work
(78)
home
(75)
flow
(74)
QaR
(65)
sound of the Universe
(29)
LOVE
(25)
growth
(23)
LIFE
(20)
LIGHT
(16)
;-)
(12)
poetry
(10)
change
(10)
truth
(8)
Development
(7)
living
(7)
thoughts
(5)
thinking
(4)
One
(4)
lessons
(4)
...
(4)
time
(4)
appreciation
(4)
meditations
(3)
Hemp
(3)
meditation
(3)
July 2009 (4)June 2009 (14)May 2009 (10)April 2009 (4)March 2009 (6)February 2009 (16)January 2009 (12)December 2008 (5)November 2008 (10)October 2008 (12)September 2008 (10)August 2008 (3)July 2008 (1)June 2008 (3)May 2008 (3)April 2008 (4)March 2008 (4)February 2008 (17)January 2008 (36)December 2007 (44)November 2007 (2)October 2007 (2)September 2007 (4)August 2007 (3)July 2007 (11)June 2007 (12)May 2007 (12)
Fa- La- La- La- La- La- La-
Help
Sign In
Access: Public
That would have made a stirring speech at Trenton in 1776, or Normandy in 1944.
Doing anything, even attempting to dethrone a tyrant, as a means to building ones own resources is God eclipsing and is detrimental to Spiritual development.
It’s not “God-eclipsing,” it’s tyrant-eclipsing!
Standing up for one’s own sake is detrimental to spiritual development? Being trodden underfoot is more virtuous than courageously resisting?
Didn’t Gandhi himself effectively overthrow a tyrant?
A fairly efficient deformation of what I said, but I'll comment on it anyway.
“Standing up for one’s own sake is detrimental to spiritual development?” Quite. The road to Peace is paved with bricks of selflessness.
Connecting Gandhi with nationalism is a far stretch. Gandhi acted to effect a change opposed to the government, not blindly following the orders of those in power. He operated with total non-violence, leaving those that followed open to 'being trodden underfoot.' More virtuous that forcibly exerting individual will indeed!!
I'll leave you with some wise words from The Beatles:
We were talking-about the space between us all
And the people who hide themselves behind a wall of illusion
Never glimpse the truth, then it's far too late, when they pass away.
We were talking, about the love we all could share, when we find it
To try our best to hold it there with our love
With our love, we could save the world, if they only knew.
Try to realize it's all within yourself
No one else can make you change
And to see you're really only very small,
And life flows on within you and without you.
We were talking, about the love that's gone so cold and the people,
Who gain the world and lose their soul,
They don't know, they can't see, are you one of them?
When you've seen beyond yourself, then you may find, peace of mind,
Is waiting there,
And the time will come when you see
we're all one, and life flows on within you and without you.
Within You Without You – The Beatles
Sorry if I misinterpreted you in any way. I agree with much you have to say (and have always loved George Harrison’s song from Sgt. Pepper’s).
I cited Gandhi not as an example of nationalism but one of standing up to tyranny. If you ask me, Gandhi was a man of tremendous “individual will” and was not afraid to employ it, but that’s another discussion.
You seem to equate acting in self-interest with selfishness, which I take to be a distortion of healthy, moral self-interest. But surely combating a tyrant can be an extremely selfless act, especially if it involves willingly putting oneself in harms way for the sake of the greater good.
Gandhi’s success against the British was owing to his ability to shame them. Martin Luther King similarly used non-violent tactics successfully to shame the American public. But such tactics won’t succeed in all cases. Whether European Jews of the 1930s and 40s resisted or not, they were rounded up, enslaved and murdered in huge numbers.
It seems to me that while we should always favor peaceful action (and it took great courage on the part of Gandhi and King to favor that course) but we should be prepared to use whatever means necessary. This goes for large matters and small. If a little strong-arming on the part of a couple of police officers can disarm a dangerous psychotic, for example, shouldn’t they use such tactics? If I have a chance to intervene to prevent greater suffering, shouldn’t I muster the courage to do so? If some type of violence were necessary to protect my children from harm, am I to be blamed for resorting to it? Am I a better father if I passively witness their being harmed, perhaps permanently or mortally?
I never said dethroning a tyrant is God eclipsing. To rephrase the comment: If our actions, however superficially good, are motivated by the desire of self preservation or self advancement, they drive us further and further from where it is we're destined to go; for lack of a better symbol, Eternal Unity. Then we end up becoming lost; circling round and around, searching for the light, distraught and hopeless. It is important for us to be aware of the consequences attached to our actions.
