- I believe in peace. Why? Because I consider it to be generally the most constructive, respectful way of resolving problems and achieving spiritual growth & a rewarding life. I know that peace is a process, and requires a commitment to things like assertiveness, action, honesty and communication.
- There are times when, if one is in one of the few places/times where it has genuinely been achieved, it needs to be defended.
- I ALSO know that words can be as violent and aggressive (including "passive aggressive") as any physical act of aggression, intimidation or other violence. I have buried people I've known who have been driven to commit suicide because of discrimination; I've talked to people who have been scarred for years because of bullying at schools, and I've helped countless friends who have been seriously emotionally traumatised or hurt by other's words. (This was a thought that came to when watching the film "Revolutionary Road", when Leo DiCaprio's character threatens to strike Kate Winslet's character: both were in the wrong in the lead up to that moment. I'm thinking of posting on this, and similar aspects of the film "Crash" at some future time.) I've also been on the receiving end of offensive, passive-aggressive and other violent/aggressive words, including from women, and have personal experience of what that does.
- Finally, there are times when people have to go through unpleasant experiences to force them to learn & grow, or perhaps to force them to pay off karma that they are pretending they don't have. This happens after the Universe has presented many opportunities to do so "the easy way".
It is a major concern of mine that many spiritual/New Age/proselytisers for peace focus so much on physical violence. I've seen acts of extraordinary emotional violence committed in words by such people - and then had them have the temerity to claim their behaviour is somehow OK.
It is not. It is, in some ways, possibly worse than physical violence: with physical violence, the anger or hate is visible (if such is present), and one is aware of it, whereas with non-physical violence the hate, anger, fear, jealousy or whatever the motive is, is likely to be hidden, and the discovery of that later amplifies the trauma.
One of the "myths" I grew up with in a small country town in Queensland is that small boys and young men always have a few tiffs (fights) as they grow up, and that it doesn't do any harm. Well, firstly, it does do harm - if one loses, it is much akin to being on the receiving end of bullying, and I've seen such so-called "losers" then devote time & energy into becoming stronger, or more competent at fighting, or to compensate for the loss in some other way, rather than get on with having a life. (I've also seen this in girls and young women who are excluded - which could possibly be considered the female version of violence?) I've also seen the so-called "victor" then start to strut, and think they don't have to develop as a person, and develop a whole lot of fake "friendships" - it's not good for their development as a person. Looking at this situation of aggression: there are no winners, in my opinion. The second point I will make about the statement is that NOT all young boys/men wish to get into fisticuffs or other competitive behaviour to try and "prove" their masculinity, or because "it is what everyone does". That was never the case when I was growing up, nor when the generation before me, some of whom I've spoken to about this, were growing up.
I mentioned competitiveness. Competition is often a form of violence, and I know someone who had an alternative upbringing who cannot even say the word. However, it is not something that is automatically associated with aggression or violence. For instance, the limited contact I have had with wrestling suggests that that is an area where competitiveness is fairly genuinely based on wanting to see what one is capable of - there is quite a bit of concern for how one's opponent is. Oddly enough, that is something which seems to have been the case also with SOME boxers in my father's generation (he used to do some amateur boxing) - that obviously does not apply to all boxers (and the serious risks of brain injury are such that I don't endorse boxing), but I've seen some genuine sportsmanship even in professional bouts, and there seem to have been genuine bonds of respect formed between some boxers. In any case, this physical violence is not always based on hate or anger.
It's not just a case of all violent physical contact is bad.
(Going back to competitive sport for a moment, I used to be a regionally successful competitive dinghy sailor [which is not a contact sport, but some people can be extremely aggressive, and shout a lot while competing: they're usually the poorer sailors] when I was younger. The success helped me, as it gave me some self esteem to get through some of life's challenges at that time [and since], it started me in teaching [I have been teaching sailing since I was 14, and was pleased to get the people who others found difficult to teach], it developed some wonderful teamwork [I had comments about the joy of watching the crewwork between myself and my main crew] and it gave me a wonderful source of connection to nature]. However, many people in the sailing club could never work out why sometimes I would do well in the results of race and not be happy, and other times I could do badly in the results and yet be happy. The reason was I was judging myself by how well I had sailed, how well I had used the skills of sailing - I may have done well because others did badly, and I had also done badly: that wasn't good, in my opinion. But if I had done well, and simply been beaten because someone was better than me at the application of sailing skills,that was OK because I felt good about having sailed at or above the standard I set myself.)
If we go back to the schoolyard where young boys are supposedly "having a few tiffs", and young girls are supposedly "sugar and spice and all things nice", things have improved, in my opinion, today compared to when I was growing up. In particular, there are anti-bullying policies in many of the better schools - they may be flawed (I would never tell a bully what the effect has been on me of their bullying: my experience of such people was that they were sadists, and would have enjoyed hearing that; also, not all children are inherently good - they may be, at the soul level, as all people are, but their incarnation may be evil - I mean the word - from a very young age*), and it is a situation which is difficult to find all the truth one needs to have and to come up with a "perfect" solution, but it is still a commendable step. In a sense, those bullying policies work basically because there is a third party who has more authority/moral strength: that is not, unfortunately, yet the case between nations.
* That doesn't mean one necessarily behaves differently towards such children: love is still the cure for most problems, including evil :)
Some nations do respect the role of the United Nations, and the UN does play a major role in improving the circumstances of people, but it is a flawed organisation. Those flaws can be traced back to the evil that Senator Joseph McCarthy committed against it in the 50s, but it is also partly a weakness that is inherent in it's nature. I consider examples of this to be the anti-gay statements of people associated with the UN (some recent), and the failure to manage the complexity of the situation around Israel and Palestine.
To cut a long argument short, there are going to be situations where wars occur that one side is right and the other wrong. Apart from anything else, the Second World War is an example of a war against evil, the evil of Hitler's regime. In that situation, should people have refused to fight? Should they have allowed evil to flourish?
That's a trick question.
Apart from the issue that people such as conscientious objectors are seeking to change the very energy that is inherent in this world, some people who actively oppose war do so because of karmic necessity: they may have had a past life as, oh ... say, Genghis Khan. Whoever had that past life is unlikely to be doing anything violent for many lifetimes if they are seeking to fix their karmic balance.
But also, there are ways of fighting against evil without using violence. These days sanctions are a well developed tool, and - arguably - played a role in the overthrow of the evil apartheid regime in South Africa. The thing to be balanced up there is the harm that is done while one is waiting for sanctions to take effect, vs. the harm that is done by perpetuating the habit in this world of using violence to "solve" problems (the comments I've mad above, alluding to resentment when losing a schoolyard fight, apply here: there are some who consider the Second World War was caused by the unfairness of the Versailles Treaty at the end of the First World War.
As another example, I think it was Muktananada who claimed to have strengthened to resolve of the Russian forces at the Battle of Stalingrad, which was a major turning point in the war against Nazism, through meditation. This theme of using meditation to promote peace (in the more "traditional" sense) is also a key theme in the events described in Stuart Holroyd's book "Briefing for the Landing on Planet Earth".
I've alluded to something significant there: that there are more than one way of using "peaceful" skills such as meditation to achieve peace. Using such skills to cause a deep, abiding peace in oneself, or to inspire growth and a non-violent way of resolving problems in others is one thing, but there are also battles and conflicts going on everyday in this lawless world that need active intervention so the world can get those over and done with, and then get on to moving to being a better world. Those battles re the emotional, mental and psychic battles that happen everyday over things like control - in the sense of controlling others.
There is a great evil in this world: it is the evil of pulling the wool over one's eyes and thinking that violence is something that happens only physically, or in wars, or domestic violence. The laws around domestic violence are starting to acknowledge that, with the inclusion of changes to address financial control. However, we still have a long way to go.
I've posted previously on the topic The Middle Ages and Today's Psychic Sewers: it would be worth briefly having a look at that. In this world we have many people, including people who are otherwise committed to peace and growth, who seek to control or manipulate others, which is an act of extreme spiritual violence and aggression. It is fairly obvious that the person who tailgates another driver is impatient, and is using their closeness to attempt to intimidate the victim of their violence into speeding up. It is less obvious that the person who whines, wheedles and cajoles others into favours, rather than simply asking openly and honestly (while being genuinely prepared for a no) is also committing what could be considered an act of evil.
Does motivation play a role in this?
Yes - but not in the way you are possibly thinking! The person who is doing the manipulating IS aware that they are trying to get someone else to do something that the other doesn't want. That is why they're doing it - it's not a simple case of "oh but they're only ..." - that argument is the one used around schoolyard bullying and violence when I was growing up.
This problem also goes further, with attempts at psychic control. In many cases, THIS type of behaviour is even less conscious than the former: it is also no less damaging, just as the schoolyard bullying is no less damaging because it hasn't led to obvious physical wounds (perhaps!).
In my opinion, this issue of verbal, emotional, mental, spiritual and psychic violence, including control and psychic attack, is a major problem in the world. So what does one do about it?
Well, the first thing is to seek to make make sure you are respecting other people and their boundaries. re you aren't doing it yourself. Get counselling or do some personal growth work to make sure you have no resolved or unknown issues that could be causing or contributing to resentment. Deal with frustrations in your life as best you can: for instance, you may be in a job that you hate because you need the money (perhaps to support a chronically or critically ill child/partner/parent): acknowledge that to yourself, and plan ways of coping with that energy - realistic ways. Those realistic ways may be, for you, reminding yourself that you are doing this out of love. Or, you may find that a load of codswallop, and cope by things like a "three minute holiday" (visualising yourself somewhere you enjoy while doing something you like, such as possibly listening to favourite song). Or you may cope by acknowledging that all things pass, and this phase of your life will end (to be flippant for a moment, even the worst teenager eventually moves out of home :) ). Read up on the skills and principles used in polyamoury: you may not be poly yourself, but poly people have developed good skills for managing jealousy, and respecting boundaries, and NOT controlling people in relationships.
For the next point, lets start looking at another shade of grey. I've read of people who wouldn't try to save someone who was drowning (whether literally or metaphorically) because they didn't want to "take on that person's karma". Well, that view is also a load of codswallop: what IS relevant is that, if you have the capacity and opportunity to help another, and you CHOOSE not to, you earn just as much negative karma as someone who possibly pushed the drowning victim into the river.
So ... let's say you have the capacity and opportunity to intervene in an act of violence: if you don't, are you earning negative karma?
Well, that depends on the situation. If you're a police officer with the training and social sanction to stop an attempted murder, you should definitely in my opinion - act. If you're a soldier defending your land against an aggressor who has invaded for no good reason, my inclination is that you should probably act. If you're a committed pacifist, with a lifelong passion for advocating non-violent ways of responding to situations (I am aware of what's called "civil defence" [e.g. taking down street signs so an invader doesn't know where they are - to use a pre-GPS example!], but consider that of limited usefulness - particularly with an invader who is committing acts of evil such as massacres and torture), you should also continue to act by your pacifist role (pacifist does not mean inactive, actually - Gandhi's concept of Satyagraha has a few subtleties that may not be comprehended by those who first come across the concept). If you're a "saint", albeit possible a flawed "saint", with the ability to help others who are actively fighting, whether physically or non-physically, against evil, you should probably act. If you have some skills around psychic attack, you should probably act. I've posted before on how to defend yourself against psychic attack, but there are other skills, which can be considered to be akin to being the psychic equivalent stopping a rampaging gunman** - would you stop a gunman who was injuring or killing people if you could? Would you do the same to someone who was doing the psychic equivalent of that?
Finally, if you're an everyday person, with the normal everyday skills of speech, thought and inherent psychic ability (don't take those for granted! Some people are not blessed with such abilities, possibly through being diferently abled), you should also act.
You may need to develop some of those abilities, and you will probably have to do a lot of looking at shades of grey, but if you do not, you may well be guilty of the "sin" of failing to act. If you fail to address your own shortcomings, and the characteristics in yourself that put you at risk of psychic violence such as psychic attack (and that is most often caused by strong emotions - and limited only by the lack of psychic skill applied to the emotion), you may well be guilty of the "sin" of failing to act. If you are aware of others who are committing acts of psychic evil, such as control or psychic attack, and you fail to act, you may well be guilty of the "sin" of failing to act.
So ... what are you going to do now? (DO be realistic about existing commitments to family, friends and work when assessing whether or not you have the time & energy for an extensive involvement in doing anything!)
Love, light, hugs and blessings
Gnwmythr
** Such skills are based around clearing the negative energy that person is using: for example, is the person being controlled by an earthbound entity (which happens quite a bit, particularly around alcoholics and drug addicts). If so, clear the earthbound entity (or at least their influence). You may also be able to clear what I term indirect karma: remove a negative association between yourself and a third party, and that may lighten the third party's aura enough that their guides/Higher Self/Deity can inspire them to help the rampager be healed. You may also be able to help create things like walls of light between the rampager and her/hir/his victims, or heal or teach the victims about psychic self defence (or heal the aggressor - they do, after all, need healing). If nothing else, you can pray to Deity for some help with the whole situation (just keep in mind the old saying "I used to wonder why someone didn't do something, then I realised I was someone.") This post is about taking responsible action: you WILL be held accounatble for all your deeds and inaction, so be very thoughtful whatever you do or don't do. And in making your decisions, keep in mind people's right to free will: if they are not harming someone else (and someone else's reaction may be an attempt at control on the part of that person, or a flaw in the other person), then they have the right to do stuff that is harmful to themselves.
Importantly, do not let yourself get cocky if you do do something constructive or good. Have a read of the following:
"Researchers found that buying green can lead people into less
altruistic behaviour, and even make them more likely to steal and lie
than after buying conventional products. Buying products that claim to
be made with low environmental impact can set up 'moral credentials' in
people's minds that give license to selfish or questionable behavior."
http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_
This post's photo is yet to be posted
Tags: attitudes, bullying, change, communication, control, emotions, evil, growth, interpersonal interactions, judging others, karma, love, peace, personal characteristics, respect, responsibility, violence
First published: Saturday 10th October, 2009
Last edited: Saturday 10th October, 2009
