The word "dharma" has multiple meanings depending on the context in which it is used. Monier-Williams' Sanskrit-English Dictionary lists several, including: conduct, duty, right, justice, virtue, morality, religion, religious merit, good work according to a right or rule, etc. Many other meanings have been suggested, such as law or "torah" (in the Judaic sense), "logos" (Greek), "way" (Christian) and even 'tao" (Chinese). None of these is entirely accurate and none conveys the full force of the term in Sanskrit. Dharma has no equivalent in the Western lexicon.
Dharma has the Sanskrit root dhri, which means "that which upholds" or "that without which nothing can stand" or "that which maintains the stability and harmony of the universe." Dharma encompasses the natural, innate behavior of things, duty, law, ethics, virtue, etc. Every entity in the cosmos has its particular dharma -- from the electron, which has the dharma to move in a certain manner, to the clouds, galaxies, plants, insects, and of course, man. Man's understanding of the dharma of inanimate things is what we now call physics.
British colonialists endeavored to map Indian traditions onto their ideas of religion so as to be able to comprehend and govern their subjects; yet the notion of dharma remained elusive. The common translation into religion is misleading since, to most Westerners, a genuine religion must:
1) be based on a single canon of scripture given by God in a precisely defined historical event;
2) involve worship of the divine who is distinct from ourselves and the cosmos;
3) be governed by some human authority such as the church;
4) consist of formal members;
5) be presided over by an ordained clergyman; and
6) use a standard set of rituals.
But dharma is not limited to a particular creed or specific form of worship. To the Westerner, an "atheistic religion" would be a contradiction in terms, but in Buddhism, Jainism and Carvaka dharma, there is no place for God as conventionally defined. In some Hindu systems the exact status of God is debatable. Nor is there only a single standard deity, and one may worship one's own ishta-devata, or chosen deity.
Dharma provides the principles for the harmonious fulfillment of all aspects of life, namely, the acquisition of wealth and power (artha), fulfillment of desires (kama), and liberation (moksha). Religion, then, is only one subset of dharma's scope.
Religion applies only to human beings and not to the entire cosmos; there is no religion of electrons, monkeys, plants and galaxies, whereas all of them have their dharma even if they carry it out without intention.
Since the essence of humanity is divinity, it is possible for them to know their dharma through direct experience without any external intervention or recourse to history. In Western religions, the central law of the world and its peoples is singular and unified, and revealed and governed from above.
In dharmic traditions, the word a-dharma applies to humans who fail to perform righteously; it does not mean refusal to embrace a given set of propositions as a belief system or disobedience to a set of commandments or canons.
Dharma is also often translated as "law," but to become a law, a set of rules has to be present which must: (i) be promulgated and decreed by an authority that enjoys political sovereignty over a given territory, (ii) be obligatory, (iii) be interpreted, adjudicated and enforced by courts, and (iv) carry penalties when it is breached. No such description of dharma is found within the traditions.
The Roman Emperor Constantine began the system of "canon laws," which were determined and enforced by the Church. The ultimate source of Jewish law is the God of Israel. The Western religions agree that the laws of God must be obeyed just as if they were commandments from a sovereign. It is therefore critical that "false gods" be denounced and defeated, for they might issue illegitimate laws in order to undermine the "true laws." If multiple deities were allowed, then there would be confusion as to which laws were true.
In contrast with this, there is no record of any sovereign promulgating the various dharma-shastras (texts of dharma for society) for any specific territory at any specific time, nor any claim that God revealed such "social laws," or that they should be enforced by a ruler. None of the compilers of the famous texts of social dharma were appointed by kings, served in law enforcement, or had any official capacity in the state machinery. They were more akin to modern academic social theorists than jurists. The famous Yajnavalkya Smriti is introduced in the remote sanctuary of an ascetic. The well-known Manusmriti begins by stating its setting as the humble abode of Manu, who answered questions posed to him in a state of samadhi (higher consciousness). Manu (1.82) tells the sages that every epoch has its own distinct social and behavioral dharma.
Similarly, none of the Vedas and Upanishads was sponsored by a king, court or administrator, or by an institution with the status of a church. In this respect, dharma is closer to the sense of "law" we find in the Hebrew scriptures, where torah, the Hebrew equivalent, is also given in direct spiritual experience. The difference is that Jewish torah quickly became enforced by the institutions of ancient Israel.
The dharma-shastras did not create an enforced practice but recorded existing practices. Many traditional smritis (codified social dharma) were documenting prevailing localized customs of particular communities. An important principle was self-governance by a community from within. The smritis do not claim to prescribe an orthodox view from the pulpit, as it were, and it was not until the 19th century, under British colonial rule, that the smritis were turned into "law" enforced by the state.
The reduction of dharma to concepts such as religion and law has harmful consequences: it places the study of dharma in Western frameworks, moving it away from the authority of its own exemplars. Moreover, it creates the false impression that dharma is similar to Christian ecclesiastical law-making and the related struggles for state power.
The result of equating dharma with religion in India has been disastrous: in the name of secularism, dharma has been subjected to the same limits as Christianity in Europe. A non-religious society may still be ethical without belief in God, but an a-dharmic society loses its ethical compass and falls into corruption and decadence.
Deepa S. Iyer: Our Daily Bread: Interfaith Relations In Every Day Life
Suhag A. Shukla, Esq.: Peeling Back the Layers of Sanskrit and Vedic Chanting
Steve McSwain: How to Know God Beyond Organized Religion
Pankaj Jain, Ph.D.: Jain Dharma Goes Beyond Religion
Sadly, mankind either does not seem to understand or forget this fundamental difference. Some of the peoples seem to get mired in their dogma, and some others seem to tolerate religious zelotism and its dominance over the silent and indifferent. Somehow, it appears to me that we as mankind regressed in the past four decades or so with our religious hatred and intolerance (remember this when you stand in the security lines in the airports). We need to find our moral compass again and address many urgent issues that challenge us in the near future.
This is what I'd like to see in the Huffington Post or any other post worth its salt.
After this statement by you, I am unable to figure what you are saying. Its not possible to respond to it unless it is coherent.
He is also upset that I am pointing out the westernization of Hinduism. But the field called history of ideas and history of cross-cultural exchanges is entirely about analyzing such influences. I see no reason why such a research project is bad. He seems un-read in the literature on the history of religions.
Finally, I welcome his stance that Bible is metaphorical. That's for each Christian to decide for himself. But try convincing the Vatican or any of the mainstream Protestant churches. Once the significance of history gets downgraded there is nothing exclusive left.
'Religion is the process of retrieving our innate spiritual wisdom', but religion does not necessarily proclaim this as its avowed goal, and does not accomplish this either with efficiency, finesse or safety.
Apart from that, since Dharma is the innate nature of a being based on which the being acts, functions and behaves, and since humans do not necessarily start "retrieving their innate spiritual wisdom" naturally as a function of their being, it can hardly be said that "religion is a dharmic function".
You have failed to say which innate nature of a being you are discussing, i.e. which chakra/tala consciousness you refer to. If you change the consciousness of a person by helping them to focus on a higher chakra or tala, you have changed the way they act, function and behave. Religion is focused on the ultimate consciousness of the higher chakras as that is the ultimate consciousness and nature of a person. Religion is the ultimate dharmic function.
Yes, I have already read those articles. My education on these issues has come from your articles and Dr CK Raju's writings.
Looking forward to your book and hope it sets a solid foundation for undoing the perennial philosophy and related nonsense spun out to appropriate Indic ideas. There is a danger though that in diving deep into metaphysics the bigger picture might be lost. Like while listing subtle differences between a donkey and an elephant (donkey is 0.3% phosphorous by weight whereas elephant is 0.5 %, an elephant's ears are wholly to its sides whereas a donkey's is to its side but slightly upwards etc) we might forget the big picture that there isn't any more similarity between a donkey and an elephant than either have to a pig. The metaphysical differences you list shouldn't be taken to mean that there is some similarity between the Indic traditions and western ones. God forbid!
The real tragedy is that English-educated Indians with access to so much material are still so ignorant. All they have to do is to read the Mahabharata to get an idea of the depth and grandeur of Indic traditions. It is quite easy to torture bible/kabbalah/some other text and claim that we-too-had-it-but-lost-it. **These claims can be believed only by those who don't know what the original looks like** I strongly encourage all Indians reading these columns to read the Mahabharata at least.
===
A yoga date with Russell Simmons was a top silent-auction item. He seemed to find speaking with us as uncomfortable as hot yoga in August. “Every religion has it, but it is not a religious idea,†Mr. Simmons said of the principle behind yoga.
“It is taqwa for Muslims or nirvana for Buddhists; Christ-consciousness for Christians. The idea of yoga is to be awake,†he said. “Thank you.â€
===
Thanks for another wonderful article. Your work is really an inspiration for all of us and is spurring many Indians to stand up for dharma.
It struck me that those who are not familiar with Indic traditions might, even after your reading your articles, end up with the wrong impression that Indic traditions and western philosophy/religion are similar endeavors but with some differences. For instance, in your last article you pointed out the difference between indic traditions and western ones is that the former had yoga whereas the latter were intellectual constructs. This is absolutely true but still doesn't come close to doing justice to the gulf that exists. It's a bit like saying the difference between a 5-th generation fighter and cardboard cutout of it that a tribe in Amazon might build is the engine:) Yes but does not convey the magnitude of difference!
By the way, yoga is also concerned with intellectual constructs. One of the main hindrances for yoga is "verbal delusion" and language is intimately tied to generation of false ideas. Hence the great effort in India to refine language and create the perfect tool for thinking. Hence the same Patanjali who wrote yoga-sutras also wrote the Mahabhasya.
Myth of Hindu Sameness - http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com/blog/post/2004/11/myth-of-hindu-sameness.htm
Geopolitics and Sanskrit Phobia - http://rajivmalhotra.sulekha.com/blog/post/2005/07/geopolitics-and-sanskrit-phobia.htm
My forthcoming book has 500 pages of such arguments on key differences at the deep metaphysics level.
These short blogs don't do justice to the subject and serve merely to whet the appetite.
regards,
rajiv
Both modern Science and the Dharmas treat reality as One, not two portions whether creator-creature or 'natural-supernatural'.
Though modern science is more awake than Christianity, it still obsesses over 'the one truth' just like the monotheistic religions, and it still chases Plato's eternal forms as the transcendent 'laws of nature'.
There was always a danger of handing mathematics over to people who didn't know how to use it, erroneously thinking that mathematics is more than a tool of the mind, rather than some transcendental reality. Modern science has begun to purge this out, finally...
Since Bohr and "complementarity, Science has begun to move towards the Dharmic view on epistemology, which has always been one of 'complementarity'... many complementary views: http://www.deepyoga.ca/dial_up_108/classical_references/108_014.html
Mathematician Paul Davies explains: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html
"Taking Science on Faith, by PAUL DAVIES"
Thanks for gifting a very thoughtful article.
Please read this article by me posted on Beliefnet.com. It refutes the trend among many westerners whose tantra guru led them to shakti/kundalini experience, but who later want to abandon dharma and re-interpret it as something within Judeo-Christianity. Many gurus started to sell to such followers the notion that shakti/kundalini = Holy Spirit of Christianity. This means you can pluck what you need from Hinduism, reject the source, and in the process boost Christianity's appeal. Hinduism ends up in a museum just like the old pagan religions from which many "useful" things got appropriated by Christianity before those faiths got destroyed brutally.
An entirely new Christian theology has emerged that emphasizes Holy Spirit using this appropriation from Hinduism. It started among a fringe element of speculative thinkers who simultaneously had a guru. But it has penetrated into the Christian mainstream theologians gradually. Along the way, the champions of this wave have discarded Hinduism ever more forcefully and reinvented a whole new approach to seeing the Bible and the feminine in it.
This article is a summary of a longer argument that appears in my forthcoming book this fall. I hope gurus will stop selling out, as that distorts our tradition while also misinforming westerners who later suffer internal conflicts.
regards,
rajiv
Sagan has looked at the Upanishads, even quoting them in his series, Cosmos. He has made the clarion cry of the Upanishads, which is a revolution in the West... first time such a statement has been made in the West in 20 centuries, such has been the hold of Christianity and its belief and God talk, and constrain on free thinkers, something which NEVER happened in India.
And now, having lost the methods of Gnosis in the West, many Westerners are interested in Gyana/Gnosis which has been well preserved in India; the all important praxis component has been preserved in India as meditation and also as the ritual arts. The latter is something which is denigrated as superstition, but which will come to better appreciated by the West, as it becomes less one-sided towards 'science' and moves to also embrace Art as approach to knowledge and transformation.
@sandalwood, If infact Carl Sagan (and admittedly, I don't know much about him), has looked at/read the Upanishads then he absolutely should reference them appropriately. What is so special about that? Moving away from the point that you are making - non-dualism gaining currency over materialism - do you feel that writers like Carl Sagan, adequately acknowledge their Indic sources. One of the themes that emerges over and over again - and blogger Rajiv Malhotra refers to this as a U-turn by Western authors - is that Indic knowledge often is appropriated and passed off as original/authentic work by Westerners including some famous ones. Your comments show that you are well informed on Indic topics. In your research and reading has this been your experience at all. Coming back to Carl Sagan, what do you mean when you say that he has "partially announced the Upanishadic position"? is he referencing the Upanishads or paraphrasing them as his own. Just curious.
By "partially announced" I mean he has gone in the direction of the Upanishads, but not as far as the Upanishads themselves. The latter cannot be accomplished while Materialism is the dominant philosophical stance in the West, unlike in India where its non-dualism, where its not believed that the metaphor of mechanism can describe reality, can describe self and world, can describe oneself. I have been debating Materialists on this blog on exactly this subject... the debate is going very well; they have been routed... its here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ramnath-subramanian/substance-and-shadow-dist_b_874589.html#comments
http://youtu.be/3EyAKFi3_Xg
Joseph Campbell of course did a great job in presenting Hinduism to the West.
The point I want to make is by comparing and contrasting Dharma with Western canon laws, isn't the author making the same miskate? Why are we stating dharma is not the same as the canon laws. No one said it is. Dharma, if it is independent of religion then it is equavalent to Wester philosophy and not the canon laws - say something like Saitre's existentialism.
This is a very mischievious article in the sense while it seems to take a high moral ground actually attacks the western religion/philosophy as something inferior.
What troubles you is that I reverse the gaze, i.e. the dharmic civilization is usually the object of study from the west's perspective and now I the gazed becomes the gazer.
Just because we have red varieties of Rose and Hibiscus, if the Rose lovers are going to club Hibiscus as another variety of Rose, then the Hibiscus lovers have the right to disprove the Rose lover's claims.
DharmO Rakshati Rakshitah!!!