Jump to content

Talk:Buddhism and violence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Global Research

[edit]

It is infamous for publishing conspiracy theories and Russian and Chinese propaganda so is unacceptable as a source on Wikipedia. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate18:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yamamoto Tsunetomo a monk?

[edit]

Was Yamamoto Tsunetomo (who wrote a book on Bushido) a Buddhist monk after he stopped serving as a warrior?

If so can we include him as a Buddhist authority who favoured some form of violence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AverroesII (talkcontribs) 11:33, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: The Anthropology of Violence

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 January 2024 and 23 March 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vedisobe (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Cognitura, AverageEccentric.

— Assignment last updated by Tarabien (talk) 04:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

linked to another article

[edit]

hi all, i just popped in to link a section of this article (specifically under 'sri lanka') to a related topic i'm working on called 'protracted social conflict'. Grackle.cackle (talk) 19:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aum Shinrikyo

[edit]

As described in the text of this very article, while the Aum Shinrikyo movement drew in part from Buddhist thought, it is not remotely accurate to categorize the movement as "Buddhist" as a whole. As such, I'm not sure it's appropriate in this article, but I was curious to hear what others thought. EllieDellie (talk) 22:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Buddhist Violence Toward Nonhuman Animals

[edit]

While Buddhism is widely associated with ahimsa (nonviolence), scholars have critiqued how some Buddhist traditions historically and culturally accommodate, permit, or overlook violence toward nonhuman animals.

Scholar Paul Waldau, in The Specter of Speciesism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals[1], examines how doctrinal commitments to compassion have not always translated into institutional or everyday nonviolence toward animals. Waldau argues that species-based discrimination and ritualized animal killing in some Buddhist societies reflect tensions between professed ideals and lived practices. He critiques forms of “compassionate hierarchy” that still allow for exploitation, suggesting that such contradictions merit further reflection within Buddhist ethics.

In the long reflective human 'multilinear histories'[2] of our species, humans protecting themselves from nonhumans AND from other humans MAY be inherent 'in the nature of things' (and amenable to mitigation but not total elimination). That ought to be explored, I would think. MaynardClark (talk) 16:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Waldau, Paul. The Specter of Speciesism: Buddhist and Christian Views of Animals. Oxford University Press, 2001.
  2. ^ Across multilinear human histories, self-protection—from both nonhuman threats (predators, pathogens, environmental dangers) and human threats (violence, exploitation, tribal conflict)—has been a persistent adaptive behavior. It's not merely cultural but likely partly rooted in our evolutionary wiring. In the long and branching history of human societies, the instinct to protect oneself—against both nonhuman and human threats—appears to be a structural feature of our condition. While this instinct is amenable to ethical restraint and cultural redirection, it is not likely to be eliminated entirely. For ahimsa and Buddhist (or even vegan) ethics to thrive, they must be realistic: building systems of compassion and resilience that anticipate fear, conflict, and mistrust rather than pretending that such self-protective instincts do not exist.