I have seen a video that, for me, represents a combination of the several definitions of nonviolence that I find most appealing, 1) inner transformation affected via stepping through our own fear, and 2) ahimsa, the absence of intention to harm. Here’s the video…
Now that you’ve watched it, what do you think?
I could explain to you why I think this is a representation of nonviolence. Perhaps I will in another post. Right now I will trust you to see what I see, and use the video as a tool as an example of how difficult it can be to ‘define’ nonviolence.
Let me tell you, we briefly discussed this video among ourselves at the ‘nonviolence-focused organization’ where I work, and whether it would be good to put up on our blog. Not only could we not agree whether to put it up, we couldn’t agree whether it represented nonviolence at all, whether it was too symbolic or sentimental, whether it was professional or clear enough, what the moment of transormation was…if there was a moment of transformation at all…etc….etc….
I’m putting it up here as a toast to those gray areas. I say, if we don’t know the answer, we can sure bet there are others who are also confused. Let’s use media like this as discussion fodder so that we can feel this out together, and hopefully all come out with a bit more clarity. So here it is in my blog.
Now if that wasn’t controversial enough, here’s stepping it up:
Using the example of Gandhi, Krishnamurti pointed out that forcing others to do what one wanted even by the presumably peaceful means of fasting, was still violent. Fasting for political reasons was violence.
(I would add that fasting can also be violence to the body.)
I don’t put this in as a critique of Gandhi. I am not enough a student of Gandhi to know the deeper and greater context that this example once existed within. However, I do agree with it. I feel violent, in some sense of the word, when I manipulate people through my actions.
Perhaps Gandhi here was acting as an instrument, and not as a manipulator. Perhaps his action was meant to inspire fear in the hearts of his followers (“Gandhi might die if we don’t act!”), so that they would take action on their own behalf. But I would not do what he did.
Perhaps for Gandhi his act was not an act of manipulation, but a spiritual practice. It is well known that Gandhi put himself and his body in seemingly precarious situations in order to test himself, and maybe his fast was simply what he had to do for himself. It is sometimes said that we overcome the fear of something by becoming acquainted with the very thing you fear. It has also been said that if you fear, you have not yet reached liberation. Was the fast a step toward Gandhi’s liberation?
Of course. Thomas Merton has already said that “all the political acts of Gandhi were…at the same time spiritual and religious acts in fulfillment of the Hindu dharma.” What is inner, and what is outer? And who is to say where the seed of nonviolence lies in each of our lives?
These are the kinds of gray areas that we human beings get ourselves into when we try to analyze the actions of others and develop theories based on those actions. In a field like nonviolence, there are so many more gray areas than, say, lawnmower mechanics, and a lot more to argue about. I am tired of arguing.
But I do love experiments in nonviolence (putting this video up here is itself an experiment in nonviolence). Just because it’s difficult to define, doesn’t mean that we should abandon it. Love is difficult to define, as well, and I don’t imagine we’ll be abandoning that any time soon. Indeed, I would argue that nonviolence isn’t something that can be ultimately defined, but rather, that it is something that can only be felt.
Perhaps you can feel it in a hug?
