Podcast pt

In this conversation, the speakers discuss the main ideas of Gandhi's philosophy and its relation to Neo-Confucianism. They focus on the importance of self-love and universal love, while also discussing the distinction between passion and love. They mention Gandhi's emphasis on celibacy and self-restraint as means to cultivate love and remove negative desires. They also touch on the concept of entitlement and the harmful effects of lust and passion. The speakers explore how to align oneself with the eternal oneness and remove oneself from temporal desires through practices like fasting and self-restraint. So, Professor Clark, back at it again, part two, with me and Eddie. Last time we focused on Nagarjuna, Buddhism, and its relation to Neo-Confucianism. Eddie gave a summary of Neo-Confucianism, and we touched upon the themes of self-love. We talked upon the themes of the ultimate reality, and we focused on the metaphysics of philosophy, and the philosophy of Buddhism, and what it meant to cultivate yourself within the context of each of these religions, just exploring what it means to also have a no-self, trying to imagine what that is, because neither of us have ever experienced that. But on this part, we want to focus a bit more, I want to, for me personally, I want to focus a bit more on Gandhi, I feel like his words, you know, they have quite a bit of wisdom impact in between, specifically I really enjoyed how he demonstrates his philosophy through his actions, and we can see it almost on a timeline with his, like, with his, I guess with his essential writings, and also the political framework that Gandhi's in when he's talking about freeing India, I think that provides a lot of context for why he believes so strongly in his religion. I'm still going to touch on Buddhism, I'll reference it occasionally, but I do want to focus mostly on Gandhi, and our main, like, theme for this particular presentation was to focus on the, I guess the principle of love, and how foundational it is in terms of forming the oneness that's present in both Gandhi's work and Confucianism. Yeah, and so, I think for me, one of the things that Gandhi talks about that I feel like is very important to, like, consider is the concept of universal love. The reason why I mention this is because I feel like, because Gandhi believes that in order to have love for other people, you need to have it for yourself, but you also need to have it for the world, but that this universal love for other people can be kind of distorted by lust and passion, and so he finds that su-moksha requires that absence, and that it's extremely hard in navigating that relationship, and so that's why he touches upon things like celibacy, and self-restraint, and being mindful of yourself, and this cultivation of love for yourself and for others, I don't know if you want to say anything, Eddie, about that. Yeah, I feel like the importance of self-cultivation, and really, like, and knowing yourself, and kind of how, like, your specific desires may appear is really important, and I think this is a very similar concept or notion within Neo-Confucianism, but it's really, it's very much related to, like, selfishness as a thing that kind of obstructs your clear, heaven-endowed nature, especially for a Wayang man, and so being able to see yourself as one with the heaven, the earth, and the myriad of things allows you to remove those kind of negative desires from your life, especially, like, once you, yeah, I feel like that is important. But I think it's definitely different in a big sense, where the Confucians are, don't talk about desires in a specific way, like, it's more of the self-centeredness that leads to kind of confusion that then is kind of manifested in these desires, or, like, negative action. Yeah. But, I, yeah, I think, oh yeah, I mean, that was a great point that you made, my bad, I was just going to add on in terms of, like, this idea of entitlement, just this feeling that it cultivates, like, a sense of control over one person, and so I think oftentimes when we assess our relationships to others, we can assess, like, maybe the ways that we have been bad to them, but something I don't think that we contemplate enough, and I feel like something that Gandhi advocates for is the ways that we've been harming ourselves, and so, like you said, obviously entitlement over someone is a very strong cultivating feeling, and that obviously leads to, you know, a lack of connection, but also this idea of lust and passion as well, like, it's not just, you know, control and lack of connection doesn't only come in, like, very angry and harsh tones, it can also come in very, like, very blinding lights and blinding colors when it comes to things like passion, like when you're overwhelmed with passion and you feel like you love somebody, like, for me personally, I wouldn't consider that love, and me and Eddie kind of talked about that, too, because I think Gandhi can, like, he's very reflective of his relationship with lust, and I think that's something that everyone, like me, Eddie, and probably you, Professor, it's, like, very easy for you to distinguish that as a negative feeling, but I think passion is something that is on the opposite end, where it becomes, like, passion very positively, and recognizing that even Gandhi believes that passion is not a particularly positive feeling, and it's actually one that's very rooted in the ego and a form of control. Yeah, so, I guess, how do you kind of, what's the distinction between passion and love? Because I definitely agree, I think that in a lot of cases, like, you can see people as objects for your own use, and I think that's, like, what both of these philosophies kind of, by seeing that they're, you know, for Neo-Confucianism, that there's, like, humanness within everything around you, I think that, like, produces a different type of love, like, when you're engaging with them, or, like, just, like, and it's less, again, it's less about, like, self-centered, and that's where you can kind of be controlling over someone, because if there's a, if, yeah, if you, like, don't really understand someone, and are kind of using them as an object for your passion, then there's no love, but that, but, like, I think there's definitely a distinction, you know, like that, and then the universal love, I guess, yeah, more, like, how do you think that, like, that passion kind of comes about and functions? Yeah, so, you know, I think this might be a hot take, this is kind of more my personal opinion, but I do feel like passion is slightly rooted in delusion, which Gandhi particularly advocates for not being a slave to your emotions, and active and possibly, and you can see that in things like Ahimsa, like nonviolence, choosing not to fight back, and choosing to instead engage in nonviolence, and to use alternative forms of protest, that's an example of being more in control of, I guess, your feelings, but I guess if we were to talk about how passion, in my opinion, cultivates through the lens of Gandhi, I feel like a big component of that might be his relationship to brahmacharya, and so, like, that's like full celibacy, basically, and that when he is undergoing that, he is able to reflect and see, he says, for example, in his autobiography, he says, life without brahmacharya appears to me to be insipid and animal-like. The brute, by nature, knows no self-restraint, but formerly appeared to me to be extravagant in praise of brahmacharya, and our religious book seems now, with increasing clearness every day, to be absolutely proper and todded on its curse. So his experience with brahmacharya, he's able to recognize people who are clearly blinded by lust and by passion. I think that, like, if I were to distinguish lust and passion, I think lust has more to do with a particular person, like, I think probably a more romantic relationship or a more sexual relationship, and I think passion is that same energy, but directed towards a, directed towards something that's not, like, a human. It could be something like music, or it could be something like chess, like, whatever example, but I think a clear flaw that I think Gandhi is trying to, like, present is the fact that, like, passion is a very high feeling, that when that passion flees, like, you're done. Like, you no longer have the motivation to engage in that same activity. And we can tell, like, again, it kind of refers back to, like, what love is, like, I think love to Gandhi and love to me, certainly, is, I don't know if it is to anybody, but it's a very calming, it's a very calming feeling, and almost through the storm, an appreciation of, like, the moment for what it is, despite any of the tragic feelings attached to it. So, no, yeah, I think passion, in that sense, in, like, Gandhi's eyes, would probably be just that same form of lust that he's able to recognize in guys that, like, lust over women, and instead putting that into something, like, I guess, not intimate, like, sports or a hobby and stuff like that. Yeah, no, I think that's really interesting, particularly, kind of, the distinction between the transitory, which is, like, passion and lust, and then the more eternal, which is, like, that universal love, or that oneness. And so, like, I guess, for Gandhi, how do you, kind of, remove yourself from those, from that temporal, kind of, like, those lusts and passions, and align yourself, again, with that oneness? Yeah. You know, to be honest, there isn't, I mean, obviously, a lot of certain practices and habits are very rooted in neuroscience, and I spoke to you about this earlier, so, like, a separate conversation, but I think, like, celibacy and self-restraint and fasting are actually very effective means of achieving that goal. I do think that Gandhi does, kind of, take it to the extreme with his fasting and stuff like that, but we can see how, like, for example, instead of using celibacy, if you can see people who are, like, addicts, you know what I mean? So, like, people for, like, for example, like, they're addicted to, like, pornography, for example, you can see how that's particularly dangerous in terms of the way that they now, like, perceive the world, as opposed to having that self-restraint and, like, basically not engaging in things that release too much dopamine in your mind and cause harmful cycles to yourself. Like, I guess his big part is just delaying short-term gratification, and I would say that if I were to try to cultivate, like, myself and become better in that form, I would certainly start with what he deems to be, like, self-restraint. So, I guess in terms of, like, the more long-term, like, moral consequences of, like, restraining short-term gratification, what do you think that kind of, like, gives you as, you know, like, as a moral agent? If you're... Yeah. Yeah. So, I think that's a really good question, because I feel like oftentimes, like, I think when people delay gratification, it's for some sort of reward. Like, if you study for a long time, for example, and you do well, if you practice enough, you become good. And this is a bit different, because there doesn't seem to be a clear outcome from the, like, action of delaying short-term gratification. And so, I think the part where he distinguishes, like, men from, like, beasts in their ability to exercise self-control is, like, in my opinion, I think it's, like, really, like, really, really important, because I think for me what Gandhi is able to get from his fasting is this level of introspection about his own body and mind. And so, like, you know, if you're intoxicated on certain things, you know, you're not able to think and have your own thoughts and reflect deeply. And to Gandhi, he says that's the essential part of, like, what makes us human and what helps us get closer to the truth and, like, as a result, God. Those conversations that you're having when, like, your mind is not being, you know, filled with dopamine and kind of, like, numbed with different forms of, like, pleasure. And so, I think that's the particular goal, like, allowing you to reflect and as a result there, like, being able to maybe achieve moksha. Yeah, that's what I would say. I'm curious to hear your opinion on that as well. Yeah, I mean, and also I'm thinking of, like, the way that, like, Confucian philosophers kind of describe, like, lowly men as being unable to exercise that kind of naturally endowed principle. And I think that is related to kind of the beast, like, you know, that is what kind of separates them. But I think in Confucian philosophy, it's more of, like, a spectrum of how much you can, like, you can develop and, like, cultivate that nature within yourself. Where I think maybe more in, like, for Gandhi, the renunciation of those kind of pleasures is in itself allowing you to, like, reach a certain, to a higher level. And that's where you can draw a distinction. But I don't think, like, I mean, I think you can make a distinction with Confucianism of, like, of, like, what the sage or the kunza, like, gentleman does. But I don't think you can say, like, oh, they're fundamentally different or not funny. There's, like, they're fundamentally, I guess, I think the different practices are a result of having, like, selfish desires and then not seeing the world as one. And then it becomes, like, fragmented. And it doesn't allow you to search within your own mind. And so, so kind of a quote that I wanted to bring in from Wang Yong-min is, later generations fail to realize that the highest good is inherent in their own minds that exercise their selfish ideas and cunning and grope for it outside their minds, believing that every event and every object has its own particular definite principle. For this reason, the law of right and wrong is obscured. The mind becomes concerned with fragmentary and isolated broken pieces as the selfish desires of man become rampant. And thus the learning of manifesting character and loving people is everywhere thrown into confusion. I think, like, that it very much relates to what you were talking about because it is the highest good, again, is within their own mind. And then, kind of, yeah, through their selfishness, they're looking for it outside of themselves instead of more, like, introspecting and seeing what they can, like, yeah, what, really trying to block those self-centered habits in order to reach that point, which I think may, could involve, like, self-pity, but doesn't necessarily. And so I think, like, yeah, yeah, I guess, like, the definite divide between renouncing things and then, like, yeah, not, for Gandhi, the difference between renouncing stuff and then, like, being kind of a slave to your pleasures is, yeah, or, you know, it allows you to reach for that truth. Yeah, there's a clear, like, I guess, comparison between us and, like, I guess not being, like, for Gandhi, not being super, like, extreme. Yeah. I think, yeah, you're right in the sense that, like, Neo-Confucianism, I think, strikes a stronger balance because it also allows you to assess on your relationships to the people and that, like, kind of related to, like, Aristotle, that, you know, different people require different, like, persons of view and, like, different levels of, like, things like brave, like, different qualities of you, you know what I mean? And that you are constantly, not changing, but you're adapting to people instead of Gandhi kind of it being, like, very extreme in terms of preserving long-term gratitude. From my quote, to pair up with what Eddie was saying, from Gandhi 41, the purpose of life is to undoubtedly know oneself. We cannot do it unless we learn to identify ourselves with all that lives. The sum of that life is God. Hence the necessity of realizing God living within every one of us. And so I don't think Gandhi is necessarily referring to God in terms of, like, a specific deity, but I think he's referring to the truth of the universe, which he believes is infinite, similar to how, like, a lot of other, um, monotheistic, uh, like, religions have gods that are, like, infinite. Um, I thought that, I think, like, particularly paired well with, um, Confucianism because in your quote, it made it seem like there was a very clear, like, block that needed to be navigated in order to resolve and to discover oneself. Um, and I think it's interesting to think about it more, like, metaphorically in terms of, like, the consequences of going around it instead of through it. Kind of this idea that, like, no matter what, like, it's going to come out in some shape or form. Um. And so I certainly believe that both share this idea of needing to connect to others to transcend from individuality to universal oneness. I also believe that both share very similar, um, values in terms of harmony and making sure that, you know, you know, everything kind of needs to be in tune with each other and not necessarily the same. Um. I think that's something that I know Gandhi believes in because he talks about dharma, artha, kama, moksha, like, the necessity to have them all. And I think that's also present, um, for you as well in Neo-Confucianism when you talk about, like, the cultivation of skills, like, across the board and knowledge not just being in the form of, like, knowing something but also being able to act on it as well. Hmm. Yeah. Um. Um. No, I think that's, like, very much related. No, to the idea of, like, harmony and which is very much related to, uh, to music. And so, uh, Li Qianyang wrote, like, an essay The Confucian Ideal of Harmony where she's kind of describing the way that, like, you know, if you're listening to a song, like, the same note isn't that doesn't sound good but, like, the myriad of the notes all coming together and forming one experience creates, um, is what, like, harmony is. And so then, which I've talked about before, you know, again, like, acting in accordance with your position. Um. But, also, I mean, I think that, like, um, maybe there are more separations in Zhang Ji's philosophy kind of in terms of, like, the different parts of the self. Um. But, which is... Yeah, I certainly believe that, like, um, Gandhi's relationship to the body is a lot more strict than Confucianism would be. Um. I think, you know, it starts from within. Like, I'm a very big believer in that. But I also feel like the way you treat your body and the way you treat your body does manifest itself in the way that you perceive yourself. And the way that, um, I feel like that's certainly something that, even though I know for sure that, um, Neo-Confucianism doesn't agree with, like, the extremities of the bodily practices that Gandhi, like, um, does, I know they would agree in the sense of, like, this idea of, like, self-preservation and, um, taking care of the body. Most definitely. Yeah, and I think that, like, I mean, I kind of want to talk about the aestheticism of Gandhi, too, because, like, it is, I feel like, Confucianism, I mean, all of Mencius's hymns, um, going around and talking to rulers, which, I mean, Gandhi is also kind of very much a part of, like, they're both political books, and then there's not, like, however, there's definitely a much more aesthetic kind of undertone to Gandhi, whereas, like, this, I feel like Confucianism is something that's, like, supposed to work within Chinese society. Um, I guess, like, yeah, how do you feel that maybe Chinese, um, like, do you think that's reflected in, like, Chinese culture? Or, like, I guess, you know how, like, religion, I feel like, plays a significant role in, like, um, the way that Chinese people, like, have certain cultural traditions, do you feel like that's been reflected in them? I mean, yeah, I think definitely. Like, I mean, the way, um, I mean, just, like, the way that you're supposed to act within the family, I think is very much, like, considered Confucian, and so, I mean, but, uh, but during the time period that we're talking about, that it's, uh, so, it's like the Song, Tong, Tong, and Ming dynasties, um, the Buddhism, Daoism, and Confucianism become part of everyone's kind of daily practice, so, um, Confucianism was kind of seen to be related more to, like, the state, and, like, political processes, and Buddhism is more, um, kind of, like, metaphysical, and about the way that the world works, and then Daoism is kind of, like, looking at the way that things change, or, like, yeah, um, but I think in terms of, like, more of a philosophical kind of way of, like, understanding, it was, like, the experiential knowledge of one's unity, so, like, putting it into action with all things with, like, the characteristics of the ideal states, like, your Ren is the prime motivator for generating moral action, so, like, becoming one, like, um, once you act in accordance to your unity, then you can act morally, um, and so, the unity of, like, self-centered desires kind of create this separation between knowledge and action, and so if you don't have that self-centered nature to you, then there isn't, then you're not, um, then you don't, you don't know what is good, and then fail to enact it, you simply act in accordance with what is good, because there's nothing, like, the self-centered nature is what is destructing you from seeing the good, and so, yeah, without that, then, you can truly act with knowledge in action and, like, in complete unity, and, like, I guess, like, is there a process in, for Gandhi or for Buddhism to, like, be able to reach that ideal state of oneness, or no self? You know, I think for Gandhi in particular, he, unfortunately, never figured it out. Um, I do, I think there's proof in the way his, um, his work of nonviolence occurred, um, and him viewing it as a transfer, like a, like a, was like a smooth, like, transfer of power, as opposed to, like, a war which often leaves, like, very large generational traumas, um, that impact not just that person, but, you know, their children, their friends, and their people. Um, I think, I think that's probably where, sorry, what were you going to say? Oh, no, I don't want to Oh, well, um, no, just this idea that I feel like Gandhi, one of his strongest concepts was that because he was able to, you know, he was able to do it on his own, but I think that that notion of having, um, preserving one's mind and truly getting someone to change not just their actions out of fear, but their belief systems out of, like, true, like, respect and, um, and humility, I feel like, um, I feel like that certainly taps into discovering oneself as an individual and being closer to oneness because you no longer, it doesn't require the tearing down of other people through, like, brute force, and we already know that Gandhi's super against that. Yeah, I guess, like, I think it's interesting differences. I feel like for the Chinese philosophers, a lot of it's, um, kind of dispensing knowledge, like, they understand, like, Mentis is a sage, so he understands like, he is living in the point that you need to get to, but Gandhi never figured it out, like, he was always searching, and do you think, so do you think that kind of changes the way that, like, you interact with their texts? Because, like, if you're reading, uh, Neo-Confucian texts, you kind of have an assumption that they have reached that state of unity, which probably isn't the case, and, like, even though a lot of, like, the, you know, Confucius or Mentis would deny that they have, there is that, like, double date. Double mystery. Yeah, they do know what's going on, but, like, yeah. How does that change my perspective? Yeah, right, you know, um, I do think that, um, Gandhi is very similar in that way. Um, I guess I would have to, you know, in terms of cultivating that level of mystery of, like, being humble and stuff like that, to be honest, I think that is a difference that, um, between, like, Mentis and Gandhi, like, when Gandhi says, like, that he wants to be humbler than dust, and that, like, he's really trying hard to be that, um, and that he's known better than anyone else, and he's yet to discover the truth. Um, there is that level of mystery. Um, but it certainly doesn't feel the same as it, like, I had in my experience of reading Mentis, for example, where it seemed like it was way more well thought out. But I also, you know, I also think that along with that, I feel like Gandhi's philosophy was, like, um, a bit more, like, his philosophy was a bit more, um, singular, as opposed to, like, Mentis, I feel like he was a lot more interconnected with different people in different ages, and was, like, picking up knowledge from, like, different, you know, he had, like, a, it always felt like he had a large repository of, like, information to get, like, knowledge and wisdom for, so I think that is certainly a difference that I've, I've seen, because you know, it seems like in Gandhi's attempt to try to be humble about being, um, like, I guess in trying to be humble and trying to say he hasn't cultivated the truth, I feel like a lot of his actions are so extreme that that, that, like, difference between him, like, you know, him just saying he's, like, a normal person, like, but then him doing these extreme things creates a level of distrust or, like, a lack of consistency as opposed to Mencius where it's a bit more balanced, so it seems a bit more consistent and therefore more, like, trustworthy. Yeah, yeah, definitely. Yeah. So, I think, I think, um, thank you so much, Professor Borg, for your wonderful semester. Um, we appreciate you so much. Um, yeah, hope you enjoy. Yeah, exactly. Have a, have a lovely day. Thank you so much.