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.
My two cents: violence may be, in some situations, necessary. I will endeavor to avoid violence, but I'm not going to allow someone to just have their way with me. Nor would I allow them to do so with others if it is at all within my power to prevent it. I've been in a couple of fights in my lifetime. I'll try to avoid it, but sometimes you come across a person who just is not willing to leave you at peace. If a person is determined to perpetuate violence upon others than violence may have to be done upon that person in order to cease his violence. If that person ends up with a broken nose, a black eye, or (in an extreme case) dead then that's his karma.
I looked at MN21 and couldn't find this reference.
Right, same here, and I posted that on the other thread, after looking it up. The "striking back in self-defense" comment was Thanissaro Bhikku's; that was his interpretation of that text (MN21). This is a perfect illustration of why we shouldn't trust others' interpretations or comments on the suttras, no matter who the "authority" is. In any case, Federica is trying to find source material to support Thanissaro's interpretation. I think this is one reason we have so much debate on this site regarding the suttras; people tend to project onto the texts what they want. Or accept what their teacher says without going to the source. this is one good reason for studying the suttras; as a check against teachers' or commentators' interpretations.
There are two different views expressed here: * the first takes the precept about not killing as an absolute.
* the second is more 'situational'.
Both claim to be 'Buddhism'.
The truth is that we are (mostly) 'armchair generals'. We set up hypothetical situations, case studies to examine. Useful, I'm sure but everything changed when one is actually attacked.
Each one of us, as we encounter such situations (bullying, attacking, etc.), it will not be how good we have been at arguing about rights and wrongs that will determine our actions: it will be the result of our having developed a peaceful mind or not. Peace isn't an aim, it is a tool of the mind. May I refer you to the life and final recorded words of Nurse Edith Cavell?
I think it goes without saying that violence or self-defense is a last resort; our practice is for the purpose of developing that peaceful mind and compassionate outlook that gives us other tools to bring to bear on a situation (not to mention skillful means). But it's the extreme situations that defy other applications (the Nazis, violent thugs without conscience that may have one surrounded) that test our teachings and practice. Life can dish up some dicey challenges.
For the Theravadin point of view on this topic, I always like to quote the Simile of the Saw (MN 21: Kakacupama Sutta):
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.
Clearly the Dalai Lama's comments do not therefore accord with the dhamma as recorded in the Pali scriptures.
I think it's important to keep the context of this passage in mind. It's not simply about superhuman endurance in the face torture. It's a simile about patience and how one should endeavor to keep the five aspects of right speech even under trying conditions.
As for the use of violence itself, Buddhist ethics is based on the principles of kamma — the idea that certain actions produce pleasant, painful or neutral feelings/results — and ahimsa or harmlessness, so the use of violence is strongly discouraged. That said, Buddhism is ultimately pragmatic, and it's understood that we're potentially going to be confronted with situations where we may feel the need to, or automatically react with, some level of violence and force. That's why there's no offense for a monk who, "trapped in a difficult situation, gives a blow 'desiring freedom'" (Pc74).
I feel as if people are evading the real question. If you are violently attacked , or your family member is attacked, would you be justified if you ended up killing the attacker in the process?
People can justify just about anything. But taking life is still in breach of the first Buddhist precept.
I think it's important to keep the context of this passage in mind. It's not simply about superhuman endurance in the face torture. It's a simile about patience and how one should endeavor to keep the five aspects of right speech even under trying conditions.
I think it's a bit more than that, judging by this section: "We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will..immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."
I think this is one reason we have so much debate on this site regarding the suttras; people tend to project onto the texts what they want. Or accept what their teacher says without going to the source. this is one good reason for studying the suttras; as a check against teachers' or commentators' interpretations.
I think it's important to keep the context of this passage in mind. It's not simply about superhuman endurance in the face torture. It's a simile about patience and how one should endeavor to keep the five aspects of right speech even under trying conditions.
I think it's a bit more than that, judging by this section: "We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will..immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."
Sure, these mental states can be applied to any situation, but the context of this particular passage is directly related to right speech:
"In the same way, monks, there are these five aspects of speech by which others may address you: timely or untimely, true or false, affectionate or harsh, beneficial or unbeneficial, with a mind of good-will or with inner hate. Others may address you in a timely way or an untimely way. They may address you with what is true or what is false. They may address you in an affectionate way or a harsh way. They may address you in a beneficial way or an unbeneficial way. They may address you with a mind of good-will or with inner hate. In any event, you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic to that person's welfare, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading him with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with him, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will equal to a catskin bag — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves.
