Thinking Aloud : Myth of Buddhist non-violence — Razi Azmi

[Tshering22]

I meant that buddhism is incomplete religion ( sorry if i hurt you but it is time to bell the cat as i really feel frustrated when people criticise hinduism with vituperative language but hide buddhism faults and exaggerate its importance in indian history and also allege that hinduism destroyed buddhism all of which are false things )

Technically we are no difference from you. There are a lot of aspects of our branch of faith that come from you guys. We respect that. Any true Buddhist will NEVER deny their heritage stemming from Hindus. Those who refuse or reject openly are insecure idiots who don't understand what the overall meaning of Dharma is.

Buddhism was product of a frustrated prince who founded a doctrine all of which were based on leaving the homes and nothing more.

Gautama Siddhartha "found" nothing. He simply realized the universal truth that thousands and thousands of mainstream Hindu rishis and enlightened once before him did.

He rejected himself being a god and told people to seek truth.

Isn't this the same thing that Hindu rishis did for millennia together? I am sure you will agree.

Buddhism is religion of peace and non violence ( i have seen tibetans enjoying meat more than the hindus ) not because it is superior in this context but simply because it was meant for a parasitic class that thrived in monastries built by labour of toiling masses, employing slaves for upkeep and hence could afford to do so.

Wrong.

Brother, I understand why you are angry, but please don't get wrong ideas. We always respect and honour the goodness of Hinduism. There are some wretches who will try to gain cheap power by misusing their status as monks or as elder abbots. Please don't think we all are like that. We respect mainstream Hindu Dharma as much as we respect our own faith.

In fact, we owe our preservation and existence to the Hindu empires who protected our people from Islamic and other outside invaders.

So much so that when Islamic invaders attacked from central Asia Gandhara Buddhists had to adopt principles from mainstream Hinduism to be able to fight back.

when you are free of social responsibilities, you can beat any amount of bush on ethics and may look good.

I agree that some monks have adopted that strategy and corrupted Buddh Dharma. But reality is not like that.

Hinduism has policy for war as well as it promotes non violence so it is much more complete than buddhism.

Even His Holiness Dalai Lama says that when he calls himself the son of Aryavarta (Bharat, and its ancient knowledge which stems from Hindu system).

Then what are you getting angry about.


I

t might have been understandable if the ordinary people were killed or temples looted for wealth but why did the burmese buddhists do this

this proves that it was specific work of baudh bhikshus who directed their venom against brahmins.

Some Burmese monks like I said above, want to use Buddhist principles as a means to gain cheap power. So they corrupt it, elevate their status and attack others.

 

[A chauhan]

I think self-defence is not violence, be it any religion.

 

[Tshering22]

I think self-defence is not violence, be it any religion.

But Secoolarists think that it is violence..Hence the appeasement.

 

[parijataka]

@MAYURA - Buddhism, like other eastern religions, does not teach that anyone not following Gautama Buddha will be condemned to Hell. hence the violence in Assam was political rather than religious.