himsa versus ahimsa

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavatas,

 

I am writing in regards to an important issue that was brought up

during the Question and Answer segment following Sri. S.M.S. Chari's

telephone lecture, namely the apparent divergence between the

practice of animal sacrifice and the principle of ahimsa.

 

All acts can be classified as either injurious or non-injurious. If

himsa is simply taken as acts causing injury, then there would be an

apparent divergence between the practice of animal sacrifice and the

principle of ahimsa. However, if himsa is qualified by the word

selfish, i.e., himsa is taken to be selfish acts causing injury, then

the contradiction no longer exists, as injurious acts without selfish

motives would be denoted ahimsa.

 

I was introduced to this way of looking at ahimsa by one of the

members of a discussion group I take part in. He informed that, the

term ahimsa used in a mundane context (in a humanistic manner as in

Buddhism) differs from the philosophical concept of ahmisa, and that

recognizing this difference is the key to explaining away the

apparent divergence between the practice of animal sacrifice and the

principle of ahimsa.

 

I invite the respected members of this list to comment on the above.

 

ramanuja dasan,

Venkat

[Guest guest]

Venkat wrote:

> All acts can be classified as either injurious or non-injurious. If

> himsa is simply taken as acts causing injury, then there would be an

> apparent divergence between the practice of animal sacrifice and the

> principle of ahimsa. However, if himsa is qualified by the word

> selfish, i.e., himsa is taken to be selfish acts causing injury, then

> the contradiction no longer exists, as injurious acts without selfish

> motives would be denoted ahimsa.

 

Venkat,

 

This standard appears woefully incomplete to me. Does this mean that a

cold-blooded killer, who kills out of no emotional or selfish motive,

i.e., who kills as mere 'leela', is innocent of himsa? Or that someone

who accidentally steps on an ant or kills worms while plowing fields has no

debt to repay? Clearly we would not think so, and the shastras would also

not agree. The question of ahimsa is taken far more seriously than this,

and in reality the Vedantic tradition in its ideal element is not that

far away from Buddhism or Jainism. It is not just *selfless* action, but

also *right* action that is important. And what is *right* means what is

*dharma*. The answer to the question of animal sacrifice vis a vis

ahimsa is more complicated than mere selfless vs. selfish action and

has to do with various historical, ritualistic, and meditative developments

over the years.

 

aDiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan

Mani