Discussion on Dvaitam - Duality Question by a friend

https://www.facebook.com/vallury.sarma/posts/563550980348986

I read through the story “Dvaitam” in Telugu by Vivina Murthy and detailed discussion developed by you with keen interest.
For number of years I have been struggling ----
To get clarity on “Swadharma” and “Manodharma”.
Is Swadharma a static activity while manodharma is a changing activity?
As the human understanding deepens I do think he has no choice but to follow path of new manodharma.
If a man follows a dharma yet there is an inner conflict, which is not his manodharma. Quite often a person is lulled by various conditionings that lead to an activity which is in conflict with his body mind and spirit.
When persons don’t follow their Manodharma, then adharma spreads in the world and only an Avatara Purusha can come and cleanse it.
I need your understanding on these.

1.
Language is our first hurdle in our understanding issues and concepts. Word and its meaning are compared to Parvati and Parameswara by Kalidasa in a famous sloka.
Understanding of the philosophy of language is absolutely essential for obtaining true awareness of words (denotations and connotations) and concepts (pada, padartha (pada+artha, also an ontological category of Vaiseshika) ) - represented by them. It is the first step in Indian logic (nyaya-tarka), which all our sastras make use of. Many Sanskrit terms are “untranslatable” into English and vice versa. E.g. dharma, karma, manas, atman…, in Sanskrit and mind, human spirit, understanding … in English… We talk about spoken language while Westerners speak of written language in developing language theories. We have varna-mala (not akshara mala) and they have alphabet which is a different concept altogether. (For example, literacy has nothing to do with jnana, awareness)

2
The most complex word is dharma itself. The word dharma in words such as Sanatana dharma, sva-dharma, manodharma, dharma sastra, adharma, dharma-cyuti, dharma-glani - assumes different shades of meaning.

Dharma : “Adheya padartha” , It has to rest on something to define it and determine its meaning.
Dharmi: “Adhaara padartha” Substratum; that which possesses the Dharma.
Some definitions in sastras
A. The one (goal of life), which gives you elevation and ultimate bliss, that is dharma (yato abhyudaya nihsreyasa siddhi sa dharma.) The tendency to do good deeds (punya karmas) is dharma.
B.Dharma is human tendency for righteous way of living, as enjoined by the sacred scriptures; virtue. (yeyam punya-rupa pravrtti dharma) ,

Svadharma: One’s own prescribed duty in life - according to the eternal law. Who prescribed it and made the law? This is the question. It can be interpreted as a static, if it is based on a dharma sastra, which is in the form of Do’s and Don’ts – indicating varna dharma, asrama dharma, grihastha dharma, raja dharma, putra-dharma etc. But if it is just so, the concept of dharma is valueless .It will not be different from ten commandments. Dharma is much more.

Svabhava: One’s own nature or potentiality; innate nature. Svadharma is related to Svabhava.

C. (Guruji defines dharma this way) - Dharma is appropriateness in thought, action, attitude and judgment to a thing or a happening or a desire or an incident in life. – A person should “consciously” take a decision (based on his conscience) for every situation but not follow a rule-book of dharma s, (static) which are really vidhi & nishedha (Dos and Don’ts) This definition needs understanding of the internal hierarchy of mind . (see item # 4)

3

One sloka of the Bhagavad Gita deals with the words sva-dharma and para-dharma
శ్రేయాన్ స్వధర్మో విగుణః , పర-ధర్మాత్ స్వనుష్ఠితాత్
స్వ-ధర్మే నిధనం శ్రేయః , పర-ధర్మో భయావహః (3.35, Karma yoga BG)
(sreyan sva-dharmo vigunah, para-dharmat sv-anusthitat
sva-dharme nidhanam sreyah, para-dharmo bhayavahah)

Prabhupada’s translation
It is far better to discharge one’s prescribed duties, even though faultily, than another’s duties perfectly. Destruction in the course of performing one’s own duty is better than engaging in another’s duties, for to follow another’s path is dangerous.
Guruji
It is preferable to do one’s own dharma even if it is void of qualities, than doing another’s dharma perfectly. It is better to even die while discharging one’s own dharma. Doing other’s dharma is fearful and might even be dangerous.

