Self Defense and the First Precept in Theravada Buddhism

Pragmatic, perhaps. But yeah, these distinctions depend a lot on definition.

I’ve heard - what I think are utilitarians? - say it is better to kill a cow for food than millions of ants because one cow’s meat can feed more, but the same amount of ant meat leads to many more deaths.

There are arguably examples of this kind of thinking in the Jataka tales as well. The Bodhi Shakyamuni sacrificing himself - one life - for the sake of others - the many. :pray:

Yes, thanks! I agree.

Thanks for posting the link! I just read the whole thread and l liked what the user JimInBC said because it relates to my uneasiness:

What are the ‘kammic costs’ of letting killing happen? Killing is unwholesome but does that tranlate into abstaining from killing in an absolutist, doctrinal way (in my example of shooting-the shooter)? As I said before, not acting, i.e. letting the killing happen sounds really cruel even if we accept that samsara is by design screwed up.

and this hasn’t been addressed

And to take @Dogen argument and flip it upside-down: One could also argue that bystanding and witnessing killing and not acting upon it fuels indifference. Indifference can lead to more indifference (“well yeah, sorry, you happen to be at the wrong place the wrong time”) Doesn’t sound compassionate to me.

1 Like

The hidden assumption here is that unless you kill the perpetrator, you’re not actually doing anything and you’re a complicit in the crime. I can’t accept this premise at all - there’s infinite things one can do in such a situation besides just killing. :slight_smile:

1 Like

Yes, that’s the assumption and no, it’s not hidden. That’s why I veered away from the trolley problem to the shooting-example.

Infinite :face_with_raised_eyebrow: ?

It is an extreme case, I agree and as I said before often there are other ways of handling a situation. But sometimes there are not. And that’s what I’m talking about. :sunflower:

Actually, not “complicit in the crime” but complicit in screwing up samsara even more @Dogen

That’s a key point. Focusing on toy problems with only two choices, as if working out a position on all such issues would lead to the best outcomes, seems to me a somewhat lazy approach. I recall a comment about some Western Ajahn (Ajahn Sumedho I think) who, when pressed on what he would do with one of these hypotheticals (probably the “Nazis at the door asking if you have any Jews in the house” problem). His response was “I would act mindfully”.

The Buddha’s various “middle way” teachings are not about choices between extremes. They are about thinking outside the box.

2 Likes

Well, yes, as I said before, it’s an extreme case. But saying that it’s

is also somewhat unsatisfactory. It sounds like evading the issue. I’d ask what the “thinking-outside-the-box” and “acting mindfully” would entail then in that given situation?

I’m driving this point forward, because it feels like a respectful and fruitful discussion, so I hope you’ll take it as such instead of me trying force the view on you. :slight_smile:

There’s a few things to unwrap with this statement - first question is, can you definitely know that someone has murderous intentions before they’ve committed to an act?

If someone draws a gun, how can you be sure beforehand that hey’re going to pull the trigger? If someone was just merely bluffing, or afraid, etc; you’ve committed a murder on an innocent (albeit deeply faulty) person.

Let’s say someone shot once, missed the mark, and you’ve reasonable belief that they’re going to continue to shoot. How do you know there are literally 0 options besides taking a gun and shooting them? Have you examined the situation with an omniscient eye and concluded definitely that there’s no possibilities left? :wink:

It seems to me you’re working under assumption that it can be deduced reasonably well that 1. A person is definitely going to try and kill and 2. There’s no choice except to kill them already.

But I’ll give you that sometimes, it’s really close enough. Alright. So in this hypothetical situation, the only way I can save this life is to have a gun on me already. This goes back to my earlier point, about the culture of violence (and most civilised countries don’t allow you to carry a firearm in the public to begin with).

Is it truly a safer world when everyone in the world rushing to outgun each other?

Besides, first precept (which is the main point of this thread to begin with) is about Refraining from killing.

While absolute non-violence might be the stance of some people, there are violent actions one can take (such as stabbing a non-lethal place, grappling, etc.) to try and restrain a person.

So perhaps that would satisfy you. Otherwise, I’d have to itirate - without exhausting these options, it’s hard to conclude that 1. It’s only possible to prevent a murder with another murder. 2. This action will result in less dukkha.

Because the question is vague enough. :slight_smile: Real life has uncountable variables we’re not factoring in right now which all can be attempted to prevent a murder before it comes to it.

1 Like

Then we’re on the same page :slightly_smiling_face: I value your input and wouldn’t discuss things if I thought it was just about winning an argument.

Yes, I feel this is the most important question to aks. In your example

I agree, I cannot examine the situation without an omniscient eye and conclude that there are no other possibilities. So yes, in that situation (the shooter has not yet shooted) I find more room to navigate things and find alternative ways of handling the situation (talk to the individual, evacuate the place etc.)

But what if the shooter has already murdered one, two, three people? What if he/she/they declares to continue? What if that person is so heavily armed that throwing yourself in the line of fire wouldn’t make any difference? Can I still be sure that the shooter would continue? No I can’t. But I can infer that this is very likely.

No, absolutely not. I wouldn’t want to live in a world where everyone is carrying a gun. But I don’t find that argument convincing. In most states you transfer that power to the executive (the police e.g.) Or there are other weapons that can be used. The uneasy, eery, gruesome question remains: What do you do in such a situation (and we’re talking about seconds or fractions of seconds where you have to decide)?

