1-NON-VIOLENCE: A NATURAL, DYNAMIC AND LIVE VALUE
-Ravindra Kumar*
Non-violence, that is ahimsa, is not a rough thing, nor is it an inactive thought or a value established by man. Non-violence is a natural, dynamic, active or live value. Because of its permanent existence in human nature, its being dynamic and active non-violence is an essential condition for existence, development and the ultimate goal, and for this very reason it is the first and absolutely necessary base of civilization.
Best manifestation of non-violence took place in Lord Mahavira. For Mahavira non-violence is the soul-force. Besides being nucleus in Jain philosophy, the form of non-violence that shaped in his individual practices and daily routine, nevertheless, it did not exist in the life of any of his contemporaries. It this regard Mahavira is unparallel even today; and after him anybody equaled him or has been able to follow him completely, is beyond my knowledge and belief.
Further for Gautama Buddha, and in modern times, for Mahatma Gandhi, non-violence is, ultimately, a natural value. As for many incarnations, prophets, philosophers and thinkers, since ancient to modern times, for Buddha and Gandhi also it is the principal human value. Although Gautama Buddha did not directly accept the naturalness of non-violence, but the manner in which he has repeated love for life as innate desire by all [Sabbes Jeeviyam Piyam), and disliking for violence and punishment [Sabbe Tashanta Dandassa], the conclusion is drawn that non-violence is a natural value. Buddha laid stress on maximum purity in daily practices and he called for practical non-violence as much as possible. For this reason, non-violence became the subject of more and more practices in his philosophy.
Mahatma Gandhi�s arguments that �man has made consistence progress in direction of non-violence� and in a natural way �mankind moved towards non-violence for progresses� spontaneously confirm the naturalness of this value from his side also. For Gandhi too, non-violence is the subject of maximum practices and ultimately its yardstick is the intention behind the action. According to Mahatma Gandhi, importance lies in making non-violence conducive to circumstances of time and space; it is the base on which success of non-violence depends. No doubt, this conception towards non-violence is acceptable to all-general or particular.
Non-violence of Mahavira is the soul-force whereas non-violence of Buddha and Gandhi is a natural value. By speaking so, readers may presume that there is a difference in views of Mahavira, Buddha or Gandhi regarding non-violence. In other words, there is a difference between above-mentioned concepts relating to non-violence in which it soul-force according to Mahavira, while it is a natural value according to Buddha and Gandhi. But in reality it is not so. Definitely soul reflects the nature, or we can say that nature is influenced by soul. Therefore, the one that is the soul-force is, more or less, natural also.
So far as the question of non-violence being dynamic and live or an active value is concerned, in that Mahavira, Buddha, Gandhi and many other also, are unanimous. Let us now have some discussion regarding non-violence being a dynamic and active value.
As historical evidences confirm, in its primitive age man adopted the technique of living and stabilizing together. By doing so, man showed co-operation towards fellow man, which, like affection, is another supplementary value of non-violence. And interestingly, even in primitive age, after mutual co-operation humans did not make a final stop. Man did not stop satisfied at the feeling of his own safety and that of his contemporaries. On the contrary he had a keen desire to move forward. In other words, man was crazy enough to further develop the sense of mutual co-operation. And this was the reason that he continuously co-operated with others and established new records, one after the other. Because of this natural instinct man is still on the path of progress and he has to go further and further. Despite the presence of many hurdles, worldly competitions and envy, the instinct of co-operation with others could not elope from human nature and it will never elope. Because of this
instinct man will remain active as far as possible, he shall continue to proceed towards prosperity.
Not on the strength of any theory, but on the basis of day-to-day practices and self-experiences, any one can reach the conclusion that non-violence and non-violent activities, and mainly co-operation, increases further with more efforts; it becomes conducive to us. Therefore, it can be emphatically said that non-violence is dynamic besides being an active value. Needless to say that non-violence is in our nature and it has the capacity to consistently develop. Any one who has least doubt in the activeness of non-violence or its dynamism, he can remove doubt by experiences of worldly practices of his own and others. There can be no question mark on non-violence being an active, dynamic and natural value.
Natural, active and dynamic value non-violence is entirely linked to heroism, or in other words, heroism is a necessary condition for it, and also an acid test of non-violence. There is no correlation between non-violence and cowardice. Vardhamana became Veera [the brave] on the strength of non-violence and he became Mahavira by adopting it his life.
Non-violence has the power which cannot be conquered by anyone. In the time of Buddha, Angulimal, who wore garland of fingers extracted from the bodies of people killed by him, once faced Buddha. Gautama Buddha was passing on his way when Angulimal came in front of him and he challenged Buddha to change his route, but Buddha did not care for his challenge. He was an apostle of compassion [the karuna] and compassion is the best supplementary value of non-violence. In this way, even being full of compassion, Buddha was definitely a brave also. Why should he be afraid of Angulimal? Buddha went on walking and at one time both were in front of each other. Buddha stood before him with strait eyes, but Angulimal could not see eye-to-eye; he got defeated and became Buddha�s follower. This was the strength of non-violence.
Many more such examples can be cited, but here I will discuss only one example more, which is related to Mahatma Gandhi and then give full stop to my talk. It was the month of March in the year 1930. Mahatma Gandhi was proceeding towards Dandi from his Sabarmati ashram of Ahmedabad. A man of a place near Bharoach, who was opposed to the principle of Gandhi, threatened him to kill in a lonely place. Anyhow, Gandhi got the news. He was a worshipper of non-violence and, therefore, fearless and brave also. He knew that anyone having ill-will cannot withstand before the power of non-violence. Two-three days passed. In the meantime Gandhi got ascertained the name and address of that ill-willing person and one day, in early hours, he confronted him. Gandhi told the man, �Brother! I am Gandhi; you want my life. Take it soon, none will know.� The man could not see eye to eye with the votary of non-violence and became his follower. This is the reality of natural, dynamic and active or live
value non-violence and of non-violent hero.
___________
2-MORALITY: A FUNDAMENTAL OF CIVILIZATION DEDICATED TO HUMAN WELFARE
-Ravindra Kumar*
A review of thousands of years of human history, in which various civilizations raised their flags in different parts of the globe, from time to time, confirms the fact that morality always remained established in human society in both forms, direct as well as indirect. Morality, as one of the strong supplementary value of non-violence, not only existed, rather it functioned as a guide remaining active and dynamic in daily chores of man; and ultimately it called for all-round human welfare and inspired man for this purpose.
Since morality remained dedicated to human welfare, and played important role in making and unmaking of various civilizations, it is necessary that we should get introduced to the meaning of morality.
In India, from very ancient times, consistently and under all circumstances, the message was for progress and welfare of all, general and particular; and while doing so, it was declared that �this is the highest moral law� and if �we all adopt this live truth, all laws relating to morality will themselves appear.� According to Bhagvad Gita morality is a part of duty. But of which duty! Generally of the same duty, under which actions for prosperity of all are accomplished without any self interest, without any desire or expectation of reward and by dedicating to that symbol of oneness, the God. No doubt, this is a repeat of message of human welfare in the Gita.
In Indian philosophy morality has also been treated as dharma. By doing so, it has been said �in real terms man can be called moralist, or in other words dharmic [religious], if he is above hate and selfishness, whose life is perfectly pure and who is involved in service of all. Only such a person can best perform for humanity; and truthfulness is the basis of all this best and highest.� All important concepts regarding dharma, like �adoption of goodness or the best� or �discharge of ones duty� are incorporated in this declaration. Not only this, a scholar, while expressing his views regarding relationship of dharma and morality, has even said, �If we loose the morality like base in our life, without any doubt we get separated from dharma.� According to this scholar, �There are no religious discourses that are not moral. For example, a person, who talks of torture and repression, and act untruthfully, he cannot claim to be following the path of God.� Clearly, here the good deeds also
become the acid test of morality. Such deeds become worth following for others, besides individual welfare of man.
All principles and practices of Mahatma Gandhi have been full of morality. Let us see what he says about morality. At one place he says, �True morality does not lie in following the path of defeating others, rather to search the path of truth for self and in fearlessly following it.� In this very context, at another place Gandhi says, �In fact, the life of a moralist is full of virtues, or in other words, he leads a life full of virtues and that too, not for the reason that by doing so he is benefited, rather because this is the law of his existence; definitely it is the base of breath. In very brief we can say that virtue itself is the reward of man.�
After all here we have discussed about noble deeds; they are made the basis of morality, and it is dedicated to welfare of all. Dharma [whether adopting goodness or discharging duties or in whatever context] is bound by it and the path of truth passes through the domain of morality. In simplest language, or speaking clearly and also in brief, morality is the best manifestation of true virtues, with which duty is inseparably linked, and saying again, its objective is the welfare of all.
Above described meaning, explanation and objective of morality is not confined only to Indian concept; scholars, philosophers and thinkers from the West, who have spoken or written about morality, more or less, agree to this meaning, explanation and objective. In this context, first of all, let us talk of German scholar G. F. Nikolai. According to him, �There is no logical system behind the concept of moral feeling, rather it is natural disposition inherited from [ones] ancestors.� In the explanation of Nikolai, thus, there are three dimensions about morality:
� It is a naturally developed sentiment;
� It is linked to duty and is a subject of �action� not of �logic�; and
� It is in competition with immoral deeds.
According to another German scholar Martin Nimular, all, general and particular, should follow the life style and ideals of Jesus Christ and practice them in their life; life and deeds of Christ were the climax of morality. Simultaneously, many other thinkers of the West have, more or less, expressed the same views, and not only in the philosophy of modern thinkers, but they are found in messages of ancient thinkers like Socrates also.
Ultimately, views of both, the West and the East, about morality are almost similar. Both are near to each other. Let us think, if Nikolai treats morality as natural, and by linking it with duties, find it involved in competition with immorality, where is it against the concept of morality defined in Srimadbhagvad Gita, Vedas or by great man like Mahatma Gandhi? Side by side, if Martin makes Christ, whose life and deeds were dedicated to welfare of all, as the base of his principle of morality, where is the difference between his concept and the concept of the East, and especially India? Not only this, in my own view, even social thinkers like Bernard, who suggests two separate concepts of morality for man and woman, are not out of the above field.
___________
