If an intruder (especially with a knife or other weapon) breaks into one’s house and puts homeowner and his/her family in danger, how should a good Buddhist act? How akusala would it be to stop harm being done to oneself and or family members? Of course one doesn’t necessary need (and should not have) to have malicious anger while stopping the intruder because it is all about stopping harm and protection in the most non-violent manner possible in that situation, not inflicting it out of malice or cruelty. What if the armed intruder doesn’t survive? Is it akusala with full-course-of-action?
If a homeowner decides NOT to do anything even though one could, then wouldn’t that be a sort of complacent silent approval of the intruder’s actions leading to even worse harm and nothing to say about regret later on?
How would a sotapanna behave in this situation? Sotapanna hasn’t eliminated 7 out of 10 fetters and thus isn’t like an Arahant, yet.
Hi Citta,
the sotapanna could not even kill an ant- and that is if a man were standing behind them with a raised sword ready to cut off their head if they don’t.
For the rest of us things are different: we are happy to keep the precepts when things are going well, but if a threat to our family comes along we may not be able to.
In the Dhammapada (47) Atthakatta there is the story of prince
Vitutabbha who had a grudge against the Buddha’s relatives the
Sakyans.
He raised an army and went to wipe them out.
Now the Sakyans were great warriors and wise. They were almost all
sotapanna (first stage of enlightenment) according to the
commentary. When Vitutabbha’s army attacked the Sakyans went forward
with great vigor showing their military prowess and the army of
Vitutabbha retreated in panic.
But the minister of the prince knew
that the Sakyans couldn’t kill so he told the prince and army that
the sakyans were deliberately missing. It was true , the arrows were
hitting close to the men , even passing through their hair but not
inflicting death. Once this was realised the prince’s army returned
and slaughtered the noble Sakyan, and Vitutabbha washed the Sakyan’s
hall with their own blood. It is how the Sakyan clan was almost
eradicated from North India.
While the wise would not kill - they may still do actions that stop the intruder.
Once Moggallana knew a monk was impure and asked him to leave the hall. The monk stayed until Moggallana lifted him by the arm and forced him out.
There is a difference between killing as “1st murder” and involuntary manslaughter (such as when an attacker with a knife runs at you. You don’t wish him harm, but neither should you put his interest ahead of your own.)
I understand that sotapanna would not kill an ant as in 1st sense. But self defense done reluctantly and not wanted, specifically planned, or initiated by a sotapanna? That is different case.
Furthermore when it is said about not breaking a precept, could it mean that a sotapanna would be reluctant to break a precept?
Thank you for the story. Questions:
How could a sotapanna be a warrior in the first place? Isn’t that wrong livelihood?
Killing a sotapanna is a very terrible deed. Shouldn’t those sotapanna have compassion toward those attackers and stopped them (Vitutabbha’s men), even if it meant severely injuring them possibly leading to their death?
If one’s duty is to protect the kingdom (with women, children and elderly living in it), isn’t it irresponsible to just let the harm happen to them and even harm the Vitutabbha’s men by allowing them to accumulate so much akusala kamma?
I think a sotapanna would still defend himself to some degree - but never deliberately kill.
The military are not equated with wrong livelihood- look at the great follower of the Buddha general Siha, who was a sotapanna for example. Even today soldiers do many duties that help society. Nevertheless a sotapanna soldier would not kill.
Well they did their best. They almost succeed in defeating the army of Vitutabbha- but for the cleverness of the minister of Vitutabbha.
The Sakyans were very skilled but it is hard to defeat a murderous enemy who knows you won’t kill.
Those Sakyan archers could shoot their arrows into opponent’s legs (or arms) for example. That wouldn’t kill, but it would take out the opponent from action.
Yes, but that isn’t their primary goal. If a sotapanna wants to help a society, why not join “Red Cross”, be medics, cooks or some other non-combat role? Why couldn’t those Sakyans change the profession if they couldn’t do the primary and most important duty for the sake of their country? Isn’t trading in weapons something a sotapanna shouldn’t or couldn’t do? If sotapanna cannot trade in weapons, then how come they can remain as archers?
It seems to me to break the precept against lying that one would join the combat section of the army (archers) on the front lines knowing full well that you cannot defend your country and fulfil the primary duties on which lives of others depend upon. Didn’t they break their military oath? Why couldn’t those sotapanna Sakyans quit being archers and become cooks, medics or some other non-combat role letting others who could do their duties to replace them? Something about the story doesn’t seem right, it seems very wrong.
