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