PDA

View Full Version : Satyagraha and Nonviolence



vcindiana
01 January 2008, 11:43 PM
Happy New year to you all. I just returned from India.

Meaning of Mahatma Gandhi's wording “Satya graha " cannot just be nonviolence or Ahimsa. Satyagraha has to be more than Ahimsa. Ahimsa is generally seen as not intentionally inflicting physical pain or killing other living creatures. Gandhi was indeed influenced by his family who were vegetarians like most Hindu families. Gandhi went further, beyond the concept of Ahimsa. When he was in South Africa, he witnessed how the British treated him and fellow Indians and searched for an answer to fight the mighty British. It appears Russian author Tolstoy did influence him a great deal. He was also after Truth. Gandhi’s idea of rigorously seeking and practicing truth was much more than Ahimsa. By coining the word Satyagraha, Gandhi took the concept of non violence to a much higher level, it was not just a theory, and he started to put this in to action and forcefully practicing it. Satyagraha literally means “Truth in an aggressive action”. This truth in action drove the British out of India.
Let me explain how I viewed this:

I guess most Hindus think of nonviolence as not inflicting pain or killing any animals. Himsa is intentionally inflicting suffering on another living creature. There is no question this is indeed a noble thing to do. But I wonder how good is good enough to be violence free? How about intentionally killing some nuisance flies or mosquitoes? How do we explain animal sacrifice or Yagas in the ancient times? People could not be that barbaric then. How did Pandavas justify in killing Kauravas or Rama justified in killing Ravana? I know these people were mean violent people and had to blown away from the face of the earth. But once we have a standard of non violence how can we justify violence in ANY form? How about capital punishment? In so called civilized societies like US and India, how can we justify capital punishment? Violence cannot be just killing some human or animal. How about emotional or psychological violence that happens among relatives and friends almost in every home much more than physical violence we see on TV or media? Sometimes people in this forum alone (perhaps including me) abuse our opponent calling their views “Rubbish” “nonsensical’ “trash” etc…Don’t those amount to subtle psychological violations? My question is how good one has to be good enough to remain nonviolent in any form? My point is there is no easy answer. I guess MK Gandhi must have considered these and I do not know whether he thought of the short comings of the idea of pure nonviolence.

To me it appears Ahimsa as I described above was very little to do with Gandhi’s struggle for freedom.
I love his term ‘Satyagraha’ (True Force). In truth he said “I recognize no one as my enemy on the face of the earth. In the dictionary of satyagraha, there is no enemy. It calls for the strength and courage to suffer without retaliation, to receive blows without returning any”

For me these statements do not make any sense. If some one hurts I want to hurt him/her back. He also humorously said Eye for an eye makes everyone blind and tooth for a tooth makes every one toothless ! Gandhi not only found this radical truth, he also put this into action. Not only he went to jail several times, he also made his followers to take repeated blows from the enemy. Wasn’t that insane or not? It goes very opposite to the human nature. Isn’t that amazing this wild thing was put into practice and made the mighty British no match for this little skinny brown man? It was indeed unbelievable. Sad thing was his acceptance (not tolerance!) of people of all religions alike was too much for some people of his own faith; he was killed in cold blood.
So, this Gandhian work was not some Dharma duty of not killing animals, but to resist the enemy courageously without raising a hand and hitting the enemy right in his heart and to waken his/her false moral superiority. I do not think this was ever tried in the human history. This is the biggest contribution India has made to this world and we should be very proud of it.
Gandhi’s work was soon followed by ML King in US. His work in American Civil right movement is fascinating. As an immigrant in US , I am deeply indebted to MLK for his work. I suggest people especially living in US and Canada make time to visit MLK’s museum in Memphis TN. I guarantee it would be a humbling experience.
King said “Gandhi resisted evil with as much vigor and power as the violent resister, but he resisted with love instead of hate. True pacifism is not unrealistic submission to evil power. It is rather a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love.”

Love....................VC [/font]

sarabhanga
02 January 2008, 10:05 AM
Namaste,

satyagraha is “seizing the truth”, which is the same satyastha (“holding fast to the truth”) that is fundamental to all yoga. And that foundation rests firmly on ahiMsA.

ahiMsAsatyAsthe is a very ancient formula, and it has nothing to do with force or aggressive action.

satyagraha is identical with satyastha, and the two make a perfect twin.

Perfect ahiMsA can only be attained by itvaram, which certainly has shortcomings for one with residual attachment. ;)

ahiMsAsatyAsthe is the radical truth of yama, at the very root of dharma.

ahiMsAsatyAsthe yA brahmacaryA parigrahA

ahiMsAsatyAsthe is the foundation of the holy life.

I believe that the original commandment was given as follows:

ahiMsAsatyAstheyAbrahmacaryAparigrahAyAvAm

And this divine transmission has various equivalent readings:

ahiMsAsatyAsthe yA brahmacaryA parigrahAya AvAm

ahiMsAsatyAsthe yA abrahmacaryA parigrahAya AvAm

And this takes us back to the original separation of two lineages ~ the brahmacarya (following bRMha) and the abrahmacarya (following abRMha).

The AvAm is the perfect twin “I”, which is here revealed as ahiMsAsatyAsthe.

And the yamau (the twin twin, which encompasses all four quarters) becomes manifest as pañca, so that five commandments are woven into the text.

Both traditions have exactly the same commandments, which were delivered to manu (the “knower”) from the flood.

Do not kill, do not bear false witness, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not covet the property of others. Amen.

ahiMsA satya asteya brahmacarya aparigrahA yamAH

The fundamental identity of the anciently separated twin bRMhAbRMha is clear, and the identical origin of the bRMhaNa and abRMhaNa lineages is undeniable.

The eternal bRMhAbRMha (brahmAbrahma) is brahmA and brahman united, but it is also bRMh AbRMhan (“the roar of AbRMhan”).

The original unity of this see-sawing parampare is long forgotten by both parties, but the fraternal competition of their similar offerings is recalled in a childish rhyme:

Fat and Skinny had a race,
Up and down the fire-place.

“Fat” is the bRMhaNa, and “Skinny” is the abRMhaNa, and there are many different conclusions to the story.

The original formula has not been seen for many centuries, but I am quite convinced that this is the sacred law that the abRMhaNa carried throughout their long exile from their natural field of dreams to the east, the blissful orchard where their philosophy was originally grown to perfection.

अहिंसासत्यास्थेयाब्रह्मचर्यापरिग्रहायावां
Eden was truly in ancient India and, of course, that is where the wisdom had been coming from for a long time before the birth of Jesus Christ ~ first the trayIvidyA, and finally the turIyavidyA, but assumed before all of that was the original pañca.

vcindiana
02 January 2008, 09:29 PM
Namaste,

satyagraha is “seizing the truth”, which is the same satyastha (“holding fast to the truth”) that is fundamental to all yoga. And that foundation rests firmly on ahiMsA.

ahiMsAsatyAsthe is a very ancient formula, and it has nothing to do with force or aggressive action.




