Yes, we should strive to be decent, upstanding, compassionate people. We should not go out looking for fights, or try to intimidate someone with our skill. However, I don't believe we should turn the other cheek if someone is trying to harm us.
"what separates the warrior from the predator"
- Thread starter Xue Sheng
- Start date
Yes, we should strive to be decent, upstanding, compassionate people. We should not go out looking for fights, or try to intimidate someone with our skill. However, I don't believe we should turn the other cheek if someone is trying to harm us.
Deaf Smith
Master of Arts
What separates the warrior from the predator?
Morality? Honor? Respect? Code of Conduct?
Now even a predator has a code. It may be 'me first' but it's a code of conduct. And a predator may honor it's prey after it conquers it. It may even respect what it's prey can do, but it still stalks and kills it. A predator may feel its moral to take what it can for as long as it can as a form of survival of the fittest.
No, a predator can have all of those.
But a predator is a sociopath. And a sociopath is missing something. Missing empathy for others.
Missing feelings for others.
Missing love. For a sociopath loves only itself.
And a warror loves others and if need be is willing to die for others. And no predator nor sociopath has that. Love for others.
Deaf
Morality? Honor? Respect? Code of Conduct?
Now even a predator has a code. It may be 'me first' but it's a code of conduct. And a predator may honor it's prey after it conquers it. It may even respect what it's prey can do, but it still stalks and kills it. A predator may feel its moral to take what it can for as long as it can as a form of survival of the fittest.
No, a predator can have all of those.
But a predator is a sociopath. And a sociopath is missing something. Missing empathy for others.
Missing feelings for others.
Missing love. For a sociopath loves only itself.
And a warror loves others and if need be is willing to die for others. And no predator nor sociopath has that. Love for others.
Deaf
William Wordsworth:
WHO is the happy Warrior? Who is he
That every man in arms should wish to be?
--It is the generous Spirit, who, when brought
Among the tasks of real life, hath wrought
Upon the plan that pleased his boyish thought:
Whose high endeavours are an inward light
That makes the path before him always bright:
Who, with a natural instinct to discern
What knowledge can perform, is diligent to learn;
Abides by this resolve, and stops not there, 10
But makes his moral being his prime care;
Who, doomed to go in company with Pain,
And Fear, and Bloodshed, miserable train!
Turns his necessity to glorious gain;
In face of these doth exercise a power
Which is our human nature's highest dower;
Controls them and subdues, transmutes, bereaves
Of their bad influence, and their good receives:
By objects, which might force the soul to abate
Her feeling, rendered more compassionate; 20
Is placable--because occasions rise
So often that demand such sacrifice;
More skilful in self-knowledge, even more pure,
As tempted more; more able to endure,
As more exposed to suffering and distress;
Thence, also, more alive to tenderness.
--'Tis he whose law is reason; who depends
Upon that law as on the best of friends;
Whence, in a state where men are tempted still
To evil for a guard against worse ill, 30
And what in quality or act is best
Doth seldom on a right foundation rest,
He labours good on good to fix, and owes
To virtue every triumph that he knows:
--Who, if he rise to station of command,
Rises by open means; and there will stand
On honourable terms, or else retire,
And in himself possess his own desire;
Who comprehends his trust, and to the same
Keeps faithful with a singleness of aim; 40
And therefore does not stoop, nor lie in wait
For wealth, or honours, or for worldly state;
Whom they must follow; on whose head must fall,
Like showers of manna, if they come at all:
Whose powers shed round him in the common strife,
Or mild concerns of ordinary life,
A constant influence, a peculiar grace;
But who, if he be called upon to face
Some awful moment to which Heaven has joined
Great issues, good or bad for human kind, 50
Is happy as a Lover; and attired
With sudden brightness, like a Man inspired;
And, through the heat of conflict, keeps the law
In calmness made, and sees what he foresaw;
Or if an unexpected call succeed,
Come when it will, is equal to the need:
--He who, though thus endued as with a sense
And faculty for storm and turbulence,
Is yet a Soul whose master-bias leans
To homefelt pleasures and to gentle scenes; 60
Sweet images! which, wheresoe'er he be,
Are at his heart; and such fidelity
It is his darling passion to approve;
More brave for this, that he hath much to love:--
'Tis, finally, the Man, who, lifted high,
Conspicuous object in a Nation's eye,
Or left unthought-of in obscurity,--
Who, with a toward or untoward lot,
Prosperous or adverse, to his wish or not--
Plays, in the many games of life, that one 70
Where what he most doth value must be won:
Whom neither shape of danger can dismay,
Nor thought of tender happiness betray;
Who, not content that former worth stand fast,
Looks forward, persevering to the last,
From well to better, daily self-surpast:
Who, whether praise of him must walk the earth
For ever, and to noble deeds give birth,
Or he must fall, to sleep without his fame,
And leave a dead unprofitable name-- 80
Finds comfort in himself and in his cause;
And, while the mortal mist is gathering, draws
His breath in confidence of Heaven's applause:
This is the happy Warrior; this is He
That every Man in arms should wish to be.
I think one of the hardest things to come to grips with for some of us is that we humans and I mean every homo sapient is a predator. One only needs to look at our eyes that are set to focus in on prey to understand this. Once you know and understand that at our core we are predators then you can come to grips that our predatory nature has also to conform to our societies standards, morals, laws, etc. This conformation is simple for most of us as we learn it from day one with good parenting and yet some of us miss some of these morals, standards and ability to understand the law. Those people who miss this and then go out and act out their predatory instincts are the theives, murderors, sociopaths, etc. Warriors, protectors, guardians, sheep dogs, etc. however you wish to define individuals that are willing to protect themselves and their loved ones are in general people who will hold themselves to standard that may go above and beyond the norm. In the end though the lines between a human predator and a protector are often very close so close that they both have similar characteristics at times.
Balrog
Master of Arts
An excellent quote. I just might snitch it for a sig.
I think, given the right set of circumstances, it is within all human beings to excel to great heights, and to also sink down to the lowest of low. We are but a breath away from either. It is the presence of something within, that keeps us in check, so to speak, maybe spirituality, but even such have caused great harm.
Martial arts without compassion and honor promises only violence.
Does it? Not necesarilly. This statement makes the assumption that one cannot train purely for enjoyment, have no interest in actual fighting, and wish to be left alone by all around him. Or how about the woman who wants merely to protect herself from muggers but is a biarch to everyone and a social backstabber, but wouldn't get into a fight on purpose because she's terrified of getting hurt. Both may behave without compassion and without honor in their respective professional environments and still have no inclination towards violence, yet still have an interest in the martial arts.
Stripped of its spirituality, it threatens injury and suffering to both its victims and its practitioners.
A very spiritual, but technically incompetent practitioner also threatens themselves and others with injury and suffering.
In the end, this higher ideal is what separates the warrior from the predator.
Which brings me to the question: why one or the other? Technically a 'warrior' is one who makes war. Put that way, it doesn't sound very spiritual, now does it?
Also, the warrior was distinct from the fighter or the soldier. The warrior could direct and plot the course of war, or of a large scale battle or operation, while soldiers executed the directives of the warrior. Essentially, in ancient society, the warrior was an officer.
Technically, a predator is one who hunts for survival, as has been pointed out earlier. A man or woman who has fantastic skills in archery and who hunts (and actually eats what they kill) is technically a predator, but may be a very spiritual and honorable person.
Of course the term predator has come to be associated with the criminal element; ie sexual predators, serial killers, and gang-bangers. Once again, does a lack of spirituality and 'honor' coupled with martial training make you a criminal? And lets not forget that criminals may have their own sense of honor. The mob has a sense of honor, and some mobsters are highly religious.
This is one of those statements that at first glance seems to make perfect sense, and if you put no further thought into it, it does. But even just a little bit of thought points up many inherent falacies with such a statement, the biggest being that everyone in MA is either a warrior or a predator and that spirituality and honor are what make the difference.
I hope that I don't come accross as being antagonistic or dismissive; that is not my intent.
Truth be told, the sentiment expressed in such statements serves the purpose of reminding us that we are more than just fighters, which is in itself a thing of value.Daniel
OP
OP
Xue Sheng
All weight is underside
Martial arts without compassion and honor promises only violence.
Does it? Not necesarilly. This statement makes the assumption that one cannot train purely for enjoyment, have no interest in actual fighting, and wish to be left alone by all around him. Or how about the woman who wants merely to protect herself from muggers but is a biarch to everyone and a social backstabber, but wouldn't get into a fight on purpose because she's terrified of getting hurt. Both may behave without compassion and without honor in their respective professional environments and still have no inclination towards violence, yet still have an interest in the martial arts.
Stripped of its spirituality, it threatens injury and suffering to both its victims and its practitioners.
A very spiritual, but technically incompetent practitioner also threatens themselves and others with injury and suffering.
In the end, this higher ideal is what separates the warrior from the predator.
Which brings me to the question: why one or the other? Technically a 'warrior' is one who makes war. Put that way, it doesn't sound very spiritual, now does it?
Also, the warrior was distinct from the fighter or the soldier. The warrior could direct and plot the course of war, or of a large scale battle or operation, while soldiers executed the directives of the warrior. Essentially, in ancient society, the warrior was an officer.
Technically, a predator is one who hunts for survival, as has been pointed out earlier. A man or woman who has fantastic skills in archery and who hunts (and actually eats what they kill) is technically a predator, but may be a very spiritual and honorable person.
Of course the term predator has come to be associated with the criminal element; ie sexual predators, serial killers, and gang-bangers. Once again, does a lack of spirituality and 'honor' coupled with martial training make you a criminal? And lets not forget that criminals may have their own sense of honor. The mob has a sense of honor, and some mobsters are highly religious.
This is one of those statements that at first glance seems to make perfect sense, and if you put no further thought into it, it does. But even just a little bit of thought points up many inherent falacies with such a statement, the biggest being that everyone in MA is either a warrior or a predator and that spirituality and honor are what make the difference.
I hope that I don't come accross as being antagonistic or dismissive; that is not my intent.
Daniel
I believe the statement is more geared towards those that would use MA to prey upon another human not necessarily hunting animals for food. There is a kind of morality there already since it could be looked upon as hunting to support ones family. As to MA for pleasure that is a good point but if someone trains MA for pleasure or just exercise and has no intention of ever fighting then is there or is there not a type of morality at work here such as not wanting to hurt others? And, IMO, the majority of MAists are not going to train because they want to go out and beat people up
But to be honest my own views on all of this are closest to what Brain posted
I think one of the hardest things to come to grips with for some of us is that we humans and I mean every homo sapient is a predator. One only needs to look at our eyes that are set to focus in on prey to understand this. Once you know and understand that at our core we are predators then you can come to grips that our predatory nature has also to conform to our societies standards, morals, laws, etc. This conformation is simple for most of us as we learn it from day one with good parenting and yet some of us miss some of these morals, standards and ability to understand the law. Those people who miss this and then go out and act out their predatory instincts are the theives, murderors, sociopaths, etc. Warriors, protectors, guardians, sheep dogs, etc. however you wish to define individuals that are willing to protect themselves and their loved ones are in general people who will hold themselves to standard that may go above and beyond the norm. In the end though the lines between a human predator and a protector are often very close so close that they both have similar characteristics at times.
Back in my security days I referred to myself as a predator’s predator more than once.
Also I came very close to not posting this at all simply because it used the term spirituality, but I believed it would make a good discussion so I went with it.
And the original quote is interesting enough to me to consider buying the book
