Force, Violence and Skillful Means?

*transcript generated by AI

Good morning, good morning.

Welcome to another Sunday practice period.

A little bit like samsara, isn’t it?

It just keeps coming around.

It just keeps coming and going around.

We have notes.

Yeah, so today I brought a verse 31 that I’m working on to release tomorrow.

Verse 31 is really interesting.

It’s called Stop Forcing, or at least that’s how I’m titling it, which is a pretty faithful rendition of the characters.

But it’s just been such a hot topic.

It’s just such a hot topic that we’ve talked about over and over again in this forum.

Bailey is currently writing an essay on something very related as part of his training.

And it’s the idea of how does force fit into a context of nonviolence?

What do we make of this seeming paradox?

And, you know, this verse is one of the ones that normally ends up making a very strong statement around if you’re a weaver of the way, you just don’t.

Yeah.

And I was like, the rest of this text is not like that.

It’s all about harmonization of opposites and inclusion and doing what is necessary with the least amount of disturbance, but always doing what is necessary and showing up.

There’s no sense of escapism or spiritual bypassing that I’ve seen anywhere in this text.

So how does this verse get off on saying that if you’re a weaver of the way, you don’t use force?

Well, how does that make sense?

It never made sense to me.

So I’m going through this project and looking up all of the ancient manuscripts that I can find and comparing different versions of them.

One commenter was like, I’m not even sure this one belongs in here.

This is super weird.

Can’t make sense of another.

But it doesn’t make sense.

That view is kind of untenable because the oldest known version of the manuscript has a version of this verse in it.

So the one that’s from 400 BCE has this included.

Then, you know, we kind of like need to treat it as part of the text.

Even if it doesn’t necessarily make sense to us.

So then as I was comparing the versions, there’s this line in this line that had been so troublesome, didn’t actually show up until the manuscript that was written around 250 CE.

And so the oldest version doesn’t have this in it at all, but a middle version, which is probably an expanded of the original based on the oral tradition before it became codified by this guy, I won’t be in about 250 has a line that’s very different.

And instead of saying instead of saying.

Instead of saying one who possesses the way it does not use it, it being forced.

It says, therefore, desire does not claim it.

It’s being forced.

And in a way, you could say, like, oh, that’s a reasonable interchange of words.

But in the total context of the verse, I’m going to read it in a moment.

It like completely revolutionizes the way the data Jane includes force and its idea.

So this is my translation.

Excellent force is a tool of ill omen.

Phenomenon dislikes it.

Therefore, desire does not claim it.

The wise claim to cherish the left.

The forceful cherish the right.

The ominous tool of force is not the wisest method.

The wise only use it as needed, favoring a sharp strike.

It’s not a clear departure from the ancient manuscripts to the most modern.

There is a different word in there.

That completely changes me.

Coercion is not commendable.

One who considers coercion praiseworthy is one who delights in violence.

One who delights in violence is unable to succeed in the world.

Prosperity favors the left.

Ferocity favors the right.

At a funeral, the first mate is on the left and the captain is on the right.

Mass destruction, a flood of bitter tears.

Victory is a right of mourning.

I’m not going to get in.

I mean, the whole commentary will be out tomorrow, so I’m not going to get into that.

But what I am going to use this for is a launching point for our inquiry, our ongoing inquiry into how do we relate to the sort of wisdom.

Manjushri, right?

We talk about Manjushri’s wisdom all the time, the sword that cuts and Zen being the cut, right?

But then we’re all like, Kansai-on, that’s my favorite.

Yay, green tar.

Compassion, compassion.

And we get really lopsided in this view, and it becomes really difficult to reconcile.

It becomes really difficult to reconcile where is force necessary, where is coercion necessary, where is force violent, where is force appropriate.

This is an ongoing inquiry.

So what distinguishes force from violence?

Are we looking for an answer?

I’m leaving space for us to think about it.

Fair enough.

Yeah.

And that can be part of our discussion today.

Absolutely.

