Buddhism & Guns?

[ronnewmexico]

So I live where bears live. BEars may get rabies(it is rare but it happens) so as I must have gun to protect from the rare instance of rabid bear...I must then move.

Despite the fact european peoples have lived mainly peacefully with bear for 400 years in my area...I must leave due to having the necessity for a gun.

And I then move to town and drug addict lives next door. I reasonably have to punch him(drug addict in face) one night when he needing drugs breaks into my house and attempts to kill me so he may then steal my things and sell them to get drugs...So I do so comitting violence upon him a person.

so which then is the lesser harm choice? Having gun or punching drug addict in face?

[gregkavarnos]

Both actions will have their unavoidable consequences.

[ronnewmexico]

Such is karma all has consequence.

Worse consequence I can reasonably assume is punching drug addict in face. Having a gun....relatively benign.

Shooting rabid bear..even if we were to take it that far...less than punching human in face by my take.

[gregkavarnos]

Such is karma all has consequence.

Worse consequence I can reasonably assume is punching drug addict in face. Having a gun....relatively benign.

Shooting rabid bear..even if we were to take it that far...less than punching human in face by my take.

Only a Buddha can know the exact consequences of an action.

[David N. Snyder]

Sexual relation, no it's called rape and many kill the victim when they are done. What do you suggest, let the attacker have his way and kill the victim?

If the place where you live is so risky that you fear and think to have a gun, that is to kill ... then you better leave the place. Like I've said earlier it's the option took by HHDL. And that a true buddhist choice.
If your "being a buddhist" is not able NOT to take the risk to kill someone by accepting to leave "a nice place" then you miss something for sure ... and unlightenment is far away.

It's not that easy to just get up and leave and look for some "nice" place. For many people, economics prevents them from moving. So for those stuck in a not so "nice" place, what do you suggest? let the attacker have his way and let him kill the victim?

[ronnewmexico]

GK...we in fact to live morally as buddhist, most buddhists, always judge karmic effect in some manner. This being less harmful than that.
WE are not buddhas but can reasonably approximate what has less consequence of negative action upon ourselves and otherss.

[ronnewmexico]

The specific on my mention...I did leave to my rural area as drug dealer moved in to a house accross the street from where I had lived years ago,in city.
As I had small children and family at the time moving here and having to have gun for bear was the less harmful choice.
The drug addicts would freequent the neighborhood and cause problems. Soon a problem was to occur.
Why not elsewhere...this met my finances at the time...it was where I could move...rural at the time it was cheap.

Life generally to my opinion is very complex..it is always a choice of least harm and very difficult are our choices.
Not for all but for many.

[gregkavarnos]

GK...we in fact to live morally as buddhist, most buddhists, always judge karmic effect in some manner. This being less harmful than that.
WE are not buddhas but can reasonably approximate what has less consequence of negative action upon ourselves and otherss.

Unfortunately morality, as we can see from this ridiculous discussion, is not objective: it is social, political, cultural, etc... well, at least its interpretation is. Now depending on how much one wishes to duck and weave one can formulate (and over the centuries have formulated) a pseudo-Buddhist argument to justify anything from gun ownership, to torture, to military conquest, to anything... but faced with teachings like the following: MN 28 Maha-hatthipadopama Sutta, The Great Elephant Footprint Simile :

"And if other people attack the monk in ways that are undesirable, displeasing, & disagreeable — through contact with fists, contact with stones, contact with sticks, or contact with knives — the monk discerns that 'This body is of such a nature that contacts with fists come, contacts with stones come, contacts with sticks come, & contacts with knives come. Now the Blessed One has said, in his exhortation of the simile of the saw, "Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding." So my persistence will be aroused & untiring, my mindfulness established & unconfused, my body calm & unaroused, my mind centered & unified. And now let contact with fists come to this body, let contact with stones, with sticks, with knives come to this body, for this is how the Buddha's bidding is done."

Well the answer is pretty frackin' clear. Of course though, when the ego tries to weedle its way into interpretation, tries to see it all through the prism of its self serving functioning, then everything goes straight to hell.

This is why only a Buddha can know the exact consequences of an action coz the rest of us are just self serving assholes.

[ronnewmexico]

Monk...the first line of that quote says monk....that is a different standard.

"the rest of us are just self serving assholes."
could be said about any thing we make a choice in and we must choose every day every moment of life really.
I turn on computer..electricity is from coal. Coal kiils and pollutes(the mining) so I must make a choice....is what I am doing on the computer worth killing some things and polluting some others....such is our life. of choices....not absolutes.

In one sense it is self in another not. If I use computer to trade a stock and then give the money from that stock trade to a charity that prevents coal mining destruction my apparent defilement becomes something else a good. More help than harm is produced.,

This is very complex our lives we always make such determinations. I'd guess most buddhists do this thing constantly.

Do we live as monks...no monks do. To live as monks in most places monks depend upon us to live as monk....so again this is hinting at a very complex thing...our lives, not as simple as black and white. It is always gradient.
On guard to be not self serving....sure. Totally self serving as a thing may serve self...no. Most is a combination of serving self and serving others to differing degree.

[gregkavarnos]

Monk...the first line of that quote says monk....that is a different standard.

And this statement is a (yet another) perfect example of the duck-and-weave-self-serving-pseudo-Buddhism that I am talking about.

[ronnewmexico]

I could find quotes from scriptural source that state quite unequivocally that laypeoples should not have weapons in Mayahanan sutra.

It would serve no purpose....sutra sutta and jakata tale are all within a context of consideration. The pali cannon has bunches of things that relate to violence things of war/governments and others that can relate to this issue.

Scripture can generally not be interpreted literally. We must assertain what applies most correctly to our situation..

Yes..that includes whether one is a monk or not.

[PadmaVonSamba]

I would rather keep a big dog than a gun.
Guns don't keep unwanted people away.
Guns won't guard your house while you are away.
Guns won't keep small animals from pillaging your garden.
Guns aren't waiting to be adopted.
Guns won't give you all of their love.
If you don't have a big dog or two, you might consider this option.

[Josef]

People have suggested dogs, dharmapalas, martial arts, and firearms in this thread.
I'll take all of the above.

[Mr. G]

People have suggested dogs, dharmapalas, martial arts, and firearms in this thread.
I'll take all of the above.

Don't forget knives.

[gregkavarnos]

Steak knives? Kitchen knives? Paring knives? Machete?

[gregkavarnos]

Scripture can generally not be interpreted literally. We must assertain what applies most correctly to our situation.

So if I am a psychopathic racist mass murder planning an attack on a group of innocent individuals I should read some scriptures and "ascertain what applies most correctly to my situation"?

You are missing an extremely salient/relevant/unbelievably important point: we generally dwell in ignorance and dualism and thus interpret everything through the prism of our rank, ego-centred stupidity and/or duplicity.

And you see, it is this aspect of our existence that is the cause and subject of debate in this thread, not the Buddhas opinion on violence and the use of weapons. Coz the Buddhas opinion is crystal clear, it's the Buddhists that are "frackin' up the program".

PS By the way, your suggestion for the utilisation of bear mace by padme is probably the most intelligent option so far: non-lethal, effective and capable of long range use.

[Padme]

People have suggested dogs, dharmapalas, martial arts, and firearms in this thread.
I'll take all of the above.

Yes, and while I genuinely appreciate the various suggestions, martial arts and a big dog are both out of the question for me, being disabled. People have been trying to get me to get a big dog for a long time, but it's really not practical. Even if I had the best trained dog, the fact is, should something happen to him, I need to be able to lift him to drive him many miles to a vet. It also would not be fair to a dog... as much as I love animals, I would not be able to give him the exercise he would need. I've even considered a small dog (better than nothing, at least an alert), but I really can't afford the food, vet care, etc. I try to be responsible and I just don't think I am currently able to be a good dog candidate. Maybe someday if my situation improves. Martial arts are not possible with my poor muscles. But I am still trying to do research on alternative forms of self defense; such as the bear mace mentioned, as one example.

[Adamantine]

Well I know of at least one Ngakpa-yogi nomadic community of the last century which had a gun and used it to protect their gompa from Chinese bandits on camels that had wreaked terror and robbed and killed many people throughout all the neighboring areas. This was in combination with intensive propitiation of the protectors but without going into details let's just say that right won out over might, and some heavy pujas were done to top it all off. This inevitably saved many more gompas, monasteries and other innocents from much potential continued harm. In the Vajrayana, there are liberation rights but these are only for the most advanced pracitioners-- it is said it is required to have the power to revive from the dead in order to be qualified to engage in this activity. For those of us who are not at that level it is of course important to avoid killing at all costs, but I think it is clear that Padme wants a simple deterrent or in the worst case scenario a non-lethal alternative. Like I said, guns can be non-lethal in the hands of someone well-trained. Bean-bag rounds are a good alternative too, along with the stun grenades, etc.

So in 2500 years of Buddhism you know of one instance where weapons were used by Buddhists and that justifies buying a gun and sticking it in somebodies face because they are bored/stupid/drunk or any combination of the three?

The point is there are different perspectives on this according to the different Buddhist vehicles. In Mahayana, weapons are considered a bad idea. In Vajrayana, weapons are taken onto the path-- just as all the passions are. Why else would a dagger be a necessary ritual implement? What do you think the dagger is used for? If you think you can't be a Buddhist and carry a weapon you're going to have to take a trip to Kham and give all those Khampas a piece of your mind---> let them know they're not really Buddhists! I'm not saying Padme is at a level where she can use weapons as a Vajra master-- I am just saying that weapons are tools-- and you can kill a person with anything-- a shovel, a rake, a car, a hoe, scissors, kitchen knives, water, fists-- should we not touch any of these things? (it'd be hard to avoid the fists, and water for sure!) It is generally not the object that kills, it is the mind and motivation of the person wielding the object. Even in the case of gun, --maybe especially in the case of a gun. Many people that buy guns do so because they want to kill something-- whether that is a deer, a fox or a person. Those that abhor killing will probably never resort to killing with a gun, even if they own one. And as I said, to avoid all accidents, there are non-lethal ammos like bean-bag rounds. Only Padme seems to be listening!

[gregkavarnos]

You are childishly (and I say say childishly because I know that you know better) confusing ritual weapons and their use to real weapons and their use.

As for the Khampa, there is a thing that exists amongst all spiritual traditions, its called hypocrisy/double standards. Do not confuse cultural/social/personal accretions with doctrine.

As for this statement

I am just saying that weapons are tools-- and you can kill a person with anything-- a shovel, a rake, a car, a hoe, scissors, kitchen knives, water, fists-- should we not touch any of these things? (it'd be hard to avoid the fists, and water for sure!)

I have already adresssed this issue here viewtopic.php?f=77&t=4884&start=40#p50767

By the way, I am listening, you are just not saying anything that makes all that much sense.

[Sönam]

Sexual relation, no it's called rape and many kill the victim when they are done. What do you suggest, let the attacker have his way and kill the victim?

If the place where you live is so risky that you fear and think to have a gun, that is to kill ... then you better leave the place. Like I've said earlier it's the option took by HHDL. And that a true buddhist choice.
If your "being a buddhist" is not able NOT to take the risk to kill someone by accepting to leave "a nice place" then you miss something for sure ... and unlightenment is far away.

It's not that easy to just get up and leave and look for some "nice" place. For many people, economics prevents them from moving. So for those stuck in a not so "nice" place, what do you suggest? let the attacker have his way and let him kill the victim?

practice more ... go deeper in realizing the dharma!

Sönam