A response I choose to repeat in a separate post. This was my response to a comment which I tried to copy and paste here from his original post on my last "images" post:
you didn't catch the end. i said "pray". why pray if mercy or miracles are not possible?
there is room.
however, gandhi didn't endure the things some people endure at the hands of those who are not right, who are not more moral, but who only have more power vested in them by grant of governance or finance.
i am not for capital punishment bc mistakes are made and there is prejudice. but, what i said to my first "bf" who told me, from his nice sheltered and idealistic ivy league, claremont mckenna, was an eye opener for him i guess:
he said he didn't believe there was ever any justification for WAR. i told him he was naive to think there would be "world peace" when peace begins in each individual heart and mind. i told him it was impossible to reconcile everyone to "peace" on this personal level, worldwide, and that when people begin taking it out on children, and innocents, and there is unnecessary, if all other efforts have been exhausted, war is then NECESSARY. it is then WRONG to not wage war, and to stand by idly and allow the suffering of those who are defenseless and vulnerable. He said he never thought of it that way.
He'd written an entire paper on world peace and read it to me over the phone.
Who was I? I was the supposedly dumb blond who didn't know anything, because i wasn't in college with all my other friends who all went to private schools. no, i was working the OTHER ladder: the one of service. I was a nanny for others' kids and i was a personal assistant and a cleaner, and i thought this was my duty and "privilege", to be a slave or servant to others and know that inside i'm great but serve others in humility.
That, in itself, is a wonderful ideal. but it is also unrealistic. i was a fucking "gandhi" for too long. I realized, there is SUFFERING in this world, not because there are enough "peacemakers" who often are not even peacemakers but just use their silence as a covering for themselves because they haven't got the GUTS to fucking STAND UP for what is right, and SAY something, and risk the consequences of trying to make the world a better place, by calling attention to corruption and greed which just might affect more people than you think. to do NOTHING, to stand by in silence, where there is suffering, is immoral. it is not "peace" nor does it create an environment or climate of peace. it creates complacency and a world order which is managed by those at the top who demand subservience of those who are not.
well said, i'm sure, and congrats. congrats to me, the sweet chick who walks around with nothing in her fucking pockets, but with her chin UP, because she is willing to lay her fucking LIFE on the line, to make a difference.
Fuck sitting around on a blanket in meditation while others suffer and cry out for help, and others turn the figurative "blind eye".
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Please note the tone is respectful, and intellectual in discourse (as tone is lost in text)
You state:
"however, gandhi didn't endure the things some people endure at the hands of those who are not right, who are not more moral, but who only have more power vested in them by grant of governance or finance." No offense to you, but you are incorrect as that was ENTIRELY the premise upon which Gandhi focused his work as MORE bad things happened to his country and his people, and to him, that could ever happen to you. Prayer doesn't necessarily help, especially if you are an atheist. No great leaders ever sat around and just prayed. Now, if you've read any autobiographies, biographies, or even seen the movie, Gandhi, you would know that his philosophy is limited, as it is more preventative. However, it worked to free India from Britain. His work was echoed by Martin Luther King to legally end segregation. Furthermore, this work helped Vaclev Havel and Nelson Mandela free the Czech Republic and South Africa, respectively. Although some human violence can only be stopped via brute strength (e.g. Hitler), which Gandhi continually maintained that civil disobedience would be effective; this was a shortcoming. HOWEVER, if people adopted this attitude prior to giving such destructive forces power, perhaps they would have been more effective. If the people of Germany refused to allow Hitler to have power (as they gave it to him out of fear) then WWII would not have happened, and Hitler would be roaming the Austrian streets as a starving artist. To adopt a peaceful mind, one must transcend the violence and injustice around us. In our orderly society, this can be done. However, when you have a disfunctional society, it's not quite as easy (eg. Darfur). So, "an eye for an eye" is more preventative, however, to act in the converse, in our society is counter-productive and unnecessary - as Gandhi believed that you have to work WITH the system to overturn it. And I know, there are many systems in our society that need to be overturned so that there is justice.
Post a Comment