RoyG wrote:So, are duties also tied to Soul or only rights? Just to clarify, I disagree with your view that rights and ideas on soul are related. Rights or duties have nothing to do with whether soul exists or whether goddess/god exists. Rights and duties are a contract between the Govt and its citizens. Citizens promise duties to Govt and Govt promises rights to citizens. Only duties without rights is harmful to citizens. Only rights without duties leads to weak govts.
-----
Its sad to see that some people justify caste system and even untouchability. Really sad! All I can say is that please check out the news related to caste, caste discrimination and caste violence for just 2 years and then perhaps you will see that caste system is not only unethical and oppressive but fragments the society(especially a multi-linguistic and polytheistic society).
It is evident you haven't done the required study of your own tradition before touching on topics like rights, duties, caste, soul, etc.
No matter, I will do my best to explain:
1) You assert that we are a polytheistic society. This is the worst. (Poly)theists state the following: There is the self, and there are divine being(s) external to it. Dharma on the other hand posits the following: The self is an illusory manifestation of the ultimate reality (consciousness). Therefore, the self becomes analogous w/ perception and there is no distinction between internal and external.
2) Both "duties" and "rights" are both tied to soul. Dharma doesn't translate directly to "duty". Dharma means path to liberation (happiness) and the only "duty" that one has is to walk it. Along this path you will be either an asura (egoist) or deva (ego destroyer) and the interplay between them creates the rich perception of cosmic life. Arjun didn't have a "duty" to do anything but accept that Krishna was the manifestation of the supreme conciousness and therefore he was too. The path for him happened to be that of a Kshatriya. Dharma is a non-translatable in that way.
3) If you make the claim that rights and duties have nothing to do with whether soul/god exist than you are ignoring over 2000 years of semitic history that provided the philosophical underpinnings for modern day rights. If a RIGHT exists than the SELF must EXIST too. The PURPOSE of a RIGHT is to INDULGE the SELF. The SELF ceases to be an EXPRESSION of CONCIOUSNESS and instead becomes a CUSTODIAN for DOMINUS (God => GOVERN-MENT).
4) You make the claim that Citizens promise duties to government and government promises rights to citizens. Comical considering this is identical to the 10 commandments in which man (custodian) of the Earth promises GOD to behave and in return will be blessed with his eternal love in the form of Earthly reward and entry into Heaven. Ancient Indian political frameworks merely enforced social contract within Jati's and created the conditions for Jatis to exist through minimal legislation. You didn't have a "duty" to "government" at all!
5) Rights and duties are mental masturbation without the pay off. On your death bed none of it matters b/c you'll be going to heaven/hell or turning to dust. Consciousness on the other hand is a very powerful psychological tool in that it gives you purpose till the very end. It encourages you to REFLECT on your actions in the pursuit of everlasting happiness.
6) As far as you parroting caste and untouchability, I have no desire to engage w/ you on this b/c you continuously ignore the historicity of these colonial constructions which were a recurring theme in the development of Christendom within the geographical boundaries of Europe.
RoyG,
I think you are confusing between Vedhik Dharma(Pravrutthi) and Vedhanthik Moksha(Nivrutthi). And self is not an illusion even in any Vedhantha versions. Self is the reality and world is an illusion in Adhvaitha Vedhantha. So, you got that in reverse.
Now, coming to the difference between Dharma and Moksha: I think ancient Indian schools developed in the following manner.
The literal meaning of 'Karma' is 'action'. No one doubts that 'actions' exist. 'Karma' not only mean 'actions', it also denotes the results of those actions. So, Karma means both actions and their results. People know that actions and their results exist in the world. Worldly actions and their worldly results are known to everyone and understood. The point people want to know is whether there is some divine results for the worldly actions. The idea behind all this is that people want to know if there is a divine justice system which will punish the evil deeds and reward the righteous deeds. For that, firstly, evil deeds and righteous deeds have to be defined and categorized. This is where 'Dharma' comes in.
So, basically, 'Dharma' is nothing but law or rule. In this context, it is a divine law or divine rule. The word 'Dharma' is related to 'Dharathi' which mean 'hold' or 'Dhaarayathi' which means 'wear'. BTW, the earth is called 'Dharani' because she holds/carries the people. Even in Thelugu(southern Bhaarathiya language), the word 'Dhorakindhi' means 'catching' or 'finding'. I am giving an example of southern language to counter the Aryan-Dhravidian linguistic division theory. Even the southern Thelugu uses the root word 'dhru' to mean 'hold' or 'catch' or wear' just as Sanskruth does.
Kartha Karma Kriya is part of Grammar.
'Kartha' is the performer of Action. Noun subject.
'Kriya' is the actual action or verb.
'Karma' is the Object in the grammar. Philosophically, 'Karma' is the result of the action.
In the philosophical sense, 'Karma' represents the full Kartha-Karma-Kriya matrix.
Similarly,
The one who holds is called 'Dhartha'.
That which is held is called 'Dharma'. Generally, it means rules or laws. It also signifies the results of those rules.
Philosophically, 'Dharma' means the divine law or divine rule.
Karma is closely associated with Dharma. Dharma defines various actions into good or bad. The righteous actions must have auspicious results and unrighteous actions must have negative results. Dharma is (earthly or divine) law or rules and Karma is the result of those rules.
But, it can be seen all around us that regardless of the definition of the righteous or unrighteous, there are lot of 'unrighteous' people who are living a very happy life while lot of 'righteous' people are living a miserable life.
To reconcile this problem, the Dharma-Karma philosophy comes up with the concept of 'Heaven-Hell'. The point is simple: an unrighteous person may enjoy for now, but eventually he will suffer. If not in this world, then in the after-life. Similarly, a righteous person may suffer now, but eventually he will enjoy a lot. If not in this world, then in the after-life. So, Dharma-Karma has now added the Heaven-Hell to its system.
Now, the definition of Dharma has to be worked out to determine good Karma and bad karma. Priestly class felt that Vedhik rites are the Dharma which bestow positive Karma. But, it seems that there were others who disagreed with this view. At the time, Kapila divided the world into Purusha(living thing) & Prakruthi(Nature or non-living things). The nature was further divided into its constituents. Kapila defined the human or animal body as non-living because one can see dead bodies without life. His logic was that if the body itself was alive, then it would never be dead. So, he concluded that body must have some constituent which kept the body alive and body dies once this mysterious constituent leaves the body. So, Kapila was trying to find the root of life. He also categorized ego as non-living. So, basically, his idea was that there is a thing called Purusha(living element) which keeps the beings alive. Kapila seems to have theorized that the suffering is result of hurting others. If I hurt you, it comes back to hurt me. So, he proposed Ahimsa as the highest Dharma and helping others as best Karma. This definition of Dharma & Karma is against Vedhik rites because the Vedhik rituals involved animal sacrifices. So, there was disagreement about what was Dharma itself. The Vedhiks believed in Vedhik ritual as the Dharma while other intellectuals believed in 'humanism' as the Dharma.
Till here, its common for all religions. One can see the same concept in Abrahamic religions to various degrees. They too believe in heaven-hell and divine law. There is no difference in Abrahamic religious views and concept of Dharma. But, the Bhaarathiyas would not be Bhaarathiyas if they stopped here.
It seems that Kapila's ideas became popular with time. This led to Aranyaka movement in society. That means, people lived ascetic life in the forest in hope of reducing their 'negative Kaarmic imprint' with as less hurting other beings as possible to increase their 'positive Kaarmic imprint' . This is called Thapas. The idea was that when the 'positive Kaarmic imprint' increased sufficiently, it would lead to heaven(Swarga).
The next big intellectuals were Gauthama & Mahidasa Aitareya. Mahidasa came up with the theory that the world was interconnected just as human body is interconnected.(BTW, Mahidasa was born from a so-called low-caste woman.) Mahidasa seems to be a follower of Kapila's humanist school. Mahidasa's theories became popular and he was highly respected. Mahidasa stressed on Truth or Satyam. Actually, the correct word for Truth is 'Rutham'. 'Sath' means 'existing'. The word 'Sath' is used to denote the 'living' part of the nature. The root of life...soul...self. By using the word 'Sathyam' to denote 'Truth', Mahidasa was hitting many targets with one arrow. Mahidasa seems to be saying that 'Truth' is the soul of the universe. So, Kapila stressed on Ahimsa and Mahidasa stressed on Truth.
