Ahimsa
For other uses, see Ahimsa (disambiguation).
Ahinsa (Sanskrit: अहिंसा; IAST: ahinsā,Pāli:[1] avihiṃsā) is a term meaning 'not to injure' and 'compassion'. The word is derived from the Sanskrit root hiṃs – to strike; hiṃsā is injury or harm, a-hiṃsā is the opposite of this, i.e. cause no injury, do no harm.[2][3] Ahinsa is also referred to as nonviolence, and it applies to all living beings - including all animals - according to many Indian religions.[4]
Ahinsa is one of the cardinal virtues[5]and an important tenet of 3 major religions (Jainism, Hinduism, andBuddhism). Ahinsa is a multidimensional concept,[6] inspired by the premise that all living beings have the spark of the divine spiritual energy; therefore, to hurt another being is to hurt oneself. Ahinsa has also been related to the notion that any violence has karmicconsequences. While ancient scholars of Hinduism pioneered and over time perfected the principles of Ahinsa, the concept reached an extraordinary status in the ethical philosophy of Jainism.[5][7]Most popularly, Mahatma Gandhistrongly believed in the principle ofahinsa.[8]
Ahinsa's precept of 'cause no injury' includes one's deeds, words, and thoughts.[9][10] Classical literature of Hinduism such as Mahabharata and Ramayana, as well as modern scholars[11] debate principles of Ahinsa when one is faced with war and situations requiring self-defense. The historic literature from India and modern discussions have contributed to theories of Just War, and theories of appropriateself-defense.[12]
Etymology
The word Ahinsa - sometimes spelled asAhinsa[13][14] - is derived from the Sanskrit root hiṃs – to strike; hiṃsā is injury or harm, a-hiṃsā is the opposite of this, i.e. non harming ornonviolence.[13][15]
There is a debate on the origins of the word Ahinsa, and how its meaning evolved. Mayrhofer as well as Dumot suggest the root word may be han which means kill, which leads to the interpretation that ahinsa means do not kill. Schmidt as well as Bodewitz explain the proper root word is hiṃs and the Sanskrit verb hinasti, which leads to the interpretation ahinsa means do not injure, or do not hurt. Wackernagel-Debrunner concur with the latter explanation.[16][17]
Ancient texts use ahinsa to mean non-injury, a broader concept than non-violence. Non-injury implies not killing others, as well as not hurting others mentally or verbally; it includes avoiding all violent means - including physical violence - anything that injures others. In classical Sanskrit literature of Hinduism, another word Adrohi is sometimes used instead of Ahinsa, as one of the cardinal virtues necessary for moral life. One example is in Baudhayana Dharmasutra 2.6.23: वाङ्-मनः-कर्म-दण्डैर् भूतानाम् अद्रोही (One who does not injure others with words, thoughts or acts is namedAdrohi).[16][18]
Hinduism
Ancient Vedic Texts
Ahinsa as an ethical concept evolved in Vedic texts.[7][19] The oldest scripts, along with discussing ritual animal sacrifices, indirectly mention Ahinsa, but do not emphasize it. Over time, the Hindu scripts revise ritual practices and the concept of Ahinsa is increasingly refined and emphasized, ultimately Ahinsa becomes the concept that describes the highest virtue by the late Vedic era (about 500 BC). For example, hymn 10.22.13 in the Rig Veda uses the words Satya (truthfulness) and Ahinsa in a prayer to deity Indra;[20] later, the Yajur Veda dated to be between 1000 BC and 600 BC, states, "may all beings look at me with a friendly eye, may I do likewise, and may we look at each other with the eyes of a friend".[7][21]
The term Ahinsa appears in the textTaittiriya Shakha of the Yajurveda (TS 5.2.8.7), where it refers to non-injury to the sacrificer himself.[22] It occurs several times in the Shatapatha Brahmana in the sense of "non-injury" without a moral connotation.[23] The Ahinsa doctrine is a late development in Brahmanical culture.[24] The earliest reference to the idea of non-violence to animals ("pashu-Ahinsa"), apparently in a moral sense, is in the Kapisthala Katha Samhita of the Yajurveda (KapS 31.11), which may have been written in about the 8th century BCE.[25]
Bowker claims the word scarcely appears in the principal Upanishads.[26]Kaneda gives examples of the wordAhinsa in Upanishads.[10] Other scholars[6][27] suggest Ahinsa as an ethical concept that started evolving in the Vedas, became an increasingly central concept in Upanishads.
The Chāndogya Upaniṣad, dated to the 8th or 7th century BCE, one of the oldestUpanishads, has the earliest evidence for the use of the word Ahinsa in the sense familiar in Hinduism (a code of conduct). It bars violence against "all creatures" (sarvabhuta) and the practitioner of Ahinsa is said to escape from the cycle of metempsychosis (CU 8.15.1).[28] A few scholars are of the opinion that this noted concept started being recognized in mainstream Hinduism, after it was largely advocated by Jainism, Buddhism.[29][30]
Chāndogya Upaniṣad also names Ahinsa, along with Satyavacanam (truthfulness), Arjavam (sincerity),Danam (charity), Tapo (penance/meditation), as one of five essential virtues (CU 3.17.4).[6][31]
The Sandilya Upanishad lists ten forbearances: Ahinsa, Satya, Asteya, Brahmacharya, Daya, Arjava, Kshama, Dhriti, Mitahara and Saucha.[32][33]According to Kaneda,[10] the term Ahinsa is an important spiritual doctrine shared by Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. It literally means 'non-injury' and 'non-killing'. It implies the total avoidance of harming of any kind of living creatures not only by deeds, but also by words and in thoughts.
The Epics
The Mahabharata, one of the epics of Hinduism, has multiple mentions of the phrase Ahinsa Paramo Dharma (अहिंसा परमॊ धर्मः), which literally means: non-violence is the highest moral virtue. For example, Mahaprasthanika Parva has the verse:[34]
The above passage from Mahabharata emphasizes the cardinal importance of Ahinsa in Hinduism, and literally means: Ahinsa is the highest virtue, Ahinsa is the highest self-control, Ahinsa is the greatest gift, Ahinsa is the best suffering, Ahinsa is the highest sacrifice, Ahinsa is the finest strength, Ahinsa is the greatest friend, Ahinsa is the greatest happiness, Ahinsa is the highest truth, and Ahinsa is the greatest teaching.[35][36] Some other examples where the phrase Ahinsa Paramo Dharmaare discussed include Adi Parva, Vana Parva and Anushasana Parva. TheBhagavad Gita, among other things, discusses the doubts and questions about appropriate response when one faces systematic violence or war. These verses develop the concepts of lawful violence in self-defense and the theories of just war. However, there is no consensus on this interpretation. Gandhi, for example, considers this debate about non-violence and lawful violence as a mere metaphor for the internal war within each human being, when he or she faces moral questions.[37]
Self-defense, criminal law, and war
The classical texts of Hinduism devote numerous chapters discussing what people who practice the virtue of Ahinsa, can and must do when they are faced with war, violent threat or need to sentence someone convicted of a crime. These discussions have led to theories of just war, theories of reasonable self-defense and theories of proportionate punishment.[12][38] Arthashastradiscusses, among other things, why and what constitutes proportionate response and punishment.[39][40]
- War
The precepts of Ahinsa under Hinduism require that war must be avoided, with sincere and truthful dialogue. Force must be the last resort. If war becomes necessary, its cause must be just, its purpose virtuous, its objective to restrain the wicked, its aim peace, its method lawful.[12][39] War can only be started and stopped by a legitimate authority. Weapons used must be proportionate to the opponent and the aim of war, not indiscriminate tools of destruction.[41]All strategies and weapons used in the war must be to defeat the opponent, not designed to cause misery to the opponent; for example, use of arrows is allowed, but use of arrows smeared with painful poison is not allowed. Warriors must use judgment in the battlefield. Cruelty to the opponent during war is forbidden. Wounded, unarmed opponent warriors must not be attacked or killed, they must be brought to your realm and given medical treatment.[39] Children, women and civilians must not be injured. While the war is in progress, sincere dialogue for peace must continue.[12][38]
- Self-defense
In matters of self-defense, different interpretations of ancient Hindu texts have been offered. For example, Tähtinen suggests self-defense is appropriate, criminals are not protected by the rule of Ahinsa, and Hindu scriptures support the use of violence against an armed attacker.[42][43] Ahinsa is not meant to imply pacifism.[44]
Alternate theories of self-defense, inspired by Ahinsa, build principles similar to theories of just war. Aikido, pioneered in Japan, illustrates one such principles of self-defense. Morihei Ueshiba, the founder of Aikido, described his inspiration as Ahinsa.[45]According to this interpretation of Ahinsa in self-defense, one must not assume that the world is free of aggression. One must presume that some people will, out of ignorance, error or fear, attack other persons or intrude into their space, physically or verbally. The aim of self-defense, suggested Ueshiba, must be to neutralize the aggression of the attacker, and avoid the conflict. The best defense is one where the victim is protected, as well as the attacker is respected and not injured if possible. Under Ahinsa and Aikido, there are no enemies, and appropriate self-defense focuses on neutralizing the immaturity, assumptions and aggressive strivings of the attacker.[46][47]
- Criminal law
Tähtinen concludes that Hindus have no misgivings about death penalty; their position is that evil-doers who deserve death should be killed, and that a king in particular is obliged to punish criminals and should not hesitate to kill them, even if they happen to be his own brothers and sons.[48]
Other scholars[38][39] conclude that the scriptures of Hinduism suggest sentences for any crime must be fair, proportional and not cruel.
- Pacifism
There is no universal consensus onpacifism among Hindu scholars of modern times. The conflict between pacifistic interpretations of Ahinsa and the theories of just war prescribed by the Gita has been resolved by some scholars such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, as being an allegory,[49] wherein the battlefield is the soul and Arjuna, the war is within each human being, where man's higher impulses struggle against his own evil impulses.[37]
Non-human life
The Hindu precept of 'cause no injury' applies to animals and all life forms. This precept isn’t found in the oldest verses of Vedas, but increasingly becomes one of the central ideas between 500 BC and 400 AD.[50][51] In the oldest texts, numerous ritual sacrifices of animals, including cows and horses, are highlighted and hardly any mention is made of Ahinsa to non-human life.[52][53]
Hindu scriptures, dated to between 5th century and 1st century BC, while discussing human diet, initially suggest ‘‘kosher’’ meat may be eaten, evolving it with the suggestion that only meat obtained through ritual sacrifice can be eaten, then that one should eat no meat because it hurts animals, with verses describing the noble life as one that lives on flowers, roots and fruits alone.[50][54]
Later texts of Hinduism declare Ahinsa one of the primary virtues, declare any killing or harming any life as against ‘‘dharma’’ (moral life). Finally, the discussion in Upanishads and Hindu Epics[55] shifts to whether a human being can ever live his or her life without harming animal and plant life in some way; which and when plants or animal meat may be eaten, whether violence against animals causes human beings to become less compassionate, and if and how one may exert least harm to non-human life consistent with ahinsa precept, given the constraints of life and human needs.[56][57] The Mahabharata permits hunting by warriors, but opposes it in the case of hermits who must be strictly non-violent. Sushruta Samhita, a Hindu text written in the 3rd or 4th century, in Chapter XLVI suggests proper diet as a means of treating certain illnesses, and recommends various fishes and meats for different ailments and for pregnant women,[58][59]and the Charaka Samhita describes meat as superior to all other kinds of food for convalescents.[60]
Across the texts of Hinduism, there is a profusion of ideas about the virtue of Ahinsa when applied to non-human life, but without a universal consensus.[61]Alsdorf claims the debate and disagreements between supporters of vegetarian lifestyle and meat eaters was significant. Even suggested exceptions – ritual slaughter and hunting – were challenged by advocates of Ahinsa.[62][63][64] In the Mahabharata both sides present various arguments to substantiate their viewpoints. Moreover, a hunter defends his profession in a long discourse.[65]
Many of the arguments proposed in favor of non-violence to animals refer to the bliss one feels, the rewards it entails before or after death, the danger and harm it prevents, as well as to the karmic consequences of violence.[66][67]
The ancient Hindu texts discuss Ahinsa and non-animal life. They discourage wanton destruction of nature including of wild and cultivated plants. Hermits (sannyasins) were urged to live on afruitarian diet so as to avoid the destruction of plants.[68][69]Scholars[70][71] claim the principles of ecological non-violence is innate in the Hindu tradition, and its conceptual fountain has been Ahinsa as their cardinal virtue.
The classical literature of Hinduism exists in many Indian languages. For example, Tirukkuṛaḷ written between 200 BC and 400 AD, and sometimes called the Tamil Veda, is one of the most cherished classics on Hinduism written in a South Indian language. Tirukkuṛaḷ dedicates Chapter 32 and 33 of Book 1 to the virtue of Ahinsa. Tirukkuṛaḷsuggests that Ahinsa applies to all life forms.[72][73][74]
Modern times
Gandhi promoted the principle of Ahinsa very successfully by applying it to all spheres of life, particularly to politics.
In the 19th and 20th centuries, prominent figures of Indian spirituality such as Swami Vivekananda,[75]Ramana Maharshi,[76] Swami Sivananda,[77] A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami[78] and in the present time Vijaypal Baghel emphasized the importance of Ahinsa.
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhipromoted the principle of Ahinsa, very successful by applying it to all spheres of life, particularly to politics (Swaraj).[79]His non-violent resistance movementsatyagraha had an immense impact on India, impressed public opinion in Western countries, and influenced the leaders of various civil and political rights movements such as the American civil rights movement's Martin Luther King, Jr. and James Bevel. In Gandhi’s thought, Ahinsa precludes not only the act of inflicting a physical injury, but also mental states like evil thoughts and hatred, unkind behavior such as harsh words, dishonesty and lying, all of which he saw as manifestations of violence incompatible with Ahinsa.[17] Gandhi believed Ahinsa to be a creative energy force, encompassing all interactions leading one's self to find satya, "Divine Truth".[80] Sri Aurobindo criticized the Gandhian concept of Ahinsa as unrealistic and not universally applicable; he adopted a pragmatic non-pacifist position, saying that the justification of violence depends on the specific circumstances of the given situation.[81] Sri Aurobindo also indicated that Gandhi's Ahinsa led to partition of India as it blocked the forceful action that the Indian people were engaged in during the 1920s and 30s, which caused delay in independence, allowing other forces to take root, including those who wanted India divided.
Gandhi stated that he viewed "Ahinsa is in Hinduism, it is in Christianity as well as in Islam."[82] He added, "Nonviolence is common to all religions, but it has found the highest expression and application in Hinduism (I do not regard Jainism or Buddhism as separate from Hinduism)."[82] When questioned whether violence and non-violence is both taught in Quran, he stated, "I have heard it from many Muslim friends that the Koran teaches the use of non-violence. (...The) argument about non-violence in the Holy Koran is an interpolation, not necessary for my thesis."[82][83]
A historical and philosophical study of Ahinsa was instrumental in the shaping of Albert Schweitzer's principle of "reverence for life". Schweitzer praised Indian philosophical and religious traditions for ethics of Ahinsa as, "the laying down of the commandment not to kill and not to damage is one of the greatest events in the spiritual history of mankind", but suggested that "not-killing and not-harming" is not always practically possible as in self-defense, nor ethical as in chronic starving during a famine case.[84]
Yoga
Ahinsa is imperative for practitioners ofPatañjali’s eight limb Raja yoga system. It is included in the first limb and is the first of five Yamas (self restraints) which, together with the second limb, make up the code of ethical conduct in Yoga philosophy.[85][86] Ahinsa is also one of the ten Yamas in Hatha Yogaaccording to verse 1.1.17 of its classic manual Hatha Yoga Pradipika.[87]
Jainism
Main article: Ahimsa in Jainism
See also: Jain vegetarianism
The hand with a wheel on the palm symbolizes the Jain Vow of Ahinsa. The word in the middle is "Ahinsa". The wheel represents the dharmacakrawhich stands for the resolve to halt the cycle of reincarnation through relentless pursuit of truth and non-violence.
