[Advaita-l] Musings on the Fundamentals of Hinduism - 8
krismanian at gmail.com
Wed Sep 16 01:33:17 CDT 2009
>-- By *Dharma* we mean orderliness as opposed to chaos.
This definition is wrong. Only if there is predictability in every action
there is no chaos.
We know that nothing is predictable 100%.the uncertainity principle. Krishna
says do your actions with out any expectation,take the results as prasad
from Him as there is no predictability and he understood the law of chaos!
> It is the rule of
>humane law. A society with a rule of law where everyone understands his
>and plays it fully without let or hindrance is a Dhaarmic society. An
>individual who understands and plays his role fully and effectively is a
>Dhaarmic person. A king who rules a Dharmic Society and has Dharmic
>as citizens is a true king. Rama was a true king.
Unfortunately each person has multiple roles. Dharma is tied to one role. So
a person may
fully follow the dharma of one role at the same time breaking it in another
role. Per your Rama
example: As a son to his father he broke his dharma by not taking his wishes
and following Kaikeyi's
wishes and leaving for the forest. He also broke the dharma in the eyes of
his people who wanted him to be the king. So he did not rule his dharmic
society for a good long time. Kaikeyi broke dharma per your
definition, so the society was not dharmic at all. We have more instances
like rama asking sita to
walk into fire to prove her fidelity etc.
>A person who interferes in other?s affairs
>or forcibly takes over others? work is considered ?paradharmic? and he is
>asuric in nature.
Rama also did kill Vali and interfered in others affairs.
>Gathering wealth as an object of life is called ?*Artha*?. Such pursuit of
>wealth must be lawful and dhaarmic. A person dispossessing others is an
>adharmic person and is considered to have asuric nature. Mohmad Gazni
>invaded India 17 times and amassed a huge wealth. This asura made a huge
>mountain of his stolen wealth in Gazni
Again, this Dharma is relative depending on which side you stand for the
sake of the argument.
For Hindus it was adharmic, may be for Gazni's citizens it was dharmic as
their king is bringing wealth
for their betterment.
>Kama* is the pursuit of pleasure derived from enjoyment all good things in
>life including sexual pleasures. It can also be said that Kama is seeking
>the fulfillment of one?s desires. Stealing another man?s wife is an
>fulfillment of Kama and therefore is an asuric act. Ravana stole Rama?s
>and Dharma caught him in the form of Rama and he was killed.
Ofcourse if Rama and Laxmana followed their dharma and not disfigured *
they could have avoided the whole dispute.You ignore one adharma and
other. Again it shows the relative nature of dhrma. If Ravana had won you
all would play the tune
Sri Gurubyo Namaha
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list