PDA

View Full Version : Do Not Kill?



Gnosis Cupitor
31 May 12, 18:00
I replied to a post in the Mahayana/Vajrayana section of this Forum, about killing. I wanted to ask it here for everyone of all schools to answer. I personally believe in that, there is no reason to kill at all, whatsoever, unless it is an enemy that is bent on your destruction, with no remorse, and absolutely no way of talking to them, or using non-violent action. So here is the question...

Is it blameless to kill, when the enemy is one who can't be spoken to, stopped through peaceful protests, or non-violent actions, and is only bent on your destruction, and that of your loved ones, and in self defense?

Many examples would be War in general, the genocide in Africa, the horror wrought by the Nazis, and Islamic terrorists.

I would like to remind everyone of the monk who had killed himself because he was in so much pain, that his practice was going nowhere, and was considered 'blameless' by the Buddha when questioned about it. The Buddha was the most logical man I know.

Aloka
31 May 12, 18:49
Hi musicizgod,


We have some other threads about killing which were recently posted on the website:

http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/showthread.php?2614-Preventing-harm-to-creatures


http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/showthread.php?2656-About-Killing-living-beings


http://www.buddhismwithoutboundaries.com/showthread.php?2244-euthanasia

Gnosis Cupitor
31 May 12, 19:28
But this is a specific question as to wether or not it is wrong to kill another human being out of pure self defense, with no other options such as peaceful talks, non-violent action, and the like. Not euthanasia, or killing animals, but another human being, more so in the times of war, and the defense of yourself, and loved ones, when no other logical option is available, when the attacker wants nothing more then your life.

Aloka
31 May 12, 19:49
But this is a specific question as to wether or not it is wrong to kill another human being out of pure self defense, with no other options such as peaceful talks, non-violent action, and the like. Not euthanasia, or killing animals, but another human being, more so in the times of war, and the defense of yourself, and loved ones, when no other logical option is available, when the attacker wants nothing more then your life.


Sure - but I thought you might be interested in the other threads too. ;D

Personally I wouldn't be able to kill another human being in self defense. Not only because its wrong to kill but because I'm just not capable of killing someone (or an animal) - so I'd probably rather die myself instead of taking another life.


.

Element
31 May 12, 20:12
for me, karma (action) is something that only has relevance in relation to the result (vipaka)

the result is: (1) how it affects the lives of others; and (2) how it affects your conscience

the sutta states:


Intention, I tell you, is kamma.

AN 6.63 (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an06/an06.063.than.html)

;D

Gnosis Cupitor
31 May 12, 20:24
I was hoping you would reply. Your like a Pali Canon Library/Librarian in one package, it's awesome! :hands:

So if the intention would be to defend your people, your family, to sustain peace, then the act of killing in retaliation could not be considered bad Kamma? And of course, when there is no other way, through peaceful protest, or non-violent action, or physical restraint.

Gnosis Cupitor
31 May 12, 20:29
I mainly ask, because my cousin in law is in the Army, and I myself am a big patriot, and believe in the war we are fighting against people such as Al-Quaeda. And there is a possibility that after three months of College, I may join myself.

Gnosis Cupitor
31 May 12, 20:33
Sure - but I thought you might be interested in the other threads too. ;D

Personally I wouldn't be able to kill another human being in self defense. Not only because its wrong to kill but because I'm just not capable of killing someone (or an animal) - so I'd probably rather die myself instead of taking another life.


.

I understand where your coming from, Aloka. And sorry, I had thought maybe you were suggesting the question was invalid because of the other threads.

But what if you have a child who is being attacked? What if you were a School Teacher in Africa, teaching one of the many tribes that are being systematically murdered simply because they exist? Would you let a few rogue soldiers come into your school, and just take/rape/kill the children under your care, when say, under your desk you have a .45 a family member or Husband may have given you? Would it not be 'bad Kamma' in fact, to not act when you could have?

Element
31 May 12, 20:39
personally, i think a larger scale war, for example in Iraq or Afganistan, is different to the microcosmic example you gave of killing another human being out of self-defence

men often return from war very traumatised, at times, for life

war is often connected to politics, innocent people are often killed in war, dehumanising the enemy & the soldiers often occurs, the culture & repetitiveness of killing can lead to habituation and a lack of opportunity to tune into the (inner) results of one's actions

kind regards

;D

Gnosis Cupitor
31 May 12, 20:42
I'm not saying is it okay on a large scale, to go to war in general. But to that individual in those situations during those wars, like the holocaust, and the African genocide going on now, as well as the genocide going on in the Middle East. As that individual, as a Buddhist, would it be wrong to kill in defense of another individual, an innocent?

And I completely agree. I don't like war. And most of the 'noble reasons' behind the wars are only a mask to the real, and usually, money caused reasons.

Aloka
31 May 12, 20:48
Would you let a few rogue soldiers come into your school, and just take/rape/kill the children under your care, when say, under your desk you have a .45 a family member or Husband may have given you? Would it not be 'bad Kamma' in fact, to not act when you could have


I am a schoolteacher - if I was in a situation where someone was going to attack a class of kids I don't know what I'd do is the honest answer.

I have no experience of guns. Its against the law to have guns in the UK so there definately wouldn't be a 45 under any desk ....and my husband is dead .(and would never have carried a gun anyway. He was very gentle and was never aggressive)

Abhaya
31 May 12, 20:51
The first precept as taught by the Buddha was a call against killing. This should speak for itself.



The Five Precepts

1. Panatipata veramani sikkhapadam samadiyami
I undertake the precept to refrain from destroying living creatures.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sila/pancasila.html


Killing others is a violation of the first precept and should be avoided at all costs. Although intention does factor into the act, killing is never completely blameless. The Buddha discouraged violence at every opportunity.



Dhammapada: Dandavagga (Violence)

129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/dhp/dhp.10.budd.html


Furthermore, the concept of a just war does not exist in the Buddha's earliest teachings. War, although a reality in this world, is not a path to be followed by those sincerely aspiring to be rid of dukkha. It is a reality of samsara, but samsara need not be indulged in by practitioners on the path of liberation from samsara.



Maha-dukkhakkhandha Sutta (MN 13)

"Again, it is with sensuality for the reason, sensuality for the source... that (men), taking swords & shields and buckling on bows & quivers, charge into battle massed in double array while arrows & spears are flying and swords are flashing; and there they are wounded by arrows & spears, and their heads are cut off by swords, so that they incur death or deadly pain. Now this drawback too in the case of sensuality, this mass of stress visible here & now, has sensuality for its reason, sensuality for its source, sensuality for its cause, the reason being simply sensuality.

"Again, it is with sensuality for the reason, sensuality for the source... that (men), taking swords & shields and buckling on bows & quivers, charge slippery bastions while arrows & spears are flying and swords are flashing; and there they are splashed with boiling cow dung and crushed under heavy weights, and their heads are cut off by swords, so that they incur death or deadly pain. Now this drawback too in the case of sensuality, this mass of stress visible here & now, has sensuality for its reason, sensuality for its source, sensuality for its cause, the reason being simply sensuality."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.013.than.html


In my personal practice, violence is never justified and killing is never something to be proud of, regardless of the intention or outcome.

Gnosis Cupitor
31 May 12, 21:04
I understand. And i'm sorry to hear that Aloka. And glad to hear about the UK law, I love that! Do they still have monitered gun ranges for practice, however? Otherwise that may just be a tool to keep the military strong and the people weak.

But avoiding it at all costs? What if those costs are future einsteins and world leaders? What if the cost of not killing that African soldier, who is so far gone psychologically, is the torture, rape, and life of several children?

Is it bad Karma to help an innocent? To prevent genocide?

Abhaya
31 May 12, 21:07
Is it bad Karma to help an innocent? To prevent genocide?

To see killing as the only solution is to neglect the manifold other ways to prevent such things.

Gnosis Cupitor
31 May 12, 21:10
That is the point though, Abhaya. What if there is no other way? What if it is 'this', or 'that', and in that particular case, those three soldiers lives, or the kidnapping/rape/killing of those several children?

Abhaya
31 May 12, 21:13
When would there be "no other way"? My wildest imagination cannot come up with such a scenario. People may assume that severe situations such as murder underpinned by insanity, rape with no end in sight, genocide, and so on call for severe reactions. Yet I would challenge those thinkers to step back, and rather than act on an impulse, think creatively. There are plenty of alternatives. These aren't always apparent until deeper reflection, but I would certainly consider them more worthwhile than taking the easy way out (by killing), which ultimately solves nothing.

Gnosis Cupitor
31 May 12, 21:19
Why? Those situations exist, and happen, every single day. That is the point of the question. What creativity is there for three soldiers opening the door and telling everyone to get down or be shot? Your in the middle of teaching class when they come in, and as you drop to the floor, you know, and fully realise the gun in the bottom drawer given to you for protection. You know that the intention of these men is to take the boys for soldiering, and to most likely kill or rape the girls. You know all these things, having been warned before coming to Africa to teach these people. You know that you can take that gun, and stop all of this evil, by simply pulling the trigger, then dropping it afterwards, never to pick it up again.

What exactly are the thoughts and creativity you are challenging to come out?

Gnosis Cupitor
31 May 12, 21:21
You think that is the easy way out? Having to witness such horrors as that? Having to live each day thereafter, if you survive, knowing that, yes, you could have stopped it, yes you could have saved those children, but no, you did not stop it, no, you watched it.

Victorious
31 May 12, 21:24
I think Elements answer says it all.

Intent is the key.

If you kill another out of hate,greed or ignorance of the path it is according to Buddhism an ill act. But if I kill someone because it is the only way to save the lives of others?

Then what is my intent? Is it not to save life?

I guess in a ethical discussion all things are debatable but getting to the hard facts there is no reason on earth I would not kill to save my family from harm.
It is one thing what I believe is Buddhist morale but that does not change my responsibility as a family father...

But would I be able to kill anothers child to save mine? I do not know and at the end of the day everybody are somebodys child. No?

This life is a strife and the line between barbarism and civilism is paper thin. In fact it is non exsistant other than in the heads of men. There are no rules here in this world but those we choose to adher to and lift up as valuable. Anatta. Everything is as valid as everything else except in the mind.

In the case you make I would say no not to save my own life only. But I know that my kids need me still so for their sake I would kill to save my life.

Then again I believe in facing the world like a warrior and not as a floating aimless boat. A fighter chooses his battles and if you are cornered in a place you do not much like then you have lost.

It is like walking into a hiding place with only one opening while persued by your enemy. Anybody who does that deserves to die.

So if you are a player in this life and end up at a moment where you must chose to have to kill for some reason you have lifted up as valuable then you have lost the game.

That is what I think.

Cheers
Victor

Abhaya
31 May 12, 21:24
Of course those situations exist and happen every day. My question was why would there be "no other way" of dealing with them other than by killing the perpetrator? The impulse to kill in such a situation is the typical line of thought, but not the only way of approaching the topic of violence and killing. The point of my inquiry was to motivate reflection, not conformity to impulsive thinking.

Take the time and invest the effort into thinking outside the box, and it will become clear. There are many practical alternatives. Not obvious ones, but alternatives nonetheless.

However, I'm not about to draft a manifesto to share on this site. To get all of it down in writing would be far beyond the scope of a Buddhist chat forum. If, however, you would be willing to give me a number of weeks to prepare a proposal that I could share privately, I would be more than happy to do so. I enjoy these types of "assignments". In the meantime, give violence and killing some thoughtful reflection. I promise to do the same. ;D

Abhaya
31 May 12, 21:25
You think that is the easy way out? Having to witness such horrors as that? Having to live each day thereafter, if you survive, knowing that, yes, you could have stopped it, yes you could have saved those children, but no, you did not stop it, no, you watched it.

No need to make this into anything personal.

:hands:

Gnosis Cupitor
31 May 12, 21:27
Lol. I'm not. I am just saying. You said it was the 'easy' way out. I was making it clear and blunt, that it is in fact, not the easy way out.

If anything, the easy way out would be to do nothing, to declare pacifism.

Abhaya
31 May 12, 21:31
By easy, I don't mean simple or free of emotional distress. By easy, I mean fastest and most certain.

Killing may appear to be the easy solution in extreme situations, as it is the only guarantee that the perpetrator ceases causing immense harm to others.

