Crime in front of a monk

[jcsuperstar]

you should rethink kamma. try reading this http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/karma.html

and the monk can fight for self defense, i assume he could help the victim as well.

If there's no self (anatta), what is there to defend?

who is posting this? if there's no self who is there to post things on the internet?

[withoutcolour]

As I see it, preventing an action, either against one's own person, or another's, is FAR different than defending against such action.

Yes, I think it matters who "this hypothetical monk" is defending. Preventing harm to some one else is being of service to others. "Defending" one's self is self serving. One is conducive to the greater good. The other merely reinforces the delusion of a self.

I think that saying that "defending" oneself is self-serving is seeing the trees rather than the forest. You are, in fact, part of the "others" you speak of. Taking care of yourself is taking care of others, because we aren't really separate from everyone else, are we? We're all a part of the same earth, the same multiverse of sentience. And that's why defending oneself, defending others, and doing what is the right thing are all interrelated here.

I think there are two real arguments going on here.
1. What is the right thing for a monastic person to do when presented with the OP's hypothetical situation? (In my opinion, creating such hypothetical situations is never really conducive to practice because no matter what you say you may do, it won't change what your instincts might drive you to do at that moment. Just practice the dhamma and hope you do the right thing )
2. The issue of self vs notself and also self vs others. It would be worthwhile to type "anatta" into AccesstoInsight to review what Buddha spoke about this topic.

I'm no monk but if it happen in front of me, I would simply place myself between the assailant and the victim and hope it is enough of a deterrent. If not I will simply try my best to subdue him. If unsuccessful, I hope it bit enough time for the victim to escape.

-wc

[Mukunda]

So once again I ask, what is the canonical justification for self defense?

[jcsuperstar]

So once again I ask, what is the canonical justification for self defense?

are you asking why it is allowed in the vinaya? or are you not understanding that it is allowed?

[zazang]

Hi

I know that such questions may not lead to awakening , but it is good to atleast have a rough idea
once a doubt has arisen.

When it comes to self-defense , I think the Buddha has said that even if a monk is cut part by part into
pieces , he should not defend as it will lead to strengthening the monk's ego.
I have no canonical reference though.

In one of Goenka's discourse he tells that dhamma does not teach that you should not defend the weak.
You are allowed to use all your power to defend the weak , BUT first look inside and make sure that you have not harmed
yourself before doing that , in the sense that make sure that you have not generated any ill-will for the wrong-doer inside.
Goenka has not mentioned whether it is for monks or lay people though. Most likely it is for lay people.

Thanks all for the answers.

Metta

zazang

[jcsuperstar]

the sutta you're thinking of doesn't say they shouldn't defend themselves but rather they should hold no ill will in their hearts as they're being chopped up. an arahant is able to act and do for the benefit of others and all without a sense of self. the Buddha after all stepped in to stop conflicts, to stop a war over water, and to prevent the death of Angulimala's mother. did he do these cause of a sense of self?

[bodom]

the sutta you're thinking of doesn't say they shouldn't defend themselves but rather they should hold no ill will in their hearts as they're being chopped up. an arahant is able to act and do for the benefit of others and all without a sense of self. the Buddha after all stepped in to stop conflicts, to stop a war over water, and to prevent the death of Angulimala's mother. did he do these cause of a sense of self?

[beeblebrox]

Someone just posted this in another thread - The Water-Snake Simile. In particular, I think the translator's introduction is very good... not only it explains the wrong view of self, but also the wrong view of non-self.

Taken together, these two similes [the water-snake, and the raft] set the stage for the remainder of the discourse, which focuses on the teaching of not-self. This is one of the most easily misapprehended teachings in the Canon largely because it is possible to draw the wrong inferences from it.

...

The second mistaken inference is that, given the thoroughness with which the Buddha teaches not-self, one should draw the inference that there is no self. This inference is treated less explicitly in this discourse, although it is touched upon briefly in terms of what the Buddha teaches here and how he teaches.

In terms of what: He explicitly states he cannot envision a doctrine of self that, if clung to, would not lead to sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair. He does not list all the possible doctrines of self included under this statement, but MN 2 provides at least a partial list:

I have a self... I have no self... It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self... or... This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will endure as long as eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

Thus the view "I have no self" is just as much a doctrine of self as the view "I have a self." Because the act of clinging involves what the Buddha calls "I-making" — the creation of a sense of self — if one were to cling to the view that there is no self, one would be creating a very subtle sense of self around that view (see AN 4.24). But, as he says, the Dhamma is taught for "the elimination of all view-positions, determinations, biases, inclinations, & obsessions; for the stilling of all fabrications; for the relinquishing of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding."

So, the Dhamma is not about refuting the self, replacing it with a no-self (and then say that there's nothing to defend); it's eliminating the views of either, which both them lead to suffering.

[Mukunda]

So keep defending your self, and see how long it takes to realize no self.

[beeblebrox]

So keep defending your self, and see how long it takes to realize no self.

What was that in response to?

[Kenshou]

An unenlightened group of five aggregates in human form would be wise to preserve itself (using "self" conventionally) for the sake of making good use of the current fortunate circumstances. The particulars of anatta are not really relevant here.

[Mukunda]

So keep defending your self, and see how long it takes to realize no self.

What was that in response to?

Just a general statement to all those who believe in the necessity of self defense.

[convivium]

i think anatta would help justify helping people in bad situations that can't help themselves.

[beeblebrox]

Just a general statement to all those who believe in the necessity of self defense.

OK, gotcha.

I still think the wrong views of non-self are important to contemplate. They seem to be common with many people once they get "enchanted" (i.e., clung to) by the idea of anatta. This doesn't mean to switch back to the ideas of self... it's not an and/or thing. This is really important to understanding the Dhamma.

About the self-defense... seems like someone already claimed a canonical reference to it. I have no idea about that (so don't ask me for the references )... but here's my opinion: I think that self-defense is doable without being deluded with the idea of a self. It's also possible without harming someone, and also without ill-will (i.e., being offended by what is happening). Those are just my thoughts.

[convivium]

we can fight as monks or whatever because it's not about pacifism but non-violence and skillful intentions. when we all die all we have is our kamma kusala or akusala so it's our intentions behind our actions and skills and so on that matters in that sense in what we do. so then helping people violently is clearly legitimate when you can and its the most kusala approach and when you have the right intentions. comprende?

[cooran]

Hello convivium, alll,

Just one question .. if I may

How can one perform a violent action that is not impelled by an unwholesome citta? As I understand it, cittas arise and fall so blindingly fast that intellectualising about the motivation behind it, and trying to justify it, doesn't alter the fact that all violence is sourced in akusala cittas. Telling oneself that there is a wholesome motive which will have good outcomes is simply delusion increasing the akusala kamma.

with metta
Chris

[jcsuperstar]

few things here to various things already posted.

1. maybe it is a trade off, some akusla kamma in exchange for helping someone, after all at least in my case i'm not a buddha so i'm neck deep in akusala everything anyways might as well direct some of it to help someone

2. self defense or in the hypothetical situation posted by the op doesnt really always require violence, as some one has already shown one could simply get in the way, i'm pretty sure that rape is mostly likely the easiest thing to stop for a 3rd party, unless it's some sort of gang action where youre being restrained, i'm not aware of (m)any cases where one person just raped another in front of people where the people tried to stop them and it didnt work, for these thing to work someone must sit passively by and let it happen.

3. there is probably more of a strengthening of the sense of self created by defending views on this board then there would be by helping someone.

[convivium]

it seems circular because violence is the opposite of wholesome mental states. however if we prey first and train then we can apply more sampajanna, etc. we can automatically respond in a skillful way without intellectualizing if we always think about doing the right thing, etc.