I don’t think it is that vague. But yes, of course - we cannot account for all the variables. But that kind of renders any discussion about moral quandarys ad absurdum because you can always say that you cannot account for all variables. :stuck_out_tongue: :sunflower:

Sorry, I missed this. Yes, of course, this would be preferable. I still think that there are (and I can think of such situations) where this might not be possible. :sunflower:

I agree with most of this quotation from Paul Carus (1894) Buddha, The Gospel No LI https://sacred-texts.com/bud/btg/btg52.htm SIMHA’S QUESTION CONCERNING ANNIHILATION:

Simha said: “One doubt still lurks in my mind concerning the doctrine of the Blessed One. Will the Blessed One consent to clear the cloud away so that I may understand the Dharma as the Blessed One teaches it?”

The Tathagata having given his consent, Simha continued: “I am a soldier, O Blessed One, and am appointed by the king to enforce his laws and to wage his wars. Does the Tathagata who teaches kindness without end and compassion with all sufferers, permit the punishment of the criminal? and further, does the Tathagata declare that it is wrong to go to war for the protection of our homes, our wives, our children, and our property? Does the Tathagata teach the doctrine of a complete self-surrender, so that I should suffer the evil-doer to do what he pleases and yield submissively to him who threatens to take by violence what is my own? Does the Tathagata maintain that all strife, including such warfare as is waged for a righteous cause should be forbidden?”

The Buddha replied: “He who deserves punishment must be punished, and he who is worthy of favor must be favored. Yet at the same time he teaches to do no injury to any living being but to be full of love and kindness. These injunctions are not contradictory, for whosoever must be punished for the crimes which he has committed, suffers his injury not through the ill-will of the judge but on account of his evildoing. His own acts have brought upon him the injury that the executer of the law inflicts. When a magistrate punishes, let him not harbor hatred in his breast, yet a murderer, when put to death, should consider that this is the fruit of his own act. As soon as he will understand that the punishment will purify his soul, he will no longer lament his fate but rejoice at it.”

The Blessed One continued: "The Tathagata teaches that all warfare in which man tries to slay his brother is lamentable, but he does not teach that those who go to war in a righteous cause after having exhausted all means to preserve the peace are blameworthy. He must be blamed who is the cause of war. The Tathagata teaches a complete surrender of self, but he does not teach a surrender of anything to those powers that are evil, be they men or gods or the elements of nature. Struggle must be, for all life is a struggle of some kind. But he that struggles should look to it lest he struggle in the interest of self against truth and righteousness.

"He who struggles in the interest of self, so that he himself may be great or powerful or rich or famous, will have no reward, but he who struggles for righteousness and truth, will have great reward, for even his defeat will be a victory. Self is not a fit vessel to receive any great success; self is small and brittle and its contents will soon be spilt for the benefit, and perhaps also for the curse, of others. Truth, however, is large enough to receive the yearnings and aspirations of all selves and when the selves break like soap-bubbles, their contents will be preserved and in the truth they will lead a life everlasting.

"He who goeth to battle, O Simha, even though it be in a righteous cause, must be prepared to be slain by his enemies, for that is the destiny of warriors; and should his fate overtake him he has no reason for complaint. But he who is victorious should remember the instability of earthly things. His success may be great, but be it ever so great the wheel of fortune may turn again and bring him down into the dust. However, if he moderates himself and, extinguishing all hatred in his heart lifts his down-trodden adversary up and says to him, Come now and make peace and let us be brothers, he will gain a victory that is not a transient success, for its fruits will remain forever. Great is a successful general, O Simha, but he who has conquered self is the greater victor.

“The doctrine of the conquest of self, O Simha, is not taught to destroy the souls of men, but to preserve them. He who has conquered self is more fit to live, to be successful, and to gain victories than he who is the slave of self. He whose mind is free from the illusion of self, will stand and not fall in that battle of life. He whose intentions are righteousness and justice, will meet with no failure, but be successful in his enterprises and his success will endure. He who harbors in his heart love of truth will live and not die, for he has drunk the water of immortality. Struggle then, O general, courageously; and fight thy battles vigorously, but be a soldier of truth and the Tathagata will bless thee.”

My problem is whether these are really the words of the Buddha. Carus gives as his reference Mahāvagga vi 31 (Sacred Books of the East xvii pp108-113), which is here, but is missing the quotation above. The passage is repeated at AN 8 12, but still the above quotation is missing. In this edition Carus gives the missing section as ‘EA (cf QKM 254-257)’. EA = Extra Addition; QKM = Questions of King Milinda (Rhys Davids), but this doesn’t help.

Does anyone know where this quotation comes from?

They’re not. Carus is retelling the sutta in his own words and inserting into it his own views on the matter.

Thank-you Bhante. I think you are right now that I have recovered from my surprise and something near shock or disgust as his insertion doesn’t meet my expectations of right speech. In his Preface on the first page he states:

Besides the three introductory and the three concluding chapters there are only a few purely original additions, which, however, are neither mere literary embellishments nor deviations from Buddhist doctrines.

Sadhu Sadhu, much merit for this link Malunkyaputta.

1 Like

@Homohabilis These forums use what’s called a social moderation system where, if more than one person reports your post, it automatically gets temporarily hidden.

You can edit back your post and choose to present it as-is, if you’re confident that you haven’t broken any of the forum rules. Seeing how you’ve pinged the moderators to here, they would be able to decide if those posts indeed violate community guidelines.

Relax. Everybody can flag a post. It’s going to be fine.