Is a soldier doing bad karma if he follows orders?

hermitwin

During WW2, German soldiers believed that they were
fighting for justice for Germany after tough conditions were
imposed on them following the WW1.
Their intention was to make Germany strong & prosperous.
What about soldiers who killed Osama? Good intentions?

vinlyn

I'm not going to address your question directly, but I saw something on television this morning that put a good slant things. It said (paraphrased) we're not rejoicing that Osama was killed...we're rejoicing that a man who terrorized and murdered thousands is no longer free to walk the earth and continue his evil.

RenGalskap

I think it's more complex than good vs bad intentions. Do you know what a soldier's intentions are at the moment he pulls the trigger? Does he know? Obviously shots are fired by people who have thought about what they are about to do and are clear about what they are doing, but in the confusion and fear of battle I don't think it's always possible to know what your or another person's intentions are. Some guys fire without really being aware of it, and some guys put their fellows soldiers lives in danger by not firing. Who can say what they're thinking?

DhammaDhatu

The Buddha said "karma is intention". But even good intentions can bring a bad result, with many ex-soldiers suffering post traumatic stress disorders for many years.

To reconcile good intentions with a bad result, I would speculative an ex-soldier requires to do alot of mental work; alot of wise reflection.

Why? Because killing other human beings is the grossest most contradictory karma. Each human wants to live so killing other humans goes against our most inherent nature.

:sawed:

vinlyn

The Buddha said "karma is intention". But even good intentions can bring a bad result, with many ex-soldiers suffering post traumatic stress disorders for many years.

To reconcile good intentions with a bad result, I would speculative an ex-soldier requires to do alot of mental work; alot of wise reflection.

Why? Because killing other human beings is the grossest most contradictory karma. Each human wants to live so killing other humans goes against our most inherent nature.

:sawed:

I have to sort of take exception to your first paragraph. I come from a military family and have known many military men. The vast majority are not suffering from post-traumatic syndrome. Most are very proud of their service.

compassionate_warrior

Soldiers don't think when they pull the trigger, not in terms of the morality of killing. Their training before they get to the battlefield is to follow orders, shoot to kill, take the enemy dead or alive. They are trained to be military machines, and to leave equivocation behind. The time for them to think about whether they should kill someone designated as enemy is when they're in the military recruitment office or before.

PTSD doesn't have to go on for years. There are very effective treatments for it. The problem is that the US military is jerking these soldiers around and doesn't want to spend money on treating them. It's scandalous.

hermitwin

vin, that explains your reluctance to address the question.

vinlyn

vin, that explains your reluctance to address the question.

Just because I didn't answer the question doesn't mean I have a reluctance to do so.

First of all, I don't think it's a simple answer. While there is a chain of command, at least in a modern western army, one can report even an officer for giving orders that are illegal or inappropriate. An excellent film about this concept...although depressing...is Kirk Douglas in "Paths Of Glory".

You and I don't live in a Buddhist world. We live in a somewhat secular world. I appreciate what our military did in WWII. I don't appreciate much that our military did in the Vietnam War. But, overall, I appreciate being able to live in a country where I can choose to be Buddhist, as opposed to China. I appreciate that I have the right to read and post on the internet. I appreciate that I have the right to travel internationally, in most cases, even to countries that are my nation's enemies. Not everyone in every country has such rights, and it was our military that protected those rights.

Does that mean I'm proud of everything our military does? No. And I certainly think there are individuals in our military who have been a disgrace.

hermitwin

Do you think that a good soldier who follows a valid
order to shoot and kill an enemy soldier creates
bad karma?

vinlyn

I don't know.

seeker242

Do you think that a good soldier who follows a valid
order to shoot and kill an enemy soldier creates
bad karma?

Most definitely.

compassionate_warrior

Do you think that a good soldier who follows a valid
order to shoot and kill an enemy soldier creates bad karma?

If a person is concerned about bad karma, he/she wouldn't join the military in the first place. What about those already in the military, and following commands? Well, they knew they were signing up to kill. They knew it was part of the job description when they chose the job.

vinlyn

http://buddhistmilitarysangha.blogspot.com/

compassionate_warrior

WOW! Impressive. Do you know, vinlyn, if there's a sort of Conscientious Objector's option within the military, meaning, can one opt out of a combat position?

I couldn't find any info that squared serving in the military with Right Livelihood, though they mentioned it. Someone in the military is on the ball. Buddhism must be popular enough now that the military had to deal with it.

Fascinating.

vinlyn

WOW! Impressive. Do you know, vinlyn, if there's a sort of Conscientious Objector's option within the military, meaning, can one opt out of a combat position?

I couldn't find any info that squared serving in the military with Right Livelihood, though they mentioned it. Someone in the military is on the ball. Buddhism must be popular enough now that the military had to deal with it.

Fascinating.

I haven't even had a chance to look over that website...just ran across it.

I don't quite see the need for a conscientious objector option anymore...after all, it's a volunteer army...but I don't know.

compassionate_warrior

Well, how else are they going to make military service compatible with Right Livelihood, if they don't give soldiers a non-combat option? I gotta check this out.... :wtf:

hm. I think it's just propaganda. It says "Recognize and promote honorable military service as in conformance with Buddhist Eightfold Path and Right Livelihood".

vinlyn

hm. I think it's just propaganda. It says "Recognize and promote honorable military service as in conformance with Buddhist Eightfold Path and Right Livelihood".

You only think that because they don't agree with your viewpoint.

compassionate_warrior

Well, no, I meant that it turns out they don't give recruits a non-combat option. Instead they somehow justify combat as being in line with Right Livelihood, and give the Buddhist recruits a spiel about that. They have Buddhist chaplains who are trained to discuss that.

vinlyn

So your view is the Buddhist view and their view is propaganda. Do you have some evidence that the people involved are not committed Buddhists?

Daozen

If you intend to kill, your karma is bad, regardless of *why*.

federica

@Vinlyn
A committed Buddhist would implement the Eightfold Path and five precepts.
A committed Buddhist wouldn't volitionally kill.

A soldier responsible for the demise of Osama Bin laden may not be Buddhist, so the whole question is academic.
First of all relate it specifically to a Buddhist soldier committed to combat.
Then the question is more relevant.

The Buddha said "karma is intention". But even good intentions can bring a bad result, with many ex-soldiers suffering post traumatic stress disorders for many years.

I have to sort of take exception to your first paragraph. I come from a military family and have known many military men. The vast majority are not suffering from post-traumatic syndrome. Most are very proud of their service.

This does not negate DD's statement in any way. Simply because you come from a military family, it doesn't make you an expert or general spokesperson for all military men.
PTSD exists, and is highly prevalent amongst those in the military, particularly those of lower ranks, habitually exposed to front-line combat.
It's extremely distressing and debilitating.
It is so recognised as being an insidious and common condition that provisions are made, and funds laid aside, for those needing support, counselling, therapy and psychiatric treatment for this condition alone.

Simply because you and your family appear unscathed, does not follow that you should take exception to the statement.
It simply doesn't apply to you specifically.

And nobody is suggesting it does.

vinlyn

@Vinlyn
A committed Buddhist would implement the Eightfold Path and five precepts.
A committed Buddhist wouldn't volitionally kill.

A soldier responsible for the demise of Osama Bin laden may not be Buddhist, so the whole question is academic.
First of all relate it specifically to a Buddhist soldier committed to combat.
Then the question is more relevant.

The Buddha said "karma is intention". But even good intentions can bring a bad result, with many ex-soldiers suffering post traumatic stress disorders for many years.

I have to sort of take exception to your first paragraph. I come from a military family and have known many military men. The vast majority are not suffering from post-traumatic syndrome. Most are very proud of their service.

This does not negate DD's statement in any way. Simply because you come from a military family, it doesn't make you an expert or general spokesperson for all military men.
PTSD exists, and is highly prevalent amongst those in the military, particularly those of lower ranks, habitually exposed to front-line combat.
It's extremely distressing and debilitating.
It is so recognised as being an insidious and common condition that provisions are made, and funds laid aside, for those needing support, counselling, therapy and psychiatric treatment for this condition alone.

Simply because you and your family appear unscathed, does not follow that you should take exception to the statement.
It simply doesn't apply to you specifically.

And nobody is suggesting it does.

Please don't speak for virtually every man who is in the military of Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, and Burma...all of whom consider themselves committed Buddhists.

Daozen

@vinlyn

So is it "virtually every" or "all"? There's a difference.

There's also a more subtle difference between "many" (which doesn't mean most or a majority) suffering PTSD (as Fede correctly claimed) and "the vast majority are not", as you claim, but which tends to imply it's not a problem, when it actually is.

Finally, there is a difference between considering oneself a committed Buddhist, and actually being true to Buddha's teachings, which clearly forbid killing.

federica

yes.
What Daozen said.
Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Burma are all relatively small countries compared to Russia, Germany and America.
Therefore proportionately, there may be less evidence of PTSD, but I refuse to believe that the many soldiers in the countries you cite, do not, have not or have never suffered from some kind of personal distress at killing other human beings.
Now who's being their spokesperson?

Committed Buddhists they might be.
Justification of killing is one thing.
Justification of going against the Buddha's teachings and First Precept is quite another. It's entirely contrary.
You seem to insist that being a Buddhist in the military is acceptable.
To me, it oxymoronic.

DhammaDhatu

I have to sort of take exception to your first paragraph. I come from a military family and have known many military men. The vast majority are not suffering from post-traumatic syndrome. Most are very proud of their service.

hi V

for me, you have misconstrued my words. my intention was not to deny or negate what you expressed. in fact, we are in agreement. when the mind of a soldier is in tune with their good intention then they will feel they did service

my post was not referring to such situations but to those where primal trauma outweighs the intent

with metta

fivebells

Mainstream Buddhism is just as corrupt as mainstream Christianity. The actions of most Buddhists in a country where it's mainstream aren't necessarily a good indication of how to practice Buddhism. Corruption in the service of nationalistic imperatives is particularly common. It is, after all, impossible for a nation to survive long without a substantial military defense, so all viable nations have developed ways to encourage people to be prepared to kill.

zombiegirl

During WW2, German soldiers believed that they were
fighting for justice for Germany after tough conditions were
imposed on them following the WW1.
Their intention was to make Germany strong & prosperous.
What about soldiers who killed Osama? Good intentions?

not that DD will approve, lol, but Ajahn Brahm had a talk on this:



it's interesting because he talks about a documentary on the My Lai massacre that i have seen as well. indeed, those that carried out the orders suffered greatly as a result.

vinlyn

You seem to insist that being a Buddhist in the military is acceptable.
To me, it oxymoronic.

There's an awfully lot of putting words in other people's mouths in this thread.

I am saying I think many of the posts in this thread are simplistic in what is actually a complex matter.

I think most of us in this forum live in nations where there is religious freedom. And that religious freedom has been protected by our military. Tibet didn't have an effective military, and as a result 6,000 Buddhist monasteries were closed and/or destroyed by a country that did have an effective military. Try being a Buddhist in Osama Bin Laden's home nation. While not a Buddhist group, Falun Gong in China has been banned by the government, despite at one time having 70,000,000 followers. Whether Falun Gong is a legitimate religion or not is not my point. My point is that many in this forum reap the benefits of living in a country where religious freedom is taken for granted. Not everyone around the globe can do so.

There's an implication in this thread that if you decide to be in the military you cannot be a "committed Buddhist". How convenient that someone can choose one precept -- right livelihood -- to base thier holier than thou judgemnts. I'm so glad that judging the personal path of others is so easy. I can only assume that those who are judging the lives of our soldiers to be so unworthy -- are 100% worthy in their own right view, right intent, right speech, right action, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. I wish we had a Buddhist military person in the discussion to present their views.

I put my freedoms into perspective, and I fully realize that without our founding fathers and our soldiers in the Revolutionary War, World War I, and World War II, I might not even have the right to be Buddhist.

federica

For my part, I would welcome you pointing out where I have judged anyone for doing what they do.
I may not agree with what they do, but I have judged nobody for being in the military.

And never have I said anywhere, that a soldier's life is unworthy.

There's an awfully lot of putting words in other people's mouths in this thread.

you can say that again.
And you can quote me on that!

caz

An act committed to harm an other will reap the result of one having to experience similar suffering in the future, Actions performed with the ignorant mind will always result in disturbing and violent suffering, Therefore avoid harming others as you would avoid harming yourself.

vinlyn

For my part, I would welcome you pointing out where I have judged anyone for doing what they do.
I may not agree with what they do, but I have judged nobody for being in the military.

And never have I said anywhere, that a soldier's life is unworthy.

There's an awfully lot of putting words in other people's mouths in this thread.

you can say that again.
And you can quote me on that!

My response was a general response about the thread, not specifically to something you said. In fact, you'll note that I said, "I am saying I think MANY OF THE POSTS IN THIS THREAD are simplistic in what is actually a complex matter." I'm sorry if it appeared that I was referring specifically about your post. And yes, we all tend to put words in other people's mouths on occasion, and I think that is very easy to do on an internet forum.

I am very willing to admit that I may be wrong on my viewpoint on this matter about soldiers and kamma. If I am, then I have to ask a few more questions.

What about the kamma of those people who believe a soldiers job is so bad, who then rely on the soldiers to continue to live a lifestyle that would not be possible without those soldiers?

Those who believe that a soldier's lifestyle must bring bad kamma, are you advocating the United States (for example) have no military?

Is there national kamma for having a military?

Does a Buddhist who is anti-military and/or anti-soldier earn negative kamma for being complacent about us having a military and relying on soldiers for our freedom?

federica

I think, for my part, and in my own opinion, I am speaking specifically of a person who purports to follow Buddhism, and who maintains they adhere to the Eightfold path and the Five precepts - then still chooses to join the army in the capacity of a combatant.

Given that I live in the West, my own immediate experience of the military, is that of an army made up of people brought up in a western culture, be they Caucasian, black or Asian.

therefore, while it seems prevalent in a Western Christian Mindset that "Thou Shalt Not Kill" doesn't apply, or is not relevant in certain situations.

What about the kamma of those people who believe a soldiers job is so bad, who then rely on the soldiers to continue to live a lifestyle that would not be possible without those soldiers?

I am not disputing that a military force is necessary.
I disagree with aggression, and I don't like the fact that it's necessary. but I live in a country that has a history as old as history itself, of having a Military power.
I don't personally feel conscious of relying on the military to maintain the life of security I lead.
We have a democratically-elected government, and I rely on them to make the right decisions. They don't always make decisions I am either happy with, or comfortable with. But I alone, cannot change that.

Those who believe that a soldier's lifestyle must bring bad kamma, are you advocating the United States (for example) have no military?

A soldier' life does not, in and of itself, bring bad Kamma. The act of terminating another human being's life, as a volitional and deliberate action, does.

Is there national kamma for having a military?

This is akin to asking whether a nation deserves to be hit by a Tsunami.
The question is imponderable, and should not be dwelt on.
People acting in a particular way, engender particular kamma. That's all that can be said about that.

Does a Buddhist who is anti-military and/or anti-soldier earn negative kamma for being complacent about us having a military and relying on soldiers for our freedom?

No.
It's nobody's fault if they live in a society that is governed this way, and if they live in a country with an active militia, then what would you have them do?
I accept that there are things about having an army/air force/navy which are distasteful, unpleasant and unwelcome.

But this doesn't accrue me negative kamma.
Not unless I wish them ill.

Which I don't......

vinlyn

Interesting, Federica.

In terms of that last question I was asking ("Does a Buddhist who is anti-military and/or anti-soldier earn negative kamma for being complacent about us having a military and relying on soldiers for our freedom?"), let me give a different example.

I was raised to be not-prejudiced against Blacks or any other race. Yet, other than that I did not act in a prejudiced way, I did nothing to promote equality.

On the other hand, someone like Martin Luther King didn't just not be bad, but he also acted to end racism.

Or another example. I was generally against the Vietnam War, but did nothing to push for ending it (other than voting for Nixon in 1968 when he had his secret plan to end the war...and he did not get my vote in 1972 because he had never executed his war ending plan). On the other hand, others actively protested the war, burned their draft cards, etc.

So, what do you think is the karmic difference between someone who does nothing (except talk), and those who are proactive against something bad? Or is being passive against evil okay since your intent is not evil? And how does this affect the concept of compassion?

compassionate_warrior

I don't think Vinlyn needs the lecture about Post Traumatic Stress. Being from a military family, I'm sure he's heard all about it. Unfortunately, it's incorrect that funds are set aside to help soldiers deal with it, as I said earlier. The US military grossly underfunds psychotherapy for returning soldiers, and does everything possible to deny access to it. Maybe the British army is different.

A soldier' life does not, in and of itself, bring bad Kamma. The act of terminating another human being's life, as a volitional and deliberate action, does.

This is nonsense. The purpose of a soldier's life it to terminate enemy lives. This is why, upon discovering that the US army claims that soldiering conforms with Buddhist ideals of Right LIvelihood, I earlier raised the question--do the armed forces provide Buddhist troops with a non-combat option. They don't. I'd be very interested to know the reasoning behind the army's idea of how killing fits in with Right Livelihood.

I don't personally feel conscious of relying on the military to maintain the life of security I lead.

This is why consciousness-raising is important. Most Western countries depend on imported oil, and much of that oil comes from countries the US is at war with, or has been at war with in the past, often in tandem with allied British troops. It's not always about maintaining your life of security, it's about maintaining your standard of living. Unless you don't own a car and don't buy products made of plastic.

