Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
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
Yes, I am familiar with that. I think this was due to the fact that Buddha was not on earth anymore and other monks were not that expert in handling lay followers without full ordination.
When Buddha was there, there were lay followers who were not ordained as monks who became fully enlightened. I forgot his name, but even all the monks were afraid of this lay follower.
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
I agree completely.
The purpose is to however make sure, if you can, that the enemy can't harm anyone again.
This scenerio is mentioned in Buddhism on what to do with invading and dictator type kings represented by King Ajatshatru:
He spoke in this fashion: "These Vajjis, powerful and glorious as they are,
I shall annihilate them,
I shall make them perish,
I shall utterly destroy them."
In the Sangama Sutta it tells of what a Good king should try to do in case of an aggressive leader bent upon killing and attacking:
Then King Ajatasattu & King Pasenadi fought a battle, and in that battle King Pasenadi defeated King Ajatasattu and captured him alive.
What if I, having confiscated all his elephant troops, all his cavalry, all his chariots, & all his infantry, were to let him go with just his life?" So King Pasenadi — having confiscated all his elephant troops, cavalry, chariots, & infantry — let King Ajatasattu go with just his life.
Buddha hearing of this then says:
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.
I enjoyed that post so much I can't tell you. I even reread it. It appears you have recovered, and then some. lol! How I wish I had a professor like you when I was in university. (In N. America, for those who may not know, professor is the title given to all teachers in university, not just heads of departments.)
What a fascinating thread, I have enjoyed, and learnt from, it. Thanks to you all for your posts.
The thread began with Angela saying "I have a question about defending the self". I wonder if the premises of some of the contributors to this thread diverged from that very point.
If there is a self, one can debate the need to defend it. If however there is "no self", does the question even arise in the same way?
You are, of course, entirely right, Martin. And I am sure that a full realisation of non-self enables the Awakened to dismiss such 'mundane' considerations as 'self-defence'. They may even, I suppose, view the torture and slaughter of their nearest and dearest with equanimity.
Before we get in to deep water here, I would add that there are those who maintain that the Enlightened, by the nature of Enlightenment itself and its benign karma, will not find themselves in such a position. This, I consider, a load of arse-dribble (to quote Stephen Fry) because it means that the Enlightened have nothing useful to contribute to such a debate and are even outwith the daily dilemmas. The only state of which I am aware in which this may be true is to be dead oneself, which is how many non-Buddhists view nirvana.
No, I think that we are confronted with a crucial question about how the Dharma is to be presented. Such questions as defending oneself or gender/sexuality issues or social engagement are realities in our society. They cannot be dismissed - as the Christian churches have a tendency to do - by appeal to doctrine or dogma. It is, right or wrong, the prevailing Western belief that it is a very good thing to be literate, numerate and to have developed the critical faculty. Buddhism, as spread into the West, has made great play of the Buddha's instruction that each one of us, walking the Noble Eighfold Tightrope, must experience, test and prove for ourselves. More than anything else, this aspect of Gotama's turning of the Wheel has proved attractive to our post-Enlightenment empiricism.
Just as when I am leading spiritual enquiry groups, whether young or older, or walking with individuals, the cannot be any concern that can just be dismissed with "It's a mystery" or "There is no self". Non-self is rightly described by many teachers as a difficult concept. Indeed, it may be impossible to conceive of it: it may only be able to be experienced.
To quote from an essay by Masao Abe:
Both (Christianity and Buddhism) must fundamentally transform themselves such that their prevailing assumptions are drastically changed and a new paradigm or model of understanding can emerge. This might involve a revolutionary reinterpretation of the concept of God in Christianity and the concept of emptiness in Buddhism.................
..............Only when Buddhist-Christian dialogue is pursued with an appreciation of the wider context of the contemporary confrontation of religion and irreligion will it be able to open up a deeper religious dimension in which Buddhist and Christian truth can be fully realized in a new paradigm beyond the religion-negating principles of scientism, Marxism, traditional Freudian psychoanalytic thought, and nihilism in the Nietzschean sense.
(from Kenotic God and Dynamic Sunyata by Masao Abe in The Emptying God John B. Cobb & Christopher Ives eds)
It is an extraordinary challenge: to present the Dharma in such a way that it is heard and, more importantly, leads to a practice and the ensuing change of life.
I recall discussions while I was in the noviciate. HH Paul VI had given a special mission to the Society, to engage in dialogue with atheists. I suggested that we would have to reinvent our language in such a way that we presented the Jesus message without reference to 'God', allowing (to use the Christian terminology) the Holy Spirit to find the way, because, I maintained, we would simply turn our audience off if we insisted on using a term/concept abhorrent to them. Superiors and contemporaries said that it was not possible. If that were the case (and I do not believe it to be so), no dialogue would be possible: we could only talk at the atheist community, not with them.
So, when Angela demonstrates that this is a question that touches her deeply and presents a barrier to her onward journey, are we not bound to take her seriously?
"So, when Angela demonstrates that this is a question that touches her deeply and presents a barrier to her onward journey, are we not bound to take her seriously?"
Yes, of course, Simon, and if I implied that I was not taking the question seriously, I'm sorry. Quite the reverse, actually. I was trying, perhaps incoherently, to say that the question is one that is serious because it is hard to resolve at the level of principle, precisely because first premises may differ. I don't for one moment purport to understand "no self", and agree with you that it probably has to be experienced, but it "feels" right to me, and may do to others, to a greater or lesser degree. Whereas Angela I think has a strong sense of a separate self, and her posts are about defending that self, maybe in more ways than one.
You are, of course, entirely right, Martin. And I am sure that a full realisation of non-self enables the Awakened to dismiss such 'mundane' considerations as 'self-defence'. They may even, I suppose, view the torture and slaughter of their nearest and dearest with equanimity.
Before we get in to deep water here, I would add that there are those who maintain that the Enlightened, by the nature of Enlightenment itself and its benign karma, will not find themselves in such a position. This, I consider, a load of arse-dribble (to quote Stephen Fry) because it means that the Enlightened have nothing useful to contribute to such a debate and are even outwith the daily dilemmas. The only state of which I am aware in which this may be true is to be dead oneself, which is how many non-Buddhists view nirvana.
No, I think that we are confronted with a crucial question about how the Dharma is to be presented. Such questions as defending oneself or gender/sexuality issues or social engagement are realities in our society. They cannot be dismissed - as the Christian churches have a tendency to do - by appeal to doctrine or dogma. It is, right or wrong, the prevailing Western belief that it is a very good thing to be literate, numerate and to have developed the critical faculty. Buddhism, as spread into the West, has made great play of the Buddha's instruction that each one of us, walking the Noble Eighfold Tightrope, must experience, test and prove for ourselves. More than anything else, this aspect of Gotama's turning of the Wheel has proved attractive to our post-Enlightenment empiricism.
Just as when I am leading spiritual enquiry groups, whether young or older, or walking with individuals, the cannot be any concern that can just be dismissed with "It's a mystery" or "There is no self". Non-self is rightly described by many teachers as a difficult concept. Indeed, it may be impossible to conceive of it: it may only be able to be experienced.
To quote from an essay by Masao Abe:
It is an extraordinary challenge: to present the Dharma in such a way that it is heard and, more importantly, leads to a practice and the ensuing change of life.
I recall discussions while I was in the noviciate. HH Paul VI had given a special mission to the Society, to engage in dialogue with atheists. I suggested that we would have to reinvent our language in such a way that we presented the Jesus message without reference to 'God', allowing (to use the Christian terminology) the Holy Spirit to find the way, because, I maintained, we would simply turn our audience off if we insisted on using a term/concept abhorrent to them. Superiors and contemporaries said that it was not possible. If that were the case (and I do not believe it to be so), no dialogue would be possible: we could only talk at the atheist community, not with them.
So, when Angela demonstrates that this is a question that touches her deeply and presents a barrier to her onward journey, are we not bound to take her seriously?
Thank you, excellent post.
Buddhism is not about resorting to dogma, Buddha simply gives guidance, he gives guidelines that we can take to be true once we test them for ourselves and find them to be true.
Once you realize what harms you and what is beneficial for yourself in the long run, you will do what is beneficial.
Buddhism says eventually you will realize that the essence of no-self is being self-less. It's just a play of words no-self = self-less.
The essence of being self-less means you don't let "others" suffer because there no longer is an "other".
Buddha never turns away from the world, he only sees it too clearly. It is to see things as they are and not how our minds want them to be, or how we wish them to be -- that is the greater challenge.
Looking after oneself, one looks after others.
Looking after others, one looks after oneself.
And how does one look after others by looking after oneself?
By practicing (mindfulness), by developing (it), by doing (it) a lot.
And how does one look after oneself by looking after others?
By patience, by non-harming, by loving kindness, by caring (for others).
(Thus) looking after oneself, one looks after others;
and looking after others, one looks after oneself.
Some of the posts on this thread are among th finest I have read on this site. Well done!
While I abstain from killing at all costs, I do place a higher level of importance on human life than the life of other beings for the reason that I am human and I view my own kind with greater love than any other.
It is a difficult subject. No doubt about that. Just where do we draw the line between murder and killing in self-defense. Humans have the most powerful life drive of all which of course is survival topping both sex and hunger drives beyound a doubt. When human beings see their survival threatened, they will do anything to regain that security of survival. Even if that means killing other humans or creatures. This is true among nearly all mamallian creatures as well as reptiles, lizards, and possibly larger fish.
If you hit a dog, the dog will probably bite you. If you mess with a bear, he is likely to slash your face. Even my turtles get into defensive modes when other turtles appear threatening. This survival at all costs drive is what keeps the human race alive and prospering. "Kill or be killed" was a mantra for everyday survival in ancient times or out in the wild. Fortunately, humans blessed themselves with societies which made the old mantra nearly obsolete as society developed further. Occasionally when survival is threatened particularly by another, humans kill or get killed. This is reality. This is thus.
While I abstain from killing at all costs, I do place a higher level of importance on human life than the life of other beings for the reason that I am human and I view my own kind with greater love than any other.
In the teachings on the Four Thoughts That Turn the Mind Towards the Dharma, it is said that a human birth is the most precious because only as a human can one have the opportunity to practice the Dharma. It is considered an auspicious human birth when one has all one's faculties intact, the teachings of the Buddha are in the world, and you have the opportunity to hear and practice them. That is why killing another human is one of the very worst things that you can do, regardless of your reason.
Comments
Yes, I am familiar with that. I think this was due to the fact that Buddha was not on earth anymore and other monks were not that expert in handling lay followers without full ordination.
When Buddha was there, there were lay followers who were not ordained as monks who became fully enlightened. I forgot his name, but even all the monks were afraid of this lay follower.
I agree completely.
The purpose is to however make sure, if you can, that the enemy can't harm anyone again.
This scenerio is mentioned in Buddhism on what to do with invading and dictator type kings represented by King Ajatshatru:
He spoke in this fashion: "These Vajjis, powerful and glorious as they are,
I shall annihilate them,
I shall make them perish,
I shall utterly destroy them."
In the Sangama Sutta it tells of what a Good king should try to do in case of an aggressive leader bent upon killing and attacking:
Then King Ajatasattu & King Pasenadi fought a battle, and in that battle King Pasenadi defeated King Ajatasattu and captured him alive.
What if I, having confiscated all his elephant troops, all his cavalry, all his chariots, & all his infantry, were to let him go with just his life?" So King Pasenadi — having confiscated all his elephant troops, cavalry, chariots, & infantry — let King Ajatasattu go with just his life.
Buddha hearing of this then says:
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.
I enjoyed that post so much I can't tell you. I even reread it. It appears you have recovered, and then some. lol! How I wish I had a professor like you when I was in university. (In N. America, for those who may not know, professor is the title given to all teachers in university, not just heads of departments.)
You blow my mind, in a good way. lol!
In gratitude,
Brigid
What a fascinating thread, I have enjoyed, and learnt from, it. Thanks to you all for your posts.
The thread began with Angela saying "I have a question about defending the self". I wonder if the premises of some of the contributors to this thread diverged from that very point.
If there is a self, one can debate the need to defend it. If however there is "no self", does the question even arise in the same way?
Martin.
Before we get in to deep water here, I would add that there are those who maintain that the Enlightened, by the nature of Enlightenment itself and its benign karma, will not find themselves in such a position. This, I consider, a load of arse-dribble (to quote Stephen Fry) because it means that the Enlightened have nothing useful to contribute to such a debate and are even outwith the daily dilemmas. The only state of which I am aware in which this may be true is to be dead oneself, which is how many non-Buddhists view nirvana.
No, I think that we are confronted with a crucial question about how the Dharma is to be presented. Such questions as defending oneself or gender/sexuality issues or social engagement are realities in our society. They cannot be dismissed - as the Christian churches have a tendency to do - by appeal to doctrine or dogma. It is, right or wrong, the prevailing Western belief that it is a very good thing to be literate, numerate and to have developed the critical faculty. Buddhism, as spread into the West, has made great play of the Buddha's instruction that each one of us, walking the Noble Eighfold Tightrope, must experience, test and prove for ourselves. More than anything else, this aspect of Gotama's turning of the Wheel has proved attractive to our post-Enlightenment empiricism.
