(Non)violence

[Guest guest]

The last club chat was very fascinating as always. During the

discussion arouse some very interesting questions and doubts. The

subject was about our reaction to harsh words and verbal attacks. I

think we all agreed that the most clever way of dealing with such

situations is to ignore them. Nivi narated a nice story on it about

Buddha. If you wish please share again dear Nivi. Stories are nice

because they are a great way of realizing different concepts. As our

discusion was going on we started to talk about the reaction to the

harming of others not only verbally but physically as well. There,

everyone present agreed that it is our "dharma" or duty to protect

this body by defending ourself, if needed even through violence. And

we all justify this, thats why the practice of martial arts is also

broadly accepted. So... does this mean that physical attack as a form

of self defence is justified whereas verbal attack as a form of self

defence is not justified?! And here is where my confusion and

frustration begins. Violence is always violence, regardless of its

motive, intention or manifestation (physical, verbal or mental). The

question is: is it the violence that we condemn or the motive behind

it??

 

The teachings of many great souls were based on the principle of

ahimsa or non violence, which is also one of the five yamas. It is

said that no spiritual discipline bears fruits without the practice

of yamas and niyamas. And when one sees God in every creature, how

can one possible injure or hurt someone in anyway?

 

Jesus, said that if one slaps you at one cheek then turn the other

one to him. Is that the absolute manifestation of material detachment

and bhakti or... the absolutely silliest thing to do?

 

Think about it and tell me sincerely if these ideals can be really

followed practically in our modern society. Or was the story of Jesus

only symbolic and not to be interpreted so deeply?

 

I read once this story but I dont remember the details. Here is the

gist however. Once there was a godess and a god discussing. At the

same time a devotee of the godess was attacked by some people. The

godess exclaimed that she must run to save her devotee and left. But

soon she returned and the god asked her why she returned so quickly.

And she said that she saw the devotee picking up a stone to defend

himself so he didnt need her.

 

Any thoughts?

[Guest guest]

dear de_spell you have raised a very important point for discussion.

Yes Non-violence or Ahimsa is very important for a sadhaka. But we

have to first go deep into its meaning.

 

Ahinsa, as described by gandhiji is " ahinsa is not an ornament

of cowards. If you are in a position to inflict verbal or physical

injury and then you forgive the person, is real ahinsa".

 

so the degree of ahinsa also changes with progress in sadhna.

for a common man saving the body is utmost important, and he should

do anything to save it. Because if body is no more, chances of

sadhna vanish. It is very natural for one of the highest souls like

Jesus or Buddha to advocate complete non-voilence towards any living

being...be it physical violence, verbal or even thought of that. But

that type of Ahinsa is an ornament only at that level of

consciousness not for those who are still below that highest stage.

 

If all common men and simple sadhaka go by this type of Ahinsa,

then Negativity will destroy the Dharma, and positive races. The pre-

mature ahinsa of Buddhists, made them leave India and childish Ahinsa

(read cowardice) of Hindus, made them slave of less evolved religions

and merchants for over 2000 years.

 

so we have to distinguish between real Ahinsa and cowardice. A

feeble and weak person can not say he is non-violent...he cant afford

to be violent. Ahinsa is an ornament of Braves. And i personally

feel Ahinsa is in fact non-injury for personal ego...fighting for

dharma and punishing for establishment of right perspective is also

Ahinsa, as it carries the work of Universal System and not personal

ego.

 

Unfortunately, in India, we have been taught to be coward and

subdued in the name of ahinsa and undergo slavery and tortures which

resulted in destruction of millions of our sacred and important books

and beautiful temples. I am sure Krishna will never give his nod to

this type of Ahinsa, as he himself came down many a times to punish

the negativity and uplift the Dharma.

