A challenge to the modern scientific view of the self.

[Belinda]

I would have thought of dharma more as doing your duty or being true to your nature, playing your role in the drama that is creation. Not as predestination or determination so much as freely accepting the task you have been assigned?

I like this because it aligns dharma with process and with existence before essence. It also fits with what I understand Heidegger to be saying regarding facticity or thrownness.

My earlier remarks about Jesus and duty towards god before duty towards kinsmen I believe should have included that the Gospels are loaded with Greek Platonic influences and inserts, and it's difficult to know what the historical Jesus actually said.

[prothero]

My earlier remarks about Jesus and duty towards god before duty towards kinsmen I believe should have included that the Gospels are loaded with Greek Platonic influences and inserts, and it's difficult to know what the historical Jesus actually said.

I think possibly from a Hindu point of view both Jesus and Krishna are following dharma (doing their duty, following their nature, and playing their cosmic role). Of course, their roles are quite different those of a warrior versus a religious prophet or sage. Being true to dharma is (in both cases) more important than the approval of your kinsmen, for following the cosmic law takes precedence
.
True, the interpretation of the Bible is colored (especially Christian medieval theology) by Greek philosophical influence (particularly Aristotle (Aquinas) and Plato (Augustine)). The gospels themselves were originally written in Greek many years after events and generally filled with cultural references which are easily missed by moderns. As for what Jesus may or may not have actually said you might be interested in the Jesus Seminar (a group of scholars with the same concerns).

The Christian God is frequently referred to as eternal, changeless, perfection, immutable. This stems back to Greek notions of perfection and the precedence of “being” (transcendence) over “becoming” (immanence) in much of Greek Philosophy. At the same time God in scripture is portrayed as interactive, playing an active role in history and sometimes subject to fits of anger, revenge, argument and changes of mind, far from the transcendent changeless, perfection vision. You find the same themes about Brahma in Hinduism as both active in the world and beyond the world although Hinduism is somewhat better at directly addressing and acknowledging these conundrums and placing them beyond human reason or conception.

All of this is rather a long way from the modern scientific view of the “self”, which I regard as a construct of mind and memory.

[sthitapragya]

I'll have to tear up my previous draft and go back to basic planning, and this is going to take me a long time especially since I have set myself the task also of trying to understand Heidegger, and if possible sythesise somehting that makes sense. I am wondering if dharma is the same as facticity or 'thrownness'. Or if dharma is more like Zeus who raped Leda ;one picture of how the gods control us. Is dharma like fate manipulating the strings of puppets?

Dharma is simply following through on any commitment. It has wider implications than honour. The commitment may be express or implied, derived by birth or imposed upon one by circumstances. To follow dharma you might have to abandon your ethics and morals too under extreme circumstances. I am trying my best to explain in a few words a concept that is very complex and cultural. So don't take what I have written above as the final definition of dharma. I think the best way I can explain the concept is for you to keep asking questions.

So actually understanding of dharma is liberating. You might even go against the dictates of Gods if your dharma demands it because dharma has nothing to do with your personal desires and needs.

[Greta]

I'll have to tear up my previous draft and go back to basic planning, and this is going to take me a long time especially since I have set myself the task also of trying to understand Heidegger, and if possible sythesise somehting that makes sense. I am wondering if dharma is the same as facticity or 'thrownness'. Or if dharma is more like Zeus who raped Leda ;one picture of how the gods control us. Is dharma like fate manipulating the strings of puppets?

Dharma is simply following through on any commitment. It has wider implications than honour. The commitment may be express or implied, derived by birth or imposed upon one by circumstances. To follow dharma you might have to abandon your ethics and morals too under extreme circumstances. I am trying my best to explain in a few words a concept that is very complex and cultural. So don't take what I have written above as the final definition of dharma. I think the best way I can explain the concept is for you to keep asking questions.

So actually understanding of dharma is liberating. You might even go against the dictates of Gods if your dharma demands it because dharma has nothing to do with your personal desires and needs.

From your description it would seem that the concept of dharma is an observation about how life drives us in certain directions, and the idea would seem to encourage people to trust their intuition. So, when life thrusts you in a certain direction you can "take the hint" or prevaricate and rationalise. Perhaps an analogy would be observing that larger currents of life push us in certain directions, and the pushes we receive - be they pre- or post-natal - in a sense define who we are and what we "should" do with life ... ?

