The Pacifist Martial Artist?

[Archangel M]

I posted this quote on a different thread....

[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]My nonviolence does not admit of running away from danger and leaving dear ones unprotected. Between violence and cowardly flight, I can only prefer violence to cowardice. I can no more preach nonviolence to a coward than I can tempt a blind man to enjoy healthy scenes.[/FONT] -Ghandi

 

[BLACK LION]

thats not pacifism...

I am a martialist... I am a survivalist...I am a warrior I pray for peace while preparing for war. For these reasons I dont not consider myself a "martial artist".
Not saying that a "martial artist" cannot be these things and not saying a martial artist cannot be a pacifist... rather than leave myself open to contradiction I gladly accept what I am and set the stage based on that.

It can be conceived different ways to the point of exhastion and confusion... I try to make it as simple as possible with no contradiction or double standard...

 

[sgtmac_46]

"To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill."

"The greatest warrior is the one who wins without fighting"

"Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting."

"The best victory is when the opponent surrenders of its own accord before there are any actual hostilities... It is best to win without fighting."

In essence, superior strength, superior tactics and superior skill, properly applied, can destroy an enemies will, and defeat him without combat......winning without squandering resources is most efficient.

 

[sgtmac_46]

In other words most Traditional Martial Arts train not to fight and I agree with that. Fighting is not to be taken lightly it is a rather serious thing so it id better not to fight. Which, IMO, is being a pacifist to some degree.

You mean most traditional asian martial arts......meaning Kung Fu, Karate and TKD.

The arts of the Samurai were certainly designed with the intent that they be used.......likewise the FMA's, the arts of Southeast Asia.......and pretty much the martial arts of the rest of the world.........used in combat for what and against what is a different story, but the intent was the use.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Not a martial artist per say but Alvin C. York was a pacifist

By religious belief and desire, rooted to a great extent in guilt, not by core character.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Pacifism is something that takes true strength. It is a total abhoration of violence, and has been used well to help solve problems just look a MLK and Ghandi.

It should be noted that pacifism only works in such situations where the opposition, namely in the examples provided the US system and Great Britain, respectively, are fundamentally moral entities......when the opposition believes itself fundamentally moral, an appeal to the oppositions fundamental morality can be very successful.

When the opposition is immoral or amoral, pacifism is nothing but assistance to the enemy........had MLK or Ghandi existed in Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia, we would never have heard of them, and their pacifism would have resulted in nothing more than a lonely death in a concentration camp or a bullet in the head in the middle of the night.

 

[sgtmac_46]

Even pacifism has its boundaries. We may be able to refrain from reacting to an attack on ourselves but it becomes a totally different matter if someone is attacking defenceless older people or young children. In some instances pacifism is courageous but in other situations it could be seen as cowardice. :asian:

Yes, those that would allow themselves to be hurt to avoid hurting others I can respect.........those who allow the innocent to be hurt to avoid hurting others are cowards.

'He who does not punish evil commands that it be done.' -Leonardo da Vinci

 

[Xue Sheng]

The arts of the Samurai were certainly designed with the intent that they be used.......likewise the FMA's, the arts of Southeast Asia.......and pretty much the martial arts of the rest of the world.........used in combat for what and against what is a different story, but the intent was the use.

But there was a WHOLE lot more too many Samurai. Yes they were rather efficient killers but you also have a rather high number of them involved in Shinto, Buddhism and of course the whole code of Bushido as well. But they are most certainly training to kill and to die. But this is stuff of another Thread.

I should have been clearer, it tends to be a modern thing meaning the 19th and 20th century (such as "jitsu" compared to a "do"). And just for clarification I am not living in any sort of fantasy world here many CMA styles back say pre Mao could be very proficient at killing and trained to survive with no higher thought beyond that.

There is a BIG difference from TMA today and the TMA of say the 18th century and before. So when I am talking about a degree of pacifism in MA it is all in reference to the 19th and 20th century and mainly TMAs of Japan and China. But to get even more precise in my meaning I am talking mainly of “do” styles in and out of Japan and CMA styles trained in the west outside of east Asia.

 

[Xue Sheng]

By religious belief and desire, rooted to a great extent in guilt, not by core character.

Not going to argue this point but this would be an opinion would it not?

