PDA

View Full Version : On Ahimsa



satay
19 July 2006, 03:42 PM
Vamadeva Shastri (Dr. David Frawley) in a very incisive 1999 article for The Institute of Vedic Studies entitled, "Himsa and Ahimsa: The Need For A New Policy of Protection" writes:


"In spite of modern Gandhian stereotypes the classical Hindu way to deal with Rakshasas and Asuras (people of egoistic or violent temperament) was never simply ahimsa (nonviolence). It could in fact be quite aggressive. Ahimsa in the sense of absolute non-violence is a sattvic or deva dharma for people of devic or refined temperament. With gentle people you have no need or right to be unkind.

However, when dealing with hostile and violent opponents a completely different response is required. Asuras require the danda (punishment). Let us not forget the many epic and Puranic stories in which Gods, Goddesses or Avatars fought and defeated the Asuras. Whether it is the Goddess and Mahishasura, Rama and Ravana, or Skanda and Taraka, there is not a single instance in which the Asuras were simply forgiven and allowed to go their own way without punishment. Let us also not forget how the Mahabharata extols the use of the danda for social harmony and justice.

There is only one way to really deal with Asuric people, which is to make them feel pain. As Asuric types have a materialistic consciousness, this pain must be of a material type, pain to their bodies, to their homes and to their possessions. It must be a pain where they live. Asuric types are immune to platitudes or to any kind of moralistic guilt."

He continues

"True ahimsa means reducing the harm in the world. This may require violent action against the perpetrators of harm. One must not only defeat the enemy but also take away their weapons and insure that they cannot attack again. One must cut off the roots of violence where the enemy lives.

Modern Hindus must once again proudly honor himsa or a policy of harming the enemy, and the danda or a policy of strict punishment for those who use force to attack them. This is not to promote unnecessary violence but to prevent violence from spreading or being abetted. The same policy should extend to all spheres of current cultural encounters"

And finally:

"They must attack their enemies on the level where their enemies really feel and with the weapons of the age. Some metaphysical moralistic high ground, such as many Hindus like to take, will not do but is only escapism, though Hindus should continue to practice rituals, prayers, mantras and meditations for peace but not to the exclusion of more direct forms of action in the material world. The Gandhian pity not only for the victims of violence but also for the perpetrators of violence must come to an end. Such pity is one of the most debilitating and confusing of all emotions, and is the very sentiment that Krishna strove to uproot out of Arjuna in the Bhagavad Gita. Pity or compassion for the perpetrators of violence only sanctions that violence and causes further pain to the victims. It denies the responsibility that goes with the law of karma."

Znanna
19 July 2006, 08:35 PM
There is only one way to really deal with Asuric people, which is to make them feel pain. As Asuric types have a materialistic consciousness, this pain must be of a material type, pain to their bodies, to their homes and to their possessions. It must be a pain where they live. Asuric types are immune to platitudes or to any kind of moralistic guilt.

I don't know what you mean by Asuric, so forgive my ignorance, please.

But, it seems to me that people who feel pain are pained and there is no need to "make them feel pain"?

No need to pity them, eh, they are perfect pain-feelers in their own right.

JMHO


Namaste,
ZN

satay
20 July 2006, 03:59 PM
I don't know what you mean by Asuric, so forgive my ignorance, please.
Namaste,
ZN

namaste znanna,

Bhagwan krishn explains what is 'asuric' in adhaya 16 starting from shloka 6 in gita.

Znanna
20 July 2006, 09:19 PM
namaste znanna,

Bhagwan krishn explains what is 'asuric' in adhaya 16 starting from shloka 6 in gita.

Thank you for the reference :)

I don't know what *you* mean by asuric but to me any manner of thinking which implies otherness (as in me-good, you-evil as opposed to me=you) is devolutionary or asuric, to clarify.


Namaste,
ZN

satay
21 July 2006, 08:55 AM
I don't know what *you* mean by asuric but to me any manner of thinking which implies otherness (as in me-good, you-evil as opposed to me=you) is devolutionary or asuric, to clarify.


Namaste,
ZN

namaste,
Unfortunately, I do not subscribe to the same feeling you have about asuric. This me=you is all political nonsense to me (pardon the usage of the word nonsense but I mean it in literal terms.)

There is no such thing as me=you. Everyone may have the same substratum but everyone behaves differently due to karmic forces and sanskara.

