Are Buddhists more tolerant?

Hello Happy Buddhists.

I grew up in a Judeao-Chrisitan tradition. I have explored Buddhism to some extent, (as well as many other traditions Hindu, Tao, the Gita, etc….), but it has mostly been related to the philosophy and teachings of the Buddha himself, and of subsequent interpretations, such as Zen etc. Yet, there is the bible and then there is the church, in every religion, if you know what I mean, and the latter does not always reflect the former. Christianity is one of three major religions that sprang form Judaism, including Islam, Christianity, and Modern Judaism (if there is a big difference old to new?). Anyway, knowing a religion’s founder's teachings and philosophy can be a very different thing than knowing the religion itself and how it is practiced among its followers. Forgive me for saying this bluntly, but the three Abrahamic traditions do not always seem to be very tolerant to me. Catholics are always arguing with Lutherans, the Amish won’t even discuss anything other than furniture with anyone who is not Amish, and Christians have even fought bloody multi-year wars between the sects. And of course Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims are well known to be quite hostile to each other at times. I don’t know enough about Judaism to know about sectarian strife there (although if they really do have those space lasers, I expect that sect will come out on top. Hehe…).

But when I look at Buddhism, I don’t seem to see nearly as much sectarian intolerance, conflict, or killing. Do Theravada Buddhists hate the Mahayana Buddhists? Have the Vajrayana Buddhists ever declared war on the Theravada Buddhists or excommunicated them and told them they can’t ever become enlightened or achieve Nirvana. Do they ban each other's teachings from being taught, or even read? The US is overwhelmingly Christian, though that is changing, so perhaps Buddhists here are just happy to find other Buddhists to get along with. But is Buddhism in other parts of the world just as intolerant as some of the sects of Christianity are, or the Muslim sects are, with each other?

If not, given that both Jesus and the Buddha both preached this message of love, compassion, and forgiveness, why do some Christians sects so often resort to intolerance, condemnation and violence, if Buddhist don’t….or maybe they do just as much too, but I don’t live there???

[sky]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Hello Happy Buddhists.

I grew up in a Judeao-Chrisitan tradition. I have explored Buddhism to some extent, (as well as many other traditions Hindu, Tao, the Gita, etc….), but it has mostly been related to the philosophy and teachings of the Buddha himself, and of subsequent interpretations, such as Zen etc. Yet, there is the bible and then there is the church, in every religion, if you know what I mean, and the latter does not always reflect the former. Christianity is one of three major religions that sprang form Judaism, including Islam, Christianity, and Modern Judaism (if there is a big difference old to new?). Anyway, knowing a religion’s founder's teachings and philosophy can be a very different thing than knowing the religion itself and how it is practiced among its followers. Forgive me for saying this bluntly, but the three Abrahamic traditions do not always seem to be very tolerant to me. Catholics are always arguing with Lutherans, the Amish won’t even discuss anything other than furniture with anyone who is not Amish, and Christians have even fought bloody multi-year wars between the sects. And of course Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims are well known to be quite hostile to each other at times. I don’t know enough about Judaism to know about sectarian strife there (although if they really do have those space lasers, I expect that sect will come out on top. Hehe…).

But when I look at Buddhism, I don’t seem to see nearly as much sectarian intolerance, conflict, or killing. Do Theravada Buddhists hate the Mahayana Buddhists? Have the Vajrayana Buddhists ever declared war on the Theravada Buddhists or excommunicated them and told them they can’t ever become enlightened or achieve Nirvana. Do they ban each other's teachings from being taught, or even read? The US is overwhelmingly Christian, though that is changing, so perhaps Buddhists here are just happy to find other Buddhists to get along with. But is Buddhism in other parts of the world just as intolerant as some of the sects of Christianity are, or the Muslim sects are, with each other?

If not, given that both Jesus and the Buddha both preached this message of love, compassion, and forgiveness, why do some Christians sects so often resort to intolerance, condemnation and violence, if Buddhist don’t….or maybe they do just as much too, but I don’t live there???

Buddhist's by name are not always tolerantly but Buddhist by nature are definitely tolerant.

Originally Posted by sky123

Buddhist's by name are not always tolerantly but Buddhist by nature are definitely tolerant.

Yes, well you are a Buddhist I believe, and you have tolerated quite a lot.

I do continue to try to find the limit though, you must have a breaking point.

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Yes, well you are a Buddhist I believe, and you have tolerated quite a lot.

I do continue to try to find the limit though, you must have a breaking point.

Maybe you try too much to make sense of faith. It doesn't matter how many others do whatever they do, but what you intuitively believe to be right.

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Hello Happy Buddhists.

I grew up in a Judeao-Chrisitan tradition. I have explored Buddhism to some extent, (as well as many other traditions Hindu, Tao, the Gita, etc….), but it has mostly been related to the philosophy and teachings of the Buddha himself, and of subsequent interpretations, such as Zen etc. Yet, there is the bible and then there is the church, in every religion, if you know what I mean, and the latter does not always reflect the former. Christianity is one of three major religions that sprang form Judaism, including Islam, Christianity, and Modern Judaism (if there is a big difference old to new?). Anyway, knowing a religion’s founder's teachings and philosophy can be a very different thing than knowing the religion itself and how it is practiced among its followers. Forgive me for saying this bluntly, but the three Abrahamic traditions do not always seem to be very tolerant to me. Catholics are always arguing with Lutherans, the Amish won’t even discuss anything other than furniture with anyone who is not Amish, and Christians have even fought bloody multi-year wars between the sects. And of course Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims are well known to be quite hostile to each other at times. I don’t know enough about Judaism to know about sectarian strife there (although if they really do have those space lasers, I expect that sect will come out on top. Hehe…).

But when I look at Buddhism, I don’t seem to see nearly as much sectarian intolerance, conflict, or killing. Do Theravada Buddhists hate the Mahayana Buddhists? Have the Vajrayana Buddhists ever declared war on the Theravada Buddhists or excommunicated them and told them they can’t ever become enlightened or achieve Nirvana. Do they ban each other's teachings from being taught, or even read? The US is overwhelmingly Christian, though that is changing, so perhaps Buddhists here are just happy to find other Buddhists to get along with. But is Buddhism in other parts of the world just as intolerant as some of the sects of Christianity are, or the Muslim sects are, with each other?

If not, given that both Jesus and the Buddha both preached this message of love, compassion, and forgiveness, why do some Christians sects so often resort to intolerance, condemnation and violence, if Buddhist don’t….or maybe they do just as much too, but I don’t live there???

I suspect your exposure to Buddhism is limited. I have lived in predominate Buddhists lands and have seen some of its 'fruits'.

From what I have 'seen', Western Theravada Buddhists look down on Eastern Theravada Buddhists and are not tolerant of other Buddhist sects.

I get along with all of the Buddhist sects except for the Western Theravada Buddhists.

As for Buddhists fighting and killing one another.... 19th century history has much to say about that.

I had family members that fled China for fear of death. Then there was Viet Nam and then Pol Pot.

In the West, we sometimes see only the 'violence' in 'our' religions but do not realize other religions are very similar.

As for me, I see the good in all religions. In many ways, the various religions seem to be very similar.

[inavalan]

Why Are We Surprised When Buddhists Are Violent?

This presumption is evident in the reactions of astonishment many people have to events like those taking place in Myanmar. How, many wonder, could a Buddhist society — especially Buddhist monks! — have anything to do with something so monstrously violent as the ethnic cleansing now being perpetrated on Myanmar’s long-beleaguered Rohingya minority?

Kind of long article, but bottom line: Buddhists are human too, some better, some less good. As any religion, a lot of things are done in its name: some better, some less good.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/05/o...tolerance.html

Originally Posted by inavalan

Why Are We Surprised When Buddhists Are Violent?

This presumption is evident in the reactions of astonishment many people have to events like those taking place in Myanmar. How, many wonder, could a Buddhist society — especially Buddhist monks! — have anything to do with something so monstrously violent as the ethnic cleansing now being perpetrated on Myanmar’s long-beleaguered Rohingya minority?

Kind of long article, but bottom line: Buddhists are human too, some better, some less good. As any religion, a lot of things are done in its name: some better, some less good.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/05/o...tolerance.html

Yes, they are humans too, and I am familiar with the fact that there has been much war and genocides in predominantly Buddhist countries as well. But what I have less of a sense for is whether it is humans behaving badly who happen to be Buddhists, or Buddhists behaving badly who happen to be humans, if you see the distinction I am making here, the driver of the violence. That and how much just general hostility between the sects there is.

Interesting Times article (since it's in the main stream media and from at least one professor I must believe it. Hehehe. )

Joking aside, this part below jumped out at me. One because it brings up this larger question of how well could any peaceful or pacifist ideology do if it comes up against one that is not. Two because it brings up the issue of whether more aggressive ideologies have a net competitive advantage and therefore spread more effectively and survive better. IDK. MLK, Gandhi, and Mandela argue for strength of peaceful means, yet there is usually a contrasting violent movement going on along side them that makes the peaceful argument more powerful and apt to be heard so....? If it was only peaceful protest alone, would the message of the peaceful protest still get an ear? Very relevant question today as it has always been.

There is always that age old question of how much tolerance can one tolerate from the intolerant before losing out to them and finding oneself no longer tolerated by them. IMO, one of the main quandaries for any who follow a path of peace, compassion, and tolerance.

"What is especially interesting is that Buddhist proponents of anti-Muslim discourse often assert that Myanmar is under threat from Muslims precisely because Buddhism is, they say, a uniquely peaceful and tolerant religion. In arguing that Rohingya are illegal immigrants who promote an exclusivist and proselytizing religion that is bent on geographical and cultural conquest through conversion and marriage, some Buddhist leaders in Myanmar thus exploit the very same presumption of uniform tolerance and peacefulness that makes many Westerners uniquely surprised by Buddhist violence."

There is an interesting part in this account of the Khmer Empire where an heir to the throne (Buddhist) at first won't fight and loses the throne to his brother (as I recall), but eventually (after a bunch of other events happen) ends up becoming the King anyway and finds he does use violence when necessary to protect and rule the empire.
https://youtu.be/ghmjIBD2Fd4?t=3107

[inavalan]

Originally Posted by ketzer

Yes, they are humans too, and I am familiar with the fact that there has been much war and genocides in predominantly Buddhist countries as well. But what I have less of a sense for is whether it is humans behaving badly who happen to be Buddhists, or Buddhists behaving badly who happen to be humans, if you see the distinction I am making here, the driver of the violence. That and how much just general hostility between the sects there is.

Interesting Times article (since it's in the main stream media and from at least one professor I must believe it. Hehehe. )

Joking aside, this part below jumped out at me. One because it brings up this larger question of how well could any peaceful or pacifist ideology do if it comes up against one that is not. Two because it brings up the issue of whether more aggressive ideologies have a net competitive advantage and therefore spread more effectively and survive better. IDK. MLK, Gandhi, and Mandela argue for strength of peaceful means, yet there is usually a contrasting violent movement going on along side them that makes the peaceful argument more powerful and apt to be heard so....? If it was only peaceful protest alone, would the message of the peaceful protest still get an ear? Very relevant question today as it has always been.

There is always that age old question of how much tolerance can one tolerate from the intolerant before losing out to them and finding oneself no longer tolerated by them. IMO, one of the main quandaries for any who follow a path of peace, compassion, and tolerance.

"What is especially interesting is that Buddhist proponents of anti-Muslim discourse often assert that Myanmar is under threat from Muslims precisely because Buddhism is, they say, a uniquely peaceful and tolerant religion. In arguing that Rohingya are illegal immigrants who promote an exclusivist and proselytizing religion that is bent on geographical and cultural conquest through conversion and marriage, some Buddhist leaders in Myanmar thus exploit the very same presumption of uniform tolerance and peacefulness that makes many Westerners uniquely surprised by Buddhist violence."

There is an interesting part in this account of the Khmer Empire where an heir to the throne (Buddhist) at first won't fight and loses the throne to his brother (as I recall), but eventually (after a bunch of other events happen) ends up becoming the King anyway and finds he does use violence when necessary to protect and rule the empire.
https://youtu.be/ghmjIBD2Fd4?t=3107

I'll take the blue pill as true to reality, vs. the red pill as false to reality.

Seth said:

"A generation that hates war will not bring peace. A generation that loves peace will bring peace.

To die with hatred for any cause or people, or for any reason, is a great disadvantage."

—SS Chapter 12: Session 550, September 28, 1970

If interested, you can browse that session 550 here:

http://al-worldview.blogspot.com/sea...+bring+ peace

[inavalan]

From the same Session 550:

"Let me tell you that he who hates an evil merely creates another one"

...

Within your system, to kill is obviously a moral crime, but to kill another in punishment only compounds the original error. Someone very well known who established a church – if you will, a civilization – once said, “Turn the other cheek if you are attacked”. The original meaning of that remark, however, should be understood. You should turn the other cheek because you realize that basically the attacker only attacks himself.

Then you are free, and the reaction is a good one. If you turn the other cheek without this understanding, however, and feel resentful, or if you turn the other cheek out of a feeling of pseudomoral superiority, then the reaction is far from adequate.

—SS Chapter 12: Session 550, September 28, 1970

[FallingLeaves]

Originally Posted by inavalan

From the same Session 550:

"Let me tell you that he who hates an evil merely creates another one"

...

Within your system, to kill is obviously a moral crime, but to kill another in punishment only compounds the original error. Someone very well known who established a church – if you will, a civilization – once said, “Turn the other cheek if you are attacked”. The original meaning of that remark, however, should be understood. You should turn the other cheek because you realize that basically the attacker only attacks himself.

Then you are free, and the reaction is a good one. If you turn the other cheek without this understanding, however, and feel resentful, or if you turn the other cheek out of a feeling of pseudomoral superiority, then the reaction is far from adequate.

—SS Chapter 12: Session 550, September 28, 1970

so ya gotta turn your other cheek the one and only 'correct' way or otherwise you are just as horrible a person as if you hadn't even tried. Geez I don't know how people remember all these rules...