How come Buddhism is seen as peaceful?

[PaleoEuropean]

Buddhism is one of the most expansionist, colonialist and violent religions that has ever existed. Why do you think people promote it as if it's in some special infallible category when other religions are ran down because of their evangelism or aggression? I could probably answer the question myself but I am interested to hear your thoughts, even if you disagree with my assessment.

[PaleoEuropean]

bump

[Jacques de Imbelloni]

In Tibet and Japan, different schools of Mahayana Buddhism had violent clashes.

Buddhism and violence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The relationship between Buddhism and violence includes acts of violence and aggression committed by Buddhists with religious, political, or socio-cultural motivations, as well as self-inflicted violence by ascetics or for religious purposes.^[1] Buddhism is generally seen as among the religious traditions least associated with violence.^[2] However, in the history of Buddhism, there have been acts of violence directed, promoted, or inspired by Buddhists.^[3] As far as Buddha's teachings and scriptures are concerned, Buddhism forbids violence for resolving conflicts.^[4] Despite this, contemporary violence, or the promotion of violence, has been on the rise in Buddhist communities, especially against Muslims.

East Asia

Japan

The beginning of "Buddhist violence" in Japan relates to a long history of feuds among Buddhists. The sōhei or "warrior monks" appeared during the Heian period, although the seeming contradiction in being a Buddhist "warrior monk" caused controversy even at the time.^[169] More directly linked is that the Ikkō-shū movement was considered an inspiration to Buddhists in the Ikkō-ikki rebellion. In Osaka they defended their temple with the slogan "The mercy of Buddha should be recompensed even by pounding flesh to pieces. One's obligation to the Teacher should be recompensed even by smashing bones to bits!"^[170]
During World War II, Japanese Buddhist literature from that time, as part of its support of the Japanese war effort, stated "In order to establish eternal peace in East Asia, arousing the great benevolence and compassion of Buddhism, we are sometimes accepting and sometimes forceful. We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live' (issatsu tashō). This is something which Mahayana Buddhism approves of only with the greatest of seriousness..."^[171] Almost all Japanese Buddhists temples strongly supported Japan's militarization.^{[172][173][174][175][176][177]} These were heavily criticized by the Chinese Buddhists of the era, who disputed the validity of the statements made by those Japanese Buddhist supporters of the war. In response the Japanese Pan-Buddhist Society (Myowa Kai) rejected the criticism and stated that "We now have no choice but to exercise the benevolent forcefulness of 'killing one in order that many may live' (issatsu tashō)" and that the war was absolutely necessary to implement the dharma in Asia. The society re-examined more than 70 texts written by Nichiren and re-edited his writings, making changes in 208 places, cutting all the statements that disagreed with the state Shinto.^[178][179] In contrast, a few Japanese Buddhists such as Ichikawa Haku^[180] and Seno’o Girō opposed this and were targeted. During the 1940s, "leaders of the Honmon Hokkeshu and Soka Kyoiku Gakkai were imprisoned for their defiance of wartime government religious policy, which mandated display of reverence for the state Shinto".^{[181][182][183]} Brian Daizen Victoria, a Buddhist priest in the Sōtō Zen sect, documented in his book Zen at War how Buddhist institutions justified Japanese militarism in official publications and cooperated with the Imperial Japanese Army in the Russo-Japanese War and World War II. In response to the book, several sects issued an apology for their wartime support of the government.^[184][185]
In more modern times instances of Buddhist-inspired terrorism or militarism have occurred in Japan, such as the assassinations of the League of Blood Incident led by Nissho Inoue, a Nichirenist or fascist-nationalist who preached a self-styled Nichiren Buddhism.^{[184][186][187]}
Aum Shinrikyo, the Japanese new religion and doomsday cult that was the cause of the Tokyo subway sarin attack that killed thirteen people and injured more than a thousand, drew upon a syncretic view of idiosyncratic interpretations of elements of early Indian Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism and Hinduism, taking Shiva as the main image of worship, Christian millennialist ideas from the Book of Revelation, Yoga and the writings of Nostradamus.^[188][189] Its founder, Chizuo Matsumoto, claimed that he sought to restore "original Buddhism"^[190] and declared himself "Christ",^[191] Japan's only fully enlightened master and identified with the "Lamb of God".^[192] His purported mission was to take upon himself the sins of the world, and he claimed he could transfer to his followers spiritual power and ultimately take away their sins and bad deeds.^[193] While many discount Aum Shinrikyo's Buddhist characteristics and affiliation to Buddhism, scholars often refer to it as an offshoot of Japanese Buddhism,^[194] and this was how the movement generally defined and saw itself.

[sean]

Buddhism is about non-violence, but there is no obligation to turn the other cheek. Plenty of quotes about "fighting back" "not sleeping next to wild dog", "not against precepts to defend yourself against someone who puts a gun to your head", etc. And the reality is that Buddhists are not immune to radically interpreting their scriptures.

In the west, all of Eastern philosophy is viewed through the Jesuit lens of western monotheism, so all Buddhists are heretics and must be dragged into holy war as we saw with the Vietnam conflict, aka Spelly's War named after Cardinal Spellman who ran the crusade.

