Taking lives as a good thing?

[Jundo]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

And what if you believe the person is harmful, but in fact, you are not seeing clearly.

Our practice is to act out of clarity in situations like these. And it needs no further discussion.

Gassho

W

If the fellow is coming through my kitchen window, seems to be threatening, does not stop at a warning (assuming there is even time, and the circumstances, for a warning) ... I will do what I do, sort out the perceptions and mis-perceptions later.

This article and book about the situation in Southern Thailand is not inappropriate ...

Then in January 2004, violent attacks broke out in the southern provinces of Thailand, some of which were directed at Buddhist monks. These attacks and the numerous ones to follow shocked the country. But, since contemporary issues and my research interests seemed to be converging, I thought: what better way to study Buddhist activism than to observe Buddhist monks engaged in peacemaking?

Unfortunately, I found very little of this.

During my visits between 2006 and 2008, southern Thai monks shared the challenges of living in their fear-infested communities. All but a few concentrated on survival; peacemaking was the last thing on their minds.

The constant fear and violence took a toll on them. Monks talked about the guns they had bought and now kept at their bedsides.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archi ... _violence/

[disastermouse]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

And what if you believe the person is harmful, but in fact, you are not seeing clearly.

Our practice is to act out of clarity in situations like these. And it needs no further discussion.

Gassho

W

Then you'll make an honest mistake...or maybe you'll have enough faith and confidence to stay with someone perceived as harmful until it becomes clearer.

I don't think wisdom and insight bring perfection-if your mistakes are honest, what mire can you hope for?

Chet

[kfrance0]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

There was a thread about pacifism and the appropriateness of violence on the judo list I used to subscribe to. The host, someone I'd consider to be an extremely thoughtful and moral person, said something that has stuck in my brain for years afterward. Not precisely, though...I have to paraphrase. He made an analogy between the use of force and a surgeon amputating a limb from a badly injured or diseased patient. Is it bad to cut off someone's limb? Of course, but sometimes it's necessary. When it is necessary, it should be done as quickly and effectively as possible, with as little extra harm as possible. And no matter how well the amputation goes, it's never a cause for celebration. I think this came along in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, but it's been so long I'm not sure any more.

I think Brad Warner wrote an article about buddhists as soldiers on his blog once, not too long ago...

[JohnsonCM]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

I think it's important to remember also, how Shaolin was when it first was formed. They were originally a Zen Buddhist sect that Bodhidharma himself began and, over the years, they developed their martial arts to protect their monestary, themselves, and the devotees of the Buddha that they served during a very troubled time in China's history. The Songshan mountains were riddled with bandits and warlords that would love to pillage a religious site, and some that murdered for sport. As direct dharma decendents of Bodhidharma, I think we can probably infer that they shared a very Zen view of the Precept of No Killing, but they also saw the world as it was and not as they would like it to have been. I'm sure they would have prefered not to have to develope those skills to fight off and probably kill intruders and the like, but realizing that that was the world and the time in which they lived, and their belief in karma and the Precepts wouldn't stop a person intent on murdering the entire monestary and stealing their dharma treasures.

[JohnsonCM]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

A philosophical discussion will not end this sort of delusion. Not only that, but why are we even talking about Pol Pot or historical despots? The precepts and principles of Buddhism are designed to be guiding lights on your path, not necessarily Pol Pot's...

I don't even know why I'm arguing this. Sit. Don't sit. It's your realization

I was using the example of historical despots to illustrate that some people's cultures or personal philosophies probably did not include this kind of moral and ethical questioning. If it had, would things have been different? Granted the desire to learn must be there, but if these same people had a teacher who discussed the philosophies that we are right now, Buddhist Ethics if you will, would history remember them differently because they would have acted differently? Maybe. The principals of Buddhism are designed to be guding lights on my path, but my path is not seperate from the paths of all sentient beings. I didn't think we were arguing anyway, if we were I appologize, I thought we were having a discussion around the merits or demerits of discoursing on philosophy. As for my realization, sometimes I sit, sometimes I don't......I'm not sure it would matter if I didn't understand why I sit. If I do achieve realization, I hope to share it with everyone, even the Pol Pot's of the world.

