In recent days, i have been reading blogs and comments on Yong Vui Kong's case. There is discussion on whether death penalties are really the best way to punish offenders of grave crimes or even deter future offenders. A lot of things were brought up supporting and denouncing this age old form of punishment. Here i explore the idea of 'ahimsa' or non-violence related to Buddhist teachings.
Some Buddhists look to the first precept (not to take another's life or cause harm) and speak against the death penalty. I think it is interesting to look from the records in the Buddhist suttas (scriptures) on how the Buddha dealt with the idea of killing and what he taught relating it. I have not had the determination to go and find all references in the suttas to the subject. But from what little i know and have understood, the Buddha clearly taught non-violence.
Taking the accounts of the life of the Buddha, parts of it may seem incredible and legendary. That however does not mean such an event might not have occurred. It possibly may have, just that the existing narration may be more colourful than the actual historical occurance. More important than the historical accuracy i think is the ideal of the story being conveyed.
In the story of Angulimala, the bandit who wore a garland of fingers of his victims met the Buddha and became his disciple as a monk. There is a wonderful part when the King Pasenadi was asked by the Buddha what he intends to do if the king were to find Angulimala reformed into a virtuous and noble monk. The king then goes on to say he would treat him with veneration and respect worthy of a virtuous person.
In many such stories the Buddha or the teachings convey the message that it is important to look objectively at what you are dealing with. Would you deal with Angulimala the former murderous bandit or Angulimala the future virtuous and peaceful monk? Of course there was also the stage in between, the intermediate, repentant Angulimala, who sincerely remorsed at his past mistakes and was willing to learn from the Buddha. Do we remember our former Angulimala, repentant Angulimala and future Angulimala moments in our experience, in the learning of life's lessons?
To say that this was just a tale and dismiss it from the Buddhist example of the teaching of compassion, would it be too hasty? To say we cannot possibly try to help reform every criminal is true but is it very often more used as a convenient excuse? An excuse too costly for the lives of those who may be successfully reintegrated as useful members into society? Maybe it is like asking, "Do we just throw away the bad apple or plant it to grow into a tree?"
To say good kammic interventions would appear and 'miraculously' help or bad kammic interventions would harm the criminal is like saying some divine power will judge him. Kamma is said to be a concept very few can understand fully and i am not one of these few. But it is certainly not equivalent to the common concept of fate, where what will happen is predestined or 'written in stone'. If we intervene, we are adding kamma to the recipe of the event, to the conditions already present. The Buddha did that with Angulimala in the story. Is that an ideal we should consider aiming for?
When we say we have no feelings of empathy for another individual, how did we come to dissociate with the said individual who has been living out his/her life only in a way he/she knows? Don't we all live out our lives in the way we know most on this earth? Do we conceive that he/she is different from us because of the particular way he/she has lived his life? Maybe because they committed a crime?
Intention is very important in an act, as intention determines the kamma it is said. Do we make mistakes ourselves based on greed, hatred and delusion? Are we all susceptible to be burned by these three mortal fires? Do some get burned and avoid them? Do others get burned but have not the slightest clue as to what burns them? Would those who have no idea keep on burning till they act out their intentions? Bellowing out like smoke from raging flames? So what can be done for/with these destructive individuals then? Snuff out their present life and hope for a better rebirth? I think some might say that.
Unimaginable for me.. that some who ascribe to this do think this is quite in line with Buddha's teachings. Do we disregarded the sayings about how precious a human life is. How all beings hold their life dearest. To not do unto others what you do not wish done upon yourself. Can the first precept of not taking life be interpreted as 'except those of murderers and drug traffickers and others found guilty of "heinous" crimes'? Is the attempt to preserve life of all beings idealistic? Maybe. Unrealistic? Isn't it only from ideals that we can strive to be better, realistically speaking?
As for capital punishment as a consolation for grieving families of victims, we have to be aware that the offenders' families would also likely grieve for them after execution too. Does the idea of justice spreading the sorrow among the families help in the deterrence factor? I am reminded of the story of kisa gotami who went to the Buddha mad with sorrow over the death of her young son. How the Buddha managed to calm her enough before making her see the the universality of death.
