Hacker News Reader

Comment by BartjeD | Hacker News Reader

Christianity is also anti-violence. <insert-any-other-regilion-here> is ...

I'm not sure how you can even qualify an idea or religion as violent or anti-violent, other than by the behavior of it's adherents.

It's clear to me there are violent fanatics in all reglions, I can't believe I have to make THAT argument here.

View on HN

Because Buddhism is explicitly anti-violence. It does not emerge from a vacuum. The Buddha himself explicitly, insistently, and repeatedly stressed this. It's in the very scriptures all of Buddhism is built on. Buddhism is not an idea. The existence of violent fanatics across all religions does not, in any way, invalidate this, because they are people acting in the name of a religion that contrary to their actions stresses, ad nauseum, non-violence in its foundational texts.

Most regional traditions of Buddhism allow for the use of violence with justification, just like any other religion.

Buddhism (and to a certain extent Hindusim) are treated with an orientalist view where Westerners assumes they are somehow more "peaceful" than their religions, but they ain't.

This is simply not true. Most regional traditions of Buddhism do not allow for the use of violence with justification and, regardless, the Buddhist suttas do not provide any such justification.

At least in Sri Lanka, Myanmar, and Thailand, modern Buddhism adopted a number of innovations and interpretations from the Buddhist revivalist movement lead by Anagarika Dharmapala in Sri Lanka back under colonial rule, and all use the Upayakaushalya Sutra to justify their violence as for the "greater good".

When discussing religion, it’s important to not mix up three rather different things:

1. The teaching itself

2. The clerical institution, often fused with and distorted by state power

3. The practice as understood and lived by ordinary people

I disagree. It is always 2 and 3 that sets the tone of a religion because humans have a way of corrupting everything we touch.

1 always remains "highbrow" and isolated from the stresses of 2 and 3; and it's 2 and 3 that set the tone of a religion.

That's human problem, not the teaching's problem. Some monks managed to behave badly even during the times of the Buddha.

The problem of the discussion here is that some participants are claiming that Buddhism is not anti-violence which is like going around claiming that Christianity/Islam is not anti-polytheism.

You won't be able to cite anything from Pali Canon that justifies it.

The Five Precepts, starting with "I undertake the training-precept to abstain from onslaught on breathing beings," make no exceptions, under any circumstances.

Here’s a verse from the Dhammapada, the short poetic summary of the Buddha’s teachings:

    All tremble at the rod,
    all are fearful of death.
    Drawing the parallel to yourself,
    neither kill nor get others to kill.
    
    All tremble at the rod,
    all hold their life dear.
    Drawing the parallel to yourself,
    neither kill nor get others to kill.

I mean... they are in comparison, but not to the extent many imagine, it's a matter of degree.

>> <insert-any-other-regilion-here> is

Factually incorrect. Many religions are explicitly against another religions and degrade any non-believers, just like Hitler did with jews to make the general public do horrid things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com