05-08-2007, 10:02 PM
From another forum
The whole current debate about Ahimsa is invalid if you examine the larger cultural context in which ideas like these have evolved.
If you consider the Vedic scripture as the fountain-head of Ahimsa, you will be disappointed to find many references to "violent" practices in it. What the Vedas preach is how to live in harmony, cognizant of our place as an insignificant race on a small planet with finite resources. The Vedas preach kinship, love and worship, but do not condemn violence.
If you consider "essential Indian/Hindu culture" as the source of Ahimsa, again you will be disappointed to note that Indian/Hindu society has never hesitated to take up the sword when absolutely necessary. Just consider that Lord Krishna preached armageddon - not Ahimsa!
So, what is the place of himsa or violence in society?
It was neither glorified nor reviled. Ahimsa, or non-violence, was the supreme Dharma of only those seekers on the spiritual path who were on their way to sainthood. For the monk or shaven headed one, he is NEVER permitted to raise his hand in violence â even though he may be SLAUGHTERED by a mightily-armed enemy. In the Hindu Dharma Sastras 'ahimsa paramo dharma' - ahimsa or non-violence is the Supreme Dharma is NOT AN ABSOLUTE for non-monastics. Householders can and on occasion are REQUIERD to use force. The Kshatriyas were born warriors and violence (to protect Dharma â not mindless rape and slaughter) was their stated duty. Kshatriyas were also specifically allowed to eat meat obtained through slaughter.
Ahimsa Paramo Dharma was NOT â repeat NOT â enjoined upon the masses. It was meant ONLY for monks that chose to abandon the world, and through austerities, hoped to attain the Supreme. For them killing is ABSOLUTELY prohibited. Sri Sankara was supremely gentle, while Sri Krishna preached Armageddon, and Sri Parasurama PRACTICED it. Clear enough?
<b>
Gandhi (I will skip the ji) suffered from an incorrect understanding of Hindu Dharma. His writings on the subject of Ahimsa demonstrate his immature and incomplete understanding on such a crucial cultural issue. His writings in Young India, urging Hindus to get slaughtered by Mussalmans, and Hindu husbands to watch their wives and mothers get raped and not defend them, reflect the criminal idiocy of the man trusted by millions. Gandhi DID NOT UNDERSTAND INDIAN/HINDU THOUGHT AT ALL. For a man who probably meant well for everybody, he will go down as one man who managed to completely screw up an entire nationâs thinking about its own cultural realities. Gandhi can never be forgiven for peddling criminal inaction and passivity when the need of the hour was all-out action. It was Gandhi whose half-arsed support to Khilafat movement resultd in so many foul atrocities on Hindus. The less we talk about this false hero the better.
</b>
The whole current debate about Ahimsa is invalid if you examine the larger cultural context in which ideas like these have evolved.
If you consider the Vedic scripture as the fountain-head of Ahimsa, you will be disappointed to find many references to "violent" practices in it. What the Vedas preach is how to live in harmony, cognizant of our place as an insignificant race on a small planet with finite resources. The Vedas preach kinship, love and worship, but do not condemn violence.
If you consider "essential Indian/Hindu culture" as the source of Ahimsa, again you will be disappointed to note that Indian/Hindu society has never hesitated to take up the sword when absolutely necessary. Just consider that Lord Krishna preached armageddon - not Ahimsa!
So, what is the place of himsa or violence in society?
It was neither glorified nor reviled. Ahimsa, or non-violence, was the supreme Dharma of only those seekers on the spiritual path who were on their way to sainthood. For the monk or shaven headed one, he is NEVER permitted to raise his hand in violence â even though he may be SLAUGHTERED by a mightily-armed enemy. In the Hindu Dharma Sastras 'ahimsa paramo dharma' - ahimsa or non-violence is the Supreme Dharma is NOT AN ABSOLUTE for non-monastics. Householders can and on occasion are REQUIERD to use force. The Kshatriyas were born warriors and violence (to protect Dharma â not mindless rape and slaughter) was their stated duty. Kshatriyas were also specifically allowed to eat meat obtained through slaughter.
Ahimsa Paramo Dharma was NOT â repeat NOT â enjoined upon the masses. It was meant ONLY for monks that chose to abandon the world, and through austerities, hoped to attain the Supreme. For them killing is ABSOLUTELY prohibited. Sri Sankara was supremely gentle, while Sri Krishna preached Armageddon, and Sri Parasurama PRACTICED it. Clear enough?
<b>
Gandhi (I will skip the ji) suffered from an incorrect understanding of Hindu Dharma. His writings on the subject of Ahimsa demonstrate his immature and incomplete understanding on such a crucial cultural issue. His writings in Young India, urging Hindus to get slaughtered by Mussalmans, and Hindu husbands to watch their wives and mothers get raped and not defend them, reflect the criminal idiocy of the man trusted by millions. Gandhi DID NOT UNDERSTAND INDIAN/HINDU THOUGHT AT ALL. For a man who probably meant well for everybody, he will go down as one man who managed to completely screw up an entire nationâs thinking about its own cultural realities. Gandhi can never be forgiven for peddling criminal inaction and passivity when the need of the hour was all-out action. It was Gandhi whose half-arsed support to Khilafat movement resultd in so many foul atrocities on Hindus. The less we talk about this false hero the better.
</b>