Now then, separation causes suffering. The original pain of humanity was separation from God; our conscious awareness of 'Self.' That seemingly independent entity that clutches our attention in a strangle hold for fear of non-existence.
It holds then that action towards enhancement of separation, such as national identity, ethnic identity, gender identity, or any prejudice stimulating ideal, also acts towards increased suffering.
Through much trial and error, I've come to see that our existence isn't dependent on our attention. In addition, I've found that opening to the mystery, and expanding the awareness to constantly include that which is not self, reaps rewards of grace and virtue.
So you see, not acting in self interest is the most efficient path to preservation, not necessarily of the self but of All as One.
p.s.It must be remembered that the Nazi party was powered by patriotism and national pride.
p.p.s
I'd bet that self interest was, if present, at the farthest end of motivating factors for Gandhi and MLK.
One more thing. Violence breeds violence. No civilization will exist without violence, if it was built on violence. No end justifies evil means.
Well, the Nazi party was also powered by racial supremacism. Patriotism is certainly subject to perversion, just as all other emotions are.
I understand the cosmological view you describe but I find that it results in ethical difficulties. I’m curious about your response to the examples I made about intervening, including selflessly to prevent the harm of others. Again, If some type of violence were necessary to protect my children from harm, am I to be blamed for resorting to it? Am I a better father if I passively witness their being harmed, perhaps permanently or mortally?
The Nazi party was built on an ideal even more perverted than racial supremeism, but it was powered by the people through old fashioned, home-grown national pride.
You're right, humanity brings with it many quandaries. Here's another. All we do is directed by our experience, and yet karma dictates that all we experience is the consequence of our actions. It takes inspiration, acquired by the aforementioned openness to mystery and expanded awareness, to know what is best done in any given situation.
That said, if your actions are truly selfless i.e. done not for what the child means to you, but simply to protect life, than there can be no distinction between the child and the perceived threat. If you wish to prevent permanent or mortal harm than you can, morally, cause no permanent or mortal harm.
It takes inspiration, acquired by the aforementioned openness to mystery and expanded awareness, to know what is best done in any given situation.
Surely one can identify principles to guide action also.
That said, if your actions are truly selfless i.e. done not for what the child means to you, but simply to protect life, than there can be no distinction between the child and the perceived threat. If you wish to prevent permanent or mortal harm than you can, morally, cause no permanent or mortal harm.
I don’t find this clear. It sounds like you’re saying that if the action is selfless then it’s permissible, however, one still cannot distinguish between the child and the threat. Assuming that’s the case, I have two objections to which I’d be interested to hear your response. It seems to me that as regrettable as the harm is to the “threat,” the responsibility for his predicament lies with him. Perhaps one should not rejoice in the harm he suffers, but one should rejoice when the innocent are protected from an aggressor. The aggressor created his own circumstances, his own karma, if you like. A father simply protecting his child has little choice and no responsibility for the evil circumstances that another caused.
The other objection goes back to the distinction I suggested between innocent self-interest and selfishness. By simply feeding ourselves and avoiding unnecessary pain we are acting in self-interest. That kind of self-interest is entirely compatible with selflessness of a high order when circumstances demand it (such as laying one’s life on the line for one’s child, or for a stranger).
I appreciate your being willing to discuss these matters.
The clearest guide for me has been the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism.
I must admit that my comments here are likely being influenced by my slightly more prevalent focus on the ethical precept of Right Livelihood.
You're quite right, suffering would likely be the karmic follow-through from the 'threat's'
behavior, but karma is funny. Its best lesson seems to be “Be Aware”. I've found that suffering gets recycled, and compassion multiplied. Suffering is inevitable; it's a prerequisite for existence, but compassion is a seed. It grows and gives rise to more and more seeds of compassion; strengthening the original root.
Any action is permissible as long as you accept the consequences. Do what you will, but know that there are going to be consequences. Whether they're labeled “good” or “bad” is up to you.
*******The word “God” is used as a place filler. There are many labels so it's important to remember that no symbol accurately captures the essence of what it's meant to represent. Even as you read this it is being filtered by your perceptions.
Selflessness could possibly be equated with 'objectivity.' We could say “action as though you had no vested intrest in the matter; holding only on your foundation”
The Zaads Buddhist quote for today is applicaple here I think.
'Never have anything to do with likes and dislikes. The absence of what one likes is painful, as is the presence of what one dislikes. Therefore don't take a liking to anything. To lose what one likes is hard, but there are no bonds for those who have no likes and dislikes. From preference arises sorrow, from preference arises fear, but he who is freed from preference has no sorrow and certainly no fear.'
Buddha (563 - 483 BC)
Source: Sayings of the Buddha in The Dhammapada, p. 210-212
Add Comment Print Permalink
More quotes about: absence, fear, pain, sorrow
I find this a noble ideal up to a point, as with the similar asceticism of the Stoics. However, I would think that as a manifestation of enlightenment, this kind of insight comes at the end of a long path that does not nor should it begin in indifference to all things. One could not expect an infant not to have preferences, and one would surely find it perverse for a parent not to prefer her or his child’s well-being over the alternatives.
There is clearly moral danger in being vainly attached to things. Such is idolatry, addiction, gluttony, etc. Given that all can be taken away in this world, a stronger spiritual state is one that can endure that deprivation. However, it seems that identifying “no preference” as an ultimate ideal ends up in incoherence. After all, one must prefer not to prefer.
I find it easier to give credence to a hierarchy that identifies many goods and evils - and thus implies preferences and biases (such as the one we share against Nazism) - and yet encourages a higher state of independence. We should prefer compassion against cruelty, no? Enlightenment over obscurity?
Going back a couple of posts, you wrote:
Any action is permissible as long as you accept the consequences.
This seems to simply negate the force of “permissible.” What I am seeking here is a solid position of prescription that flows from the principles articulated. In the case of using violence to save one’s child (or any other innocent), I certainly see what you mean by “karma is funny,” if you mean something like the law of unintended circumstances. For me this is just another element of caution, as if to say, “You really must be sure that this is the only plausible course, because when you take this step, it will likely result in some further harm, even if you achieve your otherwise noble objective.”
The only reason I persist in these arguments is that I think strict pacifism has unacceptable consequences. A kind of moderated pacifism seems best, where we seek peace, we prefer the peaceful solution, but we are prepared to do whatever is necessary should the need arise. Evil prospers when good men do nothing.
You're right. True, total detachment does only come at the end. But how do we get there? It takes effort. It takes commitment. One of the hardest things to remember is that everyone you interact with is undergoing the same struggles, attempting to achieve the same things as you. We are all on a spiritual journey; even those that are unaware of it.
The beauty of infants is that they have no preferences ipso facto*. They learn to have preferences. As for the parents, 'to lose what one likes is hard.' It is the responsibility of parents to create an environment suitable for the maximum growth of the child(ren) entrusted to them. For Maximum growth, parents must try not to project their past on the child(ren); but let them discover the life they’re meant to live.
Offer understanding and compassion, respect and unconditional love. Let the child’s discovery enlighten you.
It is, I'm sure, easier for someone at my age to achieve this kind of detachment, as youth comes with less to be detached from.
You've only just begun the road of parenthood, but the time will come when it becomes easier for you as well. When your children grow, and learn what they need to venture off, you may see. It seems to me that the more practice you get now, the easier it will be at any then.
Detachment isn't synonymous with non-action. The idea is to step back, analyze, utilize cognitive reason, draw on every past experience. Then you can be [objective]; you can act in accordance with the situation; with what you know you should do, not just what you think you should do.
I have no preference or aversion towards Nazism. I recognize it for what it is; an insatiable desire for separation, with heavy overtones of extreme somatotonia. Misguided souls fueled by despair, blinded by illusion, being led down a dark alley. It doesn't change what needs to be done now.
I try my best to act not out of desire but out of necessity. There isn't much room for doing what I want when there are so many things I must do to pay for the gifts I've been given (compassion). Each gift is a reason to help others achieve their apex.
How does a “good” man (or women) become “good”? They must know. That begs the question: How can we know? We must observe. We must contemplate. We must interpret and revise.
Selflessness takes humility, and you must not let your ego convince you that the world stops if you stop. We must be passive to become detached. The relationship is proportional. The more passive you are to the Universe the more detached you become from material existence. If it is carried out in order to achieve enlightenment, total pacifism is appropriate, not to mention beneficial, as it leads to less distraction.
*I’ll comment tomorrow on the maintenance of the body tomorrow
My understanding of your understanding of 'karma is funny' is harmonious with the stimulating abstract concept.
