Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 33

Thread: Satyagraha and Nonviolence

  1. #1
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Age
    73
    Posts
    321
    Rep Power
    0

    Satyagraha and Nonviolence

    Happy New year to you all. I just returned from India.

    Meaning of Mahatma Gandhi's wording “Satya graha " cannot just be nonviolence or Ahimsa. Satyagraha has to be more than Ahimsa. Ahimsa is generally seen as not intentionally inflicting physical pain or killing other living creatures. Gandhi was indeed influenced by his family who were vegetarians like most Hindu families. Gandhi went further, beyond the concept of Ahimsa. When he was in South Africa, he witnessed how the British treated him and fellow Indians and searched for an answer to fight the mighty British. It appears Russian author Tolstoy did influence him a great deal. He was also after Truth. Gandhi’s idea of rigorously seeking and practicing truth was much more than Ahimsa. By coining the word Satyagraha, Gandhi took the concept of non violence to a much higher level, it was not just a theory, and he started to put this in to action and forcefully practicing it. Satyagraha literally means “Truth in an aggressive action”. This truth in action drove the British out of India.
    Let me explain how I viewed this:

    I guess most Hindus think of nonviolence as not inflicting pain or killing any animals. Himsa is intentionally inflicting suffering on another living creature. There is no question this is indeed a noble thing to do. But I wonder how good is good enough to be violence free? How about intentionally killing some nuisance flies or mosquitoes? How do we explain animal sacrifice or Yagas in the ancient times? People could not be that barbaric then. How did Pandavas justify in killing Kauravas or Rama justified in killing Ravana? I know these people were mean violent people and had to blown away from the face of the earth. But once we have a standard of non violence how can we justify violence in ANY form? How about capital punishment? In so called civilized societies like US and India, how can we justify capital punishment? Violence cannot be just killing some human or animal. How about emotional or psychological violence that happens among relatives and friends almost in every home much more than physical violence we see on TV or media? Sometimes people in this forum alone (perhaps including me) abuse our opponent calling their views “Rubbish” “nonsensical’ “trash” etc…Don’t those amount to subtle psychological violations? My question is how good one has to be good enough to remain nonviolent in any form? My point is there is no easy answer. I guess MK Gandhi must have considered these and I do not know whether he thought of the short comings of the idea of pure nonviolence.

    To me it appears Ahimsa as I described above was very little to do with Gandhi’s struggle for freedom.
    I love his term ‘Satyagraha’ (True Force). In truth he said “I recognize no one as my enemy on the face of the earth. In the dictionary of satyagraha, there is no enemy. It calls for the strength and courage to suffer without retaliation, to receive blows without returning any”

    For me these statements do not make any sense. If some one hurts I want to hurt him/her back. He also humorously said Eye for an eye makes everyone blind and tooth for a tooth makes every one toothless ! Gandhi not only found this radical truth, he also put this into action. Not only he went to jail several times, he also made his followers to take repeated blows from the enemy. Wasn’t that insane or not? It goes very opposite to the human nature. Isn’t that amazing this wild thing was put into practice and made the mighty British no match for this little skinny brown man? It was indeed unbelievable. Sad thing was his acceptance (not tolerance!) of people of all religions alike was too much for some people of his own faith; he was killed in cold blood.
    So, this Gandhian work was not some Dharma duty of not killing animals, but to resist the enemy courageously without raising a hand and hitting the enemy right in his heart and to waken his/her false moral superiority. I do not think this was ever tried in the human history. This is the biggest contribution India has made to this world and we should be very proud of it.
    Gandhi’s work was soon followed by ML King in US. His work in American Civil right movement is fascinating. As an immigrant in US , I am deeply indebted to MLK for his work. I suggest people especially living in US and Canada make time to visit MLK’s museum in Memphis TN. I guarantee it would be a humbling experience.
    King said “Gandhi resisted evil with as much vigor and power as the violent resister, but he resisted with love instead of hate. True pacifism is not unrealistic submission to evil power. It is rather a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love.”

    Love....................VC [/font]

  2. #2
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Light Re: Satyagraha and Nonviolence

    Namaste,

    satyagraha is “seizing the truth”, which is the same satyastha (“holding fast to the truth”) that is fundamental to all yoga. And that foundation rests firmly on ahiMsA.

    ahiMsAsatyAsthe is a very ancient formula, and it has nothing to do with force or aggressive action.

    satyagraha is identical with satyastha, and the two make a perfect twin.

    Perfect ahiMsA can only be attained by itvaram, which certainly has shortcomings for one with residual attachment.

    ahiMsAsatyAsthe is the radical truth of yama, at the very root of dharma.

    ahiMsAsatyAsthe yA brahmacaryA parigrahA

    ahiMsAsatyAsthe is the foundation of the holy life.

    I believe that the original commandment was given as follows:

    ahiMsAsatyAstheyAbrahmacaryAparigrahAyAvAm

    And this divine transmission has various equivalent readings:

    ahiMsAsatyAsthe yA brahmacaryA parigrahAya AvAm

    ahiMsAsatyAsthe yA abrahmacaryA parigrahAya AvAm


    And this takes us back to the original separation of two lineages ~ the brahmacarya (following bRMha) and the abrahmacarya (following abRMha).

    The AvAm is the perfect twin “I”, which is here revealed as ahiMsAsatyAsthe.

    And the yamau (the twin twin, which encompasses all four quarters) becomes manifest as pańca, so that five commandments are woven into the text.

    Both traditions have exactly the same commandments, which were delivered to manu (the “knower”) from the flood.

    Do not kill, do not bear false witness, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not covet the property of others. Amen.

    ahiMsA satya asteya brahmacarya aparigrahA yamAH

    The fundamental identity of the anciently separated twin bRMhAbRMha is clear, and the identical origin of the bRMhaNa and abRMhaNa lineages is undeniable.

    The eternal bRMhAbRMha (brahmAbrahma) is brahmA and brahman united, but it is also bRMh AbRMhan (“the roar of AbRMhan”).

    The original unity of this see-sawing parampare is long forgotten by both parties, but the fraternal competition of their similar offerings is recalled in a childish rhyme:

    Fat and Skinny had a race,
    Up and down the fire-place.


    “Fat” is the bRMhaNa, and “Skinny” is the abRMhaNa, and there are many different conclusions to the story.

    The original formula has not been seen for many centuries, but I am quite convinced that this is the sacred law that the abRMhaNa carried throughout their long exile from their natural field of dreams to the east, the blissful orchard where their philosophy was originally grown to perfection.

    अहिंसासत्यास्थेयाब्रह्मचर्यापरिग्रहायावां
    Eden was truly in ancient India and, of course, that is where the wisdom had been coming from for a long time before the birth of Jesus Christ ~ first the trayIvidyA, and finally the turIyavidyA, but assumed before all of that was the original pańca.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Age
    73
    Posts
    321
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Satyagraha and Nonviolence

    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga View Post
    Namaste,

    satyagraha is “seizing the truth”, which is the same satyastha (“holding fast to the truth”) that is fundamental to all yoga. And that foundation rests firmly on ahiMsA.

    ahiMsAsatyAsthe is a very ancient formula, and it has nothing to do with force or aggressive action.

    Hello Sarabanga:

    Thank you, as usual you bring a deeper perspective based on the scriptures.


    Seizing in this context is indeed an aggressive action, it is powerful and forceful. The power behind this is not some weapon or some physical strength, like most of us imagine. But it is the power of love.

    If the words agraha and astha mean the same, I am not clear why Gandhi came up with this new? word Satyagraha. I googled this word, (yes Google is God !) , I could not find this full word being mentioned in any scripture. May be I have not researched deeper.
    I looked at the words agraha vs astha, to me agraha sound stronger, it has zeal, an urge and it goes on to insist, sounds radical. It is my view. You do not have to agree with me.
    We can keep arguing about these words, it does not matter, all we need to understand is the way Gandhi worked and there was never in the history of human kind, anything like that tried.

    Love...............VC

  4. #4
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337

    Re: Satyagraha and Nonviolence

    Namaskar VCindiana,

    I think that US people and gov't should set an example by following on Gandhi's or MLK's footsteps, instead of 'eye for an eye' which is obviously making many people blind.

    US is the biggest, the richest nation in the world, it is time that they shun the violent ways and set a nice example by following ahimsa of Gandhi. If a skinny litte brown indian can do it surely, the US can too...

    I think that that the US people should show their love by extending the other cheek when get slapped by the muslim world.

    You don't have to agree with me though.

    In love,
    satay

  5. #5
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post Re: Satyagraha and Nonviolence

    Namaste VC,

    I was speaking of satyagraha, not satyAgraha, which is more of an obstinate seizure.

    And, likewise, I was speaking of satyastha, not satyAsthA, which is a more caring and considerate grasp.

    If the words are fairly compared, as originally given (satya-stha and satya-graha), their meanings are identical.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Arrow Re: Satyagraha and Nonviolence

    And, I have just given you the scriptural origin of the word satyagraha: as a synonym of satyastha, as an inference of ahiMsA, as an implication of ahiMsAsatyAsthe, and as a compression of the whole well known pañcayAma mantra of patañjali (which is the same mantra given to adam, and to noah, and to abraham, and the first half of the mantra later revealed to moses). Google is not required, just read (and understand) my post. The original mantra has not been revealed for the last 3,000 years, so you probably won't find exactly the same formula anywhere on Google until they index this page.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post Re: Satyagraha and Nonviolence


    Absolute monism (“going for the one”) has always been the way of indu dharma, no matter what some western authorities might suggest.

    The advaita philosophy of hinduism was transported to the west, where it has been interpreted mainly by philosophers with a dvaita perspective. So it is no surprise that adharmA and avidyA has resulted. But it is not the original words that are faulty, only the subsequent interpretations and translations, every one of which must involve the personal interpretation of the translator, which then becomes its own dogma, denying and limiting other possibilities, and perhaps even turning the original truth on its head.

    The avidyavidyA of advaitam has generally become avidyAvidyA (pure avidyA) after interpretation by dvaita theologians.

    sanAtana dharma is (by definition and reality) eternal, whereas other (non-eternal) dharmA is established from texts written down by learned scribes (based on earlier sources) from their beginning. If no written script had ever been developed (no phoenician, no aramaic, no brAhmI), the veda would still exist, just as it had existed in a fixed oral (and aural) tradition for thousands of years before those scripts were invented. There would be no gospels or new testament if writing had not been invented, although the orthodox pentateuch (the pañcAbRMham yudhAm) would survive in the rabbinical community.

    The veda was revealed to the RSi over a long period of time, but it is a collection of songs that have been sung for thousands of years, learned by heart as a sacred tradition and passed over countless generations from father to son (with no mistakes allowed). And the songs are virtually self-composed, singing themselves from the very nature of saMskRta language and the natural history of reality itself (the two are intimately bound).

    The pentateuch certainly has an oral tradition, but I believe that the tradition actually began in the fold of ancient hinduism. And the “new” testament was surely based on translations of vedAnta texts, causing exactly the same kind of philosophical revolution as that delivered by the original upaniSada when they were first revealed (at least 600 years earlier).

    More and more iconography and external ritual crept back into judaism over time, and the christian rebellion was reasserting a pure advaita perspective resurrected by the kRSTIshAvAsya. And this was again masked over time by layers of external ritual and symbolism in the catholic church, which was again swept away by the protestant reformation, which demanded more advaitam (at least in outward appearances).

    The strict advaitam of the upaniSad insists that the only true image of God is actually beyond any possibility of description, and therefore ALL images of God are technically false images.

    In true advaitam, no separation is accepted and all differences are logically reconciled without emotional attachment. In the realm of dvaitam, however, divisions and differences are taken personally, and that is indeed the source of all suffering in the world.

    advaitavAda is de facto immortal conjury, while dvaitavAda is de jure mortal injury.

