FinalEnigma wrote:Seijun wrote:FinalEnigma wrote:The first quote I think most certainly can apply, and the second one has some good potential, but I disagree with the interpretation, particularly the bolded section. I think it is absolutely wrong. One cannot always return misdeeds with kindness and reach a positive conclusion. take for example, the school bully. if you don't fight back, and appease him every time he bullies you, you will only be bullied more and more harshly.
You are deciding the bully's reaction for him in your scenario. Sometimes bullies are bullies because of how they have been treated themselves. Maybe no one has tried to understand him and show him kindness before. Bullies also tend to have low self esteem and use bullying as a cover. Maybe he needs someone to compliment him about something and show him his own self worth. You may call me naive, but do you know for a fact that this would never work with any bully ever? And what if you were able to get through to just one and show him true friendship and he was to change his ways, how awesome would that be? You could change the course of a person's life for the better simply by treating them with kindness and being a good example. Again, can you know for a fact that this would never be the outcome? The only results you get from fighting back is you will hurt him and then he will turn to another kid to bully. He may even be meaner as being bested by you will just hurt his self esteem more and give him a greater need to dominate others. Violence begets violence. I think the Buddhist's way with the chance, slight though it may be, of affecting someone's life in a great, positive manner is worth the effort.
FinalEnigma wrote:There are some fights that you aren't going to win, and some people you aren't going to win over with kindness. The bolded philosophy, while valuable, only applies partially, and the trick is in knowing when to apply which course of action: Kindness to try and win over you aggressor, active resistance to defeat him, cunning to make him unable or unwilling to continue, or exodus to remove yourself from the problem.
The trick is to realize the underlying problem and attempt to mend it. I admit that I see no problem in learning a form of self defense as well, as long as it is used exclusively for self defense. That means dodging, using the attacker's own weight/momentum against him, etc not beating him to a pulp before he gets the chance to do so to you.
FinalEnigma wrote:with the example of a school bully this would of course, be along the lines of the following: Kindness - make him your friend so he doesn't harass you anymore. Active resistance - beat him up so he stops harassing you. cunning - get him suspended, expelled, or manipulate his motives. or exodus - switch to a different class or school.
Treating him with kindness does not have to result in him becoming your friend. He may simply learn that his bullying you is not going to work like it does on other kids. In some cases, rare though they may be, he may begin to feel badly about it. It
can happen.
FinalEnigma wrote:I think you misunderstood, or perhaps I misstated. I don't mean that your approach is always wrong, I just mean that the trick is to know when it will work and when it won't, and use it when it works, and when it won't, take a different course of action.
How can you ever be sure that it will not work? The power of kindness to those that do not expect it can surprise you. What if you have returned a bully's harsh treatment with kindness and compassion for a week and you finally give up, not realizing that you have sparked an internal conflict in him about how he has been treating you? The next day you change schools, thereby abandoning him, or you tell on him, thereby betraying him, or you fight back, thereby affirming that violence is acceptable even to you. Or you could continue on, showing him that kindness and compassion is not defeated by anger or violence.
FinalEnigma wrote:Any of these, if executed properly, would accomplish the goal, the idea is to pick which one accomplishes it most effectively and reasonably. Buddhism of course, limits you to Kindness or exodus.
Just what exactly is the goal? To simply get him to quit or to be a good example and influence on him and those who are witness? What if you could accomplish both rather than beating him up and simply continuing the cycle of violence?
FinalEnigma wrote:You are jumping awful hard on the beating up choice. note that was only one of four courses of action I mentioned.
You are right, I did concentrate on the "fighting" alternative more than the others. My thoughts on the other alternatives are these...
If one's safety/health is truly in danger, then I find it perfectly acceptable, even advisable, to ask an adult to intervene. No child should sacrifice his/her own safety or health. If the risk is a schoolyard scuffle that is only a possibility (meaning in the particular case, the child may be able to reason with the bully and get through to him/her), it should be up to the child, and I would never fault him/her for going for help. I would never consider it cowardice. As I said before, these ideals are much more suited for adults, not innocent, inexperienced children. While I do not condone fighting back, I certainly do not condone a child sacrificing his/her safety or health. The "exodus" alternative, I think, would be very rare, as the situation should ultimately be handled by the adults if it cannot be resolved otherwise.
FinalEnigma wrote:regarding the goal, the initial goal is, of course, to get him to stop bullying you.
Again, the issue between adults and children is different. It is perfectly understandable and expected that a child's goal is to get the bully to leave them alone. I would not blame them in the least. But as an adult, my initial goal would be to help the person antagonizing me to see the err of his ways and to show him what he is missing out on by being a bully to those around him. I can put up a mental shield and accept all the abuse he can dish out (assuming it is not physical and he isn't beating me to a pulp). If he is attempting to
physically abuse me, then I would take the proper measures to ensure my safety. But if he is simply verbally abusive, I can take that all day long with a smile and then wish him a pleasant day, even ask him if there is anything I can do for him.
FinalEnigma wrote:I've come to the realization that one must take care of oneself before one can care for others.
I fully agree with you there. You must draw the line with sacrifice to be sure that you have something to give.
FinalEnigma wrote:I don't mean a self-first, I take-care-of-me thing, I'm not that cynical, what I mean is this:
I, for about a year, was planning on becoming a doctor. perhaps going into medical research. this could potentially help thousands or even millions of people. That sounds great to me, and I felt really good about it. but then I realized that if I did choose to follow that career path, I would be miserable, and would never be able to help anybody. So now I am choosing to do what will make me happy, and from that I will do what I can to help others. I will do far more good on this career path, following my own desires, that I ever would have as a doctor.
Then you have chosen the correct path, in my humble opinion. You are no good to anyone else if you are not good to yourself first. Following the path that you feel is right for you will make you happy and give you the strength, energy and will that you need to help others. If you are unhappy with your life, you will be depressed, drained, and no good to anyone including yourself. There will be others who know that they are called to do the research that you considered, and they will be happy and productive in their decision. And you will be successful in an area that they may have considered and yet abandoned for the same reasons you abandoned their field. Follow your heart and you cannot go wrong.
FinalEnigma wrote:my point is this - if I let the bully, or whatever aggressor, negatively impact me, then he is negatively impacting all the people I could be helping if I weren't worrying about him. So yes, the first goal is to stop the aggressor. If I can benefit others than myself in the process, that is obviously the better choice.
But what does it mean to "let" the bully/aggressor negatively impact you? Could he tease, berate, and ridicule you and you
not let it impact you? Or must you be affected and retaliate?
FinalEnigma wrote:so if I can make friends with this guy, and end all the violence, and change his life, then yeah, I'll do that. But if I can't, I'll use another method.
I am truly glad to hear that. There are some that are blind to that option.
FinalEnigma wrote:
I believe that no good comes from violence whether it is being initiated or returned.
You are quite sure? no good ever comes from violence(excluding self defense of course)?
FinalEnigma wrote: By defending your country, you bring peace to the citizens that otherwise would be killed.
Ah ha! so violence is acceptable to defend others?
but is it not acceptable for yourself?
I saw that one coming as I typed my post

and it is a perfectly good point. Honestly, and I do hope you will not take this as a cop-out, I am very young in my walk with Buddhism as I only decided to follow it about a week or so ago. I have yet to delve deeply into it and get enlightened on all the teachings. At this point, I am really not sure what to make of the morality of war, if there is such a thing. When confronting a bully, we only have ourselves to worry about. But it is more complicated when we are asked to defend millions of people. I feel that I am going to have to learn more before I can argue intelligently on this particular aspect. But my post does represent my current feelings that one should refrain from violence unless it is for the greater good of millions. As I learn more about the Buddha's teachings, I may change my feelings. And if I do, I will be sure to let you know.
FinalEnigma wrote:
But we as citizens can set examples for others and maybe even break the cycle of violence now and then. I think the reward for doing so in a non violent manner is greater than the reward of seeing the bloody bully on the ground and thinking "he won't mess with me anymore".
Oh I quite agree with you. I would far prefer to turn somebody away from a violent path than kill him before he can start it, but you can't always turn someone.
Sometimes, you have to make the less moral choice, because it's more moral to do so.
I love apparent contradictions like that. In case it's confusing let me give an example:
You are a brilliant general who is defending a small nation against it's aggressive and more powerful neighbor with a habit of pillaging and raping, but you are captured in a large battle. One of your soldiers infiltrates the enemy camp and finds you, and offers to take your place in the execution the next morning, as he looks very much like you. If you both try to escape, the enemy will catch you both, because you are too deep in his land, and could not possibly reach safety before he caught you. You know that, with the knowledge you've gained while inside the enemy camp, that you could defeat them if given the chance.
So do you do the immoral, cowardly thing and let him take your place?
or do you do the even more immoral thing and nobly sacrifice yourself, ensuring the soldiers survival, but also ensuring the destruction of your country and the slaughter of your people's women and children?
you have to let him take your place. You have to do the cowardly and immoral thing and use this soldiers life as a game piece to save yours, so that you can do the moral thing and save your country.
I would not force him to die for me. He knows the situation, and if he is a good soldier with our country's best interest in mind, then he would be willing to die for the greater good. I believe that I would be willing to do so if I were in his place. You might say, "that's easy for you to say, you don't have to". But honestly, if I were there and I knew that I could save a nation, what better way to die? Should I die saving a nation or die in a nursing home watching reruns of
Gilligan's Island? I would be honored to do the former.
It would not be immoral or cowardly to let a man accept the choice of giving his life so that millions may live. To go and die yourself and let your country fall would be the immoral, not to mention irresponsible, thing to do. I can only imagine that pride would be one's motive in that decision.