Pacifism is something that few people have the strength to muster. It requires going against everything society has taught a person. There are some so-called pacifists who are passive and do nothing. There are others who are active and find working alternatives. To be actively pacifistic is the one that requires the most effort.

Gnosis Cupitor
31 May 12, 21:34
I understand fully. But I am talking about the particular case, where no matter how you look at it, it is either them, or the innocents. There is no talking, there is no alternative. They have the guns, the power, and the lack of want, to be nice? They know very well what they are there for. And they will do it, unless you do something about it.

And Bravery is also something few people have the strength to muster. The ability to fight the fear, and go beyond, to act, and do what must be done for the sake of another.

Gnosis Cupitor
31 May 12, 21:37
The Jews still exist today, ONLY, because of great men, brave men, who took the risk to their own lives, who took the lives of others, with an evil ideology that proclaimed death to an entire people.

Victorious
31 May 12, 21:39
You think that is the easy way out? Having to witness such horrors as that? Having to live each day thereafter, if you survive, knowing that, yes, you could have stopped it, yes you could have saved those children, but no, you did not stop it, no, you watched it.


Many people make this mistake. Mostly people from sheltered societies exposed all of a sudden to harsh realities that exist in other places.

As you say these things happen all the time everywhere in this world. And you can do lots to stop these things. Yet you dont. If you think it is so horrible? Why do you not? Because you are not there? Does it become less horrible for those involved at one place because you were not there? I do not get it. You are more concearned with your own feeling than that of those suffering? How noble.

Just because in one instance you were there and could do something about it...what about the ten thousand other places you could not be? Was it less horrible there?

Every second you can do something to save someone somewhere. And mostly it does not involve killing someone rather it involves living for someone. Why dont you?


/Victor

Abhaya
31 May 12, 21:39
Then we fundamentally disagree on whether such a scenario is possible. I don't think there could be a case where no matter how one looks at it, it is either them or the innocents. Call me unrealistic, but I have never been one to conform to the majority perspective.

Thank you for your understanding. Let us all be the embodiment of bravery.

http://www.abhayayogacenter.com/hp4.jpg

:hands:

Gnosis Cupitor
31 May 12, 21:47
Have you ever read about the holocaust? Have you seen the news on what goes on in africa? There is no majority opinion to it. It's simply fact. Situations like that happen everyday.

Jews were taken to camps, and gased on a regular basis. Africa is a living hell, you can ask anyone who has been there. That situation I named, is very real, but the case where the gun is available to the innocent one, is rare.

Gnosis Cupitor
31 May 12, 21:49
By and by, what I have meant by all of this, is that I think, personally, the Buddha would have indeed approved of the actions of those brave men, those soldiers in WW2, because it is a people on a whole, for no other reason, other then being them, not bad, not evil, simply common folk living day by day, being slaughtered for no reason at all other then their genetics/ethnicity.

The only logical conclusion to genocide when there is either fight, or be killed, is to fight. And to say otherwise, is to choose your death, the death of your loved ones, and possibly even the death of Buddhism, should that have been attacked instead of Jews.

The precept of no killing was meant for the every day life, and had nothing to do with defending an entire people against needless slaughter.

Gnosis Cupitor
31 May 12, 21:50
But lets agree to disagree, Abhaya! Sorry if I seemed angry in any of those posts. I wasn't. Just heated. It's how I get when I really get into a discussion about something such as this.

Gnosis Cupitor
31 May 12, 21:54
Many people make this mistake. Mostly people from sheltered societies exposed all of a sudden to harsh realities that exist in other places.

As you say these things happen all the time everywhere in this world. And you can do lots to stop these things. Yet you dont. If you think it is so horrible? Why do you not? Because you are not there? Does it become less horrible for those involved at one place because you were not there? I do not get it. You are more concearned with your own feeling than that of those suffering? How noble.

Just because in one instance you were there and could do something about it...what about the ten thousand other places you could not be? Was it less horrible there?

Every second you can do something to save someone somewhere. And mostly it does not involve killing someone rather it involves living for someone. Why dont you?


/Victor

Victorious. This entire discussion has been based on the person 'being there'. In that exact situation, or others like it. I have no idea why you are saying all of those things, other then to attack me.

This has had to do with the First Precept. I am not ranting about how we need to go out of our way to save these people, as much as i'd like to, your right, it happens every day. As I clearly said many times, if you ARE in the situation...

Abhaya
31 May 12, 21:56
There seems to be a misunderstanding here. I am not denying the severity and tragedy of the Holocaust, African genocides, or any other historical events.

I am simply suggesting there are alternatives to killing people in return for killing people.

To speculate on whether the Buddha would or would not have supported WWII or other wars is just that - speculation.

Logic has no guarantees.

Opinions will vary.



Kalama Sutta (AN 3.65)

"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html

Abhaya
31 May 12, 21:58
But lets agree to disagree, Abhaya! Sorry if I seemed angry in any of those posts. I wasn't. Just heated. It's how I get when I really get into a discussion about something such as this.

No worries. I will bow out respectfully at this point. Hopefully my contributions weren't entirely useless.

Gnosis Cupitor
31 May 12, 21:59
They weren't, Abhaya! I understand you, as you understand me. This is just a discussion on wether or not to act, to kill, when that is all there is left.

And thank you for that quote!

Victorious
31 May 12, 22:18
Victorious. This entire discussion has been based on the person 'being there'. In that exact situation, or others like it. I have no idea why you are saying all of those things, other then to attack me.

This has had to do with the First Precept. I am not ranting about how we need to go out of our way to save these people, as much as i'd like to, your right, it happens every day. As I clearly said many times, if you ARE in the situation...

No not to attack you. To make you think. you weren't making much sense some posts ago but as you say later it was a heated discussion. :hands:

Peace.

I think there is no leway in the first precept. It is wrong to kill. Period.

But while living in this Samsara we do not have a choice some times. But that does not IMO relieve us of the burden of the act of killing. It would have been bad to kill Breivik but on the other hand it would have been good to save all those children. So killing Breivik you would have done one bad thing and one good thing. Live with it.

According to the classical view of kamma we can not escape it. An action with ill intent based on lobha dosa moha brings bad results.

The assumption that killing sometimes is excempt (did I spell that allright?) from kamma law is IMO a point made through out buddhist history to relieve the burden of genocide from old rulers and kings.

