answersLogoWhite

0

The traditional definition of non-violence may best be provided

by Jesus in Matthew 5: "That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall

smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also."

Both Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. implemented

this approach to violence in grand fashion, assembling large

gatherings of people in parades and marches, which were greeted

by police violence. When this violence came, they did not

respond violently, and many were injured.

The Dalai Lama in Tibet offers another example. When his

temples were being overrun by the Chinese army, he chose

to flee rather than fight to preserve them.

But there is another approach to the concept of non-violence.

This approach comes from the martial art Aikido, as I was

taught it.

I was taught that each person has a right to a sacred space

around their body. If someone goes to punch you, you have

a right to prevent them from hurting you.

Aikido teaches you to meet an incoming attack with enough

force to redirect and neutralize the attack, doing the least

amount of damage to *yourself*, those around you, and

the attacker as well. This takes tremendous skill, practice,

and awareness.

How does this differ from the "turn the other cheek" approach

to non-violence? If we apply Jesus' philosophy, and the

attacker hits us twice, we are allowing violence to occur:

to ourselves! Is this truly non-violent?

In the Aiki example, we are meeting forceful energy with

forceful energy, and if it is done skillfully, *no-one* will

be injured. One will dissolve the violent energy before

it has a chance to create pain.

Every time I see violence, two images flash through

my mind: the Dalai Lama, and the Aikido master.

It is never clear to me which is the most non-violent.

User Avatar

Wiki User

15y ago

What else can I help you with?

Continue Learning about Philosophy

Does Ghandi see nonviolence as a method to be used by the weak or the strong?

Gandhi saw nonviolence as a powerful tool that could be used by both the weak and the strong. He believed in the concept of active nonviolent resistance as a way to confront injustice and bring about social change peacefully. Gandhi demonstrated that nonviolence requires great strength and courage to stand firm in the face of adversity.


Did Gandhi see nonviolence as a method to be used by the weak or strong?

Gandhi believed that nonviolence was a powerful method that could be used by both the weak and strong. He saw it as a moral force that had the capacity to transform conflicts and bring about social change, regardless of one's physical strength or status. Gandhi demonstrated through his own actions that nonviolence required great courage and inner strength.


Is peace and nonviolence outdated today?

No, peace and nonviolence are timeless values that are still important and relevant today. In the face of conflict and unrest, promoting peace and nonviolence can help build understanding, resolve disputes, and create a more harmonious society. It is through peaceful means that sustainable solutions to global challenges can be achieved.


What were Quakers who wouldn't fight called?

Quakers who wouldn't fight were called conscientious objectors. This belief stems from their commitment to nonviolence and a refusal to participate in war or military service.


Which do you think was a more effective strategy violence or nonviolence for eliminating slavery?

Nonviolence was ultimately a more effective strategy for eliminating slavery. Movements like the Civil Rights Movement led by Martin Luther King Jr. demonstrated the power of peaceful resistance in bringing about systemic change and ending institutionalized slavery. Violence tended to escalate conflicts and hinder long-term progress towards abolition.