NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #31/NN_1992_31.iso/spool/rec/martial/16200

Internet Message Format | 1992-12-25 | 4.3 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!spool.mu.edu!think.com!enterpoop.mit.edu!bloom-picayune.mit.edu!athena.mit.edu!ras
From: [e-mail] (Richard A Shandross)
Newsgroups: rec.martial-arts
Subject: Re: attack vs. harmony
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 25 Dec 92 07:09:06 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News system)
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Lines: 70
Nntp-Posting-Host: e40-008-10.mit.edu

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] writes:

    <snipped out previous quotes>
>
>But where does disharmony begin?  I have my doubts that we can ever really know
>the true cause of things, or whether it can be said that anything really has a
>single cause.  Because of that, I have my doubts about whether we can say we
>are maintaining harmony by not attacking, when in fact the harmony may already
>be broken.
>
>What if I'm walking down the street one night on the college nightclub strip
>and some guy swing at me out of nowhere?  Do I have to wait for him to attack?
>Do I hope for that oh-so-reliable "I just won't be there" mind power?  If I see
>this guy giving me looks while I'm walking, and he comes up to me and gives me
>a hard but painless shove, do I wait for him to do something more dangerous, or
>do I react off that one attack that was obviously not meant to hurt me?
>

    <...lots of further questions and examples>

Interesting question(s).  I don't see it from such a micro-management perspec-
tive as you've described.  That is, it is not what the person does that
defines whether they are in harmony, but rather what is "in their heart."
As to the `correct' response, that too is a matter of keeping (as Koichi Tohei
puts it) "the spirit of love and protection" in your heart as you respond.
You must have a strong fighting spirit, but the intent is to right the wrong,
not to wreak revenge.  (Lot's of "r" sounds in that sentence!)

I see the harmony as being broken the moment the person turns their intent
towards that effect.  In response, you do what you have to do to protect
yourself and everything else, including the attacker - to the extent that he
lets you.  So if he is intent on penetrating your defense, he has forfeited his
own safety to the exact extent of his effort and your ability to protect
yourself without hurting him.

As I see it, the "spirit" Tohei refers to includes a spirit of forgiveness
for petty insults, so if you insult someone that is no justification, on a
universal scale, for him to cream you in the local bar next Tuesday.  The
"most harmonious" response depends on his investment in you as a friend or
associate, past history, and a zillion other factors.  Unless you ruined his
reputation and he wants to file suit to get it back or take out an ad in the
local paper for the same result, about the most serious consequence I can see
being within the bounds of harmony would be to ignore you.

Yes, you can get caught up worrying about the cycle of karma to the point of
distraction.  But what's done is done; worry about what you are doing at the
moment and in the future.  If you embrace that "spirit of love and protection
for all living things" at every opportunity, and take responsibility for your
actions in the sense of admitting your mistakes and trying to correct them in
the future (without giving away your own rights in your zeal to "make up"), you
needn't worry about the minute details of cosmic balance.


>Is the attacker always going to be the one who's breaking the harmony?  Is it
>possible for the defender to break the harmony by not dealing with the
>confrontation?  And does it even matter?  I assume it does, so that we don't

This is an interesting question.  I think that part of "the harmony" is that we
each have the responsibility of learning to protect ourselves and then actually
doing so when necessary.  In that context, by not doing so one becomes part of
the breaking of the harmony.  BUT, that in no way relieves the attacker of
their responsibility to allow others to live in peace.  So I think that both
are responsible to some extent for the harm that ensues.  I tend to think of
the attacker as somehow more responsible, though.


>
>Jeff

Rich