Go to The Effulgence Within
- Add a comment
- Go to Understanding Non-Violence
Re: Anib
After reading your article I've given some details matching yours. There you will find my more detailed viewpoints on this. This is more on Mahaveer's take on Ahimsa. Thanks GM.
posted by
anib
on February 8, 2018 at 3:33 AM
| link to this | reply
Anib
Your comment: "It only reconfirms the power of non-violence, doesn't it? Cheers!"
My reply: Yes it does, but only in this one setting (Gandhi in India, opposing the British, at that exact time and place in history). Gandhi's grievous error was to apply his success universally, to think that his non-violent tactics would work anywhere, against any tyranny. Sadly, they will not. People have died needlessly, trying to carry them out, in China and many other places.
posted by
GoldenMean
on February 8, 2018 at 2:00 AM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Aba brother
Please. Calisthenics sounds better
posted by
anib
on February 7, 2018 at 10:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Re: Re: Aba brother
Will do so in a bit. I used to call it mental (and/or verbal) calisthenics.
posted by
Sea_Gypsy
on February 7, 2018 at 10:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Re: Aba brother
Oh sis, thank you. These are only exercises in developing mental muscles. The other one, if you so like, you can see on GM's blog comments page which I just wrote. 
posted by
anib
on February 7, 2018 at 10:10 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Aba brother
Yes, your comment about Ghandi seems correct to me, though I have not studied him or British history in great depth. 
posted by
Sea_Gypsy
on February 7, 2018 at 10:06 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Aba brother
Yes, your comment about Ghandi seems correct to me, though I have not studied him or British history in great depth.
posted by
Sea_Gypsy
on February 7, 2018 at 10:06 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: overtherainbow
Thank you for your reading and commenting. You're right.
posted by
anib
on February 7, 2018 at 8:23 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Aba brother
Thank you big sis for your admiration. Peace through violent intervention at occasions become necessary, and that is no wrong, but setting the balance eventually is justifiable. Gandhi first showed the world the power of non-violence.
posted by
anib
on February 7, 2018 at 8:22 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Re: GM
That is a good justification you give GM. Gandhi, in other words, had the penetrating eyes to see the goodness in Britishers, and then appeal to their goodness instead of the other option of fighting out evil which would have resulted in bloodbaths. It only reconfirms the power of non-violence, doesn't it? Cheers!
posted by
anib
on February 7, 2018 at 8:16 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Re: GM
That is a good justification you give GM. Gandhi, in other words, had the penetrating eyes to see the goodness in Britishers, and then appeal to their goodness instead of the other option of fighting out evil which would have resulted in bloodbaths. It only reconfirms the power of non-violence, doesn't it? Cheers!
posted by
anib
on February 7, 2018 at 8:16 PM
| link to this | reply
we choose to be violent or non-violent, the reasons for that choice , can fill volumes. But, i believe the people that chose non-violence are stronger than the violent ones, they might lose their lives for it, but they tend to believe there are some things worth dieing for. doesn't it come down to morals and values and yes, ones love for his fellow man.
posted by
overtherainbow
on February 6, 2018 at 9:55 PM
| link to this | reply
Aba brother
I read your post with great interest, and the comments. While peace is preferred, like health, there may be times when it is not attainable without intervention. So I support you and admire this write. I wish there was no need for violence in any world. That would be nice.
posted by
Sea_Gypsy
on February 6, 2018 at 9:39 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: GM
Anib, even though you said you were not generalizing, I think you.... dabbled in it somewhat. And as to Gandhi, I don't think the British were puzzled by his clever non-violent tactics. They were surprised, yes, but then it started to appeal to the goodness in them, which had to be there in the first place, in order for Gandhi to appeal to it. So we must give the good-hearted British at least as much credit as we give to Gandhi.
I have posted an article about this, just now, and I pleasantly anticipate your comments. Yes indeed, we are developing our mental muscles, LOL..... Cheers 
posted by
GoldenMean
on February 6, 2018 at 9:31 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Oh yes big sis
That goes without question, any time ....
posted by
anib
on February 5, 2018 at 9:13 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Dear GM, my friend
I could anticipate your disagreement even while I was writing about this, and that is why in the brackets in italics I said that I'm not generalizing. The whole crux of the write was if we can understand violence, we would have understood non-violence as a fall out. The attaining to a positive via the negative. Non-violence is a vacuum that we generally cannot link or associate and what a powerful tool it may become, because it has not been experienced from within by most of us, and you took the bait. I too know your passion. Your other point I fully am in accord with that to fight evil the good (people) has to muster courage to be able to counter such situations with violence. Gandhi's non-violent movement puzzled the Englishmen to their subsequent granting India freedom. The British prime minister Clement Attlee declared in the House of Commons in Feb 20, 2947 that they would quit India. And Gandhi, for the first time in the world showed how effective non-violence could be used as a tool against violence. How as a leader he must have struggled and contained his countrymen. Subhash Bose, another luminary whom Gandhi greatly disliked, advocated only violence, which he showed through personal example and was successful with another group of people. So also was the teaching of the Gita, when Krishna successfully made Arjuna to take up arms in defense of the evil Kauravas, to establish Dharma, righteousness.
My whole point was to be explore both sides of a coin to achieve the same goal. Here, I had to be detached from my own viewpoints as to which one is/was better. Thank you so much for your thought-provoking query in disageement. But thst is good for our intellectual muscles to become strong. Ain't it? Cheers all the way.
posted by
anib
on February 5, 2018 at 9:08 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Kabu
i quite agree with you that at times it works to shy away from any argument. I know you to be so ... peaceful, kind, accommodating and full of patience. And times it works to take to violence to counter violence and establish non-violence. But then you're such a good lady.
posted by
anib
on February 5, 2018 at 8:27 PM
| link to this | reply
Just saying a quick hello. Will catch up later when I can read more deeply.
posted by
Sea_Gypsy
on February 5, 2018 at 8:03 PM
| link to this | reply
Anib
My friend, in your passion for peace, I think you are trying to generalize too much about violence and non-violence. I must disagree with one of the basic premises here. You write "Man’s essential nature is non-violent". You go on to argue against violence in general.
I would rather say that basic human nature is essentially to express one's own free will..... to accomplish projects and acquire money or things to carry out one's own free will, whether for good or for evil.
Remember, to be abusive/predatory/evil is one of our basic choices, that cannot be taken away. When one takes that dark fork in the road, often enough and hard enough, evil becomes one's essential nature, and violence becomes the primary tool to carry it out. Intimidation, abuse and violence become the first option in dealing with others, instead of the last. At this point, one's essential nature is violent, by choice. The choice is to take, instead of to give..... to harm, instead of help. For one who chooses evil, taking and harming gives great pleasure. This is hard for good people to believe or understand, but I assure you it is true.
Because of the free-will basis of our essential nature, we will always have such evil people, attacking us or attacking others. To oppose them, violence becomes necessary, especially to stop them in-the-act. Violence becomes a necessary tool of enforcing justice. That is why we call it en-FORCE-ment, because it requires force.
So, like it or not, violence is a permanent and unavoidable part of human nature. As a race, we will never grow or evolve out of it. As individuals, we certainly can. But anyone who resolves to never use violence for any purpose, becomes the perfect prey and target for violence themselves. And worse, they cannot be relied upon to help anyone else who is being attacked. This is the folly of pacifism.
Better to keep the will and capacity for violence in reserve, to be used only in response to active, on-going predatory violence, to save the victims that are being abused or destroyed.
posted by
GoldenMean
on February 5, 2018 at 1:35 PM
| link to this | reply
to understand this I have related it to actions or beliefs that I live by. To love not hate. To look for good not bad; to work very hard towards non violence and don't be judgemental. Also at times it works to refuse to join an argument...well except sometimes on FB just for fun.
posted by
Kabu
on February 5, 2018 at 8:43 AM
| link to this | reply