参考：
塩の行進
自立の思想
生産の分散
★
ガンディーは、スワデーシーを「人が隣人よりも遠くにいる人々のために尽くしたいと言うときに崩壊してしまう原理」と説明した。
https://www.mkgandhi.org/ebks/ashramobservance.pdf
65/86
http://www.gandhiashram.org.in
https://dori3.typepad.com/my_weblog/2013/02/ahmedabad-day-02-united-world-institute-step-well-and-gandhis-ashram.html
#7
https://www.mkgandhi.org/faq/q9.htm
https://www.mkgandhi.org/ebks/ashramobservance.pdf
65/86
http://www.gandhiashram.org.in
https://dori3.typepad.com/my_weblog/2013/02/ahmedabad-day-02-united-world-institute-step-well-and-gandhis-ashram.html
#7
https://www.mkgandhi.org/faq/q9.htm
Swadeshi
Man is not omnipotent. He therefore serves the world best by first serving his neighbour. This is Swadeshi, a principle which is broken when one professes to serve those who are more remote in preference to those who are near. Observance of swadeshi makes for order in the world; the breach of it leads to chaos. Following this principle, one must as far as possible purchase one's requirements locally and not buy things imported from foreign lands, which can easily be manufactured in the country. There is no place for self interest in Swadeshi, which enjoins the sacrifice of oneself for the family, of the family for the village, of the village for the country, and of the country for humanity.
Hubevents Notes: Gandhian Economics: A Humane Approach
http://hubeventsnotes.blogspot.com/2014/04/gandhian-economics-humane-approach.html
(149-150) Gandhi defined Swadeshi as a principle which is broken when one professes to serve those who are more remote in preference to those who are near. A teaching that is shared by all mankind, states Gandhi, and one that is common to all religions alike, is that one must be kind and attentive to one's neighbours. The duty of helping one's neighbours is the core of the ethics of Swadeshi.
Gandhi defined swadeshi as a principle which is broken when one professes to serve those who are more remote in preference to those who are near.
33.Navajivan,8 August 1926;CW31,p.276.
33.Navajivan,8 August 1926;CW31,p.276.
ome parts of India. It is generaly regarded both as an important
chapter in the political history ofthe indian national movement and
as part of the legacy of Gandhi My concem, however, is not with
that history but rather with Swadeshi regarded as an instance of
the principle of ethical preferences which Gandhi tried to establish.
Gandhi himself stressed that Swadeshi was not to be seen simply
as a political expedient designed to weaken the hold of Lancashire
on the Indian market for textiies and thereby embarrass the Briish
rulers, It had tobe justified in terms of fundamental moral
prindiples. The principie that heinvoked most often for this
purpose was that of neighbourhood. Gandhi defined swadeshi as
a principle which is broken when one professes to serve those
who are more remote in preference to those who are near.
teaching that is shared by al humankind、 states Gandhi, and one
that is common to all religions alike,is that one must be kind and
attentive to one's neighbours. The duty of helping one's
neighbours is at the core of the ethics of Swadeshi. While, t is
true, we have duties to all humankind the duties we owe to al
segments of it are not of equal importance. There isahierarchy of
duties based on the degree of proximity. Proximityis the decisive
element in forming ties in terms both of closeness of feeling and
knowledoe aof circumstances: 'Our capaciiyfor service islimited by
33
Understanding Gandhi's vision of Swadeshi | Articles - On and By Gandhi
Gandhi defined swadeshi as the "spirit in us which restricts us to the use and services of our immediate, to the exclusion of the more remote."4 This definition is perhaps the best explanation of his concept.
4.
R. K. Prabhu and U.R. Rao, (ed.), The Mind of Mahatma Gandhi, (Ahmedabad: Navajivan, 1996), p. 410.
以下は未確認
ガンディーの経済学――倫理の復権を目指して(日本語) 単行本 – 2010/9/23
Chapter 4 Machinery and Human Being 機械と人間
Discussion on Mass Production 大量生産をめぐる議論
Q. Do you feel, Gandhiji, that mass production will raise the standard of livingof the people?
A. I do not believe in it at all. There is a tremendous fallacy behind Mr Ford’s reasoning. Without simultaneous distribution on an equally mass scale, the production can result only in a great world tragedy. Take Mr. Ford’s cars. The saturation point is bound to be reached soon or later. Beyond that point the production of cars cannot be pushed. What will happen then?
Mass production takes no note of the real requirement of the consumer. If mass production were in itself a virtue, it should be capable of indefinite multiplication. But it can be definitely shown that mass production carries within it its own limitations. If all countries adopted the system of mass production, there would not be a big enough market for their products. Mass production must then
come to a stop.
Q. I wonder whether you feel that this saturation point has already arrived in
the Western world. Mr. Ford says that there never can be too many articles of quality, that the needs of the world are constantly increasing and that, therefore, while there might be saturation in the market for a given commodity, the general saturation would never be reached.
A. Without entering upon an elaborate argument, I would categorically state my conviction that the mania for mass production is responsible for the world crisis. Granting for the moment that machinery may supply all the needs of humanity, still, it would concentrate production in particular areas, so that you would have to go in a round-about way to regulate distribution, whereas, if there is production and distribution both in the respective areas where things are required, it is automatically regulated, and there is less chance for fraud, none for speculation.
