Re: Orwell on Gandhi

That was pretty durn interesting, thanks for posting that. I think Orwell has
a bit of a problem in that all he can really say to Ghandi is, "I'm right
you're wrong, nanny nanny boo boo." How a saint is defined -- what a saint
even is -- depends on where you're coming from (which religious tradition) and
what your premises are. All Orwell really said about Ghandi is that his
beliefs were different from Ghandi's. Orwell recognizes that Ghandi's
beliefs "make sense only on the assumption that God exists and that the world
of solid objects is an illusion to be escaped from," but he surely doesn't
expect us to think that he's even BEGUN to critique these ideas does he?

If not, then what's the point of his disagreement?

All he can say is that most people would rather not be saints. In Ghandi's
tradition, the saint was a rare person anyhow. So how does Orwell really
speak to Ghandi at all?

Jim

PS Salinger is no and never was a saint by any standards. He simply preached
non-attachment.

Cecilia Baader wrote:

> Good morning,
>
> Recently, I came across an essay that George Orwell wrote on Gandhi, and a
> certain section of it addresses precisely what we've been batting around
> here for years. That is, what price sainthood?
>
> Two paragraphs rather materially cover some of our man in Cornish's
> greater "sins." It seems that Gandhi was just as guilty in his personal
> life as old J.D. So then, this begs the question: if we accept Gandhi
> (despite his sometimes reprehensible conduct toward his most loved ones)
> as a saint, should we not apply the same rules to Salinger? Or should we
> redefine what we think of Gandhi?
>
> Anyhow. Here it is:
>
> Of late years it has been the fashion to talk about Gandhi as though he
> were not only sympathetic to the Western Left-wing movement, but were
> integrally part of it. Anarchists and pacifists, in particular, have
> claimed him for their own, noticing only that he was opposed to centralism
> and State violence and ignoring the other-worldly, ainti-humanist tendency
> of his doctrines. But one should, I think, realize that Gandhi's teachings
> teachings cannot be squared with the belief that Man is the measure of all
> things and that our job is to make life worth living on this earth, which
> is the only earth we have. They make sense only on the assumption that God
> exists and that the world of solid objects is an illusion to be escaped
> from. It is worth considering the disciplines which Gandhi imposed on
> himself and which -- though he might not insist on every one of his
> followers observing every detail -- he considered indispensable if one
> wanted to serve either God or humanity. First of all, no meat-eating, and
> if possible no animal food in any form. (Gandhi himself, for the sake of
> his health, had to compromise on milk, but seems to have felt this to be a
> backsliding.) No alcohol or tobacco, and no spices or condiments even of a
> vegetable kind, since food should be taken not for its own sake but solely
> in order to preserve one's strength. Secondly, if possible, no sexual
> intercourse. If sexual intercourse must happen, then it should be for the
> sole purpose of begetting children and presumably at long intervals.
> Gandhi himself, in his middle thirties, took the vow of bragmacharya,
> which means not only complete chastity but the elimination of sexual
> desire. This condition, it seems, is difficult to attain without a special
> diet and frequent fasting. One of the dangers of milk-drinking is that it
> is apt to arouse sexual desire. And finally -- this is the cardinal point
> -- for the seeker after goodness there must be no close friendships and no
> exclusive loves whatever.
>
> Close friendships, Gandhi says, are dangerous, because "friends react on
> one another" and through loyalty to a frend one can be le into
> wrong-doing. This is unquestionably true. Moreover, if one is to love God,
> or to love humanity as a whole, one cannot give one's preference to any
> individual person. This again is true, and it marks the point at which the
> humanistic and the religious attitude cease to be reconcilable. To an
> ordinary human being, love means nothing if it does not mean loving some
> people more than others. The autobiography leaves it uncertain whether
> Gandhi behaved in an inconsiderate way to his wife and children, but at
> any rate it makes clear that on three occasions he was willing to let his
> wife or a child die rather than administer the animal food prescribed by
> the doctor. It is true that the threatened death never actually occurred,
> and also that Gandhi -- with, one gathers, a good deal of moral pressure
> in the opposite direction -- always gave the patient the choice of staying
> alive at the price of committing a sin: still, if the decision had been
> solely hsi own, he would have forbidden the animal food, whatever the
> risks might be. There must, he says be some limit to what we will do in
> order to remain alive, and the limit is well on this side which -- I think
> -- most people would give to the word, it is inhuman. The essence of being
> human is that one does not seek perfection, that one is sometimes willing
> to commit sins for the sake of loyalty, that one does not push asceticism
> to the point where it makes friendly intercourse impossible, and that one
> is prepared in the end to be defeated and broken up by life, which is the
> inevitable price of fastening one's love upon other human individuals. No
> doubt alcohol, tobacco, and so forth, are things that a saint must avoid,
> but sainthood is also a thing that human beings must avoid. There is an
> obvious retort to this, but one should be wary about making it. In this
> yogi-ridden age, it is too readily assumed that "non-attachment" is not
> only better than a full acceptance of earthly life, but that the ordinary
> man only rejects it because it is too difficult: in other words, that the
> average human being is a failed saint. It is doubtful whether this is
> true. Many people genuinely do not wish to be saints, and it is probable
> that some who achieve or aspire to sainthood have never felt much
> temptation to be human beings. If one could follow it to its psychological
> roots, one would, I believe, find that the main motive for
> "non-attachment" is a desire to escape from the pain of living, and above
> all from love, which, sexual or non-sexual, is hard work. But it is not
> necessary here to argue whether the otherworldly or the humanistic idea is
> "higher." The point is that they are incompatible. One must choose between
> God and Man, and all "radicals" and "progressives," from the mildest
> Liberal to the most extreme Anarchist, have in effect chosen Man.
>
> from Orwell, George. "Reflections on Gandhi." The Art of the Essay.
> Lydia Fakudiny, ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991. 296-304.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
> http://www.hotjobs.com
> -
> * Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
> * UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH