Ahisma

[AMCrenshaw]

Nonviolent Justice, Turn-the-Other-Cheek, Compassion, Loving-kindness, Civil Disobedience, etc.--

found in many of the world's religions and moral philosophies, I begin to wonder:

Do these practices fit into your spirituality? Why are they important? Are they practical? Are they humanist? Do you feel that these are unnatural concepts-- i.e., anti-human "nature" but in favor of human nurture? Are they supported by, contrary to, absent from your religion's sacred texts, doctrines, or beliefs?

For my own spirituality, I consider these the central practices and perhaps surprisingly down-to-earth and concerned with our relationships with other sentient beings.

AMC

[Cyia]

Turn-the-other-cheek isn't just about non-violence (in the Christian sense of it). It's about not acting as your own protector or vindicator and allowing God to fill that role for you. That doesn't mean he's going to "smite" anyone on your behalf (see: Jonah and Nineveh), but it means you're willing to defer to God's justice rather than the instant gratification - and possible jail time - that comes with striking back on your own. Nor should you expect to be struck on that other cheek, as the act of offering it is meant to give the other party pause by responding to hate with love.

It also goes hand in hand with the "if you're compelled to go one mile, go two" and "if he takes your coat, offer him your shirt, too". Don't be like every other person the other party has ever met. Treat them with compassion because the loss of a physical possession is nothing compared to helping that other person regain their humanity.

[Zara Ravenwood]

I think there is a balance- Loving Kindness is a Mitvot (a holy Commandant) but so is Justice. And some times a Killer needs to die. Just make sure its the right guy first. That being said the Sages of the Talmudic era considered any court that ordered an execution even once in 60 years to be "blood thirsty" and generally tried to limit executions. On the other hand they didn't have modern Forensics. (this is Ironic beocsue I have a 1st Temple Murder Mystery suiose I keep meaning to write- and the laws about what constatiets as Cort evince make it a bit hard-being seen stading over a body with knife in hand for example is not admissible- becosue you might have just walked on to the seen and picked it in in bafflement or horror.) Well that's 1 take from one Jew- I can't speak for anyone else.

[AMCrenshaw]

Turn-the-other-cheek isn't just about non-violence (in the Christian sense of it). It's about not acting as your own protector or vindicator and allowing God to fill that role for you. That doesn't mean he's going to "smite" anyone on your behalf (see: Jonah and Nineveh), but it means you're willing to defer to God's justice rather than the instant gratification - and possible jail time - that comes with striking back on your own. Nor should you expect to be struck on that other cheek, as the act of offering it is meant to give the other party pause by responding to hate with love.

Which is nonviolence, in the Christian sense of the word as I understand it. But God's justice is healing, not harm; restoration, not retribution.

I would add that I doubt Jesus of Nazareth was too concerned about jail time, especially if his life and work set either a precedent or a goal.


It also goes hand in hand with the "if you're compelled to go one mile, go two" and "if he takes your coat, offer him your shirt, too". Don't be like every other person the other party has ever met. Treat them with compassion because the loss of a physical possession is nothing compared to helping that other person regain their humanity.


I always thought of this interesting section as a way to produce conscience in one's enemy. Gandhi used it against the British Empire, of course-- he used terms that the Christian British soldiers would understand. Biblical ones. By taxing people with no money, by harming people who were defenseless, it shamed the British. I think that's important to remember if we are also to draw comparisons to Jesus and Rome.

amc

[AMCrenshaw]

I think there is a balance- Loving Kindness is a Mitvot (a holy Commandant) but so is Justice. And some times a Killer needs to die. Just make sure its the right guy first. That being said the Sages of the Talmudic era considered any court that ordered an execution even once in 60 years to be "blood thirsty" and generally tried to limit executions. On the other hand they didn't have modern Forensics. (this is Ironic beocsue I have a 1st Temple Murder Mystery suiose I keep meaning to write- and the laws about what constatiets as Cort evince make it a bit hard-being seen stading over a body with knife in hand for example is not admissible- becosue you might have just walked on to the seen and picked it in in bafflement or horror.) Well that's 1 take from one Jew- I can't speak for anyone else.

I do have a question, though. You wrote that "some times a Killer must die" -- does this run counter to the Talmudic 6th commandment (thou shalt not kill/murder)-- that is, is there a circumstance in which killing is OK so long as the one being killed is a killer? Also, is that a statement of how we should act or how the universe operates (you know, something like karma)?

Also, for me, justice and loving-kindness are in no way disconnected.


amc

[Cyia]

Which is nonviolence, in the Christian sense of the word as I understand it. But God's justice is healing, not harm; restoration, not retribution.

I would add that I doubt Jesus of Nazareth was too concerned about jail time, especially if his life and work set either a precedent or a goal.

Right, which is why Jonah got so bent out of shape over Ninevah. He wanted to see the whole city trampled (I can never remember if it's "smited", "smote" or "smitten") and got upset when it wasn't.

And no, Jesus wasn't concerned with jail time. I meant that more in a modern sense where someone can be jailed for getting into a physical altercation even when provoked. "Turning the other cheek" and not taking that swing will keep a modern man/woman from an assault charge.




I always thought of this interesting section as a way to produce conscience in one's enemy. Gandhi used it against the British Empire, of course-- he used terms that the Christian British soldiers would understand. Biblical ones. By taxing people with no money, by harming people who were defenseless, it shamed the British. I think that's important to remember if we are also to draw comparisons to Jesus and Rome.

amc


That's the heart of it. If you don't respond in kind, then it throws the opposing side off their game. A bully expects someone to either run away or strike back, not stand there, face him and refuse to hit back. It can be an effective means of not only shaming the opposing side, but making them think.

Which is why I hate seeing reports on the news about violence "in God's name" from groups who think they get brownie points with the man upstairs for inflicting the most damage.

[Cyia]

I do have a question, though. You wrote that "some times a Killer must die" -- does this run counter to the Talmudic 6th commandment (thou shalt not kill/murder)-- that is, is there a circumstance in which killing is OK so long as the one being killed is a killer? Also, is that a statement of how we should act or how the universe operates (you know, something like karma)?

Also, for me, justice and loving-kindness are in no way disconnected.


amc


Murder isn't the same as legal execution. The 6th commandment forbids unlawful death, it doesn't mean things like death in battle or killing to protect one's family from an intruder.

(and there is a sort of Biblical karma if you want to think of it in those terms - reaping what you sow)

[AMCrenshaw]

And no, Jesus wasn't concerned with jail time. I meant that more in a modern sense where someone can be jailed for getting into a physical altercation even when provoked. "Turning the other cheek" and not taking that swing will keep a modern man/woman from an assault charge.

Ah, gotcha. It's true, of course.

But unfortunately (?) I think if we followed a lot of what Jesus had done, we'd end up in jail as well.


amc

[Zara Ravenwood]

I'm not a linguistic - but from what I've been told from those more flewint then I in Hebrew, the text says "thou shall not *murder*" (empathizes clearly mine.) Killing and murder aren't nessarly the same thing. One can Kill another person if they have to to save a life for example- a solder that fallows the laws of war is not comiting muder in war (though he would be if he were to brake them.)
To answer your next question- keeping in mind that Im no schoolr and may havbe this wong- According to our belives, G'd provides justice in the very end- but as humans it is our duty establish a fair Justic systme, love one another and procetet others- and our sleves. These are Reluisue reqiments as much as anything elce. We call it Takolam- healign the world (That phaese also aplise to recycling,Chairty, Socil Change, helping little old lady cross the street and any other aspcet of human to human or human to world interaction).

[AMCrenshaw]

Murder isn't the same as legal execution. The 6th commandment forbids unlawful death, it doesn't mean things like death in battle or killing to protect one's family from an intruder.

I'm not sure that is a Jewish interpretation, but thank you for the Christian one (I'm not assuming too much, am I?). I think the distinction between murder and killing is a Christian one, but I don't know that for a certainty. Be glad to get some response on that, btw.

But keeping with the Christian interpretation, I wonder what Jesus thought about going to war (and dying in battle), considering what he did before political power-- or killing to protect one's family, considering what he said and did before personal confrontation.


AMC

[AMCrenshaw]

I'm not a linguistic - but from what I've been told from those more flewint then I in Hebrew, the text says "thou shall not *murder*" (empathizes clearly mine.) Killing and murder aren't nessarly the same thing. One can Kill another person if they have to to save a life for example- a solder that fallows the laws of war is not comiting muder in war (though he would be if he were to brake them.)
To answer your next question- keeping in mind that Im no schoolr and may havbe this wong- According to our belives, G'd provides justice in the very end- but as humans it is our duty establish a fair Justic systme, love one another and procetet others- and our sleves. These are Reluisue reqiments as much as anything elce. We call it Takolam- healign the world (That phaese also aplise to recycling,Chairty, Socil Change, helping little old lady cross the street and any other aspcet of human to human or human to world interaction).



Thank you for sharing your understanding. Illuminating.


AMC

[Cyia]

It's definitely "murder" rather than kill. If you use a translation like the "Amplified Bible" which translates directly from the source material (Hebrew) and gives parenthetical expansion of every word and all of its possible meanings (as Hebrew is far more precise than English) you can get the literal meanings of the texts. The 6th commandment doesn't even have multiple meanings for the word used. It's simply "Do not commit murder".

[AMCrenshaw]

I have no background in translating the languages of the Bible-- so this is all very helpful.

What strikes me as most interesting is that Jesus was a Jew (probably a Pharisee) and yet he did not kill any human beings at all even though many were who could be seen as "deserving it" because they were murderers. The intervention of Jesus-as-God interests me because the intervention did not include violent 'justice'-- but just the opposite.


amc

[Cyia]

I have no background in translating the languages of the Bible-- so this is all very helpful.

What strikes me as most interesting is that Jesus was a Jew (probably a Pharisee) and yet he did not kill any human beings at all even though many were who could be seen as "deserving it" because they were murderers. The intervention of Jesus-as-God interests me because the intervention did not include violent 'justice'-- but just the opposite.


amc

An eye for an eye was man's law, which is why Jesus pointed that out specifically.

If you'll excuse a bit of doctrine...

When people get into the business of avenging themselves, they usurp God's authority in their lives. They not only take God's sovereignty away from Him, but they inflict damage on another of God's creations.

Pain/maiming/revenge/retribution in the human sense of "payback" isn't God's idea of justice. God's justice is to judge the action, not the person carrying it out, while people focus on the person rather than the action. That judgment (Biblically, on God's part) was carried out before the creation of man so it was never applied to man. And God doesn't want the punishment for any forbidden action to fall on any of his creations, which is why he'd rather have them repent of them.

[Zara Ravenwood]

Just as a side note Eye for an Eye dose did not have the same connotation it dose now, back then it meant "You poked it my eye- but I can't kill your whole family for it.." It was an issue of measure for measure- so people did not go over board. More over by the 2ed temple period it was enforced by monetarily restoration not vilance.

And AmCrenchaw- your most welcom. Also I'm new to this bourd so If I steep out of line someplese let me know...

[AMCrenshaw]

An eye for an eye was man's law, which is why Jesus pointed that out specifically.

If you'll excuse a bit of doctrine...

When people get into the business of avenging themselves, they usurp God's authority in their lives. They not only take God's sovereignty away from Him, but they inflict damage on another of God's creations.

Pain/maiming/revenge/retribution in the human sense of "payback" isn't God's idea of justice. God's justice is to judge the action, not the person carrying it out, while people focus on the person rather than the action. That judgment (Biblically, on God's part) was carried out before the creation of man so it was never applied to man. And God doesn't want the punishment for any forbidden action to fall on any of his creations, which is why he'd rather have them repent of them.

No need for excuse, sharing "doctrine" is what it's all about. So keep sharing...

Is there a humanist side? Can humans carry out justice? Is it ever God's will (rather than in God's name)? Also, does human justice always mean "avenging themselves?" Is there a Christ-like form of justice which is not punitive or vengeful and which can take place on earth, now?


AMC

[Cyia]

No need for excuse, sharing "doctrine" is what it's all about. So keep sharing...

Is there a humanist side? Can humans carry out justice? Is it ever God's will (rather than in God's name)? Also, does human justice always mean "avenging themselves?" Is there a Christ-like form of justice which is not punitive or vengeful and which can take place on earth, now?


AMC

(keep in mind that all Christian denominations don't hold the same beliefs on all points. I'm pretty much non-denominational, so you may get differing answers from Christians as a collective)

Anyone can do the will of God, whether they believe in God or not.

Hateful acts aren't ever the will of God, so when you hear about someone beating or killing someone in the Name of God - that's not his will. There's only one time I can remember the word "hate" being used in conjunction with God in the King James Bible - it's in reference to Esau - and the actual translation is something closer to "God loved Isaac, but was diametrically opposed to the actions of Esau"

Human justice seeks to make reparation for a suffered wrong or to grant vengeance for a suffered wrong. Again, they punish the person rather than the transgression. God's justice spares the person and condemns the action by allowing them to repent of (turn away from) it. Reparation still has to be made because the victim was harmed in some way, and that's how the legal system works. God's justice doesn't spare a man from legal justice. You're still liable for your own actions under the law, but God doesn't acknowledge the sin of a repentant heart and in an ideal world, neither would people.

Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world. People make mistakes on both sides of the law. God knows who'd commit the same transgression again, people don't, so they have to do the best with what they've got.

[Ruv Draba]

I believe that you're talking about ahimsa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa), AMC -- literally meaning 'do no harm'.

My personal philosophy (a mixture of rational materialism and transpersonalism) recognises harm-doing as an outcome of conflict, fear and ignorance. I see harm-doing as only avoidable when conflict, fear and ignorance are avoidable too. The better we can manage conflict, fear and ignorance the better we can limit the opportunities and extents of harm-doing. There's a lot that we can do personally, interpersonally and transpersonally on this front -- far more than most people realise. But even so, harm-avoidance is limited in effect.

So, supposing that we're in a situation of imminent harm. We have to decide what to do in that moment. As a rational materialist I don't generally support passivity or 'turn the other' cheek approaches in the face of imminent harm; I find them to be empty symbolic gestures more often than not. They not only fail to prevent imminent harm on many occasions; they frequently disempower you from healing existing harm and preventing future harm. (Examples on request).

I support investing in action that minimises immediate harm and the future prospect of harm, while keeping options open for doing good in the future. My biggest inspiration here is in the taoist thought underpinning disciplines like Ai ki do: spend the least effort to disarm the situation; look after the common interests and not just one's own; make a mess if you must, but no more than you must. Make reasonable endeavour to clean your mess up afterward, and be responsible and accountable for your actions.

While I prefer a peaceful and harmonious life, I don't much balk at scaring people, provoking them to anger, tripping them over, beating them up and other un-Ahimsic deeds if I feel that it will somehow prevent imminent harm. I also feel that I should be bothered every time I do such stuff -- and indeed I am. How do I know that such deeds are right and good or rightest and best? I don't. I can only make the call and then be responsible for it afterward. But equally I don't believe that passivity, cheek-turning and disobedience does much more than symbolic good much of the time.

Symbolic gestures can sometimes be powerful and effective, but a lot of the time I don't believe that they're what's needed.

[Cyia]

So, supposing that we're in a situation of imminent harm. We have to decide what to do in that moment.

Which is why there's a distinction between "kill" and "murder".

[AMCrenshaw]

ETA: I'm referring to Ahimsa the way Gandhi (http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/ahimsa.htm) did. Here is another link (http://sfr-21.org/sources/lawoflove.html) ... And another smattering of quotes (http://www.sfheart.com/Gandhi.html).


So, supposing that we're in a situation of imminent harm. We have to decide what to do in that moment. As a rational materialist I don't generally support passivity or 'turn the other' cheek approaches in the face of imminent harm; I find them to be empty symbolic gestures more often than not. They not only fail to prevent imminent harm on many occasions; they frequently disempower you from healing existing harm and preventing future harm.

I disagree that they are empty symbolic gestures. But for me, they're not passive ones either (I don't equate pacifism with passivity). Really, they teach me something, symbolically (necessarily so, because they're communicated through symbolism) that I can take into my life actively.


I support investing in action that minimises immediate harm and the future prospect of harm.


That's part of modern ahimsa, as I understand it. "Doing no harm" would be the ultimate goal or the perfected concept-- but ahimsa as a human (not divine) practice is exactly this.


