Re: Self-Defense
Hi,
I have enjoyed this tangled thread(s), but would like to offer a few comments on some things mentioned ...
_______________
- 1 - The connection with the "samurai" was just the reality of history ... for the warriors were the government in Japan for centuries. Even Dogen had a sponsor who was a "warlord" (Hatano Yoshishige) ... as did probably all the major temples in Japan (for there was simply no having a temple without official sponsorship). Read pages 30 and 31 here on Lord Hatano ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=BnLOFw ... ge&f=false
Brian Victoria's book "Zen At War" also discusses how Buddhists of all stripes in Japan sometimes got caught up in the nationalism of the day. (Although, great inaccuracies and exaggerations in that book have since led me to take some of the content with a grain of salt) ...
viewtopic.php?p=17608#p17608
But the truth is that, in the realities of the world, Buddhism ... from the beginning ... has been associated with kings, lords and (thus) military power, in India, Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, China, Korea.
The Buddha also seems to have been of two minds on this, and certainly accepted support and donations from powerful people. On the one hand, there are some writings in which he is framed to say that killing is never skillful.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ssage.html
On the other hand, in other Sutta he did seem to countenance a nation having an army for certain limited purposes, and its discreet use.
http://www.beyondthenet.net/thedway/soldier.htm
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma6/militarycanon.html
Now, I believe that a Buddhist would counsel the warrior to make peace whenever possible, but also recognized that societies in this complex world need armies.
Fuken, who is in active service and also quite involved with the "military Sangha" of soldiers, sailors and marines who are Buddhist practitioners, is much more conversant on the topic than I am.
_______________
- 2 - The Precepts were not originally intended to be rigid. In fact, there were no Precepts at all in the early days, and the vast body of Precepts only developed, one by one, as various serious harmful acts occurred over the years in the ever growing Sangha. The Buddha was much like a legislature making rules as problems appeared (and exceptions and interpretations to rules too).
As well, just before his death, he advised his successors to do away with all the "minor" Precepts and just keep the "major" ones. However, he never spelled out exactly what he meant by "minor" and "major", so his successors thought it best to keep about -ALL- of them for fear of mistakenly abandoning what the Buddha meant as "major"! Over the centuries, the literal and fixed interpretation of these hundreds of rules often become quite rigid.
Furthermore, the Precepts ... like all societal rules ... were very closely tied to the cultural traditions, values and societal structures in which they were created. Because ancient India was not classical China which was not medeivel Japan, interpretations of these rules did change in many ways as they moved from culture to culture, age to age. Now, as they move to the 21st century west, and toward a more lay oriented practice, they are adjusting again. The fact of the matter is that even the Zen clergy in Japan and the West has moved from a "celibate monastic" model to something more resembling "ministers" having wives, children and home lives. The Precepts have adjusted to fit these needs.
BUT, this flexibility does not mean we run to libertine extremes, throwing out the baby with the bath water either. That would be a specious argument to assert that any change or "loosening" of the rules means we have to all now have orgies of unprotected sex, drugs and violence! :shock: The "Bodhisattva Precepts" (which are the Precepts for both lay and ordained in Japanese lines, and which we undertake in our annual Jukai) have come, over the centuries, to uphold and express what is at the Heart of all the Precepts ... non-harming ... while also allowing for great flexibiity.
Why? Because life is complicated, with ever changing situations, and any law or rule that does not have flexibility will break if it does not bend. Even Orthodox Jews know this, and thus their rabbis will always find interpretations, and exceptions within exceptions, to the equally detailed rules they follow.
For further reading on all of the above, I very much recommend all the various scholars papers contained in this book:
Going Forth: Visions of Buddhist Vinaya
http://www.amazon.com/Going-Forth-Visio ... 0824827872
_______________
- 3 - The Buddhist Sutta/Sutras were written by 1000 different men, with 1000 different viewpoints on the details of Buddhist Practice. Even if actually the words of the historical Buddha, he may have spoken somewhat different teachings ... and recommended various practices ... to different people, at different times with differing needs. I sometimes think of Gautama Buddha as the "founder" (much like Henry Ford for the Model T car), and then Buddhism took off on a couple of thousand years of refinement, change to suit cultures, trial and error, adding and subtracting and evolution. Although the Heart of these wonderful Teachings are as much alive today as they were anywhere or any time in the past ... they come in many flavors.
