Erika

Throughout this week’s material, what inspired me the most was one of Gandhi’s quotes: “One man cannot do right in one department of life whilst he is occupied in doing wrong in any other department. Life is one indivisible whole.” To me it seemed to summarize his life and belief, as well as what one should aspire to be if he or she were to practice nonviolence. It also took my understanding of the consistency between means and ends to another level. After reading the book and listening to the podcasts, I caught myself being more mindful of my every-day actions. Do I know how products I use are made? For instance, would it be okay to use a computer made in unjust conditions, to advocate for peace?

This really spoke to me, because it speaks to the “unity” of life as a whole. I’ve seen many people behave in certain ways in their professional realm while completely contradicting themselves in their personal life. As I started to explore nonviolence, it started to seem like something that ties everything I believe in – I feel like I’m living my life as an indivisible whole because it gives a channel for my intellectual curiosity and desire to contribute to peace while complementing my spirituality as a Buddhist. Studying theories of international relations or even human rights did not give me this kind of satisfaction.

I also realized that I really did not know much about Gandhi. I had watched the movie before, have read his quotes and writings here and there, but I did not know much about his upbringing, his own low points in life, and his relationship with family. What truly resonated with me was that essentially his life was about transforming his own weaknesses into positive power that could affect those around him. Usually he is described as this saint-like figure, but he was just a great human being that never ceased to expand his own capacity.

The book on Gandhi complemented the movie on Gandhi well as it dove deeper into the principles and ways of Gandhi’s being, something that the movie missed out on elaborating. The book highlighted for me many points of significance for all those looking to create change in our lives, families, communities, and world. Although I was unable to finish the complete book, I was able to read about 60 pages through Google Books, thus able to grasp the first sections of his life and experiences. What really stood out to me and still stands out to me is Gandhi’s personal changes and struggles as a young adult; finding his place professionally and personally and discovering himself and his voice. I feel as though I am there in the crux of this period in my life professionally, where I could go in any direction but still don’t feel like I know where I am going. Gandhi’s monumental change from quiet/shy to an incredible change-maker makes his journey more tangible for people like me; to see him struggle with his trajectory and purpose in life at the beginning allows me to say “he was like me.” Gandhi said, “I have not the shadow of a doubt that any man or woman can achieve what I have, if he or she would make the same effort and cultivate the same hope and faith.” He made his work and message clear and attainable for all, something that is extremely empowering and excited for me. Gandhi’s philosophy of learning by doing rather than being theoretical proves the attainability of his work. When he waits to tell the young boy to stop eating sugar until he has stopped taking sugar, he shows his dedication to the principle of action instead of theory.
Gandhi’s development started with himself and then extended onward like ripples in water. His emphasis was first on himself and his personal relationships, as being microcosms of the larger community and society. The author explains Gandhi’s thinking, “he could not expect to put out the fires of anger and hatred elsewhere if the same fire smoldered his own home and heart.” Again, this exemplifies his commitment to action and proving the validity of his own principles, but also that the starting point to change lies with yourself and those closest to you. His transformation of anger and other strong poignant emotions also offers a way to achieve personal development and peace. I have been trying to do these transformations from anger to another more useful emotion/action; although it hasn’t come naturally yet, I have found myself relieved of anger once I convert it to something like gratitude for the blessing I am facing issues with. Gandhi said all these skills we can develop; new systems and highways of thinking can be built in replacement of malfunctioning and maladjusted systems of thinking that might exist. I personally know this can be done with a lot of hard work, commitment and guidance; I have rebuilt flawed emotional/psychological systems in my mind, allowing me to find peace, strength, inner love, strength and ultimately my real self after suffering from the side-effects of operating on systems based upon fear, hatred, disillusion, and disharmony.
Additionally, I have found myself in a new location for work, where I am not as welcomed/integrated with the community as I had been my last time in this new country. I am having a hard time adjusting and becoming acclimated with the new environment since I feel out-of-place. I have found myself projecting these feelings onto the greater community, not allowing myself to see them a friend or individual but rather as the community as a whole that I feel rejected from. I have identified this malfunctioning pathway that only manifests my fear itself and have been working on changing my perceptions from their perception of me to my perceptions of them—which should be love, acceptance, and openness. I am in the process of transferring over my habit of extending ‘I love you’s’ in order to transform my fear/anxiety into love and acceptance. Also, the author explains, “[Gandhi] began to look on every difficulty as an opportunity for service, a challenge which could draw out of him greater resources of intelligence and imagination.”; I have been doing my best to perceive the new challenges as opportunities for growth and a hidden lesson that will come to fruition one day down the road. By taking a 10,000 foot view rather than a 10 foot view at situations like these helps tremendously, as seeing from a 10,000 foot view allows one to see the interconnectedness of actions, events, experiences, and people, as well as the fact we are all one regardless of any external factors or systems.
On another side note, I am also living in a violence-orientated culture where violence/beatings are so common. To make the point, for example, if someone commits suicide, the community/family will even beat the dead body for having done such an act, rather than sympathizing with the victim for whatever issues he/she was having that pushed them to that extreme. For me, as a strong advocate against violence done especially on marginalized populations (women, children, people of lesser power, etc.), it can be really painful to hear and experience. I really would love to find a way to bring NV classes/education to the communities I work with but know that the path hasn’t shown its way yet and it will at the right time. Until then, I am reminded daily at the perpetual cycle of violence we put ourselves in when we choose to hate and hurt rather than love and accept.

Hello everyone!

I know most of you have started this course a long time ago and I won’t be able to catch up, since I only started in the beginning of september. Nevertheless I would like to introduce myself, since I believe that sharing and communicating is an essential aspect of nonviolence and particularly of this course. I am really happy to be able to go on this journey and I hope that I will be able to exchange some of my ideas with you all and to somehow get to know you better (it was wonderful to read through the different posts – the diversity of people becomes really obvious).

So, my name is Julie Jankovic. I am 31 years old (I guess that age plays a role in nonviolence in that a lot seems to be about life and experience), I am half French, half German and currently live and work in Gisenyi / Rwanda, which is a small town on the border to the Democratic Republic of Congo and on the shores of Lake Kivu. I am working as a peacebuilding consultant for a local youth organization. Our mission is to promote nonviolent conflict transformation and reconciliation in the region (we have a lot of cross-border activities with other organizations in Goma / DRC). The wars that have been (and continue) savaging this beautiful region have literally caused the death of several million of people and another several million have been displaced from their homes within the last decades.
Living and working in such a violent context makes me deeply wonder about the meanings of life, humans, nature, violence, values, education, power and spirituality – just to name a few. And since it is my job to contribute to promoting peace, I constantly wonder how!

I am a trained peace and conflict consultant and am specialized in peace education. The more I gain experience in and identify with the realm of peacebuilding, the more I feel that there is a lot of spirituality to it. But since I grew up in a very secular environment, I find it a bit difficult to find my way and comfort zone with it.
Nonviolence is a term that is frequently used but I never had the opportunity to look deeper into the matter. However, it seems to me that it combines different scientific disciplines and spirituality in a way that I could feel perfectly comfortable with. I hope this course will help me learn more about myself and thus inspire me for my work so that I can pass some of it on!

Thank you!

Hello! This was my second time watching this movie, but now that I’ve learned more about Gandhi’s life, I definitely picked up some “nonviolence moments’ in the film. It is a powerful presentation of his life and commitment, and I appreciate that such a resource is there for us to enjoy.

Having read about half of the book “Gandhi the Man,” I do agree with Prof. Nagler that the movie has some limitations. Like he said, just by watching the movie people would not know where his ideas came from, his spiritual foundation. Also, it would have been nice to show that inner transformation he had to go through himself from being an unsuccessful lawyer to Mahatma. Of course, one film cannot cover everything – but it is easy to just see Gandhi as saint or someone so far away from each one of us if we just see his perfections.

One thing that I think the movie did do somewhat of a good job was how he was able to impact his “opponents” – police, those in favor of using violence against Muslims etc through his integrity and character. Another aspect that I liked was the description of deep relationships he had with his closest supporters, especially Nehru. The bonds between them, and how Nehru adored Gandhi and wanted to put Gandhi’s mind at peace was really touching.

Like John said, I am also thinking how the “success” of Gandhi’s efforts can be evaluated given the civil conflict that was brought out after the separation of India and Pakistan. Perhaps in light of bringing independence from the British it was a success, and both Hindus and Muslims had a common goal in that regard, which would have facilitated the success. The issue became when their interests were at conflict. People may have stopped using violence when Gandhi fasted, but maybe for some it was just because they cared about Gandhi (behavior only) and not because they truly changed the they viewed each other. I also wonder if the relationships between two parties also impacted people’s use of violence (i.e. India was oppressed by the British ruling, while after independence India and Pakistan were in a sense at equal standing).

On a side note, I came across with this posting: http://www.smileosmile.com/celebrities/why-i-killed-gandhi-nathuram-godses-final-address-to-the-court/. Not sure how accurate this is, but if this was true statement made by Godse, it is very interesting. At the least, I can see that in his eyes Gandhi looked as a threat to his nation’s best interest. Thought I’d share.

I have watched the movie “Gandhi” numerous times before but each time I leave inspired. It must have been so hard to figure out what parts of Gandhi’s life to put in a movie but I think a decent job was done. I feel it is a pretty outstanding movie.

One of my favorite moments of the movie is when Gandhi and some other members of what I believe is the Indian Congress are sitting around with British representatives. One of the British representatives says something like “You don’t expect us to just leave do you” and Gandhi replies in a confident and strong “Yes” and then states that 100,000 Englishmen cannot control 350 million Indians if they refuse to cooperative. I have always found the truth and force of this statement very powerful. It is very similar to a finding by Tolstoy in a “Letter to a Hindu” which was written to an Indian who I believe supported violent means of overthrowing the British. The letter was later obtained and published by Gandhi. Tolstoy states,

“A commercial company enslaved a nation comprising two hundred millions. Tell this to a man free from superstition and he will fail to grasp what these words mean. What does it mean that thirty thousand men, not athletes but rather weak and ordinary people, have subdued two hundred million vigorous, clever, capable, and freedom-loving people? Do not the figures make it clear that it is not the English who have enslaved the Indians, but the Indians who have enslaved themselves?”

While on the subject of Tolstoy I have found it surprising that both Michael Nagler and Sri Eknath Easwaran, both who I have a great deal of respect and appreciation for, hardly ever mention Tolstoy and the effect his life and works had on Gandhi. Gandhi even named his ashram after him his effect was so great yet both hardly ever mention his influence or allude to his works and I personally feel this is a loss to both of their great efforts.

Another aspect of the movie that stuck out this time was that even though both Hindu’s and Muslims practiced non-violence on a scale that has not ever really ever been seen in history before, the civil war that erupted during the partition was obviously a departure from this stance. It makes one wonder how much of what was practiced was as Professor Nagler would say principled non-violence vs. strategic non-violence. If some of the descent into violence was because the non-violence was accepted for strategic reason as opposed to being accepted at the heart and moral level than the possible future dangers for a struggle that is engaging in non-violence for only practical reasons seem evident. If a movement is non-violent but allows the possibility of violence in a different future conflict it is possible that even a skilled practitioner of non-violence may find themselves switching to violence if they think that will achieve the end better. It reminds me of switching to a particular diet, such as a vegetarian one, for health instead of moral reasons. While both can be positive it is probably more likely that a person that was switching to such a diet for health rather the moral reasons may go back to eating meat if there is the possibility of getting similar or better (at least on the surface) health benefits.

Another aspect that stuck out was the training and discipline necessary to engage in non-violence. Without that training and discipline staying true to such actions seems increasingly difficult. As a country I think we are undisciplined in so many ways, particularly with the countless unnecessary desires we have accumulated thanks in part by our societal setup that it will be rather challenging to do the internal work that will lead us to effective external actions. It makes me even more appreciative of the work we discussed in the first module to try and help us with the practices and habits which are so essential to becoming capable of these great but challenging goals, internal and external, that we are attempting to obtain.

Also below is the link to the Tolstoy letter which is one of the best and convincing writing on non-violence I have seen for anyone interested

http://www.nonresistance.org/docs_pdf/Tolstoy/Correspondence_with_Gandhi.pdf

Thank you Sadie! I’m following now.

For the assignment this week, I had this conversation with my wife. I basically asked her if she thought that humans were by nature violent. After thinking on this for a minute or so she responded that she thought that human beings by nature were emotional. I thought this was a true and interesting response. She stated that she thought that the emotions could be negative and that could lead to violent actions. On the other hand she also mentioned there were positive emotions that could lead to more beneficial outcomes.

She also mentioned that there were some people who were just sick in a way. She mentioned Hitler and mentioned that no rational person could think like this. I mentioned that sometimes you will be walking down the street and hear someone saying something seemingly crazy such as “kill all the so and so (fill in the blank)”. However we don’t automatically say ok and do what this person suggested. So what does that say about the “rationale” man who follows what this “sick” person said.

Our conversation veered towards how governments and others use methods to control others. We had just watched the “Serenity” movie from the Firefly series I mentioned in an earlier post. (Spoiler alert) In the movie the main opponent is “The Alliance” which is an American/Chinese alliance that works to take over the galaxy. A method of control they try is to release a chemical in the air which makes people docile and easier to control. The chemical has the unintended affect of decreasing people’s motivation to the point that they eventually stop wanting to do anything including eat and they just basically lay down to die. A small portion of the population suffers the opposite effect and becomes mad and overaggressive and kill and maims in brutal ways. I mentioned this fictitious example of government using methods to attempt to control the population. While fictitious I think it has many comparable real life examples and my wife agrees. I then told her about the “Century of Self” in which Freud’s findings are used to manipulate the population and control them in a desired way. I mentioned the work of Edward Bernays (although during the conversation I can’t remember his name for some reason). One of the examples I mention is how he manipulated women to start smoking. I ask if she thinks that people are manipulated like that now by government and she agrees but throws in it is just not the United States. I agree but basically reiterate that it is not just the United States but it does include the United States which she agrees with.

I throw out the question that if it is then possible that governments use such tactics to increase the violence in a society for the benefit of a few. She agrees and mentions it is probably that a lot of what is disseminated is carefully planned behind closed doors by a small group in which only a minor portion of the information is true. I mention Star Wars (spoiler alert) and how governments keep or increase their power. You will notice a trend in that I use another science fiction reference, this time Star Wars. Even though this story is fiction it was created based on consistent mythological themes found throughout history, partly inspired by Joseph Campbell’s work “The Hero with a Thousand Faces” and sometimes serves as a good reference point as it can contain themes that are repeated throughout history in a story, that while fictitious, is widely known. In the Star Wars prequel the evil emperor comes to power by manipulating people and creating conflict. He starts a war and uses the war to consolidate and increase his power. I actually considered doing my master degree thesis on this as I think it is an interesting way to show a true theme that can be seen, unfortunately it cannot be stopped in real life though by shutting off the movie. After this point my wife agrees to an extent that government may manipulate people to be more violent than they are through such means and reasons.

For me and my wife to even have this conversation I think was a constructive step in itself. I think things we talked about illustrated some of my concerns and thoughts in ways she may not have understood before and I think the reverse is true in that I understood her better as well. I thought the conversation was helpful and was pleased with it.