Is it possible to live by the principles of non-violence in today's age?

Question

What should be the prime motive in one's mind who wants to follow and live by what Mahatma Gandhi taught us?

I wrote a blog on the 9/11 irony and Gandhi's ways. Here is the link if you're interested-
http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-N46hZfYnRK2pw6QlhHs-?cq=1&p=742

It'd be great if you take time to share your views and insights on the topic. Thanks in advance!

I guess I asked the question during the glitchy period which is both good and bad. I won't get the thousands of answers but I hope that the ones I'll get will be well worth the five points.

Answer 1

Whether to embrace principles of non-violence or not is a personal decision. Some people seem to be non-combative by nature. Submissive? Compliant? Some seem born to fight, argue, rebel. Non-resistance is more of a choice, I think, then a natural reaction. I don't know if it comes easier to passive followers. As individuals, I do think it possible to embrace the qualities of non-aggressive communication and resolutions in spite of our natural inclinations.

I think that respect and esteem for others should be our prime motive. While our goals in negotiations with others may be specific, to reach those goals peacefully involves effective communication. Understanding and valuing others is the first step to achieving that respectful exchange of ideas.

Your blog asks whether we need another Gandhi for our time. Wouldn't that be refreshing? A strong leader of non-violent solutions. Another question might be (although this is your five points), how would that person deal with the terrorist events in recent times? Certainly peaceful talks and negotiations won't happen overnight without some real insight into the heart of man.
__________________

@};-

I didn't know whether to write this as a blog comment or put it out here on Answers. Well... here I am...

It strikes me as funny. When we go to war with a country, or when there is war in general, we stop visiting those areas. We avoid danger and protect our own lives. Now, I can't blame anyone, and the fact is I don't have a lifestyle that permits me to visit those places in the first place, but there is danger in isolation. It is my opinion that the best and only way to peace is to integrate. I hope I can explain...

I know that many are not happy about dealing with arrogant tourists. Understood. But suppose the interactions we had with "foreigners" were more like student exchanges? Suppose the governments subsidized the exchange of random citizens, families, business groups, etc... Suppose people were encouraged to actually share their lives for brief periods of time? Suppose instead of sending soldiers to war zones we exchanged citizens?

It is so easy to fight with people that we don't know. Nameless bodies from groups that we have stereotyped and learned to fear or hate. Suppose we knew people from regions that "harbor" people we fear. Suppose we had friends in those regions. Suppose they knew and loved people from our own "tribe", religion, or ethnic group. People are less apt to hate groups when there are people within those groups that they love.

War involves units of people fighting units of people. The more that a person can see beyond the unit to the person or people within the group the more likely they will be to want peace rather than violent victory.

I think differences will remain. There will always be language barriers, differences in religious beliefs, and cultural dissimilarities, but peace can't happen without understanding. Communication can't happen without peace. People will never understand or accept each other if they don't know each other. You can't "know" a group. The only way we will ever know others is as individuals. Bring the flowers. I think we need to assemble an army of people to pass them out.

Answer 2

The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King, Jr. knew that the answer was yes. He also knew that non-violence on his part could lead to violence on his person. He knew, but he stood by his principles. He did it for us. Where would we all be if he hadn't? I shudder to think of it. Some may argue, "well, he didn't exactly live by his principles for very long"...I say not true. He's still alive because of his principles. He changed the world. He lives in the hearts and minds of millions of people, and will continue to do so until we all reach the promised land. God Bless him, may he rest in peace.

Answer 3

As per your saying, if this is age where violence is more, then it is more appropriate to live with principle and be an example for those who want to come out of violence.

To answer your question whether it is possible:
Is it possible for you to believe that you can shoot randomly to kill few unknown people without thinking of any thing? But a followers of violence learn this in quick time. When this is possible, why not possible to live with principle?

Try! and you will. I will not give guarantee that you will become another Gandhi, but rest assured that you will NOT become terrorist.

Answer 4

I am not sure what the answer is. I know Sun Tzu said that winning without fighting is the greatest victory, though not in a pacifist context. Still, whatever the answer is, my own conscious, though innocents inevitably suffer, cannot agree with pacifism, not least as the only recourse. You might not be speaking of it that way, and stated to the contrary, but, regardless, my problem is with leaving to chance the lives of innocents who are my primary concern. How many can I be expected to defend, and what worth is my sould to the lives of millions?

I believe very much in trying to be ethical, and even agree that war is more often than not a failing of strategy, but I cannot knowingly endanger many to prevent cyclical patterns of violence. I cannot just stand in defiance as my neighbors shudder in fear. How can I forgive myself for the pain incurred upon them, and how can I hope they will forgive me? I am not sure I would want it. I would not deserve it. Afterall, I cannot say that I would forgive me if I was them.

Answer 5

"Christians" for the time of the middle a protracted time have been "Catholics" who began the Crusades to unencumber the Holy Land from Muslims who had taken it in violent conquest. at that element, the Popes and the Church have been a political rigidity, not a non secular one, and have been corrupt from the ultimate down. to declare that the "Christian" faith is violent is carefully fake. The Catholic Church, throughout the time of that is historical past, has not observed the classes of Jesus while it is composed of political skill. Jesus not at all reported that the gospel ought to be unfold by ability of the sword. in spite of the undeniable fact that, Muhammad did. do not confuse Christianity with Catholicism of the middle a protracted time, nor with Islam.

Answer 6

During the Russian revolution, many Russian soldiers refused to fight the Imperialist war for the Czar. During the Vietnam war, many people around the world protested against the war. The vast majority of soldiers in the world are sons/daughters of working-class people. If you study all wars in modern times, they were all for the purpose of the ruling-classes getting richer and/or more powerful in one way or another. The workers of the world are much more class-conscious than ever before in history. There are more protests against wars, in the world than ever before in history. The working masses of the world are becoming more and more united for peace and prosperity.

According to the trend of the world, there will come a day, when the ruling-classes of countries won't be able to declare wars on other countries, because workers will refuse to fight the workers of another country. Wars hurt the workers, because the national wealth is spent on war rather than social programs. Even the ruling state capitalists of so called "communist countries" spend much of the National wealth on their military rather than on the working masses, they are so blinded by their nationalist hatred that they don't realize that they can conquer the world by simply proving to the capitalist countries that they can make a more prosperous society.

Throughout history the working masses were not allowed to get educated and organized, but today, the cause of democracy, is bringing many freedoms to workers of the world, giving them access to international communication, unlimited access to knowledge, and freedom of peaceable assembly. The cause of the workers is winning many supporters among the sons and daughters of capitalists. The cause of workers is the cause of humanity, the cause of workers is the cause of the righteous, humble, and honest hard-working people. The cause of the capitalists and state capitalists (totalitarian communists) is the cause of war, luxury, hatred, division and deceit.

Answer 7

The answer depends upon your definition of non-violence. If you take it to its furthest meaning, that is, non-injury, then my answer is it would be very difficult to live without injuring something. The Jains wear veils over their faces to stop themselves from inadvertenly inhaling insects that could die inside their lungs, and they sweep the sidewalk ahead of them to spare any insects they might step upon. Noble, but time consuming and it begs the question of what to do with parasitic insects like ticks, fleas, lice, scabies, mites, etc. Between humans and certain species there can only be a state of war, at least as far as hygiene is concerned.
You can be a vegetarian, but vegetarians kill vegetables. So you can be a fruitarian, and just eat fruit and nuts and dairy products that don't involve killing cows to get the renin for hard cheeses. Tough diet though, as it excludes all kinds of vegetables.
You can repel an attack upon your person with a non-lethal weapon like a taser, or with a non-lethal technique such as Aikido or Judo. If this is not pacifistic enough for you, you can run.
However, not everybody can run, and at some point society has to cope with violent criminals. We trust officers of the law to cope with them, but by doing so we give them permission to use violence if they have to. It's not an easy problem to solve. If you really want to live in a totally non-violent community, you can band together with other people who promise to follow the rules (
like in an ashram or commune or utopian community). I commend your desire to live in the world without resorting to violence. Good luck.

Answer 8

Honestly, I am not educated in the principles of non-violence. I have an idea of what they are. If my idea is correct, regard my answer. If not, the forgive me. Non-violence means reacting without violence without regard to circumstance or motive or situation. If that is correct, then it is possible to live such a life as an individual. It is also possible that such a life will not last long in certain environments. A society certainly cannot live as such. Enemies abound. Self-defense is absolutely necessary. Else the enemy will destroy. Then the question comes up, "Who are you to say such things"? I answer that I am one who avoids trouble as much as possible. I am also one who faces trouble when no reasonable alternative exists or is known to exist. I choose to protect myself and my family. I choose to not live in certain regions of the world. I choose where to walk and drive. I choose.

Answer 9

a simple answer is all i have. no i don't think it is possible to live without violence in this day and age. it would be wonderful but humans have lived to long with violence as an answer to start fresh, it is ingrained in our world.

Answer 10

yes i nhope there is and i hope that we end war and hate.and we keep our world in one piece.

cinderellamirage