The Mahayana folks looked down on the earlier "Hinayana" teachings as "lesser" teachings, "half baked" Buddhism. That is for sure. (And Zen folks did the same with many non-Zenny teachings, even in the Mahayana, even in competing Zen schools). However, I have no trouble (neither did Dogen) with dipping into the ancient "Hinayana" Suttas when there is a worthwhile teaching or parable or recommendation there. I also feel no compulsion to accept all of it, because one size of practice does not fit all in Buddhism. All wonderful, even if we do not take it all.
_______________
- 4- As to self-defense, we have had some wonderful chats on this in the past in preparation for our 'Jukai', looking at the Precept on Preserving Life, and elsewhere too:
viewtopic.php?p=33414#p33414
Although there may be times to sacrifice one's own life for a greater good, I also am likely to use serious or deadly force if there is an intruder in my house seemingly about to do harm to my wife or child (or me!). I believe that both the law in about all Western countries ... and the Buddhist Precepts ... allow for that. I do not believe it hypothetical, because I am sure that I would if faced with an intruder who I perceived as any such threat.
Apart from that, my wife is an Ai-ki-do-ist (2nd Dan black belt ... actually, I probably will let her deal with the intruder! :shock: ) ... and I believe that Jodi says it right:
But if necessary, do what is necessary.
Yet ...
Gassho, Jundo
PS - As Chris said too ...
Hi,
I have enjoyed this tangled thread(s), but would like to offer a few comments on some things mentioned ...
_______________
- 1 - The connection with the "samurai" was just the reality of history ... for the warriors were the government in Japan for centuries. Even Dogen had a sponsor who was a "warlord" (Hatano Yoshishige) ... as did probably all the major temples in Japan (for there was simply no having a temple without official sponsorship). Read pages 30 and 31 here on Lord Hatano ...
http://books.google.com/books?id=BnLOFw ... ge&f=false
Brian Victoria's book "Zen At War" also discusses how Buddhists of all stripes in Japan sometimes got caught up in the nationalism of the day. (Although, great inaccuracies and exaggerations in that book have since led me to take some of the content with a grain of salt) ...
viewtopic.php?p=17608#p17608
But the truth is that, in the realities of the world, Buddhism ... from the beginning ... has been associated with kings, lords and (thus) military power, in India, Thailand, Burma, Sri Lanka, China, Korea.
The Buddha also seems to have been of two minds on this, and certainly accepted support and donations from powerful people. On the one hand, there are some writings in which he is framed to say that killing is never skillful.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ssage.html
On the other hand, in other Sutta he did seem to countenance a nation having an army for certain limited purposes, and its discreet use.
http://www.beyondthenet.net/thedway/soldier.htm
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma6/militarycanon.html
Now, I believe that a Buddhist would counsel the warrior to make peace whenever possible, but also recognized that societies in this complex world need armies.
Fuken, who is in active service and also quite involved with the "military Sangha" of soldiers, sailors and marines who are Buddhist practitioners, is much more conversant on the topic than I am.
_______________
- 2 - The Precepts were not originally intended to be rigid. In fact, there were no Precepts at all in the early days, and the vast body of Precepts only developed, one by one, as various serious harmful acts occurred over the years in the ever growing Sangha. The Buddha was much like a legislature making rules as problems appeared (and exceptions and interpretations to rules too).
As well, just before his death, he advised his successors to do away with all the "minor" Precepts and just keep the "major" ones. However, he never spelled out exactly what he meant by "minor" and "major", so his successors thought it best to keep about -ALL- of them for fear of mistakenly abandoning what the Buddha meant as "major"! Over the centuries, the literal and fixed interpretation of these hundreds of rules often become quite rigid.
Furthermore, the Precepts ... like all societal rules ... were very closely tied to the cultural traditions, values and societal structures in which they were created. Because ancient India was not classical China which was not medeivel Japan, interpretations of these rules did change in many ways as they moved from culture to culture, age to age. Now, as they move to the 21st century west, and toward a more lay oriented practice, they are adjusting again. The fact of the matter is that even the Zen clergy in Japan and the West has moved from a "celibate monastic" model to something more resembling "ministers" having wives, children and home lives. The Precepts have adjusted to fit these needs.
BUT, this flexibility does not mean we run to libertine extremes, throwing out the baby with the bath water either. That would be a specious argument to assert that any change or "loosening" of the rules means we have to all now have orgies of unprotected sex, drugs and violence! :shock: The "Bodhisattva Precepts" (which are the Precepts for both lay and ordained in Japanese lines, and which we undertake in our annual Jukai) have come, over the centuries, to uphold and express what is at the Heart of all the Precepts ... non-harming ... while also allowing for great flexibiity.
