Are there any instances of the Buddhist doctrine encouraging violence

Buddhism doesn't encourage violence.

It's just there's nothing stopping people from stretching or ignoring the teachings for violence.

>I'm killing them to prevent them from accumulating more karma! Maybe they won't be ignorant pricks in the next life!
>I'm killing them but I'm being completely emotionless and mindful of my actions
>I know I'll reincarnate in a hell dimension but it's for the sake of protecting other beings capable of enlightenment, pray for me

Behead those who insult Lama

Angry King Kong Bodhisattva low eyebrows?

Completely missing the point.
It means to never let anyone or anything stop you from reaching for heaven.
Not even if it's the Buddha himself.

None of what you wrote contradicts what he wrote.

I think it refers to when you are meditating get rid of the image of buddha in your mind as he is just a construct

Neutral stance on Violence isn't the same as Anti Violence.

kek

Buddhism isn't neutral on violence. Not being violent is right there in the eightfold path. You only had eight things to read, how did you fuck that up user?

Kalacharka texts has some. It was written around the time of Islamic invasion of the India, so doomsday narrative is present here.

i was wondering if anyone would catch that

Like any religion, it is generally against violence but its rules can be bent to allow it. In Southern Thailand, for instance, monks are arming themselves with guns and shooting those who they believe are a threat to the wat, and therefore Buddhism.
The Vinaya, the Theravada monastic codes, outlines bearing arms as a sin, however the punishment is to announce it to your fellow monks. So they do that. You also should not kill nor have intent to kill, so when they fire the weapons they claim that they do not aim to kill, and if it happens it is an accident.
Also, in certain traditions of Tibetan Buddhism, it is all right to kill someone if they are in a position wherein they can only accrue negative karma.
Look up "Sacred Fury: Understanding Religious Violence" and "Buddhist Fury: Religion and Violence in Southern Thailand".

OP is asking for scriptural doctrines that allow bending of rules. Not monks/people making excuses.

Islam has just war/violence doctrine. Christians have just war/violence doctrines. Jews have just war/violence doctrines. And they are part of normal teachings. Hinduism has just war/violence doctrine.

Buddhism lacks these, atleast the theravada version. However its possible that there exist a Mahayana scripture that allows for just violence/war doctrine. However it would be fringe though as mainstream mayahana doesn't adhere to such.

So the false equivalence kinda needs to be shed. Aside from the religious text themselves, people of all kinds are always calling for violence for all kinds of reasons.

Indeed. The OP asked if there's anything that remotely hints violence. I didn't present any interpretation of it.

buddhism kind of wants you to kill yourself for all eternity, along with the rest of the world

kind of violent, like a nihilistic death cult made for poor peasants

Can you elaborate?

The cessation of suffering is only possible through suicide.

Literally teaches you to neck yourself and be neet

See Demieville's Buddhism and War.

There are a couple of scholarly tomes on Buddhism and violence. most notably dealing with Japan (Brian Victoria) and Sri Lanka.

Then some pleb mentions von Ungern Sternberg for street cred. (completely missing the point of his political action)

I can't find a copy on the net. What's the content? I'm reading some second hand reviews and its not clear to me.

Got an english translated copy on the internet?

your google-fu is appalling, user.

It's contained, in English, in "Buddhist Warfare", which is on Libgen.

There's also "Buddhism and Violence", which is also on Libgen.

These are the basic readings on the subject.

Take it from there.

That's Herakles, he was commonly depicted carrying his club outside Hellenistic temples as a guardian spirit, he spread into the Buddhist mainstream via the Greco-Bactrians.

Incorrect. That's not Herakles. Herakles shared same role as another Hindu god of strength. The concept of herakles was simply transposed by the greek-buddhist, since the role was same it was a simple carry over. However the image in the Buddhist art is not Herakles, the original herakles was used however it later evolved on its own because it already had its own core identity.

there are images of Vajrapani (and related deities) as far as China which are basically the same as Hercules as we know him, in posture and shape.

that doesn't mean all such figures have that origin though.

