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.
@seeker242 said: Shaolin is a chan temple. What is interesting about Shaolin is there are different levels of ordination. The "warrior monks" don't take all the precepts. They only take 5. Fully ordained monks, aka 200+ precepts, normally don't engage in martial arts training.
-To be clear,when I wrote: "Shaolin" above, I was referring to Shaolin Chan(read:Zen) Buddhism. To be specific, this would be Zen Buddhism with its martial component. As to lineage: Bodhidharma, the 28th Patriarch of Siddhartha Gautarma. He who travelled to China from India and founded Chan Buddhism, what we now can Zen. As an aside, I do not want to argue, nor do I wish to judge another Buddhist's actions. However, I should respectfully point out, you appear to be cherry picking your points in the interest of winning an argument and you for sure appear to be judging these monks. You nor anyone else here is the last word as to who is keeping the precepts. Even if you personally observed these monk's actions, which you have not, you would not know their hearts. May you be well, I'm done with this conversation...
@Will_Baker said:
As an aside, I do not want to argue, nor do I wish to judge another Buddhist's actions. However, I should respectfully point out, you appear to be cherry picking your points in the interest of winning an argument and you for sure appear to be judging these monks. You nor anyone else here is the last word as to who is keeping the precepts. Even if you personally observed these monk's actions, which you have not, you would not know their hearts. May you be well, I'm done with this conversation...
It's not meant to be a judgement, it's just an observation of what precepts they take and what they don't. If they don't take a vow, they can't break it either! Just like Theravada monks who are not vegetarian. They aren't breaking any vows because they don't take those vegetarian vows to begin with. So their situation is not relevant to the precept I was talking about. It's not good or bad, that's just their tradition. May you be well also!
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@federica said:
Nope. The precept quite clearly states "...or devices that can be used to kill sentient beings."
A kitchen knife is very definitely such a device. Have you seen 'fatal attraction'...?
So really, it's the monks who are choosing to break the precept. It's quite clear they do.
Sorry, that's not how it's followed...by anyone...anywhere. The number of monasteries that interpret it that way, is zero. Including anything that could be used to kill sentient beings would be ridiculous. You could kill a sentient being with a pencil, that doesn't mean a pencil breaks the precept....
Obviously many objects could be used as weapons, but I think a common sense view is to say that "weapons" are specifically designed as weapons and that is their primary purpose.
So for example you could use the butt of a gun to hammer in a nail, but that isn't what the gun is designed for.
Firearms are a particular area that I've struggled with.
I've read buddhist writings that forbid the possession of weapons, of any kind, and I respect them for what they are. But I've never accepted any buddhist scripture as dogma. I've always done my best to weigh the pros and cons, and deeply look at why the scripture was written the way it was, as well as what it was trying to accomplish.
Clearly, it was attempting to make the world a better place (remove temptation to use weapons against someone, foster the possession of positive and not potentially negative items, maintain karmic positive seeds and whatnot). But I don't think you need to chuck all guns, knives, swords, blowdarts, stun guns, and pointy objects into a pit to accomplish that. It can also be accomplished by each individual's personal inward view on their ownership, possession, and use of weapons. For some, they lack the training and self control to hold onto them. That's fine, don't own them. For some, they know, without a doubt, they have the self control not to use them on individuals intentionally, and they have the training to know, without a doubt, they will not accidentally use them on individuals. And that's fine too. But I can't say there is a 100% chance that, if you own a gun, it will not be used to hurt someone. It may have an accidental discharge, or an intruder may come in unarmed, take your firearm, and use it against your family. You just need to weigh the pros and cons for yourself.
For me, I use firearms as a type of meditation. Its incredibly relaxing when you are precision shooting. The level of focus and concentration you gain (plus physical exercise) is exhilarating. And that's why I own firearms, and why I shoot. I don't have the stomach to shoot another living creature, whether hunting or otherwise. But I don't know if I was put into a position where I knew someone was going to harm my family, or I could harm him, if I would or not. I would probably take the karmic punishment and save my family. But I don't know for certain. I'm probably not as strong as others on here.