Just as when I am leading spiritual enquiry groups, whether young or older, or walking with individuals, the cannot be any concern that can just be dismissed with "It's a mystery" or "There is no self". Non-self is rightly described by many teachers as a difficult concept. Indeed, it may be impossible to conceive of it: it may only be able to be experienced.
To quote from an essay by Masao Abe:
It is an extraordinary challenge: to present the Dharma in such a way that it is heard and, more importantly, leads to a practice and the ensuing change of life.
I recall discussions while I was in the noviciate. HH Paul VI had given a special mission to the Society, to engage in dialogue with atheists. I suggested that we would have to reinvent our language in such a way that we presented the Jesus message without reference to 'God', allowing (to use the Christian terminology) the Holy Spirit to find the way, because, I maintained, we would simply turn our audience off if we insisted on using a term/concept abhorrent to them. Superiors and contemporaries said that it was not possible. If that were the case (and I do not believe it to be so), no dialogue would be possible: we could only talk at the atheist community, not with them.
So, when Angela demonstrates that this is a question that touches her deeply and presents a barrier to her onward journey, are we not bound to take her seriously?
Yes, of course, Simon, and if I implied that I was not taking the question seriously, I'm sorry. Quite the reverse, actually. I was trying, perhaps incoherently, to say that the question is one that is serious because it is hard to resolve at the level of principle, precisely because first premises may differ. I don't for one moment purport to understand "no self", and agree with you that it probably has to be experienced, but it "feels" right to me, and may do to others, to a greater or lesser degree. Whereas Angela I think has a strong sense of a separate self, and her posts are about defending that self, maybe in more ways than one.
Martin.
Thank you, excellent post.
Buddhism is not about resorting to dogma, Buddha simply gives guidance, he gives guidelines that we can take to be true once we test them for ourselves and find them to be true.
Once you realize what harms you and what is beneficial for yourself in the long run, you will do what is beneficial.
Buddhism says eventually you will realize that the essence of no-self is being self-less. It's just a play of words no-self = self-less.
The essence of being self-less means you don't let "others" suffer because there no longer is an "other".
Buddha never turns away from the world, he only sees it too clearly. It is to see things as they are and not how our minds want them to be, or how we wish them to be -- that is the greater challenge.
1)mental acts of violence leads to 2
2)verbal acts of violence, leads to 3
3) physical leads to
murder, war, riots etc.:ninja:
Buddhism -- Violence begins with the mind. Stop it right here, at the root. This is where a Buddhist warrior first engages.
when we are unmindful of our actions and of what is happening around us, the fight begins.
When people gaurd their minds and each other than violence doesn't take place, each one protects himself and looks out for the other:
http://myweb.ncku.edu.tw/~lausinan/AccessToInsight/html/canon/sutta/samyutta/sn47-019-ao0.html
Samyutta Nikaya XLVII.19
Sedaka Sutta
The Bamboo Acrobat
Looking after oneself, one looks after others.
Looking after others, one looks after oneself.
And how does one look after others by looking after oneself?
By practicing (mindfulness), by developing (it), by doing (it) a lot.
And how does one look after oneself by looking after others?
By patience, by non-harming, by loving kindness, by caring (for others).
(Thus) looking after oneself, one looks after others;
and looking after others, one looks after oneself.
While I abstain from killing at all costs, I do place a higher level of importance on human life than the life of other beings for the reason that I am human and I view my own kind with greater love than any other.
It is a difficult subject. No doubt about that. Just where do we draw the line between murder and killing in self-defense. Humans have the most powerful life drive of all which of course is survival topping both sex and hunger drives beyound a doubt. When human beings see their survival threatened, they will do anything to regain that security of survival. Even if that means killing other humans or creatures. This is true among nearly all mamallian creatures as well as reptiles, lizards, and possibly larger fish.
If you hit a dog, the dog will probably bite you. If you mess with a bear, he is likely to slash your face. Even my turtles get into defensive modes when other turtles appear threatening. This survival at all costs drive is what keeps the human race alive and prospering. "Kill or be killed" was a mantra for everyday survival in ancient times or out in the wild. Fortunately, humans blessed themselves with societies which made the old mantra nearly obsolete as society developed further. Occasionally when survival is threatened particularly by another, humans kill or get killed. This is reality. This is thus.
Palzang