Why study martial arts if you'd never fight back?

[Franky]

I train in a martial arts system that most closely resembles Kajukenbo. I've been away for a while but recently returned. I've noticed that while they move well and like the philosophical aspect of martial arts, they admit they'd never be in a fight. I'm not saying anyone should go looking for fights, or even enjoy it, buy why learn techniques of violence and destruction of another's body if one believes in pacifism? I consider it incompatible with pacifism. 

 

It seems a desire to express oneself with movement and contemplate paradoxes that attracts them. I don't have anything against being artistic or philosophical, but it seems an inappropriate situation for expression and philosophizing. I like paradoxical philosophes and Taichi, but Kenpo based Karate is very different not soft of esoteric or philosophical. Enlighten me please.

[-ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ-]

Health benefits and fitness are some reasons, but who says you shouldn’t fight back? Defending yourself from someone is completely different from going around challenging everyone you see. The point is to fight only as a last resort, and to fight fast to end the threat. 

[Ajay0]

Most eastern martial arts have a philosophical component to them.

 The native Indian martial art of Kalaripayattu has two main styles, the northern that is basically focused on self-defense and physical fitness, while the southern style is focussed more on spiritual development and inner peace.

 

Many elements of Kalaripayattu were also adopted by the kathakali dance form and dancers to refine their art and dancing technique. Many elderly people similarly learn and practice Tai Chi for health benefits related to arthiritis, better proprioception which prevent falls and improved quality of life.

 

So you can see here martial arts involve not just fighting but also spiritual development, self-healing as well as development of dancing technique.

 

Kalaripayattu philosophy also states that the act of fighting in a battle should be performed without involvement   of personal anger, hatred, or any emotion, but with a calm state of mind in which the warrior is unattached to those emotions.

 

Fighting thus constitutes Karma yoga and will not generate any karma or suffering. The true battle thus is with the lower or false self and all actions are performed with this perspective in mind.

 

Actions performed with self-aggrandizement begets a lot of karma and psychological suffering. Defeat begets a lot of psychological pain. Even if victorious for a long time, chances of a younger and better skilled opponent coming up is always there, along with injuries and old age reducing one's fitness and skill leading to possible defeat. This is evident in sports all the time.

 

Victory in battle and sport may bring happiness, but this is also short-lived. You don't see victorious soldiers and athletes looking happy all the time. Many suffer from burnout or psychological issues like PTSD, and some even never recover from psychological ailments. 

 

Thus learning martial arts just for the sake of momentary victory in battle was considered superficial and shallow, and philosophical components were possibly added to them. Techniques were similarly shaped reflecting these philosophical principles. This enabled the practitioners to gain intellectual and spiritual benefits from them as well which were long lasting.

 

Siddhartha excelled in archery, swordsmanship and horse-riding and won some competitions in this regard, but we all know that these skills and victories did not bring him any lasting happiness.

 

Constant happiness is an outcome of self-conquest or enlightenment, and cost-benefit analysis shows that this is the true worthy prize for a champion.

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Ajay0

[Michael Sternbach]

4 hours ago, Franky said:

I train in a martial arts system that most closely resembles Kajukenbo. I've been away for a while but recently returned. I've noticed that while they move well and like the philosophical aspect of martial arts, they admit they'd never be in a fight. I'm not saying anyone should go looking for fights, or even enjoy it, buy why learn techniques of violence and destruction of another's body if one believes in pacifism? I consider it incompatible with pacifism. 

 

It seems a desire to express oneself with movement and contemplate paradoxes that attracts them. I don't have anything against being artistic or philosophical, but it seems an inappropriate situation for expression and philosophizing. I like paradoxical philosophes and Taichi, but Kenpo based Karate is very different not soft of esoteric or philosophical. Enlighten me please.

 

The different styles under the Kenpo umbrella today originated from James Mitose's Kosho-shorei-ryu which emphasizes yoga-like exercises and the cultivation of a peaceful mind. Here's a quote from their website:

 

"Yet, at another level of Kosho - SHOREI is the religious system consistent with Judeo - Christian tradition added with the teachings of Buddha. In Kosho - Shorei using meditation and energy collection as techniques for development of a restful state of being necessary for achieving inner peace and harmony."

 

https://www.kosho-ryu.com/Basics/basics.html

 

Hey Franky,

 

The Kenpo style that underlies my own martial art system is Ed Parker Kenpo Karate. While, the way this art is generally practised, it may indeed not appear to be overly philosophical or esoteric, its founder GM Parker showed his understanding of the spiritual aspects especially by his book The Zen of Kenpo.

 

I am honestly not sure what kind of Taiji you are referring to. The one that I am familiar with--Old Yang style as taught by Erle Montaigue--can be every bit as devastating as Kenpo Karate anyway. I find the two arts fully compatible with each other both in principles and application and in fact combine them in my own practice, with the addition of some Aikido elements.

 

Kenpo Karate overall is designed to enable you to end a fight quickly even when facing a bigger and stronger adversary. It does a good job at that if taught properly. It is left to the discretion of the practitioner to adjust the level of violence needed to the situation at hand.

 

I hope you find my answer useful in some regard. But I will be happy to discuss this important topic more if you wish.

 

Michael 

[Taoist Texts]

 

 

8 hours ago, Franky said:

of martial arts, they admit they'd never be in a fight.

these people are very wise. it is heartwarming to finally see someone in the MA with common sense

8 hours ago, Franky said:

why learn techniques of violence and destruction

the first thing to understand about the 'martial arts' that they do not have anything to do with actual fighting which is about 'to kill or be killed against a stronger enemy'.  In fact MA is the opposite of real fighting.

In case of these good peeps what you see as 'violence and destruction' is a good clean fun.Kudos to them. And those who claim that MA is for fighting are just childish clowns. Not that there is anything wrong with it  

[silent thunder]

I studied to become more peaceful.   Hoping never to need to use it.

To learn to dance beneficially with my violent impulses, to discipline those instincts to stem their tidal flow.

 

I was quite rageful as a young man. 

 

Instinctively felt it was necessary to learn how to subdue folks properly and efficiently, so that I'd have the presence of awareness to prevent myself from going too far and killing someone without intending to if an altercation ever arose.

[-ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ-]

4 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

 

 

these people are very wise. it is heartwarming to finally see someone in the MA with common sense

the first thing to understand about the 'martial arts' that they do not have anything to do with actual fighting which is about 'to kill or be killed against a stronger enemy'.  In fact MA is the opposite of real fighting.

In case of these good peeps what you see as 'violence and destruction' is a good clean fun.Kudos to them. And those who claim that MA is for fighting are just childish clowns. Not that there is anything wrong with it  

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Pak_Satrio

[Cobie]

It’s good to laugh. Martial arts has roots in on stage acting, similar to what we would call vaudeville.  
(according to my Chinese teacher)

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by Cobie

[ChiDragon]

Bruce Lee's famous quote.

What is the art of fighting without fighting?
Fighting without fighting means fighting on your terms, not theirs. You need a plan to render your opponents helpless without engaging in their idea of the battle. It takes both planning and resolve to ensure you don't sink to your opponent's level.

Edited September 8, 2023 by ChiDragon

[-ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ-]

1 hour ago, Cobie said:

It’s good to laugh.

Yes it’s absolutely hilarious what some people come up with

[Nungali]

17 hours ago, Franky said:

I train in a martial arts system that most closely resembles Kajukenbo. I've been away for a while but recently returned. I've noticed that while they move well and like the philosophical aspect of martial arts, they admit they'd never be in a fight. I'm not saying anyone should go looking for fights, or even enjoy it, buy why learn techniques of violence and destruction of another's body if one believes in pacifism? I consider it incompatible with pacifism. 

 

It seems a desire to express oneself with movement and contemplate paradoxes that attracts them. I don't have anything against being artistic or philosophical, but it seems an inappropriate situation for expression and philosophizing. I like paradoxical philosophes and Taichi, but Kenpo based Karate is very different not soft of esoteric or philosophical. Enlighten me please.

 

Well, it depends on your style's philosophy .   If it IS about self defence and fighting then that is where it should be .

 

I am not a good physical fighter - I dont have enough expereince with real fighting   ( however I did okay in the club and often cleaned up others in cross training - ie, different styles ) but that was becasue they did LESS real stuff than I did . But I do enjoy the movement, dynamic, tactics , range , etc  ... " a desire to express oneself with movement and contemplate paradoxes " ... yes, not sure about the paradoxes ....  more 'contemplate situations and their dynamics '.

 

However , I did aikido for years , what they teach in the dojo is NOT good for self defence , however it helped me immensely in my hospital work as an orderly  ... and often having to deal with the disorderly  ( drunk, stoned, confused , aggressive , panicked. etc ) in a way where violence and conflict rarely manifested .

