What exactly is Dharma?

First Previous

Page

Frequent Posters

riti4u

@riti4u

Stunner

+ 7

Posted: 12 years ago

#31

Originally posted by: peridot.

Is making mistakes equivalent to adharma? There could be a genuine mistake out of good motive eg Bheeshma taking that oath against mistake made with a not so noble motive eg staking one's wife .

Or could it be that when one does something in accordance with the prevalent norms eg discriminating on caste or gender basis (eg pandavas behaviour towards Karna and draupadi) it is categorised as dharma?

Question is does society decide what is dharma or righteous behaviour ?

His Oath binded him to Hastinapur'throne and its decision...Indeed when he took that oath ,he was commiting a mistake not adharm...but to commit to that decision..he turned blind eye to lot of adharma taking place in hastinapur...n even he sided with duryodhana n fought against pandavas..

Ofcourse motive does matter ..but what also matters is consequence of your actions... I was just stating that everyone contributed to bigger mess that was created...

See dharma can be different according to perception of people... For example..If I eat non-veg..it might be a simple food for me...but for others I might be doing a Adharma...

As i posted in my first reply here- It is according to way of living you follow...or certain set of rules of society that u believe in...

i might hav confused u more with what i was tryin to say...😆

Quote

dramacrazy12

@dramacrazy12

Voyager

Posted: 12 years ago

#32

Originally posted by: peridot.

Question is does society decide what is dharma or righteous behaviour ?

I would be very wary in letting society decide what is Dharma? Realistically speaking the norms in the society are set by powerful few who tend to twist the definitions to suit them. It has been true in every era and country. Dharma or the moral compass should stay consistent regardless of what is acceptable/unacceptable behavior in the society.

Pandava's shameful behavior towards their wife or Karna does not seem righteous from any perspective even though they were following the norms of the time.

Kaurvas were following the norms of time when they humiliated Draupadi in the courthall...they behaved with her as they would with a low caste maid...that does not make it righteous. Fact is Keechak also tried to pull off something similar with Draupadi in her Sairandhi avatar later because she was a lowly maid as did Dhri (forced Yuyutsu's mom) and even Ambika (when she sent Vidur's mother to Ved Vyas).

Sati, widow exploitation and child-marraige have all been accepted norms in society but they are not righteous acts.

Quote

Looks like you are new here. Register for free, learn and contribute.

mysterieux

@mysterieux

Rocker

+ 3

Posted: 12 years ago

#33

dharma is duty...and duty is goverened by rules ...fulfilling it according to rules is right else its wrong. Black or white.

As time goes on...its not just a matter of white or black but grey and as more time goes on black and white become more gray than ever.

like in this day and age as human our duty is to take care of Mother Earth because last 200 years have been more ravaging on her than ever before..our duty now is not what it was 400 years ago when it was not a problem.

Today how many people take care to recycle and reuse - dont use products that harn the evnvironment use eco friendly things dont trash in public place seperate recycle and non recyles...most of us here may do but there a a whole lot of poepl who do not but because we all live on earth its a our responsibility. even among theose who do some do some and dont do some...some want to but cannot ..theer are places in teh world where its hard to collect different trash seperately but that does not mean they do not want to ...but the consequence is destruction of mother earth either ways.

I dont mean to compare Dharma with anything derogatory but the example was simplistic to show that Dharma is duty to do right and if not followed there will be destruction...Dharma never changes but what Dharma may include changes with time because schematics change and may change based on the individual...a business man may have different dharma compared to a teacher ...an orphan may have different dharma compared to a family man...

its hard to pass judgement on what was dharma 500/1000 years ago because noone today was alive themn to understand what exactly happened, how, what when...we only know because of the books we have and that would be our only resource...and if someone write their interpretation today ..who knows 1000 years later they may consider that to be the absolute truth

Edited by mysterieux - 12 years ago

Quote

bunnylovessunny

@bunnylovessunny

Voyager

+ 5

Posted: 12 years ago

#34

Originally posted by: dramacrazy12

@Red: I am curious why would you consider Duryodhana vile. He was arrogant, power-drunk but not vile. If you are refering to Cheer-haran episode then legally Duryodhana acted as he was allowed with a maid...it was sad that he forgot that the said maid was also his a respected member of his family. His actions were no more vile than that of one who staked his wife to begin with. If you are refering to his attempt to murder Bheem...I would call that as the act of an impressionable teenager incited by his wily uncle.

Duryodhana was the only one who risked standing up for Karna when he was being humiliated in the arena. I know that he did it for self interest but still he took a risk. Nothing in Mahabharat ever suggests that Duryodhana ever treated Karna disrespectfully despite his bloodline. In fact they managed to be close friends for most of their lives.

To be clear...I do not endorse any of Duryodhana's wrong-doings but I see all the characters in the story as grey...Kauravas were not epitome of evil as the text implies and Pandavas were not paragon of virtue.

Duryodhana is vile because he'll go to any extent to gain the throne. He tried to kill Bheem by poisoning him and has done many other adharmas as we put it! And I never stated that all the Pandavas are pure at heart. I only sided with Yudhishtir, because he really was a righteous person. And honestly, the arena scene in the show is a debatable one. And even if he did stand up for Karna, it was because he saw the kind of ability Karna's archery held. He saw a potential path to destroy Arjuna, the so called best archer in the world. So in short, it was because he was being selfish. And it was no risk for him, his blind father's blind faith in his son was what actually made him the man he turned out to be. Spoilt, Spiteful and Arrogant. So obviously it can't be tagged as 'taking risk' when Dhritrashtra swoons in delight even if his son sneezes!

Quote

Deepti

@Sweet_Krishna

Navigator

Posted: 12 years ago

#35

Originally posted by: mysterieux
dharma is duty...and duty is goverened by rules ...fulfilling it according to rules is right else its wrong. Black or white.

I do not agree. If fulfilling what is laid down in the rule book is dharma then Bheeshma , Drona and Karna were abiding by Dharma in fighting against Pandavas. Why then should we call Kurukshetra war as Dharmayuddha? Going by the logic above everyone was abiding by dharma.Dharma means only righteousness, your personal duties and obligations are a different thing. Yudhisthira understood it very well. He was free from malice, envy, jealousy, cruelty, vanity and arrogance.He had his senses perfectly in control except for two instances when he put his brothers and wife on stake and when he concealed the truth (he feigned ignorance) about Ashwatthama' death from his teacher. As a result of these two he suffered extreme hardships in the form of exile and he lost his progeny too in the war. Moreover, his chariot which would not touch the earth due to his extreme righteous behavior, came down on earth.

It is utmost difficult for normal humans like us to understand and adhere to dharma because the way is treacherous and needs your senses in control. Yudi was also known as Ajaatshatru ( one who has no enemies) due to his righteous conduct. His righteous conduct had malice for none and good for all.

Quote

mysterieux

@mysterieux

Rocker

+ 3

Posted: 12 years ago

#36

Originally posted by: Sweet_Krishna

I do not agree. If fulfilling what is laid down in the rule book is dharma then Bheeshma , Drona and Karna were abiding by Dharma in fighting against Pandavas. Why then should we call Kurukshetra war as Dharmayuddha? Going by the logic above everyone was abiding by dharma.Dharma means only righteousness, your personal duties and obligations are a different thing. Yudhisthira understood it very well. He was free from malice, envy, jealousy, cruelty, vanity and arrogance.He had his senses perfectly in control except for two instances when he put his brothers and wife on stake and when he concealed the truth (he feigned ignorance) about Ashwatthama' death from his teacher. As a result of these two he suffered extreme hardships in the form of exile and he lost his progeny too in the war. Moreover, his chariot which would not touch the earth due to his extreme righteous behavior, came down on earth.

It is utmost difficult for normal humans like us to understand and adhere to dharma because the way is treacherous and needs your senses in control. Yudi was also known as Ajaatshatru ( one who has no enemies) due to his righteous conduct. His righteous conduct had malice for none and good for all.

...my point is ...its very hard to debate dharma because although ageless its also influenced by time... we cannot speak of dharma solely in terms of mahabharat but if we talk of dharmyudh that was Mahabhart we can argue who fulfilled dharma and who did not and who faced what consequences...in Mahabhara Karna, Drona acted righteously but thats not equivalent to dharma...Bheeshma did what he did because of his duty ...he had pledged his life to the throne sacrificing all his hapiness and stood steadfast...Mahabharat was dharmyudh because it was a battle between two ideologies one side was jealously, greed and the other side was justice truth and fairness... ultimately because Pandavas stood for the right not because they wanted the kingdom..its Dharmayudh

Quote

413226

Suspended

Posted: 12 years ago

#37

Originally posted by: mysterieux

...my point is ...its very hard to debate dharma because although ageless its also influenced by time... we cannot speak of dharma solely in terms of mahabharat but if we talk of dharmyudh that was Mahabhart we can argue who fulfilled dharma and who did not and who faced what consequences...in Mahabhara Karna, Drona acted righteously but thats not equivalent to dharma...Bheeshma did what he did because of his duty ...he had pledged his life to the throne sacrificing all his hapiness and stood steadfast...Mahabharat was dharmyudh because it was a battle between two ideologies one side was jealously, greed and the other side was justice truth and fairness... ultimately because Pandavas stood for the right not because they wanted the kingdom..its Dharmayudh

What you are saying is that dharma changes with time

Dharma not the same as righteous behaviour

MB was dharma yudh as it was battle between ideologes

So would you say that dharma is not something constant nor about righteousness but about ideology?

Quote

413226

Suspended

Posted: 12 years ago

#38

Originally posted by: dramacrazy12

I would be very wary in letting society decide what is Dharma? Realistically speaking the norms in the society are set by powerful few who tend to twist the definitions to suit them. It has been true in every era and country. Dharma or the moral compass should stay consistent regardless of what is acceptable/unacceptable behavior in the society.

Pandava's shameful behavior towards their wife or Karna does not seem righteous from any perspective even though they were following the norms of the time.

Kaurvas were following the norms of time when they humiliated Draupadi in the courthall...they behaved with her as they would with a low caste maid...that does not make it righteous. Fact is Keechak also tried to pull off something similar with Draupadi in her Sairandhi avatar later because she was a lowly maid as did Dhri (forced Yuyutsu's mom) and even Ambika (when she sent Vidur's mother to Ved Vyas).

Sati, widow exploitation and child-marraige have all been accepted norms in society but they are not righteous acts.

Valid point! So can we say that our own conscience should serve as a guide to us as to our duty and priority rather than set of rules/norms handed down over time ?

Quote

mysterieux

@mysterieux

Rocker

+ 3

Posted: 12 years ago

#39

Originally posted by: peridot.

What you are saying is that dharma changes with time

Dharma not the same as righteous behaviour

MB was dharma yudh as it was battle between ideologes

So would you say that dharma is not something constant nor about righteousness but about ideology?

Its upkeep changes with time... ...during Sri Rama's time the world was more simplistic so Sri Rama's path of dharma was more straight...during Sri Krishna's time things were different and to upkeep dharma by simple rules would not have worked...he did what he had to do...in kalyug...the world is vastly different...dharma has not changed but following dharma is even more difficult... ...

Dhrama is duty...fullfilling karma ...fulling duty with righteous behaviour is ideal dharma...but even during mahabharat ...Sri Krishna told Arjun...that for the sake of dharma he has to lift the weapons against them...idealy they are his family dharma would forbid it but for the sake of greater dharma he had to fight them...

Ideologies is propbably not the right way to quote it as I have- Mahabharat was a battle between dharma and adharma

I will not say good and bad because everyone on Kauravas side were not bad ...mighty bheeshm was blameless but in the end he fought on the side that went to war for their greed, jealousy, desires and so he had to loose...because it was adharma.

Quote

daenerysnow

@daenerysnow

Inactive

Posted: 12 years ago

#40

Does Dharma exist in object out there in the world?, or is it a mode of being that we need to discover in ourselves? spiritually attuned to duty in the highest form, Dharma equates to spiritual duty, actions in the right. What is right action, how does it differ from wrong actions? The generalization of duty as encompassing duties as a worker, student, a brother, a son,. Those who question themselves on a daily basis about their actions.

Quote

1 2 3 4

What exactly is Dharma? - Page 4

Related Topics

Explore Topics