Is it OK to kill to protect Buddhism?

[simon43]

I ask this question after reading this report:

 

http://www.newmandala.org/sitagu-sayadaw-justifiable-evils-buddhism/

 

where a very senior Buddhist monk in Myanmar seems to justify the killing of 'non-believers'.  (Please read the report on NM before commenting - it makes interesting reading).

 

I don't intend my post to be inflammatory - I am genuinely interested in understanding when killing another human being is justified by Buddhists.

[VincentRJ]

The first point to be understood here is that the religion of Buddhism was not a creation of Gautama Buddha.
After Gautama achieved enlightenment, after about 7 years of ascetic practices, following the traditional ascetic practices of the times, his initial opinion was that he would be wasting his time to attempt to teach his enlightened understanding to others, who would mostly be incapable of understanding his message.

 

Precisely how and why he changed his mind is not clear, but it seems he did spend the rest of his life attempting to communicate his enlightened understanding of the human condition.

 

Unfortunately, other power-hungry individuals, and Kings, later created the various religions of Buddhism. There are many different sects of Buddhism, and no-one really knows for certain what the Buddha actually preached.

 

However, from my understanding of Buddhism, what is happening In Myanmar, in the name of Buddhism, is a total fraud.

[Brucenkhamen]

I don't see how killing can protect a religion, if you need to kill to protect a religion it's not worth protecting. 

 

If the Rohingyas were proseletysing amongst the Rakhines then you'd counter that by reviving the local Buddhist practice, but I doubt very much that this is what's happening.  Rather two ethnic groups have been competing for scarce resources for centuries and now the army and clergy have gotten involved.

 

The Sayadaw's is using of a Sri Lankan saga to justify what most people who know a little about Buddhist know is not right.  The article suggests non-Buddhists are less than human but there is no justification for such a view in the original teachings and even if that were true Buddhism encourages compassion for all sentient beings human or not.

[simon43]

Thanks for your comments. I can't comment on the situation in Myanmar, because I live there and any comment could be construed as meddling in the local politics.  It's interesting how beliefs and statements can be distorted (in any religion).

[taiwanatoa]

Thanks for your comments. I can't comment on the situation in Myanmar, because I live there and any comment could be construed as meddling in the local politics.  It's interesting how beliefs and statements can be distorted (in any religion).

Can't comment because you live
there! That's hilarious!


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[taiwanatoa]

It is just an excuse and totally irrelevant anyway since all religious belief is baseless, unfounded myth.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[rockyysdt]

15 hours ago, taiwanatoa said:

It is just an excuse and totally irrelevant anyway since all religious belief is baseless, unfounded myth.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

Hi T A.

 

Your position seems to be based on the same foundation as followers of most religions.

 

Your comment appears to be based on your belief.

 

Belief:  confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.

 

Take Buddhism (specifically that which was taught by Siddhartha Guatama, the original founder of Buddhism) for example.

It can be said that even purported followers of Buddhism, let alone anyone else, have little knowledge of what was actually being taught.

 

Are you basing your contention on belief? 

[godblessemall]

Any monk who encourages killing is defeated and no longer a monk, but falsely wearing the robes. He is deceiving the people and himself and hell is his certain destination.

Every Buddha, at the point where he decides that the Dhamma is too profound for others to understand, and decides not to teach, is appeared before by the current Brahma, who appeals to him that there are some with little dust in front of their eyes who can understand and benefit. Thus they change their minds and decide to teach, otherwise they would not be full Buddhas but only Paccekha (silent) Buddhas. Equally a monk is not supposed to go about proclaiming and teaching the Dhamma to anyone, but only should do so upon being requested.

[sirineou]

I only have a cursory understanding of the subject, please forgive me if I have it wrong.

I was under the impression that Buddhism was a philosophy rather than a religion. If so , how can some one not adhering to the philosophy be less than human , deserving death? Different people adhere to different philosophies some more wrong or right than others, who is to say who is wrong or right?

 Furthermore     IMO  Buddhism is a journey not a destination enlightenment is the destination, a non Buddhist could simply be at the beginning of his/hers journey, killing them would terminate such journey  being anathema to Buddhism.

