Taking lives as a good thing?

[Jundo]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

I think this is much more important than any philosophical discussion of the precepts.

I am with ya on about all you wrote there, Chet.

However, I don't think that all this is merely a hypothetical discussion, a "what if". In this modern world, we have to make very real decisions as Buddhists about whether we support, or do not support (or wish to withhold all judgment ... a kind of Dharmic abstaining), military action in a given situation ... we have to consider and confess what we will likely do if there is a drugged up intruder in our home (another very real possibility of urban life).

"Enlightenment" allows us to see that there is never any violence from the outset, no one to kill or be killed, no drugs or guns ... no place for a bullet to be shot ... Peace beyond peace or war.

Yet "Enlightenment" also allows us to see that there is violence, killing and death, drugs and victims and blood.

In fact, "Enlightenment" makes the weight and ugly reality of the violence and death even more crystal clear and prominent ... this world, for all its beauty and ugliness, is shown to be even more real than we ever conceived due to its very impermanence and unreality.

I do not wish anyone to misunderstand my point, that I am a "Buddhist teacher who advocates shooting people, starting wars, hitting people in the head with a baseball bat". Yet I think it a shame that folks get lost in idealized Buddhist images of Nirvana and Western Buddha Lands that will scrub this world clean of all the ugliness, conflict, ethical challenges.

In other words ... in the Buddha's Paradise and Emptiness, there is no stinking garbage rotting in trash cans. No "you" or "me" to catch a disease, and no disease. Yet, down here in the day to day, I still need to take it out and burn the fetid maggot filled pile before we all get sick ... I need to kill by the tens of thousands the rats that carry the plague infested fleas. That is just the reality ... Most Buddhist temples I have visited in Asia have rat traps, fly paper ... and do not look like this ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACzWdSfZXmw[/video]]

I think that anyone who has a too "scrubbed clean and pure" image of the realities of Nirvana-Samsara is seeing only one face of the picture. Sun faced Buddha, Moon faced Buddha.

Gassho, J

[disastermouse]

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.

This is the nature of the misunderstanding, IMHO. There is no way 'way to enlightenment' - it is a 'gateless gate'. You don't live in accordance with the 8FP, wisdom allows you to reflect it - not through self-conscious effort - but by a natural diminishment of greed, anger, and delusion which is a natural effect of 'right view'. You cannot will yourself into 'right view'.

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.

Skillful actions are a reflection of wisdom - they don't in and of themselves lead to wisdom. There are many misguided applications of the precepts that have nothing to do with wisdom. Are you trying to measure your actions to the actions of others?

Look at your own actions - determine their roots, verify whether you know what you think you know. Are your actions based on any realization or do they spring from mental exercise? Have you mistaken Buddhism with mental exercise?

Do these not seem like more important questions than the ethical underpinnings of Roshi Joe? I'm not saying you're wrong to inquire into it - the mind is curious. What I'm asking is what you really think you'll get from the answers.

Chet *just a loon*

[will]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

JohnsonCM wrote:
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.

Actually, Bodhidharma started this martial art to balance the monks out after long periods of sitting/meditation/Zazen. After seeing how sickly/out of shape the monks were after sitting for long periods, he decided to teach them some martial arts. It became part of their practice.

[disastermouse]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

I think this is much more important than any philosophical discussion of the precepts.

I am with ya on about all you wrote there, Chet.

However, I don't think that all this is merely a hypothetical discussion, a "what if". In this modern world, we have to make very real decisions as Buddhists about whether we support, or do not support, military action in a given situation ... we have to consider and confess what we will likely do if there is a drugged up intruder in our home.

We do? This is interesting, because I've gone through my entire life without giving it much thought beforehand.

"Enlightenment" allows us to see that there is never any violence from the outset, no one to kill or be killed, no drugs or guns ... no place for a bullet to be shot ... Peace beyond peace or war.

I don't really think 'enlightenment' shows us this. It's not that they don't exist, it's that they don't exist the way we think they do - and that our attachment to a certain way of seeing things is what causes us to do crazy shit. It really isn't for me to say whether violence is 'real' or if bullets are 'real' - insight simply shows us that maybe the thing we're using violence and bullets to defend - the self and ideas of self - may not be self-evident facts in our actual experience. The point is not whether the gun is real, the point is that this thing I'm trying to protect with it....well, what the hell is that? Does it require such actions?

In other words ... in the Buddha's Paradise and Emptiness, there is no stinking garbage rotting in trash cans. No "you" or "me" to catch a disease, and no disease. Yet, down here in the day to day, I still need to take it out and burn the fetid maggot filled pile before we all get sick ... I need to kill by the tens of thousands the rats that carry the plague infested fleas. That is just the reality ... Most Buddhist temples I have visited in Asia have rat traps, fly paper ... and do not look like this ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ACzWdSfZXmw[/video]]

I think that anyone who has a too "scrubbed clean and pure" image of the realities of Nirvana-Samsara is seeing only one face of the picture. Sun faced Buddha, Moon faced Buddha.

Gassho, J

I think you have a weird idea of Buddha's Paradise. Buddha's Paradise is the stinking garbage and the rats - it is whatever you experience before you say "I don't like the stinking garbage or rats, I wish they did not exist." This is not the same thing as not removing the garbage or killing the rats - that may be the right thing to do - but you do it without saying "I'm doing this because these things shouldn't exist." I don't know what kind of enlightenment would lead one to say, "I don't have to do anything because the garbage and rats are perfectly fine." By all means, clean the place up! Just don't resent the existence of the rats or the garbage while you're doing it - because reality cannot really be partitioned up into 'things that should exist' and 'things that shouldn't exist'. Where do you put the garbage and dead rats? Where else could they go but Buddha's Paradise?

All of this may seem confusing from an intellectual standpoint - but in my experience, recognizing nothing is really wrong and working as an agent to change things to your preference are not incompatible activities. Buddha self cleans up Buddha garbage and Buddha rats. I think we simply need to recognize that our own preferences are not sanctioned as somehow 'better' than the preferences of the rats in the view of the universe. We need to recognize that our preferences are our preferences. Reality itself may not care so much about our preferences and so maybe we should hold them lightly and perform our Buddha activity without resenting the rats who are also doing their Buddha activity, or the garbage that is doing its Buddha activity of stinking.

Chet

[will]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

And btw, clarity does not mean being passive. It means doing the proper thing when the moment arises. That means picking up some trash or staying someones hand. Debate, philosophize all you want, but all it will do is lead to what? Thinking? Hesitation. What does Buddha mind tell you? Maybe that's what you like to do "philosophize" and "Hypothesize". Then fine. I'm just saying.

Gassho

[Jundo]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

And btw, clarity does not mean being passive. It means doing the proper thing when the moment arises. That means picking up some trash or staying someones hand. Debate, philosophize all you want, but all it will do is lead to what? Thinking? Hesitation. What does Buddha mind tell you? Maybe that's what you like to do "philosophize" and "Hypothesize". Then fine. I'm just saying.

Gassho

I respectfully disagree. Some questions of ethics and "best path" need to be turned over in the mind before the fact (or reflected upon after the fact in anticipation of "next time") ...

... and then, hopefully, will play some role in the instant action, when the time comes without a moment to think.

In our house, we periodically rehearse escape routes in case of earthquake, as we know earthquake is likely someday here in Japan ... and there will be little time to think about it then. Each earthquake, we review ... in anticipation of next time.

"Enlightenment" allows us to see that there is never any violence from the outset, no one to kill or be killed, no drugs or guns ... no place for a bullet to be shot ... Peace beyond peace or war.

I don't really think 'enlightenment' shows us this. It's not that they don't exist, it's that they don't exist the way we think they do - Buddha's Paradise is the stinking garbage and the rats - it is whatever you experience before you say "I don't like the stinking garbage or rats, I wish they did not exist." This is not the same thing as not removing the garbage or killing the rats - that may be the right thing to do - but you do it without saying "I'm doing this because these things shouldn't exist." I don't know what kind of enlightenment would lead one to say, "I don't have to do anything because the garbage and rats are perfectly fine." By all means, clean the place up! Just don't resent the existence of the rats or the garbage while you're doing it - because reality cannot really be partitioned up into 'things that should exist' and 'things that shouldn't exist'. ....
Chet

Chet, what you are saying is absolutely the case. No shoulds or should nots, just what is.

Yet there is also that face without garbage or rats, earthquakes to shake, rapists and robbers, victims or war & peace ... not there and never were.

Both are one face, both are simultaneously so. In fact, not apart.

As is the face too with the rats who should not be there because they cause disease, the earthquake or robber to prepare for, the intruder who cannot be allowed to live because he is threatening my child and thus should not be there ... each as real as real can be.

Anyway, such is the world(s) I live-not-live in.

