The Historical Roots of Ahimsa in Indian Religion

[rousseau]

I've done a small amount of research on this and come up empty, so am going to raise the question here with the hope that someone can shed some light on the topic.

My understanding of Ancient Indian history is that the region was flush with psychedelics that likely gave rise to concepts like Brahman, and the respect for all life (Ahimsa), which has manifested itself today in non-violence, vegetarianism etc among Indians.

What I'm curious about is if this is the whole story, and if it's known exactly when Ahimsa originated and why. Is it (Ahimsa) intrinsically linked with Brahman, did it come after, or are they unrelated concepts? And did rituals involving psychedelics play a dominant role in their conception?

Bonus points if you know the extent that drugs played a role in other major world religions.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Today, we go to the grocery store to buy our beef, pork, chicken, and fish. In ancient India, killing and butchering animals was not something hidden far away from everbodys' eyes. Killing a goat that you raised from a baby would have affected some as children. This seems simple enough.

 

[rousseau]

Today, we go to the grocery store to buy our beef, pork, chicken, and fish. In ancient India, killing and butchering animals was not something hidden far away from everbodys' eyes. Killing a goat that you raised from a baby would have affected some as children. This seems simple enough.

This does raise the question of why Ahimsa was a product of India, and not somewhere like Europe where animals were also butchered. My thinking is that Brahman / Monism was a major influence on their culture, leading to the belief that all things are sacred (rather than man having dominion over all things).

 

[abaddon]

Karen Armstrong describes it as an inward turn during the "Axial Age". The early Aryans had been raiders and cattle rustlers and their religious rites mirrored this. Later they applied their sacrificial rites inwardly.

The Aryan peoples of India would always be in the vanguard of this spiritual and psychological transformation [during the Axial Age] and would develop a particularly sophisticated understanding of the workings of the mind. Aggressive, passionate warriors addicted to raiding and rustling the cattle of neighboring groups, the Aryan tribes, who had settled in what is now the Punjab, had sacralized their violence. Their religious rituals included the sacrificial slaughter of animals, fierce competitions, and mock raids and battles in which participants were often injured or even killed. But in the ninth century BCE, priests began systematically to extract this aggression from the liturgy, transforming these dangerous rites into more anodyne ceremonies. Eventually they managed to persuade the warriors to give up their sacred war games. As these ritual specialists began to investigate the causes of violence in the psyche, they initiated a spiritual awakening. From a very early date, therefore, they had espoused the ideal of ahimsa (“nonviolence”) that would become central to Indian spirituality.

In the seventh century BCE, the sages who produced the earliest of the spiritual treatises known as the Upanishads took another important step forward. Instead of concentrating on the performance of external rites, they began to examine their interior significance. At this time Aryan society in the Ganges basin was in the early stages of urbanization. The elite now had time to examine the inner workings of their minds—a luxury that had not been possible before humans were freed from the all-absorbing struggle for subsistence....

~ Karen Armstrong, Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life pp. 32-33

 

[rousseau]

Karen Armstrong describes it as an inward turn during the "Axial Age". The early Aryans had been raiders and cattle rustlers and their religious rites mirrored this. Later they applied their sacrificial rites inwardly.

The Aryan peoples of India would always be in the vanguard of this spiritual and psychological transformation [during the Axial Age] and would develop a particularly sophisticated understanding of the workings of the mind. Aggressive, passionate warriors addicted to raiding and rustling the cattle of neighboring groups, the Aryan tribes, who had settled in what is now the Punjab, had sacralized their violence. Their religious rituals included the sacrificial slaughter of animals, fierce competitions, and mock raids and battles in which participants were often injured or even killed. But in the ninth century BCE, priests began systematically to extract this aggression from the liturgy, transforming these dangerous rites into more anodyne ceremonies. Eventually they managed to persuade the warriors to give up their sacred war games. As these ritual specialists began to investigate the causes of violence in the psyche, they initiated a spiritual awakening. From a very early date, therefore, they had espoused the ideal of ahimsa (“nonviolence”) that would become central to Indian spirituality.

In the seventh century BCE, the sages who produced the earliest of the spiritual treatises known as the Upanishads took another important step forward. Instead of concentrating on the performance of external rites, they began to examine their interior significance. At this time Aryan society in the Ganges basin was in the early stages of urbanization. The elite now had time to examine the inner workings of their minds—a luxury that had not been possible before humans were freed from the all-absorbing struggle for subsistence....

