Dharma is commonly expressed as “the eternal law of the cosmos, inherent in the very nature of things.” I have never quite understood the meaning of that statement but I find many Hindus in the social media, who, having taken this definition to heart, speak of protecting and spreading dharma as if it were some kind of an esoteric, mystical, ineffable, fabric-of-the-universe goodness that can lead us to a perfect society.
Therefore, based on my own study of the ancient Hindu texts in which, fortunately, I found dharma being discussed in far more sensible and logical terms, I tweeted the following recently –
Dharma is only a set of rules. To say that you want to live by dharma just means you want to live according to rules. That is not saying much since most people want that except for anarchists. What you need to explain is: which rules?
So if you say (1) Everyone should be treated equally. That is dharma.
Or if you say (2) The strong should rule and protect the weak. The weak should obey and respect the strong. That is also dharma.
These two dharmas are contradictory to each other but they are both dharmas for their respective adherents and the opposite is adharma. So there is no point in going dharma, dharma all the time.
Almost everybody upholds dharma in principle. “Which” dharma do you want to uphold? That is the question. Specify the rules by which you want society to be organised. That is the real challenge.
The general response I got for this thread was that it made an “interesting” point but dharma was “more” than just a set of rules. I found it disappointing but not surprising. The problem I find with such a view of dharma is that it permits one to avoid the challenge I mentioned in my twitter thread. In concerning oneself with dharma, one is not obliged then to address the vexing debate, say, between equality and hierarchy, or between left-wing and right-wing ideologies, and such like, as it can be claimed that these are Western notions and dharma is something more cosmic and fundamental than such matters.
In this post, I want to elaborate on the idea of dharma as a set of rules and contrast it with the modern Hindu conception of the term. I should point out that by “modern” I do not mean the deracinated, new-age, spirituality seekers. I am talking about Hindus who follow traditions but their understanding of dharma is at odds with the way the term appears to be used in the ancient texts.
In this post, I will explain the modern Hindu conception of dharma as I understand it, followed by the references in the ancient text which interpret dharma as a set of rules, and then the contrast between the two.
Modern Hindu Conception of Dharma
Fortunately, I came across a twitter thread by @yaajushi that sought to explain dharma as more than a set of a rules and though it is a series of tweets, I think it quite accurately sums up the modern Hindu conception of dharma. I paraphrase it here:
धारणाद् धर्म That which sustains, upholds, nourishes and nurtures is Dharma. It pervades the whole being of the person and is concerned with survival, continuity and sustenance. So the dharma of a mother is to take care of her baby, of the soldier is to fight, of the student is to learn and so on.
The binary rules of right/wrong, good/evil, come subsequently. Rules are superficial, constructed and applicable on the firm basis of dharma. The right and wrong of rules makes sense only on a dhārmika background. Even if these rules are stripped away, dharma will remain upholding/sustaining you from within.
After reading this thread, it became clear to me why modern Hindus would have a problem with the interpretation of dharma I gave. By reducing dharma to rules, I made it something external, worldly and imposed from without while the modern Hindu conception of dharma is that of something inherent, cosmic and arising from within. Dharma in the sense of upholding or sustenance is interpreted as referring to something that is natural and intrinsic to the person, which upholds/sustains the person, drives him to act and maintain himself.
Now, while it is true that there are some contexts in which the term ‘dharma’ is used in the sense of the fundamental quality of objects – the dharma of fire is to burn, the dharma of the lion is to hunt, and so on – such a meaning does not make any sense in the context of human societies. This should become evident from some of the important references to dharma found in ancient Indian texts which show that dharma is best understood as a set of rules aimed at governing human behaviour in society.
Manusmṛti
Commenting on verse 1.2 in which the sages ask Manu to expound the dharmas of the varṇas and āśramas, Medhātithi explains the term ‘dharma’ as follows:
धर्मशब्दः कर्तव्याकर्तव्योः विधिप्रतिषेधयोः अदृष्टार्थयोः तद्विषयायां च क्रियायां दृष्टप्रयोगः।
“The word dharma is found to be used in reference to the injunction of what should be done, the prohibition of what should not be done, both these bearing upon transcendental purposes and also action in accordance with the said injunctions and prohibitions.” (trans. Ganganath Jha)
तत्राष्टकाकरणं धर्मो ब्रह्महत्यादिवर्जनं च धर्मः अष्टकानामकरणमधर्मो ब्रह्महत्यायाश्च करणमधर्मः अयं धर्माधर्मयोर्विवेकः।
“The performance of aṣṭaka is a dharma as also is the avoidance of brāhmaṇa-murder. The non-performance of aṣṭaka is adharma as also is the performance of brāhmaṇa-murder. Such is the distinction between dharma and adharma as described in the scriptures.” (trans. Ganganath Jha)
Bhagavadgītā-bhāṣya of Ādi Śaṅkara
Ādi Śaṅkara’s commentary on the Bhagavadgītā begins as follows:
स भगवान्सृष्ट्वेदं जगत्तस्य च स्थितिं चिकीर्षुः मरीच्यादीनग्रे सृष्ट्वा प्रजापतीन्प्रवृत्तिलक्षणं धर्मं ग्राहयामास वेदोक्तम् ।
ततोऽन्यांश्च सनकसनंदनादीन् उत्पाद्य निवृत्तिलक्षणं धर्मं ज्ञानवैराग्यलक्षणं ग्राहयामास ।
“The god, having created the world, and desirous of its stability, created first the Prajāpatis, such as Marīci, and taught them the Vedic dharma characterised by pravṛtti (engagement).
Then, have produced others such as Sanaka and Sanandana, he taught them the dharma characterised by nivṛtti (disengagement) which is concerned with jñāna (knowledge) and vairāgya (renunciation).”
द्विविधो हि वेदोक्तो धर्मः प्रवृत्तिलक्षणो निवृत्तिलक्षणश्च जगतः स्थितिकारणम्। प्राणिनां साक्षादभ्युदयनिःश्रेयसहेतुर्यः स धर्मो ब्राह्मणाद्यैः वर्णिभिः आश्रमिभिः च श्रेयोऽर्थिभिः अनुष्ठीयमानः।
“The dharma expounded in the Vedas is two-fold: characterised by pravṛtti (engagement) and nivṛtti (disengagement). It is the basis of the world order. What is the visible cause of the अभ्युदय (worldly prosperity) and निःश्रेयस (ultimate good) of living beings is dharma. It is practised by the varṇas and āśramas beginning with the brāhmaṇa who are the seekers of श्रेयः (good, virtue).”
While dharmas are a set of injunctions and prohibitions according to Medhātithi, Ādi Śaṅkara suggests that there are two radically different kinds of dharmas meant for two completely different purposes, one for worldly prosperity and the other for the ultimate good, and they are to be practised by the two different kinds of peoples who seek these divergent goals, one interested in maintaining the world order i.e. householders, and the other for seekers of self-knowledge i.e. monks.
Mahābhārata
The phrase धारणाद् धर्म occurs in the following verse in the Mahābhārata and it does not mean at all what was given in the twitter thread paraphrased above:
धारणाद् धर्मं इत्याहुः धर्मो धारयते प्रजाः ।
यत् स्यात् धारणसंयुक्तं स धर्म इति निश्चयः ॥४.६९.५८॥
“The term ‘dharma’ arises from ‘upholding’. Dharma upholds the people. Whatever is concerned with upholding that is dharma for certain.”
This verse occurs in the context of two stories, one in which Balāka, a hunter, commits a virtuous act by killing a blind creature, and the other in which Kauśika, a sage, commits a sinful act by telling the truth. The point is that dharma is not merely abstention from killing or telling the truth. It is about doing what leads to the good of the people; that is what धर्मो धारयते प्रजाः means and sometimes this can involve killing and lying. That is also why dharma is regarded as sūkṣma (subtle) because it is very difficult to determine at a given moment what will lead to the good of the people – truth or falsehood, killing or non-violence.
Another verse in the same context declares that some determine dharma by use of tarka (logic) and others by śruti (scripture). Both of these sources – reason and revelation – are fine but the important thing about dharma is that it is not something that is “given” by the nature of the thing. Ultimately, it is whatever that leads to the well-being of society and this can only be achieved by determining and upholding the proper rules by which society is organised.
In these two stories both the characters are following their nature. The nature of the hunter is to hunt but his killing of the blind animal did not become a dharmic act for that reason. The blind animal had received a boon that it would be able to kill all creatures and that is why its killing became an act of dharma. In the same way, the nature of the sage is to speak the truth but in this case by acting in accordance with his nature, he acted contrary to dharma.
Manusmṛti (Again)
Let us also consider that oft-quoted phrase on dharma – धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः। The full verse is:
धर्म एव हतो हन्ति धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः। तस्माद्धर्मो न हन्तव्यो मा नो धर्मो हतो वधीत् ॥८.१५॥
“Justice, blighted, blights and justice, preserved, preserves. Hence, justice should not be blighted lest blighted justice blights us.” (trans. Ganganath Jha)
This verse occurs in the eight adhyāya, which deals with the setting up of the civil and criminal justice system. Having explained the process of setting it up, the text advises that witnesses should speak truthfully and the investigation of the cases should be carried out with integrity. It is in this context of the proper discharge of its duty by the judiciary and not with regards to any cosmic law that Manu reminds his readers that धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः।
Hitopadeśa
As a final example, here is a verse from the Hitopadeśa that nicely brings out the idea that dharma is not something that just springs forth from the nature of being:
आहारनिद्राभयमैथुनञ्च सामान्यमेतत् पशुभिः नराणाम् ।
धर्मो हि तेषामधिको विशेषो धर्मेण विना पशुभिः समानाः ॥
Here dharma is understood as a quality that is uniquely human, not something shared with the animals such that without dharma, humans are reduced to the state of animals. This difference lies in the fact that humans act out of a sense of obligation and not just in response to their nature. These obligations are precisely the dharmas, the rules that become imposed upon us and bear an oblique relation to our natures.
Comparing ancient and modern conceptions of dharma
What becomes evident from the texts I have quoted above is that dharma was understood in ancient India most significantly as a set of rules by which society was to be organised so as to bring about the welfare of those living in it. I don’t think modern Hindus deny this conception in its totality. What they insist upon, however, is that the set of rules is grounded in something called as “the eternal law of the cosmos, inherent in the very nature of things”. This foundation together with the rules are what constitute dharma in their view: the rules can change while the foundation is eternal.
While I have alluded to the ancient texts to justify my interpretation of dharma as essentially a set of rules, my disagreement with the modern Hindu conception of dharma is not a philosophical one. Rather, my argument is a practical one. More than logically unsound though precisely for that reason, the modern Hindu conception of dharma is completely hopeless and leaves us woefully inadequate to deal with the pressing issues of our times.
For all this spiel of dharma as the all-pervasive foundation of being that exists like gravity, whether we believe in it or not, the reality is that we are all of us born into rule-based societies and our daily lives are shaped by these rules. Now it so happens that in our times the rules that govern the Hindus happen to be based on Western liberal philosophy. And so, while we may reflect and talk about this all-pervasive dharma, we are, in reality, pervaded by these rules.
This grand vision of dharma permits us to employ such phrases as the dharmic perspective or the dharmic gaze or the dharmic awakening and so on but none of that leads to an examination of the rules that are shaping our world but rather into talking about some kind of spiritual realisation and universal religion.
When this is pointed out, the Hindus warn us that only deracinated cucks, pwned by Protestant memes, jump directly to this path of adhyātma. The smart ones know that adhibhūta must come first, then adhidaiva and then adhyātma. One would assume that at least those who think in this manner would be interested in confronting the worldly rules that govern mundane life. But that is not so. The adhibhūta refers to the customs and practical conduct that is recommended by the traditions. Inasmuch as it is threatened by the dominant framework of rules, it is defended using the knowledge from the tradition but the hegemony of the framework is itself never challenged and it cannot be challenged because it forms the very ground on which the Hindus articulate their discourse on dharma.
The rules which today shape the lives of Hindus are derived from Western political arrangements and Western institutions established in India. These are the pravṛtti dharmas of our time and we should judge them by that standard i.e. will they lead to the stability and prosperity of our society? If they do, then let us recognise them as pravṛtti dharmas and make our peace with them. If they do not, then we need to expose their limitations and seek to amend them.
But these rules are not recognised as pravṛtti dharmas because they are foreign imports arising from Western philosophy and religion, and not from the nivṛtti dharma of ādhyātmika realisation which is native to India. And so we find ourselves in this bizarre situation where we have, on the one hand, all these rules which frame our lives and, on the other hand, a discourse on dharma that is utterly tangential to it.
The root of the problem, in my view, lies in the holistic conception of dharma itself, as consisting of pravṛtti dharma based on nivṛtti dharma. As the tweet by @yaajushi put it: “The rules are constructed and applicable on the firm basis of dharma.” In this statement, as I see it, “the rules” refers to pravṛtti dharma and the “dharma” which is to serve as “the firm basis” is nivṛtti dharma. Or as another tweet, by a different person, put it even more clearly: to realise dharma one needs to awaken to the ātman and “pravṛtti dharma emerges from the soil of the nivṛtti dharma; they are not really separate.” In the ancient view, on the other hand, pravṛtti and nivṛtti dharmas were separate, even contradictory to each other.
It appears to me that by conceiving this holistic notion of dharma, we have completely lost the plot. We are no longer able to recognise pravṛtti dharmas when they are staring at us in the face and we deceive ourselves into imagining nivṛtti dharma as some some kind of an esoteric, mystical, ineffable, fabric-of-the-universe object that can serve as the foundation for all the rules.
This is exactly the reverse of what Ādi Śaṅkara has said. As evident from the passage above, the god who created the world desired its stability and so he created the Prajāpatis and taught them the dharma for this purpose. Dharma was not an intrinsic feature of the world. Dharma had to be externally given by the creator and then it became a foundation for the stability of the world.
Dharma is not some inherent sustaining power that determines the proper conduct for human beings living in a society. To say that it is the dharma of a soldier to fight is a meaningless statement. The fact that a man is a soldier does not tell us when he should fight, how he should fight, whether he should fight in a particular situation – issues that are central to the dharma of fighting.
For example, a question of dharma would be: should a soldier fire at a stone-pelting civilian? To make his soldier-hood a dhārmika foundation for proper conduct would be like saying: “Well, it is the dharma of a soldier to fight, so he should fire.” That is not a proper answer. It is like reducing the soldier to the status of an animal, like saying: you know, he is a dog so he will bite.
It is true that nature constrain and shapes us but nature cannot be the legitimising factor. One cannot say one fights because one is a soldier. One is required to justify the exercise of violence over and above one’s identity as a soldier by showing how the fighting is for the good of society. Then, and only then, does it become dhārmika.
Therefore, it makes no sense to talk about rising and fighting for dharma in itself unless the world has fallen into chaos and disorder. But for as long as one admits that one is already living in a stable and ordered society, organised around a set of rules, then a certain type of dharma is already established as such. If one thinks that the current rules will not lead to the good of society then one must seek to amend them or specify an alternate set of rules i.e. a different type of dharma. I do realise that such a conception of dharma reduces it to mere vyavahāra (practical affairs) and this, I think, is what may bother some people. But dharma is ultimately vyavahāra and I will elaborate on that idea in the next post.
Marvellous, boy o! Keep going. Give the Indians a good shellacking. That is what they need and that is what they shall get.
LikeLike
I understand the criticism about present day usage of the concept dharma. As you rightly point out, it is indeed very loose and unproductive. But I did not get the idea of dharma as rules equally clearly. Here is my problem: if dharma is sukshma, then, it implies that it is something that has to be discovered and not something readily available. Interestingly, whenever the term is used, the focus is not on following a set of rules but on understanding what is the right rule to follow. Even ordinary usage, I feel, tracks this pretty consistently. Would this addendum change anything in your claim?
LikeLike
It is readily available through reason and revelation. Both are available to human beings. Ashay has outlined the two kinds of dharma available to us, that of equality and hierarchy. The formal rules of modern India are based on the former whereas Indians naturally gravitate towards the latter. The contradiction between form and substance is causing chaos. Ashay would probably like us to chose either equality or hierarchy so that we can get on with our lives without contradiction and confusion. If you want a good exposition of hierarchical dharma, read ancient Indian vyavaharic texts. If you want a good exposition of equality dharma read modern Western texts. It is that simple. Make a decision and stick by it.
LikeLike
Thanks John. You have succinctly put what I am trying to say. Such understanding is always heart-warming to the writer.
The ancient Indian texts seek to build a decent society on social hierarchy, political despotism and kinship communities. These ancient processes have not utterly collapsed in India because the Indian entry into modernity was sudden and forced by colonial circumstances. They have become corrupted, however.
Post independence, Indians have a choice either to resurrect those ancient processes and make them functional again. Or embrace the modern values of social equality, political liberty and economic independence, which are contrary to them and try to make them work.
As you said, the former would require a proper study of the socio-political thought in the sastras while the latter would require the study of the history of the various strains of Western socio-political thought from Renaissance onwards.
But what we are doing is most bizarre. I don’t think we are interested in discussing any socio-political thought systematically and critically. We are just preserving whatever traditions we can and doing whatever necessary to survive in the modernity in which we find ourselves and we have invented this fetish of a holistic, cosmic dharma so that as we helplessly watch everything changing about us irrespective of our will, there is yet something eternal and immutable to which we can cling in order to maintain a sense of continuity.
Please tell more about yourself, your blog, twitter, facebook etc.
LikeLike
Thanks for your response Ashwin. John has already answered your query and I agree with what he is saying.
All I’d add is ‘dharma is suksma’ means dharma is not immediately obvious and cannot be reduced to simplistic principles like ‘One should never kill’ or ‘One should always speak the truth’. Sometimes one needs to kill and speak a lie otherwise an even worse evil results.
For example, if you take the recent tying up of the Kashmiri to a military jeep, we would not ordinarily commend such actions. But in the circumstances, we regard it as a dharmic act. On the other hand, those who make blanket claims like ‘It is wrong to use civilians as military shield’ do not realise that dharma is suksma.
LikeLike
“All I’d add is ‘dharma is suksma’ means dharma is not immediately obvious and cannot be reduced to simplistic principles like ‘One should never kill’ or ‘One should always speak the truth’. Sometimes one needs to kill and speak a lie otherwise an even worse evil results.”
— So dharma is not simply a set of rules. One cannot specify when one needs to kill or when it is ok to speak a lie in a set of rules.
On some other points – E.g., the “laws of nature” – say those of physics – are in operation regardless of human knowledge of them; one could conceive that the gods have to teach humans the laws of nature. It tells us nothing about the laws of nature or dharma that the gods had to teach us about them, it only says something about the state of human knowledge or how humans might hope to acquire knowledge.
I generally agree that the topic of dharma needs to be discussed carefully, and you’ve made a start. But then again, e.g., the way I’ve heard it is that “soldiers must follow soldier dharma” which is different from “mother’s dharma” and so on. In your terms, this is a recognition that the set of rules of is different. What those rules are is not specified at this level of discourse. “The duty of soldiers is to fight” is perhaps a popular corruption of this.
LikeLike
In every Indian who tends to feel and show-off his pride for being an Indian , there is an inner urge to get these titles : “most advanced civilization”, “most universal”, “most scientific traditions”, “most inclusive – even atheists were respected – religion” and so on.
If I were to tell such a proud Indian, ours was a “most common sense, practical, non-universal, down-to-earth” kind of tradition – suddenly he feels a paining sensation in his heart region. Something that he believed as universal, is now being attacked, being termed “local”. This is the biggest insult on our glorious tradition. Such a pained person would even be ready to attack me, even physically, for the insult i hurled upon Mother India.
Ask him elementary questions – regarding his firsthand study of India’s scriptures and commentaries on them – i’m sure there won’t be a positive response. People know Adi Shankara – but haven’t even read and understood “bhaja govindam…” (moha mudgara). But we can be sure to expect that such people would show no hesitation in using such terms as dharma, satya, etc etc… (Isn’t this why Krishna said: prajnaa vaadaanscha bhaashase?!)
Many thanks and eagerly awaiting your next parts, Ashay ji.
Thanks,
Dwaraka
LikeLike
Thanks for your response, Dwarkanath. Modern Hindu thought has always baffled me. It was only when I started reading ancient text just for the sake of studying the Sanskrit language that I realised that the ancients spoke logically and practically as opposed to the woolly-headed stuff the moderns typically say.
LikeLike
Please provide the verse that says dharma is established by tarka or shruti.
The paragraph on adhidaiva, adhibhuta and adhyatma wasn’t clear.
LikeLike
Fortunately, that document was still open on my machine on that very page as if awaiting this requesting 🙂
दुष्करं परमं ज्ञानं तर्केणानुव्यवस्यति ।
श्रुतेर्धर्म इति ह्येके वदन्ति बहवो जनाः ॥४.६५.५५॥
तत् ते न प्रत्यसूयामि न च सर्वं विधीयते ।
प्रभवार्थाय भूतानां धर्मवचनं कृतम् ॥४.६५.५६॥
The overall point Krishna is making to Arjuna (not in the Gita) I think is that dharma is regarded by some as being established by logic and by others from shruti. I don’t disagree with either but not everything can be laid down i.e. you need to figure out what is proper depending on the situation. The point is whatever leads to the well-being of people that is dharma.
LikeLike
Thanks.
LikeLike
Re adhidhaiva, etc. I came across a tweet that said Hindus must attend to adhibuta before adhyatma and I read that as expressing in another the point that we must attend to pravrtti dharma before nivrtti dharma.
LikeLike
Okay.
LikeLike
Which modern dedicated Hindu (however wooly headed in Akshay’s opinion) would not affirm any of the the following propositions 1) we are living in a world created by the West 2) We need to think carefully through what works and what does not 3) and if we do #2, we uphold Dharma, indeed increase it.
I was one of the people who too exception to Akshay’s characterization as a set of rules. I still do. There is strongly a sense of Dharma as “cosmic law”, something built into the universe, that protects, but can wax and wane. A friend of mine speculated in whimsical manner that perhaps one day we might discover “Dharmions”, particles that mediate Dharma. And arguably, this notion is even more explicitly spelt out in Buddhism.
So many phrases that are in our mind do not make sense otherwise ?
1) “DharmaKshetre Kurushetre”
2) Kishkinda Kaanda Sarga 64.51/52. http://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/aranya/sarga64/aranya_64_frame.htm
3 Athatho Dharma Jigyaasa from Jaimini Sutra. (and the answer to that in the Sutra is in line with what you are saying i.e That which is indicated by the Vedas is Dharma)
4 Dharma as a Purushaarth
Thus, There is no contradiction in saying that the rules that we live by are not conducive to Dharma, and that we need to think carefully about these. These rules that we come up with support or weaken Dharma
The rules are the means to an end. We Hindus hunger for that end (Dharma), you emphasize the means (somewhat redundantly, imo)
LikeLike
Thanks Shiva for the response. This idea of a cosmic dharma that waxes and wanes does not make logical sense. By cosmic, I assume you mean something that is ultimate, eternal and immutable. How can such a thing wax and wane?
The lament न धर्मः त्रायते सीतां arises from the sad realisation that right actions do not save us from calamity as expected of them. These right actions are the dharma.
How can dharma be the end? Either अभ्युदय or निःश्रेयस is the end. Dharma is only the हेतु or साधन for these ends. And I think that निःश्रेयस is what you are looking for, in which case I think Dharma is the proverbial raft that must be left behind.
LikeLike
Dharma is a cosmic but not immutable. It waxes and wanes , and thus Krishna’s promise (“whenever Dharma wanes”
As for Dharma not being the absolute end: who can disagree? That well known shloka about giving up all dharmas and finding refuge in me
I do not think you have properly addressed the Ramayan shloka. The straightforward reading is what is most commentaries and translations. CR’s english translation has the same meaning as “some cosmic principle not saving Seeta”.
Again- sorry, this is much ado over nothing. This is drawing a sharp binary between means (your rules) and ends (a cosmic sense of order).
There is no mention of the word Rta in this article. You may want to check that out.
I do not think you have proved your case at all. Dharma is a overloaded term and it means all of these: order, essential nature, set of rules. They go to together. I think the much derided modern Hindu, while he can certainly improve his knowledge, has reasonable intuitive sense for what is meant
LikeLike
Very thoughtful & thought-provoking post!
I have read that there are two aspects to Dharma- the personal one which can be said to be, as mentioned here, rules according to which individuals lead their personal lives.
Second is the social aspect, rules/ customs/ duties which bind individuals together as a society in a beneficial way.
Looking forward to your next post…..
LikeLike
Thanks Manju. I am not aware of these two aspects of dharma. I am doubtful if a personal/social distinction existed in ancient India. I assume private/public distinction arises in modernity.
However, when the ancient texts refer to two aspects of dharma it is for worldly householders and for monks who have renounced the world.
LikeLike
Yes, the personal- social distinction, may be a modern concept, as you say.
LikeLike
Your article is like saying
1 What moderns mean by Love is “selecting a good box of choclates”
2. What moderns mean by Ethics is “picking up dog poop”
But no, by these terms, moderns mean much more than these, even a long list of these. They are just the means to uphold that thing that defies definition
LikeLike
Actually instead of you and I cherry-picking our favorite examples, and asking a bunch of random strangers to comment (those same moderns whose ignorance you correctly deride)- why don’t you and I have the humility to seek out more learned people, get their opinions, and then write? Perhaps DIY does not work on something as important as this
LikeLike
Good post.
A couple of comments. One of the aspects that prompts comments like Dharma being woven in the fabric of human existence may be due to some empirical evidence. When idea-complexes like vegetarianism become popular even in prosperous societies like California(i.e. not prompted by scarcity), or reincarnation and ascendendance in next life in mormonism or polytheism rises in the threads of a monetheistic religion like the saints in catholicism and sufi practices. The latter can be explained by direct influence, but the former?
I agree with your contention that we have to decide which Dharma we want to go with. Unfortunately whenever we deviate from equality, there is a very high bar on those who want to be declared superior. Unfortunately, in a world as rapidly changing as ours, its very difficult to assert with the kind of authority that was possible earlier. There is definitely no sarvajna in today’s world, the nature of knowledge being what it is.
LikeLike
One of the few good works that has addressed this conundrum of Dharma is by Swami Ranganathanandaji. I refer to his great work “Eternal Values for a Changing Society”. This addresses exactly the same question that you are attempting here in detail. Some of these are clarified for the lay minds.
LikeLike