Abstract
This article argues that it is not Buddhism, per se, but rather Buddhist extremism, that is responsible for violence against relevant out-groups. Moreover, it suggests that the causes of Buddhist extremism, rather than being determined solely by textual and scriptural justifications for out-group violence, are rooted instead in the intersection between social psychology and theology, rather than organically arising from the latter, per se. This article unpacks this argument by a deeper exploration of Theravada Buddhist extremism in Sri Lanka. It argues that religious extremism, including its Buddhist variant, is best understood as a fundamentalist belief system that justifies structural violence against relevant out-groups. A total of seven of the core characteristics of the religious extremist are identified and employed to better grasp how Buddhist extremism in Sri Lanka manifests itself on the ground. These are: the fixation with maintaining identity supremacy; in-group bias; out-group prejudice; emphasis on preserving in-group purity via avoidance of commingling with the out-group; low integrative complexity expressed in binary thinking; dangerous speech in both soft- and hard-modes; and finally, the quest for political power, by force if needed. Future research could, inter alia, explore how these seven characteristics also adequately describe other types of religious extremism.
Highlights
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations
We have shown that despite its general image of being a non-violent, pacific faith, when one scrutinizes both Buddhist traditions and real-world experience, it is clear that, in the manner of other faiths, such as Islam, Hinduism and Christianity, adherents to Buddhism can and have both justified and engaged in out-group violence
We have seen that rather than being solely and deterministically the product of certain Buddhist scriptures and traditions, Buddhist extremism really emerges from the intersection of tradition and social psychology
Summary
The academic literature on the links between Buddhism and violence is not extensive when compared to studies on the monotheistic faiths. The ahimsa ideal is reflected in one of “five moral precepts”: abstinence from killing sentient beings, theft, lying, consuming intoxicants that cloud the mind and sexual misconduct (Jerryson 2013) While it has been emphasized by some religious scholars that the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path “do not include the cultivation of intimidation and violence,” (Almond et al 2003) others insist that some traditional Buddhist teachings have sought to “identify exactly when the rule of nonviolence can be broken”, as a principled response to certain exceptional circumstances (Juergensmeyer 2000). It would be important, as mentioned earlier, that the intention behind such acts was apropos In this regard, a Sri Lankan monk involved in anti-government protests interviewed by sociologist Mark Juergensmeyer justified his actions by arguing that there was no way to avoid violence in a time of “dukkha”—an age of suffering—especially when the Buddhist community as a whole was under threat. It is first necessary to explicate what is meant by the term “extremism”
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