~ Karen Armstrong, Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life pp. 32-33

I've been going through the Wikipedia page and this passage seems to corroborate this thesis:

Ahimsa

Ahimsa as an ethical concept evolved in the Vedic texts.[6][27]: 113–145  The oldest scriptures indirectly mention Ahimsa, but do not emphasize it. Over time, the Hindu scripts revise ritual practices and the concept of Ahimsa is increasingly refined and emphasized, until Ahimsa becomes the highest virtue by the late Vedic era (about 500 BCE). For example, hymn 10.22.25 in the Rig Veda uses the words Satya (truthfulness) and Ahimsa in a prayer to deity Indra;[28] later, the Yajur Veda dated to be between 1000 BCE and 600 BCE, states, "may all beings look at me with a friendly eye, may I do likewise, and may we look at each other with the eyes of a friend".

The deeper I get into the study of religion the more I realize that many of these questions don't have a single, direct cause during one point of time. As you mentioned, it likely grew and was refined over time.

I would think that the Brahmanic nature of Hinduism would have some influence on this progression too. It seems like Hinduism was a little more oriented toward a cosmic whole, while Judaism (influenced by Hinduism) fused Monism with a powerful creator instead.

 

[steve_bank]

From what I read soma in India may have been a psychedelic or something similar, but nobody knows for sure. Today wondering Sadhus in India still exist and they use pot. The original 'Hippie'.

Sadhu - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The modern academic term is ethneogens.

Up through the 80s I think you could go to Naive American reservations where they ritually took peyote and participate.

Native American Church - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Native American Church (NAC), also known as Peyotism and Peyote Religion, is a Native American religion that teaches a combination of traditional Native American beliefs and Christianity, with sacramental use of the entheogen peyote.[1] The religion originated in the Oklahoma Territory (1890–1907) in the late nineteenth century, after peyote was introduced to the southern Great Plains from Mexico.[1][2][3] Today it is the most widespread indigenous religion among Native Americans in the United States (except Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians), Canada (specifically First Nations people in Saskatchewan and Alberta), and Mexico, with an estimated 250,000 adherents as of the late twentieth century.[4][5][6][7]

The idea that ancient use of drugs led to 'all life is sacred' sounds like a modern justification for drugs. As to drugs leading to morality, the Indian traditions developed rigid caste systems. In Seattle it is an issue, Indian immigrants enforce the caste system socially and in hiring for buisness.

Oregon is legalizing psilocybin when taken at state approved facilities.

https://sharedsystems.dhsoha.state.or.us/DHSForms/Served/le4226.pdf

Oregon Health Authority : Oregon Psilocybin Services : Prevention and Wellness : State of Oregon

Oregon Psilocybin Services is a new section housed within the Oregon Health Authority Public Health Division’s Center for Health Protection.

www.oregon.gov

In the o9s Leary said the whole world shoud be dosed wth LSD, looks like we are getting there. Oregon government s promoting psilocybin.

Brave New World here we come.

 

[rousseau]

From what I read soma in India may have been a psychedelic or something similar, but nobody knows for sure. Today wondering Sadhus in India still exist and they use pot. The original 'Hippie'.

Sadhu - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The modern academic term is ethneogens.

Up through the 80s I think you could go to Naive American reservations where they ritually took peyote and participate.

Native American Church - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Native American Church (NAC), also known as Peyotism and Peyote Religion, is a Native American religion that teaches a combination of traditional Native American beliefs and Christianity, with sacramental use of the entheogen peyote.[1] The religion originated in the Oklahoma Territory (1890–1907) in the late nineteenth century, after peyote was introduced to the southern Great Plains from Mexico.[1][2][3] Today it is the most widespread indigenous religion among Native Americans in the United States (except Alaska Natives and Native Hawaiians), Canada (specifically First Nations people in Saskatchewan and Alberta), and Mexico, with an estimated 250,000 adherents as of the late twentieth century.[4][5][6][7]

The idea that ancient use of drugs led to 'all life is sacred' sounds like a modern justification for drugs. As to drugs leading to morality, the Indian traditions developed rigid caste systems. In Seattle it is an issue, Indian immigrants enforce the caste system socially and in hiring for buisness.

Oregon is legalizing psilocybin when taken at state approved facilities.

https://sharedsystems.dhsoha.state.or.us/DHSForms/Served/le4226.pdf

Oregon Health Authority : Oregon Psilocybin Services : Prevention and Wellness : State of Oregon

Oregon Psilocybin Services is a new section housed within the Oregon Health Authority Public Health Division’s Center for Health Protection.

www.oregon.gov

In the o9s Leary said the whole world shoud be dosed wth LSD, looks like we are getting there. Oregon government s promoting psilocybin.

Brave New World here we come.

Some of your comments seem to broaden the scope of the question a bit too much. It's not really a question of whether drugs lead to morality, that's definitely a no (or at least not always). It's a question of whether they sometimes lead to more of a cosmic perspective, which in this case contributed to the rise of Ahimsa.

Tacking on the word sometimes is important because Hinduism, and Indian religion more broadly, is pretty diverse. Drugs can have an influence in certain regions at certain times, but other regions can go down an entirely different path. And two different social forces can co-evolve at the same time in the same place (for example, Ahimsa and the Caste system). But I don't know enough about the Caste system to really comment.

 

[abaddon]

The deeper I get into the study of religion the more I realize that many of these questions don't have a single, direct cause during one point of time. As you mentioned, it likely grew and was refined over time.

I would think that the Brahmanic nature of Hinduism would have some influence on this progression too. It seems like Hinduism was a little more oriented toward a cosmic whole, while Judaism (influenced by Hinduism) fused Monism with a powerful creator instead.

Yes, the influence seems likely to me too.

Last night I watched a brief video about a recent book called "Awe" by Dacher Keltner (I was wondering if I want to buy it or not). He mentioned there's a horizontal sort of awe and a vertical sort. By "horizontal" he means you're not looking 'up' at something scarily awesome 'above' you, something you'd relate to in fear. Instead you're feeling that you're part of what you're experiencing as awesome. The experience tends to generate gratitude and compassion (com-passion = a "together with" feeling).

Vertical awe is hierarchical, more of a power relation. "That" is greatest and so it's beyond you, it looms over you. The experience can produce positive feelings but it can also generate shame. Compared to "That", the human is puny and flawed.

'Verticality' seems to me to typify much in abrahamic religions, and 'horizontal' relating more typical of several eastern religions.

 

[Politesse]

As with many topics in religious philosophy, no one can give you an answer to your query that is both simple and well-informed. Ahimsa is a complicated concept, the central orienting principle of Jain and an important topic of discussion in all Vedic traditions for many millennia. Asking where it came from is a bit like asking where "Grace" came from in Christian thought, or "Submission" in Islam. None of these three traditions as such originated their central ideas, and the philosophical and social uses to which those ideas have been put over the past thousands of years have been many and various. Jain and Hindu communities failed to fully synthesize as the concept of a universalized "Hinduism" (in service of which project the modern notion of Brahman as the grounding constant of faith took shape) was being built, and profound disagreements about Ahimsa and what it required were a major reason why.

 

[rousseau]

As with many topics in religious philosophy, no one can give you an answer to your query that is both simple and well-informed. Ahimsa is a complicated concept, the central orienting principle of Jain and an important topic of discussion in all Vedic traditions for many millennia. Asking where it came from is a bit like asking where "Grace" came from in Christian thought, or "Submission" in Islam. None of these three traditions as such originated their central ideas, and the philosophical and social uses to which those ideas have been put over the past thousands of years have been many and various. Jain and Hindu communities failed to fully synthesize as the concept of a universalized "Hinduism" (in service of which project the modern notion of Brahman as the grounding constant of faith took shape) was being built, and profound disagreements about Ahimsa and what it required were a major reason why.

I figured about the same. I guess I was mainly hoping for more data about the process of diffusion, along the lines of what Abaddon posted. I've been looking for a book that synthesizes the era, but if one exists I can't find it. Maybe we just don't have enough data about the period, outside of what exists in the religious texts themselves.

 

[rousseau]

The deeper I get into the study of religion the more I realize that many of these questions don't have a single, direct cause during one point of time. As you mentioned, it likely grew and was refined over time.

I would think that the Brahmanic nature of Hinduism would have some influence on this progression too. It seems like Hinduism was a little more oriented toward a cosmic whole, while Judaism (influenced by Hinduism) fused Monism with a powerful creator instead.

Yes, the influence seems likely to me too.

Last night I watched a brief video about a recent book called "Awe" by Dacher Keltner (I was wondering if I want to buy it or not). He mentioned there's a horizontal sort of awe and a vertical sort. By "horizontal" he means you're not looking 'up' at something scarily awesome 'above' you, something you'd relate to in fear. Instead you're feeling that you're part of what you're experiencing as awesome. The experience tends to generate gratitude and compassion (com-passion = a "together with" feeling).

Vertical awe is hierarchical, more of a power relation. "That" is greatest and so it's beyond you, it looms over you. The experience can produce positive feelings but it can also generate shame. Compared to "That", the human is puny and flawed.

