Home/Mahant Swami Katha/Satsang Chintan

What is true ahimsa dharma called? | P. Mahant Swami | Satsang Chintan

Read the whole text

Video

Reading

To do it, if there are Kshatriyas, they should follow the Kshatriya dharma. Even if it is said so,

What did Maharaj say?

What is said in the shastras is true.

But,

That is for the attainment of dharma, artha, and kama.

The shastras have indeed approved all four purusharthas.

To attain artha, it is called purushartha in the shastras, so it is approved.

And to enjoy pleasures according to one's ashram.

It has been approved.

But all of that, it is true that it is approved, but that dharma, artha, and kama are for worldly desires.

Dharma, artha, and kama, then which dharma is that?

Which dharma is that which is attained through varna and ashram? Varna-ashram dharma.

That which grants heaven and other such things. What Maharaj said about dharma, jnana, vairagya, and bhakti, that is not it. But if there is a dharma in the form of karma-kanda, it is said that by performing this yajna, one attains heaven, and this attainment, and that attainment. That dharma is for worldly desires.

And in the dharma that is for worldly desires, permission for violence is given somewhere in the shastras.

And why is that given?

For restraint. It is given for the restraint of violence.

Not for increasing violence.

So Maharaj removed it from its root.

That violence should not be done at all.

Because it is for worldly desires, therefore, that which is for worldly desires is not dharma.

That is merely sustenance.

What is it more than sustenance? It's like a middle path has been found.

A way has been found to reduce that.

If they abandon it, it's even better.

So, the essence of the Vedas is not the dharma of violence.

In Satsangi Jivan and other texts, there have been many discussions about this, haven't there?

The essence of the Vedas is not in violence at all.

Even if violence is mentioned, it's not in that context.

It is about causing its reduction.

So, if you cause the reduction of violence, then in Jainism, there is more reduction of violence than in our religion.

Then why don't we adopt it?

And why did Maharaj, Maharaj didn't say that we should do that.

It was said about Vallabhacharya that one should worship as Vitthalnathji said.

Maharaj, one should worship as Vitthalnathji said.

So it was said to observe non-violence as prescribed by the Jains.

Why didn't Maharaj say that?

The Jain philosophy of ahimsa uproots the entire upasana, it uproots the path to moksha.

So,

So, that means there is one moksha dharma.

And there is one ahimsa dharma.

The dharma of ahimsa is also for moksha.

The dharma of ahimsa is indeed for moksha.

But the dharma of ahimsa is such that it maintains ahimsa while preserving moksha.

Ahimsa should not be such that it harms moksha itself.

Just as it was said regarding truth,

Truth has two shores.

Where are they?

Non-harming of beings.

To do good to all beings.

And the second,

Welfare.

To speak what is true and real.

That truth, even more than welfare, truth moves between these two.

One should say what is, that is called truth, isn't it?

But if you say what is, and it causes harm to someone, or causes harm to a being, then you should not say what is.

So, it has two shores.

Truth moves between them.

Truth is between two shores.

And where are the two shores?

Both must be preserved.

The welfare of beings should happen, and truthfulness should remain.

There should be truthfulness.

Whatever it is, one should speak it.

So, by harmonizing both, one should protect the truth.

If there is a crossing in both,

Then who is more

Where did more truth remain?

It became non-harming of beings.

If what is, is not spoken, it's fine, but the welfare of many jivas should happen.

Then the truth is protected, these are very important things.

Similarly, non-violence is that dharma of truth, these are the five dharmas, aren't they?

There are five vows, great vows.

These are the vows of dharma.

Similarly, there is the vow of non-violence.

In non-violence, there is also the harm of beings.

The harm of beings should be stopped, non-harm should happen.

But until when?

On the other hand, importance was given to the non-harm of beings.

Of truth.

In the dharma of truth, if what is, is not spoken, it's fine.

But the non-harm of beings should remain.

The welfare of beings should remain.

It should be such that the welfare of many jivas happens.

Now that dharma came, it came here.

The dharma of non-violence.

So in the dharma of non-violence, two types are taken: first, the welfare of the jiva should happen.

And second, the non-harm of beings should happen.

In Jainism, it is considered that even from our breath, everyone dies.

If we bathe, jivas die.

If we urinate and defecate, they still die.

So then, should we go or not?

So, such a thought has been made in it.

The thought of non-harm to beings has been made.

On the other hand, importance was given to the non-harm of beings, that the non-harm of beings should not happen.

If a lie is spoken, it's fine, there were two shores.

If one shore and both cross, then this one should be preserved, then that dharma of truth is preserved.

If the welfare of many jivas is not happening, and beings are being harmed, and one speaks what is, then that dharma of truth is not considered preserved.

Now, his non-harm to beings was also in the line of dharma, he came into the line of dharma.

It also has two shores.

The destruction of welfare should not happen.

While doing non-harm to beings, the destruction of welfare should not happen.

The destruction of welfare means

The breaking of upasana bhakti.

The breaking of upasana means the breaking of devotion to God, of service to God.

One should not practice such non-violence that leads to becoming devoid of service and devotion.

So, as you said, one devotee holds onto renunciation and sits, and another does service.

So, someone is indeed hurt by that.

And no one is hurt by this; if one sits in renunciation, no one is hurt.

So, remaining in renunciation is considered a superior dharma, isn't it?

Not to hurt anyone, sitting in renunciation means not hurting anyone, that is considered the best dharma.

And this is also considered a superior dharma.

To serve God and God's devotees, to do service as it comes.

So that is called the dharma of moksha.

Why do we do service?

For your sake

We do it for the welfare of the jiva.

That is called the dharma of moksha.

So when there is a cross between the two, if we go to do service, someone gets hurt.

And if we don't hurt anyone, then the service goes away.

So what to do?

Do service.

Do service.

So that is the dharma of moksha.

That welfare, that upasana, moksha dharma, Maharaj also said that the dharma of non-violence is for moksha.

It is for moksha.

But until when?

Like that.

It's limited.

To speak what is, is called truth, but until what limit?

Until one's own harm does not happen.

There should be no violence to beings; if speaking what is, causes violence to any living creature, then one should not speak that.

Then his truth remains.

Even if he doesn't speak, even if he lies.

Then his truth remains.

And in the Mahabharata, God proved it.

That his truth remains.

And the truth of that one who speaks what is, will go away.

Duryodhana, Yudhishthira Maharaj's truth went away.

He spoke what was, so his truth went away.

He could not preserve the welfare of many jivas.

But he loses his own welfare.

So one's own welfare should not be lost.

One's own welfare should not be broken.

The dharma of welfare is like the dharma of non-violence more than truth.

is great.

That's why it is said that non-violence is the supreme dharma.

That's what was said.

Why is non-violence called the supreme dharma?

Because it is greater than truth.

It only happens if it's greater than something else, right?

The dharma of non-violence is greater than truth.

If non-violence is damaged while following truth, then the elder brother is damaged.

Therefore, non-violence is the supreme dharma.

And even greater than that is the dharma of moksha, which is the dharma of upasana, which is even greater than that.

So if that non-violence damages this, then that non-violence will not remain. There will be no fruit of that dharma.

That's why Maharaj said that it's not a small thing to sit with a clenched fist, like a dwarf.

That's how it is, right?

And if it hurts, it hurts, there's no problem, don't worry too much about it. But do service. Don't cause trouble while doing service. But do service. Some people have a habit of causing trouble while doing service.

Vishuddha Swami is not like that, right?

To do seva.

But be careful not to bother anyone.

Maharaj has mentioned the dharma of moksha in it.

So which is the true dharma? Is it the dharma of non-violence or the dharma of moksha?

The great dharma.

Both dharmas are considered true.

There is the dharma of truth, the dharma of non-violence, and the dharma of moksha.

Which one is greater among them?

Otherwise, there will be a contradiction in Maharaj's words.

At one place Maharaj said this, and at another place Maharaj said this.

That Yudhishthira ruled the entire country, and he followed the dharma of non-violence.

So, by saying that he followed the dharma of non-violence, Maharaj's intention is that you should follow it.

You should follow it.

Then Maharaj said elsewhere that if one serves and gets hurt, it's fine.

Both crossings came, right?

But the crossing came only for that reason.

That Maharaj, although he spoke of non-violence here, the limit of non-violence is that it should not hinder the dharma of upasana.

Just as truth should not hinder non-violence.

The meaning of truth is a truthful statement.

That's what speaking is called.

But if violence is caused by it, then such truth will not be considered truth.

Similarly, if it violates upasana, then such non-violence will not be considered non-violence. It will not be considered as dharma.

Read.

Maharaj commanded the sadhus that if someone beats or oppresses or does such a thing,

then they should not retaliate.

And if they are about to kill, then run away, he said.

Because otherwise, welfare would be ruined.

Protect the jiva.

After protecting the jiva, endure as much as you can.

Maharaj says if there is beating, or something adverse is happening, then

run away.

If you die, you're gone.

Don't do that.

If we are alive, then

the means to moksha, the path to moksha, will be achieved.

If anything is left.

If it's done and then they kill you, it's fine.

So, don't let the welfare be destroyed.

Even if you retaliate, welfare is destroyed.

And if we die, welfare is also destroyed.

So, he talked about running away. Find a way and run.

Maharaj did not say that if someone is beating you, you should stand there and take it.

Gandhiji said that.

Maharaj did not say this.

Run.

That's not it.

And if someone comes with a stick to hit you, then run quickly, run beforehand.

If he's making a fuss, then you've seen that if he starts and then runs away, it's fine.

Otherwise, it wouldn't be called self-realization, would it?

Then self-realization should be preserved within us, right?

He told us that is a dharma.

Run away beforehand with your tail between your legs.

He's not meant to be killed, just to be chased.

Then our self-realization remains, and both remain.

One dharma is intertwined with another.

Therefore, the essence of dharma.

It is hidden.

Great people have followed that path.

Which dharma should be protected and when?

We should not come to the throne.

But we should protect the jiva.

Protection of the jiva means?

Of welfare, of the body.

Then, protect the body.

That one should not die.

If one dies, it is said that we have committed suicide for our welfare.

Dies.

Otherwise, if two slaps are given or two sticks are hit, then it's okay to apply ointment inside.

Maharaj has not forbidden that.

If one recovers quickly, then bhajan can be done quickly again.

Maharaj has made it very simple for us.

But one should not tolerate anything that causes the body to perish.

Body, perishing of the body.

And tolerate until the body does not perish.

Do it for welfare.

There is no problem in that.

If someone is hurting and someone is being harmed, then we should endure it.

And if welfare is achieved in the perishing of the body, then there is no problem.

Maharaj did not say that the Ganthi of Gundali village, both of them died for the sadhus, became martyrs, so their welfare was achieved, Maharaj will do it with Muktanand Swami.

He said he would do it with Muktanand Swami.

And Maharaj praised him.

That if someone harasses a devotee of God and interferes, and even if he dies in the process, he will not incur the sin of Brahmahatya.

And Maharaj praised him.

So if the body is perishing, then there is no problem.

But if nothing like that is happening and it's just going away, then don't let it go.

Come on.

If it's going to waste, don't let it go.

What should a sadhu do?

Why?

If someone is harassing a sadhu, should another sadhu tolerate it, or what should he do?

Don't let him be beaten.

Even if he holds him, it's fine; there's no need to start hitting him back.

If he is hitting him, we should not start hitting him back.

But if he holds him, the other person will stop hitting, right?

He.

Shastriji Maharaj says, but that goldsmith, Pogo, the goldsmith.

He came to hit, but those people, what was their name, I forgot.

Swami.

Akshar Swami.

No, there were other saints in Rajula, sadhus, yes.

So he caught him.

He caught him, pushed him, and gave him a narrow escape.

So if he had started hitting, he would have been strong. He must have been strong when he caught him, right?

And if he had spread him out completely, it would have happened.

But one should be discreet about it.

If he stops by holding him, then don't hit him. If he doesn't completely obey, then hit him a little.

But don't hit him completely.

Do not commit the sin of his body.

Let his body live.

Let the jivas live, the world above is moving.

Let jivas live, and let jivas live.

Attain welfare and keep a way for others to attain it.

We say that we should just be happy and let others be happy too.

So we should attain welfare and let others attain welfare.

Then both are preserved.

But we also have to protect ourselves, and protect him too, both.

Karan Pritdasji, that was a name somewhere.

There was a saint in Rajula, Swamiji.

So, one should be careful about this.

So, the essence of dharma is hidden in the cave, it only happens when one thinks very deeply, otherwise it doesn't happen.

The expounded subject is the true nature of violent and non-violent dharma.

Main points.

Dharma is said to include animal violence in yagnas and other rituals.

Violent dharma is based on wealth and desire.

The dharma that is non-violent is indeed moksha-parayan (aimed at liberation).

So Maharaj's intention is to accept the dharma that leads to moksha.

Now, if his non-violence harms moksha, then it should not be accepted.

Maharaj's teachings, the dharma he preached, all of them are for welfare, welfare-oriented.

It's not that it's merely dharma-oriented or afterlife-oriented; it's not heaven-oriented, it's not merit-oriented, but it is welfare-oriented.

The dharma by observing which a jiva attains welfare, this dharma is for welfare.

Such dharma should be observed.

So it is moksha-oriented.

So, such non-violence should not be kept; Maharaj said it elsewhere. Here, he clearly said that non-violence should be observed.

But elsewhere, if we connect Maharaj's words in context, the meaning becomes this.

Just as truth is dharma, so is welfare.

What are the two shores of the dharma of welfare?

One's own welfare and the welfare of others.

Later, non-violence.

To please the sadhus and to please God, like that.

If one pleases God and a sadhu is pleased, it doesn't happen.

It breaks.

Those are its two shores.

In that, one must protect the sadhus.

Huh?

To protect the sadhus.

To protect the sadhus.

To protect them till the end. If God becomes displeased, let it happen, but protect the sadhus, that's what was said.

But if sadhus who displease God are themselves displeasing God, then don't let them do it.

If their behavior is such that they displease God, then they should not be pleased much.

But if this one is pleased, then he is caught in a dilemma; both have to be pleased.

In both of them.

The problem arises when there's a crossing in that.

Then one must keep the sadhus pleased.

In this Vachanamrut, Shriji Maharaj has asked a question: What is the name of dharma?

Answer it according to the shastras.

The kings who were violent would not kill the jivas who came to their refuge, nor would they allow them to be killed.

That is, they would not kill those who came to their refuge, nor would they let them die.

But they themselves would kill those who did not seek refuge.

They would go to war and kill everyone.

They would go to the boundary of the war and kill others.

And they would commit violence in yagnas, like that.

Maharaj is pure.

That is also scriptural violence.

So, do the scriptures call him righteous or not?

They did follow the limits of the Vedas.

Yudhishthira fought the Mahabharata war, and Yudhishthira felt great sorrow, but Arjuna did not.

It was because of that violence.

So why didn't it happen?

And why did it happen to one?

It is Yudhishthira.

It was clear in Arjuna's mind.

This is the dharma of a king.

He was confused whether this was dharma or not.

For whose sake did Yudhishthira fight the war?

For help.

Who said, 'Tell Partha to string his bow'?

Kuntaji.

Huh?

Kuntaji.

At Kuntaji's command, he... so that is one aspect of dharma, that my mother says I must fight.

Kuntaji was a devotee, wasn't she?

But

But he fought at his mother's command, and at whose command did Arjuna fight?

At Krishna's command.

At Krishna's command.

He has nothing else, nothing else.

He has no claim to this world or anything like that; Krishna told him, and he did it.

So he fought for his devotion; he committed violence for his devotion.

So, for devotion.

The violence that occurred is not considered violence.

If it is violence in a yagna, then it is considered violence.

If it is scriptural violence, then it is considered violence.

Yudhishthira committed scriptural violence, and Arjuna

committed violence out of devotion.

He did it with devotion.

So his dharma, his dharma was not broken.

And Yudhishthira felt great remorse in his mind.

Yudhishthira's dharma was not broken.

It was not broken.

It was Krishna's wish, but he did not believe that he was fighting because it was Krishna's wish.

Yudhishthira did not believe that he was fighting because it was Krishna's wish.

Arjuna, however, believed that he was fighting because it was Krishna's wish.

Otherwise

He would also have Kuntaji's command, wouldn't he?

He was commanded to

Who is Partha?

Arjuna.

All.

He had the command, Arjuna also had the command.

But Arjuna did not fight by obeying that command.

Arjuna had fought by obeying Krishna's command.

So he did not grieve.

And his welfare, he didn't think that. Yudhishthira thought in his mind that my welfare will never happen.

And Arjuna thought that my welfare will never go away.

So, the dharma of non-violence and the dharma of moksha, the dharma of welfare.

To preserve the dharma of moksha.

AI translation of the Gujarati transcript above, produced in the same pass that transcribed the audio, one English segment per Gujarati segment. Devotional and technical terms with no precise English equivalent (kirtan, satsang, vasana, samskara, and similar) are kept as their plain transliteration rather than force-translated. Not human-proofread., AI-translated, unverified · Source details