Bold added by me:
Quote:
Kevin Leavitt wrote:
I agree with you Mary. I think that his methods were a means to the end and not the end itself, which is an entirely different agenda or value system than is sometimes subscribed to him these days.
|
I haven't read up on "Mahatma" in a long time, but my understanding is that it could be described as a bit of both. Surely he didn't adopt a non-violent method
purely for the sake of "winning," did he? I thought he also held the value of peaceful actions somewhat for their own sake...or, perhaps at least as much as anything can be said to be done for its own sake.
...that is to say that he had a kind of hierarchy in which peaceful efforts were considered to be more innately "good" than non-peaceful ones.