Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa – VIII

In this blogpost, guest writer Bibek Debroy expands on the complex nature of dharma. It isn't a monolith. In fact it varies substantially depending on one's stage of life, one's occupation, one's location and even one's circumstances - to name a few parameters! Begin to explore this tenet of the Hindu tradition, so deeply complex, that even the great sire Bhishma was left speechless by it on occasion. 


धर्माधर्मौ सुखं दुखं मानसानि न ते विभो। 

न कर्तासि न भोक्तासि मुक्त​एवासि सर्वदा॥

This is 1.6 of the Ashtavakra Gita.  “O lord!  Dharma, adharma, happiness and unhappiness belong to the mind. These aren’t yours.  You are not the doer.  Nor are you the one who enjoys.  You are always free.”

न त्वं विप्रादिको वर्णो नाश्रमी नाक्षगोचरः।

असङ्गोऽसि निराकारो विश्वसाक्षी सुखी भव​॥

This is 1.5 of the Ashtavakra Gita.  “You do not belong to the brahmana and the other varnas, nor to the ashramas.  You cannot be perceived by the eyes.  You are without attachment.  You are without form.  You are a witness to the universe.  Be happy.”

These quotes are getting into terrain we will examine later.  The limited point I wish to make is the assertion that dharma (or adharma) is a state of the mind.  And “you” are not brahmana and the other varnas, or the (four) ashramas. We go back to the various definitions of dharma as religion, ordinances, precepts of good conduct, law, duty, custom and all or some of these.  In a loose sense, if we are asked to translate dharma, we will probably pick religion.  But, in the context of our texts, it seems to me that dharma is not religion.  

Dharma is ordinances, precepts of good conduct, law, duty, custom – anything but religion.  If you read the Mahabharata, you will find sections titled “rajadharma” (the dharma for kings), “danadharma” (the dharma for donations), “apad-dharma” (the dharma for times of catastrophe) and “mokshadharma” (the dharma for liberation).  In other words, dharma is not to be equated with moksha.  Dharma needs the qualifier of moksha.  That is the reason, in the title of this blog, moksha figures separately.  In our sacred texts, dharma, artha and kama are stated to be the three categories/objectives (वर्ग​) of existence.  But it is also abundantly clear that pursuit of these three categories/objectives leads to gains that are transitory or impermanent.  Permanent bliss results from moksha.

                                                                                                                                                        That is the reason I am skeptical of the Dharmashastras being mechanically applied.  While I am no scholar of the Dharmashastras, reading them (say the first chapter of Manu Smriti), I get the feeling that they were not meant to be prescriptive or normative.  They were more descriptive, collating the practices of the day.  That’s true of the various elements of आचार​ (good conduct), व्यवहार​ (legal procedure) and प्रायश्चित्त (atonement).  They were society-specific and are therefore, relative.  They are thus not meant to be taken in any absolute sense.  Both varnashrama dharma and food habits belong to that good conduct category.

Take food habits.  Manu Smriti 5.14 will tell you विड्वराह​ should not be eaten.  This is a village-pig.  However, wild-pigs can be eaten.  Similarly, a village-fowl should not be eaten.  But you can eat wild-fowl.  This can be on grounds of health, since village-pigs and village-fowl eat offal.  It can certainly not be on grounds of dharma, understood as religion.  Let me go off on a tangent.  It has now become fashionable for people to say they will not eat red meat.  That’s because of studies, which have themselves been questioned, linking red meat consumption with various health ailments, including cholesterol problems.  But those studies are all based on domesticated red meat (beef, lamb, whatever). Domesticated animals do not have to run around.  They, and the people who eat them, become obese.  A wild animal, if one were to eat such an animal, is likely to be lean, with less fat.  Therefore, it should not contribute to any cholesterol problem.  There is a logical reason for the wild variety to be the preferred alternative.  But as I said, this is a tangential issue. 

Dr. Bibek Debroy

 I have no explanation why Shanti Parva of Mahabharata (rajadharma section) says that brahmanas must not eat red ants, suggesting that black ants are fine.  There must have been some historical reason.  I personally think that some kinds of food facilitate yama (restraint) and niyama (restriction).  Most people know that yama and niyama are the first two elements of the 8-fold ashtanga yoga.   I don’t wish to get into the difference between yama and niyama now.  One way to understand it is as follows.  Yama is precepts regarding behaviour towards others.  Niyama is internal to the individual.  But this doesn’t mean that one should make a fetish out of food, or out of any of the other dharmashastra principles.

These things remind me a bit about CBSE (Central Board of Secondary Education) syllabi, text-books and examination systems.  They are terrible and involve nothing but mugging.  Given a quadratic equation, ax² + bx + c = 0, the student will mechanically have mugged up the solution to x and later forgotten the formula.  However, if he/she had understood the principles instead, deriving the result many decades down the line should constitute no problem.  

I think the sacred texts that set out achara, vyavahara and prayaschitta are no different.  Not knowing what the individual will use the knowledge or the practice eventually for, they set out a universal and standardized template.  We mug this up. Mugging this up and practicing it doesn’t take us any closer to moksha.  And not mugging this up and not practicing it doesn’t take us further away from moksha.  The answer depends entirely on the individual.  Reading the earlier blog, someone commented that I might have used the expressions “samanya dharma” and “vishesha dharma”.  I deliberately don’t want to use words and expressions and burden all of us with jargon, unless there is use for that word or expression. 

Having said that, “samanya dharma” is a template for universal good conduct, while “vishesha dharma” is specific to the individual, sometimes linked to varna and ashrama too.  I think moksha is an individual objective, nothing to do with collective templates.  As layers in dharma (not moksha) we have the dharma indicated in the Vedas, the dharma of the Dharmashastras, the dharma enforced by the king, the dharma of the varnas and the ashramas and the individual’s dharma.  Of these, I think the last is the only one that matters.

Salutation to Dawn from Golden Treasury of shlokas Book 4

Today's poem is salutation to उषस् , the Dawn.  This is a fraction of an ancient text which has been obtained by the Parikh family from a Jashvantiben Dave of Mumbai. The original poem has not yet been found, but we can gauge from the beauty of we have what a masterpiece it must be.

Also I'd like you to note the stress on the 'here and now'. No doubt there are tracts of Hindu thought that are 'other worldly' but as we have discovered again and again in #SanskritAppreciationHour, there are innumerable gems that focus on the present. In every way this poem reflects the idea of 'Carpe Diem' which is Latin for Seize the Day. 

The leitmotif of the blog - Don't let others [including me] select what they think is 'good' in the ancient texts. Learn Sanskrit, read the Scriptures yourself; decide for yourself! 

पश्यत दिनम् अभि सांप्रतम् यतः तत् तु जीवितम् जीवनस्य अपि जीवितम् 

Look!  [you all] at the day, that has just arrived; since/as it is life, the very life of life

तस्य स्वल्पे क्रमणे  वर्तन्ते सर्वाः सत्यताः वास्तविक्ताः युष्माकम् अस्तित्वस्य 

In it's brief course exit all realities, all the verities of your existence

वृद्धे धन्यता 

The bliss of growth

कृते यशः 

The fame/glory of action/acts

सिद्धे श्री 

The splendour of accomplishment

पूर्व दिनम् ननु स्वप्नः एव 

The previous day is only a dream

आगामि दिनम् च आभास मात्रम् 

The coming day, the next day is merely a vision

किंतु सुष्ठु जीवितम् साम्प्रतदिनम् करोति प्रत्येकम् पुर्वदिनं सुखस्वप्नम्

But well lived, this day makes every yesterday a happy dream

प्रत्येकम् आगामि दिनम् च आशायाः दर्शनम् 

And every day to come a vision of hope

अतः सुष्ठु पश्यत दिनम् अभि सांप्रतम्

Therefore live look well upon this day that has arrived now

प्रणतिः एषा उषसं प्रति 

This is a salutation to Dawn.

Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa – VII

In this blogpost, Bibek Debroy explores the parameters of 'dharma' a term notoriously difficult to translate into English. Is it posible to pinpoint its meaning? Is it absolute? Is it sadācāra? What do the dharma texts and the epics have to say about it? Please read on, and leave comments!!

What does the word धर्म​ (dharma) mean?  I have used it in the title of this blog, without having defined it so far.  We do tend to use the word dharma indiscriminately.  Because the world dharma has multiple meanings, we often talk at cross-purposes.  It means religion, ordinances, precepts of good conduct, law, duty, custom and all or some of these.  It is derived from the Sanskrit root √धृ, - to hold things up.  Dharma is often defined as something that upholds, holds things up, bears them.  Holds what up?  Good conduct also holds society up.  But good or virtuous conduct is सदाचार​ (sadācāra) and there are problems in equating it with dharma. 

Can there be any absolute notion of what is “good” and “bad”?  Such notions are context, culture and society-specific.  Take something as basic as telling the truth.  Is this an absolute principle of good conduct?  सत्यं ब्रुयात्प्रियं ब्रुयान्न ब्रुयात्सत्यमप्रियम् । प्रियं च नानृतं ब्रुयादेष धर्मः सनातनः॥  Most people have heard this.  It is a famous quote from Manusmriti, 4.138, Chapter 4 of Manusmriti being devoted to codes of conduct for brahmanas.  The translation is as follows.  “Let him (the brahmana) speak the truth.  Let him speak what is pleasant.  Let him not speak a truth that is unpleasant.  Let him not utter a pleasant falsehood.  This is eternal dharma.”  

The Mahabharata has a story about a sage named Kauśika.  He had taken a vow of always speaking the truth.  Kauśika was meditating in a forest and some travellers were being pursued by a band of bandits.  Those travellers fled and the bandits asked Kauśika about the direction in which they had fled.  Having taken a vow of speaking the truth, Kauśika told them.  Consequently, the travellers were assaulted and killed by the bandits.  Since he mechanically spoke the truth, even when it caused injury, Kauśika went to hell. (Karṇa parva section 69)

In the core stories of the Mahābhārata there are several instances where people are asked not to speak the truth, and even to lie, when such a course of action is deemed to bring benefits.  There is a section in the Mahābhārata titled “āpad dharma”, the dharma to be followed in times of distress.  Stated simply, in times of distress, there can be deviations from dharma.  Extending the argument about speaking the truth, one takes vows or pledges.  Must one always stick to these vows?  

Let us take Bhīṣma and Arjuna.  Bhīṣma took a vow of perpetual celibacy (brahmacarya), so that his father, Śantanu, could get married to Satyavati.  As a result of this vow, Devavrata came to be known as Bhīṣma.  All of us know this.  At one point, Ambā (abducted by Bhīṣma) wished to marry Bhīṣma. Bhīṣma refused, citing his vow.  All of us know the subsequent story of Ambā becoming Śikhaṇḍi. Bhīṣma took a vow of perpetual celibacy.  Arjuna took a temporary vow of celibacy for one year.  During this period, he was approached by Ulupi.  Ulupi wished to marry Arjuna and said that, if he did not marry her, he would kill herself.  Protecting his vow was “dharma”.  Preventing a maiden from killing herself was also “dharma”. Faced with this dilemma, Arjuna decided to marry Ulupi.  Both Bhīṣma and Arjuna were kshatriyas and faced with similar situations, they took different decisions.  My intention is not to discuss the Mahābhārata and that epic is replete with instances where people confront conflicts over what “dharma” is.  My simple point is that सदाचार (sadācāra) is a specific aspect of dharma and it is different from dharma in a broader sense.  We must be clear about what we mean when we use the word dharma.

Is dharma वर्णाश्रम, with codes of conduct for the four varṇas  and the four āśramas?  At

Brahmacarya?

one level, varṇa is nothing but what economists would call specialization and division of labour, though there were problems when it became hereditary and there was also problems because śudras were discriminated against.  Perhaps we will revisit this later.  For the moment, on the āśramas, we have four – brahmacarya, gārhasthya, vānprastha and sannyāsa.  Brahmacarya is described as a period of celibacy, when one is a student. gārhasthya is when one is a householder. Vānaprastha is a period when one retires to the forest and sannyāsa is described as a period of renunciation.  These are often regarded as silos, to be progressively traversed as one passes through life.  But ब्रह्मचर्य​ really means to follow a code of conduct that leads one towards the brahman.  Why should it be reserved for the first 25 years of one’s life?  It is a lifelong pursuit. संन्यास​ really means to devote oneself to the path of the truth.  Why should it be reserved for the last 25 years of one’s life?  These aren’t silos at all.

Let me give you another story from the Mahābhārata.  It occurs in Śanti parva.  There has been a drought for twelve years and there is no food to be had.  There is a famine and the sage Viśvamitra is in trouble.  He is starving and doesn’t know how to feed his wife and children.  He roams around here and there, looking for food.  Finally, he arrives at a village of चण्डालs or श्वपच​s. There are differences between canḍāla, śudra and śvapaca.  But here, in this particular section, the Mahābhārata uses the words canḍāla and śvapaca synonymously.  So let’s ignore those differences.  Śvapacha is someone who eats dogs.  In this village, Viśvamitra comes to the house of a canḍāla.  In the courtyard, slung on a rope, there is the carcass of a dog the canḍāla has slain.  Specifically, it is the hind quarters of a slain dog.  Viśvamitra waits for the canḍāla to fall asleep and then decides to steal the dog’s hind quarters as food.  The canḍāla wakes up and a long conversation ensues between the canḍāla and Vishvamitra.  The canḍāla does his best to persuade Viśvamitra not to eat dog-meat and Viśvamitra is adamant.  Finally, Viśvamitra comes up with a question to which the canḍāla has no answer.  “Is my body eating the dog-meat or is it my ātman?  I am my ātman and not my physical body.”  Read the account for yourself. (Śanti parva section 141)