But owning firearms and shooting has a little larger impact than that. In order to fire bullets, you need to purchase them from a company that, in all likelihood, provides munitions to armies with the intent of causing mass injuries and death. In order to fire your weapons, you likely need to attend a range, and pay a fee, that likely aids others in honing their skills to kill (if not humans, animals). In order to shoot, I can't guarantee I'm not killing any insects/creatures beyond the target.
So, you need to decide if the potential negatives are less than the potential positives in owning/shooting firearms. Its a personal decision for everyone though.
@federica said:
Kitchen knives and utensils fall into that category.
. . . Therefore, kitchen knives and utensils don't fall into that category. . . . A gun would always be considered breaking it. It doesn't matter what anyone thinks about it, that's just the way it works in real life.
>
So where is the line drawn? A kitchen knife is a utensil, and a sword is a weapon. At what point does a blade turn from a utensil to a weapon?
I'm going to give you a spectrum, and you tell me where an item stops being a utensil and starts being a weapon:
1. Pocket knife (4")
2. Butter knife
3. Paring knife
4. Steak knife
5. Meat cleaver
6. Tanto blade (12")
7. Bread knife (13")
8. Carving knife (15")
9. Katana blade (23.5")
10. Broadsword (58")
If you are using the name of the item to tell me where the line is drawn, then it's the intent behind the item and not the item itself that makes it a weapon (calling it a sword, for example). If it's the size of the blade, then it's the potential for it to be used as a weapon.
I see no reason why a monk couldn't pick up a carving knife to cut his cucumbers. So I don't see any reason why a monk couldn't pick up a 12" carving knife to cut his cucumbers, or why he couldn't call his 12" carving knife a "tanto" knife, or why he couldn't cut his cucumbers with a tanto knife. Ergo, it's the intent behind the item, and not the item itself.
Which is why my point is that that precept is rather pointless. The precept against harming other beings already covers the whole mess, because as has been discussed here many times, intent is a major part of breaking a precept. You have to intend, and then bring about action that causes harm. Simply owning a knife, gun, pencil or anything else doesn't imply either of those things. The precept for not harming is enough, I think. There are hundreds of precepts, many of them that make no sense in today's world. I realize monastics still take them, just saying it doesn't make any sense to me why such a precept would be necessary because even if a monk lives in a home full of devices that can harm (which they already do, and so do we) they need to intend and take action and that is already covered by the no harm precept. Just because precepts exist doesn't mean we shouldn't be reevaluating those, as well. Pretty sure Buddha recommended it. There are a million things we'd criticize as outdated and nonsensical in the bible. We need to apply the same investigation to Buddha's words as well.
The right livelihood portion is different to me, because you don't know what the intention is of the person buying the gun/whatever and per Buddha shouldn't encourage people to harm. I actually take some issues with that whole thing too, despite it being a part of much of the N8FP. People have to be responsible for their actions. But it doesn't make sense to me that it carries on to others. If I buy a gun and kill or hurt someone, that karma should be on me and me alone, not the person who sold the gun who had no idea what my intention or action would be. Yes, I realize that is how it is explained. I just don't agree. In Buddha's world though, things didn't work (in business) the way they do now. You didn't order your weapons from a major manufacturer and sell them. You often made your own. You didn't butcher chunks of meat that came from factory farms, you raised and butchered your own. So you were involved in every part of the process, not simply just selling them.
The entire idea behind the word "weapon" is the intent. An item isn't a weapon until its intent is to cause harm. That is the very definition. Items can't have intent, only people can. Yes, guns were invented to hurt beings. But early knives were no different. Now, we categorize them into functional tools, which all of them are. But their initial intent was to function both as a tool and a killing tool. But I'm guessing the ancient people who used the same flint knife to kill a rabbit as they used to cut twine didn't incur karma for the cutting of the twine because it is the intent that matters.
@specialkayme said:> In order to fire your weapons, you likely need to attend a range, and pay a fee, that likely aids others in honing their skills to kill (if not humans, animals).
Yes, that's something that troubled me when I was in the shooting club, and I wasn't comfortable about the idea that some people were improving their accuracy with the specific intent of shooting animals.
@specialkayme We make our own bullets. Yes, at some point the shells were designed for that purpose, but I couldn't even tell you the last time we had to buy them. We melt lead, form bullets and reload them. Our range (which is around the corner from our house) requires no fee. The money we have put into the gun industry has been very minimal, the guns were passed down from my grandfather, and in one case my great grandfather. I will probably end up with my dad's guns when he is gone. I intentionally have found ways to put as little into the arms game as possible. Yes, there are still people at the range who are training to hunt, but many of them it allows them to supplement their family's food for the whole winter and in some cases, they hunt exclusively and do not buy meat at the store. At least they are willing to face where their dinner comes from unlike some people I know who rail against hunting but buy meat at the store without questions. Even though those animals were treated far, far worse and never lived wild or free lives.
Comments
-To be clear,when I wrote: "Shaolin" above, I was referring to Shaolin Chan(read:Zen) Buddhism. To be specific, this would be Zen Buddhism with its martial component. As to lineage: Bodhidharma, the 28th Patriarch of Siddhartha Gautarma. He who travelled to China from India and founded Chan Buddhism, what we now can Zen. As an aside, I do not want to argue, nor do I wish to judge another Buddhist's actions. However, I should respectfully point out, you appear to be cherry picking your points in the interest of winning an argument and you for sure appear to be judging these monks. You nor anyone else here is the last word as to who is keeping the precepts. Even if you personally observed these monk's actions, which you have not, you would not know their hearts. May you be well, I'm done with this conversation...
It's not meant to be a judgement, it's just an observation of what precepts they take and what they don't. If they don't take a vow, they can't break it either! Just like Theravada monks who are not vegetarian. They aren't breaking any vows because they don't take those vegetarian vows to begin with. So their situation is not relevant to the precept I was talking about. It's not good or bad, that's just their tradition. May you be well also!
Sez you....
Obviously many objects could be used as weapons, but I think a common sense view is to say that "weapons" are specifically designed as weapons and that is their primary purpose.
So for example you could use the butt of a gun to hammer in a nail, but that isn't what the gun is designed for.
Firearms are a particular area that I've struggled with.
I've read buddhist writings that forbid the possession of weapons, of any kind, and I respect them for what they are. But I've never accepted any buddhist scripture as dogma. I've always done my best to weigh the pros and cons, and deeply look at why the scripture was written the way it was, as well as what it was trying to accomplish.
Clearly, it was attempting to make the world a better place (remove temptation to use weapons against someone, foster the possession of positive and not potentially negative items, maintain karmic positive seeds and whatnot). But I don't think you need to chuck all guns, knives, swords, blowdarts, stun guns, and pointy objects into a pit to accomplish that. It can also be accomplished by each individual's personal inward view on their ownership, possession, and use of weapons. For some, they lack the training and self control to hold onto them. That's fine, don't own them. For some, they know, without a doubt, they have the self control not to use them on individuals intentionally, and they have the training to know, without a doubt, they will not accidentally use them on individuals. And that's fine too. But I can't say there is a 100% chance that, if you own a gun, it will not be used to hurt someone. It may have an accidental discharge, or an intruder may come in unarmed, take your firearm, and use it against your family. You just need to weigh the pros and cons for yourself.
For me, I use firearms as a type of meditation. Its incredibly relaxing when you are precision shooting. The level of focus and concentration you gain (plus physical exercise) is exhilarating. And that's why I own firearms, and why I shoot. I don't have the stomach to shoot another living creature, whether hunting or otherwise. But I don't know if I was put into a position where I knew someone was going to harm my family, or I could harm him, if I would or not. I would probably take the karmic punishment and save my family. But I don't know for certain. I'm probably not as strong as others on here.
But owning firearms and shooting has a little larger impact than that. In order to fire bullets, you need to purchase them from a company that, in all likelihood, provides munitions to armies with the intent of causing mass injuries and death. In order to fire your weapons, you likely need to attend a range, and pay a fee, that likely aids others in honing their skills to kill (if not humans, animals). In order to shoot, I can't guarantee I'm not killing any insects/creatures beyond the target.
So, you need to decide if the potential negatives are less than the potential positives in owning/shooting firearms. Its a personal decision for everyone though.
>
So where is the line drawn? A kitchen knife is a utensil, and a sword is a weapon. At what point does a blade turn from a utensil to a weapon?
I'm going to give you a spectrum, and you tell me where an item stops being a utensil and starts being a weapon:
1. Pocket knife (4")
2. Butter knife
3. Paring knife
4. Steak knife
5. Meat cleaver
6. Tanto blade (12")
7. Bread knife (13")
8. Carving knife (15")
9. Katana blade (23.5")
10. Broadsword (58")
If you are using the name of the item to tell me where the line is drawn, then it's the intent behind the item and not the item itself that makes it a weapon (calling it a sword, for example). If it's the size of the blade, then it's the potential for it to be used as a weapon.
I see no reason why a monk couldn't pick up a carving knife to cut his cucumbers. So I don't see any reason why a monk couldn't pick up a 12" carving knife to cut his cucumbers, or why he couldn't call his 12" carving knife a "tanto" knife, or why he couldn't cut his cucumbers with a tanto knife. Ergo, it's the intent behind the item, and not the item itself.
Which is why my point is that that precept is rather pointless. The precept against harming other beings already covers the whole mess, because as has been discussed here many times, intent is a major part of breaking a precept. You have to intend, and then bring about action that causes harm. Simply owning a knife, gun, pencil or anything else doesn't imply either of those things. The precept for not harming is enough, I think. There are hundreds of precepts, many of them that make no sense in today's world. I realize monastics still take them, just saying it doesn't make any sense to me why such a precept would be necessary because even if a monk lives in a home full of devices that can harm (which they already do, and so do we) they need to intend and take action and that is already covered by the no harm precept. Just because precepts exist doesn't mean we shouldn't be reevaluating those, as well. Pretty sure Buddha recommended it. There are a million things we'd criticize as outdated and nonsensical in the bible. We need to apply the same investigation to Buddha's words as well.
The right livelihood portion is different to me, because you don't know what the intention is of the person buying the gun/whatever and per Buddha shouldn't encourage people to harm. I actually take some issues with that whole thing too, despite it being a part of much of the N8FP. People have to be responsible for their actions. But it doesn't make sense to me that it carries on to others. If I buy a gun and kill or hurt someone, that karma should be on me and me alone, not the person who sold the gun who had no idea what my intention or action would be. Yes, I realize that is how it is explained. I just don't agree. In Buddha's world though, things didn't work (in business) the way they do now. You didn't order your weapons from a major manufacturer and sell them. You often made your own. You didn't butcher chunks of meat that came from factory farms, you raised and butchered your own. So you were involved in every part of the process, not simply just selling them.
The entire idea behind the word "weapon" is the intent. An item isn't a weapon until its intent is to cause harm. That is the very definition. Items can't have intent, only people can. Yes, guns were invented to hurt beings. But early knives were no different. Now, we categorize them into functional tools, which all of them are. But their initial intent was to function both as a tool and a killing tool. But I'm guessing the ancient people who used the same flint knife to kill a rabbit as they used to cut twine didn't incur karma for the cutting of the twine because it is the intent that matters.
The line is generally drawn at "weapons of war". So, Tanto blade, Katana blade and Broadsword would be relevant.
Yes, that's something that troubled me when I was in the shooting club, and I wasn't comfortable about the idea that some people were improving their accuracy with the specific intent of shooting animals.
I don't agree, it's really about what the item is designed for. Generally weapons are designed as such, they are intended to be used as weapons.
Intention is important in Buddhism, but it is about us, not about stuff out there.
@specialkayme We make our own bullets. Yes, at some point the shells were designed for that purpose, but I couldn't even tell you the last time we had to buy them. We melt lead, form bullets and reload them. Our range (which is around the corner from our house) requires no fee. The money we have put into the gun industry has been very minimal, the guns were passed down from my grandfather, and in one case my great grandfather. I will probably end up with my dad's guns when he is gone. I intentionally have found ways to put as little into the arms game as possible. Yes, there are still people at the range who are training to hunt, but many of them it allows them to supplement their family's food for the whole winter and in some cases, they hunt exclusively and do not buy meat at the store. At least they are willing to face where their dinner comes from unlike some people I know who rail against hunting but buy meat at the store without questions. Even though those animals were treated far, far worse and never lived wild or free lives.