Nonviolence or Pacifism?

[SalixIncendium]

No need to harm others. So i guess people see me as pasifist. But it is compassion for all beings

Admittedly, this thread was inspired by one of yours.

You speak of compassion for all beings. Doesn't that include yourself?

 

[ChristineM]

Do you make a distinction between nonviolence and pacifism?

As I see it, nonviolence is a concept in which one doesn't initiate harmful action against another, but may act in self defense if another initiates harm against him/her, while pacifism is unconditional nonviolence where one does no harm, even when harm is perpetrated again her/him.

In dharmic faiths, at least Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, there is tenet of nonviolence called ahimsa ('himsa' meaning 'to harm/injure' and 'a' meaning opposite), a virtue which, in my understanding, teaches nonviolence, but does not embrace absolute pacifism. While I do not act in a way to initiate harm to another and will not seek vengeance for harm done to me or mine, I will act to defend myself and those who cannot defend themselves.

What does your religion teach about violent acts? Do you agree with this teaching? Why or why not?

If you are irreligious, what are your thoughts on the subject?

I would consider myself non violent but not pacifist.

Violence (for example military action) upsets me but i realise that in some cases it is inevitable.

I would never initiate violence against another but would (and have trained in) protecting myself and family if required.

 

[ChristineM]

I agree with your views on ahimsa. I don't restrict this dharma to just humans. Not only do I practice this on animals, but I extend it to plant life as well (though I don't recall ever really having been attacked by a plant ).

What? No trifids in your area?

I am often attacked by stinging nettles while out walking, perhaps my own fault for looking at scenery and not watching where my hands swing.

 

[SalixIncendium]

What? No trifids in your area?

I am often attacked by stinging nettles while out walking, perhaps my own fault for looking at scenery and not watching where my hands swing.

None that I've come across, though I have been bitten by a rose bush now and again.

Wouldn't that be kinda like you standing standing still on a busy sidewalk and someone walking into you and them accusing you of attacking them.

 

[Jumi]

I respect people who are pacifists. For me there are lines you can't cross. If you do, the gloves come off.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Do you make a distinction between nonviolence and pacifism?

As I see it, nonviolence is a concept in which one doesn't initiate harmful action against another, but may act in self defense if another initiates harm against him/her, while pacifism is unconditional nonviolence where one does no harm, even when harm is perpetrated again her/him.

In dharmic faiths, at least Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, there is tenet of nonviolence called ahimsa ('himsa' meaning 'to harm/injure' and 'a' meaning opposite), a virtue which, in my understanding, teaches nonviolence, but does not embrace absolute pacifism. While I do not act in a way to initiate harm to another and will not seek vengeance for harm done to me or mine, I will act to defend myself and those who cannot defend themselves.

What does your religion teach about violent acts? Do you agree with this teaching? Why or why not?

If you are irreligious, what are your thoughts on the subject?

I see non-violence as describing the tactic of, well, not committing violence, while I see pacifism as a philosophy that can inform non-violence.

People who aren't pacificsts can employ non-violence as a means to an end, but pacifists are those who see non-violence as an end in itself.

That's my take on it, anyway.

 

[ChristineM]

None that I've come across, though I have been bitten by a rose bush now and again.

Wouldn't that be kinda like you standing standing still on a busy sidewalk and someone walking into you and them accusing you of attacking them.

Them rosebushes can be aggressive. We inherited a beauty, about 10 ft high with a mass of gorgeous red blooms the size if dinner plates throughout summer and autumn (even into early winter). But to keep it that height it needs gentle attention after the last bloom has bloomed. I still have the scars.

'Tiz more like walking into traffic without looking then blaming the car for knocking you down. Totally illogical but it must happen all the time.

Funny story. On a day trip to Blackpool my son tripped and broke his ankle (that bit wasn't the funny story). We took him to the local hospital, in the waiting room we over heard a conversation.

Consider Blackpool is a seaside town, that, during the summer months gets crowded with holliday makers and day trippers who appear to have left their brain at home.

Along the promenade is a tracked tramway, very popular and busy, unfortunately you have to cross the tram tracks to get from the town to the beach.

Back to hospital. A guy, somewhat the worse for a lunch of fish and chips and several beers (typical fair for the day tripper) and in much distress with an obviously dislocated shoulder and a bloodied face was explaining to a police officer that he "was standing by the tracks waiting to cross to the beach and the tram swerved and hit him"

 

[Audie]

I respect people who are pacifists. For me there are lines you can't cross. If you do, the gloves come off.

Were pacifists respected during the winter war?

 

[Revoltingest]

I make a concerted effort to not harm plants as much as I can, probably more than most.

Old joke....
"I'm a vegetarian cuz I hate plants."

 

[BilliardsBall]

Do you make a distinction between nonviolence and pacifism?

As I see it, nonviolence is a concept in which one doesn't initiate harmful action against another, but may act in self defense if another initiates harm against him/her, while pacifism is unconditional nonviolence where one does no harm, even when harm is perpetrated again her/him.

In dharmic faiths, at least Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, there is tenet of nonviolence called ahimsa ('himsa' meaning 'to harm/injure' and 'a' meaning opposite), a virtue which, in my understanding, teaches nonviolence, but does not embrace absolute pacifism. While I do not act in a way to initiate harm to another and will not seek vengeance for harm done to me or mine, I will act to defend myself and those who cannot defend themselves.

What does your religion teach about violent acts? Do you agree with this teaching? Why or why not?

If you are irreligious, what are your thoughts on the subject?

As I understand it, Christianity teaches nonviolence while allowing for self-defense. This stance seems loving and logical. One who assaults another forfeits their own rights to safety. A woman who kills a potential rapist is exonerated biblically, and in my mind as well.

 

[sealchan]

There are situations where a light touch of violence is self-defence or the preparation for violence the same. Perhaps this is why Buddhists developed combat skills.

 

[Jumi]

Were pacifists respected during the winter war?

If they were female? It was fine.
If they were male? Shot and killed. It was treason to "home, religion and fatherland" in those times.

Arndt Pekurinen - Wikipedia

 

[siti]

Obviously one has to eat, but there are methods to harvest lettuce that does not kill the plant. I've gone entire growing seasons harvesting from the same plants.

I've had the same two houseplants for 10 years or so, because I can't bear the thought of killing them even though they've seen better days.

I make a concerted effort to not harm plants as much as I can, probably more than most.

That's absolutely brilliant - and showed my question to be the ignorant, unthinking response that it was! I was aware (but obviously not immediately so when I replied to your post) that it is possible to consume vegetable foods without unnecessarily shortening the natural life cycle of the plant - maybe we should become frugivores - or at least more frugivorous - take the food that nature offers willingly rather than trying to force nature to produce what it doesn't really want to give? My thinking is in harmony with that - but how (especially as a suburb-dweller with barely a quarter acre to grow stuff) to start actually doing it?

Anyway, I guess non-violence towards plants was not your main focus in this thread. In regard to violence among humans, I think it depends to some extent on what level we are looking at it from. On an individual level, we have a natural fight/flight response mechanism that sometimes would push us towards a violent response to a threat (or perceived threat) to our own safety/security. I'm not sure we can actually switch that off, but we might be able to cultivate a "calmer spirit" that is less inclined to violent outbursts - maybe even to the extent of abstaining from violent responses even in the face of the most severe provocation.

But on a collective level, almost all communities/countries seem to have an in-built group mentality that prompts them to set up defense systems to protect their "borders". Is it genuinely realistic to expect that they will eventually all turn their "swords into plowshares" and "learn war no more"? I wish it were so - but I can't see it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

No need to harm others. So i guess people see me as pasifist. But it is compassion for all beings

Sometimes compassion comes via the form of being solidly whacked on the back of the head followed by, "stupid".

 

[Twilight Hue]

None that I've come across, though I have been bitten by a rose bush now and again.

Wouldn't that be kinda like you standing standing still on a busy sidewalk and someone walking into you and them accusing you of attacking them.

Oh the times I've been 'kissed' by roses.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That's absolutely brilliant - and showed my question to be the ignorant, unthinking response that it was! I was aware (but obviously not immediately so when I replied to your post) that it is possible to consume vegetable foods without unnecessarily shortening the natural life cycle of the plant - maybe we should become frugivores - or at least more frugivorous - take the food that nature offers willingly rather than trying to force nature to produce what it doesn't really want to give? My thinking is in harmony with that - but how (especially as a suburb-dweller with barely a quarter acre to grow stuff) to start actually doing it?

Brilliant except for the verb conjugation faux pas that I just saw when I reread the first sentence of my text you quoted.

But I digress.

That's about the same size parcel that I own. I live alone and found that a 40'x40' garden made up of different types of lettuces and greens, tomatoes, and assortment of squash, and an assortment of peppers kept me in more produce than I could eat for a good part of the year.

