Hinsani Ek Aadkatri Pratishtha

Here's a comprehensive summary of the provided Jain text, "Hinsani Ek Aadkatri Pratishtha" by Sukhlal Sanghavi, in English:

The article, "Hinsani Ek Aadkatri Pratishtha" (An Indirect Establishment of Violence) by Sukhlal Sanghavi, published in "Darshan ane Chintan Part 2," is a critical review and refutation of an article on "Ahimsa" (non-violence) written by Shri Ambalal Purani. Sanghavi begins by acknowledging Purani's intellect and dedication to the teachings of Sri Aurobindo, noting Purani's background as a physical education expert and his current residence at the Sri Aurobindo Ashram. Sanghavi expresses admiration for Purani's attempt to translate profound philosophical concepts into Gujarati.

However, Sanghavi states that after carefully reading Purani's article, he found it to be deviant from thought, logic, and truth in many places, characterizing it as more of a prejudiced interpretation and wordplay than a truth-seeking philosophical inquiry. Sanghavi perceives Purani's underlying motive to be an attempt to criticize Gandhi's methods under the guise of a neutral discussion on Ahimsa.

Sanghavi clarifies that he does not believe Purani rejects Ahimsa itself, as Purani acknowledges its utility and even offers a definition. Yet, Sanghavi argues that Purani's discussion, by framing questions as if Gandhi were absent and by questioning the Ahimsa that arose and developed with Gandhi, demonstrates a loss of yogic equanimity. Furthermore, Sanghavi contends that Purani's approach undermines the ideals and goals of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, whose writings Sanghavi references extensively. Sanghavi points to Sri Aurobindo's own critique of those who are slaves to an ideal rather than its true masters, suggesting that Purani might be embodying this very flaw.

Sanghavi then contrasts Purani's viewpoint with the expansive and balanced approach of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother, as seen in their writings. He finds Purani's arguments concerning Ahimsa to be contradictory to their philosophies, even implying that Purani is potentially jeopardizing his own gurus' thoughts.

The author then focuses on specific points raised by Purani:

• The Impossibility of Pure Ahimsa and Practical Ahimsa: Purani argues that pure Ahimsa is impossible because life inherently involves consuming other life. He points to the natural order of "the big fish eats the small fish" and even simple acts like eating and breathing involve some level of violence. Thus, from a purely idealistic perspective, all violence is equal. He further argues that practical Ahimsa is also impossible, as expecting an entire society to adhere to complete non-violence is akin to expecting them to achieve martyrdom, which is not feasible.

  • Sanghavi's Critique: Sanghavi accuses Purani of adopting a "shushkvad" or "adharmavad" (nihilism or anti-Dharma) approach by setting up these options solely for refutation. He argues that Purani forgets Sri Aurobindo's own statement that the pure ideal always remains unfulfilled, yet its inspiration is vital for practical implementation and progress. Sanghavi reiterates Gandhi's stance that complete Ahimsa is only possible in God, but human duty is to strive honestly in that direction. He asserts that Gandhi himself did not claim to be a perfect practitioner of Ahimsa, and therefore, to fault his methods on this basis is illogical. Sanghavi believes Purani's interpretation of violence in the natural order is a distortion of the meaning of Ahimsa. True Ahimsa, he argues, lies in treating all beings with equanimity, a concept well-articulated in the Bhagavad Gita.

• Ahimsa as Spiritual Truth vs. Practical Utility: Purani acknowledges Ahimsa as a spiritual truth, where one seeks a state of consciousness that remains peaceful and non-violent amidst all provocations. He believes the primary goal is maintaining inner non-violence, with external results being secondary.

  • Sanghavi's Critique: Sanghavi agrees with Purani's assessment of Ahimsa as a spiritual truth, citing Gandhi's ability to remain unperturbed even in intense situations as evidence. However, Sanghavi disputes Purani's implication that such individuals would be indifferent to external results. He argues that individuals who have spontaneously manifested Ahimsa and used it to bring about social change would naturally be concerned with the efficacy of their methods and be prepared to adapt them. Sanghavi emphasizes that true Ahimsa is tested by its application in various life domains and the spirit of never giving up. He suggests that for ordinary people, focusing on external results indicates a need for introspection and genuine practice of Ahimsa, and that perceived failures are mere instructions for greater caution.

• Comparison of Armed Struggle for Justice with Non-Violent Methods: Purani suggests that in ancient times, Kshatriyas (warrior class) used weapons for self-defense and the establishment of Dharma and justice, and that this approach, as depicted in the Gita, is equivalent to the non-violent resistance of today. He believes adopting non-violent methods instead of armed struggle is akin to destroying the essence of Kshatriya spirit.

  • Sanghavi's Critique: Sanghavi calls this belief a "false preconception." He reminds Purani of his own statement that Sri Aurobindo's "new yoga" begins where the Gita's yoga ends, implying that the evolution of thought and practice is ongoing. Sanghavi argues that the essence of the Kshatriya spirit, as presented in the Gita, is to do everything necessary to protect oneself and establish justice, even at the risk of one's life. He states that the Gita never dictated that this spirit cannot manifest in other forms. Sanghavi contends that Gandhi has given a new form to the Kshatriya spirit by emphasizing courage, fearlessness, and other Kshatriya virtues, proving that one can become a supreme Kshatriya without resorting to weapons. He concludes that Gandhi's non-violent Kshatriya-hood is a new manifestation of the ancient Aryan spirit, and Purani need not fear its destruction.

• Misuse of Gita's Teaching on the Soul and Body: Purani misinterprets the Gita's teaching that the soul is eternal and the body is perishable, suggesting that the violence done to the body is not so significant and that it is an exaggeration to give it so much importance.

  • Sanghavi's Critique: Sanghavi agrees the Gita's statement is not factually wrong but criticizes Purani's misapplication of it. He argues that Purani's statement is more likely to incite violent tendencies than promote non-violence. Sanghavi notes that humans generally have a stronger inclination towards violence than self-sacrifice. He fears that Purani's interpretation might lead people to believe that causing harm to others' bodies is inconsequential since the soul remains unaffected and the body is destined to perish anyway. This, Sanghavi warns, can lead to cruelty. He clarifies that the Gita's teaching is meant to encourage fearlessness in pursuing noble goals and to be ready for sacrifice, not to disregard the physical harm inflicted. He reiterates that Gandhi embodied this correct interpretation of the Gita by living it and introducing new non-violent methods in various fields.

Finally, Sanghavi addresses Purani's assertion that to destroy Nazism, killing some Nazis is inevitable. Sanghavi counters by questioning if destroying capitalism would require killing capitalists, or if destroying communism would require killing communists. He suggests that if Purani believes this, then in the current conflict between capitalism and communism, Purani should advocate for the destructive path of mutual annihilation. Sanghavi concludes that Purani's perspective prioritizes a "satisfactory system" over justice.

Sanghavi's primary criticism is that Purani's article aims to promote the inevitability and benefits of violence and encourages the use of weapons against opponents. He argues that Purani downplays or ignores the benefits achieved through Ahimsa, while overemphasizing any negative outcomes or hypocrisy in its practice. Sanghavi concludes by urging Purani to demonstrate his beliefs in the public sphere and not to create confusion with unproductive intellectual debates.