Violence

[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.

[BruceChris]

"I got a medal for killing 2 men, and discharged for loving one"

EDIT: Jennifer reminds me that this was an epitath for Leonard Matlovich


BC

[scott snedeker]

Originally Posted by BruceChris

"I got a medal for killing 3 men, and kicked out for loving one"


BC

Wow! now that is powerful!

[nickisingle]

I think that there is no more stronger - than love in the world, but sometimes love cant connect this world.....

I think we mustn't speak about violence...It's not deserve it

[Daniel]

The snippet below is taken from a very interesting article re the ethics of nonviolence- very much worth reading. My view is that is Soulforce's existence is predicated on the view expressed in this piece.

What's interesting in terms of this discussion, is the author's addressing the terms under which violence is expedient in Jain and Buddhist thought. It seems even Gandhi observed conditions when it was appropriate.

http://www.class.uidaho.edu/ngier/budvnv.htm

The Virtue of Nonviolence: A Buddhist Perspective

THE SAINTS OF NON-VIOLENCE: CHRIST AND BUDDHA

Let us now look at the lives of Christ and Buddha as models for the practice of virtue. Instead of following moral laws, virtue ethics asks us to emulate the ideal person instead. It will be interesting to determine what sort of role “duress” virtue played, if at all, in these two lives. Of course, if there is an assumption of sinlessness, as in the orthodox view of Christ, then we obviously have a case of natural virtue from birth. In my short analysis, however, even though I will be taking their biographies at face value, I will assume that Gautama and Jesus were mortal, fallible beings.

There is another thing that I admire about the Soka Gakkai if President Ikeda reflects the entire movement. In his biography of the Buddha, he’s very honest about the humanity of the Buddha. He comes through in a sterling way. That is, this man was not a god and should not be seen as a god. He was a thoroughly human person. And that’s what makes him great. If he were god, then, of course, god would act that way. But he was a human person.

I will choose two events from the lives of Christ and Buddha—their temptations and their deaths. The temptations of these great figures are contained in two dramatic stories that are more fiction than fact. Daisaku Ikeda, in his The Living Buddha: An Interpretive Biography is most likely correct that the story of the Buddha’s temptation is an allegory about the Buddha’s own inner turmoil. If the doctrine of Christ’s sinlessness were not such an obstacle, many Christians would be willing to say the same about the Temptation of Christ.

Against Mara and his forces the Buddha waged a great struggle, which required substantial aid from the earth goddess and serpent gods, but Christ remained unflappable throughout Satan’s wagers in the desert. In facing death, however, the roles are reversed: the Buddha was calm, trying his best to comfort his emotional disciples, but Jesus cried out in despair that his God has forsaken him. (One reason might be that Jesus died a much more horrible death than Gautama did.) Duress virtue ruled in the Buddha’s temptation and Christ’s death, but natural virtue described the Buddha’s death and Christ’s temptation. The fact that we have found duress virtue in the lives of these great figures simply proves their basic humanity. It also demonstrates another truth: virtues are for human beings, not the gods.

The Buddha and Christ are clearly our foremost ancient practitioners of nonviolence. Christ’s message that we are to love even those who hate us is essentially the message of the Buddha. Both knew that hate literally burns a hole in the heart. Nowhere in human history have we found such exercise of patience, self-control and sympathy as in these two men. Nowhere have we found such an emphasis on love and compassion as in Buddhism and Christianity. Each day, as each of us attempts to overcome the temptation to injure—both mentally and physically—let us take Christ and/or the Buddha as our models of virtue. Let us practice the virtue of nonviolence until it becomes as natural as taking a breath.

[scott snedeker]

At a gas station today I was briefly closed in by a truck as I attempt to pull out from the pump. another car was trying to pas in front of me so I slowly pulled back to let heer through. She signalled me with what I thought was a peace symbol at first, but turned out to be an "L" for loser. I signalled back with a peace sign.

My impression went from appreciciation to dismay. THen I employed compassion:

Why did she give an "L" sign?

Ans. Because she learned to gratify suffering by causing suffering She was attempting to surrogate the violence done to her over to me.

Conclusion: She is trapped in suffering. The "L" is identifying herself as a loser. My peace sign is an affirmation that she is not.

And my compassion puts an end to her violence

Pretty simple easy rudamentary practice of nonviolence.

Will she wonder why I responded with a peace sign?

[Daniel]

Really interesting story Scotty.

Sounds like she didn't stop to consider that you were trying to let her through, that she was stuck in being in a hurry.

Funny how we can think we are the center of the universe. Everything spins around us.

I recently read a book where the author - as a reporter- was present for the arrival of the Dalai Lama. Everyone was standing behind a rope, and another woman behind her was whining loudly that she wanted to be up close so that she could shake the DL's hand. So the reporter in front stepped back and let the whining lady up to her spot. The Dalai Lama arrived and shook hands with everyone at the front of the line, then walked towards the building he was entering- then stopped, turned, and pointed to the reporter and said, "I want to shake hands with that woman!" And he walked back and warmly shook her hands. The reported was dumbstruck.

Maybe your lady won't wake up are realize your kindness. But I don't think it is lost. It's out there growing into more kindness.

[Acnezine]

I don't understand where violence comes from? Why are some people volatile and violent? Why do some people blow up and explode with rage? Why are some people SO angry? Why do people lose their temper? Is it ever acceptable? Does it serve any useful purpose?

[scott snedeker]

Originally Posted by Acnezine

I don't understand where violence comes from? Why are some people volatile and violent? Why do some people blow up and explode with rage? Why are some people SO angry? Why do people lose their temper? Is it ever acceptable? Does it serve any useful purpose?

Ultimately the root is pain and fear within if a person looks inside deeply enough. This knowledge makes it easier for me to meet violence with compassion. THis is important because compassion is the only way to end violence.

The more violent an act, the more difficult it is to practice nonviolence. We learn as we go

[tymejumper]

I completely agree with Scotty. Also, add ignorance which makes us fearful. Take away fear you take away alot of anger.

[Jeffrey Goines]

There are some great thoughts in this thread about fear, compassion and overcoming evil with compassion in particular. I was just reading some blogs at www.whydoyoufearme.com/blog. This is a new site set up to start up a really great set of conversations it seems. I found that there is going to be a really interesting webcast on the fear that westerners often have toward Muslims.

Please check it out if you get a chance; I think you'll enjoy it as much as I have! www.whydoyoufearme.com

Jeffrey Goines

[koneill08]

Is the question really about forbidden violence or trying to dilineate between healthy anger about something and unhealthy anger? Because really violence always is rooted in anger and hurt somewhere. I would think violence is the intentional acting out of ones heightened emotions for the purpose of harming another (whether that be physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, social, etc.) Isn't violence and forbidden violence kind of the same? Violence in any form still hurts people, and isn't the whole point to not hurt people? So if the point is to not hurt people then anything that hurts them would be forbidden? Considering that violence is intentional. Don't confuse violence with defending oneself, they aren't the same. Violence would be the attacker, not the defending one.

And don't confuse training up children in the way they should go with violence either. Children don't come automatically knowing where boundary limits are, or how to place them for themselves. Which is why we as parents do it for them until they can learn to do it for themselves. There's a difference between helping to mold a child's spirit, esteem, soul, etc. and breaking it.

Hope that helps.