The Gandhi Project by Nashid Fareed-Ma’at

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 42, excerpt from From Yeravda

Mandir, 1932, Chapter II: Ahimsa Or Love.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 297, excerpt from Harijan, July 8,

1939.

CHAPTER THREE

Walking the Path of No Harm

“without ahimsa it is not possible to seek and find Truth.

Ahimsa and Truth are so intertwined that it is practically

impossible to disentangle and separate them. ... Nevertheless

ahimsa is the means; Truth is the end. Means to be means

must always be within our reach, and so ahimsa is our supreme

duty. If we take care of the means, we are bound to reach the

end sooner or later.”

(bold emphasis mine)

“I have repeatedly admitted my imperfections. I am no

example of perfect ahimsa. I am evolving.”

Ahimsa. Ahimsa. Ahimsa...

Ahimsa is an essential component of Satyagraha. As Gandhi stated in the opening quote,

it is the means through which Satyagrahis approach the goal of Truth. Some aspects of ahimsa

are less tangible than a specific road to Truth, such as Hinduism as Gandhi’s specific religious

path. But in many religious and spiritual paths we can find elements of ahimsa; and for those

without such a path, ahimsa can be incorporated into how we live. Although ahimsa and Truth

are interwoven, we should not confuse the two as identical. As much as the means and the end

(goal) are part of the same journey, there are certain elements of the means that must be

embraced as means to reach the end of the journey.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 349.

FROM DEFINITIONS TO LIVING AHIMSA

Ahimsa has had a place in Indian religions since ancient times. It has evolved in

meaning within and among different religious groups. The Sanskrit word ahimsa has two

components: himsa, which is often translated as “violence” or “injury;” and a which is often

translated as “no” or “not.” The combination of the two components makes ahimsa the negation

of violence or injury. Himsa is regarded as a part of life, even for those who live ahimsa,

because it is virtually impossible to live without killing other beings. Even for those who have a

vegetarian diet and completely peaceful lifestyle, the act of walking can result in a human killing

countless unseen microorganisms with each step. As Gandhi explained:

“We are helpless mortals caught in the conflagration of himsa.

The saying that life lives on life has a deep meaning in it. Man

cannot for a moment live without consciously or unconsciously

committing outward himsa. The very fact of his living -- eating,

drinking, and moving about -- necessarily involves some himsa,

destruction of life, be it ever so minute. A votary of ahimsa

therefore remains true to his faith if the spring of all his actions is

compassion, if he shuns to the best of his ability the destruction of

the tiniest creature, tries to save it, and thus incessantly strives to

be free from the deadly coil of himsa. He will be constantly

growing in self-restraint and compassion, but he can never become

entirely free from outward himsa.”

The path of ahimsa examines the extent to which one partakes in the cycles of violence

(destruction) that are part of existence in this world. The follower of ahimsa will seek to reduce,

as much as possible, one’s participation in such violence. This has particular importance in

affecting the state of the world in the context of karma (cause and effect). To put it in very

simple terms: the more violence that exists in the world, the more this “effect” will “cause” other

violence in the world, even if this dynamic is not realized by those unfamiliar with this spiritual

law. Thus, if we seek to reduce the amount of violence in the world, the reduction of our acts of

violence is important to reaching this aim. It also follows that if we seek to have more peace in

the world (which goes beyond the mere elimination of violence), the law of karma encourages us

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 41, excerpt from From Yeravda

Mandir, 1932, Chapter II: Ahimsa Or Love.

to manifest such peace since the “effect” of more peace will “cause” more peace to exist in this

world. It is the study of this principle that has driven students of ahimsa to explore what it is

beyond its most basic sense.

Ahimsa, in its most elementary sense, includes not killing or causing physical violence

and injury. Gandhi echoed this sentiment when he wrote:

“Not to hurt any living thing is no doubt a part of ahimsa. But it is

its least expression.”

Different religious and spiritual groups varied in how they extended this principle from one’s

self to other humans, to animals, and some to all other beings in the universe. Some groups

further extended the principle beyond just physical acts to also include words, thoughts, and

deeds -- similar to the scope of Gandhi’s definition of violence. It is for this reason I prefer the

term “no harm” as a translation for ahimsa, particularly since the words “violence” and “injury”

in today’s context tend to emphasize only physical and property damage.

Yet some “spiritual scientists” expanded the study of ahimsa even further: to explore

what it means to live ahimsa beyond the negation of harm. Even Gandhi’s experiments in

Satyagraha included searching for more affirmative aspects of what ahimsa is when it goes

beyond the abstinence of violence. This brought Gandhi and these spiritual scientists to the

reality of love. Not love as perceived within the paradoxical parameters of passions as the

opposite of hatred, but love as a pervading reality beyond the reach of passions and attachments.

In this manner, it is not merely enough to refrain from killing and harming other beings.

Ahimsa, in this fuller sense, requires an affirming embrace of other beings that works toward a

collective benefit. Thus, similar to seeking Truth and purity, the path of ahimsa requires:

selflessness, sacrifice, honest and unending effort, carefulness, courage and fearlessness,

humility, introspection, forgiveness, sincerity, non-possession, and more.

But Gandhi’s embrace of love was not unconditional. He wrote:

“I accept the interpretation of ahimsa, namely, that it is not merely

a negative state of harmlessness but it is a positive state of love, of

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 161, excerpt from Young India,

August 25, 1920.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 161, excerpt from Young India,

August 25, 1920.

doing good even to the evil-doer. But it does not mean helping the

evil-doer to continue the wrong or tolerating it by passive

acquiescence. On the contrary, love, the active state of ahimsa,

requires you to resist the wrong-doer by dissociating yourself from

him even though it may offend him or injure him physically.”

Love does not include a surrender of one’s values as informed by seeking Truth. In fact, love is

an active fulfillment of these values. And the purity of love dictates that seekers of Truth do not

support or cooperate with evil, destructiveness, or harm. I am reminded of what a mystic once

told me: that it only takes one stain to dirty a clean cloth. One of the lessons I derived from this

parable is that those seeking or living purity must be ever-vigilant in keeping their “cloth” clean

-- this includes what we tolerate, accept, and support. Later in the book, I will explore in detail

how Gandhi approached the process of non-cooperation as a last resort after other possible

cooperative means were exhausted. But know that his approach to non-cooperation focused on

self-suffering and sacrifice as ways of not inflicting harm on others, even if the removal of his

cooperation left others open to being harmed by their own actions.

In the same vein that love (in Satyagraha) requires us not to cooperate with those who

commit harm, it requires us to forgive and embrace those who turn away from committing harm.

To continue the above Gandhi quote, he gave the following example:

“Thus if my son lives a life of shame, I may not help him to do so

by continuing to support him; on the contrary, my love for him

requires me to withdraw all support from him although it may

mean even his death. And the same love imposes on me the

obligation of welcoming him to my bosom when he repents. But I

may not by physical force compel my son to become good.”

Gandhi and other followers of ahimsa accept that in this world himsa and evil exist, even as they

work toward the elimination of these. They accept that people are free to commit himsa and, in

all honesty, cannot be compelled to not commit such acts. Compulsion often creates another set

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 28.

of harms which is contrary to the way of ahimsa, and “a lesser of two evils” approach to benefit

has no place in ahimsa: we must refrain from committing all harm and evil regardless of our

intentions. The challenge for us is to live the fullness of pure ahimsa, for as Gandhi said, “When

such Ahimsa becomes all-embracing, it transforms everything it touches. There is no limit to its

power.”

For those who may doubt, even slightly, this premise I would encourage you to search

the large expanse of spiritual, religious, philosophical, and anecdotal writings that address the

transformative, far-reaching impacts of love -- especially pure love.

One of the challenges of living love is becoming aware of and addressing the imprint of

violence. Consider a child who has been fortunate to never be a victim of violence: such a child

may be open to a wider range of experiences, explorative, courageous, less inhibited, and

possibly happy. But if that child experiences even a single act of violence these traits may be

diminished forever, especially if no healing process occurs. With every subsequent experience

that child faces, she or he may be haunted by the possibility of harm and be less inclined to

engage experiences in which the potential for harm is evident or cannot be clearly deciphered.

The child may be less trusting, more fearful, more defensively closed-minded, and bound to

suffering -- often without realizing that these developed traits are a lasting imprint from violence.

The child may also carry these traits and tendencies into adulthood, sometimes crafting the

fundamentals of her or his adult identity around these traits and tendencies -- a regular

occurrence in many modern societies.

The imprint of violence also affects those who inflict violence upon others. An example

is the significant portion of modern American social dialogue addressing the lingering effects

war has on soldiers. Many soldiers exposed to combat struggle with a range of issues, such as:

responding to non-threatening situations with aggression and violence, guilt, self-destructive

behaviors (i.e. substance abuse, suicide), seeking power and control by oppressing and / or

harming others (i.e. abusive relationships), and more. Often these issues are more profound for

those who have participated in or witnessed extreme or repeated violence. There is much

wisdom in the saying, “No one experiences harm without being harmed.” And just because

modern social codes have made experiencing certain harms commonplace (i.e. rudeness, hurtful

words) does not mean we are not affected by such harms.

The imprint of violence poses a major barrier to living love and extending acts of love to

others. The imprint of violence is often, in part, a factor in why there is resistance to love and

the benefits that accompany it. Gandhi sought to address these challenges through compassion.

