加载中…
个人资料
家园计划
家园计划
  • 博客等级:
  • 博客积分:0
  • 博客访问:376,818
  • 关注人气:905
  • 获赠金笔:0支
  • 赠出金笔:0支
  • 荣誉徽章:
相关博文
推荐博文
正文 字体大小:

托尔斯泰与甘地信中探讨非暴力共识社区的未来

(2020-02-16 15:26:45)
标签:

共识社区实验

甘地

托尔斯泰

书信

放眼歷史,命運有時會以奇特的方式,讓獨特的靈魂交會、傳承,進而逬發照耀人 間的火花。誰能想到,出於種種機緣,俄國文豪托爾斯泰的思想,竟影響了日後的 印度獨立?

1908年,托爾斯泰回信給時任美國哥倫比亞大學教授、同時倡導印度獨立的達斯 (Tarak Nath Das, 1884-1958)。印度裔的達斯先前曾兩度致信,希望爭取身為 公共知識分子的托爾斯泰對於印度獨立運動的支持|

托爾斯泰深思後以題為《致一位印度人的信》(A Letter to a Hindu)的一封長信 回覆達斯,表達他對此事的看法及態度。

達斯在收到信後,將之刊載於其所主編的《解放印度》(Free Hindustan)期刊 上。當時,入在南非的年輕甘地輾轉得到此信副本,深受感動,於是致信托爾斯 泰,希望獲允能將該文轉載於他在南非所編纂的《印度觀點》(Indian Opinion) 上。於是,兩人一連串意義與影響皆深遠的通信就此開始。

托爾斯泰是近代倡導「愛與非暴力」原則的第一人,甘地受托爾斯泰精神的啟發, 可說始自《天國在你的心中》(The Kingdom of God is Within You)—書。托爾 斯泰在這本出版於1890年的小書當中,以論述完整表達世人應藉非暴力的方式譴 責任何暴力之舉,同時拒以任何形式參與暴力。他在《致一位印度人的信》裡更點 明,你我若是贊同向他人施暴,不論其規模大小,無疑就等於贊同別人對你我施 暴。他認為,從人類歷史可見,任何主張暴力的社會或組織,其結果必然是僅有少 數入得以從中受益、多數入必將嘗其苦果;以暴制暴的手段永遠無法企及「真正、 且長久」的公義與和平。托爾斯泰認為,倘若所有人都不為暴力服務,掌權的少數 人就無法奴役多數人。「莫力抗惡行,勿參與其中,無論那惡行關乎行政、法庭、 稅收,尤其是軍旅。如此一來,你們將不受世上任何人奴役。」他在此信中如是說。

甘地首度致信托爾斯泰是在1909年,此前,他曾在前稱川斯瓦共和國Transvaal Republic)的南非,領導當地印裔人士抗議官方對於亞洲人的歧視。南非政府當 時特別針對亞洲入設有諸多極具貶低意味的法規,例如亞洲人必須備妥身份證以供 官員任意查驗,採非基督教儀式進行的婚禮在法律上一律不具效力,甚至有法案禁 止印度人移民南非等。甘地率領當地群眾,以非暴力抗議政府的不公之舉,導致 他曾多次入獄,但世人也能從此時期看出日後他在爭取印度獨立的「非暴力、不合 作」的思想雛型。


托尔斯泰与甘地信中探讨非暴力共识社区的未来
Mohandas K. Gandhi的摄影棚照片,伦敦,1931年


托爾斯泰與甘地年齡相距四十一歲,在這段跨世代的思想交流中,年輕的甘地真切 流露出急於改變印度入民處境的激昂熱情;托爾斯泰則以年長智者之姿,援引印度 古老智慧,闡述他對普世之愛與非暴力抗爭的獨特觀點,呼籲以愛為根本,以理智 視清真相,勿受蒙蔽,鼓勵甘地爭取不受奴役的自由。這段交流持續到托爾斯泰 1910年辭世為止,而他在信中闡述的態度,正是影響甘地日後帶領印度順利脫離 英國統治的核心精神。

1915年,甘地離開南非,返回故鄉。此後三十餘年,他始終秉持非暴力的抗爭態 度,逐步領導印度擺脫英國統治。1947815日午夜,印度正式脫離英國殖 民,宣告獨立。隔年130日,甘地遭一名印度教狂熱分子刺殺身亡。

所幸,托爾斯泰傳承予甘地的非暴力思想並未於此止息。繼之的實踐者有在美國 以非暴力的公民抗命方式爭取非裔美國人基本權益的金恩博士Martin Luther King Jr, 1929-1968),以及在南非倡議反種族隔離、領導不服從運動的曼德拉 (Nelson Mandela, 1918-2013);他們無不用實際行動向世界驗證托爾斯泰倡議 的理想。1964年,金恩博士在獲頒諾貝爾和平獎時,就曾致詞表示:「文明與暴 力是對立的概念。美國黑人受印度人民感召,同樣向世界展現出『非暴力』並非消 極被動,而是能促發社會轉型、主動且強大的道德力量。世人有朝一日將會覓得能 讓你我和睦相處之道,如此之道能將眼前的暴力輓歌,轉化成洋溢手足之情的友愛 禮讚〇」 或許,和平的關鍵確實就在托爾斯泰所形容的「入性本有、至簡的愛之法則」。|

上文刊於《智者與仁者的交會》(台北:八旗,2018)


托尔斯泰与甘地信中探讨非暴力共识社区的未来

Leo Tolstoy 1897


 

给甘地:

我已收到您的印度观点杂志,很高兴看到那些放弃一切武力抵抗的入的观点,并且 我立刻感觉有个愿望告诉您我在阅读时所激起的想法。

我活着的时间越长----特别是现在当我清楚地感觉滨临死亡时----我就越想表达我 (心里)感觉最强烈的,也是我认为极重要的事,即所谓的消除所有武力反抗的事,那 真正简单的意思就是没被诡辩术所歪曲的爱的律法教条。爱,即入类灵魂向着合一 的驱动力以及由此带来的人类彼此顺服的行为,代表着最高也是唯一的人生律法, 这是每个人都从他()的心灵深处知道并感觉到的(我们在儿童身上尤其清楚的看 到这点),也是他(她)在介入人类思想的谎言系统前所明白的。这律法为所有(印度 人的,中国人的,犹太人的,希腊人的和罗马人的)哲学所宣扬着。我认为这爱的 律法在基督那得到最清楚的宣扬,因为基督明确地说这系结了所有的律法和先知。 更进一步,因为预见到已经而且一直在妨害认识这一爱的律法的歪曲见解,基督特 别地指出一个活在世俗利益中的人的误解的危险-----即他们会要求通过武力保护 他们的利益,或者,用他自己的话来表达,他们会以牙还牙,用武力收复被盗窃的 财物等等。他象所有通情达理的人一样知道,任何武力的动用都是与爱这一人生最 高的律法不协调的,并且只要在任何一种似乎容许使用武力的情况,便立刻与这律 法相违背。

整个基督教文明,尽管外在很精采,却是从这种奇怪而明目张胆的(部分是有意地, 但主要是不自觉地)误解和矛盾中滋生出来的。在深处,如果武力的防卫与爱的律 法同在,爱的律法就不会再有效。并且一旦爱的律法无效,那剩下的就只有强权是 真理了。


基督教在那种状态下已存活了 1,900多年。入们自然总会让武力作为他们的社会秩 序的主要原则指导了。基督教国家和所有其它国家之间的区别只在于:基督教比其 他宗教更加清楚而确定地给出爱的律法,而基督教的追随者严肃地认同这一律法。 尽管如此,他们把使用武力视为可允许的,并把他们的人生奠基于暴力之上----- 至于基督教国家的人们的生活表现出一种在他们相信什么和他们的生活所基于的原 则之间的更加巨大的矛盾:一个本应指导他们品行规范的爱与以各种各样形式被认 可的使用武力(政府,法院,和军队等被认为是必要和被推崇的)之间的矛盾。这个 矛盾随着基督教精神生活的发展而加剧,并且近年来达到了最大紧张。

现在问题是我们必须二者择一:要么承认我们根本不认同宗教伦理而让我们人生的 品行由强权即真理决定;要么中断所有强加的苛敛杂税,废除我们所有的法律和警 察机构,最重要的,废除军队机构。

