When speaking of dharma, or trying to define it, we operate from one or more out of the following 3 definition-categories:
- Dharma, as defined in texts.
- Dharma, as defined by sects, śākhās, akhāḍās or sampradāyas (bodies with traditional authority).
- Dharma, as defined by you/me, through our subjective experience of having grown in a dhārmika civilisation, and engaged in different tangential degrees with the previous 2 categories.
Each definition-category is important, of course. Dharma needs a canon, and everything from the original Vedas to works by Shri Aurobindo and Swami Sarasvati fits into canon. If we define dharma from this box, it is best to declare our source- so that the reader may approach it themselves, and so that he/she understands our epistemology. The second category is a veritable trunk, a foundation that holds our otherwise amorphous tree together. It’s good grace to preamble that, when I speak of dharma, I do not speak from any traditional authority.
The third category is existentially the most important, for it is bottom-up. It gives shape to the emergent and self-organising nature of dhārmika civilisation. There is a dhārmika archetype, somewhere in the aether, and everyone born Indian is born with some degree of this archetype imprinted within them. Without being explicitly told what it means, we possess a sense for what dharma is. Born with the imprint, the sense is enhanced/atrophied according to our life, experiences and upbringing. When I define dharma, I do so from this third category, from an abstract sense of felt-experience on what dharma is, and what it ought to be.
In other words, I do not tether the forthcoming definition of dharma to a text, scripture or traditional body. This is not to dismiss of them, but only to make clear where I come from. In any case, there can be no accounting for the impressions and opinions left in the mind from reading various texts and/or listening to speakers of authority. These impressions add to the subconscious dhārmika imprint within us.
Dharma, as defined by me, through my subjective experience of having grown in a dhārmika civilisation, is the code to manifest ṛta in individual life and human society.
Clearly, we must begin with ṛta, which as a concept underpinning dharma is equally fundamental. It’s defined by Apte as proper, right, honest, true, rule, law, truth, divine truth and by Macdonnell as established order and sacred ordinance. More broadly, ṛta is the natural and eternal order- the objective reality behind existence. Ṛta is how things are, or the natural state of being. Our local star rises in the east and sets in the west, daily- that is ṛta. The rivers flow, the tides come and go, the glaciers swell and wane- this is ṛta. Gravitation, electromagnetism, the strong and weak nuclear forces- they are ṛta. Put in Western definitions- ṛta is that which does not go away when you stop believing in it.
Ṛta is not only the state of reality, but the sustenance of it. Without ṛta, the natural order breaks down and pralaya is unleashed. Ṛta must exist and function for reality to exist and function.
Everything happens in accordance with ṛta. Nothing can violate it, and indeed- everything is subservient to it. Animals, hills, stars, trees, rivers, oceans, birds- everything follows ṛta. But do humans also follow ṛta? Herein lies the problem. Humans are endowed with saguṇa brāhmaṇa, a personal consciousness that gives to them free will. Animals sleep when sleepy, eat when hungry, drink when thirsty and rest when tired. Humans can do all this and more, but not only as needed- also as desired. In other words, humans can live in ways not consonant with ṛta, the natural order.
Thus it is that we need a code for how to live. The objective of this code is to live, as consonantly as possible, with ṛta. The ancient Indians realised that ‘as above, so below.’ There is a supreme harmony to reality, an inherent order (ṛta) that ensures equilibrium at all levels. Everything is fulfilled if ṛta is sustained, and even human life can be fulfilled so. This is why even something like the sūrya namaskāra is a part of dharma. To rise with the local cosmic star, to stretch and prepare one’s body as the sun rises- is to live life in consonance with ṛta- and thus it is dharma.
This is also why yoga is dharma. The very word means ‘union,’ but union between what? Union between us and ṛta, between our own order and the natural order. Yoga is nothing but applied dharma in individual life.
This idea of dharma, originating though it does from the third definition-category, is rooted in the Ṛgveda- itself a manual of dharma. On the surface we find fire-rituals and prayers to supernatural deities, but that is just the baggage of interpretation. Deeper, Agni is the flame of consciousness within us. It is the light that can originate inside, but elevate us and connect us to the supreme light. The real fire rises from the earth, the ground, and its flames reach the sky- it brings union between dyaus and prithvī. Similarly, the fire within us rises from our physical vessel, the earth that is our body, and can connect us to the eternal ṛta, the nirguṇa brāhmaṇa. The Ṛgveda is a manual to light this Agni within us and take us to yoga with ṛta, and thus is it a prototypical dhārmika manual.
And the endeavour doesn’t stop here. Consonance is needed not only between ṛta and the individual life, but also between ṛta and the social life- the tribe, culture, and civilisation. Reaching a state of harmony with the natural order also requires harmony of relationships, interactions and transactions. Thus dharma extends to society itself- how should it be organised, who should do what, how should a complete human life be integrated into the larger whole? We see in Indian history a recurring formulation and notion of dharma, as the output of social organisation and negotiation. It is found in the Ṛgveda as Vasiṣṭha’s celebration of Varuṇa and Indra as equals, and in later tradition as the tānūptra story. But it’s also found much earlier in Indian tradition, through a primeval myth of our civilisation.
Samudra Manthana, or the Establishment of Dharma
On the surface, the Samudra Manthana appears an aptly mythological story. A great conflict between Gods and Demons for immortality, where cosmic oceans are churned and divine gifts are extracted. For reasons outside the scope of this article, I place Mahābali and the Samudra Manthana era near 7500 BC, and view it as the memory of a Neolithic microrevolution in India. For some millennia prior to this, Daityas, Ādityas and a host of other tribes lived nomadic and Mesolithic, fighting a number of great wars remembered in Paurāṇika tradition. All of Bali’s named ancestors- Hiraṇyakaśipu, Prahlāda, Virocana- fight and perish in such wars.
Skipping to the theme at hand- the final extraction from the ocean churning is of amṛta, a potion that the mythology indicates to be an elixir of immortality. But I posit that amṛta and its churning represents something else- an early discernible formulation of dharma. Let us see how, first through unpacking the meaning of amṛta. On the surface, it is simply a + mṛta, where mṛta is death. Amṛta is thus the opposite of death, making it a suitable name for the elixir of immortality.
But mṛta is not simply death, it is the end of ṛta- it is the end of the natural order, it is pralaya, non-being, and non-existence. Therefore, as the opposite of mṛta, amṛta is the sustenance of ṛta, the upholding of ṛta. And what is another name for that which upholds ṛta? Dharma!
The Samudra Manthana is not a fantastical tale of Gods and Demons churning out the elixir of immortality. It is a civilisational memory of the time when our earliest tribes began establishing an order among themselves. Led by the early ṛṣis, Śukrācārya and Bṛhaspati, and after countless ruthless wars, the Daitya and Āditya tribes attempted a negotiation- a movement towards settled civilisation and cooperation. They did so through the idea of dharma, initially formulated by Śukra but soon shared and encouraged by Bṛhaspati (Bhṛgus and Aṅgirasas). With this great negotiation struck, Indian civilisation finally embarked upon Neolithic advancement- on the road that would soon yield Mehrgarh, Bhirrana, Rakhigarhi, Lahuradewa and more.
Dharma and Hinduism
We can now recapitulate, and repackage this in the context of Hinduism. Dharma is the Indian endeavour to conduct life and society in equilibrium with natural order. And Hinduism is the enterprise that formulates, sustains, preserves and transmits dharma from one generation to the other, such that it has survived in some form for no less than 9000 years. If this claim seems absurd, we can cast it in reflection of a novel definition for civilisation, suggested by Yasuda Yoshinory, who asserted that the principle to identify civilisation was a respect for and co-existence with nature (dharma and ṛta). In his words:
“Civilisation begins to appear when a workable system for living, that is a proper relationship between man and nature, is established in accord with the features of a given region.”
He said this for the Jomon Culture of Japan, dated as far back as 10000 BC, and does his definition for civilisation not appear remarkably similar to the Indian conception of dharma! Let us add that it has been found that the first wave of humans that settled the island of Japan originated in India post the Last Glacial Maximum, some 25000-28000 years ago. Samudra Manthana was not our first engagement with dharma.