Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > BTW, do you detest India or Indians, Dan? What an odd question, Arvind. Of course not. > There seen to be a consistent 'pattern' in > your writing on the subject of India/Indians. I'm not aware that I've expounded on Indians and India. I have often expressed enjoyment of ideas from Buddha's teachings -- but maybe you don't count Gautama as Indian? Imposition of ideals, which I see Gandhi as having done, isn't a matter of nationality. Indeed, the British were already involved in that - so Gandhi was imposing ideals counter to the ideals the British were imposing (superiority of culture, moral right to " civilize " India, etc.) George Bush does it, Jessie Jackson does it, Tony Blair does it, Ossama Bin Laden does it - most political leaders do it. Politics based on imposing a morality isn't something done by one person in one nation. > In my book, it is OK to hate India [or anything > else that one chooses to hate]. I am only interested > in learning if you truly hate India/Indians or if > it is just an impression that I get from your > writing. This is an 'impression' that I have got > many times from you. I just want to clarify it > from you. I have, in general, a deep appreciation of India's culture and art, contributions in many areas - including philosophy and religion. Nisargadatta was Indian, no? - and here I am on a list with his name, addressing issues he thought were important. I think Gandhi was basically a political leader, who used religious morality and idealism to further his cause - and my comments about Gandhi were related to the use of ideals in politics -- not about India or Indians. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > BTW, do you detest India or Indians, Dan? > > What an odd question, Arvind. > > Of course not. Thanks Dan. I am glad to learn that. > > > There seen to be a consistent 'pattern' in > > your writing on the subject of India/Indians. > > I'm not aware that I've expounded on Indians and India. > > I have often expressed enjoyment of ideas from Buddha's teachings -- > but maybe you don't count Gautama as Indian? > > Imposition of ideals, which I see Gandhi as having done, isn't a > matter of nationality. > > Indeed, the British were already involved in that - so Gandhi was > imposing ideals counter to the ideals the British were imposing > (superiority of culture, moral right to " civilize " India, etc.) Perhaps, we have read history from different sources and thus have slightly different prespective. In history books that I read, attacks on India and occupation of India was to do more with exploting people and 'natural resources' and expanding power and control and less to do with " civilize " India. > > George Bush does it, Jessie Jackson does it, Tony Blair does it, > Ossama Bin Laden does it - most political leaders do it. > > Politics based on imposing a morality isn't something done by one > person in one nation. > > > In my book, it is OK to hate India [or anything > > else that one chooses to hate]. I am only interested > > in learning if you truly hate India/Indians or if > > it is just an impression that I get from your > > writing. This is an 'impression' that I have got > > many times from you. I just want to clarify it > > from you. > > I have, in general, a deep appreciation of India's culture and art, > contributions in many areas - including philosophy and religion. > Nisargadatta was Indian, no? - and here I am on a list with his name, > addressing issues he thought were important. > > I think Gandhi was basically a political leader, who used religious > morality and idealism to further his cause - and my comments about > Gandhi were related to the use of ideals in politics -- not about > India or Indians. I was suprised to see that your reponse painted a picture which was false based on the information that I had from many sources. I consider you a very well educated and knowlegeable man and I was thus wondering what will the reason for you to say things which painted a negative picture of Gandhi and India. I wondered if you were truly unaware of the facts and didn't bother to check them or if you had some resentment that was showing thru. I am glad that you clarified it. > > -- Dan > Regards, ac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Hi Arvind - > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > BTW, do you detest India or Indians, Dan? > > > > What an odd question, Arvind. > > > > Of course not. > > Thanks Dan. > > I am glad to learn that. > Perhaps, we have read history from different > sources and thus have slightly different > prespective. > > In history books that I read, attacks on India > and occupation of India was to do more with > exploting people and 'natural resources' > and expanding power and control and less to > do with " civilize " India. No doubt what the British were actually doing, and their rationale for why they could and should do it, were quite at odds. I agree that what they were actually doing was to control resources, being greedy in other words. But, their rationale was the superiority of British culture, and this explained for them why it was good for the world that they occupied India. In this way, the British imosed their ideals (British culture is superior, our religion is better, it is our right to conquer other, more " primitive " countries) and rationalized away the greedy aspect of what they were actually doing. > I was suprised to see that your reponse > painted a picture which was false based on the > information that I had from many sources. > > I consider you a very well educated and > knowlegeable man and I was thus wondering > what will the reason for you to say things > which painted a negative picture of Gandhi > and India. Gandhi was a human being and a politician - this doesn't make him " bad. " I used him as an example to make a point about ideals, basically. It's worth looking into the way that " ideals " can backfire - that's my basic point here. That India subsequently developed an army and was involved in war with Pakistan isn't to say that India is negative or bad, either. It's to say that India ended up going in the usual way that nations go - maintaining an army, gaining expertise in technology of weapons -- regardless of Gandhi's " ideals. " So my point is the futility of those antiviolence " ideals " -- that India did what nations do is certainly understandable, and unavoidable in my perception. Until the human race no longer needs nations and politics. Which won't be next week. > I wondered if you were truly unaware of > the facts and didn't bother to check them > or if you had some resentment that was showing > thru. > > I am glad that you clarified it. I hope I've clarified it. I've actually found great enjoyment in the richness of what Indian culture has provided to the world. If I'm in a museum that has a section with Indian art, I tend to gravitate there. I'm also aware that some of that wonderful art, such as statues of Shiva dancing, were looted from Indian temples during British occupation. While I'm sorry about the destructiveness that occurred historically, I still enjoy what the statue imparts. And so life goes on, good and bad intermingled, no one all good or all bad, and destructive events sometimes may have aspects that are positive in some way. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Hi Arvind - > > > Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > > > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > > > > BTW, do you detest India or Indians, Dan? > > > > > > What an odd question, Arvind. > > > > > > Of course not. > > > > Thanks Dan. > > > > I am glad to learn that. > > > Perhaps, we have read history from different > > sources and thus have slightly different > > perspective. > > > > In history books that I read, attacks on India > > and occupation of India was to do more with > > exploiting people and 'natural resources' > > and expanding power and control and less to > > do with " civilize " India. > > No doubt what the British were actually doing, and their rationale for > why they could and should do it, were quite at odds. Maybe, " rationale " ... Or, maybe, 'pretension' or 'excuse'... Historians somewhat differ on the real " why " of the attack and occupation and as we have known, words of a politician or 'merchant' [or, anyone for that matter] are not always True! I have found it better to study 'actions' than just rely on what a politician says. > > I agree that what they were actually doing was to control resources, > being greedy in other words. > > But, their rationale was the superiority of British culture, and this > explained for them why it was good for the world that they occupied India. My response is above... > > In this way, the British imposed their ideals (British culture is > superior, our religion is better, it is our right to conquer other, > more " primitive " countries) and rationalized away the greedy aspect of > what they were actually doing. > > > I was surprised to see that your response > > painted a picture which was false based on the > > information that I had from many sources. > > > > I consider you a very well educated and > > knowledgeable man and I was thus wondering > > what will the reason for you to say things > > which painted a negative picture of Gandhi > > and India. > > Gandhi was a human being and a politician - this doesn't make him > " bad. " I used him as an example to make a point about ideals, > basically. It's worth looking into the way that " ideals " can backfire > - that's my basic point here. But, I am not sure if it really " backfired " ! His movement was largely non-violent which was a Great human achievement considering the size of India and the length of the movement! Based on what I have read he largely succeeded. > > That India subsequently developed an army and was involved in war with > Pakistan isn't to say that India is negative or bad, either. It's to > say that India ended up going in the usual way that nations go - > maintaining an army, gaining expertise in technology of weapons -- > regardless of Gandhi's " ideals. " Of course, India chose to have strong enough army and perhaps, it was not in accordance with Gandhi's ideal. One possible explanation is that after Gandhi India didn't have a leader who was as capable, clear, focused and firm on non violence and its implementation. I have found that it takes far greater mental strength to be firm yet non-violent than to be violent. Other explanation is that perhaps, Gandhi's ideals themselves were ahead of time. But, in any case, they didn't fail. They showed a great new way and a great new possibility. They were used many places successfully and they might get used in future too. We [human race] have a long history of violence and this habit of may not change in short time but, I am glad that Gandhi sowed the seeds of change. He also experimented with this new way at a very large scale and in a largely successful way. > So my point is the futility of those > antiviolence " ideals " My comments are above... > -- that India did what nations do is certainly > understandable, and unavoidable in my perception. Until the human > race no longer needs nations and politics. Which won't be next week. > > > I wondered if you were truly unaware of > > the facts and didn't bother to check them > > or if you had some resentment that was showing > > thru. > > > > I am glad that you clarified it. > > I hope I've clarified it. > > I've actually found great enjoyment in the richness of what Indian > culture has provided to the world. If I'm in a museum that has a > section with Indian art, I tend to gravitate there. I'm also aware > that some of that wonderful art, such as statues of Shiva dancing, > were looted from Indian temples during British occupation. While I'm > sorry about the destructiveness that occurred historically, I still > enjoy what the statue imparts. > > And so life goes on, good and bad intermingled, no one all good or all > bad, and destructive events sometimes may have aspects that are > positive in some way. Still we live in the words of " relatives " and what a Gandhi brings into the world is quite different than what a Stalin does. And, I see no harm in acknowledging and respecting that. I have found that is natural for me [and, perhaps for nay human being] to be selfish, self-centered, fearful and Violent... and, I have also seen that [my] Violence is usually just another side of [my] fear! It takes great Mental Strength to be non-violent mentally and physically and I salute those who have achieved any degree of that. It is no doubt that our history has been very violent and many times, those who have been Most Violent have conquered, ruled and exploited all the riches. I am glad that Great Humans like Gandhi showed that it was possible to go beyond *in born* human tendency of Violence and still be effective in achieving your ideals/goals/mission. I salute him. And, I am a Violent Man! > > > -- Dan > Regards, ac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2006 Report Share Posted May 19, 2006 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Gandhi was a human being and a politician - this doesn't make him > > " bad. " I used him as an example to make a point about ideals, > > basically. It's worth looking into the way that " ideals " can > backfire > > - that's my basic point here. > > But, I am not sure if it really " backfired " ! > > His movement was largely non-violent which > was a Great human achievement considering > the size of India and the length of the movement! > > Based on what I have read he largely succeeded. Well, Arvind -- it backfired if the intent was not to have killing, and to have a nonviolent culture once the British were gone. If the intent was to get the British out of India, it succeeded. There may have been more deaths if there had been a contest of force against force, so in that sense, I can see your point. There may have been less killing Gandhi's way than if the Indians had armed themselves and taken to the streets. (snip) ... > I have found that it takes far greater mental > strength to be firm yet non-violent than to > be violent. Well, it can take a lot of strength to be successfully violent, also. (And by successful, I mean in the short run - because violence doesn't succeed in the long run). And sometimes a person may claim they are being nonviolent, when in fact, they just want to avoid conflict. But, to be truly nonviolent requires ruthless honesty, particularly in the immediate sense, of being honest about one's direct experience and knowing. > Other explanation is that perhaps, Gandhi's > ideals themselves were ahead of time. > > But, in any case, they didn't fail. They > showed a great new way and a great new > possibility. They were used many places > successfully and they might get used > in future too. My perspective is that if the human race no longer needs and values ideals, we will experience greatly reduced violence. The human race does not appear to be sufficiently mature to be able to do without ideals and projections of idealized figures. Now, to be clear, I should point out that many humans idealize having a lot of money, control, and possessions. Those are