Dharma and Morality
Mahabharata is an epic like no other. It is four times bigger than Homer's Iliad and Odessy and very complex in not only the story/characters but also social norms also. We all have read enough stories from Mahabharata, saw the serial, read Gita (understood very little) and have experienced (but not realized) many of its teachings during our life in small measures. Growing up, we have seen pictures/artifacts with the following sloka from Bhagavad Gita with
Lord Krishna as the charioteer explaining to Arjuna in battlefield.
धर्म (dharma) is used throughout Mahabharata a lot. It sounds simple - but when you dig deeper, it is quite a complex concept and it is more like molecule than an element. I have been hearing the above slokas but really never spent time thinking about it until recently, when I stumbled upon Gurucharan Das's book, "The Difficulty of being Good" book. If we understand what "dharma" means, I think rest will an easy road to traverse in our life. In the book, the author used Mahabharata as the background subject to discuss dharma in very interesting way. I liked the book a lot and I ended of buying half-dozen copies and gave few of my friends as presents - not the book is great but it forces us to think. "Dharma" is a deep philosophical concept and many learned saints / authors have spent a life time to over thousand of years to understand it ... describe it. I know so little (nothing) and I am not trying to explain it here .. rather, I am trying to share what I learnt from the book .. which offers only a small part of the bigger understanding. The first word "dharma" of Gita is not as straightforward as I used to think.
Of all the characters of Mahabharata, Bhisma and Abhimanyu were my favorites. They represent amazing spectrum of characters and virtues (a side note, I played the role of Abhimanyu in drama in our village and my father also did during his younger days).
Growing up, karma was my dharma (as a student, my karma was to study - that's what we were told). Dharma may mean religion, law, duty, order, proper conduct, morality, righteousness, justice, norm. Dharma and Karma are two intertwined concepts. Karma is also dharma and dharma only comes from Karma (like Yin-Yang). First, let's discuss about Dharma a bit and then discuss morality.
In Mahabharata, there are many instances where dharma is discussed. I have picked two important questions which forces us to re-think.
Draupadi's dharma questions
What son of a king would wager his wife?
What is left of dharma of kings?
When Daupadi is being stripped of her clothes by Dushasana in king's court where everyone is present, Daupadi asks the above questions. Even if Bhisma commends Draupadi for bringing dharma into the discussion but he is does not provide a solution. All of them say, "dharma is subtle" (not as simple as you say Draupadi). Everyone defined dharma in their own context to explain to Draupadi (King, Kshatriya...) but all of them remain silent to Duryodhana assertion that Yudhistir waged her and he own the dice game (albeit in a conspired way with help from Sakuni). Why everyone (except Vidur) stayed silent even if stripping of clothes in a court is immoral? Even Bhisma was not able to help and said his dharma to the King does not allow to. Did Yudhishthira had the right to bet Draupadi in the game of dice? Didn't it violate his dharma? So dharma is subtle. Morality is a broader concept and not a subset of dharma.
Dharma is subtle ... but silence is immoral.
Yudhishthira's Dharma
Ashwathama Hatahath, Naro Va Kunjaro Va
Yudhishthira - a man of integrity finally caved in to say the above words to win the war. He lied (at the behest of Krishna - incarnation of God). Yudhishthira was a beholder of truth (which was equal to dharma), but for the greater good (win the war) - the individual self-interest (dharma) was sacrificed. Even Arjuna was not very happy with Yudhishthira's answer about Drona, ultimately, the greater good was the key decision point for Yudhishthira. What caves in? Is their a hierarchy for "dharma" decision.
Vidura explains in nicely. Viduara, the learned one, explain this to Dhritarashtra at one point, "To save a family, abandon an individual. To save the village, abandon a family. To save a country, abandon the village".
The same argument Yudhishthira explains Sanjay when asked about his decision "... in times of trouble one duty alters...". This means dharma is more malleable than we think (it is not like truth - a binary thing. This is very important concept which ties to the selfish-gene concept that we will discuss soon.
So, Dharma is fundamentally tied to "self-interest" but "without being amoral". That's why sometimes Duryodhana was clear about his "dharma" - albeit he did immoral things and paid the penalty. So "dharma" is not about just doing "duty" only. If we follow that train of thought, even the Nazi guard said, he followed his "dharma" even if the crime at the camps were heinous.
We keep crossing the interest and morality plane to define our "dharma" - redefining and adjusting to situation.
Interest seems to be clear .. but what about morality? What is it? Are we born with it or develop during our life time ..
I read a good book recently called "The Righteous Mind" by Jonathan Haidt (Disclaimer - i read only 60% of the book). I started reading it and was about skip it when I read that the author and his professor (Prof. Shweder from univ. of Chicago) had visited Bhubaneswar, Odisha to do research in two different time periods. That perked my interest and bit and I started reading it.
Where does morality comes from?
Believe it or not, Thomas Jefferson, had a say in this too. His theory was "moral judgement comes from emotion(heart) and reasoning(head)". I am just amazed with Jefferson's wide range of thoughts.
When put into a situation for moral judgement, how do we come to a judgement? Is there a special region for "moral" judgement in our brain?
Intuitions comes first, strategic reasoning comes second.
We run across many situation in our lives where we have to make a decision and most of the time, it is the intuition which helps make the decision
When this theory is put to test to a group of people from US and Odisha, the results are quite interesting. The moral domain in western cultures are individualistic where as eastern (more sociocentric) cultures moral domain encompass more aspects in life. Here is an example (based on the study in 1980's).
While walking, a man saw a dog sleeping on the road, The man walked up to it and kicked it.
==> Both Odiays and Americans agreed that it was wrong
In a family, a 25 year old son addresses his father by name
===> Odiyas thought it was wrong (acceptable to Americans)
A man had married son and married daughter. After his death his son claimed most of the property - daughter got very little.
==> Americans thought it was wrong (acceptable to Odiyas) (may not be true now).
Darwin believed that morality was an adaptation that evolved by natural selection operating at the individual level and at the group(social) level. Richard Dawkins said, "Lets try to teach generosity and altruism because we are selfish". In his book "Selfish Gene" (a hard to read book), he argued that we are selfish at the genetic level and that is due to evolution. We are simultaneously selfish and groupish.
So, morality is not a static concept. It has evolved over time. What was immoral before is now acceptable and vice-versa. Just now, the Pope is opening up divorcees to be accepted back to the communion.. What was immoral in the past is close to "moral" now ... In this case, Pope Francis looked at the greater good and not focused of church ideals form the past.I wish Puri Jagannath Madir - which has the Lord of universe segregates certain class of people entering the temple .. it also needs to change - there is no bigger moral concept than "we are all humans - we are all part of cosmic dust.
There is more to morality than harm and fairness
For a righteous mind, care, forgiveness, loyalty, authority and sanctity are five key receptors for moral intuition. Dharma is not about right and wrong .. it is more than that.
Morality binds us and sometimes blinds us - we are selfish and groupish. However, our minds are designed for groupish righteousness for the greater good and that's why humanity is advancing.
Immanuel Kant said that, "When moral worth is at issue, what counts is not actions, which one sees, but those inner principles of action that does not see". This is a tough one .. self introspection is a hard thing...
Finally, I would leave you with this thought from Ralph Waldo Emerson
"Standing on the bare ground, - my head bathed by the blithe air and uplifted into infinite space, - all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eye-ball; I am nothing; the currents if the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part of particle of God"
The deepest truth must be known by intuition, not reason, and the experiences of awe in nature were the best ways to trigger such intuition.
Disclaimer: This is my journey to understand dharma and morality a bit, I am still thinking about it ...
यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिर्भवति भारत।
अभ्युत्थानमधर्मस्य तदाऽऽत्मानं सृजाम्यहम्।।4.7।।
अभ्युत्थानमधर्मस्य तदाऽऽत्मानं सृजाम्यहम्।।4.7।।
The first sloka in Gita starts with Dhritarashtra inquiring Sanjay to tell what is happening the battlefield which is about to start.
धर्मक्षेत्रे कुरुक्षेत्रे समवेता युयुत्सवः।
मामकाः पाण्डवाश्चैव किमकुर्वत सञ्जय।।1.1।।
धर्मक्षेत्रे कुरुक्षेत्रे समवेता युयुत्सवः।
मामकाः पाण्डवाश्चैव किमकुर्वत सञ्जय।।1.1।।
Of all the characters of Mahabharata, Bhisma and Abhimanyu were my favorites. They represent amazing spectrum of characters and virtues (a side note, I played the role of Abhimanyu in drama in our village and my father also did during his younger days).
Growing up, karma was my dharma (as a student, my karma was to study - that's what we were told). Dharma may mean religion, law, duty, order, proper conduct, morality, righteousness, justice, norm. Dharma and Karma are two intertwined concepts. Karma is also dharma and dharma only comes from Karma (like Yin-Yang). First, let's discuss about Dharma a bit and then discuss morality.
In Mahabharata, there are many instances where dharma is discussed. I have picked two important questions which forces us to re-think.
Draupadi's dharma questions
What son of a king would wager his wife?
What is left of dharma of kings?
When Daupadi is being stripped of her clothes by Dushasana in king's court where everyone is present, Daupadi asks the above questions. Even if Bhisma commends Draupadi for bringing dharma into the discussion but he is does not provide a solution. All of them say, "dharma is subtle" (not as simple as you say Draupadi). Everyone defined dharma in their own context to explain to Draupadi (King, Kshatriya...) but all of them remain silent to Duryodhana assertion that Yudhistir waged her and he own the dice game (albeit in a conspired way with help from Sakuni). Why everyone (except Vidur) stayed silent even if stripping of clothes in a court is immoral? Even Bhisma was not able to help and said his dharma to the King does not allow to. Did Yudhishthira had the right to bet Draupadi in the game of dice? Didn't it violate his dharma? So dharma is subtle. Morality is a broader concept and not a subset of dharma.
Dharma is subtle ... but silence is immoral.
Yudhishthira's Dharma
Ashwathama Hatahath, Naro Va Kunjaro Va
Yudhishthira - a man of integrity finally caved in to say the above words to win the war. He lied (at the behest of Krishna - incarnation of God). Yudhishthira was a beholder of truth (which was equal to dharma), but for the greater good (win the war) - the individual self-interest (dharma) was sacrificed. Even Arjuna was not very happy with Yudhishthira's answer about Drona, ultimately, the greater good was the key decision point for Yudhishthira. What caves in? Is their a hierarchy for "dharma" decision.
Vidura explains in nicely. Viduara, the learned one, explain this to Dhritarashtra at one point, "To save a family, abandon an individual. To save the village, abandon a family. To save a country, abandon the village".
The same argument Yudhishthira explains Sanjay when asked about his decision "... in times of trouble one duty alters...". This means dharma is more malleable than we think (it is not like truth - a binary thing. This is very important concept which ties to the selfish-gene concept that we will discuss soon.
So, Dharma is fundamentally tied to "self-interest" but "without being amoral". That's why sometimes Duryodhana was clear about his "dharma" - albeit he did immoral things and paid the penalty. So "dharma" is not about just doing "duty" only. If we follow that train of thought, even the Nazi guard said, he followed his "dharma" even if the crime at the camps were heinous.
We keep crossing the interest and morality plane to define our "dharma" - redefining and adjusting to situation.
Interest seems to be clear .. but what about morality? What is it? Are we born with it or develop during our life time ..
Where does morality comes from?
Believe it or not, Thomas Jefferson, had a say in this too. His theory was "moral judgement comes from emotion(heart) and reasoning(head)". I am just amazed with Jefferson's wide range of thoughts.
When put into a situation for moral judgement, how do we come to a judgement? Is there a special region for "moral" judgement in our brain?
Intuitions comes first, strategic reasoning comes second.
We run across many situation in our lives where we have to make a decision and most of the time, it is the intuition which helps make the decision
When this theory is put to test to a group of people from US and Odisha, the results are quite interesting. The moral domain in western cultures are individualistic where as eastern (more sociocentric) cultures moral domain encompass more aspects in life. Here is an example (based on the study in 1980's).
While walking, a man saw a dog sleeping on the road, The man walked up to it and kicked it.
==> Both Odiays and Americans agreed that it was wrong
In a family, a 25 year old son addresses his father by name
===> Odiyas thought it was wrong (acceptable to Americans)
A man had married son and married daughter. After his death his son claimed most of the property - daughter got very little.
==> Americans thought it was wrong (acceptable to Odiyas) (may not be true now).
Darwin believed that morality was an adaptation that evolved by natural selection operating at the individual level and at the group(social) level. Richard Dawkins said, "Lets try to teach generosity and altruism because we are selfish". In his book "Selfish Gene" (a hard to read book), he argued that we are selfish at the genetic level and that is due to evolution. We are simultaneously selfish and groupish.
So, morality is not a static concept. It has evolved over time. What was immoral before is now acceptable and vice-versa. Just now, the Pope is opening up divorcees to be accepted back to the communion.. What was immoral in the past is close to "moral" now ... In this case, Pope Francis looked at the greater good and not focused of church ideals form the past.I wish Puri Jagannath Madir - which has the Lord of universe segregates certain class of people entering the temple .. it also needs to change - there is no bigger moral concept than "we are all humans - we are all part of cosmic dust.
There is more to morality than harm and fairness
For a righteous mind, care, forgiveness, loyalty, authority and sanctity are five key receptors for moral intuition. Dharma is not about right and wrong .. it is more than that.
Morality binds us and sometimes blinds us - we are selfish and groupish. However, our minds are designed for groupish righteousness for the greater good and that's why humanity is advancing.
Immanuel Kant said that, "When moral worth is at issue, what counts is not actions, which one sees, but those inner principles of action that does not see". This is a tough one .. self introspection is a hard thing...
Finally, I would leave you with this thought from Ralph Waldo Emerson
"Standing on the bare ground, - my head bathed by the blithe air and uplifted into infinite space, - all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eye-ball; I am nothing; the currents if the Universal Being circulate through me; I am part of particle of God"
The deepest truth must be known by intuition, not reason, and the experiences of awe in nature were the best ways to trigger such intuition.
Disclaimer: This is my journey to understand dharma and morality a bit, I am still thinking about it ...
Comments
Post a Comment