Buddhism and Self Defence

[clw_uk]

Greetings


As we know Buddhadhamma teaches non-violence, compassion and loving-kindness and so any act of agression is not compatible with it, does this leave any room for self-defence both at the individual level and the national level?

For example, at the individual level, if i was being mugged would it be ok to push them off or use some force to get away?


Metta

[genkaku]

A near-by neighbor of mine is into martial arts ... serious martial arts. When his teacher's teacher died, the old man, a man who had devoted his long life to martial arts, left some last words:

"Don't hit anybody. Don't get hit by anybody."

I'm sorry I never met such a man, but that doesn't mean you or I cannot live up to such wisdom.

[piotr]

Hi,

The Buddha taught that one can defend oneself as a bird defends from eagle's attack (I can't find reference now, sorry).

[clw_uk]

Hi,

The Buddha taught that one can defend oneself as a bird defends from eagle's attack (I can't find reference now, sorry).

Thanks piotr

What about in in terms of nations. For example during ww2 was it ethical for my country to go to war with germany in terms of buddhadhamma?

[Rui Sousa]

Hi clw_uk,

What would you do if my country invaded yours?

Fight it?
Ignore it?
Abandon it?

[Individual]

I vaguely remember Ven. Dhammanando mentioning on here that the Buddha always forbid killing, but, for instance, Vinaya allowed a nun to beat off an attacker trying to rape her, in order to get away. This, however, does not apply to protecting any kind of "property," which monks wouldn't have anyway.

When it comes to self-defense, people often engage in violence for reasons of honor or protecting property. When it comes to the defense of one's own life, obviously it is justified, but with property, there is a grey area because such an action might simply be greed.

As for the war vs. pacifism argument, often it's a choice between two comparably regrettable outcomes and the decision lies, not with idealistic principle, but with what would practically reduce suffering for people.

WW2 was not simply "justified" or "unjustified". Both sides were pretty horrible, although I think that the outcome of an Allied victory is preferable to an Axis one, especially something like a global Nazi regime. This still doesn't mean, though, that it was "good" or "justified" for Allied soldiers to use horrible forms of torture, the carpet-bombing of Berlin, or the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki... In WW2, the Russians would actually train dogs to look for meat or other snacks under tanks. Then, out in the field, they would strap explosives to the dogs, the dogs would climb under enemy tanks, and blow up. Plus, WW2 created a wave of anti-German sentiment in America and set the stage for the Cold War with Russia.

[cooran]

Hello all,

This may be of interest:

"Phagguna, if anyone were to reproach you right to your face, even then you should abandon those urges and thoughts which are worldly. There, Phagguna, you should train yourself thus: 'Neither shall my mind be affected by this, nor shall I give vent to evil words; but I shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and I shall not give in to hatred.' This is how, Phagguna, you should train yourself.

"Phagguna, if anyone were to give you a blow with the hand, or hit you with a clod of earth, or with a stick, or with a sword, even then you should abandon those urges and thoughts which are worldly. There, Phagguna, you should train yourself thus: 'Neither shall my mind be affected by this, nor shall I give vent to evil words; but I shall remain full of concern and pity, with a mind of love, and I shall not give in to hatred.' This is how, Phagguna, you should train yourself.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... bl109.html

metta
Chris

[piotr]

Hi Chris,

Does this quote talks about self-defence? It seems to talk only about keeping calm mind when someone attacks you verbaly.

[cooran]

Hello piotr,

I think the second paragraph refers to physical harm?
Phagguna, if anyone were to give you a blow with the hand, or hit you with a clod of earth, or with a stick, or with a sword, even then you should abandon those urges and thoughts which are worldly.

metta
Chris

[Cittasanto]

hi Individual,
I remember the vinaya allows a monk to defend themselves if they are attacked, it is by memory so may be inaccurate somewhat but i do remember reading it.

I vaguely remember Ven. Dhammanando mentioning on here that the Buddha always forbid killing, but, for instance, Vinaya allowed a nun to beat off an attacker trying to rape her, in order to get away. This, however, does not apply to protecting any kind of "property," which monks wouldn't have anyway.

When it comes to self-defense, people often engage in violence for reasons of honor or protecting property. When it comes to the defense of one's own life, obviously it is justified, but with property, there is a grey area because such an action might simply be greed.

As for the war vs. pacifism argument, often it's a choice between two comparably regrettable outcomes and the decision lies, not with idealistic principle, but with what would practically reduce suffering for people.

WW2 was not simply "justified" or "unjustified". Both sides were pretty horrible, although I think that the outcome of an Allied victory is preferable to an Axis one, especially something like a global Nazi regime. This still doesn't mean, though, that it was "good" or "justified" for Allied soldiers to use horrible forms of torture, the carpet-bombing of Berlin, or the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki... In WW2, the Russians would actually train dogs to look for meat or other snacks under tanks. Then, out in the field, they would strap explosives to the dogs, the dogs would climb under enemy tanks, and blow up. Plus, WW2 created a wave of anti-German sentiment in America and set the stage for the Cold War with Russia.

[piotr]

Hi,

I think the second paragraph refers to physical harm?

You're right! But does it talk about selfdefence? To me it sounds like advice about attitude on mental and verbal level towards aggressor.

[jcsuperstar]

hi Individual,
I remember the vinaya allows a monk to defend themselves if they are attacked, it is by memory so may be inaccurate somewhat but i do remember reading it.

yeah i remember seeing this before as well.. but not sure where

[Dhammanando]

hi Individual,
I remember the vinaya allows a monk to defend themselves if they are attacked, it is by memory so may be inaccurate somewhat but i do remember reading it.

yeah i remember seeing this before as well.. but not sure where

The clause you’re referring to comes under the pācittiya rule prohibiting a bhikkhu from striking a fellow bhikkhu. The section of the Vinaya where this rule is laid down contains supplementary rulings covering other kinds of assault by a bhikkhu. One of the rulings is that it’s no offence if a bhikkhu is attacked and strikes the attacker only in order to effect his escape.

anāpatti kenaci viheṭhīyamāno mokkhādhippāyo pahāraṃ deti

“There is no offence if, being in some difficulty, he gives a blow desiring freedom.”
(Vin. iv. 146. I.B. Horner trans.)

[jcsuperstar]

hi Individual,
I remember the vinaya allows a monk to defend themselves if they are attacked, it is by memory so may be inaccurate somewhat but i do remember reading it.

yeah i remember seeing this before as well.. but not sure where

The clause you’re referring to comes under the pācittiya rule prohibiting a bhikkhu from striking a fellow bhikkhu. The section of the Vinaya where this rule is laid down contains supplementary rulings covering other kinds of assault by a bhikkhu. One of the rulings is that it’s no offence if a bhikkhu is attacked and strikes the attacker only in order to effect his escape.

anāpatti kenaci viheṭhīyamāno mokkhādhippāyo pahāraṃ deti

“There is no offence if, being in some difficulty, he gives a blow desiring freedom.”
(Vin. iv. 146. I.B. Horner trans.)

thats it, i knew of this from a story where a monk hit another monk..thank you!

[cooran]

Though this is casting a wider net than the OP requested, this article f interest: Is violence justified in Theravada Buddhism? by Mahinda Deegalle

ConclusionThrough a close examination of three textual resources, we can see that a Buddhist cannot justify violence under any circumstance.

Examining a pervasive myth used for violence, we perceive that the position of the Pali Chronicles, the Mahavamsa, is rather contradictory to the fundamental Buddhist teachings of the Pali Canon. In addition, with an examination of terminology related to "violence" in the Sinhala language, it is clear that the corresponding terms used in Sinhala to communicate the multiple dimensions of violence are rather ambiguous and convoluted. A Buddhist cannot justify violence. The challenge for a modern Buddhist is to meditate on the Saddharmaratnavaliya's message that "the rage of one who vows vengeance cannot be quelled except by the waters of compassion".
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ntent;col1

metta
Chris