So far there is no instance of Buddha interfering in the affairs of state by demanding that kings or governments of the time listen and adhere to his teachings. I believe that is an example of wisdom.
He taught to the masses, not only to those in power. For any form of rule, to keep the peace, to have order, the sentiments of the populace is very crucial. Some countries may enforce a more rigid system of top down governance. Where all differing opinions deviating from that of those in power will be stamped out quickly. Modern societies tend to approach a more democratic form where the government represents the will of the people. Will the laws of such society change if the masses are persuaded to change their view of what is acceptable then? Either through policies that are enforced willingly or unwillingly on the populace. I'm thnking of punishment versus persuasion through grassroots campaigns. Both are a top-down approach. How about another way for the change? Initiated by and spread within the populace and back up to the government. This is what seems to be happening to some degree in western nations on the issue of climate change.
By not criticising others, does it make others more able to listen to the message? But the Buddha did criticise his students. How did he correct them? This is what i believe the Buddha did, he taught skillfully with kindness and wisdom. Through better understanding of ourselves, can we see that the undesirable qualities, although acted out by us, are not an inherent part of us? Habits and learned ideas that contribute to our skewered view of our world, are they a part of us? He let those in power decide for themselves what was beneficial and what was not. Just as he did with commoners and those deemed to be of low births too. Was he trying to remove the illusory barrier of pride to let his message be considered to its full extent without the petty biases we so often find ourselves embroiled in?
For one who can see how extremely rare, how exceptionally remote the probability is for a Buddha, one that discovers for himself and teach the teachings, i am reminded of the fact that he was prepared to take the remotest chance to attempt what no one in the history of his time had accomplished. I am no mathematician but the probability might be more than 1 million to 1. Yet he did try. He may not have thought of the seemingly insurmountable odds against him but we of later generations, can appreciate its significance. So he succeeded. The significance is that, low probability is not equal to no probability, and a worthy enough goal should be engaged against even great odds.
So here's to great odds my friends! We have already lived to this day at great odds. Everything we do from this point on, can we see the seemingly insurmountable odds against the next breath we take? Go! take on those odds! Not forgetting our compass of liberating kindness and map of peaceful wisdom.]
Some Buddhists look to the first precept (not to take another's life or cause harm) and speak against the death penalty. I think it is interesting to look from the records in the Buddhist suttas (scriptures) on how the Buddha dealt with the idea of killing and what he taught relating it. I have not had the determination to go and find all references in the suttas to the subject. But from what little i know and have understood, the Buddha clearly taught non-violence.
Taking the accounts of the life of the Buddha, parts of it may seem incredible and legendary. That however does not mean such an event might not have occurred. It possibly may have, just that the existing narration may be more colourful than the actual historical occurance. More important than the historical accuracy i think is the ideal of the story being conveyed.
In the story of Angulimala, the bandit who wore a garland of fingers of his victims met the Buddha and became his disciple as a monk. There is a wonderful part when the King Pasenadi was asked by the Buddha what he intends to do if the king were to find Angulimala reformed into a virtuous and noble monk. The king then goes on to say he would treat him with veneration and respect worthy of a virtuous person.
In many such stories the Buddha or the teachings convey the message that it is important to look objectively at what you are dealing with. Would you deal with Angulimala the former murderous bandit or Angulimala the future virtuous and peaceful monk? Of course there was also the stage in between, the intermediate, repentant Angulimala, who sincerely remorsed at his past mistakes and was willing to learn from the Buddha. Do we remember our former Angulimala, repentant Angulimala and future Angulimala moments in our experience, in the learning of life's lessons?
To say that this was just a tale and dismiss it from the Buddhist example of the teaching of compassion, would it be too hasty? To say we cannot possibly try to help reform every criminal is true but is it very often more used as a convenient excuse? An excuse too costly for the lives of those who may be successfully reintegrated as useful members into society? Maybe it is like asking, "Do we just throw away the bad apple or plant it to grow into a tree?"
To say good kammic interventions would appear and 'miraculously' help or bad kammic interventions would harm the criminal is like saying some divine power will judge him. Kamma is said to be a concept very few can understand fully and i am not one of these few. But it is certainly not equivalent to the common concept of fate, where what will happen is predestined or 'written in stone'. If we intervene, we are adding kamma to the recipe of the event, to the conditions already present. The Buddha did that with Angulimala in the story. Is that an ideal we should consider aiming for?
When we say we have no feelings of empathy for another individual, how did we come to dissociate with the said individual who has been living out his/her life only in a way he/she knows? Don't we all live out our lives in the way we know most on this earth? Do we conceive that he/she is different from us because of the particular way he/she has lived his life? Maybe because they committed a crime?
Intention is very important in an act, as intention determines the kamma it is said. Do we make mistakes ourselves based on greed, hatred and delusion? Are we all susceptible to be burned by these three mortal fires? Do some get burned and avoid them? Do others get burned but have not the slightest clue as to what burns them? Would those who have no idea keep on burning till they act out their intentions? Bellowing out like smoke from raging flames? So what can be done for/with these destructive individuals then? Snuff out their present life and hope for a better rebirth? I think some might say that.
Unimaginable for me.. that some who ascribe to this do think this is quite in line with Buddha's teachings. Do we disregarded the sayings about how precious a human life is. How all beings hold their life dearest. To not do unto others what you do not wish done upon yourself. Can the first precept of not taking life be interpreted as 'except those of murderers and drug traffickers and others found guilty of "heinous" crimes'? Is the attempt to preserve life of all beings idealistic? Maybe. Unrealistic? Isn't it only from ideals that we can strive to be better, realistically speaking?
As for capital punishment as a consolation for grieving families of victims, we have to be aware that the offenders' families would also likely grieve for them after execution too. Does the idea of justice spreading the sorrow among the families help in the deterrence factor? I am reminded of the story of kisa gotami who went to the Buddha mad with sorrow over the death of her young son. How the Buddha managed to calm her enough before making her see the the universality of death.
So far there is no instance of Buddha interfering in the affairs of state by demanding that kings or governments of the time listen and adhere to his teachings. I believe that is an example of wisdom.
He taught to the masses, not only to those in power. For any form of rule, to keep the peace, to have order, the sentiments of the populace is very crucial. Some countries may enforce a more rigid system of top down governance. Where all differing opinions deviating from that of those in power will be stamped out quickly. Modern societies tend to approach a more democratic form where the government represents the will of the people. Will the laws of such society change if the masses are persuaded to change their view of what is acceptable then? Either through policies that are enforced willingly or unwillingly on the populace. I'm thnking of punishment versus persuasion through grassroots campaigns. Both are a top-down approach. How about another way for the change? Initiated by and spread within the populace and back up to the government. This is what seems to be happening to some degree in western nations on the issue of climate change.
By not criticising others, does it make others more able to listen to the message? But the Buddha did criticise his students. How did he correct them? This is what i believe the Buddha did, he taught skillfully with kindness and wisdom. Through better understanding of ourselves, can we see that the undesirable qualities, although acted out by us, are not an inherent part of us? Habits and learned ideas that contribute to our skewered view of our world, are they a part of us? He let those in power decide for themselves what was beneficial and what was not. Just as he did with commoners and those deemed to be of low births too. Was he trying to remove the illusory barrier of pride to let his message be considered to its full extent without the petty biases we so often find ourselves embroiled in?
For one who can see how extremely rare, how exceptionally remote the probability is for a Buddha, one that discovers for himself and teach the teachings, i am reminded of the fact that he was prepared to take the remotest chance to attempt what no one in the history of his time had accomplished. I am no mathematician but the probability might be more than 1 million to 1. Yet he did try. He may not have thought of the seemingly insurmountable odds against him but we of later generations, can appreciate its significance. So he succeeded. The significance is that, low probability is not equal to no probability, and a worthy enough goal should be engaged against even great odds.
So here's to great odds my friends! We have already lived to this day at great odds. Everything we do from this point on, can we see the seemingly insurmountable odds against the next breath we take? Go! take on those odds! Not forgetting our compass of liberating kindness and map of peaceful wisdom.]
Powerful post.
ReplyDelete