With palms together,
Good Morning Sangha,
The trouble with violence is that it is too often used instead of compasssion, understanding, and a willingness to work out a solution to a problem. It becomes easy. It becomes a habit. It becomes automatic. When this happens, and we develop a rationale that enables the habit, then we lose civilization. We become addicts who can't stand to hear the word, "no."
Violence disallows a long view, it demands a short view. Violence does not consider others, it only considers ourselves. Violence is me first, you last. Violence is a statement of egoistic priority.
Non-violence demands a long view, it requires patience, a willingness to accept difference, and a willingness to think. Non-violence puts others first and ourselves last. Non-violence is a statement of mutual aid as priority. Non-violence is civilization.
For decades the social Darwinists have suggested dominance through violence, fierce competition, and placing winning between the eyes, is a natural condition. Yet these social scientists often fail to see the most basic elements of survival.
The fittest survives. The question is, what deternmines "fitness"? Is it strength? Is it the willingness to use force? I doubt it. These are short term and short sighted quick fixes to meet our impatient needs. I suggest fitness is manifest in compassion. In our willingness to understanding others. And in our willingness to provide mutual aid. In this sense, the fittest are those who are the most caring and compassionate among us. The fittest are those willing to set aside heir own needs for the sake and well-being of all.
We survive because we care for each other. We survive because we are interconnected with each other. We thrive when we celebrate that care and that interconnection.
Lets each of us find a way today to be of benefit to others.
Be well.
3 comments:
So, thank you for your comments, I will agree with you that outside of the animal kingdom, the fittest amongst us could very well be the most compassionate. I appreciate your dedication to nonviolence. It speaks well of you. You haven’t made it clear whether you are a pacifist or merely someone like myself who prefers non-violent solutions. Are you a pacifist?
I am not an expert on your lineage but I believe the soto sect was influential in promoting the war effort in WW2 Japan. Isn’t it strange that the fathers of modern zen were the leaders in such a costly mistake?
It makes one wonder about the realities of Japanese life back then and what the priests of Buddhism were up against. I suppose when our minds are set and we are unwilling to consider the possibility of more than two solutions, that is when we are most in danger. Thank you in advance for answering my question on your beliefs on pacifism.
Thank you Jeff, both for reading my blog and for taking the time to comment on it. The short answer to your question is, I am a pacifist, if being a pacifist means prefering non-violence to violence in order to find solutions to life's conflicts. Does this mean I would not use force to prevent harm to myself or someone in my proximity? Not exactly. One must use the resources of mind, heart,and body: all of them. My issue is with those who seemingly automatically (not only) resort to violence, but rationalize it, as well. There are almost always alternative means, much more skilful means, to violence to resolve conflict.
The culture in Japan at the time of WW II was rather militaristic. Often our national religions are placed (both by government and by priests) in service to our national aspirations. It is clear that the Buddhist monks who supported war and violence violated their vows as monks, in my opinion. What this means to me is that we must work very hard, diligently, as a matter of fact, to become the Buddha-Dharma: none of us are exempt from delusion.
your thoughts are amazing. thanks. i will be stopping by more often.
Post a Comment