Can you take a life in self defense?

mynameisuntz

I know many schools of Buddhism will differ on this topic, but I am curious to hear the input from this forum. From a Buddhist perspective, can you kill someone if it means defending your life or the life of others? If a man were to invade someone's home with a hostile intent, and the home owner were to shoot and kill the invader, would this be "acceptable" by Buddhism? Or is taking a life never okay, regardless of the repercussions?

Zayl

Of course I would try every single possible thing before resorting to such an extreme measure. If it came down to it, yes I would hesitate, but I think I'd be able to go through with it. I also think I would not be able to live with myself for quite some time.

federica

From a Buddhist perspective, can you kill someone if it means defending your life or the life of others?

not with the intentional aforethought of killing, no.

If a man were to invade someone's home with a hostile intent, and the home owner were to shoot and kill the invader, would this be "acceptable" by Buddhism?

If it is your direct intention to kill him, no.
If your intention is to prevent harm to yourself and your family, and as a consequence, you unintentionally end up killing the intruder, then no.
but a death, is still a death....

Or is taking a life never okay, regardless of the repercussions?

Taking a life is never okay, regardless of repercussions.

PrairieGhost

Hi, mynmeisuntz

You imply that there are only the two options that your premise defines, but that is never so in life.

This is why the practise of Buddhism is to go beyond duality, so that we are never forced by our thinking minds into binary dilemmas.

mynameisuntz

@federica - I say "okay" or "acceptable" for lack of a better term. I know it is not "okay" or "acceptable," but perhaps permissible? If an invader comes into your home with a gun pointed at you or your family, and you shoot as an immediate reaction to prevent any harm being done to you or your family, is this permissible? Or is the proper action to do nothing and essentially hope no harm comes upon you or your family by the invader?

@PrairieGhost - Understood. Do you feel it is "permissible" to fire at the invader if your life or the life of your family is in immediate danger?

PrairieGhost

I cannot give you permission to do anything. There is no permission, only cause and effect.

mynameisuntz

I mean, I am not seeking permission. I do not feel there is a remote chance of an invader coming into my home and placing me in this position. I simply ask as a hypothetical.

Perhaps, what do you think you might do if you were in such a situation? Perhaps that is what I am looking for; what other people who follow Buddhism might do in this situation.

PrairieGhost

I don't know what I'd do, what I do know is that the more I understand and grow comfortable with this 'don't know', the more likely my actions are to be effective and to cause the least suffering.

You can't choose what situations life puts you in. Committing to a course of action before the situation manifests will trap you in an illusory mental map of the situation when it occurs. For instance, conditioning himself to shoot home intruders led a man to shoot himself and his girlfriend.

http://ohhshoot.blogspot.it/2012/05/man-worried-about-possible-intruder.html

It is best not to concern oneself with what is permissible, but with the consequences of actions.

federica

I hate hypotheticals, they're utterly pointless.
look, if you have a gun, shoot the knee. If you don't have a gun, and are defenceless, well, such is life.
But as you seem to think this is hypothetical, why bother asking such a question when there are others you should be asking?

Is my thought process conducive to my practice?
How can I bring more peace and compassion to my daily life?
What can I do to put metta into practice?
Do I drink?
should I?
Do I smoke?
should I?
do I eat meat?
Should I?
Have i used false speech, idle chatter or needless gossip?

Intention is all.
Whatsoever you say or do, having first conceived it in your mind, carries consequence.
at least give it meaning, not hypothesis.

Jeffrey

Buddhism doesn't hand out passes, but I don't think that is the source of your problem. As I read it you are having doubts about if Buddhism makes sense and going into the absurdity of allowing your whole family killed because you won't shoot an intruder.

Buddhism doesn't hand out passes. If you shoot out of anger you might go to a hell realm. If you shoot out of love you might go to a heaven realm. But in any case practice dharma before and after such a tragedy is the real deal hall pass.

Tosh

Buddhism is NOT a pacifist religion:

How could the Dalai Lama, who hesitates to harm mosquitoes, endorse killing Osama bin Laden? The terrorist deserved compassion, the Dalai Lama said, but "if something is serious … you have to take counter-measures". The apparent inconsistency here is with idealistic western fantasies of pacifist Buddhism, not with Buddhism itself.

