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.
Welcome anytime. Our prayer room (AKA Dharma room) is open all day, every day, and somebody is always there. I should know - I'm one of the prayer chart caretakers this week! That means we have to make sure all the shifts are filled. If there's a better test of faith, I don't know what it would be...!
So, when you say stationed, does that mean you're in the military? Not criticising, just curious. I'm a veteran (Air Force), so it'd be pretty stupid of me to criticize anyone for being in the military. There are many advantages to such a life, as long as you don't get killed or have to kill someone else. But anyway, there's only one military base around Sedona, a National Guard base near Flagstaff. However, I also see on your profile you're studying to be a cook, is that right? Sedona is a great place to be a cook - lots of high-end tourist resorts and restaurants. Anyway, if you're ever passin' through, just look us up!
I'm actually pretty well done with the cooking bit. I hate restraunts so much now...
I just joined the Army. There's a couple of bases in AZ, just not that close to Sedona.
Unfortunately, I have a combat MOS. I'm not infantry, fortunately, meaning that my primary job isn't to shoot a gun, but I'm going to be a combat engineer, which does mean frontline action and playing with explosives.
War is hell. But I've had some time to think about it, and now isn't the time for me to seek enlightenment. In fact, my primary exposure to Buddhism is the Martial Arts. Here is something to ponder, how is it that Zen Buddhism thrived for centuries in a feudal warrior culture?
I like to call my self an "Assertive Pacifist", meaning that I don't like fighting, and would rather avoid it, but for practical reasons I will if I must.
I understand where you're coming from, Bushinoki. It too me about 15 years to get to a place where I was ready to get serious about Buddhism. Before that I was in and out, knowing that Buddhism was for me, but too involved with my own crap to really commit. So I feel confident that you will do the same when the time is right.
I have a story I could tell about a long lost relative who was the commander of the Sappers (military engineers) of the Tsarist Southern Army in Russia during the Crimean War, but I guess this really isn't the place!
Your point about Zen surviving in a wartorn country for centuries is an interesting one. Actually a lot of the warring was done by warrior monks (not only Zen, but other Buddhist sects as well) who hired out to various warlords. One of the very few instances of Buddhists being involved in warfare. Of course, the warrior code of Bushido was based on Buddhist principles of selflessness and service, so it's a curious, peculiarly Japanese sort of thing. It actually makes sense in a strange way - the whole concept of not being attached to living making the most fearsome of all warriors!
Does anybody know why every country that is officially or historically Buddhist practices the death penalty? For most Buddhists here in Thailand, and in neighboring Asian countries with predominantly Buddhist populations, the death penalty seems to be a non-issue. Does anybody have any idea as to why that is?
My take on it is this: I am against all forms of killing (the first Buddhist precept), which would of course include the death penalty. On the other hand, those who do kill are creating negative Karma for themselves. It is not hard to see the Karmic connection between someone being a killer (violating the first precept), and then getting the death penalty (instant Karma, if you will.) That doesn't make it right, but it just goes to show the perfect justice of Karma. According to Karma, there is no injustice in the world, since anything bad that happens to you is your own self-created Karma. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be compassionate to people, which is our Buddhist duty.
The karma does in fact very failessly take a swing back at you, but they can swing back in two ways:
i) Death sentence, you die.
ii) Spared for life, you live.
In Scenario I the karma does get "balanced" out in a way if you so dogmatically claim, but it does so at the cost of some other guy's life.
In Scenario II I personally believe that the human body itself is built accroding to the Convention of the Karma - that is, psychologically and mentally you will suffer through all that crap you earned for yourself for murder.
SO in both cases, karma DOES GET "equated" (so as to speak), but which is better?
.................. We do need to find a different way to do things. Well, not really "us", as we aren't the ones on the edge of war constantly, and we aren't the ones who are trying to keep a site and building holy to our Religion.
........................
This is only true on the surface. We do, in fact, gear up fopr war on a constant basis. We have standing armies, which is a relatively modern concept, rather than relying on levies and militias as we did prior to the Napoleonic Wars. "Soldiering", as a profession, is a phenomenon which results from the politics of confrontation. Once it is established, however, it becomes one of the engines of that policy because, without continual confrontation, there is so much less need for the soldier. If you are in any doubt about this, just look at the US Department of Defense's budget: $417 billion in 2003, nearly $1500 per capita, 98% of which is spent in the US. It drives the economy, as Eisenhower pointed out. It also sends out signals to the world.
