Kill one to save many

[gregkavarnos]

Nope, well actually can't say with 100% certainty as I have not achieved omniscience yet, I was just trying to underline the ridiculousness of this hypothetical situation. It would be just as likely that I would kill myself as it would be that you would kill the bomber.

[Nighthawk]

Killing the bomber would be the most appropriate thing to do in this case but also the compassionate one since you would be saving the bomber from heavy karma and all the innocent people.

[gregkavarnos]

So being a Buddha and knowing the direct workings of karma lead you to this deduction? Fools rush in where angels fear to tread!

[Nighthawk]

So being a Buddha and knowing the direct workings of karma lead you to this deduction? Fools rush in where angels fear to tread!

I never said anything about knowing the direct workings of karma or being a Buddha. You are the one being the fool here my friend.

[catmoon]

Awright you two. No more calling each other fools.

[gregkavarnos]

Can I call you a fool then? Pretty please!

[catmoon]

Can I call you a fool then? Pretty please!

Sure but then I'd have to kill you. For the benefit of others, of course.

[gregkavarnos]

You could kill yourself, for my benefit, if you don't "exist" then I can't create the negative karma of calling you a fool (wrong speech).

And this is my point the whole time: it seems we spend too much hypothetical time worrying about who we should kill and not enough worrying about how to save all the countless sentient beings!

I can't remember who it was that, when asked "is it okay to kill a being?", replied "only if you are capable of bringing it back to life again!"

So let's get busy and become capable of creating life and then we can think about causing death!


PS To all the "smart" people out there: Did I happen to mention that I too am a fool? At least I am not deluded on that point!

[Nighthawk]

Then stop wasting your precious little time arguing on these boards and get to work. Or do you rather prefer preaching than doing?

[catmoon]

You could kill yourself, for my benefit, if you don't "exist" then I can't create the negative karma of calling you a fool (wrong speech).


PS To all the "smart" people out there: Did I happen to mention that I too am a fool? At least I am not deluded on that point!

Hm. If I slander the Buddha, who is conventionally dead, then it is a major downfall. Similarly if you call me a fool after I am gone. You can't weasel out of this one!

As to your other point above, what if you are mistaken? Stick THAT in your logic machine and process it!


Srsly tho, one who is really practicing bodhicitta will offer the bomber a kind word, quite possibly getting himself and the surrounding crowd blown to bits in the process. If one conjures up a no-win situation, it should come as no surprise that nobody wins.

[gregkavarnos]

Let me throw another hypothetical spanner into the works:

Given we are not omniscient and cannot fully comprehend the workings of every karma (action), how can we know, with 100% certainty, that the "mad bomber" is not a bodhisattva in disguise who through his action (skillful means) will avert a tonne of negative karma that would have been produced by the "innocents" that are about to be blown into a zillion pieces?

We don't!

That's why the Buddha preached the Noble Eighfold Path and put abstainence from taking life as the first right action. You don't want to trust/believe what I say then trust/believe what the Buddha says.


PS We are also overlooking the fact that we have to save the bomber too, the bomber is also a sentient being and thus requires our compassion.

[catmoon]

Let me throw another hypothetical spanner into the works:

Given we are not omniscient and cannot fully comprehend the workings of every karma (action), how can we know, with 100% certainty, that the "mad bomber" is not a bodhisattva in disguise who through his action (skillful means) will avert a tonne of negative karma that would have been produced by the "innocents" that are about to be blown into a zillion pieces?

We don't!

That's why the Buddha preached the Noble Eighfold Path and put abstainence from taking life as the first right action. You don't want to trust/believe what I say then trust/believe what the Buddha says.

Omg the logical knots this thread is developing.. it's gonna give me an aneurism.

You see, I DEFINITELY don't want to trust/believe what you say, so that means I should trust/believe what the Buddha says, but that's just what you said to do, so I shouldn't do it, but if I shouldn't do what you said then I should trust/believe what you said to do....


AAAAAARRRRRGGGGHHHH!!!

wait I have the answer!

[gregkavarnos]

Though I appreciate the comic interlude, you will find that my last post was both serious and relevant to this thread.

[mudra]

Not to be boring, but coming back to the original question that started this thread:

One of the 46 secondary transgressions of the Bodhisattva vow is NOT KILLING someone who is about to kill the crowd etc.
It is however conditional: you should only do so if you are clairvoyant enough to know that the person will do it, and also you act out of compassion in order to save the person from creating terrible karmic results, and finally being totally accepting that the act will create a negative result for yourself and that you are willing to take this on for the sake of the others.

You can find these 46 secondary transgressions (as well as the 18 major ones of course) in Arya Asangha's Bodhisattva Bhumis in the ethics chapter.

[Madeliaette]

I think it would be a question that would have to be asked as the situation actually happened for me to determine my response. standing back in safety sitting on a comfy seat knowing it isnt real is not the same as being there with opportunities at hand. I mean, I am the sort of sop that scoops struggling bugs out of a water dish and places them safely on dry land - but I imagine if some event occurred where there was a choice to be made that saved numerous humans by splatting one human, I would have to 'sense' my way - without the event being real, I cannot say what I would sense....

[DarwidHalim]

It's never ok to kill. But there may be no good alternative choices. You are positing Shakyamuni Buddha's choice as a ferryman in a previous lifetime.

Kirt

Not true.

We need a clear understanding that result of karma actually come from the action side or the motivation side. If we see it is then clear that result of karma (action) comes from motivation or intention side. The action itself is neutral, not good and not bad.

Killing with the motivation to help others and save the killer from his heavy karma is considered virtuous in boddhisattva way.

This happens in previous Buddha life when he kill someone on the ship.

The key to understand this lies on the result of karma is based on action or intention (motivation).

[gregkavarnos]

It's never ok to kill. But there may be no good alternative choices. You are positing Shakyamuni Buddha's choice as a ferryman in a previous lifetime.

Kirt

Not true.

We need a clear understanding that result of karma actually come from the action side or the motivation side. If we see it is then clear that result of karma (action) comes from motivation or intention side. The action itself is neutral, not good and not bad.

Killing with the motivation to help others and save the killer from his heavy karma is considered virtuous in boddhisattva way.

This happens in previous Buddha life when he kill someone on the ship.

The key to understand this lies on the result of karma is based on action or intention (motivation).

This is only true if we are capable of directly seeing the results of all karma, which we cannot. This means that, in all likelihood, our action will cause more karma vipakka rather than reduce it. We are incapable of choosing the best breakfast cereals for our needs, how can we be capable of picking who should live and who should die (ie playing God)?

Get real people, we have NO IDEA!

[DarwidHalim]

Do you see the recent big news in china where a child was hit by a car and there are 20 people passing by ignoring the child?

Doing nothing is fine. But as a boddhisattva, we need to act based on our best ability and understanding at that moment to help others. If we need to kill and we know motivation is the governing factor, in my opinion we should act.

[gregkavarnos]

Do you see the recent big news in china where a child was hit by a car and there are 20 people passing by ignoring the child?

Doing nothing is fine. But as a boddhisattva, we need to act based on our best ability and understanding at that moment to help others. If we need to kill and we know motivation is the governing factor, in my opinion we should act.

Irrelevant comparison. It is one thing to stop and help a wounded child and another thing to kill wsomebody because you think/believe it will somehow reduce karma vipakka. Two completely different circumstances.

Well, to an extent.

In the Noble Eightfold Path, the first Right Action is to abstain from taking life, there is nothing in there that says "Abstain from helping dying child lying at the side of the road". Now while it is (apparently) true that in the Bodhisattva Vows there is a clause that says that "if one does not kill..." AND even though there is ONE jataka tale about the Buddha killing ONE being whilst on the Bodhisattva path one must ask themselves: "Am I so so full of it, that I can compare myself to the Buddha when (as a Bodhisattva) he had reached a level of direct knowledge of karma so that he knew exactly what the consequences of the specific act of killing would be?"

"Am I so cock sure of myself to make that sort of decision?"

Coz it seems that many people here are deluded enough to believe that they are.

I personally am unsure of what type of bread to buy for breakfast. "Gimme the wholemeal, actually... no give me the multigrain, hmmmm... that barley bread looks nice, what about those cheese pies, are they fried or baked? etc..."

[DarwidHalim]

The Chinese incident is simply to show act or not act.

In our murder case, in case you do not kill that person, that person will kill hundreds of people. I am not talking about we have the power to freeze him or what. In case there are other options not to kill him, then we choose that. However, in case there are only 2 scenario: kill or do nothing, I will choose to kill him.

The 8 noble part, cannot be taken literally. It is same with our laws, nobody is allowed to kill. But killing to protect oneself for example is not considered crime.

If we come back to our scenario, by not killing him, thousand of people will die. Second, by letting him killing so many people, we are actually letting him stay in the hell for very long period. Is this good? As a boddhisattva we have a vow to save all being with 'skillful means'. By killing him, not because of anger, but because of our compassion to save him from the hell and to save thousands beings, this action is wholesome.

Doing nothing is also not wrong because it is already their karma. In case, we still cannot control our emotion, killing him with anger, will only do harm to ourself. However, in case we can be very mindful at that time and fully realize our motivation, our compassion will tell us to act properly.