Self Defense and the First Precept in Theravada Buddhism

Discussion
21

Not only not giving exceptions, but also declaring in AN2.18 that his pronouncement against bodily, verbal and mental misconduct is one made ekaṃsena, that is, “absolutely”, "definitively ".

In the suttas, ekaṃsavāda pronouncements are the opposite of vibhajjavāda ones, the latter being those in which distinctions and qualifications are necessary.

Ekaṃsenā’haṃ, ānanda, akaraṇīyaṃ vadāmi kāyaduccaritaṃ vacīduccaritaṃ manoduccaritan ti.

“I say definitively, Ānanda, that deeds of bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, and mental misconduct are not to be done.”

7 Likes
22

If the crazy guy’s like: “push me, push me, push me, push me just a little or I’ll blow all of their heads off.” You may have to ask yourself in a deep way whether pushing him might save someone’s life. Crazy people are capable of making decisions, as are monks, but that doesn’t guarantee the outcome. The effects of kamma and life are often uncertain.

23

There is this famous moral quandary very similar to the situation you talk about:

What I conclude from most of the comments is that the first precept takes precedence over any utilitarian thinking.

I mean, yeah, I can see that he would never approve of killing… on the other hand…if one thinks about it in chanda and kamma-terms…if someone can prevent the shooter from taking poeple’s lives (the intention to harm ) out of compassion (for the people’s lives and even maybe towards the shooter who’d otherwise inflict harm on him/herself ) wouldn’t that make a difference?

24

Again, it depends on your definition of “utilitarian”.

I actually disagree with @Ceisiwr in that, I believe Buddha is nothing but utilitarian. He literally focuses only on outcomes that result in the least amount of suffering for all parties involved. Now, whether you agree that what he says actually results in the least amount of suffering, that’s another discussion.

Law of kamma is not such that there’s a god coming to punish you for your transgressions - it’s a framework to analyse how certain actions result in certain outcomes. Buddha says the way kamma functions precisely is beyond comprehension, this being so, there were very specific actions he didn’t take any chances with (like killing, stealing, lying, etc.).

Let me give an absurd example, exaggerated to make a point: A person shoots and kills another person to save a little girl. Almost everyone approves, pats the shooter on the back, says there was nothing else to do.

There’s a little boy watching this whole event. He thinks to himself “I have to be strong and ready to kill to protect others”. He goes out and starts training with his father on how to operate firearms. He talks about his experience to his friends.

One of the angry kids outside of his friends circle hears about these. He also decides he needs a gun. Now we’re festering a culure of jealousy, fear and violence. Kids keep talking about guns, and soon everyone grows up learning how to operate a firearm.

But having a handgun is not enough. We have literally the word “Arms race” because it’s a thing that happened over and over in history. One of these kids, now an adult, decides he needs a tank to fight all these people he knows have a gun. Another one decides that he needs a plane to be able to shoot down the tank. Mind you, they’re all thinking they’re doing the right thing - saving the little girl. It seemed so innocent at first, right?

They all just want to save their little girl. So they need arms harder and more violent than anyone else around them, because fear & clinging drives their actions.

Soon, it turns into “We need to develop nuclear weapons before the Germans do” and so they develop it, and massacre thousands with a single bomb.

It all started with a single incident of someone deciding it was a good idea to kill someone who was a danger to a little girl, ending up in a world of fear and massacre.

Of course, this is just a fictional story - but how far from the reality is it, really? Was it utilitarian, after all, to promote violence?

If there’s a single action that all parties could take & they knew others would take, that resulted in peace, what would it be? It would be non-violence. If everyone decided on being non-violent today, there would be 0 violence. This is utilitarian.

Because trying to appear more dangerous and more violent to ward off potential threats never worked out in history. It always lead to an arms race and an escalation of violence.

But now, how likely is it to reach such a world peace where no one takes up arms? I don’t think it’s very likely. So we’re caught in between a rock and a hard place - it seems either this little girl is going to die, or there’s going to be a nuclear fallout.

Well then, I think you said something about trolley problem. This is the trolley problem - if we save a single life & in turn to promote a culture of violence, that results in more deaths overall.

Of course, that’s only my opinion (and that of the Canon).

For hate is never quelled by hate,
Hate only feeds the hateful state.
Hatelessness alone ends the fight;
This is the ancient, timeless right.

3 Likes
25

Yes, very much so. That’s why I changed from utilitarian theories (in the plural as there are many nuances) to buddhist doctrine.

Yes, this is exactly my point. I stated in another thread (EBT Ethics Perspective) my understanding of kamma (-vipaka)

I was puzzled because except for @Mkoll response, there seemed to be consensus that killing is to be avoided at any costs without taking intentions, desires to act in a certain way, ensuring harmony in society into account.

This is a really good point. Actions have consequences and there might be (and really often there are) unintended consequences. Actions lead to actions lead to actions. And buddhist training strongly encourages thinking and acting in a long-term perspective. Still, the problem of the moral quandary (Do you shoot the shooter?) remains.

2 Likes
26

I believe killing is to be avoided at any costs, and don’t see a moral quandary about it.

Excuse my funny language, but you can’t shag someone into virginity. :smiley: You can’t use violence to achieve peace. It’s just a contradiction by definition.

I believe it’s a principle that’s easier to verify for one self (as opposed to say, rebirth) because history books and all media are full of examples of this.

2 Likes
27

There’s some suttas where, even in situations that people would say that’s okay to kill, like kill or be killed situation, and Buddha does not bend.

Situations where even when arahants are being dismantled, limb by limb, Buddha says to mantain a calm mind, full of love, even for the perpetrators.

There’s a sutta where villagers are asking Buddha for help, some bandits are killing villagers etc. and still Buddha says to maintain a mind full of love and compassion. Like some people said, Buddha is a utilitarist even in the most extreme situations. The bad kamma that comes after killing someone is one too great to do it, regardless of the situation.

Suppose you are not an arahant, the probability that you would still receive bad kamma only for being a victim is very high. The feelings of angry, despair, hate, clinging, ignorance, this produces a mass of suffering. If you engage on it actively trying to defend yourself, you are just increasing the suffering. You are clinging more to survive, you are having more hate and despair to fight the perpetrator.

3 Likes
28

Ok, I’ll have another go: If you let the shooter shoot and you could have prevented it - then you didn’t avoid the act of killing at any costs.
You let it happen that other people died. Does that make a difference?

But this is what I’m asking: In kamma-terms ----> What about compassion (for the people’s lives and even towards the shooter for not inflicting unwholesome effects on him/herself)? What does that do to the first precept? Can we state in an absolutist way that killing is to be avoided at any cost?

29

There’s ways to peacefully prevent someone from killing. But I don’t think we’re discussing about that.

If you can somehow talk the other person into peace, or if you can peacefully grapple and prevent the murder, those are radically different than killing another person, precisely because you’re giving peace a chance.

I’ll paraphrase it as “Does non-violence always lead to less dukkha than choosing violence?” to which I’d say yes. It’s far too easier to follow the path of non-violence and have the accompanying mental clarity, peace, then it is to worry about that sort of thing.

30

MN 86 is I think a very touching sutta about laying down violence for good. It involves an infamous killer who was out to kill Buddha.

I think it also bears to mention how Buddha was from a warrior caste. So he should know a thing or two about war and violence.

So I have heard. At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī in Jeta’s Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika’s monastery.

Now at that time in the realm of King Pasenadi of Kosala there was a bandit named Aṅgulimāla. He was violent, bloody-handed, a hardened killer, merciless to living beings. He laid waste to villages, towns, and countries. He was constantly murdering people, and he wore their fingers as a necklace.

Then the Buddha robed up in the morning and, taking his bowl and robe, entered Sāvatthī for alms. Then, after the meal, on his return from almsround, he set his lodgings in order and, taking his bowl and robe, he walked down the road that led to Aṅgulimāla.

The cowherds, shepherds, farmers, and travelers saw him on the road, and said to him, “Don’t take this road, ascetic. On this road there is a bandit named Aṅgulimāla. He is violent, bloody-handed, a hardened killer, merciless to living beings. He has laid waste to villages, towns, and countries. He is constantly murdering people, and he wears their fingers as a necklace. People travel along this road only after banding closely together in groups of ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty. Still they meet their end by Aṅgulimāla’s hand.” But when they said this, the Buddha went on in silence.

For a second time … and a third time, they urged the Buddha to turn back.

But when they said this, the Buddha went on in silence.

The bandit Aṅgulimāla saw the Buddha coming off in the distance, and thought, “Oh, how incredible, how amazing! People travel along this road only after banding closely together in groups of ten, twenty, thirty, forty, or fifty. Still they meet their end by my hand. But still this ascetic comes along alone and unaccompanied, like a conqueror. Why don’t I take his life?”

Then Aṅgulimāla donned his sword and shield, fastened his bow and arrows, and followed behind the Buddha. But the Buddha used his psychic power to will that Aṅgulimāla could not catch up with him no matter how hard he tried, even though the Buddha kept walking at a normal speed.

