Gita in daily life: Ch. 2. Dharma and Svadharma

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

The second chapter refers to svadharma (#31) (= one’s own

dharma) in passing, but Krishna makes it the crucial point

when he comes to chapter 18. We have already referred to

the nuances of *dharma*, when we were in the first chapter.

The following is a note on dharma (from the Bhagavatam

Canto 1, chapter 2 shlokas 6 to 11) and, following it, in

the same spirit, what appears to be a rare definition of

*svadharma* given by my father in one of his manuscripts:

 

 

6. sa vai pumsAM paro dharmo yato bhaktir-adhokShaje /

ahaituky-apratihatA yayAtmA samprasIdati //

 

The supreme dharma for all humanity is that by which

devotion to the transcendent Lord is generated, which is

causeless and which does not wane because of obstacles and

by which The Self is revealed.

 

 

7. vAsudeve bhagavati bhakti-yogaH prayojitaH /

janayaty-Ashu vairAgyaM jn~AnaM ca yad-ahaitukaM //

 

By that kind of devotion to the Supreme Absolute one

immediately acquires desireless knowledge and dispassion.

 

8. dharmaH svanuShTitaH pumsAM viShvaksena-kathAsu yaH /

notpAdayet yati ratiM shrama eva hi kevalaM //

 

The dharmic activities a man performs are only so much

useless labour if they do not generate a craving for and a

satisfaction in matters relating to The Absolute.

 

9. dharmasya apavargasya nArtho’rthAya upakalpate /

nArthasya dharmaikAntasya kAmo lAbhAya hi smRRitaH //

 

The goal of dharma is moksha not further artha, material

prosperity. The only end of artha, material prosperity, is

dharma, not desires of sense.

 

10. kAmasya nendriya-prItiH lAbho jIveta yAvatA /

jIvasya tattva-jij~nAsA nArtho yashceha karmabhiH //

 

The goal of desire is not sense-gratification. Only that

much need be desired as needed for preserving one’s life.

The goal of life is inquiry into Absolute Truth, not

pursuit of works that pamper the senses.

 

11. vadanti tat tattva-vidaH tattvaM yat j~nAnam-advayaM /

brahmeti paramAtmetibhagavAn-iti shabdyate //

 

Those who know this Absolute Truth call it non-dual. And

they term it brahman or paramAtmA or Bhagavan.

 

 

After this, we can now understand the following definition

of svadharma.

 

“sva-prAptyupAyaka-dharmaH svadharma ityuktaH”

 

Expln.: *sva* means ‘self’. The means (dharma) by which

one obtains the *sva*, that is, ‘the self’ is *sva-dharma*.

 

 

At this point my father refers to Brihad-Aranyaka

Upanishat: I.iv.14. and he freely adapts Shankara’s

bhashya sentences:

 

*satyamiti yathA-shAstratA*

‘Truth’ is the fact of being in accordance with the

scriptures.

 

*sa eva anuShTIyamAnaH dharma-nAmA bhavati*

The same thing, when it is practised by people, is called

dharma.

 

*shAstrArthatvena j~nAyamAnastu satyaM bhavati*

When it is understood to be in accordance with scriptures,

is Truth.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

New on my website, particularly for beginners in Hindu philosophy:

 

Hinduism for the next generation:

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/contentsbeach10.html

 

Free will and Divine will - a dialogue:

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/HNG/FWDW.html

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

>

> After this, we can now understand the following definition

> of svadharma.

>

> "sva-prAptyupAyaka-dharmaH svadharma ityuktaH"

>

> Expln.: *sva* means `self'. The means (dharma) by which

> one obtains the *sva*, that is, `the self' is *sva-dharma*.

>

>

> At this point my father refers to Brihad-Aranyaka

> Upanishat: I.iv.14. and he freely adapts Shankara's

> bhashya sentences:

 

 

Namaste,

 

"sva-prAptyupAyaka-dharmaH svadharma ityuktaH"

 

This, indeed, is a wonderful 'sutra' in itself.

 

It must be added that Brihad. Up. I:iv:11-15 is the source for

the 'chAturvarNya' of Gita 4:13, and elaborated further in

Gita 18:41-47.

