Self Defense

General discussion, particularly exploring the Dharma in the modern world.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17089
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Self Defense

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Ardha wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 11:57 pm The point, ultimately, is that I don't think watching or enjoying such sports is in line with being a Buddhist or the path. Watching it is pretty much condoning the act itself. Yet I know that my voice alone is little more than a fart on the wind when everyone else seems to like it so much.
You seem pretty far from an expert on Buddhism, or "the path", and are appear quite new to Dharma practice. Your position here is also poorly argued, that is why they are a fart on the wind. Lots of people get all puritanical in their early days, some stay that way, some don't. It's fine, no one's offended. However, don't expect automatic respect for your arguments about what is appropriate to "the path" without putting forth better reasoning than you've put out here.
But in regards to self defense it seems to be in line with my own stance on the matter. Prevention is the best tactic and one I try to perform often, but there are times when you simply can't. I just seriously hope I don't have to kill someone.
Why would you have to kill someone? Do you live a dangerous life or have a dangerous job? Have you ever been the victim of actual violence? Are you a woman who has to be in dangerous situations or does a dangerous job, are you under some kind of specific threat due to who you are?

Most people aren't, and violence stays at the level of fantasy most of the time. Incidentally, this is even true for combat sports athletes.

If you wanna get educated on it, then get educated. For the most part what average people need to know is not even centered around physical skills, but awareness and a little psychology.



Here's an interview with a UFC fighter who had a mentally ill person break into his house. If you watch the whole thing, he is sort of amazed and how different it is than his day job. Stories like this are not that uncommon because, as mentioned earlier, combat sport teaches people to consensually fight one another, and a situation like this is a totally different thing. Sometimes it even lends a false confidence. Vasyl Lomachenko, arguably one of the best boxers around got a worse head injury trying to chase down some crooks than he ever did in boxing.

If you don't need to or don't want to learn about this stuff, then just live your life and find other things to worry about, there are plenty.

As I said, unless you live in a dangerous area, are of some class where you are at greater risk or something, then chances are you will not have to worry about it. If you do want resources I can post some.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
LastLegend
Posts: 5408
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Northern Virginia

Re: Self Defense

Post by LastLegend »

Ardha wrote: Sun Mar 14, 2021 9:30 pm I wanted to know what Buddhism thought about this. Especially since in the climate today, or past year it seems like a rather thorny topic.

If someone is coming at me with intent to harm, or even kill me should I use force to stop them. Me personally would say yes, but to the extent that they are incapacitated not killed in turn. I know that in such moments you need resolve in order to help carry you through because hesitation can mean severe harm or worse.

Of course this is assuming it comes to such acts and that there isn't a peaceful way to solve it. I know that ideally I would rather not start a conflict or have it escalate to such a state, but I know the world isn't that tidy and some people won't listen to you no matter what you do (had that happen more than once in my life but thankfully it just resulted in us going our separate ways).

I wondered how Buddhism tackles this when it comes to "no self" and also vowing to not do harm. I don't think letting someone harm others when you can stop them is a good thing to do nor is giving them license to injure you. But I also see how self defense can easily turn into vengeance.

Thoughts?
We must try our best to not expect such outcome. Mind creates karma right?
It’s eye blinking.
neander
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:24 pm

Re: Self Defense

Post by neander »

Ardha:

I think you have a very limited knowledge about the topic: Buddhism and War in general as what is applicable to a country you can reframe and apply a person' s needs..

Since 1999 when the german Buddhologist Lambert Schmithausen wrote:" Aspects of the Buddhist Attitude towards War" numerous papers have been published. I suggest you reading for example Buddhist Tradition and Violence from Michael Jerryson that is very good and also all his articles and books. He spent some times with armed monks in Thailand and explains very well the Thai approach to war. Also the book Buddhism and Violence edited by prof. Zimmerman is recommended, from there you can follow up the bibliography and study for a long time..

I studied a little bit Kamakura and Sengoku Jidai Buddhist attitude with war and again from Mickey Adolphson very interesting book “The teeth and claws of the Buddha” you can follow up and then proceed to WWII and Zen Japanese soldier..

The subject is simply to vast and you should analyze also Buddhism and War in China; Korea, Laos Cambodia and of course Myanmar and Sri Lanka.

It is indeed true that Savarkar said that Indian Buddhism and its ahimsa enfeebled India and was responsible for the defeat and enslavement by Muslim and British.
https://www.newsclick.in/Why-Modi-canno ... d-savarkar

I take his affirmation very seriously as Savarkar is not a youtuber but the reference of 1,5 billions Indians and of prime minister Modi so he must have some reasons, but I know nothing about India’s history and pretty much nothing about Indian Buddhism history and implementation if India’s society and at present I do not have the time to study it is a very complex history.

