[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Remembering the Life of Mahatma Gandhi'

[John]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 If you'll check the source you'll see that this statement was made 
by suziezuzie (msilver1951) and that my contribution was to follow 
with an article discussing Gandhi's passifist views about the Jews. 
It was Martin Buber who answered Gandhi publicly. Anyone reading 
Gandhi's comments can see that he wouldn't have minded sending every 
Jew to the slaughter so he could prove that ahimsa was morally 
superior. 

   There is so much post-WWII cultural propaganda that people don't 
even know that the SS wanted to send the Jews out of Europe by train 
to their home in Palestine. The British refused this request because 
they didn't want the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem to lead Palestinian 
Muslims in rebellion against British colonialism. It is one of the 
ironies of history that the SS (who took the homes and possessions of 
the Jews by force) wanted to return all Jews to their homeland and it 
was therefore British who blocked this from happening (to protect 
their territorial interests). To this day the British still deny this 
truth. (See The Order of the Death's Head by German historian Heinz 
Hohne). 

   Gandhi's story had now become a westernized cultural hagiography. 
Western Buddhists (hand in hand with Satyagraha proponents) have been 
a large part of this effort to portray him as a saint. 

   For my part I take sides with the Jewish fighters in the Warsaw 
ghetto, who were respected even by the SS. On the other hand, if 
Gandhi's soul is back on Earth doing the same type of thing again 
then the Jihadists will slaughter him this time instead of an Indian 
nationalist. After all, Dar-as-salam (the realm of Islam) has no 
earthly boundaries.

As a Hindu, Gandhi appeared to have taken the opposite view from what 
Krishna was saying in the B Gita or Shrimad Bhagavatam.  I suppose 
pacifism could be taken as a passive/aggressive strategy to fight the 
enemy.  So, in that sense, Gandhi is taking up his fight from a 
higher moral ground.









 


   
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
   In a message dated 8/29/07 6:37:05 P.M. Central 
Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

   I heard that Gandhi in his philosophy of passifism once commented 
 that the jew of Germany should have sat quietly in silent protest 
 while Hilter exterminated them. Has anyone else heard anything 
about 
 this? 
 
   
   Should have? Isn't that what they did?Thus the saying *never 
again*.
 
 
 
 
 -
   Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
   
 
  
 

 -
 Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s 
user panel and lay it on us.

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Remembering the Life of Mahatma Gandhi'

[MDixon6569]

 
In a message dated 8/29/07 6:37:05 P.M. Central Daylight Time,  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:

I heard  that Gandhi in his philosophy of passifism once commented 
that the jew of  Germany should have sat quietly in silent protest 
while Hilter  exterminated them. Has anyone else heard anything about 
this?  



Should have? Isn't that what they did?Thus the saying *never  again*.



** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Remembering the Life of Mahatma Gandhi'

[billy jim]

If you'll check the source you'll see that this statement was made by 
suziezuzie (msilver1951) and that my contribution was to follow with an article 
discussing Gandhi's passifist views about the Jews. It was Martin Buber who 
answered Gandhi publicly. Anyone reading Gandhi's comments can see that he 
wouldn't have minded sending every Jew to the slaughter so he could prove that 
ahimsa was morally superior. 
   
  There is so much post-WWII cultural propaganda that people don't even know 
that the SS wanted to send the Jews out of Europe by train to their home in 
Palestine. The British refused this request because they didn't want the Grand 
Mufti of Jerusalem to lead Palestinian Muslims in rebellion against British 
colonialism. It is one of the ironies of history that the SS (who took the 
homes and possessions of the Jews by force) wanted to return all Jews to their 
homeland and it was therefore British who blocked this from happening (to 
protect their territorial interests). To this day the British still deny this 
truth. (See The Order of the Death's Head by German historian Heinz Hohne). 
   
  Gandhi's story had now become a westernized cultural hagiography. Western 
Buddhists (hand in hand with Satyagraha proponents) have been a large part of 
this effort to portray him as a saint. 
   
  For my part I take sides with the Jewish fighters in the Warsaw ghetto, who 
were respected even by the SS. On the other hand, if Gandhi's soul is back on 
Earth doing the same type of thing again then the Jihadists will slaughter him 
this time instead of an Indian nationalist. After all, Dar-as-salam (the realm 
of Islam) has no earthly boundaries. 
   
   
  
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
  In a message dated 8/29/07 6:37:05 P.M. Central Daylight Time, 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
   
  I heard that Gandhi in his philosophy of passifism once commented 
that the jew of Germany should have sat quietly in silent protest 
while Hilter exterminated them. Has anyone else heard anything about 
this? 

  
  Should have? Isn't that what they did?Thus the saying *never again*.




-
  Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL.com.
  

 

   
-
Fussy? Opinionated? Impossible to please? Perfect.  Join Yahoo!'s user panel 
and lay it on us.

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Remembering the Life of Mahatma Gandhi'

[suziezuzie]

Thanks for the article. One of the reasons, I understand, why the
German Jews didn't resist Hitler's plan of extermination was, from my
own experience as a Jew in the US, is that assimilated Jews in the
country that they are raised are more nationalistic than religious.
I'm saying this is true for the majority of secular Jews, not
orthodox, that inhabit a country over many generations. If you were to
ask me, what are you? I would tell you, I am an American first and
really have no feelings about being Jewish. This is the case for the
majority of American Jews living in the US today. When I was living in
Israel for 11 years, I noticed a strong nationalistic of their own
country of origin by those who had immigrated from their home
countries. Those born in Israel (Sabras) naturally felt Israeli
nationalism, not as a Jew, (since Israel is predominately a secular
state) but as an Israeli. 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, billy jim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 
 
 suziezuzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  I heard that Gandhi in
his philosophy of passifism once commented 
 that the jew of Germany should have sat quietly in silent protest 
 while Hilter exterminated them. Has anyone else heard anything about 
 this? 
 
 
   Empty Bill helps out boys and girls!
   What Did Gandhi Do?
 One-sided pacifist.
   By David Lewis Schaefer
  
 In the weeks leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, American college
campuses were plastered with posters asking What Would Gandhi Do?
The implication, of course, was that the U.S. should emulate the
tactics of the celebrated Hindu pacifist who successfully led the
movement for Indian independence from Britain. 
 
 The analogy, it should go without saying, overlooks major
differences between the two cases. Whereas the 20th-century British
were far too benign an imperial power to choose to slaughter peaceful
resisters to their rule, there's no evidence that Saddam Hussein,
already responsible for the massacre and torture of hundreds of
thousands of his countrymen (to say nothing of the many more who died
in his aggressive wars against Iran and Kuwait) would likewise have
succumbed to friendly persuasion — Jacques Chirac to the contrary
notwithstanding. (It's not that we didn't try!) 
   It is interesting, in this regard, to recall how Gandhi himself
responded to the evil perpetrated by one of Saddam's role models,
Adolf Hitler. In November, 1938, responding to Jewish pleas that he
endorse the Zionist cause so as to persuade the British government to
open Palestine to immigrants fleeing Hitler's persecution, Gandhi
published an open letter flatly rejecting the request. While
expressing the utmost sympathy with the Jews and lamenting their
age-old persecution, Gandhi explained that the cry for the national
home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me, since Palestine
belongs to the Arabs. Instead, he urged the Jews to make that
country their home where they are born. To demand just treatment in
the lands of their current residence while also demanding that
Palestine be made their home, he argued, smacked of hypocrisy. Gandhi
even went so far as to remark that this cry for the national home
affords a colorable justification for the German
  expulsion of the Jews. 
   Of course, Gandhi added, the German persecution of the Jews seems
to have no parallel in history, and if there ever could be a
justifiable war in the name of and for humanity, a war against
Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution of a whole race, would be
completely justified. Hitler's regime was showing the world how
efficiently violence can be worked when it is not hampered by any
hypocrisy or weakness masquerading as humanitarianism. Nonetheless,
the Hindu leader rejected that notion, since I do not believe in any
war. And for Britain, France, and America to declare war on Hitler's
regime would bring them no inner joy, no inner strength. 
   Having rejected both the plea that Palestine should be offered as
a place of refuge for the Jews and the idea that the Western
democracies should launch a war to overthrow Hitler, Gandhi offered
only one avenue for the Jews to resist their persecution while
preserving their self-respect. Were he a German Jew, Gandhi
pronounced, he would challenge the Germans to shoot or imprison him
rather than submit to discriminating treatment. Such voluntary
suffering, practiced by all the Jews of Germany, would bring them, he
promised, immeasurable inner strength and joy. Indeed, if the
Jewish mind could be prepared for such suffering, even a massacre of
all German Jews could be turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy,
since to the God-fearing, death has no terror. 
   According to Gandhi, it would (for unexplained reasons) be easier
for the Jews than for the Czechs (then facing German occupation) to
follow his prescription. As inspiration, he offered an exact
parallel in the campaign for Indian civil rights in South Africa that
he had led decades earlier. Through their 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Remembering the Life of Mahatma Gandhi'