AMC

[AMCrenshaw]

But equally I don't believe that passivity, cheek-turning and disobedience does much more than symbolic good much of the time.

Would you say that in Martin Luther King, Jr's case?



AMC

[Cyia]

Would you say that in Martin Luther King, Jr's case?

AMC


Or even Martin Luther. Nailing that notice to the doors was definitely a symbolic gesture, but it was also an act of non-aggression. He knew showcasing "the church's" transgressions would sit well, but he did it anyway because he believed that the entity which was supposed to be representative of God no longer represented God's will.

[AMCrenshaw]

Or even Martin Luther. Nailing that notice to the doors was definitely a symbolic gesture, but it was also an act of non-aggression. He knew showcasing "the church's" transgressions would sit well, but he did it anyway because he believed that the entity which was supposed to be representative of God no longer represented God's will.

Would not sit well, right. I referred to MLK because there are quantifiable results attached to his action-- namely that of civil rights movements in the U.S.


AMC

[Cyia]

Would not sit well, right. I referred to MLK because there are quantifiable results attached to his action-- namely that of civil rights movements in the U.S.


AMC

I know, but I thought the other Martin could use some love.

(And his action had quantifiable results as well. Beyond the creation of the Protestant movement, people started reading the texts themselves and found out that some of the things they were told - like indulgences - weren't actually in there. It's an interesting phenomena, as one of the original instructions of the old testament was that all should be literate so they could read the law themselves and not be in a position where they had to let someone else tell them what to believe.)

[AMCrenshaw]

(And his action had quantifiable results as well. Beyond the creation of the Protestant movement, people started reading the texts themselves and found out that some of the things they were told - like indulgences - weren't actually in there. It's an interesting phenomena, as one of the original instructions of the old testament was that all should be literate so they could read the law themselves and not be in a position where they had to let someone else tell them what to believe.)

True true. Especially the early Protestant movement had a long stretch of nonviolent practice. And french Protestant Jacques Ellul imo continued that particular tradition in the 20th century.


AMC

[Ruv Draba]

ETA: I'm referring to Ahimsa the way Gandhi (http://www.kamat.com/mmgandhi/ahimsa.htm) did. Here is another link (http://sfr-21.org/sources/lawoflove.html) ... And another smattering of quotes (http://www.sfheart.com/Gandhi.html).The term underpins thought in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism and presumably underpinned Gandhi's thought too. Gandhi and I differ on the legitimate uses of force, threat, deceit and fear, I suspect.

One reason that I differ on this is that I don't believe in an afterlife. It's perhaps easier to tolerate harm and bad behaviour today if you think that there's an eternity of better things waiting for you. As a materialist I believe that such tolerance is a high price to pay for intangible promises; on the other hand my transpersonalism calls for recognition that every time you use a harming action to prevent harm, you create preconditions for future harm too -- so in that regard I'm in agreement with the Buddhists etc... It ends up being a balancing act for me, which is perhaps why I prefer taoist pragmatism to Hindu/Buddhist/Jainist idealism. :)

I disagree that they are empty symbolic gestures. But for me, they're not passive ones either (I don't equate pacifism with passivity). Really, they teach me something, symbolically (necessarily so, because they're communicated through symbolism) that I can take into my life actively.Symbols can be very powerful communication and learning tools. However they help not at all when the situation doesn't call for communication or learning, but simply action. In most circumstances I can't think of a symbol that would satisfactorily stop an assault, persistent child abuse, fraud, theft, trespass or embezzlement. However I can think of numerous actions which, through either harm or its threat, would cease these offences in nearly all cases. For me the challenge is to choose one that's most effective and causes the least residual harm.


That's part of modern ahimsa, as I understand it. "Doing no harm" would be the ultimate goal or the perfected concept-- but ahimsa as a human (not divine) practice is exactly this.I don't like to call it that. I prefer to own the intention to harm or threaten if it's core to the deed. In doing so I recognise that I have to constantly question my motives if I mean to use those methods.

[Ruv Draba]

Would you say that in Martin Luther King, Jr's case?Symbols can sometimes be powerful -- Gandhi's another case and we can find others through to the present day. However I notice that while symbols can be necessary, they never seem sufficient. Symbols can work well when tied to other action; they work poorly alone.

My personal belief is that trying to change the world with symbols but without action is a form of magical thinking -- taking less responsibility than we might and hoping that others will do what we ourselves fear or loathe to do.

In practical terms for instance, I see no way to end theft by giving generously. Greed and envy can grow much faster than the accumulation of any wealth. I see no way to end violence by giving the violent new people to hit; hatred, rage and fear can grow much faster than people can heal their injuries. Symbols are good but in extremity, limits must be enforced and not simply suggested.

[AMCrenshaw]

Symbols can work well when tied to other action; they work poorly alone.


I suppose that's the point-- in terms of ahimsa or nonviolence, it can't be theory, practice, meditation, or symbolism alone. It's necessary, for effectiveness, in practical terms, to have all these working at once. I agree with them and wholeheartedly that symbols without action is a form of magical thinking.


I see no way to end theft by giving generously.

It depends what you give, doesn't it?


Symbols are good but in extremity, limits must be enforced and not simply suggested.

Daniel Berrigan, Thomas Merton, Thich Nhat Hanh, Dorothy Day, and even Albert Camus all have written about recognizing the limits of all things human-- to much of their chagrin, at first. When it seems your methods are doing no good, you have to wonder if your heads are in the clouds. Merton was certainly aware of that. And it's a necessary thing to confront. Merton wrote to Dorothy Day, that if nothing else he hoped he would be humbled. I find that fascinating because that eventual humbling didn't restrain or control his courage and outrage, but disciplined it.

Nonviolent idealism (wishes for certain absolutes) pulls practicality one way and hard rationality pulls another. We have to separate pure magical thinking from innovative (I do mean imaginative too) thinking. And my sensibility is that we need pragmatic, immediate measures in addition to our moral, aesthetic, or theoretical arguments.

I think history has shown that efforts lacking these in some way are generally failures.


amc

[Ruv Draba]

I suppose that's the point-- in terms of ahimsa or nonviolence, it can't be theory, practice, meditation, or symbolism alone. It's necessary, for effectiveness, in practical terms, to have all these working at once. I agree with them and wholeheartedly that symbols without action is a form of magical thinking.The other side of it is this: how often are symbols necessary or useful? How often are they propagating delusion? Just because a symbol is sometimes useful, does that mandate dressing up all our actions in symbols?

I'd argue not. Symbols may signify intention, but can as often obscure our true intentions. And even when they signify intention truthfully they often obscure the impacts of our deeds.

The medical dictum of "Primum non nocere" ("First, do no harm") is not a universal oath in hippocratic medicine. Even when it is considered a guiding principle, it's not always adhered to in practice. Medical practitioners frequently inflict harm in the hope that "it might do good". An example was the tonsilectomies popular in the mid 20th century. I'd argue that a blind recitation of "primum non nocere" amidst habitual practice can be more blinding than illuminating.

Likewise, I believe that using an ideal like 'ahimsa' to decorate complex moral and ethical systems like justice and social policy is likely to be misleading. Anyone who thinks that they're living by ahimsa principles may not be looking hard enough at the adverse effects their very existence has on other life. If we're eating food and someone near us is starving; if we're living in a house and someone near us isn't then our own existence is displacing someone's else's

I believe that ideals best serve specific, transient uses. Once we enshrine and idolise them, we debase them. Better, I feel, to acknowledge the harm that we inevitably do and think about how to manage that, than to pretend that we're being guided in all things by the ideal of doing none.

[Cyia]

The medical dictum of "Primum non nocere" ("First, do no harm") is not a universal oath in hippocratic medicine. Even when it is considered a guiding principle, it's not always adhered to in practice. Medical practitioners frequently inflict harm in the hope that "it might do good". An example was the tonsilectomies popular in the mid 20th century. I'd argue that a blind recitation of "primum non nocere" amidst habitual practice can be more blinding than illuminating.

An oath is only worth the morality of the man/woman who makes it and how much they value what they swear by (or how much they fear reprisal if they break the oath). I'd venture a guess that not even 1% of American doctors actually believe in the existence of Apollo, yet they're still swearing by him when they take that oath. It's an empty gesture in a sense.

[AMCrenshaw]

Just because a symbol is sometimes useful, does that mandate dressing up all our actions in symbols?

I think in terms of ahimsa, or nonviolence as also a political technique, this is a safe bet since a practitioner using all aspects in tandem will communicate to a greater number of people.

But at the same time I think you're also right: one example, the Berrigan brothers. When they stole and burned draft documents in protest of war, their act of symbolism was seen, even by some anti-war Catholics, as unintentional fear-mongering. Their chosen symbolism had something in common with the KKK (namely fire) despite what I feel were nonviolent intentions.


Anyone who thinks that they're living by ahimsa principles may not be looking hard enough at the adverse effects their very existence has on other life.

And it is useful, too, to distinguish between ahimsa-perfected and ahimsa-in-practice. Most activists and socially-engaged Buddhists I know and have read about seem to agree on this matter. Believing in an ideal and believing one is living out the ideal are two wildly different things. There has to be a sense of the goal and the willingness to say that one is not meeting or even that one can't meet it and to find plausible, even if small, compromises.

Essentially what I'm saying is that one can improve the clarity of their symbols and the effectiveness of their practices/methods. That ahimsa is not something wholly outside of rationality or rigorous thinking and questioning and re-questioning and re-working. Of course it takes some mistakes sometimes to figure out what works and what doesn't work.



AMC

[Ruv Draba]

I think in terms of ahimsa, or nonviolence as also a political technique, this is a safe bet since a practitioner using all aspects in tandem will communicate to a greater number of people.I don't think that it's demonstrated that ahimsa communicates better than other messages. All we know is that some ahmisa-messages have worked. [But so too have 'go to war' messages and 'smoke more tobacco' messages and 'our toothpaste gets you more sex' messages. :)]
And it is useful, too, to distinguish between ahimsa-perfected and ahimsa-in-practice.Ahimsa is defined as an ideal -- but as an ideal it doesn't exist. When it's not an ideal I'm not sure what it is. Two people might view 'ahimsa-in-practice' quite differently.

I'm reminded of vegetarians who say that they don't eat meat. It's true that many vegetarians take great pains to avoid eating meat, but it's also true that the US FDA (http://www.fda.gov) finds it acceptable (http://www.fda.gov/ora/compliance_ref/cpg/cpgfod/cpg585-890.htm) for 500g of tomatoes to include 4 fruit fly eggs and 1 maggot. So the likelihood of actually not having eaten some form of dead animal across a month, say, can be quite low -- even if you're deliberately trying to exclude it. This is what I mean by saying that symbols often blind us to reality.

[AMCrenshaw]

I don't think that it's demonstrated that ahimsa communicates better than other messages.

