Take the 2-minute tour ×
Buddhism Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people practicing or interested in Buddhist philosophy, teaching, and practice. It's 100% free, no registration required.

If someone is attacking you to kill you should you defend yourself? Would it be ethical to kill an intruder coming into your home? If not, how did the bushido samauri warriors justify it? We're they wrong?

share|improve this question
1  
Most of the questions you pose are related, but the question "How did the Bushido samurai warriors justify it?" merits its own question in my opinion. –  DirkM Jul 13 at 8:56
1  
I totally agree. Would OP be prepared to break out he samurai question as another question i wonder? –  Crab Bucket Jul 13 at 9:17
2  
This question is a tip of the iceberg for exploring the relationship of self-defense and the dharma. I supposed one could also write a question about the Yamabushi the Japanese monk warriors and their justification to use violence. However, I think this question should parse the bushido question into another post because that is a historical analysis and the first question is a personal question. –  DharmaEater Jul 13 at 16:09
    
When the Dalai Lama was fleeing Tibet, he did so with a rifle on his shoulder. Just thought I would throw that out there. –  John Jul 13 at 19:13
    
Re: Samurai-- How the Japanese (and Chinese?) warrior monks justified their actions is more interesting. The monks took vows, the Samurai didn't. I just checked, the Bushido as a moral code doesn't include non-killing or ahimsa. It would make it a peculiar moral code for warriors if it did. –  MatthewMartin Jul 14 at 4:10

4 Answers 4

If someone is attacking you to kill you should you defend yourself? ...

I think yes, you may. Our religion has never stopped us from doing that.

Would it be ethical to kill an intruder coming into your home?

you may stop an intruder forcefully. Our religion has never stopped us from doing that.

But for me, being Buddhist, the answer will not end there. Both (two above lines) questions are based on teaching of Ahimsa (not to injure). If it is so then it is important to know how we interpret this teaching. Following are some of the points we can consider-

  1. Buddhism is a religion of principles and not rules. (yes there are rules as code of conduct, but it is not religion of rules). It teaches you basic principles and you are expected to make the decision on basis of that according to the context.
  2. Buddhism is religion with "Metta" (unconditional love). You even are expected to love your enemy. But you are not prohibited from defending yourself.
  3. Ahimsa in Buddhism is not the same as it is in Jainism.

These are the points in short based on which I said you can physically defend and you are not stopped by Buddhism from doing so. I don't want to say that you should (or even you can) kill. But you may defend. Dr. Ambedkar's discussion on Ahimsa is very enlightening in this regard. You can find it here -The Buddha and His Dhamma, Book 4, Part II, Section 3. It is a good read and the best part is it covers the whole debate in two pages. I also found this article interesting discussing the same point.

share|improve this answer

I think there are two question here with different answers

1. Should a Buddhist defend themselves physically

I would argue not. I believe that Buddhist teaches radical pacifism. The first precept explicitly states

I undertake the training rule to abstain from killing.

Which points to non-violence. The Kakacupama Sutta: The Parable of the Saw in the Pali Canon goes further

Monks, even if bandits were to savagely sever you, limb by limb, with a double-handled saw, even then, whoever of you harbors ill will at heart would not be upholding my Teaching. Monks, even in such a situation you should train yourselves thus: 'Neither shall our minds be affected by this, nor for this matter shall we give vent to evil words [...]

So even if you are being rendered limb from limb, one should still not practice violence. In a more modern day setting, I read of Tibetan monks held and tortured by Chinese officials whose greatest concern was that they would lose the capacity for compassion towards their tormentors. The compassion response is still possible even under such extreme circumstances.

2. Can Buddhism be ever used to justify violence

Yes unfortunately it can. To give an example the Tibetan Kalachakra Tantra has got anti-Islamic passages in it which can be used as a justification for violence

The Chakravartin shall come out at the end of the age, from the city the gods fashioned on Mount Kailasa. He shall smite the barbarians in battle with his own four-division army, on the entire surface of the earth.

Also some Japanese Zen Buddhists were supportive of the second world war which is closest to your samurai point. This article gives more detail on this point which I won't copy through here. One quote from Harada Daiun Sogaku is illustrative

[If ordered to] march: tramp, tramp, or shoot: bang, bang. This is the manifestation of the highest Wisdom [of Enlightenment]. The unity of Zen and war of which I speak extends to the farthest reaches of the holy war [now under way]

So just to summarise the answer, Buddhism is vast, so it's unsurprising that some group, determined enough, can dig out something to justify violence. However the overwhelming majority of the texts and practices say precisely the opposite.

share|improve this answer

In Buddhism the idea is preserving and guarding the mind is more important then preserving the body because the body is viewed as impermanent therefor one should not cling to it. If one take up arms in defense of the body there by killing or harming another being, then the mind becomes impure and one can not reach enlightenment.

share|improve this answer
1  
Mind is also viewed as impermanent. Even more so than the body. But unlike the mind, whatever happens to your body cannot directly affect your future lives. –  Sankha Kulathantille Jul 13 at 16:18
    
Yes very true. Well said! –  user473 Jul 17 at 0:04

In ancient China, areas were just plain dangerous to be on account of banditry and so on. This fact even showed up in the Brahma Net Sutra and the Upasaka Precepts.

37th minor precept: When practicing the austerities, the Buddhist disciple should avoid dangerous areas, unstable kingdoms, countries ruled by evil kings, precipitous terrains, remote wildernesses, regions inhabited by bandits, thieves, or lions, tigers, wolves, poisonous snakes, or areas subject to hurricanes, floods and fires. The disciple should avoid all such dangerous areas when practicing the austerities and also when observing the summer retreat. Otherwise, he commits a secondary offense. ref: http://www.purifymind.com/BrahmaNetSutra.htm

So the first part of the rule was to avoid getting into situation that called for defense.

Shoot, I have to unwrite what I just wrote-- as it turns out, the origins of the Shaolin (Chan) monks and Kung Fu are sort of lost to time. We don't really know if Buddhist martial arts came about because a monastery was a big institution and estate that eventually sprouted warrior monks, like ones in Japan did, or if monks needed to defend themselves in a way that was consistent with their values, i.e. unarmed combat and doing as little damage as possible to your enemy. Or maybe the martial arts were a side effect of austere exercises, like standing in horse stance for hours, which created very strong legs and made it literally hard to push monks around.

Anyhow, if one is looking for inspiration for how to defend oneself while remaining consistent with your value system-- then I think Judo and Aikido seem to be the best example of applying the Buddhist ideal of ahimsa to self defense (although I'm not sure that they are explicitly related to Buddhism anymore)

Oh this question has a part 2-- How do lay Buddhist soldiers justify their actions? Well it's easier than the monastic soldiers (they did exist!)-- the monastics took vows, the lay Buddhist soldiers did not**. Lay Buddhist soldiers were more likely practice a devotional Buddhism, where you seek this and after worldly support from celestial Buddhas and Bodhisattvas. In that system, if you are good enough, you are reborn in a Pureland where you don't have to made difficult decisions about if you should let a bandit walk all over you, if you should let the local Shogun draft you into an unfair and unjust battle, or other quandaries. Once one is in a Pure Land, you can practice more conventional morality and reach enlightenment.

Anyhow, even in modern times in things like an informal book club, you quickly learn that often times people are not participating in Buddhism because they want to follow the precepts-- they are there for other reasons, family tradition, for the benefits of meditation, and so on. So there isn't a strong cause to call hypocrisy if they on lay Buddhists who happen to work as Samurai. (Warrior monks is a different story altogether)

** Even when lay followers take the 5 precepts, they aren't expected to follow them with the rigor that monastics are expected to as the rules on sex make clear-- no sex at all for monks, no impropriety for lay followers. So I imagine a solider shouldn't kill in a socially unacceptable manner, while a monk is trying not to kill anything, or at least not be involved in socially unacceptable killing.

share|improve this answer
    
What do you mean with 'explicitly related to Buddhism anymore'? AFAIK there never was a relationship other than the general influence Buddhism has had on all people in Japan. I must admit that the similarity between several principles in Aikido and Buddhism are striking, but Aikido was founded by Morihei Ueshiba who was actually a follower of Ōmoto-kyō, which originates from Shinto. –  THelper Jul 14 at 9:00
    
The link between kung fu and Chan Buddhism is clear. The influence of Buddhism on kung fu is reasonably clear, but my internet search isn't going to prove it for me since the origins and motivation of Kung Fu are in the hazy past. Judo/Akido are from a Buddhist country and seem concerned with not hurting the person you are attacking-- this is a very Buddhist theme, I have no idea if it was a conscious infusion of Buddhist ideas or maybe the originators where just very nice guys. Not really my area of expertise. –  MatthewMartin Jul 14 at 12:33

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.