MN35 wrote:Then the Blessed One said to him, "Answer now, Aggivessana. This is not the time to be silent. When anyone doesn't answer when asked a legitimate question by the Tathāgata up to three times, his head splits into seven pieces right here."
Now on that occasion the spirit (yakkha) Vajirapāṇin [Thunderbolt-in-Hand], carrying an iron thunderbolt, was poised in the air above Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son, (thinking,) "If Saccaka the Nigaṇṭha-son doesn't answer when asked a legitimate question by the Blessed One up to three times, I will split his head into seven pieces right here."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
I agree that such passages are interesting, but it seems to me they have little or no relevance to the current events. For one thing, no Tathāgata is present in the world right now. Secondly, those carrying out the violence are not attempting to deliver a dhamma teaching; rather they are acting out of an apparent mix of ethonationalistic and economic motives.
Dhammanando wrote:retrofuturist wrote:Perhaps this speaks more of the authors of the Jātaka verses and their degree of enlightenment with respect to that of the Tathagata.
For anyone interested, here is a link to the Paṇḍara Jātaka, wherein Sāriputta, then lord of the nāgas, slays Devadatta, then an evil ascetic, with the approval of the Bodhisatta, then lord of the garuḍas.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/j5/j5011.htm
Sāriputta utters words of condemnation, which apparently cause the earth to open up and swallow Devadatta. He is not depicted as taking up a weapon to smite his enemy. To me, it looks more as though by stating the nature of Devadatta's kammic offense, he triggers the arising of the appropriate vipaka. And in any case, this sort of thing is a narrative trope which probably shouldn't be regarded as a statement about Buddhist ethics.
Non-delusion (amoha, paññā) in the Jātakas is for the most part represented as a sort of Solomonic shrewdness and acuity in analysing and understanding situations and people, coupled with a practical prudence that enables a Bodhisatta to deal optimally with life's vicissitudes. Sometimes an optimal outcome cannot be achieved while keeping one's hands clean, in which case the Bodhisatta takes a proportionalist approach (much as dhammika rājās are expected to do). As the Bodhisatta is as yet unawakened, we shouldn't expect his paññā to be of the level that permanently eradicates kilesa and the harmful actions that issue from kilesa.
As a layperson, I can certainly attest to the truth of this, but what I would question is whether the people involved these hate campaigns and pogroms are displaying "shrewdness and acuity". Their behavior is crude and hysterical. A person with more wisdom would consider the harm such actions are likely to bring, including the possibility of making Burma a target for jihadist retribution, and the possibility of endangering Buddhist minorities in countries such as Bangladesh and Indonesia, or in Thailand's Deep South. Not to mention the economic damage caused by the riots, or the risk of triggering another military putsch.
in short, their actions not only fail on grounds of principle, but also of pragmatism. "Self defense" also fails as a justification because no one has shown that Muslim shopkeepers or Rohingya refugees pose an serious, immanent threat to Myanmar's (nearly 90%) Buddhist majority. If you look at the "arguments" put forward by the 969 people (examples can be found on the web), you will see that they rely heavily on stereotyping and scapegoating, not much different from the paranoia of the National Front and other European fascist groups.