By Shrii P. R. Sarkar
The cry, "Peace! Peace!" has become a craze in the world today. Can anything be achieved by such cries? There is no way to establish peace except to fight against the very factors which disturb peace. Even in the personal life of every human being, there is a constant fight between the benevolent and the malevolent intellect, or between vidya' and avidya'. At times vidya' triumphs, while at other times avidya' wins. In social life, too, this fight between vidya' and avidya' continues.
Vidya' has to fight avidya', and in this fight wherever and as long as vidya' remains triumphant, there is a special type of peace which may be called sa'ttvikii sha'nti [sentient peace]. Similarly, wherever and as long as avidya' remains victorious in this fight, there, also, a special type of peace prevails which may be called ta'masikii sha'nti [static peace]. Thus we find that peace is actually a relative factor.
Absolute or permanent peace cannot occur in collective life because the created universe, which is embedded in the process of saincara [extroversion] and pratisaincara [introversion] is, in fact, dominated first by Avidya' [extroversial force], and then by Vidya' [introversial force], respectively.* When the existence of the universe is rooted in the existence of these two, then permanent peace (ta'masikii or sa'ttvikii as the case may be) in the universe would mean the cessation of the activities of either Vidya' or Avidya', or both. This is why it has to be said that collective peace in the universe cannot occur except in the case of pralaya,** and the concept of pralaya is illogical. However in individual life human beings can certainly achieve absolute peace through sa'dhana' [spiritual practices]. From the worldly viewpoint I consider this state to be the pralaya of individual life.
[* For a more detailed discussion of the author's cosmological system, see Idea and Ideology, 1959. Trans.]
[** Philosophically, pralaya means annihilation. In individual life pralaya refers to spiritual emancipation, not physical death. Trans.]
Where government servants are strong, static, anti- social individuals maintain a low profile. Then a special kind of peace prevails in a country, and this I call "sentient peace". Where government servants are weak, righteous people bend their heads before the dominant influence of antisocial individuals. This is also a kind of peaceful state, which I call "static peace".
Static peace is definitely not desirable. Suppose a particular group of people belonging to a particular region oppress or attack another group of people of the same region or of some other region. In such circum- stances, if all others simply remain mute spectators or resort to the path of negotiation, compromise or mutual settlement as the only solution, it should be clearly understood that they are encouraging static peace.
Now, suppose a man seems to have good relations with his neighbors, but it becomes apparent that he is about to murder his wife, what should be the duty of the neighbors? Will they remain tight-lipped, sit quietly with their arms folded, and dismiss the situation as purely a domestic affair, thereby making the murder of the woman easier, and thus assist in establishing static peace? No, that is not the dictum of human dharma. On the contrary they should rush to the house, break down the door, save the woman, take suitable action against the male tyrant, and in this way come forward to establish sentient peace.
Likewise, if any country perpetrates atrocities on its minorities or attacks a weak neighboring country, then the other neighboring countries should, if necessary, resist the oppressor with the force of arms, and thereby come forward to establish sentient peace.
Thus, those who are keen to establish sentient peace must endeavor to acquire strength. It is impossible for goats to establish sentient peace in the society of tigers.
Regrettably, it has to be said that those who hold the view that non-violence means non-application of force can neither establish sentient peace, nor defend their hard-earned freedom. Their declaration of non- violence may be deceitful, or a diplomatic maneuver to conceal their weaknesses, but it will never be possible to establish sentient peace through this type of approach. [PROBLEMS OF THE DAY - 15]
Posted by proutist-universal on February 21, 2005 11:55 PM