Gandhi and the doctrine of non-violence

[S.A.M.]

Musings on the Bhagwad Gita:

‘No one has attained his goal without action. Even men like Janaka attained salvation through action. If even I were lazily to cease working, the world would perish. How much more necessary then for the people at large to engage in action ?

Many things which we look upon as non-violent will, perhaps, be considered violent by future generations. To look upon philosophies of the past to obtain direct answers to all the questions that arise from day to day, would not be desirable even if it were possible; for, in that case, there would be nothing like progress or discovery for mankind. Human intelligence would then simply atrophy from disuse. Therefore, questions that arise in each age must be solved by the people of that age through their own effort. Our difficulties at present, such as world wars, must be met by applying the general principles derived from the Gita and similar books, which can be of help only to a limited extent. Real help can come only from our endeavours and struggles.


He who gives up action falls. He who gives up only the reward rises. But renunciation of fruit in no way means indifference to the result. In regard to every action one must know the result that is expected to follow, the means thereto, and the capacity for it. He who, being thus equipped, is without desire for the result, and is yet wholly engrossed in the due fulfilment of the task before him, is said to have renounced the fruit of his action.


Let it be granted, that according to the letter of the Gita, it is possible to say that warfare is consistent with renunciation of fruit.

Thoughts?

 

[superluminal]

It sounds emminently reasonable. I find the third paragraph and the final sentence to be a bit cryptic. I have a reading of it, but I can see a number of intents.

 

[S.A.M.]

Gandhi had a long journey from the anglicised lawyer in South Africa to the Mahatma in India. He arrived at his view of the world through studying religion and with his "experiments with truth"

These are some of his observations on nonviolence before he finally realised that to be truly nonviolent, one has to embrace total selflessness.

I was a little surprised by these comments and I am trying to understand how he related a nonviolent approach to war.

 

[superluminal]

Allright. What do I make of this:

He who gives up action falls. He who gives up only the reward rises.

One must continue to act, but to do so without the promise of reward. Yes? Very noble and selfless. Altruistic even.

But renunciation of fruit in no way means indifference to the result.

I expect no reward, but the result of my actions is the very reason I do them and care about them. Yes?

In regard to every action one must know the result that is expected to follow, the means thereto, and the capacity for it.

You must be fully cognizant of what your action entails for you and others, and it's consequences. Si?

He who, being thus equipped, is without desire for the result, and is yet wholly engrossed in the due fulfilment of the task before him, is said to have renounced the fruit of his action.

I again have no expectation of reward, but if I care not even for the result of my actions, and just robotically perform them, I have "renounced the fruit".

Here I have a conflict with what he says:

"But renunciation of fruit in no way means indifference to the result"

because just above, he seems to be saying that "renunciation of fruit" means a disregard for the result. See?

Let it be granted, that according to the letter of the Gita, it is possible to say that warfare is consistent with renunciation of fruit.

That little confusion I have above leaves me unable to make much sense of that sentence.

 

[S.A.M.]

Perhaps he differentiates between the fruit for the individual (personal gain) versus results of the effort?

 

[superluminal]

Perhaps he differentiates between the fruit for the individual (personal gain) versus results of the effort?

Perhaps. That would clarify it somewhat.

 

[Baron Max]

Thoughts?

Gandhi spoke and preached of non-violence, yet his very methods threatened the entire nation of India!

And interestingly, look at India today ....is it really any better than it was before Gandhi came along? How many Indians were starving to death before versus now? How many Indians died of diseases then versus now?

Really, how much better is Indian now than before?

Oh, I know you're going to say some psycho-babble about "freedom", but is freedom so important when you watch your children starve to death?

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

Gandhi spoke and preached of non-violence, yet his very methods threatened the entire nation of India!

And interestingly, look at India today ....is it really any better than it was before Gandhi came along? How many Indians were starving to death before versus now? How many Indians died of diseases then versus now?

Really, how much better is Indian now than before?

Oh, I know you're going to say some psycho-babble about "freedom", but is freedom so important when you watch your children starve to death?

Baron Max

Quite right Baron, freedom means nothing when people are being killed or are starving.

 

[oreodont]

Non-violence and violence' are difficult to define. Is it non-violence to not physically fight oppression, women treated as objects, starvaton, disease?... or are those very things a form of violence.

I'm not a fan of Ghandi. India didn't need independence but a social and cultural revolution. Ghandi was just one small variable among many but his attitude helped to condemn 3 generations of hundreds of millions of Indians to poverty. Ghandi meant well but as the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Fortunately India today is finally breaking out of the cycle of starvation and disease. India and China are going to spearhead science and technology for most of the 21st century.

 

[Baron Max]

Quite right Baron, freedom means nothing when people are being killed or are starving.

And Indians are still being killed and they're still starving. What did Gandhi actually accomplish for the people of India?

In fact, had there been no Gandhi, it's entirely likely that the British would have/could have brought prosperity to the nation in much the same way they did for Hong Kong and Singapore, as well as other areas of the world.

But still, as for Gandhi preaching non-violence, that's a crock! His methods were actually threatening to the entire way of life of India and all Indians, as well as the very lives of Indians. It was years before India was anything but a nasty place live, and die at a young age! In fact, most of India is still in horrid conditions, and people are dying of horrid diseases that the west has eradicated decades ago.

No, I don't think Gandhi did any real favors for the people of India.

Baron Max

 

[Baron Max]

Fortunately India today is finally breaking out of the cycle of starvation and disease.

Interesting that you say that. Do you have any evidence of that? Because I just read an article in either the paper or in National Geo that India is in dire situations with regard to disease and starvation. Yet you say they're breaking out of it? How so? Let's see some evidence of what you say.

India and China are going to spearhead science and technology for most of the 21st century.

Is that a joke?? Both nations, as well as most of the world, are lagging behind the west by decades, if not more. And "spearhead"??? ...LOL! Almost everything they're doing is using technology developed in the west ...and in some cases stolen from western companies or nations!

India is second only to Mexico in the extend and the horrors of their sluts!!

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

India didn't need independence but a social and cultural revolution.

I'm guessing you have never lived under occupation.

 

[Baron Max]

I'm guessing you have never lived under occupation.

The Germans and the Japanese did, and now they're vital and prosperous and free nations of the world. Amazing, huh?

If Gandhi hadn't fucked things up for the Indians, they, too, might be enjoying the same prosperous lifestyle as the Germans and the Japanese.

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

The Germans and the Japanese did, and now they're vital and prosperous and free nations of the world. Amazing, huh?

If Gandhi hadn't fucked things up for the Indians, they, too, might be enjoying the same prosperous lifestyle as the Germans and the Japanese.

Baron Max

The Germans and Japanese were occupied for 200 years? By whom? And when did they declare they preferred occupation over freedom?

 

[nietzschefan]

Quite right Baron, freedom means nothing when people are being killed or are starving.

bullshit. Better to be dead with an empty stomach than to live - a fat slave.

 

[S.A.M.]

bullshit. Better to be dead with an empty stomach than a fat slave.

I doubt anyone would extend that belief to their children. Would you?

 

[nietzschefan]

I doubt anyone would extend that belief to their children. Would you?

Yes I would. I teach resistance to controlling power whenever possible. Didn't Gandhi teach the same thing and nearly die a few times because of an empty stomach.

 

[lightgigantic]

Musings on the Bhagwad Gita:

‘No one has attained his goal without action. Even men like Janaka attained salvation through action. If even I were lazily to cease working, the world would perish. How much more necessary then for the people at large to engage in action ?

Many things which we look upon as non-violent will, perhaps, be considered violent by future generations. To look upon philosophies of the past to obtain direct answers to all the questions that arise from day to day, would not be desirable even if it were possible; for, in that case, there would be nothing like progress or discovery for mankind.

what is that progress?

do problems arise because we are duty bound to reinvent solutions or because we are habituated to use things in any way of a million or more inappropriate ways?

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: My dear Uddhava, a person bereft of intelligence first falsely identifies himself with the material body and mind, and when such false knowledge arises within one's consciousness, material passion, the cause of great suffering, pervades the mind, which by nature is situated in goodness. Then the mind, contaminated by passion, becomes absorbed in making and changing many plans for material advancement. Thus, by constantly thinking of the modes of material nature, a foolish person is afflicted with unbearable material desires.

IOW solving things in the mode of passion (rajas) is a source of problems

Our difficulties at present, such as world wars, must be met by applying the general principles derived from the Gita and similar books, which can be of help only to a limited extent. Real help can come only from our endeavours and struggles.

according to BG, this is the peace formula

BG 5.29 A person in full consciousness of Me, knowing Me to be the ultimate beneficiary of all sacrifices and austerities, the Supreme Lord of all planets and demigods, and the benefactor and well-wisher of all living entities, attains peace from the pangs of material miseries.

the endeavor for peace is successful only when applied along these lines

He who gives up action falls. He who gives up only the reward rises. But renunciation of fruit in no way means indifference to the result. In regard to every action one must know the result that is expected to follow, the means thereto, and the capacity for it. He who, being thus equipped, is without desire for the result, and is yet wholly engrossed in the due fulfilment of the task before him, is said to have renounced the fruit of his action.

sounds like a description of performance off duty in the mode of goodness (sattva), which while certainly more elevating than passion and ignorance (rajas and tamas) is still nonetheless an aspect of avidya (ignorance)

However, we have no business being aloof from material things (sattva) controlling material things (rajas) or negating material things (tamas)

our business is simply to act with the understanding that god is the absolute controller, enjoyer and friend of all living entities

engagement in any other business simply causes problems

Let it be granted, that according to the letter of the Gita, it is possible to say that warfare is consistent with renunciation of fruit.

Thoughts?

certainly

Work done as a sacrifice for Visnu has to be performed; otherwise work causes bondage in this material world. Therefore, O son of Kunti, perform your prescribed duties for His satisfaction, and in that way you will always remain free from bondage.

The question is why do we act (whether it be in activities of violence or nonviolence)

If we are acting due to an ego centered world view (or an extension of that ego- view - eg my family, my country, etc) its a cause of bondage and if we act in a god centered fashion it becomes a cause of liberation