http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kfks8FVFYA
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment