Interesting article here: http://www.modern-thinker.co.uk/3b-dualism.htm
The two ideal types :
the ascetic saint
the noble warrior
The saint desires essence
The warrior desires existence
The saint represses his feelings of destructiveness (caused by infancy trauma and the process of reincarnation). The warrior sublimates his feelings of destructiveness. The path of the saint is a slow path, because of the tremendous difficulty involved in achieving the repression of his internal violence ; but it is a sure path. The path of the warrior is much faster, but it is more dangerous. Failure to adequately sublimate internal violence leads to the channelling of that violence into society. There have been many saints but few noble warriors. [²].
In both traditions it is all a question of trying to master oneself, rather than mastering the world or one’s opponents.
Much food for thought here. I used to think, like the author of this piece, that aggression was best repressed and denied. But in many ways it is the lifespring of the spirit: as lust is the seed from which love grows so too is wrath the seed from which wisdom often grows.
What does it mean to be a warrior in a monistic universe, where your enemy is a reflection or extension of yourself, where we are all truly part of one being, and the individual can perceive and understand that?
In that situation the purpose of fighting, of conflict, is to help your opponent find his own excellence – to bring out the best in yourself and in him as you both strive to carve away the imperfections that separate you from God.
I see a lot of truth in the philosophy which holds that the great task of the warrior is to turn his own vices into virtues. Once you know what your vices are then you will also know what your virtues can become.
I admire the people I battle. I admire their cunning and their persistence. God make me more cunning and more persistent! Or, as Voltaire once noted:
“I have only made but one prayer in my life – God make my enemies ridiculous. And god granted it.”
