shiv wrote:
This is how I see it and it is no less harsh in some ways.
Despite our human belief that we are special all we ever do is eat and reproduce. If humans did nothing other than eating and reproducing like molluscs, spiders and rabbits - we would still be able to explain most of human history. If we don't eat, the individual dies and if we don't reproduce the group dies. One can express this as a very strong urge for the individual to stay alive and to propagate the group, so there is a group urge to survive. Within limits, death is avoided (for oneself and one's own group). Biologically this urge translates into a very strong desire to eat - with "pleasure" coming from eating, and a very strong desire to reproduce with "pleasure" coming from activities that lead to reproduction. Crudely put - all that every life form desires is to eat and fu(k. Nothing more. And that is true for humans as well.
But some organization has gone into promoting these two basic activities with the fundamental goal of group survival. I will stick with human organization for group survival. For the group to survive the individual must eat and he and she must get together to reproduce.
AhAra-nidrA-bhaya-maithunam cha
samAnam_etat_pashubhir_narANAm |
dharmo hi teShAm adhiko visheSho
dharmeNa hInAH pashubhiH samAnAH||
आहार-निद्रा-भय-मैथुनं च समानमेतत्पशुभिर्नराणाम् ।
धर्मो हि तेषामधिको विशेषो धर्मेण हीनाः पशुभिः समानाः ॥
Eating, Sleeping, Fear and Reproduction are common to all creatures. Dharma is the differentiating factor. The one without Dharma is same as an animal(or lower creature which only eats, sleeps, fears and reproduces).
What is this Dharma? Why is it the differentiating factor? Why should it be followed?
For the individual to eat, the group needs to provide food for vulnerable individuals like the young. That has led to some specialization like techniques and tools for hunting and agriculture.
For the individual to reproduce, male must mate with female. But pregnant females and females with young children are vulnerable and need to be fed for survival. Why should any male help them survive? After all the urge to eat and reproduce is strong and if some females are pregnant or nursing the healthy male need to look for a willing female to mate with rather than waste his time and energy feeding some female and child. In fact even a pregnant female or nursing mother is sexually attractive and all the male needs to do is mate, not hang around feeding the female.
In a small, ancient group of humans - young, strong sexually active males would not have had (and still do not have) any reason to stick with a single partner. They need food and they need sex. Biologically it is the female who has everything to gain (for survival) in trying to get one male partner to help her out while she is pregnant or nursing. Technically it is perfectly fine if she gets herself impregnated by one male but manages to get some other male to do the looking after. But the problem is holding on to this one male if other unattached females are attracting his attention and trying to get impregnated by him.
In a situation where one male, after some effort, has found one female to mate with and is doing her favors (getting her food?) in exchange for regular mating, the female is still attractive to other males. The only way a male can keep getting his sex is to fight off the other males. If however the female herself ditches him and gives every male sex, no single male has any incentive to pay long term attention to any individual female. In a society where sex leads to pregnancy (a normal unmodified human society), this situation is a problem because after several rounds of sex and fun the female gets pregnant and becomes vulnerable and needs support with food and protection. If she has not managed to get one male to support her for all the sex she gives him, she is left high and dry. If she has had multiple partners who have had their fill of sex and gone their way, none of them is interested in supporting a woman with child. In a sense there is some incentive for both partners to stick to each other for mutual benefit. She helps him hunt or guards the crop against pests and keeps a place for him to stay warm with her. He in turn gets sex and sticks with her.
Here then we have the beginning of a primitive kind of "single partner" morality that is linked to survival and biology. It is possible to use a similar process of reasoning link many other rules of morality with the need for survival and preservation of the group (society). For example, food obtained by one can be stolen by another. Having a partner helps guard that food when the owner's attention is diverted. The punishment received for trying to steal food or a partner is the basis for a primitive "do not steal" and "stay faithful to your partner" type moral rules. Morality is linked to biology and survival, not religion. Marriage too is an offshoot of this morality, again linked to group peace and group survival
It starts with Kaama i.e. desire. Not just sexual desire but any desire.(As already mentioned, eating sleeping and mating are common. Eating refers to all platonic sensual experiences i.e. eating, smelling, touching, ...etc). Lets say I want to eat because I am hungry. For that, I need to earn my food and keep my food until I eat it. This is not such an easy thing. It involves lot of work(either by me or others). Either I directly work for my own food or others work for me and give me food.
Now, lets say I go one step further and think,"How do I ensure that I not only get food for today, but I continue to get food everyday(or most days)?" This is long-term thinking. It is still Kaama but long-term sustainability of it. Here, Artha comes into picture.
Artha is: How do I create systems which will ensure that they will fulfill my desires and needs(Kaama)?
So, from Kaama, we have now graduated to Artha because Artha is long-term sustainable Kaama.
For example, an animal can somehow get food for one day perhaps in the wild on its own. But, how will it ensure that it gets food most of the days in the wild and continues to survive various circumstances? Its best bet is to be part of a system. Generally, it means being part of a group.
This is Artha level. So, from here on, Artha starts. That means, one has to take care how to interact with others. This is the beginning of power dynamics, hierarchies, ...etc.
Generally, even animals realize the importance of Artha. All animals instinctively realize the group dynamics and play their respective roles in their societies, so that the system is productive and everyone can benefit.
But, where does Dharma come into the picture?
Dharma is the next-level of Artha. Dharma is long-term sustainable Artha.
Lets say someone asks,"How do I ensure that the systems(Artha) work not only now, but are sustainable in the long-term?"
Systems are sustainable only if they live harmoniously in the universe. The nature is designed in a way that one creature cannot live without hurting another creature. So, violence is unavoidable. It is not possible to follow absolute non-violence(atleast, it is not possible for everyone). But, at the same time, the nature is designed in such a way that absolute greed is not viable.
This seems like contradiction. But strictly speaking, there is no irony at all. Absolute greed is not viable. For any system to work, it needs many different beings to come together and work. No being can survive on its own. Every being needs other beings for various reasons. So, any intelligent person will be able to see that one has to take care of others, so that they will take care of you. If you exploit others due to greed, then eventually it will lead to your own destruction. This is the way world is designed. So, absolute greed in untenable.
Most societies recognize that absolute greed is untenable. That one has to take care of other human beings, plants and animals because one's own welfare is dependent on them. For example, the saying 'a friend in need is a friend indeed' conveys this in a round-about way. See just as you will expect your friends to come to your help during your distress, others will also expect you to come to their help when they are in distress. If you don't help others when they are in distress, then no one will come to your aid when you are in distress. This much is recognized by even animals. So, they help those whom they think will help them when they are in distress. Generally, it means helping people of our family/clan/herd or neighbours, so that they help us when we are in distress.
That means each member of the system has to overcome one's absolute greed for long term and more sustainable welfare. That requires some sacrifice from each member to protect the system. If you protect the system, system will protect you.
Dharmo rakshathi rakshithah. Dharmo rakshathi rakshithah is very interesting in this. It is saying that those who protect dharma will be protected. That means 'those who protect others will be protected'. It also means that 'those who hurt others will be hurt'. Dharmo rakshathi rakshithah means that best way to serve your greed is by sacrifice. Infact, this is also declared in upanishads: "thena thyekthena bunjithah" (enjoy by sacrificing).This is the interesting aspect.
So, Dharma(Morality) is basically long-term sustainable Artha(Profits/Systems).
Artha(Profits/Systems) itself is basically long-term sustainable Kaama(Desires).
Now, basic power hierarchies are part of Artha. How to gain power is Artha.
But, long-term sustainable approaches to maintaining the system involves morality.
It is only in Hindu dharma that morality and rules for group survival, individual and group duties are listed without any imposition of religion. Religions like Christianity and Islam picked up on pre-existing morality and rewrote them as if morality did not exist before the religions were invented.
Western societies have assumed that morality is linked to religion because they come from a predominantly Christian background - and the Abrahamic religions simply stole and digested morality and claimed it as their original idea, which it is not. Morality is a biological survival function. But when western societies became "liberal" after the 1960s and started talking of Universalism, they decided to discard religion. And when they discarded religion (Christianity) they also discarded the morality that they thought was part of religion and not part of human social biology. This is GIGO. It will be an epic fail. Marriage, fidelity and family survival are essential for the human race.
The basic definition of Dharma is:
Para-upakaraya punyaya papaya para-peedanam
Benefiting others is punya/dharma.
Paining others is papa/adharma.
This is a very important and simple definition of dharma. And since it is given by none other than Vyasa himself, it is authentic. So, we don't have to search for our own definitions of dharma.
What are the basic dharmas for all human beings?
Ahimsa - Non-violence
Sathyam - Truth
Astheyam - not-stealing
Saucham - Cleanliness
Indhriyanigraham - controlling the senses.
Any being that follows these Dharmas is considered higher. Those who only eat, sleep, fear and mate are considered lower.
If even animals follow these Dharmas, they are considered higher. Thats why, one has stories about animals raising to higher level when they followed ahimsa or indhriya-nigraham ...etc. For example,
Shree Raama in Valmiki Raamayana wrote: श्रूयते हि कपोतेन शत्रुः शरणम् आगतः ||६-१८-२४
अर्चितः च यथा न्यायम् स्वैः च मांसैर् निमन्त्रितः |
24. shruuyate hi = it is heard; kapotena;by a dove; shatruH = an enemy; aagataH = came; sharaNam = for a refuge; architashcha = was received; yathaanyaayam = according to rules of hospitality; nimantritashcha = and was invited for a feast; svaiH = with its own; maamsaiH = flesh.
"It is narrated how by a dove, its enemy ( a fowler) when it came for a refuge, was received according to rules of hospitality and was invited for a feast with its own flesh."
Verse Locator
स हि तम् प्रतिजग्राह भार्या हर्तारम् आगतम् ||६-१८-२५
कपोतो वानर श्रेष्ठ किम् पुनर् मद् विधो जनः |
25. saH kaptaH = that dove; pratijagraaha hi = indeed accepted as a guest; tam = the fowler; aagatam = as he came; bharyaahantaaram = although he killed its wife; kimpunaH = how much more; janaH = a man; madvidhaH = like me?
"O, the excellent of monkeys! The aforesaid dove indeed accepted as a guest, the fowler as he came, although he killed its wife .How much more a man like me has to do?"
Link
Notice the last Dharma: Indhriya-nigraham i.e. controlling the sense. Because if the senses are not controlled, then such a person will not care about Dharma or Artha. He will want instant gratification of his senses without understanding the future consequences. For example, a very thirsty deer will drink water from a pond without noticing or caring about the crocodile waiting to kill it.
So, some level of control on the senses become important. But, this is a full circle. It all started with Kaama or desires(i.e. desires to gratify the senses) and now, to fulfill those desires, one has to control the senses.
So, total sensual appeasement is not sustainable.
"thena thyekthena bunjithah" (enjoy by sacrificing).
"thyagena ekena amruthathva manasuhu (Immortality is achieved only by sacrificing.)
I.e. sustainability is achieved only by sacrificing.
Why the need for sustainability?
If there is no sustainability then there will be constant fear(Bhayam). Moksha(Freedom) from fear is the result of following Dharma(morality) because it leads to sustainable Artha(Systems) which give sustainable gratification of desires(Kaama).