Hi all,
Buddha says the moment we are facing death is very crucial. If someone dies with strong attachment, anger, hatred and delusion then most likely s/he will go to unhappy destination. Does it mean murderer for example like terrorists that torture and kill people have the full capability of sending someone to lower realms?
Also it is our duty to protect our family member or loved ones. But to what extent? I think it is personal matter since some people for example are happy to kill if that is the only way to protect the family member while others choose not to kill because everyone has their own Kamma. And if you don't kill does it mean you are neglecting your duty? What is your view on his, can you please share?? Thank you.
One's duty
Re: One's duty
A murderer or torturer only has the capacity to inflict pain and death, but the mental state of a person subject to that experience is influenced by their own kamma.steve19800 wrote: Buddha says the moment we are facing death is very crucial. If someone dies with strong attachment, anger, hatred and delusion then most likely s/he will go to unhappy destination. Does it mean murderer for example like terrorists that torture and kill people have the full capability of sending someone to lower realms?
To the extent that the behavior is in accord with the teachings of the Buddha, meaning remaining free from hostility and ill will and not intentionally killing another living being.steve19800 wrote: Also it is our duty to protect our family member or loved ones. But to what extent? I think it is personal matter since some people for example are happy to kill if that is the only way to protect the family member while others choose not to kill because everyone has their own Kamma.
MN 21
MN 21: Kakacupama Sutta 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 good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves.
Re: One's duty
Not so:steve19800 wrote:Buddha says the moment we are facing death is very crucial.
In terms of protecting people, various contexts call for different responses. The essential thing is the cultivation of right intention; during the spontaneous unfolding of complex new threats to individuals in one's care, the first and most readily available responses will be the ones that have been given long attention, long beforehand.SN 55.21 wrote:...'If I were to die at this moment, what would be my destination? What would be my future course?"
"Have no fear, Mahanama! Have no fear! Your death will not be a bad one, your demise will not be bad. If one's mind has long been nurtured with conviction, nurtured with virtue, nurtured with learning, nurtured with relinquishment, nurtured with discernment...
Protecting others rightly integrates mental development first and foremost.
- "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.
"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:20 am
Re: One's duty
daverupa wrote:Not so:steve19800 wrote:Buddha says the moment we are facing death is very crucial.
In terms of protecting people, various contexts call for different responses. The essential thing is the cultivation of right intention; during the spontaneous unfolding of complex new threats to individuals in one's care, the first and most readily available responses will be the ones that have been given long attention, long beforehand.SN 55.21 wrote:...'If I were to die at this moment, what would be my destination? What would be my future course?"
"Have no fear, Mahanama! Have no fear! Your death will not be a bad one, your demise will not be bad. If one's mind has long been nurtured with conviction, nurtured with virtue, nurtured with learning, nurtured with relinquishment, nurtured with discernment...
Protecting others rightly integrates mental development first and foremost.
Thanks for the answer. From my understanding what you are saying is, if the killing is the only way to protect the loved ones then it is only doable when you do it with right intention?
And also the story of Mahanama is often connected to the moment when we are facing a sudden death while torturer may kill someone not in just minutes or hours it can take up to days or even months. Most of the time the victims are emaciated, abused and going through extreme suffering both physical and mental, in this kind of situation I wonder if the mental state is calm then s/he must be a very good practitioner.
Last edited by steve19800 on Mon Jan 27, 2014 8:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Re: One's duty
I speculate that many moral dilemmas like these as the fruit of bad kamma. If you're actually in a situation where you have to kill someone to protect your loved ones and there is no other option (like talking to the assailant), that is the fruit of bad kamma indeed.
Regardless, can you actually come up with a plausible scenario of the sort? Most criminals aren't cold-blooded psychopaths who kill innocent people for no reason. Usually they want something and would use the threat of murder as a means to an end. Or are you thinking of something different?
I'd suggest developing virtue, concentration and wisdom for yourself. That way, if some situation does unfortunately arise, you'd be best prepared to deal with it.
Regardless, can you actually come up with a plausible scenario of the sort? Most criminals aren't cold-blooded psychopaths who kill innocent people for no reason. Usually they want something and would use the threat of murder as a means to an end. Or are you thinking of something different?
