The Veda's this message ignored by Gandhi

[maadhav 0]

maa va eno anyakR^itam bhujema maa tatkarma vasavo yach chayadhve.

 

vishvasya hi kshayatha vishvadevaaH svayam ripus tanvam rIrishhIshhTa.. ## Rg. 6.51.7

 

Let us not suffer for the sins of others,

nor do that which, o regions-divine, you prohibit.

 

O universal cosmic Powers, controllers of the universe,

may the one, who hurts us, be the victim of his own designs.

 

Rg. 6.51.7

 

(Translation by Swami Satyaprakash Sarasvati, Veda Prathisthan, New Delhi.)

=============================

 

In contrast to this, Gandhi and gandhians say:

 

"We have strong will to die, but we guarantee that we will not force anything on you.

 

You take our land, and we will protest, but will not fight.

 

You can take our lives, and we will protest, but will not fight.

 

You can rape our women and daughters, and we will protest, but will not fight.

 

You can destroy our temples and bury our deities under the steps of the mosques you built on top of the destroyed temple, and we will protest, but will not fight.

 

You can burn our scriptures, destroy our libraries, slaughter our dharma gurus and Brahmans, and we will protest, but will not fight.

 

You can tax us when we go to pilgrimage, and we will protest, but will not fight.

 

You can kill is, and we (the rest) will protest, but will not fight.

 

No matter what bad you do to us, and we will protest, but will not fight."

 

[krishnadasa 0]

For everything you do we have only one word

SHANTHI......... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

I never understand which shanthi Gandhi was talking about! is she the one who brings milk to my house every morning..--. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

 

As prabhupada said , we were much happier under the british i guess!! this independence has brought nothing more than more curruption, more unemployement and wholly chaotic atmosphere , wherin all adharims are ruling and get chance to ruling on the basis of so called democracy (where in as prabhupada quotes the foolish and low cast men get a chance to choose their leaders- and as a result they choose one of their kind).

 

Only hari can potect in such a situation!!!!

 

hari hari bol

 

 

 

[happy102785 0]

What the hell is your problem, Maadhav? /images/graemlins/mad.gif

 

You wanna battle it out with scriptures? That's fine with me. You may want to be sitting down for this one, I don't know if your fundamentalist heart is going to be able to handle gaining this knowledge /images/graemlins/grin.gif :

 

Peace be the earth, peaceful the ether, peaceful heaven, peaceful the waters, peaceful the herbs, peaceful the trees. May all Gods bring me peace. May there be peace through these invocations of peace. With these invocations of peace which appease everything, I render peaceful whatever here is terrible, whatever here is cruel, whatever here is sinful. Let it become auspicious, let everything be beneficial to us.--Atharva Veda: X. 191. 4

 

Let your aims be common, and your hearts be of one accord, and all of you be of one mind, so you may live well together.--Rig Veda X . 191

 

The twice-born should endure high-handed criticism; he should insult none. While yet in his body, he should not pick enmity with anyone; he should not return anger with anger; decried, he should say a good word.--Dharma Shastras: VI.

 

Nonviolence, truthfulness, nonstealing, purity, sense control--this, in brief, says Manu, is the dharma of all the four castes.--Dharma Shastras: X.

 

One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one's own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Yielding to desire and acting differently, one becomes guilty of adharma. --Mahabharata XVIII:113.8.

 

Those high-souled persons who desire beauty, faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental and physical strength and memory should abstain from acts of injury.--Mahabharata XVIII:115.8.

 

<u>Ahimsa is the highest dharma. Ahimsa is the best tapas. Ahimsa is the greatest gift. Ahimsa is the highest self-control. Ahimsa is the highest sacrifice. Ahimsa is the highest power. Ahimsa is the highest friend. Ahimsa is the highest truth. Ahimsa is the highest teaching.</u>--Mahabharata XVIII:116.37-41.

 

(OH MY! How are you handling this onslaught of Ahimsa, Maadhav?! /images/graemlins/shocked.gif I fear for your extremist heart!)

 

It is the principle of the pure in heart never to injure others, even when they themselves have been hatefully injured.--Tiru Kural, Verse 312.

 

If a man inflicts sorrow on another in the morning, sorrow will come to him unbidden in the afternoon.--Tiru Kural, Verse 319

 

What is virtuous conduct? It is never destroying life, for killing leads to every other sin.--Tirukural, Verse 321

 

Many are the lovely flowers of worship offered to the Guru, but none lovelier than non-killing. Respect for life is the <u>highest worship, the bright lamp, the sweet garland and unwavering devotion.</u>--Tirumantiram, Verse 197

 

May all beings look at me with a friendly eye. May I do likewise, and may we all look on each other with the eyes of a friend.--Yajur Veda: 36.18.

 

The peace in the sky, the peace in the mid-air, the peace on earth, the peace in waters, the peace in plants, the peace in forest trees, the peace in all Gods, the peace in Brahman, the peace in all things, the peace in peace, may that peace come to me.-- Rig Veda X

 

The Lord said, 'Fearlessness, purity of heart, steadfastness in knowledge and devotion, alms-giving, self-control and sacrifice, study of the scriptures, austerity and uprightness, <u>nonviolence</u>, truth, freedom from anger, renunciation, <u>tranquility</u>, aversion to slander,<u> compassion to all living beings</u>, freedom from covetousness,<u> gentleness, modesty, courage, patience, fortitude, purity and freedom from malice</u> and overweening conceit--these belong to him who is born to the heritage of the Gods, O Arjuna.'--Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 16

[maadhav 0]

good post.

none of this is bein gfollowed by the invader islam.

we lost our land to than and pak aws created, a permanent enemy at the border. gandhi chose to divide the nation and give to invaded anti-vedic ideology.

why you preach all this to us the victims of islam?

should not it be directed to the aggresoors amd invaders?

what is so mmart about islam that says conver by force or kill all kafirs? why such an ideology shoudl be kept on the Vedic land where it has invaded by force and we alread lost land to it?

 

will you give half of your house who invqades your house by force, tells to give up your dharma and accept islam?

 

[Arjuna 0]

Maadhav,

 

Besides what you said, what do you have to say about those verses used to counter your negative criticisms about Gandhi and his lot?

 

On a side note, you strike me as someone who would not mind walking in Godse' shoes for a day.

[Guest guest]

First we should make a definition of the word "Ahimsa".

 

Bhagavad Gita ( translated by srila prabhupada )

 

10.4-5

 

Ahimsa, nonviolence, means that one should not do anything which will put others into misery or confusion. Material activities that are promised by so many politicians, sociologists, philanthropists, etc., do not produce very good results because the politicians and philanthropists have no transcendental vision; they do not know what is actually beneficial for human society. Ahimsa means that people should be trained in such a way that the full utilization of the human body can be achieved. The human body is meant for spiritual realization, so any movement or any commissions which do not further that end commit violence on the human body. That which furthers the future spiritual happiness of the people in general is called nonviolence.

-------

 

There is nothing wrong in using violence in a war (for dharma),specially for ksatriyas :

 

bg.2.30 (Purport)

 

Though the soul is immortal, violence is not encouraged, but at the time of war it is not discouraged when there is actual need for it

 

bg.2.31

 

Considering your specific duty as a ksatriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and so there is no need for hesitation.

 

 

bg 2.32 ( Purport )

 

He wanted to become nonviolent in the discharge of his specific duty. For a ksatriya to be in the battlefield and to become nonviolent is the philosophy of fools

 

 

ksatriyo hi praja raksan sastra-panih pradandayan

nirjitya para-sainyadi ksitim dharmena palayet

 

"The ksatriya's duty is to protect the citizens from all kinds of difficulties, and for that reason he has to apply violence in suitable cases for law and order. Therefore he has to conquer the soldiers of inimical kings, and thus, with religious principles, he should rule over the world."

 

----------

 

back to the "father of nation"

 

The problem is not only that Gandhi preached "non-violence" but he was a hurdle for those who wanted to fight against the british. Freedom fighters such as Bhagat Singh, Udam Singh, Netaji Subhash Chander Bose ... etc. were labeled as terrorists.

 

Netaji did great things for India but he didn´t get any support from gandhi.

 

Gandhi didn´t make any effort to save Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev.He said he is against violence but Bhagat Singh, Rajguru and Sukhdev were only demanding total independence.

 

How many other freedom fighters gave their lives for their country but all the credit goes to gandhi.And I don´t think that the freedom fighters fought for todays gandhi India.

 

and...

 

Image the war at kurukshetra in Mahabharat if Krishna said to Arjuna to lay down his gandhiva and preach non-violence.

What would have happened ? sure the kauravas would have killed him. Hope you know how they killed the brave Abhimanyu.

 

 

Hare Krishna

 

 

[maadhav 0]

ekanshanand,

 

thanks. excellent response!

 

 

[happy102785 0]

Ekanshanand,

 

Your use of the Bhagavad Gita's purports published by ISKON does not match up to the direct scriptural quotes in support of all-out ahimsa I provided above.

 

The scriptures recognize that the killing of other living things is necessary for the survival of other living things; as such, ahimsa is taken to mean freedom from unnecessary killing.

 

And what is this whole thread about, anyway? Are you all out to prove that Hinduism is against ahimsa?

 

As for your question, "Imagine the war at kurukshetra in Mahabharat if Krishna said to Arjuna to lay down his gandhiva and preach non-violence. What would have happened?"--this has been addressed in "The Religious Tolerance Thread." My point there was to basically say, 'if you're asking me to imagine what it would be like having 1 Gandhian at Kurukshetra, I ask you to imagine what it would be like to have everyone at Kurukshetra be Gandhian: NO VIOLENCE.'

[maadhav 0]

<< My point there was to basically say, 'if you're asking me to imagine what it would be like having 1 Gandhian at Kurukshetra, I ask you to imagine what it would be like to have everyone at Kurukshetra be Gandhian: NO VIOLENCE.' >>

 

but no peace to the good guys.

(a society progresses, when the bad guys loose all the peace.)

 

if the word "everyone" you used above, means all on the earth, then that is not possible any time, nor it has happend any time. so, as krishna says in gita, ther is always more or less bad guys on earth in a society/country.

 

if "everyone" does not include "kauravas" the bad guys,

then the bad guys were only happy if the pandavas die or simply give up their rightful inheritance. and if pandavas had become gandians, then that would have meant the victory for the bad guys. so, now every one would strive to be a bad guy. no one wants to loose.

 

if the bad guys suddenly had become gandhians,

then they would ahve gotteh half the kingdom and strong family bond with the pandavas, and the combined force woudl have ruled all over the world in a way that would have made the world happier and more god conscious.

 

so, now, the need is to preach ahimsa to the aggresors, not the victim hindus.

 

when hindus get angry and pick arms, the world (and gandhians) says to them, "you never have picked arms against any adharmis. so, you cannot do it now. if you do you are a bad guy. just keep on suffering kicks and insults and rapes,lootins, etc. silently."

 

and the hindus' answer is:

"i/we failed to live by gita, and that was bad.

now we want to live by gita. and we will fight if so necessary."

 

"vice and virtu is no one's monopoly.

we will be virtuous, and fight if and when necessary."

 

gandhans choose to die keeping adharmis alive,

and a dead cannot control anything.

 

a hindu dies, if so necesary,

but takes a few adharmis with him too.

 

the need is to get the asuric ideology out of bharat.

just re-program the minds, with love when possible.

the spread of the asuric ideology needs to be checked also.

 

[Guest guest]

maadhav, ghandi was as much an emissary for peace as anything else and lived by the ideal of "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind". i dont see anything contradictory in your comparison quotes there. he is basically voicing injustice but leaving the judgement to God, therefore..."may the one, who hurts us, be the victim of his own designs". Gandhi knew it was wiser not to use violence (which is what he meant by the word 'fight') against usurpers, but instead he captivated a nation by the appeal of 'silent protest'. even the women and youth could 'fight', then, using that tool.

[Guest guest]

you also cannot compare the battle on the kurukshetra to the modern age. depending on whether you believe the mahabharata war to be real or not, as much it is anything a metaphore for the battle against good or evil. arjuna is in doubt about whether to fight against his ego, know his true nature, purify his karma by doing righteous duty and be closer to God - or - to give into ego, tamasic qualities of cowardice and selfishness.

the mahabharata has little to do with physical violence. ghandi has in fact fought the war, instead of lying down to be trodden on, hasnt he? what kind of race would the aryans be if we picked up weopons at everything that bothered us? we'd be like the romans, the british, the chinese or the mongols...dead empires.

[Azygos 0]

Jimbo, before defending Gandhi learn to spell him right:)

 

Unfortunately your basic premise that the war of mahabharata has no signifance in modern day world is grossly incorrect.

The danger has never been so grave from the forces of darkness as it is now, represented by the islamic terror spreading its tentacles throughout the world, being further strengthened by the coterie of islam apologists, along with the effete self conferred messiahs of peace, who never understood the fundamental meaning of the geeta.

True, our civilization has survived the vicissitudes of time unlike the romans, the greeks, the arabs. But it is your folly to imagine that it is solely because of non violence

* The indian civilization has never persecuted or conquered any lands, the greatness of which is nonpareil in the annals of human civilization.

* Chastity is the bedrock of any civilization. It is this quality which has preserved the framework of our civilization since its inception.

* Strength : it was the innate strength of the Aryans which made them successfully resist invasion after invasion from the barbarians of the west.

 

Around 1000 AD when we started losing the quality of strength and because of the abuse of the caste system,our nation was subjuated first by the barbaric mughals and then by the decadent english, the price of which we are having to pay till today, by being still labelled as a third world country lagging behind in all respects. It is high time, we imbibe the true meaning of the geeta within our hearts and souls, for the renaissance of modern India as a prosperous, developed modern day nation even while maintaining our eternal fountains of spirituality

 

Regards,

Saurav

 

[Guest guest]

 

"Are you all out to prove that Hinduism is against ahimsa?"

- wrong. I think our definitions of ahimsa are different.

Ahimsa : That which furthers the future spiritual happiness of the people in general is called nonviolence.

 

My problem is not ( only ) that gandhi said total nonviolence, but he didn´t respect our braves freedom fighters , what about that ? They weren´t killing unnecessary.

 

back to kurukshetra. In my opinion one has to try to avoid war and make peace, just as krishna went to hastinapur for peace. But the kauravas didn´t even agree to give them 5 villages.

 

So the pandavas (kshatriyas) had to get their kingdom back.

 

----------------------

 

ghandi has in fact fought the war, instead of lying down to be trodden on, hasnt he? what kind of race would the aryans be if we picked up weopons at everything that bothered us?

 

-you think only gandhi got freedom for india. others were fighting for over 100 years and suddenly there comes a mr.gandhi and gets independence just like mc donalds flyer.

 

- aryans is not a race

 

...if we picked up weopons at everything that bothered us?

- this "hurt" me really. you are comparing your independence with "everything that bothered us". We didn´t fought for a piece of chocolate, candy or lollypop ... we fought for our freedom. There is nothing wrong. Nobody even cares about the freedom fighters or their families.

 

hare krishna

ekansh anand

[Guest guest]

aye, my bad the spelling. true we are lagging behind in some respects (im not sure which), but we are at the forefront in many others. dont forget our country has produced many IT professionals, physicists, mathemeticians, poets, songwriters, etc. but that's another topic.

[Guest guest]

quite some cynicism in you..

 

"you think only gandhi got freedom for india. others were fighting for over 100 years and suddenly there comes a mr.gandhi and gets independence just like mc donalds flyer.

"

 

but this topic is about gandhi....

 

"aryans is not a race"

 

whatever they are or arent, im sure you understand what i mean in the context of the discussion

 

"you are comparing your independence with "everything that bothered us". We didn´t fought for a piece of chocolate, candy or lollypop ... we fought for our freedom. There is nothing wrong. Nobody even cares about the freedom fighters or their families."

 

the debate is between picking up arms, or silent protest...one might be a wise choice, one might be a foolish one. either way, they are both considered as 'fighting'. i think you misunderstood what the post was about.

[Guest guest]

The point is I want to make clear that it isn´t very intelligent if you use nonviolence at a war

and I believe that gandhi´s non-violence wasn´t successful.

 

 

--------

An EXAMPLE where nonviolence would have been a foolish step:

 

1965 Indo-Pak War : Pakistan´s intention were to cut of the kashmir valley from supply and further to capture delhi ( silly plan). But if India wouldn´t have used violence , india would have been Pakistan today.

 

--------

 

about "violence"...

 

I remember a scene from the movie ( Legend of Bhagat Singh):

where I think Jatin Das says to Bhagat Singh ,who wants to make a bomb, that he is for ahimsa. Then Bhagat Singh presses his throat and so Jatin Das takes a bottle to hit Bhagat Singh. Then Bhagat Singh said that he wouldn´t define his action as violence but as self-defence.

 

 

with these things I want to explain that ahimsa at a war is foolish.

 

Tell my in which war nonviolence lead to victory... no where

 

another thing is that gandhi gave money to the enemy(Pak) and with this money they could afford a war (1948).

 

to your silent protest : I would only use it if the enemy doesn´t use violence, but if he does then I would too.

 

and krishna too told arjuna to pick up arms at kurukshetra.

 

 

[Guest guest]

"According to one school of thought, if by the murder of a dacoit many lives are saved, it is not considered as Himsa. Ahimsa and Himsa are relative terms. Some say that one can defend oneself with instruments and use a little violence also when one is in danger; this is not considered to be Himsa"

 

http://www.dlshq.org/teachings/ahimsa.htm#limitations