Has Buddhism irked you before?

ZEN BUDDHISM ORDERS THE DEAHTS OF 40 MILLION ASIANS in World
I found this on internet... What do you make out this allegation... ?

ZEN BUDDHISM ORDERS THE DEAHTS OF 40 MILLION ASIANS in World War Two.

JAPAN

ZEN MASTER Shaku Soen (1859-1919) orders Buddhists to kill evil Christians. He states ". . .the war is not a mere slaughter of their fellow-beings, but that they are combating evil."
(1904-04) RUSSIAN-JAPANESE WAR


RAPE OF NANKING - millions of Chinese raped and tens of thousands of babies killed.

ZEN MASTER Seki Seisetsu on national radio just before the massacre calls for the "extermination of red devils."

ZEN MASTER Harada Daiun states "Warriors who sacrifice their lives for the Emperor will not die. They will live forever."

"Zen and war. . .extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war, now under way."

Buddhist and Shinto holy men went to the frontline also and blessed Buddhist and Shinto troops. They said nothing when 200,000 Korean women were being gang-raped for many years. Indeed some Buddhists no longer viewed these women to be human any more.

NOTICE HOW PEOPLE IN THIS FORUM REBUKE ME FOR STATING THAT BUDDHIST AND SHINTO PRIESTS SUPPORTED THIS WAR - and previous conflicts. It is also clear that Zen Buddhist were often more fanatical than Shinto priests.

Books if interested are the following:

Zen at War - Brian Victoria, Weatherhill, 1997.

The Rape of Nanking : The Forgotten Holocaust of World War 2, Iris Chang.

http://www.darkzen.com/Articles/zenholy.htm

BUDDHISM THROUGHOUT HISTORY WAS INTERWOVEN WITH VIOLENT WARS - just like Islam and Christianity

YET BUDDHISTS AND OTHERS DENY THIS - for they like to have a mythical view of Buddhism.

Ideal Singh,

I haven't castigated you for saying that Buddhists have a little known history of warlike violence. 'Tis true, we Buddhists do tend to emphasis the non-violent, and predominant strains, of our religion. You might also refer back to the three sorts of religious experience I posted a few pages back. Most often individuals who directly experiences transcendence, for want of a better term, ARE thereafter non-violent and compassionate whatever their core religious roots. Unfortunately, the same can not be said for the other two forms of religious experience. Church leaders often are extremely competitive and sensitive to the rectitude of their own beliefs. Clerics, of whatever stripe, are notorious for pursuing their own egoistic impulses. Buddhist priests should be less apt to fall into that sort of error because our religion tends to strongly reign in the ego, but not always. Among the larger congregations that are nominally religious, it takes very little to awaken their natural killer-instincts. In spite of what some might believe, the great majority of Buddhists regard their religion as a cultural/social network (often inherited with little thought from their parents) just like many Christians. Abrahamic religions are rooted in war, and are really very open to the notion that "good" is in mortal combat with "evil". The difference is, fundamental Buddhist doctrine condemns war and violence, though some rational for violence can be "discovered" if the individual works at it.

Human-beings are naturally inclined to want what they can not have and to use aggression to obtain what can not be had by other means. We envy and fear our neighbors, so we tend to satisfy our emotions by attacking them. Whatever it is we believe, we believe is TRUTH, otherwise we wouldn't believe it at all. If the Other believes something different, they must be wrong and we, out of compassion, should sort them out. It is so easy to find excuses to resort to force and violence to achieve what we are convinced are "higher and better" ends. Buddhism, unlike the principle trends inside the Abrahamic tradition, works very hard to discourage the sort of thought/speech/action that leads to violent confrontation. Even so, who can condemn the individual or group that acts militarily to defend themselves from a foe determined upon their subjugation and destruction? However, even in those extreme situations one has difficulty in finding many examples of Buddhist involvement in war.

Your comments regarding the support of Japanese war crimes deserves comment. Without checking your sources, I will except the assertion that some Zen Masters did support, even encourage, Buddhist soldiers during the wars of the late 19th and 20th centuries. I do believe that the sort of exhortations you quote are extremely rare and do not reflect the opinions or beliefs of the great majority of Japanese Buddhist leaders. We should also note that the wars you cite are not "Buddhist Wars", but are national wars fought for political reasons that were supported by some Buddhist religious leaders. This is the case in virtually all conflicts where Buddhists were involved in military conflict. The number of conflicts where Buddhists were involve and the root cause was religious, is exceedingly insignificant and rare.

I have learned so much from this thread, thank-you.

I have learned much as well, and I also don't see how Ideal Singh has been rebuked in any way whatsoever.

Well I have only intentions of clarifying the matters as you can also understand from the question itself... Its all on internet... i have just provided you the link... apologies if offended...

http://www.mkzc.org/apology.html

"If I may speak as an insider, however, during the 25 years of my practice under him I never saw Yasutani Roshi ever force his students to accept his political ideology. After all, it was his Dharma that we wished him to transmit to us; never have I aspired, therefore, to learn his ideological standpoint. Furthermore, Koun Yamada Roshi, who was to take over as the second patriarch, admonished Yasutani Roshi more than a few times for the latter's ideological inclination, and reminded him of the initial responsibility of concentrating upon the reviving of the pure Dharma, the intrinsic core of Buddhism. As a result, in 1967 - that is, while he was still alive - Yasutani Roshi made a radical decision to entrust Koun Yamada Roshi with the fully authorized guidance of the Sanbo-kyodan.

Koun Roshi, on his part, made it manifest that the fundamental position of the Sanbo-kyodan is to "stand at the origin point of Buddhism through the Dharma gate of Dogen Zenji," and that our aim is to attain the salvation of humanity and to contribute to establishing world peace based on the great enlightenment experience of Shakyamuni, no matter what ethnic origin, nationality, gender or creed one may represent. This resulted in sincere dialogue with Father H.M. Enomiya-Lasalle, through whose intercession a great number of priests and sisters found their way to Zen, until Zen practice outside Japan has flourished to such an extent as we witness it today. In fact, to go back to the origin point is the only way to correct past wrongdoings and to truly contribute to the peace of the human world. "

"On this occasion, the Sanbo-kyodan solemnly vows never to lose the origin point of Shakyamuni and to follow persistently and energetically the path of realizing the essence of our self in this world of phenomena through our zazen practice. "


Buddhists may have political stance, but will *never* put Buddhism in the name of it. The Communist in China did prevent the development of the nation, many people suffered under its rule, comparable to communist North Korea during its time. The Communist even treatened the Buddhist monks, and they were forced to Taiwan (including my own Buddhist Master). These communists removed all religions including Buddhism from the nation, fearing a uprising from "seperatists", portraying religion as "evil" and is known to spread propaganda well. It is only until recently that China is more "open" to everything, economic, religion, etc, and sees a rise to the glorious Chinese past. I feel that China should have done this long ago.

However I believe what the Zen masters did not know, is that the Japanese's motive is not to remove the communist leadership, but to conquer the whole asia, and it goes beyond China - into the South East Asia, killing lots of innocents in China and SEA (my grandfather died indirectly due to the Japanese).

Zen masters did not order the killing, they are probably making their own personal comments, and will never ever say it in name of Buddhism, and I think it is a mistake they made.

Again, this has been discussed. For convinience sake, I'm going to repeat what I have said.

No. Buddhism has been no wars in history. Never have any war been fought in Buddhism's name. Buddhist nations (whose leadership is buddhist) are usually very peaceful, look at Thailand, it has never been involved in any wars, it remains neutral to all the nation, and was never attacked by Japanese. Look at the early Buddhism. Ashoka in India stopped his violence and converted from Hinduism and Buddhism, and sent missionaries to promote peace through many ways, even to Europe.

There has been very few violence caused by Buddhists, even if there are its not like wars where lots of innocents are killed. Buddhism has no wars in history, just ask historians.

Buddha said that Buddhist who praise killings or kill themselves should be "removed from the community".

Buddha has said that it is proper to doubt, never said that Buddhist should have faith in Buddha without understanding, so most likely Buddhists wouldn't just protect Buddhism without knowing the story about it.

There has been nothing that is against common sense or science or anything yet for me, therefore I continue to believe and have faith in Buddhism, without dogmas. I do not understand what you mean by "mythical view".

Buddha and even Zen is ok by me - not that I understand it but after two years in Japan and studying the art of India and China I can say I love the art it produces and in my view that makes it a good thing.

What do you mean by art? Images of Bodhisattvas and Buddhas? The most "artistic Buddhism" in my opinion is Tibetan Buddhism. What are you refering to?

But anyway, Buddhism is more of a practice thing than artistic thing, we don't worship the art or anything like that.

Right except for the art v. practice I have never thought of it that way. But then I see art where others do not.

I think the art part in Buddhism is often formed when Buddhism spreads from different culture to culture.

Ideal Singh is sounding more like an evangelist with every post. It's getting boring.

How do you want me to amuse you...

Singh is OK with me.. what does it make sounding like an "evalengist" btw?

and sorry for a mistake: I said

"But anyway, Buddhism is more of a practice thing and artistic thing, we don't worship the art or anything like that."

its supposed to be..

But anyway, Buddhism is more of a practice thing than artistic thing, we don't worship the art or anything like that.

About the art well, I think many stuff from India were brought to Tibet , China and South East Asia. Perhaps the artistic values of many things are kind of like a hybrid. Thats what I think. You see those Shaolin monks? They can be traced back to the olden martial arts in India. Martial Arts was not started in China, but was modified, I think. Ok, Martial Arts isn't that kinda art

please help
hello its only me lol can you help me and my freind through this question how do buddahs wash and keep up with personal hygiene HELP

I've never met a Buddha before, but a daily shower and shave should be just fine. I doubt the Buddha would object. As far as I know, the only requirement is to just keep up good hygiene.

Buddhism certainly hasn't irked me as much as most religions, but my guess is that has more to do with the fact that I come into contact with so few Buddhists as compared with my contacts with people of other religions.

Insofar as Buddhism stresses its guesses about Reality -- it irks me. But, to put that in context, even JLo occasionally irks me.

well here in the US, we don't usually get much local news from asia.

Re: Has Buddhism irked you before?

i'm sure he's not. at least that's what i learned in my buddhism course in college; buddhists have a higher rate of suicide than other religions.

about the wars...
it is true that even though asia has had no shortage of wars, none were waged in the name of buddha. because it can't happen. other religions can use the justification that they are doing it for a higher power (Yaweh, God, Allah...) but there is no diety you need to impress in buddhism. there have been assasinations carried out in the name of buddhism and there have been small local fighting but unlike the other world religions there were no wars of territorial expansion under the guise of religion.


what irks me about buddhism, isn't buddhism's fault. it's the western perception of it. in my opinion, buddhism is as useless as any other religion but i guess because it's exotic and presented in a different light, westerns think somehow that it holds more truth. the most irksome phrase; "buddhism is not a religion." clearly a western attempt at removing it from the negative connotation that comes with the word "religion" today. really elitest imo. being exposed to the foreign makes you no close to the truth than the christian next door.

In re. "Buddhists have a higher rate of suicide than other religions"; can you cite an authoritative source for this? I don't think so, but would be interested if you could.