self-defense

magpie

Hello all.

I have a question about defending the self. So much of what I read in Buddhist books uses the example of insects when referring to the developement of compassion. I even have a friend who, even though she suffers from an ant hill outside the house, refuses to poisen the ants to get rid of them. But why should the well-being of the ants come before that of my friends?

This brings me to the topic of survival. Everything is wanting its life-everything is doing what it has been programmed to do in order to live-that is the way of evolution, regardless of how it looks. This includes all of us people. But, does compassion mean showing it to others and denying ourselves of any? Should people suffer ant infestation (or snake infestation, or gater infestation, depending on where one lives I guess) in order to develope more compassion?

I read in Bhante G.'s book on the Eightfold Path that there was a wasp nest outside the entrance to the meditation hall. Some people there became very upset when they noticed that others had set traps for the wasps. So the traps were removed and the wasps were allowed to thrive. I see this as very discompassionate toward those people who have severe wasp allergies, as my family does. If my grandmother were to be stung, she'd have to receive treatment within minutes, or die. It's happened, but she survived and now carries a rescue kit with her. Even for the people without such allergies, how could I consider myself compassionate while protecting the creatures that cause my brothers and sisters to suffer wasp stings as they enter and exit the meditation hall? Shouldn't compassion be shown to the self as well as others?

I'd really be interested to hear anyone's take on this one. I tell ya, the more I read, the more questions I have. I am not advocating being cruel here friends, but simply wanting to analyze compassion as it relates to self preservation.

Take care,
Angela

magpie

I guess I should have read the thread below on killing bugs? :banghead:

Jason

Angela,

This essay is more concerned about how war and killing cannot be morally justified in a Buddhist context (Theravadin at least), but the points that are made and the references that are used can easily apply to all sentient beings (i.e. bugs, animals, people, etc.). Just as a note, my personal opinion on this topic is closely mirrored by what the Venerable Thanissaro has to say.

Getting the Message

By Thanissaro Bhikkhu

The Buddha is famous for having refused to take a position on many of the controversial issues of his day, such as whether the cosmos is finite or infinite, eternal or not. In fact, many people — both in his time and in ours — have assumed that he didn't take a firm position on any issue at all. Based on this assumption, some people have been exasperated with the Buddha, accusing him of being wishy-washy and indecisive, while others have been pleased, praising him for being tolerant and refreshingly free from ideas of right and wrong.

Both reactions, however, are misinformed. The early texts report that a group of wanderers, in a discussion with one of the Buddha's lay disciples, once accused the Buddha of not taking a position on any issue, and the disciple replied that they were mistaken. There was one issue on which the Buddha's position was very clear: what kind of behavior is skillful, and what kind of behavior is not. When the disciple later reported the conversation to the Buddha, the Buddha approved of what he had said. The distinction between skillful and unskillful behavior lies at the basis of everything the Buddha taught.

In making this distinction, the Buddha drew some very sharp lines:

"What is unskillful? Taking life is unskillful, taking what is not given... sexual misconduct... lying... abusive speech... divisive tale-bearing... idle chatter is unskillful. Covetousness... ill will... wrong views are unskillful. These things are called unskillful...

"And what is skillful? Abstaining from taking life is skillful, abstaining from taking what is not given... from sexual misconduct... from lying... from abusive speech... from divisive tale-bearing... abstaining from idle chatter is skillful. Lack of covetousness... lack of ill will... right views are skillful. These things are called skillful." — MN 9

Killing is never skillful. Stealing, lying, and everything else in the first list are never skillful. When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill. As he told the monks,

"Even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves." — MN 21

When formulating lay precepts based on his distinction between skillful and unskillful, the Buddha never made any allowances for ifs, ands, or buts. When you promise yourself to abstain from killing or stealing, the power of the promise lies in its universality. You won't break your promise to yourself under any conditions at all. This is because this sort of unconditional promise is a powerful gift. Take, for instance, the first precept, against killing:

"There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans." — AN 8.39

If you make exceptions in your promise to yourself — trying to justify killing in cases where you feel endangered or inconvenienced by another being's existence — your gift of freedom is limited, and you lose your share in limitless freedom. Thus the gift of freedom, to be fully effective, has to be unconditional, with no room for exceptions, no matter how noble they may sound, of any kind.

The dynamic of this kind of gift, of course, depends on an important principle, the teaching of karma and rebirth: If you act on unskillful motivations, the act will result in your suffering, now or in lives to come; if you act on skillful intentions, the act will result in your pleasure now or in lives to come. If you don't kill anyone, you are not creating the circumstances where anyone or anything will cut short your life span. Your past karma may still leave an opening for your murder or accidental death — you can't go back and undo what you've already done — but once you make and follow through with the promise not to kill again, you are creating no new openings for having your life cut short. As the Dhammapada says,

If there's no wound on the hand,
that hand can hold poison.
Poison won't penetrate
where there's no wound.
There's no evil
for those who don't do it.

— Dhp 124

This is why the Buddha listed virtue as one of a person's greatest treasures. Kings and thieves can steal your material belongings and even take your life, but they can't take your virtue. If it's uncompromising, your virtue protects you from any true danger from now until you reach nirvana.

Even if you're not ready to accept the teaching on karma and rebirth, the Buddha still recommended an absolute standard of virtue. As he told the Kalamas, if you decide to act skillfully at all times, harming no one, then even if it turned out that there was no life after death, you'd still come out ahead, for you would have been able to live and die with a clear conscience — something that no amount of money or political influence can buy.

So the Buddha's position on the precepts was uncompromising and clear. If you want to follow his teachings, there's absolutely no room for killing, stealing, or lying, period. However, in our current climate of terrorism and counter-terrorism — where governments have claimed that it's their moral duty to lie, kill, and torture in order to prevent others from lying, killing, and torturing — a number of Buddhist teachers have joined in the effort, trying to find evidence that there were some occasions, at least, where the Buddha would condone killing or offer a rationale for a just war. Exactly why they would want to do this is up to them to say, but there's a need to examine their arguments in order to set the record straight. The Buddha never taught a theory of just war; no decision to wage war can legitimately be traced to his teachings; no war veteran has ever had to agonize over memories of the people he killed because the Buddha said that war was okay. These facts are among the glories of the Buddhist tradition, and it's important for the human race that they not be muddied in an effort to recast the Buddha in our own less than glorious image.

Because the Pali Canon is such an unpromising place to look for the justification of killing, most of the arguments for a Buddhist theory of just war look elsewhere for their evidence, citing the words and behavior of people they take as surrogates for the Buddha. These arguments are obviously on shaky ground, and can be easily dismissed even by people who know nothing of the Canon. For example, it has been argued that because Asian governments claiming to be Buddhist have engaged in war and torture, the Buddha's teachings must condone such behavior. However, we've had enough exposure to people claiming to be Christian whose behavior is very un-Christian to realize that the same thing can probably happen in the Buddhist world as well. To take killers and torturers as your guide to the Buddha's teaching is hardly a sign of good judgment.

On a somewhat higher note, one writer has noted that his meditation teacher has told soldiers and policemen that if their duty is to kill, they must perform their duty, albeit compassionately and with mindfulness. The writer then goes on to argue that because his teacher is the direct recipient of an oral tradition dating back to the Buddha, we must take this as evidence that the Buddha would give similar advice as well. This statement, of course, tells us more about the writer's faith in his teacher than about the Buddha; and when we reflect that the Buddha expelled from the Sangha a monk who gave advice of this sort to an executioner, it casts serious doubts on his argument.

There are, however, writers who try to find evidence in the Pali Canon for a Buddhist theory of just war, not in what the Buddha said, but in what he didn't. The arguments go like this: When talking with kings, the Buddha never told them not to engage in war or capital punishment. This was his tacit admission that the king had a justifiable duty to engage in these activities, and the kings would have understood his silence as such. Because these arguments cite the Pali Canon and claim a historian's knowledge of how silence was interpreted in the Buddha's day, they seem to carry more authority than the others. But when we actually look at the Pali record of the Buddha's conversations with kings, we find that the arguments are bogus. The Buddha was able to communicate the message to kings that they shouldn't kill, but because kings in general were not the most promising students of the Dhamma, he had to bring them to this message in an indirect way.

It's true that in the Pali Canon silence is sometimes interpreted as acquiescence, but this principle holds only in response to a request. If someone invited the Buddha to his house for a meal and the Buddha remained silent, that was a sign of consent. However, there were many instances in which the Buddha's silence was a sign, not of acquiescence, but of tact. A professional soldier once went to the Buddha and said that his teachers had taught the existence of a heaven awaiting soldiers who die in battle. What did the Buddha have to say about that? At first the Buddha declined to answer, but when the soldier showed the sincerity of his question by pressing him three times for a response, he finally replied:

"When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not exist': If others then strike him down & slay him while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb." — SN 42.3

The soldier then broke down and cried — not because he felt that the Buddha's words were cruel, but because he believed their truth and was upset at his earlier teachers for having lied to him. In this case, the Buddha's reticence and tact helped to make his teaching effective. A similar set of events happened when an actor asked the Buddha if there is a special heaven reserved for actors. The Buddha's reticence and tact in informing the actor of a hell for actors who incite their audiences to greed, anger, and delusion inspired the actor to respond in the same way as the soldier.

If the pride of soldiers and actors required special handling, even more care was required in the handling of kings, for their pride was often coupled with an unrestrained sense of power. A remarkable feature of the Pali Canon is that even though the Buddha was a member of the noble warrior caste, the discourses generally show a low regard for the spiritual standing of kings. In many passages, kings are mentioned in the same breath with thieves: They confiscate property and show little regard for the rule of law. The Canon does recognize exceptions — King Bimbisara of Magadha achieves stream-entry the first time he hears the Dhamma, and he never engages in war — but for the most part, kings are depicted as spiritually stunted. King Ajatasattu, on first seeing the Buddha sitting surrounded by monks, can't tell which person in the assembly is the Buddha, a sign of his spiritual blindness; this blindness is later proven by his asking the Buddha's advice on how to defeat his innocent neighbors in war. As one of the discourses suggests, this sort of blindness is an occupational hazard for rulers, in that the unfair exercise of power can make a person unfit for learning the truth.

"Because of having wrongly inflicted suffering on another person through beating or imprisonment or confiscation or placing blame or banishment, [with the thought,] 'I have power. I want power,' when told what is factual, he denies it and doesn't acknowledge it. When told what is unfactual, he doesn't make an ardent effort to untangle it [to see], 'This is unfactual. This is baseless.'" — AN 3.90

Even King Pasenadi of Kosala, the king most closely associated with the Buddha, comes across as well-meaning but somewhat dense. An entire discourse, MN 90, is a satire of how his royal position has thwarted his ability to learn the Dhamma. He can't phrase his questions properly, has trouble following a discussion for more than a few sentences, and is unable to come to any certain conclusions about the truth. Still, in other discourses he has his occasional moments of spiritual clarity, and the Buddha uses those moments as opportunities to teach the Dhamma. The Buddha's approach here is twofold: to try to expand the king's perspective on life at times when the king is willing to be frank; and to encourage the king when the latter gains insights on his own.

For example, there's the famous discourse (SN 3.25) where Pasenadi comes to visit the Buddha in the middle of the day. The Buddha asks him what he's been doing, and the king replies — in a moment of rare and wonderful frankness — that he's been involved in the sort of activities typical of a king intoxicated with his power. The Buddha takes this moment of frankness as an opportunity to teach the Dhamma. Suppose, he says, that four mountains were rolling in inexorably from the four directions, crushing all life in their path. Given that the human birth is so rare and hard to achieve, what should be done? The king's reply: What else should be done but living in line with the Dhamma? The Buddha then draws the lesson: Aging and death are rolling in inexorably. Given that the human birth is so rare and hard to achieve, what should be done? The king draws the obvious conclusion that, again, the only thing to be done is to live in line with the Dhamma. He then goes on to make the observation that when aging and death are rolling in inexorably, there is no role for armies, wars, clever advisors, or great wealth to prevent their rolling in. The only thing to do is to live in line with the Dhamma.

In another discourse, Pasenadi comes to the Buddha and reports his own independent observation:

"Those who engage in bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct leave themselves unprotected. Even though a squadron of elephant troops might protect them, a squadron of cavalry troops, a squadron of chariot troops, a squadron of infantry troops might protect them, still they leave themselves unprotected. Why is that? Because that's an external protection, not an internal one. Therefore they leave themselves unprotected. But those who engage in good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct have themselves protected. Even though neither a squadron of elephant troops, a squadron of cavalry troops, a squadron of chariot troops, nor a squadron of infantry troops might protect them, still they have themselves protected. Why is that? Because that's an internal protection, not an external one. Therefore they have themselves protected." — SN 3.5

It's highly unlikely that Pasenadi would have come to this conclusion if he hadn't spent time in conversation with the Buddha. From that conversation, he would have learned the meaning of good bodily, verbal, and mental conduct: the ten forms of skillful action. As a tactful teacher, the Buddha simply concurred with the king's insight. The discourses suggest that this strategy encouraged the king to spend time in reflection of this sort, for in other discourses the king reports many similar insights for the Buddha to confirm.

