The most central and core concept of Hindu philosophy is known as Dharma. All other principles and values flow from this beautiful fountain of Dharma. The word Dharma is formed from the root dhr and literally means to hold, sustain and maintain a thing in its being. There is no accurate translation of the word into English but we may have a glimpse of its vast scope by translating Dharma as right action, right conduct, virtue, moral law etc. Every form of life, every group of people has its Dharma, which is the law of its being. Dharma or virtue is conformity with the truth of things; adharma or vice is opposition to it. Bringing up a child means inculcating in the child a variety of guidelines through which he or she will develop a sense to distinguish a dharmic act from its opposite. Beyond that, an individual may be able to define the boundaries of Dharma through interactions, discussions, reading of scriptures, the great epics, legends, mythologies, history, drama and a wide variety of stories heard throughout the formative years. These experiences form what we call as samskaras and they constitute personal measures and yardsticks which an individual uses in making decisions throughout the lifetime. In a sense this is the individual's conscience and it is perhaps the only available light that guides individual actions. There are no other readily available manuals which can serve to distinguish our actions.

The concept of Dharma encompasses all aspects of our lives. Even political philosophies can issue out of principles based on Dharma. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, who was widely believed to have been a non-religious and scientific type wrote (in the introduction to a book Socialism in Indian Planning, written by the then member of Parliament Srimannarayan Agarwal) " In India it is important for us to profit by modern technical processes and increase our production in agriculture and industry. But, in doing so, we must not forget that the essential objective to be aimed at is the quality of the individual and the concept of Dharma underlying it" (italics mine).

Dharma is the first of four personal aims to be realized or striven for during the course of one's life time known as chaturvidha phala purushartha i.e. Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha. Artha implies wealth, prosperity, reputation or fame etc. Kama implies sensory and aesthetic fulfillment. Moksha is liberation and salvation. So the Hindu says that it is one's obligation to practice Artha and Kama with Dharma as the foundation so that the primary object of reaching salvation and a release from cycles of birth may be obtained. Happiness, prosperity and good life are considered to be legitimate human experiences as long as they are within the frame work of Dharma. If moksha is our goal, the ancient Hindus said, then by all means participate fully in the affairs of society, raise a family, enjoy the good life, serve the community ... all within the framework known as Dharma.

With Dharma as the basis, the Hindu thinkers have, throughout the four or five millennium tried to grapple with the fundamental questions of life: who are we?, what we are we doing here?, what is our role in society?, what is society's role?, what is our connection with the Supreme Being?, what is the truth? etc. In fact the ancient Hindu made a special effort to focus his attention inwards precisely because he found the inner universe equally fascinating and equally demanding. They did succeed in their intense effort to understand the Self and the accumulated treasures of these spiritual laws are known as the Vedas. Therefore the philosophy of the Hindus is known as Vedanta, the culmination of the Vedas.

The particular group of people who specialized in such inquiries, who searched for truth and who had the training to judge issues without emotion and who would base their conclusions on experience were known as Brahmins. These were sages, rishies, maharshies of the ancient past. All Hindus are descendants of such sages and they identify themselves with the sages through the Gotra. When one says, for example, "Abhivadaye Kaushika, Vishvamitra, Aghamarshana thrayarishayah pravaranvita Kaushika gotrodbhavasya grihastha shakham adhyayee aham asmibhoh", he is saying that "I, who belong to the lineage of the three sages Kaushika, Vishvamitra and Aghamarshana and of Kaushika gotra, a student of the grihastha branch of life, offer my salutations to you." Notice the emphasis on being a student. Marry and then study this branch, the life of a house holder, this stage of life. What a learning that is! Those who are married know that it is a long and continuous study and discovery of ourselves, our partner, our interpersonal relationships, likes, dislikes, priorities and so on.

So one's gotra signifies the sage who was one's ancestor. How did it come about that only this group was endowed with this responsibility and why were they called Brahmins? They were called Brahmins because their single most important goal was to strive towards understanding the absolute truth, i.e. Brahma. It required a certain level of intellect, certain level of objectivity, certain level of tenacity to adhere to truth and experience, not opinions, in making judgments and most specially it implied a certain level of responsibility to their fellowbeings. In short, these were brilliant people, with a heart, who had an intimate connection with society and helped reform society and played the role of leaders.

Why didn't the entire society devote itself to this noble cause? It is a naive and theoretical question, but it can still be answered. First of all, when we examine the question, there are some built-in assumptions. It presumes that all members of a society have not only a similar and simultaneous interest in the type of studies implied earlier, but more important they all have the requisite talents to engage themselves in that task. Secondly there is an implication that this is indeed the only and noble task. Both assumptions are incorrect. In practice individuals have different talents and interests. Furthermore there are other tasks equally challenging and equally noble that a society needs done for a uniform, wholesome development of society. In fact, it is in society's interest that there are people with different interests and talents and it is best if each individual had the scope to reach his/her heights in sharpening those skills and contributing the very best in the specific areas of their calling.

So in formulating the total work that needs to be performed, ancient societies provided certain opportunities and defined certain responsibilities to their members. Clearly they needed a group of people who had the requisite talents to protect society from external aggression or internal strife. So that group specialized in the science of arms, ammunition, strategies, tactics of warfare etc. This specific group was called Kshatriyas. Then the society required people who specialized in trade and commerce to procure goods and services so that the society as a whole can lead a life of plenty and enjoy the good life. This group was known as Vaishyas. And, of course, the society needs a group of people who would till the land, work in the open fields, raise cattle and crops to feed the society with nourishing food and this group was known as Shudras.

This is neither a strange nor crazy arrangement. This system is alive and well, with appropriate variations, in every corporation, in every household, in every government and even in civic, religious and political groups. There is no inherent problem with it. It is reality. The system simply recognizes various needs of an organization and allows people to match their talents with corresponding tasks to assure the best performance that benefis both the individual and society.

The metaphor for the division into four principal groups is the human body with its head, arms, trunk and legs. The system described above is similar and is bound together by ties of common fellowship much the same way the different parts of the body are bound together into one whole. So what is the problem? The problem is that the system was called caste system and there was a stigma attached to that description because of some serious misinterpretations and improper perceptions. One such perception is based on an unfounded belief that somehow these tasks are not really equal or equally noble. The second and somewhat more serious perception is that once a person is committed to a group and its task, that person can never move to another group and task and take on a new responsibility. These perceptions have no scriptural basis and are not realistic. However these perceptions have caused a major havoc in Hindu society and therefore the obvious thing happened. Instead of trying to understand its original intent of shared obligation and responsibility by all sections of society, the national debate shifted its emphasis to "correct" the so called imbalance. As a result, not only Brahmins and therefore their tasks suffered but the other groups have too, leading to a major headache with groupism, exploitation and unnecessary rivalry. That is why one does not see Texas-style farms, Great Corporations, etc. in India. When was the last time a new raga was discovered? When was the last time a new concept of management or a new law in economics or astronomy or mathematics was introduced in the land of the Vedas, in the land of Ramanuja and Shankara and Chanakya or Sreenivasa Ramanujan? When was the last time a truly outstanding book was published? The world is enamored by Vedas, the epics, the Srimadbhagavadgita and rightly so. But these are ancient Hindu's contributions and we are milking it. In fact, the West is milking it. Where is the contemporary Brahmin? It took a Peter Brook to introduce to the world that nectar called Mahabharata. How can any intellectual activity emerge when there is so much hatred, so much misunderstanding and so much bickering? Modern Indians have successfully prevented any possible breakthroughs because they have failed to understand a system that is so natural and realistic by giving it names and ascribing to it characteristics that have no basis. The society as a whole lost the opportunity to get back on track to focus on a uniform, healthy, robust development and to grow.

The system does allow individuals to excel in what they can do well, reach new heights beyond imagination keeping in mind that they could shift in either direction and take on tasks and responsibilities that are the domain of another group if they have the interest and talents to do so. That is their birth right and no force on earth can prevent them. In fact thee system should be thrown out if it does not meet these conditions. It must stand the test of truth and practicality at once. Hindu society examined the basic question long ago and we can revisit the same again. what is a Brahmin? What does it really take to be a Brahmin? In fact that question was put to Yudhishtira by the Yaksha (See my book: Yaksha Prashna, A Hindu Primer, IND-US, 1984). Listen to the Yaksha and Yudhishtira.

rajan kulena vrttena svadhyayena shrutena va
brahmanyam kenabhavati prabruhyetatsu nishcitam

King, how does one become a Brahmin: by birth?
character? study of the Vedas? education? Tell me precisely.


shrnu yaksha kulam tata nasvadhyayo nacashrutam
karanam hi dvijatve ca vrttameva na samshayha

Listen, Yaksha, it is neither birth nor education, nor even the study
of the Vedas. Without doubt, it is character alone that marks a Brahmin.

Yudhishthira's answer is crisp, clear and unambiguous when he replies, 'Na samshayaha ... there is no doubt about it: it is not birth, it is not education, it is not the study of the Vedas but it is vritta (character) alone that determines a Brahmin."

What is Yudhishthira's definition of character? He has already answered the same question in a previous passage in the Mahabharata, the dialogue with King Nahusha: "He is known as a Brahmin ... in whom truthfulness, liberality, patience, deportment, mildness, self control, and compassion are found. And he may gain knowledge of the Supreme Brahman, beyond happiness and unhappiness ... on reaching which they grieve no more." The long list of attributes may be looked upon as components of character.

This inquiry and answer ought to be adequate to clear the great disagreement in regard to caste. Swami Vivekananda in his lecture on "The Mission of the Vedanta" declares that "Our ideal is the Brahmin of the spiritual culture and renunciation ... I mean the Brahmin idealness in which worldliness is altogether absent and true wisdom is abundantly present. That is the ideal of the Hindu race." (The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda, Advaita Ashrama, Calcutta, Vol. 3, p.197). That is the reason why in ancient India, the greatest princes sought to trace their descent to some ancient sage who dressed in a bit of loin-cloth, lived in a forest, eating roots and studying the Vedas. It is there that the Indian princes went to trace their ancestry. Their satisfaction was immense if they could discover that their ancestor was "devoid of worldliness and possessed true wisdom." So if one desires to be a Brahmin, by all means become one. But it is in one's interest to see if one can satisfy the stringent requirements ("Brahmin idealness in which worldliness is altogether absent and true wisdom is abundantly present" and "in whom truthfulness, liberality, patience, deportment, mildness, self control, and compassion are found") and that has nothing to do with who one is born to and what one's occupation is today. The authority of the epic Mahabharata is there to support this thesis. It makes sense as a philosophy as well as a workable tool.

---