Відео

I've got a question about the relationship between force, non-violence and violence. OK, so, it's OK to lovingly save people from a lunatic in a pinch with a sword. This is because true violence is hateful. Presumably a psychopath doesn't experience that much hate, but they can experience pleasure from others' pain, that is malice. Maybe malice fits too. We wouldn't engage in warfare because often innocent people are caught in the cross-fire and we would take injury before dealing it, which is the essence of satyagraha. Presumably, two people are going to come to blows, you get in the way and without hate, with love as your motive, you are pushing each back - pushing them is force, but is not violence. Presumably, someone you love is going to go murder someone, and the only way you can stop them is you punch them and you knock them out. You love them, you are trying to stop them from throwing their life away and ending a life. Where does the tension between "I'm using force to protect with love, and I'm not using the force with hate" eventually become necessarily violent? Let's say a President is going to bomb a country to stop violence -with that exact attitude-. Presumably the contradiction comes from willing to actually, intentionally commit civilian casualties among those you supposedly love in the greater place of the war, so even though you're trying not to be violent in spirit, maybe you cannot thoughtlessly kill those you love and actually love them. So maybe love stops you here. But what if you were engaging in war-like force, but you were being meticulous in the engagement? That is to say - 0 civilian casualties, a self-risking tendency before a "opportunistic warrior" approach. Let's say it's a third-party invader. You're treating their invasion like lunacy, you're unwilling to engage in combat strategies that risk the civilian populace, you are willing to kill the invader, but you are willing to take casualties, to "repel rather than annihilate" and you are foregoing more effective warfare that might spare you lives if only to create a situation where the invader knows they can stop dying and seek peace at any time. Your risk to your own "forces", your restraint and your "draw the line in the sand" methods, your 0-tolerance for civilian casualties (there may be accidents but all your projections aim for 0, and so deny the modes of warfare which create a statistical expectation, so the only civilian casualties as collateral damage are literally unexpected accidents, not expected accidents) and will to immediately turn war into peace with the invader's consent are your "acts of love" so-to-speak. Defenders must recuse themselves from the fight-situation if they are moved to hatred or anger. Everything is done to use defencive emplacements, and the attraction of violence to the self and those emplacements before ever (if ever) attacking become your commitments. On one hand, even in this situation I have a hard time calling this modus operandi "non-violent." Because you are fighting, but it fits the bill of "not hateful, taking increasing pain on the self, avoiding acts contrary to loving motive, an immediate will to deescalation" where the only reason you're fighting is because you are keeping the invader occupied hurting you instead of the civilians. The problem is at a certain point I cannot reconcile the deadly use of force with violence no-matter the intention or emotion.

I am not so much experiencing fear as wrath.

"Thoughts that forced discordance away, Once more an era is fading, Whatever dreams we're reaching to claim, Decides the path we are taking, Gone forever, We are done with world views mechanical... None shall, none shall ever be a slave, To thoughts inside their heads! Mind is the master, Morphogenesis, This structure remained untrodden, A new reality."

It'd be nice to imagine we do.

There's no law that says a dog can't play football!

این پاچاه خان زمانی طی سفر سیاحتی و تفریحی به هزاره جات در ولسوالی پنجاب هم توقفی داشت مسولین برایش در پیاله های معمول و مروج ان زمان چای اوردن ولی پاچاه خان از پیاله ها چای نوشیده نتوانستند علت را جویا شدن گفتند بینی پاچاه خان انقدر دراز است که مانع نوشیدن چای از پیاله میشود بعدش چای را در کاسه کلان شوربا خوری برای شان سرویس کردند .

پٹھآن ھونے کے باوجود باچا خان سے نفرت کیلئے اتنا کافی ھے کہ وہ پآکستان کے وجود کا مخآلف تھا دشمن تھا باچا خان عظیم قآئد اعظم کا مخالف تھا ۔ وہ دن گئے جب پٹھان باچان کو اپنا لیڈر کہتےتھے اب پٹھانوں کآ صرف ایک ہی لیڈر ھے جو تمام صوبوں کے باشندوں کا یکساں محبوب ھے اور وہ ھے عمرآن خآن ایک عظیم آنسان زندہ باد

That being said, to inherit a royal heritage is not a bad thing or slightly unethical, any culture including a familial one deserves to exist, even a small act of familiar genocide is malicious, even if for some social purpose or some perception of kindness. Let not such unethical attitudes persist. The world should be filled with variables and differences, not at the enslavement or bitter detriment of any others, shared in interesting ways instead, complex and unlike the other at every place. Fuck the cut lawn. The irregularity is beautiful.

And cats.

thank you! 🙏🌿💔👊

Another possible interpretation might go like: under the condition of non-violence, attempts to injure your movement help your movement and never truly harm it.

India hindu ka kutta 🐶🐕🐕

It was the secondary point but fascism didn't invent violence, such that, not all expressions of violence are expressions of fascism. It's tempting to say that but logically fallacious. Now, there may have been a general infiltration by fascism but it's a separate matter.

