Pacifism

[MonkeyFire]

Would you be a pacifist believer? We believe in ahimsa, inner peace, and equanimity as one thing called pacifism. I see pacifism as a religious quality, and a human nature. If you think about it as long as you fight you can’t be in Heaven, because if you did it would be the most sadistic thing, then pacifism is basically impossible to human perception. You have to be hard core hippie to cultivate enough equanimity to make a man faint. With pacifism we easily destroy and inflame good and bad emotions. Be fair to haters to create non-violence or there is no negative energy, and believe in passive temperance. IMO everyone should be passive for two reasons; first, to be happy, and secondly to be healthy emotionally.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No. Everything has a limit. One can't be a pacifist if one's country is attacked. In theist Hinduism, fight for 'dharma' gets you to heaven, which is all BhagawadGita is about.

 

[MonkeyFire]

No. Everything has a limit. One can't be a pacifist if one's country is attacked. In theist Hinduism, fight for 'dharma' gets you to heaven, which is all BhagawadGita is about.

But no matter what you say you must have suffered to have fought, and to prolong fighting is evil. War is transgression, and pacifism can give you karma. Fighting should be an absolute final option. Culture is more important, because it is love. There is nothing like being a passive believer, because we respect and love all things, even a fighter, and to each his own.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yeah, war when all other options fail. Krishna came as the mediator and requested just five villages for Pandavas, but Duryodhan refused even that:

"yajña arthāt karmaṇah anyatra, lokah ayaṁ karma-bandhanaḥ;
tad-arthaṁ karma kaunteya, mukta-saṅgaḥ samācara." BhagawadGita 3.9

(Work for 'dharma' (your duty), otherwise you get karma-bondage in this world;
Do that kind of work, O Son of Kunti, with equanimity and without attachment.)

 

[SalixIncendium]

Would you be a pacifist believer? We believe in ahimsa, inner peace, and equanimity as one thing called pacifism. I see pacifism as a religious quality, and a human nature. If you think about it as long as you fight you can’t be in Heaven, because if you did it would be the most sadistic thing, then pacifism is basically impossible to human perception. You have to be hard core hippie to cultivate enough equanimity to make a man faint. With pacifism we easily destroy and inflame good and bad emotions. Be fair to haters to create non-violence or there is no negative energy, and believe in passive temperance. IMO everyone should be passive for two reasons; first, to be happy, and secondly to be healthy emotionally.

Ahimsa is not synonymous with pacifism.

Pacifism is a belief that no violence under any condition is justifiable.

On the other hand, ahimsa is conditional, and as @Aupmanyav mentioned, dependent upon dharma.

Reading this article might help you to better understand: Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah, Dharma himsa tathaiva cha - Sloka does NOT exist ! - Puranas

 

[rocala]

This is something I have thought about a great deal over many years. I can only say that I would have had no qualms about fighting Naziism or ISIS.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Ahimsa is not synonymous with pacifism.

Pacifism is a belief that no violence under any condition is justifiable.

On the other hand, ahimsa is conditional, and as @Aupmanyav mentioned, dependent upon dharma.

Reading this article might help you to better understand: Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah, Dharma himsa tathaiva cha - Sloka does NOT exist ! - Puranas

No Ahmisa is a moral obligation. pacifism is belief in non-violence to me

 

[Aupmanyav]

This is not a great problem and our conscience knows it - what can be done without himsa and where himsa is a necessary evil.

 

[MonkeyFire]

This is not a great problem and our conscience knows it - what can be done without himsa and where himsa is a necessary evil.

Fighting is only necessary if you suffer, but the only reason one may suffer is because they choose to be violent in the first place.

 

[SalixIncendium]

No Ahmisa is a moral obligation. pacifism is belief in non-violence to me

I'm not sure if you're meaning "no ahimsa is a moral obligation" or "no, ahimsa is a moral obligation."

Please rephrase so I can understand what you are trying to convey.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Fighting is only necessary if you suffer...

What if others are suffering as a result unjust attacks or abuse? Is fighting then unnecessary?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Fighting is only necessary if you suffer, but the only reason one may suffer is because they choose to be violent in the first place.

Humbly disagree. Some times himsa is necessary even if we personally do not suffer by it. A soldier going to war is not suffering personally, but he is going for the sake and safety of others.
Complete ahimsa is impossible. Kindly read the story of the pious butcher to whom a learned brahmin was sent to study 'dharma' (Bhagawat Purana - Vyadha Gita). Even the vegetables that we eat are living entities. They knew that even 2,100 years ago.
Ahimsa good, no doubt about it. But it has its limitations.

 

[MonkeyFire]

I'm not sure if you're meaning "no ahimsa is a moral obligation" or "no, ahimsa is a moral obligation."

Please rephrase so I can understand what you are trying to convey.

What if others are suffering as a result unjust attacks or abuse? Is fighting then unnecessary?

No, ahimsa is a moral obligation. I only need to fight for sex crimes, and harm, and only until my equanimity is fully operational.

 

[MonkeyFire]

Humbly disagree. Some times himsa is necessary even if we personally do not suffer by it. A soldier going to war is not suffering personally, but he is going for the sake and safety of others.
Complete ahimsa is impossible. Kindly read the story of the pious butcher to whom a learned brahmin was sent to study 'dharma' (Bhagawat Purana - Vyadha Gita). Even the vegetables that we eat are living entities. They knew that even 2,100 years ago.
Ahimsa good, no doubt about it. But it has its limitations.

There is never a reason to harm something, even if you fight your mind should still be passive. Fighting prolong suffering, but you need to know what you are doing, and how to be a pacifist. I wouldn’t force you to be passive against a murderer, but it is possible.

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. even if you fight your mind should still be passive. Fighting prolong suffering, but you need to know what you are doing, and how to be a pacifist. I wouldn’t force you to be passive against a murderer, but it is possible.

That is correct. In a war (or even in daily life), one should be unemotional, unattached (Anasakta). No anger, no hate, no mercy. Just what is required for winning the war (or completing the worldly action). Emotions hinder correct action.

 

[MonkeyFire]

That is correct. In a war (or even in daily life), one should be unemotional, unattached (Anasakta). No anger, no hate, no mercy. Just what is required for winning the war (or completing the worldly action). Emotions hinder correct action.

Fight for hate. If you control the fear you win the war. Hate is something you save, and then He makes it worth it, he has the keys of death and hades.

 

[rocala]

That is correct. In a war (or even in daily life), one should be unemotional, unattached (Anasakta). No anger, no hate, no mercy. Just what is required for winning the war

Yes, I agree with this. It can be a lot harder than it seems though. Particularly when the stress builds up.

Emotions hinder correct action.

True. If I was in a situation such as the First World War, I cannot imagine feeling any special animosity towards the people in the opposite trench. However, if I was fighting ISIS in more recent times, I doubt that I would even take prisoners.

 

[Aupmanyav]

However, if I was fighting ISIS in more recent times, I doubt that I would even take prisoners.

I said no mercy. Why should you have taken them as prisoners unless you wanted to extract some information from them. Otherwise just shoot. Sure, war is a dirty business. We may take prisoners in war because we have have to exchange them with our own people who may have been taken as prisoners. Let us be practical and not emotional.

 

[rocala]

Why should you have taken them as prisoners unless you wanted to extract some information from them. Otherwise just shoot. Sure, war is a dirty business. We may take prisoners in war because we have have to exchange them with our own people who may have been taken as prisoners. Let us be practical and not emotional.

Forgetting morality for a moment, it is entirely practical to not shoot prisoners. Firstly, it is a war crime, with serious penalties. Secondly, when the enemy knows that you are not taking prisoners they tend to fight a lot harder.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Forgetting morality for a moment, it is entirely practical to not shoot prisoners. Firstly, it is a war crime, with serious penalties. Secondly, when the enemy knows that you are not taking prisoners they tend to fight a lot harder.

Again, it is a convention because we would not want our soldiers to be shot after capture. And sure, shooting will make enemies to fight harder.
War crimes, eh. Severe penalties by UN!