Comments on: Review: Buddhist Warfare

By: Kula-pavana

Kula-pavana — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 14:26:21 +0000

I think that many religious people are tempted to force their beliefs and social norms on others, using violent means if need be. Their excuse for such action apparently comes from a desire to ‘make others into a better people’. Religious leaders often adopt the motto: “End justifies the means”, which invariably leads to serious abuse of power in the name of religion, and subsequent reaction in the form of anti-religious sentiments among people in general.

Our own tradition is not immune to such temptation. Srila Prabhupada spoke to his disciples about forcing people to adopt Krsna consciousness and even killing ‘the demons who oppose our efforts’, of course only ‘once we become powerful’.

By: swami bv tripurari

swami bv tripurari — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:50:36 +0000

Santa rasa is very different from the prakrti nirvana of Buddhism, a reality nonetheless. But there are similarities. Santa rasa is characterized by lack of action on the part of the soul. I do not agree that in santa rasa one chooses to be less affected by intense transcendental emotions. It is more of a choice in sadhana to be still and a witness to the wonder of the Absolute without actively participating in the drama of lila. At least this is the case for meditators in Vaikuntha.

By: Bhaktikanda

Bhaktikanda — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 13:33:01 +0000

Yes, all possibilities are there. But even in santa rasa there must be awareness. This imply action. The action of santa rasa is in choosing to be less affected by intense transcendental emotions. But the closer to the center of the ideal, the more action the soul will experience. The lila of the Lord is multi layered and infinitely interactive.

By: swami bv tripurari

swami bv tripurari — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:25:05 +0000

The idea of a land where there isn’t drama and consequent related tragedies is, in actuality, only a projection.

I think you are wrong here. At least within Vaisnavsm in some forms of santa rasa such a land exists.

By: swami bv tripurari

swami bv tripurari — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:20:58 +0000

I agree.

By: swami bv tripurari

swami bv tripurari — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 12:17:47 +0000

I see . . .

By: Bhaktikanda

Bhaktikanda — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 06:17:20 +0000

Actually, the teachings of Buddhism promote the ultimate violence of non existence. Under that kind of pressure, the soul eventually fights back with equal force. Bhaktiprajna Keshava Maharaja, the sannyasa guru of Srila Prabhupada, took upon himself the specific task of demonstrating that the mayavada of Sankara is nothing but Buddhism in disguise. But not the Buddhism of Visnu avatar, but rather the Bhuddhism of Sakhya Sinha Buddha, a materialist in essence. Whether Keshava Maharaja’s enthusiasm for the argument was grounded in facts or not, what is true is that the soul does not know a state where it does not act. The idea of a land where there isn’t drama and consequent related tragedies is, in actuality, only a projection. And, ironically, violence in this world can sometimes be precisely the result of such immature conception of the ideal world.

By: Bhaktikanda

Bhaktikanda — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 05:04:09 +0000

I said in my previous post that the greatest pleasure for the Deity is when the Divine finally meets with the jiva. Technically, the greatest pleasure is in the meeting of the Divine Couple. So this can be said in two ways: 1)The jiva is given the opportunity of assisting in the greatest pleasure; 2) The Divine is enhanced by that assistance, hence the meeting of the jiva and the Divine generating the greatest of pleasures.

By: Bhaktikanda

Bhaktikanda — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 04:12:22 +0000

It is not confusing really (and as a spiritual guide you know this – you merely test me) in that human actually means the border between material and divine consciousness. Sometimes animal-like consciousness is predominant, sometimes higher consciousness prevails, then perhaps it gets covered over again for some time due to circumstances. But eventually the fixed spiritual nature of the self takes over and it is very much like human in that it is driven by emotion; transcendental, perfected emotions. (Or better stated, human consciousness is very much like the divine, we are made in God’s image). This struggle for perfection is indeed where the Supreme Being takes the greatest pleasure, for it is when God and the jiva finally meet that the Divine too is stirred emotionally. Its the Deity’s lila.

Krishna says, “abandon religions altogether”. My understanding of this is that obviously religion in itself is just a tool which is not to be taken as the goal. Its material aspect must be left at bay. We must not miss the forest for the trees, as the saying states. We abandon those aspects of humanity which are unfavorable to bhakti, i.e., the calculating, reason driven and therefore ultimately impersonal structures of religion. We must trust, we must hope for faith, we must surrender – saranagati. Follow our nature.

Thus fight, as the Buddhist monks must at times, even apparently against their own reasoning, is not what is wrong with religions. According to GV perception, the error is in fighting on the wrong side.

By: atmananda

atmananda — Thu, 21 Jan 2010 03:46:06 +0000

Simply identifying violence amongst people who are a member of a religion does not automatically mean that the religion is the cause of the violence. Violence and falsity are visible everywhere religion or no religion. Just because “the dark side” is found amongst members of religious institutions does that automatically mean that the religious teachings and practices have a “dark side”? I think that a simpler and less biased explanation might be that some of the practicioners are just not living up to the teachings. The teachings of Bhuddism certainly don’t support violence.