Guest guest Posted October 11, 2004 Report Share Posted October 11, 2004 SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA. Oppiliappan, "MK krishnaswamy" <krishnaswamy@c...> wrote: > Recognising our natural confusion, the Lord advises us to rise above the confused mind, to abandon all our ordinary concepts relating to the conflicts in the codified dharmic rules and rely only upon Him who resides as the inner Self in us. He seems to be telling us: > "I am not far, far away. I am always closest to my devotees. > You may not feel my presence due to your other preoccupations and forgetfulness. > But you can hear me in deep silence if only you still your constantly chattering mind through meditation and devotion to me. > You shall then know without doubt what your true dharma is in any situation. > Act according to this divine knowledge and you shall be absolved of all common concepts of Paapa (Sin) relating to such action. > Believe me, this is the only sure way." > > sarva dharmaan parityajya > maamekam sharaNam vraja > aham tvaa sarva paapebhyo > mokshayishyaami maa shuca. Respected Sri Krishnaswamy swamin, Pranams. A thought-provoking mail about the dilemma in knowing what is dharma in a given situation. Seeking permission from you to add my thoughts, let me write what strikes my mind. I may be wrong in my interpretation / views. It is because of my limited knowledge and limited exposure to sasthras. Hence I request you, Sir, and others to correct me wherever needed. It seems that there are two sets of factors that determine whether an action is dharmic or adharmic in a given situation. One set is swadharma and paradharma and the other set is shreyas and preyas. When swadharma and shreyas go together and match with each other, dharma is in place. When they don’t go together, conflicts arise. The resultant action may be in tune with only one of these two and one is done at the expense of the other. There are reasons for clubbing these two sets. Based on this, we can analyse the situations that you have given in your mail. Texts declare (as you have quoted in another mail from Katohpanishat) that shreyas and preyas are the two factors that control a man in his actions. Whether he likes it or not or whether he is ready for it or not, the man is faced with an inevitable situation of adhering to one of these two at any given situation. A ‘dheeran’ understands the difference between the two and adheres to shreyas. But a ‘mUdan’ allows himself to be pulled by preyas thereby slipping out of purushartham (Kato –2-1 &2-2) Applying this distinction in the situations given by you, let us see what comes up. “> Noble Bharata did not observe the injunction "matru devo bhava" and chided his mother Kaikeyi using abusive words, for sending Rama to the forest thereby also causing the death of Dasaratha. ‘ The swadharma of bharatha as son of Kaikeyi requires him to abide by whatever she says. He did not follow swadharma in this situation but that can not be termed as adharmic. Why? Let us think of the situation like this – that Bharatha had been very much in Ayodhya when kaikeyi caught hold of this plan. Assuming that Bahratha had come to know of her intentions even before she could reveal it to Dhasharatha, what his swadharma had been like? I don’t think he would have accepted kaikeyi’s plan. His swadharma as her son requires him to counsel her in the right ways. He would have certainly prevailed upon her and changed her mind. Perhaps sensing that he would play a spoil sport, destiny had him removed from the scene to enable Ramavathara - purpose to happen. Now he had come back and come to know what damage his mother had done. His swadharma in the action of counseling in the former situation had changed into chiding her. In the former situation (hypothetical) too he had stuck to what is good for all (shreyas) and in the latter condition too he had stuck to shreyas. His swadharma did not suffer on any account, for, he has only acted in the best way (in chiding her) that would do good to his mother (since his swadharma constitutes in bringing glory to his mother and not dis-repute which would have happened if he had agreed to his mother’s plans). There was no conflict in the choice of shreyas and preyas for Bharatha for whom both merged together in having desired the crown to go to Rama. There was no conflict in his swadharma and shreyas for him (it was for Kaikeyi only) in this sense (mentioned above) and there is conflict as well, if going against mother’s wish is against swadharma. Bharatha stuck to shreyas unwaveringly. In the next scenario, “> Vibhishana deserted his brother Ravana and joined his enemy Rama.” But Kumbakarna didn’t, though he too thought that Ravana was not right. Kumbakarna decided to stick to his swadharma, while Vibheeshna failed in it. He saw greater good in saving