 

Whose Dharma ? and what Dharma ? that is a 100 million dollar

question....i raised this question earlier but unfortunately there

was no reply

 

 

Hari Aum

 

, "de_spell_2000" <oiokasti@h...> wrote:

> The last club chat was very fascinating as always. During the

> discussion arouse some very interesting questions and doubts. The

> subject was about our reaction to harsh words and verbal attacks. I

> think we all agreed that the most clever way of dealing with such

> situations is to ignore them. Nivi narated a nice story on it about

> Buddha. If you wish please share again dear Nivi. Stories are nice

> because they are a great way of realizing different concepts. As

our

> discusion was going on we started to talk about the reaction to the

> harming of others not only verbally but physically as well. There,

> everyone present agreed that it is our "dharma" or duty to protect

> this body by defending ourself, if needed even through violence.

And

> we all justify this, thats why the practice of martial arts is also

> broadly accepted. So... does this mean that physical attack as a

form

> of self defence is justified whereas verbal attack as a form of

self

> defence is not justified?! And here is where my confusion and

> frustration begins. Violence is always violence, regardless of its

> motive, intention or manifestation (physical, verbal or mental).

The

> question is: is it the violence that we condemn or the motive

behind

> it??

>

> The teachings of many great souls were based on the principle of

> ahimsa or non violence, which is also one of the five yamas. It is

> said that no spiritual discipline bears fruits without the practice

> of yamas and niyamas. And when one sees God in every creature,

how

> can one possible injure or hurt someone in anyway?

>

> Jesus, said that if one slaps you at one cheek then turn the other

> one to him. Is that the absolute manifestation of material

detachment

> and bhakti or... the absolutely silliest thing to do?

>

> Think about it and tell me sincerely if these ideals can be really

> followed practically in our modern society. Or was the story of

Jesus

> only symbolic and not to be interpreted so deeply?

>

> I read once this story but I dont remember the details. Here is

the

> gist however. Once there was a godess and a god discussing. At the

> same time a devotee of the godess was attacked by some people. The

> godess exclaimed that she must run to save her devotee and left.

But

> soon she returned and the god asked her why she returned so

quickly.

> And she said that she saw the devotee picking up a stone to defend

> himself so he didnt need her.

>

> Any thoughts?

[Guest guest]

Namaste Silentsoulji!

 

That was a very very thought-provoking message.

 

I really dont know what to conclude on this yet because there are

many aspects of the manifestation of ahimsa and violence in this

world. The way I see it, people very easily use violence, they hurt

others by words or actions and dont care about other people's

feelings. So these people are not weak and feeble but they have also

nothing to do with spirituality. Its the easiest thing in the world

to be violent, it doesnt require much will power. Maybe I talk like

this because I am born in the west, living in the heart of our

materialistic society, and I dont know about the way the indians have

been interpreting ahimsa.

 

Why is violence one of the ugliest things in the world? Because its

an insult to the divine which is in every living being regardless of

colour,caste or nationality. Dont you agree? If I can see the divine

in everyone around me and I respect this, then I should be able to

see it in myself too. The divinity in me deserves the same respect

that the divinity in other people does. No more or less. Our real

self has no complexes of inferiority or superiority. I think we

should protect the divinity in others and in ourself. Sometimes I get

interesting thoughts like these... Imagine that all humans could

function through their soul as one consciousness!as a universal soul!

Then they would realise the unity of the creation and they would

make sure that we live in a non violent world, that there is no crime

against the divine in none human. So maybe this is what the indians

forgot, that non violence doesnt mean seeing God in others only, but

in ourself too.

 

Right now I would dare to say that protecting the divine for the sake

of the divine is not violence. What is violence? Let me check the

dictionary!

 

VIOLENCE: Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating,

damaging, or abusing./ The quality or state of being violent; highly

excited action, whether physical or moral; vehemence; impetuosity;

force./an act of aggression/

 

So protecting or defending is not violence according to the

dictionary. There come situations where we must stand up for our

rights and defend ourself in any form. If one could do this in a

detached manner, without becoming one with the violence or with the

anger, but just use it as a tool to survive, then I accept it as

ahimsa. Although I have to agree with you that only god-realized

souls can live in this world truly detached from their emotions.

 

Your message led my mind to all these thoughts. It seems that the

yamas and niyamas need to be more analysed and interpreted because we

easily fall victims of wrong interpretations, like I have been in the

past. Blind belief without questioning things leads only to fanatism.

I have bitter personal experience of this.

 

But I am tempted here to mention that I read that if a person

practices complete ahimsa (absolutely no violence) for a certain

amount of years then one aquires a siddhi. This siddhi prevents

anything from hurting him, even wild animals etc.

 

What is Dharma? Hmm.. I dont really know. I thought it is our

destinied function in the world, our job for example. I think that

everyone has a dharma for his life. It must be something controlled

by karma. This is the way Mr. Deepak Chopra interprets dharma. But I

would have to look into this more.

 

Om Shanti Om!

 

, silentsoul_55 <no_reply> wrote:

> dear de_spell you have raised a very important point for

discussion.

> Yes Non-violence or Ahimsa is very important for a sadhaka. But we

> have to first go deep into its meaning.

>

> Ahinsa, as described by gandhiji is " ahinsa is not an ornament

> of cowards. If you are in a position to inflict verbal or physical

> injury and then you forgive the person, is real ahinsa".

>

> so the degree of ahinsa also changes with progress in sadhna.

> for a common man saving the body is utmost important, and he should

> do anything to save it. Because if body is no more, chances of

> sadhna vanish. It is very natural for one of the highest souls

like

> Jesus or Buddha to advocate complete non-voilence towards any

living

> being...be it physical violence, verbal or even thought of that.

But

> that type of Ahinsa is an ornament only at that level of

> consciousness not for those who are still below that highest stage.

>

> If all common men and simple sadhaka go by this type of Ahinsa,

> then Negativity will destroy the Dharma, and positive races. The

pre-

> mature ahinsa of Buddhists, made them leave India and childish

Ahinsa

> (read cowardice) of Hindus, made them slave of less evolved

religions

> and merchants for over 2000 years.

>

> so we have to distinguish between real Ahinsa and cowardice. A

> feeble and weak person can not say he is non-violent...he cant

afford

> to be violent. Ahinsa is an ornament of Braves. And i personally

> feel Ahinsa is in fact non-injury for personal ego...fighting for

> dharma and punishing for establishment of right perspective is also

> Ahinsa, as it carries the work of Universal System and not personal

> ego.

>

> Unfortunately, in India, we have been taught to be coward and

> subdued in the name of ahinsa and undergo slavery and tortures

which

> resulted in destruction of millions of our sacred and important

books

> and beautiful temples. I am sure Krishna will never give his nod

to

> this type of Ahinsa, as he himself came down many a times to punish

> the negativity and uplift the Dharma.

>

> Whose Dharma ? and what Dharma ? that is a 100 million dollar

> question....i raised this question earlier but unfortunately there

> was no reply

>

>

> Hari Aum

>

> , "de_spell_2000" <oiokasti@h...> wrote:

> > The last club chat was very fascinating as always. During the

> > discussion arouse some very interesting questions and doubts. The

> > subject was about our reaction to harsh words and verbal attacks.

I

> > think we all agreed that the most clever way of dealing with

such

> > situations is to ignore them. Nivi narated a nice story on it

about

> > Buddha. If you wish please share again dear Nivi. Stories are

nice

> > because they are a great way of realizing different concepts. As

> our

> > discusion was going on we started to talk about the reaction to

the

> > harming of others not only verbally but physically as well.

There,

> > everyone present agreed that it is our "dharma" or duty to

protect

> > this body by defending ourself, if needed even through violence.

> And

> > we all justify this, thats why the practice of martial arts is

also

> > broadly accepted. So... does this mean that physical attack as a

> form

> > of self defence is justified whereas verbal attack as a form of

> self

> > defence is not justified?! And here is where my confusion and

> > frustration begins. Violence is always violence, regardless of

its

> > motive, intention or manifestation (physical, verbal or mental).

> The

> > question is: is it the violence that we condemn or the motive

> behind

> > it??

> >

> > The teachings of many great souls were based on the principle of

> > ahimsa or non violence, which is also one of the five yamas. It

is

> > said that no spiritual discipline bears fruits without the

practice

> > of yamas and niyamas. And when one sees God in every creature,

> how

> > can one possible injure or hurt someone in anyway?

