And thus should recieve bad karma?Originally posted by justdoit77:It doesn't matter whether the gunpowder is invented that time or not.
To my understanding, what he trying to say is although the intention is good, but due to his ignorance, his action caused people to suffer more.
yes, but is lighter than if the person do it out of bad intention.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:And thus should recieve bad karma?
I have the same thoughts and doubts as you, mahawarrior. If my country is the attacker, how do I justify myself when killing people out in the battlefield? We are all just following orders, but what happens to our conscience, our innate compassion for fellow human beings?Originally posted by mahawarrior:I think that's one of the problem I have with Buddhism. In life there's actually much grey areas everywhere, but we may not have the wisdom to know what kind of decision we should make. Buddhism don't really make life easier for me when the time to make such tough decision comes up.
Killing a few people to save more people. I think a truely compassionate person would not bother about what karma he/she will receive for killing that few people so that more people can be save. Even if that person is to enter hell for such an action, I think a truly compassionate person would not mind.
But what about just war in general? If your country is attack, do you kill your 'enemies' so that you can save your own people? If your country is the attacker, would you obey the authorities and enter the battlefield? Or will you kill yourself so that you will not have to kill others (and thereby saving their lifes), neither would the authorities have to kill you for 'treason' (thus saving them from hell)? Or will you assasinate the authority so that your country's aggression can be prevented?
I have many more questions like this, but it seems that all that the Buddhist can tell me to do is to 'use my wisdom' and 'follow my heart'. Well...
Technically according to the view that if one's actions are done out of no free will(Paul Tibbets knew someone must do it), it should be neutral or minor karma which is a kind of karma.(AEN likes to disagree on this point)Originally posted by justdoit77:yes, but is lighter than if the person do it out of bad intention.
If our country is the attacker, or if we find ourselves in a Nazi army, we have to oppose it even with our lives. Otherwise by participating, we will be gaining the collective karma of the country as a whole.Originally posted by Spnw07:I have the same thoughts and doubts as you, mahawarrior. If my country is the attacker, how do I justify myself when killing people out in the battlefield? We are all just following orders, but what happens to our conscience, our innate compassion for fellow human beings?
I think I would probably try to think of ways to 'siam' from having to fight in the war, if I have parents or wife and children. But would consider seriously about suicide if I'm single and both my parents have passed away.
But then again, suicide is not something that is easy for a not so courageous person like me. Dilemma really, serious dilemma.
Advice like 'use my wisdom' and 'follow my heart' from fellow Buddhists and Venerable Masters alike are just too vague or profound for someone as average as I am in the practice of Buddhist teachings.
Hence, now, I find the need to explore more layman's perspective about the dilemmas of war, be it from the side of the attacker/defender/allies of either.
'Use your wisdom' is simply not applicable for someone like me, who's so ordinary in intelligence and love for life, that I don't have any 'wisdom' to use at all.
In Buddhism, it doesn't matter whether you action is done with or without free will or 'unfree' will (perhaps just a matter of degree of karma but nevertheless there certainly will still be karma), but as long as there is the will to do it you will be creating the karma.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Technically according to the view that if one's actions are done out of no free will(Paul Tibbets knew someone must do it), it should be neutral or minor karma which is a kind of karma.(AEN likes to disagree on this point)
Then you must have the same "free will" to die for your choice, but why would you want to? Why don't you have the free will to go commit suicide as you living is polluting the planet? Sounds like nonsense? But nevertheless it is true.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:In Buddhism, it doesn't matter whether you action is done with or without free will or 'unfree' will (perhaps just a matter of degree of karma but nevertheless there certainly will still be karma), but as long as there is the will to do it you will be creating the karma.
Ultimately, you have "free will" even when you are forced by a Nazi government to fight. Even if it means a choice to die or kill the innocents.
Bcos life is precious, and furthermore, living does not need to mean polluting the Earth. I mean it does, but you can control the level of pollution.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Then you must have the same "free will" to die for your choice, but why would you want to? Why don't you have the free will to go commit suicide as you living is polluting the planet? Sounds like nonsense? But nevertheless it is true.
You can control the level of pollution but unless you control the population of living people, it is meaningless to control pollution.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:Bcos life is precious, and furthermore, living does not need to mean polluting the Earth. I mean it does, but you can control the level of pollution.
We can control population, but not through silly means like encouraging suicide and killings.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:You can control the level of pollution but unless you control the population of living people, it is meaningless to control pollution.
i think it is being unfair to AEN about your statement. no human being knows everything. why must figure out and answer you just because you ask? we here do not owe you anything. if you want to know, go figure out on your own.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:About the karma involved in Hiroshima and Nagasaki A-bombings.
