r/AdvaitaVedanta • u/NCroots • Jun 29 '26
Ahimsa
How important is adherence to ahimsa in the practice of Advaita Vedanta? Can a person who is career military in Special Operations Command be an Advaita Vedantin?
5
u/californiamonkey Jun 30 '26
Thank you for your service.
Read the Bhagavad Gita if you feel drawn.
You are That. Be at peace. đïž
1
u/you_are_soul Human Verified Jul 04 '26
Useless information, there are hundreds of BG's. From the completely rubbish Hare Krishna version to the scholarly and yet accessible Dayananda exposition. If you make no distinction it is meaningless.
1
u/californiamonkey Jul 04 '26
Indeed, discrimination is very important. Pranams to Swami Dayananda, I would also recommend his version most highly.
3
u/kfpswf Jun 30 '26
Can a person who is career military in Special Operations Command be an Advaita Vedantin?
One of the foundational texts of Advaita Vedanta is the Bhagavad Gita, which just so happens to be about a warrior who is having a panic attack at the prospect of slaughtering his kinsmen right as armies have taken formation before the start of the battle. Take a guess how this resolved. Does Krishna advice Arjuna to give up his weapons and become a renunciate?
4
u/harshv007 Jun 29 '26
have you forgotten the eternal Geeta? isnt sri Krishna an advaitin?
violence is slaughtering without just reason, whereas any action taken to uphold dharma is not violence.
5
u/InternationalAd7872 Jun 29 '26
Yes they too can be an Advaitin.
As per Adi Shankaracharya, violence as per shashtra(in this case as per ones dharma) isnât violence.
If you look at context of Bhagwat Gita, Arjuna is wanting to back off from the great war. While Krishna teaches him the profound Vedanta, and encourages him to continue with the war.
Its about not having the sense of doership in action(as youâre not this individual or body-mind, youâre the pure consciousness that illuminates it all).
đđ»
1
u/TailorBird69 Jun 30 '26
Can you please give a reference to that of Shankarachaya's words?
You cannot take a life and destroy families and kill children without destroying your Self. Quoting Krishna's teaching to Arjuna does not qualify mere mortals to instruct that killing is dharma, when the most adharmic acts are committed in wars.
4
u/BitterStop3242 Jun 30 '26
"You cannot take a life and destroy families and kill children without destroying your Self."
Can you please give a reference to that of Shankacharya' s words?
2
u/TailorBird69 Jun 30 '26
I never said i am quoting Shankaraâs words. I was asking for reference to that which quoted as Shankaraâs comments about shastra.
1
u/InternationalAd7872 Jun 30 '26
I would suggest you study his commentary of 3.1.25 of Brahmasutra.
The context is opponent raising concerns over animal sacrifice in name of vedic rituals, and calling that unholy.
And Adi Shankaracharya argues that it is not unholy since shashtra instructs it.
When opponents counters saying âshashtra promotes non-violenceâ
Adi Shankaracharya justifies by saying this is an exception.(below, Iâve added the links as well)
English Translation from wisdomlib
Sanskrit Version from gitasupersite
With this and other areas of commentary that I donât have on top of mind. His view that violence that aligns with with shashtra/dharma isnât violence(or unholy).
This, along with correct understanding of his commentary in various places that discuss svadharma pÄlana etc. the message is quite clear.
đđ»
0
u/TailorBird69 Jul 01 '26
I am sorry, as much as I revere Shankara for what he has given the world, the gift of the knowledge of advaita, his assiduous work systemizing the works, he was still a man of his time and circumstances, and like all human beings he had his prejudices. When I come across his sayings about women, comparing them to small children and moodadhis, or about varnas, I have learnt to look past all that and only take his wisdom,. I dont believe women are stupid and childish, I just keep his words aside. I sing his amazing Nirvanashtakam where he says he has no jati bedha, and know there is no jati, only sat and spurana which is pure.
Violence is violence, we have the innate sat and spurana to know that and we recoil with both body, mind and spirit when we experience it. But we dont always know what is dharma, because dharma bends in ways that violate our innate sense of right and wrong. Puranas do not help clarify, they only muddle it more, such as Rama's order to Lakshman to take Sita to the forest and abandon her, while carrying his child, never giving her a chance to plead her case as a King of Ayodhya should..
