The looming challenge in the contemporary world is often one to be contested in its vitality. In connection with the setting of our ever-evolving dimension, the choice of mannerisms that one must adopt, to excel in the selected sphere is a question that explores answers which outwit the excellence of the scenario. Regardless of the plethora of available solutions to the applicable situation, the individuals in question tend to make a choice that reproduces repercussions that are not predictable at the primary stance. Resulting from such unforeseen consequences arises the attribute of hollow satisfaction which further persuades the actor to complete the unfinished – by those means that are undefined and possess incomplete assurance of their nourishment. This blog aims to establish that even though Darvin’s thesis of ‘Survival of the Fittest’ lures immense favour in the perpetual 21st century, on being supplemented with a vital intersection of monism and dharma of Advaita and Righteousness, the contemporaries can experience a triumphant composure, not only at an individual but also in a collective milieu. This blog is divided into three sections. The first section broadly, yet briefly identifies the topics of Monism and Dharma as presented under the umbrella topics of Advaita and the Mahabharata. The second section is further bifurcated into three subsections that individually deal with the chief concepts of Advaita and Mahabharat, while also attempting the prime integration of monism and dharma in the quotidian task of individualistic decision-making. Finally, the third section exercises the dual attributes of primarily justifying the validity, utilisation as well as sustainability of the integration and subsequently, presents the various spheres of practicality, whereby the essentiality of the integration may differ from one connotation to another.
Just as the contexts of space and time impersonate the vitality of dimensions, the 21st century and the combination of ethical and moral decision-making formulate the intensity of contentment after the execution of a decision that has been promulgated. What is more contentious is the duality of the contentment – whether the contentment is genuine or is it just a façade after all. The step–by–step methodology of actively exercising a decision is a three-fold activity. It begins with encountering the problem of the given case scenario, followed by the ideal identification of the proposition with respect to the case scenario and culminating with the appropriate resolve to the problem of the case scenario at hand, in accordance with the identified proposition/standpoint of the individual. While the three-fold procedure appears to be one that perhaps is a natural tendency for mankind to react to, without focusing with adequate consciousness, truth be told, the practicality of the same rather falsifies this assumption. This report, through means of constructively conceiving and integrating the notions of monism and dharma, also provides for the optional methodology of systematic analysis and formulation of individualistically appealing attributes that would further permit the enhancement of the decision-making capacity.
Life, as understood by mankind, is an amalgamation of events, situations, and developments, which occur repeatedly, with or without the conscious knowledge of the actors/recipients even when they are active/passive participants in the cause-and-effect scenarios of momentary and daily phenomena. What appears to be the core matter of contention can be labelled as a two-fold symbiotic action-reaction of reception and reciprocation of manoeuvres pertaining to one’s lifestyle. It is this context of reception and reciprocation that poses the requirement of the person’s focus and intellect, to actively and comprehensively – not only attend to the individualistic minuscule details of the perceived scenario but also succeed in establishing a course of reactionary gestures that are in the best interest of all parties involved. To interpret this in layman’s language, it would mean that regardless of a person’s individualistic understanding of a given case scenario, they must formulate a reverberation that aims to enhance the lives of the involved individuals and further promote progress in society. As Deepshika Shahi, in her article Rethinking the absence of post-Western International Relations theory in India: ‘Advaitic monism’ as an alternative epistemological resource, points out, “The concept of Advaita (literally meaning non-dual or non-secondness) pre-supposes a monist epistemology that, unlike the conventional epistemologies based on a fundamental subject-object distinction, ties the perceiver (subject) and the perceived (object) together with a globe marked with ‘single hidden connectedness’ or Brahman.”1, we can grasp the fact that the entire concept of making a society-friendly decision is based on the subject-object divide. If the divide is nonexistent, the understanding, as well as the decision, is sure to be one that is societal-friendly. However, the contrary may employ a self–centred reaction, countering the very essence of Advaitic ideology. Thence, it is essential that despite the individualistic interpretation of a scenario, the doer must commit oneself to fix on an option that is beneficial for the common good of the masses, thereby nullifying the constructively obstructive divide. As a contemporary relation, let us assume the response of India towards Israel (spanning the diplomatic journey since its declaration as a state) and Hamas (since the October 7, 2023 attack on the state of Israel). India’s Palestine policy has evolved over the years. When the UN General Assembly voted on a resolution to partition Palestine into a Jewish state, an Arab state and an international city (Jerusalem) in November 1947, India, along with Pakistan and the Arab bloc, voted against it. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru had compared the settler Zionists in historical Palestine to the Muslim League of undivided India. His position was that India, having gone through the horrors of Partition, should not support the partition of Palestine. But when the state of Israel was declared in May 1948, India swiftly adopted a pragmatic line: in 1950, it recognised Israel, but stopped short of establishing full diplomatic relations. Throughout the Cold War, India, an advocate of Third World autonomy, was one of the most vocal supporters of the Palestine cause.
To constructively imbibe the essence of the epic Mahabharata and also wisely interpret the underlying conveyed concept of Dharma, this section focuses, first, on the practically experimented incidents of the epic Mahabharata and then derives conclusions of crucial importance, that also present the necessity of being a righteous being in the contemporary world. Considering the Kaurava invite of a gambling game to the Pandavas, it can be noticed that regardless of the quantum of refutes to the call, Dharmaraj Yudhisthira stood by the socially accepted norm, rather the dharma of a king never ‘formally refusing’ a game of dice and ultimately met the fate of being banished to the forest for fourteen years. n order to present the rationale of this integration between Advaitic Monism and the idea of dharma as produced by the epic Mahabharata,the writer of this essay presents a direct personification of the characters of the epic to an individual’s inherent prowess of decision making, by establishing the certitude that Mahabharata as an eventuality is what takes place / persists within the bodily attributes of every human. To begin with, Dhritarashtra, the the-then Samrat (king) of Hastinapur (who was visually impaired) can be equated to the human brain, for the brain cannot potentially see anything, but can only perceive what the senses bring to it. The hundred Kaurava brothers are understood to be the gross quantum of negative emotions that play on the majorly perceptive brain and direct it to employ generically nasty decisions. The five Pandava brothers can be viewed as the five senses of the human body that allow for the brain to reorder the priority list and nullify the negativity as embodied by the Kauravas. Draupadi, in contrast to the bodily attributes, is the factor of an individual’s purpose that binds the five senses to work on a common ground, in order to overcome the immense falsity of the negative emotions. Krishna (often attributed as Lord Krishna) is the guiding platform, the set of values, ethics and principles that ensure that the five senses must always tread the path of the greater good, while also being right themselves. Lastly, Karna embodies that, which falsely strengthens the negative emotions to undermine the five senses, but being a sense in itself also promotes the five senses to nullify and win over the negativity of the brain. Hence, it is the ego that has played the double role of supporting the seemingly negative in a scenario while also supporting the good to enhance their nature and establish tranquillity.
Having established the factuality of ego being represented as the hegemon of individualistic thought in the contemporary world, it can also be deduced that the social divide of subject-object and the situational conception of dharma, hinges on the dimension of the social and spatial setting that an individual is undergoing, to rightly identify, nullify or exercise the novice ego.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Shahi, D., & Ascione, G. (2015). Rethinking the absence of post-Western International Relations theory in India: ‘Advaitic monism’ as an alternative epistemological resource. European Journal of International Relations, 22(2), 313–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066115592938
- An excerpt from the epic Mahabharata
