 kind of non-violence? To have bad thoughts is the tendency of the prakruti (the non-Self complex of the mind, speech and body) but to turn it around is one's own Purushartha (independent energy of progression as the Self).

If a non-violent person were to fire an arrow at someone, his victim would not bleed. In contrast, a violent man would cause bleeding in the other even if he threw a flower. Neither the arrow nor the flower is itself 'effective', but it is the intent behind the act that is 'effective'. This is why my constant intent is that no one should be hurt in the slightest manner by my speech, my thoughts and my conduct. And these words are flowing under the umbrella of this intent. The work is not being done by a thing; it is not being done by an arrow, it is not being done by a flower. It is only the intent through which it works. The intent is the medium through which all things happen.

Akram Vignan states that a person should not use even his thoughts as a weapon. How then can anyone use any other weapon? How can I wield any weapon against other life forms when I have never once resorted to using even my thoughts as a weapon against even the smallest of life form? At times I am given to speak a little harshly, but such harshness is like the subtle difference between raw and refined silk. Such speech only comes out very rarely. I have never used my speech as a weapon nor have I ever used my thoughts in that way.

I have never used my mind as a weapon against even the smallest of life forms. Even if a scorpion were to sting me, I would not raise any weapon against it. By stinging me, the scorpion would be fulfilling its obligation, without which there would be no liberation for me. I can assure you that I have not used my mind as a weapon against any living being. Although it is the nature of the mind to retaliate, I assure you that I have not used it in this way.

**Questioner:** You must have realized that there is no use for this weapon of the mind.

**Dadashri:** Yes. A weapon is of no use at all. The thought that a weapon might be necessary has never crossed my mind. Since the day I laid down the'sword', I have not picked it up again. I would not pick it
kind of non - violence? To have bad thoughts is the tendency of the prakruti (the non - Self building complex of the judgment, speech and body) but to change by reversal it about is one's own Purushartha (independent energy of progress as the Self). 

 If a non - crimson person were to fire an arrow at someone, his victim would not shed blood. In contrast, a violent world would cause bleeding in the early even if he threw a flower. Neither the arrow nor the flower is itself' effective', but it is the intent behind the act that is' effective'. This is why my constant intent is that no one should be hurt in the slightest manner by my speech, my idea and my conduct. And these words are flowing under the umbrella of this purpose. The work is not being done by a matter; it is not being done by an arrow, it is not being make by a flower. It is only the intent through which it works. The intent is the medium through which all thing happen. 

 Akram Vignan states that a person should not use even his thoughts as a weapon. How then can anyone use any early weapon? How can I wield any weapon against early life sentence forms when I have never once resorted to using even my thoughts as a weapon against even the smallest of life form? At times I am contribute to speak a little gratingly, but such cruelty is like the insidious difference between raw and neat silk. Such speech only comes out very rarely. I have never used my language as a weapon nor have I ever used my thoughts in that way. 

 I have never use my mind as a weapon against even the smallest of life forms. Even if a scorpio were to sting me, I would not lift any weapon against it. By bite me, the scorpion would be fulfilling its obligation, without which there would be no liberation for me. I can assure you that I have not used my mind as a weapon against any survive being. Although it is the nature of the mind to retaliate, I assure you that I have not use it in this way. 

 * * Questioner :* * You must have realize that there is no use for this weapon of the judgment. 

 * * Dadashri :* * Yes. A weapon is of no use at wholly. The thought that a weapon might be necessary has never crossed my mind. Since the day I lay down the'sword', I have not picked it up again. I would not pick it
 kijd of non-violence? To havt bad thoughts is the teidency kf the pfakruti (the non-Self complex lf the nind, speech and body) bjt to turj it aroynd ms one's own Purushartha (ludepehfent xnergy of progrgssion as tha Self).

If a non-eiulznt person were to fire an arrow at fomeone, hls victim woulq nou bjeed. Pn contrast, a violent man would cause uleeding in the other even if he threw a vlowfr. Neither the arrlw nor the dlowqe is itself 'dffective', but it is thg intent behind the act that is 'dffeccive'. This iw qhy ky constant integt is that no one shmuld be hurt in the skigitesr manner by my speech, my thoughts and mi conduct. Dnb these words are floqibg unger dhe jnbrdllz pf this lntxnt. The wori is not beung done by a thing; ie is not being done fy an arrow, it is not being done by a flofer. It is only the intent rhrough which it workd. The intqnt is the medium through which all things happen.

Dkram Xiguqn stxred that a person should not use even his thougrfs ax a weapon. How then can amylnr use any othet weapou? Hkw can I wield any weapon agaibst other lifr forms when I have never obce resorted ro using even my tkoughts as a weakon agsinst even the smallest of mife form? Ah times I xm given to speay a lhttle harshly, but such harfhness is likz the suctle diffewence betwfen raw and refined silk. Such s[eech only comes out very rarely. I have nxter used my skeewh ds a wea'on nov have I ever ufed my thoughtx in thct way.

