In the last essay, I discussed some ways that yoga addresses nonviolence. This essay adds some follow-up thoughts related to that theme. I want to continue discussing ways to apply ahimsa in our everyday lives.
Here are two translations of Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras, book 2, Sutra 35:
o When one is established in harmlessness (ahimsa), those near are at peace.
o Where non-injury is perfected, all enmity ceases in the presence of him who possesses it.
This says that when someone develops an inner peace, then that peace influences those around him. If I practice ahimsa, it may influence people who are predisposed to agree with me. I certainly try to do this in my everyday life.
I don’t understand how to apply this idea beyond my own scale, though. In my last essay, I discussed some of the root causes of violence. Even if I am a peaceful person, it does not affect people who are benefiting from violence. Any actions to stop widespread violence and oppression must extend beyond one person practicing nonviolence. Violent people must be confronted in order to make change.
A classic example of accepting confrontation while remaining nonviolent is Gandhi. The British occupied and ruled India. Gandhi was one of the leaders of a resistance movement called satyagraha. Gandhi translated satyagraha as the “force (or firmness) that is born of truth and love (nonviolence).” Satyagraha involved much more than practicing nonviolence and hoping that it would influence others. Satyagraha involved constant confrontation without physical violence. He preferred to avoid the use of the English term “passive resistance” because that implied it was a weapon of the weak.
However, nonviolence against a government or government policy only works when the government is at least somewhat accountable to the people. Gandhi was successful because the ruling British empire was influenced by public opinion. How successful would Gandhi have been if he had tried to face down Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany, regimes that were willing to kill millions of their own people? How successful would he have been in facing a government that was willing to use tanks against their own people, as happened in 1989 in China? In spite of this, Gandhi did not accept the idea of “any means necessary” to convert the British to the Indian way of thinking.
Where do we go with this discussion? I am not sure how to reconcile my belief that nonviolence has limits with Gandhi’s belief that the use of force in resisting oppression institutionalized the use of force. I would love to get some comments from anyone who has more knowledge or experience in dealing with issues like these.
© 2010 Eric Borreson
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Nonviolence, Yoga, and a Government that Works (Part 2)
In my last essay, I discussed some of the root causes of violence. This essay discusses ways yoga can alleviate some of these causes. Conflict is fueled by many causes, such as greed, envy, or fear. Conflict is triggered when a fuel is present and there is an expectation that things will be better, or at least no worse, after the conflict is over. Nonviolence can only prevail when the triggers that fuel violence are removed.
In yoga, the term avidya is used to mean ignorance or delusion that clouds our perception of reality. Avidya is often illustrated with a blind man. It causes us to fail to see our true spiritual connection with others. People without any connection to other people do not behave in ways that respect those people.
Yoga promotes the idea of “cultivating the right attitude.” We sometimes feel jealous when we see someone with something we want. It may be material things we are jealous of. It may be because they are joyful and we are not. To become more peaceful, we need to be happy with other’s good fortune and compassionate for those in need. These practices reduce our desire for conflict by reducing our own fuels for violence. Yoga also promotes the idea of “practicing constructive behavior.” To become more satisfied in our own lives and to improve our interactions with others, we should follow the yamas of the Yoga Sutra, starting with nonviolence (ahimsa).
There are many people in the world that believe that violence can get them what they want. Aggression works for them. It gets them power, prestige, and all the other comforts of life that they desire. These people cannot be persuaded by argument or discussion. Buckminster Fuller said, “To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.”
Opposing violence does not mean that we sit in lotus and meditate all day. Yoga helps us transform our own perceptions by teaching us that we are all interconnected and that what hurts others hurts us as well. Our own new model of reality must be pacifist and nonviolent, but it must not be passive. In order to cause someone else to change, we must demonstrate that another way exists and is effective in achieving the same goals that violence tries to achieve.
On a local scale, we can reduce violence by practicing compassion and volunteering to help out where needed. It can mean getting involved in other local causes that promote nonviolence to people, animals, and the environment. Keep in mind that a protest against violence is not very effective without at the same time proposing a new model that makes violence obsolete. Wishing for violence to go away doesn’t make it so.
On a state or national level, we need institutions that can help promote social justice so that people can find hope for the future. People and nations know from experience that violence and aggression work. They need to be shown that peace also works. Most of all, we need a government that works for everyone. Support political institutions and elected officials that work for peace.
Find something you care about. Do something about it. Please post your thoughts here on other ideas on how to reduce violence.
Some of the ideas in this essay are from Yoga Journal article, Transforming Aggression: Yoga and World Peace, by Dennis McGuire 10/28/2005. I have extensively rewritten this article and added much new information.
For more on what yoga says about nonviolence, see my next essay, Nonviolence, Yoga, and a Government that Works (Part 3).
NOTE: Illustration from http://www.gnosticteachings.org/courses/karma/karma-3-the-chain
© 2010 Eric Borreson
In yoga, the term avidya is used to mean ignorance or delusion that clouds our perception of reality. Avidya is often illustrated with a blind man. It causes us to fail to see our true spiritual connection with others. People without any connection to other people do not behave in ways that respect those people.
Yoga promotes the idea of “cultivating the right attitude.” We sometimes feel jealous when we see someone with something we want. It may be material things we are jealous of. It may be because they are joyful and we are not. To become more peaceful, we need to be happy with other’s good fortune and compassionate for those in need. These practices reduce our desire for conflict by reducing our own fuels for violence. Yoga also promotes the idea of “practicing constructive behavior.” To become more satisfied in our own lives and to improve our interactions with others, we should follow the yamas of the Yoga Sutra, starting with nonviolence (ahimsa).
There are many people in the world that believe that violence can get them what they want. Aggression works for them. It gets them power, prestige, and all the other comforts of life that they desire. These people cannot be persuaded by argument or discussion. Buckminster Fuller said, “To change something, build a new model that makes the old model obsolete.”
Opposing violence does not mean that we sit in lotus and meditate all day. Yoga helps us transform our own perceptions by teaching us that we are all interconnected and that what hurts others hurts us as well. Our own new model of reality must be pacifist and nonviolent, but it must not be passive. In order to cause someone else to change, we must demonstrate that another way exists and is effective in achieving the same goals that violence tries to achieve.
On a local scale, we can reduce violence by practicing compassion and volunteering to help out where needed. It can mean getting involved in other local causes that promote nonviolence to people, animals, and the environment. Keep in mind that a protest against violence is not very effective without at the same time proposing a new model that makes violence obsolete. Wishing for violence to go away doesn’t make it so.
On a state or national level, we need institutions that can help promote social justice so that people can find hope for the future. People and nations know from experience that violence and aggression work. They need to be shown that peace also works. Most of all, we need a government that works for everyone. Support political institutions and elected officials that work for peace.
Find something you care about. Do something about it. Please post your thoughts here on other ideas on how to reduce violence.
Some of the ideas in this essay are from Yoga Journal article, Transforming Aggression: Yoga and World Peace, by Dennis McGuire 10/28/2005. I have extensively rewritten this article and added much new information.
For more on what yoga says about nonviolence, see my next essay, Nonviolence, Yoga, and a Government that Works (Part 3).
NOTE: Illustration from http://www.gnosticteachings.org/courses/karma/karma-3-the-chain
© 2010 Eric Borreson
Nonviolence, Yoga, and a Government that Works (Part 1)
In my last essay, I discussed how the goddess Kali represents the archetype of wildness and destruction. We can use Kali to help us become free and liberated by learning how to stand up to others and say no. However, many people try to avoid saying no to other people because they interpret any confrontation to be an act of violence.
Modern schools of yoga have 10 yamas, or “shall not” restraints. The first of these is ahimsa, or nonviolence. Translations vary, but ahimsa tells us that we “shall not” kill or injure living beings. For many people, this means that any violence is unacceptable. For others, violence in self defense and war are permitted when opposing an evil that would cause harm to others.
Regardless of the exact interpretation, this brings us back to the first point. Is it acceptable to allow people to take advantage of us to avoid a confrontation with someone else? Take it a step further. Is it acceptable to allow an attack on us or others because resisting that attack would be an act of violence? Clearly the answer is no. I think that avoiding all confrontation is an act of selfish cowardice. It allows people to claim they are practicing ahimsa while allowing violence to happen.
However, the way that you confront people is important. If an infant hits you, are you, as an adult, justified in hitting back? If someone cuts you off in traffic, are you justified in running him or her off the road? If an angry man in a foreign country sends people to destroy a building and kill us, are we justified in mobilizing an army and endangering millions of innocent civilians? Again, the answer is no. It is the responsibility of the person in the more powerful position to find a better way.
There has to be a middle ground between complete nonviolence and excessive violence in self defense. Every situation is different and I’m not smart enough to solve the problems of the world, but collectively we are smart enough and creative enough.
In the book, The World is Flat, by Thomas Friedman, there is a statement that says, “Where people have hope, you have a middle class.” If people believe that they can get ahead by hard work and that their children will be better off in the future, they are not likely to resort to violence.
