Violence

[awediot]

How do you define the violence that is forbidden?

[drobs]

This is a tag. I'm not a violent person. I have never been in a fight and have always been able to walk away from fights when they arose. However, I do believe in self defense and self preservation..

[RedneckDyke]

There is a movie called Freedom Song that is about the civil rights movement. A guy in it says "I practice non-violence as a political strategy because it works but in my personal life if you hurt me I'll beat you like a rented mule" That about sums up what I feel.

I believe in non-violent political struggle but if someone attacks my home or family they will meet Mr Mossberg or Mr Marlin.

[awediot]

Originally Posted by drobs

This is a tag. I'm not a violent person. I have never been in a fight and have always been able to walk away from fights when they arose. However, I do believe in self defense and self preservation..

Originally Posted by RedneckDyke

There is a movie called Freedom Song that is about the civil rights movement. A guy in it says "I practice non-violence as a political strategy because it works but in my personal life if you hurt me I'll beat you like a rented mule" That about sums up what I feel.

I believe in non-violent political struggle but if someone attacks my home or family they will meet Mr Mossberg or Mr Marlin.

So self defense, or defending from an attack on a loved one or "sanctuary", is the line... Does that include verbal attacks, or laws and policy's that can crush self-worth and esteem without actually laying a hand on the person, but hurt just as bad?

[drobs]

Originally Posted by awediot

So self defense, or defending from an attack on a loved one or "sanctuary", is the line... Does that include verbal attacks, or laws and policy's that can crush self-worth and esteem without actually laying a hand on the person, but hurt just as bad?

Verbal attacks I can deal with. Either by walking away or by attacking back verbally. Political is an on going struggle. I work to change what I can or get behind a group that does the same.

I controll my own self-worth and self-esteem. To quote an old Saturday Night Live skit... "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and gosh darnit, people like me." Let me add to that, if people don't like me... tough sh......t.

What it really comes down to in life is that you choose your friends & your associates. If someone is hurting you emotionally, don't associate with them or limit your contact with them.

There times you are stuck with people -- work or family. You can still be courteous to them but you need to limit their effect on your emotions.

[Rick336]

Originally Posted by drobs

I control my own self-worth and self-esteem.

Rick

[awediot]

Originally Posted by drobs

There times you are stuck with people -- work or family. You can still be courteous to them but you need to limit their effect on your emotions.

There are LOTS of times...

When the effort to change the world is slow, or fails...or just makes things worse, how do we "limit their effect" on our emotional well being without doing to them what they are doing to us?

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by drobs

Verbal attacks I can deal with. Either by walking away or by attacking back verbally. Political is an on going struggle. I work to change what I can or get behind a group that does the same.

I controll my own self-worth and self-esteem. To quote an old Saturday Night Live skit... "I'm good enough, I'm smart enough, and gosh darnit, people like me." Let me add to that, if people don't like me... tough sh......t.

What it really comes down to in life is that you choose your friends & your associates. If someone is hurting you emotionally, don't associate with them or limit your contact with them.

There times you are stuck with people -- work or family. You can still be courteous to them but you need to limit their effect on your emotions.

Very well said.

Reminds me of the phrase: we teach people how to treat us.

[tymejumper]

Originally Posted by awediot

How do you define the violence that is forbidden?

To answer the original question....How do I define the violence that is forbidden? That is an easy one for me. Any and all violence against the most innocent(children) is forbidden violence.

Anything that causes their spirits to shrivel and die is forbidden violence in my book. Rectifiying it by extracting justice against the perpretrator is holy justice.

Not very Buddist like, but can't seem to get past that point on the path.

[awediot]

Originally Posted by tymejumper

To answer the original question....How do I define the violence that is forbidden? That is an easy one for me. Any and all violence against the most innocent(children) is forbidden violence.

Anything that causes their spirits to shrivel and die is forbidden violence in my book. Rectifiying it by extracting justice against the perpretrator is holy justice.

You know how many "rules" and laws would cause children's spirits to "shrivel and die" if they could put it in those words? -a kid will grab whatever they want from a younger sibling with no regard to their feelings, or grasp of 'stealing'. They will automatically and naturally lie when busted about taking the cookie, and they will call you making them feel guilty about it "shriveling their soul".

I agree that "violence" against the innocent is particularly horrendous, but just what "violence" is, is difficult to say...especially when we will punish you if we do not agree.

Not very Buddist like, but can't seem to get past that point on the path.

If the want and willingness to protect the vulnerable through unwelcome, last straw force is anti-Buddhist, so be it. It is still the right thing to do.

[tymejumper]

Originally Posted by awediot

You know how many "rules" and laws would cause children's spirits to "shrivel and die" if they could put it in those words? -a kid will grab whatever they want from a younger sibling with no regard to their feelings, or grasp of 'stealing'. They will automatically and naturally lie when busted about taking the cookie, and they will call you making them feel guilty about it "shriveling their soul".

To rebutt:
Another child grabbing a cookie form his or her sibling does not costitute violence that is forbidden. This is simply a child in his innocence acting like a child. Lying, also is something that children do, however, if they do not have fear of getting in trouble unfairly for a childish indescretion, then they have no reason to lie do they. People lie to protect themselves. Children lie because they know something is wrong and they are giving a last ditch effort to perserve themselves. This of course proves that we are not so far removed from animals, however, it bears keeping in mind that we parents have to make it known that lying will not get them out of trouble but into deeper trouble.

The actual violence in all the above acts revolve around the fact that a parent should correct their child when they do lie or take a cookie from someone smaller than themselves. That way they learn that it is incorrect behavior. The parent who does not correct these actions is the one that is guilty then and bears the stain of violence that is forbidden.

Adults who have been taught better and are not mentally handicapped, that harm children for their own self gradification, or to gain from their loss of innocence are monsters. Period.

[awediot]

Originally Posted by tymejumper

To rebutt:
Another child grabbing a cookie form his or her sibling does not costitute violence that is forbidden. This is simply a child in his innocence acting like a child. Lying, also is something that children do, however, if they do not have fear of getting in trouble unfairly for a childish indescretion, then they have no reason to lie do they. People lie to protect themselves. Children lie because they know something is wrong and they are giving a last ditch effort to perserve themselves. This of course proves that we are not so far removed from animals, however, it bears keeping in mind that we parents have to make it known that lying will not get them out of trouble but into deeper trouble.

The actual violence in all the above acts revolve around the fact that a parent should correct their child when they do lie or take a cookie from someone smaller than themselves. That way they learn that it is incorrect behavior. The parent who does not correct these actions is the one that is guilty then and bears the stain of violence that is forbidden.

True enough... For me the question is just when are we correctly disciplining our kids, and when are we squishing their little spirits in bad ways...

Adults who have been taught better and are not mentally handicapped, that harm children for their own self gradification, or to gain from their loss of innocence are monsters. Period.

Monsterous human beings, yes.

[scott snedeker]

Originally Posted by tymejumper

To answer the original question....How do I define the violence that is forbidden? That is an easy one for me. Any and all violence against the most innocent(children) is forbidden violence. .

I agree with this whole-heartedly

Originally Posted by tymejumper

Anything that causes their spirits to shrivel and die is forbidden violence in my book. Rectifiying it by extracting justice against the perpretrator is holy justice.

Not very Buddist like, but can't seem to get past that point on the path.

Here I diverge, because there is a nonviolent way to more satisfactorily deal with a perpetrator of child abuse. If he were to be made to feel the furthest extent of the suffering he caused the child thereby suffering remorse himself to the point that his new priority is asking forgiveness, he would grow compassion. The violence stops. Hate never puts an to hate. Only love can stop hate. This is the Truth of Budddha.

The problem is our society is largely anti Buddhist in its structure. This technique would likely be effective in ssay, Bhutan but not likely here. We do not have the sufficiently learned Buddhist teachers here to effectively make nonviolence work in this situation. Also some individuals cannot feel remorse or compassion in fewer than 2 years or 20 years or 50 years of teaching. Limit of resources, lifespan and teachers' willingness means this optiion is unavailable for such an individual.

Nonviolencce means not committing violence but it also means not allowing violence. If you allow violence to be done to you you are not practicing nonviolence. But if you defend yourself with violence you are also not practicing nonviolence. In this situation one must choose the lesser of two violent options.

Guess what? Practicing nonviolence is not very easy when you are inexperienced! And the more violent circumstances are the more skill in practicing nonviolence is required.

So we practice and study and learn and teach so that our skills more often yield better results in practicing nonviolence in a world where violence abounds. Maybe someday by enough of us practicing and cultivating nonviolence, Expert skill in practicing it will be developed and predominate over violence rather han the reverse that exists today.

[tymejumper]

Originally Posted by scott snedeker

But if you defend yourself with violence you are also not practicing nonviolence. In this situation one must choose the lesser of two violent options.

True, even the Buddist monks were allowed to defend themselves against attacks if it was not started by them and they had first tried to avoid it.


I also agree that it is easier to stop violence with non violence. I have seldom heard of an ex-con that went to prision for killing someone and came out of that violent environment a better person for it. They only learn how to become better at not getting caught and how to improve thier skills of violence.

[bnmoore]

Originally Posted by scott snedeker

Guess what? Practicing nonviolence is not very easy when you are inexperienced! And the more violent circumstances are the more skill in practicing nonviolence is required.

So we practice and study and learn and teach so that our skills more often yield better results in practicing nonviolence in a world where violence abounds. Maybe someday by enough of us practicing and cultivating nonviolence, Expert skill in practicing it will be developed and predominate over violence rather han the reverse that exists today.

Can we practice serving as a cyber-bodhisattva to each other?

If I may translate the term Sangha loosely as Spiritual Community then may Soulforce serve as our cyber-Sangha?

I don't know anyone whose daily spiritual practice in any faith could not be improved by adding the Six Perfections. (As outlined by the Dalai Lama)

1. Generosity
2. Mindfulness
3. Inclusiveness
4. Enthusiasm
5. Meditation
6. Wisdom

[NathanATX]

I like the Forums as cyber-Sangha ... cool!

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by bnmoore

Can we practice serving as a cyber-bodhisattva to each other?

If I may translate the term Sangha loosely as Spiritual Community then may Soulforce serve as our cyber-Sangha?

It's an excellent idea, as well as a worthy endeavor. I think - for many people - that this forum is already a 'Sangha' even though they may not think of it as such. It has been so for me.

The six principles, I believe, have to be lived in order to be understood. As such, one has to have a means to enact them. One simple means is to 'watch the gate', that is, to be aware of what one is writing before clicking Submit Reply.

We each have a voice and it comes out in our posts. As such, tone of voice is important, despite the fact that words on a page can be misleading: what may be intended as wit can come across as an insult.

How can one become better aware of what is coming out of the gate? My suggestion, which was learned in a writing class: read your posts out loud. This will reveal to you what is actually on the page, what is in your mind and heart, and how your reader may respond to it.

[scott snedeker]

Originally Posted by bnmoore

Can we practice serving as a cyber-bodhisattva to each other?

If I may translate the term Sangha loosely as Spiritual Community then may Soulforce serve as our cyber-Sangha?

I don't know anyone whose daily spiritual practice in any faith could not be improved by adding the Six Perfections. (As outlined by the Dalai Lama)

1. Generosity
2. Mindfulness
3. Inclusiveness
4. Enthusiasm
5. Meditation
6. Wisdom

Fabulous idea!!!!

Sangha is one of the three refuges of Buddhism. To create a cyber-sangha is to create a cyber-refuge. I think this can be done easily! Just as there is a Foyer for gritty often confrontational dialogue a Cyber-Refuge forum could be created as its opposite. This balance would offer to the overall spirit of the Soulforce fora an elegance of symmetry. The foyer and the cyber-sangha would compliment each other beautifully!

Like the Hawaiian concept of temples of forgiveness for violators, threads in which members are clearly demonstrating pain and suffering by acting out could be given the option of having the thread moved to the Foyer or to the Cyber-sangha depending on the judgement of the moderators.

I have also noted a growing number of members using Buddhist traditional philosophy to address violence with nonviolence. The practice and learning I have gained here for addressing violence with nonviolence here has lead to multiple facets of heightened awareness that have inproved my inner peace aas well as balance and better skill in the 3-D world.

Temporarily Anyone can create a thread and call it cyber-sangha until, if it seems to Members, moderators and staff at Soulforce that a new forum Named "Cyber-Sangha" or to avoid compromising iinclusion, "Cyber-refuge" if a worthwhile creation.

I will make a proactive gesture and create a spin-off thread from this one today in the Faith and Non-violence forum. The subject of violence has proven a great place to start but any topic really can be the focus of a cyber-sangha.

Look for Cyber-sangha in the Faith and nonviolence forum.

[nickisingle]

When people fight and beat - it's a sign of cowardice....
When in the person has hate something- is a sign of insult...

just banish only thoughts on similar affairs and to occupy ourself with some pleasant...There is no impossible in this world... Is only irresponsible acts

And the violence it when the person hurts a society or other person... Any person has no right to offend, kill and hurt. By the way, happy those people who do not pay attention to bad words of the person or to his bad health or spirit.. The Violence is a weakness... It is necessary help those people who has comprehended passion of violence...

Violence - it's a problem of society.... but politicians try to condemn our love

[tymejumper]

I agree with you Nicki. They do not want to deal with violence which they can change but they want to make it illegal to love a person becuase of the same sex. It seems that things are really messed up with that.