"Peaceful" Buddhism vs. "Violent" Christianity

  • Thread starter Thread starter mikeledes
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
WHat are you guys talking about , every one knows that ISLAM is the most peaceful religion, even more than buddhism 👍
 
The Buddha, ie Sidhart left his home, family, property and wealth to embrace a life of ascetism. He was moved by the misery he saw in the world and vowed to renounce it in order to understand the need for this suffering. Nothing wrong as such in this, in any case his wife and son would have been well taken care of.Either way this kind of renunciation of the world is a well known tradition in India. the wife is expected to be looked after by her in laws.

Re Buddhism being peaceful etc, the philosophy is non violent to an extreme,non judgemental, does not recognise 'Right" and “Wrong” has no concept of “sin”, whatever wrong-ie discordent actions we take is due to our ignorence springing from the “Desires” within us. The whole aim of the serious Buddhist is to eliminate those desires and live a life of peace and detachment.
 
40.png
radhika:
The Buddha, ie Sidhart left his home, family, property and wealth to embrace a life of ascetism. He was moved by the misery he saw in the world and vowed to renounce it in order to understand the need for this suffering. Nothing wrong as such in this, in any case his wife and son would have been well taken care of.Either way this kind of renunciation of the world is a well known tradition in India. the wife is expected to be looked after by her in laws.

Re Buddhism being peaceful etc, the philosophy is non violent to an extreme,non judgemental, does not recognise 'Right" and “Wrong” has no concept of “sin”, whatever wrong-ie discordent actions we take is due to our ignorence springing from the “Desires” within us. The whole aim of the serious Buddhist is to eliminate those desires and live a life of peace and detachment.
Click to expand...
Just wondering …would it have been okay for his wife to leave him and the children to go lead a life of asceticism?
 
40.png
Fiat:
Dear BryPGuy89:
If you review the original post, you will see that I was not the one making the connection between the religious affilation of the the people of a nation and the actions of the nation itself. Whether you think the connection is a ridiculous one or not is your prerogative, but the connection was not made by me in the first place. Although I see some potential correlation between the two, I agree that the two are not necessarily the same.

Second, of course I am aware of European imperialism. I am also aware of Chinese Imperialism and Japanese Imperialism. What is your point, exactly? You stated in a previous post that Chinese culture was “lost.” And that simply is not the case.

Fiat
Click to expand...
Ok I see your point on the original post about Buddhist countries.

My general point was that using Japan’s occupation of the region and some of the atrocities happened, is no worse then that of the Christian Countries. I said lost some of it’s culture, not all of it. This is what happens when any advansed countries goes beyond contact with a country farther behind technologically.
 
40.png
radhika:
Re Buddhism being peaceful etc, the philosophy is non violent to an extreme,non judgemental, does not recognise 'Right" and “Wrong”
Click to expand...
Actually, Buddhism does recognize right and wrong – that some actions lead to enlightenment, and some actions don’t. So, Buddhism is in fact “judgemental”, or even exclusivistic, in that sense. However, Buddhism exclusivism is also wedded to tolerance:
Surprisingly, this exclusivistic stance of Buddhism in regard to the prospects for final emancipation has never engendered a policy of intolerance on the part of Buddhists toward the adherents of other religions. To the contrary, throughout its long history, Buddhism has displayed a thoroughgoing tolerance and genial good will toward the many religions with which it has come into contact. It has maintained this tolerance simultaneously with its deep conviction that the doctrine of the Buddha offers the unique and unsurpassable way to release from the ills inherent in conditioned existence… True tolerance in religion involves the capacity to admit differences as real and fundamental, even as profound and unbridgeable, yet at the same time to respect the rights of those who follow a religion different from one’s own (or no religion at all) to continue to do so without resentment, disadvantage or hindrance.
Click to expand...
 
Hi everyone,

I didn’t read through the entire post but I did recently read this article in This Rock that I found very helpful to the subject:

Are Jesus and Buddha Brothers?

I found it very “enlightening”. 😛
 
40.png
magdelaine:
Hi everyone,

I didn’t read through the entire post but I did recently read this article in This Rock that I found very helpful to the subject:

Are Jesus and Buddha Brothers?

I found it very “enlightening”. 😛
Click to expand...
I hope it didn’t “enlighten” you too much, because it’s packed with errors regarding Buddhism.😃

To wit:
While Buddhism allows belief in an afterlife, such an allowance is called upaya, an expedient means to a real end. Upaya allows belief to exist as a means to an end; all belief, including that of Buddhism, is merely a construction. According to the logic of upaya, Christianity is allowable as a stage toward spiritual progression, leading eventually to the extinction of self, or nirvana
Click to expand...
The reality of an afterlife is a consistent theme in Buddhist texts. It is not taught as an “upaya”, as an expedient means to the real end (the real end being, supposedly, the idea that the afterlife doesn’t really exist). Whoever wrote this article seems to confuse the Buddhist idea of upaya, with the Buddhist idea that heavens and hells are temporary and not permanent.

And don’t get me started with the claim that Buddhism teaches the “extinction of the self”. Oy vey!😃
 
40.png
Ahimsa:
I hope it didn’t “enlighten” you too much, because it’s packed with errors regarding Buddhism.😃

To wit:

The reality of an afterlife is a consistent theme in Buddhist texts. It is not taught as an “upaya”, as an expedient means to the real end (the real end being, supposedly, the idea that the afterlife doesn’t really exist). Whoever wrote this article seems to confuse the Buddhist idea of upaya, with the Buddhist idea that heavens and hells are temporary and not permanent.

And don’t get me started with the claim that Buddhism teaches the “extinction of the self”. Oy vey!😃
Click to expand...
Hey Ahimsa,
Do you think you could provide me with some good introductory readings about Buddhism?
 
40.png
precious_roy:
Hey Ahimsa,
Do you think you could provide me with some good introductory readings about Buddhism?
Click to expand...
Greetings roy,

I’m a real fan of the Theravada school of Buddhism, so I would recommend The Dhammapada , translated by Ananda Maitreya (a venerable Theravadan monk). The Dhammapada contains the essence of Buddhism in concise language.

I also recommend The Miracle of Mindfulness, by Thich Nhat Hanh, which explains basic Buddhist meditation in fluent English. (Actually, anything by Hanh is pretty good.)
 
From the first post
Okay guys and gals, I need some dirt on Buddhism or Buddhists. Several people that I know have compared the peacefulness of Buddhist countries with the violence of Christian/ Catholic ones. The implication being that Buddhism is a superior form of spirituality. Does Buddhism have any skeletons in its closet?
Click to expand...
As far as buddhism being a “higher” spirituality, I still feel you have to consider the source of this religion and its founder. Some have stated leaving his wife and children to become an ascetic, was a well-known tradition in India and the wife and children would be well taken care of by others.
Nevertheless, this buddha, went and did exactly as he pleased, without any regard for the impact of his behavior on others, such as his wife and children. In other words, **doing what he wanted to do, seemed the most important thing ** (and I might add a very selfish thing…even though it ‘sounds’ holy).
To me it seems more reminiscent of a “lower” spirituality. Somewhat akin to the satanic commandment, “Do as thy wilt shall be the whole of the law” Hence the ‘spirituality’ is one which does not acknowledge God and one’s duty to Him and one’s fellow man. This seems not noble but arrogant. And not a ‘superior’ spirituality, but an inferior spirituality.
.
 
40.png
sconea:
From the first post

As far as buddhism being a “higher” spirituality, I still feel you have to consider the source of this religion and its founder. Some have stated leaving his wife and children to become an ascetic, was a well-known tradition in India and the wife and children would be well taken care of by others.
Nevertheless, this buddha, went and did exactly as he pleased, without any regard for the impact of his behavior on others, such as his wife and children. In other words, **doing what he wanted to do, seemed the most important thing ** (and I might add a very selfish thing…even though it ‘sounds’ holy).
To me it seems more reminiscent of a “lower” spirituality. Somewhat akin to the satanic commandment, “Do as thy wilt shall be the whole of the law” Hence the ‘spirituality’ is one which does not acknowledge God and one’s duty to Him and one’s fellow man. This seems not noble but arrogant. And not a ‘superior’ spirituality, but an inferior spirituality.
.
Click to expand...
Ahem….

Luke 14:26
“If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple”

If taken out of context that could certainly be a refuting argument to what you just said. However taken in context Jesus wasn’t literally saying that you should hate anyone. But He says it to make a point: total commitment and absolute dedication; have faith that what you are doing is right. If it is so necessary you MUST leave behind all physical things including family and follow Christ. Now take “Christ” in my preceding statement and replace it with “the Noble Truths” and you have a similar Buddhist statement. I think that Siddhartha was leaving behind something that he thought was not right and seeking some sort of truth (I think; feel free to correct me if I’m wrong).

I see what you are saying about being arrogant but if that were true, how would anyone who is not born into a Catholic family ever come to the Church? Would it not be through some form of private revelation and desire to seek out truth?
 
40.png
precious_roy:
Ahem….

Luke 14:26
“If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple”

If taken out of context that could certainly be a refuting argument to what you just said. However taken in context Jesus wasn’t literally saying that you should hate anyone. But He says it to make a point: total commitment and absolute dedication; have faith that what you are doing is right. If it is so necessary you MUST leave behind all physical things including family and follow Christ. Now take “Christ” in my preceding statement and replace it with “the Noble Truths” and you have a similar Buddhist statement. I think that Siddhartha was leaving behind something that he thought was not right and seeking some sort of truth (I think; feel free to correct me if I’m wrong).
Click to expand...
You’re on the right track. Siddhartha, while married, looked around him and realized that everyone he knew – his wife, father, mother, friends, strangers – would eventually get old, ill, and die. He left his family and friends in order to discover the path by which aging, sickness, and death were no more. And once he discovered that path, he shared it with all. From the Buddhist perspective, the Siddhartha was actually demonstrating the most profound type of love for his wife (as well as for all beings), a love that went beyond conjugal relationship, and into total freedom and compassion. It’s not like he left his wife to go gallavanting with his mistress on a yacht.😃
 
Ahem….
Click to expand...
Luke 14:26
“If anyone comes to me without hating his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple”
Click to expand...
Precious_roy…This quotes means you should put God first in your life. The Buddha wasn’t putting God first…he was putting first **his own desire ** for understanding or enlightenment.

To answer your second question…he should continue where he was placed in life and pray to ‘God’ (or whatever his idea of God was) for enlightenment. Obviously he didn’t even believe in a ‘higher power’ …he thought he was a higher power and could figure out truth for himself…I still say it’s arrogant.
 
40.png
sconea:
Precious_roy…This quotes means you should put God first in your life. The Buddha wasn’t putting God first…he was putting first **his own desire ** for understanding or enlightenment.

To answer your second question…he should continue where he was placed in life and pray to ‘God’ (or whatever his idea of God was) for enlightenment. Obviously he didn’t even believe in a ‘higher power’ …he thought he was a higher power and could figure out truth for himself…I still say it’s arrogant.
Click to expand...
Ok, but without personal enlightment, or personal revelation, how could you possibly have any concept of what ‘God’ is? You just said ‘obviously he didn’t believe in a higher power’ so if he didn’t even go out to seek enlightment, what chance would he have?

To put another way, before I became a Catholic, myself reading the Bible was just like reading a book. There was nothing special about it. I had no concept of what God was except the logical argumentative one which isn’t very good. Until I was able to get away from family and friends who were die hard atheists there was and would have been no way for myself to have guidance on these things because I was denied access to that which I needed. Sure I could have come to God through personal revelation, but would I ever have become Catholic? I can’t see how if I had no access to the Church. I left and went out on my own because I wanted to know Truth. Now whether that Truth was God and the Catholic Church or Enlightment and Buddhism I never would have discovered without my journey.

At any rate, I guess we will simply have to agree to disagree on this one.
 
Wasn’t it Nietzche who said that Christianity makes one docile and weak?

People need to make up their minds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top