What exactly is Svadharma?

A thought came to me a few days ago when suddenly the Bhagavad Geeta stanza flashed in my head when I was thinking about a particular issue.

I have my own way of handling some issues which might not see that "normal" becos it differs from how others manage similar situations. So those who know me well feel my way of handling some issues is not so "normal"


Then I thought to myself..do I have to pressurize myself just to satisfy what the world sees as 'normal'?

What if my way of handling an issue is how I am wired to be and forcing myself to be like others might not be the answer?

My way of handling it might seem '"imperfect" to others but do I have to force myself to be "perfect" just to be "normal"?

Then all of a sudden the Bhagavad Geeta stanza flashed in my mind:

Sreyan svadharmo vigunah paradharmat svanusthitat;
Svadharme nidhanam sreyah paradharmo bhayavahah — (Chapter 3. Verse 35)

Meaning: It is better to follow one’s own dharma, though imperfect, than the dharma of someone else, even though well-performed.

Click to expand...

Don't ask me why and how this stanza flashed in my mind but it gave me a different perspective of the definition of Svadharma.

What is Svadharma?

Is it only righteousness,religious duty,varna duty?

But Sva means one's own..what exactly is "own"?

So far no religious text talks about Svadharma in the context of human behavior....that is our body/mind/mental make up/genetic make up without linking it with Varna/Religion/Righteousness.

Could Svadharma mean our behavior,nature and bodily function?

If Svadharma is mainly due to Varna duty,religious duty etc..then all siblings would display similar behavior/inclination which is not always the case cos even identical twins have different behavior.

So what is Svadharma?

Have we overlooked the fact that it could be individualized behavior which explains why different people handle situations differently.

One can even go one step further to say that bodily functions too have their Svadharma..twins might have different heart rates..different ability to handle stress etc.

Each person is individualized...that is why now these days we have Precision Medicine..that is each person reacts differently to treatment and even bodily functions like Blood Pressure which might seem slightly higher might actually be acceptably normal for one person but not for another.There is no one size fits all.

So why is the definition of Svadharma almost always linked in a one size fits all manner strictly confining it within the realms of varna/religion/righteousness?

Why isn't Svadharma ever individualized without the need to involve religion/varna/righteousness?

I now look at Svadharma as my basic nature/bodily function not related to Varna/Religion/Professional duty etc..

Therefore I will not force myself to be like what others think is "normal" cos its better to be myself though "imperfect" than to be "perfect" by trying to be someone else.

renuka said:

A thought came to me a few days ago when suddenly the Bhagavad Geeta stanza flashed in my head when I was thinking about a particular issue.

I have my own way of handling some issues which might not see that "normal" becos it differs from how others manage similar situations. So those who know me well feel my way of handling some issues is not so "normal"


Then I thought to myself..do I have to pressurize myself just to satisfy what the world sees as 'normal'?

What if my way of handling an issue is how I am wired to be and forcing myself to be like others might not be the answer?

Click to expand...

If we deviate from normal and conventional way of thinking, we could solve many problems in a casual way.

Some intelligent and innovative people always think laterally in their unique way and perform even hardest work in a

simple way. All inventions have been made in this world only by lateral thinkers.

Dear Renuka,

If you take 100 people and ask their views on a major issue at the broadest level you would find there is a 50-50 split roughly. People surtprisingly think similarly to a large extent on something major and there are very few categories that would be required to classify them. Of course people exhibit idiosyncrasies but as the concept suggests they are on minor issues and only in details. So at a conceptual level there are very few differences in the thinking of people.

But I do agree that it is best to act in consonance with one's svadharma. This is because everyone has good qualities and they are brought out only when you act according to your svadharma. All evil is because being influenced by others and not being true to self.

Your analysis is completely wrong. If Krishna were to hear it he will probably curse you as he did to AswatthAma!

"sva dharma" in the context of that particular gita verse as also in many other places in our scriptures means the duties or works allotted to each varna/jAti according to the same scriptures. Here, in BG, krishna himself lays down what each varna may do or engage in. The cited verse is by way of a caveat to emphasize that even if you are not good or skilled in the dharma prescribed for your varna/jAti, stick to it and don't ever dare to violate the boundary and take up another varna's dharma.

So, a brAhmaNa should never, never, ever think of taking up any dharma (job, duty) other than those permitted to the brAhmaNa varNa and so on. A kshatriya should never, ever even dream of becoming a teacher; he should learn to fight and fight only. A vaiSya should never think of taking up arms and fighting; he should stick to agriculture and trade/commerce only. And, krishna's caveat applies centrally to SUdras who were supposed to do such demeaning menial work that they will be dissolved completely in their sorrow (SOkAt drAvayati iti SUdraH), that none of them should never, ever think of changing over to any other dharma or avocation in life! Because it is better to die doing those dirty, menial jobs, which is svadharma and is SrEyaH (good for the soul) but taking another, even slightly better job will be bhayAvahaH, of terrific consequences!

sravna said:

But I do agree that it is best to act in consonance with one's svadharma. This is because everyone has good qualities and they are brought out only when you act according to your svadharma. All evil is because being influenced by others and not being true to self.

Click to expand...

Dear Sravna,

How would you define Svadharma?

sangom said:

Your analysis is completely wrong. If Krishna were to hear it he will probably curse you as he did to AswatthAma!

"sva dharma" in the context of that particular gita verse as also in many other places in our scriptures means the duties or works allotted to each varna/jAti according to the same scriptures. Here, in BG, krishna himself lays down what each varna may do or engage in. The cited verse is by way of a caveat to emphasize that even if you are not good or skilled in the dharma prescribed for your varna/jAti, stick to it and don't ever dare to violate the boundary and take up another varna's dharma.

So, a brAhmaNa should never, never, ever think of taking up any dharma (job, duty) other than those permitted to the brAhmaNa varNa and so on. A kshatriya should never, ever even dream of becoming a teacher; he should learn to fight and fight only. A vaiSya should never think of taking up arms and fighting; he should stick to agriculture and trade/commerce only. And, krishna's caveat applies centrally to SUdras who were supposed to do such demeaning menial work that they will be dissolved completely in their sorrow (SOkAt drAvayati iti SUdraH), that none of them should never, ever think of changing over to any other dharma or avocation in life! Because it is better to die doing those dirty, menial jobs, which is svadharma and is SrEyaH (good for the soul) but taking another, even slightly better job will be bhayAvahaH, of terrific consequences!

Click to expand...

Dear Sangom ji,

But where does it exactly state in the Geeta that Svadharma is only Varna Dharma?

Its the commentaries that say so but not the stanzas in the Geeta.

Could Svadharma just means one nature/behaviour?

That is in this case Arjuna's nature was a nature of a person who used to enjoy battle and victory.

I am not calling him a Kshatriya here cos I want to leave Varna out of the equation.

The behavior of Arjuna was not a submissive one to start with..he displayed intense passion to be the best archer and was jealous of Ekalavya being better than him.Arjuna was a competitive person.

So all of a sudden he wanted to run away from the war was not befitting his true nature.

Therefore Krishna tells him that he has to perform his svadharma...to get back to his original competitive self who was capable of battle and victory.

So we can entirely interpret svadharma without the need to even hint about Varna..so why do you feel that Svadharma is only about Varna dharma?

If it was all about Varna dharma only why didn't Krishna use the word Varna Dharma?

Do you mean to say a person's identity is only based on his Varna and he has no individuality? Isn't that sort of "insulting" for total lack of acknowledgment of individual identity?

I would like some feed back on how and why Svadharma is only always invariably taken to mean Varna dharma.

So far Swami Chinmayananda links Svadharma to profession where he said that for example a doctor should not do a work of an engineer and he does not link it to Varna but here again its just broad classification cos classifying people into profession and duty is still not giving a thought to individuality becos we existed even before we took a profession..so a profession does not really define us in the true sense.

What I mean by individuality is our true nature after each identity like gender,race,varna,profession,duties have been removed..that with remains after all our various roles(personalities) have been shed is our true nature.

I feel that true nature is our Svadharma which no two individuals are ever alike.

Dear Renuka,

I will go with the explanation of Shri.Sangom on the definition though not on his elucidation.

renuka said:

Could Svadharma just means one nature/behaviour?


Therefore Krishna tells him that he has to perform his svadharma...to get back to his original competitive self who was capable of battle and victory.
So we can entirely interpret svadharma without the need to even hint about Varna..so why do you feel that Svadharma is only about Varna dharma?
So far Swami Chinmayananda links Svadharma to profession where he said that for example a doctor should not do a work of an engineer and he does not link it to Varna but here again its just broad classification cos classifying people into profession and duty is still not giving a thought to individuality becos we existed even before we took a profession..so a profession does not really define us in the true sense.

What I mean by individuality is our true nature after each identity like gender,race,varna,profession,duties have been removed..that with remains after all our various roles(personalities) have been shed is our true nature.

