PDA

View Full Version : Nonviolence


Mark_W
15-02-2007, 07:13 AM
From the standpoint of simple justice, I believe that everyone has equal right to life, as do most people. On the other hand, most people say there are exceptions to this principle. For example, if a person is considered dangerous and we suspect that they may kill someone, then we say it becomes justified to kill that person in the name of defense. This is the opposite stance of saying every person has the same right to life, because it is claiming that, in certain circumstances, we should take away someone’s life, after we have just stated that we have no right to do this. It is irrational for two reasons, first because we can never know for certain whether the act of violence we are trying to prevent is lesser or greater than the act of violence we are choosing to resort to. In other words we are willing to commit an act of violence now, based on preventing a supposed act of violence in the future which might not have happened at all. Secondly, it is irrational because of the equal right of every human to life, we have no right to assume that one person belongs in this world and not another. It seems clear enough now, yet this is a contradiction which I’ve noticed most people try to live with, or at least try not to think about.
If you wish to comment, I would appreciate any response.

Pounamu
15-02-2007, 08:15 AM
I, too, believe that everyone has "a right to be here (in the physical world)"; I also believe that it is not our place to judge whether or not another should be put to death; although I realise that in the interests of one's peace of mind and the integrity of one's society it may be necessary to assess another's ability to reside within it peacefully - and if they cannot, one may by common consent regard it as unacceptable that that person remains a "thorn in the flesh" (an incompatibility) and ask them to leave.

Of course, one can take the view that such an "incompatible" person is a mirror for some similar attributes hidden within one's own nature, and strive to uncover these and change, rather than "shooting the messenger" and having them leave... but perhaps comparatively few today would take that stance. However, I believe that is the stance that is most likely to work towards peace and Unity, and spiritual growth.

Just as one has no right to judge a person as unworthy of continued life, by the same token no one has the right to make another's life miserable on a continuing basis; so they must realise that doing so will result in turmoil until they move away. And it is better to insist on them doing so than to allow them to shatter one's health and harmony of being beyond repair! In My View.

Pounamu

Mark_W
15-02-2007, 09:00 AM
pounamu, thanks for the response. I particularly liked the part when you say "Of course, one can take the view that such an "incompatible" person is a mirror for some similar attributes hidden within one's own nature..."...I've never really thought of it quite that way.

But when you say, "And it is better to insist on them doing so (leaving) than to allow them to shatter one's health and harmony of being beyond repair!"...The problem with this is how forceful do you get with insisting they leave? Do you call the cops, who will resort to violence if necessary? I think your first prescription is much better, as nobody can "shatter" your health or "harmony of being" unless you let them as health and harmony are more states of mind than anything else.
Plus if we are trying to help reform this other person, it certainly does less good to send them away than to practice forgiveness and forbearance.

angelicious
15-02-2007, 11:33 AM
For example, if a person is considered dangerous and we suspect that they may kill someone, then we say it becomes justified to kill that person in the name of defense.


Kia ora, gidday,


I don't know of such people who do that here in New Zealand. We've got a good justice system where no one gets away with killing based on suspicion. No court in the land will allow anyone, for any reason, to 'kill or be killed' without receiving Just punishhment.
A paranoid psychopath fits the description though. A Soldier in combat might get ordered to kill someone too (kill or be killed senario). I bet there's a lot of soldiers out there though, who have killed for a cause, and not gone unpunished, for they have to live their lives tortured by the images of their aatrocities. I wouldn't wish that on my worst enemy. I view soldiers (who carry out orders to kill or cause destruction), as puppets of a paranoid psychopath, some head-job with a 'kill or be killed' mentality, sad really.

peteyzen
15-02-2007, 11:40 AM
pounamu, thanks for the response. I particularly liked the part when you say "Of course, one can take the view that such an "incompatible" person is a mirror for some similar attributes hidden within one's own nature..."...I've never really thought of it quite that way.