We learn that the king did not always follow through with his insights, but that's not because the Buddha encouraged him to view killing as his duty. In fact, there is one striking example where these insights had at least a partial effect. Ajatasattu once attacked Pasenadi's kingdom, and Pasenadi responded by raising an army to fight him off. After an initial setback, Pasenadi was able to capture Ajatasattu. He could have killed him in revenge, for that was allowable under the rules of engagement during his time. But he chose not to, and it's hard not to see the Buddha's impact on this decision. When told of the battle, the Buddha said:

A man may plunder
as long as it serves his ends,
but when others are plundered,
he who has plundered
gets plundered in turn.

A fool thinks,
'Now's my chance,'
as long as his evil
has yet to ripen.
But when it ripens,
the fool
falls
into pain.

Killing, you gain
your killer.
Conquering, you gain one
who will conquer you;
insulting, insult;
harassing, harassment.

And so, through the cycle of action,
he who has plundered
gets plundered in turn.

— SN 3.15

Benighted as he was, Pasenadi still got the message. The question is, why can't we?

Sincerely,

Jason

magpie

Hi Jason, and thanks for taking the time to post even after I found that there was another similar post below.

I don't agree with not taking the life of anything, as there are times when it is necessary for the good of all. Maybe this means I am not cut out to be a Buddhist. I would never cause myself or my family to suffer from the torture of beings that would cause such suffering. Instead, I would kill them, if I had to, to prevent or stop it. Granted, this isn't living in the way of freedom, because I'm always having to defend myself. But it's either that, or lay down and die and this is giving up=nihilism. I have this life, I figure I might do well to keep it.

I just don't see how it could bring freedom to allow oneself to suffer under the attack of another. In reading the post, I see that a belief in karma and rebirth are important to understanding the precept against taking no life under any circumstances. Since such a belief would require faith, it excludes me. I can't say I didn't try

Take care,
Angela

Simonthepilgrim

Angela. divine messenger,

The proscription against taking life is not necessarily based on a belief in rebirth. At the heart of the 'Abrahamic' religions is the same injunction. The fact that Jews, Christians and Muslims have all taken lives (and human lives at that) does not change the fact: killing is outlawed. The Q'ran tells us that killing a person destroys a whole world.

That it may be a counsel of perfection and challenges us to examine our priorities is not changed by the actions of those of us who cannot come up to the standard set for us by the great souls.

There are very few authors who have dared to address the problem but I would suggest reading Georges Bernanos's Sous le Soleil de Satan, in which a priest offers the salvation of his own soul in exchange for the life of a 'worthless' woman. This is so contrary to Catholic teaching that it caused Bernanos a lot of trouble. When I first read it, I was deeply moved and troubled. It was probably then, at about 18, I think, that I first grasped that a 'religious faith' was, of its nature, counter-intuitive.

It is natural (in the modern West) for parents to want to protect their children (and vice versa) or partner. What the Precepts or the Decalogue set before us is exactly the opposite. And there's the rub! Moses, Jesus, Mahomet, the Buddha, the Gurus and all demand that we reject what appears 'natural' and strive for the most unnatural behaviour.

Perhaps this is why there are strands in all the religions, including Buddhism, which maintain that the religious life can only be fully followed through celibacy, poverty and obedience.

magpie

Hi Simon.

When I read your post, it leads me to think that life is not worthy of being saved. If I can not kill that which would kill me, then I might as well feed myself to the bears and mountain lions, who are also trying to protect themselves and get a bite to eat, as we all are. If I am not supposed to have meat to eat, or am not supposed to kill him who would kill me, then it is apparent my life is not worth living, literally. If I let myself think this way, then no life is worth anything if it is not worth defending. I was thinking about it, and realized that bears have teeth and claws, so do lions and other critters- humans have guns, arrows and such, to level the physical "field."

I know there must be something I'm just not getting here, or I would agree. I don't believe in random killing, killing for the amusement of it, or any such horrific thing. But I do believe in killing for food and killing the one who is trying to kill me. Else, I should throw up my hands and tell all enemies to come and get it. But who is to say that my life is not worth saving?

As far as the Abrahamic faiths are concerned, the order not to kill refers to murder, not killing for food or even killing for justice sake. Regarding celibacy, I have no faith in it. If living a holy life requires it, then some humans must remain unholy, else the human population would die off, and that brings me back to the whole "life not being worth anything" issue.

I do not know where I came from before my mother and father. I have no idea if there is any after-life. All I know is that, I am here, and that counts for something. It must count, because I know of many who love me, and who am I to say their love is worthless? I am here to serve the sick and the poor, and if I must have enough compassion for myself and defend myself in order to stick around and give my life this meaning, who is any prophet to tell me I should not?

take care,
Angela

Simonthepilgrim

magpie wrote:

Hi Simon.

When I read your post, it leads me to think that life is not worthy of being saved. If I can not kill that which would kill me, then I might as well feed myself to the bears and mountain lions, who are also trying to protect themselves and get a bite to eat, as we all are. If I am not supposed to have meat to eat, or am not supposed to kill him who would kill me, then it is apparent my life is not worth living, literally. If I let myself think this way, then no life is worth anything if it is not worth defending. I was thinking about it, and realized that bears have teeth and claws, so do lions and other critters- humans have guns, arrows and such, to level the physical "field."

I know there must be something I'm just not getting here, or I would agree. I don't believe in random killing, killing for the amusement of it, or any such horrific thing. But I do believe in killing for food and killing the one who is trying to kill me. Else, I should throw up my hands and tell all enemies to come and get it. But who is to say that my life is not worth saving?

As far as the Abrahamic faiths are concerned, the order not to kill refers to murder, not killing for food or even killing for justice sake. Regarding celibacy, I have no faith in it. If living a holy life requires it, then some humans must remain unholy, else the human population would die off, and that brings me back to the whole "life not being worth anything" issue.

I do not know where I came from before my mother and father. I have no idea if there is any after-life. All I know is that, I am here, and that counts for something. It must count, because I know of many who love me, and who am I to say their love is worthless? I am here to serve the sick and the poor, and if I must have enough compassion for myself and defend myself in order to stick around and give my life this meaning, who is any prophet to tell me I should not?

take care,
Angela

Indeed, Angela, that's the rub, isn't it? I posted my earlier thing just before I went out for a Father's Day treat at Berkeley Castle. And I found myself coming back to this whole question.

As I see it, we can adopt one of many positions, points of view. There is one which I tried to express above. It can be argued as follows:
The Buddha taught four Noble truths. The first is the truth of suffering, of stress, of unsatisfactoriness. This is a very clear-eyed view of life: things don't always work as we want; people let us down; it rains on our garden party.

It is the second of the Truths which is in play in this matter: what is the origin of dukkha? Our suffering arises in ourselves as a result of our own desires, cravings, ignorance, e tutti quanti. It is also - as anyone can see - often the result of our previous actions, inactions and decisions.

So, if we take the matter of our own children. Let us imagine what we least want to imagine: our children are being threatened and we can save them by taking a life. What do we do? It may appear that the decision exists at that moment but it is, in truth, a decision that we have brought on ourselves by a whole collection of life decisions over many years. We have chosen not to remain celibate, for example. Had we done so, we would have no children and, thus, no need to take a life.

Thus, logically, in order fully to follow the precept about not taking life, we would have had to make a different decision years or decades earlier.

What we are faced with is the classic "teleological suspension of the ethical" or "the end justifies the means". Within the situation - which is largely of our own making - we are called upon to choose the unchoosable.

***************

There is, however, another point of view which rejects the general principle when we are faced with such a decision and demands that we make a choice based on a notion of "compassion" or "social good" or "the family" or "national security" which is deemed to over-ride the ethical.


You pays your money and takes your choice but I find it hard to describe as "Buddhism" or "Christianity" in their fullest sense any situational ethic which weighs one life as of greater importance than another. In the Jesus story, we have Caiaphas who urges the Sanhedrin to condemn Jesus because "it is better for one person to die for the sake of the people". But this attitude is diametriucally opposed to the "not a sparrow falls" attitude of the Galilean.

What we do, as 'lay', 'householders', is to adapt the path to the life we decide to lead, doing our best but always aware that we must fall short. Doesn't stop us trying, though.

On a side note, the word used in the commandment not to kill (Matt 19:18), phoneuseis, does mean to murder which makes it mean that it is not OK to kill in a not-OK way - a bit circular, I think. But the Tanakh makes the point that humans, in their edenic state were 'vegetarians'. Only after the expulsion are animals killed and eaten and Cain commits the first murder. It could, then, be argued that meat-eating is akin to muder but this is another discussion that we have flogged to death a number of times!


P.S. Recognising that my decision to marry and have children committed me to certain duties which may contradict the Precepts is something that I accept. It does not stop my practice or my efforts on the path. I just know that this is part of the 'samsaric' burden which makes even the following of the Noble Eighfold Path a source of potential suffering!

Jason

Angela,

I do not know very much about Abrahamic religions, but I do know a bit about Buddhism and I believe that I see your dilemma. Your main barrier to understanding what is being said here is your own self-identity view. When you look at it from only one perspective -- the perspective of "I", "me", and "mine" -- you miss the bigger picture. What you are focusing on is your life, your meaning, your families well-being, etc.

By this reasoning, the end justifies the means. That is to say that if you are in some kind of danger, you can do whatever is necessary to prolong your own life--even if that means killing. Your argument for this rationalization is that if you do not kill people and animals for self-defense and food, then your life is not worth living--that meaning is somehow based upon the number of years you are alive, being able to kill in order to stay alive as long as possible, and eating animals.

Through this logic, a person who robs and murders others is justified if they do it in order to survive (i.e. not for fun, sport, or pleasure). They want life and meaning just as much as you do, so who is to say that they are wrong? Maybe they even have a family to support, and they do it for their sake. This leads us to ask what makes it okay for one person to end a life, but not another? Our minds can -- and will -- find a way to justify anything it desires. The Buddha simply asks us to contemplate these facts, and then decide if that is really a life worth pursuing.

What the Buddha is really asking us to contemplate is all of the pain and suffering we can -- and will -- inflict upon others, and subsequently, is that pain really worth the benefits of birth, sickness, old age, and death? If we feel that it is, then we should go on our merry way and not give it another thought. If, however, we decide that there is a better goal -- a goal free of suffering, killing, stealing, and lying -- then we should listen to what the Buddha has to say.

In Buddhism, we do not try to refrain from killing, lying, and stealing simply because we are asked to, but because we understand that it is not skillful--that it ultimately leads to the suffering of ourselves as well as others. We do not even need to believe in rebirth or the laws of kamma to see this. Just look around at the world you live in right now, and realize that it has always been this way. True happiness and peace never comes from violence--ever. If that were the case, we would be a utopia by now. Life is certainly worth living, but is it truly worth living if we can learn how to live in the right way--a way that leads to the end of suffering.

Therefore, the only thing that you really have to take on faith in Buddhism is that the Buddha's path will ultimately lead you to the end of suffering. Moreover, this makes true compassion possible because once you have followed the Buddha's path and learned how to put an end to your own suffering, you can in turn teach others how to do the same. This, in the Buddhist context of the word, is the ultimate act of compassion.

Regards,

Jason

Hanna

I read a novel a few months ago, and what I remember most from it was when one of the main characters said something like "you can only truly own what you are willing to give up".

Intention has to play some part in trying to follow the precepts. We probably kill countless beings (depending on how you define it and where you draw the line, since the line doesn't seem very fixed or solid) throughout our lives just breathing or drinking or boiling water. We also techically lie many, many times throughout our lives when we think we are being truthful because we don't know the whole truth or because the whole truth isn't knowable or known yet. Similar examples probably exist for all the precepts so it seems to me that intention and striving to always do less harm have to be part of it.

Jason

aquula,

Very true! Intention has everything to do with keeping the precepts. However, in Buddhism, "killing" and "lying" can only occur if there is the intention to kill or lie, and then the completion of the act of killing or lying. You must have both. Accidental deaths do not count as killing, and telling what you believe to be the truth even though it is false does not count as lying.

Jason

magpie

Hi Jason. Thank you for responding, and I hope we can continue this because I still do not understand where you are coming from.

I will post my responses to some of the things you said in hopes that maybe you can clarify for me.

Your argument for this rationalization is that if you do not kill people and animals for self-defense and food, then your life is not worth living--that meaning is somehow based upon the number of years you are alive, being able to kill in order to stay alive as long as possible, and eating animals

The number of years I am alive is the only thing I am gaurenteed. I don't know if there is anything beyond this life or not. I do, however, see value in living this life so as not to give up and say "I'm through." The physiological body is just a reality. The cells within it have certain needs that, if not met, will perish.

Through this logic, a person who robs and murders others is justified if they do it in order to survive

As far as people are concerned, if no one wanted to hurt others for fun or being able to rule over them, then no one would have to kill in order to defend themselves. The only time I advocate killing is if someone is trying to murder another. Such a person does not have the right to live where they can continue to place the lives of many others in jeopardy of being hurt. No one murders to survive, as far as I understand the term murder.

I have personally known of people who had to steal food in order to survive. I see nothing wrong with this. If people would be kind enough and give others food when they needed it then stealing would not have to occur. But since everyone alive has cells to support, physiologically speaking, everyone must eat to remain alive. It stealing must occur for this to happen, so it is.

In Buddhism, we do not try to refrain from killing, lying, and stealing simply because we are asked to, but because we understand that it is not skillful

But killing is skillful in many cases. Maybe it is from a point of view, but isn't it all? If there is a fire ant hill outside my door and these critters are getting into my home and making my health decline, how is it not skillful to remove the ants by killing them? My neighbors even complain when I have an ant hill on my property and do nothing about it because the ants get into their house as well. Why should the ants well-being take priority over mine and my family and neighbors?

I am still not getting it. Who determines what is skillful and what makes an action so? As far as I know, this is the only chance at life I'll ever have, so I can't see myself going through needless suffering at the hands of fire ants, Iron and B12 deprivation and bears that approach in the woods all for the sake of hoping that their well-being is better than my own.

There is a fine line, I realize that. I don't go out of my way to invite illness into my life, but when it comes, I fight for my life. Why is this wrong?

Still trying,
Angela

Jason

Angela,

First of all, nobody is saying that anything is "wrong". I can understand how you feel, and I too once felt the same way; however, I now see things in a different light. But, to be honest, I do not know how to help you to understand why these things are so important. Nobody determines what is skillful, actions simply have their own consequences.

If you do not see the inherent benefits of following the precepts and practicing the Noble Eightfold Path, then you will never see their true worth. If you think that killing can be skillful, then perhaps Buddhism is not for you. I am sure that there are Buddhist who will disagree with me, but I do not believe that killing can be justified by the Dhamma.

Jason

magpie

Thanks for explaining your points, Jason. Maybe sometime in the future I will understand. Maybe it'll be something I read, or something someone says, or maybe this is just a point I'll never see any other way, who knows. But you hung in there with me on it, and I appreciate that.

If anyone else cares to address my questions, that would be great. I hope all understand I'm not here to argue for arguments sake. That is sick. It's just that I am without a spiritual way right now, and am looking into other ways. I just have to have anything I accept make sense to me before I can follow it. As a Christian, I blindly followed for many years, but my reasoning would not allow me to continue as a Christian.

I guess this is the way of life; everyone has their own way of looking at any issue. Maybe it's what's in the heart that counts, I don't know. I used to try to figure out what made people do the things they did. Then I read in a book a week ago that it was pointless trying to understand what makes people tick. Then again, last night on the radio, Dr. Wayne Dyer said the same thing. All I can count on is to be able to understand why I do what I do, and examine the scales of my actions before I act.

As far as this thread goes, I have never had to kill. On the other hand, if I had to slaughter a cow or chicken to have meat, I would do it. Sometimes I think it would be better to do it this way anyhow, whenever I consider how greedily farmers treat the animals prior to their death. My husband and I usually purchase a cow for slaughter from a local, small-time farmer who really cares for the animals though, so I don't have a guilty consciousness.

In this circle of life, death is inevitable, regardless of how I see it. My life is good, even when it's bad, so I have always wanted to prolong it. Even during my darkest times when self destruction was a whisper, it was one I could never go through with, if only for sheer curiosity of what lay behind the next corner and hopes for a better day. I accept that beings eat each other. If they did not, then the balance of ecology would fail and what a world that would be. Beings must die in order to make way for new life! Perhaps my way will be to learn to accept suffering, and try my hardest (which I do already) not to perpetuate any unnecessary suffering. Anyway, it is the suffering of the heart that hurts the most, I believe. All I can do in this life is to try to keep my own mind in check and what anyone else says or does, well that's their own brew.

Be well,
Angela

Jason

Angela,

I am afraid that I am not a very good teacher, and I simply do not know how to help others new to this understand all of these complex and interconnected teachings. I sincerely apologize for this.

To truly understand what I am trying to say takes a fairly good understanding of the Noble Eightfold Path, the teachings on kamma, a consistent mediation practice, and various other factors. Altogether, these things make a concise map of the hows and whys of Buddhism, and I do not have the skill to condense them all into a few simple posts.

For right now, though, where you are at is fine. You do not need to initially believe killing is unskillful in all cases. In fact, you do not need to believe anything at all. It is not only by reading Buddhist texts that you gain these understandings, but it is through a combination of reading, practicing, and observing that really cultivates these insights.

Basically, in Buddhism there is more to life than your own life. In Buddhism, all life is equal. All life has potential for good and bad. All life wants to be happy, and free from suffering. However, it is this "I" that we perceive the world through that causes us to separate ourselves from the rest of the world. Due to this separation, our desires come first. This means that we are not always acting out of wisdom, but with of some amount of greed, hatred, and delusion.

If only we were able to recall all of our past lives, then a few years in this one would not matter very much at all. However, if all we think we have is now, and being here at all costs is our main goal, it might be wise to reflect on that goal some more. The Buddha is not saying to just give up and die; but he does ask us to try to see it from another point of view.

I personally do not think that you have to be willing to kill in order to live a meaningful life. Does killing another being -- either for food (a cow or chicken), ease (as in an anthill), or self-defense (an attacker) -- really give life more meaning? It might make us more comfortable at that moment, but that means our comfort is based upon the deaths of other living beings who just want happiness too. And, just to sustain that comfort we must continually harm other beings.

Hell, what even makes us believe that being alive is the most important thing we could possible do? We all die. It is our nature to die. We certainly do not have to run to our deaths, but we do not have to hide from it either. We do not have to fight death as if it were something evil that we must avoid at all costs. It is only fear that makes us do that--the fear of this "I" which wants to last forever and enjoy all of these worldly pleasures.

But, regardless of all of that, if we can only think of things in terms of this "I" (i.e. our needs, our priority, or that of our family and neighbors), then we will never see things in terms of Dhamma.

For instance, I ate meat my whole life and I never wanted to give it up. I was even relieved when I learned that the Buddha allowed the eating of meat by his monks if it was pure in three ways, but this was only more justification for my own selfish desires.

When it really came down to it, the only reason I ate meat was my desire for it. I loved eating meat. Nevertheless, I decided to try to live without it for a while just to see how I would feel. I am anemic, and I was worried that I would get weak and sick from lack of nutrition, but I would not know for sure unless I tried right?

All I can say is that I have stopped eating meat for a year now, and I am fine. I have actually been less sick this year than while I was eating meat. I actually set out to investigate this, and I now know for a fact I do not need to eat it, even though I truly enjoy eating it.

The benefits and happiness I receive from not eating meat are not derived from worldly pleasures. Instead, the happiness comes from the fact that I am contributing less to the suffering and deaths of other sentient beings. I realize that I still cause suffering in many different ways, but I am intentionally making an effort to change this.

Buddhism merely seeks to show people how to cause less and less suffering in the world until they come to a point where they actually eliminate all of their own suffering once and for all. Buddhism tries to deconstruct this "I" so that there is a clear and untainted experience of reality. This awakening leads to Nibbana--the supreme happiness.

That is the essence of the Buddhism I suppose, that there is a happiness that is not dependent on the world, on life, or on anything for that matter. There is a happiness that transcends it all.

Jason

Jason

Angela,

Just a note, please do not take my posts as being the final word on Buddhism. There are many different forms of Buddhism, and people practice in many different ways. I am merely trying to share my beliefs and experiences to the best of my ability, however, I am still learning myself.

No matter what may come out of this thread, I urge you to continue to explore these ideas because I feel that they are invaluable lessons to be learned. I would also like to say that I appreciate your patience with me, as well as your questions. I just wish I could answer them better.

Sincerely,

Jason

KnightofBuddha

Steve Hagen warns that compassion without wisdom is fruitless. As has been stated, intention is everything. Survival is the strongest of all human drives. We cannot simply ignore that for the sake of compassion towards creatures that might harm us.

Hagen uses the story of a puma as an example. Now perhaps you see a puma about to attack a deer. Out of compassion, you string a bell to the neck of the puma to warn the deer of a predator. Now the puma will not be able to feed itself and its children. Perhaps the population of puma will decrease. Now how will the deer population be kept in check. With rapid expansion, the deer overgraze and eventually harm the local environment.

This is cause and affect. Action---Reaction. We acted out of compassion but without wisdom. Just how fruitful is such compassion?

magpie

Hello Knight.

I have thought of something similar to this before. I live in the Rocky Mountains, and frequently go hiking in the woods. Here, we have bears and mountain lions. The bears are really quite shy but the lions will take your face off. I understand that they're looking for a bite to eat, but I can not, out of compassion for my husband, brother, and countless people who will depend on me for their lives (I'm a nursing student) allow myself to be taken out of this world before it is time for me to go due to natural causes. My grandmother lived till 103, and I'm kind of looking foward to the same scenario.

Angela

Simonthepilgrim

Angela,

Jason/Elohim has summarised - clearly, as usual - one response to the dilemma you raise and, in so doing, has demonstrated how Buddhist practice 'works'. It is a matter of controlled and observed experimentation. Neither meditation nor study of the sutras will produce new results if we stop there. We do these things in order to do something else and to live a different way.

You say:

The number of years I am alive is the only thing I am gaurenteed

but I would point out that the number is only known once you have died, at 2, 5, 10, 15, 20, 70 or 103 years. And even a century is only a tiny spasm in the long years of the universe. In fact, in my seventh decade, I am more and more convinced that the First Noble Truth is one of the very few (if not the only) guarantees on which we can count. I do not say this to depress or to discourage but because all 'spiritual' paths begin with this same understanding: all this, which I love, even the hills of my home, will pass away. The very hills that I walk every day were once at the bottom of the sea and I walk on the bodies of millions of dead sea-creatures. Great cities disappear under the waves. World-spanning empires are lost and forgotten. Your name, and mine, will be blown away on the winds of forgetting. This is guaranteed.

And then you say:

Who determines what is skillful and what makes an action so?

and this is exactly the point, the very centre of the debate. From a post-Enlightenment point of view, there is no authority outside the empirical and the personal. For many Western practitioners, the attraction of Buddhism is the repetition of the Buddha's injunction to try it out for ourselves. This differs from a commercial warranty in that we do not get back the time/effort/treasure that we may have expended if we come to find it does not fit us! The Christian churches also say "Come and try", as Jesus did, although they usually mean "join our club and obey our rules".

Just like Christianity, Buddhism includes pacifists and soldiers, meat-eaters and vegetarians, celibates and polygamists. Each one will tell you that their own take on their chosen bits of scripture is correct. How do you choose among all these authorities? We are faced with exactly the same dilemma in our secular, political life. One public figure says "This or that must be done because it is in the National Interest", another says "This or that must not be done because it is against the National Interest." How do you choose? Do you follow the local rules laid down for you by your parents, friends and the socio-economic context in which you live? Do you go to, say Afghanistan, join the Taliban and examine how such sincere and spiritual students of the Q'ran can possibly behave as they do? How? How do we find out the 'skillful'?

This is where 'faith' comes in. And we must make no mistake: we operate by faith a large part of the time. We have faith in the 'solidity' of matter, in the wisdom of those we deem wise, in the honesty of some and the dishonesty of others, that the banknote means more than a piece of toilet paper. It's all faith, based on some experiences but easy to destroy with a single counter-example. We also ask that people put their faith in us: we demand that our partner and children believe us when we tell them that we love them or would die for them. What gives us that authority?

I have no answers to these questions. I ask them every day. I look around me and I see a society which is, in my terms, 'sick'. The poor are stigmatised and left to die. The young and the minorities are oppressed by those with power. War is waged without clear strategy or law. The rich get richer at the expense of everyone else. Day by day, I am like the philosopher wandering through the world looking for "an honest person". I find all-too-few! But, in our myths and legends of such figures as the Buddha, Jesus, Guru Nanak and others, I find a deep human yearning for a personage who incarnates all that is good. I also find it fascinating that modern historical deconstruction and revisionism aim to reduce such people from heroes to villains.

Re-reading your posts, I am brought to wonder if you are not teetering on the brink of a terrible realisation and it troubles you deeply. I remember the moment when it happened to me: I had always assumed that the life of my family, myself, my nation and all that I deemed 'good' was sacred but that of those who would oppose/destroy us was 'evil' - and that such people deserved to die or to be pent up. I could not understand my beloved father who, as a Home Office Pathologist, would refuse to appear for the Crown in capital murder cases (yes, I am old enough to remember when we still murdered murderers in this country). And then, I heard, on the BBC, of the execution of Gunter Fritz Podola in November 1959. He was the last person to be executed in Britain. I was 16 and I suddenly realised that there was absolutely no difference between the life that had animated him and that which moved in me. I could no longer justify to myself (and far less to anyone else) how I could 'take' that life. Indeed, I realised that if I take your cellphone, I would have a second cellphone, but if I take your life, I have not a speck more life than I did before!

To me (and on whose authority? I really do not know), life is unconditionally valuable. It transcends all local, recent, national, personal or philosophical contingencies. I find this reflected in the Buddhist scriptures, just as I found it at the heart of the Abrahamic. All the rest is just froth, smoke and mirrors. Irrespective of ethical considerations, I see all beings striving for more life and I see it as the aspiration of every spiritual path: to have life and to have it more abundantly.

I cannot hold myself up as some sort of exemplar. I have practised vegetarianism and simply got too lazy to go on producing different meals for different members of my family, as well as missing some meats. I returned to being an omnivore. I have practised chastity and have behaved abominably, both emotionally and sexually, in pursuit of my own gratification. I have divested myself of most of my possessions, giving them away, etc., only to acquire more! I have loved my parents and praised them, whilst putting them through hell. These are realities and my life is a result of all these preceding causative events and decisions.

I do, however, find an enhancement to my life in having recognised how unskillfully I dance through life. The painful bit of it is that I have to unwind from the garden of my life the bindweed of preconceptions which appeared self-evident.

Brigid

I'm almost speechless, Simon. Beautiful.

magpie

Good Morning, Simon. I enjoyed reading your post.

I don't know if I am on the brink, but I'm willing to let whatever may happen within the workings of my brain, go ahead and happen.

I have a response to something you said. It's the view that won't allow me to see things from your point of view, at this point in time.

The very hills that I walk every day were once at the bottom of the sea and I walk on the bodies of millions of dead sea-creatures. Great cities disappear under the waves. World-spanning empires are lost and forgotten. Your name, and mine, will be blown away on the winds of forgetting. This is guaranteed.

It is because everything you say is true that I so diligently strive to make my life count for something while I am alive. After I'm gone, that is it. But, my actions and their effects will remain. So, I want to do the right thing, as it will be my only legacy.

I was 16 and I suddenly realised that there was absolutely no difference between the life that had animated him and that which moved in me. I could no longer justify to myself (and far less to anyone else) how I could 'take' that life. Indeed, I realised that if I take your cellphone, I would have a second cellphone, but if I take your life, I have not a speck more life than I did before!

There may be no difference in the life force that animates people, but there are huge differences in what we choose to do with this chance called life. Because one decides to participate in murder (understood here to be the taking of innocent human life, a life that has not transgressed by already having taken a human life) that changes the "game" for that person in every way on this planet. Such a person, set on killing for fun and amusement, can not be trusted to not take another life. Lives would be more secure against such a character if such people were not allowed to inhabit the planet.

It was just last week I was watching a program on the TV about serial killers. Some said they did it for fun. Others said they could not stop. One man took a woman and her husband, tied them up and stabbed both repeatedly. The woman died, after 3 days, and the husband lived through it. Not for revenge sake, but for the purpose of not placing any more people at risk of meeting this violent man, I would kill him and not think twice about it. How could I go on in good conscience if I let him live and possibly infict the same upon another? Rather, I think, what would the victim want done?

This life is short, we aren't gaurenteed any time at all, so we all may do well to ensure that the time we do have here isn't wasted- not by drugs, alcohol, or by those who would rob us of the precious time of experience that this world offers.

I came to some sort of realization at a young age, when I realized my father was not the hero I had him as in my head, but instead was lazy, wouldn't work, and terribly abusive. That taught me to look deep. Again, my husband I had for years thought of as an angel one day some time back rebelled and went through a devilish phase for almost half a year. I don't trust him anymore, but it's not just him-it's everyone. I think any person is loopy enough to switch sides and begin acting out of character. And I most certainly do not believe in such a thing as an honest person. Some are just more so than others.

I want to know if Buddhism believes that human life should be protected because that is all we have, or if there is a necessary faith in some sort of afterlife that makes it more acceptable to die or be murdered and for others to be murdered with no reprecussion for such action?

Take care,
Angela

dkode

its acutally interesting for me to find this posting. i was just about to post a topic about the samurai and their relation to buddhism.

I was reading about the samaurai on wikipedia, and found that they practiced Zen Buddhism, and most of the populace favored Pure Land Buddhism.

In that sense, I dont understand how the Samaurai justified going to war and killing a massive amount of people.

I guess it would be considered self-defense as they only killed to defend themselves, but I would imagine they often invaded other lands and killed people.

Although from what I'm reading so far, it seems like the Samaurai were bound to Bushido, and a strict code of honor.

Just curious as how they justified killing, if they were buddhists as well.

harlan

I'm not an expert on this, but my understanding is that the samurai, being pragmatic soldiers, took what they needed from religion. Meaning, they pursued mushin for practical purposes. Also, I have read that Shingon and animism/Shugendo were probably the spiritual paths followed by most, and Fudoshin more significant than the traditional Buddha.

Simonthepilgrim

We are not far apart, Angela.

You say:

I most certainly do not believe in such a thing as an honest person. Some are just more so than others.

Although this is a deeply pessimistic view from some perspectives, I tend to see it as reflecting one's own sense of one's own lack of honesty. As a child of the Enlightenment, I was brought up with Hume and Pope, and read Seneca's letters and Shakespeare's plays at school. They all said the same to me: there is nothing that any human can do, however terrible, for which I cannot find the seeds in myself. As a result of many causes, genetic, historical, cultural, economic, and many others, including serendipity, I am not sitting awaiting execution.

I cannot deny any mother's child the right to their life because, if I do so, my own mother's son is in danger!

The Buddhist view - as I understand it and as, I think, our beloved Palzang-la has said - is that all life is precious and human life the most precious of all. The reason is that only within a human existence does life have a chance of escaping from the round of suffering. You can argue with it or deny its truth but I think that this is what the Buddha taught.

Simonthepilgrim

dkode wrote:

its acutally interesting for me to find this posting. i was just about to post a topic about the samurai and their relation to buddhism.

I was reading about the samaurai on wikipedia, and found that they practiced Zen Buddhism, and most of the populace favored Pure Land Buddhism.

In that sense, I dont understand how the Samaurai justified going to war and killing a massive amount of people.

I guess it would be considered self-defense as they only killed to defend themselves, but I would imagine they often invaded other lands and killed people.

Although from what I'm reading so far, it seems like the Samaurai were bound to Bushido, and a strict code of honor.

Just curious as how they justified killing, if they were buddhists as well.

I may be wrong - and BSF or KB will correct me, I'm sure - but I was under the impression that the code of bushido was more Shinto than Buddhist. Also, it must be borne in mind that not all Buddhisms are pacifist. Buddhism is not a monolith nor has it a single, normative expression beyond the Four Noble Truths and a few other key tenets.

dkode

thanks for the clarification guys,

i figured it was that they took certain pieces from the religion of what they needed, kind of interesting.

Just to add my 2 cents to the discussion, I once strongly believed in capital punishment before re-evaluating my beliefs upon walking the path.

I now do not agree with capital punishment, as simon stated, by taking someone else's life, it in no way benefits anyone else. Perhaps some people see it as "Eye for an Eye", but I have come to realize that this is a very negative way of thinking.

I myself, believe a lifetime in prison would be much more difficult to deal with then simply taking someones life.

KnightofBuddha

Simonthepilgrim wrote:

I may be wrong - and BSF or KB will correct me, I'm sure - but I was under the impression that the code of bushido was more Shinto than Buddhist. Also, it must be borne in mind that not all Buddhisms are pacifist. Buddhism is not a monolith nor has it a single, normative expression beyond the Four Noble Truths and a few other key tenets.

Bushido ethics were also influenced by Shintoism, the Chinese Classics, and the Rinzai school of Zen Buddhism, which promoted austerity, detachment and "no-mind" concentration as an ultimate approach to combat situations as well as daily life, and considered martial arts as a way to self-realization and to the expression of one's Buddha-nature

---

Wikipedia

---

Samurai in Japanese literally translates as 'one who serves'. They were bound by the strict code of living (bushido) which consisted of rectitude, benevolence, courage, respect, honesty, honor, and glory.

It would definately be an understatement to say that not all Buddhists are pacifists. Ironically enough, perhaps the most highly trained and skilled military the world has ever seen was primarily Buddhist.

Once again, Right Action was often interpreted a little differently in the days of the Samurai.

magpie

Hi Simon. I'm glad you've stood in there on this conversation as long as you have.

The reason I do not believe there are any honest people is because everyone I have ever met and have gotten to know has been dishonest. Not I to them, but they have been to me, or to someone else I know. No one communicates what they're really thinking, but they keep it a secret to make others think that what you see is what you get, when really, they're playing you all along, trying to get what's best for them at the expense of others. People are not inherently good, from what I have witnessed. I know this is a negative point of view, but this world is a predominatly negative place. I feel no need to pretend it is otherwise. I have learned these things about human beings over the years from all I have witnessed. For a majority of my life, I have seen the world through rose colored glasses, but now I just see the world.

I reached the conclusion a long time ago that not all life is precious. Life is only as precious as it is helpful and uplifting for the entire society. In and of itself, I can't see that any living thing has positive value. We earn our value as we go through life, be that negative or positive value.

There are some things for which I can say there are not the seeds in me. I would never kill someone who wasn't trying to hurt me or my loved ones, or any other innocent bystander. I have never been one to transgress another for the fun of it. I would never do such a thing. I would never cheat on my spouse. I have had the opportunity, and will have again, but I will not because I have made up my mind to honor a promise I made not to. I only offer these items as examples of things I know are not in me to do, because they are not who I am.

Every cell in my body knows the truth, and within my very being I have strong opposition to what I am hearing regarding this topic. I suppose I'll be moving on now. I simply can not bend the truth in order to be able to fit myself within a religion. This may mean I will encounter more suffering in life, but I would rather suffer on the side of right than to just detach and act like nothing matters and believe that there is no such thing as right and wrong regarding such issues as those that have been discussed in this thread.

I do thank everyone here who has been willing to share their time with me and their patience.

Take care,
Angela

magpie

Hi Dkode. I appreciate your input to this discussion.

I would say that capital punishment benefits the friends and family of the victim in that they will no longer have to worry about that particular transgressor returning to inflict harm once more upon them or someone else in the community. There are so many vile people in the world, one less to worry about would be about the best the family of a victim could hope for. Then again, until I am in their shoes (which will be never if I can help it), I will never quite know the accuracy of my train of thought. I can only speculate and imagine how I would feel.

Be well,
Angela

Simonthepilgrim

It is my bedtime (LOL) but I hope to return to this tomorrow. I think that the distance between our views is a creative space in which much of today's social ills are being played out.

dkode

Magpie,

I once thought the exact same way, thinking that the world was inherently evil and dishonest. I no longer believe that people are dishonest or evil by nature, it is the experiences they have had in their lifetime or their upbringing that makes someone dishonest.

I have met many people that were sincerely honest, at least as far as I could tell. Maybe I'm just naive.

I think deep down, everyone has the will to be good...now whether they decide to be that way or not is up to them. I think that society has a very disorienting method of thinking. As a result of this, I think many people are conditioned through experience to be dishonest and deceptive because this is what society has taught them and because of experiences in th past.

My 2 cents

shambala

Historically, Buddhism has always supported strong and compassionate rulers, who protected their citizens from harm and provided a golden age of civilization for it's people.

True compassion can only come from strength and ensuring that all citizens are protected and can lead an honest life through hard work. So a ruler has to provide a good economy.

In Buddhism a person, family, town, city and country all have to be strong -- Dharma means 'strength" but it's a strength derived from "TRUTH AND COMPASSION".

Any action which leads to increased suffering is not something supported by Buddhist logic -- weakness and indecision is a sign of adharma, not dharma.

In Buddhism, a strong ruler creates a strong state - it is a just state that doesn't allow it's citizens to be slaughtered by enemies or crime to be rampant. It provides justice and economic stability and progress.

A Buddhist Soldier is strong, compassionate, just and does his job without revelling in killing. Soldiers should be like Bodhisats who are ready and willing to sacrifice their lives so that the future generations are stronger and continue the beacon of civilization.

Buddhism & The Soldier
Major General Ananda Weerasekera


Different people have understood Buddhism differently. It is often debated whether Buddhism is a religion, philosophy or a way of life or not. Since Buddhism contains all these aspects one is justified in drawing any conclusion so long as one does not give an exclusive and rigid title. The Buddha-dhamma (Doctrine),as most of the scholars say , is a moral and philosophical system which expounds a unique path of enlightenment, and is not a subject to be studied from a mere academic standpoint. It is certainly to be studied, more to be practiced , and above all to be realized by oneself.

All the teachings of the Buddha deal, in one way or another with the path, known as The Noble Eightfold Path. It was the path realised and introduced by Buddha and it is as follows.

o Right views
o Right thought
o Right speech
o Right action
o Right livelihood
o Right effort
o Right mindfulness
o Right concentration

This is also known as the 'Middle Path', since in actual practice it avoids extremes. This Noble Eightfold Path is discussed in detail in the Buddhist Texts. It is sufficient to

state that it is a code of conduct clearly laid down by Buddha to all four sections of the Buddhist Society. That is Bikkhu (monks), Bikkhuni (nuns), Upasaka (laymen), Upasika (laywomen).

The deciples of the Buddha whether men or women belong to many walks of life from a King to a Servant. Whatever their civil status may be a code of conduct and moral obligations for each one has been clearly laid down by the Buddha. This code of conduct is collectively referred to as Virtue (seela) which encompasses disciplined speech, disciplined thought and controlled senses. A layman or a laywomen is advised to observe the five basic precepts as the minimum limit of their 'discipline' in the society. The limits of 'seela' are different for those who have renounced the lay life in search of liberation, The Nirvana.