 

Gita's emphasis would appear to be on dharma as 'svabhAvajaM

karma', but 'sva-prApti' is available to anyone who performs such

karma-s in accord with the shAstra-s - Gita 16:23.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

namaste,

 

Karmayoga from Hindu Dharma

Arjuna asks [Krishna] whether it is not a sin to wage war and slay

friends and relatives in battle. It seems to us a natural and

reasonable question. Sri Krishna Paramatman gives an answer in the

Bhagavad-Gita. An action that outwardly seems to be bad and cruel

need not necessarily be sinful. Acts that apparently cause pain to

others may have to be committed for the good of the world and there

is no sin in them. Then what action is sinful and what is

meritorious? The Lord answers this question also. Only such deeds as

are motivated by desire and hatred can be sin. Those performed for

the well being of the world without being impelled by desire and

hatred are meritorious even though they may seen to be cruel.

The question arises: Is there any action that does not spring from

desire or hatred? I will give an example. When a judge awards

punishment to a man found guilty of crime is he driven by desire or

hatred? His sentence may seem cruel but it is indeed for the Atmic

well-being of the accused himself. If one's son is suffering from

advanced insanity does one not keep him in chains? Is that sinful? It

is for the son's good as well for the good of others who might come

to harm by him.

It is this manner that the sastras have kept us bound, ordering us to

do this and that. It is for our benefit as well as the world's, says

Sri Krishna, that we must live according to the tenets of the

sastras: "Tasmatcchastram prmanam te karyakarya-vyvasthitau" (the

sastras are the authority as to what you must do and must not). The

Gita today enjoys wide esteem. Even people who have no respect for

our religious customs and traditions - researchers, Western scholars,

etc - speak in praise of it. They interpret variously the Gita's

teaching on the svadharma. There is no room for doubt about what the

Gita says about svadharma: It is the karma allotted to a man by the

sastras.

When there is neither selfish desire nor hatred, there will be

nothing unpleasant about any kind of work. One can then be always

happy doing one's allotted work.

The reason for desire and hatred is ego-feeling, ahamkara. When there

is no ego-sense, considerations of high and low, or inferior or

superior, will be found meaningless. We will kept doing our work

happily as a matter of duty and thus also contribute to the world's

happiness. The Karmayoga taught by the Gita is doing one's work

without ahamkara, in a spirit of dedications to the Lord. This

tradition of desireless action that purifies our inner being has

existed in this land from the Vedic period. Sri Krishna Paramatman

presents it to us as a boon encased in a handy casket.

We must keep applying this teaching with ardour in every work and

action of our life. Every time we do a work we must ask

ourselves: "How do we benefit from this work? Will it bring us fame?

Are we moved by desire or hatred? Are we being partial to somebody in

carrying it out?" If there is any of these elements associated with

our action it must be considered sinful even if it seems exalted to

the outside world. If we do something on our own, dictated by our own

desire, there will be much wrong-doing in accomplishing it. So, as

Sri Krishna says, all our actions must be founded on the sastras. If

everybody acts with equal love for all and with a pure heart there

will be neither any rivalry nor any quarrel in society. The world

then will be filled with joy.

 

copy right: The Hindu Dharma by Kanchi Maha periyaval

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

In my earlier note on this,

 

advaitin/message/26416

 

I had referred to some shlokas in Chapter 2 of Canto I of Srimad

Bhagavatam.

 

This note is to point out another reference from Canto I, Chapter 17

where there is a significant point about Dharma. The context is the

meeting of King Parikshit with the Kali-Purusha. First the King did

not know who it was. What the King saw was a cow and a bull, both of

which were being tortured by some man in regal robes, with a stick

in his hand. The King accosted the man himself, but when there was

no response, he asked the animals directly: 'Who is this that is

torturing you?'. The bull was actually Dharma-devata himself (and

the cow was Goddess Earth). The bull replies: (shlokas 18 - 20 :

Shri Prabhupada's translation)

 

18. O greatest among human beings, it is very difficult to ascertain

the particular miscreant who has caused our sufferings, because we

are bewildered by all the different opinions of theoretical

philosophers.

