Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Gandhi and ego
vinlyn
Colorado...for now Veteran
People often speak of Gahdhi on this forum. I was (again) watching the film (with Kingsley) the last couple of days (and it is a marvelous film). But I watched it from a different perspective. Assuming the film is at all accurate, I came to the conclusion that there were two very powerful egos at work -- the ego of the British empire, versus the ego a single man.
0
Comments
films are rarely accurate, and egos are always at work. Ego is not bad, it's how you use it. The same ego can be used for good or bad.
And that's actually a good point -- ego is not necessarily a bad thing.
Do you mean 'agenda' by the term ego?
No.
Look at it this way, Gandhi decided to take on the entire British Empire. That took guts...and ego.
So are you saying that Ghandhi was really on an ego-trip?
What exactly do you mean by "ego" here? Clearly he was very driven and idealistic, is that what you mean?
does 'driven' mean ego?
Ego seems to be roughly equivalent to self-view in Buddhism, our sense of self or "me".
Egotism is being self-centred.
Ghandhi comes across to me as a humble figure, not full of self-importance and certainly not egotistical. Obviously he had self-view, and therefore an ego....but I'm struggling to understand the point of the OP.
You know what they say about 'assuming'....
The film may be accurate in many ways, but it's also significant for what it omits, as much as what it includes.
http://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/oct/14/gandhi-reel-history.
I wouldn't take the film as an historical account, but rather the opinion of one fiercely unbiased and unprejudiced man, (Attenborough) wishing to demonstrate the heinous crimes committed by the British during the decline of the Empire. Grasping at every vestige of power they could, until obliged by circumstance to loosen their grip once and for all. Attenborough detested prejudice of any kind.
My father was an occasional companion of Gandhi, in that he worked for the BBC Home Service a the time, and was responsible for preparing the broadcasting studios for Gandhi (and other social, political and religious leaders) for their broadcasts. He heard the shots which killed the man, from within the broadcasting studio. He didn't know at the time, of course, what had happened.
He spent some time with him, and didn't always find him in good humour, but could be argumentative and intransigent.
I worked for the Attenborough family dentist in Richmond, Surrey, (naturally, he had other patients too!) and met both Richard and David Attenborough, on two occasions. They were both utterly, completely and disarmingly charming, and unpretentious and delightful.
I'm astonished an academic would give any level of credence to a film which, when all is said and done, was really engineered and created, it has to be said, to be a vehicle primarily, of entertainment.
If you want 'accurate', it's really best to read historically-approved books.
Gandhi was not perfect [oh dear he was a human being]
There was a big debate on Channel 4 News (UK) about the Tinker Belling of his flaws. (When a fan of Gandhi suggested the great leader be represented by a moving beam of light in the film, Richard Attenborough famously replied 'I am not making a film about bloody Tinker Bell')
It always saddened me that India was split into North and South who now hate each other. North is now known as Pakistan.
It is now a spectator sport, here is a ceremonial evening closing of the borders . . .
As for the flaws of the Imperial British Empire 'ego', no argument there, you can see some of its remnants in the above clip . . .
What little I know of current Indian politics is as usual a corrupt monied elite who mismanage to their own advantage. Gosh we really are in samsara . . .
it means like there's an ulterior motive for someone acting kindly or justly, etc. So what. If a person say wants to become famous by publishing a great novel, does that diminish from the work? Who cares the motivation...
anything not directed towards serving G-d is selfish by definition. If someone helps others with the intent of serving G-d by doing so, then it's considered selfless, not if he only sees bodies of flesh and bones...
Nonsense.
That is just your selfish defining. Many Buddhists do not serve C-d or other fishy ideas and are perfectly selfless in their service.
Nuffink like a nice bit of halibut...
maybe they don't call it G-d but if they're selfless they've somehow reached the divine part in them... call it whatever you want...
no one that stays in their default animalistic state can be selfless... it takes work of doing things of importance to the godhead, etc. in order to rectify one's state of alienation from that more sublime inner essence... it doesn't occur automatically that these monks just get illuminated... g-d doesn't care what you call it, just that you alter your bad behavior...
Will someone please tell this cat he's lost.
If I wanted to hear/read about god I would have went to church this morning.