But when you say, "And it is better to insist on them doing so (leaving) than to allow them to shatter one's health and harmony of being beyond repair!"...The problem with this is how forceful do you get with insisting they leave? Do you call the cops, who will resort to violence if necessary? I think your first prescription is much better, as nobody can "shatter" your health or "harmony of being" unless you let them as health and harmony are more states of mind than anything else.
Plus if we are trying to help reform this other person, it certainly does less good to send them away than to practice forgiveness and forbearance.
Interesting stuff Mark,my perspective is this, although I agree with much you say I disagree with some things, namely: you state that niobody can shatter your health or harmony of being unless you let them, believe me if some one mugs you and kicks the hell out of you one evening you would be naive to imagine this will not have a profound effect upon you.
We live in a material world and we need to allow for this in our dealings, my teacher once said to me that it comes down to `deserve or not deserve`, it is as simple as that. If someone is trying to hurt, abuse or violate your freedom then they do not deserve to be treated as others in your circle are. How you treat them depends on the situation, and I am not condoning the death penalty here, but they do need dealing with.

angelicious
15-02-2007, 11:56 AM
no one has the right to make another's life miserable on a continuing basis; so they must realise that doing so will result in turmoil until they move away. And it is better to insist on them doing so than to allow them to shatter one's health and harmony of being beyond repair! In My View.

Pounamu


Nah, I'm with Jesus, I'd rather turn the other check and walk away than insist or demand someone change so that I might feel better...There is absolutely nothing in the world worth killing for, nothing. I will never, ever, ever intentionally harm my fellow man for anything in the world.

There is no good reason that justifies an act called violence.

angelicious
15-02-2007, 12:57 PM
I disagree with some things, namely: you state that niobody can shatter your health or harmony of being unless you let them, believe me if some one mugs you and kicks the hell out of you one evening you would be naive to imagine this will not have a profound effect upon you.
We live in a material world and we need to allow for this in our dealings, my teacher once said to me that it comes down to `deserve or not deserve`, it is as simple as that. If someone is trying to hurt, abuse or violate your freedom then they do not deserve to be treated as others in your circle are. How you treat them depends on the situation, and I am not condoning the death penalty here, but they do need dealing with.


Tehehe, I don't think that's what mark was conveying (read the bottom of what you quoted, smiles).


I'm curious peteyzen, when your teacher said to you..."it comes down to deserve or not deserve," did you interpret that, to mean all this ..."If someone is trying to hurt, abuse or violate your freedom then they do not deserve to be treated as others in your circle are," or did your teacher actually say that?


Well, I'm with Jesus again, treat others as you would like to be treated, but hey, what ever floats your boat, just remember karmic law, what goes around, comes around.
It's true Peteryzen, what Mark_W said "Nobody can shatter your health or harmony of being unless you let them." This is true. I speak from experiencing domestic violence & yeah, it's not the greatest feeling getting physically & emotionally abused, and yeah, it had a profound effect on me, yet I now see the truth - I put myself in that situation, I let that happen to me. The beauty is that I got so much from the experience, it transformed my life by giving me a chance to learn about my true self, to heal & grow more and more in Spirit, and to gently and lovingly change the seed thought that made me think I deserved it. When I stopped the violence within me, I stopped the violence outside of me, and my reward for that is Spirit.

TzuJanLi
15-02-2007, 01:51 PM
Greetings..

Persons that demonstrate an inability to peacefully coexist in society should be isolated from that society..

Acts of violence are excuseable in only the most difficult of circumstances.. the kill or be killed scenario.. the kill or watch an innocent be killed scenario.. but, in all cases, every effort should be made to find an alternative solution.. some way to neutralize the threat and isolate the offender.. i will never willingly take a life, and i do not want my government to do so on my behalf.. Once an offender has been neutralized and isolated the threat is over, to take the life of a defenseless person (death penalty) is a crime itself.. the prisoner is isolated and defenseless, at the mercy of the captors..

It is my belief that persons demonstrating the inability to fit into a peaceful society should be isolated geographically.. contained within a particular area and given the rudimentary tools for agriculture and shelter.. that they determine their own fate within that geographic area.. an old Sci-Fi movie did this with exploding collars, collars that exploded if the prisoner left the designated area.. this puts the responsibility on the offenders, they live or die by their own hand.. society doesn't bear the burden of maintaining their food and shelter.. and, in appropriate demonstrations of compassion, society provides a reasonable level of healthcare..

