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.
Hold Up Victim Kills Would Be Robber
Cleveland, Ohio
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/117740407596600.xml&coll=2
The newspaper has been jammed with this story and the editorials surrounding it. Buford's accomplice has since then been captured on unrelated charges.
I feel much more sorry for Wells in this story. His house has since then been vandalized and he is living with family members out of town because of death threats.
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/117740407596600.xml&coll=2
A boy dies, and a gun debate is reignited
Holdup victim had concealed-carry permit Tuesday, April 24, 2007Damian G. Guevara and Patrick O'DonnellPlain Dealer Reporters
Damon Wells is the man gun supporters were imagining when they fought for the right to carry concealed weapons.
He had a permit to carry his gun, and he had the gun on him when a pair of teenage thieves approached him Saturday night on his front porch in Cleveland.
When one of the youths pulled a gun, Wells drew his and shot one of the boys several times in the chest, police said. Arthur Buford, 15, died after stumbling away and collapsing on a sidewalk near East 134th Street and Kinsman Road.
City prosecutors decided Monday that Wells, 25, was justified and would not be charged for what appears to be the first time a concealed-carry permit holder has shot and killed an attacker.
Nonetheless, the shooting reignited the debate that flared three years ago when Ohio's concealed-carry law took effect.
Gun supporters said the weapon saved Wells' life. Opponents said it took Buford's - that the 15-year-old might be alive if a citizen had not been armed.
An angry throng of about 30 youths gathered Monday and set up a memorial at the intersection where Buford, a freshman at John F. Kennedy High School, died.
His cousin, Tameka Foster, 21, questioned why police did not punish Buford's shooter.
"They let that man run out freely," Foster said. "My cousin is dead."
Buford's accomplice disappeared after the shooting and had not been caught as of Monday night. Police found a .38-caliber handgun in the mail chute of a nearby house. They believe it belonged to Buford or the other suspect, Lt. Thomas Stacho said.
Police took a .40-caliber Smith and Wesson firearm from Wells as evidence, the police report shows.
Both sides of the gun debate said it was sad that a teenager died.
"It's tragic," said Jim Irvine, chairman of the Buckeye Firearms Association. "Anytime somebody dies, it's tragic, but it's hard to have any sympathy when he chose to have a gun and go threaten somebody's life."
Irvine said it was "great that a potential victim is able to continue his life instead of having a criminal take it."
Toby Hoover, of the Ohio Coalition Against Gun Violence, said she had not heard of any other fatal shooting involving a concealed-carry permit holder.
"This is one of the few where they actually used it to stop a crime," Hoover said.
But, she said, "there's still a dead kid here."
A man who answered a phone number for Wells refused to comment and hung up. No one answered the door at Wells' home.
Plain Dealer reporters Jesse Tinsley and Brie Zeltner and researcher Cheryl Diamond contributed to this story.
The newspaper has been jammed with this story and the editorials surrounding it. Buford's accomplice has since then been captured on unrelated charges.
I feel much more sorry for Wells in this story. His house has since then been vandalized and he is living with family members out of town because of death threats.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Would you have said the same thing if a policeman had shot the kid instead? Wells had a permit and did everything by the books. He wasn't excessive. Now, had he chased down the other kid and shot him a dozen times, then there might be some question to his innocence. But that is not the case.
This story is a textbook example of why concealed weapon permits are a good thing. You know, it usually takes more than one bullet to bring down a man? Especially one whose adrenaline is undoubtedly rushing quickly. And if your life is in danger like that, you don't want the criminal to manage to fire off a shot of his own. Because when you shoot somebody, you intend to kill them. Guns aren't meant for wounding people.
Execution? Seriously. I mean I am stunned.... Wells' life was at risk. Had he not have had the concealed weapon, he would very likely be dead. Death being the fate of many victims of thievery in the rough areas of Cleveland. The police thoroughly investigated and determined that it was in self-defense.
It sounds like Wells is guilty of nothing more than wanting to live longer. Harder than you think in downtown Cleveland. I mean it is sad that 15 year olds die this way, but that is what might happen to you if you pull a gun on a stranger. By whatever luck, Wells had the quicker hand and probably saved his own life and one can only guess how many more lives Buford would continue to terrorize.