 

Even correcting one's gait (walking style ) can help with self defence  .... meaning , you can learn a lot that stops a fight before it even starts .

 

My old teacher ( gone now ) was very traditional , his system was a fighting system ( and not for the ring either ... one would be immediately disqualified  - his old school reasons for studying and practising where threefold ;

1. To protect your parents .

2. To protect your home and household .

3. To protect yourself - so you can continue to to do 1 and 2 .

 

But me ... yeah, I just like the movement and the dynamic , as described above ' between two people  (or me and three others ) , it just fascinates me and I enjoy it . I do not enjoy BS martial arts , and I recently dropped out of a very long term practice ,  due to this .

 

man, have things improved since I did that !  It was soooo restrictive , degraded , disillusioned , warped ... yet it contained valuable kernals of gold - which I mined . 

 

There are a whole set of reasons for this weird dynamic you mention ... it is related to cultural things  it seems . I spent a few years looking into it , as i wanted to find out why there was soooo much BS involved in martial arts .  Its FULL of it !

 

- but people dont like to be told why.      

[Nungali]

9 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

 

 

these people are very wise. it is heartwarming to finally see someone in the MA with common sense

the first thing to understand about the 'martial arts' that they do not have anything to do with actual fighting which is about 'to kill or be killed against a stronger enemy'.  In fact MA is the opposite of real fighting.

In case of these good peeps what you see as 'violence and destruction' is a good clean fun.Kudos to them. And those who claim that MA is for fighting are just childish clowns. Not that there is anything wrong with it  

 

Soldiers , in armies from ancient times up to modern practice martial arts  for 'fighting'

 

MA s the opposite of fighting ?

 

and THEY are the 'clowns'  ? 

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, Cobie said:

It’s good to laugh. Martial arts has roots in on stage acting, similar to what we would call vaudeville.  
(according to my Chinese teacher)

 

 

Someone a while back posted some pics of classical Chinese 'warm up' exercises (based on emotional states : eg  show anger , act bashful, etc ) ... they where nearly identical to the Japanese 'warm ups' I did for years when practising Jap karate .

 

I can tell ya folks ... that  'exercise knees '   'warm up'  aint gonna do what they said it would !   But its good for pretending you are 'bashful' 

 

  

[Franky]

16 hours ago, Ajay0 said:

Most eastern martial arts have a philosophical component to them.

 The native Indian martial art of Kalaripayattu has two main styles, the northern that is basically focused on self-defense and physical fitness, while the southern style is focussed more on spiritual development and inner peace.

 

Many elements of Kalaripayattu were also adopted by the kathakali dance form and dancers to refine their art and dancing technique. Many elderly people similarly learn and practice Tai Chi for health benefits related to arthiritis, better proprioception which prevent falls and improved quality of life.

 

So you can see here martial arts involve not just fighting but also spiritual development, self-healing as well as development of dancing technique.

 

Kalaripayattu philosophy also states that the act of fighting in a battle should be performed without involvement   of personal anger, hatred, or any emotion, but with a calm state of mind in which the warrior is unattached to those emotions.

 

Fighting thus constitutes Karma yoga and will not generate any karma or suffering. The true battle thus is with the lower or false self and all actions are performed with this perspective in mind.

 

Actions performed with self-aggrandizement begets a lot of karma and psychological suffering. Defeat begets a lot of psychological pain. Even if victorious for a long time, chances of a younger and better skilled opponent coming up is always there, along with injuries and old age reducing one's fitness and skill leading to possible defeat. This is evident in sports all the time.

 

Victory in battle and sport may bring happiness, but this is also short-lived. You don't see victorious soldiers and athletes looking happy all the time. Many suffer from burnout or psychological issues like PTSD, and some even never recover from psychological ailments. 

 

Thus learning martial arts just for the sake of momentary victory in battle was considered superficial and shallow, and philosophical components were possibly added to them. Techniques were similarly shaped reflecting these philosophical principles. This enabled the practitioners to gain intellectual and spiritual benefits from them as well which were long lasting.

 

Siddhartha excelled in archery, swordsmanship and horse-riding and won some competitions in this regard, but we all know that these skills and victories did not bring him any lasting happiness.

 

Constant happiness is an outcome of self-conquest or enlightenment, and cost-benefit analysis shows that this is the true worthy prize for a champion.

 

I can agree with the aspect of karmic prices and the lack of actual satisfaction in defeating people and that's what spiritual and philosophical martial arts are for. 

[Franky]

16 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

The different styles under the Kenpo umbrella today originated from James Mitose's Kosho-shorei-ryu which emphasizes yoga-like exercises and the cultivation of a peaceful mind. Here's a quote from their website:

 

"Yet, at another level of Kosho - SHOREI is the religious system consistent with Judeo - Christian tradition added with the teachings of Buddha. In Kosho - Shorei using meditation and energy collection as techniques for development of a restful state of being necessary for achieving inner peace and harmony."

 

https://www.kosho-ryu.com/Basics/basics.html

 

Hey Franky,

 

The Kenpo style that underlies my own martial art system is Ed Parker Kenpo Karate. While, the way this art is generally practised, it may indeed not appear to be overly philosophical or esoteric, its founder GM Parker showed his understanding of the spiritual aspects especially by his book The Zen of Kenpo.

 

I am honestly not sure what kind of Taiji you are referring to. The one that I am familiar with--Old Yang style as taught by Erle Montaigue--can be every bit as devastating as Kenpo Karate anyway. I find the two arts fully compatible with each other both in principles and application and in fact combine them in my own practice, with the addition of some Aikido elements.

 

Kenpo Karate overall is designed to enable you to end a fight quickly even when facing a bigger and stronger adversary. It does a good job at that if taught properly. It is left to the discretion of the practitioner to adjust the level of violence needed to the situation at hand.

 

I hope you find my answer useful in some regard. But I will be happy to discuss this important topic more if you wish.

 

Michael 

 

My master got his black belt from Ed Parker a long time ago. Then went on to explore other styles and created his own system, mostly based on Ed Parker's Kenpo, with many of his techniques being applied. A lot of quick and nasty stuff like eye and groin strikes, knee kicks etc... Not for sport situations. While he does enjoy the philosophical aspects, the philosophy is auxiliary at best. It seems however, that the new generation of students have inverted these priorities and he expressed concern about it, but he's ready to retire and considers this an omen to do so. I understand that a philosophical martial art would stress spiritual achievements via physical practice, but defense and fitness are his priorities. Hope this makes sense.

[Franky]

4 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Well, it depends on your style's philosophy .   If it IS about self defence and fighting then that is where it should be .

 

I am not a good physical fighter - I dont have enough expereince with real fighting   ( however I did okay in the club and often cleaned up others in cross training - ie, different styles ) but that was becasue they did LESS real stuff than I did . But I do enjoy the movement, dynamic, tactics , range , etc  ... " a desire to express oneself with movement and contemplate paradoxes " ... yes, not sure about the paradoxes ....  more 'contemplate situations and their dynamics '.

 

However , I did aikido for years , what they teach in the dojo is NOT good for self defence , however it helped me immensely in my hospital work as an orderly  ... and often having to deal with the disorderly  ( drunk, stoned, confused , aggressive , panicked. etc ) in a way where violence and conflict rarely manifested .

 

Even correcting one's gait (walking style ) can help with self defence  .... meaning , you can learn a lot that stops a fight before it even starts .

 

My old teacher ( gone now ) was very traditional , his system was a fighting system ( and not for the ring either ... one would be immediately disqualified  - his old school reasons for studying and practising where threefold ;

1. To protect your parents .

2. To protect your home and household .

3. To protect yourself - so you can continue to to do 1 and 2 .

 

But me ... yeah, I just like the movement and the dynamic , as described above ' between two people  (or me and three others ) , it just fascinates me and I enjoy it . I do not enjoy BS martial arts , and I recently dropped out of a very long term practice ,  due to this .

 

man, have things improved since I did that !  It was soooo restrictive , degraded , disillusioned , warped ... yet it contained valuable kernals of gold - which I mined . 

 

There are a whole set of reasons for this weird dynamic you mention ... it is related to cultural things  it seems . I spent a few years looking into it , as i wanted to find out why there was soooo much BS involved in martial arts .  Its FULL of it !

 

- but people dont like to be told why.      

 

This system includes some Aikido techniques, and I agree with you. It's not effective against a trained fighter who has control of their center of gravity and also recoils their strikes. But I also agree it's good for throwing around drunks without causing too much damage, in the event of say, a bouncer that wants to avoid lawsuits. It also helps with comprehension of anatomy for healing applications like rehab with the elderly. 