 

[BLACK LION]

in essence, superior strength, superior tactics and superior skill, properly applied, can destroy an enemies will, and defeat him without combat......winning without squandering resources is most efficient.

good post!

 

[Jenna]

Someone mentioned the inherent contradiction here...

I think it is too easy to see pacifism in martial arts as a contradiction or downright hypocrisy. To me, pacifism is in the INTENTION.

I mind my own business and seek no violence; that does not preclude violence from being forced upon me.

If I am attacked I respond without intending to damage the attacker; that does not preclude damage from being taken by that attacker.

If I am ever faced with the extreme case of kill or be killed (as distinct from suppress or be killed) then by implication I am ALSO faced with the choice: living pacifist or corpse. In that case, I STILL choose to be pacifist.

Maybe I am blind to the contradiction. Maybe I am using sophistry or semantics to mask it. Or maybe there just is no contradiction. Just an opinion
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

Maybe I am blind to the contradiction. Maybe I am using sophistry or semantics to mask it. Or maybe there just is no contradiction.

Personally, think that the reason you cannot see the contradiction is because there is no contradiction.

People pointed out examples like Ghandi and MLK. This may seem like heresy, but these are really not good examples for a self defense or defense of others context.

Does anyone really believe that MLK would have stood by and done nothing if someone tried to murder his wife or kids or abduct a child? I seriously doubt it, unless he were restrained, which is not the same thing as pacifism.

MLK and Ghandi were heads of large movements and used pacificsm as a form of protest against injustices, not as a benchmark for how one should handle a random attack. Consider who they were pacifistic against: the government and in some cases, large, well organized and armed groups that did not want to see things change for the better. So before invoking these men to make a case for pacifism in survival situations, people should really consider the context in which they promoted pacifism.

Pacifism works well as a means of protest. It generates sympathy for your cause because your group is being peaceful and the government is needlessly beating on or killing them. It also provides your group with the ability to say, 'we did not act violently.' Always a good thing to be able to say, especially when you are demonstrating the government's injustice.

In no way am I belittling or diminishing the accomplishments of these men. But their pacificsm was a part of a greater cause, not simply protection of self and family.

Even Christ did not promote absolute pacifism. There is a lot of talk about suffering for one's faith. There were social implicaitons to some of Christ's commands, such as the oft quoted turn the other cheek. Preachers often overlook the fact that the disciples were armed and that at one point, Jesus told them that if they were not armed, they had better correct the situation.

Daniel

 

[7starmarc]

Personally, think that the reason you cannot see the contradiction is because there is no contradiction.

People pointed out examples like Ghandi and MLK. This may seem like heresy, but these are really not good examples for a self defense or defense of others context.

Does anyone really believe that MLK would have stood by and done nothing if someone tried to murder his wife or kids or abduct a child? I seriously doubt it, unless he were restrained, which is not the same thing as pacifism.

MLK and Ghandi were heads of large movements and used pacificsm as a form of protest against injustices, not as a benchmark for how one should handle a random attack. Consider who they were pacifistic against: the government and in some cases, large, well organized and armed groups that did not want to see things change for the better. So before invoking these men to make a case for pacifism in survival situations, people should really consider the context in which they promoted pacifism.

Pacifism works well as a means of protest. It generates sympathy for your cause because your group is being peaceful and the government is needlessly beating on or killing them. It also provides your group with the ability to say, 'we did not act violently.' Always a good thing to be able to say, especially when you are demonstrating the government's injustice.

In no way am I belittling or diminishing the accomplishments of these men. But their pacificsm was a part of a greater cause, not simply protection of self and family.

Even Christ did not promote absolute pacifism. There is a lot of talk about suffering for one's faith. There were social implicaitons to some of Christ's commands, such as the oft quoted turn the other cheek. Preachers often overlook the fact that the disciples were armed and that at one point, Jesus told them that if they were not armed, they had better correct the situation.

Daniel

To the first, absolutely spot on. Also, this was pacifism in the public arena. I don't mean to imply that Ghandi or MLK were different with the cameras off, but that their pacifism was powerful against these large opponents in large part because the cameras were on. The court of public opinion was being held, and the oppressors were found wanting in the light of a "morally superior" opponent.

As to the second, I am no Biblical scholar, could you provide the chapter/verse where Jesus encouraged his followers to be armed, and in what context to what end?

 

[Jenna]

As to the second, I am no Biblical scholar, could you provide the chapter/verse where Jesus encouraged his followers to be armed, and in what context to what end?

Sorry, I do not want to derail the thread and but just to reply to your one point, yes, Jesus advised his disciples to trade their cloaks for a sword, aware of the hostilities that they would plainly encounter on their missions - Luke 22:36-38. In all this, is MUST be remembered that Jesus had a particular mandate of the cross that he was predestined to fulfil. Conversely, the disciples were NOT meant to go to the cross as a great show of piety and but they were meant to disseminate the teachings - this would have been impossible were no resistance offered to the many that believed in the old way.

There is discussion that the teaching of turning the other cheek - Matthew 5:38-48 is relevant ONLY in the particular context - being hit on the right cheek (whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also) was not any kind of punch or smack and but specifically an insult (back of the hand - similar to someone nowadays spitting at us). Thus to turn the other cheek was merely an exhortation not to trade petty insults and which is not at all the same as defending yourself against aggressive attack - again of course this is one interpretation

I would still maintain my position that there is no contradiction in martial artists as pacifists. That to me implies avoidance and awareness, evasion and non-destructive technique where possible and but remembering ultimately - as the disciples above - we can be no good pacifists to anyone from our graves unless we are afforded the luxury of being canonised or martyrised along with the MLKs and Mohandas Ghandis - and that is a rare and terminal privilege I think.
Yr most obdt hmble srvt,
Jenna

 

[Daniel Sullivan]

As to the second, I am no Biblical scholar, could you provide the chapter/verse where Jesus encouraged his followers to be armed, and in what context to what end?

Jenna beat me to it, but yes, this is the verse that I was referencing.

Also, when the soldiers asked Jesus what they must do to be saved, he did not tell them to quit the army. Essentially, he told them to be satisfied with their wages and not to bully others.

I brought up Jesus mainly because it is most often, in my experience, Christians who have this idea that self defense is wrong due to Jesus' teachings. Being a Christian who is pretty well versed in scripture, I consider this to be very incorrect.

Like MLK and Ghandi, Christ's followers were called upon to suffer for their faith. Keep in mind that they were legally prevented from practicing their faith. Thus the people that they were suffering under were first the local authorities and later, the Roman authorities.

Jenna mentioned the turning the other cheek verse. Often, turn the other cheek is used to justify inaction or to make a case against self defense or martial arts in a Christian's life. Another thought on that that read a while back (Dominic Crossan, if I recall, in his book on the Historical Jesus) waa that in that time, backhanding someone was a sign of disrespect. It was not only a physcial blow, but an indication that the one slapping was superior in station to the one being backhanded. By turning the other cheek, the one struck not only responded without violence, but essentially forced the one who struck him to strike the opposite cheek with an open hand, a designation of striking an equal.

This was not only a nonviolent response, but an act of civil disobedience. Notice that nowhere did Jesus ever say anything about simple robbery or assault against one's children or spouse?

Also, consider Jesus injunction to love your neighbor as yourself. If my neighbor is being assaulted, I should aid my neighbor. After all, I would like to be aided if I am assaulted.

My opinion as a Christian is that God has work for me to do. It is difficult to do that work if I am prematurely slain because some thug decided he liked my cell phone.

Daniel

 

[BLACK LION]

Personally, think that the reason you cannot see the contradiction is because there is no contradiction.

People pointed out examples like Ghandi and MLK. This may seem like heresy, but these are really not good examples for a self defense or defense of others context.

Does anyone really believe that MLK would have stood by and done nothing if someone tried to murder his wife or kids or abduct a child? I seriously doubt it, unless he were restrained, which is not the same thing as pacifism.

MLK and Ghandi were heads of large movements and used pacificsm as a form of protest against injustices, not as a benchmark for how one should handle a random attack. Consider who they were pacifistic against: the government and in some cases, large, well organized and armed groups that did not want to see things change for the better. So before invoking these men to make a case for pacifism in survival situations, people should really consider the context in which they promoted pacifism.

