Buddhism v Islam in Asia Fears of a new religious strife

[Chinese-Dragon]

I agree that we had a lean period.

But I don't think we are on the back foot now. In fact, these are interesting times for the Dharmic civilizations. May be an extended inflexion point after which there is no turning back.

For too long has the savagery gone unpunished which has made some people very complacent and cocky.

They have the gall to call their savagery a "gift" and claim that the "degree of force" used on the forced converts "didn't matter".

Then they make such strange demands on the non Muslims in their own countries.

It will all come back to haunt. It is a matter of time.

It is so strange as well. These days, Abrahamic religions are getting bad press all over the place (even in the Western media) while Dharmic religions get mostly good press, apart from this recent Burma issue.

So why does it feel like Eastern religions are on the back foot right now. (Or maybe it is just the cycle of history?)

The CCP again realized the importance of Eastern religions only recently, and only due to fear from Christianity making significant inroads. Maybe too little too late.

 

[Vinod2070]

If that is the case, than India must have one of the highest percentage of Muslims in the country. Even higher than Pakistan. But that is not the case, is it. This kind of argument is a fallacy. Sure, there are Muslim terrorists and jihadist. but to correlate violence with a religion must hold true for all cases. That is, if the country has a higher percentage of Muslim like UAE, than the violence must be proportionally higher than India, which has a lower percentage of Muslims. But we all know that this do not hold. I don't see no rape protest in UAE. Guess which country has a sticky rape thread, a banned topic, in this forum.

Whoever is the creator of this bot, please take it out of circulation.

This beta grade bot is not field worthy still.

 

[anonymus]

@Vinod2070, what I don't understand is that the Dharmic religions spread easily and successfully (and without violence) in the past few thousand years. Like Buddhism to East Asia.

But due to having it easy for so long, they became complacent and lowered their guard. Now they are on the back foot, and for some reason Abrahamic religions are surging, due to Western and Middle Eastern money.

Abrahmic religions barring judaism are in perpetual state of war with every other religion.

What is true for Individuals is also true for groups. Irrespective of all the fruity liberal propaganda, if someone does not fight back, he/she is going to be annihilated.

This is also the reason that while Buddhism was wiped out by invaders,Hinduism survived in India. Buddhism due to lack of a military arm was unable to resist while hindus had Kingdoms which offered resistance hence no invader which had desire to establish himself was able to go full rëtard.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Abrahmic religions barring judaism are in perpetual state of war with every other religion.

I never minded Judaism because they never try to convert others. In fact it is very hard to join their religion.

Whereas even in HK which is filled with Chinese Buddhists and Chinese Folk religion, you get Christianity trying to spread very strongly. And it's not even the Westerners, but rather converted Chinese people themselves who have been trying to convert me. The polite ones get a polite "no". The rude ones get something else.

 

[Dillinger]

@Vinod2070, what I don't understand is that the Dharmic religions spread easily and successfully (and without violence) in the past few thousand years. Like Buddhism to East Asia.

But due to having it easy for so long, they became complacent and lowered their guard. Now they are on the back foot, and for some reason Abrahamic religions are surging, due to Western and Middle Eastern money.

There is no concept of divinely mandated warfare in the Dharmic religions, conflicts may occur for the protection of dharma (against the evil strong) so conquest goes right out of the window unless driven by political and economic needs. Think about it, before this region was dabbled in by the British India and China never had even one instance of hostilities. Today whereas culturally we might have even found ourselves far more attuned to the Chinese our nation's leaning still orients away from China and the same has occurred in China too. Otherwise from Cambodia to Lanka Hinduism and Buddhism were spreading their roots together and without any notable conflict. Our region has simply been out of balance, removed from its natural state of negentropy. Key to the harmony between these two Dharmic religions was the concept of Madhyam Pratipad or the middle path which resonates through Buddhism and Vedic Hinduism which removed the need for states/kingdoms and communities to identify themselves on the basis of any religion to the point of treating the other as their enemy.

 

[anonymus]

I never minded Judaism because they never try to convert others. In fact it is very hard to join their religion.

Whereas even in HK which is filled with Chinese Buddhists and Chinese Folk religion, you get Christianity trying to spread very strongly. And it's not even the Westerners, but rather converted Chinese people themselves who have been trying to convert me. The polite ones get a polite "no". The rude ones get something else.

First generation converts are most dangerous people. Their bigotry knows no bound.

 

[Vinod2070]

It is so strange as well. These days, Abrahamic religions are getting bad press all over the place (even in the Western media) while Dharmic religions get mostly good press, apart from this recent Burma issue.

So why does it feel like Eastern religions are on the back foot right now. (Or maybe it is just the cycle of history?)

The CCP again realized the importance of Eastern religions only recently, and only due to fear from Christianity making significant inroads. Maybe too little too late.

I think the Eastern religions are not insecure. They don't have to make noise and frighten the people of eternal hellfire if they didn't trust what one person claimed (with no way of verifying the claims independently).

