The Means is the only End.
(an email to some friends on non-violence.)
satyagraha is way beyond a dogmatic position on the use or rejection of physical force, and to focus on just that make it a reductionist discourse. In this respect Krishna in the Mahabaratha and Bruce Lee offer more fluid interpretations of a timeless philosophy. One, (mythic or otherwise) the instigator of the mother of all wars and the other an icon of focussed aggression. to clarify, i don't define define "violence" on the basis of physical force but on the basis of where from the action comes. If it arises from the fragmentation-the illusion of separateness, then even the seemingly noblest of acts is "violence" . And actions from the transcending of this duality is "NON-violence" even if it sometimes causes bloodshed.
satyagraha is not a strategy either. not a means to achieve a desired end. On the contrary, the means is its only end. There can be no metrics to measure if it 'works' , coz there are no expectations of desirable outcomes. Its a state of complete surrender to the larger intelligence that runs our lives (call it "god" if you may). Thats what makes it so difficult to practice it. The problem with movies like 'Lage Raho' or even some of Gandhi's own writings is that it makes it sound like some tool or a tactic to obtain what one wants. This is a gross distortion.
drums, if the movements you mentioned, with all due respect to them, also embrace it in the same spirit, then its not satyagraha at all in my opinion. I might be far removed from ground realities to say for sure, but IF the NBA embraces "non-violence" as a strategy to stop the dam, and expects/desires that the tactic 'works', the same with the Bhopali's as well, if it is being used as a bridge to to try and get their list of demands fulfilled, then am wary of calling it satyagraha. Am not saying that these aspirations are unjustified, but only clarifying some of the meanings i attribute to these words.
Also wanted to point out there are significant differences in our articulation of what the "problem" is. to me it seems like you pin it down to corporations, pollution, caste discrimination, bad politicians etc (correct me plz if thr is mistake here). i pin it down to fragmentation, which automatically results in the ego (hence fear, discrimination etc) and the institutions are mega-structures built on this foundation. while this needs to be tackled at all levels, i feel it needs to be done as whole human beings and not segmental firefighters. The stereotypical pacifist has to grow over his fear and reluctance, and the activist over the rage and righteousness.
There were also some observations on anger being the slow flame that motivates. while am not in favour of suppressing it, it too is a reaction against the what is and hence not constructive. where there is surrender anger is not.
(an email to some friends on non-violence.)
satyagraha is way beyond a dogmatic position on the use or rejection of physical force, and to focus on just that make it a reductionist discourse. In this respect Krishna in the Mahabaratha and Bruce Lee offer more fluid interpretations of a timeless philosophy. One, (mythic or otherwise) the instigator of the mother of all wars and the other an icon of focussed aggression. to clarify, i don't define define "violence" on the basis of physical force but on the basis of where from the action comes. If it arises from the fragmentation-the illusion of separateness, then even the seemingly noblest of acts is "violence" . And actions from the transcending of this duality is "NON-violence" even if it sometimes causes bloodshed.
satyagraha is not a strategy either. not a means to achieve a desired end. On the contrary, the means is its only end. There can be no metrics to measure if it 'works' , coz there are no expectations of desirable outcomes. Its a state of complete surrender to the larger intelligence that runs our lives (call it "god" if you may). Thats what makes it so difficult to practice it. The problem with movies like 'Lage Raho' or even some of Gandhi's own writings is that it makes it sound like some tool or a tactic to obtain what one wants. This is a gross distortion.
drums, if the movements you mentioned, with all due respect to them, also embrace it in the same spirit, then its not satyagraha at all in my opinion. I might be far removed from ground realities to say for sure, but IF the NBA embraces "non-violence" as a strategy to stop the dam, and expects/desires that the tactic 'works', the same with the Bhopali's as well, if it is being used as a bridge to to try and get their list of demands fulfilled, then am wary of calling it satyagraha. Am not saying that these aspirations are unjustified, but only clarifying some of the meanings i attribute to these words.
Also wanted to point out there are significant differences in our articulation of what the "problem" is. to me it seems like you pin it down to corporations, pollution, caste discrimination, bad politicians etc (correct me plz if thr is mistake here). i pin it down to fragmentation, which automatically results in the ego (hence fear, discrimination etc) and the institutions are mega-structures built on this foundation. while this needs to be tackled at all levels, i feel it needs to be done as whole human beings and not segmental firefighters. The stereotypical pacifist has to grow over his fear and reluctance, and the activist over the rage and righteousness.
There were also some observations on anger being the slow flame that motivates. while am not in favour of suppressing it, it too is a reaction against the what is and hence not constructive. where there is surrender anger is not.
posted by naveen at
1:16 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home