Jeffrey Armstrong is an award-winning author of numerous books on Vedic knowledge..He is a philosopher, practitioner and teacher of the Vedas for the past 40 years. He has degrees in Psychology, History & Comparative Religions, and Literature and had a successful career as an executive in Silicon Valley before turning to teaching full time. Jeffrey Armstrong (Kavindra Rishi) is the founder of VASA – Vedic Academy of Sciences & Arts in Vancouver Canada. ..(and) a global advocate for the Sanatana Dharma Culture.

***

Daily Bell: How did you get interested in Indian culture and religion?

Jeffrey Armstrong: Religion is the wrong word to use for India’s teachings. Religion is a word that is more accurately applied to the Middle Eastern Abrahamic cultures. Judaism, Christianity and Islam are religions. The origin of the word religion, from the Latin, is re-legare (a legalistic system of rules given by God) or ‘bound by rules.’ Re = tied up or connected by, and ligion = legare = ligaments = to tie, bind or bandage. The usual idea is that the practitioner of a religion is bound up in rules or laws. This especially applies to the three Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, whereas the spiritual practices of India are called a Dharma Culture. The main difference is religions generally have one book of rules and stories whereas a Dharma culture has a library of spiritual and material knowledge aimed at understanding who we really are and how to properly use everything around us…

Daily Bell: What do you believe in and why? What application does it have to the West?

Jeffrey Armstrong: My lifelong effort has been to try to find things that are universally true rather than relatively true…

What we now call the West is the outgrowth of a tribal or city/state approach to living on the planet. This means if you take care of your tribe, you are seen as good. So, to all those tribes who were fighting against each other for thousands of years in a series of wars, that essentially meant that as long as the spoils of the wars were brought back and shared amongst the tribe, they were good. Alexander the Great was a prime example of this. He went out to rape, pillage and conquer, and was a monster to the rest of the world, but was considered great by his people, hence the name…India, on the other hand, is the only culture of its size in the world that has never gone out and tried to spread its beliefs by war. In fact, it has consistently given shelter to anyone from any culture. So, to compare histories, the west is a competitive, war-based civilization and India has been a nurturing, cooperation-based civilization on an epic scale…

Daily Bell: Are there lost Indian cities under the sea?

Jeffrey Armstrong: There is at least one that was discovered in 2001 in the Bay of Cambay, which is off the west coast of India. In a routine, environmental scan of the bottom of the sea, a city was discovered which turns out to have the largest megalithic stones of any city in ancient times; artifacts were dated to about 10,000 years ago. ..The city sits in about 150 feet of water, which indicates it was built before the last melting of the polar ice caps, which most geologists date conservatively at about 12,000 years ago. It appears to have had a building format similar to the cities of Harappa and Mohendro Daro (3000-5000 BCE), which were previously thought to be the oldest cities of India ..But this underwater city off the coast of India suggests, conservatively, 15,000 years of sophisticated human history in India.

Daily Bell: Did the ancient Indians know how to fly and to build flying machines? Are there replicas of these machines on the tops of ancient temples?

Jeffrey Armstrong: On the latter question, I am not sure I have heard that there are replicas of the airplanes or Vimanas as they were referred to in the epic histories of India. But there are two Indian epics, the Ramayana and the Mahabharata, the two epic poems that supposedly took place 5,000 years ago and over 1.2 million years ago in India, and the Ramayana actually begins with a scene in which a very sophisticated stolen airplane is being flown all over the Earth. Such ancient stories, thousands and thousands of years old, have no logical reason for talking about airplanes in any modern sense. Yet they do.

…Daily Bell: Did ancient Indians consort with aliens and travel through time or to other dimensions?

Jeffrey Armstrong: The cosmology of India describes our universe as having fourteen parallel realities on multiple levels, all existing and intersecting within the material realm in which we are currently living.

