Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa - XVI

Dr. Bibek Debroy

Setting the tone for the New Year, Dr. Bibek Debroy vivifies our sense of inquiry, and   leaves us with more questions than answers to ponder. The answers are within us, rather than without, he suggests. He reminds us that Hinduism has a library rather than 'a book', and further, that theories and texts merely provide a conceptual framework. How then do we pursue puruṣārthas (dharma, artha, kāma, mokṣa)? How do we find answers? What is your view? Leave a comment or interact with Bibek on Twitter via his handle @bibekdebroy 




यामिमां पुष्पितां वाचं प्रवदन्त्यविपश्चितः। वेदवादरताः पार्थ नान्यद्स्तीति वादिनः॥  That’s BG 2.42.  Loosely translated, those who aren’t learned, speak flowery words and say that there is nothing else other than the words of the Vedas.  The word Shabda-Brahma has many meanings and nuances.  In some contexts, it means the Brahma that can be attained through sound, hymns, mantras and rites. (Please don’t hasten to correct me about other meanings of Shabda-Brahma, since I have hedged adequately.)  This is in contrast to the Para-Brahma of Vedanta.  For example, 6.44 of BG states, जिञ्जासुरपि योगस्य शब्दब्रह्मातिवर्तते.  Again translated loosely, those who inquire about yoga, transcend Shabda-Brahma.  Whether attainment of Shabda-Brahma is a necessary and sufficient condition to attain Para-Brahma, has been the subject of philosophical speculation.  Clearly, according to some beliefs, it is neither necessary, nor sufficient.  But let’s leave that debate aside.  

Our sacred texts are divided into shruti and smriti.  In a loose sense again, shruti is revelation.  Shruti texts weren’t composed by anyone in particular.  They were revealed to rishis.  Stated differently, rishis put down their experiences in shruti texts.  In contrast, smriti texts have specific composers.  Notice that BG is a smriti text. It isn’t shruti. Whenever I say, or write, anything about dharma, artha, kāma, or mokṣa (DAKM), there is a predictable reaction.  But such and such a text says such and such.  That contradicts whatever you have said or written.  The reason I am proud to be a Hindu is that there is no definitive sacred text.  Even the BG isn’t quite the single sacred text, though it captures much of the essence of Hinduism. That’s the reason, if you cite chapter and verse from some sacred text, I will be able to cite chapter and verse from some other sacred text that seems to suggest the opposite.  

In the last resort, what are religion and DAKM about?  They are about what you experience and your experiences might be different from mine.  The problem with religion interpreted in terms of a single sacred text is that it tends to become dogmatic.  This has been stated in a sacred text and therefore, I have to accept it as a matter of faith.  I don’t think that’s what Hinduism is about.  In that narrow sense, it isn’t about faith.  It’s about experiencing.  In that sense, it is empirical.  It is something that can be tested.  When the rishis set down the shruti texts, they were effectively documenting their experiences and nothing more.  Lest you think that I am saying something heretical or novel, that’s exactly what Swami Vivekananda said in his monograph on “Raja Yoga”.

The theory and the sacred texts provide a conceptual framework and no more.  At best, since others have experienced something and they aren’t all charlatans, I should try it out.  In tantra and yoga, I can give the taxonomy of the chakras (from muladhara up to sahasrara) and kundalini and ida/pingala.  But DAKM isn’t about what Patanjali, Panini, Vyasa or Kapila have said.  Nor is it about Swami Vivekananda, Swami Yogananda or Swami Sivananda. These are nothing but exhortations to us to try it out.  Science is based on empirical evidence.  

So is DAKM, except that the empirical evidence doesn’t pertain to the external world.  It pertains to what is inside us and that cannot be captured through the senses.  The taxonomy merely says that all of us have latent powers.  We don’t use our potential powers fully.  There is thus potential divinity in all of us, if that is the expression to be used.  In this era of science, there is legitimate reason to treat what religious teachers have said with skepticism.  But since I don’t believe the empirical evidence of religious teachers, the right response should be to try it out.  That’s the only way the hypothesis can be falsified.  I hope you now understand why I said I am not interested in citations from chapters and verses of sacred texts.

योग: चित्त-वृत्ति निरोध: The trouble with Patanjali is that these are sutras.  They are cryptic and need explanations.  This is 1.2 from Patanjali.  I will not give a translation, because you will then quibble about whether I have translated chitta, vritti and nirodha properly.  Different people have translated it in different ways.  This is Swami Vivekananda.  “Yoga is restraining the mind-stuff (citta) from taking various forms (vrittis).”  Without a commentary, I don’t think this is a particularly illuminating or good translation.  But that’s neither here, nor there.  Yoga is about self-control and restraint and realizing one’s own inner self.  Given 1.2, in the 8-fold yoga category, it is about yama and niyama.  Going back to empirical testing, try it out.  Will you find “divinity”?  Will you get special powers?  Will it change you?  I don’t know.  I think the answer depends on you and on how far you are up the ladder, certainly in response to the first two questions.  

For the third question, I can give a categorical answer.  It will change you.  As I have said in passing in an earlier blog, you changing isn’t only about what you will get.  It is also about what you will lose. योगस्थ: कुरु कर्माणि सङ्गं त्यक्त्वा धनंजय । सिद्ध्यसिद्ध्यो: समो भूत्वा समत्वं योग उच्यते ।।  That’s 2.48 of BG.  Loosely translated again, perform your tasks without any attachment, by resorting to yoga.  Be indifferent to success and failure.  This equality/indifference is said to be yoga.  If you spend some time on meditation every day, you will automatically lose the attachment and gain the detachment.  I don’t care, nor know, about special powers (siddhi), except through reading what people have said.  But what I have described is a significant enough gain and it isn’t पुष्पितां वाचं.

Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa – XV

Once more Bibek Debroy forces us to think beyond the obvious, and plumb the depths of central concepts like 'good' and 'bad', 'right' and 'wrong' The Mahabharata tells us that 'dharma' is subtle and complex. But Dr. Debroy's article brings that idea to life for us with contemporary examples that compel us to stop being simplistic; to meditate on the meaning of words we take for granted.
To share your views and responses, you can follow Bibek on Twitter @bibekdebroy and/or leave a comment on this blog.


Recently, I spoke to a group of CEOs in Udaipur.  While I have spoken to CEOs in the past, it’s always been about economics and policy-making.  This is the first time I spoke about “dharma”.  Since I have made the point in earlier blogs that the word dharma is over-used, I should clarify that in Udaipur, I used the word “dharma” in the sense of emancipation/liberation, not in the sense of duty or good behavior (sadachara). Understandably, CEOs and the corporate sector react in a particular way, not necessarily representative of the general populace.  Since I spoke extempore, there is no presentation or text I can share.  But I made the kinds of points I have been making in these blogs.  

Dr. Debroy was recently at Lake Pichola

Let me now report three kinds of contrary reactions that were common.  (1) How can you say that food and dietary habits represent sadachara and have nothing to do with dharma?  It’s important to be vegetarian.  Eating non-vegetarian food causes injury to life.  (2) How can you say that there is no absolute notion of “good” or “bad”?  What about a murderer?  (3) How can you say that we are powerless to change the world, as opposed to changing ourselves?  If that’s the case, there would be no reason to do anything.  My reactions were along predictable lines.  Obviously, I failed to convince the CEOs, or some of them.  Otherwise, I wouldn’t have reported these three kinds of general contrary reactions.  Nor is it my intention to convince you, or even attempt it. I can only give you my take.

This vegetarian non-vegetarian business is as old as the hills and you will find extensive discussions in the Mahabharata.  Let me mention the sage Koushika to you.  I have spoken about a sage Koushika earlier, in connection with speaking the truth.  We don’t quite know whether this was the same sage Koushika.  After all, Koushika was a family name, rather than a proper name.  Koushika meditated in the forest and obtained a lot of powers.  A bird happened to soil him.  Koushika was angry.  When he glared at the bird in anger, it burnt down and was reduced to ashes.  Later, Koushika went to beg for alms at a house and the lady of the house kept him waiting, because she was tending to her husband.  Koushika was enraged, but was surprised to see that the housewife knew all about his powers and the incident concerning the bird.  His rage was also powerless on her.  When he asked her in surprise, she explained that she was doing her own “dharma” of tending to her husband and that brought her more merits than any austerities.  She directed him to a “vyadha”, a hunter cum butcher.  

