Talk:Ahimsa/Archive 1

Ahinsa or Ahimsa
It's definitely not Ahinsa. I speak Kannada, and the word for pain is 'himse' (ಹಿಂಸ), and much of the vocabulary is derived from Samskrtam. So, you make the connection. Firebreeze 06:15, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not Ahinsa. It is Ahimsa. Why was the page edited to say Ahinsa? Also who added the word poop to the end of that one sentence? TheAnimus 11:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

It is Ahimsa, not Ahinsa nor Ahisma. Everything I have read says so and even the Satyagraha (written/compiled/whatever by Mahatma Gandhi) says so. --Fire Mage

Although Ahinsa is Hindu spelling, let us please keep to the more familiar Western spelling of Ahimsa so as not to confuse readers. Kreb Dragonrider 00:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have never seen "Ahinsa" in my life. It should stay Ahimsa. --queso man 13:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think the quote from Larry Wall is a bit misplaced here. it is supposed to be "Ahinsa" not "Ahisma".

I don't have time to edit this right now, but just for the record, I don't think that "Ahimsa is the core of Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism." While ahimsa is important to some parts of these traditions, Jainism is the only tradition that I think it could be reasonably argued (maybe) that has ahimsa at the core. As for Hinduism and Buddhism, while it is important in some parts of the tradition, I can't imagine it being considered to be at the "core" of these two traditions, given how widely they vary. Thanks. Elizabeth199


 * By the way, non-violence is certainly at the core of Buddhism. It makes such up such a large proportion of Buddhist philosophy. To say otherwise would be to not actually have read what Buddha wrote.

In Devanagari it is written as ahinsa (अहिंसा), despite the pronunciation and spelling in English being ahimsa.(http://www.shabdkosh.com/en2hi/ahimsa)

Philosophy, not religion
A rather large error has occured on this page. Ahimsa is said to be a religious concept. This is not true. While certain religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism may live by Ahimsa it is not limited to religious aspects. Ahimsa is a philosophy. It is a way of living your life, not a religious concept. And while the initial coining of the term and its meaning may have originially been thought of by Jainism that does not mean these religions have a sense of ownership to it. I think it is still important to include historical information pointing to these religions as being some of the first to think of or practice this philosophy so long as their is the distinction that it is not exclusively tied to these religions or religion in general. I personally think this topic is only a stub because there is so much more to Ahimsa than is on here. Perhaps we can all read up on it and discuss it in here to make this a much more accurate and full article. TheAnimus 21:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Also a more accurate definition for Ahimsa is dynamic harmlessness rather than non-violence because it encompasses the other aspects of Ahimsa aside from non-violence. TheAnimus 21:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahisma is definitely a core doctrine of Hinduism as well as Buddhism. To say that this concept is more pre-dominant in Jainism is plain wrong. Nephthys32080

I think that's actually fairly incorrect in the case of Hinduism. While certain believers in Hinduism embrace the concept of Ahimsa, it is not nearly as defining to the religion as it is to Jainism and yes, probably Buddhism. Otherwise, Hinduism could not allow for the depiction of Arjun in the Gita as being noble. His dharma is that of a warrior, and thus a killer intentionally inflicting pain and suffering. Putting aside a debate on morality, I think Hindu scripture takes a more distanced view on the role of violence in life. Jainism is somewhat more hardlined on the matter. Samir

I can confirm the above. An important part (that basically makes up the whole thing) of the Bhagavad Gita is Krishna explaining to Arjun why his killing is not wrong - because they will be reincarnated. As a Jain, I can confirm the Jainism views it as the single most important concept, but Hinduism justifies violence in some cases (like a "righteous war"), just not in all or most. --queso man 02:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

What for?
I do not understand the exact reason for tagging this page with NPO-lacking. Would anyone enlighten me? Thanks. --Bhadani 15:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't understand it either but I have edited the article page to accomodate the concerns raised in the above discussion and I have removed the tag. Looking at the history of these pages it seems this tag has been on the page for some time and that the above comments are also not fresh. I would like to remind everyone to please sign their posts by adding four tildes (this - ~ - is a tilde) at the end of your post so it is easier to know how old the discussion is.
 * Morgan Leigh 04:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Ahimsa brought to the west by Gandhi?
There were 19th Century translations of Buddhist, Hindu and Jain scripture all of used the term ahimsa. Addhoc 22:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

AHIMSA should belong to its own entry
I propose the AHIMSA non-profit organization become its own separate wiki entry.

Yes, this doesn't belong in this section.