Q. The American friend mentioned Mr. Ford's favourite plan of decentralization of industry by the use of electric power conveyed on wires to the remotest corner, instead of coal and steam, as a possible remedy, and drew up the picture of hundreds and thousands of small, neat, smokeless villages, dotted with factories, run by village communities. “Assuming all that to be possible”, he finally asked Gandhiji,“how far will it meet your obejction?”
A. My objection won't be met by that, because, while it is true that you will be producing things in innumerable areas, the power will come from one selected centre. That, in the end, I think, would be found to be disastrous. It would place such a limitless power in one human agency that I dread to think of it. The consequence, for instance, of such a control of power would be that I would be dependent on that power for light, water, even air, and so on. That, I think, would be terrible.
Q. ... have you any idea as to what Europe and America should do to solve the problem presented by too much machinery?
A. You see that these nations are able to exploit the so-called weaker or unorganized races of the world. Once those races gain this elementary knowledge and decide that they are no more going to be exploited, they will simply be satisfied with what they can provide themselves. Mass production, then, at least where the vital necessities are concerned, will disappear.
Q. As a world organization.
A. Yes.
Q. But even these races will require more and more goods as their needs multiply.
A. They will then produce for themselves. And when that happens, mass production, in the technical sense in which it is understood in the West, ceases.
Q. You mean to say it becomes local.
A. When production and consumption both become localized, the temptation to speed up production, indefinitely and at any price, disappears. All the endless difficulties and problems that our present-day economic system presents, too, would then come to an end. Take a concrete instance. England today is the cloth shop of the world. It, therefore, needs to hold a world in bondage to secure its market. But under the change that I have envisaged, she would limit her production to the actual needs of her 45 millions of population. When that need is satisfied, the production will necessarily stop. It won’t be continued for the sake of bringing in more gold irrespective of the needs of a people and at the risk of their impoverishment. There would be no unnatural accumulation of hoards in the pockets of the few, and want in the midst of plenty in regard to the rest, as is happening today, for instance, in America. America is today able to hold the world in fee by selling all kinds of trinklets, or by selling her unrivalled skill, whcih she has a right to do. She has reached the acme of mass production, and yet she has not been able to abolish unemployment or want. There are still thousands, perhaps millions of people in America who live in misery, in spite of the phenomenal riches of the few. The whole of the American nation is not benefited by the mass production.
Discussion on Mass Production 大量生産をめぐる議論
Q. Do you feel, Gandhiji, that mass production will raise the standard of livingof the people?
A. I do not believe in it at all. There is a tremendous fallacy behind Mr Ford’s reasoning. Without simultaneous distribution on an equally mass scale, the production can result only in a great world tragedy. Take Mr. Ford’s cars. The saturation point is bound to be reached soon or later. Beyond that point the production of cars cannot be pushed. What will happen then?
Mass production takes no note of the real requirement of the consumer. If mass production were in itself a virtue, it should be capable of indefinite multiplication. But it can be definitely shown that mass production carries within it its own limitations. If all countries adopted the system of mass production, there would not be a big enough market for their products. Mass production must then
come to a stop.
Q. I wonder whether you feel that this saturation point has already arrived in
the Western world. Mr. Ford says that there never can be too many articles of quality, that the needs of the world are constantly increasing and that, therefore, while there might be saturation in the market for a given commodity, the general saturation would never be reached.
A. Without entering upon an elaborate argument, I would categorically state my conviction that the mania for mass production is responsible for the world crisis. Granting for the moment that machinery may supply all the needs of humanity, still, it would concentrate production in particular areas, so that you would have to go in a round-about way to regulate distribution, whereas, if there is production and distribution both in the respective areas where things are required, it is automatically regulated, and there is less chance for fraud, none for speculation.
Q. The American friend mentioned Mr. Ford's favourite plan of decentralization of industry by the use of electric power conveyed on wires to the remotest corner, instead of coal and steam, as a possible remedy, and drew up the picture of hundreds and thousands of small, neat, smokeless villages, dotted with factories, run by village communities. “Assuming all that to be possible”, he finally asked Gandhiji,“how far will it meet your obejction?”
A. My objection won't be met by that, because, while it is true that you will be producing things in innumerable areas, the power will come from one selected centre. That, in the end, I think, would be found to be disastrous. It would place such a limitless power in one human agency that I dread to think of it. The consequence, for instance, of such a control of power would be that I would be dependent on that power for light, water, even air, and so on. That, I think, would be terrible.
Q. ... have you any idea as to what Europe and America should do to solve the problem presented by too much machinery?
A. You see that these nations are able to exploit the so-called weaker or unorganized races of the world. Once those races gain this elementary knowledge and decide that they are no more going to be exploited, they will simply be satisfied with what they can provide themselves. Mass production, then, at least where the vital necessities are concerned, will disappear.
Q. As a world organization.
A. Yes.
Q. But even these races will require more and more goods as their needs multiply.
A. They will then produce for themselves. And when that happens, mass production, in the technical sense in which it is understood in the West, ceases.
Q. You mean to say it becomes local.
A. When production and consumption both become localized, the temptation to speed up production, indefinitely and at any price, disappears. All the endless difficulties and problems that our present-day economic system presents, too, would then come to an end. Take a concrete instance. England today is the cloth shop of the world. It, therefore, needs to hold a world in bondage to secure its market. But under the change that I have envisaged, she would limit her production to the actual needs of her 45 millions of population. When that need is satisfied, the production will necessarily stop. It won’t be continued for the sake of bringing in more gold irrespective of the needs of a people and at the risk of their impoverishment. There would be no unnatural accumulation of hoards in the pockets of the few, and want in the midst of plenty in regard to the rest, as is happening today, for instance, in America. America is today able to hold the world in fee by selling all kinds of trinklets, or by selling her unrivalled skill, whcih she has a right to do. She has reached the acme of mass production, and yet she has not been able to abolish unemployment or want. There are still thousands, perhaps millions of people in America who live in misery, in spite of the phenomenal riches of the few. The whole of the American nation is not benefited by the mass production.
生産の分散
聞き手 問題け分配にあります。生産のほうでは、高度な完成の域にまで達しましたが、分
配にはまだ欠陥があるのです。分配が平等に行われるようになれば、大量産もその弊害を
除去できるのではないでしょうか。
ガンジー
いいえ、欠点はこのシステム固有のものです。生産を各地で分散して行って初め
て、分配は平等に行えるようになります。つまり、生産と同時に分配が行われるようになら
ない限り意味がありません。自分たちの商品を売るために外部の市場を開拓しようと思って
いる限り、分配が平等に行われることはありえません。
西洋が成し遂げた科学の驚異的な進歩や組織が無用の物ということではありません。西洋
の人々も彼らの技術を活用すべきです。ただし、善意から自分たちの技術を外国で利用した
いと思うのであれば、アメリカ人は次のように言うべきです。「我々は橋を作る技術を持っ
ています。それを秘密にしておくつもりはありません。全世界に教えてあげたいのです。橋
の作り方を教えてあげましょう。もちろん代価を要求するつもりもありません」と。また
アメリカ人は次のようにも言うことでしょう。「他の国が小麦一粒育てるところ、我々は二
Decentralization of Labour 生産の分散
Q. There the fault lies in distribution. It means that, whilst our system of production has reached a high pitch of perfection, the distribution is still defective. If distribution could be equalized, would not mass production be sterilized of its evils?
A. No, the evil is inherent in the system. Distribution can be equalized when production is localized; in other words, when the distribution is simultaneous with production. Distribution will never be equal so long as you want to tap other markets of the world to dispose of your goods.
That does not mean that the world has not use for the marvellous advances in science and organization that the Western nations have made. It only means that the Western nations have to use their skill. If they want to use their skill abroad, from philanthropic motives, America would say, ‘Well, we know how make bridges, we won’t keep keep it a secret, but we say to the whole world, we will teach you how to make bridges and we will charge you nothing.’ America says, ‘Where other nations can grow one blade of wheat, we can grow two thousand.’ Then, America should teach that art free of charge to those who will learn it, but not aspire to grow wheat for the whole world, which would spell a sorry day for the world indeed.
Q. Then, you do not envisage mass production as an ideal future of India?
A. Oh yes, mass production, certainly, but not based on force. After all, the message of the spinning-wheel is that. It is mass production, but mass production in people's own homes. If you multiply individual production to millions of times, would it not give you mass production on a tremendous scale? But I quite understand that your "mass production" is a technical term for production by the fewest possible number through the aid of highly complicated machinery. I have said to myself that that is wrong. My machinery must be of the most elementary type which I can put in the homes of the millions.
Under my system, again, it is labour which is the current coin, not metal. Any person who can use his labour has that coin, has wealth. He converts his labour into cloth, he converts his labour into grain. If he wants paraffin oil, whcih he cannot himself produce, he used his surplus grain for getting the oil. It is exchange of labour on free, fair and equal terms---hence it is no robbery. You may object that this is a reversion to the primitive system of barter. But is not all international trade based on the barter system?
Look, again, at another advantage, that this system affords. You can multiply it to any extent. But concentration of production ad infinitum can only lead to unemployment. You may say that workers thrown out of work by the introduction of improved machinery will find occupation in other jobs. But in an organized country where there are only fixed and limited avenues of employment, where the worker has become highly skilled in the use of one particular kind of machinery, you know from your own experience that this is hardly possible. Are there not over three millions unemployed in England today?
I hate privilege and monopoly. Whatever cannot be shared with the masses is taboo to me. That is all.
INTERVIEW TO CALLENDER LONDON, [October 16, 1931]
An American Press correspondent. Pyarelal Nayar, from whose article "Mass Production versus Production by the Masses", this has been extracted does not mention the name. This and the date of the interview have been taken from the manuscript of Mahadev Desai’s Diary, 1931.
The interviewer had earlier met Ford in America, who had put forward the view that demand for cheaper things would stimulate mass production.
Harijan, 2-11-1934
。。。
ガンディーは、スワデーシーを「人が隣人よりも遠くにいる人々のために尽くしたいと言うときに崩壊してしまう原理」と説明した。
スワデシの精神
スワデシ（SWADESHI）とは、私たちの中にある精神であり、私たちの身近な環境の使用とサービスに私たちを制限し、より遠くのものを除外することです。 したがって、宗教に関しては、定義の要件を満たすために、私は私の祖先の宗教に自分自身を制限しなければなりません。 つまり、私の直系の宗教的な周囲の利用である。 もし、私がそれに欠陥があると判断した場合、私はその欠陥を浄化することによって、その欠陥に仕えなければならない。
政治の領域では、私は、土着の制度を利用し、その証明された欠陥を治すことによって、土着の制度に奉仕すべきである。 経済学のそれで私は私の肉親によって生産されているものだけを使用し、それらが欠けていることが発見されるかもしれない場所で、それらを効率的かつ完全にすることによって、それらの産業を提供する必要があります。 それは、実践に削減された場合、そのようなSwadeshiは、千年紀につながることが示唆されている...
www.DeepL.com/Translator（無料版）で翻訳しました。
Spirit Of Swadeshi
SWADESHI is that spirit in us which restricts us to the use and service of our immediate surroundings to the exclusion of the more remote. Thus, as for religion, in order to satisfy the requirements of the definition, I must restrict myself to my ancestral religion. That is, the use of my immediate religious surrounding. If I find it defective, I should serve it by purging it of its defects.
In the domain of politics, I should make use of the indigenous institutions and sere them by curing them of their proved defects. In that of economics I should use only things that are produced by my immediate neighbours and serve those industries by making them efficient and complete where they might be found wanting. It is suggested that such Swadeshi, if reduced to practice, will lead to the millennium...
Meaning of Swadeshi | Mind of Mahatma Gandhi
Meaning Of Swadeshi
Spirit Of Swadeshi
SWADESHI is that spirit in us which restricts us to the use and service of our immediate surroundings to the exclusion of the more remote. Thus, as for religion, in order to satisfy the requirements of the definition, I must restrict myself to my ancestral religion. That is, the use of my immediate religious surrounding. If I find it defective, I should serve it by purging it of its defects.
In the domain of politics, I should make use of the indigenous institutions and sere them by curing them of their proved defects. In that of economics I should use only things that are produced by my immediate neighbours and serve those industries by making them efficient and complete where they might be found wanting. It is suggested that such Swadeshi, if reduced to practice, will lead to the millennium...
Religion
…Hinduism has become a conservative religion and, therefore, a mighty force because of the Swadeshi spirit underlying it. It is the most tolerant because it is non-proselytizing and it is as capable of expansion today as it has been found to be in the past. It has succeeded not in driving out, as I think it has been erroneously held, but in absorbing Buddhism. By reason of the Swadeshi spirit, a Hindu refuses to change his religion, not necessarily because he considers it to be the best, but because he knows that he can complement it by introducing reforms. And what I have said about Hinduism is, I suppose, true of the other great faiths of t he world, only it is held that it is specially so in the case of Hinduism.
Education
We have laboured under a terrible handicap owing to an almost fatal departure from the Swadeshi spirit. We, the educated classes, have received our education through a foreign tongue. We have, therefore, not reacted upon the masses. We want to represent the masses, but we fail. They recognize us not much more than they recognize the English officers. Their hearts are an open book to neither. Their aspirations are not ours. Hence there is a break. And you witness not, in reality, failure to organize but want of correspondence between the representatives and the represented.
If during the last fifty years we had been educated through the vernaculars, our elders and our servant and our neighbours would have partaken of our knowledge; the discoveries of Bose or a Ray would have been household treasures as are the RAMAYAN and the MAHABHARAT. As it is, so far as the masses are concerned, those great discoveries might as well have been made by foreigners. Had instruction in all the branches of learning been given through the vernaculars, I make bold to say that they would have enriched wonderfully...
Economic Life
Much of the deep poverty of the masses is due to the ruinous departure from Swadeshi in the economic and industrial life. If not an article of commerce had been brought from outside India, she would be today a land flowing with milk and honey. But that was not to be. We were greedy and so was England. The connection between England and India was based clearly upon an error….
If we follow the Swadeshi doctrine, it would be your duty and mine to find out neighbours who can supply our wants and to teach them to supply them where they do not know how to proceed, assuming that there are neighbours who are in want of healthy occupation. Then every village of India will almost be a self-supporting and self-contained unit, exchanging only such necessary commodities with other villages as are not locally producible.
This may all sound nonsensical. Well, India is a country of nonsense. It is nonsensical to parch one's throat with thirst when a kindly Mohammedan is ready to offer pure water to drink. And yet thousands of Hindus would rather die of thirst than drink water from a Mohammedan household. These nonsensical men can also, once they are convinced that their religion demands that they should wear garments manufactured in India only clothing or eat any other food…
Religious Discipline
It has often been urged that India cannot adopt Swadeshi, in the economic life at any rate. Those who advance this objection do not look upon Swadeshi, as a rule of life. With them it is a mere patriotic effort-not to be made if it involved any self-denial. Swadeshi, as defined here, is a religious discipline to be undergone in utter disregard of the physical discomfort it may cause to individuals. Under its spell the deprivation of a pin or a needle, because these are not manufactured in India, need cause no terror. A Swadeshist will learn to do without hundreds of things which today he considers necessary….
I would urge that Swadeshi is the only doctrine consistent with the law of humility and love. It is arrogance to think of launching out to serve the whole of India when I am hardly able to serve even my own family. It were better to concentrate my effort upon the family and consider that through them I was serving the whole nation and, if you will, the whole of humanity. This is humility and it is love.
The motive will determine the quality of the act. I may serve my family regardless of the sufferings I may cause to theirs. As, for instance, I may accept an employment which enables me to extort money from people. I enrich myself thereby and then satisfy many unlawful demands of the family. Here I am neither serving the family nor the State.
Or I may recognize that God has given me hands and feet only to work with for my sustenance and for that of those who may be dependent upon me. I would then at once simplify my life and that of those whom I can directly reach. In this instance, I would have served the family without causing injury to anyone else. Supposing that every one followed this mode of life, we should have at once an ideal state. All will no reach that state at the same time. But those of us who, realizing its truth, enforce it in practice, will clearly anticipate and accelerate the coming of that happy day. (SW, pp.336-44)Service Of Neighbours
My definition of Swadeshi is well known. I must not serve my distant neighbour at the expense of the nearest. It is never vindictive or punitive. It is in no sense narrow, for I buy from every part of the world what is needed for my growth. I refuse to buy from anybody anything, however nice or beautiful, if it interferes with my growth or injures those whom Nature has made my first care.
I buy useful healthy literature from every part of the world. I buy surgical instruments from England, pins and pencils from Austria and watches from Switzerland. But I will not buy and inch of the finest cotton fabric from England or Japan or any other part of the world because it has injured and increasingly injures the million of the inhabitants of India.
I hold it to be sinful for me to refuse to buy the cloth spun and woven by the needy million of India's paupers and to buy foreign cloth although it may be superior in quality to the Indian hand-spun. My Swadeshi, therefore, chiefly centers round the hand-spun Khaddar and extends to everything that can be and is produced in India. (YI. 12-3-1925, p. 88)
[The votary of Swadeshi will,] as a first duty, dedicate himself to the service of his immediate neighbours. This involves exclusion or even sacrifice of the interests of the rest, but the exclusion or the sacrifice would be only in appearance. Pure service of our neighbours can never, from its very nature, result in disservice to those who are far away, but rather the contrary.
'As with the individual, so with the universe' is an unfailing principle which we would do well to lay to heart. On the other hand, a man who allows himself to be lured by 'the distant scene', and runs to the4 ends of the earth for service, is not only foiled in his ambition, but also fails in his duty towards his neighbours... (FYM, pp. 62-63)
I believe in the truth implicitly that a man can serve his neighbours and humanity at the same time, the condition being that the service of the neighbours is in no way selfish or exclusive, i.e., does not in any way involve the exploitation of any other human being. The neighbours will then understand the spirit in which such service is given. They will also know that they will be expected to give their services to their neighbours. Thus considered, it will spread like the proverbial snow-ball gathering strength n geometrical progression, encircling the whole earth. It follows that Swadeshi is that spirit which dictates man to serve his next-door neighbour to the exclusion of any other. The condition that I have already mentioned is that the neighbour, thus served, has, in his turn, to serve his own neighbour. In this sense, Swadeshi is never exclusive. It recognizes the scientific limitation of human capacity for service. (H, 23-7-1947, p. 79)
No Chauvinism
Under this plan of life, in seeming to serve India to the exclusion of every other country, I do not harm any other country. My patriotism is both exclusive and inclusive. It is exclusive in the sense that, in all humility, I confine my attention to the land of my birth, but is inclusive in the sense that my service is not of a competitive or antagonistic nature. SIC UTERE TUO UT ALIENUM NON LAEDAS is not merely a legal maxim, but it is a grand doctrine of life. It is the key to proper practice of ahimsa or love. (SW, p. 344)
I have never considered the exclusion of everything foreign under every conceivable circumstance as a part of Swadeshi. The broad definition of Swadeshi is the use of all home-made things to the exclusion of foreign things, in so far as such use is necessary for the protection of home industry, more especially those industries without which India will become pauperized. In my opinion, therefore, Swadeshi which excludes the use of everything foreign, no matter how beneficial it may be, and irrespective of the fact that it impoverishes nobody, is a narrow interpretation of Swadeshi. (YI, 17-6-1926, p. 218)
Even Swadeshi, like any other good thing, can be ridden to death if it is made a fetish. That is a danger that must be guarded against. To reject foreign manufactures, merely because they are foreign and to go on wasting national time and money in the promotion in one's country of manufactures for which it is not suited would be criminal folly and a negation of the Swadeshi spirit.
A true votary of Swadeshi will never harbour ill-will towards the foreigner; he will not be actuated by antagonism towards anybody on earth. Swadeshism is not a cult of hatred. It is a doctrine of selfless service that has its roots in the purest AHIMSA, i.e., love. (FYM, p. 66)
Cohesive Power
THE FORCE of love is the same as the force of the soul or truth. We have evidence of its working at every step. The universe would disappear without the existence of that force…. Thousands, indeed tens of thousands, depend for their existence on a very active working of this force. Little quarrels of millions of families in their daily lives disappear before the exercise of this force. Hundreds of nations live in peace. History does not and cannot take note of this fact. History is really a record of every interruption of the even working of the force of love or of the soul. Two brothers quarrel; one of them repents and reawakens the love that was lying dormant in him; the two again begin to live in peace; nobody takes note of this. But if the two brothers, through the intervention of solicitors or some other reason, take up arms or go to law-which is another form of the exhibition of brute force-their doings would be immediately noticed in the Press, they would be the talk of their neighbours and would probably go down to history. And what is true of families and communities is true of nations. There is no reason to believe that there is one law for families and another for nations. History, then, is a record of an interruption of the course of nature. Soul force, being natural, is not noted in history. (HS, pp. 77-79)
Scientists tell us that, without the presence of the cohesive force amongst the atoms that comprise this globe of ours, it would crumble to pieces and we would cease to exist; and even as there is cohesive force in blind matter, so must there be in all things animate, and the name for that cohesive force among animate beings is love. We notice it between father and son, between brother and sister, friend and friend. But we have to learn to use that force among all that lives, and in the use of it consists our knowledge of God. Where there is love there is love there is life; hatred leads to destruction. (YI, 5-5-1920, p. 7)
I believe that the sum total of the energy of mankind is not to bring us down but to lift us up, and that is the result of the definite, if unconscious, working of the law of love. The fact that mankind persists shows that the cohesive force is greater than the disruptive force, centripetal force greater than centrifugal. (YI, 12-11-1931, p. 355)
Law Of Our Being
Brute force has been the ruling factor in the world for thousands of years, and mankind has been reaping its bitter harvest all along, as he who runs may read. There is little hope of anything good coming out of it in the future. If light can come out of it in the future. If light can come out of darkness, then alone can love emerge from hatred. (SSA, p. 188)
I have found that life persists in the midst of destruction and, therefore, there must be a higher law than that of destruction. Only under that law would a well-ordered society be intelligible and life worth living. And if that is the law of life, we have to work it out in daily life. Wherever there are jars, wherever you are confronted with an opponent, conquer him with love. In this crude manner, I have worked it out in my life. That does not mean that all my difficulties are solved. Only, I have found that this law of love has answered as the law of destruction has never done. (YI, 1-10-1931, p.286)
If love or non-violence be not the law of our being,….there is no escape from a periodical recrudescence of war, each succeeding one outdoing the preceding one in ferocity…
All the teachers that ever lived have preached that law with more or less vigour. If Love was not the law of life, life would not have persisted in the midst of death. Life is a perpetual triumph over the grave. If there is a fundamental distinction between man and beast, it is the former's progressive recognition of the law and its application in practice to his own personal life. All the saints of the world, ancient and modern, were each according to his light and capacity a living illustration of that supreme Law of our being. That the brute in us seems so often to gain an easy triumph is true enough. That, however, does not disprove the law. It shows the difficulty of practice. How should it be otherwise with a law which is as high as truth itself? When the practice of the law becomes universal, God will reign on earth as He does in Heaven. I need not be reminded that earth and Heaven are in us. We know the earth, we are strangers to the Heaven are in us. If it is allowed that for some the practice of love is possible, it is arrogance not to allow even the possibility of its practice in all t he others. Not very remote ancestors of our4s indulged in cannibalism and many other practice which we would today call loathsome. No doubt in those days too there were Dick Sheppard's who must have been laughed at and possibly pilloried for preaching the (to them) strange doctrine of refusing to eat fellow-men. (H, 26-9-1936, p. 260)
History is a record of perpetual wars, but we are trying to make new history, and I say this as I represent the national mind so far as non-violence is concerned. I have reasoned out the doctrine of the sword, I have worked out its possibilities and come to the conclusion that men's destiny is to replace the law of the jungle with the law of conscious love. (H, 3-7-1937, p.165)
Where love is, there God is also. (SSA, p.360)
Love never claims, it ever gives. Love ever suffers, never resents, never revenges itself. (YI, 9-7-1925, p. 24)
Rule Of Service
The safest rule of conducts to claim kinship when we want to do service, and not to insist on kinship when we want assert a right. Indeed, I have applied this rule of life, which I call the golden rule of conduct, even for inter provincial relations in India... I know no other method of preserving sweet relations in human affairs and I am fortified in my conclusion by an experience extending over a long period of years that, wherever there is an interruption is the observance of this golden rule, there have been bickerings, quarrels and even breaking of heads... (YI, 8-12-1927, p. 407)
Equality Of Treatment
[My central aim] is equal treatment for the whole of humanity and that equal treatment means equality of service. (YI, 12--3-1925, p. 91)
For, though they [men] are not all of the same age, the same height, the same skin, and the same intellect, these inequalities are temporary and superficial, the soul that is hidden beneath this earthly crust is one and the same for all men and women belonging to all climes. . . There is a real and substantial unity in all the variety that we see around us. The word 'inequality' has a bad dour about it, and it has led to arrogance and inhumanities, both in the East and the West. What is true about men is also true about nations, which are but groups of men. The false and rigid doctrine of inequality has led to the insolent exploitation of the nations of Asia and Africa. Who knows that the present ability of the West to prey upon the East is a sign of Western superiority and Eastern inferiority? (YI, 11-8-1927, p. 253)
The forms are many, but the informing spirit is one. How can there be room for distinctions of high and low where there is this all-embracing fundamental unity underlying the outward diversity? For that is a fact meeting you at every step in daily life. The final goal of all religion is to realize this essential oneness? (H, 15-12-1933, p. 3)
I believe in the sovereign rule of the law of love which makes no distinctions. (H, 25-5-1947, p. 165)
I have known no distinction between relatives and strangers, countrymen and foreigners, white and coloured, Hindus and Indians of other faiths, whether Mussalmans, Paris, Christians or Jews. I may say that my heart has been incapable of making any such distinctions. I cannot claim this as a special virtue, as it is in my very nature, rather than a result of any effort on my part, whereas in the case of AHIMSA (non-violence), BRAHMACHARYA (celibacy), APARIGRAHA (non-possession) and other cardinal virtues, I am fully conscious of a continuous striving for their cultivation. (A, p. 204)
We must widen the circle of our love till it embraces the whole village; the village in its turn must take into its fold the district, the district the province, and so on till the scope of our love becomes co-terminus with the world. (YI, 27-6-1929, p. 214)
We are living in times when values are undergoing quick changes. We are not satisfied with slow results. We are not satisfied with the welfare merely of our own caste-fellows, not even of our own country. We feel or want to feel for the whole of humanity. All this is a tremendous gain in humanity's search towards its goal. (H, 30-5-1936, p. 126)
My appeal to you.. is to cleanse your hearts and to have charity. Make your hearts as broad as the ocean. … Do not judge others lest you be judged. There is that Supreme Judge who can hang you, but He leaves you alive. There are so may enemies within you and around you, but He protects and looks upon you with a kindly eye. (YI, 1-1-1925, p. 8)
Mutual Toleration
The golden rule of conduct … is mutual toleration, seeing that we will never all think alike and we shall always see Truth in fragment and from different angles of vision. Conscience is not the same thing for all. Whilst, therefore, it is a good guide for individual conduct, imposition of that conduct upon all will be an insufferable interference with everybody's freedom of conscience… Even amongst the most conscientious persons, there will be room enough for honest differences of opinion. The only possible rule of conduct in any civilized society is, therefore, mutual toleration. (YI, 23-9-1926, p.334)
Forgiveness is a quality of the soul, and therefore, a positive quality. It is not negative. 'Conquer anger', says Lord Buddha, 'by non-anger'. But what is that 'non-anger'? it is a positive quality and means the supreme virtue of charity or love. You must be roused to this supreme virtue which must express itself in your going to the angry man, ascertaining from him the cause of his anger, making amends if you have given and cause for offence and then bringing home to him to error of his way and convincing him that it is wrong to be provoked, this consciousness of the quality of the soul, and deliberate exercise of it. Elevate not only the man but the surrounding atmosphere. Of course, only he who has that love will exercise it. This love can certainly be cultivated by incessant striving. (YI, 12-1-1928, p. 11)
What is true of individuals is true of nations. One cannot forgive too much. The weak can never forgive too much. The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong. (YI, 2-4-1931, p.59)
Trust
I refuse to suspect human nature. It will is bound to respond to any noble and friendly action. (YI, 4-8-1920, p. 5)
There is no distrust of men and mankind in me. They will answer before God, so why should I worry? But where my own mission is concerned, my thought is active, and I try to wish everyone well in spite of doubts and mistrust. I will suffer the agony if that is to be my lot. But I may not unnerve myself while I can struggle against evil. (Sp. 6-3-1942)
Mutual trust and mutual love are no trust and no love. The real love is to love them that hate you, to love your neighbour even though you distrust him. I have sound reasons for distrusting the English official world. If my love is sincere, I must love the Englishman in spite of my distrust. Of what avail is my love, if it be only so long as I trust my friend? Even thieves do that. They become enemies immediately the trust is gone. (H, 3-3-1946, p. 28)
From Mouths Of Babes
Believe me, from my experience of hundreds, I was going to say thousands, of children, I know that they have perhaps a finer sense of honour than you and I have. The greatest lesson in life, if we would but stoop and humble ourselves, we would learn not from grown-up learned men, but from the so-called ignorant children. Jesus never uttered a loftier or a gander truth than when he said that wisdom cometh out of the mouth so babes. I believe it. I have noticed it in my own experience that, if we would approach babes in humility and in innocence, we would learn wisdom from them.
World Peace
I have learned this one lesson-that what is impossible with man is child's play with God and if we have faith in that Divinity which presides on the destiny of the meanest of His creation, I have no doubt that all things are possible; and, in that final hope, I live and pass my time and endeavour to obey His will.
