PDA

View Full Version : Aspects of non-violence



Awani
03-27-2017, 09:27 PM
I have been on the path of non-violence and compassion for a long time now... consciously for at least ten years, and I must say it has been awesome... improving for every year that goes by.

At the moment I feel I have peaked - in the sense that even when tested - I pass almost all the time... however today I discovered an aspect of it that I actually found very hard to resist.

Whatever someone does, or says to me, I can take it in a very chill manner, with a smile. But earlier today some stranger on the street came up to my wife for no reason and began insulting her... saying really mean things.

Luckily I was not there when it happened or I'd been arrested for a public rape of an older man.

Basically what I mean is that this "chill relaxed vibe" of nothing can hurt me got disrupted when someone close to me got hurt. Then I emotionally went back to my old ways.

Everything is a lesson, and now I am thinking of how to deal with this aspect of non-violence and compassion: how to manage not to be drawn into emotional low-level shit, when shit is done to people you love

:cool:

zoas23
03-27-2017, 09:43 PM
Non-Violence has not been a "choice" for me, but rather my "natural" attitude.

I only got into 5 fights in my life and the 5 of them were related to a man attacking physically a woman (3 times to different women I knew, 2 times to complete strangers).

For some reason none of the 5 "fights" was really what I would call a "fight", but rather a quick action by me and the other person completely chilled out (I have to say that I do not look "scary")... though I mostly scared them rather than REALLY hurting them physically.

... but even if you have a non-violent nature (without caring if that's a choice or if you are simply like that), sometimes "doing nothing" is similar to allowing cruel things to happen and doing nothing. Maybe the "trick" is to know that people who attacks someone who is defenseless usually "chill out" when they are confronted by someone else and that this confrontation usually does not lead to a REAL fight (I mean a boxing match!).

It's like the copyright laws, even those laws contemplate a "fair use" of the texts... in most cases this "fair use" is a bit extended when they are used for educational purposes. Hahaha... that's an analogy.

Awani
03-28-2017, 12:05 AM
Yes, bad choice of words in a way. I mean perhaps not doing violence per se... but thinking about doing it. Regardless if you do it or not, in your spirit you are feeding the "hate/anger".

And everyone is different. Violence might not be natural to me, but in my youth and early adulthood violence (and especially violent emotions) was my "first" attitude. Basically if you hurt me you would get thrice more in return.

However my point for posting this was not to really cover what "type" people are, or have been... rather the "state of non-violence in mind and body" is achievable, but much harder - I find - to sustain, when I see people close to me get hurt.

In the example I gave above, I was not even present... so your "chill out" suggestion is impossible. I am talking about my anger/violent reaction "inside" when I heard what had happen. I am talking from a deeply philosophical mindset... if you had not had a life long battle with trying to feel harmony within, rather than hate and murder all mankind... then maybe you are the wrong person to comment. LOL.

It is easier, for me, to "forgive"/"let go" when shit happens to ME... harder when it happens to someone I love. That is my statement/question etc.

:cool:

zoas23
03-28-2017, 01:04 AM
I get you, Dev...

I simply meant that FOR ME it has never been a "battle" to fight my "violent emotions"... the hindu concept of "Ahimsa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahimsa)" has never been a "goal", but my natural state (as a metaphor: our society is currently quite obsessed with the idea that a woman has to be thin, a lot of women go to the gym, buy light products, follow a strict diet, etc as to achieve the super-natural state of being thin... whilst some others eat junk food, are very sedentary, etc and are "naturally" thin).

Having "violent emotions" is not BAD in itself (I am thinking of one of my closest friends right now who is prone to have them)... a person who has "violent tendencies", IF he learns how to give them a direction and avoid its pathological side, then that person can be AMAZING when it comes to being very productive and prolific (I often mock my "violent" friend by saying that I would need 10 clones of me as to do ALL the things he does... He managed to give that "emotion" a GOOD course and he's as prolific as it gets.... I don't even understand how he does ALL the things that he does... this statement will probably not be surprising for you, you are very prolific too -artist, musician, writer, CEO, etc...).

So BOTH personalities have good traits and bad traits (I would say that people who are somehow "struggling" with their violent instincts have a tendency to be more prolific, which is certainly a very GOOD trait).

