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.
non-violence
Hey Guys,
I'm guessing this is well-covered ground but I'm still going to ask. My study leads me to believe that Buddhism is inherently non-violent. However what is said about self-defense? If your intention is self-protection and not the harm of others is it acceptable to protect yourself or your family even if that requires the application of well-intentioned violence?
Thanks for your thoughts and your effort in answering this question.
--Chris
I'm guessing this is well-covered ground but I'm still going to ask. My study leads me to believe that Buddhism is inherently non-violent. However what is said about self-defense? If your intention is self-protection and not the harm of others is it acceptable to protect yourself or your family even if that requires the application of well-intentioned violence?
Thanks for your thoughts and your effort in answering this question.
--Chris
0
Comments
Opinion of someone some people seem to respect: The Dalai Lama thinks so.
Actual teachings: I have no idea.
Harming others is unskillfull and we should pay great heed In not causing suffering to others, However if there ever does come a time when it is required to defend oneself one should apply means applicable with minimum harm to the assailent, You cant do much good as a Trainee Bodhisattva if you let the first person who has a problem with you take your life !
1. You must be defending something incredibly meaningful to you (I.e. if you're protecting your own life, it must be done with a thought such as; "I must protect my life so that I may continue to help others".
2. You must willfully accept the consequences of bringing harm to another sentient being.. Regardless of the reasons and motivation, you must bare the karma of such an action. It may be true that bringing harm to another sentient being for the sake of protecting would bring less negative karma than willfully harming another just to do it; but, you still accumulate that negative karma. As such, you must be willing to accept the ripening of said karma for the sake of protecting another; or yourself.
But, there is always a way to solve problems without violence.
Then start diplomatic talks.
How's that?
So, would a truly enlightened Buddhist simply accept his or her impermanence without apprehension? And I'm not saying that is what I would do nor am I asking what you would do but instead, what does Buddhism lead us to believe the Buddha would do?
Thanks for all your replies so far. This is an aspect of Buddhism that I've struggled with and it is helpful to hear such diverse perspectives.
Nice idea, but that assumes the other party is rational, which in this case has been amply demonstrated not to be true.
In practice, very difficult to achieve. Especially in the home life.
Thank you, Vanegelis. This makes perfect sense and addresses my question perfectly. Self-defense implies an attachment to self and to this life. A true Buddhist (not me, mind you) or Buddha would instead accept this life as temporary, this body as naught more than a vehicle, etc. A true Buddha would accept the oneness of the world and disregard the one/other dualism that plagues us and in that sense accept that they are one in the others they view as their enemies, attackers or killers.
That makes perfect sense even if I think I'm too attached to my reptilian brain to simply accept my death without some preoccupation with my life. But it is something to meditate on and to reflect on. Thank you for sharing and if I've misunderstood or missed an aspect please point me in the proper direction.
Stopping aggressive people with metta is a far more powerful lesson for them than stopping them with violence. Violence will only teach them that violence is an answer to problems. Of course, if our metta is puny (which in the vast majority of us it is) then we have no other recourse and we unwisely use violence to stop violence.
The Buddha, however, had much more powerful weapons against violence as is evidenced by the story of Nalagiri the elephant in the suttas in which he used his powerful metta to subdue an angry, drunken elephant set upon him by his evil cousin Devadatta. In fact, the Buddha never even used violence or said anything aggressive towards his cousin who sought to kill him.
In practice of course, none of us has the great power of metta that a Buddha or a great Arahant has. So in our ignorance and powerlessness, we resort to violence.