14. DHARMA

D: How is one to decide what is dharma and what is adharma?

A: Any action ordained by the śāstra-s is dharma while that which is prohibited is adharma. In deciding about dharma, Manu says:

(The Veda, Smṛti (texts written by sages with the Veda as basis), the righteous conduct of the satpuruṣa-s (great ones) and the satisfaction of one’s conscience – these four are the indicators of dharma.)

The Veda is the foundation of all dharma. The Smṛti that is in consonance with the Veda, is also to be taken as pramāṇa (a valid means of knowledge). Ācāra (traditional practice) is another pramāṇa. Besides all these, there is the satisfaction of our conscience. These help us in deciding what is dharma and what is adharma.

D: Cannot a conduct be dharma in one circumstance but adharma in another?

A: It can. In this regard, we necessarily have to take recourse to the śāstra-s. Mere logic will not do. If a person who steals from a house is arrested, he might argue, “I stole only from a wealthy man’s house. This paltry loss is negligible by his standards, whereas it has given me an opportunity to fill my stomach. Therefore, what is wrong in this stealth?” Will a judge ever accept this? He will not, because it is contradictory to what is laid down in the penal code. The judge is bound to punish him. Likewise, what is prescribed as righteous in the Veda is indeed dharma. What is prohibited by it is adharma. We do not have the competence to decide for ourselves by mere logic.

D: If we commit a mistake unknowingly, are we responsible for it?

A: ‘Responsible,’ in what sense?

D: Will sin accrue on that account?

A: When doing so, if we are unaware that it is wrong, not much sin results. The sandhyāvandana that you perform destroys the demerit arising from mistakes that you commit out of ignorance. There is no need for a special prāyaścitta. Prayer to Īśvara is also effective in effacing the sin of what is done out of ignorance. When there is an opportunity for one to know what is wrong but still one does not make efforts to know, sin will accrue. One should try to know, at least to a certain extent, what the scripture specifies as right and as wrong.

D: Will it not be convenient to have a single dharma, common for all? Is it necessary to have it as, “This is dharma for one; that is dharma for another?”

A: Suppose shirts of the same size are distributed to a motley group of people. Then each one is required to wear the shirt received. Is it feasible for everyone to do so? No. Different physical sizes must be considered. Likewise, different dharma-s have been prescribed for people of varied competence. However, sāmānya-dharma-s are common to all though there are differences in the viśeṣa-dharma-s (special dharma-s).

D: What is sāmanya-dharma?

A: Manu himself has clarified this by saying:

(The dharma-s common to all, as declared by Manu, are abstinence from injury, truthfulness, abstinence from theft, purity and restraint of the senses.)

One should not even think of causing misery to another. Even if one just entertains such a thought, it is violation of ahiṁsā. It is wrong to assume that only physical pain constitutes hiṁsā (injury). Next comes satya (truthfulness). That utterance which does not cause misery to others and is also factual is satya. If the fact is so disclosed as to harm others, it is improper. Even speech that is pleasant but not factual is not satya. Therefore, it is that which is good to others in addition to being factual. Abstaining from pilfering others’ belongings is asteya. Refraining from stealing implies that another person’s property should not even be mentally coveted. “Let whatever belongs to another person, be with him. I shall give something of mine to others” – such a mentality should be ours. Śauca is purity. This is of two types. One is bodily purity. Bathing, wearing clean dresses etc., pertain to this category. The other is mental purity. Clothing may be clean but if the mind is not, true śauca cannot be realised. Indriya-nigraha comes next. When an object is seen or a sound heard, the mind might be attracted towards it. Indriya-nigraha is the restraint of the senses from going out to external objects. Regulating the indriya-s or the senses is indeed indriya-nigraha.

These dharma-s are common to all.

D: Is there any benefit in observing the sāmānya-dharma-s?

A: In him, who follows dharma, the good effect is certain to be seen. Hence, everyone born as a human being should necessarily adhere to dharma.

D: We see so many people indulging in adharma and also that they are only reaping rich benefits. The reason for this may be the karma of the previous birth. But the present acts of adharma do not seem to yield fruit at all. Why?

A: It is erroneous to say that an act of adharma does not fructify at all. It does yield fruits, but some time later. Īśvara has boundless mercy. He gives a sinner an opportunity to rectify himself. If the sinner refuses to change, Īśvara punishes him. As regards the result of adharma, Manu has said:

(MS, IV.172)

(The adharma that is done does not immediately yield fruit unlike a cow (that is ready for milking); but, when repeated it fructifies gradually (like seeds sown in the field) and completely destroys the doer of adharma.)

(MS, IV.174)

(One apparently flourishes by adharma (such as treachery), then perceives prosperity (by acquiring lot of wealth) and then conquers foes. Finally, however, one is completely destroyed.)

D: If it is very difficult to adhere to dharma, what is to be done?

