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

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.
Locked

If you had to kill in self defense or to save others would you?

Yes
19
54%
No
16
46%
 
Total votes: 35

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2081
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot » Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:43 am

rightviewftw wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 8:15 am
Impossible to produce evidence satisfying you...
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?

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

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

Post by rightviewftw » Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:45 am

No_Mind wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:23 am
There have been 578 visits to this thread.
But there are only 18 scores!
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 rightviewftw on Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:47 am, edited 2 times in total.
How to Destroy any addiction
How to Meditate: Satipatthana Mahasi
Медитация Сатипаттхана Випассана
How To Develop Factors of Enlightenment & Perceptions
Complete Manual of Insight by Mahasi Sayadaw
Tyranny of Words - An Introduction to General Semantics
Ledi Sayadaw's Anapana Dipani (Samatha) @ ffmt.fr/articles/maitres/LediS/anapana-dipani.ledi-sayadaw.pdf
Dhammapada @ myweb.ncku.edu.tw/~lsn46/tipitaka/sutta/khuddaka/dhammapada/dhp-contrast-reading/dhp-contrast-reading-en/
don't feed the trolls

User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 1902
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

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

Post by No_Mind » Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:46 am

rightviewftw wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:45 am
No_Mind wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:23 am
There have been 578 visits to this thread.
But there are only 18 scores!
This forum is almost dead,
That is why I presented the ratio to visits and not ratio to total members

:namaste:
I know one thing: that I know nothing

User avatar
rightviewftw
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2018 8:50 pm

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

Post by rightviewftw » Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:49 am

No_Mind wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:46 am
rightviewftw wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:45 am
No_Mind wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:23 am
There have been 578 visits to this thread.
But there are only 18 scores!
This forum is almost dead,
That is why I presented the ratio to visits and not ratio to total members

:namaste:
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
How to Destroy any addiction
How to Meditate: Satipatthana Mahasi
Медитация Сатипаттхана Випассана
How To Develop Factors of Enlightenment & Perceptions
Complete Manual of Insight by Mahasi Sayadaw
Tyranny of Words - An Introduction to General Semantics
Ledi Sayadaw's Anapana Dipani (Samatha) @ ffmt.fr/articles/maitres/LediS/anapana-dipani.ledi-sayadaw.pdf
Dhammapada @ myweb.ncku.edu.tw/~lsn46/tipitaka/sutta/khuddaka/dhammapada/dhp-contrast-reading/dhp-contrast-reading-en/
don't feed the trolls

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2081
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot » Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:51 am

No_Mind wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:23 am
There 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.
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.

Last edited by DooDoot on Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:56 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 1902
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

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

Post by No_Mind » Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:55 am

DooDoot wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:51 am
No_Mind wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:23 am
There 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.
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' 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.
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.

My point being many members visit .. but only 20 participate .. at any given time. Are Buddhists naturally bashful?

:namaste:
I know one thing: that I know nothing

User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 11649
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?

Post by DNS » Wed Feb 21, 2018 6:47 pm

rightviewftw wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:45 am
No_Mind wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:23 am
There have been 578 visits to this thread.
But there are only 18 scores!
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.
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.

perkele
Posts: 884
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:37 pm

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

Post by perkele » Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:43 am

No_Mind wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:23 am
Only 16% of those who visited had an anonymous opinion about killing in self defense .. an important opinion if there was one, among philosophers.
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.
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. /.../'
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.
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."
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.

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:
Disciple wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 3:37 am
Isn't all killing bad kamma in buddhism?
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.

/.../
DooDoot wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:01 am
Where is this found in the suttas?
See sutta quoted above.
DooDoot wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:01 am
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.
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.

No_Mind wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:23 am
How does one explain this apathy towards having an opinion when the Dhammic religions are all about having an opinion
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.
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.
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.

User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 1902
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

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

Post by No_Mind » Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:51 am

perkele wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:43 am
No_Mind wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:23 am
Only 16% of those who visited had an anonymous opinion about killing in self defense .. an important opinion if there was one, among philosophers.
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".)
If a man looks into a mirror and an ass peers back, is it the fault of the mirror?

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

:namaste:
I know one thing: that I know nothing

perkele
Posts: 884
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:37 pm

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

Post by perkele » Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:04 am

No_Mind wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:51 am
If a man looks into a mirror and an ass peers back, is it the fault of the mirror?
Oh, there we go. Constructive criticism taken as offense, as usual.
No_Mind wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:51 am
The question is clear enough. If you had to kill in self-defense would you? Yes/No
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.
No_Mind wrote:
Wed Feb 21, 2018 5:23 am
and using the little grey cells
Please do try to use them. :soap:

Good night. :broke:
Last edited by retrofuturist on Thu Feb 22, 2018 3:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Inappropriate link removed

User avatar
DooDoot
Posts: 2081
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2017 11:06 pm

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

Post by DooDoot » Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:21 am

perkele wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:43 am
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.

/.../
DooDoot wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:01 am
Where is this found in the suttas?
See sutta quoted above.
DooDoot wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:01 am
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.
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.
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:
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
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.

User avatar
binocular
Posts: 5405
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

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

Post by binocular » Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:28 pm

DooDoot wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:21 am
Obviously, these assumptions are not conclusive; unless we can find a definitive sutta where the Buddha tells Kings punishing evil-doers is unwholesome.

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.
If killing evil-doers was a crime, there would be no policemen & society would be in anarchy.
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.
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.
And why should this be taken as some kind of invitation to the Secondary Bodhisattva Vows?

User avatar
Nicolas
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

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

Post by Nicolas » 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.

User avatar
No_Mind
Posts: 1902
Joined: Fri May 23, 2014 4:12 pm
Location: India

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

Post by No_Mind » Thu Feb 22, 2018 4:58 pm

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.
It is refreshing change to read categorical answers like this. I am glad you replied.

:namaste:
I know one thing: that I know nothing

perkele
Posts: 884
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2011 2:37 pm

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

Post by perkele » Thu Feb 22, 2018 8:00 pm

perkele wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 1:43 am
DooDoot wrote:
Mon Feb 19, 2018 4:01 am
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.
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.
DooDoot wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:21 am
Obviously, these assumptions are not conclusive; unless we can find a definitive sutta where the Buddha tells Kings punishing evil-doers is unwholesome.
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.
DooDoot wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:21 am
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
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.
Probably that is because (intentional!) killing not rooted in greed, hatred & delusion does not exist.
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.)
DooDoot wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:21 am
Contrary to your assumptions, the Buddha appeared to keep silent on certain subtle matters.
Contrary to your assumptions, the Buddha was very clear in his statement of certain moral absolutes:
MN 9 wrote:Killing living beings is unwholesome
This is a categorical statement. I don't understand how you can ignore that or try to argue around it.
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."
Sounds all very absolute to me.
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.
DooDoot wrote:
Thu Feb 22, 2018 2:21 am
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.
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.
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

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 34 guests