One of those levels is called the Deva realm. The Deva realm is supposedly the home of the beings who actually conduct the laws of nature to which we are subject. This view of Divine helpers is much misunderstood as the so-called many gods or also as demi-gods, but in India they were never viewed as God, gods, demi-gods or in competition with God. They were, instead, viewed as souls (or more accurately atmas) like us, but living on another plane of material reality and performing specific jobs as administrators of the laws of nature. So, gods is the wrong word for many reasons, the main one being it implies ‘God,’ which is not an Indian word in the first place. These beings are called Devas, meaning beings who ‘work in the light’ assisting the Supreme Being by enforcing the laws of nature that allow the universe to function as it does.

…So as for the alien question, it was always the view in India that there are other dimensions of intelligent life in our universe who communicate with humans and that the Devas specifically are the intelligences operating behind the laws of Nature. …The Vedas describe infinitely multiple universes filled with many Earth-like and other diverse planets and many kinds of intelligent beings living in these other dimensions, some in contact with this realm.

The closest modern analogs are found in some of the theories of quantum physics, one being string theory, which suggests there are something like eleven parallel realities that are running simultaneously with ours. This idea in physics, of parallel realities crisscrossing, is undeniably reminiscent of the ancient teachings from India…

***

Somewhat Related: Of Vimanas and Time Travel and Where is Krishana’s Dwaraka? by Varnam

*** Excerpts from ” Tolerance Isn’t Good Enough” by Rajiv Malhotra ***

It is fashionable in interfaith discussions to advocate “tolerance” for other faiths. But we would find it patronizing, even downright insulting, to be “tolerated” at someone’s dinner table. No spouse would appreciate being told that his or her presence at home was being “tolerated.” No self-respecting worker accepts mere tolerance from colleagues. We tolerate those we consider inferior. In religious circles, tolerance, at best, is what the pious extend toward people they regard as heathens, idol worshippers or infidels. It is time we did away with tolerance and replaced it with “mutual respect.”

…My campaign against mere tolerance started in the late 1990s when I was invited to speak at a major interfaith initiative at Claremont Graduate University. Leaders of major faiths had gathered to propose a proclamation of “religious tolerance.” I argued that the word “tolerance” should be replaced with “mutual respect” in the resolution. The following day, Professor Karen Jo Torjesen, the organizer and head of religious studies at Claremont, told me I had caused a “sensation.”

I then decided to experiment with “mutual respect” as a replacement for the oft-touted “tolerance” in my forthcoming talks and lectures. I found that while most practitioners of dharma religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism) readily espouse mutual respect, there is considerable resistance from the Abrahamic faiths.

…My experiments in proposing mutual respect have also involved liberal Muslims. Soon after Sept. 11, 2001, in a radio interview in Dallas, I explained why mutual respect among religions is better than tolerance. One caller, identified as a local Pakistani community leader, congratulated me and expressed complete agreement. For her benefit, I elaborated that in Hinduism we frequently worship images of the divine, may view the divine as feminine, and that we believe in reincarnation. I felt glad that she had agreed to respect all this, and I clarified that “mutual respect” merely means that I am respected for my faith, with no requirement for others to adopt or practice it. I wanted to make sure she knew what she had agreed to respect and wasn’t merely being politically correct. The woman hung up.

…Only a minority of Christians agree with the idea of mutual respect while fully understanding what it entails. One such person is Janet Haag, editor of Sacred Journey, a Princeton-based multi-faith journal. In 2008, when I asked her my favorite question — “What is your policy on pluralism?” — she gave the predictable response: “We tolerate other religions.” This prompted me to explain mutual respect in Hinduism wherein each individual has the freedom to select his own personal deity (ishta-devata, not to be confused with polytheism) and pursue a highly individualized spiritual path (sva-dharma). Rather than becoming defensive or evasive, she explored this theme in her editorial in the next issue…

…Haag explained that the Latin origin of “tolerance” refers to enduring and does not convey mutual affirmation or support: “[The term] also implicitly suggests an imbalance of power in the relationship, with one of the parties in the position of giving or withholding permission for the other to be.” The Latin word for respect, by contrast, “presupposes we are equally worthy of honor. There is no room for arrogance and exclusivity in mutual respect.”.

***

Comments and thoughts welcome, as always. Also by Rajiv Malhotra: Excerpts from “The Westernized side of my background” and “Language Hegemony and the Construction of Identity” (Image Courtesy: Prasthuta)

This episode is found in the Aranya Parva of the epic, the Mahabharata. The sons of Paandu (the Paandavaas) along with their wife Draupadi are nearing the end of their twelve-year exile in forests. They are due to begin the thirteenth and final year, which they are required to spend undiscovered.

In ancient days, it was the practice of certain brahmins to do homaas and havanaas as a part of their daily rituals and worship. One of the most essential tools needed in this practice is, of course, the device that can generate fire. This consists of two wooden pieces, a rod and a bow, the latter producing a churning action of the rod supported on a firm base of stone or wood. The churning action results in friction and heat at the support and any fibrous material at the base of the support catches fire, ready for use in a ritual.

Continued below…

Image Courtesy: Wikipedia (A stone carving of Yudhisthir at Vishnu Temple, Deogar)

One day one such brahmin, an agnihotri, came rushing to the Pandavas and begged for help. He had, it seems, hung the fire- drilling sticks in a tree. A passing stag happened to stop and rub his body on the trunk of this tree and, in the process, the sticks got entangled in the articulated horns of the animal. The stag fled, struggling in vain to rid himself of this unwanted burden; and the more he shook his head, the more firmly did the fire-sticks get wedged in his antlers. The poor brahmin now wanted the Pandavas to pursue the fleeing animal and recover the sticks.

The Pandavas believed that it was the duty of kshatriyas (3) to provide any and all help and protection to those who practiced their dharma. Therefore they proceeded forthwith fully armed in pursuit of the stag. While they soon caught sight of the stag, their attempts to stop the animal failed and more running and more huffing and puffing ended in the tiring of the party.

Not only had the quest failed, they ended up hungry, thirsty, tired, angry and frustrated. The brothers sat down finally to rest under the cool shade of a large tree…(Being thirsty and tired) Yudhishthira instructed Nakula to climb a tree nearby to locate any sources of water in the vicinity so that they could quench their thirst. Nakula did so and informed Yudhishthira that there was indeed a cluster of trees not too far off and that he could hear the cries of water cranes.

Yudhishthira suggested that Nakula go to the pond and fetch some water in a quiver. Nakula, after walking a short distance, located a beautiful spot, a crystal clear lake, surrounded by trees, flowers and birds. Nakula was overjoyed. His first instinct was to enjoy a cool drink himself, as long as he was already there. So he descended to the water’s edge and prepared to scoop up some refreshing water. As he was about to do so, he heard a strong and clear voice of warning:

“Maa taata saahasam karsheermama poorva parigrahah prashnaanuktva tu madreya pibasva ca harasva ca”

“Do not dare to touch that water, my dear child. You must first answer my questions. . .”

Nakula thought that he must be hearing things due to sheer fatigue and so he ignored the warning, drank the water and immediately fell dead.

When Nakula did not return within a reasonable time, Yudhishthira suggested that Sahadeva go and take a look at what was delaying him. Sahadeva arrived on the scene and was shocked to see Nakula lying as though asleep…(as he proceeded to get some water) He heard the same warning, ignored it and, upon attempting to drink, also fell dead.

Now it was Arjuna’s turn to determine what had happened. He proceeded with his Gandiva bow in his hand, suspecting some trouble. Upon arriving at the lake he was stunned to see his brothers lying as though dead…(Arjun) heard the same warning…but (instead of ignoring it), he challenged the being to show itself and shot several arrows in the direction from which the voice came. He only received further and more stern warning.

Arjuna challenged the voice by saying, “Stop me if you can,” proceeded to drink the water and fell down dead. Some short time later, Bhima arrived and had the same fate.

Now Yudhishthira was clearly worried. Wondering about the possibilities of harm befalling his dear and powerful brothers, he decided to go in search of them. When he arrived at the lake, he could not believe the dreadful sight before him. All four brothers dead on the ground! Yudhishthira sat beside them and lamented. All his hopes were shattered now. How would he ever be able to recover his lost kingdom without the help of his able, powerful brothers? He grieved for a while and then began to look around to determine the reason for these deaths. He said to himself,

“Naishaam shastra praharosti paadam nehasti kasyacit bhutam mahadidam manye bhrataro yena me hatah”

There are no signs of violence on their bodies, no footprints anywhere.  The killer must be a supernatural being.

