Ahimsa in Thought

My brother got assaulted at work because he would not accept a return on a cracked TV his employee’s customer insisted was cracked when he bought it A YEAR AGO.

How do people beg for order and consistency when they constantly seek exceptions to the same rules that were created to provide them order and consistency? There is too much irrational thought. But worse is the violent action that springs from irrational thought.

What we need is the discipline to engage in right thought before acting until we reach a harmonious balance allowing us to trust our actions, finally accompanied by right thought. Call it prayer; call it meditation–we are experiencing famine. How can people inch closer toward peaceful resolution when we neglect our voices within? We ignore; we neglect; we ignore; we neglect; and when are are wronged we dare to fight back. We fight back in honor of ourselves. We fight back because the outcome was not in our favor–a favor that had been neglected all along. We fight back to reclaim ourselves to ourselves. The fight opposes our normal state; it is strikingly different to our normal modes. In fighting, we exert copious energy that could have been released more consistently over longer period of time had we had balance and the discipline to maintain it, with honor, and more importantly, integrity.

Aggression is an ugly result of neglect. Violence is an outcry for balance; it springs forth from our states of normalcy begging change, forcing change, and in result something is different.

My brother pushed back. He has something to prove. To himself. And this worries me.

I have never experienced a physical altercation. I think that is for a reason. At times there is a desire within to rage, but I cannot. I do not see people who refuse to fight as weak. We have too much to heal: our spirits, our bodies, our planet, to harm even the smallest particle of an organism in anger.

I fear. I fear that peaceful resolution will remain out of reach. But I will not cease the search.

MLK Jr and Malcolm X

 

How does the contrast between the sacred and the holy, or morality and ethics, appear in Martin Luther King, Jr.’s ethic as expressed in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”? 

          King’s understanding of the interdependence of people is what inspired the content of his letter in response to the white clergy who believed the civil rights movement was ‘unwise and untimely’.  In the letter, King states, “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.  We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny.  Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly”.  
          King’s statement questioned the ‘sacred society’ of the white clergy and their morals; instead, he brought up ethics and the idea that humanity is not comprised of white individuals, but is actually a collective of different individuals that should be treated justly.  His inclusion of all humanity instead of just a specific society is what makes this a ‘holy’ act.  King’s audacity to question just laws is summed up in the following:  “An unjust law is a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself”.  In this, he maintains that unjust laws are begging to be broken and a law that begs disobedience must be corrected to reinstate justice for all. 

 Describe Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “kitchen experience” and explain its significance for his spirituality and ethics.     

          Martin Luther King, Jr.’s  “kitchen experience” occurred in the early days of the Montgomery bus strike.  This event that occurred as his public career was burgeoning was a poignant experience in his life where he was finally able to overcome the fear of death.  Overcoming fear of mortality is an event vital to the life of a religious figure.
          In the story, it is recounted that King came home late from a boycott meeting and received a phone call:  “N*gger . . . we are tired of you and your mess now, and if you are not out of this town in three days, we’re going to blow your brains out and blow up your house”.  He had received many phone calls of this nature before, but this one in particular struck at his core for some reason that night; it made him think of losing his family or vice versa.  These thoughts left him restless and he decided to go to the kitchen for coffee; his rationale, his principles, and everything he used to make sense of the world around him was no longer comforting him.  
          In his desperation, he did what he knew best–he bowed down and prayed.  In a moment of vulnerability, he expressed his weakness to God and his belief in what he thought right.  God spoke back to him and told him to rise and stand for truth and if he did so, He would be with him and remain with him until the very end.  This self-induced salvation for King is what provided a direct experience with God that he would take with him for the rest of his life.  King’s spirituality and ethics were deeply rooted in his religion because of his “kitchen experience”–this example fits well with Masao Abe’s model for Christianity because his religious experience leads to ethics. 

Comment on the differences between the speeches made by Umar and Abu Bekr when Muhammad died.  What makes Bekr’s speech the more appropriate Islamic response?

          In his speech, Umar stated, “Some of the disaffected will allege that the Messenger is dead, but by God, he is not dead: he has gone to his Lord as Moses son of Imran went and was hidden [on Sinai] from his people for forty days.  By God, the Messenger will return as Moses returned and will cut off the hands and feet of men who allege that the Messenger is dead”.  Umar was making appeals to sacralize Muhammad in a way that should have only been reserved for Allah (from an Islamic perspective).  
          To clarify to the congregation inside the Mosque that Muhammad was not a deity to be worshipped or expected to return, Abu Bekr followed with a statement of his own:  “O men, if anyone worships Muhammad, Muhammad is dead; if anyone worships God, God is alive, immortal”.  In this address, Fasching and deChant claim, “the true essence of Islam was reaffirmed, the very core of the first pillar, the shahada (confession) – there is no God but God”.  
          Bekr’s speech conveys the proper understanding of Islamic belief.  Muhammad is to be remembered as a special man among men who was chosen by Allah to be his messenger – the Messenger of his will, but not as an equal of God.  Likening him to a similar like a saint or lesser god would be considered shirk, or idolatry, and that would be going against Islam’s first pillar. 

What is the hajj, and why was it so important to Malcolm X?  What made Malcolm’s experience different from that of the Muslims he met during the hajj?
         
One of the Islamic pillars requires all Muslims to make a pilgrimage, or hajj, to the holy city of Mecca once in their lifetime if possible.  Fasching and deChant claim that this pilgrimage was “his own flight (hijra) from the sacred society of the Nation of Islam to the traditional Islam and a new vision of a holy community, open to all races and religions”.  
          Malcolm X, who once identified as a member of the sacred society of the Nation of Islam, was converted to a member of the holy community and no longer promoting black separatism, but seeking justice for the human collective instead of just the specific group he belonged to.  
          Malcolm’s experience was different than that of the Muslims he encountered during the hajj because his perspective was that of a member of the Nation of Islam.  It was on the hajj that he first learned to pray and posture himself.  Most importantly, he learned that Islam means “submission, peace, and unity of all peoples of the world”.  One could think being ignorant of these Islamic staples originally had him at a disadvantage, but Malcolm’s receptiveness to the holy event allowed him to absorb many universal and spiritual elements that made the hajj a priceless experience during his life journey.

Gilgamesh and Gandhi

 

How does ”wrestling with the stranger” function as an ethical theme in the story of Gilgamesh, so as to illustrate the positive side of “doubling”?
         
           Fasching and deChant claim that doubling most likely first occurred during humanity’s move from tribal communities to urban civilizations because of the extreme changes in social environment that went on during that time.  The Epic of Gilgamesh provides an example of a person who no longer identifies with the tribal collective, but is finding himself as an individual among other individuals and
coming to grips with mortality.        
          Gilgamesh embarks on an ethical journey when instead of understanding his identity from his perspective as a prince, he views himself with the eyes of his double, Enkidu.  Enkido becomes the ‘mirror for Gilgamesh’s soul’ and his reflection through Enkido allows him to “see and understand himself and his relationships to others”.  Through this relationship, Gilgamesh attains what Fasching and deChant call ‘reflexive self-awareness’ which allows him to obtain much needed humility and wisdom.     
          Gilgamesh’s doubling is thought to be positive because it permits him to reflect upon himself honestly through the eyes of another.  Fasching and deChant state, “doubling becomes demonic only when this capacity for self-reflection is avoided through self-deception, so that responsibility for the actions of the self in particular circumstances are denied”.  Gilgamesh’s doubling led to the transformation of an individual from egocentric to compassionate.  In losing his arrogance, he was motivated to pursue justice not only for himself, but for his kingdom as well.      

In what ways does the story of Socrates express an ethic of the holy?

          Socrates resided within the ‘holy community,’ though, he passed back and forth from the sacred to the holy because he also identified as a citizen of Athens.  He resided within the holy community because of his belief that recognizing ignorance is the beginning of wisdom, this being a characteristic of the ‘holy’.  Socrates’ teaching his students to question everything created a feeling of discomfort within the citizens of Athens because they felt he was threatening their sacred order.  
          The Athenians’ focus on the ‘cosmos writ small’ had them caged within the ‘little picture’.  They desired to maintain order as they knew it because they valued what was familiar and of ‘this world’.  They had all the answers they needed and were comfortable with the way things were because they believed it
was the way things should be.  Their understanding was sacred because the knowledge was passed on through customs and traditions and anyone who questioned it received a hostile reaction and became the ‘enemy’.  This is what eventually happened to Socrates.  He was accused of being an atheist because
Athenians were blinded by their sacred-centric views in such a way that they could not fathom the idea of an internal god because it was too different and other worldly.  As Fasching and deChant claim, “[Socrates] invented ethics as we now understand it, namely, ethics not as observance of the ”sacred customs” but rather as the questioning of sacred customs and sacred order”.

In what ways does Gandhi’s ethic violate the modernist paradigm of the privatization of religion?  
          
           With the emergence of secularization brought about by the Enlightenment, western civilization put God on the back burner to make way for scientific explanation.  Religion’s answers were no longer satisfactory in comparison to the scientific method’s appeal to reason and logic.  This event downgraded religion for westerners—their beliefs were removed from the holy sphere and placed within a sacred sphere.  Those who chose to maintain their beliefs had to do so within a private realm.            
          When Western society was promoting the marginalization of religion, Gandhi instead promoted his belief that religion and politics are intertwined:  “I can say without the slightest hesitation, and yet in all humility, that those who say that religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion means”.  Religion and politics were one and the same for Gandhi.
          The merging of politics and religion Fasching and deChant state as follows, “For Gandhi, religion and politics became one through the practice of brahmacharya.  For only selfless compassion for the well-being of others can inspire the trust that makes political leadership possible”.  Gandhi’s aim was to
be selfless and live life for others.  He was not satisfied with the ‘cynicism of politics-as-usual;’ he desires to turn politics into a ‘spiritual and ethical enterprise’.  Gandhi found his ethics through his religion and believed if politics was to truly be honest and ethical as well, it would have to do it with the involvement of religion.  

Does the concept of human dignity play a role in Gandhi’s thought?  If so, how?
         
          The concept of human dignity does play a role in Gandhi’s thought because his drive for justice was sparked by experiences of humiliation that compromised his human dignity.  “Any conduct that is contrary to truth and ahimsa is to be eschewed and any book that violates these principles is not a shastra [sacred scripture]“.  
          The two experiences that changed Gandhi’s direction in life occurred when he was fresh out of law school.  They both involve him being physically thrown out of a place because of prejudice.  In the first situation, he tried to use his weight as a British-trained attorney with a British political agent, but it failed him, and in the second, he attempted to ride first-class in a train and was ordered to the baggage compartment, but when he refused he was thrown off the train.  
          These experiences coupled with his interpretation of the Gita allowed for Gandhi to move forward with his teachings of non-violence through soul force.  It was those brushes with humiliation that led him to understand the plight of the ‘untouchable’ or the ‘other’.  Because of this knowledge, he came to a new
understanding of what his life objective would be—to seek justice for all people through non-violent means.  His promotion of self-suffering over inflicting suffering on others was the way he believed justice could be reached.