There’s a rumor going about a lot of blogs that Buddhism wins the best religion of the world reward. Unfortunately it’s only blogs that are reporting this. No ordinary news sources, nor can I find the ‘Icarus’ foundation that is said to have given the award because:
“It wasn’t a surprise to me that Buddhism won Best Religion in the World, because we could find literally not one single instance of a war fought in the name of Buddhism, in contrast to every other religion that seems to keep a gun in the closet just in case God makes a mistake. We were hard pressed to even find a Buddhist that had ever been in an army. These people practice what they preach to an extent we simply could not document with any other spiritual tradition.”
While I am halfway to being a Buddhist, this just isn’t true. There are plenty of wars fought ‘in defense’ of Buddhism. Right now young Tibetans are defying the Dalai Lama and trying to get rid of the Chinese in their country for instance. While I fully sympathize with their plight, taking to arms just isn’t the same thing as nonviolence – and that’s what this online rumor does claim. So let’s go straight to the heart of this and quote what was standard reading material in a class on religion and violence I took a few years back:
… the history and teachings of Buddhism are not spotless. The great military conquests of the Sinhalese kingdoms in Sri Lanka, for instance, have been conducted in the name of the Buddhist tradition and often with the blessings of Buddhist monks. In Thailand the tradition called for those who rule by the sword as kings to first experience the discipline of Buddhist monastic training. They had to be “world renouncers” before they could be “world conquerors,” as the Harvard anthropologist Stanley Tambiah put it.
… Like Islam, the great expansion of Buddhism in various parts of the world has been credited in part to the support given it by victorious kings and military forces who have claimed to be fighting only to defend the faith against infidels and to establish a peaceful moral order. (p. 114, Terror in the Mind of God; the global rise of religious violence, Mark Juergensmeyer Buy in the UK and Europe
)
If you think Tibetan Buddhism is exempt – think again. Any history of the succession of the Dalai Lama’s (let’s go straight to the heart of the myth) shows them being killed off by courtiers one after another. A short summary of that is available here: Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth. It’s a Western wish to see Tibetan Buddhism as peaceful, to ignore the less savory sides of it’s history. And of course Tibetans in exile have a steak in that myth, because it funds their various monasteries, schools, hospitals etc.
I know this is neither comforting, nor uplifting, but I do think that the truth is the only foundation for true spirituality. The fact is: no religion is a guarantee for peace. It’s what human beings do with it that determines the outcome.
[edit July 26th]Given the amount of readers that wonder whether Buddhism can be counted a religion, I thought I’d refer you to the page where I host a discussion on just that topic. So far the concensus is: Yes, Buddhism is a religion. But I’d love to have all of your imput. [/edit]
{ 24 comments… read them below or add one }
well what about Buddhist nationalism in Sri lanka which could also be an exception where it lead to the genocide of the Tamils. have you heard of the Baha’i Faith ? http://www.bahai.org
I did not claim this is an exhaustive list of the crimes perpetrated by Buddhists. After all – any religion with a sufficiently long history has adherents who were aggressive. All I’m saying is that Buddhism is, unfortunately, no exception.
As for the Bahai: yes I’ve heard of them. Great ideals in general, but not sufficiently women friendly to get my support.
Well said Katinka, there is no religion higher than truth. Any time human being form organizations and hierachies there is the possiblity for corruption and perversion. I am halfway to being a Hindu, yet I try and be just as willing to voice criticism of Hinduism as I am of Christianity. To be a true seeker of truth you need to be able to admit the mistakes that have been made by yourself and the organisations which you choose to associate. Oh, by the way I liked that link you posted relating to the predictions of the coming world teacher by the TS society, great article.
God Bless,
Hari Om
In his scholarly article “Budhism or Buddhism?,” Theosophists Richard Taylor takes on a similar question.
“Responding to Émile Burnouf’s assertion that the Theosophical Society was hardly unsectarian,” he says, “…Blavatsky wrote,”
“…the Buddhism of today is none the less a rather dogmatic religion, split into many and heterogeneous sects. We follow the Buddha alone. Therefore, once it becomes necessary to go behind the actually existing form, and who will deny this necessity in respect to Buddhism?–once this is done, is it not infinitely better to go back to the pure and unadulterated source of Buddhism itself, rather than halt at an intermediate stage? Such a half and half reform was tried when Protestantism broke away from the elder Church, and are the results satisfactory? …”
“Blavatsky goes on to correct the error,” he writes, “of the entire Orientalist establishment – and both Northern and Southern Buddhist practitioners to boot – in their neglect of the true esoteric Buddhism:”
“It is true [as Burnouf says] that no mysteries or esotericism exists in the two chief Buddhist Churches, the Southern and the Northern. Buddhists may well be content with the dead letter of Siddhårtha Buddha’s teachings, as fortunately no higher or nobler ones in their effects upon the ethics of the masses exist, to this day. But herein lies the great mistake of all the Orientalists. There is an esoteric doctrine, a soul-ennobling philosophy, behind the outward body of ecclesiastical Buddhism.”