 

今年春天,在莫斯科女子学校的一次圣经考试中,首先是她们的宗教老师,接着是 在场的一个大主教,问到十戒,特别第六戒的问题。在戒命被正确地被背出后大主 教有时会问这样的问题:上帝通常总是而且在每种情况下都禁止杀人吗?_被教师误 导的不幸女生,不得不而且的确这样回答:不总是如此,在战争中和执行死刑时是允许杀人的.可是当这个惯例性的附加问题是以杀人是否总是一种罪向这些不幸学生提出时(我跟您说的不是什么轶事,而是实际发生的事情,是一位目击者告诉我 的)女孩子正色,果断而充满感情地回答——“杀人总是罪!。并且无论大主教如 何的习惯性的诡辩,她是坚定不移地认为在旧约中杀人在任何情况下都是被禁止的, 并且基督不仅禁止我们杀入,而且一般地禁止我们对我们的邻居有任何伤害。大主 教,无论他如何冠冕堂皇和油嘴滑舌,(最后)沉默了,胜利属于那女生。

是的,我们可以大书特书我们在调控大气,复杂的外交关系,各种各样的倶乐部,发 现,各种各样的联盟,和所谓的艺术作品方面的进展,而且可以把那个女孩说的轻 易忽略掉。但我们无法完全使她沉默,因为每个基督徒或多或少都有同样的感觉。 社会主义,共产主义,无政府主义的救世军、罪的生长,劳动者的解放,越来越荒诞 的富人的豪华和加重的穷人的苦难,可怕地上升着的自杀事件-----所有这一切都表 明那内在的矛盾企待解决。当然,必须以爱的律法被认可并且放弃依赖武力的方式 解决。您的在对我们看来是世界角落的德兰士瓦的工作,却是我们最感兴趣的,而 且为我们提供了最有力的实际证据,现在全世界都能分享,不仅基督徒而且全世界 的入民都能参与您的工作。

我想您听到这一消息一定很高兴:在俄国,类似的运动正迅速地引起注意,并且拒 绝服兵役也在逐年增加。无论放弃所有武力抵抗的人数对于您们,拒绝服兵役的人 数对于我们是多么小,大家都可能认为:上帝与我们同在,上帝比人强大。

在基督教的忏悔中-----甚至在那种我们受教的被扭曲的基督教里(在那里我们同时 相信军队的必要并且准备大规模的屠杀)——存在着一种明显的向天堂呼求的矛 盾,并且这种矛盾迟早(但大概会在不久的将来)会赤裸裸地暴露在光天化日之中。 然而,那将要么消灭对维持国家不可或缺的基督教,要么将清扫与基督教紧密相关 的军队和所有的使用武力。各国政府都认识到这个矛盾,包括您们的英国政府和 我们的俄国政府,因此对这个矛盾的认同将比其它任何敌视政府的活动遭到政府 更加强烈的反对,这些我们在俄国经历到,也反映在您的杂志中。政府知道他们最 大的危险威胁来自何方,并且睁大警惕的眼睛,不仅只是为了保存他们的利益,而 且实际上是为他们的生存而战。

你的,

列夫托尔斯泰,191097


​To Gandhi, Johannesburg, Transvaal, South Africa.

KOCHETY. 7th September 1910.

I received your journal, Indian Opinion, and was glad to see what it says of those who renounce all resistance by force, and I immediately felt a wish to let you know what thoughts its perusal aroused in me.


The longer I live-especially now when I clearly feel the approach of death-the more I feel moved to express what I feel more strongly than anything else, and what in my opinion is of immense importance, namely, what we call the renunciation of all opposition by force, which really simply means the doctrine of the law of love unperverted by sophistries. Love, or in other words the striving of men's souls towards unity and the submissive behaviour to one another that results therefrom, represents the highest and indeed the only law of life, as every man knows and feels in the depths of his heart (and as we see most clearly in children), and knows until he becomes involved in the lying net of worldly thoughts. This law was announced by all the philosophies- Indian as well as Chinese, and Jewish, Greek and Roman. Most clearly, I think, was it announced by Christ, who said explicitly that on it hang all the Law and the Prophets. More than that, foreseeing the distortion that has hindered its recognition and may always hinder it, he specially indicated the danger of a misrepresentation that presents itself to men living by worldly interests- namely, that they may claim a right to defend their interests by force or, as he expressed it, to repay blow by blow and recover stolen property by force, etc., etc. He knew, as all reasonable men must do, that any employment of force is incompatible with love as the highest law of life, and that as soon as the use of force appears permissible even in a single case, the law itself is immediately negatived. The whole of Christian civilization, outwardly so splendid, has grown up on this strange and flagrant- partly intentional but chiefly unconscious-misunderstanding and contradiction. At bottom, however, the law of love is, and can be, no longer valid if defence by force is set up beside it. And if once the law of love is not valid, then there remains no law except the right of might. In that state Christendom has lived for 1,900 years. Certainly men have always let themselves be guided by force as the main principle of their social order. The difference between the Christian and all other nations is only this: that in Christianity the law of love had been more clearly and definitely given than in any other religion, and that its adherents solemnly recognized it. Yet despite this they deemed the use of force to be permissible, and based their lives on violence - so that the life of the Christian nations presents a greater contradiction between what they believe and the principle on which their lives are built: a contradiction between love which should pre scribe the law of conduct, and the employment of force, recognized under various forms-such as governments, courts of justice, and armies, which are accepted as necessary and esteemed. This contradiction increased with the development of the spiritual life of Christianity and in recent years has reached the utmost tension.


The question now is, that we must choose one of two things-either to admit that we recognize no religious ethics at all but let our conduct of life be decided by the right of might; or to demand that all compulsory levying of taxes be discontinued, and all our legal and police institutions, and above all, military institutions, be abolished.


This spring, at a scripture examination in a Moscow girls' school, first their religious teacher and then an archbishop who was also present, questioned the girls on the ten commandments, especially on the sixth. After the commandments had been correctly recited the archbishop sometimes put a question, usually: 'Is it always and in every case forbidden by the law of God to kill?' And the unfortunate girls, misled by their instructor, had to answer and did answer: 'Not always, for it is permissible in war and at executions.' When, however, this customary additional question-whether it is always a sin to kill-was put to one of these unfortunate creatures (what I am telling you is not an anecdote, but actually happened and was told me by an eyewitness) the girl coloured up and answered decidedly and with emotion - 'Always!' And despite all the customary sophistries of the archbishop, she held steadfastly to it-that to kill is under all circumstances forbidden even in the Old Testament, and that Christ has not only forbidden us to kill, but in general to do any harm to our neighbour. The archbishop, for all his majesty and verbal dexterity,was silenced, and victory remained with the girl.


Yes, we may write in the papers of our progress in mastery of the air, of complicated diplomatic relation, of various clubs, of discoveries, of all sorts of alliances, and of so-called works of art, and we can pass lightly over what that girl said. But we cannot completely silence her, for every Christian feels the same, however vaguely he may do so. Socialism, Communism, Anarchism' Salvation Armies, the growth of crime, freedom from toil, the increasingly absurd luxury of the rich and increased misery of the poor, the fearfully rising number of suicides-are all indications of that inner contradiction which must and will be resolved. And, of course, resolved in such a manner that the law of love will be recognized and all reliance on force abandoned. Your work in the Transvaal, which to us seems to be at the end of the earth, is yet in the centre of our interest and supplies the most weighty practical proof, in which the world can now share, and not only the Christian but all the peoples of the world can participate.


I think it will please you to hear that here in Russia, too, a similar movement is rapidly attracting attention, and refusals of military service increase year by year. However small as yet is with you the number of those who renounce all resistance by force, and with us the number of men who refuse any military service-both the one and the other can say: God is with us, and God is mightier than man.


In the confession of Christianity-even a Christianity deformed as is that taught among us-and a simultaneous belief in the necessity of armies and preparations to slaughter on an ever-increasing scale, there is an obvious contradiction that cries to heaven, and that sooner or later, but probably quite soon, must appear in the light of day in its complete nakedness. That, however, will either annihilate the Christian religion, which is indispensable for the maintenance of the State, or it will sweep away the military and all the use of force bound up with it-which the State needs no less. All governments are aware of this contradiction, your British as much as our Russian, and therefore its recognition will be more energetically opposed by the governments than any other activity inimical to the State, as we in Russia have experienced and as is shown by the articles in your magazine. The governments know from what direction the greatest danger threatens them, and are on guard with watchful eyes not merely to preserve their interests but actually to fight for their very existence.