Rakshasas and their kingdom from complete destruction on account of the mis-deed of their king. He saw justification in the war on Rama’s side and not on Ravana’s side. Where there is justification, there is dharma. And dharma is what is to be protected and sustained. So vibheeshana too gave priority to shreyas. Now it is about Sugreeva. “> Sugreeva plotted and succeeded in killing his brother Vali, taking the help of Rama.” This writer thinks that there is no conflict of any nature in this case. Sugreeva plotted and killed Vali. So too Vali who can be accused of having denied Sugreeva any share in kingdom and in driving his brother out of kingdom. The same with reference to taking possession of each other’s wife in the other’s absence. So the question of dharma or adharma must lie elsewhere. Before he concludes the series of accusations on Rama after he was hit, Vali says that it is perfectly legitimate for Sugreeva to have aspired for the kingdom and in having plotted to kill him to get that kingdom. Such was the legitimacy conferred on kings of yore whose main job was to expand their kingdom. But the dharma angle comes at another place – in why Rama waited for a day to kill Vali and allowed Sugreeva to be hit badly by Vali on the first day. It is difficult to believe that Rama had difficulty in identifying who is who. He need not have to be present in the scene. He could have just sent the astra from any place. That would have hit Vali precisely. But that he decided to allow Sugreeva suffer at Vali’s hands in the first day, can have one explanation. Rama would have either thought that Sugreeva needed some kind of punishment – like some impediment in the path of Rama helping him which must be removed – or he had not yet made up his mind who is more culpable in the offence for which he killed Vali (the reading of the symbolism of Vali vadam written by this writer would help to understand this thread of reasoning). Both Vali and Sugreeva had known that Sita had been abducted and both had not taken any effort to prevent the abduction. One way of looking at Rama’s deliberate letting of Sugreeva to suffer on the first day is that He did not want to let go Sugreeva who had actually seen the abduction. Sugreeva may think that he is an a-shakthan (powerless) to prevent Ravana. No, that can not be accepted. Even if some one is getting killed in front of one’s eyes, the witness is expected to do something, atleast scream and alert others and do something to prevent the crime. Claiming himself to be an a-shakthan, Sugreeva let Ravana safely cross Kishkintha. Inspite of being a shakthan (powerful), Vali, let that happen unchallenged. Depending on the extent and nature of the offence, each one of them faced respective punishments. Vali failed both in swadharma and shreyas – the former in failing to challenge the offence in his capacity as king, that went past his territory and the latter in having failed to install the Ikshvaku-Raj-dharma (the details can be understood by going through the dialogue between Vali and Rama.) And now about Pandava brothers. “> The Pandava brothers restrained themselves due to the Rules of contract and raja dharma and thereby allowed their wife Draupadi to be humiliated in open court.” A clear case of ignoring shreyas happened at an earlier time which can be termed as the root cause of this event. Yudhishtra agreeing meekly to play the dice-game at the first instance and again at the second instance may be in tune with his swadharma (in having to abide by the King’s decree) but not in the interests of shreyas. He just ignored to weigh the invitation to play as against the probable consequences in the first instance and refused to fall on shreyas (knowing well what is in store) in the second instance. And now the most important of all.. ..”> Ignoring kshatriya dharma, Arjuna at first turned against waging war with the kauravas because of the Dharmic rule against killing one's own kin and guru but later, on Krishna's advice expounding the superior dharma, took active part in the war and killed his close relatives and gurus. “ This is a very clear instance of shreyas falling in line with swadharma. When they go together, dharma is established and it is glory all the way for the one in the situation. Whenever the conflict between the two had occurred (like in Vibheeshana’s case), the process of arriving at the right decision (shreyas) had been wrought with dilemmas of sorts. Here a question comes ,-is this what Gitacharyan says? He has not just once but twice said that swadharma, though ill-done is better than para-dharma. (verses 3-35 & 18-47- shreyan swadharmo viguna:) So why think about shreyas? A deeper analysis of the verses give some insight. To understand this, let us see the issues like this. Gita talks about 3 phases of swadharma. First there is