Violent Behaviour........

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
1

I had a conversation with a friend of mine yesterday and I would like to get your oprinions…I know this can be a weird subject, but lets face it, alot of you are wierd…

I am not a violent person by any means, I have never started a fight, only been in one since high school and I defended myself well without having to hurt the other guy. However, I did Serve in the USMC, and while I was there, I knew that if it came down to it I could kill my opponent if I had to. Now, I was on FAST, so most of the guys I would have to kill would have been bad people, from my point of view, terrorist, etc…people who have violated the rights of others. Anyway, with all that has gone on in the world lately, the issue of violemce, whether through retaliation, religious fervor, or what have you, has cropped up a lot. Anyway, I have always looked at myself as a peaceful person, except that violence is in no way out of the question when it has to be done. Does this make me a bad person?
The way I look at it is this - there are extreme people out there, and they sometimes do extreme things, when they do, you sometimes need someone willing to also go to extremes to defend themselves, or thier loved ones, or even sometimes just the things they believe in.
I have been studying buddhism and obviouly have been questioning my attitudes towards these things and would like to hear other opinions on the subject.

2

I think your opinion is very realistic, noble, and doesn’t contradict with peace at all. “Good guys” need people like you to protect.
Questioning yourself is great, and keeps you healthy when it comes to your motivations, etc. But I wouldn’t change your opinion. I think it’s the right one.

Ryu

3

I am a very laid back person, and I would rather not get into a fight EVER if I can avoid it, BUT I believe that in a situation where your /family member/ loved ones life/health is threatened you are justified in using extreme violence to nullify the threat.

Fair enough I think…

4

Thanks for your opinions so far guys, to clarify something as well, I do not think there is necessarily a right or a wrong way to look at this. I dont believe that someone has to fight, and I dont believe they are worng for fighting.
I have always told my wife that if it ever came down to me or someone else, or her and someone else, or anyone else I care about (including your average innocent bystander) and someone else it was not going to be the aggressor that comes out if I have anything to do with it.

5

in certain situations, you would be a WORSE person if you weren’t violent. some of those situations have been mentioned (family member, friend, etc. in danger). some times these situations are a little easier to distinguish than others, particularly if you are a police officer, soldier, etc. protecting the citizenry. being a Christian, it is harder for me to come up with a theoretical answer for if i was personally attacked and the i was the only conceivable victim (turn the other cheek and all that).

Wang Si Zhong

6

The Dalai Lama will say that u can never use violence. ( I think) Does this make him a ‘bad’ person? I think not. But I agree with red, u should act if u can save others etc etc..

Never hesitate to do the right thing!

7

honorable thoughts, red5angel

You’re not a bad person. Listen to yourself.
What is happening is complicated. These horrible world events have made us all realize that serious violence, in an organized sense, has made it thru the door, even knocked down a couple of buildings and those within. While defending here has mostly translated to individual thugs, small gangs, the current situation makes the common citizen think in terms of more widespread defense, with the innocent sometimes being in the wrong place at the wrong time, with it being difficult to tell the innocent from the perps.
It gets complicated as to why certain people will support a violent cause and whether all kinds of supporters should be seen as identical to the ones who commit the acts. How to separate the person from the belief that the violence they are supporting or doing is right. There is no time to consider this, and defense is primary aim for now. The violence as such (9/11) smells of something very bad, but the figuring of where that is and isn’t is not as easy as one might suppose, especially when in a retaliatory state of mind. It’s a mess.
I like your independent ways, and that you are looking at what other people believe. IMO a belief is just that, and if one resonates with it and understands what is being said and examines the reasoning as a whole, fine. Self development can be done with or without such allegiance. It’s up to each person. When that mental autonomy ceases to be the case, I would question it. You understand?

take care,
Cody

8

i agree with each person’s assessment thus far, and i’ll add one more thing:

think of it in a term of scales – what would be better, someone being victimized during a crime, or somone helping the victim even at the cost of harm to the criminal? the vast majority of cultures in this world believe strongly in the principle of “helping the innocent.” they also believe in bringing those who do wrong to justice (how you define justice is another issue). with the latter, it’s expected that a certain amount of rights that the criminal has will be tread upon in order to protect those who are innocent, as well as punishing them for wrongdoing. keep these basic principles in mind, then apply them:

you see a little granny get her purse snatched on the street. it’s not uncommon to want to help her get her purse back. but if you have to chase down the thief and pulp up his noggin with a lead pipe to get it, is it justifiable? is the amount of good your doing in returning the purse to granny equal or greater than the amount of harm done to the guy whose mental goodies are spilling out on the street?

compare that to you walking by an alley and seeing a perv trying to sexually assault a 10-year-old girl. would it you be justified in rearranging his grill with your elbow? would the amount of good done by getting the child away from the situation be equal or greater than the harm done to a person’s dental work?

although the answers seem obvious, they might not be. it’s not my place or anyone else’s to tell you what’s right (again, justice is a different topic). my sisok often tells us “your circumstances dictate your response.” you seem like a swell enough chap to know the basics of right and wrong. so stick with what you know and hope, along with the rest of us, that there are more people out there like you that actually give a darn.

