Ahim'sa'

Ahim'sa' means not inflicting pain or hurt on anybody by thought, word or action. This word is wrongly interpreted by many. Some so-called learned persons in fact, define the word ahim'sa' in such a manner that if one adheres to it strictly, it is impossible to live not only in a society but also in forests, hills and caves. In such an interpretation of the term ahim'sa', not only is killing prohibited, but even to fight a defensive fight is not allowed. By tilling the land one may cause the death of innumerable insects and creatures under the earth's surface. Therefore, the use of a plough is not permissible. The followers of such an interpretation of ahim'sa' say that those who want to lead a religious life should not use the plough themselves, but employ other low-born people to do the same to save themselves from the sin of destroying life. Sugar must be poured into the abodes of the ants; no matter whether human beings have food or not. The poor must spare their blood from their bodies to save insects, the born enemies of human beings.

This is no definition of ahim'sa'. It merely causes confusion. It is contrary to true dharma; it is against the very laws of existence. Even the process of respiration involves the death of numberless microbes. They are all living beings and to save them one will have to stop breathing. The administration of medicines to the suffering will have to be stopped, because such medicines cause the destruction of disease-causing bacteria. If ahim'sa' is so interpreted, where will such interpreters be able to stand? They will have to give up even filtered water, because the process of filtration of water means destroying the insects that cause impurity. It is also not possible to drink impure water, because then it is likely that such microbes might die in the stomach.

In the post-Vedic age this type of ahim'sa' was practised in India for a long period, and as a result life for ordinary citizens became very miserable. The populace viewed with fear the religion dominated by this so-called ahim'sa'. They were forced to accept an atheistic belief, and they left the path of dharma. Devoid of any code of conduct, and intent on giving first preference to their own selfishness, such atheists became a burden to the society and to the world. Those who wanted to enforce the so-called ahim'sa'-influenced religion, became impractical and impotent by nature. Thus there is a pressing need in the modern age to re-think these historical facts from a new angle of vision.

This age was followed by another wherein another new definition of the word ahim'sa' was propagated. According to this definition, him'sa' meant to cause pain to living beings, but did not include the slaughter of animals for food. This idea is very much mistaken. If causing pain amounts to him'sa', the slaughter of animals for food must also be called him'sa', because the animals do not offer their heads willingly at the altar of death for this cause.

Recently one more interpretation for this word has been heard. It somewhat resembles the second definition described earlier, but it even lacks the simplicity or sincerity of that interpretation. According to this interpretation, ahim'sa' means non-violence or non-application of force. Possibly it is this interpretation which has distorted most the meaning of ahim'sa'. In all actions of life, whether small or big, the unit mind progresses by surmounting the opposing forces. Life evolves through the medium of force. If this force is not properly developed, life becomes absolutely dull. No wise person would advocate such a thing, because this would be contrary to the very fundamentals of human nature.

The champions of non-violence (so-called ahim'sa') have, therefore, to adopt hypocrisy and falsehood whenever they seek to use this so-called ahim'sa' for their purposes. If the people of one country conquer another country by brute force, the people of the defeated nation must use force to regain their freedom. Such a use of force may be crude or subtle and as a result, both the body and mind of the conquerors may be hurt. When there is any application of force, it cannot be called non-violence. Is it not violence if you hurt a person not by your hands but by some other indirect means? Is the boycott movement against a particular nation not violence? Therefore I say that those who interpret non-violence and ahim'sa' to be synonymous have to repeatedly resort to hypocrisy to justify their actions. The army or police are necessary for administration of a country. If these organizations do not use force even in case of necessity, their existence will be of no meaning. The mark of so-called ahim'sa' or non-violence on a bullet does not make the bullet non-violent.

Those who are not adequately equipped to oppose an evil-doer should make every endeavour to gain power and then make the proper use of this power. In the absence of ability to resist evil, and in the absence of evev an effort to acquire such ability, declaring oneself to be non-violent in order to hide one's weaknesses before the opponent may serve a political end, but it will not protect the sanctity of righteousness.

The meaning of the word ahim'sa' in the sphere of Dharma has already been explained. According to its correct meaning, one will have to guide one's conduct carefully to ensure that one's thought or actions cause pain to nobody and are unjust to none. Any thought or action with the intention of causing harm to someone else amounts to him'sa'. The existence of life implies destruction of certain lower forms, no matter whether there is intention of doing harm or not. The process of respiration kills thousands of millions of protoplasmic cells. Whether one knows it or not, in every action such living cells are dying and being destroyed. The use of prophylactics means destructions of millions of disease-carrying germs. The crop-eating insects, parasites, mosquitoes, bugs, spiders, etc. are also being killed in innumerable ways. This is necessary to maintain one's livelihood; it is not with the intention of causing pain to them. Such acts also, therefore, cannot be classed as him'sa'; they are to be done for self-defense.

As a result of clash and cohesion within the physical structure of every entity and also for the maintenance of structural solidarity at every moment, a process of formation and de-formation is always taking place. Rice is obtained from paddy--is there no life in paddy? Paddy can sprout. It is also capable of reproduction. For the preservation of the physical body you prepare rice by killing the paddy. Do you have any intention to harm anybody while preparing rice? It is thus seen that life depends on other forms of life for its very existence. There is no question of him'sa' or ahim'sa' here. If this is conceived as him'sa' living beings will have to subsist on bricks, sand and stone. Even breathing will have to be stopped or one will have to commit suicide.

It is, however, very necessary to remember two things in respect of edibles. First, as far as possible, articles of food must be selected from among those items in which development of consciousness is comparatively little; i.e., if vegetables are available, animals should not be slaughtered. Secondly, under all circumstances before killing any animal having developed or under-developed consciousness, it must be considered whether it is possible to live in a healthy body without taking such lives.

The human body is constituted of innumerable living cells. These cells develop and grow with the help of similar living entities. The nature of your living cells will be formed in accordance with the type of food you take. Ultimately all these together will affect your mind to some extent. If the cells of the human body grow on rotten and bad-smelling food, or on the fresh flesh of animals in which mean tendencies predominate, it is but natural that the mind will have a tendency of meanness. The policy of eating, without due consideration, whatever is available cannot be supported in any case, even though there may not be any question of him'sa' or ahim'sa'. It should not be your policy to do what you wish. You must perform actions after due thought. For continued subsistence a policy will have to be adopted for taking food ...

Him'sa' and the use of force are not identical. Sometimes the use of force may result in him'sa', even though there is no thought in the mind to cause pain... If any person or a nation wants to occupy all or part of another country, the use of physical force against such invading forces is not against the principle of ahim'sa'. Rather, by a wrong interpretation of the term ahim'sa' or by interpreting him'sa' and brute force as identical, common people will have to suffer from loss of wealth, happiness, or other hardships.

Sometimes it so happens that people instead of convincing superstitious people, injure their sentiments by their behaviour. A perusal of history shows that the antagonists of idolatry have, on many occasions, destroyed beautiful temples which were unique examples of architecture. They destroyed the beautiful images which represented the expressions of sculptural art. All these acts are extremely violent, because they cause severe pain to the idolaters, and consequently the idol-worshippers adopt an obstinate attitude towards idols even though they are fully convinced that idol-worship is futile. As a result, not only is the spiritual progress of the idol-worshippers hampered, but the progress of the whole human society is retarded. It is worth noting that even if in any country all the people without exception give up idolatry, spiritual aspirants ... will preserve images carefully in museums out of appreciation for sculpture and aesthetic taste. They will not destroy these beautiful works in any circumstances. Destroying a work of art also results in the destruction of the sense of subtle appreciation, and this is in no way proper.

While the mind is still attached to religious or sectarian signs or submits to superstitious rituals, it remains engrossed in crude objects. Any crude method to prevent such sectarian superstitions will cause reactions in the mind and this will hamper moral-spiritual progress. The best course, therefore, is to help these persons to expand their minds by means of cosmic ideation - and only in that case will they be able to give up superstitions easily.

The principle of ahim'sa' ... must have been clearly understood now. Let us now consider whether parents punishing a child amounts to him'sa' or ahim'sa'. No, it is not him'sa' because there is no intention of causing harm or pain at all. The purpose of such punishment is not to make the child shed tears, the purpose of such action is only correction. Whether it is a thief or a robber or a gentleman or a friend or anybody else, any action with a true spirit of rectification cannot be termed as him'sa', no matter how harsh it may seem.

It must now be clear that in day-to-day life it is not at all difficult to follow the path of true ahim'sa'. Taking meat as food is harmful in hot countries, especially where vegetables are available in abundance. However, under medical advice, as a diet after recovery from illness or as one of the constituents of medicine, eating meat cannot be called either him'sa' or greed, because the meat is eaten under those circumstances only to maintain life. In extremely cold countries people eat animal flesh, wear animal skins and burn animal fat under the pressure of necessity.

Heroism is revealed in the fight against aggressors ... The use of force against an aggressor is valour and desisting from such use of force is cowardice. But the weak people must assess their strength before indulging in violent conflict with a powerful aggressor; otherwise, if a fight is started without acquiring proper strength, injustice may temporarily triumph. In history such an error has been called "Rajput folly". The Rajputs always went forward with courage to resist Mughal invasions. No doubt, they fought valiantly, but they faced the enemy without assessing their own strength. They suffered from intrigues and internal dissensions and hence they always lost battles and died a heroic death. It is, therefore necessary to acquire adequate strength before declaring a war against an aggressor. To pardon aggressors before correcting their nature means encouraging injustice. Of course, if you find that the aggressor is bent on destroying you, whether you use force or not, it would be proper to die at least giving a blow to the best of your might without waiting to assemble the adequate forces.
_______________________________________