My Gita Part 2

Arjuna, people wors.h.i.+p limited deities, limited as they are by their nature and their yearnings. From me comes their faith. From me comes fulfilment of their faith. The restricted stay restrained. Those who shatter the boundaries discover me: the limitless.-Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 7, verses 20 to 23 (paraphrased).

Literal and Metaphorical Those who are comfortable with imagination appreciate metaphors and symbols. Those who are not prefer the literal. Only through metaphors and symbols can one convey the conceptual. Without poetry, you cannot communicate ideas that are not material and measurable, like love, or justice or remarkability. But The Gita recognizes that the world is made up of different people, those who can only deal with the tangibility of mortality and those who can deal with the intangibility of immortality and rebirth. Krishna does not expect people to experience the world the same way as he does, or respond to the world exactly as he does. This is why Krishna has a 'menu-card' approach to solutions, suiting different capabilities and capacities.

Arjuna, immerse your mind in me and I will uplift you from the ocean of recurring death. If you cannot do that, then practise yoga and work on your mind. If you cannot do that, then do your work as if it is my work. If you cannot do that, then make yourself my instrument and do as I say. If you cannot do that, then simply do your job and leave the results to me.-Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 12, verses 6 to 11 (paraphrased).

My deha is different from yours. My hungers are different from yours. My a.s.sumptions are different from yours. My capabilities are different from yours. My experiences are diferent from yours. My expressions are different from yours.

You and I seek meaning The immortal resident of the body, the dehi, watches how the body experiences the world around it. But what is dehi exactly? Is it the senses that make the body responsive to external stimuli? Is it the mind within the body, or thoughts and ideas and imaginations within the mind, or concepts that filter all sensation and influence emotions? It is something unmeasurable, mystifying and debatable, like consciousness? Or is it conceptual clarity that bestows tranquillity? Does that conceptual clarity involve appreciating the unique human ability to give meaning to ourselves and the world around? We shall explore these ideas in this chapter.

Right at the start of The Gita, Krishna refers to dehi, the immortal that dwells in the body.

Arjuna, weapons cannot pierce it, fire cannot burn it, water cannot wet it, wind cannot dry it. It is everywhere, at all times, fixed, immovable.-Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 2, verses 23 and 24 (paraphrased).

Later, he refers to dehi as atma, the immortal located in the body, but beyond the reach of the senses and the mind.

Arjuna, detached, tranquil, a.s.sured, the observer resides in the city of nine gates.-Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 5, Verse 13 (paraphrased).

Bird Watching the Bird Eating Fruit The Rig Veda speaks of a bird that watches another bird eating fruit. This is a metaphor of the world (fruit), the body (bird eating fruit) and the dehi (bird watching bird eating fruit). We can watch others, and ourselves, seeking 'fruit'.

Krishna describes dehi, located inside the body, very much the same way as he describes purusha, located inside all of nature that surrounds the body. If dehi is within the self, purusha is within the other.

Arjuna, prakriti is responsible for all events around you. Purusha, resident of nature, experiences these events as painful and pleasurable circ.u.mstances.-Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 13, verses 20 and 21 (paraphrased).

The body we inhabit, and nature that is all around our body, is tangible (sa-guna). What resides in our body, and in nature, is not (nir-guna). Deha and prakriti are within the reach of the senses; they are bound by the rules of s.p.a.ce and time, which means that they can be measured and are impermanent. Dehi and purusha, however, are outside the reach of the senses, and are not bound by rules of s.p.a.ce and time, which means that they cannot be measured and are permanent.

Deha is part of prakriti. But is dehi a part of purusha? Since both are immortal and infinite, neither can be confined by s.p.a.ce, nor can they be separated. In other words, dehi is the same as purusha.

Arjuna, it is both in and out, inside the animate and the inanimate, far as well as near, difficult to gauge as it is subtle. It is not divisible yet appears divided in separate beings. It is what brings together and creates anew.-Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 13, verses 15 and 16 (paraphrased).

Deha is that which separates us from other ent.i.ties. Dehi is that which unites us to others. Deha establishes individuality. Dehi establishes universality. We discover deha through a.n.a.lysis (sankhya), by figuring out what isolates us from the world. We discover dehi through synthesis (yoga), by figuring out what connects us with the world. Arjuna's deha is not the same as Duryodhana's, Arjuna's deha is not the same as that of the horses that pull his chariot, but the dehi in Arjuna enables him to feel the fear and hunger in every living creature, and its absence in non-living creatures.

Deha and Prakriti Dehi and purusha are the same, yet they are also differentiated. Dehi is called jiva-atma and purusha is called param-atma, as dehi's experience is limited by the deha it resides in, while purusha's experience is unlimited, as it resides in limitless prakriti. Dehi or jiva-atma experiences a slice (bhaga) of reality. Bhagavan, who experiences every slice of reality, is then param-atma. The jiva-atma, who seeks fulfilment and fullness, is the bhagat or bhakta. Every living creature is a jiva-atma. For every jiva-atma, other living creatures are para-atma (the individual other). The collective of all living creatures makes up the param-atma (the collective other).

This relations.h.i.+p of the deha, prakriti and atma is best visualized in art as a spoked wheel, where the hub represents my body (deha) and the rim presents the body of the world around me (prakriti). The atma within us (jiva-atma) radiates like the spokes of a wheel and connects with the atma (para-atma) within everyone around us. All of this together const.i.tutes param-atma, the potential that everyone, including us, can realize. Such a spoked wheel whirls around Krishna's finger, indicating that param-atma is more than the sum total of all individual jiva-atmas. The jiva-atma depends on the param-atma but the param-atma is not dependent on the jiva-atma.

Arjuna, he is the perceiver of all sense objects without the senses. He is unattached, yet sustainer of all. He is devoid of all tendencies, yet the enjoyer of all material tendencies.-Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 13, Verse 14 (paraphrased).

Wheel Exploration of the relations.h.i.+p between jiva-atma and param-atma, between dehi and deha, purusha and prakriti, bhagavan and bhakta, has led to the many schools of Vedanta, schools that seek the essence of the Vedas. Advaita saw no difference between divinity and humanity; dvaita saw a complete separation; bheda-abheda saw humanity as part of the divine.

Different Schools of Vedanta Many see dehi as the seed of the purusha-tree. Each seed is separate from the tree, dependent on the tree, yet containing the tree. This idea is expressed in a beautiful hymn on completeness (poornamadah poornamidam) found in the Isha Upanishad: 'This is complete, that is complete, from completeness comes completeness, when completeness is added or subtracted, it still remains complete.' This hymn refers to the concept of infinity and the capability of human imagination. You are complete in yourself; I am complete in myself; yet we are part of a wider human narrative. Like the seed of the tree, we are part of completeness, as well as our complete selves.

Fruits of the Param-atma Tree So what exactly is dehi/atma/purusha? Various metaphors are used to describe it in The Gita: the ocean that is fed by rivers but never overflows (Chapter 2, Verse 70); the sky that is ever-present but always detached (Chapter 13, Verse 33); the sun that illuminates everything (Chapter 13, Verse 34). From Chapter 7 onwards, Krishna personifies the idea and starts equating himself with dehi and purusha, using the first person. Though Krishna sports a male form, he refers to his 'wombs', indicating the metaphorical nature of the language used.

Arjuna, forms and formless are my two wombs. I am the start and the end, the thread on which the world is strung like jewels. Nothing else but me.-Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 7, verses 6 and 7 (paraphrased).

Some identify dehi/purusha/atma with the soul. But soul is a Christian concept and in Christian mythology, especially, there is talk of souls that can get corrupted and bodies without souls. Dehi/purusha/atma of The Gita is eternally pure and permeates everywhere, even beings deemed most sinful and foul.

