Pearson Edexcel Level 3 Advanced GCE in Religious Studies – Anthology
180The more populist texts known as Dharmashastras, of whic h the most relevant
are Manu’s ‘Law Books’ and Kaut ilya’s t reat ise on polit ic s, overst ress t he legalist ic
side (Manu 1975; Kane, 1969). T hus Kaut ilya (c. 200 CE) just ifies t he rigid reign of
the ‘rod’ (danda) wielded by the king on the grounds that unless there are
c alc ulat ed c ont rols t he (nat ural) law of t he small fish being swallowed by t he big
fish would prevail. Jurisprudenc e, ordinanc es for regulat ing c ivil life, and t he
governanc e and sec urity of the state are his c hief objec tives. But he also highlights
the use of reasoning (anvikshiki) in the study and deliberation on these matters
(Kane, 1969, 1.1:225). Both he and Manu make it mandatory for the king to attend
first to the welfare of the citizens, and they seek to protect the rights and interests
of the individual within a group framework, although not in the most egalitarian
manner. Manu even admits that there are different dharmas in different epoc hs,
whic h is suggest ive of relat ivit y in et hic s (Manu, 1975, 1, 81–86). Manu decrees
some ten virtues, namely contentment, forgiveness, self-rest raint , non-anger, non-
appropriating, purity, sensual-c ont rol, wisdom, self-knowledge, and truth. Again,
these are c ommon to Indian ethic s.
The Epics and the Gita
The popular epic s of the Ramayana and Mahabharata, through their moving
narratives and anecdotes, explore the struggles, paradoxes and difficulties of
c oming t o grips wit h t he evolving idea of dharma. The Ramayana, whic h presents
the heroic Rama and his c haste wife Sita as the paragons of virtue, is somewhat
dogmatic on its stanc e of ‘righteousness’, while the voluminous Mahabharata is less
sanguine about exac tness in matters of duty, as it turns over every conceivable
ethic al stanc e the c ulture has hitherto known. For instanc e, the sage Kaushika, who
in the Mahabharata c ourts c ensure for his insistenc e on telling the truth to a bandit
— bec ause it leads t o t he killing of an innoc ent man — might well be ac c laimed in
the Ramayana for his unc ompromis ing adherenc e to princ iple — as Rama indeed is
for giving priorit y t o his fat her’s promise over his royal and family obligat ions.
The Bhagavad Gita, however, which is part of the Mahabharata, appears to be
more dec isive in its ethic al pronounc ements and perhaps for that reason has had an
extraordinary impac t on the modern Hindu—India n mind. T he Git a loc at es it self in
the middle of two opposing traditions: Nivritti (abstinent), the austere path of anti-
ac tion (ec hoing non-Vedic asc et ic ism), and Pravrit t i (performat ive), t he doing of
soc ial and moral dut ies. Eac h had et hic al ramific at ions for it s t ime and t heir
respective codes and rules were in competition and conflict.
While t he Git a is rec ognized for the ingenuity with whic h it raises a host of
et hic al issues (eg, should I kill my own kin for t he sake of regaining my right ful
sovereignty?), its judgements have not satisfied all and sundry. The deep c onflic t of
t radit ions is resolved t hrough a synthesis of asc etic ism and duty in the unique
c onc ept of nishkama karma or disint erest ed ac t ion. What t his implies is t hat one
does not forsake one’s apportioned duties but performs them in complete disregard
of their fruits or c onsequenc es. Ac tion is a universal nec essit y, and t he individual
has a ‘right’ (adhikara) only to the performanc e of the ac tion and not to its fruit
(2.47). The argument is that it is not ac ting that enslaves, but rather the thought
that one is the c ause, the agent and enjoyer of the ac t ; st ripped of t his linear
c ausal thinking no ac tion c an be binding on the self, whic h is free to start with.