“Religion is a Western concept; the Indian concept is neither religion nor even Hinduism nor any ‘ism’ — it is Sanatana Dharma, the eternal law of the universe, which cannot be formulated in any rigid and final set of tenets.” – Michel Danino
In the West, a full understanding of the Hindu Purushartha is difficult to obtain, mainly because of Dharma’s untranslatability from Sanskrit to western languages. Therefore, a corruption of Dharma’s meaning has taken place in the western world. Rather than it being considered a way of living, a set of duties to be undertaken by each person, it is often comprehended as a religion. This causes many problems, especially when considering that a state should ultimately be ruled by Dharma (Dharma rajya). Such a state is not ruled theocratically, as Dharma is not equivalent to a religion, and so the state is not as rigid as theocracies. Therefore, Bharat can still be considered a ‘secular state’ and be a Dharma rajya. Even in a monarchy, as the Arthashastra tells us, a King is not above Dharma as the state must allow each and every person to follow their Dharma. As such, a King should only be powerful in his ability to guide people to follow their Dharma.
Deen Dayaljee explains the inherent meanings of different terms which form a basis for how best to sustain a society:
“The State is brought into existence to protect the Nation, and to produce and maintain conditions in which the ideals of the Nation can be translated into reality. The ideals of the Nation constitute Chiti, which is analogous to the soul of an individual. It requires some effort to comprehend Chiti. The laws that help manifest and maintain the Chiti of a Nation are termed the Dharma of that Nation. Hence, it is this ‘Dharma’ that is supreme.
“Dharma is the repository of the Nation’s soul. If Dharma is destroyed, the Nation perishes. Anyone who abandons Dharma, betrays the Nation.
Dharma and Religion
There is a fundamental difference between Religion and Dharma. Our failure understand this difference has resulted in the creation of several crucial problems that we, as humans, have faced in this century and continue to face even today. In contemporary language, dharma is, quite unfairly, equated with religion. Organized religion demands the followers adhere to the Book and Prophet. Anything outside the boundaries of a faith is considered irreligious, if not downright sinful. It is believed that salvation lies only through the body of the Prophet or His words. The history of mankind is often a gory testament of destruction wrought by the zealots in pursuit of faith. It is a testament of dividing people and converting them, of persecution, intolerance and subjugation, or of burning at the stakes: of the contest between the ecclesiastical and the temporal, the doctrine of two swords and of intrigues. Religion has been one of the most potent divisive forces in all history.
Deen Dayaljee explained the difference between religion and dharma as follows:
“We use the word ‘religion’ as synonymous with Dharma. Greater acceptance of European life became the outstanding feature of our education. As a result, all the characteristics of a word ‘religion’, especially as practiced in the West, were attributed automatically to the concept of Dharma also. Since in the West, injustices and atrocities were perpetrated, bitter conflicts and battles were fought in the name of religion, all these were listed en bloc as if these fights were of Dharma. However, battles of religion and battles for Dharma are two different things. Religion means a creed or a sect; it does not mean Dharma. Dharma is a very wide concept. It is concerned with all aspects of life. It sustains Society. Even further, it sustains the whole world. That which sustains, is Dharma.
The fundamental principles of Dharma are eternal and universal. Implementation may differ according to time, place and circumstances. Some rules are temporary and others are valid for longer periods of time. Dharma is a complete treatise on the rules of life and their philosophical bases. These rules should be such as to sustain and further the existence and progress of the entity. They should also be in agreement with the larger framework of Dharma.
Western Thinking
Contrastingly, Western cultural traditions are built around religions. The emergence of the nation-state in the 16th and 17th centuries was the product of religious conflicts between the secular State and the Church. Much of what we now consider modern political vocabulary emerged during these turbulent periods. Much of this vocabulary was used to define spheres of the individual, of the State, of the Church as well as their inter-se relationship. The concepts of identity, ethnicity and autonomy are the products of this separation between Church and State.
Due to the dominance of much of the world by the Western countries, modernity came to be associated with these divisive concepts that originated in the West. The Western education system forced us to think in Western ways. But more than that, Western influence resulted in our resenting our own moorings which were described by the West as backwards-thinking. We got into the habit of using words and concepts without giving thought to their relevance for the Bharatiya ethos. We attempted to fit ourselves into the strait-jacket of Western ideas and concepts. This resulted in conflicts, chaos and divisions in Bharatiya society.
Bharatiya Approach
Our principal error, which we continue to make to this day, was in not making the distinction between dharma and organized religion clear. How can that which is cosmic, and thus limitless, ever be compartmentalized and limited in boundaries? How can something which evolved through interpretation by the free-will of millions of people ever be handed down in the form of a limited doctrine ideology or value system? Dharma shunned all attempts at strait-jacketing. Western culture, on the other hand, was a universe of many strait-jackets.
The concept of being’religious’ is fundamentally a Western one. In the Hindu or Sanatan heritage, there were atheistic and materialistic schools of thought, such as Charvaka, which were all grouped together as ‘Hindu or Sanatan Dharma’. Obviously, if we take the Abrahmic concept of religion, atheistic religion is nonsensical – you can’t genuinely be a ‘Christian atheist’ or a ‘Muslim atheist’ — identifying as such would have gotten you hung for heresy not long ago. Hinduism is a colonial term for the diverse set of dharmic traditions that cannot be united within the context of religion. The Hindu or Sanatan Dharma includes much broader notions than religions, which have tighter and more rigid dogmas.
So let’s follow Dharma rather than religion.
Comments