Some say dehi is not material, hence it must be something spiritual. We must be careful of this term, spiritual. It is an eighteenth-century European term that once referred to everything from the psychological to the paranormal and the occult, a meaning that is still popular in New Age religious orders. The West formally separated the psychological from the paranormal only in the twentieth century after the works of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, though religious folk continue to insist that the paranormal is real.

If not material, then dehi/purusha/atma can be mental. But it is also distinguished from all things that const.i.tute the mind: senses (indriyas), emotions (chitta), imagination (manas) and intelligence (buddhi). Some, therefore, identify it with consciousness, the ability to be self-aware. But scientists and gurus disagree on what consciousness exactly is. Scientists restrict consciousness to living organisms, especially higher ones, while gurus attribute consciousness to all of nature, even the inanimate.

Some identify the soul/spirit/consciousness as conscience (viveka). But conscience is an outcome of imagination and judgement: how we imagine ourselves and how we want others to judge us. Animals do not have a conscience, but for Hindus, atma is present in everything.

Ultimately, the exact ident.i.ty of dehi/purusha/atma will always be elusive, not just because it defies objective measurement, but also because you and I experience reality very differently, and use different words to describe our experiences. What is dehi to you may not be dehi to me. Also, what I thought dehi was today may not be what I realize dehi is tomorrow. Initially, dehi may be the mind, then it becomes intelligence, then consciousness, then imagination, concept, meaning, then something else which defies language. But it exists. And that is the point.

Arjuna, it exists in the heart of all beings that which is worth knowing, the knowledge itself, and that which is reached through knowledge. It is the light that illuminates life, and all of darkness too.-Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 13, Verse 17 (paraphrased).

What we can be sure of is that dehi cannot be an ent.i.ty, as by definition it cannot be measured. It has to be a concept. It can at best be experienced, hence it is a subjective truth, indifferent to the rules of science.

Arjuna, it has no beginning and has no qualities, and so does not change. It is located in the body, but it does nothing and covets nothing.-Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 13, verses 31 and 32 (paraphrased).

According to the five-container architecture of the body described in the Upanishads, our breath resides within our flesh, our mind resides within our breath, our concepts reside within our mind and our emotions reside within our concepts. We can only see the flesh and breath. We can sense the emotions by the way they are expressed through the body and the breath. Sensations received by the mind are filtered by concepts to create emotions. Emotions affect our mind and shape our concepts. When there is conceptual clarity, we experience tranquillity (ananda), no matter what the sensory experience is. Atma then becomes an idea that offers conceptual clarity, that establishes connection (yoga) with the world as it really is, not what we imagine it to be.

Atma as Conceptual Clarity In the absence of conceptual clarity, the dominant emotion is fear, fear of losing opportunities, fear of threats, fear of achievement, fear of abandonment, fear of invalidation. The emotion of fear impacts the way we think and what we believe. It contaminates the filtering of sensations and choice of responses. It creates a vicious cycle where atma is eclipsed by aham, our judgemental self.

Conceptual clarity draws attention to language, a key theme of the Vedas. Many animals use language to communicate. Their language is descriptive. Human language is used to a.n.a.lyse, construct and convey complex meaning. Through sound, image or gesture meaning is conveyed. That which is expressed (shabda) contains layers of meaning (shabda-brahmana), some literal, some metaphorical. These evoke multiple emotions (rasa) and experiences (bhava). Shabda is tangible (sa-guna), shabda-brahmana is intangible (nir-guna). Only through shabda, can shabda-brahmana be expressed and experienced. If we imagine our body as a shabda, then we are containers of meaning. Only thorugh our bodies can that meaning be expressed and experienced. When Hindus say that everything around us has atma, and bow to rocks and rivers, plants, animals, and humans, it is an acknowledgement that everyone and everything is meaningful and valid.

Atma as Meaning Like animals that seek food for their survival, humans yearn for meaning for their sanity: what is our value, our purpose and our ident.i.ty in this world? As long as we seek validation from the world around us, we are entrapped by aham. As soon as we realize that all meaning comes from within, that it is we who make the world meaningful, we are liberated by atma.

Arjuna, this fabulous all-encompa.s.sing being who resides within you, who is me really, and you really, is that which observes, approves, enables and enjoys ultimately.-Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 13, Verse 22 (paraphrased).

When we say that everything around us has atma, and we bow to rocks and rivers, plants and animals, to people around us, living and dead, we essentially mean that everything around is meaningful and valid. Who decides this? The dehi within, as well as the purusha without. We give meaning to others. We get meaning from others. We give meaning to each other. We may die but things continue to be meaningful, for atma never dies. There is always someone to give meaning.

Food and Meaning

Plants and animals, including humans, seek food. Additionally, humans also seek meaning: the dehi within the deha, the meaning within the word, the soul within the body, the metaphorical within the literal.

You and I have to face consequences The quest for food, security and meaning propels the living into action. Every action has reactions. Reactions create circ.u.mstances that we constantly experience. Can we control our circ.u.mstances, create fortune and avoid misfortune, by regulating our actions and the actions of others? Or can we simply withdraw from activity, turn away from all sensory seductions, save ourselves from disappointment and heartbreak, and thus find peace? Is there such a thing as good action and bad action? Can good actions have bad reactions and bad actions, good? Answers to these questions const.i.tute the doctrine of karma that means both action as well as reaction, which Krishna elaborates in Chapter 3 of The Gita.

In nature, gravity forces movement in all things inanimate. Plants defy gravity and grow towards the sky, propelled by the fear of death to seek sunlight and consume it as food, along with minerals and water pulled up by their roots. Animals graze and hunt and migrate for food. The act of eating is violent, as elements and plants and animals are devoured by the hungry. Where there is life, there is hunger. Where there is hunger, there is food. Where there is food, there is violence. Where there is violence, there are consequences. Nature is violent, as the hungry seek food. This is the fundamental truth of life.

In human society, violence is regulated. Forests are destroyed to make way for fields. Riverbanks are destroyed to create dams and ca.n.a.ls. Natural ecosystems are wiped out to make way for human settlements. In the Mahabharata, the Pandavas burn the forest of Khandava-prastha to build their city of Indra-prastha. The price is high: the resident snake people, the nagas, never forgive them or their descendants.

In human society, violence transforms: it is not just physical. It is also psychological, as people are stripped of their freedom, bound by rules, located in hierarchies and restricted by boundaries. Culture is created by domestication: the violent control of the earth and the violent control of the human mind.

So when Arjuna wonders if it is better to withdraw from the battle, Krishna does not endorse this apparently n.o.ble choice. For non-violence is only possible when one gives up hunger, and no one, not even a hermit, can give up all hunger. His body needs nourishment and for that he needs food. The act of cultivation of food is violent, as is the act of keeping away those who wish to steal our food. Only the non-living (a-jiva) are non-violent as they are not hungry. The living (sa-jiva) eat; eating involves violence.

Arjuna, even when you do nothing, you still act. By simply withdrawing from society, you do not get freedom. Everyone who is born, who is alive, who is dependent, acts, compelled to do so by nature itself. He who controls the senses but has a mind full of cravings is a pretender who fools himself. Do what you have to do, rather than not doing anything at all. You need to act if you want your body to function.-Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 3, verses 4 to 8 (paraphrased).

The atma, resident of the body, is never hungry, and so does not crave food, and so is not violent. It witnesses this hunger-propelled violence, without judgement.

Hunger and No Hunger From fear of death comes hunger, hence the quest for food, hence violence. Fear of death by violence makes animals s.e.xual, so that they reproduce and ensure that at least some part of their being outlives death. And that which is reproduced carries with it the fear of death, hence hunger, hence violence and s.e.x. Thus, cause is an action (karma) and the consequence is also an action (karma). Karma is both action and reaction. Each moment is a fruit (karma-phala) of the past and a seed (karma-bija) of the future. And just as every seed need not germinate, just as the quality of the fruit depends on various external factors like sunlight and quality of soil and availability of water, the reaction of every action is unpredictable. With unpredictability comes uncertainty, which amplifies fear.

