Radical Monk in Myanmar Pledges to Protect Global Buddhism

[DesertDiamond]

35. snooper2, have you really read everyone's holy books thoroughly? Only then can you say that there

are "happy parts" and "unhappy parts." If disrespect for life is not a part of the foundation of a religion, then you cannot call those who disrespect life fundamentalists of that religion.

Regarding Christianity, I have read the teachings of Jesus and it seems clear to me that he taught peace, love, equality and respect for all. Therefore, I say that anyone who does not practice that cannot be called a Christian fundamentalist.

I haven't read the Muslim scriptures, so for that I will honor the word of my Muslim friends who tell me that the foundation of their religion is a peaceful teaching. Based on that anyone who called themselves practitioners of Islam but advocates violence is not a fundamentalist of Islam.

As for Buddhism, that I do know, and the foundation of Shakyamuni's teachings -- as expressed in his final and ultimate teaching, the Lotus Sutra -- is absolute respect for all, based on the Buddhahood that exists in all beings and all things. Therefore, anyone who behaves in a way that is contrary to that is not practicing Buddhism and is not a Buddhist fundamentalist.

Again, the root word of "fundamentalism" is "fundamental." If their practices and beliefs are not part of the fundamental teaching of the religion, then they are not fundamentalists of that religion.

Based on that, do you think we can find grounds for agreement?