What is “Dharma”? – Part II
Continuing from Part-I that appeared earlier this week. Today, lessons from the MahaBharata.
*** 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?
i) If Duryodhana’s claim to the throne is legitimate, how can Kana and Drona “recognise the illegitimacy of Duryodhana’s claim”?
ii) Will be interesting to read the “dharmic view” of Drona asking for Eklavya’s thumb so that his pupil Arjuna would be unchallenged? I can see Drona fulfilling his dharma as a guru to his shishya and Eklavya following his dharma as a virtual shishya and cutting off his thumb?
There are very many ambiguous situations in the epics and one cannot deny the role of social mores in the development of these epics.
@ Sanjay,
The author is essentially stressing on the conflict between dharmic views and illegitimate aspirations that rage in each individual
To quote the author:
No incident in the Mahabharata can be seen in isolation and on the other hand cannot be completely justified. There is always a moral dilemma about these incidences.
Once Bhisma’s claim is ignored, Duryodhana becomes the legitimate heir. But then a compromise is reached where the Pandavas are given a desolate land where they build the city of Indraprastha. Duryodhana the rightful king of Hasthinapur covets Indraprastha on which he has no claim. But he always could invade Indraprastha as a dharmic warrior. Instead he uses the subterfuge of the dice game, where instead of participating he uses the legal (but some would argue unethical) means of asking sakuni to play for him. The other argument, though I personally wouldn’t subscribe to it is that Yudhistra got into it with his eyes wide open. He had the choice to refuse to play. But his penchant for the game makes him use the “Dharmic” claim that as a king he shouldn’t avoid a challenge in a game.
In the case of Ekalavya, Drona had promised Arjuna that he would make him the greatest archer in the world. Karna and later Ekalavya prove themselves equal or better. This promise to Arjuna makes Drona falter. He could have tried overcoming these by having Arjuna excel beyond those but he takes the short cut of asking Ekalavya for his thumb or stop Karna from participating in the sport event saying it is reserved for princes. There is no justification of these deeds even in the epic but a mere explanation of thoughts and actions that precipitate the dilemma.
As you said it is a reflection of the social mores of the time as by then the world had moved towards the kali yuga and dharma was on the decline.
rgds/sridhar
@Sanjay
The final war did not precipitate due to any dispute over who was the legitimate heir to the throne of Hastinapur. Pandavas lost the game of dice and agreed to spend 13 years in the forest. When they came back, Duryodhana “claimed” they were discovered in the Virata-Go-Grahana episode. Everyone, including Bhishma, Drona and Vidura rejected that claim and advised him to hand over Indraprastha. Duryodhana refused and the inevitable consequence was war.
So, even though Bhishma and others knew very well that Duryodhana’s claim over Indraprastha after 13 years was illegitimate, they still fought the war for him.
It was not that some alien force was invading Hastinapur. The prince of Hastinapur was clearly indulging in cheating. Bhishma’s and Drona’s first duty would have been to ensure the sanctity of the royal family and therefore had to force Duryodhana to part with Indraprastha. They did not do that.
Pranams, Hari
Thanks Hari and Sridhar.
If someone is asking for an adharmic act from another, then should the other person perform his dharma? Why not? Am asking this in the context of Dronacharya (asking for Eklavya’s thumb) and Ekalavya (chopping off his thumb), but I suppose there are umpteen other cases. Hope to get illuminated.
Sanjay
@ Sanjay,
The dilemma is not a simple (to paraphrase Shakespeare) to do or not to do. It is more on what is the Dharma.
An householder has a Dharmic equation with his family, his neighborhood, his employer and society as a whole. they are not mutually exclusive and overlap each other.
to take the case of Ekalavya by offering his thumb he fulfills a perceived obligation to his guru. (perceived because Dhrona never taught him, it was just the statute that Ekalavya had put up). but after the offer how would he feed his family. is he not failing his family thus?
Bhisma feels he has a duty to protect the Hastinapur royal family first and foremost. Karna perceives a duty towards Duryodhana because Duryodhana gave him the legitimacy by making him king of Angad and his unwavering friendship. Vidhura on the other hand keeps away from the war because he felt it was Adharmic.
Take the case of Sahadeva – his Dharma as an astrologer makes him give the correct date for sacrifice before war when Duryodhana asks him. But then as per the author’s line of thought he fails to protect Dharma. Sahadeva chose the dharma of an astrologer as uppermost when duryodhana asked him.
rgds/sridhar
Sanjay I don’t even understand what your precise question is. Are you claiming that the Mahabharata justifies Drona’s act of asking for the thumb? No, it doesn’t. The relevant text of the Mahabharata merely sounds like a matter of fact report of what happened. It certainly doesn’t say that Drona was fulfilling the duty to his shiShya. See also part 3.
To clarify, dharma is not a matter of belief. There are objective ways to arrive at it.