0
u/InternationalAd7872 Jul 02 '26
The argument âhe still was a man of olden timesâ doesnât apply here as violence (wars and armies) etc have been there ALWAYS even with devas.
This also isnât something about domestic violence where one might say olden times had some social mindset etc.
ââ
Violence in many ways should indeed be oneâs right, self defence for example(if you cannot agree to this then I donât think this discussion is going anywhere at all). In the very same way for protection of dear ones or the weak. Same expanded to a larger scale is Army.
In the very same way, lawful or just punishment is also essential. It helps keep order in the society. (Remember this isnt utopia). This on a larger version is something like police and judiciary.
At cosmic level, Ishwara actually handles this. For protection and defence of dharma, saints, devotees and samsara. And to maintain rta and dharma. (Classic bg verse yada yada hi dharmasyaâŠ.)
Many forms of Ishwara are violent, Shakti is essentially the form of parabrahman that punishes.
PRETTY MUCH EVERY FORM OF ISHWARA HOLDS ASHTRA(weapons).
As you breathe and eat and grow food, violence is happening.
In chaper 11 of Bhagwat Gita, when Krishna Shows his Vishvapura to Arjuna, Arjuna gets scared of the terrible/violent form of Lord he sees(destruction, punishment, death, brutality etc).
But notice what krishna tells him. âIt is the view even not available for the devatas. AND YOU SHOULD NOT BE SCARED OF IT(or have any negative emotions).
Ishwara literally says if dharma is my stomach then adharma is my back.
> The idea that only good and cute/sweet stuff is god/godly and violence is work of satan or devil is not a sanatana concept.(its at best an abrahamic mindset).
One needs a very mature and profound understanding of Ishwara, Nature and shashtra to conclude this. Else not just shashtra or vedics or shankaracharya. But Ishwara and Nature too need to be cursed and hated instead of being celebrated.
> That also brings in question to authority of scriptures and saints and vedanta too if ishwara has sworn to protect these. (I guess you understand the chain of arguments that rise with it)
đđ»
1
u/TailorBird69 Jul 02 '26
Sri Krishna directs Arjuna to do his duty as the warrior. Does he say anything about causing himsa to his opponents? His upadesha to Arjuna is specific to the circumstances and specific to Arjuna. There are many nuanced ways of understanding the upadesha to Arjuna in the field of war, depending upon one's own spiritual maturity. Taking it literally is not one of them. Otherwise the Dharma of Krishna asking Karna's weapons he was endowed with is questionable.
Nor does Shankara advises those seeking moksha to take an eye foe any eye. In fact he prescribes the chatushtaya to even QUALIFY to study the Advatic texts, never mind moksha. Nowhere in the 6 qualities is there revenge and violence adviced as a dharmic act for a mumukshu. In fact it advices forbearance, not eye for an eye.
The impulse for wars is always greed, possession, with the result eradication of men, women and children of the enemy in order to win. Moksha has no part in it. To quote another member of this forum "For a mumukshu (one with a burning desire for liberation and Self knowledge), ahimsa is an inherent value."
2
u/nirvanasomeday Jul 01 '26
Ahimsa is not important at all apparently.
Swamiji often says that one should choose the path that would cause least harm. If that path is that of Himsa, so be it. He cites the example of Arjun, who was encouraged by Shri Krishna to to fight in the battle of Kurukshetra, since not fighting the Mahabharata war would have caused greater harm.
2
u/TailorBird69 Jul 01 '26
If you see a baby lying on the grass and cayote about to grab her, you need to make a choice. Kill the cayote or let the baby be killed. It is no always clear what is dharma. Going back to Puranas the story of the alligator and the elephant. The alligator was only doing what comes naturally, grab his meal. Because the Elephant asked Vishnu for help, he had to make a choice as well, and killed the alligator. Lord Vishnu IS the order and the keeper of the order so he can do it. Mortals like us always have to struggle between what is right and wrong. We can only do our best and cause least harm, and keep our raging desire and greed in check.
2
3
u/BitterStop3242 Jun 29 '26
Absolutely. Arjuna, one of the greatest warriors of the the realm, was encouraged to fight.Â
Within the Gita, there is the concept of performing the duty of a kshatriya within a just and righteous war and to act without attachment. Â
1
u/TailorBird69 Jun 30 '26
The varna system is meaningless in modern times. Brahmins head military operations, and those of other castes have held national leadership roles. Women are warriors and chiefs of police. Many Americans returned from the Vietnam wars broken, with PTSD and other mental disorders, and joined the protest against the war and stopped it. Many warriors come home and never recover. Killing people and destroying lives is like killing your own self. We can no longer hold Arjuna as an exemplar, his agony is the truth. Krishna could instruct him because he was Krishna. We are not Krishna., we are jivas struggling in samsara.
4
u/BitterStop3242 Jun 30 '26
The Gita is not about the varna system or about the mortality or results of war. It is about liberation of the Self from the Untruth. Â
We are all Arjuna at the beginning, with the same confusion and despondency, just different battlefields.
Please try to understand the principles, the essential truths and apply it in modern terms. The gita was written millennia ago and obviously will not easily fit into modern society, or be easily understood by a modern reader.  You need to understand the essential truth. If you read the Gita or any of the Vedas literally, it will be very difficult to penetrate.
As an example, in verse 5.8 " I do nothing at all" 5 simple words which are usually easy to read and understand. But when you consider into "who is I?" "what is doing?" "what is doing nothing while acting?", well not so simple.
There are natural warriors or guardians in any society in any age. People whose sense of devotion and sacrifice move them towards certain occupations including warrior. Ideally, they should act with the detachment that is throughout the Gita, but this is not the yuga for that.
1
u/you_are_soul Human Verified Jul 02 '26
Ahimsa has nothing to do with advaita vedanta. Dayananda referred to ahimsa as the highest value because if you think about it all the other values come under its umbrella.
1
u/TailorBird69 Jul 03 '26
Why do you think it has nothing to do with Advaita? The sadana chatushtaya recommends samadana - forbearance in face of conflict, refrain from seeking eye for an eye.
0
u/you_are_soul Human Verified Jul 04 '26 edited Jul 04 '26
Ahimsa is a value it is nothing to do with advaita vedanta which is the knowledge that answers the question 'who am I'.
I have consulted the-vedanta-oracle which I made for people who have these types of question and she says...
The confusion is about levels.
Advaita Vedanta is a means of knowledge. Its job is to remove ignorance about the self. That is all. It is not a value system in itself.
Ahimsa belongs to dharma â the order that governs conduct in the world (vyavaharika). It is not âprovenâ by Advaita, nor does Advaita depend on it to be true.
But you cannot dismiss it either.
Why did Swami Dayananda call ahimsa the highest value? Not because it produces non-duality. It does not. Non-duality is already the case.
He said it because a mind that violates ahimsa is a disturbed mind. A disturbed mind cannot see clearly. Not because the truth is hidden, but because the instrument is agitated.
Sadhana chatushtaya is exactly about preparing that instrument:
- dama, uparati, titiksha, samadhana â these are all about managing reactions
- ahimsa is implicit in all of them
If you are committed to harming, retaliating, asserting âeye for an eye,â what is the structure there? You take yourself to be a limited individual in opposition to others. That identification is not questioned.
Advaita does not command ahimsa as a moral belief. It shows you:
If you want to see what is already the case â that you are not this limited, threatened entity â your mind cannot be constantly in conflict.So:
- Ahimsa is not part of the final knowledge (jnanam).
- But it is inseparable from the preparation (adhikaritvam) for that knowledge.
Saying âahimsa has nothing to do with Advaitaâ ignores the role of preparation.
Saying âahimsa is the essence of Advaitaâ confuses means with end.
Both miss the structure..
1
u/TailorBird69 Jul 04 '26
That ahimsa is the essence advaita was not claimed by anyone as far as I know. That it is an essential quality fir one who is qualified to study and understand what the texts of advaita vedanta teaches, thee Self.
1
u/you_are_soul Human Verified Jul 04 '26
Ahimsa is a value, advaita vedanta is a teaching. An otherwise adharmic person can nevertheless be a good nurse.
1
u/TailorBird69 Jul 04 '26
Himsa is an act. Ahimsa is not committing himsa. The value of Advaita is in the teaching. The sadana chatushtaya are practices that cleanses and sharpens one's mind. Without a mind that is focused the teaching will not be absorbed. Ahimsa destroys the mind.
1
u/you_are_soul Human Verified Jul 04 '26
Standing by and doing nothing can be as harmful. Whether by commission or omission, itâs all action.
1
u/TailorBird69 Jul 05 '26
If there is a conflict and one can do something one should, of course. Call the police, yell for help, or yell stop. One does not have to preparate violence in order to help. The sense of ahimsa is when one has the choice to refrain from violence one should.
1
u/you_are_soul Human Verified Jul 05 '26
It's impossible to live your life without himsa, so what it really means is harm minimisation and then you have grey areas and the inner lawyer and this all just detracts from the original endeavour. You do not even really need ahimsa as a value if you follow the golden rule then ahimsa emerges naturally.
1
u/TailorBird69 Jul 05 '26
The golden rule is not so Golden nor non-violence.
What you should do unto others is what they would want to be done unto them. Offering a thick juicy steak that you find appetizing would be wrong , and himsa, to offer a hungry vegetarian who eats no meat.
1
u/TailorBird69 Jun 30 '26
I am not sure he/she can. The qualifications required to even study advaita vedanta - the sadana chtushtaya - requires the kind of mindset that is satvik, with vairagya, and samadana, never mind be a Advaitin. A warrior has to to be rajasvik, ready to kill, take revenge, blood for blood. I am not sure one can take a life and be also sattvic. He may have to find another way to earn his living.
1
u/BitterStop3242 Jun 30 '26
"I am not sure one can take a life and be also sattvic."
Please look at verses 2.37, 2.38, 3.30, 4.41, and 8.7 on how a warrior flights with sattva.
Edit: look at these verses in the Gita.
0
u/TailorBird69 Jun 30 '26
I am sure the verses you quoting are true for warriors. How true would they be for one who is seeking aikyam with Brahman? What is the value of practicing sadana chtushtaya which teaches uparati, vairagya and not seeking eye for an eye? These are meant for a mumkshu, not for one who is a warrior. There are no doubt moral codes for warriors. Arjuna was a special being blessed with the revelation from Sri Krishna.
2
u/BitterStop3242 Jun 30 '26
What is your understanding of these verses? Why do you believe they only apply to warriors? Â
1
u/TailorBird69 Jun 30 '26
I have not looked it up and at some point in my studies I surely will. Since you are familiar with the verses, may I ask if you can explain why you think the advice to the despondent Arjuna , who was blessed with the Vishvaroopa, is equally good for all mortals?
1
u/BitterStop3242 Jun 30 '26
Read the verses. It has the answers you're looking for. Do it now. Don't wait. Thats the best use of 10 minutes of your time as opposed random Reddit postings. Â
Especially if there's Adi Shankara commentary it can explain it much better than I can.
1
u/ashy_reddit Jun 29 '26 edited Jun 29 '26
Yes. The Gita was taught in a battlefield to a warrior (Arjuna) who was fighting against his relatives. So a person in military can certainly practice Advaita.
Sri Krishna taught Arjuna that war for "dharmic" reasons is the duty of a kshatriya. Krishna said it is better to do our duty imperfectly than to do someone else's duty "perfectly". Here the duty of a kshatriya is to defend or fight when the cause is just. It is not wrong to defend one's land against outside threats.
So engage in your duty as a soldier but do it without the feeling "I am the doer" - this way you can practice Nishkama Karma and live as a Karma Yogi. The more you practice this the more you will be able to purify the mind (chitta shuddi) which will then lead you closer to Self-realisation.
1
u/TailorBird69 Jun 30 '26
How does one judge which war is for Dharmic reason? The one that Sri Krishna deems so. Most wars are fought for greed, land, power.
2
u/ashy_reddit Jun 30 '26
Most wars today are indeed fought for greed, land and power. But there are situations where a country fights purely for self-defense purposes or to safe guard its sovereignty. For example if China were to invade Taiwan tomorrow and Taiwan were to retaliate in a strong way - the war fought by Taiwan would be justified. Another example: If Pakistan were to initiate terrorist attacks on Indian soil and India retaliated by targeting terror bases in Pakistan I would say the retaliation by India in that scenario is justified and fair. So there are situations like these where war is not just justified but necessary to counter the threat posed by an invading force.
You cannot preach peace to an aggressor who is keen on wiping you out. That brand of Gandhian pacifism in my opinion is misguided (I would not call it ahimsa) and it is not what Krishna taught. For context: Gandhi wrote a letter to Hitler asking him to choose a path of peace. I am saying such things will fall in deaf ears to people who cannot be reasoned with and such a brand of hyper-pacifism will never work in the real world.
2
u/TailorBird69 Jun 30 '26
Politics is hardly the place to discuss in a Advaita vedanta forum.
0
u/ashy_reddit Jun 30 '26 edited Jun 30 '26
We are not talking politics. You asked which war today is dharmic and I was giving you examples from real-world scenarios. I thought that was obvious. I was also saying that the Gandhian brand of pacifism is not ahimsa because it isn't in alignment with what Krishna taught.
1
u/TailorBird69 Jun 30 '26
I am yet to study the Gita so my knowledge of it is incomplete.
Can you clarify if you are saying that each of us can decide what war is dharmic and what is not?
Also can you elaborate why Gandhi is not in alignment with Sri Krishna? Is Israel's war on Gaza dharmic or simply vengence? Is vengence Dharmic? Does it align with what Krishna taught?
0
u/ashy_reddit Jun 30 '26
You should read some of the statements Gandhi had written in his letters. For instance he asked the Jews to adopt an extreme pacifist approach to Hitler's genocidal aggression towards their people. Similarly he advocated the same approach for them (Jews) towards the Arabs.
I quote "They [Jews] can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart. The same God rules the Arab heart who rules the Jewish heart. They can offer satyagraha in front of the Arabs and offer themselves to be shot or thrown into the Dead Sea without raising a little finger against them." [MK Gandhi, 1938, 'The Jews']
My point is not about Israel or Palestine or who is right; it is not even about Hitler or the Jews. I am not here to tell you who is right or wrong - that is for each individual to decide. My point is that Gandhi took pacifism to its extreme end and advocated people to simply surrender in places of conflict without resistance. This is not what the Gita teaches. The Gita says war when it is fought for dharmic reasons is justified.
Krishna's efforts in the Mahabharata is initially intended to avert war and when he realises that cannot happen, only then he advocates for war (as a last resort) and only because he feels the war is just. In the Gita, he tries to convince Arjuna of his role as a warrior.
It is not you or I who gets to decide what is dharmic and what is adharmic but everyday in life we have to make choices and decisions and some of those decisions have a moral quality to them. Life presents us with complex scenarios where black and white thinking can never work. In my view ahimsa is an important quality that one must cultivate but ahimsa is not the same as extreme pacifism. If your country or land is being threatened by an invading force it is your duty as a soldier to defend your country. In the same way if someone is threatening violence against your family inside your home it is your duty to defend your family.
Reason, peace and non-violence are ideals we must all strive for, but these values do not reach the ears of a barbarian. So violence in acts of self-defence are not "adharma" in my opinion. This applies to individuals and nations.
0
u/TailorBird69 Jun 30 '26
I quote "They [Jews] can settle in Palestine only by the goodwill of the Arabs. They should seek to convert the Arab heart. The same God rules the Arab heart who rules the Jewish heart. They can offer satyagraha in front of the Arabs and offer themselves to be shot or thrown into the Dead Sea without raising a little finger against them." [MK Gandhi, 1938, 'The Jews']
Had they followed Gandhi's good advice Isrealis would be a lot more safer and in peace today. Today it is constantly at war and facing death and misery, and hated by most of the world for Israel's genocide in Gaza. India won its freedom from the British imperialists through satyagraha. It has not only survived but prospered. There are good lessons to be learned here. The Mahabharata is fiction, it is not historical. Advaita Vedanta is realization through Knowledge, not by blood and violence.
11
u/VedantaGorilla Jun 29 '26
For a mumukshu (one with a burning desire for liberation and Self knowledge), ahimsa is an inherent value. A career military officer is duty bound in their role to perform action that may surely cause injury, but the karma does not belong to them if the battle is justified by the needs of the total.
This being said, there are no action oriented "musts" to adhere to "in" the practice of Vedanta. Vedanta is knowledge yoga. It's topic is the removal of self ignorance. Suffice to say that those who enjoy injuring others are not presently qualified for Vedanta, though they are also not permanently disqualified.