Thanks libgen had one. I read the translated version. The only real contribution is that Mahayana buddhists can take Buddhist core to its logical extremes and have the justification needed to commit murder and such, so as to stop the potential negative karma to come to the person that might do it. That seems to be Asanga's rational.

The other Mahayana logical extreme was the one born from Buddhist reductionism on what constitutes self, existence, etc. With the notion that there is no self and no sufferer, and no suffering, things like murder would be applicable.

However both of them rests on Mahayana reading and being/having a Bodhisattva understanding of the reality.

they have both, I've just checked, for the love and honour of all that is holy.

you're the internet equivalent of the icchantika, you know that?

>>I'm killing them but I'm being completely emotionless and mindful of my actions
This. Zen buddhists really went dark side during WWII

historical examples of said doctrine being applied to warfare, please.

Even the Mongolians didn't buy it.

unlike abrahamic religions, there are none.

But Islam currently, and scripture wise, is the most disgusting in terms of violence.

>Tibet/Afghanistan
>Japan
>Vietnam

Doctrine, not a random country that happens to have a Buddhist population.

Reading comprehension is your friend

are you going to give us examples of specific doctrines and specific conflicts, with quotes, sources and references, or are you just going to continue to pull shit out your ass?

ITT: people not knowing the difference between buddhism, confucianism, and taoism.

op is just looking for some ammo for "NOT ALL MUSLIMS"

fuck off

>wherein they can only accrue negative karma.

How does that happen?

How? Fuck if i know eastern religion confuses the hell out of me.

>this is the face of wisdom and benevolent violence

What counts as canon exactly?
Here is Nichiren, the founder of Nichiren Buddhism. Note that Nichiren himself had little influence during his lifetime, and he and his followers actually ended on the receiving side of violent repression by mainstream buddhists, including exile and torture (he also claimed there were attempts on his life):

"I attacked the Zen school as the invention of the heavenly devil, and the Shingon school as an evil doctrine that will ruin the nation, and insisted that the temples of the Nembutsu [Pure Land], Zen, and Ritsu priests be burned down and the Nembutsu priests and the others beheaded.”

"Nichiren is the pillar and beam of Japan. Doing away with me is toppling the pillar of Japan! . . . All the Nembutsu and Zen temples, such as Kenchoji, Jufuku-ji, Gokuraku-ji, Daibutsuden, and Choraku-ji, should be burned to the ground, and their priests taken to Yui Beach to have their heads cut off. If this is not done, then Japan is certain to be destroyed!”

He wasn't exactly coming out of nowhere, he was invoking the principle of shakubuku (折伏) found in the Śrīmālādevī Siṃhanāda Sūtra.

Besides the passage capped, here are a few things the bodhisattva would do according to the Sutra:

If there are great armies
Facing each other with equal strength,
The bodhisattva manifests his awesome power,
And, subjugating them, imposes peace.

In all the countries,
Wherever there are hells
Does he go to save [the beings there]
From their sufferings.

For those who are selfish and conceited, He manifests
himself as a great warrior, Decimating the pretensions
[of sentient beings], And causing them to abide in the
unsurpassable path.

The hosts of the fear-stricken
He shields and comforts,
First giving them fearlessness
And then causing them to generate the intention to achieve
enlightenment.

So "just war" and "benevolent interventionism" (world police, """nation building""") is easy to justify from these passages

>What counts as canon exactly?

If it's not Pali Canon it's bullshit. Mahayana and Tibetan voodoo is bullshit.

Okay then, have this genesis myth attributed to the Buddha from the Sutta Pitaka, explaining the origin of kings and warriors:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aggañña_Sutta#The_Birth_of_Social_Order_and_Castes

Then, as the evil and greed were aroused, there were people who begin stealing others' crops. At first, the others only warned the culprit and the culprit promised that he would never repeat it again. But when it was repeated several times, the people began punishing him with fist, stones, and then sticks. That is the origin of punishment forms. Then, people began to think that they were too busy to heed every crime and abuse that happened in their society. They grieved on the rising of evil amongst their people. But most of their time had already been invested in tending their fief. So, they appointed someone to rectify what is right and what is wrong, give warnings to those who need it, give punishment to those who deserve it, and in return, they will give him a share of their rice.

This also related somewhat to the concept of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakravartin
Note the:
Let's just say note that the "miraculous jewels" granted to him to stay in power and enforce the peace (in both Buddhism and Jainism, another religion that abhors killing) include:
-Sudarshana Chakra, a miraculous wheel that never misses its target
-Huge army of chariots
-Huge army of horses
-Huge army of elephants
Buddhist sites tend to give a different and more symbolic list ("for the spiritual practitioner" as opposed to the secular ruler who would use the chariots and elephants more concretely) that notably features this item:
- The Precious General symbolises the wrathful power to overcome enemies
rigpawiki.org/index.php?title=Seven_precious_emblems_of_royalty
viewonbuddhism.org/general_symbols_buddhism.html#4
Needless to say modern or Western sources tend to retcon all this to be about "spiritual warfare" much like moderate Muslims try to do.

Hinayana purist much?

I'm sure you know historiography tells us an awful lot about the roots of the rather modern Theravada revival, user, don't you?

If you're equating the lifestyles of NEETs and the lifestyle outlined in the Vinaya, you're insane.

For laypeople, the Buddha advocated pretty normal stuff like kindness and gaining wealth virtuously.

Source?

yes in Theracada Buddhism (see that book, the Buddha's Teachings on Prosperity).

Mahayana and Vajrayana have a somewhat different appraoch.

>All this Mahayana faggotry

Mlecchas gonna Mlecc

eh, you do know that in Theravada, if you're not a monk, you're not even in the running, mate.

and even then, some schools hold that Buddhahood is an unironical impossiblity.

Good going if you're a self-identified Boodhist, dude.

If you're not a streamenterer, you're not a Buddhist proper. At best you could hope is better reincarnation cycle. And that's lightly putting it. As you're already human and have the best chance of becoming a stream enterer, if you waste this life, it will be another untold amounts of life before you become reborn as human.

The Kalachakra Tantra asserts an eschaton in which the "Barbarian Dharma" will engage in an an apocalyptic war with the Vajrayana. The Barbarian Dharma is Islam.

Also this.

No i am not a fan of Islam i know that the Quran itself wants to kill me. I was just interested because i live in Sri Lanka and there is a group called Bodu Bala Sena which is a buddhist group which attacked a church so i was interested.

*followers of the Quran

Is that a Buddha for ants

This. It's exactly the same principle for Christianity.

>Thou shalt not kill
What did they mean by this?

"Thou shalt not murder" is different from "thou shalt not kill"

One is about not squandering life and killing for no good reason. The other gets you into more hippy-dippy "I'm not gonna bathe myself so I don't kill the lice hanging off my balls" weirdness.

ZOMG, we're breathing and slaughtering millions of bacteria.

We don't have quotes from the Buddha, drop the Sthavira meme.

As far as Buddhist doctrine, nothing explicit in sutrayana.

There are a few quotes throughout the sutras that could be stretched, for example stuff like "If the peaceful methods don't work, then for the sake of all sentient beings I will use the forceful methods".

This isn't explicitly advocating to violence but can include it, like with some moral conundrum where you kill a person to save a hundred. It more typically concerns other forceful actions broadly under upaya, like lying and keeping things from people who are immature. For example it is a root bodhisattva downfall to over reveal the extent of emptiness.

Now, in tantra there are explicit discussions of violence. Most are about soteriological rituals, however some are more than that. In the Kalachakra literature, despite the protests of the Dalai Lama, it clearly talks about fashioning weapons and how to use them to defend the dharma and sangha against the barbarians. By barbarians it refers to Muslims as it explicitly refers to a crude gloss of Allah as the deity they blood deity they worship and observes that they dress their women in sheets head to toe.
The texts likely came out of an area of Afghanistan, where monasteries were being raided and burnt to the ground by barbarian Muslims.

>The texts likely came out of an area of Afghanistan,
That's a bit West of where Kalachakra was likely to have been collated (The Kashmir highlands and the Northwesternmost extent of the Pala kingdoms).

youtu.be/p6De3TwoOFo
youtu.be/_HHrIqaI6YM