Ghandi's 7 blunders

[Lucifer]

"Seven Blunders of the World"


1. Wealth without work

2. Pleasure without conscience

3. Knowledge without character

4. Commerce without morality

5. Science without humanity

6. Worship without sacrifice

7. Politics without principle


—Mahatma Gandhi

What do you think of these? Do you have anything to add? Any modifications? The list is very much open to interpretation. So what do you think some of the points mean? Do you have any ideas on how to combat these "blunders"? Why do you think some of these blunders are a real problem?

I'd change six and seven

6. Worship without humility
7. Politics without sacrifice

6. Number six almost made me giggle cause Ghandi was really heavy into sacrifice. But the lack of humility or modesty people have about religion causes a lot more problems. It is easy to suppress the people of another religion or belief system when you believe in your own to the point of excess.

7. Ghandi was absolutely right. But I'd changed it because there was something that I wanted to add and there were only seven. And it seems to me that the stem of individual morality is ones dedication to ones self vs. ones dedication to others.

I think that this is a pretty interesting list, thought provoking and what not.

 

[Naxx]

?. Expecting Light without Dark.
?. Enjoying Life but not Death.

 

[Lucifer]

For peace to be absolute you would have to look all directions, favor all but favor none. Be all things and also be nothing at the same time. Since so far as we know matter and energy does not disappear, this seems unlikely at our current stage of thought.

I agree with what you said earlier. But I don't really understand what is going on in this paragraph. Are you trying to say that absolute violence and absolute peace can't exist because it would violate the principle of duality? In other words that creation and destruction, peace and violence, pain and joy, and every other concept are all dependent on one another so taking away one would mean you would have to eliminate the other?

I think that the yin yang is the perfect symbol for existence. Are purpose in life is trying to find which side we belong on while recognizing and respecting the other side. I will always be a pacifist and support peaceful policies in general, but I am not unrealistic I see the utility in violence. The yin yang beautifully symbolizes the idea that for one concept there an opposite. And the no set of opposites are mutually exclusive.


I actually wanna get a tattoo of a yin yang for this reason.

 

[Barnabas]

I would change

3. Knowledge without character

to Knowledge without wisdom

 

[drsolace]

Thought without discrimination

Fate without choice

Power without compassion

 

[Gaze]

"Seven Blunders of the World"

1. Wealth without work

2. Pleasure without conscience

3. Knowledge without character

4. Commerce without morality

5. Science without humanity

6. Worship without sacrifice

7. Politics without principle

Wouldn't change them. Simple, but they say everything.
—Mahatma Gandhi

 

[Faye]

I thought these were Ghandi's seven deadly sins?

 

[Satya]

What do you think of these? Do you have anything to add? Any modifications? The list is very much open to interpretation. So what do you think some of the points mean? Do you have any ideas on how to combat these "blunders"? Why do you think some of these blunders are a real problem?

I'd change six and seven

6. Worship without humility
7. Politics without sacrifice

6. Number six almost made me giggle cause Ghandi was really heavy into sacrifice. But the lack of humility or modesty people have about religion causes a lot more problems. It is easy to suppress the people of another religion or belief system when you believe in your own to the point of excess.

7. Ghandi was absolutely right. But I'd changed it because there was something that I wanted to add and there were only seven. And it seems to me that the stem of individual morality is ones dedication to ones self vs. ones dedication to others.

I think that this is a pretty interesting list, thought provoking and what not.

Actually, I like what Gahndi had for 6 and 7 better. Take Christianity for example. The religion calls on people to take care of the poor and to even give up their own dignity when struck by an enemy. The very basis of the relgion was the sacrifice of Jesus.

Politics without principle rules the current day. Just imagine the ad campaigns from the last Presidential election or the ad campaigns in the gay marriage debate.

 

[BenW]

I think Gandhi's biggest blunder was his rampant racist agenda.
But hey, what do I know...

 

[Morgain]

I agree with what you said earlier. But I don't really understand what is going on in this paragraph. Are you trying to say that absolute violence and absolute peace can't exist because it would violate the principle of duality? In other words that creation and destruction, peace and violence, pain and joy, and every other concept are all dependent on one another so taking away one would mean you would have to eliminate the other?

Yes exactly

I think that the yin yang is the perfect symbol for existence. Are purpose in life is trying to find which side we belong on while recognizing and respecting the other side. I will always be a pacifist and support peaceful policies in general, but I am not unrealistic I see the utility in violence. The yin yang beautifully symbolizes the idea that for one concept there an opposite. And the no set of opposites are mutually exclusive.

The eastern concept of Yin and Yang is so different from ower perspective on duality because for them it is not duality. It is not good or evil, it is both. The best way to describe it is, for us a square table is square, for them a square table is a little bit round. You can never have Yin without yang, there is always a bit of the opposite present. So in my opinion you can never be at one side, you will always have one foot on the other side. Also with yin and yang, you can never be yin always, yin turns back into yang and visa versa. You should see this as a neverending dance between yin and yang, always on the move, always changing, always are both present. And by accepting both and accepting there dynamics and by going with there flow instead of trying to stay foot, you will get a balanced harmonious live.

 

[TinyBubbles]

Great list. I think no. 5 is particularly poignant. Scientific progress is moving so fast these days that sometimes we forget to stop, step back, and analyze whether such changes are right for us.

 

[Satya]

I think Gandhi's biggest blunder was his rampant racist agenda.
But hey, what do I know...