Hello Sarabanga:

Thank you, as usual you bring a deeper perspective based on the scriptures.


Seizing in this context is indeed an aggressive action, it is powerful and forceful. The power behind this is not some weapon or some physical strength, like most of us imagine. But it is the power of love.

If the words agraha and astha mean the same, I am not clear why Gandhi came up with this new? word Satyagraha. I googled this word, (yes Google is God !) , I could not find this full word being mentioned in any scripture. May be I have not researched deeper.
I looked at the words agraha vs astha, to me agraha sound stronger, it has zeal, an urge and it goes on to insist, sounds radical. It is my view. You do not have to agree with me.
We can keep arguing about these words, it does not matter, all we need to understand is the way Gandhi worked and there was never in the history of human kind, anything like that tried.

Love...............VC

satay
02 January 2008, 10:49 PM
Namaskar VCindiana,

I think that US people and gov't should set an example by following on Gandhi's or MLK's footsteps, instead of 'eye for an eye' which is obviously making many people blind. :rolleyes:

US is the biggest, the richest nation in the world, it is time that they shun the violent ways and set a nice example by following ahimsa of Gandhi. If a skinny litte brown indian can do it surely, the US can too...

I think that that the US people should show their love by extending the other cheek when get slapped by the muslim world.

You don't have to agree with me though.

In love,

sarabhanga
02 January 2008, 11:46 PM
Namaste VC,

I was speaking of satyagraha, not satyAgraha, which is more of an obstinate seizure.

And, likewise, I was speaking of satyastha, not satyAsthA, which is a more caring and considerate grasp.

If the words are fairly compared, as originally given (satya-stha and satya-graha), their meanings are identical. ;)

sarabhanga
03 January 2008, 01:07 AM
And, I have just given you the scriptural origin of the word satyagraha: as a synonym of satyastha, as an inference of ahiMsA, as an implication of ahiMsAsatyAsthe, and as a compression of the whole well known pañcayAma mantra of patañjali (which is the same mantra given to adam, and to noah, and to abraham, and the first half of the mantra later revealed to moses). Google is not required, just read (and understand) my post. The original mantra has not been revealed for the last 3,000 years, so you probably won't find exactly the same formula anywhere on Google until they index this page. ;)

sarabhanga
03 January 2008, 01:52 AM
Absolute monism (“going for the one”) has always been the way of indu dharma, no matter what some western authorities might suggest.

The advaita philosophy of hinduism was transported to the west, where it has been interpreted mainly by philosophers with a dvaita perspective. So it is no surprise that adharmA and avidyA has resulted. But it is not the original words that are faulty, only the subsequent interpretations and translations, every one of which must involve the personal interpretation of the translator, which then becomes its own dogma, denying and limiting other possibilities, and perhaps even turning the original truth on its head.

The avidyavidyA of advaitam has generally become avidyAvidyA (pure avidyA) after interpretation by dvaita theologians.

sanAtana dharma is (by definition and reality) eternal, whereas other (non-eternal) dharmA is established from texts written down by learned scribes (based on earlier sources) from their beginning. If no written script had ever been developed (no phoenician, no aramaic, no brAhmI), the veda would still exist, just as it had existed in a fixed oral (and aural) tradition for thousands of years before those scripts were invented. There would be no gospels or new testament if writing had not been invented, although the orthodox pentateuch (the pañcAbRMham yudhAm) would survive in the rabbinical community.

The veda was revealed to the RSi over a long period of time, but it is a collection of songs that have been sung for thousands of years, learned by heart as a sacred tradition and passed over countless generations from father to son (with no mistakes allowed). And the songs are virtually self-composed, singing themselves from the very nature of saMskRta language and the natural history of reality itself (the two are intimately bound).

The pentateuch certainly has an oral tradition, but I believe that the tradition actually began in the fold of ancient hinduism. And the “new” testament was surely based on translations of vedAnta texts, causing exactly the same kind of philosophical revolution as that delivered by the original upaniSada when they were first revealed (at least 600 years earlier).

More and more iconography and external ritual crept back into judaism over time, and the christian rebellion was reasserting a pure advaita perspective resurrected by the kRSTIshAvAsya. And this was again masked over time by layers of external ritual and symbolism in the catholic church, which was again swept away by the protestant reformation, which demanded more advaitam (at least in outward appearances).

The strict advaitam of the upaniSad insists that the only true image of God is actually beyond any possibility of description, and therefore ALL images of God are technically false images.

In true advaitam, no separation is accepted and all differences are logically reconciled without emotional attachment. In the realm of dvaitam, however, divisions and differences are taken personally, and that is indeed the source of all suffering in the world.

advaitavAda is de facto immortal conjury, while dvaitavAda is de jure mortal injury.

Standing firm in the advaitam of ahiMsA & satyam, there can be no injury.

The greatest miracles are wrought in the minds of those who are devoted to the worship, and such miracles (which are not mere illusions, but rather the removal of previous delusions and misapprehensions) may go unnoticed by those who remain lost in their own deluded reality.

See also: Savior (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=18674&postcount=3) and Salvation (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=4363&postcount=1).

vcindiana
03 January 2008, 10:56 PM
Namaskar VCindiana,

I think that US people and gov't should set an example by following on Gandhi's or MLK's footsteps, instead of 'eye for an eye' which is obviously making many people blind. :rolleyes:

US is the biggest, the richest nation in the world, it is time that they shun the violent ways and set a nice example by following ahimsa of Gandhi. If a skinny litte brown indian can do it surely, the US can too...

I think that that the US people should show their love by extending the other cheek when get slapped by the muslim world.

You don't have to agree with me though.

In love,

Hello Satay: How are you? How is Canada? How do local Canadians treat you?

I cannot stereotype US people are violent. Most of the local people with whom I have had acquaintance are wonderful people. I have indeed learnt a lot from them. I run my own business and I meet and have very good relationship with lots of friendly people here. US people like people anywhere in the world have the same likes and dislikes, ambitions, fears anxieties etc the things they do have more than most of the Indians (not just Hindus) are their free spirit, individualism and adventure. I am glad to be part of this great society, regardless whether I disagree with some of its policies.

My view is Violence has been there since the people were created and it will be there till we exist in this world. But we can do something about it; we can lessen its impact. Violence has mostly been dealt with more violence and bloodshed. I found Gandhi's odd way of vigoursly attacking violence ( Satyagraha) was the most fascinating in the human history. It is my view that it is found on Love not some philosophy, law or commandment as expounded by Sarabanga. I do respect his profound knowledge but just knowledge alone cannot replace love.

Love....................VC

satay
04 January 2008, 12:00 AM
Namaskar Vcindiana,

I am great. Canada is great. What do you mean by local canadian? You mean those who migrated here from europe? I am a local canadian! ;) I treat myself very well. :)



I cannot stereotype US people are violent.


Did you misread my post as stereotyping of US people? No, VCindiana, I like you love the US and its people. I have visited the US many times on business and pleasure. All of my dealings with the US people have been great.


