Buddhism: The Religion of True Peace

[justin0384]

Greetings everyone,

This is something I was pondering on tonight:

I remember telling someone once, when they asked what I wanted, I said "world peace". I sort of got it from a Garfield comic strip in which Jon asked Garfield what he wanted for Christmas, and that was his reply. On the other hand, I wasn't necessarily lying, but I was young, and didn't realize really what I was saying at the time. I have studied all of the world's major religions, most of which preach world peace. The problem is, this "peace" only comes about through accepting the will of the religion's god being and following its rules, and one of these rules is making the whole world accept this so-called "peace", which has been, at times, forced upon people. Yes, I am mainly only referring to Christianity and Islam in that regard. Part of the package in accepting these religions is that there is no tolerance of different beliefs, they all being labeled "heretical", "pagan", "heathen", etc. Even the Hindus have the term "mleccha" which basically means "barbarian".

Buddhism, on the other hand, is tolerant of different religious traditions, actually encouraging different view points and paths for different people. Yes, Hinduism has this notion, but they still worship gods that are just as confused as we humans are in the grand scheme of things. It has been my experience that Buddhism is the only religion that does not outright demonize other religious faiths, beliefs, or lack thereof, different sexual orientations, etc. It promotes love and compassion for all sentient beings, no matter what their condition, level of realization, etc. And, for its practitioners, it helps us to be better, more helpful, more compassionate, more unselfishly loving people. I suppose this could be a part of any religion, but, from what I've seen, no other religion is as peaceful as it claims. Also, there are no extremes in Buddhism as there are in other religions (such as Jainism).

I know some of that may have been repetitive, and I would apologize for anything that is such. It's just something I was thinking about. I also want to point out that the other religions mentioned are not being condemned, they are just illustrative examples. Also, I realize that Buddhists are just as capable of discrimination as members of any other group. I am referring to the Sublime Dharma the Buddha taught that is the peaceful, non-discriminatory (negatively, anyway) Jewel. Some of this also may sound asinine, but keep in mind I'm a beginner and still learning and progressing. These are just the thoughts of a newbie.

Thanks for taking the time to read this.

[edearl]

Agree. If we could just convince everyone to either become Buddhist, the world would be a better place. Although, Buddhists are not sin free, see The Bad and The Ugly: http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=77&t=5778

[Thug4lyfe]

Buddhism is aight

[Caz]

Outter peace can only come through inner peace.

[Heruka]

peace is only realitive to aggitation, one cannot have peace without also aggitation. i remember a saying that the hardest thing for someone to do is nothing. buddhism should go beyond peace and aggitation.

[Heruka]

Outter peace can only come through inner peace.

outer and inner are constructs.

[Caz]

Outter peace can only come through inner peace.

outer and inner are constructs.

Uh huh and hows that idea applicable to transforming society at large they need a start somewhere.

[Konchog1]

Even the Hindus have the term "vice versus" which basically means "barbarian".

Mmm. But unlike the Big Three religions, in this case Hindus are an ethnic group not a religion. Hence the lack of crusades to enlighten the barbarians. Instead it was a term used in response to the Muslim invasions (I believe).

Buddhism, on the other hand, is tolerant of different religious traditions, actually encouraging different view points and paths for different people.

Tolerance and acceptance are two different things but are often used interchangeably. Which do you mean?

Yes, Hinduism has this notion, but they still worship gods that are just as confused as we humans are in the grand scheme of things. It has been my experience that Buddhism is the only religion that does not outright demonize other religious faiths, beliefs, or lack thereof, different sexual orientations, etc.

Although I have met Hindu supremacists, for the most part most Hindus are tolerant of other faiths or even accepting, believing that all gods are a form of their personal favorite Hindu god(dess) and vice versa. I recall reading that some Hindus thought that Jesus was an avatar of Vishnu when asking the British "which" god they followed and were surprised to hear that the British hadn't heard of Vishnu, but this may just be a story.

[Zenshin 善心]

perhaps in comparison to other religions, Buddhism has had a relatively low amount of blood on its hands during its history. but it would be wrong to believe it has been altogether without. and we've fought againgst ourselves quite often too.

[plwk]

perhaps in comparison to other religions, Buddhism has had a relatively low amount of blood on its hands during its history. but it would be wrong to believe it has been altogether without. and we've fought againgst ourselves quite often too.

How true ... but let's not confused the Buddha Dharma with Buddhists in the same lump... the politics of the latter is always a human frailty issue
The amount of online vitriol generated makes me wonder how are some of the online 'Buddhists' are in real life and whether they actually know that if their online vitriol is taken into real life, there would have been actual 'bloodshed' and violence, not to mention schism in temples, centres and communities... I recall how on the now defunct e-Sangha there were discussions on how some of its members are in real life, whether they are as consistent as their online personalities or it's a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde game going on...

Btw...welcome back DB...it's been a long one...from an ole cat...

[Konchog1]

perhaps in comparison to other religions, Buddhism has had a relatively low amount of blood on its hands during its history. but it would be wrong to believe it has been altogether without. and we've fought againgst ourselves quite often too.

How true ... but let's not confused the Buddha Dharma with Buddhists in the same lump... the politics of the latter is always a human frailty issue
The amount of online vitriol generated makes me wonder how are some of the online 'Buddhists' are in real life and whether they actually know that if their online vitriol is taken into real life, there would have been actual 'bloodshed' and violence, not to mention schism in temples, centres and communities... I recall how on the now defunct e-Sangha there were discussions on how some of its members are in real life, whether they are as consistent as their online personalities or it's a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde game going on...

Btw...welcome back DB...it's been a long one...from an ole cat...

Normal Person + Perceived lack of responsibility = Asshat

[ronnewmexico]

Hinduism is a very complex issue to my opinion. I think of hindu in the main as religions of india sans islam. Did you perhaps know the indian judiciary determined buddhism a form of hindu a bit ago, several years back.

Considering such.... determinations on hindu may be a bit hard to make. Hindu is so various and diverse. The name itself being a fairly recent invention of sorts excepting a particular place in india. Brahamism still continues as a obscure but persistant part of present hinduism focusing on brahma and the fire ceremony it has not disappgeared but been abscribed into a bigger thing it seems.

I agree with the basic premesis Buddhism is most peaceful of the worlds large religions.
Small religions...I'd take Jainism, extreem absolute in view but as peaceful as you can get by my take.
Keep in mind perhaps sounds harsh but peaceful indegenous peoples that had religions reflecting such.... in all likelyhood are not around as the peoples were murdered and the lands taken.
Buddhism does allow armies police and those things. Religions that do not....they tend to not be around for long considering how peoples are.

[Indrajala]

Part of the package in accepting these religions is that there is no tolerance of different beliefs, they all being labeled "heretical", "pagan", "heathen", etc. Even the Hindus have the term "mleccha" which basically means "barbarian".

Buddhism, on the other hand, is tolerant of different religious traditions, actually encouraging different view points and paths for different people.

This isn't true. In Buddhism non-Buddhists are called externalists and are refuted. The Buddha himself told others that their practices and philosophies were flawed and would never lead to liberation from samsara. The Buddha is not on record as having accepted all other teachings as valid and correct -- on the contrary, he criticized them and refuted them, which carried on in later generations. Buddhism encourages people to take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, and from there study and realize the teachings the Buddha taught such as the Four Noble Truths.

As for encouraging different view points, this is also not the case. Even amongst themselves Buddhists discuss what precisely right view entails and will readily discuss and argue about it. There is really just one right view that ultimately leads to liberation, and non-Buddhists cannot be said to have it for various reasons. For example, monotheists assert a supreme deity is responsible for the creation of time and space, but that violates observed laws of causality as this supposed creator deity would not be subject to causes for their existence, yet are somehow responsible for creation. This is a wrong view that leads to erroneous practices such as dependency on such deities for one's liberation. It is a wrong view and refuted by Buddhists.

While there is acknowledgement that with such religions one can achieve rebirth in a celestial realm, it is seen as an inferior and ultimately futile path to take for the simple reason that it isn't liberation.

It has been my experience that Buddhism is the only religion that does not outright demonize other religious faiths, beliefs, or lack thereof, different sexual orientations, etc.

There is Buddhism as it is understood in the west and how it is practiced here in Asia. In Buddhist communities here in Asia you might be surprised at the intolerance towards homosexuality in some cases. There is scriptural prohibitions in commentary literature (accepted as canonical) that forbid any kind of sexual activity outside of heterosexual intercourse, thus labeling any kind of homosexual sexuality as sexual misconduct. That being said, there is prescriptive and then there is the descriptive. Most Buddhists pay lip service to prescriptions. Nevertheless, orthodox thinkers have plenty of scriptural support to criticize other religions and homosexuality if they want to.

I suppose this could be a part of any religion, but, from what I've seen, no other religion is as peaceful as it claims. Also, there are no extremes in Buddhism as there are in other religions (such as Jainism).

