Meaning of Dharma and Adharma

About two weeks or so, a journalist asked an Indian which of the political party
was the appropriate party to govern Malaysia. His answer that it made no
difference whether it was ‘Rama’ or ‘Ravana’ brought forth comments from 2
other Indians on whether the reference to ‘Rama’ or ‘Ravana’ by the first Indian
was appropriate. None of three individuals involved including the writer are
noted experts on the mythological figures of ‘Rama’ and ‘Ravana’ from the
world’s longest epic tale, written in a poem format, named the Ramayana. As an
Indian, I have read about the figures either in books or articles.

One commentator expressed horror and chided the lightness or the
indistinguishable use of the two mythological figures because it sent a wrong
message to our children. The way I see it, the offence taken is that Ravana is an
evil figure while Rama represents everything good. Put to in Malaysian political
context: who is fits the bill of Rama and Ravana.

The following is an extract from the Internet.

The Difference Between Rama And Ravana
"See the difference between Rama and Ravana. Both were equally
eminent intellectually great scholars. Ravana was a great man. Rama was a good
man. The difference between greatness and goodness should be understood.
Ravana, out of egoism and uncontrolled desires, misused his knowledge and
brought about his ruin. Rama used his knowledge for the benefit of the people
and made them happy. Ravana did not digest his knowledge properly and
suffered from the consequences of indigestion. The difference between Rama
and Ravana was that of between righteousness (Dharma) and unrighteousness
(Adharma). Rama and Ravana are present in each human being. When a person
takes to unrighteous courses, he becomes a Ravana. When people pursue the
path of truth and righteousness, they become Ramas." Sai Baba, SS. 4/96, p. 93
- "Ravana was the master of the sixty-four types of knowledge, but he could
not receive God's grace. Since he did not put his knowledge into practice, he
suffered from 'indigestion'. That resulted in the sickness of sensual desires. Rama
also learnt all the sixty-four types of knowledge and He put them into practice.
Ravana was interested only in aggrandizement whereas, Rama was interested in
practice." Sai Baba, SS. 11/98. p. 293
Ravana
"Ravana was not an ordinary person. He belonged to the lineage of Brahma. He
was the brother of Kubera, the god of wealth. He had a brother, Kumbhakarna,
who was very powerful. He had a son by name Indrajit, who had conquered
mighty Indra, the king of gods. He was the master of four Vedas and six Shastras
(scriptures). Such a powerful and highly educated Ravana could not get rid
of the darkness of ignorance. Ignorance is the cause of birth and death (my
own underlining). When Hanuman set Lanka ablaze, though there was light all
around, Ravana's heart was filled with darkness." Sai Baba. SS. 11/98, p. 289

Ask a 100 ‘experts’ on the meaning of ‘Rama and Ravana’ and you will get a
hundred interpretations.

One explanation is thus: “Dharma is following the path of righteousness and
doing one’s duty in such a way that every action results in maintaining both the
cosmic order and the personal integrity. Adharma is acting in such a way that
the cosmic order and personal integrity are both hurt”

The complete picture of the two figures is equally important. In the mythical
battle of Dharma vs. Adharma, Ravana kidnaps Rama’s wife Sita who remains
his prisoner for 14 years. Ravana grows to admire Sita and makes no move to
take advantage of her. Rama eventually frees his wife; they go on to have two
children but Rama remains suspicious of Sita’s faithfulness to him that he does
nothing to prevent his wife from going through a trial by fire to prove her purity.
Sita who had emerged from the Earth invoked Mother Earth to take her back into
Earth and the condemned woman returned to her mother, never to re appear
again. Before she leaves, she chides her husband at length for not accepting her
word that she had been faithful to Rama during her captivity and for failing to
protect her reputation as his wedded wife.

