Dialogue and UniversalismE Volume 2, Number 1/2011
A Comparison of Confucius’ Notion of Jen/Ren as Inner-Humanity and
Human-Heartedness with Gandhi’s View of Ahimsa as Compassion
By
Hope K. Fitz
Abstract
The objective of this paper is to compare the virtue of jen or ren as inner-humanity
and/or human-heartedness, held by Confucius, with the virtue of ahimsa as
compassion, held by Gandhi. Regarding Confucius‟ notion of jen/ren, I argue that a
fundamental meaning of the term involves both inner-humanity and /or humanheartedness. Regarding Gandhi‟s view of ahimsa as compassion, I trace the
development of ahimsa in Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism and its influence upon
Gandhi‟s thought and practice and his introduction of ahimsa into the social/political
arena with his “Truth Force” against oppression. In comparing Confucius‟ jen/ren
with Gandhi‟s ahimsa, it is clear that Gandhi‟s virtue is deeper and broader. One is to
have the greatest compassion for all creatures. However, Confucius is to be
applauded for his realization that the development of character makes possible moral
behavior. It is because of this that he was concerned with inner-humanity and
human-heartedness.
Jen/Ren and Ahimsa
The topic of this paper is clear from the title, namely a comparison of
Confucius‟ notion of jen or ren, as inner-humanity and human-heartedness, with
Gandhi‟s view of ahimsa as compassion. One might wonder how these two virtues
could be compared. After all, Confucius and Gandhi were far apart with regard to
certain aspects of what the great post-modern, French philosopher, Michele Foucault,
referred to as an episteme, i.e., a body of knowledge. For Foucault, this ancient Greek
term included one‟s culture, including history and language; the physical properties
and psychological dimensions pertaining to when and where a people lived, one‟s role
and station in a society, etc. Also, what I think is key in the comparison which I am
undertaking is Foucault‟s insistence that to understand a people, one must consider
the episteme itself before applying the methodology of one‟s own time to that episteme.
Despite the differences between Confucius and Gandhi as to the time of their
lives (Confucius, 551-479 B.C. E.;1 Gandhi, 1869-1948 A.C.E.); culture, including
1
There is some question as to the exact date of Confucius‟ birth. Another date that is given is 552 B.C.E.
history and language; and their ethical goals, they both believed in a virtuous way of
life or as Aristotle would say, “living virtuously.”2 Also, both were exemplars of this
moral belief. In fact, it was this “walking the talk,” as the students say, that made
them such great teachers. They each tried to adhere to what they took to be the
virtues and principles needed to live a virtuous life. Hence, there is the ever growing
influence of their thought upon peoples of the world.
Regarding a virtuous life, both Confucius and Gandhi were concerned with the
“good.” As we shall see, their notions of “good” as a telos or ultimate goal differed,
but they shared a belief in some of the virtues and values which form part of one‟s
moral character. For example, they would both take as “good”: non-violence
whenever and wherever possible; kindness and love for one‟s fellow human beings;
living with dignity and affording it to others; overcoming egotism; being steady or
constant in their demeanors; and not being defeated by adversity. They also shared a
concern for the welfare of the people, i.e. the masses.
Given the foregoing similarities between Confucius and Gandhi as to character,
which, I assume, are familiar to a number of Asian comparative philosophers, let us
focus on what each took to be the major virtue. For Confucius this virtue is called jen
(as it appears in earlier English texts, although it was pronounced as ren) or ren (in
more recent English texts using the pin/yin script); I shall refer to the virtue as jen/ren.
I will explain why I take this virtue to mean inner-humanity and/or humanheartedness at its most fundamental level. For Gandhi, the virtue is called ahimsa. In
this paper, I am focusing on Gandhi‟s view of ahimsa as compassion. As we shall see,
the main difference between Confucius‟ notion of jen/ren as inner-humanity and
human-heartedness and Gandhi‟s view of ahimsa as compassion is in the degree of the
concern or caring for all humans and in the belief that compassion applies to all living
beings. Gandhi held that “compassion” meant the greatest love for all living
creatures. Part of this difference will become clear as I explain Gandhi‟s
religious/philosophical beliefs.
The approach to the objective, as stated, will be first to determine what
Confucius meant by jen/ren in the Analects and then to consider what Gandhi mean by
ahimsa. With regard to determining Confucius‟ meaning of jen/ren, I will consider: the
linguistic and hermeneutic difficulties involved in determining what the character for
jen/ren meant in ancient China,3 what various scholars have taken jen/ren to mean;
As most western philosophers know, when Aristotle spoke of eudaimonia, i.e., happiness, in the Nichomachean Ethics, he equated it with
living virtuously. This is discussed in “Conditions for Individual Freedom as Applied to the European Union,” by Hope K. Fritz and
Christopher Vasillopulos, published in the anthology, Humanity at the Turning Point: Rethinking Nature, Culture and Freedom, ed. by Sonia
Servomaa, Renval Institute Publications, 23, The Renvall Institute for Area and Cultural Studies, University of Helsinki, Helsinki,
Finland, 2006.
3 This is a problem with many ancient languages.
2
2
various values and beliefs held by Confucius; an examination of a Chinese character
or grapheme for jen/ren, by a Chinese linguist, in order to determine its original
meaning; how the meaning obtained by the aforementioned linguist is consistent with
the basic values and beliefs expressed by Confucius in the Analects and lends itself to
explaining the term as inner-humanity and human-heartedness.
With regard to a consideration of what Gandhi meant by ahimsa, I will
adumbrate its origins in Hinduism and its development in this tradition and
subsequently in Jainism and Buddhism.4 As we shall see, ahimsa originally meant nonharm, but eventually it also came to mean both non-harm and compassion to the
Jains. However, it was the Buddhists who fully developed the idea of ahimsa as
compassion. For Gandhi, although ahimsa meant both non-harm and compassion, it
is his view of ahimsa as compassion which I want to compare with Confucius‟ notion
of jen/ren. In the process of establishing the meanings of jen/ren as inner-humanity
and human-heartedness and ahimsa as compassion, the meanings of these virtues, as
understood by Gandhi and Confucius respectively, will begin to emerge. Thus, one
will begin to see the similarities and differences between the two virtues. However, I
will undertake the comparison of these virtues at the end of the paper.
Confucius’ Notion of Ren
As noted earlier, Confucius lived in ancient China. Furthermore, his language
was the Chinese of that time. By contrast, Gandhi lived in modern times and he was
fluent in English.5 Hence, culling out Confucius‟ meaning of jen/ren as innerhumanity and human-heartedness is more difficult than determining what Gandhi
meant by ahimsa as compassion. The problems associated with establishing what
Confucius meant by jen/ren involve translation, transliteration, and hermeneutics.
