For those who checked in recently, it all started here with this 101 and the subsequent comments. Since the 101, Sandeep has published this critique.
In Dharma 201 we will first respond to Sandeep’s critique (Part 1) and answer the many questions posed in response to 101 (Part 2).
Before we get into Sandeep’s critique let us assume that for this debate we will not get into metaphysical issues. We will assume there is a single reality which is the observable Universe. We will also assume that in this observable Universe, Truth is a universal and time invariant value (not getting into the world of relativity and quantum physics).
This assumption is important for the debate on Dharma here is limited to Dharma in everyday affairs as it relates to the role of State, Government and Citizens and not about “Moksha” or “Nirvana”, we will leave out those metaphysical questions for individuals to sort out for themselves.
Response to Sandeep’s Critique
- Agree with Sandeep on the nature of Dharma being to “sustain” or “protect”. It is that which makes society based on the rules of civilization possible.
- Also agree with Dharma deriving itself from Rta, the order things in the Universe
- Disagree that Dharma has goal. Individuals may have a goal to attain something, Dharma is merely a facilitator by providing a path, a vehicle and a set of enablers and constraints to attain that goal.
- Not sure of the origins of the division of Dharma. Going by the use of sanskrit words like “saamanya” and “visesha” tells me this division is of?a recent origin. Any attempts to find the original source text where this division was first specified did not meet with much success.
However the research found this excellent source on Advaita which lists different references to what Dharma is across texts.?This research piece also introduces Saamanya and Visesha Dharma towards the end without any reference to a specific text where the samaanya versus visesha distinction was originally specified.
Also in its definition of Samaanya it lists “ahimsa”, which is a giveaway that this definition is of a later origin. The earliest references to the use of the word ahimsa are in the Upanishads.
It also attributes a different meaning to Vishesha Dharma as to do with specific duties for an individual as opposed to an exception to what is otherwise dharma.
This meaning makes more sense and would be consistent with 101 where there is the “How” which is generic and then there is the “What” which is specific to a context, community, individual.
It doesnt mean the “What” can be at odds with the “How” it only means that the generic “How” when applied to a given context will yield a set of specific “What”s.
Vishesha Dharma refers to such a list of specific “What” that have been derived without violating the principles of “How”.
- Cannot agree with the rest of Sandeep’s critique on Dharma being fluid for he is relying on specific duties specified for specific varnas as it relates to Visesha Dharma with the butcher example and he is relying on the principle that it is ok to resort to “adharma” to uphold “dharma” with the Krishna example.
The Butcher example is a classic case of confusing the “what” with the “how”. This can be resolved very easily by applying the “desireless action” test. A butcher’s violence is Dharmic for it is his duty. The butcher is not killing because of anger, hate or malice. The butcher is killing because it is his “duty to society” to provide food, by going about it without violating the contract of civilization he is being Dharmic in his actions. We dont need the distinction of “samaanya” and “visesha” here to make the case.
In fact this example explains why someone came up with the “samaanya” and “visesha” distinction, just as Offstumped readers asked in response to 101. If Dharma is about the “How” where do we go to determine the “What” ? Same questions were probably asked in the ancient times hence this list of duties to specify the “What”. It is this list of duties which is being classified as “visesha” dharma.
Is this list exhaustive ?
NO
Can it be time invariant ?
It cannot because with time society changes, roles in it change hence duties change.
Does this mean the list of Duties is inviolable ?
Absolutely not, it has to be contextual. Which is why it is merely advisory in nature and contextual in its application. The list of duties must evolve with time.
But that does not mean Truth can be contextual, Justice can be contextual. They are and will always be time invariant.
What about Krishna’s Adharma in the Mahabharata ?
Sandeep argues that its ok to commit Adharma to uphold Dharma. Thats the absolute wrong lesson to derive from Mahabharata. Rather than derive the lesson that it is ok to use any means to uphold Dharma, the lesson that ought to be derived is that the means adopted to uphold Dharma must meet the “desireless action” test. That is the whole point of Krishna’s sermon to Arjuna.
Righteousness demanded that Karna, Bhishma and Duryodhana be stopped in Kurukshetra. It was Arjuna’s duty as a warrior to stop them in that war.
So how must Arjuna conduct his war to be righteous ?
He must be desireless. He must not be motivated by anger, hatred, malice or material gains.
What about the rules of engagement as far as the War go ?
The rules of engagement of the War have sanctity in as far as they facilitate the upholding of Dharma. If they do not facilitate the upholding of Dharma they have no sanctity. So the mere breaking of the rules of engagement is not Adharma.
Does that also mean you can commit some other Adharma by breaking the rules of engagement ?
No. Arjuna cannot say on the one hand that I will break the rules of engagement because they are in the way of upholding Dharma and then on the other hand use that as an excuse to plunder, pillage, cause collateral damage and take a few women as game as the Greek warrior Achilees would in Homer’s Illiad.
That is the distinction between Arjuna and Achilees and the Mahabharata and the Illiad.
Arjuna’s actions even after breaking the rules of engagement must continue to be desireless at all times. So he is allowed to break the rule to kill Karna, Bhishma or for that matter Bhima is allowed to break the rule to kill Duryodhana because their actions continue to be desireles and were limited to that killing. They did not extend beyond that to pillage, plunder, kill innocent bystanders and take the vanquished’s women for their own.
Also remember when Yudhishtra takes part in the slaying of Dronacharya he breaks the rule of engagement but he doesnt commit Adharma by telling a lie. He merely tells a half truth to help uphold Dharma. Also the half-truth brings him no collateral benefits nor does it have any collateral damage it is merely limited to stopping Drona who was fighting for Adharma.
The rest of Sandeep’s critique is premised on Visesha Dharma so will not respond point by point.
He brings up multiple examples from Arthashastra, Rig Veda etc to make the point that specifying the “What” is also Dharma. He also asks for proof that faith was determined by local communities.
The proof lies in his explanation of Visesha Dharma. There is no single authoritative text on the duties of Visesha. The very fact that these duties have been specified in multiple places at multiple times in history means neither is this list authoritative nor is it overarching.
For if it was overarching we would have one single text like the Bible or Quran laying out the dos and donts and thats it. There is no single doctrine on Visesha. There are multiple templates, best practices and guidelines none of which are overarching but all of them are derived from a common generic principle called Dharma.
More responses to comments in Part2 coming soon ……
Filed under: Dharma-debates, Flat World Hindutva
Can’t agree on the mahAbhArata part at all. Arjuna was emotionally charged up during the destruction of karNa and kRShNa too seems to have added fuel to the fire by invoking the story of draupadi, abhimanyu etc. :
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m08/m08091.htm
This is in stark contrast with the gItA, where kRShNa doesn’t
recall even a single atrocity of the kauravas and merely exhorts arjuna to be develop the correct attitude, using the emollient of vEdAnta to extricate his devotee who had surrendered to Him ( shiShyastE’ham shAdhi mAm tvAm prapannam ), from the great emotional trauma he had fallen into.
Similarly yudhiShThira’s “half-truth” wasn’t dhArmic because his mind was vacillating as he said “ashvatthAmA hataH…kun~jaraH”. And indeed, he had to see hell for that. Not doing collateral damage etc. is a necessary condition, though far, far from sufficient.
Kupamanduka – where does it say “desireless” means “stoic”, of course as a spirited warrior he will have emotions. Dharma doesnt mean being emotionless. It is about what purpose you put those emotions to. In this case to stop Karna and not to steal, pillage, plunder or attack Karna’s home and take his wife if he had one
as far as krishna’s exhortations go he is merely reminding arjuna of karna’s adharma so he doesnt waver from his purpose.
Yoss, unless you’re a team and not an individual, why the royal ‘we’? Just wondering is all.
Engrossing annotations on and of Dharma, btw.
Keep up the good work.
Sud
sud – you and every one well else are the team
or maybe it is just a sign that i am getting schizophrenic, either way good catch
[...] « Dharma 201 – Part 1 [...]
So what I can surmise is that not just the action, but the intention behind that action matters.
As for Yudhishthir telling a lie, he knew it was wrong and there were consequences (spending some time in hell) – but he told the lie knowing that there would be some result of that – as long as he was ready to accept those results. Is this the same as greater good?
