What is Dharma?

Folks,

In this thread I would like to explore what is Dharma?

The central concept of our religion is that we us Hindus should follow our Dharma.

Some of our friends here (who are (is) no longer here, always claim the we as Brahmins should do our 'Dharma'.

What is this 'Dharma' today for you and me? Is it birth, jathi based? Is it human based? Are we as TBs following 'it'? What happens if we do not follow it?

These are the questions that arose in my small mind and I do not have answers.

By the way, one more question - if a lion decides that he would not hunt anymore, because he felt sorry for his victims, is he following his 'Dharma'? Is he accruing positive karma for being 'non - violent?'

Please feel free to comment.

Regards,
KRS

Great questions. I am scratching my head too hard.

Lion and hunting: Dharma i do not think involves Survival. It goes beyond survival, and includes but not restricted to survival-needs. Unfortunately, dharma has become equated with survival-rituals in present time.

Dharma sutra: Dharma in the various dharma sutra seem to define a way of living life as dharma (?).

Dharma in upanishads: a certain path (towards realization of brahman) followed / to be followed (?).

Dharma in Gita: Doing every duty to the best of abilities, being non-judgemental and leaving results to God. And some more, i cannot think of now.

Dharma-like stuff [from a book am currently reading: The Holy Vedas (english translation with original sanskrit writings) by Pandit Satyakam Vidyalankar, Publisher: Clarion Books]:

1) Ajayeshtaso akanishtas ayteh sam bhratro vavruduh: saubhagaay
yuva pitah swapam rudra eysham sudrugah prashni: sudinam marudbya: (rig ved 5.60.5)
In the eyes of the Lord, no one is big, no one is small, all are alike, all are recipients of godly love and blessings for prosperity.

2) Bha no-a mahantmuta ma no-a arbhakam ma na ukshantamutah ma na ukshitam
Ma no vadhi: pitaram moth mataram ma na: priyastanvo rudra reerisha:
(yajur 16.15)
All men are equal in brotherhood. There is no one small. There is no one big.

In short, dharma to me currently wud be service to humanity, just as it is described in many parts of various vedas.

Regards.

Dear KRS ji,

The question as to what constitutes “Dharma” has been (and is still) a very complex subject. Before proceeding to shed my thoughts on it, I would like to quote from a book which I have recently read “The Mahabharatha – by Chaturvedi Badrinath”. I would recommend this book to all spiritual adventurers.

Quotes:

(In the words of Yudishtra)

• Whether we know or do not know dharma, whether it is knowable or not, dharma is finer than the finest edge of a sword and more substantial than a mountain. On first sight, it appears clear and solid like a town; on a close logical look, it vanishes from the view.

• The learned declare the Veda to be the basis of dharma. But the Veda Change according to each cycle of Time; the dharma of satya-yuga is different; it is different in treta; in dvapara it is different again; and in kali-yuga it is still different – different dharma according to different capacities.

• Neither can one ascertain dharma by a mere reading of the vedic texts.

• There is one kind of dharma for a person in an equable situation, and of another kind for one in distress; how can a reading of the Veda alone decide what the dharma in a distress situation shall be?

• As regards the smrti, they were derived from the Veda, and could be authoritative only if the Veda were so; but when the Veda were not free from ambiguity, nor authoritative for every situation, how could the smrti be so? Often conflicting with each other, where was the force in either?

• As for the cultured conduct being the standard of dharma, it suffered from the fallacy of the circularity of definition; the conduct of good men is called dharma, and good men are those whose conduct reflects dharma. With this fallacy n definition, “cultured conduct’ could not be a proof of dharma.

• What is more, one could see the crude and the unsophisticated doing what looked like dharma, but in fact was adharma; the reverse being often the case with the actions of the sophisticated and the cultured.

• Furthermore, there was no one code of conduct beneficial to all in equal measure, or applicable to all in all circumstances. To the contrary, the very thing that helped some rise higher acted as an obstruction in the case of others.

