Poll - If you had to kill in self-defense would you?

[dylanj]

Unconditionally, in any circumstance, the intentional ending of the life of a living being produces painful, unwholesome consequences.

I am appalled anyone viewing themselves as a follower of the Buddha would question this.

[DooDoot]

He's not defeated, he chose to stop putting up with your heresy & harassment.

Sorry. Defeated in debate. Defeat occurs to folks that cling to the idea that they are the Crusader Knights that uphold Right View.

Unconditionally, in any circumstance, the intentional ending of the life of a living being produces painful, unwholesome consequences. I am appalled anyone viewing themselves as a follower of the Buddha would question this.

Being appalled does not make it right.

[Dhammarakkhito]

Isn't all killing bad kamma in buddhism?

Where is this found in the suttas? The suttas often describe how a King executes a murderer, thief or adulterer for their crimes. These suttas say the murderer, thief or adulterer commits bad karma but they do not comment on the King.

Suppose, Susima, that a robber, an evil-doer, having been caught, were shown to a king: 'This, your majesty, is a robber, an evil-doer. Decree what punishment you want for him.' And so the king would say, 'Go and — having bound him with a stout rope with his arms pinned tightly against his back, having shaved him bald — march him to a harsh-sounding drum from street to street, crossroads to crossroads; evict him out the south gate of the city and there, to the south of the city, cut off his head.' Then the king's men, having bound the man with a stout rope with his arms pinned tightly against his back, would march him to a harsh-sounding drum from street to street, crossroads to crossroads, evict him out the south gate of the city and there, to the south of the city, cut off his head. What do you think, Susima? Wouldn't that man, for that reason, experience pain & distress?"

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

i will give you a simple refutation first
The Blessed One said: "There is the case, student, where a woman or man is a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell. If, on the break-up of the body, after death — instead of reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is short-lived wherever reborn. This is the way leading to a short life: to be a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings.

"But then there is the case where a woman or man, having abandoned the killing of living beings, abstains from killing living beings, and dwells with the rod laid down, the knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, & sympathetic for the welfare of all living beings. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination, in the heavenly world. If, on the break-up of the body, after death — instead of reappearing in a good destination, in the heavenly world — he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is long-lived wherever reborn. This is the way leading to a long life: to have abandoned the killing of living beings, to abstain from killing living beings, to dwell with one's rod laid down, one's knife laid down, scrupulous, merciful, & sympathetic for the welfare of all living beings.

"There is the case where a woman or man is one who harms beings with his/her fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is sickly wherever reborn. This is the way leading to sickliness: to be one who harms beings with one's fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives.

"But then there is the case where a woman or man is not one who harms beings with his/her fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in a good destination... If instead he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is healthy wherever reborn. This is the way leading to health: not to be one who harms beings with one's fists, with clods, with sticks, or with knives.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

if this isn't a sufficient refutation for you, then i direct you to DN 26 where it tells in detail the consequences for a society ruled by a king who does not bestow wealth onto the poor, who slaughters thieves, which has a sort of domino effect into catastrophe. because the king does not rule by righteousness but by violence each successive generation's lifespan decreases.

Thus, brethren, from goods not being bestowed on the destitute poverty grew rife; from poverty growing rife stealing increased, from the spread of stealing violence grew apace, from the growth of violence the destruction of life became common, from the frequency of murder lying grew common, from lying growing common, evil speaking grew abundant, from evil speaking growing abundant, adultery grew common, from adultery growing common abusive and idle talk grew common, from abusive and idle talk growing common, covetousness and ill-will grew common, from covetousness and ill-will growing common, false opinions grew common, from false opinions growing common, incest, wanton greed and perverted lust grew common, finally from incest, wanton greed and perverted lust growing common lack of filial and religious piety and lack of regard for the head of the clan grew great.

From these things growing, the life-span of those beings and the comeliness of them wasted, so that, of humans whose span of life was two and a half centuries, the sons lived but one century.
https://suttacentral.net/en/dn26
the excerpts were too long for me to share, but i think it is very possible your perspective on this issue will change

[User1249x]

How i perceived the whole thing is that Doot had legit concern of his in regards to the Kamma and he found a semantic flaw with Disciple's statement, i saw where he was going with it and since this thread is about KILLING PEOPLE i just posted the Sutta which is problematic for his position and wanted to avoid pointless derailment of this thread into Eternal vs Non-Eternal debate thread. I suspect that he did not like it and probably upset as he simultaneously raised argument in another thread...

Its not what happened but how i perceived it. I would not even get involved there had it not been for the nature of the thread. I got angry too but not much did i post on that account. Would be good to get over it...

[DooDoot]

I would not even get involved there had it not been for the nature of the thread.

Then best to move on since it seems you have little constructive & civil to offer; apart from behaving like Charlton Heston in a Moses movie about the Ten Commandments.

i will give you a simple refutation first

The Blessed One said: "There is the case, student, where a woman or man is a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings. Through having adopted & carried out such actions, on the break-up of the body, after death, he/she reappears in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell. If, on the break-up of the body, after death — instead of reappearing in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, hell — he/she comes to the human state, then he/she is short-lived wherever reborn. This is the way leading to a short life: to be a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings.

Thanks. But this is not a refutation because it appears to be about habitual violent malevolent killing. It says:

...a killer of living beings, brutal, bloody-handed, given to killing & slaying, showing no mercy to living beings [plural]...

It is not about killing in self-defense.

If you can provide a direct quote from the suttas that says killing in self-defense for a lay person is wrong, then you have affirmed the Dhamma.

[User1249x]

actually we were having a pretty well structured debate me and OP, then you come sayings there is no "bad kamma" and this thread gets 2 more pages long and you conclude with me having nothing constructive to say and misbehaving. Ask if OP confirms.

[Dhammarakkhito]

Then you are okay with death of children .. even though you had means to stop it?

I can't control death or what other people do. I do not intentionally kill or recomend others to kill. That is my position.

But you avoided my question. Are you okay with death of children even though you had means to stop it? Be candid and categorical .. I am not looking to challenge you .. just need clear answers on this one

No greys please .. answer in binary mode

"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."

First the categorical answer,
then the qualified,
third, the type to be counter-questioned,
& fourth, the one to be set aside.
Any monk who knows which is which,
in line with the Dhamma,
is said to be skilled
in the four types of questions:
hard to overcome, hard to beat,
profound, hard to defeat.
He knows what's worthwhile
& what's not,
proficient in (recognizing) both,
he rejects the worthless,
grasps the worthwhile.
He's called one who has broken through
to what's worthwhile,
prudent,
wise.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html
i'm not sure the question you put forth warrants a categorical answer.
however, no, i would not kill in self defense. if i were able to maintain sati during the process of making that decision. people kill in self defense because they are afraid of dying. i'm a little afraid of dying, probably a lot afraid, but i know the kamma that i would suffer if i killed would be not only worse for me but worse for others. a killer in the world is long-term suffering for killer and killed. you don't kill and retain compassion. in order to maintain loving kindness for all beings you don't kill them and instead imbue them with your mettā. this will save many, many more lives than killing will. "There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans. And this is the fourth reward of merit... https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html i hope you will at least entertain that abstaining from killing, even the killing of killers or would-be killers, is not a position of apathy, inherently

[Dhammarakkhito]

for posterity, too, metta sutta: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .amar.html

[DooDoot]

however, no, i would not kill in self defense. if i were able to maintain sati during the process of making that decision. people kill in self defense because they are afraid of dying. i'm a little afraid of dying, probably a lot afraid, but i know the kamma that i would suffer if i killed would be not only worse for me but worse for others.

How can you know the kamma of killing in self-defense will be worse for you when you are not even a stream-enterer (since you say you are afraid of dying)? If you had a child with a deadly intestinal worm & you chose to not kill the worm; do you think your mind would be at peace; because you showed compassion to a parasite worm?

[dylanj]

kakacupama sutta

[DooDoot]

kakacupama sutta

For monks.

[User1249x]

he does not care for Sutta, i showed him Genesis he says fake. There is no point.
Actually same meaning that Genesis carries can be derived as it is implied in the Brahmajala Sutta.

Those Sutta are obviously not fake and are the Jewels of the Tipitaka apart from the instruction suttas, those two are incredibly famous and important to explaining the Cosmology and Ethics of Buddhism.

[DooDoot]

i showed him Genesis he says fake.

Its fake because SN 12.44 says the origin of the world occurs at the six sense bases

But this is not fake:

Suppose, Susima, that a robber, an evil-doer, having been caught, were shown to a king: 'This, your majesty, is a robber, an evil-doer. Decree what punishment you want for him.' And so the king would say, 'Go and — having bound him with a stout rope with his arms pinned tightly against his back, having shaved him bald — march him to a harsh-sounding drum from street to street, crossroads to crossroads; evict him out the south gate of the city and there, to the south of the city, cut off his head.' Then the king's men, having bound the man with a stout rope with his arms pinned tightly against his back, would march him to a harsh-sounding drum from street to street, crossroads to crossroads, evict him out the south gate of the city and there, to the south of the city, cut off his head. What do you think, Susima? Wouldn't that man, for that reason, experience pain & distress?"

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

[User1249x]

you do realize that there are people who have high attainments and a lot smarter than you who have no problem with any sutta, do not declare any sutta fake? Who are you to sit here judging fake or not where you have so much trouble understanding so many passages and could not explain arising of contact if your life depended on it?

[dylanj]

kakacupama sutta

For monks.

that which is for monks is for them because it's ideal, & they aspire to the ideal

i'm going to resume my practice of ignoring you now