Arjuna, fair or unfair, the results of any action depend on five things: the body, the mind, the instruments, the method and divine grace (luck? fate?). Only the ignorant think they alone are responsible for any outcome.-Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 18, verses 13 to 16 (paraphrased).

This acceptance of uncertainty is the hallmark of mythologies that believe in rebirth. Here, the world is always changing and so the point is to observe it, rather than judge or control it. Western mythologies, in contrast, speak of a world that is either imperfect (Abrahamic mythology) or chaotic and unfair (Greek mythology). There is a yearning to change, to convert, to revolt, to make the world a better place. There is always a goal. Actions are cla.s.sified as good or bad, right or wrong, moral or amoral, ethical or unethical, depending on the goal.

Arjuna, as I do not bind myself to the fruit of my action, my actions do not entrap me.-Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 4, Verse 14 (paraphrased).

Certainty of Endings This criticality of a climax or goalpost is alien to Vedic thought.

Arjuna, those who yearn for pleasure, power and paradise, constantly have their eye on the fruits of their birth, their actions, their rites and rituals. They focus on the Vedas cosmetically. They don't see the meaning within. They never attain wisdom.-Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 2, verses 42 to 44 (paraphrased).

Hindu mythology sees destinations as artificial milestones. What is natural, however, is action. Every action has a reaction, immediate results and long-term repurcussions. Karma refers to both action and reaction. It is cause as well as consequence. It is stimulus as well as response.

Karma-bija and Karma-phala In nature, there is continuous transformation: spring gives way to summer that brings in the rain, then autumn and finally winter. All animals go through four phases of life: childhood, youth, maturity and old age. Cultures (sanskriti), too, go through multiple phases (yuga): Krita, Treta, Dvapara, Kali. The presence of Ram or Krishna does not impact the flow of events. Pralaya or dissolution of culture is as certain as the death of a living being. And just as nature renews itself every year with the rains, just as cultures go through many lifetimes (kalpa), renewing themselves after every collapse (pralaya), so are humans reborn after death.

Arjuna, that which is born will die and that which will die will be born. So it is pointless to cling and mourn. -Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 2, Verse 27 (paraphrased).

This idea is made explicit through stories. The Ramayana does not begin with the birth of Ram or end with his death. Before he was Ram, he was Parashurama at the end of the Krita yuga. After he was Ram, he will be Krishna at the end of the Dvapara yuga. These are various lifetimes of Vishnu, who otherwise reclines in Vaikuntha, located on the sh.o.r.eless ocean of milk, observing worlds rise and fall like waves of the sea.

But humans can imagine: we can imagine a world that is stable and controlled, all evidence in nature and culture notwithstanding. We can imagine attracting fortune and keeping misfortune at bay. And so we can cla.s.sify actions as good and bad. Actions that help others and us are good. Actions that do not help others or us are bad.

For example, Arjuna imagines the horror that can follow if he kills his family, people he is expected to protect. It will result in a world where no one is trustworthy, a world where no boundaries are valid, where no commitment is sacred, and where integrity has no value. So he concludes his action is paap: karma that will result in misfortune. He considers not fighting family as punya: karma that will result in fortune. But Krishna points out that it is difficult to distinguish between action that is meritorious and action that is not.

Arjuna, there is appropriate action, incorrect action and inaction, difficult to distinguish. The wise can spot action in inaction and inaction in action. The wise act without clinging to the results of action, are content with whatever is the outcome, and so are unburdened by merit or demerit.-Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 4, verses 17 to 22 (paraphrased).

Action of Various Ent.i.ties In the Ramayana, for example, Dashratha keeps his word to Kaikeyi and agrees to give her the two boons she is ent.i.tled to. Integrity is good. But the result is the exile of Ram. That is bad. A reaction may be good in the short term but not in the long term. In the Bhagvata Purana, Krishna kills Kansa, the dictator of Mathura. This is good. But Kansa's enraged father-in-law, Jarasandha, burns Mathura to the ground. This is not good. An apparently good action can have a bad reaction. In the Ramayana, Sita goes out of her way to feed a hermit and ends up getting kidnapped. Likewise, an apparently bad action can also have good results. In the Mahabharata, the burning of the Khandava-prastha forest, which kills many forest creatures, enables the building of the Pandava kingdom of Indra-prastha.

Karma The complexity of karma is demonstrated in the following Telugu folk tale based on the Mahabharata: a little girl was drinking milk from a pot when Karna's chariot rolled past. Startled, she dropped the pot. The pot broke and the earth soaked up the milk. The girl began to cry. Karna saw this, stopped the chariot and decided to get the milk back for the little girl. He took the moist earth in his hand and squeezed out the milk in the pot, much to the girl's astonishment and delight. Everyone praised the great warrior. Thus, Karna's action yielded an expected output. But the outcome was unpredictable. The earth was furious that Karna had squeezed milk out of her. She swore that one day she would take her revenge. So on the battlefield of Kuru-kshetra, she grabbed hold of Karna's chariot wheel, squeezing it as hard as he had squeezed her, forcing him to alight and pull the wheel free. And while he was thus distracted, with his back to the enemy, he was shot dead. His blood fell on the ground and the earth soaked it all up. Karna's action thus had two reactions, an immediate one and a subsequent one. The immediate one was perceivable. The subsequent one was not. The latter reaction created the circ.u.mstances of Karna's death.

Sequence of Cause and Consequence In the Hindu scheme of things, circ.u.mstances are not created accidentally, or by others, but by our own actions of the past. We can appreciate this by a.n.a.lysing the Ramayana. Who is responsible for Sita's abduction by Ravana? Should we blame her for taking a risk and feeding a hermit? Should we blame Lakshmana who cruelly cut the nose of Ravana's sister Surpanakha? Or should we blame Surpanakha who tried to kill Sita so that her husband, Ram, would be free to love other women? Should we blame Ram who refused to indulge Surpanakha's desires because he wanted to be faithful to his wife? Or should we blame Sita for accompanying Ram into the forest where rules of marriage have no meaning? Should we blame Ram's stepmother, Kaikeyi, for demanding his forest exile? Or should we blame Ram's father, Dashratha, for giving boons to Kaikeyi that the royal family was bound to uphold? Even if we identify the cause, can we control the action and determine future consequences? Maybe we can imagine control over our actions, but we have no control over other people's actions, hence the results.

Arjuna, you have control over your action alone, not the fruits of your action. So do not be drawn to expectation, or inaction.-Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 2, Verse 47 (paraphrased).

Those who believe in karma do not blame. They do not judge. They accept that humans live in a sea of consequences, over which there is limited control. So they accept every moment as it is supposed to be. They act without expectation. This is nishkama karma.

Arjuna, you can choose actions, not reactions. Do not choose action because of the reactions. Do not choose inaction either.-Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 2, Verse 27 (paraphrased).

I want to control your actions and reactions. You want to control my actions and reactions. We want to control the world around us, make it predictable. To act is karma. Karma yoga is when we act without seeking control over the outcome.

You and I can empathize If karma yoga is action without expectation, then what should the motivation of our action be? Plants and animals act in order to find food and security only for themselves and their young ones. Humans can also act to find food and security for others, even strangers. Can this be human motivation? To realize this potential is dharma. Dharma is the first word uttered in The Gita. It is often confused as righteousness. The conflict between dharma and adharma is a point raised by Arjuna in Chapter 1. Empathy is not about controlling others through rules. This is why Krishna continuously distinguishes between sva-dharma and para-dharma, appropriate conduct of the self and the other.

