Hinduism and Buddhism, happy without killing and converting

Throughout western history we see brutal holy wars, violent inquisitions and all based on the “love” of the Judeo-Christian Deity. This same deity speaks to certain few, and tells them to kill in his name. Of course these are just opportunists benefiting from the weakness of man longing for a spiritual answer.

Then I look at the history of India. This is a civilization that existed for at least 5,000 years without ever invading another country. This is a civilization that was able to care well enough for itself and its people that there was no need for war, except when other countries tried to take its wealth and splendor.

Because of these millennia of peace, the people were able to devote more time to spiritual awakening rather than conquest. Maybe we could learn something from their history and their spirituality. After all, as the Hindu religion spread, it brought peace where it went. As it was brought to China through Buddhism, followers remained peaceful, despite war surrounding them.

The basic philosophy is to strive to understand the self. After all, how can one know anything if one can’t know himself? It is also understood that the soul is not an individual, but part of a whole universal oneness. This unifying soul is trapped under a blanket of illusion called Maya. The world as we know it is nothing but an illusion, and the only thing breaking through the illusion is the soul, the self.

This Philosophy seems to do more good for mankind than a philosophy that teaches “Do what I say or I’ll ##in smack you!!!” Or, “If you don’t believe in my God you deserve to burn in hell, and I’m going to send you there”.

I don't know if I subscribe to the suggestion that Christianity == Violence and Buddhism == Peace. Christianity has a complete, irrefutable, and uncompromising doctrine of non-violence in the Gospels. Unfortunately there is plenty of inconsistency in canonical Christian text to confuse adherents, and I believe this confusion is the source of the dark history of violence we see in the Christian religion.

I believe that Christians should give the Gospels priority in the case where there is a perceived inconsistency in the Bible, and that the Old Testament is intended to provide context for the Gospels. Too often though, Christians will use whatever passage suits their current mood to justify their actions. For example, pre-9/11, it was easy for American Christians to profess a doctrine of non-violence. As soon as we were attacked, however, "non-violence" was thrown out the window in favor of "justice" in sermons across America. In my opinion, exchanging non-violence for justice requires suspending adherence to the Gospels, which is the same as suspending adherence to Christianity itself and represents a total loss of faith.

I would agree that, historically, Christians have been responsible for more violence than Buddhists, but I would not agree that Christianity is inherently more violent than Buddhism. Although a study of eastern religions might be a very healthy exercise for your average Christian, it is not the only way to open their eyes to the truth of non-violence. Everything is already there in the Gospels, they just need the faith to adhere to it under any circumstances.

Why don't we see this same events in Buddhist cultures. Then it leaves me to think that those in power will naturally try to do harm, and try to use their God to justify it. In that case, it's easier to use western religion to justify war and murder. Preaching their righteousness and the divinity of their law. They built a little empire out of some crazy garbage called the blood of the exploited working class. And the world screams "Kiss me son of God".

When not in contact with nature, we are not in contact with God.

What we've been trying to do all these years is to try to take over nature and it's men, by this trying to take over God. An unfinished task, nature always strikes back.

By converting ones self, one is converting others. A munk in a cave in sweet meditation is doing more than a priest trying to convert a mass of 10000 people at one time. The meditating munk might have more telepatic influence on them than the talking priest.

First of all, they are just in guidance by the munk, them not even knowing what is talked about, but the senses hold on to these carriers. The priest may talk and wine as much as he can, as when he doesn't have the lightcoefficient in Him, no much souls will be touched.

Slaves to the system theres no way out
Slaves to the system do you have a shout
Youve got to beat the bastards and beat em now
Sick of policies puting me down
Beat the bastards, beat them now
Beat the bastards, beat them now
Beat the bastards, beat them now
Just out of school dont have a clue
No income support for you
Cant get a job dont get a chance
Sick of politics leaving you out
Beat the bastards, beat them now
Beat the bastards, beat them now
Beat the bastards, beat them now
Money power and streight
Teenage kids with nowt to spend
Hungry homeless who gives a #
Sick of policies leaving me out
Beat the bastards, beat them now
Beat the bastards, beat them now
Beat the bastards, beat them now

copyright The eploited - Beat the bastards

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Throughout western history we see brutal holy wars, violent inquisitions and all based on the “love” of the Judeo-Christian Deity. This same deity speaks to certain few, and tells them to kill in his name. Of course these are just opportunists benefiting from the weakness of man longing for a spiritual answer.

Perhaps you should mention that in the last 100 years, far worse atrocities have been carried out by people with no such links?

Then I look at the history of India. This is a civilization that existed for at least 5,000 years without ever invading another country. This is a civilization that was able to care well enough for itself and its people that there was no need for war, except when other countries tried to take its wealth and splendor.

I can only conclude that you don't know anything about the history of India.

Because of these millennia of peace, the people were able to devote more time to spiritual awakening rather than conquest. Maybe we could learn something from their history and their spirituality. After all, as the Hindu religion spread, it brought peace where it went.

Why not read around this story, characteristic of Hinduism *today*:

www.guardian.co.uk...

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Originally posted by Rasobasi420
Then I look at the history of India. This is a civilization that existed for at least 5,000 years without ever invading another country.

If you a liberal in the definition of the boundaries of India, then I suppose it could be argued that the western expansion during the Mauryan Empire was not invading another country. However, I fail to see how the Chola Empire can be included in this statement.

This is a civilization that was able to care well enough for itself and its people that there was no need for war, except when other countries tried to take its wealth and splendor.

Or when one is trying to unify the fractured kingdoms of Indus. But perhaps you have a liberal definition of war which excludes Indus kingdoms fighting other Indus kingdoms.


Now, if you intended to make the point that there are no known Indus kingdoms which hid behind a religious edict to justify their militaristic expansionism, then I would agree with you.

Very true. When one examines the comparison of violence of Hinduism or Buddhism to that of Christianity or Islam it is rather shocking!!!You never hear of any violence within the Buddhist or Hindu religious culture.

Originally posted by roger_pearse
Why not read around this story, characteristic of Hinduism *today*:

www.guardian.co.uk...

This article says that some hindu man killed a missionary in India and was caught and prosecuted but not given the death penalty. So what is your point here ? That he should have been hanged or that he killed a missionary ?
If it is that latter how many such incident can you gather in comparision to the numerous crusades and inquisitions that Christianity has enfored upon its followers ??
More over the article makes no mention of this murder being a hindu "sanctioned" event.

Originally posted by Raphael_UO
If you a liberal in the definition of the boundaries of India, then I suppose it could be argued that the western expansion during the Mauryan Empire was not invading another country. However, I fail to see how the Chola Empire can be included in this statement.

The Mauryan and the Chola empires falls firmly under the spear of influence of hinduism at that time in history, (let us not forget Nalanda to the west!)and thus cannot be seen as expansionistic in the religious sense. Also add to that the drastic change in philosophy of the Mauryans with the adoption of Buddhism and renunciation of war by so large an empire is truly amazing. Plus this is a period of massive Export of buddhism to the east.

Or when one is trying to unify the fractured kingdoms of Indus. But perhaps you have a liberal definition of war which excludes Indus kingdoms fighting other Indus kingdoms.

Which kingdoms of Indus do you refer to? As far as history goes the Ganges plains have always spawned the greatest empires in that region. Also the River Indus is just one of the many rivers in that region and has comparatively little importance to Hinduism in comparison to rivers in the plains.
To think that this region has gone without conflict for 5000 years would be ludicrous but I would think what the author of this thread is trying to convey is the relatively negligible amount of conflict this region has had to endure in comparision to continental Europe or parts of the Middle East.

Why not read around this story, characteristic of Hinduism *today*:

www.guardian.co.uk...

All the best,

Roger Pearse


that report is totally wrong. i know cause i live in india. it wasnt a mob of "hindu fanatics" attacking the missionary, it was one man only and thats why the others were freed.

also i think a complaint has been registered in the supreme court

and most importantly -the missionary's wife still lives in india in the same place where he was killed