Weekly page from Hindu Dharma: Divided by Work but still of One Heart

[Guest guest]

This week's page from Hindu Dharma (see note at bottom) is "Divided by Work but

still of One Heart" from "The Vedic Religion And Varna Dharma". The original

page can be found at http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part3/chap4.htm.

 

Next week, you will be emailed "Why only in this Country" (from "The Vedic

Religion And Varna Dharma")

 

Best regards

for kamakoti.org

 

 

Venkatesh

(this email is being sent on an automated basis)

 

Divided by Work but still of One Heart

from The Vedic Religion And Varna Dharma, Hindu Dharma

 

I spoke about the different jatis, the work allotted to each of them and

the rites and customs prescribed for each. What I said was not entirely correct.

The vocation is not for jati; it is jati for the vocation. On what basis did the

Vedic religion divide the fuelsticks[that is the jatis] into small bundles? It

fixed one jati for one vocation. In the West economists talk of division of

labour but they are unable to translate their ideas into practice. Any society

has to depend on the proper execution of a variety of jobs.

 

It is from this social necessity that the concept of division of labour arose.

But who is to decide the number of people for each type of work? Who is to

determine the proportions for society to function in a balanced manner? In the

West they had no answer to these questions. Everybody there competes with

everybody else for comfortable jobs and everywhere you find greed and bitterness

resulting from such rivalries. And, as a conseqence of all this, there are

lapses from discipline and morality.

 

In our country we based the division of labour on a hereditary system and,

untilit worked, people had a happy, peaceful and contented life. Today even a

multimillionaire is neither contented nor happy. Then even a cobbler led a life

without cares. What sort of progress have we achieved today by inflaming evil

desires in all hearts and pushing everyone into the slough of discontent? Not

satisfied with such "progress" there is talk everywhere that we must go forward

rapidly in this manner.

 

Greed and covetousness were unknown during the centuries when varna dharma

flourished. People were bound together in small well-knit groups and they

discovered that there was happiness in their being together. Besides they had

faith in religion, fear of God and devotion, and a feeling of pride in their own

family deities and in the modes of worshipping them. In this way they found

fullness in their lives without any need to suffer the hunger and disquiet of

seeking external objects. All society experienced a sense of well-being.

 

Though divided into a number of groups people were all one in their devotion to

the Lord; and though they had their own separate family dieties, they were

brought together in the big temple that was for the entire village or town. This

temple and its festivals had a central place in their life and they remained

united as the children of the deity enshrined in it. When there was a car

festival(rathotsava) the Brahmins and the people living on the outskirts of the

village[the so-called backward classes] stood shoulder to shoulder and pulled

the chariot together. We wonder whether those days of peace and harmony will

ever return. Neither jealousy nor bitterness was known then and people did not

trade charges against one another. Everyone did his job, carried out his duties,

in a spirit of humility and with a sense of contentment.

 

Considering all this, would it be correct to say that Hinduism faced all its

challenges in spite of the divisions in society? No, no. Such a view would be

totally wrong. The fact is that our religion has survived as a living force for

ages together because of these very divisons. Other great religions which had

but one uniform dharma for all have gone under. And there is the fear that

existing religions of the same type might suffer a similar fate. What has

sustained Hinduism as an eternal religion? We must go back to the analogy of the

fuelsticks. Like a number of small bundles of sticks bound together strong and

secure-instead of all the individual sticks being fastened together-Hindu

society is a well-knit union of a number of small groups which are themselves

bound up separately as jatis, the cementing factor being devotion to the Lord.

 

Religions that had a common code of duties and conduct could not withstand

attacks from within and without. In India there were many sets of religious

beliefs that were contained in, or integrated togheter with, a common larger

system. If new systems of beliefs or dharmas arose from within or if there were

inroads by external religious systems, a process of rejection and assimilation

took place: what was not wanted was rejected and what was fit to be accepted was

absorbed. Buddhism and Jainism sprang from different aspects of the Vedic

religion, so Hinduism(later) was able to digest them and was able to accomodate

many other sets of beliefs or to make them its own. There was no need for it to

treat other systems as adversaries or to carry on a struggle against them.

 

After the advent of Islam we adopted only some of its customs but not any of

its religious concepts. The Moghul influence was felt to some extent in our

dress, music, architecture and painting. Even such impressions of the Muslim

impact did not survive for long as independent factors but were dissolved in the

flow of our Vedic culture. Also the Islamic impact was largely confined to the

North; the South did not come much under it and stuck mostly to its own

traditional path.

 

Later, with the coming of the Europeans, faith in the Vedic religion began to

decline all over India, in North as well as South. How did this change occur?

Why do all political leaders today keep excoriating the varna system, giving it

the name of "casteism"? And how has the view gained ground everywhere that the

division of jatis has greatly hindered the progress of the nation? And why does

the mere mention of the word jati invite a gaol sentence?

 

I shall tell you later, as best I can, about who is responsible for this state

of affairs. For the present let us try to find out why some people want to do

away with varna dharma. To them it seems an iniquitous system in which some

jatis occupy a high status while some others are pushed down to low depths. They

want all to be raised to the same uniform high level.

 

Is such a step possible or practicable? To find an answer, all that we have to

do is to examine conditons in countires where there is no caste. If there were

no distinctions of high and low in these lands, we should see no class conflicts

there. But in reality what do we see? People in these countires are divided into

"advantaged" and dissadvantaged" classes who are constantly fighting between

themselves. A true understanding of our religion will show that in reality there

are no differencees in status based on caste among our people. But let us for

argument's sake presume that there are; our duty then is to make sure that the

feelings of differences are removed, not get rid of varna dharma itself.

 

One more point must be considered. Even if you concede that the social

divisions have caused bittenress among the different sections here, what about

the same in other countries? Can the existence of such ill-will in other lands

be denied? The differences there, based on wealth and status, cause bitterness

and resentment among the underprivileged and poorer sections. In America, it is

claimed that all people have enough food, clothing and housing. They say that

the Americans are contented people. But what is the reality there? The man who

has only one car is envious of another who has two. Similarly, the fact that one

person has a bank balance of a hundred million dollars is cause for

heart-burning for another with a bank balance of only a million. Those who have

sufficient means to live comfortably quarrel with people better off over rights

and privileges. Does this not mean that even in a country like the United States

there are conflicts between the higher and lower classe!

s of society?

 

The story is not different in the communist countries. Though everyone is said

to be paid the same wages there, they have officers and clerks who do not enjoy

the same status. As a result of the order enforced by the state, there may not

be any outward signs of quarrel among the different cadres, but jealously and

feelings of rivalry must, all the same, exist in the hearts of people. In the

higher echelons of power there must be greater rivarly in the communist lands

than elsewhere. The dictator of today is replaced by another tommorow. Is it

possible to accord the same status to all in order to prevent the growth of

anatagonisms? Feeling of high and low will somehow persist, so too the

competitive urge.

 

It seems to me that better than the distinctions prevailing in the

West-distinctions that give rise to jealousies and social discord-are the

differences mistakenly attributed to the hereditary of vocations. In the old

days this arrangement ensured peace in the land with everyone living a contented

life. There was neither envy nor hatred and everyone readliy accepted his lot.

 

The different types of work are meant for the good of the people in general. It

is wrong to believe that one job belongs to an "inferior" category and another

to a "superior type". There is no more efficacious medicine for inner purity

than doing one's work, whatever it be, without any desire for reward and doing

it to perfection. I must add that even wrong notions about work(one job being

better than another or worse) is better that the disparities and differences to

be met with in other countries. We are[or were] free from the spirit of rivalry

and bitterness that vitiate social life there.

 

Divided we have remainied united, and nurtured our civilization. Other

civilizations have gone under because the people of the countries concerned,

though seemingly united, were in fact divided. In our case though there were

differences ini the matter of work there was unity of hearts and that is how our

culture and civilization flourished. In other countires the fact that there were

no distinctions based on vocations(anyone could do any work) itself gave rise to

rivalries and eventually to disunity. They were not able to withsatand the

onslaught of other civilizations.

 

It is not practicable to make all people one, nor can everyone occupy the same

high position. At the same time it is also unwise to keep people divided into

classes that are like water-tight compartments.

 

The dharmasastras have shown us a middle way that avoids the pitfalls of the

two extremes. I have come as a representative of this way and that is why I

speak for it: that there ought to be distinctions among various sections of

people in the performance of rites but there must be unity of hearts. There

should be no confusion between the two.

 

Though we are divided outwardly in the matter of work, with unity of hearts

there will be peace. That was the tradition for ages together in this land-there

was oneness of hearts. If every member of society does his duty, does his work,

unselfishly and with the conviction that he is doing it for the good of all,

considerations of high and low will not enter his mind. If people carry out the

duties common ot to them, however adverse the circumstances be, and if every

individual performs the duties that are special to him, no one will have cause

for suffering at any time.

 

 

 

 

 

Note:

Hindu Dharma is a translation of two volumes of the well known Tamil Book

"Deivatthin Kural", which, in turn, is a book of 6 volumes that contains talks

of His Holiness Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi Mahaswamiji of Kanchipuram.

The entire book is available online at http://www.kamakoti.org/ .