a swabhava (18-41) arising from Tri-gunas. >From swabhava arises swakarma which is what the person does in consonance with his nature (swabhava) (BG-18-47 “swabhava niyatham karma) Doing swakarma steadfastly is swadharma. (18-47) Why does the Lord insist on swadharma even if it is of ill-nature? This question gives rise to another question. What if the person’s swadharma is of bad and demonic nature (like what Ravana did)? Is it right then to allow the person to continue in that swabhava? The first question is answered from Bhagavad Ramanuja’s point of view. He says when one clings to swadharma, he is doing something that is of his nature and easy to perform. Even if it is defective, it is ‘free from liability to interruption and fall’. This is known as karma yoga. He continues, “ For a person who lives practicing Karma yoga –which is his duty because he is qualified for it- even death without success in one birth does not matter. For, in the next birth with the help of experience already gained in the previous birth, it will be possible for him to perform Karma yoga without any impediments.” (Gita bhashyam 3-35) That is why the Lord says ‘stick to swadharma even if it has sprung from defective nature.’ To reply to the second question, for average persons like us the Lord indicates in chapter 16 what kind of divine qualities and demonic qualities are there to follow. A thorough adherence to divine qualities and a conscious shedding of demonic qualities will help us shape our swabhava (nature) for the better. If we don’t turn our minds from demonic qualities, He is sure to doom us into demon-hood further. Ravana didn’t change his demonic qualities. So his swadharma just stuck to him. His refusal to look other way came as an impediment in seeing what is shreyas from him and his race. No Hitopadesam from anyone worked, the reason for which is traced to his swabhava. Vibheeshana was able to see shreyas and escaped terrible fate. The presence of divine qualities in him helped him in this. >From the Lord’s words on swadharma it may be construed that He favours only swadharma at the expense of shreyas. No, this is where He expects us to stop, think and proceed. In 2-31, He brings out a qualitative attribute to swadharma. A war that is “dharmyaath “ is greater. “There is no greater good than a righteous war.” In such war, Arjuna, you should not waver from your swadharma. Again in 2-33, He says,” if you don’t fight this righteous war, you will be turning away from your swadharma and honoured position and will be incurring sin.” Thus He adds this ‘righteous’ or ‘dharma’ clause to swadharmam. The same swadharma (to fight) applies to Kauravas too but He didn’t ask them to fight. Instead He asked them to relent. Because any war that they were planning to wage would not be dharmic. He advised Yudhishtra to give a go-by to his swadharma, though temporarily, to eliminate Drona, because only then dhrama can be established (Here shreyas has been given precedence). Bheeshma failed to make such temporary amends with his swadharma ( and allowed shreyas to take a beating) and so he saw the down fall of the Hastinapur throne which he avowed to safe-guard, right in front of his eyes. Karna stuck to his swadharma and perhaps overcame what Raamanuja says as impediments. Coming to our lives, our focus can be like this. Be aware of our swabhava. Follow the divine qualities and shed demonic ones. When the situation presents a conflict between swadharma and shreyas, follow shreyas. A dharmaic shreyas requires one to follow or shed swadhrama accordingly. Shreyas takes precedence, not swadharma. This situation may be very difficult to follow. In all those actions (and in every action too) follow equi-distance from pleasure and pain, success and defeat and profit and loss. (2-38, sukha-dhukkhe..) In that way the Lord assures that we are relieved of papam. Such sama-dhrushti ultimately helps one to renounce sarva-dharman whereby we are required to shed even swadharma. When that level is attained we will automatically find ourselves at the feet of the Lord. We will become only the ‘nimittham’ (instrument) (BG 11-33) in His hands. The doership, doing and results would be His, not ours. Thus the “maam yekam sharanam vraja” has its beginning in swabhava, then swakarma, then swadharma and lastly but not at the least in shreyas. When we cling to shreyas, the Lord is pleased. Because Shreyas is dhrama and dharma is what the Lord is terribly obsessed with!!! So adiyaL’s prescription in short is not “sarva dharman”, nor even the oft-quoted “karmani yeva adhikaarasthe’. It is ‘sukha-dukkhE samE kruthwa lAbhA-lAbhau jayA jayau/ thatho yuddhAya yujyaswa naivam pApam avApsyasi// The rest will follow suit. Regards, Jayasree saranathan. _______________________________ Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.