Doing No Harm: Ahimsa

T. Alan (talan123@aol.com) took issue with my commentary. He began his rebuttal with a quote from my article: DOING NO HARM: Looking After Number One Revisited.

On 01 Feb 2001 02:13:30 EST T. Alan wrote:

(From my esssay he quoted) "In looking after our own interests we would be wise to do no harm - no harm to others - or to the local or global ecology. "Looking after number one" doesn't sound so logically compelling if we examine its precipitous relationship and compatibility with war, global health problems, imperiled human rights, social inequality, and environmental degradation."

What in blazes are you talking about? How do you even know if you have done "no harm to others?" And what IS its precipitous relationship with war, global health problems, social inequality.

The Jews practiced what you suggest and they got precipitated with extreme prejudice. Nice guys finish last and nice countries are no longer around.

I would suggest the US get out there and "do some harm" if necessary to keep others from doing it to us first.

Somehow you need to get some FIRE IN YOUR BELLY instead of diatribing about some pointless philosophy that just opens you up to your own destruction.

Good luck

T. Alan

I responded to T. Alan in this way:

It appears despite the advice of Jesus Christ, Gandhi, and the whole ahimsa tradition that you would rather be the harmer than the harmee. Your ridicule of those that seek to do no harm includes the question "How do you even know if you have done 'no harm to others?'"

Well, you won't know unless you care to know. Sensitivity to our potentially damaging effect on others is the flipside of sensitivity to out potentially beneficial effect on others. Progress toward nonviolent coexistence requires a double-edged analysis that becomes more clearly informed and refined as we evolve beyond numbness to harm and indifference to our healing potentialities. Justification for harm is actually a symptom of the pervasiveness of denial on all levels of our being. The light at the end of the tunnel has been eclipsed by ego expediency. We are in a cycle of perpetual harm when we seek to our "save" skin-encapsulated egos. Those of us existing in hardened battle-prone "cases" will inevitably flounder in our persistent denial of the interconnectedness of our collective well being.

Our politicians talk about avoiding even the "appearance" of impropriety.

What about the "appearance" pro-harmfulness? Is putting people on guard or on the defensive an optimum strategy? Posturing with a "don't mess with me" look is preemptive of friendly relations. Personally, I would rather maximize friendly relations rather than frighten perceived enemies away from any engagement at all, even positive engagement.

Violence can be averted if we have a way of not struggling over ownership or territory. Most people who advocate violence lack the wisdom to avoid their downfall in one way or another. We can easily succumb to pitfalls that our violence blinds us to, even after "winning" a war.

I can accept that you and I may not be agreeing on much this lifetime. In fact, doing no harm, for me is based on a multi-lifetime perspective. I have no proof of that to offer you - just my own clear recall.

I believe, on average, we tend to exit sooner due to the violence we allow in our lives. Even if we live a hundred years in this body, violence has many ways of undermining our own quality of life. I look for ways to prevent generating truly violent confrontations, but I do not necessarily avoid heated and lively debate. For one thing, I don't need to fight others to be "on top." In many contests, especially the subhuman ones, winning is losing, and losing is winning. We can't even glimpse what might be best for life when we rationalize being an unnecessary aggressor.

You may have strong "protector" instincts and identify with the warrior archetype. I feel I have chosen to identify with that archetype in the past, but no longer choose to do so. There are more desirable archetypes that do not generate physical confrontations or disputes, but rather, dispel them.

The presence of warriors is not an inevitable feature of human existence, but our current recorded history would certainly have us believe so. We can raise ourselves on different societal models that help transition ourselves and others out of fighting modes and into cooperative ones. You say "nice guys finish last," but I would add "and thereby graduate out of the current game." Better yet, they "graduate" by not feeling a need to participate in subhuman games anymore - although they may still "participate" as an evolutionary agent for change.

Countries may perish but Gaia remains as a carrier of our best-lived intentions. If I fear for myself it is that I won't recognize possible negative karma I'm creating, and consequently not recognize what is holding me back or constricting spiritual options.

This morning I wrote: "Hanging loose we can better appreciate our connectedness." Hopefully, you won't find my taking it as heavy as it is as lightly as I can a threat to your own welfare. You may wish to test the "fighting strength" of others around you if are seeking fighting allies. However, I actually feel safer around others who practice doing no harm.

Yet, safety is not necessarily my first consideration. I have frequently risked my "immediate" safety simply by speaking truths that others (at the moment) do not want to hear. By maintaining a website, others can take in what I say or leave it. Territorial disputes tend to dissipate thanks to an expanded sense of territory and freedom to express ourselves offered by the Internet. Perhaps, a global move in the direction of voluntary simplicity will wean us away from the madness of warlike competition.

We can embrace the challenge of becoming model communicators of what is best for life. For me, there is no doubt that there are experiences of Truth that only further cooperation doing no harm can reveal. We just have to be willing to let lesser truths die in the process, and that is why even good men and women are so seldom in conscious "synch." We don't give up lesser truths easily when we are under the illusion that they are still all-important - or they appear to be all that we've got to go on.

Does Gandhi lack fire in the belly? Imagine clashing mobs with bellies ablaze. Is not poise, coolness under pressure, and self-restraint at least equally desirable, if not preferable? Many martial arts stress neutralizing any attack and for good reason. Moreover, a "first strike" can destroy or toxify and diminish the playing field for everybody. How much “peripheral damage” can be discounted without discounting our own humanity and purpose for being?

Humanity would upshift consciousness if we emphasized quality of life over quantity of life -- viewed from both a single-lifetime and multi-lifetime perspective. There are legitimate reasons for taking meaningful risks and chancing dying young. Can we doubt that there are human forms to inhabit elsewhere if not here?

Desperation to operate this body at all costs ends up costing the whole -- and eventually the reincarnating soul on the “karmic rebound.” Is not what we call "necessity" more a matter of perspective than an objective absolute? How many times has apparent necessity been illusory or exaggerated based on myth, ignorance, or limited thinking? Do we not find perceptual tunnels giving way to new mental, emotional, or informational infusions of information -- or similarly, from some transformational clearing of energy that was once clung to and defended with our “bellies ablaze?”

What familiar expressions come to mind, such as: The pen is mightier than the sword; those that live by the sword die by the sword.

Was Jesus wrong or misguided in the way he "left" for not more violently defending himself with counter aggression? Is martyrdom always the lesser option?

Indeed, do we know more in life than we do in death? Is it possible to die fully as a liberating and progressive act? Well, answers to these questions are best proposed and weighed by the many as opposed to the few. Yet, “majority illusion” does not necessarily offer any useful vision, but rather it reflects our current collective psychological state. Hopefully, more dialog will follow.

Thomas James Darling
edutrue webmaster

"As to diseases, make a habit of two things — to help,
or at least do no harm." (Hippocrates, The Epidemics)

Copyright ©1999-2017 by Thomas James Darling

These pages were updated 10_JAN_2017. Google the words accompanying links if any links are on the blink. I am not responding to email at the current time while I work on other projects.

LET ANIMALS KEEP THEIR SKINS AND BE THANKFUL FOR YOUR OWN. (Thomas James Darling)

Back to DOING NO HARM: Number One Revisited essay.

Back to home page