PDA

View Full Version : DHARMA?



SANT
23 October 2009, 10:15 AM
Q.What exactly is dharma?
Is it a fixed set of rules.
If so then let me give an example of it.
In the religious scriputes alchohol and cigarettes are considered bad but sikhs are restrained from having cigarettes more than alchohol.In the muslim scriptures it is the opposite.
For a hindu beef is not acceptable but muslims are allowed to eat beef.
A police/kshatriya kills a robberer/warrior it is considered alright but if we do the same then we get paap.
So this means that dharma is different for different people.
What is right and what is wrong?
Let me give an example.
A hunter hunts and kills deer in the forest.For him right is to feed his family who are hungry at home.It is more important than the deers life.


A pesons dharma is based upon the sanskars he has.What are sanskars- they are thought and beleifs of the individual.everything is this universe consists of the three gunas sat .raj. tamas.so each thought and sanskar we have will be also having these gunas in different quantities.
So what is satvik in nature, is that only DHARMA?
Or is dharma more related to social benefit
suppose a man kills and fight to protect his kingdom although it will be against the philosophy of physical nonviolence but for the benefit of all he does it.Here social benefit is given more importance.

Ganeshprasad
23 October 2009, 11:53 AM
Pranam Sant

According to Hindu, Dharma is based on four major principles, Satya, Tapa, Ahimsa and Pavitrata.

Chapter 16 of Bhagvat Gita deals in details the virtues of saintly beings as well as nature of demoniac

as for the hunter's dilemma you may wish to refer two stories, one is famous Valmiki and the other less known Mugrari.
Both of them realised non of their family member would take part in the sins, of killing Innocent animals.

Jai Shree Krishna

SANT
23 October 2009, 12:20 PM
Satya, Tapa, Ahimsa and Pavitrata.
Sir may i know where you came up with this from.
Lets take the case of satya.
Once there was a brahmin who never used to lie.Now a man who was fleeding away from bandits came to the brahmin.He went and stayed in the brahmins hut.The robberrs came and followed him.They asked the brahmin.He as truthful man said he was in the hut.The bandit happily went and stole the money and belongings from the man and slayed him.

A great rishi has said that satya is the biggest dharma.
But he said that truth that gives happiness and is in the welfare of others is good.


Well lets understand more on what exactly satya is.
In the ramayana you read about shoorpankha.She wanted revenge.What was true to her was that lakshaman cut off her nose,what was true to mandodaree was that raavan should give away sita,what was truth to raavan was his pride and ego.So this was their view of the truth.


We are seeing here everyones conception of truth is different.

Harjas Kaur
23 October 2009, 01:55 PM
I'm really touched by your sincerity. You moved from one thread on politics to another thread seeking the answer to the spiritual dilemma it posed. You may well be a sant, Sant Ji.

Gurbani says this about Vaishnavs:

ਨਾਨਕ ਕੋਟਿ ਮਧੇ ਕੋ ਐਸਾ ਅਪਰਸ ॥੧॥
naanak kott madhhae ko aisaa aparas ||1||
- O Nanak, among millions, there is scarcely one such 'touch-nothing Saint'. ||1||

ਬੈਸਨੋ ਸੋ ਜਿਸੁ ਊਪਰਿ ਸੁਪ੍ਰਸੰਨ ॥
baisano so jis oopar suprasann ||
The true Vaishnaav, the devotee of Vishnu, is the one with whom God is thoroughly pleased.

ਬਿਸਨ ਕੀ ਮਾਇਆ ਤੇ ਹੋਇ ਭਿੰਨ ॥
bisan kee maaeiaa thae hoe bhinn ||
He dwells apart from Maya.

ਕਰਮ ਕਰਤ ਹੋਵੈ ਨਿਹਕਰਮ ॥
karam karath hovai nihakaram ||
Performing good deeds, he does not seek rewards.

ਤਿਸੁ ਬੈਸਨੋ ਕਾ ਨਿਰਮਲ ਧਰਮ ॥
this baisano kaa niramal dhharam ||
Spotlessly pure is the religion of such a Vaishnaav;

ਕਾਹੂ ਫਲ ਕੀ ਇਛਾ ਨਹੀ ਬਾਛੈ ॥
kaahoo fal kee eishhaa nehee baashhai ||
he has no desire for the fruits of his labors.

ਕੇਵਲ ਭਗਤਿ ਕੀਰਤਨ ਸੰਗਿ ਰਾਚੈ ॥
kaeval bhagath keerathan sang raachai ||
He is absorbed in devotional worship and the singing of Kirtan, the songs of the Lord's Glory.

ਮਨ ਤਨ ਅੰਤਰਿ ਸਿਮਰਨ ਗੋਪਾਲ ॥
man than anthar simaran gopaal ||
Within his mind and body, he meditates in remembrance on the Lord of the Universe.

ਸਭ ਊਪਰਿ ਹੋਵਤ ਕਿਰਪਾਲ ॥
sabh oopar hovath kirapaal ||
He is kind to all creatures.

ਆਪਿ ਦ੍ਰਿੜੈ ਅਵਰਹ ਨਾਮੁ ਜਪਾਵੈ ॥
aap dhrirrai avareh naam japaavai ||
He holds fast to the Naam, and inspires others to chant it.

ਨਾਨਕ ਓਹੁ ਬੈਸਨੋ ਪਰਮ ਗਤਿ ਪਾਵੈ ॥੨॥
naanak ouhu baisano param gath paavai ||2||
O Nanak, such a Vaishnaav obtains the supreme status. ||2||
~SGGS Ji ang 274
I would love to hear the opinions of the excellent scripture scholars on this forum myself.

Some clarification:


"In the religious scriputes alchohol and cigarettes are considered bad but sikhs are restrained from having cigarettes more than alchohol."Punjabi culture indulges in alcohol, but Sikh religion doesn't allow it. Nihang Sikh Jatha has preserved the use of Sukhnidan, bhang tea, which has been used by Shaivas for centuries to alter consciousness and also has medicinal purposes for soldiers in combat situations as pain reliever. As Sikhism was a military order on the front lines getting involved in brutal combat with a mortal enemy, this explains. A person taking morphine in hospital for injuries, or a sadhu taking bhang for spiritual experience is not the same as someone taking drugs for the pleasure in the drug and/or to have unruly bad behavior as "fun."


"For a hindu beef is not acceptable but muslims are allowed to eat beef."There is no such thing as beef. Beef refers to the commercial preparation of a cow's carcass for consumption. A Hindu and a Sikh is not supposed to kill a cow because a cow is one of our root matas and feeds a community and brings the blessing of Govinda.

A Muslim killing a cow is still getting a paap. But paap done in ignorance or from wrong understanding is less offensive that paap done with knowledge and deliberation. So the Hindu or Sikh would incur more paap than a Muslim who believed it was okay.

Bhagavad-Gita says that even bhuta worshippers are worshipping Bhagavan, although wrongly, and that Bhagavan accepts their offering.


"A police/kshatriya kills a robberer/warrior it is considered alright but if we do the same then we get paap."A policeman shouldn't just go around killing robbers. But if someone's life was endangered by a criminal or an enemy, he would incur MORE paap not to do his Dharma, his duty to protect the social order.

A woman at home, with small children, if a criminal entered her home intending to kill her husband, should she pick up a weapon and save the life of her children's father? Why would it be paap?

A policeman and soldier don't have freedom to go around causing mischief. They have to follow rules of society or they become thugs in uniforms which is adharmic. We don't have their responsibility to go into danger. But the danger they face has the same Dharma for us as it does them. If they violate that Dharma and kill innocents or non-aggressors, for example, it is paap.



"So this means that dharma is different for different people.
What is right and what is wrong?"People have different responsibilities and incur different levels of spiritual impurity. But right does not become wrong. And wrong does not become right. A Kshattriya incurs the same paap as anyone, for the same misdeed, although there may be mitigating factors which make it less.

Killing is wrong. And it incurs paap. It influences our minds and tendancies. It creates samskaras and karma. But killing for a socially necessary purpose to help someone is not as bad as killing out of anger or selfishness to hurt someone.

Guru Gobind Singh Ji said, "If being armed, you do NOT use the weapon in defense of Dharma, you incur greater sin then if you use it."
This is not unlike Gandhi's teachings of a satyagrahi that "if you are unable to react with force, you are not being non-violent. Non-violence presupposes that you act with restraint. You can't act with restraint where there is no choice in the matter." Or some such thing I read a long time ago.

The human being has different duties, but the atma has no varna. Only a brahmgyan or Satguru would perhaps understand the very fine points of Dharma and karma in these situations and so Guru's guidance for an individual should always be sought, respecting that everyone is at a different level of spiritual understanding, responsibility and culpability.

