Extremism in Eastern Religions

I kind of want to learn about Japan from the beginning. I just know the basics (muh shogunate, Dutch trading, etc) but I don't quite have it all pieced together in the big picture, like emperor succession and all. What do you recommend?

youtube.com/watch?v=Mh5LY4Mz15o

Its not as inaccurate as you might think

except there are 'crusades' in eastern religion

loads

buddhists used to go on holy wars all the time
basicaly any war any monarch of a varajana nation fought was 'blessed' and 'holy' and 'good for karma', and tibet itself was realy big on holy wars, especialy against other mahajhana buddhists, like the ones in nepal and buthan that didnt accept dalay lama as big lama of lamas, and japanese imperialist expansion was praised by zen buddhists close to the monarchy as basicaly a holy endevour for the good of others, like the chinese especialy(they knew what was going on too, they still made a point of it)and there were many uprisings and guerrila movements in asia, china especialy, troughout the centuries, that were fundamentaly buddhist so to speak, only difference there being these were popular movements that used buddhism as more of a imancipatory ideology, same way as herezy connected to pesant uprisings in europe

and if you read the baghavat gita war is a holy duty - not even in the sense of 'against infidels' or 'inthe name of x', but simply war as such - primarily for the ksatria, off course but its easy to extrapolate further

I've seen that. Kind of broad though. I need details.

True Pure Land Buddhism or mostly known as Ikko Ikki.

It is, and there is no point where its never interesting, from manslaying samurai to shogun reviving military dictators.
Only if they weren't such a bunch of pussies today.

Japan's very beginning is just boring af, especially the Heian period which is fucking overrated in my opinion, all that sitting around in ponds and sulking with poetry about how life is so impermanent, its just fucking gay.
It doesn't really get interesting until the samurais come along.

Read some news articles about Myanmar in the 2010s.

None of those sound like crusades, which are attempts to spread the Gospel by the sword or to defend Christian lands.

There are a good number of details in that video.

there are four different but not mutualy exclusive 'lines' by which buddhism usualy goes extremist

first its simple relativism which is easy enough to get at depending on interpretation of this sutta or that

the other is the 'total sum' logic of, oh well maybe now its a bit of carnage but in the longrun it will bring stability/prosperity/peace so more people will get better conditions to work out their karma in a nuber of neat well ordered lives, and better chance to reach nirvana - so its almost like its bad karma not to help out

the third and most frequent comes from the logic that strict discipline, hardship and focused detachment in pure action can speed up or bring enlightenment

I know that, during the Sengoku period, certain radical Buddhist sects would basically form massive fundamentalist peasant armies and just take over shit. Oda Nobunaga's main achievement was actually breaking the power of these sects.
For a class I took, we read selections from the multi-volume Sources of Japanese Tradition. I found it to be an excellent compilation of primary sources for Japanese history

now youre splitting hairs

Spread the gospel? Are you serious?

It was all "kill the heretics", and the heretics for the most part where Christians, Jews and Muslims.

There was no fucking "spread the gospel"; they don't know the fucking gospel.

The word was "crusade," man. That's a specific kind of war.
>There was no fucking "spread the gospel"; they don't know the fucking gospel.
That's your opinion. You're welcome to have it. That isn't an argument, though.

But there were samurai in the Heian period, they just were not in power until the end of it

but isnt that religion specific

i mean off course buddhists dont go on crusades any more that they would go on jihads, but the point is they loved going on holy wars and sanctifying war generaly as much as the next guy, and some buddhists were quite fond of armed violence generaly, the whole bushido pretty much derived from that

>they loved going on holy wars and sanctifying war generaly as much as the next guy,
Could you at least post a source for this?

>But there were samurai in the Heian period
Perhaps technically, but the samurai as we understand it did not develop until much later

the history of bactria, tibet, buthan, laos, burma/myanmar, vetnam, japan, china, korea

i dont know, try cheking out yasutani, start there

by the way i love yasutani, taught myself to meditate based on his later practical stuff, but he was a imperialist extremist condoning war and mass slaughter, his teachers like sogoku harada were even worse

here, a quote apparently from harada

>march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war

I asked you for a source. Nothing you've mentioned is a source, except maybe that Yasutani quote. And Yasutani sounds pretty modern, hardly indicative of classical Eastern religious practices.

>The word was "crusade," man. That's a specific kind of war.
It's not at all. Crusade was used for several kinds of conflicts throughout history, and today has even acquired secular use for any moral cause. Some of those examples the other user listed sound no different from crusades against heretics and political enemies of the Church in the 12th and 13th centuries, or the peasant uprisings of the 14th and 15th centuries.

>Crusade was used for several kinds of conflicts throughout history
All of which have been holy wars. The secular use of the word is rarely used to seriously describe a secular conflict. Was the Cold War a Communist crusade, or a class struggle?

I wasn't contesting that point, nor does that conflict with what the other user said about eastern religious holy wars. Crusade may have once had a very narrow definition, but very quickly became synonymous with any sort of sanctified or holy war in Western society. Some may consider the Communist struggle as a crusade and they would not be wrong outside of the ideological argument, the same way D-Day was our 'great crusade.' This is just to point out the lack of specificity of crusade as a holy war in the general sense, and not a very specific kind of holy war distinct from others.

>Crusades

Buddhism and Hinduism both believe that reality is an illusion, the goal is to transcend existence, and that suffering comes from desire. Thus as you can see, they are both aspects of Despair. While a Mohammedan or a Christian might kill for their faith; the fervent hope of a Buddhist or a Hindu is that death will actually result in you ceasing to exist. Thus an extreme Buddhist or Hindu will not generally kill others ( though they may); if they were sincere ( as some are), they will kill themselves (as some do) perhaps by burning alive.

The Yellow Turban Rebellion and the Heavenly Kingdom both spring to mind, though only really the leadership held any religious pretensions whilst the core fought out of dissatisfaction with the reigning dynasty.

China had many religious civil wars and uprisings over the course of its history. Examples being groups such as the Yellow Turbans, Red Turbans, White Lotus and Taiping among many others. Buddhism was also interpreted in various ways. Sometimes the concept of the Cakravartin king was spun into an idea of a Buddhist conqueror. Some Buddhist sects could also be fanatical. Nichiren Buddhism in Japan was rigidly intolerant for example.

Eastern religion was a bit different from Western because it was more syncretic. Sometimes Buddhism and Daoism were mixed with other Chinese philosophical and religious beliefs to produce a kind of admixture.

In terms of personal extremism, I guess the best example in Daoism would be how some Emperors would drink elixirs to supposedly grant them longevity or immortality, when really in many cases they simply were poisoned and died.

Some Chinese scholars also protested the tax exempt status sometimes granted to Buddhist or Daoist religious institutions, viewing this as extreme and a drain on the Imperial treasury as people flocked to join those religions to evade taxation.

By the end of the Heian era, horse mounted archers carrying tachi swords in oyoroi armor were not only common, but the premier families ruled the country in all but name, holding the most powerful positions at court

Religious extremism to me extends also to things that harm yourself.

Some religions forbid you from going to doctors or getting life saving transfusions. It's hella harmful.

>only depicts the First Crusade
>no depiction of Northern Crusades
>no depiction of Albigensian Crusade
>no depiction of crusader battles in Egypt, Spain, the Mediterranean, Syria
>conveniently leaves out the Christian conquest of the New World
>conveniently leaves out European Christian colonization of Asia and Africa

I hate this shitty meme pic

Hey man, leave barbecue out of it.

youtube.com/watch?v=I_To-cV94Bo

You might be interested in the Korean Tonghak rebellion. Also New Religions of Japan, Aum Shinrikyo for example. Gassing subways may be extremist enough I guess.

Holy shit you don't understand buddhism at all

shut up vegan

What a load of bullshit in a single post
And something tells me you consider all of that to be true

That doesn't look like an argument

There's nothing to understand.

The sarin gas attacks on the tokyo subway system were committed by the new religious movement Aum Shinrikyo. Their leader, Shoko Asahara, used an eclectic mixture of various world religions to justify the violence. In particular, he used vajrayana belief that killing people is justified if they live in a condition where they cannot accrue merit- a mercy killing, if you will. The attacks in 1995 were meant apparently to start WWIII, leading into the christian Armageddon.

The Yellow and Red Turban Revolts only had religious leadership. But they were hardly religious wars.

They were primarily manned and fought by cunts simply dissatisfied with the government.

This was also the case of the Taiping. The Taiping leadership wanted to turn China into Christcuckland, but shitloads of its soldiers werent even Christian and were only in it to fuck up the Qingz.

This is why many religious-led rebellions in China were failures. They were too fucking decentralized. The only successful one was the Red Turban Buddhists, but it turned into a secular revolt against the Yuan Mongol under Zhu Yuanzhang.

I don't disagree with much of what you said, but I feel like this just boils down to a semantic argument over what constitutes a "religious war." You're absolutely right that many of the people in these revolts were not religious fanatics and were mainly dissatisfied with the government. Yet there were also many who did believe in the religious message both among the leadership and the rank and file. It's true that there was both a religious and secular component to these conflicts though and that the religious movement just provided an outlet for a broader anti-government movement within society.

The only one I've ever heard of is the White Lotus movement.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/969_Movement
> Burmese Buddhists start genociding Muslims

The most significant was actually probably the Taiping. Millions died in that war and there was a serious threat posed by the rebels, who practiced a heterodox form of Christianity.

I'll add on to this slice.

The term Akuso was used during the early days of Japan(~700 CE), when warlords reigned supreme. The buddhist temples had acquired great wealth and used those to hire/recruit people to defend their wealth/temples. This created an pseudo army for the buddhists.

Its also not necessarily "evil monks" but rather bad acting monks. Because of the low requirements to get in the Temple, the "monks" that fight are merely bolstering numbers for the buddhist temples.

>believe in future race war
Was this really strange? Racial superiority of a white was being established amongst the whites of the time. With this knowledge, conflict was inevitable with other non-whites.

I don't see anything about genocide on the page.

From the looks of it, its just faulty media reporting. Even the so called "bin laden" of buddhist seems mainly interested in protesting. KEK

How barbaric.

There's no need for genocide when the government does all the oppressing for you. All you have to do is to be loud enough to keep them going on.

Went on a wiki binge. Cool shit.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Way_of_the_Five_Pecks_of_Rice

Literally Daoist Puritans.

So its not a buddhist extremism but a military junta issue?

I don't get it.

90% of "religious" conflicts have roots in things other than religion. The actual problem in Burma is that Muslims want to kill Buddhists. The Buddhists aren't fighting a holy war, they're fighting a normal war. The Muslims might be jihading, but that doesn't mean the Buddhists view the conflict as "sacred."

But Buddhist armies continued being a powerful force until Nobunaga and Hideyoshi finally put an end to them. Monasteries were often on top of mountains, meaning they were very easily defensible

>The actual problem in Burma is that Muslims want to kill Buddhists.
Pretty sure it's the other way around. I mean, I'm certain many Muslims want to kill Buddhists, especially after all that shit they've done to them, but they want the oppression to stop more than anything.
Of course a mirror conflict is happening in Bangladesh.

The stupidest thing you can do is associating Asian muslims with Middle Eastern muslims. They have widely different histories and philosophies.
(The second stupidest thing is associating any Buddhists with Tibetan Buddhism or Zen Buddhism.)

>fighting a normal war
It's a very one-sided slaughter with minimal resistance from a few Muslim insurgents.

the difference isn't that there is no holy war, its that in eastern religions the very act of war is holy while in the West war is sinful and needs divine justification to be holy

its a very important distinction which has basically coloured eastern-western ideology since.

>but they want the oppression to stop more than anything.
"More than anything?" Even more than submitting to their deity?
>It's a very one-sided slaughter with minimal resistance from a few Muslim insurgents.
Could you post a couple sources?

>"More than anything?" Even more than submitting to their deity?
Okay, I suppose they think going to hell would be worse than being persecuted.

>Could you post a couple sources?
A source for what, exactly? Muslims make up 4% of the population. Half a million Muslims have fled Burma already. There have been no Rohingya in the army or the police for decades, and the most famous insurgent group are a few dozens of terrorists trained abroad who managed to ambush the police once and also kidnapped some nobodies. For years there have never been more than a thousand insurgents against the entire Burmese military.

I might add that the violence against Muslims is actually disconnect from actual Muslim insurgencies in Burma.
A typical account:

"In 2001,Myo Pyauk Hmar Soe Kyauk Hla Tai , The Fear of Losing One's Race, and many other anti-Muslim pamphlets were widely distributed by monks. Distribution of the pamphlets was also facilitated by the Union Solidarity and Development Association (USDA),[122] a civilian organisation instituted by the ruling junta, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). Many Muslims feel that this exacerbated the anti-Muslim feelings that had been provoked by the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in Afghanistan.[121] Human Rights Watch reports that there was mounting tension between the Buddhist and Muslim communities in Taungoo for weeks before it erupted into violence in the middle of May 2001. Buddhist monks demanded that the Hantha Mosque in Taungoo be destroyed in "retaliation" for the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan.[123] Mobs of Buddhists, led by monks, vandalised Muslim-owned businesses and property and attacked and killed Muslims in Muslim communities.[124] On 15 May 2001, anti-Muslim riots broke out in Taungoo, Bago division, resulting in the deaths of about 200 Muslims, in the destruction of 11 mosques, and setting ablaze of over 400 houses. On this day also, about 20 Muslims praying in the Han Tha mosque were beaten, some to death, by the pro-junta forces. On 17 May 2001, Lt. General Win Myint, Secretary No. 3 of the SPDC and deputy Home and Religious minister arrived and curfew was imposed there in Taungoo. All communication lines were disconnected.[125] On 18 May, the Han Tha mosque and Taungoo Railway station mosque were razed by bulldozers owned by the SPDC .[121] The mosques in Taungoo remained closed until May 2002, with Muslims forced to worship in their homes."

I think you misunderstands the situation there. The oppression you're speaking of is misguided. There's oppression from the government on the people. But as a buddhist to Muslim, there's hardly any organized oppression. There's the 969 which marks itself as a self-defense organization against muslim incursion. The whole thing has a history dating back to the british labor import from bangladesh. With the muslims taking over traditional buddhist areas/villages via jihad, there was a need to "oppress" those muslims by the government. Or in another word, the government retaliated against muslim incursion against the buddhist villagers. Kidnapping, killing and forced conversion were put to stop.

You can read the similar situation in Thailand, where the muslims want to carve out their own state. They have waged a jihad against the locals. The locals have been forced to defend themselves by arming themselves against the beheading/killings.

Wasn't Tibet like a dictorial society? I remember reading about monks who'd just steal peasant boys and make them sex slaves and no one could do anything about it.

Do you get a kick out of whitewashing ethnic cleansing in South Asian dictatorships or something?

There are extremist buddhists in Burma, this I will not deny. However, and this goes into conspiracy theory land, it appears to be backed by the "junta", or at least is helped along by said government.

Not a mirror conflict. It's the extension of the same problem.

It's also extremely one-sided. I have not heard ANYTHING about jihadi insurgents doing even small-scale terror acts. If anything, the Rohingya resistance is either dumbly passive or they're so destitute they've fucking given up (I assume the latter).

There is a similar situation in Thailand, yet, but the origins are different. South Thailand has ALWAYS been a different creature from the rest of Thailand ever since the Thais annexed the area in 1901. There have been attempts to integrate them into Thailand as recently as 2006, but they are largely left alone for the most part.

Also, fuck Thaksin. He knows what he has done.