[LkEHaduy]

In my view to kill someone as a punishment for murder is an "eye for an eye" mentality and not part of Buddhist teachings or practice.

If someone killed a relative, what possible benefit, as a practitioner,would there be in seeing that person killed too ? None.

From a Buddhist point of view it's most probably correct to say that war is a mark of failure.

True frank dear, thanks

The sad thing is we allow such ...... to dictate our views. We must be really stupid to allow this.
Wake up,take control of your own life.

[bWn4h8QD]

I do not believe that anyone, a Buddhist practitioner or otherwise can answer my questions until the time comes.

...until the time comes? What a strange way to avoid answering those questions yourself.

Is war and killing in war justified?

No.

Would you defend your family from an external aggressive army?

Yes; the response would hardly be considered 'war' as in this instance it is one family against an army. Even in cases of nation v. nation, however, creative responses infuse the idea of 'defend' with a slew of nonviolent possibilities.

Would you let them kill you parents, wife, children and you community without fighting back?

No; 'fighting back' is the same as 'defense' in that it can have many meanings, and the one that defines fighting back as 'war' or 'killing' is wholly unnecessary.

What if another country and its people requested support against an aggressor who wanted to take their land, enslave their people and possibly eliminate them completely as has happened in mine and all our lifetimes.

'Support' is yet another example of a word that has so many applications that lending itself to the sole denotation "war" or "killing" is disingenuous.

I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.

A Buddhist would probably interject that the evil done was temporary as well, but this doesn't change the brute fact that alternatives to war and killing abound, and are furthermore proven effective. Have a look at the timeline you can find here for examples of this.

One last thing: when trying to accomplish a task, there are three variables of note, from which you can always choose two. The three variables are Speed, Quality, and Cost. For example, if you want something quickly and cheaply, be prepared for shoddy quality. If you want something valuable and cheaply, however, be prepared to spend a lot of time.

So it is: war and killing is at great cost, I think we can agree, but so too are instances of non-violence in the face of the same circumstances. Cost is a common variable here.

The difference, then, between violent resolution and peaceful resolution is the difference between accomplishing something quickly, or with quality. Peace is the clear choice of long-term value here.

War is not justified.

[envenonearo]

Hello all:
I was a soldier. I served in the US Army for 4 years. I actaully volunteered for several reasons- service, as a crucible, opportunity to travel, etc. I like to say 'my bad,' but I won't. I learned a lot of lessons in the Army. Good & bad ones.
I made the best of it- I was a combat medic and x-ray. I told the sergeants that I wouldn't kill anyone, but I'd sure patch them up.
When my tour was up, I was very ready to leave. The sergeant-major who was conducting my exit interview asked me why I was leaving the military. I told him as gently as I could that I couldn't be a part of a "death mentality" anymore.
Re. the question on killing to defend your family...I would fail as a Buddhist.
If someone was trying to hurt my son, and lethal force was my only option to save him, then yes, I would kill his attacker.
This situation is like the questions one has in philosophy classes. One where the many variables that are usually present in life have been taken removed. And one is left with A or B.
Actually, I was tested on this in real life.
I won't go into the details, but one night, I had a loaded firearm pointed at someone who meant to come into our house. He meant to do my family harm.
So what does one do? Well, without lowering the weapon, I talked him into leaving. Truthfully, I prob. would have shot and killed him if I had come further in our home. I wouldn'y have missed and at that range , the wounds would've been lethal.
I remember my finger on the trigger, praying I wouldn't have to pull it.
I'm glad I didn't have to.
Meta to all,
Bill

[nickayary]

War is not justified.

by any reason... but if you need reasons for it, just get entangled with the reasons of the "warmakers".

[Aztegjpl]

from post #25

if you

Hello Sobeh dear,

I agree with your post #25 so the "if you" in my post is not directed personaly to you Sobeh dear, but as the plural and for people in general; I should wrote "if one" instead.

[AcecePesFeacy]

When my tour was up, I was very ready to leave. The sergeant-major who was conducting my exit interview asked me why I was leaving the military. I told him as gently as I could that I couldn't be a part of a "death mentality" anymore.

Re. the question on killing to defend your family...I would fail as a Buddhist.

but...

I'm glad I didn't have to.

I think that you have not failed as a Buddhist. I do not think that to practice buddhism is about letting a killer murder your family. That can be prevented without harboring hatred feelings as explained in Sobeh's post # 25 where there is a clearly explanation of "defending with no violent posibilities".

[Oberjej]

by any reason... but if you need reasons for it, just get entangled with the reasons of the "warmakers".

I think a large part of the problem lays in the vast profits to be made by 'defence' contractors.
Maybe if a way could be devised to limit the profits then war would not be such an 'attractive' option.

[Zaebal]

from post #29

Thanks for the input, Kaarine. You, as always, are generous with your thoughtfulness and kindness.

[dabibibff]

Maybe if a way could be devised to limit the profits then war would not be such an 'attractive' option.

Indeed. Some economic analysts say that our global economy depends on the continued success of the business model known as "war"...meaning that war has become necessary for our current infrastructures to survive.

[mudozvonf]

I believe some of us are saying that in certain circumstances kiling is justified as practising Buddhists.

I'm not. Killing other humans in war is clearly not justified because it is never the "only choice". It is a choice of expediency, and not of value, as I have shown.

[Peptobismol]

from post #33

Why you believe that Gerry?

[fluoxet]

from post #34

Sobeh:
Totally agree. It is expediency; and a failure of intelligence.

[cenRealliat]

from post #36

Yes, I agree too...

Om

[7kitthuptarill]

...meaning that war has become necessary for our current infrastructures to survive

Yes my point,it would seem that the 'developed' and 'civilized' countries have their economies based on war.
I would suggest that fear is the motivating factor for maintaining this posture. (Greed is a subsidiary of fear)

[VanDerSmok]

I don't believe that killing is justified within Buddhist values or disciplined practices however I think it occurs and by Buddhists due to their current inability to resolve some practical issues without inadvertently killing and a difficulty implementing the ideals within their current consciousness and lives.

I really liked this video from the Dalai Lama that is simple and direct and speaks to the bigger social issue of killing such as war:

Dalai Lama: Peace means Happiness

And this one, which also is humorous and talks about the smaller individual issues around killing for example, mosquitos:

Dalai Lama: Happiness, Compassion and Mosquitos (funny)

[PlanTaleks]

I found this recently :

"Dalai Lama Praises British Troops "

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wa...1466-26675299/