How to reconcile Arjuna and Ahimsa?

[Guest guest]

> > [....] 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.

 

Thats why i said "rarely".

 

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

unquenchable > > bloodlust of human armend conflicts is deeply rooted

>

 

With deeply rooted i didn´t mean inherent. Greed and Ego is deeply

rooted but not inherent nothing like the "primal guilt" of

christianity.

There is no easy escape! Warfare is manmade and can be undone by man

there is no primal guilt or instinctual territorial behaviour that

forces man to fight wars.

Of course the soldier can say "Ohh i am sorry for splitting your

skull, torturing and killing your wife and children i have to do it

is only my instinctual behaviour or part of my human nature, ohh yes,

i forgot to telll you it is the will of god also.

But i disagree with that.

>

> 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]

Yes it is semantic- I am pointing out that there is a difference

between a violent conflict betwenn animals and what is called war in

the english language.

 

Wars are fought for a lot of reasons but they are usually all more

or less well thought out and discussed by those in charge before

declaring war.

Human Wars are not fought out of emotions and instinctual behaviour.

Most often wars are fought because of greed, loot, religion or

honour, not because of aggression.

 

Aggression or fear and other emotions, instinctual or biological

behaviour patterns may arise during the fighting but one should not

mix up cause and effect and assume that the cause of hguman wars is

instinctual. Or confuse the semantics and call animal conflicts "War".

 

There are a lot of other human conflicts involving aggressions that

can be compared to animal conflicts but War is not one of them.

>

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

> in the territorial conflicts of animals.

>

This is taken from an article that is from the "PRO biological

faction" of Agression research and read what even the Pro faction

has to say:

 

Continuity vs. (Political) Correctness:

Animal Models and Human Aggression

D. Caroline Blanchard, Mark Hebert, and Robert J. Blanchard

 

A second problem in acknowledging a relationship between human and

animal aggression involves the cognitive distance between humans and

other animals. There appears to be a relatively well-developed

consensus that no known nonhuman species has cognitive or linguistic

capabilities that are close to those of humans. The difference is

highly relevant to the study of aggression because many instances of

human aggression are clearly accompanied by complex cognitions, or

expressed in terms of mechanisms that rely on cognitive and

technological achievements, which may have no direct parallels in

nonhuman species' behavior. Also, the use of technology can ensure

that a human act of aggression causes an immense amount of damage

impossible for animals to achieve. Both factors may be involved in

some discrepancies between human and animal findings. For example, in

nonhuman mammals, alcohol sometimes increases aggression at low to

moderate dose levels but almost always reduces it at higher doses

(see Berry and Smoothy, 1986 for review). The human literature on

alcohol and aggression provides little evidence of such a nonparallel

relationship. A strongly alcohol-impaired human can inflict damage

both verbally and with a weapon, whereas an equally impaired animal

cannot, no matter how high its motivation to attack may be.

 

Perhaps the most important consequence of the cognitive and

technological gap between man and nonhuman animals relates to war.

War is defined both in terms of aggressive action and in terms of the

social organization and tactical capabilities of the opponent groups

involved in this action. If these organizational and tactical

capabilities are inadequate, then the aggressive behavior does not

represent "war," no matter how focused or how damaging, or how

clearly it involves groups rather than individuals. Such a

conceptualization enables a statement that war is a uniquely human

phenomenon, with no direct parallels in nonhuman animals, but it does

so only on the basis of cognitive/technological differences.

 

 

http://www.hfg.org/hfg_review/3/blanchard-hebert.htm

[Guest guest]

, "mahahradanatha"

<mahahradanatha> wrote:

> Yes it is semantic- I am pointing out that there is a difference

> between a violent conflict betwenn animals and what is called war in

> the english language.

 

Of course there is. But they share the same roots,

territorial control. Animals fight over territory and

food, human fight over territory and resources.

> Wars are fought for a lot of reasons but they are usually all more

> or less well thought out and discussed by those in charge before

> declaring war.

 

That could just be the gloss they apply to rationalize

their actions. In other words, making excuses.

> Human Wars are not fought out of emotions and instinctual behaviour.

> Most often wars are fought because of greed, loot, religion or

> honour, not because of aggression.

 

But all those are aggressive. It will always come

down to territory and control of resources. With

animals, it will always come down to territory,

access to food and water, and mating rights. Those

two sound an awful lot alike to me.

> Aggression or fear and other emotions, instinctual or biological

> behaviour patterns may arise during the fighting but one should not

> mix up cause and effect and assume that the cause of hguman wars is

> instinctual. Or confuse the semantics and call animal conflicts "War".

 

I'm saying the *roots* of war are instinctual. The

reason we humans can war is because we've been warring

as animals for millennia.

> There are a lot of other human conflicts involving aggressions that

> can be compared to animal conflicts but War is not one of them.

 

Again, territory and control of resources. It's the

same for humans and animals.

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

> > in the territorial conflicts of animals.

> >

> This is taken from an article that is from the "PRO biological

> faction" of Agression research and read what even the Pro faction

> has to say:

>

> Continuity vs. (Political) Correctness:

> Animal Models and Human Aggression

> D. Caroline Blanchard, Mark Hebert, and Robert J. Blanchard

>

> A second problem in acknowledging a relationship between human and

> animal aggression involves the cognitive distance between humans and

> other animals. There appears to be a relatively well-developed

> consensus that no known nonhuman species has cognitive or linguistic

> capabilities that are close to those of humans. The difference is

> highly relevant to the study of aggression because many instances of

> human aggression are clearly accompanied by complex cognitions, or

> expressed in terms of mechanisms that rely on cognitive and

> technological achievements,

 

Those "complex cognitions" are overlays on the more

primitive impulses. Just because they are there doesn't

mean the primitive impulses are not.

> which may have no direct parallels in

> nonhuman species' behavior. Also, the use of technology can ensure

> that a human act of aggression causes an immense amount of damage

> impossible for animals to achieve.

 

Animals use rocks and sticks. They'd use guns if

they could. Guns are the human equivalent of rocks

and sticks.

> Both factors may be involved in

> some discrepancies between human and animal findings. For example, in

> nonhuman mammals, alcohol sometimes increases aggression at low to

> moderate dose levels but almost always reduces it at higher doses

> (see Berry and Smoothy, 1986 for review). The human literature on

> alcohol and aggression provides little evidence of such a nonparallel

> relationship. A strongly alcohol-impaired human can inflict damage

> both verbally and with a weapon, whereas an equally impaired animal

> cannot, no matter how high its motivation to attack may be.

 

This doesn't refute anything.

> Perhaps the most important consequence of the cognitive and

> technological gap between man and nonhuman animals relates to war.

> War is defined both in terms of aggressive action and in terms of the

> social organization and tactical capabilities of the opponent groups

> involved in this action. If these organizational and tactical

> capabilities are inadequate, then the aggressive behavior does not

> represent "war," no matter how focused or how damaging, or how

> clearly it involves groups rather than individuals. Such a

> conceptualization enables a statement that war is a uniquely human

> phenomenon, with no direct parallels in nonhuman animals, but it does

> so only on the basis of cognitive/technological differences.

 

Their semantic issues. Animals can lie in wait.

That is the tactic of ambush, regularly employed

by humans in war as well.

> http://www.hfg.org/hfg_review/3/blanchard-hebert.htm

[Guest guest]

Semantics aside, it seems to me that we are largely in agreement.

 

, "mahahradanatha"

<mahahradanatha> wrote:

>

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

> [....]

M> Thats why i said "rarely".

> [....]

M> With deeply rooted i didn´t mean inherent.

> [....]

M> Warfare is manmade and can be undone by man [....]

MSB> [....] non-violence is natural

> and intrinsic to our true selves.

> Violence is the aberration.

[Guest guest]

> I'm saying the *roots* of war are instinctual. The

> reason we humans can war is because we've been warring

> as animals for millennia.

 

If the causes of war are instinctual than i do not understand the

difference between instinct and conscioussness and intellect.

 

For instance if one analyses the causes and reasons of the colonial

wars the europeans fought in Asia in the last 400 years, they are

clearly intellectually not based on instincts. Europe had enough

food,territory and woman the did not need to conquer Asia. It was

greed and the feeling of superiority that caused all these wars.

No instincts involved at all. Only commercial interests.

 

This is a cut and paste job from wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Imperialism#Imperial_rivalry

 

India:

The British East India Company, formed in 1600, although still in

direct competition with French and Dutch interests until 1763, was

able to extend its control over almost the whole of the subcontinent

in the century following the subjugation of Bengal at the 1757 Battle

of Plassey.

The Portuguese, based at Goa and Malacca, built up a maritime empire

in the Indian Ocean, meant to monopolize the spice trade.

 

China:

British imperialism in 19th century China was also fostered by the

mistaken notion that China was a natural market for British

manufactured goods (chiefly textiles), and that Chinese disinterest

in foreign manufactured goods was only due to excessive government

trade restrictions.

 

Central Asia:

Russia took control of large areas of Central Asia, leading to a

brief crisis with Britain over Afghanistan in 1885. In Persia (now

Iran), both nations set up banks to extend their economic influence.

Britain went so far as to invade Tibet, a land under nominal Chinese

suzerainty, in 1904, withdrawing when it emerged that Russian

influence was insignificant and after a military defeat by one of

China's modernized New Armies.

 

Indonesia:

The Dutch East India Company established its headquarters at Batavia

(today Jakarta) on the island of Java to take control of the spice

trade. The company colonized the island of Taiwan, unclaimed by China

at that time, to facilitate trade with China and Japan. After the

Napoleonic Wars, the Dutch concentrated their colonial enterprise in

the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) throughout the 19th century

 

Phillipines:

The United States took control of the Philippines from the Spanish in

1898 during the Spanish-American War. Philippine resistance led to

the Philippine-American War from 1899–1902 and the Moro Rebellion

(1902–1913). The Americans only granted the Philippines their

independence in 1946.

The US annexed Hawaii in 1893 and gained control over several other

islands in the Pacific during World War II.

 

Souteastasia:

In contrast to Britain, France, which had lost its empire to the

British by the end of the eighteenth century, had little geographical

or commercial basis for expansion in Southeast Asia. After the 1850s

French imperialism was initially impelled by a nationalistic need to

rival Britain and was supported intellectually by the concept of the

superiority of French culture and France's special "mission

civilisatrice"—the civilizing of the native through assimilation to

French culture. The immediate pretext for French expansionism in

Indochina was the protection of French religious missions in the

area, coupled with a desire to find a southern route to China through

Tonkin, the northern region of northern Vietnam. Under Napoleon III,

France decided that Catholicism would be eliminated in the Far East

if France did not go to its aid, and accordingly the French joined

the British against China from 1857 to 1860 and took action against

Vietnam as well. By 1860 the French occupied Saigon.

[Guest guest]

, "msbauju" <msbauju> wrote:

>

> Semantics aside, it seems to me that we are largely in agreement.

 

Yes of course

>

> , "mahahradanatha"

> <mahahradanatha> wrote:

> >

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

> > [....]

> M> Thats why i said "rarely".

> > [....]

> M> With deeply rooted i didn´t mean inherent.

> > [....]

> M> Warfare is manmade and can be undone by man [....]

> MSB> [....] non-violence is natural

> > and intrinsic to our true selves.

> > Violence is the aberration.

[Guest guest]

, "mahahradanatha"

<mahahradanatha> wrote:

>

> > I'm saying the *roots* of war are instinctual. The

> > reason we humans can war is because we've been warring

> > as animals for millennia.

>

> If the causes of war are instinctual than i do not understand the

> difference between instinct and conscioussness and intellect.

 

Intellect overlays instinct. The neo-cortex is more recent

than the reptilian brain.

 

So, while we possess the intellect to make up reasons for

things, our instinctual drives are still working underneath

it all.

> For instance if one analyses the causes and reasons of the colonial

> wars the europeans fought in Asia in the last 400 years, they are

> clearly intellectually not based on instincts. Europe had enough

> food,territory and woman the did not need to conquer Asia. It was

> greed and the feeling of superiority that caused all these wars.

> No instincts involved at all. Only commercial interests.

 

That's acquiring territory. It's not about need, it's

about want. The need to acquire territory and establish

a superior position in a social hierarchy are instinctual.

We just flower it up with intellect now.

> This is a cut and paste job from wikipedia.

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Imperialism#Imperial_rivalry

>

> India:

> The British East India Company, formed in 1600, although still in

> direct competition with French and Dutch interests until 1763, was

> able to extend its control over almost the whole of the subcontinent

> in the century following the subjugation of Bengal at the 1757 Battle

> of Plassey.

> The Portuguese, based at Goa and Malacca, built up a maritime empire

> in the Indian Ocean, meant to monopolize the spice trade.

 

More territory and resources.

> China:

> British imperialism in 19th century China was also fostered by the

> mistaken notion that China was a natural market for British

> manufactured goods (chiefly textiles), and that Chinese disinterest

> in foreign manufactured goods was only due to excessive government

> trade restrictions.

 

More territory and resources.

> Central Asia:

> Russia took control of large areas of Central Asia, leading to a

> brief crisis with Britain over Afghanistan in 1885. In Persia (now

> Iran), both nations set up banks to extend their economic influence.

> Britain went so far as to invade Tibet, a land under nominal Chinese

> suzerainty, in 1904, withdrawing when it emerged that Russian

> influence was insignificant and after a military defeat by one of

> China's modernized New Armies.

 

More territory and resources.

> Indonesia:

> The Dutch East India Company established its headquarters at Batavia

> (today Jakarta) on the island of Java to take control of the spice

> trade. The company colonized the island of Taiwan, unclaimed by China

> at that time, to facilitate trade with China and Japan. After the

> Napoleonic Wars, the Dutch concentrated their colonial enterprise in

> the Dutch East Indies (Indonesia) throughout the 19th century

 

More territory and resources.

> Phillipines:

> The United States took control of the Philippines from the Spanish in

> 1898 during the Spanish-American War. Philippine resistance led to

> the Philippine-American War from 1899–1902 and the Moro Rebellion

> (1902–1913). The Americans only granted the Philippines their

> independence in 1946.

> The US annexed Hawaii in 1893 and gained control over several other

> islands in the Pacific during World War II.

 

More territory and resources.

> Souteastasia:

> In contrast to Britain, France, which had lost its empire to the

> British by the end of the eighteenth century, had little geographical

> or commercial basis for expansion in Southeast Asia. After the 1850s

> French imperialism was initially impelled by a nationalistic need to

> rival Britain and was supported intellectually by the concept of the

> superiority of French culture and France's special "mission

> civilisatrice"—the civilizing of the native through assimilation to

> French culture. The immediate pretext for French expansionism in

> Indochina was the protection of French religious missions in the

> area, coupled with a desire to find a southern route to China through

> Tonkin, the northern region of northern Vietnam. Under Napoleon III,

> France decided that Catholicism would be eliminated in the Far East

> if France did not go to its aid, and accordingly the French joined

> the British against China from 1857 to 1860 and took action against

> Vietnam as well. By 1860 the French occupied Saigon.

 

More territory and resources.

[Guest guest]

jodyrrr wrote:

> , 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.

 

This is a misconception. If you need a pillow to vent your anger - your

mind is in a violent state. The goal is to bring it to a calm

state where the is no place for anger and no need for venting. Then you

are able to see Light in everything and everybody, and can act

appropriately in the world. Until then you don't have a clue about peace

or violence, and instead of discussing Ahimsa should merely follow the

common law (don't hurt living things, don't destroy property, etc).

> 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.............If nobody is getting hurt, no violence is

> being done.

 

Again, this is a misconception. Bhagavad Gita covers this subject in

detail. It also emphasizes the need for a Guru, because people (usually)

start with their own misguided ideas, more often than not driven by

their immature emotions and ego.

> One may be unstable and have thoughts of

> violence, but that is not violence until someone

> gets hurt by it. Violence isn't about what you are feeling, it's

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

 

A very big and dangerous misconception. Peace starts from within. You

may be hurting others even by your thoughts.

> > Arjuna fought because he was

> > fulfilling 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.

 

Irreverence and lack of understanding noted. Discussion is over. As a

parting note: when it appears that a great person (a sage, a saint,

etc.) is doing something inappropriate - it pays to think like "maybe

Krishna is right and I am not understanding something. What is it that I

could have missed or misinterpreted? Is there a way to harmonize my view

with what appears to be Krishna's view? Do I perhaps need to adjust my

view or attitude?"

[Guest guest]

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

> jodyrrr wrote:

>

> > , 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.

>

> This is a misconception. If you need a pillow to vent your anger - your

> mind is in a violent state.

 

Perhaps. But if I'm not hurting anyone, I'm not

doing violence. It may not be ahmisa, but it is

certainly not true violence when compared to the

head-chopping, arm-hacking and arrow-piercing that

Arjuna was involved in.

> The goal is to bring it to a calm

> state where the is no place for anger and no need for venting. Then you

> are able to see Light in everything and everybody, and can act

> appropriately in the world. Until then you don't have a clue about peace

> or violence, and instead of discussing Ahimsa should merely follow the

> common law (don't hurt living things, don't destroy property, etc).

 

If acting "appropriately" includes hurting others,

then it's violent action and not ahimsa.

> > 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.............If nobody is getting hurt, no violence is

> > being done.

>

> Again, this is a misconception. Bhagavad Gita covers this subject in

> detail. It also emphasizes the need for a Guru, because people

(usually)

> start with their own misguided ideas, more often than not driven by

> their immature emotions and ego.

 

Regardless of the source of one's actions, whether by

the direction of their guru or their own misdirected

ego, if one is hurting others, for whatever reason,

they are not practicing ahimsa.

> > One may be unstable and have thoughts of

> > violence, but that is not violence until someone

> > gets hurt by it. Violence isn't about what you are feeling, it's

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

>

> A very big and dangerous misconception. Peace starts from within. You

> may be hurting others even by your thoughts.

 

That's superstitious nonsense. If such were indeed

true, G.W. Bush would have dropped dead ages ago.

> > > Arjuna fought because he was

> > > fulfilling 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.

>

> Irreverence and lack of understanding noted. Discussion is over. As a

> parting note: when it appears that a great person (a sage, a saint,

> etc.) is doing something inappropriate - it pays to think like "maybe

> Krishna is right and I am not understanding something. What is it that I

> could have missed or misinterpreted? Is there a way to harmonize my

view

> with what appears to be Krishna's view? Do I perhaps need to adjust my

> view or attitude?"

 

Perhaps what needs adjusting is some of the hypocrisy

built into the Gita. Some of the people Arjuna killed with

Krishna's help were men with loving families. You can't

say that violence wasn't done to them, which makes the

idea of ahimsa completely bankrupt as it is expounded

in the Gita, at least as interpreted by yourself.