As the world has been debating with great passion the pro and cons of a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE awarded to a President who has inherited two messy wars to clean up, I am amazed by the warlike and often blatantly thought-less comments defending the need to preserve the “Morals and meaning “ of PEACE.
Having lived for a long time in countries where the harsh realities of daily lives far outweighs philosophical considerations on the nature of the universe and our place in it, I wonder on a simple human level , what is the difference for a woman or a child enrolled forcibly in any indoctrinations in their own “country” for them to beaten, starved, raped and despised or having foreign soldiers “invading” their “land” ?. The suffering, deprivation, practical needs are just so basic that only those who have not spent a few moments been hungry or mortally desperate can ignore them so easily.
I put a lot of “” “” here since many of those bloody conflicts in the world are not even defined by ordinary political boundaries. They are defined by the greed, the hate, the narrow mindedness of people who originally were born in their own villages, tended the same fields, and married their own siblings.
So, I wonder, when the women in Afghanistan tell the West what they most crave for is PEACE, does it really just mean removing foreign troupes from their country, or can we not follow them on a deeper, more human level to try and understand what they mean? Can we ignore they are saying that they need to be acknowledged as human beings in their own environment, at least not molested if they cannot be recognised, at least not hurt further if they cannot be healed? What has it got to do with a foreign army? The ill starts in the very hearth of their lives, the very place where they should find security. Removing foreign armies will not provide a cure to this, anymore than it created it in the first place.
So without saying by far that bringing in foreign soldiers is THE solution to any situation, as I strongly believe in not harming, I nevertheless fail to see how removing them stops the harm people encounter.
Then I look at our so called “civilised”, that is “peaceful “(?) countries.
Here again , I see people young and old beaten, starved, raped, abused and told to go to war .
I see perfectly apt individuals muzzled by corrupt and distorted financial models forced into poverty and dependency, losing too all thread of self esteem, our very own neighbours.
Families tear each other apart, fighting, quarrelling over trifles, rifts appear between generations and so called “classes” ( or castes depending which part of the world you are in , the inner process is similar there is a them and us, the him and me, breeding resentment and hate) . Are we really at PEACE ?
Perhaps do we need to equally re examine what we call war.
The Merriam Webster dictionary quotes war as “
- a state of usually open and declared armed hostile conflict between states or nations
- a period of such armed conflict
- the art or science of warfare
- a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism b : a struggle or competition between opposing forces or for a particular end.
Basically a war can then be declared as soon as two parties do not agree and do not yield on their opinion or stance. The etymology of the word is quite useful to know ; dating back to the 12th century , it is an Middle English word akin to the French and Germanic were and it is noteworthy that a very close Germanic form is werram which means confusion. For Buddhists, it should be illuminating!
However back to ordinary considerations, we usually accept that peace is the absence of war .
Let’s just take a quick look at what the Merriam Webster is saying , I quote from their online resources
Etymology: Middle English pees, from Anglo-French pes, pees, from Latin pac-, pax; akin to Latin pacisci to agree —Date: 12th century
1 : a state of tranquillity or quiet: as
a : freedom from civil disturbance
b : a state of security or order within a community provided for by law or custom
2 : freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions
3 : harmony in personal relations
4 a : a state or period of mutual concord between governments
b : a pact or agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity
5 —used interjectionally to ask for silence or calm or as a greeting or farewell
— at peace : in a state of concord or tranquillity
Peace may simply not be confined to external factors. If there are no freedom from disquieting or oppressive thoughts or emotions, if there is already no harmony within an individual, there will be no harmony within close relatives, If there is no peace within a family, how can the concept be even experienced and known so it may spread to wider communities, nations even ?
In a mind which is agitated by many conflicting thoughts and emotions, we certainly know that there is no peace.
Nations are governed by ordinary people who, for the most part do not consider their own mind qualities to have any relevance on their abilities to examine situation objectively; nor weigh consequences of situations with the sole welfare of the sentient beings under their care as prime objective. Is it then surprising that this “absence of conflict or 2end of conflict “ is notoriously rare in our societies?
One of the factor maybe our rush at having an opinion.
Everyone today feels entitled to expressing their opinion, some quietly, others believe that any force or pressure is justified in enforcing the validity of those opinions. It does not take far to work out that the moment you have two opinions , the potential for lack of peace opens up, and since we then start looking at the finger which points at the moon rather than examining the moon , the potential for werram , confusion, becomes endless.
This morning these few words prompted my reflection:
“From President Obama, we hear that peace is the ultimate goal. But "peace" is a fixture on a strategic horizon that keeps moving as the military keeps marching.”
And I wondered, amazed, how wars could ever be ended, the inner wars of confusion, of selfishness, greed, as long as we take such little care about our own thoughts. We are engaged in outer polemics before we even are clear of the stakes, the players and the ultimate responsible entities for those very situations. We engage into wars to defend Peace, whilst again denouncing those who have been forced to show the mechanism publicly.
These few words ( and those similarly chasing the shadows on the walls ) will be picked up and argued over pros and cons will fly with matching arguments, .. all arisen from the same agitation, the same superficiality which seems to have overtaken the world and each of its inhabitant in a totally unmarked pandemic rolling out without end .
Why not give ourselves a chance ? the chance to take care first of the untamed feelings, emotions and opinions which stream unchecked like potent viruses out of sick, agitated and confused brains? Why do we not give ourselves the chance to reflect that the people across the line of our disapproval bear similar characteristic as us, namely , they too grope in the dark for an illusive happiness whilst feverishly occupied at uprooting any possibility of it simultaneously ? Sometime , before we make a judgment, conscious or not, it is good if we remember the target of our attention is also suffering. And this suffering can only be cured from inside, from a recognition of our own pathways to confusion, misunderstandings and unchecked emotions .
Posts
0 comments