“While ambiguous, Blavatsky is nothing if not consistently ambiguous. Twelve years later, at the end of her life, HPB wrote much the same thing in one of her final works, The Key to Theosophy (1889):”
[Question:] ‘What is the difference between Buddhism, the religion founded by the Prince of Kapilavastu, and Budhism, the “Wisdomism” which you say is synonymous with Theosophy?’
[Answer:] ‘Just the same difference as there is between the secret teachings of Christ, which are called “the mysteries of the Kingdom of Heaven,” and the latter ritualism and dogmatic theology of the Churches and Sects. Buddha means the ‘Enlightened’ by Bodha, or understanding, Wisdom. This has passed on root and branch into the esoteric teachings that Gautama imparted to his chosen Arhats only.’(10)
(Blavatsky and Buddhism – Chapter Two: Blavatsky and ‘Esoteric Buddhism’)
http://www.blavatsky.net/forum/taylor/tibetanSources7.htm
The Harvard anthropologist, Stanley Tambiah seems to accept the distortions of the priests of the dogmatic religion that Buddhism has become when he opines “They had to be ‘world renouncers’ before they could be ‘world conquerors’”… and promotes a false idea of what was the true teaching about the Kshatriya caste.
Blavatsky instead wrote:
The Upanishads must be far more ancient than the days of Buddhism, as they show no preference for, nor do they uphold, the superiority of the Brahmans as a caste. On the contrary, it is the (now) second caste, the Kshatriya, or warrior class, who are exalted in the oldest of them. As stated by Professor Cowell in Elphinstone’s History of India——“they breathe a freedom of spirit unknown to any earlier work except the Rig Veda. . . The great teachers of the higher knowledge and Brahmans are continually represented as going to Kshatriya Kings to become their pupils.” The “ Kshatriya Kings” were in the olden times, like the King Hierophants of Egypt, the receptacles of the highest divine knowledge and wisdom, the Elect and the incarnations of the primordial divine Instructors—the Dhyâni Buddhas or Kumâras.
Is Buddhism a religion (?) — news to me — I thought it was an “Eightfold Path!” Specifically, Buddha neither affirmed nor denied the existence of “God” so it’s only a religion for some Buddhists. I vote for it anyway.
ha ha
Odin: it’s an anthropologists job to look at the history of the actual practices of people, instead of the ideals that started a religion. Tambiah does just that by talking about the ideals behind renouncers only when it relates to the actual practice of Monks and Nuns. It’s a very different approach from Blavatsky’s and it has it’s own value.
Kirk: you’re a dying breed. Most people these days realize that Buddhism is a religion like any other and most Buddhists world wide do believe in Gods.
Jim: what article are you talking about? Hard for me to keep up with all I put online.
The difference is Buddhism never asks for an eye for eye, nor there any martyrs, in fact, it says hate is never overcome by hate. The wars that are fought in the name of Buddhism would have appalled Buddha was he alive. There is no other interpretation other than the fact that Buddhism advocates peace, harmony and non violence.
You’re right, the idea of martyrdom doesn’t exist in Buddhism as far as I know. But the idea that violence can be justified and even be good karma in some cases, certainly does exist. It’s a very small step from defending the dharma to active aggression. And people have crossed that line in Buddhism.
I’m sure that Christ would have been appalled at what some Christians have done in his name as well. As would Mohammad at what’s done in the name of Islam sometimes.
Steven posted the following, which got caught in my spamfilter & then – by accident – deleted. I’m posting it again because it’s a serious and on topic response, even if I think it’s totally besides the point in some ways:
First of all, I do not represent Buddhism as a whole, but I am a Buddhist practitioner. I believe to the most true buddhist, the awards does not mean anything significant. Why I mention “True Buddhist”, unfortunately, there a lots of “so called” buddhist which claim to be buddhist without any significant understanding and practicing of Buddha teaching (Dharma). I belief, it the same difficulty face by most other religions.
Katinka: Karma is a very tough topic for us to understand. Karma is just like the law of gravity. Whether you believe it or not it exist in Buddhism belief. The only different is that it intangible and cannot be observed directly. Buddhism does not encouraged any form of violence, and killing whether intentionally or unintentionally or for whatever cause will have bad karmic effect. So, no true buddhist will claim that I kill for buddhism, and it totally wrong in Buddhist teaching.
Buddhist belief that karma is a law(hence the law of karma) and there are no superior being to determine whether one action is good karma or bad karma. Our basic guide is 10 meritorious deeds and our precepts (any action that break the precept will generate negative karma).
Buddha teaching teach us to conquerer oneself, and i must emphasis, it is not conquering the world. If you check out the buddhist monk, they renounce to conquerer oneself, let go of all material things. If conquerer the world, it totally not letting go. Letting go is a key to hv inner peace (self conquerer) mean we are master of all our thoughts, desire, action, speech and bodily actions.
What is buddhist in simple words? “Do good, avoid evil and purify the mind”. Buddha teaching dharma teach us to eradicate ignorance, hatred and greed. (the 3 roots of all evil).
I hope my simple explanation assist you all to understand buddhism slightly. All religion in essence teaches good practice but just the practitioner being human not perfect. Signing out.
