non-violence in extreme cases.

[Modus.Ponens]

I agree with Dukkhanirodha. Non-violence is always the way. There's a sutta somewhere that states that a person who works for himself only is superior to those who work only for others (and a person who works both for the benefict of themselves and of others is the foremost) (if someone has the original quote please provide it). To me this implies that something like kiling an atacker to prevent others from being killed is not the best way to deal with the situation.

EDIT: furthermore, in the vinaya, the Buddha forbided for monks even to praise death.

[Modus.Ponens]

One more thing. I think hypothetical situations have their utility, which is to explore the limits of morality. If one gets to the conclusion that it's never right to kill one will always abide by that rule. And rules are very important to have since they may help us decide in the only milisecond we may have at our disposal what's the right thing to do.

[Mukunda]

I am of the opinion that any use of such weapons creates subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) impressions in the minds of both the participant and observers simply because on a deep level, we recognize that these items are implements of violence.

Pity that you can't control these things.

But I can control whether or not I participate, condone, endorse, or promote such things, and therefore, hopefully, at least cease strengthening already present mental impressions or planting new ones.

[Tex]

Yes well that was the Buddha Dukkhanirodha..I am certainly not going to sit around beaming good thoughts while someone saws off my limbs.

Me neither.

But the simile of the saw seems, to me at least, to be teaching that nothing should move us to anger or ill will, not that nothing should move us to defend ourselves. There's a difference. He didn't say anything about allowing them to continue sawing at us.

[cooran]

To come back to the original question of this topic, there is no way in which one could use violence, and retaliate. Here are the Buddha's words about it:

Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will — abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Hello Dukkhanirodha, all,

This is a good example of just why lay people should take instruction from a learned teacher who can unpack the suttas correctly, and not take translations as if they are reading a newspaper article.

The Kakacupama Sutta "The Simile of the Saw" is a discourse on the need to maintain patience when addressed with disagreeable words. (Bhikkhu Bodhi, Majjhima Nikaya p.63)

The Buddha uses an extreme simile to bring home the message. It is not about submitting passively to horrific violence.

with metta
Chris

[acinteyyo]

Yes well that was the Buddha Dukkhanirodha..I am certainly not going to sit around beaming good thoughts while someone saws off my limbs.

Me neither.

But the simile of the saw seems, to me at least, to be teaching that nothing should move us to anger or ill will, not that nothing should move us to defend ourselves. There's a difference. He didn't say anything about allowing them to continue sawing at us.

I would be curious to know what it might be that you want to defend? Something which is supposed to be yours? This is good for practice, examine your attachment. Try to imagine someone really hurting your body, do you feel the aversion? The desire for being unhurt? The anxiety? The suffering? Contemplate that! Why do you want to defend your-self? Because of the displeasing feelings? Because we hate displeasing feelings? Cutting of craving will end suffering and then there won't be any reason to defend anything at all.
I share the same feelings. I can easily see aversion arising when I'm imagining something like that. Maybe in such cases we should recall our determination and earnestness. Instead of endless talking and searching for some moral excuses or something which better fits our desires. How far are we willing to proceed on the path to end suffering?

just my two cents...
best wishes, acinteyyo

[Mukunda]

I would be curious to know what it might be that you want to defend? Something which is supposed to be yours? This is good for practice, examine your attachment. Try to imagine someone really hurting your body, do you feel the aversion? The desire for being unhurt? The anxiety? The suffering? Contemplate that! Why do you want to defend your-self? Because of the displeasing feelings? Because we hate displeasing feelings? Cutting of craving will end suffering and then there won't be any reason to defend anything at all.
I share the same feelings. I can easily see aversion arising when I'm imagining something like that. Maybe in such cases we should recall our determination and earnestness. Instead of endless talking and searching for some moral excuses or something which better fits our desires. How far are we willing to proceed on the path to end suffering?

just my two cents...
best wishes, acinteyyo

[dhammastudier]

If you already have the gun, that speaks quite a bit of your mind set.

I don't think so. There are many people who have guns, and in my case - bows, who use them for target shooting.
As there are many collectors of weapons who never take them out of their climate controlled environment to fire them at sentient beings.

The primary of purpose of weapons is to harm or kill other beings. Even though there may be secondary purposes (i.e. target practice, collecting), I fail to see the logic of one committed to not harming other beings being attracted to implements of death for any purpose. Target practice can be practiced using darts, bean bags, etc, and collecting is wide open to almost anything.

um.... i don't know if you know this or not but a looooooooooot of zen monks practice archery and have no inetention of ever killing beings. the reason the bow was invented was for killing but things can be shot at targets as the primary purpose even though the original purpose of them was for death. and as far as collecting things: really? you are implying that anyone who collects weapons wants to kill things? you know a lot of people collect medeival weapons for wall art right? and tons of people collect civil war era guns for their historical value. actually people collect almost every kind of weapon for display or historic value and many of them are peacful, non-violent people who don't kill anything. my dad collects civil war stuff and is the person who taught me to not even kill bugs! he has never been hunting and always presented to me the idea that hunting is not a good thing because deer and most other game animals are harmless creatures.

[Virgo]

I would say that just because someone has a weapon for any reason does not mean someone will kill someone else with it.

While this may be true individually, unfortunately, this statement does not hold true for a large statistical population. The USA is a case in point, where gun violence is quite high (though it's higher in some other countries such as Colombia). There is an undeniable relation between regulation of firearms ownership and firearms used for homicide/suicide. Put simply, guns are more often used for killing in those places where guns are easier to obtain.

This is getting more into politics. The point is that it is the intention behind the weapon that causes it to kill (except in rare cases of accidents). Someone may have many guns but never kill anyone with them because they are only a collector.

I think that fascination with weapons ought to be questioned.

I don't know where you are getting "fascination with weapons" from. Indeed that does sound deranged. But does an archer have a "fascination with weapon"? Does a martial artist such as myself who trains in weapon as part of his or her classical martial art have a "fascination with weapons"? And if one does, is it a healthy fascination or a deranged fascination?

Kevin

[Ben]

Well said, Kevin.

I think what is going on is when some people see a weapon is that they perceive the sense data through the matrix of their sankharas and begin to react to the waves of phenomenal flora of those sankharas. Thus we are seeing the occurance of the superimposition of negative and political personal interpretations of what weapons mean to them and the not very subtle ascribing of character faults of those who use weapons for non-voilent purposes.
kind regards

Ben

[Mukunda]

A bit of back ground on myself.

I have studied and practiced martial arts.

I have owned weapons, including guns.

I have rationalized the practice of martial arts and use of weapons with the knowledge of archery in Zen, Kung Fu in Chinese Buddhist temples, etc.

And then one day it hit me like a bolt of lightening - One who is truly committed to non-violence and non-harming doesn't engage in activities whose origin is violence and harming. There are other arts to appreciate, other practices for physical fitness, other ways to compete, without the need to condone, glorify, and even give a spiritual "alibi" to practices and implements whose original purpose was the harming and killing of fellow sentient beings.

As much as I liked telling myself I had guns for target practice, I collected martial arts items in appreciation of their artistry and craftsmanship, or I engaged in judo and karate for the sport and for fitness, the fact of the matter was, I was still attracted to these things because I got a vicarious thrill out the violence they represented. There was no way to escape what the original intent of these items or practices is, regardless of what I told myself my intent was. Every time I looked at or handled weapons, or practiced katas or sparring, I was watering seeds of violence in my mind.

So now all of my weapons are gone, and I no longer practice or compete in martial arts. I even quit Tai Chi, and now practice yoga, walking and other forms of exercise. And since then, I can't remember getting angry enough at some one to even yell at them.

How many Glocks or long bows you figure the Buddha owned (after he left the palace that is)?

[Virgo]

I think what is going on is when some people see a weapon is that they perceive the sense data through the matrix of their sankharas and begin to react to the waves of phenomenal flora of those sankharas. Thus we are seeing the occurance of the superimposition of negative and political personal interpretations of what weapons mean to them and the not very subtle ascribing of character faults of those who use weapons for non-voilent purposes.
kind regards

Ben

I agree wholeheartedly Ben.

Kevin

[Virgo]

A bit of back ground on myself.

I have studied and practiced martial arts.

I have owned weapons, including guns.

I have rationalized the practice of martial arts and use of weapons with the knowledge of archery in Zen, Kung Fu in Chinese Buddhist temples, etc.

And then one day it hit me like a bolt of lightening - One who is truly committed to non-violence and non-harming doesn't engage in activities whose origin is violence and harming. There are other arts to appreciate, other practices for physical fitness, other ways to compete, without the need to condone, glorify, and even give a spiritual "alibi" to practices and implements whose original purpose was the harming and killing of fellow sentient beings.

As much as I liked telling myself I had guns for target practice, I collected martial arts items in appreciation of their artistry and craftsmanship, or I engaged in judo and karate for the sport and for fitness, the fact of the matter was, I was still attracted to these things because I got a vicarious thrill out the violence they represented. There was no way to escape what the original intent of these items or practices is, regardless of what I told myself my intent was. Every time I looked at or handled weapons, or practiced katas or sparring, I was watering seeds of violence in my mind.

So now all of my weapons are gone, and I no longer practice or compete in martial arts. I even quit Tai Chi, and now practice yoga, walking and other forms of exercise. And since then, I can't remember getting angry enough at some one to even yell at them.

How many Glocks or long bows you figure the Buddha owned (after he left the palace that is)?

I guess it all depends on ones attitude and approach. Also, it's true that certain martial arts or teachers may not emphasize personal character development or when or when not to use violence. In my martial art, violence and conflict is heavily, strongly discouraged. It is better to run from a fight than to engage in one.

Here is the 14 point code of action from the martial art I study, To-Shin Do, which was developed by Stephen K. Hayes, black belt hall of famer, and Bujinkan 10'th Dan (tenth degree black belt).

Each rank has a code of action to develop and train in.

(note the belt colors may seem strange but in To-Shin Do the learning is structured around learning tactics for the five elements in order and the main belt levels have colors associated with them based on traditional color attributes to those elements, so for example, the belts start with yellow for earth. To make matters more complicated, different colored stripes are needed to indicate the stages within each elements training).

Yellow Belt
I protect life and health,
I avoid violence whenever possible.

Yellow & Black Belt
I respect the property and space of all,
I avoid taking what has not been offered.

Blue & White Belt – Ju-ni-kyu 12th Class
I develop significant relationships,
I avoid abusing others for selfish gain.

Blue Belt – Ju-ik-kyu 11th Class
I thoughtfully express the truth,
I avoid the confusion of dishonest words.

Blue Black Belt – Ju-kyu 10th Class
I cultivate a positive attitude, a healthy body and a clear mind,
I avoid whatever would reduce my physical or mental well-being.

Red & White Belt – Kyu-kyu 9th Class
I communicate health, happiness and peace of mind to everyone I meet,
I avoid violent, disturbing, and unduly critical speech.

Red Belt – Hachi-kyu 8th Class
I promote harmony and positive momentum to bring the best in everyone,
I avoid causing alienation, doubt, and division among others.

Red & Black Belt – Nana-kyu 7th Class
I encourage all to speak purposefully from the heart,
I avoid the dull contentment of gossip and small talk.

Green & White Belt – Rok-kyu 6th Class
I am as enthusiastic about others fulfillment as I am about my own,
I avoid treating others’ successes as the cause of my lacks.

Green Belt – Go-kyu 5th Class
I promote the enjoyment of life, and encourage others with my smile,
I avoid setting myself against the world.

Green & Black Belt – Yon-kyu 4th Class
I promote the search for personal realization of truth,
I avoid the seductive comforts of narrow-mindedness.

Brown & White Belt – San-kyu 3rd Class
I accomplish what must be done in a timely and effective way,
I avoid putting off doing that which will benefit me and my world today.

Brown Belt – Ni-kyu 2nd Class
I strive to be so strong that nothing can disturb my peace of mind,
I avoid the negative effects of worry, doubt, and regret.

Brown & Black Belt – Ik-kyu 1st Class
I work to build love, happiness, and loyalty among all members of my family,
I avoid putting temporary personal benefit ahead of the welfare of those I
love.

Also, I think that arts that focus mostly on striking or grapling may give one more of a feeling of fury, while arts that focus more on body movement, skill, balance, and so on give one a different feeling altogether. But that is just my opinion.

Kevin

[Mukunda]

Here is the 14 point code of action from the martial art I study, To-Shin Do, which was developed by Stephen K. Hayes, black belt hall of famer, and Bujinkan 10'th Dan (tenth degree black belt).

Each rank has a code of action to develop and train in.

(note the belt colors may seem strange but in To-Shin Do the learning is structured around learning tactics for the five elements in order and the main belt levels have colors associated with them based on traditional color attributes to those elements, so for example, the belts start with yellow for earth. To make matters more complicated, different colored stripes are needed to indicate the stages within each elements training).

Yellow Belt
I protect life and health,
I avoid violence whenever possible...

I am not getting the logic of avoiding violence by preparing for it. Does this not set up inevitable mental conflict? Avoid violence, but if you can't, engage in it?

[Mukunda]

I think what is going on is when some people see a weapon is that they perceive the sense data through the matrix of their sankharas and begin to react to the waves of phenomenal flora of those sankharas. Thus we are seeing the occurance of the superimposition of negative and political personal interpretations of what weapons mean to them and the not very subtle ascribing of character faults of those who use weapons for non-voilent purposes.
kind regards

Ben

I agree wholeheartedly Ben.

Kevin

Does ANYONE really not feel at least a little apprehensive when seeing some one toting around a weapon. My guess is anyone who hasn't such sankaras also hasn't any need or use for weapons.

[Ben]

When I practiced Aikido years ago we trained with jo (staff), bokken (wooden sword) and I forget the japanese name - wooden dagger.
I was in no doubt as to what we were doing - training in self discipline and self mastery.

Does ANYONE really not feel at least a little apprehensive when seeing some one toting around a weapon. My guess is anyone who hasn't such sankaras also hasn't any need or use for weapons.

Let me ask you Mukunda, whose apprehensions are we talking about? All I see is that you are reacting negatively to your own internal processes. Anyone without the sankharas that generates negative reactions regarding weapons just doesn't respond to the sight of them with negativity.


kind regards

Ben

500px_ArcheryGermanyEarly1980s-2.jpg (30 KiB) Viewed 452 times

[Pannapetar]

This is getting more into politics. [...] Someone may have many guns but never kill anyone with them because they are only a collector.

Only Americans believe that this has to do with politics. It doesn't. It has to do with math. It can be shown statistically that the number of guns owned by a population correlates with the number of death caused by guns. That's all - just a cold and hard fact.

I think what is going on is when some people see a weapon is that they perceive the sense data through the matrix of their sankharas and begin to react to the waves of phenomenal flora of those sankharas. Thus we are seeing the occurance of the superimposition of negative and political personal interpretations...

While your argument was consistent before, I am surprised to hear you producing such balderdash...? It is perfectly rational and sane to associate weapons with violence and it is also perfectly rational and sane to avoid them for that reason. Using bows for sports is a different story, because bows are nowadays created for this purpose, not for killing.

Cheers, Thomas

[Mukunda]

Let me ask you Mukunda, whose apprehensions are we talking about? All I see is that you are reacting negatively to your own internal processes. Anyone without the sankharas that generates negative reactions regarding weapons just doesn't respond to the sight of them with negativity.

And all I see is someone reacting negatively and defensively to fact that weapons are in fact designed for the purpose of harming others, regardless of whether they are actually used that way.

My guess is any one truly with no sankaras generating negative reactions around weapons is a fully enlightened being. But I also guess many of us deny even to ourselves having such sankaras.

[Ben]

It is perfectly rational and sane to associate weapons with violence and it is also perfectly rational and sane to avoid them for that reason.

its not surprising that most people associate violence with weapons. From a Buddhist point of view it is neither sane nor rational. If we look at what's really going on we have sense data in the form of shape and colour impacting on the eye sense door. Following eye consciousness, sanna comes into play. Sanna (perception) conditioned by sankhara, perception perceives the object through past conditionings, embedded habitual patterns of reaction. If what we see has a pleasing association we get a rush of pleasant sensations through the body. If what we see has a negative association we get unpleasant sensations through the body. When sensation arises we then begin to crave for the continuation of the pleasant sensation or have an aversion towards the unpleasant sensation. This happens so fast that we don't see it happen and associate those feelings and craving for those feelings with the external object. In reality, all we are doing is reacting to our own internal processes.
You can see this for yourself in insight meditation and you can arrest the process of the aniloma (forward) motion of paticcasamupada by merely observing vedana with upekkha.

Using bows for sports is a different story, because bows are nowadays created for this purpose, not for killing.

How is it any different to using a gun for sports such as trap shooting or precision pistol shooting? How is it any different from a knife which is used in the kitchen but also can be used for killing someone.

The intended purpose of any object is irrelevant to our own internal process of reacting to our self-created associations with sense data.

Ben

[Tex]

Only Americans believe that this has to do with politics. It doesn't. It has to do with math. It can be shown statistically that the number of guns owned by a population correlates with the number of death caused by guns. That's all - just a cold and hard fact.

I'm sorry, but isn't this a meaningless statistic? More guns per capita = more people killed by guns per capita = obviously? I'd be surprised if the knife-or-bat-or-bare-hands-murder-per-capita ratio in countries that don't allow guns didn't approximately offset the gun-murder-per-capita ratio in the countries that do allow guns. Humanity was as it is long before the advent of gunpowder, right?

Using bows for sports is a different story, because bows are nowadays created for this purpose, not for killing.

No. The purpose of a bow is to launch a projectile accurately. The purpose of a gun is basically the same. They're just tools.

Whether the bow/gun is pointed at a living target or an Olympic target is up to the person holding the bow/gun and has absolutely nothing to do with anything inherent to the bow or the gun. A hammer can be used to build a homeless shelter or to bludgeon someone to death, and it doesn't matter much what the hammer's manufacturer intended it for.

(I own neither a bow nor a gun)