Gauthama came up with a system of Nyaya(logic & legal system). He also tried to reconcile the Kapila's humanism with Vedhik rites to develop a hybrid definition of Dharma where Humanism gets priority but Vedhik rites also have some importance. Eventually, Gauthama's definition of Dharma seems to have become popular. Nyaya also theorized that God/Goddess must exist because the world must have maker(s). Something cannot come out of nothing.
The more important issue which was raised in Bhaarath was: If every action was the result of some previous action and every action results in another circumstance, then how to explain that some people suffer even before birth(in mother's womb itself) while some people start enjoying from the time of birth itself.
To answer this question: the concept of re-incarnation or Punar-Janma was invented. So, the answer was: the sufferings or happiness in this life must be the result of righteous or unrighteous deeds in the past life. This is an Aranyaka concept.
This concept seems to oppose the concept of Heaven-Hell. So, reconciliation is needed. Heaven-Hell concept was re-conciled with the concept of re-birth. So far, it was assumed that once the soul(jeeva) goes to heaven or hell, the story ends. Now, this was also taken up to its logical conclusion. The question was raised: how can the soul go to heaven or hell eternal for limited actions on the earth. Because the results of limited actions have to be limited, they cannot be eternal. So, it was concluded that the stay in hell or heaven cannot be eternal. So, what happens when the soul has completed its tenure of heaven or hell? Of course, it is re-born on the earth. Very nicely done.
This seems to have answered all doubts and the concept became a hit. But, actually, a pandora's box had been opened with the concept of 'rebirth' and Karma. If the sufferings and happiness in this life are the results of actions of previous life and if the actions of this life result in sufferings and happiness in the next life and after-life, then it means there is an endless cycle of life-death-afterlife-rebirth. This cycle is endless. But, thats not the real problem. The real problem is that Its beginning-less. This cycle cannot have a beginning because each iteration is the result of previous iteration and so on. This cycle cannot end because each iteration will result in another iteration and so on. Either this was true or god/goddess acts in arbitrary manner. So, this conclusion was accepted that a cycle of life and death exists.
The intellectuals had problem with this cycle not having any clear beginning. How can something without beginning exist? There must be some start point! Common people wanted freedom from this cycle or life and death if it was seemingly endless. Aranyaka movement which started off as an ascetic way to get to heaven transformed into an ascetic way to find freedom from the cycle of birth-and-death. This came to be called 'Moksha Marga'. Moksha means 'Freedom'.
So, now, there are 2 basic divisions in Dharmas:
Pravrutthi & Nivrutthi.
Pravrutthi (social life): Dharma, Artha & Kaama.
Nivrutthi: Moksha
The chathruvidha Purushartha is a combination of the above two. The idea is that one follows the Pravrutthi Dharma till the age of retirement and Nivrutthi Dharma after retirement. But, these two are not from the same school and further they run counter to each other.
Meanwhile, intellectuals were trying to find the answers to some perplexing questions. They started off where Kapila, Mahidasa and Gauthama left off. The most perplexing questions for those times were:
a) How did the world come to be? To find the beginning of the cycle of birth and death. This became the quest for finding the Brahman(universal soul).
b) What is the root of life(Individual soul)? This became a quest for finding the self or Aathma.
a) How did the world come to be? To find the beginning of the cycle of birth and death. This became the quest for finding the Brahman(universal soul).
The Nasadhiya Suktha is a lamentation that the beginning of the world is unknown and unknowable.
b) What is the root of life(Individual soul)? This became a quest for finding the self or Aathma.
The root of life was first theorized to be food(Annam). Later, the root of life was theorized to be breath(Prana)
These two questions became highly difficult and simply unaswerable. For a long time, the intellectuals under royal patronage earned their living by simply coming up with some temporary answers.
