While reading Vivekananda I came across these statements of his, (1888-1902)
"Non-Injury is right. 'Resist not evil' is a great thing – these are indeed grand principles; but the scriptures say,' Thou art a house-holder; if anyone smites thee on thy cheek, and thou dost not return him an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, thou will verily be a sinner.' Manu says, 'When one has come to kill you, there is no sin in killing him, even though he be a Brahmin.' (Manu, Viii. 350) This is very true, and this is a thing which should not be forgotten. Heroes only enjoy the world. Show your heroism; apply, according to circumstances, the fourfold political maxims of conciliation, bribery, sowing, dissensions and open war, to win over your adversary and enjoy the world – then you will be Dharmika (righteous). Otherwise, you live a disgraceful life if you pocket your insults when you are kicked and trodden down by anyone who takes it into his head to do so; your life is a veritable hell here, and so is the life hereafter. This is what the shastras say. Do your Svadharma – this is truth, the truth of truths. This is my advice to you, my beloved co-religionists. Of course, do not do any wrong. Do not injure or tyrannize over anyone, but try to do good to others as much as you can. But passively to submit to wrong done by others is a sin – with the householder. He must try to pay them back in their own coin then and there."
At another place he is saying to his devotees,
“Bless others when they revile you. Think how much good they are doing you; they can only hurt themselves. Go where people hate you, let them thrash the ego out of you, and you will get nearer to God.”
I find these two statements very contradictory. At one place he is advocating “an eye for an eye” and at the other he is advising to visit those who can insult or humiliate us with good grace, so that we can be able to tame our ego and thus learn the art of surrendering completely to the Lord.
I have seen few people reacting or humiliating others for trivial things and then justifying it by citing Vivekananda’s householder definition. To understand the background of this statement, I would like to go back into Swami Vivekananda’s other lectures which he gave regarding Bauddhistic practices. He found Buddhism quite unpractical because the path of Moksha, (sannyasa) cannot be for all. This desire of many, made society dysfunctional and India got invaded by other kings and countries and lost to them on the name of Moksha and non-violence. In regards to the context and timing of Swami Vivekananda’s delivered speech, the message of action versus passivity was greatly needed. During the time of British rule in India along with Bauddhistic practices, citizens of India were taking the backseat to their own nation’s affairs, in the attempt to follow Buddhism. Although non-violence is definitely feasible on paper, it is not always practical. Keeping that in mind Swami Vivekananda gave that lecture to householders to convey the message that one should do their duty as per their dharma and position. If it comes to fight, then one should fight if the end cause is important and worthwhile.
As far as the second statement is concerned, it is very difficult to take the insult and understand the cause of it. Not only the cause of it, but to have an understanding of why the person has insulted you. But, if one gains understanding of the others' perspective, then that person goes far in life. Although the two statements are contradictory, they cannot be judged solely on their content, but also must have their time period and context taken into consideration.
Think about it and do send me your comments and interpretation of these statements.