The Buddha, in a past life as a ship's captain named Super Compassionate, discovered a criminal on board who intended to kill the 500 passengers. If he told the passengers, they would panic and become killers themselves, as happened on a Southwest Airlines flight in 2000. With no other way out, he compassionately stabbed the criminal to death.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/may/11/buddhism-bin-laden-death-dalai-lama

And of course I would kill someone if they intended to harm someone and there was absolutely no other course of action.

mynameisuntz

@PrairieGhost - Is it possible to commit to a course of action without being trapped in an illusory mental map of the situation upon its occurrence? If you were to say, "if a man points a gun at myself or my family with a clear intent to cause harm, I will shoot with the intent to stop him in an effort to save those who cannot defend themselves," would it be okay to make this commitment as it is a very specific scenario? One where there is almost a certainty of harm upon innocent victims if you were to not act?

@federica - Why are hypotheticals, especially those which do occur to people on a daily basis, pointless? I do ask those questions, and seek answers and meaning and compassion regularly. But today, this question popped into my head and I figured I would ask you all.

You say, "at least give it meaning, not hypothesis." Can you elaborate on this? What you refer to specifically?

@Jeffrey - The intent would most certainly be out of love and protection for yourself and family; not to punish the person. If it is possible to simply disarm the intruder and render him/her useless and no longer a threat, that'd be ideal. But of course as the hypothetical states, I am curious about what others might think in regards to a situation where one is forced to kill (perhaps that person doesn't have the time to do anything BUT to react immediately, resulting in the death of the intruder).

@Tosh - I thought I had read upon that passage regarding The Buddha's past life as that captain, but was uncertain as to how valid it was. Thank you for sharing.

----------------

Thanks for all the input, everyone. Great help!

PrairieGhost

Tosh,

The Dalai Lama is not the head of Buddhism. The Buddha is. He said:

"
“Monks, one possessed of three qualities is put into Purgatory according to his actions. What three? One is himself a taker of life, encourages another to do the same and approves thereof.

Monks, one possessed of three qualities is put into heaven according to his actions. What three? He himself abstains from taking life, encourages another to so abstain, and approves of such abstention.”

Anguttara Nikaya, 3.16

“All beings tremble before danger, all fear death. When a man considers this, he does not kill or cause to kill. All beings fear before danger, life is dear to all. When a man considers this, he does not kill or cause to kill.”

Dhammapada, 129-130

. . . he abstains from killing living beings, exhorts others to abstain from killing living beings, and speaks in praise of the abstention from killing living beings."

Samyutta Nikaya 55.7

"He should not kill a living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should he incite another to kill. Do not injure any being, either strong or weak, in the world.”
Dhammika Sutta, Sutta Nipata, Khuddaka Nikaya

"Monks, possessing forty qualities one is cast into purgatory . . . he takes life himself, encourages another to do so, approves of taking life, and speaks in praise of thereof . . ." Anguttara Nikaya 10. 213

Four ways one can break the precept of killing living beings:

1. One kills living beings by one's own hand

2. One asks another to do it

3. One grants permission to another to do it or allows it or approves of it

4. One speaks in praise of killing

(Note that receiving alms food according to the 3 fold rule appears to allow for meat for those who are in the monastic Orders, but not for lay people who must make a request or order at the grocer, butcher, or restaurant.)

(from Majjhima Nikaya, Anguttara Nikaya, book of tens V.305)

http://www.veggiebuddhists.com/anguttaranikaya3.16

What the Buddha may have done in a previous life, when he was not yet enlightened, does not contradict his views on killing after reaching enlightenment.

PrairieGhost

mynameisuntz

@PrairieGhost - Is it possible to commit to a course of action without being trapped in an illusory mental map of the situation upon its occurrence? If you were to say, "if a man points a gun at myself or my family with a clear intent to cause harm, I will shoot with the intent to stop him in an effort to save those who cannot defend themselves," would it be okay to make this commitment as it is a very specific scenario? One where there is almost a certainty of harm upon innocent victims if you were to not act?

No, because you don't know what is going to be ok. You just have to do the best you can in the situation.

The thing you want, asking these questions, you won't ever have it. There will come a time when you don't want it either.

mynameisuntz

Is there anything regarding the act of allowing a death to occur? Is there a moral imperative within Buddhism to attempt to prevent death if the situation presents itself?

Say you see a boy drowning, would The Buddha say we are to rescue that boy? Assuming it would not bring harm to ourselves or others.

federica

@federica - Why are hypotheticals, especially those which do occur to people on a daily basis, pointless?

because you admit yourself that the likelihood of finding yourself in such a situation is highly unlikely. Better to concentrate on matters which are far more likely. Pondering and cogitating factors which will be untested leaves you with no real concrete answer at all.

I do ask those questions, and seek answers and meaning and compassion regularly. But today, this question popped into my head and I figured I would ask you all.

When you get a question like this 'popping into your head', follow it with "is there a true point to this? How will knowing the answer NOW, help my practice, NOW?"
An imponderable question, given its virtual complete unlikelihood, is as aimless as focusing on the Four Unconjecturables.

You say, "at least give it meaning, not hypothesis." Can you elaborate on this? What you refer to specifically?

Is my thought process conducive to my practice?
How can I bring more peace and compassion to my daily life?
What can I do to put metta into practice?
Do I drink?
should I?
Do I smoke?
should I?
do I eat meat?
Should I?
Have i used false speech, idle chatter or needless gossip?

Try these. They have meaning, are not hypothetical, and are directly conducive to your practice, here, now.

Tosh

Tosh,

The Dalai Lama is not the head of Buddhism. The Buddha is. He said:

“Monks, one possessed of three (post shortened for clarity).

I know HHDL is not a 'Buddhist Pope' and I can quote another Sutra that says I'm not to believe anything without testing it.

And I've tested it, I've been involved in violent situations, to help others, and my experience shows me it's the right thing to do. I was in Bosnia in 1993 protecting aid convoys delivering life saving food to isolated pockets of people trapped between warring thugs. Do you think we should've just allowed 'bandits' (who were often drunk or on drugs) to kill the aid workers? Five Italian aid workers were murdered while I was there; in our area of tactical responsibly. It was very brutal and sad. And the aid workers wouldn't even have went where they went without protection, so people would've just starved or died due to lack of basic medicines.

I've got a nice picture of Sam Fox and myself in Bosnia (who came to visit the troops) wanna see it? *Smiley face.*

And are you really saying that if someone were to attack your family and if the only resort you had was to use violence which could possibly kill the attacker, you wouldn't do it? Seriously?

I'm all for loving and diplomatic resolutions of problems, but this is Samsara. I'd rather live with the karma of killing someone who was about to attack my family than live with the karma of allowing it to happen.

You are welcome to your opinion.

David

I know many schools of Buddhism will differ on this topic, but I am curious to hear the input from this forum. From a Buddhist perspective, can you kill someone if it means defending your life or the life of others? If a man were to invade someone's home with a hostile intent, and the home owner were to shoot and kill the invader, would this be "acceptable" by Buddhism? Or is taking a life never okay, regardless of the repercussions?

Bruce Lee when asked this question said it would not be his defense that killed the person but the persons attack.

I choose the path of the least harm... The lesser of the evils if you will. If we let somebody harm us out of compassion then they can go ahead and harm another. And another. What about our compassion for them?

Revenge is an entirely different ball of wax however. With revenge there is a desire to do harm.

David

Tosh,

The Dalai Lama is not the head of Buddhism. The Buddha is. He said:

“Monks, one possessed of three (post shortened for clarity).

I know HHDL is not a 'Buddhist Pope' and I can quote another Sutra that says I'm not to believe anything without testing it.