Those of us who remember the May Day Parades in Moscow under the Soviets, or have seen The Triumph of the Will about the Nurnbeg rallies, have seen these mssages writ large. These are times when some nations strutted their stuff and posed as "Mr Universe". We may not do as much today but the vast sums we spend on arming ourselves, both nationally and personally, speaks of war. In the '30s, the whole question of "Geran rearmament" was hot: some people understood that an armed nation must, by its nature, threaten someone.
HHDL has suggested that Tibet, within a federated China, should be entirely disarmed and that its absolute neutrality be internationally acknowledged. That is thinking outside the box.
And, as Palzang so wisely says, the road to peace starts right under each person's feet, here and now. So, let me ask the European question: how do US Buddhists reconcile personal gun ownership?
Does anybody know why every country that is officially or historically Buddhist practices the death penalty? For most Buddhists here in Thailand, and in neighboring Asian countries with predominantly Buddhist populations, the death penalty seems to be a non-issue. Does anybody have any idea as to why that is?
I don't know that the government of a country is actually "Buddhist". I mean, you could say that the US is a Christian country - and I can't think of a bigger hypocrite in this particular scenario.
A government is a government. Let's say that you have a government that tries it's best to be a Buddhist government. Now let's say that you have 30% of the population that decides it's not going to be Buddhist - that 30% is going to do just whatever the hell is feels like.
Isn't it the responsibility of the government to provide some form of protection of its citizens? Do we let those people run amok doing whatever they wish to the more peaceful citizens? Have you ever been attacked? Mugged? Raped? Battered?
What do you do? Just let non-peaceful animals abuse the public?
The karma does in fact very failessly take a swing back at you, but they can swing back in two ways:
i) Death sentence, you die.
ii) Spared for life, you live.
In Scenario I the karma does get "balanced" out in a way if you so dogmatically claim, but it does so at the cost of some other guy's life.
In Scenario II I personally believe that the human body itself is built accroding to the Convention of the Karma - that is, psychologically and mentally you will suffer through all that crap you earned for yourself for murder.
SO in both cases, karma DOES GET "equated" (so as to speak), but which is better?
I didn't mean to sound so dogmatic. The death penalty (or getting murdered, or killed in some other way) could be karma for murdering somebody else. Or karma could manifest itself in some other way. I know it's not quite so literal, i.e."kill somebody and somebody kills you". So, I would tend to agree with you on the last point. But shouldn't the result of our action be roughly equal to whatever we did? The killing of another human is a heavy karmic debt to bear. Also, another thought: Since people are sentenced to death for crimes that they didn't commit, isn't it possible that it is residual karma from a previous birth? Just an idea.
I don't know that the government of a country is actually "Buddhist". I mean, you could say that the US is a Christian country - and I can't think of a bigger hypocrite in this particular scenario.
A government is a government. Let's say that you have a government that tries it's best to be a Buddhist government. Now let's say that you have 30% of the population that decides it's not going to be Buddhist - that 30% is going to do just whatever the hell is feels like.
Isn't it the responsibility of the government to provide some form of protection of its citizens? Do we let those people run amok doing whatever they wish to the more peaceful citizens? Have you ever been attacked? Mugged? Raped? Battered?
What do you do? Just let non-peaceful animals abuse the public?
-bf
No, I suppose that there is no such thing as a "Buddhist government". But, for example, here in Thailand, the King is considered to be the upholder and defender of Buddhism (and all other religions, by the way), and there have been proposals to make Buddhism the "official religion", as well as the fact that Buddhism is a required subject in public schools (I have previously taught it). So the Dharma does, at the very least, have a heavy influence on nearly everything in Thailand.
On your point about government responsibility to provide protection, I would agree with you 100% on this point. That is why predominantly Buddhist countries, like all countries of the world, have police, armies, laws, jails, and yes, even the death penalty. That is why it strikes me as strange that in western countries, when somebody becomes a Buddhist, they seem to think that they have to become a liberal social activist and cure all of the ills of society. Believe it or not, countries that are historically and predominantly Buddhist tend to be very socially conservative, and have a great deal of respect for authority and traditional moral values.
They are socially and politically conservative because they are Asian, not because they are Buddhist. Most Asian countries, Buddhist or not, value human life much less than Western nations do, and they treat women as second class citizens (or worse). Their Buddhism either accomodates such views or ignores them. That doesn't make it right.
And karma is extremely exacting. If you kill someone, you will in turn be killed. Maybe not in this life, but some time. That's just the way it works. Like if you hold a ball and drop it, it's not going to bounce sideways, it's going to bounce straight back at you. No difference.
They are socially and politically conservative because they are Asian, not because they are Buddhist. Most Asian countries, Buddhist or not, value human life much less than Western nations do, and they treat women as second class citizens (or worse). Their Buddhism either accomodates such views or ignores them. That doesn't make it right.
And karma is extremely exacting. If you kill someone, you will in turn be killed. Maybe not in this life, but some time. That's just the way it works. Like if you hold a ball and drop it, it's not going to bounce sideways, it's going to bounce straight back at you. No difference.
Palzang
This is true, it is because of Asian culture, not Buddhism. But it makes you wonder why the compassion of Buddhism hasn't tempered this somewhat. Of course, Buddhist attitudes which accomodate or ignore such views are not right. But they seem to be in the majority, at least in most Buddhist and non-Buddhist Asian countries.
As far as your statement on Karma, that is how I learned it and have always understood it. But there are others who seem to have a different opinion about it, that it is not necessarily exactly what you did that comes back to you. But that certainly seems a lot more reasonable. I mean, if I kill a mosquito, why should I get run over by a truck? And of course, as you pointed out, Karma, unless eliminated, always comes to fruition.
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
While the death penalty ends the possibility of a person murdering again (which could, in other circumstances, be considered a reasonable act) it does have a revenge element to it that is not a good thing. Life in prison can also accomplish the same thing.
I believe it is clear that killing for revenge (or needlessly) is not a good Buddhist practice.
And, as Palzang so wisely says, the road to peace starts right under each person's feet, here and now. So, let me ask the European question: how do US Buddhists reconcile personal gun ownership?
Private gun ownership no sooner means war than being a Buddhist means you must allow yourself to be killed if attacked.
I reconcile gun ownership by using the writings of some of the founding fathers for justification. The main purpose of owning a gun isn't to kill someone, but to secure your security, whether at the national level, or on a more personal level.
Lets just say that I accept the notion that carrying/owning a gun for defense is a reasonable act even for a Buddhist. What is this saying about the society that you live in?
I fear now that any new gun law will be too late, there are simply too many guns in circulation. The argument for carrying one for self defense is therefore a necessity in many peoples eyes. I sometimes wonder whether you guys have moved on much from the days of the "Wild West".
This is not an Anti US thing and We have our fair share of problems on the UK, however my major worry whenever I have visited the States was the fear of being involved in an incident involving guns.
I have to wonder why you hedge on accepting that defending yourself and having the tools to do it is acceptable "even" for a Buddhist. I have found no teachings that lead me to believe that defending myself (and others) is a bad thing.
As far as the US (and politics go, leaving the Buddhist discussion behind for now) we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms in defense. Disarming the populace is not an option.
Gun ownership does not equate to high crime rates. In fact, as violent crime has continued to to decline in the US over the past decade, gun ownership has sky-rocketed. And, in your own country (and Australia as well) crime has gone up significantly since guns were essentially banned.
The truth is, for every state (in the US) that has passed concealed carry legislation (allowing it) the crime rate has dropped. Especially violent crime. Its also interesting to note that the cities with the highest crime rates do not allow concealed carry and many of them have complete bans on gun ownership.
Don't be afraid to come here because of guns. If I remember correctly Britain's crime rate met ours recently... so you stand the same chance of being beat, robbed or assaulted here as there. But here, you can defend yourself IF you choose to. I choose to... come travel with me. I promise, the possibility of a shoot out is pretty slim
But again, why do you believe that private gun ownership is unbecoming of a Buddhist?
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
edited December 2005
I personallythink that it's because it perpetuates wrong Livelihood... if you buy a gun, you are essentially condoning a business that creates something specifically designed to inflict harm - and that also goes against the first precept. And don't give me the old argument that the gun is a useless object until someone uses it - without it, it wouldn't be in use!
I'm afraid that I have to give you a truthful argument whether you judge it to be "old"or not
A gun's purpose (when not being used for recreational shooting) is for protection, defense. Sometimes the only way to protect yourself is by causing harm. I have never been taught that, as Buddhist, I could not or should not keep someone from taking my life. My gun is a compassionate gun
While you may not see it, evil exists in the minds of people, not inanimate objects.
My position is quite clear, should I choose to move to the USA and my State of preference had a high crime rate....YES I would probably carry a gun. I made the point that perhaps it's too late to ask the essentially law abiding citizen to surrender their arms, as the criminal is unlikely to follow. The 'Right to bear arms in your Constitution is undeniable, however what is not undeniable is that no matter how many statistics are brought to the floor, serious incidents involving guns particularly Automatic weapons are commonplace in the US, thankfully not yet in the UK. The Washington sniper incident, Columbine High School etc...
I am not 'Buddhist' in that before I would claim such a title I would need to change a great many things about myself.....Although my partner Federica disagree's! What I do know is that killing is wrong and that Mankind has made the act so much easier through the gun. A necessary evil maybe, but working towards a World that does not require the manufacture, carrying or using of guns can't be a bad thing;)
The argument about gun control will go on and on, and I doubt whether there is any easy answer, particularly as the US has decided to re-interpret the article of the Constitution that refers to a 'militia' into an individual right. [BTW does that 'right' extend to those countries under military occupation such as Afghanistan and Iraq?]
My point remains, however, and is supported by US policy towards, for example, North Korea and Iran. Perhaps their actual and potential weapons are "compassionate nukes" like Hunt4Life's "compassionate gun". I think not! To be armed is to be prepared to use weapons and being prepared to use a weapon is to be prepared to kill. The First Precept speaks of the taking of life, it does not say "except when you think you are threatened".
I have been watching this thread with interest. I think that is clear that a Buddhist cannot support capital punishment. The fact that we tend to be living within countries ruled and populated on the whole by the ignorant tends to take us into that reality. Consider an hypothetical community of Buddhists and like-minded, advanced and intelligent human beings. A murder is committed. This of course would not happen in such a community. For the sake of brevity let us say that this happened for any number of reasons, but there is the deceased and those close to the deceased. What does this community do?
I think one thing that is being forgotten here is:
Not everyone carries Buddhist beliefs.
So, while I don't like guns - I wouldn't want to lose the right to carry one. Because even in societies where there is gun control and citizens are not allowed to own them - the bad people still have guns. Bad people will still procure them. Bad people will still use them to enforce their desires on Christian, Wiccan, Buddhist, Islamic, Hindu - whatever.
I mean, if I kill a mosquito, why should I get run over by a truck? QUOTE]
Why shouldn't you?
As I have always understood it, the result of Karma is equal to the action committed. Of course, if you kill enough mosquitoes, it would probably equal a person. But in Buddhism, isn't a human life more important than that of a dog, and a dog more than a mosquito? I am not sure what this is based upon, but here in Thailand, people seem to view it this way. So, many Thai Buddhists choose not to eat beef (although there is no restriction against it), but they don't mind eating pork or chicken, since they aren't as important as cows. Of course, western Buddhists are much more advanced and smarter then me, so I am sure that they have some deep, esoteric theory to explain this, and that I am completely wrong. So, I will defer to them.
As far as your statement on Karma, that is how I learned it and have always understood it. But there are others who seem to have a different opinion about it, that it is not necessarily exactly what you did that comes back to you. But that certainly seems a lot more reasonable. I mean, if I kill a mosquito, why should I get run over by a truck? And of course, as you pointed out, Karma, unless eliminated, always comes to fruition.
I agree up to the point where you say "unless eliminated". You can never completely eliminate karma. You can purify it, but never completely. There is a story in one of the sutras (don't ask me which, I'm not a "sutra thumper") where the Buddha complains of a headache one day. One of his monks (probably Shariputra) asks how that is possible if he is free of karma. The Buddha then explains that even though he can no longer create karma, he still experiences the effects of past karma as cause and effect arise simultaneously, even if the effect does not manifest for lifetimes. So if even Lord Buddha couldn't eliminate his past karma, I don't think we can either!
As for the point on why Buddhism hasn't ameliorated things like the death penalty in countries where it has taken root, I would argue that it has, although the governing powers usually aren't the ones who practice Buddhism at any depth. A quote from Jesus comes to mind, "Render unto Caeser what is Caesar's," etc. that seems appropriate here. Generally I'd say the Buddhist teachers tend to stay out of governmental affairs for the most part, except in countries like Tibet where there is a Buddhist "theocracy", for lack of a better term.
Whoa! Your post and mine popped up almost simultaneously! I'd say the Thai take on the different values of animals is a little off, imho. A sentient being is a sentient being, whether it flies, has six legs, or moos. And any of them has been your mother in a previous existence. However, it is a root breakage of one's vows to kill a human because only a human rebirth allows one the opportunity to practice Dharma and perhaps achieve enlightenment, so to take that opportunity away from someone is one of the very worst things you can do.
I have it on good authority that in the Kingdom of Shambhala no one carries a gun, nor could you get one even if you wanted one!
Palzang
Nor would there be a need for one.
The basic question is a simple one yet very hard to answer: Does one allow himself to be killed when he can prevent it with necessary force? My teacher answered the question by saying it would be a reasonable thing to do. There is no Buddhist teaching that I am aware of that indicates killing for survival is not "allowed" and I am satisfied that it is not against the teachings
However, if one is to use [necessary] force to live, there is troubling question regarding karma that I had not considered. And that might be a better direction for this discussion. At least it would be for me
Hunt, let's look at it in this way. First of all, nothing happens just by accident. As Albert Einstein said, "God doesn't play dice." This is the fundamental law of karma, that nothing just happens. OK, if you can accept that, then let me tell a little story (as best as I can remember it) called "Cow Karma" (from Lama Surya Das' The Snow Lion's Turquoise Mane):
Once there was a great lama who lived by himself in the countryside. He lived very purely, practicing constantly, never eating meat and keeping his precepts very carefully. One day a neighboring farmer showed up with the police and accused the lama of stealing one of his cows and eating it. The lama said nothing in response to these charges, so the police were forced to arrest the lama and take him to jail. When the lama's students found out what had happened, they came to the lama and begged him to tell the police that he didn't even eat meat, and that he didn't steal the cow, but the lama remained silent, meditating in his cell. This went on for several weeks until the police came upon the remains of the farmer's cow where the thieves who had stolen it had feasted. Since the location was a long distance from where the lama lived and it was obvious there was more than one thief, the police (with much relief) released the lama and dropped the charges. When the lama emerged from the jail, his students begged to know why he had remained silent so long when he could have easily cleared up the misunderstanding by simply explaining it to the police. His response was that in a former life he had stolen a cow and gotten away with the crime, so he saw the opportunity to burn off that negative karma by simply refusing to clear himself, and so was very grateful for the chance to get rid of that karma.
The point is that the lama accepted the results of his karma because he had the insight to know that this was an opportunity rather than a disaster, as his students thought. So what to do if someone comes at you with a gun as if to shoot you? Ordinary sentient beings would shoot back, hoping to protect themselves. An extraordinary being, like this lama, would not, knowing that this is just the play of karma. Admittedly it takes an extraordinary being to have the courage to do such a thing. Only a true bodhisattva would give up his life rather than take another's to protect his own life, for only he would know that in reality there is no one to protect. That is why we practice. So I feel it is something to strive for.
Someone said that if you kill a killer, he wouldn't be able to kill anymore. Well, obviously that person does not believe in rebirth! Killing to prevent killing is like pouring gasoline on fire to put it out.
The whole point is really to study the Law of Karma constantly and apply it to your life. It's a process. It won't happen tomorrow. So you work on it. If you do so diligently and with the proper motivation (that is, to benefit sentient beings), the result will be good. Promise!
Crimes not commited by them have something unchangable: the truth. The relatively "wronged" karma begotten by them is purely by coincidence (because Ajani is such a bastard that he never believes in karma being carried forth) but it is how they handle it that determines it. Karma is after all cause and effect and no karma is absolute. All karma again are causes of something else - that is infinitely another cause. The wronging carries another effect and according to how you play it can change it to good or bad (think about those who got compensated and those who were sentenced to death due to keeping their mouth shut art the wrong time) If you don't agree with this bastard called Ajani then the bastard asks, "What about those who were murdered and murderers never caught?" - does this thus give them the right to murder in their next life? Eat on it!
Someone said that if you kill a killer, he wouldn't be able to kill anymore. Well, obviously that person does not believe in rebirth!
I am quite certain His Holiness the Dalai Lama believes in rebirth. I'm sure there was a context to this but its been many years since I read it, I cant remember it all. It was however something in regards to capitol punishment.
Of course, HHDL sometimes has a way simplifying certain things when speaking
Comments
So, when you say stationed, does that mean you're in the military? Not criticising, just curious. I'm a veteran (Air Force), so it'd be pretty stupid of me to criticize anyone for being in the military. There are many advantages to such a life, as long as you don't get killed or have to kill someone else. But anyway, there's only one military base around Sedona, a National Guard base near Flagstaff. However, I also see on your profile you're studying to be a cook, is that right? Sedona is a great place to be a cook - lots of high-end tourist resorts and restaurants. Anyway, if you're ever passin' through, just look us up!
Palzang
I just joined the Army. There's a couple of bases in AZ, just not that close to Sedona.
Unfortunately, I have a combat MOS. I'm not infantry, fortunately, meaning that my primary job isn't to shoot a gun, but I'm going to be a combat engineer, which does mean frontline action and playing with explosives.
War is hell. But I've had some time to think about it, and now isn't the time for me to seek enlightenment. In fact, my primary exposure to Buddhism is the Martial Arts. Here is something to ponder, how is it that Zen Buddhism thrived for centuries in a feudal warrior culture?
I like to call my self an "Assertive Pacifist", meaning that I don't like fighting, and would rather avoid it, but for practical reasons I will if I must.
I have a story I could tell about a long lost relative who was the commander of the Sappers (military engineers) of the Tsarist Southern Army in Russia during the Crimean War, but I guess this really isn't the place!
Your point about Zen surviving in a wartorn country for centuries is an interesting one. Actually a lot of the warring was done by warrior monks (not only Zen, but other Buddhist sects as well) who hired out to various warlords. One of the very few instances of Buddhists being involved in warfare. Of course, the warrior code of Bushido was based on Buddhist principles of selflessness and service, so it's a curious, peculiarly Japanese sort of thing. It actually makes sense in a strange way - the whole concept of not being attached to living making the most fearsome of all warriors!
Palzang
My take on it is this: I am against all forms of killing (the first Buddhist precept), which would of course include the death penalty. On the other hand, those who do kill are creating negative Karma for themselves. It is not hard to see the Karmic connection between someone being a killer (violating the first precept), and then getting the death penalty (instant Karma, if you will.) That doesn't make it right, but it just goes to show the perfect justice of Karma. According to Karma, there is no injustice in the world, since anything bad that happens to you is your own self-created Karma. On the other hand, that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be compassionate to people, which is our Buddhist duty.
i) Death sentence, you die.
ii) Spared for life, you live.
In Scenario I the karma does get "balanced" out in a way if you so dogmatically claim, but it does so at the cost of some other guy's life.
In Scenario II I personally believe that the human body itself is built accroding to the Convention of the Karma
SO in both cases, karma DOES GET "equated" (so as to speak), but which is better?
This is only true on the surface. We do, in fact, gear up fopr war on a constant basis. We have standing armies, which is a relatively modern concept, rather than relying on levies and militias as we did prior to the Napoleonic Wars. "Soldiering", as a profession, is a phenomenon which results from the politics of confrontation. Once it is established, however, it becomes one of the engines of that policy because, without continual confrontation, there is so much less need for the soldier. If you are in any doubt about this, just look at the US Department of Defense's budget: $417 billion in 2003, nearly $1500 per capita, 98% of which is spent in the US. It drives the economy, as Eisenhower pointed out. It also sends out signals to the world.
Those of us who remember the May Day Parades in Moscow under the Soviets, or have seen The Triumph of the Will about the Nurnbeg rallies, have seen these mssages writ large. These are times when some nations strutted their stuff and posed as "Mr Universe". We may not do as much today but the vast sums we spend on arming ourselves, both nationally and personally, speaks of war. In the '30s, the whole question of "Geran rearmament" was hot: some people understood that an armed nation must, by its nature, threaten someone.
HHDL has suggested that Tibet, within a federated China, should be entirely disarmed and that its absolute neutrality be internationally acknowledged. That is thinking outside the box.
And, as Palzang so wisely says, the road to peace starts right under each person's feet, here and now. So, let me ask the European question: how do US Buddhists reconcile personal gun ownership?
I don't know that the government of a country is actually "Buddhist". I mean, you could say that the US is a Christian country - and I can't think of a bigger hypocrite in this particular scenario.
A government is a government. Let's say that you have a government that tries it's best to be a Buddhist government. Now let's say that you have 30% of the population that decides it's not going to be Buddhist - that 30% is going to do just whatever the hell is feels like.
Isn't it the responsibility of the government to provide some form of protection of its citizens? Do we let those people run amok doing whatever they wish to the more peaceful citizens? Have you ever been attacked? Mugged? Raped? Battered?
What do you do? Just let non-peaceful animals abuse the public?
-bf
I didn't mean to sound so dogmatic. The death penalty (or getting murdered, or killed in some other way) could be karma for murdering somebody else. Or karma could manifest itself in some other way. I know it's not quite so literal, i.e."kill somebody and somebody kills you". So, I would tend to agree with you on the last point. But shouldn't the result of our action be roughly equal to whatever we did? The killing of another human is a heavy karmic debt to bear. Also, another thought: Since people are sentenced to death for crimes that they didn't commit, isn't it possible that it is residual karma from a previous birth? Just an idea.
No, I suppose that there is no such thing as a "Buddhist government". But, for example, here in Thailand, the King is considered to be the upholder and defender of Buddhism (and all other religions, by the way), and there have been proposals to make Buddhism the "official religion", as well as the fact that Buddhism is a required subject in public schools (I have previously taught it). So the Dharma does, at the very least, have a heavy influence on nearly everything in Thailand.
On your point about government responsibility to provide protection, I would agree with you 100% on this point. That is why predominantly Buddhist countries, like all countries of the world, have police, armies, laws, jails, and yes, even the death penalty. That is why it strikes me as strange that in western countries, when somebody becomes a Buddhist, they seem to think that they have to become a liberal social activist and cure all of the ills of society. Believe it or not, countries that are historically and predominantly Buddhist tend to be very socially conservative, and have a great deal of respect for authority and traditional moral values.
And karma is extremely exacting. If you kill someone, you will in turn be killed. Maybe not in this life, but some time. That's just the way it works. Like if you hold a ball and drop it, it's not going to bounce sideways, it's going to bounce straight back at you. No difference.
Palzang
This is true, it is because of Asian culture, not Buddhism. But it makes you wonder why the compassion of Buddhism hasn't tempered this somewhat. Of course, Buddhist attitudes which accomodate or ignore such views are not right. But they seem to be in the majority, at least in most Buddhist and non-Buddhist Asian countries.
As far as your statement on Karma, that is how I learned it and have always understood it. But there are others who seem to have a different opinion about it, that it is not necessarily exactly what you did that comes back to you. But that certainly seems a lot more reasonable. I mean, if I kill a mosquito, why should I get run over by a truck? And of course, as you pointed out, Karma, unless eliminated, always comes to fruition.
I believe it is clear that killing for revenge (or needlessly) is not a good Buddhist practice.
Private gun ownership no sooner means war than being a Buddhist means you must allow yourself to be killed if attacked.
I fear now that any new gun law will be too late, there are simply too many guns in circulation. The argument for carrying one for self defense is therefore a necessity in many peoples eyes. I sometimes wonder whether you guys have moved on much from the days of the "Wild West".
This is not an Anti US thing and We have our fair share of problems on the UK, however my major worry whenever I have visited the States was the fear of being involved in an incident involving guns.
As far as the US (and politics go, leaving the Buddhist discussion behind for now) we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms in defense. Disarming the populace is not an option.
Gun ownership does not equate to high crime rates. In fact, as violent crime has continued to to decline in the US over the past decade, gun ownership has sky-rocketed. And, in your own country (and Australia as well) crime has gone up significantly since guns were essentially banned.
The truth is, for every state (in the US) that has passed concealed carry legislation (allowing it) the crime rate has dropped. Especially violent crime. Its also interesting to note that the cities with the highest crime rates do not allow concealed carry and many of them have complete bans on gun ownership.
Don't be afraid to come here because of guns. If I remember correctly Britain's crime rate met ours recently... so you stand the same chance of being beat, robbed or assaulted here as there. But here, you can defend yourself IF you choose to. I choose to... come travel with me. I promise, the possibility of a shoot out is pretty slim
But again, why do you believe that private gun ownership is unbecoming of a Buddhist?
A gun's purpose (when not being used for recreational shooting) is for protection, defense. Sometimes the only way to protect yourself is by causing harm. I have never been taught that, as Buddhist, I could not or should not keep someone from taking my life. My gun is a compassionate gun
While you may not see it, evil exists in the minds of people, not inanimate objects.
I am not 'Buddhist' in that before I would claim such a title I would need to change a great many things about myself.....Although my partner Federica disagree's! What I do know is that killing is wrong and that Mankind has made the act so much easier through the gun. A necessary evil maybe, but working towards a World that does not require the manufacture, carrying or using of guns can't be a bad thing;)
My point remains, however, and is supported by US policy towards, for example, North Korea and Iran. Perhaps their actual and potential weapons are "compassionate nukes" like Hunt4Life's "compassionate gun". I think not! To be armed is to be prepared to use weapons and being prepared to use a weapon is to be prepared to kill. The First Precept speaks of the taking of life, it does not say "except when you think you are threatened".
It is a matter of the message sent out.
Agreed.
Not everyone carries Buddhist beliefs.
So, while I don't like guns - I wouldn't want to lose the right to carry one. Because even in societies where there is gun control and citizens are not allowed to own them - the bad people still have guns. Bad people will still procure them. Bad people will still use them to enforce their desires on Christian, Wiccan, Buddhist, Islamic, Hindu - whatever.
-bf
Palzang
I agree up to the point where you say "unless eliminated". You can never completely eliminate karma. You can purify it, but never completely. There is a story in one of the sutras (don't ask me which, I'm not a "sutra thumper") where the Buddha complains of a headache one day. One of his monks (probably Shariputra) asks how that is possible if he is free of karma. The Buddha then explains that even though he can no longer create karma, he still experiences the effects of past karma as cause and effect arise simultaneously, even if the effect does not manifest for lifetimes. So if even Lord Buddha couldn't eliminate his past karma, I don't think we can either!
As for the point on why Buddhism hasn't ameliorated things like the death penalty in countries where it has taken root, I would argue that it has, although the governing powers usually aren't the ones who practice Buddhism at any depth. A quote from Jesus comes to mind, "Render unto Caeser what is Caesar's," etc. that seems appropriate here. Generally I'd say the Buddhist teachers tend to stay out of governmental affairs for the most part, except in countries like Tibet where there is a Buddhist "theocracy", for lack of a better term.
Palzang
Palzang
Nor would there be a need for one.
The basic question is a simple one yet very hard to answer: Does one allow himself to be killed when he can prevent it with necessary force? My teacher answered the question by saying it would be a reasonable thing to do. There is no Buddhist teaching that I am aware of that indicates killing for survival is not "allowed" and I am satisfied that it is not against the teachings
However, if one is to use [necessary] force to live, there is troubling question regarding karma that I had not considered. And that might be a better direction for this discussion. At least it would be for me
Once there was a great lama who lived by himself in the countryside. He lived very purely, practicing constantly, never eating meat and keeping his precepts very carefully. One day a neighboring farmer showed up with the police and accused the lama of stealing one of his cows and eating it. The lama said nothing in response to these charges, so the police were forced to arrest the lama and take him to jail. When the lama's students found out what had happened, they came to the lama and begged him to tell the police that he didn't even eat meat, and that he didn't steal the cow, but the lama remained silent, meditating in his cell. This went on for several weeks until the police came upon the remains of the farmer's cow where the thieves who had stolen it had feasted. Since the location was a long distance from where the lama lived and it was obvious there was more than one thief, the police (with much relief) released the lama and dropped the charges. When the lama emerged from the jail, his students begged to know why he had remained silent so long when he could have easily cleared up the misunderstanding by simply explaining it to the police. His response was that in a former life he had stolen a cow and gotten away with the crime, so he saw the opportunity to burn off that negative karma by simply refusing to clear himself, and so was very grateful for the chance to get rid of that karma.
The point is that the lama accepted the results of his karma because he had the insight to know that this was an opportunity rather than a disaster, as his students thought. So what to do if someone comes at you with a gun as if to shoot you? Ordinary sentient beings would shoot back, hoping to protect themselves. An extraordinary being, like this lama, would not, knowing that this is just the play of karma. Admittedly it takes an extraordinary being to have the courage to do such a thing. Only a true bodhisattva would give up his life rather than take another's to protect his own life, for only he would know that in reality there is no one to protect. That is why we practice. So I feel it is something to strive for.
Someone said that if you kill a killer, he wouldn't be able to kill anymore. Well, obviously that person does not believe in rebirth! Killing to prevent killing is like pouring gasoline on fire to put it out.
The whole point is really to study the Law of Karma constantly and apply it to your life. It's a process. It won't happen tomorrow. So you work on it. If you do so diligently and with the proper motivation (that is, to benefit sentient beings), the result will be good. Promise!
Palzang
I am quite certain His Holiness the Dalai Lama believes in rebirth. I'm sure there was a context to this but its been many years since I read it, I cant remember it all. It was however something in regards to capitol punishment.
Of course, HHDL sometimes has a way simplifying certain things when speaking