"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.
"Monks, if you attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw, do you see any aspects of speech, slight or gross, that you could not endure?"
So how does one "immobilise" a maniac with a machine-gun?
One doesn't. One either does some very clever talking to distract him or get him to put the gun down, or one gives thanks for the precious and fruitful life one has been given, and awaits the inevitable.
I think the basic problem here is that of trying to formulate rules that apply to each and every situation. Perhaps it would be better to get in touch with one's own true nature so as to understand the root of such problems we are talking about here. If one is in touch with one's own true nature, one knows how to act in any situation. It is not necessary to consult a list of thou-shalts and thou-shalt-nots. There are no rules that apply to every situation.
Buddhism only has the basic rule to do no harm, not kill, but striking back in self-defense the Buddha allowed.(Federica found the reference on another thread, FYI. The China Vs. Tibet thread.) We're not trying to formulate rules, but discussing the application of the existing rules. And there's the "wild card" in the principle that one can break a precept if a higher good is served (from the Lamrim). These basic teachings are what we're discussing, as applied to real-life situations.
"According to Vibhanga, there is no offense for a bhikku who, trapped in a difficult situation, gives a blow 'desiring freedom'".
But somehow the whole mindset must change to prevent war in the first place.
This is where Gopi Krishna's point about Kundalini being the future of mankind comes in.
This change has to happen by example, and not forced upon people.
Where are we going to find leaders to set this example? War boosts economic activity in the aggressor's country; an economic and political history of the US shows that. (Everyone in Seattle is really happy right now because Boeing just got a huge military contract that will last years, is hiring left and right, the local economy is looking up.) The corporations are who call the shots now, globally, pretty much. So, now what?
Very good question. Capitalism is so entrenched in Western thinking and perceptions that it's hard to know where to begin. I suppose the only answer I can give is to "not do that". And maybe, loosening the knots in our perceptions that have been formed through psychologically-driven marketing techniques since childhood. It's amazing that you can buy an item that is seemingly unrelated to violence, thanks to a pristine marketing image.
I don't think the answer resides in which "leaders" are elected. Power corrupts and wants more power. A "democratic" society is much easier to propagandize, because nobody thinks it's propaganda.
azing that you can buy an item that is seemingly unrelated to violence, thanks to a pristine marketing image.
I don't think the answer resides in which "leaders" are elected. Power corrupts and wants more power. A "democratic" society is much easier to propagandize, because nobody thinks it's propaganda.
OK, where does the answer reside, then? And don't underestimate the ease of propagandizing people in totalitarian societies. Extremely few in the USSR thought they were being propagandized to, and look at North Korea.
My views are simple and may or may not have been said by an other in this forum already. I would read all sixty something entries but, I just don't want to, sorry. Anyhow, it goes like this:
You have a responsibility, towards yourself and others, to stand by the convictions of compassion, gentleness, love and good intent.
That being said, if you witness a parent belittling and otherwise verbally or emotionally abusing their child, I would go to the parent and explain what they are doing to the child in the most compassionate and respectful way. I would be correcting them in the same manner to which would be appropriate for the parent to correct the child because it becomes both a lesson and healing event. However, it does not work as well if only one person does this. It works much better if the same approach were to be done by many people within this child's/parent's life.
If it is a physical threat, though, of someone in immediate physical danger, I would stand between the force of harm and the victim or protect them in whatever way to which I was able. I do not think I would defend or fight back unless my life was on the line. If defending my life or an other life I would absolutely choose to fight or defend.
azing that you can buy an item that is seemingly unrelated to violence, thanks to a pristine marketing image.
I don't think the answer resides in which "leaders" are elected. Power corrupts and wants more power. A "democratic" society is much easier to propagandize, because nobody thinks it's propaganda.
OK, where does the answer reside, then? And don't underestimate the ease of propagandizing people in totalitarian societies. Extremely few in the USSR thought they were being propagandized to, and look at North Korea.
Yes, but with understanding, we can see that in societies like Weimar/Nazi Germany, the American propaganda of the day greatly influenced their approaches. The whole industry of public relations was born out of American propaganda post WWI. We don't even have to look at 20th century history to see this - all we have to do is turn on the TV and see advertisements that appeal to the irrational desires of people.
