question as to whether there is any kind
>> of forced conversion in /early/ Buddhism.
>>
>> But in any case can we view the episode of the yakkha with the vajira in
>> his hand as any kind of forced conversion. ? This has to be interpreted
>> in the same way as the appearance of devas to make some reinforcing
>> point that is found commonly in the suttas. So too in later Buddhist
>> works where sometimes Buddhas or bodhisattvas play a similar role. It
>> seems rather naive to take this kind of thing literally.
>>
>> The idea that someone who behaves badly to or in debate with a spiritual
>> teacher might find his head split into a number of pieces is part of
>> pan-Indian ideas concerning religious truth and religious debate. It
>> needs to be analysed in such a context. In essence, it seems a way of
>> saying that setting oneself in conflict with dharma is self-divisive and
>> self-destructive.
>>
>> To forcibly convert these episodes into some kind of forced conversion
>> seems to me to be way over the top.
>>
>> Lance Cousins
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> buddha-l mailing list
>> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
>> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>>
>>     
>
>
>
>