However the five precepts are not commandments but aspirations voluntarily undertaken by each one. The first precept is to abstain from taking life. "The life", according to Buddhism covers the entire spectrum of living beings and are covered in 'Karaneeya Mettha Sutta' as follows.

o Tasa-Tava:- moving, unmoving
o Diga-long, Mahantha-large,
o Majjima-medium,
o Rassaka- short,
o Anuka-minute, Thula- fat
o Ditta-that can be seen,
o Additta-that cannot be seen,
o Dure-which live far,
o Avidure-which live near
o Bhuta-born,
o Sambavesi- seeking birth

Buddha's teachings are quite clear in regard to the extent to which 'love & compassion' should expand,. 'Sabbe satta bhavanthu sukhitatta', ie. 'May all beings be happy' Buddha not only condemned the destruction of living beings as higher seela, he also condemned the destruction of the plant life. Buddhism being a 'way of life' where plant animal and human lives are protected ,how does one explain the 'destruction and suffering caused by war.'

War is violence, killing, destruction, blood and pain. Has Buddha accepted these? According to Buddha, the causes of war being greed, aversion and delusion are deep rooted in human mind. The milestones of the path being seela, samadhi and panna make the human being realize the causes that contribute to warfare and for the need for the eradication of same.

The Buddha said,

All tremble at violence, All fear death,
Comparing oneself with others
One Should neither kill nor cause others to Kill' (Dammapada)

Hence any form of violence is not acceptable . He further says,
' Victory breeds hatred
The defeated live in pain,
Happily the peaceful live,
Giving up victory and defeat (Dammapada)

Victory and Defeat are two sides of the coin of War. It is clear in Buddhism, what breeds in war whether it is victory or defeat.

Let us now deal with those having a direct involvement with War, The King or in today's context the Government and the soldier. Does Buddhism permit the State to build and foster an Army?. Can a good Buddhist be a soldier? and can he kill for the sake of the country? What about the 'Defence' of a country.? When a ruthless army invades a country, does Buddhism prohibit a Buddhist King to defend his country and his people? If Buddhism is a 'way of life,' is there any other way for a righteous king to battle against an invasion of an army.?

The Damma is a way of life based on Right Thought, Right Livelihood, Right Action etc. culminating in the supreme goal of Nibbana . However it is a gradual process of training and progressing on the path through one's long samsaric journey until one has fulfilled the necessery conditions and is ready to let go the cycle of birth decay and death. Hence, until then the King has to rule, the farmer has to farm, teacher has to teach, the trader has to trade and so on. But they are expected to do it the Buddhist way in order to help them progress on the path.

In 'chakkavatti- sihanada sutta' (The Lion's Roar on the Turning of Wheel) of the long discourses of the Buddha, Buddha justified the requirement of the king having an Army to provide guard, protection and security for different classes of people in the kingdom from internal and external threats. It refers to a Wheel Turning monarch named Dalhanemi, a righteous monarch of the law, conqueror of the four quarters who had established the security of his realm and was possessed of the seven treasures. He had more than 1000 sons who were heroes, of heroic stature, conquerors of the hostile army. Explaining the noble duties of a righteous king, Buddha also pointed out the advice given to the king in regard to his obligation to provide security for its people. The advisor tells the king " my son, yourself depending on the Dhamma, revering it, doing homage to it, and venerating it having the Dhamma as your badge and banner, acknowledging the Dhamma as your master, you should establish guard, ward and protection according to Dhamma for your own household, your troops in the Army, your nobles and vassals, for Brahmins and householders, town and countryfolk, ascetics and Brahmins, for beasts and birds. Let no crime prevail in your kingdom"

Explaining further the duties of a righteous king, Buddha states, "…Son, the people of your kingdom should from time to time come to you and consult you as to what is to be followed and what is not to be followed, what is wholesome and what not wholesome, and what action will in the long run lead to harm and sorrow, welfare and happiness. You should listen and tell them to avoid evil and to do what is good for the country. This sutta clearly indicates that Buddhism permits a king to have an army since a righteous king, who is also the commander of the army, knows, the righteous way to engage the army and to protect his people.

'Seeha Senapathi Sutta' of Anguttara Nikaya-5 shows how, one of the army commanders named 'Seeha' went to Buddha to clarify certain doubts on the Dhamma and how the Buddha advised him without requesting him to resign from the Army or to disband the army. Having clarified his doubts on the Dhamma, Commander Seeha requested Buddha to accept him as a deciple of the Buddha. But Buddha instead of advising him to resign from the army advised thus

'Seeha, it is proper for a popular person of your status to always think and examine when attending to affairs and making decisions ' Seeha, the commander became a sotapanna (stream enterer = first fruit of the Path) having listened to the Dhamma, but remained in the army as a commander.

In this instance too one could see that Buddha did not advise Seeha against the Army or being a commander of an Army, but only advised to discharge his duties the proper way.

King Ajasattu, had a unsatiable desire to conquer other kingdoms. He even murdered his father for the throne and aided Devadatta who was plotting to kill the Buddha. Once Ajasattu having decided to conquer the kingdom of Vajjians sent his chief minister Vassakara to Buddha to find out Buddha's views about his decision to conquer the Vajjians. Ajasttu wanted to know whether he will gain victory, cunningly using Buddha's ability to predict the future with accuracy.

Once the usual complimentary greetings were exchanged, between the Buddha and Vassakara and the purpose of his visit was made known, Buddha turned to his chief attendant Venerable Ananda with praise of the Vajjians and their noble democratic confederacy. Buddha further inquired from Venerable Ananda whether the Vajjians are strictly following the conditions of Dhamma NOT leading to decline as taught to the Vajjians by Buddha to which Ven. Ananda replied 'yes'.

Then Buddha turned to venerable Ananda and declared thus, "As long as they would continue on these lines, taught them by Buddha earlier at Vasali, they cannot be defeated and not expected to decline but to prosper." The shrewd minister drew his own conclusion that the Licchavis of vajji state could not be conquered in battle at that moment, but if their unity and alliance is broken they could be defeated and ran back to his king with this news. In fact Ajasattu defeated vajjians not even three years after the Buddha's death purely by shrewdly creating disunity amongst the rulers of the Vajjians

Numerous conclusions could be drawn from this story too. Buddha knew that both States did have strong armies and that they are needed for the protection of their people. Buddha did not advice minister Vassakara that the concept on 'Army' is against Buddhism and that he should advice the king not to declare war against Vajjis but to desolve the army. Buddha at this instance also brought up important lessons in 'state craft.' It helped the crafty minister to adopt a different strategy to invade Vajji State, by using psychological approach first and then the physical assault next. Further, by having a conversation with Venerable Ananda Buddha indicated to minister Vassakara that even though king Ajasasattu has a mighty strong army, and have conquered several states he will not be able to defeat Licchavis so long as they adhere to the said noble policies. It is also an indirect advice to king Ajatasattu that it is in order having an army but that army will not be able to conquer people with virtuous qualities. It was also an indication to Ajasattu that he too should be a righteous king with an army where no other king could defeat him, by adhering to the said policies which will not lead a society to decline. These policies are referred to as 'saptha aparihani dhamma' and they are as follows:

* Having meetings and assemblies frequently.

* Rulers assembling in harmony, conducting their affairs in harmony and dispersing in harmony.
* Adhering to the accepted ancient noble traditions and not extirpating the accepted established norms and traditions by introducing new laws.
* Respecting the elders, worshiping them, consulting them, and believing that they must be listened to.
* Respecting and protecting the women folk and not living with them forcibly or molesting them.
* Paying respect to all internal and external places of worship, paying homage to those worthy of veneration and continue to make spiritual offerings traditionally done.

Soldiering was accepted by the Buddha as a noble profession.The soldier was known as " Rajabhata." Buddha did not permit rajabata to become monks whilst in service as a soldier.

Once Sidhartha Gauthama's father, king Suddhodana came to Buddha and complained,

"Gauthama Buddha, my son, when you were the most suitable for the throne of a Sakvithi King, you left all of us and became a monk. Then you insulted me by begging for meals, walking house to house along the streets in my own town. The relatives laughed at me and they insulted me. Now you are trying to destroy my Army."

" Why " the Buddha asked. " What has happened to your great Army, my father."

Then the king answered," Can't you see, my soldiers are deserting the army one by one and joining your group as monks."

" why are they becoming monks, great king and why are they leaving the Army." Asked Buddha.

" Can't you see " the king answered. " They know that when they become monks they get free food, free clothes, free accommodation and respected by all."

Buddha smiled and requested the king to go back to the Palace and said that he will settle the issue. Buddha then promulgated a law ( Vinaya ) for the monks to the effect that, No soldier could become a monk whilst in military service. This law is still valid to date. Accordingly even today unless a soldier is legally discharged from the army or unless a soldier retires legitimately, he is NOT ordained as a monk and will not be accepted into the order of monks. This ensures that soldiers do not desert the army even to join the Buddhist order.

Further in terms of the Vinaya ( the code of conduct for monks) monks permitted to visit the battle field but they were ordered to return before the sunset. Permission was also given to visit the injured relatives in the battlefield.

Further whilst the expressly referred to five occupations as unrighteous Soldiering is not included amongst those.

The Buddha once describing the qualities of a good monk, compared those to the essential qualities of a good king to be as follows:

* Pure decent
* Great wealth
* Strong army
* Wise ministers
* Glory

Once at the city of Savatti, Buddha describing five types of monks in comparison to the five types of soldiers in the world, (A.iii, duthiya yodhajeevupama sutta ) classified the soldiers as follows:-

* A soldier who enters the battle field armed with sword and shield, bow and arrows and who gets himself killed by the enemy during battle. This is the first type of soldier.
* A soldier who enters the battle field bravely armed with sword and shield, bow and arrows but gets injured during battle and taken to his close relatives. But he dies on the way before he reaches his relatives. This is the second type of soldier.
* Soldier who enters the battlefield bravely armed with sword and shield, bow and arrows, gets injured and having taken to his close relatives, receives medical treatment with care. But he dies with the same ailment although he was surrounded by relatives. This is the third type of soldier.
* Soldier who enters the battlefield bravely armed with sword and shield, bow and arrows, gets injured and having taken to his close relatives, receives medical treatment with care. He recovers from the injury. This is the fourth type of soldier.
* Soldier who enters the battlefield bravely armed with armourments destroys and defeats the enemy. Having won the battle he remains in the battlefront victoriously. This is the fifth type of soldier.

Similarly in ' patama yodhajeevacupama sutta' Buddha explains five types of soldiers or warriors.

* Type -1- Tremble with fear, unsteady, afraid to get into the battlefield by seeing the dust and clouds created by fighting men, animals and vehicles.
* Type - 2 - Could withstand the dust and clouds. But tremble with fear, unsteady, afraid to get into the battlefield by seeing the Standards and Banners of the enemy.
* Type-3- Could withstand dust and clouds, the sight of the enemy Standards and Banners But tremble with fear, unsteady, afraid to get into the battlefield by hearing the frightening noises and the battle cries in the field.
* Type- 4 - could withstand dust and clouds, Standards and Banners of the enemy, the noises and the battle cries But Tremble with fear, unsteady, afraid to get into the battlefield by a small attack by the enemy.
* Type -5- could withstand dust and clouds, Standards and Banners of the enemy, the noises and the battle cries. He fights back and wins his battle. Having won, he victoriously enjoys the fruits seven days staying in the middle of the battlefield.

When the Buddha recognized a strong army as an essential requirement of the king he was also aware that the Commander in Chief of the Army was also the king of the country and that a strong Army four main divisions, then known as 'the caturangani sena', consisting of Cavalry (horses), Elephant force, Armed vehicles and the Infantry, each having its own functions in battle.

His knowledge of the battlefield is so evident for the similis frequently quoted by him from the battlefield. In Akkhama sutta of Anguttara Nikaya Buddha compares five weak qualities of elephants selected to go into battle with that of 5 weak qualities of monks proceeding through the battle of 'Liberation.'

In the Sutta the Buddha says, An elephant belonging to the 'caturangani sena' [four divisions of the Army of the ruler] will not be suitable if , it get frightened, trembles, unable to control and withdraws,

* merely by the sight of other elephants, horses, military vehicles and soldiers in the battle field,
* merely by hearing noises and sounds of the battle cries of elephants, horses, infantry and worrier drums in the field,
* merely by the body smell and the smell of urine etc of other majestic elephants in the battle field,
* merely for not getting its food and water for one day or few days in the battle field.

From the above it is clear that contrary to the popular belief the Buddha has not rejected or prohibited soldiering as a profession or occupation and the right of a king or a government to have an army and to defend one's country and its people. In the contrary the Buddha has expressly recognized the necessity for a king to have an army and providing protection to the subjects of a country has been recognized as a prime duty of the king .

