Buddhist position on defending one´s nation

[Ceisiwr]

Some Buddhists´ interpretation of kamma is actually closer to jainism (or to Christian ideas of infernal punishment). As far as I know, if you accidentaly step on a bug on a road (not seeing it), you accrue no kamma in the Buddhist view. This is where the Buddha departs from Jainism. This being said, a civilian who kills an invader as a desperate act of self-defense cannot be compared to a murder who "takes life" in the narrow sense of the phrase, not to mention soldiers who commit heinous war crimes and rejoice in their deeds.

I don't see anyone proposing a Jainist understanding of kamma, much less a Christian notion of sin. The main argument is the Buddha taught that soldiers who go into battle intending to kill enemies go to a lower realm if they are killed in the heat of battle. A secondary argument is that all acts of killing are rooted in the akusala-mūla of greed, hatred and delusion. It seems to me the rejoicing in it merely compounds the problem.

[Cause_and_Effect]

Yet you seem to think reading some words 2500 years later allows you to make broad generalizations about humanity based on faith.

That's the thing. It's not "just some words" to me. It's Dhamma as taught by a Samma Sambuddha, and that Dhamma is the lens through which I see the world.

The statements of the fallen warrior sutta are contradicted elsewhere in the Canon since it is stated murderers can be born in the heavenly world if past kamma fruition occurs.

As noted, the workings of kamma stretch back far and cannot be speculated upon.
Saying 'if you die while having a thought of killing you go to hell' is far too simplistic.

As I said, I'm not speculating on anything. There also isn't a contradiction. Kamma is complex, but certain actions do have specific results. Some actions are so weighty, they even block awakening in this life and lead one to unpleasant destinations.

Yes it's complex and sometimes what we have in the cannon is contradicted but other things in the Cannon. Which is why blanket interpretations based on specific verses where there are other verses giving different views and especially regarding complexities of kamma should not be speculated upon.

However this doesn't override the basic truth of living and survival. It's summed up by Maslow's heirachry which the dhamma does not usurp or override.
We need to eat and survive first.

That model seems to go against the Dhamma to me. Sex is a need?

It's obviously not a need but I said ignoring the incidentals the basic heirarchical structure is correct.

-You are stranded on an island or in a jungle with no food source.

Would you starve to death or consciously and humanely kill a small animal to sustain you untill you can get out and continue to practice dhamma?
What would you really do? Talk is cheap.

I'd hope I had the strength to starve to death mindfully, rather than killing. Are you saying you think the Buddha would approve of killing, in certain situations? Seems to me killing to live longer is simply craving and clinging to existence.

"When one considers existence, one is afraid;
When one considers non-existence, one is also afraid.
This is why one should not be attached to existence
Or to non-existence"

- Dharmapada

By the way, in your scenario I can only starve since you said there is no food source

No other food source.
However your answer is:

- aligned with your mechanistic idealism view of the dhamma
- 99% certainly not what you would actually have the ability or willingness to do in real life.
- a foolish intention in my view even if you could do it. You throw away your precious human birth when the work is not yet done. Who knows your destination? Better to mindfully and humanely sacrifice the animal and live to continue the path of practice. It's a necessary concession but overrall more beneficial.


Also you failed to answer the second scenario.

[dharmacorps]

Talk is cheap.

Ajahn Sumedho told of a story once where an angry macho man in a audience he was speaking to accused him and Buddhists in general of being passive and isolationist, and would probably even not engage to stop someone from murdering his mother in front of him. Sumedho thought for a minute, then said something like "I really don't know what I would do if someone attacked my mother in front of me, but I trust the training in the dhamma would help me to act in a wise way".

History is replete with tough talking dudes who don't make good on their words, and quiet types who rise to the occasion. In any event, dwelling on the fantasies of when you can justifiably kill and act out violently isn't a fun head space...

[bpallister]

The stream of the world always runs agaisnt the stream of the Dhamma . Both dont meet .

Thanks for posting this. It's good to be reminded of this frequently.

[Ceisiwr]

Yes it's complex and sometimes what we have in the cannon is contradicted but other things in the Cannon. Which is why blanket interpretations based on specific verses where there are other verses giving different views and especially regarding complexities of kamma should not be speculated upon.