If you make a choice then you got to live with it. That is life. I mean if your child is threateaned you do not stand around wondering how to act so as not to get sued in a court of law by the person threatening your child. You just act and deal with the consequences later.

/Victor

Gnosis Cupitor
01 Jun 12, 00:08
"It is wrong to kill. Period."

It may be sad to take a life, but to outright say it is wrong, is an opinion. And, IMO, wrong itself. Was it wrong to kill the S.S. of the Nazi Regime, to free the jews and other captives from the camps, from being gased and systematically murdered? No. It was the only option, a sad one, but one forced upon the Allies by the Nazis. If you have a few hundred prisoners in a camp a few clicks away from your camp, do you rally your troops to go ask them to nicely not murder all of those innocent people? No. You go in guns blazing, and save them from that horror.

And you really should have read the entire thread if you were going to make such statements. I gave very specific, in the moment circumstances. What would you do if you were that teacher? I would hopefully pull the gun from the bottom drawer and try my best to alleviate as much suffering from the children as possible by taking out their attackers.

I believe in logic, and protecting the masses, and the innocent ones therein. When a few decide that a race or ethnicity is not worthy of life, and are not capable of being turned from that viewpoint, do you protest them all the while they set those innocent, beautiful people to the firing squads? No. Well, you can, but I like to think i'd be better then that. You can't always cling to a precept that was given for every day life, and not for special cases such as the holocaust, Islamic Terrorism, and the genocide being done in Africa, you have to think of it in a wider range, taking into account the many lives being taken by an insane few, a few who cannot be talked to about it, who can't be protested, who will not stop but by force alone. You have to think about the impact being done to society as a whole. Your right, it's wrong to make the choice to kill, but it's not wrong to kill when the choice is being made for you, with no alternatives.

You never did answer that question, that particular scenario, Victorious. Would you have sit by and let them kill/rape every last one of those younglings? And if not, would you feel like a coward as you witness, first hand, the horror they would have inflicted upon them?

Was it wrong for the men of those villages who wanted nothing more then happiness, love, and safety for their children, to fight back and kill as many of those genocidal maniacs as possible? No. It was sad that the choice was made for them.

I think perhaps there is a clinging, an attachment, an indoctrination, to the first precept. The Buddha did not have genocide in his days. There was noone killing another, bent on wiping out an entire race/ethnicity, simply because they were who they were, their genetics. I love the Buddha, and what he taught, but he was also a very logical and realistic man. He would have not enjoyed the holocaust, but he would also have understood what we had to do, the people we had to kill, to free those people.

When it comes to evils such as the holocaust, there is no choice for pacifism, unless you would like to simply sit back and watch the destruction. Imagine where we would be today if we did that to the Nazis? Well. I would be fine, i'm supposedly apart of the Master Race, you however, would have been either enslaved or killed.

Perhaps the 'intention to kill' comes into this too, like Element had mentioned/quoted. We never intended to kill those people who are out there using genocide to wipe out entire ethnicities, they forced our hand, by not leaving any alternatives.

Stefos
01 Jun 12, 02:16
Musicizgod,

To me, having done comparative religious studies for a number of years now and meditating also, have allowed me to perceived this:

Killing vs. Murder is not the same idea.

Killing:

In the animal kingdom, animals who operate on instinct not intellect, attack and eat different species or even one another.
If we are strict vegetarians, We must kill tofu to eat it and we must kill life in water to drink water.
If we are meat eaters, Consider the mental state of the meat eater and consider the mental state of the animal at it's time of death, which is usually violent.

Meat consumption is NOW not a necessity any more as alternate forms of food exist which provide the nutrition of meat.
I do not condemn people who eat meat as they might be ignorant about this or their particular religion o.k.'s this practice.
I myself stopped eating meat for a number of years and recently started eating meat due to the fact that other people's beliefs aren't mine and if I was invited to go to their home for lunch/dinner, I would cater to them. I however do wish to remain a vegetarian.

Whether a person is a Christian, Muslim, Jew, "Hindu" (I hate that term!), Buddhist, Jain, occult practitioner, etc. THESE are the salient points.

Murder on the other hand deals with human on human morals & ethics sir.

For example, I murder you because I have hatred about you or the concept of "you" that I have.
Nationalism, political party affiliation, selfish ambition and religion play a part in causing war and the galvanizing of the mind towards attacking another person.

When politics in a nation or between nations become muddied and/or religion comes in, murder ensues and people call this "our struggle", the "righteous cause", our "patriotic duty," etc.

As the Bible, the Buddha and others have stated: This is a cause & effect world and WE have made it what it is.
Do we as sensitive and mindful people understand this salient point also?

Clarity on whether something is killing or murder is necessary as this world is simply rampant with this type of vagueness.

I hope this makes sense. I also have not attained to being perfect so grace is given to others.
Thank you,
Stefos

Gnosis Cupitor
01 Jun 12, 02:34
Hey there, Stefos. And yes it does. It makes alot of sense. Your right, there is a big difference between murder and killing. Murder is what was done to the holocaust victims, killing is what was done to the men who did it to them, the Nazis.

"Clarity on whether something is killing or murder is necessary as this world is simply rampant with this type of vagueness."

Exactly. That is why I created this thread. Because as a Buddhist, I will not kill a single thing should I be able to help it, and try to resolve any and all conflicts in a peaceful manner, but as a realist and logical man, I understand that people like Islamic Terrorists and the past Nazis are people who have to be fought back with violence, sadly, because that is the 'only possible option left'. I made this thread to sort of challenge the minds of the many Buddhists here, or perhaps maybe I would be shown wrong? But it is just too unlikely to think that the Buddha had meant absolutely no killing, when there really just are times that it is absolutely necessary for the better of the whole of the Human Species. We can't allow people like this to continue on, we must come together to stop tragedies such as this, and obviously peaceful protest and non-violent action will not work, and only when every alternative is explored, which those alternatives for most of the terrorists/murderers today have been explored, there is only one option left, the death and/or imprisonment of them, for the better of the majority, for the defense of the helpless.

"Meat consumption is NOW not a necessity any more as alternate forms of food exist which provide the nutrition of meat."