• None could see conduct anywhere that would be uniformly good for all.

• Sometimes adharma looked like dharma, at other times the established dharma turned seemingly into adharma, and there was no distinguishing the two.

• The same act is dharma or adharma for different people, depending on “time”, “place” and “the person concerned”.

• The path of dharma is a grand path from which several paths branch off; which of them must one follow?

• All things of this world are shot through with truth and untruth; how does one distinguish one from the other? What is truth? What is untruth? At what time shall one speak the truth, and at what time may one speak the untruth?

this is very nice to read ss-ji. thanks for the post.

am now wondering what does dharmo rakshati rakshitaha mean...in sense what all it cud mean in what all contexts, events, places, people involved, etc...

Dear Sri KRS.,

Literally the Word "Dharma" can be defined as "that which upholds is Dharma". The word is derived from the Sanskrit root "dhr" to "uphold". "Upholding what" will the the next question. Broadly speaking "upholding the natural law which pervades and sustains the entire creation, from atom to cosmos". Every action has its root in Dharma. I had gone through many writings on this subject, and heard many lectures too. One wonderful lecture by Tibetan Monk Professor Venerable Samdhong Rinpoche on "Dhamma" opened up my understanding of the real meaning of the word "Dharma".

Swami Sivananda Saraswati has discussed the subject elaborately in his famous book "All about Hinduism" (Chapter 3 - Hindu Dharma). I give below exerpts from the chapter :

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

HINDU DHARMA

Silent adorations to the Lord, the Embodiment of Dharma, the Controller and Protector of Dharma and the Fountain-head of Dharma.
What is Dharma? Dharma is so called, because it holds; Dharma alone holds the people, etc. The word Dharma is derived from the root Dhr—to hold—and its etymological meaning is ‘that which holds’ this world, or the people of the world, or the whole creation from the microcosm to the macrocosm. It is the eternal Divine Law of the Lord. The entire creation is held together and sustained by the All-powerful Law of God. Practice of Dharma, therefore, means recognition of this Law and abidance by it.
That which brings well-being to man is Dharma. Dharma supports this world. The people are upheld by Dharma. That which secures preservation of beings is Dharma. Dharma leads to eternal happiness and immortality.
That which is Dharma is verily the Truth. Therefore, whosoever speaks the truth is said to speak Dharma, and whosoever speaks Dharma is said to speak the truth. One and the same thing becomes both.
Dharma includes all external deeds, as well as thoughts and other mental practices which tend to elevate the character of man. Dharma comes from the Divine and leads you to the Divine.
Definition Of Dharma

No language is perfect. There is no proper equivalent word in English for the Sanskrit term Dharma. It is very difficult to define Dharma.
Dharma is generally defined as ‘righteousness’ or ‘duty.’ Dharma is the principle of righteousness. It is the principle of holiness. It is also the principle of unity. Bhishma says in his instructions to Yudhishthira that whatever creates conflict is Adharma, and whatever puts an end to conflict and brings about unity and harmony is Dharma. Anything that helps to unite all and develop pure divine love and universal brotherhood, is Dharma. Anything that creates discord, split and disharmony and foments hatred, is Adharma. Dharma is the cementer and sustainer of social life. The rules of Dharma have been laid down for regulating the worldly affairs of men. Dharma brings as its consequence happiness, both in this world and in the next. Dharma is the means of preserving one’s self. If you transgress it, it will kill you. If you protect it, it will protect you. It is your sole companion after death. It is the sole refuge of humanity.
That which elevates one is Dharma. This is another definition. Dharma is that which leads you to the path of perfection and glory. Dharma is that which helps you to have direct communion with the Lord. Dharma is that which makes you divine. Dharma is the ascending stairway unto God. Self-realisation is the highest Dharma. Dharma is the heart of Hindu ethics. God is the centre of Dharma.
Dharma means Achara or the regulation of daily life. Achara is the supreme Dharma. It is the basis of Tapas or austerity. It leads to wealth, beauty, longevity and continuity of lineage. Evil conduct and immorality will lead to ill-fame, sorrow, disease and premature death. Dharma has its root in morality and the controller of Dharma is God Himself.
Maharshi Jaimini defines Dharma as that which is enjoined by the Vedas and is not ultimately productive of suffering.
Rishi Kanada, founder of the Vaiseshika system of philosophy, has given the best definition of Dharma, in his Vaiseshika Sutras: “Yato-bhyudayanihsreyasa-siddhih sa dharmah.” “That which leads to the attainment of Abhyudaya (prosperity in this world) and Nihsreyasa (total cessation of pain and attainment of eternal bliss hereafter) is Dharma.”


