Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
What you guys think about this? Violence is sometimes the answer? Youtube video link
StoicBuddhistAlex
Veteran
What you guys think about this?
0
Comments
But this guy's a jerk.
My sense of Buddhism is that violence should be seen as an act of last resort. In that regard, I am not convinced by KoB that the US has put anything like the same resources it puts into war into alternatives. Its a bit like the medical system which is focused on remediation, not prevention. Likewise, the US has a defense department but does not have a counterpart department of peace dedicated to preventative and intermediate steps before the last resort.
The justifications for mass violence war such as Hilter and the second world war often elide on the preconditions which caused the cancerous growth which then required the corresponding tactical surgery. Arguably, if the appalling conditions that developed in Germany prior to the 1930's been addressed by a more proactive and peace oriented approach, a looney like Hitler may never have got a toe-hold. But in saying this, we can look to the post WWII world and recognise that US interventions have not always been acts of compassion, but selective in terms of its own interests and culturally specific ideological position. Moreover, there are numerous regimes which are negative, but there is a surprising lack of interest in ones that have few economic resources or are pro-US. The point is that it is not always easy to be pure in ones motives as a nation.
As an individual, there are great Aikido examples of non-violent responses that work, so I would say that often violence may simply be a lack of imagination and given the amount of violence that we see in the various entertainment media, we are unconsciously attuned to regard violence as the solution, and we learn to a passivity in heading it off, before hand. In movies, there is always an inevitability about violence, which is not the case in real life.
This does not mean that I will never resort to violence, but so far I have managed to avoid it and have become more and more mindful of how right speech can disarm aggression, being friendly and humble can parry a potential attacker, and a smile can prevent a confrontation. The one time I was tempted to use my martial arts training, I found out later that I would most likely have ended up face down in a canal, as my adversary was part of the local mob, who were heavily armed and would have come to his aid if I looked like I might win. Lucky for me, a friendly local advised me to let it go - I did even though - it seemed like an uneven match in my favour. My old teacher used to laugh at his peers, so many of whom had got injured proving themselves in fights and no longer kept training.
This guy is angry in himself... if he was ever to become mindful, he would see that behind this is some pain that he is carrying and thus he carries on the cycle from victim to perpetrator. It is not easy to feel relaxed and friendly around someone like this...
I do think that one could make the case that the State Department attempts to use diplomacy, which could be related to peace, at least in many cases.
I find it interesting that Gandhi was able to accomplish that same goal, without using pitchforks. Violence might work, but simply because it may work or has worked, does not mean it was the proper answer and does not mean that it is the only answer that would have worked. Gandhi has proven the above quote to be incorrect.
Yes, but my point was that it was not violence that lead to freedom for India.
He went on hunger strike, twice, to stop Hindus and Moslems from fighting....
he achieved extraordinary things with regard to freeing India from the domination of the Empire - but many of his actions brought dire consequences, and as we now know, his quest to instil harmony between Moslems and Hindus was not wntirely successful. Indeed, it's ultimately what killed him.
And, as Federica pointed out, his techniques killed him...and the issues continue. There are still terror attacks between Muslims and Hindus.
Personally, I think a case can certainly be made for the effectiveness and of nonviolent struggle and resistance with the caveat that results usually take more time and require those engaging in it to be well-organized and willing to endure retaliatory violence.
As for beating up someone simply because you don't like them or what they're doing, I have a hard time condoning that. Protecting yourself from someone attacking you is one thing, and I think most people would find that a perfectly acceptable and effective use of violence. But beating someone up for something they've said is quite another. It may just be because I'm not a very big and strong person that I'm saying this; but if everyone were to resort to violence in these cases, where that kind of thing was considered acceptable, what kind of world would we live in? Would it be as civilized? As cohesive? Or would it be a world where you get what you want simply because you're big enough to take it and hurt anyone who says anything?
I think it's admirable that his intention was to stop the harassment, but I don't find his use of brute force quite as admirable. I find it rather barbaric, actually. An alternative solution could have been to organize the neighborhood to confront the man and convince him that such behaviour isn't acceptable; and if that didn't work, have them contact his employer and make complaints, contact local papers, etc. until he got the point or was fired. In essence, violence can be an answer, but it's certainly not the only answer.
Just my two cents, anyway.
Osama bin Ladens techniques killed him too and he was quite violent from the start. Which, interestingly, was brought about by the US and other governments, specifically the Egyptian government using US CIA torture techniques on people of the Muslim brotherhood, specifically Sayyid Qutb, when they were political prisoners, they became more and more violent because someone was being violent to them. So what happened, violence cause even more violence to occur. Sayyid Qutb, who was severely tortured in Egyptian prisons, was the mentor of the mentor of Osama bin laden.
The idea that violence is the answer is the whole reason why the middle east has been in a state of war for how many centuries now? And it is exactly violence that has brought that war now upon the rest of the world. Just my opinion.
My point is that the end of British colonization was not brought about 100% by Ghandhi. There were several other factors -- including a changing world -- that were also important. Ghandhi was one major influence, but there were others as well.
