Dharma

A modest attempt to understand Dharma as

understood in traditional Indian literature.
(With a particular slant towards the Hindu
canon, as opposed to Buddhist canon)
But, what is Dharma?
• Dharma is arguably the one word most commonly associated with
Indic civilization. Few other Indian words are as readily associated
with India, as Dharma. Yoga and Karma are probably close rivals! But
what is Dharma? It is a term that is poorly understood despite much
overuse..
• It is often stated that India, at least in its idealized form, represents a
“Dharmic” civilization. But what exactly is a Dharmic civilization?
• Does Dharma imply merely an adherence to Hindu religion? Or is it
linked to what is often called “the Hindu way of life”? If it’s the latter,
what is this “way of life”?
Questions about Dharma galore..

• Is Dharma “eternal” or “era-specific”?

• Is Dharma contextual or context-free?
• Is Dharma synonymous with religion / faith or does it transcend religion?
• Is Dharma “law”? Or is it merely a set of guidelines that are non-binding?
• It is often also stated that there exists no appropriate translation of the word
“Dharma” in English. It defies translation. Be that as it may, this also begs the
question - Is Dharma “definable” even in Indian discourse? Or does it have
multiple definitions?
• Has the “understanding” of the term “Dharma” changed over millennia?
Finally how does religion interact with Dharma? Are Hindu ideas of Dharma
vastly different from Buddhist or Jain conceptions of Dharma?
Attempt to Dharma in Etymological terms.
• In Classical Sanskrit, the word "Dharma" is derived from the root "dhr" which means "to
hold / maintain". But the word itself is v ancient and goes all the way back to the Rig
Veda. In the Rig Veda Samhita, the word is used as many as 56 times! So this is not a new
fangled word.
• In the Rig Veda, the word takes the form of "Dharman" which means "bearer /
supporter" - again consistent with the meaning we discussed above. This would suggest
that Dharma refers to a certain set of ideals that help maintain "order".
• One can simplify this by associating the word simplistically with the hackneyed term
"morality". But Dharma transcends that. Not everything that is seemingly "moral" on the
surface necessarily is "sustainable" or favorable to the maintenance of order.
• So the terms "sustenance" and "order become key to understanding Dharma, right from
its earliest usage in Rig Veda.
Dharma in the Rig Vedas vs the Upanishads
The Rig Veda explicitly associates Dharma with an allied concept called "Rta" - which is associated with the cosmic principle that
governs the universe

But the earliest layers of Vedic literature do not theorize on Dharma. We don't get to understand what is the nature of social and
personal conduct that constitutes Dharma.

This elaboration happens later in Indian history, first in the Upanisads, and then in the Itihaasas, Gita, and finally in the Dharmasutras
and the successor Dharmashastra texts.

The Brihadaranyaka Upanisad seeks to define Dharma by linking it with "Truth"

• धर्मः तस्माद्धर्मात् परं नास्त्य् अथो अबलीयान् बलीयाँसमाशँसते धर्मेण यथा राज्ञैवम् यो वै स धर्मः सत्यं वै तत् तस्मात्सत्यं वदन्तमाहुर् धर्मं वदतीति धर्मं वा वदन्तँ सत्यं वदतीत्य् एतद्ध्येवैतदुभयं भवति

Nothing is higher than dharma. The weak overcomes the strong by dharma... Truly dharma is the Truth; Therefore, when a man
speaks the Truth, they say, "He speaks the Dharma"; and if he speaks Dharma, they say, "He speaks the Truth!" For both are one"

The Brihadaranyaka dates roughly to ~700 BCE (some 1000 years after Rig Veda) While its definition is elegant, it is not entirely
satisfactory. It does not entirely cover the etymological suggestion of "Dharma" as a "sustainer" of civilizational order in the Rig Veda.
Dharma In the Itihasas
• The Itihasas take the idea of Dharma a few steps further by making it contextual.
• In Ramayana, Dharma is viewed as the choice of "Shreyas" over "Preyas'. Doing
the "right" thing over the "pleasing" thing.
• Unlike Mahabharata, Ramayana does not theorize as much on Dharma, but
instead chooses to define Dharma through the life example of Rama - a person
who always chooses Shreyas over Preyas at every crucial juncture in the epic.
• The Mahabharata in contrast, takes a much more nuanced view of Dharma. Two
of its great sections - the Gita and the Shanti Parva spend a lot of time theorizing
about Dharma Unlike the view in Brihadaranyaka which we encountered, MB
offers a context-sensitive view of Dharma
Gita
• Here's a verse from the Gita that talks of "Swadharma" - where Dharma is linked to one's circumstances.
• स्वधर्ममपि चावेक्ष्य न विकम्पितुमर्हसि धर्म्याद्धि युद्धाछ्रेयोऽन्यत्क्षत्रियस्य न विद्यते यदृच्छया चोपपन्नं स्वर्गद्वारमपावृतम् सुखिनः क्षत्रियाः पार्थ लभन्ते युद्धमीदृशम्
• "As a Kshatriya, your Swadharma is to fight a lawful war, and there is nothing that is superior to that. A warrior
must be happy when encountered with an opportunity to wage a battle that will open the gate to heaven for the
fighter”
• The Gita also suggests that one's Swadharma is much more important than doing the duties of someone else
• श्रेयान्स्वधर्मो विगुणः परधर्मात्स्वनुष्ठितात् स्वभावनियतं कर्म कु र्वन्नाप्नोति किल्बिषम् सहजं कर्म कौन्तेय सदोषमपि न त्यजेत् सर्वारम्भा हि दोषेण धूमेनाग्निरिवावृताः
• Translation - "It is better to perform one’s own dharma imperfectly than to perform another’s action very well.
Performing one’s own dharma (as dictated by one’s innate “swabhava”), one does not accumulate guilt."
• So what's striking here in the Gita is that, unlike in Upanisads, it positions Dharma not merely with Satyam but
with the idea of "Duty" Duty is contextual and is specific to each person's station and circumstance Hence the
approach to Dharma can never be "one size fits all"
Dharma's context-sensitivity
• This acknowledgment of Dharma's context-sensitivity and the impossibility of
"defining" it is found even in the Apastamba Dharmasutras - one of the oldest
Dharma texts (dating roughly to 5th-3rd cen BCE) and hence arguably
contemporaneous with the Gita.
• Apastamba in these sutras says - "Dharma and Adharma do not go around saying,
"That is us." Neither do gods, nor gandharvas, nor ancestors declare what is
Dharma and what is Adharma" An acknowledgment of Dharma's enigmatic
character.
• But this did not result in the Indian mind giving up on the idea and throwing its
hands up in arms. There was always a certain strand in Indian thought that
argued that while Dharma may be "contextual" there are certain aspects to
Dharma that are context-free and eternal.
Finally Context-free?
• This distinction came about in the Dharmasastras where the word "Sanatana
Dharma" made its appearance. Sanatana Dharma meant "Eternal order" -
contrast to the "context specific" notion of Dharma we were discussing this far,
particularly in the Mahabharata.
• In fact during the age of the Dharmasastras (200BCE to 400 AD), there emerged
the distinction between Sanatana Dharma (which is eternal) and Yuga Dharma
(which is specific to the age in which one finds oneself). So Dharma can be both
eternal as well as contextual
• If we study the ideas of several influential modern Indian thinkers like
Vivekananda and even Gandhi in the 20th cen, they are clearly influenced in a big
way by the ideas of Dharma in Patanjali. Gandhian thought owes a great deal to
the Yamas and Niyamas of Patanjali.
 Dharma is only one among many other aspects
of life
• Next we need to ask the question - How did Dharma stack up against the other aspects of life in Indian thought?
• Purushartha is a word that comes up very early in Indian lit - as per which Dharma is only one of the 4 goals of a well led life
(Artha, kama & Moksha being others)
• Now with the possible exception of Arthashastra that privileges Artha, most Indian texts are unequivocal on this - Dharma is
paramount, and trumps Artha and Kama.
• In fact this support for Dharma over Artha and Kama, is vocally stated by none other than Vatsyayana - the author of Kama Sutras!
Vatsyayana is one of those rare Indian minds who explicitly distinguishes between Dharma and Adharma.
• In fact he goes one step further and distinguishes between the different types of Dharma and Adharma -
• Dharma / Adharma of mind
• Dharma / Adharma of words
• Dharma / Adharma of body
As per Vatsyayana, "paricharana" (rendering service to others) is "Dharma of the body" while "pratisiddha maithuna" (sexual
activity with someone other than one's partner) is "Adharma of the body" This is a remarkable vote in favor of Dharma from
the philosopher of love himself!
Societal View of Dharma
• So far we have discussed Dharma from a largely individual lens. But is there a societal
view of Dharma voiced by Hindu society. The answer is yes. This is best summed up by
the well known, yet controversial, phrase - "Varnashrama Dharma"
• While Varna needs no introduction, Ashrama refers to the 4 stages of life -
• Brahmacharya (celibate student),
• Grihastin (householder),
• Vanaprastha (retired life),
• Sanyasa (renounced life)
• This societal view of Dharma (Varna-Ashrama) is the aspect of Dharma that is most
problematic in our times Partly because modern liberalism privileges "individual liberty"
as the highest ideal, and this conflicts with the Hindu view that there is a "time and place
for everything"
Dharma in a Modern Liberal Society
• A fine example of this conflict is illustrated in the 2007 movie Cheeni Kum
where a 35 year old Tabu falls for a 64 year old Amitabh. Is this consistent
with Ashrama Dharma? In my view, no.
• This reminds us of the original etymological understanding of Dharma
where we started - "that which sustains / bears". Is the kind of union
described in Cheeni Kum sustainable for the society at large? Perhaps not.
• So in that sense it is not Dharmic. Yet it is viewed positively by modern
liberal society using the lens of "personal liberty" Here's a fine instance
where modern liberal morality conflicts with Dharmic morality. Ofcourse
there are other instances.
Contd..
• While Dharmic code focuses on behaviors / modes of thought that promote "stability", modern
liberalism privileges "liberty" over "stability". These are two totally different takes on how to
approach life.
• While Dharmic code focuses on behaviors / modes of thought that promote "stability", modern
liberalism privileges "liberty" over "stability". These are two totally different takes on how to
approach life.
• As we look ahead into what remains of the 21st century, the society faces some hard qns
• How do we preserve Dharma?
• How do we balance it against the ideal of individual liberty (which has its charm, while being
adharmic).
• How do we have the cake and eat it too?
• Our answers to these questions will determine if we continue to remain a "Dharmic" society
focused on virtue and stability, or a "liberal" society focused on freedom and pleasure.
SAmAnya
dharma and
Social Issues
To be Contd. In another session