Unquestionably, Hinduism and Judaism have traditionally been characterised by a philosophy of tolerance which has proven more consistent over time than the patchier range of historical perspectives found within universalist ideologies including Islam, Christianity, Jacobinism, Capitalism and Communism (each of which regards itself as the repository of a 'world-saving' doctrine all of human society should learn about for their own good and all embracing some kind of historical determinist narrative that holds their creedo to be the 'last stage' of human development).
However, I'm not so sure I'd agree with you to the same extent where Buddhism is concerned.
It is an emphatically universalistic creed like the former and unsurprisingly having the '
right view' is every bit as essential to that religion as it is in the other belief systems mentioned, in a way one couldn't say for Hindus, Jains or Sikhs; indeed it is one of the central precepts of the
Noble Eightfold Path.
There is for Buddhists 'correct belief' and 'incorrect belief', sound dharma and points of view that are adharmic and thus not acceptable within the Sangha. Mahayana Buddhism, for example, defined itself against the competing Therevadin sect by labelling Therevada the Hīnayāna, often translated "
lesser vehicle". The word ‘
h─лna’ actually means ‘inferior’, ‘low,’ ‘poor’, ‘miserable’, ‘vile’, or ‘contemptible’ - which, if you look at the history of how Catholics and Protestants have referred to one another, might ring a bell.
Having an 'orthodoxy' as well as an 'orthopraxy' doesn't equate to 'intolerance' (some exclusivist faiths have been the most tolerant, some inclusivist ones have been intolerant). In the fundamental precepts of of the Pali Canon, or the early Sutras of the Mahayana tradition, the teachings of the Buddha are incredibly rich in compassion for all human beings.
But given the right context and state patronage of the religion, this dichotomy of right/wrong view can be abused - just as has been within Christianity - into providing a raison d'etre to justify treating the 'unorthodox' (wrong-viewed) differently from the 'orthodox' (right-viewed) and sometimes it has been used to persecute the former.
Sitagu Sayadaw, a prolific Buddhist scholar and ordained Therevadin monk, is the most respected religious leader in Myanmar, known for his teachings and philanthropic work. In a sermon back in 2017, he suggested to his congregation that the killing of those who are not Buddhist can be justified on the grounds that those who do not follow the Noble Eightfold Path and do not take refuge in the Buddha, his doctrine and the Sangha, are less than human:
Not all Buddhists agree with Sitagu Sayadaw’s militant message | Coconuts Yangon
Myanmar’s most revered Buddhist leader gave a speech on Monday in which he urged hundreds of military officers to not to fear the sinfulness of taking human life.
During his speech, which was delivered at a military base in Kayin State and broadcast live in Myanmar to over 250,000 viewers, Sitagu Sayadaw shared a parable about an ancient Sri Lankan king who was assured by Buddhist clerics that the countless Hindus he had killed only added up to one and a half lives.
“Don’t worry King, it’s a little bit of sin. Don’t worry,” Sitagu Sayadaw said. “Even though you killed millions of people, they were only one and a half real human beings.”
But Sitagu Sayadaw’s stature and erudition have not been enough to protect him from the ire of some Myanmar Buddhists, who believe his coziness with the military is drawing him away from the principles of Buddhism.
“This was a shocking speech,” said Thet Swe Win, director of the Centre for Youth and Social Harmony, an interfaith organization. “It was totally against the Buddhism I understood. Buddha teaches about love, kindness, and compassion to every human being, regardless of race and religion, and also teaches that killing is a sin. But this speech said killing non-Buddhist people is not a sin.”
Thet Swe Win compared the message of Sitagu Sayadaw’s speech to the doctrines of the so-called Islamic State.
“ISIS also says killing non-Muslims is not a sin.”
This is not a 'new' fundamentalist strain.
Consider the Mahāvaṃsa, the "
Great Chronicle" of 5th century Buddhist Sri Lanka written in the Pali language, composed by a Buddhist monk at the Mahavihara temple in Anuradhapura.
One of the Buddhist kings it describes, Dutugamanu destroyed his opponents in battle. After the bloodshed, he laments for causing the deaths of millions of innocents in the campaign. Eight enlightened monks (
arhant) comfort him with this explanation:
"From this deed arises no hindrance in thy way to heaven. Only one and half human beings have been slain here by thee, O lord of men. The one had come unto the (three) refuges, the other had taken on himself the five precepts. Unbelievers and men of evil life were the rest, not more to be esteemed than beasts. But as for thee, thou wilt bring glory to the doctrine of the Buddha in manifold ways; therefore cast away from thy heart, O ruler of men!"
(Geiger 1993 translation; 178)
This is no different to what you'd expect to hear from the most intolerant Abrahamist, for example in the Catholic Spanish Inquisition or Islamic Mihna or the Protestant Penal Laws imposed upon Catholics in 17th century Ireland (Catholics were only fully emancipated in 1829 by the UK government). Buddhists are distinguished from non-Buddhists, the murders in the narrative of the "unbelievers" of "evil life" are dismissed, because the king has pure intent with the desire to defend Buddhism.
This kind of rhetoric has been used today in majority Buddhist Burma and Sri Lanka, against the Muslim minority in that country:
Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar - Wikipedia
A BBC article on it by Professor Alan Strathern, an anthropologist from Oxford University, makes an excellent point about the corruption of religious ideals arising from the almost inevitable bargain with "
state power":
Why are Buddhist monks attacking Muslims?
Of all the moral precepts instilled in Buddhist monks the promise not to kill comes first, and the principle of non-violence is arguably more central to Buddhism than any other major religion. So why have monks been using hate speech against Muslims and joining mobs that have left dozens dead?
This is happening in two countries separated by well over 1,000 miles of Indian Ocean - Burma and Sri Lanka. It is puzzling because neither country is facing an Islamist militant threat. Muslims in both places are a generally peaceable and small minority...
On Tuesday, Buddhist mobs attacked mosques and burned more than 70 homes in Oakkan, north of Rangoon, after a Muslim girl on a bicycle collided with a monk. One person died and nine were injured...
Aggressive thoughts are inimical to all Buddhist teachings...while your compassion for all living things grows.
Of course, there is a strong strain of pacifism in Christian teachings too: "Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you," were the words of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount...
But however any religion starts out, sooner or later it enters into a Faustian pact with state power. Buddhist monks looked to kings, the ultimate wielders of violence, for the support, patronage and order that only they could provide. Kings looked to monks to provide the popular legitimacy that only such a high moral vision can confer.
The result can seem ironic. If you have a strong sense of the overriding moral superiority of your worldview, then the need to protect and advance it can seem the most important duty of all.
Christian crusaders, Islamist militants, or the leaders of "freedom-loving nations", all justify what they see as necessary violence in the name of a higher good. Buddhist rulers and monks have been no exception.
So, historically, Buddhism has been no more a religion of peace than Christianity.
Burmese rulers, known as "kings of righteousness", justified wars in the name of what they called true Buddhist doctrine.
In Japan, many samurai were devotees of Zen Buddhism and various arguments sustained them - killing a man about to commit a dreadful crime was an act of compassion, for example. Such reasoning surfaced again when Japan mobilised for World War II.
Buddhist societies in my honest opinion have not, overall, proven any more or less accommodating to people who think differently than Christian ones.
That fundamentalist Buddhists, today (including high-ranking monks), in a number of country are severely persecuting Muslims is not at all surprising to me - anymore than it is when I see the same thing happening to religious minorities in the Islamic world or from the KKK Protestant Christians / Westboro Baptist Church in the United States.
Hinduism, by contrast, is very different from the other religions in being a system more akin to the ancient Roman religion - a constellation of beliefs, deities, practices and philosophies stretching across the Indian subcontinent, bound together by their roots in a common civilisation. It is 'big tent' inclusive by its very nature, because it is itself defined by an enormous multiplicity of different traditions loosely centred around core sacred scriptures like the Vedas, of which the various sects hold vastly different interpretations ranging from Dvaita (dualism) to Advaita (non-dualism) and everything in between. Vaishnavas are quite different from followers of Smartism, to take just two examples.
But even amidst the various Hindu sects, a more militant
Hindutva "nationalist" ideology has arisen in India in recent years, which is arguably akin in some respects to the intolerance of Christian White Nativism in America and the Buddhist fundamentalism in Myanmar. So, even a religious system as inherently pluralistic as Hinduism is not entirely immune.
However the universalist creeds are at once, often, the most humanistic
and paradoxically the most intolerant and hence deadly dependent on the given environmental factors.
