Self Defense

[neander]

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.

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.

How can you be sure of this ?

The only thing we know about early Buddhism is that Buddha Dharma is the middle path.

Total ahimsa and not defending oneself is one of the many Jainism hijacking of Buddhism, one of those extremes that Buddha fought..

[Queequeg]

I grew up...

...in NM...

Johnny Tapia. That guy was fun to watch.

[Queequeg]

there is no true umbrella for it all.

Sure there is: prajna

[Queequeg]

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.

What if you are protecting people? What if the training is to incapacitate someone who is behaving in a violently aggressive manner? I would guess the training would need to be heavily balanced with metta and karuna. A person who is acting violently aggressive is by definition from a Buddhist perspective, out of their minds. They've given over to passions. To stop them from acting out would be a kind gesture.

[haha]

I am not sure from where I have got this idea. But there might be some prohibition to watching bull-fight/animals fight or some kind of fight. Someone could tell what buddha said about it. This would also valid for person to person fight. We can generally conclude that it is not conducive for liberation.

What is right livelihood? That could be answer for this question. Would Maudgalyayana, Angulimala, or Purna have to kill other or break others’ bone in the name of self-defense? One may dismiss this argument saying they were Sravaka or Arhat and householder need different ethics.

However, if someone’s circumstance is unavoidable to involve in such entertainment or conflict, it would be the different case. If one is free from such circumstance, it is not really good idea to generate unwholesome state of mind engaging in such feast. To engage in bodhisattva activity, white karma could be more important for long term benefit. Such profession or engagement is beneficial for one-life-time or own life, but it is hard to maintain peaceful of mind. One would have constant thought of being challenged if one is master in that profession.

All traditions have made their own value and ethic and its interpretation, one can choose whichever way suit for oneself. People will learn result of own deed. For personal opinion, I do not see much difference in authoritarian nation killing and imprisoning their civilian to protect themselves or their own ethic, norm and philosophy/doctrine. And there is not much difference that a religious person (if capable to work with energy) killing or cursing other group of people in the name of protection of own life or for protection of own religious doctrine.

[Johnny Dangerous]

I grew up...

...in NM...

Johnny Tapia. That guy was fun to watch.

Ha yeah, that guy is such a local celebrity of course. Him and Breaking Bad lol, they get used as marketing a lot.

What if you are protecting people? What if the training is to incapacitate someone who is behaving in a violently aggressive manner? I would guess the training would need to be heavily balanced with metta and karuna. A person who is acting violently aggressive is by definition from a Buddhist perspective, out of their minds. They've given over to passions. To stop them from acting out would be a kind gesture.

This is a big part of it, what your training is oriented towards.

In general if one is training for self-defense, you are actually training to -not- be violent and to avoid it, but to have skills to protect oneself or others if needed, which does require some "simulated" violence at different levels of contact. So the training for it can be graphic, injurious if you're not careful etc. It however should not make a person more aggressive.

In fact, I will tell you that some of the most violence-obsessed people I meet are those whose training is deficient in self-defense concepts, that have strange ideas about it, or a kind of fantasy idea about being a hero in a violent encounter. So in many cases the most unhealthy mindsets that develop are those which are deficient in proper training about how violence works. The stereotype of the middle aged white guy holed up with his guns in his relatively safe suburban area with fantasies about taking down criminals is a good example. Another example on the opposite end would be an Aikido guy who thinks he can "avoid" hurting someone trying to smash his face in with fancy footwork maneuvers learned in the dojo with a compliant partner. This person is a mild danger because they have such a distorted idea about how violence works that they are overconfident in what their training can do.

Conversely, the guys I've known who do combat sport don't really view what they are doing as violence, they view it as sport. Some are good sportsmen, some are not, like any sport. Almost none of the combat sports people I've known are aggressive though. The Boxing gym is one of the most polite and earnest places I've ever trained. No bullshit, no ego, hard work and nothing else.

Of course, and let's recognize this: most people will never use their skills in a violent encounter, plenty of people have never been in even a fistfight, much less a genuinely violent encounter...so what we are talking about is how certain things do or do not condition a person.

Along those lines, even for Combat sport there are significant parts of training that are not about fighting at all, but are about body mechanics, fitness, mental and physical endurance, social relationships, etc. A lot of these aspects are very positive, and tend to be the things that keep people training in the long term. For traditional martial arts this is even more so, most of why people train is for the personal-betterment aspect, even if they originally walk through the door for something more concrete.

Personally, I feel like a lot of the arguments in this thread circle around the idea that violence is merely physical acts, and that by studying physical acts you must become violent. It's more accurate to say that an already violent person has more tools to be violent if they have training. It takes more than learning violent acts to make people violent and aggressive - to shift someone's personality like that. First and foremost, you have to have a lack of respect for other people's autonomy..this is known and taught in things like DV classes. If some of the logic in this thread were true, then we would treat violent people's minds by approaching how they physically do violence...which is not at all how that is handled. The first thing that is looked at is how the violent person views others - this is what drives violence and domination of others, not knowledge of physical acts, which can be used either to perpetuate violence -or- to repel it.

There is some risk of conditioning oneself negatively for sure in martial arts or combat sport training, but it is not so black and white. The idea that learning about violence makes one violent is a Buddhist renunciate attitude it's best forms, and in it's worst forms is just people who can be insulated from violence exercising their privilege to do so. I cannot view the latter as a valid way of seeing things, though the former is reasonable for people who follow the renuniciate way of dealing with kleshas. We could still get into whether or not someone is angry or similarly caught in the afflictions during martial arts training..usually they are not, but that would get pretty abstract.

I am not sure from where I have got this idea. But there might be some prohibition to watching bull-fight/animals fight or some kind of fight. Someone could tell what buddha said about it. This would also valid for person to person fight. We can generally conclude that it is not conducive for liberation.

IIRC there are direct prohibitions in the Pali Canon against hanging with Boxers and Wrestlers, I'm not denying that. Like I said, if someone's practice is renunciation, I get why they should not do martial arts, watch combat sports, etc. In Vajrayana, and to degree in places in the Mahayana, figuring out what is and is not of benefit involves a different reasoning than simple prohibition...that is a Sravakayana thing.

[SilenceMonkey]

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.

What if you are protecting people? What if the training is to incapacitate someone who is behaving in a violently aggressive manner? I would guess the training would need to be heavily balanced with metta and karuna. A person who is acting violently aggressive is by definition from a Buddhist perspective, out of their minds. They've given over to passions. To stop them from acting out would be a kind gesture.

I think it would be good in this case. But using violence to protect someone is very mixed karma. Just something to keep in mind...

For this to be a pure action, your mind would have to be full of bodhicitta to the point where the poisons aren't present in the experience. To do this in a circumstance where one is actually in a violent confrontation would be very difficult to do. It would take some serious training in loving kindness... And I think it's very rare for a martial artist to train in loving kindness so they can save their attacker. I've never heard it talked about seriously in the martial arts groups I've been a part of. The most compassionate response I've heard is to knock them out or break their arms and legs so you'll end the fight quickly. It's often seen as benevolent not to kill the person. I think it's pretty hard to be a saint in such circumstances.

I think there's also something to be said about a mind that contemplates violence all the time, even if just for self-defense... what kind of karma would come from such a mind. Constantly envisioning violent situations, even if you're just thinking about how to protect yourself and your friends.

If done with bodhicitta, this might be a lojong exercise. But if not, I'm not sure the result would be so pure.

[steveb1]

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?

I would hazard the guess that Buddhism permits authentic self-defense of self - and others - when decisive, violent action is the only way of preventing mutilation and/or murder.

After all, to mutilate and kill are themselves un-Buddhistic actions. A reaction in self-defense is different in quality from the violence inherent in an unprovoked attack. Especially if weak and vulnerable people like the aged, disabled and/or children are the targets of unprovoked violence. I don't think the Buddha would have stood by and watched as someone beat up or molested a child. Nor would he loftily preach Dharma teaching at the criminal with an air of Olympian detachment. The Buddha would have taken physical action - probably trying to inflict as little damage as possible on the miscreant, but still being willing to disable or kill the criminal if all other options had been exhausted. The Buddha as a guilty bystander? No, I don't think so.

[Johnny Dangerous]

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.

What if you are protecting people? What if the training is to incapacitate someone who is behaving in a violently aggressive manner? I would guess the training would need to be heavily balanced with metta and karuna. A person who is acting violently aggressive is by definition from a Buddhist perspective, out of their minds. They've given over to passions. To stop them from acting out would be a kind gesture.

I think it would be good in this case. But using violence to protect someone is very mixed karma. Just something to keep in mind...

For this to be a pure action, your mind would have to be full of bodhicitta to the point where the poisons aren't present in the experience. To do this in a circumstance where one is actually in a violent confrontation would be very difficult to do. It would take some serious training in loving kindness... And I think it's very rare for a martial artist to train in loving kindness so they can save their attacker. I've never heard it talked about seriously in the martial arts groups I've been a part of. The most compassionate response I've heard is to knock them out or break their arms and legs so you'll end the fight quickly. It's often seen as benevolent not to kill the person. I think it's pretty hard to be a saint in such circumstances.

I think there's also something to be said about a mind that contemplates violence all the time, even if just for self-defense... what kind of karma would come from such a mind. Constantly envisioning violent situations, even if you're just thinking about how to protect yourself and your friends.

If done with bodhicitta, this might be a lojong exercise. But if not, I'm not sure the result would be so pure.

It all depends on context. Like I said, I've experienced enough violence personally, and with family members being victimized to have it mold parts of my personality and give me some issues that I have to work through, pretty in your face Karma.

The only way for me is through that stuff, I don't have an option to just avoid thinking about it, all I can do is change the way I think about it. I actually became more inclined towards aggression during the times I was not training, my temper got much worse, and training has been the thing that helped me the most with these issues.

I don't really have a choice as to whether I am "contemplating" this stuff or not. If others have that privilege I am happy for them. It is a privilege to not have to know about violence, make no mistake there, not everyone has had that option in their lives. It is a different question for those people than it is for me.

And again, boiling violence down to mere physical acts is simply not a good way to think about it, that is not accurate even in the most conventional sense.

In my experience there ceases to be emotion involved at all in the midst of actual defending oneself, and in fact this is scientifically borne out somewhat, people's brains go into survival mode, not feeling mode.

I think it's very rare for a martial artist to train in loving kindness so they can save their attacker.

All there needs to be is the knowledge of what is a better outcome. In this case, you (or another) have tried to get away and were unable to, so you must use violence to repel an attack. Loving kindness in the moment is not necessary for that basic ethical reasoning, only the knowledge that you have found the least harmful outcome. Again, cultivating loving kindness in the midst of defending oneself would be arguably unlikely anyway, because I can tell you, conceptualization is mostly suspended when you are truly fighting for your safety.

The only response to that is to say that it might be that a "turn the other cheek" response is best, but this is quite theoretical, moreso than the above reasoning.

The most compassionate response I've heard is to knock them out or break their arms and legs so you'll end the fight quickly. It's often seen as benevolent not to kill the person. I think it's pretty hard to be a saint in such circumstances.

Ok I'll be honest here, it sounds like you're training with people engaging in martial arts fantasies that don't have a realistic notion of self-defense or how different types of violence play out. It's common, it's rare to find people who have bothered to study or train this stuff seriously in the Traditional Martial Arts world, but theoretical conversations about breaking arms and legs, etc. are just silly, and I agree they are not good for people. "Stun and run" is by far the most likely and needed physical response to train for...with more severe stuff in your back pocket maybe.

Once again, the most important parts of training for self-defense are not about physical acts in the first place.

There are real programs for this stuff. Check out Iain Abernethy, Peter Consterdine, Geoff Thompson etc. all of these people teach a lot about avoiding and escaping conflict, and don't engage in fantasies about being more "deadly" than they are, which is a specific kind of disease in the Traditional Martial Arts world.

I'm not saying that to put down your teachers either, they might be awesome martial artists. However, if conversations surrounding self defense are turning into discussion about extreme deadly maneuvers etc., they might not have training in this area. Sometimes martial arts people make the worst self defense teachers.

[SilenceMonkey]

In my experience there ceases to be emotion involved at all in the midst of actual defending oneself, and in fact this is scientifically borne out somewhat, people's brains go into survival mode, not feeling mode.

I think it's very rare for a martial artist to train in loving kindness so they can save their attacker.

All there needs to be is the knowledge of what is a better outcome. In this case, you (or another) have tried to get away and were unable to, so you must use violence to repel an attack. Loving kindness in the moment is not necessary for that basic ethical reasoning, only the knowledge that you have found the least harmful outcome. Again, cultivating loving kindness in the midst of defending oneself would be arguably unlikely anyway, because I can tell you, conceptualization is mostly suspended when you are truly fighting for your safety.

The only response to that is to say that it might be that a "turn the other cheek" response is best, but this is quite theoretical, moreso than the above reasoning.

Yeah, sounds like it was pretty healing for you to work through your stuff through martial arts. I think it's good for a lot of people, lots of positives.

This is a really fascinating discussion, and I'm glad to be in it. I'm learning a lot from you and others who made posts earlier.

I'm going to hold my position about loving kindness. And it's because I agree with you. It's very difficult to have loving kindness for another person when you're being attacked, as you mentioned... when in fight or flight mode, this part of your mind shuts off.

Karmically speaking, I don't believe that knowledge is enough. There needs to be real bodhicitta with a real feeling of compassion there. Ethical reasoning is not real compassion in a buddhist sense, just in a philosophical sense. To me it seems more like a cold, strategic calculation... perhaps along the lines of utilitarianism going for a least-harm outcome. This is why it's so difficult. Real bodhicitta needs a big heart.

Regarding reducing violence to physical acts... I was actually reducing it to imprints in the mind.

[MagnetSoulSP]

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.

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.

I can't agree with the dummy view. I know I am treating it AS though it were a real person, however I know that a real person would feel harm and real damage. It's making a distinction between the two, something I now see.

In my life I have held firearms, they are pretty heavy and I have felt their power. Knowing that I am not chomping at the bit to cap someone even though I enjoy it in video games. It's two different instances. I can't hurt someone in a game, but in reality I can. Badly. I can imagine doing a ton of harmful things to people in my head, but it's only in my head. IT's not out there so there is no harm done. I find it's a good way to deal with anger. I let the thoughts come in, feel them, and don't act on it. Mostly because I know what happens when I let my emotions get a ride and I do things I regret. On the other hand, there are times when they gave me the push I needed to stand up for myself. It's...tricky.

But I think I see what is meant by what is poison for one is medicine for another. Though I never got that impression from reading Buddhism. It just seemed like there was only one way and if you didn't do that you're choosing to suffer. In my case I have to be absolute in a lot of things because otherwise I don't end up getting anything done or I go overboard trying to moderate. Ambiguity and lack of clear answers don't help. Structure and rules do. Though I have neglected that recently because lots of sources say that's bad to do and you are limiting yourself. Well I tried the "unlimited" bit and it doesn't work for me. I end up doing nothing because I can't (or an afraid to) commit and I never finish anything or see it through.

Even in this conversation I say I would hesitate to beat someone down because it's the right thing to do. Yet I know that if I were to be put in a situation where my life is in danger I'm scared of the person I'll become.

[Johnny Dangerous]

In my experience there ceases to be emotion involved at all in the midst of actual defending oneself, and in fact this is scientifically borne out somewhat, people's brains go into survival mode, not feeling mode.

I think it's very rare for a martial artist to train in loving kindness so they can save their attacker.

All there needs to be is the knowledge of what is a better outcome. In this case, you (or another) have tried to get away and were unable to, so you must use violence to repel an attack. Loving kindness in the moment is not necessary for that basic ethical reasoning, only the knowledge that you have found the least harmful outcome. Again, cultivating loving kindness in the midst of defending oneself would be arguably unlikely anyway, because I can tell you, conceptualization is mostly suspended when you are truly fighting for your safety.

The only response to that is to say that it might be that a "turn the other cheek" response is best, but this is quite theoretical, moreso than the above reasoning.

Yeah, sounds like it was pretty healing for you to work through your stuff through martial arts. I think it's good for a lot of people, lots of positives.

This is a really fascinating discussion, and I'm glad to be in it. I'm learning a lot from you and others who made posts earlier.

I'm going to hold my position about loving kindness. And it's because I agree with you. It's very difficult to have loving kindness for another person when you're being attacked, as you mentioned... when in fight or flight mode, this part of your mind shuts off.

Karmically speaking, I don't believe that knowledge is enough. There needs to be real bodhicitta with a real feeling of compassion there. Ethical reasoning is not real compassion in a buddhist sense, just in a philosophical sense. To me it seems more like a cold, strategic calculation... perhaps along the lines of utilitarianism going for a least-harm outcome. This is why it's so difficult. Real bodhicitta needs a big heart.

Regarding reducing violence to physical acts... I was actually reducing it to imprints in the mind.

Act's themselves are literally just that, the context and intention is responsible for what kind of '"imprint" it creates. So indeed, the part of training that drives the "imprint" is what you are doing the training for. In my case, while I teach and train for self-defense purely in terms of a skillset, my personal reasons for training are things like health, discipline, comradery, physical learning, the general peace of mind and therapeutic and meditative benefits etc.

I live a way safer life now that I did when I was younger, and my chances of needing my skills are very small. There are a couple times where I felt glad I had some training working in Jails, but even there the chance of violence was pretty remote, and it was mostly just my comfort level which was affected.

Violating precepts is permissible in the Mahayana when it is of greatest benefit. It is not an actual precept to not hit someone anyway, but we can agree that going around being physically violent and intimidating to people is clearly Adharmic. I actually think that learning conflict management skills (on every level really) is a fantastic complement to martial arts training, ideally I think it should actually -be part- of most training. A lot of the feelings of powerlessness that bring people to martial arts are just as easily addressed by people learning to communicate assertively, and learning a bit of "verbal Judo". Check out Ellis Amdur, he has some fantastic books on de-escalation that go into real detail.

Anyway, the reasoning for such things as when to commit physical violence needs to be done beforehand precisely because we cannot decide these things in the moment. in fact, it is more of a liability to decide in the moment. This is the same with Buddhists or non - Buddhists. Part of learning about self defense is learning what you are willing to do, and when.

Like I said, for me it was therapeutic to go through this stuff and dive into it, but that's not the same for everyone. People who have no issues to work through, maybe they should just stay away.

I view it as an entirely different thing than watching combat sport though, which to me is just watching a sport and is pretty disconnected from serious violence. I mean, we can critique the sport itself, including injury risk and ethics.

[SilenceMonkey]

I think you both may have missed my points. I was merely commenting on the question of how much involving oneself in self-defense, martial arts and violence is in conformity with the Dharma. ie. the purity of one's karma and one's mind. Maybe that wasn't the question in the first place... it could just be my misinterpretation. This thread got complicated quick.

All other concerns, I don't really care to touch. But I trust your judgement JD on issues of violence, substance abuse, etc... Everything you're saying is very reasonable. I do have doubts about Ardha, though... If you have such anger issues, maybe you shouldn't own a gun.

[Johnny Dangerous]

can imagine doing a ton of harmful things to people in my head, but it's only in my head.

In terms of Buddhism, this matters. To me, this is why it is important for martial skills to become a somewhat dispassionate thing. Something I can do on a technical level, but not something that makes me want to beat someone up because they made me mad. Now, I'm not saying such thoughts do not go through my head, but when they do i am fully aware of them and I know they are my afflictions talking.

When we have such thoughts, it's a good practice to replace them with thoughts of loving kindness etc. (if that is how we practice with kleshas) because it leads to conditioning oneself away from committing violence in the first place, and towards wholesome states.

If people are worried about making themselves less violent, the first thing to look at is developing true empathy. That is what stops people from being violent, this is a known thing, the fact that sociopaths and psychopaths are known to lack empathy is illustrative.

[MagnetSoulSP]

can imagine doing a ton of harmful things to people in my head, but it's only in my head.

In terms of Buddhism, this matters. To me, this is why it is important for martial skills to become a somewhat dispassionate thing. Something I can do on a technical level, but not something that makes me want to beat someone up because they made me mad. Now, I'm not saying such thoughts do not go through my head, but when they do i am fully aware of them and I know they are my afflictions talking.