..If we are to reach real peace in this world and if we are to carry on a real war against war, we shall have to begin with children; and if they will grow up in their natural innocence, we won’t have to struggle, we won't have to pass fruitless, idle resolutions, but we shall go from love to love and peace to peace, until at last all the corners of the world are covered with that peace and love for which, consciously or unconsciously, the whole world is hungering. (YI, 19-11-1931, p. 361)
Soul-Force
Every moment of my life I realize that God is putting me on my trial. (A, p. 326)
If I could popularize the use of soul-force, which is but another name for love-force, in place of brute-force, I know I could present you with an India that could defy the whole world to do its worst. In season and out of season, therefore, I shall discipline myself to express in my life this eternal law of suffering, and present it for acceptance to those who care, and if I take part in any other activity, the motive is to show the matchless superiority of that law. (ibid, p. 331)
Having flung aside the sword, there is nothing except the cup of love which I can offer to those who oppose me. It is by offering that cup that cup that I except to draw them close to me. I cannot think of permanent enmity between man and man, and believing as I do in the theory of rebirth, I live in the hope that, if not in this birth, in some other birth, I shall be able to hug all humanity in friendly embrace. (YI, 2-4-1931, p. 54)
Mission Of Love
It is perfectly true, I must admit it in all humility, that however indifferently it may be, I endeavour to represent love in every fibre of may being. I am impatient to realize the presence of my Maker, who to me embodies Truth, and, in the early part of my career, I discovered that, if I was to realize Truth, I must obey, even at the cost of my life, the law of love. And having been blessed with children, I discovered that the law of Love could be best understood and learned through little children. Were it not for us, their ignorant poor parents, our children would be perfectly innocent. I believe implicitly that the child is not born mischievous in the bad sense of the term. If parents would behave themselves whilst the child is growing, before it is born and after, it is a well-known fact that the child would instinctively obey the law of Truth and the law of Love. And when I understood this lesson in the early part of my life, I began a gradual but distinct change in life.
I do not propose to describe to you the several phases through which this stormy life of mine has passed; but I can only, in truth and in perfect humility, bear witness to the fact that to the extent that I have represented Love in my life, in thought, word, and deed, I have realized the 'Peace that passed understanding' I have baffled many of my friends when they have noticed in me peace that they have envied, and they have asked me for the cause of that priceless possession. I have not been able to explain the cause save by saying that, if my friends found that peace in me, it was due to an attempt to obey this, the greatest law of our being. (YI, 19-11-1931, p. 361)
I am trying every moment of my life to be guided by AHIMSA, by love. I am essentially a lover of peace. I do not want to create dissensions. And I assure those who oppose me that I shall not do a single thing which I know may be contrary to truth and love. (H, 12-1-1934, p. 8)
I have no weapon but love to wield authority over anyone. (BC, 9-9-1942)
My goal is friendship with the world and I can combine the greatest opposition to wrong. (YI, 10-3-1920, p. 5)
I have that implicit faith in my mission that, if it succeeds-as it will succeed, it is bound to succeed-history will record it as a movement designed to knit all people in the world together, not as hostile to one another but as parts of one whole. (H, 26-1-1934, p. 8)
生産の分散
返信削除聞き手 問題け分配にあります。生産のほうでは、高度な完成の域にまで達しましたが、分
配にはまだ欠陥があるのです。分配が平等に行われるようになれば、大量産もその弊害を
除去できるのではないでしょうか。
ガンジー
いいえ、欠点はこのシステム固有のものです。生産を各地で分散して行って初め
て、分配は平等に行えるようになります。つまり、生産と同時に分配が行われるようになら
ない限り意味がありません。自分たちの商品を売るために外部の市場を開拓しようと思って
いる限り、分配が平等に行われることはありえません。
#4:89頁
HANDSPUN&HANDWOVEN 手紡ぎ手織り布(カディ) - CALICO キヤリコ：インド手 ...
返信削除CALICOでは、縦糸緯糸両方手紡ぎ(アンバーチャルカによる。詳細は下記参照)のものをカディと呼んでいる。手回しの力加減によって糸の組成にムラが ...
Imagewww.itoito.jp › india › 2008Khadi
カディの村を訪ねる
www.itoito.jp からのカディ チャルカ
南インドと違うのは、あちらではカディ協同組合の大きな建物に農民たちが集まって糸紡ぎの作業していたが、ここ北インドでは各家庭にチャルカが置かれ ...
Imagewww.malaika.co.jp › STORY
Khadi from India カディ | マライカ
www.malaika.co.jp からのカディ チャルカ
チャルカで紡がれた糸。 そんなカディの布を求めて、 ガンディーの出身地でもあるグジャラート
映画は
返信削除若き日のリンカーン
戦艦ポチョムキン
イワン雷帝
ジョンレノン
という4つの映画を見た感じ
チャルカの説明が弱い
返信削除Gandhi on Self-Sufficiency ガンジー・自立の思想
http://katayama.life.coocan.jp/selfsufficiency.htm#disease
《It is my deliberate opinion that India is being ground down, not under the English heel, but under that of modern civilization. 》
インドはイギリスのではなく近代文明の踵に踏みにじられているというのが、私が考え抜いた結論です。