Understanding Sanātana Dharma
Dharma
is a very familiar term in Hindu epics, purāṇas
and other literary works that highlight the ideal ways of human life. We find
the term in the major Upaniṣads and Bhagavad Gīta also, used in varying senses
like virtue, righteousness and religious duties. Bṛhadāraṇyaka
Upaniṣad
says in verse 1.4.14 that Dharma is instrumental in making the world flourish; in
the beginning, it was created on finding that world was not flourishing through
the earlier creations of four Varṇas. Taittirīya Upaniṣad (1.11.1) insists that Dharma
should be strictly observed in life, without fail. In Chāndogya 2.23.1 three
types of Dharma (religious duties) are prescribed. Thus scriptures assign great
importance to Dharma. Nevertheless, this term is
not seen defined anywhere exhaustively in these texts.
But, Vaiśeṣika Darśana defines Dharma as that which
leads to prosperity and happiness. Going in that line, we may arrive at an
exact understanding of Sanātana Dharma. Sanātana means eternal, that which does
get deteriorated by time. Therefore, Sanātana Dharma is that which ensures prosperity
and happiness for all time. It refers to all of our ideals and corresponding
Karma, by mind, word or body, that lead to these two ends. What are those
ideals and Karma? Can we list out all such Karma exhaustively? How and why do
such Karma constituting Dharma bring happiness and prosperity? Let us here make
an enquiry into these questions.
In
the first chapter of Gīta, namely, ‘Despondency of Arjuna’ (अर्जुन विषाद योग - Arjuna viṣāda yoga) Arjuna laments about the
probable breach of Dharma that he may incur if he kills his close relatives,
preceptors and friends in the battle. At the moment of commencing the fight,
Arjuna became grief-stricken and confused on seeing his own relatives, Bhīṣma
in particular and also Gurus, on the opposite side. The very thought of killing
them in battle was excruciating for him. He was ready to forsake anything
including his life for their good. He makes his own evaluation on what to do or
not to do at the moment, weighing all the options on the touchstone of Dharma.
Arjuna’s thoughts proceeded
on these lines: ‘I am not delighted in killing the Sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra since they
are my relatives; slaying one’s own people is a sin. Even if they don’t realise
what will happen if one’s own clan is ruined, we are well aware of it. When the
clan is ruined, its age-old Dharma will decline and Adharma will take its place.
Adharma will cause the women of the clan to be immoral, which in turn will
result in varṇasaṅkara (mixing of varṇas). As a result, the whole clan will be
destined to hell; forefathers will be deprived of the offering of piṇḍa and
water and consequently, they also will fall into hell. Those misdeeds on their
part which cause varṇasaṅkara will also cause erosion of caste-dharma(s). With
all the Dharmas lost in this way, what awaits us is permanent lodging in the
hell. It is pity that we have resolved to commit such a great sin by killing
our own people, simply for wresting the throne. It would be better for us if
the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra kill us when we are not fighting and without arms.’ Deeply
moved by these thoughts Arjuna gave up his arms and sat down in the chariot
with great sorrow.
Thus, Arjuna’s thoughts are
singularly concentrated on Dharma and its possible violation in his actions. But
what does he understand about Dharma? To him, killing one’s own kinsmen is not
Dharma under any circumstance. He fears that such killing will ruin their clan
and its Dharma. Varṇasaṅkara as well as erosion of caste-dharma(s). will follow.
Finally, the entire clan will go to hell. In short, he thinks that killing
relatives initiates a series of grave violations of Dharma. He also thinks that
each clan and each caste have their own well-defined Dharma.
When someone refuses to arrogate
material wealth through killing own relatives, he would normally be hailed as
an ideal person inspired by the highest sense of Dharma. As such, Arjuna
deserves acclaim and encouragement for his concern about Dharma and for his well-matched
speech and action. But, on the contrary, Lord Kṛṣṇa condemns him, depicting his
despondency as mere weakness; He also indicts Arjuna, charging that his actions
are totally unbecoming of a man of his stature in the given context. This denunciation
of what apparently is a great act of Dharma indicates that Arjuna’s concept of
Dharma is not acceptable. Realising that what Arjuna apprehends is really the
strike of sin allegedly involved in killing relatives, Kṛṣṇa commences a series
of detailed instructions on how to do Karma without being smeared by sin. These
instructions constitute the revered text of Bhagavad Gīta.
Kṛṣṇa’s chiding of Arjuna’s
concept of Dharma and His advice on worry-free performance of Karma give some clues
about what Dharma actually is. No action, however cruel that may appear to be,
can be condemned as sin, outright. Similarly, no action, however esteemed it
may appear to be, can be prima facie branded as Dharma. The criterion for
classifying actions as Dharma or sin is very sophisticated; it depends upon the
way of doing the action, the purpose served, the intention of the doer, etc. Yes,
the basic scriptural texts of Hindus do not attempt an exhaustive classification
of actions into Dharma and Adharma (sin); nor is there any blanket sanction or restriction
for any action. Our day-to-day experience vindicates this stand. Killing a
person is normally considered a punishable act. But, when a soldier kills the
enemy, it is hailed as a brave act. Similarly, to cause a wound on another
person’s body is considered objectionable. But, the same act is permissible
when a surgeon undertakes it as part of a clinical operation. That means, we
cannot classify the mere act of killing or wounding as expressly Dharma or
Adharma.
In Bhagavad Gīta, while refusing to fight, Arjuna forgot the
atrocities and heinous acts of Duryodhana and his cronies inflicted on the Pāṇḍavas
in the past. Meek submission to such atrocious acts and injustices would amount
to their tacit endorsement. Reluctance to react against Adharma is tantamount
to Adharma, as that would abet its repetition and perpetuation. Acts of Adharma
is to be fought out by any means; if use of force is required we have to resort
to it. Arjuna’s fear of breach of Dharma was therefore out of place. In the
current stream of social order also, this notion is already in acceptance. For
example, an instance can be cited from our criminal laws. The method of
arresting described in Cr.P.C of India provides for use of force if there is no
submission to custody by word or touch; if the offence is punishable with death
or life imprisonment, arrest is to be made even by resorting to the death of
the culprit.
Let us now make an attempt to further unveil the
true nature of Dharma through the reverse route of Adharma or Pāpa (sin). What
is Pāpa? It is any action that attracts a punishment. Why does it attract
punishment? Because it involves some wrong, done to somebody. What wrong can a
person possibly do to somebody? Many, innumerable. These innumerable numbers
can be classified into three categories; first, that affects the right to
exist; second, that curtails one’s right to self-expression and third, that
obstructs one’s happiness. These three, viz. existence, expression and
happiness, are very important. Expression involves knowledge also. For, without
knowledge, expression is void and reversely, knowledge inspires expression. Knowledge
and expression sustain mutually in an inseparable combination. All actions of all people of
all epochs are motivated, without exception, by the trio of existence,
expression and happiness, either jointly or severally. That means, every action is done in furtherance of
either existence or expression (+knowledge) or happiness (enjoyment). Therefore,
Pāpa is to be understood as any action that impedes existence-expression-happiness
trio of others. Ancient Hindu Sages abstracted and understood this trio as
This concept of whole is very
important. For, existence of the whole is a pre-requisite for the existence of
the individual members. When the whole is destroyed, individuals will not be there
anymore. Therefore, that which serves only a few at the cost of others is not
Dharma. This does not mean all are equally served; it is to be ensured that the
whole as a whole is protected. In this context, let us recall a prayer in the
peace invocation of Sāmavedīya Upanishads, ‘May I never deny Brahma’ (माहं ब्रह्म निराकुर्याम् - māhaṃ brahma nirākuryām). The prayer warns against ‘thinking to be
separate or different from Brahma’ when one furthers his interests, which means
that he should take care of others’ interests also. This endorses the
importance of ‘the whole’ highlighted above.
Before proceeding further, let
us now consider how Pāpa attracts
punishment as mentioned above. We know that Pāpa represents Karma that is not
in conformity with the ultimate principle of existence-expression-happiness. It
is a fact that the doer of Pāpa also is ruled by this inner principle. Pāpa
occurs when he does not pay heed to the dictates of this ruler within himself.
But, the ultimate principle is inviolable and indestructible; so it retaliates
and intervenes to reassert itself. This creates conflict in his mind and as a
result, his peace and tranquillity are upset. This in turn takes away his power
of judgment that ultimately leads to his total ruin. The re-assertion by the
ultimate principle happens naturally, whenever it becomes essential. This
process is what is described in Gīta 4.8 as ‘saṃbhavāmi yuge yuge’.
