Posted on: 26 Sep 2020
[Shri Anil asked: In the Quran, Prophet Muhammad allowed men to marry up to four women in those particular times and circumstances. Whereas, regarding divorce, Jesus said: “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” After analyzing these two statements, it can be seen that the way of life (dharma or justice) depends on several factors and in one situation, some action is dharma and in another situation, the same action is adharma. If that is the case, how to decide what is dharma and what is adharma? Can we say that dharma is a time-dependent variable? Likewise, the scriptures of western religions do not condemn the non-vegetarian food habit. Based on this, can we say that for westerners, the non-vegetarian habit is dharma, while for Indians, it is adharma?]
Swami replied: The word dharma has two meanings: (1) Dharma can mean the natural property or the natural instinct to do some actions, whether it is justified or not and (2) Dharma can also mean justice as established by God in the divine constitution and which is also accepted by various righteous scholars in the world. Burning something is the dharma of fire. Here dharma means the natural property of fire, as per the first meaning. Not killing any zoological living being (animal) is dharma. Here dharma means justice, as per the second meaning. This second meaning is more important than the first meaning. A non-vegetarian person may say that eating non-vegetarian food is his natural habit and hence is dharma, since he developed the habit from childhood, due to the influence of the elders around him. Thus, this first meaning can also apply to a natural quality developed by a soul due to the influence of the surrounding atmosphere including the elders. But this is not a standard quality at the ultimate divine level of dharma.
As per the second meaning, we know that non-vegetarian food involves killing a zoological living being like a bird or an animal. This is done when plenty of alternative vegetarian food is available and that vegetarian food also contains the same basic constituents like carbohydrates, proteins, minerals, vitamins etc. The plant is also a living being, but it is a botanical living being. It only has a respiratory mechanism and lacks a brain and the nervous system which produce awareness in zoological living beings. An organism experiences pain only when it possesses awareness. Hence killing a zoological living being is a sin. There can at least be some justification in killing a zoological living being that harms us. But killing harmless zoological living beings just for the sake of food, when God has already arranged for plenty of vegetarian food, is not justified at all. The Veda clearly says that food comes from plants alone (Oṣadhībhyo'nnam). Zoological living beings live on this food produced by plants and so, awareness is said to be produced from this plant-based food (Annāt puruṣaḥ). Puruṣa means the body in which awareness exists, pervading all over the body through nerves. The Veda did not say that food can also be obtained from zoological living beings. This means that God has decided that awareness does not exist in plants.
It is correct to say that one action becomes dharma in one context and the same action becomes adharma in another context. The exhibition of anger towards soft-natured zoological living beings is adharma, whereas, the same anger exhibited towards cruel zoological living beings is dharma. Hence, anger and violence are not dharma or adharma, by themselves. The context of the situation decides whether a quality is dharma or adharma. The example given by you is the case of the adultery of a married woman. Adultery by a man or a woman is injustice or sin. But if there are justified reasons, remarriage is recommended and there also, adultery is a sin. Even for women, remarriage is recommended in five situations: (1) If the husband has died, (2) If the husband has taken sainthood, (3) If the husband is impotent, (4) If the husband is lost for a long time and there is no hope of his return and (5) If the husband is spoiled by vices (Mṛte pravrajite klībe, naṣṭe ca patite patau, pañcatsvāpatsu nārīṇāṃ, patiranyo vidhīyate). Such remarriage is recommended only in the case of women who aspire for sex and not women who have developed detachment from sex due to their devotion to God. Therefore, justice and injustice are decided through sharp analysis. Correct logic is required to establish what is justice in any situation.
Keywords:
| Shri Datta Swami | Do justice and injustice depend on the situation? | Oshadebhyo nnam Annaat purushah Mrute Pravrajite Kliibe, Nashte cha patite patau panchasvaapatsu naariinaam patiranyo vidhiiyate