@octinomos ...... Any input on Buddhahood, thats what we usually call the 'devine' around here.....I'm really trying to be patient and not go off....but, am I wrong in assuming your affiliation by the use, or lack thereof, g-d. Believer right? Whats your purpose here? I'm not trying to be funny....I'm serious. I don't know many BUddhists who hang out on Theists/Christian/Jewish websites and conversate.....so....whats your deal?
Help me understand. You have to know what your walking into....so yes, expect to get challenged on these concrete statements your making....
There is no behaviour to alter, 'good' 'bad' or otherwise.
There is everything to drop.
Including "G-d" - whatever you consider that to be.
I consider it to be an over-inflated illusory aspect of your imagination, and that frankly, you're beginning to get tiresome.
Either spell it properly (what's going to happen to you if you don't?!) or quit using the term, because it's irrelevant.
I think in the case of movies, even in "based on a true story" movies, the ego that comes out the most is that of the script writer, director and producer. They are the ones that determine exactly what is portrayed, and that doesn't mean it's remotely accurate to true events as far as interior motives of people involved. I think virtually every human being operates from a place of ego. It's pretty scary to think of how we'd know how to act otherwise! But the few times it's happened to me where words or actions came from somewhere other than ego, it's quite an experience and I'd love to have that available to me all the time. It's a very different sense. I don't think anyone other than Gandhi can say whether he was in that place, or not, when he made decisions or speeches. Perhaps he was sometimes but not always. Some people seem more able to do it than most, operating out of a completely different place within them than the rest of us do.
And let's not forget he had a dreadful relationship with his eldest son Harilal, who converted to Islam, and then died in very sad, and destitute circumstances.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harilal_Gandhi
One of his...grandchildren? I think? Came and did a program in our town a couple of years ago. It was very interesting, but it was lacking in heart, which is what Gandhi had and operated from, I think. Arun Gandhi was a great speaker, but it was much more discussing peace as a business rather than any sort of heart-felt message.
Belief in a creator is not really knowledge. It's more like opinion. You aren't the only one here with that belief. It's not Buddhism is all.
I try to write real English this time so there are less reasons to blame me for pseudophilosophy. But I can't help sounding like an amateur lecturer... (And I'm too egocentric for sure.)
Politicians want recognition and they have to be hungry for power, and most of them has/have a strong will. And we need them on our representative democracy (anarchism is beautiful...), so hopefully there would be more Gandhis.
I'm not sure we can speak of ego, when you put your person and your life at the service of a noble cause.
I would think, "the ego of the British empire, versus the charismatic personality of a single man."
The British Empire HAD no Ego.
Those who ran it, may well have done, but it would be a dreadful mistake to assume (that word again) that the British Empire was naught but Evil personified.
Unarguably, much harm was done in the name of Empirical rule; but some good came of it too.
I came of it
Without the British Empire, my Grandpa would have never been to Argentina, met my Grandma, and had, in the long run... me
I have the feeling someone is running up for the "User banned - carry on" medal...
And there is also chaos.
so far so good....
Meh. Then you 'had to go and spoil it all by saying sumphin' stoopid...'
MUST be....? Oh dear, dear dear.....Your opinion, but unfortunately not based on anything other than personal preference.
But hey.....If that's what you'd like to think, go ahead. It obviously floats YOUR boat.
I would love to detect something Buddhist in everything you have said up to now, since this is a Buddhist site.
Apparently, from a quick perusal of your past comments, I'm far from being humoured any time soon.
Like @Vastmind rhethorically asked above, it would be nice to know what you're doing here.
About a year or so ago, I went on to a Christian site, and even though I made one - just one single comment - which actually complemented posts made by Christians, from a Buddhist perspective, I was instantly banned.
I think all in all, we're a far nicer bunch.
I don't know if Ghandi was acting out of self interest or the interests of those he represented.
Not sure how that was relevant but I think intelligence is just information being shared.
Because there seems to be a natural progression is no reason to posit an intelligent deity in charge of it all.
If a human is part of an illusory realm, how could you trust the notion that a higher force must be guiding reality?
After all, that is a human notion.
...
The film may be accurate in many ways, but it's also significant for what it omits, as much as what it includes.
...
I wouldn't take the film as an historical account, but rather the opinion of one fiercely unbiased and unprejudiced man, (Attenborough) wishing to demonstrate the heinous crimes committed by the British during the decline of the Empire. Grasping at every vestige of power they could, until obliged by circumstance to loosen their grip once and for all. Attenborough detested prejudice of any kind.
My father was an occasional companion of Gandhi, in that he worked for the BBC Home Service a the time, and was responsible for preparing the broadcasting studios for Gandhi (and other social, political and religious leaders) for their broadcasts. He heard the shots which killed the man, from within the broadcasting studio. He didn't know at the time, of course, what had happened.
He spent some time with him, and didn't always find him in good humour, but could be argumentative and intransigent.
...
I'm astonished an academic would give any level of credence to a film which, when all is said and done, was really engineered and created, it has to be said, to be a vehicle primarily, of entertainment.
If you want 'accurate', it's really best to read historically-approved books.
Interesting post, Federica.
Your criticism of film (in general) can be equally applied to "historically-approved books"...whatever that means. For example, read a history text from the the sun never sets on the British Empire era, then read one from today. I imagine the whole frame of reference would be quite different and present quite a different perspective. I've read a number of bios on (for example) Nelson Rockefeller, and sometimes you would hardly think you were reading about the same person. Much of history is really more accurately described as perspective.
Also, how do you reduce a life down from 41,024,000 minutes to 188 minutes (or 500 pages). You can't. You have to make decisions on how to tell your story and what you see as important and not important. I was watching a movie last night that was "based on" an historical railroad chapter in Colorado. It wasn't just that they left things out, they fictionalized tons (although it was still an interesting film). And even the "news" can be twisted, as FOX and MSNBC have repeatedly proven.
The ego aspect I was talking about, you touch on, when you say, he "could be argumentative and intransigent". That actually comes out quite strongly in the film, IF you have an open mind when you watch it. Like anyone, Gandhi had his strengths and weaknesses, and when one has weaknesses, things are not always seen perfectly clearly. It occurred to me while watching the film, particularly the salt segment, that Gandhi was just a little tricky in terms of non-violence because he led actions which -- as a brilliant man -- he had to know would lead the British to miscalculate and take violent action. IMHO, a man who incites, even indirectly, violence, is almost as guilty as the other man who actually commits it. Many died or were horribly injured as a result of Gandhi's actions.
Now, don't get me wrong. Something had to be done to break the back of British imperialism. It's one thing to have influence over other nations. It's quite another thing to declare that you out and out own another nation. Gandhi's actions were much better, IMHO, than creating a civil war. I cannot help but admire what he accomplished and how he accomplished it. But I also don't see his actions as being as pure as the white of fresh snow. I think sometimes we forget that while his intent was admirable, some of his actions had karmic consequences on himself, his extended family, and others. History gets very blurred as more and more time passes. For example, did you know that Martin Luther King was personally and individually responsible for civil rights achievements? That is what many people pretty much believe now, particularly those who did not live through that era. Many others worked very hard for decades for those goals, but they are largely forgotten. And, I personally believe that had only the peaceful side of protest occurred, without the corresponding violence of the other part of the movement, that the achievements that were accomplished would probably have languished and perhaps many would not have occurred at all.
Just my take on things.
I kind of agree, although would question the use of the word "ulterior".
That's a fair statement.
Sometimes the motivation matters a lot. In Buddhism, intention is everything. Motivation and intention tend to be closely related.
@vinlyn, I agree with the gist of your post.
It also bears mentioning that Gandhi, by actively encouraging the destruction of imported cotton and fabrics, had the Livelihood of native merchants, growers, weavers and clothing manufacturers in mind. His actions of boycotting British imports had a truly devastating effect on the British Cotton industry. Whole mills closed, the industry collapsed and hundreds upon thousands of families left unemployed, destitute, homeless and penniless. Many people died of poverty and starvation as a direct result of his obstinacy and stand against this particular aspect of Imperialism.
Perversely, he visited the UK and spoke to cotton workers, some of whom saw his POV and even publicly supported him.
This is also an illustration of something I have maintained in the Past: Newton's Law of Motion. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I further maintain that every time we strive to be skilful and Mindful in our Thought/Word/Deed actions, and generate Positive Kamma, for someone or something else connected to that, the outcome will be completely the opposite.
I agree. Lots of folks like to talk about win-win situations, and admittedly, those do occur...rarely.
Every coin has two sides. At the moment two superpowers are playing their games (also) in Ukraine and a common wo-man suffers the most.
