1

How would a monk or a Buddhist answer look like in dealing with injustices like murder, rape, torture?

If we refer to Dhammapada 3, the victims get instructions how to deal with those misfortunes, but what about the perpetrators?

Would a Buddha not support the actions of military forces -- who kill their opponents -- if their opponent's regime were involved in "wars of aggression" and mass murder of civilians, i.e. "crimes against humanity"?

How would a PRACTICAL Budddhist response look like?

5

How would a monk or a Buddhist answer look like in dealing with injustices like murder, rape, torture?

The Vinaya governs rules dealing with issues within the community of monks. The purpose of becoming a monk is to renounce worldly ties, hence it is not expected of a monk to be involved in serving justice.

A Buddhist layperson can get involved if is in a position serving justice. In such case one must do what is fair.

If we refer to Dhammapada 3 the victims get instructions how to deal with those misfortunes, but what about the perpetrators?

This was addressed to Ven. Thulla Tissa. The fault or perpetrator was Ven. Thulla Tissa.

Would a Buddha not support the actions of ally forces that killed the Nazis, who killed thousands upon thousands jews, gypsies, mentally handicapped, blacks etc.?

Endorsing anything will break the Sila is not fit for a Buddhist. So this will not be endorsed by the Buddha or Sangha.

How would a PRACTICAL Budddhist response look like?

If one is in a position of the military, justice or politics one will inevitably have to take action which is decremental to oneself or which is unwholesome. What is unwholesome not endorsed but one has to do what is needed to be done for society to function. This involves:

  • dispensing justice
  • involvement in wars

Other religions may have a position about law, politics and wars, but Buddhism does not have such position as punitive action would have karmic consequences and these are conventions which change with time and society. Certain laws and politics which were considered just in medieval times are no longer considered just. The Dhamma Buddha perches transcend time and society so everyone can accept it at all times and societies.

1

Buddhism does not micro-manage the lives of ordinary people. Its up to ordinary people to make worldly decisions about their personal lives, families, communities & nations. As for the Buddha, he does not get involved in war.

  • Buddha gave teachings both for monks & for lay, but did he also gave tips how to respond when the going gets tough? Trying to remain calm in a dispute or when something minor doesn't work they way one wants to be is one thing, but if I myself or my family is threatened or even attacked, I wouldn't consider this "micro-managing", but of utmost importance because it's difficulties that challenge a teaching. – Val Aug 13 at 11:31
  • Obviously the Buddha left your adulthood to you. 'The world' is left to the world. In the suttas, the Kings who honor the Buddha also often had wars amongst themselves. The Buddha didn't get involved. If Buddhism does not serve one needs, one can join Judaism or Islam. Best wishes – Dhammadhatu Aug 13 at 12:21
0

International law includes an idea of "Sovereignty" -- it's to do with control, e.g. whether a state or government has controls or authority over the people in a given area. A state which doesn't, by the way, might be called a "Failed state".

Conversely I think that Buddhism demands that people control their own behaviour -- see e.g. Getting the Message.

There's a topic Expaining The Holocaust & karma to a non-Buddhist which might be relevant to your question -- including the video referenced in Lanka's answer to that question, which seems to to talk about how different people perceive things and react to circumstances differently.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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