In an election scenario, a Buddhist may face a dilemma when deciding whether to vote for leader X, who aligns with their values in most areas but contradicts them in one specific aspect. Conversely, the opposition leader Y is perceived by the Buddhist as being misaligned with Buddhist teachings across all areas. Given that these are effectively the only two choices for leadership, would it always be wise for the Buddhist to abstain from voting for leader X due to this one inconsistency, or does such a purist stance represent a loss of wisdom? What is the inconsistency? Being a moderate in the abortion issue but I wonder how this would work with other issues as the inconsistency.

A bill signed into law this week makes Louisiana the only state to require that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every classroom, in public schools and colleges because they claim there is no separation of church and state as popularly claimed. Would the Buddha be against reminding children about wholesome morals even if they were Christian interpretations? Would the Buddha be against reminding children about wholesome morals given in a Buddhist context? Why? Why not?

How do bodhisattvas, and those who would emulate them, respond to a tyrant or despot, e.g. a Hitler or Stalin? Are Buddhists / Bodhisattvas suggesting a "non-resistance to evil by violence" (Tolstoy) and some strange notion of absolute forgiveness, practically or otherwise? To have someone preach that we all forgive tyrants, as they may go for our throat, seems like a peculiar and sadistic form of madness.

How is it that militant monks can justify waging war or violence? Is nonviolence not necessarily an absolute value for the Buddha? What scriptures are militant monks interpreting to justify war or violence? Are the militant monks making more or less suffering? Is it right to make more suffering than you have to? Do they have to? Is there groups that are a threat to Buddhists or the Buddha's teaching? >Do Buddhists have a country to defend? > >Do Buddhists have a religion to defend?

Can someone who fights, even maybe kills or dies, for a cause he considers right, attain enlightenment? I wonder that after reading that some Buddhists did not share the Zen samurai's vision at all.

According to the Buddha's teaching in the Buddhist scriptures, when is it appropriate: >To assist in creating the structures of a group or society? >To embrace the established structures of a group or society? >To defend others by enforcing the established authority of a group or society? >To push away or overthrow the established structures of a group or society? >To defend others by pushing away or overthrowing the established authority of a group or society?

Does Asian countries has Buddhist law in their parliament/government? Is there thing like this? As we can see that Asian countries like Japan, China, Malaysia, Thailand, Mongolia, South-Korea, North-Korea, Hongkong. In these counties mostly people are Buddhist so I've to know if there is Buddhist law for parliament or government for Buddhist country. And if there what is it or what it'd be?

According to Buddhism, should one change oneself or change the world and why.

In my country (Sri Lanka) government is about to bring out a new set of laws to govern Buddhist councils. This kind of a law has never existed in my country and being a Buddhist country there is some speculation about why only one religion is effected by this new law. There are some fears from monks about government trying to shut up the religion & it's power over people even though some are ready to examine the whole thing and come up with modifications. There is a line about putting the "Monk imposers" in jail. And some fear this might be a bate to take down Buddhist organizations and Monks who speak against injustice. The public literally has no clue about what to say or do. Most likely people will oppose it and there is a big potential that this might lead to some serious outbreak of violence and religious conflict. --- Here are some links from news web sites about the whole thing: - Amendment of laws on Buddhist temples will take decision making power away from Maha Sangha - New laws --- So far it is very dreadful. What should be the response to this kind of a law in any country? How to deal with government involvement in religion?

since I started my buddhist practice some five years ago, I have made great advancements. I think I've become much more accepting and loving towards others. I used to be cynical and arrogant and I suppose I've since reached a point where I can claim to be free of both. All in all I am quite happy with my life nowadays. I feel no hatred anymore and have become tolerant towards more or less everybody and every aspect of life. There is one exception however that is really nagging on me: I am an avid follower of politics and can get stirred up by political events, decisions or politicians themselves that are opposed to my own political convictions. Sometimes it is enough for me to see a certain politician to become filled with - I don't know if you might call it hatred - but at least a feeling of great antipathy, even disgust. I know that the person behind the political façade might very well be likable and live a normal life with her or his own needs and worries, personal shortcomings and qualities, just like anybody else. I am not even talking about today's great "evildoers" like Kim Jong-un or even less contested politicians like Donald Trump or Viktor Orbán. It's mostly politicians on a national or even regional level that are able to cause those bad feelings in me. My wish is on the one hand to see and accept those people as being regular living beings like you and me that need to be loved and understood just like everybody else. Something that I nowadays don't find hard to see in virtually everybody else, even (bad) criminals. In some ways I even find it easier to feel compassion for somebody like Kim Jong-un than for some of Germany's or France's politicians, i.e. the countries that I feel most closely connected to. To be quite frank, I don't have the slightest idea why I find this so hard to achieve. On the other hand I would like to be less affected by political issues in general. I know that it might not be the wisest stance to take, but I sometimes think I wouldn't mind losing interest in the local and international political scene altogether because I have the impression that I can't distance myself from it and that it is in some way poisoning my thoughts. Has anybody else on here made similar experiences or has got some advice on how I can "fix" this strange condition? I already practise metta meditation and it does have a very positive effect on me, like I described above. It just does not seem to achieve much in this regard. Thanks!

I always wondered why do people that practice Buddhist practices, label or opt not to label themselves "Buddhist".

Thinking of Buddhism a lot lately and I really love the concepts in it, however I just can't seem to find Buddhism to have a potential to become an universal philosophy as it seems very life negating. Let me explain my self. In Buddhism we are constantly reminded how all problems are an illusion and should be ignored. But are they really? Buddhism seems like a perfect ideology for rich white people or other population isolated from real problematics hitting this world. Buddhism not only says: "You have so nothing to care about, you really should just enjoy yourself" it also gives you a relief that other people are unfortunate since it reminds you all problems are only illusion of ego. That all problems are only illusion of ego is not true however, since there are serious problems like hunger, wars etc. troubling this earth. Buddhist ideology doesn't have any clear directions on how to resolve these problems but only works as an outside observer. What I am asking is, isn't Buddhism life negating? Is Buddhistic ideology more inclined to ignores / detach from problems rather than to try to present exact solutions? Thank you for your answers and critics of my views.

How is he connected to the Buddhist community? Is he a to be Buddhist leader or simply a successor? And does his imprisonment by china has anything to do with Buddhism or is it just a political matter? Did his imprisonment affected the Buddhist community? If yes, then how?

I can't help myself not to find Buddhism utopic. A concept that can only exist for a small group of people. What is the long term plan of the Buddhism? How would Buddhist monks organize countries, world? e. g.: Imagine you got 95% Buddhist countries, but ISIS pops up, how would Buddhist countries react, given that non-violence is preached?

This month is Buddhist Action Month in the UK when we try to be a bit more socially engaged. To quote from the website > Despite Buddhism's reputation for stillness and withdrawal from the > world, UK Buddhists are engaged in a wide range of social-change > projects, alleviating suffering at home and abroad So leading on from this, I was wondering whether the Buddha promoted this kind of social engagement. Was the Buddha active in addressing political and social injustices of his time or did he more work within the social norms and bring about liberation in that way. I'm particularly interested in references to the Pali Canon to illustrate answers but answers from other traditions and texts would also be interesting.

Where there is a group of people, there will be politics and organizational dynamics. This should be no different with the Sangha. For example, monks trying to cause dissent or schism, monks who disobey instructions, monks trying to gain power over others, monks who are envious of others, monks trying to get the attention of the Buddha or their abbot etc. How did the Buddha handle such situations in his time? How are such situations handled within the Sangha today?