2009-07-16

To those planning to protest at G8: please come with the intention of peace

They will be contributing to a high potential for violence even if their protest is able to be non-violent. Gandhi’s philosophy on non-violence rests on the larger concept of “ahimsa,” which is more than simply non-violence, a fine point some of his followers did not understand fully.

The observance of non-violence does not guarantee the attainment of ahisma. It is like taking the dancer out of the dance. Protesters will bring violence with them in the same way that the summit leaders bring power and fear with them; they are actors on the same stage.

The highest intention of the summit is peace. Fear, violence, terrorism and power are part of a concept that does not truly include peace. War and peace cannot exist in the same brain at the same time; it would be like waging war to gain peace (in that it does not make sense).

So, the protesters will keep in place the very concept they protest, as do the terrorists, who use terrorism as a form of protest. The fact is that in order to have peace, we must be peace.

During this time of change, the world finds itself in an increasingly uncomfortable situation. Change, change, change and more change have become the central themes in our lives. This sense of things shifting is worldwide. All of humanity is feeling it in some way or another. We are collectively at a point where we cannot help but be changed, and we are all in this together. My point is that the G8 Summit is not the place for special interests. Which of us will cry out that ours is the most important issue facing humanity?

We have come into experiencing our inter-connectivity in a more conscious way (for example, each of us is collectively and individually affected by inter-connection, and we have an effect on the larger relationship that is humanity).

It is difficult to be inter-connected and egocentric at the same time, so, our traditional view has become a wider lens. This leads to the next question: If we are connected as one world, then who and what are we protesting against? And, if we push for peace and we get it, what happens the next time we want peace? This is not to invalidate the positive change that some protest brings about. However, there will be a lot going on during the time of the summit. Rather than the experience of controlled commotion, is it possible to harness the focus of the world into a place of quietly holding hands? Can we be still?

If we want peace, then we must be peace. We are not broken up into separate little pieces. The laws of reality from which the universe operates do not allow for parts that do not know each other. Fragmentation is not an aspect of peace, wholeness is. We are in this together, and if we want peace we must be peace.

We must provide our own leadership as we navigate and discover what is involved in building a new system of global inter-relationships. It must be one in which the life of the labourer is seen to be as valuable as that of the team leader, and one in which the life of the team leader is as affected by the same common interests as the labourer. The first premise of peace is equality.

It is quite possible for the world to live in peace, but as we go through a transition time we must be courageous enough to hold to our ethics, and strong in practicing the morals of inter-connection. The world will change. How we will be affected is up to us. Peace is a verb, not simply a state of mind, but it is the practice of peace that lifts the mind into a particular state.

My message to the protesters is to please come in peace. To say that non-violence is peace is to use the rationale of a child. Peace is difficult (it is an opposing concept from where we are now). But it will become more and more difficult for most of us to live in a world without peace.

Cheryl Ramcharan

Katrine

Source: http://www.huntsvilleforester.com/article/140909