How to reconcile Arjuna and Ahimsa?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/6/2005 2:01:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

buttercookie61 writes:

Anyway, it's easy to see how/why people become confused and misapply

good information.

I agree with you there. The thing I always got from the Gita was that

everyone is a different entity with their own laws to follow, but always without

attachment.

 

Looking toward nature I would have to say that violence and chaos are

neccessary, but not for me. I can avoid these things and know that they are not

a

part of my real personality so I don't touch it! Another person may be a soldier

in which case the rules are totally different. If Ma created me she made him

also and I cannot judge, the only thing he can do is what he does and do it

well. If he can persue his duty without fear or attachment to the fruits of his

actions then he will be following his own Dharma as I also do, but through

spiritual studies and practices.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

It occurred to me this morning (because I read a passage of the

Bhagavad Gita before going to bed last night) that the yogic

precept of "ahimsa" seems to be at odds with the advice given to

Arjuna by Krishna.

 

Is it possible that there can be actions that result in death, such

as the battle in which Arjuna fights against his family members,

yet such actions are not ahimsa? How can this be, when the

end doesn't justify the means? I know that we can see the fights

that occur in scripture (at least Hindu scripture) as having

metaphorical meaning. But what about real wars?

[Guest guest]

Is it possible that there can be actions that result in death, such

as the battle in which Arjuna fights against his family members,

yet such actions are not ahimsa? How can this be, when the

end doesn't justify the means? I know that we can see the fights

that occur in scripture (at least Hindu scripture) as having

metaphorical meaning. But what about real wars?

 

 

----Well, this is the amazing thing about the BG, is that it not only says,

"Stand up and fight!" but Krishna tells Arjuna to fight unfair. I believe that

the point is that in the real battle against the forces of inertia that all out

effort and creativity are needed otherwise inertia will win. Ie., to do nothing

means inertia has won already, so all methods are needed to uncover the sattva

of the situation. Furthermore, also, man's rules are not as direct and

forthcoming as God's methods for reaching the end of truth. One must break out

of the materialistic and man made mold of means to really get to the divine. As

a tantric text for the masses, Krishna is also telling Arjuna that he is Vamadev

or the dark face of God as well, and that even those means of reaching the

divine which are inconoclastic are also quite alright.

 

 

[Guest guest]

It reminds me of the credo re achieving racial equality that said

something like: to stamp out racism ... "by whatever means

necessary." But of course, it doesn't give us carte blanche to go

around killing without conscience.

 

The thing is, the people who drove airplanes into the World Trade

Center, and others who plant car bombs that kill passersby, were/are

doing what they consider to be God's will. Who can say it isn't that?

Does this mean that Hitler also was simply following God? Amma has

said that everything in creation, darkness and light, sorrow and joy,

are necessary.

 

Anyway, it's easy to see how/why people become confused and misapply

good information.

 

, "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...> wrote:

>

> Is it possible that there can be actions that result in death, such

> as the battle in which Arjuna fights against his family members,

> yet such actions are not ahimsa? How can this be, when the

> end doesn't justify the means? I know that we can see the fights

> that occur in scripture (at least Hindu scripture) as having

> metaphorical meaning. But what about real wars?

>

>

> ----Well, this is the amazing thing about the BG, is that it not

only says, "Stand up and fight!" but Krishna tells Arjuna to fight

unfair. I believe that the point is that in the real battle against

the forces of inertia that all out effort and creativity are needed

otherwise inertia will win. Ie., to do nothing means inertia has won

already, so all methods are needed to uncover the sattva of the

situation. Furthermore, also, man's rules are not as direct and

forthcoming as God's methods for reaching the end of truth. One must

break out of the materialistic and man made mold of means to really

get to the divine. As a tantric text for the masses, Krishna is also

telling Arjuna that he is Vamadev or the dark face of God as well,

and that even those means of reaching the divine which are

inconoclastic are also quite alright.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Actually since the comparisons are so obvious that means that essentially they

are the same. So it is much wiser to see the BG not as historical fact or as

telling the way to live, but instead as a tantric treatise showing how to deal

with ones own mind.

-

Mary Ann

Friday, May 06, 2005 12:59 PM

Re: How to reconcile Arjuna and Ahimsa?

 

 

It reminds me of the credo re achieving racial equality that said

something like: to stamp out racism ... "by whatever means

necessary." But of course, it doesn't give us carte blanche to go

around killing without conscience.

 

The thing is, the people who drove airplanes into the World Trade

Center, and others who plant car bombs that kill passersby, were/are

doing what they consider to be God's will. Who can say it isn't that?

Does this mean that Hitler also was simply following God? Amma has

said that everything in creation, darkness and light, sorrow and joy,

are necessary.

 

Anyway, it's easy to see how/why people become confused and misapply

good information.

 

, "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...> wrote:

>

> Is it possible that there can be actions that result in death, such

> as the battle in which Arjuna fights against his family members,

> yet such actions are not ahimsa? How can this be, when the

> end doesn't justify the means? I know that we can see the fights

> that occur in scripture (at least Hindu scripture) as having

> metaphorical meaning. But what about real wars?

>

>

> ----Well, this is the amazing thing about the BG, is that it not

only says, "Stand up and fight!" but Krishna tells Arjuna to fight

unfair. I believe that the point is that in the real battle against

the forces of inertia that all out effort and creativity are needed

otherwise inertia will win. Ie., to do nothing means inertia has won

already, so all methods are needed to uncover the sattva of the

situation. Furthermore, also, man's rules are not as direct and

forthcoming as God's methods for reaching the end of truth. One must

break out of the materialistic and man made mold of means to really

get to the divine. As a tantric text for the masses, Krishna is also

telling Arjuna that he is Vamadev or the dark face of God as well,

and that even those means of reaching the divine which are

inconoclastic are also quite alright.

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

Links

 

/

 

b..

 

c..

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Yeah. Also, there's the thing about living in the present moment, and

if one is able to do that, right action is done in harmony with the

Universal Life Force, God (whatever one wants to call it). So it's

just mental exercises (hamster wheel-type), and fear, that causes

such quandaries, I guess.

 

, "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...> wrote:

> Actually since the comparisons are so obvious that means that

essentially they are the same. So it is much wiser to see the BG not

as historical fact or as telling the way to live, but instead as a

tantric treatise showing how to deal with ones own mind.

> -

> Mary Ann

>

> Friday, May 06, 2005 12:59 PM

> Re: How to reconcile Arjuna and Ahimsa?

>

>

> It reminds me of the credo re achieving racial equality that said

> something like: to stamp out racism ... "by whatever means

> necessary." But of course, it doesn't give us carte blanche to

go

> around killing without conscience.

>

> The thing is, the people who drove airplanes into the World Trade

> Center, and others who plant car bombs that kill passersby,

were/are

> doing what they consider to be God's will. Who can say it isn't

that?

> Does this mean that Hitler also was simply following God? Amma

has

> said that everything in creation, darkness and light, sorrow and

joy,

> are necessary.

>

> Anyway, it's easy to see how/why people become confused and

misapply

> good information.

>

> , "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...>

wrote:

> >

> > Is it possible that there can be actions that result in death,

such

> > as the battle in which Arjuna fights against his family

members,

> > yet such actions are not ahimsa? How can this be, when the

> > end doesn't justify the means? I know that we can see the

fights

> > that occur in scripture (at least Hindu scripture) as having

> > metaphorical meaning. But what about real wars?

> >

> >

> > ----Well, this is the amazing thing about the BG, is that it

not

> only says, "Stand up and fight!" but Krishna tells Arjuna to

fight

> unfair. I believe that the point is that in the real battle

against

> the forces of inertia that all out effort and creativity are

needed

> otherwise inertia will win. Ie., to do nothing means inertia has

won

> already, so all methods are needed to uncover the sattva of the

> situation. Furthermore, also, man's rules are not as direct and

> forthcoming as God's methods for reaching the end of truth. One

must

> break out of the materialistic and man made mold of means to

really

> get to the divine. As a tantric text for the masses, Krishna is

also

> telling Arjuna that he is Vamadev or the dark face of God as

well,

> and that even those means of reaching the divine which are

> inconoclastic are also quite alright.

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

> --

----------

> Links

>

>

> /

>

> b..

>

>

> c.. Terms of

Service.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

While that living in the present is very beneficial as it allows one to perceive

a broader range of what is actually available to one I think that nonetheless

ones intention is also important, and not mere hamster wheel training. One can

live in the present and also be bent on revenge. I personally don't understand

why Krishna tells arjuna to fire the bow first defying kshatria dharma. That for

me is the issue, not why battle. This is a central condundrum of the BG. Not

that Krishna tells arjuna too fight and follow dharma, but that then he tells

Arjuna to do something adharmic. This is the key issue that will make study of

the BG poignant for all time. It really comes down to the question of faith. Is

it ok to be adharmic in a cosmic cause? I don't know. I have often said that

"the path of Dharma is where the means justify the ends." Krishna seems to think

differently.

-

Mary Ann

Friday, May 06, 2005 1:57 PM

Re: How to reconcile Arjuna and Ahimsa?

 

 

Yeah. Also, there's the thing about living in the present moment, and

if one is able to do that, right action is done in harmony with the

Universal Life Force, God (whatever one wants to call it). So it's

just mental exercises (hamster wheel-type), and fear, that causes

such quandaries, I guess.

 

, "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...> wrote:

> Actually since the comparisons are so obvious that means that

essentially they are the same. So it is much wiser to see the BG not

as historical fact or as telling the way to live, but instead as a

tantric treatise showing how to deal with ones own mind.

> -

> Mary Ann

>

> Friday, May 06, 2005 12:59 PM

> Re: How to reconcile Arjuna and Ahimsa?

>

>

> It reminds me of the credo re achieving racial equality that said

> something like: to stamp out racism ... "by whatever means

> necessary." But of course, it doesn't give us carte blanche to

go

> around killing without conscience.

>

> The thing is, the people who drove airplanes into the World Trade

> Center, and others who plant car bombs that kill passersby,

were/are

> doing what they consider to be God's will. Who can say it isn't

that?

> Does this mean that Hitler also was simply following God? Amma

has

> said that everything in creation, darkness and light, sorrow and

joy,

> are necessary.

>

> Anyway, it's easy to see how/why people become confused and

misapply

> good information.

>

> , "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...>

wrote:

> >

> > Is it possible that there can be actions that result in death,

such

> > as the battle in which Arjuna fights against his family

members,

> > yet such actions are not ahimsa? How can this be, when the

> > end doesn't justify the means? I know that we can see the

fights

> > that occur in scripture (at least Hindu scripture) as having

> > metaphorical meaning. But what about real wars?

> >

> >

> > ----Well, this is the amazing thing about the BG, is that it

not

> only says, "Stand up and fight!" but Krishna tells Arjuna to

fight

> unfair. I believe that the point is that in the real battle

against

> the forces of inertia that all out effort and creativity are

needed

> otherwise inertia will win. Ie., to do nothing means inertia has

won

> already, so all methods are needed to uncover the sattva of the

> situation. Furthermore, also, man's rules are not as direct and

> forthcoming as God's methods for reaching the end of truth. One

must

> break out of the materialistic and man made mold of means to

really

> get to the divine. As a tantric text for the masses, Krishna is

also

> telling Arjuna that he is Vamadev or the dark face of God as

well,

> and that even those means of reaching the divine which are

> inconoclastic are also quite alright.

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

> --

----------

> Links

>

>

> /

>

> b..

>

>

> c.. Terms of

Service.

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

Links

 

/

 

b..

 

c..

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

About the "hamster wheel" I just thought a certain level of

hashing/rehashing might have been grinding mental gears, not free

creative movement in a life-affirming way.

 

I thought I might have been the only one thinking Krishna's advice

was "adharmic," and that I just wasn't getting something key that was

there. I am not familiar with the specific passage you are

mentioning; in fact, I just happened upon the passage that moved me

to post in a book by an Amma devotee. So, there's a point where

Krishna advises a pre-emptive strike? Or, revenge? Can you

define "defying kshatria dharma" and maybe quote the passage?

 

 

, "Detective_Mongo_Phd"

<detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote:

> While that living in the present is very beneficial as it allows

one to perceive a broader range of what is actually available to one

I think that nonetheless ones intention is also important, and not

mere hamster wheel training. One can live in the present and also be

bent on revenge. I personally don't understand why Krishna tells

arjuna to fire the bow first defying kshatria dharma. That for me is

the issue, not why battle. This is a central condundrum of the BG.

Not that Krishna tells arjuna too fight and follow dharma, but that

then he tells Arjuna to do something adharmic. This is the key issue

that will make study of the BG poignant for all time. It really comes

down to the question of faith. Is it ok to be adharmic in a cosmic

cause? I don't know. I have often said that "the path of Dharma is

where the means justify the ends." Krishna seems to think differently.

> -

> Mary Ann

>

> Friday, May 06, 2005 1:57 PM

> Re: How to reconcile Arjuna and Ahimsa?

>

>

> Yeah. Also, there's the thing about living in the present moment,

and

> if one is able to do that, right action is done in harmony with

the

> Universal Life Force, God (whatever one wants to call it). So

it's

> just mental exercises (hamster wheel-type), and fear, that causes

> such quandaries, I guess.

>

> , "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...>

wrote:

> > Actually since the comparisons are so obvious that means that

> essentially they are the same. So it is much wiser to see the BG

not

> as historical fact or as telling the way to live, but instead as

a

> tantric treatise showing how to deal with ones own mind.

> > -

> > Mary Ann

> >

> > Friday, May 06, 2005 12:59 PM

> > Re: How to reconcile Arjuna and

Ahimsa?

> >

> >

> > It reminds me of the credo re achieving racial equality that

said

> > something like: to stamp out racism ... "by whatever means

> > necessary." But of course, it doesn't give us carte blanche

to

> go

> > around killing without conscience.

> >

> > The thing is, the people who drove airplanes into the World

Trade

> > Center, and others who plant car bombs that kill passersby,

> were/are

> > doing what they consider to be God's will. Who can say it

isn't

> that?

> > Does this mean that Hitler also was simply following God?

Amma

> has

> > said that everything in creation, darkness and light, sorrow

and

> joy,

> > are necessary.

> >

> > Anyway, it's easy to see how/why people become confused and

> misapply

> > good information.

> >

> > , "Eve__69"

<eve__69@h...>

> wrote:

> > >

> > > Is it possible that there can be actions that result in

death,

> such

> > > as the battle in which Arjuna fights against his family

> members,

> > > yet such actions are not ahimsa? How can this be, when the

> > > end doesn't justify the means? I know that we can see the

> fights

> > > that occur in scripture (at least Hindu scripture) as

having

> > > metaphorical meaning. But what about real wars?

> > >

> > >

> > > ----Well, this is the amazing thing about the BG, is that

it

> not

> > only says, "Stand up and fight!" but Krishna tells Arjuna to

> fight

> > unfair. I believe that the point is that in the real battle

> against

> > the forces of inertia that all out effort and creativity are

> needed

> > otherwise inertia will win. Ie., to do nothing means inertia

has

> won

> > already, so all methods are needed to uncover the sattva of

the

> > situation. Furthermore, also, man's rules are not as direct

and

> > forthcoming as God's methods for reaching the end of truth.

One

> must

> > break out of the materialistic and man made mold of means to

> really

> > get to the divine. As a tantric text for the masses, Krishna

is

> also

> > telling Arjuna that he is Vamadev or the dark face of God as

> well,

> > and that even those means of reaching the divine which are

> > inconoclastic are also quite alright.

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > -------------------------------

----

> ----------

> > Links

> >

> >

> > /

> >

> > b..

> >

> >

> > c..

Terms of

> Service.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

> --

----------

> Links

>

>

> /

>

> b..

>

>

> c.. Terms of

Service.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I don't have the section in front of me. I also don't have a copy of the BG. I

just remember from studying that Krishna tells Arjuna that unless he

definitively kills Drona that Drona will kill the whole world. Maybe some more

knowledgable member can tell us the passage.

-

Mary Ann

Friday, May 06, 2005 4:33 PM

Re: How to reconcile Arjuna and Ahimsa?

 

 

About the "hamster wheel" I just thought a certain level of

hashing/rehashing might have been grinding mental gears, not free

creative movement in a life-affirming way.

 

I thought I might have been the only one thinking Krishna's advice

was "adharmic," and that I just wasn't getting something key that was

there. I am not familiar with the specific passage you are

mentioning; in fact, I just happened upon the passage that moved me

to post in a book by an Amma devotee. So, there's a point where

Krishna advises a pre-emptive strike? Or, revenge? Can you

define "defying kshatria dharma" and maybe quote the passage?

 

 

, "Detective_Mongo_Phd"

<detective_mongo_phd@h...> wrote:

> While that living in the present is very beneficial as it allows

one to perceive a broader range of what is actually available to one

I think that nonetheless ones intention is also important, and not

mere hamster wheel training. One can live in the present and also be

bent on revenge. I personally don't understand why Krishna tells

arjuna to fire the bow first defying kshatria dharma. That for me is

the issue, not why battle. This is a central condundrum of the BG.

Not that Krishna tells arjuna too fight and follow dharma, but that

then he tells Arjuna to do something adharmic. This is the key issue

that will make study of the BG poignant for all time. It really comes

down to the question of faith. Is it ok to be adharmic in a cosmic

cause? I don't know. I have often said that "the path of Dharma is

where the means justify the ends." Krishna seems to think differently.

> -

> Mary Ann

>

> Friday, May 06, 2005 1:57 PM

> Re: How to reconcile Arjuna and Ahimsa?

>

>

> Yeah. Also, there's the thing about living in the present moment,

and

> if one is able to do that, right action is done in harmony with

the

> Universal Life Force, God (whatever one wants to call it). So

it's

> just mental exercises (hamster wheel-type), and fear, that causes

> such quandaries, I guess.

>

> , "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...>

wrote:

> > Actually since the comparisons are so obvious that means that

> essentially they are the same. So it is much wiser to see the BG

not

> as historical fact or as telling the way to live, but instead as

a

> tantric treatise showing how to deal with ones own mind.

> > -

> > Mary Ann

> >

> > Friday, May 06, 2005 12:59 PM

> > Re: How to reconcile Arjuna and

Ahimsa?

> >

> >

> > It reminds me of the credo re achieving racial equality that

said

> > something like: to stamp out racism ... "by whatever means

> > necessary." But of course, it doesn't give us carte blanche

to

> go

> > around killing without conscience.

> >

> > The thing is, the people who drove airplanes into the World

Trade

> > Center, and others who plant car bombs that kill passersby,

> were/are

> > doing what they consider to be God's will. Who can say it

isn't

> that?

> > Does this mean that Hitler also was simply following God?

Amma

> has

> > said that everything in creation, darkness and light, sorrow

and

> joy,

> > are necessary.

> >

> > Anyway, it's easy to see how/why people become confused and

> misapply

> > good information.

> >

> > , "Eve__69"

<eve__69@h...>

> wrote:

> > >

> > > Is it possible that there can be actions that result in

death,

> such

> > > as the battle in which Arjuna fights against his family

> members,

> > > yet such actions are not ahimsa? How can this be, when the

> > > end doesn't justify the means? I know that we can see the

> fights

> > > that occur in scripture (at least Hindu scripture) as

having

> > > metaphorical meaning. But what about real wars?

> > >

> > >

> > > ----Well, this is the amazing thing about the BG, is that

it

> not

> > only says, "Stand up and fight!" but Krishna tells Arjuna to

> fight

> > unfair. I believe that the point is that in the real battle

> against

> > the forces of inertia that all out effort and creativity are

> needed

> > otherwise inertia will win. Ie., to do nothing means inertia

has

> won

> > already, so all methods are needed to uncover the sattva of

the

> > situation. Furthermore, also, man's rules are not as direct

and

> > forthcoming as God's methods for reaching the end of truth.

One

> must

> > break out of the materialistic and man made mold of means to

> really

> > get to the divine. As a tantric text for the masses, Krishna

is

> also

> > telling Arjuna that he is Vamadev or the dark face of God as

> well,

> > and that even those means of reaching the divine which are

> > inconoclastic are also quite alright.

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > -------------------------------

----

> ----------

> > Links

> >

> >

> > /

> >

> > b..

> >

> >

> > c..

Terms of

> Service.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

> --

----------

> Links

>

>

> /

>

> b..

>

>

> c.. Terms of

Service.

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

Links

 

/

 

b..

 

c..

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/gita/

or

http://iconsoftec.com/gita/

 

I don't see an easily searchable version.

 

, "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...> wrote:

> [....] I also don't have a copy of the BG. [....]

[Guest guest]

Actually I do have a Bantam Books version, and I looked through it but couldn't

find the verse. Which is making me think that it's not there.

 

However Mary Ann, I don't think you knew about that verse. What I believe you

are objecting to is the mere notion of war, and the idea that God condones war.

In the BG Krishna upholds the Sanatana Dharma. As Krishna tells Arjuna, "You're

going to go into battle whether you like it or not, so better to get with it

rather than be killed like a coward." or something like that. The whole point

being that life is a lila of the Lord. This is following dharma as a Hindu

would understand it. To not fight when evil raises it's head is the way of the

coward. Plain and simple.

 

I'm actually not sure about that 'preemptive' notion that I had. It has been so

long.

 

 

-

msbauju

Friday, May 06, 2005 5:37 PM

Re: How to reconcile Arjuna and Ahimsa?

 

 

 

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/gita/

or

http://iconsoftec.com/gita/

 

I don't see an easily searchable version.

 

, "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...> wrote:

> [....] I also don't have a copy of the BG. [....]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Links

 

/

 

b..

 

c..

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/6/2005 9:02:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

buttercookie61 writes:

I wasn't objecting to anything so much as asking how to reconcile the

advice that it's okay to fight to the death against loved ones, and

ahimsa (non-violence). When it can be deemed violent even to perform

an asana in a way that constricts, how to reconcile that with

fighting to the death? My mention of war was to bring fighting into

physicality rather than keep it in the realm of metaphor for dealing

with our inner demons.

 

 

 

Is Ahimsa for everyone? I know many Vaishnavs pratice vegetarianism, but it

isn't the case with many Hindus otherwise. Arjuna being a Kshatriya was born to

fight so being cowardly, backing down or not fighting would be Adharmic in

his case, while for a Sadhu the opposite might be true.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I wasn't objecting to anything so much as asking how to reconcile the

advice that it's okay to fight to the death against loved ones, and

ahimsa (non-violence). When it can be deemed violent even to perform

an asana in a way that constricts, how to reconcile that with

fighting to the death? My mention of war was to bring fighting into

physicality rather than keep it in the realm of metaphor for dealing

with our inner demons.

 

 

, "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...> wrote:

> Actually I do have a Bantam Books version, and I looked through it

but couldn't find the verse. Which is making me think that it's not

there.

>

> However Mary Ann, I don't think you knew about that verse. What I

believe you are objecting to is the mere notion of war, and the idea

that God condones war. In the BG Krishna upholds the Sanatana Dharma.

As Krishna tells Arjuna, "You're going to go into battle whether you

like it or not, so better to get with it rather than be killed like a

coward." or something like that. The whole point being that life is a

lila of the Lord. This is following dharma as a Hindu would

understand it. To not fight when evil raises it's head is the way of

the coward. Plain and simple.

>

> I'm actually not sure about that 'preemptive' notion that I had. It

has been so long.

>

>

> -

> msbauju

>

> Friday, May 06, 2005 5:37 PM

> Re: How to reconcile Arjuna and Ahimsa?

>

>

>

> http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/gita/

> or

> http://iconsoftec.com/gita/

>

> I don't see an easily searchable version.

>

> , "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...>

wrote:

> > [....] I also don't have a copy of the BG. [....]

>

>

>

>

>

> --

----------

> Links

>

>

> /

>

> b..

>

>

> c.. Terms of

Service.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yep: 'Solomon wrote in Ecclesiastes: "there is a time and a

season for everything under the sun." Eccl 3:1.'

 

I just pilfered the above from some website.

 

Excellent point about non-attachment as the teaching of the Gita.

I think my questions about reconciling the BG and Ahimsa are

best answered by that - that is, if I bring the awareness of

non-attachment to the question, it's like the sound of one hand

clapping!

 

About chaos, though, I like the "chaos theory" that under the

appearance of chaos is an order that may not be apparent to

those who see or experience the chaos. Because our

perceptions are limited does not mean the order isn't there.

 

 

, swastik108@a...

wrote:

> In a message dated 5/6/2005 2:01:15 PM Eastern Daylight

Time,

> buttercookie61 writes:

> Anyway, it's easy to see how/why people become confused

and misapply

> good information.

> I agree with you there. The thing I always got from the Gita was

that

> everyone is a different entity with their own laws to follow, but

always without

> attachment.

>

> Looking toward nature I would have to say that violence and

chaos are

> neccessary, but not for me. I can avoid these things and know

that they are not a

> part of my real personality so I don't touch it! Another person

may be a soldier

> in which case the rules are totally different. If Ma created me

she made him

> also and I cannot judge, the only thing he can do is what he

does and do it

> well. If he can persue his duty without fear or attachment to the

fruits of his

> actions then he will be following his own Dharma as I also do,

but through

> spiritual studies and practices.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

It is very simple. Ahimsa is about driving forces that make one act in a

certain way. Dharma is about the actions themselves. Thus the attitude

must be loving regardless of who or what is in front of you. The actions

on the other hand are dictated by the situation and dharma. Example: a

police sniper about to shoot dead a terrorist attempting to blow up a

bus full of people, may be observing ahimsa if there's not even a trace

of hatred (or even dislike) towards the terrorist in him.

 

Usually people have hard time grasping this concept - fighting to death

and yet possessing no anger whatsoever.

 

Mary Ann wrote:

> I wasn't objecting to anything so much as asking how to reconcile the

> advice that it's okay to fight to the death against loved ones, and

> ahimsa (non-violence). When it can be deemed violent even to perform

> an asana in a way that constricts, how to reconcile that with

> fighting to the death? My mention of war was to bring fighting into

> physicality rather than keep it in the realm of metaphor for dealing

> with our inner demons.

>

>

> , "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...> wrote:

> > Actually I do have a Bantam Books version, and I looked through it

> but couldn't find the verse. Which is making me think that it's not

> there.

> >

> > However Mary Ann, I don't think you knew about that verse. What I

> believe you are objecting to is the mere notion of war, and the idea

> that God condones war. In the BG Krishna upholds the Sanatana Dharma.

> As Krishna tells Arjuna, "You're going to go into battle whether you

> like it or not, so better to get with it rather than be killed like a

> coward." or something like that. The whole point being that life is a

> lila of the Lord. This is following dharma as a Hindu would

> understand it. To not fight when evil raises it's head is the way of

> the coward. Plain and simple.

> >

> > I'm actually not sure about that 'preemptive' notion that I had. It

> has been so long.

> >

> >

> > -

> > msbauju

> >

> > Friday, May 06, 2005 5:37 PM

> > Re: How to reconcile Arjuna and Ahimsa?

> >

> >

> >

> > http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/gita/

> > or

> > http://iconsoftec.com/gita/

> >

> > I don't see an easily searchable version.

> >

> > , "Eve__69" <eve__69@h...>

> wrote:

> > > [....] I also don't have a copy of the BG. [....]

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > --

> ----------

> > Links

> >

> >

> > /

> >

> > b..

> >

> >

> > c.. Terms of

> Service.

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

> ------

> * Links*

>

> *

> /

>

> *

>

> <?subject=Un>

>

> * Terms of

> Service <>.

>

>

[Guest guest]

, "Mary Ann"

<buttercookie61> wrote:

> It occurred to me this morning (because I read a passage of the

> Bhagavad Gita before going to bed last night) that the yogic

> precept of "ahimsa" seems to be at odds with the advice given to

> Arjuna by Krishna.

>

> Is it possible that there can be actions that result in death, such

> as the battle in which Arjuna fights against his family members,

> yet such actions are not ahimsa? How can this be, when the

> end doesn't justify the means? I know that we can see the fights

> that occur in scripture (at least Hindu scripture) as having

> metaphorical meaning. But what about real wars?

 

War is a product of this fact: human beings are animals

with language skills. But it is exactly those skills

which make us more than animals. It was out of symbolic

thought that we came up with the idea of ahimsa, which

is completely unnatural when looked at behaviorally.

 

So, while we may endeavor to hold to that ideal, the

evidence of our animal nature is all around us. Ahimsa

is an attempt by collective humanity to cultivate peace.

But elements of humanity are not equipped to go along

with that. So, conflict continues.

 

I'm not an expert, but I believe Krishna explains to

Arjuna that it's his dharma to fight. He was born into

a warrior family. It was in his blood.

 

Durga was created by the gods as a warrior. Kali emerges

during particularly nasty battles. It's just a part of

life. Ahimsa is an attempt to change that, and hopefully

more and more people will begin to go along with the idea.

[Guest guest]

Mouse wrote:

 

"[1]It is very simple. Ahimsa is about driving forces that make one act in a

certain way. Dharma is about the actions themselves. Thus the attitude must be

loving regardless of who or what is in front of you. The actions on the other

hand are dictated by the situation and dharma. Example: a police sniper about

to shoot dead a terrorist attempting to blow up a bus full of people, may be

observing ahimsa if there's not even a trace of hatred (or even dislike) towards

the terrorist in him."

 

 

It's unlikely to happen. Cops and military personnel talk

about the "bad guys" all the time, and such forms the basis

of much of their training.

 

As I understand it, ahimsa means harmlessness. Having no feelings plus or minus

for the one you are killing does not change the fact that you are harming

someone.

 

[2]Usually people have hard time grasping this concept - fighting to death and

yet possessing no anger whatsoever.

 

Sure, but that doesn't mean you aren't a cold hearted killer. You can be happy

you are shooting someone. Is there anything wrong with that?

 

If you are under fire, you aren't going to be pleased with who is firing at you.

It's a natural reaction to get aggressive in those situations. It may be

different for a sniper who is a bit more removed from battle, but emotion-free

fighting is almost an oxymoron.

 

That said, I'm sure there's marshal arts masters who can do it, and I imagine it

lends an advantage to one disciplined enough to maintain emotional neutrality in

the midst of a fight.

 

But that's not ahimsa, IMO. Ahimsa means non-fighting. To bring it back to the

Gita, there are certain situations which arise that call for something other

than ahimsa. If one can avoid those situations, one can practice ahimsa

continually. But if one encounters one of those situations, ahimsa may mean

getting beaten or killed. It many just not be the best choice in every

situation.

[Guest guest]

Animals do not fight in wars-only humans do that.

> So, while we may endeavor to hold to that ideal, the

> evidence of our animal nature is all around us.

[Guest guest]

, "mahahradanatha"

<mahahradanatha> wrote:

>

> Animals do not fight in wars-only humans do that.

 

Are you kidding? Animals have epic wars.

 

Baboons are known to carry on conflicts between

different social groups for decades. Many species

of animals know inter-social group warfare, usually

over territory and food sources.

 

Then there are the inter-species conflicts. Lions

and hyenas come to mind as the best example of this.

 

Then there are the territorial and hierarchy battles

which occur in almost every species of animal. Even

different groups of ants battle one another.

 

The precedent for war has been around much longer

than humans have.

> > So, while we may endeavor to hold to that ideal, the

> > evidence of our animal nature is all around us.

[Guest guest]

That depends on the definition of War.

 

'War' defined by Webster's Dictionary is a state of open and

declared, hostile armed conflict between states or nations, or a

period of such conflict.

 

Animals of the same species have (territorial) conflicts that are

usually solved without the need to have recourse to unnecessary mass

killings of their fellow species that are one of the hallmarks of

human wars.

These conflicts are neither organised nor armed nor do they last over

long periods or generations of animals.

Conflicts between animals can not be called wars just because some

(very few) involve groups of animals and are agressive or territorial.

 

The cause of the exaggerated bloody conflicts involving atrocties and

mass killings of innocents called wars or warfare is not our "animal

nature". Animals are reasonable their aggression and conflicts

rarely involves killing the own species.

 

On the contrary the atrocites, madness, brutality and unquenchable

bloodlust of human armend conflicts is deeply rooted in our evil

human nature.

 

, "jodyrrr" <jodyrrr> wrote:

> , "mahahradanatha"

> <mahahradanatha> wrote:

> >

> > Animals do not fight in wars-only humans do that.

>

> Are you kidding? Animals have epic wars.

>

> Baboons are known to carry on conflicts between

> different social groups for decades. Many species

> of animals know inter-social group warfare, usually

> over territory and food sources.

>

> Then there are the inter-species conflicts. Lions

> and hyenas come to mind as the best example of this.

>

> Then there are the territorial and hierarchy battles

> which occur in almost every species of animal. Even

> different groups of ants battle one another.

>

> The precedent for war has been around much longer

> than humans have.

>

> > > So, while we may endeavor to hold to that ideal, the

> > > evidence of our animal nature is all around us.

[Guest guest]

, "mahahradanatha"

<mahahradanatha> wrote:

> That depends on the definition of War.

>

> 'War' defined by Webster's Dictionary is a state of open and

> declared, hostile armed conflict between states or nations, or a

> period of such conflict.

 

This is a semantic quibble. The roots of war can be seen

in the territorial conflicts of animals.

> Animals of the same species have (territorial) conflicts that are

> usually solved without the need to have recourse to unnecessary mass

> killings of their fellow species that are one of the hallmarks of

> human wars.

 

Lions kill other lions over territory all the time.

> These conflicts are neither organised nor armed nor do they last over

> long periods or generations of animals.

 

See baboons at war:

 

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/1230-05.htm

> Conflicts between animals can not be called wars just because some

> (very few) involve groups of animals and are agressive or territorial.

 

More semantic quibbling.

> The cause of the exaggerated bloody conflicts involving atrocties and mass

killings of innocents called wars or warfare is not our "animal nature". Animals

are reasonable their aggression and conflicts rarely involves killing the own

species.

 

An overly-optimistic gloss. Animals kill one another

over territory much more frequently than you seem

to want to believe.

> On the contrary the atrocites, madness, brutality and unquenchable

> bloodlust of human armend conflicts is deeply rooted in our evil

> human nature.

 

Ridiculous assertion noted. Are you blaming "original

sin" as the cause, or is there a deeper evil rooted in

our natures?

[Guest guest]

, "mahahradanatha"

<mahahradanatha> wrote:

> That depends on the definition of War.

>

> 'War' defined by Webster's Dictionary is a state of open and

> declared, hostile armed conflict between states or nations, or a

> period of such conflict.

> [....]

>

> [....] Animals are reasonable their aggression and conflicts

> rarely involves killing the own species.

 

Animals *do* sometimes kill members of their own species. For

example, when a male lion takes over a pride (displacing the previous

male), he will kill the other male's cubs so that the lionesses will

come into estrus faster.

 

And animals do occasionally kill without apparent reason. Female

lionesses will kill the cubs of other prides, and chimpanzees have

been observed to "murder".

 

However, politically-organized mass slaughter--war as defined above--

is indeed an entirely human invention.

> On the contrary the atrocites, madness, brutality and unquenchable

> bloodlust of human armend conflicts is deeply rooted in our evil

> human nature.

 

???

 

I think we could just as easily argue that non-violence is natural

and intrinsic to our true selves. Violence is the aberration.

[Guest guest]

The turn of this thread today made me wonder whether dolphins

exhibit these kinds of behaviors. Here is something I found online

in looking this up just now:

 

Brain Size

In the world of mammals ther are two mountain peaks, one is Mount

Homo Sapiens and the other is mount Cetacea. -- Professor Teizo

Ogawa

 

Sperm whales have brains six times more massive than humans.

Dolphins' brains are slightly larger than humans'. Cows' brains are

larger than humans'. Hummingbirds' brain size to weight ratio is the

highest of any animal. Dinosaurs managed their huge bodies with pea

sized brains. Humans have brains three times more massive that

chimpanzees even though we share 98% of the same genes.

Can you make any sense of this? Is there any pattern? The key is the

brain has many parts. There are lobes for sight, hearing, smell,

touch, motor control, and thinking -- the frontal lobes.

 

What you really want to look at is the absolute mass of the frontal

lobes. This correlates well with our estimates of how smart the dumb

animals (pigs, cows, deer, seals, dogs, chimpanzees,

grasshoppers ...) are. Unfortunately for man's vanity, whales and

dolphins have much larger frontal lobes than we do. That suggests

the cetaceans (the generic term for dolphins and whales) are smarter

than we are, even if the Bible insists man is the ultimately

important animal on the planet.

 

Whales have had their large brains for 12 million years. Humans are

the new kids on the block and have many quirks to iron out in co-

ordination between the different parts of their triune brain.

 

Do dolphins fight with each other?

 

Its true. Dolphins beat each other in some occasions. But in other =

occasions you see them all together in peace. Just like us, and dogs

and cats.

 

Cetacea are very social animals. They get along with each other in

general better than men do. Cetaceans co-operate. They protect each

other. To do that consistently takes intelligence.

 

Whales are not perfect gentlemen. Orcas attack and eat larger

whales, ripping out the tongues of the blue whales and humpbacks

have battles to decide the dominant male for mating. However,

cetacea...almost never attack man. Dolphins will even help drowning

humans.

 

Good, 'cause we need all the help we can get :-P

 

 

, "msbauju" <msbauju>

wrote:

> , "mahahradanatha"

> <mahahradanatha> wrote:

> > That depends on the definition of War.

> >

> > 'War' defined by Webster's Dictionary is a state of open and

> > declared, hostile armed conflict between states or nations, or a

> > period of such conflict.

> > [....]

> >

> > [....] Animals are reasonable their aggression and conflicts

> > rarely involves killing the own species.

>

> Animals *do* sometimes kill members of their own species. For

> example, when a male lion takes over a pride (displacing the

previous

> male), he will kill the other male's cubs so that the lionesses

will

> come into estrus faster.

>

> And animals do occasionally kill without apparent reason. Female

> lionesses will kill the cubs of other prides, and chimpanzees have

> been observed to "murder".

>

> However, politically-organized mass slaughter--war as defined

above--

> is indeed an entirely human invention.

>

> > On the contrary the atrocites, madness, brutality and

unquenchable

> > bloodlust of human armend conflicts is deeply rooted in our evil

> > human nature.

>

> ???

>

> I think we could just as easily argue that non-violence is natural

> and intrinsic to our true selves. Violence is the aberration.

[Guest guest]

1. Ahimsa is not about non-fighting - it's about non-VIOLENCE. It is

possible to participate in a fight and yet be non-violent - just like

it's VERY possible to never physically (or even verbally) attack anyone

and still be very violent and unstable person.

 

2. It is not about having no feelings - it's about feeling LOVE and

compassion towards everybody and everything. But feeling compassion to

microorganisms doesn't stop us from killing them by millions simply

inhaling. Observe the difference between one's attitude and one's

actions. If you are happy to kill somebody - regardless of the

circumstances - you're rather violent. Notice how this is about the

ATTIDUTE rather than the action itself.

 

3. It is not about being emotion-free - it's about being attachment-free

(including attachment to winning), and about feeling feeling strong

emotion - compassion. Yet acting appropriately.

 

Typically people fight because their fear (insecurity) or their ego (I'm

doing God's work) drive them. This is violent. Arjuna fought because he

fulfilled his Dharma, without being attached to either the victory

itself or the benefits/gains from it (the kingdom, the power, the fame,

etc). This was non-violent.

 

Since it is difficult for a man to distinguish between the true dharma

and his ego, it helps immensely to have a guiding Master who guides one

and removes ignorance. Notice how Arjuna isn't eager to jump into the

fight with justifying it: "Why don't I go and defend the Earth against

these evil Kauravas". He's perfectly willing to surrender and lose

everything (possibly including his own life) to avoid the bloodshed -

but his Master orders him to get up and fight.

 

 

 

jodyrrr wrote:

> Mouse wrote:

>

> "[1]It is very simple. Ahimsa is about driving forces that make one

> act in a certain way. Dharma is about the actions themselves. Thus

> the attitude must be loving regardless of who or what is in front of

> you. The actions on the other hand are dictated by the situation and

> dharma. Example: a police sniper about to shoot dead a terrorist

> attempting to blow up a bus full of people, may be observing ahimsa if

> there's not even a trace of hatred (or even dislike) towards the

> terrorist in him."

>

>

> It's unlikely to happen. Cops and military personnel talk

> about the "bad guys" all the time, and such forms the basis

> of much of their training.

>

> As I understand it, ahimsa means harmlessness. Having no feelings

> plus or minus for the one you are killing does not change the fact

> that you are harming someone.

>

> [2]Usually people have hard time grasping this concept - fighting to

> death and yet possessing no anger whatsoever.

>

> Sure, but that doesn't mean you aren't a cold hearted killer. You can

> be happy you are shooting someone. Is there anything wrong with that?

>

> If you are under fire, you aren't going to be pleased with who is

> firing at you. It's a natural reaction to get aggressive in those

> situations. It may be different for a sniper who is a bit more

> removed from battle, but emotion-free fighting is almost an oxymoron.

>

> That said, I'm sure there's marshal arts masters who can do it, and I

> imagine it lends an advantage to one disciplined enough to maintain

> emotional neutrality in the midst of a fight.

>

> But that's not ahimsa, IMO. Ahimsa means non-fighting. To bring it

> back to the Gita, there are certain situations which arise that call

> for something other than ahimsa. If one can avoid those situations,

> one can practice ahimsa continually. But if one encounters one of

> those situations, ahimsa may mean getting beaten or killed. It many

> just not be the best choice in every situation.

>

>

>

>

>

> ------

> * Links*

>

> *

> /

>

> *

>

> <?subject=Un>

>

> * Terms of

> Service <>.

>

>

[Guest guest]

, Mouse <uri@o...> wrote:

> 1. Ahimsa is not about non-fighting - it's about non-VIOLENCE. It is

> possible to participate in a fight and yet be non-violent

 

Sure, with pillows.

 

If someone gets hurt, it's violence. In a war, many

people get hurt and killed. There's no such thing as

ahimsa in war.

 

- just like

> it's VERY possible to never physically (or even verbally) attack anyone

> and still be very violent and unstable person.

 

If nobody is getting hurt, no violence is being

done. One may be unstable and have thoughts of

violence, but that is not violence until someone

gets hurt by it.

> 2. It is not about having no feelings - it's about feeling LOVE and

> compassion towards everybody and everything. But feeling compassion to

> microorganisms doesn't stop us from killing them by millions simply

> inhaling. Observe the difference between one's attitude and one's

> actions. If you are happy to kill somebody - regardless of the

> circumstances - you're rather violent. Notice how this is about the

> ATTIDUTE rather than the action itself.

 

If you are sad to kill someone, you are violent.

If you have no feelings whatsoever and kill someone,

you are violent.

 

Violence isn't about what you are feeling, it's

about what you are doing: hurting, maiming and killing.

> 3. It is not about being emotion-free - it's about being

attachment-free

> (including attachment to winning), and about feeling feeling strong

> emotion - compassion. Yet acting appropriately.

 

If hurting happens, it's violence.

> Typically people fight because their fear (insecurity) or their ego

(I'm

> doing God's work) drive them. This is violent. Arjuna fought because he

> fulfilled his Dharma, without being attached to either the victory

> itself or the benefits/gains from it (the kingdom, the power, the fame,

> etc). This was non-violent.

 

Ridiculous assertion noted. If Arjuna killed people,

he was being violent. Think of their lives, their

families. Violence was done to them by Arjuna, and

indirectly, by Krishna.

> Since it is difficult for a man to distinguish between the true dharma

> and his ego, it helps immensely to have a guiding Master who guides one

> and removes ignorance. Notice how Arjuna isn't eager to jump into the

> fight with justifying it: "Why don't I go and defend the Earth against

> these evil Kauravas". He's perfectly willing to surrender and lose

> everything (possibly including his own life) to avoid the bloodshed -

> but his Master orders him to get up and fight.

 

And thus he engaged in the violent act of war,

and was not practicing ahimsa in that act.

 

[snip]