But Buddhism is much more than the Savarkar’s Buddhism …otherwise country like Thailand, Sri Lanka and Myanmar could not have survived, neither Japanese Sengoku Jidai Warlords, that’ s why Nichiren wrote:

”I attacked the Zen school as the invention of the heavenly devil, and the Shingon school as an evil doctrine that will ruin the nation, and insisted that the temples of the Nembutsu [Pure Land], Zen, and Ritsu priests be burned down and the Nembutsu priests and the others beheaded.”
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Self Defense

Post by Malcolm »

Ardha wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 11:57 pm The point, ultimately, is that I don't think watching or enjoying such sports is in line with being a Buddhist or the path...
Agreed. I don't watch boxing, etc.

But I enjoy watching fantasy martial arts, even gritty, bloody stuff like Warrior.
User avatar
PadmaVonSamba
Posts: 9437
Joined: Sat May 14, 2011 1:41 am

Re: Self Defense

Post by PadmaVonSamba »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 2:49 pm
Ardha wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 11:57 pm The point, ultimately, is that I don't think watching or enjoying such sports is in line with being a Buddhist or the path...
Agreed. I don't watch boxing, etc.

But I enjoy watching fantasy martial arts, even gritty, bloody stuff like Warrior.
I’m not a fan of boxing. At the same time, I’m not going to second-guess my teacher’s enjoyment of it.

How presumptuous it is for us western Buddhists to sit upon the throne of one’s own opinions and declare what is or is not appropriate for someone else whose cultural norms may be completely different from one’s own. Do I know what he enjoyed about it? No. Do people unfamiliar with Vajrayana Buddhism understand the offering of an upturned skull with bloody entrails to a monster-like creature with fi as Ming hair? No. What is the difference then? “Oh I find that repulsive!” Well, repulsiveness knocks one out of one’s comfort zone, doesn’t it? A real blow to ego-clinging. A solid punch to the self-cherishing jaw.
EMPTIFUL.
An inward outlook produces outward insight.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Self Defense

Post by Malcolm »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:06 pm How presumptuous it is for us western Buddhists to sit upon the throne of one’s own opinions and declare what is or is not appropriate for someone else whose cultural norms may be completely different from one’s own.
Cultural relativism? Where does that end?
User avatar
Queequeg
Former staff member
Posts: 14454
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 3:24 pm

Re: Self Defense

Post by Queequeg »

neander wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 2:03 pm ”I attacked the Zen school as the invention of the heavenly devil, and the Shingon school as an evil doctrine that will ruin the nation, and insisted that the temples of the Nembutsu [Pure Land], Zen, and Ritsu priests be burned down and the Nembutsu priests and the others beheaded.”
Nichiren explained that was rhetoric. He was calling for the restraint of what he considered slander of Dharma and suspension of alms and support to those he deemed slanderers.

In calling for armed defense of Dharma, he referred to the parable about King Sen'yo in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra.

“Good man, in the age of impurity and evil after I have passed away, the nation will fall into devastation and disorder, men will plunder and steal from one another, and the common people will be reduced to starvation. Because of hunger, many men at that time will declare their determination to leave their families and become monks. Men such as these may be called shavepates. When this crowd of shavepates see anyone who is attempting to protect the correct teaching, they will chase after him and drive him away, or even kill him or do him injury. That is why I now give permission for monks who observe the precepts to associate with and keep company with white-robed laymen who bear swords and staves. Even though they carry swords and staves, I would call them men who observe the precepts. But although they may carry swords and staves, they should never use them to take life.”
-Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra

And in his remonstration to the government urging them to stamp out what he called heresies, he wrote:

"According to the Buddhist teachings, prior to Shakyamuni slanderous monks would have incurred the death penalty. But since the time of Shakyamuni, the One Who Can Endure, the giving of alms to slanderous monks is forbidden in the sutra teachings. Now if all the four kinds of Buddhists within the four seas and the ten thousand lands would only cease giving alms to wicked priests and instead all come over to the side of the good, then how could any more troubles rise to plague us, or disasters come to confront us?"
-Rissho Ankoku Ron

Just mentioning that because you are taking that quote out of context. To put it into a little context, several attempts were made on his life by angry mobs and by government officials, and quite of few of his supporters were murdered and at least three executed by officials. His supporters were being stalked by assassins. He was calling on the government to take commensurate action and to cease supporting religious orders that were spreading the heresies (and perceived to be the source of civil war and natural disasters). That said, the real meaning is not obvious in his rhetoric.

