The Buddhist Attitude To God

[Lycorth]

The Buddha instructed us to look beyond such superstitious nonsense. The Buddha himself rejected magic and ritual.

 

Quite true. The Buddha encouraged us to look to ourselves, not to any gods or magic rituals, for insight and knowledge. Jun is quite right in claiming that those who make the Buddha, etc, into gods or incorporate magic and so forth into their practice aren't practicing genuine Buddhism. A take-off on the original article, sure, but since it doesn't jive, it ain't the real deal.

[Grandpa Harley]

Rev junpei Mukyoho, aka CAPTAIN CAPITALS...

 

I suggest y'all tell the Dalai Lama he's not a Buddhist... and SENTENCES IN CAPITALS LACK CHARM AND ADD NOTHING TO THE ARGUMENT. So much for equanimity...

 

After 2500 years, it's hardly surprising there are more than just one interpretation of what Buddha said. I'd agree, Tibetan Buddhism is more an amalgam of Buddhism, Bonpo and Hinduism, than pure Buddhism. However, saying your strain is the only pure one is something we hear from Christians the whole damn time. So, it's got a different back beat, but it's still the same song as the fundies sing.

 

On the subject of purity, I recall the Buddha saying to make no images. Your temple got images? The Six realms are pretty much superstition... Form Realm Gods? Hungry Ghosts? Hell of Hot Iron? So is reincarnation. No objective proofs. I like the philosophy, but Hells? Ghosts with mouths like pinholes anfd huge bellies?

 

Am I looking to go into journalism? I think not. Do I show non-equanimity in using capitals as emphasis? Captain capitals, I like it that's COOL!

 

I don't recall saying anything about PURE Buddhism. What's PURE anyhow? Did I make the claim that the Buddhism I practice is the only "pure" version?

 

Actually, the Buddha himself did not comment on the making of images. He was asked if a stupa should be made after his passing to which he agreed. Erecting stupas was a common practice.

 

Again, all this talk of heavens and hells and ghosts and gods - they are teaching aids, most of which is left over from the Indian beliefs of the time. The Buddha often borrowed common Indian beliefs of the people to get his message across. There are no actual heaven realms or hell realms or ghosts and boogy men. Yes, that is all superstition and has no place in Buddhism.

 

Yes, there is one image in our temple. It is at the back of the main hall, in a cupboard collecting dust.

 

What constitutes "BUDDHISM?" Tibetan magical incantations and belief in the Hindu inspired reincarnation? Shugendo mountaineering and mountain worship? Shingon-shu magical empowerment and fire rituals? Tendai-shu marathon running around Kyoto? Rinzai-shu Koan practice? The Buddha instructed us to look beyond such superstitious nonsense. The Buddha himself rejected magic and ritual.

 

On a visit to Japan in 2000, the Dalai Lama met with a prominent Soto-shu Zen priest Mengan. Mengan said to the Dalai Lama, "You should take up the practice of Buddhism, you might find it suited to your peaceful disposition."

 

Ah, the great 'It is allegorical' argument on the 6 realms... Very like the 'liberal Christian' stance. The needle returns to the start of the sone and we all sing along like before.

 

As to the caps; ALL CAPS=SHOUTING (basic netiquette) thus lacking equanimity, at least by my definitions.

 

I'll take the Buddha's stance on images under advisement...

[Grandpa Harley]

The Buddha instructed us to look beyond such superstitious nonsense. The Buddha himself rejected magic and ritual.

 

Quite true. The Buddha encouraged us to look to ourselves, not to any gods or magic rituals, for insight and knowledge. Jun is quite right in claiming that those who make the Buddha, etc, into gods or incorporate magic and so forth into their practice aren't practicing genuine Buddhism. A take-off on the original article, sure, but since it doesn't jive, it ain't the real deal.

 

Ever noticed that when someone points out the irrationality of one sect someone from another states 'They all don't all know Jesus right' I'm hearing nothing new here, just a different beat.

[Jun]

Ever noticed that when someone points out the irrationality of one sect someone from another states 'They all don't all know Jesus right' I'm hearing nothing new here, just a different beat.

 

I can see what you are saying. If you read the original teachings of the Buddha however, you will find that is indeed the case.

 

As Buddhism spread and adapted itself to other cultures it picked up various other "flavours." It is necessary to look past all these cultural flavourings and superstitious nonsense, to delve into the bare bones teaching of the Buddha.

 

No one version/sect/tradtition has any better understanding on how to practice the Dharma than any other. The fact is however that quite a few are FAR removed from what the Buddha taught.

 

It is allegorical

 

Yes, the Buddhas teaching were often allegorical. He used the religious understanding and religious terms of the people of the time to get his message across. Problems arise when references to ghosts, demons, deities, heavens and hells get taken to mean literal realms and beings. The Buddha made it quite clear that he did not intend for these to be taken literally.

 

As to the caps; ALL CAPS=SHOUTING (basic netiquette) thus lacking equanimity, at least by my definitions.

 

SORRY ABOUT THAT THEN. I'LL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT I AM NOT A NETIQUETTE JUNKIE. 99% of the time I don't use English in online forums, different rules for different languages I suppose?

[Grandpa Harley]

Ever noticed that when someone points out the irrationality of one sect someone from another states 'They all don't all know Jesus right' I'm hearing nothing new here, just a different beat.

 

I can see what you are saying. If you read the original teachings of the Buddha however, you will find that is indeed the case.

 

As Buddhism spread and adapted itself to other cultures it picked up various other "flavours." It is necessary to look past all these cultural flavourings and superstitious nonsense, to delve into the bare bones teaching of the Buddha.

 

No one version/sect/tradtition has any better understanding on how to practice the Dharma than any other. The fact is however that quite a few are FAR removed from what the Buddha taught.

 

It is allegorical

 

Yes, the Buddhas teaching were often allegorical. He used the religious understanding and religious terms of the people of the time to get his message across. Problems arise when references to ghosts, demons, deities, heavens and hells get taken to mean literal realms and beings. The Buddha made it quite clear that he did not intend for these to be taken literally.

 

As to the caps; ALL CAPS=SHOUTING (basic netiquette) thus lacking equanimity, at least by my definitions.

 

 

SORRY ABOUT THAT THEN. I'LL BE THE FIRST TO ADMIT I AM NOT A NETIQUETTE JUNKIE. 99% of the time I don't use English in online forums, different rules for different languages I suppose?

 

I'd agree on all counts Although "No one version/sect/tradtition has any better understanding on how to practice the Dharma than any other. The fact is however that quite a few are FAR removed from what the Buddha taught." is not the subtext of the earlier posts.

 

As to netiquette... Better mentioned than not.

[Grandpa Harley]

As an addendum, I tend toward Zen/Ch'an being probably the closest to what the Buddha taught. Tibetan is wayyy to reliant on deity like castings of known Buddha's disciples...

[robbie]

Jun, this is why I was talking about Buddhism as it is practiced by many people. I have no doubt that some of their practices are not what many would consider 'true Buddhism'. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people consider themselves Buddhist and practice what they consider Buddhism in such ways.

[Grandpa Harley]

Jun, this is why I was talking about Buddhism as it is practiced by many people. I have no doubt that some of their practices are not what many would consider 'true Buddhism'. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people consider themselves Buddhist and practice what they consider Buddhism in such ways.

 

Not what the Buddha taught is a more common view of Buddhism than what the Buddha taught.

[Jun]

Not what the Buddha taught is a more common view of Buddhism than what the Buddha taught.

 

Unfortunately.

 

As an addendum, I tend toward Zen/Ch'an being probably the closest to what the Buddha taught.

 

Would you mind if I ask you to elaborate on that? Why? How? Doesn't Taoism and Confucianism overtly colour the teachings of Ch'an/Zen/Son?

[Jun]

Jun, this is why I was talking about Buddhism as it is practiced by many people. I have no doubt that some of their practices are not what many would consider 'true Buddhism'. But that doesn't change the fact that a lot of people consider themselves Buddhist and practice what they consider Buddhism in such ways.

 

You would be surprised to see what is accepted and registered as being a tradition of "Buddhism" in Australia. Tibetan healing methods, Tai Chi, Tantric Yoga, Tibetan cooking schools, Chinese accupuncture schools, Shaolin Gung Fu..... the list is endless. I'm sure it is no different in America or Europe. The Chinese especially are quick to jump on the money making bandwagon claiming all sorts of things as being "traditional Buddhism." Shops selling all sorts of "magical Chinese Buddhist amulets" and such abound in Australia.

 

Not at all Buddhism, but the public wouldn't know, and it seems neither would many so-called "Buddhists."