You don't live in accordance with the 8FP, wisdom allows you to reflect it - not through self-conscious effort - but by a natural diminishment of greed, anger, and delusion which is a natural effect of 'right view'. You cannot will yourself into 'right view'.

Yes and know. In the same way that book study alone will not make one a good nurse, nor will a good and caring heart alone, nor blind practice and effort without all of the foregoing. There is a place and time for each. Self conscious effort is not to be neglected in becoming someone who can act unself-consciously when called upon. There is a place and time for each.

Gassho, Jundo

[anista]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

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.

Even more reason not to use those bombs and gases until there are more peaceful solutions. IMHO.

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).

But then your killing someone as a preventive action. Killing so that they might not do harm in the future. Preventive and might are the key words here.

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.

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

No, you're not wrong, but that wasn't a big thing I brought up - just something I thought was a bit funny (not ha-ha funny, but still). There have been several examples in Sweden of people using far more violence that the situation permits, which I was thinking about. There are very, very few incidents were someone was attacked with deadly force, killed the attacker and got away. I have discussed this in a Swedish forum, and thwhile they agree that it is possible to "get away" with killing someone who is attacking you, the situation have to be so extreme that the forum people couldn't think of even one example which had been tried in court. But you're definitely right.

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.

Even though I wouldn't have done the same thing, Jundo, I must admit your honesty about this. It's much easier to discuss things with this kind of frankness, of "laying all the cards on the table". It's refreshing!

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 ...

You assume wrong. I get your point though. But there's a difference: the karmic retribution for me killing bugs just because I don't like them (ew, a spider, you die now!) and a monestary trying to get rid of termites. Those are not skillful actions, but I was talking about the former, which will bring much more negative consequences, and since I can avoid it, it would be skillful to do so, don't you think?

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

Yeah, I've seen that one, but he's not killing it, he's flicking it away. First, he lets it suck his blood, if it comes back, he blows on it, and the third time he's losing a little bit of patience, and flicks it away. Anyway, I'm not using the Dalai lama as a yardstick on ethics. He eats meat, for example, and I'm not.

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.

That's the kind of really hypothetical and unrealistic scenarios I was talking about. I don't know what I would have done. I have no weapons at all of any sort at home, so perhaps I would jump at him hitting him on the head with my laptop. Don't know really. And how do I know he's on PCP?

The point is, in that scneario I would probably do something instinctively, maybe even kill him. I acknowledge that. But that is not the same thing as condoning war, or saying that killing is OK, or saying that Buddhist ethics allow it. Or do you think so? People will continue doing impulsive stuff, even me, but that's no reason for abandoning an overarching ethic, is it? I'm against capital punishment, but perhaps I would personally kill someone threatening my baby. It's, in my opinion, two radically different approaches. Anyway, to this date, I've never killed anyone, or been in a physical fight. I hope it stays that way. (I'm pretty small and weak so I would lose anyway ).

[anista]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

This is the nature of the misunderstanding, IMHO. There is no way 'way to enlightenment' - it is a 'gateless gate'. You don't live in accordance with the 8FP, wisdom allows you to reflect it - not through self-conscious effort - but by a natural diminishment of greed, anger, and delusion which is a natural effect of 'right view'. You cannot will yourself into 'right view'.

yes, I understand that this is how you perceive it, and this is where we differ. I do believe that there is a way to awakening. I do believe that it is possible to live in accordance with the "8FP" (nice abbrevation by the way, I'm going to use it from now on! ).

I respect your views, though.

[Jundo]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

The point is, in that scneario I would probably do something instinctively, maybe even kill him. I acknowledge that.... I'm against capital punishment, but perhaps I would personally kill someone threatening my baby. ...

Then we are not different on this point. Thank you for admitting this.

And it may be a hypothetical in Sweden or Japan, but it was much more when we were living in Florida. The news filled with weekly, even daily, cases there ... the following just one of the more terrible ...

Beulah, FL - The Escambia County Sheriff's Office is searching for three men they say shot and killed the mother and father of 16 children during a home invasion/robbery.

http://www.wkrg.com/florida/article/dou ... 9_2-53-pm/

Were I a single, childless monk living in a monastery ... a begging bowl and a few rags my only possessions ... I might be willing to martyr myself (that attitude is not limited to Al Queda fanatics in hijacked planes) and let the thief do what he will.

But that is not the situation in which my self finds itself.

