Expert: Justin Choo - 7/31/2007

Question
QUESTION: Hello dear,
I hope you are fine. It`s a great chance that I can ask you my questions. My first question is as follows:

Where is the place of “Self-Defense” and “Self-Country Defense” and “Self-Family Defense” in the Theravada Tradition of Buddhism (TTB)? If we divide actions in 5th categories, which category will be the place of “Self-Defense” in TTB? Here are the 5th categories:

1. Optional: Whether it is done or not doesn’t have anything to do with TTB.
2. Recommended: It is better to be done.
3. Abominable: It is better not to be done.
4. Obligatory: It must be done.
5. Illegal: It must never be done.

This question came to my mind when I was reading these verses of Dhamma-padda :

For never does hatred cease by hatred in this world. Hatred ceases only by non-hatred. This is an eternal law. Verse No.5

All people tremble at the prospect of punishment. All people fear death.Behave others as if you are behaving yourself, don`t kill and don`t cause others to kill. Verse No.129

Victory breeds hatred, for the conquered are unhappy. Those who have given up both victory and defeat are content and happy. Verse No.201

The sages who injure no one and who always control their bodies—they will go to the unchangeable place where they will suffer no more. Verse No.225

He is not noble who injures living beings. One is so called because he is harmless towards all living beings. Verse No.270

Patiently shall I endure abuse as the elephant in battle endures the arrow sent from the bow, for there are many, indeed, who lack virtue. Verse No.320

The ones I call indeed brahmans who, though innocent offense, endure abuse, beating, and bonds—who have patience as their force and strength as their army. Verse No.399

The ones I call indeed brahmans who are tolerant among the intolerant, mild among the violent, and free from greed among the greedy. Verse No.406

Besides these verses, there is another verse that forbids selling weapons for lay people: Anguttara-Nikaya V, Sutta 177

To put simple, my question is, in which conditions Buddhists are allowed to break the SIKKHAPADA [I mean panca-sila(the Five Moral Order for lay people)]

ANSWER: Hi Arash,

Welcome.  It is also with great pleasure that I am given a chance to try to answer your question.  May I take it that your question is in your last sentence:

<<To put simple, my question is, in which conditions Buddhists are allowed to break the SIKKHAPADA [I mean panca-sila(the Five Moral Order for lay people)]>>

The Buddha did not COMMAND his followers NOT to break precepts. It is generally translated as "I undertake to observe the precept".

Take the example of the first precept which states that one should REFRAIN from killing. Killing is unwholesome. The act of killing means a being has to die due to this act of killing. The law of kamma is amoral. It does not take mitigation for a lesser crime. As lay Buddhists, we are always confronted with this conflict of principles against the onslaught of worldly evils. That was why the Buddha encouraged his followers to become monks to be "away" from the worldly evils. As monks they are required to keep their precepts strictly without compromise. That is the type of life that monks have decided to live by. This means that they will not commit any killing for whatever reason. However, for us lay people we have to be wise to weigh circumstances and to balance our worldly lives with our spiritual values. It is difficult as well as controversial. The Buddha encouraged us to use our common sense and human intelligence to live a practical life. The question here is whether an unwholesome act can be for the better good of the other parties. For example, if killing an aedes mosquito could save the lives of many humans, then we have to use our wisdom to decide. However, the act of killing will produce an unwholesome result now or in the future. Are we prepared to face the consequences for the better good of others? Also, we have to take into considerations of the nature of the life that we have taken. Is this life that we have taken beneficial to society; what is its life span? If that life is not beneficial and its life span is also very short, then the bad effect is much less than otherwise.

The universal law holds supreme.  An unwholesome act will produce corresponding unwholesome consequence now or in future.  Wholesome lifestyle will generate wholesome consequences.  It is our responsibility to live right and make effort to maintain this wholesome way of life; and hopefully there will be less chance that we have to commit unwholesome acts.  The five precepts are like a protective fence, when effectively guarded, harm will not come our way.  

Smile from justinchoo :-)



---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Hi again my dear friend,
I am very happy to see your answer. You know, I had been looking for someone whom I can ask my questions about Buddhism for two years and now i`m very happy that I have finally found you.
After reading your answer, i`ve come to these conclusions, if any of my conclusions are wrong, please correct them:
1.   Monks in NO conditions are allowed to kill (or act as apposed to the ten percepts) which means:
They are not allowed to defend themselves or their families (father, mother, sister or brother) against the murderers. They are not allowed to defend their country (If another country attacks their country, they only sit and watch or maybe also feel sorry for the people who have been killed.)
2.   Lay people are in different conditions. Their actions on this matter (self-defense) can be optional. This means that if they want to be completely free from pain, they should kill nobody in any condition. (For example if a killer comes to his/her house and wants to kill him/her or his/her mother, if he/she wants to be free from pain (or reach nirvana), he/she should not defend him/her self or his/her mother.) But if they are ready to tolerate different pains, they are allowed to defend themselves or their countries. Because kamma will punish them for defending their family or their country.

Now, new questions have come to my mind.

You have said: “The Buddha did not COMMAND his followers NOT to break precepts. It is generally translated as "I undertake to observe the precept".�

I think putting “undertake� instead of “command�, is playing with words. To be honest with ourselves we must accept that Buddha said that if you want to reach nirvana, this is the way and you must act not opposed to the five percepts. If you do so, you won`t reach nirvana.

You have said: “Killing is unwholesome. The act of killing means a being has to die due to this act of killing. The law of kamma is amoral. It does not take mitigation for a lesser crime.�
I think the percept of kamma is going “immoral� instead of “amoral� in this case.
If, by killing a person you will be able to save the life of someone else why should that killing bring bad kamma for you? In fact that killing can even be called “wholesome�.

You have said: “As lay Buddhists, we are always confronted with this conflict of principles against the onslaught of worldly evils. That was why the Buddha encouraged his followers to become monks to be "away" from the worldly evils. As monks they are required to keep their precepts strictly without compromise. That is the type of life that monks have decided to live by. This means that they will not commit any killing for whatever reason.�
But by becoming a monk, one can only reduce his connection with worldy evils. The connection with worldy evils can never be completely disconnected. Just imagine you are a monk and the government of your country has decided to kill all the monks or Buddhists of his country. Why shouldn`t monks fight the government forces to defend themselves? Self-Defense is a natural act and it`s not clear to me that why self-defense will cause bad kamma. If in the time of Gutama, a person would have tried to kill his son, wouldn`t he have run to defend him?

You have said: “The question here is whether an unwholesome act can be for the better good of the other parties. For example, if killing an aedes mosquito could save the lives of many humans, then we have to use our wisdom to decide.�
Are you saying that Buddhism has no order for this kind of situations?

You have said: “However, the act of killing will produce an unwholesome result now or in the future. Are we prepared to face the consequences for the better good of others?�

Kamma is getting really immoral here. It is defending the killers now. Now, there has come a question into my mind: If Buddha was the governor of a country, how would he have controled the people. Would he have kept rapists and murderers on the streets instead of putting them into jail, by saying that “the law of kamma itself will punish them�?

You have said: “Also, we have to take into considerations of the nature of the life that we have taken. Is this life that we have taken beneficial to society; what is its life span?�

I am very happy that you pointed to this matter now. Let`s look at the life of the monks. How are they beneficial to society? They only eat food (the food that others have produced), sleep, and meditate. They are no good to society. They don`t produce anything. They are only consumers.
However in situations like that our country or our family is being attacked by others, we don`t have time to research about attackers and see if they are beneficial to society or not.

You have said: “The universal law holds supreme.  An unwholesome act will produce corresponding unwholesome consequence now or in future.  Wholesome lifestyle will generate wholesome consequences.â€�
I agree with this saying completely but I think it`s not unwholesome to save the life of others by killing a killer and it will not produce unwholesome consequenses. In fact I think “not defending those who are suffering by others� is unwholesome.

One point: I`ll be happier if you answer my questions, straightly quoting the Tripitaka.

Anyway, I really THANK YOU for your answers.  

Answer
Hi Arash,

Welcome back.

Your last comment first: about quoting Tipitaka.  I am sorry I am not skilled in interpreting and quoting the Tipitaka.  What I share with you are mostly from the books I read and from the talks delivered by learned Buddhist speakers, especially by my late teacher, the Ven Dhammananda (http://www.ksridhammananda.com).

<<1. Monks in NO conditions are allowed to kill ...>>
Please remember in Buddhism there are no such terms as "MUST" or "ALLOWED".  The Buddha merely lead us to the path of truth, embodied in the Noble Eightfold Path.  It is up to us whether to follow or not.  No one is forced to obey any commandment.

<<2. Lay people are in different conditions. Their actions on this matter (self-defense) can be optional....>>
As lay people we have to lead a balanced life based on wisdom.  The wisdom to weigh the facts and consequences and then to make the best of the choices.


<<To be honest with ourselves we must accept that Buddha said that if you want to reach nirvana, this is the way and you must act not opposed to the five percepts. If you do so, you won`t reach nirvana....>>
By just following the five precepts, one will experience a happier life, but not reach Nibbana.  One will have to cultivate much much more to attain salvation.  


<< The law of kamma is amoral. It does not take mitigation for a lesser crime....>>
It is like elctricity, if you touch a life-wire you are dead.  The reason(s) for your touching is irrelevent.

<<Why shouldn`t monks fight the government forces to defend themselves? Self-Defense is a natural act and it`s not clear to me that why self-defense will cause bad kamma.>>
If they want to fight the government, they just need to disrobe.  No one is forcing them to be monks; but to be monks then they will have to keep their precepts strictly without any compromise.
"Self-defence" is a natural instinct of all life forms.  As I said before, the reasons may be justified, but the act is a different issue.  You may have saved your own life; but in the process you have killed one or many.  That is why it is a very unsatisfactory condition to exist in this world...The First Noble Truth...Dukkha.

<<If Buddha was the governor of a country, how would he have controled the people.>>
That is why he WAS the Buddha.  He need not have to govern a country!!

<<Let`s look at the life of the monks. How are they beneficial to society? They only eat food (the food that others have produced), sleep, and meditate. They are no good to society. They don`t produce anything. They are only consumers...>>
Monks (genuine monks) are the holy order of the Buddha.  They are the GUARDIANCE and TEACHERS of the Dhamma (Buddha's teachings).  Without them Buddhism would have long disappeared.  Buddhists have great respect for them and are grateful for their guidance.

<<I agree with this saying completely but I think it`s not unwholesome to save the life of others by killing a killer and it will not produce unwholesome consequenses.>>
It is not unwholesome to save the life. It is unwholesome to kill.  In the final analysis one has to use WISDOM to decide.  It is not a clear-cut yes/no option.

Hope you can think over my comments.  Please come back if  need be.
(Please start a new "Ask A Question" option.)

Smile from justinchoo :-)