Yeshe Dawa
Lotus Born
I never said anything about retrieving the duck. Let it rot.
Fine then. Duck is really greasy anyway. (yuck).
Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I never said anything about retrieving the duck. Let it rot.
Though I have no real problem with non-violence, I do have reservations about proponents of non-violence who often exhibit a very limited understanding of human nature. The day we stop fighting for what we believe in is the day our species begins to die off.Hi YmirGF!
This is from the paceebene.org website, Take the Vow for Nonviolence:
Q. Isnt nonviolence too naïve and impractical of an approach to our complex world?
A. The world is a projection of our collective consciousness. If enough of us are nonviolent, the world will be more peaceful. The psychological frame of impractical reflects history of past failures based on limited consciousness, so by its very nature that framing cannot fathom emerging potentialities.
It is the very notion that it is a naïve and impractical idea that prevents us from creating this peaceful reality.
:flower:So while I take your comment as the greatest of praises, I cannot take credit for the idea.:flower:
Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:
Your post adds new meaning to the word naive.
Though I have no real problem with non-violence, I do have reservations about proponents of non-violence who often exhibit a very limited understanding of human nature. The day we stop fighting for what we believe in is the day our species begins to die off.
I think that trying to stop violence with violence is like trying to calm the ripples in a pond by throwing more rocks into the water.
I think that nonviolence is like a cancer patient refusing chemotherapy.
We don't, nor should we ever, give chemotherapy to a healthy person. Chemotherapy is basically poison. Yet it's necessary in the fight against cancer, so that the cancer doesn't kill the person afflicted with it.
And even though there are cases when it won't prevail, it's certainly better than not trying.
I know two people who´ve had cancer.
This two people didn´t use chemo to get trated, and they were both in dangerous phases.
THey healed by using alternative methods of medicine and are alive.
To think that the answer to one problem is the answer to all problems isn't very practical or responsible.
Ahimsa btw, generaly is not meant to "solve" the problem but to not create new ones. Most if not all the doctrines that teach ahimsa(at least by using that word) also beleive in karma, so bad stuff wouldn´t even happen to you to begin with if you haven´t done bad stuff. So it would be contraproducent to fight it off with more bad stuff.
That only goes so far, and is very inapplicable in certain situations.
Example:
It's hard to make a case that rape victims had it coming to them.
I also would find it hard to suggest that a would-be rape victim should meet her attacker with non-violence, especially if there's the chance that she can avoid becoming a victim altogether.
people who beleive in karma would have in their minds that this today victim was probably a rapist in her past life. If it has to happen to them, there is nothing they can do about it. ahimsa is not supposed to solve the problem. An ahimsa beleiver that gets rapped would have succesfully paid a karmic debt in her mind, and in her mind, all the rage she feels is what sh made feel other people in a past life.
*sigh*Hi Ymir,
In this statement you exhibit a complete failure to understand what non-violence is about.
It is impossible to discuss a concept when one of the parties doesn't know what the concept is.
Providing, of course, the "problem" you are facing isn't seeking to eliminate you.If enough people used satyagraha, any problem could be solved without violence.
Providing, of course, the "problem" you are facing isn't seeking to eliminate you.
Seems I was mistaken in my appraisal.*sigh*
Hi YmirGF!
I would say even then. If someone dies for a cause by practicing nonviolence, is that any different then a footsoldier who dies in a war? Just because someone practices nonviolence doesn't mean they can't get hurt or killed. A violent enemy can be changed through satyagraha, if the users of satyagraha are numerous and determined enough, just like the winners of a battle will be.
Peace and blessings,
Yeshe
:flower2:
The more users of satyagraha that die because of their non violence, the harder it becomes for them to be numerous enough.
If you've got an enemy determined to destroy you, your willingness to die will not likely work in persuading them to stop killing you.