Why has there never been a war over Buddhism

Unread post by **Kemosave** » July 7th, 2005, 1:05 pm

Buddhist nationalism worldwide is growing. Let me give you a peep:

"The Evangelical Alliance of Sri Lanka reports once again that persecution against Protestant Christians is escalating seriously as Buddhist nationalism grows. Over recent months the Sri Lankan Society for the Preservation of Buddhism has been campaigning more aggressively against Protestant Christianity. In Walpitamulla, Veyangoda, Pastor Chandrakumar, his wife and four children have been driven from their church and home by repeated violent attacks. One six year old received stab wounds when a violent Buddhist mob invaded the church. Another child received head injuries requiring hospitalisation when a Buddhist mob threw rocks at the church until the roof fell in. The family has fled but is still in grave danger. Christian workers have been attacked also in the villages of Ganemulla, Dambulla and Welikanda, since this Buddhist Society was formed to monitor Christianity and prevent conversions."

Here at home (USA) a spiritual war is developing:

Note: I thought you might be interested in seeing an overall picture of where the Tibetans are building their SAND MANDALAS (green) and where they have buried their TANTRIC VASES (red). Visit http://www.AProphetsReward.com/invasion/tibetans.jpg

According to Victor and Victoria Trimondi, experts on Mandala Politics: It is an act of sorcery -- "a magic title of possession, with which control over a particular territory can be legitimated.... One builds a magic circle (a mandala) and "anchors" it in the region to be claimed. Then one summons the gods and supplicates them [through ritual prayers and incantations] to take up residence in the 'mandala palace.' After a particular territory has been occupied by a mandala, it is automatically transformed into a sacred center of Buddhist cosmology. Every construction of a mandala also implies the magic subjugation of the inhabitants of the region in whihc the 'magic circle' is constructed."

They also state, "In the case of the Kalachakra sand mandala, the places in which it has been built are transformed into the domains under the control of the Tibetan time gods. Accordingly, from a tantric viewpoint, the Kalachakra mandala constructed at great expense in New York in 1991 would be a cosmological demonstration of power, which aimed to say that the city now stood under the governing authority or at least spiritual influence of Kalachakra...."

Although Buddhism has become the trendy religion of choice and appeals to society that it is the religion of ahimsa ("no harm," ie, non-violence), quite the opposite is true as many wars have been fought in the name of Buddhism. According to the Trimondi's research and confirmed by articles in recent editions of Buddhist magazines, "The Shambhala (Buddhist kingdom) myth has rightly been described as the 'Buddhist jihad' (holy war)."

"In the opinion of the Indian military as well, the religion of Buddha appears to be not so pacifist as it is presented to us in the West. Why else would the first Indian nuclear tests (in 1974) have been referred to under the secret code of 'The Lord Buddha has smiled!'? Why were the spectacular tests in 1998 deliberately launched on the birthday of Gautama Buddha?" (Focus, 21/1998, p. 297; Spiegel, 21/1998).

Robert Thurman, father of actress Uma Thurman (actress in the recent martial arts movie -- Kill Bill) who used to sit on the lap of the Dalai Lama, was ranked as among the 25 most influential opinion makers in America by Time magazine in 1997. Thurman, who was the first American Tibetan Buddhist monk, now teaches at Columbia University and predicts the Buddhization of America in his generation. In the last decade, Buddhism has grown by 170% compared to Christianity's 5%.

I could go on..

Mraka · Unread post by **Mraka** » July 9th, 2005, 8:35 am

do not ,please do not go on.you are blinded

Unread post by **Kemosave** » July 9th, 2005, 10:36 am

Mraka wrote:do not ,please do not go on.you are blinded

Lol.. I see just fine thank you. Honestly I have not qualified the above articles. I just pulled them off a net search to show you that things are not all rosy in the Buddhist Oz.

Zen Buddhism is a belief system that in Japan and other places was the justification for millions of people to die by the sword. Some other practices that don't get much press are the forms of occultic magic practiced. My old zen buddhist karate teacher (given the rare life long martial arts achievement award by the way), when in my teens, used to include historical occultic training in his program. He would have us lie down and attempt to get us to astro-travel (just as one example).

Basically, this consists of having an out of body experience to seek information about potential enemies from the "spirit world." Other forms of occultic magic were integrated into his training program. Unfortunately, opening these types of occult doors can lead to oppression (depression thoughts of suicide trouble with anger) and even demonic possession. I have seen it. It is not pretty.

Now the traditional view is that Buddhism has evolved into myriad schools that can be roughly grouped into three types: Nikaya (also called Hinayana), Mahayana, and Vajrayana. Of the Nikaya schools, only the Theravada survives. Each branch sees itself as representing the true, original teachings of the Buddha, and some schools believe that the dialectic nature of Buddhism allows its format, terminology, and techniques to adapt over time in response to changing circumstances, thus validating dharmic approaches different from their own.

The two most popular forms in the USA are Zen and Soka Gakkai International (SGI):

1. A branch of Mahayana Buddhism believed to have originated in India from the teachings of a Buddhist master, Bodhidharma, about 600 BC, but traced back by advocates to the Buddha himself. Practitioners seek satori (sudden illumination enabling bliss and harmony), which cannot be explained but only experienced. Techniques include zazen (sitting meditation techniques) and koans, which are short riddles or sayings. The koans (which number about 1,700) and other practices which are not designed to have cognitive answers but to promote the experience of Zen.

2. Soka Gakkai International (SGI), Daisakqu Ikeda, Santa Monica, CA: A cult of Soka Gakkai Buddhism, formerly named Nichiren Shoshu of America. The sect promotes enlightenment though gongyo. This involves kneeling before a gohonzon (black wooden box containing passages from the Lotus Sutra), quoting this scripture, and chanting the daimoku (“nam-myoho-renge-kyo”). Compared with other forms of Buddhism, this sect is very aggressive in their missionary efforts. This sect allegedly practices mind control, authoritarianism and desires world power.

Mraka · Unread post by **Mraka** » July 9th, 2005, 12:24 pm

oh man I told ya.
you can not be a buddhist and kill someone.but make sure you are christian or muslim to use as much force on somebody as you can.
only shaolin monks train weapons and train kung fu.
what it makes more peacefull than other religions,is that it after all you say one of the wisest.it is still good for something and no trash phylosophy .
and thank good I am over with this christianity discussions.it is useless nonsense ,the fact that grown man debate about any single issue in the bible.
to use knowledge and science to write "the book" and tellin that the world is a disc,or plate.
`only regret that I can`t find a citation that says ,that I am bored of poeple bringinging wiseness to Athens.
so try again which wars are or were over buddhism.which position is the lama rerpresenting.

Unread post by **Kemosave** » July 9th, 2005, 12:44 pm

Mraka wrote:oh man I told ya.
you can not be a buddhist and kill someone.but make sure you are christian or muslim to use as much force on somebody as you can.
only shaolin monks train weapons and train kung fu.
what it makes more peacefull than other religions,is that it after all you say one of the wisest.it is still good for something and no trash phylosophy .
and thank good I am over with this christianity discussions.it is useless nonsense ,the fact that grown man debate about any single issue in the bible.
to use knowledge and science to write "the book" and tellin that the world is a disc,or plate.
`only regret that I can`t find a citation that says ,that I am bored of poeple bringinging wiseness to Athens.
so try again which wars are or were over buddhism.which position is the lama rerpresenting.

This is just a lot of false assertions without any evidence to substantiate anything whatsoever. I don't believe that you know what the Bible has to say. You are not bringing anything resembling a solid argument. I mean no disrespect at all towards you and am just pointing out the truth.

Mraka · Unread post by **Mraka** » July 9th, 2005, 12:56 pm

bibleists done from my point of view:good/harm
in points3/7

Unread post by **Sentenza** » July 9th, 2005, 5:24 pm

so i see kemo, you got lots of knowledge concerning this topic, but before we continue this discussion i would like to ask you to give me some "self reflection" on how christianity and the bible have supported violence, backed it up and caused brutal oppression, if you think it did at all.
just some thoughts of yourself and no scientific essays or bible quotes here please.

i know this is about buddhism, but i really would like to know this.

peace

Unread post by **Sentenza** » July 9th, 2005, 6:53 pm

one more thing.....before you think this is a rhetorical trap. you can find my opinion on various other threads regarding christian religon.
i am a christian myself and i respect the average christian that follows jesus to get the best out of himself.
i have no respect though for those christians that are always quick to quote the old testament with passages of god coming to punish us all and that the world is full of sin, jews killed jesus blabla. those are the people that are blind to realize that their perception of religion has fucked this world up from day one.
they do enforce injustice, racism and all other kinds of cruelty that jesus would have abandoned according to his teachings.
but they are even blind to realize this.
you know what kind of people i am talking about.

i know that these people exist in every religion (even buddhism) but in my opinion historical christianity has been very quick with purposedly misinterpretation of religious messages in order to enforce some shysty politics.

peace[/list]

Unread post by **Kemosave** » July 10th, 2005, 5:18 pm

There are plenty of authentic peace loving Christians in this world not conquering, forcing, or punishing anyone or supporting "right wing fundamentalists" political efforts.

And if an evildoer is crawling through their window to rape, kill, and steal they might catch a bullet. But that has to do with the moral applicability of the law in an age of grace which might take some explaining if you don't know what that is.

It is illogical to project blame for what some people who claim to be Christians but live contrary to his teachings or politically driven governments (who happen to have authentic Christians and just a lot of Christians in name only mixed together in their boundaries) do onto the average Christian who practices the teaching of Christ and whose life reflects the fruits of the spirit which are (love, peace, joy, hope, and faith [based on fact not blind faith]).

Simply declaring them all evil because they pay taxes (as Osama did) to a government is really not good enough. Especially if the one projecting blame is quite an evildoer (and Osama surely is); why that's just a straight up evildoer so blinded they cannot see their condition projecting.

But enough of that, let's see what history says here for a minute. The first three centuries of Christiandom was the era of Christian pacifism (regarding war). Under the Roman Empire prior to Constantine, Christians were persecuted and during many seasons martyred for simply being Christian. The grace and love displayed by these early followers of Christ eventually won over their oppressors and conquered an Empire without Christians shedding even one other person's blood for the cause of Christ.

The Christian church of the first three centuries was pacifist. Check out Introduction to the History of Christianity, ed. Tim Dowley. Obviously Christ never would have fought for Rome. Paul would not have either. Nor any of the apostles or believers of that time. But Paul spoke highly of Rome when he wrote to the believers in Rome. He urged them to submit to the authorities, only a few years after a mass expulsion of all Jews from the city by the authorities during riots. Was the type of submission he was talking about including giving one's one life into the hands of generals and politicians? Or was he making another statement against violence, seeing what a tinderbox Rome was? When Jerusalem was leveled during the Jewish wars of 70 A.D., the Christians fled the city, sealing the rift between Jews and the Christian Church that was predominantly Jewish at the time. After that, it was viewed as a separate religion and later became known as a Gentile faith. History shows that there was no militancy to speak of within Christianity until Emperor Constantine got converted.

In many Christian's eyes, this was the beginning of a wretched decline for the faith. The persecution of the Church ended which is wonderful, but then the bishops and scholars began to turn on themselves and bring persecution INTO Christianity! The Church even allowed the government to intervene in Church matters as if the Emperor knew anything about it.

So that was the time which the invisible Church made up of those who have a real authentic relationship with Christ and a political church which is the new way to rise to the top: the Emperor likes it, therefore I will too developed. This kind of thinking swept through the social, political, and military ranks of society until it became the new tool to justify the empire and its actions. And leaders within the political church bought into their new influence and prestige, accepting the bribe of power and all its perks. The cross went on the shields, and off the soldiers went to fight for Rome (in the name only of Christ). This was the first horrible union of Christianity with nationalism/patriotism. Many authentic Christians were persecuted at the hands of the political state church. Today there are still states in which this dysfunctional marriage exists. (Note: Theocracy was not a New Testament option, nor one today).

The majority of Jews in Israel at the time of Jesus were seeking a political revolution through the Messiah, to be free from Rome, but Christ didn't come for that AT ALL. His Kingdom Is above, as HE explained to Pilate. And so Christians live for the same Kingdom. But what about this big government thing that keeps sending me bills? Well, that's certainly not something to be ignored. None of our people really ignored it during the days of the early Church. Government played its role in every day life. But it definitely wasn't the center. When Paul was writing to the believers in Rome, he knew it was to the advantage of all Christians to have a government that was more or less indifferent to Christianity. That's all Paul needed to travel about freely, declaring the Gospel to every city and soul he could find. The system of the Roman empire favored communication and travel, and he used both of these extensively. All the Church needed was justice and the freedoms to declare the Gospel, meet together, and worship God. And that's all we need today. But even the word "need" is conditional. Obviously Satan was uncomfortable with the situation in 70 A.D. and made his move. Yet the Church surged forward when persecution broke out against it. It became outlawed with the harshest penalties, yet it refused to die. God made it grow under all circumstances, and brought good out of anything.

Today, the basics of what the Christian needs to practice Christianity in the open are justice, freedoms of speech, religion, and assembly. Of course, without these, we continue onward as always with all the more perseverance and conviction. But we shouldn't get ahead of ourselves in times of peace by taking more of the pie than we potentially can. Taking over the government is the same as the government taking over the Church. Nobody wins. What we favor is the secular government that Christians influence in the appropriate ways, chiefly seeing justice and those freedoms maintained. I make a point out of justice for a few reasons. God makes it clear throughout the entire Bible that He hates injustice, and judges nations accordingly when they embrace the latter. It's also to our advantage to advocate it in government. When any government takes a liking to injustice - whether it means rigged trials, allowing the rich to trample the poor, persecution of minorities - they take a disliking to true Christianity, because it defends the downtrodden. This comes out extremely well through the example of Nazi Germany, where a German pastor poured out his heart in writings from within a prison cell before dying under persecution by his government.

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

Pastor Martin Niemöller

Thus Hitler said: "One is either a Christian or a German. You can't be both." And what a profound statement this madman made. One could not be a true Christian and usher Jews or Gypsies into the gas chambers. Hitler saw that his ideal of German nationalism was incompatible with the Christianity of Christ. One had to go, and so there were many other examples like the pastor's in Nazi prisons and labor camps throughout Europe. So a government that loves injustice will hate Christianity.

Any government that demands absolute allegiance to its own cause will persecute Christians as well. Look at how every communist government in history has treated Christianity (in addition to other faiths). And even the "Christian" governments of Europe began persecuting non-conformist elements within the Church, particularly other denominations. In Latin America, governments such as El Salvador's turned on the Church when the Church finally turned against the government's absolute corruption and violence to break the unholy alliance. What are the patriotic causes of today's government? War, national security, and always money. If we don't start making the U-turn soon, this government will begin acting hostile towards people who take a public stance on these issues in a way that might jeopardize its own agenda. The rights spoken of above are already eroding away under the pressure of fear and greed. Anyways, from the historical vantage point, the proper nature of the relationship between Church & state should be one of friction. While the Church recognizes the right of government to govern, it refuses to be silent about any form of corruption or injustice it sees. This can come at great cost, but the cost of compromise has proven greater.

Ambrose refused to give communion to Emperor Theodosius after he'd ordered a grand massacre in Thessalonica. He later excommunicated Theodosius! That takes guts and a passion for Christ.

Now the dichotomy is that you can be a Christian and permit yourself to be drafted and fight or you can be a Christian and refuse and suffer the penalties of your decision. Either way you can still be an authentic Christian who has to make moral choices everyday and live with the consequences of doing right in a temporarily fallen world.

Honestly there is much more to discuss along these lines. Peace.

Unread post by **Sentenza** » July 11th, 2005, 3:01 pm

well said....i could agree with the most. But still i think it is a very complicated issue since sometimes it is very difficult to distinguish the "real" from the "fake" christians. very often that christian who labels himself as the most true is the most fake......
a problem is also christianitys vulnerability to abuse of authority, since every church claims to have a copyright on the teachings of jesus and they force their followers to follow or to be excommunicated. swallow or die....
thats what lead to many violent wars within the christian hemisphere (too many to mention all)
but so that i can understand your approach more precisely i would like to give you some names and you tell me wether they were real christians or "fake". You dont have to answer but id be interested to hear:
1. Pope Urban II
2.Ferdinand V of Spain
3. Pius XII.
4.Saint Augustine
5.General Douglas McArthur
this is the last thing ill ask you about christianity so we can get back to the original topic

Unread post by **Kemosave** » July 11th, 2005, 5:14 pm

Saint Augustine of Hippo was a Christian. No way will I cosign the rest. Peace.

Unread post by **Sentenza** » July 12th, 2005, 11:13 am

because in my eyes all of them were barbarians or hippocrites....my opinion...

Unread post by **Kemosave** » July 12th, 2005, 11:22 am

I admit Augustine's life was a colorful affair but he wasn't that. Here's a good biography on his life at Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/de ... s&n=507846

Unread post by **Sentenza** » July 12th, 2005, 11:28 am

maybe ill get one of that.
i read "De civitate dei" and it was irritating for me.

Unread post by **Kemosave** » July 14th, 2005, 9:46 pm

Hopefully not the Latin version all the way through.. lol.

Unread post by **se11** » July 14th, 2005, 11:24 pm

i dont think there are too many arguments over buddhism. it is mostly a peaceful religion.

Unread post by **Sentenza** » July 15th, 2005, 8:16 am

yes i think so too. I am not saying it is superior to any religion i am just saying that it has been much more peaceful in history.

Unread post by **Sentenza** » July 15th, 2005, 8:18 am

Kemosave wrote:Hopefully not the Latin version all the way through.. lol.

no,my latin is not that good

but i was like....wow, didnt know Osama Bin Laden wrote a book...

Unread post by **Kemosave** » July 15th, 2005, 3:46 pm

It's true culture and writing styles vary greatly in various times and places. For example did you know that in Luther's day it was common for almost everyone to swear. I'm sure some exceptions must have existed but as a rule nobody saw anything wrong with it.

Unread post by **Sentenza** » July 16th, 2005, 12:08 pm

honestly i think that the strong antipathy for swearing is a quite american thing.
at least those christians i met over here (Irish, Polish, Greece) Didnt seem to have a problem with it. In my country and in my city, swearing is very common, you dont have to like it though.
And yes, i have read Luthers writings and quotes of him where he is doing very "dirty talk"