Printable View
For those who argue that life begins at conception, identical twins (here Raymonde and Lucienne Wattelade, the world's oldest) present a problem: when the fertilised egg splits, which half gets the soul?
http://images.newstatesman.com/artic...04590649_w.jpg
http://s3.amazonaws.com/kym-assets/e...jpg?1307461431
Are both people? Then both have souls. No the Bible doesn't say exactly when the soul is given, yet it speaks of conception as the start of life. I would therefore assume that however many persons you have, you have the corresponding number of souls. If at one instant you have 1 fertilized egg, I would say 1 soul. If an instant later there are 2, then 2 souls.
Two indentical twins is not the norms.
I truly believe that two indentical twins is a genetic induced error.
Natural twins are a boy and a girl.
I don't think the soul or spirit has a beginning when bodily conception occurs. It has been around and has been through many lifetimes before.
From this belief system, I don't think there is any problem with identical twins, but I would be curious to know if people who believe in reincarnation find this problematic.
I don't think twins will ever have to worry about who gets the soul. Each'll learn soon enough. The possibilities are infinite once it starts going, all origins soon forgotten, and infinity +- x = infinity.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I think you are right about something that pertains to all of us: we will all learn soon enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
The challenge of the original post is whether identical twins and their souls provide a problem for whatever theology or other view of reality that one might accept. I don't think it does for the one I currently accept, but I hadn't considered the question before.
This may present a problem for certain forms of creationism (anthropological creationism, that is), but not traducianism. Anyway, if you believe in a soul or spirit or whatever, then I don't think you can really pontificate on when/where/how it joins the body.
I just watched a four-person discussion on the mind-body problem the other day. Some interesting stuff:
http://youtu.be/PniAu9XTW3Y
- Dr Stuart Derbyshire, reader in psychology, University of Birmingham
- Martha Robinson, neuroscience PhD student, University College London
- Richard Swinburne, emeritus professor, philosophy of religion, University of Oxford
- Professor Raymond Tallis, fellow, Academy of Medical Sciences
What is infinity minus infinity? (Bit of a trick question, for fun. The answer isn't necessarily "zero.")Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
Coca-Cola.Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
Nope! McDonald's!:)Quote:
Originally Posted by cafolini
Think of a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and an infinite number of guests occupying those rooms. Now, remove all the guests in the even-numbered rooms (2, 4, 6, 8 and so on to infinity). How many guests have you removed? An infinite amount. How many remain? An infinite amount. So, in this case, infinity minus infinity equals infinity. There are many other mathematical paradoxes along these lines (google: "Hilbert's Hotel"). Some mathematicians think quantitative infinities cannot exist because of these sorts of problems.
Well, I don't see it as paradoxes or inexistences. But I agree with the rest. The unavoidable case is the simple one of division by two. In the macro, there can't be lack of infinity because of location. Nothing beyond? Impossible.Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
But there are many ways of dealing with infinity. It is an unreachable limit. But as we approach it close enough, a calculation becomes correct for most practical purposes. We can disregard the infinitesimal by approaching it.
Thanks for posting this. I'll definately take a look.Quote:
Originally Posted by Climacus
Is the implication that sex parts beget soul? Because James Brown was wayyyyyy ahead on that one.
J
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrFzB3CvU9M
Neither. They're soulless. Ever met identical twins? Something not quite right with them.
Edit: Thought this sounded funny when I wrote it. Now not so much. My most extensive experience with identical twins come from my contact with this pair of boys I went through school with for 7 years. They were the most handsome, most intelligent, most athletic and most polite kids in the entire school. They seemed like a pair of genetically engineered perfect specimens or something. Like robots. Never once did they lose their tempers, they always dominated in sports and academics. Blonde hair, blue eyes, terrifically lean and tall. Anyway.
I suppose the religious person might say that the gestating eggs develop/are endowed with a soul of their own once they become independently alive. If the egg itself can initially be vested with a soul then why not the two which spring from it? Not that I believe in literal "souls."
Truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
http://larryfire.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/grady.jpg
That's what I'm talking about! Creepy.Quote:
Originally Posted by JuniperWoolf
I don't see anything creepy about the two children.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darcy88
The Buddhist view is that there is no soul, but that a being's mind energy directs itself to its next reincanation according to its karma. So there's no problem with twins or identical twins. In fact if a couple of beings in one life develop a very close bond - husband wife, brother sister, friends - whatever - then the wish to be very close could account for the twin state. There's also no problem with test tube babies according to HH The Dalai Lama who was asked this at a teaching once. The being who will be born is attracted at conception, as are beings attracted to the usual method.
The question of a soul is not an issue in Buddhism because one has not been found within or without a person, (using meditation techniques).
I am 'attracted' to a blonde in Italy. Will I be able to get her if all depended on mind??
From your profile avatar, probably not.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
Attracted in the karmic sense, not a self directed attraction because there is no self.
Oh, come on, Paul! You said it's the 'energy of the mind' that works behind such things....my mind's energy is in full tide...augur something good, gentleman!Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
The spirit might be willing, but it takes 2.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
:lol:
This prompted a lot of questions for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
What meditation techniques does one use to search for answers like this? And how does one know that the search for whatever one is looking for is exhaustive enough to say something doesn't exist? (I was thinking of the search for the Higgs particle when I asked myself that. To my knowledge it hasn't been found yet and so the problem of claiming that an exhaustive search was done by the scientists looking for it might become important. They would need to know when to stop looking.)
Also I realize I don't have a clear understanding of what a "soul" is. I would have thought that "soul" and a "being" with "mind energy" might be nearly the same thing. But if they aren't, what is the soul and how is it different from a being with mind energy?
As you know, Buddhism is about self awareness and examining the mind and body. Using the definition of soul as that eternal part created by the creator God, you would be looking for some indication that a part of you would not dissolve at death. The Buddha could not find this, and so rejected eternalism. The charge of nihilism is thus levelled - just recently actually on this site - at Buddhism, but the Buddha postulated that although nothing substatial survives death, still the karmic energy causes the next life. He thus defined The Middle way as between eternalism with a soul, and nihilism - complete extinction.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Rather than search for a soul, some Buddhist meditation sequences try to find an I. The I is that self image we have of ourselves which is also a feeling. The best exampe of the I is what you feel when you become self conscious about something - particulrly in a social situation. It takes a while to perceive, but it is a part image and part feeling, and very difficult to pin down. The purpose of the meditation is to investigate whether the I actually exists. The findings suggest there isn't even an I - a self - let alone a soul.
I don't know of any meditations which look at matter specifically, but I've been taught ones where you try to perceive a moment of mind - a very small portion of time - 66 in a finger snap apparently. These are called, confusingly, dharmas. The idea of being able to perceive such a small moment seems odd, but I think one of the effects of more advanced meditation is the ability to focus and hone awareness so the you don't slow time, but heighten your mind. (I'm surmising here I must add).
In terms of finding particles, again I'm not aware of one in particular, but The Buddha - in answer to a mathematical question -
"According to Lalitavistara Sutra when Buddha is challenged to express numbers greater than a hundred crore (koti) "
came up with the answer in this blog where the blogger is referring to a passage in Marcus De Sautoy:
http://arvindkumar-ias.blogspot.com/...dic-maths.html
Sautoy's commentary noted that the numbers corresponded to particle sizes, though this is in the book not the blog.
I've just found a commentary that refers to it here.
http://iteror.org/big/Source/buddhis...tara-ch12.html
I wonder what The Buddha would think of the search. His advice about such postulations about first causes was to emphasise the need for personal development.
Thanks for asking YesNo. It prompted me to find those texts which I am currently intereted in.
Hmm....you have a point there!!:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
No worries. I'm even more unlikely with my less than desirable looks. :biggrinjester:Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
I didn\t know soul too has to be beautiful like the looks? Does the soul having less than desirable looks is not a soul??? Why does the soul need 2 to enjoin?? Anyway, a soul can stir another soul thousands of miles away without being couched together in one womb?? Did the fate of Romeo and Juliet suffer at the hand of a common soul?? How and why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Are you really serious? I think I'll read a different thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
Yes, those are boggling questions. If you can answer them, well and good, or else I will wait for someone who comes up with better knowledge about soul and its transmission, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by KCurtis
BTW I thought soul was like 'light' contained in little 'beads' resembling stars or a nebula but I am not sure about this theory of soul. Have any idea?
I'm confused with the Buddhist conception of reincarnation or "rebirth", but what you say seems to match what is in this Wikipedia article on reincarnation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReincarnationQuote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I think the existence of the self is a basic experience of all of us. There is no need for any meditation to achieve the awareness. When someone calls your name, you know whom they are referring to. So to deny the self is to deny experience itself. Whether the self continues after death or not is not clear, but it seems puzzling for me to hear the Buddha claim to have reincarnation experiences but then deny that there is anything that could reincarnate.
I thought the Middle Way in Buddhism was an avoidance of the extremes of asceticism and debauchery. In that sense the Middle Way is basic, ethical common sense. Such a Middle Way exists and is something that anyone can practice. But to consider the Middle Way as an ideology between the extremes of eternalism and nihilism assumes that something exists between these two positions. I can't even imagine what that could be. At the moment, I suspect it doesn't exist any more than then Buddhist's "self" exists.
What is the purpose of Buddhist personal development without a self to benefit from it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
That's how they get you YesNo. They draw you in with their feigned innocence. You get close and their eyes come aglow in a lurid red and before you know it they've snatched your soul. True story.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I agree. Perhaps it is loss of self by the Buddhists that Buddhism has become almost extinct in its place of birth, ie India. The present form of Buddhism is not Buddhism floated by Buddha but is a variation thereof.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
Meditation is not restricted to Buddhism. IN fact anybody anywhere can meditate..and people of all faiths have been doing so in one way or the other since time immemorial. There is no logic to prove reincarnation, just socio-economic conditions are there to assert it. Good deeds are possible at the hands of a lower caste dalit but how do we know he\s definitely going to be reincarnated as a Brahmin in his next life..or even if he is going to be reincarnated at all!!!
Really good questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by YesNo
I think the existence of the self is a basic experience of all of us. There is no need for any meditation to achieve the awareness. When someone calls your name, you know whom they are referring to. So to deny the self is to deny experience itself. Whether the self continues after death or not is not clear, but it seems puzzling for me to hear the Buddha claim to have reincarnation experiences but then deny that there is anything that could reincarnate.
You're absolutely right about the self being a basic experience of all of us. It is the basic experience of all beings in Samsara, but it is also the cause of us all being in Samsara.
The Buddha found that what we consider to be our self is actually a result of the aggregation - the combination - of all our sense data and the feeling of personal history and memory combined to create the "impression" of a self. This leads to the formation of the great delusion that we have a permanaetly existing I - which also leads onto ideas about a permanent soul. It is such a self evident truth to the untrained person that without teachings and guidance we would have no idea that it was otherwise.
It is this fictional sense of I that gives rise to all the negative emotions that are based upon the drive to be happy and not suffer. All sorts of accretions from political ideas to personal ideologies can be laid upon this fictional I and defended to the death. Of course it is also used the other way in developing charitable thoughts and compassion, but generally speaking in samsara it is very easy to develop negative thoughts and much more difficult to develop positive ones.
I thought the Middle Way in Buddhism was an avoidance of the extremes of asceticism and debauchery. In that sense the Middle Way is basic, ethical common sense. Such a Middle Way exists and is something that anyone can practice.
You're quite right it is. It also applies to the Middle Way between Eternalism and nihilism. The latter does not exclude the former but develops it.
What is the purpose of Buddhist personal development without a self to benefit from it?
Good question again. The purpose of personal spiritual development is, in Buddhist terms, to fevelop the conditions to aid the escape from samsara. One of the key things is developing good Karma and maintaining this into the next life for a fortunate rebirth. What is reborn is in effect a spiritual heir - not a different being like a son/ daughter, but not the same either. In the wikipedia article you referenced it talks of the classical analogy of one candle flame - the first light - lighting the next - the second life, and then the first candle being blown out. The secod candle is not the first, but it is also not different.
The implications of this - that my personality will not survive my death, that all the things I hold dear will vanish except to manifest in a karmic sense, is deeply challenging - espeialy to westerners who are brought with a great sense of the value of individualism. It is this that seperates Buddhism from Hindu and other conceptions of reincarnation. It is usually referred to as rebirth in Buddhism, though the terms are often used interchangeably.
