It's not so strange for a Buddhist to endorse killing

[wingzero]

[Marblehead]

Given that I am not a Buddhist but that was an interesting read none-the-less.

[manitou]

I think this goes along with the Straw Dog analogy of the Tao. As we've said in a previous thread, the Tao doesn't care about specific life and death, one over the other. It's all one.

 

I agree that it all goes to compassion. The compassionate thing to do may well be to kill one human being who is sworn to kill others. But the person who makes this determination must make it from a perspective of the good of all, not spite; as it says in the Tao, sometimes we must remove ourselves from the situation to SEE its reality, sometimes we must immerse ourselves in the situation to FEEL the reality.

 

This decision must have weighed heavily. I believe an enlightened man made it.

[Encephalon]

Part of the history of Buddhism is characterized by the transformations that occured as it swept through different cultures and countries. That it was subsumed by the samurai culture of Japan and later appealed to in WWII is testament that people will do what they will with a powerful idea. In a firefight, many Buddhists become Taoist warriors, attacking when necessary.

 

I must admit that I was a little taken aback by HH Dalai Lama's comments. Given the history of Bin Laden, the early support he received by the US in his fight against the Soviets, and the fact that the murderous strike on 9/11 was payback for US imperialism in the Middle East, I can't help but think that HH is showing remarkable restraint by not alienating western nations with uncomfortable truths.

[deci belle]

Evidently the man is very capable of a ruthless compassion. Anything that shakes up the white-light bambi-cultists is alright with me.

 

Mr Lama is simply adapting to the time. The conventional moralists try to inflict the absolute on the relative, which is completely ineffective and useless to boot.

 

Mr. Lama is a political leader as well. He wears more than one hat. Personally, I wasn't waiting for him or anybody else to weigh in on the event of the famous jihadist's death. I'll bet he spoke out for the benefit of all the people who depend on him to know what to think, feel, and do.

 

It's all rather pathetic that it seems to be an issue to some people. What would _______ do? The buddha said refer everything to the self. Who here is not doing that, hmmmmm?

Edited May 15, 2011 by deci belle

[gendao]

Part of the history of Buddhism is characterized by the transformations that occured as it swept through different cultures and countries. That it was subsumed by the samurai culture of Japan and later appealed to in WWII is testament that people will do what they will with a powerful idea. In a firefight, many Buddhists become Taoist warriors, attacking when necessary.

 

I must admit that I was a little taken aback by HH Dalai Lama's comments. Given the history of Bin Laden, the early support he received by the US in his fight against the Soviets, and the fact that the murderous strike on 9/11 was payback for US imperialism in the Middle East, I can't help but think that HH is showing remarkable restraint by not alienating western nations with uncomfortable truths.

Well, of course DL is in bed politically with the US. So, he would only be alienating himself if he spoke out against them.

 

In censoring himself to worship a greater power, he is effectively sacrificing integrity to worship power. For he is bowing down to the hegemonic US (just like any other power-starved groupie), not vice-versa. This is why politics and spiritualists don't mix very well.

 

If he was really nonviolent - he wouldn't even have associated with the US to begin with. In fact, he would have spoken out against all of our military ops killing people around the world every time we launched a new one.

 

Instead, he is still indirectly using the US's military strength to back his "nonviolent" preference. Instead of maintaining his own military, he has merely effectively outsourced it to the US.

 

So, it's a very difficult position for him to navigate. He must attempt to reconcile a moral high ground with relying upon a moralless bodyguard. In addition, the US keeps getting more shady & thuggish while China more civilized. So, he may be questioning what the right side to be on really is as the ground keeps shifting under his very feet.

 

I'm sure he's learning a lot in this lifetime.

[Aaron]

If one looks at Buddhism historically, one can find numerous incidents where Buddhists attacked others in the name of faith, perhaps the most famous case in that of Nonin ( from the 13th century AD) who held a very different view of Zen than his predecessors and contemporaries. His nephew killed him and afterwards militant Buddhist monks set about destroying Nonin's followers temples (i.e. slaughtering or forcing them to disband). I think it would be unfair to view Buddhists in a poor light because of this, they aren't the only ones to commit violence in the name of faith, rather it just proves that they are quite as human as the rest of us. In the long run it can only be expected that when one has the truth, then they must enforce the truth to ensure it doesn't become diluted.

 

Aaron

 

edit- Janwillem van de Wetering makes mention that when puppies were born in the temple he was practicing at in Japan, that the monks would drown them when they got too noisy in order to prevent the monks from being distracted during meditation. I'm sure the monks viewed that as nonviolence too. In essence I think anything can be defined as nonviolent if it allows for peace in the end.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Twinner

[Jetsun]

Well, of course DL is in bed politically with the US. So, he would only be alienating himself if he spoke out against them.

 

In censoring himself to worship a greater power, he is effectively sacrificing integrity to worship power. For he is bowing down to the hegemonic US (just like any other power-starved groupie), not vice-versa. This is why politics and spiritualists don't mix very well.

