​Do we need to combat social threats to dharma to preserve an environment conducive for practicing dharma in future?

Gita verse-by-verse podcast

Question do we need to do more than our swadharma or sadhana and do we need to worry that if the social situation is becoming increasingly hostile to the practice of dharma then if we are born again in a future life we may not have the situation conducive for the practice of dharma and that is why apart from practicing our own sadhana do we also need to aggressively counter the dangers to dharma answer yes certainly whatever are the dangers to dharma they need to be countered and that countering should be done not just because we ourselves may be reborn again in a future life but also for future generations our own children our future generations and for the benefit of people in future at large we need to do our part in protecting the legacy of dharma from adharmic attackers so there is no doubt that we should do this but the question is what is the way to do this so firstly the greatest danger to dharma comes from from people not practicing dharma themselves not practicing at all so then if we have just people defending dharma but not practicing dharma themselves then that that show of dharma that superficiality of dharma is also a great danger so doing one’s own sadhana is vitally important for anyone who wishes to be a protector of dharma because it is by our dharma is best protected and propagated through those who are living with dharma in their own lives and that is actually in one sense indispensable now of course what the sadhana is and to what extent one follows sadhana that may vary according to person to person and there may be people who have a greater activist zeal than others that means they are interested more in the in the propagation of dharma and in the creation of systems of the protection of dharma and in the establishment of resources for countering anti-dharmic forces and that is also very important but that is not necessarily required for everyone and those who are not doing this those who are focusing on practicing their own sadhana primarily they are also they are also valid and valuable practitioners of dharma now there are there are two different attitudes one is the attitude of focus the other is the attitude of apathy the attitude of focus means that if someone feels that this is what I wish to focus on I will study scripture I will do my sadhana and I will go closer to spiritual truth that is matter of focus but the other is the matter of apathy apathy is where one doesn’t care and apathy is often a responsibility and when there is a responsibility like that where one doesn’t care thinking that ultimately this world is an illusion and whatever we have to transcend this world that kind of apathy is definitely incorrect because even if this world is illusory but still it is through this world that we have to walk in order to go to the other world and that’s why protecting dharma is so important that Krishna also descends in this world so apathy is definitely not recommended but there are various enemies to dharma and there are various ways in which those enemies can be countered so for example some people may just practice their own dharma and they directly share the practices of dharma with others that is also a valuable service for protecting and propagating dharma and there may be others who look at who are not so much interested in direct propagation of the practices of dharma but they are more interested in looking at bigger geopolitical or sociocultural threats and they focus on countering those threats but all these should be seen as different regiments in the same army whether one is directly propagating dharma or whether one is directly propagating the principles of dharma or the practices of or whether one is countering aggressors who are destroying the environment necessary for the practice of dharma all these are like regiments in the different regiments in an army and it is not that one regiment is necessarily superior to another it is not that those who are practicing and sharing the principles of dharma and they are not caught in bigger geopolitical issues then it is not that they are irrelevant kshatriyas it is not that they are irrelevant scholars they are also doing an important service and those who are looking at geopolitical issues or sociocultural issues they are also doing a valuable service just as there is a danger when one is doing one’s own sadhana that one may get so consumed by one’s own sadhana that one becomes self centered similarly there is also the danger that when one gets into sociocultural or geopolitical issues then one may because these are material things these are mundane realities one may get too consumed in them and thus one may forget or neglect the spiritual priorities of their life so in the name of propagating dharma we may end up actually too caught up in the externals necessary for trying to focus your mind on me through sadhana bhakti then he says work for me then he says if you can’t do that then you work for a good cause and sacrifice the fruits of work so basically this verse gives a general gives a understanding of dharma that it is not a single level it is multi-level and different people may practice dharma at different levels and everybody needs to be accommodated in the practice of dharma in the propagation sharing of dharma and the idea that one level is superior to others or one level is the only most important thing and others are unimportant they are not right in general if we see in Indian history the brahmanas would have would be actively involved in intellectual work and the sages who are most of them brahmanas they would actually not just do intellectual work and do austerities and penances but they would also live in the forest and they would not get involved in much in the socio-political reality so we see even when there is Islamic invasion and Islamic occupation and Islamic devastation of India and India’s dharmic traditions the spiritual leaders of India did not get actively involved in politics they did not actively involved in the they supported those who wanted to those who those kings who were trying to protect dharma but they did not actively get involved themselves in these things so today of course the principle of attack there is more than the political attack there is the intellectual attack that is there and according to the protection is required so the intellectual defense and intellectual countering is also required but in general the closer one keeps oneself to the absolute truth closer one keeps oneself to the spiritual reality the safer it is for oneself and it is not that in the name of safety one is not executing one’s responsibility that responsibility is also being executed because one is practicing dharma and through one’s example one is also sharing dharma if one is also practicing and sharing one’s principles actively by speaking or by informing people then that is even better so we could say there are three broad levels to conclude this those who practice dharma alone and they don’t care for others that is negative those who practice dharma and they care for others and their care they express by directly sharing the principles and practices of dharma of sadhana and third is those who practice dharma those who care for others and those who focus not so much on sharing the direct practices and principles of dharma as on as on dealing with bigger forces which will be hostile and the fourth level could be those who get caught up in just dealing with the bigger hostile forces and don’t get involved at all and forget to practice their own dharma so the first and the fourth are in one sense not healthy the second and third both are healthy and the accommodating inclusive nature of dharmic practices such that both people according to their interests and inspirations can be accommodated