Using Violence To Neutralize Violence.

[Nasir]

I would like to know what others think about using violence to neutralize violence / injustice.

Examples:

1. An elderly person being robbed, punched, kicked, stomped, etc.

2. A child being abducted.


Would you step in (perhaps rallying others to aid you)?

Would you call the police, and let them take care of the situation (Hoping they make it in time to help)?

Would you turn a blind eye?

What would you do?

[The David]

I would kill in cold blood.

Actually, I would try to injure or restrain the person if I could. But the world is far too violent to pretend that all conflicts can be solved peacefully. I would rather be assertive in my violence than be an accomplice by turning a blind eye.

[Curtis2011]

Hey.

I was curious about this as well, and in a book by spiritual teacher Dr. David Hawkins, he answers this question somewhat (unfortunately I can't remember which book it was, sry).

Or at least he gives what I think is an answer to this question.

In one of his books he explains that if your goal is to end violence and end suffering, then it is possible to kill someone and have it not be a 'negative' occurrence.

If a terrorist or a madman is about to kill someone, unfortunately they cannot be dealt with by appealing to their intellect (explaining to them why it is wrong). They are obsessed with their own pride and anger, and believe that they themselves have the right to take another's life, which is utterly false.

If you use violence to stop violence, with the INTENTION of doing something good for the world and helping someone in need, it is a positive thing. Sometimes violent people can only be disarmed with violence.

Imagine if the police weren't allowed to carry guns even against an armed assailant! The police would end up dead and the murderer would be free to continue killing.


I know it is controversial, but every action you take, including killing or hurting someone physically, depends on your INTENTIONS, and whether they are positive or negative.


If you are intending to help someone in need, that is most likely a positive intention.

BUT, a negative intention would be the idea of saving somebody so that you can be a hero, or look good. That is a prideful intention and is not beneficial to mankind.

[JSB]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

Hey.

I was curious about this as well, and in a book by spiritual teacher Dr. David Hawkins, he answers this question somewhat (unfortunately I can't remember which book it was, sry).

Or at least he gives what I think is an answer to this question.

In one of his books he explains that if your goal is to end violence and end suffering, then it is possible to kill someone and have it not be a 'negative' occurrence.

If a terrorist or a madman is about to kill someone, unfortunately they cannot be dealt with by appealing to their intellect (explaining to them why it is wrong). They are obsessed with their own pride and anger, and believe that they themselves have the right to take another's life, which is utterly false.

If you use violence to stop violence, with the INTENTION of doing something good for the world and helping someone in need, it is a positive thing. Sometimes violent people can only be disarmed with violence.

Imagine if the police weren't allowed to carry guns even against an armed assailant! The police would end up dead and the murderer would be free to continue killing.


I know it is controversial, but every action you take, including killing or hurting someone physically, depends on your INTENTIONS, and whether they are positive or negative.


If you are intending to help someone in need, that is most likely a positive intention.

BUT, a negative intention would be the idea of saving somebody so that you can be a hero, or look good. That is a prideful intention and is not beneficial to mankind.

This makes a lot of sense to me. I think violence should only be used as a last resort, but it is sometimes necessary.

[Revolution]

Using Violence To Neutralize Violence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to know what others think about using violence to neutralize violence / injustice.

Examples:

1. An elderly person being robbed, punched, kicked, stomped, etc.

2. A child being abducted.


Would you step in (perhaps rallying others to aid you)?

Would you call the police, and let them take care of the situation (Hoping they make it in time to help)?

Would you turn a blind eye?

What would you do?

Doesn't it depend on the particular situation?
I don't believe there are any hard-line always-right guidlines for everything. This is not a black and white world.

I think being authentic requires you to silence your mind and TRULY be present in the moment. Maybe each of these examples that you give could be "right" or "wrong" - depending on the situation.

But if you want general advice I would say err. on the side of non-violence. If you can stop a child snatcher then stop him - doesn't mean you have to beat him to a pulp. What is God telling me to do right now - that is the question.

[wachusettgirl]

Violence only brings about more violence, and the need for retribution. We've seen this time and time again throughout history. On a larger scale, war is most definately not a means to peace.

[Nasir]

Originally Posted by Revolution

Doesn't it depend on the particular situation?
I don't believe there are any hard-line always-right guidlines for everything. This is not a black and white world.

I think being authentic requires you to silence your mind and TRULY be present in the moment. Maybe each of these examples that you give could be "right" or "wrong" - depending on the situation.

But if you want general advice I would say err. on the side of non-violence. If you can stop a child snatcher then stop him - doesn't mean you have to beat him to a pulp. What is God telling me to do right now - that is the question.

I am not asking, if you would "beat him to a pulp." Even shoving someone is violent, so you can slide the scale of intensity anywhere you want it.

I am not asking you to be violent in the above situations. I am asking what you would do, if these situations were presented to you in this moment.

[Nasir]

Originally Posted by wachusettgirl

Violence only brings about more violence, and the need for retribution. We've seen this time and time again throughout history. On a larger scale, war is most definately not a means to peace.

Agreed. However, what is your answer? How would you react to the situations posted?

[The Cloud]

I believe that violence is more of a psychological thing than a physical one. Like Curtis2011 said, it's intention that matters. If you use physical force to defend yourself or another from violence, then that is defense without violence as far as I am concerned, even if you do end up harming the assailant.

It's a paradox; if you have power and are ready, willing, and able to use it, you won't have to. A thug will take what they can from whomever they want as long as they know that it is undefended. But if they have to worry that around every corner there may be a man willing to fight to defend themselves, they will step much more carefully. Violence breeds more violence, but taking physical action in defense reduces it.

[MartialDev]

When a cat eats a rat, which of them is right and which is wrong?

[amixa]

i was thinking about this myself lately.

especially after that female leader in the middle east decided to go forth with a political rally knowing she would be assasinated. and she was.

i was trying to think.. was it stupid? how could giving oneself up in the face of absolute danger knowing you are probably going to die help anyone?

i see her point that she was trying to make but then i was thinking -- so if everyone just stopped on the opposing side who wanted peace and just allowed the violent people to kill them all.. what would be left?

i had read a couple months ago a book that was recommended to me by someone here called 'places that scare you' written by a buddhist nun.
in it she had the story of two ships -- one being a pirate's ship who then boarded the other ship with the intention of killing everyone on the boat.
in order to keep the suffering to a minimum, one member saw that if he allowed this man to kill all these people, he would bring upon himself greater suffering along with the others that would be killed. however, if he took the action to kill this pirate so that to minimize the suffering of everyone including the pirate, that would be the best possible outcome for all. so he killed him but not out of any other reason but pure compassion.

of course its hard to apply this to all issues in life -- do we go out and kill all the terrorists to keep them from harming themselves and others? our morals in our cultures can help us but also keep us from furthering the best possible course. or is it? its hard to say.

so was it the smartest thing for her to go to the rally that day? i'm still not quite sure.

[amixa]

Originally Posted by The Cloud

Violence breeds more violence, but taking physical action in defense reduces it.

i definitely agree.. one must absolutely be able to defend themselves.


i hadn't heard of this quote before and found it quite funny but true -- my friend had told it to me the other day.

fighting violence with violence is like continuing to have sex in attempt to obtain one's virginity.

[Akashic_Librarian]

In an ideal world I would fight and kill anyone who posed a real physical threat to me or those I care about.

However the justice system today is so perversely warped and malformed that I would probably be arrested and charged instead...

[fellowtraveler]

Originally Posted by amixa

i was thinking about this myself lately.

especially after that female leader in the middle east decided to go forth with a political rally knowing she would be assasinated. and she was.

i was trying to think.. was it stupid? how could giving oneself up in the face of absolute danger knowing you are probably going to die help anyone?

i see her point that she was trying to make but then i was thinking -- so if everyone just stopped on the opposing side who wanted peace and just allowed the violent people to kill them all.. what would be left?

i had read a couple months ago a book that was recommended to me by someone here called 'places that scare you' written by a buddhist nun.
in it she had the story of two ships -- one being a pirate's ship who then boarded the other ship with the intention of killing everyone on the boat.
in order to keep the suffering to a minimum, one member saw that if he allowed this man to kill all these people, he would bring upon himself greater suffering along with the others that would be killed. however, if he took the action to kill this pirate so that to minimize the suffering of everyone including the pirate, that would be the best possible outcome for all. so he killed him but not out of any other reason but pure compassion.

of course its hard to apply this to all issues in life -- do we go out and kill all the terrorists to keep them from harming themselves and others? our morals in our cultures can help us but also keep us from furthering the best possible course. or is it? its hard to say.

so was it the smartest thing for her to go to the rally that day? i'm still not quite sure.

I completely agree with the basic simple concept - but if he could have accomplished the same thing by incapacitating the head pirate instead of killing him, better. Just like saving an old lady from a purse-snatcher: do you just get him to run away or capture him, or do you unecessarily beat the hell out of him? The latter could easily happen if emotions get involved, and it would be wrong IMHO.

[Liveformx64]

It is easy to wrap up the whole spectrum of human emotion, and reasoning into the word "Violence"

How can anyone label self defense, or defense of an innocent as violence?

I have a sort of idea that plays out to be something like this:

There is criminal on a lonely subway platform who you feel is about to harm a child on the same platform, I would describe his intent as negative in energy or on a lower vibrational level. Your will to protect that child is on a much higher vibrational level.

Now as you see this shady fellow eye ball this girl in the subway, there has been zero physical manifestation from either side. So you could preemptively usher the girl away from the strange man, potentially neutralizing the threat. But for whatever reason you hold off, in the hopes that he will pass without incident.

Minutes go by and the grungy fellow's gaze only seems to intensify on this young girl. As the time passes the shady figure is quietly turning his thoughts into a physical manifestation of harming the girl.

Now we reach a critical point. At the moment he decided to manifest his thoughts into actually physically attempting to harm the girl, the amount of force you must apply to the situation goes up considerably. You think to yourself, (in so many words) Perhaps the fellow could be harnessing the force of chemical energy stored inside a pistol to inflict his negative will. How hard it is to neutralize the force behind a bullet once it has left the barrel. But relatively easy to manage before the powder has been ignited.

As the grungy fellow sets off towards the girl, you embark simultaneously on the same journey. Behind him just out of sight around the bend of the corridor you quietly watch the direction of his shuffle. As he heads for the girl you quicken your pace and approach the man from the rear.

Hoping to avoid a physical altercation, just before he reaches the girl you shout loudly in his direction. He gives quick glance over his shoulder in the direction of the shout, but his pace only quickens. Just as he reaches for the girl you grab his shoulder and attempt to hold him out of reach of the girl. At that point he turns on you and gives you a push and takes a swing. Being trained in self defense you are able to quickly dodge his attack and put the man to the ground without any further resistance. You quickly call 911, and the police are on the way. The girl, texting away on her cell phone hardly noticed the old man, and only came to her senses at the point of your shouting. But how much greater your toil had he grabbed the girl and ran.

You had to employ as much positive energy as necessary to neutralize his negative intentions. Which at one point might have only required an intimidating threat or warning call. Or it could have been as much as a full blown fight for your life, had he a gun or knife. As he raised his output so would you have raised yours. Fortunately you were able to divert his output to the ground simply and effectively because of your training.

There is a big difference between force and violence. But I believe you can use force to neutralize violence quite effectively. Now of course there are endless perversions of the use of force, just like there are abuses of any personal power. In fact I would label violence a perversion of the personal power of force.

[Liveformx64]

Originally Posted by wachusettgirl

Violence only brings about more violence, and the need for retribution. We've seen this time and time again throughout history. On a larger scale, war is most definately not a means to peace.

Can you truly not reflect on a time in history in which violence (force) begot peace?

[stellasky]

I agree with the above post.
This is truly an interesting topic, one that I've mulled over without a completely satisfying answer, due to quotes such as "violence, only begets violence".

So I've asked myself, "Are you a lover or a fighter?"
Answer: I'm a lover, but if I can't fight for what I love, then what am I?

if I love, respect and honor life, and I'm in a situation in which a life is threatened, I must fight for it, but only with good intention ( as described in the above post quote).

Or, as Plato puts it, "How do you treat an unjust man, justly or unjustly?"

Chances are the unjust man, doesn't vibe with just acts, so how will he understand?
It's the nature of an unjust man to be unjust, while the nature of a just man is to be just, two different modes of being.

So by fighting for what you love, the "just man" has to go against his "nature of being", a moral dillemma, while the unjust man has no moral dillemma.

A being without any morality cannot be treated justly in a situation when the "well being" of a life is at stake. While war is not the answer to peace, how does one deal with an unjust man?

[wachusettgirl]

Originally Posted by Liveformx64

Can you truly not reflect on a time in history in which violence (force) begot peace?

Yes, it's true that there are many examples of force or violence ultimately bringing about peace, but almost always (in my belief) there was an initial act, or multiple acts of violence which started the whole thing...