Ahimsa Quotes

Veganism is not about giving anything up or losing anything; it is about gaining the peace within yourself that comes from embracing nonviolence and refusing to participate in the exploitation of the vulnerable

We do not need to eat animals, wear animals, or use animals for entertainment purposes, and our only defense of these uses is our pleasure, amusement, and convenience.

Veganism is not a "sacrifice." It is a joy.

Ethical veganism results in a profound revolution within the individual; a complete rejection of the paradigm of oppression and violence that she has been taught from childhood to accept as the natural order. It changes her life and the lives of those with whom she shares this vision of nonviolence. Ethical veganism is anything but passive; on the contrary, it is the active refusal to cooperate with injustice

All sentient beings should have at least one right—the right not to be treated as property

Any serious social, political, and economic change must include veganism.

Ethical veganism represents a commitment to nonviolence.

Veganism is an act of nonviolent defiance. It is our statement that we reject the notion that animals are things and that we regard sentient nonhumans as moral persons with the fundamental moral right not to be treated as the property or resources of humans.

You cannot live a nonviolent life as long as you are consuming violence. Please consider going vegan.

We can no more justify using nonhumans as human resources than we can justify human slavery. Animal use and slavery have at least one important point in common: both institutions treat sentient beings exclusively as resources of others. That cannot be justified with respect to humans; it cannot be justified with respect to nonhumans—however “humanely” we treat them.

The universe is not for man alone, but is a theater of evolution for all living beings. Live and let live is its guiding principle. 'Ahimsa Paramo Dharmah' - Non-injury is the highest religion.

To say that a being who is sentient has no interest in continuing to live is like saying that a being with eyes has no interest in continuing to see. Death—however “humane”—is a harm for humans and nonhumans alike.

We cannot justify treating any sentient nonhuman as our property, as a resource, as a thing that we an use and kill for our purposes.

We should always be clear that animal exploitation is wrong because it involves speciesism. And speciesism is wrong because, like racism, sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, classism, and all other forms of human discrimination, speciesism involves violence inflicted on members of the moral community where that infliction of violence cannot be morally justified. But that means that those of us who oppose speciesism necessarily oppose discrimination against humans. It makes no sense to say that speciesism is wrong because it is like racism (or any other form of discrimination) but that we do not have a position about racism. We do. We should be opposed to it and we should always be clear about that.

If you kill me, you kill yourself." [...] He only wanted to convey to Janegg the truth of ahimsa, which is that all beings were connected to each other in the deepest way and thus it was impossible to harm another without harming oneself.

Welfare reforms and the whole “happy” exploitation movement are not “baby steps.” They are big steps–in a seriously backward direction.

It screamed downward, splitting air and sky without effort. A target expanded in size, brought into focus by time and velocity. There was a moment before impact that was the last instant of things as they were. Then the visible world exploded.

Speciesism is morally objectionable because, like racism, sexism, and heterosexism, it links personhood with an irrelevant criterion. Those who reject speciesism are committed to rejecting racism, sexism, heterosexism, and other forms of discrimination as well.

We spend our days badgered by voices that tell us to judge others, fear others, harm others, or harm ourselves. But we are not obligated to listen to those voices, or even to take responsibility for them. They may be where we come from, but they are not where we are going. There is another voice, a voice that shines. Ahimsa is the practice of listening to that voice of lightness, cultivating that voice, trusting that voice, acting upon that voice.

Veganism is about nonviolence. It is about not engaging in harm to other sentient beings; to oneself; and to the environment upon which all beings depend for life. In my view, the animal rights movement is, at its core, a movement about ending violence to all sentient beings. It is a movement that seeks fundamental justice for all. It is an emerging peace movement that does not stop at the arbitrary line that separates humans from nonhumans.

I see You, Every time I look into Buddha’s eyes. I give myself to You. Every time I alter one of Your 1,000s names. Honestly & fully I love You. Through Christ and Maria, Shiva and Shakti, Krishna and Radha, With every day that passes and every breath I take. I enter gratitude for receiving Your Love. Obeying Your Laws of Truthfulness and Ahimsa, Weaving Prana With hearts and souls of Gaia. Through mysticism, shamanism, sufism, and ecstatic meditations. I yearn to touch You, to feel You, to be You. Within this amazing Journey of Awareness of Your Consciousness.

I am opposed to animal welfare campaigns for two reasons. First, if animal use cannot be morally justified, then we ought to be clear about that, and advocate for no use. Although rape and child molestation are ubiquitous, we do not have campaigns for “humane” rape or “humane” child molestation. We condemn it all. We should do the same with respect to animal exploitation. Second, animal welfare reform does not provide significant protection for animal interests. Animals are chattel property; they are economic commodities. Given this status and the reality of markets, the level of protection provided by animal welfare will generally be limited to what promotes efficient exploitation. That is, we will protect animal interests to the extent that it provides an economic benefit.

So it is always preferable to discuss the matter of veganism in a non-judgemental way. Remember that to most people, eating flesh or dairy and using animal products such as leather, wool, and silk, is as normal as breathing air or drinking water. A person who consumes dairy or uses animal products is not necessarily or usually what a recent and unpopular American president labelled an "evil doer.

There’s something painfully beautiful about a woman who loves without condition. Heart filled with cracks from mistrust and disappointment and yet she loves as if her heart knows nothing of betrayal. For the strength and faith she holds, in spite reasons not to hold, she deserves love. But fu** it, she finds love within herself.

We should never present flesh as somehow morally distinguishable from dairy. To the extent it is morally wrong to eat flesh, it is as morally wrong — and possibly more morally wrong — to consume dairy

You kill life and call it an act of religion. Then what is irreligion?

Ahimsa is the very definition of woman and there is no place for untruth in her heart. If she is true to herself she is no longer Abala--the weak, but she is Sabala--the strong...

So long as a man does not of his own free will put himself last among his fellow creatures, there is no salvation for him. Ahimsa is the farthest limit of humility.

Thinking along these lines, I have felt that in trying to enforce in one’s life the central teaching of the Gita, one is bound to follow Truth and ahimsa.

Ahimsa is a comprehensive principle. We are helpless mortals caught in the conflagration of himsa. The saying that life lives on life has a deep meaning in it. Man cannot for a moment live without consciously or unconsciously committing outward himsa. The very fact of his living - eating, drinking and moving about - necessarily involves some himsa, destruction of life, be it ever so minute. A votary of ahimsa therefore remains true to his faith if the spring of all his actions is compassion, if he shuns to the best of his ability the destruction of the tiniest creature, tries to save it, and thus incessantly strives to be free from the deadly coil of himsa. He will be constantly growing in self-restraint and compassion, but he can never become entirely free from outward himsa. Then again, because underlying ahimsa is the unity of all life, the error of one cannot but affect all, and hence man cannot be wholly free from himsa. So long as he continues to be a social being, he cannot but participate in the himsa that the very existence of society involves. When two nations are fighting, the duty of a votary of ahimsa is to stop the war. He who is not equal to that duty, he who has no power of resisting war, he who is not qualified to resist war, may take part in war, and yet wholeheartedly try to free himself, his nation and the world from war.

I am not well-versed in theory, but in my view, the cow deserves her life. As does the ram. As does the ladybug. As does the elephant. As do the fish, and the dog and the bee; as do other sentient beings. I will always be in favor of veganism as a minimum because I believe that sentient beings have a right not to be used as someone else's property. They ask us to be brave for them, to be clear for them, and I see no other acceptable choice but to advocate veganism. If these statements make me a fundamentalist, then I will sew a scarlet F on my jacket so that all may know I'm fundamentally in favor of nonviolence; may they bury me in it so that all will know where I stood.

