“Resist Not Evil” is merely a three lettered phrase. Swamiji explained this in great details in his discourse of Karmayoga in the collection of Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. However, conventional belief teaches that highest moral is non-resistance. Non-resistance implies no resistance to anything that comes to your way. Of course practically in today’s world that hardly makes any sense but that’s the living ideal for a better world! Here he says “resist not evil”. Swamiji himself asking to offer resistance (However, he has credited his belief, as he almost always does, to those wise sages who taught him on his journey). But there is a rider to this and I believe that’s what makes it so rich in this context. That’s ‘not evil’ – implying that in the process don’t commit any sin, don’t do anything bad.
Got reminded of anybody? The man whom the “Generations to come will scarce believe that such a one as this ever walked upon this earth in flesh and blood”. The man who offered resistance of highest order and no evil at all and what he achieved is what we are today! So a phrase, like this, which in first reading appears to be religious diction has been tested and certified by none other than Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. I put this great example in the very beginning of this article because that will evince everything that Swamiji explained in his article.
Non-resistance is understood as the highest order of ideal. In his words - “if a certain number of us attempted to put this maxim fully into practice, the whole social fabric would fall to pieces. Even only if one day of such non-resistance were practiced, it would fall to disaster. This seems to us to be the highest ideal; yet to teach this doctrine only would be equivalent to condemning a vast portion of mankind. Not only so, it would be making men feel that they were always doing wrong, and cause in them scruples of conscience in all their actions.”
“Our first duty is not to hate ourselves, because to advance we must have faith in ourselves first and then in God. He who has no faith in himself can never have faith in God. Therefore, the only alternative remaining to us is to recognize that duty and morality vary under different circumstances; not that the man who resists evil is doing what is always and in itself wrong, but that in the different circumstances in which he is placed it may become even his duty to resist evil.”
“… We must always be careful about what we really mean when we speak of this non-resistance and ideal love. We must first take care to understand whether we have the power of resistance or not. Then, having the power, if we renounce it and do not resist, we are doing a grand act of love; but if we cannot resist, and yet, at the same time, try to deceive ourselves into the belief that we are actuated by motives of the highest love, we are doing the exact opposite. Arjuna became a coward at the sight of the mighty array against him; his "love" made him forget his duty towards his country and king. That is why Shri Krishna told him that he was a hypocrite: Thou talkest like a wise man, but thy actions betray thee to be a coward; therefore stand up and fight!”
Hato va prapsyasi svargaa / jitva va bhokyase mahim
Tasmad uttistha kaunteya / yuddhaya krta-nischayah
‘O Kaunteya, if you are killed in the battle you will attain heaven, and if you are victorious you will enjoy this earthly kingdom. Therefore, stand up and fight with determination.’
Wherever and whenever he speaks, it’s a sheer audacity and sacrilegious blasphemy to say anything. Therefore I am ashamed. However, I am just trying to think aloud by jotting down my points to get some picture of it. So coming back to the point in discussion, killing seems an evil of highest order! Now think of those soldiers who die fighting and killing the enemies for a greater cause – that’s the nation, us. That’s the circumstances. Now if a policeman kills somebody in some encounter following some political agenda or some personal vendetta, it’s a different circumstance and therefore a terrible sin.
Coming back to our independence, who was right in his approach Gandhiji, Tilak and other satyagrahis or the fugitive forces of Netaji, Bhagat Singh and other revolutionary activists? The comparison is pointless? Simply because they were all freedom fighters and performing their duties in their own circumstances. One was more focused on ‘not evil’ and others were more focused on ‘resistance’. That’s perhaps the only difference.
Needless to say, we can make an attempt to practice it in our own way – at home, on road, in office and most importantly against ourselves. We might be able to resist almost anybody and everybody but one – that’s ourselves. Resisting the temptation of the most delicious dishes or the lecherous look at somebody on road or the thought of telling a lie to avoid an untoward situation – we have got so many things to resist and yet hardly we need to commit any evil in doing that!
2 comments:
Greattttttt!!
Your reflections are very interesting... Keep thinking!
Please explain: "One was more focused on ‘not evil’ and others were more focused on ‘resistance’. "
I think both were focussed on not evil and resistance... only the definations of not evil was different.
what say?
Thanks a lot Gaurav.
Absolutely both were focused on "Resist not evil".
I do personally believe nobody in the balance was up or down ... only like two sides of the balance they had some distance but aiming at setting the center absolutely free.
"One was more focused on ‘not evil’ and others were more focused on ‘resistance’." I said so only to take a side to the fundamental debate that still hangs around after 60 odd years. However, I could not associate almost any evil with Gandhiji and his followers and therefore they were more focused on 'not evil'. So on the scale of relativity perhaps the statement gets some justification. But that's immaterial. You are right - fundamentally there was no difference.
Post a Comment