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?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
To answer your question directly, as honestly as possible: There's absolutely no way I can say how now; I don't know. But where there's a will there's a way, and in two years or so, when things solidify into more concrete reality, I may have a better answer for you.
And where do you get the idea that doing so would be a Buddhist thing to do?
If you get past those you will have hardened drug and human traffickers and other criminals to deal with in many of those areas. Not to mention snakes and landmines. Not necessarily in that order. Then the Burmese military.
I doubt if the other borders are any friendlier.
I'm just saying that you might have to kill a variety of foes before meeting your intended enemy.
My answer: I am not Burmese, but I am a human being. I don't separate myself from any other race on the planet. To attack a Burmese, from the way that I think, is to attack an American, is to attack a Chinese, is to attack my brother or sister. I can't save the whole world, because I'm but one man, but I can choose something and go for it while I still have time on this earth in this form.
"All that it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." -Edmund Burke
...even though, as stated previously, I'm aware that it's not as simple as good versus evil, I believe this statement has weight. I am not a Burmese, but I count them as part of my race: human, and I'm tired of using peace as a rationalization for inaction, tired of seeing the news reports of suffering people when most people who live in better countries just go about their day feeling sorry, maybe even put up money for a donation, but it ultimately goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing. I'm frustrated with the world, but I love the world at the same time.
I'm being the change I wish to see in the world, but there is violence in my heart, a will to fight (which again, I emphasize, hopefully it will never even come to that). So, I'm merely being honest about who I am, and carrying on unafraid of karma. However, I know that my perception is flawed and limited, so I'm gathering opinions from many different philosophies to give me clearer view, especially opinions from people who disagree.
Does that answer both of your questions?
Even in the worst case scenario, if I never even set foot in Burma, I'll have at least done -something-, and I will feel better.
My plan is a part of a huge plan that I've been constructing for the past few years in the back of my head called: Project Pariah.
I haven't spoken a word of it until recently, because now I'm finally getting into position to actually make it a reality. But, as I said before, I want many different opinions both in support and those who disagree from many different philosophies and religions, so that I know exactly what the world will think and can have right view in my actions.
It is NOT to be congratulated for (I am not so vain), as some people on this thread assume. I highly dislike arrogant right-wing war obsessed nationalists like that. It's people like that who gave me disdain for the American military to begin with. It's why I left.
To be honest, if I set foot in Burma, I actually don't expect this to have a Disney ending, at least not for myself.
...but it's the story that matters most, and even if I completely fail, -someone- out there will learn about what happened, and strive to make a difference and possibly succeed where I may have failed.
So, my goal isn't to just change a government, but to change the way people think, get people off their asses and out of vicarious bubbles of safety. Being killed or captured is inconsequential. Failure and success are merely concepts of perspective.
I do not believe that world peace will ever come from war in itself, but in the actions people take every day, regardless of what flag or stereotypical tag they may be labeled with (lyrics from my poem Gateway, that was pretty popular on this site a long time ago.), to help each other. It's about being willing to identify anyone from any race as a brother or sister, and do whatever is necessary to defend their right to be human. If more people thought this way, if more people were willing to -actually- do something to help another, we -would- reach world peace, and there'd be no reason for war anywhere. Period.
...reporters come and go. Where there's a will, there's a way.
It was just an idea, a serious thought. And terroristic thinking is a slippery slope debate with oneself, if not kept in check like this.
When studying such people, please consider the difference between what hate is, and what one's goal truly is.
Simply because I would be on the opposite side of the battlefield, doesn't mean that I don't admire his ability to challenge such a foe, and the constitution of character it must have took to fight until death. I personally think it's very admirable, even if he was diplomatically an enemy.
Also I have no disdain for you, I feel you are a sincere and honourable in your concern. As a dharma friend it is my calling to express an alternative, provide any insight and do so according to the capacity of the audience, to the best of my limitations. You have the capacity to hear the truth as I, as a limited and unskillful person, projects or interprets it. I am listening to what you say with great care and an open heart. I feel you know this.
If you are sure violence is the best way open to you, then we must ensure your efforts are not subverted, compromised and utilised by the very elements you feel able to oppose . . .How likely is that?
Also I have no disdain for you, I feel you are a sincere and honourable in your concern. As a dharma friend it is my calling to express an alternative, provide any insight and do so according to the capacity of the audience, to the best of my limitations. You have the capacity to hear the truth as I, as a limited and unskillful person, projects or interprets it. I am listening to what you say with great care and an open heart. I feel you know this.
If you are sure violence is the best way open to you, then we must ensure your efforts are not subverted, compromised and utilised by the very elements you feel able to oppose . . .How likely is that?
You are absolutely 110% right. I have -zero- argument for this post.
Reporters are there because they are being allowed in.
I sure that you will find a way in if you get that far. I think there is a risk that you will have to come into conflict with people you might not have intended to. Hopefully your team members are also highly trained soldiers.
That said I don't support your plan. It sounds foolhardy.
No offence intended.
All the best.
There are other aspects of the plan that you may agree with, however. Actually physically entering Burma is but one. Like I said, this is something that I've been thinking about for years. I just have a big fiery heart that can be misunderstood sometimes.
What about writing music, publishing more essays, poetry and spreading news reviews in efforts of raising awareness? Doing this can allow me to keep a normal life in China yet still be politically effective.
There's one thing I know for a certain fact from personal experience: the American military cares about the public opinion, the camera. The entire code of conduct is basically based off of what the public view would deem the most civil, even if it's not necessarily the most effective.
By campaigning in this style, instead of once again grabbing a gun, I can help to spark change that way.
Do you all think that this is a viable alternative?
The Middle Path can be spun to be many different things in many different ways. Perhaps actually going that far as to personally infiltrate Burma is an extreme that is unnecessary and not conducive to happiness.
This has been a fire that's been stoking for years, and it's gotten to a point where I can't really hold it in (if you understand what I mean). I'm overflowing with emotions, but emotions if followed to an extreme, can cause great destruction for oneself and others if not tempered with logic.
-.-
(This was a hell of a conversation, btw, lol)
I just never ever feel as if I'm doing enough.
Where is there in the world that innocents are being terrorized and oppressed by rebels -against- human freedom, where the government would actual welcome us to to aid in defense? hmmm...
This would not only be more realistically attainable, but it would require less footwork on my part, I wouldn't be labled a terrorist, and the building of credibility could actually gain global public support TO go into Burma.
Perhaps a place like Burma is not for me...yet. Perhaps there's a smaller fish that I can gain experience from, public approval, and financial support, and with public approval gain a bigger audience that would be more willing to read the poetry, essays, and other writings that I produce in order to spread awareness, and actually inspire real tangible change?
ahhhh..... ^^;
It could work! It could work!
But to study Sun Tzu, one must also understand a koan; "for you could realize, you do not have an enemy, but an ally."
That does not mean it's wrong to fight for what you believe in. It's not a matter of right and wrong, just not the Dharma because no amount of fighting is going to eliminate suffering. Suffering like the selfish desires that fuel violence is inexhaustable and only crops up in a different form once this fire is stamped out. That's just the truth.
Certainly, if you see someone being hurt, try to help them. That is the Dharma. If you see an injustice, speak out. That is Right Speech. But to pick up a gun and join one side or the other? No, I'm sorry, that's not following the Dharma. It just isn't. That's the price you have to pay if you choose to take refuge in the Buddha and his Dharma. If someone feels that he must join the battles of the world, then I wish him all the best, and will continue to try to make the world a better place in my own way.
And this is why saying a particular government is a "Buddhist government" is nonsense. Governments are not people. Only people can follow the Dharma. Governments are a bundle of rules and laws under some national identity that seek to identify and protect the privileges of their own. This government might support the temples and Sangha, but only in return for the support of the temples. Let the temples become a problem and see just how much of a "Buddhist" the government actually is.
It is not news to anyone but I'm seeing it for the first time. It's hard not to feel some bitterness.
@vinlyn - nice one for your comments - I'm not precious on posts - always happy to hear other opinions and mine is just one of many - appreciate your kind words and equally, I read your posts with interest.
@novaw0lf - my general point on democracy and poverty was that the global system is convoluted, intricate and does not readily sit in a box... by that I mean that on a superficial level, one may consider that what is being compared is like for like but it is most often and most likely not - there isn't enough room to expound economic theories here however if you're interested, research how the financial system works, how governance springs from this and the relationship between countries and economies within the framework of the over-arching system - unfortunately, you'll also need to read multiple source history concurrently to see some of the effects of the causes - there is a wealth of information out there... for me, this type of research assisted in smoothing some of the corners.
My point on 'playing for keeps' is that when you step beyond the bounds of a civilian's role, you are no longer subject to civilian restraints - the stakes are beyond belief - it won't be romantic - there is no room for error and you'll be starting with a massive glaring error from the first step - Burma will have its role to play - you will step on peoples' toes - people who don't tolerate foot steppers one inch - your demise will be tragically swift, mostly pointless and unreported.
By way of a loose example, somewhere on here there is a post about Malaysia and Singapore as a comparison to Burma... to consider that Burma could be akin to these countries, one needs to consider their respective positions in world economics - Singapore for example has a prominant role in the world arms trade and is and has been a major port - it goes back to the opium wars and beyond - as a result, it provides a lucrative and niche banking service - malaysia is again a hub for banking activity (currently a gateway for rogue funds) - there are ethnic tensions between the Malay, Indian and Chinese ethnic groups (crassly) caused by wealth distribution due to the Indians and Chinese moving to the country and bringing the economy with them - then there are resources (both inanimate and animate) and how these are pledged to various powers - very loosely, within this framework, turning Burma into a Singapore or a Malaysia will likely require something akin to the historical events in those countries that led to their position rather than a brutal intervention to change governments - also, not everyone can sit at the head of the table - by conforming, one is thrust with a position to play on a long established table for those with no end to their appetite - for the impovrished, this 'cure' is often worse than the original disease.
The global warmachine however will lead you to believe that violence is a legitimate avenue - we are fed with fictions and soundbytes to mask the true nature of conflict.
I urge you to seriously research war - its economics, the players, its history and its motivations, causes and effects - by way of an example, the impression is that modern physics advances came from physicists - not quite - they came when technicians of different disciplines (say physics and maths) starting talking together - so the physicist goes, I have this issue with this paradox and the pure maths guy goes, wow I also have a nonsensical maths anomaly that doesnt fit into any gap I've identified... they fit! let's do some experiments... advance.
So, in the same way look to your own fire using knowledge from as many sources as are available to you - there is a lifetime's challenge to reconcile - read, chat, think, read, share, think...
There are some great suggestions here for alternatives - volunteering or working with established charities, identifying an aid niche and raising funds and co-ordinating - online and IRL work raising awareness - even one suggesting sweeping for landmines.
In the long run, I think what you wish to express would be most effectively expressed non-violently - your passion is admirable however keep in mind that fire burns indiscriminately.
The zen master would not yield as the other citizens (something like that). So the warlord said: "do you realize that I could cut your head off without a second thought?"
The zen master said "do you realize I would have my head cut off without a second thought?"
-Buddhism is not a government, or even really even supposed to be a religion. The term Buddhist Government came from words used in the "Way to Burmese Socialism" that I posted (but you must not have read that). Those were not my words. Perhaps I should used quotes myself.
- "take refuge in the Buddha"
...I don't take refuge in the Buddha; I never thought of him as an idol to take refuge in. Siddhartha was a man like any other, and this kind of thinking turns Buddhism into a religion, rather than a series of guidelines to go about living one's life. I'm a Zen Buddhist.
" if you see someone being hurt, try to help them."
-That's exactly what I'd be doing, just on a bigger scale. What's the difference? Someone mentioned earlier (in this very thread) a hypothetical situation involving what one would do in order to save a child being kidnapped. Some said they wouldn't do anything; some (like me) said they'd break every bone in the kidnapper's body if they had to, in order to save the child, another person agreed with me in kind, saying that they'd become equally barbaric in order to save their own people in a metaphorically similar scenario.
How would -you-help a civilization of people being hurt? Would you act in some way, or do nothing and pursue your own version of nirvana, leaving everyone else behind?
-I've said 654641368761236 times in this debate that no, I don't see two sides as being good or evil.
-I've said 549874657987798746 times in this debate that no, I don't actually plan on hurting anyone.
Helping here sounds absolutely wonderful. You may have completely changed the course of my future.
But along with this, all human beings being equal: this is why I cannot say one side is evil and one side is good.
There are many people who rationalize their own cowardice with nonviolent theory. From this debate, I've come to the conclusion that there are -generally- (not everyone, but commonly) three kinds of "nonviolent" people:
-Cowards
-People who can and are willing to fight for what they believe in, but use violence as an absolutely last resort (me)
-People who are not cowards, but do not think so much of others as they do themselves, preferring to seek their own happiness and security first, before others.
It's always cool to bump into another fighter.
Nah, I'm an American who lives in China, though I LOVE the UK!
I started off with Kung Fu for about two years, and stupidly thought I was a hardcore Jet Li badass until I got my ass cut off and handed to me on a silver platter by a ground-game guy. So now, I mix Kung Fu with Muay Thai and Greco-Roman style wrestling. I'd have to say that my stand-up is also better than my ground game.
In this world
Hate never yet dispelled hate.
Only love dispels hate.
This is the law,
Ancient and inexhaustible.
For your hypothetical about the child, all I can say is that given the situation, I'd do what seemed necessary at the time. I'm not deliberately evading the question, only I don't operate off a set of rules beyond "Help all beings." Certainly that does enforce limits to what I am capable of doing. I might sacrifice myself for others, but I don't think I have it in me to kill other people. I've never even hit someone out of anger in my entire life. I pray I never find myself in a situation where I have to make that choice. But, the need to help others is a powerful force.
I guess this is a long winded way of saying, "I don't know."
That was probably one of the best and most honest responses given all thread long. Awesome man. I have nothing but respect for you.
There is -much- reckless violence in my heart, but a -very- sincere and genuine will to do better for myself, to improve myself and the world. My rage and insecurity is the product of having lived a very dark life, but I became aware of it through Buddhism. My wrath has ruined friendships, relationships, gotten me in serious trouble in school, the military, you name it. Self destruction in all forms. Only recently within the past two years have I been able to cultivate the mental discipline not to fly off the handle, and even with all of my Buddhist practice, the hard-wiring for violence is and always will be there...though I do not let it control me. As I grow older, I become more and more ruled by logic than emotions, like the shifting of a pendulum.
I've been the inflicter of violence, and have been equally so the victim. I'm so comfortable with violence, that it's scary. Which is why I like talking on this forum, even if people shoot my thoughts full of holes. It's all for the greater good in the end.
If I were an element, I'd -definitely- be fire, as I alluded to in an earlier post in this thread. I have the confidence to know that if I master myself, I have the potential do wonderful things for the world (considering some of my ideas), but in the same token...if I proceed forth without mastering myself first...I will bring great harm to others and myself unintentionally.
I can't speak about China, but when I was living in Thailand, and Bangkok specifically, one could start right in the horrible slums of Klong Toey and attempting to figure out how to help those people. Or the people on the street who have terrible diseases like leprosy. Or...any number of other things.
I think that there is a fourth to your list. Sure everyone is scared to give their life. But some would not resort to violence out of training in the dharma. It's not that they don't care about others it is just that in this like a dream world we can CHOOSE to do no harm. Totally destroy without a trace, the kill or be killed paradigm. Not all Buddhists are like that. Lama Yeshe (deceased) said during the Iran contra crisis that the US should fly a squadron of bombers so low over Tehran (spelling) that every window in the city would be shattered. But for me I will be killed before killing. Of course everyone is afraid to die, but I don't think my motive is self interest above others. My motive is to live how I believe I should live in ahimsa.