If we take the position that an assessment that veganism is morally preferable to vegetarianism is not possible because we are all “on our own journey,” then moral assessment becomes completely impossible or is speciesist. It is impossible because if we are all “on our own journey,” then there is nothing to say to the racist, sexist, anti-semite, homophobe, etc. If we say that those forms of discrimination are morally bad, but, with respect to animals, we are all “on our own journey” and we cannot make moral assessments about, for instance, dairy consumption, then we are simply being speciesist and not applying the same moral analysis to nonhumans that we apply to the human context.

ahimsa paramo dharma’, ‘non-violence is the highest dharma’.59

ahimsa parmo dharma. That non-violence is the greatest dharma. But they also say dharma hinsa thathaiv cha.’ Violence that protects dharma is justified.

I have in all humility felt that perfect renunciation [of fruits] is impossible without perfect observance of ahimsa in every shape and form.

Indeed, the proper practice of Ahimsa requires me to withdraw the intended victim from the wrong-doer,

Ahimsa requires deliberate self-suffering, not a deliberate injuring of the supposed wrong-doer.

Let it be granted, that according to the letter of the Gita it is possible to say that warfare is consistent with renunciation of fruit. But after forty years’ unremitting endeavour fully to enforce the teaching of the Gita in my own life, I have in all humility felt that perfect renunciation is impossible without perfect observance of ahimsa in every shape and form.

A helpless girl in the hands of a follower of Ahimsa finds better and surer protection than in the hands of one who is prepared to defend her only to the point to which his weapons would carry him.

How do you know? How do you know you’re a real boy? You might be a story in a book,” Ahimsa challenged. “That’s it! You’re a Jack-in-the-Book and only pop out when the pages are opened,” he scoffed.

Animals are property. There are laws that supposedly protect animal interests in being treated “humanely,” but that term is interpreted in large part to mean that we cannot impose “unnecessary” harm on animals, and that is measured by what treatment is considered as necessary within particular industries, and according to customs of use, to exploit animals. The bottom line is that animals do not have any respect-based rights in the way that humans have, because we do not regard animals as having any moral value. They have only economic value. We value their interests economically, and we ignore their interests when it is economically beneficial for us to do so. At this point in time, it makes no sense to focus on the law, because as long as we regard animals as things, as a moral matter, the laws will necessarily reflect that absence of moral value and continue to do nothing to protect animals. We need to change social and moral thinking about animals before the law is going to do anything more.

Dear men, I’ll make it clear to you. Those who tell you that ‘true love’ is never giving up someone you are in love with are insecure and competitive. Their description on love is based on their needs. Selfish needs. While women who are confident, their spirits fulfilled by themselves know that a 'good bye’ doesn’t mean they never loved you. They realizes that letting you go is what God needs them to do, because both happiness: yours and your lover require taking different journey for spiritual growth. These kind of women show you what 'real love’ is. And you don’t want to catch them still? Win a battle for them? Even after what you have learnt? For God’s sake, these women have endured much. For battles she fight alone, they deserve LOVE.

The notion that we should promote “happy” or “humane” exploitation as “baby steps” ignores that welfare reforms do not result in providing significantly greater protection for animal interests; in fact, most of the time, animal welfare reforms do nothing more than make animal exploitation more economically productive by focusing on practices, such as gestation crates, the electrical stunning of chickens, or veal crates, that are economically inefficient in any event. Welfare reforms make animal exploitation more profitable by eliminating practices that are economically vulnerable. For the most part, those changes would happen anyway and in the absence of animal welfare campaigns precisely because they do rectify inefficiencies in the production process. And welfare reforms make the public more comfortable about animal exploitation. The “happy” meat/animal products movement is clear proof of that. We would never advocate for “humane” or "happy” human slavery, rape, genocide, etc. So, if we believe that animals matter morally and that they have an interest not only in not suffering but in continuing to exist, we should not be putting our time and energy into advocating for “humane” or “happy” animal exploitation.

I reject animal welfare reform and single-issue campaigns because they are not only inconsistent with the claims of justice that we should be making if we really believe that animal exploitation is wrong, but because these approaches cannot work as a practical matter. Animals are property and it costs money to protect their interests; therefore, the level of protection accorded to animal interests will always be low and animals will, under the best of circumstances, still be treated in ways that would constitute torture if applied to humans. By endorsing welfare reforms that supposedly make exploitation more “compassionate” or single-issue campaigns that falsely suggest that there is a coherent moral distinction between meat and dairy or between fur and wool or between steak and foie gras, we betray the principle of justice that says that all sentient beings are equal for purposes of not being used exclusively as human resources. And, on a practical level, we do nothing more than make people feel better about animal exploitation.

It is simply not true that “religion” is always aggressive. Sometimes it has actually put a brake on violence. In the ninth century BCE, Indian ritualists extracted all violence from the liturgy and created the ideal of ahimsa, “nonviolence.” The medieval Peace and Truce of God forced knights to stop terrorizing the poor and outlawed violence from Wednesday to Sunday each week. Most dramatically, after the Bar Kokhba war, the rabbis reinterpreted the scriptures so effectively that Jews refrained from political aggression for a millennium. Such successes have been rare. Because of the inherent violence of the states in which we live, the best that prophets and sages have been able to do is provide an alternative.

If we are ever going to see a paradigm shift, we have to be clear about how we want the present paradigm to shift. We must be clear that veganism is the unequivocal baseline of anything that deserves to be called an “animal rights” movement. If “animal rights” means anything, it means that we cannot morally justify any animal exploitation; we cannot justify creating animals as human resources, however “humane” that treatment may be. We must stop thinking that people will find veganism “daunting” and that we have to promote something less than veganism. If we explain the moral ideas and the arguments in favor of veganism clearly, people will understand. They may not all go vegan immediately; in fact, most won’t. But we should always be clear about the moral baseline. If someone wants to do less as an incremental matter, let that be her/his decision, and not something that we advise to do. The baseline should always be clear. We should never be promoting “happy” or “humane” exploitation as morally acceptable.

This ahimsa is the basis of the search for truth. I am realizing every day that the search is vain unless it is founded on ahimsa as the basis. It is quite proper to resist and attack a system, but to resist and attack its author is tantamount to resisting and attacking oneself.

For example, you could tie in the theme of ahimsa when describing how the goal of the practice isn’t perfection, or doing what someone else is doing or even what they did last week or last year, but instead it’s experiencing the shape they are in right here and now, with compassion for themselves rather than competition.

When there is no desire for fruit, there is no temptation for untruth or himsa (violence). Take any instance of untruth or violence, and it will be found that at its back was the desire to attain the cherished end. But it may be freely admitted that the Gita was not written to establish ahimsa. It was an accepted and primary duty even before the Gita age. The Gita had to deliver the message of renunciation of fruit. This is clearly brought out as early as the second chapter. 26. But if the Gita believed in ahimsa or it was included in desirelessness, why did the author take a warlike illustration? When the Gita was written, although people believed in ahimsa, wars were not only not taboo, but nobody observed the contradiction between them and ahimsa.

My uniform experience has convinced me that there is no other God than Truth. And if every page of these chapters does not proclaim to the reader that the only means for the realization of Truth is ahimsa, I shall deem all my labour in writing these chapters to have been in vain. And, even though my efforts in this behalf may prove fruitless, let the readers know that the vehicle, not the great principle, is at fault.

Identification with everything that lives is impossible without self-purification; without self-purification the observance of the law of Ahimsa must remain an empty dream. God can never be realised by one who is not pure of heart. Self-purification therefore must mean purification in all the walks of life. And purification being highly infectious, purification of oneself necessarily leads to the purification of one’s surroundings.

It is impossible in this body to follow ahimsa fully. Violence is inescapable. While the eyes wink and nails have to be pared, violence in one form or another is unavoidable. Evil is inherent in action, says the Gita. Arjuna did not, therefore, raise the question of violence and nonviolence. He simply raised the question of distinction between kinsmen and others, much in the same way that a fond mother would advance arguments favouring her child.

There are some animal advocates who say that to maintain that veganism is the moral baseline is objectionable because it is “judgmental,” or constitutes a judgment that veganism is morally preferable to vegetarianism and a condemnation that vegetarians (or other consumers of animal products) are “bad” people. Yes to the first part; no to the second. There is no coherent distinction between flesh and other animal products. They are all the same and we cannot justify consuming any of them. To say that you do not eat flesh but that you eat dairy or eggs or whatever, or that you don’t wear fur but you wear leather or wool, is like saying that you eat the meat from spotted cows but not from brown cows; it makers no sense whatsoever. The supposed “line” between meat and everything else is just a fantasy–an arbitrary distinction that is made to enable some exploitation to be segmented off and regarded as “better” or as morally acceptable. This is not a condemnation of vegetarians who are not vegans; it is, however, a plea to those people to recognize their actions do not conform with a moral principle that they claim to accept and that all animal products are the result of imposing suffering and death on sentient beings. It is not a matter of judging individuals; it is, however, a matter of judging practices and institutions. And that is a necessary component of ethical living.

I’ve seen some confusion within the yoga community about the ethics of protesting during the Black Lives Matter movement, and I think the issue is one of basic human rights. If the system that you’re living in doesn’t respect your basic human rights, then protesting that system is ethical. In other words, supporting oppressive systems is unethical, and it’s our job as yoga practitioners to speak up against suffering wherever we see it. That’s the heart of ahimsa, non-harm.

People celebrate you once a year and then they forget about you. It’s like you’re a story in a book and once the story has been read, the words disappear with the closing of the book until another year jogs their memory and they remember you existed. I only existed when people noticed me at Christmas, especially the kids. You’d think that was the only reason I existed. It’s like I had no other purpose. They didn’t even know my name. Who gets to decide my fate for me? I do have a free will you know,” said Ahimsa continuing his rant.

An abolitionist is, as I have developed that notion, one who (1) maintains that we cannot justify animal use, however “humane” it may be; (2) rejects welfare campaigns that seek more “humane” exploitation, or single-issue campaigns that seek to portray one form of animal exploitation as morally worse than other forms of animal exploitation (e.g., a campaign that seeks to distinguish fur from wool or leather); and (3) regards veganism, or the complete rejection of the consumption or use of any animal products, as a moral baseline. An abolitionist regards creative, nonviolent vegan education as the primary form of activism, because she understands that the paradigm will not shift until we address demand and educate people to stop thinking of animals as things we eat, wear, or use as our resources.

Ahimsa smiled at the confused boy. He knew he had fed Jack impossible questions and because of it, he knew Jack would remain hungry. Ahimsa understood that this was his real purpose, the reason why he existed: To keep Jack hungry for answers. He never intended to cause Jack any hurt. Quite the opposite. He wanted to make Jack feel real—more real than he had ever felt in his whole life. That was the gift Ahimsa wanted to give to Jack, even if it wasn’t yet Christmas in Dhyāna Land. He knew it was the best gift Jack would ever receive: the gift of wonder, the gift of curiosity.

Other religions, particularly Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism, have demonstrated even greater empathy to animals. They emphasise the connection between humans and the rest of the ecosystem, and their foremost ethical commandment has been to avoid killing any living being. Whereas the biblical ‘Thou shalt not kill’ covered only humans, the ancient Indian principle of ahimsa (non-violence) extends to every sentient being. Jain monks are particularly careful in this regard. They always cover their mouths with a white cloth, lest they inhale an insect, and whenever they walk they carry a broom to gently sweep any ant or beetle from their path.

Danlo looked down to see himself holding the knife. To see is to be free, he thought. To see that I see. As he looked deeply into himself, he was overcome with a strange sense that he had perfect will over shatterwood and steel, over hate, over pain, over himself. He remembered then why he had taken his vow of ahimsa. In the most fundamental way, his life and the lamb's were one and the same. He was aware of this unity of their spirits – this awareness was both an affliction and a grace. The lamb was watching him, he saw, bleating and shivering as he locked eyes with Danlo. Killing the lamb would be killing himself, and he was very aware that such a self-murder was the one sin that life must never commit. To kill the lamb would be to remove a marvelous thing from life, and more, to inflict great pain and terror. And this he could not do, even though the face and form of his beloved Tamara burned so dearly inside him that he wanted to cry out at the cruelty of the world. He looked at the lamb, and the animal's wild eye burned like a black coal against the whiteness of his wool. In remembrance of the fierce will to life with which he and all things had been born – and in relief at freeing himself from the Entity's terrible temptation – he began to laugh, softly, grimly, wildly.

The rights paradigm, which, as I interpret it, morally requires the abolition of animal exploitation and requires veganism as a matter of fundamental justice, is radically different from the welfarist paradigm, which, in theory focuses on reducing suffering, and, in reality, focuses on tidying up animal exploitation at its economically inefficient edges. In science, those who subscribe to one paradigm are often unable to understand and engage those who subscribe to another paradigm precisely because the theoretical language that they use is not compatible. I think that the situation is similar in the context of the debate between animal rights and animal welfare. And that is why welfarists simply cannot understand or accept the slavery analogy.

Aku melumpuhkan inderaku saat aku bersamamu; Telinga yang mendengar betapa buruknya dirimu dari orang lain. Kaki untuk melangkah pergi dari sisimu. Mata yang melihat dirimu bersama perempuan lain. Hati yang merasakan kegetiran bahwa kau sesungguhnya tak benar-benar mencintaiku. Kini aku tak lagi bersamamu. Tak berarti inderaku tak lagi lumpuh. Untuk sekedar mendengar bisikan hatiku bahwa aku berharga, aku tak mampu.

Not reacting with anger, but responding with compassion and equanimity, is a personal choice. Particularly so, in an explosive situation, when someone is provoking you, by trampling all over your self-esteem. How can you employ compassion when someone is spewing venom? Well, if you observe their behavior closely, someone causing you pain and anguish is actually suffering a lot within themselves. Their thoughts and actions are only reflecting their distressed state of mind. They surely know not what they are doing. So, respond – don’t react – with compassion. Ahimsa is not just non-violent action. It includes non-violent thought as well. Respond with ahimsa – that’s the best way to disarm your ‘opponent’! When you leave the other party guessing, as to why you are not striking back, you have won the battle without even fighting it. Isn’t that a great way to be protect your inner peace and profit from it?

You remind me of a horse.' Anjali paused. 'A horse?' 'That white horse with the pink feathers tied to its head. The one that you kids pay to ride.' Anjali shook her head. 'I don't do that. I feel bad for that poor horse.' Mohan smiled gently. 'Of course you do.' He paused. 'What I mean is, that horse has those gold-and-pink blinders next to his eyes so he doesn't see anything else around him. Doesn't get panicked. You have blinders on We walk the same path, but our experiences are so different.

We should not be surprised that more and more people feel comfortable about consuming animal products. After all, they are being assured by the “experts” that suffering is being decreased and they can buy “happy” meat, “free-range” eggs, etc.. These products even come with labels approved of by animal organizations. The animal welfare movement is actually encouraging the “compassionate” consumption of animal products. Animal welfare reforms do very little to increase the protection given to animal interests because of the economics involved: animals are property. They are things that have no intrinsic or moral value. This means that welfare standards, whether for animals used as foods, in experiments, or for any other purpose, will be low and linked to the level of welfare needed to exploit the animal in an economically efficient way for the particular purpose. Put simply, we generally protect animal interests only to the extent we get an economic benefit from doing so. The concept of “unnecessary” suffering is understood as that level of suffering that will frustrate the particular use. And that can be a great deal of suffering. Killing Animals and Making Animals Suffer | Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach

violence only makes a situation worse. It cannot help but provoke a violent response. Strictly speaking, satyagraha is not “nonviolence.” It is a means, a method. The word we translate as “nonviolence” is a Sanskrit word central in Buddhism as well: ahimsa, the complete absence of violence in word and even thought as well as action. This sounds negative, just as “nonviolence” sounds passive. But like the English word “flawless,” ahimsa denotes perfection. Ahimsa is unconditional love; satyagraha is love in action. Gandhi’s message

Načelno, postoje dva osnovna motiva mog ethosa spoznaje o kojima poslednjih godina najviše volim da govorim i pišem: gađanje i odricanje od nasilja – ahimsa, jedina, i to negativna, "dogma" najstarije svjetske, a i indijske, prareligije visokih arhajskih kultura, pred-vedskog porekla u Indiji, koja se osniva na ateističkom kultu duhovnih heroja-asketa – đainizmu.

ahimsa, or nonviolence,

I ask him to join with me in prayer to the God of Truth that He may grant me the boon of Ahimsa in mind, word and deed.

Ahimsa necessarily includes truth and fearlessness.

But ahimsa is more than just the absence of violence: It is the presence of justice and of love. Gandhi always made it perfectly clear that “the satyagrahi’s object is to convert, not to coerce, the wrongdoer.

Oh baby, love and treasure yourself ❤ As in this life journey all you have is yourself.

The payoff for Ahimsa isn’t that you upgrade the illusion, which is what the ego is always striving to do with more money, possessions, and power. The payoff is that you get to be who you really are. Higher

The payoff for Ahimsa isn’t that you upgrade the illusion, which is what the ego is always striving to do with more money, possessions, and power. The payoff is that you get to be who you really are.

I well remember a teacher giving a talk about the yama of nonviolence (ahimsa) and saying that each time we kick someone out of our heart we develop a hole in our self and that hole cannot be repaired until we invite this person back in. My first response was: “What a lovely thought!” But almost instantaneously I rallied: “There has to be a footnote to this law! There must be some fine print at the bottom that says except your mother-in-law or that horrible colleague who gossips or the estranged friend who betrayed me.” And then it became clear—the degree to which there are exceptions is the degree to which the mind still holds to its old point of view. This is why Yoga practice involves such a methodical and painstaking examination of where we have created convenient loopholes for ourselves.

Who named Lurkmire Lurkmire?” I asked. Skeleton Steve shrugged, and his bones clunked. “Who named Ahimsa Village?

• Whether it is Godse or Savarkar, what they broadly wanted was unity of the Hindus of India. A unity that ignores the inherent diversity, and silences those who do not consider India their punyabhoomi. Without this unity it is impossible to build a strong nation. Some Muslims in Pakistan also think along these lines. But Bangladesh separated primarily because of language. Blood was shed. • The unity that Gandhi desired was one in which everyone retained their faith, preserved their own unique cultures and accepted ahimsa. Unity comes naturally to those who live in harmony despite their differences. This becomes possible when ahimsa is the basis of their lives. The life force of every community lies in its uniqueness. Whether it is food, games, worship, dress, concept of God, differing methods of prayer, the many climates that nurture mountains, forests, valleys, flora and fauna – they are all part of a chain. This multiplicity is the warp and weft of the ecological system of the living world.

please tell me your definition of ahimsa.” “The avoidance of harm to any living creature in thought or deed.” “Beautiful

Renunciation (tyaag) should be natural and spontaneous. [That which is to be renounced] should fall off on its own indeed.   

The fruit [result] of renunciation is not liberation, the fruit of Knowledge of the Self is liberation.

Nobody has spoiled your vyavahaar (worldly interactions). You yourself have spoilt it. You are whole and sole responsible for your vyavahaar.

The Lord has said that the relative (vyavahaar) is entirely that which needs to be settled (discharge). Hence, it is not worth holding onto it, it should be settled promptly.

After any thing has come into Knowledge, it can never revert back into ignorance; contradictions do not arise. By helping every established principle (siddhant) one by one, the established principle continues to move forward. It does not break any established principle, contradictions do not arise.

I used to believe that 'fighting for love no matter how hard the situation is' is the only thing to make our relationship work. Until one day I asked myself, why I should be a single fighter, fighting for your love while I gave you my love freely.

To have indifference (nispruha) is also an offence and to be with inclination (saspruha) is also an offence. One should remain saspruha-nispruha (inclined towards attaining the Self-indifferent towards worldly life).

What is the measure of the fact that one has realized One's own state as the Self (nijswaroop)? It is in accordance to the saiyam parinaam (resultant state free of anger-pride-deceit-greed, attachment and abhorrene) that prevails for One.

The very importance of the manifest living Gnani is that energies within you will manifest merely by seeing Him. The energies will simply arise by just seeing (darshan) Him. Upon seeing the manifest Gnani, one becomes just like Him.

Can you disembark before the 'station' arrives? Actually, the 'station' has arrived, that is why 'we' show you the way to disembark. Otherwise, if the 'station' has not arrived, then you will have to just stay put where you are, won't you? You indeed keep on wandering around, don't you?!

Worldly life is a path of evolutionary development for all embodied living beings. It is a very long path. So in the past life, you kept moving and in this life, you keep moving. On this path, whatever knowledge you see, your faith gets established on that knowledge. That faith then manifests as an effect (roopak). In the next life, a different kind of knowledge is acquired, but the effect that manifests is from the knowledge of the past life! This gives rise to the delimma that, 'Why doesn't the effect that manifests come in accordance to the mind?' Whatever amount of knowledge is accumulated, that much delimma arises.

Who has the right to say, "Vyavasthit" (result of scientific circumstantial evidences) ahead of time? It is one who does not interfere at all with the attributes of the prakruti (non-Self complex)!!   

The path of the Lord is one of closure and inner satisfaction (samadhan). It is not one of forced coercion and intimidation.

The 'pure' (shuddha) state is on the opposite shore to the 'auspicious-inauspicious' (shubha-ashubha)state. There is no 'sense of doership' (kartabhaav) there. If one realizes that, 'I am not the doer,' then he can become free.

If you believe God (Ishwar) to be the doer, then why do you believe yourself to be doer?

This Akram Vignan has been disclosed 'as it is'. This 'Vyavasthit' (result of Scientific Circumstantial Evidences) is exactly 'vyavasthit' (as it should be). 'We' have Seen, 'How much has been done, and how much still needs to be done' in this world. What is the point of repeatedly grinding away at that which has already been done?

Where anger-pride-deceit-greed is absent, the worldly interactions are pure. Or else, if there is attentive awareness [upayog] over them, till then it is acceptable.

Non-violence (Ahimsa) is a very big thing. There is no non-celibacy (sexual pleasures) in Non-violence. There is no possession (parigraha) in Non-violence. There is no falsehood (asatya) in Non-violence. There is no covertness or stealing (chori) in Non-violence.

If we have a higher degree of Non-violence within us, a lion will forget its violent intent towards us.

The enlightened ones (Vitraag Lords) tells us to use the weapon of non-violence (ahinsa) against violence (hinsa). Violence cannot be conquered with violence. It can only be conquered with non-violence.

Non-violence is called that when despite having the full power if someone does something to him, he does not do anything to that person.

Absolute Knowledge (Kevalgnan) can never be attained without the domain of non-violence (ahinsa). Full awareness will not be attained without non-violence (ahinsa).

Whom will you commit violence against? The Supreme Lord resides in every living being, so whom will you hurt?