The feelings of 'love is good' 'hate is bad' 'taking care of children is good' 'killing children by bombing the **** out of them is bad' ...these feelings are universal and do not belong to one specific religion. The problem comes when one subscribes to the beliefs that even though killing children by bombing the **** out of them is bad I have to do it because an authority says so. This authority could be anyone or anything.

I used to subscribe to similar type of theory that you are implying that there is no 'evil' in the world and we are all 'good'.

After doing a lot of atma vichara, I have enhanced that theory for myself to the following:

Ultimately, we are all 'good' but due to previous karma and our reaction to vasanas in our environment we behave differently. This causes more karma (bad) to be collected and we move down to lower forms of life in our future births where we must go through all lifeforms and then out of passion Bhagwan allows us another human birth and the cycle continues.

The problem with hindus is that we have become pseudo spritualists and we try at any cost to ignore the 'operational reality' of this world. We might as well call ourselves buddhists then.

satay
21 July 2006, 09:01 AM
But, it seems to me that people who feel pain are pained and there is no need to "make them feel pain"?

No need to pity them, eh, they are perfect pain-feelers in their own right.

JMHO


Namaste,
ZN

Now, I understand your post's context correctly so I shall answer here in all honesty.

What you are saying makes everyone feel good but is not practical at all. This is why Bhagwan never told arjun to 'forgive' the opponents as there is no need to 'make them feel pain'. He never said go and meditate and a buddha and ignore the evil standing in front of you!

Do you think I am missing something in the message of Bhagwan?

Znanna
21 July 2006, 07:21 PM
Now, I understand your post's context correctly so I shall answer here in all honesty.

What you are saying makes everyone feel good but is not practical at all. This is why Bhagwan never told arjun to 'forgive' the opponents as there is no need to 'make them feel pain'. He never said go and meditate and a buddha and ignore the evil standing in front of you!

Do you think I am missing something in the message of Bhagwan?


I don't know what you think the message is, dear Satay.

What I know is that there is NO DIFFERENCE amongst us, when all is said and done. There is no shiva and shakti, in other words, there is HEr. How could one wish pain on another, when that is yet another aspect of oneselves?

I know I'm not practical, I don't have to be, 'cause I'm a girl :) Perhaps it is an easy excuse, but I see no reason to "take sides" as it were. It's all the same in dissolution.

In my opinion, I see it there is no need to cause pain, those who desire it will attact it all on their own account. And, at the same time, their pain is mine, as it is reflected in the emotion of fear, so why encourage its propagation?



Namaste,
ZN

sarabhanga
21 July 2006, 08:03 PM
Namaste,

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.

All action, however, should be performed “without attachment”.

There is no good reason for causing pain, and there is equally no reason for pity! But if certain apparently harmful actions are required by Dharma, then those actions (performed without any personal desire or emotional attachment) cannot be Adharma.

satay
22 July 2006, 02:51 AM
What I know is that there is NO DIFFERENCE amongst us, when all is said and done. There is no shiva and shakti, in other words, there is HEr. How could one wish pain on another, when that is yet another aspect of oneselves?
ZN

namaste,
I think what you mean to say is that 'what you read is that...' not 'what you know is that...'

Denying the differences are not practical at all in the operational reality of this universe. Differences are there and we can see them clearly. Yes, our sages say that there is no difference when it comes to final analysis but to experience that we must transcend the operational universe first.

For example, I can clearly see that 'me' and my wife are not the same thing and there 'are' differences between us.

what you are saying just gives a good feeling and is politically correct but it is not practical.

Znanna
22 July 2006, 06:10 AM
namaste,
I think what you mean to say is that 'what you read is that...' not 'what you know is that...'

Denying the differences are not practical at all in the operational reality of this universe. Differences are there and we can see them clearly. Yes, our sages say that there is no difference when it comes to final analysis but to experience that we must transcend the operational universe first.

For example, I can clearly see that 'me' and my wife are not the same thing and there 'are' differences between us.

what you are saying just gives a good feeling and is politically correct but it is not practical.


Namaste, Satay,

I have experienced much more than I have read. I try very hard to say what I mean, given the limitations of language.

I said what I meant to say. You are welcome to interpret that as you wish, of course :)


ZN

vedic_kings
22 July 2006, 08:25 PM
The way I see it is, if you get hurt by another, its your karma so accept it. But if its life threatening then protect yourself, but without killing the other, so your karma will alter.

Sudarshan
23 July 2006, 01:04 PM
There is only one way to really deal with Asuric people, which is to make them feel pain. As Asuric types have a materialistic consciousness, this pain must be of a material type, pain to their bodies, to their homes and to their possessions. It must be a pain where they live. Asuric types are immune to platitudes or to any kind of moralistic guilt."


In Tamil, there is a saying - Eliyorai Valiyorkal vaattinal, valiyorai deivam vaattum.

"If the strong opress the weak, the strong is oppressed by God. So there is no asura who goes scot free anytime."

You are asuric because you have health, wealth and power. If you abuse these privileges, then you will need to answer your deeds. The idea with punishment is that God's punishment can be dealt out at a time when it makes sense. If I kill a man now and am jailed in this birth, it makes better sense for the person involved to truly repent for the crime. However, if we dont punish him or that he goes undetected, he will be caught by the infinitely long arms of God. Where can one truly escape? Every calamity and suffering that you face in this birth is a result of being asuric previously -- Unfortunately most of us do not know why we are suffering, so better to get the punishment when we know we are punished for known reasons.

atanu
24 July 2006, 08:05 AM
-----

But then again this is a topic for antoher thread perhaps and perhaps I should not even give my opinion on it as my blood starts boiling when I think about this 'Ahimsa'

Sanatana Dharma is about being practical...if someone is rapping your daughter you are not going to sit there and preach Ahimsa!

okay...I better stop now...:)

Namaskar Satay Ji,

Is letting the blood boil OK by Sanatana Dharma? Taking the risk of temperature further rising in this charged emotional environment, I note a few points.

It is Guna bound mind that binds. And it is one's karma alone that places one either in an unfriendly universe where blood may boil or in a pleasant universe. Letting the blood boil is anathema to sanatana dharma.

At a more profound level: ALL THAT ONE SEES IS one's own CONSCIOUSNESS ALONE. Finding out who the seer of all these is, will reform the whole perspective.

At the same time there is definitely no place for cowardice in sanatana dharma. I wonder, if God decided enough is enough and decreed us to join a dharma battle wherein death would be inevitable, how many would not have trepidation?

This has nothing to do with Muslim vs Hindu etc.

Om Namah Shivayya

satay
24 July 2006, 10:32 AM
Namaskar Satay Ji,

Is letting the blood boil OK by Sanatana Dharma? Taking the risk of temperature further rising in this charged emotional environment, I note a few points.

It is Guna bound mind that binds. And it is one's karma alone that places one either in an unfriendly universe where blood may boil or in a pleasant universe. Letting the blood boil is anathema to sanatana dharma.

At a more profound level: ALL THAT ONE SEES IS one's own CONSCIOUSNESS ALONE. Finding out who the seer of all these is, will reform the whole perspective.

At the same time there is definitely no place for cowardice in sanatana dharma. I wonder, if God decided enough is enough and decreed us to join a dharma battle wherein death would be inevitable, how many would not have trepidation?

This has nothing to do with Muslim vs Hindu etc.

Om Namah Shivayya

Namaste,

It seems that I am missing something or is it that 'our' blood has become water? It is the nature of water to be cool. Our blood is now water because of thousands of years of slavery.

is this why we allow the slaughter of gho-mata in mathura?

Couple of questions:
What do you think sanatana dharma tells us to do when an asura is:
a) raping your daughter
b) raping your mother
c) blowing the **** out of your defenceless child who just happens to be on the street buying some candy
d) slaughters gho-mata

Sanatana Dharma has its roots in 'paathal'; it will never be uprooted by adharmis. I am not worried about that at all since Bhagwan himself is 'Sanatana Dharma.'

I am not advocating himsa but like sarabhanga said in another post, for the greater good if there is himsa done without attachment then it is not adharma.

I am just sick of this menatality that sanatana dharma implies that we should wear chooris when an asura performs any acts from a to d.

The battle with asuras has been going on from the beginning in each yuga. In kali, it seems that we have joined hands with asuras or worse yet have become like pigeons that closes his eyes when he sees the cat.

We should open our eyes; it is time. Don't you think?

