INTRODUCTION
Ahimsa is a Sanskrit word that translates to non-violence or harmlessness, and is one of the foundational ethical practices of Yoga. The concept has roots in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism, and was immensely influential in the evolution of the use of non-violent tactics in the protest movements of the twentieth century. Mohandas K. Gandhi, the great spiritual and political leader who guided India out from under British rule made Ahimsa and Satya (truth) his way of life, and drew inspiration from multiple religious sources in utilizing these tenants as tactics of political resistance. In turn, pacifist organizations and civil rights leaders in the United States followed Gandhi’s lead after his success in India, adapting non-violent means as a way of affecting change in this country.
Today, the Occupy Wall Street movement seeks to expand upon this historically effective tradition to call attention to income inequality, corporate influence on government, and a variety of other perceived injustices in the United States. It is my intention to connect the key elements of the spiritual practice of Ahimsa and the non-violent protest movement, as well as examine the social limitations and philosophical contradictions of its use in the creation of conflict. Harmlessness continues to be an invaluable and ethical way of guiding civil disobedience and protest movements, and by identifying how to most effectively incorporate its laws one can truly push for progressive social and political change.
AHIMSA
Ahimsa is the first of the yamas, the ethical restraints that comprise the first limb of Ashtanga Yoga as defined in the yoga sutras (Satchidananda, 2010). In the sutras, Patanjali states that violent thoughts or actions will ultimately cause misery for all involved, regardless of the intensity of the action or thought. He further discusses the virtues of the practice in sutra 2:35; “Ahimsa pratishthayam tat samnidhau vaira tyagah” or as Satchindananda (2010) translates, “In the presence of one firmly established in non-violence, all hostilities cease” (p.130).
In yoga, as in Hinduism, there is a belief that god is present in everything. Yoga literally translates as “union”. Its intent is to yoke the human with the divine, the conscious with the unconscious, the physical, mental, intellectual and energetic with the spiritual and the universal. Hinduism reveres everything as being divine, and the concept of ahimsa reflects that respect for the divinity in others. Harmlessness is a Buddhist law as well, not just in theory but also in practice. In many of the ancient spiritual traditions, this pledge affects everything from interactions with others to diet, for example being at the root of religious vegetarianism.
Another sacred text that references non-violence is the Bhagavad-Gita. The Gita is an ancient religious and philosophical poem, its title translates to “Song of the Blessed One”. It is thought to initially have stood alone as a piece of literature, but was incorporated in to the epic Indian Poem, the Mahabharata (Mitchell, 2000). Although the setting of the Bhagavad-Gita is a battlefield on which the god Krishna is advising the warrior Arjuna, various interpretations of its messages are that it is a broader study in a virtuous way of living. In fact, Krishna directly names non-violence as one of many divine traits in chapter sixteen. The background of war in the Gita, however, is more aligned with traditional Hinduism than with modern practices of non-violence. As Ravindra (2006) points out, Hindu gods typically brandish weapons, and the use of force is rampant in many of the sacred texts. Ahimsa in these texts is a virtue meant to be practiced by those who are withdrawing from the world around them to another plane of existence. While active in the world, an individual is expected to continue to follow its laws, including those that involve use of force when necessary. It is in this way that the texts allow for individual determination as to what is valuable.
To regard ahimsa as simply non-violence or refraining from use of physical force against another is to define it only partially. As Patanjali wrote, its effects are felt in both action and thought, at any level of intensity. In its more subtle interpretations, ahimsa also means gentleness, or abstaining from causing simple hurt. It is considered to at the root of peacefulness, and to be a reflection of spiritual consciousness. In this regard, it is a shared quality of great spiritual leaders throughout time (Himalayan Academy, n.d.)
GANDHI
Mohandas Gandhi was heavily influenced by the Bhagavad-Gita, quoted in an appendix to the Mitchell (2000) translation as having written “The Gita is my eternal mother. Whenever I am in difficulty or distress, I seek refuge in her bosom.” (p. 203) Gandhi acknowledged the paradox of basing his worldview of using non-violence in the pursuit of truth on a poem that is essentially about war, but felt strongly that the messages in the Gita could transcend situational truths across different points in history. As Mitchell (2000) cites, the ultimate message of the Bhagavad-Gita was, to Gandhi, that the “desire for [the] fruit [of action] is the only universal prohibition.” (p.203) Despite his use of his actions to change the face of an entire country, Gandhi consistently maintained that one practices truth, harmlessness, and self-sacrifice not with an eye on the consequences of their actions, but because it is the correct way to live. In contrast to the Machiavellian theory that the end justifies the means, Gandhi did not separate the means from the goal (Mamali, 2001).
Despite this, Gandhi identified the oppression of Indians under British rule as violence being enacted upon an entire culture of people, and began his campaign of active strategies to liberate India. Marches, sit-ins, boycotts and hunger strikes are all non-passive tactics that can be used to pressure institutions into making change. While his actions seem to contradict his denial of being attached to the fruits of his actions, it is important to realize that Gandhi was embracing Patanjali’s notion that one who steadfastly practices ahimsa can, in essence, spread its effects to those around him. Gandhi’s ultimate goal was not Indian independence, but the pursuit of truth. According to Steger (2006), it was his belief that the ultimate truth could not be judged by society, and that to inflict violence on another presumes knowledge of right and wrong. It was Gandhi’s conviction that to pursue a cause one perceives to be “just”, one must practice non-violence as a way of illuminating the path without focus on the outcome. In this regard, Gandhi’s practice of ahimsa was clearly influenced by Buddhist mindfulness and the concept of embracing the present moment.
THE CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT
“Nonviolence is the answer to the crucial political and moral questions of our time; the need for mankind to overcome oppression and violence without resorting to oppression and violence. Mankind must evolve for all human conflict a method which rejects revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method is love.” (King, In The American Mosaic, 2011)
The Reverend Doctor Martin Luther King Jr. is undoubtedly the best known figure in the American civil rights movement, as well as being the primary face of the use of non-violent tactics as a means of protest in the U.S. However these ideas and practices did not begin or end with King. American Transcendentalism looked beyond the confines of common experience, and Henry David Thoreau’s 1849 work “Civil Disobedience” served as inspiration to Gandhi in India three quarters of a century later. In the U.S., many pacifist groups such as CORE (The Congress of Racial Equality) and FOR (The Fellowship of Reconciliation) closely watched the Indian independence movement, and adopted their strategies of non-violent resistance. Conscientious objectors during the World War II era were practicing pacifist means of protesting against government policy, and radical groups were enacting forms of civil disobedience against Jim Crow laws in the south in full force in the early 1940’s.
King, however, became the face of the civil rights movement. With his religious and philosophical background, King strongly mirrors Gandhi in his theoretical beliefs and religious conviction. Steinkraus (1973) cites King as saying the following when reflecting on his study of personalistic philosophy at Boston University
“This personal idealism remains today my basic philosophical position. Personalism’s insistence that only personality – finite and infinite – is ultimately real strengthened me in two convictions: It gave me metaphysical and philosophical grounding for the idea of a personal God, and it gave me a metaphysical basis for the dignity and worth of all human personality.” (p.98)
While the language is Western, the core ideas of ultimate truth, combining the finite and infinite, and discovery of a personal God are all very connected to yogic philosophy. Indeed, when King speaks of the recognition of the value of all human personality it is remarkably similar to the acceptance that Hinduism has for all beings due to its identification of the divine as present in everything, and the central principle of ahimsa.
In “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, King (1963) wrote that the four steps to any non-violent campaign are as follows; gathering information in order to indentify and confirm that injustice exists, negotiation, self purification, and direct action (p.215). In his view, the goal of direct action is to create an atmosphere of tension and crisis so that those who were previously unwilling to negotiate see the need to do so. For King, the result of non-violent protest was the opening of doors that had previously been slammed shut and barricaded with intolerance. Much like Gandhi, who believed that the practice of ahimsa would enable the cessation of violence in those around him, King believed in the power of love to drive out hatred.
#OCCUPYWALLSTREET
Students at the University of California at Davis were engaged in a sit-in earlier this fall as a part of the Occupy movement that has swept the nation and the globe, when they were pepper sprayed by police officers who were facing no threats, real or perceived, to their own personal safety or the safety of those around them. Peaceful protests and encampments have sprung up in cities everywhere to protest a number of injustices, with the focus being on holding financial institutions accountable for the economic crisis and getting corporate influence out of government. At UC Davis students sat and took the pepper spray with their heads down, in a scene reminiscent of young African Americans being blasted with fire hoses in the 1960’s. The end result of that moment was that the police backed off, and the world took notice.
Miles (2011) makes it clear that the United States has quite a bit at stake in regards to how the government continues to react to this burgeoning movement. As is often the case, non-violent direct action often spurs violent reactions. As a supposed champion of Human Rights, it will certainly garner a great deal of attention around the world if peaceful protests in the U.S. are met with hostile counter-actions. While the immediate affect of the protester’s actions seems to contradict Patanjali’s views on the practice of ahimsa, one can see how their dedication to the pursuit of truth through the practice of non-violence would garner compassion and support, eventually turning others towards the practice as well.
CONTRADICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
Subramuniyaswami (2001) lists in the Nandinatha Sutras exceptions to ahimsa that include self-defense, eradicating predators and pests, and preserving life and health, such as by “doing harm” to parasites or microbes that may cause illness and /or death. These exceptions are meant to be acceptable only when non-injurious means have been ineffective. When one considers the more nuanced definitions of ahimsa that were discussed earlier on, for example peacefulness or gentleness, and even when defining it more broadly as being any sort of harmlessness, it is easy to see the contradictions in the use of non-violent tactics as a means of protest. Klitgaard (1971) labeled Gandhi’s fasts as being coercive. As he rose in prominence as a public figure, his fasting to achieve negotiation essentially implied that by not complying, his opponents would have his blood on their hands. King’s (1963) statement of intent to create crisis and tension via non-violent direct action also creates a schism between the spiritual practice of harmlessness and the implementation of pacifist strategy in the opposition of injustice. Gandhi was purported to have said that one can never achieve total ahimsa, only do their very best in every situation. His fasts can be viewed as inflicting self-harm, which is contrary to the practice.
A more logistical barrier to large-scale acceptance of non-violence comes in the form of cultural and racial stereotyping. During and after World War II, the label of “pacifist” was synonymous with the conscientious objectors, whom many people at that time viewed as being unpatriotic and traitors to the national cause (Mollin, 2004). During the civil rights era of the 1950’s and 60’s a number of African American men struggled with the notion of non-violence. The practice threatened the common values that many held regarding black manhood, and their roles as protectors of their families. At its worst it reinforced the portrayal of the back man as the submissive servant, or as a slave. These conflicts within the African American community helped give rise to the more militant Black Power movement, which directly contradicted the views of Dr. King in regards to the best course of action for obtaining civil rights (Wendt, 2007). The Occupy movement of today faces massive public distrust, and struggles to garner support in the face of being labeled as a group of lazy, disruptive individuals who are simply unwilling to seek employment. Often these stereotypes are perpetuated by those whose power is being challenged for the express purpose of undermining the effectiveness of the opposition.
India under British rule and the United States of America, although certainly oppressive in many ways against large groups of people at different times, both shared certain qualities that made non-violent action plausible. Both supported certain civil rights, such as free speech and the right to organize and protest. Mamali (2001) posits that it likely would have been much more difficult for either movement to evolve under a totalitarian regime. Circumstances such as these certainly will have an impact on the effectiveness of pacifist tactics, much as the quality of the leaders affects the strength and support of a movement. Both Gandhi and King were unquestionably remarkable individuals, and both were deeply rooted in their cultures and their spirituality, both in theory and in practice. Stegar (2006) wrote, “King’s injunction to rethink the relationship between power and violence contains a strong imperative to spiritualize politics and politicize spirituality.” (p.348) It is a rare occurrence that a human being of that caliber and influence comes along. The need for strong leadership presents an additional challenge for groups in the application of non-violent means towards a goal, for without the numbers and support that leadership can inspire, movements often fall apart.
CONCLUSION
Despite the challenges discussed above, recent history has shown that engaging in non-violent tactics as a means of protest can be extraordinarily effective. Perhaps the example of the great leaders of the Indian independence and American civil rights movements can show us that it is important to remember the theoretical and spiritual roots of such techniques, and to embrace the ideas and practices of ahimsa. If one lives an ethical life in pursuit of truth, then one contributes to an ethical society. By exercising compassion towards others an individual can break down a variety of stereotypes and barriers to unity, as has been seen time and time again. Patanjali’s notion of the nature of ahimsa and the contagious effect it has one those in the proximity of one who is firmly rooted in the practice is very similar to the Western notion of “leading by example”. By making connections such as this, perhaps study of the ancient Eastern spiritual texts can continue to enhance the progressive movements of the West. In regards to Occupy Wall Street, it is important to not disregard the current lack of strong public figures as symbols of the movement. Although at this time there is a reluctance to embrace the need for leadership, I firmly believe that if it is to sustain and affect change, a few remarkable individuals will emerge from the crowds. Much as asana is the window display that lures people in to the practice of yoga, knowing that many will poke around while never embracing a full practice, perhaps the immediate appeal of participating in non-violent protest will draw both the large numbers initially needed to garner attention and the true leaders that the movement deserves.
“He who can see inaction
in the midst of action, and action
in the midst of inaction, is wise
and can act in the spirit of yoga”
Bhagavad-Gita 4.18
REFERENCES:
King Jr., M.L. (2011) In The American mosaic: The African American experience. Retrieved December 5, 2011, from http://africanamerican2.abc-clio.com/
King Jr., M.L. (1963). Letter from Birmingham Jail. In Lee A. Jacobus (Ed.), A world of ideas: Essential readings for college writers, Eighth edition. (211-229). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Klitgaard, R. (1971). Gandhi’s non-violence as a tactic. Journal of Peace Research, (8) 2. 143-153. Sage Publications Ltd.
Mamali, C. (2001). The Gandhian experience: Open questions for transdiciplinery research and social practice. Journal of Loss and Trauma, (6). 115-124. Dubuque, Iowa: Brunner-Routledge.
Miles, J. (2011, November 21). Non-violence does not have to be passive. Palestine Chronicle. Washington: Al Bawaba (Middle East) Ltd.
Mitchell, S. (2000). Bhagavad-Gita: A new translation. New York: Three Rivers Press.
Molin, M. (2004). The limits of Egalitarianism: Radical pacifism, civil rights, and the journey of reconciliation. Radical History Review (88). 112-138. Duke University Press.
Pontara, G. (1965). The rejection of violence in Gandhian ethics of conflict resolution. Journal of Peace Research (2) 3. 197-215. Sage Publications Ltd.
Ravindra, R. (2006). The spiritual roots of Yoga. Sandpoint, Idaho: Morning Light Press.
Salutin, R. (2011, November 25). Non-violence is back and shaking things up. Toronto Star, p. A23.
Steger, M.B. (2006). Searching for Satya through Ahimsa: Ghandi’s challenge to Western discourses of power. Constellations, (13) 3. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Steinkraus, W. (1973). Martin Luther King’s personalism and non-violence. Journal of the History of Ideas, (34) 1. 97-111. University of Pennsylvania Press.
Subramuniyaswami, S. S. (2001). Living with Siva: Hinduism’s contemporary culture. Himalayan Academy, USA/India. E Book retrieved from http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/books/lvs.
The Hindu ethic of non-violence (n.d.). Himalayan Academy, USA/India. Retrieved from http://www.himalayanacademy.com/resources/pamphlets/AhimsaNonViolence.html
The yoga sutras of Patanjali (2010). (S. Satchidananda, Trans. and commentary). Yogaville, Virginia: Integral Yoga Publications.
Wendt, S. (2007). ‘They finally found out that we really are men’: Violence, non- violence and black manhood in the civil rights era. Gender and History, (19) 3. 543-564. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
No comments:
Post a Comment