Buddhism was militarised after the Jesuits returned to Japan in the middle of the 19th century after a 200 year expulsion (samurais were tasked with lopping off the head of Christian 'missionaries' (Jesuits) on sight previously), when the powers of the Japanese emperor were limited by a group of advisers called the genro and the Diet the legislative body. Many patriotic Japanese chafed at this Western-style model of government and longed for a restoration of the Emperor’s absolute rule.

In Japan, Nichiren Buddhism was largely responsible for justifying Japan’s aggression in Asia in the 30's and in World War II. It converted many government officials, army officers, intellectuals, and common people. Their aim was to have the followers eventually take over the Diet and guide Japan to enlightened rule. From there, the world would be evangelised by Japan’s example and embrace Nichirenism. The new age warrior Buddha Bushido was used against American protestant heretics in the gruesome Pacific theater of WW2 as the Jesuits squealed with delight, a large slaughter of heretics on all sides.

Even in Hinduism, the Sadhu Babas in India started as a group of warrior monks that fought against the Muslim invaders to save the Dharma. They practiced calisthenics (yoga), kalaripayattu (Indian martial arts) and sword fighting.

[Demhat]

Buddhism is one of the most expansionist, colonialist and violent religions that has ever existed. Why do you think people promote it as if it's in some special infallible category when other religions are ran down because of their evangelism or aggression? I could probably answer the question myself but I am interested to hear your thoughts, even if you disagree with my assessment.

Because of the Dalai Lama and how a rather peaceful passive nation like Tibet got annexed by China. However Tibetans are not representative for all Bhuddists and Bhuddism in general.

Bhuddism is as you pointed out a very expansionist and sometimes quite aggressive religion too.

[Hialt]

There is bias, and it's just like a spiritual rule, or law, that can't be understood, separate from critical attitudes towards Christianity being rightly labeled "Anti-Christianity."
In other words, can one be a "friend of the world," and a friend of Jesus at the same time?

[PaleoEuropean]

Because of the Dalai Lama and how a rather peaceful passive nation like Tibet got annexed by China. However Tibetans are not representative for all Bhuddists and Bhuddism in general.

Bhuddism is as you pointed out a very expansionist and sometimes quite aggressive religion too.

Yea Tibetan Buddhism has great public relations and Hollywood leftard support. Tibetan Buddhism like you said is more their own branch, they are heavily influenced by the Tibetan folk religions.

[Jacques de Imbelloni]

Because of the Dalai Lama and how a rather peaceful passive nation like Tibet got annexed by China. However Tibetans are not representative for all Bhuddists and Bhuddism in general.

Bhuddism is as you pointed out a very expansionist and sometimes quite aggressive religion too.

The Dalai Lama and the Shugden Schism

The strange story of a 17th century feud and its relevance for Tibetan geopolitics today.

https://thediplomat.com/2017/05/the-...hugden-schism/

[Armenian Bishop]

Nope, Buddhism's isn't a religion or philosophy dominated by violence. How did that idea come about? Islam is surely the most violence-based world religion; it's laughable to assert that Buddhism comes anywhere near to what Islam has done to bloody the world, in the name of their religion.

[Laly]

Modern Buddhism – or the way Buddhism is viewed in the West - is the product at the same time of the dechristianisation of Europe and of the positivism of the XIXth century.

At the end of the XVIIIth century, the literary and philosophical traditions of ancient India have been rediscovered, translated and analysed. And for the materialistic and anticlerical intellectuals, it became a bargain in order to counter Christianity. So, a certain intellectual elite decided, following the steps of the French linguist and indologist Eugène Burnouf (1801-1852), that Buddhism would be perfectly rationalistic, materialistic and atheistic, favouring empiricism, science, autonomy, individualism, freedom, pacifism and tolerance, to the detriment of religious obscurantism. And there is this idea many progressists hold according to which Buddhism would lead to happiness, seen then as a personal fulfilment and happy and fulfilled people would be naturally softer, respectful and altruistic. And this reinvention of Buddhism as the ideal antithesis to Christianity, based on the positivistic model, has had a huge cultural impact.

These intellectuals were indeed very attached to the fact the Buddhist tradition had a totally human founder. It is indeed at that time that many strove to establish the historicity of Jesus, not to strengthen the faith of the believers, but to affirm the exclusively human nature of the Messiah (cf. The Life of Jesus, Ernest Renan).

Thus, Buddha was a repented prince who discovered thanks to the depth of his own reflections, that the universe was not created by God, that the faith in a Saviour is useless and that each person must save themselves alone, that the soul doesn’t exist, that the retaliation following acts isn’t the prerogative of a God-judge, but merely an impersonal and mechanical principle.

But in this presentation, many aspects of the Buddhist tradition were carefully erased or minimised: hierarchies exist in Buddhism (for ex., slavery was abolished in Bhutan only in 1958!), rituals are numerous and complex, devotion and faith are omnipresent, as well as the fear of hell and magic, Buddha being a kind of Superman with supernatural powers, being able to welcome beings in his paradise if he is prayed fervently.