No, I'm saying that using symbolism could be a way of communicating to more people by using different methods of communication-- i.e., in pragmatic, theoretical, aesthetic, and moral terms.


Ahimsa is defined as an ideal -- but as an ideal it doesn't exist.

Ahimsa is also a strategy to bring about social change, which is I think its most glaring pragmatic element.

For me committing no violence is a personal ideal. In my daily life, I do no violence. I try to minimize the harm I do to others, in general. Slow steps, though, marked by learning the reality of my situations. Sometimes the hard way. The point being that if I don't compare my ideal to my practices, allowing them to affect one another, neither change, and that static-ness itself is contrary to reality. Ahimsa is partly defined by its ideals-- partly by its practices.


When it's not an ideal I'm not sure what it is. Two people might view 'ahimsa-in-practice' quite differently.

Well of course! But to be a painter, one has to use paint, right? It doesn't matter if the painting is on canvas, if brushes or knives or hands are used-- the size doesn't matter either. Of course there are degrees and variations of ahimsa.


btw, I like your vegetarian example; it fits and is clear.


AMC

[Ruv Draba]

I like your vegetarian example; it fits and is clear.Thanks. :)

In my daily life, I do no violence.
And doctors 'do no harm' and vegetarians 'eat no meat'. AMC, I have great respect for your sincerity, your integrity, your commitment and your erudition -- but here is where I'd like to suggest an alternative phrasing:
I'm not aware of any violence I may do.
That's the core of my argument right there. :)

[AMCrenshaw]

AMC, I have great respect for your sincerity, your integrity, your commitment and your erudition

Thank you.

I'm not aware of any violence I may do.

True. And one of the implications of my saying that is I have to (am obliged to, am urged to, am compelled to) constantly re-evaluate my actions. It's true I can't be aware 100% of all the consequences of every action, but I can try to be aware of as much as possible and to expand my learning at every opportunity-- and that's integral to the success or failure of my practice.


AMC

[Sean D. Schaffer]

In my own spiritual path, there's a debate as to whether the whole non-violence thing applies to certain situations. There is a rule in Wicca called the "Rede," which says, "If it harm none, do as you will."

The debate is not centered around the validity of the Rede, but rather around what it means when it says, "If it harm none." There are some people-- myself included-- who hold to the idea that this rule does NOT imply that we have no right to use violence if our lives are in danger or if our families' lives are at stake. If a home-invasion took place in my apartment and a man had a gun to my head, I would not say, "Excuse me while I wait for the police to handle this." I would use whatever means necessary to get the gun out of the man's hands and incapacitate him so he does not hurt me.... THEN I would call the police and have him hauled away. In such a situation, sitting there and being non-violent could get me or other people killed.

The point I'm making is, non-violence is good for a great many things, but I believe people need to decide for themselves whether or not it is good for the particular situation they're involved in. I do not believe in passively sitting by while someone tries to do harm to myself or to my loved ones.

In other words, I believe there are times when violence is necessary, times when non-violence would be detrimental to either the situation or to the person. In fact, some people have noted that when the Rede says, "If it harm none," the word "None" does imply yourself as well as others.

Just my two cents, anyway. :)

[AMCrenshaw]

In my own spiritual path, there's a debate as to whether the whole non-violence thing applies to certain situations. There is a rule in Wicca called the "Rede," which says, "If it harm none, do as you will."

The debate is not centered around the validity of the Rede, but rather around what it means when it says, "If it harm none." There are some people-- myself included-- who hold to the idea that this rule does NOT imply that we have no right to use violence if our lives are in danger or if our families' lives are at stake. If a home-invasion took place in my apartment and a man had a gun to my head, I would not say, "Excuse me while I wait for the police to handle this." I would use whatever means necessary to get the gun out of the man's hands and incapacitate him so he does not hurt me.... THEN I would call the police and have him hauled away. In such a situation, sitting there and being non-violent could get me or other people killed.

The point I'm making is, non-violence is good for a great many things, but I believe people need to decide for themselves whether or not it is good for the particular situation they're involved in. I do not believe in passively sitting by while someone tries to do harm to myself or to my loved ones.

In other words, I believe there are times when violence is necessary, times when non-violence would be detrimental to either the situation or to the person. In fact, some people have noted that when the Rede says, "If it harm none," the word "None" does imply yourself as well as others.

Just my two cents, anyway. :)


Sean,

"I do believe that, where there is only a choice between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence....I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honour than that she should, in a cowardly manner, become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonour. But I believe that nonviolence is infinitely superior to violence, forgiveness is more manly than punishment. Forgiveness adorns a soldier...But abstinence is forgiveness only when there is the power to punish; it is meaningless when it pretends to proceed from a helpless creature.... But I do not believe India to be helpless....I do not believe myself to be a helpless creature....Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will."

-- Gandhi


He also wrote that a movement of nonviolent men and women would be built of imperfect people, who would get angry, are violated, and sometimes need to defend themselves. I'm finding it takes real courage to distinguish between when violence is "necessary". Most hypothetical situations I riddle myself with generally spell my doom no matter what. I realized I could die a coward even if I tried to fight.



AMC

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Just so you know, AMC, I looked over my post again shortly after I read yours, and I realize I might have come across as a bit sarcastic. If that is the case, I humbly apologize for that, because I did not intend my post to sound like that. :)

My original intent with the post was more to indicate that I believe, like you quoted Gandhi as saying, in a more balanced approach to the whole non-violence versus violence thing. Whenever I've been presented with the issue of "Turn the other cheek," it's always been a one-sided argument that told me to never defend myself and basically let other people walk all over me. This was presented to me within my former spiritual path, and that's the only position I'd ever been taught prior to the path I presently follow. That's the background of where I was coming from when I wrote my earlier post, and I did not intend to sound like a preachy, arrogant guy who believed that everybody here was somehow preaching non-violence in every single situation presented to them.

