Buddhism and Buddhists are Evil and Violent?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whenever I assert that Buddhism-proper and thus a Buddhist per se is never evil nor violent, I always get the following sort of counter.

Don't forget there are pacifist religions and evil-laden religions.

Pacific Buddhists are burning Myanmar Rohingya villages and raping their women, with the blessing of Aung San Suu Kyi

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41566561

Others will refer to Tibetans to went on rampage in Tibet to protest against the oppression of the CCP.
Another is the Sri Lankan attacks on the Tamils Indians.

Some will cherry pick certain verses that has descriptive of violence at the fringes [e.g. Averroes - the Icchantika].

My Response to the above;
There is nothing in the core constitution of Buddhism that permit Buddhists per se to kill non-Buddhists.
A Buddhist is one who has taken the oath to comply with the 5 Precepts, i.e.

• The Five precepts ... constitute the basic code of ethics to be undertaken by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from,
  • 1. killing living beings,
    2. stealing,
    3. sexual misconduct,
    4. lying and
    5. intoxication.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts

There are loads of precepts and vows of non-violence a Buddhist-proper is obliged to comply with within the 3 major schools of Buddhism.

In life, a person wears many 'hats'.
When those people of Myanmar killed the Rohingyas, they were not killing while wearing their 'Buddhist hat'.
They kill as driven by their human nature, and in their eyes to drive out evil.

Prove to me, they killed the Rohingyas and justified the killing with references from their Buddhist sutras [texts] or they shouted Buddha u Akbar in their rampage.

[Veritas Aequitas]

In addressing the above sort of issues, the focus must be on the specific constitution of the specific religion and the explicit or implied contract a believer has entered within the religion.

The central leverage of religion is a believer of a religion has explicitly or implicitly entered into a contract bounded by the specific constitution of the religion.

Therefrom the believer must comply with the terms of the contract and nothing more.
Prove to me, a religious believer has more to do other than what he is contractually obligated within the contract?

Therefore in term of the religious believer potential to commit evil and violence, we have to refer to the terms of contract.

Since the majority of religions [other than Islam] are pacifist within their constitution, there is no issue of evil and violence with these pacifist based religions.
Buddhist has a constitution that is pacifist to the core.

Therefore there is no way, by definition and constitution, a Buddhist per se will ever commit any evil and violent act.

[Age]

Whenever I assert that Buddhism-proper and thus a Buddhist per se is never evil nor violent, I always get the following sort of counter.

Don't forget there are pacifist religions and evil-laden religions.

Pacific Buddhists are burning Myanmar Rohingya villages and raping their women, with the blessing of Aung San Suu Kyi

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41566561

Others will refer to Tibetans to went on rampage in Tibet to protest against the oppression of the CCP.
Another is the Sri Lankan attacks on the Tamils Indians.

Some will cherry pick certain verses that has descriptive of violence at the fringes [e.g. Averroes - the Icchantika].

My Response to the above;
There is nothing in the core constitution of Buddhism that permit Buddhists per se to kill non-Buddhists.

AND, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the koran that permits the killing of 'human beings'.

As I have TRIED TO EXPLAIN to you MANY TIMES PREVIOUSLY the killing of the 'non believers' has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL in regards to violence and attacks on human bodies, themselves. But as you have PROVEN EVEN TIMES ALREADY 'you' are NOT OPEN to LOOKING INTO THIS, let alone to even CONSIDER what this could actually mean.

A Buddhist is one who has taken the oath to comply with the 5 Precepts, i.e.

• The Five precepts ... constitute the basic code of ethics to be undertaken by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from,
  • 1. killing living beings,
    2. stealing,
    3. sexual misconduct,
    4. lying and
    5. intoxication.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts

There are loads of precepts and vows of non-violence a Buddhist-proper is obliged to comply with within the 3 major schools of Buddhism.

In life, a person wears many 'hats'.
When those people of Myanmar killed the Rohingyas, they were not killing while wearing their 'Buddhist hat'.

So, to you, is it all right or justifiable for a, so called, "buddhist" to take off their, so called, "buddhist hat" to kill another human being. But it is not all right to kill another human being with a "religious hat" on?

They kill as driven by their human nature, and in their eyes to drive out evil.

LOL
LOL
LOL

So, if 'human nature' is TO KILL, then WHY try and prevent human beings from doing what is "their nature"?

Have you NOT EVER considered that the peoples of the religion, which you DETEST and HATE with ALL that you have, also "justify" their behaviors as "driving out evil"?

Why are 'you' an APOLOGIST for the murders and killings done by some religion people but NOT by people of other religions?

Why do 'you' TRY TO "justify" the murderers and killers of one religion but NOT ALL religions?

Prove to me, they killed the Rohingyas and justified the killing with references from their Buddhist sutras [texts] or they shouted Buddha u Akbar in their rampage.