Buddhism
My (admittedly limited) understanding of Buddhism is that taking the life of any creature is to be avoided. Pests, for example, are regretfully killed if necessary but preventing the situation in the first place is encouraged. The short section given to Buddhism doesn't really give that aspect the attention I think it deserves. I don't feel authorititive enough about this area to edit the article itself. Ferdinangus (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup
This article has been tagged for a cleanup since February 2006, so it's time to do it now. I intend to finish it in a few days. The new version will be based on academic studies and will include an introduction to the history of the concept. 89.59.17.235 16:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

New Version
I have completed the new version of the article (as announced above), added all the lacking references, and made the non-profit organization AHIMSA into a separate article/stub as someone suggested above. Now that the references are complete, I suggest to change the "start class" rating in the WikiProjects Hinduism, Jainism and Buddhism.

The separate article (stub) on the non-profit organization was declined. Perhaps a registered user can create it. The text would be:

AHIMSA (organization)

AHIMSA is the acronym for the Association of Humanitarian Information and Mobilisation for the Survival of Animals, or in French Association Humanitaire d'Information et de Mobilisation pour la Survie des Animaux, based in Quebec, Canada. It is a non-profit organization that has been in existence since 1987. Its name refers to the religious concept of ahimsa (nonviolence), especially as applied to animals. In name and purpose AHIMSA meshes well with the word's meaning. The Association aims to defend, promote and support the interests, the needs and the rights of animals. AHIMSA informs about and encourages peaceful behavior toward animals and nature. 89.49.161.39 23:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jainism logo.png
Image:Jainism logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

— Save_Us _ 229  18:57, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

GA on hold
Hello. I will be doing the review for this article. There are a few things that really jump out at me when looking at the article, so here are a few things to fix: ✅--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The lead needs to be expanded per WP:LEAD. For an article this size, it should be about 2 or 3 full paragraphs, and it should adequately summarize all the main points made in the article.
 * Refs should go after punctuation, not in the middle of sentences.
 * Refs in middle of sentences after, or ; are excepted as shown in the example in REF.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am aware of that rule. I was referring, specifically, to #17, 37, 39-42, 47, and 52. They are either in the midst of a sentence or before the, or ;. Nikki  311  14:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Ref 39-42 are kept in mid of sentences because they are refs for each Indian spiritual leader, if moved to the end of the sentence, it would be confusing which ref refers for which person.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There are quite a few paragraphs that are one or two sentences long. Either merge them into other paragraphs, expand them, or delete them.
 * Can the reviewer please list them. Thanks.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem: the last paragraph of the lead, the only sentence under Hinduism (before Non-human life), first and third paragraphs under Modern times, and the last paragraph under Jainism. Also, the Buddhism section would be better in paragraph form, as opposed to a list. It is okay to have one or two short paragraphs (sometimes that can't be avoided), but it is best to fix as many as possible. Nikki  311  14:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "Modern times" is just fine it is at the moment, divided 3 paras: 1. leaders, background 2. Gandhi 3.'reverence for life' philosophy.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know much about the religion related WikiProjects, but is there an infobox of some sort that can be put in the article? If not, that is okay.
 * don't any, which will emcompass all religions involved. Suggestions are welcome.--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know any either. It is fine without one. Nikki  311  14:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

✅--Redtigerxyz (talk) 04:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The See Also section should be above the References section.

That's all for now. You have a week to make changes or I will fail the article. If you are still actively editing the article when the week is up, I have no problem allowing more time. Thanks a lot. Nikki 311  21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay. Good work. I've done a quick copy edit, and now everything seems to be in order. I'll pass the article. Nikki  311  23:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Recent dispute
I'm not sure what you mean with this edit summary:. The statement in it is not correct. Please give the Lamotte quote and we can settle it that way.

Also the Vinaya is not relevant in the "war" subsection. There are no "punishments" for laypeople. Mitsube (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Recent dispute August 2009
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Abecedare (talk) 23:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Dear Abecedare, please do not either add subjective opinions and revisionist propaganda about explicit and clear clauses in the Hindu text known as the Bhagavad Gita or at least do a better and more consistent job of policing the propagation of the aforementioned. I am referring specifically to the 'weasel-worded' sentence

"The apparent conflict between ahimsa and the just war prescribed by the Gita has often been resolved by resorting to allegorical readings."

