Thanks, Meredith. I’m a fan of the Gītā’s approach, making yoga more compatible with everyday life. But I think it’s also clear that svadharma as presented in the text describes inherited duties defined by social class / caste.
An attempt is made to frame that in terms of the qualities of each individual, as if this explains which group they’re assigned to (like a Harry Potter sorting hat).
Regardless of how persuasive that seems to us, we’re still left with a framework that says what to do in terms of one’s varṇa.
So if we have to reinterpret that to mean something else, perhaps it’s simplest to frame things our own way, instead of citing the Gītā?
I agree that the path to freedom described in the Gītā involves transcending self-centredness while also conforming to one's inherent nature (described as prakṛti in BhG 3.33).
I just question how helpful it is to use svadharma, or for that matter svabhāva, to talk about the process in contemporary contexts, given the association of both with varṇa structures that don't apply to many readers.
Rather than repurposing those terms to mean other things, it seems to me more useful to find our own language for the sort of ideas about meaning and purpose that were quoted in the post.
Hello Daniel. Coincidentally I am reading 'Creating a Life' by James Hollis at the moment - he has a Jungian take on some of these ideas - perhaps there's some crossover between Dharma and individuation... he mentions "serving one's calling in the context of our environment," i.e doing the thing at hand (my interpretation) - and also the importance of life stages, "an answer valid at one stage may be opressive in another." Conflating choice with freedom is very much the modern problem and being 'free from choice' as something above 'freedom of choice'.... those are deeper matters... 🙏
Hello Michael - good to hear from you - that sounds like a book I would benefit from reading!
On a vaguely related note, I’ve just been looking at this passage from the Yoga-vāsiṣṭha (it comes at the end of Swami Venkatesananda’s abridged translation, titled Vasiṣṭha’s Yoga):
Rāma asked:
"When these sages are constantly immersed in the bliss of self-knowledge, why do they not abandon all activities?"
Vasiṣṭha replied:
"They have abandoned all notions of ‘This is desirable’ and ‘This is undesirable’. In their case, therefore, both the abandonment of action and the performance of action are meaningless. Therefore, they do what has to be done how it has to be done. Rāma, as long as there is life, so long the body lives and moves and functions. Let this continue—why should one desire otherwise? When somehow something has to be done at all times, why not do what is right? Whatever one does with a pure and clear mind which rests in equanimity, is right and appropriate, never defective.”
Hi I was reading ‘Light on the Mahabharata’ recently after you recommended it to me and it struck me at the time that it’s actually really clarifying what dharma is by looking at the opposite ‘adharma’. Nicholas Sutton writes very poigntantly to our particular situation we find ourselves in. He writes:” the modern world is beset with a plethora of mini Duryodhanas. As we have seen, the qualities he displays are harshness, avarice, contempt, dishonesty, anger, and a complete lack of any sense of kindness and compassion.”
I think if we align ourselves in opposition to this we can’t go so wrong…
Yes tamasic but also forcefully and active. There is a line in Peter brooks Mahabharata in which duryjodhana exclaims “I want to be discontent !”
I am not sure this is part of the original text but it really captures the mindset of the upside down world we live in politically and often socially speaking too
It is! Here is van Buitenen's translation (from Mahābhārata 2.50.18-19):
"Discontent is the root of fortune. That is why I want to be discontented. Only he who reaches for the heights, king, is the ultimate politician. Should we not pursue selfish ways when we have power or are rich? Others take away what one had earned before!"
As I see it, the dharma of the Gita was to keep the social and political wheel go round and round. The dharma of Buddhism is the teachings. The dharma of capitalism is economics. The dharma of a dictator is power. The dharma of an ideology is to appeal to followers. The dharma of psychological health is purpose.
It is tied to expectations. The expectation that one is less than if one doesn’t have a purpose, a valued purpose as well. But whose expectations does any particular dharma serve? And is the underlying message that you are not enough just as you are, but that you must have some utility of sorts. What does that purpose of utility serve and to whom?
