Universal Human Values

SRM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, RAMAPURAM,
CHENNAI-89
COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND HUMANITIES
DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISHAND OTHER FOREIGN LANGUAGES
SUBJECT: UNIVERSAL HUMAN VALUES (UHV)
SUBJECT CODE:UJK20301T
STUDY MATERIAL
UNIT 1
What is love?
Love is a set of emotions and behaviours characterized by intimacy, passion, and
commitment. It involves care, closeness, protectiveness, attraction, affection, and trust. Love
can vary in intensity and can change over time. It is associated with a range of positive
emotions, including happiness, excitement, life satisfaction, and euphoria, but it can also
result in negative emotions such as jealousy and stress.
When it comes to love, some people would say it is one of the most
important human emotions. Yet despite being one of the most studied behaviours, it is still
the least understood. For example, researchers debate whether love is a biological or cultural
phenomenon
Love is most likely influenced by both biological drives and cultural influences.
While hormones and biology are important, the way we express and experience love is also
influenced by our personal conceptions of love.
5 ways that theories of psychology explain love
How do you know?
What are some of the signs of love? Researchers have made distinctions
between feelings of "liking" and "loving" another person. According to psychologist Zick
Rubin, romantic love is made up of three elements:
 Attachment: Needing to be with another person and desiring physical contact and
approval
 Caring: Valuing the other person's happiness and needs as much as your own

 Intimacy: Sharing private thoughts, feelings, and desires with the other person
Based on this view of romantic love, Rubin developed two questionnaires to measure these
variables, known as Rubin's Scales of Liking and Loving. While people tend to view people
they like as pleasant, love is marked by being devoted, possessive, and confiding in one
another.
The difference between liking and loving
Types of love
Not all forms of love are the same, and psychologists have identified a number
of different types of love that people may experience. These types of love include:
 Friendship: This type of love involves liking someone and sharing a certain degree of
intimacy.
 Infatuation: This is a form of love that often involves intense feelings of attraction
without a sense of commitment; it often takes place early in a relationship and may
deepen into a more lasting love.
 Passionate love: This type of love is marked by intense feelings of longing and
attraction; it often involves an idealization of the other person and a need to maintain
constant physical closeness.
 Compassionate/companionate love: This form of love is marked by trust, affection,
intimacy, and commitment.
 Unrequited love: This form of love happens when one person loves another who
does not return those feelings.
Is love biological or cultural?
Some researchers suggest that love is a basic human emotion just like
happiness or anger, while others believe that it is a cultural phenomenon that arises partly due
to social pressures and expectations.
Research has found that romantic love exists in all cultures, which suggests
that love has a strong biological component. It is a part of human nature to seek out and find
love. However, culture can significantly affect how individuals think about, experience, and
display romantic love.
How to practice love?
There is no single way to practice love. Every relationship is unique, and each
person brings their own history and needs. Some things that you can do to show love to the
people you care about include:
 Be willing to be vulnerable
 Be willing to forgive
 Do your best and be willing to apologize when you make mistakes
 Let them know that you care
 Listen to what they have to say
 Prioritize spending time with the other person

 Reciprocate loving gestures and acts of kindness
 Recognize and acknowledge their good qualities
 Share things about yourself
 Show affection
 Show unconditional love
Does unconditional love make healthy relationships?
Impact of love
Love, attachment, and affection have an important impact on well-being and
quality of life. Loving relationships have been linked to:
 Lower risk of heart disease
 Decreased risk of dying after a heart attack
 Better health habits
 Increased longevity
 Lower stress levels
 Less depression
 Lower risk of diabetes
Tips for cultivating love
Lasting relationships are marked by deep levels of trust, commitment, and
intimacy. Some things that you can do to help cultivate loving relationships include:
 Try loving-kindness meditation. Loving-kindness meditation (LKM) is a technique
often used to promote self-acceptance and reduce stress, but it has also been shown to
promote a variety of positive emotions and improve interpersonal relationships.LKM
involves meditating while thinking about a person you love or care about,
concentrating on warm feelings and your desire for their well-being and happiness.
 Communicate. Everyone's needs are different. The best way to ensure that your
needs and your loved one's needs are met is to talk about them. Helping another
person feel loved involves communicating that love to them through words and
deeds. Some ways to do this include showing that you care, making them feel special,
telling them they are loved, and doing things for them.
 Tackle conflict in a healthy way. Never arguing is not necessarily a sign of a healthy
relationship—more often than not, it means that people are avoiding an issue rather
than discussing it. Rather than avoid conflict, focus on hashing out issues in ways that
are healthy in order to move a relationship forward in a positive way.
Potential pitfalls
As Shakespeare said, the course of love never did run smooth. No relationship
is perfect, so there will always be problems, conflicts, misunderstandings, and
disappointments that can lead to distress or heartbreak.
So while love is associated with a host of positive emotions, it can also be
accompanied by a number of negative feelings as well. Some of the potential pitfalls of
experiencing love include:

 Anxiety
 Depression
 Increased stress
 Jealousy
 Obsessiveness
 Possessiveness
 Sadness
While people are bound to experience some negative emotions associated with
love, it can become problematic if those negative feelings outweigh the positive or if they
start to interfere with either person's ability to function normally. Relationship
counselling can be helpful in situations where couples need help coping with
miscommunication, stress, or emotional issues.
History of love
Only fairly recently has love become the subject of science. In the past, the
study of love was left to "the creative writer to depict for us the necessary conditions for
loving," according to Sigmund Freud. "In consequence, it becomes inevitable that science
should concern herself with the same materials whose treatment by artists has given
enjoyment to mankind for thousands of years," he added.
Research on love has grown tremendously since Freud's remarks. But early
explorations into the nature and reasons for love drew considerable criticism. During the
1970s, U.S. Senator William Proxmire railed against researchers who were studying love and
derided the work as a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Despite early resistance, research has revealed the importance of love in both
child development and adult health.
Types of love
These seven types of love are loosely based on classical readings, especially
of Plato and Aristotle, and on JA Lee’s 1973 book, Colours of Love.
1. Eros
Eros is sexual or passionate love, and most akin to the modern construct of
romantic love. In Greek myth, it is a form of madness brought about by one of Cupid’s
arrows. The arrow breaches us and we "fall" in love, as did Paris with Helen, leading to the
downfall of Troy and much of the assembled Greek army.
In modern times, eros has been amalgamated with the broader life force,
something akin to Schopenhauer’s will, a fundamentally blind process of striving for survival
and reproduction. Eros has also been contrasted with Logos, or Reason, and Cupid painted as
a blindfolded child.

2. Philia
The hallmark of philia, or friendship, is shared goodwill. Aristotle believed
that a person can bear goodwill to another for one of three reasons: that he is useful; that he is
pleasant; and above all, that he is good, that is, rational and virtuous. Friendships founded on
goodness are associated not only with mutual benefit but also with companionship,
dependability, and trust.
For Plato, the best kind of friendship is that which lovers have for each other.
It is a philia born out of eros, and that in turn feeds back into eros to strengthen and develop
it, transforming it from a lust for possession into a shared desire for a higher level of
understanding of the self, the other, and the world. In short, philia transforms eros from a lust
for possession into an impulse for philosophy.
Real friends seek together to live truer, fuller lives by relating to each other
authentically and teaching each other about the limitations of their beliefs and the defects in
their character, which are a far greater source of error than mere rational confusion: they are,
in effect, each other’s therapist—and in that much it helps to find a friend with some degree
of openness, articulacy, and insight, both to change and to be changed.
3. Storge
Storge ["store-jay"], or familial love, is a kind of philia pertaining to the love
between parents and their children. It differs from most philia in that it tends, especially with
younger children, to be unilateral or asymmetrical. More broadly, storge is the fondness born
out of familiarity or dependency. Compared to eros and philia, it is much less contingent on
our personal qualities.
People in the early stages of a romantic relationship often expect unconditional storge, but
find only the need and dependency of eros, and, if they are lucky, the maturity and fertility
of philia. Given enough time, eros tends to mutate into storge.
4. Agape
Agape ["aga-pay"] is universal love, such as the love for strangers, nature, or
God. Unlike storge, it does not depend on filiation or familiarity. Also called charity by
Christian thinkers, agape can be said to encompass the modern concept of altruism, as
defined as unselfish concern for the welfare of others.
Recent studies link altruism with a number of benefits. In the short-term,
an altruistic act leaves us with a euphoric feeling, the so-called "helper’s high". In the longer
term, altruism has been associated with better mental and physical health, and even greater
longevity.
At a social level, altruism serves as a signal of cooperative intentions, and also
of resource availability and so of mating or partnering potential. It also opens up a debt
account, encouraging beneficiaries to reciprocate with gifts and favours that may be of much

greater value to us than those with which we felt able to part. More generally, altruism,
or agape, helps to build and maintain the psychological, social, and, indeed, environmental
fabric that shields, sustains, and enriches us. Given the increasing anger and division in our
society and the state of our planet, we could all do with quite a bit more agape.
5. Ludus
Ludus is playful or uncommitted love. It can involve activities such as teasing
and dancing, or more overt flirting, seducing, and conjugating. The focus is on fun, and
sometimes also on conquest, with no strings attached.
Ludus relationships are casual, undemanding, and uncomplicated, but, for all
that, can be very long-lasting. Ludus works best when both parties are mature and self-
sufficient. Problems arise when one party mistakes ludus for eros, whereas ludus is, in fact,
much more compatible with philia.
6. Pragma
Pragma is a kind of practical love founded on reason or duty and one’s longer-
term interests. Sexual attraction takes a back seat in favour of personal qualities and
compatibilities, shared goals, and "making it work."
In the days of arranged marriages, pragma must have been very common.
Although unfashionable, and at a polar opposite of romantic love, it remains widespread,
most visibly in certain high-profile celebrity and political pairings.
Many relationships that start off as eros or ludus end up as various
combinations of storge and pragma. Pragma may seem opposed to ludus, but the two can co-
exist, with the one providing a counterpoint to the other. In the best of cases, the partners in
the pragma relationship agree to turn a blind eye—or even a sympathetic eye, as with Simone
de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre, or Vita Sackville-West and Harold Nicholson.
7. Philautia
Philautia, finally, is self-love, which can be healthy or unhealthy. Unhealthy self-
love is akin to hubris. In Ancient Greece, people could be accused of hubris if they placed
themselves above the gods, or, like certain modern politicians, above the greater good. Many
believed that hubris led to destruction, or nemesis.
Today, "hubris" has come to mean an inflated sense of one’s status, abilities, or
accomplishments, especially when accompanied by haughtiness or arrogance. Because it does
not accord with the truth, hubris promotes injustice, conflict, and enmity.
Healthy self-love, on the other hand, is akin to self-esteem, which is our cognitive
and, above all, emotional appraisal of our own worth. More than that, it is the matrix through