[Robert Gimbel]

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, suziezuzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
wrote:

 Thanks for the article. One of the reasons, I understand, why the
 German Jews didn't resist Hitler's plan of extermination was, from 
my
 own experience as a Jew in the US, is that assimilated Jews in the
 country that they are raised are more nationalistic than religious.
 I'm saying this is true for the majority of secular Jews, not
 orthodox, that inhabit a country over many generations. If you were 
to
 ask me, what are you? I would tell you, I am an American first and
 really have no feelings about being Jewish. This is the case for the
 majority of American Jews living in the US today. When I was living 
in
 Israel for 11 years, I noticed a strong nationalistic of their own
 country of origin by those who had immigrated from their home
 countries. Those born in Israel (Sabras) naturally felt Israeli
 nationalism, not as a Jew, (since Israel is predominately a secular
 state) but as an Israeli. 
 
It would be easier to look at it this way:
Adolf Hitler and Mahatma Gandhi were polar opposites, with similar 
agendas.
Hitler wanted to establish the Old Fatherland of Germany.
Gandhi wanted to establish the Old Motherland of India.
Same agenda.
Polar opposite agendas: 
One method, the Gandhi Method, which has inspired other countless 
people throughout the world, including John Lennon and Martin Luther 
King,Jr. was God-like, 'in tune with the laws of nature, as Maharishi 
would say; higher consciousness, etc., transcendence of the ego for a 
higher cause.
One the other hand the Hitler Method, relied on fear and prejiduce 
against the Jewish people. Hitler claimed the Jewish people had 
swindled the German masses into poverty, and from the results of the 
defeat of WWI, and the world-wide depression. Also, he was acting on 
the wave of anti-semitism, world-wide, also, which included the 
support from the likes of Henry Ford, Joe Kennedy, and many countries 
had no sympathy for the Jews; even the United States would not let 
the Jews escape to this country, very sad dark period...
In which the German people as a whole population sank to the depths 
of depravity, death and demonic, murderous behavior.
The Jews, allowed themselves to be decieved to think they could 'rise 
above' the SS.. and that this phase would pass.
They didn't listen to the many signs: they were sleeping.
In both cases the leaders relied on the nationalism of the people:
In Germany it was to get the country back from the Jews.
In India, it was to get the country back from the British.
Same cause different means.
The Black People in this country have had the fortune of having 
intelligent people of the white community on their side, to take 
their side, even if it meant a civil war.
Lincoln, and others since then take the way of freedom and liberty.

In certain circumstances where the government has been allowed to run 
amuck, and becomes a police state, dictatorship, with all the 
military power, etc.
It becomes more and more difficult to produce quite the same effect, 
as in a democracy;
For example, remember the guy standing in front of the Chinese tank, 
during the demonstrations in China;
That was put down, and though change has occured in happens slowly.
r.g. 

Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: 'Remembering the Life of Mahatma Gandhi'

[billy jim]

suziezuzie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:  I heard that Gandhi in his 
philosophy of passifism once commented 
that the jew of Germany should have sat quietly in silent protest 
while Hilter exterminated them. Has anyone else heard anything about 
this? 


  Empty Bill helps out boys and girls!
  What Did Gandhi Do?
One-sided pacifist.
  By David Lewis Schaefer
 
In the weeks leading up to Operation Iraqi Freedom, American college campuses 
were plastered with posters asking “What Would Gandhi Do?” The implication, of 
course, was that the U.S. should emulate the tactics of the celebrated Hindu 
pacifist who successfully led the movement for Indian independence from 
Britain. 

The analogy, it should go without saying, overlooks major differences between 
the two cases. Whereas the 20th-century British were far too benign an imperial 
power to choose to slaughter peaceful resisters to their rule, there’s no 
evidence that Saddam Hussein, already responsible for the massacre and torture 
of hundreds of thousands of his countrymen (to say nothing of the many more who 
died in his aggressive wars against Iran and Kuwait) would likewise have 
succumbed to friendly persuasion — Jacques Chirac to the contrary 
notwithstanding. (It’s not that we didn’t try!) 
  It is interesting, in this regard, to recall how Gandhi himself responded to 
the evil perpetrated by one of Saddam’s role models, Adolf Hitler. In November, 
1938, responding to Jewish pleas that he endorse the Zionist cause so as to 
persuade the British government to open Palestine to immigrants fleeing 
Hitler’s persecution, Gandhi published an open letter flatly rejecting the 
request. While expressing the utmost “sympathy” with the Jews and lamenting 
“their age-old persecution,” Gandhi explained that “the cry for the national 
home for the Jews does not make much appeal to me,” since “Palestine belongs to 
the Arabs.” Instead, he urged the Jews to “make that country their home where 
they are born.” To demand just treatment in the lands of their current 
residence while also demanding that Palestine be made their home, he argued, 
smacked of hypocrisy. Gandhi even went so far as to remark that “this cry for 
the national home affords a colorable justification for the German
 expulsion of the Jews.” 
  Of course, Gandhi added, “the German persecution of the Jews seems to have no 
parallel in history,” and “if there ever could be a justifiable war in the name 
of and for humanity, a war against Germany, to prevent the wanton persecution 
of a whole race, would be completely justified.” Hitler’s regime was showing 
the world “how efficiently violence can be worked when it is not hampered by 
any hypocrisy or weakness masquerading as humanitarianism.” Nonetheless, the 
Hindu leader rejected that notion, since “I do not believe in any war.” And for 
Britain, France, and America to declare war on Hitler’s regime would bring them 
“no inner joy, no inner strength.” 
  Having rejected both the plea that Palestine should be offered as a place of 
refuge for the Jews and the idea that the Western democracies should launch a 
war to overthrow Hitler, Gandhi offered only one avenue for the Jews to resist 
their persecution while preserving their “self-respect.” Were he a German Jew, 
Gandhi pronounced, he would challenge the Germans to shoot or imprison him 
rather than “submit to discriminating treatment.” Such “voluntary” suffering, 
practiced by all the Jews of Germany, would bring them, he promised, 
immeasurable “inner strength and joy.” Indeed, “if the Jewish mind could be 
prepared” for such suffering, even a massacre of all German Jews “could be 
turned into a day of thanksgiving and joy,” since “to the God-fearing, death 
has no terror.” 
  According to Gandhi, it would (for unexplained reasons) be “easier for the 
Jews than for the Czechs” (then facing German occupation) to follow his 
prescription. As inspiration, he offered “an exact parallel” in the campaign 
for Indian civil rights in South Africa that he had led decades earlier. 
Through their strength of suffering, he promised, “the German Jews will score a 
lasting victory over the German Gentiles in the sense that they will have 
converted [them] to an appreciation of human dignity.” And the same policy 
ought to be followed by Jews already in Palestine enduring Arab pogroms 
launched against them: if only they would “discard the help of the British 
bayonet” for their defense, and instead “offer themselves [to the Arabs] to be 
shot or thrown into the Dead Sea without raising a little finger,” the Jews 
would win a favorable “world opinion” regarding their “religious aspiration.” 
  In a thoughtful personal response dated February 24, 1939, the Jewish 
philosopher Martin Buber — who had himself emigrated to Israel from Germany a 
short time earlier and combined his Zionism with earnest efforts to peacefully 
reconcile Jewish and Arab claims in the Holy Land — chided Gandhi for 

[FairfieldLife] Re: 'Remembering the Life of Mahatma Gandhi'

[suziezuzie]

I heard that Gandhi in his philosophy of passifism once commented 
that the jew of Germany should have sat quietly in silent protest 
while Hilter exterminated them. Has anyone else heard anything about 
this? 

