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.
When someone attacks or acts against or aggressively towards you
snGus
Veteran
I've been reading about the Buddha teachings and in the book Good Question Good Answer by Ven. S. Dammika, the 11th chapter entitled Some Sayings of the Buddha, at page 60 to 62, it says, among others, these Buddha teaching is:
"If anyone abuses you, hits you, throws stones at you or strikes you with
a stick or a sword, you must put aside all worldly desires and consid-
erations and think, ‘My heart will not be moved. I shall speak no evil
words. I will feel no resentment but maintain kindness and compassion
for all beings.’ You should think like this. M.I,126"
"Those who keep thinking, ‘He abused me!’ ‘He struck me!’ ‘He op-
pressed me!’ ‘He robbed me!’ never still their hatred. But those who
let go of such thoughts will. For in this world hatred is never stilled by
more hatred. It is love that stills hatred, this is an eternal truth. Dp.3-5"
So the Buddhism is about unconditional forgiveness? There are so many people in the word who make us harm and by being Buddhist I’d have to simply accept their bad actions? Wouldn’t that be not only a disrespect against me but to all the concepts of Buddhism, such as respect and delivering good treatment to everyone and every being in the word? If I fought back against the ones who made me harm then I’d be destroying them and preventing them from making me and my loved ones harm again. So what’s up with this Buddha teaching? Is it absolute notwithstanding its said consequences?
I’m not the only one who have this doubt or sees this would-be paradox:
"Not all Buddhists follow the non-violent path, however. A Buddhist monk, Phra Kittiwutthi of the Phra Chittipalwon College in Thailand, is noted for his extreme right-wing views. He said that it was not a breech of the first precept to kill communists. He said that if Thailand were in danger of a communist takeover, he would take up arms to protect Buddhism. Sulak Sivaraksa, a Thai peace activist, reports in his book, "Seeds of Peace" that Phra Kittiwutthi has since modified his stance by declaring "to kill communism or communist ideology is not a sin". Sulak adds that the monk confessed that his nationalist feelings were more important than his Buddhist practice and that he would be willing to abandon his yellow robes to take up arms against communist invaders from Laos, Cambodia or Vietnam. By doing so, he said, he would be preserving the monarchy, the nation and the Buddhist religion. In contrast to the views of Phra Kittiwutthi, Sulak Sivaraksa reports that the Vietnamese monk, Thich Nhat Hanh is of the view that 'preserving Buddhism does not mean that we should sacrifice people's lives in order to safeguard the Buddhist hierarchy, monasteries or rituals. Even if Buddhism as such were extinguished, when human lives are preserved and when human dignity and freedom are cultivated towards peace and loving kindness, Buddhism can be reborn in the hearts of human beings." (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/budethics.htm )
So how should I deal with this apparently paradox?
"If anyone abuses you, hits you, throws stones at you or strikes you with
a stick or a sword, you must put aside all worldly desires and consid-
erations and think, ‘My heart will not be moved. I shall speak no evil
words. I will feel no resentment but maintain kindness and compassion
for all beings.’ You should think like this. M.I,126"
"Those who keep thinking, ‘He abused me!’ ‘He struck me!’ ‘He op-
pressed me!’ ‘He robbed me!’ never still their hatred. But those who
let go of such thoughts will. For in this world hatred is never stilled by
more hatred. It is love that stills hatred, this is an eternal truth. Dp.3-5"
So the Buddhism is about unconditional forgiveness? There are so many people in the word who make us harm and by being Buddhist I’d have to simply accept their bad actions? Wouldn’t that be not only a disrespect against me but to all the concepts of Buddhism, such as respect and delivering good treatment to everyone and every being in the word? If I fought back against the ones who made me harm then I’d be destroying them and preventing them from making me and my loved ones harm again. So what’s up with this Buddha teaching? Is it absolute notwithstanding its said consequences?
I’m not the only one who have this doubt or sees this would-be paradox:
"Not all Buddhists follow the non-violent path, however. A Buddhist monk, Phra Kittiwutthi of the Phra Chittipalwon College in Thailand, is noted for his extreme right-wing views. He said that it was not a breech of the first precept to kill communists. He said that if Thailand were in danger of a communist takeover, he would take up arms to protect Buddhism. Sulak Sivaraksa, a Thai peace activist, reports in his book, "Seeds of Peace" that Phra Kittiwutthi has since modified his stance by declaring "to kill communism or communist ideology is not a sin". Sulak adds that the monk confessed that his nationalist feelings were more important than his Buddhist practice and that he would be willing to abandon his yellow robes to take up arms against communist invaders from Laos, Cambodia or Vietnam. By doing so, he said, he would be preserving the monarchy, the nation and the Buddhist religion. In contrast to the views of Phra Kittiwutthi, Sulak Sivaraksa reports that the Vietnamese monk, Thich Nhat Hanh is of the view that 'preserving Buddhism does not mean that we should sacrifice people's lives in order to safeguard the Buddhist hierarchy, monasteries or rituals. Even if Buddhism as such were extinguished, when human lives are preserved and when human dignity and freedom are cultivated towards peace and loving kindness, Buddhism can be reborn in the hearts of human beings." (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/budethics.htm )
So how should I deal with this apparently paradox?
0
Comments
meditate and practice.
any knowledge gained by reading or from somewhere else just becomes more baggage.
examine everything for yourself. what is happening right here and right now?
who are you? what are your assumption about reality and mind?
in zen we ask if you don't think what happens?
true love isn't an emotion. our whole being is true unconditional love. ask yourself what is it like to be?
If I am angry with the my insurance agent for something in my bill I become suspicious about how they are ripping me off and corrupt. But if I process my anger and talk to them considerately about my concerns it is much more constructive.
For example if you are angry with a mouse because it has disease and is making noise you might kill it with a death trap instead of a trap that catches the mouse alive. The mouse doesn't benefit you dead, you are not going to eat it and the satisfaction you get from destroying it is worse poison than the mouse eats because it conditions you. You might not love the mouse but when you are an unloving person with less regard for others (and that gets conditioned) that affects: your meditation, your relationships, your peace, your ideation (you want to destroy yourself when you make mistake), etc
http://www.creativecrystalbuddha.com/the-famous-conversation-between-purna-and-buddha/
Eg if someone insults me, then I can either get offended and defensive and insult them back which is probably going to escalate the situation, or I can stay calm and say something to diffuse the situation, like: "You're entitled to your opinion," or "Why do you say that, you seem really angry at me about something?"
I came up with this subject because, as some of you may have read in other topics by me, I'm studying and discovering the Dharma and I've learned that one of Buddha's teachings is that I shall not counterattack enemies.
But I don't know how to live without counterattacking. By neutralizing my enemies I have a very joyful feeling.
But there are other situations in life, situations that are not about a person or enemy harming you, in which I can easily understand how to apply the Dharma principles and have a very joyful feeling.
Only when it comes to enemies is that I still didn't understand (or maybe agreed) with the unconditional forgiveness lesson. Maybe I will understand and apply it someday, maybe not.
Anyway the Buddha himself said we shouldn't accept the Dharma teachings without firstly making a personal thinking about it. And I've been making this personal thinking and questioning process and so far I came with the conclusion that compassion and forgiveness are beautiful, necessary and wishful but not absolute. I think there are some occasions---not all---that we must counterattack for not becoming victims and this applies not only to our personal life but to the professional life and and the world as a whole. If someone dishonor or harm someone I love I would counterattack and I would do it not only for protecting the person I love against further aggressions but also for revenge purposes. I think if a potential aggressor is aware he can suffer counterattack if he perform an aggression there will be less chances that he will perform such aggression. And I also think that by revenge and counterattacking enemies of my and my loved ones I am applying the compassion towards them.
I'm still starting on the Dharma and this is my personal conception regarding the unconditional compassion subject. I'm sure most of Buddhists would disagree with that and this reminds me why Buddhism is the only religion I believe: it's because I am able to believe on it's beliefs not for blind worshiping but for rational conclusions.
And, because I'm still a newcomer to the Dharma, I would not be surprised if in the future I changed my conception on this subject. But if it happens, it will certainly be for one reason: because I, by studying the Dharma, rationally reached the conclusion that forgiveness must be unconditional and not because it is the common sense opinion. But by now, I don't have ways to truly believe that. I take compassion and forgiveness as great and wishful things but not as absolute.
An aggressor does so out of ignorance*, whether or not it is perceived as justified.**
* Ignorance isn't meant as an insult, but in the buddhist sense of not seeing the true nature of things.
** Please note I didn't make the distinction between the person that initiates or reacts.
I struggled with this question as well, but what you will come to realize with enough practice, is that the path will make itself known at the time it is necessary.
It makes perfect sense to me and I might be the only one who interprets the Dharma this way, unless you or someone else shares this view.
Actually I'm wondering if I can call myself a Buddhist at all and only because of this subject regarding enemies. All the Dharma makes sense to me and I am loving to know that for 2.500 years people have been teaching views in such an accordance to what I consider as right, but sadly there is this incomplete accordance when it comes to the behavior towards enemies.
you can only be sure about your happiness, which is also based on your subjective interpretation.
protect them from what? your mind? again you cannot make them happy, they make themselves happy.
there are no enemies. enemy is a projection from your mind. thus you can make anyone an enemy.
harm only comes if you interpret it as harm. truly if you want to save all beings then liberate yourself from your mind and it's projections. then you can see clearly and act clearly.
not sure why i'm typing this if you find some value in what i say then take it. if not sorry!
basically, you have the correct understanding of ahimsa... non-violence includes neutralizing those that do harm, with the less harm possible (there's entire martial arts based on this principle).
it is only a problem if you make it a problem. so you have a choice to either hit them back, or to just move on.
if they are hitting you and you don't do anything, then there is no incentive for them to keep hitting you. and if they keep hitting you again it is their problem. so yes probably the best thing to do is to run away or probably fight back.
but again it's their problem. you make it a problem by accepting it as a problem.
i know this seems "insane" but it's honestly how it works.
Still, your posts are of great value to me. I'm trying to learn and understand. I'm not trying to indoctrinate anyone on my view. I just need to be enlightened so I can be able to apply this unconditional forgiveness and be happy with it.
So please don't get mad on me because of what I'm saying (If you did get mad).
because there is only our interpretation and our subjectivity. i cannot control you.
but i can control how i interpret the world, thus i can reduce my suffering substantially.
but i'm glad you're trying! because if anything buddhism is worth figuring out in this lifetime. you will be a happier person!
The Dao that can be named is not the Dao. Sounds like something you might need to get over. We need to be careful that we don't mistake rationalization for "thinking for ourselves". Me neither. I changed my mind a lot, too. Still do, but I have slowed down a bit. Ego
it summarizes the precepts, it is quite important.
note, that by defending I mean something like immovilizing an attacker or dodging... that's quite acceptable
If you fought back against the ones who did you harm you would not be destroying them but rather becoming yet another shell for them to inhabit. Vengeance/violence is a disease that preys upon your mind and transmits itself from person to person via action/reaction. You are deluded into believing that by protecting yourself against violent action with violence that you are conquering the threat, when in reality you have become even more endangered by harboring its will within yourself. Even if you win an initial struggle against an aggressor, there will be yet another struggle and another, until finally you reach the point at which you can fight no more and a newer stronger host of violence will crush you just as you did to someone else when you were newer and stronger. It is then you will see that it drove you down the road to your destruction by deceiving you with its (temporary) false sense of security, but at that point it will be too late because your fate was sealed long ago by the path you chose.
Including and especially the battle for inner Peace.
"At Savatthi. As he was sitting to one side, King Pasenadi Kosala said to the Blessed One: "Just now, lord, while I was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in my awareness: 'Who have themselves protected, and who leave themselves unprotected?' Then it occurred to me: 'Those who engage in bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct leave themselves unprotected. Even though a squadron of elephant troops might protect them, a squadron of cavalry troops, a squadron of chariot troops, a squadron of infantry troops might protect them, still they leave themselves unprotected. Why is that? Because that's an external protection, not an internal one. Therefore they leave themselves unprotected. But those who engage in good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct have themselves protected. Even though neither a squadron of elephant troops, a squadron of cavalry troops, a squadron of chariot troops, nor a squadron of infantry troops might protect them, still they have themselves protected. Why is that? Because that's an internal protection, not an external one. Therefore they have themselves protected.'"
"That's the way it is, great king! That's the way it is! Those who engage in bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct leave themselves unprotected. Even though a squadron of elephant troops might protect them, a squadron of cavalry troops, a squadron of chariot troops, a squadron of infantry troops might protect them, still they leave themselves unprotected. Why is that? Because that's an external protection, not an internal one. Therefore they leave themselves unprotected. But those who engage in good bodily conduct, good verbal conduct, & good mental conduct have themselves protected. Even though neither a squadron of elephant troops, a squadron of cavalry troops, a squadron of chariot troops, nor a squadron of infantry troops might protect them, still they have themselves protected. Why is that? Because that's an internal protection, not an external one. Therefore they have themselves protected."
That is what the Blessed One said. Having said that, the One Well-Gone, the Teacher, said further:
Restraint with the body is good, good is restraint with speech. Restraint with the heart is good, good is restraint everywhere. Restrained everywhere, conscientious, one is said to be protected."
I took it from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn03/sn03.005.than.html
Do you think he meant if someone attacks me (in any way, not only physical or moral) I could counterattack for neutralizing the aggressor and setting back the status quo ante?
You actually have more peace and happiness through restraint. More can think more clearly when you are not afflicted by guilt and resentment rather you are wise.