To my first sentence, I’ll add: “as well as awareness of that intention.”
Not exactly yudhistra did not lie, he was being economical with the truth. One may ask was it ethical of him to be economical with truth. There is only one way to settle the morality here.
Did his economy with truth result in adharma ?
No, the only consequence of his action was the death of drona who was fighting to defend adharma.
So the lesson here is not greater good but whether dharma was upheld.
“Righteousness demanded that Karna, Bhishma and Duryodhana be stopped in Kurukshetra. It was Arjuna’s duty as a warrior to stop them in that war”
Well I just met Righteousness yesterday morning and she completely denied the allegation!
Seriously though it is a very slippery argument as Evil / Bad people actually believe that they are being righteous. Why I suspect even communists think they are being righteous as their actions are for greater good, are they following Dharma?
Mandar – greater good arguments dont hold. It is not a slippery slope. A mere claim of acting on behalf of righteouness is not enough. It must be shown that truth and justice were upheld as a result. There is no way one can argue that evil actions by communists resulted in truth and justice being upheld. Will address this in 301.
Yossarin,
I’m not sure whether every action of the Pandavas was meant to be treated as Dharma. Yudhistra being economical with the truth neither passed the desirelessness test nor could it be considered Dharma (for a Kshtriya to win by means other than valor) by your definition.
My understanding of Mahabharatha is that Vyasa is looking at the ancient (even to him) Bharatha story and subjecting it to the tests of morality and Dharma as expounded in the Bhagwad Gita by Krishna. So every action of Pandavas (vices, being economical with the truth etc) need not be justified as being conforming to Dharma. Its just an impartial observation by Vyasa.
I also think Visesha Dharma is meant for circumstances rather than for community practices (like Polyandry etc). By that yardstick, the demand for reservation could conform to Visesha Dharma and satisfy both the how and what questions.
None of the actions mentioned above by Arjuna (of killing Karna), lying to Drona about his son getting killed, Krsna(by hinting BHIMA TO STRIKE BELOW THE Waist) etc were desireless actions. They were taken with the specific desire of winning. Each party thought they were righteous.
Each of these instances were suggested by Krishna. Krishna being the divine embodiment was the only person who could afford to break the law of desireless action and not get entangled in desire, anger, loss of memory, confusion, ruin (the causal chain is explained well in Gita). He knew the right moments where it paid to break the rules rather than not. Anyone being opportunistic through and through in each one of their life decisions would very quickly fall into the snares and traps of material world as outlined in GITA.(in fact not even doing well in the material world itself) However it took an intellect like krishna to know which rules could be broken. Secondly, some rules if broken would have constituted a strategic balancing effect to all the injustices heaped on the Pandavas. Unfairness cannot be neutralized by fairness – particularly when both parties are evenly balanced. Unfair acts need unfair retributions.
Even for doing well in the material world – one needs to follow law of desireless action while observing Bhakti (devotion to God). In modern times – in our profession/business – acting out of sense of duty / desireless action / non-opportunistic consideration – we call it the pursuit of process compliance.
Dharma simply meant following the rules of convention laid down in society (THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS RIGHTEOUSNESS IN THE GITA)- winning kingdoms through bets, then reneging on the bet’s conditions was adharma. Hence the Mahabharata.
The rules are still arbitrary and determined by the societal mores at the time. When we say God comes down to earth when societal mores are getting violated, that means each of us has God in us. (else GOD wouldn’t get involved)
Even truth is defined as being same as Reality.
(Mundaka upanishad – satyameva jayata, nanritam)
Truth alone triumphs not unreality.
The Gita is supremely pragmatic there is nothing ivory tower or sermonizing or unrealistic about it.
Yoss Boss another TROLL ATTACK “BALAJI” expounding on Dharma. Before arguing on Mahabharat how do you explain this from HOOO-LEEE BIB-LIE
>>New Testament, Luke 12; 51-53: Jesus said, “Do you suppose that I came to bring peace to the World? No, not peace, but division. From now on a family of five will be divided, three against two and two against three. Fathers will be against their sons, and sons against their fathers; mothers will be against their daughters and daughters against their mothers; mothers-in-law will be against their daughters-in-law, and daughters-in-law against their mothers-in-law <<
TRAITS OF KALI AS DESCRIBED BY KRISHNA SO KALI=JESUS???
A) If time taken between ‘desireful action’ and ‘expected outcome’ is very very small
B) The action has extremely positive ‘Black Swan’ implications for your side
and C)chances of your desireful action failing are very very low -
THEN I think desireful actions can be taken without fear of losing one’s equanimity , without fear of losing the collective consciousness of ppl on your side. (which would ensure defeat- since its all anyway in the mind)
Anwar Shaikh yesterday was asking about POLYANDRY in Mahabharat.
As per Narada and Vayu Puranas, Draupadi was composite Avatar of Goddesses Shyamala (wife of Dharma), Bharati (Wife of Vayu), Sachi (wife of Indra), Usha (wife of Ashwinis) and hence married their earthly counterparts in the form of the five Pandavas. Enraged at a jest by Parvati and the four goddesses, Brahma cursed them to human birth. Parvati thought of the solution wherein they will be born as one woman, Draupadi and hence share the earthly body for a smaller period of time.
Yossarin,
This is an excellent series, and I should commend you for it. (I only wish I had the time to participate in it more actively.)
==
It was good you brought in Shri Sunder Hattangadi’s (a moderator of advaitin yahoo group) article. I think that his references are vedantic. In particular, the saamanya and vishesha dharma’s Sunderji lists are from Gita. You could verify from him, but that section is from Gita. Gita, you know is not a dharma-shastra. It is a brahma-vidya, yoga-shastra, not a dharma-shastra. So, it seems that that Sunderji has extrapolated these vedantic concepts sense into saamanya and vishesha dharmas.
So, all the above seems to directly contradict another assumption of yours: “This assumption is important for the debate on Dharma here is limited to Dharma in everyday affairs as it relates to the role of State, Government and Citizens and not about “Moksha” or “Nirvana” “
I think you got the spirit of desirelesness, as enunciated in Gita. So, when when Arjuna “kills all these men” he can still not commit sin (18.17). Further the seeming antinomy of “dying in the performance of svadharma” (3.38) is not different from the “leave alone all Dharmas” (18.66). This is because, these injunctions are given to people of different qualifications. I am bringing this up because, these are crucial verses of Bhagavad Gita, that refer to Arjuna’s Dharma.
In particular, If you have time on this subject, I would suggest reading Dharmasindhu, which is specifically on this subject. There is a reason for me suggesting this. Mahabharatha and Ramayana, as examples of Dharma vs. adharma is good. But, we should note that, examples can illustrate a point. Not build a theory. The theory is given in treatises, like Manu-dharma smriti and others. Further the discourses by Bhishma would be very topical.
Thanks again to you and Sandeep for the good discussion.
Y
Can you explain the meaning of dharma in the context of Rama slaying Vali. Rightly, it cannot be claimed that Rama was upholding Dharma, in slaying Vali (which would enable sugriva, thereby facilitate his search for his wife). what is the correct way to understand Rama’s acions?
Well thaygu if you are not poisened Christist Dravider Kazgam person, the answer was given in Ramayana itself. When Bali goes to fight the second time against Sugreva, he was given the Swarn Mala (gold necklace) of Lord Indra (Bali’s wife).
The wearer of the necklace becomes invincible according to the vardaan of Lor Indra. Now Lord Rama being Lord Vishnu’s “Maryada Purushottam” Avtaar did not want to break that Vardaan (and thereby break nature’s laws) so he hid to kill Bali. He was NARAYAN, no Ravana or Bali could have faced if if he had broken the Maryada. Also it was to keep the word of his Bhakta Narada curse, who had cursed Lord Vishnu and Mata Laxmi to SEPARATE from each other and take the help of Vanars (monkeys) to find her. Also in her previous life Devi Vedavati (Seeta in her previous birth)was LUSTED BY RAVANA, and she had commited self immolation burning herself in Yogaagni and cursing Ravana to be cause of his death
The Maryada Purushottam repaid the same in Krishna Avtaar when Baali in his birth killed him by firing his arrow thinking him to be a Deer. Since SuryaPutra Sugreeva killed Bali by hiding behind Lord Rama, during Krishna Avtaar Lord returned the same to Indra when Indra Putra ARJUN killed Surya Putra KARNA from behind the Lord. If you read Bhagvatam, actually it was nobody killing the Kauravas. Maharishi Barbarik who watched the war, clearly said that nobody in the Pandavas could effect any problem to the Kauravas, Bhishma, Drona, Karna, Kripa, Ashwathhama were simply invincible. It was Lord’s Sudarshan Chakra which was killing the Adharmis. (MAYBE WE NOW NEED IT THE MOST TO KILL UPA DEGENERATE KAURVAS AND THEIR MEDIA SLAVES)
Hi SeaLion,
I guess it pays to be civil and polite in any conversation. The idea is to distinguish yourselves from people who act crass rather than trying to beat them in their own game.