But that is not the same thing as condoning war, or saying that killing is OK, or saying that Buddhist ethics allow it. Or do you think so?

I think that Buddhist ethics allow it, although certainly do not approve of it as something positive. The Precept against killing, none of the Precepts, are black and white. I believe that some wars are justified, although only with great hesitation and within limited confines.

Here is another article on the topic, the title expresses the point ...

The Budhha Taught Nonviolence, Not Pacifism

Here are two key differences between nonviolence as taught by the Buddha, and pacifism. First, the Buddha ... recognized different levels of personality development, different social roles and obligations, different responsibilities and necessities incumbent on different individuals according to their history and choices. The Buddha taught people according to their “karma.”

...

In a brief discourse, the Buddha is challenged by a General who claims that Dhamma is mere passivity. The Buddha replies that he teaches inactivity in regard to unwholesome things and “activity by way of good conduct in deeds, words, and thoughts.” There is no further blanket position taken towards government, warfare or the karma of Generals. What constitutes good conduct is left to the General’s discernment. The Buddha gave the principle, not the details of the infinite varieties of interpretation and application.

None of this, however, justifies hatred, or violence in service of personal goals or gains. For the government servant who, for example, as a soldier must kill, the Buddha implicitly asks of him two questions. The first is: “Can you do this task as an upholder of safety and justice, focused on love of those you protect rather than on hate for those you must kill? If you are acting with vengeance or delight in destruction, then you are not at all a student of Dhamma. But if your hard job can be done with a base of pure mind, while you are clearly not living the life of an enlightened person, you are still able to begin walking the path towards harmony and compassion.” The Buddha’s ethics clearly allows differentiation between situations like American soldiers fighting to liberate the concentration camps at the end of World War II, versus death camp guards and mass murderers. If the soldier is acting in a protective, pure hearted way of life, he may be an agent of justice who simply is the vehicle by which the karma of the murderers ends in their own death.

It is to serious, committed meditators, who are lifelong practitioners of moral precepts, daily meditation, and a purified mind, that the Buddha gave his often quoted, stunning guidance on non-violence, “Even if bandits brutally severed him limb from limb with a two handled saw, he who entertained hate in his heart on that account would not be one who followed my teaching.” [Majjhima 21] Please note that this famous passage does not preclude skillful and vigorous self defense that is free of hate.

http://www.dharma.org/ij/archives/2002a/nonviolence.htm

Gassho, J

[Jundo]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

There is one more "Buddhist perspective" that must be mentioned as part of this conversation. And that is that BOTH the rapist and raped, murderer and murdered, terrorist and terrorized are ultimately EACH VICTIMS of human greed, anger and ignorance. Many a violent actor is certainly just an adult who, as a child, grew up in a violent environment, a broken home or a bad neighborhood ... all victims of the circumstances that lit the flames of hate and desire within them ... a victim of circumstances and Karma.

EVEN THOUGH we might see the violent person as just a victim too, still, we may need to take action to prevent the violence, and to save a non-aggressor's life. That may mean putting the violent individual in prison or, in my view, sometimes taking his life to save the lives of others.

Gassho, J

[Stephanie]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

Well, how do you judge "good" and "bad"?

If you are theistic in outlook, you operate on the notion that God or "the Universe" has some code of good and bad that you can either conform or not conform to.

If you are non-theistic in outlook, you don't suspect or assume that there is some entity or "Greater Awareness" who knows or cares whether you're being bad or good. In this case, then, determining what is "good" or "bad" is up to you.

A lot of the arguing here seems to be rooted in the former perspective--that there is some cosmic "judge" out there somewhere who judges our behavior, or a cosmic "code" of right and wrong that we either follow or not. Otherwise, how could we argue over what is "ultimately" right or wrong, if there is no one to judge that but us?

Personally, I think my deepest tendency when it comes to the way my brain assumes the world works is naturalistic and/or polytheistic--in the sense that I assume there are various Principles in operation but not necessarily a "Great Principle" or an ultimate authority that gives us either a candy or a spanking at the end of the day.

If you look at nature, and our evolutionary origins, violence and killing are natural to this world. As human beings, we have decided we do not like violence and killing and make laws against these things. We can think it is because we are wiser or "doing the will of God" or what have you, but we can't deny that the world we find ourselves in is intrinsically violent. New life in this world depends on the destruction and decay of the old. In order for things to live, they must consume--which means destroy--other life forms. Survival means being able to fight, and win, against those that would stand against you. Welcome to Planet Earth.