I feel that true nature is our Svadharma which no two individuals are ever alike.

Click to expand...

I spoke with Swami Chinmayananda after his lecture on chapter 3. I asked him that I am an engineer doing my profession and not following the dharma prescribed for Brahmin. His explanation was that svadharma is not based on birth based caste, put the profession chosen or adopted. He gave me this example.

In the story "The Saint and the Scorpion":
"Guruji!" said the disciple after the saint had regained consciousness. "How can you smile? That wretched creature nearly killed you.""You are right, my son," said the saint. "But he was only following his dharma, his nature. It is the dharma of a scorpion to sting, and it is the dharma of a saint to save its' life. He is following his dharma and I am following mine. Everything is in its proper place. That is why I am so happy."
http://www.sanatansociety.org/indian_epics_and_stories/the_saint_and_the_scorpion.htm#.VhuL1KLBJUA

It is anyone's freedom to live in any whichever way one likes, no question about that. But to try and find out contrived justification by convoluted interpretations of religious texts is, to say the least, a misuse of knowledge.

Even Chinmayananda it seems did not have the guts to 'call a spade a spade' before Prasadji. If prasadji is an engineer by profession and thus performs essentially the dharma of a SUdra, then prasadji should not carry the double identity of brAhmmaNa as well as engineer. That is like schizophrenia!

Dharma is invariably used to denote duties, rights, customs, laws, statute, usage, practice, etc., and hence the word dharma has no meaning to indicate as one wishes. Even if sva is added to dharma, it does not become "one's own law made for himself/herself"; it denotes a rule laid down from outside.

If dharma means one's personal nature, how do we explain "yadA yadA hi dharmasya gLAnirbhavati..." etc? Does it relate to a state in which nobody has any idea of one's own nature? Or, does it relate to a common code? If dharma then means a common code of conduct, svadharma will mean the code of conduct as applicable to someone. This, in our so-called sanAtana dharma (again dharma, see!) is the varna/caste rules of conduct.

prasad1 said:

I spoke with Swami Chinmayananda after his lecture on chapter 3. I asked him that I am an engineer doing my profession and not following the dharma prescribed for Brahmin. His explanation was that svadharma is not based on birth based caste, put the profession chosen or adopted. He gave me this example.

In the story "The Saint and the Scorpion":
"Guruji!" said the disciple after the saint had regained consciousness. "How can you smile? That wretched creature nearly killed you.""You are right, my son," said the saint. "But he was only following his dharma, his nature. It is the dharma of a scorpion to sting, and it is the dharma of a saint to save its' life. He is following his dharma and I am following mine. Everything is in its proper place. That is why I am so happy."
http://www.sanatansociety.org/indian_epics_and_stories/the_saint_and_the_scorpion.htm#.VhuL1KLBJUA

Click to expand...

Our sanyasis are known for giving vague replies with illogical examples.

The sanyasi said "he is following his dharma and I am following mine." If the scorpion followed its dharma properly, the saint would have gone to either heaven or hell. How did he save its life, when he became unconscious?

prasad1 said:

I spoke with Swami Chinmayananda after his lecture on chapter 3. I asked him that I am an engineer doing my profession and not following the dharma prescribed for Brahmin. His explanation was that svadharma is not based on birth based caste, put the profession chosen or adopted. He gave me this example.

In the story "The Saint and the Scorpion":
"Guruji!" said the disciple after the saint had regained consciousness. "How can you smile? That wretched creature nearly killed you.""You are right, my son," said the saint. "But he was only following his dharma, his nature. It is the dharma of a scorpion to sting, and it is the dharma of a saint to save its' life. He is following his dharma and I am following mine. Everything is in its proper place. That is why I am so happy."
http://www.sanatansociety.org/indian_epics_and_stories/the_saint_and_the_scorpion.htm#.VhuL1KLBJUA

Click to expand...

Dear Prasad ji,

I find the explanation by Swami Chinmayananda linking Svadharma with profession no different from linking it with Varna.

Its just another classification based on some perceivable expected qualities.

I find the Svadharma linked with occupation not accurate cos one's profession can change with time.

For example my first job ever was a nurse..right after school before joining medical college I worked temporarily as a nurse in a hospital to gain some practical experience before going to college.

Then now I am a doc but I do have intention to teach Sanskrit when I "retire".

So my profession is changing..its never going to be the same..so what is my "Svadharma" if my profession keeps changing?

Therefore I feel Svadharma= profession is not accurate.

Now coming to Svadharma= Varna Dharma..the only plus point here over profession is Varna does NOT change. Varna is birth based.Therefore if Svadharma= Varna Dharma makes more sense on comparative grounds.

But here again..if Svadharma = Varna Dharma..that would be erasing individuality and not everyone of the same Varna would display similar capabilities,interest and outlook.

That would be like forcing everyone into the same mould and some might not actually "fit" into it which will eventually lead to non performance,unhappiness,frustration etc.

A person will perform best if he is allowed to explore his true nature and not forcing him to become a crash test dummy.


So far I feel most Swamijis are being politically correct in defining Svadharma but no one is giving answers.

Hi Renuka,

renuka said:

Dear Sangom ji,

What I mean by individuality is our true nature after each identity like gender,race,varna,profession,duties have been removed..that with remains after all our various roles(personalities) have been shed is our true nature.

I feel that true nature is our Svadharma which no two individuals are ever alike.

Click to expand...

The first verse of chapter 3, is the doubtful but thoughtful question to Sri Krishna, "If spiritual Intelligence (jnana yoga) is better than karma yoga, then why do you want me to fight or engage in fruitive action (karma)?"

Krishna replies by saying "The choice of svadharma over para-dharma is better". In Arjuna's case, Arjuna is a warrior and is always engaged in the actions related to kshatriya and providing security to the citizens. Arjuna cannot resort to jnana yoga and thus dodge karma. Only by performing karma, without desires (Attaching to results) or ego (ownership/pride), one may sincerely obtain jnanam from such karma.

So, if someone is skilled in physical activities, they could develop knowledge from such. One more prone to use relefctivon, analysis, contemplation, jnanam would be beneficial, but still without some karma, the jnanam will not mature or attain clarity/perfection.

Govinda said:

Hi Renuka,



The first verse of chapter 3, is the doubtful but thoughtful question to Sri Krishna, "If spiritual Intelligence (jnana yoga) is better than karma yoga, then why do you want me to fight or engage in fruitive action (karma)?"

.

Click to expand...

The answer would be pretty obvious.... Arjuna loved to fight/conquer/win..if the Kauravas were not his mama or machans he would not have been despondent..he would have fought without a second thought and enjoyed every minute of the war.

Its becos sentiments got into the scene he was trying to find grounds to escape a war.

He knew at the back of his mind that he still had a mental make up of an army personnel but its just that he grew weak to see his own kith and kin arrayed in battle.

Some people can't perform their job well if it involves their relatives..just like some docs can't handle treating their own kith and kin during emergencies and ask another doc to handle it cos sentiments clouds their intellect.

So if you ask me if Arjuna had walked away from the war..its still fine but he has to admit it that he does not have the capacity to fight with his kith and kin and he should not justify his actions by try to find technical grounds to escape.

That is unmanly!

There is nothing wrong being even a coward provided one is manly enough to admit it.

Arjuna did not want to admit he lacked the capacity to fight his relatives...he was beating about the bush claiming that if families are slain..there will be a decline in family dharma..no one to give Pinda and water to Pitrs..females of the family will become immoral..Varnasamskar blah blah blah.

That is why he got it proper from Krishna and Krishna called him "Unmanly".

Dokter , saya bisa mendapatkan kesempatan untuk bekerja di Cyberjaya.. tinggal di Puchong ( lebih murah ) .. akan harus melakukan perjalanan ke Austria dan Irlandia, lokasi basis Malaysia..memenuhi untuk milo ais..insyallah !! mailed u...

Welcome back Ashwin_Ash.

renuka said:

Dear Prasad ji,

I find the explanation by Swami Chinmayananda linking Svadharma with profession no different from linking it with Varna.
Its just another classification based on some perceivable expected qualities.
I find the Svadharma linked with occupation not accurate cos one's profession can change with time.
For example my first job ever was a nurse..right after school before joining medical college I worked temporarily as a nurse in a hospital to gain some practical experience before going to college.
Then now I am a doc but I do have intention to teach Sanskrit when I "retire".
So my profession is changing..its never going to be the same..so what is my "Svadharma" if my profession keeps changing?
Therefore I feel Svadharma= profession is not accurate.
Now coming to Svadharma= Varna Dharma..the only plus point here over profession is Varna does NOT change. Varna is birth based.Therefore if Svadharma= Varna Dharma makes more sense on comparative grounds.
But here again..if Svadharma = Varna Dharma..that would be erasing individuality and not everyone of the same Varna would display similar capabilities,interest and outlook.
That would be like forcing everyone into the same mould and some might not actually "fit" into it which will eventually lead to non performance,unhappiness,frustration etc.
A person will perform best if he is allowed to explore his true nature and not forcing him to become a crash test dummy.
So far I feel most Swamijis are being politically correct in defining Svadharma but no one is giving answers.