My living situation has changed since and I find myself living in an apartment with no place to grow anything other than in a patio box. But I do pay attention to what I purchase, buying mostly fruits when I buy produce. I also eat a good deal of dairy, eggs, rice, and nuts.

 

[dybmh]

Render harmless without injury.

+1 for Render Harmless without injury.

 

[MJFlores]

Do you make a distinction between nonviolence and pacifism?

As I see it, nonviolence is a concept in which one doesn't initiate harmful action against another, but may act in self defense if another initiates harm against him/her, while pacifism is unconditional nonviolence where one does no harm, even when harm is perpetrated again her/him.

In dharmic faiths, at least Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, there is tenet of nonviolence called ahimsa ('himsa' meaning 'to harm/injure' and 'a' meaning opposite), a virtue which, in my understanding, teaches nonviolence, but does not embrace absolute pacifism. While I do not act in a way to initiate harm to another and will not seek vengeance for harm done to me or mine, I will act to defend myself and those who cannot defend themselves.

What does your religion teach about violent acts? Do you agree with this teaching? Why or why not?

If you are irreligious, what are your thoughts on the subject?

If a man enters your house of worship with the intention of killing or robbing people would it be proper to - use force to prevent and apprehend this person?

I believe you already know the answer to that.

John 2:13-17 New International Version (NIV)
When it was almost time for the Jewish Passover, Jesus went up to Jerusalem. In the temple courts he found people selling cattle, sheep and doves, and others sitting at tables exchanging money. So he made a whip out of cords, and drove all from the temple courts, both sheep and cattle; he scattered the coins of the money changers and overturned their tables. To those who sold doves he said, “Get these out of here! Stop turning my Father’s house into a market!” His disciples remembered that it is written: “Zeal for your house will consume me.”

 

[arthra]

What does your religion teach about violent acts? Do you agree with this teaching? Why or why not? If you are irreligious, what are your thoughts on the subject?

The following excerpts from Baha'i sources represent our teachings:

Bahá'u'lláh, on proclaiming some years later His Mission, left no room for uncertainty as to the law of His Dispensation in such a predicament when He affirmed: "It is better to be killed than to kill."

~ Shoghi Effendi, The Dawn-Breakers, p. xxxiv

"A Bahá'í denies no religion; he accepts the Truth in all, and would die to uphold it. He loves all men as his brothers, of whatever class, of whatever race or nationality, of whatever creed or colour, whether good or bad, rich or poor, beautiful or hideous. He commits no violence; if he is struck he does not return the blow. He calls nothing bad, following the example of the Lord Bahá'u'lláh. As a safeguard against intemperance he does not drink wine or spirits. Bahá'u'lláh has said it is not good for a sane man to take that which will destroy his health and sense."

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 56

"Know ye that to be killed in the path of His good pleasure is better for you than to kill. The beloved of the Lord must, in this day, behave in such wise amidst His servants that they may by their very deeds and actions guide all men unto the paradise of the All-Glorious."

~ Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 109

 

[SalixIncendium]

The following excerpts from Baha'i sources represent our teachings:

Bahá'u'lláh, on proclaiming some years later His Mission, left no room for uncertainty as to the law of His Dispensation in such a predicament when He affirmed: "It is better to be killed than to kill."

~ Shoghi Effendi, The Dawn-Breakers, p. xxxiv

"A Bahá'í denies no religion; he accepts the Truth in all, and would die to uphold it. He loves all men as his brothers, of whatever class, of whatever race or nationality, of whatever creed or colour, whether good or bad, rich or poor, beautiful or hideous. He commits no violence; if he is struck he does not return the blow. He calls nothing bad, following the example of the Lord Bahá'u'lláh. As a safeguard against intemperance he does not drink wine or spirits. Bahá'u'lláh has said it is not good for a sane man to take that which will destroy his health and sense."

~ Abdu'l-Baha, Abdu'l-Baha in London, p. 56

"Know ye that to be killed in the path of His good pleasure is better for you than to kill. The beloved of the Lord must, in this day, behave in such wise amidst His servants that they may by their very deeds and actions guide all men unto the paradise of the All-Glorious."

~ Baha'u'llah, The Summons of the Lord of Hosts, p. 109

To me this seems to be a more pacifistic approach than it does nonviolent as described in the OP, and appears to contradict another's Baha'i's views in post #3 of the thread.

So are Baha'i pacifists or nonviolent? Or is it open to interpretation by the individual?