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.
Violence vs Non-Violence
Some of the things I've been thinking about recently include the area of non violence vs violence.
One of the five precepts of buddhism says that you should refrain from killing.
I think that this is a great thing except for one small problem:
Not everyone follows this precept.
Does Buddhism's precept of not killing extend to A. Self-defense and B. Protecting someone else's life? If so, how far do we go with it?
Please discuss.
One of the five precepts of buddhism says that you should refrain from killing.
I think that this is a great thing except for one small problem:
Not everyone follows this precept.
Does Buddhism's precept of not killing extend to A. Self-defense and B. Protecting someone else's life? If so, how far do we go with it?
Please discuss.
0
Comments
My great uncle Henry committed suicide by drinking a bottle of that bug poison.
He was rich, too, but his wife was a _______ (rhymes) and in those days people just didn't divorce.
This is a precept that doesn't even occur to me until after I've killed the occasional cockroach at work in the nursing home, where I'd be remiss not to do so.
Cal me bad. I know.
I took my username from the band Black Flag famous for such hits as "Six Pack" and "Drinking and Driving"
Back to the question at hand, I believe it should extend as far as it has to before killing another. In self defense, I would fight back...I'd try to put the other person into self preservation where they're more worried about their own survival than the pain they're hoping to inflict on me.
I think that one has to take these precepts with a bit of salt, especially these days. If it is wrong to take the life of an insect, then it must be at least trebly wrong to do even a very trifling harm to anything as complex and intricate as a human being. Please show me where I err in saying that Buddha never taught the equality of each creature. I think we all know that an elephant is a greater being than an ant, whether in this incarnation or another.
Sometimes we do intend to do harm to insects. Whether it is to maintain health or the dignity of others, we need not let these thoughts distract us from the more important ones.
For myself, when I see others arguing over the ethics of killing insects, I just roll my eyes. I really do believe the Teaching to be more of a pointer than an absolute. As I've said elsewhere here many times before, just because some things are laid out as rules in the Dharma, that does not mean that they all have equal weight.
Nor am I, as we cannot know the thing-in-itself, as Kant long ago pointed out. We know things only insofar as they may relate to us.
So, from the human perspective, an insect is usually just a small pest and an elephant a large animal not lightly to be regarded —indeed, arguably noble.
What I'm trying to say in this thread is that human conscience and judgment are the final arbiters of the rules. The rules were made for our guidance, and it is just not the case that we were made to keep our noses to the grindstone following silly, arbitrary rules.
First things first: precepts are not commandments. They are guidelines for an ethical and conducive life for the eradication of suffering. They can be taken wholesale, or they can be followed according to various degrees.
In accordance to the first precept, the way I interpret it is that you refrain from killing as far as you can. If it threatens your life and you need to kill in order to save your own, you do it. If it is the only way to save another person's life, and it's for the greater good, you do it.
Until then, all discussion is pure hypothesis.
"What if"s will bring much opinion, but until we're faced with a hungry lioness, or a marauding intruder wielding a knife, there's little point wondering.
Just adhere as well as you are able, to the 5 precepts.
Do your best as only you can conscientiously decide to do.
Face what faces you.
leave the rest to when it actually happens.
(Be sure to let us know what happens though - always assuming you survive, or course......;) )
(Btw, a black flag was flown by the Romans to mean that they would take no prisoners but would slaughter. 40,000 dies when the black flag was flown by Caesar at Alesia)
"Mind goes before all actions"
If you are serious about cultivating a mind of peace, you need to examine how you present to the world around you. Do you ever carry an offensive weapon? Do you support, either inwardly or outwardly, a 'right' to be armed? If so, you are preparing yourself for violence, not for peace.
Nobody has ever suggested that your peaceful mind will bring you ease and comfort. Indeed, it is likely to increase risk in certain situations. Look, for example, at Attenborough's wonderful film Gandhi: watch the protesters being beaten down as they queue at the factory gates, demonstrating peacefully. Their peace-minds did not stop the brutality, or, at least, not at first, not before many were hurt and killed.
You have a choice and only you can make it.
Having said that, I am a martial artist and believe that, when I am skilled enough, the need to cause harm to others is significantly reduced. I catch insects from inside the house and place them outside where I think they will have some chance of survival. Furthermore I don't eat meat. Either way I still find situations that I can't avoid where other animals are killed. Strictly speaking, to me violence would be defined by the state of mind involved when an action is performed, if the intention is compassionate and completely mindful and aware, then irrespective of the action, it is non-violent. Yet such a mental state can be hard to achieve, so its best to shy on the side of caution. We have a habit of rationalising our actions, so that we may have a completely logical reason why we should do something, this is where the precepts shine through, as they cut through our ability to rationalise our negative actions.
Lastly, if we do indulge in negative behaviour it is important to "regret" our actions and not feel "guilt" about them. According to Buddhist Psychology "regret" is a positive action and "guilt" is a negative action, one encourages us to do the right thing next time leading to future positive actions, the other results in talking ourselves down and leads to further negative actions.
Cheers, WK
Good to see you back, Fede!
Thank you, nice to be back.
What 'spirit'....? :scratch:
Quite......:crazy:
One person harmed is one person harmed (or animal).. So there's really no reason not to pacify a violent aggressor - the person set out to do harm, and harm will come..
I guess better him than you, in that case.. It's always better (and safer) to run though
@Whoknows
About the martial arts; I don't know which style you practice but I don't think you should fool yourself into thinking that your skills will make you cause less harm - it will cause you not to be harmed
I'm former Jiu-jitsu master myself so take my word for it, you'll become deadly
"First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner." (Pirates of the Caribbean)
Shall I paraphrase to fit the thread?
"First, Buddha never said lay people had to let your house and kitchen be overrun by roaches and mice or eliminate meat from your diet. Secondly, only Buddhist monks normally take the vow to not kill anything under any circumstance, so if you're not a monk, the strict prohibition doesn't apply to you. And thirdly, the precepts are more guidelines than actual rules. Welcome to Buddhism, my friend!"
We see this kind of behaviour wherever we turn it's sad to say; walking down the street the echoing sounds of a person screaming at their pet that quickly turns to violence and the painful cries of the innocent animal haunt our thoughts as we are forced to let it be. There are the advertisements from the SPCA or organizations similar in nature that show beaten, bruised, and scarred lost pets who have been rescued from the cruel habitat they were raised in; their eyes being in such broken pain that are begging for a home that will be humane for them, a home where they can be loved. It breaks our hearts seeing this kind of pain in these innocent animals knowing that the cause is because of a human, a human who by all regards is fully capable of exerting dominance over his/her pet with no regard for the deep pain he/she is actually causing. What's worse is many of these cruel owners disregard that they are even doing anything wrong when in actuality beating down a pet morally and what should be legally, is as wrong as domestic violence towards a spouse or a child.