My impression is that it is to be commended for its absence of war activities, although it has not been as clean in this respect altogether. However, compared to the monotheistic religions of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, I would consider Buddhism a lamb while the formers are wolves. So, if mankind wants to achieve peace then this religion is to be recommended. About the intrinsic merits of Buddhism, its moralistic teachings are the same as with the best in civilization and society for the attainment of peace within oneself and with one's neighbors. However, I find its doctrine of the non-self to be unnecessary and its insistence on the ultimate destiny of man to be emptiness, to be also if I may be strong in my words, absurd. I can see nonetheless that the non-self and the emptiness of human destiny, meaning extinction of the self, are in line with Buddhism's emphasis on divesting oneself of all desires in order to achieve peace. Of course, apologists and defenders of Buddhism in the West who are used to being polemical will tell me that I get it all wrong with Buddhism. But who is to get it all correct in any religion, if ever? How has Buddhism affected the rest of the world? Very good in lands where Buddhism is the traditional religion in maintaining and advancing the cause of peace and non-violence -- when compared to lands where Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are the traditional religions. However, I wonder if Buddhism in the hands of Westerners will be as peaceful as it has been generally in the hands of Easterners or in the lands of the Far East. yrreg