Dharma, karma and dilemma!

We often encounter situations where we would not be sure

whether our decision or action is right or wrong.

Our sense of rightness will tell us to do something.

But the situation may require us to do a contrary thing –

which we would not like to do.

And there may be situations -as I explained in the previous post on parents,

where we may not be convinced to act in a particular way,

but dharmic stance would require that we should not act against them (parents / others).

Acting or not acting in a particular way would invite reactionary karma

that we may not be exactly sure of the dharma of our actions or non-actions.

This is what is known as ‘dharma-shankatam” –

a shankat to dharma-

a dilemma in dharma!

To understand this, we have some popular instances from

Ramayana and Mahabharatha.

(1) Honoring the words of the parent is

the supreme dharma (pithru vakhya pariphalan).

Rama did that.

But Bharata did not listen to his mother’s words

of taking up the reign of the kingdom.

Didn’t he slip in his dharma by not honoring his mother’s words?

(2) The brother is supreme - next only to father.

When Rama went to forest, Sumitra directed Lakshmana

to follow the brother as a father.

But Vibheeshana deserted his brother Ravana

and even revealed the secrets of Lanka to help Rama win Lanka.

Didn’t he commit a travesty of Dharma by doing that?

(3) A similar accusation can be said of Sugreeva

who plotted and killed his brother.

Was that dharmic?

(4) Were the Pandavas right in keeping silent

when Draupadi was dis-robed?

Whatever be the constraint in having lost the game,

was it dharmic not to stop the humiliation heaped on Draupadi?

Analyzing these popular issues,

let me surf through the implications of

what constitutes dhrama in a particular instance

and what must be done in a controversial or conflicting situation

and how one must analyze the situation

as to arrive at the ideal dharmic option.

The basis of any action or karma is two-fold that determines

whether an action or karma

is dharmic or adharmic.

One is swadharma vs shreyas

and the other is swadharma vs preyas.

Swadharma is what one must do due to his nature.

Shreyas is what is good for others / a large section of people.

Preyas is what is liked by –good for oneself.

When Swadharma and shreyas go together and

match with each other, then 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

or one is done at the expense of the other.

For example the swadharma of a soldier is to fight.

If he fights (takes up arms) for the country it is for shreyas.

That is dharmic.

If he takes up arms to settle scores with some one or

without orders from High command,

then that is for preyas.

That is adharmic.

Texts declare (Katohpanishad)

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 above,

let us see what comes up.

(1) 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.

But Bharatha stuck to shreyas unwaveringly.

(2)In the next example, 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.

(3) In the example on Sugreeva,

Sugreeva plotted and succeeded in killing his brother Vali,

taking the help of Rama.

But 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

in 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

(refer “The symbolism of Vali vadam”

http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.com/2008/06/symbolism-of-vaali-vadham.html )

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

(refer the previously quoted post in this blog.)

(4) And now about Pandava brothers.

The Pandava brothers restrained themselves

due to the Rules of contract and raja dharma and

did nothing to stop the humiliation done to

their wife Draupadi in open court.

A clear case of ignoring shreyas happened

earlier to this - 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 –

the well –known instance from Mahabharatha.

Arjuna at first turned against waging war with the kauravas

(against his swadharma),

because of the Dharmic rule against killing one's own kin and guru

but later, on Krishna's advice,

took active part in the war and killed his

close relatives and gurus.

His swadharma is to fight the war.

His preyas dictated that he must not fight against relatives.

But shreyas is that though they are relatives

they have to be fought against, as they sided with unjust cause.

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 Krishna, the 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

Ramanujacharya’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 w

ill 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 for 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 a 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 paapam.

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!!!