Yeah, but sure is a hell of alot cheaper then eating vegetarian, sadly. Here in america at least. It is cheaper here probably to eat McDonalds then it is a pure vegetarian/healthy diet.

Deshy
01 Jun 12, 03:48
Is it blameless to kill, when the enemy is one who can't be spoken to, stopped through peaceful protests, or non-violent actions, and is only bent on your destruction, and that of your loved ones, and in self defense?

My short answer is yes, given the circumstances. Morality is not abiding my a strict code of conduct when certain situations imply that doing so causes more harm than good.

Gnosis Cupitor
01 Jun 12, 03:55
I agree Deshy. There just comes a point when there needs to be action taken, of course, go through all peaceful outlets first, but logically/realistically, you just simply cannot be a pacifist in everything. I think the Buddha had meant the first precept for everyday life, not in times of war, when there is no other option but to fight, or be killed. It's one thing to not fight back in a fist fight, another to watch your people be killed one after the other and not pick up a weapon and help the helpless.

Deshy
01 Jun 12, 04:02
I understand that people like Islamic Terrorists and the past Nazis are people who have to be fought back with violence, sadly, because that is the 'only possible option left'.

Just as a side note, whether or not "war against terrorism" itself is really in defense of terrorism, the 'only possible option left' for the benefit of the majority in the world and that there are no political or economic agendas involved is highly debatable so you might as well not use it as an example in a Buddhist forum. Just my 2 cents

Gnosis Cupitor
01 Jun 12, 04:08
Ahhhhh. Thank you. That probably is not the best example, simply my own opinion on how I personally see things. Thanks for the advice! :)

Deshy
01 Jun 12, 04:14
Ok np ;)

Victorious
01 Jun 12, 05:59
"It is wrong to kill. Period."

It may be sad to take a life, but to outright say it is wrong, is an opinion. And, IMO, wrong itself. Was it wrong to kill the S.S. of the Nazi Regime, to free the jews and other captives from the camps, from being gased and systematically murdered? No. It was the only option, a sad one, but one forced upon the Allies by the Nazis. If you have a few hundred prisoners in a camp a few clicks away from your camp, do you rally your troops to go ask them to nicely not murder all of those innocent people? No. You go in guns blazing, and save them from that horror.

And you really should have read the entire thread if you were going to make such statements. I gave very specific, in the moment circumstances. What would you do if you were that teacher? I would hopefully pull the gun from the bottom drawer and try my best to alleviate as much suffering from the children as possible by taking out their attackers.

I believe in logic, and protecting the masses, and the innocent ones therein. When a few decide that a race or ethnicity is not worthy of life, and are not capable of being turned from that viewpoint, do you protest them all the while they set those innocent, beautiful people to the firing squads? No. Well, you can, but I like to think i'd be better then that. You can't always cling to a precept that was given for every day life, and not for special cases such as the holocaust, Islamic Terrorism, and the genocide being done in Africa, you have to think of it in a wider range, taking into account the many lives being taken by an insane few, a few who cannot be talked to about it, who can't be protested, who will not stop but by force alone. You have to think about the impact being done to society as a whole. Your right, it's wrong to make the choice to kill, but it's not wrong to kill when the choice is being made for you, with no alternatives.

You never did answer that question, that particular scenario, Victorious. Would you have sit by and let them kill/rape every last one of those younglings? And if not, would you feel like a coward as you witness, first hand, the horror they would have inflicted upon them?

Was it wrong for the men of those villages who wanted nothing more then happiness, love, and safety for their children, to fight back and kill as many of those genocidal maniacs as possible? No. It was sad that the choice was made for them.

I think perhaps there is a clinging, an attachment, an indoctrination, to the first precept. The Buddha did not have genocide in his days. There was noone killing another, bent on wiping out an entire race/ethnicity, simply because they were who they were, their genetics. I love the Buddha, and what he taught, but he was also a very logical and realistic man. He would have not enjoyed the holocaust, but he would also have understood what we had to do, the people we had to kill, to free those people.

When it comes to evils such as the holocaust, there is no choice for pacifism, unless you would like to simply sit back and watch the destruction. Imagine where we would be today if we did that to the Nazis? Well. I would be fine, i'm supposedly apart of the Master Race, you however, would have been either enslaved or killed.

Perhaps the 'intention to kill' comes into this too, like Element had mentioned/quoted. We never intended to kill those people who are out there using genocide to wipe out entire ethnicities, they forced our hand, by not leaving any alternatives.

I do not think you understand. That it is wrong to kill with ill intent in any circumstance is not a negotiable Buddhist standard. It is not MY opinion.

But to answer your question I would try to stop those men yes.

But what I am saying is that according to Buddhism there still is blame in such an act that you can not disregard. It is maybe the most skillfull thing that you can do in that situation but one should not delude oneself that that is a good action.

The good action was saving the children from harm not stopping the men by killing them. But for the sake of saving the children I am prepared to do the ill deed necessary.

Compromising a moral teaching like you are asking is a very dangerous road which leads to sanctioned genocide (I know because it has happened in my Country) and other questionable things like the Templars or Inquisition.

/Victor

Yuan
01 Jun 12, 06:44
It is not about "right" or "wrong." And it is not about whether Buddha will or will not approve of such an action. It is about karma. It is about whether you understand the consequence of your actions, and whether you are prepared to handle the consequences.

For example, let us say that A killed B to save C. A will incur bad karma with B, so B (or if you don't believe in rebirth, B's friends and families) will want its revenge on A. But A will also generate good karma with C, so C will want to "repay" A in some fashion. In the big scheme of things, there are also karma in the public. Some people unrelated to the incident will think A is 'justified', and will have good will toward A. Others will not.

Now the problem is that when B wants its revenge, it might be in the form of violence. So A has a choice, does A kills B to save himself, or does A put himself at B's mercy? Or maybe C comes out and kills B to save A. It doesn't matter if A kills B, or B kills A, or C kills B, more karma are generated among these 3 and the cycle repeats until the killing stops.

The modern conflicts between the Western world and fundamental Muslims, or Israelis and Arabs illustrate these cycles clearly. In this case, A and B are groups of people, and karma generated are 'collective karma' and are suffered by the group as a whole. In both cases, A thinks they are justified in killing B, and B thinks they are justified in killing A. Who's right and who's wrong? I guess it all depends on whether you identify with A or B.

