Dharma

Though the term [[Dharma]] is used to connote seemingly manifold [[definition]]s when translated in the English language (namely, law, religion, duty, order etc), none seem to aptly convey the essence of the term. When it comes to the idea of trying to define, its important for us to appreciate how definitions come to be.

Words can be understood in different ways. Through reference, through logic and through application or experience.


Through Logic
_Dharma_ may have an **intensional definition**, meaning it can be defined based on its attributes. Let's take the example of a Square. A square can be defined by its attributes e.g. 'a square is a plane object with four sides'. Here, the word, which denotes a set (namely a square), is stated in terms of conditions that are sufficient and necessary for a thing to be part of that set. In other words, a thing is only a square (a set) if it meets the conditions (that it is a plane object with four sides).

If Dharma was a set, and within it, certain things were contained, what would be the sufficient and necessary conditions that a 'thing' would need to have for it to be _Dharma?_

_Dharma_ may also have an **extensional definition**, by which we mean, it can be seen through an extension of a list of things that makes up the set. Here, terms like religion, law, order and duty are used as extensions of the central essence. The problem with this method is that those very words that make up such a list are loaded and ambiguous.


#### Through Metaphor

But beyond these methods, it seems apt to move away from the play of words and look at the real world. A better method for understanding _Dharma **is to see how it works in the natural world. Take a moment to gaze outside the window:

_When I gaze out of the window I see the blue skies with the sun shining, interrupted occasionally by the drifting clouds. I see large evergreen trees at a distance, dancing with the wind. I see bluebells, daffodils, and roses rooted in the black soil, surrounding the green shiny grass. I see pigeons, robins, and sparrows gliding high and low. I see the buzzing bees searching for their honey and the army of ants crawling on the edges of the pavement. I see a plethora of colours. I see movement. Out of the window, I see a continually changing and delightfully diverse play._

_What is That which enables this play?_

Now, focus your gaze on the inner world:

_I watch my body. My heart faithfully beats at the rate of 66. Like the waves of the ocean, my lungs expand and contract. The olfactory nerve picks up the smell of food. My tongue excites at the taste. My mouth secretes saliva and my jaw works the mechanics. My skeleton holds me firm, whilst my muscles give me freedom to roam. When I run, my heart beats faster, sweat beads off my brow, my lungs balloon to capture more air. When I rest, my liver rids toxins, whilst my kidneys filter the blood. And every four months, a red blood cell dies, creating space for new ones to be born. Inside my body, I feel this continual changing landscape, diverse and delightful, integrated seamlessly to give rise to conciousness.

_What is That which enables this play?_

There is nothing specific one can point to - like a noun - a distinct 'thing' - that we call _That._ But, the magestic interconnectedness of the living world, as evidenced in the above examples makes it sufficiently clear that some quality must exist within systems that hold them together. What is that quality? What is that essence? What is that thread holding a garland of flowers together?

Notice also, that in both scenes, there is no identifiable 'boss'. Neither the sun nor the clouds, neither the trees nor the wind, neither the grass nor the soil, neither the bees nor the flowers, neither the worms nor the birds; none hold ultimate authority. None seeks domination of the other. None claims sovereignty. None invades. There may be playful competition between the bees and the flowers, but they both seek to help one another persist in the play.

Does the brain think, _‘I must hunt for food in order to satisfy the gut’ ?_ Or, does the gut groan, _‘ I exist to provide energy for the brain to think?'_ Who knows? Do we move to eat, or eat to move? Does the bright light make us see or does our sight create the light? Do our ears enable sound or does the fallen tree crash with a bang? None claims superiority.

If there is an authority, a superiority, it is the relationship between entities, less the entities themselves.

The secret to this play, the dance of life, is in its working as one diverse system, working in beautiful harmony. And so, what is _That_ quality which holds it all together and sustains it?

It is _dharma._


#### Through Reference
And so, _Dharma_ is quite rightly and deliberately defined as 'that which holds' or 'that which sustains':

"*Dhāranāt Iti Dharmah*" is a Sanskrit phrase that can be translated as "*It is Dharma because it upholds*".

Here's a breakdown of the translation:

> - "Dhāranāt" comes from the root 'dhr' which means 'to hold', 'to bear', 'to carry', or 'to sustain'. In this case, it could be translated as 'because it upholds'.
>
> - "Iti" means 'thus' or 'so'.
>
> - "Dharmah" is the nominative singular form of 'dharma'.


The holding together of all things within systems (self-organisation), enabling diversity of their expression whilst keeping them connected, maintaining a balance between change and order, and working for the purpose of life itself - this is _Dharma_.


#### Through Application

When you are living alone, doing your own things, the freedom afforded to you means you need not care about another.

Getting married is not just a simple aggregate of 1+1=2. It is 1+1=?

Marriage is the inter-personal integration of two individuals. It could also mean social integration, psychological integration, financial integration. In essence, the sum (here, a married couple), is altogether a different entity to the parts (two individuals). This integration causes the **emergence** of a new level of **organisation**, which is both quantitatively and qualitatively different to its constituent parts. The properties of this synthesis cannot be explained purely through its parts. This is because the parts continually change and adapt dependent on the context of their larger organisation. Two random individuals who have little connection, though living in the same physical space, may just be a set of individuals. But a married couple is not just an aggregative set - it is a system. A System is an organisation - self-emergent one or deliberately designed. Whenever there is an organisation of a system, there is the potential of positive synergy or negative synergy.

For example, the dish khichdi is an integration (through the process of presure cooking) of rice and moong daal. They become integral in relation to one-another. This gives rise to the emergence of a new level of organisation - khichdi - which is altogether different to a simple mixture of rice and moong daal.

In any [[System]] - be it ecological, social, cultural or biological - anything that is conducive to stability, balance, harmony, and sustainability we should - know that _Dharma_ is strong. These form the principles of _Dharma_ of which flourishing is its purpose.

#### Through its Opposite
Do we experience 'flourhsing'? But we may say "I don't experience it". This is true, for ‘flourishing’ is rarely experienced. When our eyes are working perfectly well, we don’t experience the eyes themselves; rather, we experience a vision of the world. When the gut is digesting well, we don't experience the gut at all - rather we experience a satiety. It is only when something is out of balance (I use the term balance deliberately instead of 'wrong'), we experience symptoms. To elaborate more, let us come back to the example of nature.

Entities looking to invade and demand prescriptive uniformity destroy nature. A swarm of bees attacking a fragile flower will steal more than just honey. Wind that twists into a tornado will destroy the surrounding land. A cancer - characterised by nothing but the predominance of one cell type over every other cell type - will eat the body. This ‘egoistical’ cell multiplies uncontrollably, and without the effective checks in place by the rest of the body, it will invade and engulf the other bodily systems, until eventually, the body dies.

Dominance, forced uniformity, stasis, superiority, and exclusivity - these lead to a given system being out of balance. Here, the opposite prevails - a_dharma._ Left unchecked, it eats and kills the system. This is not a question of morality or ethics. It is a question of 'will the system be left in a healthier state or unhealthier state?"


## Dharma is a social phenomenon

The question of _Dharma_ only comes to light when there is a presence of ‘not one’. Two or more entities. When there are two flowers, it is then that the question of a thread to bind them arises. One could say, there is always a presence of 'two or more'. One couuld say "Well, there is never a circumstnace where there is only one entity." We would be right in this remark. At the most basic level, we feel this sense of other-ness in relation to our 'Self' and the 'Other - a feeling that is universally experienced. The collapse of this 'two or more' into 'oneness' is akin to the transformation of experience into non-experience. In other words, we can only experience the world through contrast (e.g. black and white) and so, verily, 'two or more' entities are also a universal truth in our everyday experience.

The presence of this seperateness of things, allows us to utilise our perceptive capabilities to experience a manifest reality. Taken a step further, one could deduce that it is seperateness itself that ‘creates things’. Without seperateness, no ‘things’ would manifestly exist. (Not nothing, but no 'thing'.)

The sense of seperateness, which as we've established is a universal feeling in our manifest reality, sets in motion a mental interference (_Vritti)_. In other words, when we experience a presence of seperateness to something, a subtle feeling arises within ourselves. Let's say we are lying in bed on our own, trying to sleep. We may feel calm. But, if we saw a spider in the corner, this would trigger a mental interference. This trigger causes a certain _Vritti_ to emerge, and if left uncontrolled, becomes like a 'whirlpool'. Factors that lead to a high level of distrubance (in the form of aversion or craving) are related to both the psycho-physical propensities of the subject and the attributes of the object. Of course however, it is the whirlpool that imposes most of the attributes upon the object (in the form of labelling), and contingent on how we perceieve the object, our behaviour is determined. Both craving and aversion to 'the other' lead to tension. Imagine seeing a flower in a flower bed. If upon seeing it, it triggers within us an extreme craving for it, we have an urge to steal the flowers. If it evokes within us an extreme hate, we may want to demolish the garden.

And so, as soon as we perscieve an object (the perception of 'other'), a relationship is formed. _Dharma_ is set in motion. Depending on the 'Tension Potential' (which may be cognitive, visceral or physical) caused by the _Vrittis_, our behaviour can be conducive or detrimental to co-existencing with the 'other'.

On a metaphysical level, we come to realise that without seperateness (which is the root of distinctiveness), we would not experience the world. There would be no manifest reality of the world. Manifest reality can be material or non-material. Whatever it is, we could not make sense of the world. And so, we can say Seperateness is a necessity for manifest reality to be experienced using our senses by us. And as we are all born with the faculty to experience, seperateness is a fact of life.

The sense of ‘two’ is perhaps our biggest cause of tension. At a mental level, we want to divide the world into two. Our natural dispotiion is to divide everythign into two. Perhaps the primal division that our minds make is between Self and Other.

Dharma’s purpose is to remind us - before we get into the viscious spiral of tension and reaction, to pause and see seperateness - lets say between a man and a tree - not as two distinct things, but only as apparently two seperate things - arising from the same unity of life. When we are reminded of the integrity of everything in this way, our first reaction is to sustain a relationship and allow both to co-exist.

Just as a cell can multiply unconotroabbly to invade surroudning structures and cause a cancer, entities - within the social world - can do the same. They could be ideologies, beliefs, sentiments, emotions - like anger, greed, jealously - violent actions, dominance. If the balance veers towards the destruction of the organism, these things would be considered as acting in favour of _adharma._ If they break or destablise an otherwise flourishing and sustainable system, they must be removed.


#### Some key concepts

- Purna / Samanvaya - Holism
- Karma - Causality - temporal and spatial.
- Udhbhava - Emergence
- Swayam - Self-Similar
- Integration vs Differentiation
- Individual vs Collective
- Subjective vs Objective


Universality vs contextual - are we in suppoprt of a universal set of norms that every culture must abide with

Equality - Is our view of equality sameness? Equality vs Sameness

To what extent do we discard the traditional? Is progressive always actually progressive? Traditional vs progressive

From a cultural standopoint, Strange vs familiar

Principles - emerrgence, intergrity, change, diversity, decent