The above statement uses weasel words such as 'apparent'; really? how is it apparent when the definition of Ahimsa is itself subject to interpretation depending on what faith/philosophy one belongs to? The statement uses the imprecise terms 'often been'; really? how 'often'? 'often' by whose standard? 'often' relative to what? 'often' to what percentage of the Hindu population? In addition, the term 'resolved' used in the context of this statement is extremely controversial as it presents a subjective opinion as a final and objective fact. Perhaps the allegorical readings have resolved differences in the definition of Ahimsa for some individuals using symbolic interpretations but it has not been resolved in this manner for most Hindus or even for those individuals who resort to allegorical readings..

I would submit that the offending statement should be reworded to the following:

The apparent conflict between pacifistic interpretations of Ahimsa and 'Just-War' prescribed by the Gita has been resolved for some individual's by resorting to allegorical readings.

-- which would make the offending statement far less unprofessional/opinionated and more factual/objective in its character.

I provided objective sources, whereas the 'editor' who reverted my changes (a self-professed buddhist [according to his/her profile]) is perhaps ignorant about the subject matter (with respect to Ahimsa as it relates to Hinduism & the Gita). The offending statement listed above, i.e. about "allegorical readings", is an editorialization about some revisionist individual's opinion about what they believe ahimsa 'should-be' - Not what the Gita states is true Ahimsa - I provided quotations from the original text of the GITA as to what the real statements the GITA makes about True-Ahimsa (i.e. doing your duty, even if that means killing other humans in self-defense, but using violence as a last resort and never against the innocent) and False-Ahimsa (cowardly pacifism). My original submission was not "original research", but simply quoting the direct statements in the Gita about its views regarding Ahimsa. 70.83.175.116 (talk) 16:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)70.83.175.116 (talk) 17:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahinsa
The article makes several references to "Ahinsa". It is not obvious whether these are misspellings or not. Google's cache of the main page actually has a correctly-spelled version - so it looks rather like vandalism. "The term ahimsa appears in the Taittiriya Samhita of the Yajurveda" 82.45.45.100 (talk) 20:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a recurring problem, assuming that it was addressed at the time of the previous message. I have not changed it, in case it is meant to be ahiNsa, but perhaps an admin for this page could correct it if it is a mistake.Foxi tails (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC) It is certainly Ahinsa(अहिंसा) not Ahimsa. Please change it its damaging Wikipedia's reputation --Rajan11222533 (talk) 10:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajan11222533 (talk • contribs) 10:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * At least one person thinks it's ahiNsa and is trying to change it. Guy (Help!) 11:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Devanāgarī spelling is not disputed, as far as I understand. Transliteration is ahiṃsā, anyone can try to convert  अहिंसा here.  I'm not an expert but it appears that ṃ stands here for a nasalized eh... hmm... 'm', though spelling with 'n' is also common; ā is a long 'a'. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 22:22, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I would also go for "ahinsa", I see no reason to transliterate it as -m-. See for example http://www.shabdkosh.com/translate/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BE/%E0%A4%85%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%82%E0%A4%B8%E0%A4%BE_meaning_in_Hindi_English — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.227.196.67 (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Ambedkars' Voice
The content is noteworthy as the other statements. I agree with you that Babasaheb Ambedkar is an important voice, but what I could not understant is that why this matter do not belongs here. If you want a discussion on it, then why deleting it?.........Ranjithsutari (talk) 18:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Ranjith, the idea is that this article is written using academic sources. Ambedkar is more of a religious figure. Does that make sense? Mitsube (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Mitsube, I'm sorry to say that your idea is Absolutely nonsense!!! OR I could not understand your sense of Academic sources on this article. What if Ambedkar is more or real of religious/political/philosophical/Historical/Revolutionary figure, this content is noteworthy because there is a touch of optimism in every word................Ranjithsutari (talk) 19:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi ! Ranjithsutari, Ambedkar was no where near Ahinsa. He was solely focused of only Harjans. Ahinsa that much he talk about is atleast talk by every good leader in India.--Rajan11222533 (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Tähtinen?
I don't seem to find a complete reference in any of the footnotes for a source that seems to be heavily relied upon. Forgive my ignorance but what is "Tähtinen" and perhaps the first citation of this could be more complete for those of us who are trying to start research on this? Thanks in advance. --Thiebes (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The Tähtinen" reference appears to be for the following book I found on Amazon:

"Ahimsa: Non-violence in Indian tradition" by Unto Tahtinen * Hardcover: 148 pages * Publisher: Rider (1976) * Language: English * ISBN-10: 0091233402 * ISBN-13: 978-0091233402

User:mkp624 -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkp624 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Simha's Question concerning Annihilation
I'm surprised the following isn't included in the Buddhism/War section somehow:

---

"I proclaim, Simha, the annihilation of egotism, of lust, of ill-will, of delusion. However, I do not proclaim the annihilation of forbearance, of love, of charity, and of truth. [12]

"I deem, Simha, unrighteous actions contemptible, whether they be performed by deed, or by word, or by thought; but I deem virtue and righteousness praiseworthy." [13]

And Simha said: "One doubt still lurks in my mind concerning the doctrine of the Blessed One. Will the Blessed One consent to clear the cloud away so that I may understand the Dharma as the Blessed One teaches it?" [14]

The Tathagata having given his consent, Simha continued: "I am a soldier, O Blessed One, and am appointed by the king to enforce his laws and to wage his wars. Does the Tathagata who teaches kindness without end and compassion with all sufferers, permit the punishment of the criminal? and further, does the Tathagata declare that it is wrong to go to war for the protection for our homes, our wives, our children, and our property? Does the Tathagata teach the doctrine of a complete self-surrender, so that I should suffer the evil-doer to do what he pleases and yield submissively to him who threatens to take by violence what is my own? Does the Tathagata maintain that all strife, including such warfare as is waged for a righteous cause, should be forbidden?" [15]

The Buddha replied: "He who deserves punishment must be punished, and he who is worthy of favor must be favored. Yet at the same time he teaches to do no injury to any living being but to be full of love and kindness. These injunctions are not contradictory, for whosoever must be punished for the crimes which he has committed, suffers his injury not through the ill-will of the judge but on account of his evil-doing. His own acts have brought upon him the injury that the executor of the law inflicts. When a magistrate punishes, let him not harbor hatred in his breast, yet a murderer, when put to death, should consider that this is the fruit of his own act. As soon as he will understand that the punishment will purify his soul, he will no longer lament his fate but rejoice at it." [16]

And the Blessed One continued: "The Tathagata teaches that all warfare in which man tries to slay his brother is lamentable, but he does not teach that those who go to war in a righteous cause after having exhausted all means to preserve the peace are blame-worthy. He must be blamed who is the cause of war. [17]

"The Tathagata teaches a complete surrender of self, but he does not teach a surrender of anything to those powers that are evil, be they men or gods or the elements of nature. Struggle must be, for all life is a struggle of some kind. But he that struggles should look to it lest he struggle in the interest of self against truth and righteousness. [18]

"He who struggles in the interest of self, so that he himself may be great or powerful or rich or famous, will have no reward, but he who struggles for righteousness and truth, will have great reward, for even his defeat will be a victory. [19]

"Self is not a fit vessel to receive any great success; self is small and brittle and its contents will soon be split for the benefit, and perhaps also for the curse, of others. [20]

"Truth, however, is large enough to receive the yearnings and aspirations of all selves and when the selves break like soap-bubbles, their contents will be preserved and in the truth they will lead a life everlasting. [21]

"He who goeth to battle, O Simha, even though it be in a righteous cause, must be prepared to be slain by his enemies, for that is the destiny of warriors; and should his fate overtake him he has no reason for complaint. [22]

"But he who is victorious should remember the instability of earthly things. His success may be great, but be it ever so great the wheel of fortune may turn again and bring him down into the dust. [23]

"However, if he moderates himself and, extinguishing all hatred in his heart lifts his down-trodden adversary up and says to him, 'Come now and make peace and let us be brothers,' he will gain a victory that is not a transient success, for its fruits will remain forever. [24]

"Great is a successful general, O Simha, but he who had conquered self is the greater victor. [25]

"The doctrine of the conquest of self, O Simha, is not taught to destroy the souls of men, but to preserve them. He who has conquered self is more fit to live, to be successful, and to gain victories than he who is the slave of self. [26]

"He whose mind is free from the illusion of self, will stand and not fall in the battle of life. [27]

"He whose intentions are righteousness and justice, will meet with no failure, but be successful in his enterprises and his success will endure. [28]

"He who harbors in his heart love of truth will live and not die, for he has drunk the water of immortality. [29]

"Struggle then, O general, courageously; and fight thy battles vigorously, but be a soldier of truth and the Tathagata will bless thee." [30]

http://reluctant-messenger.com/gospel_buddha/chapter_51.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.78.226.161 (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this works. My comment is about attributions to "Buddhism." The Buddha did not found a religion called "Buddhism." He taught a non-sectarian technique helpful to all, of any or no faith. I understand from Pali scholars that the terms "Buddhist" and Buddhism" first appear in the literature about 500 years after the Buddha's passing, at a time when his main teaching - Vipassana meditation - was about to be lost to India. Those initiating the religion of Buddhism sought to accrue followers and status, contrary to the Buddha's approach and teaching.  Therefore, the terms "Buddhist" and "Buddhism" should not be used for the period before about 50 BC.  My main source is a scholar at Harvard and Berkeley who spent several years at the Vipassana Research Institute north of Mumbai.  Genghis Cunn 7 Sept 2012  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genghis Cunn (talk • contribs) 04:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

on the pic it says ahinsa not ahimsa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.153.199 (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

pāli name
isn't the pāli pronunciation the same as in sanskrit for ahimsa? PadmaPhala (talk) 07:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Definition in the lede
The current article, and the version of this article before I edited for the first time, uses a reference from sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln. That dictionary defines ahimsa as "not injure anything." (see: http://www.sanskrit-lexicon.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/monier/serveimg.pl?file=/scans/MWScan/MWScanjpg/mw0125-ahalyA.jpg)

I have read 10 encylcopedias and about 20 journal papers / books for definition of ahimsa. I find ample support for 'cause no injury' and 'do no harm', but I am unable to find any other support for the word anything. I can read Sanskrit as well as European languages that have translated vedic Sanskrit literature - there too, as yet, I have found no support for the word 'anything'. I find some support for the definition: 'cause no injury to living beings'. If someone is aware of additional reliable respected source that supports the word 'anything', please post a link here. If not, I propose we strike out the word 'anything', and replace sanskrit-lexicon citation with two more broadly accepted/cited reliable sources for the definition of ahimsa.

This may sound technical, but 'anything' is an important word. Every human action causes change to something - whether it is farming, cooking, writing, carving a stone or whatever. It matters whether the secondary and tertiary sources mean 'anything' which can include non-living matter such as stone, or only 'living beings'. Peace, Lisa.davis (talk) 03:06, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Lisa, thank you for heads up. According to sources Ahimsa is a term meaning to do no harm (literally: the avoidance of violence – hiṃsā). The word is derived from the Sanskrit root hiṃs – to strike; hiṃsā is injury or harm, a-hiṃsā is the opposite of this, i.e. non harming. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 09:50, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

AgadUrbanit, I have removed the [1] source (Devasthanam), as there is no evidence it is a reviewed/refereed reliable source (see wikipedia's reliable sourcing policy). Reference [2] is better, but weak as I explained above. Reference [3] is reliable. Reference [2], sanskrit-lexicon, defines ahinsa as non-injury. Reference [3], an encyclopedia, also defines it as non-injury, both in the article on page 713, and in a different article on page 720. We should use the most accepted, verifiable definition in the lede. I have revised it to reflect the sources accurately.

You have moved some of the references I added, behind sentences that you restored/added. I feel you are misquoting the references. Please identify the pages from Bodewitz or Walli that you think support what you included. Peace, Lisa.davis (talk) 20:00, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the sourcing is not ideal, feel free to fix it. I've learned the meaning of the word from Nagler's online course on the subject, but I am hardly an expert. Nagler though provides detailed etymology for the word, during his course, so you can dig it if you want. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Lisa, I would prefer to restore non-violence (which could be easily sourced), as English meaning. Hope you don't mind. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I too was thinking of adding in non-violence into the lede, because it well sourced and generally accepted. Some stuff currently in the lede needs to come out, because it isn't supported by the cited sources (or other reliable sources). The other issue with the lede is that it is not a good summary of the article, per wiki lede guidelines. I will edit it a bit today and tomorrow. Peace, Lisa.davis (talk) 21:25, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The changes, look good to me. Also liked Ahinsa clarification in etymology. Peace, AgadaUrbanit (talk) 21:03, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Primary sources in parts of Non-human life and some subsections
Some subsections of this article, such as Non-human life, use a lot of primary sources. Is this original research? Perhaps, someone can cite second sources, that are reliable secondary or tertiary sources, in Non-human life subsection, for example, to help improve this article. If secondary and tertiary sources cannot be found, this section needs to be revised to reflect scholarly consensus, and avoid the impression that parts of this article is a personal essay.

While a direct quote from a primary source is sometimes useful and necessary (such as definitions or origins of a word), in most cases secondary and tertiary sources need to be relied upon for encyclopedic articles, or at least included as well to help verification. I hope someone will try to add second sources, or rewrite such subsections from secondary/tertiary sources. Meanwhile, I will check into wikipedia policies on content sourcing, then continue reading and verifying the cited sources. Peace, Lisa.davis (talk) 23:07, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Another issue with this subsection is the relative emphasis and undue weight it leads to, between "Ahimsa to every human being" versus "Ahimsa to non-human life". Non-human life needs to be discussed in this article. That discussion must be in the right sequence and with proper due weight, as reflected in major secondary and tertiary reliable sources. I will do so in the next few days. Peace, Lisa.davis (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I have moved this sub-section, after checking the sources and complimenting primary with secondary/tertiary reliable source. I have shrunk it down a bit to keep this article focussed on Ahimsa. Some of the old removed material may be better in wiki article on Animal Rights and Hinduism. I will move it in due course. Lisa.davis (talk) 03:23, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Wrong spelling of article name

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello All, I know this is a good article and has crossed very experienced eyes but I would still like to draw your attention towards the wrong spelling of this page name. It should be spelt Ahinsa and not Ahimsa. I tried to move the page but could not and was advised by Admin Gilliam to start a discussion here. Please share your views. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  16:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahimsa → Ahinsa  – Ahimsa spelling is wrong. I know this is a good article but somehow the wrong spelling slipped by. Please review. Thanks  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  16:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Supported AKS.9955 is actually correct. No one spells it as "Ahimsa" at all. "Ahinsa" has 1,300,000+ Results, "Ahimsa" got 800,000+, Thus if we are aware of WP:Commonname, title should be "Ahinsa". Bladesmulti (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
 * In Sanskrit scholarship it is usual to transcribe anusvara (the dot above the letters in the Devanagari spelling अहिंसा, represents nasalization) as m-dot (ṃ) as in ahiṃsā. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello Anthony, appreciate your response. Hindi is my mother tongue (same script and this word is the same in Hindi & Sanskrit languages) I have received formal education in both languages for over 10 years, speak Hindi daily and this is the first time in my life I noticed that such an important word is widely misquoted and misspelt. It reminds me of my fellow Indians living in Newark, US and calling it Ney-Waark (and they think they are right). Please understand that Grammar rules are very different and even if they are the same, its application & usage vastly differs from language to language; especially if it is a different script. What might be good in English might not be acceptable in Hindhi and v.v. Not going far, a close example. My first name is Arun. It is written in Hindi as अरुण. Whilst we have some letters in English language for first two characters of my name, there is no single or combination of letters in English alphabet that can pronounce " ण " correctly. Result, I am popularly called "Arun" with N. There is no literal translation for simple words like Cheers or Bon Appetite in Hindi language.