[sthitapragya]

From your description it would seem that the concept of dharma is an observation about how life drives us in certain directions, and the idea would seem to encourage people to trust their intuition. So, when life thrusts you in a certain direction you can "take the hint" or prevaricate and rationalise. Perhaps an analogy would be observing that larger currents of life push us in certain directions, and the pushes we receive - be they pre- or post-natal - in a sense define who we are and what we "should" do with life ... ?

Not really because dharma is not something that is exercised in everyday life. Well, it is exercised in everyday life too, because even ethics and morals are derived from dharma in a sort of way. Everyday activities involve karma( not in the sense of consequences in an afterlife) which again is derived from dharma. Dharma is derived from yajna or yagna ( intense introspection and relentless questioning of the mind not to be confused with the rituals performed to appease some God).Intuition plays no part in Dharma.

[Belinda]

Sthitapragya wrote:

Dharma is simply following through on any commitment. It has wider implications than honour. The commitment may be express or implied, derived by birth or imposed upon one by circumstances. To follow dharma you might have to abandon your ethics and morals too under extreme circumstances. I am trying my best to explain in a few words a concept that is very complex and cultural. So don't take what I have written above as the final definition of dharma. I think the best way I can explain the concept is for you to keep asking questions.

So actually understanding of dharma is liberating. You might even go against the dictates of Gods if your dharma demands it because dharma has nothing to do with your personal desires and needs.

I gladly accept your invitation, Sthitapragya. I would think in view of what you write above that some individuals' dharmas move faster than others' dharmas. This would be because "extreme circumstances" might be acute learning experiences in which cases learners' ethics and morals might well change very basically and rapidly.

Something about gods which might be worth keeping in mind is that the Greek pantheon was amoral, had nothing to do with morality or ethics and had everything to do with deterministic facticity. I wonder if dharma includes determinstic facticity but is more than that, is also is how everybody's dharma is unique to that person and must be pursued by that individual person in their own unique way. If so, the result would be that one individual who experiences the same facts as another person doesn't respond to circumstances in the same way as that other person.

[sthitapragya]

I gladly accept your invitation, Sthitapragya. I would think in view of what you write above that some individuals' dharmas move faster than others' dharmas. This would be because "extreme circumstances" might be acute learning experiences in which cases learners' ethics and morals might well change very basically and rapidly.

Something about gods which might be worth keeping in mind is that the Greek pantheon was amoral, had nothing to do with morality or ethics and had everything to do with deterministic facticity. I wonder if dharma includes determinstic facticity but is more than that, is also is how everybody's dharma is unique to that person and must be pursued by that individual person in their own unique way. If so, the result would be that one individual who experiences the same facts as another person doesn't respond to circumstances in the same way as that other person.

Well, I don't know what deterministic facticity means so I cannot comment on that, , but since dharma is defined by so many factors, each individual has his unique dharma and dharma which is shared by a group and maybe other groups too. But dharma is not something that comes as a simple response. Dharma is something that is understood only through yajna like I said before. So not every response to a circumstance is dharma, specially if it is not thought through and done impulsively. That is just human behaviour.

[Belinda]

Sthitapragja , here is what I wrote about "deterministic facticity":

I wonder if dharma includes deterministic facticity but is more than that, is also is how everybody's dharma is unique to that person and must be pursued by that individual person in their own unique way.

In other words , for instance, one individual might chance to be born with no hands (i.e. her deterministic facticity) and, if she pursues her dharma, she concentrates her energies upon doing something else that she can do, for instance singing, or writing with a brush held between her teeth, or becoming learned and teaching others. The person who is not pursuing their unique dharma would complain about their unavoidable circumstances (i.e. their deterministic facticity what ever that may be, and we each have some unavoidable facts in our lives) , or might struggle half-heartedly or grudgingly.

Do those examples illustrate dharma?

[sthitapragya]

Sthitapragja , here is what I wrote about "deterministic facticity":

I wonder if dharma includes deterministic facticity but is more than that, is also is how everybody's dharma is unique to that person and must be pursued by that individual person in their own unique way.

