THE DILEMMA CALLED DHARMA

I found this article on internet on the facebook page "Star Plus' Factually Incorrect Mahabharat" . Its author is "Champa" and i thought of sharing it here. It also has a picture depiction which i have put here



THE DILEMMA CALLED DHARMA

The problem and the beauty, is that dharma does not have one meaning. This word defies concise English translation.

Dharma is like an onion - it has several layers, from the macrocosmic outer skin to the intimate layer at the heart. The challenge is to describe this as simply as possible.

The outermost macro layer and the inner core are eternal. Everything else is subject to change.

At the cosmic level, Dharma is the natural physical laws of the universe, like gravity and subatomic forces. It is eternal.

The middle layers consist of a whole host of manmade constructs. This is where the problems lie.

It is in this realm that morality, ethics, values, rules and religions exist. They deal with social order and environmental harmony.

While man should understand and follow these rules, he needs to be aware that all manmade dharmas are impermanent and prone to corruption. As times change, these dharmas too have to appropriately change. Obsolete laws can do more harm than good, and hence ought to be redefined, updated, or even discarded.

Finally, closest to the core, lies a personal dharma called "Svadharma". Svadaharma has a superficial value and a deeper core value

Superficially, svadharma is "inherent nature". It points at the life purpose of a person, which he discovers according to what comes to him naturally, what he loves to do, and what he is good at. This is not dictated by birth or society, but by the heart.

At the very core level, svadharma has a much deeper meaning. This svadharma is the inner voice, heart, soul, conscience, voice of God, witness, atma - different religions have different names for it.
It is the voice that one hears when the mind is silenced; It speaks soft, but speaks the truth; it is that part of one which does not die; it is the voice of love; and it is beyond the chattering mind.
In any given situation, it tells us the right thing to do.

Krishna said that one should always follow one's svadharma - in every sense of the word.

All moral conflicts in life happen when manmade social dharmas (the changeable middle layers) clash with this core svadharma. In such situations, what should one do? This is the central question of the Mahabharata.

Ved Vyaas said that everything can be sacrificed for this svadharma.
By this proclamation, he meant that at the individual level, when the external moral constructs and the inner voice clash, one should always listen to the inner voice.

Going by this definition, Drona should have thrown away external caste dharma and accepted Ekalavya, because in his heart, he knew that he was a born archer; Drupad should have thrown away royal protocol and embraced Drona, because in his heart, he knew that before this social division, he was first his friend; Bhishma should have thrown away his promises and refused to abduct princesses, because in his heart, he knew they were unwilling and helpless; The Pandavas should have thrown away the shackles of slavery and protected their wife, because in their heart, they knew that nothing should matter more than her dignity; Kunti should have thrown away social norms and kept her first born, because in her heart, she knew that it was blameless and vulnerable; Karna stuck to his friend, but in his heart, he always knew that his ways were wrong; The list could go on.

When Krishna urged Arjun to follow his svadharma, he truly meant that Arjun should awaken to his inner voice. This is the central message of the Gita.

One may argue that Duryodhan may have sincerely felt that he was justified in his actions, and so he too was listening to his heart. But at one point he said that he always knew what was right and wrong, but he could not control something in him which consistently prevented him from doing the right thing. Translated: he chose to ignore his inner voice and let his mind rule.

That is really the definition of an adharmi - one who knows deep inside what is right, but for some reason, is unable to follow his heart.

https://www.facebook.com/MahabharatKiGalatiyan

Originally posted by: bhas1066

While man should understand and follow these rules, he needs to be aware that all manmade dharmas are impermanent and prone to corruption. As times change, these dharmas too have to appropriately change. Obsolete laws can do more harm than good, and hence ought to be redefined, updated, or even discarded.

Finally, closest to the core, lies a personal dharma called "Svadharma". Svadaharma has a superficial value and a deeper core value

Superficially, svadharma is "inherent nature". It points at the life purpose of a person, which he discovers according to what comes to him naturally, what he loves to do, and what he is good at. This is not dictated by birth or society, but by the heart.

At the very core level, svadharma has a much deeper meaning. This svadharma is the inner voice, heart, soul, conscience, voice of God, witness, atma - different religions have different names for it.
It is the voice that one hears when the mind is silenced; It speaks soft, but speaks the truth; it is that part of one which does not die; it is the voice of love; and it is beyond the chattering mind.
In any given situation, it tells us the right thing to do.

Krishna said that one should always follow one's svadharma - in every sense of the word.

All moral conflicts in life happen when manmade social dharmas (the changeable middle layers) clash with this core svadharma. In such situations, what should one do? This is the central question of the Mahabharata.

Ved Vyaas said that everything can be sacrificed for this svadharma.
By this proclamation, he meant that at the individual level, when the external moral constructs and the inner voice clash, one should always listen to the inner voice.


When Krishna urged Arjun to follow his svadharma, he truly meant that Arjun should awaken to his inner voice. This is the central message of the Gita.


https://www.facebook.com/MahabharatKiGalatiyan

Excellent post bhas 👏 Thanks for sharing. Its a pity that we tend to ignore this inner voice that tries to guide us all the time.

Thank you peridot.

This article caught my eye because no one has till now explained the word "swadharma" so simply and clearly .

In Bhagvat Gita , verses 3-35 and 18-47 , Krishna says:

reyn sva-dharmo vigunah

para-dharmt sv-anusthitt

svabhva-niyatam karma

kurvan npnoti kilbisam

meaning : Follow your own dharma (swadharma) . It is dangerous to follow someone else's dharma.

This one line repeated twice in Gita has been so grossly and unfairly misinterpreted by critics and religious fanatics in the light of casteism. For many years it was understood that by these verses , Krishna says to know one dharma from his caste and better to engage in one's own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another's occupation and perform it perfectly.

The critics said Gita purports caste system while the religious fanatics were overjoyed with the credibilty obtained for continuing with discrimination by caste.
Neither of the two factions bothered in understanding what is Swadharma!

But what Krishna actually meant was to listen to one's own consciouness instead of blindly following others!!

Gita talks about 3 phases of swadharma (18-41 to 18-47):

First there is a swabhava arising from Tri-gunas.
From swabhava arises swakarma which is what the person does in consonance with his nature (swabhava)
Doing swakarma steadfastly is swadharma.

Much later , in Khatopanishad this Swadharma was expanded a bit into Shreyas and Preyas to make people choose dharma better:

Anyachcchjreyo anyadutayewa preyaste ubhe naanaarthe purushamsiniitaha.
Tayoho shreya aaddaananasya saadhu bhawati hiyatearthaad ya u preyo vreniite. (2/1)

Shreyascha preyascha manusyametastao sampariitya vivinakti dhiiraha.
Shreyo hi dhiroabhipreyaso briniite preyo mando yogakshemaad briniite. (2/2)

(translation- shreyas and preyas are the two factors
that control a man in his actions.
Whether he likes it or not or
whether he is ready for it or not,
the man is faced with an inevitable situation of
adhering to one of these two at any given situation.
A dheeran' understands the difference
between the two and adheres to shreyas.
But a mUdan' allows himself to be pulled by preyas
thereby slipping out of Purushartham)

Swadharma is what one must do due to his nature.
Shreyas is what is good for others / a large section of people.
Preyas is what is liked by -good for oneself.

When Swadharma and shreyas go together and match with each other, then dharma is in place.
When they don't go together, conflicts arise.
The resultant action is done at the expense of the other.

Be aware of our swabhava.
Follow the divine qualities and shed demonic ones.
When the situation presents a conflict between swadharma and shreyas, follow shreyas.
A dharmaic shreyas requires one to follow or shed swadhrama accordingly.


Bottomline is that I (or anybody) cannot outline a set of principles and
declare that as the dharma. No, dharma changes from person to person, from time to time and from place to place. Also, there are no thumbrules to find out what one's dharma is. But, one can refine one's understanding of one's dharma by increasing internal purity - listening to our sub-conscience/inner voice. We should make the best judgment combining knowledge and intuition and decide what is our dharma and follow it sincerely. We may err, but doing the best we can is all that we can do!

"This above all: to thine own self be true!" - Hamlet

That is profound Bhas. It is tragic that very often people fail to appreciate the depths of the scriptures and end up making quite a mess of all its teachings. What do you have to say about the Manusmriti which by all means appears quite controversial?

yes its so but i have never been able to bring myself to read it completely. i guess i stop when i manage through a few pages. the laws of manu in no way can be applicable to todays society. Manu smriti is always rewritten at the start of every krita yuga cause its a new start by that manvantara's manu. thatswhy we have nyaya sutras, arthashastras etc later works each for their resp yugas. nowadays people are quoting ramayana or mahabharata only.

that being said manu smriti by itself is a well-balanced book. yes it does promote casteism for maintaining social order , and shudras get a raw deal but there is a trade - off present for every caste.

the problem is translating sanskrit words . for eg:

"pitru rakshati kowmare
bharto rakshati yowvane
putro rakshati vardhakye
nah stri swatantryamarhati"

there are many interpretations to this verse - the interpretation westeners have for rakshati is controlled or subjected or ruled - in common indian languages raksha is protection and rakshati is to be protected. meaning a woman is to be protected by her father in her teens, her husband in her youth and by her son in her old age.

The fourth line is more important. How would that be translated?

it is wrongly translated as a woman does not deserve independence. But the word svaatantryam here does not necessarily mean "independence," but can also refers to the state or condition of "depending on one's own self for sustenance." In Manu's perception, a woman is, by her very nature, so divine and unique that she should never be left to fend for herself. It is the duty of society to protect and take good care of her " by her father during childhood, husband in her youth, and son in her old age.

personaly i think of two sides os this statement:

1. For each society, survival is one of the most important (rather THE important) factor. For survival, always a better generation than preceding one is desired. Mothers influence over the baby is far far greater than that of a father. I am not underestimating the role and responsibility of a father in bringing up a baby. But it is not even remotely comparable with a mom. So what Manu wisely points out is, if women are taken care properly, if they are devoid of any worries, you are promised a healthy and intelligent new generation, who are wise enough to survive in harmony with the nature.Freedom (exposure to world), can introduce unnecessary worries too. Even today a working women has more stress during pregnancy than a house wife.Each negative impact on a woman's body or mind can get directly translated to the next generation. With freedom the risk of these negative impacts gets multiplied hundred fold. So why risk the next generation :D

2. It is not exactly a translation problem but a problem of descriptions. when one culture describes another, it describes it with the tools available at its disposal. "Independence" in western culture has a specific connotation connected with the christian framework from which it emerges. "savtantra" in indian traditions has no connection with the sense of independence, even though in some respects you cannot be 'svatantra' without being 'indepedent'. you can still be 'independent' without being 'svatantra'! what i mean is can we define independance as a state of mind?
"Women have no sacrifices ordained for them. There are no Sraddhas which they are called upon to perform. They are not required to observe any facts. To serve their husbands with reverence and willing obedience is their only duty. Through the discharge of that duty they succeed in conquering heaven."
reading the above can you derive who is more independant here - the man who is bound to follow a thousand rules and laws of society like caste dharma, sacrifices, the king dictates and the list goes on. if a a man is independant, why does he need a home to come back to ? who has more pressure psychologically? who is dependant on whom?

as devdutt says : "Only in the Indian context is a god always seen with a goddess. This is because the balance between both is important. Ram as god is dependable and Sita as goddess is independent. Isn't this what we all try to be? Dependable, but independent."

I like your take on it Bhas. Its quite a different perspective and a deep one at that. I need to think on it some. If manu indeed meant it in that way its tragic that the society made a mockery of women's status. Things quickly took a turn for the worse.

no system is created 'because it is wrong'...in hindsight every system looks wrong (monarchy, polyandry, polygamy, child marriage, conversions, animal sacrifice)...denying or rejecting caste system does not automatically create a world without exploitation...new frameworks emerge, more subtle, more clever, that escape the "politically correct" gaze.

today its a digital divide