Punk-Dhamma: Being intolerant to perceived intolerance - wrong view according to Dhamma?

Question

In reference to this:

Is it possible to not be an extremist, when fighting, deleting, and destroying perceived, assumed "bad"?

Is it possible to not be an intolerant "racist" if fighting, deleting, and destroying perceived racism?

Their usual advertisement:

In short, when you are being intolerant to intolerance, aren't you being intolerant yourself? Is this a wrong view according to Dhamma?

or the usual approach of them:

Is a position of anti-hate automatically hate? If not, when does a position of anti-hate become hate - with respect to Dhamma?

Occupying not only Dhamma and destructing peace... what does not make the simply a "folks army"? Lack of weapons? And if having, don't they banner and execute?

That so far on the question fighting aversion with aversion. Now how is it when fighting non-aversion with aversion? (of which the case linked is about) Simply killing not desired any base to justify in Dhamma?

(Note: this is not given for exchange, stacks, trade or entertainment but as a means for liberation from this wheel.)

Answer 1

DN 31 says:

On what four grounds do they not do bad deeds? One does bad deeds prejudiced by favoritism, hostility, stupidity, and cowardice. When a noble disciple is not prejudiced by favoritism, hostility, stupidity, and cowardice, they don’t do bad deeds on these four grounds.

That is what the Buddha said. Then the Holy One, the Teacher, went on to say:

“If you act against the teaching out of favoritism, hostility, cowardice, or stupidity, your fame shrinks, like the moon in the waning fortnight.

If you don’t act against the teaching out of favoritism, hostility, cowardice, and stupidity, your fame swells, like the moon in the waxing fortnight.”

The quote below is mostly an example of prejudice and thus non-Buddhist:

Examples of hateful views include anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynist, racist, and pro-nazi ideas.

The Buddha taught to examine anything in terms of wholesome & unwholesome, benefit & danger, as follows:

And what fuels the arising of the awakening factor of investigation of principles, or, when it has arisen, fully develops it? There are qualities that are skillful and unskillful, blameworthy and blameless, inferior and superior, and those on the side of dark and bright. Frequent proper attention to them fuels the arising of the awakening factor of investigation of principles, or, when it has arisen, fully develops it.

SN 46.2

---

The Buddha said that to really know any object, we must know five things about it, namely: (1) What are the characteristics or properties of the object? (2) From what does the object arise? (3) What is its assāda, its enticing quality, its appeal, its allurement? (4) What is the ādīnava, the hidden danger, the sinister power to harm that lies concealed in it? (5) What is the nissaraṇa, the trick by means of which we can get the better of it? What is the device, the skillful means of escaping from the grip of this object?

Ajahn Buddhadasa

In other words, there is nothing exclusively or totally unwholesome about the underlying origin of anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynist and pro-nazi ideas. For example, some people have valid grievances against Zionism (which is why the United Nations has disapproved of certain Israel actions), not all homosexual behaviours are wholesome (which is why some people have concerns about homosexuality), the Pali suttas contain criticisms of certain characteristics of women (from the viewpoint of liberation) and not all (100%) of the doctrines of Nazism were evil (which is why Nazism improved many aspects of German society during the 1930s, until the disastrous war occurred). Therefore, it appears only "racism" is a form a prejudice condemned by the Buddha.

The link in the OP is obviously not Buddhist but is characteristic of a certain political bent prevalent in the West today.

If you are a Buddhist with real metta and meet a person with anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynist and pro-nazi ideas; you should have a discussion with them and ask them about their grievances and help them identify what is valid (wholesome), invalid (unwholesome) and a generalisation (prejudiced) about their ideas. For example, there are Jewish Rabbis and individuals that asked themselves the question about why Nazis were anti-semitic, such as here: Rabbi Yosef Tzvi ben Porat explains Why Hitler Hated Jews.

If we engage the type of prejudice exhibited at the link in the OP, we will only increase rather than reduce evil.

Answer 2

Is it possible to not be an extremist, when fighting, deleting, and destroying such perceived extremism?

Is it possible to not be an intolerant "racist" if fighting, deleting, and destroying perceived racism?

A question that contains words like "fighting", "deleting" or "destroying" implies that any form of antagonism towards extremism is an extreme act in itself. But making a case against intolerance really doesn't have to involve those things. So yes, it's possible to make a stand against extremism without being an extremist.

In short, when you are being intolerant to intolerance, aren't you being intolerant yourself?

Sometimes, but you don't have to be. The "politically correct" views on tolerance partially stems from certain people being targets of real abuse, assault, or other forms of harassment/violence. Pleading for tolerance then becomes part of allowing people feeling - or in fact - being safe from harm.

To label the above "intolerance" seems like a rather creative use of language.

Is this a wrong view according to Dhamma?

I am not familiar with any suttas that teaches us to accept those cases where certain people are being in actual danger. Perhaps i missed them.

(Also, the phrase "politically correct" can come across as a pejorative to people. I'll let you figure out what the suttas may mention about derogatory speech).

Answer 3

Is it possible to not be an extremist, when fighting, deleting, and destroying perceived, assumed "bad"?

You said that was "in reference to this".

The bit of "this" which defined "extremist" was as follows:

What is an extremist view?

Generally it refers to views that blithely reject well-established facts. The views themselves may or may not be hateful, but they are always delusional. Such views seem like an innocuous theory, but they often aim at creating a nationalist, sectarian fundamentalism.

It is not possible to define these with precision, so I will decide on a case by case basis, with consultation if necessary.

We are concerned primarily with Buddhist extremist views, but other forms of anti-reality extremism are included, such as climate change denial.

Examples of hateful views include anti-semitic, homophobic, misogynist, racist, and pro-nazi ideas.

Examples of non-hateful extremist views include:

• The Buddha was born in Sri Lanka.
• Anicca doesn’t mean impermanence.
• The original Pali manuscripts at Aluvihara exist.
• Pali fundamentalism (Chinese texts are all Mahayana, etc.).

In that context, "extremist" is defined as meaning "blithely reject well-established facts" (with examples).

So are you asking, "is it possible to reject statements which reject well-established facts, without yourself rjecting well-established facts"?

Anyway I think the Four Great References ask you to consider statements "without approval and without scorn", and compare those statements to other statements before deciding whether to accept or reject them.

I suppose they have done something like that with those statements (e.g. compared "The Buddha was born in Sri Lanka" with other "well-established facts"), found that they contradict, and decided not to accept them.

Incidentally I think you have a different view on this topic -- perhaps I'm misquoting you but I remember you, Samana, as expressing disapproval of someone who rejected a statement like, "The Buddha was born in Sri Lanka" -- because in your opinion a statement like that is associated with someone's faith (in Buddhism), and to reject the statement might be to decrease that person's faith (and decreasing someone's faith is a bad thing).

Is a position of anti-hate automatically hate?

I think the opening verses of the Dhammapada advocate against "hate" and say that "hate" is not right.

It uses the word avera (i.e. "a + vera").

I think of this word as meaning "without hate" or "non-hate" -- but Ven. Sujato now translates that as "love", saying,

Negatives in Pali often have a stronger sense than in English, so avera is indeed a synonym for mettā.

---

Another question is whether a site like SuttaCentral should feel obliged to accept, tolerate, welcome, or permit (and not censor or delete) every post, no matter what it says and how it says -- even "extremist" and "hateful" posts.

If not, when does a position of anti-hate become hate - with respect to Dhamma?

I think that the Vinaya doesn't expect a sangha to welcome or even to tolerate every view -- it expects "schisms" to be resolved, may eventually forbid someone from attending meetings, and isn't obliged to accept everyone (no matter what they say) in the first place.

I'm not saying that SuttaCentral is a Sangha, but I think that -- some consensus or social contract (or rules) on what's said, how it's said, what's on-topic -- is a feature of almost every "community" that I know of.

A possible exception is a public community. For example people have little choice but to be a citizen of a country, they're required to belong to that community. In exchange the country might (or might not) have "free speech" laws where the government and the government's laws try to be permissive about what people are allowed to say.

That's not so true of private communities, or voluntary associations -- where you can choose to join (or not) a community and the community can choose (or not) whether to accept that, and on what terms and conditions.

Answer 4

'Hate nothing except hatred', right. Like craving is abandoned by relying on craving, as desire is abandoned by reliance on the desire for abandonment. Is it now so that we can infer that hate is abandoned in reliance on hate for hatred? I think that it is agreeable if one explains that 'hatred for hatred' is to be understood as 'discernment of hatred as undesirable and being averse to the disagreeable'.

Answer 5

For many surely a new aspect, not heard before: Maybe useful, also to increase the value of extended answers: How should Monks, Nuns, Lay follower act when quarrelsome Monks arrive?, possible to draw back to other communities and relations as well.

There is "hopefully" no need to talk on the consequences of monks not dare to "kill" and censure, banner and encourage people to do all that bad things, even public... (the case sample, of course, is a hopeless matter of total basic wrong view).

[Note that it is not given for trade, exchange, stacks... but for release from this wheel]