Mahidasa had theorized that the world was interconnected. That also means that the individual soul(Aathma or Jeeva) must have some connection to the universal soul of larger world(Brahman). It also means that each individual soul is connected in some way to other individual souls.
Now, this raised two questions:
c) what is the connection between individual souls?
d) what is the connection between individual soul and the universal soul?
c) what is the connection between individual souls?
This question assumes that there many different individual souls exist. Kapila's theory divides the world into Purusha(living soul) and Prakruthi(nature or non-living inert entities). Kapila does not clarify whether there are many different Purushas(living souls) or only one Purusha.
The Jains came up with the theory that there are different Purushas(or individual souls). But, this theory was rejected by others. Other schools believed that all individual souls are same same. All individual souls must have same qualities and functions. In that case, how can they be different. What is the quality which differentiates one individual soul from the other. (This is actually the original question: root of life which they have been unable to answer). Infact, what is the quality of the individual soul? So far, they have not been able to define any quality for the soul leave alone being able to come up with a quality which differentiates one soul from another. So, they concluded that all individual souls are same same. All the individual souls were grouped under a tag: self(Aathma).
d) what is the connection between individual soul and the universal soul?
Now, the next question was taken up. This is actually the variation of the same old question:
How did the world come to be? To find the beginning of the cycle of birth and death. This became the quest for finding the Brahman.
It was concluded that the individual soul must have come from the universal soul. Either the individual soul is part of the universal soul or the individual soul is the same as the universal soul. Either way the qualities of individual soul would be largely similar to the universal soul.
This is the Vedhantha. Aham Brahmasmi and Thathvam Asi. This also was the time when outright ascetism was replaced by chintana(thinking).
If the individual soul came from the universal soul and is very similar to universal soul, how did this happen? How was universal soul born and why? There really was no answer to the question of 'why?' The only answer could be: the world was created by the universal soul because it wanted to. Why would the universal soul want to create many individual souls? Hmm...perhaps, because it wanted company. Perhaps, it wanted to enjoy the world. So, many individual souls and the entire world was created by the universal soul out of nothing but itself. Is there any such example on the earth where something can be created out of nothing but self? Actually, there is one and only one example: Dreams.
So, is the creation of world similar to dream creation? But the dreams are merely illusions. They are not real. This was the start of Maya Vada or Theory of Illusion. It was concluded that the world was merely an illusion just like a dream. How can the world illusion? This study was further taken up by the Buddhist schools like Vijnanavadha. But, their theory didn't accept the concept of soul(individual or universal). The Hindhu Adhvaitha Vedhantha made a few changes to this by reconciling it with the concept of soul(individual and universal).
If the world is an illusion, then surely we are already free. Then why don't people act freely. Two possible answers for that are:
a) People don't know that they are free.
b) People don't want to be free.
But, if the world is an illusion, then Karma-Dharma matrix would also be an illusion. Just a farce. So, either Karma-Dharma matrix is real or illusion. If Karma-Dharma matrix is illusion, then Moksha(Freedom) is possible. If Karma-Dharma matrix is real, then Moksha(Freedom) is not possible.
So, both can't be right at the same time. Either Moksha is possible or Karma-Dharma exists. Adhi Shankara tried to reconcile these two by bringing the concept of two-levels of reality: Paramartha(Ultimate) & Vyavaharika(Practical). This was actually a Buddhist Madhyamika idea borrowed by Adhi Shankara. But, its just a patch-work sort of concept and is actually does not reconcile the inherent contradiction in the two systems.
The contradiction exists because both of them come from two different schools of thought.
a) Karma-Dharma matrix is primarily from Vedhik school of thought
b) Moksha concept is primarily from Vedhantha(and its predecessors) school of thought.
So, there is a primary contradiction in these two schools. Either the Vedhik school is right or Vedhantha is right. Both can't be right simultaneously. Adhi Shankara's concept of two-levels of reality is like having your cake and eating it too. Karma(judged based on Dharma) is a Bandhanam(Bondage). If it truly exists, then the self(Aathma) or soul(Jeeva) is forever under bondage and there can be no Freedom(Moksha). If freedom(Moksha) truly exists, then Karma(& Dharma) Bandhanam doesn't truly exist.
