[fhutiussk]

I replied to a post in the Mahayana/Vajrayana section of this Forum, about killing. I wanted to ask it here for everyone of all schools to answer. I personally believe in that, there is no reason to kill at all, whatsoever, unless it is an enemy that is bent on your destruction, with no remorse, and absolutely no way of talking to them, or using non-violent action. So here is the question...

Is it blameless to kill, when the enemy is one who can't be spoken to, stopped through peaceful protests, or non-violent actions, and is only bent on your destruction, and that of your loved ones, and in self defense?

Many examples would be War in general, the genocide in Africa, the horror wrought by the Nazis, and Islamic terrorists.

I would like to remind everyone of the monk who had killed himself because he was in so much pain, that his practice was going nowhere, and was considered 'blameless' by the Buddha when questioned about it. The Buddha was the most logical man I know.

[furillo]

Hi musicizgod,


We have some other threads about killing which were recently posted on the website:

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...m-to-creatures


http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...-living-beings


http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries...244-euthanasia

[bonyclayd]

But this is a specific question as to wether or not it is wrong to kill another human being out of pure self defense, with no other options such as peaceful talks, non-violent action, and the like. Not euthanasia, or killing animals, but another human being, more so in the times of war, and the defense of yourself, and loved ones, when no other logical option is available, when the attacker wants nothing more then your life.

[Automobill]

But this is a specific question as to wether or not it is wrong to kill another human being out of pure self defense, with no other options such as peaceful talks, non-violent action, and the like. Not euthanasia, or killing animals, but another human being, more so in the times of war, and the defense of yourself, and loved ones, when no other logical option is available, when the attacker wants nothing more then your life.

Sure - but I thought you might be interested in the other threads too.

Personally I wouldn't be able to kill another human being in self defense. Not only because its wrong to kill but because I'm just not capable of killing someone (or an animal) - so I'd probably rather die myself instead of taking another life.


.

[embefuri]

for me, karma (action) is something that only has relevance in relation to the result (vipaka)

the result is: (1) how it affects the lives of others; and (2) how it affects your conscience

the sutta states:

Intention, I tell you, is kamma.

AN 6.63

[NicolasOL]

I was hoping you would reply. Your like a Pali Canon Library/Librarian in one package, it's awesome!

So if the intention would be to defend your people, your family, to sustain peace, then the act of killing in retaliation could not be considered bad Kamma? And of course, when there is no other way, through peaceful protest, or non-violent action, or physical restraint.

[PickEmUp]

I mainly ask, because my cousin in law is in the Army, and I myself am a big patriot, and believe in the war we are fighting against people such as Al-Quaeda. And there is a possibility that after three months of College, I may join myself.

[Bill-Watson]

Sure - but I thought you might be interested in the other threads too.

Personally I wouldn't be able to kill another human being in self defense. Not only because its wrong to kill but because I'm just not capable of killing someone (or an animal) - so I'd probably rather die myself instead of taking another life.


.

I understand where your coming from, Aloka. And sorry, I had thought maybe you were suggesting the question was invalid because of the other threads.

But what if you have a child who is being attacked? What if you were a School Teacher in Africa, teaching one of the many tribes that are being systematically murdered simply because they exist? Would you let a few rogue soldiers come into your school, and just take/rape/kill the children under your care, when say, under your desk you have a .45 a family member or Husband may have given you? Would it not be 'bad Kamma' in fact, to not act when you could have?

[crestosssa]

personally, i think a larger scale war, for example in Iraq or Afganistan, is different to the microcosmic example you gave of killing another human being out of self-defence

men often return from war very traumatised, at times, for life

war is often connected to politics, innocent people are often killed in war, dehumanising the enemy & the soldiers often occurs, the culture & repetitiveness of killing can lead to habituation and a lack of opportunity to tune into the (inner) results of one's actions

kind regards

[connandoilee]

I'm not saying is it okay on a large scale, to go to war in general. But to that individual in those situations during those wars, like the holocaust, and the African genocide going on now, as well as the genocide going on in the Middle East. As that individual, as a Buddhist, would it be wrong to kill in defense of another individual, an innocent?

And I completely agree. I don't like war. And most of the 'noble reasons' behind the wars are only a mask to the real, and usually, money caused reasons.

[peakyesno]

Would you let a few rogue soldiers come into your school, and just take/rape/kill the children under your care, when say, under your desk you have a .45 a family member or Husband may have given you? Would it not be 'bad Kamma' in fact, to not act when you could have
I am a schoolteacher - if I was in a situation where someone was going to attack a class of kids I don't know what I'd do is the honest answer.

I have no experience of guns. Its against the law to have guns in the UK so there definately wouldn't be a 45 under any desk ....and my husband is dead .(and would never have carried a gun anyway. He was very gentle and was never aggressive)

[Ferrotoral]

The first precept as taught by the Buddha was a call against killing. This should speak for itself.

The Five Precepts

1. Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/d...pancasila.html Killing others is a violation of the first precept and should be avoided at all costs. Although intention does factor into the act, killing is never completely blameless. The Buddha discouraged violence at every opportunity.

Dhammapada: Dandavagga (Violence)

129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit...p.10.budd.html Furthermore, the concept of a just war does not exist in the Buddha's earliest teachings. War, although a reality in this world, is not a path to be followed by those sincerely aspiring to be rid of dukkha. It is a reality of samsara, but samsara need not be indulged in by practitioners on the path of liberation from samsara.

Maha-dukkhakkhandha Sutta (MN 13)

"Again, it is with sensuality for the reason, sensuality for the source... that (men), taking swords & shields and buckling on bows & quivers, charge into battle massed in double array while arrows & spears are flying and swords are flashing; and there they are wounded by arrows & spears, and their heads are cut off by swords, so that they incur death or deadly pain. Now this drawback too in the case of sensuality, this mass of stress visible here & now, has sensuality for its reason, sensuality for its source, sensuality for its cause, the reason being simply sensuality.

"Again, it is with sensuality for the reason, sensuality for the source... that (men), taking swords & shields and buckling on bows & quivers, charge slippery bastions while arrows & spears are flying and swords are flashing; and there they are splashed with boiling cow dung and crushed under heavy weights, and their heads are cut off by swords, so that they incur death or deadly pain. Now this drawback too in the case of sensuality, this mass of stress visible here & now, has sensuality for its reason, sensuality for its source, sensuality for its cause, the reason being simply sensuality."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....013.than.html In my personal practice, violence is never justified and killing is never something to be proud of, regardless of the intention or outcome.

[EzekelEnzino]

I understand. And i'm sorry to hear that Aloka. And glad to hear about the UK law, I love that! Do they still have monitered gun ranges for practice, however? Otherwise that may just be a tool to keep the military strong and the people weak.

But avoiding it at all costs? What if those costs are future einsteins and world leaders? What if the cost of not killing that African soldier, who is so far gone psychologically, is the torture, rape, and life of several children?

Is it bad Karma to help an innocent? To prevent genocide?

[LasTins]

Is it bad Karma to help an innocent? To prevent genocide?

To see killing as the only solution is to neglect the manifold other ways to prevent such things.

[leadmoffer]

That is the point though, Abhaya. What if there is no other way? What if it is 'this', or 'that', and in that particular case, those three soldiers lives, or the kidnapping/rape/killing of those several children?

[Helloheshess]

When would there be "no other way"? My wildest imagination cannot come up with such a scenario. People may assume that severe situations such as murder underpinned by insanity, rape with no end in sight, genocide, and so on call for severe reactions. Yet I would challenge those thinkers to step back, and rather than act on an impulse, think creatively. There are plenty of alternatives. These aren't always apparent until deeper reflection, but I would certainly consider them more worthwhile than taking the easy way out (by killing), which ultimately solves nothing.

[Greapyjeory]

Why? Those situations exist, and happen, every single day. That is the point of the question. What creativity is there for three soldiers opening the door and telling everyone to get down or be shot? Your in the middle of teaching class when they come in, and as you drop to the floor, you know, and fully realise the gun in the bottom drawer given to you for protection. You know that the intention of these men is to take the boys for soldiering, and to most likely kill or rape the girls. You know all these things, having been warned before coming to Africa to teach these people. You know that you can take that gun, and stop all of this evil, by simply pulling the trigger, then dropping it afterwards, never to pick it up again.

What exactly are the thoughts and creativity you are challenging to come out?

[LesLattis]

You think that is the easy way out? Having to witness such horrors as that? Having to live each day thereafter, if you survive, knowing that, yes, you could have stopped it, yes you could have saved those children, but no, you did not stop it, no, you watched it.

[carinsurancess]

I think Elements answer says it all.

Intent is the key.

If you kill another out of hate,greed or ignorance of the path it is according to Buddhism an ill act. But if I kill someone because it is the only way to save the lives of others?

Then what is my intent? Is it not to save life?

I guess in a ethical discussion all things are debatable but getting to the hard facts there is no reason on earth I would not kill to save my family from harm.
It is one thing what I believe is Buddhist morale but that does not change my responsibility as a family father...

But would I be able to kill anothers child to save mine? I do not know and at the end of the day everybody are somebodys child. No?

This life is a strife and the line between barbarism and civilism is paper thin. In fact it is non exsistant other than in the heads of men. There are no rules here in this world but those we choose to adher to and lift up as valuable. Anatta. Everything is as valid as everything else except in the mind.

In the case you make I would say no not to save my own life only. But I know that my kids need me still so for their sake I would kill to save my life.

Then again I believe in facing the world like a warrior and not as a floating aimless boat. A fighter chooses his battles and if you are cornered in a place you do not much like then you have lost.

It is like walking into a hiding place with only one opening while persued by your enemy. Anybody who does that deserves to die.

So if you are a player in this life and end up at a moment where you must chose to have to kill for some reason you have lifted up as valuable then you have lost the game.

That is what I think.

Cheers
Victor

[strongjannabiz]

Of course those situations exist and happen every day. My question was why would there be "no other way" of dealing with them other than by killing the perpetrator? The impulse to kill in such a situation is the typical line of thought, but not the only way of approaching the topic of violence and killing. The point of my inquiry was to motivate reflection, not conformity to impulsive thinking.

Take the time and invest the effort into thinking outside the box, and it will become clear. There are many practical alternatives. Not obvious ones, but alternatives nonetheless.

However, I'm not about to draft a manifesto to share on this site. To get all of it down in writing would be far beyond the scope of a Buddhist chat forum. If, however, you would be willing to give me a number of weeks to prepare a proposal that I could share privately, I would be more than happy to do so. I enjoy these types of "assignments". In the meantime, give violence and killing some thoughtful reflection. I promise to do the same.