How did/could the Ikko Ikki justify the killing of others when they are buddhist and buddha himself taught about not harming other individuals?

[Banzai!!!]

I dont understand how the Ikko Ikki at the time could justify the killing of others such as killing the samurai when buddha himself strongly believed and encouraged straying away from harming others?

Side Note: I myself find the ikko ikki quite appealing considering they were kind of after a democratic society (please correct me if im wrong) and that they kind of wanted to be free from samurai rule its just the question above has always bugged me.

Also I wasn't sure whether to put this in the religious thread or the history thread so sorry if I placed this in the wrong thread.

Edit: Actually in general how could say warrior monks justify killing people with there naginata's, bows and matchlocks nevermind if they were Ikko Ikki or not lol

[Helm]

The Japanese seemed to manage to blend Buddhism with some kind of warrior code which involved killing people, and seppuku which involves giving yourself an utterly honourable and glorious death by your own hands.

I have book of Samurai wisdom here.


Lord Tokuhisa cuts a man down in the castle


Tokuhisa So-and-so was different from other people from his birth, and he looked a bit of an idiot. One day he invited a guest and brought out a fish salad made with loach. After that everyone was kidding one another about "Lord Tokuhisa's loach salad". When Lord Tokuhisa reported for duty at the castle one day, someone teased him about it, and Tikuhisa cut the man down with one stroke of his sword. The matter was investigated, and the investigators presented the opinion that, "Since he commited a reckless act in the castle, he should commit seppuku." At this Lord Tokuhisa said, "If a person is made an object of ridicule by someone and says nothing, he is a coward. There is no reason for overlooking this just because it occurs in the castle. Someone who makes fun of someone else is a fool. It is his loss if he gets killed."

[Count of Montesano]

I'm doing a bit of research on the Ikko Ikki for my AAR, and the first thing you must understand is that many of the practitioners were poor farmers with limited education. Theological questions of whether Buddha was a pacifist or not mattered less than defending yourself in an extremely violent age. It was as much an economic movement as it was religious. Conditions were so bad for the lower classes that violent rebellion was seen as the only alternative to death by starvation or rampaging samurai armies.

The Ikko monks had a reputation for ferocity but also for engaging in drunkeness, gambling, and fornication with women. All things that are against traditional Buddhist teachings. In other words, the Ikko Ikki broke a lot of traditional Buddhist rules.

Finally, the founder Rennyo was horrified as he saw the peasant uprisings and tried to distance himself from the uprisings.

[hellheaven1987]

The Ikko monks had a reputation for ferocity but also for engaging in drunkeness, gambling, and fornication with women. All things that are against traditional Buddhist teachings. In other words, the Ikko Ikki broke a lot of traditional Buddhist rules.

Not just Ikko monks but it is a tradition of Japanese Buddhism that allows to fight, drinking and even marriage (marriage is indeed allowed for Japanese monks even today).

[PointOfViewGun]

I dont understand how the Ikko Ikki at the time could justify the killing of others such as killing the samurai when buddha himself strongly believed and encouraged straying away from harming others?

Side Note: I myself find the ikko ikki quite appealing considering they were kind of after a democratic society (please correct me if im wrong) and that they kind of wanted to be free from samurai rule its just the question above has always bugged me.

Also I wasn't sure whether to put this in the religious thread or the history thread so sorry if I placed this in the wrong thread.

Edit: Actually in general how could say warrior monks justify killing people with there naginata's, bows and matchlocks nevermind if they were Ikko Ikki or not lol

Well, you have Dalai Lama saying that it's ok to kill if it's necessary.

[Mortality]

Well, you have Dalai Lama saying that it's ok to kill if it's necessary.

His Holiness says you shouldn't kill, but you shouldn't just stand around while everyone else around you is being killed.

[PointOfViewGun]

His Holiness says you shouldn't kill, but you shouldn't just stand around while everyone else around you is being killed.

His Holiness says that violence can be justified in certain circumstances.

[Mortality]

His Holiness says that violence can be justified in certain circumstances.

That's basically what I said.

[XIII]

I don't think it's surprising at all. Any viewpoint can be twisted towards any ends provided one has the will to do so.

[Sadreddine]

Buddhism has had very good propaganda in the 'west', and people always tend to reduce reality to simple to understand stereotipes the collective mind feels comfortable about, although its history is as familiar with violence as any other major religion is.

There is an interesting article about this issue here:

http://www.religiondispatches.org/bo...hist_violence/

[Denny Crane!]

Weeeellll unfortunately Buddhism isn't a giant sticking plaster that just gets rid of human nature, which tends to be pretty violent. It has of course been submersed in nationalism, mixed with local mythologies and religions, mixed with hinduism. The Dalai Lama isn't the head of a religion, he is the head of a state first and foremost (or at least was) and in that respect of course over the generations violence has been used, and some of it has been pretty damn gruesome. I believe gouging out of eyes on occasion.

Whilst Buddhism itself in all original teachings condemns violence it is an evolutionary philosophy and I don't think the notion of self defense is morally abberant personally but I don't think someone can be a true buddhist and justify anything but the non aggression principle and still maintain that they are a buddhist, the teachings and philosophy just cannot be twisted.

[Col. Tartleton]

Buddhists can be motivated to great evil if their goal is not nirvana. In that case the self made Narakas are not something they fear and as they are Zen Buddhists they seek things like duty and honor before all else. Peace is a virtue of Theravada. Zen (at least was) about honor and glorious death, either in the face of overwhelming odds or if there is the possibility of capture and disgrace, at your own hands.

Besides they followed the Amida Buddha. Which essentially was a belief that how you died defined you even more than regular zen Buddhism. The monk who burned himself in Vietnam in protest was an Amida Buddhist. To be frank they really don't give a . All you have to do to achieve paradise is die with his name on your lips and him in your thoughts. Sort of like Christian martyrdom. Plus the Pure Land sect felt this world was evil and that we had to escape it.

[Banzai!!!]

Buddhists can be motivated to great evil if their goal is not nirvana. In that case the self made Narakas are not something they fear and as they are Zen Buddhists they seek things like duty and honor before all else. Peace is a virtue of Theravada. Zen (at least was) about honor and glorious death, either in the face of overwhelming odds or if there is the possibility of capture and disgrace, at your own hands.

Besides they followed the Amida Buddha. Which essentially was a belief that how you died defined you even more than regular zen Buddhism. The monk who burned himself in Vietnam in protest was an Amida Buddhist. To be frank they really don't give a . All you have to do to achieve paradise is die with his name on your lips and him in your thoughts. Sort of like Christian martyrdom. Plus the Pure Land sect felt this world was evil and that we had to escape it.

So effectivily did they turn Buddha into some kind of god or something if all you had to do was mention his name just before u died?

[Helm]

Buddha turned himself into a god by attaining Nirvana naturally.

[Denny Crane!]

Buddha turned himself into a god by attaining Nirvana naturally.

No.

[Helm]

No.