[eraserj]

Misleading title. Buddhism, as any other religion, can't be violent. Only ignorant non-practicing people can be. Some rogue monks do not represent a religion, they're just another tool of the Thai junta, just like the Pakistan governement is instrumentalizing muslim leaders into terrorism for political motives.

[ue_]

The Buddhist Pali canon is filled with remarks of non-violence and non-killing by the Buddha at every turn. One cannot claim that Buddhism is a violent religion based on this. Monks in the Theravada tradition are disallowed from eating meat given to them if they know or suspect it had been killed for their puspose, for example.

[guitarbill]

If you think that religion can't be violent, but politics can, I'm assuming you think they're separate. But to quote the Grand Ayatollah Khomeini: "Anyone who will say that religion is separate from politics is a fool; he does not know Islam or politics."

[yowkow]

I see your point. However, the fact that _monks_ who should embody everything that Buddhism has to offer, participating, and if fact inciting such violence does need to be looked at. Have you see Christian missionaries that have incited such violence anywhere?

[gonvaled]

Let me rephrase your statement: “religion can not be violent because by definition it is not violent. Any violent element is instrumentalisation of religion, and not religion, by definition“

[Razengan]

Religion can definitely be violent, unless you mean it cannot because an idea cannot take actions, people do.

Consider this simplification:

• Religion A holds all life to be sacred.

• Religion B mandates ritual animal sacrifice.

How are the adherents of A going to view B as anything but violent?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sacred_cow2.jpg

[srean]

Adding this because it is not very well known. Cows have never been on that universal "do not slaughter" list of Hindus that it is now made out to be.

Tenets of Hinduism contain cow slaughter rituals. One can argue though that these rituals were special cases and not frequently practiced. Even if we leave such rituals out, beef eating have not been something that would have raise eyebrows in certain Hindu population. Even the so called caretakers of teachings of Hinduism, the Brahmin caste have freely consumed beef in for example Kerala. The current wave of beef ban is just one part of the insular but politically empowered right wing population imposing its morality on the other.

[jaldhar]

If by "tenets" of Hinduism you mean texts which have not been considered imperative for at least two millennia then maybe but let me remind you that Hindus are not "people of the book". You can accuse Hindutva types of many things but in this case their view is completely mainstream.

As for the past instead of text-juggling let's look at archeology. Do excavations in India indicate people in ancient times ate more meat? Yes. Beef in particular? No they don't.

[srean]

> If by "tenets" of Hinduism you mean texts which have not been considered imperative for at least two millennia

That's a little disingenuous (not you in particular) because if anything is mentioned in those books they fall over themselves to mention them.

You indeed bring up an important point, there is no analogue of a Bible or Koran in Hinduism. I find Vedas/Upanishads to be more foundational while others might consider the much younger Gita more important. This grafting of the notion of a 'book' by British led to hilarious practices: swearing on the Gita in court. This means little to a Hindu although the British tried hard to evoke the response they wanted.

I am not claiming beef was a regular diet through Hinduism hinterland. I am saying that there is nothing in the religion that sanctions it. I think oral and written tradition are the more appropriate tool to use here (than archeology) and there is enough examples in that document beef as a part of diet (again not across the entire Hindu land).

[jaldhar]

> "if anything is mentioned in those books they fall over themselves to mention them."

As a Pandit whose education in Sanskrit was strictly on classical lines I definitely get a "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right" feeling in Indian cultural arguments.

> I find Vedas/Upanishads to be more foundational while others might consider the much younger Gita...

By much younger you are still talking about about atleast 2000 years even by the most conservative estimates. But anyway, I wouldn't consider any of those as foundational outside of specialists such as myself. For the man in the street, insofar as any books could make that claim, it would be the Puranas, Mahabharata, and Ramayana that guide him. Even as a Brahmana most of my activities are Puranic and Tantric. Vedic maybe 25%.

> I am saying that there is nothing in the religion that sanctions it.

Now we are back to defining what "the religion" is. Obviously there are a good number of people (including myself) who think it does prohibit it.

> I think oral and written tradition are the more appropriate tool

Again the problem is whose traditions and how are they recorded/interpreted. As a counter we can point out that Muslims considered throwing the corpse of a cow into a mandir a particularly good way of desecrating it. The Sikh Gurus considered cow protection a justification for rebelling against the Mughals. The sepoys rebelled against the British because of suspicions that beef fat was greasing their bullets. How much weight to give to each example? Archaeological objects are less susceptible to ideological manipulation.

[sorokod]

Visit Burma for a counter example. Or Israel.