which we think, feel, and act, and reflects on our relation to ourselves, to others, and to the
world.
In everyday language, "self-esteem" and "self-confidence" tend to be used
interchangeably. However, self-esteem and self-confidence do not always go hand in hand. In
particular, it is possible to be highly self-confident and yet to have profoundly low self-
esteem, as is the case, for example, with many performers and celebrities.
People with healthy self-esteem do not need to prop themselves up with
externals such as income, status, or notoriety, or lean on crutches such as alcohol, drugs, or
sex. They are able to invest themselves completely in projects and people because they do
not fear failure or rejection. Of course, they suffer hurt and disappointment, but their setbacks
neither damage nor diminish them. Owing to their resilience, they are open to growth
experiences and relationships, tolerant of risk, quick to joy and delight, and accepting
and forgiving of themselves and others.
In closing, there is, of course, a kind of porosity between the seven types of
love, which keep on seeping and passing into one another.
For Plato, love aims at beautiful and good things, because the possession of
beautiful and good things is called happiness, and happiness is an end-in-itself.
Of all good and beautiful things, the best, most beautiful, and most dependable
is truth or wisdom, which is why Plato called love not a god but a philosopher.
Love and compassion
Well said by the great saint Dalai Lama, “Love and compassion are necessities,
not luxuries. Without them, humanity cannot survive.”
Love and compassion are definitely the essences of human life. We cannot
imagine humanity without them. Even animals, who have less thinking capability than us,
exhibit their nature that has love and care for their race. The way a mother monkey carries her
dead infant even after its death is nothing but a sign of love and attachment.
Quite same is with humans. Even before beginning of our human life, love and
compassion came in. When a baby is in the womb of mother, he is completely at her love and
care. From the air that he breathes to the nutrition that he receives is received from the
mother. Then after he is born, a baby is completely dependent on his mother. An infant is not
capable of doing anything on its own. Hence it is the love and care of his mother that makes
him live.

So, being a mother itself is the greatest example of love and compassion. The
amount of sacrifice a mother has to do to raise a child is enormous and cannot be compared to
anything in the world.
Why are love and compassion so important?
The world, if we look from a human life perspective, is full of tragedies,
problems, pains and sufferings. Most of the people are surrounded by problems that ail their
happiness. So somewhere we all suffer. The reason and magnitude can differ. But if we only
care about our problems and sufferings, then humanity itself will be questioned. Here comes
the need for compassion.
When we try to understand the pain of others and how they are feeling in the
painful situation, then we try to help them. If not more, we at least don’t try to increase their
problems. Empathy and compassion is the need of the hour. People confuse these states of
mind with sympathy. People in pain do not need sympathy but they want to be empathized
with. Trying to feel what others are going through and then helping them in any manner
possible is what is required. It is for this reason that love and compassion are not a luxury but
a necessity
When are love and compassion needed?
There is no particular moment in time when we need love and compassion.
Rather they are a part of our basic nature. The basic essence of being a human being is to be
empathetic, loving and compassionate.
When we see a person who is in pain or some trouble, we should try to put
ourselves in his shoes and then try to feel what he or she must be going through. This process
makes us aware of what our ideal behaviour should be like.
For example, if we see a physically disabled person, then we should try to be
compassionate towards them. Here we are not telling you to show them sympathy. This is the
least that is needed.
Rather we should understand the sufferings they are going through and try to
lessen their pain by being genuinely empathetic and treating them normally and not doing
things that would discourage them.
Further, if we see a pregnant lady on a bus or train, we should offer her a seat. It
is not just a part of chivalry for men but is also applicable to women. If a woman will not be
compassionate for other women, how can we expect men to be empathetic for women since
they are physically different and therefore understanding the pain and hardships of a
pregnancy is more difficult?

Love and Compassion are necessities
We should, at all times, try to feel what another person is going through. This
will help us understand their condition and will enable us to be thoughtful.
There are instances when people mock someone’s ailments. This is nothing but
the lack of compassion in them. Doing this increases the hardships of the person already in
pain.
Love and compassion are a state of mind that should be with us all the time.
We don’t need to be a saint to practice this in life. There are endless moments when we can
shower love and care on others.
The feelings of compassion and love are not restricted to other humans but
also apply for animals and other living beings.
Since we are the most developed of all the creatures on the planet, it is an
extra responsibility for us to be considerate to animals and other lower species. It is only
these feelings that make us different and above any other living organism on the planet.
UNIT 2
What is truth?
Truth is the property of being in accord with fact or reality. In everyday
language, truth is typically ascribed to things that aim to represent reality or otherwise
correspond to it, such as beliefs, propositions, and declarative sentences.
Truth is usually held to be the opposite of falsehood. The concept of truth is discussed and
debated in various contexts, including philosophy, art, theology, and science. Most human
activities depend upon the concept, where its nature as a concept is assumed rather than being
a subject of discussion; these include most of the sciences, law, journalism, and everyday life.
Some philosophers view the concept of truth as basic, and unable to be explained in any
terms that are more easily understood than the concept of truth itself. Most commonly, truth
is viewed as the correspondence of language or thought to a mind-independent world. This is
called the correspondence theory of truth.
Various theories and views of truth continue to be debated among scholars,
philosophers, and theologians. There are many different questions about the nature of truth
which are still the subject of contemporary debates, such as: the question of defining truth. If
it is even possible to give an informative definition of truth. Identifying things are truth-
bearers and are therefore capable of being true or false. If truth and falsehood are bivalent, or
if there are other truth values. Identifying the criteria of truth that allow us to identify it and to
distinguish it from falsehood. The role that truth plays in constituting knowledge. And if truth
is always absolute, or if it can be relative to one's perspective.

Truth, in metaphysics and the philosophy of language, the property of
sentences, assertions, beliefs, thoughts, or propositions that are said, in ordinary discourse, to
agree with the facts or to state what is the case.
Truth is the aim of belief; falsity is a fault. People need the truth about the
world in order to thrive. Truth is important. Believing what is not true is apt to spoil people’s
plans and may even cost them their lives. Telling what is not true may result in legal and
social penalties. Conversely, a dedicated pursuit of truth characterizes the good scientist, the
good historian, and the good detective. So what is truth, that it should have such gravity and
such a central place in people’s lives?
The correspondence theory
The classic suggestion comes from Aristotle (384–322 BCE): “To say of what
is that it is, or of what is not that it is not, is true.” In other words, the world provides “what
is” or “what is not,” and the true saying or thought corresponds to the fact so provided. This
idea appeals to common sense and is the germ of what is called the correspondence theory of
truth. As it stands, however, it is little more than a platitude and far less than a theory. Indeed,
it may amount to merely a wordy paraphrase, whereby, instead of saying “that’s true” of
some assertion, one says “that corresponds with the facts.” Only if the notions of fact and
correspondence can be further developed will it be possible to understand truth in these
terms.
Unfortunately, many philosophers doubt whether an acceptable explanation of
facts and correspondence can be given. Facts, as they point out, are strange entities. It is
tempting to think of them as structures or arrangements of things in the world. However, as
the Austrian-born philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein observed, structures
have spatial locations, but facts do not. The Eiffel Tower can be moved from Paris to Rome,
but the fact that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris cannot be moved anywhere. Furthermore, critics
urge, the very idea of what the facts are in a given case is nothing apart from people’s sincere
beliefs about the case, which means those beliefs that people take to be true. Thus, there is no
enterprise of first forming a belief or theory about some matter and then in some new process
stepping outside the belief or theory to assess whether it corresponds with the facts. There
are, indeed, processes of checking and verifying beliefs, but they work by bringing up further
beliefs and perceptions and assessing the original in light of those. In actual investigations,
what tells people what to believe is not the world or the facts but how they interpret the world
or select and conceptualize the facts.
Coherence and pragmatist theories
Starting in the mid-19th century, this line of criticism led some philosophers to
think that they should concentrate on larger theories, rather than sentences or assertions taken

one at a time. Truth, on this view, must be a feature of the overall body of belief considered
as a system of logically interrelated components—what is called the “web of belief.” It might
be, for example, an entire physical theory that earns its keep by making predictions or
enabling people to control things or by simplifying and unifying otherwise disconnected
phenomena. An individual belief in such a system is true if it sufficiently coheres with, or
makes rational sense within, enough other beliefs; alternatively, a belief system is true if it is
sufficiently internally coherent. Such were the views of the British idealists, including F.H.
Bradley and H.H. Joachim, who, like all idealists, rejected the existence of mind-independent
facts against which the truth of beliefs could be determined (see also realism: realism and
truth).
F.H. Bradley
F.H. Bradley, detail of a portrait by R.G. Eves, 1924; in the collection of Merton College,
Oxford.
Courtesy of the Warden and Fellows of Merton College, Oxford; photograph, Thomas-
Photos
Yet coherentism too seems inadequate, since it suggests that human beings are
trapped in the sealed compartment of their own beliefs, unable to know anything of the world
beyond. Moreover, as the English philosopher and logician Bertrand Russell pointed out,
nothing seems to prevent there being many equally coherent but incompatible belief systems.
Yet at best only one of them can be true.
Some theorists have suggested that belief systems can be compared
in pragmatic or utilitarian terms. According to this idea, even if many different systems can
be internally coherent, it is likely that some will be much more useful than others. Thus, one
can expect that, in a process akin to Darwinian natural selection, the more useful systems will
survive while the others gradually go extinct. The replacement
of Newtonian mechanics by relativity theory is an example of this process. It was in this spirit
that the 19th-century American pragmatist philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce said:

Peirce, Charles Sanders
Charles Sanders Peirce, c. 1870.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of NOAA Corps Operations
The opinion which is fated to be ultimately agreed to by all who investigate, is what we mean
by the truth, and the object represented in this opinion is the real.
In effect, Peirce’s view places primary importance on scientific curiosity,
experimentation, and theorizing and identifies truth as the imagined ideal limit of their
ongoing progress. Although this approach may seem appealingly hard-headed, it has
prompted worries about how a society, or humanity as a whole, could know at a given
moment whether it is following the path toward such an ideal. In practice it has opened the
door to varying degrees of skepticism about the notion of truth. In the late 20th century
philosophers such as Richard Rorty advocated retiring the notion of truth in favour of a more
open-minded and open-ended process of indefinite adjustment of beliefs. Such a process, it
was felt, would have its own utility, even though it lacked any final or absolute endpoint.
Tarski and truth conditions
The rise of formal logic (the abstract study of assertions and deductive
arguments) and the growth of interest in formal systems (formal or mathematical languages)
among many Anglo-American philosophers in the early 20th century led to new attempts to
define truth in logically or scientifically acceptable terms. It also led to a renewed respect for
the ancient liar paradox (attributed to the ancient Greek philosopher Epimenides), in which a
sentence says of itself that it is false, thereby apparently being true if it is false and false if it
is true. Logicians set themselves the task of developing systems of
mathematical reasoning that would be free of the kinds of self-reference that give rise
to paradoxes such as that of the liar. However, this proved difficult to do without at the same
time making some legitimate proof procedures impossible. There is good self-reference (“All
sentences, including this, are of finite length”) and bad self-reference (“This sentence is
false”) but no generally agreed-upon principle for distinguishing them.

Epimenides
Epimenides.
PromptuariiIconumInsigniorum
These efforts culminated in the work of the Polish-born logician Alfred Tarski, who in the
1930s showed how to construct a definition of truth for a formal or mathematical language by
means of a theory that would assign truth conditions (the conditions in which a given
sentence is true) to each sentence in the language without making use of any semantic terms,
notably including truth, in that language. Truth conditions were identified by means of “T-
sentences.” For example, the English-language T-sentence for the German sentence Schnee
istweiss is: “Schnee istweiss” is true if and only if snow is white. A T-sentence says of some
sentence (S) in the object language (the language for which truth is being defined) that S is
true if and only if…, where the ellipsis is replaced by a translation of S into the language used
to construct the theory (the metalanguage). Since no metalanguage translation of any S (in
this case, snow is white) will contain the term true, Tarski could claim that each T-sentence
provides a “partial definition” of truth for the object language and that their sum total
provides the complete definition.
While the technical aspects of Tarski’s work were much admired and have been
much discussed, its philosophical significance remained unclear, in part because T-sentences
struck many theorists as less than illuminating. But the weight of philosophical opinion
gradually shifted, and eventually this platitudinous appearance was regarded as a virtue and
indeed as indicative of the whole truth about truth. The idea was that, instead of staring at the
abstract question “What is truth?,” philosophers should content themselves with the particular
question “What does the truth of S amount to?”; and for any well-specified sentence, a
humble T-sentence will provide the answer.
Deflationism
Philosophers before Tarski, including Gottlob Frege and Frank Ramsey, had
suspected that the key to understanding truth lay in the odd fact that putting “It is true that…”
in front of an assertion changes almost nothing. It is true that snow is white if and only if
snow is white. At most there might be an added emphasis, but no change of topic. The theory
that built on this insight is known as “deflationism” or “minimalism” (an older term is
“the redundancy theory”).

Gottlob Frege
Gottlob Frege.
Courtesy of the Universitatsbibliothek, Jena, Ger.
Yet, if truth is essentially redundant, why should talk of truth be so common?
What purpose does the truth predicate serve? The answer, according to most deflationists, is
that true is a highly useful device for making generalizations over large numbers of sayings
or assertions. For example, suppose that Winston Churchill said many things (S1, S2,
S3,…Sn). One could express total agreement with him by asserting, for each of these sayings
in turn, “Churchill said S, and S,” and then asserting, “And that is all he said.” But even if
one could do this—which would involve knowing and repeating every single saying
Churchill made—it would be much more economical just to say, “Everything Churchill said
was true.” Similarly, “Every indicative sentence is either true or false” is a way of insisting,
for each such sentence (S), S or not S.
Despite their contention that the truth predicate is essentially redundant,
deflationists can allow that truth is important and that it should be the aim of rational inquiry.
Indeed, the paraphrases into which the deflationary view renders such claims help to explain
why this is so. Thus, “It is important to believe that some individuals are ill only if it is true
that they are” becomes “It is important to believe that some individuals are ill only if they
are.” Other broad claims that appeal to the notion of truth can likewise be paraphrased
in illuminating ways, according to deflationists. “Science is useful because what it says is is
true” is a way of simultaneously asserting an indefinitely large number of sentences such as
“Science is useful because it says that cholera is caused by a bacterium, and it is” and
“Science is useful because it says that smoking causes cancer, and it does” and so on.
While deflationism has been an influential view since the 1970s, it has not
escaped criticism. One objection is that it takes the meanings of sentences too much for
granted. According to many theorists, including the American philosopher Donald Davidson,

the meaning of a sentence is equivalent to its truth conditions (see semantics: truth-
conditional semantics). If deflationism is correct, however, then this approach to sentence
meaning might have to be abandoned (because no statement of the truth conditions of a
sentence could be any more informative than the sentence itself). But this in turn is
contestable, since deflationists can reply that the best model of what it is to “give the truth
conditions” of a sentence is simply that of Tarski, and Tarski uses nothing beyond the
deflationists’ own notion of truth. If this is right, then saying what a sentence means by
giving its truth conditions comes to nothing more than saying what a sentence means.
As indicated above, the realm of truth bearers has been populated in different
ways in different theories. In some it consists of sentences, in others sayings, assertions,
beliefs, or propositions. Although assertions and related speech acts are featured in many
theories, much work remains to be done on the nature of assertion in different areas of
discourse. The danger, according to Wittgenstein and many others, is that the smooth notion
of an assertion conceals many different functions of language underneath its bland surface.
For example, some theorists hold that some assertions are not truth bearers but are rather put
forward as useful fictions, as instruments, or as expressions of attitudes of approval or
disapproval or of dispositions to act in certain ways. A familiar example of such a view is
expressivism in ethics, which holds that ethical assertions (e.g., “Vanity is bad”) function as
expressions of attitude (“Tsk tsk”) or as prescriptions (“Do not be vain!”) (see ethics: Irrealist
views: projectivism and expressivism). Another example is the constructive empiricism of the
Dutch-born philosopher Bas van Fraassen, according to which some scientific assertions are
not expressions of belief so much as expressions of a lesser state of mind, “acceptance.”
Accordingly, assertions such as “Quarks exist” are put forward not as true but merely as
“empirically adequate.” If some such views are correct, however, then an adequate theory of
truth will require some means of distinguishing the kinds of assertion to which it should
apply—some account, in other words, of what “asserting as true” consists of and how it
contrasts, if it does, with other kinds of commitment.
Even if there is this much diversity in the human linguistic repertoire, however,
it does not necessarily follow that deflationism—according to which the truth
predicate applies redundantly to all assertions—is wrong. The diversity might be identifiable
without holding the truth predicate responsible. “Vanity is bad” or “Quarks exist” might
contrast with “Snow is white” in important respects without the difference entailing that the
first two sentences are without truth value (neither true nor false) or at best true in other
senses.
UNIT 3
Non-violence
Introduction
As is well known, Truth and non-violence were the basic tenets of Gandhian
philosophy. Moralization of politics had been the dream of many political thinkers, to make it
a reality had been Gandhi’s endeavour. As he aptly remarked: “Non-violence is the greatest
force at the disposal of mankind.” Referring to the problems of humanity created through
exploitation of man by man and group by group, he thought these could be solved through

Satyagraha, the organized use of truth, non-violence and the purity of means. Gandhi’s
Satyagraha attempted to guide the individual towards the goal of higher life and also solve
political and social problems. He called it the moral equivalent of war and that the 'soul force'
or 'love force' used by the Satyagrahis in the form of non-violent resistance and civil
disobedience with no hatred for their antagonists is more powerful, effective and creative
than the destructive and death dealing weapons of war. Ahimsa-the non-violence was a
Dharma, no matter if, for Gandhi, it was a plant of slow growth; and along with its activities,
applicable in day-to-day practices, it was the means to achieve the goal. Satyagraha, pursuit
of Truth and fully imbibed with Ahimsa was the weapon applied in political actions. He, as
we know, largely succeeded in Ahimsa and Satyagraha, because he was brave, humble and
free from hatred. All these three were, and are, fully within the scope of non-violence; in
other words, they were, and are, themselves the best introduction of Ahimsa. And Mahatma
Gandhi practiced them in best possible manner both in his individual life and public life.
Further, he loved everybody without any discrimination.
Love is a value supplementary to Ahimsa. It is an ornament of the brave. In it
everything is good, positive and beneficial provided it is not momentary. Mahatma Gandhi
saw the ultimate Truth in love and said, 'To see the universal and pervading spirit of Truth
face-to-face one must be able to love the meanest of certain as myself.' That is why; his non-
violence was that of the brave. It was not born out of cowardice. Extending the principle of
non-violence into political space, he envisaged non-cooperation movement. Non-cooperation
involved the purposeful withholding of cooperation or the unwillingness to initiate in
cooperation with an opponent. The goal of noncooperation is to halt or hinder an industry,
political system, or economic process. Methods of noncooperation include labor strikes,
economic boycotts, civil disobedience, tax refusal, and general disobedience. Gandhi’s
emphasis was both on opposing the British Raj and on building a society that would make
India worthy of her freedom. He led the famous “Salt March to the Sea” to make salt in
defiance of the British tax laws and spent countless months in British jails, and at the same
time he worked to end the caste system; he transformed the despised outcastes into
“Harijans” (the children of God); he instituted the hand-spinning of thread and the hand-
weaving of Khadi cloth; 3 he improved sanitation, and he established an entirely new concept
of “basic education” to meet the needs of Indian villagers.
Concept of Non-violence
Mahatma Gandhi and non-violence have become integral to each other and
one cannot think of Gandhi without non-violence and non-violence without Gandhi in our
own times. Gandhi’s concept of non-violence is very comprehensive and seminal. As we
know violence has many forms, it could be physical or psychological, it could be individual
or institutional and it could be obvious or subtle. To refrain from physical violence is not
enough, one has to pledge oneself even to avoid any thought of violence. Now let us analyze
the concept of ahimsa (non-violence) and its relation with Satyagraha. The word ahimsa
literally means non-injury, non-killing. Or in other words, it means abstaining from harming
anyone in any form. It implies completely renunciation of one’s will or intention to hurt or
harm any living being. First of all ahimsa means not only injury but also positive love and
charity and this charity and love for everyone including to our enemy. The real ahimsa,
according to Gandhi is that, one should not possess ill will even towards one’s enemy. True
observance of ahimsa requires self-suffering rather than inflicting suffering upon the
wrongdoer. Thus, it is clear that, to be follower of ahimsa in the Gandhian sense is not a very

easy task. As according to Gandhi the follower of ahimsa must always be ready to die
without any desire ever to hurt or kill anyone. Gandhi distinguishes three kinds of himsa and
took abstention from all of them as true ahimsa. The first one is Kritahimsa, (violence done
by one’s own self). Then there is Karitahimsa (violence instigated and got done by somebody
else). Lastly, there is anumodiatahimsa (watching passively some violence done by someone
else). According to Gandhi, the follower must abstain from all of these. Here ahimsa includes
all moral virtues, like humility, forgiveness, love, charity, selflessness, fearlessness,
innocence, nonattachment, etc. Ahimsa is such a moral virtue without which we could ceases
to be a human.
Ahimsa is our fundamental law. According to Gandhi, ahimsa is the soul force
and without that we cannot become nonviolent. Therefore nonviolence is possible by the
strength of the soul. Ahimsa is the weapon of the strong, not the weak. As Gandhi says,
'Nonviolence presupposes ability to strike. It is a conscious, deliberate restrain put upon one’s
desire for vengeance.' So true nonviolence resides in our mind and it is an inner disposition.
Non-violence is not a negative virtue, but the positive one of love and compassion. He writes,
'ahimsa is one of the world's great principles which no power on earth can wipe out.
Thousands like myself may die in trying to vindicate the ideal but ahimsa will never die. And
the gospel of ahimsa can be spread only through believers dying for the cause.' What Gandhi
means by this is that non-violence is an eternal principle underlying human civilization
because human existence depends on this principle. Man has been learning to practice this
principle in life through centuries, though complete non-violence has not been possible yet. 4
Gandhi considers non-violence as the foundation of human civilization because it is this
principle that prevents destruction of the human race along with the rest of the creation. It is
this principle that has made man realize that human progress lies in the mutual love and
respect for one another's life. Man has come to realize this truth about ahimsa after centuries
of experiments. History of man is testimony to the triumph of non-violence because violence
has never brought any good to mankind. He believes non-violence as a means to Truth
because he thinks that only a non-violent person can attain Truth. Truth which is the supreme
principle of existence is attainable only by a person loving all existence. Non-violence is the
love for all beings. Thus truth is fortified by and ushered in by love, according to Gandhi.
Truth and non-violence thus are the two fundamental principles of existence, one standing for
the ontological principle that sustains all existence, the other for the moral law that ensures
and fortifies the former. Truth is the law of existence while non violence is the law of love.
Both are moral laws in a sense but the law of Truth is more fundamental because the law of
love presupposes it. Gandhi writes, ' I am not a visionary. I claim to be a practical idealist.
The religion of nonviolence is not meant for the rishis and saints. It is meant for the common
people as well. Nonviolence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the brute. The
spirit lies dormant in the brute and he knows no law but that of physical might. The dignity of
man requires obedience to a higher law—to the strength of the spirit.' Here Gandhi holds that
the law of non-violence is the law of the spirit and is therefore superior to the law of the
physical might. The law is the foundation of human life and culture. In this sense it is the law
of the spiritual progress of mankind in general. Gandhi writes, 'The rishis, who discovered the
law of non-violence in the midst of violence, were greater than Newton. They were
themselves greater warriors than Wellington. Having themselves known the use of arms, they
realized their uselessness and taught a weary world that its salvation lay not through violence
but through nonviolence.' Non-violence is not the weapon of the weak but of the strong in the
sense that only the strong man knows the limits of the physical strength. Nonviolence lies
outside the boundary of violence because only when the limits of the latter are known or
realized that we come face to face with non violence. The might of non-violence is far

superior to the total strength of violence in the world. The kind of non-violence advocated by
Gandhi is based on cultivating a particular philosophical outlook and is integrally associated
with Truth. According to Gandhi God is Truth and Truth is God. Thus one cannot think of
non-violence without being accompanied by truthfulness. Gandhi believed in what he called
Satyagraha, i.e., insistence on Truth. Thus first of all one should be thoroughly convinced of
Truth of one’s cause before launching any struggle for that. Without such deep rooted
conviction one cannot consistently avoid violence in ones struggle. Gandhi stressed purity of
soul time and again. One is faced with crises in life, especially when such crises Gandhi used
to deeply reflect on the causes and would not take any decision unless he felt his soul is pure
and without any malice. It is not easy to practice such rigorous self-discipline for ordinary
people, howsoever desirable. Nevertheless it should remain an ideal for us to be achieved.
We see so much violence to achieve them. Similarly we see so much state try to pursue their
own desire and to perpetuate their hold over the state.
Violence and satyagraha
The philosophy of Satyagraha and non-violence had been adopted by Gandhi
from his religious beliefs. Some Western thinkers believe that he got the idea from the New
Testament, specially from the Sermon on the Mount. It is true that Gandhi was greatly
influenced by the Sermon. But he found that it only confirmed his own Vaishnavite faith. As
is generally known the Vaishnavites, the Jains and the Buddhists believe that ahimsa or non-
violence is the highest virtue. And Gandhi used this philosophy to the solution of political,
economic and social problems. Though non-violence may not seem to have any authority in
Hindu religion, Gandhi had his own way of interpreting the Gita. He did not consider it a
book on politics or political or military strategy but a religious scripture. It showed the way to
self-realization through right action undertaken as one’s dharma (duty) without consideration
of its fruit, favourable or unfavourable. Whether Hindu scriptures sanction violence in
asserting one’s legitimate rights or not, may be a question under dispute but Gandhi believed
that they lay emphasis on ahimsa or non-violence as a great virtue. 6 All founders of great
religion have exhorted us to avoid violence and have stressed need for peace.
It is not Buddhism and Christianity alone, even Islam’s central emphasis is on
peace and non-violence. But he find so much violence precisely because religion as soon
after the death of their founder turn into huge establishments and the politics of controlling
these institutions begin and violence ensue. And of course, religious doctrine are used to
legitimize violence giving false impression about the doctrines themselves. Individual
violence, though condemnable is not as dangerous as institutional violence and particularly
state violence. He believed that injustice can be removed through Truth, non-violence and
purity of means has been considered too idealistic to be put into practice. Those who make
this criticism forget that by these means alone Gandhi achieved a great measure of success in
the movements he led both in South Africa and India. He did not believe that the practice of
non-violence in the political field was beyond the capacity of man, as he said: 'The first
condition of non-violence is justice all round in every department of life…. The votary of
non-violence has to cultivate the capacity for sacrifice of the highest type in order to be free
from fear. He who has not overcome all fear cannot practice ahimsa to perfection'. It is also
proved that any conflict between individuals or communities or races or nations can be
resolved, when the traditional methods of reasoning and peaceful negotiations fail, not taking
recourse to the usual armed rebellion or war which is immoral and against human nature and
divine law of love, but by adopting the technique of Satyagraha, i.e., the spirituality of

combat. It enjoins and empowers the Satyagrahis to hang on firmly or adhere steadfastly to
truth and non-violence in resisting and defying unjust laws unmindful of the suffering which
civil disobedience brings. Satyagraha seeks to convert the opponent to the Truth through self
suffering and sacrifice of the Satyagrahis. In other words, by putting the law of ' Condemn
the Evil but, at the same time Love the Evil-doer', Satyagraha pierces through the heart of the
opponent, opens his eyes to see the Truth, and weans him away from untruth and violence. In
order to bring about such a radical transformation in the antagonist, the Satyagrahi must have
absolute faith in self-suffering as a means of revealing the Truth to the opponent and hence a
source of new life to the antagonist. He says ' the appeal of reasoning is more to the head, but
the penetration of the heart comes from suffering. It opens up the inner understanding of
man.' In order to be effective, self-suffering, the core of Satyagraha should be reinforced with
courage of conviction and strong will power to hold on steadfastly to Ahimsa in the face of
brute force. in fact , Gandhi advised that ' when there is only a choice between cowardice and
violence I would advice violence'. He understood and practise non-violence as in its positive
sense as 'love in action'. Thus for rigorous practice of non-violence strict self-discipline is
highly necessary. Gandhi had practiced this strict self-discipline to a degree of perfection. If
one accepts Truth through self-discipline no violence of any degree will be involved.
Anything enforced from above, be it truth, involves. Thus non-violence has to be
accompanied by strict self-discipline. A non-violence resister has to have great patience. In
fact truth and patience are 7 quite integral to each other. One can hardly pursue the truth
without inexhaustible amount of patience.
Such an approach when carried out in the best spirit of nonviolence has four
important characteristics: (1) Participants fight tyranny, aggression, an evil system with all
the vigour at their command, but they believe in the worth and dignity of their opponent and
insist upon loving him even when he showers abuse or inflicts physical punishment upon
them, yes, even when he kills them. (2) Participants try to bring about a change of attitude
within their enemy; they strive to raise his sights, not to subdue, cripple, or kill him. (3) They
take loss and suffering upon themselves. They do not inflict pain upon another, nor threaten
him with pain. There is no warning of retaliation, massive or otherwise. It is important to bear
in mind that nonviolent action does not mean the absence of violence, nor the absence of
anguish and suffering, but that the agony involved is taken upon one’s self and not visited
upon an opponent. (4) Constructive work is undertaken wherever possible. Protest against
injustice, against destructive systems and practices is not enough. The eradication of poverty,
the building of cooperatives, the establishment of village industry, the improvement of
educational facilities, these and similar efforts must be constantly entered into. The term
"nonviolence" is often linked with or even used as a synonym for pacifism; however, the two
concepts are fundamentally different. Pacifism denotes the rejection of the use of violence as
a personal decision on moral or spiritual grounds, but does not inherently imply any
inclination toward change on a socio-political level.
Nonviolence, on the other hand, is most often associated with the intent to
achieve social or political change. Indeed, the desire to pursue change effectively may be a
reason for the rejection of violence. Also, a person may advocate nonviolence in a specific
context while advocating violence in other contexts.

Relevance of non-violence
The acid test of relevance of works and views of a great man is definitely the
application of them in prevailing conditions of time and space. Mahatma Gandhi is
fortunately among those few great men in the entire human history whose individual life,
works and views not only had proved to be great and exemplary during his own lifetime but
there relevance and significance remained intact after his passing away. Recognizing the
relevance and effectiveness of nonviolence, United Nations observes October 2– the birth
anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi as International Non-Violence Day. For, Gandhi became
ideal hero for thousands around the world in general and renowned figures like Martin Luther
King Junior of America, Nelson Mandela of South Africa and Ninoy Aquino of the
Philippines in particular. Simultaneous to this, his views and works are still worth giving a
thought, and if they are applied according to the prevailing conditions of time and space, no
doubt, they are fully capable of bringing sound and beautiful results and some time beyond
expectations.
Many examples of non-violent action include: Martin Luther King's adoption
of Gandhi's nonviolent methods in the struggle to win civil rights for African Americans, and
César Chávez's campaigns of nonviolence in the 1960s to protest the treatment of farm
workers in California. The 1989 "Velvet Revolution" in Czechoslovakia that saw the
overthrow of the Communist government is considered one of the important of the largely
nonviolent revolutions. Many 8 ruthless dictatorships have been undermined as a result of
mass protest by unarmed civilians, such as those of the shah in Iran (1979), Marcos in the
Philippines(1986), Pinochet in Chile (1989) and Ceausescu in Romania(1989). Most recently
the nonviolent campaigns of Leymah Gbowee and the women of Liberia were able to achieve
peace after a 14-year civil war. In an essay, "To Abolish War," evolutionary biologist Judith
Hand advocated for the use of nonviolent direct action to dismantle the global war machine.
It may be pertinent to mention here that Gandhi believed and showed that civil resistance is
the inherent right of every citizen and is a sovereign remedy in the hands of the people. His
political theory and action can only be appreciated if this note of defiance of evil and
resistance to any irresponsible authority, irrespective of political forms, which tramples on
the individual’s liberty and freedom, is duly recognized.
The legacy of Gandhi, Dr. King and many others stands to be seriously
challenged at this juncture of human history. Both of them as also several political thinkers
have viewed violence and democracy as incompatible. But Gandhi's interpretation gains
relevance and appreciation from communist thinkers as he considered any sort of exploitation
of man by man indistinguishable from violence. It is not possible to indefinitely bear injustice
and tyranny. The unchecked violence of tyrants degrades human beings. Pioneers in every
field have always worked for freedom of belief, expression, movement etc. If nations do not
adopt Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence to remove injustices and resolve national and
international disputes, there is no escape from hate, violence and war. There is also no escape
from weapons of war becoming sharper and ever more destructive. Today, we have reached a
stage when their use will not only destroy civilization but may also destroy the human race
itself. One can legitimately ask: why should non-violence be used when violence offers more
tangible and faster solutions? It is important to realize that the use of violence to solve a
social or political problem creates a host of other problems in its wake. No matter how pure
and sublime one’s aim is, use of violence to achieve it can never be justified. In the words of
Mahatma Gandhi: 'Violence breeds violence...Pure goals can never justify impure or violent

action...They say the means are after all just means. I would say means are after all
everything. As the means, so the end....If we take care of the means we are bound to reach the
end sooner or later tool' that is available to all. One doesn’t need either time or resources to
acquire this tool. Every single person in this world can practice non-violence right from this
moment, if one realizes its importance. Also, non-violent approach breaks the cycle of
violence and counter-violence, which is usually triggered by the use of violence as a solution.
If one group attacks another one violently, the attacked group is naturally instigated to
retaliate with violence. This, in turn, provokes the first group to counter-attack with fiercer
violence. This chain reaction continues until the government agencies effectively quell it or
one of the groups is completely wiped out i.e. until a group has ‘won.’ How can we term this
outcome as a ‘win’ when there is no one to celebrate the ‘win’ because this disastrous cycle
results into nothing but massive bloodshed and deaths? Ethnic cleansing and communal riots
are the obvious examples in which there is widespread bloodshed. In fact, retaliatory violence
legitimizes aggressive violence in the eyes of people.
Also, violence ‘empowers’ victims and they begin to behave with the sense of
power, which is the root of evil. Thus ‘empowerment’ of victims of violence through
violence aggravates the situation. The 9 victim in fact is not empowered through violence as
he thinks. He, in turn, also become part of the same game and both aggressors and victims
find justification in each other and become each other’s mirror image. It is a fact that non-
violent Satyagraha sometimes takes longer time but, definitely, it cause less damage to
persons and property and does not leave trace of hatred and ill-will. Ultimately imbibed with
Ahimsa it is pursuit of Truth and Truth wins always. It is not argued that everyone will have
faith in non-violence. It is very natural that some will not like it due to difference in
perception. Non-violence, as a strategy, was often rejected and criticized by many, basically
on the grounds that violence is a necessary accompaniment to revolutionary change and that
right to self-defense is fundamental. Whichever side of the coin one chooses to look at,
violent means cannot ensure a sustainable peace. To achieve a good end, means should also
be good. A fragile peace is no peace at all. Non-violence, in essence, is the use of peaceful
means to bring about a positive and lasting social or political change. Use of non-violence as
a solution is tantamount to giving aid to the injured, water to the thirsty and food to the
hungry. The obvious question which arises is: whether a non-violent society is foreseeable in
the distant future. While attitudes have to change, so does the character of the state and its
relations and behaviour with the people. One cannot deny that not until humanity dies will
Gandhi’s philosophy have relevance for us…it was a voice against injustice and oppression –
the eternal voice of humanism. To practice non-violence, all we have to do is to understand
what nonviolence really is. What changes it can bring and how we can apply it to our
personal, social and global life. There is a saying, ‘No creation is possible without
imagination’.
Limitations
Many people felt that non-violence as a principle and as a tactic could work in
the context of colonial rule in India, for it wrong- footed the British, putting them on the
defensive. Until then they had been able to counter what was normally the petty violence of
protesters with a ruthless use of their superior gunpowder. Faced with non-violence they were
left in a quandary, as their counter-violence merely served to reveal the moral bankruptcy of
their rule. In this respect, Gandhi‘s insistence on complete non-violence was critical in
achieving a moral advantage for nations. But can we consider non-violence as an absolute

value? It is often argued that non-violence works very well against opponents with a moral
conscience but not so much useful against an enemy without moral sense. For example,
Nelson Mandela who is a great admirer of Gandhi felt that non-violence could not succeed in
South Africa against a white regime which was not prepared to accept the morality of the
struggle for democratic rights and which was prepared to use the most violent and murderous
means to suppress it. As Mandela wrote ‘Non-violence passive resistance is effective as long
as your opponent adheres to the same rules as you do. But if peaceful protest is met with
violence its efficacy is at an end’. Gandhi did not accept this sort of critique-there was, he
held no human without some form of moral conscience, and even the Nazis might be made to
yield. As he stated 'The hardest metal yields to sufficient heat’. Dennis Dalton, otherwise a
strong admirer of Gandhi, felt that Gandhian method may not have worked in Nazi Germany.
Under such a totalitarian regime, even the slightest dissidence was crushed, with arrests in the
dead of night and instant executions or incarceration in 10 concentration camps in such a way
that the population as a whole remained in ignorance. He felt that Satyagraha can only
succeed when the government is ambivalent, as was the case in India and in western
democracies.
In situations in which rulers are prepared to eliminate many of their citizens to
remain in power, it cannot work. For example, Martin Luther King does not hesitate to call
upon governmental authorities to use force to restore order when nonviolent Negroes are
mobbed by violent whites. This is a tacit admission of the limits of human endurance in the
given situation; it is not possible to ask men to suffer perpetually or to seek victory only
through sainthood. In a sense, it can be said that Gandhi’s quest for a predominantly non-
violent society as the realizable goal as unattainable due to human imperfection. It indicates
the direction rather than the destination, the process rather than the consummation. The
structure of the state that will emerge as a result of a non-violent revolution will be a
compromise, a via media, between the ideal non-violent society and the facts of human
nature. It will be the attainable middle way of Gandhi, the first step after the revolution,
towards the ideal.
Conclusion
We have looked at the Gandhi's concept of non-violence and his search for and
perfection of a tool of political action that would yet remain faithful to his philosophical
commitment to nonviolence. We tried to understand the call of Ahimsa is to use the ' love-
force' or 'brute-force' to overcome evil not by inflicting injury or death on the evil-doer but by
self-suffering with ardent and earnest hope of bringing about a change of heart in the evil-
prone antagonist. The purpose here was to review the dynamics of Gandhian non-violent
resistance - its operation and functioning in the system - and to see how it was used by
Gandhi as a political weapon with the spirit of positive, liberative and self-suffering love.
"Nonviolence is an active force of the highest order. It is soul force or the
power of Godhead within us. Imperfect man cannot grasp the whole of that essence - he
would not be able to bear its full blaze, but even an infinitesimal fraction of it, when it
becomes active within us, can work wonders."
- Mahatma Gandhi

