Thread: Can a Buddhist be aggresive in lucid dreams?

Do the Buddhist teachings allow you to carry out acts of aggression if they are rooted in self-defense?

Originally Posted by ccrinbama

Do the Buddhist teachings allow you to carry out acts of aggression if they are rooted in self-defense?

Technically, I think not, but I'm not exactly sure on that either.

Well, either way it is a questionable act. Even if it is permitted, and you carry out an act of aggression against a DC, it could be argued that you are carrying out an act of aggression against yourself. An act implies a target, correct? You can't carry out an act of ANYTHING against NOTHING. Is aggression in any form at all prohibited?

Hopefully someone more knowledgeable that I on buddhism comes in, but I believe that a Buddha (IE, an enlightened one, a perfect follower of buddhism) would not be aggressive in any form. And therefore, a follower shouldnt-- but obviously its not punished, as most people arent buddhas, nonetheless any agression is discouraged-- I think that, in theory and as buddhism is intended, if you followed the rulings/ideology, then you wouldn't have aggression in the first place?

Also, I believe understanding is a huge part of buddhism. It is important to consider actions in a hypothetical situation, to understand the different ways in which you might behave and their impact on others and the impact of your actions on the environment

so if you are dreaming, would you be able to say that the dream is a hypothetical situation that you are living out, and that performing negative actions would be permissable, as you are testing and seeing the negativity that would result in those actions, thereby giving you a greater understanding in waking life?

(That last bit was hard for me to word precisely, I'll try clarifying further if my meaning isn't clear)

But I suppose if you were a follower of buddhism (which is intended to remove suffering, ie anger, ignorance, etc) then you would have no desire anyway to be aggressive in your dreams. But of course, few are perfect followers. Hmm....

I mean. Even if you gain understanding from it, you are still carrying out an act of aggression. You could carry out an act of aggression in the waking world, and also gain understanding from it.

I guess what it comes down to is this: Is the act of aggression itself what is wrong? Or are the consequences of the actions what the buddha taught to avoid? Certainly the consequences of an action in a dream are negligable-- unless you believe in the dream being a higher plane-- being as it is only a elaborate day dream, and has no effect on reality.

If the former is true, and its the act itself that is bad, then you're right, and the act would not be permissable regardless.

I assume both should be avoided, but the act of aggression itself would be worse than the consequences. The consequences is that someone else will have an act of aggression committed against them. If that person is -- in the ideal Buddhist sense -- immune to reacting negatively to any act of aggression committed against them, then no one is affected by the consequences of the act. Only the person who actually committed the act would be affected, having gone through the emotional experience.

It depends on where exactly the need of nonaggression stems form. If it is a matter of not acting aggressively towards another person or thing out of some form of respect for them (so to speak), then assuming the theory that dreams do not go beyond the scope of one's own mind that should be ok, as you can't cause distress for something that doesn't exist. If however it involves some sort of philosophy on how aggression affects you, then it would make no difference what the subject of the aggression is.

I thought that Buddhism had the expressed goal of attaining Nirvana and becoming a Buddha, which is a personal transformation, and I'm pretty sure that any form of aggression at all -- be it directed at yourself or someone else -- will stand in the way of achieving that goal.

Well, I think the question is should a Buddhist be aggressive in dreams.

First of all, I'm not familiar with a Buddhist teaching that states that entities in your dreams are all spiritual beings from another plane. Also, we have to distinguish lucids from non-lucids. Any action performed in non-lucids is unconscious and unintentional and would thus carry little karmic weight. In lucids, you are consciously choosing your actions so certainly those actions have an effect on your consciousness.

The closet thing Buddhism has to the ten commandments is the Ten Non-Virutes. However, these are seen as more of a guideline open to your interpretation. Each non-virtuous actions consist of four parts: the basis (which is the object the action is preformed) the intention, the deed, and the final step or completion of the action. For one to experience the full karmic result of the action all steps must be completed. Already, the waters are getting murky when it comes to dreams, because there is not a definitive answer whether your DC's are objects or not. Also, "aggression" isn't one of the non-virtuous actions, but killing, harmful intent and wrong views are.

My thoughts on it are that Buddhism goes beyond following a list of rules of what you should and shouldn't do. It involves learning compassion and awareness, and learning to act from those motives, not intellectualizing what is right and wrong. Every action you preform, whether in dreams or waking life should be cultivating those qualities. Your dreams can expand your awareness ,and allow an experience of a deeper reality and the true self of clear light. Committing aggressive acts on DC's seems to me less as wrong, but more a waste of a learning opportunity and cultivating the wrong sort of qualities.

If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.

A buddhist certainly can commit acts of violence and aggression in a lucid dream, but the question really is should one commit these acts? Is it wise to fantasize about killing people? Does it lead to liberation, to awakening? Why do you want to kill these characters?

Originally Posted by ccrinbama

Do the Buddhist teachings allow you to carry out acts of aggression if they are rooted in self-defense?

Hahaha, aggressive self defense, that's a good one.

Grabbing someone's arm and forcing it against a wall to knock a dagger out of it is an act of aggression.

Originally Posted by ccrinbama

Grabbing someone's arm and forcing it against a wall to knock a dagger out of it is an act of aggression.

Not if it's done in defense. The moment you become aggressive it ceases to be defense, it becomes an act of aggression. If someone coming at you with a dagger, trying to kill you, it is hardly an act of aggression on your part to stop them. However suppose you use unneccesary force because you don't like the person. Then maybe the action has become aggression. A major part of what constitutes crossing this line is what motivates a person, so it is often impossible to tell, from a first person or third person perspective, if the line has been crossed. But I still see the distinction as valid.

Aggression - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

An act of aggression is one the attacks or provokes another person. If the person is attacking you it is not aggression but defense.
[/USELESS SEMANTIC BULLSHIT]

The second definition from MW:
"the practice of making attacks or encroachments"

Attack can be a couple of things, one definition from MW is
"to set upon or work against forcefully"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attack


To force a dagger out of someone's hand is to work against forcefully, and to carry this out is an act of aggression.

I'm going to waste no more than five more sentences on semantic bullshit and then I'm done. If the person is threatening you or has attacked you, you are defending yourself, not attacking the other person. If they haven't then you are correct but I was assuming that they had, since in my opinion forcing a dagger from someone who has done nothing against you is not defense. To put it simply, is defending yourself attacking someone?

You can attack someone in self defense. I'm just saying, even if it is for the purpose of self defense, I would still assume it would be an aggressive act. That being said, I know next to nothing about Buddhism, and am only presenting my opinion of how certain actions would be interpreted.

You can do whatever the fuck you want if you're Buddhist. It is advised to act in ways which help you, rather than hinder you. A Buddhist learns on his own the perils of being aggressive or violent. Such things are not forbidden like some sort of sin. They are inhibitors to growth. Nothing more.