Various religions and spiritual traditions emphasize particular aspects of compassion, but at the

heart of compassion is an acknowledgment of the sufferings of others with a sincere wish to

alleviate such suffering. For Satyagrahis, this wish is carried forth by serving others with

beneficent actions. Gandhi extended this even to those who considered him an enemy: that as he

engaged in efforts to transform those who committed wrong (destruction), he looked to see how

their suffering may have influenced them to commit harmful acts. In Satyagraha, the work of

compassion goes beyond just treating individual suffering, particularly in societies engulfed in

cycles of violence. It would be incomplete to merely treat people for smoke inhalation if they

live in a burning house. Even if you alleviate the harms of smoke inhalation, they are still at risk

for a multitude of other harms such as being burned, having the burning house collapse upon

them, and possibly suffering from smoke inhalation again. Gandhi realized that the scope of

compassion must treat not only individual suffering but also address communal and systemic

causes of suffering so that individuals may not only be free form specific instances of suffering

but be free from suffering altogether. And when one is free from suffering, she or he is more

likely to be receptive to love and the ways of ahimsa.

Awareness of the imprint of violence also challenges us to exercise great care with our

own actions toward others. For those who are suffering or have experienced suffering (which

includes most people in modern America, if not much of the world), a single act of harm can

result in such persons engaging in “defensive” reactions to prevent further harm. These

reactions, in their intent to not be harmed, may even reject subsequent acts of love; and there

may be little that can be done to reach a person engaged in such a reactive state. Instead, if we

engage such persons with unending love, we avoid committing harmful acts, even if

unintentional, that put these persons in a defensive reactive state. Also, the transformative power

of love may transform persons in such states to abandon them and be open to love and its

benefits. The strength of unending love, demonstrated in the living example of a person who

lives such love, can teach others how to be strong and thus attain the benefits of love.

Webster’s New World Dictionary: Third College Edition, 1994, p. 449.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 155, excerpt from Young India, June

2, 1920.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 93, excerpt from Harijan, October

13, 1940.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 93. excerpt from Harijan, October

13, 1940.

I use the word “opponent” because it reflects that although Satyagrahis have no enemies, there may be

people who are opposed to Satyagrahis and the work of Satyagraha. But Satyagrahis approach adversarial relations

with those who oppose them without the hatred or ill-will people usually have for enemies.

I HAVE NO ENEMIES, BUT I MAY HAVE OPPONENTS

Webster’s Dictionary defines enemy as “a person who hates another, and wishes or tries to injure

him.”

It should be clear by now that Gandhi, based on ahimsa, would not hold anyone in this

regard. He explicitly said, “It is against my religion to regard any one as an enemy”

and that “In

the dictionary of the non-violent there is no such word as an external enemy.”

As lofty as these

virtues may seem, they are based in a logic he challenges all Satyagrahis to not only accept but

meditate and reflect upon:

“[A Satyagrahi] will believe that no [human] is intentionally

wicked, that there is no [human] but is gifted with the faculty to

discriminate between right and wrong, and that if that faculty were

to be fully developed, it would surely mature into non-violence.”

Thus, Gandhi held as an objective in all adversarial interactions to address the moral faculties of

those who committed wrongs that they may mature to embrace ahimsa (non-violence). One of

the aims of transforming others is to have them become more morally mature. We are less likely

to achieve this aim if we engage them in typical enemy-oriented ways, a lesson that seems to be

forgotten by some in the community organizing, peace, and social justice fields. Think about it:

is name calling and personality-based confrontations likely to support the moral maturity of

those who commit destructive acts? Or is it more likely to reinforce their (immoral) stance in

destruction as they defend themselves from such attacks?

One step in fulfilling the objective of moral transformation and maturity is to see things

as our opponents do.

To be clear, this does not entail conceiving our opponents’ perspectives

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 193 - 194, excerpt from Young

India, March 19, 1925.

from how we would fabricate them: for example, it is not to imagine the thoughts of a war-

monger from my negative views of war. Instead, the challenge is to see why a person who

wages war does so for their reasons, not my construction of their reasons as influenced by my

values. Gandhi acknowledged this is no easy task:

“I know that this requires a detached state of mind, and it is a state

very difficult to reach. Nevertheless for a Satyagrahi it is

absolutely essential. Three-fourths of the miseries and

misunderstandings in the world will disappear, if we step into the

shoes of our adversaries and understand their standpoint. We will

then agree with our adversaries quickly or think of them

charitably.”

If our opponents’ perspective proves to be right, then Satyagraha obligates us to acknowledge

such and adjust our stance and actions appropriately. If our opponents’ perspective is flawed and

we realize how and why it is flawed, we must work to have these flaws corrected in ways that do

not create harm. Remember, compulsion often creates other sets of harms even if for “good”

intentions. It is for this reason Gandhi emphasized compassion and patience as ways of

engaging opponents who hold to wrong. He usually explored if there were ways cooperation

could be utilized to address these flaws, including being a living example of one who has shed

the flaws and lives a correct (Truth-aligned) approach. Such cooperation may also include

working with one’s opponents to address social conditions: for example, working with criminals

who steal to survive to create job opportunities and a more equitable distribution of wealth so

that they no longer steal from the community. But if cooperative ways failed to address the

flaws, then Gandhi embraced non-cooperation. This sometimes included embracing self-

suffering as a way to highlight the flaws of his opponents. When embraced with purity, the

willingness to suffer for others’ wrongs (flaws) can be a powerful way to have others realize

their flaws. And Gandhi held the following as a guiding principle: one who is able to fully

mature their ability to discriminate between right and wrong will embrace ahimsa as a way of

life.

I want to emphasize the importance of being a living example of the peace and beauty of

ahimsa. Too often, many with good intentions fall short of cultivating ahimsa within themselves,

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 349.

and the beauty and peace they proclaim to be part of the ways of ahimsa are absent in their lives.

To give a metaphor: what’s the point of being a saint if the life of a saint is as miserable as being

a heathen? But if that saint reflects an unconquerable happiness, even in the midst of great

suffering, this genuine happiness will be noted by others as something the saint has that is sacred

and worthy. Some will be moved beyond merely noticing this sacred something to a curiosity

about what it is. And, particularly among those who have ongoing beneficial contact with this

saint, some will develop the wish to also attain this sacred something so they too may acquire a

genuine unconquerable happiness. The transformative effect of this saint will be tied very much

to the saint’s purity. This dynamic speaks, in part, to the often quoted Gandhi remark: “be the

change you seek to be.” That when Satyagrahis mature their ahimsa approach to the point that

they emanate the beauty and peace of ahimsa, this will contribute greatly to transforming their

opponents and others -- even if the transformation moves steadily ahead a snail’s pace. But

usually it moves faster, especially when Satyagrahis more fully mature ahimsa in their lives with

purity.

For Gandhi, there was another factor that informed his approach to supposed “enemies:”

the unity of all life. He explained:

“Then again, because underlying ahimsa is the unity of all life, the

error of one cannot but affect all, and hence man cannot be wholly

free from himsa. So long as he continues to be a social being, he

cannot but participate in the himsa that the very existence of

society involves.”

We live individual lives in a collective (planetary or universal) experience; and for more

community-oriented societies, we live communal lives in a larger collective experience. This

makes the actions of others relevant to our lives: that even if their actions do not have a direct

influence on my life, it does affect my experience -- what is happening on the experiential plane

I presently exist within. Lack of awareness of this dynamic may be influenced by the

individualistic conditioning of modern societies, but a multitude of religious and spiritual

teachings acknowledge this collective dynamic of planetary and universal experience. There are

lineages of spiritual practices that seek to cultivate the awareness of this dynamic among

aspirants. These practices often use extensive meditative reflection to cultivate one’s

observation beyond the limitations of one’s ego. And perhaps for Gandhi, it was his countless

hours of meditation that allowed him to realize this reality for himself.

Therefore, there is a clear benefit to transforming the moral flaws of others that their lives

may contribute to a more beneficial experience for us all. In the same way the imprint of

violence may resist love (and its benefits), an overall experience of violence may do the same.

All of our individual and communal lives contribute to shaping the overall experience that

engulfs all of our lives. The realization of this connection is a strong factor in why Gandhi

refused to regard anyone as his enemy. In the context of the unity of all life, we are all on the

same team contributing to our collective experience, even if we don’t realize we’re all wearing

the same uniform. And if we come to realize the more subtle yet profound impact our collective

experience has on the more recognizable components of our individual and collective lives, we

would most likely cease to inflict harm upon others for our “supposed benefit.”

To examine this dynamic on a societal level, a little boy who goes around hugging trees

will be looked down upon in a society that glorifies violence and aggression. There will be less

acceptance and support for this little boy when the larger society is engaged in activities that

glorify violence, such as watching TV shows and films where acts of violence are made more

common than saying hello to a stranger. In the collective ignorance of this societal dynamic,

many would not even question why they are less comfortable around a boy who hugs trees than a

boy who plays with toy guns. But if the societal dynamic was reversed, and most people in the

society hugged trees instead of watching violent media, the society would be more supportive

and receptive of the tree-hugging boy. This support would be manifested by the collective

societal experience that welcomes and encourages the little boy hugging trees as well as the

individual acts of people who live lives that appreciate the hugging of trees.

The unity of all life is affected by universal laws. One of these laws is the law of love.

“The law of love will work, just as the law of gravitation will

work, whether we accept it or not. Just as a scientist will work

wonders out of various applications of the law of nature, even so a

man who applies the law of love with scientific precision can work

greater wonders. For the force of non-violence is infinitely more

wonderful and subtle than the material forces of nature, like, for

instance, electricity. The [humans] who discovered for us the law