None of these interpretations make this term any better or unique, than the notions that we already have. We already have several terms to use as religious or faith based constructs for us to package all our insecurity and desires, and hold on to it with righteous indignation.
Growing up with a "scientific" upbringing, I had thus ignored this concept altogether and had gone on to pursue advanced scientific studies like systems theory, and focused my inquiry on non-linear dynamics and complex systems. But thanks to one chance encounter, I came to revisit this concept of dharma that we grew up with, from the lens of systems theory.
And what I have found is that these ideas are beyond profound, and can perhaps explain why Indian thought survived for thousands of years, and how for all the cutting edge challenges we have today, dharma-centric designs may actually offer plausible solutions.
*~*~*~*~*
One of the first things I ask anyone who wishes to discuss dharma, is whether they believe that dharma as a concept is applicable on Mars or Jupiter today, where there is no life. Most of the time I receive a response that dharma is a social construct, and has got to do with our sense of right and wrong, and therefore it is meaningless to use dharma when speaking about Mars or Jupiter.
It only tells me that they have not understood the concept.
Similarly, any sentiment based definition of dharma-- like working with purity of intention, righteousness, respect for elders and society, having "humility", leading a "simple" life, etc. all have missed understanding the meaning of this important term.
The definition of dharma is ".. that which sustains is dharma". And "that which sustains" is not some other-worldly cosmic principle revealed by magic or divine creatures. That which sustains, depends on the systemic context we are talking about. Given any system of being, a set of factors can collectively "sustain" the system by making the system resilient, and able to absorb shocks and perturbations and remain in a given state of being.
Resilience is the primary characteristic that drives sustainability. And that which makes a system resilient, is dharma.
Any complex system of interactions is continuously changing its features because it keeps getting affected by both internal and external factors. But, not all complex systems are chaotic. There are chaotic systems like turbulence that are basically unmanageable. But a lot of complex systems, have one or more states where they are relatively stable, and can absorb external perturbations (to some extent) and revert back to their stable state. For instance, as biological creatures, all of us are complex systems with something or the other happening within and outside of us all the time. Yet, despite this, our "life" remains stable. Even biologically, there are a set of factors that keep our vitals (body temperature, blood pressure, etc.) stable even when we are perturbed by factors like external demands, internal illness, etc. These set of factors that sustain us (not just biologically, but our entire sense of self), is our dharma.
Similarly, there are a set of factors that keep the characteristics of Mars and Jupiter stable, without them getting destroyed by perturbations like asteroid strikes or solar flares. So, the idea of dharma applies there as well.
Dharma is not a social construct-- it is a physical construct. We don't have to believe in dharma or push dharma as an ideology (some form of "dharma-ism" for example). It will hold regardless. Just like gravity affects us whether we believe in it or not.
Hence to act with dharma, what we need is not (just) purity of intention or righteousness of action, or some social construct. What we need is a clear understanding of the factors affecting our system under consideration, and what will make the system resilient. Hence, dharma changes from one systemic context to another. It does not mean, dharma is a system of "relative ethics" (I've seen such definitions as well!)-- it is just that what makes a system resilient, changes depending on what is the system are we talking about.
Upholding dharma is not just about intention or virtue or morality-- it is about strategy.
If we are living next to the sea or a large river, upholding dharma entails strategising for protection against possible floods and hurricanes-- something which may not be applicable in some other area. Similarly, for a town in the mountains, upholding dharma involves creating relevant strategies to handle occasional land slides, mountain sickness, or other such risks.
We cannot uphold dharma without an understanding of the system under consideration. If some idea has worked somewhere, and we just implement the same idea in some other system acting with the best of intentions and with a pure heart-- it does not mean that the outcomes will be the same. The outcomes depend on what sustains the system under consideration. We see this happening often. Someone imposes some idea on us with the best of intentions. And when the outcomes are disastrous, they justify their actions saying at least their intentions were good.
Upholding dharma does not just require a pure heart-- it also requires a strong intellect.
*~*~*~*~*
Dharma is not the same as righteousness or ethics. Both righteousness and ethics need to be derived from dharma. Dharma is hence, the physical basis for several social constructs as well-- it is the "is" from which, we can derive the "ought".
When we equate dharma with righteousness, and treat dharma as a standalone virtue in and of itself, we can often get into sticky situations. Because, human lives are not just about dharma-- although dharma is the basis on which human life functions.
For instance, I remember in our childhood just about every petty trader with his small shop, used to shortchange their customers some way or the other. And they used to call it "Vrutti dharma" (the dharma of their profession). When we interpret dharma as duty or righteousness, this basically means that, it is the duty of a trader to shortchange customers, and it is the virtuous thing to do for a trader! And because just about every trader was practising this, consumers had no choice, making this configuration stable!
What they were actually doing is to protect their trade and maximise profits by cutting corners. And before we bring out nasty stereotypes about "Hindu banias" it helps to realize that such kinds of "Vrutti dharma" is still practiced today at a much bigger scale by major corporations-- misleading ads, dark patterns, behavioural nudging, etc. All of these are done with "integrity" (that is the term used today in corporate-speak) by the designers to protect the profits of the company.
Not all states of dharma are fair, just, equitable, etc. They are just stable states from where it is hard for the system to come out of.
For instance, a state of poverty is more sustainable and resilient, than a state of wealth. It is easier to lose wealth, than lose poverty.
We often heard the saying that there is "dharma in poverty" and "adharma in wealth", and we translated it as: "there is goodness in poverty, and evil in wealth", or that "poor people are somehow righteous, and rich people are crafty and evil," and started celebrating poverty! Well, no. It just means that poverty is more sustainable than wealth-- it does not mean that poverty is desirable over wealth!
Similarly, dharma is not about achievement of something extraordinary. We may achieve something extraordinary, but it may not sustain. For instance, we achieved the extraordinary feat of putting humans on the moon. And dreamt that within a few decades we would be having weekend trips to the moon. But it did not sustain. We also achieved supersonic passenger flight. And it could not sustain.
Sustaining something is a very different challenge from achieving a goal or reaching a destination. We are so attuned to think of progress in terms of reaching some target (growth mindset), we often forget that the bigger problem is not to achieve some feat, but to sustain that achievement.
*~*~*~*~*
In Indian thought, human lives are modeled not just by dharma-- but along four dimensions that are collectively called the Purusharthas-- dharma, artha, kama, and moksha.
From a systems lens, these can be understood as resilience, capability, autonomy and liberation.
Resilience is something that sustains us, while capability is something that aids us in achieving something. Capability can be of many kinds including knowledge, wealth, physical strength, political power, social standing, etc. All of these help us achieve something. But the question of sustaining this achievement is a different problem altogether.
Similarly, kama refers to our autonomous desires (no, not just sexual desires). All forms of autonomous, creative pursuits that one performs for a sense of gratification, forms kama. And moksha from a systemic lens, refers to being non-constrained or liberated from obligations and debt.
We see that these four dimensions hold whether we are talking about an individual, a family, a country, or the entire world. We can also see that these dimensions are not a matter of ideology or some -ism. There is no such thing called Purushartha-ism. We don't have to believe in Purushartha-- it would still hold. As humans we strive for sustainability, capability, creative autonomy and liberation, whether we believe in it or not.
We can also see that every ideology puts one of the Purusharthas in the center, and makes the other as subservient to it. For instance, capitalism and fascism put artha or some form of capability (monetary or power) at the center, and considers all the others as supporting elements. Socialism believes that equality is dharma and puts that at the center, and insists everything else serve this primary objective. Similarly, liberalism puts individual autonomy (kama) at the center, and insists that everything else serve this primary objective.
But the science of sustainable systems is not that simple, and cannot be reduced to a linear configuration with some idea at the center and everything else revolving around it. As mentioned in the Chanakya Neeti, "the root of a happy life is dharma, the root of dharma is artha, the root of artha is enterprise (autonomous action or kama)". But kama pursued as an end in itself, leads to adharma.
We cannot build resilience without building capability. We cannot build capability, without empowering individual autonomy. But then, at the same time, building our entire lives around individual autonomy, may undermine our resilience or capability.
That is why we see that too much focus on capitalism may make essential services like basic healthcare unaffordable, and also undermine individual autonomy. I found a recent saying about life in America: "They gamified survival, and called it freedom!" Similarly, too much focus on individual autonomy may make us incapable of organising ourselves for building capability or collective resilience.
Once we really understand these terms from a systemic lens, we can actually start thinking differently and develop a science of human lives, rather than just treat it as machines that are driven by ideology.
No comments:
Post a Comment