any Buddhists out there? Where you from?

Capt Quirk said:
You see, there is part of my problem. I thought the Buddhists were non violent. Do I have them completely confused with some other monks?
Click to expand...

Buddhism does not condone violence, even violence in the service of defending Buddhism (would that more groups, taught the same...)

My understanding is that among Buddhist monastics, martial arts were developed as a system of physical and mental discipline. The fact that they are useful for kicking ass is (I guess) secondary.
 
Sad Max said:
Buddhism does not condone violence, even violence in the service of defending Buddhism (would that more groups, taught the same...)

My understanding is that among Buddhist monastics, martial arts were developed as a system of physical and mental discipline. The fact that they are useful for kicking ass is (I guess) secondary.
Click to expand...

That is what I thought, and my question was supposed to be a funny trick question. Now I'm really confused... like that has never happened before. Maybe I was thinking of the Tibet monks?
 
It's all about attaining the serenity of knowing that you can kick anyone's ass, although of course you never would kick anyone's ass.


:)
 
I hope this doesn't throw the thread into religious discussion problems - delete ME if it does - but between theory and practice in any religion, there is a gap, no? Some of the most peaceful of religions in theory have proven the most violent in practice. Having not lived in a Buddhist society, I'd ask: is it impossible that the martial arts taught by and to Buddhist monls were indeed for violence, albeit in self defense? From all I've learned, the Shaolin folks certainly intended to defend themselves against attackers - non-lethally, but effectively...
 
I wish I could remember exactly what the Master told Grasshopper, but it was something like "it is better to check than be attacked, better to maim than to kill, better to kill than be killed." The gist of it is, try to walk away, but if they swing you simply block it and try to diffuse the situation. If they keep swinging, breaking the arm is more accepted than to just kill. But, if there is no choice, no other alternative, it is better to kill them than to die. The biggest difference is, the act is done without hatred out of necessity, and you should be remorseful for the taking of a life.
 
While a little hokey, The Next Karate Kid, Hillary Swank's Debut, showed the peaceful side of 'monkism' while clearly lethal if they needed to be.

Problem is, with todays miniscule attention spans and thirst for non-stop action, we are only going to see the Kill Bill side of martial arts, not the monk in meditation. Segal almost tried, but fans wanted no part of the spitual side. Just snapping arms and gouging eyes, thank you.

Having traveled to the highest of the holy mountains in China, I can tell you these people are anything but boring (yes I speak Chinese). Just, how do you relate that in a film people will want to see, or even more challeneging, a major studio will undertake knowing full well it probabaly wont be a box office orgasm, or high concept cash cow they suck on like a milking calf (insert 'opinion' disclaimer).

a

www.alexwhitmer.wordpress.com
 
That could work to your advantage, story wise. Show the conflict between the spiritual essence, and the desire to stay healthy. I mean, if it came down to it, how exactly would a monk atone for the killing of another living being? Sure, all the movies show the badass side, but they don't show the other side of the coin.
 
One day, Sinha, the general of the army, went to the Buddha and said, ‘I am a soldier, O Blessed One. I am appointed by the King to enforce his laws and to wage his wars. The Buddha teaches infinite love, kindness and compassion for all sufferers: Does the Buddha permit the punishment of the criminal? And also, does the Buddha declare that it is wrong to go to war for the protection of our homes, our wives, our children and our property? Does the Buddha teach the doctrine of complete self-surrender? Should I suffer the evil-doer to do with what he pleases and yield submissively to him who threatens to take by violence what is my own? Does the Buddha maintain that all strife including warfare waged for a righteous cause should be forbidden?’

The Buddha replied, ‘He who deserves punishment must be punished. And he who is worthy of favour must be favoured. Do not do injury to any living being but be just, filled with love and kindness." These injunctions are not contradictory because the person who is punished for his crimes will suffer his injury not through the ill-will of the judge but through the evil act itself. His own acts have brought upon him the injury that the executors of the law inflict. When a magistrate punishes, he must not harbour hatred in his heart. When a murderer is put to death, he should realise that his punishment is the result of his own act. With his understanding, he will no longer lament his fate but can console his mind. And the Blessed One continued, ‘The Buddha teaches that all warfare in which man tries to slay his brothers is lamentable. But he does not teach that those who are involved in war to maintain peace and order, after having exhausted all means to avoid conflict, are blameworthy’.
 
Sad Max said:
One day, Sinha, the general of the army, went to the Buddha and said, ‘I am a soldier, O Blessed One. I am appointed by the King to enforce his laws and to wage his wars. The Buddha teaches infinite love, kindness and compassion for all sufferers: Does the Buddha permit the punishment of the criminal? And also, does the Buddha declare that it is wrong to go to war for the protection of our homes, our wives, our children and our property? Does the Buddha teach the doctrine of complete self-surrender? Should I suffer the evil-doer to do with what he pleases and yield submissively to him who threatens to take by violence what is my own? Does the Buddha maintain that all strife including warfare waged for a righteous cause should be forbidden?’

The Buddha replied, ‘He who deserves punishment must be punished. And he who is worthy of favour must be favoured. Do not do injury to any living being but be just, filled with love and kindness." These injunctions are not contradictory because the person who is punished for his crimes will suffer his injury not through the ill-will of the judge but through the evil act itself. His own acts have brought upon him the injury that the executors of the law inflict. When a magistrate punishes, he must not harbour hatred in his heart. When a murderer is put to death, he should realise that his punishment is the result of his own act. With his understanding, he will no longer lament his fate but can console his mind. And the Blessed One continued, ‘The Buddha teaches that all warfare in which man tries to slay his brothers is lamentable. But he does not teach that those who are involved in war to maintain peace and order, after having exhausted all means to avoid conflict, are blameworthy’.
Click to expand...

good find

here is another one

It is better to conquer yourself
Than to win a thousand battles.
Then the victory is yours.
It cannot be taken from you,
Not by angels or by demons,
Heaven or hell.

the Dhammapada translated by Thomas Byrom
http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/dhammapada-08.html
 
I'm not a Buddhist, and I'm late to the party, but I just wanted to say, the phrase "shoot the shinto" from the original post is awesome.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top