On 11 April, Baba wrote to Deshmukh, directing him to meet Gandhi again, and try to explain Baba’s viewpoint properly. Deshmukh saw Gandhi at his ashram in Wardha on the 15th, but Gandhi still did not accept “non-violent violence” and clung to his own rigid outlook. – (Lord Meher, 2275)
Baba attempted many times to correct Gandhi’s misperception on violence and non-violence. In ‘Lord Meher’ many such instances are documented, and it is openly stated:
As mentioned, Mahatma Gandhi had his own ideas of what constituted “non-violence” and “non-violent resistance,” and he did not truly understand the gist of Baba’s message on the subject. –(Lord Meher, 2273)
Though Baba ultimately failed in correcting Gandhi’s error, his many attempts throughout that period utilizing various Mandali members clearly depict a sense of urgency and import.
While Baba was on his mast tour, he sent Chanji again to Delhi to see Gandhi. He did so on 2 and 3 April 1942. Chanji returned to Dehra Dun and several letters ensued between himself and Gandhi about this subject. Gandhi had been surprised to read Baba’s views, which justified the use of violence in certain situations, and called them “wholly inapplicable.” —-(Lord Meher, 2273)
Obviously, Gandhi didn’t yet understand who exactly Baba was. In the chapter on violence and non-violence, Baba warns us against the error of equating spirituality with the strict ‘rule’ of non-violence. He states:
“Spiritual life is a matter of perception and not of mechanical conformity to rules, even when these rules are meant to stand for the highest values.” —(Discourses, Violence & Non-violence)
Long time ago Zen Masters noticed the same problem with following “the letter of the law” instead of following the “spirit of the law.” For a Buddhist monk, keeping one’s Kye(계) is of paramount importance. In Small Vehicle Buddhism Kye(계) is known as the 5 precepts of no killing, no lying, no stealing, no sexual-misconduct, no drugs. And these precepts are to be followed to the letter at all costs. These people will not kill anyone, no matter what the circumstances. Why? Because they follow Gandhi’s ‘strict rule of non violence no matter what’ to the ‘letter.’ One might think it would be ok to set a strict rule for oneself that says “no matter what you should not kill,” but one would be ‘spiritually’ erroneous to think so. This is because there are circumstances wherein the only way to keep one’s Kye would be to kill. ‘Killing a mad dog to protect the school kids’ is an example that Baba himself uses in the Discourses. To modify it a bit, here is a situation where, if a Zen monk was the only able adult there, you would have witnessed a brutal scene of a Zen monk flying through the air with a stick swinging in his hand, striking the dog dead, with a single blow in view of the kids. An onlooker might say, “Boy, that poor monk broke his Kye,” but he’d be wrong. Kye (계) is a living Spirit. This is what the Apostle Paul meant when he said “the letter is death-dealing, and the spirit giveth life.” For the man of Kye the ‘sprit’ of Kye must be able to instantly over-rule the ‘letter’ of Kye. The Zen monk leaps forward instantly, without even thinking, and without any trace of hesitation, spontaneously kills the rabid dog to save the kids. The kids would be like “man I wanna be a Zen monk too!”
To learn more about Kye(계) as seen through the ‘spirit of the law’
instead of the ‘letter of the law’
click Kye(계) and Natural Law.
Trying to convince Gandhi that strict adherence to the ‘rule’ of non-violence was not the way of spirituality was not an easy task. The false assumption of ‘knowledge’ can be a formidable obstacle to ‘truth’ discovery. While discussing Gandhi and his resistance movement, on Friday, 10 April, Baba further clarified:
Real non-violence, like truth, love and selfless service, is the guide to God-realization. My non-violence includes violence under certain circumstances when it is done 100 percent for others and without the slightest feeling of malice, hatred, revenge or self-gain.
Gandhi is impractical, but a very good man. He thinks [about] what is right, tries to act up to it, admits his weaknesses. The world will never be non-violent. It will be more than non-violence. And more than non-violence is love. –(Lord Meher, 2274)
Non-violence means eternal resistance to the longing to retaliate.
Here Baba describes a situation wherein the heart(conscience) feels compelled to intercede with violence, yet the mind is paralyzed by the strict rule of non-violence. The false ideology of strict non-violence, when embedded in the mind, can deprives the heart of its full expression. About this longing to retaliate, Baba states:
Love needs no efforts. It is different from resistance to longing(to retaliate). Love demands self-control and spontaneous happiness for the Beloved. This effort is necessary for love, but it is not dry. Non-violence is not the self-control that is needed in love. It(the strict rule of Non-Violence) is a continuous resistance to the longing to retaliate. One is effort for transformation, the other is an effort for repression. But Gandhi is much above Hitler and Mussolini. He is a great man. Wherever he feels his weakness, he admits it. —-(Lord Meher, 2122)
Make no mistake, in that last statement, Baba was being totally sarcastic about Gandhi being a great man. Baba often said this about Gandhi during this period that the Mahatma (or great man) thought Baba’s views were “wholly inapplicable.”
The very next day, 8 July, Baba declared to the women:
Kill to defend without hate. France will hate England. Of what use is democracy if it cannot help? So neither it nor totalitarianism will remain. Both will go. —(Lord Meher, 2123)
Years earlier in 1924 Mahatma Gandhi went to Sakori along with his political companions to recieve darshan from Upasni Maharaj. Gandhi had read Upasni’s biography that Baba had sent to him and was convinced that Upasni was a Sadguru. Here is what happened:
There he found Upasni Maharaj sitting on a chair, wearing only a gunny sack around his waist. When Upasni Majaraj saw Gandhi, he shouted, “Get out from here! People have made you Mahatma! Are you a Mahatma? How selfish you are that they call you Mahatma and you feel happy! I don’t want to see you! Get out!” Gandhi was shocked to hear this. Then Upasni Maharaj said, “Go away! Why did you come here?”… Gandhi immediately left Sakori and he never thought of having Upasni Maharaj’s darshan again. — (HANDOUT PREPARED FOR THE MEHER SELFLESS SERVICE PROGRAM, p. 1) See full story
Gandhi said, “When I went to him, he had only a sackcloth wrapped around his waist. Seeing me, he parted it, revealing himself, and said, referring to me, ‘However great or renowned in the world he may be, what have I to do with him?’” (Lord Meher, online rev. ed., p. 3864)
After criticizing Gandhi for a while, in his divine humor Baba would end his comments with “But! he is a great man. –a Mahatma!”
On the 5th, discussing with Chanji the matter of Mahatma Gandhi, Baba dictated the following message, which he instructed Chanji to send to Gandhi:
Stick to Truth at all costs, even if it means giving up your political life. Do not try to force nonviolence on unwilling adherents, nor even try to establish it, since it is already eternally established. –(Lord Meher, 2243)
Speaking to the philosophy of non-violence that Gandhi propagated, Baba stated the following:
The British government kept the nation docile; all the warlike spirit was subdued and lost during a century and a half of British occupation. Then again, when the people were aroused to political awakening, the philosophy of non-violence propagated by Gandhi crushed what little spirit was aroused. Consequently, it will now be very difficult and a [hard] task indeed to arouse it again, even if we did have weapons. (Note that he mentions weapons..)
Gandhi tells Britain to be non-violent. To let Germany take over England, to let themselves be killed, to be destroyed! But not to fight! What he says is 100 percent right and true, but absolutely impossible and impractical! Hitler and Gandhi are both right in their way of thinking according to their own conceptions. But both are stark mad [to think so]! Both are extremes. –(Lord Meher 2121)
Baba then clarifies the very essence of the law that governs violence in the following statement:
Extreme violence, when it reaches the zenith, becomes non-violence and vice-versa. –(Lord Meher 2122)
The vice-versa of this great ‘revealed truth’ is:
Extreme non-violence, when it reaches the zenith, becomes violence.
Perhaps, what Gandhi needed was a little lesson from one of Baba’s favorite western men, St. Augustine of Hippo. When it comes to explaining whats wrong with ‘the ideology of strict non-violence’ Augustine is Baba’s top-gun Saint. St. Augustine (354~480a.d.) spells out the conditions for waging a “Just War.” Not unlike us in our time, Augustine also lived in a period when the greatest empire of its time was in its final stages of collapse. It was a time when everyone understood that war would soon fill the void left behind by Rome’s demise. For the first time, Christians had to deal with the prospect of defending themselves from outside aggression. Augustine found himself in a position where he saw no choice but to ask questions like:
How does a Christian wage war?
Does a Christian wage war?
If so, what is a Christian soldier like?
What is it that can compel a Christian into war?
These are some of the difficult questions that Augustine sorts out for us.
For Augustine, only a defensive war can be a just war. If you are being attacked, and you have been put in a defensive position, and if, all avenues of peaceful resolution have been exhausted, then not only is it permissible to wage war, but necessary.
