Buddhist response to a monstrous act of rape?

[Mawkish1983]

Peter, I wholeheartedly agree.

[Tex]

My reply is that I would gladly tell the girl......unless she has been brain washed by society into thinking that she has been irrevocably damaged she is probably right now in her school yard playing skip rope or some other such fun childish pastime......she probably will have no lasting malaise.....unless of course society instills (as it almost always does) its fear and loathing into her psyche. A bad thing has happened to her.....bad things happen to alot of people and usually they recover quite nicely. The idea that this little girls will be tortured all her life by what happened to her is mostly just an idea in your head....

Whether "society instills fear and loathing into her psyche" or not is irrelevant. Yes, in some cultures being a rape victim carries a certain stigma. But in all cultures being the victim of a violent trauma at a young age does have lasting psychological effects. And being violated sexually before you're even old enough to understand sex is just about the most damaging thing that can happen to a young mind.

This incident doesn't necessarily have to ruin this girl's entire life, and hopefully she's getting the love, support, and professional help she needs, but to say that a child rape victim can easily put it behind her is simply incorrect. And that's the Right Speechiest way I can say it.

[PeterB]

I admire your Right Speechiestness Tex.

[beeblebrox]

Let's not accuse folks of slandering the Dhamma here - do any of us truly realise it anyway? I know we aspire to realise it - but - have we (yet)? (I do hold out the hope).

You're right, I went a bit overboard with that. I really apologize... to Chownah, and everyone who might be put off by that. It really contributed nothing.

I thought some more about what I replied, and hope that the following will clarify my own understanding about anatta (for anyone who's interested):

You need to be careful about substituting something for a self. Substituting the "conditions" for a self doesn't make it anatta. Calling a delusion something else doesn't make it stop being a delusion.

If you say that the rapist and the girl, their actions, their experiences were all based on conditions, with "no self" involved... does that really make their situation any better? I don't think so. Those conditions were still experienced.

Also, if you talk about the conditions as if they would be better off if they didn't have a "self"... that would be a nihilist viewpoint. This is a wrong grasp of what the Buddha actually taught.

Be well, everyone.

[Ben]

Peter, I wholeheartedly agree.

Seconded!

I haven't been on the I-Net for many years - now I remember why - people just jump onto stuff so they can fight.

I apologise if you feel that I targetted you with my earlier post. I could have been more skilful in the way I worded my response.
Dhamma Wheel is a vibrant Theravadin discussion forum which is actively moderated. As such, discussion is robust. Many of our members come here for inspiration, companionship and the sharing of ideas. Sometimes, that takes the form of dynamic discussion. Occassionally, less than ideal behaviour ensues, but I haven't seen evidence of that on this thread.

What I did feel horrible about was other's projects of their own crap (self) onto it. That tortured me - that angered me - that created loads of ill will - not towards the person in the car who hit me by the way - towards everyone else.

I am no psychologist, but I would agree. But at the same time, what Chownah has said as a response to a rape victim discounts it to the point of trivialization. They are the two extremes, FNA.

Hey there - just to clarify - I'm not encouraging anyone to kill anyone (or anything). Sometimes, I just wonder - IS it a kindness to let certain people .. continue on in the world due to the utter misery that they cause.

It's a question - not a definative statement.

There are parallels in history. (Look at any Dictator - Hitler- Stalin - Mao - Amin and think about the various points when those regimes could have been nipped in the bud but and esp. in re: Hitler - look what damage "keeping the peace" did ) but I find I am getting

At any rate - it is a question - what harm is done by letting the evil (for lack of better word) live? Something I ponder - but don't encourage.

This is what I was getting at earlier. If it is an intentional act to kill another human being, irregardless of what that person has done or what you can only suspect that she/he will do, no good will come from it. If the situation is that you are defending yourself and/or others and you kill the person in the process of neutralizing their threat, then its not so bad. Foreknowledge of the future, whereby you could see when a child is born that they would grow into a murderous tyrant, is limited to Buddhas (and perhaps chief disciples),according to the Canon. If you were in a position to assassinate a tyrant such as Hitler,Amin or Pol Pot and know that by doing so you would save millions of lives,then I think the kamma may be mixed and it will depend on the intention of the killer and the intention of those who have supported the killer and those who have given praise to the killing. Its imponderable. Fortunately, for most of us its a moral dilemma that will remain purely academic.
kind regards

Ben

[Annapurna]

Finding compassion for him, a good practice.

I agree. Think about how messed up his mind must be, and how terrible it must be to live with such a mind.

Mike

I'd be surprised if all encompassing compassion wasn't already agreed here.

[Annapurna]

Once I was in my car and drove by a man who punched a car's window with his bare hand, shattering the window, he then pulled out a woman from the car and started punching her faced and pushing her around. I stopped my car, alked out and strated shouting and the guy ordering him to stop, and placed myself in front of the woman to prevent him from punching her again, he looked surprised, stopped and walked away. Then he came back and said he was going to break my face and grabbed my cloths with one hand while closing his fist with the other. I calmly told him that if he wanted a fight he was going to fight with himself, because I was not going to respond, and that I was not afraid of a guy who beats up women. I guess I got lucky and he walked away.

Wow, Rui Sousa, if you're a guy, you're a real man.

My respect.

Courage scares cowards.

I have had other similar experiences, and I have managed not to let anger control my actions, even if it is there, but still being able to prevent A from hurting B. No anger, no fear and enough imagination to see a way out without aggression.

So I don't see it absolutely necessary to respond with aggression to prevent aggression.

Yep.

I would still be mentally prepared for the case where only a quick forceful action can precent many deaths, as in the case of a terroris about to strike.

I would intend to leave him unconscious, but not dead.

If he dies though, he brought it upon himself.

Wouldn't have happeped playing with kittens.

[Rui Sousa]

I would still be mentally prepared for the case where only a quick forceful action can precent many deaths, as in the case of a terroris about to strike.

I would intend to leave him unconscious, but not dead.

If he dies though, he brought it upon himself.

Wouldn't have happeped playing with kittens.

This thread has left me a bit worried, because I feel we are focusing too much in extreme actions such as killing to prevent something from happening. I believe that scenario makes very a small percentage of the cases we will hopefully face in our lives. Instead of setting our minds to kill if necessary, isn't it more in line with the teaching to set our mind to avoid the necessity of killing, trusting in our abilities to deal with problems in other ways?

Yesterday I was arriving home and had to wait for a minute or two to enter home because there was an ant's path between me and my garage door, I couldn't kill the ants, so I waited until there was a gap and then moved the bike inside. I believe that was a nice thing to do for the ants, a kind of civil neighbouring. But if I train myself to kill if necessary I would just run over them because they were on my way, and I had no intention of killing them then, wouldn't I be justifying the unjustifiable?

[Annapurna]

My reply is that I would gladly tell the girl......unless she has been brain washed by society into thinking that she has been irrevocably damaged she is probably right now in her school yard playing skip rope or some other such fun childish pastime......she probably will have no lasting malaise.....unless of course society instills (as it almost always does) its fear and loathing into her psyche. A bad thing has happened to her.....bad things happen to alot of people and usually they recover quite nicely. The idea that this little girls will be tortured all her life by what happened to her is mostly just an idea in your head....it is the "self" that you have made up for her.....this deluded "self" is one example of why the Buddha advised us to have no doctrine of self....in my view.
chownah

Chownah,

You might of course lose a bit from that Buddhist Pollyannaism if your own daughter got raped...

[Annapurna]

I would still be mentally prepared for the case where only a quick forceful action can precent many deaths, as in the case of a terroris about to strike.

I would intend to leave him unconscious, but not dead.

If he dies though, he brought it upon himself.

Wouldn't have happpened playing with kittens.

This thread has left me a bit worried, because I feel we are focusing too much in extreme actions such as killing to prevent something from happening. I believe that scenario makes very a small percentage of the cases we will hopefully face in our lives. Instead of setting our minds to kill if necessary, isn't it more in line with the teaching to set our mind to avoid the necessity of killing, trusting in our abilities to deal with problems in other ways?

Yesterday I was arriving home and had to wait for a minute or two to enter home because there was an ant's path between me and my garage door, I couldn't kill the ants, so I waited until there was a gap and then moved the bike inside. I believe that was a nice thing to do for the ants, a kind of civil neighbouring. But if I train myself to kill if necessary I would just run over them because they were on my way, and I had no intention of killing them then, wouldn't I be justifying the unjustifiable ?

This thread has left me a bit worried, because I feel we are focusing too much in extreme actions such as killing to prevent something from happening. Instead of setting our minds to kill if necessary, isn't it more in line with the teaching to set our mind to avoid the necessity of killing, trusting in our abilities to deal with problems in other ways?

Please don't worry. I don't think any of us is keen on killing. It is just about having a plan B, when plan A doesn't work

Of course plan A is to avoid violence, what else?

And A comes before B.

I believe that scenario makes very a small percentage of the cases we will hopefully face in our lives.

You actually never know. I never anticipated I would get into some of the extreme situations I got in, -I always thought:

This is the type of stuff that happens to others, but not to me.

Bullsh!t.

Yesterday I was arriving home and had to wait for a minute or two to enter home because there was an ant's path between me and my garage door, I couldn't kill the ants, so I waited until there was a gap and then moved the bike inside. I believe that was a nice thing to do for the ants, a kind of civil neighbouring. But if I train myself to kill if necessary I would just run over them because they were on my way, and I had no intention of killing them then, wouldn't I be justifying the unjustifiable ?

Of course that is a nice thing to do, but do you really think only you do?

It isn't necessary to kill ants on your path, why would it?

But it may be neccessary to throw a coke can at someone who wants to fire a gun into a crowd.

One is not a Buddhist hero when he allows that to happen.

[Vepacitta]

Aack! I can't get the damnable quote thing to work.

At any rate ...

Ben - thank you for your apology - damn good of you. However, I didn't feel targeted by you - it's kind of a typical "Buddhist" response (no I'm not trying to snark you). Interestingly, in a sutta study class, we got into this sort of discussion when we discussed the Simile of the Saw. There was no easy answer - but the Ven. told us about other thoughts from teachers and Buddhists he'd heard over the years - not that it was "ok" - but could be necessary (not exactly the right word but it was awhile back) at times - like the "Hitler" example. Sort of the "good of the many" type of thing (We need a Spock smiley). Normally, though, killing is a big no-no. But ... well ... you already know my but (no! not butt - but! )

I actually felt targeted by another person - but no matter - one can't convince everyone ...

[metta_noob]

here's an update ... he was charged in court ... http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?fi ... sec=courts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

there's a little video on the page too ... also on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sgInxx4 ... r_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... for a good look at the perp

I am a little disappointed that he's out on bail

[Rui Sousa]

Of course that is a nice thing to do, but do you really think only you do?

It isn't necessary to kill ants on your path, why would it?

But it may be neccessary to throw a coke can at someone who wants to fire a gun into a crowd.

One is not a Buddhist hero when he allows that to happen.

I was not trying to claim moral superiority, I was just giving an example of a real situation to express that we make decisions, and these decisions are conditioned by our previous mind moments.

Saying, as many have said on this thread, that they are mentally prepared to kill if necessary seems to me as putting another brick on the building that is that idea of killing, adding strength to the kammic bond that may lead to a future action of killing. I believe my action of not killing ants was conditioned by Metta meditation and my understanding of rebirth. And I am worried that stating a propensity for killing may set the conditions for great future suffering.

Did the Buddha teach to kill if necessary, in order to save a great number? I would love to see a Sutta reference that would provide some basis for such a statement. I don't think anyone on this thread as claimed that opinion to be based on the Suttas, people were expressing their personal opinions, but since the OP asked for a Buddhist response to a monstrous act, I think we should make it clear what is our understanding of the teaching and what are our personal opinions regardless of the teaching.

[Annapurna]

here's an update ... he was charged in court ... http://thestar.com.my/news/story.asp?fi ... sec=courts" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

there's a little video on the page too ... also on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sgInxx4 ... r_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; ... for a good look at the perp

I am a little disappointed that he's out on bail

Imagine how traumatic it is for the girl and her family.

Actually, this happens quite often.

The result is, that victims are scared to leave the house.

They might meet him somewhere. Or worse, they are afraid he might attack them again, to silence the witness.

[chownah]

I am no psychologist, but I would agree. But at the same time, what Chownah has said as a response to a rape victim discounts it to the point of trivialization. They are the two extremes, FNA.

Ben

Ben,
I would like to know what you think I said "as a response to a rape victim".....in as exact a wording as possible.....I don't recall having crafted a response....
chownah

To all my Dhamma Friends here........thank you so much for your honest opinions....I have learned alot about my Dhamma Friends here in reading your replies.
chownah