The warning is for non-Buddhas to not specular on kamma. That doesn't mean we can't make claims about kamma based on what the Buddha said. This is why it comes down to if we accept said suttas or not as buddhavacana.

It's obviously not a need but I said ignoring the incidentals the basic heirarchical structure is correct.

I don't think anyone here is ignoring the basic biological needs of the body. Family, sex and respect of others however are of course not essential.

No other food source.
However your answer is:

- aligned with your mechanistic idealism view of the dhamma
- 99% certainly not what you would actually have the ability or willingness to do in real life.
- a foolish intention in my view even if you could do it. You throw away your precious human birth when the work is not yet done. Who knows your destination? Better to mindfully and humanely sacrifice the animal and live to continue the path of practice. It's a necessary concession but overrall more beneficial.

How would me killing an animal to sustain myself for another day be anything other than craving for existence and clinging to this human life? And whilst you of course have no idea how I would act in such a situation, if I had the strength or not to refrain from such an act is something I had previously recognised. However, if I did become so overwhelmed by craving that I ended up killing an animal that still wouldn't mean i was acting in line with the Dhamma. It would simply mean I was weak minded. I also don't think the Buddha would approve of killing to sustain a human existence. You can't have wholesome results much less awaken when you engage in unwholesome conduct. Virtue is the foundation. The basic virtue a Buddhist can adhere to is the 5 precepts. The 1st precept is not to intentionally kill. It's not "not to intentionally kill unless x, y or z".

Also you failed to answer the second scenario.
- A gun wielding attacker invades your home and is taking aim to shoot your family. You have a chance to apprehend him with a gun nearby. What would you do?

Try to disarm him or her.

mechanistic idealism view of the dhamma

Another thing, I have no idea what you mean here. What is a "mechanistic idealism view" of the Dhamma exactly?

[sunnat]

If one acts with the intention of killing suffering follows.

Recognising this, one has compassion for the one who seeks to kill and so act to protect them. At times this may be strong action.
-

Whatever way, if there is attachment to opinions like ‘there is an I that has a nation’ then nibbana is far away.

[Cause_and_Effect]

How would me killing an animal to sustain myself for another day be anything other than craving for existence and clinging to this human life?

How would sacrificing your own life for the sake of an animal when you may not even be a stream winner be anything other than foolish devotion to an imagined ideal with perhaps disasterous consequences?

So perhaps you chose to starve. However since the work is not done you may simply die and fall to the lower world yourself with no chance to live the dhamma. A foolish choice.
Better to make a concession to sacrifice the animal to sustain you for a few more days to survive then when you reach safety you can continue the path of practice to attain stream entry the rest of your life. Perhaps that's the kamma presented to you. So what needs to be done is done humanely if there are no other options.

Also you failed to answer the second scenario.
- A gun wielding attacker invades your home and is taking aim to shoot your family. You have a chance to apprehend him with a gun nearby. What would you do?

Try to disarm him or her.

Yes try to disarm ideally. So idealism again.

The scenario here though was they are aiming and about to shoot your family and you have a gun handy and could shoot him to stop them being shot. Not doing so would be gambling with their lives.
You see idealistic thinking comes against reality sometimes.

[Ceisiwr]

How would sacrificing your own life for the sake of an animal when you may not even be a stream winner be anything other than foolish devotion to an imagined ideal with perhaps disasterous consequences?

Well I don't think following the Dhamma is foolish, nor is it an imagined ideal. Killing the animal would be unwholesome, and it leads to much suffering. Enduing painful vedanā with mindfulness and clear awareness whilst viewing the animal with endless love and compassion leads to less suffering, and possibly even to awakening as I'm dying. I think the Master would approve.

“I will teach you what is the true teaching and what is not the true teaching. … And what is not the true teaching? Killing living creatures … wrong view. This is called what is not the true teaching.

And what is the true teaching? Not killing living creatures … right view. This is called the true teaching.” - AN 10.191

The disaster is found in unwholesome conduct, not wholesome conduct.

So perhaps you chose to starve. However since the work is not done you may simply die and fall to the lower world yourself with no chance to live the dhamma. A foolish choice.
Better to make a concession to sacrifice the animal to sustain you for a few more days to survive then when you reach safety you can continue the path of practice to attain stream entry the rest of your life. Perhaps that's the kamma presented to you. So what needs to be done is done humanely if there are no other options.

It might very well be the case that with such strength of mindfulness and clear comprehension awakening does occur, in the moment of dying. If not, I would have died with a wholesome mind rather than a defiled one. What happens to me after that, no one knows.

Yes try to disarm ideally. So idealism again.

The scenario here though was they are aiming and about to shoot your family and you have a gun handy and could shoot him to stop them being shot. Not doing so would be gambling with their lives.
You see idealistic thinking comes against reality sometimes.

It's not idealism. I would try to disarm them. I wouldn't try to kill them. In your more specific scenario, I would shoot to disarm.

[bpallister]

However this doesn't override the basic truth of living and survival. It's summed up by Maslow's heirachry which the dhamma does not usurp or override.
We need to eat and survive first.

That model seems to go against the Dhamma to me. Sex is a need?

I don't remember the Buddha teaching the hierarchy of needs. That must be in a sutta I haven't read yet.

[Cause_and_Effect]

How would sacrificing your own life for the sake of an animal when you may not even be a stream winner be anything other than foolish devotion to an imagined ideal with perhaps disasterous consequences?

Well I don't think following the Dhamma is foolish, nor is it an imagined ideal.

Not using discernment correctly is the definition of foolishness.
Using the dhamma to try to win arguments online (your specialty) is adhammic.

Killing the animal would be unwholesome, and it leads to much suffering. Enduing painful vedanā with mindfulness and clear awareness whilst viewing the animal with endless love and compassion leads to less suffering, and possibly even to awakening as I'm dying. I think the Master would approve.

There is no injunction to foolishness in the Canon. It's unclear how the Buddha would discuss this example. He wasn't a vegetarian we can say, presumably you are.

“I will teach you what is the true teaching and what is not the true teaching. … And what is not the true teaching? Killing living creatures … wrong view. This is called what is not the true teaching.

And what is the true teaching? Not killing living creatures … right view. This is called the true teaching.” - AN 10.191

Yes we know this there is no need to simply quote suttas for banal repetition of the basic points. We are talking about the nuances in extreme situations.

So perhaps you chose to starve. However since the work is not done you may simply die and fall to the lower world yourself with no chance to live the dhamma. A foolish choice.
Better to make a concession to sacrifice the animal to sustain you for a few more days to survive then when you reach safety you can continue the path of practice to attain stream entry the rest of your life. Perhaps that's the kamma presented to you. So what needs to be done is done humanely if there are no other options.

It might very well be the case that with such strength of mindfulness and clear comprehension awakening does occur, in the moment of dying. If not, I would have died with a wholesome mind rather than a defiled one. What happens to me after that, no one knows.

Yes, who knows indeed. I would say that as much as having compassion for all life is important in this situation I wouldn't gamble stream entry for the sake of a few rats lives. Whilst (you claim, but is unlikely in reality but that's besides the point) you would willingly starve to death for the sake of a rats life on an island and throw your future destiny into an unknown gamble hoping that your mindful practice done as you die may be enough - for me I would mindfully sacrifice the rats to survive and sustain until I could get back to safety. I would then strive to practice the dhamma for my remaining years or decades to strive for stream entry.

Perhaps I just value human life and the rare and precious human birth far more than you, with it's opportunity to live the dhamma in the long-term, and wouldn't throw away the human life in the short term so cursorily for the sake of blind obediance to precepts.

Note also that precepts are not blind commandments which you seem to take them as.

The scenario here though was they are aiming and about to shoot your family and you have a gun handy and could shoot him to stop them being shot. Not doing so would be gambling with their lives.
You see idealistic thinking comes against reality sometimes.

It's not idealism. I would try to disarm them. I wouldn't try to kill them. In your more specific scenario, I would shoot to disarm.

So you would should to commit harm if need be, to prevent a greater harm.
What if he was behind cover and there was only a head shot available?
To not kill here would be allowing him to commit a greater slaughter.

This is the fundamental premise of war, and I believe the dhamma approach to war and conflict if there can be said to be such a thing.

Alternatively if one has the view the dhamma is purely the holy life and against the worldly way including any kind of violence, then we must just accept the dhamma exists on a duality - stable society to support monks and laity, built on and in relation to a society that may need to engage in war to sustain itself.
Perhaps a parallel here is that monks are not allowed to kill but are allowed to consume meat.

However this doesn't override the basic truth of living and survival. It's summed up by Maslow's heirachry which the dhamma does not usurp or override.
We need to eat and survive first.

That model seems to go against the Dhamma to me. Sex is a need?

I don't remember the Buddha teaching the hierarchy of needs. That must be in a sutta I haven't read yet.

Right livelihood
Sustenance comes first, seeking alms to subdue hunger. Having basic shelter and being able to maintain oneself. All done with virtue.
As to the practice itself it's sometimes described as virtue, meditation and wisdom.

There is somewhat of a heirarchy of needs implicit in the teaching, so yes review the suttas.

[mikenz66]

Ajahn Sumedho told of a story once where an angry macho man in a audience he was speaking to accused him and Buddhists in general of being passive and isolationist, and would probably even not engage to stop someone from murdering his mother in front of him. Sumedho thought for a minute, then said something like "I really don't know what I would do if someone attacked my mother in front of me, but I trust the training in the dhamma would help me to act in a wise way".

Thank you for posting that. That's exactly the point. It's better to put effort into developing compassion and wisdom, rather speculating about simplistic black-and-white choices. Someone acting from a position of deep calm, compassion, and wisdom has at least some chance of defusing the situation peacefully before it escalates.


Mike

[santa100]

Thank you for posting that. That's exactly the point. It's better to put effort into developing compassion and wisdom, rather speculating about simplistic black-and-white choices. Someone acting from a position of deep calm, compassion, and wisdom has at least some chance of defusing the situation peacefully before it escalates.

Actually in real life, quite often is the case that one would have no choice but to make real, un-speculative, and very difficult black-and-white choices. The on-going events in Europe is a case in point. And also from real life experience, there's a much greater chance for some bad guy to pick on a meek dude himself and/or his mother instead of a strong dude. It's the animal kingdom's law of nature (yes, we humans are part of that too regardless of how hard we try to deny it), the predator will pick out its prey, especially the weakest among the herd, for that would ensure the highest kill rate with the least amount of effort. Now just to be clear, there's no doubt one should put effort into developing compassion, wisdom, and all the good virtues, but some anticipated/preparation physically/mentally definitely can't hurt, so that instead of: "I really don't know what I would do if someone attacked my mother in front of me", it'd be better to: "I can implement such and such countermeasures if someone attacked my mother since I've prepared and trained for it". That way there's still some chance of success even AFTER all peaceful means have been exhausted. And your mom would hopefully still be alive and thank you for it.

“He who sweats more in training bleeds less in battle.” ― George S. Patton Jr.

[Ceisiwr]

Not using discernment correctly is the definition of foolishness.

Dhamma-vicaya is the discrimination and analysis of wholesome and unwholesome states. Killing is an unwholesome action. This is wise discernment.

Using the dhamma to try to win arguments online (your specialty) is adhammic.

The OP asked for opinions. I gave mine, and now I'm responding to criticism. That is not using the Dhamma for the sake of simply arguing.

There is no injunction to foolishness in the Canon. It's unclear how the Buddha would discuss this example. He wasn't a vegetarian we can say, presumably you are.

I think it is pretty clear that a Buddha would not kill an animal in order to survive your scenario, and instead would starve to death. And no he wasn't a vegetarian and neither am I.

Yes we know this there is no need to simply quote suttas for banal repetition of the basic points. We are talking about the nuances in extreme situations.

I don't see any nuance. With wrong view comes wrong thoughts/intentions followed by wrong action. With right view there comes right thoughts/intentions followed by right actions. Killing the animal is wrong action preceded by wrong view and intention. Not killing the animal is right action, preceded by wright view and intention.

Yes, who knows indeed. I would say that as much as having compassion for all life is important in this situation I wouldn't gamble stream entry for the sake of a few rats lives. Whilst (you claim, but is unlikely in reality but that's besides the point) you would willingly starve to death for the sake of a rats life on an island and throw your future destiny into an unknown gamble hoping that your mindful practice done as you die may be enough - for me I would mindfully sacrifice the rats to survive and sustain until I could get back to safety. I would then strive to practice the dhamma for my remaining years or decades to strive for stream entry.