An anthology of street signs can be found in Aldous Huxley's 'The Perennial Philosophy'
Have you ever seen the movie 'I Heart Huckabees'? It's rather chaotic, but it raises many pertinent philosophical questions, and addresses them with off beat humor.
I apologize, but the comment on maintaining the body is turning out to be a bigger feat than initially anticipated. I'll put it together and post it as a separate blog.
Monks and Nuns (of any tradition) would be a good example of those who choose total pacifism.
I think the total pacifism of some religious people is a good thing. It serves as an important example. But total pacifism for uncloistered people and governments out in the real world can be suicidal.
The religious have traditionally served as an example of what’s possible. They provide a certain guidance, even as they perform more extreme kinds of devotions.
In the same respect, I’m very happy to have some number of people like the Amish or Mennonites who will not bear arms, not out of cowardice, but out of genuine religious convictions. As long as they’re willing to serve in other ways, I think they ought to be accomodated.
However, a country of Amish would be defenseless.
One can conceive an alternative to violence, but if the other party to the conflict doesn’t mind using violence, then the alternative may not do any good.
Any doctrine that includes a “belief that all international disputes can be settled by arbitration” is simply a kind of wishful thinking. It’s one thing to believe that all disputes should be settled by arbitration, it’s another to believe that all parties in all cases can be counted on to abide by such methods.
Fear need not enter into calculations about using violence or not. For example, a group of police officers may really not fear a lunatic on a rampage who doesn’t have the ability to do them much harm. But they may nevertheless resolve to use violence to disable the person, and do so in a very cool-headed fashion. Similarly, a British or French statesman of the 1930s might have rationally concluded that Hitler was building up his forces for a reason and have coldly resolved to put a stop to it. Wishful thinking about the power to resolve international disputes by arbitration resulted in making the problem worse, in that situation.
MLK is an example of how courageous non-violence can work. But because it worked in his situation or that of Gandhi doesn’t mean it will work in all circumstances. It is nonetheless an excellent example.
*****Comment originally located one step up***
A quick question to start off with. How can Monks and Nuns be an important example if they arn't to be followed?
Just for the record, here are the definitions that Google gives for 'pacifism.'
Several types of belief systems of principled rejection of violence. Pacifism is distinct from the technique of nonviolent action, which is usually applied as a practical way to act by people who are not pacifists. Pacifist belief systems, at a minimum, reject participation in all international or civil wars, or violent revolutions. Pacifists may support nonviolent struggle, or may oppose it on ethical grounds as too conflictual.
www.fiu.edu/~fcf/glossary.html
the doctrine that all violence in unjustifiable the belief that all international disputes can be settled by arbitration
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Pacifism is opposition to the practice of war.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism
It seems to me that it all comes back to knowledge; we ust seek to know so that our actions are clean. Violence is the resort of those who conceive no alternative. It binds us to our animal past. The power of being human is that we are capable of not acting out of fearful emotion. We can transcend emotion and act out of higher intelligence. It seems to me that violent resolution is but one of many self limiting behaviors humanity feels compeled to impose upon its self.
I'll take it back to MLK. Was his non-violent resolution suicidal? Maybe so, but would he have accomplished what he has had he not held that commitment? All we need to is look back. Malcolm X aimed towards a similar end as MLK, but the means he utilized were quite different, the 'By any Means Necessary.' It seems to me that, while Malcolm X drew attention to the cause, he also drew more schism by reinforcing the segratory ideals already in place through the concept of racial pride. (Existence pride, that seems like a unifying idea.) Did Malcolm X avoid the fate of his non-violent contemporary? The answer is no, of course, he was shot down just the same, but MLK's legacy is the one that lives on the greatest. He is still changing the world 39 years after his bodily death.
W\hat are your thoughts on self-limiting behavior?
I agree that total non-violence is wishful thinking; and it will remain so as long as people chose to use violence to resolve conflict. Isn't Zaads all about 'Being the change?'
What do you think about becoming passive, releasing control, succumbing to fate, and utilizing every experience that presents its self as a means to evolution; adapting and developing?
I’m in favor of self-control and forbearance. I think a responsible person works hard to understand their own impulses, and how these, if unchecked can result in rueful consequences. I think we should seek peace, but be prepared to defend ourselves.