 

[Ruffian Dick]

How many philosophies build temples? Graven idols of Søren Kierkegaard somewhere?

Consider whether you have received the wrong impression.

 

On the other hand, there isn't any set of commandments (in Buddhism anyway) that say "Thou Shalt Not Kill". So maybe it's not the Buddhists that are the hypocrites.

[sirineou]

15 minutes ago, Ruffian Dick said:

How many philosophies build temples? Graven idols of Søren Kierkegaard somewhere?

Consider whether you have received the wrong impression.

 

On the other hand, there isn't any set of commandments (in Buddhism anyway) that say "Thou Shalt Not Kill". So maybe it's not the Buddhists that are the hypocrites.

I would say that Buddhism are not the only hypocrites.

Do you know what Moses said to god after god proclaimed, "thou shalt not kill" "thou shalt not steal" ??

 

No shit sherlock!

Commandments need not be explicit. IMO it is implied with in Buddhism

 

 

 

 

[cooked]

On 11/19/2017 at 6:22 PM, VincentRJ said:

The first point to be understood here is that the religion of Buddhism was not a creation of Gautama Buddha.
After Gautama achieved enlightenment, after about 7 years of ascetic practices, following the traditional ascetic practices of the times, his initial opinion was that he would be wasting his time to attempt to teach his enlightened understanding to others, who would mostly be incapable of understanding his message.

 

Precisely how and why he changed his mind is not clear, but it seems he did spend the rest of his life attempting to communicate his enlightened understanding of the human condition.

 

Unfortunately, other power-hungry individuals, and Kings, later created the various religions of Buddhism. There are many different sects of Buddhism, and no-one really knows for certain what the Buddha actually preached.

 

However, from my understanding of Buddhism, what is happening In Myanmar, in the name of Buddhism, is a total fraud.

It isn't happening in the name of Buddhism, that is an argument invented by Muslims who see everything in terms of religion. What is happening is happening in the name of big business, the Burmese oil reserves which are going to China and not the West, and a lot of other things. 

The appearance of religious figures that encourage military action in circumstances like these is a normal phenomenon.

[cooked]

On 11/21/2017 at 1:03 PM, Brucenkhamen said:

I don't see how killing can protect a religion, if you need to kill to protect a religion it's not worth protecting. 

 

If the Rohingyas were proseletysing amongst the Rakhines then you'd counter that by reviving the local Buddhist practice, but I doubt very much that this is what's happening.  Rather two ethnic groups have been competing for scarce resources for centuries and now the army and clergy have gotten involved.

 

Muslims don't proselytise. Basically when in power (as they were until recently in the Rakhine) it is a matter of submit or die. Non-Muslims are being persecuted in Chittagong, where they speak the same dialect as the 'Rohingyans'.

This is very firmly a part of Islam and has been carried out countless times over the centuries. 

In addition the Rohingyas were taking Hindu women as wives, often by force, which means that they must become Muslim. (Muslim women are forbidden to marry outside their faith). They don't need to proselytise with the birth rate that they have.

'Local Buddhist practice' didn't need reviving, it is a strong if not stronger than in it in Thailand. Buddhist temples are being burnt down all the time in Bangladesh, often by Rohingya refugees. 

So, now I can sit back and wait to be accused of Islamophobia and/or racism.

[cooked]

On 12/1/2017 at 8:35 PM, taiwanatoa said:

Can't comment because you live
there! That's hilarious!


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Hilarious yes. People get thrown in prison for speaking about certain subjects all over the world, including Burma. Which is very funny of course.

[cooked]

On 12/1/2017 at 8:40 PM, taiwanatoa said:

It is just an excuse and totally irrelevant anyway since all religious belief is baseless, unfounded myth.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

So your understanding of Buddhism is that it is a religion? Based on what unfounded myth? 

[VincentRJ]

20 hours ago, cooked said:

It isn't happening in the name of Buddhism, that is an argument invented by Muslims who see everything in terms of religion. What is happening is happening in the name of big business, the Burmese oil reserves which are going to China and not the West, and a lot of other things. 

The appearance of religious figures that encourage military action in circumstances like these is a normal phenomenon.

It might well be 'normal', but is it right? I think that's the question the OP was asking.

 

Did you read the report linked in the first post?

http://www.newmandala.org/sitagu-sayadaw-justifiable-evils-buddhism/

 

It seems that one of the most respected religious leaders in Myanmar gave a talk to a group of Myanmar military officers which has been interpreted (rightly or wrongly) as an exoneration or justification of the killings of the Rohingya's on the grounds that they were not complete humans, or indeed humans at all.

 

This respected religious leader, Sitagu Sayadaw, during his sermon, apparently used a story from an ancient text called the Mahavamsa, which describes the history of Sri Lanka from the times of the Buddha to the date the Pali Canon was written.

 

It seems that one of the ancient Kings of Sri Lanka, Dutthagamani,  who reigned from 161 BC to 137 BC, was feeling very remorseful because he'd been responsible for killing millions of people during a war.
However, a group of 8 Arahants visited the King and advised the following: 

 

"From this deed arises no hindrance in thy way to heaven. Only one and a half human beings have been slain here by thee, O lord of men. The one had come unto the (three) refuges, the other had taken on himself the five precepts. Unbelievers [they have “wrong-views”, micchādiṭṭhi] and men of evil life were the rest, not more to be esteemed than beasts. But as for thee, thou wilt bring glory to the doctrine of the Buddha in manifold ways; therefore cast away care from thy heart, O ruler of men!"
 

[cooked]

12 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

It might well be 'normal', but is it right? I think that's the question the OP was asking.

 

Did you read the report linked in the first post?

http://www.newmandala.org/sitagu-sayadaw-justifiable-evils-buddhism/

 

It seems that one of the most respected religious leaders in Myanmar gave a talk to a group of Myanmar military officers which has been interpreted (rightly or wrongly) as an exoneration or justification of the killings of the Rohingya's on the grounds that they were not complete humans, or indeed humans at all.

 

This respected religious leader, Sitagu Sayadaw, during his sermon, apparently used a story from an ancient text called the Mahavamsa, which describes the history of Sri Lanka from the times of the Buddha to the date the Pali Canon was written.

 

It seems that one of the ancient Kings of Sri Lanka, Dutthagamani,  who reigned from 161 BC to 137 BC, was feeling very remorseful because he'd been responsible for killing millions of people during a war.
However, a group of 8 Arahants visited the King and advised the following: 

 

"From this deed arises no hindrance in thy way to heaven. Only one and a half human beings have been slain here by thee, O lord of men. The one had come unto the (three) refuges, the other had taken on himself the five precepts. Unbelievers [they have “wrong-views”, micchādiṭṭhi] and men of evil life were the rest, not more to be esteemed than beasts. But as for thee, thou wilt bring glory to the doctrine of the Buddha in manifold ways; therefore cast away care from thy heart, O ruler of men!"
 

I did. Did you actually  read what I wrote? 

I really don't understand all these questions about the precepts of Buddhism. The message, such as it was, was very simple and you are actually asking about one interpretation of Buddhism, Therevada Buddhism, which, depending on your level of education can vary from animism with a veneer of Buddhism to an intensely spiritual way of life. 

This priest is one of many and he is being picked out by enemies of Buddhism as being a typical Buddhist. As far as I am concerned, this guy is just another corrupted religious leader. Why don't you pose a different question? You are actually asking a question about politics, or this particular priest, but not about Buddhism.

I have contact with other Burmese priests and this one certainly doesn't represent all in Burma.

[rockyysdt]

4 hours ago, cooked said:

So your understanding of Buddhism is that it is a religion? Based on what unfounded myth? 

Hi cooked.

 

Your comments about the underlying forces driving instability in the area is an eye opener.

 

On the subject of Buddhism being a religion founded on myth, it depends on your belief of what the Buddha was actually teaching.

 

Was he teaching a way of liberation, in the present moment, free from greed aversion & delusion, with Nibanna being a state, but when one dies that is it?

 

or 

 

Was he teaching a way of liberation, in the present moment, free from greed aversion & delusion, with infinite rounds of Re Birth into different relms of existence, until one awakens. This awakening results in the ending of Re Birth, and, re unites (re establishes awareness) that part of ones lineage which was never born (deathless) in the state of Nibanna.

