PDA

View Full Version : Hinduism and NonViolence



AmIHindu
27 April 2011, 10:49 AM
Namaste,

I have read many times that India has not invaded any country in last 1000 years. I am not sure if invading other country is good or bad but when it comes to self defense, question comes if India/Hindu people are good at self defense, their country and their religion ! I am not sure if our scriptures gives us the teaching of non-violence. I have read that India was a great country with great Rishis, they were all very mighty. So how does this non-violence word was coined, and who coined this word ? We got Independence with non-violence. Gandhiji was leader in non-violence, but he was shot dead. I am not sure if we misinterpreted word non-violence. Your views and ideas welcomed.

Namaskar.
AmIHindu ?

Water
27 April 2011, 04:23 PM
There is actually a very sad instance where the "non-violence" was misinterpreted and it brought Gandhi to tears....

In The Gita, Sri Krishna calls Arjuna a coward for not fighting.

So yes, "non-violence" is often mis-interpreted and shockingly realized in many instances to not be as simplistic as "not being violent." It certainly does not mean "do not defend yourself," "allow yourself to be injured," "disregard your duties to your home, family and country," etc.

Friend from the West
27 April 2011, 05:48 PM
Namaste AMIHINDU,


The below link has some quotes from Gandhi on this issue. http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm (http://www.mkgandhi.org/nonviolence/phil8.htm)
The forum does have good material regarding Ahimsa.
Pietro provided me useful feedback regarding one's duty and how the Bhagavad Gita discusses the warrior caste, kšatrīya. He also gave other info. that may be useful to you. If he catches this post he can articulate much better.Peace,
Rich

nitinsharma
28 April 2011, 02:00 AM
There is a thing called Dharma,and if upholding/protecting it requires the use of violence,then so be it.

rajputistan
28 April 2011, 04:54 AM
Hinduism supports Dharma. The best definition of Dharma that we all can understand easily is given my Deendayal Upadhyaya: "Any action which results in the good of all or most is Dharma." And opposite of this is Adharma.

So whatever is dharma we have to do, weather it is violence or it is nonviolence.

Eastern Mind
28 April 2011, 08:17 AM
Namaste,

I have read many times that India has not invaded any country in last 1000 years. I am not sure if invading other country is good or bad but when it comes to self defense, question comes if India/Hindu people are good at self defense, their country and their religion ! I am not sure if our scriptures gives us the teaching of non-violence. I have read that India was a great country with great Rishis, they were all very mighty. So how does this non-violence word was coined, and who coined this word ? We got Independence with non-violence. Gandhiji was leader in non-violence, but he was shot dead. I am not sure if we misinterpreted word non-violence. Your views and ideas welcomed.

Namaskar.
AmIHindu ?

Vannakkam AmIhindu: This can be a controversial topic with a slippery slope. Who are we to judge when its self-defense, and the absolute last resort? Its not easy, as it wasn't easy for Arjuna in the Gita.

Here are some examples.

Americans and others have invaded other countries in 'self-defense'. By their definition it was. By others it wasn't.

Often we hear the 'God is on my side' argument, ironically from both sides.

A mugger pulls a knife on you on the street. Assuming you know self-defense, do you fight, hand over the wallet, or run? (My daughter has her black belt, and when I asked her this, she said her teacher taught option 3 first.)

My real point is that it is very complicated, and dependent on each individual circumstance. My personal prayer is that violence of all kinds (starting with violence within the homes) is on a gradual downward trend, hopefully about to begin accelerating soon.

Aum Namasivaya

Water
28 April 2011, 09:42 AM
Assuming you know self-defense, do you fight, hand over the wallet, or run? (My daughter has her black belt, and when I asked her this, she said her teacher taught option 3 first.)

There's a 4th option (especially for females): Throw the purse/wallet over their head or far to one side. If they track the item in the air: scream "thief" and run. If they do not, scream "fire" and prepare to fight.

Screaming is pretty beneficial in regulating breath, getting attention and preventing hyperventilation in people that are prone to it during stress.

Yelling "fire" will get you more attention than any other option. Unfortunately, if there's no immediate danger, people will ignore you. The mugger won't care if you're in a situation where they didn't want money.

Yelling "thief" will get little attention, but more importantly it can offset the mental state of the mugger and they may run the opposite way to avoid getting caught.


My real point is that it is very complicated, and dependent on each individual circumstance. My personal prayer is that violence of all kinds (starting with violence within the homes) is on a gradual downward trend, hopefully about to begin accelerating soon.

Aum Namasivaya

Always complicated... I suppose in our mugger example, it's quite possible the mugger is coming to terms with something they themselves must fight for. Are they in danger of survival? Do they have a family? Are they living out their own duty to later transform into a proponent for peace? Will wounding, killing or getting them detained actually help?

I studied Aikido for a few years. Great martial art, very humbling and a great way to avoid violence. :)

Adhvagat
28 April 2011, 09:58 AM
Related topics:

Yama and Niyama: ahiṁsā or non-injury
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=55364

On Ahimsa
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=416

Ahimsa
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=6515

ahimsa and cows
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=7103

Satyagraha and Nonviolence
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2478

yajvan
28 April 2011, 05:34 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


In The Gita, Sri Krishna calls Arjuna a coward for not fighting.

Can you offer the śloka where Kṛṣṇa-ji says these words?

praṇām

Adhvagat
28 April 2011, 05:39 PM
Hmmm, the "fear" thread all over again? No! :D

I'm sure Krishna does not say that, but Krishna states clearly that not fighting is not the best solution for that particular circumstance.

Water
29 April 2011, 12:18 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Can you offer the śloka where Kṛṣṇa-ji says these words?

praṇām


2:2, here is the passage that is often translated as "coward" or similar,

"sri-bhagavan uvaca
kutas tva kasmalam idam
visame samupasthitam
anarya-justam asvargyam
akirti-karam arjuna"

Extremely short, summarized translation in my own paraphrasing -
"Where has this behavior come from? It is not honorable and is the cause of infamy and shame."

English "coward" adjective -
- lacking courage; very fearful or timid.
- person who lacks courage in facing danger, difficulty, opposition, pain, etc.; a timid or easily intimidated person.

Refusal to fight is being timid in the face of opposition. I can understand the logic in the translation. Definitely consider that coward may be interpreted as a "fear of fighting" - but that is not the singular definition. It can simply be a refusal to fight without fear nor intimidation.

Do you think it is an erroneous translation? I repeat it only because I have seen it's repetition in many sources from ISKCon texts to the public works of Vivekananda.

yajvan
29 April 2011, 10:48 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



2:2, here is the passage that is often translated as "coward" or similar,

"sri-bhagavan uvaca
kutas tva kasmalam idam
visame samupasthitam
anarya-justam asvargyam
akirti-karam arjuna"

Extremely short, summarized translation in my own paraphrasing -
"Where has this behavior come from? It is not honorable and is the cause of infamy and shame."

Do you think it is an erroneous translation? I repeat it only because I have seen it's repetition in many sources from ISKCon texts to the public works of Vivekananda.
Yes, this is the verse (śloka) I thought you were referring to. I am not fond of the translation that was offered above.

One first must be aware of kṛṣṇa-ji's teaching method. He plans on lifting-up arjun ( some write arjuna) from
his condition of inaction to action - preparedness to fight.

He asks , kutas - where from ? from what cause or motive ? from where does this kaśmala arise?
This is the key word and does not imply cowardly-ness. My teacher has used the word blemish as the
defintion of kaśmala. Why so ? Because mala is an 'impurity' and kaś is 'to move, to approach' .
Hence this kaśmala is movement to impurity, to blemish. Yet kaśmala also means timid.

So, Kṛṣṇa-ji is asking where did this blemish, this impurity of being timid arise from? One must be aware
that it is kṛṣṇa-ji's motive to uplift and prepare , not to find fault. He would therefore not call arjun a coward
as the effect of this would be degrading and not give the effect He is looking for.

He is getting arjun's attention and in the next verse ( 3rd śloka ) He calls him pārtha ( son of pṛthā) .
Why so ? This again is kṛṣṇa-ji's perfect skill as the teacher. We can address this if there is interest.

praṇām

Water
29 April 2011, 11:19 AM
Many thanks for the insight you have provided.

I interpreted the translation to not quite be offensive or degrading. I understand that the word is generally used extremely negatively and implies an insult about a person's unreasonable fear... there is also a somewhat neutral application that implies a personal self-defeat or distaste for the task.

It also seems fitting for the scenario - immediately before battle, someone is told they are acting in a timid way to cause shame and infamy. There is a single English word that immediately comes to mind.

Maybe there is a more tactful translation that maintains the message? Blemish is somewhat unwieldy and does not flow well in speech.

Ganeshprasad
29 April 2011, 12:20 PM
Pranam

If i may offer my own understanding, that it could not be coward for in the nest verse the 4th line he says and i quote

klaibyam ma sma gamah partha
naitat tvayy upapadyate
ksudram hrdaya-daurbalyam
tyaktvottistha parantapa

O son of Prtha, do not yield to this degrading impotence. It does not become you. Give up such petty weakness of heart and arise, O chastiser of the enemy.

PS. sorry i jumped ahead as Yajvanji had already offered slok no 3 for further consideration


Jai Shree Krishna

yajvan
29 April 2011, 12:39 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Many thanks for the insight you have provided.
Maybe there is a more tactful translation that maintains the message?


Yes, I see what you say, yet there is one thing that could be missed when reading the Bhāgavad gītā - it is perfect knowledge. Hence if it is perfect each word then can be viewed in its wholeness from the 6 systems of Indian philosophy - this is called saḍ darśana or the 6 schools of vision, seeing, sight. We know them as :

śāṁkhya
yoga
vedānta
mīmāṃsā
nyāya
vaiśeṣika.The 6 darśana-s दर्शन (seeing, looking, knowledge, traditional doctrine or precept , collection of such doctrines) are so complete in themselves, that many people took the 6 to be different views. This is not the case. The six when taken as whole give a 360º view of Reality.


Now if that in and of itself were not enough, each śloka can also be viewed on 3 different levels:

The physical level - this would be the fight of good vs. bad, right and wrong, the big oppressing the small, the strong oppressing
the weak. One could say this occurs on the individual, social, national levels and can be seen via the senses.
The mental level - that of thoughts, ideas, tendencies, behaviors, traits, manas or mind, intellect (buddhi), etc. We can even place meditation on this level. The ~battle~ of the senses drawing one into the field of matter vs. inward to calmness, to steadiness towards the direction of the Self.
The spiritual level - this is the level of the devata, yet we as spiritual beings can also be found here as one experiences samādhi, perfect silence, etc. Now we have that tendency for union ( yukti, yoga) with the Supreme, yet the ego may get in the way , or the subtler kośa's¹ or even other impulses of nature that may restrict this abilityThis is how skillful the muni veda vyāsa¹ has taken this knowledge. I have not found any knowledge other then sanātana dharma that takes such a profound view of reality to this level.

praṇām



words/references

veda vyāsa - the one who compiled the veda-s and is also known as kṛṣṇa dvaipāyana; for more insight on vyāsa see this HDF post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=49765&postcount=35 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=49765&postcount=35)
kośa - these are coverings over the Self. Some say there are 3 others say 5. The ānanda-maya kośa or sheath of bliss , the kāraṇa-śarīra or causal frame , the vijñāna-maya or buddhi-maya or mano-maya or prāṇa-maya kośa , " the sheath of intellect or will or life-force , the sūkṣma-śarīra or " subtle frame , the anna-maya kośa , the sheath of nourishmen , the sthūla-śarīra or gross frame i.e. the phyical body level and components

Water
29 April 2011, 09:51 PM
O son of Prtha, do not yield to this degrading impotence. It does not become you. Give up such petty weakness of heart and arise, O chastiser of the enemy.