There is no or negliable karma involved. Go figure.
you do not see yourself as living to pollute the earth. instead find out how you can add value to the others, be it animals or human being. then you will be as asset, not liability.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Then you must have the same "free will" to die for your choice, but why would you want to? Why don't you have the free will to go commit suicide as you living is polluting the planet? Sounds like nonsense? But nevertheless it is true.
Someone wanted to find out about the karma involved but since AEN did post something about karma being whether there must be a concious decision to execute the act and the mindset behind it. Now TS wants to guess the exact karma, I told him to go figure.Originally posted by jacqn:i think it is being unfair to AEN about your statement. no human being knows everything. why must figure out and answer you just because you ask? we here do not owe you anything. if you want to know, go figure out on your own.
What is your smart idea then? As far as I know, suicide, genocide and murder happens to be several of the fastest ways to remove human population.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:We can control population, but not through silly means like encouraging suicide and killings.
How about working up your rank in your army? And when you've gained enough authority within your people, you can stop the war. Isn't that better than opposing it head-on knowing that you'll probably be killed as a 'traitor'?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:If our country is the attacker, or if we find ourselves in a Nazi army, we have to oppose it even with our lives. Otherwise by participating, we will be gaining the collective karma of the country as a whole.
Of course at such circumstances it is very difficult for us. Either way we'll suffer. But to parcipate in killing the innocents is much much worse.
Have to see, how much benefits and how much damage the path you choose will take..Originally posted by annoy-you-must:How about working up your rank in your army? And when you've gained enough authority within your people, you can stop the war. Isn't that better than opposing it head-on knowing that you'll probably be killed as a 'traitor'?
When you have a high enough rank and authority, you can have enough power to get up close personally to the very person who started the war (i.e. the dictator). Like I've suggested, you can assasinate him at that point of time to stop the war.
If I'm in that position, I'll probably do that.
But then, to prove that you are 'loyal' to your country's cause and work up your rank, you'll have to do things that go against your own moral values.
A strong and wise ruler can prevent war. The inverse can start war. Therefore by getting rid of the latter we can stop a war that has already happened.Originally posted by knightlll:Being a high officer in the army cant stop war , only being a strong and wise ruler can. Dont get too disturbed by this hypothetical question.
You are adrift in a life raft after your cruise ship has sunk. There are too many survivors for the lifte rafts, and yours is dangerously overloaded. The raft is certain to sink, and even with the life vests on, all the passengers are sure to die because of the frigid temperature of the water. One person on the boat is awake and alert but gravely ill and will not survive the journey no matter what. Throwing that person overboard would prevent the raft from sinking. Could you be the one who tosses the person out?
A runaway trolley is heading down the tracks toward five workmen who can't be warned in time. You are standing near a switch that would divert the trolley onto a siding, but there is a single unsuspecting workman there. Would you throw the switch, killing one to save five? Suppose the workman was on a bridge with you and you could save the men only by pushing him onto the tracks? (He's large enough to stop the train; you're not.) Suppose you could throw a switch dropping him through a trapdoor-thus not physically pushing him?
It's wartime, and you're hiding in a basement with your baby and a group of other people. Enemy soldiers are outside and will be drawn to any sound. If you're found, you will all be killed immediately. Your baby starts to cry loudly and cannot be stopped. Smothering him to death is the only way to silence him and save the lives of everyone in the room. Could you do so? Assume the baby is not yours, the parents are unknown and there will be no penalty for killing him. Could you be the one who smothers this baby if no one else would?Again, these questions are hypothetical and it's unlikely that we'll run into such situation. But these questions serves to question what we define as 'morality', 'right action' or even 'right motivation'.
... and the fastest way to get rid of trolls is to delete all their posts. But do you see us doing that? No! Why not? Because the fastest way is not necessarily the 'right' way.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:What is your smart idea then? As far as I know, suicide, genocide and murder happens to be several of the fastest ways to remove human population.
Yes, I do, in fact, most of my important arguments and postings are deleted. In fact, there is no right way of doing things as there is a trade-off. Go figure.Originally posted by Beyond Religion:... and the fastest way to get rid of trolls is to delete all their posts. But do you see us doing that? No! Why not? Because the fastest way is not necessarily the 'right' way.
All of your nonsense, irrelevant insults (i.e Buddhism has no wisdom) are removed.Originally posted by Herzog_Zwei:Yes, I do, in fact, most of my important arguments and postings are deleted. In fact, there is no right way of doing things as there is a trade-off. Go figure.
That was my conclusion based on my understanding of the topics at hand.Originally posted by An Eternal Now:All of your nonsense, irrelevant insults (i.e Buddhism has no wisdom) are removed.
None of your arguments are deleted. You should thank me for that.