[Grandpa Harley]

Not what the Buddha taught is a more common view of Buddhism than what the Buddha taught.

 

Unfortunately.

 

As an addendum, I tend toward Zen/Ch'an being probably the closest to what the Buddha taught.

 

Would you mind if I ask you to elaborate on that? Why? How? Doesn't Taoism and Confucianism overtly colour the teachings of Ch'an/Zen/Son?

 

If Buddhism had landed and took in Palestine, then it would be coloured by Judaism and (later) Islam... but the nature of what the Buddha taught means the audience had to be pretty sophisticated to 'get it' with out the idea ot Gods, an afterlife/reincarnation, and the idea of punishment sooner or later for bad deeds becoming literal in the mind of the faithful. The other thing that didn't help was the fact that Indian Buddhists were wiped out, in one of the most successful genocides in history, by the Murghals. No missionaries Buddhists 'R' Us to try and keep the faithful on the Lavender scented path of the Buddha's ideas.

 

Imagine what Christianity or Islam would look like if it had spread, then was wiped out in Europe(Christianity)/Arabia(Islam) and then filtered back after 200 years from semi isolated pockets across the globe. The loss of a central 'pure' place, means that all sorts of local versions would spring up... rather like Classical Latin died with the Roman Empire... So I don't see the point of the question, of course Taoism and Confucianism colours Zen/Ch'an (I don't know about Son, since I've neither read anything nor met a practitioner/teacher of same) Anything that avoids Pure Land nonsense is closer to Buddha's original thoughts, as transmitted.

 

 

In a non-sectarian way, I think Stephen Batchelor is on of the few who get's the joke. Personally, I like Gil Fronsdhal's and Jack Kornfield's work as well as Shinzen Young's and Thich Nhat Hahn's style. Doesn't mean I think any of them are fully there, but what the hell... Unless you buy the Triple Jewel of Buddha, Dharma and Sangha (as in sectarian fellow travellers), one can pick one's way along quite well...

[Lycorth]

Ever noticed that when someone points out the irrationality of one sect someone from another states 'They all don't all know Jesus right' I'm hearing nothing new here, just a different beat.

 

Not so here. Jebus is depicted as having said a lot of things, many of them in contradiction with each other. The Buddha, on the other hand, left a rather clear set of teaching behind, and to the best of my knowledge, they do not contradict each other. If there is deviation, it's not like in Xian sects; there, you have deviation because some people emphasize one set of verses and others emphasize different ones. In Buddhism, when you have deviation, it's because of other concepts genuinely imported into one's personal or group practice from without. Whether or not these things are actually in harmony with the obvious intent of Buddhist teaching is another matter.

 

The situations seem similar, but really are not.

[Grandpa Harley]

Ever noticed that when someone points out the irrationality of one sect someone from another states 'They all don't all know Jesus right' I'm hearing nothing new here, just a different beat.

 

Not so here. Jebus is depicted as having said a lot of things, many of them in contradiction with each other. The Buddha, on the other hand, left a rather clear set of teaching behind, and to the best of my knowledge, they do not contradict each other. If there is deviation, it's not like in Xian sects; there, you have deviation because some people emphasize one set of verses and others emphasize different ones. In Buddhism, when you have deviation, it's because of other concepts genuinely imported into one's personal or group practice from without. Whether or not these things are actually in harmony with the obvious intent of Buddhist teaching is another matter.

 

The situations seem similar, but really are not.

 

The extraordinary claim is the Buddha didn't contradict himself, since the philosophy is one of refinement of knowledge in a practical sense.

Across Buddha's 84000 teachings there are clear contradictions. It's why the Tibetans introduced the Lam Rim framework to try and pave over the issues. Other sects have other methods. but to say that Buddha didn't contradict himself over a period of 50 year is an unsupportable stance. The stance on meat eating alone is contradictory...

 

Religions have to be self consistent, since they're the 'word of God', the Buddha, being a man and a philosopher, could refine his thoughts with time with no such constraint. The later dehumanising of Buddha means that non-contradiction is an article of faith, and require semantic back flips and the kind of apologetics that one seldome finds ouside the worse designed websites. (I've linked to that site to show the terrible sort of Christian apologetics that have to be aped)

[Jun]

So I don't see the point of the question, of course Taoism and Confucianism colours Zen/Ch'an

 

I asked this simply in response to this;

 

I tend toward Zen/Ch'an being probably the closest to what the Buddha taught.