Svadharma is beneficial for any one and other’s dharma is fearful and potentially dangerous. Svadharma is not varna-asrama dharma. Svadharma is the dharma as per his sva-bhava, innate nature. He has to undertake the action, in which has earnestness and devotion, without being attached to it. Suppose one wants moksha, he should eliminate all other things from his buddhi , which work against his goal. It is not just controlling his body and senses. One should not take actions against his conscience. In other words a person should act on what his mind says and which his conscience sees and says as dharma, and what does not contradict his true nature.

4.

Manas in Sanskrit and Mind in English do not mean the same thing. Mind is properly translated as the Inner hierarchy of mind as perceived by Indians as consisting of manas, buddhi (smriti, viveka) citta, ahamkara and atman.

Manas – Manas is not a tangible entity. It comes into action only when there is a thought, and it manifests as thought. It is an internal instrument (antah-karaNa) which is in constant interaction with senses and a thought arises in manas when a sense organ contacts an object.
Buddhi – Manas reports this thought to Buddhi (intellect) – the seat of discretion and discrimination (viveka), it has memory (smriti). It is here innate tendencies come into play – sadbuddhi and durbuddhi. Buddhi is the seat of decision making and buddhi projects its decision on to citta, which may be translated as consciousness.
Citta – is like a mirror, which is impersonal, reflecting what is projected on to it by buddhi propelling the person to action – right or wrong. (Citta is a key concept which is emphasized in Indian philosophy e.g. yoga. First Yoga Sutra says – yoga is citta-vrtti –nirodha.)

5

Spiritual sadhana (or yoga-marga) means the following. A conscious and conscientious decision in taking an action free from attachment and malice, entanglement, jealousy, ego, possessiveness and aversion.
When your manas and citta are cleansed of these internal enemies buddhi also falls in line and you stay out of para-dharma and remain fixed in your svadharma

6
The answer to the first part of the question is obvious. There is no need for two words – svadharma and manodharma. The svadharma proposed by Sri Krishna in BG is a dynamic and evolving entity which resolves your inner conflicts as per your perfection in sadhana in mano-vrtti and citta-vrtti nirodha by controlling and conquering your own internal enemies.

7. Adharma in the world

We know that while both Dharma and Adharma hail from the same God, we pray and request him to be as Dharma in us. No Purana denies the existence of God in hell who permeates heaven and earth.
Unless Dharma is protected all around, we will not get the ideal atmosphere to live in. Unless we abide by Dharma, we cannot contribute to it. So, for the sake of the society or the country, we should live in Dharma and only when it is protected all around, it is possible. One should live for Dharma. Leading a Dharmic life is a reward in itself. No Aryan would ever seek a reward for upholding Dharma. It is only through Dharma that one can work out one′s life and become eligible for spirituality. If you skip this vital step, you will trip. After all, if there was no Dharma, what is there to live for?

Sanatana Dharma does not preach sermons. It stresses on individual and his relation to divinite and his own spiritual practice to evolve into a better person for a society to uphold dharma.

8 The second question

When persons don’t follow their Manodharma, then adharma spreads in the world and only an Avatara Purusha can come and cleanse it.

This concept has undergone radical change in Kaliyuga after the advent of Krishna and his sojourn on earth. All avataras before him had also come down to uphold dharma to eradicate evil and protect the good. But adharma and evil were concentrated in individuals – Somaka, Hiranyaksha, Hiranya Kasipa, Ravana, Sisupala and Kamsa and others. But by the end of Dwapara itself evil has spread into the society both in humans and even in animals and trees. He has planned the Mahabharata war as a massive cleansing operation. That worked for two thousand years. There was advent of Buddha, Mahavira, Jesus, Mahmud, upto Chaitanya and Nanak to propagate newer paths or religions. If you observe the world, even India today in that matter, you can say with confidence that all of them failed. The on-going attempts at religious conversion by some religions today are plainly evil, adharma. The only option in the world today is to follow the true message of Krishna. As evil is spread in degrees all across the globe, there is need for million gurus, not prophets or messengers many of them influencing individuals by thousands to cleanse the minds. Organized religions are destructive. The mission seems to be on the way. .

