Ahimsa

The first Upayantra of Yama is Ahim’sa’. It is “Manova’kka’yaeh sarvabhu’ta’na’mapiid’anam Ahim’sa’”.

A second entity certainly comes in where the question of inflicting or not inflicting pain arises.

There must be someone on whom you can inflict pain or not inflict pain. So inflicting pain or Him’sa’ is dependent on the existence of another entity. Suppose, you are alone in the world, will you be able to observe Ahim’sa’? The opportunity for external expression is essential, otherwise Yama Sa’dhana’ is not possible.

In the aforesaid Su’tra (aphorism) the word `Va’k’ has been used for clearer explanation, otherwise Manah and Ka’ya alone would have served the purpose. When Him’sa’ is in the mind it will be expressed in bodily actions also. Va’k means two things

i.e. 1. Shabda (language) and

2. Indriya’h (organs). Though the use of the word Va’k may seem to be redundant, it has been used to clarify that Ahim’sa’ is to be observed in thought and physical action as much as in speech.

This Ahimsa as practised in thought, word or deed is the first Upayantra of Yama. Even if one Upayantra is missing, the entire machine will get out of order.

What should be the nature of Dharma Deshana’? It should be such that on every occasion you need not consult the scripture and you can come to a proper decision without consulting your scripture.

What is Dharma?

That which preserves your existence is Dharma. That principle which goes against your very existence cannot be called Dharma.

Dharma will never dictate you to die of hunger. Dharma will tell you, “Select your food properly so as to be conducive to your body, mind and spirit.”

Dharma gives clear directions for development, it will never instruct you for suicide, because committing suicide is Adharma (sin) since it goes against your very existence.

Dharma helps in maintaining your existence. Committing suicide is Adharma. Is it essential to go in for a scriptural interpretation of it? This is Dharma deshana'.

According to Sanskrit grammar “Dhr + Man = Dharma” i.e. which sustains your existence is Dharma. In Sanskrit, the root verb `Dish’ means to demonstrate, to point out just as if I say ‑ this is the boundary of Bengal.

The area which you demonstrate in the map is ‘desha’. The place about which you can demonstrate is Bengal. This is Bengal, this is Andhra Pradesha. You can demonstrate it. Dharma deshana’ means “the clear idea of what Dharma points out.”

Before this you must know what Him’sa’ means. With the idea of Him’sa’, the idea of Ahim’sa’ will also be forthwith clear and the idea of Piid’anam shall also make the idea of Apiid’anam equally clear.

That action is called Him’sa’ by which one’s physical, mental and spiritual progress is stopped permanently. Suppose, there is a little fawn playing and jumping, moving about. If you kill it then all its physical expressions are stopped.

You went against the spirit of its physical expression. Here you committed Him’sa’. Suppose, somebody is reciting God’s name or taking good thoughts mentally.

You start beating him up, you are destroying his mental expressions. When somebody is trying for spiritual progress, you are making noise by his side by singing film songs. You stopped his spiritual development. Here again you committed Him’sa’. You should never commit Him’sa’. The opposite of Him’sa’ is Ahim’sa’. The English synonym of Him’sa’ is not `violence’. Violence in Sanskrit means Can’d’a Shakti or Can’d’ika’ Shakti.

Canda Shakti means appliance of physical force. For preservation of your physical existence, the appliance of Can’d’a Shakti is essential. If you do not apply it, how did you reach here from the office?

This Can’d’a Shakti is applied with the help of physical energy. Appliance of Can’d’a Shakti means transformation of one energy into another. When you are walking, you are converting your vital energy into mechanical energy.

If you walk much farther, your vital energy will be converted into mechanical energy. Due to continuous conversion of this energy, vital energy will decrease to a great extent, then you will have to take more food for recouping your vital energy and start ahead in your march. This is the rule.

From life to death, there is appliance of Can’d’a Shakti or violence, and as long as there is manifestation of this Can’d’a Shakti, man is said to be alive. Where it is not so, the man is known to be dead.

Non‑violence is against the very spirit of your existence. This is the prevalent rule in Dharma and law, and everywhere it is so that it is not the word that is taken into consideration, rather it is the spirit involved which counts.

In law, in government, everywhere guidance is taken from the spirit involved in it, and not by the language.

Those who kill animals for self‑preservation, does their violence aim at suspending the physical expression of the animal or to provide food for themselves? Their aim is to eat the animals.

It has been said, “Kha’dya’rthe pashuhatya’,” for it is neither Him’sa’ nor Pa’pa. It was not your intention to check the physical, mental or spiritual expressions of the animal. But the question crops up here: it may or may not be your intention, but the physical, mental or spiritual progress of that animal, in fact, has been stopped.

You never meant that, but it is the animal which loses. So far as food is concerned, the rule is “jiivah jiivasya bhojanam” ‑ for purpose of eating, a living being subsists on another living being.

The food of a frog is mosquito, frog is the food of snake, snake in turn, becomes food for mongoose and so on. Then what you should do is not to kill the animal which by the grace of God, has got a medium through which its physical, mental and spiritual progress is great or has the potentiality to be great, in the end.

The rule for selection of food should be to select those whose physical, mental and spiritual expressions are the least in preference, rather than those which have greater expressions of these three.

Where wheat or fruit is available, why should you kill the goats or cows for food? Where flesh of goats or sheep will do, why should you slaughter the cows? While beef will do, why should you kill the monkeys? While monkeys will do, why should you butcher the human beings? Lastly it is meaningless to kill human beings because if Mr. X kills Mr. Y for his own preservation of life, it is better that he himself should die. In that case one will not live at the cost of another life.

Therefore, it is strictly forbidden to kill man for eating. To kill man for food is a sin and in other cases, it shall be decided as per the gradation rule. While less developed creatures are available, to kill the more developed is sin. It is better that you yourself should die, instead of killing a man for your food.

Next comes the question of fight. To kill someone in the battlefield is not the main motive. But supposing someone dies ‑‑ may God forbid ‑‑ then his physical, mental or spiritual progress is stopped. You had no intention to stop that, but it resulted that way. You should clearly understand the rules of battlefield.

Your relationship with other Jiivas can be classified into three categories ‑ 1. Ja’tamitram (born friend), 2. Ja’tashatru (born enemy) and 3. Nirapeks’a (neutral).

The rule is that to kill the Ja’tamitram is Him’sa’, if it is not for food. Suppose there is a goat or a cow which is a Ja’tamitram, to slaughter it is Him’sa’, but if it is killed for food as per the gradation list, then it is not Him’sa’. If someone gets a guava and a goat, he should prefer the guava. But instead of eating the guava, if he kills the goat, it will be Him’sa’. Because according to the gradation list the guava is at the lower grade.

To kill a Jatashatru is not Himsa.

For example, to kill tigers, lions, scorpions, snakes etc. If you do not kill them, they will not spare you. With regard to Ja’tamitram, it is a rule to kill them for food as per gradation list.

But it is positively Him’sa’ if it is not for food. It is against Ahim’sa’ if it is not supported by the gradation list. With regard to Ja’tashatru, if you know that it is intending to kill you, killing it by yourself under such circumstances is not Him’sa’.

Suppose, a tiger lives in the forest and does not come to the locality and destroys no public life or property and kills only deer, etc.‑‑ the hunting of such tigers in the forest is Him’sa’. If a tiger attacks someone in a village, then no hesitation is necessary. You can shoot it straight off. It is a Ja’tashatru and to kill it is permitted.

Neutral, i.e. Nirapeks’a: Under the special circumstances of time, killing of those neutrals is Him’sa’, who are like Ja’tamitram. A deer in the forest is a Ja’tamitram. To kill it is Him’sa'.

But if somebody is dying of hunger, and he goes in the forest and kills the deer as per gradation list, it is not Him’sa’. If the deer of the forest damages the crop, to kill it is also not Him’sa’. To know that it is to be treated as Ja’tashatru, you need not consult anybody. A monkey is destroying the mango orchard, damaging the crop; though it is a neutral animal, yet it is behaving like a Ja’tashatru, so to kill him is not Him’sa'.

“My personal view is this that I won’t follow the gradation list. I will only take the most undeveloped.

I won’t take even those who are even a little developed. To select the lower most item is my selection. I would not select out of the developed creatures. I will prefer wheat, rice, and fruits only. Fish is much more developed than wheat or paddy, but less developed than goats or sheep.

Wheat or rice, being not available, one may eat fish. It is not Him’sa’ but rice or wheat being available, it should not be killed, otherwise it will be Him’sa’. This concession, I won’t accept.”

This much about Ahim’sa’. Man is generally Ja’tashatru, or Ja’tamitram. From this point of view, man is not like other animals. How should we behave with human beings?

The rule in this connection is that A’tata’yiis are to be treated like Ja’tashatrus. But with the rest of others, one should behave as with Ja’tamitrams. If you do not treat an A’tata’yii as a Ja’tashatru, he will kill you. That will be greater foolishness. Who is an A’tata’yii?

Ks’etrada’ra’paha’riica Shastradha’rii dhana’paha’h Agnidagaradashcaeva S’ad’ete hya’tata’yinah"

Ks’etrada’ra’paha’riica. When somebody wants to forcibly occupy your land, implying thereby that he wants you to starve, he is an A’tata’yii. He wants to let you die of hunger, he is an A’tata’yii.

`Da’r’ means wife. So one who forcibly abducts another’s wife, is also an A’tata’yii. He who wants to attack you with arms is also an A’tata’yii. Some say to let one attack first and then you should retaliate. This is a defective idea. You will certainly fight if he attacks you.

But even when you are sure that he has a motive to attack you, then and there you should attack, even though he may not have attacked you. Here the word Shastradha'rii' has been used and not the Shastragha’tii'.

He is coming to strike at you with weapons. Immediately you should attack him; the moment you are sure of his bad intentions, you should not wait. There are some goody‑goody boys who wait till the enemy strikes. Drive him out before he has a chance to attack you.

The fourth is `Dhana’paha’h’ ‑ one who steals away other’s property forcibly. Fifth is one who sets fire to other’s property and sixth is one who adds poison to other’s food ‑ all these people of six categories are called A’tata’yiis ‑ they are to be treated as Ja’tashatru. The rule as applied in case of Ja’tashatru are equally applicable here. Those who are not Ja’tashatru are to be treated as Ja’tamitram.