K have nevvr used mb mind as a reapon againsd even the smellest of lifw foems. Evev if a scorpion were to sting me, I would not raise aky wexlon against it. Yv wtinging me, the scurpyoj xould te fulfillinc itr ockigatkon, without dhicn there would be no nibedation for me. I cam wssure yiu that Y have not usrd my mind as a wewpon egainsv any kivyng being. Although it is the nzture of hhe mind to retwliabe, I assure yob that I have not used it in this way.

**Quewtioner:** You must hqve realized that tkeve is no use for ehis weapmn of the mind.

**Dadashei:** Yes. A weapon ix of no use at all. Ths thoucht tjat a weapon might be necessary has never crossed my mind. Since the day I laid vorn the'sword', I hsve nmt 'icked yt u' egain. I would not pick it
kind of non-violence? To have bad thoughts tendency the prakruti non-Self complex of but turn it around one's own Purushartha energy of progression as the Self). a non-violent person were to fire an arrow at someone, his victim would bleed. In contrast, a violent man would cause bleeding in the other even he a Neither arrow nor the flower is itself 'effective', but it is the intent behind the act that 'effective'. This is why my constant intent is no one should be in the slightest manner by speech, thoughts and conduct. these are flowing under umbrella of this intent. The work is not being done by a thing; it is not being by an is not done a It is only through which it works. The intent through which all things happen. Akram Vignan states a person not use even his thoughts as weapon. How then can anyone use any other How can I wield any weapon against other life forms when I have never once using even my thoughts a weapon against the of form? times I given to speak a little harshly, but such harshness is like subtle difference between raw and refined silk. Such speech only very I have never my speech as a nor I ever used my that I my as weapon against even the of life forms. Even if scorpion were to sting any weapon against it. By stinging me, the would be fulfilling its obligation, without which would be no liberation for me. I can assure you that I not used as a weapon against any living being. Although is the nature of mind to retaliate, I assure you that I have used in this **Questioner:** You must realized that there no use for of the **Dadashri:** A no use at all. The thought a might be necessary has never my the day I laid down the'sword', I have not picked it up again. I would it
 kind of non-violence? To have baD thoughts iS the tEndEncY oF the PrakRuti (the non-Self COmplEx of the mind, speech and boDy) but To TUrn iT ArOund iS one's owN puRUShaRtHa (IndEpENdEnt enErgY of progRession as tHe SElF).

If a non-violeNT pErson were tO fiRe an arrow at sOmeOne, his ViCtiM Would Not Bleed. in contRAst, a viOlent man wOuLD cause BLeeding IN ThE othEr even if he threw a fLOwER. Neither the arrOw nor tHe FLoWER is ItsElf 'effectiVe', But it IS the intENt BEHInd THe act that is 'efFective'. This IS whY my conStAnt INtent iS that No ONe sHould be hurt In thE slightesT manneR By my speECh, my thoUghts aNd mY coNducT. anD tHesE wORds ARe FloWIng Under the UmBrElla oF thiS INTEnt. THe wOrk iS not bEing done by a thIng; It is NOt bEing dOne by An arRoW, it is Not beiNg donE bY a flower. It is onlY the Intent thrOugH wHicH iT workS. the intEnt Is tHe mediuM througH WhiCh ALL ThIngs happen.

Akram VigNaN STaTes that a Person SHoUlD Not use evEn His ThouGHTs as a WeapON. HOw then caN anyonE UsE aNy other WeApon? HoW cAn I WieLd any WEapoN againSt other lIfe foRMs when I have nevER once resorted TO uSINg EVen mY thOughts as a weApon AGainSt evEN tHe sMAllesT of liFe FOrM? at times I am given to spEaK a littLe harShly, but such haRshness is lIKE The subtlE difFErENce between raw aNd refIned silk. SuCH speech oNly coMes out veRy rarely. I HAVe never uSed My sPeeCh aS A WeApon nor have I eVER useD mY thoughTs iN that waY.

I hAve NevEr uSeD my mind as A weapon aGaInSt EvEn tHe smaLLest of liFe ForMs. eveN if a sCOrpion Were tO stiNg Me, i WouLd not raISe ANY weaPoN aGainSt iT. BY stinGing ME, thE scorpiOn would be FulFIlliNg ItS obligaTion, without whIcH there woulD bE no LiberaTIOn for me. I Can assure you that I have noT Used my mInd As a weApon Against anY liVing beIng. aLthougH it is tHe natUrE of THE mind TO ReTalIaTe, I assure yOU ThaT I havE nOt usEd it in tHis way.

**Questioner:** YoU MusT have realized ThaT theRE Is No uSE fOR thIs WEapON Of the mind.

**DadashRi:** Yes. A weapOn IS oF no use at alL. the ThOught thAt a weapOn migHT be neceSsary has nEver crossEd My miND. sinCe the day I lAid down tHe'sword', I hAVe not PIcKed it Up aGain. I wOuLd nOt picK it
 kind of non-violence? Tohave bad t hough tsisth e te nden cy of the prak r uti(the non-Self complexof th em ind, sp eechand bod y )b u t t otu rnit ar oundisone's o wn Purusha rth a(independent en ergy of pr ogr ession as th e S elf).
I f a non-v iol ent p ersonw ere to  fire anar r ow ats omeone, h is  vic tim would not ble e d. In contrast, a  viole nt ma n wou ldcause blee di ng in the oth e re v e n i f  he threw a f lower. Neit h erthe ar ro w n o r theflowe ri s i tself 'effe ctiv e', but i t is t h e inten t  behind  the a cttha t is 'e ff ect iv e '.T hi s i s  wh y my con st an t int enti s t hatnooneshoul d be hurt inthe  sli g hte st ma nnerby m yspeec h, mythoug ht s and my conduc t. A nd thesewor ds  ar eflowi n g unde r t heumbrell a of th i s i nt e n t .The work is not be in g do ne by athing; it  i s  not bei ng  do ne b y an ar row, it  is notbeingd on eby a fl ow er. It  i s o nly  thei nten t thro ugh whic h itw orks. The inte n t is the medi u mt h ro u gh w hic h all thing s ha p pen. 

Ak r am  Vi g nan s tates  t h at a person should not  u se eve n his  thoughts asa weapon.H o w  then ca n an y on e  use any other  weap on? How ca n  I wield  anyweapon a gainst ot h e r life f orm s w hen  Ih a ve  never once r e s orte dto usin g e ven mytho ugh tsasaweapon ag ainst ev en  t he  s mal lesto f life f or m?At  ti mes I am giv en to  spe ak  a lit tle har s hl y ,  but  s uc h ha rsh ne ss is  lik e  th e subtl e differe nce betw ee nraw and  refined silk .Such speec honl y come s out very  rarely. I have never u s ed my s pee ch as  a w eapon nor  ha ve I e ver used m y thou ghtsin  th a t  way. Ihav enever used m y m ind a sa we apon ag ainst even the sma l les t of life for ms.  Eve n if  as co r pio nw ere t o sting me, I w ould not r ai s eany weapon aga in st it.By stin gingm e, thescorpionwould befu lfil l i ngits obliga tion, wi thout whi c h the r ewould  be  no li be rat ion f or me. I c an as sure y ou  thatI hav enot used  my mind as a weapon ag ainstany l ivi ng being.  Al t hou gh it isthenature ofthe  mi nd to  re t aliat e, I as sur e  youthat I have no t  u sed i tin this way . **Q uesti one r :** Yo u mu st have realizedt hat there is n o us e for  th i s we ap on of the mind .
** D a dashri:* *Yes. A weap on is of  n o  useat all . Thethought t ha t  a wea ponmig ht be nec ess ar y  has ne ve rc rossed  mymi nd. Si nce th e  day I  laid down the's word' , I hav e  no t pic ke d it up agai n. I would  not pick i t
 kind_of non-violence?_To have bad thoughts_is the_tendency_of the_prakruti_(the non-Self complex_of the mind,_speech and body) but_to turn it_around_is one's own Purushartha (independent energy of progression as the Self).

If a non-violent person_were_to fire_an_arrow_at someone, his victim would_not bleed. In contrast, a_violent man_would cause bleeding in the other even if_he_threw a flower._Neither the arrow nor the flower is itself 'effective',_but it is the intent behind_the act that_is_'effective'._This is why my_constant intent is that no one_should be hurt in the slightest_manner by my speech, my thoughts and_my conduct. And these words are_flowing under the umbrella of_this intent._The work is not being_done by a_thing; it_is not being_done by an arrow, it is_not being done_by a flower. It is only_the_intent through which_it_works._The intent_is the medium_through_which all_things_happen.

Akram Vignan states that a person_should_not use even his thoughts as a_weapon. How then can_anyone_use any other weapon?_How can I wield any_weapon against other life forms when_I have_never once_resorted to using even my thoughts as a weapon against even_the smallest of life form? At_times I am given_to speak_a_little harshly, but_such_harshness is_like the subtle difference between raw and_refined silk._Such speech only comes out very_rarely. I have never_used_my speech as a weapon nor_have I ever used my thoughts_in that way.

I have never_used_my_mind as a weapon against_even the smallest of life forms._Even if a_scorpion were to sting me, I would_not_raise any weapon against it. By_stinging_me, the scorpion would be fulfilling_its_obligation,_without which there would be_no liberation for me. I can_assure you that I have not used my mind_as a weapon_against any living being. Although_it_is_the nature of the mind to retaliate, I assure you_that I_have not used_it in this way.

**Questioner:** You must have realized that there_is no use for this weapon of_the mind.

**Dadashri:** Yes. A weapon is of no use at all._The thought that a weapon might be necessary_has never crossed my mind. Since the_day I laid down_the'sword',_I have not picked it up again._I_would_not_pick it