Social dharma and soul-killing greed

Dharmic Symbiosis

by Michael Dolan/B.V. Mahayogi

Despite their differences in theology, we have seen In practical terms there is little distinction between the ethics of Buddha and that of Manu. They may be derived from different world-views, but they converge in important ways: Both systems promote certain core values: nonviolence, charity, truthful speech, and a clean and honest livelihood. The symbiosis at work between Manu’s law and Buddha’s eightfold path has given Eastern philosophy a consensus about the basic laws of human ethics--long before Christianity.

From the most ancient laws of the Vedic period to the time of Buddha five hundred years before Christ, certain traditional ethics of dharma were in wide acceptance: especially nonviolence, charity, duty, and truthful speech. The ideals of simple living and high thinking are values that are still cherished above market capitalism and exploitation.

Since time immemorial, Eastern philosophy then has valued being mindful while living a purposeful life in harmony with society and spirituality.

Dharma as Divine Love

While Buddha’s dharma focuses on individual enlightenment through personal practice, the more ancient Hindu dharma seems to focus more on one’s role in society. But this is only a superficial reading of Manu.

Manu understands that social duty is only one component in the human condition. All must struggle to survive. As we have some duty to society, society itself is responsible for its members. As the body politic, we need to feed the stomach, but the stomach also has to nourish the rest of the body. However our qualities and work involve us in a given group, whatever our contribution to the group may be, the group itself should correspond. Even more so than other species, humans are social. One who does due diligence in society will be rewarded and maintained by that society.

In the social doctrine of Manu, duty or dharma should lead to artha, sustenance, security, and even prosperity. Material prosperity or artha was never the highest value in a Vedic society, as it is today.

Manu understood prosperity an aspect of the human condition, one that had to be reckoned with. In modern life it is everything. In our 21st century globalized economy we are made to feel that every human transaction must have a monetary value, and must lead to prosperity.

Activities that are not monetized are questioned as valueless.  Oscar Wilde pointed out that “A cynic knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.” Human values have been flattened by the demand to monetize every transaction. Why take the time to make real friends when we can have virtual friends on Facebook? And yet the purpose of companies like Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, Google, Apple, and Amazon is not to produce goods and services, but to transform the inner life of the mind into a product, to put a price on everything while flattening human values. So, in the internet age where where all information is for sale, we have all become cynics. https://www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_we_re_building_a_dystopia_just_to_make_people_click_on_ads

For Manu, where dharma was properly performed there would naturally be artha or prosperity. One flowed from the other as naturally as a mountain stream flows to the river. Security and prosperity for one’s family would be guaranteed as long as one followed one’s social duty. Our modern society sees no need for dharma in the traditional sense. Dharma is fine as a kind of patriotic spark to be fanned into flames in election years. Dharma is useful as a religious sense to keep the citizens in check. Voltaire argued that if God did not exist we would have to invent Him. In his “Social Contract” Rousseau argued the need for “civic religion” as a public profession of faith that aims to inculcate political values and that prescribes dogma, rites, and rituals for citizens of a particular country. One might argue that in over-heated capitalist countries this is the only kind of dharma that remains: allegiance to church, political party, nationality, and racial identity form a social “religion” that acts as glue to hold a nation together.

We criticize Manu’s view of dharma as being “backwards” since thousands of years after its formulation its practice has been perverted. His honest look at how we fit into society has been turned on its head. Instead of serving to liberate us from social stereotyping and allowing us to work according to our qualifications, India’s caste system pigeonholes people from birth and forces them to serve as cogs in an inhuman machine. But India is not the only place where the abuse of dharma goes on.

Administrators of civic religion everywhere are unconcerned with the idea of dharma as a noble duty leading to prosperity and security. Rather than offering opportunity based on qualities, regardless of race, color, or gender, the machine runs on algorithms calculated to serve the rich and powerful through racism, sexism, and social discrimination.

The system which disregards dharma as a spiritual principle recognizes only artha or prosperity as a value. But this soul-killing materialism has had disastrous results.

Dharma en la Sociedad

Manu y el Varnāśrama-dharma

Por Michael Dolan, B.V. Mahayogi,  traducido por Teresa Loret de Mola, Tapanandini

Buda explica el dharma en términos de “práctica”.  Su dharma es la práctica que sostiene la senda de la iluminación. El marco de referencia budista se usa a menudo cuando se discute el dharma. El budismo fue una reacción en contra de una clase sacerdotal corrompida la cual ejercía el control sobre muchos aspectos de la vida cotidiana. Su dharma era la respuesta a una visión anticuada y bien establecida del dharma.

El antiguo período Védico en India vio el surgimiento y caída de reyes en un área cercana al día de hoy a Nueva Delhi. La guerra del Mahābharata se peleó en Kurukṣetra, cerca a Hastinapura, la Ciudad de los Elefantes. Las antiguas escrituras del dharma fueron escritas mucho antes del choque entre los reyes. El concepto Védico de dharma se basa en la visión del mundo hallada en los vedas y los Upaniṣads y codificada como ley en el Manu-Smriti.

Las Leyes de Manu consisten en cerca de 2700 versos sánscritos acerca del dharma de las distintas clases sociales. Los estudiosos occidentales creen sinceramente que viven en una sociedad sin clases, han desdeñado el llamado sistema de “castas” de la India por generaciones. Ha sido visto como la raíz de todo mal del subcontinente Indio. Los excesos de sistema de “castas”  ha conducido hacia un completo  rechazo del pensamiento Indio como “supersticioso”. Esta es una de las razones por las cuales Buda pareciera haber ganado el debate acerca del significado del dharma.

Pero Manu define la idea de dharma de forma muy distinta a la que lo hace Buda. Para Manu, el propio dharma tiene que ver con el sitio propio en la sociedad. Halla que el deber de cada uno en la vida es hallar su función social. Pecado y piedad no son absolutos en su visión, sino que están atados a qué tan bien uno realiza su deber. Los valores éticos no son absolutos de acuerdo a Manu. El deber propio en una sociedad determinará el comportamiento ético adecuado de acuerdo a su “ley”. Manu quiere decir “humano” Así que la “ley de Manu” es otra forma de decir “ley humana”,

Manu ubica las distintas clases sociales, de acuerdo a las cualidades personales y el trabajo. Cada clase social tendrá un dharma distinto. Aquí, dharma significa “práctica”, pero también “características”. La práctica característica de una clase social determinada define su deber hacia la sociedad.

Hay una antigua historia hallada en los Puranas acerca de las partes del cuerpo y del estómago. Un día, al ver cómo el estómago estaba disfrutando un banquete delicioso, la mano objetó. “Yo trabajo tan duro para que tú puedas comer”, dijo la mano. “Esto es injusto”. Las piernas siguieron a las manos. “Es cierto, yo camino todo el día para que las manos puedan trabajar. Mientras nosotros trabajamos, tu comes. Ya tuvimos suficiente”. Y así, las diferentes partes del cuerpo iniciaron una huelga: los brazos, las piernas, el cerebro y demás. Finalmente el estómago señaló: “Es verdad que ustedes reúnen el alimento para que yo pueda digerirlo. Pero yo les doy fuerza a todos ustedes. Tenemos que trabajar juntos o pereceremos”. De acuerdo a Manu, las distintas partes del cuerpo político están destinadas a trabajar juntas en una sociedad armónica. Puesto que cada miembro de la sociedad, de acuerdo a sus cualidades y trabajo tiene una particular contribución que hacer, Esta idea de Manu del dharma está relacionada a la sociedad.

El sistema que él consagra en el Manu-Smriti, es entonces llamado varnāśrama-dharma o deber dhármico pues se realiza en la sociedad de acuerdo al propio dharma social. Buda basa su sistema ético y visión del dharma en la idea de que podemos evitar el sufrimiento deshaciéndonos del ego. El propio dharma o deber, de acuerdo a Buda es reducir el sufrimiento, aceptar un sistema saludable de vida y un medio de vida basado en la no violencia.

Manu halla que hay roles básicos en la sociedad: intelectuales, líderes, mercaderes y obreros. Cada uno tiene subdivisiones. Y cada clase social tiene sus propias prioridades, valores y ética.