 

 

Those who subscribe to freedom from greed, aversion & delusion (ego) in this life, thus releasing themselves from Dukkha (suffering), one could say are subscribing to a philosophy.

 

Those who subscribe to an impermanent & conditioned  individual associated with a lineage subject to infinite bouts of Re Birth into other lives residing in any number of relms, but carrying something unique to them (lineage) until awakened through a process of action, resulting in entering a permanent state of Nibanna might be considered akin to religion. The unspent Kharma being the driver, and the presence of a universal permanent state of Nibanna being akin to mythology.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

[cooked]

10 minutes ago, rockyysdt said:

Hi cooked.

 

Your comments about the underlying forces driving instability in the area is an eye opener.

 

On the subject of Buddhism being a religion founded on myth, it depends on your belief of what the Buddha was actually teaching.

 

Was he teaching a way of liberation, in the present moment, free from greed aversion & delusion, with Nibanna being a state, but when one dies that is it?

 

or 

 

Was he teaching a way of liberation, in the present moment, free from greed aversion & delusion, with infinite rounds of Re Birth into different relms of existence, until one Awakens, free from greed aversion & delusion, ending Re Birth, and, resulting in that which is undying (never born) regains awareness in Nibanna.

 

 

Those who subscribe to freedom from greed, aversion & delusion (ego), thus releasing themselves from Dukkha (suffering), one could say are subscribing to a philosophy.

 

Those who subscribe to an impermanent & conditioned  individual associated with a lineage subject to infinite bouts of Re Birth into other lives residing in any number of relms, but carrying something unique to them (lineage) which results in a permanent state of Nibanna (once awakened) might be considered akin to religion, with unspent Kharma, and a universal permanent state of Nibanna being akin to mythology.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Blimey, how much time do you have? Going out on a limb here:

I often find that my vocabulary is insufficient to express my ideas on this subject. A factory worker once told me " thinking too much makes you go peculiar". Seemed like a stupid thing to say at the time but maybe Gautama would have agreed. I believe, in the end, that everyone should find his own path which probably comes from my Reformed Church upbringing. Also that the concept of a literal rebirth is a misunderstanding. It seems to be based on animistic beliefs.

I am still reading 'Monks and Magic' to be found on the net but it isn't changing my ideas much.

Maybe it's all about negating everything that you associate with 'self' (become one with nothing) which allows you to die with serenity, I'm not that far yet and likely never will be. 

 

[jak2002003]

'Is it OK to kill to protect Buddhism?'

 

Hmm.....NO!

 

Killing, murdering and otherwise harming other people in the name of religion is one of the most evil and stupid things humans do.

 

In fact, it would be better not to protect any religions or give special treatment to religious people, and hopefully the lot would die out over time and we could advance and improve the state of humanity with out all the made up fairy tales and stupid rules and laws which lead to division, fighting, persecution and the rest.

 

 

[cooked]

1 hour ago, jak2002003 said:

'Is it OK to kill to protect Buddhism?'

 

Hmm.....NO!

 

Killing, murdering and otherwise harming other people in the name of religion is one of the most evil and stupid things humans do.

 

In fact, it would be better not to protect any religions or give special treatment to religious people, and hopefully the lot would die out over time and we could advance and improve the state of humanity with out all the made up fairy tales and stupid rules and laws which lead to division, fighting, persecution and the rest.

 

 

If you knew anything about Buddhism you might work out that it isn't a religion. 

Christianity was mocked and sneered out of existence in the UK since I was born and has been replaced by extreme politics which are no match for countering Islamisation. 

Humanity wouldn't be better off without religion and if you think it is possible for them to live without some kind of belief system then you are mistaken. All religions started off with simple truths and suggestions that got turned by humanity itself into a horrible mess of restrictions, fear of hell, false teachings. Even Islam.

[rockyysdt]

5 hours ago, cooked said:

Blimey, how much time do you have? Going out on a limb here:

I often find that my vocabulary is insufficient to express my ideas on this subject. A factory worker once told me " thinking too much makes you go peculiar". Seemed like a stupid thing to say at the time but maybe Gautama would have agreed. I believe, in the end, that everyone should find his own path which probably comes from my Reformed Church upbringing. Also that the concept of a literal rebirth is a misunderstanding. It seems to be based on animistic beliefs.

I am still reading 'Monks and Magic' to be found on the net but it isn't changing my ideas much.

Maybe it's all about negating everything that you associate with 'self' (become one with nothing) which allows you to die with serenity, I'm not that far yet and likely never will be. 

 

Hi cooked.

 

My response was purely in response to another posters view that Buddhism is like other religions (Quote: It is just an excuse and totally irrelevant anyway since all religious belief is baseless, unfounded myth.) and your challenge to it (Quote: So your understanding of Buddhism is that it is a religion? Based on what unfounded myth? )

 

Your reply suggests that you believe that those who deem Buddhism a religion base this on unfounded myths.

 

What do you base this on?

 

The teachings (Pali Canon) illustrate infinite numbers of Re Births to other lives and realms, accumulated Kharma which spawns these Re Births, a permanent deathless state beyond that which is impermanent and conditioned and which is realised through a process resulting in Awakening?

 

Although the ego itself is impermanent & conditioned and is shed upon death, doesn't belief in a lineage of re born, with an end game of realising awareness in a deathless state through awakening seem more like a religion than a philosophy?

 

Common features of a Religion:

 

Some kind of existence beyond life.

Cannot be proven without (in most religions by death, with Buddhism by dedicating ones life to rigorous practice with no promises in this life).

[cooked]

22 minutes ago, rockyysdt said:

Hi cooked.

 

My response was purely in response to another posters view that Buddhism is like other religions (Quote: It is just an excuse and totally irrelevant anyway since all religious belief is baseless, unfounded myth.) and your challenge to it (Quote: So your understanding of Buddhism is that it is a religion? Based on what unfounded myth? )

 

Your reply suggests that you believe that those who deem Buddhism a religion base this on unfounded myths.

 

What do you base this on?

 

The teachings (Pali Canon) illustrate infinite numbers of Re Births to other lives and realms, accumulated Kharma which spawns these Re Births, a permanent deathless state beyond that which is impermanent and conditioned and which is realised through a process resulting in Awakening?

 

Although the ego itself is impermanent & conditioned and is shed upon death, doesn't belief in a lineage of re born, with an end game of realising awareness in a deathless state through awakening seem more like a religion than a philosophy?

 

Common features of a Religion:

 

Some kind of existence beyond life.

Cannot be proven without (in most religions by death, with Buddhism by dedicating ones life to rigorous practice with no promises in this life).

Read again. I asked what unfounded myths Buddhism is based upon. Buddhism isn't a religion, I said that also. I don't give a fig for Pali canons, the people that invented them should have their bums smacked.

[jak2002003]

4 hours ago, cooked said:

If you knew anything about Buddhism you might work out that it isn't a religion. 

Christianity was mocked and sneered out of existence in the UK since I was born and has been replaced by extreme politics which are no match for countering Islamisation. 

Humanity wouldn't be better off without religion and if you think it is possible for them to live without some kind of belief system then you are mistaken. All religions started off with simple truths and suggestions that got turned by humanity itself into a horrible mess of restrictions, fear of hell, false teachings. Even Islam.

I can see you points.  However, I must disagree with some of what you say.

 

While technically Buddhism is not a religion, I am afraid most of it's followers, especially in Thailand, treat it like a religion.  They replace god with a golden statue, or shrines, sacred items etc.  The treat the Monks like they have super powers to win the lottery or bring good luck.   Look in the news about the tom boy who put her foot on the temple.  The response was utter stupidity... it is only a concrete building.  Yet look at the bad feeling and upset it caused.  Surely without such things we would be better off?  I mean, they get upset about a foot on a temple, or a women sitting next to a monk on the bus, but they don't care about sick or starving people in their village, helping their neighbours, or sorting out the damage they do to the environment with burning, overfishing and destroying the wildlife.

