This slideshow is in process so only for private viewing.

2. Ahimsa
An important concept found in
Buddhism, Hinduism and Jainism
Ahimsa - Sanskrit अिहस-
is a term meaning to do no harm
(literally: the avoidance of violence – hinsa).
The word is derived from the Sanskrit root
hims – to strike; hinsa is injury or harm,
a-hinsa is the opposite of this, i.e. non harming
This is also translated as Non-Violence.

3. • Ahimsa means kindness and non-violence towards all
living things including animals; it respects living beings
as a unity, the belief that all living things are not just
connected but integrally part of each other.
• Indian leader Mahatma Gandhi strongly believed in this
principle and based his resistance to British rule in India
and his campaign for Indian Independence on Ahimsa.
• Avoidance of verbal and physical violence is also a part
of this principle, although ahimsa recognises the need
for self-defence when necessary, as a sign of a strong
spirit.
• Ahimsa is closely connected with the notion that all kinds
of violence will result in negative karmic consequences.

4. Dharma-cakra
• The hand with a wheel on the palm
symbolizes the Jain Vow of Ahimsa. The
word in the middle is "ahimsa". The wheel
represents the dharmacakra which stands
for the resolve to halt the cycle of
reincarnation through relentless pursuit of
truth and non-violence.

6. Ahimsa in Jainism
• In Jainism, the understanding and implementation of
ahimsa is more radical, scrupulous, and comprehensive
than in any other religion.
• Non-violence is seen as the most essential religious duty
for everyone (ahiṃsā paramo dharmaḥ, is a statement
often inscribed on Jain temples).
• Like in Hinduism, Ahimsa springs from a sense of all
creation being part of a whole, and the aim is to live a life
which does not cause suffering to any creature and also
to prevent the accumulation of harmful karma.

7. Mahavira and Vegetarianism
• When Mahavira revived and reorganized the Jain movement,
ahimsa was already an established, strictly observed rule.
• Parshva the earliest Jain Tirthankara whom modern Western
historians consider to be a historical figure, founded the
community to which Mahavira’s parents belonged. Ahimsa
was already part of the "Fourfold Restraint" (Caujjama), the
vows taken by Parshva’s followers.
• In the times of Mahavira and in the following centuries, Jains
were at odds with both Buddhists and followers of the Vedic
religion or Hindus, whom they accused of negligence and
inconsistency in the implementation of ahimsa.
• There is some evidence, however, that ancient Jain ascetics
According to the Jain tradition either lacto
vegetarianism or veganism is mandatory as killing an animal
in order to eat its flesh goes completely against the principle
of Ahimsa.

8. How Jains avoid harming living beings.
• The Jain concept of ahimsa is characterized by several aspects. It does not
make any exception for ritual sacrificers and professional warrior-hunters.
Killing of animals for food is absolutely ruled out.
• Jains also make considerable efforts not to injure plants in everyday life as
far as possible. Though they admit that plants must be destroyed for the
sake of food, they accept such violence only inasmuch as it is indispensable
for human survival, and there are special instructions for preventing
unnecessary violence against plants.
• Jains go out of their way so as not to hurt even small insects and other
minuscule animals. For example, Jains often do not go out at night, when
they are more likely to step upon an insect. In their view, injury caused by
carelessness is like injury caused by deliberate action.
• Eating honey is also outlawed, as it would amount to violence against the
bees.
• Some Jains abstain from farming because it inevitably entails unintentional
killing or injuring of many small animals, such as worms and insects, but
agriculture is not forbidden in general and there are Jain farmers.

9. Self-Defence
• Jains agree with Hindus that violence in
self-defence can be justified, and they
agree that a soldier who kills enemies in
combat is performing a legitimate duty.
• Jain communities accepted the use of
military power for their defence, and there
were Jain monarchs, military
commanders, and soldiers.

10. A hierarchy of life
• Though, theoretically, all life forms are said to deserve full
protection from all kinds of injury, Jains admit that this ideal
cannot be completely implemented in practice. Hence, they
recognize a hierarchy of life. Mobile beings are given higher
protection than immobile ones.
• For the mobile beings, they distinguish between one-
sensed, two-sensed, three-sensed, four-sensed and five-
sensed ones; a one-sensed animal has touch as its only
sensory modality.
• The more senses a being has, the more they care about its
protection. Among the five-sensed beings, the rational ones
(humans) are most strongly protected by Jain ahimsa.
• In the practice of ahimsa, the requirements are less strict
for the lay persons who have undertaken anuvrata (Lesser
Vows) than for the monastics who are bound by
the Mahavrata "Great Vows".

