PDA

View Full Version : Ahimsa and the Bhagavad Gita



indianx
14 February 2007, 09:07 PM
A dear friend from another forum has posed this question:


I've begun to read the Gita, and in doing so find myself in despair. You see I've heard that Gandhi's popular technique of non-violence was derived from the Gita, but when I myself started to read the Gita today I became almost disgusted by Krishna's lack of hesitation to attack the Kauravas , and how Arjuna should not feel guilt in killing them, for although the body dies the soul is eternal. Yet earlier in Mahabharata he tries to stop the war, and I here that after Karna dies he mourns his death along with the rest of the Pandavas, yet in the Gita he says there is no meaning for the mourning of a fallen friend let alone an enemy. Why is it that Krishna seems to show both a lack of empathy for the Kauravas , yet mourns one of their own deaths later on, and how could a technique such as non-violence be derived from such a book.


What is your opinion on this matter?

satay
14 February 2007, 10:03 PM
namaste,
I have wondered about the same. i.e how to drive ahimsa principles if one only looks at Gita as the scripture for kali yuga.

I suspect that the jain influence mahatma gandhi had in his life has something more to do with ahimsa principles than gita.

karn was the eldest brother of pandvas and the eldest son of kunti and sun god.

sm78
14 February 2007, 10:14 PM
Hi Inidanx,

The war of Mahabharata was not the desire of the Pandavas neither Krishna. It was solely brought upon by Duryodhana on himself after commiting a series of injustice on his borthers and trying to KILL them multiple times.

I'm appaled that your friend compares Gita with the folly of the person known as "Mahatma" who single handely ruined a nation and earned a title for his msdeeds. All countries big and small got independence from Britain during the same period, none other than us crafted out a false hero out of it.

Gandhi's non-violence has no meaning in Vedic religion. Vedic ahimasa has been summurised in one line by Kanchi Paramacharya -- see my sig line. Niether Krishna nor Arjuna ever commited himsha.

The teaching of the Gita is to stand beyond all moha's that afflict us ~ problem is very very few people in kali yuga (including the great spiritual teachers) were beyond all Moha and thus we have countless philosophies since Gita, but none which is so clear on action.(Mohas:- normal mohas of eat sleep sex, then comes spiritual mohas as one realizes partial spritual truths love, happiness, peace, emptyness etc, but Atman is not this, not this!!!)

Jai Sri Krishna, the achyuta - who never falls from the truth of Atman.

Sagefrakrobatik
23 July 2008, 10:40 AM
Perhaps Ghandhi was more influenced by Jesus than Hinduism. If Ghandhi isnt who should be looked at as represented Hinduism who should? Ravi Shankar?

arvind
19 May 2009, 12:47 AM
Dear idianx,

For undersatnding this you need to know the reasons behind the war. Krisha was never in favour of the war and He tried his best to persuade them. But every one has to get results of their actions and the Kauravs get the same. Even if Arjuna have decided not to fight they all would have killed by someone else. Thats wat the Krishna tells that , the Atman is nether killed nor kills , then why is he running away from his duties.

Non-violence of Gandhiji would not have worked with Kauravs. But Krishan even tried that. Gandhiji used the non-violence against British as they were a bit understanding people , but he would never have used this strategy against someone like Hitler. Duryodhan was like Hitler and he needed to be crushed else he would have destroyed everyone.

LALKAR
19 May 2009, 08:29 AM
Namaste All

No I don't think this, read Gita with satvik mind take a look everywere all you will find nothing is right than Gita's teachings

Take for example- Non Violance is a must so we should avoid Army?
By this terrorism will rise. Who needs war but military is compulsry. In this Gita does not teach violence but Karma.

another example- We should love our relatives and not kill them so Arjun was right in avoiding war?
By this pandavs could have become beggers
Even today there are many disputes between verious relatives, some can even kill for it, and victims goes to court for justice. Is that wrong? At the time of Mahabharat Duryodhan was Chief Justice himself. So pandavs left with no choice. Just imagine what will happen if court deny Justice today? The same will follow and talk of peace there would be stupidity.