When that mindset spills over into politics, we have a problem, because irrational desires contradict each other all the time. At this point in time, I suspect the answer lies in not being "that", but at the same time being welcoming to people who are "that".
I think it's important to keep the context of this passage in mind. It's not simply about superhuman endurance in the face torture. It's a simile about patience and how one should endeavor to keep the five aspects of right speech even under trying conditions.
But if one has the patience to keep right speech while being tortured, then surely one would also have the patience to avoid doing physical harm and thereby keep the first precept.
But if one has the patience to keep right speech while being tortured, then surely one would also have the patience to avoid doing physical harm and thereby keep the first precept.
But if one has the patience to keep right speech while being tortured, then surely one would also have the patience to avoid doing physical harm and thereby keep the first precept.
P
That's a very big assumption you make.
What's more harmful to somebody else, swearing at them or killing them? Which of these activities is most unwholesome?
When you are in that situation, and you can confidently maintain the 1st precept and Right Speech, you can make the assumption.
I cannot confidently say that I can maintain both precepts at that point of time. I'm still trying to develop awareness and the concentration to maintain that awareness to assume such things.
But if one has the patience to keep right speech while being tortured, then surely one would also have the patience to avoid doing physical harm and thereby keep the first precept.
That's a very big assumption you make.
I agree. For one thing, it's a simile, an illustration. It's not necessarily meant to be taken literally, as in, "When someone is sawing off your limbs, just stand there and let them do it while thinking good thoughts about them." It's about how to train yourself to not react negatively to stressful situations. But if you can manage to do that while being tortured, not saying or even thinking a mean word, then you're truly a Buddhist par excellence and would most likely have no difficulty keeping the first precept, so in that sense I think you're right.
I agree. For one thing, it's a simile, an illustration. It's not necessarily meant to be taken literally, as in, "When someone is sawing off your limbs, just stand there and let them do it while thinking good thoughts about them."
I think it's meant literally in the sense that the Buddha was saying "Here's the most extreme situation we can imagine".
I think it goes without saying that violence or self-defense is a last resort; our practice is for the purpose of developing that peaceful mind and compassionate outlook that gives us other tools to bring to bear on a situation (not to mention skillful means). But it's the extreme situations that defy other applications (the Nazis, violent thugs without conscience that may have one surrounded) that test our teachings and practice. Life can dish up some dicey challenges.
That's true, but I still feel uncomfortable with the idea that Buddhism sanctions violence and taking of life in certain situations.
That's true, but I still feel uncomfortable with the idea that Buddhism sanctions violence and taking of life in certain situations.
P
The b*gg*r of it is that 'Buddhism' does not sanction for or against. It challenges us to develop our mindful attention to such a point that we can take the most skillful path in each situation, contextual and appropriate.
It may not be proper practice, but I feel it is basic human decency... at least in my own nature... To defend those who cannot defend themselves. To be brave where others are meek, to bleed so others do not need to. If it came down to it, I would not hesitate to sacrifice my life for someone else, and yes I have been in a situation like this.
I agree. For one thing, it's a simile, an illustration. It's not necessarily meant to be taken literally, as in, "When someone is sawing off your limbs, just stand there and let them do it while thinking good thoughts about them."
I think it's meant literally in the sense that the Buddha was saying "Here's the most extreme situation we can imagine".
It may be, but again, how practical do you think that actually is? How many people do you know who could possibly just stand still and let someone saw off their limbs while thinking good thoughts about their attackers and not do everything in their power to get away? I certainly don't know anyone with that kind of endurance. It's something to aim for, I suppose, but it's not very practical advice for the average person confronted with violence or torture.
That's why even though the use of violence is strongly discouraged in Buddhism, it's understood that we're potentially going to be confronted with situations where we may feel the need to, or automatically react with, some level of violence and force. That's why there's no offense for a monk who, "trapped in a difficult situation, gives a blow 'desiring freedom'" (Pc74). That doesn't mean Buddhism sanctions violence, as you say, only that it's recognize our strong desire for survival and aversion to pain.
I think Simon sums it up perfectly when he say, "The b*gg*r of it is that 'Buddhism' does not sanction for or against. It challenges us to develop our mindful attention to such a point that we can take the most skillful path in each situation, contextual and appropriate." The Buddha gives you an ideal to shoot for, but the actual practice itself is a gradual one (MN 107). As such, I don't think the Buddha expects every monk and lay-follower to start off with perfect virtue and wisdom.