Much of the violence in the world today is coming from people living in situations where autocratic or despotic rule has prevented people from improving themselves. Poor government, oppressive rule, poverty, or an inability to see justice in their lives can cause people to lose hope and resort to violence. This can happen in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or in the projects in Chicago or Los Angeles.
A government that works for all the people promotes justice for the people and accountability for the government officials. Osama bin Laden hates the United States for supporting the government of Saudia Arabia, among other things. He criticizes the government of Saudi Arabia because it is not accountable to the people. Referring to the rulers of Saudi Arabia, he said, “… there is no accountability or punishment, but there is only obedience to the rulers and prayers of long life for them.” When leaders are not accountable, there is no hope that things will get better. When hope is gone, people lash out and seek revenge. They try to use violence to achieve their aims because they see no other way.
A very similar situation exists in the inner cities in the United States. Many people living there feel that they can never see justice. In Los Angeles, there were riots in the streets after a mostly-white jury acquitted the police who beat Rodney King. In recent years, there have been innumerable problems in the streets of Chicago based on a perception of police brutality against poor African Americans.
Compare that to the record turnout in the 2008 presidential election. Did you see the reactions of people at Grant Park in Chicago when Barack Obama gave his acceptance speech after being elected president? Dozens of African Americans were interviewed for the television news and said variations of, “I never thought I would see this in my life.” There is hope.
For more on how yoga can help prevent violence, see my next essay, Nonviolence, Yoga, and a Government that Works (Part 2).
© 2010 Eric Borreson
Modern schools of yoga have 10 yamas, or “shall not” restraints. The first of these is ahimsa, or nonviolence. Translations vary, but ahimsa tells us that we “shall not” kill or injure living beings. For many people, this means that any violence is unacceptable. For others, violence in self defense and war are permitted when opposing an evil that would cause harm to others.
Regardless of the exact interpretation, this brings us back to the first point. Is it acceptable to allow people to take advantage of us to avoid a confrontation with someone else? Take it a step further. Is it acceptable to allow an attack on us or others because resisting that attack would be an act of violence? Clearly the answer is no. I think that avoiding all confrontation is an act of selfish cowardice. It allows people to claim they are practicing ahimsa while allowing violence to happen.
However, the way that you confront people is important. If an infant hits you, are you, as an adult, justified in hitting back? If someone cuts you off in traffic, are you justified in running him or her off the road? If an angry man in a foreign country sends people to destroy a building and kill us, are we justified in mobilizing an army and endangering millions of innocent civilians? Again, the answer is no. It is the responsibility of the person in the more powerful position to find a better way.
There has to be a middle ground between complete nonviolence and excessive violence in self defense. Every situation is different and I’m not smart enough to solve the problems of the world, but collectively we are smart enough and creative enough.
In the book, The World is Flat, by Thomas Friedman, there is a statement that says, “Where people have hope, you have a middle class.” If people believe that they can get ahead by hard work and that their children will be better off in the future, they are not likely to resort to violence.
Much of the violence in the world today is coming from people living in situations where autocratic or despotic rule has prevented people from improving themselves. Poor government, oppressive rule, poverty, or an inability to see justice in their lives can cause people to lose hope and resort to violence. This can happen in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, or in the projects in Chicago or Los Angeles.
A government that works for all the people promotes justice for the people and accountability for the government officials. Osama bin Laden hates the United States for supporting the government of Saudia Arabia, among other things. He criticizes the government of Saudi Arabia because it is not accountable to the people. Referring to the rulers of Saudi Arabia, he said, “… there is no accountability or punishment, but there is only obedience to the rulers and prayers of long life for them.” When leaders are not accountable, there is no hope that things will get better. When hope is gone, people lash out and seek revenge. They try to use violence to achieve their aims because they see no other way.
A very similar situation exists in the inner cities in the United States. Many people living there feel that they can never see justice. In Los Angeles, there were riots in the streets after a mostly-white jury acquitted the police who beat Rodney King. In recent years, there have been innumerable problems in the streets of Chicago based on a perception of police brutality against poor African Americans.
Compare that to the record turnout in the 2008 presidential election. Did you see the reactions of people at Grant Park in Chicago when Barack Obama gave his acceptance speech after being elected president? Dozens of African Americans were interviewed for the television news and said variations of, “I never thought I would see this in my life.” There is hope.
For more on how yoga can help prevent violence, see my next essay, Nonviolence, Yoga, and a Government that Works (Part 2).
© 2010 Eric Borreson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)