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This book is availavle for reading in the Web. If interested you can open URL given beklow for reading full Chapter on Dharma:


http://www.dlshq.org/download/hinduismbk.htm#_VPID_19


Regards,
Brahmanyan.

What is Dharma ?

Dear Sri Seshadri Subramaniam,

First let me welcome your good self to this Wonderful Forum "Tamil Brahmins". I am also happy to note that you are from Coimbatore, which is my place of birth and native town from where I have migrated out 42 years ago.

By asking "What is Dharma" Sri KRS-ji has opened up a difficult but useful subject for the members to respond. I am happy to admit that you have given a clear inference of the word with epical background.

But coming down to mundane world some times we hear the subtler meaning of the word from ordinary people. When a beggar requests us "please give dharmam" in Tamil, he reminds us that it is our Dharmam to help him. Years ago my office watchman, a Gorkha from Nepal used to call his Salary as "Dharma".

Regards,
Brahmanyan.

Brahmanyan said:

Dear Sri Seshadri Subramaniam,

First let me welcome your good self to this Wonderful Forum "Tamil Brahmins". I am also happy to note that you are from Coimbatore, which is my place of birth and native town from where I have migrated out 42 years ago.

By asking "What is Dharma" Sri KRS-ji has opened up a difficult but useful subject for the members to respond. I am happy to admit that you have given a clear inference of the word with epical background.

But coming down to mundane world some times we hear the subtler meaning of the word from ordinary people. When a beggar requests us "please give dharmam" in Tamil, he reminds us that it is our Dharmam to help him. Years ago my office watchman, a Gorkha from Nepal used to call his Salary as "Dharma".

Regards,
Brahmanyan.

Click to expand...

Dear Sri Brahmanyan,


Thank you for your warm welcome.

Coming down to the mundane:

A asks B – "what is the cost of this watch"? B responds by giving his purchase price.

Now the cost that A has asked here is perceived to be the meaning as seen by the common man at large. So B has assumed that it is his purchase price (as that is his cost) that A is asking for.

If A were to ask C (who is a cost accountant at the factory which manufactures the watch purchased by B), the answer would be different as C would indicate the cost of production (am assuming that no ethical issues related to accounting would be involved here!).

Again if C were to submit a proposal for evaluation of increased production volumes, he would consider the "marginal cost"; "opportunity cost" to check whether funds have been utilised properly and are yielding the optimum benefits; similarly terms such as job cost, batch cost, standard cost etc are used in different situations.

This is an analogy to the usage of dharma.

In your example, you have inferred that the beggar reminds us of our dharma to help him; I say, that your inference is due to your magnanimity!
Dharmam is generally (mis)understood as charity. That is what the beggar implies. It is based on the principles of dharma that we have to decide – keeping in view the situation on hand.

It is dharma to help those who help sustain dharma – by this I do not mean that the weak and homeless should not be assisted; it is a matter of personal choice, depth of one’s pocket, stage of fulfilment of desires in one’s life combined with the desire to uphold dharma.

To see that a nation’s subjects are free from disease, poverty, fear and hunger is "Raja dharma" (which, of course, is a separate chapter by itself).

I am unaware of the second example i.e., the usage of the Gorkha, and hence refrain from commenting on the same.

"dharma is like water - it takes the shape of the vessel into which it is poured and the colour of its surroundings; and it is constantly evolving."

Who knows, in future, there may be a "cricket dharmam" too...!!

Regards,
Seshadri

Thanks for the link Brahmanyan-ji.

The many meaning and applications of "dharma", just goes to show that the sanatana is not designed to be prescriptive, instead it is designed to be accomodative.

Here is a wiki link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma

Yama bhagvan is called dharmaraja, maybe because after death he dispenses justice based on the "dharma" that we followed or didn't....so dharma is karma...it goes with the soul to the afterlife after death...karma is ishvara...dharma is ishvara....oh well am blabbering too much..

All who have responded above,

Thank you for all of your scholorly contributions on this. I appreciate your postings.

From all the postings above, I discern two very important things.

1. Dharma is relative to time.

2. Dharma is relative to changes in circumstance. I specifically asked a very simple question:
'if a lion decides that he would not hunt anymore, because he felt sorry for his victims, is he following his 'Dharma'? Is he accruing positive karma for being 'non - violent?'

No one has answered this directly. Let me be more clear. If a Kshatriya like Arjuna, who while young opts for being a Vaisya, is it against his Dharma?

I am using Dharma in my arguments as something that is being done to uphold the universal law.

Regards,
KRS

Am trying to answer your questions based on my understanding of dharma.

'if a lion decides that he would not hunt anymore, because he felt sorry for his victims, is he following his 'Dharma'? Is he accruing positive karma for being 'non - violent?'

All beings feed on other beings for sustenance – only the form and degree varies. Therefore can it be said that killing for sustenance is dharma? Yes, and No.

Yes, if the person is not inherently capable of realizing dharma and No, if otherwise.

A human being is capable of differentiating between life forms and hence it is adharma if he kills other than for survival. A lion follows its natural instincts; I do not know whether it possesses the mental capacity to identify “dharma”, however, if it does, then:

• It is in fact accruing positive karma for its actions (but it should be able to survive otherwise; if it is not able to do so, it is adharma)
  
• Also this may be seen as adharma by other lions, but while equating at a broader level, it does not matter.

If the lion does not possess the quality, the question of dharma/adharma does not arise here.

“If a Kshatriya like Arjuna, who while young opts for being a Vaisya, is it against his Dharma?”

Here, the validity of dharma would reside on what the societal structure is (relevance of “time”); during dwapara yuga, the varnasrama dharma was the very foundation of one’s life, and hence, the above action would be adharma.

'Dharma' means 'path' or 'duty'. But, in practice, we use the word 'dharma' to mean 'what all is right' or 'righteousness'. But, who has to distinguish dharma from adharma and decide what is what?

Great Scholars, revered by the vast majority of the society, for their acumen, sharp
intellect, impartiality and leadership can perform this role.

'Dharma' can influence one's 'karma' and so does 'karma'.

DIFFERENT ROLES OF DHARMA

Dharma as a path paves the way of one's life and serves as a beacon light to achieve
one's goals and life mission.

Dharma shapes one's thoughts, words and actions and gives one a unique personality and distinct self-identity.

Dharma saves one when one is in distress, provided one seeks its help and guidance, truly and sincerely.

Dharma leads one when finds one is unable to move further, because of the blocks
encountered / perceived.

Dharma uplifts one when one has reached the nadir, either on one's own or when one
is ordained by the almighty.

Dharma speaks for one, when no one else comes forward to speak for such person,
in defence.

Dharma emboldens one when one is depressed and diffident.

Dharma guides one when one is confused and shocked.

Dharma carries one ahead when who is left behind or lags behind.

Dharma ushers in one, when one is reluctant or hesitant to step in.

Dharma plays with one when one is too childish.

Dharma admonishes one when one goes astray.

Dharma also punishes one when one repeatedly commits the same mistake.

Dharma takes one near the God, when one yearns for it.

Dharma makes one merge with/into the Almighty, when time is just ripe
and when one is found suitable for it.

I have been going through this thread. It is reported that one of our famous politicians said that It is the politician's Dharma to take bribes. Because we always said that Dharma is dependent on the position of the person. We do talk about Raja Dharma.

AN excellent thread. I am quoting from Seshadri's post.

One has to bear in mind that "Good" or "Right" may not always be dharma. To establish dharma in a world of adharma, circumstantial lie or other such acts, which are normally seen as adharma, become dharma! (But only so long as it serves the purpose).

This is why Rama killed Vali in a manner that he could see him while Vali could not.

This is the same reason why Yudhishtira was advised by Krishna to tell a lie to make Dronacharya lay down his arms.

Click to expand...

Was it Dharma to kill a grandfather, guru and all your cousins for a piece of land? There were many kingdoms all over India. The Pandavas could have conquered one of them. If you say that they were the rightful Kings do you think the rightful holder can kill one's relations to uphold his right?

Can you tell a lie if it will achieve your ends. Do ends justify means?

What Dharma was established by the epic of Mahabharata? What Adharma was taking place during that period that Krishna had to take birth?

When we teach our children about our epics these are some of the questions asked by them.

If we want the western educated children to understand our epics we have to answer these question in today's language.

There are no satisfactory explanations. These are dilemmas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Does something become dharma because it is an act committed by our Heroes. If abduction of Sita was a crime ( it is ) how do we justify the abduction of Amba, Ambika, and Ambalika by Bhishma?

Does something become dharma because it is an act committed by our Heroes. If abduction of Sita was a crime ( it is ) how do we justify the abduction of Amba, Ambika, and Ambalika by Bhishma?

Click to expand...

Sita was wedded to another man; amba, ambika and ambalika were not... they were abducted from the swayamvara... and bheeshma defeated all those who tried to rescue them (including shalya, i think, who was liked by one of the princesses)...

These two incidents are not comparable...

Can you tell a lie if it will achieve your ends. Do ends justify means?

Click to expand...

I think so... yes; everything that serves to sustain all living beings is Dharma, even if it be untruth...

Was it Dharma to kill a grandfather, guru and all your cousins for a piece of land? There were many kingdoms all over India. The Pandavas could have conquered one of them. If you say that they were the rightful Kings do you think the rightful holder can kill one's relations to uphold his right?

Click to expand...

Is it such a simple question as you put it so? I dont think so...

There are no satisfactory explanations. These are dilemmas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Click to expand...

There is no satisfaction if we search for perfection...

Bhishma's action was not according to the rules of swayamvara. The status of the women is of no consequence. Might is right is the principle established.

Hinduism has been blamed for justifying "ends justify means". This is a problem we have to deal with

Various schools of thought regarding this.

Some well-known schools are:

The deontological school prescribes that the means used should harm no one, be fair to all concerned and should be the autonomous choice of the decision-maker.

The consequentialist school holds that the results should decide whether the means chosen were justified or not. (If the omelette turns out to be good, breaking the egg was justified!)

The utilitarian school evaluates means by their usefulness in achieving the desired ends.

The synergistic optimisation school is a refinement of the utilitarian school in that it wants the utility to be not egoistic (selfish) or altruistic (entirely benefiting others) but synergistic (benefiting everyone).

Benthamism is a more practical version of synergistic optimisation and aims at benefiting not everyone but the maximum possible number of people to the maximum possible extent. (This is what most democracies attempt to do. This is also what makes an elected government think that merely because it has obtained majority of sorts, it alone represents the will of the entire people and can do whatever it wants as long it is in power.)

Max Weber contrasts ethics of responsibility with ethics of absolute ends clearly leaning towards the former which involves choosing means with a sense of responsibility (meaning, perhaps, a sense of conscience).

The contextual school believes that the correctness of the choice of means would depend on, and vary with, the context in which the ends are sought to be achieved. (Kali Yuga, apparently, justified approaches which the earlier, more virtuous Yugas would not have approved of!)

