Is Buddhism Nihilism?

[dharmacorps]

While not killing is a precept and a training in Buddhism, you have to look at the practice as a whole to understand these things. If you take Kamma and rebirth for instance, you can see why it would be preferable to be killed than to kill others-- if in fact you do get in a situation where that is truly the only option. And even then I really doubt someone could get in many situations like that-- so why worry about it.

[No_Mind]

While not killing is a precept and a training in Buddhism, you have to look at the practice as a whole to understand these things. If you take Kamma and rebirth for instance, you can see why it would be preferable to be killed than to kill others-- if in fact you do get in a situation where that is truly the only option. And even then I really doubt someone could get in many situations like that-- so why worry about it.

From OP,

although most of us will never kill in real life we want to know we can support morally and in every other way an offensive force .. like that pounding out ISIL .. those soldiers be they Syrian, Russian, US Special Forces have my full support.

As an Indian unless I wish that we have a bigger and better army we will be run over by Pakistan and China (they have between them already attacked us four times with their military and sending over mujahideens from Pakistan is a regular happening from 1990)

I love and respect our armed forces and quite a few times in my life I have petitioned the government for war (after Parliament attack 2001, Mumbai attacks 2008 and Uri attack 2016 .. last time the government did hear the millions of petitions and sent in a small force of commandos .. next time there will be real war and I have no problem paying double the current income tax to win the war.)

[DNS]

I am stating .. what terrifies me about Buddhism .. if I were to accept it to a T is that I am not allowed to kill even to save myself ..

I disagree with your interpretations of the buddha's teachings. In his teachings you are allowed to do anything. The things you say are not allowed are not disallowed anywhere in the buddha's teachings that I have seen.....the buddha did not go around disallowing things. He only taught about the relative advantage of following his teachings compared to not.
chownah

I agree with chownah. The Buddha did not come down a mountain with commandments written in stone. He provided a way of life conducive for coming out of suffering and for liberation. He did not mandate any of them. The precepts are considered voluntary. The reality is that Buddhists do kill, cause to kill and approve of killing. Thailand and other nations that are predominantly Buddhist still have standing armies and defend their borders.

If you live in a home, it was built with the killing of millions of insects, maybe some trees removed, even some small animals with the leveling of the land, the pouring of the foundation, etc. Sometimes pests come into the home, including termites, ants, roaches, etc. In some cases if you don't kill them, they will overtake the home. This is just the hard reality. Prevention is the best choice, but sometimes it is too late for that and a colony of some insects is already in your home and then you must make the choice; to give the home to them or take some unpleasant action.

In these self-defense threads someone always brings up the saw simile about how an arahant lets his limbs get sawed while not putting up a fight. That is fine and noble of course for oneself, but could a parent, a husband, a wife, a mother force the saw simile on their children, watching them get killed or do they defend them?

Surprisingly, all Buddhists are not yet arahants.

[No_Mind]

If you live in a home, it was built with the killing of millions of insects, maybe some trees removed, even some small animals with the leveling of the land, the pouring of the foundation, etc. Sometimes pests come into the home, including termites, ants, roaches, etc. In some cases if you don't kill them, they will overtake the home. This is just the hard reality. Prevention is the best choice, but sometimes it is too late for that and a colony of some insects is already in your home and then you must make the choice; to give the home to them or take some unpleasant action.

In these self-defense threads someone always brings up the saw simile about how an arahant lets his limbs get sawed while not putting up a fight. That is fine and noble of course for oneself, but could a parent, a husband, a wife, a mother force the saw simile on their children, watching them get killed or do they defend them?

Surprisingly, all Buddhists are not yet arahants.

So your opinion is follow the First Precept up to a point but disregard it on a case by case basis?

Not arguing or commenting but just trying to understand the issue fully

[DNS]

So your opinion is follow the First Precept up to a point but disregard it on a case by case basis?

Not arguing or commenting but just trying to understand the issue fully

Somewhat correct; I believe one should always follow the First Precept, but on a case by case basis one might want to take the "kammic hit" and defend one's children or wife or husband. That would be the compassionate thing to do, imo as sitting there doing nothing to protect one's kamma would be selfish and then the intruders might turn on you and your neighbors too after they finish your loved ones off.

One could choose non-lethal methods, such as tasers, stun guns, etc or aim for the legs to incapacitate an intruder, but with knowledge that injuries can turn fatal, although that wouldn't be the intent. And then the First Precept would still be upheld with the non-lethal intent.

[No_Mind]

So your opinion is follow the First Precept up to a point but disregard it on a case by case basis?

Not arguing or commenting but just trying to understand the issue fully

Somewhat correct; I believe one should always follow the First Precept, but on a case by case basis one might want to take the "kammic hit" and defend one's children or wife or husband. That would be the compassionate thing to do, imo as sitting there doing nothing to protect one's kamma would be selfish and then the intruders might turn on you and your neighbors too after they finish your loved ones off.

Thank you for coming down on one side categorically .. I appreciate your candour.

[BasementBuddhist]

I was taught that when in situations like this you have to take suffering into account. What is the reason the Buddha searched for and taught the Dhamma? Because he saw suffering in the world and wanted the answers to it. So when making a choice, one must take the suffering caused by various actions into account. If a man breaks into my home, and tries to kill my partner, what would I do? Well, from my perspective, which is the ONLY p.o.v that I can actually fully take, what causes the least amount of suffering? To murder a 'murderer' to save an 'innocent' or to let this murderer kill this person and go free. From my perspective, in the moment, the answer would be to kill the murderer, to save dozens of people the suffering caused by this tragedy that is unfolding because if the murderer goes free, obviously he may do it again.