I'd suggest developing virtue, concentration and wisdom for yourself. That way, if some situation does unfortunately arise, you'd be best prepared to deal with it.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Re: One's duty
daverupa wrote:Not so:steve19800 wrote:Buddha says the moment we are facing death is very crucial.
In terms of protecting people, various contexts call for different responses. The essential thing is the cultivation of right intention; during the spontaneous unfolding of complex new threats to individuals in one's care, the first and most readily available responses will be the ones that have been given long attention, long beforehand.SN 55.21 wrote:...'If I were to die at this moment, what would be my destination? What would be my future course?"
"Have no fear, Mahanama! Have no fear! Your death will not be a bad one, your demise will not be bad. If one's mind has long been nurtured with conviction, nurtured with virtue, nurtured with learning, nurtured with relinquishment, nurtured with discernment...
Protecting others rightly integrates mental development first and foremost.
- tiltbillings
- Posts: 23046
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am
Re: One's duty
Maybe, but you don't know that.Mkoll wrote:I speculate that many moral dilemmas like these as the fruit of bad kamma. If you're actually in a situation where you have to kill someone to protect your loved ones and there is no other option (like talking to the assailant), that is the fruit of bad kamma indeed
>> Do you see a man wise [enlightened/ariya] in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.<< -- Proverbs 26:12
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond. -- SN I, 38.
“Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?” HPatDH p.723
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:20 am
Re: One's duty
To the extent that the behavior is in accord with the teachings of the Buddha, meaning remaining free from hostility and ill will and not intentionally killing another living being.culaavuso wrote:A murderer or torturer only has the capacity to inflict pain and death, but the mental state of a person subject to that experience is influenced by their own kamma.steve19800 wrote: Buddha says the moment we are facing death is very crucial. If someone dies with strong attachment, anger, hatred and delusion then most likely s/he will go to unhappy destination. Does it mean murderer for example like terrorists that torture and kill people have the full capability of sending someone to lower realms?
This is very true but I think people who are able to do that are extremely few, sure we can reduce the anger or hatred by realizing that every being is born through their own Kamma, have relationship with their own Kamma and die according to their Kamma but negative or unwholesome emotions are also including fear, trauma, obsessed, etc. It is not uncommon that victims are always, if not, are often overwhelmed by these mental qualities. I just don't see why these experiences will not influence them.
steve19800 wrote: Also it is our duty to protect our family member or loved ones. But to what extent? I think it is personal matter since some people for example are happy to kill if that is the only way to protect the family member while others choose not to kill because everyone has their own Kamma.
But if that's the only way will you kill with no intention?
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:20 am
Re: One's duty
Thanks for the reply.Mkoll wrote:I speculate that many moral dilemmas like these as the fruit of bad kamma. If you're actually in a situation where you have to kill someone to protect your loved ones and there is no other option (like talking to the assailant), that is the fruit of bad kamma indeed.
Regardless, can you actually come up with a plausible scenario of the sort? Most criminals aren't cold-blooded psychopaths who kill innocent people for no reason. Usually they want something and would use the threat of murder as a means to an end. Or are you thinking of something different?
I'd suggest developing virtue, concentration and wisdom for yourself. That way, if some situation does unfortunately arise, you'd be best prepared to deal with it.
Yes it is indeed the fruit of bad kamma. There are many scenarios like this. Say for example a terrorist who kidnapped a foreign journalist and just torture them before they kill them I don't know why they torture people but that's what they want. I also read somewhere where a father is asked to rape her own daughter but still both of them are killed. In Afghanistan many years ago extremists raided a Buddhist temple, asked the monks to go out and kill them one by one. Too many example, they are rare but not impossible.
But again in the event where this situation arises, what will you do?
Will you try your best to save your loved ones but refrain from killing no matter what happens, understand that everyone inherits their own kamma? Or you will do the opposite. In general, people will do whatever it takes to protect their loved ones but is this the right thing to do from Buddhist point of view?
Re: One's duty
Mkoll wrote:I speculate that many moral dilemmas like these as the fruit of bad kamma.
Agreed.
On principle, there may be situations in which a person who practices in line with the Dhamma simply will not find themselves in, while other people will.
In a simple example: one cannot be faced with threats to oneself and one's family by one's companions with whom one robbed a bank - if one never joined up with people to rob a bank to begin with.
Another example, if one doesn't drink alcohol and doesn't take any other substances nor engage in activities that cause one to become heedless, then one will be a safer driver, and will be to some extent better able to make up for the mistakes and abuses of other drivers. If one is a good, heedful driver, then even if other drivers and other participants in traffic are not heedful, one can still often find ways to avoid collisions and other dangerous situations.
Indeed.Regardless, can you actually come up with a plausible scenario of the sort?
Just because prisons and hospitals are full of people, doesn't mean that such things as happened to them or things they did, could happen to everyone or that everyone could do them.
Someone once proposed a WWII scenario where one is a German who is hiding Jews in one's house, and a Nazi officer comes looking for the Jews. What will one do?
This person argued that the only sane thing to do would be to kill the Nazi officer if possible.
I don't know how realistic such a scenario is, given that we are nowadays looking upon such scenarios with the benefit of hindsight and considerable bias based on the victory of the Allies.
While back then, surely there were Germans who were hiding Jews. But what was the reasoning of those Germans for doing so? Who knows. Not to mention that Nazi soldiers, like soldiers in general, were performing searches in groups, not just one by one, and if one or more of them would suddenly disappear, this would attract the attention of others, in which case, an open fight would likely ensue and the Nazis would likely win.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: One's duty
A foreign journalist can reasonably expect such a scenario, and reflect on it and prepare for it.steve19800 wrote:Yes it is indeed the fruit of bad kamma. There are many scenarios like this. Say for example a terrorist who kidnapped a foreign journalist and just torture them before they kill them I don't know why they torture people but that's what they want.
Without any context, it's not possible to comment on this.I also read somewhere where a father is asked to rape her own daughter but still both of them are killed.
This was probably expectable too.In Afghanistan many years ago extremists raided a Buddhist temple, asked the monks to go out and kill them one by one.
Do you believe there is a Buddhist authority?Will you try your best to save your loved ones but refrain from killing no matter what happens, understand that everyone inherits their own kamma? Or you will do the opposite. In general, people will do whatever it takes to protect their loved ones but is this the right thing to do from Buddhist point of view?
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Re: One's duty
I really can't see any point in speculating about the results of kamma, especially as the Buddha said that "The [precise working out of the] results of kamma" was "unconjecturable"McKoll wrote:I speculate that many moral dilemmas like these as the fruit of bad kamma
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:20 am
Re: One's duty
Buddhist is read as buddhists in this forum, people's view as I said above.binocular wrote:A foreign journalist can reasonably expect such a scenario, and reflect on it and prepare for it.steve19800 wrote:Yes it is indeed the fruit of bad kamma. There are many scenarios like this. Say for example a terrorist who kidnapped a foreign journalist and just torture them before they kill them I don't know why they torture people but that's what they want.
Without any context, it's not possible to comment on this.I also read somewhere where a father is asked to rape her own daughter but still both of them are killed.
This was probably expectable too.In Afghanistan many years ago extremists raided a Buddhist temple, asked the monks to go out and kill them one by one.
Do you believe there is a Buddhist authority?Will you try your best to save your loved ones but refrain from killing no matter what happens, understand that everyone inherits their own kamma? Or you will do the opposite. In general, people will do whatever it takes to protect their loved ones but is this the right thing to do from Buddhist point of view?
-
- Posts: 240
- Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 1:20 am
Re: One's duty
Aloka wrote:I really can't see any point in speculating about the results of kamma, especially as the Buddha said that "The [precise working out of the] results of kamma" was "unconjecturable"McKoll wrote:I speculate that many moral dilemmas like these as the fruit of bad kamma
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
Because he is Samma-Sam-buddha, he knows everything what most beings don't know. Even generous people we can't really say he will live abundance life in the next as we don't know precisely. But when someone suffers, born handicapped for example that is for sure is not the result of the good deeds.
Re: One's duty
Many people claim to be Buddhists, and they sometimes have very different views on the same matter.steve19800 wrote:Buddhist is read as buddhists in this forum, people's view as I said above.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!