Would you sign this Manifesto for Non-Violence?

[Stigweard]

[CarsonZi]

Where's the dotted line? I'd sign!

 

Love,

Carson

[thelerner]

I admire it, but I couldnt' honestly sign it. There are people who, because of there actions, I would discriminate against. Similarly there are groups(not many) whose basic beliefs are so extreme and negative that I am prejudiced against them.

 

Violence is bad, and should be one of the last options, but in truth I believe there is a time and a place for it.

 

To actively live by the manifesto is wonderful, but too often there is yuppy new age sentiment of - I'll wear a rubber band, sign a petition, and I've done something, yay for me. Too easy. I'd rather limit myself to things less grandiose, but real. Money to the Heiffer charity, an hour at a food bank.

 

 

Michael

[gendao]

Well, the problem is that society always sinks to the lowest common denominator...and one bad apple can spoil the bunch. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link.

 

So, you could have a happy commune full of hippy peaceniks - but throw just one gangsta thug in the mix - and now they all become easy victims to him...

 

I feel a more realistic proposal is "peace through strength." The mere threat of reciprocal violence can actually prevent violence. This is akin to the human body, where a strong immune system wards off attacks. Or a car alarm or guard dog.

 

Now if EVERYONE signed onto that pact - sure, it could work. But get just one abstainer and it won't.

Edited February 20, 2009 by vortex

[Wayfarer64]

I'm with Michael (yet again) on this one... Violence is a last resort -but our world is not a non-violent world. So I opt to agree in spirit and keep my options open.

 

The fundamentalists of many religions are just too dangerous and narrow-minded to assume they may be passively tractable without a show of force...

 

As a well trained martial artist... I NEVER use violence. I only use what seem to be harsh tactics...

 

Real violence is seldom used by open-minded and kind hearted folks - we do not need a pact. It is those whos' propensity is usually towards violence that need to think about the option of non-violence - and they wouldn't sign anything that deflates their bubble of fear-mongered relience on physical force and coercion..more's the pity...

[Jedi777]

I must say Im with Michael as well. What is coming soon we may need to protect ourselves!!

[Apech]

Peace is the highest principle and I'm willing to kill to prove it.

 

Sorry.

 

[Smile]

I feel a more realistic proposal is "peace through strength." The mere threat of reciprocal violence can actually prevent violence. This is akin to the human body, where a strong immune system wards off attacks. Or a car alarm or guard dog.

Exactly. That's why I'm against any type of gun control- it never worked and is based on BS theories.

 

Agree with Michael in general.

Normal people with a heart don't need to sign something to be compassionate toward others. Agreements like that never work long term because leaders that usually sign them have a potato for a heart and a piggy bank for their brain.

[Wayfarer64]

Hey where can I get this piggy-bank for a brain? I can't seem to collect my thoughts some times!

[Stigweard]

In reference to my post over in Where does violence come from? , in the progression of the evolving soul humanity as a whole is still in diapers. Thus, because of such excessive global identification with the negative sphere of life, competitiveness is the rule of the day and "peace through strength" is merely the proverbial boy with his finger in the dyke wall trying to hold back the flood. This is only dispute management and does not resolve the problem at its core.

 

Such reliance of competitive strength provides no real lasting security at all because peace is lost as soon as your gaurd is down or as soon as someone else with bigger guns with ill intent comes along. I suggest to you that the only real security is in the full reintegration of oneself and a reestablishment of the natural alignment of one's consciousness with the living reality of Tao. As I mentioned over in Managing conflict ... Your thoughts, a mind in harmony with Tao will naturally discover the path of peace and harmony in every situation.

[WhiteTiger]

Very nicely and well put Stigweard (if i could only turn what you said into a daily practical practice daily) then thats a step for me in the right direction.

[Loke]

No absolutly not. To surrender before violence is perhaps political correct but thats nothing for me. If you prefere to die instead of fighting back (and yet presumably die) then I think you die without honor. From the powers point of view it is good if you accept to be slaughtered without even a grumble.

[goldisheavy]

I wouldn't sign it. First of all, I don't like to pledge to anyone. If I make a vow it's between me and me. My vows can be changed too, so I am not on the hook. I don't hook myself and I don't run myself into a corner. I can always change direction.

 

Secondly, some of the lines are objectionable:

 

Such as:

 

respect the life and dignity of every person without discrimination

 

First of all, how do you know you have stopped discrimination? Wouldn't you have to discriminate discriminating mind from non-discriminating? Anyone who practices contemplation would immediately spot this bullshit and wouldn't fall for it even for a millisecond. Since discrimination cannot be stopped, a proper course of action is to become careful and responsible in one's discrimination. Another term for discrimination is "discernment" and it's a good quality.

 

Suppose someone goes around proposing violence as the answer to all problems? Should I respect the dignity of that person? I don't think so. At least, I will not be respecting it to the fullest extent, and at the worst, I won't be respecting it at all, as in zero. But that's my own discrimination. I generally don't like violence and don't like to use it as a solution to anything. For example, I am against mutilation as a punishment. I am against the idea that a good society can be built based on the fear of punishment rather than based on holding in common a positive holistic vision. That's my discriminating mind at work. Now if a person appears advising contrary to these principles, my level of respect drops based on the scale of their activity and the flavor of their message. It's quite possible I will lose all respect for their "human" dignity.

 

practise active non-violence

 

Generally that's what I practice. However can this be dogmatically practices at all times? Sometimes energy arises that demands vigorous participation. For example, if you are attacked, what do you do? It's possible to remain non-violent, but to me, that signifies one's departure from the involvement in the world. And depending on commitments that one holds with regard to one's vision, this can be very dishonest. For me, I prefer to leave the options open. I may remain non-violent, or I may dance the dance of the moment. If caught in the whirlwind I may become the whirlwind. As long as I don't see it as a pattern, it's OK. If this becomes a pattern, then I may need to take a more principled stance in non-violence. So leaving this flexibility open for myself is essential. I don't want to close my options, and in fact I cannot. So pretending to have closed them is dishonest.

 

share my time and material resources in a spirit of generosity to put an end to exclusion

 

Well this depends on what we want to include! What if someone promotes a religion that advocates killing people who quit that religion? Should I be inclusive of this? My answer is, hell no. I take a principled stance against this and will never be inclusive of this kind of violent attitude.

 

Inclusiveness assumes that at worst the people you are going to include are annoying. This is not always the case. I have a huge range of tolerance, but it sure isn't infinite. I am more tolerant than anyone I know. When I am on a chat channel for example, I am the one who is least likely to ban anyone, even some extremely aggressive and annoying people whom other operators ban habitually without even thinking much. But even as tolerant as I am, I have no tolerance and no inclusiveness for those who themselves practice non-inclusiveness.

 

And so forth. I think the sentiment behind the proposal is generally a good one, but it comes from a person who is not very developed in contemplation. It's kind of idealistic and mindless, even if well intended.

[NeutralWire]

I would not sign, although my reasons are different from most of the others.

 

I would definitely agree with thelerner that:

 

too often there is a sentiment of - I'll wear a rubber band, sign a petition, and I've done something, yay for me. Too easy.

 

... very true.

 

The strength to follow through literally on all these items, even if one did agree with them all, is granted to very few people, but the weakness to agree to what sounds nice without understanding either it or oneself in detail is all too common.

 

Since this is a religious conference, the question ought to be asked why 'know thyself' has fallen out of the religious phrasebook. Unless you do, you can do none of these things and have no business signing. Item number one in itself:

 

1. respect the life and dignity of every person without discrimination or prejudice;

 

... would be enough to make world peace, without any of the others even being involved, if it were practiced with absolute consistency.

 

But as Dogen Zenji said:

 

"A three year old can say it, but an eighty year old can't practice it."

 

This document is perhaps a good one to think about, but not in my opinion a good one to sign.

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

 

EDIT: Cross-posted with goldisheavy whose view has a lot in common with mine.

Edited February 21, 2009 by NeutralWire

[doc benway]

With respect to the Dao -

what is the difference between dying and killing?