I just don't understand where all the pity is coming from towards this thug. If the robbers had been successful and killed Wells, we would not be saying what a kind, sweet boy Buford really is. We would be just tacking on another notch to the nameless babble of victims of theft in Cleveland. And maybe someone would offer a hypothetical question as to what would have happened if the dead man on the street only had a weapon of his own....
More details....
Buford specifically said, "Don't move or I'll pop you." If that isn't threatening enough to your life and worthy of preventing, pray give a better example. Wells was justififed in this situation.
cheers
P.S. Gun control IS a big deal for me.
But of course, trying to quell the situation in a non-violent manner is always preferred.
Palzang
Of course it is personal, Xrayman. Isn't that precisely why police officers and judges recuse themselves if they are personally involved with a case? Isn't that why we need justice with equity rather than revenge? Isn't that the very reasoin that we have a police force (or forces) and a judiciary? Or should we believe that the law of the jungle should obtain?
I am very glad that I was not asked to convict or sentence those who beat me up. The law did that.
**N.B. These are only my personal feelings, and I HAVE A RIGHT TO THEM. I am not writing to offend anyone. Please believe me. I am not making Law here, so chill out a couple of hours before you denounce my libburral views.**
Guns are Stupid. Buddha never carried a gun or a sword. Jesus said that those who live by the sword die by the sword.
But here's even a better one: Matt 16:25 (26):
Whoever seeks to save his life shall lose it;
But whoever loses his life for my sake shall save it.
I might could see myself killing to save others, but not myself. Nay, I'd rather be a victim than a fellow perpetrator of violence.
I think on those words: "Whoever seeks to save his life shall lose it."
I could not live with myself if I were Wells and had executed that man. A much better fate for me would be to die an unarmed man.
The highest ethical ideal of all, which happens to be from the Hindus: "Above All, Do No Harm."
I'm not going to DEBATE justifications for using gunfire. But I must agree with our eminent Pilgrim that it does seem obvious that "Mr Wells will carry with him for the rest of his life that he killed a man. Whatever the excuses, the karma is there." And perhaps also a very nagging question or two: "Was it necessary that I shot him?" and "How can I ever know that for sure? (What if I had just waited a few more seconds?) " That is, if Mr. Wells even has a conscience.
__________________
when guns are outlawed all my inlaws will be your outlaws
Quite true STP, except when the law doesn't convict or sentence those-then karma (I hope ) will prevail upon them anyway.
my and my friend's face looked like this :zombie: when they finished. I stand by my statement that hopefully the perp got what they dealt out. no apologies.
Whoever seeks to save his life shall lose it,
But whoever loses his life for my sake shall gain eternal life.
The problem with trying to use ordinary logic in situations like these is that you forget to look at the big picture. Killing someone, no matter for what reason, is exactly the same as killing yourself. In fact, it is killing yourself because in a future life (or even this one) you will experience the same result. That's why you don't want to create the karma of killing.
Unfortunately when the state takes a life "in our name", everyone shares the karma of killing. Nice, huh?
Palzang
Whoever seeks to save his life shall lose it;
But whoever loses his life for my sake shall save it.
How true these words are. Once you lose your innocence by acting at any cost to save your own wretched, solitary life, the life before you had thus acted is lost to you forever. You can never really sleep free and clear again. You have lost the kind of life you had before. It is forever gone. There is no going back "home" again, really.
But to risk losing oneself (one's structured life) in whatever may come your way is truly to find a free and joyous life. Here "my sake" means "for the sake of the eternal man, undifferentiated and open and free."
Oh, How I love Jesus, my guide!
Oh How I love Buddha, my pride and my peace!
Peace and Joy to All,
Nirvy
"Buddha loves me, this I know,
For the sutras tell me so..."
Hallelujah!
Palzang
Strike first or first struck. :poke: That was how this story turned out anyway.
The problem comes when you don't want to die in this life. That is the most basic instinct of man; survive. Not something easily overcome especially when you are staring down a gun barrell. And if there turns out to be no next life, that would be disappointing.
Do you have a wife? Hungry children? People depending on you closely? If so, would you be so willing to be a victim knowing that they would be helpless without you? Would it be so honorable to have done nothing and died when you could go home to them, embrace them given the opportunity.
Mr. Wells would probably disagree. The inner city is an awful place to live. Those who can escape, do so. The rest stay behind and try to brave the storm. Some turn to crime and drugs to escape, others can do nothing but try to wait it out and guard against such criminals. What better way to protect yourself than with a gun? That is of course if you want to keep living.
Power comes from the heart, not from wielding weapons.
There is no "Insurance" that things are gonna be 100% OK. Guns may give some "Assurance," but what is lost in the meantime by all this weapon brandishing?
It's interesting that what the gun-wielding American public calls "Insurance" is called "Assurance" in Canada. I have this sneaking suspicion that our neighbours to the north are a lot more civilized than we.
I mean, just go there sometime.
Let's not go there!!
More! More, please!
I'll just say that Niagara Falls is clean and tidy. Students go around dead-heading the flowers; the buses run silently; even motel receptionists say "Thank you kindly" and appear to mean it.
So - basically, if someone is going to kill you - you shouldn't do anything to protect yourself.
Wow.
I don't know if I could do that. Just maybe try to run as someone is trying to kill or beat me?
Wow.
-bf
I guess you have to use the snap judgement at the time, BF...(beautiful friend....Nice to see you again, BTW!)
I doubt you'd really have very much time to assess everything according to the Eightfold path, but heck, the size of me, my first instinct would be to run or give in gracefully. I don't have a violent bone in my body, so I can't say here and now what would drive me to hit someone.... but I'm only teeny too, so I'd be at a disadvantage, power-wise.
I would never carry a weapon, so that option is not in the equasion, you see....
But if I were to find a Buddhist friend had defended him/herself in order to save themselves, by using violence? I would never judge, or even assume to give my opinion. Each must decide for themselves, and each must be the sole "judge" of their own actions.
In my opinion.
Thanks for the welcome. Prodigal son or something like that, eh?
I'm not one to judge either. I'm also not one to say, "Well if that happened to me, I'd do this!" Cuz I honestly have no idea what I would do in a myriad of situations.
I just hope I am never in that position.
-bf
Whatever makes you happy. :cool:
Palzang
The main problem here is ignorance. No, I'm not calling you ignorant, bf! Put that gun away! I'm talking about ignorance of the Law of Cause and Effect. We don't get the full picture, so we just react to situations as they arise. It is basically an animal realm mode of thought. Have you ever really watched an animal, like a dog or cat or whatever? They are constantly in a reactive mode. Virtually their entire lives revolve around fear, food and elimination. There really isn't any space in their minds to do anything else (no forehead, you see).
Humans, on the other hand, do have a forehead and are able to get some space in their minds with some training (we call it meditation). If we really understand the nature of things, we wouldn't be so attached to everything, including our lives. If somebody points a gun at you, it's just your karma. You obviously did the same thing to him in a previous existence. So how would killing him before he kills you solve anything except to perpetuate that cycle? And what if you were to let him kill you? If you truly believe what the Buddha taught, this is just a dream. Ending this life just means starting a new dream. So why be so attached to it? You're going to die someday anyway. The way to break out of the karmic cycles that rule our lives is not to respond to them.
Palzang
A similar thing happened when we travelled from Ohio to The Falls, we got to the Canadian side and there was some serious looks at some Brasillians? (dark-skinned gentlemen) who were with us on the bus. I think they apparently cannot get into Canada-they were sent all the way back to Cleveland-they were pissed right off:rant: . I crossed over fine-the Canadians must think Aussies are okay.
P.S. This was prior to 9/11 if that means anything.
This may come across as a slightly provocative or vulgar post, but by now many of you can expect as much from me.
If you would permit a slight parody here. I don't intend this to be humorous at all, but just thought provoking.
You said.....
Now I will simply switch a few words.....
Would this same logic not apply?
ALSO, BOTH THE LOGIC AND THE SITUATIONS ARE DIFFERENT. They are not at all parallel. Sorry, good try, but not good enough. Just bad, very bad.
