Crime in front of a monk

[zazang]

Hi

Although unlikely , What is a monk supposed to do in front of a grave crime like rape happening in front of him/her ?
Should the monk not physically stop it thinking that anyway the person is getting this because of their karma ?

Metta
zazang

[jcsuperstar]

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

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

[Mukunda]

you should rethink kamma. try reading this http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... 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?

[beeblebrox]

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

Sounds like nihilism to me... which is a wrong view.

[bodom]

you should rethink kamma. try reading this http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... 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?

Yes lets all lay down and die because there is no one really there. Maybe I wont go to work anymore and let my family starve because after all we really dont exist. Maybe I will let my 1 year old play outside alone by the pool. I mean why not? She doesn't exist, I dont exist. Whats the point of living anymore?

Basically your saying theres no need to look both ways before crossing the street, no need to wear seatbelts, no need for food, shelter or medicine? The next time your hungry dont eat because there is no one there to be hungry.

The Arahants did not just all curl up and die.

[Mukunda]

The Arahants did not just all curl up and die.

No, they didn't. Perhaps you can show me where one defended himself.

[Mukunda]

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

Sounds like nihilism to me... which is a wrong view.

I'm not understanding how this is nihilism. Do you have a canonical reference in support of self defense?

[Kenshou]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[beeblebrox]

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

Sounds like nihilism to me... which is a wrong view.

I'm not understanding how this is nihilism. Do you have a canonical reference in support of self defense?

You shifted from "If there's no self, what is there to defend?" to "What are the canonical support for self defense?"... these are two (very) different things.

The former is definitely a nihilist viewpoint, and there are references about it from what I recall, but can't remember where (in the suttas) at the moment. The latter is just about self defense.

[Mukunda]

The former is definitely a nihilist viewpoint, and there are references about it from what I recall, but can't remember where (in the suttas) at the moment. The latter is just about self defense.

When you do recall, please let me know.

[Mukunda]

Yes lets all lay down and die because there is no one really there. Maybe I wont go to work anymore and let my family starve because after all we really dont exist. Maybe I will let my 1 year old play outside alone by the pool. I mean why not? She doesn't exist, I dont exist. Whats the point of living anymore?

Basically your saying theres no need to look both ways before crossing the street, no need to wear seatbelts, no need for food, shelter or medicine? The next time your hungry dont eat because there is no one there to be hungry.

I'm puzzled by your equating observation of logical safety precautions and meeting the requisites for living with self defense.

[bodom]

I'm puzzled by your equating observation of logical safety precautions and meeting the requisites for living with self defense.

Safety precautions for whom? If there is no one there [anatta] as you say, whom are the precautions for? Why bother with safety. Arent you jus protecting your sense of self by taking these precautions. I am puzzled as to how you see self defense and taking safety precautions to protect oneself from danger or death as being so different?

[beeblebrox]

The former is definitely a nihilist viewpoint, and there are references about it from what I recall, but can't remember where (in the suttas) at the moment. The latter is just about self defense.

When you do recall, please let me know.

I still can't remember exactly. But I read this recently... and it seems relevant:

(SN 22:81, Bhikkhu Bodhi edition)

He may not regard form as self, nor self as posessing form, [etc.] ... nor feeling ... perception ... volitional formations ... consciousness ... nor hold such an [eternalist] view, but holds such a view as this: "I might not be, and it might not be for me; I will not be, [and] it will not be for me.*" That annihilationist view is a formation. That formation--what is its source, what is its origin, from what is it born and produced?

---

*Khandasamyutta note #75: Spk's commentary: 'If I were not, it would not be for me': If I were not, neither would there be my belongings. Or else: If in my past there had not been kammic formation, now there would not be for me these five aggregates. 'I will not be, (and) it will not be for me': I will now so strive that there will not be any kammic formation of mine producing the aggregates in the future; when that is absent, there will be for me no future rebirth. (This is a wrong view.)

And this, which might help to make the above clearer:

(SN 22:153)

At Savatthi. "Bhikkhus, when what exists, by clinging to what, by adhering to what, does such a view as this arises: 'I might not be, and it might not be for me; I will not be, [and] it will not be for me'?"

"When there is form [...] When there is feeling [...] When there is perception, bhikkhus, by clinging to perception, by adhering to perception, such a view as this arise: 'I might not be, and it might not be for me; I will not be, [and] it will not be for me.' When there are volitional formations [...] When there is consciousness [...]"

"What do you think, bhikkhus, are form, feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness permanent or impermanent?"

"Impermanent, venerable sir."

"But without clinging to what is impermanent, suffering, and subject to change, could such a view as that arise?"

"No, venerable sir."

"Seeing thus ... He understands: '... there is no more for this state of being.'"

[Mukunda]

So, is there a self to defend, or not? What exactly is being defended?

[Kenshou]

Just because the five aggregates are not-self doesn't mean they don't exist.