PDA

View Full Version : Ahimsa



Gopal Dasa
18 October 2010, 06:09 PM
I was looking threw the Bhagavad-Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam today and I was wondering, is Ahimsa really that important in Sanatana-Dharma? I am a very non-violent person, I dont want to harm an ant. But in many Puranas and the Gita, it is looked highly upon to follow instruction than to not Kill. For example, Arjuna is seen highly upon by many people because he followed the directions of Krsna.

So, in conclusion, which is higher to you? Ahimsa or Surrender to the will of God, which means you may have to kill.

Eastern Mind
18 October 2010, 06:20 PM
Vannakkam: For me it would be ahimsa, but having said that, if I strongly felt that some violent action against me or my loved ones was coming my way, I'd probably defend myself, against human, or animal.

The idea of surrendering to God's will is fine but I also think some people will juxtapose their own desires as 'God's will' when it really isn't. It's like saying 'It's God's will that that person is hungry, or 'God's will that I can't get a job'. There can be mental calisthenics involved and for me personally, the mind is too bouncing around yet for me to be absolutely clear on it.

Aum Namasivaya

Ekanta
18 October 2010, 08:14 PM
It can be viewed from different levels:
Ahimsa means not hurt right? The higher goal was to protect dharma from injury. So in order to keep dharma from being hurt, war was in this case necessary. :)

saidevo
18 October 2010, 10:41 PM
Each of the four Yugas ends with a great battle, followed by praLaya--deluge. Thus, Satya or KRta Yuga ended with God SubrahmaNya killing the mighty TArakAsura in a great war. Treta Yuga ended with shrI RAma killing RAvANa in the RAmAyaNa war that lasted for eighteen months. The MahAbhArata war lasted for eighteen days, resulting in KRShNa being the force behind the PANDavas destroying the entire family of the Kauravas.

Therefore, in shrImad Bhagavad GItA, which is a part of the MahAbhArata, KRShNa exhorts Arjuna to be his instrument of destruction of adharma for re-establishment of dharma. And shrImad BhAgavatam celebrates this great Avatar's life and glory. Neither of these texts contract the principle of ahiMsA--non-violence, because the dharma-yuddhas of ancient times, unlike the present day wars, did not affect the common people.

Arav
01 November 2010, 01:04 PM
I was looking threw the Bhagavad-Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam today and I was wondering, is Ahimsa really that important in Sanatana-Dharma? I am a very non-violent person, I dont want to harm an ant. But in many Puranas and the Gita, it is looked highly upon to follow instruction than to not Kill. For example, Arjuna is seen highly upon by many people because he followed the directions of Krsna.

So, in conclusion, which is higher to you? Ahimsa or Surrender to the will of God, which means you may have to kill.

To be quite honest, I dont seperate the two.

sanjaya
01 November 2010, 08:06 PM
I was looking threw the Bhagavad-Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam today and I was wondering, is Ahimsa really that important in Sanatana-Dharma? I am a very non-violent person, I dont want to harm an ant. But in many Puranas and the Gita, it is looked highly upon to follow instruction than to not Kill. For example, Arjuna is seen highly upon by many people because he followed the directions of Krsna.

So, in conclusion, which is higher to you? Ahimsa or Surrender to the will of God, which means you may have to kill.

Interesting question. I suppose many people have asked, more generally, how the principle of ahimsa can be extracted from the Bhagavad Gita when the text supports war. Perhaps at least one lesson that can be extracted from Sri Krishna's discourse with Arjuna is that ahimsa is not a justification for inaction leading to adharma. Krishna says that whenever there is a decrease of dharma and an increase of adharma, he incarnates himself in order to restore dharma. Often this has been done through war, as in the case of Lord Rama. Lord Krishna says that Arjuna ought not to waste his scruples on those who are unworthy of them. I take that to mean that the directive against violence is not an absolute one. Absolute commandments rarely make sense when applied literally to every imaginable scenario, after all.

As EM already said, most people refer to their own desires as the will of God. Those who have used religion as a means of oppression are guilty of precisely this, but I think it's common for even average people to do so as well. It seems to me that God will never tell us to do something that is obviously wrong, and that this can be used as a means for distinguishing the will of God from our own desires. When Sri Krishna told Arjuna to fight his own brethren, he didn't simply issue a commandment from on high and expect Arjuna to follow "because God says so." Instead he convinced him with logic and reason, so that when Arjuna fought, it was by his own will and not under compulsion or for fear of God.

It seems to me that surrender to the will of God is by definition always the right thing to do. But I don't think we can make the mistake of assuming that people who claim to be doing God's will are necessarily telling the truth.

Eastern Mind
01 November 2010, 08:32 PM
Vannakam Sanjaya et all: Another way you can see how people mislead themselves is the "God is on my side" argument. Not only is it annoying in larger things like war, but I also find professional athletes annoying when they thank God for winning. I don't think many of them would concede that losing was the will of God as well. Its pretty simplistic Abrahamic thinking.

Aum Namasivaya

yajvan
01 November 2010, 09:41 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté sanjaya ( et.al)



I suppose many people have asked, more generally, how the principle of ahimsa can be extracted from the Bhagavad Gita when the text supports war

I look at this in a slightly different light... kṛṣṇa ( some prefer kṛṣṇ) supports arjuna to do his allotted duty. As a kṣatriya¹ that duty is the protection of the kingdom and its people.
These duties are laid out in the śanti parvan ( section) of the mahābhārata. Above all it is the protection of the people.

So what Kṛṣṇa is supporting via the bhāgavad gītā is one's dharma. The avoidance of war was tried again and again, yet was not acceptable to duryodhana, and hence proper action was then taken.


praṇām

words
kṣatriya - rooted in kṣa - the protector ; also this name is the fourth incarnation of viṣṇu or nara-siṃha.

sanjaya
01 November 2010, 09:58 PM
Vannakam Sanjaya et all: Another way you can see how people mislead themselves is the "God is on my side" argument. Not only is it annoying in larger things like war, but I also find professional athletes annoying when they thank God for winning. I don't think many of them would concede that losing was the will of God as well. Its pretty simplistic Abrahamic thinking.

Aum Namasivaya

Ah yes, we've all heard this from the Christian football players. The very idea of God being on a certain football team's side seems outright foolish to me. I suppose it makes sense from an Abrahamic perspective, since their conception of God is one of a warrior. But I've seen this attitude in some misguided Hindus too. There are those who live less-than-dharmic lives, but make huge donations to the temple and claim that God is on their side. Very annoying, to say the least.


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté sanjaya ( et.al)


I look at this in a slightly different light... kṛṣṇa ( some prefer kṛṣṇ) supports arjuna to do his allotted duty. As a kṣatriya¹ that duty is the protection of the kingdom and its people.
These duties are laid out in the śanti parvan ( section) of the mahābhārata. Above all it is the protection of the people.

So what Kṛṣṇa is supporting via the bhāgavad gītā is one's dharma. The avoidance of war was tried again and again, yet was not acceptable to duryodhana, and hence proper action was then taken.


praṇām

words
kṣatriya - rooted in kṣa - the protector ; also this name is the fourth incarnation of viṣṇu or nara-siṃha.

That's largely how I've understood it too. Gita tells us that it is better to do one's duty poorly than to do another's duty well. Ahimsa seems to me to be a subset of Dharma. There are cases in which violence is required (though we probably should not take any pleasure in it). Blind pacifism would ultimately be destructive.

Case in point: the physicist Albert Einstein was an avowed pacifist. But when he realized that that the concept of the atomic bomb could become a reality within his lifetime, he knew it was imperative that the Americans develop it before the Germans or Japanese, and he exhorted President Roosevelt to take on the project. If he had been a fundamentalist in his pacifism, we might all be speaking German today.

Adhvagat
03 November 2010, 04:55 AM
Don't we struggle in life? Don't we struggle against misery? Cataclysms? Diseases?

Don't we feel helpless when face great problems?

I'm sure the Gita is so discussed today because it's a great analogy to life in Kali Yuga.

The Kurukshetra is a direct relation to our karma kshetra and how we should act inside it. Do what you have to do, don't feel attached, seek transcendence, discern with spiritual intelligence. Because just like a battlefield, the purpose lies outside.

Om namo bhagavate vasudevaya!