Link to Table of Contents Birdie Index Theories of Non-Violence

Dear Habermas Logo and Link to Site Index A Justice Site

Transforming Discourse:

Mirror Sites:
CSUDH Habermas UWP

California State University, Dominguez Hills
University of Wisconsin, Parkside
Created: May 6, 2001
Latest update: May 6, 2001
 E-Mailjeannecurran@habermas.org

Theories of Non-Violence

Review and Teaching Essay by Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata
Copyright: Jeanne Curran and Susan R. Takata, May 2001. Fair use "encouraged."

This essay is the beginning of an approach to transforming discourse in our own lived experience. Sociology 395-01 will be offered on this topic in the Fall of 2001 at CSUDH. In searching for material on alterity, I came across Prof. Garfield's essay in progress on The Satya in Satyagraha: Samdhong Rinpoche’s Approach to Nonviolence by Jay L Garfield, Department of Philosophy, Smith College, and School of Philosophy, University of Tasmania.

Professor Garfield specializes in cross-cultural philosophy and thought, and thus represents for us a good guide to an understanding of peace and non-violence through the thought of other cultures. Some of you will find this helpful in your own studies, and, in that case, I recommend that you go on to consult more of Professor Garfield's work.

Professor Garfield addresses in this essay the problem of how we can approach non-violence theoretically and practically in our lived experience. He discusses the work of Samdhong Rinpoche on "a specifically religious doctrine as theorised by Gandhi-ji, based on the revealed truth of the Hindu scriptures . . ."

Tina Juen will ask if we must include the discussion of religion. And, yes, Tina, we must. For Professor Garfield, in comparing approaches to non-violence wants to explore the theories of Ghandi along with those of the Dalai Lama. The Dalai Lama, a Buddhist, does not have the Hindu "truths . . . available. But this does not mean that Gandhi-ji’s central insight that grasping the nature of reality and insistence on truth is the foundation of all morally significant action and meaningful life. All that it means is that we need to get clear about what that truth could be for a Buddhist practitioner and what it is to grasp and to insist on it."

That means, Tina, that we're going to need to understand the role that the revealed truth of the Hindu scriptures plays in grasping and insisting on the truth that guides us to non-violence, since the Dalai Lama and Gandhi can perhaps both enlighten us. This relates to Professor Garfield's article, Temporality and Alterity: Dimensions of Hermeneutic Distance in which he explores what different cultures can offer each other in collegiality of thought. We will have different religious truths available to us, but through careful practice, we can carry on productive conversations on how we are to live togehter in peace.

Here are the sections I lifted to write with: You might want to read through them quickly.

At about 3/4 inch down the file:

" 'Satya' is most often translated in to English, particularly in the context of satyagraha theory as 'truth.' . . . [but] could as well be translated as 'reality,' or 'what is the case.' . . . we are going to have to understand Samdhong Rinpoche’s satyagraha as involving the grasping and insistence upon certain Buddhist truths."

"In the second sense of "satya" satyagraha is action that reflects and is grounded in the nature of reality. In this sense satyagraha need not itself derive from any specific theory or doctrine, but might reflect a spontaneous and direct awareness of how things stand, and indeed might itself not so much derive from but represent truth, in virtue of demonstrating the nature of reality and of appropriate engagement with that reality."

"The third sense of "satya"-what is the case-! -might appear to be indistinguishable from the second. The difference, however, is crucial if we are to understand the multi-layered character of satyagraha and if we are to set it in a properly Buddhist context. Whereas in the second sense "satya" denotes the nature of reality, in the third it denotes what is the case in a particular circumstance, how things in fact contingently stand. Effective action requires not just (or perhaps not at all) a grasp of theory, not just a harmony of action with the fundamental nature of reality, but also awareness of the concrete details of the immediate context of action. A firm grasp of the details of the action-context and insistence on the particular facts against obfuscation or error is constitutive of satyagraha.

"All of these senses of "satya" and correlatively of "satyagraha" are present in Gandhi’s theory and practice, as well as in that of Samdhong Rinpoche. I will not be exploring the way they articulate in Gandhi’! s own account, but rather explaining how to understand Samdhong Rinpoche’s version of satyagraha given his understanding of truth, reality and action in accordance with reality and circumstances, grounded as it is in Buddhist action theory. I should also say that I will be concerned with satyagraha as a practice for ordinary human beings. Buddhas and highly realised bodhisattvas are necessarily satyagrahis. But I am not writing for them. Thy have need neither of a philosophical discussion of truth nor of a discussion of the nature of a life lived in accordance with truth. Satyagraha must, if it is to be relevant to human political and personal life, be a possibility for ordinary beings like us, and it is to ordinary beings that the mahatma and Samdhong Rinpoche address themselves. Indeed, it may by Gandhi-ji’s deepest insight--and one with which Samdhong Rinpoche would undoubtedly agree--that satyagraha represents the only way that an ordinary human being can lead a ! fully human life. For this reason the analysis of truth, of action, of thought and of speech I provide will be resolutely an analysis of these phenomena as they are experienced, enacted and lived by ordinary human beings.'

And then take a look at some of the additional references I'd like to include. jeanne

Other References: