Can a professed follower of Buddhism fit the description of 'No true Buddhist'

Given the inter faith violence between Muslims and Buddhist's that has been taking place in Burma:-

Is there anything incongruous about a claim of following the tenets of Buddhism and commtting acts of violence, both in a defensive, and as seems to be the case highlighted in the link below, an aggressive sense?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22243676

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Given the inter faith violence between Muslims and Buddhist's that has been taking place in Burma:-

Is there anything incongruous about a claim of following the tenets of Buddhism and commtting acts of violence, both in a defensive, and as seems to be the case highlighted in the link below, an aggressive sense?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22243676

To answer the op simply, I would say "yes".

There is No real Buddhist who is a "True "Buddhist" anyway.
There have been several people claiming the title "Buddha" but I suspect that was only for descriptive purposes for the masses, to tell others that they have claimed to have the reached the same consiousness as the original Buddha - the only one who is really the "Buddha" .

Buddhism was started by Buddha's followers who faithfully recorded the sermons and teachings of the original Buddha.
At it's core is the unveiling of a complete system of psychology which is at it's best and most incisive when explaining "truths" in terms of stories about the life of the original Buddha, and the stories about the lives other "Buddha's" and Bhodisattvas. It is always been most noteworthy that every "True Buddhist" or Bhodisattva has always gone against the grain of conventional society of their time, never adhering strictly to written doctrine but always relying on their own authority in ALL matters, often having to adapt their peaceful, yet life promoting stance [on the universe] to the politics of their day.

Some of the strongest Buddhist stories I have encountered were from Christians or atheists who served in war and personally witnessed monks, who knew they and their monastary would be taken by armed forces and they would likely be tortured and killed, who sat in lotus position and lit themselves on fire just in time to "escape" the invading forces.

I have heard at least 5 or 6 ex-soldiers say that their witnessing these "ritual suicides" have been the most moving and life changing events in their lives, often changing their complete world view irreversibly.

And we are reminded, as we reflect on Buddha as he was approached from behind by the most notorious murderer of his time, who wore a chain around his neck of one of all his victims fingers, that as he approached he thought what an easy kill this would be. When he reached the Buddha the Buddha turned with absolutely no fear and looked the killer in the eyes, which were said to be "full of compassion for all life",especially this fully sentient human that was before him.
It is said that at this moment the murderer dropped his knife and fell to his knees and implored Buddha to take him on as a disciple on the spot.
He is also noted to have been one of Buddha's best disciples for the rest of his life.
I haven't read the link yet, I'll get back to this soon.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
To answer the op simply, I would say "yes".

There is No real Buddhist who is a "True "Buddhist" anyway.
There have been several people claiming the title "Buddha" but I suspect that was only for descriptive purposes for the masses, to tell others that they have claimed to have the reached the same consiousness as the original Buddha - the only one ...[text shortened]... s life.
I haven't read the link yet, I'll get back to this soon.

Not trying to put down Buddhism but doesn't that make it a personality cult?

Originally posted by sonhouse
Not trying to put down Buddhism but doesn't that make it a personality cult?

I suppose it could.
I just feel a purity of Spirit coming through Buddhist language and ideas that says to me there is a BIGGER PROPORTION of [those that profess to be] Buddhist that are experiencing a "higher" or more "truer" version of spirituality than most other religions.
Buddhism transcends organized religion and all worldly human pursuits by giving freedom to it's adherents to translate what these sutras and commentaries mean by their own knowledge. They can borrow form other sources, or not, attend other religious structures and participate in other religious and cultural practices , except those that take life uneccessarily/directly disrespect life.
Certainly half arsed Buddhists can often fall into a "Cult of personality".
Certainly I don't see Buddhists in general worshiping Prince Siddhartra before he left his palace and Earthly riches in pursuit of enlightenment.
Worshiping the 'vessel' and any "achievements" the Buddha may have been said to do is not common in Buddhism.
But as there are different Dharmas , their are different ways of approaching Buddhism.
Some put their faith in Amithabha Buddha, who is said to offer refuge to all who seek his assistance. I see these guys kinda more like Hare Krsnas, who focus on devotional service to their diety and the reptition of mantras centered around Krsna in the Hare's case or Amithabha Bhudda in the case of Buddhist. They are not AS interested in the other two ways of Divination, that being "the way of knowledge" and "the way of good works" as much as other Buddhists, and I can see how that can be interpetted as being like a "Cult of personality" .

