EXAMINING LAW, DHARMA, MANUSMRTI, THEIR RELATION AND CONFUSION:
Dharmasastras are often referred to as the 'Law Books of the Hindus' by a section of influential scholars in India. Manusmrti, is generally believed by them to be the most authoritative of the Dharmasastra texts. Through contrived arguments, it is designated 'The Law Book of Hinduism'. The accuracy of this claim is questioned by a growing number of people. For example, well known Indian academic and writer Madhu Purnima Kishwar, in this blog post even more than a decade ago, questioned these claims - http://www.manushi.in/blog_content.php?blogid=49 .
My attempt here will be to examine & repond to this, and related, claim/claims in an organised, coherent fashion to reach a logically consistent conclusion. Also, to define Law, Dharma, the role & the extent of authority of the Manusmrti.
ILLUSTRATIONS & PROBLEMS OF DHARMA=RELIGION/LAW CONFUSION-
"Yeh Dharma ke naam pe vote mangate hai." How many times have we heard this line being mumbled by disgruntled voters in India? It is not uncommon at all. The voter here is meaning to say, "They ask for votes in the name of religion". Dharma is strangely translated as 'religion' by these people. It is astonishing that scholars also do the same. In fact Dharma is translated as 'religion', by the same wonderfully uninformed individuals who accept it's other translation as 'Law'. This is a classic example of refusing to think beyond stage one on an important issue. Politicians continue using the term 'Dharma-Nirpekshata' to define the Indian version of secularism, even when the preamble to the Constitution of India uses the more appropriate 'Pantha-Nirpeksha'[1]. In any case, Indian Secularism is not real secularism at all. At best, it is a distorted, self-decieving version of real secularism(The separation of religion/church and government/state). Indian Secularism consists of branding others communal[2].
This crude, moderately popular usage of Dharma as BOTH, 'religion' AND 'law', is harmful for a couple of reasonably obvious(to some) reasons.
1)One problem with this usage of the term 'Dharma' has to do with the obvious conclusion that Dharma(wrongly called Religion) IS Law!! This annihilates the subtle idea of Dharma & dumbs it down to the level of simple Law.
2)Also, if this weren't bad enough, this falsely equates and further dumbs down Dharma, to the level of religion. They are different(More on this later in this post)!! And Hence, the abrahamic religions or classical religions, are seen as Dharmas & an equation is sought to be created with the eastern value systems or life philosophies which are appropriately(unlike the abrahamic religions) called Dharma. This equation, is completely consistent with the self-deceiving, Indian version of Secularism.
It is in 1 way, THIS equation of the Dharmas/Dharma with religion, of the eastern Dharmas with the middle eastern religions, that causes the Dharmasastras to be equated with the Islamic Sharia or the Pope's or the Church's laws or Canon Laws.
EARLY INDOLOGISTS POPULARISED THE DHARMASASTRA=LAW BOOKS OF THE 'HINDUS' THEORY -
Dharmasastra and 'Laws/Law books of the Hindus' is thought be equivalent. Where did this pov become popular? Indeed, it is sensible to ask, When did this idea come into existence?
To be precise - When did 'Dharmasastra' or Sastra dealing with Dharma first get translated into the english language as(And become) 'The Law books of the Hindus' AND, When did it gain popularity?
The Manusmrti, it is confirmed, was first translated into the English language by Sir William Jones from the extant Asiatic Society[3]. He named it 'The institutes of Hindu Law' or 'The Ordinances of Manu'[4]. Even before this, Warren Hastings had felt anxious about the lack of organisation in Hindu & Indian law. This was(perhaps still is) a typically English trait. The English have always been obsessed with Organisation. Massive organisation! So much so that they would possibly refer to a situation where their cup of tea was served a minute late, as- Anarchy! That they were overtly physically inflexible is illustrated by their inability to sit cross legged like any average south asian. But the inflexibility & rigidity of their mindset was worse! They went overboard with organisation like we in India did with adapability & Jugaad. We could learn from each other back then & we MUST now. Indians and English individuals can still learn from each other & improve each other's well being. So this is not me putting all the blame on the shoulders of English culture in general. This is merely an objective analysis of how & when this idea of the 'Laws/Law books of the Hindus' was created.
It is believed that Hastings unwisely persuaded a few random pundits of Bengal to compile a Code of Law for ALL the Hindus. It is unclear whether Hastings took this decision for colonial commercial benefits. It is clear though, that this decision was motivated by the english obsession with organisation and perhaps more important, the East India Company's requirement of relevant 'laws' which could be used in courts that they had settled. Since none of the British or Europeans in Calcutta(Now Kolkata) knew Sanskrit. The Pundit's works had to be translated into Persian & consequently into English. This translation was completed by an individual named N.B. Halhead who called it, 'A code of Gentoo[5] Law' or 'Ordinations of the Pundits'[6]. In it's preface[7], Halhead calls these random, few pundits as the Lawyers of ALL Hindu Society. So the idea of 'Law' that in the past & present, was meant for 'All' Hindus, coming from the concept of Dharma was born in this time period.
This was carried on by other indologists like G.Buhler, who translated the Manusmrti as the Laws of Manu. And this was included by the controversial Max Muller in the massive series called 'Sacred Books of the East' which was edited by him[8]. From Hastings/Halhead/Jones/Buhler & others then, to Doniger[9] now, the popularity of the usage of the term 'law' for Dharma when translating the Dharmasastras has remained largely unharmed. Many Indians have made the same mistake as well.
Interestingly, there is no record of any Dharmasastras being used by any king or kingdom of any era, as their law book to settle disputes. But as discussed earlier, from the time of the early Indologists, the idea of a Dharmasastra ie. The Manusmrti, being the law book of Hindus has stuck.
LAW -
What is Law?
This is what The oxford english dictionary says, "The system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penalties."[10]
Also, another one of the 4 definitions it gives, is this- "the body of divine commandments as expressed in the Bible or other religious texts."
The other 2 definitions given are irrelevant to this discussion.
Extrapolating from the given definitions, a few ideas are clear.
1)Laws MUST be followed. They are hence, imposed on the people subject to them. Rather, they MUST be imposed! The imposition of laws through force or coercion is necessary to implement a 'Law'. For example, there are restrictions on the import of pork products in the UAE . Force, is used to ensure these restrictions. Laws hence, as stated above, must be imposed!!
2)The creation & imposition of laws must happen through a specific organisation or multiple organisations, for example the legislature or the executive.
3)Failure to abide by these laws and bypassing them would generally lead to punishments.
4)In the case of 'religion'(wrongly called Dharma), laws must come from divinity.
DHARMA -
'Dharma' is common to all the eastern value systems. It is for all practical purposes, untranslatable. There is no english word that is equal to Dharma. Hence, it can be illustrated through examples. In fact, the Itihaasas[11] exist to illustrate the subtle meaning of Dharma. Dharma can only be understood in the context of it's application.
The best explanation of Dharma in my opinion comes from Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan, who says, 'It is derived from the root dhr(to uphold, to sustain, to nourish). It is the norm which sustains the universe, the principle of a thing in virtue of which it is what it is.'[12]
In the Buddhist Dhammapada verse 259, it is said- 'Dharma is not upheld by talking about it. It is upheld by living in harmony with it, even if one is not learned.'
This is also in line with the idea of something that needs to be 'upheld'. Indeed, one of the 3 jewels/treasures or commonly called the Triple Gem(Triratna) is Dharma.
In the Dhammapada verse 190, it is said - 'Take refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma, and the Sangha and you will grasp the 4 noble truths.'
Verse 194, goes on to say - 'Blessed is the birth of the Buddha, blessed is the teaching of the Dharma, blessed is the Sangha, where all live in harmony.'
As per the Jain philosophy, 'That which saves living beings from falling into lower conditions or miserable states is Dharma. Also, that which lifts their life from a lower state to the higher one is Dharma.'[13]
Dr. Ambedkar, the primary contributor to the Neo-Buddhist Movement attempted to explain Dhamma(Dharma & Dhamma are essentially the same concept in sanskrit & pali respectively) as the following -
*To Maintain purity of life is Dhamma
*To search perfection in life is Dhamma
*To live in Nibbana, which is to live a life free of passions & cravings is Dhamma
*To give up craving is Dhamma
*To believe that all compund things are impermanent is Dhamma
*To believe that Karma is the instrument of Moral Order is Dhamma
[14]
In Sikhism, it is believed that, 'The forsaking of one's own dharma would lead to perpetual pain & sorrow.'[15]
It is also said, 'A life that is not dedicated to Meditation, austerity and abstinence is a life not earning/acquiring Dharma.'[16]
So it is established that this idea of Dharma, is highly valued by all the eastern value systems. In fact, THEY ARE, all Dharmas.
Note that Dharma, is also the fundament of the 4 stated goals of life(Purusarthas) as per the Astika(Orthodox) Philosophy.This is very important in the larger discussion on Dharma, since something that must be acquired or earned, can not by definition, be a 'Law'.
Dharma is too subtle a concept to be explained away as a law or a natural law. It is too vast in scope to be ordered by an institution.
Bhishmacharya, in the Mahabharata Shanti Parva 109-9-11, while explaining Dharma to Yudhishthira says, 'It is most difficult to define Dharma because it's essence is too subtle. Dharma has been explained to be that which helps in the upliftment of living beings. Therefore, O Yudhishthira, please remember that any behavioural response, or a rule of social conduct that ensures the welfare of living beings is surely according to Dharma. The learned Rishis have declared that which sustains life efficiently is Dharma.'[17]
From the abovementioned explanations it is clear that, in these specific texts & value systems Dharma is neither religion nor law.
The Mimamsa Sutras of Jaimini link Dharma with Action but also maintain that Dharma goes beyond the commencement of it & is hence permanent, 'Dharma is indeed linked with action, for we often say that a person does his Dharma, and that implies action. Action is part of our nature, for we see that all of us are engaged in some kind of action at the same time; and we see it in Prakrti or Nature in all it's modifications. We also see that success in action is often the result of a number of individuals acting together. At the same time we find that there are some who believe that we should be indifferent to all that is in the world. But even he who is said to be indifferent to all that is in the world, acts. He might appear to be inactive, but is not really so; and we believe that he has not acted, because he has not succeeded in achieving his object. Indeed, we have to go beyond the commencement of an action to understand all this; for the sun may appear to be inactive but it is acting all the time; and so are creatures too.'[18]
The Mimamsa Sutras explicitly state that, 'Dharma is founded on the word of the Vedas, which is the highest word. Dharma is linked with action and we find that a man is always engaged in action; and this should enable us to acquire definite knowledge in regard to action. Any contradiction of the fact that there is action everywhere should be disregarded; for we know that is impossible. But every action is not Dharma; for instance, we cannot say that an action of the body, performed by a healthy man in the ordinary course of nature, is Dharma; for the sacred texts have their own idea of Dharma, and it is based on certain principles admitted by all to be true. There is no inconsistency or contradiction in the sacred books; and if there is any inconsistency anywhere, we should take it to be in our own ideas rather than them. We should, therefore, accept what is contained in these scriptures. The action of a healthy body, performed spontaneously or in the ordinary course of nature, is obviously the result of impulse, and that is not the idea of Dharma as given in the sacred scriptures; and it would be an incorrect application of the rules laid down by them to think that it is so. Their statements regarding Dharma are definite and complete, and leaves no gaps to be filled; and we can verify this for ourselves by making an experiment and a careful study of the sacred scriptures. If we do so, we shall find that there is only one inescapable conclusion, - that there is action everywhere, and all things are subject to it. It should, therefore, be deemed to have been proved, and regarded as a universal law of life, - for such is the nature of things, as we can see for ourselves. This is proved by the fact that we can find nothing in the world that is eternal(Apart from the sacred considered Vedas/Vedic Phonemes).'[19]
The Mimamsa Sutras also strike a note of caution by proclaiming, 'So far as Dharma is concerned, it is associated with action, - action without end, like a great sacrifice. There should be general agreement about the idea of Dharma; and the idea of the Vedas and other works should be the same. But it is not easy to define it, because there are no fixed rules to lay down what constitutes a fit & proper object. But the difficulty itself serves a useful purpose of it's own, for it calls upon us to decide what is so.'[20]
So Dharma requires that one uses his/her judgement or intelligence to decide what is fit and proper according to occasion and circumstances. Essentially, this brings us to the idea of Praman(Sources of knowledge). The Bhatta Mimamsa school accepted a large number of Praman(6). Interestingly, The Mimamsakas hold all knowledge to be true until proven false. This also points to the application of intelligence & reasoning skills to decide on the logical consistency of any idea by attempting to prove it false before referring to it as Dharma. They held/hold the Vedas(And not any of the Dharmasastras) as supreme & contain complete statements regarding Dharma. However, they also largely concerned themselves with the correct interpretations of the Vedic literature & provide detailed explanations for the same. According to them, the Vedas, when interpreted correctly(This process is explained by them) throw light on Dharma, which is linked with action. Without following the rigourous methods that they believed were the correct way to interpret the Vedas & using the required Praman(Which INCLUDED specific interpretations of the Vedas), one could not, as per the Mimamsakas, understand Dharma in any form.
Now one may agree with the Mimamsa Sutras of Jaimini, or disagree(In fact, this is completely irrelevant to the larger issue being dealt with in this Blog post), but it is perfectly clear that Dharma can not be either Law(as defined earlier) or religion based on these explanations. Without even defining the term Dharma - which I consider practically impossible - it is possible to eliminate certain definitions or ideas linked with it. And both law & religion would qualify as false choices!!
There are 3 dimensions of Dharma; the mind, the speech and the conduct. Dharma may or may not involve rituals. However, even the Atharvaveda says- The purpose of Dharma is not fulfilled by the performance of a ritual, but if it's performance leads to the inculcation of virtue in the performer.
The Vedas set the foundation for Dharma. It is difficult to say whether Dharma is a force or a feeling. The plan of Dharma consists in the realisation of some particular nature. For example, The earth realises it's nature or it's potential in it's motion, fire in burning & hence, the utility lies in the reconciliation of one with it's nature(As long as this upholds & supports the regulatory order of the Universe). Racism, by definition, must be slotted as A-Dharma. Chanakya says 'Sukhasya Moolam Dharmah' meaning - The core/root of happiness is Dharma. Hitler's racism only provided very very temporary happiness to the white supremacist Nazis. Taking every explanation of Dharma above into account & since Dharma is a universal concept, the perpetuation of great pain & sorrow among the Jews by the Nazis, can't be Dharmik in any way.
Considering all of the above, if Dharma must be translated as law, AT THE BARE MINIMUM, the meaning will not point to the classically accepted meanings as described/defined earlier. Similiarly, if the eastern Dharmas, are referred to as religions, they are not religions in the classical sense.
The Vedas are believed to have been realised through divine inspiration by several seers(Mantra Drashta). Vedic Mantras are based on self experience & realisation.
Swami Dayanand, used different Praman(sources of knowledge) that he considered Valid. All the Orthodox Indian Philosophical Schools including the Arya Samaj use Praman to further their ideology & it would not be incorrect to conclude that their philosophy is in a way, based on certain Praman being considered Valid. This illustrates the importance of thinking & logical analysis in the Vedic Philosophy.
The divine wisdom, as per the Vedic traditions is accessible to every conscious being, depending on their level of intellectual sophisticaton & lack of 'avidya'. Sri Aurobindo found out that the study of the Vedas confirmed his earlier expierences. He said:"The Veda, which I first began to read long afterwards in Pondicherry rather confirmed what experiences I already had than was any guide to my Sadhana."[21]
As per the Dharmik traditions, every human contains the potential to acquire knowledge of the self. Basically, the Dharmik value systems are largely(not completely) decentralised. There is a centre but it is accompanied greatly by the idea of self-experience. It would be correct, in a way, to state that they are broadly Minarchist in nature. History is largely unimportant to the Dharmik traditions. To quote Rajiv Malhotra from his book 'Being Different' - 'My Dharma would survive even without historical record. For example, spiritual advancement through Yoga techniques & practises is independent of the life history of Patanjali, the author of the Yoga Sutras. The Text's teachings have no historical references whatsoever.'
In the same book, He says of Judaism & Christianity earlier - 'For Jews, salvation is a collective, not an individual matter, and the redemption of Israel via God's intervention in history is a profound sign of that salvation. Without that redemption(a historic occurence), the will of God would be impossible to know, and the path toward salvation, inaccessible. The Exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, as recounted in the Bible, is a key event. It is understood as fact and central to the Jewish belief in a collective salvation. Christians say their salvation depends on the occurence of three historical events:the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Christians and Jews can tolerate a good deal of criticism of the actual historical details as per their traditions, but certain historical events are absolutely necessary for salvation. For Jews, this event is usually the Exodus(recollected at Passover), whereas for Christians it is the Resurrection(recollected at Easter).'
Historical awareness is at best, a guide for a Dharmik individual. It is not absolutely necessary, as is the case in Classical Religions. If you disagree with God's word in the Abrahamic tradition, you are doomed & will suffer for all of eternity. In the Dharmik traditions one may refuse to acknowledge the existence of God him/her/it self, and still be Dharmik or an Astika.
Dharma, can not be Religion. Not much can be categorised as impossible. Dharma=Religion however, can!!
MANUSMRTI -
The Arya Samaj, by definition, are Vedic. Hence, they are considered by all scholars to be a branch/school of Orthodox Indian Philosophy. Swami Dayanand Saraswati, the founder of the Arya Samaj held the Manusmrti authoritative AS LONG AS IT DID NOT CONTRADICT the originial Vedic literature. This is the traditional belief & all major Vedic philosophical schools agree with this point of view. The extent of authority of the manusmrti was hence, hugely overstated. Last, it would be, after examining the various different yet similiar pov on the idea of Dharma, perfectly fine to conclude that Dharmasastras are neither Law nor religious books of the Vedic or Astika philosophical schools. To believe they are either, is being Disingenuous!!
References -
[1]http://www.scribd.com/doc/37006703/COI-PREAMBLE-IN-HINDI-ENGLISH
[2]Opening statement from, 'A Secular Agenda' (1997, ISBN 81-900199-3-7) by Arun Shourie
[3]http://www.asiaticsocietycal.com/
[4]http://books.google.co.in/books?id=4caNTgBa6oEC&dq=william+jones+manu&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=9POvEvMtnM&sig=wae9WVaVrRNClSPrabH0D-eaG58&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=william%20jones%20manu&f=false
[5]Page 167 in http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3qk-p5hKuccC&pg=PA167&lpg=PA167&dq=Gentoo,+anglo-indian,+hindu,+gentile#v=onepage&q=Gentoo%2C%20anglo-indian%2C%20hindu%2C%20gentile&f=false
[6]Ch 3. pp. 66 in Cohn, Bernard. Colonialism and its Forms of Knowledge.
[7]http://www.archive.org/stream/codeofgentoolaws00halh/codeofgentoolaws00halh_djvu.txt
[8]Volume number 25 in http://www.sacred-texts.com/sbe/
[9]http://www.amazon.com/Laws-Manu/dp/1144660432
[10]http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/law?q=law
[11]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Itihaasas
[12]Page 107-108 in http://archive.org/stream/religionandsocie035173mbp#page/n113/mode/2up
[13]Muni Shri NyayaVijayaji Jain Darshan, P.64
[14]Page 198 in http://archive.org/stream/BuddhaAndHisDhamma/16634512-Buddha-and-His-Dhamma-by-B-R-Ambedkar-Full_djvu.txt
[15]Sri grantha sahib, siriraga mahala 3,1 in http://www.srigranth.org/servlet/gurbani.gurbani?Action=Page&Param=31&g=0&h=0&r=1&t=2&p=0&k=0
[16]Ibid, Asa Mahla, 5
[17]Dharma: The global ethic by Justice M.Rama Jois p.2
[18]Mimamsa Sutras of Jaimini, Chapter 1 Part I Sutras 8-15
[19]Ibid, Chapter 1 Part III Sutras 1-18
[20]Ibid, Chapter 2 Part I Sutras 9-12
[21]Sri Aurobindo 'On Himself', SABCL Vol.26 p.68
No comments:
Post a Comment