Regarding these problems as stated earlier, I want to appeal to Foucault‟s advice that
one look carefully at the episteme before applying a particular methodology. I think
that certain linguists do not adhere to his advice.6 However, having said this, I want
to emphasize that with any work of antiquity, there are challenges and problems
regarding interpretation. Some of these problems are expressed by Ying Xiao in his
I have written about this in more depth in “’Ahimsa’ A Way of Life; A Path to Peace,” published in an article by UMASS/Dartmouth,
Center for Indic Studies; Gandhi Lecture Series, Fall 2007.
5 His native tongue was Gujurati.
6 As an example, I was disappointed in a translation of the Analects, by Roger Ames and Henry Rosemont, Jr., because Ames and
Rosemont reduced the meaning of jen/ren to authority. In the introduction to the work, they made clear that it is moral authority to
which they refer. I certainly agree with them that authority is one of the meanings of jen/ren, but it is earned authority that is based
on one‟s moral character. Ames, and, I believe, also, Chung Yin-Cheng, from the University of Hawaii stressed this fact at an NEH
Summer Institute for Studies in Asian Philosophy, which I attended a number of years ago. However, in the Analects, by Ames and
Rosemont, this is not stressed. Also, whereas Ames and Rosemont viewed the term “benevolence” to be vague, I take the term
“authority,” by itself, to be even more so.
4
3
article, “How Confucius Does Things with Words.”7 He said that his study
incorporated: “. . . research (including pragmatics), hermeneutics, Sinology (including
Chinese classicism), religious studies, and intellectual history, to illustrate certain
features of Chinese communicative and hermeneutic practice.”8 He also said, “I
believe people‟s communicative practice of which our philosophical theory is
supposed to give an account is always primary over theory.”9 Continuing, he said,
“No theory has unquestioned authority; any theory of human communication has to
be tested, adjusted, revised or even abandoned according to how well it can cope with
linguistic practice.”10 In accord with Ying Xiao‟s advice, in my approach, I consider
not only cultural, linguistic, and hermeneutic considerations but also communicative
practice.
Focusing on the aforementioned language problems, it may well be that the full
meaning and implications of the Chinese term for jen/ren, have not been correctly or
fully understood and furthermore, it is clear that this term has changed meaning over
time.11 In addition to these language problems, and focusing on history, it has been
suggested that the literary character of Confucius in the Analects may not be one
person.12 It is also possible that the Analects may have been written over a long period
of time.13
Certainly, the various meanings attributed to jen/ren in the Analects by different
Chinese scholars is evidence of the foregoing problems in rendering the meaning.
Before I mention some of these various meanings, I want to make clear that I agree
with Wing-tsit Chan that there is a general meaning and a particular meaning of
jen/ren. The general meaning of jen/ren, according to Wing-tsit Chan,14 and the
meaning given to the term by H. B. Creel, is virtue.15 The more particular meanings
are many including: manhood―Lin Yu-Sheng;16 true manhood―Lin Yu Tang,17
humanity―Wing-tsit Chan,18 Julia Ching (one meaning);19 humaneness―W. T. de
Ying Xiao, “How Confucius Does Things with Words: Two Hermeneutic Paradigms in the Analects and its Exegesis,” published in
The Journal of Asian Studies, Vol. 66, No. 2 (May) 2007, 497-532.
8 Ibid., p. 499.
9 Ibid., p. 503.
10 Ibid.
11 Lin Yu-sheng, “The Evolution of the Pre-Confucian Meaning of Jen and the Confucian concept of Moral Authority,” published in
Monumenta Senica, Vol. 31, 1974-1975, p. 180. Apropos of this point, Yu-sheng says, “I suspect that the formal sense of jen did not
change until Confucius made jen the central concern of his moral discourse, but the substantive sense of the word gradually widened
[from what Yu-sheng takes to be “manhood” or “manliness”] to include moral connotations in the 200 years . . . before Confucius.”
12 Yang Xiao, p. 499.
13 Ibid., pp. 499-500.
14 Wing-tsit Chan, A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, tr. and compiled by Wing-tsit Chan, Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University
Press, c. 1963.
15 Ibid. and H. G. Creel, Chinese Thought: from Confucius to Mao Tse-tung, a Mentor Book published by the New American Library, New
York, c. 1953.
16 Yu-sheng, “The Evolution of the Pre-Confucian Meaning of Jen and the Confucian Concept of Moral Authority.”
17 A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy, tr. and compiled by Wing-tsit Chan, Princeton, New Jersey, Princeton University Press, c. 1963,
pp. 15 and 788.
18 Ibid.
7
4
Bary;20 other meanings listed by de Bary are filiality and fraternity;21 qualities;22
devotion;23 love,24 also mentioned by William Jennings,25 and Wing-tsit Chan,26
teachers;27 virtuous;28 goodness,29 also mentioned by Lin Yu Sheng,30 and Julia
Ching (one meaning);31 benevolence, which seems to be one of the most common
interpretations―The Five Thousand Dictionary, Chinese-English, compiled by C. H.
Fenn, with the assistance of Chin-Hsien Tseng, 1932,32 D. C. Lau,33 Wing-tsit Chan,34
Julia Ching (one meaning);35 the author of my old copy of the Analects,36 Lu Gu (the
name on the seal is Ting Yi);37 authority (moral authority)―Roger Ames and Henry
Rosemont.38
In addition for the foregoing meanings attributed to jen/ren, we also need to be
aware that the Book of Poetry is, according to one scholar, Lin Yu-sheng (mentioned
above), the only classic text written after the Zhou period and perhaps the first time
that the term jen/ren appears in the Chinese language. According to Lin Yu-sheng,
when the term jen/ren first appeared in the Book of Poetry, it meant manhood.39
Having set forth many meanings attributed to jen/ren, it is important that
context be considered. In addition to the foregoing problems which I have
mentioned as to whether or not Confucius was one person and whether or not the
Analects, was written over a period of time, we need to look more closely at the beliefs
and values which were held by Confucius. In particular, we need to look at the five
Chinese Religions by Julia Ching, New York, Arbis Books, c. 1993, p. 58.
Sources of Chinese Tradition, compiled by Wm. Theodore de Bary and Irene Brown, 2nd Ed., Vol. 1, New York, Columbia University
Press, Index, p. 962.
