So when u claim to have not killed a living thing, where do u live? in an air-conditioned apartment in a concrete city? are the aggregates attacked on a daily basis by mosquitoes & gadflies?
Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
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
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
This forum is almost dead,
There are about 10-15 people left posting. This is down a lot since i "left" in 2016 forum got trolled hard i think and it drove people away.
Last edited by User1249x on Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
That is why I presented the ratio to visits and not ratio to total members
"The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”― Albert Camus
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
maybe i misinterpereted something ill take a look later. i had to delete part of that post because was a mistake there i wanted to correct
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
I imagine its a dumb question to most Buddhists & to most intelligent people. If the word 'morality' is researched, which has been examined by humanity for 1000s of years, it should be found that absolute prohibitions on killing are not related to 'morality' but, instead, are related to certain 'transcendent non-worldly' ideologies. Thus, in Buddhism, monks are prohibited from killing but the teachings are not that explicit for laypeople. In Buddhist cultures, such as Thailand, Burma, etc, monks generally do not impose strict rules upon laypeople because the life of a layperson revolves around family.No_Mind wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:23 amThere have been 578 visits to this thread. Assume 40 were mine (since I wanted to know how my thread was progressing) that leaves 538 visits .. assume others too made repeat visits and only 20% of the visits were unique (20% of 538 visits were from different members) .. that means 538 * 20% = 108 members visited this thread.
Last edited by DooDoot on Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
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
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
Then how do you explain "where are you from" (sticky in Lounge) having only 397 replies after 9 years and 37000 visits from 12000 members.DooDoot wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:51 amI imagine its a dumb question to most Buddhists & to most intelligent people. If the word 'morality' is researched, which has been examined by humanity for 1000s of years, it should be found that absolute prohibitions on killing are not related to 'morality' but, instead, are related to certain 'transcendent' ideologies. Thus, in Buddhism, monks are prohibited from killing but the teachings are not explicit for laypeople. In Buddhist cultures, such as Thailand, Burma, etc, monks generally do not impose strict rules upon laypeople.No_Mind wrote: ↑Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:23 amThere have been 578 visits to this thread. Assume 40 were mine (since I wanted to know how my thread was progressing) that leaves 538 visits .. assume others too made repeat visits and only 20% of the visits were unique (20% of 538 visits were from different members) .. that means 538 * 20% = 108 members visited this thread.
My point being many members visit .. but only 20 participate .. at any given time. Are Buddhists naturally bashful?
"The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”― Albert Camus
- DNS
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17194
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
- Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
- Contact:
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
Not all polls generate that much interest. Some have hundreds of votes, some very little. The forum is at one of the most active times in its history. I can see a stats page and we are averaging 100 to 200 posts per day. It all just depends on people's interests on which polls they participate in and which ones they don't and the same with other forum participation; sometimes people have more pressing demands IRL and then return later.
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
You should read the OP more carefully. The question is not about an opinion. It is about the outcome of a potential (yet highly hypothetical/improbable) future scenario, and could be answered categorically and with certainty only by an arahat. (He would say "no".)
When I was small, I was often told "there are no stupid questions, there are only stupid answers". But I learnt that this is not true.
But whether a question be stupid or not, ill-motivated or not, there may be ways of answering it that are worthwhile, yet for some there are not.Pañhapuccha Sutta: On Asking Questions wrote:Then Ven. Sariputta addressed the monks: "Friend monks."
"Yes, friend," the monks responded to him.
Ven. Sariputta said: "All those who ask questions of another do so from any one of five motivations. Which five?
"One asks a question of another through stupidity & bewilderment. One asks a question of another through evil desires & overwhelmed with greed. One asks a question of another through contempt. One asks a question of another when desiring knowledge. Or one asks a question with this thought, 'If, when asked, he answers correctly, well & good. If not, then I will answer correctly [for him].'
"All those who ask questions of another do so from any one of these five motivations. /.../'
A question asked while prescribing the mode of answering it (in this case, categorical: "yes" or "no") while an answer in that mode is impossible is probably stupid. But it could be something else.AN 4.42 wrote:There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms]. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions."
Asking a question and not knowing afterwards what one actually asked is probably stupid. But it could be something else.
However, some questions can be answered:
Yes.
MN 9 wrote: /.../
4. "And what, friends, is the unwholesome, what is the root of the unwholesome, what is the wholesome, what is the root of the wholesome? Killing living beings is unwholesome; taking what is not given is unwholesome; misconduct in sensual pleasures is unwholesome; false speech is unwholesome; malicious speech is unwholesome; harsh speech is unwholesome; gossip is unwholesome; covetousness is unwholesome; ill will is unwholesome; wrong view is unwholesome. This is called the unwholesome.
/.../
See sutta quoted above.