He wondered if Duryodhana had had the pool poisoned. He ruled it out because the faces of the dead brothers looked calm and serene. Convincing himself that it must have been some supernatural being, he approached the water’s edge to fetch some water to begin the last rites for his brothers.

Then he heard a sudden voice:

“Tavaanujah mayaa preta vasham nita. .Na chet prashnaan prcchato vyakaroshi tvam pancamo bhavita. . .”

I am the cause of your brothers’ death, You shall be the fifth victim if you do not answer my questions. . .

Yudhishthira asked, “Who are you? Are you a rudra, vasu, or marut (5)? You must be strong to be able to put to death these powerful brothers of mine. Your feat is remarkable because neither gods, antigods, gandharvaas nor rakshasaas (6) could stand up to my brothers. But why? What do you want? Noble one! Why are you here? Who are you?”

The voice replied: “I am a Yaksha (7), Yudhishthira. May you prosper.”

As he heard these words, Yudhishthira saw before his eyes a form developing; a massive tall body with grotesque eyes, burning like the fire of the sun, and a voice like thunder: “I warned your brothers. But they would not listen to me. So now they are dead. This pool belongs to me and unless you answer my questions you shall not even touch this water.” Yudhishthira replied:

“Na caham karnaye yaksha tava poorva parigraham, Yathaa prajnam tu te prashnaan prati vakshyami prccha maam

I have no desire to take what is yours, Ask me and I will answer as best as I can

Thus begins Dharmaraja’s attempt to answer the Yaksha’s questions. I have never read anything so beautiful, so subtle, so deep with layers of significance as these questions and answers. Through Yudhishthira, Bhagawan Vyaasa has distilled the entire philosophy of the Hindus into an enquiry comprising some one hundred questions. The questions cover a lot of ground and a wide range, jumping from one topic to another. ..These questions and their answers are as important, as relevant and as significant today as they were when Yudhishthira stood with palms folded, by the side of his dead brothers, and attempted to do his best in meeting the Yaksha’s challenge.

These answers have guided the lives of Hindus for a thousand and more years. Let us study them. Let each of us become a Yudhishthira and face the questions exercising the best in us. Let these questions and the answers to these questions be the torchlight that lead us from darkness, give us peace and comfort at times of stress. Let these questions and answers be talked about, meditated and debated until each of us has had our fill, has satisfied our thirst for this ancient, eternal philosophy of the Hindus…

Below a small sample of the questions posed by the Yaksha…

What is weightier than earth?     Mother
What is taller than the sky?     Father
What is faster than the wind?     Mind
What is more numerous than grass?     Thoughts

…

What treasure is the best?     Skill
What wealth is the best?     Education
What is the greatest gain?     Health
And the greatest happiness?     Contentment

Read all of them here.

Related Posts:

Of Niti, Nyaya, Bhagavad-Gita and Misrepresentations

Reading the Bhagavad Gita…

* “Yaksha” can loosely be translated as a benign spirit, demi-god or “Deva-swarup” who frequently appears in Hinduism’s sacred stories as a protector of natural treasures and wealth.

*** What is “Dharma”? – Concluding Part by K Harapriya ***

Can one fight a dharma yudh against adharma?

The Mahabharata gives a pretty clear answer —-yes, we can fight a dharmic war mostly although some acts of adharma will be committed.

This will seem like equivocation to most people because we tend to believe two prevailing myths:   one, that dharmic people should be held to much higher standards than the totally adharmic;   and two,  that the forces of  evil (adharma) are naturally weaker than the forces of the righteous (dharm).

Both of these are not true. Firstly, holding the dharmic to much higher standards than the adharmic, will weaken the righteous.

Secondly, the  Mahabharata tells us that the adharmic are often as strong as or stronger than the dharmic.   This may be because they are not constrained by any moral code,  and  may in fact,  be victors in most battles and wars. It is therefore necessary to evolve strategies to fight them, taking advantage of their weaknesses.

Several examples are given in the Mahabharata but the three most poignant ones are the killing of  Bhisma, Drona and Karna.

Bhisma

In the Bhisma Parva of the Mahabharata,   the battles between the Pandavas and Kauravas are documented.  According to  Kisari  Mohan  Ganguli’s  translation of the Mahabharata,   the war raged on for many days with Bhisma decimating many of the Pandava forces.  Arjuna always has the  moral reluctance to kill his Guru and uncle. He repeatedly brushes of Krishna’s exhortation to kill Bhisma.  He says, “ How… shall I fight in battle with the grandsire who is my senior in years, who is possessed of wisdom and intelligence, who is the oldest member of our race?”  He even recounts how he used to climb onto Bhisma’s lap as a child and call him father to which Bhisma replied, “I am not thy father but thy father’s father”.

Arjuna  is at many times (as evidenced in the Gita) ready to give up the kingdom if it would stop the fighting.  Here, he is very similar to Yudhishtra.

It is Krishna who provides the moral compass and the correct perspective. He says “one should slay even an aged person endowed with every merit and worthy of reverence if he cometh as a foe, or indeed any other who approacheth for destroying oneself”

Bhisma on the other hand, does not suffer from such doubts and conflicts.  He puts every effort into killing as many of the Pandava army as possible.  When Duryodhana repeatedly approaches him and questions him on his  inability to kill the Pandavas,  Bhisma is very offended because he knows that he has put all his effort into killing them.  In fact, Arjuna goes from his half-hearted attacks to a full blown attack on Bhisma, using Shikandin only after realizing that the Kauravas have no moral angst in destroying him or his sons.  It takes Arjuna ten days of battle to come to this realization.

Drona

Similarly, Drona too has no affection for the Pandavas when he approaches them as a foe.  We can tell this from the episode of the killing of Abhimanyu.  In that incident, both Drona and Karna lead the Kauravas against the sixteen year old warrior.   Abhimanyu was surrounded by eight warriors.  When  Abhimanyu  loses his horses and is on the ground,   Dushasana’s  son hits Abhimanyu on the head with a mace.  None of these actions trouble Drona.  As a guru of the Pandavas, and the son of the great Rishi , Bharadwaj,  one would  expect Drona to have a clear sense of dharma;  yet  associating with the  immoral Duryodhana has perhaps changed Drona.  We see time and again the overwhelming doubts the Pandavas have over their actions while none of the Kauravas have even the slightest troubling of the conscience.  This includes Karna who actively participated in the killing of his own nephews Ghatotkacha and Abhimanyu.

Karna

One of the enduring stories  about Karna, is the inherent nobility and grace of Karna.   Here was the true son on Kunti, the first born, the son of the resplendent Surya,  the one unjustly disowned by his mother at birth, yet one who valorously gives his kavacha (armor) and kundala (earrings) to Indra who appears in the form of a mendicant.  True, Karna is all these.  In fact, he comes across as a more likable person than Arjuna, because he had to struggle so much in life to achieve anything.  Yet, he is also one who stands by and watches Duryodhana cheat in a game, and has his brother’s wife dragged out by the hair. Karna is one of those who attack Abhimanyu when Abhimanyu has lost his chariot and weapons. He has no problem asking for Indra’s weapon when he gives him his armor and earrings and asks for Indra’s weapon to kill Indra’s son Arjuna.  Karna’s hatred of Arjuna was so great that he hesitates to use Indra’s  shakthi against Ghatotkacha until Duryodhana pleads with him, since Ghatotkacha is decimating the Kaurava army.

Krishna’s advice to Arjuna during the fight with Bhisma and Karna are often held up by modern critics as inciting violence.  It is often said that the violence Krishna supports to remove the adharmic from power is in itself the very embodiment of adharma.

This understanding of the Mahabharata is fundamentally flawed. To claim that Krishna’s advice is immoral is to claim that a human has no moral authority or obligation to defend himself. In fact, even animals understand the moral imperative to defend themselves.  It is useless to talk of ahimsa when confronted with the violent foe; likewise to claim that one should follow the strictest of rules when confronted with an enemy who is stronger and follows no rules is ultimately suicidal.