Dharma is popularly translated as 'righteousness', which involves following punya and shunning paap. It has also come to mean religion, which is essentially about rules that come from a supernatural or superhuman source. So much so that today verses from The Gita are often translated using the tone of a judge and saviour, similar to that in Western mythologies. It appeals to our yearning for a hero. So, verses 7 and 8 of Chapter 4 are typically translated as, 'Arjuna, in age after age, whenever humanity forgets the righteous way, and functions in unrighteous ways, I manifest to save the good and punish the bad, to restore order in the world.' Such a translation, full of moral outrage, makes no sense to one with a perspective of infinity, who subscribes to the idea of karma, and so acts without an eye on any particular outcome. So we need to revisit the traditional meanings of dharma.

Hero, Saviour and Avatar In Jainism, dharma refers to natural movement that stabilizes nature; adharma is artificial stillness that destabilizes nature. In Buddhism, dharma is the path that helps us accept the transitory nature of all things, including the self. In Hinduism, dharma means realizing our potential: changing ourselves into the best we theoretically can be. What is that?

Humans are the only living creatures who can expand their mind and see the world from another's point of view. This ability enables humans to empathize, to care for the other. To empathize is dharma. Failure to empathize is adharma. With this definition in mind, the above verse can be translated very differently: 'Arjuna, in age after age, whenever humanity forgets its potential and functions as it should not, I manifest to inspire those with faith and shake up those without faith, so that humanity never ever forgets what it is capable of.'-Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 4, verses 7 and 8 (paraphrased).

In any situation, plants and animals think only of themselves, their hunger and fear. At best they may think of the hunger and fear of their young ones, or that of their herd and pack. Dogs do think of their masters, but only their masters, no one else. They are driven by the instinct of self-preservation and self-propagation. They do not have the wherewithal to function in any other way. Humans, however, can sense other people's, even strangers', hunger and fear, and create resources to provide for and protect others. It is the one thing that makes humans special.

Role of Empathy in Action Plants and animals do not help others consciously. They cannot help, because they simply do not have the neurological wherewithal to do so: the enlarged neo-cortex that only humans have (we can imagine otherwise though, as we often do in fables or on anecdotal evidence). They do not expect help either. Humans can help and expect to be helped, which comes from the ability to imagine and respond to other people's suffering. Animals have no choice but to follow their instinct. Humans do have a choice. When we do exercise our choice, when we value other people's needs alongside our own, we are following dharma. When we stay focussed on our own needs at the cost of others', we are doing adharma.

Empathy In nature, plants and animals use their strength and size and cunning to survive. This is called 'matsya nyaya', literally 'fish justice', which means the same thing as 'jungle law' in English- might is right, survival of the fittest. But words like justice and law are human concepts that we impose on nature to make sense of it. Justice and law presuppose the existence of a judicial system of judges and lawyers; in nature, there is no such system. Forces and counter-forces within nature ensure self-regulation. Dominating the weak, consuming the weak, in order to survive, is the way of animals. For them, it is instinct, not aspiration. When humans display animal behaviour, such as domination and territoriality, it is adharma, as they are indulging the self.

In the Ramayana, when Hanuman is crossing the sea, Surasa, a sea monster, blocks his path. Hanuman begs her to let him go as he is on a mission. The sea monster does not understand. Realizing that the creature is unable to appreciate his situation and is blinded by hunger, Hanuman increases his size, forcing Surasa to open her mouth really wide. Hanuman then quickly reduces himself to the size of a fly, darts into Surasa's mouth and slips out before she can snap her wide jaws shut. In this story, Surasa is no villain for blocking Hanuman's path and Hanuman is no hero for outsmarting Surasa. In nature, there are only hungry predators and their food, the prey; villains and heroes are human perceptions.

Big Fish and Small Fish In nature, every creature has to fend for itself. There are no rules in the jungle. Rules exist only in human culture to restrain the strong and enable the weak. Ram submits to these cultural rules; Ravana does not. However, in the Mahabharata, despite rules, the way of the jungle thrives. In fact, rules are exploited to further domination and territoriality. At Kuru-kshetra, a hundred Kaurava brothers use the might of their eleven armies to twist rules and deny the five Pandava brothers, who have only seven armies, access to Indra-prastha, which is Pandava land and their livelihood. The Pandavas cannot afford to burn another Khandava-prastha, destroy more forests and ecosystems, to create another city simply to accommodate the Kauravas' greed. Besides, there are no guarantees that the Kauravas will not crave that new city too. Withdrawal would mean starvation for the Pandavas, and legitimization of the Kauravas' bullying. The Pandavas act according to dharma-they have no choice but to fight for their survival, as no one empathizes with them, no one even accepts their offer of compromise. The Kauravas, though, practise adharma as they could have empathized, shared, compromised and prevented the war, but they choose not to.

Matysa-nyaya in Kuru-kshetra The Gita acknowledges the diversity and dynamism of the world. Everyone is born with a different capability (varna): some advise society (Brahmins), some protect society (Kshatriyas), some feed society (Vaishyas) and some serve society (Shudras). Everyone has to go through different stages of life (ashrama): a student (brahmacharya), a householder (grihastha), a retired person (vanaprastha) and a hermit (sanyasa). The Puranas tell us that society is constantly changing; every culture goes through four phases (yuga) moving from innocence (Krita) to maturity (Treta) to struggle (Dvapara) to decay (Kali). How does one uphold dharma in different contexts?

Typically people come up with rules-traditions (riti) and laws (niti), and equate them with dharma. Compliance then becomes dharma and non-compliance adharma. But things are not so simple. What matters more than action is intent, which is not tangible, hence rather invisible.

Diversity and Dynamism Rules vary with context. In the Ramayana, which takes place in Treta yuga, Vishnu is Ram, eldest son of a royal family. In the Mahabharata, which takes place in Dvapara yuga, Vishnu is Krishna, youngest son of a n.o.ble family, who is raised by cowherds but who performs as a charioteer. They are expected to behave differently. Ram is obligated to follow the rules of the family, clan and kingdom, and uphold family honour. Krishna is under no such obligation. This is why Krishna tells Arjuna to focus on dharma in his context (sva-dharma) rather than dharma in another's context (para-dharma).

Arjuna, better to do what you have been asked to do imperfectly than try to do perfectly what others have been asked to. All work has inadequacies; even fire is enveloped by smoke.-Bhagavad Gita: Chapter 18, verses 47 and 48 (paraphrased).

In the Ramayana Ram upholds rules, while Ravana breaks them. In the Mahabharata Duryodhana upholds rules, while Krishna breaks them. As eldest sons of their respective clans, Ram and Duryodhana are obliged to uphold rules. Ravana, son of a Brahmin, and Krishna, raised by cowherds, are under no such obligations. Dharma, however, is upheld only by Ram and Krishna, not Ravana and Duryodhana. Ram is constantly concerned about his city Ayodhya's welfare, while Ravana does not care if his Lanka burns. Krishna cares for the Pandavas, who happen to be the children of his aunt, but the Kauravas do not care for the Pandavas, who happen to be the children of their uncle. Dharma thus has nothing to with rules or obligations. It has to do with intent and caring for the other, be it your kingdom or your family.

Ravana argues his case pa.s.sionately, as do those who fight on the Kaurava side, from Bhisma to Drona, Karna and Shalya. They justify their actions on grounds of justice, fairness, legitimacy, duty, loyalty, fidelity and commitment. None of them sees the other (para); they are too blinded by the self (aham). Logic serves as a lawyer to defend their stance.

But while Ravana and Duryodhana judge, Ram and Krishna never do so. They never complain or justify. Ram does not justify the mutilation of Surpankha (karma-bija) and silently accepts the end of his happiness that follows (karma-phala), for after that event Sita is kidnapped, and even after her rescue, the two are separated thanks to gossip. Krishna does not resist when the killing of the Kauravas (karma-bija) causes their mother Gandhari to blame and curse Krishna and his family (karma-phala).