21 Ibid., de Bary says found in Analects.
22 Ibid., de Bary says found in Analects.
23 Ibid., de Bary says found in Analects.
24 Ibid., de Bary says found in Analects.
25 The Wisdom of Confucius, tr. by William Jennings, Boston, Books, Inc. Publishing, The World‟s Popular Classics, c. 1900.
26 A Source Book in Chinese Philosophy by Wing-tsit Chan, p. 788.
27 Sources of Chinese Tradition, de Bary, says found in the Analects.
28 Ibid., de Bary says found in Analects.
29 Ibid., de Bary says found in Analects.
30 Lin Yu-sheng, “The Evolution of the Pre-Confucian Meaning of Jen” as noted in footnote vi.
31 Julia Ching, p. 58.
32 This Chinese Dictionary first belonged to an Edgar Snow and then to a Helen Foster Snow. It has been in my family, I believe,
since I was a child.
33 The Analects of Confucius, tr. and with an introduction by D. C. Lau, new York, Dorset Press, p. 124. Jen is translated as benevolent.
34 Wing-tsit Chan, p. 788.
35 Julia Ching, p. 58.
36 The book is in Chinese and translated into English. My friend, Qi Lu, mentioned in the paper, said that the Chinese Characters are
very old. The cover page, in Chinese, gives the author‟s name and his pen name in the Chinese stamp. In English, one reads: a
volume with four writings, namely: The Confucian Analects; The Great Learning; The Doctrine of the Mean; and The Works of Mencius. So far,
we have not been able to discover the publisher or when or where it was published. The name on the fly leaf is James Leggett and the
book was given to me by Anna Lifshiz, when she was quite elderly. She was Margaret Sanger‟s secretary when Mrs. Sanger was
establishing the Birth Control Center in New York.
37 Ibid.
38 The Analects of Confucius: a Philosophical Translation, tr. with an introduction by Roger T. Ames and Henry Rosemont, Jr., New York,
Ballantine Books, The Random House Publishing Group, c. 1998.
39 Lin Yu Sheng, pp. 172-175.
19
20
5
human relations and the cardinal virtues, especially li, i.e., propriety which refers to
social and ritual conduct.
Underlying the five relations is a special kind of relation which is well-known.
This is a relation of reciprocity. Basically it is a belief that you do not do to another
what you would not want done to you.40 Finally, we need to keep in mind the
Chinese emphasis on harmony in nature and that there is a unity of nature and
humans.
Focusing on the five relations, there are: father to son, ruler to subject, older
brother to younger siblings, husband to wife, and friend to friend. The father to son
relationship is based on the virtue of hsaio, i.e., filial piety or the earned respect that is
given to the father because, ideally, he is a person of jen/ren, and the benevolence that
the father shows to the son. Except in the case of friend to friend, the relationship of
father to son sets the tone of the other relationships. Both deference and respect is
shown to one who has earned it because he is what Confucius calls a “superior
person.” There is an ambiguity concerning the term “superior person” as it is ofttimes used interchangeably with that of a “gentlemen.”41 However, it seems to me
that whereas “superior person” was sometimes used in a political sense of one in
public office as opposed to the common people,42 “gentleman” seems to have
referred to a virtuous person, i.e., one who had developed the virtues and who lived
by the relationships. Such a person would be contrasted to someone who lacks moral
development.43 Thus, I would venture to guess that the term “gentleman” was used
to describe a person who is virtuous regardless of whether or not he holds public
office. Perhaps, the emphasis that Confucius puts on a “gentleman,” and the respect
that was due to him, was because he wanted to show those in political authority that
one could be superior even if he were not in office. Certainly, such was the case with
his own life.
Focusing again on the relations, except for the relation of friend to friend, there
is a sense of earned respect given to the superior person or person of authority. Also,
as shall become clear shortly, the superior person or gentleman should treat a
common person as well as a friend or acquaintance with benevolence. These relations
have to be strictly adhered to, or Confucius held that the society would lose harmony
and thus be in peril.44
The Analects, by Lu Gu, Book XII, Chap. XXII, and Book XV, Chapter XXIII.
D. C. Lau, Confucius: The Analects, p. 15.
42 Ibid., pp. 12-15.
43 The Wisdom of Confucius, tr. By William Jennings, Book II., “Good Government―Filial Piety―The Superior Man”; Book IV, “Social
Virtue―Superior and Inferior Man.”
44 H. G. Creel, Confucius and the Chinese Way, Chapter IV, Biography, pp. 25-56.
40
41
6
In addition to the aforementioned five relations, there are the four cardinal
virtues that must be observed. I have spoken of hsiao, i.e., filial piety, as the virtue that
underlies the father to son relationship. The other three cardinal virtues are: chih, i.e.,
moral wisdom, li, i.e. propriety and yi, i.e., righteousness. I would also add cheng, i.e.,
sincerity, as it is mentioned repeatedly in the Analects.45 These virtues are basic to
living the life of a “gentleman,” i.e., one who has developed all of the virtues.
It is worthy of note to state that of all the virtues, the one that plays the key
role in the harmony of society is li. As I have stated elsewhere, this notion of
propriety really has to do with social and ritual conduct and what is meant is proper
conduct. One might wonder why the rites, rituals, and what we in the west might call
“manners” were so important to Confucius. In order to gain an answer to this
question, I asked a former student from China, Qui Lu, who is now a friend attending
graduate school, to help with this problem.46 In turn, she consulted her father, who
lives in China, to answer this question. He is an educated Chinese gentleman who
spends his time studying the development of Chinese characters and patterns on old
Chinese textiles.47 They both helped me with this question. They said that if one
looks at the Analects of Confucius, 1.12, one will read:
Harmony is the value of performing the rites.
Such was the beauty of the way of emperors past
in matters great or small.
Yet there are times when this is not acceptable. When
there is harmony for harmony‟s sake undisciplined by
the rites, it is not acceptable.
According to my friend and her father, what is behind these statements was
Confucius‟ belief that the Warring States period had destroyed the harmony of the
Chinese society and that to regain and keep that harmony, there had to be a strict
hierarchy of power in the country. Thus, we observe his insistence on the virtues,
especially li, and the relations that reflect that hierarchy and the respect that must be
shown to those in authority. It is worthy of note that the giant of western philosophy,
Immanuel Kant, even though he believed in the autonomy of the individual, held that
The Analects, tr. by Lu Gu, Book I, Chap. IV, Chap. V, Chap. VIII; Book VIII, Chap. IV; Book IX, Chap. XXIV; Book XII, Chap.
X; Book XV, Chap. V; Book XVII, Chap. VI.