But any soldier who has killed, has stories about how that act has changed them. Especially for political or Adharmic conflicts, some become psychologically disturbed by their conscience, and by the horror they witness for the rest of their lives.

IRAQ PTSD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghXCrsTVXtc
Is war good? No. But it is sometimes a necessary evil. Just remember if there aren't noble soldiers defending battlefields, the casualties would be their own women and children, their friends, their society, everything they love. Sometimes you can't walk away from a conflict, but by all means you shouldn't go out and seek one.



Let me give an example.
A hunter hunts and kills deer in the forest.For him right is to feed his family who are hungry at home.It is more important than the deers life.
ਕਬੀਰ ਜੋਰੀ ਕੀਏ ਜੁਲਮੁ ਹੈ ਕਹਤਾ ਨਾਉ ਹਲਾਲੁ ॥
kabeer joree keeeae julam hai kehathaa naao halaal ||
Kabeer, to use force is tyranny, even if you call it legal.

ਦਫਤਰਿ ਲੇਖਾ ਮਾਂਗੀਐ ਤਬ ਹੋਇਗੋ ਕਉਨੁ ਹਵਾਲੁ ॥੧੮੭॥
dhafathar laekhaa maangeeai thab hoeigo koun havaal ||187||
When your account is called for in the Court of the Lord, what will your condition be then? ||187||

ਕਬੀਰ ਖੂਬੁ ਖਾਨਾ ਖੀਚਰੀ ਜਾ ਮਹਿ ਅੰਮ੍ਰਿਤੁ ਲੋਨੁ ॥
kabeer khoob khaanaa kheecharee jaa mehi anmrith lon ||
Kabeer, the dinner of beans and rice is excellent, if it is flavored with salt.

ਹੇਰਾ ਰੋਟੀ ਕਾਰਨੇ ਗਲਾ ਕਟਾਵੈ ਕਉਨੁ ॥੧੮੮॥
haeraa rottee kaaranae galaa kattaavai koun ||188||
Who would cut his throat, to have meat with his bread? ||188||
~SGGS Ji ang 1374

Ganeshprasad
23 October 2009, 05:03 PM
satyameva jayate nānṛtaṁ
satyena panthā vitato devayānaḥ |
yenā kramantyṛṣayo hyāptakāmā yatra tat satyasya paramaṁ nidhānam ||
Meaning:
Truth alone triumphs; not falsehood.
Through truth the divine path is spread out by which
the sages whose desires have been completely fulfilled,
reach where that supreme treasure of Truth resides


Sir may i know where you came up with this from.


 
That my dear Sir, comes from Shastra, Dharma is symbolised in many places as bull
Hence, Dharma is balanced on Chatus-Pada, or “four-legs”. The four legs of Dharma are “Tapas” – Austerity; Karuna-Compassion; Saucham-Purity and Satyam-Truth”.

These example you will find in Bhagvat puran when Raja Pariksit meets Dharmaraj in the form of a bull limping on one foot.
also
The Bull Nandi is the vehicle of Lord Shiva. The word “Shiva” means “Goodness,” “auspiciousness”. “Shiva” is the embodiment of goodness.
 


Lets take the case of satya.
Once there was a brahmin who never used to lie.Now a man who was fleeding away from bandits came to the brahmin.He went and stayed in the brahmins hut.The robberrs came and followed him.They asked the brahmin.He as truthful man said he was in the hut.The bandit happily went and stole the money and belongings from the man and slayed him.

Well lets understand more on what exactly satya is.
In the ramayana you read about shoorpankha.She wanted revenge.What was true to her was that lakshaman cut off her nose,what was true to mandodaree was that raavan should give away sita,what was truth to raavan was his pride and ego.So this was their view truth.
Another example which i was hearing on television.
What was gandhari's perception of truth?
Her thinking was that her 100 sons were dying dead on the field and many wives had lost their husbands.She thought that it was all krishnas fault and he could have stopped the war but he didnt so krishna was adharmi according to her.This was truth to her at that time.
We are seeing here everyones conception of truth is different.

We must understand the defination of truth, one that is relative truth which you have sited
and the other that which is everlasting absolute truth that which is good. Lets not mistake pleasant with good. What is good? Something, which we think is “good” today, we may think, is “bad” tomorrow.
Usually, men mistake the “good” for merely “the pleasant”. too much of nice food today but is “bad” tomorrow when they cause a bellyache.

