A non-aggressive religion?

[emjay]

Buddhist celibacy doesn't seem particularly onerous or difficult to me . . .

Me either But that's the first I'm hearing of that ignorant belief. Basically I think the message here - as if I didn't already know - is that religion sucks... all religion. So fuck Buddhism as a religion. I'm still interested in it as a demonstrable philosophy, to the extent that it is, but fuck it as a religion.

So as much as I've taken comfort from the knowledge that in this world of stubborn religiosity at least one wise and introspective religion has flourished and probably has greater numbers even than Christianity, that's actually a load of bollocks really isn't it if it's not practiced the way it was originally intended and has just gone the way of all religions... towards a million different schisms with a million different arbitrary beliefs. So all I can really take heart in is not the presence of Buddhism in the world, but just what the Buddha actually taught.

[Angrboda]

A compelling history of the contradictory, often militaristic, role of Zen Buddhism, this book meticulously documents the close and previously unknown support of a supposedly peaceful religion for Japanese militarism throughout World War II. Drawing on the writings and speeches of leading Zen masters and scholars, Brian Victoria shows that Zen served as a powerful foundation for the fanatical and suicidal spirit displayed by the imperial Japanese military.

[Aegon]

Different sects of Buddhism have conducted violent and deadly mob actions against each other, for example in South Korea, and Myanmar. where buddhists vastly outnumber muslims, socially, politically and economically absolutely dominant and in no discernible danger from islam, as again in Aung Sun Sui kyi's Myanmar, buddhists mobs are conducting violent pogroms against minority muslims.

If that's the case then imo they're only superficially Buddhists or Buddhism is the lesser influence in some hybrid ideology. Nothing about Buddhism teaches that violence is acceptable, and meditation practice is all about 'not-attachment' to conscious states such as anger... the main cause of violence. Buddhists are fallible just like everyone else but the aim is non-attachment. That said, I don't know anything about how Buddhism is practiced in a religious context. In the western world people who are interested in it basically have to go all in, learning about it and practicing it as a monk would. But in foreign climes if it's the case that there are followers that defer to the monks and basically treat monasteries as churches to go to for guidance, then it might make more sense. In other words, I don't know to what extent the - for want of a better word - peasants in poor Buddhist countries practice the teachings of Buddhism. A monk living in a monastery has time and a peaceful environment to practice meditation all day long if they want, but not everybody has that luxury. So basically what I'm saying is if these mobs you speak of treat Buddhist monks as a higher authority to refer to, but do not actually meditate themselves in the sense of aiming to attain Nirvana... the state of complete non-attachment, then I could understand them not fully understanding the Buddhist message, but if they do meditate and practice it as monks would, I can't see any way that they could consider mob violence acceptable.

Christians and Muslims justify the violence in their respective religions using similar arguments.

[emjay]

If that's the case then imo they're only superficially Buddhists or Buddhism is the lesser influence in some hybrid ideology. Nothing about Buddhism teaches that violence is acceptable, and meditation practice is all about 'not-attachment' to conscious states such as anger... the main cause of violence. Buddhists are fallible just like everyone else but the aim is non-attachment. That said, I don't know anything about how Buddhism is practiced in a religious context. In the western world people who are interested in it basically have to go all in, learning about it and practicing it as a monk would. But in foreign climes if it's the case that there are followers that defer to the monks and basically treat monasteries as churches to go to for guidance, then it might make more sense. In other words, I don't know to what extent the - for want of a better word - peasants in poor Buddhist countries practice the teachings of Buddhism. A monk living in a monastery has time and a peaceful environment to practice meditation all day long if they want, but not everybody has that luxury. So basically what I'm saying is if these mobs you speak of treat Buddhist monks as a higher authority to refer to, but do not actually meditate themselves in the sense of aiming to attain Nirvana... the state of complete non-attachment, then I could understand them not fully understanding the Buddhist message, but if they do meditate and practice it as monks would, I can't see any way that they could consider mob violence acceptable.

Christians and Muslims justify the violence in their respective religions using similar arguments.

Yes, I've realised that point during this discussion; that Buddhism is no different in the divisions it can cause, and the 'No True x' defences it can foster, and which I've just done... all of which can lead to the shit we see in the world. So I apologise; I should not defend it, I should just keep it to myself. It's available to anyone who wants to learn about it but being defensive or evangelical about it is not helpful.

[Brian37]

There is no such thing as either an "aggressive" or "non-aggressive" religion. There are simply aggressive and non aggressive humans whom have mostly been indoctrinated at birth into religions that were created in antiquity and depending on sect, individual and social norms follow those writings and holy people to varying degrees either way.

Humans have a tendency to see minorities as less aggressive or non aggressive but that does not take into account that a tiger cub may look cute and is relatively harmless because it is small, but when it gets big it is not something you want to fuck with.

No religion in the world is perfectly peaceful because humans produce both cruelty and compassion. All religions want to paint themselves as moral and size and geography mostly determines how different groups view each other.