Click to expand...

Doctor,

I feel Sri Swamiji's view on "Svadharma" goes well in relation to the present social conditions.
As per my understanding "Svadharma" is a word used in context with the Social structure of that time, when varnasramawas in vogue as per birth and inborn capacity. Today, social structure has changed due to education and freedom of choice of occupation. It is the Swadharma of a Doctor is to treat the suffering, and Swadharma of a Defence pesonnel to defend the country.
In the present educational system the guidance and counselling of students form an integral component of the education. Guidance and counselling services and programs promote the personal/social, educational, and career development of students to find their "Svadharma" !.

Warm Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

renuka said:

The answer would be pretty obvious.... Arjuna loved to fight/conquer/win..if the Kauravas were not his mama or machans he would not have been despondent..he would have fought without a second thought and enjoyed every minute of the war.

Its becos sentiments got into the scene he was trying to find grounds to escape a war.

He knew at the back of his mind that he still had a mental make up of an army personnel but its just that he grew weak to see his own kith and kin arrayed in battle.

Some people can't perform their job well if it involves their relatives..just like some docs can't handle treating their own kith and kin during emergencies and ask another doc to handle it cos sentiments clouds their intellect.

So if you ask me if Arjuna had walked away from the war..its still fine but he has to admit it that he does not have the capacity to fight with his kith and kin and he should not justify his actions by try to find technical grounds to escape.

That is unmanly!

There is nothing wrong being even a coward provided one is manly enough to admit it.

Arjuna did not want to admit he lacked the capacity to fight his relatives...he was beating about the bush claiming that if families are slain..there will be a decline in family dharma..no one to give Pinda and water to Pitrs..females of the family will become immoral..Varnasamskar blah blah blah.

That is why he got it proper from Krishna and Krishna called him "Unmanly".

Click to expand...

hi

arjuna is a warrior,,,,,,fighting is his SVADHARMA......many times SVARDHARMA IS CALLED AS PROFESSION.....

dear sir,
this is my opinion only.listen pls.swadharma is in need to complee ur karma.
karma will be there till u have hope for anything in life.that my a good hope or bad hope.
hope is coming from desire.

when u have less desire then karmas are coming down to the minimum.
just for existing only.
when u start to live only just for existing then u start to live.
till have the feeling of mine u r in need of swadharma.

from swadharma u will coming to dharma.
then u will understand dharma is also a projection of ego.

when u understand this then there is no need of any swadharma.

b,cos u r there.in swadharma,dharma and beyond all these.

raghavan from kerala.
10-14-2015

My thoughts on Svadharma:

Depending on which ego state you are in, the svadharma is determined. Though ego state may vary from moment to moment, the state in which you exist most of your life and most of the time in a day is determined by your genes, your parents, your peers and the values you have picked up from your experience with these people and from the environment. Those values that have been tested and retained remain there for ever until they are demolished and removed for ever by a catastrophy. These ego states may be simply called Rajo Guna, Tamo guna and Satva guna as known to Hindus. Behavioral scientists call them by the names child, parent and adult ego states and they are slightly different in conception and contents.

If you are predominently a sAtvik individual you behave in a particular way to external stimuli and your own thought induced stimuli. And if you are predominently Rajasic or Tamasic individual your behavior also is different.

Svadharma is to always behave in the way that is natural to your personality/ego state and to avoid behaving in a different way.

Thus "akrityAnAncha akaranam and krityAnAncha karanam"-செய்யக்கூடாதவற்றைச்செய்யாமலிருப்பதும், செய்ய வேண்டுவன மட்டுமே செய்வதும்- is the golden universal rule and all individuals should obey this prescription if they do not want to come into conflict with forces beyond their control. If a sAtvik individual is to assume the ego state of a Rajasic individual there will be distruction alround and it will result in utter confusion and great losses to the community. Similarly with other individuals as well. This is why the command "dharmam chara" comes immediately after the command "satyam vadha" in upanishad.

This is what is said succinctly by the Tamil Proverb "சாது மிரண்டால் காடு கொள்ளாது".

An incident from my childhood days comes to my memory when I write this:

I was studying in the 5th standard then in my remote nondescript village. I had a group of friends all studying in the same class. One day in the evening when we were playing, egged on by others, myself and my friend Nataraj (a thevar boy) got into a mock fight. We were to fight with dry Agaththi (the agaththi keerai-அகத்திக்கீரை- comes from this plant) stems like MGR and Veerappa used to fight in the movies with swords. When the stem in the hands of one of us was broken by the other the fight was to stop and the one retaining the unbroken stem/stick would be the winner, as it was agreed upon.

While strength wise and height wise both of us were equal, Natraj went into the fight ferociously right from the word go. While I defended myself well in the beginning I had to break his stick first before he gets it done to me. So I used a little bit of the experience I had with Agaththi which breaks easily when hit hard, and a little bit of my natural intelligence which guided me and told me that I should hit the stick in my friends hand as close as possible to his hand holding it. Hitting the hand was foul as per the rules of the game. The logic was that if I did that the very weight of the stick with which the blow from me will be met by my friend will be adequate to break the stick. And it worked quickly. Nataraj's stick broke into two pieces. while he was holding the shorter piece in his hand the longer piece of his stick fell on the ground. I relaxed as the fight was over.

Next moment, something unexpected happened. My friend Nataraj dropped the smaller piece in his hand, took the longer piece from the ground and started hitting me all over furiously in anger. My friends intervened and stopped the fight before it got out of hand.

The sAtvik state which was natural to me was ruling me throughout the episode though there was no deliberate effort on my part, and my behavior was dictated by that ego state and that was my svadharma. My friend was in the rajasik state and his behavior was dictated by that and that was perhaps his svadharma.

To that bird who would ask how come one svadharma wins over the other in a conflicting situation, my answer is that the universal good is the measuring scale. If svadharma is practised by everyone there will be universal well being. It will help the society live in an orderly manner without chaos. When svadharma is completely given up and other dharma is adorned there is bound to be destruction.

Disclaimer: There is nothing right or wrong, superior or inferior, high or low about svadharma. Each one has a svadharma determined by his ego state (most of the time) in his life.

Thus we find , for the same reason, a satvik scientist when he understood how to unlock the forces contained in the nucleus of an atom he was just enchanted by the grand scheme of the creation and the myriad mysteries it holds within it. And most importantly, he was also overwhelmed by the knowledge of the kind of destruction that the finding could unleash. It required another Rajasic scientist to come on the scene to design"The Bomb" and its trigger mechanism and another rajasic leader to order dropping it first on thousands of innocent people. It was all about svadharma.

And we have seen movies in which a sAtvik archakar refuses to give up his Lord despite the threats and wealth offered by a rajasik politician. It is just svadharma. My village archakar who refuses in his ripe old age to leave his Navaneethakrishnan in the village temple to fend for "Himself" despite offers of a comfortable life with pleasure in the city is also following his svadharma. There are others who succumbed in similar situations and they are people who have compromised their svadharma.

LOL.

indianassault said:

Welcome back Ashwin_Ash.

Click to expand...

Xie xie!! It's been a rough ride after the accident, limping back to normal!!

Svadharma is something that one hold's dear! It may be a behavior, a value system, a practice or action...It gives peace of mind and happiness to the person doing it...Each and every person may have a different svadharma! But there is no question of it fostering hatred or vicious or malicious attack! Then it becomes adharma!

vgane said:

Svadharma is something that one hold's dear! It may be a behavior, a value system, a practice or action...It gives peace of mind and happiness to the person doing it...Each and every person may have a different svadharma! But there is no question of it fostering hatred or vicious or malicious attack! Then it becomes adharma!

Click to expand...

When svadharma becomes a matter of envy and causes misunderstanding adharma is used to harass the person following svadharma. The society at large ignores it to its own peril.

Brahmanyan said:

Doctor,

I feel Sri Swamiji's view on "Svadharma" goes well in relation to the present social conditions.
As per my understanding "Svadharma" is a word used in context with the Social structure of that time, when varnasramawas in vogue as per birth and inborn capacity. Today, social structure has changed due to education and freedom of choice of occupation. It is the Swadharma of a Doctor is to treat the suffering, and Swadharma of a Defence pesonnel to defend the country.
In the present educational system the guidance and counselling of students form an integral component of the education. Guidance and counselling services and programs promote the personal/social, educational, and career development of students to find their "Svadharma" !.

Warm Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

Click to expand...

Dear sir,

Thank you for reply..I have read an explanation by Swami Tapasyananda with regards to Svadharma and his explanation too echo similar opinion as yours.

Thanks once again..I guess Svadharma is oriented to time,place and person.therefore technically subject to change too.