Why when a hindu talks like this he is labeled 'extremist' by other psuedo hindus?

satay
24 July 2006, 10:38 AM
The way I see it is, if you get hurt by another, its your karma so accept it. But if its life threatening then protect yourself, but without killing the other, so your karma will alter.

Interesting view. So with this view, a defenceless child who gets his brains blown out should accept his 'karma' especially if he is a hindu child. And we as a society or more importantly we as hindus should accept this fact. :headscratch:

atanu
24 July 2006, 12:59 PM
Namaskar Bhai,:po: This is fearful.

Has the temperature truly risen?


Namaste,

-----------

Couple of questions:
What do you think sanatana dharma tells us to do when an asura is:
a) raping your daughter
b) raping your mother
c) blowing the **** out of your defenceless child who just happens to be on the street buying some candy
d) slaughters gho-mata


Will there be any question left then? One will simply do a duty selflessly.

Satay Ji, there are other equally emotional issues that do not involve a particular religious class.




I am not advocating himsa but like sarabhanga said in another post, for the greater good if there is himsa done without attachment then it is not adharma.


Yes. It is not Himsa then, if done without attachment. It is self less duty such as performed by Arjuna, guided by Lord Himself. Himsa, on the other hand, is attachment.





The battle with asuras has been going on from the beginning in each yuga.


Yes, Asuras are internal demons: ego, lust, anger, fear, attachment etc. etc. that have created sense of "I, mine, others" eternally.




We should open our eyes; it is time. Don't you think?



Yes. We should open our inner eyes and see who is experiencing the strife and why?

And, with trepidation I suggest, may we leave the questions of reward and punishment to God who, if necessary, will direct us in such a fashion that there will be no doubt and no debate.

Om

satay
24 July 2006, 02:48 PM
Namaskar Bhai,:po: This is fearful.


why?:headscratch:



Has the temperature truly risen?

temperature can rise but since there is no blood but only water in our veins...it will do no good. It will become air.



Will there be any question left then? One will simply do a duty selflessly.


aha! so it seems that we are on the same page...then what are we arguing about?:p



Satay Ji, there are other equally emotional issues that do not involve a particular religious class.

I agree.



Yes. It is not Himsa then, if done without attachment. It is self less duty such as performed by Arjuna, guided by Lord Himself. Himsa, on the other hand, is attachment.


yes, we are on the same page. Now, what is our duty when someone rapes our mother? Yes, I mean Bharatavarsha. What to do?



Yes, Asuras are internal demons: ego, lust, anger, fear, attachment etc. etc. that have created sense of "I, mine, others" eternally.

I was thinking about asuras from dvaita point of view where they are known as chandalas that churned the ocean and fought the devas.




Yes. We should open our inner eyes and see who is experiencing the strife and why?


Opening inner eyes doesn't mean we should close our eyes that see outwardly! Through these mortal eyes we see and experience the operational reality (vivaharic satya) of this universe.



And, with trepidation I suggest, may we leave the questions of reward and punishment to God who, if necessary, will direct us in such a fashion that there will be no doubt and no debate.

Om

eh? should we not establish who is 'God' first? If everything and their dog is a god then there is no point.

Also, I am so sure that it is 'GOD' that does the punishing or rewarding. He/she/it seems to just be sitting there full of bliss.

I didn't meant to piss you off. It seems though that we are saying the same thing about 'ahimsa.'

sarabhanga
24 July 2006, 07:19 PM
There is no good reason for causing pain, and there is equally no reason for pity! But 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”.



Opening inner eyes doesn’t mean we should close our eyes that see outwardly! Through these mortal eyes we see and experience the operational reality of this universe.
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!

atanu
25 July 2006, 12:56 AM
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!


Accept my Namaskar to you.

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
25 July 2006, 01:08 AM
eh? should we not establish who is 'God' first? If everything and their dog is a god then there is no point.

Also, I am so sure that it is 'GOD' that does the punishing or rewarding. He/she/it seems to just be sitting there full of bliss.

I didn't meant to piss you off. It seems though that we are saying the same thing about 'ahimsa.'


Satay Ji Namaskar,

Without going into emotionalism, I will accept that first God must be established.

The truth is that God from within you has created all these. Only He can create.


You know that you are not a body. Then what are you? The day when you know that you are pure consciousness that sees 'Satay boiling' and also sees 'a terrorist killing' and when you know that the seeing is happening in your own consciousness, then the third eye would have opened.

It may be impossible now, however. Just for the sake of argument, imagine that you are pure consciousness that is known as Satay as well as a terrorist or a leader of thieves (as Rudra is addressed sometimes), then what will you do?

May be this is far off or may be very near. Till then selfless duty, worship and meditation only.


Note: And Bharatvarsha is just not an imaginary line delineating a piece of land on this earth. And God is not a local leader of that local piece of land.


I do not mean to piss you off. Just a piece of write up for a true bhai.

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
25 July 2006, 01:20 AM
Satay Ji Namaskar,


----Just for the sake of argument, imagine that you are pure consciousness that is known as Satay as well as a terrorist or a leader of thieves (as Rudra is addressed sometimes), then what will you do?


Om Namah Shivayya

There is story in Ramayana. Vishnu and Rudra had a fight. Vishnu took up arms and came to attack Rudra. And Rudra became sthanu -- immobile. Valmiki comments: there was no doubt in the mind of sages as to who was superior. Valmiki leaves it there. But some have often added purports, which depict their own state of consciousness.


But?


In deep sleep your problems do not remain, though you exist. This is one clue.

Second clue: Swami Vivekananda said: A meditating sage in a cave does thousand fold more good for universe than an egoistic active reformer.

Of course, everything depends on one's karma. And self less karma is always to be done as decreed by Lord himself.


Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
25 July 2006, 01:33 AM
why?:headscratch:

temperature can rise but since there is no blood but only water in our veins...it will do no good. It will become air.

'

Now, Satay Ji that is not bad. Air is prana. Blood, flesh came later. Become air, then ether, then Mahat, ------ and so on to pure Shiva.


Many people think that it was Shiva who killed Daksha. They are mistaken. It was Manyu, Shiva's angry nature. Fire burns but it does not incurr Karma.

Om Namah Shivayya

atanu
25 July 2006, 01:56 AM
namaste,
---
Denying the differences are not practical at all in the operational reality of this universe. Differences are there and we can see them clearly. Yes, our sages say that there is no difference when it comes to final analysis but to experience that we must transcend the operational universe first.

For example, I can clearly see that 'me' and my wife are not the same thing and there 'are' differences between us.

what you are saying just gives a good feeling and is politically correct but it is not practical.


The following dialog should clarify:

Question: ''All there is Consciousness, Consciousness is all there is.' Why does it seem like there is a difference between a Sage and a seeker if both are Consciousness? It feels as a contradiction.


Answer: It is as much a contradiction as to say: this is a lamp and this is a table. They are both consciousness. Consciousness as a lamp, consciousness as a table. But you don't try to get light out of the table. If you try to get illumination out of the table you are going to be a very frustrated person. So, your ability to make the distinction in the various aspects of Consciousness is important in order for you to function.

The lamp and the table are different but not separate!


So, as Sarabhanga ji says: act with all your three eyes open. And that is called sahaja samadhi.

satay
25 July 2006, 02:10 PM
namaste sarabhanga and atanu,
Thank you for the kind posts and trying to make me see the 'light'. I appreciate it sincerely.

I agree with you both but still maintain my position that in this operational universe we can not be 'non-operative' and sit and close our eyes like a pigeon when the cat attacks us or those who stand to protect dharma.

If we must meditate in a cave as swami vivekananda said then what the heck are we doing here? Why are we not sitting in a cave? Let's allow the neighbour's dogs in our houses while we run to the cave and meditate...

Maybe I am an emotional fool lost in maya, if that's the case then so be it...

The 'reality' of someone's punch or worse yet, a bullet can not be denied by repeating all conciousness is same!

I must confess that the standard that you both are advocating to perform 'himsa' is not practical in my mind. Maybe it is a high standard to be met by only a few self-realised souls or sanyasins. It almost seems like what you are presecribing only works for one varna.

How is kashatriya varna to uphold dharma when they must spend eternity trying to open his thrid eye?
Who is going to be practical and clean up the mess after asuras blow other people's brains out?
Who is going to make sure that it doesn't happen in the future?
How is it practical to first open our third eye to do this? By that time, asuras will be dancing on our head; they already are!

Is this the reason why hindus in general are so meek and timid and get labeled terrorists or extremists as soon as they ask these questions?

ps: I am not saying I am going to uphold dharma or that I am a kashatriya etc....just asking some questions from practical point of view.

atanu
25 July 2006, 02:52 PM
namaste sarabhanga and atanu,
Thank you for the kind posts and trying to make me see the 'light'. I appreciate it sincerely.

------
Who is going to make sure that it doesn't happen in the future?


See through you God exposes the right questions.

The true Asura is Raktabija - you kill one and from one drop of blood another emerges. Are you ready to tackle that? Only Devi can tackle that. And Devi is Girija -- my mind, not guns.

Note: Swami Vivekananda's statement was not meant to induce anyone to go to caves but to indicate that calming of one mind is more conducive to goodness than egoistic reform action.

Om Namah Shivayya:sleeping:

sarabhanga
25 July 2006, 07:20 PM
Namaste Satay,

Only those ascetics who have completely renounced the world are supposed to be entirely “non-operative”. And such Sannyasins have renounced all family ties and responsibilities, and even any attachment to their own mortal flesh!

Continuous total immersion in Samadhi is only possible for the most accomplished Yogin, and it is assumed that the vast majority of individuals will only be “non-operative” for a limited time (generally at dawn and dusk) every day.

Traditionally, only Kshatra and Naga are permitted to bear mortal weapons. And, just as it is assumed that all Vaishya should exactly follow the laws decreed by the Kshatriya lords of the region, it is also assumed that all Kshatriya will be properly advised by their Brahman Guru and act faithfully according to that true instruction. And it is assumed that every Naga will act exactly according to God’s own will!

Why must a born Kshatra spend eternity seeking true knowledge?

Just as a Brahman without proper Samskara is only a Brahmana by name, a Kshatra without a wise Guru is likewise only Kshatriya by name!

atanu
26 July 2006, 12:29 AM
--
I must confess that the standard that you both are advocating to perform 'himsa' is not practical in my mind.

On the contrary what is the practicality of stereotyping? At the best a few more plain guys will be alienated, without any mitigation of the main problem, You will also lose your peace of mind.

On the other hand, the following is practical:


Om ! O gods, may we hear with our ears what is auspicious;
May we see with our eyes what is auspicious;
May we, while offering our praise to gods
With our bodies strong of limbs,
Enjoy the life which the gods are pleased to grant us.
May Indra of great fame be well disposed to us;
May the all-knowing (or immensely wealthy) Pusha be propitious to us;
May Garuda, the vanquisher of miseries, be well pleased with us;
May Brihaspati grant us all prosperity.
Om ! Peace ! Peace ! Peace !


Om ! That (Brahman) is infinite, and this (universe) is infinite.
The infinite proceeds from the infinite.
(Then) taking the infinitude of the infinite (universe),
It remains as the infinite (Brahman) alone.
Om ! Let there be Peace in me !
Let there be Peace in my environment !
Let there be Peace in the forces that act on me !

Om Namah Shivayya

My mind is my environment, my universe.

Om Namah Shivayya. Harmonise the environment Lord.

atanu
26 July 2006, 12:47 AM
----

How is kashatriya varna to uphold dharma when they must spend eternity trying to open his thrid eye?
Who is going to be practical and clean up the mess after asuras blow other people's brains out?
Who is going to make sure that it doesn't happen in the future?
How is it practical to first open our third eye to do this? By that time, asuras will be dancing on our head; they already are!

----


Namaskar Satay,

Are you not assuming that kshatriya, vaishya etc etc. are doing work? It is a wrong assumption.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivayya

Znanna
27 July 2006, 03:33 PM
(snip)Maybe I am an emotional fool lost in maya, if that's the case then so be it...

The 'reality' of someone's punch or worse yet, a bullet can not be denied by repeating all conciousness is same!(snip)




Namaste, Satay,

The 'reality' of the punch is apparent only to those who consider themselves a target; a sword does not strike the water but instead passes through as the water yields and surrounds it. In this sense perhaps you may understand my meaning? Similarly, an example in the obverse, could be how a karate expert may break a concrete block without injuring the hand which strikes it.

In my opinion, this is the notion of "turn the other cheek" which is ironically disregarded by many of the Abrahamic faiths.

It is not a matter of repeating all consciousness is the same, but instead of the scary intimacy of experiencing being in more than one place at the same time which brings me to this conclusion.

Peace and luv :)

ZN

satay
29 July 2006, 01:47 PM
Namaste Znanna,

I am sorry...I think it is just me. I just can not comprehend that when someone shoots a child or blows his brains out by bombing them that they are hitting water with a sword. I just can't understand that. I don't know why...i am trying to but I just can't.

Turn the other cheek is valid only in some situtations. It's like they saying, "for a smart person only a signal or a sign is enough." Well, what about the person giving the signal or the sign? What if that person is stupid or a retarded? A smart person in that case will do some thinking before he follows the signal or the sign....
it's the same with the 'turn the other cheek'.

Also, I think that hindus in general have been not only turning the other cheek but inviting others to come and slap them hard for no apparent reason. I think it is time to wake up from this dream state and face the reality, on the other hand, if all this is a dream what does it matter in the end anyway? Why must I hide behind the 'ahimsa' and turn the other cheek why shouldn't a hindu be allowed to return the slap of asuras instead of preaching cowardice?

Just my humble opinion.

Znanna
29 July 2006, 02:27 PM
Namaste Znanna,

I am sorry...I think it is just me. I just can not comprehend that when someone shoots a child or blows his brains out by bombing them that they are hitting water with a sword. I just can't understand that. I don't know why...i am trying to but I just can't.

Turn the other cheek is valid only in some situtations. It's like they saying, "for a smart person only a signal or a sign is enough." Well, what about the person giving the signal or the sign? What if that person is stupid or a retarded? A smart person in that case will do some thinking before he follows the signal or the sign....
it's the same with the 'turn the other cheek'.

Also, I think that hindus in general have been not only turning the other cheek but inviting others to come and slap them hard for no apparent reason. I think it is time to wake up from this dream state and face the reality, on the other hand, if all this is a dream what does it matter in the end anyway? Why must I hide behind the 'ahimsa' and turn the other cheek why shouldn't a hindu be allowed to return the slap of asuras instead of preaching cowardice?

Just my humble opinion.

Namaste, Satay,

Funny, the Christians I have spoken with have made similar response, too, to my notion that by not reacting and participating in violence then violence has nothing upon which to feed.

I suppose this is why I follow no orthodoxy - they all seem to conclude that "other" is more important than, well, "grace" for lack of a better term.

I am truly saddened to read your comments.


Love never dies.

ZN

Sudarshan
29 July 2006, 02:59 PM
Namaste Znanna,

I am sorry...I think it is just me. I just can not comprehend that when someone shoots a child or blows his brains out by bombing them that they are hitting water with a sword. I just can't understand that. I don't know why...i am trying to but I just can't.

Turn the other cheek is valid only in some situtations. It's like they saying, "for a smart person only a signal or a sign is enough." Well, what about the person giving the signal or the sign? What if that person is stupid or a retarded? A smart person in that case will do some thinking before he follows the signal or the sign....
it's the same with the 'turn the other cheek'.

Also, I think that hindus in general have been not only turning the other cheek but inviting others to come and slap them hard for no apparent reason. I think it is time to wake up from this dream state and face the reality, on the other hand, if all this is a dream what does it matter in the end anyway? Why must I hide behind the 'ahimsa' and turn the other cheek why shouldn't a hindu be allowed to return the slap of asuras instead of preaching cowardice?

Just my humble opinion.

Dont you worry Satay. All these talks about illusions and ahimsa are that of Buddhism - not vedanta. We are NOT supposed to see illusions where some crime is going on(or anywhere else for that matter). Listen only to what Sri Krishna taught Arjuna - all practical philosophy. Theoreticians often do not know the practical side. I think you are a true vedantin, and hence your words.

Buddhists beleive that there is no one to save them, and that all Karma is bad. According to them, the Karma wheel is some automatic machine that rolls on without caring for the doer or his circumstance. Some of our Hindu brethren just copied them.

We do not beleive in "scientific karma" theory. The law of Karma is not like the law of gravitation with a uniform inverse square law. The engine of Karma itself is controlled only by Bhagavan , and he is free to change his laws at will. The Lord knows the circumstances where ahimsa is appropriate or not, and Karma never binds to you if the cause is appropriate.

You must read Mahabaratha. When Duryodhana was born Vidura indicated that he should be destroyed for the welfare of the world. People did not, and all khastriyas were destroyed. Ahimsa that leads to immense danger to you and others can be resisted by you. For the sake of saving many innocents you can lie. For the sake of the world you can destroy a city - all these are furnished by Hinduism.

Take proactive stance whenever you see injustice. Else give up everything to God and go away somewhere to the forest. Dont stand there preaching pseudo-ahimsa and leaving others at the mercy of enemies. One who lives in the world must live in accordance with reality.

sarabhanga
29 July 2006, 07:57 PM
Namaste Satay,

If you still understand Ahimsa as “preaching cowardice”, then you have misunderstood all of my many posts on the subject (both here and on HinduNet). :(

Rather than “hiding behind Ahimsa”, it would appear that you have been hiding from the very idea of Ahimsa!

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. ;)

sarabhanga
29 July 2006, 09:36 PM
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 ~ and that (I would have thought) is the context for most sensible discussion of Ahimsa.

If HDF is intended for the discussion of Shudra Dharma, then I submit that the aim is redundant, since there are already thousands of Christian web-sites available!

satay
29 July 2006, 11:15 PM
Namaste Satay,

If you still understand Ahimsa as “preaching cowardice”, then you have misunderstood all of my many posts on the subject (both here and on HinduNet). :(



Namaste,

To the contrary, so far only 'your' posts on ahimsa have made sense to me. Atanu and Zannan have been unable to provide a practical solution to the problem of asuras. Only your posts indicate that it is allowed for a certain varna to pick up the mortal weapons after instructions from a guru. I understand the practicality of what you have said already.



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. ;)

I agree.

satay
29 July 2006, 11:18 PM
The interpretation and application of Ahimsa is a more complex matter for Kshatriya and Brahmana Dharma ~ .


YES! that makes sense. This is all I have been trying to communicate since I posted Dr. Frawley's post.

Hindus do not preach cowardice! has been the context of all my posts on this thread.

satay
29 July 2006, 11:20 PM
Namaste, Satay,

I am truly saddened to read your comments.


I am sorry that I made you sad but I have just been trying to say that we can not and should not sit like pigeons and close our eyes when the danger is sitting right in front of us.



Love never dies.

ZN

yes.

satay
30 July 2006, 02:12 AM
Dont you worry Satay. All these talks about illusions and ahimsa are that of Buddhism - not vedanta.

namaste,
:)

haven't seen you around for a few days. hope things are well.

atanu
30 July 2006, 11:37 AM
Namaste,

--- Atanu ------ been unable to provide a practical solution to the problem of asuras. Only your posts indicate that it is allowed for a certain varna to pick up the mortal weapons after instructions from a guru. I understand the practicality of what you have said already.



I agree.


I agree. But are you not agreeing to disagree from the beginning? Has any Guru asked you to pick up weapons yet? Or does the talk of revenge mean courage?

Arjuna was shown a scenario where all Kurus were already vanquished and dead destroyed by Lord himself. And Arjuna was also instructed as to who the real destroyer was. Arjuna was reluctant to fight (unlike you) but he was persuaded to join the battle and was also told in no uncertain terms that He was just an instrument.


If God has chosen you as an instrument for a particular task, then go ahead -- do not entertain any doubts.

Om Namah Shivayya

satay
30 July 2006, 11:43 AM
I agree. But are you not agreeing to disagree from the beginning? Has any Guru asked you to pick up weapons yet? Or does the talk of revenge mean courage?

Om Namah Shivayya

namaste,
I have not been talking in the context of 'revenge', if that is what you understood from my posts then it is my fault for not communicating the context better!

atanu
31 July 2006, 11:41 AM
namaste,
I have not been talking in the context of 'revenge', if that is what you understood from my posts then it is my fault for not communicating the context better!


Dear Satay,

I also have a misunderstanding to clear up.

Whatever I wrote in this thread was for Satay,an advanced seeker and not for common folks who do not even have an inkling of ONE ATMA. Keeping the mind full with thoughts of misdeeds of others fosters the otherness very solidly and like concrete. We are all aspirants towards realizing the Self, which cannot be done if thoughts of others fill up the days and nights.

On the other hand, when Viswamitra demanded 100 cows from Vashistha, he was refused and in the fight that ensued Visvamitra was mauled.

Even then Vashistha always called Visvamitra a Brahmarishi.


Om Namah Shivayya