Why? Because life is complicated, with ever changing situations, and any law or rule that does not have flexibility will break if it does not bend. Even Orthodox Jews know this, and thus their rabbis will always find interpretations, and exceptions within exceptions, to the equally detailed rules they follow.
For further reading on all of the above, I very much recommend all the various scholars papers contained in this book:
Going Forth: Visions of Buddhist Vinaya
http://www.amazon.com/Going-Forth-Visio ... 0824827872
_______________
- 3 - The Buddhist Sutta/Sutras were written by 1000 different men, with 1000 different viewpoints on the details of Buddhist Practice. Even if actually the words of the historical Buddha, he may have spoken somewhat different teachings ... and recommended various practices ... to different people, at different times with differing needs. I sometimes think of Gautama Buddha as the "founder" (much like Henry Ford for the Model T car), and then Buddhism took off on a couple of thousand years of refinement, change to suit cultures, trial and error, adding and subtracting and evolution. Although the Heart of these wonderful Teachings are as much alive today as they were anywhere or any time in the past ... they come in many flavors.
The Mahayana folks looked down on the earlier "Hinayana" teachings as "lesser" teachings, "half baked" Buddhism. That is for sure. (And Zen folks did the same with many non-Zenny teachings, even in the Mahayana, even in competing Zen schools). However, I have no trouble (neither did Dogen) with dipping into the ancient "Hinayana" Suttas when there is a worthwhile teaching or parable or recommendation there. I also feel no compulsion to accept all of it, because one size of practice does not fit all in Buddhism. All wonderful, even if we do not take it all.
_______________
- 4- As to self-defense, we have had some wonderful chats on this in the past in preparation for our 'Jukai', looking at the Precept on Preserving Life, and elsewhere too:
viewtopic.php?p=33414#p33414
Although there may be times to sacrifice one's own life for a greater good, I also am likely to use serious or deadly force if there is an intruder in my house seemingly about to do harm to my wife or child (or me!). I believe that both the law in about all Western countries ... and the Buddhist Precepts ... allow for that. I do not believe it hypothetical, because I am sure that I would if faced with an intruder who I perceived as any such threat.
Apart from that, my wife is an Ai-ki-do-ist (2nd Dan black belt ... actually, I probably will let her deal with the intruder! :shock: ) ... and I believe that Jodi says it right:
In my martial arts school, we are taught numerous methods to prevent attacks in the first place and to fight only in self-defense. ... Don't attack them unless they actually attack you. If that same person does move to attack you with that knife even after you give them your wallet, then use the self-defense necessary to get away safely.
Yet ...
Almost all the Buddhist teachers I can think of (including me too, for what it is worth) would say that we must also bear all the Karmic consequences of our volitional words, thoughts and acts, no matter whether we had a "reason" for killing or not.
You may kill the cat, but you still likely have to pay the price in some way.
A Tibetan teacher (Chagdud Tulku) relates this famous Jataka legend about a previous incarnation of the Buddha ...
I am not sure about the effect of our Karma in lives to come ... but I do know that we likely will bear the effects of our actions in this life in some way. I have a friend, an ex-policeman, who had to kill someone in a perfectly necessary and justified act to save lives. Yet, my friend still carries that with him to this day.
No, taking lives is never a "good" thing.
You may kill the cat, but you still likely have to pay the price in some way.
A Tibetan teacher (Chagdud Tulku) relates this famous Jataka legend about a previous incarnation of the Buddha ...
(In a previous life, the Buddha was Captain Compassionate Heart, sailing with 500 merchants. An evil pirate, Dung Thungchen (Blackspear) appeared, threatening to kill them all. )The captain, a bodhisattva himself, saw the [pirate]'s murderous intention and realized this crime would result in eons of torment for the murderer. In his compassion, the captain was willing to take hellish torment upon himself by killing the man to prevent karmic suffering that would be infinity greater than the suffering of the murdered victims. The captain's compassion was impartial; his motivation was utterly selfless.
No, taking lives is never a "good" thing.
PS - As Chris said too ...
However, no matter what, I would always look at the man who thought to attack me and my family and wonder. What happened that he saw this as an acceptable choice? What must have gone on in his life to drive him to this extreme? Was his heart truly evil, or was it just his circumstance that put this thought in his mind? What kindness could have been shown to him in his life, instead of suffering, that could have precluded this action?
Comment