We are capable of evolving beyond the philosophy that pretends to give us the right to end the gift of someone's physical existence.. that is a divine gift, sacred and beyond our right to negotiate..

Be well..

angelicious
15-02-2007, 02:02 PM
Nonviolence is the only way to peace both inside and out.
Violence begets more violence.
Have faith that true justice will prevail instead of taking the law (God's & Man's laws) into your own hands.
Love thy neighbour, nothing in the world is worth killing a man for, nothing.
Choose nonviolence, be it, do it, have it.

angelicious
15-02-2007, 02:31 PM
[quote=TzuJanLi Once an offender has been neutralized and isolated the threat is over, to take the life of a defenseless person (death penalty) is a crime itself.. the prisoner is isolated and defenseless, at the mercy of the captors..

It is my belief that persons demonstrating the inability to fit into a peaceful society should be isolated geographically.. contained within a particular area and given the rudimentary tools for agriculture and shelter.. that they determine their own fate within that geographic area.. [/quote]


Ah, hahaha, what are you refering to, cattle? lol.
Oh, or robots....seek, neutralize & destroy (I was using my robot voice then), just kidding.

Mate, they did the isolation of misfits thing over 100-200 years ago and called it AUSTRALIA. History shows it was a giant Prison Colony. Look where it got them, they still have problems co-existing now.
That's not a solution, thats a write-off. And what a mistake it would be to repeat an obvious past f***-up. As for segregation??? ahh hahaha, your joking right? lol

Here's a solution, learn detachment from this material things, make the changes in yourself that will benefit mankind, then watch the world around you evolve as you evolve and live your truth, your highest good.

TzuJanLi
15-02-2007, 02:41 PM
Greetings..

angelicious: I agree, with reservations.. suppose that there is a pedophile with sociopathic tendencies holding an innocent 5 year old at knife point.. what you know is that the child's life will end if you don't intervene AND the only intervention is to end the pedophile's life.. further, if you don't intervene the pedophile will continue to harm more children.. what do you do? I know it's an extreme example but, not too unrealistic..

While you may preserve your individual ideals, non-violence.. there is a broader set of consequences that that put you in the position of empowering greater violence.. at some point we must see beyond our "personal" perspectives, we are a social community with social responsibilities.. In the real world, i respond according to my responsibilities to my brothers and sisters, in accordance with the principles of peace and harmony..

Be well..

angelicious
15-02-2007, 02:47 PM
The Dalai Lama is a living example of nonviolence. He Peacefully gave up a nation, a home, instead of resorting to violence. I recommend reading 'The Art Of Happiness' - by the Dalai Lama.

TzuJanLi
15-02-2007, 02:56 PM
Greetings..


Here's a solution, learn detachment from this material world, make the changes in yourself that will benefit mankind, then watch the world around you evolve as you evolve and live your truth, your highest good.

Sure, ignore the interactive responsibilities of Living.. go deeply into yourself.. it's referred to as "escapism".. you solution is unbalanced, i contend that both your solution and mine can be merged.. Can you really "Live you truth" and stay detached from Life.. no, Life IS your truth.. conjuring some metaphysical escape clause is irresponsible to the evolution of Life itself.. If you think that the Australian experiment was a failure, look at the world around you.. the "good and righteous" self-involved people have fared worse than the Australian experiment.. sounds like the Ostriches have provided good examples..

Be well..

TzuJanLi
15-02-2007, 03:00 PM
Greetings..


The Dalai Lama is a living example of nonviolence. He Peacefully gave up a nation, a home, instead of resorting to violence. I recommend reading 'The Art Of Happiness' - by the Dalai Lama.

I'm sure the Dali is quite happy.. but, you might want to check with the people he abandoned..

IF life is a lesson of collective experiences and unity.. The Dali is skipping school..

Be well..

angelicious
15-02-2007, 04:02 PM
Greetings..


I'm sure the Dali is quite happy.. but, you might want to check with the people he abandoned..