 

19. Some of the philosophers, who deny all sorts of duality, declare

that one's own self is responsible for his personal happiness and

distress. Others say that superhuman powers are responsible, while

yet others say that activity is responsible, and the gross

materialists maintain that nature is the ultimate cause.

 

20. There are also some thinkers who believe that no one can

ascertain the cause of distress by argumentation, nor know it by

imagination, nor express it by words. O sage amongst kings, judge

for yourself by thinking over all this with your own intelligence.

 

And now comes the King's reply (shloka 22, which is the point of

this note):

 

*dharmaM bravIShi dharmaj~na dharmo'si vRRiSha-rUpa-dhRRik /

yadharmakRRitaH sthAnaM sUchakasyApi tad-bhavet //

 

22. O you, who are in the form of a bull! You must be no other

than Dharma-devata himself! You know the truth of religion, and you

are speaking according to the principle that the destination

intended for the perpetrator of irreligious acts is also intended

for one who identifies the perpetrator.

 

Thus it follows -- even though it is difficult to agree with the

point -- that, even pointing out (or speaking about) the doer of

adharmic activities or events is itself adharma. This is a subtle

point about dharma that does not surface in any of our ethical codes.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste VK-ji

 

I failed to grasp the following point -

"Thus it follows -- even though it is difficult to agree with the

point -- that, even pointing out (or speaking about) the doer of

adharmic activities or events is itself adharma. This is a subtle

point about dharma that does not surface in any of our ethical codes."

 

Can you pls elaborate more on this ?

 

why is it called adharma to point out or speak about adharma?

 

should not the adharma be poinetd out and be rectified?

 

 

 

PraNams

 

Vishal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Vishal D <vishaldeshpande4>

wrote:

> Namaste VK-ji

>

> I failed to grasp the following point -

> "Thus it follows -- even though it is difficult to agree with the

> point -- that, even pointing out (or speaking about) the doer of

> adharmic activities or events is itself adharma. This is a subtle

> point about dharma that does not surface in any of our ethical

codes."

>

> Can you pls elaborate more on this ?

>

> why is it called adharma to point out or speak about adharma?

>

> should not the adharma be poinetd out and be rectified?

>

>

>

> PraNams

>

> Vishal

>

Namaste Vishal-ji and all

 

If you read the above paragraph of mine carefully, you will see I

have the same doubts as you. I also feel it is difficult to agree

with the statement of King Parikshit who seems to say that pointing

out the doer of adharma is itself adharma. This is a subtle point

on which our common sense points in a different direction. That is

the reason for my post! Dharma Shastras do not usually lend

themselves to our questions of why.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste ProfVKji and Vishal-Ji:

 

Here is my understanding of why pointing out the doer of adharma is

considered adharma if we apply the strict rules of 'dharma.' One of

the rules of dharma is not to `judge' the dharma of another person!

The dharma does vary from person to person and that is the reason for

the term, `

Svadharma being used and stressed. Each one of us follow

a 'svadharma' based on the level of our spiritual maturity and our

environmental circumstances.. Different persons with different levels

of spiritual maturity may adopt dharmic rules that suit their

environment. For example, what is considered 'adharma' in India may

not be considered adharma in USA and vice-versa. When we make a

judgment of another person's dharma (who may not face the same

environment and do not live with the same level of spiritual

maturity), we are likely to commit the 'adharma' as hinted by

Parikshit. Also dharma is not static and what is considered dharma

one hundred years back may not be dharma using today's current

yardstick. I believe that King Parikshit seems to point out the

potential problems of anyone calling the doer of adharma without full

information.

 

Having said this, we do need to distinguish between `individual human

dharma' and dharma at the society level. When the dharma of the

society is well defined, it is possible to find the doer of the

adharma on a clearer time. Modern societies define the `dharma' by

laws and maintain the dharma using enforcement mechanism. In USA,

when someone is accused of committing `adharma,' in the beginning,

the law treatss that person as `innocent.' The court and law

enforcement officials then gather all the facts before determining

the crime (adharma) committed by the accused. With the jury trial,

the dharma or adharma is established using collective judgement.

 

Interestingly, when someone points out the doer of `adharma' without

substantial fact, then he or she could be labeled as committing

the `adharma.' This may explain why many times, crimes are never

reported!

 

I hope that this clarifies,

 

Regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk>

wrote:

> >

> Namaste Vishal-ji and all

>

> If you read the above paragraph of mine carefully, you will see I

> have the same doubts as you. I also feel it is difficult to agree

> with the statement of King Parikshit who seems to say that pointing

> out the doer of adharma is itself adharma. This is a subtle point

> on which our common sense points in a different direction. That is

> the reason for my post! Dharma Shastras do not usually lend

> themselves to our questions of why.

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins

> profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste All.

 

Shree Vishal Ji wrote -

>"Thus it follows -- even though it is difficult to

>agree with the point -- that, even pointing out

> (or speaking about) the doer of

> adharmic activities or events is itself adharma.

> This is a subtle

> point about dharma that does not surface in any of

>our ethical codes."

advaitin/message/26486

advaitin/message/26482

 

With my humble praNAms to Prof VK ji, I would like to

venture into this.

 

Talking about, or, thinking about something leads one

precisely into it. One can see an example from

car-driving. When trying to avoid rails on one side of

the car, if one looks at the rails, one will actually

start driving into the rails. The trick is to look

away from the rails, while maintaining feel for it.

 

In the same way, about adharma, while one has to avoid

adharma, one must not dwell too much into it in trying

to avoid it; because one will be precisely led into

it, inferring from the gita ch2-dhyatO..

Hence, one must concentrate on dharma and not aspects

or details of adharma.

-------------------

By the way, I had been travelling a lot this whole

month with spending only weekends at home and hence

not able to respond adequately to the favorite

monthly-topic. I will catch up soon.

-----------------

Love and regards,

Raghava

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

Perhaps Saint Tiruvalluvar's advice would apply here:

 

http://www.mountainman.com.au/kural/kural019.htm

(on Avoidance of Backbiting)

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

advaitin, "asridhar19" <asridhar19> wrote:

>

> Namaste Vishalji, professorji and all

 

when

> it comes to understanding or interpretation of Dharma/ truth we must

> >

> > advaitin, Vishal D <vishaldeshpande4>

> > wrote:

> > > Namaste VK-ji

> > >

> > > I failed to grasp the following point -

> >

> > > Can you pls elaborate more on this ?

> > >

> > > why is it called adharma to point out or speak about adharma?

> > >

> > > should not the adharma be poinetd out and be rectified?

>

> > >

> > > PraNams

> > >

> > > Vishal

> > >

> > Namaste Vishal-ji and all

>

> > out the doer of adharma is itself adharma. This is a subtle point

> > on which our common sense points in a different direction. That is

> > the reason for my post! Dharma Shastras do not usually lend

> > themselves to our questions of why.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ramji, Sreedharji, Raghavji...and all

 

'Dharma' is in indeed very subtle, deep and beutiful.

Its ultimate purpose is to lead this creation (i.e the lila) to its proper

fruition.

This includes progressively leading the bonded jivas(illusonary) to liberation.

This is,I think, all the works of Bhagvan Ved Vyas suggest.

 

We, being a part of the creation (although illusiornary), should follow the

dharma.

Now, following of the dharma includes not judging others bad actions or others

adharma

As pointed out nicely by Sreedharji and Ramji, we have to just ourselves follow

the dharma, everything will be taken care of.

 

if we try to judge others adharma, we fail to understand that the adharma of

other person is in fact a part of this Grand design (or dharma).

 

Yudhisthira, instead of judging Sri-Krishna's adharma of saying half-truth,

should have followed the dharma.

 

Dharma was at that point of time, yudhisthira killing dronacharya by whatever

means.

 

This is my humble understanding.

 

PraNams to all

 

Om tat-sat

Vishal

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> *dharmaM bravIShi dharmaj~na dharmo'si vRRiSha-rUpa-dhRRik /

> yadharmakRRitaH sthAnaM sUchakasyApi tad-bhavet //

 

Respected sir,

The correct transliteration of 2nd line should be :

 

yadadharmakRRitaH sthAnaM (yat+adharmakRRitaH) which would mean 'the

destination for perpetrator of adharma'.

>Thus it follows -- even though it is difficult to agree with the

>point -- that, even pointing out (or speaking about) the doer of

>adharmic activities or events is itself adharma.

 

I beg to differ from Shri Prabhupada's translation. suchak means one who

suggests or instigates. The line may be translated thus:

'The destination for the instigator of irreligious act is the same as the

perperpetrator of the act.'

The difficulty created by Shri Prabhupad's translation is thus resolved.

 

Most humble pranams to Shri Prabhupad and other sages.

 

Ravi Shivde.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Raghavarao:

 

You are absolutely right in your statement, that while driving, we

should focus our eyes (mind) on the road and not on the rails! When

the mind is not under the control of the 'buddhi' it fails to

observe 'dharma' and indulges in 'adharma.'

 

The only way to avoid adharma is to follow dharma with a single

minded focus. Also, following dharma strictly means avoiding

adharma! This means that it is very important for us to sharpen

our 'discriminating intellect - viveka buddhi' to distinguish between

the 'right' and 'wrong.'

 

When the mind and the sensual faculties are fine tuned we can enjoy

the 'synchronized music' of dharma. The music of 'dharma' can

become 'adharma' if one of the faculties fail to follow director of

the music - the buddhi. For example if the mind entertains, 'anger'

it can lead to the destruction of buddhi (buddhinasa). In Gita,

chapter 2, Lord Krishna beautifully describes the path of destruction

in verse 63:

 

Krodhaad bhavati sammohah sammohaat smriti vibhramah;

Smritibhramshaad buddhinaasho buddhinaashaat pranashyati.

>From anger comes delusion; from delusion the loss of memory; from

loss of memory the destruction of discrimination; from the

destruction of discrimination he perishes.

 

Actually Gitacharya correctly points out the root cause of 'adharma'

in verse # 62:

 

Dhyaayato vishayaan pumsah sangas teshupajaayate;

Sangaat sanjaayate kaamah kaamaat krodho'bhijaayate.

 

When a man thinks of the objects, attachment to them arises; from

attachment desire is born; from desire anger arises.

 

The above two verses are often quoted to point out how 'attachment'

to objects can finally leads to one's self destruction. With the

attitude of detachment, we can maintain 'dharma' and avoid adharma.

 

When someone else commits 'adharma' (using the measure of our own

yardstick) we can (should) learn from it. Instead of pointing out and

accusing, we use that experience and make sure not to repeat the

same 'adharmic actions' on others. This is the subtle rule

of 'Svadharma' which can help us move to a higher level of 'dharma.'

 

The rule of Svadharma is clear and precise: If someone's actions

bring happiness then they are considered 'dharmic.' Similarly if

someone's actions bring sorrow they can be considered 'adharmic.'

Also dharmic actions shouldn't deprive the 'happiness' of anyone -

implying that our action needs to be necessarily 'unselfish.' In

otherwords, derive happiness only from the happiness of everyone

around you - this is possible if and only if we love everyone around

us with equanimity. If we take a serious look at the rule of

svadharma, we will be able to notice that 'judging others' implies

that we don't love everyone and treat everyone with equanimity.

 

In conclusion, the rule of svadharma can be summarized by the

following: Determine to follow the 'dharmic experiences' from others

and make every effort to avoid repeating the 'adharmic actions' of

others.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, Raghavarao Kaluri

<raghavakaluri> wrote:

> Namaste All.

>

> Talking about, or, thinking about something leads one

> precisely into it. One can see an example from

> car-driving. When trying to avoid rails on one side of

> the car, if one looks at the rails, one will actually

> start driving into the rails. The trick is to look

> away from the rails, while maintaining feel for it.

>

> In the same way, about adharma, while one has to avoid

> adharma, one must not dwell too much into it in trying

> to avoid it; because one will be precisely led into

> it, inferring from the gita ch2-dhyatO..

> Hence, one must concentrate on dharma and not aspects

> or details of adharma.