Without question based on his writings and actions, there was one thing and one thing above all that Gandhi could not abide, could not tolerate, could not stand. Do you know what it is? Most people who know him casually would say, ‘violence,’ and they would mistakenly mean physical violence; whereas properly understood violence is understood to be violating what's right. Shooting someone that is about to crush a baby's skill is not violating what's right. That's not violence. Whether or not the action is physical force has little to do with whether it's violence.
But in the case of Gandhi it would be incorrect to say that violence was the one thing he could least abide. No. Gandhi could tolerate violence, over this other thing. What he could not tolerate was cowardice, inaction in the face of violence; that was what he could not abide, that was his bottom line. If to stop your brother from beating his child, the only way you can do it is physical violence, you do that. What is totally unacceptable, what is intolerable for you to do, is nothing. That was the cardinal sin for Gandhi, and you'll probably find no potent activist, no INSHE warrior, insanely humane warrior, throughout history, that has been other than that. And you’ll find near zero ‘activists’ in the last 40 years that comply with that.
By whatever words in other essays, and centrally right down to the tattoo on my forehead, and what I'm called, Loving, that human capacity of Loving, that set of human neurological circuits, is the 100% being, the 100% realm of the insanely humane Unviolent warriors throughout history. Loving's what they are. Everything else is details. Everything else is outgrowth, consequence, manifestation of Loving, Heart in charge. As is their courage. Inseparable.
Courage is what loving looks like to the onlooker, to the one not totally of that being of love, and therefore the bystander doesn't get it, why you are putting your body on the line. Why are you shielding that child, why are you taking those blows without response? Only the fully alive heart can understand that. So we use the word courage which means heart, but we western crippled beings of head and flesh, we don't get it. Courage is what loving looks like to the onlooker, who doesn't fully get it, who isn't fully in the same state of mind, in the same understanding, the same situation psychologically.
So if loving is the very essence of hope for the world and for a joyful life, then of course the one thing that a Gandhi or any potent activist throughout history, can least abide, it's cowardice, the absence of love, the absence of courage.
The importance of this? You need to develop, I need to develop eyes, a sensitivity within yourself, first of all, am I of hope to the world, REAL hope, and therefore am I headed in the direction of courage? The only true great psychologists have ever been of the heart, Alfred Adler, and Victor Frankel. In Adler's theory, very dense, very powerful, very humane, to him the central feature of human health was courage, and in an empowering, enlightening way, he said - 'the right choice for a person is typically in the direction of courage."
The direction you'll see any of the potent, true, insanely humane, Unviolent warriors throughout history move? Is in the direction of courage. While others are running from the terror, they're running into it. Eyes open, not reckless, not suicidal, not would-be martyrs, but unwilling to be other than human shields, if they can possibly help.
And you must find the same path, and you must hurry.