Warriors Humility Vs. a beggars humility..

[Cruentus]

"I thought that humbleness was not the warrior's way. I was wrong! I know now that the humbleness of a warrior is not the humbleness of a beggar. The warrior lowers his head to no one, but at the same time, he does not permit anyone to lower his head to him. The beggar, on the other hand falls to his knees at the drop of a hat and scrapes the floor for anyone he deems to be higher; but at the same time, he demands that someone lower than him scrape the floor for him."

This is a quote by "Don Juan," a Yaqui Shaman in the book "Tales of Power" by Carlos Castaneda.

I have bunch of other really good ones on my website (click below) on the E-zine.

Well...thoughts?

:ultracool

 

[Feisty Mouse]

humility and dignity, I think. Those two are interrelated - or maybe put at odds -in that quote.

 

[Flatlander]

The warrior lowers his head to no one

I don't know if I can fully agree with this. I think any warrior should always lower his head to his teacher, and I will always lower my head to my Mother and Father.

As well, since we are speaking of a warrior, I think that when battle is over, a warrior should always, in victory, lower his head to his defeated enemy, out of respect. I also think a warrior should lower his head at the grave of another.

Those are my thoughts.

 

[TigerWoman]

I think humility in those with power, a black belt for instance, does not mean weakness. The martial artist/warrior bows in respect (lowers head to others) but retains his dignity. He can afford to be humble and not lose respect. He also knows that he is not perfect either so therefore should not think of himself as better or held higher than anyone else. (But for the grace of God, go I.) He could lose his power, become a begger too because of circumstance. He does however have earned respect from power vs. a beggar would have a basic level of respect. If a beggar shows humilty, he would keep his respect, his dignity, but to disrespect someone else, he would lose even that. Just my thoughts/opinion on the subject. ?? TW

 

[OC Kid]

I think of humility of a warrior much like a preacher was talking about the Lord one day. He was talking about the sermon on the mount and meekness.
Meekness (humility) is defined as strength under restraint or control. Knowing you can take someone out who does you wrong but its so much easier kinder and humble to say your sorry and go on. That way you made a friend rather than a enemy.

 

[loki09789]

If you look through history, those who could be termed 'Warriors' would NEVER have concerned themselves with "humility" as much as "prestige."

Celtic/Gaelic warriors sought opportunities for couragous acts that would have their names added to the Bardic story tellers lays or ballads,

Viking/Norse/Germanic types sought to die in battle because that was a 'manly' death which lead to rewards in the after life and prestige in their own story/ballad traditions.

Chieftains/Kings were chosen from the warriors with the best reputations in battle and 'gift/ring giving' or spreading the wealth of raids and pillages.

Samurai were not 'humble' as much as 'disciplined' because they always put duty first and knew how to behave within their caste and chain of command.

A 'warriors humility' would only be productive if it meant that they didn't confuse their 'reputation' with the reality of Murphy's law on the battlefield, the sharpness of the enemies sword, or the role of coordination over 'rambo' tactics for objective success.

Native American warriors, at least those that followed this practice, would risk their lives to 'touch' an enemy and leave him alive to "count coup" on them and not outright kill that enemy. This was an act of audacity and courage that would be sought out by warriors so that they could be talked about with respect by both enemy and ally.

In a nutshell, warriors fought motivated at least in part by personal prestige and social climbing. That does not leave room for 'humility' as much as a careful balance of audacity and cooperation with others (otherwise your comrades will let you 'charge' and die gloriously just to get rid of you)

 

[Marginal]

Hmm... At the very least in modern application, I see two poles on a continuim of pride. I'd think that a beggar groveling at your feet isn't humble. He's desperate. It's a kind of forced humiliation. He can't be humble because he has no pride or dignity left with which to sublimate.

On the other end we have a guy calling himself "The humble eternal white belt warrior" (Aw gosh... I know nothin' nothin at all! Oh, and lookitme! I'm HUMBLE!) Isn't exhibiting humility either. I think the term for someone like that is really "braggart".