The Buddha in his wisdom did not expect a nation or the rulers to be lame ducks in the wake of an enemy invasion. However Buddha's expectations from one who is training to be an Arhant whether monk or layman are different and it should not be mistaken with the Buddha's expectations from the laity burdened with numerous worldly responsibilities. It is also because the Buddha in his wisdom did not expect every 'Buddhist' to opt for Arahantship nor to become an ascetic renouncing the worldly affairs. To the majority Buddhism is a way of life rather than a faith, philosophy, or a religion.

However it should be stressed that a soldier like all others is subject to the law of Kamma and will not escape the Kammic fruits of "taking the Life"of a sentient being (panatipatha) even though he may have had the overall noble intention of protecting his country and his people.

While killing may be inevitable in a long and successful army career opportunities for merit too is unlimited for a disciplined and conscientious soldier.

A disciplined soldier fights his enemy in accordance with the best of traditions and norms maintained by an army. He doesn't kill a defenseless person. A good soldier provides medical treatment to the injured enemy captured. He doesn't kill prisoners of war, children, women or the aged. A disciplined soldier destroys his enemy only when his or the lives of his comrades are in danger.

Soldier is one who thrives for peace within because he is one who realizes the pain of his own wounds. He is one who sees the bloody destruction of war, the dead, the suffering etc. Hence his desire to bring peace to himself as well as to the others by ending the war as soon as possible. He not only suffers during the war but even after the war. The painful memories of the battles he fought linger in him making his aspire for true and lasting peace within and without. Hence the common phenomenon of transformation of brutal kings having an insatiable desire to conquer to incomparable and exemplary righteous kings such as Drarmasoka king of Mourian dynasty of India.

magpie

OK, Simon, if you will be patient enough to hang in there with me, I would also like to continue. I am, however, terrified of insulting someone or having someone think I am trying to stir stuff up for the sake of drama. I'm just trying to gain understanding, so whenever you get sick of me, that'll be fine to just quit. I know I can be draining with all my questions and counter-arguements. :banghead:

good night,
Angela

Brigid

Hi, Angela.

This is a good discussion and I'm glad you brought it up.

In response to your earlier post, this is my 2 cents.

It is because everything you say is true that I so diligently strive to make my life count for something while I am alive. After I'm gone, that is it. But, my actions and their effects will remain. So, I want to do the right thing, as it will be my only legacy.

There is the law of karma in the Buddhist understanding and I think it will go a long way in helping you understand the Buddhist way of thinking when it comes to legacy and the effects of one's actions. For example, the effects of your actions do not remain only on earth, they follow you into the next incarnation and you will experience the results of your actions according to the law of karma, including the results of killing. Period. It may make a difference in how and why that killing takes place, but your subsequent incarnation(s) will experience these results and they will be negative. This is not punishment for doing something wrong. It's simply a result of cause and effect, i.e. karma. Legacy is really only meaningful to the ego and ego is why we suffer so feeding the ego only harms us.

Such a person, set on killing for fun and amusement, can not be trusted to not take another life. Lives would be more secure against such a character if such people were not allowed to inhabit the planet.

Every being on earth is allowed to inhabit the planet, regardless of their actions, and regardless of our opinions of the effects of those actions or our opinions of the worth of their lives. We don't get to make those judgements and there is a very simple reason why we don't. We simply are not able, in our deluded and limited state, to see the far reaching consequences of all actions. We are unable to track the workings of karma. In short, we do not possess the necessary information, and in samsara, never will.

Not for revenge sake, but for the purpose of not placing any more people at risk of meeting this violent man, I would kill him and not think twice about it. How could I go on in good conscience if I let him live and possibly infict the same upon another?

You could live in peace with the understanding that you are not in an omniscient state and therefore do not possess the necessary information with which to judge the worth of this fellow being's life. It's about humility, understanding and accepting our limitations as human beings in samsara.

This life is short, we aren't gaurenteed any time at all, so we all may do well to ensure that the time we do have here isn't wasted- not by drugs, alcohol, or by those who would rob us of the precious time of experience that this world offers.
I don't trust him anymore, but it's not just him-it's everyone. I think any person is loopy enough to switch sides and begin acting out of character. And I most certainly do not believe in such a thing as an honest person. Some are just more so than others.

If you go deeper into the study of Buddhism you will probably find an understanding about the interconnectedness of all life, including the life of your would-be murderer and yourself. The separation of "us" and "them" is an illusion in Buddhism, a delusion we suffer from until we are able to reach enlightenment. When one fosters and nurtures this sort of illusion one concretizes it and the results are suspicion and mistrust which effect not only that person's way of seeing things but their actions. Feeding the illusion, like feeding the ego with thoughts of leaving a legacy, is unskillful because the illusion doesn't really exist and thus acting on the delusion is unskillful as well. Unskillful thoughts and actions give rise to negative karma.

I want to know if Buddhism believes that human life should be protected because that is all we have, or if there is a necessary faith in some sort of afterlife that makes it more acceptable to die or be murdered and for others to be murdered with no reprecussion for such action?

Buddhism doesn't "believe" in anything. Buddhism is a path towards seeing, experiencing and understanding things as they really are. It's about reality. Walking this path requires a straddling of two realities; the conventional, physical reality we experience in samsara and the ultimate, or true, reality we reach at the end of the path. While we are experiencing samsara and all it's illusions, we practice Buddhism in order to wake up from the dream (or nightmare) and move our experiential understanding closer to ultimate reality. There is a certain amount of faith involved for the deluded in order to take up the path but faith is something that falls away when we ultimately let go of everything. Your last paragraph comes, I think, from a Christian view of how things are which is quite different from the Buddhist view. As I said, there are always repercussions for actions, always. They follow like day follows night. The murderer you speak of reaps the results of his/her actions, regardless of what you do. There is no stopping this process until we are removed from all things that feed this process, i.e. nirvana. There is also no way to judge whether being murdered is acceptable or not. Being murdered is the result of karma and as I've said, we don't have the necessary knowledge and understanding to track karma while we inhabit samsara.

(post #28) I would say that capital punishment benefits the friends and family of the victim in that they will no longer have to worry about that particular transgressor returning to inflict harm once more upon them or someone else in the community. There are so many vile people in the world, one less to worry about would be about the best the family of a victim could hope for. Then again, until I am in their shoes (which will be never if I can help it), I will never quite know the accuracy of my train of thought. I can only speculate and imagine how I would feel.

Here you are speculating and imagining what others might feel. Do you think it's wise to kill a fellow human being on the basis of what you imagine, speculate and suppose about anything? Don't you think society would need a better reason to end a human life or do you truly feel that contemptuous of it?

In your post #27 your anguish is plainly evident and I wish I could offer you solace and hope but even the tiny amount I've learned and come to understand about the Buddhist way would take more than one post because there's so much to Buddhism. But what I can tell you is that if you decide to keep giving Buddhism a chance and keep your mind open, flexible and willing, everything you know and feel now will change for the better. Ego (which is the cause of most of our most painful suffering) will diminish and compassion and wisdom will flourish.

Celebrin

how much confidence do you have in yourself?

and to reply to the your original post : a wasp only stings in self defence, they don't attack randomly unless provoken.The last time i was stung by a wasp/bee was when i was a tiny kid..

Its only when you allow them to bother you and try to chase them away,hit them,waving your hand at them to try and make em move that they will retaliate. Ants pose little harm unless you are allergic to them and even in those circumstances you'd have to be attacking their nest to be in trouble..

Simonthepilgrim

shambala wrote:

Historically, Buddhism has always supported strong and compassionate rulers, who protected their citizens from harm and provided a golden age of civilization for it's people.

True compassion can only come from strength and ensuring that all citizens are protected and can lead an honest life through hard work. So a ruler has to provide a good economy.

In Buddhism a person, family, town, city and country all have to be strong -- Dharma means 'strength" but it's a strength derived from "TRUTH AND COMPASSION".

Any action which leads to increased suffering is not something supported by Buddhist logic -- weakness and indecision is a sign of adharma, not dharma.

In Buddhism, a strong ruler creates a strong state - it is a just state that doesn't allow it's citizens to be slaughtered by enemies or crime to be rampant. It provides justice and economic stability and progress.

A Buddhist Soldier is strong, compassionate, just and does his job without revelling in killing. Soldiers should be like Bodhisats who are ready and willing to sacrifice their lives so that the future generations are stronger and continue the beacon of civilization.

Shambala,

As a student of history, I have to say that I do not believe that it is possible to 'rule' a nation whilst fully practising the Noble Eighfold Path. Even the Dalai Lamas have failed, generation after generation, just as the present one has failed. He accepts this fact: it is the pain that compassion has to bear when incarnate.

In the early rules of the Society of Jesus, Ignatius of Loyola (a master of meditation) laid down that Js were not to accept any sort of advancement, even to ecclesiastical rank. he understood that, if we are to 'render unto God', we cannot serve Caesar too. The same is true in Buddhism. It is one of the reasoins why Buddhist converts in India are preceived as being caste-less - great for harijans!

The calls for 'faith-based' government is logical nonsense, as anyone who has held national office can attest: there are just too many compromises that have to be made. The results of leaders who will not compromise is writ large in the story of the Terreur under Robespierre and Saint-Just or the purges under Lenin and Stalin.

Jason

Simon,

I agree. Those quotes and examples are completely taken out of context. The Buddha never advocated strong military states. It's a nice example of "Buddhist propaganda" though.

Jason

shambala

Simonthepilgrim wrote:

Shambala,

As a student of history, I have to say that I do not believe that it is possible to 'rule' a nation whilst fully practising the Noble Eighfold Path. Even the Dalai Lamas have failed, generation after generation, just as the present one has failed. He accepts this fact: it is the pain that compassion has to bear when incarnate.

In the early rules of the Society of Jesus, Ignatius of Loyola (a master of meditation) laid down that Js were not to accept any sort of advancement, even to ecclesiastical rank. he understood that, if we are to 'render unto God', we cannot serve Caesar too. The same is true in Buddhism. It is one of the reasoins why Buddhist converts in India are preceived as being caste-less - great for harijans!

The calls for 'faith-based' government is logical nonsense, as anyone who has held national office can attest: there are just too many compromises that have to be made. The results of leaders who will not compromise is writ large in the story of the Terreur under Robespierre and Saint-Just or the purges under Lenin and Stalin.

Buddhism is NOT a religion. It is a doctrine that one puts into use to the best of his ability to end his suffering and overall suffering in general.

Tibet is an example of a weak Buddhist state.

One who denies strong and enlightened Buddhist states is ignorant of history:
Mauryans
Tang
Japanese
south east asian nations
Mongol dynasty under Kublai Khan

all these had strong states, there were several others. These are NOT Military states, but empires. All of them had for the most part enlightened rule, they were rich, free hospitals, universities, charities abounded.

The Eightfold Path says you shouldn't kill -- that's impossible. I have to eat, eating means killing a life -- plant or animal. Agricultural practice alone kills thousands of small animals, insects.

Buddhism in sanskrit is "intelligence with a heart", it is wisdom.

Buddhism is about heart/mind.

Buddhism clearly differentiates lay/religious life and teaches you to use your brain in these matters.

Lay life:

1) I can pursue wealth but as a Lay Buddhist HONESTLY and give with generosity
Sangha members can't.

2) I can pursue family, but as a Lay Buddhist I should do my duties towards them and make sure they are provided for and try to lead a moral life.

3) I can become a soldier or king, including wage a war, But as a lay Buddhist I have to be an enlightened ruler and create a great civilization.
As a Buddhist soldier, I am supposed to be a noble warrior who saves people from greater harm by sacrificing myself in Hell's way by taking a life.

Noble soldiers and enlightened rulers have always been praised in Buddhist texts. Why? Because, it is because of civilization that we can even know about the Dharma. When people are suffering and poor, they go towards immorality. Buddhism is against poverty for samsaric life.

The enlightened Buddhist ruler has to provide a secure, prosperous, educated and free state.



There's a reason why Buddhism is called doctrine of the "Lion's roar" (Simhanada). It is about ENDING SUFFERING by REGAINING Truth, Compassion, Strength and Intelligence, not by promoting weakness or ignorance.

When you emit the Lion's roar, the weak go hiding.

Simonthepilgrim

shambala wrote:

Buddhism is NOT a religion. It is a doctrine that one puts into use to the best of his ability to end his suffering and overall suffering in general.

One who denies strong Buddhist states is ignorant of history:
Mauryans
Tang
Japanese
south east asian nations

all these had strong states.

The Eightfold Path says you shouldn't kill -- that's impossible. I have to eat, eating means killing a life -- plant or animal. Agricultural practice alone kills thousands of small animals, insects.

Buddhism in sanskrit is "intelligence with a heart", it is wisdom.

Buddhism is about heart/mind.

Buddhism clearly differentiates lay/religious life and teaches you to use your brain.

Do you want to discuss the fall of empires, Shambala? Asoka of the MJauryans is a wonderful example of what I am suggesting. His edicts are superb. Look at the first:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica] Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, has caused this Dhamma edict to be written. Here (in my domain) no living beings are to be slaughtered or offered in sacrifice. Nor should festivals be held, for Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, sees much to object to in such festivals, although there are some festivals that Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, does approve of.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]
[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica] Formerly, in the kitchen of Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, hundreds of thousands of animals were killed every day to make curry. But now with the writing of this Dhamma edict only three creatures, two peacocks and a deer are killed, and the deer not always. And in time, not even these three creatures will be killed.

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]but, as historians appear to agree, there is very little evidence that the edicts were carried out and, indeed, the Mauryan empire began to fall apart following Asoka's death. To me, what is far more fascinating is the transformation from the sanguinary slaughterer of his own brothers into peaceful lawgiver. Indian history is not my particular forte but I understand that there is some current thinking that questions the description of Asoka as 'Buddhist'. I recall reading a suggestion that we have to take into account the influence of his uncle who was a Jain and the other peaceful philosophies at that time in the sub-continent. The argument that he used the word damma/dharma in the edicts is far from conclusive.

What is certain is that Asoka's edicts do set up an ideal for the peaceful rule of a state. I would suggest that the original Constitution of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics does the same: neither was ever (as far as can know) fully implemented. Just take the first, which reminds me, in its banning of festivals, of The English Commonwealth: can we really imagine that, in an empire larger than modern India, he would manage to end all festivals, let alone animal sacrifice!

My point is not so much about politicians' promises or, even, laws. I have yet to be convinced that it is possible for a ruler to remain fully engaged on Noble Eightfold Path. In similar terms, both the Buddha and Jesus appear to have realised that possessions and power are incompatible with a full commitment to the Way.
[/FONT]

magpie

Hello Celebrin.

From personal experience, I can testify that what you say is untrue. In fact, I know several people who've been attacked by bees when all they were doing was sitting or standing. Think "Killer Bees."

Angela

Jason

Simon,

I have to agree with this important observation wholeheartedly:

My point is not so much about politicians' promises or, even, laws. I have yet to be convinced that it is possible for a ruler to remain fully engaged on Noble Eightfold Path. In similar terms, both the Buddha and Jesus appear to have realised that possessions and power are incompatible with a full commitment to the Way.

That's why the Arahant is one who has done away with the world.


Jason

shambala

Simonthepilgrim wrote:

My point is not so much about politicians' promises or, even, laws. I have yet to be convinced that it is possible for a ruler to remain fully engaged on Noble Eightfold Path. In similar terms, both the Buddha and Jesus appear to have realised that possessions and power are incompatible with a full commitment to the Way.
[/FONT]

Not necessarily. Some Lay followers in Buddhism became fully realized and attained higher than dedicated monks.

Some lay followers lived simple and honest lives.

There was a Buddhist king in eastern India who could walk on water and made his queen walk on water too.

If a King makes peace and his borders are peaceful, than even a king can get Nirvana. A pre-Buddhist King Janaka had attained it while still a king and married.


It really depends, a ruler who brings a society out of chaos in Buddhism brings millions of people out of suffering - that's GREAT MERIT MAKING -- IT'S HUGE.

So Buddha full well acknowledge the importance of rulers and soldiers, enlightened rulers can make huge contributions to society if they are guided on the correct path.

Ashok became one of the most influential kings in history, even after he stopped slaughtering everyone and became a hippy peacenik.

Jason

shambala,

Interestingly enough, in Theravada Buddhism it is traditionally said that once a lay-follower becomes "fully realized", they either have to ordain or they will die. They are simply unable to live a worldly life once they have achieved Nibbana. This particular idea can be found in The Debate of King Milinda. While it is a relatively controversial idea today--many people writing it off as a purely sectarian addition--it is some food for thought for this conversation.

Regards,

Jason

KnightofBuddha

I cannot see how the eating of meat, hunting of animals, killing of animals is morally unsound.

Now I am a very peaceful person and a vegetarian myself. I try to cause as little harm as possible to other beings. However, when we really think about, we rely on animals killing each other. I have heard that our world would be uninhabitable if it were not for spiders. Spiders contain the population of insects from dominating our world. How could we function if it were not for spiders?

Evolution shows us that our great ancestors in Africa were for the most part vegetarians. When food became scarce in the jungles, they hunted on land and ate animals. Over time, human bodies adjusted to this. Our bodies are designed for the consumption of meat regardless of our choice to do so.

Many less advanced countries are dependent on hunting animals for food. This is the way of nature.

Jason

I cannot see how the eating of meat, hunting of animals, killing of animals is morally unsound.

Knight,

Maybe you're just not looking hard enough? Don't forget the First Noble Truth. Life is not perfect, nor will it ever be. However, Buddhism is not about creating a utopian paradise here on earth; it is about removing the craving that conditions suffering. But, even if that doesn't satisfy you, just answer me these two questions: How is killing not suffering, and more to the point, how is it moral??

Jason

Celebrin

i cannot cureently accept not eating meat.. its something i refuse to give up atm.. i know that ppl say it contributes to suffering of animals.

But humans are omnivors.. (i think thas right name) we have canines and tbh i use em.. i mean meat makes up a gd part of my diet...

Alcohol is one thing and eating healthier is another but im not willing to make that jump of not eating meat

not1not2

shambala wrote:

Not necessarily. Some Lay followers in Buddhism became fully realized and attained higher than dedicated monks.

Some lay followers lived simple and honest lives.

There was a Buddhist king in eastern India who could walk on water and made his queen walk on water too.

If a King makes peace and his borders are peaceful, than even a king can get Nirvana. A pre-Buddhist King Janaka had attained it while still a king and married.


It really depends, a ruler who brings a society out of chaos in Buddhism brings millions of people out of suffering - that's GREAT MERIT MAKING -- IT'S HUGE.

So Buddha full well acknowledge the importance of rulers and soldiers, enlightened rulers can make huge contributions to society if they are guided on the correct path.

Ashok became one of the most influential kings in history, even after he stopped slaughtering everyone and became a hippy peacenik.

First off, there weren't that many lay buddhists who attained arahantship in the Suttas. Second the 5 Precepts for Laypersons have an injunction against killing. So I'm not really sure how this weighs in this discussion, unless you can demonstrate a significant number of arahant lay buddhists who engaged in killing. For a layperson to support killing or kill is for them to break a precept, so I don't see this happening. Now, there may be some instances where the Buddhist laity might willingly choose to break this precept, but that certainly won't help them to realize the fruits of the path. Contrarily, it will likely be an obstacle, and there is always karma associated with killing, even if it is without malice.

If there were a madman on the loose, killing people, I would do what I could to end his ability to kill people. But my intention would not be to kill him, and I would try to stop short of that if at all possible. Similarly, if a leader bent on domination who would kill & suppress the lives of many innocent people starts invading countries, then something must be done. But the intent should never be to kill. One should always prefer non-violent methods and never act out of anger. Also, if killing takes place, there should be no delight in the killing. As soon as you delight in the death of another, even a vile-ruthless being, you have committed a karmic offense. The buddha himself allowed his monks to defend themselves, but never with the intent to kill. I think this is the ideal. Of course, living up to ideals is easier said than done.

The peaceful way out of conflict is very difficult and requires a mastery of emotions. It is rare that a we have a leader who can motivate enough of the parties involved to take such a peaceful approach to affect the desired change. Taking the precept not to kill and practicing non-violence is an excellent form of training. It requires us to master our passions. Same for the other precepts. However, if I take no significant & reasonable actions to stop a killer or a rapist, then I really don't think I can have a clear conscience. Still, killing is the last thing I want in this matter.

_/\_
metta

magpie

Hi Brigid, and thank you for your input on this topic.

I can not accept that Karma affects anything at all. How can I convince myself to believe that there is some kind of immutable law that determines for every action there is a specific kind of reaction? I don't have the faith to belive that there is some unseen Karmic law in affect that dishes out specific reactions for specific actions, ie, killing in this life brings dissatisfaction in the next life. In addition, a belief in any kind of after life is just a belief because there is no proof that such a thing exists. My brain is me, and once it has perished, what will be left with which to think thoughts? If there are no thoughts, there is no "me." So, until I see proof that bad things happen to those who do bad things, I can not believe it.

Regarding the Buddhist belief that there is no separation between myself and others, it is clear to see that I am a seperate self. If I die, you don't, and no one you know dies. I am a biologically seperate entity. Yes, I am dependant upon the meat I eat from animals to sustain my cells, and I am dependant upon the bugs and bacteria that "work" the medicines and veggies I consume, but I am not those things. The DNA is even proof that I am a seperate self.

You ask if I feel contemptuous of life. If that life is deserving of contempt, then indeed, I am. There is no better reason to end a human life, than a human who insists on ending that of another who is innocent and not deserving of such treatment. I do not have to speculate about how others may feel when there are plenty of examples of families of victims who themselves have been the ones to administer the death sentence upon the monster who changed their lives forever for the worse.

We judge our own lives by what we do with them. We are the living judgement. It is about taking responsibility for ones own actions and being willing to accept the reprecussions, hence Karma, and make things right and see to it that those who inflict wrath upon the innocent are not allowed in this our only chance to experience this existence.

Angela

Jason

All,

I understand that everyone has their own ideas and beliefs, but what people seem to miss is that this is a Buddhist forum, and we are encouraged to explore what the Buddha taught. Of course there are people in the world who believe that killing can be morally justified, however, the Buddha never taught this. We may find many reasons for killing (i.e. self-defense), but no matter how we frame that action, it is consider unskillful according to Dhamma.

Now, this does not mean that everyone must stop what they are doing because the Buddha said it wasn't skillful and therefore should be relinquished; the reason people should consider relinquishing these unskillful actions is because they see the inherent harm and suffering they will cause. Unfortunately, many people will simply not see this. This doesn't mean that there cannot be wise and just rulers, but it does mean that if those rulers kill, or cause others to kill, they are still commiting unwholesome actions.

The reasons may lessen the severity of the results of those actions, but I do not think that they can rid the actions of their unwholesome nature completely. That is why the Buddha once said that the only thing he ever approved the killing of was anger--not bad people, wasps, or even dinner. Buddhism can very difficult to understand because it seemingly takes what is natural in life, and goes completely against that. The trick is learning to understand why.

Jason

Jason

Angela,

I think that you are simply misunderstanding these concepts, and the reasons behind these concepts. I think that if you would take the time to read some of the Suttas and reflect heavily on them, you would gain a much better understanding of what is being discussed. In no way is any of this supposed to mean that you and I are the same entity.

What is it supposed to mean then? Basically, it has to do with deconstructing the self-identity view that separates you from others in the sense that you act out of greed, hatred, and delusion. It tries to show how you act with your own needs in mind, while ignoring the fact that others just want the same thing.

In essence, you are willing to kill a wasp because you feel you deserve the right not to be stung, while the wasp is just doing what it was born to do--sting people sometimes. Who is right and who is wrong? Are you right because you are bigger, smarter, and don't like to be stung, or is the wasp right because it is simply doing what its nature is to do?

Jason

not1not2

I can not accept that Karma affects anything at all.

So, when you drop something, does it fall? When you press down on your keyboard keys, do letters appear on the screen? Assuming a thing is under the influence of gravity, it will fall. Assuming you have your keyboard hooked up and your computer is functioning properly, then letters should appear.

Don't make karma this magical/mystical thing. Under proper conditions, an action will have a certain consequence (notice the word sequence in there). Even without any sort of beliefs in life after death, there are verifyable (sp?) negative consequences for negative actions. Just practice meditation and you will start to notice how your inner state is affected by certain actions. You will start to notice how emotions change the manner of your thinking and influence different type of actions & speech.

There are incalculable benefits to this practice in the here & now, incredibly few of which actually require belief. In fact, until you reach the stage of Stream Winner (Sotapanna) you will have doubt. Just notice the doubt arise & pass away. Start studying things such as the five aggregates and begin to reflect on your own experience in this light. Study impermanence, suffering/unsatisfactoriness, and non-self, and reflect on your experience in this light.

Don't expect to understand & believe in this stuff without application & practice, and please don't disregard it either without having thoroughly & sincerely. If certain things are too hard to swallow, then just gently lay the issue aside and focus on something else. Most of the teachings are complementary, and studying another aspect of the path may give you an understanding which clarifies these difficult issues. Similarly, actually sitting down and practicing cuts through all the confusion, and you may begin to see things in a new light.

Anyway, keep practicing and don't let these difficulties discourage you. They are to be expected.

_/\_
metta

Simonthepilgrim

This is a long post. I have reread the whole of the thread and found that much in the early posts still takes my attention. I have, therefore, worked through the posts and this is what I have written today. I offer it as it is, a sort of ‘blog’, although I don’t blog.

This is what started it all:

I have a question about defending the self

The debate could have wandered off into the whole non-self debate but there is a question here:
What, precisely, is the 'self' that you are defending? I am not trying to get to a denial of 'self', as I say, but to a definition of what is being defended.

As I understand it, we are talking about defending one's own life. The question of insect life which started the thread appears to have been ignored but it does contain, as Angela notices, the same dynamic as the question of personal survival. For a few people, I accept, an insect bite or an ants' nest under the garden are deadly threats but those are extreme cases. For the most part, bites and nests are more in the category of nuisance. So the question here, that Angela asks, is:

But why should the well-being of the ants come before that of my friends?

At this point, the question is one of equivalence and greater power. Human beings have the means to destroy a nest for their own benefit and that of the neighbourhood. Because we consider insect life to be less in some way than human comfort or health, we take such action as accords with our personal ethic to safeguard the human over the insect. This is only a macro version of the microscopic action of antibiotics. Whilst I have no difficulty respecting an individual deciding, as in Jain, that any taking of life must be avoided, I would strongly oppose any attempt to enshrine such an extremist view as being spiritually superior. It is simply a different and more absolutist approach.

With all due deference to Celebrin's views on peace-loving wasps, I would remind him that there are other insects in the world and that vast swathes of people die of insect-borne disease, such as malaria or dengue fever. The female anopheles mosquito will bite a human being and can infect them with malaria whether we wave our arms about and disturb them or not. The draining of marshlands such as East Anglia has almost completely removed malaria from the UK but native cases are still recorded and East Anglian malaria hospitals were still in use during and after WWI to treat soldiers from the Mesopotamian theatre who were invalided home, as was my father, with the disease.

Whilst it can be argued that deliberately taking non-human life is less skillful than preserving it, this may be an example of the many ways in which dukkha operates in samsara: it is just not possible to fulfill the first precept (and the first of the Commandments quoted by the 'rich young man' in Matthew) not to kill. We have to make compromises and judgments. We may also need to notice and accept the karma that we choose in favour of ourselves and our species over others. This may be one of the many places where the Buddhadarma may appear counter-intuitive, anti-evolutionary.

Quickly, however, the debate moved to the question of taking the life of another human:

I just don't see how it could bring freedom to allow oneself to suffer under the attack of another. In reading the post, I see that a belief in karma and rebirth are important to understanding the precept against taking no life under any circumstances. Since such a belief would require faith, it excludes me.

The question raised by Angela is so fundamental that it informs every other ethical question: not just the value to be placed on life in general or specifically human life but whether there exists a hierarchy of value within the human species. Are some human lives more valuable than others and, if so, what is the limit of that value? Does it have a monetary value? If so then, as in Welsh law, a fine must be paid by murderers, the amount of which is set by consideration of all ancillary factors? Does it have a spiritual value? If so, then, as among some of the nations of Turtle Island (according to Frazer), braves returning from war who had killed were ritually punished and cleaned before being returned to the ranks of the tribe. Is its value only to be restored by a like-for-like restitution? If so, then, as in Texas, murderers will be executed.

(Note on editing: When I am writing in my notebook, I often weave a story or a poem into it and I have indulged myself by writing a piece of cod archaeo-history on the subject which I hope will amuse. I also wish to stress that I know little about Texas, despite having been to Dallas and this is in fun)

The native of Tejas (Texans) considered a human possessed a mysterious energising force which they called life (Eng.) which was believed to be so valuable that murderers (Eng. from murder q.v. infra) were, in turn, sacrificed in a semi-public fashion. Scholars disagree on how they established the distinction between taboo killing, which they called murder (Eng.), and acceptable or laudable killing. To the outsider, it may appear that the killing of one human being by another is the central event and such an observer may find it hard to understand that the Texan could distinguish between those killings which they term 'wrong' or 'evil' and those termed 'self-defence' or 'heroism'. This was particularly evident when the tribe was at war. Soldier Texans were actively encouraged to kill enemy soldiers and to acquire a mysterious energy which was called 'honour' or 'glory' believed to bring great luck and wealth to the tribe.

It is interesting to note that there were many important rituals by which the Texan polity protected itself against the curse attached to taking human life. An analysis of these has detected common threads between domestic rituals, and the great liturgies of the state with its parades of soldiers (usually the strongest and finest young men and women, commanded by older males), bands moving with highly stylised, mind-deadening, regular dances which they termed marching. Trees were regularly decorated with sacred yellow prayer steamers, reminiscent of the primitive animism of these simple people which was never quite extinguished. Researchers have not been able to determine exactly what function the trees were expected to play in the ritual. Sky gods were invoked, both publicly and privately, by the display of a common totem banner bearing a stylised night sky. At the same time, the tribal magicians (clergy, politicians, media and scientists) undertook the most important part of the magic. Stern laws were passed ensuring sacrosanct secrecy. Spells were cast through which the enemy was deemed to cease to be as human as Texans. The magicians attempted to turn the enemy into different life-forms: rats, weasels, cockroaches were among favoured targets for transformation. They did this, as in all sympathetic magic, by producing written and pictorial images of the enemy as variously deformed or bestialised. The minds of the enemy were also supposed to be affected by these incantations so that the Texans, possessing the magic power of heroism, were given the ability to overcome superior forces.

This magic was used both within Texas on the basis of skin tone and with other Turtle Island tribes, against whom the Texans used a single star as their totem, which may have been a tribal assertion that only Texans were truly human.

All this is evidence that, in Texan civilisation as among their neighbours, who used many of the same methods, inherited and developed from the long-dead British Empire, human life was considered as supremely valuable. It was not until the 27th century after the foundation of Rome, to use one of the many interesting, if opaque dating systems of the time, that the magicians began to invoke a trinity of new deities called Race, Ethnicity and Genetics. (No translation has yet been found for these apparently nonsensical names and it has been suggested that they are simply phonetic reproductions of oracular babblings.) Augurs called geneticists examined the entrails of the dead to determine and classify hierarchies of worth among humans. Wandering scholars called anthropologists compiled long, tendentious and inaccurate descriptions of other cultures in order to produce matching hierarchies. As in all other times of theological ferment, a great deal of blood was spilled in order to 'cleanse' humanity or to force 'inferior' or 'unacceptable' humans into obedience.
(from: Did the Al-a-Mo Ever Really Exist - An archaeologist considers a myth by Prof. Howard Ken Itbe of the University of ZaZa)


It is the question, though, isn't it? Does life have a value? Is that value the same in all cases? Society at large behaves as if lives are of different value, some being worth more than others. So, what are the criteria?

Then Angela made a point that struck me forcibly:

If I can not kill that which would kill me, then I might as well feed myself to the bears and mountain lions, who are also trying to protect themselves and get a bite to eat, as we all are. If I am not supposed to have meat to eat, or am not supposed to kill him who would kill me, then it is apparent my life is not worth living, literally. If I let myself think this way, then no life is worth anything if it is not worth defending. I was thinking about it, and realized that bears have teeth and claws, so do lions and other critters- humans have guns, arrows and such, to level the physical "field."

What is it about this phrase, "life is not worth living", that bothers me so much? Is it, perhaps, that Angela is throwing out a serious existential challenge: if I cannot live without killing, how do I justify continuing to live? How do I value my own life? Good one! Stitch that, Gotama! 'Cos I don't know. It seems like a paradox: if I don't kill anything, I'll die sooner rather than later but at least I'll've kept the precept BUT if I insist on living, however hard I try, I'll kill something so I can't keep the precept. Catch 22. Yossarian!?!

But, like any other paradox, it is flawed. Whereas, for example, Indian vultures are dying out because they are eating dead beasts containing chemicals poisonous to the birds, human beings have a faculty of discrimination and of learning by experiment and experience. Accepting that there is an equivalence between human and animal life is one thing but to suggest that they are identical is plain nonsense. To put it another way: life, expressed through human beings, is more varied and has a demonstrably higher survival potential than life expressing itself through animals, insects or plants. Leave aside, for the moment, the questions of ecological balance and biodiversity; this is simply to start from the position that human beings are different from other animal life forms, as far as we can ascertain. The apparent paradox comes from confusing two separate issues:

* Human life vs non-human life
and
* Human life vs human life.

So, when Angela says " I do believe in killing for food and killing the one who is trying to kill me. Else, I should throw up my hands and tell all enemies to come and get it" I think we have to make a distinction. Obviously, I am not aware of how many dangerous human enemies Angela may have made but I would l prefer to think that the 'enemies' here are the ants and wasps, racoons and mice or whatever fauna abound where she is. I am hoping that they are not Afghan resistance fighters or Mafia hitpeople.

Leaving aside the question of 'pest control', we come to the title of the thread: self-defence. Because it appears here, I imagine that a Buddhist perspective is what is wanted. As far as I can see - and I am far less well-read in the sutras than many here - Buddhism does not have a definitive answer, any more than do the Abrahamics or any other philosophico-religious system which includes the commandment/precept not to kill. There have been groups who have tried to carry it out literally but it has usually arisen from a profound matter/spirit dualism, as with the Cathars whose 'perfect' members starved to death rather than ingest more 'evil'. In fact, Buddhism has very few definitive answers which is why some Buddhist writers deny the importance or necessity of 'faith'. I do not agree. I believe that we are programmed to acquire beliefs and organise them into systems. At a very basic level, physiologically probably within the hippocampus, we acquire structures of belief about the world and ourselves. An example of what I mean:
* Beauty: different cultures have different standards of beauty. Some underlying principles, such as the Golden Mean and Fibonacci curves, appear to be 'instinctively' pleasing to the eye but one has to retrain one's ear if, as a European, one wants to appreciate, say, Chinese classical music. To associate a particular set of tonal values with 'music' is an acquired belief.

Much that we take for granted about what is OK or not-OK about ourselves, other people and the world at large are more or less deeply installed beliefs rather than external truths.

So, what has this to do with Buddhism and taking life?

Everything, because how we value life is based on a complex set of beliefs which are installed very early in our lives. In cultures which do not value human life, there can arise no question of being worth anything. If the prevailing culture says that this life is only one of millions of lives that we are going to have to live, just as we already have, without any chance of getting off the treadmill, we won't find killing or, even, being killed any big deal: next time could be better. The problem arises when individual life is seen as having a value in and of itself, and there is no longer a belief in a happier life after this one. At this point, we can say: all lives being of equal value, I have a right and a duty to defend mine against all attack, thereby believing in permission to defend oneself with deadly force. We may also choose to go beyond that and assert: Because they are the next lives (and the bearers of my DNA) that I can protect, I must act to protect my family, even if this means killing someone else. We can widen the circle of permission out and out as far as our belief system will allow.

Alternatively, we may decide that some lives are more valuable than others. And this, I think, is the current climate. It is where the debate should be taking place. It is at the heart of so many debates.

My own stance is exactly the same as it is on all such matters: I look at what I want done to me for the best and I try to do it to others, insofar as they want it. Many hours of examen and therapy have shown me that I have an 'internal formula' which works on the basis of 'what goes around comes around' or 'if I do it to them, why shouldn't it happen to me, too'. This is, according to one priest I know, why I believe that Jesus taught universal, unconditional salvation: because if anyone is going to be 'left behind', it'll be me. (As you can imagine, I was always the last picked for football in the playground! And I hated The Pied Piper of Hamlyn) This formula of belief is one that I deem 'skillful' or, in St Ignatius' term, a 'consolation' because it drives me towards what I perceive as the ethical rather than the unethical. It does, however, like all internal beliefs, run up against counter-examples in the outside world. In 'mythic' terms, do I want to share salvation with Myra Hindley or Adolph Hitler or the thug who mugged me? And this is where my Buddhist practice comes in. After many years of being retaliatory, I find that I can now ride with punches much better. It was my return to old habits that alerted me, a few weeks ago, that something was awry: the internal formula had stopped working.

In addition, I am of the opinion that, within our culture, it is no longer possible to arrive at definitive ethical answers. Situational ethics has become the norm and absolutes are perceived as being untrue. Thus an commandment or precept requires glossing and exceptions to be spelled out. This has occupied generations of philosophers and theologians. As always, the Reformation and its glorious daughter, the Enlightenment, have set the touchstone for ethical behaviour within the individual, just as, I maintain, was the intention of both Jesus and the Buddha. The best answer to most ethical questions is to 'go within' and, trained by a meditative and reflective practice, we can make up our own mind.

I do not know where I came from before my mother and father. I have no idea if there is any after-life. All I know is that, I am here, and that counts for something. It must count, because I know of many who love me, and who am I to say their love is worthless? I am here to serve the sick and the poor, and if I must have enough compassion for myself and defend myself in order to stick around and give my life this meaning, who is any prophet to tell me I should not?

Western Buddhism has produced a strand and, in Thich Nhat Hanh and his pupils among others, lineages of 'Engaged' Buddhism. This identifies, in the Dharma, the notion of interbeing as requiring our engagement with the suffering of others as well as sharing their joys. Thich Nhat Hanh writes:

....guided by clear understanding, our conscciousness becomes an instrument of enagement in the world. The presence of the Buddha is an example of this kind of volitional action, an offering of consciousness of what is going on, the willingness to help, and knowing what to do and how to do it in order to alleviate the suffering of the world.

from The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching

The key phrase in what Angela says is, to my eye, "give my life this meaning". YES! That's it! What appears to us, today, is that human life has no inherent 'meaning' other than that which we ascribe to it. And we are, in Sartre's word. "condemned" to ascribe meaning. Liberating ourselves from ignorance and acquiring clear understanding is why we went to school and we may have to go on and deeper with that 'schooling' as we cast off old preconceptions, habits and ideas. Buddhism can provide a structure within which to achieve this clear understanding (prajna), it has also developed well-tried methods of training. But it does not impose any specific meaning on life. It just is.

Endpiece:
If you have read thus far, my thanks for your patience.

If you have simply scrolled down to the end: