Martin Luther King, Jr. 739 words, 19K views, 28 comments
Replies to Comment
On Dec 13, 2010Somik Raha wrote :
Catherine, you've asked many deep questions. First, I must clarify the comment on "being happy." I do not think Mia was happy that the nun's belongings were stolen. She was very saddened by the situation, and felt that if only the robbers understood who they were robbing, they'd return what they were taking. It was only much after the incident that she saw a silver lining, that the robbers may benefit from the spiritual contents of what they've stolen. That, by no means, justifies their action, and infact, Mia stood up to them, without regard for her own life. She did not say, "yes, yes, take the nun's belongings - it is all yours."
Gandhi, initially, advocated nonviolence for Indians as back then, Indians had not fought in major wars, and he considered most Indians to be cowards. Over the years, as he deepened his experiments with truth, he realized that nonviolence was certainly not the path of the coward; it was the path of the bravest. He then reversed his recommendation, and told people to first experience violence, be capable of it, and then come to nonviolence. In one of his essays, he asked people to go fight in the world war, shed some blood. Then they'd know that war has no victors. They'd also have the strength to try nonviolence. He considered the nonviolence of Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan (Frontier Gandhi) as far superior to his own, for Khan was a Pathan (Afghan Pushtun) who had grown up in a culture of violence (honor-killings were common). Gandhi felt that for Khan to stand up and organize the warrior Pathans to follow nonviolence was a far more legitimate manifestation of his philosophy than his own efforts.
The Buddha, although advocating nonviolence, had an interesting view on when one must act decisively in a manner that involves violence. When someone is harming oneself by harming others, out of great compassion for that person (so they may not accrue tremendous bad karma), we should stand in their way and stop them. The operative principle is not so much what you do, but what you place in your heart when you do it.
Sanjeev has been recommending the Gita (and be sure to read multiple translations). This question comes up when Arjuna throws down his bow and refuses to fight, preferring to be killed by his unjust relatives, although all negotiations have broken down, and he is required by profession to stand up for ethics and fight. Krishna severely chastises him, and calls his grief foolishness and not wisdom. He asks him to stand up and fight. But then, Krishna also tells him to fight like a yogi. The test for that is to have not a trace of hatred toward another.
So, when you ask about reacting with anger, the test for whether it is a good decision or not is really whether you had choice in the matter. If, after seeing all the alternatives in front of you, you chose anger, perhaps it was the right thing to do. But, if you found yourself swept away by a tsunami, and after the episode of anger, found yourself wondering, "what just happened?," then you can be sure that it was not a decision from the space of freedom, but a reaction from a space of bondage. Such reactions always have unintended consequences, which makes us regret them later.
Now, about gardens being destroyed - this is the real test of life. Every garden you make in your life WILL be destroyed, and most likely in your own lifetime. Connecting your happiness with the fruits you get is a big recipe for misery, for if there is one right we do not have, it is the right to expect. Nothing good ever came of expectations. The real test of spiritual growth for us is when, all our gardens are destroyed, we are able to cock our head and have a hearty laugh - "look at the silliness and fun of it all!" and move on to our next game.
On Dec 13, 2010 Somik Raha wrote :
Catherine, you've asked many deep questions. First, I must clarify the comment on "being happy." I do not think Mia was happy that the nun's belongings were stolen. She was very saddened by the situation, and felt that if only the robbers understood who they were robbing, they'd return what they were taking. It was only much after the incident that she saw a silver lining, that the robbers may benefit from the spiritual contents of what they've stolen. That, by no means, justifies their action, and infact, Mia stood up to them, without regard for her own life. She did not say, "yes, yes, take the nun's belongings - it is all yours."
Gandhi, initially, advocated nonviolence for Indians as back then, Indians had not fought in major wars, and he considered most Indians to be cowards. Over the years, as he deepened his experiments with truth, he realized that nonviolence was certainly not the path of the coward; it was the path of the bravest. He then reversed his recommendation, and told people to first experience violence, be capable of it, and then come to nonviolence. In one of his essays, he asked people to go fight in the world war, shed some blood. Then they'd know that war has no victors. They'd also have the strength to try nonviolence. He considered the nonviolence of Khan Abdul Gaffar Khan (Frontier Gandhi) as far superior to his own, for Khan was a Pathan (Afghan Pushtun) who had grown up in a culture of violence (honor-killings were common). Gandhi felt that for Khan to stand up and organize the warrior Pathans to follow nonviolence was a far more legitimate manifestation of his philosophy than his own efforts.
The Buddha, although advocating nonviolence, had an interesting view on when one must act decisively in a manner that involves violence. When someone is harming oneself by harming others, out of great compassion for that person (so they may not accrue tremendous bad karma), we should stand in their way and stop them. The operative principle is not so much what you do, but what you place in your heart when you do it.
Sanjeev has been recommending the Gita (and be sure to read multiple translations). This question comes up when Arjuna throws down his bow and refuses to fight, preferring to be killed by his unjust relatives, although all negotiations have broken down, and he is required by profession to stand up for ethics and fight. Krishna severely chastises him, and calls his grief foolishness and not wisdom. He asks him to stand up and fight. But then, Krishna also tells him to fight like a yogi. The test for that is to have not a trace of hatred toward another.
So, when you ask about reacting with anger, the test for whether it is a good decision or not is really whether you had choice in the matter. If, after seeing all the alternatives in front of you, you chose anger, perhaps it was the right thing to do. But, if you found yourself swept away by a tsunami, and after the episode of anger, found yourself wondering, "what just happened?," then you can be sure that it was not a decision from the space of freedom, but a reaction from a space of bondage. Such reactions always have unintended consequences, which makes us regret them later.
Now, about gardens being destroyed - this is the real test of life. Every garden you make in your life WILL be destroyed, and most likely in your own lifetime. Connecting your happiness with the fruits you get is a big recipe for misery, for if there is one right we do not have, it is the right to expect. Nothing good ever came of expectations. The real test of spiritual growth for us is when, all our gardens are destroyed, we are able to cock our head and have a hearty laugh - "look at the silliness and fun of it all!" and move on to our next game.