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.
When is violence necessary?
novaw0lf
Veteran
Recently, I've found myself immersed in researching the ethnic conflicts of Burma. The people of Burma have been oppressed for years, yet ignored by the majority of the world, for the focus of the media has generally been on the the United States' affairs in the Middle East.
Much has been written however, about alleged war crimes against humanity, including genocide of its people, and even the rape of female protestors who've been peacefully protesting for democratic reforms, to resurrect their country from the impoverishing affects of the Burmese Way to Socialism (a government established on the fusion of Marxism and Buddhism).
This bit of history has been cinematically chronographed by the movie: The Lady, starring Michelle Yeoh (a popular Chinese actress), who depicts the life story of the Nobel Peace Prize winning political activist Aung San Suu Ki, who was put on house arrest for fifteen years (isolated from her husband) after winning many political victories in the name of democracy through the use of non-violent protests, inspired by Gandhi, very similar to those of Martin Luther King Jr.'s.
But it seems as if nonviolence has only achieved but so much, because the Burmese army, being led by President Thein Sein who has been depicted by the media as a man not of his word, after having gone back on his word after a ceasefire agreement with an ethnic group called the Kachin.
The Kachin are fighting for their lives right now as I type this very message.
My question to you all is, when is violence necessary? I see how effective nonviolent protests can be, but I have great doubt in it's ability to change situations like this. Non-violent protests only work in civilized governments who (at least publicly) follow their own laws at face value. But if people are being barbarized, raped, and murdered by the masses...there has to be a point where one must say to himself: war is the only option.
How do you all feel about this? The Allied Powers didn't win WWII against the Axis Powers using nonviolence. There has to be a point where we human beings must stand up for ourselves. If you tell a child to never strike a bully back, that child will just keep getting bullied, but if you tell that child to take a stand...a real change can happen and that bully could learn something about life and both children can essentially benefit from the experience in the long run.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence." -Gandhi
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://arcturus.org/field_manual.pdf
The manual was commissioned and read by top US military
and fictionalised in 'The men who stare at goats'
It is way ahead of its time.
However, would you laugh at me if I said I wanted to start a non-governmental organization started by the funds acquired by donations, tea sales, and writing books in order to lead a team directly into problem areas like this, and help establish defense and militaristic education/support for those of whom my team and I morally side with?
I don't support violence though (easy for me to say given I live in a safe western country).
Sitting in huts with the poor, having dinner with families in the Middle-East...
...visiting Africa, and seeing some of the poverty stricken areas in my province in China...
as well as going through poverty myself as child...I have much passion to help those in need, and I have the experience, training, and capability to do so.
But I won't be able to do anything directly for another two years. Right now, I'm just building funds.
Personally I would be all for a war of words with the generals in Myanmar rather than arming minorities.
I once wrote to the Dalai Lama wondering when he would sponser a crack airborne sangha team. Parachuting into war zones to construct stupas and altars and deliver dharma talks. Maybe you could take on the 'protector' role?
will find enough people in need
no need to go to china, africa or anywhere but around you there are more than enough people who are in need start to help with what you have now instead of waiting for another two years
it is not necessary to have money to help others
If you want to live harmlessly in a world where YOU don't have to commit violence thank God we can live in that world. On the other hand there are terrible injustices and I am not critical of a fighter trying to build a better tomorrow.
You can be violent against other objects, not just humans. Find their supply lines, their vehicles, their armories, and blow them sky high when no one is around. The loss of material might speak to a greedy barbaric government more than the loss of life.
Sometimes, war is the only answer. Kill or be killed, there is no middle way in some things. Rail against that reality all you want, you are simply prey before the predator. Sometimes you must rise above that, and become a Hunter yourself.
As for when violence necessary, I think that's entirely up to the people confronted with situations like this, where their lives are in imminent danger the choices seem to be either fight or die. The same goes for the level of violence necessary to defend themselves. It's ultimately a case by case decision that should be made by the people on the ground, not some middle-aged Buddhist on an internet forum such as myself. And if they ask for help from other groups and nations, ,e.g., in the form of arms or military intervention, then it's up to the people able to supply those things to decide if and when they'll intervene.
because
i know that the child is suffering now but the one who is harming the child is the one who is going to suffer in immeasurable time in future
and
i am suffering to see that because i already created conditions (cause) to be there (effect) Seems
but
what happen is the suffering children had created such conditions (do not think upekka is crual), but that is the reality
by all means we must do whatever we can do to avoid such situation
but
there is a limit
the limit is not to harm anyone
whether anyone accept this or not
this is what we experience everyday
'what we saw what we reap'
so
if we are wise
we should not create new suffering for us by harming others
I absolutely agree with everything you said except one thing: the middle path. Perhaps that -would- be a part of the middle path. Wouldn't it be an extreme to be nonviolent, all the time, always, no matter what? The middle path is philosophy of balance, and when one extreme is taken to this degree, the extreme that you just described would actually bring things back to balance if done correctly.
The same was said to William Wallace when he decided to take arms against the British, that he was just a middle-aged farmer.
The same was said to Che Guevera (who helped other countries besides his own), who was just a middle-aged doctor.
Why can't a middle-aged soldier (who just so happens to be a Buddhist) on the internet do something?
it is not necessary to have money to help others
A very valid point, but this I feel would make a minimal impact on the world. People like Steve Jobs greatly influenced the world by following their hearts and cultivating their own talents. I feel as if I can accomplish a more tangible and noticeable change by following my own heart the same way. Do I help one person on the street by giving him money to eat for the day, or do I help an entire civilization of people earn the right to be human beings?
In that situation, I'd actually think it's healthier for -everyone- if a Buddhist were to act violently to save the child/children. I'd break every bone in the kidnapper's body if I had to. I had an uncle who was kidnapped for two years, before I was born. He was sold into a prostitution ring and was later found in Texas. He was never same again.
You want to play 'who is the bigger monster'? You want to pretend you are a Buddhist warrior? Have you defeated your own demons? Are you in fact motivated by fear, transferred on others or imaginary situations?
I thought you were brave and honourable, maybe you did too . . .
By all means do something. Start with right intent, right now. :wave:
I'm not trying to be brave or honorable; I do not allow such labels to distract my emotions from allowing me to accomplish what I believe to be a greater good.
And...yes. I -do- understand the consequences of my own karma, at least as far as the average human being would, and I'm not afraid of that. Karma is inescapable, no matter who you are, Buddha or not. To live is to suffer, according to the doctrines. I am at least arbitrarily choosing to suffer for something I deem worthwhile.
and another thing @lobster , if I were to fear my karma (being imprisoned, killed, etc...or at least, allow the fear to overcome my decisions and actions), then that would be just another shackle of mental slavery.
The fact is, even if one becomes enlightened, I don't personally feel that makes them perfect or a God. Everyone on this forum has their own issues, their own demons, no matter whether they are enlightened or not. To be enlightened isn't to be perfect; it is simply to be aware that you are not.
Peace can be done, it is the harder path. Are you up for the challenge?
If you personally feel the need to travel to Burma and lead a revolution Che Guevera-style, that's your choice to make, not mine. Violence, especially in the context of political struggle, can certainly be an effective means of gaining something in a short amount of time. I'd just add that violence isn't the only means of winning battles or gaining freedom, although victories gained through nonviolent struggle and resistance may take longer to achieve and require those engaging in it to be well-organized and willing to endure retaliatory violence, which may not always be practical.
Balance is everything for us walking on the middle path.
Yeah, I never heard that about Siddhartha either.
Oppression is relative - I would venture that every nation oppresses its population - how that occurs very much depends on where the nation is in the world order.
Democracy will not relieve poverty - it never has - there is an order to affairs such that in the current frame, countries such as Burma shall always be poor - it is necessary to balance prosperity elsewhere.
I take your point on cinematic adaptation - that said, it is still a movie which is in the main a work of fiction.
WWII is again very complicated - it's not as simple as good vs evil.
When you resort to violence, everything you achieve is tainted by violence - in my view if one is unable to convince with reason, what is the point in using force? Better that I die and the violence continues than my using violence to bring about 'peace'... forcing people just seems to feed back into the loop - sooner or later a bigger badder club will bring about its own 'peace'.
The Burmese people could change governments almost immediately - everyone stops doing everything... no one leave the house until the government leave... who would the shadowy government use to push their agenda?
The truth is closer to home - it is less of an issue of this or that government and more an issue of everyone's self interest acting out - the result is the sum total of each individual's input.
I don't feel that more violence serves to solve anything.
On top of that - your proposition is most likely highly illegal - in this current climate you would likely be labelled a terrorist - either way, you'd be entering the murky world of mercenaries, coups and government level attention - if you progress, do so with your eyes open - they play for keeps up there.
But I imagine that one would have to be extremely skilled to know when it is justified and when it is merely an unskilled personal reaction to a situation. The Gita discusses the violence issue very usefully.
I struggle to see violent interference in Burma as potentially useful to anybody, but interference seems to be the order of the day, hubris being what it is and running rampant in some cultures. It is certainly hard to see how associating Buddhism with violence would be very helpful to the cause.
So after what, 70 years of violence, you really think more violence is what it takes to solve this chronic problem? The little rebel army is going to somehow sweep the bad guys out of power and gain independence finally, if they only get better at shooting back?
How about, after 70 years of killing each other with nothing solved one way or another, it's time to consider that violence isn't the answer in this case, at least?
1. The world can't have it both ways. When the West acts, we are accused of trying to run the world and being the world's policeman. When we don't act we are accused of negligence.
2. The idea that "Burma shall always be poor just doesn't wash. There is nothing inherently different about Burma than its neighbor to the south -- Thailand, and Malaysia, and Singapore. I've spent time in all 4 countries (the least in Burma). Singapore is one of the most modern nations -- albeit tiny -- in the world. Malaysia is rather prosperous, although some of the minorities there are more than happy to tell you they are not. Thailand is a mix, but as one world economist put it (paraphrased), "the Thais are the most comfortable poor people in the world" (sort of tongue in cheek). Three other countries in the region which I have not visited are a mix. Vietnam seems to be doing relatively well, Cambodia less so, and Laos seems to continue to be somewhat of a hermit country.
3. Don't mistake the protests that occurred in the capital as representing the whole country.
4. Burma is opening up -- finally -- and things are changing.
Again, don't misunderstand my response. You made many good points.
because
i know what we should do
but
so far i can not gurantee what i would do
because still i have to practice being mindful 24 hours/7days
he was not Enlightened by that time and his knoledge was not perfect at that time
Buddha never committed a murder
Buddha's Teachings reccomands loving-kindness and compassion
according to Buddha's Teaching we have a guidline to decide what is good for any situation we confront with
what is good for me and good for others do it
what is good for me but not good for others do not do it
what is bad for me and good for others do not do it
what is bad for me and what is bad for others do not do it
http://www.nra.gov.la/uxoproblem.html
Absolutely wonderful, wonderful responses...
I deliberately wanted to see the general viewpoint of what Buddhists would think of this idea. I logged on to see so many people react to this. So many comments. I'll attend to each one the moment I can.
I respect your opinion, and I see that you are unattached to your own life if you would say, "Better that I die...". That is, in itself, admirable...and I think that takes just as much courage to fight than it does not to fight. Perhaps even more. I myself am also not attached to my own life in the same way, though I would prefer to bring forth my death from the opposite end of the philosophical spectrum, between you and I. Theory and practice are two different things. If no one leaves their house, then what's to stop the government from -entering- their house? Again, I respect your opinion, and in a way, you're very right. It would technically be my own personal agenda acting itself out, my own viewpoint of what should and shouldn't happen, me striving to make -my- dreams a reality above those who would differ. This would make me technically no different than any killer on the battlefield, no matter what or why we'd be fighting. I believe this is another way of elaborating what @lobster was saying when he spoke in an earlier post about me addressing inner demons and finding the right intent.
The thing is, though...I am not unaware. mmmk...and?
Illegal to whom, exactly? Which side are you talking about? "label"ed. Precisely. Technically, the revolutionaries who rebelled against the British for the sake of American independence were terrorists, and are founding fathers are traitors; the only reason why they didn't go down in history with these "label"s is because we -won- the war, and the winners of war are the ones who write history. Che Guevera was technically a terrorist. William Wallace was technically a terrorist. The people who rebelled against the French king during the French revolution were technically terrorists...
...it just depends on who you ask, and what perspective of the war you're looking at them from. Weren't you the very one saying that it's never as simple as good and evil? They most certainly do. And I think that's part of the problem why things like this happen to begin with. Why the Nazis took over the Germany while German citizens who had the mind to rebel but didn't, were attached to their own lives, too afraid to "play for keeps". I, like some of the other Buddhists on this forum, am not so attached to my own life...I just play the game with a different philosophy; I come from a different angle. PREACH, SIR!
...and remember, this would be a non-governmental organization. I wouldn't do this waving an American flag. Remember, I said above: "That's actually a big part of what I wanted to do. I am a Buddhist, but I'm no impotent coward. I want to lead a group of trained men and women (preferably with military experience) as part of a non-governmental organization (so that our actions are diplomatically disconnected from the rest of the United States) to protect protesters against crimes against humanity such as this. I'm not going over there to start a war; I'm going over there to defend those who need defending. There's a difference. Ideally, a true success would be accomplished if a gun never has to fire at all."
Agreed. To say that "this will always be this way..." or "that will always be that way..." or "that's just the way things have always been..."
Perhaps we both merely read him wrong, but anything in this world is possible for anyone and any country. There should be hope in the people that despite the natural lottery, they can achieve anything. It's not a matter of "I can't do this." but a matter of "How can I do this?". Dude, that's awesome. A fellow traveler. I tip my hat to you. To travel is, I think, the best educator. Another valid point to consider. I never thought that Burma was truly had an iron curtain to begin with. Also agreed.
I sincerely hope you spend the next two years in hard Buddhist practice as well as your 'just' war preparations.
Perhaps the Aum Shinrikyo form of Buddhism might suit?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aum_Shinrikyo
You are no longer fearful of your own being. You now are fearful of others being. You are still fearful. :bawl:
There is a part of you brave enough to examine your being, to find if it is true. Your capacity for great sacrifice should not be wasteful. :wave:
I didn't ask for congratulations. If I wanted that, I would have went to a war forum. I wanted conflicting opinions as a way to keep me grounded. I know my ways of thinking aren't stereotypically "Buddhist".
...and for the second time (in reference to a different thread)...stop with the name-calling. I present honest opinions which may be conflicting with mainstream Buddhist thought, but you don't see me insulting other people either.
And I'd also appreciate if you stopped using emoticons to mask the distain in between your words. Be real.