well by request for a new buddism thread. here we are What makes buddism less violent than other major world religions. I say its the lack of monotheistic superiority. Discuss.
You do realize that there is no such thing as a completely nonviolent people and that plenty of wars, violence and self violence have been wrought for and because of the many sects of Buddism, yes?
You can hardly use monotheism as a reason for violence. Hindus have many gods yet are quite willing to have a war with muslims, Japanese have a polytheistic culture yet until recently have been very warlike. Few religions outside of the jewish, christian or muslim faiths are monotheistic and that has never stopped them from being violent. As Wry said budhists sects have at various times been quite violent.
Tekken, First of all. I don't think Buddhism is a religion. Secondly, Castaneda was a Buddhist as well (in a certain way) and no one has started a Religion called "Castanedism." Buddhism is simply a by-product of continuous and dedicated meditative lifestyle after many lifetimes of practice. Religion is for those who don't understand what Buddhism is. Buddhism is not violent because there is no need for that. One last thing, Buddhism without meditation is like Martial Arts without an opponent to test our skill. Agree, there is no God in Buddhism. However, there are many "gods" up there anyway (devas, nature spirits). About the ultimate God, hmm...who cares just concentrate in the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-Fold Path as means to attain liberation and then you can worry about the ultimate. As I always say: First escape Samsara then worry about God. Regards
Very interesting point, maybe with some validity, but I think it mostly boils down to the fact that the countries where Buddhism spread were not particularly warlike to begin with. Certainly India, Tibet, China and Japan have all had plenty of wars, but they never seem to have the kind of constant tribal feuding and retribution seen in Middle Eastern and African countries. Yes, Islam is monotheistic, but I'm pretty sure most African tribes have polytheistic religions and they slaughter each other constantly. We tend to think of Islam as a "violent" religion because that's what the terrorists believe, but the fact is that those middle eastern tribes were even MORE violent before Islam. Conversely, Chinese and Indonesian Moslems are peaceful. Don't blame specific religions, blame hot, arrid climates...they make you craaazy.
Religions are not violent - only people are Discussion in any other direction is possibly pointless? Perhaps: why do Buddhists, tend to be less violent than practitioners of other religions? ....but when you put it like that it all starts to wobble somewhat, doesn't it? (I'm a Buddhist btw) :Angel:
Chogri - congratulations! I actually disagree with everything you said in one post. Amazing acheivement. :Angel:
i guess one reason why people who adhere to any form of Buddhist philosophy are less inclined to violence is that they have an understanding that, at some level, violent acts directed at another are ultimately attacks against themselves. such acts fracture an individuals sense of oneness and that sense of oneness is what the Buddhist is seeking, thus violence works to undo the efforts the person is making to progress themselves.
Im firmly behind Taiji Butterfly this time (there's a turn up for the books) Buddhism is such a varied religion with so many different interpretations and regional variations that making blanket statements about what Buddhism is and isn't without specifying what form of Buddhism your referring to is for all intents and purposes useless. As far why Buddhism has led to less violence than other religions well despite being as an extreme simplification as Buddhism has been used to legitimate lots of unpleasantness in the past that does seem to be more or less correct. I would suggest it is because of the lack of any strongly developed militant aspects and the relatively small amount of emphasis placed on conversion. Oh and off course the fact that Buddhism generally subsumes rather than denies the existence of whatever local gods it comes across is quite significant... we can see even see that process in action now in the way that since Buddhism became popular in the West it has become increasingly popular to regard Jesus as a Bodhissatva.
Well, its nice to see that popular myth reins again. Instead of making blanket statements based upon nothing more then a misunderstanding of culture and religion, why not go out and study some actual history, or is that too much work? There is no such thing as a "more peaceful" people. People are people, the world over and history over. They fight for the same reasons today as they did thousands of years ago- land and power. But why let anything as small as facts influence you in your beliefs.
Hmmm... I don't think this really holds up all that well to closer scrutiny. I'll take a look at the countries you've listed one by one: 1) India - They've had more centuries of war and intertribal warfare than just about anyone else. They still have a large amount of it today.. only that most of it never makes the papers. When was the last time you saw headlines about the war in Nagaland? Or for that matter any of the N. Eastern frontier states of India. They've had low grade wars going on there for a very long time... but it's not media glamorous - so it most westerners have no idea. The have the Hindus fighting Muslims, the Sikh's fighting Hindus, the Hindus fighting just about anyone and then there are literally thousands of people from different tribes at war with other tribes in the N. East. Surely you couldn't have missed Pakistan becoming independant from India - nor could you have missed the Kashmiri issue. Yes, Islam is monotheistic, but I'm pretty sure most African tribes have polytheistic religions and they slaughter each other constantly. We tend to think of Islam as a "violent" religion because that's what the terrorists believe, but the fact is that those middle eastern tribes were even MORE violent before Islam. Conversely, Chinese and Indonesian Moslems are peaceful. Don't blame specific religions, blame hot, arrid climates...they make you craaazy.[/QUOTE] 2) Tibet - Tibet (as I'm sure you know) wasn't always Buddhist. They've had any number of wars with other peoples... everyone knows about the struggles against the Chinese... but very few people realize that they also fought the British, the Nepalese (both against the Nepalese people and the Gorkha's working for the British during the time of Lord Curzon's viceroyship in British India). Much of the reason China got it's hooks into Tibet in the first place was that Tibetan lama's asked for assistance in fighting off the Muslims. Additionally the Mongols came to Tibet in many different forms. On top of all of that (and that spans a few centuries) their have been any number of problems among Tibets different 'tribes'... The Khampa's have a very strong reputation for war and because of that served as the bodyguards for the Dalai Lama and the other high ranking lama's. 3) Japan - There could hardly be a place where there was more constant war. Even well into this century Japan was warlike. Japan has been the center of more bloodshed than many, many other places I can think of. Granted the Japanese as a race are probably more homogenous than anywhere else I can think of... but that didn't stop them from butchering each other and anyone they could invade. They killed thousands in Manchuria, Korean and the Philippines. I'm curious how you account for middle eastern peoples being even 'MORE VIOLENT' before Islam. Is that a comparative 'MORE VIOLENT' than say western people in the same era... please explain that in greater detail.
Oh well... I need to go get my Middle Eastern History textbooks at home before I can point to something specific, but I do recall that Muhammad's law established in Medina was specifically designed to bring peace to what he saw as a very violent, revenge-obsessed society. I was saying that overall, the Middle East could very well be more peaceful thanks to Islam than it would have been otherwise, not that it necessarily was the most warlike place in the world. Also, I didn't say there were no wars in India, China and Japan--all civilizations always have wars. But if you compare the history of say, Arabia to that of Japan, you will see that Japan is not really that warlike at all. The Tokugawa family ruled Japan peacefully for 250 years, as did the Fujiwara Clan several hundred years earlier. I'm sure I don't need to tell you about the Tang, Ming and Qing. Sure, they eventually end in corruption, rebellion and war, but multiple periods of peace lasting over 200 years is phenomenal for human civilization! Also, many parts of India are very hot, so my theory still works. As to the actual religion of Buddhism, CKava makes a good point about conversion. Since Buddhism isn't monotheistic, nor does it deny the validity of other religions, it's hard for its followers to use it as an excuse for violence on those of other faiths.
This is very true, how often do you see any religion getting drunk in the pub then picking a fight with someon over a fctitious slight to a mother or girlfriend?
I think the violence of a religion is usually judged by how much the violent ones can justify their actions by Holy Scripture. Christianity and Islam are usually judged to be the most violent by this standard. Islam's critics currently claim that it shouldn't be compared to religions as they instill moral values, that it should be compared more to imperial ideologies like Stalin's communism and Nazism. (I'm not well studied on this personally, I'm mainly repeating what these guys are saying.) Religions of the far East have got a good rep at the moment, perhaps partly down to advocates selling them to our romantic notions of an ancient society with ancient wisdom and partly because they encourage humanistic values compared to the dogmatic "do this and don't do this!" we associate with western religions.
Amazing?? Why? Samsara is not a metaphor neither the concept of God. Stop chanting and go back to reality
1.) It's amazing because never before have I met anyone who claimed to be a 'buddhist' that had so many misconceptions about what Buddhism actually is, where it came from, its purpose and how it's practiced... I also generally manage to find some value in postings and failed to find any in yours at all lol! 2.) Everything is a metaphor - including 'reality'. 3.) Do you actually think that your sitting still in a self-induced trance is any more 'real' than me making specific vibrations that alter my experience of being? I don't lol 4.) And BTW please do explain -as an alleged 'Buddhist' - why exactly you would want me to stop my specific Buddhist practice and how that actually constitutes buddhist compassion on your part? Having a 'Buddhist name' does not apparently actually confer any wisdom on you I'm afraid. I'm off to Singapore tomorrow, so I apologise if I don't get to read or reply to your next post for a week or two... I look forward to it with an interesting mix of sadness and amusement. :Angel:
