Dharma-Himsa Paramo Dharma..
Excerpts from an essay by Swami Chinmayananda on non-violence and righteous violence titled, DHARMA HIMSA TATHAIVA CA (emphasis added):
Personally, I am no advocate of violence. But violence, too, has its rightful place in life, life does not preclude death. The average Indian has been moulded into a particular national mentality of quixotic tolerance. His attitude is shaped into its distinct pattern by the ideologies and moralities preached in our national literature. And no single work in our classics has gained such a wide influence on our people as the Bhagawad Gita: and in, this century, no other single message had such a universal appeal to our countrymen as the single line, “Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah“ — “Non – Violence is the greatest Dharma.”
This line in its over – emphasis, has sapped both initiative and energy in our millions, and, instead of making us all irresistible moral giants, we have been reduced to poltroons and cowards. And banking on this cowardly resignation of the majority, a handful of fanatics have been perpetrating crimes which even the most barbarous cave dwellers would have avenged. To clothe our weaknesses, we attribute to them glorious names and purposefully persuade ourselves to believe that they are brilliant ideologists !
Let us for a moment go to the original sacred verse and investigate the significances of the moral precept: Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah. This is the opening line of a stanza, and the very next line reads: Dharma himsaa tathaiva cha. “So too is all righteous violence.” Indeed, non – violence is the supreme policy to be adopted by man to foster enduring peace in the world; but there are certain dire moments in the life of individuals, as of nations, when we will have to meet force with force in order that justice be done.
To every individual his mother, wife and children are the nearest dependents and to guard their honour and life is the unavoidable first moral duty of each head of the family. This is an obligation whether the victim be a member of the majority or of the minority class within a country, province or city.
By the over – emphasis laid on non-violence we have come to witness the pathetic situation of today, when thousands, in cowardly fear take to precipitate flight, leaving their innocent children to be butchered and their unarmed helpless women to be dishonoured or converted or killed. Under the cloak of glorified non – violence, an entire nation of cowards fly from their homes, when a small sect of fanatic barbarians boldly stalk in and out of their open undefended thresholds to kill, to rape, and to loot. When will we learn to fully interpret our Vedas, scriptures and Upanishads. If only we all learn that dharma – himsa is equally noble as ahimsa.
Comments, thoughts welcome…and while on this, don’t forget to read the real story behind Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam.
Related Posts: The series on “Understanding Dharma” and Raj Dharma
I think Sikh understand the Vedas better than Hindus. They are the peaceful people but when someone oversteps they take their shape of warrior. Look at the example of London rioting.
Jai Bharat!
On similar lines…a smoke screen has been created about VASUDAIVA KUTUMBAKAM… Here is an excellent expose: http://bit.ly/fENbc3
——excerpts from the above link ———-
hitopadesha not only inherited from pa~nchatantra the marvelous structure of looping tales, and plots of fables, but also various shloka-s in exact verbatim, and this includes the one of vasudhaiva kuTumbakam too. In aparIkshita-kArakam, the fifth tantra of pa~nchatantra, AchArya viShNusharman records it in a fable known as ‘siMha kAraka mUrkha brAhmaNa kathA’, and assigns VK to come from a declared fool. To understand the attitude of this nIti-text towards VK, a condensed version of that fable is presented below:
“Once upon a time there lived a group of four young brAhmaNa friends in some nondescript village. Three of these were fools, although very erudite and deep gone in learning of shAstra-s. On the other hand the fourth one was altogether lacking in shAstra-learning, but fairly intelligent.
The learned members of this group once contemplated upon the merits of moving to a city where they could put their scholarship to better use. After all, what good was all the learning if it did not yield them wealth and fame? The idea was approved unanimously and the group at once took off towards a large city at a fair journey’s distance.
While going forth on their way, the oldest of the scholar-fools expressed his opinion that it was futile for the un-erudite one to join the excursion. Although the intelligence of that fellow was not in doubt, it was useless in absence of any formal learning, he said. The second scholar-fool agreed too and suggested that the uneducated one should rather return back to their home-village.
However the third scholar-fool was more generous who reminded the party that although worthless, the fourth one was their childhood friend and therefore they ought to allow him in sharing their exploits. It is at this juncture in the story, that this third fool recites the shloka of vasudhaiva-kuTumbakam, and convinced the other two scholar-fools, to let the uneducated one remain in the party. And on they went.
Upon going a little further the travelers came upon a decaying carcass of some creature been long dead. Seeing that, the learned members immediately decided to put their learning to test by making the dead creature come alive.
The scholar-fool number-one used his knowledge in gathering and properly reassembling the skeleton according to its accurate anatomy. The number-two successfully applied his formulae in adding organs, flesh, and skin. Our VK-reciting third one then began his experiments of breathing prANa into it to finally resurrect it.
At this point the fourth fellow, the intelligent though uneducated one, interrupted them. ‘Friends, wait a minute,’ warned the intelligent one, ‘listen, this dead-body appears like that of a lion, and you people want to bring it to life. Surely, my learned friends, if you resurrect the lion, it would put our own lives into grave danger. Therefore, for the sake of our lives better let the beast remain as safely dead as it now is, and move on to our destination.’
But the VK-reciting stupid-scholar wouldn’t listen to these words of common-sense and the warning was shrugged aside.
At last seeing the scholars foolishly bent upon performing the suicidal act, the wise one at once climbed the tallest tree he could locate nearby. As anticipated, the VK-reciter successfully resurrected the lion, and no sooner did the lion come alive, it devoured all the three foolish brAhmaNa-s. Only the uneducated one, having wisely climbed the tree, escaped the sorry fate of their shAstra-knowing friends and returned home lamenting for the unnecessary and foolish ends of his mates, especially the kind-hearted but naive VK-reciting one.â€
This is the story inside which vasudhaiva kuTumbakaM finds a place in pa~nchatantra.
Himsa or Ahimsa, as long as it comes out of the ego, it leads us nowhere but death and decay.
@Ram Chengappa,
The link you provided here is an insult to the Universal religion that Swami Vivekananda was so proud of. There are “scholars” and then there are those who truly understand Universalism. Advaita Darshanam Jnaanam.
MKGandhi’s mantra of “Ahimsa” even under dire provocation has produced a breed of impotent leaders and pseudo-secularists.
Wise men have everywhere mentioned exceptions to the principle of ‘ahimsa & forgiveness.’ True, the ordinary rule is that one must not cause harm to others by doing such actions as, if done to oneself, would be harmful. But, the Mahabharata, Kurukshetra & Gita has made it clear that this rule should not be followed in a society, where there do not exist persons who follow the other religious principle, namely, others should not cause harm to us, which is the corollary from this first principle. The principle of non-violence is not violated by killing an evil-doer.
Indeed, the one who hesitates to take the retaliatory action that is necessary assists the evil to do their work. And the summary of the entire teaching of the Gita is that: even the most horrible warfare which may be carried on in these circumstances, with an equable frame of mind, is righteous and meritorious.
After all, at the end of Bhagwad Gita, Arjuna does not go off to sit at one of our non-violent dharnas. He goes into blood-soaked battle.
I’m trying to find this line ‘Dharma himsaa tathaiva cha’ in bhagwat gita, but I am not able to find. I have searched internet, I couldn’t get any source for this phrase. My question is from where is Swami Chimayananda quoting this or may be its his own representation? I don’t have problems with that though. Nevertheless, per my understanding based on various upanyasas and purports of scriptures, ahimsa is still the param dharma. But to understand this we need to understand what is himsa. Himsa means bothering or troubling someone, where the context implies unnecessary bothering or troubling. So, by default ahimsa is not troubling someone for selfish reasons, so there is no question of being coward or a being a sitting duck, the context itself doesn’t arise. Ahimsa is mainly referred in our scriptures in the context of torturing animals or abusing human for selfish or revengeful reasons. So Ahimsa Paramo Dharma is still true and very valid, but it is not related to being unmindful of atrocities.
FINALLY! Someone who understands the concept of “violence” correctly!
violence: the use of physical force so as to injure, abuse, damage, or destroy; intentional use of physical force or power, threatened against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation. Cf. “undue (harm)”.
Therefore, the term “violence” should NEVER be used in cases of just force.
“Just force” is any means necessary to overcome an (objectively) evil adversary or oppressor. To use a simple and obvious example (obvious, that is, to a holy and righteous soul), if the servant of a corrupt (i.e. non-monarchical) government was to try to apprehend a man for administering proper punishment to one of his subordinates, such as his wife, child, or employee, it would be not only justified for that man to retaliate against the governmental minion, but a truly holy and righteous act, worthy of a veritable saint.
A far more palpable example would be the instance of a person (or even an animal) killing another person or an animal in self- defence. If you, the reader was to be physically-attacked by an aggressive person, and you were forced to end the life of that person in order to save your own life, no decent soul would accuse you of being violent. Therefore, just force is not, by definition, violent.
One of the most popular works of fiction ever composed, “Bhagavad-g?t?”, revolves around the narrative of an Indian monarch trying to convince one of his warriors to kill his own extended family and his own teachers, not out of enmity, but due to his kin committing certain criminal acts, such as withholding a kingdom from that warrior, and supporting an objectively evil and corrupt regime. That monarch, Lord ?r? K???a, after explaining to His friend, Prince Arjuna, that his hesitancy to fight against his kin was based on illusory considerations, convinced him to execute his duty of fighting for a righteous cause, thereby fulfilling his dharma (societal duty).
Therefore, when Indians use the phrase “Dharma hi?s? tathaiva ca”, not only are they INVENTING a phrase which does not appear in any recognized Vedic scripture (though they pretend that it is from an ancient source), they are confusing just force with violence.
It is good that certain homilies attributed to Hinduism that are liberally thrown around without context or analysis, are getting a second look. These include “ahimsa parmo dharm” , “sarv dharm sambhav” and “vasudhaiva kutumbakam.”
These terms were not coined in vacuum and neither were these coined after barbaric monotheistic desert cults came on the scene (or referred to these cults). So, one must be careful to not apply these terms unthinkingly, and certainly not where “Religion of Peace” and “Religion of Love” are concerned. Further, these terms may apply to an individual and his/her spiritual pursuit (and that is fine), but I remain unconvinced that these homilies were supposed to be used to set the state policies or its behavior. By that logic, we might as well disband our military, sit at home and sing “ishwar allah tero naam.”
Agreed.
Lord Krishna, who is regarded as God incarnate, advocated war for the warrior, with the aim of winning.
Buddhism post Ashoka created confusion.
@G …alas Swami Vivekananda was no fool to get trapped in the BS of “Universal Religion” .He was very proud of Sanatana Dharma but he knew the reality vis-a-vis its enemies very well..Here are the observations of the “proud follower of Universal Religion” :
(All quotations taken from the Complete works of Swami Vivekanand, (Vol. I-viii).
Universal brotherhood for Muslims only : Mohammedans talk of universal brotherhood, but what comes out of that in reality? Why, anybody who is not a Mohammedan will not be admitted into the brotherhood; he will more likely have his throat cut. (Vol. 2, p. 80)
No temple building in a Muslim country : It is here that Indians build temples for Mohammedans and Christians; nowhere else. If you go to other countries and ask Mohammedans or people of other religions to build a temple for you, see how they will help. They will instead try to break down your temple and you too, if they can. (Vol. 3, p. 114).
Allah-ho-Akbar for centuries : Wave after wave of barbarian conquest has rolled over this devoted land of ours. “Allah-ho-Akbar !†has rent the skies for hundreds of years, and no Hindu knew what moment would be his last. This is the most suffering and the most subjugated of all the historic lands in the world. Yet we still stand practically the same race, ready to face difficulties again and again, if necessary, and not only so, of late there have been signs that we are not only strong but ready to go out, for the sign of life is expansion. (Vol. 3, p. 369-70).
Only they are right ! : Ignorant persons… not only deny the right of every man to interpret the universe according to his own light, but dare to say that others are entirely wrong, and they alone are right. If they are opposed, they begin to fight. They say that they will kill any man who does not believe as they believe, and as the Mohammedans do. (Vol. 4, p. 52).
Mohammedans most sectarian : Now, some Mohammedans are the crudest in this respect, and the most sectarian. Their watchword is. “There is one God, and Mohammed is His Prophetâ€. Everything beyond that not only is bad, but must be destroyed forthwith; at moment’s notice, every man or woman, who does not exactly believe in that, must be killed; everything that does not belong to this worship must be killed; everything that does not belong to this worship must be immediately broken; every book that teaches anything else must be burnt. From the Pacific to the Atlantic, for five hundred years, blood ran all over the world. That is Mohammedanism ! Nevertheless, among these Mohammedans, wherever there was a philosophic man, he was sure to protest against these cruelties. (Vol. 4, p. 126)
Sword flashed for hundreds of years in India : Wave after wave had flooded this land, breaking and crushing everything for hundreds of years. The sword has flashed, and “Victory unto Allah†had rent the skies of India; but these floods subsided, leaving the national ideals unchanged. (Vol. 4, p. 159)
Kafir deserves to be butchered : To the Mussulmans, the Jews or the Christians are not object of extreme detestation; they are, at the worst, men of little faith. But not so the Hindu. According to him, the Hindu is idolatrous, the hateful Kafir; hence in this life he deserves to be butchered; and in the next, eternal hell is in store for him. The utmost the Mussulman kings could do as a favour to the (Hindu) priestly class – the spiritual guides of these Kafirs – was to allow them somehow to pass their life silently and wait for, the last moment. This was again sometimes considered too much kindness! If the religious ardour of any (Muslim) king was a little more uncommon, there would immediately follow arrangements for a great yajna by way of Kafir slaughter! (Vol. 4, p. 446)
Mohammedans brought murder here : You know that the Hindu religion never persecutes. It is the land where all sects may live in peace and amity. The Mohammedans brought murder and slaughter in their train, but until their arrival peace prevailed (Vo. 5, p. 190)
In India the Mohammedans were the first who ever took the sword. (Vol. 5, p. 197)
Loss of a Hindu, gain of an enemy : When the Mohammedans first came, we are said – I think the authority of Ferishta, the oldest Mohammedan historian – to have been six hundred millions of Hindus. Now we are about two hundred millions. (That means population down from 60 crores to 20 crores). And then every man going out of the Hindu pale is not only a man less, but an enemy the more.
——– S… @G stop inviting Swami Vivekananda to your “Universal Religion” pot party. The Swami aint smoking this joint. He was very clear in his thoughts.
Namaste!
Ahimsa translated as ‘non-killing’ leads to superficial understanding and practice. We should understand ‘Ahimsa’ as an ‘attitude of non-injury at the mental level’. But sometimes one needs to be cruel only to be kind in the words of Shakespeare.
Ramaswamy
@Ram Chengappa,
This is exactly what SV was so proud of: “You know that the Hindu religion never persecutes. It is the land where all sects may live in peace and amity.” There is no place for hatred (although there is place for violence, not denying that). Lord Rama, after felling Ravana, sends Lakshmana to check what he had learnt in life. This episode explains what I am driving at.
Each and every soul is potentially divine. Each and every soul is – no exceptions. Each and every soul is. This is Universalism, which has been and forever will be the core of our religion. (BTW, the link you shared was a silly attempt to insert exceptions where there are none, trying to act scholarly. A silly fake scholar who could never grasp the real import of the sacred texts).
A Bal Thackeray or a Praveen Tagodia will never gain hold of Hindu society. Those who have not mastered their senses and their emotions will never understand Hinduism, will never be able to guide it. Trying to control the society without controlling one self is laughable.
The problem with the prescription of non-violence by the so called Hindu religion against violence, rapine and every other conceiveable evils inflicted on them is that it is then imbued into the Hindu social contract of dharma. This in itself is clear as mud.
Let us be clear, all natural living things will respond against all manner of threats and are indeed equipped to do violence. That is true of the tamest beast in the animal kingdom who will fight back to their last breath. It is right for Hinduism to be imbued with the religion of peace but even then the peaceable enjoyment of freedoms can hardly be guaranteed if the state is unwilling and unable to do violence. The Hindu state is personified in the king but the king is only secure if his subjects can be called to arms. As the caste system excused all but the warriers from service to the king, it is no wonder that the Hindu state was inherently weak and easily overwhelmed by newcomers to India.
The idea of non-violence in the Hindu scheme of things needs to have the reset button pressed and deleted. It also means that vegeterianis needs to be abandoned from the religion. I have no problem with it as the life style of choice of people but that is another matter. The job of repair Hinduism is such a daunting task, it would be much better to select Sikhism off the shelf. It has everything to commend it.
@G Swami Vivekananda has 2 patches for the non-violence dope you are smoking :Here is an excerpt from his Q&A session:
88. Could you give me an example of resistance to evil becoming one’s duty?
In reading the Bhagavad Gita, many may have felt astonished at the second chapter, wherein Sri Krishna calls Arjuna a hypocrite and coward because of his refusal to fight, or offer resistance, on account of his adversaries being his friends and relatives, making the plea that non-resistance was the highest ideal of love. (1:38)
89. It indeed is, isn’t it? I’ve never fully understood the reasonableness of Krishna’s scolding to Arjuna.
This is a great lesson for us all to learn, that in all matters the two extremes are alike. The extreme positive and the extreme negative are always similar. When the vibrations of light are too slow, we do not see them, nor do we see them when they are too rapid. So with sound; when very low in pitch, we do not hear it; when very high, we do not hear it either. Of like nature is the difference between resistance and non-resistance.
One man does not resist because he is weak, lazy, and cannot, not because he will not; the other man knows that he can strike an irresistible blow if he likes; yet he not only does not strike but blesses his enemies. The one who from weakness resists not commits a sin, and as such cannot receive any benefit from the non-resistance; while the other would commit a sin by offering resistance. Buddha gave up his throne and renounced his position, that was true renunciation; but there cannot be any question of renunciation in the case of a beggar, who has nothing to renounce. So we must always be careful about what we really mean when we speak of this non-resistance and ideal love.
We must first take care to understand whether we have the power of resistance or not. Then, having the power, if we renounce it and do not resist, we are doing a grand act of love; but if we cannot resist, and yet, at the same time, try to deceive ourselves into the belief that we are actuated by motives of the highest love, we are doing the exact opposite.
Arjuna became a coward at the sight of the mighty array against him; his ‘love’ made him forget his duty towards his country and king. That is why Sri Krishna told him that he was a hypocrite: Thou talkest like a wise man, but thy actions betray thee to be a coward; therefore stand up and fight!
Such is the central idea of Karma Yoga. The karmayogi is the man who understands that the ideal is non-resistance, and who knows that this non-resistance is the highest manifestation of power in actual possession, and also what is called the resisting of evil is but a step on the way towards the manifestation of this highest power, namely, non-resistance. Before reaching this highest ideal, our duty is to resist evil; let us work, let us fight, let us strike straight from the shoulder. Then only, when we have gained the power to resist, will non-resistance be a virtue. (1:38-39)
SOURCE : http://www.vivekananda.org/archive.asp?NAV=18
—————– End of Swami Vivekanandas quote—-
Now contrast this with the non-violence M K Gandhi practised :
“I would tell the Hindus to face death cheerfully if the Muslims are out to kill them. I would be a real sinner if after being stabbed I wished in my last moment that my son should seek revenge. I must die without rancour. (*) You may turn round and ask whether all Hindus and all Sikhs should die. Yes, I would say. Such martyrdom will not be in vain.” (Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, vol.LXXXVII, p.394-5)
“I am grieved to learn that people are running away from the West Punjab and I am told that Lahore is being evacuated by the non-Muslims. I must say that this is what it should not be. If you think Lahore is dead or is dying, do not run away from it, but die with what you think is the dying Lahore. (*) When you suffer from fear you die before death comes to you. That is not glorious. I will not feel sorry if I hear that people in the Punjab have died not as cowards but as brave men. (*) I cannot be forced to salute any flag. If in that act I am murdered I would bear no ill will against anyone and would rather pray for better sense for the person or persons who murder me.” (Hindustan Times, 8-8-1947, CWoMG, vol. LXXXIX, p.11).
Konraed Elst the Belgian Historian has an excellent essay on the futulity of Gandhian NonViolence here:
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/fascism/gandhimistake.html
Clever guy, this Ram Chengappa — repeats the lie that I am rooting for non-violence and then goes ballistic with quotations. All he has to do is to go back and read my previous comment a bit more carefully. I only hope he can distinguish between hatred and violence.
@G
Hatred and violence are usually, but not always interlinked. Physical power is mainly hereditory.Military power is not always based on hatred but the principle of protection against ‘the other’ .
One has to ‘hate’ the other person or religion enough, in order to subjugate or convert, either by economic inducements eg with Chritianity (and probably the AICC )or through fear eg Islam. Self defence is not mainly based on hatred, but a sense of one’s own self worth.
In the words of Manu, the society is broadly divided into 4, and the role and duty if the warrior is to protect. Violence is required and a prerequisite in war for self protection.
There is too much emphasis on non-violence, mainly because in recent times Gandhiji advocated it and it produced results.If the Germans had been in India doing what the SS did to the Jews, believe me non-violent resistance would not have produced similar results.
Non- cooperation is resistance and can result in violence.
So might is not right, but ‘might’ usually wins.
@G
The venom you have consumed against BT and PT leaves little for the real enemies of Bharat.
@Ram Chengappa
I agree your interpretation of Karma Yoga as a call to action. General Patton put it succinctly in his speach:
“Now I want you to remember that no bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. Hw won it by making the other poor bastard die for his country”.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFe63H_pyh4&feature=related
The appeal for Hindus to temper the natural human urge to work for success by striving in all its form is a sin I do not countenance. I stand by my request to press the reset and delete buttons on the homolies we hold dear without a proper understanding of what is being urged.
@Sudhav,
“There is too much emphasis on non-violence, mainly because in recent times Gandhiji advocated it and it produced results.If the Germans had been in India doing what the SS did to the Jews, believe me non-violent resistance would not have produced similar results.”
Actually, British left India when they realized that India can no longer be ruled with the help of Indians. Indian National Congress ensured that. Azad Hind Fauj put the final nail in the coffin. When sections of the Army and Navy revolted British realized they can no longer count on the Indian armed forces. When Atlee was asked if Non Cooperation movement was responsible for Britain to leave India, he said “NO”.
It seems the second part ‘Dharma himsa tathaiva ca’ is the coinage or interpolation or fabrication – whatever you may like to call it – of Swami Chinmayananda. I am unable to find it anywhere in any slokas containing ahimsa paramo dharmah so far. So would Swami Chinmayananda or any of his disciples post the entire sloka (since there should be another paada also – total four charanas generally) along with the source from which it is taken so that all of us can check it up and benefit?