In one of the previous discussion, opinions were exchanged over the definitions of various terms like Dharma, Dharmashastra etc. In fact, we observe that discussions around various aspects of India and Hindu Dharma revolve round this kind of discussions.
To resolve some of these topics once and for all, a separate discussion on the fundamental concepts is found necessary. In this blog, we would like to address the following concepts.
1. Are truth, Justice, equality relative? Or absolute?
2. Is religion and Dharma same? Or different?
3. Is religion/Dharma one? Or many
4. Are all religions same? Are the eseence of their teaching same?
5. What are Dharma Shasta’s? Could we consider Quran, Bible, Manusmrithi as Dharmashastras?
6. Could/should we change Dharmashastras over time?
7. Could we change Vedas? In accordance with our times?
8. If Varna is birth based, is it impossible to justify?
9. Is it not possible to prove that Hinduism as a just system with Varnashrama as its integral part?
Please note that this discussion will focus on fundamental concepts equipping us to resolve more complicated socio-political problems of the day.
Religion and Dharma are not same. Dharma is only one. There could be many religions. Islam, Christianity are all religions. It is wrong to consider them as Dharma. There is no equivalent word for Dharma in English.
ReplyDelete@Zephyr:
ReplyDeleteWhat is religion?
If there is no equivalent for Dharma in English, then what dharma means?
Thanks Zephyr for kicking off the discussion.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Religion and Dharma are not the same. Religion is connected with God (a divine entity) and connected with religious conduct, while Dharma is associated individual or social conduct. As culture and religion are closely knitted concepts, so are Dharma and Religion. It is sometimes hard to draw lines between these.
Yes, in one sense Dharma is only one when we define Dharma as that pertains to action through one's nature or position. For example, it is tree's Dharma to give air, water's Dharma to quench thirst, man's Dharma is to help others and self to elevate to higher levels. But again, each aspect of creation has an innate Dharma that it abides by. All other created aspects follow their Dharmas and Karmas without fail, without amiss, but given the complexity of human existence it gets challenging to define and work with this concept.
Now, when we look at Dharma from the perspective of a social order, we have the Varnasharama Dharma, where we have social order by one's nature and work. Each with a Dharma prescribed. We have been having discussions on this on the other thread and hope to continue it here too.
When we look at Dharma from psycho-social perspective, i.e. Dharma as that pertains to one's nature or one's way of life or guidlines or prescribed (and proscribed) duties for a communal living, then we can view dharma from multiple perspectives - swadharma, jaatidharma, kuladharma, saamajika dharma, and sanatana dharma. Each of the above encapsulates certain aspects of Dharma previously mentioned. It is at the level of saamaajika and jaati dharmas that Religion and Dharma get entangled because religious texts or "holy scriptures" simultaneously talk about spirituality, religion, and social or cultural aspects. In the case of "Hinduism" the demarkation is beautiful and distinctive unlike other religions (particularly the Abhramanic ones).
This is my menial understanding. Hope this fuels some discussions.
@GodCon:
ReplyDeleteYou said:
"For example, it is tree's Dharma to give air, water's Dharma to quench thirst, man's Dharma is to help others and self to elevate to higher levels. But again, each aspect of creation has an innate Dharma that it abides by. All other created aspects follow their Dharmas and Karmas without fail..."
If giving air is Tree's Dharma, then what is its Karma?
The definition of Dharma and Karma looks to be the same by your explaination...
Please explain...
@Student :)
ReplyDeleteDharma can be seen as "potential", innate nature of something. Karma is action based on that potential. The distinction is probably clear when you look at a human, who can choose to act based on his intellectual evolution :) But, again as Krishna says in Bhagawad Gita "karyate hi avasam karma sarva prakritijair guNaih" (3.5), i.e. One is forced to act "helplessly" according to his/her prakriti, i.e. qualities acquired from the modes of material nature. Dharma is based on one's guna, as we have discussed before, and that guna dictates what one is supposed to do and what one does. But, again, given the complexity of the human existence this gets pretty confusing and interesting unlike other created beings.
So, there is potential and there is action, which go hand in hand but not always :) Here is one of my "Crude Example"s: I want to jog everyday. If I do then there is no inconsistency, My thoughts and action match. But when I don't I can see the difference between thought and action. Similarly, Dharma and Karma. Now, please do not take the example for scrutinization as my good friend Aralagada always did :) ;) :P It is meant to be a "crude example" let it be :D ;)
ha a ha ha... good one GodCon... felt nice to hear from you that I am your good friend. Thank you...
ReplyDeleteI suspect that this discussion would be a long drawn affair because we have taken up discussing fundamentals.
ReplyDeleteTo make it tractable and derive concrete results, we need to be
1. Brief
2. Precise
3. Clear
It would also be better if we could address one issue(theme)/ post. Please note that these suggestions are just guidelines. The opinions that would be expressed during the course of discussion will not be moderated - in accordance with the policy of media.syndicate.
@GodCon:
ReplyDeleteI hope I am not funny in asking this question.:)
If based on Dharma - potential, we do karma. Then where does this Dharma reside/exist.
Do Dharma exist/reside in Karma?
Dharma has many (facets) meanings - Nature (Example: burning is the nature of Fire) is one of them. "That which sustains" is Dharma. Dharma is the "The right path in a given context". Righteous duty or any virtuous path. The principle that orders the universe or the conduct in alignment with such a principle.
ReplyDeleteA religion is
ReplyDelete-A framework intended to align to Dharma
-An institution to move towards the divine power
-A set of rituals, customs, beliefs covering some of the philosophical / Dharmic concepts
Hi,
ReplyDeleteThere is a concept of free-will.
The law prescribed for the execution of the free-will is dharma.
The effect of the free-will is karma.
As we tend to adhere to dharma we lessen the karma.
All I know about Dharama is
ReplyDeletekatam kaarana vastu astitvam,
tatha kaarana nirupeeNa dharmam.
The very reason for the existence of substance is its dharma.
Example: (Crude as GodCon says) : The reason of the existence of a cup is to hold the liquid poured in it. That itself is cup's dharma
Defination of Good:
katam karma drishayati tatva,
tatha karma sat guNaHa
The action which shows us the truth is Good.
@Arlagada:
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean by existence of substance?
And what is that substance? Can you provide some examples?
@Gende Timma, GodCon:
How do we lessen Karma, by adhering to Dharma?
Because adhering/not adhering to Dharma is also a Karma.
@SampradayaVidya:
ReplyDeleteCan you please elaborate on:
That which sustains is Dharma?
What is "that"?
There is no special meaning to THAT. You can read it as "Dharma is that which sustains" (Dharma is the sustaining principle)
ReplyDelete-Sampradayavida (not SampradayaVidya)
Religion is also known as 'mata' (view point). Religion is a view point about ultimate truth. A prescription of the path towards the truth (relative / absolute).
ReplyDeleteA religion could be true or false. It could be partially true. A religion could be suitable for a particular target audience.
@Student
ReplyDelete"Because adhering/not adhering to Dharma is also a Karma."
If that is your view on Karma that is wrong.
As i said the RESULT of our action(free-will) is karma and not the action itself
@Student
ReplyDeleteLooks like my comment is prone to more doubts. So here is the clarification
1)Action(free-will) results in karma.
2)In-order to lessen the karma we execute the free-will as to negate the karma i.e the actions(free-will) should adhere to dharma
sorry if i confused you
Karma is nothing but action. That is all the definition.
ReplyDeleteEact action has an effect. That is very well understood. It could have good effect or bad effect. Telling this in the other way, a performer can choose between two actions (simplifying) one with good effect and one with bad effect. The choice is coming from free will.
The Karma with bad effect (let us call it bad karma) and the Karma with good effect (let us call it good karma) is choosen by the performer of the Karma.
The good karma is aligned with the Dharma. Or Dharma directs the person to perform Good karma.
@Student asked "Then where does this Dharma reside/exist. Do Dharma exist/reside in Karma?"
ReplyDeleteDharma exists in one's nature, one's natural state, one's state, one's position, one's disposition, one's consciousness. Karma can be an action in that state (Dharmic) or outside that state (Adharmic). So, how can Dharma reside in Karma?
Dharma is not a unidimensional, unilateral aspect from the Human perspective, unlike it is in other forms of life (or even lifeless ones; Aralagada has also given some examples from this perspective).
Swadharma is rooted in one's natural state or guna, where one's degree of consciouness operates. Jaati Dharma from the perspective of one's birth in a particular family or system, where religious karmas and such prescribed duties (karmas) exist. Kula Dharma from the perspective of one's community. Samajika Dharma from the social perspective (an extended view of kula dharma), where marriage, kids, social work, charity etc come.
A human has to perform specific "Karmas" according to the different levels that he interacts with. So, Dharma exists at various levels, within and without.
Dharma takes a greater meaning when it is associated with "Sanatana Dharma", which we can discuss slightly lightly.
The effects of actions is of two kind.
ReplyDelete1. External
2. Internal
The effects of action on the surronding of the performer of the action are termed external.
The effects of an action on the nature of the performer are called as internal.
The nature of the performer of an action is determined by what are called Gunas. Gunas are the basic qualities of nature. There are three primary qualities existing in the universe—sattva, rajas, and tamas. The nature of the performer of the action is composed of varied proportions of three Gunas. Gunas influences the mind and the body. The food consumed will have an effect on the Gunas.
When we perform an actions (good/bad), its effect (good/bad) will be there on the surroundings. Depending on the effect the performer will acquire merit/demerit(punya/paapa). Simultaneouly, his/her inner nature will be influenced (strengthened / weakened).
In summary, Actions will have an effect on Gunas and Gunas will influence the actions of a performer.
@Zephyr
ReplyDeleteKarma is nothing but action. That is all the definition.
Karma cannot be action. If it is then there is no meaning for free-will.
Karma according to me is the result of the action.
Good action leads to merit(good karma)
Bad action leads to demerit(bad karma)
Dharma directs the person to perform Good action which leads to good karma
Correct me if i am wrong
See the definition of the word in a sanskrit dictionary
ReplyDeletekarman: n. action, work, deed; function, business; rite; effect; direct object of an action; fate (result of an act done in a former birth)
@Gende Timma,
Looks like you have some interesting argument.
If Karma is action, Why do you say that there is no meaning for free will? Can you elaborate?
As I see, there is no problem in considering Karma as action (in the context of my previous posts). Free will is the context in which karma (action) is performed. Some effect will ensue. We talk of 'Karma Phala' (Karma in that sense).
@Zephyr
ReplyDeleteI am referring to the Karma Phala. I agree that karma as in Sanskrit is action. Sorry for creating confusion. Thank you for correcting me.
Now if Karma phala is used the statement you made and I made are correct
@Gedde Timma and Zephyr,
ReplyDeleteNice discussion.
Interestingly, while Karma means all that Zephyr has written, there are numerous other "dictionary definitions" for it that Zephyr has not included; Example, from Vaman Shivaram Apte's dictionary, Karma also implies, a) Performance of Religious rites.., b) Product, Result, c) The object of Action, d) Organ of sense etc. So, it depends on the context in which the term is employed, even though the primary definitions are around action.
Even though at the defition and mundane levels Karma is simple the concept gets complicated as more layers are peeled; a testimony to its importance to philosophy and adhyatmic discussion is that it occupies 3 exclusive chapters in Bhagawad Gita. In Chapter 4, Sri Krishna says "kim karma kim akarma iti kavayah api atra mOhitAh", i.e. even the scholars have troubles in working with the concept of Karma, as to what action and inaction imply.
I suppose the discussion is around the relationship between Dharma and Karma, shooting off from Student's questions.
@Gende Thimma, Zephyr:
ReplyDeleteSo, do we state that none can remain actionless even for a moment in his life.
That is Karma is continuous?
And that, sat karma always complies with Dharma.
@Student
ReplyDeleteInteresting question. I am not sure how the discussion have taken a turn with and into sat and asat karma. For me Karma is Karma, sat and asat are perceived through our relative definitions of what sat and asat are (here I am not refering to sat as in satya, but as in 'good', which i believe is what student means). What appears to be sat-karma may be perceived as asat-karma by someone else. For example, according to a good number of people Osama Bin Laden is performing Sat-Karma. If we accept this then we may have to accept that there are numerous Dharmas. So, different people may come up with different definitions or guidelines for what Dharma is and thus judge karma from those lenses.
What do you say? :)
@GodCon:
ReplyDeleteYes, Sat : Good and Asat: Bad is what i referred.
But Dharma is absolute is what I say.
Anyway. We will come to that later. I have a few questions. I am not interrupting, but,
Before proceeding we need to clarify one more aspect. Though all know this.
Karma is done by 5 karmendriyas or with Gyaanendrias also?