'Verticality' seems to me to typify much in abrahamic religions, and 'horizontal' relating more typical of several eastern religions.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. You'd also wonder how our propensity to attribute agency to random events plays into which of the two we feel. Likely the vertical awe is the more primal version (we instinctively attribute agency to things). Where the horizontal version takes some level of higher order thinking that sees through the illusion of agency.

 

[bilby]

Likely the vertical awe is the more primal version (we instinctively attribute agency to things). Where the horizontal version takes some level of higher order thinking that sees through the illusion of agency.

I think they're both a part of the illusion of agency.

The difference is in whether we feel as though we have direct influence over that agency or not.

Vertical awe: Everything happens for a reason.

Horizontal awe: I am a key part of that reason.

 

[rousseau]

Likely the vertical awe is the more primal version (we instinctively attribute agency to things). Where the horizontal version takes some level of higher order thinking that sees through the illusion of agency.

I think they're both a part of the illusion of agency.

The difference is in whether we feel as though we have direct influence over that agency or not.

Vertical awe: Everything happens for a reason.

Horizontal awe: I am a key part of that reason.

I can only speak for myself, but being a key part is antithetical to my experience with Eastern thought, but then I wouldn't say that I experience awe anymore, either.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with some of this stuff, but there's actually terminology that describes various grades, or stages along the path of Buddhism. So for some people in the earlier stages being a key part might be some of it. But I think those people would typically get hit with a stick.

So you're likely right in some cases, but the experience varies from person to person. Generally those with a visceral understanding of Eastern thought will feel interconnected, like they're a minor part of a whole.

 

[rousseau]

Originally when I was looking for books on this topic I tacked on drugs, looking to read up on that angle. But a book on Ancient Indian history is likely a better bet (for at least finding something).

I came across this title which looks pretty good:

History of Ancient and Early Medieval India

About 700 pages on the topic. It wasn't at the library so I'm out 60 bucks, but it'll be a good read.

 

[Politesse]

I can only speak for myself, but being a key part is antithetical to my experience with Eastern thought, but then I wouldn't say that I experience awe anymore, either.

Should get outside more, haha.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with some of this stuff, but there's actually terminology that describes various grades, or stages along the path of Buddhism. So for some people in the earlier stages being a key part might be some of it. But I think those people would typically get hit with a stick.

Amitabha ("Pure Land") Buddhism has a series of grades or levels, three sets of three, which impact the manner in which one will be reborn into the Pure Land and when one's "lotus flower will bloom". They are understood less as a social status and more as a series of miraculous boons granted by Amitabha as one progresses through one's understanding of his names. At least, in theory. At a monastery, as I have observed and as one would assume, the grades connote quite a bit of status indeed.

 

[rousseau]

I can only speak for myself, but being a key part is antithetical to my experience with Eastern thought, but then I wouldn't say that I experience awe anymore, either.

Should get outside more, haha.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with some of this stuff, but there's actually terminology that describes various grades, or stages along the path of Buddhism. So for some people in the earlier stages being a key part might be some of it. But I think those people would typically get hit with a stick.

Amitabha ("Pure Land") Buddhism has a series of grades or levels, three sets of three, which impact the manner in which one will be reborn into the Pure Land and when one's "lotus flower will bloom". They are understood less as a social status and more as a series of miraculous boons granted by Amitabha as one progresses through one's understanding of his names. At least, in theory. At a monastery, as I have observed and as one would assume, the grades connote quite a bit of status indeed.

I was thinking of the four stages of dhyana:

Buddhist Meditation

Four stages, called (in Sanskrit) dhyanas or (in Pali) jhanas, are distinguished in the shift of attention from the outward sensory world: (1) detachment from the external world and a consciousness of joy and ease, (2) concentration, with suppression of reasoning and investigation, (3) the passing away of joy, with the sense of ease remaining, and (4) the passing away of ease also, bringing about a state of pure self-possession and equanimity.

Only tangentially related to Bilby's point, but I think it implies that much of Eastern thought is a process, not a binary. In some forms of Christianity, for example, you get your God, you get your worship, and that's pretty much where it stops. As someone who's studied Buddhism, my experience of it in 2023 is much different from how I was experiencing it in 2019 when I first started reading about Zen.

The wisdom, crystallized and properly understood, should lead to an experience where there's no real differentiation between you and anything else. You aren't necessarily important, but what you do matters.

What I find even more interesting in the modern era is, with the availability of books, how much of this stuff an individual can read. To date I've studied two forms of the Tao te Ching, the Shobogenzo, a D.T. Suzuki compilation, a bunch of Alan Watts, and a pretty important work from a master of Advaita Vedanta. Can you even imagine having all of that available in one place in the medieval or ancient period? And yet there it is, all sitting casually in my basement, while my friends and family watch reality shows on TV.

 

[rousseau]

I came across a book on the History of Hinduism today (while I wait for the above History of Ancient India to come in the mail). I've also been doing some poking around online for detail on this question.

From what I can gather the rise of Ahimsa is a direct product of Brahmanism, and the origin of Brahmanism was likely a combination of variables, and part randomness. Soma does seem like it was common from an early period so it could have had some influence.

In any case the region just seemed to land on a kind of cosmic principle, among the range of metaphysical possibilities. IOW, one possibility for an explanatory system of thought is that the universe is an 'ultimate or absolute', rather than 'created by a powerful deity', or multiple deities, or something else.

So if you live under a system of thought where you're part of an absolute, and there's no differentiation between you and anything else, Ahimsa is going to be a natural outgrowth of that perspective. And maybe one of the central ideas of the philosophy.

Actual detail from the very earliest period seems to be (understandably) sparse so detail about something like the influence of Soma is maybe unknowable. But it is clear that it existed, and was a part of early rituals.

When I get the History of Ancient India in the mail I may tack on some more detail if I come across anything else that's related.

 

[rousseau]

From Hinduism: It's Historical Development

The descriptions of the effects of soma suggest that it was a hallucinogen rather than an intoxicant.

Soma was poured into a hole in the ground to insure the immortality of the gods, and some was consumed by the worshipers in order to share in the feelings of immortality.

This was from the earliest period of Hinduism, somewhere between 2000 and 600 B.C.. Soma is mentioned in the Rig Veda, which is the earliest text.

The book mentions that the Upanishads, written closer to 600 B.C. are more philosophical and indicate some movement toward a unified monism / cosmic principle. It provides quite a bit of textual evidence from the religious documents themselves.

So in terms of historical evidence the best you're likely going to get for this question is:

• Use of a hallucinogen was common among the religious class from the earliest periods
• We know from current experience that hallucinogens can reveal a cosmic principle
• Over time a cosmic principle emerged in Indian religious texts

The Wikipedia article on Ahimsa indicates that it became prominent around the time that the Upanishads were written, when there was also movement toward monism.

So in terms of a historical diffusion India seems like it definitely moved toward a coherent monism for whatever reason. And hallucinogens played a prominent role in their religious rituals. More than likely there's no direct evidence linking the two, one can only infer that there's a relationship.

 

[Politesse]

Isn't there a whiff of exoticism going on here? There are almost no societies of whom archaeology does not provide some evidence of hallucinogen use, to be sure, and most spiritual traditions have at least some history of seeing entheogenic substances of some kind to induce spiritual states and experiences. Walk into any church, temple, or mosque, and you'll encounter a wave of olfactory and visual distraction absolutely intended toward inciting a sensation of sacredness.

But going from that observation to "drugs are the reason this philosophical concept exists" seems like one hell of a logical leap, and even more suspect if you aren't applying the observation neutrally to all cultures that use entheogenic substances. The ancient Greeks drank bad wine by the gallon and also a now-mysterious but apparently more hallucinogenic brew called kykeon, which is explicitly identified as having a connection to the rites of the various priesthoods. But I don't see many people trying to credit Platonic Monism to inebriation.

Trying to figure out how such a fundamental concept as non-violence "originated" seems like a fool's game to me, as such basic ideas in human thought almost certainly predate our extant written record. Philosophy did not begin in the world of the written, not in any world culture. If you actually read the surviving Vedas, it is fairly clear that its authors did not think they were writing a book series, and certainly did not think they were writing the first books; they are recording liturgies and poetry that they did not themselves bring into existence. Memory, not innovation.

 

[rousseau]

No argument from me there. Likely, we just don't know enough to say with absolute certainty how it happened. All we know are the results of what happened, and can piece together a narrative of guess-work based on that.

It'd be interesting to see a comparative analysis on the extent of drug use, and a comparison of the qualities of the drugs used, but I imagine such a thing isn't possible. My bet is on Soma being a stronger drug than that used in different regions, and that it did have an influence, but that's going to remain a guess.

And I suppose the origin I'm going for isn't really 'the origin of the concept existing', but instead 'the origins of it's modern-day prominence in many religious systems'. Surely the idea itself predates written text.

But from what I can see there definitely seems to be a link between it's rise and the rise of monism. So the two concepts are tied together more often than not. It then becomes more of a question of the origins of monism. In that case, the best you can likely say is - the idea was envisaged, and then it spread/grew. Also the people who envisaged it were likely using a strong hallucinogen fairly regularly. But you can't really say definitively that those two things are linked.