Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Murder in self defense, use of force in self defense.
StoicBuddhistAlex
Veteran
I dont know how pacifist is buddhism.
But in this kind of case will be morally to kill?
A maniac wana kill you or other innocent people(100% sure), the only way of stoping him in that case is killing him(100% sure).
A person starts beating you up or a innocent person for no reason, he just wana inflict pain and damage.
Only way of stoping him is the use of violence force(100% sure).
What would a buddist do?
But in this kind of case will be morally to kill?
A maniac wana kill you or other innocent people(100% sure), the only way of stoping him in that case is killing him(100% sure).
A person starts beating you up or a innocent person for no reason, he just wana inflict pain and damage.
Only way of stoping him is the use of violence force(100% sure).
What would a buddist do?
0
Comments
One thing you may find in Buddhism is that there are not many 100% answers. Many of us see the Precepts (and there is one against killing) to be guidelines, rather than commandments (as in Christianity). Having said that, even for those of us who consider them guidelines, we don't take them lightly.
As for me, personally, I would consider killing someone totally unacceptable, but I also don't feel that one should simply allow another person to kill or maim someone. I see it as a "judgement call"...and of course, that's not a straightforward answer.
But im new to buddhism.
A Buddha/buddha would not kill, even if it were his own life being threatened, but that's not from following a precept but rather from seeing reality clearly and having no foolish grasp upon the ungraspable.
If it were me, and it was a madman going to kill an innocent, I'd probably try and stop them (killing them only as a last resort), because otherwise they'd continue killing people. That's not what an enlightened person would do, but that's what I would do. I'd try to save both lives (and direct the authorities to jail the baddie), but you never know what could happen. I'd put myself in the line of fire if need be, I'm at least accepting enough of my own inevitable mortality for that.
Same if I was defending my loved ones, I would kill without a second thought... just the way I am.
Note that his action is out of compassion not only for the crew but also for the killer so he doesn't have to experience the negative karma from his action. Also the Buddha is willing to take on to himself whatever negative karma results from his action, so its not without karmic consequence.
We however are not bodhisattvas and its difficult for us to predict the outcome of a situation, as Vinlyn said, there aren't many 100% answers. So its better to take a generally pacifist stance. That doesn't mean you can't intervene to stop a negative situation, it just means, as much as possible, you take a non-harming approach in regards to everyone involved.
There's also some passage from one of the Pali sutta's that I recall somewhat where the Buddha instructs the monks to remain calm even if someone is hacking them to bits (perhaps one of the Therevada people can quote this passage?)
Hard this situation is :shake:
Possibly. But one must be prepared to pay for their karma of killing too. So you have to understand that it IS a sacrifice on your part. If your action is partially motivated out of a good place to prevent them doing harm then it is also creating good karma.
The thing is you have to decide if you want to live in a world where you have to kill people. Because your choice is creating karma and in future times you might also have to kill people. Do you want to live like that? Its your choice.
I never do. It's the 'flogging a dead horse' syndrome.
Hitler is always used as an example of extreme and complete evil, and in fact, the man wasn't completely evil at all...he was an accomplished artist and loved Eva Braun very much...he also adored children, and had an extremely dysfunctional upbringing.
Like many articulate, intelligent and endearing people, he had extremely serious flaws.
There are hundreds of people who have demonstrated similar traits - Ku Klux Clan members, for example, or determined and committed racists, whose ideas are so entrenched in archaic and misguided concepts that they defy belief.
yet nobody ever mentions these people - who are alive and kicking, and who have a considerable following - as real, present and actually current dangers....
Perhaps what makes Hitler stand out as being so evil, is the sheer numbers of people who suffered as a direct result of his policies.
Historically, many nations and their elder statesmen have been responsible for similar crimes...
Look at the black slave trade. Look at the treatment meted out to native aborigines or American Indians... are these crimes held to be in the same league?
If not - why not?
It's all relative...
What about bushido seams that buddhism/stoicism stuff help warrios.
Buddhism
Buddhism gave the warrior a stoicism and tenacious full accompanying the samurai to the last days of his life. The Bushi accepts death as an inescapable reality and trust in his capacity as a builder of his destiny. In the words of the Prince of Myth:
"Anyone can get into the thick of the battle and die. It is easy for a jerk, but for a true samurai fair decision in equanimity, and a true value when they know how to live is to live, and die when he has to die" .
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushidō
Guess other kind of buddhism :thumbup:
They simply are trying to prove (or disprove) a principle when someone says "always". For example, when I have heard people discuss, in Christianity, can everyone be forgiven their sins, Hitler is often brought up as an extreme example, because everyone knows the basic history and it is the extreme example that could prove or disprove the point being made.
If one were born in to a nomadic group in area where farming was not feasible, like in Alaska or parts of Mongolia, would it be wrong to kill to keep oneself alive?
Here are a few points that were made explicit by the Buddha:
- Avoid strict adherence to rules. I think it is important to understand the 'spirit' of a statement or rule rather than a strict adherence to it.
- As someone else mentioned, there is the Sutta - The Simile Of The Saw (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.021x.than.html) where it suggests that even if one were having his arm hacked off, he should try to avoid having ill will for one's own good.
There is the old saying, "2 wrongs don't make a right".
And also.. Hatred will never end hatred. Only love can end hatred.
---
These things said, I must admit I was disturbed when I first read the Simile Of The Saw. But it is true, when one has ill will, it is oneself that suffers and harms his own spirit. I can see however, it possible for one to kill and still have compassion for the attacker/victim. For example, if a polar bear were to attack a group of people and there was no other way to defend themselves; and similarly with a human attacker. If an expedition group were compassionate and had foresight, maybe they should have carried bear mace instead. Just some thoughts..
---
Buddhists interpret the practice in different ways.
For example in Shaolin, China, the monks at the temple practiced martial arts for self defense. Similarly, I believe there have been monks who have fought to defend themselves with guns.
I think in Tibet however, they just got mowed down by the Chinese.
Mahandas Ghandi had a strong adherence to non-violence and succeeded in liberating India from the British. They did not raise a hand even when they were being clubbed. In this case, their non-violence helped them to gain support from within Britain to support their cause.
---
I think ultimately one will know when he had done something 'wrong'. His conscience will tell him, and he will suffer as a result of his past action. If he kills in defense and feels OK about it afterwards, while being honest about the situation and holding a right (honest, true) view, maybe it was the right thing to do.
This is only my opinion and does not represent the Buddha's view.