This is the Part VIII of the series on Dharma, Ritual, and Religion. Part-I gave the motivation for this paper and established certain definitions Part-II. The definition of Dharma was derived from the etymology of the word Dharma In Part-III the evidence for the definition of Dharma arrived at in part-II was given from Dharma Shastras along with some examples. In part iV, the domain of the Dharma was given in terms of the notion of Maya. In Part V discussed the application of Dharma to individual human and his interactions with society and environment. The Part VI addresses, what is ritual? Part VII addressed What is Religion? Part VIII uses above information to conclude that Dharma is not Religion. Why Dharma is not religion, or Why religion is not Dharma? Why Dharma is not religion? Having explained earlier in Part II of the series, about the concept of Dharma, and in Part VII the definition of Religion, let us now consider, if these two concept fit in to each other. That will tell us if these are similar concepts or distinct concepts. We will undertake it in three steps, Evaluate if Definitions of one are satisfied by the other. If the Domain of application of the religion and Dharma are similar Lastly if rituals are indicative of some similarity Let us start with the definition of Religion and check if Dharma fits in to it? We recall from part VII that in order to be classified any system of thought as religion, it must satisfy following three condition. The religion must entail in it the requirement of a belief in some supernatural being, called, God. It has to have a founder, called Prophet or messenger, from the true god, who brings the TRUE message of that God. This revealed message is encoded in a book, that will be their sacred book. (1) Do Dharma tradition admit a notion of the God? Broadly speaking, the Dharma tradition provides several models of reality. (1) The Models based on dualism, and (2) The model that is based on one fundamental existent, called non-dual traditions, (3) Models based on Dual-Abheda system (BhedAbheda Shaiva, Shakta and Vedantic tradition). (1) The Models based on dualism, posit two fundamental and eternally existents (1) Purusha that eternal and has qualities capacity to be witness (SAxshi), but not the capacity of dynamism or change (2) PrakRuti, the eternal existent that is completely dynamic but not the capacity being a pure witness. In such an arrangement Universe arises out of the dynamics of PrakRuti, but it has no capacity of knowing it. In these Models, the identification of an analogue of God in the definition of the religions, is not possible at all. Because either Purusha is not creative, or ParkRuti is not aware. In fact PrakRuti only modulates itself, and does not create. So there is no a priori notion of the God. So the first condition of “The Belief in God”, it self is violated, as no God is present in the system. The Purusha is not Omnipotent (being NishKriya), and PrakRuti is not even sentient, hence cannot be omniscient. Hence we can conclude that Dualistic traditions of India, is either do not admit an entity that is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscient. Hence there is no God in the Dualistic tradition in the above sense. (2) The Models based on Non-dual traditions: There are several non-dual traditions; (a) Advaita VedAnta, (b) Abheda Shiva (c) Abheda Vaishnavim (Samvit PrakAsha from Kashmir), (d) Buddhist school and last but not the least (e) Modern theories of Physics (which is Monistic in character). There are ShAktA schools of non-dual tradition but those are very similar to Abheda Shiva in content. Within Advaita Vedanta, the external world is not “SAT” because of it keeps changing and is temporary presence. And that external world is consequent of MAyA, that does not exist in the final analysis. It is called Jagat is “Swapna tulya”, i.e world is like a dream. So here again, the what ever potential o create(a dream here)belongs to mAyA. Hence the potency (Kartatva) belongs to mAyA. That is finally not there. So the Omnipotency is missing altogether again. Simiarly the issue of omnipresence is slightly dented, because only existent i snit-GuNA Brahman. In any case lack of OmniPotency in NirguNA Brahman tells us that there is no entity like “God” characterized by Semitic narrative. I must mention in the passing that there is a concept of SaguNA Brahman, that some may want to sneak as “God. But recall SaguAN Brahman is also impermanent, hence has a finite life. So cannot qualify as God. When we move to Abheda Shiva, where Shakti and Shiva are integrated, there dynamics is within Shiva. And universe Shiva shines as Universe. In fact here the experienced, experience and the means of experience, all is Shiva. So to that extent Shiva is considered “Doer of All”, “Knower of All” and he is all that is there. Strictly speaking it doe snot have the connotations of Omnipotent, and Omnipresence. For example if all there is myself, of course I am all over myself. But Omnipresence, means presence every where, including there which is not the self. But we can ignore, these subtle details. For example Shiva cannot produce something, which he is not. That is because he becomes every thing, hence does not create in the sense of being distinct from Shiva. So one can not use Omnipotence for Shiva in its full implications. But let us ignore even this important issue. So let us say, “Abheda Shiva” admits God as category. Even though, we cannot use Omnipotence in strict sense of the word. Case of Modern Science: I should mention, here an analogous position of the current Scientific theories about Universe. Here the laws of Nature take on center stage, all of which are supposed have come out of single Unified theory. This single unified theory implies the manifestation of a universe through some quantum fluctuations of eternally existing Vacuum state. Here also the situation is similar to the case given in Anhea Shiva or Advaita Vedanta. Except, here insentient nature (similar to prakruti) because of its dynamism gives rise to one or large number of universes. But “ perhaps” not knowing it. Even if you call this vacuum state, you call God because elf the quirkiness of reasoning. Notice it is not Omniscient, because it has no sentiency. But its omnipresence & Omnipotence parallels previous descriptions in Abheda Shiva or Advaita Vedanta. Agin no prophets possible nor is there any book. So Science too do not fall in to the category of Religion. (2) Does Dharma tradition admit a prophet? Answer: Given the fact that in most other Indian traditions existence of God is not a possibility, we will only focus on Abheda Shiva tradition, since we have sneaked in the notion of God, ignoring some issues pointed above. However the definition fails at this step, as Abheda Shiva does not admit the notion of prophet. So violates against calling Dharma as religion. (3) Does Dharma tradition admit a revealed Book, through this prophet? Answer: Again answer he is No, none of the Dharma traditions admit a single book that is revealed through some prophet and is privileged to have such a status. Here again we see, Hindu dharma fails the requirements of being a Religion. I must maintain, without giving details, that both the Buddha Dharma as well as Jaina Dharma, like Hindu Dharma, does not admit any of the conditions to be admitted as religion. Does Dharma and Religion, encourage change in time and space? We have already seen the meaning of Dharma by analyzing how this word comes in to being through some grammatical analysis. We have also seen above that this meaning is consistent with the different ways and contexts it gets used and described in Shastras and Vedas. By that very analysis, one can see, that notion of Dharma is completely different from the concept of religion given above. Consider the definition of Dharma as demonstrated in the, “ What is Dharma?” portion of this series. And also consider, the fact about how Dharma is known. These two together tell us, that the understanding of Dharma in any particular context can change. The change can come from a new contextual understanding of what holds/sustains/supports the phenomenon in that context. Or, the change can come because context itself has changed. For example, society changes in a certain ways, that sticking to past notions may be harmful, destabilize or destroy society, then notion of Dharma in those context will naturally change. Or an individuals gets crushed and suffocates his growth, and notion of the dharma in that context will have to change. In these example the a consonant existence of a society and the individual has been taken as sustaining quality, for a society to exist. Hence we see that Dharma is subject to change, depending upon at least two of the above reasons. And that is possible because, Dharma is not based on a revelation, but a product of human understanding of application of a principle that is universal in its application. And its application in particular context let us know, what the dharma is in that context. There are plenty of examples of these changes in Hindu Dharma or even in Buddha Dharma. For example, take the case of Smritis. So far we have 33 Smritis that have come down to us. Why so many so far, is explained within these Smritis. These Smritis tell us that that changes will have to be made with time and place, as society changes. And the Smriti that had last change is called ParAshara Smriti. The process at some time in AD’s stopped, either because of significant dislocation or because elf upheavals created by foreign invasions. The other class of texts that is associated with Dharma, are called Dharma Shastras (Science of Dharma). There are a much larger number of Dharma Shastras, written by different Rishis at different times and different places. Each one presented their own understanding, as and when they were around. This again goes to show, that Dharma is not a revelation, but depends upon time and place and needs to be revisited as time passes. The religion on the other hand is revealed through a prophet, who has a finite life span. If at all any changes are possible, it can only happen during Prophets life time. For example during the lifetime of Islam’s prophet, two types of revelations occurred to him. (1) during Medina period, when he was in relatively weak situation, both politically and Militarily and (2) When he was in Mecca, and was dominant both politically and militarily. And very often the two revelations are can be contradictory reflecting that situation. So Suras of Quran are classified in terms of Medina and Mecca revelations. But once he passed away, the religious code is fixed one for all, and Its followers cannot change, what God has revealed through his prophet. Same is the state of Judaic scriptures and the Christian scriptures. In the case of Christian beliefs, Pope has been forced to make reconciliatory modifications. But only Pope can make such changes, and no one else. The above comparison based on changeability depending upon time, place and state of knowledge again verifies that Dharma cannot be translated as religion, any more than Scientific theories can be called religion. Comparison between Dharma and religion based on the domain of applicability: As already stated notion of Dharma is applicable across to all finite categories, be it inanimate, animate to the whole universe. It is also applicable to the relationships, within a society between individuals and the societies, between societies and the environment, and between societies. Some aspects of the dharma may never change, as in the case of physical laws, some amy change as among human beings and society as pointed out above. Let me give some examples In the animal world when we see social animals, we see some form of organization. This organizing structure occurs naturally among these animal social groups. That the structure of these animal groups occurs naturally of the fact, how nature provides for the group structure to be established and is maintained, so long the conditions remain similar. However if the group becomes too large, the animal social group may split and form a separate group. And that also is indicative of the fact that dynamics of the group is viable for a size size , survivability (i.e resources) and dominance against competing groups. All this would be called heh parameters of Dharma under which such group can naturally survive. These are dictated by the inherent nature of the environment and the nature of such animals. You can notice, a solitary animal cannot be forced to live in Groups, for example a Tiger, that is its Dharma. And similarly a solitary Bee cannot survive unless part of a group, is also the dharma of the Bee. On the other hand Religion is applicable only to human beings, and is not universal even among humans. In fact we certainly know that it is applicable to those who follow Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Because they are the only ones who have had prophet and who brought them the message from the God. Hence religion certainly is not Dharma. Even though there may be a areas where both of these make a statement. As for example the domain of morality among humans is a sector where both address it. But the conclusions reached fom Dharma perspective may or may not be in consonance with the ones based on religion. For example treatment of non-believers is quite harsh among people of religion, as revealed by God. But treatment in Dharma tradition is independent of the belief or non-belief. And this, treatment is changeable as we know more about the nature of society and nature of man in all its facets. This again shows you that Religion is different kettle of fish than Dharma, and vice-versa. Next we will address the issue whether Dharma has dependability on Some thing like spirituality or can stand on its own? To be continued in Part IX
Posted on: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 19:34:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015