Viḍūḍabha therefore went forth with a large force, saying: “I will slay the Sākiyans.” {1.358} Now the kinsmen of the Sambuddha do not slay their enemies, but are willing to die rather than take the lives of others. Therefore they said to themselves: “We are trained and skillful; we are expert archers and adepts with the long bow. Since it is unlawful for us to take the lives of others, we will put them to flight by a display of our skill.” So they put on their armor and went forth and began battle. The arrows they shot sped through the ranks of Viḍūḍabha’s men, passing between their shields and through the holes in their ears, without hitting a man. When Viḍūḍabha saw the arrows fly, he said: “I have understood it to be a boast of the Sākiyans that they do not kill their enemies; but they are now killing my men.” One of his men asked him: “Master, why do you turn and look about you?” – “The Sākiyans are killing my men.” – “Not one of your men is dead; pray have them counted.” He had them counted and perceived that he had not lost one.
As Viḍūḍabha turned back, he said to his men: “I direct you to kill all those who say: ‘We are Sākiyans,’ but to spare the lives of those who follow Mahānāma the Sākiyan.” The Sākiyans stood their ground, and having no other resources, some took blades of grass in their teeth, while others held reeds. Now the Sākiyans would rather die than utter an untruth. So when they were asked: “Are you Sākiyans or not?” those who held blades of grass in their teeth said: “Not sāka: ‘potherb,’ {1.359} but ‘grass’,” while those who held reeds said: “Not sāka: ‘potherb,’ but ‘reed.’” The lives of those who followed Mahānāma were spared. Those of the Sākiyans who held blades of grass in their teeth came to be known as Grass Sākiyans, and those who held reeds as Reed Sākiyans. Viḍūḍabha slew all the rest, sparing not even infants at the breast. And when he had set flowing a river of blood, he [29.45] washed his seat with the blood of their throats. Thus was the stock of the Sākiyans uprooted by Viḍūḍabha.
They were handling the weapons, and were in the trade (profession) that expected them to use those weapons.
While I do not know their exact oath, I presume that by joining the military as archers they gave the oath to serve their country, to obey the orders, and to fulfill their duties. They didn’t join the medics, cooks, builders, entertainers or some other non-violent profession (trade). They were expected to do their job, and if they remained in their position while knowing that they couldn’t do it…
Yes and Yes. Think of it this way, if someone was really rude to people in their past lives, people will be rude to him in this life too. The people who are rude to him would also be making akusala kamma.
If I remember correctly, the past bad kamma of the sakyans were that they killed fishes in one of their previous lives. From this, we can see that even an activity like fishing can cause serious consequences because it’s against the first precept.
So Sakyan’s kamma can force others (rather than Vitutabbha’s men’s own choice) to commit bad kamma?
Does this mean that army of Vitutabbha were basically innocent because they were forced (and had no say or responsibility for) by Sakyan kamma to do the reprehensible actions that they did?
And the question of “why remain as an archer in the military if you can’t fulfil your primary duties” remains.
The text in question discusses a past time (other lives) when the Sakyans are said to have poisoned a river—likely during a war to conquer another kingdom or city. This bad kamma did not act against the Sakyans in the sense of forcing Vitutabbha and his army to attack them. Rather, this kamma made the Sakyans vulnerable to destruction. It also prevented the Buddha from making a fourth attempt to stop the invasion. If Vitutabbha destroyed the Sakyans, it was because they wanted to do so, of their own will, for various reasons (greed, anger, pride, resentment…). They were not being controlled by the bad kamma of the Sakyans.
The past kamma alone does not explain the fall of the Sakyans. Many other factors from present were at play, which also represent bad kamma:
They had a strong tendency toward isolation and did not cultivate good relationships with other kingdoms in a sufficient manner.
They were also prejudiced and looked down on people from other clans and social classes.
They had indeed humiliated Vitutabbha by deceiving him into marrying a servant. It is unclear from the text whether the Sakyans were already followers of the Buddha when this happened (but if they were, this would represent an even more serious failure).
They enjoyed a very high standard of living, which is not necessarily immoral, but it attracts envy from others.
Their wealth was likely the result of fighting other kingdoms (a practice that was probably abandoned due to the Buddha’s influence). Once they became “peaceful,” they would have had to seek other sources of income and invest better in relationships with their neighbors. They would also have taken actions to provide reparations to the survivors of previous conflicts. Most likely, they were negligent in this regard.
If they continued to live off taxes imposed on people in their territory, this would have generated a lot of resentment among those subjected to them. It would have only worsened if they weren’t compensating these people somehow, with public works and displays of generosity. This was a rare thing for the rulers of the time, but if they were disciples of the Buddha, they must have made less effort than would have been expected of them.
The Buddha had three times convinced Vitutabbha to abandon the invasion. Three opportunities the Sakyans had to reconsider their actions, to find ways to appease the anger of their enemy, maybe to ask for forgiveness, or seek support from neighboring kingdoms. What they probably didn’t attempt, or if they did, they were unsuccessful. Three lost opportunities.
Given all the factors that were interfering with the Sakyans’ fate, the past kamma seems to have had a secondary effect.