 

I used to have very strong opinions regarding self-preservation, even at the cost of killing others.

Then that certainty sort of got blurred. At this point in time, I'm not as sure that I would prefer to kill than die. It's much less clear to me. I guess I would have to be in the situation to know how I would react. Hopefully, I'll never know.

 

PS - I would sign the manifesto without hesitation and I try to live it already more or less, although imperfectly

[NeutralWire]

xuesheng --

 

Hopefully, I'll never know.

 

Amen.

 

But your attitude seems far more sensible, real and human than that of the document.

 

I probably would die if necessary (for good reason), at least I hope so, and would avoid killing like the plague. The document didn't mention killing or death though -- it mentioned 'violence', including 'psychological, economical and social' violence (Which I'd love it if someone else could define). That's quite a broad remit and we're only at paragraph two.

 

(I'm pretty sure 'economical' violence is meant to say 'economic'... unless they really meant violence on a shoestring budget lol )

 

You've observed change in yourself but it seems to me this document was written by someone without any real understanding of what it takes for human beings to change. It's rather cosmetic.

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

[doc benway]

xuesheng --

Amen.

 

But your attitude seems far more sensible, real and human than that of the document.

 

I probably would die if necessary (for good reason), at least I hope so, and would avoid killing like the plague. The document didn't mention killing or death though -- it mentioned 'violence', including 'psychological, economical and social' violence (Which I'd love it if someone else could define). That's quite a broad remit and we're only at paragraph two.

 

(I'm pretty sure 'economical' violence is meant to say 'economic'... unless they really meant violence on a shoestring budget lol )

 

You've observed change in yourself but it seems to me this document was written by someone without any real understanding of what it takes for human beings to change. It's rather cosmetic.

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

Very good observations about the document.

Especially the violence on a budget!

[Wayfarer64]

In reference to my post over in Where does violence come from? , in the progression of the evolving soul humanity as a whole is still in diapers. Thus, because of such excessive global identification with the negative sphere of life, competitiveness is the rule of the day and "peace through strength" is merely the proverbial boy with his finger in the dyke wall trying to hold back the flood. This is only dispute management and does not resolve the problem at its core.

 

Such reliance of competitive strength provides no real lasting security at all because peace is lost as soon as your gaurd is down or as soon as someone else with bigger guns with ill intent comes along. I suggest to you that the only real security is in the full reintegration of oneself and a reestablishment of the natural alignment of one's consciousness with the living reality of Tao. As I mentioned over in Managing conflict ... Your thoughts, a mind in harmony with Tao will naturally discover the path of peace and harmony in every situation.

 

 

I agree with you but as stated. We humans are still pretty infantile at this point in time - How do we survive these dark-ages until a majority of humans transcend their lower natures to become evolved as it were?-

 

It may be that a full refrigerator is more to the point than full reintegration? Base, animal cravings are not easy to lose for most folks. Too many hungry, scared and troubled souls... Most do not even try basic meditation as a regular practice, much less even think about non-agressive ways to interact with their fellow-beings. We want what we want and will fight to get it -is the norm... Maybe not amongst us Tao Bums as much as the larger population, but there is often a decided lack of harmony here too... from time to time...

 

We are still for the most part a world of animalistic and scared beings who see the threats of our world as the main concern, not harmony not spiritual growth not even basic getting to know each-other.

 

 

Baby steps are needed before great strides may be taken...I like the idea of yr manifesto -but my honest appraisal of our current world situation precludes my honestly signing on...

 

As sweet as it sounds - turning the other cheek - is not an option I long to practice...Not to just save face mind you - but to continue on as a viable warrior, which is my way. I trust my instincts to do the right thing and not to create disharmony - but to use my abilities to maintain harmony against those who promolgate disharmony-

 

As the reality around me dictates...

[Martial Development]

Would you willingly cede all your personal power to the government committees that provide the official definitions for "respect", "violence", "freedom", and "diversity"?

 

Maybe you would...but guess what happens to those who would not? They shall have no respect, and know no freedom--only violence.

 

What would Laozi say? Social contracts that oppose Tao will not hold.