What is violence?

I was recently asked:

What is violence?

This was my response:

What a good question to ask someone who does martial arts!  When I was in high school, I tried writing a paper on this and found it of little success because at that time, I was under the mistaken impression that it could be written from one single perspective.  Violence as a topic is something beyond a single perspective.  In fact, it is when something has only one perspective that makes it violence at all.

We describe violence as being something in war, conflict and the media.  However, violence is different for each being.  To the average American, it involves one person hitting another.  To a war general, it's casualties on his own side.  To a director, it's something that conflicts with his vision.  To a martial artist, it is inappropriate intent.  To an ant, it's rain.  To a flower, it's drought, To God or the universe, it's irrelevant. 

The best answer to this that this one can give is that violence is a mix of fear and disgust.  These two things are only determined by the one feeling them.  To another it might not be actually violent at all.  There are no limits as to what one can determine as violent and non-violent but their own experiences.

For example, one time a good friend came to visit me during my training.  I invited him to watch a sparring match.  I was hit with a solid kick to the jaw and my gums bled.  The match continued and I was fine with the tiny amount of pain and taste of iron.  After the match, the friend asked me, "Are you okay?  That was pretty violent!"  I shook my head in mild confusion.  "What was violent?" I asked.  "The whole thing!  You got kicked in the face and you bled!"  I had gone from confusion to laughter, which I realize now scared him more.  "It wasn't violent and the kick wasn't hard enough for me to have any problems.  The violence you see is your lack of understanding how hard I need to be hit for it to hurt me as well as the fear of yourself getting injured."  I went on to explain that in time, if he trained, that he would not only do that kind of thing, but he would then see that the actions there were utterly peaceful.  The person I was sparring was only trying to teach me where I was vulnerable and at the same time learn what they were capable of doing.  At the same time I was trying to teach them their vulnerabilities and learning what I could do in such a situation.  The exchange was positive, beautiful and we both were doing our best to help each other.  One who doesn't have that kind of experience and understanding will only see fighting as violent.  To us, it was the most calm and clear moment of our lives.  No thoughts of other things, no worries, no fear, no desire, just emptiness and serenity.

This violence that we think we know as violence is all just manifestations of the way things are in our world.  The experiences have need to be experienced and we must learn to let go of our fears and disgusts.  After all, our presence is nothing but violence in the face of nothing. 

Osu,
   ~至道

The other day I was asked:

Recently I was told a story by my Japanese girlfriend about when she was learning English as a kid. She once asked a teacher "Why is 'a' shaped like that?" When they couldn't answer she got fed up and to a certain extent lost interest.  When she brought that up I didn't know either. I looked it up later and in doing so I got more fragments but nothing that entirely satisfied my sparked curiousity. I started wondering about things like different fonts, or hand writing styles. The various interpretations of the alphabet in a still recognizable form.

Which, in a way, is like martial arts.  There are many different styles and practitioners, but what is it that really distinguishes one style from another, in there being so many different interpretations of the same idea? Also is there really a clear line between separate styles?


This was my response:



When it comes to most things we believe that we have a definitive understanding of what makes anything apply to a specific word or symbol and the word or symbol apply to a specific thing.  This is quite misleading.  We say that A is A because it is.  That's terribly arbitrary!  It is giving us the pen of God to write our dictionary because only we will use it. 


It is actually quite the opposite which gives us our definitions.  In Zen, there is a postulate that says:

A≠A∴A which translates as "A is not A therefore A." 

This seems terribly counter intuitive but it should.  Logic prevailing, then A which is not can not be at all.  This seems as much of a paradox as "This sentence is false."  However there is a way, beyond the logic that we can understand this but you've got to do exactly as said.

Here goes:

Look at your hand.

I say, "Your hand is like a bird."

You wait for my explanation or see the bird in your hand.  

I say, "Your hand is like my hand," and you notice the 4 fingers, the thumb and the palm.

I say, "Your hand is like your hand," and you realize that this makes no sense.  

It can't be like your hand because it is indeed your hand!  It would be a stupid sentence and have the feeling of incorrectness.  

Think for a moment.  What is your hand actually like?

Anything...almost.

Is it like a fish, a tiger and the universe more than your own hand?   No.

Then how is this wrong?

Well, let's simplify.  

Your hand is like anything that is not your hand and as such it is your hand.

That can be simplified to "Your hand is like not-your-hand and as such it is not your hand"

We use a simile but we could simply switch it to a metaphor by removing the "like"

Your hand is not-your-hand, therefore it is your hand.

A is not A, therefore A.

Hope that explains how we must step out of our basic definitions and understand our reality beyond the numbers and measures we usually attribute to all of what we call "reliable information."

In an effort to reply to the martial arts aspect of the question, I would like to draw attention to two specific situations.  First, a comparison between Aikido and Muay Thai.  These styles are so far from each other in most ways that the dividing line is easily seen.  Aikido usually involves grabbing an opponent and very few strikes at all.  It is about moving with the opponent at the appropriate time to throw them.  Muay Thai involves a large amount of striking and with wrapped hands, the grabbing is next to nothing so long as it is understood that a clinch is a body position and not a grab.  Thus Muay Thai and Aikido are opposites in many ways and as such they define each other pretty clearly.

Second, a comparison between Karate and Crane Kung Fu.  This is where things get hazy.  For evidence:

This is a showing of how the concept of the "three-battles" traveled from China to Okinawa and it changed over years of evolution into another but similar practice.  There is no real line between the two styles.  However we can look at them and say, "That's Crane and that's Karate." This is our own perspectives.  Simply understand that as a true and clean witness of your reality, you must be more willing to bend the definitions and as such it will change your perspective on what is truly important in the style you study. 

To sum it all up: 

Once you know something is, the why or why-not is a matter of perspective and an understanding beyond the self.