Help! I need your opinion on something.

I’ve been practicing self-defense for a while now, and I constantly find it arguing with my instincts about nonviolence. If you could, consider this article and let me know what a non-practitioner thinks about it.

In martial arts circles (particularly Aikido), there is a bit of an ongoing debate about nonviolence, and I can’t make heads or tails of this mess. Opinions on nonviolence in self-defense are of a wide variety.

Some believe that you can disarm and tame an opponent without harming him, but my school of thought is that this is mostly fantasy, unless you are an eighty year-old who has been practicing his entire life. I am not. Maybe I’ll have that ability one day, but when it comes down to it, this philosophy is just going to get me stabbed.

To the other extreme, you find the people who I tend to agree with. They are the survivalists. We hit, bite, gouge, and dislocate our way through a sticky situation. If an enemy has chosen to engage us, it is possible (depending on the severity of the situation, of course) that his or her life will be forfeit. This would be all well and fine, except for one little thing that trips me up: I am a Buddhist, and to call myself such and yet carry this philosophy seems a bit contradictory to me.

As a Buddhist, I am inclined to resolve things with as little friction as possible. Life – all life – is sacred, and should not be taken in vain. But then I am always left with a conundrum: If I am all that stands between my girlfriend and a man who intends to rape her, what do I do? I know what my own answer would be: whatever I have to. But at the same time, I generally don’t like to hurt people.

Next, we come to the ideas of love and compassion, both etched into Buddhism, both part of Aiki. How can I destroy an opponent and still love him? How does that make sense?

An instructor of mine explains it this way: If you must deal with an opponent, you ought to feel love for him. He is in some unfortunate situation, which has led to his attacking you. And, regardless of what you must do to subdue the adversary, you should still feel a love for him. If you must gouge an eye out, or slit his throat, it should not be done with any malice, but with love.

What do you guys think? Is that some sort of bastardization of a peaceful philosophy? If so, what is the right answer? Nonviolence is wonderful in theory, but I cannot honestly convince myself that it is universally effective in the real world.

So give let me have your two cents on this one. Ask yourself what YOU would do if you were the difference between your girlfriend going home safe, or being raped and murdered, and let me know what you come up with. I’m interested to find out what someone outside of the martial arts world has to say about this.

Remember that nonviolence is an amazing idea. But then try to figure out how applicable is it in a real world where nobody cares what philosophy stands between you and the barrel of his or her gun. Ideas don’t do much bullet stopping. Let me know what you come up with.