I found Gandhi's odd way of vigoursly attacking violence ( Satyagraha) was the most fascinating in the human history. It is my view that it is found on Love

Love....................VC

Do you not agree that as the richest, most influencial nation of the world that the US should show this 'Love' that you talk about and adopt Gandhi and MLK's way?

What's the problem in extending the other cheek when a muslim slaps you? Why not put into practice what you preach, especially, if you believe that what you are preaching is 'founded' on Love!

You say,


True pacifism is not unrealistic submission to evil power. It is rather a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love.” It is rather a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love.”


Let's see this in action...if a skinny little brown man can do it, why can't the US?

:cool1:

sarabhanga
04 January 2008, 12:12 AM
I found Gandhi's way of vigoursly attacking violence ( Satyagraha) was the most fascinating in the human history. It is my view that it is found on Love not some philosophy, law or commandment or as expounded by Sarabanga.

Namaste VC,

You have completely missed a very important point, which I have made to you repeatedly in other posts!

The satyagraha of gandhi-jI is NOT different from the ahiMsatyA of yama, which is fundamental to ALL sanAtana dharma.


ahiMsA means LOVE

ahiMsatyA means BY NOT HURTING

ahiMsatyA is TRUE LOVE


ahiMsatyAstha is keeping the sacred promise of ahiMsA, which is the greatest truth of dharma ~ the promise of yama.

sarabhanga
04 January 2008, 02:32 AM
The satyagraha of gandhi-jI is not different from the ahiMsatyA of yama, which is fundamental to ALL sanAtana dharma.


ahiMsA means LOVE

ahiMsatyA means BY NOT HURTING

ahiMsatyA is TRUE LOVE


ahiMsatyAstha is keeping the sacred promise of ahiMsA, which is the greatest truth of dharma ~ the promise of yama.

And gandhi (whose very name means “bearing only the name”) surely knew that his words and deeds were his “by name only”, being only determined by eternal dharma and the ageless rule of yama. The term “satyagraha” may not appear exactly in any scripture, but the concept is not new ~ indeed, it is the stamp of human civilization, present in all true dharma from the beginning.

“The meek shall inherit the earth”, only because it is impossible to become nArAyaNa (the lord of all mankind) and thus pass the acid-test of yama, without ahiMsA.

ahiMsA is the foundation of the pañcayama, the inheritance of the paÑka (“earth”).

yama is paÑkaja, and that is why the prapañca (the pañcan, paÑkan, paÑgan, “pagan”) guard gives vinegar to the Isha kRSTi in the conclusion of his passion, as a symbol of his passing the final test, the test of yama, which is the blood oath of the pañca-kRSTayas (the five tribes of AryAvarta, whose quality is judged by their sacred vow of ahiMsatyA).

The first word of the Arya kRSTi has always been ahiMsA (“universal compassion” or “love”).

vcindiana
04 January 2008, 09:00 AM
Sarabanga "ahiMsA means LOVE
ahiMsatyA means BY NOT HURTING
ahiMsatyA is TRUE LOVE

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not disagreeing with you, Sarabanga. I am just viewing Love as much more than Ahimsa. I may be wrong, it is my understanding, and most Hindus perceive Ahimsa as not intentionally inflicting physical pain or killing other living creatures... But how about inflicting emotional or psychological pain? Is that included in Ahimsa? Lot more people inflict nonphysical pain than physical pain. I am equally guilty. A few months ago I questioned Idol/moorthy worshipping without knowing I was hurting some ones’ sentiments. As human beings I find it is impossible not inflicting Ahimsa, that is part of human nature. For me it is Love that makes me aware of this short coming and it reminds me to get back to the track. Again, once in the track does not mean I can always in the track. But love keeps me growing. Sarabanga, you are well read, I am sure you can explain it better. I am not trying to be smart here.
Most of our imagination about Love is something nice, warm and fuzzy. Am I wrong? But the way I see it is that Love DOES hurt people. Gandhi went to jail many times and so many of his followers. That was not a picnic. They were beaten and some of them were also killed. It is beyond me how one can submit to, get beaten up by an enemy without raising a hand. My natural inclination is that I like to see my enemy eliminated. Gandhi’s work was unfathomable, radical and unnatural. He knew how to hurt the enemy in his heart.

I am not trying to put down the wordings in the Scripture, may be the meaning of Ahimsa is lot deeper according to its writer. But I never heard or read in the entire human history what Gandhi practically did about 60 years ago. If we believe that the scriptures were written or conceptualized thousands of years ago, how come this was never tried till Gandhi’s time? I guess it is never too late to express Love


Love......................VC

satay
04 January 2008, 09:43 AM
Namaskar VCIndiana,


A few months ago I questioned Idol/moorthy worshipping without knowing I was hurting some ones’ sentiments.


And it was also a few months ago that you came to understand why people do idol/murthi worship. isn't it?;)

In your own words,



But there is something, it touches our hearts. Who said we cannot see God in movies? Images touch hearts and awaken imaginations.


http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=18102#post18102




But I never heard or read in the entire human history what Gandhi practically did about 60 years ago. If we believe that the scriptures were written or conceptualized thousands of years ago, how come this was never tried till Gandhi’s time? I guess it is never too late to express Love


Love......................VC

And it is even more strange that it has not been tried even after Gandhi! Even though the little skinny brown man from an 'uncivilized' part of the world showed how to express this LOVE in practical terms.

Yes, it has been tried by MLK and in africa by Nelson Mandela to a certain degree but not the extent that Gandhi showed us.

It is in this context, I request (and perhaps expect) the US to take the lead in this.

It is never too late to express love as you say, so shun the 'eye for an eye' practicality and and extend the other cheek in LOVE...

atanu
04 January 2008, 01:27 PM
Sarabanga "ahiMsA means LOVE
ahiMsatyA means BY NOT HURTING
ahiMsatyA is TRUE LOVE
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I am not disagreeing with you, Sarabanga. I am just viewing Love as much more than Ahimsa.

I----
I am not trying to put down the wordings in the Scripture, may be the meaning of Ahimsa is lot deeper according to its writer. But I never heard or read in the entire human history what Gandhi practically did about 60 years ago. If we believe that the scriptures were written or conceptualized thousands of years ago, how come this was never tried till Gandhi’s time? I guess it is never too late to express Love
Love......................VC

Namaste VC

Satyagraha means bound to TRUTH. It is not a new philosophy. If Gandhi Ji was advocating anything other than the eternal Satya then that would have failed as any other thing. Satyameva Jayate (Truth alone triumphs) is Vedanta.

This truth is Called SAT -- or existence or Atman.

There is a story in Chandogya Upanishad that how a person who has covered himself with TRUTH will not be harmed when he is accused of stealing and asked to touch a red hot axe as proof of innocence. It is the pinnacle of praise of the Truth (Not the truth as we conventionally understand but it signifies that which is eternally true -- the Atman).

That is power of TRUTH, the power of Atman -- Hindus call that power Shakti.

You are also correct, since that power of Atman is our beloved Goddess -- the emodiment of Love.