And I've tested it, I've been involved in violent situations, to help others, and my experience shows me it's the right thing to do. I was in Bosnia in 1993 protecting aid convoys delivering life saving food to isolated pockets of people trapped between warring thugs. Do you think we should've just allowed 'bandits' (who were often drunk or on drugs) to kill the aid workers? Five Italian aid workers were murdered while I was there; in our area of tactical responsibly. It was very brutal and sad. And the aid workers wouldn't even have went where they went without protection, so people would've just starved or died due to lack of basic medicines.

I've got a nice picture of Sam Fox and myself in Bosnia (who came to visit the troops) wanna see it? *Smiley face.*

And are you really saying that if someone were to attack your family and if the only resort you had was to use violence which could possibly kill the attacker, you wouldn't do it? Seriously?

I'm all for loving and diplomatic resolutions of problems, but this is Samsara. I'd rather live with the karma of killing someone who was about to attack my family than live with the karma of allowing it to happen.

You are welcome to your opinion.

I concur.

And thank you so much for what you did in Bosnia.

We are all in this together whether wesee it or not.

PrairieGhost

Tosh

And are you really saying that if someone were to attack your family and if the only resort you had was to use violence which could possibly kill the attacker, you wouldn't do it? Seriously?

Please point to where I said this. I refused to answer the question, as a. I don't know what I will do until I am in the situation and b. there is never a simple choice of do this or do that.

Imagine someone has a gun pointed at my family, and I decide to shoot, miss, and kill a family member. Was it the correct choice then?

Imagine instead I stall the attacker for long enough to grapple with him and take the gun, was the correct choice to shoot?

Imagine I shoot, save my family, I become distant from them, neglectful, my son (I don't have a son) is infected with the sight of death, he turns from me, is afraid of a father he has seen kill, he gets into drugs and gangs, dies young in a car accident or a fight.

We do not know outcomes, we cannot tick the hypothetical boxes, it won't get us across the floods, through the wars and famines and earthquakes and storms; all we have is the opportunity to develop mindfulness and wisdom. So that's my advice, and for me it's more to the point than saying 'yes, if you are in that situation, God or Ethics said it's ok to kill the guy, and nothing bad will come of it, it's a no brainer. We debated it on the internet and it's settled now'.

And I've tested it, I've been involved in violent situations, to help others, and my experience shows me it's the right thing to do. I was in Bosnia in 1993 protecting aid convoys delivering life saving food to isolated pockets of people trapped between warring thugs. Do you think we should've just allowed 'bandits' (who were often drunk or on drugs) to kill the aid workers? Five Italian aid workers were murdered while I was there; in our area of tactical responsibly. It was very brutal and sad. And the aid workers wouldn't even have went where they went without protection, so people would've just starved or died due to lack of basic medicines.

I've already said that it isn't my place to tell people what they should do or should have done in hypothetical situations. This goes for past situations too. But the Buddha taught, and I agree with him, that from now on, in our real, not hypothetical, future life, we should not kill. Even if killing might be a way to help in certain situations, on this path we choose peaceful ways to help, and we deal with unforseen events as best we can.

What do you expect me, whose teacher is the Buddha, to say? I have found truth in so many of the teachings, do you think I will contradict this fundamental teaching, do not kill, because someone brings up a hypothetical situation? Give me a situation like this for real, heaven forbid, and you will see what I do. Until then, I will not advise anyone to kill.

By the way, I do respect your courage, I am sure that it was well done, and that the aid workers and their patients were helped immeasurably. From now on though, I have to point you to the Buddha's teachings - there are many paths through samsara that lead to temporary happiness, and courageous, righteous action is one of them. There is also a higher path out of samsara, and on this path we do not kill.

PrairieGhost

Er... can we see the picture?

Telly03

I think I could, I think I would, but have never been tested. I would feel terrible either way.

vinlyn

I think I could, I think I would, but have never been tested. I would feel terrible either way.

:thumbsup:

andyrobyn

I think I could, I think I would, but have never been tested. I would feel terrible either way.

Reminds of a song ... "The Impression That I Get" Lyrics by Mighty Mighty Bosstones


Have you ever been close to tragedy
Or been close to folks who have?
Have you ever felt a pain so powerful
So heavy you collapse?No?
Well I've never had to knock on wood
But I know someone who has
Which makes me wonder if I could
It makes me wonder if
I've never had to knock on wood
And I'm glad I haven't yet
Because I'm sure it isn't good
That's the impression that I get
Have you ever had the odds stacked up so high
You need a strength most don't possess?
Or has it ever come down to do or die?
You've got to rise above the rest, No?
Well I've never had to knock on wood
But I know someone who has
Which makes me wonder if I could
It makes me wonder if I've never had to knock on wood
And I'm glad I haven't yet
Because I'm sure it isn't good
That's the impression that I get
I'm not a coward I've just never been tested
I'd like to think that if I was I would pass
Look at the tested and think there but for the grace go I
Might be a coward
I'm afraid of what I might find out
Never had to knock on wood
But I know someone who has
Which makes me wonder if I could
It makes me wonder if I've never had to knock on wood
And I'm glad I haven't yet
Because I'm sure it isn't good
That's the impression that I get
Never had to but I'd better knock on wood
'Cause I know someone who has
Which makes me wonder if I could
It makes me wonder if I never had to but I'd better knock on wood
'Cause I'm sure it isn't good
And Im glad I haven't yet
That's the impression that I get

charirama

George Harrison reported a very powerful realization at one point in his life when his intent was to kill the person who invaded his home and tried to kill him.

I think there may be value in being somewhat prepared for such an event by having a good practice just as having a good yoga practice can prepare us for an unexpected physical situation.

Tosh

Er... can we see the picture?

Love to, the attention seeker that I am!!!



And I was her driver for three days; we were shot at by the Fish Factory coming out of Vitez, so she had an 'interesting journey':



Sam and I have both aged since this was taken!

federica

Yes. she's also revealed other persuasions....
she's worn off her smooth edges and emerged as a bit of a rough diamond.....!

Tosh

Yes. she's also revealed other persuasions.... :D

Hey, I see what you're inferring, and I don't like it!

federica

Ah well....such is life..... imagine how Doris Day felt about Rock Hudson........!

my bad, folks. we need to stick to topic.
Apologies for wayward banter....

DairyLama

Perhaps, what do you think you might do if you were in such a situation? Perhaps that is what I am looking for; what other people who follow Buddhism might do in this situation.

I honestly don't know - I suspect my instinct would be to defend the innocent, but I also know I'd have to live with the consequences - and the consequences might well be unpredictable.

David

Well that's just it, right?

I'd still have to protect those in harms way my own liberation be damned.

PrairieGhost

ourself

my own liberation

It's not your own liberation, it's everyone's. You are responsible for it.

PrairieGhost

Tosh, she looks gorgeous, and you look chuffed

David

ourself

my own liberation

It's not your own liberation, it's everyone's. You are responsible for it.

I am responsible for others yes but nobody can liberate another. Our actions are our only true possessions and doing nothing when we have the ability to help somebody being attacked is a bigger transgression than breaking a chain of abuse.

The intention would be to stop an attacker. If deadly force is needed, so be it. They made the choice.

PrairieGhost

ourself

I am responsible for others yes but nobody can liberate another.

Your liberation is for the benefit of others. Therefore you are responsible for liberating yourself and others. Helping others and others helping themselves are not two different things.

my own liberation be damned.

Is a choice you have no right to make, because you are choosing not just for yourself, but for every sentient being who your actions now and in the future will affect.

Your nick is 'ourself', isn't it? Not 'myself'. So I think you appreciate this on some level.

Strong feelings of righteous rage are very powerful and very seductive. I have felt them too, reading about atrocities and seeing myself as a wrathful warrior avenging wrongs. Since childhood I have had these feelings, and did not question them for years. When I learnt to question them, I realised that while they label themselves as selfless, they are selfish, dangerous, and not the path. What they are is the mind giving itself permission to act out selfish anger and the will to power in the guise of righteousness.

David

I disagree, @PrairieGhost... I think you may be confusing revenge with defense.

In a scenario where somebody is harming another to the point of danger, it is my obligation to stop them If I am able. If I don't stop them then I am condoning the attack. This doesn't mean I go after them afterwards.

It is a choice I have every right to make. If I do nothing to stop a violent act then I am shirking my responsibility and nobody is closer to being liberated.

We have to look at the bigger picture.

David

Plus nobody said anything about anger. It is simply a reaction to an action. Not worthy of joy nor shame.

PrairieGhost

If you know to the core of your being that you would unhesitatingly lose your own life in order to stop an aggressor without killing him, and if you would love that person as your own flesh, even as he acts in his ignorance, that is the time to answer for yourself the question of whether killing can be justified.

Until then, I advise you and everyone else to let go of the desire to formulate hypothetical mental projections in which you are allowed to kill people. What you think you'd do or wouldn't do now has very little to do with how you may react in a real situation. Just do your best.

Plus nobody said anything about anger. It is simply a reaction to an action. Not worthy of joy nor shame.

Then you are a Buddha.

JohnG

I will do what is necessary to defend the life of myself, the one's I am protecting, and the life of the person who is threatening me. I will use whatever force I have at my disposal to end the situation in my favor. Can I purposly kill? Yes, if that is the last or only way to end a situation in my favor. Do 'prefer' to kill? No. This would mean that killing would be my first thought of action, which now has limited me to a single choice. The goal is to win, and by winning, it means that 'all' come out of the situation alive. :cool:

how

PrairieGhost quote
I advise you and everyone else to let go of the desire to formulate hypothetical mental projections in which you are allowed to kill people. What you think you'd do or wouldn't do now has very little to do with how you may react in a real situation. Just do your best.


Completely agree.

federica

If you know to the core of your being that you would unhesitatingly lose your own life in order to stop an aggressor without killing him, and if you would love that person as your own flesh, even as he acts in his ignorance, that is the time to answer for yourself the question of whether killing can be justified.

Until then, I advise you and everyone else to let go of the desire to formulate hypothetical mental projections in which you are allowed to kill people. What you think you'd do or wouldn't do now has very little to do with how you may react in a real situation. Just do your best.

Plus nobody said anything about anger. It is simply a reaction to an action. Not worthy of joy nor shame.

Then you are a Buddha.

This is a good post. I particularly like the part I bolded.

Over the last couple of days I have been watching so many videos of slaughtered civilians in Syria, including dozens and dozens of children.

Gee, I'm sure that tomorrow Al Assad will simply stop what he is commanding, and he'll probably break out into a chorus of Kumbaya. No need for the United Nations to keep talking and talking and talking. More children won't be massacred. They'll all live happily ever after with no need for a forced intervention.

Sleep well, peace-niks.

and this is off topic and inflammatory.
Hence the deletion.

Keep to the topic in hand, thank you.

DairyLama

Until then, I advise you and everyone else to let go of the desire to formulate hypothetical mental projections in which you are allowed to kill people. What you think you'd do or wouldn't do now has very little to do with how you may react in a real situation. Just do your best.

Fair comment.

David

@PrairieGhost;

I am a far cry from a Buddha, lol. I agree with your last post however I don't think killing anybody is justifiable even if it's necessary. In the case of an attacker my reaction would depend on their action. Ultimately, it is their own choosing . This isn't really a hypothetical situation as I have faced it more than once. Thankfully nobody was hurt but I do know what I would do.

Often times speaking to them as a friend (even if we don't know the person) helps. If not then it is good to be prepared.

Have fun and don't hurt anyone but let no one hurt you.

Theswingisyellow

I would suggest one's intentions are paramount.
I would also suggest that one is also responsible for the outcome of one's acts.
A situation is presented, what is one's proper response?
I would say do the least harm, but it is well within one's rights to defend one's life if necessary.

PrairieGhost

I've said enough on the subject of killing, but I do want to point to the concept of rights. There is a difference between Buddhist view and worldly view. The worldly view is that there is a self-existent sphere of rights, and that if one comes to harm within that sphere, it is unfair and one may curse God or the world.

The Buddhist view is that however unfair it may seem at times, our suffering and joy are bound to the flow of cause and effect. There are no exceptions.

And it only seems unfair when we live in thrall to concepts like should or might or want. This is the best possible world (being the only possible world, but it's sweeter than that implies).