 

The closest to what the Buddha taught, yet "coloured" by Taoism and Confucianism? hmmm.

 

Your comment that Zen is [probably] the closest to what the Buddha taught is an interesting one that has been argued in Soto-shu Zen for the last 800 years.

 

Buddhism is the teaching of non-self (anatman) and the teaching of causality (pratityasamutpada). Crucially, the Buddha denied any eternal, substantial, underlying basis or locus on which everything else arises from or is dependent on. This "locus" that is denied by the Buddha is called dhatu. Any teaching that implies the existence of dhatu is called dhatu-vada.

 

Dhatu-vada is antithetical to Buddhism, after all it is what the Buddha ultimatley denied. No eternal force or Buddha-nature. No gods or creator beings.

 

The basis of Zen (as a Mahayana vehicle) rests upon the idea of a tathagata-garbha, the matrix or seed of Buddhahood inherent in all sentient beings. This tathagata-garbha is the Buddhahood of all things in existence - nature, the universe, trees, rocks, animals, - both animate and inanimate. This was adopted from Taoism. It is termed hongaku shiso in Japanese and is especially found in Zen.

 

Dhatu-vada thought (tathagata-garbha, hongaku shiso) is NOT Buddhist.

 

The prevalent emphasis (especially outside of Japan) that Zen is "no thought and no conceptualisation" or "direct intuition" is based also upon tathagata-garbha, which is not Buddhist at all.

 

So I was interested in your comment that Zen is probably the closest to what the Buddha taught.

[Astreja]

Buddhism plays a substantial role in my (admittedly syncretic) worldview. My first encounters were with various sects of Mahayana -- First Pure Land/Jodo Shinshu, then Nichiren Shoshu (a.k.a. Soka Gakkai). My ten-year experience with the latter group was a deconversion story all on its own. After tossing out a lot of superstition and worshipping and general ritualistic silliness, I happily settled into a solitary practice derived from Zen and Vipassana -- Decidedly non-theistic schools.

 

To me, Buddhism is all about learning to deal honestly with the First Noble Truth, sarva dukha (best translated as "Life's a bitch, and then you die.")

 

The gods that do happen to show up in the various sutras are generally there to *learn* rather than to do god-type things. They're in the same boat as the rest of us.

[Jun]

I happily settled into a solitary practice derived from Zen and Vipassana -- Decidedly non-theistic schools.

 

Practice derived from Vipassana? I'm confused.

 

Derived from Zen? What does this mean? Your statement doesn't make any sense to me, sorry.

 

Zen meditation is samatha, followed by Vipassana. So in practicing Samatha and Vipassana you are practicing Zen.

[Astreja]

Sorry for the confusion, Jun. I used "derived from" because my methods are somewhat haphazard -- I haven't studied with a teacher and am groping my way along to the best of my understanding. I sit when I can and try to practice mindfulness in the course of daily affairs, but someday I'd like to find a local zazen group or go on a short retreat, and develop more discipline in my practice.

[Grandpa Harley]

So I don't see the point of the question, of course Taoism and Confucianism colours Zen/Ch'an

 

I asked this simply in response to this;

 

I tend toward Zen/Ch'an being probably the closest to what the Buddha taught.

 

The closest to what the Buddha taught, yet "coloured" by Taoism and Confucianism? hmmm.

 

Your comment that Zen is [probably] the closest to what the Buddha taught is an interesting one that has been argued in Soto-shu Zen for the last 800 years.

 

Buddhism is the teaching of non-self (anatman) and the teaching of causality (pratityasamutpada). Crucially, the Buddha denied any eternal, substantial, underlying basis or locus on which everything else arises from or is dependent on. This "locus" that is denied by the Buddha is called dhatu. Any teaching that implies the existence of dhatu is called dhatu-vada.

 

Dhatu-vada is antithetical to Buddhism, after all it is what the Buddha ultimatley denied. No eternal force or Buddha-nature. No gods or creator beings.

 

The basis of Zen (as a Mahayana vehicle) rests upon the idea of a tathagata-garbha, the matrix or seed of Buddhahood inherent in all sentient beings. This tathagata-garbha is the Buddhahood of all things in existence - nature, the universe, trees, rocks, animals, - both animate and inanimate. This was adopted from Taoism. It is termed hongaku shiso in Japanese and is especially found in Zen.

