The customary idea of nonviolence and peacefulness in Hinduism is encompassed in the word ahimsa. The principle of “ahimsa” prohibits Hindus from causing harm physically, mentally, and emotionally. While many religions prohibit violence, ahimsa delves into a deeper meaning which includes prohibiting any minute form of harm to all living organisms, including animals and plants. However, the same texts and doctrines that explain ahimsa also contain stories of civil wars, violence, and killing which are justified by Hindu gods. How could Hindus profoundly believe and follow the principles of ahimsa when the Vedas justify killing and war? To answer this question, it is necessary to further examine other prominent principles of the Hindu religion. Although Hindus believe in ahimsa, violence can be ethically justified through the concepts that embody the religion itself such as dharma within the caste system, Atman, and karma. To support this thesis, the dharma for the warrior class will be analyzed to further explain how the violent dharmic duties of a warrior surpass the principles for ahimsa. In addition, the concept of Atman will be dissected to elaborate the insignificance of physically harming the body, since the soul (Atman) is immortal and cannot be physically harmed via death. Lastly, the previous two points will be converged upon to delineate between fulfilling one’s violent dharma and karma.
The principle of ahimsa is antithetical to the concepts of war and killing, however further analysis of the religion proves that the structure of the caste system can justify killing.
Dharma translated to “duty, law, or order” is the defining principle and backbone to the structure of the caste system. Svadharma, an individual’s dharma, distinctly defines one’s social and economic role in society and can be placed into one of the four stratums in the Hindu society: Brahmins, kings and warriors, farmers and merchants, and servants (Harvard University). Although each individual has an explicit and unique dharma, they are similar within each caste. With this being true, it is one’s duty to fulfill their role in society to reach moksha, opposed to trying to fulfill another role of another caste. Huston Smith highlights in his work, The World’s Religions, that the caste system is designed so that each person within their caste is perfectly fit for their job and thus should be able to master their duties. By doing so he explains that despite people’s desires to be in a high caste, it is actually beneficial for them to placed in their respected caste because they are the best and most successful at that given job (“Understanding…”). Therefore, Smith is suggesting that people born into the warrior caste are suited for their job and must devote their lives to going to battle and fighting to fulfill their dharma. Since the caste system is a staple of the Hindu religion, the dharma of the warriors in the Kshatriya caste juxtaposes ahimsa, and therefore justifies violence and killing in order to fulfill one’s duties within their caste.
In addition to Huston Smith’s analysis suggesting that dharma is inconsistent with ahimsa, examples of warriors choosing their dharma over ahimsa can be found in the ancient Hindu literature. The hymns of the Rig Vedas are saturated with references that highlight the state of constant warfare and hostility in ancient India (Hume). There are ample examples in the Rig Vedas in which authorities/gods justify the act of killing, since it is the duty of the warrior caste, surpassing the importance of ahimsa with duty. Chapters 23-40 in the Mahabharata are composed of dialogue between Krishna, an incarnation of the god Vishnu, and Prince Arjuna who is about to fight a civil war against his own kin. When Prince Arjuna, who is a member of the warrior caste, is at odds with going to war against his family he asks Krishna for advice. Krishna encourages the warrior to fight by stating “Considering also your duty as a warrior
you should not waver. Because there is nothing more auspicious for a warrior than a righteous war… If you will not fight this righteous war, then you will fail in your duty, lose your reputation, and incur sin” (“3.1: The Bhagavad Gita”). Krishna is stating that Arjuna’s duty as a warrior outweighs his worries and concerns of killing his own family and friends. Krishna also states that one can only achieve moksha when they can fulfill their dharma when their mind is unperturbed by sorrow, they do not have any attachments, and have a free soul (“3.1: The Bhagavad Gita”). Therefore, Krishna is saying that it is not only justified to kill to fulfil one’s dharma, but you should not feel guilt nor sorrow as those forms of attachment keep one from achieving moksha.
Not only does the caste system and dharma override ahimsa, but the concept of Atman also justifies why killing can be ethically acceptable. In the same dialogue as analyzed above, Krishna continues to reassure Arjuna to go to battle by using the basic teachings of Hinduism such as the principles of the self and Atman. Krishna indemnifies Arjuna’s worries of physically harming his family by reminding him that “The invisible Spirit (Atma, Atman) is eternal, and the visible physical body, is transitory… The Spirit by whom this entire universe is pervaded is indestructible. No one can destroy the imperishable Spirit. The physical bodies of the eternal, immutable, and incomprehensible Spirit are perishable. Therefore fight, O Arjuna.” (“3.1: The Bhagavad Gita”). Krishna demystifies that the body is only a transient way to carry the soul, which can never be killed. Therefore, Arjuna will only be killing a body while the real self or soul will transcend into another life. Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, a West guru who led the South Indian movement, further explains Krishna’s argument by proclaiming that the individual is an illusion. Sivaya explains that the body, mind, and emotions are illusions, while the only truth lies within the immortal soul which is evolving in a way that can never be separated from God (“Hinduism.”). By virtue of this, killing can be warranted because one is only killing the illusion of self and liberating the soul from the illusion and the earthly experience.