A: However great the inconvenience may be, one should not allow one’s mind to drift towards adharma. With great effort, dharma should be followed, as it will give us benefits sooner or later. After one’s death, one’s relatives go away, discarding one’s body. Only dharma and adharma accompany one. So, only dharma can save us in the other world and also in the next birth in this world. Never will he, who protects dharma, be left helpless. That is why it is said:

(MB, III.30.8; NN, 34)

(Dharma protects one who protects dharma.)

This is very much true. Even if the result is not perceived now, the effect will definitely be experienced. Further, it is our duty to act according to dharma. “Has Īśvara not provided me with all sorts of comforts and benefits? Did He not save me while I was helpless in my mother’s womb? Should I not be grateful to Him?” – considering thus, one should act according to the injunctions of the Veda, which is like His breath. One should adhere to dharma at least with this perspective.

D: Much wealth is required to perform the yāga-s prescribed by the Veda-s. How then there is scope for a poor man to follow dharma?

A: In the śāstra-s it has been said that one should follow dharma to the extent of one’s capacity. In following dharma, he who is wealthy can construct a temple. If a man does not have wealth, he can go to the temple constructed by the affluent, offer his obeisance and thereby acquire merit. Hence, there is equal scope for both classes of people to adhere to dharma. The difference lies only in the particulars of dharma to be followed. If he who is poor donates a rupee for a noble cause, he acquires high merit, but if a wealthy person having lakhs of rupees donates a rupee or a half, he will not get the same benefit.

D: We see certain people who stick to their anuṣṭhāna but cause suffering to others. Is this permissible?

A: No. The śāstra-s themselves say:

(SPM, 95)

(I will make known in half a śloka what has been said in crores of texts. Helping others is puṇya. Troubling others is pāpa.)

If one causes misery to others, it is certainly sinful. However, if a man abstains from dharma thinking that others would be happy only if he does not follow dharma, it is improper. This is because, though the śāstra-s prescribe the practice of dharma without causing pain to anybody, the word ‘anybody’ here means ‘any good person’. The īśvara-pūjā that we do may not be to the liking of an atheist. But on that account, we should not abandon pūjā. We can just continue with it but refrain from abusing the atheist. This would be proper indeed.

★ ★ ★ ★

❑ Discourses of Acharyal

Acharyal’s speeches emphasise the importance of dharma. What follows is an extract from one of His enlightening expositions.

Maharṣi Gautama has spoken of eight ‘Ātma-guṇa-s’ or personal qualities that every individual should cultivate. They help a man to enjoy mental peace and happiness. They also give rise to virtue and so their benefits are not confined to their present life. Further, if people strive to cultivate these, the world will become a happier place.

The first such quality is “Compassion towards all beings.” God has nothing whatsoever to achieve for Himself, but still on account of His compassion and desire to uplift mankind has taken on many incarnations. When we have been given the capacity to help others, it is but proper that we should do so. After all, God Himself has shown us the way. The desire to relieve the sufferings of another is what is termed as compassion.

The second quality is “Forbearance.” Normally, when one hears that which is unpleasant or encounters an unfavourable situation created by another, one feels angry and seeks vengeance. If one is strong enough, one directly retaliates. If not, one seeks to avenge oneself on the sly. Acting thus does not constitute the behaviour of a noble man.

The third quality is “Not cavilling.” Generally, people who are not dexterous or successful, find faults with others who are competent, prosperous or famous. The censure is basically to hide one’s shortcomings; the comments are not constructive. This is a bad practice, for we should appreciate good qualities in others and not assume or search for faults. Bhagavatpāda has said in His Prabodha-sudhākara that a person who hears about the condemnation of another incurs sin. What need be said about the sin incurred by a man who actually engages in nitpicking?

The fourth quality is “Purity.” If we were to encounter a person who wears filthy clothes and who has not bathed for many days, his obnoxious smell makes us want to move away. On the other hand, the stinking one is hardly aware of anything abnormal. Likewise, some are in the habit of spitting in public places. Such practices are not only repulsive, but unhygienic too. Hence, one must bathe daily and observe hygiene. Cleanliness is an important ingredient of purity.

The fifth essential quality is “Freedom from laziness.” Many people give reasons for not being in a position to carry out their tasks. No employer would be pleased with an indolent worker. A student, who keeps putting off reading, fares badly in his studies. When a person sincerely engages himself in the prompt performance of his duties, his mind gets far less opportunity to engage itself in harmful or idle thoughts. Thus, it is in everyone’s interest to eschew laziness and cultivate zeal.

The sixth noble quality is “Auspiciousness.” When we meet some, we note that their words as also facial expressions are not pleasing. Such should not be the case. We should speak and conduct ourselves in a manner that is pleasant. For instance, on seeing an elderly or great person, rather than saying “Sit down” rudely, one should politely offer a seat and invite the person to sit. Proper speech is not just pleasing to hear but is also factual. The Lord taught Arjuna, “Speech that causes no pain, is true, agreeable and beneficial, and the practice of studying the scriptures constitute austerity of speech.” Such austerity of speech purifies a person.

