Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belinda]

This is an odd topic for weak, fearful people to be hashing around. How may of our gentle readers hear have ever successfully resisted physical violence? DETERMINED physical violence? If you have not, you are discussing a topic you are utterly ignorant of.

... “Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: ‘Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of goodwill, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with goodwill and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with goodwill — abundant, enlarged, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.’ That’s how you should train yourselves.

“Monks, if you attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw, do you see any aspects of speech, slight or gross, that you could not endure?”

“No, lord.”

“Then attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw. That will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.” ...

The Simile of the Saw is the same meaning as Jesus' advice to turn the other cheek. Both the similes illustrate how love conquers all.

There is tough love where an aggressor is taught the lesson that aggression may rebound on the aggressor. Jesus, and the Buddha, are icons of perfection. None of us is an icon of the good life and we ordinary mortals must create our own moral laws, preferably with the examples of prophets and seers like Buddha and Jesus.

[Samana Johann]

This is an odd topic for weak, fearful people to be hashing around. How may of our gentle readers hear have ever successfully resisted physical violence? DETERMINED physical violence? If you have not, you are discussing a topic you are utterly ignorant of.

... “Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: ‘Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of goodwill, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with goodwill and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with goodwill — abundant, enlarged, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.’ That’s how you should train yourselves.

“Monks, if you attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw, do you see any aspects of speech, slight or gross, that you could not endure?”

“No, lord.”

“Then attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw. That will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.” ...

The Simile of the Saw is the same meaning as Jesus' advice to turn the other cheek. Both the similes illustrate how love conquers all.

There is tough love where an aggressor is taught the lesson that aggression may rebound on the aggressor. Jesus, and the Buddha, are icons of perfection. None of us is an icon of the good life and we ordinary mortals must create our own moral laws, preferably with the examples of prophets and seers like Buddha and Jesus.

The Sublime Buddha didn't carry a cross for the sack of others around, nor did he had a mission...
As for the Sublime Buddha, he urges one to do, other that hoping that he will rescue anybody. One has to become perfect oneself. And the Buddha surely never praised love, since that's the reason of all suffering.

[Belinda]

This is an odd topic for weak, fearful people to be hashing around. How may of our gentle readers hear have ever successfully resisted physical violence? DETERMINED physical violence? If you have not, you are discussing a topic you are utterly ignorant of.

... “Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: ‘Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of goodwill, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with goodwill and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with goodwill — abundant, enlarged, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.’ That’s how you should train yourselves.

“Monks, if you attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw, do you see any aspects of speech, slight or gross, that you could not endure?”

“No, lord.”

“Then attend constantly to this admonition on the simile of the saw. That will be for your long-term welfare & happiness.” ...

The Simile of the Saw is the same meaning as Jesus' advice to turn the other cheek. Both the similes illustrate how love conquers all.

There is tough love where an aggressor is taught the lesson that aggression may rebound on the aggressor. Jesus, and the Buddha, are icons of perfection. None of us is an icon of the good life and we ordinary mortals must create our own moral laws, preferably with the examples of prophets and seers like Buddha and Jesus.

The Sublime Buddha didn't carry a cross for the sack of others around, nor did he had a mission...
As for the Sublime Buddha, he urges one to do, other that hoping that he will rescue anybody. One has to become perfect oneself. And the Buddha surely never praised love, since that's the reason of all suffering.

You seem to be unwilling to learn how all the great world religions have a common moral message.
Love is a lot more than attachment.

[Samana Johann]

The Simile of the Saw is the same meaning as Jesus' advice to turn the other cheek. Both the similes illustrate how love conquers all.

There is tough love where an aggressor is taught the lesson that aggression may rebound on the aggressor. Jesus, and the Buddha, are icons of perfection. None of us is an icon of the good life and we ordinary mortals must create our own moral laws, preferably with the examples of prophets and seers like Buddha and Jesus.

The Sublime Buddha didn't carry a cross for the sack of others around, nor did he had a mission...
As for the Sublime Buddha, he urges one to do, other that hoping that he will rescue anybody. One has to become perfect oneself. And the Buddha surely never praised love, since that's the reason of all suffering.

You seem to be unwilling to learn how all the great world religions have a common moral message.
Love is a lot more than attachment.

They don't, good householder, that's just market that suggest such. And yes, love is not only just craving, but rooted in not-knowing (ignorance). Once ride of ignorance, there is no footing for either love nor hate. Even if still defiled, goodwill (metta), meaning giving freedom, would lead one at least into the Brahma realms.

[Belinda]

The Simile of the Saw is the same meaning as Jesus' advice to turn the other cheek. Both the similes illustrate how love conquers all.

There is tough love where an aggressor is taught the lesson that aggression may rebound on the aggressor. Jesus, and the Buddha, are icons of perfection. None of us is an icon of the good life and we ordinary mortals must create our own moral laws, preferably with the examples of prophets and seers like Buddha and Jesus.

The Sublime Buddha didn't carry a cross for the sack of others around, nor did he had a mission...
As for the Sublime Buddha, he urges one to do, other that hoping that he will rescue anybody. One has to become perfect oneself. And the Buddha surely never praised love, since that's the reason of all suffering.

You seem to be unwilling to learn how all the great world religions have a common moral message.
Love is a lot more than attachment.

They don't, good householder, that's just market that suggest such. And yes, love is not only just craving, but rooted in not-knowing (ignorance). Once ride of ignorance, there is no footing for either love nor hate. Even if still defiled, goodwill (metta), meaning giving freedom, would lead one at least into the Brahma realms.

I agree that ignorance underlies lack of love. Fear is also a cause of lack of love.

There are many routes to love and understanding, therefore it's not true there is only one way to wisdom and love.

[Samana Johann]

The Sublime Buddha didn't carry a cross for the sack of others around, nor did he had a mission...
As for the Sublime Buddha, he urges one to do, other that hoping that he will rescue anybody. One has to become perfect oneself. And the Buddha surely never praised love, since that's the reason of all suffering.

You seem to be unwilling to learn how all the great world religions have a common moral message.
Love is a lot more than attachment.

They don't, good householder, that's just market that suggest such. And yes, love is not only just craving, but rooted in not-knowing (ignorance). Once ride of ignorance, there is no footing for either love nor hate. Even if still defiled, goodwill (metta), meaning giving freedom, would lead one at least into the Brahma realms.

I agree that ignorance underlies lack of love. Fear is also a cause of lack of love.

There are many routes to love and understanding, therefore it's not true there is only one way to wisdom and love.

How much harm by speaking what's not true, is permissible for self defense... go on as you think. Being are heir of their action, to them to they fall.

[David awunor]

This topic is funny in the sense that the debate about how much harm is permissible only arises in theoretical settings. If you have been attacked before, you would know that in such a situation, you would do WHATEVER you can to incapacitate the attacker. So, to answer the question, as much harm as you can mete out is 'permissible.'

[Belinda]

This topic is funny in the sense that the debate about how much harm is permissible only arises in theoretical settings. If you have been attacked before, you would know that in such a situation, you would do WHATEVER you can to incapacitate the attacker. So, to answer the question, as much harm as you can mete out is 'permissible.'

Yes, but what we are doing here with this conversation is rehearsing for a possible event. We are not here as law makers.

We don't know whether or not you yourself have thought about self defence before the attack that happened to you, but if you had been adequately prepared you may have equipped yourself with training in a martial art, and with the possibility that you were mistaken on a dark night and the individual at whom you fired a gun in self defence was not your aggressor at all but an innocent bystander.
The most effective way to respond depends on the circumstances of the attack .