You are here: SriPedia - Oppiliappan - Archives - Oct 2004

Oppiliappan List Archive: Message 00078 Oct 2004

 
Oct 2004 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]



SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.

--- In Oppiliappan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "MK krishnaswamy"
<krishnaswamy@xxxx> wrote:

> Recognising our natural confusion, the Lord advises
us to rise above the confused mind, to abandon all our
ordinary concepts relating to the conflicts in the
codified dharmic rules and rely only upon Him who
resides as the inner Self in us. He seems to be
telling us:
> "I am not far, far away. I am always closest to my
devotees. 
> You may not feel my presence due to your other
preoccupations and forgetfulness. 
> But you can hear me in deep silence if only you
still your constantly chattering mind through
meditation and devotion to me. 
> You shall then know without doubt what your true
dharma is in any situation. 
> Act according to this divine knowledge and you shall
be absolved of all common concepts of Paapa (Sin)
relating to such action. 
> Believe me, this is the only sure way."
> 
> sarva dharmaan parityajya
> maamekam sharaNam vraja
> aham tvaa sarva paapebhyo
> mokshayishyaami maa shuca.


Respected Sri Krishnaswamy swamin,
Pranams.
A  thought-provoking mail about the dilemma in knowing
what is dharma in a given situation. Seeking
permission from you to add  my thoughts, let me write
what strikes my mind. I may be wrong in my
interpretation / views. It is because of my limited
knowledge and limited exposure to sasthras. Hence I
request you, Sir, and others to correct me wherever
needed.

It seems that there are two sets of factors that
determine whether an action is dharmic or adharmic in
a given situation. One set is swadharma and paradharma
and the other set is shreyas and preyas. When
swadharma and shreyas go together and match with each
other, 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 and one is done at
the expense of the other.

There are reasons for clubbing these two sets. Based
on this, we can analyse the situations that you have
given in your mail. Texts declare (as you have quoted
in another mail from Katohpanishat) 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 by
you, let us see what comes up.

?> 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.
Bharatha stuck to shreyas unwaveringly.

In the next scenario,
?> 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.
 
Now it is about Sugreeva.
?> Sugreeva plotted and succeeded in killing his
brother Vali, taking the help of Rama.?
This writer thinks that 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 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 (the reading of
the symbolism of Vali vadam written by this writer
would help to understand this thread of reasoning).

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 (the
details can be understood by going through the
dialogue between Vali and Rama.)

And now about Pandava brothers.
 
?> The Pandava brothers restrained themselves due to
the Rules of contract and raja dharma and thereby
allowed their wife Draupadi to be humiliated in open
court.?

A clear case of ignoring shreyas happened at an
earlier time 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..
.?> Ignoring kshatriya dharma, Arjuna at first turned
against waging war with the kauravas because of the
Dharmic rule against killing one's own kin and guru
but later, on Krishna's advice expounding the superior
dharma, took active part in the war and killed his
close relatives and gurus. ?

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 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 Bhagavad
Ramanuja?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 will 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
from 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 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
papam.

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!!!

So adiyaL?s prescription in short is not ?sarva
dharman?, nor even the oft-quoted ?karmani yeva
adhikaarasthe?.

It is 
?sukha-dukkhE samE kruthwa
lAbhA-lAbhau jayA jayau/
thatho yuddhAya yujyaswa
naivam pApam avApsyasi//

The rest will follow suit.

Regards, 
Jayasree saranathan.




                
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com





------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
$9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/XUWolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Oppiliappan/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    Oppiliappan-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
oppiliappan-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list