Incidentally, I think that speaks to the OP's question.
There is no suffering to be severed. Ignorance and klesas are indivisible from bodhi. There is no cause of suffering to be abandoned. Since extremes and the false are the Middle and genuine, there is no path to be practiced. Samsara is nirvana. No severance achieved. No suffering nor its cause. No path, no end. There is no transcendent realm; there is only the one true aspect. There is nothing separate from the true aspect.
-Guanding, Perfect and Sudden Contemplation,
User avatar
coldbeer
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2020 10:55 pm

Re: Self Defense

Post by coldbeer »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:06 pm
Malcolm wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 2:49 pm
Ardha wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 11:57 pm The point, ultimately, is that I don't think watching or enjoying such sports is in line with being a Buddhist or the path...
Agreed. I don't watch boxing, etc.

But I enjoy watching fantasy martial arts, even gritty, bloody stuff like Warrior.
I’m not a fan of boxing. At the same time, I’m not going to second-guess my teacher’s enjoyment of it.

How presumptuous it is for us western Buddhists to sit upon the throne of one’s own opinions and declare what is or is not appropriate for someone else whose cultural norms may be completely different from one’s own. Do I know what he enjoyed about it? No. Do people unfamiliar with Vajrayana Buddhism understand the offering of an upturned skull with bloody entrails to a monster-like creature with fi as Ming hair? No. What is the difference then? “Oh I find that repulsive!” Well, repulsiveness knocks one out of one’s comfort zone, doesn’t it? A real blow to ego-clinging. A solid punch to the self-cherishing jaw.
:good:
User avatar
Budai
Posts: 878
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2020 1:12 pm
Location: ༀ ∞ Nam Myoho Renge Kyo ∞ ༀ

Re: Self Defense

Post by Budai »

What it someone is watching a sport such as boxing, because deep down they are mostly concerned with the wellbeing of the participants? I see this type of compassion in some Football "fans" I have met.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17089
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Self Defense

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

PadmaVonSamba wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:06 pm
Malcolm wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 2:49 pm
Ardha wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 11:57 pm The point, ultimately, is that I don't think watching or enjoying such sports is in line with being a Buddhist or the path...
Agreed. I don't watch boxing, etc.

But I enjoy watching fantasy martial arts, even gritty, bloody stuff like Warrior.
I’m not a fan of boxing. At the same time, I’m not going to second-guess my teacher’s enjoyment of it.

How presumptuous it is for us western Buddhists to sit upon the throne of one’s own opinions and declare what is or is not appropriate for someone else whose cultural norms may be completely different from one’s own. Do I know what he enjoyed about it? No. Do people unfamiliar with Vajrayana Buddhism understand the offering of an upturned skull with bloody entrails to a monster-like creature with fi as Ming hair? No. What is the difference then? “Oh I find that repulsive!” Well, repulsiveness knocks one out of one’s comfort zone, doesn’t it? A real blow to ego-clinging. A solid punch to the self-cherishing jaw.
:good:

Additionally, when people have a one-dimensional view of what martial arts and combat sports due to a lack of knowledge and/or experience with it, their critique of it is bound to be limited, at best. There are lots of areas to critique these things legitimately, but I think that most people with no direct experience do so mainly based on their emotional reaction to the fights themselves, and the fact they believe it is condoning "violence" somehow to watch them. As I said earlier, violence is not one category. No one who actually studies violence sees combat sports as the same category as interpersonal violence at all, they are apples and oranges. "Violence" is a context-specific term to the people who actually study it.

There are some negatives to watching (especially Western style) MMA events for instance, but In my opinion they are as much or more about the culture of bravado and general sleaze than about the physicality of the events themselves - just like team sports, which also have their issues. In Japanese MMA for instance (they had it before us, incidentally) the tone is quite different.

As example of where this lack of knowledge manifests, when people in this thread say "Boxing" they are probably talking about professional boxing, which has it's own very specific taint and issues. Now, Boxing sure has an unpleasant history in it's way (like I said, it is actually much, much safer today), but firstly Professional boxing is not the same as Olympic Boxing, neither are amateur boxing, etc. The last two categories of competition tend to be safer than professional boxing. I mean, it's boxing, they all have their danger, but there is a difference.

