On Non-Violence / Ahimsa

Photo Description: Goddess Durga is the principal Hindu warrior goddess representing supreme feminine energy (Shakti), motherhood, and protective power.

Over the last few days, I've been meditating on Ahimsa (ancient Indian principle of Non-Violence) which is so central in the teachings of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism. 

The basic premise of the teaching of Ahimsa is to do no harm (in word, deed, or thought). "Himsa" meaning violence, harm or injury with the prefix of  "A" meaning "not," "without," or "non." It is the first of five "Yamas" or ethical principles defined in the Yoga Sutras of Patanjali, and one of the 8 limbs of yoga, a holistic framework for living an ethical, purposeful life. It teaches that when we cause pain to others, we suffer ourselves and perpetuate vicious cycles.

But how do we square this teaching with the realities we are facing right now, when 5-year-olds in backpacks are being detained, when pregnant mothers are being violently thrown on the ground, when innocent bystanders who are attempting to help are being murdered? How can we possibly talk about non-violence? It's all absolutely enraging! How can we not stand up and fight?

Searching for some clarity and guidance in the midst of this helplessness that we're all feeling so viscerally right now, I did a deep dive into how these ancient teachings tend to view the kind of situation we're facing. And what I found was that while Hinduism and Buddhism both prioritize non-violence, both traditions have nuanced perspectives on this topic.

Hinduism recognizes that war and violence can be a moral duty for warriors (Dharma) in specific circumstances, such as in the Bhagavad Gita. In this story, Arjuna is about to go into battle when he discovers that many of his relatives and friends were on the opposing side. Krishna, Arjuna's guru and charioteer, appears and convinces Arjuna that he must fight because it is his duty and that only in doing so will Dharma (righteousness) be restored. 

Buddhism primarily emphasizes peace, but some interpretations consider the use of force in protection or defense as a necessity, though it is not encouraged.

Both traditions argue that non-violence is not merely passive, but a powerful, active practice of empathy, compassion, and liberation from the cycle of hatred.

If we look at key figures in the history of non-violent resistance, figures like Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr, Nelson Mandela, and John Lewis we see this tension embodied. And we see the moral and physical dilemma that they and now we all face in this moment. Can we even compare the violence we saw during civil rights movement with what we're seeing today? 

While the government is indeed targeting a singular group of people (African Americans then and immigrants now) based on skin color and under the guise of "securing" our country, what we're also seeing today is a total breakdown of the institutions of government. There seem to be zero safeguards today, whereas during the Civil Rights Movement, we at a minimum had some semblance of an organized system of government that could push back via Congress. Today, it seems Congress is all but useless. 

If we look to philosophers like Rousseau who wrote and published The Social Contract in 1762 as a result of the Seven Years War and prior to the French Revolution, he argued that because legitimate government must serve the "general will," any regime acting contrary to this collective good breaks the social contract and, by upholding inequality and slavery, justifies insurrection. 

Are we in a similar place now and if so, what is our duty? Is it to maintain peace, practice Ahimsa, or is it to restore Dharma?

I would love to hear your thoughts. Please like, comment, and follow along. 

"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." - Rousseau

Sources: 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/hinduism/hinduethics/war.shtml

https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/rousseau-publishes-social-contract