But the key here, though, the thing that really blew my mind by looking at the older versions of this text was a clear indication by the Tao Te Ching that it is not a treatise of pacifism.

It is saying that if you need to cut, cut expediently, cut with the least amount of damage possible, cut immediately so that the tumor doesn’t grow into something that requires greater force.

And just because we move through the world with desire, if we remember verse one, if you’ve been following this project all time, in verse one, it says something like become desireless and experience the mysteries of life through desire.

Behold its frontiers.

Right.

So desirelessness allows us to touch into the absolute perfection of the moment as it is and the pure mystery of life unfolding.

That’s what happens when we become desire less.

But in that state, we don’t go live life.

So desire is what drives us to explore life’s multicolored, multifaceted, exquisite beauty and all of its diversity.

So we must hold desire in the context of desirelessness.

Right.

And so be driven to explore and live this life as intentional agents, as weavers of the way.

Desire does not claim force for itself.

Desire is not forcefulness.

Our right to explore life and to get what we need out of life and to be intentional agents of life does not give us a right to force our egotistic desires on life in order for life to meet our egotistical needs.

Right.

So whatever force is, it’s not that because that would be violence.

And since this happened to be a topic that shows up all the time in this little group, when we’re talking about how do we navigate our circumstances, what are we doing?

It just seemed like, wow, I can’t not share that.

Plus, it blew my mind when I was working on it.

And I was just like, oh, you know, like, oh, that makes sense.

No.

Right.

And so I got really excited.

Right.

There we are this morning.

I look forward to hearing what emerges from our conversation today.

Defer to those on the webcam.

Let’s open with the online folks, because it’s harder for you to jump in and interrupt us than it is for us to jump in and interrupt you.

During my process of writing this paper, I also was playing with the idea of like, what is the difference between force and violence?

Like, what is what is really justifiable?

And I think you pretty much said it there.

It’s like, if you’re kind of going with the river, right, and you’re moving a rock that is disturbing the very laminar flow of the river, you know, like if there is someone who is going very against, like, the natural kind of way and the flow of life and these things, and they are disturbing people who are just trying to live their life, then I would think that is the time.

To use force rather than violence.

I feel violence would be more if you were imposing your own, your own view of the matter, like your own, your own personal natural flow.

If you were imposing that on other people, and then changing them or changing different circumstances based on that, I would consider that violence then.

I have a slightly different view.

I would say it’s possible to have, like, the same action scene from the outside.

But because I have a different intention, the action is once violent, forceful, and at the other time, just this.

So I’m not, I’m not quite sure, Bailey, if I understand your difference between what you just said to bring that one, another person’s own intention, the energy into the action.

I mean, yeah, what you said is exactly what I meant.

It was probably said a little bit better.

But, yeah, the base assumption is that the intention is like the biggest thing, the biggest differentiator between them.

Yeah.

Just to finish my thought I see Robin coming.

And what’s also interesting when you experience this difference on your own action.

When it’s hard to do something, when there is a force in it, then, at least for me, the experience is that there is more tension, that there is more effort to whatever wants to be done is done.

Without that, it just flows.

There we go.

Computer’s not cooperating.

I was thinking about how the implementation of a quick strike, that that’s compassionate.

Whereas the use of force, of pushing, that continues a cycle of, I’m not expressing myself well, it continues a cycle of potential suffering.

Because it just keeps building and rolling.

Whereas off, it’s done.

And, yeah, I guess that’s all I have.

Except for Bailey, I love that you were talking about the rock in the river.

Because there’s a little plaque that hangs on my parents’ fireplace that says if a rock is too heavy to lift, kiss it and leave it.

And that’s that same kind of, you know, strike could be a kiss and a walk away.

I’d like to hop in a little bit on what Zinchen was saying, with just a quick word that this is one of the beautiful things about our practice is when we’re really paying attention, we can feel the difference in how people respond to us.

We can feel the difference in how people respond to us.

And we can know for somehow have been coercive and not just the appropriately applying force when there’s resistance.

Right, when we when we are truly coming from a place of like what I the force that I am applying to the situation, the cut that I’m applying to the situation can only be responded to without.

Yeah.

Okay.

Right.

That’s kind of how we know that we didn’t bring violence and coercion, because, like it says phenomenon just like it.

And this is really huge in our internal space when we’re working with our own emotions and stuff like when we’re forcing our emotional spectrum or forcing our thoughts we make them stronger and worse they push against us.

And when we’re cleaner and we’re just like, no, not that, then they just kind of.

All right.

But this this, though, the response we get to the stimulus we put into the world is always a great indicator about the place that we’re coming from, when we do the thing.

And that’s I think always a fascinating thought experiment to play out to check ourselves in this in this space.

Before Ryan starts talking.

Now I was just going to say that this is very interesting.

And I really appreciate what everyone has said up to this point about it.

And I’m just going to, I’m just going to sit with it and continue to listen.

So, Ryan, go for it.

I think the big takeaway that I have personally, I think, is something we’ve touched on before.

It’s just intention.

That’s the key that whether or not it’s force, degrees of force, I mean, force can be something.

It’s just imposing your will on whatever else that may be in, you know, however gentle or however, you know, less gentle that may be, whether or not it’s in parenting, relationships, work, what have you.

It’s the intention behind it that makes the difference.

And that translates clear up into violence.

Not all violence is bad.

Inherently, sometimes it’s very necessary, but it’s the intention behind it.

That’s where that swift cut comes in.

If you look at it from a martial arts standpoint, from a military standpoint, no one teaches like, hey, this is how you can make them suffer the most.

It’s well, some people, some people.

But it’s usually this is the most efficient and fastest way for this to be done.

And there’s a bit of, I don’t want to call it humanity in that, but that is kind of the humane way to do it.

And so sometimes if violence is necessary, what’s the intention behind it?

Is the intention I’m defending myself or my family?

Okay, it’s justified.

Is it?

Oh, well, I don’t like that guy.

He, I don’t know, honked at me in a traffic light.

So now I’m going to open my car door and beat him up.

Okay, you’re a jerk.

Like that’s, that’s completely unnecessary.

So intention, I think, is the key takeaway, at least in my view, is that what’s the intention behind it?

And if you have to get to an extreme use of force and or violence, can you still do so compassionately or as compassionately as possible?

Hey, I’m going to end this as quickly as I possibly can, because you put me in the situation.

I have to be here because you put me here.

Fine.

Still doesn’t mean you have to, like, kick the guy in the face 15 times in the process.

Like, end it.

Move on.

And, you know, from a personal standpoint, like from a.

Move on from a, from a personal standpoint, don’t dwell on the thought, like, oh, my God, somebody broke into my house and endangered my family and this whole thing.

Yep, it happened.

It could happen again.

It could not.

It could not happen the first time.

It is what it is.

Move on.

But that’s just, I don’t know.

It’s kind of where I come from.

Intention is the key takeaway there.

Why is it happening?

Why are you responding in the way that you are?

Even down to small interpersonal relationships with family, friends, children, you know.

What’s the intention behind it?

I know you brought up a good point on, you get a really good sense of where you’re coming from by the reactions you receive to whatever use of force that happened to be as small or as large as it is.

Thank you.

Yeah, and one of the things that I was really interesting about this verse was that even though it condones the sharp strike.

Thank you.

Yeah, and one of the things that I was really interesting about this verse was that even though it condones the sharp strike.

And it places roles in accordance with force and passivity.

It ends with the idea that victory is a morning ritual.

So it’s like, even though, even though we allow for the idea that it can be necessary to cut.

If we are going to cut we’re going to cut with the least, the least degree of effective force.

Now this is a really interesting thing to like what is the least degree of effective force.

You know, for me it’s like what do I think I need plus about 10%, because it is far better to go, what do I think I need less 10% and have to cut again than it is to just do just, just make sure, just make sure it’s done right do it one time.

It might be a slightly bigger wound, like when I’ve had procedures, they make sure that they make the incision big enough to do what they need to do.

So they don’t got to cut again, you know, and I think that’s a good lesson for us.

But the point is that even in that it is a sorrowful moment.

When life was disharmonious enough to require that of us.

And I think that’s a really powerful and poignant lesson for us to take into our lives is that we need to be capable of cutting.

And we need to recognize that cutting is a sad thing.

That makes that brings the necessary balance to it.

And it also allows, you know, one of my, one of my personal aphorisms is that you can’t choose to be non violent, if you aren’t capable of violence.

So that’s a whole interesting thought experiment.

I garden warrior.

Yeah.

It also reminds me on a principle of not doing.

I don’t know how much you see here the same in it.

It’s a really challenging context.

It’s a really challenging word in action, the verse, y i n hyphen a c t i o n I think was verse 29 specifically dealt with way.

It’s a, it’s a really interesting concept.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

Yeah, and that’s this, this, that this not doing isn’t isn’t being passive.

So, so for me this is very similar to having a violent force, or just being instead of doing.

I’m not so.

So, so that we, so why I bring this in, so that we not.

For me, I don’t need to think of something violent.

It can be just any action.

Yeah.

No, that’s a great point.

I’m not quite following.

That’s a phenomenal.

If I’m following correctly.

The choice of non action is still a choice.

So, choosing to not react in a forceful or take it clear to the extreme violent manner isn’t being passive and just letting the situation occur.

It’s making a conscious choice to not react in a forceful or violent way and that’s that’s not being a path or it’s not being passive to the situation it’s still reacting to the situation but choosing to react in a non forceful non violent way and to me personally honestly now that I sit with that for a second.

Sometimes that’s the harder choice to make is to be like I’m not going to react forcefully to this, or I’m not going to just passively let this happen I’m going to consciously choose to not have a forceful.

You know, my kid is driving me nuts.

I’m going to consciously choose to not yell at them.

That’s not just me letting them get what they want that’s me consciously choosing to not react in a forceful manner.

Sometimes that’s the hardest thing to do essentially I hope that I was following that in the way that you meant it.

And if I wasn’t very much for putting that that little spark in the back of my head, either way, so I also see baby and yes it was wonderful to listen to you to bring a new aspect into what I said it was not really what I wanted to say but great.

What you made out of it.

No, it’s more this, the, the, the natural next action comes, you don’t need to think about you to just do it like the river flows and the river.

That was my idea but yours is perfect.

And I guess Bailey want to say something.

I was curious, during all that it kind of brought up like is sometimes not taking an action violent.

I’m choosing to not do so.

Okay.

Yeah, we need to wrap for time today but the notion of you don’t need to think the next step presents itself.

is really interesting.

Yeah, like that was a deep philosophical inquiry and deep spiritual inquiry.

And I find that actually for most of us we can’t do that.

I think it’s the ideal.

The ideal is that what presents itself as the spontaneous next step is aligned with all of our highest values.

I’ve seen too many people think that they get it.

And they just trust themselves to move through life, that they just act spontaneously based on what their arising notion of what is right is.

And they’re not the kind of people that you want to be around, because they’re not holding that space of inquiry and choice.

And I think that, you know, maybe some of us through diligent practice by the time we’re like 85 will be able to live a full day without having to make conscious choices because whatever comes out is just fricking awesome aligned with.

Until then, I strongly encourage us to keep our faculty of choice very firmly in that space between stimulus and response.

I appreciate the ideal of it is what I’m personally striving for.

I just don’t know that I quite trust myself to do.

No.

One day, one day.

One day, that’s why we’re here together, so that we can all celebrate each other on that day we can send them a group message and be like, I just had a day.

I didn’t make any choices it was spontaneously perfect as it was, and we can all be like, whoo, whoo.

But I mean, think about it, isn’t that the point is the point why we’re here.

Yeah.

So, yeah, yeah, that’s a great way to end.

All right, y’all.

We have the time to do our closing check in.