Darren Raleigh wrote:
Non-violence is not weakness - in fact you've got to be much, much stronger to nullify violence than you would to just break the threat to your person or tribe.
I don't know if I'd be able to do that yet, but I will be. Until then, if someone brings me violence and I can't save myself and him, I will be responsible for that, too. So I train.
Yeah. I think this is the right attitude. I agree with Darren and everyone else who trains both in order to have the option. I figure, if I'm confident that I can refrain from hurting my opponent in my technique, and I'm confident that I CAN hurt them, what's there to worry about? I've got all the angles covered, and thus I have something VERY important: Choice.
When you limit yourself, you limit your choices. When your choices are limited, you're backed to the wall. When a terrified animal is backed into a corner, what does it do? It frenzies, losing all control. I'd rather not be that animal if it ever comes down to the line. Animals can do vicious things that a human being may not be able to live with.
Also, I think Darren hits on a very important point when he mentions that you have to be much stronger than your opponent. It's the difference between being a warrior and a fighter. A warrior trains hard, as hard as he can, to build up his abilities so that he can protect others. A fighter just likes to have enough power to destroy. The warrior has to have the skills to counter the fighter, or else how can he protect anything?
Anyway, I'm not much of a warrior, and tend to be more monkish, but that same theme that's been repeated over and over in this thread is what appeals to me most: Control. The knowledge that I can control the situation helps me to control myself (theoretically. I've a bit more training to do. )
Hey. This is a pretty nice soap box! Who's next?