Ahimsa - Was Ahimsa only a principal or a rule ? The Buddha did not make Ahimsa a matter of Rule. Ahimsa or non-killing forms important in Buddhism.
Ahimsa - Buddha enunciated it as a matter of Principe or way of life.
He made a distinction between Principe and Rule. The subject of Ahimsa :
Ahimsa or non-killing forms a very important part of Buddhist teaching.
It is intimately connected with Karuna and Maitri.
People who accept the Buddha's teaching find it difficult to accept Ahimsa as an absolute obligation.
This post is about to the problem of Ahimsa, this post gives you all types of better solution on the topics of Buddhism / Hindhusim/ Jainism concept, definitation of Ahimsa.
Are you excited ? Keep reading.
Link here for more information -
Ahimsa Buddhism
This question requires to be clarified.
There is no subject which is a matter of greater confusion than this subject of Ahimsa.
How have the people of Buddhist countries understood and practised Ahimsa?
This is an important question which must be taken into account.
This is an important question which must be taken into account.
The monks of Ceylon fought against and asked the people of Ceylon to fight against the foreign invaders.
On the other hand the monks of Burma refused to fight against the foreign invaders and asked the Burmese people not to fight.
On the other hand the monks of Burma refused to fight against the foreign invaders and asked the Burmese people not to fight.
The Burmese people eat eggs but not fish.
This is how Ahimsa is understood and followed.
This is how Ahimsa is understood and followed.
Recently the German Buddhist Association passed a resolution by which they accepted all the panch Silas except the first which deals with Ahimsa.
This is the position about the Doctrine of Ahimsa.
This is the position about the Doctrine of Ahimsa.
The Buddha has nowhere given any definition of Ahimsa.
In fact he has very seldom, if at all, referred to the subject in specific terms.
Link here for more information -
What is the purpose of sīla in Buddhism?
Ahimsa Examples Or Principle
One has, therefore to spell out his intention from circumstantial evidence.
The first circumstantial evidence on the point is that the Buddha had no objection to eating meat if it was offered to him as part of his alms.
The monks can eat meat offered to him provided he was not a party to killing of it.
The monks can eat meat offered to him provided he was not a party to killing of it.
He resisted the opposition of Devadatta who insisted that the monks should be prohibited from eating meat given to them by way of alms.
The next piece of evidence on the point is that he was only opposed to the killing of animals in yarns (sacrifice).
The next piece of evidence on the point is that he was only opposed to the killing of animals in yarns (sacrifice).
This he has himself said. Ahimsa Permo Dharma is an extreme doctrine.
It is a Jain Doctrine. It is not Buddhism Doctrine.
There is another piece of evidence which is more direct than circumstantial which almost amounts to a definition of Ahimsa.
There is another piece of evidence which is more direct than circumstantial which almost amounts to a definition of Ahimsa.
He has said : Love all so that you may not wish to kill any. " This is a positive way of stating the Principe of Ahimsa
From this it appears that the doctrine of Ahimsa does not say Kill not.
From this it appears that the doctrine of Ahimsa does not say Kill not.
It says love all. In the light of these statements it is quite easy to have a clear understanding of what the Buddha meant by Ahimsa.
It is quite clear that Buddha meant to make a distinction between will to kill and need to kill.
It is quite clear that Buddha meant to make a distinction between will to kill and need to kill.
He did not ban killing where there was need to kill. What he banned was killing where there was nothing but the will to kill.
So understood there is no confusion in the Buddhist doctrine of Ahimsa.
Link here for more information -
The king and Ahimsa Meaning
At one time the border province of the kingdom of Magadha were agitated.
Then the Magadha king Seniya Bimbisara gave order to the Commander of the arm : " Well now, go and ask your officers to search though the border provinces for the offenders, punish them and restore peace. "
The Commander acted accordingly.
On hearing the orders of Commander the officers found themselves placed in the dilemma.
On hearing the orders of Commander the officers found themselves placed in the dilemma.
They knew that the Tathagata taught that those who go to war and find delight in fighting, do evil and produce great demerit.