When we have such thoughts, it's a good practice to replace them with thoughts of loving kindness etc. (if that is how we practice with kleshas) because it leads to conditioning oneself away from committing violence in the first place, and towards wholesome states.

If people are worried about making themselves less violent, the first thing to look at is developing true empathy. That is what stops people from being violent, this is a known thing, the fact that sociopaths and psychopaths are known to lack empathy is illustrative.

I've tried to have empathy but it's hard to convince myself that I'm not just lying. Mostly because I don't understand the feelings of others very well. I don't understand falling in love because it never happened. I don't understand brother and sister bonds or feeling grief over your family dying either. I say it's sad or appear as such because that's just what you do in that case. But I don't really "get" human feelings or motivations. I'm nice to others because it's easier and draws less attention to yourself than if you were mean or rude, not because it's "good".

PLus most of how I react to things isn't how others react or feel so empathy is VERY lost on me. Almost to the point that I think other people are lying when they practice empathy, because you can't really know how someone else feels you can only reference your own experience which couldn't be the same. People wept on 9/11 but it means nothing to me.

[Johnny Dangerous]

In Buddhist terms, a sense of empathy just requires an understanding that all beings suffer and wish to be free of suffering. It’s a universal experience requiring no specifics.

As to the rest of that conjectural mess, I’m not sure what kind of response you’re looking for so I’m leaving it be.

[Budai]

Whether they belong to more evolved species like humans or to simpler ones such as animals, all beings primarily seek peace, comfort, and security. Life is as dear to the mute animal as it is to any human being; even the simplest insect strives for protection from dangers that threaten its life. Just as each one of us wants to live and does not wish to die, so it is with all other creatures in the universe, though their power to effect this is a different matter.

-The Dalai Lama, from "A Human Approach to World Peace."

If we live to protect all beings that strive for a similar happiness that you also need deep down inside, then we are living out the Bodhissatvic ideal, whether it is in martial conflicts or in some other field of activity, as long as our goal is Peace. The Bodhisattva strives for Peace. Because Buddhism is built on Compassion.

[neander]

Whether they belong to more evolved species like humans or to simpler ones such as animals, all beings primarily seek peace, comfort, and security. Life is as dear to the mute animal as it is to any human being; even the simplest insect strives for protection from dangers that threaten its life. Just as each one of us wants to live and does not wish to die, so it is with all other creatures in the universe, though their power to effect this is a different matter.

-The Dalai Lama, from "A Human Approach to World Peace."

If we live to protect all beings that strive for a similar happiness that you also need deep down inside, then we are living out the Bodhissatvic ideal, whether it is in martial conflicts or in some other field of activity, as long as our goal is Peace. The Bodhisattva strives for Peace. Because Buddhism is built on Compassion.

The only think that protects the Dalai Lama are the 4000 Minuteman III or so ready to launch in US ground silos; otherwise he would be already in some labour camp

[Queequeg]

Whether they belong to more evolved species like humans or to simpler ones such as animals, all beings primarily seek peace, comfort, and security. Life is as dear to the mute animal as it is to any human being; even the simplest insect strives for protection from dangers that threaten its life. Just as each one of us wants to live and does not wish to die, so it is with all other creatures in the universe, though their power to effect this is a different matter.

-The Dalai Lama, from "A Human Approach to World Peace."

If we live to protect all beings that strive for a similar happiness that you also need deep down inside, then we are living out the Bodhissatvic ideal, whether it is in martial conflicts or in some other field of activity, as long as our goal is Peace. The Bodhisattva strives for Peace. Because Buddhism is built on Compassion.

The only think that protects the Dalai Lama are the 4000 Minuteman III or so ready to launch in US ground silos; otherwise he would be already in some labour camp

I'm sorry... the US is not launching a world war over HHDL. His kidnapping would warrant a strongly worded letter, maybe from the US Embassy in Beijing. Maybe from the Secretary of State.

[neander]

”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.

I also suggest you reading "Nichiren, Imperialism, and the Peace Movement" in the Japanese Journal of Religious Studies