New Zealander jailed for posting a picture of a certain religious leader

[Fragony]

Buddhism is a religion hence Buddha is a religious leader, figure and icon.

Technically not a religious leader, Budhism is all about the individual. I hope this goes through the shredder it's rediculous

[Husar]

Technically not a religious leader, Budhism is all about the individual. I hope this goes through the shredder it's rediculous

Maybe for western leftists who like the flowery meditation and yoga stuff but I posted an article a while ago that showed how Buddha said killing non-Buddhists isn't even murder and perfectly fine to prevent other religions from spreading in buddhist lands.

http://www.loonwatch.com/2012/07/war...st-violence-i/

There are in fact three grades of murder, in increasing order of seriousness, but killing infidels is not one of them. The Nirvana Sutra reads:

The Buddha and Bodhisattva see three categories of killing, which are
those of the grades 1) low, 2) medium, and 3) high. Low applies to the class of insects and all kinds of animals…The medium grade of killing concerns killing humans [who have not reached Nirvana]…The highest grade of killing concerns killing one’s father, mother, an arhat, pratyekabudda, or a Bodhisattva [three ranks of Enlightenment]…

A person who kills an icchantika does not suffer from the karmic returns due to the killings of the three kinds above. O good man, all those Brahmins are of the class of the icchantika. Killing them does not cause one to go to hell. [23]

The Buddha says in the Nirvana Sutra that icchantika’s status is lower than that of the ants:

[T]he icchantikas are cut off from the root of good…Because of this, one may well kill an ant and earn sin for doing harm, but there is no sin for killing an icchantika.” [24]

[naut]

An icchantika is, depending on translation, often considered a person who actively hinders people's achievement of enlightenment. So your dharma towards them would probably not lead to unfavourable karma, because your dharma would benefit other people's dharma and potential attainment of enlightenment. Also keep in mind with certain sutras the moral polarity of your dharma is quite fluid, and not hard and fast codes that must be ascribed to in their totality (e.g. Hammurabi's Code of Laws, etc).

An analogy could be putting a murderer to the firing squad. You transgress them because the sum total of their transgressions would be larger.

P.S: I am not pro-killing people, I'm just trying to put forward a potential explanation for that sutra.

[Husar]

An icchantika is, depending on translation, often considered a person who actively hinders people's achievement of enlightenment. So your dharma towards them would probably not lead to unfavourable karma, because your dharma would benefit other people's dharma and potential attainment of enlightenment. Also keep in mind with certain sutras the moral polarity of your dharma is quite fluid, and not hard and fast codes that must be ascribed to in their totality (e.g. Hammurabi's Code of Laws, etc).

An analogy could be putting a murderer to the firing squad. You transgress them because the sum total of their transgressions would be larger.

P.S: I am not pro-killing people, I'm just trying to put forward a potential explanation for that sutra.

Then that would depend a lot on who exactly is defined as hindering other people's enlightenment. So probably all christians, muslims and possibly atheists as well if they preach non-buddhism to the people.
And then there is the next part:

In addition to issues of faith and unbelief, the Buddhist tradition offered sophistic justifications for killing and war:

[H]ow can one kill another person when…all is emptiness? The man who kills with full knowledge of the facts kills no one because he realizes that all is but illusion, himself as well as the other person. He can kill, because he does not actually kill anyone. One cannot kill emptiness, nor destroy the wind. [25]

Furthermore, killing is sinful because of the evil it creates inside the killer’s mind. But, a true yoga master can train his mind to be “empty” even while he kills. If the killer has “vacuity” of thought, then the murder “did not undermine the essential purity of his mind” and then there is nothing wrong with it. [26] In other words, killing can be excused if it is done by the right person, especially a “dharma-protecting king”.

[Viking]

If the killer has “vacuity” of thought, then the murder “did not undermine the essential purity of his mind” and then there is nothing wrong with it.

In other words, airheads can safely kill anybody they feel like.

[naut]

[H]ow can one kill another person when…all is emptiness? The man who kills with full knowledge of the facts kills no one because he realizes that all is but illusion, himself as well as the other person. He can kill, because he does not actually kill anyone. One cannot kill emptiness, nor destroy the wind.

That's the metaphysics at the core of buddhism. That, in a sense, the universe is an eternal soul, and every person just an iteration within it. So if you kill someone, you don't really kill anything because "a person" doesn't really exist. They're just the incarnation of what the universe is doing at that location and that point in time. What really exists, i.e. the totality of all things/the universe, will still exist and never dies.

It also ties into the idea of spontaneous doing, of having "natural mind", unhindered by concepts:

[T]he fire in the bush burns the mountain;
the hurricane breaks trees;
the collapsing cliff crushes wild animals to death;
the running mountain stream drowns insects.
If a man can make his mind similar,
then, meeting a man,
he may kill him all the same.

- Chan Sutras

[Papewaio]

Technically not a religious leader, Budhism is all about the individual. I hope this goes through the shredder it's rediculous

As pointed out that is a very western hippy view.

Buddhism is a religion with ceremonies, temples, nuns and monks. It has codes of conduct and religious authorities ie the Dalai Lama.

Speaking of Tibet until communist China took over it was a theocracy which is definitely not a system for the individual either in scale of outlook.

[Brenus]

"Buddha said killing non-Buddhists isn't even murder and perfectly fine to prevent other religions from spreading in buddhist lands." Quite common in all religions. You shall not kill excepted (insert your choice)...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

As pointed out that is a very western hippy view.

Buddhism is a religion with ceremonies, temples, nuns and monks. It has codes of conduct and religious authorities ie the Dalai Lama.

Speaking of Tibet until communist China took over it was a theocracy which is definitely not a system for the individual either in scale of outlook.

Yes, and remember that the Dali Lama is the same man as the original Dali Lama, who was a warlord who seized power from Tibet's secular princes with the help the Mongol Karkahn.

So, according to his own religion, the Dali Lama is a war criminal.

As regards this - the Burmese authorities have always been quite clear about this - don't draw pictures of the Buddha. It's not hard - it's like saying "don't draw pictures of Jesus". It's meaningless to non-believers but it's also irrelevant to non-believers. If you immigrated to a country you need to follow the local laws and customs, something as true in Asia as Europe.

[Husar]

Yes, and remember that the Dali Lama is the same man as the original Dali Lama, who was a warlord who seized power from Tibet's secular princes with the help the Mongol Karkahn.

So, according to his own religion, the Dali Lama is a war criminal.

Apparently not if the secular princes were icchantika.

As regards this - the Burmese authorities have always been quite clear about this - don't draw pictures of the Buddha. It's not hard - it's like saying "don't draw pictures of Jesus". It's meaningless to non-believers but it's also irrelevant to non-believers. If you immigrated to a country you need to follow the local laws and customs, something as true in Asia as Europe.

I assume that's why we're best friends with Saudi Arabia. Just wear a burqa, it's not hard.

Why don't we demand that Myanmar/Burma finally go with the times and accept our western values instead of staying a horrible religious backwater that's stuck in a medieval mindset and doesn't embrace freedom and democracy? As Greyblades said, when will New Zealand finally invade?
And why does the world accept the Dalai Lama as a permanent immigrant instead of sending him back to where he came from? He should just accept the laws of the land where he came from instead of running around everywhere whining about how he is the real god-king of the ones he wishes to have as slaves.

[Papewaio]

New Zealand won't invade as Burma doesn't have enough resources to pillage or enough sheep to...

[Kadagar_AV]

I must honestly say I get a bit offended when I see what is written about Buddhism, and the Dalai Lama...

It's weird though, as I don't follow the religion, like, at all. Just like any other.

I have however got a really good impression of the Dalai Lama we have now, non-religious as I am I still feel some kind of inner peace when I hear him talk, and many of his lessons have influenced me in what I consider a positive way.

If I'd pick a religion, it would be Daoism... But then, I am perfectly happy having a loving dog and being appreciated and able to help in my immediate surroundings

[Sarmatian]

or enough sheep to...

... herd?

[Beskar]

... herd?

That is what I thought too.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I assume that's why we're best friends with Saudi Arabia. Just wear a burqa, it's not hard.

False equivalence - Not being allowed to mock a religious icon is different to not being allowed to show your face in public because you are a woman.

[Husar]

False equivalence - Not being allowed to mock a religious icon is different to not being allowed to show your face in public because you are a woman.

What equivalence? Did I say it's the same situation? It's a religious law in both cases that you are required to follow in the country. If the law in SA is even worse, it just strengthens my point that we are despicable people.

[Montmorency]

Not being allowed to mock a religious icon is different to not being allowed to show your face in public because you are a woman.

In what pertinent way?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

In what pertinent way?

One limits Freedom of Expression, the other limits Freedom of Action.

We limit Freedom of expression in the West all the time, where Husar is you aren't allowed to have a Nazi Flag, or anything that might look like a Nazi flag, this makes it rather awkward to make accurate Roman costumes and shields, as well as flags.

[Rhyfelwyr]

"Buddha said killing non-Buddhists isn't even murder and perfectly fine to prevent other religions from spreading in buddhist lands." Quite common in all religions. You shall not kill excepted (insert your choice)...

Non-religious people do the same, and rightly so. Surely you agree you need to be able to kill in certain circumstances, say for example a war against Nazis or ISIS?

In what pertinent way?

Why do you have to reduce everything to black and white absolutes?

[Fragony]

As pointed out that is a very western hippy view.

Buddhism is a religion with ceremonies, temples, nuns and monks. It has codes of conduct and religious authorities ie the Dalai Lama.

Speaking of Tibet until communist China took over it was a theocracy which is definitely not a system for the individual either in scale of outlook.

mea culpa