The Tibetan case you claimed is not true. Tibetans do not fight in the name of Buddhism. They fight for their freedom.
You’re absolutely correct that there have been violent episodes in Buddhist history. However, I would still contend that those episodes pale in comparison to those perpetrated by followers of the three major monotheistic religions. Side by side, Buddhism’s history is relatively free of bloodshed and remarkable in its peacefulness.
Hi,
Enjoyed reading your posts. What really caught my attention was your stmt ” ….I am half way to being a Buddhist…” What do u really mean by that?
Regards
Jayan
Good question. I will answer that in a next blogpost
Are there as many variations of Buddhism as there are people who profess to be Buddhist? What is in a label? If you are of German descent do you need to be NAZI? If you are Irish Catholic do you sanction the inquisition? Is it important to have a label? I am sort of Zen, sort of International Sufi, sort of Christian, and sort of Pagan but I am not a label! What does a label do except create divisiveness?
Love
Bob
I have heard this great news from DMC Buddhist satellite channel of Dhammakaya temple, Thailand. http://www.dmc.tv
Myat: unfortunately that’s not only a partial source (being Buddhist), but it also doesn’t give us information about WHO gave the award.
See also: “The Geneva-based International Coalition for the Advancement of Religion and Spirituality (ICA-RUS) bestowed The Best Religion in the World award this year on the Buddhist community on Aug 7 in Geneva.”
http://zoominlocal.com/ml-brampton-guardian/2009/09/03/s1/#?article=522447
However, that foundation does not seem to exist outside the blogosphere. I could find no website for either ICARUS or the “International coalistion for the advancement of religion and spirituality”. I still think this whole thing is a hoax – one that has fooled a few real newspapers as well.
As a tibetan i am writing to clarify the (mis)information you’ve written regarding tibetan defying Dalai Lama and fighting, yes soome of us are defying Dalai Lama but we never in the name of Buddhism tried to kill anyone. We just want His Holiness to Do more than just sweet talk chinese govt. We want more action and less talk but not in the sense to kill any sentient being.
Also i never heard of anyone (those Tibetans defying Dalai Lama ) taking up arms but if you think being vocal about our cause is violent to you then so be it
Yangzom: welcome to this blog.
I didn’t mean to imply that.
I think it’s perfectly understandable and permissible that people fight against oppression and speak out about injustice. One of the questions here is whether, historically, Buddhists (not just Tibetan Buddhists) have been more peaceful than people of other religions.
This is a very difficult question to answer, because (at least in part) it’s very hard to define who is ‘a Buddhist’. It’s secondly hard to distinguish between what people do, and what they do in their capacity ‘as Buddhist’.
I do think the Dalai Lama takes being peaceful to a level most humans, Buddhists or no Buddhists, can only aspire to. In that sense he exemplifies an ideal Buddhism that does deserve the name ‘most peaceful religion in the world’. Most Buddhists, being people first and Buddhists second, are less idealistic. Understandably so.
Personally I think that the human rights of Tibetans are under constant threat under Chinese rule and I wish the Chinese were less suppressive of minorities. Since they are very oppressive to any minorities, and don’t support freedom of speech even for their own population, I think speaking up about that is very important.
However I do think there are Tibetans who go further than you do and DO want to use violent means to get rid of Chinese occupation. I assume many of these Tibetans do still consider themselves Buddhist. To what extent a religion should be judged by it’s extremists (of whatever form) is a very difficult question that I don’t presume t0 answer here.
However, if we don’t judge Buddhism by it’s extremists, we should also not judge Islam for it’s share of extremists.
i feel like you are trying to look buddhism look bad, just because some one wrote buddhism is best religion( i am not saying it is, every religion is perfect and gives the same message. i you follow it in the right path) that article about buddhism being best is not even a official, just some random blog and i don’t it is neccessary that you have to spill every bad thing( don’t know if all of them are correct) happened in the past.
p.s- tibetans are fighting for freedom not in the name of buddhisht. i didn’t mean literely fighting. tibetan could have made everything worse by going again chinese violently (even though we can’t win) killing people. through the buddhism teaching. Dalia lama is taking it peacfully.
Well all of you are i think dumb.buddhisht is not a very good religion when its come infront of ISLAM.Islam is the most popular and fastly spreading religion in the world.
why do you think budhism is not a very good religion when its come in front of Islam. explain me why? iam a Hindu . i had been following about Buddhism for a while and i think Buddhism is the best religion in the world.
I am a Tibetan n a buddhist also. No religion is best. all r best and all r equally important for mankind. For my spiritual needs buddhism serves best among others but thats does not confirms that buddhism is best for rest all. Each one has a moral duty to respect and cherish all religious traditions. Its morally wrong and irresponsible to look down on other religions just because it doesn’t suits him or her personally. For instance, christianity does not suits my spiritual needs, but it suits to millions others and same in case of each religion. One single religion is not capable of fullfilling the spiritual needs of whole mankind family. Diversities of religious traditions is good in itself to serve the spiritual needs of mankind. There is no disputes no conflict… But tibetan r fighting for human rights and freedom.. not for buddhism..
{ 1 trackback }