Racist agenda? That's a first. I would love the reasoning behind this one.

The remarks that are attributed to him being racist were made when he was fairly young, not later in his life when he was considerably more enlightened. But I'm interested to hear how those comments equate to a "rampant agenda".

 

[BenW]

Racist agenda? That's a first. I would love the reasoning behind this one.

The remarks that are attributed to him being racist were made when he was fairly young, not later in his life when he was considerably more enlightened. But I'm interested to hear how those comments equate to a "rampant agenda".

Sure thing.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=gandhi+racist

 

[Satya]

Sure thing.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=gandhi+racist

Oh for crying out loud! I know the arguments and they are pathetic. Cherry picking facts from before 1915 when he lived in South Africa and after he had been raised in the caste system. Would you seriously judge a person just by the actions of when they are younger or by the actions of their entire life? And how does any of this equate to a "rampant racist agenda"? Do you honestly think that Gandhi's views before he died were the same views he held when he was a young lawyer?

Arg! This kind of thinking pisses me off. Where is the sense in making inflammatory remarks, not providing your own argument to support them, and then hiding behind the arguments of others when challenged about it. It demonstrates no intellectual propensity.

 

[BenW]

He never spoke out against it, or fell over himself to correct what he had said.

Gandhi supported the caste system; and, it's inherently racist.
What crucial details am I missing?

 

[Satya]

He never spoke out against it, or fell over himself to correct what he had said.

He met with black civil rights leaders!

Gandhi supported the caste system; and, it's inherently racist.

Where is your evidence that Gandhi supported the caste system in his later life?

 

[BenW]

He met with black civil rights leaders!

Not familiar with this.
Source? Not for disbelief, just curiousity.

Where is your evidence that Gandhi supported the caste system in his later life?

Nice reversal of the burden of truth, there.

Why should I believe he didn't?
Please show me the tantalizing quotes wherein he denounces it.
If I'm wrong, I'd love to know so.

 

[Satya]

Not familiar with this.
Source? Not for disbelief, just curiousity.

He met with Howard Thurman...

http://www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/people/howard_thurman.html

In 1936, Thurman led a "Negro Delegation of Friendship" to South Asia. There he met the Indian leader Mohandas Gandhi. His conversations with Gandhi broadened his theological and international vision. In his autobiography, Thurman said that in his meeting with Ghandi, the Mahatma expressed his wish that the message of non-violence be sent to the world by African-Americans.

And later with Benjamin Mays...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Mays

During his six years there Mays traveled to India, where, at the urging of Howard Thurman, a fellow professor at Howard, he spoke at some length with Mahatma Gandhi.

Both of whom were influencial to Martin Luther King Jr.

Nice reversal of the burden of truth, there.

Why should I believe he didn't?
Please show me the tantalizing quotes wherein he denounces it.
If I'm wrong, I'd love to know so.

Actions speak louder than words...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohandas_Karamchand_Gandhi

In 1932, through the campaigning of the Dalit leader B. R. Ambedkar, the government granted untouchables separate electorates under the new constitution. In protest, Gandhi embarked on a six-day fast in September 1932, successfully forcing the government to adopt a more equitable arrangement via negotiations mediated by the Dalit cricketer turned political leader Palwankar Baloo. This was the start of a new campaign by Gandhi to improve the lives of the untouchables, whom he named Harijans, the children of God. On 8 May 1933, Gandhi began a 21-day fast of self-purification to help the Harijan movement.

While it is debated whether or not Gandhi actually helped the untouchables with his actions, especially considering he coined the word "Harijan" which has become a derogatory word since, he fought for them and thus stood against the caste system.

 

[BenW]

He met with Howard Thurman...

http://www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/people/howard_thurman.html

And later with Benjamin Mays...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Mays

Both of whom were influential to Martin Luther King Jr.

I'm willing to accept he may have altered his views.
It could also simply have been political.

Any information on these meetings?
I googled the keywords earlier, didn't find anything.

"In 1932, through the campaigning of the Dalit leader B. R. Ambedkar, the government granted untouchables separate electorates under the new constitution. In protest, Gandhi embarked on a six-day fast in September 1932, successfully forcing the government to adopt a more equitable arrangement via negotiations mediated by the Dalit cricketer turned political leader Palwankar Baloo. This was the start of a new campaign by Gandhi to improve the lives of the untouchables, whom he named Harijans, the children of God. On 8 May 1933, Gandhi began a 21-day fast of self-purification to help the Harijan movement."

While it is debated whether or not Gandhi actually helped the untouchables with his actions, especially considering he coined the word "Harijan" which has become a derogatory word since, he fought for them and thus stood against the caste system.

That indicates to me nothing more than that he fought for the low caste to be equal voters.
In doing this, he didn't stand "against" the caste system; doing this would involve calling for it's eradication outright.

 

[Satya]

I'm willing to accept he may have altered his views.
It could also simply have been political.

Any information on these meetings?
I googled the keywords earlier, didn't find anything.

That indicates to me nothing more than that he fought for the low caste to be equal voters.
In doing this, he didn't stand "against" the caste system; doing this would involve calling for it's eradication outright.

Considering your argument was....

"I think Gandhi's biggest blunder was his rampant racist agenda."

I think I've made a pretty substantial case to indicate otherwise.

As far as making a political move by meeting with black leaders in the 1930s, all I have to say is it was the 1930s. What political move was he making by doing so? There wasn't even a civil rights movement in America until the 1960s.

Frankly, I see no point in researching everything for you.