9

nicely said rubbthebuddha, it is always circumstantial. When I joined the Marines, I wasnt sure I could kill someone just because my country and his country might disagree on some things. On an anti-terrorist team, atleast the people I may have gone up against would have been violating someones human rights and threatening life in ways I do not consider acceptable.
In every situation you have to consider the consequences and the necessary actions. For instance the guy who chased those car burglers in england, it really wasnt necessary, they got away, no real damage done.
Cody, if I understand you correclty, you are talking about free thinking, thinking for yourself?

10

the way i see it is; while protecting your loved ones is a good action

harming the aggressor is a bad action

so even though the means are good - your still performing a bad action, and must accept the consequences

however, your also performing a good action, and must accept the concequences of that

realize the fact that you have to accept the consequences of the bad action, and do it to protect your loved ones, adds another layer of good to this

but thats probably as good as it will get; in the end you always have to accept the consequences of the harm you cause to others

however, letting the aggressor harm your family is also a bad action :slight_smile:

its a lose lose situation; so in the end you have to pick the one that causes the least amount of suffering

peace
travis

11

I’m still reading that Ratti and Westbrook book “Secrets of the Samurai” and they had a passage that related to what you’re talking about. I don’t have the book in front of me so I’ll have to paraphrase. Basically they were quoting old manuals and masters that looked at non-violence as an excuse for people to ignore the injustices of the world. They had buddhist, daoist, and confucian quotes to back up the statement that “peace” sometimes is a disguise to allow you to ignore injustice and brutallity.

Nonviolence and passivity allow things like the WTC attack to happen. Look at WWI and WWII for more examples of the results of inaction and compliance. Peace is only ideal in an ideal world.

12

Bushido tenents include the phrase “The sword that strikes down evil is the life giving sword.”

Nothing too stunning until you think about what a sword is for: taking life. It’s a weapon. So how can it “give life”. Only by destroying evil.

We must be the same way. Weapons, against evil.

IGeeze, sound like Watchman.

JWT

13

i think there must be different concepts of violence at work here
without trying to speak for everyone, i’m pretty sure everyone agrees that instigating violence is bad and should be avoided (don’t you get extra penalty minutes for instigating in hockey Kung Fu Guy!?)
on the other hand, many people on the forum seem to be challenging ralek to fights, whether he backs down or not.

anyway, its the response to the violence that we’re talking about.

plus just about everyone here has been training in a martial (war) art at one point or another (even if it is from gracie cd roms). so unless you’re studying purely for health benefits and avoid sparring like the plague (or putting it off a week at a time depending on what the powers that control you have to say about it), everyone here is participating, or has participated, or is preparing to possibly participate in some sort of violence.

the point is, even if the dalai lama is against all forms of violence, it seems obvious that no one here is a total pacifist. i don’t think any of us would want our justice system based on the honour system, unless the police force was run by Chief Wiggum.

in a practical situation, ideals don’t always have the final say. it was the buddhists who came up with kung fu in the first place right? so even some buddhists will agree that sometimes violence is warranted. heck, just about every kung fu movie in existence is based on a violent revenge plot (relax, its a hyperbole).

so the question should probably what is your limit to violence?
if you have been in a violent situation, what drove you to the violence you contributed? would you have done anything differently?
i think its more practical to ask what HAVE you done than what WOULD you do.

but then, i might be wrong…

Wang Si Zhong

14

good thread everyone!

one more thing to consider – if you do nothing to help someone, you also are stuck with the wonderful feeling of knowing that they’re continued harm was an indirect result of you having qualms with violence.

so what is worse: knowing that someone’s a little bit uglier or may not dance for six months because of your mad skills, or knowing that the rape you read about in the paper on sunday morning could be listed as a thwarted rape had you not struggled with the moral dilemma and walked away from it on saturday night.

i know. i’m losing objectivity. so i’ll admit it – the idea of NEVER causing harm doesn’t sit well with me, because i feel that ignoring someone doing great harm in order to keep your own slate clean is far worse than uglifying someone to protect someone who can’t protect themself. it’s selfish, because you’re putting someone else’s well-being above your own conscience.

and yes, i know that i’m leaving some gaping holes in this argument, but there it sits anyway.

15

rubthebuddha

No holes, just the truth.

16

Thinking for one’s self.

Yes! That is the crux of it. Finding out who you are and not conforming to a belief idealization, like one of Cinderella’s sisters trying to jam her foot into the royal shoe. If the shoe fits, wear it. If not, get over the guilt and on with the journey. But, even if the shoe feels comfy, never give up as much of an independent mindset that is one’s self as you can. Weigh your decisions in terms of your belief system, and in terms of how you really feel, allowing yourself to feel. If there is a discrepancy, don’t gloss over, or assume you are unworthy. Re-invent the wheel if that is what you need to do. Respect people’s hearts.

The talk of consequences is too neat. I seem to be running into the Newton-Determinism-Karma triangle wherever I go lately. In my view, admittedly limited, the matter (whether inanimate objects bouncing off each other, or human beings interacting physically or emotionally, or beings interacting in the realm of the invisible sometimes made visible) is much more complex than what goes around comes around. For one thing, the people interaction is not equivalent to inanimate objects, except on a very elementary level. I do not believe in Determinism; I need to leave room for randomness, chaos. Hence, I do not believe that every human action has a predictable reaction along the lines given. If one harms to defend, I don’t think that yields eventual harm to the defender. If one harms no one, I don’t think that protects from harm. If one does nothing, particularly when the means are immediately at hand, to save another out of not wanting to do harm, I do not see merit to this. I see fear or enslavement. My view.

If I am attacked, or a friend, or a stranger, and I take it upon myself to attack likewise, I would have already thought of the consequences to my spiritual heart. For instance, if I am merely being bullied, I won’t harm. This is something I’ve experienced. So, I know what I’ll do. I have distilled this, so far, to a single element. If at any time I take pleasure in the suffering of another human being, no matter what the person has done, I will have failed. There is a solemn sadness in the heart when serious defensive measures are required. That is how I feel.

I think it is possible that the success of MA in ancient religious communities was not due to the moral rightness of the teachings, but to the focus and determination and perseverance that was part of their practice of their beliefs. In effect, the spiritual foundation for martial arts prowess was in place and, physical training made it material to the degree of the individual’s potential.
To be honest, I don’t know about the evolution of energy circulation as part of religious practice, before MA training was introduced. I would think that the notions of the mind not stopping and being taken by this or that would precede it in time, but I don’t know. It is simpler, different. Yet, related to the use of refined energy.

Cody

17

Good reply Cody, I think you and I view this the same way. I see morality as a thing necessary for civilization, and not a universal truth. Morals are subjective, and it is our culture that mainly decides what is right and wrong. To work against those sometimes causes us problems but I do believe that society is not always right in what it deems right or wrong.
I am not saying there is no reasoin we should not go out and do anything we want to, a good golden rule is do unto others… I believe it is basically where morality got started. No one wants to be killed really, no one wants to be cheated on or robbed or what ever happens to be wrong in your society, so they perpetuate themselves through self preservation. I believe in a general respect for all human life, but even nature has its cruel side, when the lion runs down the gazelle, we do not call it murder.

18

good reply Rub, a few months ago I was confronted with a situation. There was a guy asleep in a nearby park. I was walking to work, it was early in the morning, and as I walked past these three younger gentleman, I heard them talking about checking him out. I wasnt sure what this meant but as I walked by, one o fthem handed the other a backpack and then turned around, walking behind me, both of us approaching this sleeping man. I got the sinking feeling that this wasnt a good thing. I didnt want to turn to confront him directly, I didnt think it was necessary, and both guys were larger than I. I sat down on the bench and woke the guy up. The kid approaching stopped in his tracks, eyed me and cursed. This situation could have gone several ways, and I put myself in a situation that could have gone bad for me, but I was willing to take that chance so this guy didnt get hurt, in essence, I chose to, he did not.

19

From all that I’ve read about the Dalai Lama, I don’t think he’d say to stand idly by while innocents suffer. That is much worse karma than taking on the violent act in order to protect them.

Ryu

20

Umm

There are so many good points here, I don’t want to repeat anyone, but the way I see it is that I will use force:

*When every other alternative has been tried
*When it is absolutely necessary
*Only against a person who is a threat [to myself or others]

e.g: If a granny got her handbag snatched, I would chase the guy and take him down, but retrieving the bag would be my mission, not caving in his skull.

Necessary force and all that…

Just my POV :slight_smile: