Talk:Satyagraha
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is maintained by the Indian politics workgroup. |
 |
This article is maintained by the Indian history workgroup. |
|
More information about this article...
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Entry should also mention Martin Luther King and learning of Satyagraha from Gandhians in the 1950s, using it as an extention of Jesus' 'love in action' put into a new concept. Also might refer to new excellent work from Center for Nonviolence education, written by Michael N. Nagler.
Idea of Stayagraha is 'truth force' which King used in context of Jesus' lessons. (See both Stride Toward Freedom by King, and Hope or Terror on METTA website)
Noma119
Bouncing from pacifist,to pacifism, to Gandhi where I clipped up this:
Gandhi's principle of satyagraha (Sanskrit: truth + grasping firmly or holding onto it), often roughly translated as "passive resistance"...
Very roughly.How on Earth does truth become passive and grasping firmly become resistance?
---I want to reinforce this last comment. In one of his essays (can't recall which right now) Gandhi *specifically* repudiates the idea that satyagraha is passive resistance. the point of satyagraha (which is far more profitably translated as 'soul force') is that it is *not* passive. it is nonviolent force designed to generate a specific outcome, and the reason Gandhi advocates it is not only because it is nonviolent but because he believed it to be almost universally effective. he did *not* believe the same thing of passive resistance--in fact, he quite vigorously disliked passive resistance.
The translation stopped me dead in my tracks. Satyagraha is possibly a neologism of Ghandi's. I think truth+force is the way it gets translated. People writing the several articles have not got a good handle on Gandhi.
Yes there are too many quotes. But I like'm, but, they got to be pruned, stabalized, and then pruned again. They should go at the end of the article.Letters with Tolsoy are in the public domain possibly.
It might be a large article, if we look at this as a serious philosophy, which created the world's largest democracy, and showed the meaning of will to the British Empire. There is a lack of subtlety, in the way the wikipedia talk pages handle Gandhi. Based on how cruical he is to entries in biographies, philosophy, history, we can free up some wikipedians for brilliant prose if we provide an authoritative shorter entry.
Two16Two16
IMHO, somebody should put the bibliographic reference of these texts from Gandhi. From where they were taken from? This is important, for reference and information (e.g, I am interested in reading more about it, it would be nice to start looking for this books). 161.148.79.107
The copyright of all writings of Mahatma Gandhi vests with M/s Navajivan Trust, P.O. Navajivan, Ahmedabad-380014.
Contents |
[edit] Origins of Satyagraha
replaced "earlier" with "various" since Jesus and everything else listed came AFTER the Upanishads, Jainism, etc, not before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.221.55 (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] important question: Gandhis relation to Jesus
Did Gandhi explicitly relate to Jesus, especially his law "love your enemies" anywhere in his writings or outline of Satyagraha? Just started studying, so excuse me if the question is dumb.
--Jesusfreund 20:06, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
---
I read the same thing about Muhammed's influence on him:
"I become more than ever convinced that it was not the sword that won a place for Islam in those days. It was the rigid simplicity, the utter self-effacement of the Prophet, the scrupulous regard for pledges, his intense devotion to his friends and followers and his intrepidity, his fearlessness, his absolute trust in God and in his own mission. These and not the sword carried everything before them and surmounted every obstacle."
http://playandlearn.org/ramadhan/YouMustKnowThisMan.htm
Yes, Gandhi often said that Jesus was an influence on him. He was particularly devoted to the Sermon of the Mount, which he read frequently, and often quoted the phrases "Love your enomies" and "retaliate not against evil." (His favorite Christian hymns were Lead, Kindly Light and Abide With Me. Tom129.93.17.139 19:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
---
Leo Tolstoy's The Kingdom of God is Within You seems to have been a major influence. The book is largely focused on the message of the Sermon on the Mount. JSteinbeck2 (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
---
[edit] Messy?
I think this article needs a clean-up tag. Doesn't look encyclopedic at all. Discuss? User:Borisblue
- Agreed. It's basically just a few long Gandhi quotes. Cleanup... Jebba 00:58, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- also, and more importantly i think, the quotes in the 'civil disobedience' and 'fasting' sections are never actually identified AS quotes. if you just skip down to one of those sections (which i did when first coming to this article) it sounds like an incredibly POV writer, not like a quote. (oops, that was me --dan 15:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC))
[edit] Not "messy", just incomplete!
We're not told in this article what Satyagraha is. Nor are we treated to a history of the concept and its uses by Gandhi and others.
And to we have a system of diacritics on Wikipedia, so we can distinguish between long and short vowels? Tom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.93.17.139 (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Non-possession
Could someone familiar with this topic do some work on the above article? I recreated it after it was speedy deleted, but I am unfamiliar with this area and only modified what the original author had written. Thanks! KnightLago (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Non-possession is not the same as neither poverty nor posperity. I realized that an entry needed to be written to clarify the topic upon encountering the text. --Ellesmelle (talk) 01:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
