Not of a religion. Of Hinduism. There is no cite, because you cannot appeal to authority in Hinduism; there is no authority that supersedes the actual, individual Hindu.
This is not a pacifist philosophy. Pacifism is the abjuration of all violence, for any reason, such as that propounded by Gandhi.
In no context is this pacifist. Pacifism is pacifism.
And why are you being obtuse. What is Arjun’s duty on the battlefield? Is he a cook, a launderer, a sketch artist? Does he play the trombone in the Pandava Army Marching Band? No, Arjun is a warrior and Krishna tells him that he must perform his duty as a warrior. No pacifist can take such a position.
There is no “just happens to be” here. Krishna is not speaking to Arjun merely in theoretical terms. Krishna is Arjun’s charioteer and adviser on the battlefield. Krishna knows what Arjun’s duty is and he knows what Arjun will do.
This is simply logic. Pacifism is the abjuration of violence. If Krishna knows Arjun’s duty includes violence on the battlefield, and if Krishna exhorts Arjun to do his duty, then Krishna does not advocate an abjuration of violence. Hence, Krishna is not a pacifist. Q.E.D.
“Getting killed” is irrelevant to pacifism. It’s the killing part that’s key.
Whatever this might be, it is not a pacifist philosophy.
It also does not prohibit violence. Thus, it is not pacifist.
The Bhagavad Gita does not prohibit violence. Thus, it is not pacifist.
To be fair, Gandhi’s position is perfectly reasonable for someone who sincerely believes in a soul. It’s the sincerely believing in the soul part that might fairly be labeled as fucking stupidity.
Believers and non-believers disagree on the question of belief. That’s what keeps them apart. What’s the tragedy here? After all, it only keeps them apart on the question of belief, not on other questions, such as tax policy, world peace, or boxers-vs.-briefs.
One of the more common elements of religions is the idea that we have something special about humans, something we have yet been unable to quantify, and this includes two of the religions mentioned in this thread. (Chrisianity & Islam.) I have no knowledge of Hinduism.
The ultimate disposition of the soul is one of the fundamental concerns of these (and other) religions.
If you told someone that they were “fucking stupid” for believing in a soul, I daresay they would feel that you were bashing their beliefs.
I didn’t actually say that belief in a soul is fucking stupid. I was just pointing out that chowder’s critique of Gandhianism was logically suspect. If he wanted to call something about Gandhi’s philosophy “fucking stupid” then he was picking the wrong part of it, because Gandhi’s conclusion follows absolutely logically from his beliefs regarding the soul and non-violence. That’s why I said that the part of Gandhi’s beliefs that could fairly be the subject of critique (using “fucking stupid” only because those were the terms chowder chose) would be Gandhi’s hypothesis, not his perfectly logical conclusion.
