Some people hate Gandhi, some treat him as a saint. I have been trying to understand what exactly he used to say. Luckily I got a rusty old book from Howrdah station this Puja, named "Vinoba on Gandhi". Reading the book was enlightening. Of course this is one of my first books on Gandhian philosophy. And I am lucky to get Vinoba in my first book.
This is how he explains satyagrahi and the method of non-violence.
One who likes truth is satyagrahi. For that you have to first understand truth. And for that you have to first love all the things and beings. Love and hate are two blinders for us. Both have to be get rid of, to see truth. Getting rid of both being difficult, lets first get rid of hate. One who loves all cant harm anyone. This is ahimsha! Lets say, there is a love duo. Of them the guy smokes. The gal will try to explain things to him first. If that does not work, then she may try to take extreme steps. She may shout at him (but for his own good). And if she really loves him, she may not be able to shout at him. That case she may turtore herself to make him understand. This is nonviolence. It comes from love. Because you love the other person, you can not tolerate that he is doing something wrong. You try to explain things to him and worst case turtore your own self to make a point.
Mark that, nonviolent opposition is a misleading phrase. It can wither be opposition or nonviolent. Cant be both at a time.
So according to this Gandhi had to do fasting etc to make a point to the Brits. Its because of his love and compassion towards Brits. More on this in my next blog...!
6 comments:
I am sorry to say but I found the blog a bit absurd. (now I might be naive but if you can elaborate, it will be clearer)
"To first understand truth, you have to first love all the things and beings" why??
I understand that a rotten thing stinks and I keep away from it. same with people. how can you love someone/somethings when they are not pleasing to your senses be it intellectual or moral. moreover how can i love/like something, it always comes from within. Simulating emotions might be a lie(not satyagrah).
Secondly, loving or granting your sanction to everything is equal to giving someone something what he actually doesn't deserve. And just like currency, if you give it to everyone, it finally has no value. And thus the person who really deserves your love/appreciation gets that hollow coin which everyone already has.Thus injustice.
Personally I believe by doing justice, by giving your sanction to deserving and scorn/criticism to undeserving, keeps the value of your moral currency. Now doing justice is another form of satyagrah, isn't it?
lastly, the basic assumption underlying in the love story is that boy also loves gal and thus he cannot see her suffer. was it really true with gandhi and british? doesn't self-sacrifice dwell on other's mercy, his wish to care or not. Isn't this weakness.
You are right deepanshu. But most of these arguments are given by looking at what the other deserves or not; if the other loves you or not. These depend on without, whereas emotions are from within. Certainly you cant fake an emotion, nor should you. That will be fundamentally against satyagrah. A flower emits fragrane. Its its characteristics. It does not matter if its in a forest, or in a temple or in a whore-house. Similarly once we get that stage, we cant but love. This will not depend on what the other deserves .
What is truth? I dont know. But its something I wish to know. Truth about me, about you and about this creation. Its like any profession. Unless I like circuits, I cant understand them properly. Unless I like maths, I can never be truly able to understand it. Similarly when it comes to truth about the creation, I have to first love it all...nay, love should come to my heart of its own accord for all... for the whole creation.
What I pressumed about Gandhi and Brits, is just my assumption. It may not necessarily be true. But it may be true as well. When I love, its because I enjoy loving. If I suffer because I cant see my beloved ones doing mistake, then that cleanses my spirit. Its all me. There is no dependence on others.
About weakness... you may have heard Gandhi saying "ahimsa is only for the strongest"! It needs real strength to stick to your principles, even when the whole world is against you, even when your wife may die if she does not take beef-soup, even when you son may die if he does not take brandy... Thats why Vardhamana Jaina is called Mahavir (when all he preached is extreme nonviolence!).
PS: Most of what I just have written is bookish. But may be an iota is there which came from my heart.
ya, I think that flower example was good and seems valid individualistically. May be its broader,like loving ur own life than loving anybody else specifically (when u r not concerned with his/her being, whether being good or bad).
Also the circuits example was very good. Indeed one cannot understand without liking it. And one would,thus, indulge in understanding something that excites his mind, that feeds his logical sense, be it creation or truth (I m not sure about people).
And ya i agree & understand 'ahimsa' is about strength.
But I still don't agree with the philosophy of throwing yourself up, suffering for the deeds of others.
anyway it was really a good read and was invigorating to dive more to learn its true nature.
"... the philosophy of throwing yourself up, suffering for the deeds of others."
** Its all about enjoying; some people enjoy doing weird things. And unless you enjoy this, it cant be imposed. Its basically cleansing the spirit I suppose (as it tests your faith)!!
** I know still you wont agree with this fully. Disagreement is a sign of richness. agar agree ho jate, to sayad mein last comment nehin likhta. and writting the second comment enriched my own thoughts a lot. I will try to put the second blog soon after midsem!
Truth is elusive.
And till you find the absolute truth(i doubt anyone can really find it), it is always relative.
What is true for you can be false from someone else's point of view. Probably we always find 'satyagrahi' - the follower, never a person who has already found the truth (may be Buddha is one)
so when truth is confusing, this non-violence can be utilized unjustly.
Your example of Smoking is straight forward with a straight forward solution.
Let's take an example of the fight between Father and Son on the issue of "Son's excessive Cricket playing" - Tell me what will be the result of non-violence in this case. Here there is no question of love also...both love each other equally.
My example of smoking BF was also a very naive one! The father-son issue is much simpler!!
I have seen that in most cases, the father also watches cricket. Let him be free from this cricket-virus; then I am sure his words will carry weight. And if the son does not follow, the father can only be troubled. My students copied in exam. What could I do? I could only feel very upset. And as a repent for their fault I took dinners for 2 nights without any salt. Its like son has borrowed some money and is banrupt now. The father has to repay (if he can). Simply if I love someone, and he/she does something wrong, I can only silently repent for that and feel bad.
I have heard that when you feel satisfied the whole creation can feel an iota better. Similarly when the creation is rejoicing you feel better. In the other extreme, when anyone in creation does a wrong thing you repend a bit for it...
Post a Comment