Hi niyengaar:
What's YOUR position on this?
You take your considered view on this issue, then we will debate on it!
Cheers.
well, regarding my point of view, that is the whole essence of this thread isn't it yamaka ?
focusing upon an individual's views will end up with a who supports / opposes that individual - something which conflicts the purpose of a generic discussion. and i am sure u knew that well before asking - so getting back to the topic.
btw , just to sum up what we ve discussed so far,
Shri Saidevo gave links to ahimsa and dharma in links.
Shri Alwan explained that Weakness and Non violence are dependent of who is stronger and who is not - to not go violent in spite of being powerful is what is non violence ; being silent because the opponent is stronger - is not non violence but just weakness. He gave the example of Shri Anna Ji's protest to add. This explanation looks understandable and clear.
Shri ER Narayanan 's explanation revolves around whether being silent can give a solution or not. If being silent brings about a solution, it is non violence and otherwise, it is weakness.
But how will we know whether there will be a solution or not ? Until Independence people followed Ghandhi Ji and fought non violently. But nobody knew if they would succeed at all. I am not clear on how we can attribute our action to results which might depend on a lot of other factors.
Shri Sangom said " if you resort to non-violence against an adversary who is even likely to kill or maim you, it is weakness and/or foolishness." ... But in both the cases of Mr Ghandhi and Mr Jesus, their adversary were harming them / killed them. So would Ghandhi and Jesus become weak ? we attribute their works to non violence evertime, dont we ?
Shri Yamaka said "Without even a token counter-rally even in T. Nagar, Mambalam in Madras or in Madurai inner city was a sign of Moral Weakness" ... He said that the reason brahmans did not show their opposition was because EVR and co were strong - but they gave a reason that they did not want violence. Also he thought that people here might not be too happy with him for saying that ( "I will be running for a cover soon" ) ...
Shri sravna feels that " non violence and cowardice are two ends of the spectrum. To be violent you need courage but when you practice non-violence and shift further to the right end of the spectrum, you are also moving into the mental plane. It is more of a fight at that level. Interestingly you try to mentally overwhelm your opponent and make him weak"
Shri Nara feels that "Continuing to justify varna system and insisting that is part of "dharma" ordained by their religion, that is moral weakness" ...
but would not that become weakness - to keep quiet even when u r suffering ?
that is why the question, what is the difference between the two ?
is keeping quiet at all times, non violence ?
will that make the ones fighting for their rights, violent ?
If the enemy is stronger and we still keep quiet, is that weakness or non violence ?
If the adversary is going to injure / hurt / kill us , will that be our weakness or non violence. Both mr Ghandhi and Mr Jesus, were injured and killed.
If keeping quiet is going to allow the injustice to carry on, what is the use / meaning of keeping quiet at all ?
and is keeping quiet the right way of showing non violence ? because Ghandhi Ji did not keep quiet - but fought for a cause. So, can we fight but still be non violent ?
too many questions to be clarified still ...
so basically , 1) can we define what non violence is and what 2) weakness is and 3) how the two can be differentiated, because the individual opinions , as is clear so far, seems to again be confused.
p.s. : people, please keep Shri ghandhi and Shri ghodse for another thread. I think we are not even close in understanding what the difference is , in between non violence and weakness ...