And, as to use another metaphor, even if we are different in our personalities... MAYBE the secret is that we are all like cats with claws hidden inside the paws. I know you like cats too... so you can learn from them. You will notice how MOST cats avoid violence (there are some exceptions) and simply show their claws when it is necessary. So you can keep the claws inside the paws and sometimes "show them" when there is a violent situation. If you learn from your cats, you'll see that showing the claws is often translated as "stop doing what you are doing or there will be consequences"...

(i.e, I have 2 cats and a dog... the dog LOVES eating their food, but when he tries to do such thing, the cats simply show their claws and the dog returns to his own food and there's never a fight... they don't even get "angry", they simply remind the dog that they have claws and the dog goes "OK. OK, I'm returning to my food, sorry!"). Never saw them REALLY fighting or getting really pissed off.

Does that make sense?

elixirmixer
03-28-2017, 01:37 AM
The movie 'Ghandi' that won 8 academy awards, and best picture in 1982, is extremely relevant to your query. A must watch video if you wish to master the non-violence attitude.

I suffer from this issue also, calm, friendly, tolerant 99% of the time, but come near t wife and I'll burn your eyes out with Royal water.

Does God demand non-violence when it comes to the protection of our families? IMO, he can go either way. If you have sworn to never pick up the sword, you ought to die quietly, if you have not made an oath however, I think it's wise to defend your land and countrymen. I am talking merely physically. Emotionally... I do think that developing a 'water off a ducks back' approach is more commendable. Better yet, cultivating this attitude in your wife, so that she may not suffer any longer at the hands of wanker strangers, IMO, is the best approach.

We often think, 'I'm tough, nothing gets to me' yet we do not assume the same virtue in others, and we feel our weaknesses through our empathy towards them.

Better to re-enforce their strengths, and not consider your own weakness. After all, what kind of man would you be, if you didn't give a shit about a stranger abusing your beloved?

Good topic :)

Kiorionis
03-28-2017, 03:40 AM
However my point for posting this was not to really cover what "type" people are, or have been... rather the "state of non-violence in mind and body" is achievable, but much harder - I find - to sustain, when I see people close to me get hurt.

Honestly, I don't see this as that bad of a reaction. Remember Jesus with the money changers? (I think that's what it was). He became irate over how they conducted themselves in the temple. If the highest goal of compassion is to Love unconditionally, it necessarily cannot include the opposite position; which necessarily implies an opposition towards something... a curious contradiction.

A popular analogy might include the 'degrees of fire'. 'Violence' (which is really just an action toward another individual that the individual does not prefer) without reason is the lowest degree, whereas violence on behalf of a higher ideal -- Harmony, Balance, Unity -- is considered 'noble'.


Does God demand non-violence when it comes to the protection of our families?

I would imagine this depends on your definition of 'God'.

:)

Awani
03-28-2017, 09:04 AM
Honestly, I don't see this as that bad of a reaction.Remember Jesus with the money changers?

I disagree. if we look at the New Testament as historical fact, then I guess Jesus is just a human like everyone else... so even Jesus trips up and looses his temper... If anyone has not seen The Last Temptation of Christ I highly recommend it. Best Jesus film ever IMO. Wilhelm Dafoe is Jesus. Harvey Keitel is Judas. David Bowie is Pilate. Martin Scorsese directs.

I guess what I am saying in this thread is ONLY related to my own spiritual growth, and for ME any form of anger feeds the fires of hell... it is the path to the Dark Side as Yoda says. It does me nothing but harm in my spirit/soul. This is one reason why I think I have changed my view on conspiracies. It is not only that I think most of them are full of crap, but the ones I know isn't they used to make me so angry that I wanted to find these cunts and bury them all. This is not healthy for the heart. Hate and anger feels great when you have it, but it is like smoking... over time it just fucking shorten your life.


Having "violent emotions" is not BAD in itself...

I think it is very unhealthy. And regarding "productivity" I must say the less angry I have become, the more productive I have been. Everyone has X amount of energy. Spend it wisely.

ahimsa = respect for all living things and avoidance of violence towards others

Whoever does not stand by this is an asshole. ;)


Does God demand non-violence when it comes to the protection of our families? ...what kind of man would you be, if you didn't give a shit about a stranger abusing your beloved?

Too use your term God, well I actually think it is more along the lines of: God is only interested in your level of compassion... so whatever "bad"/"violent" thing you do is irrelevant. I don't think there is a chart that looks at good and bad. I think the only thing important is the amount of "good". If you look at religious texts this is actually what it says (when I read them).

For instance in the Quran there is a story of a prostitute that was heading for hell due to her lifestyle. Then one day she met a hungry dog and gave it some food. Allah in that moment forgave all her sins forever and she got a one way ticket to heaven.

If you look at the "core" of this story (which is how you should read all religious texts) it basically says that one act of compassion is greater than an infinite number of atrocities. I have also (in my own spiritual encounters with the Divine Mystery) "seen" this concept in action. So I stand by it.

Now that does not mean it is easy.


...what people mean when they say "unconditional love" is exactly what I feel with my daughter. I have never had such an experience of "love" before. I can not put it in words, but I know it will never die… it will never weaken... Now here is the challenge: the way I feel about my daughter I should feel about everyone in the world. That is why the words of Jesus, or similar people like him in the past, are so easy to agree upon, but to live those words 24/7... well that requires a damn saint. Although it is pretty funny that everyone can be such a saint... it is not like you need an education, money or status to show unconditional love to everyone. You only need some balls. I'm trying to grow a pair. - source (http://www.naturalbornalchemist.com/unconditional-love/)

:cool:

theFool
03-28-2017, 11:10 AM
ahimsa = respect for all living things and avoidance of violence towards others

Whoever does not stand by this is an asshole. ;) This is the central idea of Jainism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism). Their core ideas are interesting if you remove the religious overtones. For example:

While Jainism enjoins observance of total nonviolence by the ascetics, it is often argued that the man is constantly obliged to engage in destructive activities of eating, drinking, breathing and surviving in order to support his body. According to Jainism, life is omnipresent with infinite beings including microorganisms pervading each and every part of universe. Hence it may still be possible to avoid killing of gross animals, but it is impossible to avoid killing of subtle microorganisms in air and water, plant life and various types of insects that may be crushed by walking.

However, the Jain conception of ahimsa is quite different from what is commonly understood by violence. The violence is defined more by the motives and the consequences to the self rather than by the act itself.

zoas23
03-28-2017, 01:29 PM
I think it is very unhealthy. And regarding "productivity" I must say the less angry I have become, the more productive I have been. Everyone has X amount of energy. Spend it wisely.

ahimsa = respect for all living things and avoidance of violence towards others

Whoever does not stand by this is an asshole. ;)

Whilst I agree, I strongly believe in "trasmutation". What I mean is that you can't "delete" a part of your personality, but you can give it a different direction.
Giving it a different direction does not mean "using your anger" in a different way, but "transmutating" it into something else.
People with violent emotions can transmute than into something quite good... which often leads to being VERY prolific.

I have no objections with the other two statements.


This is the central idea of Jainism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism). Their core ideas are interesting if you remove the religious overtones.

The concept is quite classical... and it appears in many different cultures.
One of my favorite classical books on vegetarianism is Porphyry's "On abstinence (from animal food)"...

The book in a nutshell is a letter from Porphyry to a friend who gave up vegetarianism. He begins by asking him why he gave up PHILOSOPHY, since the idea of a non-vegetarian philosopher is to Porphyry as absurd as a Marxist Capitalist.

BUT the interesting thing about this book is that you won't find there ANYTHING that resembles the typical "modern" vegetarianism (I can think of PETA as an example of a modern notion of vegetarianism).

i.e, Porphyry does not believe is anti-speciesism (which is the core of the ideology of PETA), his ideas are neo-pythagorean and quite unrelated to Animal Liberation or Animal Rights... though he does believe in the idea of "meat is murder" and that we are what we eat. So whilst he likes the idea of a non-violent word towards animals, his vegetarianism is quite "selfish" and mostly based on the consequences to the self.

His general idea is NOT "killing Paul is bad because Paul is nice and kind", but "Killing Paul is bad because the main victim of such act will be yourself, not Paul".

His book is on vegetarianism, but the same concepts can be applied to probably ANY area of life. It is an interesting book because it shows very clearly the "classical" perspective.
(Maybe the HUGE difference is that modern vegetarianism is based on the general concept of "being kind with the others", almost as a "favor" to the others -in this case, animals-... whilst the idea of Porphyry is more related to "being kind with yourself").

Awani
03-28-2017, 03:48 PM
Whilst I agree, I strongly believe in "trasmutation". What I mean is that you can't "delete" a part of your personality, but you can give it a different direction.

Trashmutation. Interesting. :)

I actually don't think anything is fixed. Meaning anything can be "deleted". I agree that you can re-direct energy... which is handy in some cases.

As for "deleting" you just got to dare to push the button. ;)

:cool: