In his article, Strathern (2013) argues that the explanation for the recent violence by Buddhists against non-Buddhists in both Sri Lanka and Burma is consistent with and a result of the traditional alliances that Buddhism, like Christianity, Islam, and other religions have made with kings who benefit from associating with the moral respect of the religion, and in return offer the religion power to enforce its "true path" on others. The result is that despite more seemingly peaceful sacred texts, Buddhism is in fact as historically violent as the monotheistic faiths against which Buddhists in some countries now see themselves competing.
As Strathern points out, it does seem at first odd that Buddhism should be so prone to violence since there is nothing in the canonical texts of Buddhism which seem to preach, or even to condone, violence. On the contrary, as Strathern emphasises right from the start, in Buddhist teaching, "the promise not to kill comes first" (¶ 1). This is in marked contrast with, for example, Judaism and Christianity, whose holy Bible is a very bloody, warmongering piece of writing: the entire "Book of Exodus", the second book of the Bible, is basically a terrorist manual which praises the use of escalating force against innocent people to achieve a political aim. It is no surprise that Jews, Christians and their sibling Islam all readily condone and practise extreme violence, both against others and their fellow citizens. But it does seem puzzling that Buddhists behave in the same awful way whilst claiming a religious motive. When Strathern quotes the enlightened Buddhists comforting the great king who violently unified Sri Lanka almost 2,000 years ago as explaining that "the slain were like animals; you will make the Buddha's faith shine" (¶ 17), I could not help but think of the respected Buddhist monk who assured the Thai soldiers shooting and killing their fellow Thai citizens in 1976 that is was OK because they were communists, and not really human! This Thai Buddhist monk might well have been respected, and have stated a view that was very popular, but he was also contradicting the Buddha's version of Buddhism. And the explanation is, I think, exactly the same as Strathern gives for Sri Lanka and Burma: the Thai version of Buddhism is not the Buddha's version of Buddhism, but a version made up to be a tool of the Thai government - first of the Thai kings from the Sukothai period who used it to unify the nation, and then of all Thai governments since 1932.
And this is where the meat comes in. There are, in Thailand, different groups of Buddhists, each with their own set of monks and their own versions of Buddhist teaching, which do not agree. There is the majority, which also has government support, and then there is the Santi Asoke group. One specific, and I think instructive, point of disagreement between these competing Buddhist groups is over the question of whether or not the first precept of Buddhism, with which Strathern opens his discussion, and which the sidebar translates into English as "to abstain from killing living creatures", requires that good Buddhists normally avoid eating meat or not. There are two opposite views on this, so one group must be wrong. They cannot both be right.
So, may Buddhists eat meat? I think that the Santi Asoke group is right: the first precept of Buddhism as understood by the Buddha does require that modern followers normally avoid eating meat. The summarized argument is that in most cases today, unlike in the remote past, when the Buddha sensibly allowed the eating of meat, people eat meat not from any need, but solely for the pleasure it gives; that is, meat is eaten almost never for any health or other requirement, but because of a strong desire for the taste. And in order to satisfy this desire which is not a need shoppers pay meat producers to kill animals for them, typically after raising them in pain. This is the same as a mafia boss paying an underling to carry out a murder: the intention, the desire to kill, is all with the mafia boss, not the man who pulls the trigger of the gun, nor, indeed, is there any intention in the gun, which is another tool used to kill according to the order of the mafia boss. Similarly, when we buy meat at a supermarket, we are killing animals: we just use other people as tools to carry out our intended killing, but the intention and desire to kill is with us when we buy packs of chicken or a nice steak: the chicken breasts and sirloin we buy today tells a producer to kill more chickens and cows tomorrow.
And this is where the problem with making Buddhism a tool of the state, and supporting it with law, becomes really problematic: the dishonesty needed to, for example, prop up a very dubious interpretation of a basic teaching, an interpretation that is most likely the opposite of what the Buddha intended, leads to pervasive dishonesty throughout society. And this is not a good thing. If the most basic, most foundational teachings can be twisted to mean the opposite of their true intent, then they can also be deliberately misinterpreted to give a nice but false image to whatever else the rulers want to do, such as executing criminals, which is surely against the first precept of Buddhism, as is killing communists. In fact, I do think that capital punishment is a reasonable punishment for some murderers, and I also enjoy a healthy variety of meats on a regular basis, but I'm not a Buddhist whose religion teaches otherwise.
__________
Reference
And perhaps helpful to Poom as she works on her definition paragraphs is the fact that the definition of terrorism under Thai law clearly thinks that Chamlong Srimuan and others are terrorists, that they have committed terrorist acts, which is the reason they have recently been charged with that offence.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I'm sure I disagree with the reasoning behind it, and perhaps also with the official Thai legal definition of terrorism, I do agree with these charges, but I am sure that Poom will want to argue that Thai law is completely wrong, and looking at the definition in current Thai law might be useful, at least as a source showing an opposing definition to negate. Why is the Thai law definition of terrorism a bad definition? How did all those legal experts get it so seriously wrong?
The connection that prompted me to publish the above comment here is my comment about the Judeo-Christian bible, where I assert that entire book of Exodus in those most holy of ancient scriptures is a terrorist manual (¶ 3). I found this a most instructive example, and Poom might also find it worth a quick look (I would recommend a Thai translation - I don't think that would be a problem. But any quotation would be best in one of the standard English translations).
DeleteIf you do cite the Bible, it does not go on your list of references. The reason is that it, and several other major classical works, such as Plato and Aristotle, have their own reference systems which are the same across all editions, so no reference citation is required for readers to check your quotation or paraphrase.
DeleteFor example, and perhaps useful to Wut in his quest for a definition of knowledge, Plato, speaking for Socrates, approaches one that held up for about 2,400 years in Theaetetus (201c-d) and a bit more confidently at Meno (98a).
Delete