Asked the student: "Wise man, you teach us to avoid harming others due to the sanctity of life. How then, can we justify the use of force to protect the weak?"
Asked the teacher in return: "How is it that you expect to have to use physical force? Have we not shown, that verbal persuasion can come a long way?"
Retorted the student: "Yes, diplomacy and verbal mediation have been shown to quench and solve volatile situations. But not all of them. Sometimes an aggressor refuses to be stopped or mitigated by words alone. The pen, I fear, is rarely mightier than a sword."
Inquired the teacher: "Perhaps. Now, since you seem to have reached a conclusion already, why come to me and ask for justification?"
Answered the student: "Because it appears paradoxical to use physical force, maybe even deadly, when we also get taught not to harm others, not to kill, and have respect for the sanctity of life."
Asked the teacher: "Have you considered it may be a question of balance? Which matters more: the command to avoid harming others, or the command to protect the weak?"
Offered the student: "Well, we don't know, do we? Suppose we let the weak get hurt, then their lives won't come to fruition. But maybe that was the fruition of their lives, if they had chosen that as their challenge in this life. Thus interfering in the event would disturb that challenge. Plus, interfering might also disturb a challenge in the aggressor's life. We can't tell what challenges people chose for themselves before incarnating, can we?"
Retorted the teacher: "It seems you have given this some thought. Good. Now riddle me this: why is it that you give more weight to bad occurrences than good ones? Why are you keen on standing by, onlooking, doing nothing, allowing harm to happen? If, as you claim, you don't know how the situation will pan out or which challenges either party chose for their life, then why are you ready to assume they chose bad ones? Does that make you feel good?"
Replied the student, ashamed: "No, wise man, it doesn't. I would prefer to act and protect the weak."
Asked the teacher: "Even if it meant posing a physical threat to an agressor? Or taking revenge after an act of agression?"
Tried the student: "Maybe I can try other options first? As you pointed out, diplomacy could work. And rather than jumping to someone's throat, we could block their access or sabotage their vehicles, or gradually increase resistance untill they give up. We could resist peacefully like Mahatma Ghandi, or we could offer ourselves as a trade."
Agreed the teacher: "Quite. Although your last option poses a danger to yourself, and how can you defend anyone when you're dead? Your own life is to be sacrificed as a last resort only. Do everything in your power to prevent harm, including harm to the agressor and yourself.
Have you thought of simply taking the victims out of the threatening situation and running away? That should always be your first option: run. It means you and the victim stay alive, and you create time to think up a plan.
If you cannot run: persuade. Talk. Convince. Plead. Bribe. Shout and threaten, if necessary.
If that doesn't work: block. Either indirectly by sabotage, or directly, for instance by closing a doorway.
If that doesn't work: engage in physical combat. A show of force or skill might suffice. If not, inducing pain could work. Disarm or disable. Maim, of you see no other option.
As you can see, taking a life, whether that of an agressor or sacrificing that of your own, is a last resort. There are many other options available. Test each of them consecutively, from least to most harmful. Stop when the danger has subsided. And prepare to answer for your actions in a court of law."
Said the student: "I understand. How do I learn how to do any of this?"
Answered the teacher: "You already have started, merely by thinking about these issues. It means you are ready. We have exercises to train ourselves mentally, verbally, and physically. Tomorrow we will start with running and falling."
Retorted the student: "Yes, diplomacy and verbal mediation have been shown to quench and solve volatile situations. But not all of them. Sometimes an aggressor refuses to be stopped or mitigated by words alone. The pen, I fear, is rarely mightier than a sword."
Inquired the teacher: "Perhaps. Now, since you seem to have reached a conclusion already, why come to me and ask for justification?"
Answered the student: "Because it appears paradoxical to use physical force, maybe even deadly, when we also get taught not to harm others, not to kill, and have respect for the sanctity of life."
Asked the teacher: "Have you considered it may be a question of balance? Which matters more: the command to avoid harming others, or the command to protect the weak?"
Offered the student: "Well, we don't know, do we? Suppose we let the weak get hurt, then their lives won't come to fruition. But maybe that was the fruition of their lives, if they had chosen that as their challenge in this life. Thus interfering in the event would disturb that challenge. Plus, interfering might also disturb a challenge in the aggressor's life. We can't tell what challenges people chose for themselves before incarnating, can we?"
Retorted the teacher: "It seems you have given this some thought. Good. Now riddle me this: why is it that you give more weight to bad occurrences than good ones? Why are you keen on standing by, onlooking, doing nothing, allowing harm to happen? If, as you claim, you don't know how the situation will pan out or which challenges either party chose for their life, then why are you ready to assume they chose bad ones? Does that make you feel good?"
Replied the student, ashamed: "No, wise man, it doesn't. I would prefer to act and protect the weak."
Asked the teacher: "Even if it meant posing a physical threat to an agressor? Or taking revenge after an act of agression?"
Tried the student: "Maybe I can try other options first? As you pointed out, diplomacy could work. And rather than jumping to someone's throat, we could block their access or sabotage their vehicles, or gradually increase resistance untill they give up. We could resist peacefully like Mahatma Ghandi, or we could offer ourselves as a trade."
Agreed the teacher: "Quite. Although your last option poses a danger to yourself, and how can you defend anyone when you're dead? Your own life is to be sacrificed as a last resort only. Do everything in your power to prevent harm, including harm to the agressor and yourself.
Have you thought of simply taking the victims out of the threatening situation and running away? That should always be your first option: run. It means you and the victim stay alive, and you create time to think up a plan.
If you cannot run: persuade. Talk. Convince. Plead. Bribe. Shout and threaten, if necessary.
If that doesn't work: block. Either indirectly by sabotage, or directly, for instance by closing a doorway.
If that doesn't work: engage in physical combat. A show of force or skill might suffice. If not, inducing pain could work. Disarm or disable. Maim, of you see no other option.
As you can see, taking a life, whether that of an agressor or sacrificing that of your own, is a last resort. There are many other options available. Test each of them consecutively, from least to most harmful. Stop when the danger has subsided. And prepare to answer for your actions in a court of law."
Said the student: "I understand. How do I learn how to do any of this?"
Answered the teacher: "You already have started, merely by thinking about these issues. It means you are ready. We have exercises to train ourselves mentally, verbally, and physically. Tomorrow we will start with running and falling."