The other thing that is "Boxing" are boxing gyms, which have some very positive aspects, such as providing a place for young (often impoverished) people to get away from their difficult lives, improve themselves, and develop discipline and a sense of realism around their own capabilities. In this sense they are very similar to what people can get from other martial arts training. Boxing gyms have a long history in America of serving this kind of purpose, and there is a big positive aspect to it that people wouldn't necessarily know about without exposure. There is also a part that I feel is probably fairly negative (from a Buddhist point of view), which is an obsession with being "the best" that eventually pushes some people into the competitions, and of course the issue of injuries.

I will tell you straight up though that in my opinion young men going to a boxing gym or any kind of combat sport are a lot less likely to engage in violence in terms of going out and getting in fights. This has been an almosty universal truth in my experiences, and I have been doing martial arts since I was eight, around a number of different people and different disciplines. It's also "in my family", I grew up around it and half my family does martial arts and/or combat sports. There are exceptions, but most gyms -heavily- discourage fighting outside the gym, and some will just straight up kick people out for it if they find out it is happening. Again, violence and combat sport = apples and oranges.

That said, I don't like the unhealthy end of of these sports either. I know that some people get permanently injured (though plenty do not). I can watch combat sport from a technical standpoint and enjoy it because I have enough training to know what is going on (though I am not anything special skill wise at all), but I do acknowledge there are real ethical issues surrounding the events, I tend to fast forward through everything but the fights, and tune out most of the idiotic and/or toxic commentary.

In an ideal world combat sport for me would be far less focused on competition and money, would be safer, and the fighters safety and well being would be first priority, rather than piles of money for the bosses. This is in fact the case for some amateur martial arts, where a winner can be determined without someone getting as physically wrecked, and things are less about money. It's not an ideal world though, so the best one can hope for is harm reduction in these sports.

As to whether it's ok to watch them personally, I can see valid points on both sides of that debate. Similar to martial training itself, what is medicine for some people is poison for others.

Again, as far as I am concerned combat sports are a far cry from actual non-consensual violence, so I personally feel fine watching them. As I said though, I focus strictly on the technical parts and not on the larger fandom aspects.

This is going to be my final post in this thread because I see that people are mostly unable to discuss it without the kind of emotional reasoning I mentioned earlier. Suffice to say, for many people not watching these events at all might be just right decision, there are some unsavory aspects for sure. However, I do hope that people will look into the issue with a little more detail and stop with the hyperbole and conflation with non consensual violence that I keep seeing repeated.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 1792
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 3:23 am
Location: Canada

Re: Self Defense

Post by Nemo »

Being put in situations of being the garbage man after violence happened(army medic) and becoming able to dish out a certain amount of destruction made me very ill. What are Buddhist views on cleaning out a clogged public toilet at a music festival on Taco Tuesday with only your bare hands? Good luck staying clean and there are probably better things to do with your time.
If this is true then you should well understand the difference between these events and actual violence, hyperbole about your own experiences aside.
Ya, LARPing violence is mostly harmless.

I find it bizarre people think violence is this magical ninja skill. It feels much more like working in a factory. It is industrial and the machines do most of the work. Those who follow no moral rules are often the best at it. Not really getting the romaniticization of it.
Malcolm
Posts: 42974
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: Self Defense

Post by Malcolm »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:04 pm

Additionally, when people have a one-dimensional view of what martial arts and combat sports due to a lack of knowledge and/or experience with it, their critique of it is bound to be limited, at best.
Image
neander
Posts: 68
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2020 10:24 pm

Re: Self Defense

Post by neander »

Queequeg wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 3:42 pm
Nichiren explained that was rhetoric. He was calling for the restraint of what he considered slander of Dharma and suspension of alms and support to those he deemed slanderers.


You are correct about the Komatsubarazan attack where Nichiren Shonin’s disciples, Kyoninbo and the Lord Yoshitaka Kudo, were killed, and two others were seriously injured

It is would be a long discussion..maybe the quote is out of context but I wouldn't surprise if Nichiren's intensions were real..

those times were so different, it is unbelievable...and also Buddhism was so different...the more you study it the more you realize it, Shingon Buddhist priests actively participated in warfare with spells, incantations and maledictions, we know this as we have their rewards requests after the battles...

