Sanatan, Culture and Dharma
Dharma: Beyond Religion and Sect
When we speak of religion, we generally think of a system of
beliefs, doctrines, forms of worship, rituals, sacred books, institutions, and
communities of believers. In the Abrahamic world, different interpretations of
religious doctrines gave rise to different sects, each often possessing its own
theological identity, institutions, rituals, and practices.
The Vedic conception of Dharma, however, is
fundamentally different. Equating Dharma with a sect or religion in this
conventional sense overlooks one of Vedic civilization's most distinctive
features.
I have often wondered whether Dharma has an exact English
equivalent. I do not think there is.
The word may sometimes be translated as “religion,” “duty,” “righteousness,” “law,” “virtue,” or “moral order,” but none of these words captures its full meaning. Each conveys only one aspect of the concept. Dharma is broader.
Dharma and its Root Meaning
The word Dharma is derived from the Sanskrit root √धृ (dhṛ), meaning “to hold,” “to
support,” or “to sustain.” The traditional expression “धर्मो धारयते प्रजाः” conveys that Dharma sustains
or upholds the people and the order of life.
Seen in this light, Dharma need not be understood merely as
a collection of moral rules, religious duties, or social commandments. At a
deeper level, it points to what holds an order together and enables it to
continue functioning properly.
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 1.4.14:
तद् धर्मस्य धर्मत्वम् । यद् धर्मेण सत्यम् अन्वेष्यते,
सत्येन च धर्मः प्राप्यते। (Meaning: The righteousness of Dharma (i.e., the real quality or nature of Dharma)
lies in the fact that truth should be discovered through Dharma, and Dharma
should be attained through truth.) This line shows the unbreakable relationship
between Dharma and truth.
In Indian philosophy and
the Upanishads, Dharma and truth are considered complementary. It is also said
in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (1.4.14): "यो वै स धर्मः सत्यं वै तत्" i.e., whatever is Dharma,
that is the truth.
“That is the very essence of Dharma...”
Perhaps the most rigorous definition of Dharma is
found in the Vaisheshika Darshana of Maharshi Kanada:
यतोऽभ्युदयनिःश्रेयससिद्धिः स धर्मः।
Yato 'bhyudaya-niḥśreyasa-siddhiḥ sa dharmaḥ.
— Vaisheshika Sutra, 1.1.2
In essence, Kanada says:
That through which both Abhyudaya and Nihshreyasa
are attained is Dharma.
Here lies a remarkably comprehensive conception of human
life.
Abhyudaya may be understood as advancement,
prosperity, welfare, or flourishing in this world. Nihshreyasa refers to
the highest good—ultimate spiritual fulfillment, self-realization, liberation,
or moksha.
Thus, Dharma does not ask human beings to choose
between worldly welfare and spiritual fulfillment.
It embraces both.
Dharma unites the material and the spiritual
This is one of the most important features of the Vedic
conception.
Human beings have to live in the world. They have families,
occupations, relationships, social responsibilities, material needs,
intellectual pursuits, and political institutions. At the same time, human
existence raises questions that material prosperity alone cannot answer.
Who am I?
What is the purpose of life?
What constitutes genuine happiness?
What lies beyond the temporary?
What is the nature of consciousness?
What is liberation?
A conception of life that addresses only material welfare is
incomplete. But one that asks human beings to abandon all worldly
responsibilities in pursuit of spiritual liberation is equally incomplete as a
general principle of social existence.
Kanada's definition brings the two together.
Abhyudaya and Nihshreyasa.
The welfare of human life in this world and the attainment
of the highest good.
This is Dharma.
What, then, is Nihshreyasa?
Nihshreyasa points toward the highest spiritual
attainment. In the broader Indian philosophical tradition, this encompasses
ideas such as liberation, moksha, nirvana, and self-realization.
However, these terms belong to different traditions and should not be treated
as interchangeable.
The important point is that human life is not regarded as
complete merely because material desires have been satisfied.
There is a higher possibility.
The human being can know himself.
The human being can overcome ignorance.
The human being can attain inner freedom.
The human being can discover a reality beyond the transient
objects of desire.
Consequently, those practices, disciplines, habits, and
modes of living that genuinely contribute to this highest fulfillment can be
understood as belonging to the domain of Dharma.
This immediately takes Dharma beyond the narrow
sphere of worship.
Dharma is primarily concerned with conduct
This distinction is crucial.