The seventh ordained quality is “Absence of niggardliness.” The tendency to hoard and not part with anything in charity is the result of greed. The Lord has spoken of desire, anger and greed as the triple gates of hell. Hoarding will never benefit us and when we die, we cannot take our wealth with us. Nīlakanṭha Dīkṣita advised, “If you are keen that even after death you should not be parted with your wealth and that you should carry it with you in a bundle on your head then give it to the deserving.”

The last of the eight qualities is, “Absence of attachment.” Most of our problems are due to our worldly desires. It is said in the Pañcadaśī, “He who is attached gets tied down in the world. The unattached one experiences joy. Therefore, one who desires to be happy should always discard attachment.” It is perfectly possible to work efficiently and to fulfil all one’s duties without attachment. In fact, attachment impairs efficient functioning. Commonly, surgeons do not perform surgeries on their close relatives. If there was no risk of attachment clouding or impairing performance such would not have been the case.

★ ★ ★ ★

❑ Parables of Acharyal

The following is a parable narrated by Acharyal on the nature of Truthfulness:

A person stole some goods. He was accosted and made to take an oath that he would answer truthfully. He said, “As long as there is life, I shall speak the truth.” He was then cross-examined. He flatly denied that he had stolen anything. On the basis of his testimony, he was let off. A friend of his, who had participated in the vile act, asked him, “Why did you utter falsehood so brazenly in spite of the oath that you took?” The man nonchalantly replied, “I did not lie. All that I had said was true. I agreed to spell out the truth as long as there was life. I had an insect in my hand. Before I started answering, I crushed the insect to death. Hence my statement, ‘I shall speak the truth as long as there is life’, continued to hold.”

This is an example of sophistry. When a person has some thing in mind but makes equivocal or confusing statements so as to cause the listener understand something else, he is guilty of having deviated from the truth. To speak the truth, as insisted upon by the scriptures, one’s words should accord with one’s thoughts. The next point to be noted with regard to veracity is that one should speak what is pleasant. But uttering what is pleasant does not imply speaking what is not factual.

A mischievous person decided to fool a friend of his. He went to his friend and said in an excited voice, “Are you not aware that you have won ten lakhs in a lottery? How can you sit here so calmly?” The friend was dumbfounded. When his amazement decreased a little, he began to build castles in the air. In the meantime, the prankster left. Finally, the man took up a newspaper to have the pleasure of seeing his lottery-ticket number there. When he could not find it, his exultation gave way to total dejection. This is an example of pleasant untruth.

One should not verbalize a distressing truth. Following a massive heart-attack, a person was convalescing in a hospital. One day, his son was involved in a road accident and died. A person who had witnessed the accident rushed to the hospital and exclaimed to the heart-patient, “Do you know what has happened? Your son has died!” The patient, who was very fond of his son, could not bear the terrible news. As his heart was already weak, he breathed his last. The conduct of the person who conveyed the bad news was blameworthy.

To sum up, one should speak the truth. Further, one’s words should be pleasant and beneficial to others. Distressing truths ought not to be verbalized and words should not be chosen so as to mislead others.

★ ★ ★ ★

In a certain village, there lived a couple who had no issues. On account of her motherly instincts, the wife was more eager than the husband that a child be born to them. She kept on consulting various persons as to what expiation or means she could resort to beget progeny. The man almost gave up hope. One day, a person told the wife that if she sacrificed a child and bathed in its blood, a baby would be born to her. She spoke about this to her husband. He chided her for even entertaining such a thought.

A year passed and she became pregnant. In due course, a child was born to her and became the apple of the couple’s eye. Her husband told her, “Well, did I not warn you not to resort to any foul means? That would have never pleased the Lord. You followed my advice and now He has blessed us with a bonny baby.” The wife blushed. Sensing that something was wrong, he told her, “Speak up. You seem to have something in mind.” In a trembling voice, she replied, “Do you remember that nearly a year ago, our neighbour’s child died?” The husband felt ill at ease because of the thought that cropped up in his mind. However, he kept a straight face and answered, “Yes, I do.” The wife’s voice dropped to a whisper as she said, “That child did not die naturally. It was I who killed it and bathed in its blood. That is why this child has been born to us.”

The husband was nearly driven mad by his wife’s confession. His mind reeled and he railed at Īśvara, “O God! There is only darkness in Your realm and no justice.” He was so disgusted with God’s ways of granting favours and not punishing a faulty deed that he left home and wandered aimlessly for months. Slowly, his mind became a little composed and he returned to his village. He found that he was unable to locate his house and so sought the help of some villagers. They informed him, “Shortly after you had left, an earthquake struck this village. A few houses were damaged. But, unfortunately, your house collapsed completely and your wife and child were crushed to death.” Instead of being overpowered by shock and misery, the man lifted his eyes upwards and said, “Oh God! I was wrong. In Your kingdom there is not darkness but delay.” He felt convinced that divine punishment had been meted out.

Manu, the sacred law-giver, has stated that he who treads the path of adharma flourishes for a while, beholds prosperity and even goes to the extent of getting the better of those who oppose him. However, in the long run, he is totally destroyed. The wheel of God’s justice grinds slowly but surely. A sinner is given time to make amends for his sins.

★ ★ ★ ★