Peaceful Warrior

Rick Wilson · Post by **Rick Wilson** » Sat May 06, 2000 12:08 am

Peaceful Warrior. A term I have borrowed from Dan Millman's book.

(The following comes from some discussions with a friend of mine, Rick Bottomley.)

A long while back there were some threads about how to respond when people ask about our study of Karate. Why do we study the way of violence, etc?

Well here is a slightly different answer to give these type of folk: So that we may choose to be nonviolent.

To actually chose to be non-violent, you must first have the capability and ability to be violent. A person who claims to be non-violent, may only be so because they have no other choice. To be a person who truly seeks a nonviolent path, you must first have other options.

The example my friend uses is Ghandi. Ghandi chose a path of nonviolent revolution. This was an actual choice. He had the influence and power to call forth a bloody violent revolution. Because he had that power, and chose not to use it, he was truly a man of peace.

There was a comment made about the Senior Seniors of our system (and I would assume the same is true of other systems), that they are like Clark Kent/Superman. They are what I would call Gentleman of the Art. They will choose to react as Gentleman and only respond with violence when absolutely necessary. They are Peaceful Warriors because they make a conscious choice to be so.

To me, they are the people who are truly nonviolent because they always have the power and ability to do violence, but they do not resort to that option unless under dire circumstances .

And that is one of the reasons some study Karate.

Comments?

Rick

david · Post by **david** » Sat May 06, 2000 3:04 am

Rick,

I with you on this. Teddy R. said it more succinctly, "Walk softly but carry a big stick."

Ike,

I think you are reading way too much into what Rick is saying. I happen to agree with with the sentiment and I ain't looking to follow nor to be followed.

david

david · Post by **david** » Sat May 06, 2000 10:54 am

Ike,

>>Not preaching, just warning that there is more to such things than might appear on the surface. Such ideas are deceptively appealing, that's the way it is with cult thinking<<

Okay, I appreciate the "warning." But just anything can be "deceptively appealing." It comes down to the individual and his/her psychological/emotional needs which have been shaped long before meeting the person who would exploit that need in a "cult" like fashion.

There are many ideas that attract me. But a consistent one, like your sig line, is that I "call no man master." I may bow to someone out of respect but I bow to no one in submission. That's just me, and hopefully most of the other participants in these forums.

There are many ideas that flow through these forums. I agree with some and disagree with others. We are each entitled to our opinion as long as no one is trying to exploit someone else.

>>I wonder if you could explain to the few who are here in what way developing one's "capability and ability to be violent" constitutes a part of 'personal development'?<<

"Capability" and "ability" are two different things. Some of us have both, some of us neither and some of us have one without the other. In so much as we're studying martial arts, we are each dealing with our issues with violence. But most training focus on the development of "ability", the technical skills to wreak violence. But an ongoing questions is whether our training really develops our "capability", psychological/emotional, to engage in violence when needed. I suspect some of us will never have that capability regardless of the technical skills developed. Some of us have the capability before training. Frankly, I am one of them. Rather than running away from that, I embrace it and strive to develop my skills to engage in it. In so much as I develop my skills, look deeply at my capability, and ask questions about when it is appropriate to act on my capability and ability for violence, then I am engaged in what I consider "personal development."

My "personal development" is just that -- PERSONAL. I do not expect nor want someone to do it for me. Unfortunately, there are those who will seek outside of themselves to make themselves "whole." They leave themselves open for exploitation. This is just fact. As often pointed out in Van sensei's forum, there will always be "predator" and "prey."

david

Rick Wilson · Post by **Rick Wilson** » Mon May 08, 2000 3:24 am

Wow, been away for the weekend. Thanks for those who jumped in on my behalf, I think you folk read what I was after.

Icon:

I don't take your comments personally because you don't know me. Those who do, and those who know my buddy, would find your suggestion that we support MA cults, and/or their thinking, up there with the biggest joke of the of the millennium.

I don't know the works of Terry Dukes, other than the few things I have read about him, which lead me NOT to care what he writes. I am sorry that you had experiences with this type of person. Any words or thoughts can be twisted by twisted individuals.

You are correct that MA cults are out there and everyone can fall into them. In my school the adult students just call me Rick because I want to stay very clear of that kind of thinking.

To summarize, MA cults are out there, but they were not even near our thought process on this one.

Your comment:

"And I certainly would be very wary of thinking of your Sensei as Supermen in Clark Kent clothing. They are not! (and I am sure they would be the first to agree with me). I am sure they would rather you did not do that either - putting someone else on a pedestal in this way does not do them any good, but it certainly is no good to you. Whoever your sensei is, if he is a good sensei, he will kindly ask you to stop thinking of him like this - and if he doesn't because he actually rather likes you thinking of him as someone who wears his underpants outside his gi trousers, then I would suggest that you go and find another dojo!"

I am afraid you missed my point entirely. I was not saying my Sensei WAS a Superman. I do not put my Sensei on a pedestal. The comment about Clark Kent/Superman came from a long ago thread that referred to the fact that most of the Uechi Ryu Seniors that person had met were very personable and friendly folk but capable of generating a great deal of martial power, hence the Clark Kent to Superman reference. While I do not place my Sensei on a pedestal I do respect his character and martial abilities (or why would I be his student?).

Your comment:

"in order to show that you are free of sexual desire, you have to have sex all the time"

This incorrectly transposes my comment.

I did not say that to be violent you have to be violent all the time, or ever. I said it had to be an option available to you. The proper transposition would be:

In order to show that you are free of sexual desire (or the ability to control your desires) you have to have the option of having sex."

Someone who has no option of having sex easily HAS NONE, however, that person has in no way demonstrated that they can control that desire. Only when the option exists, and they do not take part, would they have actually demonstrated control, or freedom, over sexual desires.

(As an aside comment: The capacity to do violence does not take martial training.)

Your comment:

"I can't say that analogy to Ghandi is exactly right for this instance either - he did not have very much in the way of personal (ie physical) power."

I disagree. I think had Ghandi called upon his followers to rise up in a bloody revolt they would have.

Your comment:

"Please don't be too proud to believe that you could not get involved in a cult - all it takes is a wish to 'change oneself' or a wish for 'personal development', coupled together with a charismatic and skillful persuader. Even better if they can provide a myriad of impressive means by which it seems that such aspirations are something that is possible to fulfil. The experience of "good training" can blinker one to all sorts of other problems."

In this I agree entirely. The right time, the right place, the right emotional and mental state, the right Charismatic person ... yep, no one in invulnerable (not even Superman

)

To close, I do not see any paradox in this, only logic.

Icon, thanks for the comments, while it went off in an unexpected direction, it was an interesting one.

Rick

SEAN C · Post by **SEAN C** » Mon May 08, 2000 7:51 pm

All,

A couple thoughts:

To oversimplify, the only thing one must be aware of is intent. Intent can kill, and it is what is needed to make karate "work" in a situation of self defense. What is the intent of the teacher?

If one is looking to gain power over others, then one should learn from those who attempt to control. This person will attempt to control his students.

If one is looking to gain power over and understanding of the self, one should look for a teacher who has no need of power, or control, for they have truly mastered themselves.

As with anything, martial arts can be used for good or evil. Spiritual teachings, religion, guns, etc... What is the intent?

Hypocracy?

Just as one should be wary of hippocrites and controllers, one should be careful of falling into the trap of living life as a reaction to bad experiences. One easy way out of having to face the inner demons that led one to the cult experience, is to focus not within, but to project negative reactions to life, through the filter of the person who negatively affected one. If one doesn't find the positive within, one is still very much under the power of the cult leader.

It is possible to experience and learn from all words and thoughts without becoming enslaved to them, if one has a strong sense of who they are, underneath all of the trappings of society, culture, etc.

One can simply let go of all the B.S. and know that one is human, and know that it is good.

------------------
sean

morgoth · Post by **morgoth** » Mon May 08, 2000 9:02 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
However, I am none-the-wiser as to what you were originally meaning either - although you hint that others got what you were on about. Could you clarify what point you were trying to make? Thanks.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The way I interpreted what he had to say was "you cannot be said to control that which you do not posses." It seemed to me that he was talking about non-violence as behavior. And to choose non-violence as behavior requires that you have the option in your mind to cause violence. For instance, only a rich person can be miserly. I think perhaps the point you're not catching is the difference between non-violence and not violence. I would say that not-violence is simply the lack of violence, objectively, without a reason behind it. Thus a book on a table posseses not violence as does person who is incapable of performing violence.

The term non-violence would then have to refer to an active decision not to employ violence, which requires the capacity in the same way that miserliness requires wealth. I don't think he was saying that it's a good quality is to be unable to defend oneself , but rather that it is a good quality to have the capacity, and choose not to use it except under specific circumstances.

But hey, maybe I'm wrong in my interpretation, and shouldn't be putting words in other people's mouths.

[This message has been edited by morgoth (edited May 08, 2000).]

Brian Barry · Post by **Brian Barry** » Mon May 08, 2000 9:25 pm

Rick,
OK, I'm a teenager so I tend to see things a bit...bluntly, as well as in my own words. So let me get this straight:
Because of my training, when I'm taunted I don't need to be afraid and run away, but can smile, think to myself, "I can tear him up", choose not to, and walk away.
If this is what you're saying I'm in total agreement with you.

Van Canna · Post by **Van Canna** » Tue May 09, 2000 6:33 pm

Always remember that it is the projection of
weakness that brings on the beating.

------------------
Van Canna

genjumin · Post by **genjumin** » Tue May 09, 2000 7:40 pm

Van:'Always remember it is the projection of weakness that brings on the beating.'

Yep.

Bill:'As Fonzie said,'at some point in your life you need to have hit someone.'

The Fonzie character was a glamorized ganbanger, a hoodlum and a thug.To be a successful thug, you do need to have hit/stabbed/shot/killed someone, as John Travolta's similar character said in Get Shorty.He used to say, "Look at me.' And get what he wanted with his intimidating stare that said, 'I own you.'

Hoodlums.

I would say at some point in your life you need to know that you can hit someone, if you have to.Maybe you just hit a bag, a tree, or a makiwara.

And did two man drills with controlled contact.

I know, we all have hit someone, and we are not hoodlums.Just karate guys.

But I don't like the implications of the 'Fonzie ' comment, the hoodlum with the heart of gold image, or any of that nonsense.

'At some point in your life, you need to have---- someone. Why stop at hit? Why not go on to killed, raped, stabbed, cut, shot, someone?

I understand the intent of putting this comment up, I believe. I think you wanted to point out that people have to have the confidence that they CAN hit someone if they have to to protect themselves and others.

It just sounds, the way its put in the Fonzes' mouth,like at some point in your life you should seek out a fight and smash somebody a good one so you will have the confidence that you can do it.

I know far too many people who did this. Many of them decided to 'hit ' me,and only stopped after I learned martial arts and dealt with the situations. Took Judo, they went to hit me and, well, you guys doing BJJ know what happened to the miscreants next, extremely embarrassing for them I'm sure.:-)

'At some point in your life you may need to learn to protect yourself against violent attacks' sounds much better and leaves the field open for all manner of psychological and physical training.

As for the Fonze, r the versions of him I knew , I kicked his ass.:-)
On a wrestling mat, and later we all became friends. Those were different times.

Genjumin

Brian Barry · Post by **Brian Barry** » Wed May 10, 2000 2:48 am

Perhaps it is more accurate to say that "At some point in your life, you need to get hit."

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Wed May 10, 2000 5:53 am

Brian

That about says it. Eloquently simple.

To all

Being a student of logic and rational thought, I think I can carry the analogies farther.

I have read this thread late and have watched the analogies and counter analogies. I might like to carry it one step further.

Ike wrote <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

in order to show that you are free of sexual desire, you have to have sex all the time

Rick correctly saw flawed logic, and counter-proposed the following: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote

In order to show that you are free of sexual desire (or the ability to control your desires) you have to have the option of having sex.

Now this gets closer to the truth. However I think it still misses a point Ike is bringing up. What Ike is asking is whether one should surround oneself with temptation (not actually succumb to it) in order to prove that one can thwart it.

But perhaps Brian gets to the point best in his own way. Perhaps one actually does want to have the option of engaging in violence, and perhaps one actually will do so under certain circumstances. In order to walk down certain paths, we may put ourselves at risk for violence, whether we like it or not. But these choices with risk have nonviolent rewards that are worth gambling for.

We should not delude ourselves too much. We study violence - period. We may effectively remain nonviolent, but deep down inside most of us want to have the option for violence - and use it - if necessary. There are other issues here like deterrence and projected confidence.

As Fonzie of Happy Days once said "At some point in your life you need to have hit someone."

- Bill

Rick Wilson · Post by **Rick Wilson** » Wed May 10, 2000 7:06 am

Morgoth and Brian -- YES.

Ike: While Logic was the only course in University I received a perfect grade in, I was referring to a more direct common sense logic (although an old man once told me that the phrase common sense was ridiculous because it just wasn't that common). The logic to me was clearly stated by Morogoth: "you cannot be said to control that which you do not posses."

Thanks for clarifying about the cult thing -- threw me off.

Bill also enters into the direction that I thought this thread might go when he talks about the fact that we study violence.

Van is dead on.

Too late, have to run, more later.

Rick

[This message has been edited by Rick Wilson (edited May 10, 2000).]

student · Post by **student** » Wed May 10, 2000 1:36 pm

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Doctor X:
A psychiatrist I respected once stated that there are no "bad" desires, just bad actions. As a father of a two and three year-old, he defied anyone in a similar position to deny the urge to throttle the brats once and a while. The point is you do not act on the urge. A parent understands the source of his frustration and deals with it.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let me echo J.D. and his respected psychiatrist!. Early in my legal career I started getting appointed to defend parents accused of abusing or neglecting their children. Being a childess type myself I looked down with superior knowledge at what they should have done and what they should have felt. (Similar to the childless social workers' mindsets.)

Then we had a child.

Then we had children.

And I am better attorney for it in this area. I do not, repeat, do not condone abuse for any reasons, ever!

But, man, do I ever understand the impulse....

student

Wu Wei · Post by **Wu Wei** » Wed May 10, 2000 6:32 pm

I think the last few posts comment on something interesting. There are those who do not have a choice in defending themselves because they cannot. At the other end of the spectrum, there are those that do have the choice, but need to be able to control the adrenaline, anger, temperament, etc. so that they can defend themselves in an expediant manner. MA training not only provides the choice, but through constant repetition and hard training, one becomes acquainted with the part of themselves that will be dealing with that situation. "One can die a thousand deaths in the dojo."

Bill Glasheen · Post by **Bill Glasheen** » Wed May 10, 2000 7:34 pm

genjumin

You completely misunderstood and misinterpreted the quote from Fonzie. And given that it was taken out of context from the show, I understand. I should apologize for leaving you with incomplete information.

I will not comment on your portrayal of Fonzie as a hoodlum except to point out that I think you have it a bit exaggerated. I don't ever recall seeing the character beating anyone up on the show. But that's immaterial to the discussion.

It's been a very long time since I saw the episode. Do not be surprised if I use words like carborundum instead of corbamite (reference to another Star Trek thread). But I'll give you the general idea.

Richie Cunningham in Happy Days was a lot like most other teenagers. He was a harmless, skinny, happy kid. I can't remember the details, but he was in trouble with some neer-do-wells, and he was about to get his bootie kicked. So he was appealing to Fonzie for help. Bottom line - Richie did not want to fight. He was doing what he could to avoid what would most certainly be a disastrous situation. So Fonzie would give him advice - one step at a time - and Richie would execute. This went on for a while. It had a lot to do with projecting attitude with the idea of making someone back down. Again - the goal was to keep Richie from getting into a fight. Well they got down to the final step, and Fonzie gives the infamous quote: "This is the last rule. At some point in your life, you need to have hit someone." Richie replies "Thanks a lot, Fonzie, it's a little late to find that out."

What was that all about? Well what it meant was that an attitude (or a threat) is no good if there isn't anything to back it up. An intimidating hood (Richie's tormenter) isn't going to stop from pounding a weakling if he believes the weakling isn't going to give him significant resistance - no matter how bold the posture. Something has to be there to make him think twice. It's something in-between attacking the hood (always a risk) and cowering. Again, the goal is to keep from fighting in the first place.

Karate may allow us to live a more peaceful existence in a world full of bullies, but it will not help (or necessarily hurt) if we won't ever - under any circumstances - fight. It may help us feel better about the subequent attack that we take like a man, but it will not stop the attack. It will do us no good even with perfect skills if we do not have the warrior spirit when the time comes. There are very few people capable of projecting a false image. Fear is natural and even helpful. Occasionally internal peace can confuse. But intimidation is different, and can be easily read. As a great man once said, "Always remember that it is the projection of weakness that brings on the beating."

The same holds true for a knife or a gun or a lawyer. If the tormenter knows you won't use it ever, (s)he has no fear of the weapon. It's pointless to have it in the first place (as a "peacemaker"), and suicide to wave it in front of the mad bull.

Dis Happy Days all you want. I watched very little TV in the seventies. But do try to understand the point.

Sorry for the confusion.

- Bill