I just wanted to let you know that, in case you thought I was being a jerk. That was the farthest thing from my mind when I wrote my post. :)

[Cyia]

In a situation where there's a life (or physical injury) on the line, there's no choice that leads to "no harm". Doing nothing will still lead to harm in some form or other, as the person will still feel violated and may be relieved of property or worse.

[Sean D. Schaffer]

In a situation where there's a life (or physical injury) on the line, there's no choice that leads to "no harm". Doing nothing will still lead to harm in some form or other, as the person will still feel violated and may be relieved of property or worse.



Hence the debate I mentioned in my first post. Some Wiccans talk about the 'Harm None' issue as though it is to be taken absolutely literally-- much like the church I was raised in believed that the Bible had to be taken absolutely literally in every single circumstance. A good example of this is the attitude that because the Bible says, "Obey your parents in all things," a child is therefore required to obey his/her parents if they tell him/her to sin or break the law.... and if they don't do it, they're sinning against God. I do not believe in taking words like the Golden Rule or the Wiccan Rede as absolute fact in every single circumstance, because frankly, like several here have pointed out, it just does not make sense to do so.

[AMCrenshaw]

Just so you know, AMC, I looked over my post again shortly after I read yours, and I realize I might have come across as a bit sarcastic. If that is the case, I humbly apologize for that, because I did not intend my post to sound like that. :)

My original intent with the post was more to indicate that I believe, like you quoted Gandhi as saying, in a more balanced approach to the whole non-violence versus violence thing. Whenever I've been presented with the issue of "Turn the other cheek," it's always been a one-sided argument that told me to never defend myself and basically let other people walk all over me. This was presented to me within my former spiritual path, and that's the only position I'd ever been taught prior to the path I presently follow. That's the background of where I was coming from when I wrote my earlier post, and I did not intend to sound like a preachy, arrogant guy who believed that everybody here was somehow preaching non-violence in every single situation presented to them.

I just wanted to let you know that, in case you thought I was being a jerk. That was the farthest thing from my mind when I wrote my post. :)

No worries, Sean. Gandhi said much of the same, I think. In general, too, Gandhi condemns passivity and cowardice much more than people defending their dignity.

In a situation where there's a life (or physical injury) on the line, there's no choice that leads to "no harm". Doing nothing will still lead to harm in some form or other, as the person will still feel violated and may be relieved of property or worse.

Yes, especially in interpersonal situations. It's true too, however, that in a lot of these hypothetical situations, defending yourself with force is bound to end as badly (especially in non-interpersonal situations, like war or ethnic cleansing).

The "debate" around nonviolence is generally a good one, but I've found that few people want to use violence to resolve conflict. What exactly is the point? I think we should remember always that ahimsa is a way of life distinct from pacifism, though there is theoretically much overlapping.

AMC

[Higgins]

True true. Especially the early Protestant movement had a long stretch of nonviolent practice. And french Protestant Jacques Ellul imo continued that particular tradition in the 20th century.


AMC

There were some non-violent Protestant sects, but a more active set of Protestants were about as violent as early modern armies can get. As Henry of Navarre said before Ivry:

Companions! If you today run at risk with me, I will also run at risk with you; I will be victorious or die. God is with us. Look at his and our enemies. Look at your king. Hold your ranks, I beg of you; and if the heat of battle makes you leave them, think also of rallying back: therein lies the key to victory. You will find it among those three trees that you can see over there on your right side. If you lose your ensigns, cornets or flags, do never lose sight of my panache; you will always find it on the road to honour and victory

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ivry

[Sean D. Schaffer]

Quick question, AMC: Is the word you're using "Ahisma" or "Ahimsa?" *Looks at the title of the thread.*

I'd like to Google it if I could. :)

[Certain_Entropy]

I think he meant ahimsa or the philosophy of nonviolence. Its a sanskrit work and consitst of two parts. "A" means not and "himsa" mean violence. So not-violence or nonviolence translated.

BTW real interesting discussion so far.

[AMCrenshaw]

There were some non-violent Protestant sects, but a more active set of Protestants were about as violent as early modern armies can get.


Not to mention 1) the Zen-impacted Bushido and 2) swell of references to Buddhist texts justifying Japanese entrance into WWII



AMC

[Jesudas Baba]

Ahimsa is often very misunderstood by those who are not deeply involved with the spiritual practice it comes from. The conversation in this thread is a perfect example of this misunderstanding.


Often it is believed to be an external action, when in fact it has nothing to do with the people who may externally benefit.


It is primarily a tool to guide the practitioner to a higher level of Truth. Part of the Truth that is being shown here is that all violence begins in the mind of the individual, and that it only be by the discontinuation of violence in the individual mind that violence in general can be eliminated. It also shows (after extended practice, I might add!) we are all connected, and what we do to anyone else is also done to ourselves.


I have noticed that as I reduce the level of violence within my thoughts, the level of violence in the world immediately around me reduces.


Ahimsa does not state “Do no harm to others so that they may be safe and so those who do harm others will learn the error of their ways!”


No, instead it says “Do no harm to others so that you may find God!”


The question is constantly debated – Where do you draw the line? In what situation does the practice of ahimsa become impractical? Should one not act if there is a dangerous situation?


The answer, according to ahimsa is absolute - Line is drawn at the very formation of a violent thought...don't do it! Ahimsa is ultimately practical to those who recognize material suffering to be illusory. Show me a material situation that isn't dangerous! The body is designed to die, but we are not.


There have been many fine examples given, even in this thread, of cases where putting non-violence into practice could conceivably cause another harm. Please note that in the preceding sentence I use the term “non-violence” rather than “ahimsa.” This is because ahimsa and non-violence are not the same! It is common for ahimsa to be thought of in material terms, intended to benefit society in general, but that is simply non-violence. Ahimsa is in fact a spiritual activity, intended to benefit the practitioner first, with society being a fringe beneficiary.


This attitude may seem selfish, but those of us who practice it realize, having actually observed it in action, that there really is only one mind, not many, and that which heals any one of us actually heals us all!


I know I make some statements here that may seem like I am trying to present an absolute as to how the universe and God work, and I apologize for that. Not wanting to offend anyone. I am merely attempting to provide the point of view that comes from having been a Yogi for the last 33 years.:Shrug:

[AMCrenshaw]

Often it is believed to be an external action, when in fact it has nothing to do with the people who may externally benefit.

I've always thought of ahimsa as an internal, spiritual practice and nonviolent resistance (satyagraha) as an external practice that stems from that spiritual sensinility. In that way I

Then again I'm an atheist but ahimsa is a great part of my spiritual life.




AMC

[Ruv Draba]

The chief cause of violence is a desire to violate, to have my 'I'-ness clobber your 'You'-ness. It doesn't have to be physical; violence can be psychological or social in nature. If I intimidate you then it's a violation of your sense of safety. If I shred your reputation, then it's a violation of your belonging.

Uncontrolled violence arises from fear, hate, and indignation and I think that those things arise for different reasons.

Our basic fears are wired into us, but we compound them by worrying about the future. We rehearse crises and catastrophes, cripple ourselves, stunt our courage. We worry too much.

Our hate grows from ideals thwarted. It's the cancerous progeny of an hedonistic, infantile demand that the world should delight us.

Our outrage is an outgrowth of our struggle not to be neglected, to matter. To mean something.

If we want to reduce the violence we inflict, then we can do so by worrying less, accepting the unpleasant and inconvenient, and reducing our sense of self-importance. If we do that, we may feel more at peace, more connected with people. It's probably good for our health, and it's certainly good for our relationships. If we do it a lot we might even persuade ourselves that all life is in harmony. But I think that's taking things too far.

We'll certainly live more harmonious lives for doing that, but I think that the belief that 'all life is in harmony; there is just a single mind' -- that is also an ideal. Ideals are an infantile desire that life please us. By 'infantile' I mean that they begin in infancy.

If we get too caught up in the ideal of harmony then we can overlook some otherwise obvious facts: it's not terribly beautiful, but life works just fine at times by violating its parts in deliberate, controlled or directed ways.

Creatures use controlled violation all the time to send strong messages to one another. Irritate a dog, and it will growl at you -- a directed threat meant to intimidate you, make you reconsider. Irritate it more and it will nip you -- a controlled physical violation that nevertheless contains an implicit respect for your life and function. Provoke it further and it will maul you and eventually let you go -- inflicting injuries from which you might recover, but won't quickly forget. Provoke it to utter outrage and it will try and kill you. Humans sometimes do the same.

Many humane acts contain acts of controlled violence. I'm trained as a rescue diver. Panicked, drowning people are a threat to themselves and their rescuers. There are a limited number of non-violent ways to save a panicked diver, and you use those for preference. Then there's a range of violent means you need to hold in reserve, to save the diver and yourself. But the aim is to control and direct them -- otherwise you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Likewise if you ever try and protect someone else from violence, there are non-violent means of doing that, but then there are controlled, violent means that one holds in reserve.

It's possible to deliver violence in a deliberate, controlled way, and part of the trick is not to apply it from a place of fear, hate or indignation. The other part is to make it so effective that you don't need much of it in the first place. Many animals are better at this than most humans. A dog's nip may not injure us much, but the way it delivers it is so shocking that it's very effective. A dog has learned to apply a small amount of violence in way that sends a message more eloquent than most politicians can manage.

Well-socialised dogs have very little trouble in protecting their loved-ones and keeping other dogs from violating them. Humans however, take much longer to socialise and it doesn't always take. We're plagued by neuroses that make us fearful and resentful; psychoses that make us arrogant and hateful; ludicrous beliefs about our importance and our entitlements. Our violence is often excessive or ineffective, and even our non-violence is ineffective.

My suggestion: learn effective non-violence; don't just learn passivity. Also learn effective violence. Learn the moral differences between hurt and harm: physically, psychologically, socially. Learn to live harmoniously, sure. But also learn adult responsibilities.

[Jesudas Baba]

Howdy!

I've always thought of ahimsa as an internal, spiritual practice and nonviolent resistance (satyagraha) as an external practice that stems from that spiritual sensinility.

AMC

That is more correct as far as the practice of ahimsa goes than the common misunderstanding.

True ahimsa, however, is less a practice in and of itself than it is a natural outgrowth of spiritual practice. The Hindu tradition took the positive attributes it found among the "holy" men and expanded them into "principles" and "practices," ignoring the fact that what produced those effects in holy men was something else entirely!

Thus, ahimsa is an attribute and not an ideal, as it has been mistakenly understood to be, although the practice of ahimsa can lead to development of the attribute. Those who hold it as an ideal will always be disappointed. No matter how much of the attribute they have developed.