10-08-2004, 06:01 PM
I agree and do kind-of understand how fanatical-ahimsa could become popular (propaganda-wise) but I am sure that the very "fundamental" question raised by Amarnath must have been raised by people . Rama abhorred violence - ok. Rama tried and tried to make Ravana to give up Sita. He sent Angada (son of Bali) on a last minute peace mission. Even there his choice of Angada has interesting logic in it. Krishna also went on a last-ditch attempt to make peace, even after sh1t had hit the fan and spread all over the room. But this fanatical-ahimsa has no parallel in lives of Rama, Krishna or any other big names.
I am sure this question MUST have been raised. What did MKG had to say about this ?
The question was very simply and aptly worded by Amarnath..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Afterall Rama killed He did not stage a satyagraha in Lanka demanding the release of Sita....<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the hey...
I am sure this question MUST have been raised. What did MKG had to say about this ?
The question was very simply and aptly worded by Amarnath..
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Afterall Rama killed He did not stage a satyagraha in Lanka demanding the release of Sita....<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What the hey...