Pacifism works well as a means of protest. It generates sympathy for your cause because your group is being peaceful and the government is needlessly beating on or killing them. It also provides your group with the ability to say, 'we did not act violently.' Always a good thing to be able to say, especially when you are demonstrating the government's injustice.

In no way am I belittling or diminishing the accomplishments of these men. But their pacificsm was a part of a greater cause, not simply protection of self and family.

Even Christ did not promote absolute pacifism. There is a lot of talk about suffering for one's faith. There were social implicaitons to some of Christ's commands, such as the oft quoted turn the other cheek. Preachers often overlook the fact that the disciples were armed and that at one point, Jesus told them that if they were not armed, they had better correct the situation.

Daniel

Hey Daniel you made some really good points in this post. The latter is the most profound. It also sparked an urge to look further.
Christ implied that we should be "peacemakers" but not to resist evil.
Here is a verse that is pretty clear. It was vengeance that was/is scornful not "self defense"... This kind of hits home with me because a particular pastor at the fellowship my family attends is from South Africa and there he went out everyday on missions trips with a grenade in one hand and a bible in the other. If you know of some of the horrific things that happen in south africa you would understand. His first family was executed in his home there. My brother has told me of other pastors who are armed on thier mission and who are advocates of it. It was not till recently that this aspect of the Bible has been brought to light in this fashion.... It has always been the other way around.
I really appreciate you bringing that up Daniel....

a grenade in one hand and bible in the other....

"If a man causes disfigurement of his neighbor, as he has done, so shall it be done to him -- fracture for fracture, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he has caused disfigurement of a man, so shall it be done to him. Lev 24.19-20

Rulers (governments) are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he (peace officers and military personnel) does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil. Rom 13.3-4


Here is a quote from a site I found based on scriptures related to vengeance vs. self defense found in the bible:



[FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Concerning the Lord's teaching to "turn the other cheek"...[/FONT]

• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]This teaching was given to explain Leviticus 24.19-20, which was a law established by God, for administration by the [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]judiciary[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] of Israel.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The teaching was necessary because some folks were mis-using this law as a basis for taking [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]personal[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica] revenge.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The Lord made it clear that God's people should NOT twist God's laws so as to seek personal revenge, or set out on personal vendettas, or act as vigilantes.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Christ did NOT teach that we are to see our families murdered, or to be murdered ourselves, rather than to make resistance. The Lord's teaching precludes vengeance, not self-defense[/FONT]

• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]The Lord's statement to "turn the other cheek" was given to preclude personal vengeance, NOT self-defense of one's own person or family against direct attacks, violence, or murder.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]As shown by verses quoted above, Christians may rightfully serve, and bear arms, as members of the peace-keeping forces of the government.[/FONT]
• [FONT=Arial, Helvetica]Christian members of peace-keeping forces may rightfully participate in the government's God-ordained efforts to [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica]"execute wrath on him who practices evil."[/FONT]

 

[kaizasosei]

The term pacifist is a very deceptive term. Like most concepts, once they are put into words, they become extremely subjective and also evoke the precisely opposite meaning.

For the sake of simplicity let us polarize the term 'pacifist' by contrasting it with the term 'warrior'.
One fights, one will not, under any circumstances, engage in violence.
Now, strife is something that is in our nature. However, so it peace, peacemaking as well as natural disdain for that which we deem evil or wrong.

Now i can call someone facist, but that doesn't make them a hitler or mousolini. This is the problem with such labels as pacifist, we cannot truly know the degree of relative truth therefore, it is nothing more than a label based on subjective observations.

Aside from the fact that i doubt very much that someone can go through life without experiencing strife and negativity; aside from the fact that an certain amount of strife most likely contributes to the development of character, moral, etc, there is one far greater problem with the term pacifist. In a superficial way as well as common sence, pacifism is more favorable than violence. But the reason that pacificm is not easily attainable is because violence and fighting is not something physical.
Therefore, i can be a fountain of negativity, brutality and heartlessness, without ever engaging in physical violence. Because violence may mean that i lose something, risk something therefore it would not be desirable.

On the other hand, i believe that if someone is concious of their actions and using appropriate measures of force in life to resist the negative forces that be, i would not be so quick to condemn his actions.