When we are free of a prescribed by birth order and the Maslow’s pyramid is met, then what? Is this a one percenter existential angst, not an economic 1 percenter, per se, but a lucky draw (brain chemistry, country, gender, race, wealth, zip code) lucky few who are unhappy with themselves, their choices, their ease or dis-ease of life, with a lot of time?
Thanks, Sandy. I think it can be helpful to remember there are multiple versions of dharma, from codes of conduct and books of rules to definitions of virtues, obligations and essences...
In some ways, the notion of purpose as a self-actualisation project is more Western in origin, and as you say it's a bit of a luxury to have that concern. But at another level, choosing values to live by seems very important.
Re: the question, the Mahābhārata's answer is ahiṃsā paramo dharma - i.e. non-harming is the highest virtue.
This is such a beautiful exploration of the "burden of choice". We often get caught in the tension between Dharma as an inherited social script and Dharma as a modern "choose your own adventure."
In my own exploration on modern Dharma, I’ve found that the missing link isn’t just finding a purpose or a title, it’s recognizing the essential nature that persists when all those titles are stripped away. Whether I was in a corporate role or at home, my Dharma was the same: to guide, to nurture, and to protect.
I don't think Dharma is simply a choice we make from an infinite span of options. I believe it’s the evolving eternal truth of who we already are. It transcends the scripts society hands us. When we stop performing for the role we think we should play and start acting from that internal wholeness, the "burden of choice" shifts into a natural flow of alignment.
Thanks for reading, Krupa – glad to hear it resonated!
I agree that there's a lot to be said for letting go of ideas as a way to find out who we actually are, as opposed to who we think we ought to be...
I liked that you emphasised values as the foundation of modern alignment. That seems to me to be part of the eternal dimension of dharma – as in the phrase "sanātana dharma", which is used in texts such as the Mahābhārata to talk about virtues.
Thanks, Meredith. I’m a fan of the Gītā’s approach, making yoga more compatible with everyday life. But I think it’s also clear that svadharma as presented in the text describes inherited duties defined by social class / caste.
An attempt is made to frame that in terms of the qualities of each individual, as if this explains which group they’re assigned to (like a Harry Potter sorting hat).
Regardless of how persuasive that seems to us, we’re still left with a framework that says what to do in terms of one’s varṇa.
So if we have to reinterpret that to mean something else, perhaps it’s simplest to frame things our own way, instead of citing the Gītā?
I agree that the path to freedom described in the Gītā involves transcending self-centredness while also conforming to one's inherent nature (described as prakṛti in BhG 3.33).
I just question how helpful it is to use svadharma, or for that matter svabhāva, to talk about the process in contemporary contexts, given the association of both with varṇa structures that don't apply to many readers.
Rather than repurposing those terms to mean other things, it seems to me more useful to find our own language for the sort of ideas about meaning and purpose that were quoted in the post.
Hello Daniel. Coincidentally I am reading 'Creating a Life' by James Hollis at the moment - he has a Jungian take on some of these ideas - perhaps there's some crossover between Dharma and individuation... he mentions "serving one's calling in the context of our environment," i.e doing the thing at hand (my interpretation) - and also the importance of life stages, "an answer valid at one stage may be opressive in another." Conflating choice with freedom is very much the modern problem and being 'free from choice' as something above 'freedom of choice'.... those are deeper matters... 🙏
Hello Michael - good to hear from you - that sounds like a book I would benefit from reading!
On a vaguely related note, I’ve just been looking at this passage from the Yoga-vāsiṣṭha (it comes at the end of Swami Venkatesananda’s abridged translation, titled Vasiṣṭha’s Yoga):
Rāma asked:
"When these sages are constantly immersed in the bliss of self-knowledge, why do they not abandon all activities?"
Vasiṣṭha replied:
"They have abandoned all notions of ‘This is desirable’ and ‘This is undesirable’. In their case, therefore, both the abandonment of action and the performance of action are meaningless. Therefore, they do what has to be done how it has to be done. Rāma, as long as there is life, so long the body lives and moves and functions. Let this continue—why should one desire otherwise? When somehow something has to be done at all times, why not do what is right? Whatever one does with a pure and clear mind which rests in equanimity, is right and appropriate, never defective.”
Hi I was reading ‘Light on the Mahabharata’ recently after you recommended it to me and it struck me at the time that it’s actually really clarifying what dharma is by looking at the opposite ‘adharma’. Nicholas Sutton writes very poigntantly to our particular situation we find ourselves in. He writes:” the modern world is beset with a plethora of mini Duryodhanas. As we have seen, the qualities he displays are harshness, avarice, contempt, dishonesty, anger, and a complete lack of any sense of kindness and compassion.”
I think if we align ourselves in opposition to this we can’t go so wrong…
Thanks, Jochen – well said! I wholeheartedly agree.
There are multiple meanings of dharma, but they all come down in some way to doing the right thing, so it's good to be clear there are limits.
Though as the Bhagavad Gītā warns (in verse 18.32), a tamasic understanding confuses dharma with adharma, which sadly seems widespread today...
Yes tamasic but also forcefully and active. There is a line in Peter brooks Mahabharata in which duryjodhana exclaims “I want to be discontent !”
I am not sure this is part of the original text but it really captures the mindset of the upside down world we live in politically and often socially speaking too
It is! Here is van Buitenen's translation (from Mahābhārata 2.50.18-19):
"Discontent is the root of fortune. That is why I want to be discontented. Only he who reaches for the heights, king, is the ultimate politician. Should we not pursue selfish ways when we have power or are rich? Others take away what one had earned before!"
He somehow reminds me of someone...
Yes but it would need to be written in all caps and have more superlatives haha
THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS MATTER!
Dharma
As I see it, the dharma of the Gita was to keep the social and political wheel go round and round. The dharma of Buddhism is the teachings. The dharma of capitalism is economics. The dharma of a dictator is power. The dharma of an ideology is to appeal to followers. The dharma of psychological health is purpose.
It is tied to expectations. The expectation that one is less than if one doesn’t have a purpose, a valued purpose as well. But whose expectations does any particular dharma serve? And is the underlying message that you are not enough just as you are, but that you must have some utility of sorts. What does that purpose of utility serve and to whom?
When we are free of a prescribed by birth order and the Maslow’s pyramid is met, then what? Is this a one percenter existential angst, not an economic 1 percenter, per se, but a lucky draw (brain chemistry, country, gender, race, wealth, zip code) lucky few who are unhappy with themselves, their choices, their ease or dis-ease of life, with a lot of time?
Dharma alone vs dharma paired with ahimsa?
Thanks, Sandy. I think it can be helpful to remember there are multiple versions of dharma, from codes of conduct and books of rules to definitions of virtues, obligations and essences...
In some ways, the notion of purpose as a self-actualisation project is more Western in origin, and as you say it's a bit of a luxury to have that concern. But at another level, choosing values to live by seems very important.
Re: the question, the Mahābhārata's answer is ahiṃsā paramo dharma - i.e. non-harming is the highest virtue.
This is such a beautiful exploration of the "burden of choice". We often get caught in the tension between Dharma as an inherited social script and Dharma as a modern "choose your own adventure."
In my own exploration on modern Dharma, I’ve found that the missing link isn’t just finding a purpose or a title, it’s recognizing the essential nature that persists when all those titles are stripped away. Whether I was in a corporate role or at home, my Dharma was the same: to guide, to nurture, and to protect.
I don't think Dharma is simply a choice we make from an infinite span of options. I believe it’s the evolving eternal truth of who we already are. It transcends the scripts society hands us. When we stop performing for the role we think we should play and start acting from that internal wholeness, the "burden of choice" shifts into a natural flow of alignment.
I actually just wrote about this recently if you're interested! https://intentionaldesi.com/living-in-alignment-living-your-dharma/
I’d love to hear your thoughts on whether you think alignment with your truth captures the essence of Dharma?
Thanks for reading, Krupa – glad to hear it resonated!
I agree that there's a lot to be said for letting go of ideas as a way to find out who we actually are, as opposed to who we think we ought to be...
I liked that you emphasised values as the foundation of modern alignment. That seems to me to be part of the eternal dimension of dharma – as in the phrase "sanātana dharma", which is used in texts such as the Mahābhārata to talk about virtues.