 

Dhatu-vada thought (tathagata-garbha, hongaku shiso) is NOT Buddhist.

 

The prevalent emphasis (especially outside of Japan) that Zen is "no thought and no conceptualisation" or "direct intuition" is based also upon tathagata-garbha, which is not Buddhist at all.

 

So I was interested in your comment that Zen is probably the closest to what the Buddha taught.

Taoism states that 'everything is of the same matter', but it's only one possible translation, and the one that makes most sense to me. I've not taken is as the literalist 'sentient.' Therefore, (by my reckoning and reading) not incompatible with Buddhism as it makes sense to me. Confucianism, IS incompatible to a degree, since there is a heavy element of a literal 'Heaven' and 'ancestor worship.

 

In this matter, I can only quote myself on the nature of truth. 'The Truth is a damned strange animal. Ask any three men who claim to have seen it and you'll get four contradictory answers'

[Robbobrob]

Sadly, even when great ideas become part of the masses' daily life, things change and get misunderstood and get warped by competing ideas. Hence, you get superstitions and rituals that do nothing to foward the individual into a life of less suffering. I know lots of Christians who don't understand the higher debates about Jesus and God, they just accept what they were taught. Why would most Lay-Buddists be any different?

 

But, the thing that grabs me about Buddha vs. Jesus is that I can follow Buddha, because he was not any different than I (as oppsoed to the divinity imposed on Jesus). It means that I can actually say to myself, "I can be like him, if I so choose." I can not make that same statement with Jesus.

 

And, of course, unlike the Christians, where it is a "you have to believe it all, or even these important parts to be part of the faith," Buddha, as quoted my GHarley above, said that each person needed to examine for themselves if his teachings work, and to never take such things, even from him, on blind faith.

 

I wonder how many westererns think all Buddhists are monks and nuns and that to be a real Buddhist you need to wear robes and chant all day. That would be like assuming to be Roman Catholic you have to be celibate and wear black robes and live in rectories.

 

I admit that I was stuck in that kind of thinking for a while when it came to Buddhism. Now that I've freed my mind from that kind of thinking, I can see a real benefit to studying it for what it can provide me as I search for strategies to make my life better and more peaceful, from the inside out.

[Lycorth]

Across Buddha's 84000 teachings there are clear contradictions.

 

Such as? I'm not claiming you're wrong right off the bat, but I'd like to know which "clear contradictions" there are. After all, you also said that Tibetan Buddhists actually killed other people in the name of spreading their spin on Buddhism, which I find beyond belief - and no sources to be found.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if there are indeed contradictions, since Buddhism is a human invention, like all religions and philosophies. But claims are one thing, and backing them up is another.

 

Again, can you point out anything to me?

[Robbobrob]

Religions have to be self consistent, since they're the 'word of God', the Buddha, being a man and a philosopher, could refine his thoughts with time with no such constraint. The later dehumanising of Buddha means that non-contradiction is an article of faith, and require semantic back flips and the kind of apologetics that one seldome finds ouside the worse designed websites. (I've linked to that site to show the terrible sort of Christian apologetics that have to be aped)

 

Just read that link. Wow, what an awful essay. "the bible is right, therefore buddhism cannot be right!" arguments are amzing...course, anyone who believes the bible to be true would go, "yeah, he's right".

 

The thing I found most disturbing, out of all the disturbing things I read there, was the idea that Buddhism believes in inheriting sins from past lives while "We do not inherit the sins of our ancestors, nor do we inherit sins from previous lives."

 

Um, and what exactly is Original Sin? This is not considered inherited sin in this writer's eyes. Please. Wish people were forced to have copy editors before they post stuff as facts online. At least get the arguments straight. Yikes.

[Jun]

the idea that Buddhism believes in inheriting sins from past lives

 

This is a common misconception, even among modern Buddhists. The Buddha actually NEVER taught such Hindu nonsense.

 

I wonder how many westererns think all Buddhists are monks and nuns and that to be a real Buddhist you need to wear robes and chant all day.

 

I meet this types everyday in Australia. Most assume that I am joking, or not a "serious" Buddhist as I don't feel the need to wear my horoi (Japanese robes) all day. The most common comment I get is, "You don't look like a Buddhist priest." Stereotypes are hard to crush it seems.