Buddhism as an organized religion has its own skeletons in the closet, so to speak. If you read Buddhist history you will see this has been the case throughout history. Keep in mind some key Buddhist leaders worked in association with Kublai Khan, who was a murderous tyrant who ordered whole city populations to be executed. Japanese Tendai used to have a standing army of warrior monks. There are many examples of objectionable behaviour in Buddhist history and cases of sanctioned violence, both modern and pre-modern.

I am Buddhist myself and quite dedicated to the buddhadharma, but I feel we should recognize the dark side of things and not attempt to conceal or dismiss it. The dharma the Buddha himself taught is pure, real, liberating and truth. However, how that dharma has been understood and implemented in the world by flawed beings is something else. There is the dharma as taught by the Buddha and the organized religion of Buddhism.

[Dechen Norbu]

[Mr. G]

There is Buddhism as it is understood in the west and how it is practiced here in Asia. In Buddhist communities here in Asia you might be surprised at the intolerance towards homosexuality in some cases. There is scriptural prohibitions in commentary literature (accepted as canonical) that forbid any kind of sexual activity outside of heterosexual intercourse, thus labeling any kind of homosexual sexuality as sexual misconduct. That being said, there is prescriptive and then there is the descriptive. Most Buddhists pay lip service to prescriptions. Nevertheless, orthodox thinkers have plenty of scriptural support to criticize other religions and homosexuality if they want to.

I think it's great that Jodo Shinshu Ministers have been performing same-sex marriages for thirty years:

Within our teachings of Jodo Shinshu Buddhism, there are no doctrinal grounds that exist the prohibits neutral-gender marriage. Within the compassionate light of the Amida Buddha, all beings are equally embraced.

http://www.manitobabuddhistchurch.org/b ... 87-91.html

[Mr. G]

I recall how on the now defunct e-Sangha there were discussions on how some of its members are in real life, whether they are as consistent as their online personalities or it's a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde game going on...

plwk, I can assure you I am just as foolish in person as I am online.

[Indrajala]

I think it's great that Jodo Shinshu Ministers have been performing same-sex marriages for thirty years:

Within our teachings of Jodo Shinshu Buddhism, there are no doctrinal grounds that exist the prohibits neutral-gender marriage. Within the compassionate light of the Amida Buddha, all beings are equally embraced.

http://www.manitobabuddhistchurch.org/b ... 87-91.html

In my home city no less!

There is a difference between sexual misconduct and marriage. In classical India thought, and everywhere else in Asia, marriage was heterosexual, and while many men and women did have homosexual relationships, it was never conceived that marriage could be same-sex. Hence, there is no doctrine, let alone scripture, that lays down any guidelines or judgements on such a matter.

Sexual misconduct is the physical misconduct of using sex organs inappropriately or with the inappropriate partner. This is a different matter from same sex marriages.

I personally don't object to same sex marriage. However, I think spending a lot of one's time and resources advocating for it is, from a Buddhist perspective, a waste of time because there are more pressing matters at hand like liberation from samsara.

It is really best to remain unmarried regardless if you're gay or strait. Marriage binds a person and consumes much of their time and energy for samsaric activities.

[Mr. G]

Thanks for that info Huseng. And I agree completely with your sentiments.

[Zenshin 善心]

Btw...welcome back DB...it's been a long one...from an ole cat...

hi plwk, nice to see you again

perhaps in comparison to other religions, Buddhism has had a relatively low amount of blood on its hands during its history. but it would be wrong to believe it has been altogether without. and we've fought againgst ourselves quite often too.

How true ... but let's not confused the Buddha Dharma with Buddhists in the same lump... the politics of the latter is always a human frailty issue

no disagreements here. but then we should extend the same courtesy of acknowledging this to other religions should we not? generalising, i don't believe converts to Buddhism always do so. the danger is it can become a pissing contest (and i've certainly been guilty of this in the past) - "ours has less history of bloodshed than yours" - so to speak, when the reality is - so long as humans are involved, there will always be arguements, rifts and sad to say, in the worst cases, yes, bloodshed.

i think Huseng said it best -

I feel we should recognize the dark side of things and not attempt to conceal or dismiss it

[muni]

Considering myself a buddhist, it is so amazing difficult to look into own mind, wherever we are.

"Buddhist culture" is no garantion for understanding penetrating Dharma in daily life. Misusing Dharma suffers by all wrong ones (intolerance) who need to be clasified in accordance with my limitations.