I was wondering, does murdering someone without the intention of doing so break the first precept? An accident for example.
Also, even with the intention, if you murder someone in self defense in a situation where you're left no other choice, would this break the first precept?
And one more, say the Buddha lived in a village, and the village was threatened to come under attack by barbarians, would the Buddha allow for safeguarding the village and it's inhabitants? Would those protecting him and his disciples be breaking the first precept by doing so? What would Buddha say about this? Would he simply allow himself and his disciples to die, as to not break or encourage the breaking of the first precept?
Question about the first precept
- LonesomeYogurt
- Posts: 900
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
- Location: America
Re: Question about the first precept
Killing someone on accident is not a violation of the first precept. In order for an act to be considered "killing," five conditions must be met:
There is a living being.
There is the perception that the being is a living being.
There is the volition thought of killing.
The killing is carried out.
The being dies.
Thus, accidentally stepping on an insect fulfills the first condition and the last two conditions, but not the others.
Killing in self-defense, however, meets all criteria and thus is a violation of the first precept.
There is a living being.
There is the perception that the being is a living being.
There is the volition thought of killing.
The killing is carried out.
The being dies.
Thus, accidentally stepping on an insect fulfills the first condition and the last two conditions, but not the others.
Killing in self-defense, however, meets all criteria and thus is a violation of the first precept.
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.
Re: Question about the first precept
In self defense, one doesn't have to go so far as killing the attacker. One just needs to neutralize his ability to attack. So with mindfulness and skillful means, it's still possible to protect one's own safety without the presence of the third condition, the volition to kill, thus avoiding the violation of the first precept.
Re: Question about the first precept
Hi,
You know what, i have often thought about this...i know it's hard but i wouldn't kill someone even in self defense..there are many ways to subdue an attacker very rarely would you need to kill someone..if it came down to kill or be killed i'd rather be killed to be quite honest..who wants to have that sort of guilt lying around or pay for that sort of bad kamma.No thanks i'll pass.I have better things to do in my present and future awaiting lives.
You know what, i have often thought about this...i know it's hard but i wouldn't kill someone even in self defense..there are many ways to subdue an attacker very rarely would you need to kill someone..if it came down to kill or be killed i'd rather be killed to be quite honest..who wants to have that sort of guilt lying around or pay for that sort of bad kamma.No thanks i'll pass.I have better things to do in my present and future awaiting lives.
Life is preparing for Death
Re: Question about the first precept
In a perfect world.santa100 wrote:In self defense, one doesn't have to go so far as killing the attacker. One just needs to neutralize his ability to attack. So with mindfulness and skillful means, it's still possible to protect one's own safety without the presence of the third condition, the volition to kill, thus avoiding the violation of the first precept.
Sometimes, the only way to neutralize an attacker from killing oneself or others or to mitigate an immanent threat is to use lethal force.
Unfortunately, its an unfortunate fact of life.
kind regards,
Ben
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- Polar Bear
- Posts: 1348
- Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 7:39 am
Re: Question about the first precept
There are many non-lethal defense strategies that can be employed before one decides to kill. Avoid rather than check; check rather than hurt; hurt rather than maim, maim rather than kill; for all life is precious, nor can any be replaced. If you live in bear country, carry bear spray (a more potent form of pepper spray), i.e. there are methods to defend yourself without killing someone. Have a wholesome day!
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."
"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."
Re: Question about the first precept
I couldn't agreemore, pb, in a perfect world.polarbuddha101 wrote:There are many non-lethal defense strategies that can be employed before one decides to kill. Avoid rather than check; check rather than hurt; hurt rather than maim, maim rather than kill; for all life is precious, nor can any be replaced. If you live in bear country, carry bear spray (a more potent form of pepper spray), i.e. there are methods to defend yourself without killing someone. Have a wholesome day!
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
-
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 8:26 am
Re: Question about the first precept
What if you were drafted to a war, and found yourself fighting in a trench with your allies when a group of enemies storm in firing their weapons towards you, pepper spray wouldn't even phase them in such a frenzy, and you would be killed a hundred times over before reaching them to subdue. If you choose to allow them to murder you, you also choose to add greater risk of death to your allies by allowing their numbers to be reduced in your death.
---------------------------
Let's say Buddha and his disciples were inhabiting a village that was threatened by a group of barbarians, with promise to massacre the entire village once they arrive. A group of mercenaries shows up, offering their protection from the barbarians, with no time to evacuate would Buddha be justified in hiring mercenaries to safeguard the town? Or would he allow himself and his disciples to be murdered as to avoid breaking the first precept. Knowing they will not have rebirth, and the world would be rid of enlightenment for ages to come.
---------------------------
How about this morally ambiguous philosophical question, I've had trouble with this one myself.