Is it true, really, that the outcome will be negative? As our many sayings go, and most of us have experienced, when one door slams, another opens. And when someone sometimes needs to experience particular lessons, even if they are difficult, to grow, to change,and to get to another place in their life.
Also, if the laws of physics apply to karma (which I'm not sure if they do or don't) then how we can ever get to the point of no longer creating negative karma or neutralizing all our bad karma if even our best deeds generate bad outcomes for someone, somewhere?
The only people we can look to, when deciding on what is skilful, Mindful and wholesome, is ourselves. We must do our level best to deal with the matter in hand, in the best way we can.
But a knock-on effect is always, but always created. Just as a pebble thrown into a pond causes a ripple effect, or a seismic shock creates earthquakes, tsunamis and tidal destruction, so whatever we do, be it 'great' or 'small' we will doubtless at some point have an 'opposite' effect.
I learnt some time ago that if you look up to the heavens, and point your arm and index finger skywards, above your head and begin rotating it in a clockwise direction, as you bring it down, still rotating, and end up looking down at your 'still-pointing-skyward' tip of your finger, it will then be rotating anti-clockwise.
It all depends on your perspective. Nothing has changed, except the perception. But everything has changed, through the perception.
At some point, yes. I thought you were saying always. But it still all falls under our perception. What a person considers the worst day of their life can quickly be made obvious that it was, indeed, a blessing. We choose to see the loss of jobs, major economic upsets etc as "bad things" when really, they may not be. WWII obviously is a case of some of the worst of what people are capable of. But what resulted from it has been quite prosperous for a lot of countries, and a lot of people.
Reminds me of Stephen King's book 11/22/63. Guy found out he could travel through time, figured he would stop the JFK killing so he could live to be the best US president ever. Except then he did it and saw what would happen to the world were JFK not killed. I think that all the little details we get stuck in, like the effect Gandhi had on the people of England who lost their jobs, really just don't matter at all. In the grand universe without a concept of linear time, our history and how we tend to think karma works only forward into time really doesn't work at all. It's easy to look at something and say "this caused this other bad thing" when perhaps what would have happened otherwise could have been much, much worse. So the concept of "I can do my best to do something good and it can still result in something bad" doesn't work in the case of the bigger picture without time/history as an element.
Oh I agree that perception is transformative. And the passage of time will change perceptions of previously-held 'beliefs'.
This is why Kamma is such a convoluted subject, and indeed, I reiterate - we need to look to ourselves, because stopping to try to consider every parameter would fry our brains....
Oh I totally agree. It's just interesting to think about once in a while, prior to brain frying, that is,
I've gotten better at thinking about things outside of a concept of time (only marginally better). It's interesting. We are so very focused on time. But then I wonder how much our entrenchment in the idea of time and it's passing is to blame for our beliefs about aging and so on. Obviously belief isn't everything, lol. But belief seems to have a lot to do with some things, at least for certain people it can have a great impact. What if we didn't believe time lead to aging? Would we age the same way? I know an 80 year old lady who doesn't prescribe to the idea of aging, and she does amazingly well for someone of 50, never mind 80. I wonder how much of that is belief or perhaps lack thereof.
maybe it matters to the one performing the good deed, that it's not an honest selfless act, but to the people receiving the help, they couldn't care less what the reason is... help is help...
not many people would turn down a million dollars, for example, even if they knew the person offering it had just gone completely insane... no one is that honest...
a selfish act is not evil simply because it's selfish. there have to be elements of harm to oneself or others. we could get into all sorts of philosophical debates that maybe it's better if they learn to fish rather than get free fish one time... but just the simple fact it's that they welcome the free fish at that time, and so has some value attached to it... maybe if the people became sick, then they could say 'see, told you it was evil fish we shouldn't have touched because the giver wasn't a true buddhist so unable to act rightly by definition'... let's open that for debate... does a person need Buddhism in order to act selflessly or can it happen randomly by itself? and is a person better off not receiving help from such a dishonest person that only seeks self-aggrandization. Or can they get the help and not be touched by the dishonesty?
I'm favoring the idea that the people can receive benefit from even selfish acts, but that they perceive as beneficial somehow, and why should they be liable for anything the giver does in his own time, or even for the reasoning behind this particular act of giving of which they're a beneficiary--give me the help, don't tell me the reason, and get out of my face, and don't make me responsible for what you do or think at any time, even now...