[Chaturamnaya] A Dialogue on Dharma - 2

[S Jayanarayanan]

(Continued from the previous post on the subject)
 

(Upto this point, the discussion is on Dharma in general. In the modern context, with the influx of Western mores of conduct, a large number of Brahmanas have given up their Rituals/Prayers and taken up various other fields of endeavor, a cause of lamentation for the religious Hindus. The gentleman G must have been one such Brahmana who had abandoned his Dharma for the sake of a lucrative career. His Holiness (HH) now tries to bring him back into the religious fold, as the dialog proceeds.)
 
 
G: No man will willingly prefer to continue in ignorance or in error.

HH: I am not so sure of that. If a man has the ability to learn, if materials for knowledge are available to him, if teachers are available for teaching him, and yet he does not learn, what else is it but a willful continuance in ignorance?

G: Ordinarily it may be so. But learning of Dharma is not so simple. 

HH: Why not? Even now the intelligence which you have inherited from a long line of saints and seers (sages) is sharp enough to grasp the subtlest conceptions; even now your parents perform for you the sacred ceremony of initiation; even now there exist innumerable works dealing with dharma in all its aspects; and even now there exist a large number of competent teachers who will teach you, if only you ask them to do so. What excuse then have you for continuing in ignorance?

G: It may be, we have none, if only our attention is drawn to our duty to learn; but is there not a corresponding duty on those who know to teach?

HH: There is no such absolute duty. Those who know are bound to teach only those who do not know, but seek to know. If they prefer to remain in ignorance, the teachers are not to blame at all for not attempting to teach them. 

G: There may still be persons who are ignorant not because they prefer to be so but because they do not know at all that there is something to learn. How many, for instance, know what an Agnihotra or a Soma Yaga is (couple of rituals)? There are many who have not even heard of these terms. Is it not the duty of the Vaidikas to tell them that there are such things to be performed by the Brahmanas?

HH: Have those persons even cared to ascertain what the duties of the Brahmanas are, the community to which they profess to belong? They say that they are Brahmanas and still want other Brahmanas to tell them what a Brahmana ought to do. Is that reasonable, especially when they do not make the slightest attempt to know? Now leave aside for the moment Agnihotra and Soma Yaga and other things of that sort. I suppose the most ignorant among you know that it is a sin to tell a lie. You certainly require nobody to teach you that?

G: Certainly not.

HH: Can you say that all those who know that telling a lie is sinful refrain from doing so?

G: I cannot certainly make such a statement. 

HH: In spite of the knowledge that telling a lie is sinful people persist in it.

G: Yes, most of them do.

HH: They tell lies not because there is nobody to teach them that lying is a sin, for they know it themselves. 

G: Certainly.

HH: When people sin knowing that what they do is sinful, why should you blame others for not teaching them that many other acts of theirs are also sinful? I feel that such a teaching is not going to make any difference in their conduct. Now they err in ignorance; after being taught, they will err deliberately. That will be all the difference perhaps. 

G: Does Your Holiness mean then that it is better for them to remain ignorant?

HH: Certainly not. It is their duty to learn, as I have pointed out before. It is not for them to say that they remain in ignorance because somebody else does not teach them.

G: Anyhow, in the state of general ignorance of dharma now prevalent in the country, some organised propaganda is necessary to dispel it. 

HH: What do you mean by organized propaganda?

G: A society may be formed for the dissemination of religious knowledge, with centres of work at all important towns and villages and with competent persons to carry on its work.

HH: A committee of management should be formed, a scale of subscriptions should be fixed, provision should be made for differences of opinion, and decision should be by the counting of votes, and all that, I suppose?

G: Naturally, for these are necessary in any such society.

HH: Admission to the society itself should be at the discretion of the persons who start it; nobody should be admitted who cannot afford to pay anything by way of subscription though he may be otherwise very competent to run the society itself?

G: Such persons may be specially exempted from paying any subscription.

HH: I have no doubt, they will be. But they become members by sufferance and not by right.

G: It is so.

HH: Suppose I tell you of a society to which persons with competence alone are admitted automatically and because of their competence alone without requiring assent from the members who already form the society, to which admission is by merit and not because of any admission fee, for which no member need pay any subscription, in which what is right is decided by an immutable absolute standard of right and not by the fluctuating views of the majority of members at particular times, however well-intentioned they may be, and which can never by dissolved or wound up for any cause whatever? Don't you think that such a society will be far more natural, lasting, practical and effective than the one you propose?

G: Certainly it will be, but it is purely hypothetical one and impossible of realisation.

HH: It is not. What else is out Brahmana community if it is not a society of the sort mentioned by me? In fact, every community in India is such a self-contained compact society and the Hindu case system as a whole is a major society of which these communities form component parts or branches, as it were. The admission to them is not left to the whim of anybody but is retained in the hands of the All-knowing God Himself who gives them birth in particular communities in accordance with their qualifications acquired in former lives. The rules of the society are all ready-made, definite and unchangeable, unlike the rules of modern man-made associations which change too frequently.

G: Taking our Brahmana community, for instance and granting that it is a society by itself, why is it that it is not able to do any collective work now, which an organised society must be able to do?

HH: Can any of your modern societies do any useful work if each individual member is particular about his own personal interests and insists upon giving them preference and is prepared to violate the society's rules of they conflict or seem to conflict with his private interests?

G: Certainly now. If that is the attitude of the members, the society itself will cease to exist before long.

HH: Quite so. Similarly, the Brahmanas, or for the matter of that members of any community, can be collectively useful only if they are prepared to subordinate their personal lies and dislikes to the duties enjoined upon them as Brahmanas or members of any other community. Our country suffers at present not for want of organised societies, because we have in fact the best conceivable society formed for us, but for want of members who are prepared to conform to its rules. Try to increase the number of such members and the society will grow more strong. All your endeavour should be directed towards this end and not to the founding of any new and unstable associations, which are as unnecessary as they are useless for the object you have in view.

G: Even for this, some propaganda is necessary.

HH: If you feel so, do it.

G: But what is the use of my propaganda? It will be more effective if it is initiated by Your Holiness.

HH: I am sure it is quite the other way. If the vaidikas start any such work, you yourself will say, "These people have to live by their priestcraft. Therefore they want us to be religious so that we may help them to get their livelihood. Their advice to us to be religious is therefore with a view to serve their own selfish interests', and on this reasoning you will begin to belittle the value of their advice and will neglect it. If I begin to preach the same thing, you will say to yourself, "Occupying the position of an Acharya as he does, he is simply carrying out his functions when he is asking me to be religious. His advice is a formal routine thing made to justify his position", and on this reasoning you will be likely to ignore it. If however a purely laukika gentleman like yourself asks others to conform to Dharma, they will think thus: "The gentleman who is asking me to be religious does not stand to gain at all by my being religious, for he is
 above want himself and has no need to depend for his living on my being religious. He is occupying a high position, has good modern education and is endowed with a fine intellect. He has absolutely no personal motive in asking me to be religious and he is not a man likely to waste his words. There must therefore be something in his advice, given as it is so disinterestedly", and on this reasoning they will certainly listen to you and be guided by you. Practically therefore all propaganda, assuming it to be necessary, must come only from such like you, if it has to be effective.

G: I quite see the significance of Your Holiness' words, but still I cannot help thinking that, even for any work to be done by us, lending of your Holiness' name will go very far with ordinary people.

HH: The Lord Himself has given us His commands in the shape of the eternal Vedas, still the people are prepared to disobey Him. The ancient sages have formulated the Smritis for the guidance of the people, still the latter persist in disobeying them. How then do you expect that the people will obey them simply because my name is also mentioned?

G: The Almighty God and the Rishis are not visible now, but you in whom the people repose confidence are present before them in flesh and blood; and they naturally will pay more attention to your words to the religious dictates embodied in books.

HH: Be it as you like. Wherever you go, tell the people "The Vedas, the divine commands of Ishvara, have enjoined on you these duties. The Smritis of the ancient sages also enjoin the same duties. Perform them properly and reap their benefit. The Acharya also wants you to do the same". Let not the people continue in Adharma for want of a word from me in support of the authority of the Vedas and the Smritis. You may tell them that the Vedas and the Smritis have my emphatic support and that I also enjoin on them the duty to obey them, as you seem to think my injunction specially valuable.

G: That may not be enough. It will be well if Your Holiness yourself leads a movement for the propagation of Dharma.

HH: I have already told you that no such movement can influence the people who persist against Dharma fully knowing it to be so and that such a movement, if any, to be practically useful must really be led by worldly persons like you enjoying high positions in life and not by persons like me whose 'business' is religion. Further, I do not see why you cast any special duty upon me. I am not conscious of ever leading a movement for the propagation against Dharma; if I had at any time done so, it may be now my duty to see that the mischief caused by me is remedied. On the other hand, it seems to me that it is the special duty of such as you, who misled the people away from the path of religion by showing them the glamour of worldly possessions, to lead them to the right path, now that you have realized the supreme value of Dharma. The ordinary people look up to you as the highest in the land, and as the Lord has said in the Gita, "Whatever the highest
 person does, that alone is done by others."

G: That is quite true. Though I fully know that I have absolutely no claim to rank myself among the highest in the Lord's sense, I have noticed that in my younger days when I was not particular about my caste marks or about my daily ablutions, the clerks who were working under me began to show gradually the same indifference to them, and now, when I seem to be orthodox at least to all outward appearances, even those who are quite indifferent at home put on bright caste marks at least when they come to me in the office. They think that they will please me by imitating me.

HH: Whatever may be their present motive, it is quite patent that when you are religious in your conduct those who look up to you as a superior, whether in home life or in official life, begin to be religious in their conduct.

G: It is no doubt so.

HH: By being spiritual therefore you not only benefit yourself but also others, who follow your example.

G: Certainly.

HH: By being religious, therefore, you get a two-fold benefit: one the benefit being religious yourself, and the other the merit you obtain for inducing others to be religious. 

G: No doubt so.

HH: Now consider the other side. By being irreligious you will be sustaining a twofold injury: one the injury you directly sustain by being irreligious yourself and the other the sin you incur for inducing others by your example to be irreligious. 

G: Naturally.

HH: Ordinarily people get the fruits of their own individual conduct alone. But persons who are placed in high positions and influence the conduct of others have a double responsibility. They are answerable not only for themselves but also for others. Just as their merit is greater when they adhere to Dharma, so is their sin greater when they resort to Adharma. If only people like you realize this double responsibility, they will not dare any more to remain in ignorance as regards Dharma, but will seek to know and set, by their example and precept, a standard of right conduct. There will be no further need for talking about propaganda. The future of the land is really in your hands. Realize that well. If you do so, there is no further cause of anxiety.
 
 
(Dialogue concludes.)
 
(Dharmo rakshati rakshitah: Dharma protected, protects.)