The question in OP is similar to the following riddle.
Scenario: You’re on a ship. The ship is sinking. There is an uninhabited island a few miles away, but the waters are shark-infested. You get in the only lifeboat, and 6 people can fit in the life boat with you. Who will you save?
CEO, male, 40 years old
Professional wrestler, male, 28
Farmer, male, 46
Surfer, male, 21
Police Officer, male, 39
Homemaker, female, 35
Nurse, male, 40
Doctor, female, 62
Comedian, male, 35
Handicapped boy, male, 8
Pregnant teenager, female, 17
Lawyer, female, 36
Buddhist Monk, male, 29
https://rachelshae.wordpress.com/2010/1 ... -you-save/
Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
Uposatha Sutta (Ud 5.5) wrote: Just as the ocean is stable and does not overstep its tideline; in the same way, my disciples do not—even for the sake of their lives—overstep the training rules I have formulated for them.
The Buddha would never intentionally kill for any reason, and would never encourage anyone to kill either.Kakacūpama Sutta (MN 21) wrote: Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: ‘Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of goodwill, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with goodwill and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with goodwill—abundant, enlarged, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.’ That’s how you should train yourselves.
One might say "but these are teachings for monastics", to which I might reply: Dhamma is Dhamma, kamma is kamma, be it monastic or lay person. (In another topic, someone recently quoted Ajahn Sucitto: "Your citta doesn't know whether you're a monk or a lay person".) There is cause and effect. If one intentionally kills, at least a portion of this action is unwholesome/dark kamma, and that will lead to a result with its share of unpleasantness. It's not a matter of "should" or "should not" or micro-managing, but about the way things are, the law of kamma, actions having their consequences.
It's best to emulate Buddhas and arahants. I'm not saying it's easy.
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
Sorry but this does not appear related to Buddhism because Buddhist does not appear to teach lay people to emulate arahants. Also, arahants appear to not do this either. When you actually emulate an arahant, you probably won't be posting the way you are posting. Why don't we change the topic to sex & celibacy & lets see how your arahant emulation fairs? For some reason, since killing is generally a non-issue, I get the impression some Western Buddhists engage in self-sanctification by speaking fundamentalist words about non-killing.Nicolas wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:13 amOne might say "but these are teachings for monastics", to which I might reply: Dhamma is Dhamma, kamma is kamma, be it monastic or lay person. (In another topic, someone recently quoted Ajahn Sucitto: "Your citta doesn't know whether you're a monk or a lay person".) There is cause and effect. If one intentionally kills, at least a portion of this action is unwholesome/dark kamma, and that will lead to a result with its share of unpleasantness. It's not a matter of "should" or "should not" or micro-managing, but about the way things are, the law of kamma, actions having their consequences.
It's best to emulate Buddhas and arahants. I'm not saying it's easy.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
- Dhammarakkhito
- Posts: 1115
- Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:31 am
- Contact:
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
"Furthermore, the disciple of the noble ones reflects thus: 'As long as they live, the arahants — abandoning the taking of life — abstain from the taking of life. They dwell with their rod laid down, their knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. Today I too, for this day & night — abandoning the taking of life — abstain from the taking of life. I dwell with my rod laid down, my knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. By means of this factor I emulate the arahants, and my Uposatha will be observed.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5
https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadha ... 34/?type=3
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/
https://sites.google.com/site/santipada ... allytaught
— Ud 5.5
https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadha ... 34/?type=3
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/
https://sites.google.com/site/santipada ... allytaught
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
Uposatha is practised once per month. Regardless, the Buddha-Dhamma does not teach Buddhist laypeople to emulate arahants for their entire lives.Dhammarakkhito wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:12 am I dwell with my rod laid down, my knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, compassionate for the welfare of all living beings. By means of this factor I emulate the arahants, and my Uposatha will be observed.
Change the subject to sex, drugs or not using money & watch how quickly the sanctity disappears. I remember I attended a Mahayana ceremony once, where everyone was given a Tibetan name & certificate of refuge based in taking the 1st precept of non-killing. It is ironic that his one preceptor lama is now on the official list of Buddhist sexual-misconduct predators. The lama only believed in the 1st precept, based on his actions.As long as they live, the arahants — abandoning uncelibacy — live a celibate life, aloof, refraining from the sexual act that is the villager's way. Today I too, for this day & night — abandoning uncelibacy — live a celibate life, aloof, refraining from the sexual act that is the villager's way. By means of this factor I emulate the arahants, and my Uposatha will be observed.
There is always an official executioner. If you try to take his place, It is like trying to be a master carpenter and cutting wood. If you try to cut wood like a master carpenter, you will only hurt your hand.
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/paticcasamuppada
https://soundcloud.com/doodoot/anapanasati
- Dhammarakkhito
- Posts: 1115
- Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:31 am
- Contact:
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
uposatha is supposed to be practiced roughly four times a month, with each quarter phase of the moon. it's just funny because you are so eager to debate and you said something wasnt taught that is, verbatim. persistence like that can be very useful if directed rightly.
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5
https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadha ... 34/?type=3
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/
https://sites.google.com/site/santipada ... allytaught
— Ud 5.5
https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadha ... 34/?type=3
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/
https://sites.google.com/site/santipada ... allytaught
- Dhammarakkhito
- Posts: 1115
- Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:31 am
- Contact:
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
And how, householders, are there three kinds of bodily conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct? Here someone kills living beings; he is murderous, bloody-handed, given to blows and violence, merciless to living beings.
So, householders, it is by reason of such conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, by reason of such unrighteous conduct that some beings here on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell.
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn41/10.1-10.198
When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... ssage.html
So, householders, it is by reason of such conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, by reason of such unrighteous conduct that some beings here on the dissolution of the body, after death, reappear in states of deprivation, in an unhappy destination, in perdition, even in hell.
https://suttacentral.net/en/mn41/10.1-10.198
When asked if there was anything whose killing he approved of, the Buddha answered that there was only one thing: anger. In no recorded instance did he approve of killing any living being at all. When one of his monks went to an executioner and told the man to kill his victims compassionately, with one blow, rather than torturing them, the Buddha expelled the monk from the Sangha, on the grounds that even the recommendation to kill compassionately is still a recommendation to kill — something he would never condone. If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... ssage.html
"Just as the ocean has a single taste — that of salt — in the same way, this Dhamma-Vinaya has a single taste: that of release."
— Ud 5.5
https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadha ... 34/?type=3
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/
https://sites.google.com/site/santipada ... allytaught
— Ud 5.5
https://www.facebook.com/noblebuddhadha ... 34/?type=3
http://seeingthroughthenet.net/
https://sites.google.com/site/santipada ... allytaught
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
Dhammika Sutta (Snp 2.14) wrote:Let the intelligent person live a celibate life,
as one would avoid a pit of glowing coals;
but being unable to live the celibate life,
go not beyond the bounds with others’ partners.
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
DooDoot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 5:59 amSorry but this does not appear related to Buddhism because Buddhist does not appear to teach lay people to emulate arahants. Also, arahants appear to not do this either. When you actually emulate an arahant, you probably won't be posting the way you are posting. Why don't we change the topic to sex & celibacy & lets see how your arahant emulation fairs? For some reason, since killing is generally a non-issue, I get the impression some Western Buddhists engage in self-sanctification by speaking fundamentalist words about non-killing.
Interesting point. It's strange that so many Buddhists expect lays to emulate arahants when it comes to killing, but not in other ways. If lay people follow those expectations about not killing, while being lays in all the other aspects, that makes them very vulnerable, far more vulnerable than their lay practice can handle.DooDoot wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 10:21 pmIt appears your attempting to rely on the behaviour of an Arahant to support a fundamentalist view would deem celibacy as the only sexual orientation of a Buddhist. I think this shows how wrong the attempted argument is & that you need to do better in representing Buddhism accurately.
I wouldn't say he didn't seek to micromanage people's lives; but that he didn't seek to judge and condemn lay people by standards that apply for arahants.DooDoot wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 4:07 amSo are all worldly pursuits according to Buddhism that are imbued with attachment, such as having a family. You have not really posted anything from the Pali suttas that condemns killing in self-defense. The posts have been mere generalisations & fundamentalist rhetoric. I stand by my opinion that the Buddha did not seek to 'micro-manage' the lives of ordinary people; particularly in a manner to impair their common sense.
In discussions about killing, most people seem to think there are only two options: either one condones killing, or one condemns it. And that's it, no other option.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
What is the reference for this?Dhammarakkhito wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 7:07 am If a monk was physically attacked, the Buddha allowed him to strike back in self-defense, but never with the intention to kill.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/aut ... ssage.html
Secondly, this advice is grossly unrealistic, as it applies only to a select few highly trained people who know how to hit a person in such a way that incapacitates them, but doesn't kill them or cause permanent harm.
In self-defense classes for ordinary people, they teach that one should "only hit to deck" -- that is, one should hit another in self-defense only when one is sure one is able to incapacitate the attacker, because hitting with less force than that will just provoke the attacker to attack even more, and thus make things worse. Meaning, if one is going to hit in self-defense, one has to intend to do serious harm and be able to do so, because anything that is less than that is counterproductive.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
Obviously the statement does not instruct how hit, it says can hit without intention to kill. Are you doot btw? i just ask everybody who holds similar views now and i think you have expressed enough so i can legitimately ask.
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
At the very least, one can expect lay people to emulate arahants when it comes to killing, stealing, adultery or rape, lying, and drinking, i.e. the five precepts.binocular wrote: ↑Fri Feb 23, 2018 6:08 pm It's strange that so many Buddhists expect lays to emulate arahants when it comes to killing, but not in other ways. If lay people follow those expectations about not killing, while being lays in all the other aspects, that makes them very vulnerable, far more vulnerable than their lay practice can handle.
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
For an ordinary person, to hit without the intention to do harm, results in a weak, imprecise hit, or flailing. Which is counterproductive in an actual physical confrontation.
*sigh*Are you doot btw? i just ask everybody who holds similar views now and i think you have expressed enough so i can legitimately ask.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
I wouldn't call keeping the five precepts an act of "emulating an arahant" and it makes no sense to me to conceive of things this way.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!