I don't understand how this proves the common translation as mentioned above.


sanātana dharma that takes such a profound view of reality to this level.

Exceptional information. To be honest, I don't yet fully understand how to apply it and reach the same result... some day, I hope to. :)

Bearing all of the above in mind to the extent I am able and the more I consider it myself, it does seem like an odd translation. I am curious as to why it is so pervasive. I will try to refrain from considering it literal and avoid using that translation in the future.

Thanks!

Ganeshprasad
30 April 2011, 04:32 PM
Pranam all


I don't understand how this proves the common translation as mentioned above.

may be not directly but it has a bearing

in your post no 2, you made a statement ‘Shree Krishna called Arjun a coward’ that would be misleading, because Lord Krishna is posing a question in this particular sloka.

Now under what circumstances this question arises? To find the context we have to refer to chapter one, aptly titled as Arjuna vishaad yog.

I hope we can agree that this question of Lord Krishna would arise from arjuns lamentation or moha.
I think it would be safe to mention, Arjun did not express any cowardice, or show any timidity in chapter one, nor was he afraid or overwhelmed by the size off the Kaurava army, he had faced them single handed in the past.
In that circumstance the use off the word coward would not be appropriate,

As to the popular use off the word coward for that sloka, is news to me, not that it should makes any difference, I had never until now come across it and I have read many or referred to it.
My own Guajarati version translate it as Moha, Gyanesvari gita says the same, Gita society uses dejection, Prabhupad translates as kasmalam--dirtiness, impurity


Jai Shree Krishna

yajvan
30 April 2011, 07:45 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

Ganeshprasad writes,



Arjun did not express any cowardice, or show any timidity in chapter one,
This no doubt is true. Yet I would also like to remind the astute HDF reader that the bhāgavad gītā is composed in 700 verses ( some argue 701). Yet this is 0.70% of the mahābhārata's 100,000 śloka-s. If one reads arjun's actions and adventures throughout the mahābhārata one will quickly see there is not one second that he yields to cowardness.


http://kamyabology.com/mahabharata/image/images/Mahabharata.jpg



praṇām

Water
01 May 2011, 01:09 AM
As to the popular use off the word coward for that sloka, is news to me, not that it should makes any difference, I had never until now come across it and I have read many or referred to it.

As you mentioned in another thread... it is but a Google search away! :)

It was even covered on another forum with what seems to be the opposite answer (it does note the source of the translation in the original question):

http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/advaita-vedanta/138744-arjuna-coward.html

From commentary from Vaisnava Sampradayas:

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-02-34.html

Yet another source (it is worth noting that the translation here is "do not act like a coward")

http://www.lord-krishna.com/The-Bhagavad-Gita/Aim-Objective-Mahabharata.html

Some random English resource:

http://www.santosha.com/philosophy/gita-chapter2.html

From one compilation of teachings from A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada (it is worth noting it reads "other people will call you a coward")

http://www.vaniquotes.org/wiki/Both_as_friend_and_philosopher_to_Arjuna,_Lord_Krsna_now_gives_His_final_judgment_regarding_Arjuna's _refusal_to_fight

..... and quite literally hundreds of thousands more results available instantly online.

One of the little ISKCon books I have (it's missing the outside covers and some pages - it was given to me in that condition....:() includes the same translation. I was under the impression at least one of the English translated Mahabharta/Gita book sources I have uses the same translation (I have/have had roughly 5.....).

I would like to reiterate again that I think the translation is not to the very negative "coward" (ex: fearful of battle, afraid, refusing to fight because of terror, not having confidence, not being courageous) is probably not what the translators intended. I think they meant "coward" only in the sense of unwilling to fight.

Personally, as I've said, I will avoid using that translation again. The arguments presented here are pretty clear as to why it is inappropriate. The links above are for reference only and I do not intend to debate them.

If you do have a suggestion for "the best" translation - please let me know! :)

Thanks! :)

Sādhaka
01 May 2011, 04:27 AM
Namaste,
Interesting debate. I have to thank water for bringing those up so that I myself can gain more knowledge on hinduism from my peers :)

OM

Ganeshprasad
01 May 2011, 05:25 AM
Pranam

I have no need to to debate either i answer your post for reference only.
assertion was made that Krishna called Arjun a coward, we narrowed it down to sloka 2.2, we have now been presented with different Gita slokas that would infer Arjun as coward, so i had a closer scrutiny.


As you mentioned in another thread... it is but a Google search away! :)

why would i need to Google when i have enough resource at hand.





From commentary from Vaisnava Sampradayas:

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-02-34.htmlit is interesting to note this is not sloka 2.2, but 2.34, Lord Krishna is not saying anything pertaining to his cowardliness, but as rightly pointed out it is a commentary, an opinion offered, should he leave the battlefield, people would brand him as coward.



Yet another source (it is worth noting that the translation here is "do not act like a coward")

http://www.lord-krishna.com/The-Bhagavad-Gita/Aim-Objective-Mahabharata.html

i would not give much attention to this source, he calls Arjun a King.




Some random English resource:

http://www.santosha.com/philosophy/gita-chapter2.html

again the sloka offered is no 3 which so off the mark, besides we are looking at sloka no 2, and in particular the use off the word kasmalam, your providing several resources are anything but for 2.2.

I need not comment on the rest, i have seen enough, i am glad to notice you had already accepted Yajvan ji's reasons, so there is no need to go any further.




If you do have a suggestion for "the best" translation - please let me know! :)

Thanks! :)

This would be difficult for me to suggest without being bias, i am a Gujarati, i read Gita (Sastu Sahitya) as a worship,passed on to me by my father.
I have several other Gita for references.

Jai Shree Krishna

Water
01 May 2011, 03:38 PM
I'm not sure what your intent is, Ganeshprasad.

We were discussing a possible erroneous translation and you specifically said you had never seen the translation present before. Now you say you have "plenty of resources" yet none contained this popular mistranslation? How can this be offered as reference only? That makes little to no sense, my friend.

I offered you source of the translation when you inferred it was not popular.

The sources above contain the translation - regardless of sloka. I provided them only for references to the characteristic given to Arjuna. I am not sure why you felt they needed to be individually analysed specifically for their relation to 2.2. Here is their relation to 2.2: they come before or after 2.2. Prior translated material contributes itself to later translated material and vice versa.

Your contribution to reference was that you have plenty of references (opinion), all of the links available with the mistranslation are on the wrong sloka (not sure of the relevance? The characteristic given to Arjuna is what is in question) and you can't make any recommendations.

You have contributed nothing "for reference only" in an argumentative and self-confirming way after we have already established that the characteristic given to Arjuna is anything but correct.

Ganeshprasad
02 May 2011, 09:06 AM
Pranam Water

I like to assure you, I harbour no ill intent my friend, I think we are getting lost in semantics, that is perhaps is my fault, I have not convey my thoughts properly. My choice of the word ‘reference’ with hindsight wasn’t correct.
Yes it is true I had never seen the word coward in the slokas of Gita, until you provided that link, which translate Napusank as coward.
When I made that statement, it was for sloka 2.2. in mind, and that only for the translation of sloka, that is perhaps why there is a confusion, I would add as already mentioned, none off the 700 slokas and its translations contained that word, for this I should add, I don’t mean the opinions or purports, I am sure if I look hard enough I find that word in the opinions.

I am sorry if I gave you wrong impression, that I have many references on ‘opinions’ on Gita, other then slokas and it translations . My Gita that I read is only Saskrit and its translations, the online Gita I use from Gita society offers only the translations in English, I use Prabhupad’s Gita mainly to get the Sanskrit, that is if I need to post on the forum.

Jai Shree Krishna