Along with the caste system and Atman, karma can also be used to illustrate how ahimsa can be ungrounded within the fundamental beliefs and doctrines of Hinduism itself. To build on the previous analysis of the dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna, the last reasoning Krishna gives to Arjuna is that the performance of his duties will not cause karma nor sin, but free him from karmic bondage. Krishna proclaims that Arjuna should “Engage yourself in your duty. By doing your duty this way you will not incur sin. The wisdom of Saamkhya has been imparted to you, O Arjuna. Now listen to the wisdom of Karma-yoga Endowed with which you will free yourself from the bondage of Karma” (“3.1: The Bhagavad Gita”). Here, Krishna emphasizes that not fulfilling one’s duties will result in bad karma, opposed to karma coming directly from the killing. Thus, justifying that one’s karma would be negatively affected if they rejected their dharma more so than if they inflicted violence on another body. In addition, Krishna highlights that a Hindu does not attain liberation from karma and rebirth by abstaining from action and that one does not avoid karma by refraining from one’s dharma (Libretexts). Again, it is explained that avoiding the dharmic duties of one’s caste or failing to acknowledge the discipline of action results in karma. Overall, the goal of a Hindu is to liberate one’s soul by having good karma to attain liberation. Inflicting violence as part of one’s dharma is justified in the fact that not fulfilling the duties would result in a higher karma.
On the contrary, some theologians defend the principle of ahimsa to the point where they argue that there is never a situation in which violence is sanctioned, including war. Their argument is confounded on comparing Hinduism to different religions. Some believe that war can be justified in Christianity and Islam due to the concepts of the crusades and Jihad (Subedi). However, they argue that there is no analogous comparison to Hinduism, meaning that war against foreign people or people of other faiths is never justified (Subedi). In addition, critics further build their argument by saying that war affects many innocent people and that all religious values are left aside during war (Subramunityaswami). However, Sivaya Subramuniyaswami the founder of the popular magazine, Hinduism Today, explains that war is necessary in order to protect against the unlawfulness of human nature and to preserve society. He states that every country has an Army, Air Force, Navy, or military unit to act as peacemakers which allow farmers to farm, businessman to do business, monks to worship, and for kids to play fearlessly in the streets (Subramunityaswami). He expands this thought by explaining that if another entity suppresses these actions, then religion could not be safeguarded and that there would be no order in which religion could be grounded (Subramunityaswami). Overall, war can be justified in Hinduism when there is a threat which would impose Hindus from freely practicing their religion. If ahimsa was the ultimate ruling principle, then Hindus would not partake in war and ultimately an outside force would most likely infringe on their ability to practice their religion.
Upon further analysis of the prominent principles of Hinduism, it is baffling to see how contradictory the principles can be when directly compared to each other. Hindus live by the principle of ahimsa, yet some Hindus have the duty and job to fight in battle. How could that be? Well, the idea of fulfilling one’s dharma combined with the concepts of Atman and karma can ethically justify violence within the religion. In order for a warrior in the Kshatriya caste to reach moksha, he must fulfill his dharmic duties which would include going to battle. However, since the body is an illusion and the soul is immortal, the warrior is not really causing harm. This analysis is just one example of the many puzzling ethical debates within Hinduism. Similar debates arouse upon vegetarianism and feminism which can be analyzed in similar ways to find cofounding outcomes.
Works Cited
Harvad University. “Dharma: The Social Order.” The Pluralism Project, pluralism.org/dharma- the-social-order.
“Hinduism.” The World’s Religions: Our Great Wisdom Traditions, by Huston Smith, HarperSanFrancisco, 1999, p. 56.
Hume, Robert E. “Hinduism and War.” The American Journal of Theology, vol. 20, no. 1, 1916, pp. 31–44. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3155809. Accessed 20 Feb. 2021.
Subedi, Surya P. “Concept in Hinduism of ‘Just War’.” OUP Academic, Oxford University Press, 1 Oct. 2003, academic.oup.com/jcsl/article/8/2/339/858842.
“Understanding the Self.” Hinduism: A Very Short Introduction, by Kim Knott, Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 26–27.
“3.1: The Bhagavad Gita.” Translated by Ramananda Prasad, Humanities LibreTexts, Libretexts, 15 June 2020.
HR: class notes, texts provided on canvas, (see works cited)