That is probably because the person (or people) being taught at that point is supposed to identify with the murderer, the thief or adulterer, and put himself into his position, while reflecting on the potential outcomes of his own potential actions. The king's morality is not questioned here, because he is not the one being spoken to (metaphorically). At least that seems to be the case for the sutta (SN 12.70) you (@DooDoot) gave as an example.
I think that, "the Dhammic religions are all about having an opinion", that's just your opinion, man, and I think it is wrong.
I don't know about other "dhammic" religions, but the Buddha's religion seems to me to be more about giving up all opinions (nippapañca) and developing clear comprehension of reality instead. Reality does not care about your or my opinions (in my opinion).
Quotes from the Aṭṭhakavagga (translated by Paññobhāsa Bhikkhu):
6. Indeed, not easily got past are the entrenchments of views
Seized, having discriminated, from among the philosophies.
Thus a man amid those entrenchments
Discards, adopts a philosophy.
For me it is not that I have shaken off all views. It is just that I cannot answer your question in the way prescribed. I assume it is similar for most.8. Indeed, one having recourse to philosophies has recourse to
argumentation.
To one not having recourse, about what, how, would one make an
argument?
For him, indeed, there is nothing acquired or discarded;
He has shaken off all views even here.
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
If a man looks into a mirror and an ass peers back, is it the fault of the mirror?perkele wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:43 amYou should read the OP more carefully. The question is not about an opinion. It is about the outcome of a potential (yet highly hypothetical/improbable) future scenario, and could be answered categorically and with certainty only by an arahat. (He would say "no".)
The question is clear enough. If you had to kill in self-defense would you? Yes/No
The choices are simple too ... and less than 16% have an anonymous opinion about it
"The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”― Albert Camus
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
Oh, there we go. Constructive criticism taken as offense, as usual.
The question, if taken as just the sentence "If you had to kill in self-defense would you?" is clear. The answer, in that case, too. It would be "yes", because if you "have to", then you "have to". There's no choice, isn't there?
But the OP seems to ask a different question. That question may be "clear enough" as well, to qualify as a well-formulated question. But it is not possible to answer, given the restriction of possible options, for most people.
Please do try to use them.
Good night.
Last edited by retrofuturist on Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Inappropriate link removed
Reason: Inappropriate link removed
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
Obviously, these assumptions are not conclusive; unless we can find a definitive sutta where the Buddha tells Kings punishing evil-doers is unwholesome. In MN 130, if all the wardens of hell were punished for punishing the evil doers in hell, there would be no wardens of hell left to punish the evil-doers. Then the whole system of kamma-vipaka would fall apart. This metaphor exactly applies to police forces in societies. If killing evil-doers was a crime, there would be no policemen & society would be in anarchy. Contrary to your assumptions, the Buddha appeared to keep silent on certain subtle matters. In short, what appeared to be neglected in the quoting MN 9 was:perkele wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:43 amMN 9 wrote: /.../
4. "And what, friends, is the unwholesome, what is the root of the unwholesome, what is the wholesome, what is the root of the wholesome? Killing living beings is unwholesome; taking what is not given is unwholesome; misconduct in sensual pleasures is unwholesome; false speech is unwholesome; malicious speech is unwholesome; harsh speech is unwholesome; gossip is unwholesome; covetousness is unwholesome; ill will is unwholesome; wrong view is unwholesome. This is called the unwholesome.
/.../See sutta quoted above.That is probably because the person (or people) being taught at that point is supposed to identify with the murderer, the thief or adulterer, and put himself into his position, while reflecting on the potential outcomes of his own potential actions. The king's morality is not questioned here, because he is not the one being spoken to (metaphorically). At least that seems to be the case for the sutta (SN 12.70) you (@DooDoot) gave as an example.
In other words, killing rooted in greed, hatred & delusion is obviously unwholesome but killing not rooted in greed, hatred & delusion appears to not be mentioned. I think we need to provide more compelling reasoning so to avoid sīlabbata-parāmāsa & avoid a type of morality that does not lead to concentration & liberation but, instead, leads to the hindrance of paranoia, worry & flurry.And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.
MN 9
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
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
As far as I know, there is also no sutta that advises physical self-defense. Or do you know one?
In MN 130, if all the wardens of hell were punished for punishing the evil doers in hell, there would be no wardens of hell left to punish the evil-doers. Then the whole system of kamma-vipaka would fall apart.
Not necessarily. Without the formal wardens of hell, there are the options of being reborn blind, maimed, severly ill, torn apart by animals, and such.
This is impossible to prove empirically. But theoretically, if Game Theory is anything to go by, then the most likely scenario seems to be that if the usual system of justice would be abolished, there would follow a period of violent anarchy, after which people would settle for some type of cooperation.If killing evil-doers was a crime, there would be no policemen & society would be in anarchy.
And why should this be taken as some kind of invitation to the Secondary Bodhisattva Vows?In other words, killing rooted in greed, hatred & delusion is obviously unwholesome but killing not rooted in greed, hatred & delusion appears to not be mentioned.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
Intentionally killing is always unwholesome, or at best mixed kamma, and is always rooted in worldliness (to achieve a worldly result).
An arahant cannot, does not intentionally kill. Why? Because they have eradicated greed, hatred and delusion.
If there at all existed intentional killing not rooted in greed, hatred & delusion, then an arahant would be able to be such a killer. This doesn't conform.
An arahant cannot, does not intentionally kill. Why? Because they have eradicated greed, hatred and delusion.
If there at all existed intentional killing not rooted in greed, hatred & delusion, then an arahant would be able to be such a killer. This doesn't conform.
Ekaṁsena Sutta (AN 2.18) wrote: I say categorically, Ananda, that bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct should not be done.
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
It is refreshing change to read categorical answers like this. I am glad you replied.Nicolas wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:25 pm Intentionally killing is always unwholesome, or at best mixed kamma, and is always rooted in worldliness (to achieve a worldly result).
An arahant cannot, does not intentionally kill. Why? Because they have eradicated greed, hatred and delusion.
If there at all existed intentional killing not rooted in greed, hatred & delusion, then an arahant would be able to be such a killer. This doesn't conform.
Ekaṁsena Sutta (AN 2.18) wrote: I say categorically, Ananda, that bodily misconduct, verbal misconduct, & mental misconduct should not be done.
"The struggle itself toward the heights is enough to fill a man's heart. One must imagine Sisyphus happy.”― Albert Camus
Re: Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?
perkele wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:43 amThat is probably because the person (or people) being taught at that point is supposed to identify with the murderer, the thief or adulterer, and put himself into his position, while reflecting on the potential outcomes of his own potential actions. The king's morality is not questioned here, because he is not the one being spoken to (metaphorically). At least that seems to be the case for the sutta (SN 12.70) you (@DooDoot) gave as an example.
It is obvious that in the context of the sutta you gave as an example the person being taught is supposed to identify with the position of the one about to be punished by the king.
The Buddha taught people according to their situation and capabilities. Kings are not in a position where they are easily taught what to do. And the fact that the Buddha often spoke about kings punishing and executing criminals to illustrate teachings on kamma and vipaka does not mean that he condoned such actions. Just that these were quite normal, and lent themselves to illustrate the points he had to teach.
Probably that is because (intentional!) killing not rooted in greed, hatred & delusion does not exist.DooDoot wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:21 amIn other words, killing rooted in greed, hatred & delusion is obviously unwholesome but killing not rooted in greed, hatred & delusion appears to not be mentioned.And what is the root of the unwholesome? Greed is a root of the unwholesome; hate is a root of the unwholesome; delusion is a root of the unwholesome. This is called the root of the unwholesome.
MN 9
It seems to me that there is no intentional killing which is not rooted in greed, hatred and delusion. To intentionally deprive another being of life without greed, hatred or delusion present seems impossible to me. Even when it is to save another, as in this example this kind of favouritism (who deserves to live and who doesn't) seems to be bound up with greed, hatred and delusion.
(In that example thread linked to you have made a number of unreasonable statements, jumped to conclusions, which I would like to refute, but not having time to address everything in detail at the moment.)
Contrary to your assumptions, the Buddha was very clear in his statement of certain moral absolutes:
This is a categorical statement. I don't understand how you can ignore that or try to argue around it.MN 9 wrote:Killing living beings is unwholesome
Sounds all very absolute to me.MN 9 wrote:6. "And what is the wholesome? Abstention from killing living beings is wholesome; abstention from taking what is not given is wholesome; abstention from misconduct in sensual pleasures is wholesome; abstention from false speech is wholesome; abstention from malicious speech is wholesome; abstention from harsh speech is wholesome; abstention from gossip is wholesome; non-covetousness is wholesome; non-ill will is wholesome; right view is wholesome. This is called the wholesome."
That doesn't mean that it's easy. Being caught up in moral dilemmas where every choice is bad is not uncommon, but more likely the norm. One has to work towards moral purity and towards freedom where one can actually abstain from unwholesome actions. That is why there is a monastic path of renunciation, requiring one to leave behind all worldly involvements, possessions, belongings, and affiliations, so one can strive towards purity.
I do not see why regarding any killing categorically as unwholesome should lead to paranoia. But it might lead to samvega, when realizing how hard it is to actually abstain from killing, and how tightly one is entangled in this recycling process of killing to survive, dying to be reborn... and on and on.DooDoot wrote: ↑Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:21 amI think we need to provide more compelling reasoning so to avoid sīlabbata-parāmāsa & avoid a type of morality that does not lead to concentration & liberation but, instead, leads to the hindrance of paranoia, worry & flurry.
Accepting the reality of certain moral absolutes does not amount to sīlabbata-parāmāsa. It just means accepting that the path to moral purity (and enlightenment) is difficult.
I recommend reading this essay: Getting the message