Dharma derives from the Sanskrit verb root ‘dhri’, which means to uphold, to support, to carry, to bear. The word Dharma thus literally means, ‘that which upholds’. What is it that Dharma upholds? Everything.
Dharma has both the descriptive and prescriptive aspects ti it. In the first sense, Dharma describes the ‘way things are’. It connotes the inherent order and harmony in the nature of all entities that constitute the cosmos. In the prescriptive sense, Dharma sets the standard for the ‘way things aught to be’. It portrays the ideas and ideals that should be aspired for. Implicit in this syncretisation of the descriptive and prescriptive senses of Dharma is the proposition that goodness, harmony, order, etc., are the essential quality or character of the phenomenal world, and evil, discord, chaos, etc., are aberrations.
Dharma, thus, encompasses the concepts described by the English words duty, law, religion, custom-tradition, conformity (to dharma), virtue, righteousness, morality, rule, authority, etc. Dharma, in its entirety, symbolises the positive aspects of the phenomenal world (the universe) since it is a reflection of the fact that the phenomenal world (the universe) derives from, is sourced out of and is grounded on Deity. Dharma, thus, is a manifestation, a symptom, of the immanence of Deity in all existence. Hence, it is Dharma which enables and ensures spiritual progress towards the attainment of the self’s spiritual goals.
In practical terms, Dharma operates on all levels from the microcosm of the individual to the macrocosm of all existence. For the individual, this manifests as conformity to social and ritual duties, to the traditional rules of conduct for one's caste, family, and profession. Such requirements constitute an individual's Dharma (law and duties), and are the part played by the individual in contributing to the broader stability, law, order, and fundamental equilibrium in the cosmos, in nature, and in society. The contextual nature of Dharma is apparent in the different scopes of applicability of the different, often overlapping, levels or layers of Dharma. The individual prescriptive Dharma is defined by its context with reference to the descriptive Dharmas pertaining to ever expanding levels of family, caste, society, nation, human-kind, all life and all existence. Traditional Hindu thought, thus propounds a relativistic outline of morality. The dos and don’ts of ethical conduct would differ for different individuals, under different circumstances, at different points of time.
Returning to the operative levels of Dharma; at the core lies ‘Svadharma’ – the essential quality, nature, character of the individual (‘Sva’ = oneself) and conformity to it. Individual identity is comprised of the ‘inborn nature’ (genes) as well as life experiences, cultural milieu and upbringing – the accretive sum of nature and nurture – that defines who a person is. Svadharma enjoins the individual to be a genuine person, to be true to himself – true to his identity. Hinduism’s rejection of proselytisation is founded in this idea of Svadharma. A person’s religion is defined by his Svadharma; it constitutes of his genes, his heritage, his culture and upbringing, and hence is inherently unchangeable. One can act differently from what one’s Dharma requires, but one CANNOT CHANGE one’s Dharma. Changing ones religion is tantamount to denying ones identity and acting in contradiction of ones nature – something which is not conducive to attaining ones spiritual goals. For this reason, Hinduism does not seek to win converts. No one who is not born to it can become a Hindu. Says the Bhagawat Geeta, “Verily, death itself, (if encountered) in (following) one’s Dharma is admirable; (following) the Dharma of another is fearsome (in terms of its consequences).”
Man is a social animal. The atomic unit of social organisation is the family. The most visible part of Dharma is the one that deals with the individual’s relation with his family and with society. This is level of ‘Varna-Ashrama Dharma’. Varna = colour, and it refers to the individual’s and his family/clan’s place, rank, or position in society, and the duties and professions incumbent upon them. In ancient Hindu society, a family’s profession and place in society was hereditary. For instance, Brahmin families were supposed to engage in education, officiating over rituals and interpreting the scriptures and families would follow these professions generation after generation. The much abused ‘caste system’ of Hinduism is a crude derivative of the Varna Dharma, and the exploitative customs and beliefs that became part of the caste system are examples of the ill-effects of enforcing a rigid dogma and hierarchy on the fluid and relativistic spirit of Varna Dharma. (More on the caste system in a separate entry as and when time permits.)
While Varna Dharma pertained to the hierarchy and ‘division of labour’ associated with social segmentation and occupational specialisation, the Ashrama Dharma laid down the duties, expectations and requirements of individuals in various stages of life. Traditionally, four stages of life were recognised. The first stage was the ‘brahmacharya ashrama’, the preparatory stage of life as a celibate student. This was the phase of life when the individual received an education. After completion of education, which included a period of apprenticeship in the hereditary profession, the individual usually got married and entered the phase of the householder, the ‘grihastha ashrama’. The prime duty of a person in this stage of life was to earn a living and help provide for and nurture the family. In practical terms this was the longest phase in the individual’s life. This long period of productive social life was followed by a phase of retirement known as ‘vanaprastha ashrama’ or the ‘forest-dweller’s phase’. In this phase the individual, after having fulfilled his duties and discharged his responsibilities in the householder phase, was expected to gradually withdraw from this active life and to devote time to spiritual quests. The fourth and final phase was the phase of renunciation, ‘sanyasa ashrama’ which was entered into after the previous contemplative stage had brought about a level of detachment from the material world, was the phase of dedicating ones life to attaining ones spiritual goals. In between them, a person’s Varna or position /profession in society and his ‘ashrama’ or stage of life together gave the complete ‘prescription’ for all the social activities, duties and obligations of the individual.
A level above Varnashrama Dharma is a kind of general ethical code called ‘sadharana dharma’ or ‘samanya dharma’. These are the common virtues that all individuals (irrespective of caste, gender or age) would need to persevere to inculcate. Several such virtues are enumerated in the scriptures pertaining to Dharma, the Dharma-shastras. Most such ‘lists’ include Non-violence (ahimsa), truth (satya), integrity (asteya), purity (saucha), control of the senses, (indriya-nigraha), perseverance (dhriti), forgiveness (kshama), self-control (dama), wisdom (dhi), learning (vidya), and absence of anger (akrodha). This over-arching set of virtues is perhaps the closest analogue Hinduism has to the Ten Commandments.
Rta, is Dharma at the highest level. It represents the cosmic laws and forces by which all things are maintained (upheld). Thus all entities, both animate and inanimate, operate according to the principles of the rta. Often interpreted as the universal truth, the concept of rta exists from the earliest Vedic period (possibly pre-dating the Vedic deities). In the Vedic era, it was believed that the correct performance of the rituals as described (and prescribed) in the Vedas was essential to maintain rta, failing which the cosmic order would collapse into chaos. However, towards the end of the Vedic period, by the time of the Upanishads, the emphasis had shifted from rituals. The idea of the Brahman envisioned the rta, as a manifestation of the Brahman, as sustained in itself. The word, rta, derives from the root verb ‘R’ which has two sets of meanings. It signifies, ‘to move’ and ‘through movement, to fit or to arrange’. Thus, the Vedic concept of rta has ordered activity, or organised movement as its basic element. As a manifestation of Brahman, rta is believed to be one of the primal constituents of the universe. rta sets the ‘ideal’ in place at the cosmic level, in reference to which the distinction between ‘is’ and ‘ought’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ assumes some meaning. rta thus implies that there is no caprice or disorder in the realm of morality; and in doing so rta becomes the seed of the doctrine of Karma. Thus rta is the totality of Dharma and anrta (non-rta) as its anti-thesis is adharma. However, the high degree of abstraction in the concept of rta makes it difficult to deduce practical moral dictates from it. This is where the axiomatic de-abstraction of the rta sequentially into sadharana Dharma, Varna-ashrama Dharma and Svadharma comes into play. However, the ‘mandate’ of upholding the universe means that Dharma has to extend beyond morality, to the entire sphere of human behaviour. This is where Dharma extends to embrace such prescriptive and descriptive ideas as duty, tradition, customs, law, virtue, righteousness, etc. Dharma is the ‘right way of living’, and the Hindu Dharma is the Hindu way of life.
You write
ReplyDelete"Individual identity is comprised of the ‘inborn nature’ (genes) as well as life experiences, cultural milieu and upbringing – the accretive sum of nature and nurture – that defines who a person is"
This debate is essentially western, it leaves out the third element stage of the individual in 'the karmic cycle'. I would like to know your view on that.
In my view, 'Dharma and genes' both are evoked by those who want to uphold their status based on birth.
As you claim..."one CANNOT CHANGE one’s Dharma. Changing ones religion is tantamount to denying ones identity and acting in contradiction of ones nature – something which is not conducive to attaining ones spiritual goals"
Could you explain a little about the spiritual goals...
My view is that people have been fooled for a long time by this facade of Dharma, Moksha etc. It is important to at least question the basis on which the 'real spirituality' could emerge.
I am a lay person, not versed at all with the ancient...and the ‘golden’...
Recently I had posted my view on the caste and spirituality on a blog post, I raised some questions on which I would like to know your view...
In spiritual sense, it is (the caste system) is a conception of society in which parts (the individual with specific role in particular birth) constitute the whole. These parts have been accorded value on the basis of how close one (individual) is in terms of achieving salvation or nirvana (release from the cycle of life and death or material life). Those who renounced worldly pleasures and devote themselves to knowledge were considered closest to achieve nirvana (they were grouped as Brahmins), to achieve nirvana, they needed life support system, it included protection and some one to govern others (those were called Kshatriyas, the warrior group) and someone to provide goods and material needs (those were called Vaishya, the traders) and labor that produce the food, material for consumption and entertainment (those were called the Shudras, the labor group).
The overarching goal of individual life was construed as Moksha (Nirvana or salvation from the bodily desires). The purity of the soul was seen critical to achieve the union (yoga) with the absolute (god). The soul could only be pure if all the bodily imperfections are removed, (as an analogy, it can be understood by considering software and hardware compatibility, i.e. to run advanced software one needs to upgrade the hardware to support it). This put emphasis on evolving ways and means to purify body, which was ritualistically reinterpreted as the notion of ‘purity and pollution,’
Essentially the spiritual meaning of society and individual path in the beginning got fossilized overtime by ritualistic means of maintaining social distance/ dominance among different jatis.
However, I will highlight one observation here.
It is the assumption that Moksha cannot be achieved in a single life time or birth. But it can be achieved in next life, if one strictly observes the ‘dharma’ in present life.
This has been the critical edifice on which caste system became fossilized from spiritual to ritualistic distance among different Jatis.
Now, let’s contrast this with the contemporary view of spirituality. We have a resurgence of gurus locating their knowledge in the ancient scriptures, yet claiming that the Moksha can be achieved in this single life itself. Whether Rajneesh, or Ravishankar, or many other. Moksha has become a commodity that can be bought now in the market or at least the possibility of ‘giving it a try’ does exist.
So what is the relation with caste system,? First it mirrors the original order of society. For example Rajneesh (Osho) opened its Ashram to those who had already achieved material prosperity forming a club of spirituality seekers was/ is thus formed (the modern day Brahmins), obviously those who are struggling to secure their material needs were out from it. For the lower Brahmans ….Baba Ramdev and Asaram bupuji type emerged, who emphasize more on the physical aspects of body (read rituals) to middle classes (castes)
However, the most interesting aspect of this democratization/ commodification of spirituality is –“that by offering Nirvana in a single life time, the very premise of caste is shaken”. But I have to still find someone who has begun to question this deceptive lie (of the past) or the contradiction (in present).
I’ll really appreciate if you can throw some light on this…
Can you please elaborate on how the definition of individual identity is essentially a western debate.
ReplyDeleteThe individual's 'stage' in the karmic cycle - per classical belief would add the element of 'samskaras' - latent tendencies that the person's sanchita has accrued to him. But I don't think these would contribute to defining a person's dharma - though they would, per classical theory, impact the person's ability to live his dharma to the best of his ability.
Perhaps, there are many who invoke 'Dharma' and 'genes' to uphold their status by birth - does this entry give you any reason to believe that to be the reason why they are mentioned in it?
Axiomatically, the summum bonum of spiritual endeavour is Moksha / Nirvana / kaivalya / salvation - the soteric destination as it were. 'Spiritual' goals in this context then are ones leading up to this end-point. These could be individually defined in terms of ones chosen spiritual method.
Can you elaborate on how you believe concepts like dharma & moksha are a facade and how would you define 'real spirituality'?
Interestingly, the idea of 'moksha' in this very life is not really a modern innovation. The concept of the 'jivan-mukta' had developed by at least the late classical period of Hinduism - one finds the concept mentioned in the works of Adi Shankara.
ReplyDeleteI would take the view, that caste, like any other basis of social stratification (with slavery as an extreme but obvious example) gets established for hard nosed down to earth economic reasons. The 'moksha' over many lives necessitating strict observance of caste based dharma would at best work as a post hoc explanation.
It is easy to observe that the 'low castes' were pinned down by their economic circumstances - instances of erstwhile 'low' castes and even foreigners getting 'upper caste' status as their economic clout increased are ample enough.
I have not so far come across references to the caste hierarchy as a barometer indicative of the closeness to nirvana.