I do not think you have answered my question. If according to Y the concept of Dharma has to be understood from the “How” perspective rather than the “What” perspective, I am unable to apply this principle in the slaying of Vali by Lord Rama. Otherwise I am perfectly aware of the Ramayana, as narrated by you.
Thyagu, here is your answer:
Before answering let me re-iterate your question clearly:
There are two parts -
1. How would one explain Rama slaying Bali
2. Is killing Bali by deceit(hiding) sanctioned by Dharma
Before answering these question let me clear out a few things:
1. It should not be taken in black and white as to what Rama did is dharma, and what ravana did is adharma.
The epic purposely stresses out on complicated scenarios like Rama killing Bali, Abondoning Sita etc, so as to develop a reader’s mind to be able to evaluate his dharma by oneself. In real world scenarios there is nothing in black and white, there will always be conflicting dharma and one would have to evaluate them.
2. Rama is considered Maryada Purushottam, which is mistaken to english word “ideal”. The word ideal is a imaginary concept while Maryada purushottam is something that can exists.
3. The “how” concept is good to clear out a few myths about dharma, (I mentioned this in my comment, in the part 1 also), but it doesn’t explain the concept of dharma.
1. How would one explain Rama slaying Bali
First of all there is no reason to explain. Rather than explaining one needs to bring out the context and conflicting dharmas. If after thoroughly understanding the context and them properly evaluating, it one feel that killing Bali is not according to Dharma, them for him, Ram did adharma. but here it is quite simple – do it for yourself.
So I will also try to do so:
– Ram’s wife has been kidnapped, he has to rescue her – Dharma of a husband.
– Sugriva offers to help and becomes a friend, but friend has a problem of his own – Dharma for a friend
– Bali has also not done any harm to Rama, but has become unreasonable and has closed all modes for communication, not willing to listen to anyone, and wanting to kill his brother, because he obeyed him.
– The people of Bali’s Kingdom accepted him King only out of fear, all important ministers who tried to clarify him, were persecuted. So Bali was already Adharmic.
– There was no other way to resolve things – other than to kill Bali.
There wasn’t anything much to think about in this case, instead Killing of Ravana – an able, learned Administrator of a huge state would needed some thought.
But in both the case, as for Ram as a common man wandering in Jungle – his dharma duties included for his near and dear ones.
Now the more important question:
2. Is killing Bali by deceit(hiding) sanctioned by Dharma
The answer is NO if this is taken out of the context. But considering the context above where he could not be killed by any other means and he is to be killed, then it was his dharma.
Ram is glorified, and an epic written for him is because his story provides guidence to individual as to how to live one life:
Ram is glorified, and an epic written for him is because his story provides guidence to individual as to how to live one life:
– He was a ideal son, as any father would have asked for – he left everything just to keep father’s words.
– He was a student any teacher would wish to have.
– He was a caring ideal husband.
– He was a great leader – it was his leadership skills which proved that he is the right person to be the king of ayodhya. He was to be a common man living in jungle. He raised a huge army, got constructed an impossible type architecture marvel, won a great war with a army of monkeys, inspiring them to take on to the mightly Ravan.
– He was an ideal king, when it came for him to choose between his dharma as a king and as a husband, he made a right choice.
Hi Deepak,
Sorry. In the midst of other works I have failed to see your response to my question addressed to Y. I thank you for the trouble you have taken though for providing me with the response.
You have rephrased my qustions into two parts, the first of which would relate to the slaying of Vali by Lord Rama and the second would relate to the Dharma (or the absence of it) practiced by the Lord in the Act of slaying Vali.
But by doing this you are diluting the scope of my question which is strictly adhering only to the second part.
Your answers are quite evident and reasonable as to justify the first question but going by Y’ definition of Dharma, I feel it would appear that Lord Rama did not practice Dharma. But we would all like to believe otherwise.
Dharma, according to Y is not contextual, it is not wrapped to an time frame. It is also to do with the “How” of things rather than the “What” of things.
I also note that for the more important second question, you seem to opine that the answer is no, Lord Rama did not practice Dharma. But it would appear blasphemous to suggest the lords action does not conform to same basic dharmic meaning. I am wondering if I am missing something or if Y meaning of Dharma does not measure upto Dharma in a more exacting sense. No offense, of course, intended to Y.
Yes I dont fully agree with the “how” defintion of dharma.
It is no way blasphenous to suggest the lords action does not conform. But the version of epic we read now is totally different, moreover the context in which we see things now have totally changed.
Like somebody marrying more than one person is consider bad now.
The author of the epic would definitely won’t want to show the actors in bad light, but his quest would be show how to handle a difficult condition.
It requires extensive study of original text to give ones opinion on following of dharma by lords.
You would also be amused to know that in original Valmiki’s Ramayana, all character are ordinary human beings. Rama’s character is exalted in later versions and elevated to Lord.
====================
Pasting here again the comment i made on the first of this series:
First of all I don’t agree with the simplistic definition of dharma by underscoring the “how” aspect, though it seeks to clear some myths that are prevelent currently. My disagreement is due to making it simple, I agree with concept though.
I would say Dharma as which “holds(remain unchanged) irrespective of any context(time, place, anything)”, but since such humans(including you and me) cannot think of anything without a context, they will have to bring out the meaning in reference of some context. (All words in our languages are just context. There is not a single word in our vocabulary which can be explained without a context)
So to us, it becomes “righteous duty in real world context which upholds that is natural.
To Anwar Sheikh.
As far as the character of Mahabharata are concerned, it is never told Krishna as a great follower of dharma. Instead Yudhistra and Aswathama are mentioned as possessing a very good understanding of dharma. Another character I remember is Rama in ramayana who knoweledge of dharma is most appreciated.
Though Krishna may be considered as uploader of dharma, all his actions don’t get dharmic sanctions. In the Mahabharata a lot of his actions are brought out clearly as adharmic and there you mentions about Ghandhari’s curse.
You questions about Draupadi become irrelevant if you consider the following facts;
1. You are bound in perpertuality not to believe a women deserving and desire to marry many powerful men.
2. Draupadi was the daughter of the most powerful king of the time Drupad, who defeated the whole of the Kuarava sena which included warriors like Bhism Pithamah, Karna. It was the 5 pandavas who actually captured Drupad alone at the behest of Dhronacharya, but returned his kingdom on Dhronacharya advice, and winning the hearts of Drupads.
To Chanakya and Anwar Sheikh,
I would also like bring your attention to another point. Although there is no dispute about the characters of epics, the narrators of the epics always bore a far greater objective that just telling a story or writing history. One of the most important purpose was to develop the understanding of the students / readers.
As a realistic approach, it is to be understood clearly that there haven’t been anyone with absolute power, though individuals at times would surely have yeilded enormous power. So all the concepts of incarnations etc, are to be better understood to make thing simple for a student to understand the real ideas the author want to convey, and not get unnecessary involved in questioning the very characters.
Anwar, if your questions are inspired by real quest of understanding, and which you yourself could not answer yourself by your study and a sincere meditation, you can expect a honest answer.
but if they are mired by sheer intent of insulting the concept of sanatana dharma (a corrupted version of which is known as hinduism), then you dont need an answer.
The simple reason for which is I don’t feel the need to defend hinduism, for hinduism has to perish to upload dharma. The earlier hinduism perishes, the earlier the whole world ends itself as other religions and nationalities cannot understand and accomodate each other, and only way to go is to end each other.
And this is very much required if the “dharma” is to upheld, a new day of brahma – kalpa.