Thursday, October 14, 2010

Buddha killed the Pirates?

The Buddha killed a band of pirates. What is that about?

No, it was in one of his previous lives, as told in the Jakata stories.

That's against the vows, isn't it?

Maybe. The Buddha-to-be knew that the pirates were going to sink the ship and kill all the passengers.

So the Buddha killed the pirates to save the passengers?

Apparently not. He was worried about the karmic consequences for the pirates if they were to go through with their plan.

But what about his own karmic consequences for taking a life?

He was willing to forego those to protect the pirates.

So he killed the pirates to save them?

I guess so. Hope he never wants to save me.

Do you have any evil plans?

Not any more.


Kate Freeman said...

Robert J. Lifton uses a term “apocalyptic violence”. One (or many) destroys in order to save. One works toward an imagined ending in the service of renewal. For example:

Just imagine an American based Christian organization planning to poison water supplies to bring the second coming quicker. --- Lupe Fiasco

What if those murdered people where not actually pirates? What if the Buddha actually killed those people because he wanted their stuff and then just tried to make it sound as if he was doing it out of the goodness of his heart? Why should one believe a killer Buddha? Why trust someone who just told you that he killed those people for their own good?

What if those murdered people where not actually terrorist?

What if those murdered people were not actually criminals?

What if those murdered people were not what the killer told you they were?

Anonymous said...

I think I am going to protect my Karma by not killing anyone today. H.

Anonymous said...

It´s time for a truly non-violent culture. ZERO exceptions.

Perhaps he hindered all the passengers to change for a better life, perhaps karma had previewed for them to die now. And he did not more than to prolong their suffering here, akin to the modern doctors who prolong the life of every dying person for their own purposes.

There are some more points, for example he is not explicitly matriarchal, like Lao-Tzu, nor does he explicitly mention to be careful with Mother Earth, like the native americans (Lakota, Hopi etc.) or the australian Aboriginals, beside some other, but harder to explain points, for example the inducing of ethical laws (dharma), something what the greek phylosopher Socrates rejected well arguing that that makes dumb people, he recommended methods for to achieve "natural moral".

Joshua, 1980