Mosquitoes have one purpose in life: to take my blood (or, more likely, my wife’s) and use the protein for its eggs, reproducing in an endless cycle. Mosquitoes are simple. But what is the purpose of human beings? As I’m reading through the Baghavad Gita, I’ve found some interesting comparisons between dharma and the telos of humankind as Aristotle describes it. Dharma shares certain elements in common with Aristotelian virtue ethics, but they differ in their theoretical underpinnings and their attitude toward social order.

First, dharma and ethics in the Gita have a strong theological influence. Krishna tells Arjuna not to mourn the deaths of his family members because “Death is assured to all those born, / and birth assured to all the dead.” Our souls are eternal and unchanging, “casting off worn-out bodies” just to “encounter new ones.” In other words, Krishna argues that we should see death for what it is, as an inevitable part of the cycle of birth and death.

That we will all be reincarnated after our deaths provides a strong motivation to cultivate the sort of detachment from the fruits of our actions that Krishna argues for. One could even use it as the justification for renouncing all worldly attachments—a conclusion I find more reasonable, given the premise. As I mention in my previous post on the Gita, this is one of the points of tension between Buddhism and Hinduism—what reincarnation means for us ethically. Buddhism goes as far as renouncing action itself in order to break free from the cycle, an important distinction that has huge consequences for how we ought to act.

This debate about what to do with the fact of reincarnation has far-reaching ethical implications. The first two chapters of the Gita suggest the inevitability of our physical form’s inclination towards action. It’s almost as if we are bound by destiny to think and behave in certain ways, and that we should accept this. Aristotle, meanwhile, aligns more closely to Hinduism than to Buddhism in his preference for action—he is quite explicit in his suggestion that people should act in accordance with reason. These actions should be taken from a deliberate, active posture of the soul. In summary, dharma’s divine origins require detachment from outcomes (or from action itself if you’re Buddhist), while Aristotle argued for more or less the opposite—that we should care about both why we do things and their results because the results can affect our happiness.

While the Gita offers some advice relating to death and to our roles and responsibilities in this world, it does so against the backdrop of an endless cycle of reincarnation. Our journey to liberation could last for generations. Aristotle’s discussion of ethics, meanwhile, doesn’t go beyond a single life. We should live the best we can by cultivating moral and intellectual virtues. He does mention gods and an afterlife (if I remember correctly), but these aren’t the focus.

In addition to the theoretical underpinnings, the two philosophies also differ in their views on the social order. The Gita references the caste system and describes four different stages of life, saying dharma prescribes how one should live according to his stage and station. A central focus of dharma seems to be the preservation of social order through a strong hierarchy of duties. Meanwhile, Aristotle mentions man’s political nature without going into great detail about a person’s obligations to others. He suggests that we need each other if we want to be happiest, but his arguments lack the prescriptive nature of dharma, based on my current understanding. Instead, we should cultivate our characters, whether it brings us up the social ladder or not.

For Aristotle, politics plays an important part in bringing about virtuous behavior in a community. We live in groups and we must get along with each other to enable our happiness. Somewhat like the concept of castes, Aristotle does mention that certain virtuous activities are out of reach for some people. Magnanimity, for example, is described as being a sort of generosity, but on a much larger scale, more akin to what we would call philanthropy—the purview of the wealthy. Unlike the caste system, however, there is no suggestion that people ought to accept their station in life, an idea certainly influenced by reincarnation. And while authors have claimed that Aristotle was an elitist (e.g. Blackburn in Being Good, which I recently reviewed), Aristotle does argue that all people should strive for beauty of action. Doing beautiful things doesn’t preclude social mobility.

In brief, both systems suggest an overarching design or purpose of human existence, though the goals are rather different. Dharma prescribes how we should live personally and socially to eventually achieve moksha, or liberation from rebirth, while for Aristotle, the goal of human existence is human flourishing or happiness. One is heavily based on theology, while the other is firmly grounded in reason. Personally, in my search for wisdom, I find great value in learning about different perspectives like these. One thing I love about the Gita is its complex ethical situation. I find Arjuna’s dilemma as challenging as I find Krishna’s reply to his misgivings. The implications of his claim to divinity is difficult to handle since it requires such a big leap of faith. Perhaps the whole point is to accept the limits of our existence and understand ourselves as a small, transient part of something much bigger. As I continue reading the Gita, I hope to further uncover diverse ideas on what it means to live well.