Why did Eastern religions focus so much on non-violence compared to Abrahamic ones?

[signal]

Maybe this is an easy answer but I'm dumb so help. The principle of ahimsa or non-violence in Hinduism / Jainism / Buddhism is pretty foundational, but nothing of the sort exists for Abrahamic religions. There are variations in both groups (e.g. the non-violence in Jainism and Buddhism is a bit more extreme than Hinduism; biblical texts have commandments to not murder but also prescribed ways to carry out wars, etc.) but in general I think saying the non-violence of the 'Eastern' religions is far ahead of the Abrahamic ones.

I've read it might be that a monotheistic aspect kind of exalts your own group vs. others and that might be a reason. Maybe there are early splienter groups in Judaism / Christianity that were really non-violent that I just don't know about, but that just did not become popular for some reason. Hinduism is more non-violent than earlier Vedic religions, so maybe it's just a reverse of that. If not this though, are there societal or cultural things that explain this?

🤔 ☸ ✝ ✡ ☪ 🕉 🤔

 

[KDR_11k]

JHVH is supposedly based on a war god from an older pantheon.

EDIT:

Yahweh - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Imperfected]

Jesus was pretty big on non-violence, but Christianity got its first major signal boost from the Roman Empire who were notoriously not about that life.

 

[4Tran]

I don't know if you'd really call Hinduism and Buddhism non-violent per se. What they emphasize is asceticism and the non-violence part just stems from that. This is why the cultures where these religions are popular also tend to have strong vegetarian tendencies as well.

On the other hand, the Abrahamic religions are based on Judaism, and if you read the Old Testament, it's pretty obvious that Judaism is largely about justifying the wars and practices of the Israelites. Sure later additions try to tone this aspect down somewhat, but all that war stuff doesn't go away.

 

[Sabretooth]

Spitballing here, but it could be because Buddhism and Jainism developed out of philosophical inquiry rather than religious dogma. A lot of the time, it's difficult to determine what is philosophy and what is religion when it comes to Eastern religions.

As an example of what I mean, unlike Abrahamic religions, the Buddha does not consider himself a prophet or related to a god in any way. Although Buddhism later developed to have its own mythos, that was more inherited from Hindu tradition than invented or institutionalised.

In Abrahamic religions, the appeal is always in belief and faith. If you don't believe in the exalted status of Moses, Jesus, or Mohammed, you are inherently an 'unbeliever', which puts you outside of the group. This may not necessarily be a prelude to violence, but it certainly points to a kind of groupthink that says "If you don't agree with us, you aren't one of us", which is the antithesis of philosophical inquiry.

Hinduism, by the bye, can barely be considered a singular religion, and although it had discourse on non-violence since Vedic times, its present inclusion of non-violence was largely an influence of and reaction to Buddhism and Jainism.

 

[Timbuktu]

Jesus was pretty big on non-violence, but Christianity got its first major signal boost from the Roman Empire who were notoriously not about that life.

Click to shrink...

Indeed. And Buddhism and other eastern religions can be warped to justify violence in the same way, just look at the militant Buddhist in Sri Lanka and Myanmar.

 

[signal]

Jesus was pretty big on non-violence, but Christianity got its first major signal boost from the Roman Empire who were notoriously not about that life.

Click to shrink...

Yeah this is true and kind of obvious for me to ignore lol. I guess aside from the apocalyptic aspects of violence, new testament doesn't have that much. It's not really preaching a ton of non-violence afaik, but it's not 'pro-violence'

I don't know if you'd really call Hinduism and Buddhism non-violent per se. What they emphasize is asceticism and the non-violence part just stems from that. This is why the cultures where these religions are popular also tend to have strong vegetarian tendencies as well.

Click to shrink...

There does seem to be a kind of progression towards emphasizing the limiting of harm though. If you look at Hinduism getting rid of the animal sacrifices of the Vedic religions, or the prescriptions of 'you can shoot someone with an arrow during war, just don't poison it!', to the basic total elimination of all of that in Jain/Buddhism.

 

[Fromskap]

The way I see it, is that the Abrahamic religions (and perhaps monotheistic ones in general) are in a sense totalitarian. While religions like Buddhism often incorporate other gods and their teachings, Abrahamic religions stubbornly promotes only one god, and any other gods and religious teachings are therefore invalid. Polytheistic ones also seem to have room for other deities. We know that vikings had a reverence for the Sami religion and hindered christian missionaries to get to them in order to shield their religion and magic. This changed when the vikings became christian themselves, go figure. In the Abrahamic religions, only their teachings and guidance is correct. I guess the Abrahamic religions were influenced by the many totalitarien empires they were developed under, such as the roman empire.

I've never really related this to violence as I'm not versed in the topic, but it would make sense that religions that are not open to other faiths and accompanying thought also would be less capable of diplomacy and compromise, therefore resorting to violence quicker. (Though there are many violent polytheistic ones.) Mostly I'm wondering what the world would be like if a religion like Buddhism spread instead of Christianity. I guess we would still have altars to norse gods here in Europe. What an interesting and rich world that would've been.

 

[Palette Swap]

Non-violent resolution is central to the New Testament. Violence in Christianity says more about the Church and the people who built it than about the text tbh.

 

[Dever]

Well, back in the Old Testament days there was a lot of tribal warfare and stuff. Religion and God would be used to explain why the total destruction of the Amalekites was good, actually.

Was there less tribal warfare in the east when those religions were invented?

 

[dodo]

There are variations in both groups (e.g. the non-violence in Jainism and Buddhism is a bit more extreme than Hinduism; biblical texts have commandments to not murder but also prescribed ways to carry out wars, etc.) but in general I think saying the non-violence of the 'Eastern' religions is far ahead of the Abrahamic ones.

Click to shrink...

the dharmasastras opine at length on the difference between righteous vs unrighteous war. several ancient epics offer moral guidance on war as well. ahimsa has been as much a topic of debate and interpretation as the bible's commandments. hell people can't agree 2000 some odd years later what jesus meant by "two swords is enough". plus, I think you're maybe downplaying the importance of "thou shalt not kill" placement as a commandment. the commandments are a pretty big deal, which is why there's been centuries worth of theological debate over the way they manifest in and interact with bible text. and as someone has pointed out, nonviolence is a major theme of the new testament.

Spitballing here, but it could be because Buddhism and Jainism developed out of philosophical inquiry rather than religious dogma. A lot of the time, it's difficult to determine what is philosophy and what is religion when it comes to Eastern religions.

Click to shrink...

all religion is philosophical inquiry. dogmatism develops out of that inquiry (dogma is almost literally latin for philosophical belief) but it doesn't come from nowhere, and is not universally binding, hence why abrahamic religions have so many different sects that each contain their own myriad theological debates. cultures based on eastern religions have been just as prone to dogma as a precept for violence as abrahamic ones throughout history. dogma absolutely existed and exists in buddhism and jainism.

i know the premise here is meant to be a past-tense inquiry into why "did" these religions develop this way but i feel like this thread in general is already steering into some not great places. i think attempting to psychoanalyze millions and billions of people at once, attempted historical contextualization or not, is just going to end in tears.

 

[SilentPanda]

Well, back in the Old Testament days there was a lot of tribal warfare and stuff. Religion and God would be used to explain why the total destruction of the Amalekites was good, actually.

Was there less tribal warfare in the east when those religions were invented?

Click to shrink...

Not really~

You can see the warring state period in China(Buddhism came during the Han Empire, but is effected by the Daohism of the Warring state period, which preach, the three jewel< , "compassion", , "frugality" and "humility". > and official become establish during the Three kingdom period), or the Sengoku period in Japan(Nobunaga's Siege of Mount Hiei and him burning buddhist monastries)

 

[butzopower]

The way I see it, is that the Abrahamic religions (and perhaps monotheistic ones in general) are in a sense totalitarian. While religions like Buddhism often incorporate other gods and their teachings, Abrahamic religions stubbornly promotes only one god, and any other gods and religious teachings are therefore invalid. Polytheistic ones also seem to have room for other deities. We know that vikings had a reverence for the Sami religion and hindered christian missionaries to get to them in order to shield their religion and magic. This changed when the vikings became christian themselves, go figure. In the Abrahamic religions, only their teachings and guidance is correct. I guess the Abrahamic religions were influenced by the many totalitarien empires they were developed under, such as the roman empire.

Click to shrink...

Early Abrahamic religions would have developed in the Bronze Age around loads of polytheistic empires. Judaism predates the Roman Empire by at least 1500 years.

The Aztecs were polytheistic and violence (in both war and sacrificial senses) were very much tied to religion.

 

[Deleted member 82064]

Good question. Also, why were eastern religions more biocentric?

 

[Cass_Se]

Isn't resource scarcity an influence on how religions develop? Abrahamic religions, which are generally strong on setting up guidelines on how to live your life, all developed in Middle East, a desert region which requires utmost persistence just to survive. Meanwhile, in the East where resources are more abundant the religions that developed there had often more of a philosophical profile, rather than defining strict rules. This is obviously a simplification, but I believe that's one of the aspects that influenced such major difference between Abrahamic and Eastern religions.

 

[signal]

Non-violent resolution is central to the New Testament. Violence in Christianity says more about the Church and the people who built it than about the text tbh.

Click to shrink...

Yeah you're right, I guess a lot of the violence comes from cultural things and religious wars, and maybe it's connection to the Old Testament. I suppose there is still animal sacrifice in the NT though, which puts the Eastern ones a step ahead.

the dharmasastras opine at length on the difference between righteous vs unrighteous war. several ancient epics offer moral guidance on war as well.

Click to shrink...

Do you know which? Would be curious to read.

Isn't resource scarcity an influence on how religions develop? Abrahamic religions, which are generally strong on setting up guidelines on how to live your life, all developed in Middle East, a desert region which requires utmost persistence just to survive. Meanwhile, in the East where resources are more abundant the religions that developed there had often more of a philosophical profile, rather than defining strict rules. This is obviously a simplification, but I believe that's one of the aspects that influenced such major difference between Abrahamic and Eastern religions.

Click to shrink...

It could be this. As deep as most of these religions and practices are, no doubt a lot of their basis is from fairly simple or practical considerations.

 

[SilentPanda]

Good question. Also, why were eastern religions more biocentric?

Click to shrink...

This study might answer?

https://aquila.usm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=16179&context=fac_pubs

 

[S-Wind]

I chalk it up to geographical realities. The Abraham religions came from lands that aren't as naturally abundant in food and resources, hence warring tribes all trying to eke out an existence. Where the religions that came out of India and east/southeast Asia came from lands that are abundant in food and resources, hence their HUGE populations.

EDIT: Cass_Se beat me to it

 

[Sheng Long]

While discussion on religion is not banned, the wide-ranging and generalised way this discussion is framed will likely only fuel misunderstanding and generalizations about cultures and religions. We feel that locking this thread is in the best interest of everyone on this site.