If you were truly mindful, you wouldn't kill the rat.

Perhaps I just value human life and the rare and precious human birth far more than you, with it's opportunity to live the dhamma in the long-term, and wouldn't throw away the human life in the short term so cursorily for the sake of blind obediance to precepts.

Solid virtue is the foundation. Without it there can be no real sense restraint, no Jhāna and no awakening. If the precepts are viewed as optional, then there really is no hope of stream-entry.

Note also that precepts are not blind commandments which you seem to take them as.

Of course they are not commandments. There is no authority casting them down upon us. We decide to walk the path or not ourselves. If someone is striving for awakening, then virtue must be perfect. If someone isn't striving for awakening, then the 5 precepts and the basis level of virtue the Buddha recommended so as to avoid the worst possible scenarios.

So you would should to commit harm if need be, to prevent a greater harm.
What if he was behind cover and there was only a head shot available?
To not kill here would be allowing him to commit a greater slaughter.

Then I probably wouldn't shoot. There is no concept of killing for the greater good in the Dhamma.

This is the fundamental premise of war, and I believe the dhamma approach to war and conflict if there can be said to be such a thing.

I see no justification for any kind of just war theory in the Dhamma.

Alternatively if one has the view the dhamma is purely the holy life and against the worldly way including any kind of violence, then we must just accept the dhamma exists on a duality - stable society to support monks and laity, built on and in relation to a society that may need to engage in war to sustain itself.
Perhaps a parallel here is that monks are not allowed to kill but are allowed to consume meat.

I think a relatively stable society is needed for a Buddha to appear, yes. I say relatively since there was still conflict between different states when the Buddha was alive.

[SDC]

Yet there is no categorical contradiction between having wordly responsibilities and practicing the dhamma (and even getting good results).

There is when those worldly responsibilities keep the mind in the field of craving. Like I said, a person can be perfect in terms of the five precepts but that does not imply unwholesome is being at all uprooted, and whatever satisfaction one is getting from that solid practice of virtue are provisional at best if the hardest work is not taken up and accomplished. As far as I can tell, sotapatti, or the wisdom to gain it at death, is the first result that matters. Do you disagree? What are “results” worth if they aren’t the sort that lead to freedom?

Yes, the Buddha did give suggestions for harmonious living, but following those suggestions does not automatically lead to anything lasting. One must sincerely take up virtue, sense restraint and mindfulness for a change that will set things on an unchangeable course.

In a few weeks or months, this insane war could be in my country as well. Russian tanks and troops may come and my government may try to draft me, for instance.

Cancer, a car accident, an aneurism may come as well. We are entitled to nothing while we are here. Certainly, some will have better luck than others; be in safer places with more opportunities for comfort; but death is the prize for each of us nonetheless. Easy for me to say from NYC right now (away from Ukraine), but heart disease runs in my family, I work around live electricity every day, I'm 41 and the clock is ticking...that's the world. We're all gonna get it one way or the other. And soon…

Yet this is exactly what eludes some posters in this thread, I believe. A lot of Buddhist tend to view the law of kamma as some kind of a cosmic accountant who keeps track of your deeds (external actions) and then checks both sides of the balance ("good" vs. "bad") and sends you either to hell or to heaven.

Although I don’t think this was directed at me, I just want to make it clear that I’m not really talking about the law of accountability for those who participate in war. What I’m trying to get across is that either we make the choice to put in the work that leads to stream entry or we don’t. Plain and simple. If we dedicate our energy to the betterment of the world without also uprooting the defilements, we squandered the opportunity to gain right view in this life. That means that even if we are a saint and are rewarded with eons in heaven, we can still fall into darkness afterwards. That is factual according to hundreds of suttas.

[Cause_and_Effect]

Not using discernment correctly is the definition of foolishness.

Dhamma-vicaya is the discrimination and analysis of wholesome and unwholesome states. Killing is an unwholesome action. This is wise discernment.

It's not wise to starve to death when the work is not done. It's simply foolish gambling.

Using the dhamma to try to win arguments online (your specialty) is adhammic.

The OP asked for opinions. I gave mine, and now I'm responding to criticism. That is not using the Dhamma for the sake of simply arguing.

As I pointed out, your speciality.

There is no injunction to foolishness in the Canon. It's unclear how the Buddha would discuss this example. He wasn't a vegetarian we can say, presumably you are.

I think it is pretty clear that a Buddha would not kill an animal in order to survive your scenario, and instead would starve to death. And no he wasn't a vegetarian and neither am I.

You're not a Buddha and most likely not a stream winner.

Yes we know this there is no need to simply quote suttas for banal repetition of the basic points. We are talking about the nuances in extreme situations.

I don't see any nuance. With wrong view comes wrong thoughts/intentions followed by wrong action. With right view there comes right thoughts/intentions followed by right actions. Killing the animal is wrong action preceded by wrong view and intention. Not killing the animal is right action, preceded by wright view and intention.

So you answer with more banal wrote recitation. Perhaps my expectations are too high for someone who spends much of their time reading and posting online not living the dhamma in practice.

Yes, who knows indeed. I would say that as much as having compassion for all life is important in this situation I wouldn't gamble stream entry for the sake of a few rats lives. Whilst (you claim, but is unlikely in reality but that's besides the point) you would willingly starve to death for the sake of a rats life on an island and throw your future destiny into an unknown gamble hoping that your mindful practice done as you die may be enough - for me I would mindfully sacrifice the rats to survive and sustain until I could get back to safety. I would then strive to practice the dhamma for my remaining years or decades to strive for stream entry.

If you were truly mindful, you wouldn't kill the rat.

A novel interpretation. However I see nowhere where mindfulness is defined as such.

Perhaps I just value human life and the rare and precious human birth far more than you, with it's opportunity to live the dhamma in the long-term, and wouldn't throw away the human life in the short term so cursorily for the sake of blind obediance to precepts.

Solid virtue is the foundation. Without it there can be no real sense restraint, no Jhāna and no awakening. If the precepts are viewed as optional, then there really is no hope of stream-entry.

In said scenario if you died and fell to the lower world there is no hope of stream entry.
Killing a rat to survive on an island and living the dhamma virtuously for years after would provide a very conducive chance at least.

Note also that precepts are not blind commandments which you seem to take them as.

Of course they are not commandments. There is no authority casting them down upon us. We decide to walk the path or not ourselves. If someone is striving for awakening, then virtue must be perfect. If someone isn't striving for awakening, then the 5 precepts and the basis level of virtue the Buddha recommended so as to avoid the worst possible scenarios.

You say 'of course not' but that's exactly how you take them.

So you would shoot to commit harm if need be, to prevent a greater harm.
What if he was behind cover and there was only a head shot available?
To not kill here would be allowing him to commit a greater slaughter.

Then I probably wouldn't shoot. There is no concept of killing for the greater good in the Dhamma.

Then in that situation you would simply be a worthless fool who would let your family die and then you would die.

There is no concept of killing for the greater good in the Dhamma.

Perhaps, although that's an interpretation
The Dhamma is about living engaged with the world to transcend it.
Which is why I say the holy life does not encompass all areas of life.
There is a time for the warrior path also in self defence or defence of loved ones.

This is the fundamental premise of war, and I believe the dhamma approach to war and conflict if there can be said to be such a thing.

I see no justification for any kind of just war theory in the Dhamma.

What you see, and what is is a matter of debate. The Buddha did not tell Kings they must renounce war when teaching them the dhamma.

Alternatively if one has the view the dhamma is purely the holy life and against the worldly way including any kind of violence, then we must just accept the dhamma exists on a duality - stable society to support monks and laity, built on and in relation to a society that may need to engage in war to sustain itself.
Perhaps a parallel here is that monks are not allowed to kill but are allowed to consume meat.

I think a relatively stable society is needed for a Buddha to appear, yes. I say relatively since there was still conflict between different states when the Buddha was alive.

Yes a duality is there. Society rests on war and conflict to exist. Non violent ascetics can exist in that society but cannot sustain it.
Lay people have to use discernment striving to adhere to the precepts but using wisdom where necessity means precepts may have to be broken in extreme situations.

I suggest you become a monk then if you really want to live the ascetiic life to its full extent that it overrides all else. That's the place where it is suitable.