Yours etc., LEO TOLSTOY.

托尔斯泰与甘地信中探讨非暴力共识社区的未来
图为甘地在1930年3月正在实施食盐游行(Salt march)

To Gandhi, Johannesburg, Transvaal, South Africa.

KOCHETY. 7th September 1910.

I received your journal, Indian Opinion, and was glad to see what it says of those who renounce all resistance by force, and I immediately felt a wish to let you know what thoughts its perusal aroused in me.


The longer I live-especially now when I clearly feel the approach of death-the more I feel moved to express what I feel more strongly than anything else, and what in my opinion is of immense importance, namely, what we call the renunciation of all opposition by force, which really simply means the doctrine of the law of love unperverted by sophistries. Love, or in other words the striving of men's souls towards unity and the submissive behaviour to one another that results therefrom, represents the highest and indeed the only law of life, as every man knows and feels in the depths of his heart (and as we see most clearly in children), and knows until he becomes involved in the lying net of worldly thoughts. This law was announced by all the philosophies- Indian as well as Chinese, and Jewish, Greek and Roman. Most clearly, I think, was it announced by Christ, who said explicitly that on it hang all the Law and the Prophets. More than that, foreseeing the distortion that has hindered its recognition and may always hinder it, he specially indicated the danger of a misrepresentation that presents itself to men living by worldly interests- namely, that they may claim a right to defend their interests by force or, as he expressed it, to repay blow by blow and recover stolen property by force, etc., etc. He knew, as all reasonable men must do, that any employment of force is incompatible with love as the highest law of life, and that as soon as the use of force appears permissible even in a single case, the law itself is immediately negatived. The whole of Christian civilization, outwardly so splendid, has grown up on this strange and flagrant- partly intentional but chiefly unconscious-misunderstanding and contradiction. At bottom, however, the law of love is, and can be, no longer valid if defence by force is set up beside it. And if once the law of love is not valid, then there remains no law except the right of might. In that state Christendom has lived for 1,900 years. Certainly men have always let themselves be guided by force as the main principle of their social order. The difference between the Christian and all other nations is only this: that in Christianity the law of love had been more clearly and definitely given than in any other religion, and that its adherents solemnly recognized it. Yet despite this they deemed the use of force to be permissible, and based their lives on violence - so that the life of the Christian nations presents a greater contradiction between what they believe and the principle on which their lives are built: a contradiction between love which should pre scribe the law of conduct, and the employment of force, recognized under various forms-such as governments, courts of justice, and armies, which are accepted as necessary and esteemed. This contradiction increased with the development of the spiritual life of Christianity and in recent years has reached the utmost tension.


The question now is, that we must choose one of two things-either to admit that we recognize no religious ethics at all but let our conduct of life be decided by the right of might; or to demand that all compulsory levying of taxes be discontinued, and all our legal and police institutions, and above all, military institutions, be abolished.


This spring, at a scripture examination in a Moscow girls' school, first their religious teacher and then an archbishop who was also present, questioned the girls on the ten commandments, especially on the sixth. After the commandments had been correctly recited the archbishop sometimes put a question, usually: 'Is it always and in every case forbidden by the law of God to kill?' And the unfortunate girls, misled by their instructor, had to answer and did answer: 'Not always, for it is permissible in war and at executions.' When, however, this customary additional question-whether it is always a sin to kill-was put to one of these unfortunate creatures (what I am telling you is not an anecdote, but actually happened and was told me by an eyewitness) the girl coloured up and answered decidedly and with emotion - 'Always!' And despite all the customary sophistries of the archbishop, she held steadfastly to it-that to kill is under all circumstances forbidden even in the Old Testament, and that Christ has not only forbidden us to kill, but in general to do any harm to our neighbour. The archbishop, for all his majesty and verbal dexterity,was silenced, and victory remained with the girl.


Yes, we may write in the papers of our progress in mastery of the air, of complicated diplomatic relation, of various clubs, of discoveries, of all sorts of alliances, and of so-called works of art, and we can pass lightly over what that girl said. But we cannot completely silence her, for every Christian feels the same, however vaguely he may do so. Socialism, Communism, Anarchism' Salvation Armies, the growth of crime, freedom from toil, the increasingly absurd luxury of the rich and increased misery of the poor, the fearfully rising number of suicides-are all indications of that inner contradiction which must and will be resolved. And, of course, resolved in such a manner that the law of love will be recognized and all reliance on force abandoned. Your work in the Transvaal, which to us seems to be at the end of the earth, is yet in the centre of our interest and supplies the most weighty practical proof, in which the world can now share, and not only the Christian but all the peoples of the world can participate.


I think it will please you to hear that here in Russia, too, a similar movement is rapidly attracting attention, and refusals of military service increase year by year. However small as yet is with you the number of those who renounce all resistance by force, and with us the number of men who refuse any military service-both the one and the other can say: God is with us, and God is mightier than man.


In the confession of Christianity-even a Christianity deformed as is that taught among us-and a simultaneous belief in the necessity of armies and preparations to slaughter on an ever-increasing scale, there is an obvious contradiction that cries to heaven, and that sooner or later, but probably quite soon, must appear in the light of day in its complete nakedness. That, however, will either annihilate the Christian religion, which is indispensable for the maintenance of the State, or it will sweep away the military and all the use of force bound up with it-which the State needs no less. All governments are aware of this contradiction, your British as much as our Russian, and therefore its recognition will be more energetically opposed by the governments than any other activity inimical to the State, as we in Russia have experienced and as is shown by the articles in your magazine. The governments know from what direction the greatest danger threatens them, and are on guard with watchful eyes not merely to preserve their interests but actually to fight for their very existence.


Yours etc., LEO TOLSTOY.


托尔斯泰与甘地信中探讨非暴力共识社区的未来
图为:列夫·托尔斯泰(Leo Tolstoy)与他的女儿塔蒂亚娜(Tatiana)在萨马拉组织饥荒救济

甘地在南非的住所本身就是从西方文学家托尔斯泰Leo Tolstoy)那里获得灵感 的。托尔斯泰对制度化基督教的批判和对精神之爱的信仰极大地打动了他。在成为 一名受欢迎的政治活动家之后,他会在托尔斯泰的论文《给印度教徒的信》中写前 言。甘地与托尔斯泰逬行了换函,并将他的聚会场所命名为托尔斯泰农场。在甘 地思想中,托尔斯泰的《神的国度在你里面》与辩护和公民抗命并存。

托尔斯泰农场是甘地对乌托邦政治经济学的实验-后来被称为格拉姆斯瓦拉杰 (Gram Swaraj) ”。这个概念的一个关键来源是约翰鲁斯金John Ruskin) 《直到最后》(Unto This Last),其中鲁斯金批评了经济人(这是鲁斯金从他 众所周知的艺术批评撤退之后写的)。甘地在他所有的集会中都尝试了一种自给自 足和分散经济的体系。甘地由他的密友南非亨利波拉克Henry Polak)赠予这本 书。拉斯金的哲学敦促甘地将这项工作翻译成古吉拉特语。

托尔斯泰农场也是甘地看展第一次教育实验的地点。

甘地的教育模式针对他对社会秩序的另一种看法:基础教育体现了他对由小规模, 自给自足的社区组成的理想社会的理解,而理想的公民是勤劳,自强的人。


在他生命的后期,当有人问他是否是印度教徒时,他回答:是的。我也是基督徒,穆 斯林,佛教徒和犹太人

 

甘地(1893年至1914年)在南非度过了21年,尽管他在此期间访问了印度和英 国。据说,甘地最初是在白入乘车旅行中被捕,在彼得马里茨堡火车站被捕的, 最初是关于种族歧视的。


托尔斯泰与甘地信中探讨非暴力共识社区的未来
图文甘地,他的秘书索尼娅·史莱辛(Sonia Schlesin),和赫尔曼·卡伦巴赫(Hermann Kallenbach)博士合影。第一次世界大战前,卡伦巴赫(Kallenbach)将这张照片缝在了他夹克的衣领中。他来自德国,他担心被捕和被抢夺。他被有效逮捕,但警方从未发现这张照片。©gandhiserve.org


 

1904年,甘地遇到了 1896年到达该国的德国犹太建筑师赫尔曼卡伦巴赫(Hermann Kallenbach) 1907年, 卡伦巴赫根据两座当地小屋 rondavels) 的形状 设计了房屋(萨蒂亚格拉哈之家SatyagrahaHouse,俗称甘地之家),但该房屋 是欧洲建筑方法。它被称为牛栏,意思是英语和南非荷兰语的谷仓。

托尔斯泰与甘地信中探讨非暴力共识社区的未来

托尔斯泰与甘地信中探讨非暴力共识社区的未来
图中的“甘地之家”最初由The Kraal建成,由建筑师Herman Kallenbach改造。从1908年至1909年,卡伦巴赫与他的朋友Mohandas Ghandi一起住在这里。

 

卡伦巴赫(Kallenbach)1871年出生于俄罗斯帝国(今立陶宛)的2emai£iy- Naumiestis,是德国犹太人家庭七个孩子中的第三大儿子。他的父亲卡尔曼莱布 卡伦巴赫(Kalman Leib Kallenbach)是希伯来语老师,后来是木材商人。赫尔曼 (Hermann)的童年时代热衷于教育学习,体育运动以及与同乡友谊。后来他在 斯图加特和慕尼黑学习建筑。1896年,他去与他的叔叔一起生活在约翰内斯堡, 他在那里从事建筑师工作,并成为南非公民。Kallenbach是一位熟练的溜冰和游 泳运动者,骑行者和体操运动员,并且是一位成功的建筑师,他在南非获得了大量 财产。在遇到圣雄甘地之后,他的生活发生了重大变化

托尔斯泰与甘地信中探讨非暴力共识社区的未来
图为甘地在南非于1910年创建的托尔斯泰农场成员。右起:L。Ramsamy,Ponsamy,LM Morgan,Venugopal Naidoo,CKT Coopoo Naidoo和K. Devar。开会:Pragjee Desai,Rajee Naidoo,Joseph Roypen, Hermann Kallenbach博士,MK Gandhi,PK Naidoo夫人,Lazarus夫人,CK Thambie Naidoo夫人。第三排:Bala,Bhartasarathy,Naransamy和Puckry Naidoo(Thambie Naidoo的所有儿子)。©gandhiserve.org


 

真相比任何大规模杀伤性武器都强大。
-- 甘地 

1910 年,经济充裕的卡伦巴赫向甘地捐赠了约翰内斯堡附近属于他的一千英亩( 4 平方公里)农场。该农场曾被用来经营甘地著名的“托尔斯泰农场”,该农场容纳了 Satvagraha 成员和家人们( Satyagraha :字面意思为坚持真理,由梵文Satya(真理) 与aeraha(坚持)所组成的复合字,起源自印度教。它是非暴力抵抗与公民抵抗运动之中的一个思想流派,由甘地所创。甘地以真理坚固思想来推动印度独立运动,这个思想对南非纳尔逊·曼德拉与美国马丁·路德·金恩有很大的影响。)卡伦巴赫自己以,列夫·托尔斯泰”的名字命名了这个农场,因为他深受托尔斯泰的著作和哲学的影响。他放弃了一个富有,爱好运动的单身生活,在这个农场上采用了甘地简单的生活方式,素食和平等政治。卡伦巴赫在托尔斯泰农场中与甘地一起推动非暴力抵抗运动,一直持续到1914 年。


0

阅读 评论 收藏 转载 喜欢 打印举报/Report
  • 评论加载中,请稍候...
发评论

    发评论

    以上网友发言只代表其个人观点,不代表新浪网的观点或立场。

      

    新浪BLOG意见反馈留言板 电话:4000520066 提示音后按1键(按当地市话标准计费) 欢迎批评指正

    新浪简介 | About Sina | 广告服务 | 联系我们 | 招聘信息 | 网站律师 | SINA English | 会员注册 | 产品答疑

    新浪公司 版权所有