My Brief Critique on Ahimsa (i.e. non-violence and non-resistance)

Originally posted by Janus Marius
I have to say, there's nothing noble in allowing harm to come to your wife and kids all in the name of an ideal is moral laziness. If a good man sits there and does nothing while evil works, is he still a good man?

In my book he isn't...unless he's mentally challenge or physically disable.

And that's more of not being able to help than not willing to help.

We judge people by the actions they can control to a certain extent. Sitting there and saying "I'm Gandhi" doesn't solve the problem of immediate danger to your family.

True. And it's obvious Gandhi had no notion of bloodshed, but he was a smart guy, and I'd bet anything that he knew that Ahimsa was the ONLY way to challenge the British. He couldn't fight them through force of arms. Hell, the guy may even have considered violence if it came to it.

Yeah, I agree Gandhi wasn't stupid but then again he was facing the British. Even if you see them as the bad guys the British have a sense of humanity in them. Gandhi knew that a non-violent approach was the only way he could persuade the British to leave.

If it would have been a someone else instead of the British (a more brutal and less humane enemy) you think Ahimsa would have work? Hell No! Gandhi would have been the first one to pick up a rifle and fight to the death.

Exactly.

Yeah, the approach works, but only against a certain foe.

😍 😍 😍

~DEARS .... 🙂 You can read upon the true nature of ahimsa ... For the PROTECTION of SELF, HUMANITY AND ALL SPECIES 🙂 .... If a lion kills a deer ... he is doing so because his spirit is innocent to the hurt ... and is doing so to protect .. feed his family ... instinct

~If a man enters your house and grabs your child ... you .. a.) kill the man ... and this mans own family ... own child feels the pain .... you descover the man was deathly poor and wanted to kidnap your child ... have you eliminated the problem? Has your child .. a young spirit learnt?

or b.) restrain the man ? ..... We all share one divine spirit ... we call this 'life' ... whatever religion / philosophy .... Ahimsa ... is a word to represent / describe the essence of our nature ... what all our spirits need to become eternally whole ... in harmony.

HURT = represents a sensation ... one our spirit dislikes / we dislike ... we are blessed with a hightend awareness of the true meaning of life ... which is LIFE .... our spirit tells us not to hurt ... do we listen?

~If there is a war .... you are a soldier ... you are walking through a forest and come across one enemy soldier .... face to face ... he has no gun .... WHAT do you do??? .... I personally couldnt ..... If i new nothing of ahimsa ... i would still experience a sensation of 'Gosh' ... listen too your spirit .... you walk away ... you smile .... / or you kill him and think .... gosh He Was Just Like Me ..... this is AHIMSA

When you see 'Non Violence' its not litoral .... okay dears 🙂 I am devoted to ahimsa ... but if I saw a child being hurt ... I would do everything to help the child .... I wouldnt fight the person causing such violence .... as what would be the point ..... i would be hit ... beaten myself .... i would not utter a word ... I might be forced to restrain the *person* .... Ahimsa - is about Humanity ....

ITS NOT ABOUT ACTION ... its about reaction ..... its deeper .... Ghandi new this 🙂 Martin Luther King new this .... Mother Teresa new this .... fight (strive) to SAVE, HELP, DEMONSTRATE .... NOT TO KILL .... 🙂

Please think my dears 🙂 Hurt - creates - Hurt .... The more people that realise it ... the less hurt .... our spirits .... world will be saved ... we will become one .... eternally whole 🙂

Much love x

Originally posted by WanderingDroid
Yeah, I agree Gandhi wasn't stupid but then again he was facing the British. Even if you see them as the bad guys the British have a sense of humanity in them. Gandhi knew that a non-violent approach was the only way he could persuade the British to leave.

If it would have been a someone else instead of the British (a more brutal and less humane enemy) you think Ahimsa would have work? Hell No! Gandhi would have been the first one to pick up a rifle and fight to the death.

I think it is a bit inaccurate to charactize Ghandi as "non-violent", and especially his tactics. Violence was at the core of his campaign for independence, just not as the aggressors. The purpose of his demonstrations was presciesly to get the British forces to overreact, and essentially shame his own and the British people into resisting such an oppressive rule. Violence was integral to why his tactics worked, if the British had not beaten him and his followers, there would have been little impetus for independence.

The comparison to the Nazis is less apt, but lets not ignore the resistance movements that engaged in sabatage and other things that crippled the Nazi war machine, without being inherently "violent".

Originally posted by inimalist
I think it is a bit inaccurate to charactize Ghandi as "non-violent", and especially his tactics. Violence was at the core of his campaign for independence, just not as the aggressors. The purpose of his demonstrations was presciesly to get the British forces to overreact, and essentially shame his own and the British people into resisting such an oppressive rule. Violence was integral to why his tactics worked, if the British had not beaten him and his followers, there would have been little impetus for independence.

The comparison to the Nazis is less apt, but lets not ignore the resistance movements that engaged in sabatage and other things that crippled the Nazi war machine, without being inherently "violent".

They didn't fight back, true, but they went out with the intention of provoking a violent reaction.

"Concerning nonviolence: It is criminal to teach a man not to defend himself, when he is the constant victim of brutal attacks. It is legal and lawful to own a shotgun or a rifle. We believe in obeying the law."

Originally posted by inimalist
They didn't fight back, true, but they went out with the intention of provoking a violent reaction.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Yeah, but I don't think Gandhi's crowd ever actually tried say that their non-violent tactics meant that there would be no violence on either side.

for sure, but I have a hard time labeling tactics that deliberatly set out to create violence as "non-violent"

Originally posted by inimalist
for sure, but I have a hard time labeling tactics that deliberatly set out to create violence as "non-violent"

Its more that I think there is a difference between tactics that promote non-violent protest (such as those in Egypt, where they weren't trying to shame the regime into collapse) vs Ghandi, who explicity set out to have violence done to him.

but tbh, depending on how we define violence, resistance at its core may be violent in nature

Originally posted by inimalist
for sure, but I have a hard time labeling tactics that deliberatly set out to create violence as "non-violent"

I don't see why. It's not as though they were showing anything that wasn't true or real, just bringing it to the fore.

of course they were. I'm not passing a judgement on Ghandi, simply saying that I don't think "non-violence" acutally articulates the point he was trying to make, especially considering his position required the violence of the british regieme

I believe the reason why we view things as such is because of our genes. We try not to follow what ends up following us. Violence is an automatic trigger because it is in our genes. And it all starts at the beginning when we were all a part of the circle of life that is survival.

We had to teach ourselves to be violent so that we could live. Throughout time though, we have evolved our intelligence as such that we could take out a planet with a simple press of a button. In the end, we took the circle of life for granted, and it had changed our perspective of life itself.

When we took survival for granted, we took violence for granted. Hence the reason people believe in growth.