Imagine being thrown into a scenario where you hold in your hands the fates of eleven lives, you are presented two options, inescapable, you must choose one of the two.
You stand atop a platform above a railway station, with a lever in front of you. There is a train heading down the track towards a brick wall, if it collides with the wall ten people within will die. You have the ability to change the tracks, allowing the train to avoid the wall and continue along on a safe track sparing 10 lives. The catch is that a man has fallen unconscious on this track, and you don't have the time to run down to help him, would you pull the lever and choose this mans fate yourself, sparing 10 innocent lives. Or would you allow nature to run it's course and not involve yourself, allowing 10 innocent people to die.
This one has stumped me for a while, but I seem to always end up at allowing the train to hit the wall, as I do not see it fit for me to intervene, stealing a mans life. But in allowing nature to run its course, I am effectively allowing 10 innocent people to die when I have the chance to save them. In both cases I'm allowing causalities, but only in one am I directly causing it. I have an issue with placing value on a life, therefore would not be able to easily distinguish the value of ten lives compared to one life.
---------------------------
Let's say Buddha and his disciples were inhabiting a village that was threatened by a group of barbarians, with promise to massacre the entire village once they arrive. A group of mercenaries shows up, offering their protection from the barbarians, with no time to evacuate would Buddha be justified in hiring mercenaries to safeguard the town? Or would he allow himself and his disciples to be murdered as to avoid breaking the first precept. Knowing they will not have rebirth, and the world would be rid of enlightenment for ages to come.
---------------------------
How about this morally ambiguous philosophical question, I've had trouble with this one myself.
Imagine being thrown into a scenario where you hold in your hands the fates of eleven lives, you are presented two options, inescapable, you must choose one of the two.
You stand atop a platform above a railway station, with a lever in front of you. There is a train heading down the track towards a brick wall, if it collides with the wall ten people within will die. You have the ability to change the tracks, allowing the train to avoid the wall and continue along on a safe track sparing 10 lives. The catch is that a man has fallen unconscious on this track, and you don't have the time to run down to help him, would you pull the lever and choose this mans fate yourself, sparing 10 innocent lives. Or would you allow nature to run it's course and not involve yourself, allowing 10 innocent people to die.
This one has stumped me for a while, but I seem to always end up at allowing the train to hit the wall, as I do not see it fit for me to intervene, stealing a mans life. But in allowing nature to run its course, I am effectively allowing 10 innocent people to die when I have the chance to save them. In both cases I'm allowing causalities, but only in one am I directly causing it. I have an issue with placing value on a life, therefore would not be able to easily distinguish the value of ten lives compared to one life.
Re: Question about the first precept
And by doing this the precepts have been left behind.Ben wrote: Sometimes, the only way to neutralize an attacker from killing oneself or others or to mitigate an immanent threat is to use lethal force.
It is a choice.Unfortunately, its an unfortunate fact of life.
Re: Question about the first precept
I don't think so.Mr Man wrote:And by doing this the precepts have been left behind.Ben wrote: Sometimes, the only way to neutralize an attacker from killing oneself or others or to mitigate an immanent threat is to use lethal force.
And sometimes in life you will need to make some very difficult choices.Mr Man wrote:It is a choice.Unfortunately, its an unfortunate fact of life.
“No lists of things to be done. The day providential to itself. The hour. There is no later. This is later. All things of grace and beauty such that one holds them to one's heart have a common provenance in pain. Their birth in grief and ashes.”
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- Cormac McCarthy, The Road
Learn this from the waters:
in mountain clefts and chasms,
loud gush the streamlets,
but great rivers flow silently.
- Sutta Nipata 3.725
Compassionate Hands Foundation (Buddhist aid in Myanmar) • Buddhist Global Relief • UNHCR
e: [email protected]..
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Question about the first precept
If the intention is there to kill then it is a violation.
if there is no intention there is no violation.
Your village example has an intent on defence, and it is assumable that it is short notice attack. the buddha allowed for self defence in-order to get away from the situation.
if there is no intention there is no violation.
Your village example has an intent on defence, and it is assumable that it is short notice attack. the buddha allowed for self defence in-order to get away from the situation.
CoreyNiles92 wrote:I was wondering, does murdering someone without the intention of doing so break the first precept? An accident for example.
Also, even with the intention, if you murder someone in self defense in a situation where you're left no other choice, would this break the first precept?
And one more, say the Buddha lived in a village, and the village was threatened to come under attack by barbarians, would the Buddha allow for safeguarding the village and it's inhabitants? Would those protecting him and his disciples be breaking the first precept by doing so? What would Buddha say about this? Would he simply allow himself and his disciples to die, as to not break or encourage the breaking of the first precept?
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
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
Re: Question about the first precept
Of Course they have.Ben wrote:I don't think so.Mr Man wrote:And by doing this the precepts have been left behind.Ben wrote: Sometimes, the only way to neutralize an attacker from killing oneself or others or to mitigate an immanent threat is to use lethal force.
To mitigate (a perceived) immanent threat is a Blair like argument. What if a Buddhist monk was to give the same advice (in relation to a specific threat) or was to follow that advice?
- LonesomeYogurt
- Posts: 900
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2012 4:24 pm
- Location: America
Re: Question about the first precept
The correct Buddhist response would have been to refuse service in the first place, so this question is hard to answer accurately.CoreyNiles92 wrote:What if you were drafted to a war, and found yourself fighting in a trench with your allies when a group of enemies storm in firing their weapons towards you, pepper spray wouldn't even phase them in such a frenzy, and you would be killed a hundred times over before reaching them to subdue. If you choose to allow them to murder you, you also choose to add greater risk of death to your allies by allowing their numbers to be reduced in your death.
The Buddha would not have hired them, no. An arahant is incapable of killing or causing others to kill.Let's say Buddha and his disciples were inhabiting a village that was threatened by a group of barbarians, with promise to massacre the entire village once they arrive. A group of mercenaries shows up, offering their protection from the barbarians, with no time to evacuate would Buddha be justified in hiring mercenaries to safeguard the town? Or would he allow himself and his disciples to be murdered as to avoid breaking the first precept. Knowing they will not have rebirth, and the world would be rid of enlightenment for ages to come.
The sad fact of life is that every human being dies. The choice is whether or not you want to be the one who kills them.You stand atop a platform above a railway station, with a lever in front of you. There is a train heading down the track towards a brick wall, if it collides with the wall ten people within will die. You have the ability to change the tracks, allowing the train to avoid the wall and continue along on a safe track sparing 10 lives. The catch is that a man has fallen unconscious on this track, and you don't have the time to run down to help him, would you pull the lever and choose this mans fate yourself, sparing 10 innocent lives. Or would you allow nature to run it's course and not involve yourself, allowing 10 innocent people to die.
I agree that it's a technical violation of the first precept, but you can hardly blame someone for such an action in a situation where their life is truly on the line. Often, what an arahant would do is not always possible for laypeople who have family obligations or other reasons to defend with violence. It's not ideal but it is at least understandable.Mr Man wrote:Of Course they have.
To mitigate (a perceived) immanent threat is a Blair like argument. What if a Buddhist monk was to give the same advice (in relation to a specific threat) or was to follow that advice?
Gain and loss, status and disgrace,
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.
censure and praise, pleasure and pain:
these conditions among human beings are inconstant,
impermanent, subject to change.
Knowing this, the wise person, mindful,
ponders these changing conditions.
Desirable things don’t charm the mind,
undesirable ones bring no resistance.
His welcoming and rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
- Lokavipatti Sutta
Stuff I write about things.
- Hickersonia
- Posts: 264
- Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2012 1:40 pm
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
- Contact:
Re: Question about the first precept
Okay, I read the Angulimala Sutta [MN 86] yesterday and this question made me think of it again.
Text here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The story in the sutta is basically that a vicious killer resides in this particular area where the Buddha is passing through and the Blessed One (by his super-normal powers) prevents the bandit from catching up to Him, even as he runs his darnedest and the Buddha maintains a walking pace, then even stops altogether.
In the end, the murderous Bandit is converted, and receives the going forth.
What I'm getting at is, if the preposterous situation of the original post had actually occurred, not only would the Buddha have not ordered any killing, but he would have quite probably converted, and even ordained the killers, making arahants of them and saving everyone in the village by his transcendental powers.
In other words, don't underestimate the Buddha too much -- he would never be presented with so few options as we, in our more limited state, would perceive.
Text here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The story in the sutta is basically that a vicious killer resides in this particular area where the Buddha is passing through and the Blessed One (by his super-normal powers) prevents the bandit from catching up to Him, even as he runs his darnedest and the Buddha maintains a walking pace, then even stops altogether.
In the end, the murderous Bandit is converted, and receives the going forth.
What I'm getting at is, if the preposterous situation of the original post had actually occurred, not only would the Buddha have not ordered any killing, but he would have quite probably converted, and even ordained the killers, making arahants of them and saving everyone in the village by his transcendental powers.
In other words, don't underestimate the Buddha too much -- he would never be presented with so few options as we, in our more limited state, would perceive.
Hickersonia
http://hickersonia.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of
throwing it at someone else; you are the one getting burned."
http://hickersonia.wordpress.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"Holding on to anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of
throwing it at someone else; you are the one getting burned."
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Question about the first precept
Hickersonia wrote:In other words, don't underestimate the Buddha too much -- he would never be presented with so few options as we, in our more limited state, would perceive.
there are always options we may just not see them.
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
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