Just ask a lawyer.
I believe the principle of reasonable force applies. Man points a knife at you, you cannot nuke him.
2 Likes
Absolutely, but if a man is shooting up a school, the police can shoot and kill him, and I donât think theyâre morally culpable in that scenario. And It doesnât even have to be the police, it can be a civilian as long as itâs the only option to stop a killer from actively killing more people. You can defend yourself up to and including killing the attacker if thatâs what it requires or if it happens by accident while defending yourself. But even so, this isnât about the law, this is about morality. I, for one, am a moral realist, I think that moving towards suffering is immoral, and moving toward less suffering, or awakening, is moral. If someone is actively killing people, and the only way to stop them is to kill them, then you have the moral leeway to do it.
1 Like
I get what you are saying⌠but I would rather be certain that I am not in a job/situation that I would be more likely to be faced with such a situation -like being in the police/a soldier/guard. I value my morality more than that, and if someone does that their livelihood will turn into right livelihood ie they will find work that is not in conflict with their values. I also wouldnât throw about the idea of killing another person âflippantlyâ as often some problem in society has lead that person to that point he is attacking someone, and at a certain level we are complicit- we are part of the problem- have not been part of the solution- or our efforts have not borne fruit. These people are human beings - they are someone sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers and mothers. There is no perfect answer- do I agree with taking out a terrorist when they are about to set a bomb -I do. Morality can never be 100% and frankly that isnât a requirement for nibbana. The issue is not rare or one-off events, but what is done habitually. This is the problems for morality, applicable for the path. If anyone wants 100% morality it is best to go down the jain path, and eventually stop breathing as it kills tiny living beings. I believe they commit suicide this way. We can either set up an impossible standard and fail miserably at ever completing our training in sila (relevant for stream entry) and live as hypocrite or bite of what we can chew, and to a degree that is required (helped with the samadhi of jhanas etc) be contented that we are really doing what we can. It has to be practical, yes, but not using practicality as an excuse, if that makes sense.
with metta
2 Likes
I definitely agree.
2 Likes
You do not have a kill a criminal to disarm him/her.
Police are trained to handle these situations.
Iâm talking about the random scenarios where this is not the case, when you have no other option to stop a murder or multiple murders except to kill the murderer. And you cannot argue that this never happens because thatâs just ridiculous. There are plenty of situations where killing them is the only way to prevent more innocent lives from being taken. Now maybe you could disarm them somehow, but not without the cost of at least one more innocent life.
The best way to approach this is to have a mental state that any killing is not acceptable. Action with self-defense is acceptable. What matters is your mental state.
Blame my less than explicit writing. I was attempting to address @SarathW1 opening post about taking alcohol.
By âdeal with Gengis Khanâ et. al. I assume you mean deal with internal, psychological reactions â âdealing withâ the emotions and body reactions which arise after thinking about aâŚholes?
Out of 1) respect for @SarathW1 's premise and 2) to encourage a more orderly and productive conduct of dialog
I would have preferred that @santa100 questions had been addressed by starting a new thread for this new/different topic.
ASIDE:
Consistent with my understanding of the EBTâs regarding warriors and kings âŚ
under circumstances such as you described I might very well take arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing, end them.
This is a Jihad, the Islamic way of thinking.
I am not saying it is right or wrong (or derogative) just what I think.
If you are a Buddhist who believes in multiple lifetimes and rebirth, then what does your death matter if your intentions were pure and you created good kamma? When death and time break down, that is the most important thing. as well as working for enlightenment. Not self or other preservation at the expense of all else.
There was in fact a non-violent response to Hitler, one of my greatest inspirations - the White Rose group. The group were just teenagers. As many of you assumed, within a year of starting their resistance they were arrested and executed. But Sophieâs last words live on, and they are now national heroes in GermanyâŚ
Death is inevitable for all of us, whether it comes sooner or later. So whatâs the most important thing?
6 Likes
When we have this level of Dhamma available to us what matters is deathless.
1 Like
Human life is a rare opportunity which has conditions which enables one to practice the dhamma. SN56.48 Chiggala sutta. A key problem with throwing your life away, to earn oil money for your country or to appease the ego of your leadership, or to satisfy someone elseâs destructive ideology is rebirth is an process filled with uncertainty. SN15.9. The main reason the Buddha didnât encourage throwing oneâs life away is the lost opportunity to obtain freedom from the rounds of rebirth and suffering, it seems.
âThe Venerable Channa did indeed have these friendly families, Sariputta, intimate families, hospitable families; but I do not say that to this extent one is blameworthy. Sariputta, when one lays down this body and takes up another body, then I say one is blameworthy. This did not happen in the case of the bhikkhu Channa. The bhikkhu Channa used the knife blamelessly. Thus, Sariputta, should you remember it.â (SN)
With metta
Thank you Cara for this beautiful example. I agree with you that for believers in kamma/rebirth, keeping precepts is their priority. Believing in a âgreater goodâ and sacrificing morality the same time was/is/will be the cause of wars and killings on both sides.