Mientras que los maestros valoran la educación, un buen obrero valora la práctica y la producción por encima de desarrollo de la ideas. El poeta visionario William Blake señala que la misma ley pare el león y el cordero es una tiranía. Todos tienen un conjunto de cualidades. Es injusto y arbitrario forzar un estándar de deber para todos. Así que la “ley” de Manu es flexible. Recomienda diferentes maneras de lidiar con situaciones en el interior de la sociedad- una serpenteante escala de éticas, leyes morales, crimen y castigo- basado en las cualidades relativas de los individuos en la sociedad. Su versión de deber significa diferentes estándares de excelencia y logro de acuerdo a la propia habilidad. La degradación India del llamado “sistema de castas” frecuentemente ha sido ridiculizado por su rigidez y carencia de movimiento social. Pero el análisis de Manu es cierto. Cada tipo dharmico, intelectual, líder, comerciante o artesano nutre a la sociedad del mismo modo que cada parte del cuerpo ofrece algo al estómago y el estómago proporciona energía a los miembros del cuerpo. Manu encuentra que la sociedad está en armonía cuando los diferentes tipos dharmicos cumplen sus deberes con integridad. Cuando cada miembro de la sociedad es aceptado y alentado. Cuando algunos miembros de la sociedad no están sincronizados con el dharma, hay tiranía. Cuando el poder y el privilegio son mal utilizados, el sistema se rompe. India es criticada frecuentemente por su sistema de castas. Buda fue el primer reformador poderoso del sistema Indio. Pero India no está sola. Améridca está orgullosa de su sistema de clases. Pero el inhumano sistema mercantil permite que el 1% de la población posea y controle la mayoría de la riqueza. Mientras que, la discriminación despiadada y el racismo evita la movilidad de la sociedad- encerrando a la gente en generaciones de pobreza a pesar de los pocos individuos que ganan la lotería del “Sueño Americano”. La promesa de democracia ha quedado incumplida conforme se corrompen los sistemas por el materialismo que ejercen los vulgares billonarios de la Casa Blanca mientras deportan inmigrantes y encarcelan a las minorías. India está difícilmente sola en la división del abuso social. La Era Védica valora a los pensadores espirituales como Vyāsa.  La edad de oro de Platón y Sócrates valora a los reyes filósofos. Los tiempos medievales valoran a los reyes nobles. Vyāsa profetiza la Era de Hierro de Kalī, como el invierno del alma. Nuestro tiempo es gobernado por los dólares, la diplomacia, el despotismo. El materialismo ha permitido a la clase mercantil definir  al dinero como nuestro valor dominante. Al igual que las enseñanzas de Buda, las Leyes de Manu son idealistas. Si Buda promueve el ideal humano, Manu promueve el ideal social. La visión de Manu acerca del dharma puede no haber funcionado tan bien como la visualizó, como tampoco ha funcionado la democracia Jeffersoniana. Y sin embargo, sus puntos de vista acerca del dharma son importantes. Él es la autoridad estándar sobre el varnāśrama-dharma, los conceptos sociales y éticos  de dharma hallados en el Mahābharata de Vyāsa. Hemos intentado explicar que Vyāsa promueve la idea de dharma en el Mahābharata y que su visión del dharma es compleja. Si Buda establece el dharma como la práctica que lo libera a uno del sufrimiento y Manu basa su dharma en el deber del cuerpo político, Vyāsa introduce el elemento trascendental. El Dharma es el deber hacia el interés de nuestro ser eterno y trascendental. De acuerdo con Vyāsa, el dharma último ha de ser teísta. El centro de la enseñanza de Vyāsa acerca del dharma se halla en las palabras de Kṛṣṇa en el Bhagavad-Gīta. Cuando Arjuna tiene objeciones acerca de la pelea, y hace referencia al dharma, Kṛṣṇa explica catur-varnyam maya srstam guna-karma-vibhagasah “De acuerdo a las tres modalidades de la naturaleza material y el trabajo adscrito a ellas, las cuatro divisiones de la sociedad humana fueron creadas por Mí”. (B.G: 4.13) El propio Dios ha creado el sistema social. Cualquier concepto de “deber “  entonces, tiene por ello tomar a Dios en consideración. El dharma carente de Dios no es dharma en lo absoluto. Al final, el verdadero dharma es la rendición ante Dios, más allá de todas las consideraciones sociales.  Y así al concluir el Bhagavad-Gitaa, Kṛṣṇa dice: sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja "Renuncia a todas las demás ideas sobre dharma. Ríndete a Mí. "(B.G.18.66) Mientras que a lo largo de millones de palabras en el Mahābhārata el dharma se busca y se promueve, rendirse a Dios, Krishna, es el ideal más elevado del dharma perseguido por Vyāsa.

Manu and Varnashrama Dharma

Different ideas of Dharma:

Buddha, Manu, and Vyāsa

Buddha explains dharma in terms of “practice.” His dharma is the practice that sustains one on the path to enlightenment. This Buddhist frame of reference is often used when discussing dharma. Buddha was reacting against a corrupt the priestly class who exercised control over many aspects of daily life. His dharma was an answer to an old, well-established view on dharma.

The ancient Vedic period in India saw the rise and fall of kings in an area near present day New Delhi. The Mahābhārata war was fought at Kurukshetra, near Hastinapura, the City of the Elephants. The ancient dharma scriptures had been written long before the clash of kings. The Vedic concept of dharma is based on the spiritual worldview found in the Vedas and Upanishads and encoded as law in the Manu-Smriti.

The Laws of Manu consist of some 2700 Sanskrit verses on the dharma of different social classes. Western scholars, believing sincerely that they live in a classless society have disdained the so-called “caste” system of India for generations. It has been seen as the root of all evil on the Indian subcontinent. The excesses of the “caste” system has led to a complete rejection of Indian thought as “superstition.” This is one of the reasons that Buddha seems to have won the debate on the meaning of dharma.

But Manu defines the idea of dharma much differently than does Buddha. For Manu, one’s dharma has to do with one’s place in society. He finds that one’s duty in life is tied to one’s social function. Sin and piety are not absolutes in his view, but are tied to how well one discharges one’s duty. Ethics are not absolute values according to Manu. One’s duty in society will determine proper ethical behavior according to his “law.” Manu means “human.” So the “law of Manu” is another way of saying “human law.”

Manu finds that there are different social classes, according to personal qualities and work. Each social class will have a different dharma. Here, dharma means “practice,” but also “characteristics.” The characteristic practice of a particular social class follows its duty towards society.

There is an old story found in the Puranas about the parts of the body and the stomach. One day, seeing how the stomach was enjoying a rich feast, the hands objected. “I work hard so you can eat,” said the hands. “This is unfair.” The legs went along with the hands. “That’s right. I march all day so that the hands can work. While we work, you eat. We’ve had enough.” In this way, all the different body parts went on strike: the arms, the legs, the brain, and so on. Finally, the stomach pointed out: “It’s true that you gather food so that I can digest it. But I give strength to all of you. We must work together or we shall all perish.” According to Manu, the different parts of the body politic are supposed to work together in a harmonious society. So each member of society, according to his quality and work has a particular contribution to make. This is Manu’s idea of dharma as it relates to society.

The system he enshrines in Manu-Smriti, then is called varnāśrama-dharma or dharmic duty as it plays out in society according to one’s social role. Buddha bases his ethical system and view of dharma on the idea that we can avoid suffering by ridding ourselves of ego. One’s dharma or duty, according to Buddha is to reduce suffering, accepting a healthy lifestyle and livelihood based on nonviolence. Manu is concerned with our individual duty and value system as it relates to society. One is inclined by quality and endeavor to a particular role in society. One’s role will be colored by certain values.

Manu finds that there are four basic roles in society: intellectuals, leaders, merchants, and workers. Each of these have subdivisions. And each social class has its own priorities, values, and ethics.

While teachers may value education, a good worker may value practice and production over the development of ideas. The visionary poet William Blake pointed out that the same law for the lion and the lamb is tyranny. Everyone has a different skill set. It is unfair and arbitrary to enforce one standard of duty for everyone.

So Manu’s “law” is flexible. It recommends different ways of handling situations within society--a sliding scale of ethics, moral law, crime and punishment--based on the relative qualities of the individuals in society. His version of duty means different standards of excellence in achievement according to one’s ability. India’s degradation of the so-called “caste system” has often been held to ridicule for its rigidity and lack of social movement. But Manu’s analysis holds true. Each dharmic type, intelligentsia, leader, merchant, or artisan nourishes society just as each part of the body offers something to the stomach and the stomach provides energy to the members of the body. Manu finds that society is in harmony when the different dharmic types peform their duties with integrity, when each member of society is accepted and encouraged.

When some members of society are out of synch with dharma, there is tyranny. When power and privilege are misused, the system breaks down. India is often criticized for its caste system. Buddha was the first powerful reformer of India’s system. But India is not alone. America is proud of its so-called classless system. But its inhuman merchant system allows 1% of the population to own and control most of the wealth. Meanwhile ruthless discrimination and racism prevents social mobility--locking people into generations of poverty despite the few individuals who win the lottery of the “American dream.” The promise of democracy has gone unfulfilled as the systems is so corrupted by materialism that crass billionaires rule from the White House while deporting immigrants and jailing minorities. India is hardly alone in abusing social divisions.

The Vedic Age valued spiritual thinkers like Vyāsa. The Golden Age of Plato and Socrates valued philosopher kings. Medieval times valued noble kings. Vyāsa prophesied an Iron Age of Kali, a winter-time for the soul. Our time is ruled by dollars, diplomacy, and despotism. Materialism has allowed the merchant class to define money as our dominant value.

Like the teachings of the Buddha, the Laws of Manu are idealistic. If Buddha promotes the ideal man, Manu promotes the ideal society. Manu’s views on dharma may not have worked as well as he had envisioned, any more than Jeffersonian democracy has worked. And yet his views on dharma are important. He is the standard authority on varnāśrama-dharma, the social and ethical concept of dharma found in Vyāsa’s Mahābhārata.

We have tried to explain that Vyāsa promotes the idea of dharma in Mahābhārata and that his view of dharma is complex. If Buddha establishes dharma as a practice that frees one from suffering and Manu bases his dharma on duty to the body politic, Vyāsa introduces a transcendental element. Dharma is duty to our transcendental, eternal self-interest.

According to Vyāsa, the ultimate dharma must be theistic.

The core teaching of Vyāsa on dharma is found in the words of Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita. When Arjuna demurs at fighting, citing dharma, Krishna explains catur-varnyam maya srstam guna-karma-vibhagasah“According to the three modes of material nature and the work ascribed to them, the four divisions of human society were created by Me.” (B.G.4.13) God Himself has created the social system. Any concept of “duty” must therefore take God into consideration. God-less dharma is not dharma at all. In the end, real dharma is surrender to God, beyond all social considerations.  And so, at the conclusion of the Bhagavad-Gita, Krishna says, sarva-dharman parityajya mam ekam saranam vraja “Renounce all other ideas about dharma. Surrender to Me.” (B.G.18.66) While throughout the millions of words in the Mahābhārata dharma is sought after and promoted, surrender to God, Krishna is the highest ideal of dharma that is pursued by Vyāsa.

Dharma in action

Dharma and karma are elusive principles. I'm exploring the theme of dharma as it is expressed by Vyāsa in Mahābhārata. But for a little background let's look at the Buddhist view of dharma and see how it compares.

Peace.

What is Dharma?

One might as well define Dharma as "what is good for the soul." What is not good for the soul is against Dharma. This all makes perfect sense, given that the soul exists. But what if the soul doesn’t exist? Where does that leave Dharma? Is it possible to have an ethical system, or in other words, a dharmic system if there is no soul and no God? If so, what would it look like?

The Buddha

 Buddha's "Dharma"

An interesting answer is found in Buddhism. Buddhism is a nontheistic system of belief or philosophy. It begins with the problem of human suffering and concludes that a proper balance of dharma and karma is warranted in order to end human suffering.

Even discounting the existence of God or any form of theism, Buddhist ethical principles arrive at a very similar conclusion about Dharma. In fact, scholars from the East would insist that it was Buddha who invented the very concept of Dharma. In this sense, the word dharma really begins to take on the meaning of "practice" since it is the practice of the eightfold path that leads to enlightenment according to his system.

In fact, as we shall seel ater, early Buddhist views on Dharma mirror the ideas found in the laws a of Manu very closely. And what we have described above as ethical Dharma in particular is very closely suited to the Buddhist version.

Immanuel Kant

The German philosopher Kant tries to establish a non-theistic ethical philosophy based on his “moral imperative.” His idea was that humans are innately rational and that a high ethical sense should naturally flow from rationality. Truly rational humans then would "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." In other words, act as if your actions will discover a universal law for everyone and you will find the basis for a universal human morality.

Darwin’s view that we are defined more by the struggle for existence than by any ethical principles shattered Kant’s ethics. Philosophers since Kant have accepted the idea that we have evolved as a species based on the law of the jungle. Natural selection rewards those who survive the other members of their species and reproduce. The idea of the “survival of the fittest” began to define moral philosophy. Since Kant denied any rational proof for the existence of God, his morality is based on the vague principle of reason. He felt it is “reasonable” for humans to be ethical. While ethics may be “reasonable” there is no proof that they are “innate” in any meaningful way. Kant, then, fails to establish a convincing view of ethics on the basis of pure reason. Where his arguments against theistic proofs have survived, Kant’s ethical philosophy is quaint. It is stilled studied in the halls of academe, but lacks strong foundation. It seems to have been forwarded by Kant as an afterthought. He felt remorse at having proclaimed the “Death of God” and so offers his ethics as a compensation for his death.

Buddha teaches "dharma" as a nontheistic system of ethics.

Buddha’s ethical theory as embodied in his views on dharma has shown much more staying power than that of Kant. Kant tries to explain that we should be ethical because that ethics are the highest human expression of reason. He begins his argument by installing reason as his base.

Buddha has a very distinct basis for his ethics: His four “noble” truths. Buddha makes a powerful observation about the human condition: Everyone suffers. As much as we are all involved in the pursuit of happiness, much of life is an attempt to avoid pain. Close examination finds that pain is really based on desire. As long as there is something you want that you can’t have, you will suffer from an unfulfilled desire. Buddha traces desire back to the ego. Ego is the basis of desire. His solution? Dissolve the ego.

With the dissolution of the ego we give up the desires that make us suffer. This is a very simple idea, one whose power has lasted for 25 centuries.

Now, dissolution of the ego may lead to nirvana, but it is not so simple. Enlightenment takes time. The way to enlightenment, however, is very practical. It involves taking some practical steps to reduce the demands of the ego. Since the ego is the root of suffering, diminishing the power of the ego is the way to enlightenment, according to the Buddha.

One must therefore take to a path which will diminish the influence of the ego. By walking on this path, teaches the Buddha, one will eventually attain enlightenment. This path is eightfold. What sustains one on the path is called dharma. So Buddha’s thought flows toward his concept of dharma, which is called the “eightfold path of dharma.”

So the eightfold path of dharma in Buddhism leads us to and end of suffering based on egoism. Of course, I’m interested in discovering the inner meaning of the Mahābhārata and how Vyāsa deals with two different tiers of dharmic understanding: ethical and social dharma vs. spiritual God conscious dharma. But before returning to the concept of dharma as described by Vyāsa in Mahābhārata, let’s take a look at how Buddha handles the idea.

Image of Buddha at Angkor Wat

Buddha’s Eightfold Path of Dharma

Having established his Four Noble Truths, Buddha goes on to describe his process, his “eight-fold path” to dissolve the ego and reach nirvana.

It’s important to keep in mind that while these different steps may be progressive, they are also parallel and synchonous. While practicing Right Action, then, one must also keep a Right View in mind.

Buddha’s eightfold path may be divided into 3 parts: perspective, or internal psychology, action, or praxis, and mindfulness, or progressive meditation.

The word “right” is most commonly used to translated samyak. Samyak means “holistic, complete, proper, correct, right.” So samyak dhristi is “Right view” or perspective. It is a complete gestalt of proper vision.

Buddha's Dharma system begins with "Right Vision"

1. Right view ( samyak dhristi:): Perspective is the beginning of enlightenment, the first step on the path. One begins on the path through self-examination. The first step is to begin to understand the ego, to do some self-analysis and introspection. The path begins when you see for yourself that suffering and dissatisfaction infect the entirety of ordinary, unenlightened existence and when you understand the four noble truths. Before setting out on the path to enlightenment, on should have the proper perspective, a complete vision of the gestalt or total reality. If one sees reality with spiritual vision, one’s action, speech and thinking will flow in harmony with this awareness of reality.

The correct perspective allows us to act in proper adjustment. Buddha asks us to keep in mind that the world is temporary. That death is imminent. The temporal nature of reality and the imminence of death should lead us toward the truth about the self. Buddha understands that by giving up attachment to material things we lose desire for them and so become free from suffering.

2. Right intention: Right intention ”or right thought ” involves giving up selfish attitudes that lead to further suffering and replacing them with their opposites. In place of thoughts that cause harm to yourself and others, you cultivate the intention to bring happiness to all. Buddha calls the second step on the path samyak samkalpa, which is generally taken to mean Right Intention. saṅkalpa means determination, or one’s proper conviction after due diligence. Complete or firm determination. This may be considered a precursor to faith: Proper intention, purity of conviction. One is determined to reach freedom from false ego and selfishness, acting with compassion and benevolence to reach the goal.

Right speech is between right thought and right action.

3. Right speech: Speech is midway between thought and action. As the first two steps have to do with seeing things correctly and making an internal determination, speech is the first real practical step. Because what you say can have a powerful effect on others and can affect your own spiritual evolution as well, cultivating right speech is important. This cultivation involves speaking words that are true and not hurtful, as well as refraining from idle chatter. The third step on the eightfold path brings us into practice. If the first two ideas have to do with perspective and conviction, the third has to do with action.

The third step on the eightfold path is called “Right Speech.” samyak vac. Again samyak may be translated as perfect. So Perfect Speech. This is not the same as the perfect tense in English.

Perfect Speech means freedom from gossip and fault-finding. You might define it as a rigorous distance from false and hurtful speech and gossip: avoid speech that offends; speak the truth. Speak sweetly. Avoid speaking harsh truths that offend. Be honest. 

Buddha tells us to control our speech, to speak carefully and completely: Samyak vak . This principle perhaps did not originate with Buddha thousands of years ago, but it has been accepted as a valuable truth and incorporated into the monastic traditions of spiritual communities wherever people practice meditation and prayer. An extreme example would be the Trappist monks who follow a strict version of the vows of silence as set down in the Rule of St. Benedict.

Right Action: Ethics as Practice

4. Right action: Just as right speech means to avoid causing harm with what you say, right action means to avoid causing harm with what you do. So in place of physically hurting others through your actions, you seek to help and protect them. In particular, you refrain from killing, stealing, and engaging in sexual misconduct.

The practical aspects of the eightfold path begin with speech and continue with action. Buddha identifies three different aspects of action: Action itself, Livelihood, and Sincere Effort.

Action means acting appropriately. Since suffering is the basic truth of reality, we should not cause more suffering. Any suffering we create will come back to us as the law of karma. Therefore we must act appropriately in avoiding all kinds of violence to others including stealing which is violence against property. Murder and meat-eating are other forms of violence. Violence creates a negative karmic reaction and upsets the balanced life that a truth-seeker strives for. By the same token one must avoid immoral conduct such as adultery, fornication, prostitution, and all forms of sexual misconduct. Intoxication ruins the capacity for proper vision and intention and must be forsaken. Drug addiction and drunkenness it all its forms destroys the prospects for self-realization. Gambling agitates the mind as well. Sharp and ruinous business practices are also actions to be avoided. Acting appropriately is called Right Action.

5. Right livelihood: You can earn your “living in many different ways, but if you are intent on gaining more than just material wealth, avoid occupations that involve harm and deception. Naturally, a profession in which you can be of service to others is an excellent way of supporting yourself. But even if you don’t have that kind of job, you can make sure that your dealings with others are honest and kind. Avoiding negative action is insufficient to bring about a balanced life of harmony, according to the teachings of the Buddha. One must have a proper occupation. This includes education and proper thinking. By living a balanced life one reduces egotism. Unsuitable occupations include working as a butcher or a wine merchant. Suitable occupations are honest and nonviolent and contribute something to society. So, right Livelihood means living according to your principles by accepting a proper occupation. These are universally accepted principles for living.

6. Right effort: Having taken up a livelihood in accordance with the principles of dharma will help one advance on the path, as long as one continues to keep a proper perspective, attitude, and speech. But while having accepted a proper livelihood is a healthy step, one must also take up a personal spiritual practice to advance on one the path.

This Sixth step, Right Effort, also involves pro-active vigilance against unwholesome mental thoughts, evil ideas and attitudes, mental vices such as lust, greed, sloth, pride, illusion, envy, racism, nationalism, materialism, sensualism, and other forms of egoism.

One’s effort must be positive and progressive, within the bounds of dharma. Proper effort will bring one in harmony with dharma.

7. Right mindfulness: Having contemplated different aspects of action both subtle and gross, in speech and deed, Buddha moves on to consider the nature of the mind. The 7th step on the eightfold path is called samyak smrti. In Sanskrit smrti means “memory.”

This step on the path is part of the meditation practice advocated by the Buddha. Mindfulness is a particular discipline that keeps one centered in reality, while understanding one’s position in the world. Above and beyond any ideological considerations one must pay attention in order to live in balance. Living in the past or the future avoids a clear picture of reality. Mindfulness means: ”paying close attention to what’s happening right now” and is essential at all levels of dharmic practice.

For Buddhists, smriti means to maintain a proper consciousness of body, mind, and spirit, remembering the four noble truths and what has been learned by following the eight-fold path. By remembering the imminence of death and the impermanence of the world followers of Buddha’s path try to maintain proper adjustment.

Enlightenment means being awake. Mindfulness here means becoming free from conditioning, living in constant awareness with reference to the body, mind, and self and understanding the relative position of all these in relation to ultimate reality.

8. Right concentration: This aspect of meditation is a much deeper awareness. Right concentration or meditation is called samādhi. The Sanskrit word dhi refers to “intelligence,” and can mean 'understanding', 'reflection', 'religious thought', 'mind', 'design', 'intelligence', 'opinion', 'meditation', 'imagination', 'notion', 'intellect.

Now that one’s intention, speech, actions, livelihood, effort and meditation are fully absorbed in dharma, the final stage of enlightenment takes place in deep meditation. To develop deep insight into the nature of reality, the focus of your mind must become sharp and free of distraction and dullness. Through practicing the one-pointed concentration of samādhi, one realizes complete absorption. Thus nirvāna is achieved.

There is much argument about the antiquity of the different systems of thought that dominated early civilization on the Asian subcontinent. Buddhists will argue that their system predates the Hindu version of dharma.

Hindus will insist that the Laws of Manu promote the very ideas of the Buddha thousands of years before he walked the earth. The original dates of written Sanskrit are in dispute. That Sanskrit as a spoken language must have predated written texts is also a standard argument. The Laws of Manu are generally considered to have had a more ancient date than that of the teachings of the Buddha. If so, we find similar ideas about the idea of dharma propagated there. Since Buddhism left India for China, Tibet, Japan and Śrī Lanka sometime after Shankara in the 7th Century, its teachings no longer inspire the Indian peninsula as they once did. And yet the concept of dharma as found in the Laws of Manu and the Hindu Epic Mahābhārata still carry considerable weight, so much so that the Sanskrit strophe “yato dharma tato jayaḥ” is the motto of India’s Supreme Court.

Buddha’s understanding of dharma is quite solid. His ethical system has inspired generations for milennia and has outlasted dynasties. But keep in mind, it leaves out the soul. In Buddha's system, there is no God. If you ask an expert if Buddha's system is atheistic, you will get different answers. God may exist for a Buddhist, but if he is he is only a temporary ego manifestation. It has been said, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." The idea is that to exalt the Buddha as God is another kind of illusion, one that must be overcome. But if Buddhism is atheistic, it is a brilliant attempt to provide a non-theistic basis for an ethical system: Dharma as ego-destruction.

On the other hand, if the soul exists, and if God exists, what would dharma look like? This leads to some other questions: how is dharma understood in India today? And why is the concept of dharma found in Mahābhārata still so compelling? Vyāsa develops dharma on the basis of theism. Vyāsa’s particular multi-tiered use of dharma is subtle and impregnates every aspect of social and spiritual life in India. His view has wide application both in philosophy and theology and has been adapted even by Christian thinkers such as Rudolph Otto and Paul Tillich to challenge Kant’s dry rationalism. In our next post we’ll take another look at how Vyāsa interprets dharma and how his version transforms the lives of all the characters in Mahābhārata.