Thoughts on Buddhism

[Bgood]

A bit of reading:

http://www.sangam.org/articles/view/?id=118

No religion is bad but by the actions of its adherents. They are all fictions, so it devolves to the interpretations of said fictions by their respective audiences to "define" the religion for the rest of the world.

This article is kind of a revelation to me. I wasn't aware of any particular "Buddhist wars" throughout history but I have suspected that there were struggles, battles, uprisings, protests and such carried out by Buddhists, as with all the major religions. I think there were some important points made in the article that minimize the blame on Buddhism itself. For instance

Murder, on the other hand, is clearly condemned. As the Buddha states in the Brahma Net Sutra: "If a child of Buddha himself kills, or goads someone else to kill, or provides with or suggests means for killing, or praises the act of killing or, on seeing someone commit the act, expresses approval for what that person has done, or kills by way of incantations, or is the cause, occasion, means, or instrument of the act of inducing a death, he will be shut out of the community."

This can be juxtaposed to the Bible and Koran for example, which both repeatedly encourage murder in the name of God and Allah.

Thus, Japanese militarism blended Buddhist doctrine with the imperial sauce, reducing it to its simplest expression, to bend it to official propaganda. The Buddhist theory of selflessness served, for instance, to justify giving one's life for the Emperor

Well, this is one of the best things that all governments (including the U.S.) have been very good at: War Propaganda. Whatever gets the young men to fight and die for nationalism in the name of patriotism to serve their country. Religion is always the first psychological ideology manipulated. But this does not mean atheists are totally immune from propaganda by any means! Everyone is a target and has vulnerabilities in perception. (Cultural conditioning)

Thus, there have been, and will again be, "Buddhist wars," and Buddhism's superiority in this regard is entirely relative. Yet, on the whole, it remains more tolerant than the other great religions and ideologies—which is no small matter, at a moment when the world seems threatened once more by fundamentalisms. In every age, the Buddhist clergy's will to power has been balanced by the ideal of compassion. But Buddhist doctrine, in order not to remain a dead letter, must take account of the violence inherent in the human heart, in society, and in Buddhism itself.

Here the author mentions that Buddhism is the most tolerant of religions but I don't see where he gets off saying in the beginning of the paragraph that there have been and will again be, "Buddhist wars". How does he know for sure there will be more and why does he put quotation marks on "Buddhist Wars". Is it because it is not strictly and exactly a "buddhist war" in the first place? And Lastly at the end, he states..."must take account of the violence inherent in the human heart, in society, and in Buddhism itself." I agree with human heart and society, to an extent, but in Buddhism itself???? I don't see it. The "angry" gods he mentions in the article are actually supposed to represent negative emotions,selfish desires and the ego psyche, not "demons" as a reality or as Christianity views demons.

So there has been violence in Asia ever since the life of Buddha (approx. 500 B.C.). Is it all Buddha's fault? Obviously not. Is it a direct result of his teachings? Doubt it. Is it common for buddhists to be militant? I don't think so. But could the great majority of so-called "Buddhist Wars" been fought for land and territory, natural resources, monetary and political reasons? Probably so.