I too would define pacifism this way. The view has actually changed very much even within our Western culture what counts as violence. For example physical punishing of children was long conceived as a duty. Today it´s illegal (in Finland), and majority of parents luckily also agree that it is violence in the spiritual situation of our present society. What ultimately is wrong with violence? Only the fact that it causes suffering. Even I - a relatively shy and withdrawn person - have voluntarily participated in a bare knuckle martial arts match. I does not feel like violence at all, even if someone else would feel completely differently.Cancer wrote:A very important point here; I agree on this definition.Insanus wrote:That's why pacifism (IMO) shouldn't be understood as nonviolence, but as activity towards the lessening of suffering.
Still most people conceive pacifism as unrealistic and something negative. I think this is because they think "of course everyone wants to minimize suffering - pacifists are just naive in that". However, the case is that only a pacifist consistently wills that goal (even if there are also lots of "false pacifists"). Someone who claims pacifism is unrealistic usually (1) doesn´t make actual personal sacrifices for peace (the level of will/atma), (2) doesn´t keep the positive ideal of love in his mind but rather falls to misanthropy when this ideal seems not to realize (the level of love/buddhi), (3) doesn´t think consistently what finally would help to realize the ideal but is satisfied with easy and too straightforwards goals (the level of intelligence/manas).