What would you do?

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: What would you do?

Post by Cittasanto »

Parajika one also has the advise to resist sexual attack.
I think there is another reference in the Bhikkhuni only rules also?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Bonsai Doug
Posts: 72
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Finger Lakes area of NY

Re: What would you do?

Post by Bonsai Doug »

So where in all this would the famous Shaolin Monks fit? There's not much doubt as to their
self defense skills. Or are they too much of an aberration for this discussion?
Now having obtained a precious human body,
I do not have the luxury of remaining on a distracted path.

~ Tibetan Book of the Dead
whynotme
Posts: 743
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 5:52 am

Re: What would you do?

Post by whynotme »

Bonsai Doug wrote:So where in all this would the famous Shaolin Monks fit? There's not much doubt as to their
self defense skills. Or are they too much of an aberration for this discussion?
Well, to me for monks mainly teach and learn martial art, the art to harm and to kill, is wrong action. There is case in Vinaya where monks did many wrong worldly actions, IIRC, include training fighting with weapon. Have checked, the thirteenth sanghadisesa

Regards
Please stop following me
Reductor
Posts: 1382
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: What would you do?

Post by Reductor »

A monk, presumably, has severed most of the big ties to the world, so of them I'd expect a lot more than I would of a married parent with young children, like myself. (of course I allow myself leeway - see how nice I am?)

The will to violence depends on how much attachment you have to the world.
pegembara
Posts: 3493
Joined: Tue Oct 13, 2009 8:39 am

Re: What would you do?

Post by pegembara »

When attacked survival instinct will kick in resulting in a fight or flight response. The only ones who does not have such a response are those who has extinguish all clinging. To such a person, dead or alive- there is no difference.
One gone to the far shore
without clinging
without effluent
his task completed,
welcomes the ending of life,
as if freed from a place of execution.
Having attained the supreme Rightness,
unconcerned with all the world,
as if released from a burning house,
he doesn't sorrow at death.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech.
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: What would you do?

Post by Cittasanto »

whynotme wrote:
Bonsai Doug wrote:So where in all this would the famous Shaolin Monks fit? There's not much doubt as to their
self defense skills. Or are they too much of an aberration for this discussion?
Well, to me for monks mainly teach and learn martial art, the art to harm and to kill, is wrong action. There is case in Vinaya where monks did many wrong worldly actions, IIRC, include training fighting with weapon. Have checked, the thirteenth sanghadisesa

Regards
corrupting families... care to ellaborate?
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
Post Reply