However, I am not saying that A should let B kill C, or let B kill A, because karma are generated here as well.

The only way to stop the cycle is to figure out how to stop "the killing." And if you cannot figure out how to stop, you will forever mired in the cycles and not able to be liberated from samsara.

So to me, percepts are not definition of "right" and "wrong." We should refrain from violating the percepts because doing so will keep us from liberation.




.

Deshy
01 Jun 12, 13:18
It is wrong to kill. Period.


There is no period there. Precepts should never be taken up as a stick code of conduct like the way you are stating here. While it is unquestionable that killing for revenge, to resolve issues which can be resolved through other means, for political/economic benefits or racist views etc is against Buddhist moral conduct, it is irrational to over-generalize the act of killing as always done with harmful/egoistic intentions.

Dave The Seeker
01 Jun 12, 13:40
Murder is what was done to the holocaust victims, killing is what was done to the men who did it to them, the Nazis.

I am not attacking you using this quote, please understand that. This quote is a prime example of dualistic thinking.
Yes the Nazis murdered the not only the Jewish people, but many other races as well.
But by one choosing to pick up a weapon, and use it to take a life, is intent to commit murder.
Killing would be an accidental taking of a life.
Example: you're driving down a road and a deer jumps out in front of you and you hit it. You never had the intent of killing that deer. Yes you chose to drive your car, but you never intended to kill something/one in the process.

I believe the first Precept was not to kill at anytime.

When one joins a military structure one also is now encapsulated in 'Group Karma'.
All the killing done by the group is the Karma of all in the group. So even if one only murders one person, their Karma would be the murder of all by that group.


With Metta

Aloka
01 Jun 12, 14:01
their Karma


I've already mentioned this in our M/V forum but I'll post it here as well because I think its important. The Buddha said we shouldn't speculate about the results of kamma because its unconjecturable.






AN 4.77 - Acintita Sutta: Unconjecturable


"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?

"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...

"The [precise working out of the] results of kamma...

"Conjecture about [the origin, etc., of] the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.

"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."


http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.077.than.html


:hands:

Deshy
01 Jun 12, 15:16
I believe the first Precept was not to kill at anytime.

I don't think so. The first precept is to prevent killing with harmful or ego-centric intentions. The act of killing is not what you need to focus on but the intention. It is irrational to over-generalize.

For example, there are instances that babies are born joined together and the doctor has to kill one baby to save the other or both babies die. So he kills the baby. Is his act based on harmful intentions?

Dave The Seeker
01 Jun 12, 15:50
For example, there are instances that babies are born joined together and the doctor has to kill one baby to save the other or both babies die. So he kills the baby. Is his act based on harmful intentions?

This example is a mute point. If each baby is a complete life form, with all necessary organs to survive, it will not die upon separation. If it doesn't have, as in incomplete, the necessary organs to live, it isn't a complete life form. So is the doctor actually "killing" a living being? Even if it is considered a 'parasite' to the other, parasites are living beings that can survive, to an extent, for a limited time, before attaching to it's 'host'

With Metta

Deshy
01 Jun 12, 17:25
So is the doctor actually "killing" a living being? Even if it is considered a 'parasite' to the other, parasites are living beings that can survive, to an extent, for a limited time, before attaching to it's 'host'

With Metta

Conjoined twins are considered as one human being? There are no incidents where complications arise later forcing doctors to take the life of one child to save the other?

In medical practices, sentient beings get killed to save and treat patients. Medical students experiment with sentient beings and have to kill them in the process. Doctors sometimes remove old patients from life support equipment in order to give the chance to a young patient who has more potential to recover. In agricultural practices, beings are killed. A person living in extremely cold weather conditions sometimes have to hunt for food. Most of these killings are not accidential.

The point is, there are incidences in life where we are confronted with situation that challenge our precepts. In such situations, the choice is not about right or wrong but skillful or unskilful intentions. Just my 2 cents

Dave The Seeker
01 Jun 12, 19:29
Conjoined twins are considered as one human being?
I did not say this, and don't believe I suggested it either.

What I did state was:

If each baby is a complete life form, with all necessary organs to survive, it will not die upon separation. If it doesn't have, as in incomplete, the necessary organs to live, it isn't a complete life form. So is the doctor actually "killing" a living being?

Also with the modern medical technology, if one is missing a vital organ or two, these can be added from a donor. In which both survive.

At any point in life, we are never forced to kill anything. It is a choice. Soldiers enlist with the knowledge they may very well be required to kill one or more people, because of the choice to enlist . It is a doctors choice to perform a procedure, it is a students choice to perform an experiment and in the process kill a living being, it is also a choice to remove someone from life support to hopefully save another, and it is also a choice for us to survive by killing a living being. The last point is in fact that we will not survive unless something does die in the production of our food. And the actual point is if we actually do the killing or someone else does it. But someone chooses to do what they do in the production of everything we need for living.
Also just my 2 cents.

With Metta

Gnosis Cupitor
01 Jun 12, 23:44
I don't think so. The first precept is to prevent killing with harmful or ego-centric intentions. The act of killing is not what you need to focus on but the intention. It is irrational to over-generalize.

For example, there are instances that babies are born joined together and the doctor has to kill one baby to save the other or both babies die. So he kills the baby. Is his act based on harmful intentions?

Exactly. There are just modern scientific and logical ways of looking at things, ways of seeing that can't be discarded simply because of a precept that was meant as a general way of life, not for specific circumstances that require the act. When the intention is to say, like in that situation, give one life by taking another, or by simply letting both die, the logical/rational conclusion is to take the one life, that is going to be taken either way, to save the other, to give the other a full and happy life. That doctor is not 'intending' to kill the other twin, simply to kill him/her, he is using the science he had learned and school, along with logic, and helping the one survive.

Rationality and logic should always come into play. Especially when it comes to medical emergencies such as that. We don't want to kill, we have to in order to save the other twins life. Otherwise, if you let them both die, 'knowing fully in your mind' that you are killing the other that has a chance of survival, you are in a way now breaking the first precept.



"Also with the modern medical technology, if one is missing a vital organ or two, these can be added from a donor. In which both survive."

Do you realise how hard donors are to find? And that there is a high chance the organs in such small children won't even work?


If we, as Buddhists, do not take logic, science, and rationality into our daily conclusions, in situations like this, then we are no different then the Christian Scientists and the like. Ignorant and stuck to a irrational doctrine.

Deshy
02 Jun 12, 06:32
At any point in life, we are never forced to kill anything. It is a choice.

By being "forced" I meant that you are not necessarily doing the act with ill-intentions to kill but you make the decision because it is the best suitable decision given the circumstances.

Medical students have to experiment with sentient beings. Killing them is sometimes part of the process. The only other choice left for them is walking away from the laboratory and finding another career. I don't recommend that all medical students do this because of a blind attachment to precepts.

You cannot say there are no incidences whatsoever where conjoined twins are born but one has to be removed later in order for the other to survive. There are still biological complications that modern medical
technology cannot resolve. A doctor in such a case makes the decision to remove one child not with the
intention to kill but with the intention to save at least one of them.

I have personally witnessed situations where a decision is made to remove a patient from life support for
someone with a better chance to survive. Literally, the doctors and family members involved are making the
decision to cause someone's death, not with the intention to kill but with the intention to save someone
with a better chance.

Deshy
02 Jun 12, 06:39
the actual point is if we actually do the killing or someone else does it. But someone chooses to do what they do in the production of everything we need for living.


lol, yea. You just have to sit there and eat so you can maintain moral high grounds while some farmer does the killing for you. :mrgreen:

There is no argument that it is best to refrain from killing as much as possible, specially with malicious intentions, even in life-threatening situations. But a precept is never meant "to be followed at all times" as you say. Buddhist moral conduct was not taught by the Buddha in this black/white, right/wrong ideology that morality is taught in other religions. The Buddha recommended moral conduct because sila helps abandon the five hindrances in meditation. The path is sila-> concentration -> wisdom.

So the idea is to conduct yourself in such a way that you do not cause harm with ill-intentions because a mind with such intentions is usually angry (viyapada), restless, worried and guilty (Uddachcha-kukkuchcha) and filled with doubt (vichikichcha). They obstruct samadhi. This is why morality is taught as it is taught by the Buddha.

Gnosis Cupitor
02 Jun 12, 06:56
I like this woman. Great head on her shoulders. Props to you, Deshy! :up2:

Gnosis Cupitor
02 Jun 12, 07:03
"lol, yea. You just have to sit there and eat so you can maintain moral high grounds while some farmer does the killing for you."

Exactly! A prime example of our own 'choice' in every day life, your choice to kill. When you eat meat, or non-organic foods, you are killing, each and every time, because those farmers 'are' killing those infestations in their crops with gases and pesticides, and to your 'full knowledge', because you 'are' purchasing their products. You don't have to eat non-organic foods, but hey, it's cheaper, no? Are you not 'killing'?

Dave The Seeker
02 Jun 12, 10:37
lol, yea. You just have to sit there and eat so you can maintain moral high grounds while some farmer does the killing for you.

I am a farmer, as a family we commercially raise grain and cattle. So I am not maintaining "moral high grounds".
I also do not in my daily practice recite the first precept as I know I can not keep it.
In my practice I also do the Preliminary Practice of Prostrations to the 35 Buddhas and the Medicine Buddhas, as possibly to help the massive amounts of negative Karma I create by the mass killing I am part of.
There's that K word again..........
I am against killing and will be selling out the farm when my dad passes or is unable to function anymore as he has Alzheimers. I just stay so he may enjoy what's left of his life, no matter the cost to me.
My points in this thread are to help others see that no matter how you choose to live, what actions one might choose to do, there is a "consequence" for the action of killing. I have great remorse for my daily actions, at times I'd rather leave the life I've lived for decades than continue on here. Heck I can weld and repair equipment and never kill another thing, have had many job offers, but my dad means more to me than anyone.


Exactly! A prime example of our own 'choice' in every day life, your choice to kill. When you eat meat, or non-organic foods, you are killing, each and every time, because those farmers 'are' killing those infestations in their crops with gases and pesticides, and to your 'full knowledge', because you 'are' purchasing their products. You don't have to eat non-organic foods, but hey, it's cheaper, no? Are you not 'killing'?

No matter how a product is produced, insects are killed. There are "organic" pesticides.

The only thing we're doing for our own food from our garden, which is organic, is beginning a permaculture type setting. In which the ground is never being tilled and the only digging is done where the plants are to be placed.
My home is vegetarian, not only for the reason of compassion but heath reasons as well. Unless you are eating "organic" and that term is being exposed to more medications and other chemicals each and every year, you are consuming large amounts of hormones and many other chemicals used in the feed lot production of the meat.

With Metta

Victorious
02 Jun 12, 13:50
There is no period there. Precepts should never be taken up as a stick code of conduct like the way you are stating here. While it is unquestionable that killing for revenge, to resolve issues which can be resolved through other means, for political/economic benefits or racist views etc is against Buddhist moral conduct, it is irrational to over-generalize the act of killing as always done with harmful/egoistic intentions.

My bad.

Killing on the grounds of lobha dosa moha is wrong. Period. ;)


/Victor

Deshy
02 Jun 12, 17:24
I am against killing and will be selling out the farm when my dad ........

Thank you for the lengthy personal story but this isn't about you and your lifestyle. This is about whether or not it is skillful to generalize killing as "wrong" irrespective of the intention to kill. I have pointed out many situations where people have to make decisions not out of spite or personal interests but for the overall well-being. Under certain circumstances I have shown above, taking one life is actually the most skillful thing to do.


My points in this thread are to help others see that no matter how you choose to live, what actions one might choose to do, there is a "consequence" for the action of killing

Even if there is a consequence for every action, actions done with wholesome intentions should produce good kamma. So killing not done with ill-intentions will not necessarily produce bad kamma. Kamma is based on intentions; not actions.

It is best to remove guilt carried in one's mind to begin with, because a mind filled with remorse and guilt will never see wisdom.

The Thinker
02 Jun 12, 17:32
In my mind all killing of any living being is wrong.

Dave The Seeker
02 Jun 12, 17:42
I guess I wouldn't have made mention of my life if it weren't for the comment I quoted.
Without remorse for wrong/harmful actions, o.e will never see wisdom as one will never see the wrong in the actions.