11. Ahimsa in Buddhism
• in ancient Buddhist texts ahimsa (or
its Pāli cognate avihiṃsā) is not used as a technical term.
• The traditional Buddhist understanding of non-violence is not
as rigid as the Jain one, but like the Jains, Buddhists have
always condemned the killing of all living beings.
• In some Buddhist traditions vegetarianism is not mandatory.
In these traditions, monks and lay persons may eat meat
and fish on condition that the animal was not killed
specifically for them.
• Some monks, specifically monks of some Mahayana
traditions, the eating of meat is strictly forbidden by the
monks precepts. Lay people are also encouraged to keep to
a vegetarian diet.

12. The Five Precepts of Buddhism
• Since the beginnings of the Buddhist community, monks
and nuns have had to commit themselves to Five
Precepts of moral conduct.
• In ancient Buddhism, lay persons were encouraged, but
not obliged, to commit themselves to observe the Five
Precepts of morality (Pañcasīla). In both codes the first
rule is to abstain from taking the life of a sentient being
(Pānātipātā).
• Buddhist monks should avoid cutting or burning trees,
because trees are also living things and some sentient
beings live in them or rely on them.

13. War in Buddhism
Unlike Hinduism, ancient Buddhism had
strong misgivings about violent ways of
punishing criminals and about war.
Both were not explicitly condemned, but
peaceful ways of conflict resolution and
punishment with the least amount of injury
were encouraged.
The early texts condemn rather the mental
states that lead to violent behavior.

14. The sculpture
Non Violence
in Göteborg,
Sweden.
It is also
placed
outside the
headquarters
of the
United
Nations in
New York
in Germany
And at
multiple
locations
in Sweden.

16. Non-Violence and Kingship
• Non-violence is an over-riding concern of
the Pali Canon.
• While the early texts condemn killing in the
strongest terms, and portray the ideal king as a
pacifist, such a king is nonetheless flanked by an
army. It seems that the Buddha's teaching on
non-violence was not interpreted or put into
practice in an uncompromisingly pacifist or anti-
military-service way by early Buddhists.

17. The Sangha and Lay people.
• The early texts assume war to be a fact of
life, and well-skilled warriors are viewed as
a necessity for defensive warfare.
• In Pali texts, injunctions to abstain from
violence and involvement with military
affairs are directed at members of
the sangha; later Mahayana texts, which
often generalize monastic norms to laity,
require this of lay people as well.

18. Soldiers and Re-birth
• The early texts do not contain just-war ideology
as such. Some argue that a sutta in the Gamani
Samyuttam rules out all military service. In this
passage, a soldier asks the Buddha if it is true
that, as he has been told, soldiers slain in battle
are reborn in a heavenly realm.
• The Buddha reluctantly replies that if he is killed
in battle while his mind is seized with the
intention to kill, he will undergo an unpleasant
rebirth.
• In the early texts, a person's mental state at the
time of death is generally viewed as having an
inordinate impact on the next birth.

19. A Friend of Virtue
• Some Buddhists point to other early texts as justifying
defensive war. One example is the Kosala Samyutta, in
which King Pasenadi, a righteous king favoured by the
Buddha, learns of an impending attack on his kingdom.
He arms himself in defence, and leads his army into
battle to protect his kingdom from attack. He lost a battle
but won the war.
• King Pasenadi King Pasenadi defeated King Ajatasattu
and captured him alive. He thought that although this
King of Magadha has transgressed against his kingdom,
he had not transgressed against him personally, and
Ajatasattu is still his nephew. He released Ajatasattu and
did not harm him. Upon his return, the Buddha says,
among other things, that Pasenadi is "a friend of virtue,
acquainted with virtue, intimate with virtue", while the
opposite is said of the aggressor, King Ajatasattu.

20. Five factors affecting Karma?
According to Theravada commentaries, there are five
requisite factors that must all be fulfilled for an act to be
both an act of killing and to be karmically negative.
These are:
• (1) the presence of a living being, human or animal;
• (2) the knowledge that the being is a living being;
• (3) the intent to kill;
• (4) the act of killing by some means; and
• (5) the resulting death.
Some Buddhists have argued on this basis that the act
of killing is complicated, and the ethics of it – whether it
is right or wrong, depend on intent.
Some have argued that in defensive postures, for
example, the primary intention of a soldier is not to kill,
but to save, and the act of killing in that situation would
have minimal negative karmic repercussions.

21. • Unlike in Hindu and Jain sources, in ancient Buddhist
texts ahimsa (or its Pāli cognate avihiṃsā) is not used as
a technical term.[29] The traditional Buddhist
understanding of non-violence is not as rigid as the Jain
one, but like the Jains, Buddhists have always
condemned the killing of all living beings.[30][31] In
some Buddhist traditions vegetarianism is not
mandatory. In these traditions, monks and lay persons
may eat meat and fish on condition that the animal was
not killed specifically for them.[32] Some monks,
specifically monks of some Mahayana traditions, the
eating of meat is strictly forbidden by the monks
precepts. Laypeople are also encouraged to eat
vegetarian.

22. • Since the beginnings of the Buddhist community,
monks and nuns have had to commit
themselves to Five Precepts of moral conduct.
[31] In ancient Buddhism, lay persons were
encouraged, but not obliged, to commit
themselves to observe the Five Precepts of
morality (Pañcasīla).[33] In both codes the first
rule is to abstain from taking the life of a sentient
being (Pānātipātā).[34] Buddhist monks should
avoid cutting or burning trees, because some
sentient beings rely on them.[35]

23. • [edit]War
• The sculpture Non Violence placed at Kungsportsavenyn
in Göteborg, Sweden. It is also placed outside the
headquarters of the United Nations inNew York, in
Germany and multiple locations in Sweden.
• Unlike the Vedic religion, ancient Buddhism had strong
misgivings about violent ways of punishing criminals and
about war. Both were not explicitly condemned,[36] but
peaceful ways of conflict resolution and punishment with
the least amount of injury were encouraged.[37][38] The
early texts condemn rather the mental states that lead to
violent behavior.[39]

24. • Non-violence is an over-riding concern of the Pali Canon.[40] While the early texts
condemn killing in the strongest terms, and portray the ideal king as a pacifist, such a
king is nonetheless flanked by an army.[41] It seems that the Buddha's teaching on
non-violence was not interpreted or put into practice in an uncompromisingly pacifist
or anti-military-service way by early Buddhists.[41] The early texts assume war to be
a fact of life, and well-skilled warriors are viewed as a necessity for defensive warfare.
[42] In Pali texts, injunctions to abstain from violence and involvement with military
affairs are directed at members of the sangha; later Mahayana texts, which often
generalize monastic norms to laity, require this of lay people as well.[43]
• The early texts do not contain just-war ideology as such.[44] Some argue that a sutta
in the Gamani Samyuttamrules out all military service. In this passage, a soldier asks
the Buddha if it is true that, as he has been told, soldiers slain in battle are reborn in a
heavenly realm. The Buddha reluctantly replies that if he is killed in battle while his
mind is seized with the intention to kill, he will undergo an unpleasant rebirth.[45] In
the early texts, a person's mental state at the time of death is generally viewed as
having an inordinate impact on the next birth.[46]
• Some Buddhists point to other early texts as justifying defensive war.[47] One
example is the Kosala Samyutta, in which King Pasenadi, a righteous king favored by
the Buddha, learns of an impending attack on his kingdom. He arms himself in
defense, and leads his army into battle to protect his kingdom from attack. He lost a
battle but won the war. King Pasenadi

25. • Most of the arguments proposed in favour of
non-violence to animals refer to rewards it
entails before or after death and to horrible
karmic consequences of violence.
• In particular, it is pointed out that he who
deliberately kills an animal will on his part be
eaten by an animal in a future existence due to
karmic retribution.
• Ahimsa is described as a prerequisite for
acquiring supernatural faculties, highest bliss
and ultimate salvation; moreover it is said to
protect against all kinds of dangers.

26. • The Manu Smriti (10.63), Chanakya’s
Arthashastra (1.3.13) and the Vasishtha
Dharmasutra (4.4) point out that ahimsa is a
duty for all the four classes (Varnas) of society.
The texts declare that ahimsa should be
extended to all forms of life. They also give
attention to the protection of plants. The Manu
Smriti prohibits wanton destruction of both wild
and cultivated plants (11.145). Hermits (
sannyasins) had to live on afruitarian diet so as
to avoid the destruction of plants.[101]

27. • Hindu texts asserted that lawful violence is in fact non-violence;
according to them sacrificial killing is not killing, but is meant for the
welfare of the whole world.[102] They also suggested that such
killing is in fact a normal animal act, because the slaughtered animal
will attain a high rebirth in the cycle of reincarnation.[103] Moreover
they argued that some species have been created for the purpose
of being sacrificed and eaten by humans,[104] that it is normal for
animals to kill and eat other animals,[105] that agriculture, too,
inevitably leads to the death of many animals,[106] that plants are
living beings as well and must still be destroyed,[105] that we
unintentionally and unknowingly destroy life forms all the time,[107]
and that a hunted animal has a fair chance to survive by killing the
hunter.[108]
• Quotes from Manusmṛ ti

28. • Those who permit slaying of animals; those who bring
animals for slaughter; those who slaughter; those who
sell meat; those who purchase meat; those who prepare
dish out of it; those who serve that meat and those who
eat are all murderers. -Manusmṛti 5.51
• Alcohol-drinking, Fish, Meat eating, aasava consumption
– these are not present in Vedas. These have been
propagated by fraud people. They have fraudulently
added these uncontrolled, reckless, atheist descriptions
in our texts. -Mahabharata, Shantiparva 265.9.4
• Further, the Mahabharata states, "How can you expect
compassion from a meat-eater?"

29. • Quotes from Ramayana:
• Saint Valmiki was going to the river Ganga for his daily ablutions. A disciple
by the name Bharadwaja was carrying his clothes. On the way, they came
across the Tamasa Stream. Looking at the stream, Valmiki said to his
disciple, "Look, how clear is this water, like the mind of a good man! I will
bathe here today." When he was looking for a suitable place to step into the
stream, he heard the sweet chirping of birds. Looking up, he saw two birds
flying together. Valmiki felt very pleased on seeing the happy bird couple.
Suddenly, one of the birds fell down, hit by an arrow; it was the male bird.
Seeing the wounded one, its mate screamed in agony. Valmiki's heart
melted at this pitiful sight. He looked around to find out who had shot the
bird. He saw a hunter with a bow and arrows, nearby. Valmiki became very
angry. His lips opened and he uttered the following words:
/*ॐ माँ िनषाद पितषा तवमगमः शासवती समः यत् कोच िमथुनादेवकमवधी काममोिहतं */
"You will find no rest for the long years of Eternity,
For you killed a bird in love and unsuspecting."

30. • [edit]Self-defense, criminal law, and war
• Hindu scriptures and law books support the use
of violence in self-defense against an armed
attacker.[109] They make it clear that criminals
are not protected by the rule of ahimsa.[110]
They have no misgivings about the death
penalty; their position is that evil-doers who
deserve death should be killed, and that a king
in particular is obliged to punish criminals and
should not hesitate to kill them, even if they
happen to be his own brothers and sons.[111]

31. • According to some interpretations, the concept of ahimsa as expounded in
the scriptures and law books is not meant to imply pacifism; war is seen as
a normal part of life and the natural duty of the warriors.[112] In the second
chapter of the Bhagavad Gita Krishna refutes the pacifist ideas of Arjuna
and uses various arguments to convince him that he must fight and kill in
the impending battle. The whole of Bhagavad Gita is used to guide Arjuna
about the duty of a Kshatriya i.e. destory the evil people. According to this
interpretation of the scriptures, face-to-face combat is highly meritorious and
fighters who die in battle go to heaven.[113] The apparent conflict between
pacifistic interpretations of ahimsa and the just war prescribed by the Gita
has been resolved by some individuals by resorting to allegorical readings,
and were notably represented by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi,[114] who
said in his own commentary on the Gita that it was "a representation in
which the battlefield is the soul and Arjuna, man's higher impulses struggling
against evil."[115]Though this is not the general view accepted by most
Hindus.
• [edit]Modern times

32. • Gandhi promoted the principle of ahimsa very
successfully by applying it to all spheres of life,
particularly to politics.
• In modern Hinduism slaughter according to the rituals
permitted in the Vedic scriptures has become less
common, though, the world's largest animal sacrifice
occurs at Gadhimai, a Hindu festival which takes place
every 5 years.[116] In the 19th and 20th centuries,
prominent figures of Indian spirituality such as
Swami Vivekananda,[117] Ramana Maharshi,[118]
Swami Sivananda[119] and A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami
[120]emphasized the importance of ahimsa.

33. • Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi promoted the principle of ahimsa very successfully
by applying it to all spheres of life, particularly to politics (Swaraj).[121] His non-violent
resistance movement satyagraha had an immense impact on India, impressed public
opinion in Western countries and influenced the leaders of various
civil and political rights movements such as Martin Luther King, Jr. In Gandhi’s
thought, ahimsa precludes not only the act of inflicting a physical injury, but also
mental states like evil thoughts and hatred, unkind behavior such as harsh words,
dishonesty and lying, all of which he saw as manifestations of violence incompatible
with ahimsa.[122]Gandhi believed ahimsa to be a creative energy force,
encompassing all interactions leading one's self to find satya, "Divine Truth".[123] Sri
Aurobindo criticized the Gandhian concept of ahimsa as unrealistic and not
universally applicable; he adopted a pragmatic non-pacifist position, saying that the
justification of violence depends on the specific circumstances of the given situation.
[124]
• A thorough historical and philosophical study of ahimsa was instrumental in the
shaping of Albert Schweitzer's principle of "reverence for life". Schweitzer criticized
Indian philosophical and religious traditions for having conceived ahimsa as the
negative principle of avoiding violence instead of emphasizing the importance of
positive action (helping injured beings).[125]
• [edit]Yoga

35. • defeated King Ajatasattu and captured him alive. He thought that although this King of Magadha
has transgressed against his kingdom, he had not transgressed against him personally, and
Ajatasattu is still his nephew. He released Ajatasattu and did not harm him.[48] Upon his return,
the Buddha says, among other things, that Pasenadi is "a friend of virtue, acquainted with virtue,
intimate with virtue", while the opposite is said of the aggressor, King Ajatasattu.[49]
• According to Theravada commentaries, there are five requisite factors that must all be fulfilled for
an act to be both an act of killing and to be karmically negative. These are: (1) the presence of a
living being, human or animal; (2) the knowledge that the being is a living being; (3) the intent to
kill; (4) the act of killing by some means; and (5) the resulting death.[50] Some Buddhists have
argued on this basis that the act of killing is complicated, and its ethicization is predicated upon
intent.[51] Some have argued that in defensive postures, for example, the primary intention of a
soldier is not to kill, but to save, and the act of killing in that situation would have minimal
negative karmic repercussions.[52]
• Nevertheless the sources show that this compromise between supporters of ahimsa and meat
eaters was shaky and hotly disputed. Even the loopholes – ritual slaughter and hunting – were
challenged by advocates of ahimsa.[94] The Mahabharata and the Manusm ṛti (5.27–55) contain
lengthy discussions about the legitimacy of ritual slaughter.[95] In the Mahabharata both sides
present various arguments to substantiate their viewpoints. Moreover, a hunter defends his
profession in a long discourse.[96]

36. • According to Dr.Babasaheb Ambedkar, the doctrine of
ahimsa does not say "Kill not" it says, "Love all". Buddha
said "Love all, so that you may not wish to kill any" This
is a positive way of stating the principle of ahimsa. The
Buddhas' ahimsa is quite in keeping with his middle path.
To put it differently, the Buddha made a distinction
between Principle and Rule. He did not make ahimsa a
matter of Rule. He enunciated it as a matter of Principle
or way of life. A principle leaves you freedom to act. A
rule does not. Rule either breaks you, or you break the
rule.[53]

37. • [edit]Laws
• Ashoka the Great tried to stop killing but was not successful.[54] The emperors of
Sui dynasty, Tang dynasty and early Song dynasty banned killing in Lunar calendar
1st, 5th, and 9th month.[55][56][57] Empress Wu Tse-Tien banned killing for more
than half a year in 692.[58] Some also banned fishing for some time each year.[59]
• The King Bayinnaung of Burma, after conquering the Bago in 1559, the Buddhist King
prohibited the practice of halal, specifically, killing food animals in the name of God.
He also disallowed the Eid al-Adha religious sacrifice of cattle. Halal food was also
forbidden by king Alaungpaya in the 18th century.
• There were bans after death of emperors,[60][61] Buddhist and Taoist prayers, [62]
[63] Health concerns[64][65][66] and natural disasters such as after a drought in 1926
summer Shanghai[67] and a 8 days ban from August 12, 1959 after the August 7
flood ( 八七水災), the last big flood before the 88 Taiwan Flood.[68][69] There was a 3
day ban after the death of Chiang Kai-shek.[70]
• People avoid killing during some festivals, like Taoist Ghost Festival,[71]
Nine Emperor Gods Festival, Vegetarian Festival and many others.[72][73][74][75]or
some seasons.[76]

38. • [edit]Hinduism
• [edit]Ancient Vedic Texts
• While the term ahimsa is not officially mentioned, one passage in the Rig Veda reads,
"Do not harm anything."[77]
• The term ahimsa appears in the text Taittiriya Shakha of the Yajurveda (TS 5.2.8.7),
where it refers to non-injury to the sacrificer himself.[78] It occurs several times in the
Shatapatha Brahmana in the sense of "non-injury" without a moral connotation.[79]
The ahimsa doctrine is a late development in Brahmanical culture.[80] The earliest
reference to the idea of non-violence to animals (pashu-ahimsa"), apparently in a
moral sense, is in the Kapisthala Katha Samhita of the Yajurveda (KapS 31.11),
which may have been written in about the 8th century BCE.[81] The word scarcely
appears in the principal Upanishads.[82] The Chāndogya Upaniṣad, dated to the 8th
or 7th century BCE, one of the oldest Upanishads, has the earliest evidence for the
use of the word ahimsa in the sense familiar in Hinduism (a code of conduct). It bars
violence against "all creatures" (sarvabhuta) and the practitioner of ahimsa is said to
escape from the cycle of metempsychosis (CU 8.15.1).[83] It also names ahimsa as
one of five essential virtues (CU 3.17.4). A few scholars are of the opinion that this
passage was a concession to growing influence of shramanic culture on the
Brahmanical religion.[84]Bal Gangadhar Tilak, a leader of the Indian freedom
movement, mentions thus:

39. • In ancient times, innumerable animals
were butchered in sacrifices. Evidence in
support of this is found in various poetic
compositions such as the Meghaduta. But
the credit for the disappearance of this
terrible massacre from the brahminical
religion goes to Jainism.[85]

40. • [edit]Non-human life
• Hindus do not substantially differentiate the soul
within a human body from that of an animal.[86]
Hence ahimsa as a binding code of conduct
implies a ban on hunting, butchery, meat eating,
and the use of animal products provided by
violent means. The question of moral duties
towards animals and of negative karma incurred
from violence against them is discussed in detail
in some Hindu scriptures and religious
lawbooks.

41. • Some source texts discuss meat eating as a fact without
referring to the ethical side of the issue. The
Dharmaśāstra law books written around the 5th or 4th
century BCE contain regulations for meat eating and lists
of edible animals.[87] Medical treatises of the Ayurveda
discuss and recommend meat from a purely health-
related viewpoint without even mentioning the aspect of
ahimsa.[88] Examples are the Sushruta Samhita written
in the 3rd or 4th century CE, which recommends meat
for certain patients and for pregnant women,[89] and the
Charaka Samhita which describes meat as superior to all
other kinds of food for convalescents.[90]

42. • Several highly authoritative scriptures bar violence
against domestic animals except in the case of ritual
sacrifice. This view is clearly expressed in the
Mahabharata,[91] the Bhagavata Purana (11.5.13–14),
and the Chandogya Upanishad (8.15.1). It is also
reflected in the Manusmṛti (5.27–44), a particularly
renowned traditional Hindu lawbook (Dharmaśāstra).
These texts strongly condemn the slaughter of animals
and meat eating. The Mahabharata permits hunting by
warriors (Kshatriyas),[92] but opposes it in the case of
hermits who must be strictly non-violent.[93] This view
has, for the most part, been changed, and many Hindu
temples ban meat from temple premises.

43. • Ahimsa is imperative for practitioners of Patañjali’s "classical" Yoga
(Raja Yoga). It is one of the five Yamas (restraints) which make up
the code of conduct, the first of the eight limbs of which this path
consists.[126] In the schools of Bhakti Yoga, the devotees who
worship Vishnu or Krishna are particularly keen on ahimsa.
[127] Another Bhakti Yoga school, Radha Soami Satsang
Beas observes vegetarianism and moral living as aspects of
"ahimsa." Ahimsa is also an obligation in Hatha Yoga according to
the classic manual Hatha Yoga Pradipika (1.1.17). But it is important
to note that Ahmisa as used here is distinct from that in Jainism.
Yagnas and mantras are prescribed for attaining glory and booty in
Vedas.