One of the greatest things about learning the fighting arts and being positive and sportive about it, is the closeness to others that one achieves. Also one has great responsibility not to cause inappropriate injury to partner or self. One deals with fear but also with the relinquishing of fear. So many people are terrified of closeness to others. Many people are intrinsically fearful of injury to the point of not trying anything. They would not even try someone elses cooking or help someone that is injured because they shun the contact with others. Perhaps if they would engage in violence, they would rather use a stick or weapon of sorts to keep distance, if not something more sneaky like poison or sabotage.


There are many types of fighitng nowadays as always, business for example. However, there are certain things that require a level of competence and elan that i would not entrust to anyone that does not have the guts to fight for himself or his loved ones, or the grace and peace to place himself in a dangerous situation and not lose his nerve.

Perhaps there are spiritual masters that can bless and curse with unbelievable potency..indeed i believe that all people have the ability to curse as well as to bless.
But to say there is one person that is without sin in his heart or his actions, is a provocative lie.
So you see,by the law of opposites, claiming warriorship is simultaneously to claim peace- and to claim pacifism is to claim war, and then to boot, reject the war that he has himself evoked.

Therefore, i can accept the term pacifist to describe actions. But the term as i see it, is not applicable to individual persons. It's too blatant as well as vague. Even if someone is of a tradition that disdains violence(the typical physical sort), he himself is still human and can at some point lose his nerve and disobey his code.


War is something that is planned out by old men and the young men are the ones that die



j

 

[Xue Sheng]

I was looking through this thread and I thought of a friend of mine from China who is trained in and proficient at a modern CMA (non-traditional) style that is rather proficient at hurting maiming and killing. However he never talks to anyone he does not know very well about it. He will not teach what he knows to anyone that he does not know and trust very well for fear they will use it to hurt others and he avoids confrontation. However if it came down to him or someone else or someone else and his family the other person will likely not walk away from it unscathed if they walk away at all. However he has been able to avoid confrontations rather easily since coming to the USA.

Is he a pacifist? Well to be honest I would not say he was and he most certainly would not say he was but then it is likely he would not call himself a warrior either. But then he is Chinese and the Chinese do not separate things like we do in the west.

Could he be called a pacifist since he does not want to fight? Possibly.

You want to call a martial artist a pacifist that is fine with me, you want to say a martial artist can’t be then that is ok too. All I know is some of the most peace loving; fight avoiding, people I have ever known were very skilled martial artists.

 

[Kacey]

I find this to be a very interesting discussion - and, in fact, had this same discussion with a student whose minister wanted him to quit, based on the "turn the other cheek" concept referenced earlier; all I can say about my student's report of their discussion is that one should never argue semantics with a lawyer!

Here are a couple of concepts to add to the above:

From Merriam-Webster:
pac·i·fist Pronunciation: \ˈpa-sə-fist\ Variant(s)r pac·i·fis·tic \ˌpa-sə-ˈfis-tik\ Function:adjective Date:1908 1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of pacifism or pacifists 2 : strongly and actively opposed to conflict and especially war

pac·i·fism Pronunciation: \ˈpa-sə-ˌfi-zəm\ Function:noun Etymology:French pacifisme, from pacifique pacificDate:1902 1: opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes ; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds2: an attitude or policy of nonresistance
— pac·i·fist \-fist\ noun

And, of course, the key concept was presented in The Karate Kid (no matter how hokey the movie was, the concept remains valid):

Daniel: Hey - you ever get into fights when you were a kid?
Miyagi: Huh - plenty.
Daniel: Yeah, but it wasn't like the problem I have, right?
Miyagi: Why? Fighting fighting. Same same.
Daniel: Yeah, but you knew karate.
Miyagi: Someone always know more.
Daniel: You mean there were times when you were scared to fight?
Miyagi: Always scare. Miyagi hate fighting.
Daniel: Yeah, but you like karate.
Miyagi: So?
Daniel: So, karate's fighting. You train to fight.
Miyagi: That what you think?
Daniel: [pondering] No.
Miyagi: Then why train?
Daniel: [thinks] So I won't have to fight.
Miyagi: [laughs] Miyagi have hope for you.

 

[dnovice]

I relate. although I'd just call what I have an aversion to hurting people... But if I must I must... only if i must.