I don't think the Buddha expects every monk and lay-follower to start off with perfect virtue and wisdom.
When I want to see someone struggling with the real, day-to-day dilemmas of trying to lead a good life, and sharing his experience along the way, I alternate between Michel de Montaigne and the short stories of 'Saki'.
The b*gg*r of it is that 'Buddhism' does not sanction for or against. It challenges us to develop our mindful attention to such a point that we can take the most skillful path in each situation, contextual and appropriate.
Hear, hear!
It may not be proper practice, but I feel it is basic human decency... at least in my own nature... To defend those who cannot defend themselves. To be brave where others are meek, to bleed so others do not need to. If it came down to it, I would not hesitate to sacrifice my life for someone else, and yes I have been in a situation like this.
Comments
* the first takes the precept about not killing as an absolute.
* the second is more 'situational'.
Both claim to be 'Buddhism'.
The truth is that we are (mostly) 'armchair generals'. We set up hypothetical situations, case studies to examine. Useful, I'm sure but everything changed when one is actually attacked.
Each one of us, as we encounter such situations (bullying, attacking, etc.), it will not be how good we have been at arguing about rights and wrongs that will determine our actions: it will be the result of our having developed a peaceful mind or not. Peace isn't an aim, it is a tool of the mind. May I refer you to the life and final recorded words of Nurse Edith Cavell?
As for the use of violence itself, Buddhist ethics is based on the principles of kamma — the idea that certain actions produce pleasant, painful or neutral feelings/results — and ahimsa or harmlessness, so the use of violence is strongly discouraged. That said, Buddhism is ultimately pragmatic, and it's understood that we're potentially going to be confronted with situations where we may feel the need to, or automatically react with, some level of violence and force. That's why there's no offense for a monk who, "trapped in a difficult situation, gives a blow 'desiring freedom'" (Pc74).
People can justify just about anything. But taking life is still in breach of the first Buddhist precept.
P
P
"We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will..immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves."
P
P
Palzang
"According to Vibhanga, there is no offense for a bhikku who, trapped in a difficult situation, gives a blow 'desiring freedom'".
I don't think the answer resides in which "leaders" are elected. Power corrupts and wants more power. A "democratic" society is much easier to propagandize, because nobody thinks it's propaganda.
You have a responsibility, towards yourself and others, to stand by the convictions of compassion, gentleness, love and good intent.
That being said, if you witness a parent belittling and otherwise verbally or emotionally abusing their child, I would go to the parent and explain what they are doing to the child in the most compassionate and respectful way. I would be correcting them in the same manner to which would be appropriate for the parent to correct the child because it becomes both a lesson and healing event. However, it does not work as well if only one person does this. It works much better if the same approach were to be done by many people within this child's/parent's life.
If it is a physical threat, though, of someone in immediate physical danger, I would stand between the force of harm and the victim or protect them in whatever way to which I was able. I do not think I would defend or fight back unless my life was on the line. If defending my life or an other life I would absolutely choose to fight or defend.
P
When that mindset spills over into politics, we have a problem, because irrational desires contradict each other all the time. At this point in time, I suspect the answer lies in not being "that", but at the same time being welcoming to people who are "that".
P
P
I cannot confidently say that I can maintain both precepts at that point of time. I'm still trying to develop awareness and the concentration to maintain that awareness to assume such things.
I think it's meant literally in the sense that the Buddha was saying "Here's the most extreme situation we can imagine".
P
P
Getting shot at is not fun.
That's why even though the use of violence is strongly discouraged in Buddhism, it's understood that we're potentially going to be confronted with situations where we may feel the need to, or automatically react with, some level of violence and force. That's why there's no offense for a monk who, "trapped in a difficult situation, gives a blow 'desiring freedom'" (Pc74). That doesn't mean Buddhism sanctions violence, as you say, only that it's recognize our strong desire for survival and aversion to pain.
I think Simon sums it up perfectly when he say, "The b*gg*r of it is that 'Buddhism' does not sanction for or against. It challenges us to develop our mindful attention to such a point that we can take the most skillful path in each situation, contextual and appropriate." The Buddha gives you an ideal to shoot for, but the actual practice itself is a gradual one (MN 107). As such, I don't think the Buddha expects every monk and lay-follower to start off with perfect virtue and wisdom.