dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
It's often been said that Buddhism is a pacifist religion, but Buddhists will counter and say that it's not pacifist, it's non-violent. Is this true, and if so, what's the difference between the two?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Pacifism or non-violence?
- Thread starter dyanaprajna2011
- Start date
BSM1
What? Me worry?
I am non-violent but by no means a pacifist. A pacifist does not resort to violence for any reason, not even to protect his life. I do not wish to hurt anyone but I would not hesitate to use whatever means available to incapacitate you if you were trying to harm me, my family, or other innocents who may be in your sights. I would do this without anger or remorse.
^ This.
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
I've always been confused about how Buddhism views self-defense.
Weren't many/some martial arts developed by Buddhist monks for their own protection while traveling?
dyanaprajna2011
Dharmapala
Yeah, particularly some styles of kung-fu.
I thought so; I thought I read it somewhere. Also, I would think it was never for offense or a pre-emptive strike, however. That is, if a monk saw a known or suspected bandit, he wasn't supposed to strike first to disable the bandit. That would make him no better than the bandit.
ratikala
Istha gosthi
namaskaram dyanaprajna ji:namaste
agreed in that Buddhism is non violent , but when it comes to pacifism ?
yes , a true Budddhist should be free from all agression ,
and that a Buddhist should allways seek to use non violent means first , but if all reason and inteligence fails and there is likely to be harm caused to others then some form of attack might be nececary , and in the deffence of the inocent a Buddhist might have to decide that the use of force or power is the only option , but this isnt violence it is defence .
in some respects a Buddhist is fearless , if he sees wrong doing he will stand up for others without thought for himself . in this respect he would not be a pacificist .
to me the difference between pacifism and non violence , ... a pacifist remains inactive in the face of violence remaining pasive would imply no retaliation even when under threat , ... where as non violent tends to sugest abhoring violence , but the question would be would a non violent person use force if nececary to protect himself or to protect others .
personaly I would say that I was an extremely nonviolent person but I wouldnt call my self a pacifist , in the case of any form of conflict I would allways try to find an inteligent way of avoiding conflict but if forced to protect anyone I would use force if it were absolutely nececary but I would not concider that to be violence as the motive is not vengefull or agressive .
if you told me that I had to shoot a rabid dog because there is no cure , the dog will suffer , and that a rabid dog will endanger many others , ...I would not want to do it , but without question I would have to shoot it .
however we have badgers here , and many farmers think that they carry tuburculosis and infect their cattle , but it is uncertain , cattle may also carry tuburculosis and infect the badgers , in defence of their cattle they want the badgers killed , ..... when humans are infected they are treated , when cattle and badgers are infected they kill them , ....this is violence as it is un nececary and un inteligent .
agreed in that Buddhism is non violent , but when it comes to pacifism ?
yes , a true Budddhist should be free from all agression ,
and that a Buddhist should allways seek to use non violent means first , but if all reason and inteligence fails and there is likely to be harm caused to others then some form of attack might be nececary , and in the deffence of the inocent a Buddhist might have to decide that the use of force or power is the only option , but this isnt violence it is defence .
in some respects a Buddhist is fearless , if he sees wrong doing he will stand up for others without thought for himself . in this respect he would not be a pacificist .
to me the difference between pacifism and non violence , ... a pacifist remains inactive in the face of violence remaining pasive would imply no retaliation even when under threat , ... where as non violent tends to sugest abhoring violence , but the question would be would a non violent person use force if nececary to protect himself or to protect others .
personaly I would say that I was an extremely nonviolent person but I wouldnt call my self a pacifist , in the case of any form of conflict I would allways try to find an inteligent way of avoiding conflict but if forced to protect anyone I would use force if it were absolutely nececary but I would not concider that to be violence as the motive is not vengefull or agressive .
if you told me that I had to shoot a rabid dog because there is no cure , the dog will suffer , and that a rabid dog will endanger many others , ...I would not want to do it , but without question I would have to shoot it .
however we have badgers here , and many farmers think that they carry tuburculosis and infect their cattle , but it is uncertain , cattle may also carry tuburculosis and infect the badgers , in defence of their cattle they want the badgers killed , ..... when humans are infected they are treated , when cattle and badgers are infected they kill them , ....this is violence as it is un nececary and un inteligent .
I guess some confrontations can be avoided, for example, someone says something offensive, but these offensive words are simply incapable of making you emotionally-unstable/agitated, so you calmly walk away. No escalation.
and achieving this state of emotional-stability/calmness is the foundation of quite a few martial arts, I think......
DreadFish
Cosmic Vagabond
I think it depends on the context. If I recall correctly, in the suttas, a bhikkhu is advised to not fight back and remain passive if he is attacked, beaten, etc..
I feel inclined to believe that this shouldn't be considered an umbrella policy to apply to all people in all times; for one, a bhikkhu has given up everything to achieving freedom, and two, we live in a different age now.
I also think that, simply because "Buddhists" have done such and such, doesn't mean that "Buddhism" is this or that; I guess it depends on whether you define Buddhism by what it's scriptures say or what it's followers do. Yes the Chinese monks practiced martial arts for self-defense but, there are Thai monks who also take up arms to fight Muslim insurgents in south Thailand right now and, in the past, Japanese temples had armies of warrior monks that fought in political battles.
As for me, personally, I think that defense is excusable, though I dont know what suttas or sutras say about it. I have a strong desire to protect people from aggressive, ill-willed people; it's how I positively channel my own aggressive side. So, im non-violent, I dont want to initiate violence and disturb peace, but I am not a pacifist.
I feel inclined to believe that this shouldn't be considered an umbrella policy to apply to all people in all times; for one, a bhikkhu has given up everything to achieving freedom, and two, we live in a different age now.
I also think that, simply because "Buddhists" have done such and such, doesn't mean that "Buddhism" is this or that; I guess it depends on whether you define Buddhism by what it's scriptures say or what it's followers do. Yes the Chinese monks practiced martial arts for self-defense but, there are Thai monks who also take up arms to fight Muslim insurgents in south Thailand right now and, in the past, Japanese temples had armies of warrior monks that fought in political battles.
As for me, personally, I think that defense is excusable, though I dont know what suttas or sutras say about it. I have a strong desire to protect people from aggressive, ill-willed people; it's how I positively channel my own aggressive side. So, im non-violent, I dont want to initiate violence and disturb peace, but I am not a pacifist.
Self-defense is allowed, even for monks.
From the Vinaya--Rules for Monks & Nuns
From the Vinaya--Rules for Monks & Nuns
Giving a blow to another bhikkhu when impelled by anger except in self-defense is a pācittiya offense. (Pc 74)
Making a threatening gesture against another bhikkhu when impelled by anger except in self-defense is a pācittiya offense. (Pc 75)
-source-
Making a threatening gesture against another bhikkhu when impelled by anger except in self-defense is a pācittiya offense. (Pc 75)
-source-
DreadFish
Cosmic Vagabond
Ablaze
Buddham Saranam Gacchami
We often overlook the violence that people do to each other through words and manipulation of emotions. Even more so, we overlook the violence that we do to ourselves through harboring ill will rather than practicing forgiveness, thinking poorly of oneself or engaging in excessive self-criticism, and so on.
The quality of an action is grounded in the intention that supports it. When underpinned by unwholesome mind states, including those that are clouded by anger or ill-will, an action is considered unskillful. Naturally, the reverse is true as well. When underpinned by wholesome mind states, such as loving-kindness, an action is considered skillful. Intention makes all the difference.
The Buddha recommended a life of non-violence. As with many of his other teachings, non-violence (ahimsa) is framed in the negative rather than in the positive (pacifism). Non-violence in the Buddhist context involves removing the roots of violent action (of body, speech, and mind), namely by uprooting the unwholesome intentions (the three poisons: anger, greed, delusion) that give rise to violence, toward oneself and toward others, manifesting in a multitude of ways and taking on manifold forms.
The practice of non-violence is a type of mental training. When one practices in this way, the mind reaches a state of non-reactivity and equanimity. Imperturbable and unprovokable, it attains clarity where no traces of unwholesome intentions remain.
The quality of an action is grounded in the intention that supports it. When underpinned by unwholesome mind states, including those that are clouded by anger or ill-will, an action is considered unskillful. Naturally, the reverse is true as well. When underpinned by wholesome mind states, such as loving-kindness, an action is considered skillful. Intention makes all the difference.
The Buddha recommended a life of non-violence. As with many of his other teachings, non-violence (ahimsa) is framed in the negative rather than in the positive (pacifism). Non-violence in the Buddhist context involves removing the roots of violent action (of body, speech, and mind), namely by uprooting the unwholesome intentions (the three poisons: anger, greed, delusion) that give rise to violence, toward oneself and toward others, manifesting in a multitude of ways and taking on manifold forms.
The practice of non-violence is a type of mental training. When one practices in this way, the mind reaches a state of non-reactivity and equanimity. Imperturbable and unprovokable, it attains clarity where no traces of unwholesome intentions remain.