I don't really see the point of all this.
The basic point is that claiming Buddhists have not engaged in wars cannot really be substantiated on many levels.
Samurai generally werent exactly monks. Some were, but in general most not so much.
They weren't monks, no, but they still adhered to Zen Buddhism. If we want to get into examples of warrior monks in Japan, the Yamabushi and Sohei would be the place to look. Samurais weren't the only people to use arms, almost every class of feudal japan had its own military traditions.
I am unaware of any instances in which samurai fought "to spread buddhism".
Zen Buddhism was part of their mentality, and Zen Buddhism supposedly played a role in the later development of Japanese militarism.
I could list plenty of catholic vs protestant, christian vs muslim, or other examples where people were fighting to spread religion or to convert people to a religion by force.
And I could also point to the numerous nuances involved here, particularly how political factors were often the larger force in play. This was particularly true during the many "Wars of Religion" in Europe; which largely was as much about the conflict between the Holy Roman Emperors and the nobility seeking to build their own power bases. The nobility more than a few times sought to exploit theological disputes for their own gain.
The Buddha was a kshatriya or warrior caste, so what?
The point basically being he wasn't a peace-loving hippie many try to present him. I don't find anything wrong with him being a member of the warrior caste.
A number of very religious people come from warrior background, plenty of them maintain warrior backgrounds. If someone goes far in religious/meditation training you could say they "fight their inner demons, fears, etc."
Of course you could say that, since spiritual warfare always has precedence over physical warfare. That concept is pretty consistent in traditions both East and West. St. Paul talks of donning the "armour of faith", St. Benedict talked of engaging in spiritual battles, and St. Ignatius of course wrote about spiritual exercises along these lines as well.
That is far removed from fighting or killing other people.
Yes and no. Spiritual warfare maybe higher than physical warfare, but it can't always be seperated.
Going back to shaolin [or Wudang for that matter] historical China was a rough place and bandits were numerous. Defense against bandits was a major motivation to study martial arts. That's the real world for you.
Yes I'm well aware of what China was like at the time. My point is not that the Shaolin monks were wrong to study martial arts. The Templar Knights were created to protect pilgrims from harassment, to give a comparison.
It's not like the Buddha sent people on crusades to convert people to Buddhism or anything. I can name two major western monotheisms for whom that is not the case, and am not sure about the third.
I have my doubts whether you could argue that Asia was far more peaceful than Europe and the Middle East during a general period of 500-1500 AD.
I am unfamiliar with anything in any buddhist text that reads like the violence of the old testament, for example [seriously, how much death and killing and "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live is in that thing? answer: a lot]. All three major western monotheisms recognize the old testament and assert its validity.
Yes they do assert its validity, but much of the violence in the text is seen in symbolic terms, which in some ways gets back to the point you yourself brought up just above about "fighting demons". Even if these traditions did assert such texts on a literalist basis, it would be irrelevant since the archeological evidence AFAIK does not support the contention that such massacres actually occurred.
Overall Buddhism has a much more peaceful history than any major western religion, and possibly any other major religion [Hinduism is hard for me to evaluate in this regard, Taoism arguably isn't a major world religion].
Again, if we did a comparative study of the military histories of Europe, the Middle East, and Asia - I sincerely doubt such an assertion could possibly be made. Buddhism has its own versions of warrior monks, just as existed in the West with the Templars, Knights Hospitaller, etc. They certainly operated in relation to their particular circumstances, but there they are. To try to claim one religion is more peaceful than the other, without regard for the innumerable cultural and historical nuances involved, is largely a silly proposition in my view. It's nothing more than a piss contest.
If you want some superpacifistic religion go look at Jainism where they sweep brooms to avoid walking on insects. Thats not a very practical way to live life, and arguably Jainism isn't a major world religion [not major 5 anyway, maybe major 10???]
I'm not arguing in favor of a superpacifistic religion, nor am I even arguing Christianity is more peaceful than Buddhism or whatever.
But, again, Buddhism has a far cleaner record than any other major world religion in this regard. Last time I checked no major Western religion comes even remotely close. THAT is the point I would like to drive home here.
And the point I would like to drive home here is that this point falls apart the more one investigates. I would also like to add I have nothing against Buddhism. You seem to have plenty against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.