Either the bondage exists or the freedom exists. Both can't exist simultaneously. Karma is iterative(forward and backward). So, if Karma truly exists, then there can never be and there never was any freedom(Moksha). The theory of Karma comes from Vedhik school. And theory of Moksha comes of Vedhantha school and both are contradictory to each other. Karma is iterative(forward & backward). So, if Karma exists today, then it means Karma existed yesterday and will exist tomorrow. Because, Karma is triggered by a previous action which was the result of another previous action. It is an infinite loop or recursive function(to speak in programming language). There is no way of exiting this loop. Moksha(freedom) from Adhvaitha Vedhantha perspective comes to the conclusion that the world is an illusion and one is already free. Clearly, these two theories are contradictory to each other. And there is no way of reconciling them. Adhi Shankara tried to reconcile these two, but I think He failed in doing satisfactorily.
Many people seem to think that Adhi Shankara started Adhvaitha Vedhantha. But, it seems that Adhvaitha Vedhantha existed before Him. But, He tried to reconcile it to the traditional Vedhik religion. I have heard this traditional view that Vedhantha is a continuation of Vedhas. But, that doesn't seem to be the case because Vedhantha books criticize the Vedhik rites. Who said that that Vedhas are a preparation for Vedhantha? It is only Shankaracharya(and later) schools which insist on this. Did Vedhas or Vedhantha itself say that they are linked in this manner? I think it was in Aadhi Shankaracharya's time when all these notions were sort of reconciled. But the gaps are too wide to be reconciled in this manner and therefore they are quite easy to spot. Vedha and Vedhantha are different schools(Dharshana). Insisting that they belong to the same school seems indefensible. Shankaracharya school tries to do that in a very complicated manner. But, it is not very satisfactory. Shankaracharya tried to reconcile Vedhas and Vedhantha by saying that Vedhik rites are useful for preparing a person for Vedhantha. But, if Vedhik rites are useful for preparing people for Vedhantha, then why would Vedhantha criticize those Vedhik rites? If Vedhantha is part of Vedhas or even logical progression of Vedhas, then why would Vedhantha criticize the Vedhik rites? Why is it that when the word 'Vedha' is used in Geetha, it refers only to Karma Kaanda and not to Vedhantha?
Vedhantha and Geetha seem to be clear that Vedhas are all about rites(Karma) for worldly pleasures and lust for heaven. While, Vedhantha is about philosophy for freedom(Moksha). Various Vedhik streams which have become extinct while the corresponding Vedhantha has survived. We have some Upanisads belonging to recensions of which neither the Samhitas nor the Brahmanas are studied. Even their texts are not available. The Samhita of the Sankhayana Sakha of the Rigveda is no longer chanted now; the fact is we have lost it. But the Kausitaki Upanisad which is a part of this recension is still extant. The Baskala Mantropanisad, also from the Rigveda, is still available as a palm-leaf manuscipt in the Adyar Library, Madras. But neither the Samhita nor the Brahmana of the Baskala Sakha is known to us. The Katha Upanisad belongs to the Katha Sakha of the Krsna-Yajurveda. The Kathopanisad is very famous and is one of the major Upanisads; but its Aranyaka is not available. The Atharvaveda is totally forgotten in the South and is studied but in one or two parts of the country. But still extant are Prasna, Mundaka and Mandukya which belong to this Veda and which form part of the Dasopanisad. All this points to the fact that, while parts of many Vedic recensions that pertain to karma or rituals have become extinct or have been forgotten, many of the Upanisads which are the means of jnana/philosophy have been preserved. Great care has been taken to protect that part of our heritage while Vedhas have been lost. Why? Because Vedhas became irrelevant. Vedhik Yagnyas were sidelined. It was replaced by philosophy(Dharashanas including Vedhantha) and Agamas(Tantra). Agamas(Tantra) is related to temples. Vedhas is related to Yagnyas.
Modern Hindhuism is Agama + Vedhantha(along with Yoga and Saankhya) + Puraanas.
Vedhas and Vedhik rituals are largely irrelevant to modern Hindhuism. Even the priests have moved on to Agama rituals.