Karmendriya: mouth, hands, legs and feet, anus and renitals
Gyaanendrias for sensing: sound , touch, color,flavor , odor.
Dharma is absolute? What do you mean, I would like to ask. But since you say we can come to that later I leave it to you to bring it back into discussion :)
ReplyDeleteYou have included 5 Jnanendriyas, but Sri Krishna says "manah shashtaNi indriyaNi" that "mind" should be considered the sixth indriya about which these 5 operate. The five jnanendriyas or buddhIndriyas are associated with the pancha-bhutas, e.g. shrotram associated with Ether/Sound, chakshuh with Fire/Light, sparshaNam or tvak with Earth/Touch, rasanam or jihva with Water/Taste, and ghrANam or naasika with Air/Smell. The Karmendriyas are rather tools to execute the whims and fancies of the jnanendriyas under the manas, buddhi, ahamkaara, and chitta. A thorough permutation and combination of these dictate the Karmas that one perfoms.
@GodCon,
ReplyDeleteFor me Karma is Karma, sat and asat are perceived through our relative definitions of what sat and asat are (here I am not refering to sat as in satya, but as in 'good', which i believe is what student means). What appears to be sat-karma may be perceived as asat-karma by someone else. For example, according to a good number of people Osama Bin Laden is performing Sat-Karma. If we accept this then we may have to accept that there are numerous Dharmas. So, different people may come up with different definitions or guidelines for what Dharma is and thus judge karma from those lenses.
To understand your above post, i need some clarifications
1. Could you please provide the definitions of Sat and Asat?
2. Definition of Satya
3. Definition of Good and Bad
4. Definition of Sat-Karma and Asat-Karma
5. Definition of Dharma
@Panini.
ReplyDeleteI will try to be brief here so as not to take a major deviation from the topic of discussion.
Here is my personal understanding:
1) I think I have clarified what Sat and Asat means in the context of this discussion, which Student has acknowledged. Even though "good" and "bad" are not the exact meaning of sat and asat, they are in colloquial and informal terms.
2) Satya: that which is 'sat' :) "truth" in simple terms. That which exists, eternally.
3) Good and Bad: I think I have clarified with an example showing that these do not have absolute definitions but take relative meaning according to time and place.
4) Sat-Karma and Asat-Karma are again subject to the clarification from Point 3. These are also relative though there are some objective sat-karmas, for example helping the old, donating to the needy, refraining from harming others etc. Similarly, there are some objectively accepted asat-karmas, for example raping, destroying others' property, killing etc.
5. This is a topic that we are all discussing currently and we have all agreed that there cannot be one definition of Dharma. Please read my earlier posts.
Thanks.
@Panini,
ReplyDelete@GodCon,
Here are my definitions:
Sat: the ideal (adjective); pure and true essence (nature); the self-existent; Brahman; being; good; virtuous; chaste; truely real; eternal and permanent, used to mean God or the soul.
Satya:truth or correctness
Good: Desirable, morally admirable, capable, pleasing
Sat-Karma: Virtous actions, desirable actions, admirable actions
Dharma: That which sustains: the sustaining principle behind the working of this universe
@GodCon and Zephyr
ReplyDeleteThanks for your definitions
Realization being the goal,
which means that freeing one self from all kinds of misery,
any action that leads to lessening of misery is termed as good - and any action leading to more misery is bad.
Dharma reveals the path to pursue the objective of realization.
There could be dispute of the actions and their effects w.r.t to their contributions towards increasing / decreasing misery. But that does not make the definition of Good / Sat-Karma / Sat relative.
People (or groups of people) may be incapable of determining the nature of an action or its effects and there fore they may be divided.
GodCon is distorting(diluting) the definitions unable to bear the pressure from Pro and Anti Osama lobbies!!!
@Panini
ReplyDeleteHehe Yeah, I am under heavy pressure :)
Each of the definitions can have a separate thread of discussion.
"any action that leads to lessening of misery is termed as good"
-- What is misery? misery to who (cat's pleasure could be rat's misery)? what is the meaning of lessening? how do you measure? what is the scale? Is this an Universally Accepted definition?
-- Yes. This can also be one of the definitions of "good", but if this was absolute then everyone would have accepted this as the "definition". But ask 100 people and you will get 50 different definitions.
-- This is the reason I said that "I will try to be brief here so as not to take a major deviation from the topic of discussion"
@Panini, "There could be dispute of the actions and their effects w.r.t to their contributions towards increasing / decreasing misery. But that does not make the definition of Good / Sat-Karma / Sat relative"
ReplyDelete1) I did not say that Sat is relative, I said that the perspective of a sat-karma can be relative. Because here sat-karma is su-karma and even though sat is associated with it the context is slightly different because sat has so many different meanings: from real/essential/true/eternity to being good/virtuous/noble/right/proper/wise, i.e. from philosophical pretext to mundane ones.
2) Why do you think "disputes" may exist? If you say that it is due to difference of opinions then, why do such differences exist?
3) What do you understand by "relative", please clarify.
4) Lets take the simple (or rather extremely complex) example India-Pakistan issue. According to Pakistan India is creating "misery" (or mischief) (i.e. India is "BAD"), while from the Indian perspective, Pakistan is creating "misery". Ask either side who is "good" and who is "bad" and you will get what I mean by "relative". According to a majority of Muslims "Jihad" is "sat-karma", while the world may disagree, but even then.....
Anyway.
If some one unnecessarily harasses, troubles - it amounts to misery. Could we consider the action of wild animals killing deer as bad action? No, because, tiger kills deer for food and is part of the nature. It can not be shown that it is unnecessary. Now the question of cat is interesting. It plays with the mice and kills. Is it not unncessary?
ReplyDeleteIt may appear that cats are playing with mice and unnecessarily harassing the mice. However, it is said that, most often they are actually making sure their prey can't hurt them, so they are stunning their prey before giving it the killing bite. The killing bite requires a swift bite to the throat, but this exposes the cat's neck and belly to the prey. To avoid possible injury, the play with their prey.
True, India has adopted Democracy in governance. USA is batting for Democracy. (Democracy is there even in Pakistan) So the fashion now is to decide everything by Democratic voting - with one voting per person; voting given to all sane adult persons who are not bankrupt. Are we using this method to decide whether some definition is absolute or relative? By voting and asking 100 people and going by the majority decision?
Is it the right approach?
@Panini,
ReplyDeleteGood observation about relative point. Majority may be wrong.
@Panini, "If some one unnecessarily harasses, troubles - it amounts to misery"
ReplyDelete-- Pakistan may deem something (supporting miltancy, ISI support to Kashmir cause etc) as "necessary" while India may deem it "unnecessary", and hence Pakistan may not see any misery while we (India) complain of misery. (E.g. look for Brass Tacks episodes of Zaid Hamid on Hindu Zionism to see how Pakistan may view India, and we know how we view Pakistan). Hope you will see two perspectives of "good" and "bad". This is just an example.
-- The cat-rat example was from a popular "gadhe" (proverb?) [bekkige aata, ilige chellaata] that demonstrates parody of duality in life. Sorry to see that you have taken it literally. But, anyway. In case of war also it is "necessary" for a soldier to kill (which may otherwise be termed "bad") someone.
-- But even then, whether perceived as "necessary" or "unnecessary" there are two perspectives, that of a "cat" [please see that it is in quotes] and of the "rat". You are arguing from the perspective of a "cat" and saying that it is "good" [necessary, thus not misery]. I agree. All that I am doing is saying that there is an alternative perpective, that of the "rat". So "good" and "bad" are not single sided coins.
-- So the question is, who decides what is "necessary" and what is "unnecessary"?
-- Right on target about "majority"! I had infact typed a text on "majority" but deleted to reduce the size of my post and also to see your response. This was infact my question to you: how do you decide on what is "good" and "bad"? how do you know? are moral values of good and bad etc objective or subjective?
-- The reason I asked if it (your definition of "good") was an Universally Accepted Definition (UAD) or not was to understand how you came up with that defenition/understanding? If it was your own definition then it is very subjective/your opinion only and there may be other definitions to make your definition "relative"; subject to your understanding/perception of what is good and bad. If it was UAD, then are we going by "majority", even then it is relative.
-- You have not clarified what you understand by relative; or what is absolute and what is relative?
@GodCon:
ReplyDeleteAs you said on September 16, 2010 8:44 PM.
A thorough permutation and combination of these dictate the Karmas that one perfoms.
So, can we say that seeing/not seeing (Eyes), smelling/not smelling (odour), and hearing/not hearing(Ear), tasting/not tasting (flavour) are all Karmas?
@GodCon:
ReplyDeleteYou also said on on September 16, 2010 8:44 PM.:
"
The Karmendriyas are rather tools to execute the whims and fancies of the jnanendriyas under the manas, buddhi, ahamkaara, and chitta."
We all know that action is through mind. So, is the mind origin for Karma? or is Karma originated at some other layers like buddhi, ahamkaar, chitta?
Please clarify...
@Student.
ReplyDeleteWhether one is seeing or not seeing, hearing or not hearing, tasting or not tasting etc he will be performing some Karma dictated by mind, intelligence and ego. This is why Sri Krishna says "nahi kaschid kshaNam api jatu tishtyati akarma krit, karyate hi avasam karma sarvah prakriti-jair guNaih" (3.5), i.e. a jiva continuously performs some karma helplessly, voluntarity or otherwise. Our's is a Karma factory so to say :)
There is Karma through mind (sub-conscious, conscious, super-conscious etc). Similarly, there is Karma through buddhi, ahamkara and chitta even though they may all route through the filter of mind. Mind is influenced by one's Karma (past and present; prarabhdha, sanchita, agami) and Guna, which enable actions. And, as Zephyr aptly put it "Actions will have an effect on Gunas and Gunas will influence the actions of a performer" (September 15, 2010 10:05 PM).
This is my opinion :) Am I opening a can of worms :)
I was reading texts of Mahabharata by Prof. K.S. Narayanachar today when I found this interesting advise of Sri Krishna to Yudhistira. I am posting a small snippet of an elaborate discussion.
ReplyDelete"Dharma is multipolar, multishaded, and to try to reduce it to one fixed dimension is in itself Adharma".
Comments? Arguments? Explanations?
Two more snippets from the same discussion:
ReplyDeleteSri Krishna tells Yudhistira: Why should you pity when Duryodhana falls prey to his own Karma? Does Karma operate or no? Is it above you and all others or no? Do not Karma and Dharma make a formbable comination of forces to face in life or no?
Yudhistira is stunned. He did not know the depth of this fellow's (Ashwatthama's) crooked mind. He began to appreciate the arguments of Sri Krishna better now, that the contextual meanings of Dharma are subject to variations in life and time.
In the case of animals, rules of the forest operates. It is nature. Tiger hunts and kills deer. Deer is killed by the tiger. If we conclude that there is no justice in this world because there is no protection for the deer, and extend the same principle to humand world and say that there is no good and bad, it is an argument to justify any action irrespective of its cosequences.
ReplyDeleteIt is possible to blur any definition by incorporating a part of its meaning to its antonym. In our discussion, Karma was accepted as 'action' by GodCon and the discussion continued. But, even it could be blurred by including 'inaction' as one of the action and initiating a debate around it. By doing so, it is much more easier to bat for "everything relative" theory.
Then how definitions are validated?
At first instance, definitions are to be crystallised. Not validated. Universal truths are validated by matured minds using a given set of definitions. Contradicting on definitions or blurring them is a dstraction in the process of validation of truths.
Dharma is a concept / definition used in our discussion/ pursuit to find the best action (mechanism to find the best course of action) in a (any) given situation, we use terminologies aound Dharma. When someone blurs the definitions, what he/she is doing is neglecting the main question. Either he/she is confused or he/she is confusing the others.
GodCon what is the case with you?
haha :) SS I am just proposing my opinions, you can oppose it or accept it or reject it or be indifferent to it, it is left to you. If you have a counterpoint propose it and we can discuss.
ReplyDeleteThe "good"/"bad" discussion has taken a deviation as I had expected and warned against that :) Anyway.
SS said: "there is no good and bad, it is an argument to justify any action irrespective of its cosequences"
1) I have not said that there is no good and bad.
2) I am not justifying any action or non-action :)
3) When I spoke about "good" and "bad" as "relative" aspects (September 16, 2010 9:45 AM), it was my understanding and was throwing the discussion open to the participants to propose points for and against it - I had asked "What do you say? :)" People seem to have taken it emotionally :)
4) This world is a relative world, I am not the first to say it; science says it, shastras say it. I am just adding the perspective, whether it makes sense to one or not depends on the thought one has applied in that direction. If one has not, if one does not want to, if one cannot etc are all left to individuals.
5) In your post you have opposed my viewpoint, I respect that, but I could not see your argument against my viewpoint. You can take my example and show why multiple perspective cannot simulataneously exist.
SS: It is possible to blur any definition by incorporating a part of its meaning to its antonym.
ReplyDelete:) Definitions evolve. "Definitions" should not be used to confine, narrow, and limit such [complex/broad] concepts as Karma, Dharma, Shraddha etc. Which is why I was trying to add additional perspectives and opening it to discussion. The intention was/is not to blur or dilute anything but open the thought for discussion / argument / debate or whatever you call it. I thought I gave appropriate examples to support my argument. Please develop counter examples / counter arguments and pursue the discussion :)
"In our discussion, Karma was accepted as 'action' by GodCon and the discussion continued. But, even it could be blurred by including 'inaction' as one of the action and initiating a debate around it. By doing so, it is much more easier to bat for "everything relative" theory"
:P Sorry I can see your confusion :) I wish the topic of Karma was that easy :) I quoted Sri Krishna from Bhagawad Gita, because that is considered by most scholars as authoritative:
1) I, GodCon, have till now not spoken about perspective of action/inaction, even though I wanted to :) I have have been arguing about relative perspectives or multiple perpectives of one action/karma; I was discussing how multiple perpescitves can co-exist about the same karma, viewed as su-karma and vi-karma by different people; for example Duryodhana could never see the su-karma of pandavas, and all that the pandavas saw of Duryodhana was vi-karma while he felt that was on the side of Dharma till the end. I have given other examples too. But the view of Dharma is different, as I had proposed :)
2) Precisely as you say, Sri Krishna says in 4.18: "karmany akarma yah pasyed, akarmani ca karma yah, sa buddhiman manusyesu sa yuktah krtsna-karma-krt".
"One who sees inaction in action, and action in inaction, is intelligent among men, and he is in the transcendental position, although engaged in all sorts of activities".
An uninitiated will only see confusion and ambiguity in the above statement, but scholars who understand the beauty of this verse can expound this idea for ages.
3) I had quoted this earlier: In Chapter 4, Sri Krishna says "kim karma kim akarma iti kavayah api atra mOhitAh", i.e. even the scholars have troubles in working with the concept of Karma, as to what action and inaction imply.
SS: It is possible to blur any definition by incorporating a part of its meaning to its antonym.
ReplyDelete:) Definitions evolve. "Definitions" should not be used to confine, narrow, and limit such [complex/broad] concepts as Karma, Dharma, Shraddha etc. Which is why I was trying to add additional perspectives and opening it to discussion. The intention was/is not to blur or dilute anything but open the thought for discussion / argument / debate or whatever you call it. I thought I gave appropriate examples to support my argument. Please develop counter examples / counter arguments and pursue the discussion :)
SS Said: "In our discussion, Karma was accepted as 'action' by GodCon and the discussion continued. But, even it could be blurred by including 'inaction' as one of the action and initiating a debate around it. By doing so, it is much more easier to bat for "everything relative" theory"
ReplyDelete:P Sorry I can see your confusion :) I wish the topic of Karma was that easy :) I quoted Sri Krishna from Bhagawad Gita, because that is considered by most scholars as authoritative:
1) I, GodCon, have till now not spoken about perspective of action/inaction, even though I wanted to :) I have have been arguing about relative perspectives or multiple perpectives of one action/karma; I was discussing how multiple perpescitves can co-exist about the same karma, viewed as su-karma and vi-karma by different people; for example Duryodhana could never see the su-karma of pandavas, and all that the pandavas saw of Duryodhana was vi-karma while he felt that was on the side of Dharma till the end. I have given other examples too. But the view of Dharma is different, as I had proposed :)
2) Precisely as you say, Sri Krishna says in 4.18: "karmany akarma yah pasyed, akarmani ca karma yah, sa buddhiman manusyesu sa yuktah krtsna-karma-krt".
"One who sees inaction in action, and action in inaction, is intelligent among men, and he is in the transcendental position, although engaged in all sorts of activities".
An uninitiated will only see confusion and ambiguity in the above statement, but scholars who understand the beauty of this verse can expound this idea for ages.
3) I had quoted this earlier: In Chapter 4, Sri Krishna says "kim karma kim akarma iti kavayah api atra mOhitAh", i.e. even the scholars have troubles in working with the concept of Karma, as to what action and inaction imply
SS "Then how definitions are validated?
ReplyDeleteAt first instance, definitions are to be crystallised. Not validated. Universal truths are validated by matured minds using a given set of definitions. Contradicting on definitions or blurring them is a dstraction in the process of validation of truths.
You are saying many things here :) "Crystalized", "Validated/Not Validated", "Truths", "Universal Truths", "Mature Minds", all of these may need to be defined too :) ;) Anyway. Just kidding :)
Should we start with "Definitions"? Cannot definitions evolve via validating perspectives thrown in this forum? Cannot we come to define these terms as part of the discussion? Honestly, I had assumed this as the reason for this thread.
Yes, we could start with "working definitions" which we did. But should that be a binding on incorporating new perspectives? If we are not open for new perspectives then it is not a "working definition", then it means that we are all experts here who know truth for sure. If we are thus closed then there is no meaning to this discussion, and I am definitely not party to it :)
SS Said: "Dharma is a concept / definition used in our discussion/ pursuit to find the best action (mechanism to find the best course of action) in a (any) given situation, we use terminologies aound Dharma. When someone blurs the definitions, what he/she is doing is neglecting the main question.
ReplyDeleteI dont know about others, but I was certainly not trying to blur the definitions :) I was in the learning process, honest and open. I was expressing my thoughts/understanding and if that resulted in blurring or diluting then I am sorry and I will take myself out of the discussion to avoid such future distortions. Yes. I do make my points strong and that is only to challenge our understanding.
I have said this time and again, that this mode of discussion is not the easiest one. We are strangers, we dont know each others' contexts/moods/understandings, and we are using written communication (probably the worst of all modes of communication) as a means to discuss such concepts that have occupied the minds of great scholars for centuries. So these disturbances are bound to happen.
SS Wrote: Either he/she is confused or he/she is confusing the others. GodCon what is the case with you?
ReplyDeleteMay be I am confused and am confusing others :) Or, may be I am not confused by confusing others :) Or, may be I am not confused and not confusing others (but some) :) Or, may be I am confused but not confusing others. I am not sure, and honestly I dont care :D ;) :P
Just kidding :)
Dharma is a concept introduced/given by the Vedas / Hinduism. The question is what is its meaning. If GodCon says that it is relative, is it an attribute to the defition? Characterising feature of it? Can all the definitions be categorised under relative / absolute tags?
ReplyDeleteWhat is the necessity? I am perplexed.
When Krishna says akarma and related things, it is an insight given w.r.t to realities of this world. Those insights are built on definitions of Karma etc.
When we try to understand why apple falls from tree to ground, we dont simultaneoulsy try to modify the definition of gravitation. Entire effort is spent to understand the existing definition of gravitation.
Dear Sampradayavida and the rest.
ReplyDeleteI dont know where the topic is being dragged down to :) All I said were that ...
1) There is no "absolute" good or bad. Good and bad *may* have other perspectives that we may have to examine. I gave the example of India-Pak to demonstrate my point.But my take on "relative" seems to have gone a bit out of proportion :)
2) Karma (Su-, Vi-) can be viewed from multiple perspectives. That the view of these "types of Karmas" can be relative. Remember I said "Karma is Karma", these tags of good and bad or relative. But, Dharma is a different beast by itself, I have acknowledged it.
3) A "working definition" is needed, and that we have started with one. But as we encounter new ideas, new perspectives and new observations, the definition may get fine tuned, refined. The "definition" itself should not act as a barrier or restriction to explore the scope of a concept, particularly so when the concept is as abstract as Dharma, Karma etc, unlike physical concepts such as Gravity, Electricity etc.
4) With regards to Dharma and Karma in general, it is not that I am speculating about their multi-dimensional nature, I am quoting scriptures to support my argument (Hindu scriptures; for example Mahabharata and Bhagawad Gita). I am not pulling anything from thin air.
Moreover, I am opening my perspectives for discussion, for denial, for disapproval. I am asking questions to understand others' viewpoints, but have not received any response from that regard. People seem to be getting defensive. I promise that atleast I am not on the offenseive. I am here as much to learn as anyone else is in this forum. I am not knowledgeable but I have some perspectives that may differ from others. I suppose that is allowed in any discussion or debate. I have my argument, I have my examples; have counter argument, provide counter examples to demonstrate your viewpoint. I am sorry if this can cause perplexion or frustration.
CONTD.
CONTD.
ReplyDeleteAbout relativity. Sri Krishna, during a discussion with Baladeva (Balarama) about Dharma, Artha, Karma, and Moksha says:
"Absolute Good and Absolute Evil are abstractions, perhaps. What we really have are gradations, variations and approximations, and alignments in varying shades. In all this it is the People who make their choices and join sides" ["Those Eighteen Days", p834; Prof./Dr. K.S Narayanachar]. So different people view the same problem differently. This is what I meant by being "relative".
About Karma. Karma has been defined as action, yes it is action. But it is not just action, it also is reaction/result; so Karma, Karma-Phala, and Karma (reaction) are all considered as Karma depending on context. Karma is also a complex concept that involves "carry over" of results from previous births too. When we see Bhagawad Gita Chapter 4, we get [what appears to be] an even more complex view of Karma. For example 4.18: "karmany akarma yah pasyed, akarmani ca karma yah, sa buddhiman manusyesu sa yuktah krtsna-karma-krt". How do we understand Karma from this perspective. Is Karma just "action" in this case? Further, Krishna says "karyate hi avasam karma sarva prakriti-jair guNaih", so where is free-will in this idea. Again, is Karma simple action? Then we have Su-Karma, Vi-Karma, Sakama-Karma, Nishkarma, Akama-Karma, Akarma and so on. Akarma is also Karma? how?
These are the perspective I thought are important in our understanding of this concept, not just acknowledging that Karma is action and moving on. If perspectives are wrong, lets try to show where they are or may be and discuss.
Sorry if I am disturbing the waters. But I believe that this is the way to understand such beautiful concepts.
Anyway. Where are we now ? :D ;) :P
Sampradayavida says: "Dharma is a concept introduced/given by the Vedas / Hinduism. The question is what is its meaning"
ReplyDeleteYes, but does that mean that Dharma belongs exclusively to Hinduism?
Can we revisit the questions I had raised earlier?
1) What is Dharma?
2) What is Shastra?
3) What is Dharmashastra?
4) Is Dharma and Dharmashastra exclusive to Hindusim only?
5) Are there other Dharmas, Shastras, Dharmashastras other than Vedic/Hindu ones?
6) What are Islam, Christianity? Are they not Dharmas? If they are "Mathas", what is a Matha and what is a Dharma? How are they different?
7) Are not Quran/Bible Dharmashastras? Why not?
@GodCon
ReplyDeleteAbsolute (evil or good) is an abstraction. What we really have gradations....
If you can order the "goods", What you are meaning is that "better good" is there but there is nothing like the "best good". This is just an argument of convenience!
#GodCon
The "definition" itself should not act as a barrier or restriction to explore the scope of a concept, particularly so when the concept is as abstract as Dharma, Karma etc, unlike physical concepts such as Gravity, Electricity etc.
Dharma is an abstract definition. Gravitation is a non abstract (concrete?) definition. So, there are two kinds of definitions. Abstract and Non Abstract. Who decides this?
Is it decided relatively? or in absolute way?
Dear Panini,
ReplyDeleteKind NOTE to the rest of the participants: SINCERE APOLOGIES FOR MY LONG POSTS, I WILL TRY TO KEEP THEM SHORT IN FUTURE
I thought we could move on, but you want to stick to this topic :) I sincerely hope that we move to the core topics rather than these never ending deviations. Unfortunately I am obligated to answer your queries so as not to offend you. So this post.
My quotation of "absolute good and evil" is from Sri Krishna, from Mahabharata. It is not my personal statement. So please ask Sri Krishna for better clarifications :) :P :D
But here is my take on it (and I hope this will be my last post on this topic): This is similar to the question, "Does/Can Darkness exist"? "Is there absolute darkness", "what does that mean?" etc. Darkness does not / cannot exist on its own, it is the lack of "light" that results in Darkness. So there is gradation of brightness, one end of this polarity is pitch darkness and the other end effulgent brightness. Similarly, please apply this to "goodness" and you may be able to appreciate "better good", "best good" or whatever you say :) I am sure you yourself can think of appropriate examples, if not please let me know and we can discuss this offline :) So, the question is "does absolute goodness exist?" If so, please support your argument. A more interesting question could be "what is absolute goodness".
CONTD.
CONTD.
ReplyDeleteAbout "Abstract and Non-Abstract". Here we are discussing Dharma and Karma, so working definitions are important for these concepts. If we were discussing about the "CONCEPTS" of "Abstract (Non)" then we could have discussed about their definitions (relative or absolute, whatever you understand; I suppose you meant subjective and objective, please clarify), and work towards comprehensively defining these terms. But here "Abstract" and "Physical" are used as "Adjectives" or "tags" only not as core "Concepts" that are being scrutinized. So they have to be understood in the context of the discussion. If you did not understand the meanings of "Abstract" or "Physical" in the context of the discussion, I am sorry :) If we were not interested in understanding the Concept of Dharma, then we could have used them as Adjectives and moved on. But I thought we want to understand them in little more depth than mere words. If that is the case then we need to discuss, debate and keep a "working definition" open to additional perspectives.
Finally, you still have not clarified what you understand by relative and absolute :) You have not provided a counter argument or counter example for what I wrote. Anway, I think it is time that we move on :) Let us move on, if we can :)
Thanks.
GodCon asks the following question
ReplyDelete"does absolute goodness exist?"
It is GodCon who has linked absolute/relative with the "good" and "bad". Zephyr was talking Good Action and Bad Action, which looked reasonable to me.
It does not make sense to me to link absolute/relative with "good/bad action".
About other words like Abstract, subjective, objective, Physical: these are being introduced now. We never discussed these things. So, I dont understand them - Sorry for making GodCon to feel sorry!
I dont see any difference between two definitions just because one is related to Physical science and the other belongs to( "Abstract") Philosophy.
I have seen Communists using this absolute/relative terminology to undermine the thought process of people who consider themselves as religious.
@Panini,
ReplyDeleteGreat! I know where you stand and what you mean. So lets move on then :)
So ... can we come back to the key questions that necessitated this thread. If we recall, this thread was a shoot off from the original topic "Ambedkar Conclusions on shudras", as result of the discussion that ensued between GodCon, Sampradayavida, SS and others ...
ReplyDelete1) What is Dharma?
2) What is Shastra?
3) What is Dharmashastra?
4) Is Dharma and Dharmashastra exclusive to Hindusim only?
5) Are there Dharmas, Shastras, Dharmashastras other than the Vedic/Hindu ones?
6) What are Islam, Christianity? Are they not Dharmas? If they are "Mathas", what is a Matha and what is a Dharma? How are they different?
7) Are not (for e.g.) Quran/Bible Dharmashastras? Why not?
I have posted my opinions for discussion in the original thread (http://medsyn.blogspot.com/2010/08/ambedkar-conclusions-on-shudras-are.html) at several places, particularly those dated September 3, 2010 9:00 AM and September 9, 2010 12:03 AM.
Thanks.
Some time back it was stated in this forum that "Actions will have an effect on Gunas and Gunas will influence the actions of a performer"
ReplyDeleteA person when dies, what happens to the accumulated (effects of) actions?
It will be summarised as Gunas and the person takes a rebirth with those Gunas inbuilt!!!
It is not correct to say that Gravity is a not a relative concept. There is nothing like absolute gravity. It varies. The gravity is not constant across the globe. Near poles and near equator. GodCon is biased in favor of science against philosophy.
ReplyDeleteDear Impartial Scientist ...
ReplyDeleteHave I ever said that Gravity is not a relative concept, or that it is an absolute concept ?????? On the contrary I am of the view that everything (most) in the creation is "relative" in nature :) ;) people have been plotting to kill me for that :P Anyway :)
Sampradayavida,
ReplyDeleteI think that comment was made by Zephyr. I personally related to that. But I will wait for Zephyr's clarification before I(as usual) confuse / disturb you all with my comments :)
Also, the place and the context of the birth has to be (and it is so) the most conducive to the person to move towards realization.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be clash of truth and non truth in this world. It may be difficult to agree, But finally, the truth will finally prevail in this world.
ReplyDeleteBecause, Dharma is by definitio that which sustains, Dharma must be aligned to truth. Ofcourse, Justice, equality and related concepts must be affiliated to Dharma.
Zephyr :)
ReplyDeleteTruth / Untruth / Clash???? what is it about? What is the context? :) Is this related to what Samprdayavida asked?
"Dharma is by definitio that which sustains"
Yes, but Dharma sustains what? How? Could you please give some examples for Dharma from this perspective ("that which sustains")? Could you also throw some light on my questions (September 22, 2010 5:47 PM) in this context?
"Dharma must be aligned to truth"
What is "Truth" here? How to "align" Dharma to truth?
I think we can discuss from here.
Thanks.
Consider,
ReplyDeleteCommunism in USSR could not continue. It collapsed.
Capitalism, people say, will collapse tomorrow.
Ravana of Tretayuga was so strong. But finally he was ruined.
Getting things done without bribe is considered as so difficult/impossible these days.
We observe,
We can say communism (of USSR) is not sustainable. Capitalism may not be sustainable. Attitude of Ravana was not sustainable. Committing to non bribery is considered as not sustainable.
Similarly, Consider
people who are corrupt are enjoying.
Democracy seems to be working fine in US/UK/India.
Chinese so called Maoism seems to be working.
We observe,
Corruption is argued as sustainable.
Democracy appears to be sustainable.
Moism in china, till now, is sustaining itself.
Conclusions:
Communism (USSR) is not sustainable.
Attitude of Ravana was not sustainable.
So, communism, attitude of ravana were not aligned with Dharma
Capitalism, Maoism, Democracy in India, are continuing as systems, but it is not possible to conclude that they are aligned with Dharma. They may collapse tomorrow.
Bribery or corruption may be easier methods for success, but could we conclude that they are aligned with Dharma?
This leads to the issue of truth v/s non truth.
Secondly, some times, we get confused with that which is Dharma and non dharma. We may end up saying that bribery/corruption is dharma. To minimise this situation, we could verify its alignement with truth, justice etc.
That which is not aligned with truth etc could be eliminated from the list of candidates for Dharma.
Zephyr,
ReplyDeleteGood Post. Thanks. Please treat this response of mine not as a "challenge" but as a "black sheep" post, for the sake of exploring the concept.
You seem to indicate that Communism is Adharma. Yes, it has collapsed in USSR, but it has been thriving in China, it has been thriving in several other nations. How did you conclude that communism was Adharma, that it did not align with "TRUTH"? Can we conclude about something until we have seen its end. For example, until Communism ends in China can we say that Dharma has won over Adharma or whatever.
Anyway.