> >

> > Jesus, said that if one slaps you at one cheek then turn the

other

> > one to him. Is that the absolute manifestation of material

> detachment

> > and bhakti or... the absolutely silliest thing to do?

> >

> > Think about it and tell me sincerely if these ideals can be

really

> > followed practically in our modern society. Or was the story of

> Jesus

> > only symbolic and not to be interpreted so deeply?

> >

> > I read once this story but I dont remember the details. Here is

> the

> > gist however. Once there was a godess and a god discussing. At

the

> > same time a devotee of the godess was attacked by some people.

The

> > godess exclaimed that she must run to save her devotee and left.

> But

> > soon she returned and the god asked her why she returned so

> quickly.

> > And she said that she saw the devotee picking up a stone to

defend

> > himself so he didnt need her.

> >

> > Any thoughts?

[Guest guest]

>>is it the violence that we condemn or the motive behind it??<<

 

Violence can never have an ulterior good motive. However actions can.

For eg. Let's consider the act of *cutting*.

If the knife is in the hands of a molester, we get scared. If he cuts

or stabs someone with the knife, it's violence

 

But on the other hand, if a surgeon has a knife in his hand, and if

he cuts, would we call that an act of violence? ....NO The surgeon

cuts for the sake of the patient, his only motive being to treat the

patient. Here the act of *cutting* is therefore NOT violence.

 

Thus an act by itself is neither good nor bad. It is the ulterior

motive that determines it. If the ulterior motive is for a good

cause, the action is good, and if it does not have a good motive

behind, it's violence.

 

When we say violence, the first thing that comes to our mind is a

physical attack. We do include verbal forms of vilence but we forget

the form of violence in thought.

 

Violence is of three types - thought, word and deed. Not only is

verbal or physical attack violence, but also wishing harm or mentally

thinking ill for them.

Now the question would arise, "how can just thinking ill of others be

a form of violence?"

 

What we are will be known to others only thro' our word and action.

Thro' words and actions, we express ourselves, which is cognised by

the recipient, and they form an opinion based on what they receive

from us. Thus words and actions are external expressions of something

that is internal. What is that something which is internal that

expresses itself externally as words and actions......

 

That something is thought. Before EVERY words and action is a

thought. Without the thought first having risen in the mind, the

words and action will not come out. The thought is like the seed

which is sown in the field of our mind. The internal seed expresses

itself as the plant which is seen outside.

Thus if you sow good seeds, you'll reap good crop, and vice versa.

 

Similarly, if we sow our mind with good thoughts, only good words and

actions will arise. By thinking bad things about others, we render

our minds impure. However, not all thoughts manifest themselves as

words and actions. We could refrain ourselves from speaking ill, or

harming others, and confine to just thinking ill of others. We think

it's harmless , but with time it renders the mind impure.

 

Each time we think of unpleasant experieneces, and we think ill of

others, our blood boils, our pulse rate increases, our BP rises etc.

Just like how milk spoils when boiled over and over again, our blood

too spoils when boiled over and over again. Thus unknown to us, we

will be spoiling our own selves, by harnessing ill feelings.

 

Thus it's important not just to have good words and action, but also

to cultivate good thoughts.

 

Hari Aum !!!

[Guest guest]

In case of a physical attack, ignoring will not help, as the other

person will continue attacking, and we will get injured. Thus we must

retaliate, ONLY to the point of self defence. i.e to stop the other

person from attacking.

 

But when it comes to a verbal attck, the best thing is to ignore. The

reason: If we say some thing in response, or verbally hit back, the

other person gets stimulated to speak out more. one argument leads to

the other, and finally there is a discord.

If we ignore, does it mean we are surrendering? ........ NO

If some X is talking to me in , let's say a meeting, and if X

verbally attacks me, what would be the best way to insult X? The best

way would be by ignoring, 'cos it means i'm not accepting X's words.

If a dog barks by the street, would we bark back? are we not

degrading ourselves by barking back at a DOG???

