It is so easy to poke fun at ascetics -- or moral posturers of any type -- that I usually give in to the temptation. Their philosophy does not agree with the Prime Directive of this blog: living at the point of diminishing returns.
I have no interest in renouncing the Prime Directive since I am thoroughly convinced that it is sane, prudent, rational, and adult. If I were acting as if I were going to renounce it, the readers should be suspicious of an April Fool's joke. That sort of thing does not appeal to me.
Rather than renounce a good principle, it is better to think of 'exceptions that prove the rule.' Any essay on asceticism fits in with the tradition of New Year's resolutions. It also coincides with the biography I have just finished, "Gandhi Before India," by Ramachandra Guha.
Before talking about asceticism I would like to praise biographies of a certain type. This biography was about a man, not a "Mahatma." Those of you who have seen the well-known movie by director Richard Attenborough, "Gandhi," might remember how interesting the main character was at the beginning of his career, in South Africa, and how uninteresting and unsympathetic the "Mahatma" was in India. Why, he was virtually a "moral terrorist," with his hunger strikes and endless moral posing. If he tried that on me, I would have let him starve to death.
This may well be the case with biographies of many of the great men of history. I once read a non-hagiography of Robert E. Lee, and liked it for the same reason as this non-hagiography of Gandhi. Men are boring when they become "the great man on horseback," immortalized in a bronze or marble statue. As a reader, I want to be a pigeon who poops on the statue.
In a non-hagiography we get to speculate about how the man got started down a certain track. What was he visualizing? How did he overcome the fear of failure or recover from setbacks? How did he manage the competing pressures of being a husband and father? How important was sheer luck? Who were the unsung heroes along the way?
Good grief I haven't even said anything about asceticism yet. Let it wait until next time.
I have no interest in renouncing the Prime Directive since I am thoroughly convinced that it is sane, prudent, rational, and adult. If I were acting as if I were going to renounce it, the readers should be suspicious of an April Fool's joke. That sort of thing does not appeal to me.
Rather than renounce a good principle, it is better to think of 'exceptions that prove the rule.' Any essay on asceticism fits in with the tradition of New Year's resolutions. It also coincides with the biography I have just finished, "Gandhi Before India," by Ramachandra Guha.
Before talking about asceticism I would like to praise biographies of a certain type. This biography was about a man, not a "Mahatma." Those of you who have seen the well-known movie by director Richard Attenborough, "Gandhi," might remember how interesting the main character was at the beginning of his career, in South Africa, and how uninteresting and unsympathetic the "Mahatma" was in India. Why, he was virtually a "moral terrorist," with his hunger strikes and endless moral posing. If he tried that on me, I would have let him starve to death.
This may well be the case with biographies of many of the great men of history. I once read a non-hagiography of Robert E. Lee, and liked it for the same reason as this non-hagiography of Gandhi. Men are boring when they become "the great man on horseback," immortalized in a bronze or marble statue. As a reader, I want to be a pigeon who poops on the statue.
In a non-hagiography we get to speculate about how the man got started down a certain track. What was he visualizing? How did he overcome the fear of failure or recover from setbacks? How did he manage the competing pressures of being a husband and father? How important was sheer luck? Who were the unsung heroes along the way?
Good grief I haven't even said anything about asceticism yet. Let it wait until next time.
Comments
The Prime Directive seems no more of a moral posture to me than saying that sanity is better than insanity, or success is better than futility.
I'm afraid I'm missing your larger point....what are you trying to fix? Are you trying to save the world? People have adamantly disagreed throughout the ages on how to do that.
Truly, I am very glad you like your lifestyle. However, I have to say I'm a bit suspicious because you are always trying to convince everyone else that your lifestyle is superior. That does indeed take on an air of moral superiority.
The primary mechanism of the passive absorption is watching TV commercial after TV commercial.
Do you presume that everyone who is in the middle ground has "passively absorbed" an "unchosen" lifestyle?
Some, yes. I would agree that is true for some. But my point here is to hopefully open your eyes a bit to the fact that some people can be as rational, intelligent, analytical, critical, and as bold to strike out independently as you, yet, still not make the same life decisions you have made. In fact, can actually make life decisions that appear to contradict your particular life decisions.
Can you see that? Or are you of the mind that unless others' decisions meet your stamp of approval, they are guilty of being passively absorbed with their "unchosen" lifestyle?
Now that you've studied Ghandi, I suppose your next post about the ascetic lifestyle will include your experiences with conserving water by drinking your own urine?
I'd add a smiley face, but those aren't allowed.