DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - At what point does violence become justifiable?

**rozettasmolanov** · 06-11-2012, 08:04 AM

Thanks Element, I knew there was more than one simile and teaching on this.

Bodhisvasti, this and other teachings give these examples as a lesson in attachment.
When one is willing to give up this body then they are not attached to it.
Violence is never an unintentional action, which also signifies attachment to something/someone.

*EDIT*
Also whats to say that it isn't Karmic effect that this situation happened?
And this could be the situation to create positive Karma by NOT being violent.

With Metta

Okay. Sure. Violence is never an unintentional act. What of self defense? And unless the Monk did something to someone to have them do that to them, there is no such thing as a magical Karma that keeps the universe balanced, etc. Only an actual cause followed by an actual effect.

To say you cannot use physical force to defend yourself, that it is immoral, or bad karma, is to kill Buddhism. It really is. You don't defend yourself, or another, using physical force, for self defense, then you may as well say to every non-Buddhist, "Please. Go ahead, kill me. Rape my wife. And steal my possessions."

See how illogical and irrational that is? Try living in the slums of a city with that perception. Buddhism is meant for every day life, not just for those who have it great. To say violence, or self defense, is never justifiable is to kill/harm buddhism, yourself, and your family. It is a wrong view, taken out of context of the Suttas. The Buddha never had to physically defend himself, but he was a master of martial arts, so had the time come that a youngling was being hurt, and it was only him there to help that child, he would have used those skills. Otherwise, he would have been a coward.

06-11-2012, 08:04 AM	#26
rozettasmolanov Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 499 Senior Member	Thanks Element, I knew there was more than one simile and teaching on this. Bodhisvasti, this and other teachings give these examples as a lesson in attachment. When one is willing to give up this body then they are not attached to it. Violence is never an unintentional action, which also signifies attachment to something/someone. EDIT Also whats to say that it isn't Karmic effect that this situation happened? And this could be the situation to create positive Karma by NOT being violent. With Metta Okay. Sure. Violence is never an unintentional act. What of self defense? And unless the Monk did something to someone to have them do that to them, there is no such thing as a magical Karma that keeps the universe balanced, etc. Only an actual cause followed by an actual effect. To say you cannot use physical force to defend yourself, that it is immoral, or bad karma, is to kill Buddhism. It really is. You don't defend yourself, or another, using physical force, for self defense, then you may as well say to every non-Buddhist, "Please. Go ahead, kill me. Rape my wife. And steal my possessions." See how illogical and irrational that is? Try living in the slums of a city with that perception. Buddhism is meant for every day life, not just for those who have it great. To say violence, or self defense, is never justifiable is to kill/harm buddhism, yourself, and your family. It is a wrong view, taken out of context of the Suttas. The Buddha never had to physically defend himself, but he was a master of martial arts, so had the time come that a youngling was being hurt, and it was only him there to help that child, he would have used those skills. Otherwise, he would have been a coward.
	Quote