(For the love of Truth one may do an apparent act of Ahimsa and if one is truly truthful then God will decide the act as not-Ahimsa).

It is the SAT (the first of SAT-CHIT-ANANDA) that is primary. Satyagraha is being bound to Sat alone (you may alternatively call that ahimsa or love but Sat is True).

Om

Rajalakshmi
04 January 2008, 01:36 PM
Happy New year to you all. I just returned from India.

Meaning of Mahatma Gandhi's wording “Satya graha " cannot just be nonviolence or Ahimsa. Satyagraha has to be more than Ahimsa. Ahimsa is generally seen as not intentionally inflicting physical pain or killing other living creatures. Gandhi was indeed influenced by his family who were vegetarians like most Hindu families. Gandhi went further, beyond the concept of Ahimsa. When he was in South Africa, he witnessed how the British treated him and fellow Indians and searched for an answer to fight the mighty British. It appears Russian author Tolstoy did influence him a great deal. He was also after Truth. Gandhi’s idea of rigorously seeking and practicing truth was much more than Ahimsa. By coining the word Satyagraha, Gandhi took the concept of non violence to a much higher level, it was not just a theory, and he started to put this in to action and forcefully practicing it. Satyagraha literally means “Truth in an aggressive action”. This truth in action drove the British out of India.
Let me explain how I viewed this:

I guess most Hindus think of nonviolence as not inflicting pain or killing any animals. Himsa is intentionally inflicting suffering on another living creature. There is no question this is indeed a noble thing to do. But I wonder how good is good enough to be violence free? How about intentionally killing some nuisance flies or mosquitoes? How do we explain animal sacrifice or Yagas in the ancient times? People could not be that barbaric then. How did Pandavas justify in killing Kauravas or Rama justified in killing Ravana? I know these people were mean violent people and had to blown away from the face of the earth. But once we have a standard of non violence how can we justify violence in ANY form? How about capital punishment? In so called civilized societies like US and India, how can we justify capital punishment? Violence cannot be just killing some human or animal. How about emotional or psychological violence that happens among relatives and friends almost in every home much more than physical violence we see on TV or media? Sometimes people in this forum alone (perhaps including me) abuse our opponent calling their views “Rubbish” “nonsensical’ “trash” etc…Don’t those amount to subtle psychological violations? My question is how good one has to be good enough to remain nonviolent in any form? My point is there is no easy answer. I guess MK Gandhi must have considered these and I do not know whether he thought of the short comings of the idea of pure nonviolence.

To me it appears Ahimsa as I described above was very little to do with Gandhi’s struggle for freedom.
I love his term ‘Satyagraha’ (True Force). In truth he said “I recognize no one as my enemy on the face of the earth. In the dictionary of satyagraha, there is no enemy. It calls for the strength and courage to suffer without retaliation, to receive blows without returning any”

For me these statements do not make any sense. If some one hurts I want to hurt him/her back. He also humorously said Eye for an eye makes everyone blind and tooth for a tooth makes every one toothless ! Gandhi not only found this radical truth, he also put this into action. Not only he went to jail several times, he also made his followers to take repeated blows from the enemy. Wasn’t that insane or not? It goes very opposite to the human nature. Isn’t that amazing this wild thing was put into practice and made the mighty British no match for this little skinny brown man? It was indeed unbelievable. Sad thing was his acceptance (not tolerance!) of people of all religions alike was too much for some people of his own faith; he was killed in cold blood.
So, this Gandhian work was not some Dharma duty of not killing animals, but to resist the enemy courageously without raising a hand and hitting the enemy right in his heart and to waken his/her false moral superiority. I do not think this was ever tried in the human history. This is the biggest contribution India has made to this world and we should be very proud of it.
Gandhi’s work was soon followed by ML King in US. His work in American Civil right movement is fascinating. As an immigrant in US , I am deeply indebted to MLK for his work. I suggest people especially living in US and Canada make time to visit MLK’s museum in Memphis TN. I guarantee it would be a humbling experience.
King said “Gandhi resisted evil with as much vigor and power as the violent resister, but he resisted with love instead of hate. True pacifism is not unrealistic submission to evil power. It is rather a courageous confrontation of evil by the power of love.”

Love....................VC [/font]

It was not by Gandhi's ahimsAvAda alone that India got freedom. Gandhi has a share, but we should not forget the contributions of others. People like Bhagat Singh, Azad, Subash Chandra Bose did not approve of Gandhian ways, but were equally great in their own way. These people chose more extreme ways of winning freedom, but were not selfish or evil in anyway.

Total ahimsa has not been taught in the Hindu scripture - otherwise Sri Krishna would not have commanded Arjuna to fight. The true wisdom is to see action in inaction, and to see inaction in action. The act itself is never the sin, but assuming doership is the sin. As long as one considers himself an instrument of God, and beleives that an act of himsa is actually more beneficial than ahimsa in a particular situation - then there is nothing wrong in himsa.

We should certainly not adopt Gandhian ways in this era of nuclear warfare. Eye for eye and tooth for tooth is not needed, but we need to protect ouselves from adharmis. Self defence is not himsa at all!!

If Pakistan sends a missile towards us, we should adopt Gandhian ways? It was this attitude that led to the slavery of Hindus for thousands of years. Had they understood the Gita properly, they would have nipped the invaders in the bud!

vcindiana
04 January 2008, 05:14 PM
Satay:
Do you not agree that as the richest, most influential nation of the world that the US should show this 'Love' that you talk about and adopt Gandhi and MLK's way? What's the problem in extending the other cheek when a Muslim slaps you?

Rajalaksmi : Total ahimsa has not been taught in the Hindu scripture - otherwise Sri Krishna would not have commanded Arjuna to fight. ………………We should certainly not adopt Gandhian ways in this era of nuclear warfare. Eye for eye and tooth for tooth is not needed, but we need to protect ourselves from adharmis. Self defense is not himsa at all

It is interesting we look at this issue in different ways

Physically powerful people do not need Gandhian type of work; these people can eliminate enemies in no time. With nuclear bombs we can cause enough death and destruction in this world. It is up to the moral conscious decision of that powerful country or the people involved. But what happens to the weak and oppressed when their freedom is taken away? This is what happened in India before independence. Same thing happened when Black faced with racial discrimination in US. I guess same thing happened in South Africa. How would you have responded when you were at the mercy of the brutal enemies? You think Gandhi was a coward when he said that he was not going to take up arms?

I am not downplaying we do not need any defense, we need to protect ourselves and as RL wrote there can be Himsa associated with it, even though she does not want to call it that way. This goes back to my thinking this Ahimsa thing is little to do with Gandhian Satyagraha. Gandhi did see Himsa when his followers were beaten and killed. Violence or non violence was not the point here, it was his insistence that the truth or love prevailed.

Love..................VC

vcindiana
04 January 2008, 05:41 PM
Namaste VC

Satyagraha means bound to TRUTH. It is not a new philosophy. If Gandhi Ji was advocating anything other than the eternal Satya then that would have failed as any other thing. Satyameva Jayate (Truth alone triumphs) is Vedanta.

This truth is Called SAT -- or existence or Atman.


Om

Dear Atanu: Thank you, I agree with your explanation.

What was the truth Gandhi was trying to prove here? The truth was one can win a powerful enemy's heart by facing him head on without raising his arm. He knew there would an extraordinary risk, even some Himsa or violence. He did win, truth did prevail. It was too much for the people of his own religion, he was killed. Here I saw violence after violence, Did Ahimsa prove any thing? Only love and truth prevailed.

Love... VC

sarabhanga
04 January 2008, 11:04 PM
Namaste,

Only love and truth (TOGETHER) prevails when the true advaitam is embraced, for the truth-loving twin has always been ahiMsatyA!

ahiMsA is “not harmful” or “harmlessness”, and the intention is clarified when the definition is given in more positive terms ~ in which case, the best translation is “LOVE” (in its most general sense).

The beginning of ALL yoga is yama; and the first requirement of yama is ahiMsA!

The nAtha siddha six-limbed yoga neglects yama-niyama because the method was intended for transmission ONLY to aspirants who were already well versed in those foundational elements. And the haTha yogin is supposed to be so well established in yama that there is no need to consider the possibility of straying from the basic principles of yama (which are common to all humanity).

ahiMsAsatyAsteyabrahmacaryAparigrahA yamAH

Sage patañjali notes that the five rules of yama (beginning with ahiMsA) constitute the first rule of dharma for ALL races, in ALL places, at ALL times, and in ALL circumstances.

ete jAti-desha-kAla-samayAnavacchinnAH sArva-bhaumA mahAvratam

The rule given to Noah was “no bloodshed”, “no murder”, or “do not kill”, which has often been interpreted as “do not kill humans”. And the same rule has long been known by Hindus as ahiMsA ~ “restraint from harming” other living creatures, which engenders love for all creation and a feeling of oneness with all.

sanAtana dharma has two ancient streams: the autochthonous bRMhaNa and the diasporic abRMhaNa. And both bRMhavidyA and abRMhavidyA begin with exactly the same instructions.

Noah received the eternal commandment “do not cause bloodshed!” Moses received the eternal commandment “do not commit murder!” The foundation of Christianity is “do not kill!” The athenian Solon (c. 600 BC) declared “do good!” And Patañjali repeats the original (and most general) formulation ahiMsA ~ “without harm”.

The fifth rule given to Noah was “shed no blood”, which is the sixth rule of Moses, commonly stated as “do not kill” or “do not murder”. But the very first rule of Hinduism in practice is ahiMsA ~ i.e. to be “without harm” and “harmless”, or (positively expressed) “with love” and “kind”.

All dharma MUST be understood with “harmlessness” as a fundamental assumption; and all Hindus, all Jews, all Christians, and all Muslims, MUST interpret their scriptures and limit their actions in accordance with this basic principle of civilized humanity.

The divine law of ahiMsA (unconditional love towards all beings) leads one to gaNesha (the “lord of being”) who swiftly removes any obstacle to salvation.

ahiMsA is dharma; and hiMsA is adharma. The rule is as simple as that!



ahiMsA paramo dharma

satyAstha paramo dharma

brahmacarya paramo dharma


What is Love, if not Kind? (ahiMsA)

What is Love, if not True? (satyA)

What is Love, if not Given? (asteya)

What is Love, if not Holy? (brahmacarya)

What is Love, if not Free? (aparigraha)


The laws of yama are all aspects of universal LOVE.

The basic law of ahiMsA, at its lowest level of interpretation, is “do not commit murder” ~ and this shUdra dharma is well known throughout the world.

The basic law of vaishya dharma (i.e. the prime directive for the general Hindu population) is “do not spill blood” ~ and thus the general prevalence of non-violence and vegetarian diet in Hindu society.

The interpretation and application of ahiMsA is a more complex matter for kshatriya and brAhmaNa dharma.




Total ahimsa has not been taught in the Hindu scripture - otherwise Sri Krishna would not have commanded Arjuna to fight.

Self defence is not himsa at all!!

ahiMsA is “without harm” or “without injury” ~ and thus, “with care” or “with benefit”.

In practice, ahiMsA is “harm minimization” and “benefit maximization” ~ i.e. “for the greater good”.

Specific destructive or harmful actions are sanctioned when the aim is ultimately constructive and generally beneficial. And if certain apparently harmful actions are required by dharma, then those actions (performed without any personal desire or emotional attachment) cannot be adharma.

All action should be performed without attachment. And in the case of harmful or hurtful action, this requirement is particularly important.

Of course we will all have an emotional reaction when harm is caused or suffering is inflicted, but when it comes to any decisive action there is surely no place for hate or fear or “boiling blood”.

The two outward eyes MUST be closed before the inner eye can open; and once that third eye has been uncovered, only then may the outer eyes re-open for correct guidance in worldly action.

“hiMsA” is permitted ONLY for those with all three eyes wide open, for only such enlightened souls are properly equipped for assessing the situation and the ultimate consequences of any action, and then acting without any personal attachment and purely according to dharma.

Worldly action that is informed only by duality, and performed with attachment and without insight or true knowledge, is bound only to increase the sum total of suffering and harm in the world.

The practical advice of ahiMsA is simply to “look before you leap”, and how far you must look and how carefully, depends on how far and with how much certainty you wish to leap.

Human suffering, however, is perhaps the greatest of any creature, since it is magnified beyond mere pain through our intensely reflective mind; and in real life, ahiMsA becomes rather a balancing act, and this is a major point of the gItA.

Hinduism does not compel anyone to vegetarianism, or renunciation, or liberation, or bliss. Hinduism allows completely free choice of action for all individuals. And Hinduism advises that every choice be made carefully, with a true appreciation of its ramifications, implications, and ultimate consequences.




Physically powerful people do not need Gandhian type of work; these people can eliminate enemies in no time.

satyagraha is exactly what such people do need ~ a firm grasp of the truth that is ahiMsA.




You think Gandhi was a coward when he said that he was not going to take up arms?

If you still understand ahiMsA as cowardice, then you have misunderstood all of my many posts on the subject.




This goes back to my thinking this Ahimsa thing is little to do with Gandhian Satyagraha.

And, as I have explained, this is based on a partial understanding of BOTH ahiMsA and satyAgraha.




Violence or non violence was not the point here, it was his insistence that the truth or love prevailed. Did Ahimsa prove any thing? Only love and truth prevailed.

Yes, exactly as I have been saying all along. The mere fact of violence or non-violence is not the point. Rather, the twin conception of ahiMsA AND satyA, in perfect balance (as ahiMsAsatyAsthe) is required.

ahiMsAsatyAsthe is an expansion of ahiMsatyA, which derives from ahiMsat (“not hurting”) as the highest truth.

Within the binding vow of ahiMsA, any separate distinction of “love” and “truth” cannot be maintained.

ahiMsA is not inaction, but rather it is the only truly guided action for any Arya (in both streams).

