There was an interesting moment at the India Today Conclave today. His Holiness the Dalai Lama wound up his speech on the importance of compassion in today's changing world.
Then during the QnA round, the chairman of the India Today Group, Arun Purie had a tricky question for the last guardian of non-violence in the world.
'Can under any circumstance violence be justified instead of nonviolence' or as he put it in other words...'If you were the President of US with all its power and might at your disposal, how would you deal with China to get something for your country?'
The Dalai Lama was visibly caught off guard, he stumbled a bit and then said, yes violence is acceptable...as a method if the motivation and end-goal is based on compassion and peace.
Just before I could blink, His Holiness quickly clarfied that this was possible only in theory...in practical world it is impossible since violence begets only anger and hatred. He also added that only the highly trained or skilled professional can possibly follow the theory in practice, but for the world at large this should never be an option.
Watch the video here. Refer to part 10 for this specific QnA.
Not too sure if I get His Holiness's comment in the entirety...but it makes me wonder can this comment be cooked up to validate violence? Can compassionate motivation and a greater good as the goal mean that violence as a means is acceptable?
I know I'm probably brewing the pot a bit more, but who is this 'skilled practitioner'? If I stir it a bit more, can't a Jihadi also believe himself to be a 'skilled practitioner'?
P.S.: Got another cooked theory from a colleague. 'Practice before you preach'. Well that ain't possible you see, cause you practice what is good for you and preach what's good for others. How can you practice what's good for others?--- hmmm now that tastes spicy.
No comments:
Post a Comment