Siddhachalam NJ 1990 04 Mahavir Jayanti

Author(s): Siddhachalam NJ
Publisher: USA International Mahavir Jain Mission Siddhachalam

Page 41

HINDUISM
AND AHIMSA
Swami Tathagatananda
Vedanta Society of New York
In a certain Buddhist family a theif was caught red-handed. The younger members started beating him, but the master of the house interfered, saying, "Don't do that. Don't you know that we practice non-injury as the highest virtue". "What their shall we do with the thief?" they replied. After pondering a few moments, he answered, “Put him in a barrel and throw him in a well". The thief, on hearing this gave a mocking laugh and said, "I am overwhelmed by your mercy" This is not a spiritual attitude but cruelty of the meanest type. It always happens when we follow the words and not the spirit of the code. This sort of non-violent attitude certainly dose more harm to spiritual understanding than the expression of natural feelings of people. Non-violence (ahmisa) is to be practiced in thought, word and deed. Non-violence does not mean merely abstaining from murder but not willfully inflicting any injury, suffering or pain on any living creature by word, thought or action. A few people in any faith may be capable of following the principles of ahimsa; nevertheless, for the vast majority it remains an unrealized ideal. Hatred, dishonesty, deception sensuality, etc., are some of the common, ingrained vices of the human race. Ahimsa really dentoes an attitude and mode of behavior towards all living creatures based on the recognition of the underlying unity of life.
The highest form of spiritual life demands utter unselfishness. Without a doubt this behavior is the highest level of ethical life, and ordinary people cannot rise easily to that dizzy height. Yet, by persisent effort and systematic practice, each and every individual can eventually reach that
nature of dharma (faith) and does not rec- ognize absolute good or evil. Evil is less good. We can not say what is absolutely good or evil for all men at all times. Ethical relativity is an accepted fact in Hinduism. An action regarded as moral in one place may not be so in another... The Hindu conception of ethical relativity wants to see duties have reference to degrees of illumination obtained.. Hinduism links moral obligation with the stage of spiritual attainment. The comprehensive definition of good and evil may be found in the progress and regress of the person. Whatever helps us towards the realization of divine unity is good, and its reverse is evil But there is practical difficulty in working out details. The soldier kills to protect law and justice. A patriot may lay down his own life for the same purpose. The very attempt to bring all under one rule or to impose upon all a single idea fo good conduct has been the cause of much injustice or humanity. Shortsighted people always make mistake by prescribing one set of rules for all. The so-called puritans are extremely narrow, intolerant, priggish and uncharitable. Such an attitude stulifies spiritual progress.
The injunction of non-killing, though ideal can not be accepted as universal. The Mahabharata gives the illuminating and inspiring stories of a housewife and an untouchable butcher who, by adhering to their respective dharmas, experienced the highest truth. "Vyadh-Gita", which is a product of the conversations between the butcher and the monk, is famous as an authoritative scripture. The Gita says that work does not bind us, rather helps us to grow in spiritual life when done without any selfish motive. Even enjoyment if properly guided can be a source
of spiritual experience. Hence "praviti marga" (turning away from the ego) are important. But eventually one has to rise from egocenteredness to God-centeredness, form resistance to non-resistance.
In the Gita we find Shri Krishna delivering this message to Arjuna: "Fight, establish your own causes, fight!" But to Uddhava in the "Bhagavatam", Shri Krishna says, "Whatever ill-treatment you receive from another, you should not return evil for evil, you should return good". This difference of teaching is due to the different mental makeup of the two persons concerned. Arjuna was "rajasic" and Uddhava was "sattvic", Arjuna was a warrior, a hero, whose duty was to protect the virtuous and weak and to subdue the wicked. So for Udhava returning good for evil was the right ideal, but for Arjuna it was not. Swami Vivekananda clearly expressed this distinction in his lecture, "Each is Great in his Own Place".
George Bernard Shaw in London, a proud vegetarian, was extremely shocked as Sir J.C. Bose revealed how raw carrots, on being pinched and pierced, emitted violent electrical signals corresponding to man's cries for help. At a Royal Institute lecture in London, Bose demonstrated the dying condition of a piece of tin by the application of poison, then revived it by rendering medical aid. Heended his lecture with a peroration, "This Unity in life throughout all objects of this Universe was found by the ancient sage of India—who beholds this, the eternal truth -- will belong to him only". Does not modern science say that so-called matter is nothing but consciousness in a gross form? The entire universe is saturated with divine consciousness. It is difficult to abstain from non
Jain Education Intemational
MAHAVIR JAYANTI SOUVENIR ate 39ers MAHAVIR JAYANTI SOUVENIR