Arguments for non-violence

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
Post Reply
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Arguments for non-violence

Post by Bundokji »

Friends,

Next week, i am invited to make a presentation at a conference with the underlying theme of "preventing violent extremism". The conference focuses on the role of religion. I suspect that most participants are monotheists, hence explicitly sharing Buddhist views might not be a valid option.

What would be the best arguments against violence to people whom sila do not only allow it, but in some cases makes it a duty and the right thing to do to eliminate injustice or somehow fulfill god's plan on earth? keeping in mind that being too dismissive (or too critical) of their belief systems might be counter productive.

Thank you :anjali:
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17187
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Arguments for non-violence

Post by DNS »

Let us move now from the practical how to the theoretical why: Why should we love our enemies? The first reason is fairly obvious. Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Hate multiplies hate, violence multiplies violence, and toughness multiplies toughness in a descending spiral of destruction. So when Jesus says "love your enemies," he is setting forth a profound and ultimately inescapable admonition. Have we not come to such an impasse in the modern world that we must love our enemies-or else? The chain reaction of evil-Hate begetting hate, wars producing more wars-must be broken, or we shall be plunged into the dark abyss of annihilation.

The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. It destroys community and makes brotherhood impossible. It leaves society in monologue rather than dialogue. Violence ends by defeating itself. It creates bitterness in the survivors and brutality in the destroyers.

Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Arguments for non-violence

Post by Sam Vara »

:goodpost:

Superb writing by MLK.

Another angle would be to look at how violence is simply incompatible with the higher mind and feeling good about one's conduct. Violence is traumatic for the perpetrator. I think that's ultimately a Buddhist point, but it's perfectly possible to set out an argument using no Buddhist jargon.
User019336
Posts: 188
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2022 2:24 am

Re: Arguments for non-violence

Post by User019336 »

Id come at it from the perspective of behavioral conditioning and show that violence is not conducive to learning & rehabilitation and that it cultivates cruelty.

It's not conducive because it makes the trainee fearful of making mistakes, stressed, distrustful and it sets a terrible example.

It's simply a poor substitute for convincingly explaining & inspiring people to do good behaviors and it is therefore a misbehavior.
Alino
Posts: 650
Joined: Thu Oct 01, 2020 3:15 pm
Contact:

Re: Arguments for non-violence

Post by Alino »

Compassion and wisdom approach is quite good.

1. The fact is that person who does bad deeds to us and who's actions arose violent reaction in ourselves - he is actually suffering... The thing is that he suffers so much that he can not bear it anymore so in order to free oneself from this dukkha he "vomit" it as anger or violence or bad action... but in reality he just want to be happy. So we clean up his dukkha vomit, and we wish him to be free from dukkha, to be happy, because if he would be happy we wouldnt vomis his pain on us.

2. Is so consider that all is due to causes and conditions. When someone acts badly it's not his fault, it is just the result of his conditionning. And actually if we were born in his family, got his education, his friends, his environment, his body etc - we would be HIM and does the exactly same bad actions and decisions... But then another question can arise - how can we change confitions in order to see beings grow well, how can we change the world? The answer can be illustrated in a good saying : "When we realise how its difficult to change oneself, we understand how it is impossible to change others..."
Wanting people and the world be otherwise is dukkha.

3. Beings experience the exactly same pain as we are, so we shouldn't be violent for them because we don't like being the victim of violence neither... We like when people forgive us, forgive our mistakes, so we should forgive people's mistakes too...

4. Generally when people acts badly toward us it's only because they think that we are bad person. So if we give in into violence - we give reason to that assumption and person thinks "Oh! I knew it! Watch how bad he is! Let's me do more of bad actions to him because he deserve it!
But if someone acts badly to us and we forgive him, and do something good to him in turn, he can eventualy act badly one more time, but if we again do goodness as response to his aggression he will understand : Oh! I was wrong! He is actually a good guy! I like him !:)" So he will stop his aggression and the problem will be solved... no more violence (unless he is really wants you to kill, no matter what, then we have just to accept our death, or protect ourself non-violently, disapear or something like that)

5. The best fight is a fight that was aborted. In a fight both sides loose. For example in an animal world fight between two animals means death for both, because both will be wounded, and wounds have tendency to get infected, or prevent you to eat or move... If you win, you loose... So the best fighting skill is running...

Imho
We don't live Samsara, Samsara is living us...

"Form, feelings, perceptions, formations, consciousness - don't care about us, we don't exist for them"
User avatar
Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta
Posts: 2176
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:06 pm

Re: Arguments for non-violence

Post by Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta »

Bundokji wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 1:10 am ... the underlying theme of "preventing violent extremism". The conference focuses on the role of religion. ... explicitly sharing Buddhist views might not be a valid option ...



Regarding Non-Buddhist friendliness, I think SN Goenka's talks would be among the appropriate resources.
  • Address given by Mr. Goenka / 29 August 2000 / the United Nations General Assembly Hall to the participants of the Millennium World Peace Summit


    Non-Violence: the Key to a Definition of Religion

    There are bound to be differences between religions. However, by gathering at this World Peace Summit, leaders of all the major faiths have shown that they want to work for peace. Let peace then be the first principle of "universal religion".

    https://www.dhamma.org/en-US/about/goenka

:heart:
𝓑𝓾𝓭𝓭𝓱𝓪 𝓗𝓪𝓭 𝓤𝓷𝓮𝓺𝓾𝓲𝓿𝓸𝓬𝓪𝓵𝓵𝔂 𝓓𝓮𝓬𝓵𝓪𝓻𝓮𝓭 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽
  • Iᴅᴇᴀ ᴏꜰ Sᴏᴜʟ ɪs Oᴜᴛᴄᴏᴍᴇ ᴏꜰ ᴀɴ Uᴛᴛᴇʀʟʏ Fᴏᴏʟɪsʜ Vɪᴇᴡ
    V. Nanananda

𝓐𝓷𝓪𝓽𝓽ā 𝓜𝓮𝓪𝓷𝓼 𝓣𝓱𝓪𝓽 𝓣𝓱𝓮𝓻𝓮 𝓘𝓼
  • Nᴏ sᴜᴄʜ ᴛʜɪɴɢ ᴀs ᴀ Sᴇʟғ, Sᴏᴜʟ, Eɢᴏ, Sᴘɪʀɪᴛ, ᴏʀ Āᴛᴍᴀɴ
    V. Buddhādasa
dharmacorps
Posts: 2298
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 7:33 pm

Re: Arguments for non-violence

Post by dharmacorps »

I would second drawing from MLK's statements when it comes to non-violence and compassion. Although a committed true Christian, he often sounded very Buddhist in his statements particularly when it came to violence and moral conduct. This may be a way of sneaking some dhamma in, if paradoxically.
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Arguments for non-violence

Post by asahi »

Bundokji wrote: Fri Jun 03, 2022 1:10 am Friends,

Next week, i am invited to make a presentation at a conference with the underlying theme of "preventing violent extremism". The conference focuses on the role of religion. I suspect that most participants are monotheists, hence explicitly sharing Buddhist views might not be a valid option.

What would be the best arguments against violence to people whom sila do not only allow it, but in some cases makes it a duty and the right thing to do to eliminate injustice or somehow fulfill god's plan on earth? keeping in mind that being too dismissive (or too critical) of their belief systems might be counter productive.

Thank you :anjali:
The role of religion should focus on common ground and promoting understanding , synergism , compromises and collaboration .
:thinking:
No bashing No gossiping
Post Reply