I will leave the argument dangling and pursue it again in the next blog.  But let me leave you with Bertrand Russell, the great philosopher.  Not too many people know that he also wrote some short stories.  They weren’t particularly good, that wasn’t his forte.  Read a story by him titled “The Boston Lady”, published in 1972.  Is incest bad?  What if the entire world has been destroyed by a nuclear holocaust and the only way to ensure the survival of the human race is to have intercourse with one’s own son?  Other writers of fiction have also explored this theme.  I picked on Russell because it is a famous name.

Representation of Human Beauty & Physique from Sanskrit Texts: Part- II

Tweet

Welcome back guest writer* Gyanendra Narayan, whose previous article on Representation of Human Beauty & Physique from Sanskrit Texts drew record audiences! Today he continues the series.

We finished our descriptions of Tall, Dark and Handsome (TDH) in last article. Now it’s time to take a look at fairer sex & beautiful minds. In this lengthy article, still not deep and in-complete, we are going to talk beauty of women with small deviation of description about high pedestal for women , then ,sringaar, description of entry of heroines and their eyes. 

In this article we talk about Menakaa, Rambhaa, Kaalindi, Kaikeyi , Shoorpanakhaa and Sitaa. We also talk about beauty being described with words like “Thunder-strike” , “Kookoo-voice”, “eyes like Lotus”, “Big eyes”, “Eyes like infant Deer”. Read on.

If you think fairer sex is just about beauty then think twice. Our scriptures are full of praise of their every activity. Contrary to popular perception, our scriptures are full of praise of women and our feminist friends can take courage from this.

A very popular shloka from Manu Smriti , Chapter-3, Shloka-56

Yatraa naaryastu poojyante, ramante tatra devataah|

Yatraaitastu naa poojyante; sarvaastatra-afalaah kriyaah ||

It says: Gods roam at the place where women are worshipped. Where women are not worshipped all efforts in that place will be futile, without result.

Yatra naaryastu poojyante : where women are worshipped

Ramante tatra devtah : There roam-around (moves ) Gods

Yatraitastu na poojayante : where (they are ) not worshipped

Sarvastatraafalaah kriyaah : Every activity (kriyah) (there) is without result ( afalaah )

The above shloka is just to show and remove any illusion of objectification of beauty. There are many shlokas in Ramayana & Mahaabhaarta too, but focus of article being on beauty I will reserve those for future references. 

Let me quickly delve with topic/mention of sringaar. Girls take too much time in makeup & justifiably so. Our great greatest grandfather of Hindu race (Manu) wrote (in fact indirectly admonished male fraternity) very positively about this.

Manu Smriti, Chapter -3 , Shloka -62

Striyaam tu rochamaanaayaam sarvam tadra-ochate kulam|

Tasya twarochmaanaayaam sarvameva na rochate||

It says: Where women do makeup (are happy) everything in that family is good. Where women are devoid of this everything will be dull and uninteresting.

Now let’s focus on central point of our article: on the description of beauty in out scriptures and literature.  Let us start with entry of beautiful women on the panorama. Context:  After finishing his education in forest, when Raama is returning. He is being narrated about many Rishis. Here is the context of Rishi Vishwaamatira

Valmiki Raamaayan, Baalkand, Sarg : 63, Shloka : 5

Taam dadarsha Mahaatejaa Menakaam Kushikaatmajah|

Roopenaapratimaam tatra vidyutah jalade yatha||

It says: Son of Kushika, Vishwaamitra saw highly illustrious Menakaa. Her beauty was unparalleled. She was (looking like) thunder strike in the pond.

Taam dadarsha “mahaaatejaa Menakaam” Kushikaatmajah : Saw her “Highly illustrious” Menakaa , (Rishi Vishwaamitra) Son of Kushikaa

Roopenaapratinaam : Unparalleled in beauty

tatra vidyutah jalade yatha :  Like thunder strike in pond , (there it was)

Now you know the original copy of many Hindi songs with reference to Bijli.

Let us see another entry:

Context:  Rishi Vishwaamitra is continuing his ‘tapasyaa’ and Rambhaa has been sent (by; who else then perennially insecure God Indra) to disturb him.

 Valmiki Raamaayan, Baalkand, Sarg : 64, Shloka : 9

Kokilasya tu shushraav valgu vyaaharatah swanam |

Samprahristena manasaa sa chainamanvavaikshata||

It says: (After hearing) Melodious speaking tune of Kookoo Son of Kushika, Rishi Vishwaamitra, with highly gladdened heart stared at her (Rambhaa). Here voice of Rambhaa has been compared as voice of Kookoo.

Kokilasya tu shushraav:  Hearing Kookoo

Valgu vyaaharat swanam : Sounding very melodious(enjoying)

Samprahristena manasaa : With gladdened heart/mind

Sa chainamanvavaikshata : stared at (her/Rambhaa)

                                                 

After entry, let me move further with eyes:

Context:  Here lineage of Lord Raama is being described and his ancestors are being mentioned. Amongst ancestors,  there happened a King named Asit  having 2 wives. One wife gave poisonous food to co-wife (Kaalindi) to kill the unborn son.  Here, eyes of Kaalindi have been described by both Valmiki and Rishi chyawan as Lotus-eyed.

 Valmiki Raamaayan, Baalkand, Sarg : 70, Shloka : 33

Vavande Padmapatraakshi kaamkshanti sutamuttamam|

Tamarshim saabhyupaagamya kaalindi chaabhyavaadayat||

It says:  Kaalindi , “ Eyes like lotus, desirous of good son , approached and addresses with reverence to that Rishi (Chyawan)

Vavande Padmapatraakshi kaamkshanti sutamuttam : Said (lady with) eyes like lotus, desirous of good son.

Tamarshim saabhyupaagamya kaalindi cha-abhyavaadayat : Kaalindi approached /addressed that Rishi with reverence.

After Kaalindi, its turn of eyes of Kaikeyi

Context:  Kaikeyi has been instigated by Mantharaa & is now furious with the news of Lord Raam being anointed King of Ayodhyaa. Here size of eyes, big, has been treated as beautiful. In next shloka we will see more subtlety towards eyes. So Kaikeyi first;

Valmiki Raamaayan, AyodhyaaKaand, Sarg :9, Shloka :55

Tathaa protshaahitaa devi gatwaa Mantharayaa saha|

Krdohaagaram vishaalaakshi soubhagyamadagarvita||

It says: Thus instigated, she, with big eyes and mad with luxury and good fortune, went along with Mantharaa to the Palace of Anger (special designated hall to express anger in that) (see here, bad emotions are not allowed in day to day living place)

Tathaa protshaahitaa devi : Thus instigated “she”

gatwaa Mantharyaa saha : Went (to) along with Mantharaaa

Krodhaagaram vishaalaakshi : (to) the palace of anger (went that ) big eyed (lady)

soubhagyamadagarvita : Maddeded, too proud, with her good fortune

Small deviation: Big sized eyes have also been used by Lakshaman while dealing with Shoorpanakhaa, in Aranyaa kaand , Sarg 18,shloka 10. To avoid repetition, I’m not producing the shloka.We will see another reference to Shoorpanakhaa’s eye’s in next shloka.

Now, the turn of Sitaa- The goddess and the most dignified, composed and beautiful character of Raamaayana

Context: Raam, Sitaa and Laxman are living in forest. There comes Shoorpanakhaa with intent to marry Raama and in doing so she tries to kill Sitaa

Valmiki Ramaayan, Aranyaa kaand , Sarg : 18, shloka: 17

Iti uktwa mrigashaavakshim alat sdrish eekshnaa|

Abhyadhaawat susankrudhaa mahaa ulkaa rohinim evam ||

It says: After saying it, she with eyes like burning fire (Shoorpanakhaa) attacked on she with eyes like deer ( Sitaa). Furious she, attacked like big asteroid has fallen on Star “Rohini”.

Iti uktwa mirgashaavakshim: After saying this (on) (lady ) with eyes like Deer

Alat sdrish eekshnaa: Eyes like burning fire

Abhyadhaawat  susankrudhaa: attacked(approached fast) with full of anger

Mahaa ulkaa rohinim evam : Big asteroid has falled on Rohini.

Connect with Gyanendra on Twitter

@Gyan_

There are infinite references to each and every body part in Sanskrit with most poetic, enigmatic, sensual yet dignified ways. We have not even scratched the surface. It is rich and delighting to an extent of making you a poet. So be forewarned, you can very well become a poet if you read Sanskrit with Rasaa. 

* I may or may not agree with the opinion of guest writers, but I respect their right to be heard. 

Tweet