    Standing firm in the advaitam of ahiMsA & satyam, there can be no injury.

    The greatest miracles are wrought in the minds of those who are devoted to the worship, and such miracles (which are not mere illusions, but rather the removal of previous delusions and misapprehensions) may go unnoticed by those who remain lost in their own deluded reality.

    See also: Savior and Salvation.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    October 2006
    Age
    73
    Posts
    321
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Satyagraha and Nonviolence

    Quote Originally Posted by satay View Post
    Namaskar VCindiana,

    I think that US people and gov't should set an example by following on Gandhi's or MLK's footsteps, instead of 'eye for an eye' which is obviously making many people blind.

    US is the biggest, the richest nation in the world, it is time that they shun the violent ways and set a nice example by following ahimsa of Gandhi. If a skinny litte brown indian can do it surely, the US can too...

    I think that that the US people should show their love by extending the other cheek when get slapped by the muslim world.

    You don't have to agree with me though.

    In love,
    Hello Satay: How are you? How is Canada? How do local Canadians treat you?

    I cannot stereotype US people are violent. Most of the local people with whom I have had acquaintance are wonderful people. I have indeed learnt a lot from them. I run my own business and I meet and have very good relationship with lots of friendly people here. US people like people anywhere in the world have the same likes and dislikes, ambitions, fears anxieties etc the things they do have more than most of the Indians (not just Hindus) are their free spirit, individualism and adventure. I am glad to be part of this great society, regardless whether I disagree with some of its policies.

    My view is Violence has been there since the people were created and it will be there till we exist in this world. But we can do something about it; we can lessen its impact. Violence has mostly been dealt with more violence and bloodshed. I found Gandhi's odd way of vigoursly attacking violence ( Satyagraha) was the most fascinating in the human history. It is my view that it is found on Love not some philosophy, law or commandment as expounded by Sarabanga. I do respect his profound knowledge but just knowledge alone cannot replace love.

    Love....................VC

  9. #9
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337

    Re: Satyagraha and Nonviolence

    Namaskar Vcindiana,

    I am great. Canada is great. What do you mean by local canadian? You mean those who migrated here from europe? I am a local canadian! I treat myself very well.

    Quote Originally Posted by vcindiana View Post
    I cannot stereotype US people are violent.
    Did you misread my post as stereotyping of US people? No, VCindiana, I like you love the US and its people. I have visited the US many times on business and pleasure. All of my dealings with the US people have been great.

    I found Gandhi's odd way of vigoursly attacking violence ( Satyagraha) was the most fascinating in the human history. It is my view that it is found on Love

    Love....................VC
    Do you not agree that as the richest, most influencial nation of the world that the US should show this 'Love' that you talk about and adopt Gandhi and MLK's way?

    What's the problem in extending the other cheek when a muslim slaps you? Why not put into practice what you preach, especially, if you believe that what you are preaching is 'founded' on Love!

    You say,

    Quote Originally Posted by vcindiana View Post
    True pacifism is not unrealistic submission to evil power. It is rather a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love.” It is rather a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love.”
    Let's see this in action...if a skinny little brown man can do it, why can't the US?

    satay

  10. #10
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Exclamation Re: Satyagraha and Nonviolence

    I found Gandhi's way of vigoursly attacking violence ( Satyagraha) was the most fascinating in the human history. It is my view that it is found on Love not some philosophy, law or commandment or as expounded by Sarabanga.
    Namaste VC,

    You have completely missed a very important point, which I have made to you repeatedly in other posts!

    The satyagraha of gandhi-jI is NOT different from the ahiMsatyA of yama, which is fundamental to ALL sanAtana dharma.

    ahiMsA means LOVE

    ahiMsatyA means BY NOT HURTING

    ahiMsatyA is TRUE LOVE

    ahiMsatyAstha is keeping the sacred promise of ahiMsA, which is the greatest truth of dharma ~ the promise of yama.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •