"There is no way to get peace, peace itself is a method." This is Mahatma Gandhi's interpretation of peace. Mahatma Gandhi is revered as the Founding Father of India, and he advocated the "non-violent non-resistance" movement to lead the Indian people to break away from British colonial rule and achieve national independence. His quest for moral perfection, peace of mind, and perfection of personality will amaze the world and will always be remembered.
Some say that Mahatma Gandhi is the spokesman of the human conscience. Yet many of his actions are controversial. Through the old photos, it is clear that he has been bathing and sleeping with women for a long time, and in exchanges with the Nationalist government, he suggested that China stop resisting the Japanese army.
In what ways did he make these moves? What reason did he do these things? The world calls him a saint, but is he really a saint who does these things?
The secularity of the saints
Mahatma Gandhi's full name is Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, and Mahatma refers to great souls. Gandhi was once a promising lawyer, and no one wants to believe that such a person could actually end up practicing like an ascetic, including former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill.
But people with great souls are not without troubles, and Gandhi once offered to bathe or even sleep with women, calling it "natural remedies." Pulling on a woman seems to be bound to be involved in sex, and combined with his death, a number of female believers walked into the sea of fire to be buried, such an act makes people think of it.
Many of Gandhi's views are also incomprehensible, and he once suggested that the Nationalist government adopt a "non-violent non-cooperation" campaign against Japan, without the need to use force and reduce its style, which is as violent as the other side. He was also not optimistic that China's War of Resistance would be victorious.
But if you just think that Gandhi is looking down on China and targeting China, this idea is very wrong. For Gandhi had also persuaded the Jews not to resist Hitler, and had even written to Hitler. He was just confident in the ideas of his "non-violent non-cooperation" movement.
From this point of view, Gandhi seems to be a deceitful person. There are always two sides to things, positive and negative, the opposite is said, the words are spilled out of the water, and everyone will interpret and guess the behavior of others. No one is immune, and people will always add their own associations, push themselves and others to interpret the actions of others in their own way, and achieve their own goals.
From a negative point of view, it is always very different. Whether you have thought of looking at the problem from another angle and taking it out of context will bring up a rhythm and completely negate what one person has done. After all, there are the most diodes in the world, bad people are bad people, and good people are good people.
People with bad tempers must have ugly faces, idols who talk about love must be unfaithful and filial piety, people who have committed crimes must not repent, and people who have stolen things must have unclean hands and feet. It seems that everything is right, but in fact, it is not right, and it is not fair to deny the whole picture of a person without asking the reason, without asking the whole picture.
Criticism of things does not necessarily require personal attacks. Doing one thing wrong does not mean that life is over, after all, life is a long road, and everyone is just groping. In the same way, if you look at people with colored glasses, then the person you like is right no matter what you do, and the person who doesn't like it is wrong no matter what you do.
The good man of Liangshan slaughtered more lives and was also a hero and a good man, and Lieutenant Gao did not play well without conscience. An individual's likes and dislikes do not determine the work of the person being evaluated. No matter how much you hate a person, you should not deny the other person's ability and work results. It is not advisable to judge people by their appearance or to blind their eyes with such thoughts. You can't even fault a person's breathing because you hate him.
Everyone has their own rights, the right to evaluate others, and the obligation to be evaluated, and they can not admit that others' evaluations are correct, but they cannot cover the mouth of others who are talking. Everyone is equal and has the right to like or dislike, but everyone is also entitled to fairness and justice.
Transplanting ideas is not advisable
Gandhi's actions and thoughts revolved around one centrality: morality and peace. He has extremely high moral requirements for people, and he also yearns for peace and opposes violence. But he does not live by looking at the shortcomings of others, but first regulates his own behavior.
He married as a teenager, but at the age of thirty-seven he decided to abstain from sex. But he found that people's minds were difficult to control, so he calmed his heart by sleeping and bathing with young girls. If used in the study of modern psychology, it is desensitization therapy.
The more you see it, the less you will feel. As for whether it has an effect or not, it is not known. With regard to the idea of persuasion to abandon resistance, this is entirely because for Gandhi, "non-violent non-cooperation" was his lifelong pursuit. He would persuade everyone to be peaceful. It's just that he ignores that even India's "non-violent non-cooperation" movement is based on violence.
If it were not for the uncontrollable situation in India, the British would not have spared the big cake of India and chosen to leave a mess, so that Gandhi himself finally died in the violence of India. Fascism is different from the situation in Britain, the same colonists, fascists want the world to be left with only their "superior people", and Britain will retain more labor to produce.
If England is a "peasant" who sows fruit for a good harvest, then fascists are "butchers" who are only responsible for harvesting, but do not care about life or death. India can resist silently, but China cannot. Ethics and practice are originally built on two different levels.
In the beginning, human beings did not have moral distinctions, eating and sleeping, sleeping and eating, eating without money, mating when they wanted to, and there was no difference between who they mated with. Man is human because of restraint and reason, but if he cannot eat, these things lose their meaning.
In Maslow's theory of needs, survival and safety are the most basic. When people are faced with the threat of death, instead of talking about how to die gracefully, it is better to think about how to live tragically, whether it is to kill people, to escape, in short, to live. Only when you live can you pursue morality.
Saints and mortals
Gandhi was still a saint. People are always ashamed of those who stand on the moral high ground. They are not condescending like keyboard men, but he stands on the ground and uses his own example to tell people that it is not impossible, as long as they are willing, as long as they insist on it. It's like a satire on how cowardly and unbearable people are.
But people like them, who have noble souls, seem to be unable to see the source of the world's suffering. Morality became a tool that could solve everything.
Hai Rui was hungry and said to other officials, if you are not greedy, the country will be rich, but do a large number of people really have to sleep on the streets because of unreasonable salaries? It's more important to improve the remuneration that doesn't match economic development, rather than requiring everyone to be Hai Rui.
Gandhi forgives everyone, but if everyone is harmonious, those hatreds accumulated over thousands of years will not change, sucking blood and enjoying life, but only hunger strike solves the problem, but whether it is deliberately hunger strike, it will still be starved to death.
People need to have a moral bottom line, but if they are facing the pressure of survival and considering each other's life and death, it is too difficult for ordinary people. Not everyone is willing to "feed the tiger with their own body", and it is too idealistic to let go of hatred.
Maybe in another thousand years, people will build a utopia, there is no famine, no illness, people can do whatever they want, there is no need to fight for living space through war and bloodshed. It's just that it can't be done now, and the most important thing for people is to live. People revere morality, but they don't need to be bound by morality to give up survival.
What the saints are willing to do, the laymen can not do. Saints don't need to think about survival, while laymen need to, don't have to force everyone to be saints.