ideals, too. > We [human race] have a long history of > violence and this habit of may not > change in short time but, I am glad that Gandhi > sowed the seeds of change. I think you and I differ on what the change is. But that's okay. Opinions and ideas are bound to differ. So, what is not going to breed conflict, is not going to come from thought, ideas, ideals, and moral principles of thought. (snip) > Still we live in the words of " relatives " > and what a Gandhi brings into the world > is quite different than what a Stalin does. > And, I see no harm in acknowledging and > respecting that. I would rather live next door to Gandhi than to Stalin. I would rather work for Gandhi than Stalin. But I wouldn't use either of them as an ideal figure, nor try to emulate either of them. > I have found that is natural for me [and, > perhaps for nay human being] to be selfish, > self-centered, fearful and Violent... > > and, I have also seen that [my] Violence > is usually just another side of [my] fear! > > It takes great Mental Strength to be non-violent > mentally and physically and I salute those who > have achieved any degree of that. > > It is no doubt that our history has been very > violent and many times, those who have > been Most Violent have conquered, ruled > and exploited all the riches. > > I am glad that Great Humans like Gandhi > showed that it was possible to go beyond > *in born* human tendency of Violence and > still be effective in achieving your > ideals/goals/mission. > > I salute him. > > And, I am a Violent Man! And interesting way to look at it. I'm not trying to get rid of violence. I do think that if human beings understand what they are doing with clarity, they will stop much of their violence automatically. Much of human beings' violence toward each other depends on investing in ignorance. For me, understanding depends on what is clear to one, first-hand. We can go on inventing idealized figures to look up to, and nothing will change from that -- in my perspective. Another aspect of this is: what is nonviolence? If I am imposing on myself the ideal that says I must not show any violent emotion -- isn't that imposition itself a form of violence? And in the long run, if people are trying to avoid and ignore what their feelings are saying -- won't that result in an explosion at some point? It seems to me that it works that way -- so that the imposition of ideals such as " I must not show any violence or violent feelings " can result in mayhem at some point. I've seen this individually and in group behavior. At the same time that I've observed this dynamic, I've also observed that people can have a belief that violence is good, that the powerful should get what they want by force, and if you can take something you should take it. This also is the result of an imposition by thought, and it also is based on separation of self from experience. So, neither the " positive " nor " negative " aspect of using thought-based principles will result in nonseparative love and understanding. Just one person's opinion, of course. -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " > <adithya_comming@> wrote: > > > > Gandhi was a human being and a politician - this doesn't make him > > > " bad. " I used him as an example to make a point about ideals, > > > basically. It's worth looking into the way that " ideals " can > > backfire > > > - that's my basic point here. > > > > But, I am not sure if it really " backfired " ! > > > > His movement was largely non-violent which > > was a Great human achievement considering > > the size of India and the length of the movement! > > > > Based on what I have read he largely succeeded. > > Well, Arvind -- it backfired if the intent was not to have killing, > and to have a nonviolent culture once the British were gone. > > If the intent was to get the British out of India, it succeeded. > > There may have been more deaths if there had been a contest of force > against force, so in that sense, I can see your point. There may have > been less killing Gandhi's way than if the Indians had armed > themselves and taken to the streets. > > (snip) ... > > > I have found that it takes far greater mental > > strength to be firm yet non-violent than to > > be violent. > > Well, it can take a lot of strength to be successfully violent, also. > (And by successful, I mean in the short run - because violence doesn't > succeed in the long run). Yes... One example might be 13 Saudi Arab nationals flying airplane into WTC towers. I think better results could have been achieved by daily mass scale non-violent protests on Saudi Arab's street against US presence in that country [i.e. if people there really feel bad about the country dictatorship and its support by US forces]. In addition to being quite effective, such protests could also save many innnocent lives. > > And sometimes a person may claim they are being nonviolent, when in > fact, they just want to avoid conflict. Yes, I agree with that. But, Gandhi was clearly not that kind of person. He engaged in and led a full-scale protest yet, he remained commited to non-violence. > > But, to be truly nonviolent requires ruthless honesty, particularly in > the immediate sense, of being honest about one's direct experience and > knowing. No comments... > > > > Other explanation is that perhaps, Gandhi's > > ideals themselves were ahead of time. > > > > But, in any case, they didn't fail. They > > showed a great new way and a great new > > possibility. They were used many places > > successfully and they might get used > > in future too. > > My perspective is that if the human race no longer needs and values > ideals, we will experience greatly reduced violence. The human race > does not appear to be sufficiently mature to be able to do without > ideals and projections of idealized figures. Now, to be clear, I > should point out that many humans idealize having a lot of money, > control, and possessions. Those are ideals, too. > > > We [human race] have a long history of > > violence and this habit of may not > > change in short time but, I am glad that Gandhi > > sowed the seeds of change. > > I think you and I differ on what the change is. > > But that's okay. Opinions and ideas are bound to differ. > > So, what is not going to breed conflict, is not going to come from > thought, ideas, ideals, and moral principles of thought. > > (snip) > > > Still we live in the world of " relatives " > > and what a Gandhi brings into the world > > is quite different than what a Stalin does. > > And, I see no harm in acknowledging and > > respecting that. > > I would rather live next door to Gandhi than to Stalin. > > I would rather work for Gandhi than Stalin. Me too. > > But I wouldn't use either of them as an ideal figure, nor try to > emulate either of them. By respecting and saluting Gandhi, my itention is not to emulate him. I respect and admire Ramana, Buddha, Einstein, Shakespeare, Mozart, Michael Jordon, Bill Gates and many others too. But, it doesn't mean I can/will or want to emulate them. > > > I have found that is natural for me [and, > > perhaps for nay human being] to be selfish, > > self-centered, fearful and Violent... > > > > and, I have also seen that [my] Violence > > is usually just another side of [my] fear! > > > > It takes great Mental Strength to be non-violent > > mentally and physically and I salute those who > > have achieved any degree of that. > > > > It is no doubt that our history has been very > > violent and many times, those who have > > been Most Violent have conquered, ruled > > and exploited all the riches. > > > > I am glad that Great Humans like Gandhi > > showed that it was possible to go beyond > > *in born* human tendency of Violence and > > still be effective in achieving your > > ideals/goals/mission. > > > > I salute him. > > > > And, I am a Violent Man! > > And interesting way to look at it. > > I'm not trying to get rid of violence. Neither am I. Though, I prefer peace and I realize that much of violence is unnecessary. > > I do think that if human beings understand what they are doing with > clarity, they will stop much of their violence automatically. Much of > human beings' violence toward each other depends on investing in > ignorance. > > For me, understanding depends on what is clear to one, first-hand. > > We can go on inventing idealized figures to look up to, and nothing > will change from that -- in my perspective. > > Another aspect of this is: what is nonviolence? > > If I am imposing on myself the ideal that says I must not show any > violent emotion -- isn't that imposition itself a form of violence? > > And in the long run, if people are trying to avoid and ignore what > their feelings are saying -- won't that result in an explosion at some > point? It seems to me that it works that way -- so that the > imposition of ideals such as " I must not show any violence or violent > feelings " can result in mayhem at some point. I've seen this > individually and in group behavior. > > At the same time that I've observed this dynamic, I've also observed > that people can have a belief that violence is good, that the powerful > should get what they want by force, and if you can take something you > should take it. This also is the result of an imposition by thought, > and it also is based on separation of self from experience. > > So, neither the " positive " nor " negative " aspect of using > thought-based principles will result in nonseparative love and > understanding. > > Just one person's opinion, of course. > > -- Dan > Thanks for sharing your opinions Dan, ac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 20, 2006 Report Share Posted May 20, 2006 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > By respecting and saluting Gandhi, my > itention is not to emulate him. > > I respect and admire Ramana, Buddha, > Einstein, Shakespeare, Mozart, Michael Jordon, > Bill Gates and many others too. But, it doesn't > mean I can/will or want to emulate them. Makes sense to me, Arvind. .... > Thanks for sharing your opinions Dan, And likewise, thanks for sharing yours with me. I enjoyed the exchange, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.