Dear Editor,
Instead of addressing the evidence I presented that Hindu beliefs cannot be a motivation for corruption, Professor Kean Gibson not only digresses to something totally different, the problem of inequality ` All sacred texts have an underbelly of violence and greed’ (SN 6/28/2019), but in a show of some disdain, assumes the right to tell me, as an insider and practitioner, that my position on Hinduism is marginal while imposing her own characterization as central.
Defining Hindus, the quintessential other she is seeking to construct, describing their reality, telling them who and what they are as if they are incapable of self-reflection and self-understanding, is an act that is as arrogant as it is violent, and there is no way Professor Gibson can do this without imposing her own ethnocentric framework, the framework of colour and race. That she does so in our racially polarized society is dark and ominous, to say the least.
In her most recent letter, she equates what she calls the “colour-coded caste system” or the “moral order” with dharma, and proceeds to tell us, “here-in lies the problem for Guyana.” Since she has determined that, “without dharma there is no Hinduism,” what she is saying in effect is, the problem for Guyana is Hinduism.
The word dharma is derived from the verbal root dhri, to support, maintain, preserve etc., with the Hindi derivative dharti or earth, as the supporter of all, beautifully capturing this purport. The concept of dharma goes back to the Vedas themselves, and over the thousands of years has accumulated a complex and wide range of meanings to include duty, justice, right, morality, virtue, ethics, steadfast decree, ordnance, law, etc. An important dimension of dharma is the duties, responsibilities and obligations of individuals in whatever stage of life they may be, however menial or exalted. When these duties and responsibilities are faithfully executed, the welfare of society is ensured. This is a key teaching of the Bhagavad Gita.
Further, ancient Hindu law givers have pointed out that dharma has two basic aspects, the contextual and the universal. Contextually, the practice of dharma is conditioned by time and place, with the socio-historical and cultural environment determining the appropriate conduct or behaviour of the individual. Thus, while the text provides a guideline, the final arbiter is the context. This means that Hindus do not have to be slavishly bound to the written word.
The other aspect of dharma is the universal dharma, which is not bound by the socio-historical and cultural context and is attested to by thousands of verses from Sanskrit literature, especially the Mahabharata. A simple formulation from one of the great law books speaks of the marks of dharma as fortitude, forgiveness, restraint in conduct, not stealing, inner and outward purity, control of the senses, truth, absence of anger, not hurting etc.
These values determine relationships in the wider society. Thus, we are told who has in his heart the well-being of others and surrenders his acts, thought and speech for the good of others truly knows dharma. To be free from the disorder of violence and offer beings freedom from fear is dharma, and with remarkable eloquence the Mahabharata defines truth as that which secures the utmost good of all. Finally, the entire Hindu tradition is unanimous about one great truth: ahimsa paramo dharma – not-hurting is the greatest dharma. There is no way that this understanding can escape anyone with an open mind, and failure to recognize and present as such can only mean such a person choosing to ignore and deliberately suppress it.
Therefore, to conflate any social system with the complexity of dharma constitutes a major distortion. But worse, to have pages after pages of Hindu scriptures screaming at any reader that non-hurting in thought, speech and action is the greatest dharma and yet having someone contriving to equate it with violence cannot even pretend to be scholarship.
Yours faithfully,
Swami Aksharananda