I wish it was but it's unlikely to be. But a new virtuous principle that can help us move past the violence of the past? That I hope dearly.

I have to always remind myself that Ghandi was 12 years older than me when he really started practicing Satyagraha and one year older than me when he first developed the concept.

I personally get too reactive.

Hey we agree. I get swayed that times in the past may have been worse by those who argue it... But somehow I can't ever believe that this is a better time at all either. Rather that it feels oppressive, addicting, expensive, unrelentingly abusive and dangerous.

You know, you say this quote exemplifies the corrosive role of anger and fear. And of course Ghandi is a fallible human, he doesn't think otherwise. When Ghandi says "it is to do a favour for the community if you put down a lunatic with a sword," and to some degree it is ableism, you could disable him without killing him, I think what we hear here is a bit of Ghandi's "I have three key enemies and one of them is Mahatma Ghandi" (to paraphrase) for although the lunatic doesn't necessarily hate you (maybe he does, situationally speaking he could be filled with an irrational hate but he is not hateful like a racist might be) one is afraid of the lunatic, and therefore motivated to violently put them down for the sake of the safety of others. Therefore, to love the lunatic, is to pity him, and wish for him to be disabled, restrained and healed. Which indicates that here, this principle of killing the lunatic perhaps comes from Ghandi's enemy within, rather than from his virtuous place.

Plachimada struggle against Coca Cola in 2002.

During my lifetime, it looks like divide-and-conquer overpowers any positive possibilities of the paradox of resistance and may continue to do so to the point of civil war in the US.

In general, equality has been a part of our democracy. But democracy has almost always divided the "free and equal citizen" from the outsider. Athenian Males, White male Americans, etc... Equality of humans under the banner of the nation is the essential struggle for the democratic soul. For democracy is people-rule, those who wish to control the democracy best do by demarcating which people rule and whom are not people at all.

The one guy's death threat from Israel, of the casket with his name on it, is extremely tragic and hard to hear about.

Thank you MettaCenter. -Roberto

I can will not to harm and hold to that will truthfully. But I do not live without an inner-life which, from time to time, experiences abhot-flash of violent thought.

if one is fortunate enough to find a mentor in life, this will also diminish the likelihood of making very stupid mistakes. But of course, we’re gonna make them anyway since we’re not perfect.

pretending that we can be perfect could only breed hypocrisy.

Martin Luther King Jr. said, Jesus didn’t say like your neighbor, but love your neighbor.

Nam Myoho Renge Kyo 🙏🏼 The most scientific prayer of all.

it’s such a fulfillment in my life that I reached a point where I don’t kill even a cockroach, or an ant, nothing that has life and sentence.

It is so true. I know from personal experience.

Bharat Ratna Frontier Gandhi Baksha Khan was a Gem. A true patriot & Freedom Fighter. RIP Saheb.

🇱🇾⛺⛺⛺⛺🚰🚰↗️➡️↘️↪️⬇️↘️➡️

The game is all yours 😊

Idc. Skeletor is a legitimate authority and none of the mistakes I made following His example were errors.

I don't know. Even in unrequited love this may be beyond duty. Authentic love would not care if the love was unrequited. But the conjoining of love for love would be amplifying.

But how can we trust a state which tells us we cannot use the thing well enough? If we should each unlock our potential through the statr, then a vacuum of merit can deprive the many for a few. For the capitalists exploit often by saying it is their merit which commands their ownership. I get the spirit. But I worry that in any case where we can only be trustees of our situation, we must first have a nation we can trust as god is said to be trustworthy. But look around the world. Not one nation is.

Perfect recipe for disaster and peroetual poverty ! Show me one district , nay, even a single village which had followed the great gandhian economics and flourishing!!

A true science, which is why Gandhi called it an experiment with truth. it needs to be studied and put into practice to see the results of the experiment.

Morality is a scientific subject ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

My science if morality could be verified. But not if people are biased against it out of the gate... I notice the hatred of morality in you.

A lot of corruption has entrenched during a long period of relative peace. I'm having a hard time and I'm wondering just how much coexistence with corruption is actually possible. Especially with regards to the abuse of technology. Considering the technologies in development it's also hard to imagine the same forces of psychology even being in play in a decade by the oppressors let alone two. Right now is the definitive moment.

I know what that's like man. Making it to the other side takes daily work but... It can be done. I did it away from some pretty delicious sin. It took years to do that. It's hard. But it's within your power.

03-02-2024

Cam't agree with him here. I do see work as extortion and inherently abusive/destructice/unhealthy.

14:00 bookmark

B.R. Nanda (Bal Ram), Mahatma Gandhi: a biography

You have uploaded the same video as part 1 and 2?

4:48 the power comes from the conversion of a negative state (anger, fear). M.L.King and Gandhi quotes on that

It is the spirit of Boddhisattva Never Disparaging.

So true. Nichiren Daishonin, The great Buddhist monk, said “it is the heart that matters.”