Enraged Koushika reduces a bird to ashes

What the hunter cum butcher taught Koushika has come to be known as “Vyadha-Gita” and is a remarkable exposition of dharma.  In the process, there is a discussion on vegetarianism versus non-vegetarianism too.  My points are the following.  First, food and dietary habits are a function of society, history and culture and nothing more.  Second, dharma is about the atman and controlling the senses, the mind, intelligence and consciousness.  This becomes easier when the body is physically fit, one of the functions of some elements of yoga.  Good food habits make for a healthy body.  Therefore, restraint in food is good.  Third, why should we make a fetish about vegetarianism?  Imagine a person who is a vegetarian, but is frightfully obese, thriving on fried food and sweets and contrast that person with someone who eats non-vegetarian food, but is Spartan and controlled in diet.  Does dharma become easier for the former?  I don’t think so.  We are confusing the means with the end.  Fourth, there are societies where non-vegetarian food is customary.  Are we implying that people who live in such societies will never be able to attain dharma?  That seems like a very dogmatic position to take.

Move on to the absolute notion of “good” or “bad”.  Who is a murderer and what is a crime?  Notice that crime is always defined with respect to a piece of legislation, conditional on society.  On the matter of murder, what’s the conceptual difference between my killing someone and an executioner executing someone in one of those “rarest of rare” cases, after due process of law?  Both are murder, except that the first is not sanctioned by society, while the second is.  Suppose you live near the Indo-Pakistan border and there is a skirmish.  If you are on this side of the border, the terrorist is someone who deserves to be killed.  But if you are on that side of the border, the terrorist may well be a freedom-fighter.  A difference of less than 10 km on where you reside will determine the difference between “good” and “bad”.  I can multiply examples to illustrate the inherent subjectivity involved.  And because of that subjectivity, notions of “good” and “bad” should not be confused with dharma.  

The Nazis thought they were doing good for society.  That’s also the reason I am skeptical of item (3), attempts to change the world and make it better.  Many undesirable events in the world have occurred because people tried to make the world a better place, “better” being a subjective term too. Thankfully, in the progress of human civilization, these attempts only leave a transient impression.  They don’t last.  Attempts to change the world flow from an over-inflated sense of ego and a bloated idea about one’s own importance.  But we can certainly change ourselves.  If we are able to successfully change ourselves from within, and provided we have been able to bring about that change, we can also make other people change.  That’s the kind of impact many religious leaders have had.  It is through changing people that the world changes, with more of sattva and less of tamas.  That’s it and no more.  But like I said, don’t agree with me.  My intention is only to make you think and find the answers inside.  There is no universal template.

Dharma, Artha, Kāma, Mokṣa – XIV

Dr. Bibek Debroy

In this blog post, Bibek Debroy touches upon the suffusion of Vedantic thought in Hindu texts. He also encourages us to shatter stereotypes. Supreme knowledge is not the preserve of the devas. Nor of men alone. He echoes Swami Vivekananda in indicating that atman has no gender, no imperfection. And that categories such as 'asura' need to be examined intelligently and in an informed manner. I couldn't agree with him more. My raison d'etre - be it this blog, or my Twitter presence, is to persuade you to 'Read the Scriptures Yourself'. Preferably in Sanskrit. And get a taste of the 'wealth' that Bibek has undoubtedly amassed.