Duality (Dvaitam) - A Contemporary Telugu Story with two European Stories, by Vivina Murthy

https://www.facebook.com/vallury.sarma/posts/562541410449943

Epilogue
10

After 10 days J invites K, S and another friend P for tea. The discussion started with the announcement of division of Andhra Pradesh and came back to the stories of Volataire and Zweig. P was briefed on the stories and the debate.

J – Sarmaji, I feel you did not like the stories.
S - Who told you? I have been, in fact, thinking about these stories for the last ten days. As literature they are excellent stories written by two top class writers. Because of the predominant Indian connection, they should be of special interest to Indians interested in this genre of literature. It is serious fiction with a philosophical undercurrent. It is only the Bhagavad Gita connection that has to be looked into. This is what I thought, when I came to the first meeting. Now I am clear that I was impressed with the story not because it reminds me of the Gita, but it is because it is related to how the Gita was interpreted (or misinterpreted) by people who changed the course of Indian History. We have many incarnations of Virat in the long course of Indian History. In the story, Virat started as giant (Virat) and ended up as a dwarf (Vamana). Vishnu came to Bali as Vamana, sought three feet of land and transformed himself into Virat-Purusha or Trivikrama spanning the universe after receiving the gift. At every stage Virat was haunted, whether it was by his brother’s accusing eyes, the tribal youth’s challenge, or the accusation of the weaver’s wife. Virat reacted immediately on every occasion, accepted the accusation and chose a new path. Both the good Brahmin and Virat as creations of Western authors operated at the level of mind and intellect (manas and buddhi) and not citta or atma or and measures (pramana) of dharmic behaviour, i.e. on the words of Gita itself. Krishna would have called Virat’s behaviour as “kshudram, hridayadaurbalyam”.

I shall even put the Buddha, Gandhi, Nehru and (Potti) Sriramulu in Virat’s category. All of them must have known the Gita very well. In my opinion the only one who understood the spirit of the Gita among Indian leaders was Aurobindo. It is easy to understand why Gita is misinterpreted so much. The fact that there are over 3500 commentaries with each commentator proposing his own view and saying that Gita means it, confirms it. People like us can appreciate the Gita better, by reading the text as it is as sabda pramana (True Testimony), the word of God. (Interpretations are illusionary).

Buddha was a Kshatriya prince and must have received trayi, vaarta, anvikshiki and danda-niti as part of his education just like our Virat. His logic was superior and he taught from his own experience and the enlightenment that dawned on him. He did not have any Guru. He rejected the karma kanda part of the Vedas and elaborated the Upanishadic teaching, only emphasizing jnana obtained through logical reasoning. He also said he was not God or his messenger or incarnation and recommended rationality. He also recommended Yoga, Ashtanga yoga, not different from yoga in Krishna’s Gita. But none of his followers ever became a Buddha again. Buddhism, which is not holistic, is a subset of Sanatana Dharma. The fact is that Buddha’s teachings ultimately did not help India. Indian history shows that the surrender to foreign aggression was because of the weakness preached by Buddhism. Ahimsa paramao dharma is only for monks and not even for householders; and certainly not for kings, army and police. The impact on India is seen right from the Kalinga war. When Buddha left home, his family was ruined; and his kingdom was shattered just like the weaver’s family suffered because of the teaching of Virat, when he was in forest. Asoka’s case was worse than that of the Buddha and the weaver. There was nothing wrong with his becoming a follower of the Buddha after the Kalinga war, but it was a gross error to continue as emperor and also for not making arrangements for proper succession and military strength to protect the integrity of his empire. A Buddhist preaching Buddhism cannot rule a kingdom, his place is a monastery. His stone edicts did not save his empire spanning from Gandhara to Pandya Desa from breaking up soon after his death.

Gandhi claimed that the Gita was his guide and source of solace whenever he was in despair. But did he understand its purport fully? His Vysya and Jaina tendencies made him to overlook the fact that the Gita is taught by one Kshatriya warrior to another on a battle field. His obsession to live up to his Mahatma-hood did not make him an astute politician or a statesman. His Khilaphat movement was a disaster. His Quit India cry hastened partition, which he could not prevent. The only person who could understand the Gita as a Kshatriya both in the physical plane and on the spiritual plane was Aurobindo. After his taking shelter in French India, he concentrated only on adhyaatma yoga. Potti Sriramaulu was a Gandhian and his sacrifice was like that of the weaver who followed Virat in his sannyaasa phase. The scenario he created in 1952 is being replayed in 2013. He ended up like Zweig. Nehru was another Virat. He thought that he taught Panchaseela to Maoists and abdicated his responsibilities to Buddhists.

Duality (Dvaitam) - A Contemporary Telugu Story with two European Stories, by Vivina Murthy

https://www.facebook.com/vallury.sarma/posts/562016003835817

Duality (Dvaitam) - A Contemporary Telugu Story with two European Stories, by Vivina Murthy
9.

S wants to pontificate now
S – Gentlemen, J&K,
Both of you raised some valid points but both of you have missed many other points.
1. How do you exactly relate the story of the good Brahmin and the story of Virat to the Bhagavad Gita? The first one by Volatair is a 250 year old short story; the second is a 90 year old longer story by Stefan Zweig while the other is a fundamental scripture for Sanatana dharma ranked along with Upanishads and is probably earlier in time only to the final Vedic scripture Sukla Yajurveda, perceived and brought down by sage Yajnavalkya. These two are among the latest scriptures of Sanatana Dharma and are about 5000 year old. (Puranas followed)
2. Gita summarizes diverse paths described in Upanishads and does not propose a unique path for liberation. Krishna’s main message in the Gita is “Choose a path suitable to you based on your innate tendencies”. The paths lead to the goals of human existence defined by the four purusharthas - dharma, artha, kama, and moksha. The first three goals pertain to this life and the fourth to the after-life. The fourth, of course, is the religious component which is inseparable from Indian philosophy.
3. The stories by the Europeans do not touch this aspect at all. The story by Voltaire is related to the Gita in the following way. The Brahmin was a follower of Jnana Yoga in a limited sense while the old woman followed Bhakti Yoga. Bhagavad Gita and the life of Krishna demonstrate the efficacy of Bhakti Yoga in Kaliyuga. Bhagavatam clearly demonstrates that Gopas and Gopikas attained mukti through bhakti while no Brahmin scholar was given moksha by Him for his bounded jnana in his sojourn on earth. In fact, the sages of Treta yuga had to unlearn what they learnt and it is supposed that they were born as Gopa-Gopikas. Arjuna was a commoner, he got into a dilemma in the battle field and Krishna helped him to choose the course of action. Krishna advocated Karma and Karma-Sannyaasa Yogas for him, with an undercurrent of Bhakti. His sage advice is “Tasmat yogi bhava Arjuna”.
4. Voltaire’s good Brahmin had not understood the Gita and may have had to wait for the next life to know about Moha-Mudgara (Bhaja Govindam) of Sankara. Mere scholarship, extensive study of literature and constant contemplation about them on the intellectual plane gives only information overload and depression. Voltaire observed the happiness of the old lady next door which showed the maturity of Voltair as a philosopher. Zweig remained a philosophy scholar without a useful philosophy of his own. French revolution, scientific revolution, Russian and Chinese revolutions have only confused ordinary humans, and distorted the goals of life, Zweig being no exception. He committed suicide unable to bear the pressure.
5. In the Virat story what was his svadharma? Is Virat by nature a warrior, a teacher, a trader, a labourer? Human beings according to the Gita are divided into four varnas, with differences arising from the combination of three innate qualities or tendencies. Let us assume here that Virat has sattva, rajas and tamas in such a way that he could play any role. But the story suggests that he failed as a warrior, as a judge, as an advisor, as a guru, and he only succeeded as a menial labourer. As soon as he discovered that he did something wrong in a role, he changed his job. He did not evolve to perfection in any of his chosen tasks nor did he show appropriate reaction for the result obtained. He was not convinced that his action was according to his dharma. In other words he was not convinced of his decision in any role. Essentially he shows his tamo-pravritti.
6. What is the relation between Krishna and Arjuna in the Gita? It is not because of his relationship as a cousin, Arjuna shared his dilemma with Krishna. It is not because he is considered a god, he looked for his guidance. He took him as a more than a guide or a philosopher (as a guru). A guru is not a teacher (upadhyaya) who teaches how to solve text-book problems which anybody can solve with a little effort. He is more than a research guide, who introduces the student to the area and guides him on problem selection as well as problem solving methodology, which works for the disciple. Each problem faced in life is a new and different one. Krishna introduced him to the broader area of goals of life, placed the specific problem in its context and suggested the appropriate solution in the particular context. Following dharma precisely means taking appropriate action at appropriate time, without blindly following a rule book.
7. How does Virat compare with characters of the Mahabharata – His name is from Virat-purusha, Narayana of Pusrushasuktam of Rigveda. Names of characters are very significant in Indian literature. Jagannath and Krishna are suggestive of the theme in the present story. Is Virat Arjuna? Definitely not. He changed his job every time he felt that he committed a mistake in his judgment or action. The Gita advises not to bother about consequences of an action while performing one’s svadharma. The Viswarupa scene gives a gentle reminder to a human being of the inconsequential nature of the action of an individual at an instant on the universe in the infinite cycle of time. The patron Saint of Telugu poets of the progressive stream Sri Sri sang “I also add a twig to the sacrificial fire of the world”. His twig has negligible and transient effect on the world. A twig can be replaced by the atomic weapon on Hiroshima tried by the USA, what was its impact? It is not the end of the world. Every country can have the weapon if it wills but it is of no consequence to the world dynamics. Indian philosophy defines a purposeful life as one in which one starts an inquiry about his self with the question “ko’ham? Who am I?” Krishna said this in the Gita and Ramana Maharshi advocated this in his teaching a century ago.
8. Virat misses two important and fundamental points of Sanatana Dharma. He uses his own judgment in every situation. How does he know that his judgment is right? In fact he learnt that it went wrong every time. He has no pramana, no measure for the validity of his decision. He has no guru, no Apta (well-wisher) who is trustworthy. In every situation, if somebody questions his action, he accepts the statement on face value and changes his sphere of activity. Psychologists say that human beings have only “bounded rationality”. He can only think of his losses and gains in material terms. Virat does not invoke God or his inner-self (antaratma). Inner-self is the seat of God as per the Gita.
aham atma gudakesa , sarva-bhutasaya-sthitah
aham adis ca madhyam ca , bhutanam anta eva ca (BG 10.20)
I am the Self, O Gudakesa, seated in the hearts of all creatures. I am the beginning, the middle and the end of all beings.
9. Virat can be compared to Karna rather than Arjuna. Duryodhana gave Karna Anga rajya and Karna became a slave to the evil king lifelong, mistaking his surrender as showing gratitude. He did not heed to the advice of Krishna on the eve of war. Arjuna on the other hand approached Krishna as his Guru, got his doubts clarified and successfully came out of his despondency and could follow his swadharma.
10. The last sloka of the Gita is in fact the most important which a Westerner may find as a mere platitude. It is
yatra yogesvarah krsno
yatra partho dhanur-dharah
tatra srir vijayo bhutir
dhruva nitir matir mama (18.78)
Wherever there is Krsna, the master of all yogis, and wherever there is Arjuna, the supreme archer, there will also certainly be opulence, victory, extraordinary power, and morality. That is my opinion.
Sarvantaryami, Paramatma, Krishna is the antaryami of all beings. Establish union with him and your own inner voice can guide you to victory. Arjuna knows that and Karna did not get the message.

11. The author Stefan Zweig of the second story was exposed to Indian philosophy in bits and pieces, might have read the Song Celestial of Sir Edwin Arnold but he was confused by mixing up the societal issues like caste system as he saw in 20th century with the philosophical issues of the Bhagavad Gita. Virat in the story and the author in his real life have both the missed the point of the Gita completely and miserably failed in their lives. Arjuna survived the Mahabharata war. He was part of the ruling family for 30 years. His grandson Parikshit was crowned and he left home on his final journey (Mahaprasthana). Virat died a miserable death while serving as a dog-keeper of the king. His trajectory is not an ideal for any.