Buddhists on the whole are peaceful and seek non-violent solutions to conflict. Individual Buddhists depending upon the school and tradition may be completely pacifistic like Tibetan Buddhist Lamas or they may allow for violence only in self defense such as Chinese Shaolin Monks.

Honestly this looks like a cult that takes a little from Buddhist teachings but is no more Buddhist than the Unification Church is Christian. The 969 Squad has a charismatic leader who adds his own political agenda of racism and bigotry to traditional Buddhist teachings. He literalizes sutras to justify his call to violence. Ashin Wirathu is a monk. He may not have achieved any type of mindfulness or equanimity as he preaches hatred towards Muslims and fierce attachment to patriotism. The first act of the Buddha was to renounce his own family, heritage, and birthright and go forth in search of the end of suffering and the realization of well being. This man has never left home.

Bluntly he is a sociopathic asshole who is no different than Hitler, Sun Myung Moon, or David Koresh. He uses the trappings of the dominant religion of his country to mask his hatred, bigotry, racism, and seething rage. he revels in the cult worship of his 'followers'. He deserves only pity and nothing more.

I am still at the every early stages of learning about Buddhism, and this story struck my eye is being the absolute antithesis of everything I have read up to this point...hence the post...

Thanks for taking the time to enlighten me...

Just like there are false Muslim, Jewish, Christian and Hindu teachers who use their religion for hate, there are Buddhists who do the same.


To give a more graphic example look at the Khmer Rouge. They were all born Buddhists.


One of the strengths of Buddhism is its tolerance. It means that their are guidelines but not the same ecclesiastical rules as there are say in the Catholic Church.


So anyone can call themselves a monk and say anything.


To answer your question the Buddhists in Burma are Theravadist Monks. One of the unusual aspects of Buddhism is that there is no theology for statecraft. There is no ancient Buddhist Theology that teaches rulers how to rule for example. Buddhist teaching is for individual practice and belief. Buddhist Kings, for example, use Brahmaic Priests to instruct them on the ethics of statecraft, while they continue to follow Buddhist monks teaching on private behavior.


One of the strengths of Theravada Buddhism, IMO, is that in this atmosphere of extreme tolerance the monks are organized into the Sangha, the organization which controls the monks. If a monk lives outside the teachings of the Sangha there is really nothing that the Sangha can do.

I can tell you that my wife's' father was from Burma, I have lived in parts of Thailand that have significant numbers of Muslims and there is absolutely no conflict or tension. My wife's family are all Buddhist with the exception of one sister who has converted to Islam because she married a Muslim. My brother in law is loved and respected by all the family as I was when I was a Christian before I decided to convert to Buddhism.


These are painful stories from Burma and speak more to the hatred and violence of the regime over the last few decades than the religion.


The circumstances in Burma are not similar to Sri Lanka, for example where Buddhists were terrorized by Tamil terrorists for decades and then reacted with violence against their tormentors.


It is more similar to the inexplicable violence that we saw in Cambodia.


It is very distressing.

While I have nothing but the greatest of respect for Buddhism, I have to disagree with the part of your post about Buddhism in SriLanka.

I'm not sure where you got this version is history from, but as someone who is originally from this Island nation; it is far from the truth.

The whole Civil unrest started in Sri Lanka after the claims by Buddhist Zealots circa early 1950s to make Srilanka a Sinhala Buddhist nation, much to the dismay of the minorities. This led to the Sinhala-only act of 1954 which banished English from the government, and required everyone to learn Sinhalese(even the Tamils who had their own language). I need not point out that the first prime minister of Srilanka was assassinated by a Buddhist monk.

There were no "Tamil terrorists' till the 80s, and multiple peaceful Ahimsa(Gandhian non violence) protests by the Tamils in the 50s,60s and 70s were met with pogroms by the minority. I know this for a fact because my granddad(who btw was a big supporter of Gandhi, so much so that he visited India pre-independence to meet with Gandhi )was one of those who got beaten up by the mobs during their non-violent protests.

Religious zealotry has always existed among a small portion of Lankan Buddhists from the early historical days (a Lankan Buddhist king, Mahasena, is credited with the destruction of some of the pre-Buddhist Hindu temples in the island circa the 3rd century BCE). While reading Vivekananda's works(late 1800s), the Indian who traveled through Lanka on his way to India recounted events where Buddhists monks would lead mobs to disperse his speeches.

Anagarika Dharmapala , probably the most famous Lankan Buddhist revivalist, was also one of the main proponents of Sinhala-Buddhist nationalism, in the early 1900s. He was also very openly racist.

Thus, it is pretty incorrect to say that Buddhist nationalism did not exist in Lanka till the Tamil rebels appeared on the scene in the early 80s, in fact they were a result of decades of oppression under the draconian policies of the Sinhala-Buddhist nationalists.


I'm a Hindu(of the Advaita Vedantin variety..thus an atheist), I always support my Buddhist friends and consider both traditions to be pillars of the Dharmic philosophies. However I do not shrike from accepting that there are always bad apples in every religion/philosophy. I usually do not bother to reply to most comments, but decided to reply cos this topic is something I am very aware of, having lived on this island for years.

In recent days when I hear some Lankan Buddhists advocating taking harsh actions against Muslims in the island, I can't but feel the irony. The claim leveled against the Muslims is that they are outsiders and converts. What then should we Hindus of Lanka say of the Buddhists? who were but Hindus who converted to Buddhism. Maybe we Hindus should consider them converts as well?

I was not aware of Sri Lankan Buddhist nationalism but it does not surprise me. It parallels similar nationalism in India, Pakistan and Thailand of the 1950s when there existed a pan Asian resurgence in hyper nationalism that included, among other things, exhortations to significantly increase national stature by increasing the size of the population.

It doesn't change my basic point that the Buddhists in Burma who are involved in violence are wholly different than what eventually happened in Sri Lanka who were subject to the most extensive sustained campaign of terror against civilian populations by the Tamil Tigers. In those circumstances any civilian population will eventually break and instill order by force.

I have found all of the people I have met from the Island to be very positive and enlightened people, but like all places there are cynical powers that work to divide and rule for personal gain by exploiting divisions within society.

Misguided Buddhists.

subject to any of the foibles, ignorance, naivete, and harmfulness that we all are. There is no need to project a romantic notion on those who attempt to practice and follow the Dharma, especially in an idealistic way that applies to everyone who uses the terminology.

History reveals many phases, schools and movements falling under the banner of what we now call Buddhism and the range of behavior is varied. Buddhism has been "less" deplorable overall and more peaceful and beneficial, but it still falls within the context of relative truth and dualistic thinking in that respect. Idealism and perfection are subject to the nature of the adherents, their teachers and their temporal context and culture, as well as circumstances.

That aside, there is no need to be an apologist for Buddhism as a believe system and acts such as those are deplorable and counter to the definitive nature of the Dharma itself.

It is my humble suggest that Westerners take advantage of the circumstances we in the West have when it comes to our exposure, understanding, and practice of Dharma, be the interest devotional, philosophical or intellectual. I would suggest considering that Buddhism is not actually what Buddha was about. Buddhism can be considered a religion-like result of a system methods that have also become the underpinnings of beliefs tinged with some Theological aspects.

The opportunity now is to note the value of the methods and logic and perhaps see through the cultural and traditional trappings that may or may not apply currently, which actually corresponds more directly with the living, dynamic and immediate nature of the Dharma and how it definitely relates to and reveals our own true nature.

That said, rather than resorting to any "ism" one can venture into buddhadharma with an unrestricted freedom that brings insight to the meaning of provisional teachings and their relationship to the rare, but decisive, intimate and direct aspects of the definitive wisdom that arises innately upon exposure to itself externally.

Let us resort to our natural compassion for the sentient beings involved and look for our inherent insights when it comes to our response to the suffering and misunderstandings that the event in the OP reveals. It is a truly sad and distorted situation.

Now, there is a secondary value and that is for us to look without flinching at the violence and suffering and watch, without judgment or editing the mind, our immediate response and reactions. Let this tragedy transform in our realization by opening us up to the event and its phenomena and meaning. How does it resonate? What does it reveal about our own violence, direct or subtle? Do we rationalize it and do we observe honestly even our own exposure, thoughts and feelings that arise in response to it? Do we grok the real connection directly at all?

Good fortune to you all in the Citadel of Pure Mind directly present!

Just because someone is living in hell doesn't mean they aren't a Buddhist.