Rachael Spinner
I. Citation
Monk-led Protest Show Buddhist Activism
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080330/ap_on_re_as/asia_buddha_s_militants;_ylt=ApOkPjNMvFQ40.P0i9HLXwABxg8F
By Denis Gray
March 30, 2008
II. Summary:
Buddhism is a religion known for its peaceful ways and avoidance of politics. However, eruptions of violence and protests are becoming more and more common in the Buddhist world, some monks and nuns are even moving from their monasteries and into slums. What these Buddhists are doing is looking at the political, social, and economic cause for human misery and trying to end it. These Buddhists that are revolting against things that cause human misery are called Engaged Buddhists. In the past couple of weeks Buddhist monks have joined together with civilians in China, some charging at helmeted troops and throwing rocks to demand independence from China. Even though Buddhists are known to be peaceful, it was said in the article that "In modern times, preaching is not enough. Monks must act to improve society, to remove evil." As surprising as it is that these peaceful monks would revolt, it is not new in this religion to be aggressive. Sohei monks in Japan fought for over 600 years, until 1600, and in China there is a martial arts center used for retaining monk warriors in the 7th century by emperors who were used for banditry and rebellions. So as surprising as it is that Buddhist monks would resort to violence, Buddhism has had a history of violence.
III. Reaction
a.) The AP world theme displayed in this article is Development and interaction of cultures because it shows the history of Buddhism and how it has progressed as a religion and they use different tactics of achieving their goals.
b.) Buddhism is a very peaceful religion where one follows the “Middle Way” to seek enlightenment and reach nirvana. The religion was founded by Siddhartha Guatama, a prince that wandered outside of his castle walls and saw suffering in the world. Guatama believed that living in luxury was a sin, but taking away all values and basically starving yourself, like in the religion of Taoism, is too extreme. So instead of living too luxuriously or with too much suffering, he founded the Middle Way, making Buddhism in the middle of the spectrum between poverty and luxury. Buddhists generally avoid politics, embrace enemies, and live peaceful lives, except in the article just read it was revealed that Buddhists have a subtle history of violence.
c.) Based on the author’s name, this article is written by a male, and most likely an outsider to the situation. However, even though he may be an outsider to the situation he seems to side against the Buddhist monks.
d.) This article should be approached with caution because the author seems to side against the Buddhist Monks. You can tell this because comments are made that seem to be bias, like “increasing eruptions of violence” and “using brute force”.
e.) The point of view missing in this article is the point of view of an actual monk. Even though their motives are described in the article we never actually hear from one. Their motives are described as a struggle against foreign domination, oppressive regimes, social injustice and environmental destruction. Obviously their cause seems worth fighting for, so it would help to hear from a monk.
f.) I was very interested in this article. Aside from having an interest in the religion, I was surprised to see that the monks were acting violently. I feel that violating the laws of their religion is worth it; otherwise their side of the story won’t be heard. If they need to act a little bit violently to get their point across, then I feel that it’s ok.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
So much for peaceful Rachael :P. I was surprised when I saw the words Buddhist and violence in the same sentence. The way we've learned it seems like their main virtue is not reacting to any oppression or violence, and a peaceful lifestyle. It is true that preachers are ignored in modern society. Like the preachers that go door to door in our community usually dont get an answer or are rejected in a few moments. In order to achieve their goal of ending violence, does it really make sense to start violence to end it?? It is not the only way, because it seems pretty hyprocritical to me. This article was very interesting!
Post a Comment