Thank you Chet, your oppinions are very well thought out and your faith is evident. I really do enjoy our exchanges.

[disastermouse]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

A philosophical discussion will not end this sort of delusion. Not only that, but why are we even talking about Pol Pot or historical despots? The precepts and principles of Buddhism are designed to be guiding lights on your path, not necessarily Pol Pot's...

I don't even know why I'm arguing this. Sit. Don't sit. It's your realization

I was using the example of historical despots to illustrate that some people's cultures or personal philosophies probably did not include this kind of moral and ethical questioning. If it had, would things have been different? Granted the desire to learn must be there, but if these same people had a teacher who discussed the philosophies that we are right now, Buddhist Ethics if you will, would history remember them differently because they would have acted differently? Maybe. The principals of Buddhism are designed to be guding lights on my path, but my path is not seperate from the paths of all sentient beings. I didn't think we were arguing anyway, if we were I appologize, I thought we were having a discussion around the merits or demerits of discoursing on philosophy. As for my realization, sometimes I sit, sometimes I don't......I'm not sure it would matter if I didn't understand why I sit. If I do achieve realization, I hope to share it with everyone, even the Pol Pot's of the world.

Thank you Chet, your oppinions are very well thought out and your faith is evident. I really do enjoy our exchanges.

I suspect that you think of Zen (and Buddhism in general) as mental exercises. You may not call them that - you may reject that - maybe you're thinking I'm saying 'only mental exercises'.

What I mean to say, really, is that you seem to think that the essence of the Dharma is content. The content of your mind is largely irrelevant in the context of Zen because wisdom erodes identification with content. This is not something you will ever grok through the manipulation of content - or really any manipulation at all!

How can we have a conversation about ethics if we do not first have an understanding of dis-identification with content? This is an understanding of true Buddha, of true 'self' - which is oddly selfless because it is conditionless, content-less, and dis-identified.

When you deepen your wisdom, you loosen your grip on identification. Ethics is the navigation of an object identity through a world of objects - but you can't hold this identity loosely if you have not first been dis-identified with it. The ego's first reaction to resistance is to toughen up, batten down, fight, and push through - there's little choice because you are this thing - you are identified with it. It is constant struggle. This approach to ethics is doomed to failure, disillusionment, and despair. It is defeated before it starts.

If you try to formulate an approach to ethics without at least a little bit of opening to this wisdom, when the road turns, you'll fall into the ditch. The precepts are signs on the road, but as we develop wisdom, we have faith that we can walk this path without having every nook and cranny pre-mapped - we just follow the road! Then the signs are useful. Have you heard the stories about people who drive their cars into rivers and off out-of-service bridges because they are following too closely the instructions of their GPS units? I wonder if they're still following their GPS when they're underwater - this would be the essence of being lost, of being in despair, of being hopelessly deluded and miserable.

What part of you is it that wants to have these issues settled? What is the basis of the insecurity that asks these questions?

Chet

[Jundo]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

How can we have a conversation about ethics if we do not first have an understanding of dis-identification with content? This is an understanding of true Buddha, of true 'self' - which is oddly selfless because it is conditionless, content-less, and dis-identified.

When you deepen your wisdom, you loosen your grip on identification. Ethics is the navigation of an object identity through a world of objects - but you can't hold this identity loosely if you have not first been dis-identified with it. The ego's first reaction to resistance is to toughen up, batten down, fight, and push through - there's little choice because you are this thing - you are identified with it. It is constant struggle. This approach to ethics is doomed to failure, disillusionment, and despair. It is defeated before it starts.

Have you been listening to Adyashanti tapes again, Chet? 8)

Yes, what you say is all well and true. Fully 'groking' this selfless, conditionless, content-less 'true self' is vital and the heart of the matter.

But after the ecstasy of its rediscovery there is laundry to do because my other 'not quite real' self needs clean socks and underwear, has a job to get to and a mortgage to pay (and better act at that job as if there were conditions to satisfy and content to fulfill or his imaginary ass will be in an imaginary unemployment line), and my "not quite real' self might just shoot a "ultimately empty" fellow coming through his "not really there" kitchen window to do harm to his fictional self and the equally fictional selfs of his loved ones.

That selfless, conditionless, content-less self informs our life in samsara, flavors our life in samsara, clarifies our life in samsara ... but does diddly-squat to change some of the basic "facts on the ground" of our day to day life and grind here in sometimes beautiful, sometimes ugly samsara.

On the one hand ... truly seeing that "conditionless, content-less" self lets us know that samsara is a grand show! On with the show! On the other hand, this show is our life, and we better treat most of it as real with real consequences (especially, for example, when it comes to sometimes as serious as shooting a perceived threat). As I am blowing away that poor fellow sentient being coming through my window, I know now that I both am ... and I am not ... for there is nobody to shoot and no shooter. It is all just a show! Bam bam he's dead and the blood flows ... yet no death, and all is swept up in the flow of the unconditioned .. yet he is still dead, and I'm scarred for life for having taken a life.

In other words ... seeing thoroughly the "conditionless" both completely sweeps away all the confusion and ugliness of this world, and does not ... yet it does ... yet it does not ... yet it does.

And I still have to answer the question for myself ... objectless ultimately or not ... about whether it is right or wrong to buy a gun and keep it under my pillow. :?

Gassho, J

[JohnsonCM]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

Chet,

I think I understand what you are saying, and if I am correct, why this conversation has “gone astray”.

I do not think of Zen or Buddhism as content. Since all forms are empty, how could it be content? The statement you made makes me think that you believe that I am constantly checking my “self” against the Precepts and the doctrine of Buddhism and Zen, sort of like walking on a road and only looking down to make sure that my feet land exactly in the foot print of the person who walked there before me,


instead of looking up and seeing the direction that all those who’ve gone before have taken.


What I’ve been trying to say, is that the discussion of the Dharma is essential because it begins the process of realization. It isn’t a goal in and of itself to sit around and “just talk” just like, in my opinion, if you never discuss the Dharma until you begin your realization, you’ll never get anywhere by “just sitting”. The teisho is a part of the process. We all have delusions, we are all bereft of realization in the beginning, if we weren’t we’d have been born Buddha’s, the discussion helps to frame the Dharma in a way that we can understand and begins the process of realization, dis-identification with content and concept, and self-lessness.

Basically, you can not have discussed the Dharma, it’s attendant ethics, and Buddhist philosophy and “just sit” and realized……what? Maybe something, probably nothing, and almost certainly nothing in the way that we mean when we say non-attainment, and emptiness. You would have just sat with the monkey mind being the monkey mind and the self still a “real” concept, delusions abounding, and attachments being the way of life.

Or, you could discuss the Dharma, begin the process of understanding what this thing we call Zen is from a standpoint of original nature, and then “just sit” but then “just sitting” isn’t just sitting, it’s shikantaza, where “just sitting” becomes the original nature of “just being” and you divest yourself of “your self”, and the content of Buddhism becomes the context of life.

What I’ve been saying, or trying to (though you once remarked to Taigu, “the limitations of language….) is that the discussions don’t result in realization. The discussions result in reflection and a faithful practice (the act of shikantaza being the core activity of that practice), and faithful reflection and practice eventually (hopefully) result in realization. Just sitting, without the benefit of reflection and the basis of understanding, results in a sore bottom.

[Martin]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

I don't think that taking another human life is ever "good", ever "justifiable" (to whom?).

As for the argument that it might be a "necessary evil", it's impossible to discern the consequences of our actions accurately. I'm guessing that many of those who advocated a violent response after September 11 as a "necessary evil" took the view that if one has the ability to stop another attack and doesn't do it, that inaction would cause the deaths of the victims of the next terrorist attack as surely as going to bomb the supposed terrorists would cause the deaths of the supposed terrorists. So, they would see the choice not as between killing and not killing, but as to which path involves less killing, or perhaps less killing of people they consider more worthy of living. Personally, I think none of the military responses to September 11 were well advised, in practice: I think they ended up killing tens / hundreds of thousands of people and will surely help to trigger future terrorist attacks thus reinforcing the cycle of violence- but that's an argument about whether the actions in practice worked out as planned, not an argument about the illusory principle. We can't foresee the results of our actions, even not acting is an action and has consequences, we can only decide as best as we can and accept the consequences.

[chicanobudista]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

This whole conversation reminds me of this poem:

"I spur my horse past the ruined city;
the ruined city, that wakes the traveler's thoughts:
ancient battlements, high and low;
old grave mounds, great and small.

Where the shadow of a single tumbleweed trembles
and the voice of the great trees clings forever,
I sigh over all these common bones --
No roll of the immortals bears their names. "
— Han-shan

[anista]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

I don't think that taking another human life is ever "good", ever "justifiable" (to whom?).

As for the argument that it might be a "necessary evil", it's impossible to discern the consequences of our actions accurately. I'm guessing that many of those who advocated a violent response after September 11 as a "necessary evil" took the view that if one has the ability to stop another attack and doesn't do it, that inaction would cause the deaths of the victims of the next terrorist attack as surely as going to bomb the supposed terrorists would cause the deaths of the supposed terrorists. So, they would see the choice not as between killing and not killing, but as to which path involves less killing, or perhaps less killing of people they consider more worthy of living. Personally, I think none of the military responses to September 11 were well advised, in practice: I think they ended up killing tens / hundreds of thousands of people and will surely help to trigger future terrorist attacks thus reinforcing the cycle of violence- but that's an argument about whether the actions in practice worked out as planned, not an argument about the illusory principle. We can't foresee the results of our actions, even not acting is an action and has consequences, we can only decide as best as we can and accept the consequences.

I agree, and this is why I think that the analogy of a doctor amputating a limb from an injured patient is inaccurate. In the case of the amputating, the doctor knows that it will bring something good (the patient recovering). Acts of war or killing or violence are never that accurate. In that way, I believe that the best action is a peaceful one, even if it doesn't seem like it at first. Like you say, war will only reinforce the cycle of violence, bring about more hate, more acts of terrorism. If being peaceful, the need for terrorism decreases.

I think it's important to remember also, how Shaolin was when it first was formed. They were originally a Zen Buddhist sect that Bodhidharma himself began and, over the years, they developed their martial arts to protect their monestary, themselves, and the devotees of the Buddha that they served during a very troubled time in China's history.

Buddhist monks were allowed to defend themselves physically if attacked. But they were not allowed to kill. I just realized that the laws in Sweden are really into the same thing. I'm allowed to defend myself physically, but the force has to be moderate. I'm not allowed to beat the attacker to a pulp, and I'm not allowed to kill him. FWIW.

[disastermouse]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

yet it does.

And I still have to answer the question for myself ... objectless ultimately or not ... about whether it is right or wrong to buy a gun and keep it under my pillow. :?

Gassho, J

No, Jundo - this is coming from my direct practice - but thanks for the backhanded jab - it lets me know you're not sleeping (I really do mean that in a good-hearted way - I'm not sure if the internets are capable of properly expressing my gratitude.) Nonetheless, I think you are misunderstanding me here. I'm not saying that the 'self' is unreal or useless - I'm saying that in the moment in which you have to decide what to do about the strange fellow breaking into your kitchen - it will be your sitting practice, insight, and karmic predisposition that will determine your actions much more than philosophical discussion about whether taking lives is sometimes justifiable. These 'fight-or-flight' instances demand action - instinctive action. If your disposition has not been mitigated by insight and wisdom, you are less likely to make a non-harmful decision. I think this is much more important than any philosophical discussion of the precepts.

Buddhism is as useless as any philosophy for determining such questions, as you will ultimately twist it or turn it to suit your predisposition. I've seen it time and again. You do it, Brad certainly does it, I do it - everyone here does it.

The precepts are warning posts, guides, etc....but they have as much to do with 'here and now' reality as any other abstracted generalization - which is to say, not very much. They point in a direction, like a good map.

I don't want anyone to get me wrong, you need a good map! I believe Buddhism and Zen provide as good a map as you can find - but part of what makes Zen such a useful map is that it is so sparse that it is less likely to allow you to mistake the map with the territory actually traveled. Likewise, looking at a quagmire on a map will cause you to make certain judgments and form certain plans that may need to be completely thrown out the moment you're mucking through the swamp. I think that instinctively, we know that - but what is it about us that causes us to want to cover the bases of such unlikely scenarios beforehand when we intuit, or should intuit that the likelihood of such situations is small and that the usefulness of pre-planning for such events is questionable? In essence, planning for such events, covering all the bases - this is something the mind and self-identification love to do, and I think that such tendencies should be reduced to make room for real practice.

At least, that's what I'm attempting to do. I know myself - and I can get lost down these planning roads forever - trying to cover every base, every nook and cranny. I do it less and less as I get older because I see just how unnecessary much of it is and also how unhelpful it frequently is. Plan for retirement? Sensible. Buy insurance? Sensible. Save for kids' college fund? Sensible. Try to predetermine the 'Buddhist-correctness' of taking a life in what will be an emotionally charged event where instinct will take over? Not so sensible.

So that's what I'm saying. In a nutshell, yes - plan, you need to. But the mind has a tendency to micromanage and the ego has a tendency to constantly turn and try to secure itself. You can literally be at that job for an eternity. Maybe we should inquire to some extent into that tendency, see where it comes from, and refocus our energies elsewhere.

Chet

[Rich]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

Bad situations can escalate out of control very quickly, so you need to slow everything down to change a bad situation to a good situation. Practice helps with this. Get past the emotional reaction to a concrete action. Only defend the essential spirit of the body-mind. Give up everything else.

I don't really think about Buddhism that much unless I'm reading books or on the internet. But that doesn't mean I don't practice a lot.

Discussions of precepts, ethics, and what if's can be helpful but in real life situations , conscious thinking is too late. I think intuition is a kind of thinking but it's not conscious and happens effortlessly if your mind is clear.

FWIW
/Rich

[anista]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

I think this thread has gone from general ethics to what-ifs. Sure, we can't possibly know how we will react in certain hypothetical situations, but that's not really the point of these ethics. The point is to have a set of ideas that you want to follow as closely as you can, a set of ideas that will guide you in your normal day-to-day life. For example, since I became a Buddhist some 12 years ago, I stopped killing bugs intentionally. I'm not doing this because of my awakened state of mind. (I'm not awakened). I'm not doing this intuitively (well, not in the beginning anyway). I'm doing this because I have adopted ethics which I believe are Buddhist, and will help me live in accordance with the eightfold path, which according to the Buddha, will lead me to more positive karmic consequences, which is the way to awakening.

Now, if these ethics, including discussions of the same ethics, have lead me to a path which is from a Buddhist point of view, more skillful, then those discussions have been really, really good for me, and for others around me. How is that bad?

Which means, that from a buddhist perspective I find it odd, but fascinating, that different buddhist teachers have condoned killing, no matter what the motive. That's not the ethics I'm used to (but they are not automatically wrong because of this).

I'm interested in seeing what kind of ethics these buddhist teachers are using.

I'm interested in discussing ethics because it helps me with my own intellectual understanding of Buddhism, which helps me with more skillful actions.

[Jundo]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

Acts of war or killing or violence are never that accurate. In that way, I believe that the best action is a peaceful one, even if it doesn't seem like it at first. Like you say, war will only reinforce the cycle of violence, bring about more hate, more acts of terrorism. If being peaceful, the need for terrorism decreases.

Perhaps. I certainly wish that we had the guts in the West to have made a totally non-violent response to 9-11 ... flooding Afghanistan with money for schools and hospitals instead of CIA sharp-shooters and bombs. I wish we had thought "outside the box" more, and killed them "with kindness" instead of with bullets. Of course, the Taliban might not have allowed that (they are not big fans of Western education, and likely would have diverted the funds to their own purposes). However, I truly wish ... in an ideal world ... we had "turned the other cheek" more, and dropped flowers and chocolate bon bons from the sky instead of bullets from drone planes. (However, in fact, I think that Osama would have simply enjoyed nibbling on the chocolate while planning something even more deadly).

I wish we had bombs and gases which only caused people nearby to be rendered unconscious and passive instead of dead, but we do not have those yet (they are working on them, I happen to know, and I actually fully support and encourage such research into non-deadly alternative weaponry I think we have to develop non-deadly, violence neutralizing BUDDHA-BOMBS ... valium bombs and 'temporary physical paralyzers', and I have actually consulted with some researchers on the ethics, from a Buddhist point of view, of doing so.).

But In the meantime, the world is complex. It was necessary to capture or kill members of Al Qaeda, not just leave them alone in their training camps to plan something more than crashing planes into buildings. Mass killings in urban areas by chemical or biological weapons seem quite likely as the next scene should the group have been allowed to remain unchecked ... because its leaders said so openly in their videos (and any checking of the group and those leaders required the use of deadly force).

Thus, I believe that some limited, narrowly focused violent response was justified to destabilize the organization ... and perhaps more violence to weaken their Taliban supporters (although, certainly, not the big widespread mess in Iraq that it later became).

Honestly, I believe that, someday, we should identify the sections of the brain responsible for anger, hate, a desire for revenge and neutralize those in a hospital. I am deadly serious on this. (Was I the only fellow who read "Clockwork Orange" and thought it was actually a good idea to neutralize violence in that way instead of throwing people into prisons for life? I think we have to eventually go this way ...).

CLOCKWORK ORANGE SYNOPSIS: The movie is based on the novel by Anthony Burgess and takes place in a future where crime has run rampant and there is very little to be done about it. Alex is the leader of a gang of droogies and is particularly vicious. After accidentally killing someone he is imprisoned and volunteers to under go a new form of treatment in which his body associates violence of any kind with extreme feelings of nausea and sickness that are strong enough to paralyze him. Afterwards he attempts suicide and the government is forced to “fix” him again, restoring him to his former self and covering up the whole experiment.

I thought they should have left him as he was. I truly hope that we eventually get to something like that (mental neutralization of violence after trial by a jury of one's peers) ... instead of assassinations, carpet bombings, executions, water boarding and life imprisonment in some high security hell hole.

We need to turn murderers, rapists and terrorists into loving Bodhisattvas ... whether they want to be or not!

I just realized that the laws in Sweden are really into the same thing. I'm allowed to defend myself physically, but the force has to be moderate. I'm not allowed to beat the attacker to a pulp, and I'm not allowed to kill him. FWIW.

While I may be mistaken, my brief research indicates that you are mistaken about the laws of "self-defense", including the use of deadly force when reasonable and necessary under the circumstances, in Sweden. The law appears to be about the same in content and interpretation as in most Western countries. Thus, deadly force can be used to meet a situation in which one perceives (even if a reasonable but mistaken belief) that one is defending self or others from a likely use of deadly force or serious bodily injury. (One is not allowed to use deadly force, however, to prevent what is perceived as merely property theft, for example, or a non-deadly, relatively minor assault)

Defense justification - Self defense law in Sweden

Self defense is considered grounds for non-conviction if the accused acted in a situation of peril and acted in a manner that is not "blatantly unjustifiable" in relation to that which is defended.

A situation of peril is stated to exist if:

1. a person is subjected to, or is in imminent danger of being subjected to, a criminal attack against property or person, or
2. a person through threats, force or violence is prevented from taking back stolen property found on criminals "red handed", or
3. an intruder attempts to enter a room, house, estate or ship, or
4. another person refuses to leave a residence after being told to.

The interpretation of what is to be considered not "blatantly unjustifiable" is popularly expressed in Sweden as "that force which is required by the peril". In other words, the defending party may do whatever it takes so long as no alternative, less severe options are available. For example, if the defending party can flee a dangerous situation instead of engaging in a fight (in other words, a similar "duty to retreat" as described above). It should be noted that the expression "blatantly unjustifiable" allows fairly generous tolerance towards the defending party.

However, the defending party must also consider that which is defended and what injury is inflicted upon the attacker. If that which is defended is insignificant in comparison to the injuries to the attacker, the court may reject the claim that person acted in self defense since the damage done to the attacker is "blatantly unjustifiable". Loss of life or permanent bodily injury rarely justifies self defense unless the defending party was in danger of being subjected to the same. ... The Swedish criminal code states that anyone who assists a defending party in peril shall have the same rights as the defending party.

Please correct me if the law in Sweden is interpreted otherwise.

I think this thread has gone from general ethics to what-ifs. Sure, we can't possibly know how we will react in certain hypothetical situations.

I think that I can state, with a high degree of certitude, that I would take violent action against an intruder in my house (if in the United States), including the use of deadly force if perceiving danger to my loved ones. It is not merely hypothetical.
I would then carry all the resulting Karma, weight and guilt of that for the rest of my life .. and maybe then some.

In Miami, I had one of those electric 'taser' stun guns in the house ... and I would have reached for that ... although I heard that they are not very effective against a large man strung out on PCP (not a merely hypothetical situation when living in Miami). I did consider having a gun in the house, although I rejected that option for any number of reasons (karmic effects in future lives being way down the list compared to other factors of practicality). I also had (and have) a baseball bat, and there is no doubt that I would attempt to apply it to the intruder's head with all the force I could muster.

For example, since I became a Buddhist some 12 years ago, I stopped killing bugs intentionally.

Well, I am not eating in your kitchen (although, I assume you are using some other means to dissuade the bugs from coming). We faced this issue when Treeleaf Japan, a completely wooden building (built without nails, just joined wood beams) ... was infested with termites ...

A Google search on the subject, and talking to some other Buddhist clergy in various traditions, turned up the fact that (as I suspected), infested wooden Buddhist temples will take countermeasures ... though sometimes followed by a memorial service or the like for the little lives taken (and although some claim not too, and that good chanting is enough to chase the bugs away ... I tried that, no luck.) ...

The following was also typical advice, and I gave it a try ...

In the area of prohibitions against killing, one laywoman asked, "What should we do if there are mice and termites at home?" Dharma Master Heng Lyu answered, "You first post a notice asking them to leave. Next, you use insect repellants to chase them out. Avoid insecticides because you want to avoid the karma of killing."

One layman asked, "How do you avoid harming living beings while mowing the lawn?"

Dharma Master Heng Lyu said, "You would first post a notice to let the small creatures know that it's best to move, then mow the lawn. While you're mowing the lawn, recite the Great Compassion Mantra at the same time."

Excerpted from the article, "The City of Ten Thousand Buddhas Holds First Transmission of the Lay Bodhisattva Precepts in the New Millenium", on page 49 of the October 2000 issue (volume 31, series 73) of the Vajra Bodhi Sea.

And, of course, this is the famous "Dalai Lama kills the Mosquito" video ...

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=W083nSzx1Rc

I really feel the weight of having to kill those termites ... but somehow, whenever there is an earthquake and the heavy roof timbers start shaking over my family's heads ... I know it was necessary. That is the Koan.

Finally, as a "non-hypothetical" and very real possibility (perhaps not in Sweden, but in Miami) ... what do you believe you would do, Anista Philip, if you found ... not ants in your kitchen ... but a large man on PCP with a weapon heading for your child's bedroom? That is a Koan as well.

In the Buddha's Western Paradise, there are no rapists and terrorists strung out on PCP ... down here in Samsara, there are.

Gassho, Jundo