[Franky]

16 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

The different styles under the Kenpo umbrella today originated from James Mitose's Kosho-shorei-ryu which emphasizes yoga-like exercises and the cultivation of a peaceful mind. Here's a quote from their website:

 

"Yet, at another level of Kosho - SHOREI is the religious system consistent with Judeo - Christian tradition added with the teachings of Buddha. In Kosho - Shorei using meditation and energy collection as techniques for development of a restful state of being necessary for achieving inner peace and harmony."

 

https://www.kosho-ryu.com/Basics/basics.html

 

Hey Franky,

 

The Kenpo style that underlies my own martial art system is Ed Parker Kenpo Karate. While, the way this art is generally practised, it may indeed not appear to be overly philosophical or esoteric, its founder GM Parker showed his understanding of the spiritual aspects especially by his book The Zen of Kenpo.

 

I am honestly not sure what kind of Taiji you are referring to. The one that I am familiar with--Old Yang style as taught by Erle Montaigue--can be every bit as devastating as Kenpo Karate anyway. I find the two arts fully compatible with each other both in principles and application and in fact combine them in my own practice, with the addition of some Aikido elements.

 

Kenpo Karate overall is designed to enable you to end a fight quickly even when facing a bigger and stronger adversary. It does a good job at that if taught properly. It is left to the discretion of the practitioner to adjust the level of violence needed to the situation at hand.

 

I hope you find my answer useful in some regard. But I will be happy to discuss this important topic more if you wish.

 

Michael 

 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Franky

[Taoist Texts]

6 hours ago, Nungali said:

Soldiers , in armies from ancient times up to modern practice martial arts  for 'fighting'

no we did not. you see servicing those big ugly things that go boom and brrr did not leave us much time to dance around in white pajamas

6 hours ago, Nungali said:

MA s the opposite of fighting ?

here is a simple exercise that will help you in this very complicated matter: every time you wanna say fighting say 'kill or be killed' instead. then you will wonder how you did not see it until now.

6 hours ago, Nungali said:

and THEY are the 'clowns'  ? 

please repeat with me:  the mongol hordes '  practice martial arts'.....the Macedonian phalanxes '  practice martial arts'...the conquistadores '  practice martial arts'...the Napoleonic battalions '  practice martial arts'... Then visualize a strip-mall dojo.  May be you will see the diff and laugh. At them, not with them. Just may be you will. I am not sure nowadays.

[whocoulditbe?]

3 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

please repeat with me:  the mongol hordes '  practice martial arts'.....the Macedonian phalanxes '  practice martial arts'...the conquistadores '  practice martial arts'...the Napoleonic battalions '  practice martial arts'... Then visualize a strip-mall dojo.  May be you will see the diff and laugh. At them, not with them. Just may be you will. I am not sure nowadays.

 

If you're such a pacifist, why did you have to tear this innocent guy apart?

[Cobie]

The ‘Boxer Rebellion’ used martial arts, they believed they were immortal.  From the sorry ending, the Chinese people realised the ‘magic’ was just vaudeville. (according to my Chinese teacher)

 

Edited September 9, 2023 by Cobie

[Taoist Texts]

1 hour ago, whocoulditbe? said:

If you're such a pacifist, why did you have to tear this innocent guy apart?

did my logical argument proved to be the last straw for you, man? peace!

Edited September 9, 2023 by Taoist Texts

[Neirong]

22 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

the first thing to understand about the 'martial arts' that they do not have anything to do with actual fighting which is about 'to kill or be killed against a stronger enemy'.  In fact MA is the opposite of real fighting.

In case of these good peeps what you see as 'violence and destruction' is a good clean fun.Kudos to them. And those who claim that MA is for fighting are just childish clowns. Not that there is anything wrong with it  

Martial Arts derive their name from the words "Martial" and "Arts," both of which imply competition and a skill ladder to climb. Martial Arts originated from combat. Separating fighting from martial arts is akin to visiting the grave of an ancestor and spitting on it, then boasting about your greatness.
 

Engaging in "advanced" martial arts without ever having experienced fighting with a skilled opponent is a dangerous detachment from reality, creating a delusional ego bubble. It's comparable to offering business coaching without prior experience in running a business, managing a company, or holding any significant work-related management position. Likewise, claiming to be a Daoist teacher without having experienced Qi, let alone achieving the internal balance of Yin and Yang Qi, which is essential for attaining the Dao state, is deceptive.

Armchair philosophy might lead someone to believe that fighting is inherently evil and destructive, but skilled individuals can spar effectively without causing lasting harm while simultaneously making progress and rectifying mistakes in real situations. In fact, if you speak with fighters, you'll find that they often have a better quality of life. You are making yourself stronger, you are helping others to make themselves stronger by competing with you.
 

For some reason, many people who are interested in martial arts take a misguided path, similar to those pursuing spiritual development. You can never make genuine progress in these disciplines if you are solely driven by selfish desires and ego.

 

On 08.09.2023 at 8:33 AM, Franky said:

I've been away for a while but recently returned. I've noticed that while they move well and like the philosophical aspect of martial arts, they admit they'd never be in a fight. I'm not saying anyone should go looking for fights, or even enjoy it, buy why learn techniques of violence and destruction of another's body if one believes in pacifism? I consider it incompatible with pacifism

If you a real martial artist, your limbs are deadly weapons. A basic ethics code would be not to fight untrained individuals. A martial artist could spar safely and productively with someone close to his level of skill. Imagine, having a gun or a spear, and using it against unarmed people, that is degeneracy. Same thing with martial arts.

Imagine having a 120ms baseline reaction speed vs 350ms average. Three times faster, a martial artist could knock out untrained individual before his brain is even able to process the visual information.

[doc benway]

On 9/8/2023 at 1:33 AM, Franky said:

I train in a martial arts system that most closely resembles Kajukenbo. I've been away for a while but recently returned. I've noticed that while they move well and like the philosophical aspect of martial arts, they admit they'd never be in a fight. I'm not saying anyone should go looking for fights, or even enjoy it, buy why learn techniques of violence and destruction of another's body if one believes in pacifism? I consider it incompatible with pacifism. 

 

It seems a desire to express oneself with movement and contemplate paradoxes that attracts them. I don't have anything against being artistic or philosophical, but it seems an inappropriate situation for expression and philosophizing. I like paradoxical philosophes and Taichi, but Kenpo based Karate is very different not soft of esoteric or philosophical. Enlighten me please.

 

I think the best way to discover why people do what they do is to look inward at my own motivation and patterns. I started studying martial arts about 50 years ago. Looking back a primary motivating factor was insecurity. I've always been a pacifist and have never fought unless I or a loved one was threatened or attacked. I don't think pacifism is at at odds with an interest in self-preservation or the desire to protect loved ones. We can love and strive for peace in our lives without being willing to permit others to take advantage of us. Of course we can define pacifism in very absolute terms which are theoretically well and good but I don't find such constructs to be practical or realistic for most people, certainly not for me. For the very few individuals that are truly pacifists in an absolute sense, there would be no reason to study martial arts. I reached a point through my own meditation practice where I felt I had to give up my martial training. The implicit and explicit violence became simply too much of a disturbance, too distasteful. That said, under the right circumstances I would still defend myself and others and after along hiatus I even engage in some martial training again. I suspect the majority of people who identify as pacifists  have some threshold beyond which violence becomes an option, maybe more accurate to say a necessity. I'm not sure I would believe most people's claims that they would never fight under any circumstances. Not saying absolute pacifism is wrong or right, just extremely challenging to achieve for most living creatures.

[old3bob]

Gandhi on fighting:  https://www.mkgandhi.org/articles/fighting-for-peace-the-Gandhian-way.html

[Taoist Texts]

3 hours ago, Neirong said:

Separating fighting from martial arts

The Way of the Warrior has been misunderstood. It is not a means to kill and destroy others. Those who seek to compete and better one another are making a terrible mistake. To smash, injure, or destroy is the worst thing a human being can do. The real Way of a Warrior is to prevent such slaughter – it is the Art of Peace, the power of love. Morihei Ueshiba .^[31]: 223

 

3 hours ago, Neirong said:

visiting the grave of an ancestor and spitting on it

 

3 hours ago, Neirong said:

If you a real martial artist, your limbs are deadly weapons

 

3 hours ago, Neirong said:

a martial artist could knock out untrained individual before his brain

Exactly. This much fear and anger pent up in these disturbed images are the hallmarks of MA and nei-something communities. Must be that vaunted qi at work. Tsk tsk. Well its kinda funny. Amitofo.