Sorry Again, but someone 12 feet away from me threatening to kill me if I don't drop my gun is not likely to be able to rape me in the first place. After all, I have a gun, too:
So I guess I should go out and win the lottery and build a secure house with iron bars and armed guards, lest a brigand break in while I'm there and I don't have time to get my gun case unlocked to get out my firearm?
Guns are just stupid, if you have them for everyday "INSURANCE." If you have any children coming around, you'd better have them locked up (THE GUNS, I mean!) lest you be sorry later. Now, if a home invasion happens, do you seriously think you'll be able to protect yourself for sure?
Arguably, though, if the city or state were to fall into complete lawlessness, a gun or two might come in handy. But I'd rather not think of that right now, if you don't mind my not thinking like that for a few minutes.
I'm not speechless on this issue, but nor am I censuring anyone, or condoning censorship of free speech, as some on this site do.
EDIT: NOT THAT I'd expect an apology...
_____________
—Clare Booth Luce
I hope you aren't referring to me. I havn't seen too much in the way of free speech censorship here. All I do is respond to posts.
How do you figure? Robbery and rape are both bad things inflicted on people. If there is an opportunity to resist either, I think that it should be seized.
A bad analogy on my behalf or a bad way to die? Both?
I take it you don't live in the inner city of Cleveland. The concrete jungle. Of course, we live in suburbia, owning a gun for protection seems like paranoia here. But where rape, murder, and robbery are everyday happenings on your block, you might have a different take.
I am having trouble here. If you are referring to the article, Wells was not asked to put his gun down by the robbers, he just drew it quickly and shot the one kid.
The point I was arguing was that if you are so willing to give up your life to thugs, why not your security to a would be rapist or assailant? If you can prevent a horrible crime like rape, a robbery, or even your own death, it is a moral obligation to do so.
Oh, BTW, don't feel the need to apologize for disagreeing with me. We wouldn't have much to discuss if we agreed here and you have done nothing wrong.
Palzang
I think that what people cannot understand is that sense of limitless compassion for other sentient beings, and in particular, how one can think about the welfare of others instead of their own welfare and safety. One of our normal reactions is to treat threats with aggression, an act that is as primal and instinctive as any other.
That does not mean, however, that acting aggressively towards a threat is somehow more logical or morally permissive than reacting with compassion. It might seem ridiculous to most, but if one has conviction in the law of kamma and the power of intentions, it does not seem all that ridiculous—the benefits are clearly visible.
Regards,
Jason
I find this story troubling. No virtue ever comes from rape. Of course those brigands would agree to saying mantras if it meant a free pass to rape her. How terribly naive of her.
Where is the moral lesson? Just roll over and take it like good dogs?
Are you saying that women shouldn't resist rape as it is their karma?
I believe that your opposition to certain sentiments expressed in this thread by people such as myself, Palzang, and Brigid stem from this unsatisfactoriness inherent in life. At the end of the day, very little is under our ultimate control.
Some Hindus have even said that a strong ego-sense is the main spiritual pitfall, and can never leave one anything but dissatisfied.
And adhering strongly to opinions is indicative of an overly zealous ego. Therein may very much lie an imbalance which sooner or later will cause a crash.
Here is something I've abridged a little from Emerson's essay on COMPENSATION, which I think you might read:
(for complete text: http://www.rwe.org/works/Essays-1st_Series_03_Compensation.htm
You cannot do wrong without suffering wrong. "No man had ever a point of pride that was not injurious to him," said Burke. The exclusive in fashionable life does not see that he excludes himself from enjoyment, in the attempt to appropriate it...
All infractions of love and equity in our social relations are speedily punished. They are punished by fear. Whilst I stand in simple relations to my fellow-man, I have no displeasure in meeting him. We meet as water meets water, or as two currents of air mix, with perfect diffusion and interpenetration of nature. But as soon as there is any departure from simplicity, and attempt at halfness, or good for me that is not good for him, my neighbour feels the wrong; he shrinks from me as far as I have shrunk from him; his eyes no longer seek mine; there is war between us; there is hate in him and fear in me...
