Page 5 of 5

Re: Religion of peace

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:11 am
by SDC
MODERATOR NOTE: The OP of this thread asks if Buddhism is a religion of peace. Since Islam was mentioned in the OP, it is understandable that both religions were compared for the first 4 pages. Now we are just into a thread which is increasingly about Islam. If that is all anyone has left, then we will gladly close the thread. Let's get back on topic.

Re: Religion of peace

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 2:41 am
by sentinel
Looking at the founder of Buddhism himself the Buddha and arhats they abstained from killing even at the expense of their own life . That means on no occasions buddhist are allows to kill .
If by that Buddhism is not consider as religion of peace , than no other religion is as equal to entitle for this honour and merits .

Re: Religion of peace

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:08 am
by Caodemarte
Buddhism is an abstract concept and thus cannot be peaceful or non-peaceful. I personally find myself more peaceful as a side effect of Buddhist practice (note that billions of people, many with more reason, say the same about their practice of Islam, Christianity, Judaism, etc. and etc.). I can find no great difference in violence or between Buddhist states and non-Buddhist states over time. No ancient Buddhist state abolished capital punishment and all justified it on religious ground. Even King Asoka abandoned aggressive war, with the explicit exception of war against “bandits,” but kept defensive war. As we should know, most wars are called defensive, even the Japanese (with most Buddhist clerics cheering on the Empire) attacks on China and the U.S. Even the savage Burmese - Thai wars (sometimes over Buddhist relics) were justified as “defensive” by both Buddhist states. Despite claims here,we can see the Buddhist mobs in Sri Lanka and Burma in their war against the innocent and helpless. Again, all of these actions have been or are being justified on religious grounds or the suttas. The proponents of wars and violence often claim a direct link to Buddhism or claim that their actions are Buddhist religious duty. the way there is no explicit prohibition on war or capital punishment for the lay in the scriptures). On the other hand, these actions have also been condemned or are being condemned on religious grounds or the suttas, and claim opposition to war is a Buddhist religious duty.

None of this is a criticism of Buddhism. Of course, the situation is much the same for other ideologies. None of them can act, be peaceful or non-peaceful, claim this or that, or control the actions of their self-proclaimed followers because they don’t exist as other than vague generalities we use as conventional short-hand, even more clearly than the self in Buddhism!

Re: Religion of peace

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:57 am
by sentinel
When talking about religion hence the teachings , shall point one to a direction . Peace or non peace . Abstain from killing is first prioritize in Buddhism .

Re: Religion of peace

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 5:17 am
by Dan74
There is one very obvious but seemingly overlooked difference between the two religions. The Buddha was a mendicant, a renunciate monk leading a renunciate Sangha. Mohammed was (became) a political leader of a nation. These two vastly different roles naturally lead to very different teachings.

If we turn our minds to the contexts and the purposes, I think it helps to understand the two religions. Islam had to be a workable system for the 7th Century Arabia, fit within the sociocultural and economic matrix of that society. As far as I can make out, in many ways it was a visionary reform that brought a more egalitarian improved order and charity to its domain, and the Middle East to a Golden Age of culture and science. The Buddha did not concern himself with ruling over a country, fending off his enemies or conquering lands. His aims were largely spiritual, repudiating mundane concerns, at least at a certain stage of practice.

It seems to me that no comparison can gloss over such diametrically different contexts.

In addition, since people are keen on bringing history into it, we should do it properly and not selectively. Islam, for most of its history was much more tolerant than christianity, allowing other religions to worship and subcultures to flourish within its realm. As for starting wars and massacres, that goes along with power. No powerful nation in history avoided wars. Islam or not.

And yes, I can wholeheartedly second Mike's post above. Bashing Islam is a very popular thing these days. It's worth it for us as practitioners to pause and examine what arises.

Re: Religion of peace

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 6:12 am
by sentinel
Buddhism can never force people into believing their religion .
What is the difference nowadays living in Saudi Arabia and Canada for example for a non Muslims ? I mean for eternity if you live forever . Or would you opts for a Chinese , Hindu or Christianity , Buddhist country or other non Muslims country ?
Hinduism is not a bad choice I supposed very accommodating .

Re: Religion of peace

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:06 am
by Grigoris
Modus.Ponens wrote: Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:35 pmHuman beings are imperfect, which also means they are imperfect followers of their respective religions.
So, in reality, an imperfect follower of Buddhism and an imperfect follower of Islam (ie almost all followers in both religions) will be the same: neither particularly peaceful, nor particularly violent.

No surprise there.

Re: Religion of peace

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:25 am
by Modus.Ponens
Grigoris wrote: Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:06 am
Modus.Ponens wrote: Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:35 pmHuman beings are imperfect, which also means they are imperfect followers of their respective religions.
So, in reality, an imperfect follower of Buddhism and an imperfect follower of Islam (ie almost all followers in both religions) will be the same: neither particularly peaceful, nor particularly violent.

No surprise there.
If you eliminate the rest of the quote it can seem like you are making a valid point.
Modus.Ponens wrote:Human beings are imperfect, which also means they are imperfect followers of their respective religions. But they are influenced by the teachings of their religions. Islamic doctrine calls for "holy" war. Buddhist doctrine calls for peace. There's just no way to escape this fact. And the more devout people of each of these two religions are, the more different their behaviour will be.

Re: Religion of peace

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 11:08 am
by Grigoris
Modus.Ponens wrote: Fri Jul 12, 2019 10:25 am
Grigoris wrote: Fri Jul 12, 2019 7:06 am
Modus.Ponens wrote: Thu Jul 11, 2019 11:35 pmHuman beings are imperfect, which also means they are imperfect followers of their respective religions.
So, in reality, an imperfect follower of Buddhism and an imperfect follower of Islam (ie almost all followers in both religions) will be the same: neither particularly peaceful, nor particularly violent.

No surprise there.
If you eliminate the rest of the quote it can seem like you are making a valid point.
Modus.Ponens wrote:Human beings are imperfect, which also means they are imperfect followers of their respective religions. But they are influenced by the teachings of their religions. Islamic doctrine calls for "holy" war. Buddhist doctrine calls for peace. There's just no way to escape this fact. And the more devout people of each of these two religions are, the more different their behaviour will be.
It is still a valid point. Very few will be able to perfect the teachings they follow, so the vast majority of followers (in both religions) will be neither all "good", or all "bad". If you look around you will will find that that is the reality. Even on the basis of your imperfect assumptions.

Re: Religion of peace

Posted: Fri Jul 12, 2019 4:07 pm
by SDC
Since several members opted to ignore the moderator note, this is going to the hot topics section. Those off topics posts have been removed. My apologies to those who were staying on topic.