I have only ever heard Academic Experts comment upon Rama’s silence on the
treatment of his wife as being Adharma as it was argued that she was neither
expected to defend herself nor possessed the skills to protect herself; that she
had no part in her own kidnap nor was there any evidence to suggest that she
had ever bedded Ravana during her captivity. Another interesting aspect of the
Tale pertaining to Sita is that she had a chance to escape earlier from Lanka but
she refused to leave until all of the other female captives were freed with her
[Act of Dharma?] yet at the end of the Tale, suspect adultery leads to her down
fall. What if she had been a male character? Without evidence of Sita's adultery
were her accusers acting Adharma? Was Rama’s silence not condemnation of his
wife and therefore Adharma?

The Tale is too complex for any novice. To simply conclude that Rama
represents everything Good and the other represents everything Evil ignores the
wholesome message in the Poem.
To me, the message in the Poem is that we must always act in good faith and if
we cannot, we must be slow or careful to judge another without good cause; and
even if so, to have a balanced view.

The practice of Dharma holds another important lesson for us - the Circular Code
of Practice: When we question another man’s alleged Adharam; we must act in
accordance with the Dharma code and/or the ‘Sita principle’.
Or as one Good Biblical Man warned: “Let he who is without sin; cast the first
stone”
The acts of Dharma and Adharma expressed in the tale are above any ordinary
human being; there are very few exceptional persons who can reach that height
but even they may not agree with me. Since none of us are perfect all of the
time; us ordinary folks, can probably carry out Dharma acts at specific points of
our lives and deciding what is the right course may require us to balance up all of
the factors pertaining to the situation at hand.

Dharma also expects us to first examine our own actions/motives before we
readily express opinion on another person’s alleged Adharma. Even if we have
evidence to hold the alleged person accountable; the challenge itself must be
done to the very high standard of Dharma.

In relation to the newspaper interview with Waythmoorthy, his alleged
offending comments were that for the Indians it mattered not whether it was
Rama or Ravana who governed the country. Let’s not get above ourselves; no
one is perfect and none has the right to judge (remember Sita? Or the prostitute?
) without full knowledge of the other person’s perspective. May be it was a
mistake for Waythamoorthy to use the Rama/Ravana reference but in reality
which of the two political figures can claim to be Rama? To be Rama is to be
virtuous all of the time [but even he failed his wife in the end].

Examining Waythamoorthy’s actions: When it came to his attention that there
were long standing serious social issues concerning his community had he acted
on them to his personal integrity and Dharma? Remembering the principles of
Dharma; are we above Dharma to judge if his actions are right? When we accuse
him of being a racist, are we above Dharma? What of those Malays and Chinese
who know of similar problems in their community but remain silent until now?
Are they above Dharma? When without full knowledge on Waythamoorthy’s
decision to evade the government clamp down in 2007, are we above Dharma
when we speculate whether that he ran away like a coward? When many do not
know how Waythamoorthy had survived in the UK; are we above Dharma by
speculating on his stay in the UK? When Waythamoorthy returned to Malaysia,
are we above Dharma, when we speculate and insinuate that Waythamoorthy
had bought his way home? Each time we write, speak or form an opinion
without evidence, we break the code of Dharma.
Waythamoorthy following his return had expressed his intention to engage
with both political parties. Commentators speculate on the truth that he had
hoodwinked Pakatan because he had always preferred BN. Those busy in
paddling the speculation are engaging in acts of Adharma. What of journalists
trying to sensationalise a story? Are they above Dharma?
The final condemnation of Waythamoorthy came after he had agreed to work
with BN to campaign in the GE13 elections. Speculations were rife that he had
received payments for his support. Where is the evidence of that? Agree that the
BN Government tends to offer payments to buy off political favours but that is
not enough to then speculate that Waythmoorthy, given his track record, would
have either entertained such payment or taken the offer. If we take it further, we
are acting against the principle of Dharma.

Waythamoorthy has explained his decision to go with BN and he has provided
further information on how he expects BN, if returned to power, to deal with
issues championed by him. If you disagree with him; then make you case based
on facts/knowledge – Rama/Dharma - not speculations/ignorance – Ravana/
Adharma.

So step forward…. the first man, free of sins, to caste the first stone….