Talk:Ahimsa

Recent dispute August 2009

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Ahimsa. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Abecedare (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Dear Abecedare, please do not either add subjective opinions and revisionist propaganda about explicit and clear clauses in the Hindu text known as the Bhagavad Gita or at least do a better and more consistent job of policing the propagation of the aforementioned. I am referring specifically to the 'weasel-worded' sentence

"The apparent conflict between ahimsa and the just war prescribed by the Gita has often been resolved by resorting to allegorical readings."

The above statement uses weasel words such as 'apparent'; really? how is it apparent when the definition of Ahimsa is itself subject to interpretation depending on what faith/philosophy one belongs to? The statement uses the imprecise terms 'often been'; really? how 'often'? 'often' by whose standard? 'often' relative to what? 'often' to what percentage of the Hindu population? In addition, the term 'resolved' used in the context of this statement is extremely controversial as it presents a subjective opinion as a final and objective fact. Perhaps the allegorical readings have resolved differences in the definition of Ahimsa for some individuals using symbolic interpretations but it has not been resolved in this manner for most Hindus or even for those individuals who resort to allegorical readings..

I would submit that the offending statement should be reworded to the following:

The apparent conflict between pacifistic interpretations of Ahimsa and 'Just-War' prescribed by the Gita has been resolved for some individual's by resorting to allegorical readings.

-- which would make the offending statement far less unprofessional/opinionated and more factual/objective in its character.

I provided objective sources, whereas the 'editor' who reverted my changes (a self-professed buddhist [according to his/her profile]) is perhaps ignorant about the subject matter (with respect to Ahimsa as it relates to Hinduism & the Gita). The offending statement listed above, i.e. about "allegorical readings" , is an editorialization about some revisionist individual's opinion about what they believe ahimsa 'should-be' - Not what the Gita states is true Ahimsa - I provided quotations from the original text of the GITA as to what the real statements the GITA makes about True-Ahimsa (i.e. doing your duty, even if that means killing other humans in self-defense, but using violence as a last resort and never against the innocent) and False-Ahimsa (cowardly pacifism). My original submission was not "original research", but simply quoting the direct statements in the Gita about its views regarding Ahimsa. 70.83.175.116 (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)70.83.175.116 (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahinsa

The article makes several references to "Ahinsa". It is not obvious whether these are misspellings or not. Google's cache of the main page actually has a correctly-spelled version - so it looks rather like vandalism. "The term ahimsa appears in the Taittiriya Samhita of the Yajurveda" 82.45.45.100 (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a recurring problem, assuming that it was addressed at the time of the previous message. I have not changed it, in case it is meant to be ahiNsa, but perhaps an admin for this page could correct it if it is a mistake.Foxi tails (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• At least one person thinks it's ahiNsa and is trying to change it. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly Ahinsa(अहिंसा) not Ahimsa. Please change it its damaging Wikipedia's reputation --Rajan11222533 (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajan11222533 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

• Devanāgarī spelling is not disputed, as far as I understand. Transliteration is ahiṃsā, anyone can try to convert अहिंसा here. I'm not an expert but it appears that ṃ stands here for a nasalized eh... hmm... 'm', though spelling with 'n' is also common; ā is a long 'a'. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Ambedkars' Voice

The content is noteworthy as the other statements. I agree with you that Babasaheb Ambedkar is an important voice, but what I could not understant is that why this matter do not belongs here. If you want a discussion on it, then why deleting it?.........Ranjithsutari (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ranjith, the idea is that this article is written using academic sources. Ambedkar is more of a religious figure. Does that make sense? Mitsube (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Mitsube, I'm sorry to say that your idea is Absolutely nonsense!!! OR I could not understand your sense of Academic sources on this article. What if Ambedkar is more or real of religious/political/philosophical/Historical/Revolutionary figure, this content is noteworthy because there is a touch of optimism in every word................Ranjithsutari (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi ! Ranjithsutari, Ambedkar was no where near Ahinsa. He was solely focused of only Harjans. Ahinsa that much he talk about is atleast talk by every good leader in India.--Rajan11222533 (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Tähtinen?

I don't seem to find a complete reference in any of the footnotes for a source that seems to be heavily relied upon. Forgive my ignorance but what is "Tähtinen" and perhaps the first citation of this could be more complete for those of us who are trying to start research on this? Thanks in advance. --Thiebes (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

---

The Tähtinen" reference appears to be for the following book I found on Amazon:

  "Ahimsa: Non-violence in Indian tradition"
  by Unto Tahtinen
   * Hardcover: 148 pages
   * Publisher: Rider (1976)
   * Language: English
   * ISBN-10: 0091233402
   * ISBN-13: 978-0091233402

User:mkp624

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkp624 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Simha's Question concerning Annihilation

I'm surprised the following isn't included in the Buddhism/War section somehow:

---

"I proclaim, Simha, the annihilation of egotism, of lust, of ill-will, of delusion. However, I do not proclaim the annihilation of forbearance, of love, of charity, and of truth. [12]

"I deem, Simha, unrighteous actions contemptible, whether they be performed by deed, or by word, or by thought; but I deem virtue and righteousness praiseworthy." [13]

And Simha said: "One doubt still lurks in my mind concerning the doctrine of the Blessed One. Will the Blessed One consent to clear the cloud away so that I may understand the Dharma as the Blessed One teaches it?" [14]

The Tathagata having given his consent, Simha continued: "I am a soldier, O Blessed One, and am appointed by the king to enforce his laws and to wage his wars. Does the Tathagata who teaches kindness without end and compassion with all sufferers, permit the punishment of the criminal? and further, does the Tathagata declare that it is wrong to go to war for the protection for our homes, our wives, our children, and our property? Does the Tathagata teach the doctrine of a complete self-surrender, so that I should suffer the evil-doer to do what he pleases and yield submissively to him who threatens to take by violence what is my own? Does the Tathagata maintain that all strife, including such warfare as is waged for a righteous cause, should be forbidden?" [15]

The Buddha replied: "He who deserves punishment must be punished, and he who is worthy of favor must be favored. Yet at the same time he teaches to do no injury to any living being but to be full of love and kindness. These injunctions are not contradictory, for whosoever must be punished for the crimes which he has committed, suffers his injury not through the ill-will of the judge but on account of his evil-doing. His own acts have brought upon him the injury that the executor of the law inflicts. When a magistrate punishes, let him not harbor hatred in his breast, yet a murderer, when put to death, should consider that this is the fruit of his own act. As soon as he will understand that the punishment will purify his soul, he will no longer lament his fate but rejoice at it." [16]

And the Blessed One continued: "The Tathagata teaches that all warfare in which man tries to slay his brother is lamentable, but he does not teach that those who go to war in a righteous cause after having exhausted all means to preserve the peace are blame-worthy. He must be blamed who is the cause of war. [17]

"The Tathagata teaches a complete surrender of self, but he does not teach a surrender of anything to those powers that are evil, be they men or gods or the elements of nature. Struggle must be, for all life is a struggle of some kind. But he that struggles should look to it lest he struggle in the interest of self against truth and righteousness. [18]

"He who struggles in the interest of self, so that he himself may be great or powerful or rich or famous, will have no reward, but he who struggles for righteousness and truth, will have great reward, for even his defeat will be a victory. [19]

"Self is not a fit vessel to receive any great success; self is small and brittle and its contents will soon be split for the benefit, and perhaps also for the curse, of others. [20]

"Truth, however, is large enough to receive the yearnings and aspirations of all selves and when the selves break like soap-bubbles, their contents will be preserved and in the truth they will lead a life everlasting. [21]

"He who goeth to battle, O Simha, even though it be in a righteous cause, must be prepared to be slain by his enemies, for that is the destiny of warriors; and should his fate overtake him he has no reason for complaint. [22]

"But he who is victorious should remember the instability of earthly things. His success may be great, but be it ever so great the wheel of fortune may turn again and bring him down into the dust. [23]

"However, if he moderates himself and, extinguishing all hatred in his heart lifts his down-trodden adversary up and says to him, 'Come now and make peace and let us be brothers,' he will gain a victory that is not a transient success, for its fruits will remain forever. [24]

"Great is a successful general, O Simha, but he who had conquered self is the greater victor. [25]

"The doctrine of the conquest of self, O Simha, is not taught to destroy the souls of men, but to preserve them. He who has conquered self is more fit to live, to be successful, and to gain victories than he who is the slave of self. [26]

"He whose mind is free from the illusion of self, will stand and not fall in the battle of life. [27]

"He whose intentions are righteousness and justice, will meet with no failure, but be successful in his enterprises and his success will endure. [28]

"He who harbors in his heart love of truth will live and not die, for he has drunk the water of immortality. [29]

"Struggle then, O general, courageously; and fight thy battles vigorously, but be a soldier of truth and the Tathagata will bless thee." [30]

http://reluctant-messenger.com/gospel_buddha/chapter_51.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.226.161 (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)