Reply #22: Not really

[TechBear_Seattle]

Both schools admonish lay people to hold to Buddhist doctrines (including non-violence and compassion) because this will accrue merit to to their souls. With enough merit, they will be reincarnated into a life that allows them to renounce the world and seek enlightenment. Obedience and peace create a social environment that facilitates monks in attaining enlightenment; being obedient and peaceful is therefore a very positive thing that helps everyone. Disobedience, violence and war create a social environment that distracts monks from attaining enlightenment; being disobedient to civil authority, being violent or formenting or participating in war is therefore a very negative thing that harms everyone.

The only difference between Theravata and Mahayana is that the first one emphasizes the path of personal enlightenment, the second emphasizes the path of social morality. Otherwise, there are not that many differences between them.

The closest that I know of Buddhism being radicalized was by Ghengis Khan and his successors. They were (ostensibly) Buddhist and used Buddhist teachings to unify the Khanate. Unsurprisingly, they helped spread the Mahayana school, which emphasizes social morality and the value of being obedient and peaceful. Such a thing occuring from the bottom up... the religion itself makes such a thing very difficult. I just do not see how Buddhism could follow the path of Christian, Muslim and Hindu radicals.