Gandhi:- Ahimsa, Civil Disobedience and the Alternative West

[sayak83]

I am watching an excellent series of talks on the ethical and moral vision of Gandhi. This talk highlights certain aspects that are formative to Gandhi's vision:-

1) The influence of Thoreau on Gandhi

2) When is it moral to break laws and how to do it

3) How and why did Gandhi, on reaching London, seek out and give voice to alternative Western thoughts from idealists, theosophists and transcendentalists?

4) What were the key pillars of his vision for society and what do they mean

What do you think?

In today's politics and media, Gandhi's cardinal emphasis on the vital importance of Satya (Truth) as a way of life and society may be worth dwelling upon.

For any who are interested I am also attaching the freely available selected works of Gandhi and the complete 100 volume critical edition of Collected works of Gandhi.
Books Online - Selected Works of Mahatma Gandhi

Gandhi Heritage Portal: Repository of Authentic Information on the life and thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi

 

[Kemosloby]

He led a lot of people to be killed for political reasons.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

He led a lot of people to be killed for political reasons.

Is that bad?

 

[Valjean]

He led a lot of people to be killed for political reasons.

Wouldn't more have been killed had he advocated a more militant methodology?

 

[metis]

As Einstein stated, it's hard to believe that such a man existed in flesh and blood, and Gandhi inspired probably millions to more go in the direction of non-violence, justice, and compassion for all.

Gandhi was far from being a perfect person, and he very often admitted and talked about his weaknesses and mistakes, and he also stated that he was a work in progress. But what he accomplished was nothing short of amazing.

 

[LuisDantas]

He led a lot of people to be killed for political reasons.

I take it that you disapprove of him, then? What do you think would have been a better course of action?

 

[Kemosloby]

I take it that you disapprove of him, then? What do you think would have been a better course of action?

I would have to learn more about Ghandi and what he did to say for sure but. I suspect Basically what he did was open India up for new management. From management by the British Empire to management by the new world order system of propped up dictators and exploitation by the industrialists. Sort of like indentured servants of the British, to slaves of big agra and the like. He did it all with fancy words and other peoples blood, in the new Liberal style of emo war, whatever tactics will earn the most sympathy.

 

[Valjean]

I would have to learn more about Ghandi and what he did to say for sure but. I suspect Basically what he did was open India up for new management. From management by the British Empire to management by the new world order system of propped up dictators and exploitation by the industrialists. Sort of like indentured servants of the British, to slaves of big agra and the like. He did it all with fancy words and other peoples blood, in the new Liberal style of emo war, whatever tactics will earn the most sympathy.

Yes, clearly you really do have to learn more about Gandhi.

 

[Kemosloby]

Yes, clearly you really do have to learn more about Gandhi.

Was Gandhi a freemason? Why was he in England. Who was he working for? Not the BS account that the NWO historians tell, lets get to the truth about Gandhi.

 

[LuisDantas]

Is it that hard to say that you have no idea of what Gandhi did, or why? We can respect that.

 

[Kirran]

I would have to learn more about Ghandi and what he did to say for sure but. I suspect Basically what he did was open India up for new management. From management by the British Empire to management by the new world order system of propped up dictators and exploitation by the industrialists. Sort of like indentured servants of the British, to slaves of big agra and the like. He did it all with fancy words and other peoples blood, in the new Liberal style of emo war, whatever tactics will earn the most sympathy.

What India has become is very much opposed to Gandhi's vision of it. He called himself a philosophical anarchist, respecting Leo Tolstoy in particular very deeply, and wanted a deindustrialised India based in local village-communes, rather than having some central government. He said that it would be basically pointless just to replace the British governing state with the same thing but staffed by Indians.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Wouldn't more have been killed had he advocated a more militant methodology?

He didn't need to advocate more militant methods because other people in the Indian independence movement were already doing that.

I think it's important to remember that one non-violent figure in a movement that was largely violent does not make the movement as a whole non-violent. There was an implicit threat in everything he did, whether Ghandi intended it (or even wanted it) or not: the British administration could deal with Ghandi, or they could deal with the factions that were rioting, bombing railways, and killing police. And despite Ghandi's own non-violence, the violence around him contributed to the urgency to resolve things.

 

[Kemosloby]

What India has become is very much opposed to Gandhi's vision of it. He called himself a philosophical anarchist, respecting Leo Tolstoy in particular very deeply, and wanted a deindustrialised India based in local village-communes, rather than having some central government. He said that it would be basically pointless just to replace the British governing state with the same thing but staffed by Indians.

Then he was either a fool or a pawn. He kicked out the strong leaderhship of the British, which couldn't have been so bad since it relied on co-operation, and left a power vaccume for the NWO to fill. Opposing British rule seemed to be the common theme of the time, and perhaps a common goal of Ghandi and the New World Order.

 

[Kirran]

Then he was either a fool or a pawn. He kicked out the strong leaderhship of the British, which couldn't have been so bad since it relied on co-operation, and left a power vaccume for the NWO to fill. Opposing British rule seemed to be the common theme of the time, and perhaps a common goal of Ghandi and the New World Order.

Or rather, one of the many manifestations of the ideals of national self-determination which were spreading across the world during the mid-20th Century.

 

[Kemosloby]

Or rather, one of the many manifestations of the ideals of national self-determination which were spreading across the world during the mid-20th Century.

An ideal that was exploited by the new world order to cast off British rule for the Vatican led Freemason new world order, "Rebuilding Rome" if you will.

 

[Kirran]

An ideal that was exploited by the new world order to cast off British rule for the Vatican led Freemason new world order, "Rebuilding Rome" if you will.

I am unsure if this is satirical, could you clarify?

 

[metis]

He called himself a philosophical anarchist, respecting Leo Tolstoy in particular very deeply, and wanted a deindustrialised India based in local village-communes, rather than having some central government.

Exactly, and that general approach is mirrored in what is now called by some "Neo-Marxism", which sounds ominous but actually isn't.

BTW, I mentioned several weeks ago about Gandhi and my "link" to him, so let me cover that briefly now.

About 43 years ago, a close friend of mine was sponsored on a study of Gandhi's affect on Hinduism in India whereas he spent six weeks there. When he came back, I took a keen interest in what he had experienced, so I began to do some serious reading about him.

After the movie "Gandhi" came out, my friend did some public speaking at various churches and other interested groups, and I joined and helped him because I have a background in comparative religions, although he did most of the speaking.

Gandhi became my "mentor", and even though I do not agree with everything that he taught, which would be fine & dandy with him btw, I incorporated over time most of what he taught.

I could go on and on about this, but let me just stop here.

namaste

 

[Kirran]

Exactly, and that general approach is mirrored in what is now called by some "Neo-Marxism", which sounds ominous but actually isn't.

BTW, I mentioned several weeks ago about Gandhi and my "link" to him, so let me cover that briefly now.

About 43 years ago, a close friend of mine was sponsored on a study of Gandhi's affect on Hinduism in India whereas he spent six weeks there. When he came back, I took a keen interest in what he had experienced, so I began to do some serious reading about him.

After the movie "Gandhi" came out, my friend did some public speaking at various churches and other interested groups, and I joined and helped him because I have a background in comparative religions, although he did most of the speaking.

Gandhi became my "mentor", and even though I do not agree with everything that he taught, which would be fine & dandy with him btw, I incorporated over time most of what he taught.

I could go on and on about this, but let me just stop here.

namaste

I think we can agree that he was a cool dude. Didn't shy from basing his politics in his spirituality, lived the ideals he preached, didn't buy into religious separatism, was well into overturning prejudices held onto only on account of "tradition"...

Big fan, 9/10, would admire again.

Thanks for sharing your history with the man.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Then he was either a fool or a pawn. He kicked out the strong leaderhship of the British, which couldn't have been so bad since it relied on co-operation, and left a power vaccume for the NWO to fill. Opposing British rule seemed to be the common theme of the time, and perhaps a common goal of Ghandi and the New World Order.

So just to be clear: you think that the British Empire was NOT run by the NWO/Freemasons/Lizard People/whatever?

That's a refreshing surprise.

 

[LuisDantas]

Then he was either a fool or a pawn. He kicked out the strong leaderhship of the British, which couldn't have been so bad since it relied on co-operation, and left a power vaccume for the NWO to fill. Opposing British rule seemed to be the common theme of the time, and perhaps a common goal of Ghandi and the New World Order.

You are very certain about a situation that you are barely aware of.