Buddhist temples destroyed in Bangladesh.

[Karma Dondrup Tashi]

Look s like the axe grinders are out in full force again.

Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

[gregkavarnos]

Ah... again the exception being taken as the rule. You know, there's a funny saying here. Prior to 25 April (when the revolution took place), everyone was pro regimen. After, everyone was against it. People often are "victims of the circumstances".
I won't comment this subject any further Greg. I don't think there's much more to say.

I am not talking about exceptions and rules I am talking about potentials. Samsara is the rule, Nirvana is the exception, yet here we are pegging all our hopes on the extreme outsider. And what is this hope based on? The potential that exists within each (and every) individual and situation for enlightenment. If we forget that, then we are condemned to endless repitition of negative patterns of suffering: us and them, right and wrong, loss and gain, ad nauseum...

I am not going to let close minded bigotry destroy my hope for change, neither do I propose starry-eyed positive thinking. That is why I posted the teachings from the Buddha. Some (all!) will do well to go read and ponder them.

That's it from me!

Greg

[treehuggingoctopus]

Has anyone else noticed a kind of peristalsis of intolerance on this forum? A dog whistle post will go up about gender orientation. That will blow up. As it's dying down, another dog whistle will sound about a certain quarter of monotheism. Rinse thoroughly, then repeat.

Yup. That's precisely what happens. Also, the way in which such discussions tend to unfold is predictable from the start. As are the roles particular people will play in them.

Is it tiresome.

Though have to say it, this thread has on the whole been more civilised than most others of the sort. Greg and JKhedrup seem respectful towards each other and quite restrained. Also, with few exceptions people are trying to be precise, so there's relatively little hammer swinging or flag waving. So far. Fingers crossed it stays that way.

[Dechen Norbu]

I am not talking about exceptions and rules I am talking about potentials. Samsara is the rule, Nirvana is the exception, yet here we are pegging all our hopes on the extreme outsider. And what is this hope based on? The potential that exists within each (and every) individual and situation for enlightenment. If we forget that, then we are condemned to endless repitition of negative patterns of suffering: us and them, right and wrong, loss and gain, ad nauseum...

I am not going to let close minded bigotry destroy my hope for change, neither do I propose starry-eyed positive thinking. That is why I posted the teachings from the Buddha. Some (all!) will do well to go read and ponder them.

That's it from me!

Greg

I believe nobody disputed that we all have the potential for enlightenment. Nurturing that potential should be a priority. If a certain ideology hinders it, or better, has aspects that hinder it, those aspects should be addressed, not ignored. We all, I believe, don't want to create rifts of us vs them, whomever the "them" might be. To be coherent with that position, we should criticize any ideology who foments this sort of mentality, especially when it demands that "the others" should be targeted due to their faith.

Gladly, most Muslims are peaceful people who ignore these parts of their religion. We can't reduce Islam to those unhappy passages of the Qu'ran. That would be stupid. There are wonders in the Muslim world. There are great Muslims who love peace and tolerance, in the past and present. This is what should be distilled from that particular religion: the good part, because it exists. The part that incites to xenophobia, discrimination based on sex and gender, on faith and so on should go away. In any religion or ideology. And we should be firm about this. From each and any holly book, whether Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or otherwise. Texts inciting to criminal actions can't be tolerated under the excuse of religious freedom. Inciting to discrimination based on sex, color, faith and so on is a crime.

Just uphold the law and banish texts that deliver those messages from nations that want to be called civilized. No excuses and zero tolerance for ideologies that promote violence, religious or not, as these are ALL unwholesome. Any Buddhists shouldn't settle for less, at least if he believes in the 4 NTs. Letting such texts be freely distributed under the guise of tolerance is like throwing poisonous pills to the street just because we can. Most will ignore them but there will always be someone, under certain conditions, who may think it's a good idea to take them.

[treehuggingoctopus]

Gladly, most Muslims are peaceful people who ignore these parts of their religion. We can't reduce Islam to those unhappy passages of the Qu'ran. That would be stupid. There are wonders in the Muslim world. There are great Muslims who love peace and tolerance, in the past and present. This is what should be distilled from that particular religion: the good part, because it exists. The part that incites to xenophobia, discrimination based on sex and gender, on faith and so on should go away. In any religion or ideology.

And we should be firm about this. From each and any holly book, whether Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or otherwise. Texts inciting to criminal actions can't be tolerated under the excuse of religious freedom. Inciting to discrimination based on sex, color, faith and so on is a crime.

Just uphold the law and banish texts that deliver those messages from nations that want to be called civilized. No excuses and zero tolerance for ideologies that promote violence, religious or not, as these are ALL unwholesome. Any Buddhists shouldn't settle for less, at least if he believes in the 4 NTs. Letting such texts be freely distributed under the guise of tolerance is like throwing poisonous pills to the street just because we can. Most will ignore them but there will always be someone, under certain conditions, who may think it's a good idea to take them.

And here I have my doubts.

Of course I'm with you all the way when you're arguing that the ugly part has got to go.

But then saying 'it's got to go' can be read in at least two ways - as a statement of general direction or an expression of a hope on the one hand, as a commandment or at least an appeal on the other hand. If you choose the second interpretation, as your further words seem to suggest you do ('we should be firm about this'), things get hairy - and for a brief second you're wearing Karl Popper's face when he's saying that when a culture rejects progress, more advanced cultures must impose progress on it for its own good. I mean, is what you calling for that different from book burning?

Let me specify. We must indeed be 'firm', though also very, very precise and careful in our homelands, that much is sure. I don't think 'we should be' equally 'firm' when it comes to other countries. If we are, it may very well be colonialism all over again: different banners, same policies - even if we actually do what we preach and not misuse our pretty slogans to justify mere expansionism and greed (vide the US presence in Asia. Or Africa. Or Southern America. Or Europe. Sigh).

Please don't get me wrong. Emotionally speaking, I'm with you here as well. And I won't pretend I know the answer to the disgusting riddle exposed by the contemporary human rights debate (the debate, that is, between Marxism and postmodernism). I wish I knew but I just don't; it could be that the riddle can have no answer. However, what I believe our being at a loss here only stresses even more is that we need to proceed with extreme caution and care.

EDIT: I'm not sure if I didn't misread you. If I did, please correct me.

[Raksha]

The long term solution is a population exchange in which the Chakmas are moved to Myanmar and the troublemaking Rohingyas are dumped back in Bangladesh. The problem is the perception that peace loving Buddhists are an easy target. What's needed is a global Buddhist Defence League, supported by Buddhists throughout the world. Whenever there is the slightest perception of a threat to fellow Muslims countless millions will be donated to the cause by Saudi Arabia, and extremists throughout the world will swear bloody revenge. Conversely, we Buddhists, who appear to have no such collective identity, will have a good debate and hand-wringing session. The truth is that not all Buddhists are naturally gentle like the Chakmas. We should recruit young Mongols and Gurkhas, train them in Buddhist kungfu, equip them with kevlar and German assault rifles donated by Western Buddhists, and parachute them into the Chittagong Hill Tracts as licensed private security teams. At the first sign of strength these rabid mobs of extremists, charging forward to murder our monks, will turn tail and run in the opposite direction, like the cowards they are...doubtless they will later claim they were victimised and demand compensation.

[Dechen Norbu]

Gladly, most Muslims are peaceful people who ignore these parts of their religion. We can't reduce Islam to those unhappy passages of the Qu'ran. That would be stupid. There are wonders in the Muslim world. There are great Muslims who love peace and tolerance, in the past and present. This is what should be distilled from that particular religion: the good part, because it exists. The part that incites to xenophobia, discrimination based on sex and gender, on faith and so on should go away. In any religion or ideology.

And we should be firm about this. From each and any holly book, whether Islamic, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu or otherwise. Texts inciting to criminal actions can't be tolerated under the excuse of religious freedom. Inciting to discrimination based on sex, color, faith and so on is a crime.

Just uphold the law and banish texts that deliver those messages from nations that want to be called civilized. No excuses and zero tolerance for ideologies that promote violence, religious or not, as these are ALL unwholesome. Any Buddhists shouldn't settle for less, at least if he believes in the 4 NTs. Letting such texts be freely distributed under the guise of tolerance is like throwing poisonous pills to the street just because we can. Most will ignore them but there will always be someone, under certain conditions, who may think it's a good idea to take them.

And here I have my doubts.

Of course I'm with you all the way when you're arguing that the ugly part has got to go.

But then saying 'it's got to go' can be read in at least two ways - as a statement of general direction or an expression of a hope on the one hand, as a commandment or at least an appeal on the other hand. If you choose the second interpretation, as your further words seem to suggest you do ('we should be firm about this'), things get hairy - and for a brief second you're wearing Karl Popper's face when he's saying that when a culture rejects progress, more advanced cultures must impose progress on it for its own good. I mean, is what you calling for that different from book burning?

Let me specify. We must indeed be 'firm', though also very, very precise and careful in our homelands, that much is sure. I don't think 'we should be' equally 'firm' when it comes to other countries. If we are, it may very well be colonialism all over again: different banners, same policies - even if we actually do what we preach and not misuse our pretty slogans to justify mere expansionism and greed (vide the US presence in Asia. Or Africa. Or Southern America. Or Europe. Sigh).

Please don't get me wrong. Emotionally speaking, I'm with you here as well. And I won't pretend I know the answer to the disgusting riddle exposed by the contemporary human rights debate (the debate, that is, between Marxism and postmodernism). I wish I knew but I just don't; it could be that the riddle can have no answer. However, what I believe our being at a loss here only stresses even more is that we need to proceed with extreme caution and care.

EDIT: I'm not sure if I didn't misread you. If I did, please correct me.

I'm in complete agreement with what you wrote.

[Dechen Norbu]

The long term solution is a population exchange in which the Chakmas are moved to Myanmar and the troublemaking Rohingyas are dumped back in Bangladesh. The problem is the perception that peace loving Buddhists are an easy target. What's needed is a global Buddhist Defence League, supported by Buddhists throughout the world. Whenever there is the slightest perception of a threat to fellow Muslims countless millions will be donated to the cause by Saudi Arabia, and extremists throughout the world will swear bloody revenge. Conversely, we Buddhists, who appear to have no such collective identity, will have a good debate and hand-wringing session. The truth is that not all Buddhists are naturally gentle like the Chakmas. We should recruit young Mongols and Gurkhas, train them in Buddhist kungfu, equip them with kevlar and German assault rifles donated by Western Buddhists, and parachute them into the Chittagong Hill Tracts as licensed private security teams. At the first sign of strength these rabid mobs of extremists, charging forward to murder our monks, will turn tail and run in the opposite direction, like the cowards they are...doubtless they will later claim they were victimised and demand compensation.

If we uphold the an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth ideal, everyone ends up blind and eating soup...
I feel very glad Buddhists are perceived as peaceful people. I wish this was always true. It isn't unfortunately.

[Raksha]

Dechen, you can line up with the monks of ancient Nalanda, thousands of them kneeling in rows, while someone walks along the line beheading them with a scimitar. For my part, I will defend the Dharma, and the gentle monks that I revere, with force if absolutely necessary.

'If someone is behaving unreasonably and harmfully towards other beings, and he or she is doing so continually, then ultimately he or she will suffer. If you understand the situation clearly, then respectfully and without scorn, you can take necessary counter-action. In such circumstances you should take action to stop other people behaving unreasonably because unless we do so things will just get worse. We are not only allowed to take such action but indeed we should, the difference being that we do so not out of anger but with an altruistic intention.'
(His Holiness the Dalai Lama.)

An old friend of mine who is a Chakma monk was attacked in the street in Bangladesh by an insane extremist, but unbeknownst to him, my friend was highly trained in martial arts in his youth and immediately by reflex he went into a defensive stance, the extremist took one look at this and sprinted off as fast as his legs could carry him. Sadly, with some harmful beings, appeasement does not work, and a gentle approach will only be taken advantage of, so one must show a strong face.
R.

[underthetree]

Dechen, you can line up with the monks of ancient Nalanda, thousands of them kneeling in rows, while someone walks along the line beheading them with a scimitar.

I had the vision of each of those monks worrying about the executioner's karma in the seconds before the blade fell.

[Dechen Norbu]

There was once an interview with a monk who was held captive by the Chinese, subjected to torture and imprisoned for a long time. One of the things that saddened him the most was the idea of the bad karma his captors were accumulating.

[Dechen Norbu]

Dechen, you can line up with the monks of ancient Nalanda, thousands of them kneeling in rows, while someone walks along the line beheading them with a scimitar. For my part, I will defend the Dharma, and the gentle monks that I revere, with force if absolutely necessary.

'If someone is behaving unreasonably and harmfully towards other beings, and he or she is doing so continually, then ultimately he or she will suffer. If you understand the situation clearly, then respectfully and without scorn, you can take necessary counter-action. In such circumstances you should take action to stop other people behaving unreasonably because unless we do so things will just get worse. We are not only allowed to take such action but indeed we should, the difference being that we do so not out of anger but with an altruistic intention.'
(His Holiness the Dalai Lama.)

An old friend of mine who is a Chakma monk was attacked in the street in Bangladesh by an insane extremist, but unbeknownst to him, my friend was highly trained in martial arts in his youth and immediately by reflex he went into a defensive stance, the extremist took one look at this and sprinted off as fast as his legs could carry him. Sadly, with some harmful beings, appeasement does not work, and a gentle approach will only be taken advantage of, so one must show a strong face.
R.

I understand what you are saying, but violence should be the last resort to protect people from harm. HHDL is also the man who was given the Nobel Peace Prize for his non violent resistance to the PRC. Keep That in mind. One must be careful not to fuel hatred and war. The objective should be stopping violence, not making it endure.

[Ikkyu]

I'm not a big fan of Islam personally. Don't get me wrong: People like Rumi, Aviccena, al-Ghazali, Chishti and Omar Khayyam have done a lot for the arts an sciences. Islam preserved a lot of knowledge and science during the Middle Ages when Catholic Europe was condemning science. But to me certain aspects of monotheistic, particularly Abrahamic religions have outlived their function and usefulness. While Christianity can be a nuisance (i.e. opposing women's rights and gay marriage and the obvious fact of evolution), there is at least one, if not many deaths caused by people promoting or "defending" or killing in the name of Islam every single day. I am not embellishing. Read the BBC on a daily basis, or the Telegraph, or Time, or Nat Geo... any major news source will make you realize how Islam is essentially antithetical to Buddhism morally and philosophically. Just yesterday a hundred school children were killed by Sharia-promoting militants in Nigeria, who have bombed numerous churches and killed over 10,000 people -- mostly Christians -- in Nigeria since 2001 alone. Not to mention all the people on death row in the past decade for "insulting Muhammad" in Saudi Arabia (beheading is often used for this purpose in the Saudi state), or the lashings, exiles or imprisonments for insulting Islam in the vast majority of "Islamic countries", particularly Malaysia and sometimes Indonesia. Homosexuals are often hanged in Iran. Hindus are constantly being slaughtered by Muslims in India, although the popular Hindu reaction has often also been violent admittedly. There have been over 18,000 Islamist-related terrorist attacks since 9/11 and frankly I don't find this coincidental. Islam hasn't been hijacked. Recall what spurred the Crusades: Caliph al-Hakim murdering and publicly torturing and humiliating Christians and Jews in Palestine and destroying their most sacred places. Right now there are mosques surrounding Bodh Gaya, but are there any churches, viharas, mandirs, gurdwaras, Zoroastrian fire temples or Jain shrines in Mecca? In Rome and Varanasi (the holiest city in Hinduism) there are a number of mosques. The largest mosque in Europe is right outside of the Vatican. yet no non-Islamic places of worship can't be built in Saudi Arabia, and you'd be hard-pressed to do so in many Muslim countries. Granted places like Albania, Azerbaijan and, to an extent, Turkey are more secular and democratic for Muslim-majority countries. But these are few and far between when we consider the situation of non-Muslims elsewhere in the Muslim world.

Where are the Sufis when you need them? Oh, that's right, the Saudi government and half of AQIM are devoted to destroying them and their shrines. I don't hate Islam or Muslims... as obviously there are many good Muslims. But the proponents of Islam needs to understand that this is the 21st century, and that instead of killing filmmakers like Theo van Gogh or U.S. ambassadors in the streets because of an anonymous Internet video posted last week, they could've just done what most Christians do when they see a desecrated image of Jesus, or what Buddhists do when they see a desecrated image of Buddha: They maybe sigh, say, "that's unfortunate/wrong," and walk away. Maybe they even speak up about it, or in the most extreme cases protest. But they don't MURDER people or threaten to NUKE Denmark and take Danish women as war booty. They don't set up Sharia ghettos/enclaves where non-Muslims can't enter in LONDON and COPENHAGEN. Just sayin'.

[Dechen Norbu]

One has to be very careful with that line of reasoning, Ikkyu. Otherwise one may end up with the idea that being a Muslim equals being intolerant, evil, terrorist and what have you. That is not the case or else every Muslim would be like that. There are many more variables at stake here and most don't have much to do with religion. Of course the Qu'ran has very problematic passages in its contents. But so does the Bible, for instance. However, historical factors lead the great majority of Christians to ignore such passages. Have you read the Old Testament? It's filled with similar nonsense. If you care to notice, many Muslims ignore those passages of the Qu'ran and condemn violent actions as much as you and me.

Why then don't their fellows who have a fundamentalist take of their religion do the same? They have the same book after all. So other factors must play a role. If the hate speech must be addressed and not simply ignored as if it was innocuous, because it never is, those other factors are probably more important since these are what will lead someone from being a peaceful Muslim to a blood thirsty religious fanatic. Mind you that these distinctions are very important. Without them, we become bigots.

By the way, the Crusades can't be explained of justified simply as a reaction to an aggression. They were much darker than that.

Sometimes the fact that I criticize hate messages, wherever they come from, may give the wrong impression. IMO, all hate speech should be forbidden by international law, not finding shelter anywhere under the guise of religious tolerance.

That said, nobody has the right to start wars to "liberate" people who don't want to be liberated. A case in point was the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan that I see as criminal. However, if there's a popular rebellion and international help is needed to overthrow a dictator who maims and kills his own people, then I can understand it, although you'll have a hard time seeing me defending violence as a mean to achieve a goal.

My main point is that hate speech and incitement to the violation of human rights can't be sheltered under the guise of religious tolerance. These must be criticized, not mattering their origin. Nobody gets a free pass, Muslims included.

[PadmaVonSamba]

A person has fought and killed others
and been killed by others
countless numbers of times in countless lifetimes.
Where has it gotten him?
.
.
.

[viniketa]

I'm not a big fan of Islam personally.

No one is asking anyone to be a "fan" of Islam; but simply to mind your own karma and the potential karma of others in speech about Islam and Muslims. History is full of grotesque events. Why fan flames, particularly when the collective negative karma is already staggering? Infinite sentient beings...

[Dechen Norbu]

One must go about this carefully, indeed. Sometimes I get carried away and not always double check my posts to see if they are opened to interpretations that differ from what I meant to say. I hope the last one makes things clear.
However, friend, staying silent in the face of these events may also be the wrong way to deal with the situation. A careful analysis guided by a heart in peace is what usually helps, I guess.

[viniketa]

A careful analysis guided by a heart in peace is what usually helps, I guess.

Indeed, and calling for condemnation of all exploitation and violence, regardless of the perpetrators, seems to come from thoughtful analysis.

Publishing long lists of the alleged or confirmed grievous acts of only one category of actors, on the other hand, is not thoughtful analysis.

[zangskar]

H.H. with Tibetan lady muslims in Srinagar this year

Best wishes
Lars

[viniketa]

His Holiness the Dalai Lama speaking to Tibetan Muslims at the local Tibetan Muslim community mosque in Srinagar, J&K state, India on July 14, 2012. Photo/Tenzin Choejor/OHHDL
Making a pilgrimage to the local Tibetan mosque, His Holiness recalled that although Tibet was primarily a Buddhist country, its people had respect for all religions and that the 5th Dalai Lama had given the Muslims land. He said that it was only after coming into exile that he learned about religious conflict in the world, for example between Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland and between Sunni and Shia Muslims elsewhere. Consequently, he decided in 1975 to make pilgrimages to the places of worship and sacred sites of other religions as part of his effort to foster inter-religious harmony and respect. When prayers began in the mosque His Holiness joined them in silence.

http://www.dalailama.com/news/post/825- ... -community