DHARMA: Dharma - the law of governance, determination and direction was a great impersonal authority that evolved when

the spiritual urge of the Vedic and Upanishadic ages turned to effectuate itself at the social level.(4) The spiritual urge blossomed not in the mass but in isolated individuals - for the common people, an ethical discipline was necessary so that the individual could find the optimal social milieu to develop himself. The Indian concept of Dharma is the right law of functioning of our life in all its modalities - a concept that includes and transcends the Western idea of ethical and social rule. Sri Aurobindo explains that the Dharma is a law of ideal perfection for the developing mind and soul of man. This ideal was not purely moral or ethical (though that element may predominate); it was also intellectual, religious, social and aesthetic for it was meant for the flowering of a wholistic man. However there are differences in individual personalities, capacities, reaction-patterns and there are socio-cultural variations. Any social law must take cognizance of this variety in life. Everybody cannot come under the purview of a stereotyped social formula for that would be in Sri Aurobindo's words 'a senseless geometric rigidity that would spoil the plastic truth of life.' People who are suited for different professions and social roles must be provided with appropriate avenues for spontaneous growth. There must also be a restraining and guiding force so that human conduct is not led by desires but by reason. This then was the Dharma - suited both for the individual and the collective development. It was special for the special person and yet universally effective. (5) The Caturvarna was one of the systems which Dharma evolved and supported for the free growth of the individual while yet living in the society. The regulating and disciplining effect of the Dharma was evident from certain characteristics of the Caturvarna:(6) (a) The social hierarchy was never a political hierarchy. In spite of the importance given to Brahmins, they could not usurp political power in India and there never arose a theocracy as in Tibet. Due to the influence of the Dharma, the fight between the church and the state is absent from the political history of India. (b) There was no exclusive state religion and the monarch was not the religious head. The Buddhist and Brahmin emperors supported both the rival religions - such was the ethical mandate of the Dharma. Even Asoka who attempted to extend his royal powers to the spiritual domain had to compromise and his edicts had a recommendatory rather than an imperative character. (c) The king was a limited or constitutional monarch and guardian, executor and servant of the Dharma. His power was limited to the issue of administrative decrees that had to be in consonance with the religious, social, political and economical considerations of the community. There were also other powers to cross-check the authority of the king. Manu even advocated regicide for unjust and oppressive kings. The social life of the people was by and large free from autocratic interference. (d) Neither the Brahmin nor the king could change the Dharma. Any new value to be acceptable could only be introduced by the Rishi the spiritual seer who could hail from any social class.