What is Dharma?

I'm trying to continue the ideas discussed in a series of previous blogs. Each article is independent, but you may want to start at the beginning for greater clarity: 

1. http://mexpostfact.blogspot.mx/2018/01/indias-greatest-epic.html 2. http://mexpostfact.blogspot.mx/2018/01/meaning-in-mahabharata-part-ii.html

Today we're looking at the question of dharma, specifically as it is seen in the ancient wisdom tradition of India as exemplified in the Mahabharata and the different yoga systems.

How is Dharma defined?

यतो धर्मस्ततो जयः' yato dharmas tato jayaḥ is a line often repeated in the Mahābharata. "Wherever there is dharma there is victory". It is the motto of the Supreme Court of India, the nation of Bhārata. The story of the epic Mahābhārata is the story of the triumph of dharma.

But what is dharma? We have often heard the word folded into discussion in the yoga class. dharma comes from the Sanskrit dhṛt, meaning “that which sustains, that which holds.” Dharma then is ”that which holds something together, its essential nature.” 

It is the dharma of sugar, for example, to be sweet. A white granular powder won't do. It might be salt. If it isn't sweet it isn't sugar. The dharma of a thing is its very essence. If karma  may be defined as "what you do," dharma  is what you are.  Since you are not that body, but eternal spirit, the proper dharma of spirit should be to be "spiritual."

Dharma  by itself is not action, but it implies right action. On an ethical level, dharma, means acting in character with one's spiritual self-interest. Acting against one's own self-interest would be adharmic. The dharma of the soul is sat, chit, and ānanda, eternal existence, divine knowledge, and perfect happiness. So to act against your eternal self-interest is to be out of synch with dharma, to be  adharmic. Spiritual happiness is the language of the soul. To speak another language is foreign to the soul. The atma is "self"illuminated--enlightened with knowledge. To act in ignorance, then is adharmic--against nature. 

Spiritual practice, however, tends to take on "practical" aspects. In real life, what was once "spiritual" becomes religion. And religion is a formal aspect of our practical life. Love, for example, becomes expresses as sexual attachment, formalized through religious practice as marriage. Religion legitimizes a sexual relationship and consecrates it. Something as base as crude sexual desire is transformed into holy matrimony with the help of religion and societies blessings. Religion may also give its blessings to war, blessing the troops as they march to protect the homeland. There is a certain dichotomy then between the concept of dharma as eternal spiritual self-interest and the mundane practice of dharma as duty to God, country, and religion. 

Dharma, then is sometimes taken as the ethical system that holds society together through religious practice. When we speak of the so-called Judaeo-Christian "ethic," we are trying to understand the dharma  of Western civilization.  So as we divorce the idea of dharma from its inner meaning as "spiritual self-interest," we find that dharma expresses itself as our ethical moral duty within society.

This leads to a split between social duty and spiritual duty. There is social dharma and divine dharma; society consciousness and God consciousness. One leads to  worldly joys and the other lead to supreme happiness. But these are often in clash. This clash between social dharma  and spiritual or divine dharma  is the essential conflict at the core of the Mahābhārata. The sons of Dhritarasthra are interested in their duty to society. Karna is always charitable to brahmanas, for example. As  ruler of Hastinapura during the exile of the Pandavas, Duryodhana enforces social justice. Dhritarasthra is blind to his spiritual self-interest; his blindness is seen in his partiality to his family and the rule of his son. The Pandavas on the other hand seem to fight unfairly. It is often pointed out that they fail to observe correct kshatriya dharma--that is, they avoid scrupulously following the code of warriors. But Arjuna has discovered in his conversation with Krishna recorded in the Bhagavad-Gita that there is more to life than social duty. The Pandavas follow the path of spiritual dharma--dedication to the Personal Godhead, represented in Mahābhārata as Bhagavan Śrī Kṛṣṇa. In following this higher path they may sometimes neglect their duty to family and society. But they act on the basis of spiritual self-interest in surrender to God under the direction of Krishna Himself.

This, then, is the central conflict of the Mahābhārata around which the battle of Kurukshetra is fought. On the one hand there is the so-called path of righteousness, living life according to the code of conduct and social duty described in the scriptures and accepted as moral law. Austerity, purity, compassion, and truthfulness are important dharmic principles for human life found in the ancient Laws of Manu and upheld throughout the Vedas.

But while Vyāsa upholds these basic principles of human life and social balance throughout the entire work, he always maintains has a higher conception of dharma in the background. This tension--God Consciousness vs. society consciousness, is makes the  Mahābhārata as alive today as when it was first written. The tension Vyāsa maintains between the different concepts of dharma and their multiple levels of interpretation animates the work from beginning to end. It is the stuff of daily debate. For the story of Mahābhārata opens a discussion about how we should act in concert with societal ethics as well as should we act in harmony with our internal spiritual self-interest. Both of these are dharma. Insofar as humans are rational animals in search of truth and meaning, this is the basis for our exploration of truth as it relates to action. 

Spirituality does not take place in a void. We are earth-bound. We are surrounded by influences of good and evil and everything else between. How should we act? And how can we act ethically, in accordance with our true self-interest both as human members of a society and as spiritual beings answerable only to our maker? This is the essential dilemma explored on every page of the Mahābhārata. This is why the wisdom of the Mahābhārata is as current today as when it was written. In the end, Mahābhārata is not simply a fascinating collection of motley tales about the ancient tribes of India. It is an essential work of human experience that invites us to ask, "What is dharma?"

External and Internal Ethics of Dharma

The Kauravas led by Duryodhana maintain the external principles of dharma so well that in the end of the book we are told that they all go to heaven. The Pandavas, while nominally the noble heroes of the work, go to hell. This is because on the external level, the Kauravas maintain the code. Duryodhana scrupulously avoids any hint of impropriety. But this outer propriety is belied by his inner corruption. One of the difficulties of dharma imposed as a code is that it becomes legalistic. As long is one is following the outward law there is no sin. Ethical dharma becomes a kind of hair-splitting.

Duryodhana is charitable to Karna when it serves his political interests to create a rival against his enemies. But over the course of the epic we see him as envious, arrogant, malignant, hateful and cruel.

Dharma: Pandavas vs. Kurus. Society Consciousness vs. God Consciousness

The Pandavas, on the other hand may be impetuous and reckless. But at heart they are just, modest, and generous. They may not follow the letter of the law; they seem to constantly fall on the wrong side of dharma as applied by the envious Duryodhan and the cunning Shakuni. While the Kurus are always plotting to increase their kingdom and destroy the Pandavas, Arjuna and his brothers live simply in the forest and accept the life of sages.

In their inner life, the Pandavas are sincere truth-seekers, where the inner life of the Kurus is filled with lust for power. The outward life of the Pandavas shows a tendency to be dharmic which is sometimes defeated by their own human foibles. The Kurus are dharmic to a fault externally; their outer life is sanctimonious. And yet their inner life is filled with hate and poisoned by envy. The Pandavas do their best to love their enemies and go to war in spite of themselves. The Pandavas are honest; they ask their enemies directly for what they want. The Kurus speak sweetly and meet their guests with all the Vedica hospitality, but plot behind their backs, using poison, arson, palace intrigue, lies and hypocrisy to achieve their aims.

Modern character of Mahabharata: the Antihero

The Pandavas, then, have much in common with the modern antiheroes, where the Kurus are hypocritical villains, like Richard III in Shakespeare’s history. There’s a scene where, after killing his nephews Richard III walks the parapets reading a bible so that people can see how pious he is. He knows that detachment is a religious value and tries to manipulate the public so that they will elect him King. So is Duryodhana, a great follower of religious doctrine, but a despicable tyrant. Like Shylock trying to collect his pound of flesh based on the law, he strips Draupadi in public to collect on a gambling debt. All is legal. Duryodhana appeals to the council. The Kurus are so expert at interpreting the laws of duty that even Bhishma is perplexed when Draupadi asked “Where is the dharma here?”

Inner vs. Outer dharma revisited

For all the rambling of the great epic, Vyāsa revisits the problem of dharma again and again, asking us to contemplate “duty” in all its different aspects and forcing us to eventually develop the ability to interpret the inner meaning of duty at different levels.

In this sense, the Mahābhārata is not a dogmatic book of rules and rigid morality. Many attempts have been made to impose a rigid morality on the Mahābhārata, indeed on the entire Indian culture. But the text itself resists. On every page we are faced with the same dilemma. On one hand there are the Pandavas who sometimes resort to unworthy methods to achieve their righteous goals; on the other hand there are the outwardly pious Kurus who ruthlessly plot to destroy them. Whose side are you on?

Society Consciousness vs. God Consciousness

Vyāsa succeeds in examining two different tiers of morality, of duty, of dharma. But if anything is left unclear, we have the spiritual teachings of Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita, the heart of the book. When Arjuna has misgivings about the true duty of a warrior, Krishna finally instructs him to put aside all external concepts of dharma. sarva dharma parityajya, mam ekam sharanam vraja.

Surrender to God is a higher form of dharma. It is impossible to understand the meaning of the Mahābhārata without coming to terms with the theism posed there. In the end, Mahābhārata is theistic: it poses Krishna as the Supreme Deity. God Himself then is challenging Arjuna to give up all secondary concepts of dharma--especially dharma as duty to society. In Vyāsa’s system of dharma, social duty, while extremely valuable as a kind of glue to sustain society is subsidiary to divine duty--the need for the soul to discover his eternal constitutional position as a servant of God. Throughout the Mahābhārata then, Vyāsa balances mundane social dharma dharma artha kama moksha at the ethical level against God consciousness at the metaphysical level.

Mundane and supramandane ethics

But leave aside Vyāsa’s metaphysics for a moment. Bhishma is the hero of the mundane ethical world. His greatness of character is manifest whenever he makes his appearance, from surviving murder at the hands of his mother to renouncing the right of marriage and family for his father’s happiness. Having renounced the joys of family and the right to rule he serves not only his own half-brothers, but even the sons and grandsons of his brother Vyāsa. Normal self-interest dictates that we do everything for our own self-preservation first and then take care of others. Bhishma’s exemplary life is just the opposite. His high ideal, his almost divine sense of duty, drives him to a life of self-sacrifice and service.

And Bhishma is not afraid to speak truth to power. As head of the Kurus, he is a fearless and outspoken counselor whose words fulfill the purport of truth and justice. But when war comes, he does his duty as a soldier, leading his forces into battle. He fights nobly, like a true son of the gods.

The path of dharma as laid out by Bhishma is almost an impossibly high ideal. But even so, it may lead into the trap set by the Kurus.

The Kurus are experts in external dharma. Dhritatrashtra, Gandhari, and Shakuni know how to follow the norms.

And yet, Duryodhana for all his supposed piety is nothing less than an incarnation of the age of Kali. He is only outwardly pious, but inwardly duplicitous. If Yudhisthira represents dharma, Duryodhana is his nemesis, the arch-fiend, evil incarnate. In fact, he represents the asuras, the demonic forces of the Daityas and Dānavas. When despondent after being defeated by the Gandharvas, Duryodhana wants to kill himself. The armies of demons dissuade him: vinaṣṭe tvayi cāsmākaṁ pakśo hīyeta kaurava (3.240.23 cd) Duryodhana is their only shelter, for the Pāṇḍavas are godly. tvam asmākam gatir nityaṁ devatānām ca pāṇḍāvaḥ. They tell Duryodhana to take heart: that he will have help from the demonic armies. Demons and Rākṣasa cannibals are being born among the warriors who will fight alongside Duryodhana. The darkest forces of evil will ally themselves with Duryodhana as their leader.

The Struggle of Good vs. Evil

The idea that the battle of Kurukśetra is a genuine struggle between the forces of good and evil is not brought into the book later as some kind of interpolation: it is a running theme that Vyāsa will revisit time and again throughout the entire work.

At the beginning of the book, the Adi Parva there’s a whole chapter working out the idea of the good and evil types who populate the Mahābhārata: the cast of characters is explained there in great detail. The Blind King, Dhritarashtra, for example is supposed to have been an incarnation of Haṁsa, a son of Ariṣṭa. Since the Sanskrit word ariṣṭa refers to evil and bad luck, the sons of Ariṣṭa are born to bring on the age of Kali.

Duḥśāsana and the other brothers of Duryodhana are supposed to be the Pulastya demons. We may remember that Pulastya was the father of Viśravas and the grandfather of Rāvana; the entire race of man-eating Rākṣasa cannibals were his offspring. Many of the allies of Duryodhana, including Jarasandha, Śalva, and Dhṛśtaketu had similar demonic backgrounds. There is no need to elaborate on all the characters.

Levels of dharma

But before considering how dharma works out in the mundane, ethical sphere, Vyāsa has already informed us that many of the characters in his drama are representatives of evil.

And just as the Kurus are evil incarnate, it is impossible to proceed any further without taking up the character of Kṛṣṇa. While he participates in the heroic action of the Mahābhārata, we must take care in analyzing his character, for his is also identified, not only as an avatar of the divine, but as Bhāgavan, God Himself. In fact, there is no passage in the entire epic poem which does not presuppose, or which contradicts his character as an incarnation of the Supreme Being, who is generally refered to in the Sanskirt of the Mahābhārata as Viṣṇu or Narayana.

Beyond Good and Evil

The epic is not merely concerned with the kind of ethical problems faced by Bhishma. Our story is much more than a simple playing out of colorful stories against the mundane morality of the Laws of Manu. This is not a simple problem of good versus evil in a worldly battle. The idea that God Himself is participating in this struggle raises the epic to a cosmic level. This metaphysical aspect of the Mahābhārata forces us to consider a higher layer of meaning. Nietzsche’s analysis of Good and Evil is parochial compared to that of Vyāsa.

Christian and Vedic views of Good and Evil

Where normal Christian morality sees the world as a struggle between good and evil ending in heaven or hell, the Vedic view is distinct. This life is not the only chance we have; we will undergo birth and death repeated times, playing out our karma until we achieve enlightenment. Krishna’s appearance in the story is key. The climax of the entire work is reached with Krishna’s teachings in the Bhāgavad-Gita.

When Arjuna demurs on the basis of empathy with his family members, Krishna introduces a higher value; the idea of eternal life, repeated in a multitude of physical incarnations. As long as we fail to realize the soul’s true self-interest we are trapped by maya in a shadow play here in this mundane world, repeatedly performing our karma. We may take the path of dharma and develop good karma--we may even achieve heaven. But heaven itself is temporary, just another stop on the wheel of birth and death. True enlightenment may only be achieved through a higher communion with God. This highest yoga is called bhakti, or Divine love. Only true dedication to God Himself is sufficient to lead us through the forest of ignorance to the light of knowledge.

Higher dharmic proposition: dedication above exploitation and renunciation

In the Bhagavad-Gita, Vyāsa gives a hint of the kind of higher dharmic proposition that he will later work out in detail in his masterwork, the Bhāgavat Purāna.

Since this higher, metaphysical understanding of dharma is difficult for Westerners to reconcile with their own religious views, they have largely tried to avoid it. But their avoidance of Krishna’s divinity creates only distorted views of the Mahābhārata. As a consequence, they fail to grasp the inner meaning of the work.

Bhakti as transcendental dharma

Bhakti, or the personal experience of divine love with Krishna as personal deity, is at the core of the Mahābhārata. Only when Arjuna discovers bhakti as a guiding principle is he inspired to act, to fight and defeat the forces of evil that confront him. The bhakti experience is the primordial essence of the book--it permeates and transcends the other ideas of dharma that Vyāsa has worked so hard to promote.

If Duryodhana is evil incarnate, Yudhisthira is Dharma incarnate. The purport of the Mahābhārata is that even dharma must surrender in bhakti to Krishna. It is not sufficient merely to pray to God for self-aggrandizement. Duryodhana discovers this just before the battle. When Duryodhana and Arjuna arrive at Krishna’s house and find him sleeping, Duryodhana sits at his head, while Arjuna sits at his feet, waiting for him to awaken. When Krishna awakens, he sees Arjuna at his feet first. Arjuna is awakened in Krishna Consciousness, where Duryodhana is attentive only to his own view of society consciousness. When given a chance to choose, Arjuna wants only Krishna where Duryodhana chooses the armies of the Vrishnis and Yadus. Duryodhana chooses material advantage. Arjuna chooses the friendship of Godhead. Duryodhana advances his social dharma through the armies of God, where Arjuna chooses spiritual self-interest--a personal relationship with divinity.

The Krishna conception

Krishna explains that he is impartial. He will help both equally. To one he will give his armies to the other he will give himself. Duryodhana chooses the powerful army of Krishna. Arjuna chooses Krishna himself. Arjuna is not interested in armies, but the love and esteem of Bhagavān Śrī Krishna Himself who will bring him not only victory, fame and glory, but even liberation from the misery of this material world. Arjuna had no interest in an armies, divorced from Krishna himself.

The Kurukshetra war is not a story about tribal warfare in ancient India. It is a war over dharma. And not merely a simple battle between good and evil, but a war of conscience. It is a war that we all must fight daily; the battle between external dharma--a false religion that may take one to heaven only to return one to hell--and internal dharma, the sincerity of divine love of God, whatever the price. 

This is the most powerful struggle that anyone can face: Accept the demands of country, religion, society, and family--even at the cost of your soul--and gain heaven, as does the envious Duryodhana--or be true to your self, even at the cost of heaven. 

Dharma as Divine Love

Indeed, at the end of the work, Arjuna and his brothers see the envious Duryodhana in heaven. They understand that heaven itself is a temporary reward for piety, where the reward for bhakti or divine love is the ultimate abode of the Lord. The war, then is not over some fine points of honor in kshatriya dharma, but a struggle between the forces of ordinary ethical dharma and Vyāsa’s higher metaphysical understanding: dharma as divine love.

Of course, no dilemma that needs 100,000 Sanskrit shlokas to work out can be explained so simply. So we'll continue looking at the conflict between ethical and divine dharma in our next blog.
Until then, dear readers.