Precepts of a Peaceful Warrior

[Scuba Pete]

And martial arts training and "the way of the warrior", when approached and understood properly, does not glorify fighting.

This is precisely where we disagree. The document in question tries to lend an air of nobility to being a warrior and I find that offensive. It lends itself to an atmosphere where "Detente" is supposed to be normal.

 

[Azakel]

You know I agree that love is what ones need in life, bu the world doesn't work like that and never will, animal fight and kill other for self defense or even food(humans are animals). Ok, example, I was watch Human Weapon last week on History Channel and they were learning Karv Maga Krav Maga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia a Style developed in Israel for survival over there. Every one has the right to live, some time fighting is the only way, you can't tell me love is going to save your live if some one come out you with a gun or knife. Love doesn't work ever were, nether does love.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I refuse to live in fear, my friend. I would rather build bridges than make enemies. It's time to beat the weapons of war into plowshares and instruments of good!

 

[Azakel]

This is precisely where we disagree. The document in question tries to lend an air of nobility to being a warrior and I find that offensive. It lends itself to an atmosphere where "Detente" is supposed to be normal.

How are is it offensive, if one can not under what a Warrior is and they way they live then that's there close minded self. I should feel Offended because it seem that you are just making out Warriors to be nothing but violent and unethical, which is not the case.

I refuse to live in fear, my friend. I would rather build bridges than make enemies. It's time to beat the weapons of war into plowshares and instruments of good!

I never said you had to live in Fear, I don't but I do understand that there is a time when peace and love do nothing in this world. I guess one just as to be born with a Warrior soul to understand this, there more to it then Violent act but you don't seem to understand that.

Another example(a fictional one this time but I think it works):

The Jedi. Think about it.

 

[Pariah]

To believe that one should preach peace in the face of violence is ludicrous and successful by only a few - the rest of us don't need to. To believe that one's enemy will show the same chivalry you would is stupid.

Chivalry judges impartially when both parties agree to it, otherwise, it is folly.

 

[Master Vigil]

As a martial artist (if I am worthy to be called so), I follow Moo Do (Bu Do in Japanese). The translates to Martial Way. It is the Way that is important, not the Martial. Martial arts is not about kicking or punching. Or using cool weapons. It is about becoming better people. Developing discipline, respect, confidence, honor, loyalty, duty, sincerity, justice, etc.... No matter what discipline you study, whether it be Tang Soo Do, Ninjutsu, Kendo, Shaolin Kung Fu, Cuong Nu, or Kalaripayatu; or archery, calligraphy, scuba diving, culinary, etc.... There is an amount of focus and discipline that is needed to master these skills. This is Moo Do.

 

[Scuba Pete]

How are is it offensive, if one can not under what a Warrior is and they way they live then that's there close minded self. I should feel Offended because it seem that you are just making out Warriors to be nothing but violent and unethical, which is not the case.

I am closed minded to using violence, or threats of violence. Please don't hit me if that offends you.

I never said you had to live in Fear,

You seem to live in fear of others trying to harm you.

I don't but I do understand that there is a time when peace and love do nothing in this world.

Then we disagree about the power of a flower in the muzzle of a gun.

I guess one just as to be born with a Warrior soul to understand this, there more to it then Violent act but you don't seem to understand that.

As you don't seem to understand my "lover's soul".

Another example(a fictional one this time but I think it works):

The Jedi. Think about it.

Great parrallel and they are as mythical as your need to prepare for the ultimate conflict.

 

[Azakel]

To believe that one should preach peace in the face of violence is ludicrous and successful by only a few - the rest of us don't need to. To believe that one's enemy will show the same chivalry you would is stupid.

Chivalry judges impartially when both parties agree to it, otherwise, it is folly.

Agreed.

As a martial artist (if I am worthy to be called so), I follow Moo Do (Bu Do in Japanese). The translates to Martial Way. It is the Way that is important, not the Martial. Martial arts is not about kicking or punching. Or using cool weapons. It is about becoming better people. Developing discipline, respect, confidence, honor, loyalty, duty, sincerity, justice, etc.... No matter what discipline you study, whether it be Tang Soo Do, Ninjutsu, Kendo, Shaolin Kung Fu, Cuong Nu, or Kalaripayatu; or archery, calligraphy, scuba diving, culinary, etc.... There is an amount of focus and discipline that is needed to master these skills. This is Moo Do.

I also agree with this, as of late I've been doing this on my own because there is no Martial Art Dojo near where I live. I wish there was though.

I am closed minded to using violence, or threats of violence. Please don't hit me if that offends you. You seem to live in fear of others trying to harm you.Then we disagree about the power of a flower in the muzzle of a gun. As you don't seem to understand my "lover's soul".Great parrallel and they are as mythical as your need to prepare for the ultimate conflict.

Well my friend, we'll will have to agree to disagree. This a losing battle for both of us in trying to make the other see are view, we are both hard set in are beliefs and there they will stay. I bow humbly to you good Sir, my you live a long life a Peace and Love ^_^

 

[Scuba Pete]

To believe that one should preach peace in the face of violence is ludicrous and successful by only a few - the rest of us don't need to.

Being non-violent is not for the weak, that is for sure. That a few are successful shows that it can and should be done. Take Ghandi for instance. No warrior, peaceful or otherwise has had the impact on this world as he has.

To believe that one's enemy will show the same chivalry you would is stupid.

This is why most Christians never understand the precepts of love. I don't believe that people will treat me with chivalry. I expect them to not do so. However, if I respond to their violence or hate with the same, then I am NO BETTER than they are. Turning the other cheek takes dedication, strength of character and a belief that violence is evil.

Chivalry judges impartially when both parties agree to it, otherwise, it is folly.

Chivalry is founded in medieval war and so I have no part in it. I adhere to a much older and stronger philosophy.

Matthew 5:43 "You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect. NIV

 

[Pariah]

Take Ghandi for instance. No warrior, peaceful or otherwise has had the impact on this world as he has.

In terms of historical impact, I don't think so. Plus, Gandhi (the "h" is after the "d") has only been around for 50 years, so his impact is limited.

Scuba Pete:
I invite you to read the story of Prithviraj Chauhan, an Indian king, whose chivalry cost the subcontinent of India 450 years of Muslim domination and tens of millions (upwards of 50 million, some historians say) slaughtered simply for their faith.

India First Foundation

Indians, specifically Hindus, historically have always suffered for their chivalry, called Dharmayuddha (The Rules of Righteous War).

Gandhi was an exception to the rule, not the rule itself. Even after Independence, India worked under a Gandhian phase of politics, using the UN to work out Kashmir, granting land to China in order to abate the pressure it placed on Kashmir. Nothing has changed because of it. Only now, because of its more aggressive stance has deals such as the recent nuclear deal worked to favor India.

Peace is folly in the face of ruthless opposition.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Quite wrong. He lived the rule and so he conquered all.

We obviously have a different focus. I will continue to focus on love and tolerance and you are free to focus on aggression and hate. We become what we focus on.

 

[Storm]

you are free to focus on aggression and hate.

By saying that, you prove that you have no idea what they're talking about.

 

[Pariah]

Quite wrong. He lived the rule and so he conquered all.

Did you read anything I posted?
Does the story of Prithviraj Chauhan mean nothing to you? As a Christian and a non-Indian, it obviously means nothing, but try to empathize with me.

We obviously have a different focus. I will continue to focus on love and tolerance and you are free to focus on aggression and hate. We become what we focus on.

It is not hate that motivates me, but my desire to protect. It is you, who would forsake an entire country of people simply to gloat about your moral superiority that separates you from me.

 

[Azakel]

I am closed minded to using violence, or threats of violence. Please don't hit me if that offends you.

you are free to focus on aggression and hate.

I do feel that these two quote right here show that you do not understand anything any of us has said. Go back and read my OP, if you did you would see:

A warrior is the epitome of controlled compassion & controlled violence.
A warrior understands the merits of compassion.
Have compassion for all beings, causing them no unnecessary hurt, nor needless harm.
Refrain from needless competitiveness, from contriving for self-advantage, and from subjugating others.

I know there more but I would like to focus on this, read them and think about it, and way would hit you is what you said offended me, that goes against what it means to be a PW.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I do feel that these two quote right here show that you do not understand anything any of us has said. Go back and read my OP, if you did you would see:

Perhaps I understand all too well.

controlled violence.

Like "Jumbo shrimp", this is indeed an oxymoron. Any hint of violence means you are out of control.

You see, you use diligence and discipline to prepare... but to prepare for what? To fight? To negotiate? For what? Those who are prepared to fight are more inclined to do so. Those who do not see a fight as even a remote possibility are far less inclined to do so.

To me it's quite simple: violence begets violence. Peace begets peace. Fighting fire with fire only creates more burned areas. Fight the fire with water.

 

[Azakel]

You know what Pete, it's over, you have to thick of a head, all you are doing now is judging us, but doesn't or belief say Judge not and all that good stuff, you are making us out to be something where not and I find it quit rude and disrespectful.

 

[Scuba Pete]

Did you read anything I posted?

But of course. I read your entire post and disagreed with both your premise and conclusions. You were neither compelling nor clear.

Does the story of Prithviraj Chauhan mean nothing to you?

Of course it does, but I reject your conclusion.

As a Christian and a non-Indian, it obviously means nothing, but try to empathize with me.

You make a lot of assumptions here that are in error and are quite offensive. Why does my ethnicity make me not care?

It is not hate that motivates me, but my desire to protect.

For someone who is quick to assert that I did not read your missive, you certainly seem to have missed what I said. I did not say that hate motivated you, but that you were focused on hate. Whether it is your hate or the hate of others, you seem to be focused on the probability that somehow violence will intrude on your existence. In contrast, I concentrate on the probability that love will intrude on my existence and I will do everything in my power to see that it does. My focus is love. Yours is hate.

It is you, who would forsake an entire country of people simply to gloat about your moral superiority that separates you from me.

Again, an empty and fallacious assumption and conclusion on your part. While I will readily admit that I see aggression as morally inferior to love, there will be no gloating should violence occur.