Gandhism, an amalgam of Gandhi's views and practices, revolves
around ahimsa, the non-violence. Gandhi had no weapon but nonviolence. He successfully
implemented the rule of non-violence in the struggle for independence. All his experiments
in ahimsa had taught him that nonviolence in practice means common labour with the body.
To his mind, the most perfect demonstration of nonviolence was in Champaran.
Concept of Ahimsa
Ahimsa is derived from the Sanskrit verb root san, which means to kill. The
form hims means "desirous to kill"; the prefix a- is a negation. So a-himsa means literally
"lacking any desire to kill". Literally translated, ahimsa means to be without harm; to be
utterly harmless, not only to oneself and others, but to all living beings. But its implications
are far wider; it is more than not doing violence, it is more than an attitude, it is a whole way
of life. Itis the opposite of himsa, "violence" which is to hurt the vitalities (pranas), through
vibration due to the passions, which agitate mind, body, or speech.(Tattvarthadhigama Sutra
vii:13) The concept of ahimsa extends to all living beings, and therefore, protection of
environment, natural habitats and vegetarianism are its natural derivatives. Buddhism and
Jainism impose total non-violence on their followers. In Hinduism, it means the principle of
non-injury to living beings. Hindus, particularly in the southern parts of India, often abstain
from eating meat in accordance with the belief in not harming animals. To one who reads the
spirit of the Gita, it teaches the secret of nonviolence, the secret of realizing self though the
physical body.
Ahimsa in Jainism
The basic elements of Gandhi’s philosophy were rooted in the Indian
religions of Jainism and Buddhism. Both of these religions advocate ahimsa, which is
“absence of the desire to kill or harm” (Chapple 10). The Acaranga Sutra, a Jain text,
describes the fundamental need for non-violence: “All beings are fond of life; they like
pleasure and hate pain, shun destruction and like to live, they long to live. To all, life is dear”
(Chapple 11). Mahavira threw new light on the perennial quest of the soul with the truth and
discipline of ahimsa. He said: There is nothing so small and subtle as the atom nor any
element as vast as space. Among the Jains, one of the greatest virtues was to show
compassion and kindness to fellow living beings. The clear rule for Jain monks is that all
possible care must be taken not to harm living things while walking, acting, speaking,
begging, or performing excretory acts. To the Jains ahimsa is the supreme religion.
According to the Jain tradition, ahimsa is a great vow of compassion in body, mind and spirit.
Their scriptures state: Don’t injure, abuse, oppress, enslave, insult, torment, torture, or kill
any creature or living being. The Jains believe that life (which equals soul) is sacred
regardless of faith, caste, race, or even species. Harm done to other beings is considered harm
to oneself since it attracts much karma. Any injury to the material or conscious vitalities
caused by passionate activity of mind, body, or speech is certainly called violence; certainly
the non-appearance of attachment and other passions is ahimsa. (Purusharthasiddhi-upaya
iv:43-4 ) The most forceful statement is found in the Jnanarnava: Violence alone is the
gateway to the miserable state, it is also the ocean of sin; it is itself a terrible hell and is surely
the densest darkness". "If a person is accustomed to committing injury, then all his virtues
like selflessness, greatness, desirelessness, penance, liberality, or munificence are worthless.

In this strife torn world of hatred and hostilities, aggression and aggrandisement, and of
unscrupulous and unbridled exploitation and consumerism, the Jain perspective finds the evil
of violence writ large. Jainism has become synonymous with Ahimsa and Jain religion is
considered as the religion of Ahimsa. (Acharya Mahapragya: ‘Non-Violence and its many
Facets’)
Ahimsa is the first of five precepts or ten precepts that the Buddha taught - "do
not kill.” Jesus was the most active resister known perhaps to history. His was nonviolence
par excellence. Ahimsa is certainly not cowardice; it is wisdom. And wisdom is the
cumulative knowledge of the existing divine laws of reincarnation, karma, dharma, the all-
pervasiveness and sacredness of things, blended together within the psyche or soul of the
Hindu. Ramana Maharishi states: You do not like to suffer yourself. How can you inflict
suffering on others? Every killing is a suicide. The eternal, blissful and natural state has been
smothered by this life of ignorance. In this way the present life is due to the killing of the
eternal, pristine Being. Is it not a case of suicide? Tolstoy was the greatest apostle of
nonviolence that the present age has produced.
Ahimsa in Gandhism
Gandhi learnt the lesson of nonviolence from his wife, when he tried to bend
her to his will. Her determined resistance to his will, on the one hand, and her quiet
submission to the suffering his stupidity involved, on the other, ultimately made him ashamed
of himself and cured him of his stupidity in thinking that he was born to rule over her and, in
the end, she became his teacher in nonviolence. Generally, ahimsa means non-violence. But
to Gandhi, “it has much higher, infinitely higher meaning. It means that you may not offend
anybody; you may not harbour uncharitable thought, even in connection with those who
consider your enemies. To one who follows this doctrine, there are no enemies. A man who
believes in the efficacy of this doctrine finds in the ultimate stage, when he is about to reach
the goal, the whole world at his feet. If you express your love- ahimsa-in such a manner that
it impresses itself indelibly upon your so called enemy, he must return that love. This
doctrine tells us that we may guard the honour of those under our charge by delivering our
own lives into the hands of the man who would commit the sacrilege. And that requires far
greater courage than delivering of blows”.
My nonviolence is made of stern stuff. It is firmer than the firmest metal
known to the scientists. Nonviolence, in its dynamic condition means conscious suffering. If
nonviolence is to be contagious and infectious, I must acquire greater control over my
thoughts. A nonviolent action accompanied by nonviolence in thought and word should
never produce enduring violent reaction upon the opponent. A nonviolent warrior knows no
leaving the battle. He rushes into the mouth of ahimsa, never even once harbouring an evil
thought. His nonviolence demands universal love, and we are not a small part of it. and bids
him dedicate himself to the service of minorities. His nonviolence is not merely kindness to
all the living creatures. His love for nonviolence is superior to every other thing, mundane or
super mundane. His creed of nonviolence does not favour the punishment of thieves and
dacoits and even murderers. His faith in truth and nonviolence is ever growing, and as he is
ever trying to follow them in his life. His life is dedicated to the service of India through the
religion of nonviolence which he believe to be the root of Hinduism. His mission is to
convert every Indian, even Englishmen, and finally the world to nonviolence for regulating
mutual relations, whether political, economic, social or religious. His nonviolence does not

admit of running away from danger and leaving the dear ones unprotected. He says,
nonviolence is a creed. I must act up to it, whether I am alone or have companions. My creed
of nonviolence is an extremely active force. As there is no place to ego and pride in Ahimsa-
the non-violence, it is necessary for a person who claims to be non-violent that he follows it
in his routines. In this context Mahatma Gandhi himself says: "If one has pride and egoism,
he is not non-violent. Non-violence is impossible without humility."
Ahimsa and Truth
The only virtue Gandhi wants to claim is truth and nonviolence. Truth and
nonviolence are as old as the hills. Ahimsa and truth are so intertwined that it is practically
impossible to disentangle and separate them. They are like the two sides of a coin, or rather a
smooth unstamped metallic disc. Nevertheless ahimsa is the means; truth is the end. Truth is
positive, nonviolence is negative. Truth stands for the fact, nonviolence negatives the fact.
Truth is self-evident, nonviolence is its maturest fruit. It is contained in truth, but isn’t self-
evident. "This ahimsa is the basis of the search for truth. I am realising every day that the
search is vain unless it is founded on ahimsa as the basis..."The patriotic spirit demands loyal
and strict adherence to nonviolence and truth. Truth and nonviolence are perhaps the activist
forces you have in the world. For Gandhi, ahimsa was the noblest expression of truth. “With
truth combined with ahimsa, “Gandhi writes, “you can bring the world to your feet.” He also
said: Truth is my religion and ahimsa is the only way of its realisation. The realization of the
truth which is the realization of the oneness with all that is created as an extension of oneself
portrays ahimsa. Whereas ahimsa when adopted as means to realize the absolute truth
becomes an effective spiritual practice. Truth and nonviolence are no cloistered virtues but
are applicable as much in the forum and the legislatures as in the market-place. To Gandhi
truth is God and there is no way to find truth except the way of nonviolence. He promised:
The practice of truth and nonviolence melted the religious differences, and we learnt to see
beauty in each religion. Complete independence will be complete only to the extent of our
approach in practice to truth and nonviolence. Use truth as your anvil, nonviolence as your
hammer and anything that does not stand the test when it is brought to the anvil of truth and
hammered with ahimsa, reject as non-Hindu.
Ahimsa and Satyagraha
Ahimsa is the bedrock of satyagraha, the "irreducible minimum" to
which satyagraha adheres and the final measure of its value. Gandhi clearly holds that
the satyagrahis are not to harbour anger let alone hatred. They are very advanced in their
development of ahimsa. "Nonviolence is the law of our species as violence is the law of the
brute. The spirit lies dormant in the brute and he knows no law but that of physical might.
The dignity of man requires obedience to a higher law-to the strength of the spirit." Gandhi
said, "Strength does not come from physical capacity. It comes from an indomitable will."
Therein he found his own strength, and there he exhorted others to look for theirs. Latent in
the depths of human consciousness, this inner strength can be cultivated by the observance of
complete ahimsa. Whereas violence checks this energy within, and is ultimately disruptive in
its consequences, ahimsa properly understood, is invincible. "Abstinence in root from
violence is non-violence.

"Gandhi connected non-violence with bravery and declares it to be a
[continuously] active force. It is a strongest force to be used properly and with high
understanding, and not with equal ease. In Gandhi's own words: "Ahimsa cannot be dismissed
as lightly as you think. Ahimsa is the strongest force known. But if all can use the strongest
force with equal ease, it would lose its importance. We have not been able yet to discover the
true measure of the innumerable properties of an article of our daily use like water. Some of
its properties fill us with wonder. Let us not, therefore, make light of the strongest force like
Ahimsa, and let's try to discover its hidden power with patience and faith." “Nonviolence
cannot be preached. It has to be practiced," he insisted. "If we remain nonviolent, hatred will
die as everything does, from disuse." “Non-violence is not a garment to be put on and off at
will, its seat is in the heart and it must be inseparable part of our very being”. The religion of
nonviolence is not meant merely for the rishis and saints. It is meant for the common people
as well.
Ahimsa as a law
Nonviolence is universal law acting under all circumstances. Gandhi
characterized his practice of ahimsa as a science, and said: "I have been practicing with
scientific precision nonviolence and its possibilities for an unbroken period of over 50 years."
He was a precise man, meticulous and exacting, fond of quoting a Marathi hymn that goes,
"Give me love, give me peace, O Lord, but don't deny me common sense." He valued
experience as the test of truth, and the nonviolence he pursued and called "true nonviolence"
had to conform to experience in all levels of human affairs. "I have applied it," he declares,
"in every walk of life: domestic, institutional, economic, and political. And I know of no
single case in which it has failed." Daily practice could determine its value, "when it acts in
the midst of and in spite of opposition," and he advised critics to observe the results of his
experiments rather than dissect his theories. Nonviolence is the law of our species as violence
is the law of the brute. "Nonviolence is not a cloistered virtue to be practiced by the
individual for his peace and final salvation, but it is a rule of conduct for society. "Total non-
violence consists in not hurting some other one's intellect, speech or action by own thought,
utterance or deeds and not to deprive some one of his life." Gandhi's adherence to
nonviolence grew from his experience that it was the only way to resolve the problem of
conflict personally. Violence, he felt, only made the pretence of a solution, and sowed seeds
of bitterness and enmity that would ultimately disrupt the situation.
For Gandhi, to profess nonviolence with sincerity or even to write a book
about it was, not adequate. "If one does not practice nonviolence in his personal relationships
with others, he is vastly mistaken. Nonviolence, like charity, must begin at home." The
practice of nonviolence is by no means a simple matter, and Gandhi never intimated that it
was. As a discipline, a "code of conduct," true nonviolence demands end, less vigilance over
one's entire way of life because it includes words and thought as well as actions." Ahimsa is
not the crude thing it has been made to appear. Not to hurt any living thing is no doubt a part
of ahimsa. But it is its least expression. The principle of ahimsa is hurt by every evil thought,
by undue haste, by lying, by hatred, by wishing ill to anybody. It is also violated by our
holding on to what the world needs."
The significance of ahimsa is that, as part of the moral abstentions, it is
considered before the spiritual, physical, or mental angas. Also, it underlies the other moral
abstentions, namely; satya, i.e., truth or not lying; asteya, i.e., not stealing, aparigraha, non-

grasping or non-possesion, and brahmacarya, i.e., celibacy. For Gandhi, ahimsa means: non-
injury, nonviolence, non-harm, the renunciation of the will to kill and the intention to hurt
any living thing, the abstention from hostile thought, word or deed, and compassion for all
living creatures. Nonviolence is the law of the human race and is infinitely greater than and
superior to brute force.
Character of Ahimsa
Nonviolence is the law of the human race and is infinitely greater than and
superior to brute force. It affords the fullest protection to one's self-respect and sense of
honour, but not always to possession of land or movable property, though its habitual practice
does prove a better bulwark than the possession of armed men to defend them. Nonviolent
life was an act of self-examination and self-purification, whether by the individual, group or a
nation. Nonviolence which is a quality of the heart cannot come by an appeal to the brain. It
is a quality not of the body but of the soul. It does not need physical aids for its propagation
of effect. It is an active force of the highest order. It is soul force or the power of the godhead
within us. Nonviolence, in the very nature of things, is of no assistance in the defence of ill-
gotten gains and immoral acts. Individuals or nations who would practice nonviolence must
be prepared to sacrifice their all except honour. It is, therefore, inconsistent with the
possession of other people's countries, i.e., modern imperialism, which is frankly based on
force for its defence. It is a power which can be wielded equally by all--children, young men
and women or grown-up people, provided they have a living faith in the God of Love and
have therefore equal love for all mankind.
When nonviolence is accepted as the law of life, it must pervade the whole
being and not be applied to isolated acts. It is a profound error to suppose that, whilst the law
is good enough for individuals, it is not for masses of mankind. For the way of nonviolence
and truth is sharp as the razor's edge. Its practice is more than our daily food. Rightly taken,
food sustains the body; rightly practised nonviolence sustains the soul. Self-suppression is
often necessary in the interest of truth and nonviolence. True nonviolence is impossibility
without the possession of unadulterated fearlessness. Nonviolence requires more than the
courage of the soldier of war. Nonviolence is the virtue of the manly. The coward is innocent
of it. The force of nonviolence is infinitely more wonderful and subtle than the material
forces of nature, like electricity. The power of unarmed nonviolence is any day far superior to
that of armed force. For a nonviolent person, the whole world is one family. He will thus fear
none, nor will others fear him.
Ahimsa and Khadi
Khadi has been conceived as the foundation and the image of ahimsa. Khadi is
the warp and weft of ahimsa. The only real and reliable guarantee for khadi would be the
honesty, truthfulness and sincerity of khadi workers. A real khadi-wearer will not utter an
untruth. A real khadi-wearer will harbour no violence, no deceit, no impurity. The charkha is
an outward symbol of truth and nonviolence. For Gandhi, the spinning wheel is the symbol of
nonviolence. With their own exploitation, boycott of foreign cloth through picketing may
easily be violent; through the use of khadi it is most natural and absolutely nonviolent.
Gandhi said: “Just as there are signs by which you can recognize violence with the naked eye,

so is the spinning wheel to me a decisive sign of nonviolence.” Khadi gained prominence as
the fabric of a non-violent independence movement and reasserts itself again as the banner of
an eco-revolution.
Gandhian Non-violence
In his autobiography, The Story of My Experiments with Truth, he writes:
"To see the universal and all-pervading Spirit of Truth face to face we must be able to love
the meanest of creation as oneself. And a man who aspires after that cannot afford to keep out
of any field of life. Nonviolence affords the fullest protection to one's self-respect and sense
of honour, but not always to possession of land or movable property, though its habitual
practice does prove a better bulwark than the possession of armed men to defend them.
Nonviolence, in the very nature of things, is of no assistance in the defence of ill-gotten gains
and immoral acts. Gandhi himself admits:" My love for nonviolence is superior to every other
thing mundane or supramundane. It is equalled only by my love for Truth, which is to me
synonymous with nonviolence through which and which alone I can see and reach Truth."
There are some important points to be noted here with regard to Gandhian non-violence,
especially while inviting youths of the day to be familiar with it. Ahimsa is an attribute of the
brave. Cowardice and ahimsa don't go together any more that water and fire. No power on
earth can subjugate you when you are armed with the sword of ahimsa. It ennobles both the
victor and the vanquished. Nonviolence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind.(TIG-
39)Science of nonviolence can alone lead one to pure democracy. Without real nonviolence,
there would be perfect anarchy. Love is a rare herb that makes a friend even of a sworn
enemy and this herb glows out of nonviolence. Unless discipline is rooted in nonviolence, it
might prove a source of infinite mischief. Gandhian Ahimsa is "not merely a negative state of
harmlessness but it is a positive state of love, of doing good even to the evil-doer. But it does
not mean helping the evil-doer to continue the wrong or tolerating it by passive acquiescence.
The active state of Ahimsa requires you to resist the wrong-doer." Ahimsa is a weapon of
matchless potency. It is the summum bonum of life. It is an attribute of the brave, in fact, it is
their all. It does not come within the reach of coward. It is no wooden or lifeless dogma, but a
living and life giving force. (Young India, Sept 6, 1926.)"The very first step in nonviolence is
that we cultivate in our daily life, as between ourselves, truthfulness, humility, tolerance,
loving kindness." The first condition of nonviolence is justice all round in every department
of life.
First of them is humility, a quality of a man free from ego and pride. Gandhi
himself says: "If one has pride and egoism, he is not non-violent. Non-violence is impossible
without humility." (My own experience is that, whenever I have acted non-violently, I have
been led to it and sustained in it by the higher promptings of an unseen power. Through my
own will I should have miserably failed. When I first went to jail, I quailed at the prospect. I
had heard terrible things about jail life. But I had faith in God's protection. Our experience
was that those who went to jail in a prayerful spirit came out victorious, those who had gone
in their own strength failed. There is no room for self-pitying in it either when you say God is
giving you the strength. Self-pity comes when you do a thing for which you expect
recognition from others. But there is no question of recognition. Nonviolence requires great
patience.
Without self-purification the realization of ahimsa as an active force remains
to be a dream only. To quote Mahatma Gandhi himself: "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 realized by one who is not
pure of heart." He himself states: "But the path of self-purification is hard and steep. To attain
to perfect purity one has to become absolutely passion free in thought, speech and action; to
rise above the opposing currents of love and hatred, attachment and repulsion.
For Gandhi, the source of ahimsa is God Himself and "ahimsa succeeds only
when we have a real living faith in [Him] God." His religion is based on truth and
nonviolence. Truth is his God. Ahimsa is the means to realize Him. The votary of ahimsa has
only one fear, that is, of God. The nonviolent man automatically becomes a servant of God.
"Ahimsa is the attribute of the soul, and therefore, to be practiced by everybody in all affairs
of life. If it cannot be practiced in all departments, it has no practical value." The principle of
‘ahimsa’ fashioned by Mahatma Gandhi is still a working model for the removal of
oppressive regimes. The people of Egypt have shown that the principles of ahimsa are still
alive and working for the positive changes which many on this planet are
demanding.(Kaieteur News, Georgetown, Guyana, February 22, 2011)
To sum up, ahimsa knows no limit and it never fails. Gandhi preached and
practiced nonviolence. He holds the view that without truth and nonviolence there can be
nothing but destruction of humanity. Gandhi said: “Ahimsa is the first article of my faith. It
is also the last article of my creed.” Ahimsa was introduced to the West by Gandhi. His
tactics and principles had influenced many leaders like Martin Luther King, James Lawson,
and Nelson Mandela to name some. Gandhi believed, ‘Nonviolence, the power of the
powerless, is the power of God, the power of truth and love that goes beyond the physical
world into the realm of the spiritual. This power can overcome death, as God revealed
through the nonviolence of Jesus, his crucifixion and subsequent resurrection in the resisting
community. In the twentieth century, Gandhi sought this power on a public level as no one
else in modern times has done.(John Dear, The Experiments of Gandhi: Nonviolence In The
Nuclear Age, Gandhi Journal, August, 2009) The removal of untouchability is one of the
highest expressions of ahimsa. “What I first stated was itself nothing new. It was as old as the
hills. Only I recited no copybook maxim but definitely announced what I believed in every
fibre of my being. Sixty years of practice in various walks of life has only enriched the belief
which experience of friends has fortified. It is however the central truth by which one can
stand alone without flinching. I believe in what Max Muller said years ago, namely that truth
needed to be repeated as long as there were men who disbelieved it.” It is his unshakable
belief that India’s destiny is to deliver the message of nonviolence to mankind.
UNIT 4
What is Righteousness?
Righteousness is the quality or state of being morally correct and justifiable. It
can be considered synonymous with "rightness" or being "upright". It can be found in Indian
religions and Abrahamic traditions, among other religions, as a theological concept. For
example, from various perspectives in Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, and Judaism
it is considered an attribute that implies that a person's actions are justified, and can have the
connotation that the person has been "judged" or "reckoned" as leading a life that is pleasing
to God.

When most people think about the word righteous, it often accompanies an
image of a surfer-guy describing a big wave. Thankfully that usage of the word righteous has
come and gone, but how does the Bible use the word? Righteousness can sometimes get
buried in the collection of church words we throw around
What is righteousness and what does it mean to be righteous?
Righteousness is the perfect holiness of Christ. It is an essential attribute to the
character of God; quite literally meaning “One who is right”. Think of it as the polar opposite
of sin. To commit sin is to go against God’s design for our lives, therefore righteousness is
the only living standard that is acceptable for us to stand before the Father. The wages of sin
is death, but in the path of righteousness is life, and in its pathway there is no death.
(Proverbs 12:28)
What does the Bible say about us and righteousness?
All of us are born into complete bondage to sin, unable to produce any sort of
righteousness on our own (Romans 3:9-12). As a matter of fact, Isaiah says that our attempts
to produce righteousness on our own are disgusting in the eyes of God. We have all become
like one who is unclean, and all our righteous deeds are like a polluted garment. We all fade
like a leaf, and our iniquities, like the wind, take us away. (Isaiah 64:6)
Karma, a Sanskrit word that roughly translates to "action," is a core concept in some Eastern
religions, including Hinduism and Buddhism.
Though its specifics are different depending on the religion, karma generally denotes the
cycle of cause and effect — each action a person takes will affect him or her at some time in
the future. This rule also applies to a person's thoughts and words, and the actions other
people take under that individual's instructions.
Today, people use the word karma in ways that are not wholly consistent with its traditional
meaning. For example, karma is often misused to denote luck, destiny or fate. Karma is also
misused as a way to explain sudden hardships.
With karma, like causes produce like effects; that is, a good deed will lead to a future
beneficial effect, while a bad deed will lead to a future harmful effect.
What is Karma?
Karma is concerned not only with the relationship between actions and
consequences, but also the moral reasons or intentions behind actions, according to a 1988
article in the journal Philosophy East and West. So if someone commits a good deed for the

wrong reasons — making a charitable donation to impress a potential love interest, for
example — the action could still be immoral and produce bad karma.
Importantly, karma is wrapped up with the concept of reincarnation or rebirth,
in which a person is born in a new human (or nonhuman) body after death. The effects of an
action can therefore be visited upon a person in a future life, and the good or bad fortune
someone experiences may be the result of actions performed in past lives.
What's more, a person's karmic sum will decide the form he or she takes in the next life.
In the yoga world, there are three types of karma.
1. Sanchitta
These are the accumulated works and actions that you have completed in the
past. These cannot be changed but can only wait to come into fruition. This is the vast
accumulation of karma that encompasses our countless past lifetimes. This comprises every
action that you have ever made in your past and present lives.
2. Prarabdha
Prarabdha is that portion of the past karma that is responsible for the present.
These are the ripe and fructuous actions and reactions. The things that you did in the past
make you what you are today. It cannot be avoided or changed, but only exhausted by being
experienced.
3. Agami
Agami Karma is the Karma we are creating for ourselves right here in the
current moment. It is the action that we create and the choices we make right now, as we live
this present lifetime.
All these three aspects of karma blend into each other. “As you think so shall
you be” – our choices and actions of the present moment will become our karma in the future.
The benefits of understanding Karma are that it discourages one from performing
unwholesome actions as it will bring about suffering. Instead, it encourages one to perform
goodness and kindness, in order to bring happiness as their fruit.
By taking full responsibility for our thoughts and actions, we create our reality. Everything
we think or do right now create the kind of future that is related to those thoughts and actions.

UNIT 5
What is Peace?
During the last two decades, humanity has entered into a new epoch in its
history. This has been brought about by a convergence of many factors – finite environmental
barriers are now being reached and on multiple fronts. World population recently reached
seven billion and in many places it is already at straining capacity. Peace and harmony are
essential conditions of life and growth. At the same time, they are the cardinal signs of
civilised life. These are the indispensable elements of progress and prosperity of mankind.
Peace and harmony are mutually inter-connected, and in Indian perspective they are bedrocks
of successful life. Therefore, study and analysis of peace and harmony is a significant aspect
of the Indian Way. Peace and harmony are essential prerequisites because without them we
will never be able to achieve the levels of cooperation, trust, inclusiveness and social equity
necessary to solve the challenges.
Understanding peace in Indian perspective
“Peace” is a word that is uttered almost as frequently as “truth,” “beauty,” and
“love.” It may be just as elusive to define as these other virtues. Common synonyms for
“peace” include “amity,” “friendship,” “harmony,” “concord,” “tranquillity,” “repose,”
“quiescence,” “truce,” “pacification,” and “neutrality.” Likewise, the peacemaker is the
pacifier, mediator, intermediary, and intercessor. While some of these descriptions are
appropriate, they are still quite limited in describing both the nature of peace and the role of
the peacemaker. Any attempt to articulate the nature of peace and peacemaking, therefore,
must address those conditions which are favourable to their emergence. Freedom, human
rights, and justice are among such prerequisites. Also included are proactive strategies such
as conflict resolution, nonviolent action, community building, and democratisation of
authority.
The peace process additionally must acknowledge and contend with its
alternative – war – because of the high value status of violence. For example, while war has
brought out the worst kind of behaviour in humans, it has also brought out some of the best.
Apart from relieving boredom and monotony, war has been shown to spawn self-sacrifice,
loyalty, honour, heroism, and courage. This phenomenon connotes absence of fight or war
between or among the nations and is the generally accepted notion of peace at the
international levels same as for the general Indian perspective. The popular Hindi words
[derived from Sanskrit] such as Vishram, Nivriti, Nistabdha and Ananda are used to describe
a state of peace – Shanti. However, the entire Indian concept related to Shanti is mammoth
covering the universal peace, which embodies all creatures, the nature and the whole of the
universe. The exclusive and extraordinary Vedic Shanti Prakrana, (The Yajurveda 36:17)
envisages: “Unto The Heaven Be Peace, Unto the Sky and the Earth be Peace; Peace Be Unto
The water, Unto The Herbs And Trees Be Peace; Unto All The Gods be Peace, Unto Brahma
And Unto All Be Peace; and May We realise That Peace! Om Peace, Peace, Peace.” The
Shanti Mantra, that ends with the utterance of word Shanti {Peace} thrice is for soothing of
and removing obstacles in the path of the three realms of existentialism, which are physical,
i.e., Adhibhautika; divine, i.e., Adhidaivika: and internal, i.e., Adhyaatmika which is also

Universal Human Values

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Universal Human Values

Similar to Universal Human Values (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Universal Human Values