I was reading my latest copy of the Buddhadharma magazine when I came across a reference to the Tendai school of Buddhism and being curious started reading about it online.
I began reading and soon found reference to "warrior monks" and had to chuckle. What was a "warrior monk" I wondered and read on. Apparently there was a time when different Buddhist temples in ancient Japan fought with each other and developed these "warrior monks" that would fight to defend their temple and attack other temples. Most of the violence erupted over political feuds surrounding imperial appointments to the top temples. On some occasions the "rival temple" was burned to the ground with their holy relics and statues inside.
If any of this sounds not very Buddhist then you're not alone. The idea of a "Buddhist warrior monk" is just well (for lack of a better term) bizarre to say the least. Can following the Buddha and engaging in violence be congruent?? Nope. Especially if you're an "ordained monk!!" Buddhist monks take a vow to never kill or use violence and lay people are highly encouraged to do the same.
Just another example of how fundamentalism can really screw up a religion.
Fascinating though.
This isn't the only example of militantism creeping into Buddhism in ancient Japan (such as the Samurai). However, one can not say that all Samurai were Buddhist per se. Many were just influenced by Buddhist philosophy and practices--especially meditation. Perhaps that is the case with these "warrior monks" as well.
UPDATE: Speaking of "militant Buddhism" I just read something about the DKBA. It stands for, "Democratic Karen Buddhist Army." Apparently it is the oldest and largest insurgent group in Burma.
Again, bizarre.
~Peace to all beings~
18 comments:
I seen that and was taken back...curious world
I've actually heard worse about Japanese Buddhist monks. I don't have a link in front of me, but I've read before that when Christian missionaries first started arriving in Japan, they were rumored to have tortured them until they agreed to convert, or died.
Possibly, it's just a story. But if it's not, there's an explanation for this behavior: when the Christians began to arrive, the Emperor gave the Buddhist monks political authority. They were acting as agents of the Japanese imperial government, in other words, and the power corrupted them. It's like when the Pope found himself to be the de facto ruler of Europe--Catholicism was rife with corruption, simply because the mix of politics and religion was so corrosive.
Personally, when I hear stories like this, it reaffirms my belief that all religions should remain separate from political influences--their combination seems to invariably lead to disaster. It's also a good reminder that simply calling oneself a Buddhist doesn't mean that one is practicing Buddhism, and that we can learn from the mistakes of others.
~daur izre~
Kuan Gung:
Very curious world. This is why I find history so fascinating and led me to ultimately get a degree in World History.
Anon:
I agree that this is yet another example of the importance to keeping religion and the government separate.
I don't know much about this militancy in Buddhist history or even in modern times. It doesn't surprise me that any group would get violent truthfully. Humans will be humans. We are not perfect...and our primal natures can be entrained (as we can see with the Taliban) and are certainly engaged when we feel threatened (reference the American's response to 911).
It is a rare human being who would lay down and die when under threat or when someone they love is threatened under the restraint of a belief system, no matter how noble. Nope...most of us, given a weapon at hand, we'll pound the offender into a puddle if we can. Our will to survive and to have our right to culture will always make it difficult for humanity to be urbane and to stick to our principles...
If you think about this instance of warrior monks a little deeper, you'll realize that monks were not born monks and there's always far more complex things going on in politics. It may sometimes have been about popularity with the emporers where the temples are concerned...but it would likely be that not just temples were threatened but also the villages surrounding them that they served. Japanese lifestyle was built on a system of honor with the nobility owning everything around them, including the human vassals of their lands. The temples of these lands are inextricably a part of this society...if you look at Buddhism from the perspective of the cultures it sprung to life in, you'll see that it would never have developed in exactly the way it did under the impetus of any other world culture....Nope...the profit of the message that Buddha taught was given to many other cultures as well. In North American, Buffalo Calf Pipe Woman brought such a message. In Europe and the mediteranian, it was Jesus. You do not see the discipline or the depths of compassion and dedication to a practice in these cultures as you do with Buddhism. I think that's a tribute to the type of people you find within Asian culture.
On another note, the roots of Buddhism incorporates the idea of reincarnation...originally death was seen as only another way of living and everyone knew without doubt that they would be reborn...there was no need to fear death and death was not seen as a crime unless it was done to someone through betrayal or dishonor. in fact the practice of sipiku or ritual suicide was a custom that was observed within this society, so while the warrior monks may seem totally out of context to the buddhism that the Dalai Llama teaches today, it did not always take that shape, nor did everyone practice it well....just like any other belief system.
Hugs...*smiles*
Just a few other tidbits to thrown in to the mix...*grins*
My understanding of Japanese Buddhism (Zen in particular) see their practice not as a moral code, but rather a way of liberation - or even a "Religion of No Religion". With this in mind, knowing that the Buddha gave the Eight-Fold Path to humanity as a way to attain enlightenment, it would not be too odd for one to no longer see a need for the path once they have already attained what they believe to be enlightened. This is just one way of looking at it.
I am not saying that I agree with this idea. I believe that lasting happiness and contentment are cultivated more generously through a life of non-violence. It is interesting, though, to see how our predecessors practiced in the distant past.
Please pardon the grammatical errors in my first post. I meant to say... "My understanding of Japanese Buddhism (Zen in particular) is that its practitioners see their practice..."
Thanks, James, for the great topic!
Although we would not like to think of Warrior Monks. Politics does seep itself into religions contaminating what ever it touches.
Perhaps for you and all to be a warrior is good ... not fight back ... but to know that it is ones fears that holds us back. To be a warrior gives us the freedom to BE. Hugs for you James. :o)
I have found that fundamentalists in any belief system are simply belivers and rarely practitioners. By this I mean that they are consumed by the beliefs of the religion (or politcis, culture and so on) rather than actually practicing the basic precepts that the religion lays down.
Jesus taught about love, compassion and forgiveness. Buddha taught the same as well as non-attachment. Yet, practitioners of Christianity and Buddhism have and still do engage in the opposite of these most basic precepts.
Why?
I believe it is because they are not practicing Buddhism or Christianity but are simply believing. As such, they get nothing out of it and turn to these in on these beliefs to satisfy what they lack. The more deeply they go the more fundamentalist they become and then they live a life that is contradictory to the practice they claim to adhere to.
Those Buddhist monks were not true practitioners or followers of the Buddha but were simply going through the motions of practice but not truly practicing. The same goes for fundamentalist Christians in America today. They are not concerned with the two great commandments of Jesus to love God and love others. No, they focus on outdated laws that have no application to our modern lives and ignore some of the most important teachings of Jesus.
Any belief can be turned towards fundamentalism but it us usually religion that leads to violence because of how it is dealing with the big issues that we have in life.
A sad aspect of history but one that can be learned from especially today. The practice side of Buddhism has helped me greatly. As one who is a Deist but is involved in Christianity and Buddhism, I am amazed that there are those that fail to understand the essence of their respective religions and never experience the beauty that they have right before them.
MethoDeist
Green Woman:
Oh yes indeed. Most of the blood shed in this world has been over religion I'd venture to say. And Buddhism has been no exception. When people become so attached to beliefs they begin to believe that they are right and everyone else is not only wrong but worthy of death as they are "less then human."
I agree that most of us would use force to save a life and I don't always think that is wrong. I think It's compassionate to save an innocent being but I think we have an obligation to try and wound and incapacitate rather then kill.
You are right that when religion and politics mixes it seems to taint both badly. I just find these kinds of stories fascinating.
Excellent contribution friend. ;)
Hipster:
Yes, it is interesting. Very. I just think that it is very hard to find peace when living a life of violence. I'm not perfect though either. I don't engage in violence but I (like everyone) have my issues that I struggle with.
Trinity:
I agree that we can be a warrior without engaging in violence. Great point. We can we warriors of mindfulness and peace. Dedicated to courageously facing confusion, delusion and attachment.
Deist:
I like your distinction between followers and practitioners. Great points in your comment.
I agree with you that people use religion to try and justify their ignorance, hatreds and judgements.
We all have to be on-guard so that we do not turn into blind followers.
Great comment. Thanks for adding to this post.
Very interesting ! The Dalai Lama is always always very careful to say "We don't want anymore Buddhists".
He wants people to understand the dharma in their own socio-religous contexts. The practices of peace, love, meditation, non-violence are transcendant of a dogma or a context.
If someone starts to think, "what's all this buddhist talk ?" It creates a paranoia, and an "us and them" and this only causes problems.
The reality is, everyone you meet is part of your extended family, there is no them.
Your Japanese story is such a great example of this kind of delusion of the mind. Thanks for pointing it out.
David:
The practices of peace, love, meditation, non-violence are transcendant of a dogma or a context.
:) interesting read indeed.
blessings.
Sadiq:
Thank-you. :) It was fascinating doing the research for this post.
If the Dalai Lama is such a good example, why does he persecute Shugden practicioners. He is a political leader of Tibet, and not a Buddhist leader. If he really was, he would practice what he teaches.
hmm, i think this discussion is a symptom of a very modern world view, dividing religion and politics (whereas to be a Buddhist is neither strictly speaking religious, nor is it apolitical, rather being a Buddhist implies an engagement with "Life" in its entirety.)
have none of you heard of the shaolin temple?
- founded in China in the 5th century, and only later in the 18th century exported to Japan, these monks lived in some very dangerous times and would often need to defend not only themselves, but also to protect others - a very important aspect of Mahayana Buddhist practise. the Buddhist aspect of their combat would allow them to maintain am inner balance and to engage an enemy without hatred or anger, given that they didn't have the luxury that we have - living in far more "sanitised" society where we pay taxes which contribute to paying soldiers to do our fighting for us!
anyone who has ever studied a martial art, particularly one from the east, would understand how the practise of combat within this environment can lead one to develop respect for one's opponent. the development of competence in such an engagement can also help one to overcome one's fears. the emphasis in most eastern martial arts involves developing both mental and physical stability and balance - and in fact this very division of mental/physical is also a symptom of modern western dualistic thinking.
a warrior takes everything as a challenge rather than as a blessing or a curse, and as there is no difference between the subject and object, nor between the mind and the body, then the warrior's training leads to the most skillful response to anything that may try to throw them off balance.
Peter:
The thing that I like about martial arts is that they emphasis disarming your opponent rather than killing them unless necessary.
It makes sense that it was developed by monks wanting a self-defense mechanism without having to worry about killing.
- that's a very good point.
if we take seriously the idea that there is no subject/object dualism, then the same techniques can be used to disarm an internal threat, eg. an urge to get angry, or a craving for something we are addicted to.
certainly this is an aim, but i think it is perhaps a part of a greater whole - for example when we see an 80 year old practising tai chi for its health benefits rather than as a form of self-defense.
Post a Comment