Q 1.: How do we define dharma?
Q 2.: Is Dharma something that is radically different from the natural state of the world?
Q 3.: If that is the case, why do we strive for it, when we know that things have a tendency to revert to their natural state sooner or later?
My concept of dharma, perhaps still in its infancy, is something called righteousness. For me, among other things, it should prompt the powerful to not only let the meek survive, but to also assist them in their survival.
A system in which the powerful allow a way for the weak? Is that feasible? Because, nature does not allow such a system. It is vicious competition in nature, one species besting another. The weak have no place out there. Ours seems meant to be a place where the bigger fish eats the medium fish, the medium fish eats the smaller fish and so on.
So, is a system feasible, which staples the ability of the strong, while allows the weak to grow? Isn't it natural for the strong to gobble the weak? For how long can man made to resist his natural animal instincts? Perhaps just as long as the nation has a powerful triumvirate of legislative, executive and judiciary forces. With the absence of these three, how long can people remain dharmic?
The one argument that is laid against the above question is that in nature, one species always supports its own kind. There is never violence in one species, which is what we see in Homo Sapiens. But on a closer look, we might be proved wrong.
If this is a temporary endeavour, why should we put so much of effort into it as writing miles and miles of scriptures and spending more time teaching and even more time spreading it? Why not let the rules of nature prevail?
And say, even if we achieve such a system, how far should we go? Do the forces of dharma have to be on a constant vigil for adharma in the society? Finally:
Q 4.:Is there anything like "absolute dharma"? When can we sit down and relax, that we have created the best society? Is life a constant war?
I would appreciate your reply to the above questions.