IF life is a lesson of collective experiences and unity.. The Dali is skipping school..

Be well..


Cool, lol, have you checked with his people? I think you'll be surprised, smiles.
.....And after all that, The Dalai Lama's still a living example of nonviolence, tolerance, compassion, acceptance, and love. There's others too, we exist all over the world.

Oh, I'll explain clearer about detachment, I mean detach yourself from material things (e.g. things that are not of spirit, possessions, etc.), not the world (sorry TzuJanLi, type error). So, you still get to participate in life, yet at a humble level, and that brings about positive changes in itself, major changes within. And when that happens your perception changes & you view things differently.
Oh, and yes, yes, yes, I can and am living my truth to the best of my abilities right now.

TzuJanLi
15-02-2007, 04:19 PM
Greetings..

Hi angelicious: Yes, i've even been to China, Tibet, Nepal and Bhutan.. and by all means, i appreciate the people's situation.. they endure suffering with a happy heart, as i do in many cases.. but, you failed to address the hypothetical i posed regarding the pedophile/child screnario.. my heart has diminished happiness relative to that situation, i am required to make a choice.. and the choice is to move toward the greater good.. What is your choice?

Be well..

angelicious
15-02-2007, 04:37 PM
Greetings..

angelicious: I agree, with reservations.. suppose that there is a pedophile with sociopathic tendencies holding an innocent 5 year old at knife point.. what you know is that the child's life will end if you don't intervene AND the only intervention is to end the pedophile's life.. further, if you don't intervene the pedophile will continue to harm more children.. what do you do? I know it's an extreme example but, not too unrealistic..

While you may preserve your individual ideals, non-violence.. there is a broader set of consequences that that put you in the position of empowering greater violence.. at some point we must see beyond our "personal" perspectives, we are a social community with social responsibilities.. In the real world, i respond according to my responsibilities to my brothers and sisters, in accordance with the principles of peace and harmony..

Be well..

Ahhh, the question is actually, what would you do, hmmm?
I'd actually leave crime busting to the law enforcers because thats what violence is....a crime. I reckon if you feed something energy, it will indeed grow, what do you feed, violence or non violence?

My response is the same across the board for every human being in the world...I will never, ever, harm another human being, and blood of man will not be spilt by my hands. There's no contradictions here, I'll never condone taking a life because that life took a life, that would just put me in their shoes, no thanks, I'm not a killer.
Oh, and Yes, I see the world out there, the question is do you?
******************
Hey Mark_W, I now see what you mean by contradictions, like someone being against killing, but will kill if deemed necessary. Interesting it is indeed, a non-killing killer, . Great post.

TzuJanLi
15-02-2007, 04:50 PM
Greetings..


I'd actually leave crime busting to the law enforcers because thats what violence is....a crime.

Well, that's not an option in the scenario.. you have two choices, to intervene and prevent the obvious loss of one innocent life by ending another, not innocent life.. or, permit the loss of an innocent life AND the future losses of life based on the pedophile's history and affirmed intentions.. i know it's a nasty scenario, but one we face at differing levels of intensity every day.. What is the most appropriate choice..? Most people wriggle out of answering the question as posed, so don't feel bad.. but, being honest, i would, reluctantly, intervene.. most people hold their values too high to admit that in an actual situation, they just might make a choice that is contrary to their beliefs..

Be well..

angelicious
15-02-2007, 04:55 PM
Greetings..

Hi angelicious: Yes, i've even been to China, Tibet, Nepal and Bhutan.. and by all means, i appreciate the people's situation.. they endure suffering with a happy heart, as i do in many cases.. but, you failed to address the hypothetical i posed regarding the pedophile/child screnario.. my heart has diminished happiness relative to that situation, i am required to make a choice.. and the choice is to move toward the greater good.. What is your choice?

Be well..

My choice is be here now, that is what's real. The scenario is hypothetical, so it's not real, it hasn't even happened. Not Addressing the situation will starve it of energy, I prefer to discuss what is real, and in the best interest of my highest good and the good of all concerned.

Mark_W
15-02-2007, 09:13 PM
Angelicious, you have perfectly replaced the need for me in my own thread (I mean that in a good way). I enjoyed reading your responses, your optimism and nonviolent stance is encouraging. I wonder how and when did you come to the realization that violence is never the answer?

angelicious
16-02-2007, 08:06 AM
Angelicious, you have perfectly replaced the need for me in my own thread (I mean that in a good way). I enjoyed reading your responses, your optimism and nonviolent stance is encouraging. I wonder how and when did you come to the realization that violence is never the answer?

Grins, yeah, Looks like I kinda took over, hahaha. It's just kind of complex (and simple at the same time, if you can understand that) to explain how I came to be this way with my perception on nonviolence. One has to live in my shoes to know the lessons I learn't from my experiences. I speak only on my behalf for I haven't experienced life in someone elses shoes, and only from first-hand experiences (not hearsay imaginary scenarios).
Violence is fueled by hate, fear, insecurity, intolerance, agression & many more. It's reacting on these impulses that creates the act of violence. A violent person will be under one of these influences.
Total nonviolent practice in ones own life, attracts nonviolence out there. For me, it's no belief, its fact. And if I can influence as many people positively (whether through my art, talents, friendship), by being a living example of everything God-like (incl. nonviolent) to the best of my ability, then I am fulfilling one of my lifes purposes.

akbar
16-02-2007, 10:35 AM
I believe that to recognize and accept other's rights more than self is non voilance. The difference between other's and self may be minor or more but to believe or act other wise is voilance. I think some religions also contain such parts of voilance. Freedom to live and let live with all liberties which do not usurp or damage other's right to live may be the true base of non voilance.

TzuJanLi
16-02-2007, 02:41 PM
Greetings..


My choice is be here now, that is what's real. The scenario is hypothetical, so it's not real, it hasn't even happened. Not Addressing the situation will starve it of energy, I prefer to discuss what is real, and in the best interest of my highest good and the good of all concerned.

Well, the "hypothetical" has played itself out again and again over thousands of years.. pretending it doesn't happen is irrational.. pretending its not real doesn't "starve it of energy", it empowers the abusers to continue with tacit approval.. "all evil needs to flourish is for good people to do nothing".. You say you want to discuss "what is real", let's try it...
I'll never condone taking a life because that life took a life, that would just put me in their shoes, no thanks, I'm not a killer.

War is real.. is there ever EVER justification for War? and, by that i mean, is a soverign nation justified in defending itself from foreign invaders..?
Personal violence is real.. is anyone ever EVER justified in defending themselves from violence with the violence necessary to neutralize the threat..?
It is my personal opinion that for someone to observe a situation where violence is being perpetrated on innocent or defenseless people, and that observer has the ability to intervene but refuses.. that observer is an equal participant in the violence..

Rigid adherence to personal preferences to the detriment of our brothers and sisters is its own crime..

Be well...

angelicious
16-02-2007, 10:34 PM
Greetings..


Well, the "hypothetical" has played itself out again and again over thousands of years.. pretending it doesn't happen is irrational.. pretending its not real doesn't "starve it of energy", it empowers the abusers to continue with tacit approval.. "all evil needs to flourish is for good people to do nothing".. You say you want to discuss "what is real", let's try it...



Be well...[/color]

I think you'll find that by participating in violent behavior is what empowers the abusers, by adding to the consciousness of violence. Stopping the violation of man begins with you (with me, & with us through setting the example first).

So persecute me all you like, I choose to be a living example of nonviolence, I choose to exist without descriminating against my fellow man as to who should live and who should die, I choose it for me, it leads to peace here and now. If more and more people across the earth took a firm stance like this, & choose not to harm under any circumstance or contribute in anyway to the destruction of man (eg. making, selling weapons, join the military), there would be no more war, there would be no one to fight the wars, or to make the bombs etc.
People kill in the name of love, religion, possessions, and kill out of fear, insecurity, hatred, intollerance....What would you kill for? What lower energy would drive you, fear, insecurity, anger or intollerance?

Reap what you sow, and I'm happy to be reaping the abundant crop that peace, through practice, has gifted to me.