Augustine makes it clear that once these conditions are met it becomes a Christian’s duty to wage war. He says that under Natural Law, self-defense is not just a privilege but a duty. This point is made even clearer by Baba.
On the issue of Violence and Non-Violence, Baba states:
But so far as the masses are concerned, it is undesirable to ask them to stick to the external formula of non-violence, when it is their clear duty to resist aggression in self-defense or in the defense of other weak brothers. In the case of the unevolved masses, universal insistence upon non-violence can only lead to their being cowardly, irresponsible, and inert.
True love is no game of the faint-hearted and the weak; it is born of strength and understanding. The ideal of non-violence, in the face of aggression, is impracticable for the masses: and it will have a tendency to be readily used as a subterfuge for servile acceptance of ignoble conditions and contemptible desertion of a clear duty. —(Lord Meher 5431)
To avoid violence, even when it becomes necessary, according to Baba is a “contemptible desertion of a clear duty.” As in the case of Augustine, once the conditions are met, it is no longer just permissible, but a duty to engage in violence. Indeed, true love is not for the faint-hearted. Augustine adds that a just war must be waged with love, including love for the enemy.
Baba also warns us of the ideology of strict ‘non-violence’ being utilized as subterfuge for the slow degradation of our freedoms. The strict rule of non-violence is the ultimate totalitarian dream come true. The ‘totalitarian tiptoe’ can continue to drip-feed the population into ignoble conditions as long as the ideology of ‘strict non-violence’ remains effective in keeping them docile. Baba is warning us that if we don’t fight back with ‘violence’ at some point, we will surely find ourselves one day living in no less than ‘ignoble conditions.’
On the issue of non-violent violence, we even have two Avatars that saw the need to wage war (Mohammed and Krishna). Baba himself states:
“Krishna said the same thing to Arjuna, “Kill your relatives! Kill your friends!” in the battle of Kurukshetra. You must have heard about the famous battle. Arjuna refused, saying, “How can I kill my own kith and kin?” Krishna then declared, “I am above the Law. The whole creation is from me, and you will not be bound.” –(Lord Meher 4030)
Even Jesus, as if not wanting feel left out, added, “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.” — Matthew 10:34. In Luke, Jesus says to the Hebrews, “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don’t have a ‘sword’, sell your cloak and buy one.” This was at a time when it was illegal for any Jew to own a sword, let alone a Roman sword. The word Jesus used for sword in Greek referred to a very specific first century Roman sword. This sword was the most efficient weapon of its time, to which much of Rome’s success was credited. What Jesus had done was to tell his disciples to break Roman Law and go out and buy – not a knife – but a Roman Sword. The Roman Sword was the technological advantage the Romans held over their colonies. It is the modern day equivalent of an AK-47. The man of ‘non-violent violence’ is not a man that would bring a stick to a sword fight. Nor is he a man that would bring a knife to a gunfight, or a gun to a machine gun fight. Stupidity is not part non-violent-violence.
The founding fathers knew this as well. In the nation’s own foundational text it is stated:
“… when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
Revolution against tyranny is not only a right, but a duty. Since mankind is given unalienable rights by God, it is a duty – a responsibility and a necessity – to overthrow any government that violates Natural Law. To learn more about Natural Law click Kye(계) & Natural Law.
Under Natural Law self-defense is not just a right but a duty. Under Natural Law, it is not ‘right’ to outsource one’s duties to anyone, and this includes the self-defense of oneself as well as one’s fellow brethren. To allow others, such as a police force, to handle your defense on your behalf is a violation of Natural Law. As Baba puts it, it is no less than a “contemptible desertion of a clear duty.” Natural Law dictates a world wherein everyone is peacefully armed. The New Humanity are a strong people well capable of defending themselves. They are not a weak group of defenseless people that can easily be overpowered and enslaved. In fact, Baba even went as far as to have his female Mandali do military training with guns during the time when India was thought to be under threat.
Because it looked as if Japan was about to attack India from the Eastern coastline, Baba informed the women: “If we are attacked, we must be ready to defend ourselves. We must have military training in self-defense.” Baba appointed Margaret Craske to give the women lessons in the martial arts. The training began with the swinging of lathis. How to inflict wounds, and how to fight if wounded were also taught. Drills were held as follows: Upon hearing a whistle, all the women carrying the cudgels would run to their predetermined battle stations, upstairs in the house!
