vasista's stands on personal ahimsa and universal dharma rakshana justified

namaste
One of my good freinds and one of the most cultured and respected gentlemen I know, Sri Shivashankara Rao, on reading my blog on Vasista episode, wrote to me -
Dear Arathi, I have read all the articles in your blog and very happy about them.
The incident in Vasishta's life is enlightening. However, it is worth considering whether it was wise on his part to ignore the injustice by the king who killed all his sons.Only sattva is insufficient for the mundane life, Hope you will agree. Sattva and Raja should be combined in good measures, I think. This is what Krishna taught.
I agree with SS Rao upon the idea behind what he says. However, about Vasista, I am sharing some views -

namaste
thanks for the review
The episode on Vasista was mainly to show how aware he was of his duties as a rajaguru. That is how every teacher or parent should try to be- role model to their youngsters. However regarding the unfair behaviour of king Koushika, the reasons may be many
1. Vasista had taken up the tapasvi vrata. One of the norms of tapas is never to harm anyone even if it meant self-defence.But we should remember that tapasvi vrata is a personal one and usually only for sanyasins, or individuals who voluntarily take it up. But those who are involved in pursuits like ruling, teaching, business, etc., should be self-defensive. Aatma-rakshna is the duty of a housholder. But even in householders, some opt to be yaayaavaaras (they live on uncha-vrtti i.e begging and live almost like sanyasins) such grhasthas may take up the oath of non-violence and they do not want to react even if injustice is done to them. But when injustice happens to others in the society, they must not keep quite but stand up and refute or condemn.

2. Kaushika was actually a noble man with great many good attributes. He was an able administrator and also upheld dharma. His intention to obtain Surabhi, the divine cow, was indeed to enrich the royal treasure and in turn use it for developmental works. There was nothing selfish or evil in that. But what he failed to understand was that Surabhi, was gifted by the Gods to Vasista. It was not a public property but a special honour by Gods to the sage and it had to remain with Vasista. But Kaushika's longing for the cow overpowered his viveka (sense of discrimination) and he became assertive. This translated into haste and arrogance and he even used force to have his will done. His intention was not to kill Vasista's son, but they were killed when they stood against him in war.
Vasista was greif sticken. It was a great tragedy for him. He could have reacted violently and cursed Kaushika. But, as a true guru, he controlled his feelings and rather thought rationally. Absolutely a master of his passions, committed to samaja-hita, even if it meant sacrifice on his part, Vasista did not want the kingdom to lose a good king like Kaushika. The interest of the kingdom was more important to him than personal vengeance.
Moreover Kaushika had begun to realize his mistake and even acknowledge brahma tejas as superior to mere military power. True repentance must be honoured.
Ahimsa was only Vasista's 'vayyaktika dharma' and vrata. No one can question that. It is his choice. But if his ahimsa-vrata was costing the society something, then the sage would have been questionable. Vasista's forbearance was so great that it transformed an ambitious ruler Kaushika into a great saint and seer Vishwamitra.

3. This episode need not mean that Vasista never voiced out against injustice. As the guru, he ensured that the Ayodhya princes got good education in all fields including warfare. He never questioned Rama's battle against Ravana. Dasharatha's previous battles happened very much in Vasista's presence. Rama and Lakshmana set out to kill Tataka and Subahu with Vasista's blessings. The battle in which Lavanasura was killed, happened when Vasista was the Rajaguru of the Ikshvakus.
Perhaps we can collect many such instances to show that Vasista was not 'non violent' in the blind sense we take today. Today we tend to understand ahimsa as 'keeping mum about everything' even injustice and humiliation. Supporting kshatra-shakti against adharma at all times is what these great sages have shown us and we need to do it now and for ever.

4. Ahimsa cannot be indiscriminately applied. We need to see what the context, situation and impacts would be in the long run. Is the injustice just 'something that hurts me' ? Then let us forgive if we can. That will elevate our self and makes us emotionally stronger. But is the adharma damaging the nation, culture, paramparaa or society? Then we must never tolerate, but rather fight back. That is what Swami Vivekananda also tried to impress upon the suffering India of his times. Now is the need to stand up and protect the honour and dignity of our nation and heritage.

5. I am reminded of an episode from Swami Vivekananda's life- Swamiji was on a long voyage on ship. A couple of Christian missionaries were also on board. They were jealous of the Swami's fame and the sudden honour India and Hinduism managed to get in the west through him. Evertime they saw him on dock, they began to talk aloud abusing the Swami. Swamiji just ignored them and kept calm. This went on for days. But the missionaries wanted the Swami to enter into an argument with them. They kept talking to instigate a reply fom him. One day they began as usual to critisize him, Eventually the course of their abuses turned on India and hindus. They began to make cheap statements. They decried India, its lifestyle, the Hindu Gods and traditions and everything they could. Now Swami Vivekananda's eyes glared with fury. He promptly walked up to the 2 missionaries, folded up his sleeves, and lifted them with their collars and thundered- "If you speak one more word against my motherland, I shall throw you both out into the sea"! The two trembled and apologised and left the place. Swamiji walked away and stood standing into the seas as if nothing had happened. One of Swamiji's companions was shocked and confused. He slowly walked up to him and asked- "Swamiji, I dont think what you did was right. It is always better to ignore fools. Moreover you are a sanyasin (monk) and should never practice even atmarakshana (self defence)" Swamiji calmly replied- "Yes, I agree. A monk should not defend oneself. That is just what I did! All these days they abused me like hell. I never reacted. But today they abused my 'Mother'. No one must tolerate the humiliation of our mothers. My country and my religions are my mothers. I had to stop those fools from humiliating my mother"

This explains how we should be able to discriminate between vayyaktika dharma and Samasti dharma. Even if we may prefer to forgive people who offend us personally, we must never tolerate loose tongues that wag against the honour of our countrty, culture and religion.
Krishna also spoke of war against adharma as dharma. Fighting against adharma is not himsa but actually ahimsa. On the otherhand keeping mum against adharma even if you could do something, is not ahimsa, but actually himsa. It is high time, we understood this properly. This is the sense in which Sri SS Rao has also shared his views about Vasista's ahimsa. I dont think we differ much in the original stand point. Am I right sir?
dhanyavadah
Arathi