In other words , for instance, one individual might chance to be born with no hands (i.e. her deterministic facticity) and, if she pursues her dharma, she concentrates her energies upon doing something else that she can do, for instance singing, or writing with a brush held between her teeth, or becoming learned and teaching others. The person who is not pursuing their unique dharma would complain about their unavoidable circumstances (i.e. their deterministic facticity what ever that may be, and we each have some unavoidable facts in our lives) , or might struggle half-heartedly or grudgingly.

Do those examples illustrate dharma?

Yes and no. You seem to be understanding dharma as tied to achievement. It is not. What the girl does with her inabilities is more about her tenacity, grit and courage which are personal. Dharma has nothing to with personal desires and needs. Dharma comes into play only in situations which put one to a test. You could say that both girls are following their dharma by staying alive if and only if they did it for others. The fact that one chooses to achieve something and the other chooses to complain are personal issues and have nothing to do with dharma.

What you are describing is Karma. Not in the sense of cause and consequences which the whole world thinks karma means but as defined in the Gita.

[sthitapragya]

I did a lot of soul searching to come up with an example of Hindu dharma which applies to everyone. It is the most basic of all dharmas. According to hinduism, one's basic dharma is to focus on education and remain single till you are 25. This is the age for learning how to succeed in life. from 25 to 50, one is supposed to have a family and fulfill your duty towards procreation and propagation of the species as well as to enjoy the fruit of your learning. This is the grihastashram stage of life. from 50 to 75, one is suppose to move to the forest and introspect. One might interact with loved ones who come to visit them in the forest but leaving the forest to meet others is not done. The idea is to get used to the idea of living alone. This is the vanprasthashram. From 75 to 100, one is supposed to leave the abode and move deep into the jungle or hills and become totally isolated, giving oneself up to introspection, unlearn everything they learned about material life and instead learn about the self, letting the younger generations live their lives according to their own judgement and no interference from you.

However, one is allowed to give up the 2nd stage of family life and move to the 3rd and 4th stage of life, at any time.

No one follows this anymore and very few know about it, ironically. But this is the basic dharma of all Hindus.

[Belinda]

Sthitapragya wrote:

Dharma is simply following through on any commitment. It has wider implications than honour. The commitment may be express or implied, derived by birth or imposed upon one by circumstances. To follow dharma you might have to abandon your ethics and morals too under extreme circumstances.

Prothero wrote:

------the modern scientific view of the "self" which I regard as a construct of mind and memory

I think about the advice of Krishna to Arjuna before the battle, that Arjuna is a soldier and that his decision must therefore include that he is first and foremost a soldier i.e. he's a soldier because his mind and memory are so constituted and are what his self is. I wonder if this synthesizes Prothero's modern scientific view of self, and what Sthitapragya says about dharma.

Add to the above that some person was in acute danger and anxiety as was Arjuna before the battle and we have a speeded-up learning situation in which the self might more establish the importance of its memories or it might change its tactics and do something very different from its habit, or both.

Where I am personally coming from is that I just finished reading a novel about the varieties of French Resistance and the Nazi occupation of France, and the nature of Nazism .

[sthitapragya]

Where I am personally coming from is that I just finished reading a novel about the varieties of French Resistance and the Nazi occupation of France, and the nature of Nazism .

Nazism itself has no dharmic root if that is what you are asking. A warrior's dharma is to do battle with other warriors. It is not to kill. Killing is a consequence of battle. A warriors dharma is also to protect civilians. Nazism was a genocide perpetrated on civilians. There was nothing dharmic about it. In fact, it is a classic example of adharma.

[Belinda]

Sthitapragya, it's not what I'm asking. I'm asking the old question "how does one live a good life? "And one issue from that question is " does the scientific view of the self tend towards living a good life?"

I had thought that the idea of dharma might be a clue, but it seems that dharma as you explain dharma is nothing more than conformity with old-established social customs. The soldier should rebel against soldierly tradition if the tradition is bad in any given set of circumstances. Likewise the oppressed peasant should rebel against tradition when social mobility becomes possible. In the Indian caste system the lowest caste person should comply with the tradition only if there is no possibility of his achieving a happier life for himself and his family.

[sthitapragya]

Sthitapragya, it's not what I'm asking. I'm asking the old question "how does one live a good life? "And one issue from that question is " does the scientific view of the self tend towards living a good life?"

I had thought that the idea of dharma might be a clue, but it seems that dharma as you explain dharma is nothing more than conformity with old-established social customs. The soldier should rebel against soldierly tradition if the tradition is bad in any given set of circumstances. Likewise the oppressed peasant should rebel against tradition when social mobility becomes possible. In the Indian caste system the lowest caste person should comply with the tradition only if there is no possibility of his achieving a happier life for himself and his family.

I don't think there is any scientific view of the self as distinct from the brain and body as such.

Dharma alone cannot show you how to live a good life. Dharma and karma and yajna together do. Again karma not in the sense of cause and consequences but karma in the sense of action and deeds and yajna in the sense of introspection.

The Hindu view is that mental conflict arises when the mind starts to identify with the body instead of the atman. It is only by recognizing that the atman is your true self that one can be free of emotional distress and find peace and happiness. I don't agree with this though, as I have always believed that happiness is a choice.

As far as I am concerned the only way to live a good life is to enjoy good situations to the fullest, work hard and smart to change the unwanted situations that you can, and simply accept and adapt to the unwanted situations that you cannot change. The most important one here is the acceptance of an unwanted situation. If one can mentally get there, life completely changes.

And you still have understood wrong. Dharma has nothing to do with old established social customs. Dharma is exactly what you suggested in the second paragraph. Tolerance of atrocities or injustice is an act of adharma not dharma. The lowest caste person should become a soldier if necessary and then follow the dharma of a soldier if the circumstances arise. By the way, there is no dharma of caste as such. Casteism is a political creation and has nothing to do with dharma. Dharma simply says you are what you do. If your actions are of a brahmin, you are a brahmin. If they are of a kshatriya, you are a kshatriya. The caste system came into being in the newer texts of Hinduism at a much later stage.

[Belinda]

Sthitapragya, you wrote:

A

ccording to hinduism, one's basic dharma is to focus on education and remain single till you are 25. This is the age for learning how to succeed in life. from 25 to 50, one is supposed to have a family and fulfill your duty towards procreation and propagation of the species as well as to enjoy the fruit of your learning. This is the grihastashram stage of life. from 50 to 75, one is suppose to move to the forest and introspect. One might interact with loved ones who come to visit them in the forest but leaving the forest to meet others is not done. The idea is to get used to the idea of living alone. This is the vanprasthashram. From 75 to 100, one is supposed to leave the abode and move deep into the jungle or hills and become totally isolated, giving oneself up to introspection, unlearn everything they learned about material life and instead learn about the self, letting the younger generations live their lives according to their own judgement and no interference from you.

However, one is allowed to give up the 2nd stage of family life and move to the 3rd and 4th stage of life, at any time.

No one follows this anymore and very few know about it, ironically. But this is the basic dharma of all Hindus.

This is a description and positive evaluation of old-established social customs, or what social anthropologists call ascribed status. Please consider the youth aged under 25 years who is better educated, more compassionate, less bigoted, and has wider experience of ways of life than some older person who lacks all of those . This hypothetical youth has achieved a status to the effect that she is better able to accomplish what you describe as "to have a family and fulfill your duty towards procreation and propagation of the species as well as to enjoy the fruit of your learning" than many a 25-50 year old who is mentally or morally immature.

True, human personalities are generally believed to progress through maturation stages which coincide with chronological ages, but this is not sufficient justification for the firm rulings such as you describe above as basic dharma.When a soldier is following his dharma if he refuses to do what he considers to be a wrong action isn't this a departure from the discipline that defines a soldier? If every soldier acted on his own moral authority the army would collapse. Similarly if every individual acted according to their own rules the order in society would collapse. So what I ask you is where is dharma on a spectrum between ordinary human kindness and conforming with authority?

If harmonising with the order of nature is dharma, and this is certainly conducive to the continuation of life, how can we know what the order of nature is? Hindu philosophy and religion is man-made like all other philosophies and religions and therefore has no natural authority. If the self is to be defined as naturally autonomous then it cannot be subjected to any preconceived ideas about maturation stages or preconceptions that may be called dharma.If the self is to be defined as emergent from the formative influences of the culture of belief from which the self grew then the self , and selves, are cultural constructs.

So I ask you Sthitapragya, is a self a cultural construct or does the self arrive with a human being at a certain stage of maturation even in the hypothetical absence of all human cultural influence? Your description of basic dharma is not quite clear as to which it is.


I am happy to stand corrected about the Indian caste system.