 

The same way, if we ignore X in a meeting, X gets treated like the

dog. If we continue to remain oblivious to X's words, the insult is

actually for X rather than us.

 

Thus ignoring a verbal attack does NOT mean we are not protecting

ourselves. It infact ensures protection, by not encouraging further

attacks from the assailant and by helping us maintain pure thoughts

in our mind.

 

Hari Aum !!!

[Guest guest]

Good thoughts s_v_c_s.

 

What would you say to those who are burning with revenge and hatred,

triggered as a result of having witnessed or forced into direct or

indirect participation in violent politically triggered religious

violence? We have many such people, and more are being created

everyday as people remain blinded with revenge and game of seeking

justice is played out. Eye for an eye makes the world blind. It is

headed there right now, when you see the events in various parts of

the world and the turn of events in Gujarat, India.

 

Intention is what I have spoken of earlier too. Do we as individuals

and communities Desire healing? or do we not? What kind of healing do

we want? Healing "my" way or healing that is for everyone? It is the

answer to those kinds of questions which will determine how our

sadhna theories can be actually applied and benifited from in this

planet earth.

 

_/\_ Tat twam asi

 

Uma

 

 

*******************************************

This is a reply to post no. 3759 by s_v_c_s

*******************************************

[Guest guest]

>>What would you say to those who are burning with revenge and

hatred,

triggered as a result of having witnessed or forced into direct or

indirect participation in violent politically triggered religious

violence?<<

 

Revenge or Hatred should definitely be shunned by all Sadhaks. The

answer to one wrong is NOT another wrong, for hatred breeds more

hatred (like dogs).

 

But does that mean, when one sees violence in front of our eyes, we

must ignore it?.........NO

The answer is definitely a 'NO'.

For it was Sri Krishna himself, who asked Arjuna to fight the battle

of Dharma and Adharma.

 

What we all neglect to see is, the attitude which Krishna asked

Arjuna to have. Krishna asked ARjuna to give up the sense of

doership. He said, "The one who kills is Krishna, and the one killed

is also Krishna. You are merely a tool in My hands".

 

But when we fight for Dharma ( or what we think is Dharma), we do so

with ego and pride. This when unfulfilled breeds vengeance. We

conveniently ignore the subtle teachings of Gita, and take the gross

meaning, and insist that we abide by Gita.

 

Once a devotee asked Ramana Maharshi:

 

Question: So one should try to ameliorate suffering, even if one

knows that ultimately it is non-existent?

 

Maharshi: There never was and never will be a time when all are

equally happy or rich or wise or healthy. In fact none of these terms

has any meaning except in so far as the opposite to it exists. But

that does not mean that when you come across anyone who is less happy

or more miserable than yourself, you are not to be moved to

compassion or to seek to relieve him as best you can. On the

contrary, you must love all and help all, since only in that way can

you help yourself.

 

When you seek to reduce the suffering of any fellow man or fellow

creature, whether your efforts succeed or not, you are yourself

evolving spiritually especially if such service is rendered

disinterestedly, not with the egotistic feeling `I am doing this',

but in the spirit `God is making me the channel of this service; he

is the doer and I am the instrument.'

 

If one knows the truth that all that one gives to others is giving

only to oneself, who indeed will not be a virtuous person and perform

the kind act of giving to others? Since everyone is one's own Self,

whoever does whatever to whomever is doing it only to himself.

 

----------------

 

Thus when confronted with violence, we must all ask our Guru what

needs to be done. And whatever needs to be done, we must do it

selflessly, without the feeling of doership. We must also surrender

the fruits of it to the Lord /Guru. When we react this way, there

will be no kind of vengeance or hatred bred, for it is the Guru who's

acting through us.

 

The knife cannot take pride over the success of the surgeon. So too,

when we have surrendered our ego, will pride and the consequent

feelings of hatred / vengeance arise?

 

Surrender is the key. And by surrender I mean, surrendering the ego.

 

Om Sri Guruve Namaha.

Om Namo Bhagavate Sri Ramanaya !

 

Hari Aum !!!