what is the difference between non violence and weakness ?

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

I get what you mean Srvana.Non Violence does not mean inaction but rather well planned strategic action.

But when face to face with a bullet..unless we are Vijaykanth that can avoid bullets ala Matrix I dont think anyone of us are going to stand there thinking that the mind is mightier than the bullet.
Its either Fight or Flight and the body comes well equipped with Adrenaline for the Fight or Flight response.

Dear Renuka,

I don't mean that thoughts can counter everything unless you are like sage vashista who countered viswamitra's physical weapons! Thus though you cannot make bullets disappear you can counter that in other ways say by preventing or dissuading the use of weapons. I am just hinting that outthinking is the best way to overwhelm your opponent. Violent ways have their limitations and can never succeed in the long run.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

I don't mean that thoughts can counter everything unless you are like sage vashista who countered viswamitra's physical weapons! Thus though you cannot make bullets disappear you can counter that in other ways say by preventing or dissuading the use of weapons. I am just hinting that outthinking is the best way to overwhelm your opponent. Violent ways have their limitations and can never succeed in the long run.

But sometime short term "Violent" measures are needed to maintain Non Violence and Peace.
I think our Puranas have enough examples.
Its like this..only resort to "Violence" when there is no way out.
I like our Hindu Divinities.. each one comes well equip with the most powerful weapons for mass destruction of Evil.
Dont get me wrong..I am not saying that our Hindu Divinities promote "Violence" but may be there is a hidden message that as and when needed(Yada Yada) then only use "Force"(Tada Tada).

 

[sravna]

Renuka,

You are right. Being equipped with the capability to directly counter force does indeed help. It defintely acts as a deterrent especially on those who only understand the language of violence. Having said that, non violence is not about one's capabilities but is about one's approach.

 

[renuka]

Will give an example of the so called Non Violent approach of many and who can even swallow insults.

When I was in college one girl had just come back from the temple and offered a few friends Prasad(some sweet) from the temple.
One the girls in our group was a Christian and she refused the Prasad saying this is the food of the devil and she is a Christian and didnt take it and everyone kept quiet thinking she lacks grey matter but i didnt forget the incident.

When it was Christmas the very same Christian girl came to give us Christmas goodies from the church and everyone took it except me.I thought "Ok Man this is pay back time".
I told her point blank on her face that I am Hindu and will not eat it and to my suprise she was asking back why not?

I said "the day you eat Prasad thats the day I will take what you give.If you are willing then I will accept it and she told me no way she will eat Prasad cos that Devils food and I just told her this 4 words "Ok F*** Off then!!"
and you should have seen her face..shocked that I had used the F word on her cos she was those goody goody types.

What was more suprising was my own Hindu friends thought I was too much and said we cant be like christians and refuse what she brings and its ok to take cos God is one.

I said "yes I know that... thats why I didnt insult what she brought but only asked her to take Prasad next time but she needed to be given a dose of her own medicine.I never ran down her religion like what she did and still you girls think I was too much"

This news spread like wild fire in college and many people even stopped being friends with me thinking I am a fanatic.

But I didnt care cos my true friends were always there to support me.Mostly girls thought I was too "violent" in handling that case but the guys remained my friends till this very day.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

Let me say this. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about non violence because it is similar in form to helplessness. People have the misconception that you resort to non violence as you do not have other options. On the other hand, violence seems to be successful because the overwhelming majority react badly to violence and sucuumb to it. Even assuming you do not have the capability to physically respond to your opponent, what is wrong in employing non violent ways? You may say you would not be taken seriously if you lack the physical capability but is it not your mind that acts and reacts to every situation? Finally it is what you think that matters. If someone's thoughts can in some way be influenced, such a non violent solution could be far more effective and long lasting.

Also, in a civil society people simply cannot bully others with their physical might as there are a number of factors that need to be weighed in before they can think along those lines. As long as you are upright and have the capability to effectively employ non physical methods you will be a force to be reckoned with.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

Let me say this. There is a great deal of misunderstanding about non violence because it is similar in form to helplessness. People have the misconception that you resort to non violence as you do not have other options. On the other hand, violence seems to be successful because the overwhelming majority react badly to violence and sucuumb to it. Even assuming you do not have the capability to physically respond to your opponent, what is wrong in employing non violent ways? You may say you would not be taken seriously if you lack the physical capability but is it not your mind that acts and reacts to every situation? Finally it is what you think that matters. If someone's thoughts can in some way be influenced, such a non violent solution could be far more effective and long lasting.

Also, in a civil society people simply cannot bully others with their physical might as there are a number of factors that need to be weighed in before they can think along those lines. As long as you are upright and have the capability to effectively employ non physical methods you will be a force to be reckoned with.

I agree with you but I see no harm being just a bit aggressive when the situation arises cos I personally feel some amount of aggression will "scare" away anyone with some bad intentions.
Not many people dare mess too much with certain non hindus cos they fear them.
People think twice before entering a cage of a Lion but not when entering a deers cage.

 

[renuka]

Yajnavalkya^ I. 533.8

agratah caturo vedah, prusthatah sa aram dhanuh idam brahmam idarh katram, Sapad api sarad api. dhig balam ksatriyabalam brahmotejo balam balam.


"In the front the four Vedas; at the back the bow with arrows; on one side the spirit achieving its object through the might of spirit, on the other side military force achieving its ends"

 

[sangom]

Yajnavalkya^ I. 533.8

agratah caturo vedah, prusthatah sa aram dhanuh idam brahmam idarh katram, Sapad api sarad api. dhig balam ksatriyabalam brahmotejo balam balam.


"In the front the four Vedas; at the back the bow with arrows; on one side the spirit achieving its object through the might of spirit, on the other side military force achieving its ends"

Smt. Renuka,

The reference Yajnavalkya I.533.8 seems to be not correct. Pl. check. There is no such verse (with such number) in yājñavalkya smṛti.

I think, but not sure, the verse and its possible meaning might be —

अग्रतश्चतुरो वेदाः पृष्ठतः स अरं धनुः ।
इदं ब्रह्मं इदं क्षत्रं सपद् अपि शरद् अपि॥
धिक्बलं क्षत्रिय बलं ब्रह्मतॆजॊ बलं बलं ॥

agrataścaturo vedāḥ pṛṣṭhataḥ sa araṃ dhanuḥ |
idaṃ brahmaṃ idaṃ kṣatraṃ sapad api śarad api||
dhikbalaṃ kṣatriya balaṃ brahmatejo balaṃ balaṃ ||

The four vedas in front, the bow at the ready behind, this is the brahmam and this is kṣatraṃ (the qualities of brāhmaṇa and kṣatriya), whether worshipping or not. The kṣatriya might is contemptible; brahmateja is the real might.

 

[renuka]

Smt. Renuka,

The reference Yajnavalkya I.533.8 seems to be not correct. Pl. check. There is no such verse (with such number) in yājñavalkya smṛti.

I think, but not sure, the verse and its possible meaning might be —

अग्रतश्चतुरो वेदाः पृष्ठतः स अरं धनुः ।
इदं ब्रह्मं इदं क्षत्रं सपद् अपि शरद् अपि॥
धिक्बलं क्षत्रिय बलं ब्रह्मतॆजॊ बलं बलं ॥

agrataścaturo vedāḥ pṛṣṭhataḥ sa araṃ dhanuḥ |
idaṃ brahmaṃ idaṃ kṣatraṃ sapad api śarad api||
dhikbalaṃ kṣatriya balaṃ brahmatejo balaṃ balaṃ ||

The four vedas in front, the bow at the ready behind, this is the brahmam and this is kṣatraṃ (the qualities of brāhmaṇa and kṣatriya), whether worshipping or not. The kṣatriya might is contemptible; brahmateja is the real might.

Thanks for your correction and reply.A friend was telling me that this was referring to Parashuram Avatar.
But the link i got may be was not too correct.
Thanks anyway.

 

[venkashok]

Alas! Even Gandhi, the whole world is proud of, is not spared in our own country!! How negative we are?

 

[sankar100]

I would have to agree with renuka here. We hindus are just way too passive, fatalistic and just don't fight back when needed. We are the only ones saying all religions are same and all gods are one and the same.

But you don't hear this from the abrahamic religions (christianity and islam). We have been through so much for such a long time. Being subject to mass murder, pluder, looting, chased away from our own land, raping, oppression by both religions.

Now, after all that, it still continues. Yet, we are the ones expected to show restraint. Don't we have to right to atleast defend ourselves.

I have noticed all the peaceful and non violent religons get wiped out all over the world and only violent intolerant religions are spreading and holding their position. This is the reality of the world we are living in.

 

[happyhindu]

agrataścaturo vedāḥ pṛṣṭhataḥ sa araṃ dhanuḥ |
idaṃ brahmaṃ idaṃ kṣatraṃ sapad api śarad api||
dhikbalaṃ kṣatriya balaṃ brahmatejo balaṃ balaṃ ||

The four vedas in front, the bow at the ready behind, this is the brahmam and this is kṣatraṃ (the qualities of brāhmaṇa and kṣatriya), whether worshipping or not. The kṣatriya might is contemptible; brahmateja is the real might.

Does this refer to the time period when there was a fight between kshatriyas and brahmins?

 

[sangom]

Does this refer to the time period when there was a fight between kshatriyas and brahmins?

Happy,

This is most probably in the context of the tussle between Viswamitra and Vasishta, imo. I have no idea in which text it appears. To the extent it refers to Vasishta vs Viswamitra, it is correct to say that this refers to the era of brahma-kshatra antagonism.

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Sangom Sir,

The Vashista and Vishwamitra story puzzles me. Why was Vishwamitra fighting to get himself recognized as a brahmin after coming across the "idea" of a mythical cow, Kamadhenu ??

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom Sir,

The Vashista and Vishwamitra story puzzles me. Why was Vishwamitra fighting to get himself recognized as a brahmin after coming across the "idea" of a mythical cow, Kamadhenu ??

Dear HH,

What you write is, I suppose, the cinema version. It was not an "idea" of the mythical "nandini" calf of Kamadhenu, but according to my memory of the movie, the powers of this nandini reached Viswamitra's ears and since he was the king of the country in which Vasishtha had his aasram, Viswamitra wanted that wonderful cow for himself as royal prerogative.

But I think the root cause, if any, for the enmity between Vasishtha and Viswamitra is not clearly stated in any purana. But since Visvaamiras and vasishthas are two of the chief composers of the Rigvedic sooktas (as seen from the apreesooktas), it is possible that there were two clans of vedic bards who did have mutual ill-will. As I remember to have written in connection with the aikamatya sookta (the last one in Rigveda, SAkala SAkhA), the final exhortation is for unity among the ritviks and their being satisfied with whatever each one is given (as "dakshiNa", possibly.).

 

[happyhindu]

Dear Sangom Sir,

i was going thru some info on gotras based on rajprasad's post; and i found some info on the stand-off between vashistas and vishwamitras which i have mentioned on the Gotras-Alumni thread.

It appears that the office of the Purohita was an influential one so both the groups were rivals for a political role. Am also puzzled by the idea that only after the ascendency of Atharva-veda were the asuras regarded as demons. Please see p.291 in this link Encyclopdia of Religion and Ethics - Google Books

 

[Govinda]

This article 'What would Krishna (Gandhi) do' and its comments would add to this discussion:

What Krishna Would Do « The Rediscovery of India

 

[Yamaka]

This article 'What would Krishna (Gandhi) do' and its comments would add to this discussion:

What Krishna Would Do « The Rediscovery of India

Author Sandeep of The Rediscovery of India says "I hate Secular India.. hate English Media..I am acerbic and abusive.. and widely hated".

I thought this kind of people will not write in English... they will communicate in Sanskrit or Hindi! Lol.

Let me run away from these ultra patriotic zealots....

 

[biswa]

I would have to agree with renuka here. We hindus are just way too passive, fatalistic and just don't fight back when needed. We are the only ones saying all religions are same and all gods are one and the same.

But you don't hear this from the abrahamic religions (christianity and islam). We have been through so much for such a long time. Being subject to mass murder, pluder, looting, chased away from our own land, raping, oppression by both religions.

Now, after all that, it still continues. Yet, we are the ones expected to show restraint. Don't we have to right to atleast defend ourselves.

I have noticed all the peaceful and non violent religons get wiped out all over the world and only violent intolerant religions are spreading and holding their position. This is the reality of the world we are living in.

I agree with much of the post, but would like to present a slightly different viewpoint. Ever thought why Hinduism hasn't been wiped out yet? In fact we are the only ones who resisted and persisted even though Islam swept all the way from Arabia to Indonesia.

One of the main tenets of Hinduism is the Bhagavad Gita and I think we can follow it here. It is quite clear that you may have to take up weapons to defend yourself, your family and your faith. After all, that is what Krishna exhorted Arjun to do. However we can still do it with a degree of detachment.

We can look with sympathy at the Abrahmic religions and think: "Poor fools, they know not, what they know not." The real Hindus are possibly closer to the truth. Even Hinduism in its essence is monotheistic (I think). Doesn't mean that we should not resist other religions. We can and we should. Actually deep thinkers in Christianity and Judaism themselves realize some of the contradictions and I have encountered many with respect for other religions, including Hinduism.

And finally, what goes around, comes around. Look at how Islam is demonized now all over the world. Certainly we can support Christians and Jews in their struggle against radical Islam. Certainly India can cultivate US (and vice versa) now that both realize Pak is enemy number one.

After all, God has a way of balancing everything out. As they used to say in old Hindi movies: "Bhagwan ke ghar mein der hai, andher nahin!"

 

[Yamaka]

I agree with much of the post, but would like to present a slightly different viewpoint. Ever thought why Hinduism hasn't been wiped out yet? In fact we are the only ones who resisted and persisted even though Islam swept all the way from Arabia to Indonesia.

One of the main tenets of Hinduism is the Bhagavad Gita and I think we can follow it here. It is quite clear that you may have to take up weapons to defend yourself, your family and your faith. After all, that is what Krishna exhorted Arjun to do. However we can still do it with a degree of detachment.

We can look with sympathy at the Abrahmic religions and think: "Poor fools, they know not, what they know not." The real Hindus are possibly closer to the truth. Even Hinduism in its essence is monotheistic (I think). Doesn't mean that we should not resist other religions. We can and we should. Actually deep thinkers in Christianity and Judaism themselves realize some of the contradictions and I have encountered many with respect for other religions, including Hinduism.

And finally, what goes around, comes around. Look at how Islam is demonized now all over the world. Certainly we can support Christians and Jews in their struggle against radical Islam. Certainly India can cultivate US (and vice versa) now that both realize Pak is enemy number one.

After all, God has a way of balancing everything out. As they used to say in old Hindi movies: "Bhagwan ke ghar mein der hai, andher nahin!"

Here is an Atheistic point of view -

1. ALL religions are BAD or WORSE...whether Hinduism is better than Abrahamic religions or not?

It depends on which Fundamentalists you ask the question....and all pragmatic people will say "All religions espouse PEACE... blah.. blah.

All truly peace-loving religious people are fine with me... but beware, many Religious Supremacists are in hiding... throwing venom at the "other religious people" at the drop of your hat!

2. One glaring inconsistency in the Great Bhagvad Gita is

Arjuna asks Lord Krishna, " Oh Lord, you are the most powerful and all-knowing... why don't YOU go and kill all those people on the other side of the battle field? Why do you want to drag ME into it? I am very confused."

Here is the mischief played by Great Vyasa, the author of Mahabharata! He is ridiculing here....

3. As of today, more people follow Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism and Islam) about 2.5 billions than Hinduism about 1 billions.

By this number, which is MORE popular in the world?

4. You are confusing the Radical Islam with the regular Islam here... America is against Al Qaeda and its supporters the Talibans...

Not ALL of Islam which is as peaceful as any other religion...

5. Pakistan is a failing State... it will create humongous problems to India, whether you like it or not.... that's Geopolitics...

Hinduism will play a role in it for the worse!

Wait & watch.

 

[B.Krishnamurthy]

Thiru.Yamaka,
You have not researched as to why "Christianity"and "Islam" have more followers as compared to 'Hinduism"
Please read the speech of Swami Vivekananda delivered in Chicago a century before.'Hinduism' does not believe in conversions and does not preach that those who do not follow 'Hinduism'are not to reach"Heaven"but will be under the influence of Satan.

 

[Yamaka]

Thiru.Yamaka,
You have not researched as to why "Christianity"and "Islam" have more followers as compared to 'Hinduism"
Please read the speech of Swami Vivekananda delivered in Chicago a century before.'Hinduism' does not believe in conversions and does not preach that those who do not follow 'Hinduism'are not to reach"Heaven"but will be under the influence of Satan.

Dear Krish Sir:

In my mind a very few religious people are converted to other religion by force or by money or some "incentive".

Vast majority of Jews embraced Christianity on their own, after seeing Jesus at the Cross.

The great warrior Ghengis Khan - the Barbarian -victoriously galloped in his horse across Asia and Europe from Monglia to Spain... After he became a Victor of all time, he converted himself to Islam... before that he was following some other religion of the East (and his name was different).

Even Mughals, after occupying India for nearly 300 years, were not very keen on converting people en mass. In fact, Akbar the Great married Hindu women to show tolerance.. he had Hindu Rajput wife!

Anyway, early Jains and Buddhists were beaten mercilessly by the Hindus to get converted to their parent religion, as I understand ancient Indian History.

Cheers.

 

[N.R.Ranganathan]

Gandhiji's fight for freedom through non-violence was his strength. He
was not afraid of the British forces and when he was jailed he was not
afraid. That was his character.

Sadhasiva Bramhendra , when his arm was cut off by a man who did not
like him, walked away as if nothing had happened. Later the culprit took
the piece , ran to him and asked him to forgive him. Bramhendra just
fixed it on his shoulder . He could have cursed him, but did not because
he was a jnani.

These are not weaknesses but reflect their exalted state .

At the same time lord Krishna asked Arjuna ' come on, get up and fight,
follow your dharma '. Here the situation is different. Similarly, if there is
a war between two countries, you will have to fight. Killing the enemies
does not tantamount to violence.

A combination of the circumstances and your mental strength is the
yardstick.

 

[sarang]

Anyway, early Jains and Buddhists were beaten mercilessly by the Hindus to get converted to their parent religion, as I understand ancient Indian History.

Cheers.

This is totally wrong reading of history or subverting history to suit one's own hate mindset.

 

[Nara]

This is totally wrong reading of history or subverting history to suit one's own hate mindset.

sarang, in the haigiographical account of Bhagavat Ramanuja called 3000ppadi Guru Parampara Prabhavam it is stated that Ramanuja debated some 10,000 Jains, defeated them and then executed them all by putting them in a grinder. There are similar accounts in Nayanmar stories too.

Cheers!