[Buddha-l] Re: Buddhist pacifism

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 14:24 +1000, Kate wrote:

> Sorry for the lame example.  It was the best I could come up with on a
> Sunday morning.  Why do you consider getting rid of pests a kind of aversion
> rather than prudent or wise? I agree that termites are just doing what
> termites do but wouldn't it be considered wise to stop them from doing
> so.

It all hinges on what kind of wisdom you are talking about. If you are
talking about a banker's wisdom, then protecting your investment is
wise. If you are talking about the Buddha's wisdom of renunciation, then
protecting your house is a form of attachment.

> The act is done to save the house, not to kill the termites.

If the act is done to save the house, that is attachment. If the method
of saving the house is to kill termites, then your intention is to kill
the termites, and that is aversion.

> I agree it is unwholesome to harm an assailant which is why any reaction
> should be as non-violent as possible.  I can't remember the details but I
> recall reading a Buddhist tale in which a murderer was terrorising a town.

<snip>

> As it turned out, his act didn't attract karma
> vipaka after all.  His willingness to kill and go to hell to protect others
> negated his having to go to hell. 

The only version of this story I have heard says that the person who
saved the town did go to hell. Why? Because he killed someone. The point
of the story is that every action has a consequence. Killing someone has
the consequence of that person's death. If someone is willing to go to
hell in order to save others, then let the killing begin.

>  Wouldn't this apply to anyone who is forced to act in defence?

No one is forced to do anything. If you choose to act in self defense,
and if so doing entails killing someone, then you are choosing to kill
someone. That person is no less dead because you killed her in self-
defense. And the reason you chose to kill the person does not in any way
alter the act that your intention was to kill her. I am afraid there is
no getting off the hook. Any attempt to do so is nothing but
rationalization, and that is ignorance.

So you save your life (which manifests your attachment) by killing
another (which manifests aversion), and then you rationalize it (which
manifests delusion). You just drew the card that says "Go directly to
dukkha. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200."

-- 
Richard Hayes