Misconception and Misunderstandings -II
(A) Philosophy and Metaphysics (Contd…)
(2) Hinduism lacks a single central core or historical unity
This narrative is a typical way of Western ethos of describing Indian ancient history and culture. During the British colonial era, the rulers, Western historians and scholars purportedly depicted it a civilization with narrow vision largely based on Indo-Aryan migration and Indus Valley relics, simultaneously trivializing its Vedic corpus, Puranas and Epics. Consequently, it constituted a deep-rooted ethos in the Western world as if Hinduism is a backward and underdeveloped civilization and its ancient texts are mythological rather than historical accounts. Accordingly, many Westerners still hold that Hinduism lacks a single core or historical unity and integrity. It is a sensitive subject where many western scholars and Indian leftist historians continue to apply narrow lenses while traditional Indian historians/scholars hold the Vedic corpus, Puranas and epics as authentic historical literature, along with other supporting evidences such as lithographic evidence, inscriptions, Jain/Buddhist literature, etc.
There is no doubt that due to a prolonged history of foreign invasion, rule and dominance of the Islamic and colonial powers for centuries over a vast area of the Indian sub-continent, these powers and their historians nurtured a biased and often vicious approach towards the Hindu culture and its traditional chronological history, incidentally, which was also endorsed by the legacy regimes inheriting political power from British despite serious inherent flaws and anomalies in the chronological history propounded by the colonial historians centred around the Indus Valley Civilization and Aryan Invasion Theory. Ironically, many historians in the independent India with leftist leanings, patronized by the legacy regime, too endorsed and escalated Western historians views and theory rather than making honest efforts to carry out independent research on available historical corpus.
While the ancient history including the Mahabharata war has been rejected by the Western historians as mythology, the traditional Indian historians and scholars have made serious efforts to rebuild the legendary history of the ancient India by sound application of logic and rationale on data and information available in the Vedic corpus, Puranas, Epics (Itihasas), other Sanskrit and Prakrit literature, lithic accounts, inscriptions, regional accounts, Vamsavalis, monastic chronicles, Buddhist and Jain literature, and so on. It indeed appears that Adbhuta Rasa (wonder & amazement) was added in Sanskrit literature at many places, particularly in epics and puranas, to make events more incredible and fascinating thereby leading to exaggeration of events, and in turn, transforming some historical legends to historico-mythical legends. It is this feature that appears to have been exploited and used by colonial historians and later on Indian left historians to falsify and deny the Indian cultural past citing it mythology.
No other ancient civilization has such an elaborate data and information on chronology, genealogy and Vamsavalis and, therefore, it cannot be simply ignored or dismissed as has been done by the colonial historians and endorsed by Indian left leaning historian and legacy regime. The dismissive labelling of Indian epics and Puranas as mere “mythology” indicates one of the most prominent distortions introduced during the colonial era. Needless to mention, the 18th- and 19th-century European Indologists approached Indian literature through a Greco-Roman framework, where “myth” denoted fabricated fables, and forced Indian chronology to fit Biblical timelines (such as the traditional calculation of the world’s creation around 4004 BCE by Archibishop James Ussher). As against this, traditional Indian scholars, backed by a growing body of epigraphic, astronomical, and archaeological evidence, view the epics and Puranas as Itihasa, a sophisticated genre of historical narrative designed to convey moral and spiritual philosophy through actual lineage and events.
If we look at the epistemological approach of the Western Historiography and the traditional Indian Itihasa, then we know the fundamental misunderstanding lies in how history itself is defined. While Western history has recorded socio-political events, wars and royal legacies in a chronological sequence more or less taking Christian era as standard reckoning point, the Indian Itihasa is more a record of human events evaluated through the lens of Dharma with the goal as to record not only who ruled when but also extracting eternal lessons on human destiny, duty and ethics. The epics and Puranas explicitly define their content around Pancha Lakshana (5 characteristic subject viz. Sarga (i.e. Primary Creation of Cosmos), Pratisarga (i.e. Secondary Creation & Cosmic Cycles), Vamsa (i.e. Geneology of Kings and Sages), Manvantara (i.e. Cosmic Epochs & Dynasties), and Vamshanucharita (i.e. Chronicles of Royal Dynasties). Of these, the sections on Vamsha and Vamshanucharita render systematic royal genealogies under lineages like the Suryavamsha (Solar Dynasty) and Chandravamsha (Lunar Dynasty). Modern historians such as Dr. R.C. Majumdar and F.E. Pargiter established that these dynastic lists provide a coherent chronological core, sans adbhut rasa and poetic exaggeration here and there.
The epigraphic and inscriptional evidences are a core testimony providing credence to Indian Itihasa. Lithic (stone) and copper-plate inscriptions found across India frequently testify Puranic genealogies and epic traditions as established historical realities rather than fictional tales. For illustration, Aihole Inscription of Pulakeshin II (634 CE) explicitly suggest that the Mahabharata War took place about 3,735 years prior to the date of the inscription, placing the event around 3102 BCE, more or less matching the traditional Kali Yuga epoch start date calculated by Aryabhata, and other sources too with minor variations in number of years. Similarly, several historical milestone events of ancient India are also corroborated across the Buddhist and Jain traditions, including Ikshvaku Dynasty and Mahabhrata & Krishna. This convergence across mutually competing philosophical schools only vindicate that these entities and events were indeed historical anchors shared by the entire ancient subcontinental culture. Besides, the presence of ancient Hindu temples and archaeological evidences about Sri Ramchandra in the Southeast Asian countries further corroborate a profound, centuries-old cultural synthesis, maritime trade and a shared heritage that indeed exited.
The major point of divergence between the Western colonial timelines and traditional Indian understanding is periodicity. The Western model is largely dependent on Indus Valley Civilization and Indo-Aryan migrations in north India, which itself is flawed and highly debatable in many respects while totally ignoring the rich Sanatana cultural traditions and evidences therefor in South India, Western and Eastern parts. The Western model has assigned rigid and compressed dates with Vedic period starting around 1500 BCE primarily based on linguistic assumptions. However, interdisciplinary Archaeo-astronomical findings present a vastly extended timeline: For instance, the Mahabharata alone contains over 150 internal astronomical references (e.g., planetary positions, lunar eclipses, star occultations). Calculations by astronomers and researchers using modern planetarium software correlate these positions to specific windows in the 4th to 3rd millennium BCE. Then both the Rigveda and the epics describe the Sarasvati as a mighty, snow-fed river flowing from the Himalayas to the Arabian Sea. Geological and satellite imagery (ISRO/NWDA studies) confirm the drying up of the Sarasvati-Ghaggar system around 1900 BCE. This clearly suggest that the Vedic literature describing a flowing Sarasvati predates 2000 BCE.
The Western approach of dismissing Itihasa as “mythology” clearly ignores far more sophisticated Indian methodology of preserving historical memory. Needless to mention again, dismissing Indian epics and Puranas as mere “mythology” is a flawed legacy of 19th-century colonial Indology, which viewed ancient literature through a restrictive Western lens and forced subcontinental chronology into compressed, biblical timelines. In contrast, traditional scholars view these texts as Itihasa (“thus indeed it was”), a sophisticated form of historical recording where real royal genealogies (Vamshanucharita), dynastic lines, and socio-political events were preserved alongside moral and philosophical lessons (Dharma). Rather than treating history as a dry list of dates, the Indian tradition preserved civilizational memory in a way that made past events spiritually and ethically instructive for future generations. This historical core is corroborated and strongly supported by the external cross references such as the Jatakas and Trishashti-Shalaka (Buddhist & Jain literature), stone carvings and copper-plate inscriptions, and later Archaeo-astronomical findings – Itihasa indeed reflects an authentic, multi-layered tradition of historical preservation.
(3) Concept of “Maya” Misunderstood
Many in the Western world misunderstand Maya as denoting that the material world is simply an illusion or does not exist thereby translating it to some sort of hallucination or a fake reality. On the contrary, in Sanatana Dharma, Maya does not deny the empirical reality of the world; instead, it refers to the entity through which the Ultimate Reality, Brahman, appears to us as the diverse, changing world, and through which ignorance makes us believe that the transient for the ultimate reality. The world is therefore experienced as real at the everyday level, but it is not the unchanging, independent Reality. Realisation lies not in rejecting the world, but in seeing through its appearances and recognising the underlying unity of Brahman.
When Western scholars and commentators first translated Maya as illusion, it gave an impression as if Vedanta treated the physical universe, including our bodies, daily chorus, joys and tears, as complete delusion or mirage that does not exist. In contrast, Hinduism considers Maya not a delusion but the dynamic power of manifestation physical and a straightforward statement of facts about how our world operates in a transient state. The word Maya is derived from the Sanskrit root मा (ma), which means “to measure, outline, or give shape.” While the reality (Brahman) represents unmanifest and infinite consciousness, Maya is manifestation of the measured multiplicity through time, space and form (i.e. physical attributes). In other words, Maya is the cosmic principle that projects boundary lines onto the boundless, allowing the single underlying Consciousness to appear as a universe of distinct objects and individuals with underlying experiences.
In the above context, Swami Vivekanand’s explanation could be taken as the ‘Statement of Fact’. In his famous lectures on Jnana Yoga, Swami Vivekananda tried to correct the Western notion of Maya as mere “hallucination”: He stated that Maya was not a theory for the explanation of the world but simply a statement of facts – how the universe goes on representing the inherent contradiction and relativity of human existence. He further amplified that the death is absolute and inevitable, yet people cling to life as if they will live forever. In Vedantic concept, Maya is not merely the existence of opposites such as good and evil or joy and sorrow: Instead, it is the condition of relative, dualistic experience in which we perceive reality through pairs of opposites (dvandvas), such as pleasure & pain, gain– & loss, success & failure, good & evil, and birth & death. Thus, these opposites are inextricably bound in relative existence; one cannot be fully conceived without its opposite. This ever-changing interplay of dualities is a manifestation of Maya.
Advaita Vedantic philosophy traditionally distinguishes three orders of reality: Pratibhashika, the apparent or illusory reality of individual experience such as a dream or mistaking a rope for a snake; Vyavaharika, the shared empirical reality in which we live and transact i.e. the physical world, persons, causalities and the laws governing everyday experience that is valid for practical purposes but not ultimately independent; and Paramrthika, the Absolute Reality of Brahman, the unchanging, non-dual state of existence and consciousness. Thus, the world is neither absolutely real nor absolutely unreal: it is empirically experienced but ultimately subordinate to Brahman. The aforesaid THREE are therefore better understood as three orders or standpoints of reality. Interpretation of the world as Maya does not mean the chair you sit on isn’t real on the Vyavaharika (empirical) level. It means the chair has a relative, changing reality rather than an absolute, permanent one. The philosophy also hold that Maya operates through specific psychological and cosmic functions viz. Avarna Shakti (concealing power) with a potential to conceal the awareness of our true divine nature (Atman), and Vishepa Shakti (projecting power) that projects the vast multiplicity of the physical world in place of concealed reality.
In short, Maya is not a fake delusion or magic trick; instead, it represents the cosmic lens of time, space and causation that projects the infinite, formless Consciousness into the rich, measured world of multiplicity with name and form. As Swami Vivekananda famously explained, Maya is simply a “statement of fact” regarding our relative human existence, reflecting the inherent paradoxes of life, such as our pursuit of permanent happiness within a constantly changing, impermanent world. In this context, to learn this without dismissing practical human experience, three distinct levels of subjective illusions, the empirical physical world and absolute unchanging reality as clarified in Advaita Vedanta in aforesaid lines is relevant. Calling the physical universe Maya does not mean our daily lives, physical bodies, or societal duties do not exist; rather, it establishes that their reality is relative and contextual rather than absolute, experienced through the twin powers of Avarana and Vikshepa. Maya does not call for the rejection of the world, but to see through its transient names and forms (Nama-Rupa) for realization of the only divine Consciousness sustaining it all.
(4) The “Single Holy Book” Expectation
The misconception single Holy Book stems directly from the Western thinkers’ attempt to fit Sanatana Dharma into a rather the structural blueprint of the Abrahamic religions wherein their faith is typically defined by its singular binding Holy Book, a founder and central governing body. In contrast, the Sanatana Dharma always promoted the spirit of finding Truth through free discourse, discussion and debate since ages. It is more like an eternal way of life rather than a credal path without a single founder or governing body of fixed dogmas. There is no single book because Truth is seen as infinite, uncreated, and continuously discoverable tatva (element), rather than a static revelation locked into one particular historical moment or by one human author.
This is a misplaced and erroneous approach because many millennia old and continued civilization and culture is not expected to follow or emulate alien religious dogmas of much later origin. Instead of a binding single religious book, Hinduism has a vast Vedic library of Sanatana thought and wisdom systematically categorized into two distinct genres. The first category is known as Shruti scriptures (That Which is Heard) which encompass Vedas and Upanishads, representing Apaurusheya (Uncreated) and eternal cosmic truths comprised of immutable principles. The second category belongs to Smriti (that Which is Remembered): It is comprised of Itihasas – Puranas, Epics and Dharma Shastras, which are contextual, dynamic and adaptable to time, place and era. The four Vedas along with ten Principal Upanishads are considered primary authority. These scriptures are considered “authorless” or uncreated because they are not the word of any single seer (scholar) or deity but timeless cosmic laws (Rta) discovered by the ancient Rishis (sages) in deep state of meditative realization with focus on universal principles i.e. Brahman (Ultimate Reality) and Atman (soul, unit of consciousness).
The four Vedas are Rig, Sama, Yajur and Atharva while ten Principal Upanishads are Isha, Kena, Katha, Prashna, Mundaka, Mandukya, Taittiriya, Aitareya, Chandogya ana Brihadaranyaka. The Vedas deal with almost all disciplines that impacts human society in some way, including Metaphysics and Spirituality (Cosmology and Ultimate Reality, Esoteric and Symbolic Knowledge); Rituals and Liturgy or Karma-Kanda (Sacrificial Sciences i.e. Yajna, Hymnology and Praise); Health, Medicine and Biology (Healing Arts and Longevity and Hygiene); Astronomy, Astrology and Mathematics, Geometry (Jyotisha and Sulba); Linguistics and Philology (Shiksha, Vyakarana, Nirukta, Chhandas, Grammar, etc.); Music, Performing Arts and Acoustics; Governance, Ethics and Social Order (Dharma and Artha); and Applied Sciences and Technology (Engineering and Design, Metallurgy and Material Science). Upanishads are explanatory treaties on the knowledge stored in Vedas. They systematically explore the spiritual and philosophical foundations of the Vedas, shifting the focus from external rituals to inner contemplation of the Absolute Reality (Brahman) and the individual soul (Atman) through dialogues and mystical teachings.
The Smriti, as secondary authority, comprises the vast body of Hindu tradition that interprets and applies the principles of Shruti to human life and society. Its Itihasa, principally the Ramayaṇa and Mahabharata (including the Bhagavad Gita), conveys Dharma through compelling human narratives, illustrating duty, righteousness, moral dilemmas, devotion, sacrifice, governance and the consequences of Karma based action. The Puranas synthesize theological and cosmological ideas, narrative of creation and dissolution, divine manifestations, sacred traditions and the ideals of devotion in accessible narrative form, while the Dharma-shastras and Dharma-sutras articulate norms concerning personal conduct, family and social responsibilities, rites, justice, duties at different stages of life and means of atonement. Taken together, these treaties transform abstract spiritual principles into stories, values, duties and practices, offering a practical framework for pursuing the four Purusharthas viz. Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha. In the context of civilizational importance, Dharma-shastras itself encompass more than what the modern English word “law” suggests.
In essence, the idea of having a single Holy Book would be a constraint for the following reasons:
Dogmatism over Direct Experience: Truth is not merely to be believed from a book; instead, Sravana (listening) and Manana (deep reflection and reasoning) ultimately lead toward Anubhuti i.e. personal realisation of Truth.
Inability to Adapt: Sanatana Dharma distinguishes eternal spiritual principles (Shruti) from context-dependent social codes (Smriti), allowing practices to evolve with changing times without abandoning fundamental principles.
Constraint on Pluralism: Human beings have different temperaments (Svabhava/Ruchi); hence different spiritual paths. Its many scriptures and traditions provide multiple doorways to the same Ultimate Truth, rather than prescribing one doctrinal or devotional route.
While a single book may define a religion, the Sanatana Dharma, an eternal way of life, seeks to provide a framework within which Truth can be explored, experienced and realised in many ways.
Actually, the concept of single (closed) holy book is oversimplification of TRUTH as it poses an intellectual and spiritual limit, and then a blanket restriction on followers not to discuss or debate it like debunking truth, a reality bite and casting no aspersions on any faith. While texts like Srimad Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads hold supreme reverence for their depth and clarity, they are guidebooks to self-realization, not mere dogmatic mandates. The ultimate authority in Sanatana Dharma is not ink on parchment, but Satya (Truth) realized within one’s own consciousness. In contrast, when a tradition declares that the entirety of cosmic Truth was delivered in a single historical moment, bound within a fixed set of pages, and sealed for all eternity—it inadvertently turns Truth into a static commodity. Because human language, culture, and context inevitably shift, a closed text eventually demands rigid dogmatism: followers are forbidden from questioning, debating, or auditing the text against reason or lived reality, lest the entire framework collapse.
(5) Pessimistic and Life-Negating
This is one of the most persistent criticisms of Sanatana Dharma erroneously introduced by 19th-century European Indologists and missionaries, endorsed by leftist ideologists too in India, which is prevalent till date. According to them, Sanatana Dharma is pessimistic, world-weary, or life-negating. The concepts like samsara (Karma based cycle of rebirth), Sannyasa (renunciation) and Moksha (liberation) led to many Western commentators erroneously concluding that the Hindu worldview treats life as a liability or curse to be escaped as quickly as possible. Western approach is understandable to the extent that their precursor civilizations have traditionally laid emphasis on only materialism while Sanatana Dharma emphasized, since Vedic era, a balanced life based on materialism and spirituality, adopting Purushartha and an Ashrama System with worldly pleasures assigning to Grihastha (householder) and more focus on self-realization in the later life. Therefore, in reality, Hinduism has been profoundly robust, life-affirming and pleasure-seeking tradition albeit with certain discipline through the fourfold purpose of the human existence (Purushartha) under a prescribed Ashrama System.
While Sanatan Dharma does not reject worldly life, it seeks to harmonise and sanctify human life through the four Purusharthas as the fundamental objects of existence. Dharma provides ethical and righteous direction; Artha allows material prosperity and security; Kama embraces love, beauty, pleasure and the legitimate joys of life; and Moksha represents ultimate spiritual freedom. Together they offer a balanced vision in which worldly fulfilment is neither condemned nor pursued without restraint, but is progressively aligned with Dharma and ultimately transcended through the pursuit of Moksha. Thus, material prosperity that is wealth, building institutions, pursuing ambition, and generating economic security are explicitly considered duty and not sin. Similarly, sensory pleasure and enjoyment of life through art, music, literature, physical beauty and love is recognized as an essential dimension of human experience. However, these aspects are regulated through ethical conduct (Dharma) which provides a moral foundation of human life without harming others, and finally spiritual liberation is sought as natural culmination of an experiential journey.
Accordingly, the four Ashramas (stages of life) provide Hindu way of life with a balanced approach to human existence. Of these, Brahmacharya is the period of learning, discipline and skill & character building; Gṛihastha embraces family life, livelihood, social responsibility and the legitimate pursuit of Artha and Kama within the pursuits of Dharma as explained in the foregoing paragraph; Vanaprastha represents a gradual withdrawal from worldly attachments and obligations, shifting focus towards reflection, community service and spiritual pursuit; and Sannyasa represents the ultimate renunciation of material attachments, possessiveness and ego, devoting wholly towards self-realisation and Moksha. Thus, rather than demanding premature rejection of worldly life, Sanatana Dharma envisages a progressive meaningful journey from learning, through responsible participation, to detachment and ultimately spiritual freedom.
Thus, the portrayal of Hinduism as pessimistic, world-denying or inherently life-negating is completely misplaced and arises largely from viewing it through an incomplete or defective lens. Its philosophy does acknowledge the realities of human existence viz. desire, pleasure, material needs, family, social obligations, suffering, ageing and ultimately death, without either glorifying or denying them. The framework of the four Purusharthas provides enough room for an ethical living, material prosperity, love, beauty and legitimate enjoyment, within a larger moral and spiritual compass of Dharma. Likewise, the four Ashramas offer a methodical and meaningful progression through education and discipline, responsible worldly participation, gradual detachment and ultimately spiritual liberation. Far from demanding withdrawal from life at the outset, this vision seeks to fulfil life at every appropriate stage while progressively transforming attachment into wisdom and experience into self-realisation. Further, its apparent emphasis on renunciation is not a rejection of life, but the culmination of a life having lived responsibly and meaningfully. Therefore, Hinduism does not endorse or promote pessimism, but offers a remarkably realistic, comprehensive and fulfilling philosophy of human life which embraces both worldly wellbeing and the quest for ultimate spiritual freedom.
(6) Equating Dharma with Religion
Equating the Sanskrit term Dharma with the Western concept of “Religion” is perhaps one of the most fundamental translation or cognate errors in modern discourse although people nearly universally treat the two as such now. Although this has been briefly touched upon in previous paragraphs, yet would be apt to exclusively analyse it here. The word “Religion” is derived from the Latin “religare,” meaning ‘to bind back’ (usually to a specific doctrine, institution, or deity). Broadly, it refers to an organised system of faith centred around specific set of doctrines, institutions, scripture(s), founder(s) and so on. As against this, Dharma, derived from the Sanskrit root “dhṛ” carries meaning ‘to uphold, sustain or preserve’ with a far more amplified meaning that encompasses the principles sustaining cosmic order (Ṛta), universal ethical values, and the duties, actions and responsibilities appropriate to an individual’s nature and stage of life (Svadharma). Accordingly, the term Sanatana Dharma itself is denoted as “an eternal way of life”.
Thus, in the Western/Abrahamic conception, religion is usually understood as an organised system of faith centred on belief in a God or the divine, as defined or expressed through authoritative revelation, scripture, doctrine, worship and an established religious community or tradition as followers. It typically involves faith in revealed truths and adherence to prescribed beliefs and practices, often associated with a historical founder or prophetic revelation with unchanging dogmatic principle/rules. In essence, religions answers to its faithful what they must believe and how they should worship and conduct within the prescribed rules of life as against Dharma which chiefly encompasses the broader aspects of “How life should be conducted or lived in harmony with universal Truth and cosmic order of existence.
The Sanatana Dharma is primarily not a credal or dogmatic system of prescribed beliefs, but an eternal and timeless framework of principles, responsibilities, duties, values and spiritual disciplines that essentially guide and sustain the individual, society and the larger cosmic order. It accommodates diverse philosophies and paths of inquiry, devotion, action and meditation, with the ultimate object of self-realisation and Moksha (liberation), while recognising Dharma, Artha and Kama as legitimate dimensions of a balanced human life in a prescribed discipline commensurate with different stages of life (Ashramas). In essence, Sanatana Dharma not only recommend “What one must believe” but also “How one must live, learn and realize cosmic Truth”.
Dharma is, therefore, not merely a system of faith and beliefs but an ingrained principle and path of right order and function. It could be illustrated in the following manner: The dharma of the sun is to provide light, warmth and life to the universe unconditionally; dharma of the fire is to burn, give heat and purify; dharma of water is to flow, quench thirst and support life; and the same way Manava (human) Dharma calls upon human beings to live in harmony with Truth, ethics and cosmic order. One can change one’s religion or belief system, but he/she cannot “convert” out of Dharma, because it is an underlying principle applicable to all beings, irrespective of what they believe or follow. In a way, Religion could be defined as a dogmatic belief system while Dharma represents a universal law as it applies to all beings equally, regardless of what they believe or do not believe.
Notwithstanding above facts, followers of other credal faiths, and more specifically some Abrahamic religions, have at occasions alleged that Hinduism and/or Hindutva (modern nomenclature of Sanatan Dharma) in Bharat (India), where it originated and prospered, is a threat to their belief system. Accordingly, with reference to such litigations, the issue was thoroughly examined and deliberated in the apex judiciary (Supreme Court) of the land during the past few, and subject clarified by a bench in 1995 in a verdict, and again by a constitutional bench comprised of seven judges of the Supreme Court in 2016.
Some activists had gone to the Indian Supreme Court pleading Hinduism and Hindutva are threat to other religions. Recognizing that Sanatana Dharma cannot be caged into the traditional definitions of religion, the Supreme Court of India, drawing heavily on earlier constitutional benches too on the same subject, addressed this distinction in landmark judgment in 1995 observing as under:
“Ordinarily, the word ‘Hinduism’ cannot be confined within any small narrow definitional limits. When we think of the Hindu religion, unlike other religions in the world, the Hindu religion does not claim any one prophet; it does not worship any one God; it does not subscribe to any one dogma; it does not believe in any one philosophic concept; it does not follow any one set of religious rites or performances; in fact, it does not appear to satisfy the narrow traditional features of any religion or creed. It may broadly be described as a way of life and nothing more.”
Some self-proclaimed secular activists and organizations argued that the judgement was a blow to ‘secular democracy’ underlining the need for a review by a Constitutional Bench comprising of at least five judges. On a plea of the social activist Teesta Setalvad to check the alleged devastating consequences of its 1995 judgment defining Hindutva or Hinduism as an eternal “way of life” and nothing to do with the narrow fundamentalist Hindu religious bigotry, the Supreme Court bench comprising of seven judges de novo examined the whole issue and ruled out again in October 2016 upholding the ‘Hindutva’ verdict of 1995 to make it clear that there was no further need to go far a larger debate on ‘Hindutva’. Thus, the two judgments together illustrate the Court’s recognition of the broad, diverse and non-monolithic character of Hindu traditions.
The chief objection of the activists has been the use of term “Hindutva” which they interpret as an aggressive terminology with hostile attitude and threat for other religions. Actually, the term ‘Hindutva’ is a fusion of two words Hindu + Tattva, which literally means ‘Hindu Principles’ in consonance with the Sanatana way of life essentially based on the concepts such as Vasudhava Kutumbakam (i.e. The entire world is one family) and Ekam Sat Viprah Bahuda Vadanti (i.e. The Universal Consciousness (Brahman/God) is One/Same but different people call by different name). Thus, in essence, despite loosely being used in lieu, Dharma is nor Religion but the eternal moral, physical, and cosmic order sustaining life. While a religion tells its adherents what to believe, Dharma guides on how to live, act, and uphold harmony with oneself, society and the cosmos. It is an open, living ethical framework that encompasses diverse philosophical paths, prioritizing right action, righteousness, and direct inquiry over forced belief or institutional conversion.
(7) All Religions are Exactly the Same
There is also a common perception in several Western thoughts that Hinduism professes “all religions are exactly the same.” This idea typically stems from a Sanskrit slogan Sarva Dharma Sambhava which is well intentioned but philosophically so often misinterpreted while it was essentially intended to foster communal peace and harmony among various faiths. Actually, Sanatana Dharma does not claim that all religions are identical; instead, it offers a far more sophisticated framework of pluralism and equal respect without erasing their fundamental distinctions.
Let us look at exact/equivalent meaning and ethos behind this Sanskrit quote:
Sarva = all; Dharma = dharmas/religious or ethical paths; Sambhava = equal regard, even-mindedness, or even a disposition of treating them without discrimination.
Therefore, the quote literally conveys equal regard or respect for all dharmas and/or religions, and in no way, it suggests that all religions are same or identical in every respect. Possibly, the confusion arises because “equal regard” is paraphrased by some people as a suggestion “all religions are equal.” The finesse needs to be understood that terms equal regard and identicality are two somewhat different propositions.
Sarva Dharma Sambhava conveys principally an ethics of religious impartiality with mutual consideration and regard. Essentially, it delivers a message to acknowledge that people may follow different religious paths, doctrines and mode of devotion/worship, while granting them equal dignity and freedom of conscience. It does not call for adherents to deny the very real differences among religions, nor does it assert or uphold that their theological doctrines, philosophical propositions or ethical prescriptions are all identical or equally valid. Actually, in the Indian civilisational context, the spirit is closer to respect all paths without discrimination than to the suggested simplistic proposition “all religions are the same.” Thus, the aforesaid quote does convey equal respect for all religious paths but it does not claim that all religions are identical.
Pluralism vs. Universal Sameness: Pluralism of Sanatana Dharma should not be misconceived with the universal sameness. Pluralism does not mean that all religions, doctrines or spiritual paths are identical; it simply recognises that human beings possess different temperaments, capacities and approaches to the spiritual quest; so, paths may be different but they lead to same One Truth. The much pious and celebrated Rigvedic dictum “Ekam Sat, Viprah Bahudha Vadanti” conveys that Truth is One; the sages (scholars) speak of It in many ways. This dictum points out an underlying Truth while acknowledging that its understanding, expression and pursuit may differ. Just as different medicines or maps may serve different needs of human beings without being identical, different paths may have their own methods, concepts and purposes for the same end.
The common Western/Abrahamic misreading is to interpret this pluralism as a claim that “all religions are the same” or that Hinduism seeks to erase their differences. But clearly that is not the case what the Hindu principles entail: rather, it is respect for plurality, and not denial of difference; openness, and not homogenisation. Sanatana Dharma is capable of acknowledging the legitimacy of diverse traditions without pretending that their doctrines, practices, metaphysical premises or ultimate goals are interchangeable. Its message is not “all paths are the same,” but rather “Truth need not be approached through only one path.” In contrast, some of very religions that misinterpret it also try to put forth a sovereign claim that their religion is only true religion and so is their God.
Fundamental Differences – Different Paths, Different Metaphysical Frameworks: Sanatana Dharma does not claim that all religions are doctrinally or philosophically the same. Their fundamental answers to questions of Ultimate Reality, time, human existence and spiritual destiny can be profoundly different. Broadly speaking, the Abrahamic religions believe in a distinct Creator God and creation within a predominantly linear history culminating in judgment, with the human life viewed as a single earthly existence. Further, their scholars often hold that particular religion or God are faithfuls and others as sinners. In contrast, the Sanatana Dharmic–Vedantic framework understands Brahman as the Ultimate Reality, existence through recurring cycles of creation and dissolution, and views individual existence through the lenses of Karma and Saṃsara, with Moksha (liberation) as final aim to complete this cycle.
Yet recognising these differences is precisely what makes Sanatana Dharma’s pluralism meaningful. Its claim is not that all doctrines, scriptures or methods are interchangeable, but that the ultimate Reality may be approached and understood through diverse spiritual paths, according to different human temperaments and levels of understanding. Thus, “many paths” does not mean “all paths are identical”; it means that diversity of paths need not negate the possibility of reaching a common Ultimate Truth. Sanatana Dharma, known better as an eternal way of life, therefore seeks neither to homogenise religions nor to deny their differences. It acknowledges diversity at the level of paths while affirming unity at the level of Ultimate Reality (God).
The assertion that “all religions are identical” is a well-intentioned modern slogan that compromises mutual respect with artificial equivalence. In this context, Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (President of India 1962-67) – a renowned philosopher, statesman and scholar of comparative religion – addressed this issue at length arguing that true harmony does not demand artificial uniformity, but an appreciative, unitive understanding: “Tolerance is the homage which the finite mind pays to the inexhaustibility of the Infinite.” He stated that while the mystical and intuitive experience of the divine across cultures exhibits striking harmony, the intellectual formulations, dogmas, and social structures differ wildly. Harmony comes from honouring those unique expressions while recognizing the universal spiritual impulse behind them, not from pretending the differences do not exist.
The most crucial takeaway of the foregoing discussion emerges that Sanatana Dharma does not teach religions being identical; instead, it teaches that diverse spiritual paths can be valid for different seekers. The Vedic tradition practiced mutual respect, and not artificial equivalence. It allows every tradition its unique dignity, methods and philosophy, while standing firmly on its own non-dual, open-ended realization that the ultimate Truth (Satya) transcends all human categories and dogma. Prophetic monotheisms operate on a linear timeline of a single earthly life, an extra-cosmic Creator separate from creation, and salvation through belief in a specific creed or historical messenger. In contrast, the Vedantic paradigm operates on cyclical time, the law of Karma, and a non-dual reality where the Divine (Brahman) is immanent within creation, offering self-realization (Atma-Jnan) rather than mere dogmatic belief.
108 total views, 59 views today
No Comments
Leave a comment Cancel