|
|
|
|
Articles: My Thoughts | Nonviolence
- Prof. Narasimham Brahmandam
| |
Causing pain, either to body or mind, is violence. All religions include nonviolence in some measure in their commandments.
Killing is the worst form of violence. However, it is not always looked upon by society as a crime. Killing the wicked is supposed to be one of the good things God does.
It is believed that God is born in human form again and again, to protect the meek and destroy the wicked. In ancient days, killing the wicked and wild animals was the duty ordained on the kings, kshatriyas and the knights.
From primitive times till this day, the soldier who kills the enemy at war is rewarded and honored. The nation considers itself as an individual and exempts, (nay, adores) the killing of its enemy from punishment.
Groups should specialize in functions, which benefit the community. Defense of the community from depredations of enemies is a very important function entrusted to kshatriyas in the past and to the army in modern times. Therefore, killing the enemy is the duty or svadharma of the soldier. He is absolved of the sin. All wars are sanctioned under this rule.
A judge who passes a death sentence and the executioner who carries out the hanging are also absolved because it is a duty entrusted to them by the society.
There are some conventions established in this regard. The enemy soldiers may be freely killed at war but not after they are taken prisoners. Millions of animals may be butchered for food. But killing an animal before an altar is frowned upon.
Only less than half a century ago, abortion was considered the murder of the unborn child. But today recourse to abortion can be taken openly. It would, therefore, appear that killing needs a license from society to be exempt from guilt. Killing is condoned if it serves the purpose of society but condemned if it is for the individual. But a powerful killer can exempt himself from guilt as in cases like the annihilation of Hiroshima or the war on weaker countries.
Thus, killing per se does not seem to carry any stigma. Death is inevitable to all living beings. It does not appear possible in the foreseeable future to conquer death. Nor does it seem advisable. Those who believe in rebirth are not perturbed by the fact of death. At least, they are advised not to. If the death is accidental, no blame attaches to any one. If the killing was the result of anger, greed, envy or vengeance, it becomes a crime punishable by society or a sin punishable by God.
Killing an animal for food is no sin because it is nature’s dispensation that man shall be a predator. Sacrificing an animal with no personal desire but with faith that that goddess has to be worshipped in that manner, is no sin. But it is sin to sacrifice an animal to propitiate a goddess so that she may grant him a boon. Killing, by itself, is neither good nor bad. It is the motive behind which makes it good or bad. This would appear to be the view of Indian scriptures.
Some verses in Giita are liable for perverse interpretation.
“The aatma which dwells in the mortal body is immortal. It cannot be killed or injured. Then who kills whom?”
“These people (Kauravas) have already been killed by me (God) i.e., destined to die. You (Arjuna) are only the instrument, the apparent killer”
These statements, if they are not properly understood, may be perversely employed as justification by an intending murderer. They are intended only to mitigate the remorse of a soldier in the performance of his duty as a warrior. The common man can only use it to dispel the sorrow and vengeance of a loving mourner.
Gandhiji’s interpretation of ahimsa is very close to the Sermon on the Mount of Jesus Christ that, to him who smites you on one cheek, you should turn the other cheek. It is the acme of forgiveness and meekness. The view of the Indian philosophers is slightly different.
Death is a predetermined and inevitable event. To be killed is just a manner of death. The killer is only an instrument. If it is the duty enjoined by him by his svadharma or by the scriptures or by the society, he should kill dispassionately and not be perturbed by pity or fear.
Even today, if a soldier turns pacific on the battlefield, the same advice is pertinent. At the same time, killing as retaliation or out of personal vendetta, is not approved because the killing is tainted by vengeance.
A butcher who slaughters animals as traditional profession attracts no sin. But is some one, for whom it is not his traditional profession, resorts to it to make profits, it would be sin.
Gandhiji has the distinction of molding ahimsa into a political weapon. Non-cooperation, non-retaliation and passive resistance to violence to authority were the salient features of the method. It gave fearlessness dignity and hope to the meek and weak and made heroes out of mud.
Leaders of such protests need to be highly advanced spiritually understanding the nuances of interpretation of every step. Otherwise the method can deteriorate into a farce. The method involves not merely nonviolence but the entire gamut of spiritual morals.
Causing pain to the mind is also violence. In fact, whether the injury is to the body or mind, it s felt only by the mind. Coercion is one such methods of violence. Those who fail to convince resort to coercion. Threatening with violence in order to obtain compliance is the seed of terrorism.
A father who beats the child, a husband who abuses his wife, a policeman who uses third degree methods, and of course, all the terrorist groups are all terrorists guilty of violence in smaller or greater measure.
In our daily lives, we inflict misery or discomfiture on others without being aware of it. Discourtesy and rudeness are the most common forms of injury to the mind. Corrupt and overbearing officials, unsympathetic doctors, hard hearted industrialists, arrogant workmen, imperious husbands and scolding wives – all cause misery.
Everyone who does not discharge his duties promptly and efficiently, everyone who is needlessly rude or harsh, everyone who is more concerned about his personal comforts than the discomfort caused to others is guilty of violence. That is why religions prescribe modesty as an essential virtue for everyone.
Ahimsa is closely allied to dayaa (universal love) or sympathy. It elevates the mind and gives healthy happiness. It is also a social necessity. It is to e distinguished from pity and remorse.
Pity is an emotional surge, which disturbs the equanimity of the mind. Mercy, on the other hand, is to recognize the misery of a fellow being in order to alleviate it to the extent that lies in one’s hands, without himself getting upset about it (being carried away by pity).
Every being is born to make a minute contribution to evolution. Violent elimination of a being is contrary to nature’s purpose. This grossly is the reason why environmentalists campaign against the killing of wild life. That probably is also why some people are against capital punishment.
The basic rationale behind ahimsa is given in a verse in Bhagavad giita.
“If one recognizes that the same aatma resides in every one, (since injuring another is tantamount to injuring himself) he will not injure himself.”
However, there is corollary to this statement that if it were not the same aatma living in the other body, himsa may be conceded.
There is thus a streak of appeal to the self sense in this argument. Even if the aatmas were different, still, for the happiness of the community, himsa is not desirable. It is the morbidity of the mind behind violence, which is to be eliminated. It does not depend on who the victim is.
The same argument, of all aatmas being one, is clothed in simple words in the commandment “Do unto others as you would be done by”. This is mercy.
If expressed conversely, as it has been put in Mahabharata, “Do not do unto others what you would not be done by”. This is ahimsa.
| Read 3 Comment(s) posted so far on this Article!
| |
|
|
|
 |
| Advertisements |
|
|
|
|
| Advertisements |
|