 

If he was really nonviolent - he wouldn't even have associated with the US to begin with. In fact, he would have spoken out against all of our military ops killing people around the world every time we launched a new one.

 

Instead, he is still indirectly using the US's military strength to back his "nonviolent" preference. Instead of maintaining his own military, he has merely effectively outsourced it to the US.

 

So, it's a very difficult position for him to navigate. He must attempt to reconcile a moral high ground with relying upon a moralless bodyguard. In addition, the US keeps getting more shady & thuggish while China more civilized. So, he may be questioning what the right side to be on really is as the ground keeps shifting under his very feet.

 

I'm sure he's learning a lot in this lifetime.

 

What does the American military do for the Dalai Lama? how do they bodyguard him?

[Sundragon]

I think that killing can be done without hatred. Sometimes the good and compassionate thing is to kill those who, for whatever reason, will not cease in their violence. To allow predatory humans to make prey of their fellows is to show a distinct lack of compassion for those whom these predators will victimize.

 

I don't think nonviolence is an absolute moral standard that must be adhered to at all costs. Like all moral realities it must be contextualized so that it doesn't become simplistic and ultimately useless. Love is not weak. Even to forgive doesn't imply that one allows the forgiven to continue to commit harmful acts. Forgiveness simply removes the emotional charge from the past. One can forgive another and still find it necessary to kill if that other refuses to cease their violence. One can kill without hatred.

 

The loving thing isn't always the warm and fuzzy thing.

 

<--- Not a Buddhist by the way, so YMMV.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Sundragon

[Marblehead]

I think that killing can be done without hatred. Sometimes the good and compassionate thing is to kill those who, for whatever reason, will not cease in their violence. To allow predatory humans to make prey of their fellows is to show a distinct lack of compassion for those whom these predators will victimize.

 

I don't think nonviolence is an absolute moral standard that must be adhered to at all costs. Like all moral realities it must be contextualized so that it doesn't become simplistic and ultimately useless. Love is not weak. Even to forgive doesn't imply that one allows the forgiven to continue to commit harmful acts. Forgiveness simply removes the emotional charge from the past. One can forgive another and still find it necessary to kill if that other refuses to cease their violence. One can kill without hatred.

 

The loving thing isn't always the warm and fuzzy thing.

 

<--- Not a Buddhist by the way, so YMMV.

 

Good observation, I think. Thanks for sharing.

[wingzero]

I think that killing can be done without hatred. Sometimes the good and compassionate thing is to kill those who, for whatever reason, will not cease in their violence. To allow predatory humans to make prey of their fellows is to show a distinct lack of compassion for those whom these predators will victimize.

 

I don't think nonviolence is an absolute moral standard that must be adhered to at all costs. Like all moral realities it must be contextualized so that it doesn't become simplistic and ultimately useless. Love is not weak. Even to forgive doesn't imply that one allows the forgiven to continue to commit harmful acts. Forgiveness simply removes the emotional charge from the past. One can forgive another and still find it necessary to kill if that other refuses to cease their violence. One can kill without hatred.

 

The loving thing isn't always the warm and fuzzy thing.

 

<--- Not a Buddhist by the way, so YMMV.

 

 

I probably disagree with killing, but agree to punishment.

[Sundragon]

I probably disagree with killing, but agree to punishment.

I'd prefer if killing were never necessary, but that's an ideal that simply does not exist so long as there are those that will only cease violence when violence is committed upon them. I am for killing only as a last resort.

 

I'm all for punishment if punishment is an option.

 

I believe the path of the honorable warrior, the warrior who defends the innocent, is a noble path. So long as there are those who would prey on their fellow man we will need those who are willing to do violence upon those who understand no other language but violence.

 

To fail to do violence upon those who respond to nothing else is to condemn others to harm or death. Compassion demands we do as little harm as possible. If killing one murderer prevents the death of many it is certainly the right choice.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I've read a Shaolin Grandmaster say that a Shaolin monk will not generally allow himself to be killed and so, since the person will not stop projecting his harmful energy, the monk redirects it, sometimes resulting in the aggressors "suicide" since he was defeated by his own energy and not that of the monk.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Harmonious Emptiness

[wingzero]

I'd prefer if killing were never necessary, but that's an ideal that simply does not exist so long as there are those that will only cease violence when violence is committed upon them. I am for killing only as a last resort.

 

I'm all for punishment if punishment is an option.

 

I believe the path of the honorable warrior, the warrior who defends the innocent, is a noble path. So long as there are those who would prey on their fellow man we will need those who are willing to do violence upon those who understand no other language but violence.

 

To fail to do violence upon those who respond to nothing else is to condemn others to harm or death. Compassion demands we do as little harm as possible. If killing one murderer prevents the death of many it is certainly the right choice.

 

 

Yeah, But America has killed more people than Osama Bin Laden in the war. Besides Bin Laden died in 2001.

[Marblehead]

Besides Bin Laden died in 2001.

 

Do you have any proof of that?

[wingzero]

[Marblehead]

[wingzero]

Soundslike one of those conspiracy theories again. No one who knows anything will identify themselves. And there is no evidence or any grave site.

 

Who were his wifes having sex with in that house in Pakistan? Wouldn't that qualify them for the death penalty under Islamic law?

 

No, I don't hold much value to such unsubstantiable sources. Just someone blowing smoke.

 

Yeah! It's smoke because you're a sheep in society who thinks the media tells the truth including your government. When they have lied to go to war and lied on what happened on 9/11. You've totally been brainwashed and social condition into believing what you believe when the evidence suggest otherwise. What you believe as evidence is only the CIA cooking the book. Its so obvios you believe in a lie.

 

Let me ask you a question, why did building 7 collapse on 9/11/

Edited May 15, 2011 by wingzero

[Jetsun]

Al-Qaeda in Pakistan who were supposedly in regular contact with Bin Laden believe he died recently as they have been blowing up loads of people in retaliation.

[wingzero]

Al-Qaeda in Pakistan who were supposedly in regular contact with Bin Laden believe he died recently as they have been blowing up loads of people in retaliation.

 

 

Al-Qaeda is funded and created by the CIA. Saying that just completely discredit the western media on bin laden's death. Thanks for the support man.

[gendao]

Al-Qaeda is funded and created by the CIA. Saying that just completely discredit the western media on bin laden's death. Thanks for the support man.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-T1T2q9-D38

Considering all the recent public exposes of blatant wartime lies by the US (WMDs, etc)...I don't see why anyone still puts any stock in their propaganda anymore??

 

Again, I think there is a generation gap where Baby Boomers seem to remain diehard government believers vs the "conspiracy theory" generation raised on more open source info.

 

The question though is which side keeps gaining more credibility and which side keeps losing it?

Edited May 15, 2011 by vortex

[Marblehead]

Yeah! It's smoke because you're a sheep in society who thinks the media tells the truth including your government. When they have lied to go to war and lied on what happened on 9/11. You've totally been brainwashed and social condition into believing what you believe when the evidence suggest otherwise. What you believe as evidence is only the CIA cooking the book. Its so obvios you believe in a lie.

 

Well, first, don't ever think you know me or that you know what I believe. Do do not. In fact, you haven't got a clue.

 

Let me ask you a question, why did building 7 collapse on 9/11/

 

I have no freaking idea and I really don't care at all.

 

I know that there are a lot of people who believe in all the conspiracy theory BS but I assure you, that is all it is.

 

Now, granted, the govenment of the nation I am a very proud citizen of has told many lies in the past and I don't expect that to change much in the future. But then all governments are filled with thieves and liars so what makes the United States of America so special in that regard?

 

So you can go ahead and believe all the lies you like but don't be putting any of your lies on me because they just don't fit.

Edited May 15, 2011 by Marblehead

[Marblehead]

Al-Qaeda is funded and created by the CIA. Saying that just completely discredit the western media on bin laden's death. Thanks for the support man.

 

That is pure bullshit and an outright lie.

 

The fact is, yes, the CIA did support ben Laden when he was fighting the Soviets. After the Soviets left the CIA stopped funding him. This pissed him off. He tried to gain control of Afghanistan and failed. He went back home and nobody wanted he. His ego would let it go. So he started his own war and picked the US as his primary target because it was the US CIA that gave him his first let-down.

 

Now, ben Laden intentionally killed women and children. Yes, the US war machine has killed non-combatants too but never intentionally except on an individual misguided aspcet.

 

Now, if you want to believe that ben Laden has gone to heaven and now has his 47 virgins and his comely boys then that is up to you. But I will not allow you to tell lies about the nation I served twenty years of my life defending. You probably have no idea what it is the be a proud American. Don't tread on us. That is a warning.

 

No, I do not support what my government is doing in the Middle East. I think it is all misguided efforts. But that is what life is right now and no scum bag like ben Laden is going to get away with doing the things he did. He deserved to die the way he did. Two shots and a splash of water.

[Marblehead]

 

Considering all the recent public exposes of blatant wartime lies by the US (WMDs, etc)...I don't see why anyone still puts any stock in their propaganda anymore??

 

Again, I think there is a generation gap where Baby Boomers seem to remain diehard government believers vs the "conspiracy theory" generation raised on more open source info.

 

The question though is which side keeps gaining more credibility and which side keeps losing it?

 

 

Vortex,

 

Shame on you. That's all I've got to say.

[bodyoflight]

Vortex,

 

Shame on you. That's all I've got to say.

 

The Buddha when he was in his human incarnation wasn't perfect but still he was far more evolved than any one else on the planet in his time and today..

 

He is certainly far more evolved than each and every one of his critic in this insignificant little thread.