Nonviolence absolute?

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums
ahmedk
Posts: 26
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2010 7:08 pm

Nonviolence absolute?

Post by ahmedk » Thu Nov 25, 2010 9:31 am

Or, is it understood in a relative sense?

Isn't Christian/Gandhian nonviolence an absolute principle, meaning we can't make it conditional and we have to be nonviolent at all times? I have no trouble being nonviolent when someone is attacking me, but what if someone else is being attacked?

So I've come to the conclusion that we have to be absolutely nonviolent when we're being tormented and harassed. But when others are being harassed, we have to help them (because they may not believe in our absolute nonviolence).

I hope that makes sense. At least, this is how I see Christian nonviolence, which was later on developed by Mahatma Gandhi.

Ahmed

User avatar
Marcel Franke
Posts: 655
Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:28 pm

Re: Nonviolence absolute?

Post by Marcel Franke » Thu Nov 25, 2010 10:55 am

When there is a certain urge rising to react,
and there is a moral of non-reaction also,
then there is already violence.
---ooOoo---

User avatar
Mouse
Posts: 377
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 1:15 pm
Location: Kyogle, Australia

Re: Nonviolence absolute?

Post by Mouse » Thu Nov 25, 2010 11:39 am

Nonviolence is a reaction to the violence in the subsconscious, so it is conditional. It is based on the condition of violence.
I have been inspired by Barry Long's teaching and I write this so as to acknowledge my source of inspiration. It is a wonderful help, and it is a wonderful gift.

User avatar
eputkonen
Posts: 496
Joined: Fri Sep 05, 2008 4:53 pm
Location: Saint Petersburg, FL
Contact:

Re: Nonviolence absolute?

Post by eputkonen » Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:10 pm

ahmedk wrote:Or, is it understood in a relative sense?

Isn't Christian/Gandhian nonviolence an absolute principle, meaning we can't make it conditional and we have to be nonviolent at all times? I have no trouble being nonviolent when someone is attacking me, but what if someone else is being attacked?

So I've come to the conclusion that we have to be absolutely nonviolent when we're being tormented and harassed. But when others are being harassed, we have to help them (because they may not believe in our absolute nonviolence).

I hope that makes sense. At least, this is how I see Christian nonviolence, which was later on developed by Mahatma Gandhi.

Ahmed
Gandhi would help when another was attacked, but not through violence. Violence was never the answer for Gandhi. For Gandhi, nonviolence was an absolute principle at all times. Can you not think of a way to help someone who is being attacked without using violence yourself? For Gandhi, the answer may be taking the blows himself...shielding the other by taking the blows directly.
Namaste,

~ Eric Putkonen
@EngagedNondual on Twitter
https://www.youtube.com/EricPutkonen

User avatar
gen6
Posts: 380
Joined: Mon Jan 11, 2010 4:22 pm
Location: Europe

Re: Nonviolence absolute?

Post by gen6 » Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:23 am

Gandhi would help when another was attacked, but not through violence. Violence was never the answer for Gandhi. For Gandhi, nonviolence was an absolute principle at all times. Can you not think of a way to help someone who is being attacked without using violence yourself? For Gandhi, the answer may be taking the blows himself...shielding the other by taking the blows directly.
Using his body as a live shield, it's a wonder he's still alive :D Otherwise the only way to help another without using violence when violence is being used on the victim is to call for help (other people, police etc) who will use the violence instead of you :lol:
ahmedk wrote:Or, is it understood in a relative sense?

Isn't Christian/Gandhian nonviolence an absolute principle, meaning we can't make it conditional and we have to be nonviolent at all times? I have no trouble being nonviolent when someone is attacking me, but what if someone else is being attacked?

So I've come to the conclusion that we have to be absolutely nonviolent when we're being tormented and harassed. But when others are being harassed, we have to help them (because they may not believe in our absolute nonviolence).

I hope that makes sense. At least, this is how I see Christian nonviolence, which was later on developed by Mahatma Gandhi.


Ahmed
It's in relative sense, otherwise humanity would quickly vanish and only the Self will remain lol 8) There will be always people who use violence, we are animals, it's our nature, so you suppose that those who use violence to be let doing so? Do you have any idea what will this lead to? :lol: It's going to be like...hmmm....I don't quite like the way you talk to me - boom, your dead, a shotgun just blew your head off. Hmm what? You cannot borrow me the money? Come on only 10,000 USD? NO? Ok, you know what, I don't like the way you refuse, boom, your dead, Desert Eagle just blew your head off. :lol: There is no way to stop violence, without using violence :idea: To put somebody in a jail is also violence...
So you have no trouble being nonviolent when somebody is attacking you? Well...you have to change that unless at some point you want your children and wife to be left without a father, do you want that? Family vs Absolute non violence. This whole absolute non violence thing is one big EPIC FAIL.
Live as if nothing and everything matters at the same time.

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Nonviolence absolute?

Post by enigma » Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:44 am

How many blows (or bullets) does it take to remove a non-violent obstacle? Violence will always trump nonviolence on the battlefield. Nonviolence is an ethical conviction, not a way to keep anybody from getting hurt. As with all moral convictions, it comes with it's own dilemmas.

karmarider
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: Nonviolence absolute?

Post by karmarider » Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:05 pm

Gandhi would help when another was attacked, but not through violence. Violence was never the answer for Gandhi. For Gandhi, nonviolence was an absolute principle at all times. Can you not think of a way to help someone who is being attacked without using violence yourself? For Gandhi, the answer may be taking the blows himself...shielding the other by taking the blows directly.
... This whole absolute non violence thing is one big EPIC FAIL.
enigma wrote:How many blows (or bullets) does it take to remove a non-violent obstacle? Violence will always trump nonviolence on the battlefield. Nonviolence is an ethical conviction, not a way to keep anybody from getting hurt. As with all moral convictions, it comes with it's own dilemmas.
Gandhi did not have a non-violent answer for Hitler. During the war, he stopped all resistance towards the British and encouraged Indians to help towards the war effort in certain capacities.

I can't imagine a non-violent solution to Hitler.

So, yes non-violence has its own dilemmas.

User avatar
smiileyjen101
Posts: 3750
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Nonviolence absolute?

Post by smiileyjen101 » Tue Nov 30, 2010 12:29 am

I can't imagine a non-violent solution to Hitler.
Without money and men to use the guns Hitler would have just had an idea.

The non-violent solution to violent ideas is to choose not to participate.

To choose love over fear.

Hitler's propaganda was fear based. So too are all the ideas of war.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Nonviolence absolute?

Post by enigma » Tue Nov 30, 2010 2:25 am

Violent ideas are a snap to deal with cuz ideas never killed anybody.

enigma
Posts: 1067
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:51 am

Re: Nonviolence absolute?

Post by enigma » Tue Nov 30, 2010 2:55 am

Over the weekend, here in downtown Portland during a Christmas tree lighting ceremony, a teenager pulled out his cell phone and dialed the number that was programmed to detonate a van full of explosives which was parked in the middle of the crowd. It didn't work, so he calmly dialed it again. His stated 'idea' was: "I want whoever is attending that event to leave, to leave dead or injured."

The van didn't blow up because it was owned by the FBI and there weren't really any explosives in it. Tragedy was averted and nobody got so much as a scratch, and I say well done, but what if the circumstances had been different? What if the danger had been real and I were on a rooftop with a rifle and had to make a last second decision? What would love do? I don't know if I could say, but regretfully, and with respect to Gandhi, I'm quite sure I would pull the trigger. How could I not?

This is what I mean when I say moral values come with their own dilemmas.

karmarider
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: Nonviolence absolute?

Post by karmarider » Tue Nov 30, 2010 3:18 am

smiileyjen101 wrote:
I can't imagine a non-violent solution to Hitler.
Without money and men to use the guns Hitler would have just had an idea.

The non-violent solution to violent ideas is to choose not to participate.

To choose love over fear.

Hitler's propaganda was fear based. So too are all the ideas of war.
Sounds good, but Hitler did have the men and money and will. Per Enigma's example below, if you could have violently killed Hitler or Genghis Khan or Kublai Khan or Idi Amin, would you or would you not?

Even Gandhi did not have a clear solution. He said he would not oppose the British war effort.

In real life, few of of us are ever faced with these choices. When I was young, my family lived in Uganda and we barely escaped Idi Amin's rampage. I would have been perfectly okay with killing Idi Amin before or after.

User avatar
smiileyjen101
Posts: 3750
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Nonviolence absolute?

Post by smiileyjen101 » Tue Nov 30, 2010 4:26 am

Sounds good, but Hitler did have the men and money and will. Per Enigma's example below, if you could have violently killed Hitler or Genghis Khan or Kublai Khan or Idi Amin, would you or would you not?
I would have not. To deem I had that right over the life of another or others would be the same wrong thinking as they employed.

Neither would I have chosen to obey them had they ordered me to kill another.

I am only responsible for the choices I make.

We are all only responsible for the choices we make, and no one else is responsible for them.

In PON Tolle speaks about the group pain bodies that react, there is enough evidence of people abdicating their personal responsibility in reaction to the group pain body, urged on by fear, by ego, by thinking one is greater than another.

We are all one, even the Hitlers of this world are part of us all. It just depends how we choose to react.
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com

karmarider
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: Nonviolence absolute?

Post by karmarider » Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:04 am

smiileyjen101 wrote:
Sounds good, but Hitler did have the men and money and will. Per Enigma's example below, if you could have violently killed Hitler or Genghis Khan or Kublai Khan or Idi Amin, would you or would you not?
I would have not. To deem I had that right over the life of another or others would be the same wrong thinking as they employed.

Neither would I have chosen to obey them had they ordered me to kill another.

I am only responsible for the choices I make.

We are all only responsible for the choices we make, and no one else is responsible for them.

In PON Tolle speaks about the group pain bodies that react, there is enough evidence of people abdicating their personal responsibility in reaction to the group pain body, urged on by fear, by ego, by thinking one is greater than another.

We are all one, even the Hitlers of this world are part of us all. It just depends how we choose to react.
Right, but this is not about a group pain-body or a even a personal pain-body. If the choice to kill Hitler comes from revenge or punishment, that's the pain-body. If the choice not to kill Hitler comes from a cultivated belief in non-violence, that too can is a conditioned response.

The choice to kill Hitler to prevent further suffering can be something else.

Even Gandhi, who embraced ahimsa more completely than anyone else, did not have a response for Hitler.

I can accept that we are all one and that Hitler was just following his conditioning. I can accept that he did not know what he was doing. I can accept that and still kill him to prevent suffering.

I like this from Joan Tollifson:
Given the "wrong" combination of genetics, neurochemistry, conditioning, provocation, and opportunity, what we consider horrible things can happen. "I" could be the perpetrator of such things, or "you" could. And while we would certainly want a serial killer or a child molester locked up for the protection of everyone; at the same time, if we look deeply, we can see that they are blameless. No one would commit atrocities if they really had a choice, if they were really free. Looking closely, it can be seen that if "I" were in "their" shoes (that is to say, if "I" had the same combination of genetics, neurochemistry, conditioning, provocation, and opportunity), then "I" would do exactly the same thing "they" did, because there is no "I" and no "them" apart from the "shoes" (the ten million conditions -- nature and nurture).

User avatar
smiileyjen101
Posts: 3750
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 3:44 am

Re: Nonviolence absolute?

Post by smiileyjen101 » Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:23 am

How many people were not killed by Hitler's own hand?

In this include all those killed by all of the armies involved.

Therefore how many people killed another or others, not because of Hitler, but because of their own free will?

If each of these had employed their own personal responsibility conscious that they were making a choice, how many would have not been killed?

Nobody 'makes' us do anything. Rightly or wrongly, consciously or unconsciously, we choose.

We are each responsible for our own actions.
I can accept that and still kill him to prevent suffering.
Interesting, through fear, he probably thought that was what he was doing.

In what way then would you be choosing any differently to him?
Our rights start deep within our humanity; they end where another's begin~~ SmileyJen
http://www.balancinginfluences.com

karmarider
Posts: 2141
Joined: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:00 pm
Location: Florida
Contact:

Re: Nonviolence absolute?

Post by karmarider » Tue Nov 30, 2010 5:45 am

smiileyjen101 wrote:
I can accept that and still kill him to prevent suffering.
Interesting, through fear, he probably thought that was what he was doing.

In what way then would you be choosing any differently to him?
You're changing the rules here. You're making this a a choice between killing Hitler out of fear, or not killing him because you don't want to be like him.

There is also the conscious choice to fight Hitler, with the full knowledge that Hitler is ultimately blameless.

That's essentially the choice Gandhi made, when he supported the British empire's fight against Hitler.

To not kill Hitler is also a choice of violence. Nobody gets away clean from this game.

Post Reply