Monks with Guns

[sonamdhargey]

By Michael Jerryson
MIchael Jerryson is co-editor with Mark Juergensmeyer of Buddhist Warfare, the first collection of essays on Buddhist violence from a comparative perspective (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010).

Military Monks

Then in January 2004, violent attacks broke out in the southern provinces of Thailand, some of which were directed at Buddhist monks. These attacks and the numerous ones to follow shocked the country. But, since contemporary issues and my research interests seemed to be converging, I thought: what better way to study Buddhist activism than to observe Buddhist monks engaged in peacemaking?

Unfortunately, I found very little of this.

During my visits between 2006 and 2008, southern Thai monks shared the challenges of living in their fear-infested communities. All but a few concentrated on survival; peacemaking was the last thing on their minds.

The constant fear and violence took a toll on them. Monks talked about the guns they had bought and now kept at their bedsides. Others spoke heatedly about the violent militant attacks on Buddhist civilians and monasteries. Although the cause of the violence is multilayered—owing much to corruption, drug trade, and corporatization—many monks also felt Islam was to blame. In their minds, the conflict was anchored to the larger discussion of religious violence: Muslims against Buddhists.

One day after teaching an English class for Buddhist novices at a monastery a young monk came over and pulled back the folds of his robe to reveal a Smith & Wesson. I later learned that he was a military monk—one of many covert, fully ordained soldiers placed in monasteries throughout Thailand. To these monks, peacemaking requires militancy.

Since my initial realization in 2004, I began to look critically at my earlier perspective on Buddhism—one that shielded an extensive and historical dimension to Buddhist traditions: violence. Armed Buddhist monks in Thailand are not an exception to the rule; they are contemporary examples of a long historical precedence. For centuries monks have been at the helm, or armed in the ranks, of wars. How could this be the case? But more importantly, why did I (and many others) hold the belief that Buddhism=Peace (and that other religions, such as Islam, are more prone to violence)?

Buddhist Propaganda

It was then that I realized that I was a consumer of a very successful form of propaganda. Since the early 1900s, Buddhist monastic intellectuals such as Walpola Rahula, D. T. Suzuki, and Tenzin Gyatso, the Fourteenth Dalai Lama, have labored to raise Western awareness of their cultures and traditions. In doing so, they presented specific aspects of their Buddhist traditions while leaving out others. These Buddhist monks were not alone in this portrayal of Buddhism. As Donald S. Lopez Jr. and others have poignantly shown, academics quickly followed suit, so that by the 1960s U.S popular culture no longer depicted Buddhist traditions as primitive, but as mystical.

Yet these mystical depictions did not remove the two-dimensional nature of Western understanding. And while it contributed to the history of Buddhism, this presentation of an otherworldly Buddhism ultimately robbed Buddhists of their humanity.

Thupten Tsering, the co-director of “Windhorse,” encapsulates the effects of two-dimensional portrayal in a 1999 interview with the New York Times. “They see Tibetans as cute, sweet, warmhearted. I tell people, when you cut me, I bleed just like you.”

In an effort to combat this view and to humanize Buddhists, then, Mark Juergensmeyer and I put together a collection of critical essays that illustrate the violent history of Buddhism across Mongolia, Tibet, Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, Sri Lanka, and India.

Our intention is not to argue that Buddhists are angry, violent people—but rather that Buddhists are people, and thus share the same human spectrum of emotions, which includes the penchant for violence.



Although the book only arrived at bookstores last month, it apparently touched some nerves in the academic community before its release. Some have objected to the cover [image right], which they feel is not an appropriate subject for Buddhism. Ironically, that is the very reason this collection of essays is so important: to address the apparent and widespread inability to acknowledge the violent side to religious traditions. It is this inability that robs its adherents of their humanity.

In a way, I wish I could return to that dream of Buddhist traditions as a purely peaceful, benevolent religion that lacks mortal failures and shortcomings. But I cannot. It is, ultimately, a selfish dream and it hurts other people in the process.

Buddhist Warfare certainly contributes to the broader discussion of religious violence, but on a more intimate and local level, I hope this collection will effect some significant change in the way Buddhism is perceived in the United States. Only time will tell.

Source:http://www.religiondispatches.org/books/2158/monks_with_guns%3A_discovering_buddhist_violence/

[Benny]

Thank you , Sonamdhargey for sharing this info . It is not surprising as I practically grew up watching Shaolin Kung Fu movies , where monks learn to defend their Temple or monasteries . Historically , the original Shaolin Monastery was attacked and was burnt down , so it is not for no apparent reasons that monks in those feudal times have had to train and arm themselves for self defence .

In Japan as well, there was a time when different Buddhist temples in ancient Japan fought with each other and trained 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. This is totally a paradox , 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. And there are other examples in Asia , such as in Burma , there is the "Democratic Karen Buddhist Army." Apparently it is the oldest and largest insurgent group in Burma.

[yontenjamyang]

This is another example of the complexities of karma. I agree with Benny that this is indeed bizarre and the idea of a "warrior monk" as in the Shaolin Kung Fu movies are a paradox.

Since the monks live in this human realm, they are also subject to karma of this world and their throwing karma as a human being. Depending of their particular karma, there are situations that put them in danger of attack and hence the need for weapons. On the case of the Shaolin monks, the weapons are sticks and ultimately their Kung Fu. It is claimed that the Kung Fu was thought to them by its founder, the monk Bodhidharma who came from India around 5th/6th century CE. They are thought the art of self defense and never to kill.

In the modern world these weapon can be guns. Guns are highly dangerous and can kill easily and while I may understand the need to defend themselves, I think guns should not be use or even considered.

The best defense is to leave the area.

[fruven]

Guns are designed to kill. It is highly likely to kill someone with a gun than not. For one to use the gun to disable instead of killing one needs to be highly skilled in using the gun which I am afraid it is not possible. Holding gun also represents the intention to use forceful means to control the situation. Access to guns should be removed by law, making it illegal to own guns without a license.

[diablo1974]

I do not agree with ordained personnel holding any weapon designed to kill. Its against the core teaching of the Buddhadharma. Even if it still protecting the temple (if you look at it, they are manmade buildings), its still not worth by protecting the building and monuments and get any loss of life whatsoever.

[RedLantern]

It is the mindset that is the issue at hand for the use of violence by a Buddhist.One can defend themselves with no evil intent.....it's just basic reactionary technique which is done with a calm cool mind not one of vengence and hatred.This is why there are "warrior monks".The Buddha told to defend ourselves.It is situational.No none claim to be a Buddhist would delight in the possible taking of life.A Buddhist should also live a life with a degree of knowledge and wisdom of the human condition.
Buddhist refrain from killing living beings no matter the cause.

[bambi]

Whatever happens, one must not hold a gun as it will create the cause to use it. How can a Buddhist use it and then promote peace? It is just so wrong. Military monk? Its not right. I do hope you are right Redlantern. That they defend themselves with no ill intent and the motivation is not to hurt the other person but rather defending themselves from harm.

[dondrup]

In a typical Buddhist monastery, monks do not use weapons of any kind!  Monks are associated with non-violence. It is shocking to see a monk carrying a gun in monastery!  We understand this phenomenon has arisen in Southern Thailand because of the need to protect the community of the sangha from violent militant attacks.

This brings to mind the Shaolin Monks in China that practise martial arts in the olden days not just for health reason but to protect themselves from attacks from foreigners and the negative forces in the country.  Shaolin Monks use many different martial art weapons in their practices.

Both the undercover military monks in Southern Thailand and the Shaolin monks in China are not different in using weapons or martial arts to protect themselves and to ensure their safety.

The question now is “Is it appropriate for monks to carry a gun?”  Buddhism is about transforming the mind.  This includes the violent mind that can harm others.  Using guns to ward off attacks from military attacks seems to be the only solution available now in Southern Thailand.  But hasn’t Buddhism taught not to reciprocate violence with violence?  The way to end violence is not to create the cause for violence!  There is a great risk for the misuse of guns in the monastery if this practice is allowed to continue in Southern Thailand.

[kris]

I don't think it is appropriate for monks to carry weapon with the intention to kill.. It is debatable for defense purpose though.. I too grow up with Shao Lin kung fu but from what I understand, it is a way of practice, and it is meant for defense and as soon as the monks are attached to "winning" others, it will hinder their progress..

From the picture shown, it is a young monk holding the gun. I hope these young monks should focus more on study the Dharma than holding guns coz I felt it is too young to handle guns...

[pgdharma]

I feel that the whole concept of Buddhist warriors seems to be contradictory because every religion promotes nonviolence.  Buddhist monks take a vow to never kill and it’s so shocking to see the monk carrying a gun at such young age. How well can he handle the gun? Instead of defending the temple he may accidentally kill someone.

[psylotripitaka]

Dear Sonam Dhargey and others here,

I realize this can be a complex issue not to mention a hot topic for those who easily get all worked up into a frenzy by touchy subjects, but when it boils down to it on a spiritual level for the individual, it is not so complex and really just comes to personal assessment and decision making. Please consider the following with a willingness to think outside the very common Buddhist perpsective. I ask this of you not as someone making shit up, but because this stuff is explained in the teachings, we just need to consider the issue more carefully.

We are forgetting that our own teacher Buddha Shakyamuni explained how in a previous life as the captain of a merchant ship he killed a merchant who intended to kill all the other merchants.

I can already hear the retort - but he was an actual Bodhisattva with great compassion and clairvoyance.

The initial and middling scopes of the lamrim instruct us not to kill by explaining the disadvantages, however, there is a shift of this tone within the great scope and vajrayana where the motivations are great compassion and bodhichitta. Compassion is a peaceful mind but it does not automatically follow that compassionate action is always what is commonly considered "peaceful". The common picture of Buddhists being pacifist is about context and message - it is meant to be an outward expression of a peaceful inner place much the same way that Jetsun Milarepa's extreme asceticism was an outward display of his inner abandonment of the 8 worldly concerns. This does not mean that the pacifist character is the only mask a compassionionate mind wears. Masters say that you cannot tell a person's motivation based merely on their external actions.

There are four types of actions used by Buddhas, Bodhisattvas, and practitioners who are actively cultivating Universal Compassion - pacifying, increasing, controlling, and wrathful. It is up to every individual practitioner to decide for themselves what their intention is, and how they are going to act. If we do not yet possess tranquil abiding and thereby the spontaneous realization of universal compassion, we must personally decide if our compassion is strong enough to make us willing to take on negative karma in order to help others.

To think that we are not capable of making such a decision is part of the culture that disempowers the individual into always conceiving themselves as inferior or incapable. This thought culture is the antithesis of self-improvement, let it go! Though we may not possess the clairvoyance to ultimately know what is best in any given situation, we are nonetheless called upon to act with as much wisdom, compassion, and skill as we can muster. There is an example often given in the context of lying. If a cat runs past us and is shortly followed by someone with a bat who asks where the cat went, do we tell them where the cat went, or out of compassion do we lie in order to prevent the cat and the person perpetuating the cycle. Helping others requires the courage to let go of excessive self concern, in this instance, our concern that we will accumulate negative karma from lying. Our intention isn't that we enjoy lying or want to lie, but to prevent the cycle of suffering, and as long as we are not immune to karmic consequences, it is regrettable that in samsara we are trapped by the net of karma, but with a broad intention we can take some negativity on for a greater purpose. We also are capable of purifying negative karma, and while this should not become an individuals person excuse for engaging in unchecked negativity, it is an understood element that the cultivation of pure intention and altruistic actions eventually lead to complete purity.

From the point of view of the initial scope and middling scope, we may decide to avoid negative actions because of the consequences, in which case we become the pacifist. However, if we move into the great scope and vajrayana and cultivate the courage to help others, we have a beautiful foundation for being an activist - actively striving to reduce and bring a permanent end to suffering.

For example then, I train in martial arts with the compassionate intention to protect my precious human life because of the opportunity it affords me to advance myself and others spiritually, and to protect others that are victims and keep an attacker from perpetuating their negative karma. The same logic applies to the use of weapons. In a nutshell, we need to think of how a compassionate holy being would make use of such actions. The Protector does it all the time, we just may not have the capacity to perceive the violent spiritual warfare taking place all around us. There is a long reaching goal of elevating everyone's consciousness to a higher place, and there are many actions that are taken to help everyone along the way that are not necessarily within the confines of what is conventionally acceptable.

No matter who we are, we called upon to have the courage to act with the most wisdom, compassion, and skill that we can muster in any given situation. If that means being a pacifist, be it. If that means being an activist, be it. But do it proper through actively cultivating the correct views and intentions of the spiritual training. If we do not do this, as an individual we will accumulate massive negative karma due to acting out of hatred.

Now see, there is this other element to the subject where people express they are acting out of compassion, such as banning Dorje Shugden practice and a whole complex debate ensues, so, I want to leave you with what it all boils down to for me because it makes it all so simple - the meaning of life is to refine our consciousness, and we must learn how to utilize everything that appears as fuel for our inner refinement. The only person we know for sure is not a Buddha or Bodhisattva is ourself, so we must apply the teachings to every appearance understanding that the whole point is to get us to react to everything with spiritual cultivation. In that context, we can act with good intention according to whatever circumstances, so for instance, I completely disagree with the ban and all the negativity it has created, so I take actions to pacify and so forth. I've written elsewhere about pure view vs. what appears according to convention. The bottom line is personal choice on view, intention, and action - may they all assist the elevation of consciousness.

[cookie]

The picture of a young monk holding on to a gun brings us to the harsh reality of us living in SAMSARA . A world of deceit and delusions. The trials and tribulations of SAMSARA can result in the corruption of the purest heart and mind. When these monks are subjected to so much fear in their lives they forget the true fundamentals and in a delusion believes that weapons can solve their problems.  It would take great skills to use a gun for defense and not accidentally harm someone.
All religions promote peace. But in all religions ,some deluded minds prefer to create war. It's not fair to judge the religion based on these deluded minds . More compassion should be extended to these minds and pray for their transformation to benefit others rather than to destroy others .