Yama, the Lord of Death, cautions that great spiritual seeker Netchiketas in the Kathopanishad; “Do not mistake the pleasant for the good”. The knower of Dharma must be able to distinguish the “good” from the “pleasant” and he must always, if he wishes to “protect Dharma” choose the “good”. What is the real quality of “Goodness?” If it is to be a quality of Dharma, it too must endure, it too must be eternal. It must be permanently good, and not change from day to day, year to year, millennium to millennium or even from culture to culture or from place to place. True “Goodness” must always “have been Good, be Good now in present time, and always be Good in all times to come”.

The example you give can be answered as follows.
Bandit as you put it followed the man in this hut, so the truth was known to them, if the Brahmin lied he would have got hurt and I am not sure the bandit would have hurt him all the same cause they have no boundary.

Just as shooparnaka you were economical with truth, reason Laxman cut her nose and ears, on command of Ram, is because she wanted to kill mother Sita. Had she not incited Ravan with lies truth might have been different.
But the truth is Ravan had to die at the hand of Shree Ram that is the enduring truth so in the end truth had to triumph over evil.

Raja Harishchandra lived by the truth in doing so he endured untold hardship yet he did not wayward, in the end the truth triumphed.
 
Jai Shree Krishna

devotee
23 October 2009, 11:16 PM
Namaste Sant,

I must admire you ability to probe deep for the sake of Truth. :)

What is Truth ? People normally consider it repeating exactly whatever they know. However, if Truth is not Shivam & takes one away from his Dharma then it is not really Truth. Sometimes a lie can be a thousand times better than to tell the Truth.


Once there was a brahmin who never used to lie.Now a man who was fleeding away from bandits came to the brahmin.He went and stayed in the brahmins hut.The robberrs came and followed him.They asked the brahmin.He as truthful man said he was in the hut.The bandit happily went and stole the money and belongings from the man and slayed him.

Here, undoubtedly, Brahmin acted against Dharma & accumulated sin for betraying the person who came to his refuge & for becoming cause of his death. His first & foremost Dharma was to save the man from the robbers. Just in the "ahankAr" (egoistic thinking) of his being Truthful (which is also abominably selfish on his part when the life of a fellow human being is at stake) he became the cause of death of the person who trusted him & took refuge in his hut.

I have touched upon the issue of Dharma related dilemmas in this post http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4699. I think that applies here too.

OM

SANT
24 October 2009, 03:16 AM
Ok thank you.
But let me be more clear.
Lets take the case of bin laden and his ideologies
Bin Laden believes that the restoration of Sharia law will set things right in the Muslim world, and that all other ideologies—"pan-Arabism, socialism, communism, democracy"—must be opposed.[21] These beliefs, along with violent expansive jihad, have sometimes been called Qutbism.[22] He believes Afghanistan under the rule of Mullah Omar's Taliban was "the only Islamic country" in the Muslim world.[23] Bin Laden has consistently dwelt on the need for violent jihad to right what he believes are injustices against Muslims perpetrated by the United States and sometimes by other non-Muslim states,[24] the need to eliminate the state of Israel, and the necessity of forcing the US to withdraw from the Middle East. He has also called on Americans to "reject the immoral acts of fornication (and) homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling, and usury," in an October 2002 letter.[25
You see according to his perception he is right and all th jihadis are also following his ideologies.
Although this might be not true and he gets tamasic happiness in violence and power but it is a beleif that i read.
So this is doing dharma for him.THere was a movie named black and white.very nice deals with this suubject.ITs about how a jihadi from afghanistan goes to india but is changed by anil kapoor.

Also different religions have different dharma's and what may be strictly wrong for a person may not be wrong for another.

But i want to know that since dharma is an universal truth(isnt it) since its importance is everywhere but why is there different dharam for differnet people.Certainly as ganeshprasad points out satya ahimsa tapasya are common still differntces are there.
Also we see that a person has multipe dharm rashtra dharma,pitradharma etc.
So is there are categories of dharam and one is higher than the other also as said by the scripture(i think)
Rashtradharm comes first as ive heard I may be wrong.

There is another dharma which precedes all and that is atma dharma.Is this the universal truth and true dharma since all dharma are related to he body etc(i may be wrong)

Wait i get a thought is that dharma only right which results in benefit of people as a whole.

devotee
24 October 2009, 04:19 AM
Namaste Sant,

One of the meanings of "Dharma" is duty. This duty is not same for everyone in all circumstances. The same action can be duty in one case but not in another.