--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 GANDHI: THE MAHATMA  -Dr. Ravindra Kumar* 
   It was in seventies I had an opportunity to discuss a little 
about Mahatma Gandhi with my teacher for the first time. What 
conversation I had about is now lost in the abyss of time. But later 
I always wondered – why an international political leader like Gandhi 
was addressed as Mahatma, an honorific frequently used for a 
spiritually elevated soul. To find an answer, I think it is essential 
to review his life not in parts, but as a whole. 
   Gandhi affectionately called Bapu was a great leader endowed with 
a   spiritual yearning for truth. The quintessence of his philosophy 
of life was the realization of Satya [truth] and Ahimsa [non- 
violence]. His purpose of life was as he says, to achieve self- 
realization, to see God face to face, to obtain Moksha [Salvation]. 
But his approach was different from that of other seekers. 
   Gandhi received good Samskaras [pre-disposition] by virtue of his 
birth in a religious Vaishnava family of Gujarat, particularly from 
his mother who left an indelible impression of her saintliness on his 
tender mind. He imbibed truthfulness from the characteristics of the 
hero of the play `Harishchandra'. He wondered, Why should not we be 
truthful like Harishchandra? The question haunted him day and night. 
The king Harishchandra became the ideal hero of his dream and the 
paragon of truth. He so inspired him as to remain truthful all 
through his life even under trying circumstances and stands firm on 
his convictions.
   Gandhi's endeavours for self-realization were through strict 
observance of truth. He moulded his actions on the basis of truth, 
only the truth that he perceived within. The word truth ordinarily 
connotes not to tell lies. But for Gandhi it implied much more. Even 
hiding the truth from someone was deemed as untruth by him. He 
considered that the narrow implication of the term had belied its 
magnitude. Defining Truth he writes, The root of `Satya' [truth] 
lies in `Sat'. Sat means the `Being' and Satya–the feeling of 
the `Being'. Everything is perishable except `Sat'. Therefore, the 
true name of God is `Sat', thereby implying `Satya [Truth] so, 
instead of saying `God is Truth', it is better to say `Truth is God'. 
A question may now arise whether the realization of Truth and the 
realization of `Self' were one and the same for him or the two 
entities. We get the answer from Maharishi Raman, What is Satya 
except `Self'? Satya is that which is made of Sat. Again Sat is 
nothing
  but Self. So Gandhiji's Satya is only the Self. It is now clear, 
what Gandhi meant by Truth was in fact the realization of Self. He 
writes,  What I meant to achieve – what I have been striving and 
pining to achieve these thirty years – is self-realization, to see 
God face to face, to attain Moksha [salvation]. 
   How to realize God is a complicate question. The realization of 
God can be attained by purity of mind and heart and Sadhana [constant 
practice]. Bhagvad-Gita, the dialogue between Lord Krishna and Arjuna 
in the epic Mahabharata, is regarded as a sacred Hindu scripture and 
an infallible guide of daily practice. Lord Krishna tells about four 
paths of God-realization. They are the service and sacrifice [Karma 
Yoga], devotion and self- surrender [Bhakti Yoga], concentration and 
meditation [Raja Yoga], discrimination and wisdom [Jnana Yoga]. There 
is no line of demarcation between one and another and one path does 
not exclude the others. A seeker can follow any of them according to 
his/ her temperament. Ultimately they all lead to one goal – the 
realization of God.
   Gandhi held Bhagvad-Gita in high esteem. He writes, Those who 
will meditate on Gita will derive fresh joy and new meanings from it 
everyday. There is no single spiritual tangle which the Gita cannot 
unravel. He found answer to the above question in Gita–Vairagya [non-
 attachment] or Abhyas Yoga [practice]. Vairagya means total 
indifference to worldly things and concentration only on the 
Absolute. Lord Krishna says in Gita: 
   Fix thy mind on Me only, place thy intellect in Me; then thou 
shalt no doubt live in Me alone hereafter.[Chapter XII: Shloka – 8] 
   And further says he, If thou art not able to fix thy mind 
steadily on Me, then by Yoga of constant Practice [Abhyas Yoga] do 
thou seek to reach Me. [Ibid:   9]
   Gandhi was born to serve humanity. He was a practical man; he 
chose the path of practice and the path of renunciation of the fruits 
of action. Absolute faith in God and surrender to His Will became his 
object of observance [Niyam] and the constant thought of the Truth – 
Practice [Abhyas Yoga]. His mind was always occupied with truth