Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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?

13»

Comments

  • cazcaz Veteran United Kingdom Veteran
    Those who harm others harm their-selves as in the future they shall experience unbearable pain as a result of their actions.
  • novaw0lfnovaw0lf Veteran
    edited January 2013
    Bunks said:

    A man of peace.......

    ...but a man of action.
    Jeffrey said:

    @novaw0lf, you missed the point (I thought) of the koan.

    Koans are subjective artistic things that represent Buddhist theory, but Buddhist theory isn't based purely on mathematics, so the point of any koan is arguable. I would say that we're both correct in our interpretations. Art is how you take it.
    vinlyn said:


    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.

    Agreed. I implore everyone to remember that all of this was a question for debate, and I've actually agreed with many of the conflicting things that people have said, even if I was playing Devil's Advocate for part of it. Remember, if you go alllllll the way back to the first comment I made that -started- this whole conversation about Project Pariah, I said: "What if..." though it -was- a serious thought (it was not a joke); it was indeed, still just a hypothetical question.

    ...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:
    "Here’s to the Crazy Ones.
    The misfits.
    The rebels.
    The troublemakers.

    The round pegs in the square holes.
    The ones who see things differently.
    They’re not fond of rules.
    And they have no respect for the status quo.
    You can quote them, disagree with them,
    disbelieve them, glorify or vilify them.

    About the only thing that you can’t do, is ignore them.
    Because they change things.
    They invent. They imagine. They heal.
    They explore. They create. They inspire.
    They push the human race forward.
    Maybe they have to be crazy.

    How else can you stare at an empty canvas and see a work of art?
    Or, sit in silence and hear a song that hasn’t been written?
    Or, gaze at a red planet and see a laboratory on wheels?
    We make tools for these kinds of people.
    While some may see them as the crazy ones, we see genius.

    Because the ones who are crazy enough to think that they can change the world,
    are the ones who do." -Steve Jobs/Apple's Think Different Commercial

    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
    footiam said:

    Violence is necessary when it is effective.Didn't Sodom and Gomorrah had an effective violent end?

    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.

    lobster
  • caz said:

    Those who harm others harm their-selves as in the future they shall experience unbearable pain as a result of their actions.

    Unbearable pain they will experience...but only if they care.

    lobster
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    To simply address the question "When is violence necessary?" I would suggest there is no black and white answer. For me the bar would have to be exceedingly high, the reasons quite compelling.
  • novaw0lfnovaw0lf Veteran
    edited January 2013

    To simply address the question "When is violence necessary?" I would suggest there is no black and white answer. For me the bar would have to be exceedingly high, the reasons quite compelling.

    What I want to develop is a theory of peace in action that I can use to confront barbarous people like those in Burma without contradicting myself, my values, or allowing my natural tendency to be violent corrupt me into becoming the same way. Because I don't honestly believe that if Gandhi or Martin Luther King used the same methods in Burma that it would have had the same result. It is as @zayl said.

    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.
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    I don't know if balance can be attained with the murderously violent. For me personally defending my family or my life is more clear cut. I would not want to engage in violence but if someone were about to kill my children I would do everthing in my power to stop them. Conflicts and wars are not so clear cut and the motivations of governments or leaders may have very little to do with ethics. How do you peacefully engage a murderous tyrant, I don't think you can-I think you will most likely end up in a prison or dead. Tough question. We fought Hitler. It was to the benefit of mankind that he lost WW2. In doing so we came a little closer that which we were denouncing. Afterall you can't firebomb 100,000 civilians (in a single raid) and call it good.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    To simply address the question "When is violence necessary?" I would suggest there is no black and white answer. For me the bar would have to be exceedingly high, the reasons quite compelling.

    I agree. There are times, but they are exceedingly rare...or should be.

  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    novaw0lf said:

    ...

    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.

    ...