What is our duty ? Let's leave all scriptures aside & think logically.

Can killing be one's duty ? Yes & No. If you are in army, you must kill to safeguard your country ... you may be forced to kill an aggressor to save an innocent soul. Shall I kill to gain someone's wealth ? Certainly Not. Even if you are agnostic & don't believe in any God, any religion or any scriptures, these answers would come to you from your inherent nature as a human being. Most of the laws in democratic countries are not based on any religious scriptures but there not many laws which violate the scriptures. Why ?

This sense of duty is ingrained in our nature by birth ... by the very virtue of our being a human being. I am not talking of exceptions ... psychopaths or people with distorted views. I am talking about the normal, common human being .... what he generally thinks & how he normally behaves.

Scriptures must not always be taken literally. That is why in Hinduism we talk of three instruments to find the Truth ... Sabda PramAna (i.e. the scriptures), Pratyaksha PramAna ( what is obvious from our experience) & AnumAn (i.e. by inferring logically). If the Sabda PramAna differs from Pratyaksha PramAna or AnumAna then Sabda PramAna must have metaphorical meaning to match the other two PramAna. This is also necessary that there are eternal Truths & also some ideas which are true within a given social set up in a given time-frame. Sometimes both the things are there in the scriptures. We must be able to identify what ideas/thoughts are eternally true & what are only temporally/relatively true.

This is where the Islamic clerics have got stuck. They believe that every word written in Q'uran is eternally true whereas Q'uran itself says that many of the verses in it are figurative & must be interpreted carefully in line with other verses & not in an isolated manner. This has given rise to people like Osama bin laden who are caught in a time-warp due their beliefs.

There is a verse in Sanskrit :

Ashtadash purAneshu Vyasasya vachanam dwayam l
ParopkarAya puNyAya pApAya parpeednam ll

"In all eighteen PurAnAs, Vyas has stated only two things :
By helping others you accumulate merits & by hurting others you accumulate sins."

OM

rkpande
24 October 2009, 04:26 AM
IMHO, any act of commission or omission if performed in sattavic state of mind does not incur any karmic retribution, the other two state will always add karmic load. Any act in tamsic mode will always be adharmic.
a yogi wants to be in a perpetual sattvic state, and becomes jeevan mukta.
by following yam and niyam , one trains one self to be dharmic. reality, truth or his assumed dharma differs from person to person depending on his basic traits of guna and level of spiritual advancement.

devotee
24 October 2009, 09:49 PM
Namaste Pande ji,


IMHO, any act of commission or omission if performed in sattavic state of mind does not incur any karmic retribution, the other two state will always add karmic load. Any act in tamsic mode will always be adharmic.
a yogi wants to be in a perpetual sattvic state, and becomes jeevan mukta.


I would like to slightly modify this. It is not really correct to say that SAtvik actions don't bind us .... actually, they don't bind us with sufferings. The result of SAtvik actions are good, end of sufferings & it also leads us towards liberation. However, the bondage is still there (even though it is pleasing & leads us towards liberation) which is broken only after transcending all the three gunas. That is after attaining knowledge.

Reference : Bhagwad Gita verses 14.5, 14.6 to 14.9 & 14.20. 14.22 to 14.25

OM

rkpande
25 October 2009, 02:15 AM
Namaste Pande ji,
I would like to slightly modify this. It is not really correct to say that SAtvik actions don't bind us .... actually, they don't bind us with sufferings. The result of SAtvik actions are good, end of sufferings & it also leads us towards liberation. However, the bondage is still there (even though it is pleasing & leads us towards liberation) which is broken only after transcending all the three gunas. That is after attaining knowledge.
Reference : Bhagwad Gita verses 14.5, 14.6 to 14.9 & 14.20. 14.22 to 14.25
OM

Namaste devotee ji,

I couldn't agree with you more.
For liberation, one has to drop mind which is the prime cause of our actions.
In no-mind state, the jiva loses its ability to connect to chitta, the warehouse of our experiences and hence it has nothing to contemplate and thus becomes jeevan mukta and realises the the original attribute of atama, ananda, pure bliss. One remains in no guna state and nothing is binding on jiva. You are right,one has to transcend gunas, for that one has to drop manas. That is what i had meant in one of my earlier post else where that meera bai had to drop lord Krishna to merge with him because you contemplate only when you have manas. Jeevan muktas, always appear mad to the worldly attached.
I was merely differentiating darmic and adharmic actions in the post cited..

rk.