Let's get well off-topic, because that's where the reply lies.
Originally posted by Astyanax
No place for the Devil
There's one more point I'd like to address. You mention in your post that the difference between Buddhism in Western and Asian practice is due to
the substrate of animism or 'mysticism' over which Asian Buddhism is laid and with which it coexists. This is quite true, and it highlights one of
the main problems with Buddhism as a religion for Everyman.
This is a fundamental flaw in the Theravada conception. You can't ignore, reason with or chant away nature -- it just comes back at you with even
greater force. That, in my humble and admittedly somewhat ignorant view, at least partly explains the horrific orgy of violence and hatred that
convulsed your wife's unhappy country in the Seventies and Eighties, and why Theravada Buddhist countries have such dismal political
histories.
Theravadan countries have political histories no more dismal than anywhere else.
Tell me, was Lutheranism responsible for the Nazis?
The Khmer Rouge can be explained by one thing: ignorance.
Like all relatively static societies, Cambodia has a social heirarchy. Like most asian countries age is at the top. You respect your parents, they
respect your grandparents and they, in-turn, respect your ancestors. (You do all of this, too). You respect your teachers, the village headman and the
monks. You respect the King (and possibly the PM). In turn, those people are supposed to care for you. In the current context the political leadership
have remembered your half of the bargain, but forgotten theirs.
Now, when you begin to educate people beyond these simple concepts, some of them will understand the new teachings, some will half understand and some
will completely misunderstand. You cannot cosmopolitanise a people in a single generation.
When you send some of these people off to their colonial masters for that education you get another set of problems.
What made the KR do what they did? and how could they come about?
Saloth Sar was sent to Paris to study for an electrical engineering degree. As he wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, he eventually failed that
degree. But, and this is the important part, not before he had become fully immersed in Paris' radical student communist movement.
Seeing as the guy wasn't all that smart to begin with, it wasn't hard for him to be bamboozled by Paris' left-wing. It also wasn't too hard for
him to misunderstand what they wanted to do. At the time he was studying in Paris France had a succession of Socialist governments. In France,
left-wing idealism could be made to work. By educated people.
Pol Pot was typical of the Khmer Rouge leadership. They were almost universally failed students. They were almost universally radicalised by Paris'
left-wing student movement (I knew there was a reason I've always hated the French) and they were almost all universally ignored by the peope of
Cambodia.
Khieu Samphan is a major exception to this rule.
Once these guys began to create some power in the jungles, they began to reorganise the country, one village at a time (until they could do the whole
country in one stroke in 1975), breaking down the old social order, giving the kids AKs and telling them they were now in charge and they could shoot
any adult who didn't do as he was told. After a lifetime of haveing to show respect now, suddenly, the tables have turned and your are the object of
respect. In the words of Khieu Samphan "Clay is best molded when it is fresh."
If the US (Kissinger and Nixon) hadn't intrigued in Cambodia and bombed the country secretly there is very little likelihood that Lon Nol could have
or would have staged his coup. Without that coup there is no KR.
Cambodia has, since 1967 been the pawn of the major powers with little or no control over its destiny.
China supported the KR because they wanted to surround VN.
VN supported the SOC because they wanted control.
Meanwhile the UN recognised the "tripartite" government which consisted of Sihanouk, Sonn San and, you guessed it, Pol Pot. This
"government"-in-exile was supported by the US. The French have resolutely stood behind Sihanouk, except when Lon Nol controlled their rubber
plantations. No-one else gave a toss about the place.
(Even worse than this, Cambodia was a pawn in China's internecine political disputes. Because Mao and Chou Enlai, and Deng Xiaoping, supported
Sihanouk, the Gang of Four threw their weight behind Pol Pot. 90% of the early defeats of Lon Nol were directly attributable to royalists fighting for
Sihanouk. Over the next three years Pol Pot would very carefully purge them to guarantee the KR absolute control over the resistance. Sihanouk's
strongest supporter in his struggle was Beijing under Chou Enlai)
Now that there is no evil empire to confront, Cambodia has been forgotten by the major powers.
Or not. China is suddenly lavishing low-interest loans to the tune of hundreds of millions on the country and, in living proof that those who do not
study history are doomed to repeat it, the political leadership (all one man of him) is eagerly lapping the money up without thinking about the cost
come the due date.
What has Buddhism (Therevada or any other kind) to do with any of this?
Sweet Fanny Adams.