How do we know that something is aligned with Dharma or Truth? E.g. how do you conclude or know if Indian Democracy or Capitalism or whatever are Adharmic? Bribery, lies, treachery are all considered mal-practices from a social perspective, true but in many cases Sri Krishna (the Abode of Dharma) employed them for the purpose of establishing Dharma. So, is it not the context and not the concept that matters?
Have not even those on the path of Dharma have perished? e.g. Kittur Rani Chennama or Prithviraj Chauhan or Shivaji or any of our Indian freedom fighters. But eventually British Empire gave way not (may not be) because Dharma won over Adharma but they did not find anything more to exploit, they had exploited all that they wanted to, now the cost was more than profit for them to operate. So, in many cases cost-profit analysis give way, or TIME HEALS but Truth will have suffered more than it enjoys. Is that Dharma?
Anyway.
Zephyr,
ReplyDeleteFurther, in the context of what you have written, I would like to know:
1) What are some other examples of Dharmas ("aligned with truth" or "that which sustains")? You have given SOCIO-POLITICAL examples (Democracy, Communism, Capitalism etc), could you provide some SOCIO-RELIGIOUS, -INDIVIDUAL, -COMMUNAL etc examples: i.e. Islam or Christianity or Buddhism or Sikhism or Jainism etc from the perspective of Dharma based on your definition.
2) What is a Dharmashastras? How do we know that this is a Dharmashastra and this is not?
3) What are some examples of Dharmashastras?
In summary,
ReplyDeleteIf some(any)thing is done in a sustainable way, then it is aligned with Dharma.
Or, when deviated from Dharma, it is unsustainable.
It may not be easy to understand this sustaining principle in a given context. However, it is not complicated in each and every case. Any person who is exposed to fundamental principles and trained to a reasonable extent could easily find it, almost correctly, in many cases.
Dharma is subtle. It could be very tricky to find it out in some cases, even by very competent people. So, it is not advisable to take the task of finding Dharma in a given context lightly.
Coming back to the clash of Truth(justice, Dharma) v/s Falsity(injustice, adharma) one thing is said unequivocally.
That is
Truth only prevails (in the final analysis)
Such a statement is very essential to go forward. And I take it literally.
Dont ask too many questions. Its meaning, literal and its purport. I really dont know!!!
My intention was not to corner you or anything through questions. But there are several assumptions that needed to be questioned. This thread was created to discuss such questions, which is why I have raised them time and again.
ReplyDeleteHonestly, my intention has always been to revisit the essence of these concepts (meaning, literal, purport or whatever that means), which was why I asked those questions. Anyway.
I believe in and understand that "Truth only prevails/Sustains" in finality. So keeping this in perspective:
.... we can see that societies (aboriginals, tribes, civilizations etc), countries / cultures / communities (national, provincial, regional, sectoral, communal etc), religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism etc) have sustained/prevailed for over centuries. In that case, can we categorize them from the DHARMIC perspective? Can we say that Islam/Christianity is/are [a] Dharma(s) in that case?
Interestinly, Atheism has sustained itself for ages and is now the fasted growing belief system and it may sustain itself for the rest the human existence. Atheism (via science) has consistently been prevailing (may continue to prevail) over theism in the recent several decades. Does that make Atheism Truth? Can we call Atheism Dharma?
I am interested in these questions. Sorry for more questions though but I am not sure how we can understand these concepts without such questions. If we attempt so then our attempts will all be superficial. This is my opinion (matam mama).
The discussion should move forward because, zephyr and GodCon (along with me) are on the same platform by accepting that "Truth only prevails".
ReplyDeleteIt is very natural that wrong notions are widely seen and with the understanding of the correct notion they get corrected. For every correct notion/concept, there could be multiple wrong notions.
It is not correct to consider a set of "wrong notions" as a candidate for Dharma based on the longevity of the set.
Disclaimer: I am not saying that aborigins etc are not candidates for Dharma.
These systems may have some components of Dharma incorporated in them. But ALL of them are not as sophisticated as Sanatana Dharma in their alignment with Dharma.
Dear Sampradayavida,
ReplyDelete"It is not correct to consider a set of "wrong notions" as a candidate for Dharma based on the longevity of the set"
We need to keep in mind that Dharma has been defined as "that which sustains". Now the question is
a) what is "sustained" here?
b) How to consider something as a candidate of Dharma?
c) How to ascertain something in terms of "right" and "wrong" "notions"? [The reason I have them in quotes is that they are open / vague / abstract / subjective terms that need clarification]; In other words, what are right and wrong notions, provide some examples, how do we know that these are right or wrong, what are the criteria?
CONTD.
CONTD.
ReplyDeleteThese systems may have some components of Dharma incorporated in them. But ALL of them are not as sophisticated as Sanatana Dharma in their alignment with Dharma
Clarify:
1) What components may those other Dharmas have and what could they be missing according to you, to make them incomplete as you say?
2) What is Sanatana Dharma (from the context of Dharma we have defined)?
3) What is it that makes Sanatana Dharma sophisticated and stand above the rest? What do you mean by Sophistication?
Please give appropriate examples to demonstrate your claim.
(... As I review my post I get a feel of an exam paper hehe but here I am the student and you are the teacher, I am asking doubts. I know of no better way to seek clarifications for your statements ... )
Anything can be considered as the candidate for Dharma. The candidate is constantly evaluated for inconsistency, deficiencies, problems and mistakes.
ReplyDeleteAfter conclusions are drawn, they have to be evaluated repeatedly to reaffirm again and again. In the course of time, it is easy to discard many things from the candidature.
We need to adhere to the remaining thing(s) to the extent possible while the evaluation continues.
The evaluation has to be 100% honest.
Dear Sampradayavida,
ReplyDeleteIf I remember right, your initial "candidate" comment was with respect to other "dharmas" that I had written about; whether Islam, Christianity etc are candidates for Dharmas. Here it seems to be more from the perspective of "attributes". But even then it is hard to rule out Islam, Christianity etc as other "Dharmas". So, they can still be considered as "Dharmas" and their scriptures as "Dharma Shastras" from your writing.
But the question remains as to who "evaluates" ? Is it an automatic evaluation by the society? or done by some authority? Because if it is to be 100% honest, who evaluates becomes very important otherwise "100%" itself will be an extremely subjective assessment. This can make "Dharma" a subjective phenomenon and everything could be termed Dharma if proper care is not taken; if this happens then the hell gates open!! :)
So, we need to be a bit specific.
Thanks.