Using violence to defend yourself or someone

[agorman]

I understand that you can meditate a lot and eventually bring the idea of security into your subconscious mind, which would thus bring the idea that "I am safe" into your life. In that case maybe in a few years or in a few months, you could change your mind and you wouldn't need to defend yourself of any danger.

But suppose you find a woman on the street that is being beaten. The police would arrive too late if you call it. And you have a weapon that can stop the attacker (which wouldn't react to anything you'd say; words wouldn't stop the guy).

What would you do? I would find it very selfish and not compassionate to let the woman being beaten to death. If I had to choose between eliminating someone who only lives to harm others and leaving an innocent to die because I don't want to act violently, I would choose the first option. But what would a Buddhist choose?

All I've read about Buddhism so far is super-conformist and non-assertive. That is; if someone attacks you, then it's your fault for not purifying your mind and you have to bear it; it's your karma. And if someone else is attacked, then it's his own fault and his karma. Did I understand well? It sounds very much as Christianity's "give your other cheek".

 

[LuisDantas]

I understand that you can meditate a lot and eventually bring the idea of security into your subconscious mind, which would thus bring the idea that "I am safe" into your life. In that case maybe in a few years or in a few months, you could change your mind and you wouldn't need to defend yourself of any danger.

I am not aware of that as a possibility. My take on mediation is that it is supposed to make us both aware and at peace with what is, so that we can best choose what to pursue.

But suppose you find a woman on the street that is being beaten. The police would arrive too late if you call it. And you have a weapon that can stop the attacker (which wouldn't react to anything you'd say; words wouldn't stop the guy).

So far so good.

What would you do? I would find it very selfish and not compassionate to let the woman being beaten to death.

Agreed.

If I had to choose between eliminating someone who only lives to harm others and leaving an innocent to die because I don't want to act violently, I would choose the first option.

At first, that is probably the correct choice. But you would owe it to yourself to then wonder how come you arrived at such a sorry place. What made the existence of such monstrous people possible in the first place? What led you to being that close to them?

But what would a Buddhist choose?

All I've read about Buddhism so far is super-conformist and non-assertive.

Is that so? The Buddhists I know don't seem to be that way.

That is; if someone attacks you, then it's your fault for not purifying your mind and you have to bear it; it's your karma.

That is a bit of an oversimplification... but even going by that, purifying one's own mind is not a matter of avoidance, nor of conformism.

And if someone else is attacked, then it's his own fault and his karma.

Argh, no, not by any means. I have heard such beliefs before, and I abhor them. I don't think they fit Buddhism at all.

Did I understand well? It sounds very much as Christianity's "give your other cheek".

I guess you did not understand well. Or perhaps most likely your sources on Buddhism could be better chosen.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram agorman ji

But suppose you find a woman on the street that is being beaten. The police would arrive too late if you call it. And you have a weapon that can stop the attacker (which wouldn't react to anything you'd say; words wouldn't stop the guy).

Ithink there is no choice here something has to be done ,....the question which method is the most skillfull way of doing so ?

What would you do? I would find it very selfish and not compassionate to let the woman being beaten to death. If I had to choose between eliminating someone who only lives to harm others and leaving an innocent to die because I don't want to act violently, I would choose the first option. But what would a Buddhist choose?

hopefully no sane person would leave another to suffer , ...even if one had to use force it would not be truely considered violence , it is defence of the helpless .
any dharmic rereligion would consider this a duty .

All I've read about Buddhism so far is super-conformist and non-assertive. That is; if someone attacks you, then it's your fault for not purifying your mind and you have to bear it; it's your karma. And if someone else is attacked, then it's his own fault and his karma. Did I understand well? It sounds very much as Christianity's "give your other cheek".

amongst the monastics in some respects yes Buddhism could be seen as conformist and non assertive .
but here you ask , ... ''if someone attacks you, then it's your fault for not purifying your mind and you have to bear it; it's your karma.''

this could be taken too literaly to mean that we should simply bear the attack as it is a result of previous actions , ....

in truth what it more implies is that because we have not fully purified our minds in our pervious birth we have to take rebirth again in this degenerate age where suffering and injustice is rife and can happen to anyone .

...''And if someone else is attacked, then it's his own fault and his karma.'' ?

simply by taking birth in this uncertain world we put our selves in danger , it is a consequence of rebirth , we need not nececarily think that this person must have deserved this beating , this is not such a good or compassionate way to think .

the question for Buddhists is to think clearly how to react without a sence of personal attatchment , in other words how to do the right thing with an evenness of mind and with fearlessness if needs be.

http://www.religiousforums.com//uk.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/

 

[Twilight Hue]

I understand that you can meditate a lot and eventually bring the idea of security into your subconscious mind, which would thus bring the idea that "I am safe" into your life. In that case maybe in a few years or in a few months, you could change your mind and you wouldn't need to defend yourself of any danger.

But suppose you find a woman on the street that is being beaten. The police would arrive too late if you call it. And you have a weapon that can stop the attacker (which wouldn't react to anything you'd say; words wouldn't stop the guy).

What would you do? I would find it very selfish and not compassionate to let the woman being beaten to death. If I had to choose between eliminating someone who only lives to harm others and leaving an innocent to die because I don't want to act violently, I would choose the first option. But what would a Buddhist choose?

All I've read about Buddhism so far is super-conformist and non-assertive. That is; if someone attacks you, then it's your fault for not purifying your mind and you have to bear it; it's your karma. And if someone else is attacked, then it's his own fault and his karma. Did I understand well? It sounds very much as Christianity's "give your other cheek".

Theres a lot of garbage being passed as Buddhism. First preconceived notions are best left behind and secondly violence is not separated through a Buddhist practice as if ignored or circumvented instances brings about some perceived goal that exemplifies Buddhism as being not valid in face of violence just because a person is Buddhist, whereas he/she therefore must practice avoidance through a religious definition.

Compassion cannot work that way and neither will Buddhism.

Violence sometimes plays in with compassion as it presents itself. In other words, violence, either directed or recieved is just an aspect of this sliver we call life and living to which the 4 noble truths and eightfold path still apply.

 

[Brickjectivity]

It is an interesting question. Thanks for posting it.

All I've read about Buddhism so far is super-conformist and non-assertive. That is; if someone attacks you, then it's your fault for not purifying your mind and you have to bear it; it's your karma. And if someone else is attacked, then it's his own fault and his karma. Did I understand well? It sounds very much as Christianity's "give your other cheek".

May I inquire what you have been reading about Buddhism?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

All I've read about Buddhism so far is super-conformist and non-assertive. That is; if someone attacks you, then it's your fault for not purifying your mind and you have to bear it; it's your karma. And if someone else is attacked, then it's his own fault and his karma. Did I understand well? It sounds very much as Christianity's "give your other cheek".

Where have you read/heard that from? I've heard similar positions from all "think positive" scams like The Secret, but just about everything in those books, pep rallys, videos, and everything else is utter garbage, including their portrayals of Buddhism.

 

[crossfire]

The misrepresentation of what Buddha taught began during his own lifetime, and continues down to this day. If a writing about Buddhism does not examine what Buddha actually taught from the suttas, then it is most likely a gross misrepresentation of Buddha's teachings.

 

[Adstar]

I would try to physically grab the attacker and pull them away from the one being attacked. I would not kill the attacker.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

It's all about intent. As long as your intention is the protection of life, you're fine. As soon as your intent becomes one of anger and revenge, then that's where the issue comes in. Buddhism teaches non-violence, not pacifism.

 

[psychoslice]

You have to do what you have to do, if an animal is attacking you, you have to do something about it, if you have a gun you shot it. Humans are also animals, if one is trying to harm you, then you also do something about that, if you have to use a gun, then that is what needs to be, if you can get away from using a gun, then that also is what is needed.

 

[agorman]

Thanks, nowadays I'm still lost to know what path to follow and I asked the question that started this thread because a few weeks back I read a little about Nichiren Buddhism and after reading 3 or 4 times the "Nam Myoho Renge Kyo" mantra I had a series of good sensations; energy (I became less tired) and relief from muscle contractures.

It seems that nothing better than to be with the buddhas to get spiritual or material results. Change your mind and you change your life. But there are some things I've read about Buddhism that I don't like. I'm glad you guys refuted some of those.

One of them is that the final goal is not clear; I still don't get if you're trying to become a sort of all-knowing, compassionate superman, if you want to annihilate yourself, reach an eternity in a state of pure consciusness or if you want to become the Universe. I only like the 1st. alternative up to a certain point.

Another one I hate is that concept of letting the bad guys act unempeded. I just saw a documentary where they say the Buddha couldn't avoid a war. Why?

Maybe he knew that if he tried to teach the soldiers they wouldn't listen?

I once read in a Buddhist website that bad people are the best masters or something like that and that you have to bear everything they do because that way you can see how impure is your mind, etc. I can't find that text right now on the web.

Unfortunately I've noticed some people just lives to damage their neighbors and aren't interested in changing. Compassion in that people looks wasted to me. I liked the story of Angulimala, but who has the powers to rehabilitate someone like the Buddha had? e.g. I can't go to Congress and convince politicians so they don't steal. I'm still human!

A few months back I was pretty happy with Odin, but I insisted in continuing to be a vegetarian. So we weren't agree. Odin told me (with thoughts) that I should eat meat; that animals deserve to suffer because they chose to be born as animals "to become fools so they avoid responsibilities". I found that unnecessarily cruel and I don't find any reason to kill innocent animals, even if they were bad in previous lives. Odin took that as an insult because I didn't respect his wisdom and told me I was ready to get by without gods (which I'm not sure I am already).

I told you this UPG with Odin because I want to make you see how unbalanced I've found the different available paths. "Light" paths teach me to have compassion even with irrecoverable bad guys, "dark" paths end up guiding me to harm innocents. Both seem so wrong to solve our human problems! No wonder about the sorry state of the World.

It's all about intent. As long as your intention is the protection of life, you're fine. As soon as your intent becomes one of anger and revenge, then that's where the issue comes in. Buddhism teaches non-violence, not pacifism.

Doesn't revenge teach people that they shouldn't mess with you?

Of course, if people constantly mess with you, that means you have a complex of inferiority... but what if you want to stop people from hurting you while you meditate until you get rid of that complex?

And doesn't anger give you more force to fight to protect life?

 

[MonkeyFire]

The only reason we suffer antagonist is because we struggle out of fear and are impassive twoards them. When we are impassive we make our advesary frightful and it attacks. Be passive at the point of attack and you will achieve enlightenment. If you are transcendental your attacker will subdue itself.

 

[agorman]

When we are impassive we make our advesary frightful and it attacks.

I don't know. Passivity could be interpreted as weakness by some attackers.

Anyway, the following pages have clarified to me that self-defense and defending others is actually allowed in Buddhism:

Self-defense - The Dhamma Encyclopedia
Is Buddhism Opposed to Self-Defense? | Religion Dispatches

What is not actually recommended by Buddhism is anger. But I suppose it requires a lot of training if you have to use violence against someone without being angry!

 

[MonkeyFire]

I don't know. Passivity could be interpreted as weakness by some attackers.

Anyway, the following pages have clarified to me that self-defense and defending others is actually allowed in Buddhism:

Self-defense - The Dhamma Encyclopedia
Is Buddhism Opposed to Self-Defense? | Religion Dispatches

What is not actually recommended by Buddhism is anger. But I suppose it requires a lot of training if you have to use violence against someone without being angry!

Yay the pacifist is weak like lamb, but the lover is strong. You couldn't summon violence on someone without hating them. Surly you understand its unhealthy be angry, tell me why would you allow hate?

 

[agorman]

Yay the pacifist is weak like lamb, but the lover is strong. You couldn't summon violence on someone without hating them. Surly you understand its unhealthy be angry, tell me why would you allow hate?

It depends on the point of view. For some, hatred is just a waste of energy that could be better used to fight against your enemy.

 

[MonkeyFire]

It depends on the point of view. For some, hatred is just a waste of energy that could be better used to fight against your enemy.

Jesus said to love your enemy not fight them. If one would kill or fight their enemy naturally they are hating them you don't have much of a choice. Hate isn't a waiste of energy its the lack of energy.

 

[agorman]

Jesus said to love your enemy not fight them. If one would kill or fight their enemy naturally they are hating them you don't have much of a choice. Hate isn't a waiste of energy its the lack of energy.

1. I was asking about Buddhism, not Jesus.

2. No, I think with some training you could coldly avoid someone to make damage or give a blow with regret. Sabotaging the plans of a bad guy's actions is another, non-violent option. What I don't accept is not being assertive. Is just staying there and letting yourself or someone of your family or friends becoming a victim.

3. I'm beginning to hate you already... Kidding.