Mr. All Gita is not a novel It is TRUTH take examples from deeds not from words

chandu_69
31 July 2009, 08:50 AM
Namaste All

No I don't think this, read Gita with satvik mind take a look everywere all you will find nothing is right than Gita's teachings

Take for example- Non Violance is a must so we should avoid Army?
By this terrorism will rise. Who needs war but military is compulsry. In this Gita does not teach violence but Karma.

another example- We should love our relatives and not kill them so Arjun was right in avoiding war?
By this pandavs could have become beggers
Even today there are many disputes between verious relatives, some can even kill for it, and victims goes to court for justice. Is that wrong? At the time of Mahabharat Duryodhan was Chief Justice himself. So pandavs left with no choice. Just imagine what will happen if court deny Justice today? The same will follow and talk of peace there would be stupidity.

Mr. All Gita is not a novel It is TRUTH take examples from deeds not from words

excellent post Lalkarji.This stupid concept of nonviolence is derived from Hippocratic missionaries.

chandu_69
03 August 2009, 10:36 AM
namaste,



I have wondered about the same. i.e how to drive ahimsa principles if one only looks at Gita as the scripture for kali yuga.

The following verses stresses about Non-violence(AHIMSA)

Gita 16:2 Ahimsaa satyam krodhastyaagah: shaantirpaishunam |Dayaa bhuteShvalolupatvam maardavam rhirchaapalam

Translation 16:1-3:

Fearlessness; purification of one’s existence; cultivation of spiritual knowledge; charity; self-control;
performance of sacrifice; study of the Vedas; austerity; simplicity; nonviolence; truthfulness; freedom from anger; renunciation; tranquility; aversion to faultfinding; compassion for all living entities; freedom from covetousness; gentleness; modesty; steady determination; vigor; forgiveness; fortitude; cleanliness; and freedom from envy and from the passion for honor—these
transcendental qualities, O son of Bharata, belong to godly men endowed with divine nature.

GITA: 10:5 Ahimsa samataa tushtistapo daanam yashoyashah:|
GITA 13:7 amaanitvam-adambhitvam-ahimsaa kshaanti-aarjavamaacharya-upaasanaam-shoucham sthairyam aatma-vinigraham 1.



I suspect that the jain influence mahatma gandhi had in his life has something more to do with ahimsa principles than gita.

Actually GandhiJi had his own Brand of Ahimsa(Non Violence).

'Mahatma' Gandhi Ji had prescribed Ahimsa for Indians as a method to fight Against British while He had no problem in sending about 2 Million Indians to Fight in World war wherein about 40000 indian soldiers perished.

Gandhiji's concept of Non-Violence is unique .It has no parallels in history.

rcscwc
08 September 2010, 10:55 PM
Dear idianx,

For undersatnding this you need to know the reasons behind the war. Krisha was never in favour of the war and He tried his best to persuade them. But every one has to get results of their actions and the Kauravs get the same. Even if Arjuna have decided not to fight they all would have killed by someone else. Thats wat the Krishna tells that , the Atman is nether killed nor kills , then why is he running away from his duties.

Non-violence of Gandhiji would not have worked with Kauravs. But Krishan even tried that. Gandhiji used the non-violence against British as they were a bit understanding people , but he would never have used this strategy against someone like Hitler. Duryodhan was like Hitler and he needed to be crushed else he would have destroyed everyone.

It did not work with muslims. It did not work with Jinnah or Pakistan. Result was millions of Hindus massacred, crores uprooted.

It was not his ahimsa alone which compelled the British to leave. It was also due to Netaji who showed that Indian soldiers can no longer be expected to act as occupation army.

kallol
09 September 2010, 07:30 AM
My take :

Please read the Mahabharat meticulously and find the contexts.

When all options through non-violence exhaust then comes the duty of upholding the dharma through a war.

Duty is not an emotional action so understand Krishna's words from that angle.

Bharat did the duty of representing Rama in Ayodha. He did his best to serve the throne which was for Rama. In that duty you have passion but not emotions or attachment.

Gandhi followed the path and got success before the violence part. If it was not so then there would be some one else to take it forward.

So it is not that Gandhi did not follow Gita. Even now as a country we follow to some extent. We exhaust all options and then only we take hard steps. Yes this is embedded in our nations pschye. We have paid for it also but again this is the permanent strata - PEACE. We need not disturb it at the slightest opportunity then we will remain restless.

Love and best wishes

NetiNeti
10 September 2010, 11:33 AM
Krishna wanted peace and did not want battle. He stated that he would talk to the enemy and try to make peace but if they threatened him he would "turn them to ash."

Here we see much truth. Violence and self-defense are two different things. The Hindu is non-violent in that he must exhaust all options before engaging in a battle. He does not start fights, instead, he responds to the enemy. If someone attacks your wife or child, you must defend them with the ferocity of Sri Narasimha. You had no other option and therefore are not being violent.

Arjuna and Sri Krishna attempted peace talk to no avail. They then did their duty and fought the war as hard as they could, showing mercy and following the laws of engagement. This is not himsa or violence, it is duty.

Ghandi had a more Jainist or Buddhist view of ahimsa. Look at the Dali Lama being driven out of his land by China. No Hindu would have allowed that to happen without a fight.

Bruce Lee said that self-defense is a God given right but violence must be avoided at all costs. Killing an animal for no reason is violent. Protecting yourself from a wild animal is not. Do you see?

Vaishnava
10 September 2010, 07:55 PM
Mind behaves in Extremes. It will either completely disregard non-violence or completely attempts non-violence! Hinduism teaches the right balance.

Krishna avoids NEEDLESS violence and if He decides war is required then it is REALLY required!

Everyone knows that Krishna tried utmost to avoid the war by

1. Asking the Pandavas and Draupadi repeatedly to sacrifice their demands for justice to have peace, as war has disastrous consequences.
2. Prompting the Pandavas to first demand their rightful share to the kingdom.
3. After that forsake the idea of even getting their half kingdom and Indraprasth back and ask for just FIVE villages!!

But even when this offer was rejected, it was not at all about personal gains. The choices that Krishna saw were:

1. Leave silently to the forest abandoning the duty of a cop and let the Kauravas take over the world. Then under the reign of evil leaders and their heirs, let the people become subject to exploitation under the full protection of helpless good men like Bhishma.
2. Sacrifice the interest of the few good for the sake a healthy nation to come.

Consider this:

If your brother is a terrorist and you are a cop, what do you do? Krishna says: talk with him, negotiate and if nothing works do not hesitate a second! We are the souls not this body to let attachment come in the way of doing the right thing.

But why is Arjuna hesitating? Then we get the blessed Bhagavad Gita! Duty is never contradictory to the goal!

Also, one thing to note is that some politicians and people quote Ram and Krishna for justifying religious and unjustified violence. This is absurd! It is not anyone and everyone's duty to promote such violence.

Gita promotes cultivating a great amount of tolerance and non-violence only. But take up violence ONLY when that is the final option remaining.

Gopal Dasa
14 October 2010, 03:55 PM
Ahimsa is NOT the highest goal. So many put so much on Ahimsa when it is clearly not the most important. There are people who call the Bhagavad Gita a book of Carnage, or a Book of Violence when they dont even realize the meaning behind all of this.

What I believe to be the most important goal in Vaisnavism is ātma-nivedana, or self surrender to God. What is better, being non-violent or surrendering to God? Krsna says in the Gita:


man-mana bhava mad-bhakto
mad-yaji mam namaskuru
mam evaisyasi satyam te
pratijane priyo 'si me

Always think of Me and become My devotee. Worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend.



Krsna does not say, "Be Non-Violent and you will come to me". He specifically says what is above. Now, unnecissary violence is obviously not needed, but if non-violence was so great why would be even have Ksatriyas? If non-violence was so important then we wouldnt have such great personalities like Krsna, Rama, Narasingha, or the other great one. And if they never came around, then much of the philosphy that makes up Sanatan-Dharma would have never came to earth.