 

you also said that Tibetan Buddhists actually killed other people in the name of spreading their spin on Buddhism, which I find beyond belief - and no sources to be found.

 

My expertise is in Japanese history and Samurai martial culture, so I can't comment on the history of Tibet. I do know however that the Dalai Lama of old were instructed in warfare and that a highly trained cavalry was kept to protect the Tibetan temples right up until the early 15th century. I have seen old footage of the Tibetan Buddhist cavalry in training manoueveres during the late 1800's.

 

I can tell you that the greatest warriors and the most formidable armies of Japan from the 10th to 14th centuries weren't those of the Samurai class. Feared by both the Imperial court and the Samurai class were the great armies of the Buddhist temples of Kyoto. These warrior priests waged war upon the government and among themselves.

 

The first warrior priest armies (10th century to 13th century) were from the older Vajrayana (esoteric sects - Shingon-shu, Tendai-shu) and they held considerable power and militray might up until the emergence of the newer Buddhist sects of Nichiren-shu and Jodo-shu in the 13th century. These newer sects became so powerful that they even overthrew the local warlords and set up independent governments of their own. Their temples were the forerunners to Japan's impenetrable castles. The Ishiyama Honganji temple (Jodo Shin-shu) withstood the longest siege in Japanese history, an entire decade against the forces of the famous Oda Nobunaga and his crack troops.

 

Japanese Buddhist warrior priests were formidable with the bow and arrow and the naginata (a glaive) and the familar Japanese sword. Many Samurai schools of combat were founded by Buddhist warrior priests or Samurai who had trained with them.

 

The only sects of Buddhism to have never raised armies or supported warfare were those of the Zen sect (Rinzai-shu, Soto-shu, Obaku-shu).

 

Those who claim that the history of Buddhism has always been one of peace don't know their history.

[Grandpa Harley]

The Reverend has covered some of it

 

Let's see...

 

First Invasion of China

 

"The Chinese records record an envoy in 634. On that occasion the Emperor requested marriage to a Chinese princess and was refused. In 635-6 the Emperor attacked and defeated the Azha (‘A zha) people, who lived around Lake Koko Nur in the northeast corner of Tibet, and who controlled important trade routes into China. After a successful campaign against China in 635-6. The Chinese emperor agreed to provide a Chinese princess to Songtsän Gampo.

 

Circa 639, after Songtsän Gampo had a dispute with his younger brother Tsänsong (Brtsan-srong), the younger brother was burnt to death by his own minister Khäsreg (Mkha’s sregs) (presumably at the behest of his older brother the emperor).[10][13]

 

The Chinese princess Wencheng (Tibetan Mung-chang Kung-co) departed China in 640 to marry Songtsän Gampo, she arrived a year later. Peace between China and Tibet prevailed for the remainder of Songtsän Gampo's reign."

 

From memory, that's where atrocities occurred. One of the justifications of the invasion was spreading Dharma. One forgets the Tibetans had an Empire, and one doesn't hold an Empire by being 'nice'.

 

As to the other... try looking it up... you're making the extraordinary claim.

[Skankboy]

Confucianism, IS incompatible to a degree, since there is a heavy element of a literal 'Heaven' and 'ancestor worship.

 

Only if you take it literally. After my studies in eastern philo in college, I'm inclined to believe that he didn't believe in an afterlife or heaven. The point was that ritual and protocol are an effective social control measure. It wasn't what ancestor worship did for the ancestors, so much as what contemplating and respencting the deeds of your ancestors did you for you and in turn the society you lived in.

 

A side note I'm sure. Personally, I would agree that Zen seems the closest to the Buddha's original teachings as any I've seen in modern society.

 

IMOHO,

[Lycorth]

Jun and Grandpa, thanks for the info. I was aware that Buddhists trained in many martial arts historically, and of course see it as no violation of the traditional Buddhist encouragement to do no harm. Pacifism is more harmful than preparing for self-defense.

 

And people doing violent things in the name of any belief system is of course nothing new. Some people never learn

 

As to the other... try looking it up... you're making the extraordinary claim.

 

I made no claim, and admitted that only as far as I knew, there were no contradictions. The claims - that there are these "obvious" contradictions - are yours. Hence, it's up to you to show me, if you claim they exist.

 

Or I'll just find them as I study Buddhism more deeply. Easier to do it myself, in the end