 * So the point I am trying to make here is, it does not matter what is the interpretation of someone for Ahinsa, we have to account for how it is originally meant to be. In case of Ahinsa, English language does have a suitable letter that can define the word. I will leave you with this. Trust this clarifies. Cheers,  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  04:25, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * The linguists' transcription of अरुण is Aruṇa (Sanskrit) / Aruṇ (Hindi) with cerebralization represented by putting a dot under. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Often in email groups Indians represent dot-under (and long vowel) by capitalization, e.g. I have seen the name of the god Vishnu ( विष्णु ) typed as "viSNu"; the scholarly transcription is Viṣṇu. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:35, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Ahimsa has historically been the way to write it in English, and as Anthony Appleyard points out, it represents the standard transliteration from Sanskrit, which should be considered the source language. Google book search shows a much stronger use of this term than 'ahinsa' (223000 to 6000). In many other languages it is spoken and written as 'ahimsa' or similar (e.g. Telugu అహింస ahimsa, Kannada ಅಹಿಂಸೆ ahimse). Similar issues over the Hindi pronounciation of this nasal consonant occur from time to time with Simha/Sinha. As to whether the word is the same in Hindi and Sanskrit, numerous words are written the same in both languages but we know that they are not always pronounced the same (e.g. अरुण is pronounced Aruna in Sanskrit, despite Hindi speakers reading it as Arun). Imc (talk) 07:33, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Dear Imc & Anthony Appleyard, whilst I appreciate your enthusiasm on this subject, let me humbly highlight that if not the language, then atleast don't try to teach me what my own name means or how it should be written / spelt. I did not acquire this knowledge of (my) name by internet and Google search. Aruna is a feminine name whereas Arun is masculine; I make no mistakes here. Ahinsa is predominantly a word from Sanskrit language and it does not matter how does it crosses over to other languages OR how it was historically written in some other script; it has to be spelt correctly in its original shape and form. What is important is how it was original written and pronounced in the original language. Don't get me wrong guys but this is a humble request, consider this with an open mind. Ahimsa is the wrong spelling and the worst is that it has been made popular by people whose first language is not even Hindi. Thanks,  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  08:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * And whilst we are on the subject of my name, check this out Wat Arun. This is a temple in Thailand and yes, Arun there means what it means in India and it is an Indian word. 15 years back, I visited this temple and the most surprising thing I noticed was the way they pronounced "Arun" - it was "Alunn". So, does that mean we change the spelling of the name? No. Talking about English, Hawaiian alphabet has 17 letters & 7 diphthongs. I confess that I don't know for sure but it is a good guess that lots of English words will lose their actual pronunciation / spelling in Hawai since there are no "C", "F" etc letters in their alphabet. How would we receive it then? Just food for thought. This article (Ahimsa) has been on Wikipedia with wrong name for appx 10 years and due to which majority of Google searches are also getting effected. Over the past decade, scores of other website have taking "learning" from this small misinterpretation on Wikipedia; and that's why we are getting convoluted results. Cheers,  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  08:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You are being overly sensitive on the subject of your own name, after having been the first to bring it into this discussion. I'm perfectly aware that Aruna is commonly used as a female name now especially in northern India, but that should be with a long final a (Arunā). In the original Sanskrit Aruna, with the short final a which has been dropped in modern Hindia, was / is a male name. The relevant Wikipedia policy on naming and transliteration is set out at WP:NCIN. Imc (talk) 09:08, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Imc, Relax. No one is getting sensitive here. It is a common mistake people make when they cross over from one culture to another; most frequent being not adapting to accent and language. For example, Lord Ram became Rama, Buddh became Buddha, Karm became Karma, Yog became Yoga..and so on. Same way Aruna. Aruna as a word / name is valid but Arun and Aruna are different. I am sure you are aware that there is a dialect called "Hinglish" when Hindhi speaking people made their own way of speaking English and created a new style. Similar is the case with Mauritian Creole. Now I am experiencing something called "Eng-di" where Hindi has been messed up by English speaking people ;) (on the pun intended side). Inapt spelling has become an accepted word; either my Sanskrit & Hindi teachers taught me nothing OR I slept though some sort of "Sanskrit transformation" ceremony. Whatever the case may be, I would like to end the discussion now (from my side) with one caution / advice that it is not important here who makes a better point in the Talk Page, what is important is that the valid & authentic information is displayed here. It gets more crucial, considering the mass penetration, readership and influence of Wikipedia. If we lose the larger picture, we might end up distorting some facts forever. I will leave you with this YouTube video. Listen from 0:24 to 1:10 minutes where she pronounces Ahinsa several times. Cheers,  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  09:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It is pointless to argue about whether Sanskrit or Hindi is "correct" for this concept; this is the English Wikipedia and the only question is how the term is usually written in English. Google NGram shows that the "ahimsa" spelling is consistently much more common in English since 1900, with "ahinsa" almost never used. We should be consistent with this existing English spelling, not with other languages. 172.9.22.150 (talk) 15:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Supported - Non-indigenous people at first instance would read/memorise it as AHIMSA which is purely a spelling mistake. AHINSA & HINS is the actual way of writing. Also, a proper pronounciation needs to be specified in the lede section in English & then in Sanskrit (Half the world cannot understand it & hence not much useful). Wiki works on sources & what if the data in sources itself are mistaken agelong ? This discussion is to focus on the actual spelling & pronounciation. It is crystal clear, that we Indians pronounce it as AHINSA, then why not the article be named identically ? Thanks ! Arun Kumar Singh for bringing it. - Ninney (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahimsa is the proper spelling as per the pronunciation in Sanskrit. Hindi speakers pronounce it as Ahinsa, not all Indians. -- Redtigerxyz Talk 05:40, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose - A quick search on Sanskrit to English transliteration conventions led me to this. ṃ and m are two different characters with two different pronunciations. The page on Anusvara also points out that allophones of /m/ and /n/ are used interchangeably depending on the nature of the character that follows the anusvara. To quote "the anusvāra (lit. "after-sound") is a sound that occurs as an allophone of /m/ — at a morpheme boundary — or /n/ — morpheme-internally—, if they are preceded by a vowel and followed by a fricative (/ś/, /ṣ/, /s/ or /h/)". While Ahimsa is indeed pronounced as Ahinsa, transliterations can end up confusing most people. But since it's a loanword now, I believe the Sanskrit pronunciation doesn't matter anymore. Most of the western world pronounces 'curry' as 'kari' and that isn't particularly bothersome. Also, 'Gurgaon' is pronounced with a ḍ in 'Gudgaon'. That's just how transliterations work. Cheers. Vignesh.Mukund (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Ahimsa is now an English word. WP:USEENGLISH
 * Oxford
 * Merriam Webster
 * Collins and Random House
 * http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/ahimsa.aspx#5 Redtigerxyz Talk 05:37, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Ahimsa spelled as ahinsa through much of article.
I noticed the spelling of ahimsa is misspelled with an "n" through much of the article. Either someone wiki bombed the article, or there is an alternate spelling. Just bringing this up as I am interested in accuracy in articles. If the spelling with "n" is a correct alternate spelling, it would be useful if a reference in the beginning of the article showed as such. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.63.101.90 (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ AgadaUrbanit (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

in my view correct word is "ahinsa" as word "ahimsa" means "not like snow" or in other words "to hot" (a=not, him=snow/ice, sa=like) followed this page fm "mahatma gandhi"Rakesh.pawar27 (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2015 (UTC)rakesh.pawar27

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Ahimsa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090801035330/http://www.duilian.cn:80/News/wangkan3/200701/163.html to http://www.duilian.cn/News/wangkan3/200701/163.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Deleting this and related links, as it has nothing to do with Ahimsa. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 02:17, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Ahimsa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141216064046/http://ebooks.gutenberg.us/HimalayanAcademy/SacredHinduLiterature/weaver/content.htm to http://ebooks.gutenberg.us/HimalayanAcademy/SacredHinduLiterature/weaver/content.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Ahimsa without Ontology
The article states: Ahimsa is a multidimensional concept, inspired by the premise that all living beings have the spark of the divine spiritual energy; therefore, to hurt another being is to hurt oneself. Ahimsa has also been related to the notion that any violence has karmic consequences.

Now, what about 'passive ahimsa' as practiced by a number of non-ideological vegans, without the 'metaphysics' of the (spiritual) teaching as often presented by religions advocating ahimsa?

Apart from the 'metaphysics' of the (spiritual) teaching, a meta-ethical question is about the ethical normativity of ahimsa. Isn't ahimsa often advocated on consequentialist grounds? MaynardClark (talk) 16:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Ahimsa is not a Hindu concept
Ahimsa should be described as a Jain concept not Hindu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.97.221.147 (talk) 07:50, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * @172.97.221.147: Welcome to wikipedia. Please review wikipedia content policies, particularly related to verifiability in reliable sources and WP:WWIN. You are free to hold whatever wisdom/ prejudice/ opinions you have, but for any edits you propose or make, you must respect these content policies. Ms Sarah Welch (talk) 12:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't dispute Jainism's claim to uniquely teach ahimsa on Jainism's own terms, but many Hindu teachers and historians teach that Jainism emerged historically from Hinduism - while may Jains claim to be 'the world's oldest religion'! MaynardClark (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ahimsa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110408135457/http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Hindu%20Primer/nonharming_ahimsa.html to http://www.sanskrit.org/www/Hindu%20Primer/nonharming_ahimsa.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:48, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Ahimsa vs. Ahinsa
"The word Ahinsa—sometimes spelled as Ahinsa" Well that's not helpful. Someone got a little overzealous with the search and replace. So let's talk about that. I don't claim to be an expert, and I don't know which one is "right." But I do know that "Ahimsa" is the article title, and yet the word, spelled that way, only appears five times in the article text. The other instances, almost a hundred in total, are all spelled "Ahinsa." Yet in the References and Bibliography sections, "Ahimsa" outnumbers "Ahinsa" twelve to zero. If "Ahinsa" is correct, there should be a source for it, and the article title should be changed, with a redirect from "Ahimsa." Either way, the spelling in the article should match the page title and references. Topher714 (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ahimsa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419081500/http://www.beasyouare.info/beasyouare.html to http://www.beasyouare.info/beasyouare.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070225222717/http://vedabase.net/a/ahimsa to http://www.vedabase.net/a/ahimsa

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used in this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The file on Wikimedia Commons has been nominated for speedy deletion. View the deletion reason at the. Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 06:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Mahavir Upsarg.jpg

precept
according to the "five precepts" page, ahimsa is not the first one of them as stated at the beginning of the article. it is more like their inspiration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iska (talk • contribs) 03:41, 21 March 2021 (UTC)