On the other hand, here was the King's order to capture the offenders and to kill them. Now what shall we do, asked the officers to themselves.
Then the officers thought: If we could enter the order of the Buddha we would be able to escape from the dilemma.
Thus these officers went to the Bhikkhus and asked them for ordination, the Bhikkhus conferred on them the pabbajja and upasampada ordinations and the officers disappeared from the army.
The Commander of the arm finding that the officers were not to be seen, asked the soldiers:Why, how is that the officers are nowhere to be seen?
The Commander of the arm finding that the officers were not to be seen, asked the soldiers:Why, how is that the officers are nowhere to be seen?
" The officers, lord, have embraced religious life of the Bhikkhus, " replied the soldiers. Then the Commander of the army was annoyed, and became very angry : " How can the Bhikkhus ordain persons in the royal army?"
The Commander of the army informed the king of what had happened. And the king asked the officers of justice: "
The Commander of the army informed the king of what had happened. And the king asked the officers of justice: "
Tell me, my good sirs, what punishment does the deserve who ordains a person in the royal service.
The upagghaya, Your Majesty, should be beheaded, to him who recites ( the kammavaka), the tongue should be torn out, to those who form the chapter, half of their ribs should be broken. "
Link here for more information -
Link here for more information -
The King And Ahimsa Importance
The Lord well knows that there are kings who are against the Dhamma.
These hostile kings are ever ready to harass the Bhikkhus even for trifling reasons.
It is impossible to imagine the lengths to which they might go in their ill-treatment of the Bhikkhus if they find that the Bhikkhus are seducing the soldiers to leave the army and join the Sangha.
Pray Lord to do the needful to avert the disaster.
The Lord replied " " It was never my intention to allow soldiers under the cloak of Ahimsa or in the name of Ahimsa to abandon their duty to the king or to their country.
Accordingly the Blessed One made a rule against the admission of persons in royal service to the Sangha and proclaimed it to the Bhikkhus, saying : "
The Lord replied " " It was never my intention to allow soldiers under the cloak of Ahimsa or in the name of Ahimsa to abandon their duty to the king or to their country.
Accordingly the Blessed One made a rule against the admission of persons in royal service to the Sangha and proclaimed it to the Bhikkhus, saying : "
Let no one, O Bhikkhus, who is in the royal service, receive the Pabbajja ordination.
He who confers the Pabbajja ordination on such a person will be guilty of a dukkata offence.
The Buddha says: " He who deserves punishment must be punished, and he who is worthy of favour must be favoured.
The Buddha says: " He who deserves punishment must be punished, and he who is worthy of favour must be favoured.
Yet at the same time he teaches to do no injury to any living being but to be full of love and kindness .
These injunctions are not contradictory, for whosoever must be punished for the crimes which he has committed suffers his injury not through the ill-will of the judge but on account of his evil-doing.
His own acts have brought upon him the injury that the executor of the law inflicts.
When a magistrate punishes, let him not harbour hatred in his breast, yet a murderer, when put to death, should consider that this is the fruit of his own act.
As soon as he will understand that the punishment will purify his soul, he will do longer lament his fate but rejoice at it.
A proper understanding of these instances would show that the Ahimsa taught by the Blessed Lord was fundamental.
A proper understanding of these instances would show that the Ahimsa taught by the Blessed Lord was fundamental.
But it was not absolute. He taught that evil should be cured by the return of good.
But he never preached that evil should be allowed to overpower good. He stood for Ahimsa.
He denounced Himsa. But he didnot deny that Himsa may be the last resort to save good being destroyed by evil.
Conclusion -
Brahminism has in it the will to kill. Jainism has in it the will never to kill. The Buddha made a distinction between Principe and Rule.
Brahminism has in it the will to kill. Jainism has in it the will never to kill. The Buddha made a distinction between Principe and Rule.
A Principe leaves you freedom to act. A rule does not. Rule either breaks you or you break the rule.
They say that such a definition of Ahimsa involves the sacrifice of good for evil, the sacrifice of virtue for vice.