Ahimsa —King. Nonviolence
is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon
of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man. Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats
away its vital unity. Hate destroys a man's sense of values and his objectivity. It causes
him to describe the beautiful as ugly and the ugly as beautiful, and to confuse the true
with the false and the false with the true. How do we respond to this ancient governance of violence? Two wise humans in the 20th century came to the same answer: non-violence, Gandhi and King. (Don’t dismiss Gandhi and King for their imperfections; very wise humans aren’t perfect just as very talented humans aren’t either—viz. Mozart and Shakespeare). Simple? Well, yes and no. The violent of course view non-violence as at best simplistic and at worst dangerously naïve ("We live in a violent world; we must fight fire with fire…"). Non-violent resistance implies the very opposite of weakness.
Defiance combined with non-retaliatory acceptance of repression from one's opponents is
active, not passive. It requires strength, and there is nothing automatic or intuitive
about the resoluteness required for using non-violent methods in political struggle and
the quest for Truth. I am neither smart enough nor wise enough to figure out what to do—and how to do it—in response to these people who are driving the world to destruction. Consider this graph, which shows the number of war-deaths by century:
Note the logarithmic increase. Question: As you survey the world now, can you see ANY reason why the bar for the 21st century will not continue upward? Ponder the political, religious, commercial, and scientific leadership of the world now, and ask yourself: Does the behavior of any of those people give any indication that the outcome of their leadership will be any less bloody than that of the leadership of previous centuries? I cannot find any such indication, a result that, if correct, means we are facing a planetary blood-letting on an unprecedented scale. 200,000,000 war-dead in the 20th century is a horrific statistic. Given the exponential nature of the graph and the endemic lack of wisdom on the part of our present leaders we can only assume a 21st-century number that is beyond horrific, indeed beyond language. Somewhere, younger, smarter, and potentially wiser humans must give thought to the problem and find new versions of old answers, just as King did vis-à-vis Gandhi. In a huge, poor country, Gandhi, faced with the army and resources of the greatest empire in world history, came up with a solution that worked. Through ahimsa (non-violence), he achieved independence for India. King, modeling his revolution on Gandhi’s philosophy, pulled off a similar miracle, bringing an end to the long-standing legal implements of American racism. Presented wisely, the philosophy of action called "non-violence" is powerful and, for many desperate humans, as irresistible as an oasis in the desert. Where is the young, thoughtful Muslim infected to the point of boundlessly optimistic non-violence by the thoughts and deeds of Gandhi and King? Where is the similarly infected young, thoughtful American? Or Chinese? Or Indian? We
have flown the air like birds and swum the sea like fishes, but have yet to learn the
simple act of walking the earth like brothers. There is no way we can defeat these people, our rulers, on their own terms with their own weapons. Not only are we outnumbered, we are wholly out-armed. They can escalate to any level of violence they deem necessary to maintain the status quo (meaning, their world of violence): start with billyclubs and truncheons, go to tasers and water cannons, then tear gas, then tanks and mortars and landmines, then bombs and bombs and more bombs. What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans and the
homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the
holy name of liberty or democracy? If we let them define the conflict as one of force, they will always win. Gandhi knew this. King knew this. The way of ahimsa, non-violence, is the only way. Because it is the only way that can work for us. Because it is truly subversive: the violent, remember, scorn the non-violent as cowards, not worthy of attention (at least at first, until our numbers grow). Because it is the only way that can change the world. To respond to violence with violence only produces more violence, no matter how good the initial intentions (viz. the French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution). The first, and in many ways the hardest, step to non-violence is within. It is the step that must be taken by one, then by many, if we are to not merely survive but survive and thrive. You must be the change you want to see in the world. Literally
speaking, ahimsa means non-violence. But to me it has much higher, infinitely higher
meaning. It means that you may not offend anybody; you may not harbor uncharitable
thought, even in connection with those who consider your enemies. To one who follows this
doctrine, there are no enemies. A man who believes in the efficacy of this doctrine finds
in the ultimate stage, when he is about to reach the goal, the whole world at his feet. If
you express your love- Ahimsa-in such a manner that it impresses itself indelibly upon
your so called enemy, he must return that love. Once one
assumes an attitude of intolerance, there is no knowing where it will take one.
Intolerance, someone has said, is violence to the intellect and hatred is violence to the
heart. Nonviolence
is not a garment to be put on and off at will. Its seat is in the heart, and it must be an
inseparable part of our very being. Victory
attained by violence is tantamount to a defeat, for it is momentary. Injustice
anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Violence
as a way of achieving racial justice is both impractical and immoral. It is impractical
because it is a descending spiral ending in destruction for all. It is immoral because it
seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate
rather than to convert. Violence is immoral because it thrives on hatred rather than love. Nonviolence
is absolute commitment to the way of love. Love is not emotional bash; it is not empty
sentimentalism. It is the active outpouring of one's whole being into the being of
another. And the
leaders of the world today talk eloquently about peace. Every time we drop our bombs in
North Vietnam, President Johnson talks eloquently about peace. What is the problem? They
are talking about peace as a distant goal, as an end we seek, but one day we must come to
see that peace is not merely a distant goal we seek, but that it is a means by which we
arrive at that goal. We must pursue peaceful ends through peaceful means. In
struggling for human dignity the oppressed people of the world must not allow themselves
to become bitter or indulge in hate campaigns. To retaliate with hate and bitterness would
do nothing but intensify the hate in the world. Along the way of life, someone must have
sense enough and morality enough to cut off the chain of hate. This can be done only by
projecting the ethics of love to the center of our lives. More: More:
|
| We
love to get mail from our readers. |
Magellan's Log Copyright ©
2006 Texas Chapbook Press
www.texaschapbookpress.com