At one point, Baba advised, “If anyone is wounded, Rano, Kitty and Margaret should remain with them. Mehera, Mani, Khorshed and the others should climb to the roof. If the enemy attacks, they should be resisted downstairs, so that they may not invade the second story, and Mehera would be safe.”
All, including the servants, took the training seriously. Baba would often go out to commune with masts, so in his absence, this provided a lively pastime for the women.–(Lord Meher, 2267)
Notice how, even if the first floor were to be taken by the ‘enemy’ the second floor, where Mehera would be located, is to be defended to the bitter end. The New Humanity are a bunch of warriors that you don’t want to mess with. They are not pacifists in the face of blatant aggression. They are the type that would fight to the death. What needs to be clearly understood can be said as follows:
“See, people with power understand exactly one thing: violence.”
― Noam Chomsky
Many Indian historians argue that India’s independence had more to do with the targeting of British officials and their families by various leaders. Bhagat Singh, Subhas Chandra Bose, Chandra Shekhar Azad and Jawahar Lal Nehru are among those considered to be the real heroes of India’s independence. Yet Gandhi is the only one that gets talked about.
Though hardly known outside of India, the violent revolutionaries played a much greater role in india’s independence than people the world over are lead to believe. Many say the same is true of Malcolm X, as well as the Black Panthers, who are mentioned as mere footnotes in the civil rights movement. For the ruling classes, if possible, the sole credit must be given to a strictly non-violent proponent of any movement. But to see through this mirage, all one needs to see clearly is the nature of the ruling class:
Never in history has a Tyrant ever given up power by persuasion of popular opinion.
Power has never responded to anything other than the threat or use of force.
We know this. It’s obviously true. Power only respects force. In the final analysis, violence is the only language power really understands. This myth that “non-violent protests can make a difference” is a false paradigm generated and propagated by an elite class of brilliant social engineers. It is a psychological trap perpetuated to keep the population docile amidst adversity so that they are easier to control. A generation of free-thinking, independently minded people, fully capable of violent self-defense, would not be a tyrants first choice, now would it? A disarmed population of peaceful protesters would be my choice if I were a tyrant. A population disarmed is, in a very real sense, asking for dominance. Ben Franklin often said “those who would give up liberty for security deserve neither,” and here we are living in what is undeniably a police state.
The tragedy of Gandhi’s legacy is only now becoming largely apparent. In many mainstream activist groups, after having exhausted all possible peaceful means, whenever violence is brought up by someone as a possible alternative, that person is quickly shunned and silenced with a mantra–“Gandhi, Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King” over and over again. This programmed response that removes violence from the equation in any activist movement is referred to as the “Gandhi shield.” To these people, violence has become a non-option–if you are a decent civilized human being, that is. To them Power is misperceived as some sort of incompetent nice guy that yearns to be liked by everyone more than anything. “Why become violent when we can achieve the same results non-violently? Gandhi did it, didn’t he? So did Martin Luther King, didn’t he?”–This is the gist of their thinking. But nothing could be further from the truth. This type of fantasy has never really happened in history. It has been faked by many governments all over the world in recent times, but it has never really happened. It couldn’t have. What really happened instead was an upgrade on the illusion of freedom.
Gandhi was a great man, as Baba says, but great men can also make great errors. Gandhi’s error is a great one, in that the philosophy of strict non-violence is keeping populations around the world more docile than ever. This is the tragic legacy of Gandhi. He has become the #1 Propaganda tool for the established power structures keeping the masses helpless and docile in the face of clear and ever present aggression. The ‘Gandhi shield’ is used in keeping us passive in the face of ignoble conditions, and in keeping us helpless in the defense of other weak brothers (like the children in Iraq, Libya, & Afghanistan),and in keeping us from ever taking the law into our own hands even when it becomes a clear duty to do so. When asked about freedom, Jesus said “know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” One cannot be free without first knowing the truth, and one of those truths is about the nature of Baba’s ‘non-violent violence.’
Baba offers us the truth, and it leaves no room for ambiguity:
The world will never be non-violent.
The New Humanity will be more than non-violent.
It will be His kind of non-violence that NECESSARILY includes the use of violence.
He offers us the big red pill that says :
“More than non-violence IS love.”
–(Lord Meher, 2122)
Click on the Red-Pill to hear Larken Rose explain Gandhi!
To learn more about Kye(계) as seen through the ‘spirit of the law’
click Kye(계) and Natural Law.