So tell me, these perpetrators of violence... did they come in love or as warriors? What if we were to beat all of the swords, guns and bombs into intruments of peace? Where would the warriors be without their instruments of destruction? Would these people still be alive?

Now, this is not a condemnation of "martial arts". Just like football, there can be a time to "play out" our aggressions in a healthy manner. Fencing, marksmanship, boxing and a number of sports are just that: SPORTS. But to adopt a "warrior mentality" is to prepare for violence. No more and certainly, no less.

 

[Scuba Pete]

You know what Pete, it's over, you have to thick of a head, all you are doing now is judging us, but doesn't or belief say Judge not and all that good stuff, you are making us out to be something where not and I find it quit rude and disrespectful.

I don't judge you, my friend. I disgree with you. In the future, if you would like no one to present a counter view, simply ask those that disagree with you to refrain from commenting. Simple really, since not everyone can consider precepts that run contrary to their own.

 

[Pariah]

You make a lot of assumptions here that are in error and are quite offensive. Why does my ethnicity make me not care?

You cannot fully feel the force of having your people ravaged for so long. It is not offensive in so much as it is true - it is not yours, and if it is not yours, how you can ever truly empathize with something that you have no connection to?

Please answer this question:
If Prithiviraj finished off Mohammed Gauri, do you think India would have suffered so greatly?

My focus is love. Yours is hate.

How do you love a terrorist and a country bent on your destruction? If their hatred is based ideologically, nothing material can appease them. Violence can solve issues permanently. Once again, the violence is self-defense. You seem to believe that a warrior cannot train himself to use peace before violence - true, his prowess in military strategy may lead him to use that, as he is well trained in it and more secured of victory (in whatever form that may be), but who is to say that he will not use peace before violence?

Do you believe that World War II could have been abated by using diplomacy with Hitler?

So tell me, these perpetrators of violence... did they come in love or as warriors? What if we were to beat all of the swords, guns and bombs into instruments of peace? Where would the warriors be without their instruments of destruction? Would these people still be alive?

Sometimes it is necessary, but in what mindset we kill can be tempered. If it necessary, then we kill out necessity - just as a moose protects himself against a wolf. We see it as duty, not impassioned violence against a hated enemy.

I don't understand what value you see in Jesus leading himself to the slaughter. No doubt, it is courageous, but what good does it serve?

But to adopt a "warrior mentality" is to prepare for violence. No more and certainly, no less.

I don't understand why you believe a warrior can't temper himself to avoid violence.
George Washington once said, "The best way to avoid war is to be prepared for it."
If you know that your opponent will overrun you, how can you simply sit there and preach peace. You lose the upperhand in negotiations because you cannot make threats to an enemy advance.

Unless you can legitimately give your opponent a reason to stand back, what reason does he not have to invade?

 

[Scuba Pete]

You cannot fully feel the force of having your people ravaged for so long. It is not offensive in so much as it is true - it is not yours, and if it is not yours, how you can ever truly empathize with something that you have no connection to?

Not everyone has your limitations. Just because you are unable to sympathise, does not mean that I am so afflicted. This is an over generalization.

Please answer this question:
If Prithiviraj finished off Mohammed Gauri, do you think India would have suffered so greatly?

Perhaps a WORSE warrior would have come along to ravage your people? What if Gauri was NOT a warrior? Would India have suffered AT ALL?

How do you love a terrorist and a country bent on your destruction?

Great question! I do love terrorists, though I admit that I am still working at loving them completely. Love is light and hate is but darkness. Darkness can not exist in the presense of light: it's absolutely impossible.

If their hatred is based ideologically, nothing material can appease them.

How do you know, if you have never tried?

Violence can solve issues permanently.

I disagree. Violence can only DESTROY. Violence can only end life and not create it. It is not a permanent solution or our first war would have been our LAST war. But violence propogates even more violence and the circle of hate continues unabated.

Once again, the violence is self-defense. You seem to believe that a warrior cannot train himself to use peace before violence - true, his prowess in military strategy may lead him to use that, as he is well trained in it and more secured of victory (in whatever form that may be), but who is to say that he will not use peace before violence?

According to you, this ended in an amazing tragedy in India.

Do you believe that World War II could have been abated by using diplomacy with Hitler?

I don't believe World War II could have happened if no soldiers showed up on the battlefields.

I don't understand what value you see in Jesus leading himself to the slaughter. No doubt, it is courageous, but what good does it serve?

Perhaps, when you understand this, you will see the fallacy in using violence to stop violence.

I don't understand why you believe a warrior can't temper himself to avoid violence.
George Washington once said, "The best way to avoid war is to be prepared for it."

Such is detente'! It's why we have so many nukes. It was GREAT while Russia was whole: we deterred them while they deterred us. But NOW... where did all those Russian nukes go to? Now those terrorists which you hate have them and they are quite willing to detonate them among the innocents. Detente' has now led to us having to spend BILLIONS just to protect ourselves. What if we could put that energy to research or exploration. How much MORE could this money do for us?