Girlysprite wrote:Well, Christians and Muslims are sometimes also quick to say that such violence wasn't in line with the teaching, Christianity having the line about turning the other cheek, after all. The violence occurred because people didn't agree on details and/or rules of the teachings. Like who is the incarnation of who? Are certain things that happen because of Karma?
And there have been Buddhists encouraging war, like in japan in the WW2 period. There are enough texts speaking of a 'holy war', which is meant as an internal struggle to get rid of bad elements within yourself, but if you twist them a bit...And other texts that speak of obedience, very useful for political leaders.
http://www.darkzen.com/Articles/zenholy.htm
The Japanese considered themselves to be the master race. Most of them were also Buddhist. They tried to conquer the world because of their feelings of racial superiority, not in defense of or desire to spread their Buddhism. You could just as easily point out that they used chopsticks and then build a case that the use of chopsticks was central to their empirial desires.
No doubt that you're right about the misbehavior of certain Buddhists, but my point is that twisting the texts is necessary in Buddhism, but not in xtianity or Islam, where statements directly encouraging violence against non-belivers can be found. There is no early Buddhist text that advocates violence against others based on their non-Buddhist status. The oldest and most reliable source of what the Buddha taught is the Pali Canon used in Theravada Buddhism. Mahayana and Tibetan traditions have written texts that originated long after the Buddha died, so most scholars of 'what the Buddha really taught' don't source them. I've read some pretty whacked-out shit written by Buddhists!!
Such details are not, or barely known to us, and it might seem as if they did much less in terms of violence then other religions. But don't forget that we grew up learning the history of Christianity and Islam because those religions are around us and have interacted. That does not count for the eastern version of Buddhism, which makes it easier to say 'oh, it wasn't that bad'.
Agreed! It requires a lot of careful scrutiny over a very long time to see it clearly. I certainly didn't see the 'big picture' when I was ordained in Thailand. That's when I found out how Theravada is actually practiced. I've been living in South Korea since 1996 (minus the year in Thailand) and have studied Korean (Mahayanist) Buddhism closely. The texts they use and their practices resemble what is described/prescribed in the Pali Canon only minimally. But that's not surprising and I can't see any reason to expect things to be different.
Anyway, I enjoyed discussing it with you!
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken
by 
)