With regard to succumbing to fate, I think we do need to reconcile ourselves to what we can’t change, but we often have responsibility to change what we can. Passivity is an important component of reflection and meditation. There is a time for passivity and there is a time for activity.
If I see my family threatened, I will feel it is my responsibility to intervene in whatever way is most likely to prevent harm to them. I would not accept their harm passively as a dictate of fate.
Certainly every experience has the potential to help us learn and grow.
W\hat are your thoughts on self-limiting behavior?
Rephrase: Behavior that holds us back from achieving our potential.
What do you think about becoming passive, releasing control, succumbing to fate, and utilizing every experience that presents its self as a means to evolution; adapting and developing?
I mean EVERYDAY. Doing this for every situation. Making every situation a meditation practice. Making every situation an instance for reflection. Even while acting.
Here is a 'solid position of prescription that flows from the principles articulated.'
In Mahayana Buddhism, the Lotus Sutra (Saddharmapundarika), lists the Six Perfections as (original terms in Sanskrit):
1. Dāna paramita: generosity, giving of oneself (in Chinese, 布施波羅蜜)2. Śīla paramita : virtue, morality, discipline, proper conduct (持戒波羅蜜)
3. Kṣānti (kshanti) paramita : patience, tolerance, forbearance, acceptance, endurance (忍辱波羅蜜)
4. Vīrya paramita : energy, diligence, vigour, effort (精進波羅蜜)
5. Dhyāna paramita : one-pointed concentration, contemplation (禪定波羅蜜)
6. Prajñā paramita : wisdom, insight (智慧波羅蜜)
Note that this list is also mentioned by the Theravada commentator Dhammapala, who says it is equivalent to the above list of ten.[4]
In the Ten Stages (Dasabhumika) Sutra, four more Paramitas are listed:
7. Upāya paramita: skillful means8. Praṇidhāna (pranidhana) paramita: vow, resolution, aspiration, determination
9. Bala paramita: spiritual power
10. Jñāna paramita: knowledge
Rephrase: Behavior that holds us back from achieving our potential.
I’d be against it, of course.
I mean EVERYDAY. Doing this for every situation. Making every situation a meditation practice. Making every situation an instance for reflection. Even while acting.
Sounds great, to the extent it’s possible. I do however think that contemplation and acting involve different cognitive modes, at least to some extent.
Anyway, I don’t see how these questions and the concepts they touch on affect the discussion about whether violence is sometimes justified and perhaps even morally necessary.
The point is:
1. Violence is a self-limiting behavior.
2. It is possible to live a unified existence, and to not seek that is laziness.
Well, presumably starvation would be “self-limiting” and using violence to procure food would be justified.
I think here you take refuge in the abstract and steer away from consideration of the consequences of pacifism. Let’s suppose that using violence harms me (“self-limits,” if you like) in some way. That would give me a self-interested disincentive to use violence. So would the fact that fighting is likely to expose me to harm. What I’m suggesting is that duty may require me to suffer that harm to myself. This would be the case in protecting my children from those that might harm them, in cases where nothing short of violence was likely to work.
I’m certainly not advocating some kind of fragmentary existence. I simply think that there are different modes of cognition. As someone who has engaged in many kinds of strenuous and intense physical activity, including team sports, I find that the kind of decisiveness required for those behaviors is very different than the more exploratory and tentative cognition useful in meditating, contemplating and intellectual exploration of complex or profound issues.
I simply think that there are different modes of cognition.
That's fragmented. There are only different modes because you make them different.
When you See this, you'll See Truth.
You already have all you need, don't worry, just keep working. Diligence and patience are virtues.
Well, maybe, maybe not. Whatever the case, I must insist it has no bearing on the question I raise about pacifism.
How do you resolve the ethical problems I posit in the last post? Seems that while neither course is desirable, one ought to act to prevent harm to the innocent. In a situation where harm to the innocent is likely to be great the following assertions can be made: if it’s easy to act, the less excuse for not acting. If it’s harder and more dangerous to oneself to act but still the most likely way to save the innocent, then the greater merit there is in the action.
Like a beautiful flower that is colorful but has no fragrance, even well spoken words bear no fruit in one who does not put them into practice.
Buddha (563 - 483 BC) Source: Sayings of the Buddha in The Dhammapada, Pali CannonNothing I say will mean anything to you until you release your grip on your own belief.
Is your family in so much danger that you must cling to this idea of physically defending them?
Why not instead work to create an environment where there is no such need?
Nothing I say will mean anything to you until you release your grip on your own belief.
Maybe not, but my spiritual state is irrelevant to the question I raised. The one thing has nothing to do with the other.
The situation I raise is a hypothetical one to test the principles at play. The question is if my family were in danger, what should I do? The example need not involve me or my family. It could just as easily be somebody else in a very different situation. Let me put it to you yet again, in another form: If a person has the capability to prevent great harm by moderate violence, what should that person do? Who is a better person, one who risks harm to himself by interposing whatever force he has at his command to save the innocent? Or is one who fails to act a better person, in the sense of quality of moral behavior?
Why not instead work to create an environment where there is no such need?
Why not do both? One can be dedicated to decreasing violence in the world, including impulsive violence or anger in oneself without thinking it’s a good thing to passively watch the innocent be harmed when one has the possibility to intervene with force, and no plausible alternative exists.
Maybe not, but my spiritual state is irrelevant to the question I raised. The one thing has nothing to do with the other.
It has to do with how you percieve the answer. You're blinding yourself from any good that can be drawn from what is said.
I've already given you my answer. Using violence solves nothing. It simply creates more struggle. Violence is not a means to defending anything, it is simply a means to needing more defense. Your strike incites a bigger strike, which incites a bigger strike; it is a cycle that repeats as long as those involved continue it.
If defending the innocent brings merit, then defending the innocent by showing compassion to those that would harm them brings merit beyond conception.
It has to do with how you percieve the answer. You’re blinding yourself from any good that can be drawn from what is said.
Not at all. I find compelling the notion that the use of violence is hazardous to the soul. Nevertheless, I find an absolutist doctrine of pacifism problematic.
If defending the innocent brings merit, then defending the innocent by showing compassion to those that would harm them brings merit beyond conception.
But even if we allow that to be the case, alone it doesn’t give us any guidance as to whether we should intervene or not. I’ve addressed this by speaking about harming aggressors with regret.
Forswearing all use of physical violence would mean, among other things, a society without a police force. I don’t think even Gandhi thought a police force was unnecessary.
If you wish to create an environment free of violence for those you love (which should include EVERYONE, not just your family) then inciting violence is self defeating. What you do (and experience) is a manifestation of your mind. If you're left to conceive only violent resolution then your mind is not unified. You will continue to struggle with this dilemma until you resolve the dichomatic condition of your mind. Know that Love, not hate (and all violence stems from malice and fear) will solve your problem.
Here are some definitions for 'violence'
an act of aggression (as one against a person who resists); “he may accomplish by craft in the long run what he cannot do by force and violence in the short one”
ferocity: the property of being wild or turbulent; “the storm's violence”
a turbulent state resulting in injuries and destruction etc.
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
To injure or abuse another with physical force. Can be a sign of depression in young males, but also a trigger.
webcenter.health.webmd.netscape.com/content/article/45/1663_51211
You seem to be ignoring what I say. I am recommending passive ACTION; detached ACTION.
This means detachment from not only your innate inclination to violence, but from the family you're hypothetically 'protecting.' ACT but do so in a manner that helps EVERYONE EVERYONE EVERYONE EVERYONE
Steven,
I promise I’m not ignoring what you’re saying. I think it’s all good. However, you cast the challenge as being always a choice between good and evil. What I assert, and what I think cannot be refuted, is that sometimes one has to choose the lesser of two evils.
In the case of Gandhi and MLK, non-violent resistance caused some of its practitioners their lives, many others injury and pain, but they were martyrs to a successful cause. They proved that non-violence can sometimes succeed, and by doing so provided a magnificent example.
In the case of the Jews in Europe in the late 1930s through mid-1940s, non-resistance did them no good at all. They were simply bundled off to the gas chambers. Non-resistance in that instance simply made evil work easier.
I wonder whether you are paying sufficient attention to what I’m saying when you talk about wilful aggression (“the storm’s violence”) and mental illness when I’ve noted that forceful intervention can be made regretfully with a detached mind.
It is easy to take the posture of the lover of peace, piling on citation upon citation. As I said, that’s all good; but what does one do in a truly ugly situation where you have no recourse but to stop aggression forcefully or simply allow the innocent to be destroyed.
You have yet to give me a straight answer as to what one should do in that situation, or what the ethical status is of one who courageously acts, even against his inclinations, versus one who watches the innocent victimized. Would you abolish the police, or at least their authority to use force (without which criminals can simply laugh at them). These are real-world, practical questions. Any philosophy that isn’t mere escapism has to come to terms with such problems.
I'm going to contemplate this for a while.
Preliminary contemplation results: I would not use any violence as it breaks my vow of harmlessness, but subversion is not out of the question. My primary concern is with the powerful temptation to abuse the idea of 'moral violence.' Before one decides to take the responsibility of 'moral violent resolution' one would need to be near perfect selflessness if one wishes to not be spiritually decimated for vain egotism.
And even in a state of perfectly perfect selflessness there would be consequences; possibly severe. For as one climbs the mountain of Spirit, profound hight presents the danger of fatal falls following spiritual missteps.
Fair enough, Steven.
I’ll just add that I think clarity is added by keeping one’s eye on the consequences of one’s action/inaction. It may be paradoxical, but one might have to accept spiritual injury to oneself in order to prevent physical injury to others.
I
It's also important to remember that we are capable of creating a global environment where violence is irrelevant. I see the tide shifting even now. This is the goal we should all be pointing our development towards.
I'd like to comment on some quotes from your page as I feel they are relevant to the subject at hand.
Tolerance only really counts when it hurts. That said, there are things that should not be tolerated. Tolerance as an indiscriminate acceptance of everything is laziness, stupidity or an effort to preempt criticism of one’s own behavior.
More specifically tolerance as an indiscriminate acceptance of everything is laziness. I find this omits some truth. Acceptance without action may be laziness, but how can we impassionedly change something if we do not first accept its existence and understand why it is in the first place? This is the power of detachment; it allows us to act without passion, for passion is the great perverter.
The suffering and agony of war in my mind must exist to gradually educate us to the fundamental law of “loving our neighbor as ourselves.” When that lesson has been learned, then war will cease to exist. We are however, many centuries from such a state of affairs. Many more wars, and much suffering is required before we finally learn our lesson. However humanity in this world is still young, there are still many millions of years to run during which high perfection will be attained. For the present we can do more than go on striving to improve more friendly relations towards those that surround us.
This seems to ignore the increasing speed of human development. Time is speeding up, and our actions carry greater and greater consequences (both 'positive' and 'negative') as it accelerates.
When I say “indiscriminate acceptance” I mean uncritically tolerating or embracing. That’s not what you’re advocating, so there’s no conflict between your position and mine.
As far as passion being “the great perverter,” I think MLK was passionately engaged. Even if one were to argue that as being, shall we say, suboptimal, is it necessarily perverse?
The Alanbrooke quote doesn’t reflect my own opinion. I don’t necessarily think he’s wrong, but I don’t necessarily think he’s right either. I just find it interesting that he saw things that way.
I see.
MLK was refreshingly diligent, but whether or not he was passionate I can't say.
No, I wouldn't say that passion is inherently perverse, but it is the great perverter none the less. The trouble with using passion in a leadership role is that it incites passion in those that follow. Even if the leader uses it responsibly, those influenced are not likely to be in the same amount of control.
You make an important point, without a doubt.
Still, I think inspiration has great utility. It’s the quality of leadership, including the quality of responsibility, that makes the difference, as you seem to suggest. That’s true of teachers, coaches and team captains, military officers, sales leaders and all sorts of influential people. It’s also true of leaders of mass movements, such as the one MLK spearheaded. Another example is the Methodist movement in England fomented by the Wesley Brothers. I’m not a Methodist but I can’t help admiring what they did to improve the lot of so many of their countrymen. Inspired leadership was key to their amazing accomplishments.
Concerning the statement The beauty of infants is that they have no preferences ipso facto*.
A child knows no preference. That child is pureness. That child is Buddha. It is a state of PURE BEING. When the child is hungry it eats, and is satisfied. When the child is tired it sleeps, and is satisfied. Can you say the same thing about yourself? The child knows nothing of predator or savior. The child knows nothing of life and death. The child simply IS. There is nothing else. This is why, when asked how to get into heaven, Jesus replied: (paraphrased) To enter the Kingdom of Heaven become as a child again.
It may be more accurate to call a child a pre-Buddha. Why is this? Well a child is pure and innocent, but it is purity without awareness. The power in forgetting one's innocence, in diving into the waves of ego, is that when this ego is released it is total; uncovering pure awareness and pure being.