    I'll be frank. I think what you wrote here is, perhaps, at the core of the problem. In your posts over time -- and not just in this thread -- I've had the sense that you are living in a world of kung fu movies where monks are the heroes...and not real Buddhism. And here you are, now, trying to relate Buddhist action to Star Wars. Don't you notice that no one on this forum thinks and speaks as you do?

    lobster
  • novaw0lfnovaw0lf Veteran
    edited January 2013
    vinlyn said:


    Don't you notice that no one on this forum thinks and speaks as you do?

    And I'm glad they don't. I'm quite proud to be different. But you have no right to criticize how I go about relating metaphors or what I use as a basis for expression. Are you saying that you'd want to be like everyone else?
    lobster
  • novaw0lfnovaw0lf Veteran
    edited January 2013
    vinlyn said:

    I've had the sense that you are living in a world of kung fu movies where monks are the heroes...and not real Buddhism.

    Oh, I'm a -total- geek, if that's what you're getting at. Definitely. Call a spade a spade. I take no offense to that, whatsoever. But it changes nothing, nor does it limit my action or the weight of my words.

    ...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.
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    When you bring an issue to a public forum, you must expect people to react to your posts. Some will support you, some will not. That's public discourse.

    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.
    lobster
  • lobsterlobster Crusty Veteran
    How can balance be attained with the murderously violent without necessarily becoming murderously violent?
    :scratch:
    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:
    Bunksnovaw0lf
  • novaw0lfnovaw0lf Veteran
    edited January 2013
    vinlyn said:

    When you bring an issue to a public forum, you must expect people to react to your posts. Some will support you, some will not. That's public discourse.

    You must have skipped paragraphs that I've written, or (and I genuinely, from the bottom of my heart, don't mean to offend you) perhaps you should research some program for reading comprehension (I suggest a program called "EyeQ", you can get it on Amazon.com. And this is a shame, because I infer from your earlier posts that you've been working in the educational department longer than I have), because I definitely defined that several times as the entire reason why I posted this to begin with. Both in this thread and the other called: Dare to Disagree.
    vinlyn said:


    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.

    That is an opinion that you are completely entitled to. As I said to other people in this post, a thing like Buddhism (or any theological practice in the world for that matter) ultimately comes down to a matter of interpretation. Again, I said earlier in this very post that I'm completely aware that some of my theories are completely against the grain of mainstream Buddhist thought, and I actually -welcome- debate against my way of thinking. Again...this is why this thread even exists.
    vinlyn said:


    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.

    ...as there were -here-, in Xi'an, over the riots over the Diaoyu Dao island incident between Japan, China, and the US (that, like you, I have personally been a witness of. My own street was closed down.) that caused many people losing their homes, businesses, and other property. A debate of virtually the same intervention has been at hand, and still is if you read the news (I suggest BBC, or even Chinadaily.com if you'd like some insight).
    vinlyn said:


    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.

    So am I. But -again-, you're missing the entire point of this thread. I am not preaching to the forum; I'm asking a question. This thread poses a question, not a statement. That's what thinkers do: ask questions. The very title of this thread is: "When is violence necessary?", -not "Violence is necessary.". Then I shot a hypothetical out there that was shot to hell, and I admitted I was wrong and went with a different option that someone else presented to me (-more- reading that you may not have comprehended). There -is- no rationalization. By far, you seem to be my elder (especially if you were alive during the time of MLK), but I'm having a hard time believing that even being my elder: you are not at the same level of literary finesse or comprehension as I am, an inference from your reactions to other posts in other threads, you miss many of my points, and some your reactions (for example: when we spoke of Wikipedia) depicted the idea that I was against you, when in fact, I had to highlight my own sentences and spell out for you how I was actually in favor of your statement. I'm sorry if my English is a bit complex for you.
    vinlyn said:


    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.

    Your ego is showing far more than mine if you feel as if you must pull up part of your traveler's resume. China will be my fourteenth country, and it will not be the last. My philosophy comes from having lived in many different places, raised by many different people. It's part of the reason why the "wolf" is my handle. What's your point then, if you would hardly claim to understand the culture or values?
    vinlyn said:


    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.

    This thread isn't even about martial arts. What are you talking about? (Again, EyeQ is a great reading program). Someone intervened with a statement relating to their experience with martial arts and I gave them a high-five, because it's always cool to meet another fighter.
    vinlyn said:


    2. What you know about Burmese culture and values.

    Not much, but that's not the point. As I stated before, it's not about one specific culture or the other. Stop separating them. You asked me what gave me the right to interfere with Burmese affairs (not your exact words, but the overall question, right?). My answer to you was (not my exact words, but the overall answer [I'm typing this in between classes, so I have to make haste]: Because I don't separate myself from any other race on the planet. To attack a Burmese, in my mind, is to attack an American, is to attack a Chinese, is to attack my brother or sister. Therefore, your focus on the Burmese shows your misunderstanding of the post, and moreover, my philosophy as to why there needs to be action now. The question of, "when is violence necessary?" can be asked for any situation; I literally chose the Burmese out of a hat because to help them is tantamount to helping any other repressed people in the world. It makes no difference if we are all equal. The "Burmese" are merely a variable; they could just as well be the French, or the Turkish, or anyone. When I say "the Burmese" I'm talking about a geographical location; when you say "the Burmese", you're referring to race.



  • novaw0lfnovaw0lf Veteran
    edited January 2013
    lobster said:


    So for example new age fluffy Bunny Buddhists would be best served by undergoing Sith training from a martial person like yourself.

    I -actually- laughed out loud when I read this ;)

    ...wonderful. ^^;
  • novaw0lfnovaw0lf Veteran
    edited January 2013
    in defiance with international law with Buddhist principles.
    ...oh and also, once again: it was a hypothetical, dude. I admitted that I was wrong in this like 519879464 posts ago. Someone instead suggested why not remove land mines in Vietnam or something, and I replied with something along the lines of: "Thanks, that sounds like a wonderful idea. You may have changed the course of my future."

    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?
  • ToshTosh Veteran
    If I saw someone being attacked, I would use violence, if the situation warranted it, to prevent any further harm. I don't think that's 'un Buddhist'; I thought the precept was to refrain from harming others, not 'Thou Shalt NOT harm Others'. Refrain infers that there's certain situations where violence could be necessary.

    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?
  • novaw0lfnovaw0lf Veteran
    edited January 2013
    @Tosh

    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 ;)
  • ToshTosh Veteran
    It's complex I guess, novawolf. Like most things I guess it boils down to our own personal intentions and motivations. As a general rule I'd say war is wrong too, but not always.

    I'm going to sit on the fence. :D

    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).
    novaw0lf
  • @Tosh

    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.
    Tosh
  • ToshTosh Veteran
    caz said:

    Those who harm others harm their-selves as in the future they shall experience unbearable pain as a result of their actions.

    I can imagine that if I witnessed someone being attacked, and I did not respond with violence (if that was my only option to prevent further harm), then I would also suffer future pain from my cowardice/procrastination/inertness*.

    *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).
    novaw0lf
  • novaw0lfnovaw0lf Veteran
    edited January 2013
    @tosh

    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.
  • novaw0lfnovaw0lf Veteran
    edited January 2013
    @Zero
    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...
    I am very sorry that I didn't reply to this post; I honestly completely missed it. I completely understand everything that you're saying...and that's exactly what I'm doing. Reading...chatting...thinking...sharing...asking questions...researching...experimenting...challenging.....that's why we were having this conversation to begin with...even if it means conflicting with the status quo.

    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."
    Zero
  • Buddha didn't say "if you're violent, you'll go to hell." He said that all actions have consequences.

    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?
  • novaw0lfnovaw0lf Veteran
    edited January 2013
    I wish this thread would go away. None of you understand anything. You guys are telling me things that I already know, or totally misinterpreting my grammar on certain parts, or not reading at all.

    Thank you for your input, but this is something I realized nearly six years ago.
This discussion has been closed.