On war and conquest...
Submitted by JohnDoe420 on 2002-11-10 22:28:28, Sunday
|
"It is the duty of the warrior to fight the righteous war." ...wrong book for this forum, but I've always liked the quote. Honestly, I think it may even pertain to this forum, depending on where one goes with it... ...which is rather why I'm posting here - now, anyways. I have studied the arts of war longer than most of your yfs have been alive; it is a rather educational and calming art. Tzu, in his Art of War, writes 'Those skilled in war subdue the enemy's army without battle' (Art of War III, 10). To subdue all battle, all strife, would entail conquering war itself. Taking the expressive route of a convenient arrogance - victory over war, itself, seems rather a worthwhile goal. How can such a sweeping victory be had? I shall pre-empt the obvious answer with what I already know, "love one's fellow being as one's self, for then there shall be no room for war"... and certainly, this is its means... but, all too often, it becomes a choking back, an individual attempting to deny that they are in fact exceptionally unloving and aggravated of this person at this time. At such a point, one has not love, but a being at war with one's self... and a house divided against itself has been known not to stand. It would then seem that lip service unto universal love is no more fruitful than the self-honesty of accepting one's feelings - and quite possibly less so. Neither of these lead directly to victory over strife... though I dare say the latter has a better chance of finding its way there eventually. From what I have been shown, the roots of an honest love is understanding; 'there - grace of God or no, for I STILL fall short (and thanks for putting up with me) - go I,' as it were. When one understands how a hateful act derives from love, from that which each in their heart of hearts knows to be right - how can one hate this, even if one cannot agree with a human derivation? Surely, the one with the insight will recall some analagous straying of their own - for I hold that all stray from that which is right in its defense. 'Murder is wrong, therefore I will kill the SOB that killed my friend' seems to be the pattern, whatever its individualized manifestation; something higher than this is always its justification. We were all created quite perfect by a perfect God, up to and including human free will; it always has to start from there. What I do not know is how to embody, universally and as initial, habitual reaction, understanding of that which appear outside my conception. To take police as an example - the urge, say, to prevent murder, this I can understand... but the rigid worship of eye-for-an-eye vengance, let alone beyond... how is it done? How is this violence viewed as right? Or does it just become the requirements of a job, and try not to dwell overmuch on the bait-and switch? Or, hatred on orientational basis; take us, for instance. I don't think a single person here would assert that rape is something which is a good thing - I have heard the vaguest of rumors that such is where it began. This part, I can understand; the equivocation easily come to terms with. I'm not at all certain, however, where mere existance becomes grounds for torturous death - there seem to be a few interim steps which I missed, and no one will seem to elucidate them. Can anyone help me understand enough to love every step of the path they have taken, knowing its source, without neccisarily following it myself? I have a war or two to fight, you see - and war must be vanquished before battle ever arise, else all hope is lost. My battle is not, and must not, be of flesh and blood - for it is against the rulers, against the dark forces which arise of and shape this world, and against the darkness which spawned such a fall, of its origins. To quote again Tzu, VIII 7, 'There are some roads not to follow... and some ground which should not be contested.' Anger, coercion, disregard, contempt - this ground is irrevocably that of the enemy. To trespass thereon is to fall thereunto; my regard is in those matters fallen unto such in conquest, and thus subjected. For this, I must conquer war from its roots; to do this, I must manage understanding enough of those who hate as to embody unto them - the real, actual them, for taking a human as caricature presumption leads down a differing path - absolute and unconditional love. My only understanding of hatred thus far has been through hurt; of the certain knowledge that 99%+ of the world does, in fact, wish to kill me for no reason, and the subsequent awareness of the utility of detachment from concern unto their well-being. I stand uncertain of how to draw analogy. Any suggestions? |
Follow ups: