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.

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.