"I know, unwaveringly, that violence is never the solution to humanity's problems, and that the real solution resides in the ethic and value of nonviolence. Nonviolence is not to be confused, however, with being passive or complacent. Passivity --like its opposite, aggression-- is a behavior of those controlled and dominated by fear. I also know that a committment to nonviolence requires an almost complete overhaul of our conditioned nature. It requires us to live differently.
Ultimately, all responsibility and all action begin with the individual, and so it is here that we must start. In its simplest form, nonviolence is rooted in knowing that we have the capacity to act violently and consciously choosing not to do so. Nonviolence is not succumbing to the sense of helplessness that has us decide, again and again, either actively of passively, to support the use of violence as an effective form of conflict resolution. Nonviolence means standing up for truth and compassion in the midst of confrontation -- and doing so without aggression.
As a soldier trained and seasoned in the savagery of war, I make a concerted effort, when talking and writing about war and violence, to be direct and succinct. Contrary to pessimistic or fatalistic opinion, war is not inevitable. Conflict is inevitable, but the degeneration of conflict into slaughter, mayhem, and the abject abandonment of truth is not."
- excerpt from At Hell's Gate: A Soldier's Journey from War to Peace, by Claude Anshin Thomas
Posted by xta at September 29, 2004 10:02 PM | TrackBackI was thinking, just this evening, where I would "stand" on active self-defense. If someone were assaulting me, would my principles of non-violence hold sway? Or would I, perhaps, be inspired to kick an assailant in the knee or nads, or give a poke to the eyes? None of these things are lethal, of course, but they do harm.
In the end, I suspect that my general wimpy self would fall to the ground and thrash about attempting to block harm in meaningless defensive protest. That reaction would probably trump any "thinking" about nonviolent principles.
Posted by: Phil at September 30, 2004 08:38 PMi don't know how i'd react either, phil. i think we all have a basic instinct to defend ourselves... but to what degree i'd defend myself (or my loved ones; i can't imagine using violence to protect my property) i don't know.
the larger overall concept that thomas addresses seems to be one simply of *awareness*. our actions are inevitably going to causing harm to others... what's important is how we deal with that reality:
"when i drink a glass of water, i realize that i am killing microorganisms in the water. the moment i see myself as separate from those microorganisms, as better than they are, i start creating a hierarchy, and then what i did in vietnam, where i saw the vietnamese as less than human, is only a few steps away.
"but i have to drink water to stay alive. so what do i do? my practice then is to drink the water with the conscious awareness of the ramifications of my action. i take each sip of water with the reverence it deserves."
forgive me... i know these are among the most basic tenets of buddhism and are not new concepts to many readers. it's the larger context of this man's personal journey that makes me think so deeply about this right now.
Posted by: christa at October 1, 2004 12:32 AMhere's another quote:
"nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. you not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him."
-martin luther king, jr.