If there is one universal theme that you can take from the Mahabharata, it is that:
“Dharma is contextual and not absolute”.
Every character in the epic acts with the belief that they are righteous in their own way.
The character of the almighty Lord Krishna is an embodiment of the contextual nature of Dharma. He bends the rules multiple times which can be see as not righteous in isolation but his rationale has always been contextual.
His role (or his Dharma) is in protecting the greater order of this universe than rigidly following the rulebook.
As one commentator puts it, “Krishna did not come to rewrite the rules of dharma; he came to remind us that dharma has no rulebook”
So if such a vast topic such as Dharma, the cosmic law underlying right behaviour and social order, is contextual, why do we let absolutism creep into our modern life?
The danger of absolutism in modern life is that it gives us the illusion of certainty in a world that is constantly shifting.
We crave that certainty - about what’s right, what’s successful, what’s meaningful. It’s comforting to think there’s a clear formula: Work hard → Get ahead → Be happy. Or Follow your passion → Build something → Find purpose.
But real life doesn’t unfold in straight lines. The moment we turn an idea into an absolute, it stops serving us.
You see it everywhere:
- In careers, when someone clings to a single definition of success and feels lost when they don’t feel happy eventually.
- In relationships, when people hold one model of love or family as the only right one.
- In personal growth, when “this is who I am (Identity)” turns from self-awareness into self-imprisonment.
Absolutism makes us rigid.
Modern life runs on rulebooks. You see it everywhere - success frameworks, productivity systems, identity labels. They make us efficient but not always alive.
There is this one interview from AR Rahman that I love to bits.
Born A.S. Dileep Kumar, the singer, musician and composer converted to Islam at the age of 23, a move that he says honed his music skills and continues to define much of what he is known for today.
In this interview he says, “I was never happy with my music earlier. But the whole thinking changed from ‘I’m playing music’ to ‘I’m an instrument’.”
What has changed is that he has taken the ego out.
He is not the creator and he doesn’t need to be perfect. He is just an instrument through which music, which is present all around him, finds a certain form.
He continues, “There is some zone of self-discovery for each of us. Earlier, it was easy to say I’m practising and playing but I’m not good. Now, to even say that is a complaint against the inspiration. Also, music is not a solo activity, there’s an entire team working with me and everyone is spiritual in their own way. I feel like we’re an empty vessel or a zariya (means) and the art that comes out in the process is bigger than us; it defines itself.”
It’s a communal view of creation, rather than the myth of the solitary genius.
This is the antithesis of absolutism - the belief that success, quality, or truth originates from one fixed point and follows a defined path.
We need to accept the fact it is ok to not know what we want to do in life or fail to have one professional identity that would define us.
People who find true happiness are rarely the ones who have “figured it out”. Instead they are the ones who stay open and adapt their work, life and beliefs based on their own context.
As Krishna says, “It is better to perform one’s own dharma imperfectly than to perform another’s dharma perfectly”.
Stay true to what’s right for you, right now even if it does not fit the absolutist blueprint of the society.
If you want to read more bitesize content about my writings, make sure to follow me on Substack with the link above.
If you think this newsletter will be useful to someone else, feel free to forward it.
And If you were forwarded this newsletter, you can read all previous issues and also subscribe to the newsletter here. Make sure to click the confirmation email once you subscribe