Non-violence is not a fact

[china]

Non-violence has been preached over and over again, politically, religiously, by various leaders that we have had. Non-violence is not a fact; it is just an idea, a theory, a set of words; the actual fact is that you are violent. That is the fact. That is “what is”. But we are not capable of understanding “what is”, and that is why we create this nonsense called non-violence. And that gives rise to the conflict between “what is” and “what should be”. All the while you are pursuing non-violence you are sowing the seeds of violence. This is so obvious. So, can we together look at “what is” without any escape, without any ideals, without suppressing or escaping from “what is”?

 

[captain morgan]

What are you doing in China?

 

[darkbeaver]

You're arguing that good begets evil. That a tomatoe seed sprouts dog weed. That the sun is not warm. Humankind is familiar with your philosophy and we have laboured long and hard to crush it. There is a reason the forbidden shortcut of violence is so obviously attractive to you. There are none so blind.:smile:

 

[china]

captain morgan,

What are you doing in China?

Having a wonderful time for past seven years .
How about you you capt., waiting for "favorable winds"?

 

[china]

You're arguing that good begets evil. That a tomatoe seed sprouts dog weed. That the sun is not warm. Humankind is familiar with your philosophy and we have laboured long and hard to crush it. There is a reason the forbidden shortcut of violence is so obviously attractive to you. There are none so blind

What I,m saying is there is no such a thing as a 'non-violence'........Believe it or not !

 

[bobnoorduyn]

What I,m saying is there is no such a thing as a 'non-violence'........Believe it or not !

Maybe I'm a bit thick here, but you seem to be using non-violence as a noun, and of course there is no such thing. Using non violence as a verb, although a bit perverse, makes only a little more sense. Using an inaction as an action as a means to an end, well... I've always believed that non-violence meant a form of civil disobedience much the way Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi did. However he did fight, violently I might add, with and alongside the British, a regime he eventually came to despise, and rightfully so. When non violence fails to stop the forces who wish to change "what is" to what "they wish it to be", then violence must be employed to protect "what is", or was beforehand.

 

[china]

bobnoorduyn

Thanks for the post.
You see there is an element of violence in most of us that has never been resolved, never been wiped away, so that we can live totally without violence. Not being able to be free of violence we have created the idea of its opposite, non-violence. Non-violence is non-fact. Violence is a fact. Non-violence does not exist, except as an idea. What exists, "what is," is violence. It is like those people in India (Gandhi) who say they worship the idea of non-violence, they preach about it, talk about it, copy it - they are dealing with a non-fact, non-reality, with an illusion. What is a fact is violence, major or minor, but violence. When you pursue non-violence, which is an illusion, which is not an actuality, you are cultivating time. That is, "I am violent, but I will be non-violent." The "I will be" is time, which is the future, a future that has no reality; it is invented by thought as an opposite of violence. It is the postponement of violence that creates time. If there is an understanding and so the ending of violence, there is no psychological time..........believe it or not.

 

[talloola]

WE, are not all the same. WE can't be 'described' ,to be 'all' of anything. WE, are
a variety of different beings, some are non violent.

THAT fact creates a necessity to find 'balance', as the non violent have to find a way to be non violent while defending themselves from the violent and aggressive.
There is no end to the 'acivity' created from the 'mix'.

Our mouths are our biggest and most hurtful weapon, and from the hateful
words, the violence begins.

When watching the documentary showing many different countries, 'from the
space' ship, our earth looks so beautiful and peaceful, the activity that is going
on down on the earth is not visible, but one can visualize everything that is
happening, and it is very disturbing to realize the violence happening constantly in
most places on earth.

Those of us who contribute and take part in all of that violence should be ashamed
of ourselves, whether it be 'kicking your dog', or 'bombing a country'.

Compared to the population of the world, a 'handful' of violent people cause all
of the nasty behavior, they become the leaders of countries, then argue and fight
with each other, it is their hunger for power over each other that causes misery
and death, they accuse the other of being violent, and preach of their own non violence, it is a neverending circle.
THEY are the minority, but they do the damage, while we all stand
by and do nothing, we are powerless because we are not violent, until we get
caught up in their rhetoric.

 

[talloola]

Even if those who exude violence against others, dissapeared, and peace and calm
came over the human world, a 'sort' of violence would still exist out of necessity.
Those who are starving will do what they need to do to 'eat', and in the animal
world that is the way of the jungle, not really violence, but necessity to survive.
That must be accepted.
Non violence should be catagorized as 'normal' behavior.

 

[darkbeaver]

What I,m saying is there is no such a thing as a 'non-violence'........Believe it or not !

We need a frame of reference though, if there is no non violence then there is no violence, so is there only degrees of passivity or degrees of violence? The one builds the other so non violence is as real as violence. IMO

 

[china]

darkbeaver

The one builds the other so non violence is as real as violence.

IMO

Hi Db

Look at this this way.Because one denies ''what is''((violence) and creates the ideal of ''what should be'' ( non-violence) there is conflict. But to observe what actually is, means one has no opposite, only ''what is''. If you observe violence and use the word ''violence'' there is already conflict, the very word is already warped: there are people who approve of violence and people who do not. The whole philosophy of non-violence is warped, both politically and religiously. There is violence and its opposite, non-violence. The opposite exists because you know violence. The opposite has its root in violence. One thinks that by having an opposite, by some extraordinary method or means, one will get rid of ''what" is.
Now, can one put away the opposite and just look at violence, the fact? The non-violence is not a fact. Non-violence is an idea, a concept, a conclusion. The fact is violence - that one is angry; that one hates somebody; that one wants to hurt people; that one is jealous; all that is the implication of violence, that is the fact. Now, can one observe that fact without introducing its opposite? Hope that answers your question DB