Ours is not an empty, disorderly world, but an exquisitely structured web whose design embraces and affects all living things.
–Sally Goerner
WESTERN CIVILIZATION could be considered a grand experiment, culminating in the three-plus centuries of the industrial revolution, to see if the universe could be accounted for without resorting to the concept of a Supreme Being or an overall purpose. The experiment was a huge success. It proved without a doubt that the universe can not be accounted for without introducing the concept of purpose; life could not have come about by chance — as Ervin Lazlo puts it, “pure chance…does not appear to be a significant factor in the evolution of life;” the human being cannot be described as a separate, finite, physical fragment doomed to compete for diminishing resources, but a (potentially) conscious actor in the fulfillment of the design that biologist Sally Goerner alludes to above.
If the physical universe were not governed by laws, science would not be possible; in the same way, if there were not laws governing the spiritual universe within human nature (and all nature), great mystics like Jesus, the Buddha, and in our own age Mahatma Gandhi would not have been able to make their tremendous discoveries or, if they did, to communicate them to the rest of humanity.
The existence of these spiritual laws is what enabled Gandhi to say, in 1909 when his movement was at a low ebb and his opponents determined to not yield one inch to his demands, “I was perfectly indifferent to the numerical superiority of my opponents.” Because, while numbers were on the opponents’ side — along with weapons, money, and the other accouterments of force — every spiritual law was against them; primarily the overriding law of unity to which all sages and most of modern science attest, which is the mother of all spiritual laws and which we can never break, though we stubbornly work at breaking ourselves against it.
This is why soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are killing themselves in record numbers — or living lives of hell when they return. And why a U.S. Marine who handed out food and blankets to tsunami victims in 2004 said, “I have been serving my country for 34 years and this is the first day I’ve gotten any fulfillment out of it.” One simple way of describing a future we all want might be, a future where we can get 34 years of fulfillment from our work for maybe a day or two of waste!
Thanks to the universality of these laws any one of us can master the “science” of Satyagraha, as Gandhi did, and be able to redress the evils of our time without perpetuating them. The science of Satyagraha is harder to master than math or physics, because the latter are objective — and because they are still, at present, so entrenched in our media, our education — our entire culture. Even some scientists, who should know better, go on describing reality as the motion of material particles a hundred years after the very existence of separate, material particles fled like shadows in the glare of quantum theory. Such is the power of an entrenched worldview.
But if we practice Satyagraha and explain to others that it is based on principles now supported both by the best of modern science and the enduring wisdom of humanity down the ages, we are bound, in the long run, to overcome the dismal, dehumanizing worldview that is causing vast suffering in the world. We have somehow created a system that draws upon the lowest, most destructive drives of our evolutionary heritage; but we engaging the best of which we are capable. We will be holding up a much higher image of human nature and the “compassionate design” of the universe that is not only what all of us deeply want but happens to be grounded in Truth.
We can get far in this work with only two founding principles, which we do not need to take on faith; we can hold them as hypotheses and test them out in our own experiences: that there are spiritual laws in the universe, and they can be discovered, and used; and that despite all appearances — and here I will use the exact words of my meditation teacher, Eknath Easwaran — “love flows at bottom in the heart of every human being.”
It follows naturally from the first principle, the “compassionate design” of the universe, that “there is enough in the world for everyone’s need” — the cornerstone of Gandhi’s economics. It follows from the second that there is no conflict that does not have a win-win solution if we can only discover it (which is usually a matter of knowing what our real needs and those of others are) — that there is no offender who cannot be redeemed, no opponent who cannot be won over.
That the universe has a meaning, that it is pervaded by spiritual forces that every one of us can use to fulfill that meaning is the Good News of the 21st Century. Nonviolence is as native to this world as violence is inevitable in the “classical” view, often called dogmatic materialism. That view is clinging stubbornly to life, even though it made us feel “like gypsies in the universe,” as one scientist put it, where the most important things about us — our ability to feel, to love — were explained away rather than celebrated. It is high time to lay it to rest and we have every resource now at our disposal to manifest the brighter alternative.
Thank you for your good work and the reminders that we’re all in this ark together. Just gotta hang in there and wait it out until it stops raining. And try to be the change that helps to stop it. I’m a fellow rookie practitioner of Easwaran’s meditation disciplines. Which I’m real thankful for. Not easy work though. But well worth it.
Peace,
Mike
Hello Mike,
Glad to hear that, esp. about the fellow rookiehood. If you come out here for a retreat some time (which has much to recommend it) we could meet in person.
Michael
Could a more perfect picture for the theme of nonviolence be presented than that of the soldier holding the infant protectively in his lap? In a kind of nearly perfect replication of virtually every element of the predominant, complex mixture of guarding care and righteous violence, this picture exemplifies the spirit of the loving and violent collateral damage society and polices the US and other nations continue to foist on so many, with such deadly results. And make no mistake, this culture of collateral damage is never constituted by some simplistic caricature of evil that the Left or anti-war movement might depict in some political cartoons. No, this culture most definitely guards a precious infant in its arms with great love and committed — and often highly violent — righteousness, other children, other lives be damned to the Gitmos of the world. Make no mistake, as well: this world will give you a chance! Like the chance it gave Saddam Hussein to cooperate with weapons inspection. That he failed this chance is simply too bad, and it takes real men, and women, as Madeline Albright proved, to deal with the Harsh Truth of the Imposition of Choice. The death’s of 500,000 children? “The price is worth it.” (Madeline Albright) That such an imposition may be ill-constituted from the ground up is something that eludes the prevailing understanding, but, in the end, I think it eludes nonviolence activism and thought as well. I am very prone to consider that the Good News of nonviolence mentioned in the article may have every tendency to replicate this irreducibly complex and violent structure. And that structure is the very conditions by which such violence as the all-but-forgotten sanctions, the wars and many other violences propagates itself.
Was the idea of this picture a scathing critique? A presentation of the very structure and form of our worst violences? Or was it presented simply as….well, as what, exactly? A soldier whose brothers in minutes none too far from those of the time of the photo were gunning down 8 innocent men and children from a helicopter? Or did he perhaps have in mind the politicos who bounced their grandchildren on their knees while reminding themselves to finalize another troop movement or to hide some memo about someone starving themselves in a protest in Gitmo?
You tell me. But this is, most likely, a good indication of the status of nonviolence today: full of some of the best spirit, but lacking a necessary critical passage through the kind of suspicion that the previous century has given so many to the nausea of a post-modernity that perseveres all to unchangingly in the face of heinous and obvious violence. While there are truly and undeniably great veins of suspicion, resistance and a countering of the great impetus to war within the predominant nonviolence culture, at the very same time, this kind of picture stares us in the face. What can it mean? Was it meant to provoke thought? What sort of thought? I would suggest that it most likely does not go far enough.
It will not do to suggest something like: “you see, even soldiers on occasion guard an infant and are humbled by this simple, human need!” No. The situation is more insidious than that. The soldier looks at us, his brothers in the background, doing their work of war, a work Michael undoubtedly opposes with nothing less than his life’s work. So what does the picture mean? Does the soldier say, “Look at this horror, what our war has done to this child?” That would seem to be a good message. I have no doubt that is part of Michael’s intention.
What I’m trying to get at is something perhaps a little different from the story of compassion the article vaunts. While the critique of war is, indeed, grist for the mill of nonviolence, I would suggest that there is a level of critique that is still wanting, in a way, within this nonviolence. A clue is to be found, I think, in the heart of the diagnosis in the article: that of the classical, “dogmatic materialism” that traditional nonviolence sees as the the Wizard of Oz, so to speak, operated by some man behind a curtain, belying a truth of the truth of an already present, if unrealized, truth of nonviolence.
It is not so simple, and there are things that are in fact rotten in the heart of nonviolence culture itself. There is a man behind the man behind the curtain. We are continually directed away from this other man. This other operation pertains to the heart of spirituality. Deep in this heart there is much collateral damage, and many a soldier and politico, wise men and women and many others who stoke great furnaces of retributive justice that is spiritual through and through. And there are Gitmos, Kamps and wandering, armless children of many kinds.
The predominant spiritual that remains far too accepted by nonviolence activism and thought is tied into both the great material and geopolitical operations of the world while being tied into our minds in the form of the status of systems of belief and the place to which thought is relegated, the better to keep the mind “fit” for receiving the fruits of its violent labors of righteous justice and collateral damage. The picture of the soldier, therefore, precipitates out of this strange, double cloud: it is both true and already critical, yet at the same time, oddly unaware of what is transpiring in its operation.
Nonviolence calls for new levels and layers of both belief and disbelief. Too complicated? Too difficult? As many a spiritual person has left unsaid while wielding their own “price is worth it” harshness, tough shit. Make no mistake: this photo says something that it is difficult to say, simply out of respect for the soldier himself. It seems nearly critical to say it, but in the name of the 500,000 children of the sanctions, let me formulate some words that precipitate out of this strange, complex cloud of a picture: “I hold this child in my righteousness, and use it to fuel my righteousness, which, in its harshness, may give me, at another time, to blow its head off.” For that is the truth. And of the nonviolence activism that opposes this militarism, something all to similar may be true as well, in the heart of the spirituality that predominant nonviolence activism continues to support without adequate understanding of the actual conditions that obtain. Without adequate thought. For thought must always remain submerged in predominant spirituality.
Such thought was the very gait of the step of Gandhiji. Many of us have yet to fall from our humble heights to the ground on which he dwelt and experimented with truth. This thought must emerge as an independent value. The predominant fostering of a supposed superiority of “action” over “thought”, and certainly of Belief over thought, holds truth in a cage and keeps nonviolence in chains. These are insurmountable and core issues in the heart of the decisive issues for nonviolence thoughtaction today.
Outstanding post, you have pointed out some superb points, I likewise conceive this is a very great website.
Its like you learn my mind! You seem to know a lot approximately this, like you wrote the e-book in it or something. I think that you simply can do with a few p.c. to pressure the message house a bit, however instead of that, that is fantastic blog. A great read. I will certainly be back.
Very thoughtful, Tom. Don’t have time for a lengthy reply but I appreciate what you’ve raised.
MN
It depends in which spiritual realm one resides. Violence cannot be justified in one of the realms but can be justified in another realm or violence and non violence can both be justified in a single realm. question is, which is the higher realm or which realm is closer to the infinite all pervading energy that permeates all creation? In our world, realization of this can be attained by one’s karma. But did karma exist before the entity or the entity before karma? If karma was before then who did the karam and if entity was before then how can it exist in the absence of karma? Personally, I reside in a lower realm and therefore the questions…
From Williamces withlove))