Can you ever respond to violence with violence?

Thay answers questions on 21 June 2014. Question 6

(Half bell)

(Bell)

Dear Thay, dear Sangha...

my question deals with
the first mindfulness practice.

In the face of extreme violence
such as genocide

is it ever acceptable to respond
to violence with action...

including even violent action?

I practice national security

And I think of Churchill or Chamberlain

with Hitler for instance.

Or more modern examples
of Rwanda...

or Sudan,

where maybe compassionate listening
with Hitler

as was done by Chamberlain

may not have been enough.

And I struggle with this.

Dear Thay, our friend is asking
about situations of extreme violence

And she's giving an example
in the middle of the 20th century

when Hitler was causing
a great deal of suffering.

And there was one official in England

who tried to practice
compassionate listening with Hitler

and it was seen as not successful.

And actually allowed Hitler
to continue to hurt more people.

And she's asking whether
in certain situations

is it appropriate to use violence
to stop violence?

Non-violent action is not a technique.

It is a way, not a technique.

And the foundation of non-violent action
is understanding and compassion.

When you have understanding and compassion
in your heart

everything you do will be non-violent.

Suppose someone is killing,
someone is breaking the law

and you arrest him and put him in jail.

Arresting him
and putting him in jail...

is that violent or non-violent?

It depends...

on the situation.

If you arrest that person,
if you lock him up

and yet you do it
because of understanding and compassion,

then that is non-violent action.

And even if you don't do anything,

but you allow...

you allow the people
to kill and to destroy,

Although you don't do anything,
that is also violence.

Violence can be action or non-action.

So the outer appearance might be violent,

but if you do it with a mind
of understanding and compassion

it is not truly violence.

Suppose a horse suffers very much
and is about to die, but cannot die.

And you give her a death blow
so that she can die,

it looks like violence,
but it comes from your compassion.

You don't want the horse
to continue to suffer for too long.

So that image tells you

that whether the action is
violent or non-violent,

it depends on your heart.

If you have the willingness
to reduce suffering,

if you understand why a person
has done such a thing violently,

so then even if you lock him up and
deprive him of a few days' food

that is still non-violent.

Because depriving someone
for a few days of food

in order to help him to know

that having something to eat
is something very great,

to give him that kind of insight.

That does not come
from your willingness to punish,

but to help him to learn and appreciate.

That is non-violence.

So we should not wait
until the situation presents itself

to decide whether we should react
with violence or non-violence.

We have to begin right now.

And when the situation presents itself,

we will be able to act with compassion...

that means with non-violence.

And non-violent action should...

it should be...

conceived as a long-term action.

When you teach your child,

when you tell your child how to act,

you are engaging in non-violent action.

You don't wait until
the child becomes cruel

and begins to destroy or to kill
before you teach them.

You have to use preventative measures.

So in the realm of education,

in the realm of agriculture,

in the realm of art,

you can introduce...

non-violent thinking
and non-violent action

and teach people to remove discrimination.

That is the basic action of non-violence,

because violence comes
from discrimination, from separation,

from hate, from fear, from anger.

So helping people to transform
these things

before they are translated into action.

That is true non-violent action.

It should begin right now

and we should not wait
for something to happen

in order to think whether we should act
violently or non-violently.

And I think non-violence can never be...

completely absolute.

We can say that we should be
as non-violent as we can.

When we think of the military,

we think that the things
that the military do are only violent.

But to conduct an army,

to protect a town,

to stop an invasion by a foreign army,

there are many ways to do it.

And there are more violent ways,

and there are less violent ways.

You can always choose.

Maybe it is not possible
to do it 100% non-violent,

but 80% non-violent is better
than 10% non-violent!

See? So don't ask for an absolute.

That is the way we practice
the Five Mindfulness Trainings.

You cannot be perfect in the practice.

Do not worry
that you will not be perfect.

In observing
the Fourteen or the Five precepts,

what is important
is that you are determined to go that way.

You do your best,
that is what we need.

It's like in the forest -
you get lost in the forest at night,

and you don't know how to get out.

And you have to look at the Northern Star
in order to find your way.

And if you go north,

that does not mean you want to arrive
at the Northern Star.

You don't need to arrive,
you only need to go north.

(Laughter)

So the Five Trainings are like that.

You should go in the direction
of understanding and compassion.

You don't have to be perfect.

If you know that you are doing your best,
that is good enough for the Sangha,

good enough for the Buddha.

So non-violence is the same.

We have to do our best.

Thank you.

(Half bell)

(Bell)