So the way I see it, as a compassionate person who is attuned to the subjectivity of others, I do not wish to harm or kill others. But if a situation arose in which I had to choose to kill or be killed, and my being killed would not be of benefit, I would kill. It is senseless, in my view, not to defend one's life in a situation in which losing it would not bring about good to anyone, and might actually make the world worse (choosing to "allow" a violent criminal to live, rather than a person who tries to live a life of love and kindness). I know this goes against canonical Buddhism and the noble stories of the Buddha in his previous lives letting himself be killed in 1000 different ways, but I think there gets to be a point where self-sacrifice becomes destructive.

So yes, I can certainly think of scenarios where killing another person might yield a better outcome than otherwise. I don't know about how that would fit in to a worldview based in cosmic principles of "good" and "evil," but that doesn't bother me as I don't really have that worldview. (I did for a long time; I wanted to believe in saints and heroes; but over time, it seems more and more based in fantasy and wishfulness than reality. Yes, we can do acts that we or others deem "good," or acts we or others deem "bad," but at the end of the day I think this is all up to us to determine.)

[disastermouse]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

This is the nature of the misunderstanding, IMHO. There is no way 'way to enlightenment' - it is a 'gateless gate'. You don't live in accordance with the 8FP, wisdom allows you to reflect it - not through self-conscious effort - but by a natural diminishment of greed, anger, and delusion which is a natural effect of 'right view'. You cannot will yourself into 'right view'.

yes, I understand that this is how you perceive it, and this is where we differ. I do believe that there is a way to awakening. I do believe that it is possible to live in accordance with the "8FP" (nice abbrevation by the way, I'm going to use it from now on! ).

I respect your views, though.

Reality doesn't care what you believe. As long as you think awakening is a a goal that can be attained, you'll be blocked from it. It is a significant barrier and one of the most prevalent.

Chet

[disastermouse]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

There is one more "Buddhist perspective" that must be mentioned as part of this conversation. And that is that BOTH the rapist and raped, murderer and murdered, terrorist and terrorized are ultimately EACH VICTIMS of human greed, anger and ignorance. Many a violent actor is certainly just an adult who, as a child, grew up in a violent environment, a broken home or a bad neighborhood ... all victims of the circumstances that lit the flames of hate and desire within them ... a victim of circumstances and Karma.

EVEN THOUGH we might see the violent person as just a victim too, still, we may need to take action to prevent the violence, and to save a non-aggressor's life. That may mean putting the violent individual in prison or, in my view, sometimes taking his life to save the lives of others.

Gassho, J

This view pretty much reflects mine 100%. Not that this is important, of course - but I somehow felt it would be nice to let you know I feel the same way. I'm not really sure why, actually....

Chet

[Jundo]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

Well, how do you judge "good" and "bad"?

If you are theistic in outlook, you operate on the notion that God or "the Universe" has some code of good and bad that you can either conform or not conform to.

Hi Steph,

Actually, "humanists" (who tend to be agnostics or atheists or "light handed" believers) came up with some very good answers to this centuries ago, very clear and practical ethical standards. As many have observed in history, atheists and agnostics have not, throughout the centuries, proven to be particularly more prone to "raping, pillaging, robbing and murdering" than believers in one creed or another. In fact, one might say that there are "good people and bad people" among both believers and non-believers of various stripes. One might argue that people (religious or not) with a soft and tolerant view of the rest of the world are less likely to inflict violence on others than those with hard and inflexible "I'm right, you're wrong" views (for example, Quakers, the "Pennsylvania Dutch" and, yes, most Buddhists, are deeply committed to their views of "right and wrong", yet also incredibly tolerant and "live and let live" toward the rest of the world. Nazis and Cambodian Communists, although seemingly "atheists", showed that they were actually deeply 'religious', inflexible folks who sought to impose their rigid views of "right and wrong" on others by force).

Anyway, "secular humanists" came up with pretty much the same "standards" as everyone else. Seek not to kill, to steal, avoid sleeping with your neighbor's wife,etc. ... because it makes for a more peaceable, pleasant, safe, livable society and world to do so. Buddhists came up with pretty much the same general standards. Why? To not have those things quickly brings violence and chaos. All developed some form of the "Golden Rule" (with, perhaps, the Buddhist emphasis being a bit more on "do unto others because they are your self too"). The Buddhists said that the "punishment" would be in the form of Karma and a bad rebirth, the Christians had a trip to hell (although, actually, the Buddhists had that too .... viewtopic.php?p=27699#p27699 ).

Buddhists too can be divided into those who have a very fixed, detailed, rule oriented set of morals (I often compare some forms of Buddhism holding a very rigid, black/white view of the Vinaya with Hasidic Jews, who have very much the same attitude toward the rules of Book of Deuteronomy), and those of us who see the Precepts as wise guides and arrows pointing in the general direction of a harmless, healthy, mutually beneficial way of living, with the "details" left open and involving much tolerance and remolding and many gray areas (as this whole discussion on "not Killing" has shown!!). I believe that different personalities may require different amounts of rigidity ... some Jews and Buddhists need to live "bound head and foot" to the rules, while others can be more flexible, open ended and tolerant, while yet living as quite "honest, good, decent, moral" people.

Anyway... when you, Stephanie, do an act of Compassion ... there is Compassion in the universe. When you do an act of harm and hurt, there is that in the universe. It makes little difference whether those standards come from "On High" or just from within each of us (where is "in" or "out" anyway?)

TO CUT TO THE CHASE: It is possible to be a Theist or not (I am not advocating one way or the other), yet have a pretty clear view of "right and wrong" while still being flexible, harmless, beneficent and tolerant toward others.

If you look at nature, and our evolutionary origins, violence and killing are natural to this world. As human beings, we have decided we do not like violence and killing and make laws against these things. We can think it is because we are wiser or "doing the will of God" or what have you, but we can't deny that the world we find ourselves in is intrinsically violent.

Well, the world is just the world. I wonder if the snake, and the rabbit it chases down for lunch, think of the world as "violent" or "not" in the same we do (those seem like judgments of a human mind). It is just the way things are. However, as human beings, what we do with this world from this point out, and how we choose to live, is up to us. We are building a world in which we need not kill other sentient creatures to survive and thrive.

So the way I see it, as a compassionate person who is attuned to the subjectivity of others, I do not wish to harm or kill others. But if a situation arose in which I had to choose to kill or be killed, and my being killed would not be of benefit, I would kill.

I think I could also clearly see scenarios for myself in which I would jump on a live grenade, rush into a burning building in order to save others in place of myself. But that is truly a hypothetical until that bridge is crossed.

Gassho, J

[Stephanie]

Re: Taking lives as a good thing?

Jundo, I appreciate and agree with the perspective offered in your post.

In my discussion of a theistic perspective versus a non-theistic one, I did not mean to imply that only theists could conceive of good and bad, rather that only theists believe that "good" and "bad" are woven into the fabric of the universe and that some force greater than us holds us accountable to this cosmic standard of good and bad.

As a non-theist I conceive of good and bad, and pursue good, just as anyone else does, but I am aware that "good" may only be a matter of perspective, and that doing what I think of as "good" is a personal choice. I do not believe that choosing to do what I believe is "good" will lead to any cosmic round of applause, or a better afterlife, etc.

Because of this perspective, I do not have a rigid sensibility about rules, precepts, etc. Nor do I find anything problematic about the "violence" to be found in nature. Quite the opposite. I appreciate, admire, and respect the natural order, "red in tooth and claw" as it is. I think that the act of killing is a natural part of life in the universe and life on Planet Earth. I also think that it is a good thing that as human beings, we have decided that killing is not good and something we only want to do rarely. As you point out, non-killing preserves the social order. It also reduces suffering, tyranny, and oppression.

The sensitive, human part of me trembles at the pain of others and cannot bear to inflict it. At the same time, however, the "animal" part of me understands killing in a different way, as a part of the natural order, and not something "forbidden" or "corrupt." If I had to kill to survive, I would do so. That said, there are also circumstances in which I would willingly give up my life and uphold pure pacifism.

I personally doubt I will ever be in a situation that will require me to kill another person, or even an animal, to survive, so it is not a great concern. And if I was, I know it would not be easy. I have a hard time squashing bugs and felt horrible when one of the glue traps the exterminator placed in my kitchen caught a mouse. But then, I also placed down glue traps myself later when mice started getting bolder and not just skittering behind the stove, but getting on top of my kitchen counters.

I accept and embrace the fact that I live in a world in which death and killing must occur. I admire the power and grace of natural predators and do not think the world would be more beautiful if "the lion lay down with the lamb." But I am also grateful to be a human being and not a lion, and that I live in a human world in which, as you point out, killing is not required, except in rare circumstances.