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.