46 Qi Lu is originally from Wuxi, Jaingsu, China.
47 Qi Lu‟s father is Ruixing Lu―Xian Sheng or Mr. Ruixing Lu. When he was young, he was kept from continuing his education
beyond the Bachelor‟s level. Such was the case because at the time that he lived, gentlemen were often sent into the countryside in
China to work in the fields. He did this in his youth, but when he was free to return to his home, he began his own careful research
on Chinese characters and the Creation of Textile Patterns in China, Jia Xie.
45
7
respect kept the physical and mental spaces between people that were needed for a
harmonious society.48
I think that in the Chinese context, li is not only essential for the respect that
enables each person to know his station and act according to the station, and to show
deference to those in authority, but it is also responsible, to some degree, for the
virtue of benevolence which brings people together and gives them an incentive to
help one another when and where needed. Again, it is noteworthy that, according to
Kant, it was the practice of benevolence that accomplished the coming together of the
members of society.49
In addition to the information, mentioned above, Qi Lu provided me a copy of
“A Study on the Grapheme of the Chinese Character for Ren and its Original
Meaning,” by the Chinese scholar and linguist Bai Xi.50 Lin Zhenhua, at the Institute
for Transcultural Studies, Beijing International Studies University, has translated this
article for me. Bai Xi‟s article supports my view of jen/ren as inner-humanity and
human-heartedness. In the aforementioned article, Bai Xi asks why Confucius
defined the Chinese characters for jen/ren as loving people. He then states that in
order to answer this question, one needs to investigate the possible original meaning
through an analysis of its grapheme. He makes clear that his paper is a study of the
relationship between the grapheme and its meanings and that the meanings are related
to its use in communication.
Bai Xi begins his research by looking at the meaning which Xu Shen (58-147
A.C.E.) attributed to the Chinese characters for jen/ren, namely, intimacy. However,
Bai Xi makes very clear that it is the right part of the grapheme, which looks like an
equal sign, which is the challenge in any attempt to assign meaning to the grapheme.
He also states that he takes exception to the idea that the character means two and
thus the grapheme refers to two men. Furthermore, he adds, it appears that this
meaning was based on an old hypothesis that the character should be understood as
two persons saluting one another with affection. This old hypothesis led to the
description of a ceremony which explains the grapheme, namely that when two
Margaret Dell Jewett, The Role of Feeling in Kantian Ethics, a Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School, University
of Southern California in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Philosophy, May 1986, pp. 202, 205-206, 216. Dr.
Margaret Jewett was one of my dearest friends and we discussed Kant at length during and after her Ph.D. program. We even had an
article, that we wrote together, “The Integral Nature of the Categorical Imperative,” published in the Journal of Religious Studies, Vol.
XXI, Spring-Autumn 200, Nos. 1 & 2, Punjabi University, Patiala, India. In our many discussions on the subject, as well as in her
dissertation, she emphasized that it was respect that kept the physical and mental spaces between people.
49 Ibid. Dr. Jewett also made clear in her dissertation, pp. 120-121, and 216, as well as the many discussions we had on the subject,
that benevolence, for Kant, was tied to his telos, i.e., objective of moral reason, namely, the happiness or well-being of humans (found
in The Doctrine of Virtue) and his belief that benevolence, as kindness, charity and the wish to help others, was what brought people in
the society together.
50 Bai Xi, Department of Philosophy, Capital Normal University, Beijing, China
48
8
people meet, they look at one another and then deeply bow expressing by the gesture
both respect and greetings.51 Ultimately, Bai Xi concludes that the Chinese character
for jen/ren is not a pictograph showing two men saluting or bowing to one another.
He argues that first the character means mutual respect and then mutual intimacy.
What this gives rise to, he says, is a humanistic way of treating people with intimacy,
respect, and love.
“Love” is an ambiguous term, but based on Confucius‟ remarks, in the Analects,
to the person in power or authority that he should love the people,52 and his
suggestions to that person to give the people a way of earning their living,53 suggests
to me a deep concern for and desire to help those in need. I would say that this kind
of love surpasses benevolence, i.e., kindness and charity, but it is somehow less than
the compassion, i.e., the deep feeling of sharing the suffering of another in the
inclination to give aid or support, or to show mercy.
Focusing again on the grapheme for jen/ren, Bai Xi says that the right part of
the grapheme which looks like an equal sign, signifies that two people stay together.
It is not, according to him, a numerical idea, but one which shows the connectedness
of communicating face to face. He adds that only respect, love, and intimacy
guarantee basic and normal communication. Finally, to come full circle, Bai Xi says
that his analysis of the grapheme for the characters which we call jen/ren make clear
why Confucius spoke of jen/ren as loving people.
Based on the research of Bai Xi, and his conclusion that jen/ren involves:
mutual intimacy, respect, and love, it seems clear to me that a person of jen/ren has
inner-humanity. Certainly, there were scholars who defined jen/ren as humanity,
namely, Wing-tsit Chan and Julia Ching. However, I would add that humanity is part
of one‟s character. This would mean, as one of my students said, that a person would
seek the good within himself or herself.54 Of course that good is relational, i.e., it has
to do with the intimacy of communication and the respect and love that one person
feels for another. Hence, a more fundamental virtue which forms one‟s character
would be inner-humanity.
Another meaning which I ascribe to jen/ren is human-heartedness. No less
than Confucius, as well as Bai Xi, De Bary, William Jennings, and Wing-tsit Chan take
Qi Lu and her father seem to be persuaded by this meaning of the grapheme.
Analects, tr. by Lu Gu, Book XX, Chap II.2, Book XIX, Chap. XXV, 4; Book XVII, Chap. VI. In these passages, aspects of perfect
virtue are described. These include love, i.e., charity, to the people. The virtues which Confucius listed were: gravity, generosity of
the soul, sincerity, earnestness, and kindness.
53 Analects, tr. by D. C. Lau, XII, 22; Analects, tr. by Lu Gu, Gook XX, Chap. II.
54 Upon making this statement, another student quickly added that a person with inner-humanity would internalize his connectedness
to other humans.
51
52
9
jen/ren to mean love. (As I have explained, I take “love,” in this context, to mean a
concern for and desire to help those in need. It is more than benevolence, i.e.,
kindness and charity, but less than compassion, i.e., the deep feeling of sharing the
suffering of another in the inclination to give aid or support or to show mercy.) In
addition, for years I have been impressed with the fact that the Chinese people
attribute thoughtful human actions to hsin, i.e., heart/mind rather than just mind, as
the westerners, do. Given the foregoing reasons and the many passages in the Analects
that “speak to me” about Confucius‟ love of the people, it seems clear to me that a
fundamental meaning of jen/ren is human-heartedness.
Let us turn now to a consideration of what Gandhi meant by ahimsa as
compassion and then compare that view with Confucius‟ notion of jen/ren as innerhumanity and human-heartedness.
The Influence of Hindu, Jain and Buddhist Thought on
Gandhi’s view of Ahimsa as Compassion:
By the time Gandhi was in his late forties, we see that he had fully developed
what he took ahimsa to mean. In essence, he held ahimsa to mean: no harm to any
living being by thought, word or deed, a vow never to hurt and the greatest love, i.e.,
compassion for all creatures.55 This view of what ahimsa, in general, meant, was the
culmination of a belief and practice which is ancient.
Hindu Origins and Development of Ahimsa:
The origins of ahimsa, found in the Vedic Literature of the Hindus, are at least
3,600 years old.56 For the ancient Hindus, himsa meant harm and ahimsa was nonharm. However, since Hindus condoned some taking of human life, such as in a war
to protect a king,57 and some taking of animal life, such as in sacrifices,58 they had to
make a distinction between what was morally acceptable and what was not. Hence,
himsa referred to those killings which were not morally acceptable and ahimsa referred
to those that were.59
Gandhi, “Letter in the Modern Review,” The Moral and Political Thought of Mahatma Gandhi, by Raghavan Iyer, Concord Grove Press,
1983, pp. 179-180.
56 The roots of ahimsa are found in the Vedas, i.e., the sacred literature of the Hindus. More specifically, in my research on ahimsa, I
have found most of them in the second book of the Vedas, called Yajur Veda. The exact dating of this book is not known. However,
the first book, called Rg (pr. Rig) Veda, is conservatively dated at 1500 B.C.
57 Ahimsa: Gandhian and Buddhist, by Indu Mala Ghosh, Delhi, India, Indian Bibliographies Bureau, Co-Publisher, Balaji Enterprises, c.
1947, p. 2.
58 Ibid., pp. 3 and 40.
59 Ibid., p. 3.
55
10
As time passed, the Hindus developed the idea of ahimsa as non-harm to a great
level. Patanjali, the founder of the Yoga School of Philosophy and author of the Yoga
Sutra (written sometime between 500 B.C.E. and 200 B.C.E.), made a distinction
between what he called raga and dvesa. Basically, raga had to do with the part of the
ego which is attracted to those persons and ideas that feed the ego and dvesa had to do
with the aversion to those people and ideas that are threatening to the ego.60 As
Patanjali noted in the Yoga Sutra, it is dvesa which can cause the ego to strike out and
harm others.61 However, as I have argued elsewhere, raga can also harm people albeit
indirectly.62 I have in mind, the ignoring of the needs of others and the harm that can
come to people because they are excluded from either basic rights or privileges
afforded to others.63
In order to achieve what Hindus called “self-realization” and thereby moksa,
i.e., release or freedom from samsara, i.e., the life-cycles, involving suffering. Pantajali
believed that one had to overcome the push-pull of raga and devesa. To this end, he
wrote the great Yoga Sutra which is grounded in ahimsa. I will discuss this in more
detail when I consider the influence that this work had upon Gandhi‟s thought.
Based on my research and studies,64 it seems clear that the Hindus preceded the
Jains by at least a thousand years, although, it could be that they had a common root.
What determines my view is that one book of the Vedas, the sacred text of the
Hindus, was written by at least 1500 B.C.E. The first writings we have of the Jains are
around 500 B.C.E. although the Jains and some of their thought are referred to in
some of the Vedic and Buddhist literature and some other ancient documents. Also,
both Jainism and Buddhism, known as Sramanic or non-Vedic traditions, reject killing
any creature and, as we shall see, Jains even reject the unnecessary killing of plant life.
Fitz, “Ahimsa: A Way of Life; A Path to Peace,” published in a booklet by UMASS/Dartmouth, Center for Indic Studies, Gandhi
Lecture Series, Fall 2007.
61 Ibid.
62 Fitz, “Ahimsa and its Role in Overcoming the Ego: From Ancient Indic Traditions to the Thought and Practice of Mahatma
Gandhi,” The Icfai University Press, Hyderabad, Indian, Vol. II, NO. 4, October 2008, p. 56.
63 Ibid.
64 I have been doing research on ahimsa for years. In addition to a number of articles on the subject, Linus Publications has signed a
contract with me for a book, Ahimsa: a Way of Life: a Path to Peace, which I hope to complete this summer.
60
11
Jain Development of Ahimsa as Non-Harm
The Jains developed ahimsa as non-harm to the highest level of any people past
or present. In fact, ahimsa is their most fundamental principle which they take a vow
to uphold. (They call their fundamental principles “vows” because they actually take a
sacred vow to uphold each principle.) They apply this principle to animals and plants
as well as to people. According to them, every living being has a soul and one is not
to interfere with or harm that soul. Lest one wonder how Jains eat to survive, they
classify living beings into five classes based on the senses. These range from beings
with only one sense to humans who have five senses plus a mind. The Jains are only
allowed to eat one-sensed beings.65 Jains are all vegetarians, and many are what we
call “vegans.” Furthermore, they hold the view, first found in regard to humans in the
Vedic Literature, according to which one is not to harm any living creature by
thought, word, or deed.66
There are two fundamental groups in the Jain communities, namely, the lay
people, and the mendicants, both men and women. Without going into detail about
the major sects and how they differ, let me just say that both the lay people and the
mendicants have basically the same principles by which they guide their lives.
However, the mendicants must strictly adhere to these principles, especially that of
non-harm to any living being. Hence, they do not prepare their own food. The lay
people provide it for them.
The principles, to which the Jains subscribe, are based on a very complex
metaphysics according to which each soul can achieve omniscience and end the
process of samsara, i.e., repeated life cycles. However, at the human level, one is aware
of the karmic matter that attaches itself to the soul and binds one to samsara. Only if
he or she can rid himself or herself of this karmic matter, and stop any incoming
karmic matter, can he (or she according to one sect),67 hope to achieve omniscience.
Only the most advanced of the mendicants, called acharyas, can hope to achieve
omniscience. When they have achieved this highest state of spiritual development, it
is believed that they will live in a state above the world, free from the fetters which
bind them to continued life-cycles, so they will never be born again. Hence, they will
suffer no pain. It is believed, by the Jains, that these omniscient beings will think and
that they will have a body, albeit not a physical body. To a western philosopher, this
state would seem to be similar to what Aristotle described as active mind.
Jain Philosophy and Practice, compiled by the Jain Education Committee, Dr. Pravin Shaw, Chairman, Federation of Jain Associates of
North America, pp. 69-71.
66 Ghosh, p. 41.
67 Padnanabh S. Jaini, The Jain Path of Purification, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, Reprint 2001, Chapter IV, “The Mechanism of Bondage.”
65
12
In the Jain tradition, the belief arose that ahimsa included not only non-harm,
but also compassion which in Sanskrit is karuna and anukampa in Pakrit (a language
that is simpler than Sanskrit and was chosen for the people by the great Jain spiritual
leader Mahavir, @ 5th century B.C.E.). Anukampa has the sense of reaching out to
help others.68 Some scholars have suggested that the concern with purification from
karmic matter could make one self-centered and thus not so prone to reach out to
others. However, the Jains believe that as one ascends to ever higher levels of the
spiritual and meditative path, the karmic matter decreases, and, at the highest spiritual
level, when the soul is purified, a concern with self-interest dissolves or fades away.
Buddhist Development of Ahimsa as Compassion
It is the Buddhists with their particular metaphysics that have fully developed
ahisma as compassion. Their metaphysics, according to which we are all interrelated,
inter-connected, interdependent, co-arising, and co-existing, rules out any ego or
substantive self that is concerned with a soul. There is no soul, no God, and no
abiding state of reality according to Buddhist logic. All is in a state of flux and
change.
The founder of Buddhism, Siddhartha Gautama, i.e., the Buddha, was
concerned with ending suffering, i.e., dukkha, and he thought that this suffering was
caused by craving, and more basically the ego which he took to be the root of craving.
So persons are taught to give up the idea of any cravings, especially those for
permanence of a self or ego and to realize that the ego is a construct. In order to
achieve these goals, Buddha taught the people the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Noble Path. According to the Four Noble Truths:
1. There is suffering;
2. Suffering is caused;
3. If one destroys the cause, the suffering ends;
4. The Eight-fold Noble Path is the way to end the cause, i.e.,
a belief in an ego and clinging to cravings.
This is a path involving categories of wisdom, moral action, and discipline involving
meditative practices.69 What one hopes to achieve by practicing the Eight-fold Noble
Path is a state called Nirvana, in which all cravings, and the root of these cravings,
Ibid., p. 150.
As is well-known to those who are familiar with Buddhist beliefs and practices, the Eight-fold Noble Path is made up of three
categories, namely: Wisdom, Moral Conduct, and Contemplation. Wisdom consists of: Right Understanding and Right Intentions.
Moral Conduct consists of: Right Speech, Right Action, and Right Livelihood. Contemplation consists of: Right Effort, Right
Mindfulness, and Right Concentration. Actually, Right Mindfulness and Right Concentration, have to do with what we in the west
call “meditation.”
68
69
13
namely ego, have been extinguished. In that state, all suffering, dukkha, is
extinguished.
Having adumbrated the origins of ahimsa in the ancient Hindu tradition and the
development of ahimsa in Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism, let us now turn our
attention to what this term came to mean for Mohandas K. Gandhi, who was given
the title, by his people, of Mahatma which means “Great Soul.”
The Culmination of the Development of Ahimsa in
Gandhi’s Thought and His View of Ahimsa as Compassion
Although Gandhi was a Hindu, his view of ahimsa was influenced by Hinduism,
Jainism, and Buddhism (perhaps most by Jainism).70 As stated earlier, he took ahimsa
to mean no-harm to any living being by thought, word, or deed, a vow not to hurt and
the greatest love, i.e., compassion for all creatures. Furthermore, he believed in and
practiced ahimsa as:
1. the means to Truth. Truth, for him, meant both the impersonal absolute
called Brahman, held by the Advaita Vedanta Hindu tradition, and a more
personal deity. Both involved love.71 As I have written elsewhere, Gandhi
never attempted to resolve this seeming contradiction between an impersonal
absolute and a personal supreme being; however, another great Indian thinker,
Sri Aurobindo, did;72
2. the means to truth. The term “truth,” with a small “t” meant not only never
deliberately telling a falsehood or deceiving anyone, but also standing up and
speaking out for what was true and right;73
3. the fundamental virtue needed for a moral life;74
4. the foundation of satyagraha, i.e., the Truth Force against oppression which
Gandhi developed when he was in South Africa.
Regarding the Truth Force mentioned in #4 above, Gandhi was able to take on
both corrupt governments and corrupt government officials armed with only courage,
non-harm and compassion, fortitude and steadfastness, and a conviction that a
The more that I study Jainism, the more that I can see how profoundly Gandhi was influenced by it. He practiced the fasting,
taking a vow not to hurt anyone, the dietary considerations, and most of all his insistence on not harming any living being.
71 Fitz, “Gandhi‟s Ethical/Religious Tradition,” published in The Journal of Religious Studies, Vol. XXVII, Spring-Autumn, Nos. 1 & 2,
Punjabi University, Patiala, India, p. 100.
72 Sri Aurobindo writes about this is his Essays on the Gita, Sri Aurobindo Ashram, first published 1921-1922, c. 1972.
73 When I wrote the article, Ahimsa: A Way of Life; A Path to Peace, I combined numbers 2 and 3. However, with further research and
reflection, it is now clear that ahimsa, as a virtue needed for a moral life, involves much more than speaking out for what is true and
right. As I say in my upcoming book, Ahimsa: A Way of Life; A Path to Peace, ahimsa must form part of one‟s attitudes and
weltangschauung, i.e., world perspective.
74 Ibid.
70
14
satyagrahi would have to suffer in order to bring about change in the political arena.
Of course, that suffering is due to the fact that one is never to harm another, hence he
or she would take the blows and insults of the oppressor. Furthermore, a satyagrahi is
never to harbor anger let along hatred when engaged in “battle.” Instead he or she is
to try to shame the oppressor and thereby eventually convert him or her to ahimsa.
What is this “battle” then? At the time of Gandhi, it consisted basically of noncooperation and later of non-cooperation and civil disobedience, in rare instances, in
response to corrupt governments and/or corrupt government officials.75 Today, as a
self-proclaimed modern-day satyagrahi, I would say that satyagraha is a Truth Force
which can be used to thwart any act of oppression.
It is amazing that Gandhi took the ancient idea of ahimsa and brought it into
the social/political arena. Talk about genius! Imagine that he not only won many
rights for the Indian people in South Africa, but he actually won India‟s independence
from Great Britain with his satyagraha.
Let us look more closely now at what Gandhi meant by ahimsa as compassion.
Since he saw no difference between himself and others at a spiritual level,76 he truly
believed that one can care for others as he and she does for himself or herself. His
own sect of Hinduism is based on a spiritual belief that supports such a view. The
sect that he belonged to is called Advaita Vedanta.77 Vedanta refers to a unified
metaphysical view and advaita means non-dual. Hence, this is a monistic view of
reality. Gandhi did not hold to it completely, but he did share the view that selfrealization can be experienced after many lifetimes, if one is living as an Advaitin
should. This would involve one living according to his duty which is prescribed by
Varna (which meant class in ancient times, but came to mean caste and still does).78
Following one or more of the yoga paths, which in English are basically: devotion
(bhakti), good works done without attachment to the objects of desire (karma), and a
spiritual kind of path which involves intuition that is based on both keen reasoning
powers and high moral development (jnana).79 All of the yoga paths, and especially
the last one, involve meditation. Gandhi spent a great deal of time meditating.
Raghavan Iyer, pp. 281-285.
Hope Fitz, “Gandhi: „Boundaries of the Self‟ as They Affect Nonviolence and Peace,” published in the Proceedings of the World
Association of Vedic Studies, WAVES, Biennial International Conference on Contemporary Views of Indian Civilization at the
Steven Institute of Scholars, New Jersey, July 28-30, 2000.
77 Gandhi, Truth is God, compiled by M. K. Prabhu, Ahmedabad, India, Navajivan Trust, c. 1955, pp. 10-11.
78 In the Hindu tradition, the first mention of the varnas, i.e., classes, is in the “Hymn to Purusa” found in the ancient Rg Veda.
(Purusa, in this context, means cosmic man.) Different parts of the body are related to different classes: the head is the Brahman or
priest; the shoulders are the ksatrias or warriors; the torso is the vaisya class (Gandhi was a vaisya); and the feet were the sudras or
servants. There is nothing said in the hymn about caste as there is no mention of one being locked into a class by birth.
79 Not too many westerners are familiar with jnana. Actually, this was first discussed in the great Yoga Sutra of Patanjali (from about
500 – 200 B.C.).
75
76
15
According to Advaita Vedanta, if one lives according to the foregoing and other
basic Hindu beliefs and principles, it is expected that eventually, he will achieve selfrealization.80 What this means is that a person will realize his True or spiritual Self. (I
say “his” and not “hers,” because according to this tradition, it is as a male that one
can achieve self-realization. However, it is also an accepted belief that a female can
become a male in another life.) This True-Self is called Atman. When self-realization
is achieved, one not only knows, i.e., experiences his or her True-Self, but the ultimate
state of reality which is called Brahman. In Advaita Vedanta, Atman and Brahman are
identified with one another. However, this identification has more to do with
experience than an explanation of either state of reality. This is especially the case
with Brahman.
When asked about the ultimate nature of reality, the great Hindu seers or
philosophers of antiquity would say neti neti. This is a Sanskrit term which literally
means neither this nor that. However, in this context, it means, that the nature of
Brahman is beyond human categories of understanding. Nevertheless, it is possible for
persons to experience Atman/Brahman. This experience is called, saccidanada. Taking
this term apart, sac is a derivation of the noun stem sat from satya which means truth,
and cid is a noun stem of the term cit from citta which is usually translated as
consciousness. (Oddly, Gandhi translated it as knowledge.)81 Finally, ananda is a noun
which means bliss. However, this is a spiritual state, not to be likened to a euphoric
state that is sometimes the result of abusing some substance. So, the term saccidananda,
is usually taken to mean truth, existence or Being (for sac), consciousness (for cid) and
bliss. When we combine these, what we have is what Carl Jung might call a collective
state of consciousness and bliss. One‟s spiritual self or soul is a part of this state.
Sometimes Hindu scholars speak as if the material/sensual person is just a vessel that
holds this state of consciousness. However, the important point is that it takes many
lifetimes for a person to overcome the material/sensual self and realize this state of
saccidananda. When one is self-realized, he is free from samsara or rebirth. As
mentioned earlier, this is called moksa.
Gandhi accepted all of the foregoing Hindu beliefs. He also accepted the
ancient yoga limbs or steps of self realization which were described by Patanjali in the
great Yoga Sutra. These were actually written for yogins or monks who had renounced
the world. Also, “yoga proper” is about what we in the west call meditation and the
Hindus call “stilling the mind.” The limbs or steps leading up to meditation are
simply preliminary to meditation. Very briefly, these steps are:
The other basic beliefs and principles include the four stages of life or ashramas; student, house-holder, forest-dweller, and sannyasin,
i.e., holy person. It is believed that each person will spend lifetimes in each of these stages during her or him many samsaras, i.e., life
cycles. There are also the goals of life which include: love, material desires (these are fine for a house-holder), and ultimately, moksa,
i.e., release from samsaras.
81 Gandhi, Truth is Love, p. 19.
80
16
1. moral restraints that include ahimsa as non-harm (actually, non-harm is basic
to all of the restraints), non-stealing, non-injury by word or speech, nonacquisitiveness (not acquiring more than one needs), and chastity,
2. spiritual development,
3. physical development of posture when meditating,
4. breathing correctly when meditating,
5. mentally determining that one wants to stop all incoming fluctuations of the
mind due to stimulus from the world.
At the state of meditation or yoga proper, there is:
6. a state of fixed attention;
7. a flow of energy between the subject and the object of meditation, and
8. a state wherein the person meditating cannot distinguish between himself
and the object of meditation.
Finally, there is the highest stage, called samyama wherein the three steps of
meditation are combined and one has achieved a state in which he can constrain any
stimulus whether from outside or inside the self.82 At this point, it is believed that a
yogin has achieved the highest state wherein he has supra-normal physical and intuitive
powers.
What is important for this paper is to know that Gandhi practiced the earlier
steps, laid out in the Yoga Sutra, especially the moral restraints. This includes his
deciding to become celibate. Thus, we can see that for Gandhi, the good that he
sought included much of his Hindu upbringing. However, it seems to me that it
involved even more of the Jain teaching.
Gandhi loved his mother and his father, but in these matters of compassion, it
seems to have been his mother who influenced him the most. His mother had known
a Jain priest in the town in Gujarat where he was born. She learned to fast from this
priest. She probably also learned basic Jain teachings such as to take a vow not to
harm any living being, to meditate on peace for about a quarter of an hour every day,83
to fast, not to eat the flesh of living creatures, to harbor no hatred, and to feel
compassion for all life. These principles are not absent in the Hindu tradition, but
they are much more pronounced in Jainism. Years later, when Gandhi was grown, a
82
83
Hope Fitz, Intuition: Its Nature and Uses in Human Experience, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, Chapter, “The Mystical Experience,” 2001.
