“Non-violence is not a cover for cowardice, but it is the supreme virtue of the brave. Exercise of non-violence requires far greater bravery than that of swordsmanship. Cowardice is wholly inconsistent with non-violence. Translation from swordsmanship to non-violence is possible and, at times, even an easy stage. Non-violence, therefore, presupposes ability to strike. It is a conscious deliberate restraint put upon one's desire for vengeance. But vengeance is any day superior to passive, effeminate and helpless submission. Forgiveness is higher still. Vengeance too is weakness. The desire for vengeance comes out of fear of harm, imaginary or real. A dog barks and bites when he fears. A man who fears no one on earth would consider it too troublesome even to summon up anger against one who is vainly trying to injure him. The sun does not wreak vengeance upon little children who throw dust at him. They only harm themselves in the act”
- Mahatma Gandhi -
- Atmadeepo Bhava -
2006-12-02 05:35:12 · 6 answers · asked by Shinkirou Hasukage 6 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It would be better to stand between the killer and the child, not attack the killer...
2006-12-02 05:39:41 · update #1
“I am prepared to die, but there is no cause for which I am prepared to kill”
- Mahatma Gandhi -
2006-12-02 05:42:29 · update #2
I think that's a great quote. And I think it is true. It lists 4 positions one can be in. From best to worst, he lists
Forgiveness
Non-Violence
Vengeance
Passive Submission
People struggle to raise themselves up the list. So do countries. I think that right now, the United States is fighting within itself between the two at the bottom.
2006-12-02 06:01:57 · answer #1 · answered by teran_realtor 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ideologically it sounds great - but practicality of it is seriously questionable.
Gandhi's non-violence didn't get independence to India, but it was World War II, there by weakening of Britan. British could have easily subsided Gandhi's non-violence movement with their Jalian Wala Baghs.
2006-12-02 06:00:27 · answer #2 · answered by enlight100 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's cowardly to value your own moral purity more than the lives of the innocent.
If someone is about to harm a child, and violence is the only means you have to stop him, it would be evil not to use violence.
2006-12-02 05:37:57 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree. A new book that sounds interesting----'The Buddha and the Terrorist' by Satish Kumar. I read an interview with the author.
2006-12-02 05:39:12 · answer #4 · answered by a_delphic_oracle 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Totally agree, it's unfortunate that non-violence is so often confused with passifism as the first answerer has shown you.
2006-12-02 05:39:36 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
-JFK
2006-12-02 05:45:47 · answer #6 · answered by Just Wondering 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