Poll: To kill or to be killed

[Alino]

It matters. A long time ago I was Army, serving in a counter-insurgency unit. The detail is important here.

I added the following :

"But its un intresting question that shows how dangerous for one's kamma can be attachements to others people... Because often people are OK to die, they say that's it's OK. But when question of security of our family and relatives comes - they say that I will kill everybody who touches my family... Its intresting, isn't it?"

As Terrorist or resistant it's just a matter of point of view. For the nazis, French rezistants was terrorists... Its not for judging, just for giving some perspective

You seem to be arguing some sort of dodgy moral relevatism, implying the Nazis were sort of OK.
This is complete nonsense. The Nazis were nasty Jew-killing murdering bastards,, the French resistance were heroes. Shame on you.

Forgive me if what I said was unskillfull... just as it is

[DNS]

It completely depends on the circumstances. The question as it is written is too open-ended.

If someone comes up to you and says kill this (unknown) person or I'll kill you. I imagine most would just be killed. If it's a self-defense situation, more would probably be willing to kill. If it's in defense of one's family and children, I imagine the percentage would be even higher than for one's own well-being. It all depends on numerous situations and circumstances.

[dharmacorps]

Vague question, so a vague answer: don't get in a situation where you have to kill someone or be killed yourself. I can only imagine this situation could arise from a series of choices and conditions which would cause such a extreme situation to arise in the vast majority of circumstances.

[Mr. Seek]

Vague question, so a vague answer: don't get in a situation where you have to kill someone or be killed yourself. I can only imagine this situation could arise from a series of choices and conditions which would cause such a extreme situation to arise in the vast majority of circumstances.

In all honesty though, we're kind of in this situation every day. We feed, we eat. What do we eat? Certainly not rocks.

[dharmacorps]

In all honesty though, we're kind of in this situation every day. We feed, we eat. What do we eat? Certainly not rocks.

You are conflating the act of killing with the act of eating. Of course, it is true that in order for us to live, we have to eat other beings. We don't however, have to personally kill beings to live. Since your question is now even more unclear, I'm not sure what your goal is here.

[sunnat]

If one comes across someone intent on murder, recognise that that person is doing their selves great harm now and in the future and with a mind of compassion strive the utmost to protect. Sometimes this will mean intervene physically. It may happen that person dies as a result but the intent was not to kill.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

It completely depends on the circumstances. The question as it is written is too open-ended.

If someone comes up to you and says kill this (unknown) person or I'll kill you. I imagine most would just be killed. If it's a self-defense situation, more would probably be willing to kill. If it's in defense of one's family and children, I imagine the percentage would be even higher than for one's own well-being. It all depends on numerous situations and circumstances.

Agreed. All I'd add to that is that, by my mind, anyone who has initiated violence against someone else has forfeited their right to safety from that person. People are allowed to defend themselves as they see fit, even if the (initial) attacker gets hurt in the process.



Metta,
Paul.

[kenteramin]

Am I safe to assume that the site admins don't take the Thathagata's advise too seriously?
"even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding."

I'm not saying that we all would do the right thing when/if time comes. But shouldn't we at least aspire to practice the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma? Killing a perpetrator even in to save a family member is not a wholesome action, is it?
"Monks, there are these five kinds of loss. Which five? Loss of relatives, loss of wealth, loss through disease, loss in terms of virtue, loss in terms of views. It's not by reason of loss of relatives, loss of wealth, or loss through disease that beings — with the break-up of the body, after death — reappear in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. It's by reason of loss in terms of virtue and loss in terms of views that beings — with the break-up of the body, after death — reappear in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. These are the five kinds of loss."

[DNS]

Am I safe to assume that the site admins don't take the Thathagata's advise too seriously?
"even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding."

I'm not saying that we all would do the right thing when/if time comes. But shouldn't we at least aspire to practice the Dhamma in accordance with the Dhamma? Killing a perpetrator even in to save a family member is not a wholesome action, is it?

The saw simile is good and can be done by someone who is very advanced; probably only an arahant. I take it seriously and would hope I could do that, if the situation arose. However, can you force that saw simile on your spouse, children, other family members? Maybe they are not even Buddhist.

I might be wrong, but I don't think I could praise a person for watching and letting their spouse or children be tortured and killed right in front of them, when they had the physical means to stop the perpetrator.

[Aloka]

I might be wrong, but I don't think I could praise a person for watching and letting their spouse or children be tortured and killed right in front of them, when they had the physical means to stop the perpetrator.

.

[asahi]

Advising , encouraging , hinting not doing killing , stopping , preventing people from doing killing is wholesome . VV advising , encouraging , hinting people doing killing is unwholesome . But in the process of stopping n preventing people from killing , you kill someone , that is unwholesome .

[SarathW]

I think many of us will kill a wild animal with self defence.
I can't see why this is not be applicable to a wild animal who dressed up as a human.

[retrofuturist]

Greetings,

Am I safe to assume that the site admins don't take the Thathagata's advise too seriously?
"even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding."

Who is saying you must defend yourself in anger?

I would be defending myself for the purpose of defending myself.

Metta,
Paul.

[cappuccino]

you don't have to kill, you can merely injure

[kenteramin]

I might be wrong, but I don't think I could praise a person for watching and letting their spouse or children be tortured and killed right in front of them, when they had the physical means to stop the perpetrator.

If I may speculate isn't it what Lord Buddha did when Sakyans were killed?
He didn't have physical means. But he had verbal means I suppose. E.g. he could've come up with an elaborate lie. Mb he even had psychic means to stop Vidudabha. He didn't. *

His actions were very different from our modern ethics. Every action hero would've tried to stop an event like this.

Is it different only because the means he had were not physical? I'd say he might've even had physical means

* I know that Buddha don't lie. But it's exactly the point. He didn't stop Vidudabha because there were no skillful means. So I think an Arahant would watch their spouse or children be tortured and killed right in front of them.

Hopefully we still admire Lord Buddha and other arahants