# The Difference between 'nonviolence' and pacifism



## Freestyler777 (Aug 16, 2007)

If you do harm to others, people will do harm to you.  That is obviously not wise.  However, if you totally refrain from 'violence' you will be scandalized by your peers.  

'Violence' is only justified when done to preserve human life.  It is not justified to soothe your ego, or to channel aggression towards someone who is less dangerous than the person you are really angry at.  

It is IMPOSSIBLE to be nonviolent.  We eat meat that comes from animals, step on bugs, kill bacteria in the shower, kill insects with pesticides, fight wars, police officers do their honorable work, etc...  All this is 'justified' violence, because it is done with the purpose of preserving human life.  

If you want peace, you must prepare for war.  You have to be strong, because people simply don't respect those who abstain from violence.  I learned that the hard way.  But if you do violence in the world, you are bound to come up against someone who is far stronger than you.  

It says in the Tao Te Ching, 'the strong and violent do not come to a natural end- I will take this as the principle of my studies'.

But you must know self-defense, cops and soldiers have to do what is required of them, and human life is more important than animal or insect life.

All this should be obvious to martial artists.


----------



## KempoGuy06 (Aug 16, 2007)

Very good. I agree bad thing come to those who do bad things. To be human we must prepare for violence because this world is full of evil people who want to hurt us. Again very good

B


----------



## CoryKS (Aug 16, 2007)

It's not impossible to be non-violent, it's just that whether or not you live, and how you live, becomes a decision for others to make.  You have no say.


----------



## JBrainard (Aug 16, 2007)

KempoGuy06 said:


> Very good. I agree bad thing come to those who do bad things.


 
That's what "karma" means to me. And you don't have to be religious to understand this concept, it's pretty much common sense.


----------



## aplonis (Aug 16, 2007)

Looked at another way you could describe karma as an equation. It's very like any other energy transmission equation. Whatever force you expend upon another an equal measure is consumed by the source...yourself. That component of the equation works to change the type of person that you are.

Doing bad things makes you bad...not by definition...but instead by transformation. It's a closed loop circuit. More harm comes to you when others perceive this transformation within yourself and react to you accordingly. That part is your compounded interest. 

Then, if you want to take the Buddhist point of view, when you take rebirth the world into which you are born is one that accords with your then-current nature. Whatever good or ills you have accumulated are not sins that are weighed and rewarded, but will instead have gone to transform your being. Buddhists do not believe in any kind of psychic surgery whereby wrong deeds can be removed. Like any other pollutant, they must be worked out of the system gradually. And even if that were done, the damage they will have wrought still remains. Healing alone of the sort which re-transforms one back again takes time, energy and will.

Every wrong action thereby must be weight in light of its heavy counter-investment. This makes wrong intent simply not worth the meager, very short-lived satisfaction. It's like paying way too much for something which hurts you and just doesn't last.

But a similar effort toward harmonious activity transforms one too, in healthful and uplifting ways. That is how Buddhists see karma. But even if you are not Buddhist it is still quite easy to observe the transformative nature of right and wrong actions upon the personality. Spiritually or not, karma still works. It changes who and what you become.


----------