Then Aṅgulimāla thought, “Oh, how incredible, how amazing! Previously, even when I’ve chased a speeding elephant, horse, chariot or deer, I’ve always caught up with them. But I can’t catch up with this ascetic no matter how hard I try, even though he’s walking at a normal speed.”

He stood still and said, “Stop, stop, ascetic!”

“I’ve stopped, Aṅgulimāla—now you stop.”

Then Aṅgulimāla thought, “These ascetics who follow the Sakyan speak the truth. Yet while walking the ascetic Gotama says: ‘I’ve stopped, Aṅgulimāla—now you stop.’ Why don’t I ask him about this?”

Then he addressed the Buddha in verse:

“While walking, ascetic, you say ‘I’ve stopped.’ And I have stopped, but you tell me I’ve not. I’m asking you this, ascetic: how is it you’ve stopped and I have not?”

“Aṅgulimāla, I have forever stopped—I’ve laid aside violence towards all creatures. But you can’t stop yourself from harming living creatures; that’s why I’ve stopped, but you have not.”

“Oh, at long last a renowned great seer, an ascetic has followed me into this deep wood. Now that I’ve heard your verse on Dhamma, I shall live without evil.”

With these words, the bandit hurled his sword and weapons down a cliff into an abyss. He venerated the Holy One’s feet, and asked him for the going forth right away.

Then the Buddha, the compassionate great seer, the teacher of the world with its gods, said to him, “Come, monk!” And with that he became a monk.

3 Likes
31

Thanks for your input. I appreciate it and it doesn’t lack clarity!

This is exactly what I’m discussing :wink:
So to your statement:

I’d say yes, too. And I agree that in many cases there are ways to peacefully prevent somebody from killing. But a quandary is qua definition designed to have to choose between conflicting ethical principles. So the shooter has already killed people and will go on doing so. What do you do? Do you let it happen?

32

We’re discussing things so abstractly, that I can only give vague general answers, and anything else gets too fuzzy. :slight_smile:

I would try my best to prevent it with peaceful means, and I’m foolish enough to sacrifice my life in situations like this.

No anger lasts forever. No one kills forever. It is more important to cultivate peace (which is what “Killing to prevent killing” is supposed to be justified on) than it is to respond in kind.

I believe peaceful attempts will always result in better outcomes than ever turning to killing. To suggest otherwise (that violence can ever prevent violence) is to suggest a contradiction by definition.

2 Likes
33

If I ever pursue a career in public life with the need to have a bodyguard, I’ll get back to you :wink:

Ok, fair enough and I don’t wanna push this too far. There are, though, situations where officials/ police officers have to make that exact decision. The trolley problem is somewhat a philosopher’s musing but a shooting is unfortunately much more real-life.

1 Like
34

The practice is about escaping the circumstances, not improving them.

Improving them for all may be impossible. Therefore, escape (Nibbana) is prioritized .

If you have to act in self-defence or defence of others, the circumstances have cought up with you. You have no choice but to act as they force you to.

I believe this is a major part of the “remainder” of Dukkha before Parinibbana.

And it is of course the exact point where Western values and Buddhism inevitably collide.

35

It sounds pretty harsh when phrased this way :face_with_diagonal_mouth: but yes, I agree that it would add up to this if we accept that the path is (solely) about escaping samsara and its circumstances.

36

Sorry, was just trying to not go into monologue. Some write a novel for every answer.

37

In the Jataka tales there are examples of the Bodhisattva Shakyamuni taking his own life out of compassion for others. By the letter of the law he violated the precept in doing so and yet we are left with the tale as an example of virtuous conduct on the part of Bodhisattva Shakyamuni. Food for thought… :pray:

PS: of course one could just dismiss those tales as apocryphal if one wishes… to each their own, but I find those tales incredibly beautiful and inspiring

1 Like
38

The Trolley problem was discussed here about 5 years ago.

2 Likes
39

Which might be another way of responding to the Trolley Problem posted by Ven. Sujato earlier and re-posted by @Adutiya here.

If at all possible, perhaps the intention/action that is the least negative (or most positive)
is to throw oneself onto the tracks in front of the Trolley.

This should stop the trolley after one has been hit by it, while saving both the single person and the five others.
Meanwhile, if the intention was not driven by vibhavataṇhā , then everyone on the tracks is saved while the wholesome intention of dāna is actualized.
Or, an arahant might do this free of karmic inclinations.

1 Like
40

A utilitarian is someone who thinks the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people is good. On such a worldview, you can justify nearly anything. Slavery, for example.

2 Likes