Buddhists certainly have, can and do kill. Some believe that it is Zen detachment that made for the Master Samurai, and Buddhist soldiers have served in innumerable Asian conflicts. Focused attention and acceptance can make for effective warriors.
On the other hand, there are very few instances of violent religious conflicts involving Buddhism. It is very rare to find Buddhists fighting other Buddhists on religious grounds. I know of no cases where Buddhism sparked religious conflict or war. That is also pretty much true of the Jains, Confucism, Taoism, or Shinto.
Both Jain and Buddhist religions represented revolutionary theological doctrines challenging the traditional beliefs in India. Both reject the caste system, and have doctrines that free the individual from the what had previously been regarded as the unbreakable chains of Karma. Both hold compassion as one of the highest virtues, and condemn thoughts, words, and actions that increase the suffering of any sentient being. Buddhism is a prescription for the alleviation of suffering, and gives a practical method for individuals engaged in the effort to destroy the causes of suffering. Buddhism seeks to improve the world not by imposing its beliefs on others, but by encouraging each individual to improve themselves. Its perscription is primarily evolutionary and personal, not revolutionary and social.
Setanta's criticism that Buddhism is responsible for the lack of social progress is not altogether without merit. One will be hard pressed to find politically active Buddhists pressing governments and society to impose social change, even when change seems desirable. The CCP made similar criticisms of Buddhism, Taoism and Confucism and tried to stamp out all religion as socially retrograde. Has China really benefited by the suppression of religion? Is Tibet, without the dominent Lamas, more progressive, happier and more content with their lives? Buddhism, like most religions, is basically conservative.
One wonders if the many problems of Asia would be "better" without its aboriginal religions? Would the conversion of Asian populations to the Abrahamic religions solve and resolve the problems of those societies? Who is to judge the benefits of a People's religious convictions so long as they are not forcibly foisted on others? Has the spread of Buddhism and Taoism been beneficial to our own social/cultural/religious conditions, or is it an insidious worm knawing away at our innards?
I think, or would like to think, that Asherman knows me well enough to know that i don't recommend Abrahamic religion as a solution to anyone's problems. I simply don't see other religious traditions of equal antiquity as being inherently superior.
As for the contention that Buddhism has been involved in few instances of violent religious conflicts, i consider that geographically coincidental. Buddhism has flourished in a part of the world in which violent religious conflicts of any description have been rare, at least as compared to Europe and southwest Asia. However, it is notworthy that, in the example of the Warring States period of Japan, for example, Oda Nobunaga found himself involved in a protracted seige against the Hongangi monastery, the home of the Jodo-Shinshu sect known as Ikko-ikki, a sect which had been known for years for institgating riots and insurrections against traditional authority, long before if found chrisitanity and westerners as a focus for its fomenting of strife. Nobunaga literally spent years beseiging Ishiyama Honganji and Nagashima. Long after Nobunaga had been assassinated, his temporary successor (before Tokugawa Ieyasu successfully founded a shogunate dynasty), Toyotomi Hideyoshi finally secured the services of the survivors of Ikko-Ikki to help wipe out the other warrior monks of Japan--especially the Tendai monks from Mount Hiei, who at their height had taken over imperial administration in Kyoto in the Muromachi period, and whose warrior monks had spread right across the country.
Once again, i consider that Buddhism largely gets a pass in such matters, simply because it arose and spread and gained popularity in a region of the world in which such religious strife was far less common than was the case among the devoted adherents of the Abrahamic traditions.
I certainly do know and respect Setanta. The breadth and depth of his learning is not something one often finds problem with. The period and incident in Japan he describes is correct and accurate. I'm sure that between the two of us we could probably cite several more examples of Buddhist-related conflict.
Set and I differ considerably on a number of issues. Neither of us are fans of the Abrahamic religions, but I'm a strong Buddhist. Set, I believe, has little use for any religion and tends to discount the benefits of religion.
I describe myself politically as a neo-Federalist, but that translates into conservative Republican for all practical purposes. I believe in a strong Federal government, but believe that government has gone too far in social-engineering. My belief is that the nation has suffered from the idea that government can and should be intimately involved in people's lives. I think we have fostered since the New Deal an "entitlement society"; that people have come to believe that the government should insure that no one ever suffers loss or unhappiness.
Set, on the other hand, is a liberal Democrat (I think) who applauds government efforts to remake the nation into some sort of utopia. He will point to the end of Jim Crow and the progress made toward civil rights since the Federal government became involved. He's correct, we are as individuals much less at risk than individuals were only 50 years ago, and the gap between the extremes of society are smaller. Set is, I think, impatient that "WE" don't do more toward extending benefits to the whole nation.
We both know our history, but we interpret it differently, and Set is as likely correct in his views as I am in mine. Our political differences are those that have existed in American life since before the Constitution was adopted.
It's a shame that more of the A2K participants do not share the mutual respect and civility that exists between myself and Setanta. Here's a tip o'me cap to you Set!
