The Metta Center » Concepts

effervescence of the crowd

Erika — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:16:31 +0000

‘Effervescence of the crowd’ is a term used to describe the tendency of people to feed off of a momentary sense of excitement, taking to the streets and appearing briefly to be mobilized for a cause, only for the initial excitement to wear off and for the energy to dissipate (or worse, degenerate into violence and vandalism). This can be related to the yogic idea of a rajasic state, in which apathy has been overcome to reach a state of arousal and activity, but this activity lacks clear, purposeful intention towards a goal.

interposition

Erika — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 13:07:43 +0000

In nonviolent conflict intervention (also known as third party nonviolent intervention), interposition is the act of literally getting in between conflicting parties to deter them from using violence against one another. Commonly, it is assumed that interposition owes its effectiveness to the conflicting parties’ unwillingness to harm an innocent bystander. However, there is also a more subtle and compelling effect of interposition, which is that violence against another human being depends on the ability of the perpetrator to dehumanize the intended recipient of the violent act, that is, to numb themselves to this person’s humanity. When a nonviolent intervener interposes themselves, they are in effect, saying, “I am willing to sacrifice myself to protect this human being’s life.” This has the effect of awakening the would be perpetrator to the humanity of the would be target, and, momentarily, to their own humanity, thereby making proceeding with violence much more difficult.

non-embarrassment

Erika — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 12:58:17 +0000

Non-embarrassment is a nonviolent strategic principle employed by Gandhi. “Embarassment,” in this context refers to the alternate definition of embarrass, “to confuse, flummox.” The principle states that one should never persist actively in a nonviolent resistance campaign towards an opponent while that opponent is distracted. There are two main reasons, both derived from the intention that a nonviolent campaign works as a conversation (primarily through acts rather than words) in which you persuade your opponent of the legitimacy of your position. The first reason is that it is not effective to continue the conversation while your opponent is distracted, because they are not listening to you. The second is that it is an act of good will to allow them time to attend to these other matters, which are unrelated to your cause, since to persist while they are weakened by another challenge would indicate an opportunistic attempt to take advantage of their compromised position in order to defeat them through coercion, rather than your intention to persuade them to the justice of your cause. An example of how Gandhi applied this principle was in 1919 when he called off satyagraha for the duration of the British rail strike; he later called a halt to the movement during each of the World Wars for the same reason.

reference public

Erika — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 12:56:47 +0000

‘Reference public’ is the term used to describe those who stand to have their views on a given issue influenced through witnessing a nonviolent struggle; it is particularly used in relation to the paradox of oppression.

Oceanic Circle

Erika — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 12:53:26 +0000

Gandhi’s vision for a nonviolent society was that in order to achieve a lasting peace, society must be organized in a decentralized way. In Gandhi’s own words:

“Independence must begin at the bottom. Thus, every village will be a republic or panchayat having full powers. It follows, therefore, that every village has to be self-sustained and capable of managing its affairs even to the extent of defending itself against the whole world. It will be trained and prepared to perish in the attempt to defend itself against any onslaught from without.

Thus, ultimately, it is the individual who is the unit. This does not exclude dependence on and willing help from neighbours or from the world. It will be free and voluntary play of mutual forces. Such a society is necessarily highly cultured in which every man and woman knows what he or she wants and what is more, knows that no one should want anything that others cannot have with equal labour.

In this structure composed of innumerable villages, there will be ever-widening, never-ascending circles. Life will not be a pyramid with the apex sustained by the bottom. But it will be an oceanic circle whose centre will be the individual always ready to perish for the village, the latter ready to perish for the circle of villages, till at last the whole becomes one life composed of individuals, never aggressive in their arrogance, but ever humble, sharing the majesty of the oceanic circle of which they are integral units.

Therefore, the outermost circumference will not wield power to crush the inner circle, but will give strength to all within and derive its own strength from it. I may be taunted with the retort that this is all Utopian and, therefore, not worth a single thought. If Euclid’s point, though incapable of being drawn by human agency, has an imperishable value, my picture has its own for mankind to live. Let India live for this true picture, though never realizable in its completeness. We must have a proper picture of what we want before we can have something approaching it. If there ever is to be a republic of every village in India, then I claim verity for my picture in which the last is equal to the first or, in other words, no one is to be the first and none the last.” (1)

(1) Harijan, 28-7-1946, p. 236

Resources:

Was Gandhi and Anarchist? From Peace Power Magazine.

Gandhi and Society

The Starfish and the Spider by Ori Brafman and Rod A. Beckstrom

ashram

Erika — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:43:17 +0000

Since times immemorial in India (with parallels in other monastic traditions), spiritual communities gathered around a preceptor to carry out strenuous practices (a-shram comes from a root meaning ‘exertion’) under ideal conditions. Gandhi founded four such intentional communities throughout his career that also served as training grounds for those preparing themselves for spiritually based activism and as “home base” for activists when Satyagraha campaigns were underway. When he began referring to these communities as “ashrams,” upon his return to India in 1915, he was essentially acknowledging that he considered his activism to be spiritual in nature, rather than merely political.

Renunciation

Erika — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 18:37:54 +0000

The Sanskrit term aparigraha, or ‘non-grasping,’ was one of Gandhi’s cardinal principles for residents of his ashram. This attitude of renouncing personal attachment to anything — a thing, another person, even an idea or opinion — is the key to self mastery, and also the spiritual key to freedom from coercion by others. If you desire something for yourself (as opposed to wanting something for everyone, yourself included), that desire will control you, and others will be able to control you by threatening to withhold or take it from you. If you renounce the desire, you unleash your own capacity to act in freedom, including the capacity to act nonviolently. This dynamic can be paraphrased as, “ask yourself what they are holding over you; renounce that, and you are free.” As an example, when Daniel Ellsberg was deciding what to do with the Pentagon papers, he was at first paralyzed by what would happen to him if he made them public. At some point it occurred to him to ask instead, “if I were willing to go to jail,” (that is, willing to renounce his personal freedom) “what could I do?” He realized that he would then be free to release the papers, which he did. In the extreme, if you renounce attachment to your physical body, the threat of violence loses its power. To quote Albert Szent-Gyeorgyi, “[Gandhi] taught the world that there are higher things than force, higher even than life itself; he proved that force had lost its suggestive power.”
Renunciation also allows us to live simply on the material level, which takes the burden of scarcity from our fellow creatures and the earth.

Phalam

Erika — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:54:25 +0000

Literally “fruit,” phalam is the word used in the Bhagavad Gita to describe the personal gains acquired as the result of human action. According to the Gita theory of action, one should strive to be detachment from these fruits, that is, to learn to act selflessly and according to one’s duty rather than for personal gain.

karma yoga

Erika — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:47:09 +0000

Karma yoga is the path of ([[detached|detachment], selfless) action. In yogic tradition, it is one of four paths to self-realization—along with bhakti (devotion or selfless, detached love) jnana (wisdom or intuitive awareness of the real), and raja (the royal path, a blend of the other three based on the practice of meditation). Gandhi was a supreme karma yogi who followed that path to its complete realization. Notably, he was far from lacking in devotion (“all my actions have their root in my insatiable love of mankind”) or in wisdom, but the predominant characteristic was his inexhaustible work for the benefit of all (“my real politics is work.”)

swadharma

Erika — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:37:35 +0000

In the Indian spiritual tradition, dharma is “the way,” (literally “law” or “duty”), and everything and everyone in existence has its own dharma — its essential way of being in the world — that is in harmony with the overriding dharma of nonviolence that applies to all life (ahimsa paramo dharma). Thus a person’s swadharma (swa=”own,” and dharma=”duty”) is his or her own unique role in life or way of being in the world, which it is his or her duty to realize and fulfill. It can be thought of not as a destiny (which would deny the reality of human choice) but rather as a set of capacities that allow us to take our place in the world when they are fully developed. The Gita warns strongly against attempting to live out the dharma of another; discovering ones own capacities and using them in selfless service could be described as the goal of human life.

Karma

Erika — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:31:31 +0000

Karma is the Sanskrit word for action, including (and really, ultimately,) our thoughts and the effect of thoughts/actions on ourselves — what would be known in psychology as our conditioning. Everything one experiences, including in the realm of thought, leaves a kind of mark on us (a fact that is now borne out by modern neuroscience) and therefore affects our future thoughts, impulses, and experiences. We can overcome the negative burden of this conditioning, our karma, by performing selfless action and ultimately by transcending our narrow, private personality so that all conditioning drops away. Karma yoga, the path of selfless action, is one of the four paths to self-realization. When this is achieved we have broken this chain of causality and are acting in accord with truth without being controlled by our conditioning. This is accomplished through life-long selfless service and the practice of detached action. Gandhi is, of course, the paramount example of such a “karma yogi.”

Bhagavad Gita

Erika — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 17:05:29 +0000

The Bhagavad Gita appears as a section of 700 verses within the ancient Indian epic the Mahabharata, where the warrior prince, Arjuna, collapses in dismay at the prospect of going into battle against his own relatives. He is admonished and encourage by his charioteer Krishna (none other than an incarnation of Vishnu), and the dialog between the two amounts to a discussion of the nature of human action and human duty, and what constitutes dharmic (basically, ‘appropriate’) human action. Arjuna is a warrior, and as such his duty is to fight, but he is reluctant to carry out his duty (his swadharma) for reasons of personal attachment: those he must kill are his relatives. Krishna’s task is to lead him to understand that he must carry out his duty, setting aside even the most powerful of personal attachments.
Gandhi called the Gita his ‘mother,’ and his ‘spiritual reference book.’ It has seemed contradictory to many that a scripture that affirms the duty to kill is the basis for nonviolence. Gandhi explained that the story is not meant to be taken literally. Its meaning is that in order to reach self actualization, we must “kill” what is most dear to us; ie, shed our personal attachments. Ultimately this means the extinguishing of the ego, and in that sense, the story of Arjuna on the battlefield is the story of our own inner struggle to overcome selfish impulses (anger, fear, greed), which is the struggle from which nonviolence springs. Gandhi further pointed out that Arjuna is not against killing on principle, but only recoils from killing his own relatives. The Gita lists ahimsa as the first of virtues, affirms the unity of life everywhere (the yogi feels another’s joys and sorrows as his own), and explains in detail how and why to practice meditation.

Gita Theory of Action

Erika — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:58:40 +0000

The Gita Theory of Action, derived from the ancient Indian spiritual text the Bhagavad Gita, could be described as Gandhi’s approach to nonviolent action in a nutshell. The basic formula for selfless action is: choose the right goal, use the right means, and leave the results up to God. That is, choose the right goal (unity, or reconciliation, rather than “winning” or defeating any person) use the right means (nonviolence) and be detached from the results. Gandhi once eloquently paraphrased this formula when he replied to an English Quaker who was complaining about being ignored by the media, “Throw the right stone into the right pond, let the ripples take care of themselves.”

Vedanta

Erika — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:53:20 +0000

The vedanta, among other meanings, is the ancient worldview that underlies all systems of Indian philosophy. A primary source for this worldview is the Upanishads (the Upanishads are handed down by tradition at the end of the Vedas, and Vedanta literally means “end of the Vedas.”) This foundation of Indian spiritual thought, with its insistence on the underlying unity of all life (and the possibility of realizing that unity through, e.g., selfless service of all) was the basis for Gandhi’s approach to spirituality and nonviolence. In one Upanishad, for example (the Brihadaranyika, I.1.14) we are told that ‘by means of this dharma even the weak man can prevail over a king.’ In the Chandogya (VIII.1.5) we read that ‘here (in this world) people do what they are told, so they become dependent on… the desires of another, … and their works come to nothing, either in this world or the next.’

Detachment

Erika — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:48:52 +0000

According to the Gita Theory of Action, the philosophical basis of Gandhi’s approach to nonviolence, inaction is not possible for the human being—our thoughts themselves are actions. In effect, the decision not to act is a kind of action in itself. Since inaction is impossible, human beings must focus on how to act in any given situation — not just what actions to undertake, but with what attitude or mindset. Actions that are motivated by personal gain (in Indian terms the [[phalam]], literally, “fruit”) will always be of lower quality than than those where the motive is selfless. We can become attached to the ‘fruit’ of our actions not only in terms of the concrete outcome but in terms of the fame, social standing, etc. that we personally gain. Detached action, likewise, is undertaken in service of a selfless goal and without entanglement in subtler personal benefits.

Detachment, along with renunciation, may be the most important idea in the Gandhian approach to nonviolence. The only way to break the persuasive power of violence is to be willing to suffer the consequences of an opponent’s violence with neither retaliation nor acquiescence. This sometimes requires an extreme capacity for endurance (tapas) and focus on the goal whatever personal adversity might follow as a result, up to and including the ultimate sacrifice, death. Naturally, this leaves no room for attachment for personal gains, or, paradoxically, even for attachment to ‘victory’, since even that will bring egotism back into the mind and compromise the quality of one’s otherwise selfless action. Both Gandhi and King warned against triumphalism, for this reason. In practical terms, this lack of detachment at the point of success can antagonize one’s opponents, whereas in true nonviolence the goal is above all to make them into friends as far as that is possible.