Duryodhana’s claim to Hastinapura arose because, in the normal course of events, he would have been king, since he was the first born son of Dhritarashra who was the first born. Since Dhritarashra was blind, Pandu became king. Pandu however did give up the throne and go to the forest–at which point Dhritarashtra is king while Bhisma takes care of the actual business of ruling. So yes, Duryodhana does have a claim. Yudhistra’s claim arises since Pandu ruled for some time, and also because the people love him for his character. That is why, recognizing the legitimacy of both claims, Bhisma suggests splitting the kingdom and Yudhishtra gets Indraprastha. Nowhere does Yudhistra claim Hastinapura. The war is for Indraprastha. In the end, he gets Hastinapura, since all the Kauravas die.
Regarding Ekalavya, what Drona did was wrong. One cannot be a guru by proxy. Drona cannot demand guru dakshina for something he did not teach. What Ekalavya learnt was through his own practice.
Regarding the initial decision to prevent Karna from participating in the competition, Drona was correct. Vocation was determined by birth, yet one’s status could change and therefore one’s vocation. As a charioteer’s son, Karna was disqualified, but as the King of Anga, he could participate.
There are six obstacles to good judgement according to Hindu texts. These are kama, krodha, moha, lobha , mada and matsaryam (desire, anger, illusion, greed, intoxication(insanity), and jealousy).
Bhisma’s duty to protect Hastinapura was legitimate–but it has to be done with reference to dharma. Protecting Duryodhana who is a cheat is wrong. Here he falls prey to illusion, the illusion that protecting Hastinapura is the same as protecting dharma and that protecting Hastinapura is the same as protecting Duryodhana.
Sahadeva giving the date to Duryodhana is perfectly acceptable–he was asked as an astrologer and gave his advice. What would have been wrong would be for him to lie. He did no wrong. Ultimately even with the correct date and time, Duryodhana lost.
I see here a parallel with England which faced similar challenges but which dealt with them in a realpolitik way. England had its Duryodhana
in King John who was as rapacious for a good reason. He needed funds to defend his possessions in France. Duryodhana in comparison was well placed to be magnimonious to his cousins and got his just deserts for his cruelty. As for King John, he was humbled by his barons and made to sign the Magna Carta which is as every Englishman knows is the founding document of the their constitution and rule of law. King John was quite up front about eliminating his competitors and Duryodhana sly so the propaganda has us believe. The English barons had a real dilemma about whether to continue a losing war in France against the king’s wishes. Duryodhana,Drona, Bhisma et al had no similar challenges. The issue had to be and was eventually decided by the only means appropriate to aspiring kings and that was by war. This war was only warranted by the moral decrepitude of Duryodhana and Yudhishtra. The English approach would have been to have appoint Krishna as king. Bharat’s history would have been truly glorious with such a god at its helm.
Couple of corrections,
“In fact, he(Bhishma) was the only true descendent of King Shantanu.”
Not true. Shantanu, not to be confused with the blogger, had 2 other sons Vichitravirya and Chitrangada who were named as the Kings of Hastinapur but passed away relatively young due to bad health and war respectively.
Blaming Bhishma is kind of pointless because he had given an oath that he would serve his brother’s children and would have none of his own.
If he wanted, he would have started his own family once his brothers were dead and taken over the country. There would be no Mahabharat.
Kharapriya and Sridhar – my questions are these.
i) If what Drona demanded of Eklavya (ie his thumb) was adharmic, then is Eklavya’s act of cutting off his thumb in response to a request from his virtual guru also adharmic? Or, as you say, also adharmic since his obligation to his family suffered on account of his losing his thumb.
ii) How could Eklavya determine if Drona’s request for his thumb was dharmic in the first place?
Seems to me that Dharma is entirely contextual, defined by the individual within a larger social framework. And social frameworks change as do individual contexts, so dharma too is isn’t immutable. Look forward!
Dear All: Thanks for some very thoughtful comments and points – on this and the other parts of this series…
I am reading them with interest (and learning a lot in the process).
Once again, thanks to Harapriya for a very well-articulated essay on this difficult topic.
@ sanjay
“Vaisampayana continued, ‘The Pandavas then, having made themselves acquainted with everything connected with him, returned (to the city), and going unto Drona, told him of that wonderful feat of archery which they had witnessed in the woods. Arjuna, in particular, thinking all the while, O king, Ekalavya, saw Drona in private and relying upon his preceptor’s affection for him, said, ‘Thou hadst lovingly told me, clasping me, to thy bosom, that no pupil of thine should be equal to me. Why then is there a pupil of thine, the mighty son of the Nishada king, superior to me?”
‘Vaisampayana continued, ‘On hearing these words, Drona reflected for a moment, and resolving upon the course of action he should follow, took Arjuna with him and went unto the Nishada prince. And he beheld Ekalavya with body besmeared with filth, matted locks (on head), clad in rags, bearing a bow in hand and ceaselessly shooting arrows therefrom. And when Ekalavya saw Drona approaching towards him, he went a few steps forward, and touched his feet and prostrated himself on the ground. And the son of the Nishada king worshipping Drona, duly represented himself as his pupil, and clasping his hands in reverence stood before him (awaiting his commands). Then Drona, O king, addressed Ekalavya, saying, ‘If, O hero, thou art really my pupil, give me then my fees.’ On hearing these words, Ekalavya was very much gratified, and said in reply, ‘O illustrious preceptor, what shall I give? Command me; for there is nothing, O foremost of all persons conversant with the Vedas, that I may not give unto my preceptor.’ Drona answered, ‘O Ekalavya, if thou art really intent on making me a gift, I should like then to have the thumb of thy right hand.’
“Vaisampayana continued, ‘Hearing these cruel words of Drona, who had asked of him his thumb as tuition-fee, Ekalavya, ever devoted to truth and desirous also of keeping his promise, with a cheerful face and an unafflicted heart cut off without ado his thumb, and gave it unto Drona. After this, when the Nishada prince began once more to shoot with the help of his remaining fingers, he found, O king, that he had lost his former lightness of hand. And at this Arjuna became happy, the fever (of jealousy) having left him.”
1. From the above extract it can be seen that Arjuna was driven by jealousy one of the six causes of adharmic action mentioned by the author.
2. Drona and later Ekalavya proceed to do certain acts driven by their pride to keep their promise – Drona to keep his promise to Arjuna and Ekalavya to keep his promise to Drona “to pay Guru Dakshina”.
I would like to know your reasons for calling Drona “the virtual guru” of ekalavya.
rgds/sridhar
Ekalavya is said to have sewn up the mouth of a barking dog with arrows.
Sending the dog away could have been accomplished by sending one arrow to its rump.
By sewing up its mouth Ekalavya condemned it to a lingering, painful, starving death. He displayed lack of discernment, compassion and perhaps, tendency to show off.
A highly refined skill of archery in the hands of a person lacking in discernment and compassion is likely to be dangerous. Drona’s act of reducing Ekalavya’s skill without depriving him of it may have been contributory towards dharma in society. It may also have prompted Ekalavya to be more humble about his skills, more thoughtful, compassionate and dharmic in his life, aiding his spiritual advancement.
dhanyavaad
If I compare it to today’s Bharat, here is my conclusion:
Dharmi’s are being tortured and dissuaded off Dharma by Adharmi’s. Secular ones have lost the sense of Dharma (like Drona defending throne) and feel that upholding constitutional “Sarv-Dharm-Sambhav” is their true Dharma. Protecting the minority is Dharma of majority’s representatives (very much like Drona’s promise to protect Hastinapir throne) and its guiding their action (like Keral CM accepted, but can not act).
So Dharmi’s (Ordinary Bharatiy) here are the ones who are cheated and robbed off their culture.
@Incognito
That was a great another side to the happening.
@All:
Dhanywad for enlightening discussion.
Jai Bharat!
Hi Shantanu — I would highly suggest that you read the following article: http://agniveer.com/3617/ishopanishad-mantra-3/.
It beautifully tries to explains what ‘dharma’ means. In brief, anything that defies our conscience and inner voice is ‘adharma’. And inversely, anything that conforms to our conscience is ‘dharma’. Note the thin but very consequential distinction between ‘conscience’ and ‘instinct’. Instinct is that which emerges as a result of past impressions. But conscience is that which inherently resides in each of us – almost as a gift granted to humans.
Thanks Harsh…will have a look.
Somewhat related:
From Eklavya and Dronacharya story revised:
There are some popular misconceptions about some characters in Mahabharat. One such story deals with Ekalavya and Guru Dron. The misconception perpetuated is that Guru Dron asked the right thumb of Ekalavya because the latter belonged to a lower caste/class.
This is incorrect as per sanskrit Mahabharat (Nilkanth copy) as well as Bhandarkar Institute reseached copy. The Bhandarkar Institute copy was the main source for the Mahabharat TV series and it gives the correct reason (as does the series).
Ekalavya was a Nishad. His father, the leader (King) of Nishads, was in the employ of Jarasandh (king of Magadh), as one of the army commanders. Jarasandh was an adversary of the Kuru Hastinapur Kingdom (where Pandu and Dhritarashtra ruled). Ekalavya ‘snooped’ to learn Guru Dron’s vidya. Dron foresaw that Ekalavya may use this vidya against Dron’s employer, King of Hastinapur and hence asked the right thumb as Guru DakshiNa and thus denied the advantage Ekalavya had gained. Later on Ekalavya did work as a confidant of Jarasandh. Specifically, at the time of Rukmini Swayamvar, Ekalavya was the messenger between Shishupal and Rukmini’s father Bhishmak, at Jarasandh’s behest. Rukmini eloped with Krishna.
Later Krishna himself killed Ekalavya in one of his many conflicts against Jarasandh’s army.
Thus EKALAVYA STORY HAS NOTHING WHAT SO EVER TO DO WITH HIS HUMBLE
CASTE.
Following Book gives original sanskrit shlokas and removes falsehoods
created about Mahabharat by so called experts.
Reference: Vastav Darshan of Mahabharat By Prof.A.D.Athawale, Continental Book Service, Pune, 1970, 284 pages.
(Source: http://www.hindunet.com/alt_hindu/1994/msg00550.html not verified)