J. Stone in her paper "The Sin of Slandering the true Dharma in Nichiren's thought" analyses among others,Nichiren ' s need to seek Shogun 's approval for survival, Nichiren taught that "Nembutsu is the karmic cause to fall into Avici hell" this had not only a soteriological aspects but was linked to the earthquakes and other natural disasters afflicting Japan including the imminent arrival of Kublai Khan army, so was indeed a very serious matter regarding the survival of his nation...

he also wrote

All the Nembutsu and Zen temples, such as Kenchō-ji, Jufuku-ji, Gokuraku-ji, Daibutsu-den, and Chōraku-ji, should be burned to the ground, and their priests taken to Yui Beach to have their heads cut off. If this is not done, then Japan is certain to be destroyed!”

he also saw all his persecutions as "the best allies to his Buddhahood" as expiation of his past offences to the Dharma so who knows...
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17089
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Self Defense

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Malcolm wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:34 pm
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 7:04 pm

Additionally, when people have a one-dimensional view of what martial arts and combat sports due to a lack of knowledge and/or experience with it, their critique of it is bound to be limited, at best.
Image
Wax off old man :twothumbsup: !!!

Shirt I happen to be wearing right now:
Attachments
miyagi.jpg
miyagi.jpg (6.15 KiB) Viewed 1751 times
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
SilenceMonkey
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:54 am

Re: Self Defense

Post by SilenceMonkey »

I think watching sports is just as samsaric as watching movies or anything else on TV in terms of entertainment and distraction from meditation. It's a rare person who can be aware of their mind while watching TV.

In terms of conditioning ourselves to violence... I think there is a real problem with rejoicing in someone beating someone else up, even if it is "consensual" or whatever. Cheering for someone to beat up someone else is not Dharma. There's a reason why it says in the Lotus Sutra that one shouldn't teach Dharma to someone involved in boxing (fighting and fighting sports).

Another thing is that by exposing ourselves to violence without shunning it in our minds, we subconsciously give it validity. It becomes more okay with us to see violence, we see it as somehow normal. We accept it instead of reject it.

It's one thing to say as lay Dharma students, it's okay to do things that aren't aligned with Dharma. That's most of us, we're not perfect. But it's another thing to say that boxing is Dharma. It's very samsaric. Maybe there are some people out there who have a high view that samsara and nirvana are no different... But for most people this is not the case.

All that being said, I think the strongest case for doing martial arts as a Dharma practice were expressed nicely by PVS:
PadmaVonSamba wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 7:49 am
Or, since every day lots of people around the world are eager to spar with others in all types of martial arts, perhaps they have developed less attachment to the physical body. In other words, maybe to them, getting a bruised eye or a bloody nose once in a while is no big deal. You or I might find it abhorrent. But those people are not you or I.
In the world of Japanese martial arts, there is this zen attitude of facing your fear of death. Fear of danger is very deep in us, and if we have a zen practice we can use an opponent attacking us to let go of our deep attachments to safety and our own lives.

In the end, Dharma is whatever cuts down our eight worldly concerns. Samsara is whatever feeds them.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17089
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Self Defense

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

I wasn't gonna do this, but here goes:
SilenceMonkey wrote: Wed Mar 17, 2021 11:24 pm I think watching sports is just as samsaric as watching movies or anything else on TV in terms of entertainment and distraction from meditation. It's a rare person who can be aware of their mind while watching TV.
If a person can't be aware of themselves while watching TV, understanding their own conditioning, they are not well trained at all. It is not hard to maintain mindfulness during such things, any more than it is during anything else. If people aren't being taught how to do this, it is a fault in their practice...literally people in secular meditation, mindfulness, and therapy programs learn to do this.
In terms of conditioning ourselves to violence... I think there is a real problem with rejoicing in someone beating someone else up, even if it is "consensual" or whatever. Cheering for someone to beat up someone else is not Dharma. There's a reason why it says in the Lotus Sutra that one shouldn't teach Dharma to someone involved in boxing (fighting and fighting sports).
Again, "violence" is not one thing it is many things, and the thing that truly defines the worst kind of violence is that it is perpetrated against unwilling people. That's why it is conventionally seen as worse to kill civilians, domestic violence against a helpless person is far worse than two brothers getting in a fistfight (which would still be domestic violence legally), etc. If people are practicing the path of renunciation, and have no need to learn about violence anyway, than it is just great if they fully avoid such things. Similarly, everyone has a different reaction to these things, and they do not condition everyone in the same way.

As I said, what is poison for some is medicine for others. I grew up getting the shit beaten out of me, threatened and wailed on by bigger, older kids, and living in situations a bit above an average level in terms of the threat of getting beat up - up through young adulthood. I'm not some operator or a person that has seen actual warfare or killing, but I have experienced more physical violence against my person than the average Joe. I can't just turn that off or erase it, as an adult I have baggage from of the things I've been through. Enough to actually have a diagnosis. My reaction to Boxing is completely different from someone who has not had my experiences and is not me. For,me martial arts practice and the bit of combat sport I have done, as well as actually learning about the reality of violence, (as opposed to the kind of theorycrafting about violence that has mostly gone on in this thread) has been incredibly therapeutic, and has actually helped me let go of some of the fear and reflexive paranoia that my experiences created. It has been as or more effective than therapy in helping me deal with this stuff.

In short, this kind of training has actually conventionally helped me to be a better person, to some degree. It's not an uncommon thing. The opposite is also true of course, for some people martial training, watching combat sport, etc is absolutely toxic, and you can see it. I have also taught martial arts for around 15 years now. I can honestly say that for the majority of people, learning this stuff is a positive experience. I have met a few creeps who would've just been made worse, but they don't stay around. It speaks to the importance of martial arts teachers always being aware as possible of their own predilections and teaching their students in a responsible, holistic way. This happens in more places than you would expect.

If your experience level of these things is minimal, you have little room to moralize about it to someone with said experience. You can say that for you it would be bad to do something like watch Boxing, but you do not know how it is for others.
Another thing is that by exposing ourselves to violence without shunning it in our minds, we subconsciously give it validity. It becomes more okay with us to see violence, we see it as somehow normal. We accept it instead of reject it.
Again, you need to learn about violence, it is not one thing. It is a large subject that is omnipresent throughout human history, conflating combat sports with something like an assault is just nonsense, particularly to anyone who has actually studied violence. As someone who has been in consensual fights, martial arts bouts, and also been assaulted, I can tell you, they are not the same thing at all.
It's one thing to say as lay Dharma students, it's okay to do things that aren't aligned with Dharma. That's most of us, we're not perfect. But it's another thing to say that boxing is Dharma. It's very samsaric. Maybe there are some people out there who have a high view that samsara and nirvana are no different... But for most people this is not the case.
Who said Boxing was Dharma, and where exactly did they say that?

In the world of Japanese martial arts, there is this zen attitude of facing your fear of death. Fear of danger is very deep in us, and if we have a zen practice we can use an opponent attacking us to let go of our deep attachments to safety and our own lives.

In the end, Dharma is whatever cuts down our eight worldly concerns. Samsara is whatever feeds them.
What's your experience with this stuff? From what experiences or knowledge are you drawing your conclusions about martial arts, combat sport, and interpersonal violence? BTW, the blip about Japanese Martial arts pretty much goes for any martial training, if it is approached as a "martial way" rather than just a method, in particular.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
SilenceMonkey
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:54 am

Re: Self Defense

Post by SilenceMonkey »

Johnny Dangerous wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 12:49 am ...
That's all fine. I think the OP was asking what Buddhism says about how to relate with violence. And whenever someone says, "What does Buddhism say about... ?" I hear "what does the Dharma say about it?" So I interpreted this as, "Is martial arts or fighting Dharma?"

Your responses are all very reasonable from a worldly perspective. And we live in this kind of world where we need to think about such things and make choices accordingly. But I also think it's important to discern what is and isn't Dharma, which was my main point. Often when talking about modern problems, we tend to project our modern interpretations and say it is Buddhism. But yeah... what is buddhism... what a question.

Sometimes we may need to do undharmic things to protect ourselves... That's how I see self-defense. With training, people may become skilled in taking the path of least harm. A la aikido or taichi.

I have 15 years of training in various martial arts.
MagnetSoulSP
Posts: 269
Joined: Fri Jun 30, 2023 1:45 am

Re: Self Defense

Post by MagnetSoulSP »

SilenceMonkey wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 3:00 am
Johnny Dangerous wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 12:49 am ...
That's all fine. I think the OP was asking what Buddhism says about how to relate with violence. And whenever someone says, "What does Buddhism say about... ?" I hear "what does the Dharma say about it?" So I interpreted this as, "Is martial arts or fighting Dharma?"

Your responses are all very reasonable from a worldly perspective. And we live in this kind of world where we need to think about such things and make choices accordingly. But I also think it's important to discern what is and isn't Dharma, which was my main point. Often when talking about modern problems, we tend to project our modern interpretations and say it is Buddhism. But yeah... what is buddhism... what a question.

Sometimes we may need to do undharmic things to protect ourselves... That's how I see self-defense. With training, people may become skilled in taking the path of least harm. A la aikido or taichi.

