Does Sanatan Dharma really preach non - violence?

[hthakar]

Namaskar,

I have been reading spiritual texts for more than 2 years now (after one missionary tried to convert me!!!) and I have come across one major doubt.

Does Sanatan Dharma really preach ahimsa to all??
I say it does not.

1.) The Bhagavad Gita is Lord Krushna's guidance to Arjun to kill his own Grandsire , cousins etc for the sake of dharma. This is what every person following Sanatan Dharma must do in Kaliyug.

2.) In Ramayan, Prabhu Shree Ram rid the society of the adharmi demons.

3.)Lord Parshuram killed the adharmi kshatriyas of the world 27 times.

4.) Narsimha avataar, Varah avataar came just for the destruction of evil.

5) Shree Ramdas Swami (a saint) backed Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj on his war for dharma. (otherwise we all would have been mughalai muslims today)

The greatest text of Sanatan Dharma today is Mahabharat as it tells us what to do in Kaliyug i.e. today. Lord Krushna killed his own uncle, and his descendants (Yadav race) because they were adharmi.

Doesnt this tell us that, for dharma we have to kill the adharmis be they our own relatives?

If so, then who can kill the adharmi? everyone? only the ones chosen by saints? Does one kill out of hate or pity to prevent them from accumulating more sins? Isn't this the same as jihad but only change the word "kafir*" to "adharmi**"

* kafir = non muslim
** adharmi = one not acting according to dharma (can be hindu, muslim, christian OR human or non - human)

Gratitude,
Harsh.

[rcscwc]

Does Sanatan Dharma really preach ahimsa to all?? Yes. But killing in self defence, defence of family, village, country is not himsa. Nor is killing in path of duty, like a hangman does. Nor imposing deatgh prnality on criminals.

Thou shall not kill is not found anywhere in Dharmic religion.

I say it does not.

SO?

1.) The Bhagavad Gita is Lord Krushna's guidance to Arjun to kill his own Grandsire , cousins etc for the sake of dharma. This is what every person following Sanatan Dharma must do in Kaliyug.

That was during the war. Arjuna was defending his right of defence. Now don't tell me there was reason for going to war.

I will tell you something. That war was not between followers of different religions. Arjuna was not trying to impose his theology, nor was Krishna.


2.) In Ramayan, Prabhu Shree Ram rid the society of the adharmi demons.


Hmm. Those rakshas were trying to impose their version of worship on others. They were persecuting people for having their prefered deity. Ram did not tell them : Worship my deity or else...


3.)Lord Parshuram killed the adharmi kshatriyas of the world 27 times.
Oppresoor and unjust kings. And your counting right please. Looks like you picked up from some muslim or xian site.


4.) Narsimha avataar, Varah avataar came just for the destruction of evil.

Is it condemnable?


5) Shree Ramdas Swami (a saint) backed Chatrapati Shivaji Maharaj on his war for dharma. (otherwise we all would have been mughalai muslims today)

Shivali was fighting a war of liberation against the mughal king Aurangzeb. Now don't tell me Aurangzeb was just and tolerant muslim.


The greatest text of Sanatan Dharma today is Mahabharat as it tells us what to do in Kaliyug i.e. today. Lord Krushna killed his own uncle, and his descendants (Yadav race) because they were adharmi.

Did not uncle want to kill Krishna right from His birth? Tit for tat.


Doesnt this tell us that, for dharma we have to kill the adharmis be they our own relatives?
Unjust, unrighteous, whatever dharma they follow. Not for being apostates.



* kafir = non muslim
heathen= Not a xian
** adharmi = one not acting according to dharma (can be hindu, muslim, christian OR human or non - human)

PS: Do you think a woman being raped should mur to her rapist: I will resist you, else you might be killed.?

Should her brothers, father, sons just watch her being raped just because they are ahimsaks?

Are you aware what Dharma should be? No, you don't.

[hthakar]

Dear Sir (rcscwc),

Thank you for your reply. I will be grateful if you can explain this to me in detail or give me a link which teaches the rules where himsa (violence) is justified according to dharma. Even though I am a born Hindu, I do not know much since I have not been taught our rich traditions and their meanings. But I am trying hard to find out.



Yes. But killing in self defence, defence of family, village, country is not himsa. Nor is killing in path of duty, like a hangman does. Nor imposing death penalty on criminals.

So basically, as I understand, killing in defense is not himsa. What about common soldiers who invade another kingdom/country/territory on the order of their king/leader? Do the soldiers get paap for being aggressors?


Thou shall not kill is not found anywhere in Dharmic religion.

SO?
SO …… nothing. If my understanding of dharma is wrong, I need to be corrected by wiser people.




Is it condemnable?
No it is not. We have to fight evil just like the avatars. My main point in this is that many Hindu organizations I know (ISKON, Brahmakumari etc) tell me that we have to wait for Ishwar to take an avatar to fight evil and we must not do anything but pray. I don’t agree with this view and that’s why I started the thread.




Shivaji was fighting a war of liberation against the mughal king Aurangzeb. Now don't tell me Aurangzeb was just and tolerant muslim.
You misunderstood my question. I was asking WHO should fight adharma with violence. Should they be chosen by saints like Shivaji Raje? Or can anyone fight as per His/her own understanding of dharma. Fighting adharma is a must.



PS: Do you think a woman being raped should mur to her rapist: I will resist you, else you might be killed.?

Should her brothers, father, sons just watch her being raped just because they are ahimsaks?

Are you aware what Dharma should be? No, you don't.
Ofcourse the rapist must be killed. You seem to have misunderstood my stand. I have been reading Kshatradharma sadhana which is the spiritual practice of destroying adharma and asuri energies. It states that a Kshatraveer can only be one who is spiritually superior/ has be chosen by saints and kills not out of anger/ hate but out of compassion and love. He is compassionate because he is stopping the adharmi from committing more sins thus the kshatraveer prevents the adharmi from going to hell for a longer time and has a chance of getting a human life again.

So how do we know, what is our spiritual level? Can we just defend our faith in anger or

If you know more about kshatradharma sadhana please tell me.

[rcscwc]

5.37. If he has a strong desire (for meat) he may make an animal of clarified butter or one of flour, (and eat that); but let him never seek to destroy an animal without a (lawful) reason.
5.38. As many hairs as the slain beast has, so often indeed will he who killed it without a (lawful) reason suffer a violent death in future births.
5.51. He who permits (the slaughter of an animal), he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells (meat), he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, (must all be considered as) the slayers (of the animal).
Here Manu is very clear. Wanton killing of even animals is prohibited.
Right of self defence
8.350. One may slay without hesitation an assassin who approaches (with murderous intent), whether (he be one's) teacher, a child or an aged man, or a Brahmana deeply versed in the Vedas.
8.351. By killing an assassin the slayer incurs no guilt, ...

The following answers some other questions
7.98. Thus has been declared the blameless, primeval law for warriors; from this law a Kshatriya must not depart, when he strikes his foes in battle.

9.274. Those who do not give assistance according to their ability when a village is being plundered, a dyke is being destroyed, or a highway robbery committed, shall be banished with their goods and chattels.

Protection of the village or resisting the robbers might inviolve killing too.

ho should fight for Dharma?

All should, without hesitation.

You asked about soldiers. They do not mount war or invasions, their leaders and rulers do. If there is a war crime, soldier is NOT guilty, rulers and leaders are.

But a soldier must psychologically be involved if he is to fight to his utmost. Arjuna had doubts, but Krishna cleared them. During Viet Nam war, the American youth did not accept it as their own war. Large scale draft evasions occured. But their rulers were of the cailber of Krishna, and could not convince the citizens. Is it a surprise that US lost the war?

[bhaktajan]

Violence is a skill that is relegated to Governmental Departments of Defence

Even Arjuna struggled with the limits of his duty —can you imagine the steel-nerves required to do such a job? Arjuna had an insoluble resolve & conviction in his expertise —yet he lost his composure and questioned the ethics of doing the obviously most pragmatic thing, engage in war (a civil-war).

Bhagavad-gita Chap 1 verse 36:
"Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhrtarastra and our friends. What should we gain, O Krishna, husband of the goddess of fortune, and how could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen?"

Here is a few comments by an old Indian wise man.

According to Vedic injunctions there are six kinds of aggressors:
(1) a poison giver,
(2) one who sets fire to the house,
(3) one who attacks with deadly weapons,
(4) one who plunders riches,
(5) one who occupies another’s land, and
(6) one who kidnaps a wife.

Such aggressors are at once to be killed, and no sin is incurred by killing such aggressors. Such killing of aggressors is quite befitting any ordinary man, but Arjuna was not an ordinary person. He was saintly by character, and therefore he wanted to deal with them in saintliness. This kind of saintliness, however, is not for a ksatriya.

Although a responsible man in the administration of a state is required to be saintly, he should not be cowardly. For example, Lord Rama was so saintly that people even now are anxious to live in the kingdom of Lord Rama (rama-rajya), but Lord Rama never showed any cowardice. Ravaha was an aggressor against Rama because Ravaha kidnapped Rama’s wife, Sita, but Lord Rama gave him sufficient lessons, unparalleled in the history of the world.

In Arjuna’s case, however, one should consider the special type of aggressors, namely his own grandfather, own teacher, friends, sons, grandsons, etc. Because of them, Arjuna thought that he should not take the severe steps necessary against ordinary aggressors. Besides that, saintly persons are advised to forgive. Such injunctions for saintly persons are more important than any political emergency.

Arjuna considered that rather than kill his own kinsmen for political reasons, it would be better to forgive them on grounds of religion and saintly behavior. He did not, therefore, consider such killing profitable simply for the matter of temporary bodily happiness.

After all, kingdoms and pleasures derived therefrom are not permanent, so why should he risk his life and eternal salvation by killing his own kinsmen? Arjuna’s addressing of Krishna as “Madhava,” or the husband of the goddess of fortune, is also significant in this connection.

He wanted to point out to Krishna that, as husband of the goddess of fortune, He should not induce Arjuna to take up a matter which would ultimately bring about misfortune. Krishna, however, never brings misfortune to anyone, to say nothing of His devotees.

[chandu_69]

I would like to expand a bit more on a particular point made by Bhakthajan by quoting Arjuna from Bhagavad Gita.

BG 1:45:Better for me if the sons of Dhrutarashtra weapons in hand, were to kill me unarmed and unresisting on the battlefield.

The Kauravas are not going to stop after killing Arjuna they will naturally continue the battle with the army.

Renunciation by Arjuna at the battlefield is Avoiding his duty as a Kshatriya i.e. to fight in a war.


Arjuna considered that rather than kill his own kinsmen for political reasons, it would be better to forgive them on grounds of religion and saintly behavior.

[rcscwc]

Though Gita was revealed in the battlefield, it transcebds the war and battle. Very quickly, whole of the seence of Hindu philosophy is presented in a nut shell.

Arjuna, the invincible warrior has doubts about the desirability of fighting his kins, teachers, elders and those kings who were not his personal enemies. He is reluctant to kill them. his presents a human dilemma. Such dilemmas are not easy to resolve. But Krishna, who drove Arjuna's chariot, resolved them for Arjuna. Krishna was not only the lietral charioteer, but turned out to the spiritual driver for Arjuna.

Should you do your duties which involved actions that are repugnant to you? During Viet Nam war, American youths had such a question: Why should I fight a war which does not relate to me? This was BIG, a MEGA question. As for Arjuna, he did know he was related to the war. But why should he fight when he KNEW that he would slay all his opponents? Even the outcome of the war was clear to him. His dilemms was MORAL.

Krishna took the sermon above the immidiate balltle and pushed into the back ground. What he brought to the front was DUTY in the defence of Justice. Krishna brings out the alternatives: Either you fight and win attain the kingdom here and after life, with attendant glory. Or fight and be killed, but still get the glory and heaven. Or refuse to fight and be branded a coward when an ultimate sacrifice was demanded.

Three paths were unfolded by Krishna, for liberation(salvation):

1. Path of Knowledge. Pursuit of knowledge of Self, God or for that matter any field. It is not easy for an ordinary man, but is not impossible either.

2. Path of action. This is easier in certain cases. Do your duties. Contribute to the society.

3. Devotion: Have pure faith. Not much reasoning is needed.

These paths are in order of decreasing desirability but increasing ease. In sum, there is no royal road to traverse. You explore the road and select it.

I agree that the Gita can be confusing to a new comer. It deals with complex matters in easy language and terminology. But for a Hindu the road map is clear.

At the end Krishna leaves the choice to the free will of Arjuna. But his doubts were cleared and he took up the battle willingly and won.

PS: It is divided into 18 chapters. One of the earlist commentary is by Shankar dating back abouut 800 CE. It skips chapter one and 9 verses of Ch. 2. So it starts at 2.10. Chapter one outlines the dilemma of Arjuna, and would hardly require any comments. The dilemma is there for all to see.

[hthakar]

Ok so far I have understood the theory.

Thank you.