So, what EXACTLY caused the "buddhists" to see the "rohingyas" as "evil, which needed to be driven out".

Or are you just going to TRY TO "justify" these killings as just 'human nature', like as you have done above here?

[Age]

In addressing the above sort of issues, the focus must be on the specific constitution of the specific religion and the explicit or implied contract a believer has entered within the religion.

The central leverage of religion is a believer of a religion has explicitly or implicitly entered into a contract bounded by the specific constitution of the religion.

Therefrom the believer must comply with the terms of the contract and nothing more.

You have mentioned this countless times before. But this has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL to do with YOUR central HATRED of "other" human beings.

Saying ANY of this will NOT help you forge through to TRY TO "argue" for your CURRENT BELIEFS.

You HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PROVE that what you are saying is TRUE. You have FAILED COMPLETELY to perform this task.

Prove to me, a religious believer has more to do other than what he is contractually obligated within the contract?

Absolutely NO human being HAS TO do more than what they have CHOSEN to be contractually obligated to do. BUT this does NOT stop them from DOING MORE.

Therefore in term of the religious believer potential to commit evil and violence, we have to refer to the terms of contract.

So what are the terms of the contract, which you are contractually obligated to, which ALLOWS or PERMITS 'you', "veritas aequitas", to do the despicable and horrific acts of evil and violence that you commit on "other" human beings?

Or, do you just commit evil and violence above and beyond what 'you' have CHOSEN to be "contractually obligated" to do?

Since the majority of religions [other than Islam] are pacifist within their constitution, there is no issue of evil and violence with these pacifist based religions.

LOL

This is PRIME EXAMPLE of just how NARROWED and CLOSED a human being can become just BECAUSE OF BELIEFS, themselves.

By the way, as I have stated MANY TIME PREVIOUSLY, there is NO issue of evil and violence within islam NOR within the koran. IF ANY one SEES ANY, then this is because of their OWN MISINTERPRETATIONS, as EXPLAINED, MANY TIMES PREVIOUSLY, ALSO.

Buddhist has a constitution that is pacifist to the core.

Yet here "buddhists" are KILLING and MURDERING "others".

But you have ALREADY 'tried to' "JUSTIFY" this as, they just take their "buddhist hats" off BEFORE they do the MURDERING and the KILLINGS.

Therefore there is no way, by definition and constitution, a Buddhist per se will ever commit any evil and violent act.

Well considering that EVERY one known as a "buddhist" has and is killing living things, in evil and violent ways, then we would have to infer that there is NO one who is a True 'buddhist'.

Could this not being a True "whatever" also apply for EVERY one else who is known as, and is called a, "christian", or a "muslim", and/or pick ANY other of the multitude of DIFFERENT "other", so called, "religions".

[Dontaskme]

Whenever I assert that Buddhism-proper and thus a Buddhist per se is never evil nor violent, I always get the following sort of counter.

Don't forget there are pacifist religions and evil-laden religions.

Pacific Buddhists are burning Myanmar Rohingya villages and raping their women, with the blessing of Aung San Suu Kyi

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-41566561

Others will refer to Tibetans to went on rampage in Tibet to protest against the oppression of the CCP.
Another is the Sri Lankan attacks on the Tamils Indians.

Some will cherry pick certain verses that has descriptive of violence at the fringes [e.g. Averroes - the Icchantika].

My Response to the above;
There is nothing in the core constitution of Buddhism that permit Buddhists per se to kill non-Buddhists.
A Buddhist is one who has taken the oath to comply with the 5 Precepts, i.e.

• The Five precepts ... constitute the basic code of ethics to be undertaken by lay followers of Buddhism. The precepts are commitments to abstain from,
  • 1. killing living beings,
    2. stealing,
    3. sexual misconduct,
    4. lying and
    5. intoxication.
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_precepts

There are loads of precepts and vows of non-violence a Buddhist-proper is obliged to comply with within the 3 major schools of Buddhism.

In life, a person wears many 'hats'.
When those people of Myanmar killed the Rohingyas, they were not killing while wearing their 'Buddhist hat'.
They kill as driven by their human nature, and in their eyes to drive out evil.

Prove to me, they killed the Rohingyas and justified the killing with references from their Buddhist sutras [texts] or they shouted Buddha u Akbar in their rampage.

The whole of Nature's kingdom is violent and evil. You just need to get over it, and accept this self evident truth once and for all.

If you are going to continue telling stories about the violence and evil in the world. Then you only have yourself to blame, for only you are the author and creator that men and women are violent and evil. The belief in the story is then further endorsed and perpetuated via the narrative you have created to become a seed of thought in other people when they too hear or read the story and believe it to be true.

Notice dinosaurs never had a story, no one told the dinosaus that their actions were violent and evil, so they carried on with their rampage for millions of years unchallenged.

NOTHING HAS CHANGED...really it hasn't.

Nothing ever does.





We really do live on a vile and disgusting planet.