Violence and Peace

[ﾐﾗｰ]

As a part of Zen or basic Taoist practices, peace is assumed to be at the center of our lives. Peace is assumed to be desired by all living things, and being sapient, we actively strive for it. Every day, people seek to avoid conflict. Though Zen or Taoism, people seek yet another type of peace.

However, perfect peace is a myth. Whenever you have someone who seeks to avoid conflict, someone else will seek to exploit them. Peace is a goal, and is not an end or a means to an end. Conflict will occur. When someone who seeks peace is confronted with violence, either by an individual or by the state, how should they respond? We can look at the situation though natural rights, where every living thing has the right to defend its self against violence, and to that end, must engage in violence. Violence begets violence. We have a moral right to defend ourselves against danger and tyranny, but at the same time, it runs against to everything we hold dear. If you knew that in the immediate future that your life would be in danger, would you act to stop the situation before it arises, thus acting in violence without an active threat?

As practitioners of zen and the tao, what is your take on violence? If you were in danger of your life, would you defend it? Or would you accept your death?

 

 

 

[ChiDragon]

As a part of Zen or basic Taoist practices, peace is assumed to be at the center of our lives. Peace is assumed to be desired by all living things, and being sapient, we actively strive for it. Every day, people seek to avoid conflict. Though Zen or Taoism, people seek yet another type of peace. However, perfect peace is a myth. Whenever you have someone who seeks to avoid conflict, someone else will seek to exploit them. Peace is a goal, and is not an end or a means to an end. Conflict will occur. When someone who seeks peace is confronted with violence, either by an individual or by the state, how should they respond? We can look at the situation though natural rights, where every living thing has the right to defend its self against violence, and to that end, must engage in violence. Violence begets violence. We have a moral right to defend ourselves against danger and tyranny, but at the same time, it runs against to everything we hold dear. If you knew that in the immediate future that your life would be in danger, would you act to stop the situation before it arises, thus acting in violence without an active threat? As practitioners of zen and the tao, what is your take on violence? If you were in danger of your life, would you defend it? Or would you accept your death?

 

You have answered your own question before you ask....???

[Samurai Mountain man]

 

You have answered your own question before you ask....???

It appears he has discovered yin and Yang without even wanting to do so, which is the best way to do it.

 

Great thread gentlemen 10/10, I propose to have it pinned.

Edited April 24, 2013 by Samurai Mountain man

[ﾐﾗｰ]

I was looking more for others opinion on responding to violence with violence and how it relates to Zen. Here is a short story that shows a different response to threats. A similar theme is seen in Hakuin's Gates koan.

 

 

 

During the civil wars in feudal Japan, an invading army would quickly sweep into a town and take control. In one particular village, everyone fled just before the army arrived - everyone except the Zen master. Curious about this old fellow, the general went to the temple to see for himself what kind of man this master was. When he wasn't treated with the deference and submissiveness to which he was accustomed, the general burst into anger. "You fool," he shouted as he reached for his sword, "don't you realize you are standing before a man who could run you through without blinking an eye!" But despite the threat, the master seemed unmoved. "And do you realize," the master replied calmly, "that you are standing before a man who can be run through without blinking an eye?"

Edited April 25, 2013 by ﾐﾗｰ

[Samurai Mountain man]

There's always an alternative to violence, sure. Non-violence seemed to work for Ghandi.

 

But remember things are more complex than "this or that". choosing some things over others just out of personal belief of what is correct can lead to dissaster as well. Morality is more often a full spectrum of colors than it is monochronme. Is stealing wrong? Yes, is stealing to feed your kid wrong? no, it's stealing to feed your kid, now it's lost all meaning of right or wrong, and each individual person can judge as they see it fit, what matters is that it happened.

 

"I suppose it is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail^{" -Good ol' Abe Maslow.}

 

if you only view things through a set of terms, you're bound to act on them the same way with little regard of what will happen.

[Wu Ming Jen]

I look at conflict in a different way without conflict the world would stop the planets would not be able to move. walking is an act of conflict both legs are moving in opposite directions. What others call conflict I call harmony. If my opponent is violent I am soft and yielding when the force is gone I may act in a violent manner if necessary, staying in harmony of the situation. Being human is not always humane.We may always have the the two opposites peace and violence. true peace and freedom can not be fought about.If there is no violence in oneself it may not attract violence. The imaginary boundaries drawn in the sand are political boundaries which creates wars. we have inherited all of history when we are born. Politics are based on strife and conflict but people are people no matter what government maybe in power. We have the greatest tools to avoid conflict by moving to a better position but personally I choose both options. The greatest skill to me is seeing situations before they arise.

[Samurai Mountain man]

Look at it this way.

White blood cells pursue relentlesly bacteria and other alien (harmful) organism until they catch them and kill them. If they didn't We'd have very short lifespawn to say the least. Everywhere in nature we can see violence is as much part of life as peace is. this is NOT me taking violence lightly or endorsing it.

 

But if I were put in a position I'd have to react violently I would do so without flinching or looking back.

[rene]

Every action, and non-action, is one of simultaneous creation and destruction; such is the way of tao.

[adept]

As practitioners of zen and the tao, what is your take on violence? If you were in danger of your life, would you defend it? Or would you accept your death?

 

Of course I would defend my life. It's a primal instinct of all humans.

The trick is to do just enough to get out of the situation, causing the least harm to the assailant.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

I think in considering violence, the words DDJ Chapter 30 are of utmost importance:

 

"One who assists the ruler of men by means of the way does not intimidate the empire by a show of arms.

 

This is something which is liable to rebound.
Where troops have encamped
There will brambles grow;
In the wake of a mighty army
Bad harvests follow without fail.

 

One who is good aims only at bringing his campaign to a conclusion and dare not thereby intimidate.
Bring it to a conclusion but do not brag;
Bring it to a conclusion but do not be arrogant;
Bring it to a conclusion but only when there is no choice;
Bring it to a conclusion but do not intimidate.

..."

 

(-Lau trans.)

[ChiDragon]

ME...
Your presentation of Chapter 30 was suggesting not to invade, but how about defense....???

There is one chapter in the TTC was suggesting to kill the bad guys. I have to go find it....!!!

Edited April 29, 2013 by ChiDragon

[ChiForce]

To act violently without violence...peace you will have. To act violently with violence is simply getting caught in the cycle of suffering. Wars in Africa and Middle East are like that. To act violently without violence would require certain amount of knowledge and wisdom. Or cultivation accomplishment.

[Harmonious Emptiness]

One who is good aims only at bringing his campaign to a conclusion and dare not thereby intimidate.

 

Bring it to a conclusion but do not brag;

Bring it to a conclusion but do not be arrogant;

Bring it to a conclusion but only when there is no choice;

Bring it to a conclusion but do not intimidate.

..."

 

(-Lau trans.)

 

 

ME...

Your presentation of Chapter 30 was suggesting not to invade, but how about defense....???

 

There is one chapter in the TTC was suggesting to kill the bad guys. I have to go find it....!!!

 

Well even chapter 30 doesn't say to never invade. It just says that if you have to, "bring it to conclusion" and be wary of foolish behavior afterwards. Otherwise, your efforts will fall out of harmony. I Ching chapter "After Completion" (water over fire) would be another reference for this.

 

HE ME WE BE

[ChiDragon]

To act violently without violence...peace you will have. To act violently with violence is simply getting caught in the cycle of suffering. Wars in Africa and Middle East are like that. To act violently without violence would require certain amount of knowledge and wisdom. Or cultivation accomplishment.

 

That is ultimate solution was spelled out by Sun Tze in his Arts of War, but the worse solution is yet to come.