The Eternal Rules Of Dharma
If this world were advaitic or monistic, there would be only one reality. But since it is not so, there is a need to discuss independence and dependence. Change is intrinsic to reality; so every aspect of reality is changeable. Change occurs at every instant of time, which, in itself, is changeable. That which is bound by a certain cause and effect relationship, where change is inevitable, cannot be independent. If we are bound by time, are we dependent or independent? There are no absolutes here-if man is dependent, it means he is indepen dent, too. Mahavira saw the world in terms of two perspectives or nays, the transcendental viewpoint or nischaya maya and the empirical viewpoint or vyavahara maya. According to the first, every is seen in its intrinsic form. There is no substratum or substance. No cause, no effect. No creator, no creation. Whatever is. is its intrinsic form. The vyavahara maya deals with its elaboration. Within its ambit lie the relationships between the substrate tum and the substance, cause and effect, creator and the creation. It is here that a definition of dependent and independent can also be attempted. Religious thinkers inter- pret independence as free- doom from inner influences or passions which destroy the soul's attributes. Thinkers who have reflected upon the idea in terms of governance interpret it as freedom from external influences or imperfect organisational procedures. Dharma is an exposition of the entire reality and its norms. So its purview is not limited to man alone: it includes the organisation of entire reality. Governance deals with organisational norms and so its bearing is on interpersonal relationships and the Constitution. Indian philosophers have focused primarily on a dharmic interpretation of independence- they didn't mix rules of governance with the eternal rules of dharma. So they tried to promote independence in governance, but did not frame separate guidelines. The authors of Smriti and purana texts have, however, given importance to intrinsic individual freedom. Aristotle, Locke and Mill have established individual freedom as the base for independent governance. But Plato, Machiavelli. Hegel and Bach have stressed on independence in governance. The duty on an individual is decided by societal beliefs and the Constitution. This means that man is free to act any which way so long as he doesn't flout the norms of society and organisation To Mahavira, freedom is kashaya-mukti or freedom from anger, ego. disillusion and greed, for, free from passions, man can act independently. Any one who only reacts can never live a life of independence for reactions take place in the outer world. Freedom is an internal quality. The one who is free from his inner passion looks for solutions within, lives a life of action and is independent. He is able to ply insults with silence, anger with love, arrogance with humility and faces assaults with calm. This action is born out of his own internal thoughts. Spiritually, independence is action and dependence is reaction. Ahimsa is action. himsa is reaction. Mahavira identified non-violence as dharma and violence as adharma. So independence is dharma and dependence, adharma. In the inner world, man can be independent limitlessly but in the physical, action-oriented and social world, there are limits. That's why Mahavira believed that the world of beings survives on inter dependence.
DISCLAIMER:
The views expressed in the Article above are Acharya Mahaprajna and kashmiribhatta.in is not in any way responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article. The article belongs to its respective owner or owners and this site does not claim any right over it.
Courtesy: Acharya Mahaprajna and Speaking Tree,Times of India
The Eternal Rules Of Dharma
If this world were advaitic or monistic, there would be only one reality. But since it is not so, there is a need to discuss independence and dependence. Change is intrinsic to reality; so every aspect of reality is changeable. Change occurs at every instant of time, which, in itself, is changeable. That which is bound by a certain cause and effect relationship, where change is inevitable, cannot be independent. If we are bound by time, are we dependent or independent? There are no absolutes here-if man is dependent, it means he is indepen dent, too. Mahavira saw the world in terms of two perspectives or nays, the transcendental viewpoint or nischaya maya and the empirical viewpoint or vyavahara maya. According to the first, every is seen in its intrinsic form. There is no substratum or substance. No cause, no effect. No creator, no creation. Whatever is. is its intrinsic form. The vyavahara maya deals with its elaboration. Within its ambit lie the relationships between the substrate tum and the substance, cause and effect, creator and the creation. It is here that a definition of dependent and independent can also be attempted. Religious thinkers inter- pret independence as free- doom from inner influences or passions which destroy the soul's attributes. Thinkers who have reflected upon the idea in terms of governance interpret it as freedom from external influences or imperfect organisational procedures. Dharma is an exposition of the entire reality and its norms. So its purview is not limited to man alone: it includes the organisation of entire reality. Governance deals with organisational norms and so its bearing is on interpersonal relationships and the Constitution. Indian philosophers have focused primarily on a dharmic interpretation of independence- they didn't mix rules of governance with the eternal rules of dharma. So they tried to promote independence in governance, but did not frame separate guidelines. The authors of Smriti and purana texts have, however, given importance to intrinsic individual freedom. Aristotle, Locke and Mill have established individual freedom as the base for independent governance. But Plato, Machiavelli. Hegel and Bach have stressed on independence in governance. The duty on an individual is decided by societal beliefs and the Constitution. This means that man is free to act any which way so long as he doesn't flout the norms of society and organisation To Mahavira, freedom is kashaya-mukti or freedom from anger, ego. disillusion and greed, for, free from passions, man can act independently. Any one who only reacts can never live a life of independence for reactions take place in the outer world. Freedom is an internal quality. The one who is free from his inner passion looks for solutions within, lives a life of action and is independent. He is able to ply insults with silence, anger with love, arrogance with humility and faces assaults with calm. This action is born out of his own internal thoughts. Spiritually, independence is action and dependence is reaction. Ahimsa is action. himsa is reaction. Mahavira identified non-violence as dharma and violence as adharma. So independence is dharma and dependence, adharma. In the inner world, man can be independent limitlessly but in the physical, action-oriented and social world, there are limits. That's why Mahavira believed that the world of beings survives on inter dependence.
DISCLAIMER:
The views expressed in the Article above are Acharya Mahaprajna and kashmiribhatta.in is not in any way responsible for the opinions expressed in the above article. The article belongs to its respective owner or owners and this site does not claim any right over it.
Courtesy: Acharya Mahaprajna and Speaking Tree,Times of India