Can Dharma be upheld through Adharma?

[Makaranda]

Hello everyone,

This question has been floating around my mind for a little while, and I thought it might make an interesting discussion here in the DIR. Can our Sanatana Dharma be maintained or upheld, with the best of intentions, even through actions which would normally be considered undharmic? For example, do you think it would be right to lie to, deceive, or mislead a person if you thought doing so would protect (your particular interpretation of) Hinduism, Vedanta, etc? Can truth be cocooned by falsehoods? On a more visceral level- would it be right to fight against those who would threaten our religion, or who, in one's opinion, would wilfully misappropriate it for their own selfish purposes? Is there scope for violence, either in thought, word, or deed, against those inside or outside of our religion if we felt they posed a real threat to the stability of it? Can it be possible to remove one thorn with another thorn?



Perhaps such questions are explored in the Mahabharata, but what do you think?

 

[George-ananda]

Hello everyone,

This question has been floating around my mind for a little while, and I thought it might make an interesting discussion here in the DIR. Can our Sanatana Dharma be maintained or upheld, with the best of intentions, even through actions which would normally be considered undharmic? For example, do you think it would be right to lie to, deceive, or mislead a person if you thought doing so would protect (your particular interpretation of) Hinduism, Vedanta, etc? Can truth be cocooned by falsehoods? On a more visceral level- would it be right to fight against those who would threaten our religion, or who, in one's opinion, would wilfully misappropriate it for their own selfish purposes? Is there scope for violence, either in thought, word, or deed, against those inside or outside of our religion if we felt they posed a real threat to the stability of it? Can it be possible to remove one thorn with another thorn?



Perhaps such questions are explored in the Mahabharata, but what do you think?

If it's thought out and done with the ultimate well-being of others as the goal then the adharma becomes dharma.

Didn't Krishna explain to Arjuna that it was dharmic for him to fight and kill evil-doers? Arjuna was having the same questions you do.

 

[Jainarayan]

Upāya-kaushalya... expedient or skillful means. It's a term used primarily in Mahayana Buddhism, but I think it can apply anytime. If a lie serves the greater good and causes no harm, it's permissible.

 

[Makaranda]

If it's thought out and done with the ultimate well-being of others as the goal then the adharma becomes dharma.

Didn't Krishna explain to Arjuna that it was dharmic for him to fight and kill evil-doers? Arjuna was having the same questions you do.

Hi George,

Yes, I mentioned the Mahabharata in the OP. But I suppose there are some deeper nuances here that have to be explored a little.

How do we determine who is an evil-doer if undharmic actions are permissible even for those who are good? Who, then, is good? All we have are subjective valuations of one another, do we not?

If it's dharmic to commit undharmic acts against evil-doers, how do we know who is an evil doer? Surely an evil-doer is one who commits undharmic actions, no? Then it becomes my word against yours, and there is no way to determine who is good and who isn't. Therefore, if I (even sincerely) believe someone is an evil-doer, and yet I am mistaken, am I not, then, truly the evil-doer by resorting to undharmic actions against them? Can you see how it's not so black and white?

Jainarayan,

If a lie serves the greater good and causes no harm, it's permissible

So, then, a lie in itself is not undharmic, even though we are told to speak the truth? Why, then, the imperative to speak the truth, if lies are intrinsically okay?


I think we are going to run into the issue of objective versus subjective morality. I hope we can get a good discussion going.

 

[Jainarayan]

Jainarayan,



So, then, a lie in itself is not undharmic, even though we are told to speak the truth? Why, then, the imperative to speak the truth, if lies are intrinsically okay?


I think we are going to run into the issue of objective versus subjective morality. I hope we can get a good discussion going.

No, I don't believe lies in and of themselves are adharmic. It's the result of the lie that determines whether it is dharmic or adharmic. Yes, morality is subjective but I don't think lies are a morality issue. If you know that someone's actions could cause harm, but telling an untruth would prevent that harm from happening, I don't think that's a sin or an evil, or immoral. Here's a description of a 'white lie' from Wikipedia. I believe this to be true, and what I'd consider upaya:

White lies are minor lies which could be considered to be harmless, or even beneficial, in the long term. White lies are also considered to be used for greater good. A common version of a white lie is to tell only part of the truth, therefore not be suspected of lying, yet also conceal something else, to avoid awkward questions. White lies are also often used to shield someone from a hurtful or emotionally damaging truth, especially when not knowing the truth is completely harmless. - Lie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yes, they say "honesty is the best policy", but in my almost-57 years in this skin, I have found that to be untrue. Sometimes with disastrous consequences.

 

[George-ananda]

Hi George,

Yes, I mentioned the Mahabharata in the OP. But I suppose there are some deeper nuances here that have to be explored a little.

How do we determine who is an evil-doer if undharmic actions are permissible even for those who are good? Who, then, is good? All we have are subjective valuations of one another, do we not?

If it's dharmic to commit undharmic acts against evil-doers, how do we know who is an evil doer? Surely an evil-doer is one who commits undharmic actions, no? Then it becomes my word against yours, and there is no way to determine who is good and who isn't. Therefore, if I (even sincerely) believe someone is an evil-doer, and yet I am mistaken, am I not, then, truly the evil-doer by resorting to undharmic actions against them? Can you see how it's not so black and white?

Yes, that's why I said 'thought-out' and it may not be perfectly clear always. You have to consider everything and make sure your mind is coming from a dharmic place in the consideration. At some point we must make a decision and we shouldn't get paralyzed by indecision. Yes, in life we have to make our best judgement calls.

 

[Vinayaka]

I don't think we should be performing undharmic acts like violence back at an aggressor. It's tough enough maintaining dharma as it is without becoming like them.

Better to put the knowledge into a few sages and retreat to caves. It is the kali yuga after all. "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind."

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

I don't know - people are very good at rationalizing bad behavior as it is.

If Suzy comes to a formal dinner with a tutu and bobble-antennas on, but she seems comfortable and happy and doesn't ask me for my opinion, I'm not going to rain on her parade by telling her what I think. However, if she asks me for an opinion, I'm not going to lie and tell her she looks fabulous when my true opinion is that she looks like an idiot. She asked for my opinion which means she doesn't have a right to get upset with an honest answer.

Now I can temple my opinion more gently by saying it in a different way - "Well, Suzy, I don't think you outfit is appropriate for the event..."

It's still true and enough to get the point across without being mean.

As for things like lying to protect someone's safety? Yes, I would, but I wouldn't call it anything but what it is - a lie. And I wouldn't expect the karmic effects to be any different for any other lie. We shouldn't delude ourselves too much and turn an adharmic act into something noble just because we think we're doing the right thing in the long run. I think we have to be honest with ourselves as much as possible - especially if we can't count on others to tell us the truth all the time.

:camp:

 

[Vinayaka]

If we're just discussing lying, then it's never black and white. We have to look at overall good or bad. If some angry low-minded person yells at you for your address, only a fool would tell him the truth. I lie all the time with stuff like that.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

If we're just discussing lying, then it's never black and white. We have to look at overall good or bad. If some angry low-minded person yells at you for your address, only a fool would tell him the truth. I lie all the time with stuff like that.

True. Ideally though, there is a truthful way to answer that which is, "Sorry, I don't give me address out to people I hardly know."

I guess it depends on how much self preservation matters in these situations and in fairness, I have given a man wrong number who I didn't want to see again, not because I didn't want to hurt his feelings but because I didn't want to get into a potentially dangerous situation. (bruised egos are capable of quite a lot of violence)

:camp:

Again though, I'd sat say there are instances when one chooses to lie because the outcome will be better overall and no harm is done technically, but it's still a lie. It's just a question of whether one is okay with that. For instance, let's say I hit a deer with my car but it doesn't die right away. I elect to put it out of it's misery, knowing it's still technically killing, but given the alternative (to let it suffer) I'll take the karmic burden of the former any day.

 

[Vinayaka]

Tact is often about 'distortion'. If your daughter puts a lot of effort into cooking her first family dinner on her own, and it's really not that delicious, are you really going to say it?

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

Tact is often about 'distortion'. If your daughter puts a lot of effort into cooking her first family dinner on her own, and it's really not that delicious, are you really going to say it?

I guess it depends on whether she wants to get better. Constructive criticism is what pushes people to improve. There is certainly a tactful but truthful way to go about it. In my industry (Illustration) especially in school, I saw far too many people avoid giving constructive critique to people who really needed it because they didn't want to hurt anyone's feelings. As a result, a month before graduation some of them had their advisers say, "Don't even try to graduate" because there work was so under-developed. There are bitter pills to swallow, but better to do it earlier than later, when the result could be devastating for someone.

Also, it's relative and level of expectation factors in too - "not that delicious" is different than , "completely inedible". No one should expect a gourmet chef style meal from someone making their first family meal. That being said, it's usually possible to find something you did really like about what someone did, in order to soften the blow when you offer a truthful and well - meaning critique.

"Hey, this sauce was really good - I like the spices you chose. Next time if you cook it longer, you can make it thicker."

This type of truth telling is kind AND useful, whereas, saying nothing (assuming the person wants to improve) really only delays their progress.

:camp:

 

[Vinayaka]

I agree. There's so much to consider. I had students who had such low self-esteem from their home life that no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't give constructive criticism. If I asked the child to come visit me at my desk, or if I stopped to look at their work, it was interpreted as 'Mr. ________'s mad at me." Of course this is way outside what we'd consider normal, but it existed.

I used to use the novel 'Number the Stars' and it lead into a great discussion about lying, because in the smuggling of Jews out of Denmark, the Danes were very deceptive. I've never bought into the lying is bad, truth is good, simplistic way of looking at life. Here are some other times I've lied, or hidden the whole story.
- about my salary in a foreign country so not to create sadness/envy
- to parents who were going to beat their kid if I told them what their kid did
- to a persistent person with poor social skills who wanted to come over all the time
- to a potential girlfriend I didn’t like, to lessen the pain but still break it off
- to friends about why I couldn’t attend something, be it cost, disinterest, etc
- in many situations when a person has trusted me in confidence, or I learned something about them I really shouldn’t have known.Then it's just gossip.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

I agree. There's so much to consider. I had students who had such low self-esteem from their home life that no matter how hard I tried, I couldn't give constructive criticism. If I asked the child to come visit me at my desk, or if I stopped to look at their work, it was interpreted as 'Mr. ________'s mad at me." Of course this is way outside what we'd consider normal, but it existed.

I used to use the novel 'Number the Stars' and it lead into a great discussion about lying, because in the smuggling of Jews out of Denmark, the Danes were very deceptive. I've never bought into the lying is bad, truth is good, simplistic way of looking at life. Here are some other times I've lied, or hidden the whole story.
- about my salary in a foreign country so not to create sadness/envy
- to parents who were going to beat their kid if I told them what their kid did
- to a persistent person with poor social skills who wanted to come over all the time
- to a potential girlfriend I didn’t like, to lessen the pain but still break it off
- to friends about why I couldn’t attend something, be it cost, disinterest, etc
- in many situations when a person has trusted me in confidence, or I learned something about them I really shouldn’t have known.Then it's just gossip.

Those are all very valid. It probably comes back to what it usually does which is, "know thyself". Sometimes we don't get a lot of time to figure out how to lie for the better, so I guess its a matter of experience in knowing what situation need a white lie or which ones need the full truth.

:camp:

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

Also, I think I accidentally turned this into a debate. Sorry! I forget about the forum distinctions sometimes for Same-Faith Debates.

:camp:

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Makaranda ji

How do we determine who is an evil-doer if undharmic actions are permissible even for those who are good? Who, then, is good? All we have are subjective valuations of one another, do we not?

what difines evil is the motive behind the thought or the action .

to me the whole question swings on the intention ,
one may commmit what 'appears' to be an adharmic action with the intention to do the right thing .

one may lie in order to protect ,

one may use trickery do deceive the evil doer , where as under normal circumstances trickery might be frowned upon as divisive , ....

if we return to the Mahabarata , Krsna uses trickery to atain the right ends , ...

when Krsna lay sleeping and both Arjuna and Duryodhana came to Krsna to ask for his support in the comming war , ....

Duryodhana due to his pride took the place at krsna's head and Arjuna displaying his humility took the place at Krsna's feet , ...upon waking Krsna first greeted Arjuna Duryodhana was quich to point out that he had arived first to ask for Krsnas support , but krsna being all knowing and possesing full insight into the implications of every action becided to play upon the natures of the two personalities present , so here Krsna uses subtle trickery , ....seeing the situation and Duryodhana's first claim to his loyalty , he says he will offer a choice of his support in two ways , he will offer to one his mighty army and to the other he will offer his own moral support , but to this he adds that he himself will not fight ! ...Arjuna imidiately chooses Krsna as he could not bear to be sepperated from Krsna nor could he think to fight without his support .
Duryodhana was delighted to have the mighty army of Krsna and gave little thought to the use of Krsna's support if he would not fight !

here krsna very carefully manipulates the situation to bring the outcome which he wants , ...he sees the different intentions of Duryodhana and Arjuna and from here on gives every instruction to Arjuna as to how and why Adharma with Dharma ...

If it's dharmic to commit undharmic acts against evil-doers, how do we know who is an evil doer? Surely an evil-doer is one who commits undharmic actions, no?

the evil dooer can be known as the one with unwholesome intentions , and allthough the Rightious may fight with the unrightious , allthough the actions of war and of killing are the same the motivation behind them are the opposite .

Then it becomes my word against yours, and there is no way to determine who is good and who isn't. Therefore, if I (even sincerely) believe someone is an evil-doer, and yet I am mistaken, am I not, then, truly the evil-doer by resorting to undharmic actions against them? Can you see how it's not so black and white?

Duryodhana here is the personification of willfulness and self interest , Arjuna is ever submissive to Krsna will , therefore one is rightious and the other unrightious , ...

it is only unclear where there is indescision , where there is a mixture of willfull ness and submittion , ...to be Dharmic there must be full submition to rightiousness .

So, then, a lie in itself is not undharmic, even though we are told to speak the truth? Why, then, the imperative to speak the truth, if lies are intrinsically okay?

to speak in accordance with the truth , is to speak in accordance with Dharma , if you ask me which way your enemy went , and I know your cause to be just then I will not deceive you , if i know your cause to be unjust I will send you in the oposite direction , if i am unsure as to your intention I will say nothing .

I think we are going to run into the issue of objective versus subjective morality. I hope we can get a good discussion going.

thank you Ithink this will be a good conversation

 

[Aupmanyav]

Can our Sanatana Dharma be maintained or upheld, with the best of intentions, even through actions which would normally be considered undharmic? For example, do you think it would be right to lie to, deceive, or mislead a person if you thought doing so would protect (your particular interpretation of) Hinduism, Vedanta, etc? Can truth be cocooned by falsehoods?

There can be situations where speaking a lie will not be considered bad. We have the example of 'Naro va kunjaro va'. In a discussion, I would say no. One might not bring it up but lying in a discussion is counter productive. 'Satyameva Jayate'.

On a more visceral level- would it be right to fight against those who would threaten our religion, or who, in one's opinion, would wilfully misappropriate it for their own selfish purposes? Is there scope for violence, either in thought, word, or deed, against those inside or outside of our religion if we felt they posed a real threat to the stability of it? Can it be possible to remove one thorn with another thorn?

If anyone threatens Hinduism, then it will become our 'dharma' to decimate the threat completely if no other way works, like Chanakya spreading whey on the grass field where his feet got cut.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

what difines evil is the motive behind the thought or the action .

to me the whole question swings on the intention ,
one may commmit what 'appears' to be an adharmic action with the intention to do the right thing .

I think in most situations you're right -intention does matter. But there are plenty of extreme situations, in which someone does something thinking it is for the greater good, and the suffering it causes clearly outweighs the good intentions.

Someone who buys and sells young girls into sex slavery for money because he's trying to make a living to feed his family may have good intentions, but the suffering he causes is immense. Can we really say what he is doing is Dharmic?

Again I think beyond intention, it comes down to knowing oneself. Anyone can rationalize what they are doing by saying 'it's for the greater good, it's not for me,' but I think everyone here would agree that if Hitler fell asleep every night thinking "I'm doing what's best for Germany." We'd say he was deluding himself and he really was doing it to stroke his own ego. But we will never know because we live outside his mind.

I guess what I've really learned from this discussion is there is indeed a lot of gray area. Interesting topic, OP.

:camp:

 

[Vinayaka]

Again I think beyond intention, it comes down to knowing oneself. Anyone can rationalize what they are doing by saying 'it's for the greater good, it's not for me,'

This is an important point. Someone clouded by anava (ego/ignorance) cannot tell right from wrong, and in varying degrees of that. The conscience is buried under layers of mental dross, so to speak. So in that case one's own mind can be manipulated into thinking what's best for it is best for humanity. To assume that others have the same sense of morality is folly.

 

[Kalidas]

I think in most situations you're right -intention does matter. But there are plenty of extreme situations, in which someone does something thinking it is for the greater good, and the suffering it causes clearly outweighs the good intentions.

Someone who buys and sells young girls into sex slavery for money because he's trying to make a living to feed his family may have good intentions, but the suffering he causes is immense. Can we really say what he is doing is Dharmic?

Again I think beyond intention, it comes down to knowing oneself. Anyone can rationalize what they are doing by saying 'it's for the greater good, it's not for me,' but I think everyone here would agree that if Hitler fell asleep every night thinking "I'm doing what's best for Germany." We'd say he was deluding himself and he really was doing it to stroke his own ego. But we will never know because we live outside his mind.

I guess what I've really learned from this discussion is there is indeed a lot of gray area. Interesting topic, OP.

:camp:

TECHNICALLY speaking he DID help. Germany was in a position of bankrupt despair. After He came into power they were back on the grand stage and were actually a force to be feared. Not that I am for what he did (I am not) but it did "work" for a time being. So it becomes a question of "Does the end justify the means?" Not always. I think we need to as dharmic people give every moral situation a good thinking and consideration before making a decision.

Many people in Germany lied to the government when hiding Jews, and yet no one would think their lies were "evil" actually quite the opposite. It's all about context. So any time you are given a situation of a serious moral dilemma you must ask yourself "What do I want to accomplish?" "How can I accomplish it?" "Will my action lead to further harm?" "If so is the harm permissible given the situation?"

On the topic of tact and honesty. I dislike "brutal honesty" you can almost always be kind when you're being honest. As a college professor of mine would say "Say what you mean, and mean what you say, but don't say it mean.