Now you can say, what makes the murderer deserving of death? we all murder in one way or another. This is true. It is all fine and good to point this out. But, in this moment, here, now, what is the choice, for the parties involved? What causes the least dukkah now and in the future? To kill the killer.

Every situation can be seen in this light, and it is how I try to look at things. What causes the least suffering? It is flawed, but honestly, is letting the killer kill to save my own kamma any better than being a killer? Who knows? Who can say? It is up to all of us. There is never a right or wrong answer. Only answers and their consequences.

[No_Mind]

But, in this moment, here, now, what is the choice, for the parties involved? What causes the least dukkah now and in the future? To kill the killer.

No .. Dhamma is not about balance of hardships inquiry. Not finding fault with you .. but discussion about Dhamma is discussion about Dhamma.

There is very little wriggle room in Pali Canon based Buddhism

[chownah]

There is very little wriggle room in Pali Canon based Buddhism

Your interpretation of the pali canon seem to have led you to the view that buddhism is a fetter which I think is odd in that when practiced it lead to the ending of fetters.
chownah

[No_Mind]

Surprisingly, all Buddhists are not yet arahants.

On second thoughts David ..

Buddhism is for sole purpose of becoming an arahant .. in this life or in as few lives as possible.

It is an all or nothing religion. And we have to play inside that as long as we choose to be Buddhists.

Going strictly by the Pali Canon, [name redacted by admin] is correct.

Not comparing, but in Christianity or Hinduism one can be a part time Christian or part time Hindu .. because of the possibility of God's grace which over rides Karma. Sin can be forgiven by God if He/She/It so wills .. not so in Buddhism.

A Buddhist is either a total Buddhist like [name redacted by admin] says or just spinning his wheels -- one step forward and two steps back.

[User156079]

I was taught that when in situations like this you have to take suffering into account.

Certainly it is wrong teaching.

Ghatva Sutta: Having Killed

As she was standing to one side, a devata recited this verse to the Blessed One:

Having killed what
do you sleep in ease?
Having killed what
do you not grieve?
Of the slaying
of what one thing
does Gotama approve?

[The Buddha:]
Having killed anger
you sleep in ease.
Having killed anger
you do not grieve.
The noble ones praise
the slaying of anger
— with its honeyed crest
& poison root —
for having killed it
you do not grieve.

Only this kind of Killing is approved of by The Blessed One. It is not good to misinterpret the Dhamma.

[No_Mind]

As ancientbuddhism told me once --

The core teachings of the Tathāgata are not for the faint of heart

This discussion brings out why quite succinctly.

[User156079]

"Bhikkhus, the sotapannas do not kill, they do not wish others to get killed.

Thats from Dhammapada Story, it doesnt say kill sometimes to save the family.
I also heard The Buddha's clan was wiped out and he did not interfere nor did they fight back but i am not sure if this is actually in the Sutta Pitaka.

[BasementBuddhist]

But, in this moment, here, now, what is the choice, for the parties involved? What causes the least dukkah now and in the future? To kill the killer.

No .. Dhamma is not about balance of hardships inquiry. Not finding fault with you .. but discussion about Dhamma is discussion about Dhamma.

There is very little wriggle room in Pali Canon based Buddhism

No offense taken.

This is off-topic, and for that I apologize, but I believe that the Buddha put forth his ideas, put forth the Dhamma, as one option among many. I do not believe he meant his words and teaching to become a harsh, unyielding restraint. He offers the dhama to us as an invitation to try it and see how it works for us. After all, it is not for everyone, he said so himself. I believe that one must take from the cannon what one needs to practice, and to fill in the gaps with knowledge one finds for oneself. If these things work for us, then we keep them. Discuss them with others. See what leads to the cessation of suffering. Throw away the excess. I have no interest in discussing dhamma for the sake of discussing dhamma. The dhamma is here, not to be discussed and debated, but to be seen, felt, known, thought about, and used as a tool to progress towards awakening.

I am aware that his makes me something other than a Therevada Buddhist. I came here, to this site, because Mahayana sites do not talk so much about the dhamma, but debate about different teachers. I needed insight into the Buddha, Which I am finding. I came here to take what I needed from the cannon, progress as best I can, and find my own enlightenment. I do not seek to be a Buddhist. I do not seek to be the Buddha. If I met the Buddha, I might not even care much for him. I am seeking the cessation of suffering. I thank the community for its helping me with this. I have grown to enjoy this sangha, and to count myself among its members.

[DNS]

On second thoughts David ..

Buddhism is for sole purpose of becoming an arahant .. in this life or in as few lives as possible.

It is an all or nothing religion. And we have to play inside that as long as we choose to be Buddhists.

Somewhat correct in that yes, it is unwholesome to kill, especially intentional killing. As I mentioned in some cases one might want to take the "kammic hit" for the sake of their loved ones. How much (bad) kamma-vipaka would result? Only a Buddha would know, but perhaps the hit might not be so bad when done out of compassion for defending one's children or parents or others.

Buddhists live in houses which are the result of millions of insects killed (as I mentioned before). Buddhists also eat plants sprayed with insecticide and there are countless other ways we contribute to killing of beings either directly or indirectly. Buddhism is a gradual path, it is not all or nothing. There are Buddhist soldiers, there was even a mass killer in the U.S. not too long ago who was Buddhist. Not that any of these things are okay, of course they are not, but Buddhists are not all automatically arahants the moment they start the path. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman