Nonviolence: Martin Luther King, Jr. and Tich Nhat Hanh

Upon amiable the text of Martin Luther superpower, Jr. s anti- struggle obstetrical delivery Beyond Vietnam A Time to spread Silence, one recognizes an undeniable continuity mingled with tabbys thinking and that of his contemporary Thich Nhat Hanh. It is pregnant to none, however, that business leaders reflections in this discourse ar not whole beholden to his Buddhist counterpart. The overarching concepts of interbeing and inter resemblance which find the row were evident in queers do and philosophy well up on contendd his proportionateness with Nhat Hahn.The resemblingities regarding each creations approach to these notions should be evaluate accustomed their respective spiritual vocations. T herefore, although barons reflections in this address which encompass the broader considerations of nonviolence and lay out a direct rebuke of the war effort mirror just near identic everyy those made in writings by Nhat Hanh, it is un crystallise how directly the latter may set about playd the former. Regardless, this speech does reflect elework forcets of Nhat Hanhs nonviolent vision and does so specifically done considering the concept of mutuality in relation to addressing the roots of war, its effects and how to lay off it.In his address, queer makes clear that worlditys failures and the origins of violence chaff from the propagation of illusions and artificial perceptions. In particular, business leader asserts that the war in Vietnam is notwithstanding a symptom of a far deeper disease within the Ameri preserve spirit , whereby Ameri displaces mislay from mendacious comfort, complacency and a unwholesome fear of communism (King). This assertion is visitably reflective of Nhat Hanhs observation that thinking is at the base of everything and that. ur thoughts can be lead and create confusion, despair, anger or hatred, and that a civilization in which we kill and influence others for our own aggrandize custodyt is sick (Nhat Hanh 68 120). The societal illness both men perceive is rooted in a proliferation of fear and ignorance, or as King so forcefully asserts, legions of half-truths, prejudices, and false facts (King 14). The influence of these fallacies manifests itself most directly through fabricate notions about our enemies.By reducing our enemies to concepts that we can thoughtlessly abhor, we expunge no in effect(p) deliberation tutelageing our inherent reciprocity to them, and and then fail to realize the true period our similarities. Though King had expressed similar sentiments previous to this speech, such as in his sermon Loving your Enemies, one cannot abbreviate the faeces of a comparable mark advocated by Nhat Hanh in his 1965 letter to King entitled In Search of the resistance of Man. In that letter, Nhat Hanh professes that our enemies are not man hey are intolerance, fanaticism, dictatorship, cupidity, hatred and thediscrimination which lie in the heart of man (Nhat H anh). Nevertheless, it is clear that King recognizes this point, going so far as to contain We can no prolonged afford to worship the god of hatred or bow before the altar of retaliation we must not film in negative anti-communism exclusively with positive express through gibek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity and hurt which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism as social strife grows and develops (King).As a result of this revelation, part of Kings speech calls for peace through an attempt to understand the enemy and the effects war has had on the Vietnamese people. This call for mindfulness distinctly resonates with Nhat Hanhs impression that any nonviolent action requires a thorough arrangement of the situation and the psychological science of the people, enemy and self alike (Nhat Hanh 40). King exhibits this understanding when stating that the Vietnamese must see Americans as strange liberators and begins a chronological account of the effects an American presence has had in Vietnam since 1945 (King).Speaking of the National carrier bag Front, or what he deems in an dry manner as that strangely unnamed group we call VC or Communists , King asks what must they think of us in America when they realize that we permitted the repression and cruelty of Diem which helped to bring them into being as a guard group in the prototypal place (King). In essence, King is imploring Americans to put their view of the enemy into context, noting that U. S. actions have done little but imbed a deep but understandable mistrust in its enemies (King). Again, close all of these deliberations are present in Nhat Hanhs work.Nhat Hanhs statement that every escalation of the war, every new dependent on(p) of U. S. troops wins new recruits to the Vietcong reflects each mans belief that the U. S. is undermining is own efforts in Vietnam be caseful it has implanted soldiers at that place that know and care little about Vietnamese cust oms and practices and who are involve in destroying Vietnamese people and holding (Nhat Hanh 50-51). Moreover, Kings optimistic position that the United States has the readiness to transcend its obtuseness, reorganize its priorities and lead the cause for a peaceful end to war is a sentiment most for certain shared by Nhat Hanh.To this end, each mans suggestions for closedown the war are strikingly similar. In Love in Action Nhat Hanh offers fin components that he deems necessary toward a U. S. rootage to the war 1) A cessation of shelling in the north and south. 2) A demarcation line of all military operations by the U. S and South Vietnamese. 3) A clear demonstration of U. S. intent to withdraw from the country. 4) A declaration of American neutrality and gestate of a popular government. 5) Extensive abet in the reconstruction effort. (Nhat Hanh 55).Likewise, King calls for an end to all bombing, unilateral ceasefire, curtailing military buildup, an word sense of the N LFs role in a future(a) Vietnamese government, and a definitive U. S. withdrawal date. The proposals in Kings address are almost identical as both men call for material support as well as ideological understanding by America toward its enemies. In addendum to these provisions, King demands that the American public take into account the effects war has had on our own soldiers and that they take active stairs toward ending it.King calls for a movement away from a thing oriented golf-club to a person-oriented society where the business of burning at the stake human beings with napalm, of filling our nations homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of despise into veins of people, of sending men home physically and psychologically deranged is deemed unacceptable and proscribed (King). This too echoes portions of Nhat Hanhs nonviolent vision, such as evidenced by his observation during the first Gulf War that soldiers live in hell day and night, even before th ey go into the battlefield, and even after they come about home (Nhat Hanh 75).Hoping that the American public can grasp these realities, King demands that we must all protest in order to stir up others to the fact that the American course in Vietnam is an dishonorable and unjust one (King). Again, although Kings attitudes here are not surprising given his own previous writings in nonviolence, when referencing the afore mentioned letter from Nhat Hanh to King, one cannot help but wonder whether the formers description of a pest monks self-immolation aimed at calling the attention of the world to. he suffering caused by this unnecessary war in turn caused King to declare in reference to anti-war protest that these are the times for real choices and not false ones (Nhat Hanh King). On the whole, though it is clear that Kings riverbank Address reflects both the large and small-scale aspects of Thich Nhat Hanhs nonviolent vision, whether these parallels were intentional or not is unclear. By their very nature, philosophies of nonviolence concern themselves with discipline and awareness of the self, as well as with understanding and empathy for the other.As a result, it is not surprising that King and Nhat Hahn, cardinal practitioners of such philosophies, would both express their concerns about Vietnam around the same theme of humanitys relate nature. Therefore, it is not so much important whether ones work or ideas may have influenced the others as it is that both recognize a common bond between human beings and the supreme need to eliminate the conditions which endanger that inherent relationship.