Now, hold on...not all monks are pacifists...

The shaolin in China led or assisted many revolutions against the various regimes there, becoming such a thorn in their sides that their destruction became a goal of many a would-be tyrant. Of course, the Shaolin are not entirely Buddhist, having been influenced by Taoist thought as well. They began training in the martial arts as a exercise regime, but, over time, they also became a strong arm of the people in resisting tyranny.

THESE monks in Burma are obviously of the pacifist variety and there's nothing wrong with that. That is their path. Of course, there are certain regimes that cannot be opposed by peaceful means. Ghandi was successful against the British because the British wanted to think of themselves as "civilized" and there was a line they simply weren't willing to cross. Same with the civil rights movement in the United States. There were lines they weren't willing to cross. Such a protest in Russia was also successful because the army wasn't willing to fire upon its own citizens during the short-lived coup attempt several years back.

On the other hand, democratic movements in nations where they WERE willing to cross that line haven't been particularly successful. We've seen it in China and, more recently, in Burma.

So, yes, maybe it was wrong to suggest that THESE monks carry uzis under their robes. But the idea that sometimes one HAS to fight to succeed isn't necessarily wrong. Pacifism is a great ideal and sometimes it can change things. But sometimes it can't. Stronger measures are necessary.

In a perfect world, pacifism would make sense. In this world, it only works as long as someone cares what the world thinks, or isn't strong enough to tolerate protests and other repercussions from the world-wide community.

You seem to lump their being "monks" together as you review the strategic results of various democracy movements, across history and around the world among many cultures. Talk about mixing apples and oranges....:shrug:

The issue was that they were BUDDHIST monks and I'm finding that Buddhism is among the most poorly understood spiritual practices among DUers.... I just hope that the incident will spur some to learn more about Buddhism. We mourn their tragic loss, but that is a very western attitude. You perceive that their efforts were for naught. Buddhists would perceive their efforts were a stage in the struggle over the course of human existence. I hope that in time, some prominent Buddhists will speak out to try to help the western world better understand...

but for those who did the killing?

a bit and worked among them during work overseas. I do believe that they would be accepting of what happened in a manner of wishing to help those who offend find the better path that would promote enlightenment for all. To say "accepting" has different connotations among western cultures, so perhaps equating it to "mourning" for those who offended may be a reasonable (albeit imprecise) way to look at it...

I belong to an opposing school of thought, but my understanding is that since this whole world is an illusion that is to be overcome, it is not right to mourn people who have released attachment in such a way. It is more correct to mourn the ones who had such attachment to their wealth, power, positions, etc. that they were willing to kill to "hold on to it" so to speak.

Or do you dispute that?

Lots of them. But it does seem that buddhism isn't something most DUers are terribly famiiar with. I'm surprised.

it may have escaped me. But, certainly previous to this incident, there have been many opportunities to hear from prominent Buddhists, including the Dalai Lama. I'm a bit surprised that so many seem to interpret Buddhism as they would more western-centric religions, including fundamentalist Christianity.

It seems to be a catch-all term for men who live together in a religious order of some kind.

It's spread everywhere from India to China to Japan to the United States, and it's practiced differently by various practitioners.

You don't have to be a vegetarian to be Buddhist, though some choose to be vegetarian.

You don't have to wear saffron robes to be Buddhist either, though some do.

You don't even have to adhere to non-violence, though many do. The samurai of Japan practiced Buddhism along with Shinto beliefs, and at the same time, did their duties as warriors for their lords.

Though certainly, one would probably get closer to achieving enlightenment by practicing non-violence.

A sensible and accurate post.

But there are regional similarities... Thus Myanmar adherents have similarities to others in Asia, including Vietnam, Thailand, Cambodia, etc. Non-violence is typical among these practitioners.

"It's the wood that should fear your hand, not the other way around. No wonder you can't do it, you acquiesce to defeat before you even begin."

and pacifism makes sense to me

Not all Zen Buddhists supported Japanese imperialism, but some of the more prominent sects certainly did. The Japanese state incorporated religion into its ideological foundations just like all the rest of our modern states have done. Not all Buddhists are pacifists, some are and some aren't. I stand in solidarity with the monks and people of Burma not because of their religion, but because of their courage to act on their convictions to struggle for peace and freedom through non violent resistance.

But like somebody else said yesterday, the heroic willingness of these monks to both stand up for what the rights of the people and to die quietly due to their beliefs may well inspire the OTHER kind of resistance. It has also drawn a huge amount of attention to the situation and put pressure on China to step in and do something.