A person may worship a particular deity.
He may perform elaborate rituals.
He may belong to a particular sect.
None of these, by themselves, establishes that the person is
Dharmik.
The more fundamental question is:
How does the person live?
How does he behave when confronted with difficulty?
How does he treat another person?
How does he respond to baser instincts, human impulses?
Does he respect the property and rights of others?
Does he try to speak the truth?
Does he try to forgive?
These questions take us much closer to the meaning of Dharma.
And the Manusmriti gives us an extraordinarily
concise description.
धृतिः क्षमा दमोऽस्तेयं शौचमिन्द्रियनिग्रहः।
धीर्विद्या सत्यमक्रोधो दशकं धर्मलक्षणम्॥
The ten characteristics are Dhriti, Kshama, Dama, Asteya,
Shaucha, Indriyanigraha, Dhi, Vidya, Satya, and Akrodha.
They may be understood as follows:
Dhriti — Fortitude:
Remaining steady in difficult circumstances rather than becoming overwhelmed or
panicking.
Kshama — Forgiveness:
Freedom from persistent malice and the capacity to forgive those who have
wronged us.
Dama — Self-restraint:
The ability to restrain one's mind and emotional impulses.
Asteya — Non-stealing:
Not taking what belongs to another, including what may properly be understood
as another person's rights.
Shaucha — Purity:
Purity and cleanliness of both body and mind.
Indriyanigraha — Control of the senses:
Not allowing the senses to lead the individual wherever their impulses happen
to take them.
Dhi — Intellect and discrimination:
The capacity to think clearly and distinguish between what ought to be done and
what ought not to be done.
Vidya — Knowledge:
The acquisition of genuine knowledge and understanding.
Satya — Truth:
Commitment to truth in thought, speech, and action.
Akrodha — Absence of anger:
The capacity to overcome anger rather than becoming its servant.
These are not ritual requirements.
They are qualities of a human being.
And that is highly significant.
These are characteristics, not rituals.
These are symptoms. A person who is truly Dharmik—one
who genuinely lives according to Dharma—will exhibit these qualities to
varying degrees, much like a malaria patient experiences fever with chills, or
a person with a cold has a runny nose and sneezes. The symptoms may vary in
intensity, but they point toward the underlying condition.
The Manusmriti does not say that the defining
characteristics of Dharma are performing a particular ritual,
worshipping a particular deity, or belonging to a particular sect.
It identifies qualities of character.
This gives us a useful way of distinguishing Dharma
from sectarian religion.
A ritual belongs to a particular tradition.
A form of worship belongs to a particular tradition.
A particular deity may belong to a particular sect.
But truthfulness, self-restraint, forgiveness, knowledge,
purity, non-stealing, and freedom from anger are not the exclusive property of
any sect.
They are universally human qualities.
Indeed, one could argue that they are precisely the
qualities that make a person Dharmik.
A person may perform every prescribed ritual and yet lack
these qualities.
Conversely, a person may perform few or no formal rituals
and nevertheless possess many of them.
This does not mean that ritual and worship have no value.
They may have value within a particular spiritual tradition. But their value
should ultimately be judged by what they produce in a person.
If a practice genuinely contributes to self-control, truth,
compassion, knowledge, purity, inner discipline, and ultimately spiritual realization,
it has a meaningful relationship with Dharma.
If it produces hatred, arrogance, intolerance, violence,
deception, or contempt for others, then something has gone seriously wrong.
Dharma can govern the whole of life
Once Dharma is understood in this way, its scope
becomes enormous.
From the moment a person wakes up until the moment he goes
to sleep, every aspect of life can potentially come under the guidance of Dharma.
How one earns one's livelihood. How one treats one's family.
How one speaks to strangers. How one exercises authority. How one uses wealth. How
one responds to disagreement. How one treats the weak. How one behaves when
nobody is watching. How one governs one's desires. How one participates in
society. How justice is administered. How knowledge is pursued. How human
beings relate to nature.
All of these can be examined through the principle of Dharma.
In this sense, Dharma is not confined to a temple or
a place of worship.
It can extend into the household, the marketplace, the
classroom, the court, the government, and the individual's own mind.
It is therefore much closer to a principle governing life
than to a sectarian identity.
Other similar synonyms and characteristics appear in
other texts.
अहिंसा परमो धर्मः तथा अहिंसा परो दमः।
अहिंसा परमं दानं अहिंसा परमं तपः॥
Ahimsa is described here as the supreme Dharma,
the highest form of self-restraint, the greatest gift, and the highest
austerity.
Whatever other interpretations one may give to the verse,
its emphasis is unmistakable: the value of Dharma is expressed through conduct.
Another striking formulation is:
आहुः सत्यं परं धर्मम् ।
āhuḥ satyaṃ paraṃ dharmam
“They declare Satya to be the highest Dharma.”
This is cited from the Ādi Parva, chapter 162.
The highest principle is not presented merely as a ritual to
be performed.
It is presented as a way of being.
This aligns with the broader idea that Dharma should
manifest in the individual's character.
If one's religious practice does not ultimately influence
one's conduct, what has that practice accomplished?
If worship makes a person more arrogant, what has been
gained?
If ritual makes a person hate another human being, how can
that hatred be called Dharmik?
If religious identity becomes more important than truth,
compassion, self-restraint, and knowledge, then the outer form has begun to
overwhelm the inner purpose.
Chāndogya Upaniṣad 2.23.1 — Three branches of Dharma
This is a particularly valuable passage because it actually
uses the expression धर्मस्कन्धाः — dharma-skandhāḥ, “branches/supports of Dharma”:
त्रयो धर्मस्कन्धा यज्ञोऽध्ययनं दानमिति प्रथमः ।
तप एव द्वितीयो ब्रह्मचार्याचार्यकुलवासी तृतीयः ।
The Upaniṣad identifies three branches/aspects of Dharma:
sacrifice/study/giving; tapas; and the life of the brahmacārin with the
teacher.
"There are three pillars of Dharma: the first comprises
*Yajna* (noble deeds), *Adhyayan* (study), and *Daan* (charity).
("The root 'Yaj' implies—honoring noble forces or
virtues (worship of divine forces), uniting society and nature (unification),
and dedicating one's all to the welfare of the world (charity).")
The second is* Tapas*. Exercising control over the mind and
senses, remaining steadfast on the path of righteousness even amidst difficult
circumstances, and practicing self-discipline.
The third is the *Brahmachari*—one who observes
*Brahmacharya* (celibacy and disciplined living) while residing in the home of
the preceptor/guru. This is especially for the Brahmacharya Ashram.
Dharma and sect are therefore different categories
This distinction also helps us understand the difference
between Vedic civilization and the sectarian structure familiar from many other
religious traditions.
Sects certainly developed in India. Shaivas, Vaishnavas,
Shaktas, and numerous other traditions developed their own forms of worship,
theology, practices, symbols, and institutions.
But these traditions remained embedded within a broader
cultural world.
They could disagree about the ultimate form of the Divine
while sharing a common civilizational framework.
One could worship Shiva.
Another could worship Vishnu.
Another could worship Devi.
Another could follow a philosophical path in which the
ultimate reality is understood in an entirely different manner.
Yet these differences did not necessarily require entirely
separate civilizations.
The underlying cultural fabric remained shared.
This distinction between sectarian identity and Dharma is
important.
A sect answers questions such as:
Whom do you worship?
Which tradition do you follow?
Which scriptures or teachers do you accept?
Which rituals do you perform?
Which theological interpretation do you hold?
Dharma asks something deeper:
How do you live?
What kind of human being are you becoming?
Does your conduct promote human welfare?
Does your life move you toward the highest good?
These are different questions.
Dharma does not require uniformity.
This may be one of the most remarkable features of the Vedic
conception.
If Dharma were simply another name for a sect, then
differences in worship would necessarily create differences in Dharma.
But if Dharma concerns the fundamental qualities and
conduct of human beings, then different forms of worship can coexist within it.
The outer forms may differ.
The inner discipline can remain common.
This allows diversity without necessarily requiring
fragmentation.
A person may approach the Divine through knowledge.
Another through devotion.
Another through meditation.
Another through action.
Another through a particular deity.
Another through philosophical inquiry.
The paths may differ, yet the qualities expected of the
practitioner remain remarkably similar: truth, self-restraint, knowledge,
purity, forgiveness, discrimination, and freedom from destructive impulses.
Thus, diversity of spiritual practice does not
necessarily mean diversity of Dharma.
How, then, does one know whether one is Dharmik?
This is perhaps the most practical question.
We need not ask another person which sect he belongs to.
We need not examine how many rituals he performs.
We need not count how frequently he visits a place of
worship.
We can look at the qualities of his life.
These qualities are like symptoms of Dharma.
Just as a disease manifests through recognizable symptoms, Dharma
manifests through recognizable qualities in the individual.
Similarly, the ten qualities Manu describes may be regarded
as manifestations of Dharma.
A person who genuinely lives according to Dharma
should exhibit these qualities to some degree.
They need not be perfect.
Human beings are imperfect.
But there should be a direction of development.
A Dharmik person should be moving toward greater
self-control, greater truthfulness, greater knowledge, greater forgiveness, and
greater freedom from anger and malice.
The purpose of religion should therefore be examined
through Dharma
This brings us back to the question of religion.
If by religion we mean the outer forms of worship, ritual,
sect, doctrine, and identity, then religion is only one part of human spiritual
life.
The deeper question is what these forms accomplish.
If worship leads toward inner discipline, it serves Dharma.
If meditation leads toward greater awareness, it serves Dharma.
If study leads toward knowledge, it serves Dharma.
If ritual cultivates discipline and devotion, it may serve Dharma.
But if any religious practice produces hatred, cruelty,
arrogance, deception, intolerance, or violence, we have to ask whether the
practice is still serving its intended purpose.
The test is not merely:
“Did I perform the ritual?”
The more important test is:
“What did the ritual make me?”
Did it make me more truthful?
More peaceful?
More self-controlled?
More knowledgeable?
Less angry? Less selfish?
More capable of forgiving?
More respectful of other human beings?
If the answer is yes, then the practice has moved in the
direction of Dharma.
If the answer is no, then the outer religious act may have
little relationship with the deeper meaning of Dharma.
Dharma is not a label.
Perhaps this is the most important conclusion.
Dharma is not merely something one claims.
It is something one lives.
A person does not become Dharmik simply by adopting a
religious identity.
Nor does a person cease to be Dharmik because his
form of worship differs from that of another person.
The real measure lies in conduct.
This is why the Vedic conception of Dharma can
accommodate enormous diversity without necessarily dissolving into cultural
fragmentation.
Different sects may have different gods, rituals, symbols,
philosophies, and methods of worship.
But beneath these differences, a shared civilizational
understanding of what constitutes a worthy human life can remain.
And that may be the deeper relationship between Dharma
and culture.
Culture provides the forms through which a civilization
lives.
Dharma provides a principle by which those forms can be
judged.
When culture serves Dharma, it contributes to human
flourishing.
When culture loses its connection with Dharma, its
forms may survive while its inner purpose disappears.
And when religion becomes merely an identity, it may
preserve its rituals while losing the very qualities that gave those rituals
meaning.
Sāmānya Dharma and Swadharma
Two dimensions of Dharma become visible in the classical
texts. One concerns the qualities expected of a person irrespective of their
particular position in life; the other concerns the specific Dharma appropriate
to an individual’s nature, circumstances, and role.
The Manusmṛti describes ten characteristics of Dharma:
धृतिः क्षमा दमोऽस्तेयं
शौचमिन्द्रियनिग्रहः ।
धीर्विद्या सत्यमक्रोधो
दशकं धर्मलक्षणम् ॥
Dhṛti (fortitude), Kṣamā (forgiveness), Dama
(self-restraint), Asteya (non-stealing), Śauca (purity), Indriya-nigraha
(control of the senses), Dhī (discernment or wisdom), Vidyā
(knowledge), Satya (truthfulness), and Akrodha (freedom from
anger) are presented as the ten characteristics of Dharma.
These may be understood as Sāmānya Dharma—qualities
that are not restricted to a particular Varṇa, Āśrama, profession, or social
position. They concern the character of the person who performs an action. In
this sense, Dharma is not determined merely by what one does, but also
by the qualities with which one does it.
The Bhagavad Gītā, however, introduces another dimension
when Śrī Kṛṣṇa says:
श्रेयान्स्वधर्मो विगुणः
परधर्मात्स्वनुष्ठितात् ।
स्वधर्मे निधनं श्रेयः
परधर्मो भयावहः ॥
“One’s own Dharma, though imperfectly performed, is better
than another’s Dharma performed well. It is better to die in the pursuit of
one’s own Dharma; another’s Dharma is fraught with danger.”
This is the idea of Svadharma—the Dharma appropriate
to oneself. It concerns the particular responsibilities and course of action
arising from one’s nature, abilities, circumstances, and position.
At first sight, these two ideas might appear to pull in
different directions. The Manusmṛti speaks of qualities applicable to everyone,
while the Gītā speaks of a Dharma that differs from person to person. But there
need not be any contradiction between them. They address different
dimensions of Dharma.
Svadharma determines the particular sphere of action;
Sāmānya Dharma determines the qualities with which that action ought to be
performed.
Thus, a person's role or responsibility may differ from
another's, while qualities such as truthfulness, self-restraint, purity,
fortitude, and freedom from anger remain universally relevant.
For example, the Svadharma of a Kṣatriya may, under
particular circumstances, require participation in warfare. But the mere fact
that an action falls within one's prescribed role does not, by itself, make the
action righteous. If it is performed with courage, self-restraint,
truthfulness, and freedom from hatred or greed, it may accord with Dharma. If
the same action is driven by anger, greed, arrogance, or personal gain, its
moral character changes.
The same principle applies to other roles. Brāhmaṇas,
Vaiśyas, Śūdras, householders, students, and ascetics may have different
responsibilities and modes of life, yet the fundamental qualities of character
described as Dharma are not thereby confined to one group.
This suggests a useful distinction:
Svadharma answers: “What is appropriate for me to do?”
Sāmānya Dharma asks: “With what qualities should I do
it?”
The first gives Dharma its particular expression; the
second gives that expression its ethical and human foundation.
Seen this way, Dharma is neither merely a universal code
imposed uniformly upon everyone nor merely a collection of duties determined by
social position. It has both a universal dimension of character and a particular
dimension of action.
Conclusion
The Vedic and classical concept of Dharma cannot be
adequately translated as “religion.”
Religion, in its conventional sense, may concern belief,
worship, ritual, doctrine, and sectarian identity. Dharma is broader. It
concerns the principles by which life is sustained, the qualities by which a
person conducts oneself, and the particular responsibilities through which one
participates in the order of life.
As Kaṇāda expressed it:
यतोऽभ्युदयनिःश्रेयससिद्धिः स धर्मः।
That which leads to both Abhyudaya and Nihśreyasa
is Dharma—the welfare and advancement of life in this world together
with the highest spiritual good.
The distinction between Sāmānya Dharma and Svadharma
makes this breadth still clearer. Sāmānya Dharma concerns qualities such
as fortitude, forgiveness, self-restraint, purity, knowledge, truthfulness,
discrimination, and freedom from anger—qualities that give human conduct its
ethical foundation. Svadharma, on the other hand, concerns the
particular course of action appropriate to an individual’s nature, abilities,
circumstances, and responsibilities.
Thus, Dharma operates at two levels:
Sāmānya Dharma gives character to action.
Svadharma gives direction to action.
One may have a particular role or duty, but the manner in
which that duty is performed remains essential. A duty pursued through anger,
greed, dishonesty, or arrogance may lose the very quality that makes it Dharma.
Conversely, different people may follow different legitimate paths while
remaining grounded in the same fundamental virtues.
This also reveals why Dharma cannot be equated with
sectarian identity.
A sect may tell us which path a person follows.
Dharma asks how that path is lived.
A sect may provide an identity.
Dharma provides a standard by which that identity and
its conduct may be examined.
A sect may prescribe forms of worship.
Dharma concerns the quality of life that emerges from
them.
Seen from this perspective, Dharma also comes closer
to Ṛta. If Ṛta represents the underlying order according to which
existence proceeds, Dharma may be understood, philosophically, as the
way that order is sustained and expressed through life. Svadharma gives
that participation its particular form, while Sāmānya Dharma gives it
the qualities that keep it aligned with what is right.
The distinction is therefore not merely between religion and
Dharma, but between identity and conduct, belief and character, prescribed form
and lived reality.
The more fundamental question, then, may not be:
“What religion do you belong to?”
but:
“What does your way of living sustain, and what does it make
you become?”
For Dharma is not established merely by the name one bears,
the community one belongs to, or the rituals one performs. Its deeper measure
lies in whether one’s life contributes to Abhyudaya and Nihśreyasa, whether
one's conduct reflects the qualities that sustain human life, and whether one's
particular path remains aligned with a deeper order.
In that sense, Dharma is not simply something one professes.
It is something one lives.
----✍️Raghvendra Khare
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0HDV7HVL3?spcref=HARDCOVER_LISTING
No comments:
Post a Comment