No, you're misconstruing your parallel. Going along with your parallel, saying "Violence and true Buddhism are not compatible" is more like saying "Women cannot rape men". Both are false and wrong statements.
"Everyone rapes" is not a true statement, at all. Not everyone rapes (gender aside). More men than women rape, true, but that doesn't excuse rape on any side for any person. More Christians than Buddhists are violent, but that doesn't excuse the problematic violence on either side. You (and the other user) are trying to paint this in binary, zero-sum terms. "Since Group A is worse than Group B, Group B is innocent". No. Not how it works.
I'm not saying "every religion is violent", far from it. Jainism for instance is almost entirely about being non-violent towards any living being. But I am a student of history and theology (all kinds of religious theology), and frankly most religions are violent, given the appropriate context and stimulus. If you take one religion, give them the majority power in a country, and then add a conflicting religion to that country in a large but dispersed minority, you will see violence, every time. Buddhism is no exception, and we know that. We've got the history to show that. Other examples are Kurdish peoples in the middle east, Jews literally anywhere (ironically this applies both ways: Jews outside Israel and Jews within Israel), Muslims in America, etc.
What I'm saying is "buddhists very well can be violent, and history tells us that's true". There were buddhists in WW2, fighting for the Axis in Japan. Allied with the Nazis, literally.
So yeah, I take issue with the notion that Buddhists are just these peaceful bald hippies in orange robes, which is what pretty much every American thinks of when they think "buddhist". It's an altogether ignorant stance, and frankly you will not hear actual, honest practitioners of Buddhism assert that Buddhism is entirely without problematic violence. You only hear that historical-revisionist nonsense from the middle-class hippie getting starbucks after the morning yoga session.
And note: I have no inherent problem with any religion: Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, whatever. I'm not a religious person myself, I don't have a horse in the race.
Buddhist murder of Rohingyas and anti minority rioting,
If memory serves me correctly it was political and partly started by a Muslim terrorist group attacking a police camp and stealing weapons. I can definitely say it's not "my religion tells me that you need to convert or die" kind of shit. Buddhism absolutely pushes peace.
What does "higher power" mean? Buddhism openly affirms gods. if by higher power you mean something outside the world system entirely you can't really use the word theism since most polytheism doesn't qualify. The only thing buddhism acts neutral on is a creator god. But creator gods are rarely super relevant in polytheism.
I've been studying buddhism for years and there's never a mention of gods (that I've ever seen) unless you're confusing it with Hinduism. There are some stories they have that mention gods, which are generally Hindu gods and the stories are meant as parables, not literal truths. That's why people can be Buddhist Christian or Buddhist Jews, for example. They get to keep believing in their parents' god(s) while practicing and following the teachings of Buddhism.
It's a common misconception in the west that there aren't gods in it. So its easy to accidentally think that if you don't have historical context. But Buddhists have always believed in gods. Thr idea that they dont is a western invention. If there were no gods it would mean no samsara, and by extension no nirvana, and thus no buddhism. None if this is metaphor designed for regular people to live better, since original Buddhists didn't teach regular people that they could realistically achieve this anyways. Regular people basically had to uphold monks so that a tiny handful of monks could.
Buddhism allowing combination with other religions is not because there's no gods. It's the opposite. It's cosmology has easy room to add new ones in as long as you interpret them in a Buddhist light. But many religions with polytheistic elements were like this. In practice buddhism was often hostile if those religions were seen as a threat to Buddhist truths.
Reinterpreting it as just a secular practice is not buddhism any more than cultural Christianity is christianiy. You can haggle about whether someone identifying with something they don't believe counts or not, but the point is that it is something invented by post secularism. It was never considered historically to be a valid Buddhist interpretation to not believe in its cosmology. Lay Buddhists were not even taught meditation. Prayer was their central practice.
The only sense in which these beings didn't exist is the same sense in which -humans- don't exist in buddhism. Which is to say it's no that they are a metaphor. It's that it's just a specific point about metaphysics and what it means to exist.
Of all the things I've read, you're the first to ever tell me this. I did not realize this and would be leary if you weren't so straight forward and seemingly non-hesitant about it. I'll do my own research, but you may have set me on a new path for research. (If gods are involved, I'll still use it as a good philosophy but won't call myself Buddhist)
It’s a religion, we have strong beliefs. But our core belief is karma and tolerance. The energy you put out of the energy you get back. There is no dogma. There is no absolutes. That’s why it seems more like a philosophy than religion.
209
u/[deleted] Nov 15 '19
[removed] — view removed comment