It actually harms other people to let them harm you? If so, how is it possible?
I can’t speak for Buddhism (sorry), but the principle isn’t that hard to understand. It’s a brat way of allowing Buddhists leeway in protecting themselves, and it’s philosophically understandable: to allow someone to harm you hurts their karma and allows them to “get away” with behaviors that reflect their inner turmoil. At the very least, it’s encouraging bad behavior, sort of like how we try to train pet dogs early not to bite–in the end, aggressive behaviour will be to their detriment.
That makes sense, but I’ve honestly never heard of this principle. I wonder which specific branch of Buddhism the OP is referring to because in the Mahayana, I can easily imagine a bodhisattva allowing a person to continue in their violent habits if they saw that as providing a more more direct path to understanding that they were on the wrong path - much like the alcoholic often has to hit rock bottom before they can recover.
Then why do we have prisons?
What is rock-bottom for a murderer? Letting a person harm you and letting him get away with it sets a bad precedent because one day they’ll hurt someone who can’t/won’t stand for their shit.
Also, I think karma doesn’t exist same way god(s) don’t exist.
What do you think?
That was just a stray thought and if you know about bodhisattvas, it makes more sense than it might appear. I assumed that you’re familiar with Buddhism.
BTW, you never did say sect or branch that idea comes from.
Are you under the impression that we are Buddhists?
Are you sure you intended a GQ about the tenets of a particular belief structure?
Kinda sounds like you want a GD about whether or not that belief structure is valid, or maybe that you want to Pit Buddhists for having beliefs that don’t sit well with your particular values.
The belief structure and values system of a person who believes in karma and god is in no way influenced by the fact that you do not share those beliefs.
[moderating]
I think it sounds much more like the basis for a debate, so I have moved the thread from General Questions to Great Debates.
[/moderating]
The general idea isn’t just restricted to Buddhists. It seems logically derivable from the “hate the sin, love the sinner” message of most moral codes.
When we stop a person from committing a crime against us, we are helping that person from assuming the guilt of the crime.
Really, I can’t really think of any moral code that does *not *say it harms other people to let them harm you, unless we broaden to field to include questionable “moral” theories like “might makes right.”
A moral code which says it is wrong to try to impose your will on someone else could plausibly say it is wrong not to let others harm you. For by not letting them harm you, you’re imposing your will on them.
True, the Organians seemed to have that code (although they turned out to be cheating). And martyrs throughout history have had it in the back of their mind that “death by persecutor” was the express lane to heaven.
I’m not sure whether these have actually been dogma, though. They seem like cases where individuals are cutting corners, and the guys with the fancy pens are still acknowledging that willfully allowing another soul to go to eternal torment isn’t great for your own soul.
I’m sure there’s an example in an Ursula Le Guin book, though. It’s right up her street.
Think of the moral arguments of some pacifists and some nonviolent protestors. They’re saying, in some cases at least, that even if the authorities harm them, they will not resist, because to do violence is wrong.
You’re looking for what different religions’ dogme* say, though? I think the early Christians were supposed to have been pacifists and at the same time willing to “witness” even to the point of persecution and death. So they were (by implication if not explicitly) allowing others to harm themselves by harming them (the Christians).
*I have no idea if it’s a correct plural in any language much less English but it felt right at the moment.
No.
You sound like you can’t stand for seeing a criticism or a feeling of doubt towards the belief(s) you cherish.
Yes, it is influenced. Not always, but it is influenced.