I have 15 years of training in various martial arts.
I highly doubt you have trained based on your responses.

Also as much as it chafes me to admit he has a point, you don't get violence or the path. I thought that there was a saying where "everything is the path" (or dharma). Meaning that everything is practice. I'm pretty sure Buddha as an exercise had his students walk through the aftermaths of battles to bear witness to the horror and carnage and to accept this aspect of reality. That this gruesome spectacle is life as well and by turning away we give it power.

From what I see self-defense is dharma or not dharma depending on who you ask. Like I said in some circles I have asked this it is said to never perform self defense as you would be doing harm to prevent harm, which is bad. No exceptions. Others have a more lax approach.

It reminds me of how there is different branches and takes on Buddhism and there is no true umbrella for it all.

HOWEVER, I think that those who have experience with it can't see it clearly for what it is the same way football players cannot see from within. Those outside the sport or martial arts have a better idea of what's going on and don't rationalize like you do.
User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 17089
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: Self Defense

Post by Johnny Dangerous »

Ardha, I'm not rationalizing. I've spent something like 30-35 years doing martial arts at the lowest possible count. I've also had time to reflect on the effects of it on myself and others during periods where I wasn't, or couldn't train. I almost quit at one point, based on precisely these kinds of arguments. I've examined this question pretty closely. I've been around a wide variety of practitioner, personalities, and takes on the subject - including teaching. None of what you are claiming is remotely new to me.

I'm speaking from a level of experience that most people here don't have in this stuff, as far as I know. I'm not an amazing martial artist, but I know of what I speak. I also have enough direct experience of violence to understand the huge gulf between martial arts, combat sport, and violence.

Like I said, what is medicine for some is poison for others. People are welcome to make these sweeping pronouncements about it of course. There are places for all of us where we need hard and fast rules, and we need to be puritans with ourselves because our condition simply requires it. An example: I cannot drink aclohol normally, I have no choice but to treat it pretty puritanically, because I know from experience that if I tell myself it's ok to have a drink weekly, that drink turns into a drink daily, twice daily, etc...and it continues to escalate from there.There is nothing wrong with having to apply complete renunciation towards a given object, and that approach is part of the "ground floor" fundamentals of Buddhism.

There are also points where we need to be our own light, ask ourselves these questions, look directly at our own condition, and spend years answering them (like I have) to even have a provisional answer *for our own lives*, much less a definitive answer that we think should apply to everyone.

As I said, when someone has way less experience and first hand knowledge of a given subject, they are just in no position to be lecturing about how others should approach their own condition and circumstances.

Now, if Grigoris ( a well known user here) was here making such arguments, I would be more likely to listen to him, because he has genuine experience. I think he has a different take than I do on this too, and is probably more restrictive, despite having gone deeper than I into the combat sports world.

Trying to lecture on the morality of it for others though? Naw.
SilenceMonkey wrote:With training, people may become skilled in taking the path of least harm. A la aikido or taichi.
Taiji is plenty violent, the traditional art at least, just as violent as Karate and containing plenty of the same strategies and tactics. Chen being the first incarnation. Look up the Cannon Fist they used to teach sometime. Those dudes used to beat the tar out of each other and toss each other off of Lei Tais. Chen was transformed into Yang who taught it to aristocracy, and the martial bits were removed. That's is what made it so ripe for the mostly health thing it is today. I'm not putting that down, i do it myself and think it's a wonderful thing to do, but the way it's taught today seems "peaceful" simply because the martial part is usually not being taught.

Aikido was developed from battlefield Jujutsu techniques systematized into something decidedly non-martial by Morihei Ueshiba, partially based on his religious/spiritual ideas. When removed from the ceremonial and impractical way they are practiced they are mostly specialized techniques designed to break or injure limbs that are holding implements (i.e. weapons), as well as pain-compliance come-along techniques that would have be utilized to basically bully people into doing something.

There is no "nice" way to counter violence other than talking your way out, running away, or not being there in the first place. If someone is actually trying to seriously injure you you have to either do the same enough to incapacitate at least long enough to escape, or just avoid and escape -which of course, is *by far* the most important skill, and the one that should be prioritized if someone is interested in self-defense training. The trouble is that almost nowhere actually teaches self-defense, not the traditional schools, not the combat sport schools. Actual self defense material is boring, mostly information rather than techniques, doesn't sell well, and doesn't stroke the ego as well.

The "self defense" portion is actually the most compatible with Buddhism, because it runs on the assumption that you will only hurt someone when it is absolutely, completely necessary to protect yourself or others, and will have a whole stack of strategy and tactics to use long before it gets to that point. I grew up doing Okinawan Karate and it is what I am authorized to teach. It has it's impractical and silly side, but I will always be grateful that it generally teaches these ethics by default. If I did not have grounding in these ethics, then I think I would indeed need to quit training, and it would be much more harmful to my psyche.

Anyway, I would say that for "self defense" the most important things are de-escalation, the levels of awareness, victim profile, types of predatory/violent behavior, cues of violence, and things of this nature, and only then worry about whether it is necessary to learn actual physical strategies and tactics, which are (or should be) things that are only needed when everything else has failed. Physical skills don't do anyone any good unless they are kept pretty sharp anyway.
Meditate upon Bodhicitta when afflicted by disease

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when sad

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when suffering occurs

Meditate upon Bodhicitta when you are scared

-Khunu Lama
SilenceMonkey
Posts: 1448
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:54 am

Re: Self Defense

Post by SilenceMonkey »

Ardha wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:23 am I highly doubt you have trained based on your responses.
That's fine, think what you like.

I've had teachers from different arts. Some of my most violent-minded teachers were aikido, taiji and bagua masters. And some of my most peaceful teachers were karateka. That's why I mentioned that with training and skill, you may be more able to control the situation and guide it to a peaceful resolution. But that's a choice and comes from an inner spirit of peace and compassion, which is less common than people might think. The majority of high level teachers I've learned with have this attitude of justice. If someone comes at them to attack, it's the aggressor's own fault if they get their bones smashed and sent to the hospital.

From JD:
There is no "nice" way to counter violence other than talking your way out, running away, or not being there in the first place. If someone is actually trying to seriously injure you you have to either do the same enough to incapacitate at least long enough to escape, or just avoid and escape -which of course, is *by far* the most important skill, and the one that should be prioritized if someone is interested in self-defense training. The trouble is that almost nowhere actually teaches self-defense, not the traditional schools not the combat sport schools...because actual self defense is boring, mostly information rather than techniques, doesn't sell well, and doesn't stroke the ego as well.

The "self defense" portion is actually the most compatible with Buddhism, because it runs on the assumption that you will only hurt someone when it is absolutely, completely necessary to protect yourself or others, and will have a whole stack of strategy and tactics to use long before it gets to that point. I grew up doing Okinawan Karate and it is what I am authorized to teach. It has it's impractical and silly side, but I will always be grateful that it generally teaches these ethics by default. If I did not have grounding in these ethics, then I think I would indeed need to quit training, and it would be much more harmful to my psyche.
I very much agree with this sentiment. The actual self-defense understanding that you're talking about is mostly absent from the martial arts I've come into contact with. I've only seen it taught in my original karate dojo and eluded to in aikido. I think what is often advertised as self-defense is not this strategic thinking and street smarts, but how to most effectively mow down an opponent. That's just my experience. As we all know, it varies from place to place.

As for actually defending oneself, I don't think people shouldn't defend themselves. But getting into an altercation could create some serious karma.
Ardha wrote: Thu Mar 18, 2021 4:23 am I'm pretty sure Buddha as an exercise had his students walk through the aftermaths of battles to bear witness to the horror and carnage and to accept this aspect of reality. That this gruesome spectacle is life as well and by turning away we give it power.
Yes... It is very important to face these things. But on the other hand, Buddha didn't tell his disciples to become soldiers. He didn't even tell them to learn how to fight in case they were robbed, raped or otherwise assaulted. A question in my mind now is: What does the vinaya say about what monks should do in the face of danger? As for lay people, I think it could be more open to interpretation.

An anecdote just came to mind. When I was at Dharma Drum Mountain in Taiwan, they had a gym where the monastics and students at the university could play basketball and badminton. Someone in the administration thought it would be a good idea to get a dummy for people to punch and kick. It was a blue torso of a buff guy, and looked pretty human. It was a bit of a controversy and there was a lot of push back. A lot of people there thought that even though this dummy wasn't a real person, to really hit him would plant seeds in ones consciousness of wanting to beat up a human being. I personally had a lot of fun wailing on the dummy, but I think it would be inappropriate if a monk or nun was doing this. The reason I mention this is I believe it is a central question to the training of non-violence. If even in our minds to fight someone may create this kind of karma... I believe there is a training to not harm someone with body, speech or mind. To imagine ourselves attacking another being may go directly against this precept. It's subtle, but I think it's something to consider.

This is just my view.
Post Reply

Return to “Dharma in Everyday Life”