Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For your first question, I don't know, but can think of many possibilities, such as Judo, Karate, Tai Chi, or every psychological options.
I think that for your second question, of course. Especially if no other choices outside of anger are on the table.
Still, when someone attacks for real, rather than as a fakeout or a test, they usually expect that anger might come their way from the victim... So anger is unlikely to discourage an attack from the average person that decides to attack for whatever directly physical/material (rather than social or egotistical reasons) reasons. No thief would ever expect their victim to be "not angry" about their stolen valuables. So, if they are at all thoughtful and pre-planning, why would they care that they got what they highly expected, i.e. anger.
The least harmful self-defense is giving a thief what they ask for, and don't feel bad for yourself for making the right choice (and other choices can also be made directly after the experience, such as calling the police).
However, the least harmful might not be the most beneficial. Strength can often intimidate the weak, so the reasons of many for attacking ("this person is weaker, let me take from them") can be mitigated by any well-balanced self-defense demonstration.
There are a lot of complicated details involved in action and reaction in various types of "attacks" that fully depend on context.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 06-03-2018 at 09:08 PM..
what self-defense is least harmful? if anger discourages an attack, does that make anger okay?
You're asking the wrong question. You want your defensive tactics to be as effective as possible. Meaning that you're able to break bones and joints. This is your life we're talking about.
thinking now about the Buddhist tale of the snake who was trampled after trying to be tolerant : "I did not tell you not to hiss; I told you not to bite".
I actually understand why this is asked in Buddhism. Self defense is a very important question, valid. As a Buddhist respects life, as the most precious thing existing. His and any other.
From this on, this easily goes into, by now, likely volumes written on this topic, through thousands of years.
You could have likely easily looked it up online.
But, as a simple guide, avoidance of conflict is the least harmful way. Or, of threat.
There is another aspect to this. One that knows there is no death, has a different perspective on threat, he encounters. His ability to resist harmful ways of defense may be quite different from those, who a person that is fearing death, may choose.
There is even more important aspect to this. Awareness. Self aware person will definitely respond differently from an un aware one, one that simply reacts. Usually, on reflexory level.
One that is aware, enlightened one, never reacts. He responds. His response is appropriate for the situation, natural and reasonable. This is why it is said that, even if Sukyamuni kills, he will create no karma and will not sin.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