On the other hand, the law holds with equal sureness for all right action. Love, and you shall be loved. All love is mathematically just, as much as the two sides of an algebraic equation. The good man has absolute good, which like fire turns every thing to its own nature, so that you cannot do him any harm; but as the royal armies sent against Napoleon, when he approached, cast down their colors and from enemies became friends, so disasters of all kinds, as sickness, offence, poverty, prove benefactors: --
"Winds blow and waters roll Strength to the brave, and power and deity, Yet in themselves are nothing."
The good are befriended even by weakness and defect. As no man had ever a point of pride that was not injurious to him, so no man had ever a defect that was not somewhere made useful to him. The stag in the fable admired his horns and blamed his feet, but when the hunter came, his feet saved him, and afterwards, caught in the thicket, his horns destroyed him. Every man in his lifetime needs to thank his faults. As no man thoroughly understands a truth until he has contended against it, so no man has a thorough acquaintance with the hindrances or talents of men, until he has suffered from the one, and seen the triumph of the other over his own want of the same. Has he a defect of temper that unfits him to live in society? Thereby he is driven to entertain himself alone, and acquire habits of self-help; and thus, like the wounded oyster, he mends his shell with pearl.
Our strength grows out of our weakness. The indignation which arms itself with secret forces does not awaken until we are pricked and stung and sorely assailed. A great man is always willing to be little. Whilst he sits on the cushion of advantages, he goes to sleep. When he is pushed, tormented, defeated, he has a chance to learn something; he has been put on his wits, on his manhood; he has gained facts; learns his ignorance; is cured of the insanity of conceit; has got moderation and real skill. The wise man throws himself on the side of his assailants. It is more his interest than it is theirs to find his weak point. The wound cicatrizes and falls off from him like a dead skin, and when they would triumph, lo! he has passed on invulnerable. Blame is safer than praise. I hate to be defended in a newspaper. As long as all that is said is said against me, I feel a certain assurance of success. But as soon as honeyed words of praise are spoken for me, I feel as one that lies unprotected before his enemies. In general, every evil to which we do not succumb is a benefactor. As the Sandwich Islander believes that the strength and valor of the enemy he kills passes into himself, so we gain the strength of the temptation we resist.
The same guards which protect us from disaster, defect, and enmity, defend us, if we will, from selfishness and fraud. Bolts and bars are not the best of our institutions, nor is shrewdness in trade a mark of wisdom. Men suffer all their life long, under the foolish superstition that they can be cheated. But it is as impossible for a man to be cheated by any one but himself, as for a thing to be and not to be at the same time. There is a third silent party to all our bargains. The nature and soul of things takes on itself the guaranty of the fulfilment of every contract, so that honest service cannot come to loss. If you serve an ungrateful master, serve him the more. Put God in your debt. Every stroke shall be repaid. The longer the payment is withholden, the better for you; for compound interest on compound interest is the rate and usage of this exchequer.
The history of persecution is a history of endeavours to cheat nature, to make water run up hill, to twist a rope of sand. It makes no difference whether the actors be many or one, a tyrant or a mob. A mob is a society of bodies voluntarily bereaving themselves of reason, and traversing its work. The mob is man voluntarily descending to the nature of the beast. Its fit hour of activity is night. Its actions are insane like its whole constitution. It persecutes a principle; it would whip a right; it would tar and feather justice, by inflicting fire and outrage upon the houses and persons of those who have these. It resembles the prank of boys, who run with fire-engines to put out the ruddy aurora streaming to the stars. The inviolate spirit turns their spite against the wrongdoers. The martyr cannot be dishonored. Every lash inflicted is a tongue of fame; every prison, a more illustrious abode; every burned book or house enlightens the world; every suppressed or expunged word reverberates through the earth from side to side. Hours of sanity and consideration are always arriving to communities, as to individuals, when the truth is seen, and the martyrs are justified.
Thus do all things preach the indifferency of circumstances. The man is all. Every thing has two sides, a good and an evil. Every advantage has its tax. I learn to be content. But the doctrine of compensation is not the doctrine of indifferency. The thoughtless say, on hearing these representations, -- What boots it to do well? there is one event to good and evil; if I gain any good, I must pay for it; if I lose any good, I gain some other; all actions are indifferent.
There is a deeper fact in the soul than compensation, to wit, its own nature. The soul is not a compensation, but a life. The soul _is_. Under all this running sea of circumstance, whose waters ebb and flow with perfect balance, lies the aboriginal abyss of real Being. Essence, or God, is not a relation, or a part, but the whole. Being is the vast affirmative, excluding negation, self-balanced, and swallowing up all relations, parts, and times within itself. Nature, truth, virtue, are the influx from thence. Vice is the absence or departure of the same. Nothing, Falsehood, may indeed stand as the great Night or shade, on which, as a background, the living universe paints itself forth; but no fact is begotten by it; it cannot work; for it is not. It cannot work any good; it cannot work any harm. It is harm inasmuch as it is worse not to be than to be.
We feel defrauded of the retribution due to evil acts, because the criminal adheres to his vice and contumacy, and does not come to a crisis or judgment anywhere in visible nature. There is no stunning confutation of his nonsense before men and angels. Has he therefore outwitted the law? Inasmuch as he carries the malignity and the lie with him, he so far deceases from nature. In some manner there will be a demonstration of the wrong to the understanding also; but should we not see it, this deadly deduction makes square the eternal account.
Neither can it be said, on the other hand, that the gain of rectitude must be bought by any loss. There is no penalty to virtue; no penalty to wisdom; they are proper additions of being. In a virtuous action, I properly _am_; in a virtuous act, I add to the world; I plant into deserts conquered from Chaos and Nothing, and see the darkness receding on the limits of the horizon. There can be no excess to love; none to knowledge; none to beauty, when these attributes are considered in the purest sense. The soul refuses limits, and always affirms an Optimism, never a Pessimism.
His life is a progress, and not a station. His instinct is trust. Our instinct uses "more" and "less" in application to man, of the _presence of the soul_, and not of its absence; the brave man is greater than the coward; the true, the benevolent, the wise, is more a man, and not less, than the fool and knave. There is no tax on the good of virtue; for that is the incoming of God himself, or absolute existence, without any comparative. Material good has its tax, and if it came without desert or sweat, has no root in me, and the next wind will blow it away. But all the good of nature is the soul's, and may be had, if paid for in nature's lawful coin, that is, by labor which the heart and the head allow. I no longer wish to meet a good I do not earn, for example, to find a pot of buried gold, knowing that it brings with it new burdens. I do not wish more external goods, -- neither possessions, nor honors, nor powers, nor persons. The gain is apparent; the tax is certain. But there is no tax on the knowledge that the compensation exists, and that it is not desirable to dig up treasure. Herein I rejoice with a serene eternal peace. I contract the boundaries of possible mischief. I learn the wisdom of St. Bernard, -- "Nothing can work me damage except myself; the harm that I sustain I carry about with me, and never am a real sufferer but by my own fault."
In the nature of the soul is the compensation for the inequalities of condition. The radical tragedy of nature seems to be the distinction of More and Less. How can Less not feel the pain; how not feel indignation or malevolence towards More? Look at those who have less faculty, and one feels sad, and knows not well what to make of it. He almost shuns their eye; he fears they will upbraid God. What should they do? It seems a great injustice. But see the facts nearly, and these mountainous inequalities vanish. Love reduces them, as the sun melts the iceberg in the sea. The heart and soul of all men being one, this bitterness of _His_ and _Mine_ ceases. His is mine. I am my brother, and my brother is me. If I feel overshadowed and outdone by great neighbours, I can yet love; I can still receive; and he that loveth maketh his own the grandeur he loves. Thereby I make the discovery that my brother is my guardian, acting for me with the friendliest designs, and the estate I so admired and envied is my own. It is the nature of the soul to appropriate all things. Jesus and Shakspeare are fragments of the soul, and by love I conquer and incorporate them in my own conscious domain. His virtue, -- is not that mine? His wit, -- if it cannot be made mine, it is not wit.
Such, also, is the natural history of calamity. The changes which break up at short intervals the prosperity of men are advertisements of a nature whose law is growth. Every soul is by this intrinsic necessity quitting its whole system of things, its friends, and home, and laws, and faith, as the shell-fish crawls out of its beautiful but stony case, because it no longer admits of its growth, and slowly forms a new house. In proportion to the vigor of the individual, these revolutions are frequent, until in some happier mind they are incessant, and all worldly relations hang very loosely about him, becoming, as it were, a transparent fluid membrane through which the living form is seen, and not, as in most men, an indurated heterogeneous fabric of many dates, and of no settled character in which the man is imprisoned. Then there can be enlargement, and the man of to-day scarcely recognizes the man of yesterday. And such should be the outward biography of man in time, a putting off of dead circumstances day by day, as he renews his raiment day by day. But to us, in our lapsed estate, resting, not advancing, resisting, not cooperating with the divine expansion, this growth comes by shocks.
We cannot part with our friends. We cannot let our angels go. We do not see that they only go out, that archangels may come in. We are idolaters of the old. We do not believe in the riches of the soul, in its proper eternity and omnipresence. We do not believe there is any force in to-day to rival or recreate that beautiful yesterday. We linger in the ruins of the old tent, where once we had bread and shelter and organs, nor believe that the spirit can feed, cover, and nerve us again. We cannot again find aught so dear, so sweet, so graceful. But we sit and weep in vain. The voice of the Almighty saith, `Up and onward for evermore!' We cannot stay amid the ruins. Neither will we rely on the new; and so we walk ever with reverted eyes, like those monsters who look backwards.
And yet the compensations of calamity are made apparent to the understanding also, after long intervals of time. A fever, a mutilation, a cruel disappointment, a loss of wealth, a loss of friends, seems at the moment unpaid loss, and unpayable. But the sure years reveal the deep remedial force that underlies all facts. The death of a dear friend, wife, brother, lover, which seemed nothing but privation, somewhat later assumes the aspect of a guide or genius; for it commonly operates revolutions in our way of life, terminates an epoch of infancy or of youth which was waiting to be closed, breaks up a wonted occupation, or a household, or style of living, and allows the formation of new ones more friendly to the growth of character. It permits or constrains the formation of new acquaintances, and the reception of new influences that prove of the first importance to the next years; and the man or woman who would have remained a sunny garden-flower, with no room for its roots and too much sunshine for its head, by the falling of the walls and the neglect of the gardener, is made the banian of the forest, yielding shade and fruit to wide neighbourhoods of men.
I have taken this thread very seriously since I posted it. I find it anything but satisfactory that people are shot to death or raped on a daily basis in Cleveland. Sometimes we can control how our lives end.
"Kill or be killed." It is the only law of the (concrete) jungle. As much as I would wish it different, it remains irrevocably so. We can toss around euphemisms all we want about loving everyone, but the streets are harsh. When a man (or kid) sticks a gun in your face, you have to act or die.
Crash? Although I might bear vague philosophical resemblance to Nietzche, I have no intention of becoming what he became.
Anyway, if holding a view that women should resist rape makes me a fanatic or an overzealous egotist, then I think I can live with myself.
Maybe the moral lesson in this story is that sometimes people are willing to sacrifice something of themselves in order to benefit others, even if what they are willing to sacrifice appears to defy all reason.
In this instance, Yeshe Tsogyal was willing to sacrifice the use of her body in order to plant the seeds of Dhamma, however small those seeds might appear to be, into the minds of her would-be attackers.
To you, this sacrifice might seem pointless and absurb, but to her this sacrifice was anything but pointless or absurd. The story was never intended to endorse rape, it was intended to endorse compassion.
Whether or not we agree with it, it's a difficult concept to understand. I think that for most people, it's hard to believe that such acts of selflessness are possible, or at the very least, meaningful in any way.
As for living in the "concrete jungle", I was born and raised in Detroit, and I can assure you that "kill or be killed" was not the only "law". If that were true, I would never have surived as I never had a gun.
Jason
Gosh, you're the one who twisted Palzang's words on killing to include rape. What Palzang said and you "circumlocuted" were not apples and oranges, but apples and serpents.
AGAIN:
(Originally Posted by Palzang)
If we really understand the nature of things, we wouldn't be so attached to everything, including our lives. If somebody points a gun at you, it's just your karma. You obviously did the same thing to him in a previous existence. So how would killing him before he kills you solve anything except to perpetuate that cycle? And what if you were to let him kill you? If you truly believe what the Buddha taught, this is just a dream. Ending this life just means starting a new dream. So why be so attached to it? You're going to die someday anyway. The way to break out of the karmic cycles that rule our lives is not to respond to them.
Now the stark KOB "arrangement:"
If we really understand the nature of things, we wouldn't be so attached to everything, including our lives. If someone is going to rape you, it's just your karma. You obviously raped them in a previous extence. So how would stopping them before they rape you solve anything except perpetuate that cycle? And what if you were to let them rape you? IF you truly believe what the Buddha taught, this is just a dream. Being raped and then murdered just means starting a new dream. So why be so attached to it? You might get raped someday anyway. The way to break out of the karmic cycles that rule our lives is not to resist them.
stopping and being raped and then are added phrases which change what Palzang was saying. No, they are not logically equivalent. What kind of logic is that? What you have changed catapults you into a different circumstance entirely —and one that doesn't make any sense. After all if two people have guns, neither is gonna get raped, only shot. And it's very hard for someone with gunshot to rape or a for a dead body to be raped.
I did not yet read your artical by Emerson. He happens to be my favorite transcendental writer and poet. I do not believe that my last post was a response or had any mention of the article. I did mention Friederich Nietchze however.
This original issue of the thread centers around whether we have the right to take another life if it endangers ours. Palzang, who is my favorite poster on Newbuddhist, seemed to be suggesting that we should not resist someone killing us if it meant only continuing the cycle of violence. I was merely inquiring as to whether or not that same standard would apply to a potential rape victim. I formatted the inquiry through a type of parody. I reworded and added several phrases and then proceeded to ask whether it was the same. I thank you for answering that question.
I salute you and Palzang and everybody else, too.
Peace and Joy and Light to All!
Aww. Thanks. :vimp:
Well said, Jason. A true bodhisattva never thinks of his or her well-being but only the well-being of others. That's the definition of a bodhisattva. And I used to live in south Chicago when I was in grad school, certainly one of the highest crime areas on earth. Yet I used to ride the bus through the worst neighborhoods at all hours of the night and never, ever felt in the least bit threatened. The world is truly a reflection of your mind, and if you believe that things are a certain way and will never change, then lo and behold, they never will.
Palzang
The very idea of a bodhisattva is extraordinarily revolutionary, even now, 2500 years after it was introduced (at least by the Buddha). It was so when Jesus preached it 2000 years ago. It made him dangerous in the eyes of "civilized" society. That's really why they killed him. It is just as revolutionary and dangerous now as it was back then. It upsets people because it goes completely against conventional wisdom. That is part of its power. It also makes you feel wonderful when you practice it!
Palzang
However, as I have come to a different paradigm, which allows for not only moment-to-moment rebirt, but life-to-life as well AND the possibility of complete Liberation from Samsara, I have a different opinion on these matters. I would imagine that this is the main source of contention people have with your posts. Honestly, you are operating from an annihilationist viewpoint, which was refuted by the Buddha & many, many masters since. However, I imagine that until you devote yourself to some serious, intensive practice you will see this as just silly superstition not far from a belief in a Creator God. I will assure you though, that I am not operating out of blind belief.
metta
_/\_
I do operate under the assumption of annihilation. It is really the only thing that is guarenteed in this life. An end. Anything more is just speculation. Besides, unlike others, I find the idea of one life only to be more comforting. I have only one life to do whatever I want to do. It makes this life all the more precious.
not1not2 raises the key point. The key to understanding is through practice, not through thinking and trying to figure things out. Your brain will only take you so far. That's a truth you have to experience because otherwise you'll just dismiss it. So experience counts!
Palzang
I dismiss it at this point in my life because I don't see its relevance. I mean, you may very well be right. There may be some type of rebirth that bears some connection to me. Even if that were true, how is it pertitent to this life? Even if I knew all there is to know about what happens after death (if anything), how would it help me?
I am concerned with this life alone. It is the most important life. And it is enough to handle without throwing on past and future lives.
Palzang