Rabino, Eliza Marie C.

Hum10/A6

1.) What is ahimsa? Why did Gandhi say that it is always equated to truth? Explain briefly
your point.
Ahimsa is the ancient Sanskrit term usually translated for of non-violence, this means that
whatever hurt or pain you are given you do not retaliate violently. Anger is the enemy of
ahimsa and blinds them from seeing the truth. Only love can overcome hate, hate cannot
overcome hate. Hate is the subtle form of violence, Ahimsa is the absence of hatred.
This is the act of Gandhi saw this as the noblest expression of truth. He compared them to
two sides of the coin; where ahimsa is the means and truth is the end. In nonviolence you can
search for the truth. Ahimsa is the basis of truth, without ahimsa it is for naught. Truth and
nonviolence constitute the essence of God, God is truth and love. He lived by this when the
British soldiers locked as well as beat his people up. We can only win over the opponent by
love, never by hate. It takes great will and bravery to face those who hurt you and still treat
them as what you would treat your best friend.
2.) Explain the idea: the practice of ahimsa teaches one the art of dying.
Ahimsa is the way of non-violence, which is considered to be the greatest force at
disposal of mankind. How so? Non-violence has no cause of fear, and fears nothing but God.
It is only through non-violence when we love those who hate us. Non-violence is not a cover
for cowardice but rather requires the greatest bravery as you take it upon yourself to forgive
those who have hurt you. Violence begets vengeance which is a weakness, vengeance is
caused by fear, and a dog bites because he fears. Let go of your earthly tether and seek refuge
in God.
In order to protect ourselves, we should learn to endure all hardships. A non-violent
person would lay his life down when he sees two of his brethren bickering instead of running
away in fear. The violent person may have earthly weapons to harm the non-violent person
but God is the shield of the non-violent.
3.) Compare and contrast Benigno S. Aquino with Gandhi? In what ways were they similar?
Both of them were living in a state of rule which was unfair to their country. While
Benigno lived in a dictatorial rule, Gandhi lived in the colonization rule of Britain. Both of
them were leaders to a great revolution which changed the nation and the way they did it
differ from each other. Both of them suffered great ordeals as well. Both were arrested and

imprisoned due to their political movements. They both wanted independence for their
country and both died for it.
One of the things Gandhi did was, that he took salt from the river, which was illegal at
that time, as his people saw this they did the same. Many of them were imprisoned as well as
beaten up by the police but none of them retaliated. They believed in not using violence to
solve their problems. With disobedience of the law, he hoped to change it.
Benigno neither used violence instead but moved the nation into not using revenge but
compassion. He gave speeches on why the Filipino should stand up and fight for their
country and that they are an important asset to their country.
As to the People Power Movement in the Phillipines and the Free India Movement -both were grassroots, both were non-violent. And both Gandhi and Aquino were assassinated
for their political beliefs, coincidentally both were shot. Both Aquino and Gandhi went to jail
as well as fasted in protest.
4.) What does their dialogue reveal about these two characters?
The poem starts with the author looking for a place to live in and does not wish to have
a wasted journey. The price was affordable and he was willing to take it. He makes a
telephone call to the landlady whose first question was his skin color. In the poem it is
shown that the landlady is rich but is shown to be racist.
The author is shown to be sorry for what his skin color was and he seems to be an
intelligent person using the multitude of hues on the color scale to provide her information
about his skin color. The clever use of imagery creates a sense of irony on how ridiculous
racism is. With the use of his colorful array an imaginative mind, he is not the savage the
landlady presumes him to be.
5.) What do you think of the speakers final question?
I think it was very impolite and very rude even for a well-bred person. Which
definitely shows how intense racism was back in the day for the speaker to be more
interested in the persons skin color instead of his offer. The repetition of the question can
drive anyone into madness.
He tries not to show anger but the discrimination and prejudice is just too much for
even one man to handle.
6.) What is the significance of the last line, where the narrator asks the rhetorical question:
"Wouldn't you like to see for yourself?"
He asks the landlady that she see him rather for herself in order for her to judge. The
irony in would you rather see for yourself actually refers to the speaker referring to his
black bottom when he asks her if she wishes to see it for herself. But at this point the
landlady has already hung up on him.

Although it is not mentioned in the poem, the reason why the landlady asked what his
skin color is because she was brought up to think that these African Americans were brutes
and savages but when in truth, he was a very educated individual and she was just racist.
And it was a foolish move to judge a person by their cover.