 

I am afraid Christianity is very much still alive today in the UK. While many people say they are not Christians, most of our laws, values and moral views come from that.  Or else, why do none Christian people not like gays, other religions... like Islam for example, women being singe mums... etc. Why do they get married in a Church and have funerals with a priest, get their babies baptised?  Also most of our laws about marriage, divorce, public decency, and the rest come form Christian views... our own royal family is Christian, and why on earth, if people were mostly not Christian in the UK, does the mass population celebrate Christ-mas, Easter, and the rest?  

 

If Buddhism is not a religion... as you say... you would think Thailand would be better off if they ditched Buddhism and took up Islam or Christianity?  Because you imply to me that you think lack of religion is a bad thing.  

 

 

[rockyysdt]

17 minutes ago, cooked said:

Read again. I asked what unfounded myths Buddhism is based upon. Buddhism isn't a religion, I said that also. I don't give a fig for Pali canons, the people that invented them should have their bums smacked.

 

Hi cooked.

 

I understand what you said.

 

Your view is fair enough and quite common.

 

I personally am open minded but find that most pick and choose subsets of a teaching which dovetails into their beliefs.

 

If you discard a large part of the teaching you can easily turn Buddhism into a philosophy.

 

But then, why Buddhism, why don't you adopt yoga, pranayama, and other techniques.

 

Buddhism uses universal tools which afford philosophy but teaches an end game (Religion) which you're not subscribing to.

[jak2002003]

6 minutes ago, cooked said:

Read again. I asked what unfounded myths Buddhism is based upon. Buddhism isn't a religion, I said that also. I don't give a fig for Pali canons, the people that invented them should have their bums smacked.

 Here are some good myths.... you decide if they are unfounded or not

 

being reborn into different lives?

starting off as an animal and graduating up as you do good things.... how can a worm do morally a good or bad thing?

baby Buddha walking around as soon as he was born?

 the new born Buddha being about to speak and talk straight away?

How about every footstep he took a lotus flower grew?

What about his super powers... super hearing, vision, telepathy, seeing past lives?

 

 

And Buddhism is a religion.  Look it up.  Just because it has no god does not make it not a religion.

 

 

[cooked]

5 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

I can see you points.  However, I must disagree with some of what you say.

 

While technically Buddhism is not a religion, I am afraid most of it's followers, especially in Thailand, treat it like a religion.  They replace god with a golden statue, or shrines, sacred items etc.  The treat the Monks like they have super powers to win the lottery or bring good luck.   Look in the news about the tom boy who put her foot on the temple.  The response was utter stupidity... it is only a concrete building.  Yet look at the bad feeling and upset it caused.  Surely without such things we would be better off?  I mean, they get upset about a foot on a temple, or a women sitting next to a monk on the bus, but they don't care about sick or starving people in their village, helping their neighbours, or sorting out the damage they do to the environment with burning, overfishing and destroying the wildlife.

 

I am afraid Christianity is very much still alive today in the UK. While many people say they are not Christians, most of our laws, values and moral views come from that.  Or else, why do none Christian people not like gays, other religions... like Islam for example, women being singe mums... etc. Why do they get married in a Church and have funerals with a priest, get their babies baptised?  Also most of our laws about marriage, divorce, public decency, and the rest come form Christian views... our own royal family is Christian, and why on earth, if people were mostly not Christian in the UK, does the mass population celebrate Christ-mas, Easter, and the rest?  

 

If Buddhism is not a religion... as you say... you would think Thailand would be better off if they ditched Buddhism and took up Islam or Christianity?  Because you imply to me that you think lack of religion is a bad thing.  

 

Unless you read my posts correctly you won't understand me.

In the UK as well as Europe the laws, civilisation and values were until recently based on Christianity. They still are. The Brits, most of them, don't identify as being Christians any more. Christmas and Easter.... nice holidays at good times of the year, originally pre-Christian holidays... many people don't use those words any more, they talk about the Winter break, the Spring break. 

Your last remark about abandoning Buddhism in Thailand is ridiculous. I didn't imply that religion or lack of religion is a bad thing. I  wrote that if you get rid of one religion by whatever means, it will be replaced by something else. Marxism, Fascism, whatever. 

I suggest you investigate the difference between Buddhism as it is practiced by educated people and as it is practiced as a religion by people that are basically animists with a veneer of Theravada Buddhism. I did write that but you don't seem to have absorbed it. 

[cooked]

16 minutes ago, jak2002003 said:

 Here are some good myths.... you decide if they are unfounded or not

 

being reborn into different lives?

starting off as an animal and graduating up as you do good things.... how can a worm do morally a good or bad thing?

baby Buddha walking around as soon as he was born?

 the new born Buddha being about to speak and talk straight away?

How about every footstep he took a lotus flower grew?

What about his super powers... super hearing, vision, telepathy, seeing past lives?

 

And Buddhism is a religion.  Look it up.  Just because it has no god does not make it not a religion. 

 

Sigh, you're still at it. I think  I'll put you on my list of people that answer without trying to understand all the posts first. 

I consider myself a (bad) Buddhist. I don't believe in any of those things, and Buddhism does not insist on your subscribing to a certain dogma, nor does it proselytise. There are different definitions of a religion, for a non-Buddhist it generally means believing, without adequate evidence, in a higher power. 

You obviously feel very virtuous about having read all the right comic books telling you what to think about religion, for me it is a very personal thing and you are beginning to insult what is left of my intelligence. Go away.

[rockyysdt]

19 minutes ago, cooked said:

Unless you read my posts correctly you won't understand me.

In the UK as well as Europe the laws, civilisation and values were until recently based on Christianity. They still are. The Brits, most of them, don't identify as being Christians any more. Christmas and Easter.... nice holidays at good times of the year, originally pre-Christian holidays... many people don't use those words any more, they talk about the Winter break, the Spring break. 

Your last remark about abandoning Buddhism in Thailand is ridiculous. I didn't imply that religion or lack of religion is a bad thing. I  wrote that if you get rid of one religion by whatever means, it will be replaced by something else. Marxism, Fascism, whatever. 

I suggest you investigate the difference between Buddhism as it is practiced by educated people and as it is practiced as a religion by people that are basically animists with a veneer of Theravada Buddhism. I did write that but you don't seem to have absorbed it. 

Totally agreed.

 

Most in Thailand have turned Buddhism into a fully blown religion, with good luck, offer of money for a better next life, rituals etc..

 

However, even if you remove these things Theravada has an end game.

 

The difference being on one hand utilising the tools (practice), and purpose of using these tools.

 

The realization of that which is deathless (unborn) makes it  a religion.

 

Alternatively if you meditate, practice mindfulness and ethical conduct, purely to improve your life, then you have a philosophy.

 

 

And, in answer to the OP, it's not OK to kill in order to protect Buddhism.

 

 

[jak2002003]

34 minutes ago, cooked said:

Sigh, you're still at it. I think  I'll put you on my list of people that answer without trying to understand all the posts first. 

I consider myself a (bad) Buddhist. I don't believe in any of those things, and Buddhism does not insist on your subscribing to a certain dogma, nor does it proselytise. There are different definitions of a religion, for a non-Buddhist it generally means believing, without adequate evidence, in a higher power. 

You obviously feel very virtuous about having read all the right comic books telling you what to think about religion, for me it is a very personal thing and you are beginning to insult what is left of my intelligence. Go away.

I do not feel virtuous and have never read a comic book about religion.  I was not attacking you or your spiritual beliefs personally.  What you think in your own mind about rules to live you life by to make it easier is up to you and you are welcome to it.

 

I was also not insulting your intelligence.  I have no idea or care about your I.Q level. I don't care if someone is stupid or clever.  The only thing I care about is if they are good, kind people.

 

Don't take it so personally please.  Look, if I took what you were saying to me and about my beliefs... not believing in Buddhism or religion, I could say the same thing about you 'reading comic books' about how to be a Buddhist and that you were insulting my personal beliefs.  

 

Now perhaps you may get the idea about why I say religion is a bad thing.  Look at how it has caused us to get riled up... even you telling me to 'go away'.  That is not friendly or very Buddhist is it?  Without your Buddhism to defend you would not care less about it.  We could be good friends and hang out together.  I still stand by my belief that religion causes division, wars, fighting, and distracts, even educated people, away from real life and helping, loving and caring for fellow human beings as equals.  We would also respect our planet and environment a lot more if we realised this was the only one life we had.