Dharma and Conscience

 

Dharma and Conscience

Some modern and popular intellectuals try to make Dharma appealing to the modern world. They try to define Dharma based on some universally acceptable norms. According to them conscience – the universal understanding of right and wrong that is inherent in human mind – is the basis of distinction between virtue and vice. The objective of this article is to express a disagreement with the above understanding of Dharma and to uphold the traditional definition and source of Dharma.

Dharma From a Traditional Perspective:

The Vedic tradition accepts Vedas as the basic Pramana (source of knowledge) for Dharma. Dharma refers to any means to a desirable goal that is revealed by the Vedas.  (वेदप्रतिपाद्यः प्रयोजनवद् अर्थो धर्मः) From this definition one can easily presume that Vedas are the pramana for Dharma.

The following verses of Manusmrti resonates the same idea:

वेदोऽखिलो धर्ममूलं स्मृतिशीले च तद्विदाम्।

आचारश्चैव साधूनामात्मनस्तुष्टिरेव च॥

(Manusmrti 2.6)

वेदः स्मृतिः सदाचारः स्वस्य च प्रियमात्मनः।

एतच्चतुर्विधं प्राहुः साक्षाद् धर्मस्य लक्षणम्॥

(Manusmrti 2.12)

आर्षं धर्मोपदेशं च वेदशास्त्राविरोधिना।

यस्तर्केणानुसंधत्ते स धर्मं वेद नेतरः॥

(Manusmrti 12. 106)

Vedas are the primary source of Dharma. If one cannot decipher Dharma from the Vedas directly, one should refer to the smrtis that are based on Dharma. The conduct and actions of the knowers of Shruti also serve as testimony to Dharma, because they are based on Vedas.

Why Conscience Cannot Determine Dharma

Conscience is understood as the inbuilt sense of right and wrong. One gets a sense of right or wrong about an action or behaviour without being prompted by an external source. It cannot be the basis of right or wrong on account of the following reasons

1.                        Conscience might vary depending on culture and training. An individual brought up in Islamic islamic does not feel guilty of eating halal meat, whereas an individual brought up as a vegetarian Hindu cannot even think of killing innocent animals to satisfy his taste buds. A man brought up in a cannibal tribe does not think there is anything wrong in killing other human beings. Hence there does not seem any valid reason to believe that there is a universal conscience.

2.                        Conscience can be Delusive

Emotional impulses, weakness and delusion can be misunderstood as the voice of conscience. There does not seem to be a clear way to filter out conscience from emotional weakness and temptation. Hence Dharma will become absolutely subjective.

3.                        Conscience is not a Pramana

There are certain valid sources of Jnana (Knowledge) like Pratyaksha, anumana etc. Conscience is a thought that arises in our mind at a given situation. The validity of any thought depends on a valid means of knowledge. The thought in itself cannot be considered as the basis of its validity. For example, I see a fruit on a tree. Then I get a thought: “the fruit is sweet”. This thought can be valid only if it is based on a valid Pramana. If the thought has risen after tasting the fruit, it is based on direct perception (Pratyakasha). Sometimes it can be based on inference also. I may not have tasted the particular fruit. Yet I have eaten a similar fruit. Hence, I can conclude that the fruit is as sweet as the other one. It is inference (anumana). It can also be based on Shabda Pramana – the words of a trustworthy person. If I have not arrived at the conclusion based on any of these pramanas, then it is just my imagination.

       On account of the above three reasons, conscience cannot be accepted as a valid basis for Dharma. Therefore, we should rely on a valid basis to determine the virtues and vices. The time-tested and most ancient means to determine Dharma are the Vedas and literature based on the Vedas. Hence, one should trust and rely on the Vedas as the ultimate means to understand the values and duties of Dharma.