We can choose âan eye for an eyeâ approach, or âradiating metta while your limbs are saw offâ (MN21), or compassion and forgiveness while you are crucified. The choice is ours.
I think Buddhism is about changing/perfecting yourself, not the world, which always will be just Samsara.
Much metta to all servicemen and civilians
J.
1 Like
I think, if you are not at least a Sotapanna, the middle way is the best approach.
Self-defence is not a bad Kamma but it should not be an eye to eye approach.
2 Likes
I think 95% keeping precepts is what I thought was the optimal level. Middle Path would be 50%!! The training could go either way and end up badly. Allowing oneself just that little bit of leeway stops unnecessary guilt trips and stress. The purpose of sila is to serve as a foundation for samadhi, after all. Becoming all virtuous and being enlightened are slightly parallel and overlapping paths. They are not the same. One looks like Jainism (of which my knowledge isnât great) the other one, Buddhism. There needs to be a recognition that it is also a gradual path - no one can be suddenly virtuous and therefore compassion towards those having a difficult time with their sila is valuable. This includes ourselves as well, of course.
With metta
1 Like
Habit, in breaking precepts, is important:
"Monks, the taking of life â when indulged in, developed, & pursued â is something that leads to hell, leads to rebirth as a common animal, leads to the realm of the hungry shades. The slightest of all the results coming from the taking of life is that, when one becomes a human being, it leads to a short life span. AN8.40
This sutta shows how morality leads to concentration. Note how the stream entrantâs morality is described-unbroken etc. When the arahanthâ morality is described, it is described as âimpossibleâ -to break precepts.
âFurthermore, there is the case where you recollect your own virtues: â[They are] untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, conducive to concentration.â At any time when a disciple of the noble ones is recollecting virtue, his mind is not overcome with passion, not overcome with aversion, not overcome with delusion. His mind heads straight, based on virtue. And when the mind is headed straight, the disciple of the noble ones gains a sense of the goal, gains a sense of the Dhamma, gains joy connected with the Dhamma. In one who is joyful, rapture arises. In one who is rapturous, the body grows calm. One whose body is calmed experiences ease. In one at ease, the mind becomes concentrated.â AN 11.12
Also morality leading to concentration is said to be âappealing to the Noble onesâ. However that on itself isnât enough:
"Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones is endowed with virtues that are appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration. Content with those virtues pleasing to the noble ones, he does not exert himself further in solitude by day or seclusion by night. For him, living thus heedlessly, there is no joy. There being no joy, there is no rapture. There being no rapture, there is no serenity. There being no serenity, he dwells in pain. When pained, the mind does not become centered. When the mind is uncentered, phenomena do not become manifest. When phenomena are not manifest, he is reckoned simply as one who dwells heedlessly. SN55.40
With metta
2 Likes
@Mat I have benefited from your quoting from the EBT & giving the citations. Iâve been following up and reading the passages cited.
To anyone. There is a difference in the translation of AN8.40 @Mat quoted and the translation @ https://suttacentral.net/en/an8.40. The difference in translation Iâm inquiring about is the phrase âsomething that leads to hellâ vs. âis conductive to hellâ.
In the original languages is there a clear distinction between âalways leads toâ and âtends to lead toâ?
Is there a distinction in Pali (or other source EBT languages) between describing cause and effect in qualified terms (âmay tend toâ) and categorical or unqualified terms (âalways leads toâ)?
Thank you for you help.
Since this thread is rehearsing the same arguments it might be of interest to carefully read Bhikkhu Bodhiâs article and the subsequent discussion.
On the topic I would suggest checking SN42.8 which tells us of how the Buddha would approach the topic of how actions lead to rebirth differently from the adherents of fatalistic doctrines found around back in his time would.
To make the point I share Ajahn Thanissaroâs note to his translation of this special sutta:
Although the Jains, like the Buddhists, teach a doctrine of the moral consequences of actions, the teachings of the two traditions differ in many important details.
This discourse points out two of the major points where the Buddhist teaching is distinctive: its understanding of the complexity of the kammic process, and its application of that understanding to the psychology of teaching.
The Buddha shows that a simplistic, fatalistic view of the kammic process is logically inconsistent, and also leads to unfortunate results for any person who, with a background of bad kamma, believes in it.
The actual complexity of kamma, however, allows for a way in which past evil deeds can be overcome: through refraining from evil now and into the future, and through developing expansive mind-states of good will, compassion, appreciation, and equanimity.
In such an expansive mind state, the unavoidable consequences of past evil actions count for next to nothing.
The Buddha also shows how his method of teaching is better than that of the Jains in that it actually can help free the mind from debilitating feelings of guilt and remorse, and lead to the overcoming of past kamma.
English translations of SN42.8 can be found in the links below:
