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
...pay attention to detail.
It is as when @lobster asked if I wanted congratulations; the answer is no. I know myself and the world well enough to know that there are more people willing to resort to a violent answer than there are peaceful. We Buddhists are dissidents to violence; we abhor it. If I (right this very moment) spun my idea to have a certain political slant, then posted it in a relative political forum, I'd have 1,000 congratulations about how tough I am, how brave, blah blah blah, and I know that I have the debating skills and leadership experience to rally people under such a banner if I so chose to. In fact, it'd be all too easy, but that's not what I want.
I know that I had an idea that didn't necessarily condone or desire violence, but would be ready for it at a moment's notice. If I could convince fellow Buddhists of my idea, then I knew I would have something concrete. If I could not, then I would know that there is still more thought to be put into it. Back to the drawing board I go.
The reason why I chose to present my idea to Buddhists was because I think Buddhist have some of the most healthiest and most peaceful philosophies and approaches to conflict situations ever thought of by the entire human race. And if it's world peace that I truly want, -truly-, then it's best to follow their example before I follow the example of a prejudiced Christian, Muslim, etc (not that all are prejudiced, but I find prejudice to be more common in these theologies, considering their histories)...or a biased and arrogantly blind nationalist of some sort.
I knew, before I even wrote it, that my -initial- idea would get all kinds of flak from the Buddhist community, though I'm not a troll; I am a Buddhist too, but I am "enlightened" to the fact that I'm the furthest creature from perfect. I think that the conflict my first idea brought to mainstream Buddhist theory was the very reason why this thread got so much attention (look at the number of views and comments thus far), and even though that's not necessarily what I was going for...I did want as many opinions and input as possible because I know that I cannot go forth alone. World peace will take a team effort of everyone in the world, and I'm trying to discover, innovate, or invent a theory to support that dream, and live by that example, even if it means giving my life. The passion that I have can scare people, and often be misunderstood, but there is a quote that I've hung on my wall that I review whenever I doubt myself:
So do please understand that this was merely an experiment.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle Nuclear bombs are effective, but do you condone those? Following that statement, one could argue that world peace can be attained if we just eliminate all human life on earth, then there wouldn't be anyone to fight at all.
This actually -is- a kind of screwed up solution, though not one that I support.
To use a Star Wars reference, I feel like a real life Mace Windu: a Jedi with dark force powers. Mace Windu is a good guy, he's a -real- good guy, but his energy is dark. I resonate with that.
How can balance be attained with the murderously violent without necessarily becoming murderously violent? Peace in action, though not war. Or, if it -must- come to war, what would be the right way of accomplishing peace for all without simply wiping one or the other off of the face of the planet. This is my -true- question.
...but also, define "real" Buddhism. Define "reality". You could start a whole 65461651 post thread about that, and it would ultimately get no where. I could easily come at -your- perception of reality being as though you were the one who said that he originally thought that Martin Luther King was a troublemaker, or separated the races in your mind enough to divide me from the Burmese as if they were different human beings.
We could go back and forth with that all day; it'll get no where. If you do not have respect for my style or use of metaphors that's one thing, but that has no bearing on universal meaning.
What I am saying to you is that your frequent allusions to violence is not at all what I have read or studied about in Buddhism. I am hardly a pacifist, but even I find your desire to act as some sort of soldier of fortune (albeit not for money) to be at odds with Buddhism.
The association of militaristic and acute political action by Buddhists and monks in Thailand and in Burma in recent years has been a matter of much debate. During the 2010 Red Shirt demonstrations in Bangkok -- or should I say riots -- which I personally witnessed -- there was a great debate about the activity of monks who were getting involved in politics and supporting the actions of rioters, including the arson of 30 major buildings.
I have been waiting to see if you could support your love of martial arts and your proclivity to violence with some Buddhist scriptures. I'm still waiting.
I have been waiting to see if you could delineate what you see as your identification with the Burmese. I'm still waiting.
I spent 2 years living in Thailand amongst Thais; have spent a great deal of time with Thai families in Bangkok, Chaing Mai, and Sung Noen; been a frequent guest in Thai schools; and beyond the time I spent living in Thailand spent another nearly 2 years there just visiting. Yet, I would hardly claim to fully understand Thai culture or values.
So please share with us:
1. How you are connecting your martial arts and surreptitiously entering Burma in defiance with international law with Buddhist principles.
2. What you know about Burmese culture and values.
Sometimes our tendencies are the very areas to not indulge.
So for example new age fluffy Bunny Buddhists would be best served by undergoing Sith training from a martial person like yourself.
Artistic free thinkers would be rounded by disciplined practice.
We all have sharp edges or at best burs.
If we smooth ourselves, we can enable the point, rather than falling on it . . .
:coffee:
...wonderful. ^^;
The debate's been over. My initial propositional idea was blown out of the sky, and I said that it was back to the drawing board I go.
What are you beating a dead horse for?
What's that story about the Buddha (in a previous life) killing a guy who was going to sink a boat killing lots of other people? The Buddha killed the to-be-murderer out of compassion for the people on the boat, and the murderer himself - to prevent him from making negative karma for himself.
Anyone know what I'm waffling on about?
Yeah, someone presented the same exact question with the same exact story earlier on.
My foundational question was based on this very concept. If we are all cosmically equal and a child is being kidnapped, and it's within your realm of power to help prevent that from happening, why not help them in any way possible?
Follow this same logic but multiply the size of the scale: if we are all cosmically equal and a country is being barbarized, why not help them in any way possible if you have the experience and training to do so?
...100 comments later, here we are.
When it comes to saving a child, the vast majority of Buddhists don't have any moral problem; when it comes to saving a country, and the word "warfare" is mentioned, suddenly the vast majority objects.
I personally see a contradiction, and ton of rationalized cowardice for fear of words and labels with negative connotations. Others see it differently. Welcome to the conversation
I'm going to sit on the fence.
I did spend 17 years in the British army though, and served in quite a few troubled spots myself (Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo and Gulf War 1).
Awesome! Another soldier!
I served two years in the Middle East for the US Navy, both on sea and on the ground. I was a Navy SEAL drop out (I graduated boot camp, but quit 2 months into Basic Underwater Demolitions School), became a computer IT and served a deployment in NSA Bahrain, training with SEAL Team 4, then served a second deployment on the USS Eisenhower, an aircraft carrier.
*Delete where applicable.
My older brother, some years ago, attacked three men trying to break into a chemist for drugs. He challenged them, they were rude and threatening towards him, so he attacked them. I know I know. He ended up in hospital with 18 stitches in the back of his head, and he received £300 compensation from the Criminal Injuries Board, and a commendation for bravery from the Chief of Police of Northumbria (to this day it hangs in his downstairs toilet).
Apart from the physical injuries he received, he's not suffered at all. In fact we're all quite proud of him, even if he was stupid to take on three guys.
And he stopped stolen drugs being sold on the streets (probably).
A perfect example. Who knows how many lives your older brother may have saved indirectly, perhaps even the assailants themselves. Hats off to your older brother.
The core of the problem, I think, is that many nonviolent people criticize those who aren't afraid of combat or violence without actually knowing what they're talking about except by going off of the theories that they repeat from books. Let a lot of these people (not all, but many) walk in a soldier's shoes (or perhaps not even a soldier's, but just a situation like what your older brother was in), actually experience a situation where violence is the only realistic option for the preservation of life (or lives, in this case)...and then see if they still criticize.
The only way new ideas were ever formulated was by asking the questions no one else wanted to (or thought to) ask, and taking the road less traveled.
My knowledge and inner light -is- growing with every post, with every article, with every book, with every question. Regardless of whether I'm wrong or right, I am growing, and that's what matters most.
I absolutely do -not- care if any of my statements, theories, hypotheses, etc. are proven wrong through debate.
It is as Thomas Edison said when he was asked why he failed to invent the lightbulb 4,999 times. He replied: "I didn't fail 4,999 times...I just discovered 4,999 different ways that you -can't- build a lightbulb."
So before you act violently, consider what may happen. We can rarely foresee consequences with great accuracy, but as a general rule, violence breeds more violence. Hatred is not destroyed by more hatred, only by loving kindness. Before you go into battle, try to understand the 'enemy', what really motivates them. If you look hard enough, there is always an alternative. Is 'the enemy' that different to you and I?
Thank you for your input, but this is something I realized nearly six years ago.