It was mentioned in the October Sookti Manjari that it is Dharma that holds together the earth. While defining Dharma there, it was said that the Rishis of yore analyzed carefully the behaviour of people when they (people) were happy and prosperous and observed that in all such times, their life style followed a particular pattern. They concluded that this life style was conducive to mankind’s overall well being and called such life style as Dharma. Based on such conduct, they constructed the code of conduct and this itself is Dharma. This is a very nice definition indeed. But different Maharshis, living in different eras have laid down different sets of conduct. Which of these is real Dharma?

Keep aside that question. When so many persons have preached in the name of Dharma, how can we know as to who among them are real Maharshis? And who are not?

All those who give discourses on Dharma, will first believe in a religion and the sacred texts of that religion. They will then discuss about the various aspects of those treatises. Among those who do so, some are endowed with some special qualities. They are referred to as Maharshis. Thus, for the acceptance of a treatise as an authoritative text and for the acceptance of a particular person as a Maharshi, the belief of the followers is the main basis. When the decision of as to who is a Maharshi itself is subject to belief, a person who is a Maharshi in the opinion of A is not a Maharshi in the opinion of B. When such is the case, whose preachings should be considered as Dharma?

The modern man, standing on rationalism is trying to explain as to what Dharma is. He is not aware as to what a Dharma that has nothing to do with belief and which is totally based on rationalism looks like. Because of this reason, he will think that the concept of Dharma is no more than illusory and imaginary.

If one carefully studies the history of mankind, one will observe that both types of men – those who are inclined towards believing and those who insist on rationalism – have always been there. In some eras, there were more people who took recourse to belief and in other eras, there were more of those who were keen on being analytical and rational. Today’s era is one, in which men are more inclined towards rationalism. What is unfortunate is, that today’s men feel that this trait was started by them. Reality is entirely different from this.

Around 3000 B.C., there lived a philosopher called Apastamba. After a deep and detailed analysis, he wrote something like this:

"Neither Dharma or Adharma will assume a physical form and tell us ‘I am dharma’ or ‘I am Adharma’. Gods or our forefathers will also not descend from the heavens and tell us what Dharma is or what Adharma is. How then can one decide what constitutes Dharma? There is one way. In the society you are living in, whatever the Aryas (elderly persons) approve constitutes Dharma. Whatever they disapprove is Adharma". (it should be noted here that the word Arya does not indicate a community).
When various points of view were causing havoc in this world, Vyasa, the great sage of ancient India, made extraordinary effort to lead people in the Dharmic path. This is what he has said: -

Shrutishcha bhinnasmritayashcha bhinnah
Naiko muriryasya matam pramaanam
Dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhaayaam
Mahaajano yenagatassapanthaah

The Vedas have described Dharma in many ways. Smritis, which claim to explain whatever is said in the Vedas, have also preached in different ways. If the Smritis - which claim that the Vedas are their foundation – themselves define Dharma in different ways, whom should we consider authentic? Whom shall we consider fake? The deeper we think, the more the subject becomes blur and the more it seems that Dharma is something which is hidden in some dark cave. In such a situation, we should observe as to which path the noble men living in our times are treading. That itself is the noble path" says Vyasa.
Manu, who lived much before Apastamba, has said that in such difficult situations, the behaviour of saints and noble men are to be considered as Dharma. "Achaarashchaiva Saadhoonaam".

Vedas – considered as the oldest literature – discusses this aspect at one place. Even there, it has been said that the Brahma Jnanis (realized souls) who are living in the society in that era should come together and decide what Dharma is.

Apastamba has used the term ‘Arya’, Vyasa has used ‘Mahajana’, and Vedas have said "Brahma Vettas’ and ‘Maharshis’ Agreed. But how to recognize them? is the problem. For this, Sage Hareeta has formulated a checklist consisting of 13 characteristics, to be possessed by a Sadhu (saint). The Taittireeya portion of the Vedas does not enlist the qualities, but has put forth its decision in a very rational manner as follows:
First of all, they should be knowledgeable. They should be impartial. They should be aware that the same Almighty is dwelling in both a saint and a sinner. They should have the ability to analyze everything in an appropriate and skilful manner. Above all, they must have absolute and intense loyalty about Dharma. There should be no cruelty in their nature. Only such people can be regarded as the adjudicators of Dharma. This is what the Taittireeya portion of the Vedas has to say.

Let us consider even those who lack a couple of these qualities, to be noble men. Now the question remains – will these noble men decide what Dharma based on something or arbitrarily? If these men had decided without having any basis, there would have been new decisions coming up everyday! Fortunately for the mankind, it did not happen like that. Keep this aspect aside. It is also hard to believe that anyone can think about anything completely independent of the ways of thinking and experiences of the one’s predecessors. On the other hand, if these noble men are merely repeating what their ancestors and the old treatises, why do we need them to do so? Don’t we have access to those treatises?

Of course we have. In fact, we have access to hundreds of treatises and thousands of commentaries. Still, life is so complex that new situations arise every now and then and challenge us with dilemmas very often, no matter how prescient and unambiguous our ancestors were. When caught in such dilemma, a common man will not be able to understand as to how he should apply the principles laid down in the ancient treatises to the new situations. When faced with such a quandary, one may even furiously think that the Dharma that one’s father and forefathers followed had now become redundant and that it has become necessary for founding a new Dharma.

It is the nature of fury to strangulate reason. When the society is subjected to such a difficult situation, the inner self of the saints and noble persons become stimulated. Then, the technique of applying the principles laid down in the ancient scriptures to the new situation will reveal itself to them.

Why should the technique reveal itself to those men only? It is because they are unbiased. They can therefore see the Almighty even in those who, having succumbed to the complex situation have taken to wicked methods. Therefore, they do not hate anyone. For them, nothing is more important than Dharma and they are disinterested in everything else. They have no preference or prejudice for anyone. It means, they have no affinity for those who are Dharmic and no aversion for those who are not. Because they are totally unbiased, the true nature of the Almighty will reveal to them in all places and at all times. And therefore, Dharma, which in fact is another form of the Almighty, will also reveal itself to such noble men in times of dilemma. Those who have had such vision and experience have been referred to as saints by the Vedas and philosophers like Apastamba and others.

All said and done, they too are human beings. Therefore, they need to check and double check to verify if their vision and experience are valid or not. To do so, where is the yardstick?

The following Sookti tries to guide noble men who face this question.

Dharmassadaiko dhriti maatra sheelah
Na baahiraachaara shatairniroopyah
Sevyastato maanava dharma eva
Na chetaro dvesha vivriddhi hetuh

Dharma is not something that changes. To prevent the mankind from extinction is its role. That is its character too. Even hundreds of external manifestations of Dharma cannot conclusively say ‘this is the real form of Dharma’. Therefore, (whenever there arises conflict among the external appearance of Dharma), we should discard all other Dharmas and take refuge in that Dharma which protects mankind. (If there is no humanity, a religion is not a religion at all is the purport).

The Sookti is giving us a cardinal signs to decide what Dharma is, in such times of quandary.
1. The Dharma you are envisioning should be such that it will prevent the annihilation of humanity.
2. In order to put Dharma to practice, some external practices are indeed necessary. But such practices should not veil the true nature and spirit of the original Dharma.
3. The Dharma should promote humanity among people.
4. The Dharma you envision should never induce hatred among people.
Let us now study in depth these four points.

The most important among all Dharmas is that Dharma which allows man to live. Therefore suicide is considered a great sin. After all, the question of Dharma comes only if a person is alive. When we apply this rule from the Vyashti level (individual) to the Samishti level (collective), we can interpret Dharma as that which ensures continuance of human race. Whatever helps for the destruction of mankind is a great sin. Man’s desire to live is a fundamental one. In fact, it is a fundamental right. The human race as a whole also has this right. Therefore, the first and the last purpose of Dharma is to ensure that the human race continues. Therefore, the first cardinal sign to recognize Dharma, as per the above Sookti is, "Dhriti maatra sheelah" – meaning that the cardinal sign of Dharma is ensuring continuance of human race.

Often, we see that theory is different from practice. It is easy to say ‘all men are my brothers’. Nothing can be achieved just by such slogans. It does not absolve us of our social responsibilities. Therefore, it is necessary to strike a balance between the aspirations, diversities and duties of mankind and then formulate a code of conduct. The basic form of this scheme is the family surrounding the individual. Next comes the society surrounding the family; next is the state surrounding the society; next comes the country, and finally the international organization. Historically, this has been the model prevalent in the world. Mythology tells us that there was a system called "Chakravarti" system in place of the present day U.N.O. However, it must be borne in mind that the Chakravarti system was not a regulatory authority as is the case now. It is a separate topic. Let us keep that aside for now.

Starting from the family level, till the international organization level, there are different guidelines or laws which are relevant to the harmonious relationship between different levels. These laws ensure that the mankind continues to live. But, as the sanctity of mind of those who follow these rules goes on dropping, more and more regulatory laws come in to picture. When the main river and its tributaries cause floods simultaneously, controlling them becomes very difficult, if not impossible. Similarly, when the overall mental sanctity of mankind drops significantly, numerous problems crop up all at once and controlling them becomes as difficult as controlling simultaneously flooded rivers. In such circumstances, we will witness a phenomenal increase in the number of regulatory guidelines. It gives way to a paradoxical situation when the very rules that are supposed to protect Dharma, will actually start gobbling it up. It can be compared to a big log of wood dumped on a small spark of fire. Although wood is known to keep the fire burning, dumping a big log will do exactly the opposite! The second line of the Sookti cautions us to be careful about such circumstances. Saints like Vyasa, Adi Shankara and others incarnated in such difficult times and washed the society of excesses and laid down fresh codes of conduct. In the west, Christ also did the same. Never did these great men claim that they were creating a new Dharma. All of them reiterated, "It is the same old Dharma. You are erring in understanding it".

It must be borne in mind that all the great saints merely modified the external form of Dharma. They did not change its original form. By this, one will always remember the original form of Dharma which is in the background of its external form. Therefore, the second line of the Sookti is cautioning that the conduct should not gobble up the spirit of Dharma.

The Sookti, in its third line gives out another important cardinal sign and says that cultivating humanity in man is the characteristic of Dharma. The first line says, "That which preserves human race itself is Dharma". But, if ten people have to die or hundred people have to struggle to make one person comfortable, it is not good for the sustenance of mankind in the long run. In fact, the yardsticks to measure humanity are attitudes such as, "it is alright even if I have to struggle for the sake of the welfare of hundred people" and "if my death can save ten persons, I am prepared to give my life". Saints of all countries and all religions have accepted this as true Dharma. Therefore, the third line of the above Sookti says that to cultivate humanity in man is Dharma.

In order to understand the last portion of the Sookti, we have to understand as to which factors are responsible for corrupting Dharma.

The qualities opposite to those which qualify a person to decide what Dharma is, are the aspects, which corrupt Dharma. Even among these, hatred can single handedly eradicate Dharma. Basically there are two factors that are opposed to Dharma. One is Kama (lust) and the other is Krodha (anger). A modified form of Kama (lust) is Svartha (selfishness). Another modified form of Kama is the cruelty in observance of the code of Dharma. These can corrupt Dharma at the individual level. Even if a religious leader succumbs to lust and selfishness and takes a wrong decision, the effect will be limited to his surroundings.
On the other hand, if a religious leader succumbs to rage and starts making decisions, he will first lose the power of discrimination that he possessed hitherto. He will then start making decisions that will encourage one person to get in to a quarrel with the other. If this happens at the family level, the two families involved will rage with inextinguishable hatred. Gradually it will spread to the community and pave way to communal clashes and deaths due to revenge. If, after a few generations, one of the families gets wise and moves to another town, it can reduce the raging fire of hatred to a certain extent.
On the other hand, when malicious decisions are taken at the national or religion levels, the resultant war-like situation will affect each and every individual of both sides. (However calm a person may be, if someone keeps stabbing him, he cannot simply stand like a rubber model and take all the blows. He will certainly retaliate. Also, has it not been said that saving one’s self is Dharma too?) Thus, it will create a situation when every one is compelled to kill the other person just to survive. Every one will forget the original cause of the hatred. This situation will arise in both factions. Such is the power of rage. Therefore, the fourth line of the Sookti has mentioned about hatred.

The first three lines have described about what Dharma is. The fourth line describes what Dharma is not. The fourth line says ‘that which increases hatred in the society can never be Dharma. It does not stop there. It also says that anything that antagonizes what is said in the first three lines will increase Dvesha (hatred) and is thereby non-Dharma. By telling us what Dharma is not, it is also helping us to recognize Adharma.

Thus, although this Sookti is basically dependent on belief, it is giving us invaluable advice about Dharma, based on reasoning.

Agreed. Whatever has been discussed till now is mainly useful to those who are responsible for making decisions about what is Dharma. Of what use is it to us commoners? The answer to this question is in the Sookti itself. The Sookti begins as "Dharmah sadaa ekah". It means, Dharma is always one. Dharma is something that does not change. This preaching need not be given to the jury of Dharma. They know it already. It is required for the common man.

Also, the Sookti describes Dharma as "Dhriti maatra sheelah". The meaning of this was given as "to prevent the mankind from extinction is its role". It has one more meaning also. Dhriti means ‘not losing control and equipoise even in times of distress’. Therefore, the other meaning of "Dhriti maatra sheelah" is, ‘that which endows men with such a quality is Dharma’. One who is implicitly following the path of Dharma should not succumb to either selfishness or hatred when there is distress in his religion or in his society. Even this caution applies to common man.

Those who are responsible for deciding the codes of conduct may come out with new decisions every now and then. We (laymen) should not think that a new Dharma is taking birth everyday. When the Supreme Court passes a verdict, everyone in the society should have the commonsense of understanding the judgment. Even if the judgment is personally uncomfortable, one should not shy away from understanding the spirit behind that judgment. Every citizen may not be able to argue like a lawyer. Nor he may be able to ascend the seat of the judge. Even then, if the citizens do not have the minimum legal literacy, such a society will never prosper in any field. Therefore this Sookti is laying down the basic tenets required to decide Dharma as well as its body.

May Lord Dattatreya bless the mankind so that the tenets of Dharma and their spirit glows in the hearts of every person. May hatred be abolished from their hearts. May true humanity find a strong footing in their hearts so that universal peace becomes a reality!

Jaya Guru Datta.

Sri Swamiji