I will repeat what I earlier mentioned about the Buddha.

"Buddhism is historically the most important religion — historically, not philosophically — because it was the most tremendous religious movement that the world ever saw, the most gigantic spiritual wave ever to burst upon human society. There is no civilisation on which its effect has not been felt in some way or other.

The followers of Buddha were most enthusiastic and very missionary in spirit. They were the first among the adherents of various religions not to remain content with the limited sphere of their Mother Church. They spread far and wide. They travelled east and west, north and south. They reached into darkest Tibet; they went into Persia, Asia Minor; they went into Russia, Poland, and many other countries of the Western world. They went into China, Korea, Japan; they went into Burma, Siam, the East Indies, and beyond. When Alexander the Great, through his military conquests, brought the Mediterranean world in contact with India, the wisdom of India at once found a channel through which to spread over vast portions of Asia and Europe. Buddhist priests went out teaching among the different nations; and as they taught, superstition and priestcraft began to vanish like mist before the sun. "

He viewed Buddhism as a fulfillment of Hinduism. That it didn't take off so widely in India (or got absorbed later) was for the similar reasons for which Christianity never got popular among the Jews.

This was Buddha's greatness. Such high philosophy and not a claim for himself. Even on his deathbed, he asked his disciples to find the truth for themselves. It was never about a person but about the idea.

See the contrast with some others and the kind of claims that they made for themselves.

That is the difference.

Though I wouldn't like to see it as Eastern Vs. "Abrahmic religions". They have their own internal differences and not all "Abrahmic religions" are the same.

At least one of them didn't forcibly convert others on a large scale.

 

[livingdead]

what is this dharmic vs arbrahamic religion sh*t...
buddists of myanmar give buddism a bad name... they have their own Osama ...

 

[Vinod2070]

I never minded Judaism because they never try to convert others. In fact it is very hard to join their religion.

Whereas even in HK which is filled with Chinese Buddhists and Chinese Folk religion, you get Christianity trying to spread very strongly. And it's not even the Westerners, but rather converted Chinese people themselves who have been trying to convert me. The polite ones get a polite "no". The rude ones get something else.

Now you know the basic premise.

They are more loyal than the king. Their insecurity and need to prove themselves makes them do weird stuff.

And you can understand why the most pro Ummah sentiments comes not from the Arabs but from remote people who were converted.

First generation converts are most dangerous people. Their bigotry knows no bound.

Depends.

In some cases, the insecurity that feeds this bigotry can last many many generations indeed.

what is this dharmic vs arbrahamic religion sh*t...
buddists of myanmar give buddism a bad name... they have their own Osama ...

Not so fast.

It is a political conflict and has historical roots.

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

All this talk about Religion. Thank "god" Atheism will be the dominant "religion" in the future.

 

[Sliver]

I am surprised that there has been no backlash against the bombing of Bodh Gaya and the Bodhi Tree, which is the world's number 1 most sacred pilgrimage site for Buddhists.

If someone had bombed the foundation stone in King Solomon's Temple, or bombed the Kabaa in Mecca, you can be sure there would be war the next day.

perhaps thats the diferrence between the followers of both the religions? perhaps there is not many "fringe" groups or "extremist" groups in those religions? perhaps the "mderates" have a greater voice in those religions?

 

[acid rain]

That is interesting to know.

Do you know that there was some study that correlatives levels of violence in a country with the percentage of Muslims.
Increasing percentage of Muslims in the overall population corresponded with increasing violence and problems in the country.

Thats interesting too, increased Muslim population comes with it its own sets of problems. I had seen a video once of what happens to a country depending on the percentage increase in Muslim population. Must say China has been immensely successful in curtailing their population growth and preventing immigrants, refugees or asylum seekers.

 

[Chinese-Dragon]

Thats interesting too, increased Muslim population comes with it its own sets of problems. I had seen a video once of what happens to a country depending on the percentage increase in Muslim population. Must say China has been immensely successful in curtailing their population growth and preventing immigrants, refugees or asylum seekers.

We just don't allow those immigrants to become Chinese citizens.

It's fair, maybe the developed countries can afford to let in all those immigrants, but we are still a developing country. Maybe the policy will change later but I think it's good for now.

 

[Contrarian]

The CCP again realized the importance of Eastern religions only recently, and only due to fear from Christianity making significant inroads. Maybe too little too late.

Could you please elaborate.
This news makes me happy.
What has CCP started doing and what has changed?

 

[doppelganger]

@Vinod2070 @Chinese-Dragon

Could one then extend this discussion and say that all religions that had essentially mortal Prophets went on the evangelize and try and spread via conversion?

My only issue with this is that many of our Dharmic faiths, like first Jainism, then Buddhism, and finally Sikhism, all in their own way also had mortal humans holding the primary position. Not called Prophets per se, but similar in hierarchy?

I am trying to understand why some religions seek to convert, while others move almost 180 degrees in diametrically opposite direction?