Paribbajaka wrote:If worldy conditions can change so much that something as clear cut as the Buddha's staunch pacifism no longer applies, then why follow anything in the Dhamma?
One doesn't follow the Dhamma to be stupid.
There are some points of Dhamma that seem open ended. Ahimsa is not one of these. Violence is never the answer for Buddhists. Never. Those who use violence or bigotry in the name of Buddhism are liars, hypocrites, and worse.
The simple point that you don't seem to understand here is that I am merely wondering about what a realistic and skillful response would be to a situation like the one in Burma.
It's you who is jumping to conclusions about what my stance is here.
I don't care what someone else's holy book says. I don't care how they act. I care about Buddhism and how Buddhists are expected to act. My religion preaches tolerance and peace. If people from that religion act contrary to the teachings of that religion, they are wrong. Tolerance and peace always win in the long run, and the bigots and the murderers (and their supporters) are remembered in history as exactly that.
Buddhism also teaches not to misrepresent people, and to correct one's mistakes.
Once again, this is not even touching the fact that the Buddhists are the agressors, that the Muslims (in general) have been peaceful for generations.
I don't think this is the most discerning assessment of the situation.
Like I've been saying, there's probably quite a bit of history, political, national and personal, that has lead up to the situation as it is, and we shouldn't take this situation out of context.
Violence is always wrong. Violence in the name of peace even more so.
Please show me where the Buddha said racism, opression and war were ok for the right reasons, and I will back down from these points
Let's get one thing straight:
Nobody here is saying that violence is a good answer.
Please don't make things up.