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.
Harming Others
Tony72
New
I apologise if this has allready come up.
I am having trouble with the ambiguity of the buddhist concept of doing no harm and Shaolin Monks. How can it be possible for someone, who has promised not to harm another living thing, to fight and/or harm another, even in self defence?
In addition I have seen footage of a Thai Buddhist monk slapping a tourist on a train. Surely whatever the motivation this was wrong?
Also I have heard stories of a man getting run over and as he lay dying, a buddhist monk just watched without helping. Surely it would have been more "Buddhist" to help the man?
Thanks
Tony
0
Comments
Hi Tony72, and welcome.
Nobody can explain away all these anecdotes to perfection, but I think that the Shaolin Monks (like in Kung Fu tv show) were trained to use it for self-defense -- what could possibly be wrong about defending one's self and their loved ones? and just like in the movie Karate Kid, the line: Miagi says why learn to fight? Karate Kid: So you won't have to. I think that makes a lot of sense.
If a person lies in the street dying, and it's obvious, then there is nothing to do. It would help to know the whole story.
Hi @Tony72 - welcome!
You are correct. The first precept states that we should do no harm to any other living being (or words to that affect).
However, most of us (including the monks you refer to above) are only human and will still act unskillfully at times. It would be a rare person indeed who never harmed another living being.
As for a person protecting themselves i.e. harming another in self defence. I would argue that it's acceptable for any person (buddhist or not) to protect themselves if physically attacked. Just my take - others may see it differently. Is there somewhere in the scriptures / sutras that says they shouldn't?
I believe (though I do not have the location on hand at the moment) that Buddha actually said in extreme cases, self defense is ok, and sometimes self-defense can keep the person from causing more harm, and thus more bad karma. It is all about what your intention is.
Also, taking precepts is a promise to try to work towards those things (in my opinion, others will disagree) and realize they are attainable. Reciting them reminds us of this. It is not an expectation that one day you take precepts and suddenly are able to 100% of the time keep them perfectly. That is not the point of them, and if it were so easy we'd all be enlightened much more quickly.
@silver, from what I heard, the monk in question just looked at the dying man, then got in his car and drove off. There was no attempt to get help or to try to comfort the man.
@bunks and @karasti, I am trying to get an idea of the ideal way to act. I understand that there will be a difference between this and what happens in normal life, because as you said, we are only human.
That sure doesn't seem right, but maybe there were others around who started to help or call for help or something. In one fairly recent thread, we were talking about Buddhists in some country where they kick dogs. It could've been a cultural thing? Who knows.
Buddhism is about yourself and not other Buddhists. Sure many people do things that are wrong, but the cause is in them and not in Buddhism.
@Jeffrey is right. Buddhism isn't about looking at other people and judging whether what they're doing is right or wrong.
It's about our own actions.
You could do a lot worse than starting with the five precepts @Tony72.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Precepts
China is a country which for centuries has suffered invasions at the hands of more or less barbaric neighbours and not so neighbours, including European and American settlements and colonies in their territory.
They had a Warring period which lasted over two hundred and fifty years, Opium Wars and as late as the 20th century, a Civil War which lasted over twenty years.
Sun Tzu's "Art of War" states that the best battle is the one you don't have to fight.
Martial arts are, first and foremost, "art" and then, tools for self-defence.
So there are some monks who act unskillfully.
They are Buddhist, but first and foremost, they are human beings, therefore, liable to act as such and bound to make mistakes.
Are you startled and ready to pass judgement to Buddhism as a whole based on the conduct of a few?
What about the Christians and the Crusades? And the Inquisition?
What about the Muslims and Isis? And the Talibans?
Are you looking for perfection? Can you yourself live up to that high expectation?
Hi Tony,
It has never come up until now . . . from you anyway . . .
I was trained in Buddhist martial arts. When I was attacked, I fought. Once I gained the upper hand, in essence the attacker was down and most people would have delivered a 'good beating', I had restraint, discipline and no ill will. The attacker was not part of a continuation of escalating violence.
Being a Buddhist means we practice restraint . . . not being doormats.
Yes it was. I have seen footage of monks setting fire to themselves, I consider that unskilful waste of life.
Not all monks are skilful, perfect examples of Buddhism. That is how the real world is.
One minor note: "also I have heard stories... " Pay no attention to such remote stories that rely on gossip, hearsay and "Chinese Whispers " and merely perpetuate myths that do nothing for their reputation or your practice.
Take such anecdotes with a pinch of salt. Such tales may begin by containing a mote of fact but then get blown out of all proportion. Rather like the urban myth of the venomous scorpion or deadly snake being placed in the alms bowl of an unfortunate monk who dies as a consequence, much of what you 'happen to hear ' turns out to be nonsense.
@silver loved that movie lol, I think it was a really nice movie that actually tackled a lot of problems nowadays. There is actually a martial arts school in my street and a guy that went there had to quit. Why? The trainer was really hot headed and wanted to see real fights no pulling back, the guy that quit was quite shy and such. He just felt like having to leave because to much agression in that martial arts school sad thing.
As for shaolin monks I think it's a bit of a tradition I am not sure, but I am quite temples sometimes got raided etc. I am not an expert on zen but I believe in zen when you would get attacked and hit him down in a sword in rural Japan, it was not muder, the body just moved. Correct me if I am wrong I did read this somewhere and I did learn from dabbling in history that zen often went hand in hand with great sword masters.
Back to the shaolin monks, so yes temples might have been subject of a raid and monks had to defend probably. I do also think we from the west think a lot different about martial arts then the east does. It's an art in China for example, also a tradition. Here in the Netherlands a martial artist from the same school I named before, was getting into a fight, a guy however came in between and stopped the fight, later they waited for that guy that stopped the fight and kicked him to death.
Western people often see martial arts as a means to be strong etc, in Asia however things like wing chun are more made to be defensive, there also is judo very defensive.
As for a monk slapping someone we are all human a monk is not a super human, he might have been a novice he might have lost control or who knows what? Of course we expect the perfect example of a monk but you can't really do that unless he has a big title like the Dalai Lama of course you do not expect he would go out and slap someone but even if he did, it just means he's human.
To everyone who has answered. Many thanks for your input. I didn't mean to come accross as insulting or to pass judgement on specific people or Buddhism in general, I am trying to find my way. My feeling is that, of the main world religions, it is not the religion that is bad/evil but rather mans interpretation of the religion. Hence we get situations like the inquisition and isis. This is why it is so important for me to take the right path.
Remember that Buddhism is unique in that there is no God, no Omnipotent eternal deity passing any form of judgement.
The Buck stops here, with you.
^ Smile.
Well Said!
Doesn't that make it all the more important to get ones ideals right (and by that I mean my ideals)?
I'd say first read up - do your own research on Buddha and Buddhism, then once you see that the Buddha wanted people to think for themselves, you'll realize how to walk your own unique path.
The ideals of the Buddha and how they were expressed 2,500 years ago and now, would be just a bit different, so that's the only real adjustment and why you have to find out for yourself by researching it all and contemplating on it so you can translate it into your own thoughts.
>
That was my point, precisely.
All too often, I have witnessed those adhering to Theistic religions, abdicating responsibility for their choices, onto Their Deity, and leaving it in his hands.
You can't do that in Buddhism - which actually makes it all the more demanding, exacting and sheer bloody hard work.
But I can tell you, hand on heart, without any wavering, shadow or shimmer of any doubt - boy, is that ride worth it.
Actually, Tony, many Buddhists would tell you that it's not about ideas or ideals at all. It's about practice. Both Mahayana and Theravada teachers can elucidate what that practice consists in. Labels are just labels, and to truly be reborn into a more spiritual plane we must cease to care about them so much.
I think that Buddhism teaches that by harming others, you really only harm yourself. Conversely, by helping others you are really only helping yourself. The eventual Verity is that we are not really separate selves born to perpetuate self-ishness, but are essentially partakers of the same reality; some call that reality by other names and others are completely blind to it.
One thing, I think, that differentiates Buddhism from the other religions is that it demands a whole lot of hard work from its dedicated practitioners. Reading Ajahn Chah (Theravadan, Forest Tradition) or Atisha's Lamp for the Path to Enlightenment and its commentaries (Lamrim, a Tibetan Mahayana Tradition) shows how daunting the task before us is if we want to arrive at a truly joyful place.
However, we must be realistic and not too hard on ourselves, either. For if one does violence to himself in pushing himself beyond what he should, he becomes bound. Above all, we need to be free, for freedom is the goal. Non-hurting of oneself and others opens all the doors to wholeness and purity. Such is the beauty that all religions worship.
Unless you are a perfectionist with some unquestioned set of ideals that will never allow you to be satisfied with your own understandings.
Coming from a theistic culture, Buddhism is a whole different thing. There is no God or deity 'watching you' for mistakes or applauding your greatness. Like Fede said, the buck stops with you.
This makes the transition difficult because we so habitually look to some outer authority to tell us we're 'right'.
That said, a person new to Buddhism will have to 'abdicate' to a teacher for a while, just to learn and absorb some basics.
Many Buddhists see the Buddha as a living god, and he's just one of a pantheon of Buddhist deities. That appeals to some people and it's fine.
I've always felt completely 'alone' (no deity) and so the nontheistic element of Buddhism gave this agnostic a platform to explore the 'spirituality' (hate that word) that I sense is there.
Indeed it does. Which is why anything that is heard and not seen with your own eyes should be taken with a massive grain of salt.
_ /\ _
I find my ideals still change here and there. Ideals that I thought were cemented in my life 2 years ago, have been uprooted. It's pretty constant, the re-evaluating of my values/ideals which means there is no consistent, single "true north" to constantly try to aim for.
Yes. That. What you are saying illustrates the ever shifting and changing nature of samsara, so clinging like mad to 'the absolute rightiest right thing' is delusional. Heck, just trying to FIND that exact right thing is impossible, because what is 'right' is in flux.
Thank you all for your input on this subject. Would someone be kind enough to point me in the direction of appropriate reading material? I have done a fair bit of reading, both books and internet, and haven't found very much pertaining to this.
These are from the Dhammapada:
All tremble at the rod, all are fearful of death. Drawing the parallel to yourself, neither kill nor get others to kill. (Verse 129)
Victory begets enmity; the defeated dwell in pain. Happily the peaceful live, discarding both victory and defeat. (Verse 201)
One, who controls his anger when aroused, is like a clever driver who controls a fast going carriage; the others are like those who merely hold the reins.
Greater in battle than the man who would conquer a thousand-thousand men, is he who would conquer just one — himself. (Verse 103)
Better than a thousand hollow words
Is one word that brings peace.
"He insulted me, hit me, beat me, robbed me" — for those who brood on this, hostility isn't stilled. "He insulted me, hit me, beat me, robbed me" — for those who don't brood on this, hostility is stilled. Hostilities aren't stilled through hostility, regardless. Hostilities are stilled through non-hostility: this, an unending truth. (Verses 3-5)
Off-topic posts removed.
Reading pertaining to what, Tony?
Pertaining to the basics of Buddhism?
@DhammaDragon , pertaining to physically or verbally defending oneself. What, if anything, is written about the subject?
Well, this is a forum on Buddhism.
Not sure if this is the right place to ask.
I didn't think it would be this hard to get a clear and plain answer.
I would like to know what, if anything, is written in the Buddhist scriptures or any other Buddhist resource, on the subject of physically or verbally defending oneself from attack?
The first precept is the clincher.
The Buddha said nothing about self-defence, save to say that it was acceptable, providing there was no intention to kill.
If you need to practise self-defence, do so skilfully.
Did the buddha pirate story already come up?
BODHISATTVA WARRIORS
by Chagdud Tulku Rinpoche
http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/an140729.pdf
@Rhodian, thank you. That is more along the lines I was thinking.
Ah! That was your question?
I thought you wanted to learn what Buddhism actually IS.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/basic-guide.htm
>
Unfortunately, that link doesn't seem to work for me.
besides, it seems very much like a single-pointed, unique perspective, and may not be indicative of General, widespread Buddhist scripture, which is what I thought you wanted to know... It's just a single Tradition's perspective.
But I would like to see the link, for sure....
@federica
Still works for me, does this one work for you? http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/tib/ctbw.htm (Same text different site I think.)
Now as for it being a single pointed perspective of course, but all buddhist follow back at the buddha one way or another and he was a single source. Now it is only important that we look at all our sources and make an idea out of it on our own. The buddha spoke in his local accent and many traditions had different writings and also there have been stories of buddhists that knew all the teaching of the buddha in they're head but they might have been a bit egocentric or refusing to write it all down or feel superior because they knew it all.
Besides that they might have added/forgotten stuff and so on, as a kid in school we used to sit in a circle one person would whisper a sentence to the other and it would go round the circle the sentence would always be something different when done normal. In the case of doing it in school with me I would just totally change the sentence on purpose, and say something really weird.
So I guess it is important to look at different perspectives and maybe see if you can knit and make something out of it. Of course there's going to be a lot of perspectives, I am holding back on Tibetan buddhism for now, whilst I would like to dive in it I am holding back. Because of reasons but who knows I might someday open up to it a bit more and who knows?
What you must realise, @Tony72 , is that for the major part, Buddhism is against violence, and exhorts its followers to avoid unnecessary, angry confrontation whenever possible.
If you find yourself i a situation where self-defence is necessary, use skilfully-administered words first, and any actions as a last resort. Even then, skilfully, even then, to avoid harm.
The link worked for me...a 1-page pdf story fyi...
any way you can re-post the link? I'll try again....
http://enlight.lib.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-AN/an140729.pdf
This, from the last paragraph:
enter such situations free from the delusions of the mind's poisons.
May we act with spontaneous compassion to bring ultimate liberation to
all alike, both victims and aggressors.
>
Which is basically, as I recommended: Acting skilfully.
There is no need to think as 'far ahead' , that "The
Buddha has taught that throughout countless lifetimes all beings have
been our parents and have shown us great kindness."
That's speculation and a waste of precious time. Frankly, all beings are currently sacred, there is no need to look upon who or what they MAY have been. What matters is what is happening now, and dealing with it now.
Just remember: Do no harm, and if you need to self-defend, to do so skilfully.
(Got the link/page up on my hp laptop, but my mum's MacBook still blocks it.....)
Google?
People have gone into explanation here and given sources already. What exactly are you hoping to find? A written justification for exerting physical force in retaliation or an excuse not to do anything? I'm sorry if you perceive this answer as snooty, but you were beating around the bush there for a bit.
Sorry if my last comment sounded rather cold, but I was under the same impression as @dhammachick.
My own personal impression was either the one she expressed above, or an excuse to prove that Buddhism is a violent religion.
And yes, google is a very useful tool..
Tony, you may find this helpful: http://old-shambhala.shambhala.org/teachers/pema/qa5.php
I personally didn't interpret Tony's question as him being about wanting to prove that Buddhism is violent, or about him looking for a jusitifcation to exert physical violence. It just seems to me that he wants to understand this particular aspect of Buddhism more, and in the correct way. He certainly didn't seem to be defending violence in his opening post: "Surely it would have been more "Buddhist" to help the man? Thanks Tony"
The key thing for me, is he talks about defending oneself.
Which then makes me wonder if he is ok; is he feeling the need to find a way to skillfully to defend himself?
Well, without giving anything away, apart from some past newsworthy incidents regarding Football hooliganism/violence, where Tony lives isn't really classified as being either violent or dangerous, statistically..... in fact, it's quite a nice area, and I'm living not too far away from there myself....
So maybe it's a personal thing....?
Yes, could well be Fed.
I do tend to think that when a lot of people come to Buddhism, they tend to start with a fragment of Buddhism that is in some way related to their own life, at that time. At least, that's how it was for me. But maybe that's another thread!
Perhaps it would help if Tony were more specific in his request.
Normally people want to begin with the basics of Buddhism, not launch directly on a given theme, especially this odd one related to violence.
Is he a Buddhist who wants to make sure he abides by Buddhism when he has to ripost in an unskillful way?
He did not tell.
@DhammaDragon, Tony requested some specific reading material about Buddhism: "pertaining to physically or verbally defending oneself. What, if anything, is written about the subject?"
Whatever his reasons for requesting advice with this, and whether he chooses to explain why (his choice), I see no harm of actually helping him. Whatever the motive, he's going to be more informed about an important aspect of Buddhism; that's a good thing, no!?
As Tony himself stated: > @Tony72 said:
People come to this forum with all kinds of questions, and they might not be the kind of question(s) that you or I initially had, but it doesn't necessarily mean they have an agenda. Buddhism is such a huge subject, if I may refer to it as such. It's not really that surprising that any number of queries might come up with someone new to Buddhism.
)
One of my first questions about Buddhism was related to astrology! (sorry @federica!
FWIW don't see anything odd in wanting to better understand the Buddhist teachings of violence/dealing with situations in a skillfull way. I think it's a good thing to understand; if more people in the world wanted to know more about this, as Tony does, the world might be a bit more peaceful.
>
Being a novice to the buddhist game, it is difficult to find sources of information that are credible and that i can trust. In addition, I find it very difficult find information in a format that I can understand and take in. This is why I have been trying to find a sangha that I am comfortable with. There is nothing close to my location, which is why i chose an online sangha.
My mind works in a very chaotic way and I very often lack the eloquence to communicate adequately.
Let me see if this clarifies my intentions.
I am not trying to attack buddhism in any way. I am merely trying to find my way through a multitude of hard to concepts.
Various disjointed ideas about violence and self defence coalesced into a question when I saw the footage of the monk slapping a tourist. That is why it formed part of my question.
What Dandelion said was correct
>
The process by which I became interested in Buddhism took place over a looooooooong time, but what finally pushed me over the edge, so to speak, was my marriage of 20 years breaking down and me literally losing everything.
@federica, although I currently have no problems with violence where I live in the UK, I was born and brought up in Africa where violence was a common occurance.