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.
Defending The Innocent - Yes or No?
AllbuddhaBound
Veteran
What were Buddha's teachings in respect to defending innocent people? Buddhism tends to lean towards peaceful solutions at all times but what are the limits when that is not possible? How far can a Buddhist go when protecting the innocent? Is this an individual decision or is their a right/wrong approach considered as the preferred route of Buddhists?
0
Comments
Dalai Lama:
"It is often necessary to take a strong stand to counter unjust aggression. For instance, it is plain to all of us that the Second World War was entirely justified. It "saved civilization" from the tyranny of Nazi Germany, as Winston Churchill so aptly put it. In my view, the Korean War was also just, since it gave South Korea the chance of gradually developing democracy."
http://www.dalailama.com/messages/world-peace/the-reality-of-war
For me, any means necessary. It's just a fact of life that innocents need to be protected.
Hitler was partially a product of the injustices after ww1.....the Palestinian continue to suffer because of decisions made after ww2 etc etc.
Imo war n violence are always wrong.
You would have allowed that to happen?
For the Theravadin point of view on this topic, I always like to quote the Simile of the Saw (MN 21: Kakacupama Sutta): Clearly the Dalai Lama's comments do not therefore accord with the dhamma as recorded in the Pali scriptures.
Buddhism applying skillful means on various methods of meditation process to transform ignorant mindset(innocent)to bodhi mindset. This is a great service to mankind and its living environment, through simplicity. Conflict arises because of failure to recognize your opposite needs love and is also your Buddha nature as well. Great advice from this patriarch :wow:
http://www.amituofo.com/patriarch-yin-kuang-letter-1/
I would teach my son to interpose himself or do something nonviolent to separate the bully from the victim. Of course it would work better with a group of young people.
Unfortunately, I should take my own advice. I was in a work situation once when a woman was bullied by her manager (who was also my manager) to the point of tears. I stood by and did nothing for fear of my own job where I should have just stood up and told him to back off no matter what the consequence to me as that would have been the more ethical thing to do. Today, I would step in and defend but without using violence myself. It is not that difficult to stop a bully with a few carefully chosen words.
@Vangelis:
Don't sell yourself short, V. Confronting the accomplished bully is not always as simple as "standing up" to them. And there are real risks to all parties. We need to understand this before we act, be it with physical or with non-physical strength. This is precisely the challenge that ahimsa presents.
How, precisely, do we act, mindfully and in Right Action? Do we follow the example of the Catholic Christian WWI conscientious objector Ben Salmon? Do we temporise like Bonhoeffer until we are pushed to self-sacrifice? How serious is this situation and what is the proportional response?
These are questions on which I have reflected all my life. Sixty-odd years have not been enough to come to clear answers, although I notice that I am still as outraged by injustice as when I was a teenager.
It's up to each individual practitioner to decide how to interpret "right action", according to the circumstances at hand. Passive avoidance of engagement, though, in my mind, is complicity, unless perhaps serious danger is present, that can't be overcome in any way. Sometimes the situation is best addressed at a later time, as well, with some sort of intervention with the perpetrator.
I think the questions about the World Wars are also important, the ultimate test of the precept and the principle of higher good in the precepts. Perhaps someone could start a separate thread on that topic. It's true that HHDL's thinking has come around 180 degrees in the last decade or two on that subject.
So this is a case where it was absolutely and completely stupid for me to have acted in that manner. I was young, I was doing martial arts at the time so was very confident of my ability to defend myself but I had put myself into direct danger. If he had pulled out a gun or a knife, I would be gravely wounded or dead. Very stupid indeed!
The reason that I bring this incident up is that this is an example of where action was the wrong course of action as opposed to my previous example where inaction was the wrong course of action! Seen with the benefit of hindsight, I now understand this but hopefully with past experience, I can now make the right decision as to action/inaction in these situations!
Did you not have a cell phone to call the police from, while pumping gas or inside your car? good story.
Sadly, this is not an entirely hypothetical question in our world.
There's no perfect answer to cover all scenarios, but the first precept is not to take life. If you can avoid killing, that is best, and you will avoid killing by having the intent to do the least harm possible.
There's no god/God dictating these things in Buddhist view. There's no one to justify your actions to in Buddhism. Rather, your mental state will be affected and you'll be judged by society at large and the laws in effect where you're at!
Who is right?
All these actions derive from the need to defend one's country, ideology, religion, family and self. These are things that we take to be me and mine.
Maha-nidana Sutta
It's because of not understanding and not penetrating this Dhamma that this generation is like a tangled skein, a knotted ball of string, like matted rushes and reeds, and does not go beyond transmigration, beyond the planes of deprivation, woe, and bad destinations.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.15.0.than.html
Having been part of the Police Force and Civil Defence Force before, my experience is that if the attacker is already aggressive and violent, a death caused by his actions is not going to stop him from silencing other witnesses. In fact, an accidental homicide can, and most likely will, end up more serious, like murder or manslaughter, if there are witnesses around.
The hard question you should ask, from a Buddhist perspective, is: Are you willing to defend the guilty? That's what Buddhism demands from us, in the end.
By guilty I mean every person out there labeled as the enemy or criminal or not a good person. The person who runs into a burning building to save a child will join a lynch mob to hang the person charged with setting the fire. Even if all you have are accusations. Are you willing to put your body between the lynch mob and the accused man, and insist he be allowed his rights? If not, can you claim to understand the compassion that Buddhism call for?
The Germans didn't just wake up one day, and say "Let's round up some innocent Jews and stick them in camps!" you know. First, they were convinced the Jews were the enemy, were guilty of trying to destroy their way of life and take over the banks and government. Then once that label of guilty was applied, nobody cared to defend them. And today, in the West, we have a whole class of enemies called "Muslim" that some otherwise caring, compassionate people have labeled guilty, and won't defend. And some Muslims have labeled an entire population as guilty of killing their own people. And so it goes.
So are you willing to defend the guilty? How far are you willing to go, to defend the guilty?
Not such an easy question, is it?
P
In Libya, the Mad General has troops, armaments and the will to use both. The opposition has the same but lacks a good supply of bullets to defend themselves (this is common knowledge). If bullets (rockets etc.) were supplied, I doubt Generalisimo would bluster so. But perhaps he is crazy and would continue. Does this matter?
The opposition needs either air support to keep the "Q" man in check or a supply of bullets to defend against an assault.
Should the U.N provide assistance? Must it wait for more bloodshed before reacting?
Because an outside intervention might be unskillful should it be ruled out and the hostilities only observed as another example of man's (not Buddhist men and women's of course!) clumsy , unenlightened ,interactions. The deaths of these seekers of freedom then ascribed to karma or the turning of the wheel ?
This is where - on the macro level- I have the most trouble with Buddhists: they are often willing to look 50 years in the past (WW2) but not have much to say about now (please do not mention Tibet!).
P.S. I like you guys.
And I suppose Buddhism really does have a deserved reputation for sitting on the sidelines. There is a push to make it more socially active. The thing that probably bothers us most is that we see karma in action, in the definition that actions have consequences, but nonaction also has consequences. For instance, it seems declaring sanctions against a Libyan dictator willing to bomb his own people and struggling for control of his own city is a joke. Like he cares. But if we do something like enforcing a nofly policy over the country, it will give him and the other dictators an excuse to say it's all outside agitators and really cut loose on their people. So what's the solution to help?
Nonviolence and noninterference might not be the answer, but violence and occupation doesn't have a very pretty track record, either. To quote George Carlin, we're a war-like people. We like war. We're good at it. Not so good at peace.
In Korea, every Buddhist temple has a sign at the entrance, detailing how the buildings were burnt to the ground repeatedly by one invader or another, but always rebuilt on the ashes. The temple managed to be reborn and survive when the armies and empires became only names in a history book. I don't know what that says about Buddhism or how to respond to violence. I'm still working on it.
"Defending the innocent". That's a matter of opinion, which we so proudly profess as we decry what others do, shutting off all understanding of the situation. Who is innocent? If someone was killed in crossfire, suppose they murdered someone 10 years ago. If a villager walks on a landmine, suppose they assaulted a child. Who is "innocent"?
It seems to me that the focus should be on expanding understanding and compassion, and not take sides, rather than reinforcing empty notions and concepts about other people.
But...according to Tibetean Buddhist lore, one sacrifices oneself to the attacker--maybe not the answer you were looking for. The ultimate Bodhisattva gesture.
One does everything possible to avoid an attack (prevention is easier than self-defense). If attacked one does what's possible to avoid killing (attracting attention, or running). If the only recourse is to kill the attacker...? Who knows, maybe it's his karma to get killed.
It's interesting that the US points to atrocities committed by various rulers around the world yet ignores its own dark dealings with its prisoners with 46 executions occurring in 2010. It is a bit of a bugbear of mine, I admit but a so-called civilised country cannot point its finger at other brutal rulers then turn around and execute its own citizens. It is hypocritical and it is inhumane. If American Buddhists need a cause, there is one right on their doorstep.
I think there is a Federal Death penalty, but to my knowledge that has only been used twice or three times since WWII.
So the result of the Chinese invasion is that Tibetan Buddhism has spread throughout the western world. Next time you walk into a bookshop, check out the Buddhist or Eastern religion section. The vast majority of Buddhist books are Tibetan! So it's not all bad as it has helped spread Tibetan Buddhism throughout the west. It's also not just a western phenomenon with India allowing the Tibetans to set up in their country, it has resulted in some minor resurgence of Buddhism in India.
In Australia capital punishment laws are also based on separate state laws which were repealed in all states in 1984. It is only since 2010 that there is a federal law disallowing states to use the death penalty (and possibly any form of capital punishment).
But mind you, Australia is not a little angel country. The way it treats boat refugees is inhumane and in fact contravenes international laws. So we also have causes to fight for on our doorstep.
So the result of the Chinese invasion is that Tibetan Buddhism has spread throughout the western world. Next time you walk into a bookshop, check out the Buddhist or Eastern religion section. The vast majority of Buddhist books are Tibetan! So it's not all bad as it has helped spread Tibetan Buddhism throughout the west. It's also not just a western phenomenon with India allowing the Tibetans to set up in their country, it has resulted in some minor resurgence of Buddhism in India."
This is apples vs. oranges. True, the Chinese invasion did have the secondary effect of spreading TB to the west, but it does not address the question of defending the innocent or not. If the Chinese had had their way there would have been no TB to spread to the West.
it is quite valid, and doesn't go against ahimsa. sikhs carry a kirpan (short sword) as symbol of ahimsa (to prevent violence, if all else fails).
It is possible to not have an easy answer, but to know that what has been done over and over must change somehow.
P
P
And regarding the "innocent": another social fiction - a concept we use to justify actions. A word that we selectively apply. Again, the practice of non-violence is not negotiable. This does not mean that one who practices non-violence has all the answers about how to deal with violent behavior. But what the practice does do is open the path to creativity in working for peace in "small" and "large" ways.
P
P
"Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."