In the last blog, I mentioned Bali, Namuchi and Prahlada/Prahrada.  Here is a quote. “Some speak of him as Agni and some speak of him as Prajapati.  Others say he is the seasons, the fortnights, the months, the days and the moments.  There are others who say he is the forenoon, the afternoon, or mid-day, or an instant.  Virtuous ones speak of him as one and many.  Know him as time, the one who has everything under his subjugation.”  Where do you think this quote is from?  As is implicitly clear, this quote is about the supreme force, the brahman, in this particular case, being equated with Brahma.  You might be tempted to think of one of the Vedas, or the Upanishads.  The quote is actually from the Mahabharata, Chapter 1546(217) of the Critical Edition.
  

As I told you in the last blog, Bali had been dislodged from his prosperity and Indra had come to taunt him.  This bit, and there is much more, is what Bali taught Indra and this is nothing but Vedanta.  Here is something similar and this time, it is from Chapter 1544(215) and it is Prahrada speaking, under similar circumstances. “I know that everything has an end.  I have no sense of ownership.  I am without insolence.  I do not belong to this world.  I am free of all bonds.  I see that all beings have a beginning and an end and I am well. ..I do not see anyone who hates me.  Nor do I see anyone who is my own.”  Thus, asuras also possessed knowledge about the atman and the brahman.

In the Mahabharata, in the Moksha Dharma Parva, questions are raised about “sankhya” and “yoga”, 2 of the 6 darshanas (schools of philosophy) that existed.  Without getting into the nitty-gritty details, the point made there is that, unlike sankhya, yoga is a mode that is available to women.  Words of wisdom have come not only from asuras, but also women.  If I ask you about famous women sages, there are several you might mention, including Gargi, Maitreyi, Apala and Aditi.  I am not very sure you will mention Madalasa. You will find her story in the Markandeya Purana and I believe (I am not sure) a film was made about her in 1955.  

Unlike the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, there are no critical or authenticated versions of the Puranas and you will find many versions floating around.  Manmatha Nath Dutta was one of the early translators (into English) of several sacred texts and he also translated the Markandeya Purana in 1896.  There is a remarkable passage about Madalasa singing to her infant son, a kind of lullaby.  For the record, I decided to write about Madalasa, because Dr Madhu Teckchandani* asked me about the original source of the lullaby. Let me thus acknowledge that debt to her.

The Manmatha Nath Dutta translation isn’t particularly good.  Nevertheless, this is what you will find in Chapter 25 of his translation. “Thou art pure, O child, and without a name. It is by imagination that a name has been given to thee. This thy body, composed of five elements, is not thine. Nor dost thou belong to it. Wherefore dost thou weep? Or perhaps thou dost not weep - This is a self-produced sound coming out through the king's son. Various qualities, good or bad, relating to the elements, have been attributed to thy organs. In this world, beings, extremely feeble, acquire their growth by help of the elements, and taking meats and drinks; but thou hast no growth or decay. This body is a covering and it will be shattered and still thou will live on; therefore thou shouldst not yield to stupefaction in this body. It is by virtue of good and bad acts engendered by stupefaction, caused by pride and other passions that this covering of a body has been fixed on thee.”   Despite the translation not being that good, this is Vedanta again.

Madalasa finds a mention in Swami Vivekananda’s work, for example, in the lecture on Vedanta and its application to everyday life. “You have read in one of the Puranas that beautiful story of queen Madâlasâ, how as soon as she has a child she puts her baby with her own hands in the cradle, and how as the cradle rocks to and fro, she begins to sing, "Thou art the Pure One the Stainless, the Sinless, the Mighty One, the Great One." Ay, there is much in that.” Madalasa taught so much of Vedanta to her first three sons that they renounced everything.  She instructed the fourth son so that he might become a good king.  

As I have said, there are different Sanskrit versions of the Markandeya Purana. So the text may differ a little, depending on which version you have picked up.  But in general, you will find something like this. शुद्धो $सि बुद्धो $सि निरंजनो$सि संसारमायापरिवर्जितो$सि । संसारस्वप्नं त्यज मोहनिद्रां. I promised that these random thoughts would be about Hinduism.  But de facto, I seem to have a bias towards Vedanta.  However, I don’t think it is a bias.  I think principles of Vedanta run deep, across all varieties of Hinduism.



* You can follow Dr. Madhu Tekchandani on Twitter @msteckchandani