Remember that “the meek shall inherit the earth” only because it is impossible to become nArAyaNa (the lord of all mankind) and thus pass the acid-test of yama, without ahiMsA.

ahiMsA is the foundation of the pañcayama, and the inheritance of the whole paÑka (“earth”).

The first law of the Arya kRSTi has always been ahiMsA (“universal compassion” or “love”). It is the test of yama, which is the blood oath of the true kRSTayas (the five tribes of AryAvarta), whose quality is judged by their sacred vow of ahiMsatyA.


ahi = Isha

M = yudhi

sat = kRSTa

brahma is one, and in absolute unity with brahma there is unimpaired consciousness, beyond any dualistic notions.

yama is two (twain or twin), and the divided creation is ultimately bound by the restraints of yama.

yama and yamanI are the essential pair ~ the reins of divine restraint.

This yamau (yamanIyama or yamaniyama) may also be considered as yama & niyama, and patañjali elaborates the separated pair as follows:

ahiMsAsatyAsteyabrahmacaryAparigrahA yamAH [yoga sUtra 2.30]

shaucasaMtoSatapaHsvAdhyAyeshvarapraNidhAnAni niyamAH [yoga sUtra 2.32]

The yamAH are normally counted as a list of five “restraints”:

ahiMsA satyA asteya brahmacarya aparigrahA

Which is normally interpreted as: “harmlessness, truthfulness, not stealing, chastity, and poverty”.

However, merely by prolonging a single vowel (from ya to yA), the following truth is revealed:

ahiMsAsatyAsteyAbrahmacaryAparigrahAyamAH

ahiMsA satyA aste yAH brahmacaryA parigrahAH yamAH

“Harmlessness and Truthfulness, unto Death, which (are) the Foundations of Divine Life, the Restraints.”

No man can attain brahma without first passing yama!

And when we know that we are being untruthful or causing injury, it is then that our conscience (the yamadUta) pricks ~ and it is wise to take heed of this warning.

yama is the first word of yoga, and the first words of yama are: ahiMsA satyA aste.

“Without causing any harm and always truthful, until the end!”

“Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life!”

All dharma is based in the karma of satyA and the kAma of ahiMsA.

yoga and moksha are impossible without ahiMsAsatyAsthe.

moksha (advaitam) is not to be found where hiMsA (dvaitam) yet exists!

ahiMsAsatyAsthe is a very ancient formula, and it has no particular connexion with force or aggressive action.

ahiMsAsatyAsthe is the radical truth of yama, at the very root of dharma.

ahiMsAsatyAsthe yA brahmacaryA parigrahA

“ahiMsAsatyAsthe is the foundation of the holy life.”

AvAm is the perfect twin of “I & I”, which is revealed as ahiMsAsatyAsthe. This is the only “eye for eye” decreed by sacred law, and the retribution (spiritual reunion, and certainly not physical punishment) is swift.

Standing firm in the advaitam of ahiMsA & satyam, there can be no injury.

The satyagraha of gandhi-jI is NOT different from the ahiMsatyA of yama, which is fundamental to ALL sanAtana dharma.

ahiMsA is “love”, ahiMsatyA is both “by not hurting” and “true love”, and ahiMsatyAstha is keeping the sacred vow of ahiMsA, which is the greatest truth of dharma ~ the very promise of yama.




How about inflicting emotional or psychological pain? Is that included in Ahimsa?

There are three kinds of hiMsA, and thus three kinds of ahiMsA: “bearing malice” (“hear no evil”), “abusive language” (“speak no evil”), and “acts of violence” (“see no evil”). And that is perhaps too much wisdom for one separated monkey to bear ~ but they all come together at the reunion of the advaita AvAm, which is known simply as AUM.

atanu
05 January 2008, 03:05 AM
Namaste VC

Satyagraha means bound to TRUTH. It is not a new philosophy. If Gandhi Ji was advocating anything other than the eternal Satya then that would have failed as any other thing. Satyameva Jayate (Truth alone triumphs) is Vedanta.

This truth is Called SAT -- or existence or Atman.

There is a story in Chandogya Upanishad that how a person who has covered himself with TRUTH will not be harmed when he is accused of stealing and asked to touch a red hot axe as proof of innocence. It is the pinnacle of praise of the Truth (Not the truth as we conventionally understand but it signifies that which is eternally true -- the Atman).

That is power of TRUTH, the power of Atman -- Hindus call that power Shakti.

You are also correct, since that power of Atman is our beloved Goddess -- the emodiment of Love.

(For the love of Truth one may do an apparent act of Ahimsa and if one is truly truthful then God will decide the act as not-Ahimsa).

It is the SAT (the first of SAT-CHIT-ANANDA) that is primary. Satyagraha is being bound to Sat alone (you may alternatively call that ahimsa or love but Sat is True).

Om

Namaste All,

All are saying the same thing. Sarabhanga Ji, in the very beginning, said that Satyagraha is being established in Satya. Yes, Satyagraha is being bound to Sat alone.

To be steadfastly and courageously abiding in SAT, requires adherence to Love, Ahimsa, Dharma, and Yama (which are different words of same Yama) with absolute FAITH that the SAT will prevail.


Om

satay
05 January 2008, 03:44 PM
namaste VC,


The truth was one can win a powerful enemy's heart by facing him head on without raising his arm. He knew there would an extraordinary risk, even some Himsa or violence. He did win, truth did prevail. It was too much for the people of his own religion, he was killed. Here I saw violence after violence, Did Ahimsa prove any thing? Only love and truth prevailed.

Love... VC

If truth is that one can win a powerful enemy's heart by facing him head on without raising his arm, then I don't understand why US (for e.g.) has to use 'arms' in the middle east.

Why do you think this 'truth' is so hard to see for the US and others even when a little skinny brown indian man demonstrated 60 years ago?

The point is this, you are parroting 'love and truth prevails' in one post yet in another post you say that 'eye for an eye' is a natural thing to do.

Do you think that this 'love and truth prevails' by absolute ahimsa or satya graha would work today? Look at where HHDalai Lama lives...why?

With all due respect to Gandhiji, India didn't get independence just because of gandhi's satya grahas, british left because there was nothing to loot anymore from India after 200 years of rape and gandhi's satyagraha put the final nail in the coffin so to speak when british found that even beating the brown little skinny indians didn't work anymore.

vcindiana
05 January 2008, 07:26 PM
namaste VC,

If truth is that one can win a powerful enemy's heart by facing him head on without raising his arm, then I don't understand why US (for e.g.) has to use 'arms' in the middle east.

Why do you think this 'truth' is so hard to see for the US and others even when a little skinny brown indian man demonstrated 60 years ago?


Hello Satay: That was the truth Gandhi believed and yes, it does sound unnatural, nonsensical, radical and unfathomable for people like me and you. He adhered to that truth and even made his followers do that. I am sure he read Geeta and other scriptures much more than me and you. As Geeta points out he was much more involved in his action in truth than looking at the results. It does not matter whether me or you or US or Canada can understand. Probably we will never understand because we have no clue about getting dehumanized. I am sure you read the event when Gandhi was thrown out of the white dominated train in South Africa. How would you feel if you were to be in his shoes then? We live in this (filthy? rich) freedom filled countries; we do not know how people were ostracized in those days.

It is a privilege and I enjoy very much being a citizen of US but I do not approve of some of its policies. I can only express my disapproval among my customers and neighbors. It is democracy, majority elects people to the office. Policies are made irrespective of many of our displeasure. But I would rather live in free democracy rather than in a country I cannot express my thoughts
You do know well that in US, MLK did copy Gandhian work and made history. I took my family to his museum in Memphis and we were very much moved to see the struggles of oppressed black people. I suggest you visit the museum sometime

It may be a different topic, ordinary Americans are very caring and last year . Americans were the most charitable people on earth, giving nearly $300 billion to various charitable causes. Canada was not even mentioned among other charitable countries including like Turkey and Singapore. You think I need an explanation from you just because you are in Canada that will be absurd on my part.

My point in this thread was to reiterate the lovely work of Gandhi and to express my gratitude and to have the sense of reverence.

Love..............................VC

vcindiana
05 January 2008, 07:53 PM
namaste VC,

With all due respect to Gandhiji, India didn't get independence just because of gandhi's satya grahas, british left because there was nothing to loot anymore from India after 200 years of rape and gandhi's satyagraha put the final nail in the coffin so to speak when british found that even beating the **** out of brown little skinny indians is not working anymore.


Hello Satay:
This thread was on Gandhi and his great Satyagraha. Even though there was some misunderstanding, people like Sarabanga and Atanu never made any derogatory remark. I am deeply hurt by your poor remarks undermining Gandhi’s incredible work. It is a slap on the oppressed people. Scriptures have made statements but there was none in the history of mankind who dared enough to practically demonstrate what he did. It is very easy for us living in the comfort of present life especially in the western countries and put down the work of Gandhi. I am appalled to read your wording **** as though readers do not know what you mean. I am surprised as an administrator you lowered yourself and this forum. Anyway, let your conscious be the judge.
Love…………………VC

satay
05 January 2008, 08:33 PM
Namaste VC,

I don't know what you are are talking about. What derogatory remarks?

If anyone here is putting down the work of Gandhi, that's you, even after explanation after explanation from sarabhanga and atanu.

I have been asking you a practical question since my first post on this thread which you somehow keep ignoring.

I am starting to get worried about you. Are you all right?

vcindiana
05 January 2008, 08:47 PM
Hello Satay:

Enough of Gandhi. I think we should go fishing. I heard Canada is great for fishing. Please let me know.

Love........................VC

satay
05 January 2008, 08:54 PM
Namaskar VC,


Hello Satay:

Enough of Gandhi. I think we should go fishing. I heard Canada is great for fishing. Please let me know.

Love........................VC

We can never have enough of Gandhi.

Hopefully you learnt something from sarabhanga and atanu's posts about Ahimsa.

I have given up hope of getting an answer from you to my practical question. As usual, you have ignored everyone's input so I am beginning to wonder about your motives of posting here on HDF. Starting from your first thread where you questioned murthi puja.

atanu
06 January 2008, 02:01 AM
Satay:
Do you not agree that as the richest, most influential nation of the world that the US should show this 'Love' that you talk about and adopt Gandhi and MLK's way? What's the problem in extending the other cheek when a Muslim slaps you?

Rajalaksmi : Total ahimsa has not been taught in the Hindu scripture - otherwise Sri Krishna would not have commanded Arjuna to fight. ………………We should certainly not adopt Gandhian ways in this era of nuclear warfare. Eye for eye and tooth for tooth is not needed, but we need to protect ourselves from adharmis. Self defense is not himsa at all

It is interesting we look at this issue in different ways

-----This is what happened in India before independence. Same thing happened when Black faced with racial discrimination in US. I guess same thing happened in South Africa. ------, it was his insistence that the truth or love prevailed.

Love..................VC

Namaste VC,

With all reverence to your love of Love.

Why do you think that it is not happening now?

Satay, though appearing to be a bit brusque, has raised a valid point, which you being the owner of the thread should answer (though you have full freedom not to respond).

It reminds me that when I asked of you, by relating a story (historical fact) of Stalin (the dreaded dictator) sacrificing his only son during second world war for the country, whether it represented Love of country or love or self or love of Self, you shied away. You invited me to your sailing boat.

Satay has raised a very pertinent point.

Why a country following Christianity, a religion that professes love, has to resort to violence, arms selling, missionary activities, and exploitation of the poor?

I see nothing wrong in that however. The point I wished to make at that time and the point I wish to make now are same. Sanatana Dharma teaches that the love you tout is actually love of the self. Under ignorance, this love of self translates to war for preservation of the small self and its belongings.

Best Wishes and Regards


Om

atanu
06 January 2008, 02:04 AM
It was not by Gandhi's ahimsAvAda alone that India got freedom. Gandhi has a share, but we should not forget the contributions of others. People like Bhagat Singh, Azad, Subash Chandra Bose did not approve of Gandhian ways, but were equally great in their own way. These people chose more extreme ways of winning freedom, but were not selfish or evil in anyway.
-


Namaste Rajlakshmi,

I wished to remind (you surely know) that the Truth, the Brahman wins always and not Gandhi or Nehru.

Om

vcindiana
14 January 2008, 11:26 PM
Satay " Do you not agree that as the richest, most influencial nation of the world that the US should show this 'Love' that you talk about and adopt Gandhi and MLK's way?
What's the problem in extending the other cheek when a muslim slaps you? Why not put into practice what you preach, especially, if you believe that what you are preaching is 'founded' on Love"


Hello Satay: I do not think you really read my post #21. Please read it again if you do care. Let me please put this in a different way: (Disclaimer: I am no authority , it just my observations.

Gandhi said he was heavily influenced by Geeta. In Mahabarata just before the war, Arjuna was given all the knowledge, support, encouragement and wisdom by no other than God himself. With all these things and with the presence of Krishna himself it was no big deal on Arjuna’s part to perform his action in going after the enemy. Arjuna knew the Lord was right there next to him. Krishna gave him everything he needed.
Let us look at the scene when Gandhi was thrown out of the train in South Africa. He was a handsome well dressed young Indian attorney n South Africa. He had bought a first class ticket and he was travelling in a train to Johannesburg on his business trip. He was confronted by a white ticket inspector who threw him off the train just because of his color. Can you imagine the shock, disappointment, anger and utter humiliation? Within no time he was made nothing and to fall flat on his face. He was totally dehumanized. This has to be very hurtful experience Gandhi ever experienced. Until this episode he did not realize the harsh reality of being oppressed. Did he become angry then? I do not know, probably yes like most of us. Could he have struck the enemy back? Absolutely not. He knew he had no physical power. I wish Lord Krishna had appeared at the scene and given him His power tool at that moment. Unlike Arjuna in Mahabarata there was no Krishna physically present next to him. Krishna was not there to hold his hands. There was no one to wipe his tears, not even his Mom. I have read this episode so many times, each time I read it, it stirs my emotions. But a huge human history was made on that cold night at Pietermaritzburg railway station.It made Gandhi to wake up. It stirred his passion. It was time to build up a fighting strategy.
Unlike what happened in Mahabarata, strategy to fight the mighty British had to be different. Arjuna was a powerful warrior having the luxury of weapons of destruction. Gandhi could not even dream about it. In his deep search he was not only influenced by Geeta but also profoundly influenced by the works of Ruskin and Leo Tolstoy. Sermon on the Mount did arm him, he believed there was a true statement in it and he wanted to practically demonstrate it. He never thought Arjuna’s action was violent. All he was interested was putting the truth in action. In truth he said “I recognize no one as my enemy on the face of the earth. In the dictionary of Satyagraha, there is no enemy. It calls for the strength and courage to suffer without retaliation, to receive blows without returning any”. In that truth he believed that he would hurt the heart of the enemy much more than his physical body. This sounds very radical and irrational, making no sense to most of us. But Gandhi believed it, he was a different kind of warrior. Action is all that required here, how we perform the action is left to us. In my view Geeta first says you have the right. ‘Right’ means absolute freedom with full conscience to find appropriate tool for action. Then it demands to act using the tool we select.
Geeta goes further telling that the fruit of action is not even guaranteed. What a bummer? At least Arjuna knew he had the mighty help of Krishna himself, for Gandhi, it is just the word of God, talk about his strong conviction... This was indeed a huge risk on the part of Gandhi. He knew there would be enormous pain, suffering and even death, (violence). He had to wield the new weapon of Satyagraha that was never tried in human history before. Did he think about the fruit of action? I do not think so as he firmly believed in Geeta.
If you ask me why super power US is not following Gandhi then my answer would be the very reason why Arjuna did not take up the kind of Satyagraha Gandhi took up. Was Arjuna less loving then? Absolutely not, his action was different under a different circumstance. As RL mentioned post independent India is not going sit around and receive blows from Pakistan if it ever gets threatened.
I know you are upset with US policies in Middle East. So I am. But I do not represent US policies. I do disagree with some of its policies. But it is democracy. Most ordinary Americans are friendly, honest and hard working. I do agree there are a few arrogant Americans, but it is you people stereotyping (judging) as though all people in this country resort to violence, arms selling, missionary activities, and exploitation of the poor. Any way my point was not violence or nonviolence. I was just highlighting Gandhi’s work which was proving a true statement, (Satyagraha) and he succeeded and so his follower MLK. Does this work now? I think so, if we ever encounter a situation Gandhi or MLK faced with. These are my a few observations only. I do not know what really made Gandhi to find a true statement in the Sermon on the Mount, more than what he could find in Geeta. Perhaps you or other members can comment on that
Love………………….VC

satay
15 January 2008, 12:16 AM
namaste vcindiana,

First my apologies...I haven't read your post in its entirety. But this line caught my eye...


Geeta goes further telling that the fruit of action is not even guaranteed. What a bummer? Love………………….VC

Please provide the specific shloka so that I can confirm and read further on this. Where does the Lord say that the fruit of action is not guaranteed?

It is my understanding that if anything in this universe is 'guaranteed' that is that there will be a 'fruit' for every action! We may not like the fruit but rest assured there will be one...that is basic karmic law.

sarabhanga
15 January 2008, 02:04 AM
Sermon on the Mount did arm him

“The message of Jesus, as I understand it,” said Gandhi, “is contained in the Sermon on the Mount, unadulterated and taken as a whole ... If then I had to face only the Sermon on the Mount and my own interpretation of it, I should not hesitate to say, ‘Oh, yes, I am a Christian.’

“But negatively I can tell you that, in my humble opinion, what passes as Christianity is a negation of the Sermon on the Mount ... I am speaking of Christianity as it is understood in the west.”

And referring to the Gospels, Gandhi remarked that he could quote even stronger passages from the Hindu scriptures. And that “the virtues of mercy, non-violence, love, and truth, in any man can be truly tested when they are pitted against ruthlessness, violence, hate, and untruth ... this is the true test of Ahimsa”.

satay
23 January 2008, 12:07 AM
Namaskar VCIndiana,

Still waiting for a reply on post 29 i.e. the exact shloka from Gita where the lord says the following as you quoted..



Geeta goes further telling that the fruit of action is not even guaranteed. What a bummer? Love………………….VC

Rajalakshmi
23 January 2008, 03:18 AM
This one?

karmaNyevAdhikAraste mA phaleShu kadAchana .
mA karmaphalaheturbhUrmA te saN^go.astvakarmaNi ( 2.47)


You have a right to perform your prescribed duty, but you are not entitled to the fruits of action. Never consider yourself the cause of the results of your activities, and never be attached to not doing your duty.

vcindiana has literally understood correctly, but the Gita verse does not say fruit of action is not guaranteed.

The correct meaning of the verse is - You have the right to act, and expect the reward, but do not think the reward is due to your act, but the blessing of God. And dont be disappointed if you are not rewarded because God is always just and the reward is guaranteed if you deserve it. No one will perform a karma without expectation( especially since many kAmya karmas are mentioned in the karma kaNDa) because there is no motivation otherwise. The fruit of action is guaranteed if the doer deserves it. For a karma yogi, he does karma only in the purpose of obtaining the grace of God, and the fruit of this karma, the grace of God is certainly obtained.

If a man prays for wealth, and works for it, he is certainly granted if he deserves it. ( if karma is favourable)

If a man does charity and hopes that he will get a place in svarga, he will get it.

If a man does charity, and thinks that God has done a favour for him, by making him an instrument for charity - this is karma Yoga. Its fruit is getting the grace of God, and cancels the fruit of svarga vAsa.

So it is not the karma that is important. It is the motive that matters. Every karma has its fruit. The particular fruit maybe desired and obtained. The particular fruit maybe traded for getting the grace of God by rejecting the fruit of Karma.


~RL

vcindiana
23 January 2008, 06:45 AM
Namaskar VCIndiana,

Still waiting for a reply on post 29 i.e. the exact shloka from Gita where the lord says the following as you quoted..

[/color][/i]


Hello Satay: I read words here and there in scriptures and what ever I read challenges me and satisfies me. I am not here to impose my version on any one. It is just my POV.

If you do care please read in the thread “Where is God” under Canteen
The postings 64 http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2127&page=7 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2127&page=7)
and 74 http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2127&page=8 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2127&page=8)
Yajavan has nicely explained how a base ball player however prepared and executed well, cannot always be assured of hitting a home run.
I did concur with him. I also looked at this verse in a different angle and I did find a secret code!! I am not bragging that I found something no one found it, but it speaks of depth of the scriptures. It is multidimensional and even paradoxical at times; there cannot be only one way to satisfy each one of us.
Love..............VC

ps Did you have a chance to read my recent posting under Hindu morality ?