I personally have no problem with those who feel they should focus on devotion to their diety instead of not. Some devotion, as I implied is necessary. But this has to be done right. In Buddhism where mantras and visualization techniques are employed it is certainly stressed that these practices always be done in the right Spirit.
When devotional service is seen as a neccesary for an adept , it is to achieve certain psychological states that are required for preparation of ones temporal mind.

Still, I myself am not one who is satisfied with devotional focused practice, I need to know and question things all the time, and I feel you are also slanted that way.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Given the inter faith violence between Muslims and Buddhist's that has been taking place in Burma:-

Is there anything incongruous about a claim of following the tenets of Buddhism and commtting acts of violence, both in a defensive, and as seems to be the case highlighted in the link below, an aggressive sense?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-22243676

I'm not prepared to entertain any conclusive thoughts about what is going down in Burma based on those reports.
I would like to know what the governments agenda is in this apparent conflict escalation, if any.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I'm not prepared to entertain any conclusive thoughts about what is going down in Burma based on those reports.
I would like to know what the governments agenda is in this apparent conflict escalation, if any.

The demographics say it is almost 90% Buddhist and 4% Christian and 4% Islam and the rest others like "Animist', what ever that is.

So if there was any government edicts going on, I would say it would have to be for Buddhists and against the others. Why the violence against Islam? Why not Christians too? Could it be the Muslims are being told to cause trouble? It's not like it hasn't happened elsewhere. Do what your Imam says.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I'm not prepared to entertain any conclusive thoughts about what is going down in Burma based on those reports.
I would like to know what the governments agenda is in this apparent conflict escalation, if any.

Yeah me too, but I am using the example as a means to ask wether a person can exhibit that kind of violence and call themselves a Buddhist, or whether it is just a case of being raised a Buddhist and Identifying as that in a cultural/tribal way and seeing other religions/cultures as alien and threatening.

We see this disjoint between the tenets of a religion and the violence of those who claim to be acting in the name of that particular religion, I am aware that Buddhism is one of the least doctrinaire belief systems, but am not sure of it's stance on violence.

Originally posted by sonhouse
The demographics say it is almost 90% Buddhist and 4% Christian and 4% Islam and the rest others like "Animist', what ever that is.

So if there was any government edicts going on, I would say it would have to be for Buddhists and against the others. Why the violence against Islam? Why not Christians too? Could it be the Muslims are being told to cause trouble? It's not like it hasn't happened elsewhere. Do what your Imam says.

Do what my Imam says? What ? who or what is this Imam?
Unfortunately

Well your a roll hot toothpaste

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Do what my Imam says? What ? who or what is this Imam?
Unfortunately

I think he has you confused with those Islamic terrorist.

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Yeah me too, but I am using the example as a means to ask wether a person can exhibit that kind of violence and call themselves a Buddhist, or whether it is just a case of being raised a Buddhist and Identifying as that in a cultural/tribal way and seeing other religions/cultures as alien and threatening.

We see this disjoint between the tenets of a reli ...[text shortened]... ism is one of the least doctrinaire belief systems, but am not sure of it's stance on violence.

Lets say it has a very strong generally anti-violent stance. It also is very adaptable, so I guess if the situation were extreme then yes it would be permissible.

Originally posted by karoly aczel
Well your a roll hot toothpaste

I didn't write this.... someone is playing a joke on me. Hilarious 😕

Originally posted by karoly aczel
I didn't write this.... someone is playing a joke on me. Hilarious 😕

Damn I thought it was an anagram, I wasted an hour on it.🙂

Originally posted by kevcvs57
Damn I thought it was an anagram, I wasted an hour on it.🙂

🙂

Apparently the original conflict was between Buddhist and Muslim neighbours.
Buddhism is a peaceful religion by and large, Islam is much more mixed.

These problems will happen from time to time, and may be blown up to fuel more antagonism. After all, war is money,right?