1. Satya/Truth: Satyagraha as stated before literally means truth force.

Truth is
relative. Man is not capable of knowing the absolute truth. Satyagraha implies
working steadily towards a discovery of the absolute truth and converting the
opponent into a trend in the working process. What a person sees as truth may
just as clearly be untrue for another. Gandhi made his life a numerous
experiments with truth. In holding to the truth, he claims to be making a
ceaseless effort to find it.
Gandhi’s conception of truth is deeply rooted in Hinduism. The emphasis of Satya-
truth is paramount in the writings of the Indian philosophers. “Satyannasti
Parodharmati (Satyan Nasti Paro Dharma Ti) – there is no religion or duty greater
than truth”, holds a prominent place in Hinduism. Reaching pure and absolute
truth is attaining moksha. Gandhi holds that truth is God, and maintains that it is
an integral part of Satyagraha. He explains it thus:
The world rests upon the bedrock of satya or truth; asatya meaning untruth also
means “nonexistent” and satya or truth, means that which is of untruth does not
so much exist. Its victory is out of the question. And truth being “that which is”
can never be destroyed. This is the doctrine of Satyagraha in a nutshell.13
2. Ahimsa: In Gandhi’s Satyagraha, truth is inseparable from Ahimsa. Ahimsa
expresses as ancient Hindu, Jain and Buddhist ethical precept. The negative prefix
‘a’ plus himsa meaning injury make up the world normally translated
‘nonviolence’. The term Ahimsa appears in Hindu teachings as early as the
Chandoya Upanishad. The Jain Religion constitutes Ahimsa as the first vow. It is a
cardinal virtue in Buddhism. Despite its being rooted in these Religions, the special
contribution of Gandhi was:
To make the concept of Ahimsa meaningful in the social and political
spheres by moulding tools for nonviolent action to use as a positive
force in the search for social and political truths. Gandhi formed Ahimsa
into the active social technique, which was to challenge political
authorities and religious orthodoxy. 14
It is worth noting that this ‘active social technique which was to challenge political
authorities’, used by Gandhi is none other than Satyagraha. Truly enough, the
Indian milieu was already infused with notions of Ahimsa. Nevertheless, Gandhi
acknowledged that it was an essential part of his experiments with the truth
whose technique of action he called Satyagraha.
At the root of Satya and Ahimsa is love. While making discourses on the
Bhagavad-Gita, an author says:
Truth, peace, righteousness and nonviolence, Satya, Shanti,
Dharma and Ahimsa, do not exist separately. They are all essentially
dependent on love. When love enters the thoughts it becomes truth.
When it manifests itself in the form of action it becomes truth. When
Love manifests itself in the form of action it becomes Dharma or
righteousness. When your feelings become saturated with love you
become peace itself. The very meaning of the word peace is love. When
you fill your understanding with love it is Ahimsa. Practicing love
is Dharma, thinking of love is Satya, feeling love is Shanti, and
understanding love is Ahimsa. For all these values it is love which flows
as the undercurrent.15

Literally speaking, Ahimsa means non-killing. But to me it has a world of meaning

and takes me into realms much higher, infinitely higher. It really means that you
may not offend anybody; you may not harbor an uncharitable thought, even in
connection with one who may consider himself to be your enemy. To one who follows
the doctrine there is no room for an enemy. But there may be people who consider
themselves to be his enemies. So it is held that we may not harbor an evil thought
even in connection with such persons. If we return blow for blow, we depart from the
doctrine of Ahisma. But I go father. If we resent a friend’s action, or the so-called
enemy’s action, we still fall short of this doctrine.

But when I say we should not resent, I do not mean that we should acquiesce: by
the word "resenting", I mean wishing that some harm should be done to the enemy;
or that he should be put out of the way, not even by any action of ours, but by the
action of somebody else, or, say, by divine agency. If we harbor even this thought
we depart from the doctrine of Non-Violence. Those who join the Ashram have
literally to accept that meaning.

That does not mean that we practice that doctrine in its entirety. Far from it. It is an
ideal to be reached even at this very moment, if we are capable of doing so. But ... it
is not like solving difficult problems in higher mathematics - it is infinetly more
difficult. Many of us have burnt the midnight oil in solving these problems. But if you
want to follow out this doctrine you will have to pass many a sleepless night, and go
through many a mental torture, before you can even be within measurable distance
of this goal.

It is this goal, and nothing less than that, which you and I have to reach, if we want
to understand what a religious life means. A man who believes in the efficacy of this
doctrine finds in the ultimate stage, when he is about to reach the goal, the whole
world at his feet. If you express your love - Ahimsa - in such a manner that it
impresses itself indelibly upon your so-called enemy, he must return that love.

Under this rule there is no room for organized assassinations, or for

murders openly committed, or for violence for the sake of your country,
and even for guarding the honor of precious ones that may be under
your charge. After all, that would be a poor defense of their honor. This
doctrine tells us that we may guard the honor of those under our charge
by delivering our own lives into the hands of the man who would
commit the sacrilege. And that requires far greater courage than
delivering of blows. If you do not retaliate, but stand your ground
between your charge and the opponent, simply receiving the blows
without retaliating, what happens? I give you my promise that the
whole of his violence will be expended on you, and your friend will be
left unscathed. Under this plan of life there is no conception of
patriotism which justifies such wars as you witness today in Europe.
1. Nonviolence (Ahimsa)Ahimsa, or nonviolence, is a universal first principle
of nonoffensive living. Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Jews, Muslims, Christians,
and followers of all other religions, one way or another, have to a greater or
lesser extent proclaimed this to be fundamental. Nonviolence should underlie
all relationships among humans and between humans and the nonhuman
world. Nonviolence is part of the perennial philosophy. But Gandhi made it
more relevant to our time by using it as a weapon of resistance to social
injustice, to British colonialism, to economic exploitation of the weak by the
strong, and to caste discrimination in India.

Nonviolence goes much further than not killing. On a personal level it begins
with nonviolence of mind. At the ashram I was taught to cultivate the skill of
restraint from any aggressive, offensive, damaging thought. If by any chance I
had entertained violence in the mind, I was to cultivate the skill of not expressing
it in speech. Words which wound or insult or debase another can precipitate a
cycle of violence. I learned to express my opinions about politics, politicians, or
people with whom I disagreed in a respectful manner. If I lost control of my
speech then, of course, I was to avoid physical violence at all costs. If I was
attacked verbally or physically, then I was to respond through the techniques of
nonviolent defense.
The nonviolent way is the way of the strong and the brave. This is not passivity
and not weakness. Gandhi always kept a Chinese miniature of the three wise
monkeys on his desk. One covers its eyes with both paws, one covers its ears,
and one covers its mouth. This figure symbolizes see no evil, speak no evil, and
hear no evil.
It seems to me that the strife and conflict which are so prevalent in the world
today are the results of our belief in the power of violence. In spite of all the
wars, conquests, colonialism, and imperialism, humanity has learned nothing. We
still believe in violence as the ultimate sanction. From newspaper articles to
nuclear weapons, we follow the path of violence. Hindus and Muslims in India,
Jews and Palestinians in the Middle East, Catholics and Protestants in Northern
Ireland are too ready to believe that ultimately they will find a solution through
violence. For me this is not an option.
At the ecological level, humanity has been at war with nature. Our desire to
conquer nature has led to destruction of wilderness, reduction of biodiversity,
production of poisonous chemicals, construction of megacities, megadams,
megaindustries, and megacorporations. This has resulted in polluted seas,
polluted rivers, polluted air, depleted foods, and eroded land. Our cruelty to
animals, our disregard for traditional tribal cultures and their rights, our
relentless drive to extract oil and other minerals without limit are all part of the
same story.
We need to change this story. The story of violence is too old and boring.
Humanity and the Earth have suffered enough. Let the new millennium begin
with a new story, the story of nonviolence. In this story all relationships are
embedded in the spirit of mutuality and reciprocity, the spirit of reverence for all
life — human life, animal life, plant life, the life of rock, soil, and water. Only by
living in a story of the sanctity of life can life be sustained.
In our arrogance we humans have assumed that we are the masters of nature
and that we can cause havoc and devastation all around us yet somehow escape
harm ourselves. When we do not impose violence on others, others will not
impose violence on us, but if we live by the sword, we will die by the sword. The
result of nonviolence is peace at all levels. Personal peace, world peace, and
peace with nature.
Without inner peace, no other peace can be realized. If I have achieved a degree of
peace of mind within myself, then I will not fear others, but if I have not been able to
overcome my personal fears, then it is easy for political and military leaders to
create in me fear of an external enemy. Every day on the radio and television and in
the newspapers I hear or read about "enemies." We are all divided into different
groups and fear somebody. So many of the world’s resources are spent on
armaments, which are connected with our inner insecurity. War and violence begin in
our minds. So unless I start with myself and make peace with myself, I cannot
achieve peace in the world.
This inner peace should be translated into world peace. I cannot retire into the
serene space of my inner peace and leave the world as it is. I cannot sit calmly
meditating while nuclear weapons pile up. So nonviolent action to bring peace in the
world is a natural consequence of inner peace.
World peace is a building block to making peace with nature. When nations fight,
when bombs are dropped, it is not only human beings who are killed; natural
habitats are also destroyed. But no one counts the cost of nature’s demise. Making
peace with nature is important even if there is no war, because war with nature
leads to war between nations. Most wars are fought over resources and to protect
markets. Wars are less and less political and more and more economic. All wars are
wars against nature since they involve a tremendous amount of air pollution, sea
pollution, and land pollution; land mines are a case in point. So the nations of the
world have to agree unanimously that, whatever their dispute, diplomatic and
nonviolent methods will be the only course they will follow; under no circumstances
will violence be used.
Of course, this will not happen overnight, but if this could be a new millennium
resolution and if, step by step, the world could work toward this goal, then one day
we might establish a nonviolent social order. In the wake of nuclear, biological, and
chemical warfare, and in the wake of global warming, ozone depletion, and world
hunger, the stark choice is between nonviolence and nonexistence.

2. Truth (Satya)Satya, or truth, means seeing reality as it is. Although we can

never be sure of the nature of ultimate reality, it is right and proper to seek
it. There is no one truth which can be described, explained, and defined in
language. Buddha, Jesus Christ, Mahavir, Mohammed, and Socrates have all
been seekers of truth. Poets, saints, and mystics like Kabir, Tulsidas, Rumi,
Hildegard of Bingen, Mother Julian of Norwich, and St. Francis experienced
the divine and the sacred in all things. For them that was the truth. But we
cannot live on the wealth of our ancestors. We must seek our own treasure
and take up the quest to find our own truth. Truth is multifaceted and
pluralistic. Seeing existence in all its mysterious diversity yet realizing its
wholeness prevents me from imposing a monolithic belief system onto it. The
quest for truth is a liberating journey; it liberates me from dogmas, both
religious and political. There is no final point at which I could say that I have
found the truth, this is the truth, and this is the truth for everyone. The
moment truth is imprisoned in a belief system, the truth is lost. As long as the
experience and the techniques of other seekers are used as pointers, as
signposts, then those disciplines and methods can be of some help. But the
signpost is not the real thing. Truth cannot be preached; it can be
communicated, if at all, only in dialogue and conversation and, more
important, through living example. Truth is not a commodity which can be
dished out from temples and churches. Truth is not something which can be
conceptualized or extracted from holy books. It has to be lived and
experienced.
 Seekers of truth are free from all kinds of fundamentalism. It is easy to see
the fundamentalism of others but more difficult to recognize one’s own. So
Christians may criticize Muslim fundamentalism without recognizing their own
fundamentalism. Similarly, capitalists may criticize socialist fundamentalism
and forget that the fundamentalism of the free market is no less oppressive.
Those who preach the superiority of Western democracy are in as much
danger of undermining the community-based tribal cultures as those who
preach the politics of the one-party state.
The fundamentalism of the global economy suppresses ideas and information
in the name of trade secrets, intellectual property rights, patenting, and
copyright. Monopoly businesses create monoculture economies as well as
monoculture of the mind. Such monoism is the bedfellow of dualism and
blocks the search for and discovery of multifaceted truth.

To follow the way of truth is to have no preconditions, no prejudice.

It is a way to face things as they are. Truth is the "isness" of Zen. The pursuit of
truth is unconditional and open-minded inquiry and exploration, up to the last
moment of our lives.