Now
that the essence of Dharma is known, what remains to be probed is how it happens
to be Sanātana (eternal). We have seen that every action of every being is
motivated by the urge for either self-existence or self-expression or
self-happiness. We have also seen that while furthering such individual urge,
it is to be ensured that the existence-expression-happiness of the whole is not
infringed, since individual existence is not possible without the whole. Every
individual action for existence-expression-happiness has to maintain a balance
with those of the whole. In order to ensure this balancing, which is essential
for universal existence, formulation of certain codes of conduct becomes
inevitable. Such codes designed for regulating the performance of Karma by
individuals are known as ethical laws and they define human virtues, morals,
principles and conscience. These laws have been there in every epoch of human
history and they constitute the essence of judicial system of the corresponding
periods. Peaceful co-existence is impossible in the absence of such regulatory
edicts. In spite of the different forms that these laws take in different ages
of history, the underlying objective has always been the same, which is nothing
but ensuring conformity of Karma with
Even
if we know that Dharma is that which is in conformity with ‘
In
this world the only thing in which we have a free will is the choice of our
Karma (karmaṇyevādhikaraste - Gīta
2.47). All the remaining things are not ours and we have no right over them (Īśa 1 & 2). Gīta also says that the Lord never assigns any duty upon anybody
or grants the results of any action to anybody (5.14). Nor does He recognise
any Karma as either virtuous or sinful (5.15). Therefore, our Karma is our own
responsibility and we can never absolve of it with any external grace. When the
circumstances necessitate the performance of any particular Karma, it is our
choice whether to do or not to do it and also how to do it.
In
choosing a Karma, Gīta puts forth two
important rules, namely, 1. Sacrifice
the results of the Karma for the benefit of the whole, which act is known as
Yajña (यज्ञ –
sacrifice; Yajña is Karma in which results are sacrificed for the benefit of
all) (Gīta
3.9); and 2. Give up all attachments and also remain equanimous to the outcome
of the Karma, be it favourable or otherwise (Gīta 2.48). Both are same ultimately, since, without giving up
attachment, sacrificing the results is not possible. The entire preaching in Gīta consists in repeated efforts to
inculcate these two options in the mind of Arjuna, together with matters
ancillary thereto.
At last, winding up the instructions, Kṛṣṇa exhorts Arjuna to expel
from his mind all that he considers as Dharma and then concentrate on His
teachings only, so that he will be relieved from all Pāpas. Please see below the climaxing advice
contained in verse 18.66:
सर्वधर्मान् परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज |
अहं त्वा सर्व पापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मा शुचः || 18.66 ||
(sarvadharmān parityajya māmekaṃ śaraṇaṃ
vraja,
ahaṃ tvā sarva pāpebhyo mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucaḥ.)
This verse is seen interpreted in
different ways by Ācāryas and scholars. Mostly, the interpretations assign the
meaning ‘all righteous deeds’ to ‘sarvadharmān’.
Ādi Śaṅkara interpreted the phrase ‘sarvadharmān parityajya’ as an advice to
give up all Dharma and Adharma together, since, in his opinion, Naiṣkarmya (नैष्कर्म्य) is intended to be taught
here. (Naiṣkarmya is a state of mind wherein, due to absence of desire, there
is no inner urge to undertake any Karma). But these interpretations do not
conform to the message of Gīta,
which does not relieve anybody from performing Karma, but only prescribes the
ways to stay away from being smeared. Lord Kṛṣṇa says in Gīta 3.22 that He too is always engaged in
Karma, though there is nothing to gain personally. This obligation to perform
Karma is in full agreement with the instruction in Mantra 2 of Īśa Upaniṣad, which holds that only
by doing Karma one should aspire for living a full life. Moreover, how can Gīta which calls upon us to sacrifice the results of
our Karma for the benefit of the whole, make an advice to give up all
‘righteous deeds’? Is it that Karma performed in this way is not a ‘righteous
deed’? It cannot be so. Again Gita asserts in verse 3.4 that Naiṣkarmya
cannot be attained by simply abstaining from Karma. This utterly disproves the
contention of the Ācārya. Such interpretations might be the result of not
giving due importance to the contents of chapter 1 of Gīta, wherein Arjuna is
presented as deeply worried about what he understands as Dharma. The concluding
verse of 18.66 directly connects to the opening topic ‘despondency of Arjuna’
and advises him to set aside all that causes worry, which is precisely his own version
of Dharma. Kṛṣṇa disapproves Arjuna’s perceptions about Dharma and therefore asks him to abandon them
all.
We
may wind up our discussions by concluding thus: Dharma is that which conforms
to the ultimate principle of and in order to ensure this conformity in our
Karma, we must either sacrifice the results thereof or perform Karma without
attachment and without considering whether the result is positive or negative. Dharma is Sanātana as it does not change
by the change of time or place; in all epochs and all places, it is invariably Dharma
that sustains and supports everything. Hinduism is the religion of Dharma which
is Sanātana. The supreme spiritual accomplishment envisaged in Hinduism is
attainment to the ultimate principle of
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This was published in http://www.indiadivine.org/understanding-sanatana-dharma/ on 12 August 2016.
ReplyDelete