None of these lays down a single, common inviolable criterion for choosing the means. The criterion one chooses would depend on the school of philosophy that appeals to one.

I believe this is wrong. This is the problem with the definition of Dharma.

It is clearly the conception which justified the atrocities Stalin and the use of terror by some who claimed to be pursuing the socialist objective. Our politicians are also using this maxim.

Think I did not express properly...

Ends do justify the means, but the means are also to be done in a way that is in accordance with dharma...

You see dharma is not a rigid definition... it is a concept... of that of upholding the values, whatever they may be, that could sustain the well being of all living beings...

Whatever schools of philosophy or lines of social thought they may be, if they are done with the underlying principle, then it is according to dharma...

Dharma has been twisted, misquoted and coloured to suit individual preferences... and THAT is adharma.

None of these lays down a single, common inviolable criterion for choosing the means. The criterion one chooses would depend on the school of philosophy that appeals to one.

Click to expand...

There cannot be and will never be a single, common criterion for choosing the means. It would be subject to debate and doubt. For when facing a situation, one has to decide in light of the available information, his stance, circumstantial variables and the purpose.

Leave the Pandavas; coming to a present problem... why cannot the tamilians in Sri Lanka leave the land and go and settle in a different place?

Are they justified in fighting against the Sri Lankans?

Should they not accept the terms dictated by the Lankan govt???

You see, these are relative questions... we can air these questions sitting in the comfort of our home and enjoying the luxuries of life, while commenting on dharma. But it is the sufferers whose perception matters here... if we are communicating something, then first, we should put ourselves in their shoes to understand their plight.

It all stems from the actions of people; try to find the root cause and you have the solution.

Is that easy?

Dharma is a matter of opinion,as Lord Krishna says to Shri Arjuna at the end of his discourse,in Bhagavath Gita.

sb

I had written "Hinduism has been blamed for justifying "ends justify means". This is a problem we have to deal with."

I belong to the school which thinks that Hinduism does not believe in "ends justify means". But then the question arises as how do we explain the actions of our heroes in the epics. The philosophical and the ethical question is beyond the comprehension of the common man and children. Like the Child's quote dating back thousand of years. "Why do Gods do such Ungodly things?"

The explanation could be simple.

Mahabharata basically deals only with Raja Dharma and Kshatriya Dharma. There are hardly any Brahmins around. Even as advisors (Raja Guru) Brahmins are not seen.

Taking for example Bhishma's actions throughout the Mahabharata, it can be put in a few words. He did whatever was good for the Kingdom and always obeyed the ruling King.

These deeds were in accordance with the then prevailing conception of Raja Dharma and Kshatriya Dharma. But then bad deeds did count for bad Karma and even Bhishma had to pay. Someone had written in tha Kanchi Forum that " When Bhishma asked Sri Krishna while he was lying on the Arrow bed, the reason for his physical suffering at that time. Krishna replied that when Drowpathi was calling out for help in the saba Mandapam, Bhishma the strongest person could have stood up for Dharma and protected Drowpathi. But Bhishma chose not to do that."

This is very much similar to the Machiavellian theories that hold that the preservation of the state (or "the prince" in a position of power) is of such paramount importance that all possible means are justified in defending it. Chanakya was always compared to Machiavelli.

This is how I expalin to children and laymen. As I said earlier I do not believe ends justify means is preached by Hinduism. This would go aginst our Karma theory and also the teachings of the Upanishads.

From the view of the individual:

Dharma is Karma in relation to the society...

And Karma is Dharma in relation to the Self...

I only wish it was as simple as all that. The word Dharma and Karma is often mixed up. Then we start talking about Ethics and Dharma. The question of Papa and Punya and Truth comes into picture.

I think I will leave it at that. This is too big a question which can be be explained in this forum. There are one too many theories and interpretations.

It is all relative... it is simple and that is why it is complex...

I am neither the propounder of Dharma/Karma nor an expert on it.... but yet...

Maybe I am just playing with words.... :blah:

The question of Papa and Punya and Truth comes into picture.

Click to expand...

There is no papam and punyam... what does not adhere to a particular principle or norm is termed as papam... just that and nothing else...

I stick with this... if we delve deeper, some things may be quite uncomfortable to discuss... so :tape2: to myself...

Just trying my hand here...

Nacchinarkiniyan said:

I have been going through this thread. It is reported that one of our famous politicians said that It is the politician's Dharma to take bribes. Because we always said that Dharma is dependent on the position of the person. We do talk about Raja Dharma.

AN excellent thread. I am quoting from Seshadri's post.

Was it Dharma to kill a grandfather, guru and all your cousins for a piece of land? There were many kingdoms all over India. The Pandavas could have conquered one of them. If you say that they were the rightful Kings do you think the rightful holder can kill one's relations to uphold his right?

Please read in contest - Duruyodhana out of jealous , invited Dharmaraja for a game of dice, and abducts all his belongings, including their wife. and the animal in him came out, In front of the court, he tried to dechastsize her - knowing well she is in her periods and in broad daylights. Does any sane person can tolerate this non-sense?

And after 13 years Duruyodhana has to return what belongs to his brothers- that's the agreement - Not only breaching the agreement - he also refuse to give land the size of 5 pin heads therby challenging Pandavas might. That one has to be answered, that's Kshatriya Dharma.


Can you tell a lie if it will achieve your ends. Do ends justify means?

Depends on the ends - if it is for a noble cause - then it should be exercised. Like a cow chased by a butcher running towards you and hide in a safe place before your very eyes. The butcher coming for the life of the cow - enquires the wherabouts of the cow - if you tell the truth - you are commiting a papa . A henious crime of aiding "go hatti" - if you tell lie here - then you are protecting the cow a "Punya"

So speak truth - is the general law , but if it going to harm - then you got to use your judgement - at best don't tell anything.

So there is always a context...

What Dharma was established by the epic of Mahabharata? What Adharma was taking place during that period that Krishna had to take birth?

try to hear upanyasams by experts on this field.

When we teach our children about our epics these are some of the questions asked by them.

If we want the western educated children to understand our epics we have to answer these question in today's language.


There are no satisfactory explanations. These are dilemmas.

there are satisfactory explanations - Dharma VICHARAMS bring hitam to humankind - so it is to be pursued. Dilemmas are to be extinguised by proper shsitacharams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthyphro_dilemma

Does something become dharma because it is an act committed by our Heroes. If abduction of Sita was a crime ( it is ) how do we justify the abduction of Amba, Ambika, and Ambalika by Bhishma?

sesh has given a good answer. Sometimes it pays to genuniley strive to get answers

Click to expand...

From the book - Samkshepa Dharma Shasthram:

-> According to Manu: Vedha Shasthram therindhavargalgiyum raga dvesham mudhaliya ketta gunangal illathavargalaagiyum irukkira sadhukkalaal edhu anushtikka pattadho, thaathparyam ulla manadhaal edhu angeekarikkapattadho, adhu thaan dharmam enru nischayam seidhu kollavum.

-> According to Apasthambar: Dharmam, Adharmam ivvirandum, naan dharmam naan adharmam enru koorikondu sancharipadhu illai. Devargal, Gandharvargal, Pithrukkal ivarkalum kooda idhu dharmam, idhu adharmam enru neril svaroopathai kaanpitthu solla mudiyadhu. Yenenraal dharmam amoortham niravayam. Periyorgal endha kaaryathai pugazhkirargalo adhu dharmam, endha kaaryathai nindhikkiraargalo adhu adharmam enbathaagum.

One more quote from the book...

Yuga Dharmangal:

According to Vishnu Puranam: Kaliyil ellorum vedhathai patriyum brammathai patriyum pesuvargal; aanaal anushtanam seigai seriyaaga vedhathai anusarithu iradhu. vayitrai nirappuvadharkum kaamathai uddhesitthum viseshamaaga eedupaduvaargal...