And I compared this to MLK getting -- by some people -- all the credit for the Civil Right movement, when in fact there were many people (Stokely Carmichael, is one that comes to mind) and actions (the riots and burning of large parts of D.C.) that also played a major role in the effort.
You may not like the way this guy presents his ideas, but that does not make then any less valid. Look how well peace has kept the Chinese out of Tibet, and of course Iran would almost certainly abandon their nuclear program if we just ask nice.
In another thread a friend of @Lincoln got attacked in a stairwell by a thug with a knife. No question if he had asked nicely, the thug would have just left him alone and gone about his way. NOT IN THIS LIFETIME. No, an arm or two needs to be broken occasionally to remind the thugs that they are not in charge. The problem is we need at least the threat of violence to maintain peace. Perhaps best expressed in Latin: Sic vis pacem, para bellum. If you wish Peace, prepare for War.
If you are attacked by a person who is trying to rob you, would they still try to harm you if you happily gave them your wallet like they wanted. Perhaps, perhaps not. It's impossible to say. Therefore, it's also impossible to say that breaking the mans arm is the one and only option. You think he's going to just stop robbing people just because he got hurt doing it once. Perhaps, perhaps not, it's impossible to say.
Also, there is the question of "what exactly is violence"? What is the definition of the word "violence". Is it simply "force". Or is it "force with the intent to harm, injure or kill"
Violence is defined by the World Health Organization as the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment or deprivation.
To say that the above is necessary in defending yourself would not be true because it is quite possible to defend yourself in a manner, against an attacker, that does not have a "high likelihood of resulting in injury, death", etc., with no intent to cause harm or injury to the person. If you know how to do that, that is. So, using the above definition, if you defend yourself in a manner that has a "low likelihood of resulting in injury, death, etc. then you are defending yourself, using force, but without using "violence".
Thinking that the only solution to someone making cat calls at your wife, is to go and just beat them up, that is nonsensical.
Gandhi said that the nonviolent activist, like any soldier, had to be ready to die for the cause. And in fact, during India’s struggle for independence, hundreds of Indians were killed by the British.
The difference was that the nonviolent activist, while willing to die, was never willing to kill.
Gandhi pointed out three possible responses to oppression and injustice. One he described as the coward’s way: to accept the wrong or run away from it. The second option was to stand and fight by force of arms. Gandhi said this was better than acceptance or running away.
But the third way, he said, was best of all and required the most courage: to stand and fight solely by nonviolent means. The guy in the video suggests that Gandhi only chose the third way because they didn't possess the resources for the second.
Again he did not avoid violence toward himself or his followers. These actions were "used" to further his cause.
By the way, I don't think a hunger strike would have proved very effective against the Nazis. I could be wrong of course.
-Boris Yeltsin
I think inherent in a non violent uprising is broad support, it needs alot of people acting in disruptive ways to be effective. So if it does achieve its goal it will have a large bottom up base of support and investment. It also has to be right and have the truth on its side to attract the neccessary support. Thus making it more stable in the long run.
A violent resistance doesn't need as many people and as much popular support generally to accomplish its aim and it will tend to have a top down hierarchy. The power players in the movement have the might of arms to back them up if they win and no longer need the people to enforce their ideas.
I go back to George Washington's decision to step down as president after two terms and think that action may be one of the most underrated in shaping the course of US governance. Imagine what kind of precedent it would have set if he would have stayed for 5 or 6 terms, he certainly was popular enough to easily have a third. Look how easily the transition of power occurs here and how hard it is in some other countries.
if "we" have the Noble Right View, we can see 'the violence' we see is another Perception
if we react violently to such perception (the violence) we are ignorant
what we have to think is:
are we react relatively to the worldly situation at hand?
or
are we react relatively to our aspiration of LIBERATION from samsara?
Mixing up both brings the confusion how to react as a Buddhist
this Grate Monk might be Anagami or Arahnt acting with full compassion for those who suffer and for those who create the suffering
And as a fellow human being, how would you feel if someone did this because of your actions?
That does beg the question though if non violent protest that puts some into harms way falls under the category of violence.
In self immolation an action is directly undertaken to cause violence to oneself. In non violent protest one puts oneself into harms way, the action is taken by another.
Maybe non violent protest does fall into the category of violence, I honestly don't know. I do know that the action isn't the same though.
129. All tremble at violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
130. All tremble at violence; life is dear to all. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.
131. One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness herafter.
132. One who, while himself seeking happiness, does not oppress with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will find happiness hereafter.
-Dhammapada
I don't think that putting oneself in harms way is the same as causing another to commit violence.
because there is 100% surety that whenever 'something goes wrong with the life, that depends on the past bad action that i have done' and 'i will never do harm to anyone purposely hereafter'
but we can discuss by guessing 'that' why the next part of the answer 'He might ....'
As to other situations - violence only breeds more violence. The bully kicked out of school will not repent and mend his/her ways - they'll kick around the family pet.
Governments reap what they sow - and that is all I'll say about that.
Soldiers will suffer - even in a "just" war. Karma isn't patriotic.