According to the answers.com we have fourteen different definitions of the English term law, but two are relevant here: 1) A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority and the subtly different 10) A code of principles based on morality, conscience, or nature. The mention of morality and conscience set off my alarm bells. I intend to argue here of the significance of the second characterization of this very important concept. That is, there are elements of great vulnerability and dependence on individual choice to what has been traditionally characterized as this regal and seemingly inviolable plan of nature. This isn't anything new, if we are to look at the Puruṣārthas, we see that Dharma is portrayed as an existentialist concept (i.e. Camus). What I will do here is go to the last book of Mahabharata to show Dharma in this sometimes ignored light.
Note: I'll be using this translation: http://www.mahabharataonli
It's quick and dirty, but gets the essential message across. I wasn't going to type from my max muller.
This title Mahaprasthanika Parva refers to the Great Journey where Yudhishthira (aka the king), his brothers, and common wife (long story) tell their subjects to go fuck themselves, because they're going away. So they wear bark clothing and leave their kingdom and go walking towards the wilderness. A stray dog joins them on the journey. One by one, they start falling and don't seem to reach moksha. How strange, considering that these august men (and one woman) aren't liberated from the endless cycle of rebirth?
The reasons for their imprisonment are quite clear and rational. This happens to every one but Yudhisthira, but we'll see two of the five brothers - Sahadeva and Arjuna.* I do some butchery of the text down below to keep the cast of characters to an absolute minimum.
Then Sahadeva of great learning fell down on the Earth. Beholding him drop down, [another brother] addressed the king, saying, ‘He who with great humility used to serve us all, alas, why is that [he has] fallen down on the Earth?
Yudhishthira said, ‘He never thought anybody his equal in wisdom. It is for that fault that this prince has fallen down.
What then is that for whose evil consequence this one [Arjuna] has fallen down on the Earth?’
Yudhishthira said, ‘Arjuna had said that he would consume all our foes in a single day. Proud of his heroism, he did not, however, accomplish what he had said. Hence has he fallen down. Phalguna [Sry, heroes have an irritating habit of being called 100 names] disregarded all wielders of bows. One desirous of prosperity should never indulge in such sentiments.
They all follow action -> reaction or infraction -> punishment logic that the first definition of dharma seems to imply. Yet, the whole point of this book is to subvert that notion by bringing in the law of individual creation (morality and ultimately the self) to a privileged position.
Now alone with the dog, the king reaches the threashold of heaven. Despite understanding the reasons for their return to earth and torturous rebirth, Yudhistira dares ask:
My brothers have all dropped down here. They must go with me. Without them by me I do not wish to go to Heaven, O lord of all the deities. The delicate princess deserving of every comfort should go with us. It behoveth thee to permit this.
This request is truly jaw dropping. If we are to understand Dharma as a natural law, one of rigid cause and effect, how can Yudhisthira request such a thing? This makes sense if we see Dharma as an internally generated set of values that govern life. The law of self.
This point is pressed on again. Remember that dog?
Indra (a god) said, ‘There is no place in Heaven for persons with dogs. Besides, the (deities called) Krodhavasas take away all the merits of such persons. Reflecting on this, act, O king Yudhishthira the just. Do thou abandon this dog. There is no cruelty in this.
The poet is devilishly devious here. That is, he is directly attacking the first definition of dharma. We have an existent set of rules that were defined on an astral plane and judge your actions. The consequence of this is a subordination of individual creation of morality. In short you can't say "I thought I was doing the right thing" because every action has been judged on a level above the individual.
Yudhishthira replies:
O great Indra, I shall not abandon this dog today from desire of my happiness. Even this is my vow steadily pursued, that I never give up a person that is terrified, nor one that is devoted to me, nor one that seeks my protection, saying that he is destitute, nor one that is afflicted, nor one that has come to me, nor one that is weak in protecting oneself, nor one that is solicitous of life. I shall never give up such a one till my own life is at an end
How dare he oppose the laws and procedures of heaven? My central contention is that an individually created set of values inside the person are trumping the law of heaven. In true poetic form, the dog morphs into Dharma itself and tells the sage king that this was a test to see if Yudhishthira was worthy enough. By "sticking to his guns" and defying the laws of heaven, the king reached moksha.
Dharma is a stray dog. It is weak, destitute and terrified. It is always in jeopardy if the individual does not defend it his entire life. This whole book in Mahabharata tells us that it is something that comes from inside the person and sometimes comes into conflict with the law of heaven. If Yudhisthira had understood dharma as law(1), then he would not have passed the tests of Yama (Yan in Chinese, Dai-o in Japanese) and have been endlessly reincarnated.
Wow, is this how i spent my Friday night?
----
I transcribed this largely from an argument I was having with someone a few hours ago. He was a holy roller, as zealots tend to be. It was immediately clear - a virtue of his illiteracy in what he purports to "know" that he came from the lower classes.
No comments:
Post a Comment