It is this aspect which also brings great possibility. If you become a human, then you can potentially achieve full enlightenment with the right training. You can in essence change yourself into a super being - which is what Buddhas are - or anything wihin samsara. It explains why I could become a sea slug in my next life or raise myself to a spiritual height. Whilst being the source of our great delusion and chains to samsara, the selfsame idea - in exposing and "realising" it, offers freedom from suffering.
They were good questions YesNo, and I enjoyed thinking about the answers I've given. You will appreciate that there is much much more to this than I have put in my post. I may also have missed something vital, or not explained something very well. If so - please ask again or look it up, as I wouldn't want to mislead you on this important aspect of Buddhism. I'm a mere amateur.
Buddhism has moved from India, though it is still present, to other countires. It has also moved largely from Chinese occupied Tibet where under the Dalai Lamas it flourished. You may note that there is a project called the Maitreya Project which aims to construct a large statue of Buddha in Kushinagar and Bodhgaya.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
http://www.maitreyaproject.org/en/index.html
Buddhism has existed - it is claimed - before the time of the current historical Buddha. Although our current age locates the current founder in India, there have been 28 Buddhas associated with this world.
Meditation is not restricted to Buddhism.
You're right. A practitioner can be doing the same meditation, but without the motivation developed, the meditation is not Buddhist.
There are lots of types of meditation within and without Buddhism, but they have different methods and focus.
There is no logic to prove reincarnation
You could say the same about God. A meditator does not seek to prove it externally to anyone else though, and, as you say, it can't be proven in this way.
Good deeds are possible at the hands of a lower caste dalit but how do we know he\s definitely going to be reincarnated as a Brahmin in his next life..or even if he is going to be reincarnated at all!!!
It's worse than you say. The Buddha said that the chances of being reborn as a human were very slim. It is much more likely that a person will succumb to their negative karma and become an animal or worse. It makes developing a spiritual practice all the more important.
Also, your reference to Dalits does not apply to Buddhists who do not recognise the place of caste in rebirth. This is why untouchables have been known to convert to Buddhism, because it does not have this essentially social stratifiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
I used the word DALITS just for referring to something lowest in human kind.
I have no idea what they mean by karma? I only know people here use it in reference to their deeds or fate. Karma to us Indo_pakistanis means ''You will reap as you sow''....nothing more nothing less but as a Muslim we are in consonance with Christians who believe in heaven and perhaps hell. But unlike Christianity, Muslims have no intermediary on earth to make his confessions to on behalf of God. The fruits of hereafter all depend on deeds of a Muslim in this very world...heaven for good deeds ( especially towards humanity) and hell for evil deeds, though Fate also takes its mysterious option for God to over-rule anything at his Will.
I may be wrong but Buddhism to me appears more ritualistic and stagnant kinda religion...it is devoid of action or struggle for existence or growth.
I used the word DALITS just for referring to something lowest in human kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by mazHur
I see. I thought you were referring to the Untouchables in India.
Karma is similar to the "as you sow so you reap" idea. It means action. It's slightly different in that Karma mainly operates on the direction of rebirth rather than on an in-life basis. I think there are instances where a karmic effect will occur in the same life when a very positive or a very negative action is performed. It doesn't operate on a moment to moment basis, but is a store of both positive and negative Karma.
The way it works - as has been explained to me - is that if you nurture negative Karma in this life - say for example a Hitler or Stalin - then the results of that will not show until the next life, which explains why bad people are sometimes succesful. Your next life will be the fruiting of that negative karma.
Yet, considering that all beings have lived countless lives in the Buddhist's view, it means that the store of negative and positive Karma is very great. Acting negatively will cause the negative Karma to fruit whilst acting positively will cause the opposite. This is how rebirth works.
To my mind it seems more logical and fair than the one life only scenario proposed by the theistic religions, particularly where eternity/ heaven/ hell is concerned.
I may be wrong but Buddhism to me appears more ritualistic and stagnant kinda religion...it is devoid of action or struggle for existence or growth.
Although there are no missionaries as such in Buddhism, and no wish to convert peple, it has been taken up in the west as well as the more traditional Buddhist countries. I think I read a figure that suggested 700 million Buddhists. It's certainly not struggling for growth or existence. Devoid of action - depends upon what you mean by this.
Ritualistic - it depends which school you refer to. From what I've participated in, the rituals support the teachings and meditation. Practice varies though, and this might be the case where rituals rather than practice are followed. I think the same could be said of many religions.
Sorry - I missed these comments.
That's correct but the real face of Buddhism has been altered and even given new names and reduced to religions such as Shintoism.
Shintoism is not Buddhist, but developed in Japan. Japanese Buddhism was brought via China, and so Ch'an became Zen. This had been brought to China from India.
No, I am not aware of that. But how will the construction of statues infuse the real spirit of Buddhism among its followers?? the Buddhists already have large statues of Buddha in the Far East (such as Golden Statues of Buddha in Bangkok, etc) but during my visits to these places I could only find mythical tint in their practices and nothing more.
I think you're right. I think one of the problems is that the teachings are available for all, but the in depth study is difficult or limited if you are not a Monk or a Nun. The teachings were given/ written for Monks and Nuns to pursue, and it is usually impossible for a householder to develop their practice. It is difficult for them to participate in retreats of any length for example. I'm in the same situation myself.
So the problem arises of how do you connect a population with their religion. Clearly they have, but there will be popular practices rather than in depth ones for those who work and have families. The same situation exists in other religions too.
This is the first time I am hearing about this...I only knew that Jainism existed much before Hinduism and Buddhism in India.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits002.htm
I didn't know about them either, as the Mahayana school I follow focuses upon iconic Buddhas like Avolokitesvara and Amitahbha. I went to a Burmese Vihara in Birmingham a number of years ago, and the previous Buddhas were painted on the bottom of the dome.
[QUOTE=Paulclem;1101223]I used the word DALITS just for referring to something lowest in human kind.
Yes, there could be no worse insult of humanity that that..Quote:
I see. I thought you were referring to the Untouchables in India.
.Quote:
Karma is similar to the "as you sow so you reap" idea. It means action. It's slightly different in that Karma mainly operates on the direction of rebirth rather than on an in-life basis. I think there are instances where a karmic effect will occur in the same life when a very positive or a very negative action is performed. It doesn't operate on a moment to moment basis, but is a store of both positive and negative Karma.
The way it works - as has been explained to me - is that if you nurture negative Karma in this life - say for example a Hitler or Stalin - then the results of that will not show until the next life, which explains why bad people are sometimes succesful. Your next life will be the fruiting of that negative karma.
Yet, considering that all beings have lived countless lives in the Buddhist's view, it means that the store of negative and positive Karma is very great. Acting negatively will cause the negative Karma to fruit whilst acting positively will cause the opposite. This is how rebirth works
Thanks for clarifying the idea and in so simple words. I recall my late mother , a Muslim, remarking as '' YOU KARMA-STRICKEN' in a situation when someone suffered from successive travails or failures in life!!
I imagine she said so because she hailed from India...from among the Hindu culture. On the contrary, I like the axiom: Sins of fathers visit their sons'' and Muslims sort of have belief in this. There is no concept of Karma in Islam....all depends on one's actions in this world and everybody is accountable for his own deeds, not only in this world but also in the hereafter. Does this mean we find both 'heaven and hell' in this very world depending on how we did???
But even in the case of Karmic life you never know what treatment you will be meted out, do you?? It's better to be 'accountable' to the Supreme One rather than left to suffer for Karma indefinitely...and unspecifically. Surely I would not like to be reborn a rat....or was I a dormouse in my previous life?? No one can tell. If i am doing good in this life doesn't mean I was a lion in my previous life or I am a condemned one because i was a pig ....Quote:
To my mind it seems more logical and fair than the one life only scenario proposed by the theistic religions, particularly where eternity/ heaven/ hell is concerned.
Regardless of their population, I have observed that Buddhism discourages ''effort' in this very life. It encourages surrender....Quote:
I may be wrong but Buddhism to me appears more ritualistic and stagnant kinda religion...it is devoid of action or struggle for existence or growth.
Although there are no missionaries as such in Buddhism, and no wish to convert peple, it has been taken up in the west as well as the more traditional Buddhist countries. I think I read a figure that suggested 700 million Buddhists. It's certainly not struggling for growth or existence. Devoid of action - depends upon what you mean by this.
Ritualistic - it depends which school you refer to. From what I've participated in, the rituals support the teachings and meditation. Practice varies though, and this might be the case where rituals rather than practice are followed. I think the same could be said of many religions.
It is distressing to note that Buddhism has been split into sects..and swerved away from its basics. Remember king Asoka of India soon losing his control and power as a king and resulting in the death of the great Mauryan dynasty after conversion to Buddhism?? I think it sometimes becomes necessary to kill......to ensure your own life?? That is simple nature which doesn't permit peace the world is looking for....you cannot change that 'instinct' , can you?? But Buddhism tries to subdue it and is therefore a religion bereft of action.
As a poet said
Dash, retreat, dash after retreat
that's the only way
to keep blood warm!!
I don't find this spirit of life in Buddhism.
The West has its own outlook. Not only they are impressed by Buddhism but are also reverting to Rumi as well.
[QUOTE=mazHur;1101308]Does this mean we find both 'heaven and hell' in this very world depending on how we did???Quote:
Originally Posted by Paulclem
In Buddhism there is a belief in hells, and ghost realms as well as heavens. These are transitory states though and not eternal. Your stay in each is down to Karma. Some people interpret the Samsaric worl as described by Buddhists as a psychological map too. Certainly there are humans who live in a mental hell, if not a physical one.
But even in the case of Karmic life you never know what treatment you will be meted out, do you?? It's better to be 'accountable' to the Supreme One rather than left to suffer for Karma indefinitely...and unspecifically. Surely I would not like to be reborn a rat....or was I a dormouse in my previous life?? No one can tell. If i am doing good in this life doesn't mean I was a lion in my previous life or I am a condemned one because i was a pig ....
There's no eternal in samsara, and so you are subject to your karma only until it runs out. Surely no-one would want to be an animal, and that's one of the things which encourages a spiritual life. Taking control and becoming better.
It is distressing to note that Buddhism has been split into sects..and swerved away from its basics.
You'll have to be more specific in what you mean by sects. Certainly there are different strands or schools of Buddhism, but I don't see that as a negative point. The fact that they don't adhere to the same practice is down to different teachers with different emphases. I knew a Doctor called Dr. (Phil) Rewata Dhamma who was highly regarded as both a Therevadan practitioner, as he was originally from Burma, and also a Mahayana practitioner too. I think the mistake is to regard the three aspects of the path - Therevada, Mahayana and Tantra as different. They have a different focus, but the basis is the same - the teachings of Buddha and his example. That there have been developents which have enhanced the teachings is a good thing.
Remember king Asoka of India soon losing his control and power as a king and resulting in the death of the great Mauryan dynasty after conversion to Buddhism??
As I've said before, this is not the accepted version of the story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka
The dynasty crumbled after his death - forty years after, according to his article. Your assertion that it was due to the adoption of Buddhism as a state religion is not borne out. It was of course those who inherited the dynasty after.
I think it sometimes becomes necessary to kill......to ensure your own life?? That is simple nature which doesn't permit peace the world is looking for....you cannot change that 'instinct' , can you?? But Buddhism tries to subdue it and is therefore a religion bereft of action.
It may be necessary to kill in order to protect your own life. Buddhism's stance on this is "what is your motive?" Suicide is seen as an action that is counter productive except under very special circumstances ie the monk who immolated himself in protest at the Vietnam war. His motive was to engender peace.
In terms of war, HH lost control of Tibet to the Chinese in 1959. Despite the atrocious treatment of Tibetans by the Chinese, he has always advocated peaceful protest. This is because killing others is more harmful in karmic terms than being killed. You're right in that it is against the instinct for life, bu this instinct is a samsaric taint and not to be trusted. After all, the Buddhist's ultimate aim is to liberate all beings from samsara and this self regarding instinct.
By the way, one of the parts of the Noble 8-fold Path is right effort/ action.