 

[MichiganTKD]

A Warrior is humble because he can be. A Beggar is humble because he must be. Serious martial artists are humble because humility tempers the weapon we turn ourselves into. Beggars are humble because they have no choice. Barring some great gift they choose not to use, they offer nothing to society.

 

[OULobo]

If you look through history, those who could be termed 'Warriors' would NEVER have concerned themselves with "humility" as much as "prestige."

Celtic/Gaelic warriors sought opportunities for couragous acts that would have their names added to the Bardic story tellers lays or ballads,

Viking/Norse/Germanic types sought to die in battle because that was a 'manly' death which lead to rewards in the after life and prestige in their own story/ballad traditions.

Chieftains/Kings were chosen from the warriors with the best reputations in battle and 'gift/ring giving' or spreading the wealth of raids and pillages.

Samurai were not 'humble' as much as 'disciplined' because they always put duty first and knew how to behave within their caste and chain of command.

A 'warriors humility' would only be productive if it meant that they didn't confuse their 'reputation' with the reality of Murphy's law on the battlefield, the sharpness of the enemies sword, or the role of coordination over 'rambo' tactics for objective success.

Native American warriors, at least those that followed this practice, would risk their lives to 'touch' an enemy and leave him alive to "count coup" on them and not outright kill that enemy. This was an act of audacity and courage that would be sought out by warriors so that they could be talked about with respect by both enemy and ally.

In a nutshell, warriors fought motivated at least in part by personal prestige and social climbing. That does not leave room for 'humility' as much as a careful balance of audacity and cooperation with others (otherwise your comrades will let you 'charge' and die gloriously just to get rid of you)

They also ate with their fingers, rarely bathed and generally raped and pillaged across the land. We don't do these things today for a good reason, we have progressed and evolved. Consquently, throughout that same history, the old and better the warrior, the more wise and less violent he became. The same thing happens today.

A Warrior is humble because he can be. A Beggar is humble because he must be. Serious martial artists are humble because humility tempers the weapon we turn ourselves into.

That's a good way to look at it. I noticed that when I have less doubts about my abilities, I look at confrontation with a much softer tone, because I know I can handle it on any level.

 

[loki09789]

They also ate with their fingers, rarely bathed and generally raped and pillaged across the land. We don't do these things today for a good reason, we have progressed and evolved. Consquently, throughout that same history, the old and better the warrior, the more wise and less violent he became. The same thing happens today.



That's a good way to look at it. I noticed that when I have less doubts about my abilities, I look at confrontation with a much softer tone, because I know I can handle it on any level.

My point with this post was to indicate that many of these "warriors do, warriors are, warriors don't" comments are attempts to USE these warrior heritages to influence people into moral codes and ethics that the author wants to perpetuate and not what really was part of the 'warrior culture' as much as what the author would like to have 'modern warriors' think/behave.

The Japanese did this with the Samurai by perpetuating what they wanted the Japanese people to think Samurai were and weren't. Why? Because the characteristics that they exemplified, defined and glorified were the very characteristics that they wanted young officers and soldiers to express and internalize.

 

[Cruentus]

A couple of things about the quote...

The author of the book had no motive that I could see in defining "warriorship;" he was simply relaying his experiences from conversations with a Yaqui Shaman. The Shaman was, at least as I see it, speaking metephorically/allegorically.

I find it interesting to read all the responses...how different people with different cultural understandings, different consciences and subconsiences, and different levels of knowledge interpret the allegory in different ways...some far different then I would interpret.

:supcool:

 

[loki09789]

A couple of things about the quote...

The author of the book had no motive that I could see in defining "warriorship;" he was simply relaying his experiences from conversations with a Yaqui Shaman. The Shaman was, at least as I see it, speaking metephorically/allegorically.

I find it interesting to read all the responses...how different people with different cultural understandings, different consciences and subconsiences, and different levels of knowledge interpret the allegory in different ways...some far different then I would interpret.

:supcool:

Come one Paul, you have and English degree. You, of all people, know that every text will have a theme or slant. If it isn't obvious it may be because you are reading it to find your own meaning and not focusing on theme. That is probably better since you will be reacting to what you think about the text more than what the author intended.


Reading critically is kind of my thing as an English teacher, so recognizing how things are structured, stated and omitted to discern themes/tones/moods and such is important to know what people are trying to pursuade you to think. NO text is purely objective.

Again, it is probably more important to discuss what humility is for a modern martial artist than to assign a humility definition to 'warriors' since that term can apply to so many different cultures, periods and regions.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Beggars are humble because they have no choice. Barring some great gift they choose not to use, they offer nothing to society.

Hmmm... I don't think anyone offers nothing to society - even if to be a means of demonstrating compassion.

 

[loki09789]

To post on the topic:

Humility, whether for a martial artist/'warrior' or beggar is about keeping it real. If you are in a position of authority, don't start believing the myths that start to form around those who admire/idolize you. Stay grounded in the fact that even with all the training in the world, a bullet/car accident/lucky shot will still take you out, regardless of how wonderful/powerful you are or how many people love you.

All that training/progression only lowers the statistical influence of MR. Murphy; it does not make you 'Unbreakable.'

If you are in a subordinate position/underdog position, acting humbly can still be dignified as long as that humility doesn't bleed into self loathing or a percieve self image of being 'lower' or less valuable relative to those who happen to be more substantially blessed.

We have all been 'beggar's when we were broke college students, recently broken up with, passed over for jobs/fired.... humility in these cases IMO is being able to take responsibility for your contributions to creating that 'beggar' state, recognizing and accepting those variables beyond your immediate control BUT letting yourself spiral down to the "it's all my fault/I'm worthless" mental state.

Warriors of old would have been only 'humble' enough (based on the culture and period of the time NOT by our standards) to 'keep it real' on the battlefield so that they took calculated risks instead of making rash actions.

 

[loki09789]

Hmmm... I don't think anyone offers nothing to society - even if to be a means of demonstrating compassion.

Reminds me of "With Honors" with Brendon Fraser and Moira Kelly. Ivy league college students who gain life lessons by taking in a homeless guy and listening to his lessons learned in the hard knock university.

 

[Cruentus]

Come one Paul, you have and English degree. You, of all people, know that every text will have a theme or slant. If it isn't obvious it may be because you are reading it to find your own meaning and not focusing on theme. That is probably better since you will be reacting to what you think about the text more than what the author intended.

Like many translated texts from different cultures, especially ones that are written allegorically, ones own background and thoughts tend to skew the interpretation. Someone with a western way of thinking with historical knowledge of other warrior classes will interpret the meaning differently then someone with a tribal way of thinking without that historical knowledge.

This was originally said by a Yaqui Shaman in Spanish (spanish being his second language) was then translated to English for the text, in the early 1970's. Add that fact to the context...that the Shaman was speaking allegorically, and you are not left something that could be interpreted in different ways.

When dealing with allegories or parables, you often are able to tell more about the reader/interpreter then the author. I think this is the case here. I am not going to tell someone that they are right or wrong in their belief...I just ask that they recognize that their explaination may not be the only one.

Anyways...have fun and keep em commin.'

:supcool:

 

[loki09789]

Like many translated texts from different cultures, especially ones that are written allegorically, ones own background and thoughts tend to skew the interpretation. Someone with a western way of thinking with historical knowledge of other warrior classes will interpret the meaning differently then someone with a tribal way of thinking without that historical knowledge.

This was originally said by a Yaqui Shaman in Spanish (spanish being his second language) was then translated to English for the text, in the early 1970's. Add that fact to the context...that the Shaman was speaking allegorically, and you are not left something that could be interpreted in different ways.

When dealing with allegories or parables, you often are able to tell more about the reader/interpreter then the author. I think this is the case here. I am not going to tell someone that they are right or wrong in their belief...I just ask that they recognize that their explaination may not be the only one.

Anyways...have fun and keep em commin.'

:supcool:

Agreed that reader response is the way to go, not right or wrong as much as interpretation of text to creat/reveal meaning for the reader.

That is how I teach mainly. I do disagree about the idea of allegory/parable though. THese, by their very nature are intended to point the audience toward a certain thematic principle. Consider the Christian parables that are cited in the Bible and how the stories like "The Prodigal Son" and other well known parables are used for very pointed purposes. Allegories are just one long droning symbollic story loaded with little symbols that are meant to point an audience/reader toward something - usually religious/theo-philosophical in the case of allegory.

The question is with this anecdote/Native American koan, what does it mean to the reader? My original post was really to make a contextual point about 'humility' in reference to warriors in a historical sense. Modern soldiers/warriors/fighting men don't really concern themselves with 'humility' as much as 'reality' when it comes to finding balanced self perseption - the same is probably true for 'ancient types as well.

 

[Cruentus]

Some more insight on the Yaqui idea of "warriorship."

The word warrior is synonomis with Sorcerer, Shaman, or most frequently used in the book, "Man of knowledge." This seems to fit with the idea of "warriorship" as it exists in Tribal cultures compared with "warriorship" as it exists in more western, and even eastern cultures. In Native American cultures, there wasn't really a "warrior class." If there was a tribal war, then all the men fought. They played different roles in the battle, but they all fought. This is different then a Samauri class, knighthood, or even our modern military, where an entire profession is dedicated to serving and protecting. By the tribal definition, everyone can be called to be a "warrior", not just those who serve.

Here is the rest of quotes I have on my site...I put them here because when I update my E-zine, they'll be gone...

"I thought that humbleness was not the warrior's way. I was wrong! I know now that the humbleness of a warrior is not the humbleness of a beggar. The warrior lowers his head to no one, but at the same time, he does not permit anyone to lower his head to him. The beggar, on the other hand falls to his knees at the drop of a hat and scrapes the floor for anyone he deems to be higher; but at the same time, he demands that someone lower than him scrape the floor for him."

"There is nothing in this world that a warrior cannot account for. You see, a warrior considers himself already dead, so there is nothing for him to lose. The worst has already happened to him. Therefore, he's clear and calm; judging him by his acts or by his words, one would never suspect that he has witnessed everything."

"As you know...you spirit was already unbalanced. To counteract that I taught you to live the warrior's way. Well, a warrior starts off with certianty that his spirit is off balance; then by living in full control and awareness, but without hurry or compulsion, he does his ultimate best to gain this balance."

"Out there, there is only knowledge...knowledge is frightening, true; but if a warrior accepts the frightening nature of knowledge he cancels out its awesomeness."

"Knowledge is a most peculiar affair...especially for a warrior. Knowledge for a warrior is something that comes at once, engulfs him, and passes on."

"It is your duty to put your mind at ease. Warriors do not win victories by beating their heads against walls but by overtaking walls. Warriors jump over walls; they don't demolish them."

"First of all, it is deadly wrong for you to regard anything in such a serious fashion...There are 3 kinds of bad habits which we use over and over when confronted with unusual life situations. First, we may disregard what's happening or has happened and feel as if it had never occurred. That one is the bigot's way. Second, we may accept everything at its face value and feel as if we know what's going on. That's the pious man's way. Third, we may become obsessed with an event because either we cannot disregard it or we cannot accept it wholeheartedly. That's the fool's way. Your way? There is a fourth, the correct one, the warriors way. A warrior acts as if nothing had ever happened, because he doesn't believe in anything, yet he accepts everything at its face value. He accepts without accepting and disregards without disregarding. He never feels as if he knows, neither does he feel as if nothing had ever happened. He acts as if he is in control, even though he might be shaking in his boots. To act in such a manner dissipates obsession."

"If a warrior needs solace...he simply chooses anyone and expresses to that person every detail of his turmoil. After all, the warrior is not seeking to be understood or helped; by talking he is merely relieving himself of his pressure.That is, provided that the warrior is given to talking; if he is not, he tells no one."

Have fun!! :supcool:

 

[Trent]

Good discussion above, but why is there always the tendency to overintellectualize common behavior?

A warrior is humble because he understands respect, honor and compassion; a beggar is humble because he has no choice in the matter.

 

[Cruentus]

Well....

Some are just overintellectual! %think%