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.
peace in the face of aggression
Hi all, I have been doing a bit of thinking on the above subject and would welcome perspectives on this. Buddhism shares a concept of nonviolence with many cultures/faiths/ideologies. You ask anyone in the street is war something to be avoided at all costs the majority would agree 'yes'. However, give them specific situations and they will start to change their mind.
Recently a vietnamese buddhist monastery under the foreign direction of Thich Nhat Hanh was aggressively closed (see www.plumvillage.org); they used meditation as their response to this affront and stated 'people are not our enemies, only ignorance,fear and hate'. The future of the monkls remains uncertain. A few months ago a of friend of mine discussing buddhist approaches mentioned the China/Tibet situation, and floated the question 'is a nonviolent stance sometimes unwise?'.
Clearly it is accepted that the way to overcomes aggression and hate is not to do the same, and one would hope those who use violent means can be influenced by leading by peaceful example. However, there are some challenging issues here. I wonder what people's perspectives are on the question 'Is there ever a place for violence'. :scratch:
Recently a vietnamese buddhist monastery under the foreign direction of Thich Nhat Hanh was aggressively closed (see www.plumvillage.org); they used meditation as their response to this affront and stated 'people are not our enemies, only ignorance,fear and hate'. The future of the monkls remains uncertain. A few months ago a of friend of mine discussing buddhist approaches mentioned the China/Tibet situation, and floated the question 'is a nonviolent stance sometimes unwise?'.
Clearly it is accepted that the way to overcomes aggression and hate is not to do the same, and one would hope those who use violent means can be influenced by leading by peaceful example. However, there are some challenging issues here. I wonder what people's perspectives are on the question 'Is there ever a place for violence'. :scratch:
0
Comments
The general rule i hold by when i make any descision is this, Am i doing this without self interest or ill will? Am i doing this out of compassion for others?
If the answer is yes, even if it involves violence i would have to say yes.
It is, nevertheless, a real problem for those of us who try to practise ahimsa and pacifism. What would I have done in 1939? For years I was certain that I would have refused to bear arms and fight, although I would have volunteered as a medic; now, I am not so sure.
And, in fact, of course, it is only when we are faced by the reality rather than theory that we can genuinely analyse our options. For example, I would hope that, in 1914, I would have resisted the jingoism of the capitalist war machine, but against the Nazis? or if I had been in occupied France? I am no longer so sure.
If someone has made up their mind to attack you, all you can do it respond the best you can. How well you respond depends on where you are in your practice and how you are attacked.
It seems to come from Bartlet's Book of Anecdotes, so it's probably out of copyright. When I was looking that up, I also found this: Lived 1916-1936. Also known as the Angel of Alcázar.
Simon, from what i have come to understand through web deifinitions (hmmm) ahimsa is the urging the avoidance of harm and violence- i wonder if that suggests all means but violence? I know what you mean though if you value life - to act may endanger one life, to not act may endanger another. The examples you give make th question all the more tricky!
Lincoln, i assume this is taken with martial art combat in mind to a degree? I noticed that on your message you are involved in this - never knew about that! It seems a very practical and wise approach to a sticky question. It does seem to emphasise achieving control over the other through one means or other though- i.e. if you cannot control them try to hurt them, if not hurt them try to maim them etc. I suppose we end up with an assertive individual doing as little harm as possible.:-/
Very admirable, but they weren't the ones who ended the butchering of European Jewery. Blood and iron achieved that, as Bismarck might have said. How would a pacifist stop a murderous slave society like Nazi Germany?
I can find no evidence of any 'blockade' of German ports prior to 1940. Please give me references and sources.
Also, are you saying that it was OK to invade Czechoslovakia and Poland?
And, of course, Hitler's comments about Jews in Mein Kampf are to be understood metaphorically, are they? And you imagine that the deportation of Jews from Europe would have been an easy or comfortable event?
Baker provides citations at the end of his book. Unfortunately, they are not included in the google preview. I borrowed a library copy when I read it. It looks like it is available. For the purposes of further discussion, I will try to pick it up on the way home tonight or tomorrow. But if you can't find evidence of Britain's blockade, you haven't been looking very hard. Here is the third link for the google search "britain blockade europe hitler". It is an article from Life magazine in 1941. Here is an excerpt: NB, they didn't just blockade German ports. It was all of Europe.
I think it emphasizes responding well
I don't think the point is to escalate until you control them; the point is that hurting/maiming them means you are less-skilled. A master can take someone under control gently.
My teacher often says a better response to an attack is to yell for help and try to get away from them if possible. Standing and fighting is what you do when you can back away no further.
I only just noticed your "prior to 1940" qualification. Why is that significant?
Because war was only declared in 1939, after the Reich unlawfully invaded Poland and then, in 1940, invaded and occupied France. At that point, the blockades, by the UK of Europe and by Germany of the UK, became inevitable aspects of war.
It is patently absurd to suggest that there was any blockade prior to the outbreak of hostilities or to ascribe the actions of the Reich towards Jewish, communist, homosexual and disabled citizens to actions by the UK, the US or any other group.
I want to second this. It makes me think of our behavior unit at school. Ideally, these kiddos don't have a meltdown, because we are helping them use calming strategies. When those don't work, we avoid getting hurt when they throw the desk (block and move) and remove others from harm, when it looks like they might hurt themselves or another student (and ONLY then) do we get ahold of them and/or put them in the "cool down" room, which happens to be padded. Sometimes they meltdown outside of the unit, which means a higher degree of protecting others goes into effect. Occasionally, they melt down at others, which means you bump it up again. It's never about control, it's about keeping people safe and teaching children how to live in this world together.
We, as teachers, and specifically the teachers who work specifically with these students are expected to "take it," as part of the huge job of educating these children while keeping others safe. If you take refuge in the dhamma, I think you have a chosen a similar job with all people.
And I'm not denying Hitler's anti-semitic rhetoric, or his anti-semitic regime, but I am saying that we should look more carefully at what the Nazis were actually planning before the war put them under so much pressure, and what led them to change their minds. If you actually look at the historical record, it's clear that they did not intend genocide initially, but drifted that way as the population and resource pressure induced by the war drove them to desparate measures. Given that, it's a mistake to say that overall the war, at least as Churchill prosecuted it, helped the victims of the Nazis. I'm not saying that the British government is directly responsible for the holocaust, only that Churchill's war was a necessary condition for it.
I attended Thich Nhat Hanh's day of mindfulness workshop today; I can't get past the look in his eyes when he brought this up. It wasn't Plum Village, though... It was Bat Nha and this website was recommended: http://www.helpbatnha.org
and protecting yourself and others..
There is not - in my opinion ever a place for violance.. its never excusable to attack people just cos you want their belongings or you dont like thier religion, politics, skin color etc ...
but if some one attacks you - then of course you have to defend yourself... as Birgid already wisely put - you should always strive to do the minimum damage...
avoid the attack rather than hurt, hurt rather than maim, maim rather than kill...
and you should always strive to preserve life - even of that of your attacker...
if some one makes up their mind that they are going try and cause you physical harm, and keeps on trying - then you have to do what you need to to stop them... otherwise how will you advance spiritually and / or benefit mankind if you are dead...
a teacher that allows himself to be attacked and killed, maybe teaching a good lesson about non violance, but what use is that if he cannot go on teaching and sharing wisdom if he is dead ??
violance is not the same as defence so long as the defense is done with control.. and i think its right of monks to defend themselves if they are being attacked ...but it becomes wrong if they then go onto attack in return...
my two cents
Seriously, in a discussion of the use of violence to counter violence, pointing out the worst case where non-violence would not have worked has some value, but unfortunately it eliminates discussion of less extreme cases, which might help us to understand the interplay between violent and non-violent oppositional strategies.
Violence is violence, regardless of motive.
Then at what point does an action become defined as violant ?
Is there not a differance between an action performed to intentionally cause pain or suffering - or knowing that an action will cause pain and suffering to another, and the act of a recipiant of any violance to prevent harm coming to themselves or another ??
Isnt it the intention behind the execution of an act the thing that defines it as violant ??
surely a person who defends himself from violance cannot be also accused of violance ??
What fivebells said.
Damn right! If you accidentally cut off my winky plz be sure to finish me off
But seriously, at the root of my violence is sadness and fear. I experience those feelings because I'm not too good at dealing with situations. If I knew how to handle armed thugs properly then there wouldn't be any violence whatsoever.
No threat, no explosive reaction.
On the other hand, if I see a situation developing that might be dangerous for one or more persons, I will intervene if I believe I can help. I have certain abilities the average person does not, so I feel responsible to use them when called for. This, I believe, is the warrior spirit, and the Buddhist way.
Peace is always the goal, but sometimes aggression is forced upon is. If I am forced to defend myself, or another, I will do so to the degree that is necessary, no more and no less. There is no anger, no hatred, no desire to cause harm, and no attachment to the outcome. It simply is what it is. When it is over, I will take no pride, or remorse, in what has been done. I will feel only compassion for both victim and aggressor.
Avoid rather than check.
Check rather than hurt.
Hurt rather than maim.
Maim rather than kill.
For all life is precious,
nor can any be replaced.