All of these are common practices for the Jains.
17
dear friend was a Jain monk who was very advanced according to the Jain principles.84
Apparently, he had a great effect on Gandhi‟s view of ahimsa both as non-harm and as
compassion.
Finally, although I am not aware that Gandhi ever says so directly, I believe that
Buddhism had a profound effect upon him. To my knowledge, he never rejected the
caste system as Siddhartha Gautama, the Buddha, had done, but he did fight against
the mistreatment and oppression of the outcastes in society. Also, he was so selfless.
Of course, one could say that he had attained that highest level of Hindu thought
wherein one was not focused on material or sensual pleasures, but it is more than that.
Hindus and Jains both believe in a soul, although for Hindus it is a collective state, as
I explained. It is the Buddhists, as far as I am concerned, who can more easily achieve
that very high state wherein they have overcome the ego. Such is the case because, as
I explained earlier, they believe that the self or ego is a construct and that all life is
inter-related, inter-connected, inter-dependent, co-arising, and co-existing. Where is
an ego or a self if one holds such a world view? This is why compassion can flourish
in this system. There are no what I call “boundaries of the self.” They are constructs.
We are all as if in a flowing matrix, changing moment to moment. A fully developed
compassion is natural here. As is stated by Buddha in the Dhamapada, “Compassion
embraces all sorrow of stricken beings and eliminates cruelty.”85
A Comparison of Confucius’ Notion of Jen/Ren with Gandhi’s
View of Ahimsa as Compassion
Based on the explanation of Confucius‟ notion of jen/ren as inner-humanity and
human-heartedness and Gandhi‟s view of ahimsa as compassion, it is clear that they
both shared a concern for the wellbeing of their people. As said earlier, they both
believed in living virtuously and were exemplars and teachers of the virtuous life.
However, what they took to be a virtuous life differed as to both goals and practices.
Confucius goal was a harmonious, virtuous, society and the practices that he
advocated in order to bring this about and maintain it emphasized respect and
benevolence. We western philosophers recognize these are central to Kant‟s Moral
Theory. However, whereas Kant‟s citizens were ideally autonomous or selfgoverning, in Confucius‟ time, there were basically those who governed and those
His friend was a Jain Muni or Monk. His given name was Rajchandra Ravibhai Mehta. However, as a monk he was called Shri
Rajchandrabhai. On November 5, 1926, Gandhi wrote of him: “Three persons have influenced me deeply. Tolstoy, Rushkin and
Rychandbhai: Tolstoy through one of his books and through a little correspondence with him. Rushkin through one of his [books],
Unto This Last―which in Gujurati, I have called Sarvodaya―and Rajchanbhai through intimate personal contact. When I began to feel
doubts about Hinduism as a religion, it was Rajchanbhai who helped me to resolve them . . . Nevertheless, I have not accepted him as
my guru.” From the Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (CWMG), Vol. 32, Navajivan Trust, Ahmedabad, April 1960, p. 4.
85 Buddha‟s statement about compassion as quoted in Ghosh, p. 27.
84
18
who were governed. The governed were to respect those in authority and those in
authority were to treat the governed with benevolence. It was li, i.e., propriety, as the
virtue of social and moral conduct, which Confucius held would establish and
maintain these relations and thereby preserve harmony in the society. Of course, as I
have explained earlier, there were also the other virtues of hsaio, i.e. filial piety; chih, i.e.,
moral wisdom; and yi, i.e., righteousness. Also as I mentioned earlier, I would add
cheng, i.e., sincerity. In addition to the virtues, there are the five relations of: father to
son; ruler to subjects or ruled; older brother to younger siblings; husband to wife, and
friend to friend. These virtues and relations form the “warp and woof” of what
Confucius took to be essential for a harmonious society.
As to jen/ren as inner-humanity and human-heartedness, I believe I have shown
that these virtues underlie the benevolence that a superior person or person of
authority should show to all people great and small. I did this by considering: the
episteme in which Confucius lived; the problems with language, especially an ancient
language, and hermeneutics; the various meanings attributed to jen/ren by Chinese
scholars, Confucius‟ most fundamental values and beliefs, and an analysis of the
grapheme for jen/ren by a Chinese linguist who traced its original meaning and the
communication expressed by the meaning. He held that jen/ren meant mutual
intimacy, respect, and love.
Gandhi‟s view of ahimsa as compassion differs from Confucius‟ notion of
jen/ren, as inner-humanity and human heartedness, in depth and breadth, because
ahimsa, as compassion, means the greatest love, i.e., compassion, for all creatures.
Furthermore, as a practice, it was fundamentally a means to Truth and Truth for
Gandhi was both ultimate reality and God, and both involved love.86 Ahimsa was also
the means to truth, i.e., not engaging in falsehood or deception and speaking out for
what is true or right. Furthermore, this virtue was the basic virtue needed in order to
live a moral life. Of course, Gandhi held, as did the ancient Greeks, that courage was
essential for moral behavior. So the practice of ahimsa has a goal of Truth and it is
based on courage. Gandhi‟s belief in and practices of ahimsa were profoundly affected
by the Hindu, Jain, and Buddhist traditions each of which believe in meditative
practices to still the mind and in my words “quiet the passions.” However, it was
Gandhi who introduced ahimsa into the social/political arena for the first time in its
long history. (As I stated earlier, the roots of ahimsa are at least 3,600 years old.) He
made it fundamental to his satyagraha or Truth Force against oppression. Recall that a
satyagrahi is told to harbor no anger, let alone hatred against one‟s oppressors. He
must suffer their blows and insults. He wants to teach them shame in the hopes that
86
Fitz, “Gandhi‟s Ethical/Religious Tradition,” p. 100.
19
it will convert them to ahimsa. He must harbor both a desire not to harm them, and a
love or compassion for them as it is their act which is evil, not the person.
Comparing the depth and breadth of ahimsa as compassion with jen/ren as
inner-humanity and human-heartedness, as I said early in the paper, ahimsa is both
deeper, i.e., the greatest love, and broader in that it applies to all living beings.
However, what Confucius taught about jen/ren as inner-humanity and humanheartedness is critical and essential for the moral development and expression of
respect, benevolence, and love. In fact in my book in progress: Ahimsa: a Path to
Peace, I emphasize that ahimsa is grounded in one‟s attitude and general perspective.
This inner development of character is what Confucius was concerned with when he
thought of jen/ren as inner-humanity and human-heartedness.
20