AHIM'SA' IN NEOHUMANISM

official source: Neohumanism in a Nutshell Part 2

cross-references: none

this version: is as in "Devotional Sentiment and Neohumanism" in The Liberation 
	of Intellect: Neohumanism, 4th edition, and as in "Ahim'sa'" in A Guide to 
	Human Conduct, 4th edition, 5th printing (spelling mistakes only may have 
	been corrected in the latter). I.e., this is the most up-to-date version 
	as of the present Electronic Edition.

Once I read in a certain book that a great saint used to live only on locusts dipped in honey. That saint did not seriously consider that those little locusts also had vital life force throbbing in them.

Obviously human beings will have to behave rationally; they must maintain their existence while adjusting with the external environment. It is true that living creatures are the food for other living beings (jiivah jiivasya bhojanam); and indeed, the vegetables that we eat every day also have living cells in them. But regarding food, I have expressed my opinion in some of my books.*

* See especially A Guide to Human Conduct (1961) and Carya'carya Part 3 (1965). --Trans.

21 February 1982, Calcutta
from "Devotional Sentiment and Neohumanism"
The Liberation of Intellect: Neohumanism

* * *

	"Manova'kka'yaeh sarvabhu'ta' na'mapiida' namahim'sa'.

	Ahim'sa' means not inflicting pain or hurt on anybody by thought, word or action. This word is wrongly interpreted by many. Some so-called learned persons in fact, define the word ahim'sa' in such a manner that if one adheres to it strictly, it is impossible to live not only in a society but also in forests, hills and caves. In such an interpretation of the term ahim'sa', not only is killing prohibited, but even to fight a defensive fight is not allowed. By tilling the land one may cause the death of innumerable insects and creatures under the earth's surface. Therefore, the use of a plough is not permissible. The followers of such an interpretation of ahim'sa' say that those who want to lead a religious life should not use the plough themselves, but employ other low-born people to do the same to save themselves from the sin of destroying life. Sugar must be poured into the abodes of the ants; no matter whether human beings have food or not. The poor must spare their blood from their bodies to save insects, the born enemies of human beings.

This is no definition of ahim'sa'. It merely causes confusion. It is contrary to true dharma; it is against the very laws of existence. Even the process of respiration involves the death of numberless microbes. They are all living beings and to save them one will have to stop breathing. The administration of medicines to the suffering will have to be stopped, because such medicines cause the destruction of disease-causing bacteria. If ahim'sa' is so interpreted, where will such interpreters be able to stand? They will have to give up even filtered water, because the process of filtration of water means destroying the insects that cause impurity. It is also not possible to drink impure water, because then it is likely that such microbes might die in the stomach.

In the post-Vedic age this type of ahim'sa' was practised in India for a long period, and as a result life for ordinary citizens became very miserable. The populace viewed with fear the religion dominated by this so-called ahim'sa'. They were forced to accept an atheistic belief, and they left the path of dharma. Devoid of any code of conduct, and intent on giving first preference to their own selfishness, such atheists became a burden to the society and to the world. Those who wanted to enforce the so-called ahim'sa'-influenced religion, became impractical and impotent by nature. Thus there is a pressing need in the modern age to re-think these historical facts from a new angle of vision.

This age was followed by another wherein another new definition of the word ahim'sa' was propagated. According to this definition, him'sa' meant to cause pain to living beings, but did not include the slaughter of animals for food. This idea is very much mistaken. If causing pain amounts to him'sa', the slaughter of animals for food must also be called him'sa', because the animals do not offer their heads willingly at the altar of death for this cause. 

Recently one more interpretation for this word has been heard. It somewhat resembles the second definition described earlier, but it even lacks the simplicity or sincerity of that interpretation. According to this interpretation, ahim'sa' means non-violence or non-application of force. Possibly it is this interpretation which has distorted most the meaning of ahim'sa'. In all actions of life, whether small or big, the unit mind progresses by surmounting the opposing forces. Life evolves through the medium of force. If this force is not properly developed, life becomes absolutely dull. No wise person would advocate such a thing, because this would be contrary to the very fundamentals of human nature.

The champions of non-violence (so-called ahim'sa') have, therefore, to adopt hypocrisy and falsehood whenever they seek to use this so-called ahim'sa' for their purposes. If the people of one country conquer another country by brute force, the people of the defeated nation must use force to regain their freedom. Such a use of force may be crude or subtle and as a result, both the body and mind of the conquerors may be hurt. When there is any application of force, it cannot be called non-violence. Is it not violence if you hurt a person not by your hands but by some other indirect means? Is the boycott movement against a particular nation not violence? Therefore I say that those who interpret non-violence and ahim'sa' to be synonymous have to repeatedly resort to hypocrisy to justify their actions. The army or police are necessary for administration of a country. If these organizations do not use force even in case of necessity, their existence will be of no meaning. The mark of so-called ahim'sa' or non-violence on a bullet does not make the bullet non-violent.

Those who are not adequately equipped to oppose an evil-doer should make every endeavour to gain power and then make the proper use of this power. In the absence of ability to resist evil, and in the absence of evev an effort to acquire such ability, declaring oneself to be non-violent in order to hide one's weaknesses before the opponent may serve a political end, but it will not protect the sanctity of righteousness.

The meaning of the word ahim'sa' in the sphere of Sa'dhana' has already been explained. According to its correct meaning, one will have to guide one's conduct carefully to ensure that one's thought or actions cause pain to nobody and are unjust to none. Any thought or action with the intention of causing harm to someone else amounts to him'sa'. The existence of life implies destruction of certain lower forms, no matter whether there is intention of doing harm or not. The process of respiration kills thousands of millions of protoplasmic cells. Whether one knows it or not, in every action such living cells are dying and being destroyed. The use of prophylactics means destructions of millions of disease-carrying germs. The crop-eating insects, parasites, mosquitoes, bugs, spiders, etc. are also being killed in innumerable ways. This is necessary to maintain one's livelihood; it is not with the intention of causing pain to them. Such acts also, therefore, cannot be classed as him'sa'; they are to be done for self-defense.

As a result of clash and cohesion within the physical structure of every entity and also for the maintenance of structural solidarity at every moment, a process of formation and de-formation is always taking place. Rice is obtained from paddy--is there no life in paddy? Paddy can sprout. It is also capable of reproduction. For the preservation of the physical body you prepare rice by killing the paddy. Do you have any intention to harm anybody while preparing rice? It is thus seen that life depends on other forms of life for its very existence. There is no question of him'sa' or ahim'sa' here. If this is conceived as him'sa' living beings will have to subsist on bricks, sand and stone. Even breathing will have to be stopped or one will have to commit suicide.

It is, however, very necessary to remember two things in respect of edibles. First, as far as possible, articles of food must be selected from among those items in which development of consciousness is comparatively little; i.e., if vegetables are available, animals should not be slaughtered. Secondly, under all circumstances before killing any animal having developed or under-developed consciousness, it must be considered whether it is possible to live in a healthy body without taking such lives.

The human body is constituted of innumerable living cells. These cells develop and grow with the help of similar living entities. The nature of your living cells will be formed in accordance with the type of food you take. Ultimately all these together will affect your mind to some extent. If the cells of the human body grow on rotten and bad-smelling food, or on the fresh flesh of animals in which mean tendencies predominate, it is but natural that the mind will have a tendency of meanness. The policy of eating, without due consideration, whatever is available cannot be supported in any case, even though there may not be any question of him'sa' or ahim'sa'. It should not be your policy to do what you wish. You must perform actions after due thought. For continued subsistence a policy will have to be adopted for taking food; otherwise it will be against the code of aparigraha.

A'nanda Pu'rn'ima' 1957
from "Ahim'sa'"
A Guide to Human Conduct