Not all soldiers who kill contract PTSD. Not all ex-soldiers with PTSD have killed. Some have "merely" witnessed atrocities. I agree with Vinlyn that the discussion of karma manifesting as PTSD in the military has been simplistic. But I'll admit (by now it should be clear) that I think military service and a commitment to Buddhism are incompatible. I wish more information were available on the website Vinlyn provided, so we could see how the military addresses this. Maybe they use the self-defense loophole, a tenuous argument, especially in the case of Iraq.

vinlyn

I wish more information were available on the website Vinlyn provided, so we could see how the military addresses this. Maybe they use the self-defense loophole, a tenuous argument, especially in the case of Iraq.

Yes, I agree, I was looking for something more than just a blog. FAQs would have been nice.

I didn't see it as a government website. Did you?

I hope I haven't seen by folks as being argumentative in this thread. I think its a very complex issue and worth raising consciousness about.

The other day I was remembering an old David Frye (the impressionist) recording during the Watergate era. Nixon is escaping from prison, and one of the prison guards is George McGovern. They are trying to recapture Nixon and McGovern says, "I'm against killing...(long pause)...but in this case I'm willing to make an exception." Whether we think so or not, I think most of us...perhaps all of us...would make an exception under the right circumstances. Heck, most of us at some time or another break many of the precepts, whether its having a drink or gossiping.

compassionate_warrior

Yes, it was a gov't website. I guess the military is getting trendier, and not so overt, because they desperately need recruits, so they have to try to look cool. But there was the US flag, and another insignia flag. And info about how to sign up to be a chaplain. And the mission statement was very official, even if the decor on the page was designed to look friendly.

I don't see argumentativeness on this thread. The discussion has been, for the most part, polite. The "Osama" thread got a bit heated, which is understandable, but was also refreshingly respectful of differences of opinion, all things considered. This forum has come a long way in the last few months, IMO. These latest discussions, however potentially emotional the topics, have been quite enjoyable. (Rule of thumb: stay away from the karma and rebirth threads! haha! )

fivebells

There appears to be an implicit assumption in this thread that karma is a judicial force (phrases like "earn bad karma...") Another less teleological way to think of it is as a class of samsaric mental habits. Now, if you join the military, you commit to living in a total institution for which a hell-realm mentality (opposition and domination) is an absolute sine qua non. It would take an extremely independent mind to live in those circumstances without taking up the hell-realm mentality which pervades it, though Gandhi's example shows that it is possible to do so. So yes, it's not to judge anybody, but you run a serious risk of developing bad karma just by serving in a military institution. This karma has evolved on a national level because it is the only way for a nation to survive in the long run, so perhaps it has some redeeming merit. On the other hand, as my teacher has been known to say survival is extremely over-rated.

federica

@compassionate_warrior, yes, things are definitely different in the UK with regard to post-active service care for soldiers.

I don't believe the purpose of a soldier's life is to terminate enemy lives.

This is the Oath of Allegiance which is stated by every member of the Armed forces in the UK.

"I swear by almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors and that I will as in duty bound honestly and faithfully defend her Majesty, her heirs and successors in person, crown and dignity against all enemies and will observe and obey all orders of her Majesty, her heirs and successors and of the generals and officers set over me.”

His first and primary duty is to defend the Sovereign and the Realm. it doesn't necessarily always follow that his duty will be to terminate enemy life.


You may find this whole publication interesting.

http://www.army.mod.uk/documents/general/v_s_of_the_british_army.pdf

Dakini

Does a Buddhist who is anti-military and/or anti-soldier earn negative kamma for being complacent about us having a military and relying on soldiers for our freedom?

I think this is an important question, and I raised a similar one on the "Osama" thread. As Buddhists, do we have a moral obligation to raise our voice when our government enacts policies (extrajudicial killings, "pre-emptive war", etc.) that violate the 1st precept? If we remain silent, are we de facto accomplices to the violence? During the Vietnam War, the Quakers refused to pay the portion of their income tax that supported the war. We Buddhists haven't done as well at exercising our moral prerogatives.

So, what do you think is the karmic difference between someone who does nothing (except talk), and those who are proactive against something bad? Or is being passive against evil okay since your intent is not evil? And how does this affect the concept of compassion?

Hitting the nail on the head, IMO, Vinlyn. We should all be considering this. Maybe this question deserves its own thread.

Spock

@vinyln
I'd be interested to hear how you define freedom?

The usa and UK are renound for defending corporate and capitalist interests rather than freedom, per-se. I have many freedoms that I enjoy but I don't feel I live in a democracy.

Freedom of speech in the usa allows the media to demonise a world religion, to perpetuate hate and to glorify killing.

I agree with federica that it is almost impossible to rationalise being in the army as a Buddhist. Of course, there are situations where we need to defend ourselves from the tyranny of others and it extreme situations, this may justify killing.

I could not justify me being in the military because-
1) it is the tool of politicians to defend economic interest before freedom
2) that there is no choice as a soldier as to who you may fight I.e. you can't opt out in situations like the clearly illegal war against Iraq
3) the armies in the usa an UK have nationalistic tendencies, encourage egocentric behaviour and negative pride

I don't feel threatened by Islamic extremists. Teachers, fair economic policy and loving kindness are a much more powerful weapon than the gun in any war of terror.

vinlyn

@vinyln
I'd be interested to hear how you define freedom?

The usa and UK are renound for defending corporate and capitalist interests rather than freedom, per-se. I have many freedoms that I enjoy but I don't feel I live in a democracy.

Freedom of speech in the usa allows the media to demonise a world religion, to perpetuate hate and to glorify killing.

I agree with federica that it is almost impossible to rationalise being in the army as a Buddhist. Of course, there are situations where we need to defend ourselves from the tyranny of others and it extreme situations, this may justify killing.

I could not justify me being in the military because-
1) it is the tool of politicians to defend economic interest before freedom
2) that there is no choice as a soldier as to who you may fight I.e. you can't opt out in situations like the clearly illegal war against Iraq
3) the armies in the usa an UK have nationalistic tendencies, encourage egocentric behaviour and negative pride

I don't feel threatened by Islamic extremists. Teachers, fair economic policy and loving kindness are a much more powerful weapon than the gun in any war of terror.

Life is not perfect, but I don't see life in the U.S. anywhere near as negatively as you do. I'm sorry we are so far apart on this.

fivebells

I'd be interested to hear how you define freedom?

The usa and UK are renound for defending corporate and capitalist interests rather than freedom, per-se.

Revolution in America

Cinorjer

During WW2, German soldiers believed that they were
fighting for justice for Germany after tough conditions were
imposed on them following the WW1.
Their intention was to make Germany strong & prosperous.
What about soldiers who killed Osama? Good intentions?

Getting back to the original question, the confusion I see in the answers is that the premise is fatally flawed. Germany began with limited and quickly escalated to full scale conscription during that war. Every man who could lift a gun ended up being shoved into a uniform. And it was not be a soldier or go to jail, it was be a soldier or get shot for treason. So their motivation was mostly don't get killed. And once on the battlefield, the motivation is survival. It's kill or be killed then. So their particular patriotic beliefs are irrelevant. So are good intentions. A racist only wants to keep the race pure by fighting the evils of mixing, so he's doing good in his own eyes. Only the eyes of compassion that strip away illusions are pure and unselfish.

A Buddhist must eventually come to see that people are just people, no more or less, in any situation and from every nation and group. If you can't do that, then you are still struggling with illusions that hide reality. A soldier shaking in a foxhole while bombs go off is the same as a monk sitting in mediation. They are both just as precious, both in need of enlightenment. Their motivations can be just as compassionate or just as selfish. Either one of them might go on to do great good or great harm to the world, depending on their future choices. Americans are no better or worse than the Germans or any other nation or culture that comes and goes quickly in a universal timeframe. We're all just people milling about on a tiny world.

"The gold in the temple and the dung in the field is the same." The soldier and the monk are also the same, in their potential. Can you see that?

NOTaGangsta

The Saha World is just the way it is right now. It's unrealistic and unreasonable to expect there to be no millitary and no killing right now. Best to stop judging people and events we have no control over and work on basic things like saving a kitten from a tree or something.

seeker242

The Saha World is just the way it is right now. It's unrealistic and unreasonable to expect there to be no millitary and no killing right now. Best to stop judging people and events we have no control over and work on basic things like saving a kitten from a tree or something.

I don't think anyone is denying that this is the way the world is. The world has always been this way and probably always will be that way. People probably will always be going to war and killing each other. I think the point is to recognize that this war activity is "wrong action" and to not participate in it.

As far as the OP and good intentions, a person who kills an abortion doctor has good intentions, they are trying to save unborn children. But does that absolve them from the consequences of killing that doctor? I doubt it.

federica

No intention to wilfully kill another human being, is a good Intention.

The killer might believe it is, but it's a completely misguided concept.

Thus, it would be an irrational and wrong intention.