Violence

It seems to me that most people who feel themselves to be "spiritual" reject violence. But in my opinion, this rejection of violence is not well thought out.

Does their rejection of violence mean that they would, if they had their way, take the guns away from their policemen and soldiers? Do they propose to shower violent criminals with love and flowers?

Most people who consider themselves to be "spiritual" people are omnivores. How do they rationalize that? Do they not consider killing and eating a pig to be violent (I do!)? One way to avoid acknowledgement of our violent eating habits is to call various types of meat by names other than the animal names. We don't call the meat "baby cow", we call it "veal".

Some people are vegetarians, but they wear leather belts and shoes (but would NEVER consider wearing a mink coat). Peoples' ideas on the issue of violence seem filled with inconsistencies.

Violence exists throughout the natural world and throughout human civilization. In an effort to minimize violence and create civil societies, governments evolved. Here is my definition: "a government is an organization which has a monopoly on violence within a region". To the degree that an organization actually demonstrates a monopoly on violence, that is the degree to which it is recognized as the government of a region. When other actors do violence within that region, we call those people criminals and expect the government to make them cease, employing violence as a means to that end, if necessary. We shield our consciousness from the violence of the world by sub-contracting the violent jobs out to cattle, pig and poultry ranchers, butchers, fishermen, policemen, prison officers and soldiers. This allows us to pretend that we are non-violent.

Here is a quote from Mahatma Gandhi's autobiography.

"I felt that Indians residing in England ought to do their bit in the war... As soon as the news reached South Africa that I ... had offered my services in the war, I received two cables. One of these was from Mr. Polak who questioned the consistency of my action with my profession of ahimsa [non-violence]....

We are helpless mortals caught in the conflagration of himsa [violence].... Man cannot for a moment live without consciously or unconsciously committing outward himsa. The very fact of his living - eating, drinking and moving about - necessarily involves some himsa, destruction of life, be it ever so minute. A votary of ahimsa therefore remains true to his faith if the spring of all his actions is compassion... but he can never become entirely free from outward himsa...

Whilst in England I was enjoying the protection of the British Fleet, and taking shelter as I did under its armed might, I was directly participating in its potential violence. Therefore, If I desired to retain my connection with the Empire and to live under its banner, ... I thought there was nothing for it but to serve in the war."

In my opinion, spiritual practitioners should not spend their time trying to bring "peace on earth". Violence and peace are merely the two ends of the same stick. To try to bring peace on earth is to get caught in the duality trap. These dualities are not the fundamental fabric of life. The fundamental fabric of life transcends duality. A spiritual practitioner should constantly be letting go of the illusion that the fundamental essence of life is duality.