It is in this context that we have to understand Krishna’s advice.  Bhisma, Drona and Karna are invincible. This is how Krishna views them.  There is no way to kill them except through the use of strategy which exploits their weaknesses.  Bhisma’s weakness was that he would not fight against Shikandin because Shikandin was born a woman.  The  fact  that Shikandin in now a man fails to impress Bhisma.  When Arjuna uses Shikandin as a shield, he does not do so through trickery.  Bhisma knowingly refrains from fighting. This then is Bhisma’s choice.

Likewise, in the death of Drona, there is no other way to defeat him.  Yes, Yudhishtra lies that Ashwattama is  dead, knowing that Drona will think it is his son and not the elephant.  That is indeed an act of adharma.  Yet, Drona in fact commits a greater sin in refraining from fighting after he hears this. Has he not pledged his duty and loyalty to Duryodhana?  Should he not have continued fighting, unhampered by emotions as a true warrior should? Unfortunately, Drona is further hampered by his own karma - his humiliation of King Drupada and his demanding guru dakshina from Ekalavya without even teaching him. Ultimately, his death is caused by his own actions, including his support of  Duryodhana.

In the case of Karna, it is a combination of Karna’s own karma coming to haunt him. Karna acquires his skill partially by lying to Parasurama that he is not a Kshatriya.  When Parasurama finds out, he curses Karna with a memory lapse at a crucial period.  He is further hindered by the fact that he has given his divine armor and earrings which protected him.  However, even these need not have affected him, if he had not supported Duryodhana.

In these three examples, there is the underlying message that ultimately, those who commit adharma and those who support the adharmic (even if they themselves do not commit any adharmic acts) are considered equally culpable .

Mahatma Gandhi’s interpretation of the Gita

In our post-independent times, Gandhi has emerged as an alternative interpreter of the Gita.  His focus on Ahimsa, where one never resorts to violence, no matter what the provocation, is considered a legitimate interpretation of the Bhagavad Gita.  However, there is a fundamental flaw in such an interpretation. Ahimsa, as a concept when there is reference of it in the Mahabharata and other Indian texts, mostly refer to the non-killing of the vulnerable (children, women, unarmed men and animals).    There is no reference to ahimsa when one is confronting forces that seek to destroy one.  In fact the Gita clearly states that is one’s moral duty (dharma) to protect oneself and one’s dependents. Gandhi’s concept of ahimsa is from Jainism and more in line with the Christian concepts of martyrdom, where one dies for the cause and is immediately elevated.

In Hinduism, one may fight a battle and die in it, but the death for one who refuses to fight on the battlefield holds no special greatness.  Hindus do not embrace martyrdom.  Martyrdom only exists in religions where heaven is promised only to those true believers and people who die for the religion.  In Hinduism, swarga was attained not on the basis of belief but in performing duty. Thus, we see in the Mahabharata, Bhisma, Drona etc. all go to swarga since they did their duty as kshatriyas, even though they supported the adharmic.

In conclusion, the concept of dharma alone is pradhaana (prime importance) in our religion. Ithihaas, Purananas, and the Vedas help us determine what is  dharma because we truly understand that if we uphold dharma, it will protect us.

Dharmo Rakshathi rakshithaha – he who protects dharma will be protected by dharma.

*** End***

Follow the links to Part 1 and Part 2.

Related Posts:

A humble attempt at understanding “Dharma” – Part I

Understanding Raj-Dharma

*** What is “Dharma”? – Part II by K Harapriya ***

Lessons of the Mahabharata

One epic which still holds profound lessons for us,  is the Mahabharata.  Here is an epic where a central character, Duryodhana, is an ambitious king who seeks wealth and power.  These desires, in themselves,   are the hallmark of a kshatriya and therefore befitting a king.  He, as the first born son of the first born Dhritarashtra ,  considers himself the rightful heir to Hastinapura.  Leaving aside the practice of the time in which the most dharmic prince  usually rules,  we can see that Duryodhana  has a legitimate  claim.  His desires and ambitions in themselves are not adharmic.  The adharma flows when he tries to usurp his cousins’ kingdom of Indraprastha.   His ambition has become greed and he cannot tell the difference.   Instead of seeking war outright, which as a Kshatriya would have been dharmic, he tries to burn down the Pandava’s palace of wax, then cheats them at a game and finally decides to go to war since he cannot honour his own promise to grant the Pandavas Indraprastha if they fulfilled the conditions of the bet.

Thus, the war of   Kurukshetra   starts with a war within Duryodhana’s   personality—his desire to do what is wrong conflicting  with  his knowledge of what  is  right.

Dharma and individual psychology – How to determine what is dharma

Duryodhana, and in fact all antagonists in Hindu epics, are a useful study of human psychology. The human psychology,   as understood by Hindus, is one that is dominated by raga and dwesha – objects, experiences that the individual desires to have (raga) and objects and experiences that the individual seeks to avoid (dwesha).  This eternal conflict of seeking the pleasurable and avoiding the painful informs the individual’s actions.  They impact the individual’s seeking of wealth (artha) and pleasure (kama).  Thus, wealth is desired not only for what it can bring us (material possessions) but also for what it helps us avoid (the pain of poverty).

Within the Mahabharata, various characters present us with the raga,  dwesha conflicts which governs   their actions.  Just as Duryodhana wants to compound his wealth by cheating his cousins out of their share, Yudhishtra has his own set of raga – dwesha issues.  Here is a man whose desire for being perceived as dharmic becomes more important than actually preserving the dharma in society and fighting for it, which is his duty as a kshatriya.  This is what allows him to pledge his wife after he had lost himself in the betting. This is what allows him to witness his wife being molested in public by Dushasana without raising a finger to defend her.  (Here he fails both as a king and as a husband).

Determining what is the correct path is often very difficult; when conflicts arise within oneself as to which path to pursue, the path of duty (what one should do) takes precedence over what one wants to do.  Yet even in this, we see that it is not an easy decision.  Referring to the Mahabharata, should Yudhishtra have agreed to go to the forest in exile, or should he have fought immediately?  The correct path is probably one that is suggested by Bhima, going to war immediately.  Agreeing to exile, as Yudhistra did,  went against his Kshatriya dharma, as well as Raj dharma, since he needed to protect the people of Indraprastha and not spend years in the forest.

The problem with Yudhistra is one that plagues most dharmic people and societies.  Does one fight to defend oneself  when confronted with the adharmic actions of another or does one try to negotiate one’s way out of it?

Preserving dharma

In times such as these – when Hinduism (as in the inclusive term of civilization and cultural ethos and world-view) appears to be under attack – while we ponder on how to protect this unique culture and civilization, one important point is that no dharma can be protected unless we protect the dharmi (one who practices the dharma). The only way to preserve a living culture is to make sure that those who practice it, are able to do so freely and that all threats to them are removed permanently.  It is important to remember that the threats to dharma are not only those forces which actively try to destroy the dharmi and his way of life,  but also those forces who  give support to the adharmic.

This is not a new problem though. The threat to the Pandavas , who are  embodiment of dharma,  were not only the Kauravas, but also all the allies of the Kauravas.   Even though some of those allies are good and dharmic in themselves, the very fact that they support Duryodhana means that they need to be destroyed.

One of the most valiant heroes of the Mahabharata was Bhisma.  Here was a man who should have been the King of Hastinapura.   In fact, he was the only true descendent of King Shantanu.  Yet, to please his father, he not only makes a promise to give up the throne and embrace celibacy, he also promises to protect the throne of Hastinapura.  Yet, when he supports Duryodhana, knowing that Duryodhana is wrong and a cruel man, Bhisma loses his moral compass—he becomes a party to adharma.

There are others who don’t recognize that when they have become supporters of adharma, they become adharmic themselves.    Both Karna and Drona, recognize the illegitimacy of Duryodhana’s claim, yet support him.   They fall into the common misconception that loyalty is more important than preserving dharma.

It is important to note that Duryodhana might never have gone to war without the support of these three; in fact, if Bhisma, Drona and Karna had refused to back him, he might have been forced to negotiate.

Watch out for the concluding part this weekend: Can one fight a dharma yudh against adharma?