Where do you stand when war is being waged? How can you serve peace if you want to maintain a peaceful attitude as an individual? I invite you to begin the search for answers with a ‘Declaration of my position’.
Go directly to the original text and the singanature form …
We have all stood between two disputants and experienced the situation where they suddenly turn against you. I think it’s wrong to derive a rule from this that you should never stand between opponents under any circumstances.
The world situation, not only in Israel/Palestine and Ukraine, is crying out for us to pause and reflect. Especially about your own position, your own point of view.
I have been involved in the reconciliation process for years. In my own life, in my seminars and in the Reiki community with https://reiki-conciliation.org. Against this background, I now go beyond my previous field of activity and invite all people of reason and compassion to co-sign the declaration.
This is a translation from German, assisted by DeepL
Connection to Reiki
Reiki is a practice that promotes healing on all levels. Unreconciliation, anger and worry, emotional and spiritual imbalance are often causally linked to illness. Reconciliation – be it with oneself, with others or with the given life situation – is therefore usually part of a holistic healing process. This topic is therefore often present in Reiki seminars.
The peace initiative now goes one step further. It is true that it is ‘news’, which as such may find a place on this website and in the newsletter, as it is something that is currently occupying Mischa and me deeply. But you can argue that the declaration and the following sections have nothing directly to do with Reiki. I can understand that and would therefore like to take this opportunity to thank you expressly for your patience and understanding that we are currently drawing a very wide bow – in the hope that it is in your interest and that you will also sign the declaration.
Declaration of my position … Original
- My position is in between the opposing fronts. Because I want to be open to talk with each side.
- I believe that dialogue alone can lead to peace.
- I condemn terrorism and its atrocities, violations of international agreements and desecration of humans’ dignity. By whoever.
- I am against war.
- I take responsibility for my own feelings such as resignation, fury or fear. Above all, I empathise with the victims of violence. Everywhere.
- I am not helpless and I trust that I can do something in the face of any adversity. Always.
With this declaration, if only symbolically, I step between hostile parties. I am unarmed and committed to keeping an open mind and heart. I endeavour to uphold my stance in the hope to contribute to emerging resolutions. Whenever.
Deklaration meines Standpunktes … Translation
- Mein Standpunkt liegt zwischen den gegnerischen Fronten. Denn ich möchte offen sein für Gespräche mit jeder Seite.
- Ich glaube, dass nur der Dialog zum Frieden führen kann.
- Ich lehne den Terrorismus und seine Gräueltaten ab sowie die Verletzung internationaler Abkommen und die Schändung der Menschenwürde. Von wem auch immer.
- Ich bin gegen Krieg.
- Ich übernehme Verantwortung für meine eigenen Gefühle wie Resignation, Wut oder Angst. Vor allem habe ich Mitgefühl mit den Opfern von Gewalt. Überall.
- Ich bin nicht hilflos und vertraue darauf, dass ich im Angesicht jeder Widrigkeit etwas tun kann. Immer.
Mit dieser Erklärung trete ich, wenn auch nur symbolisch, zwischen die verfeindeten Parteien. Ich bin unbewaffnet und verpflichte mich, einen offenen Geist und ein offenes Herz zu bewahren. Ich bemühe mich, meine Haltung beizubehalten, in der Hoffnung, zu einer Lösung beitragen zu können. Wann auch immer.
The form is very simple and easy to fill in, even with minimal knowledge of English.
What is peace?
A ceasefire is by no means peace. But it is an absolutely necessary step on the way there. Every drop of blood spilt in violence is one too many. I’m not just thinking of the civilian victims on both sides. I am also thinking of the fighters themselves. Regardless of their motive and side. I am aware of the radical nature of this idea. Just yesterday a friend asked me how it could be that people commit absolutely reprehensible atrocities. A good question. I don’t know an absolute and unique answer. There are probably many factors that lead to this and have led to it over the centuries, as the horror that is currently unfolding shows us. But I am certain of one thing: we, humanity, are part of it. Regardless of whether we are in the middle of the conflict or, like me, in a ‘safe’ harbour called Switzerland.
Peace is the state in which diverse interests and unequal people co-exist in their diversity without the violent fulfilment of their different needs and opinions. Disputes will and may occur. Values such as non-violence and endeavouring to find solutions for the benefit of all involved are at the centre of this.
Peace is a goal without an alternative.
Peace is not the opposite of war. That would be like defining health by the absence of illness. Peace can only truly materialise when we have reconciled, when forgiveness has been achieved. Everything else is symptom relief – life-saving perhaps, yes, but only interim goals. Achieving such visionary peace is a long and difficult path. Not without rependance and punishment, or reparation. Even if it may seem impossible to us, peace is an imperative and a goal without alternative.
It is obvious that on the path to peace – which we may never fully achieve and yet still strive for – the weapons must remain silent for the time being. We need a period of rest and recovery so that we can open our eyes to solutions and begin to heal.
Controversies and Critisism
I published the page with the Declaration on the internet on 18th October. Beforehand, I had discussed the content with a number of people, especially with people who I knew would give me a clean bill of health and express their criticism bluntly. In the text of the declaration on reiki-conciliation.org/projects I directly addressed fears and especially the criticism of the phrase ‘I am against war’ and summarised: “In this case it is important to explicitly state our opposing position. The awakening and realisation of the horror of war is a powerful experience. We need to realise this before we can even ask ourselves how to define peace and what steps to take.” That is why I have left the “negative” statement in the declaration; that it may be a powerful and transformative catalyst.
In the meantime, the initiative has sparked a lively discourse, and although many people are not signing for good reasons, I am pleased that there is a consensus of support in principle. I quote: “It’s going in the right direction” and “I agree in principle”.
Several opinions were expressed that the sentence “I believe that only dialogue can lead to peace” is fundamentally correct, but that dialogue alone is not sufficient if one of the parties involved is not prepared to engage in dialogue or if irreconcilable values and interests are at stake. In plain language, they say that warlike measures must sometimes precede dialogue. While I do not wish to deny this (see ‘Violence and aggression’), I would warn that this must not be an invitation to reactionary violence.
“The philosophy of realism is the philosophy of pessimism”
unknown Italian preacher
In most cases, reactions are automated behaviour based on past experiences and the invocation of History. This is usually labelled as “reality”. I believe that we humans are capable of more, namely reflective and appropriate behaviour. In order to achieve this, preparatory work is required. Of course, we can’t expect people to switch off their reflexes when under fire and in fear of death. That would be sheer cynicism. But we can prepare and position ourselves with consciousness work – as I hope this declaration will do – so that we can find previously unknown, untested, new behaviours and solutions. This is an optimistic attitude, yes, and it requires courage.
Some people do not want to show their personal values with their name on the declaration in public because they are afraid of harmful consequences. That is very understandable. For me, it is an even louder call to all those who are not exposed to such hostility.
Others feel that their opinion is not of value to a wider audience. Some think it is self-evident and obvious. I believe that it is imperative that we express ourselves verbally, if only to reaffirm our principles and invite others to share them or question them with us. But above all, so that all those who have power take note of what I as an individual want. Individual voices staying silent is an option that, as history has shown, we cannot afford.
Violence and aggression
In spiritual circles in particular, I often recognise an attitude that I find inauthentic. Somewhat out of touch with life. Namely, whenever the dark side of us humans is denied, it is seen as absolutely evil and exclusively bad. Or, no less bad, it is suppressed and ignored.
Each and every one of us has a potential for violence and aggression. And that’s a good thing. Because there are situations where we have to switch to fight mode for the sake of survival. Then it is important and valuable that we can access the powerful arsenal of all our resources. The trick is not to do this as an automated reaction, but to act with reflection and guided by noble values. This leads to appropriate behaviour. Depending on the situation, this can be forceful. For example, it takes a certain amount of aggression to push an attacker to the ground.
“What you resist will persist.”
C.G. Jung.
When we observe the desperation of young men, for example, who blindly attack the police, of whom they – triggered by the uniform alone – assume the very worst, then we are observing a potential that is dangerously destructive. How we can channel such a way of dealing with our own potential into better channels is a big question. And perhaps relatively easy to answer using the example of rioting youths. I do not presume to outline a solution. Especially not in this text, where I am concerned with something completely different: namely to say that, despite all our efforts to achieve peace, we must not pretend that the dark side does not exist or that it has no right to exist. Trying to eradicate it is against life itself and, paradoxically, completely counterproductive, because what we fight gains strength the more we fight it.
War and civilians
It is naive to assume that war is possible without civilian casualties. Quite apart from the fact that the fighters themselves, when they take off their uniforms, are the sons and daughters of civilians. War should therefore be rejected in principle, and everything should be done to prevent it. And even better, to create peace.
It is now the case that the aggressors in Ukraine are deliberately and consciously sacrificing civilians and attackers in Israel are ruthlessly abusing the civilian population as a target and a shield. This is reprehensible and in no way condoned. This cannot be emphasised loudly enough. We must oppose it clearly and immediately.
Our international agreements say that countries that are attacked by military means have the right to defend themselves militarily. In other words, with counter-aggression and force. The fact that this happens and that countries feel compelled to take such measures is sad but a fact of life in the world around us.
Finding new solutions – without losing sight of the need of the moment.
Agreements and treaties have come about because of past experiences. It is very significant that the 102-year-old Holocaust survivor, Margot Friedländer, recently said that it is a mistake to fall back on the concepts of the past when we talk about the present. The 37-year-old writer Deborah Feldman goes even further and says: “There is only one legitimate lesson of the Holocaust: the absolute, unconditional defence of human rights for all. It must not be Jews against Muslims – it must be: Human rights and human dignity!”
In this sense, I see my declaration as a catalyst for all of our consciousness, so that new, future-oriented solutions can be found. Without losing sight of the need of the moment.
René Vögtli
Links/Quellen
Margot Friedländer: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margot_Friedländer
Deborha Feldman: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Feldman
The quote from Feldman “…Human rights and human dignity!” originates from her appearance in Markus Lanz (minute 17:54), German: https://www.zdf.de/gesellschaft/markus-lanz/markus-lanz-vom-1-november-2023-100.html#xtor=CS5-95