With Metta

Deshy
02 Jun 12, 17:46
Without remorse for wrong/harmful actions, o.e will never see wisdom as one will never see the wrong in the actions.



I'm afraid you are contradicting dhamma. Guilt does not lead to wisdom. Guilt is a meditative hindrance and should be abandoned. Morality is not meant to impose guilt in your mind.

Dave The Seeker
02 Jun 12, 17:53
I'm sorry, the word realization of wrong deeds would have been the proper choice. And trying not to repeat the action.

With Metta

Deshy
02 Jun 12, 18:10
First of all, you are interpreting wrong deeds the wrong way. Wrong deeds are deeds done with wrong intentions. Wrong deeds are not a set of deeds labelled as wrong at all times, irrespective of the situation.

Second, guilt is encouraged in religions like Christianity; not Buddhism. The Buddha taught about mental peace and happiness. The Buddha taught how to free the mind from feelings of guilt and remorse rather than burdening your mind with it.

Dave The Seeker
05 Jun 12, 11:12
Thank you for clearing that up.

Guilt is also a human emotion, a fetter. One that one needs to work their way out of, and by following the Buddhas teachings one can do it over time.

With Metta

TheBigBear
05 Jun 12, 16:49
I think I would defend myself and those I love even to the point of causing death to another if that it was it came down to. I will not let someone cause harm to me or those I love. I will not feel happy about causing harm to another even when they cause harm to me. It would have to be a last option. I think it would chip away at me as a person to end another persons life but when faced with letting them cause the death of me or someone I love (or for that matter even a stranger being harmed in my presence) I just can't see letting it happen.

The whole "preemptive" justification of war that the US has been using lately isn't a self defense thing though. It's as if my neighbor bought a gun and I decided to strike against him because he now has a gun, in order to defend myself. That isn't defense it's speculation.

Gnosis Cupitor
05 Jun 12, 18:35
I agree TheBigBear. The first precept, and the teachings of non-violence are for everyday life, things we have to cultivate. But in the end, when given no other option but to use violence against violence, which might even result in killing, we have to take it, and blamelessly. Like Deshy had said, Buddhism is not like the other religions that teach guilt is something we must cultivate, Buddhism was the most logical and psychological conclusion to a humans every day life, thought up by a man, not a God himself and not given by some God/Gods, but based on the deep looking at life, the mind, from all viewpoints, until the truth was found. Should that man have existed in our time, and been allowed to see the suffering throughout the world caused by terrorism and genocide, IMO, he would have proclaimed 'just killing', in those very, very specific circumstances.

Also, that is a poor excuse for war, for killing. However, what of those terrorists that we moniter every day, and send missiles and tactical teams in to kill? Let them live, and the lives of possibly thousands are in the balance, many more depending on how long we try to 'talk'. Those men are in the trade of weapons, including biological and nuclear if they can get their hands on them. They will not talk peacibly, or even give the chance. They are bent on our destruction, on killing us, and nothing will convince them of anything else.

When someone believes that killing in the name of God or any other belief system, in killing innocent civilians who want nothing more then peace, are allowed to live, then we may as well just kill ourselves. You may as well put that gun to that persons/childs head and pull the trigger yourself, because it would be your lack of acting that lead to their death.

Many of the terrorists are so far gone in their minds, in their belief system, that it literally is 'impossible' to try and negotiate with them, leaving us with only one choice, to act. You want proof? Go to the middle east, find yourself an Al-Quaeda training camp, walk in and say "I am an unbeliever, but I wish only peace with your people! Please allow me entrance so we can discuss this further!", you will either A), be shot on the spot, or B), be allowed to live, as a captive, for ransom, until the US tells them that their policy is to never negotiate with terrorists, and then you would have a camera set up, staring right at you, as your thrust to your knees and man in an executioner style hood comes behind you and starts chanting in a foreign language again and again, and you begin to feel a large scimitar begin to cut into your neck, that video being the last thing your family ever sees of you.

TheBigBear
05 Jun 12, 21:58
I guess it is a position that requires more introspection than I have given it so far. The easy answer is that someone has to put down the gun first and you can't control their actions. Are we justified in defending ourselves against immediate attack, sure. Are we justified in attacking preemptively because of speculation, possibilities, and any other likelihoods? I could have intel that there is an Al-Qaeda camp training soldiers against us but I'm not going to go off and attach them preemptively. I would have to ask myself why are they spending so much time arming themselves against me? I would have to ask it honestly and without spin I guess and find a solution. I just haven't been one to buy the whole 'They hate us for our freedom" nonsense. I think they hate us for our involvement. I think they honestly think they are defending themselves.

So if we take this back to a level of personal self defense we end up with another Travon Martin incident. One man making a preemptive strike because of his speculations.

This is all a bit saddening because it reminds me just how much fear is out there. Fear can make us do some horrendous and desperate things. I’m new to studying Buddhism so please don’t put too much weight into what I am saying, I’m a novice, but I would think you would have to start with realizing your own fear first and hoping that it may possibly be enough to guide you making more compassionate choices and having the faith that the change in you is the change you will see in the world.

Deshy
06 Jun 12, 04:49
those terrorists

Quoting the poster above


I would have to ask myself why are they spending so much time arming themselves against me? I would have to ask it honestly and without spin I guess and find a solution.


Those men are in the trade of weapons, including biological and nuclear if they can get their hands on them.

According to my knowledge, it is the United States that has the biggest stake on the global arms industry and is mostly involved in military activities. Not anyone else.


They will not talk peacibly, or even give the chance. They are bent on our destruction, on killing us, and nothing will convince them of anything else.

Don't buy everything that is fed to you by popular media.


Go to the middle east, find yourself an Al-Quaeda training camp, walk in and say "I am an unbeliever, but I wish only peace with your people! Please allow me entrance so we can discuss this
further!".

Lol, this is an irrational hypothesis. Political disputes cannot be solved by a single person walking into a war zone speaking "God."

Deshy
06 Jun 12, 04:56
violence against violence

Do you realize that for each party at war, there is a "noble, justifiable" reason to destroy the other? Before striking back, it is needed to investigate this.

Mass-scale killings have very unfavorable effects on society as a whole as well as on the individuals. It is best to refrain from violence because violence is never without intention to cause harm and suffering on another living being.