[Advaita-l] A question on the meaning of 'dharma''

[V Subrahmanian]

Thanks for the response.  In fact the Taittiriya Upanishad itself has
specified thus:

अथ यदि ते कर्मविचिकित्सा वा वृत्तविचिकित्सा वा स्यात् where both 'karma'
and 'conduct' come into the picture.  For doubt in regard to both one is
asked to consult the 'brahmaNas' in that locality for clarification.  So
'karma' and 'dharma' (conduct) seem to be treated in like manner and
guidance from shiShTa-s is what is expected to be sought with regard to the
performance of both, in case of doubt.  And 'doubt' could take the form:
'whether to do or not' and 'how to do'.  This Upanishadic injunction
addressed to the graduating student implicitly instructs that matters of
karma and dharma are not universal and uniform; they take different forms
in different climes and times.  And normally for someone who has a vedic
background a doubt will not arise owing to complete ignorance; there
appears a sandhigdha where he is unable to decide this way or that.  It
could well be a glaring 'clash' of the vedic pronouncement and a smRti
statement on a particular issue.  Such would be an ideal situation when the
Upanishad instructs one to take the guidance of shiShTas.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v

2011/12/7 श्रीमल्ललितालालितः <lalitaalaalitah at gmail.com>

>
> On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 14:51, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > The pUrva mImaamsA sutras start with 'अथातो धर्मजिज्ञासा' ।  There is the
> > popular saying 'वेदमूलोयं धर्मः' ॥
>
>
> OK. Both words are from different scriptures.
>
>
> > It is generally understood that the
> > pU.mI.shastra deals with karma enjoined in the Veda.
>
>
> Correct. But, as the first sUtra says pUrva-mImAMsA is dedicated to dharma.
> So, if someone says that karma is subject of pUrva-mImAMsa, he says it
> knowing that karma is dharma.
>
>
> > Now in the second
> > quoted sentence do we strictly separate 'dharma' from the karma of the
> > veda?
>
>
> No.
>
>  Is there a real difference made between the word 'dharma' found in
> > the two quotes?
>
>
> No, because both are talking about dharma which is said in veda-s.
>
>
> > The pU.mI. sutra also states: चोदना लक्षणो अर्थो धर्मः
> > which appears to be defining the word dharma in terms of chodanaa,
> > enjoining, or vidhi.
>
>
> And vidhi is a type of veda-vAkya or veda.
> So, it comes that pUrva-mImAMsA is talking of the dharma according to
> veda-s.
>
>
> >  Further, does the pU.mI. shastra also deal with
> > 'dharma' as it is generally understood: appropriate conduct?
>
>
> appropriate conduct is known as Achara. It is mainly a subject of smR^it-s,
> i.e. dharmashAstra-s. And smR^iti-s go according to veda-s. To know more
> about prAmANyam of smR^ti-s you may look at commentary of mAdhava on
> pArAshara-smR^it.
>
>