In Jainism, the understanding and implementation of Ahinsā is more radical, scrupulous, and comprehensive than in any other religion.[88] Killing any living being out of passions is considered hiṃsā (to injure) and abstaining from such an act is ahinsā(noninjury).[89] The vow of ahinsā is considered the foremost among the 'five vows of Jainism'. Other vows like truth (satya) are meant for safeguarding the vow of ahinsā.[90] In the practice of Ahinsa, the requirements are less strict for the lay persons (sravakas) who have undertaken anuvrata (Smaller Vows) than for the Jain monastics who are bound by the Mahavrata "Great Vows".[91] The statement ahinsā paramo dharmaḥ is often found inscribed on the walls of the Jain temples. [92] Like in Hinduism, the aim is to prevent the accumulation of harmful karma.[93]When Mahavira revived and reorganized the Jain faith in the 6th or 5th century BCE,[94] Ahinsa was already an established, strictly observed rule.[95]Parshva, the earliest Jain Tirthankara, whom modern Western historians consider to be a historical figure,[96] lived in about the 8th century BCE.[97] He founded the community to which Mahavira’s parents belonged.[98] Ahinsa was already part of the "Fourfold Restraint" (Caujjama), the vows taken by Parshva’s followers.[99] In the times of Mahavira and in the following centuries, Jains were at odds with both Buddhists and followers of the Vedic religion or Hindus, whom they accused of negligence and inconsistency in the implementation of Ahinsa.[100]According to the Jain tradition eitherlacto vegetarianism or veganism is mandatory.[101]
The Jain concept of Ahinsa is characterized by several aspects. It does not make any exception for ritual sacrificers and professional warrior-hunters. Killing of animals for food is absolutely ruled out.[102] Jains also make considerable efforts not to injure plants in everyday life as far as possible. Though they admit that plants must be destroyed for the sake of food, they accept such violence only inasmuch as it is indispensable for human survival, and there are special instructions for preventing unnecessary violence against plants.[103] Jains go out of their way so as not to hurt even small insects and other minuscule animals.[104] For example, Jains often do not go out at night, when they are more likely to step upon an insect. In their view, injury caused by carelessness is like injury caused by deliberate action.[105] Eating honey is strictly outlawed, as it would amount to violence against the bees.[106]Some Jains abstain from farming because it inevitably entails unintentional killing or injuring of many small animals, such as worms and insects,[107] but agriculture is not forbidden in general and there are Jain farmers.[108] Additionally, because they consider harsh words to be a form of violence, they often keep a cloth to ritually cover their mouth, as a reminder not to allow violence in their speech.[citation needed]
Theoretically, all life forms are said to deserve full protection from all kinds of injury, Jains recognize a hierarchy of life. Mobile beings are given higher protection than immobile ones. For the mobile beings, they distinguish between one-sensed, two-sensed, three-sensed, four-sensed and five-sensed ones; a one-sensed animal has touch as its only sensory modality. The more senses a being has, the more they care about non-injuring it. Among the five-sensed beings, the precept of non-injury and non-violence to the rational ones (humans) is strongest in Jain Ahinsa.[109]
Jains agree with Hindus that violence in self-defense can be justified,[110] and they agree that a soldier who kills enemies in combat is performing a legitimate duty.[111] Jain communities accepted the use of military power for their defense, there were Jain monarchs, military commanders, and soldiers.[112]
Buddhism
Further information: Noble Eightfold Path,Buddhist ethics#Killing, causing others to kill,Buddhism and violence, and Criticism of Buddhism#War and violence
In Buddhist texts Ahinsa (or its Pālicognate avihiṃsā) is part of the Five Precepts (Pañcasīla), the first of which has been to abstain from killing.[113][114]However, this precept has been variously interpreted. In some Buddhist traditions, such as the Theravadatradition,[115] vegetarianism is not mandatory. In these traditions, monks may eat meat and fish on condition that the animal was not killed specifically for them. For some monks, specifically monks of some Mahayana traditions, the eating of meat is strictly forbidden. Laypeople are also encouraged to eat vegetarian.[citation needed]
War
Violent ways of punishing criminals and prisoners of war was not explicitly condemned in Buddhism,[116] but peaceful ways of conflict resolution and punishment with the least amount of injury were encouraged.[117][118] The early texts condemn the mental states that lead to violent behavior.[119]
Nonviolence is an overriding theme within the Pali Canon.[120] While the early texts condemn killing in the strongest terms, and portray the ideal king as a pacifist, such a king is nonetheless flanked by an army.[121] It seems that the Buddha's teaching on nonviolence was not interpreted or put into practice in an uncompromisingly pacifist or anti-military-service way by early Buddhists.[121] The early texts assume war to be a fact of life, and well-skilled warriors are viewed as necessary for defensive warfare.[122] In Pali texts, injunctions to abstain from violence and involvement with military affairs are directed at members of the sangha; later Mahayana texts, which often generalize monastic norms to laity, require this of lay people as well.[123]
The early texts do not contain just-war ideology as such.[124] Some argue that asutta in the Gamani Samyuttam rules out all military service. In this passage, a soldier asks the Buddha if it is true that, as he has been told, soldiers slain in battle are reborn in a heavenly realm. The Buddha reluctantly replies that if he is killed in battle while his mind is seized with the intention to kill, he will undergo an unpleasant rebirth.[125] In the early texts, a person's mental state at the time of death is generally viewed as having a great impact on the next birth.[126]
Some Buddhists point to other early texts as justifying defensive war.[127]One example is the Kosala Samyutta, in which King Pasenadi, a righteous king favored by the Buddha, learns of an impending attack on his kingdom. He arms himself in defense, and leads his army into battle to protect his kingdom from attack. He lost this battle but won the war. King Pasenadi eventually defeated King Ajatasattu and captured him alive. He thought that, although this King of Magadha has transgressed against his kingdom, he had not transgressed against him personally, and Ajatasattu was still his nephew. He released Ajatasattu and did not harm him.[128] Upon his return, the Buddha said (among other things) that Pasenadi "is a friend of virtue, acquainted with virtue, intimate with virtue", while the opposite is said of the aggressor, King Ajatasattu.[129]
According to Theravada commentaries, there are five requisite factors that must all be fulfilled for an act to be both an act of killing and to be karmically negative. These are: (1) the presence of a living being, human or animal; (2) the knowledge that the being is a living being; (3) the intent to kill; (4) the act of killing by some means; and (5) the resulting death.[130] Some Buddhists have argued on this basis that the act of killing is complicated, and its ethicization is predicated upon intent.[131] Some have argued that in defensive postures, for example, the primary intention of a soldier is not to kill, but to defend against aggression, and the act of killing in that situation would have minimal negative karmic repercussions.[132]
According to Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, there is circumstantial evidence encouraging Ahinsa, from the Buddha's doctrine, "Love all, so that you may not wish to kill any." Gautama Buddha distinguished between a principle and a rule. He did not make Ahinsa a matter of rule, but suggested it as a matter of principle. This gives Buddhists freedom to act.[133]
Laws
The emperors of Sui dynasty, Tang dynasty and early Song dynasty banned killing in Lunar calendar 1st, 5th, and 9th month.[134][135][136] Empress Wu Tse-Tien banned killing for more than half a year in 692.[137] Some also banned fishing for some time each year.[138]
The King Bayinnaung of Burma, after conquering the Bago in 1559, the Buddhist King prohibited the practice ofhalal, specifically, killing food animals in the name of God. He also disallowed theEid al-Adha religious sacrifice of cattle. Halal food was also forbidden by KingAlaungpaya in the late 18th century.
There were bans after death of emperors,[139][140] Buddhist and Taoist prayers, [141][142] Health concerns[143][144][145] and natural disasters such as after a drought in 1926 summer Shanghai[146] and an 8 days ban from August 12, 1959 after the August 7 flood (八七水災), the last big flood before the 88 Taiwan Flood.[147][148] There was a 3-day ban after the death of Chiang Kai-shek.[149]
People avoid killing during some festivals, like the Taoist Ghost Festival,[150] the Nine Emperor Gods Festival, the Vegetarian Festival and many others.[151][152][153][154][155]
No comments:
Post a Comment