What is Sanātana Dharma?

There’re all sorts of claims & beliefs regarding this phrase ‘Sanātana Dharma’, that can be found all-over the public discourse. Most say it’s the original or actual name for Hinduism, the actual self identity of Hindus. I’ve seen some even saying that Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism are all branches/offshoots of Sanātana Dharma, but that’s just Internet baloney or popular neologism ‘WhatsApp University’

The believers of this notion tend to posit this as something of an eternal religion/order or a universal belief, something that’s timeless, often basing it on the eternalist cosmological model given in the Hindu mythology.

I’ve briefly talked about it in my previous article: What exactly is the Hindu Identity?

There’s absolutely no evidence of the phrase ‘Sanātana Dharma’ being used historically for the purpose it’s used contemporarily.

No ṛṣi, no ācārya, no bhāṣyakāra or anyone in the vast Hindu mythos or history before 19th century, ever said their religion to be ‘Sanātana Dharma’ or themselves as ‘Sanātanī’, like people do contemporarily.

Vedic Hindus self-identified as ‘Ārya’, the sanskrit speaking noblemen, in contrast to ‘anārya’. Mahābhārata distinguishes ‘Ārya-Vedics’ from ‘mlechha’ tribes.

The Mukhya Upaniṣad texts primarily speak of 2 categories: the ‘jñānī’ (wise) & the ‘ajñānī’(unwise). Although later Upaniṣad texts delve deep into denominationalism.

Primary basis of self-identity was ethnic/societal/ linguistic, not religion/universal doctrine. However later Bauddha & Jaina did start to self identify as ‘Ārya’. And later the different philosophical schools, that emerged in the axial age, aka ‘darśana’ self-identified as ‘āstika’ while calling rivalling schools as ‘nāstika’

The most common form of self-identity in India, historically, was of caste & which transcended sectarian boundaries.

Theology/religious belief wasn’t the basis of ethnic distinctions in society, like present. The identities were primarily segmented on basis of locality, language, caste, (ancestral)occupation.

Religious beliefs did become a major basis of identity eventually, as Vaidika, Vaiṣṇava, Śaiva, Śākta, Saura, Bauddha, Jaina, etc. but still caste or social groupings remained a major factor in self identification. Many sects themselves eventually transformed into caste groups, such as Nath, Koul, Iyengar, Sadh, etc. There were folks like Pampa, who flaunted his Brahminhood alongwith his Jaina affiliations, recommending Jainism to be best for all Brahmins. Several caste groups had adherents from more than one Religious denomination: Aggarwals, Bunts, Khatri, etc. And as I’ve talked about in my previous articles that caste was a common feature in all of Indian religions, not just what people presently consider Hinduism – Hindu Self-Identity & its position in Indian Religions

The later sects also picked up the āstika-nāstika dichotomy from early schools, but there was no group which exclusively called themselves as ‘sanātanī’, like it happens presently.

Lateron Indians adopted the exonym ‘Hindu’ to distinguish themselves from the ways of the Muslim invaders. The 14th- and 18th-century Indian poets such as Vidyapati, Kabir, Bulleh Shah, Eknath, etc. used the term ‘Hindu dharma’ contrasting it with ‘Turaka dharma’(Islam). Please see – The Growth of Hindu Self-Identity

Hindu here didn’t necessarily mean any religious group, but more of a native geo-ethno-cultural identity of the subcontinent, also including Bauddh, Jain, Sikh within it.

The term ‘Sanātana dharma’ was first used by hindu traditionalists in late 19th century in opposition to reformist movements.

The Hindu orthodoxy in order to preserve their traditional ways, came up with this ‘sanātanī’ eternalist outlook, in response to reformist movements like Arya Samaj, RamaKrishna Mission & their socio-political hinduism or Santpanths like Radhasoami.

Since many reformist groups had the word Samaj (society) or were led by a sant(saint), so trads formed Sanātanī Sabhas (congregations) to prevent the socio-cultural reforms by Samajists & Santpanthis in the late 19th century.

Many scholars compare the Sanatani-Samaji dichotomy within Hinduism as similar to the catholic – protestant division in Christianity. The Sanatanis claiming the infalliblity of their age old customs including caste hierarchy while the samajis claiming the “original uncorrupted” or an inclusive Hinduism, but both claiming the “real” version of Hinduism or the ultimate truth.

The term ‘Sanātana dharma’ was also popularized by Gandhi in the 1920s, when he declared himself to be a ‘Sanātanī’.

The term ‘Sanātana dharma’ in the scriptures does not denote to any self-identification or a religious group or any community.

Many people erroneously nitpick mentions of ‘sanātana’ or ‘sanātana dharma or dharmasanātana’ from random texts to show the validity of this claim of it being the original name of Hinduism. But not even a single mention of this phrase refers to any religious group or identity or says anything even remotely resembling to the aforementioned claim.

The term is indeed mentioned at various instances in the scriptures, but its meaning is very contextual, not at all what its claimed today popularly, but just some basic moral principles or some cyclic events/activities in Hindu mythology or some sets of duties, etc. The meaning varies in different contexts.

Even the Bauddh & Jain texts mention this phrase at various places and can be said as ‘Sanātana dharma’ as well based on the very same reasons given for contemporary Hinduism to be sanātana.

Current usage of the term ‘Sanātana dharma’ is highly ironic.

Its Claimed as the original identity of Hindus, but the name Hindu and its self-identity are both centuries older than the ‘Sanātanī’ one. Although it has been stuck just with what’s generally considered as Hinduism in popular public discourse, but all Indian religions can be said as ‘Sanātana Dharma’

In sharp contrast to efforts by Lahore Sanātana Dharma Sabha, Sanātana Dharma Rakshini Sabha of Calcutta and other trad congregations starting from late 19th century, to preserve the rigidity of traditions or ‘dharma-rakṣā’ as they called it, against the onslaught of reforms, now its stressed that Sanātana Dharma can’t be rigid, it has to be inclusive without excluding the best & totality of knowledge to guide the karmic process, especially as Sanātana is said to have no beginning, no end.

So Initially a reactance by trads to reforms for propogating their orthodox beliefs; eventually got appropriated by the modernists & reformists to showcase the “universal inclusivity” of hinduism, but is now mainly a thing of chest-thumping by either faction to boast the antiquity of Hinduism infront of abrahamics & westerners.

The ‘Sanātana dharma’ is not that universal or inclusive as it’s posited to be.

The concept of ‘Sanātana’ is emphasized upon to distinguish it from other religions, but in practice Sanātanī mindset tends to be more closer to abrahamic religiosity, than Indian. Nothing’s eternal. Everything has a beginning. Anything that suggests eternalism, is condescending, just like Muslims claiming that Islam is the eternal faith (deen-e-javed) of mankind.

‘Universality’ of faith/religiosity permeated throughout humanity. Calling any particular denomination as eternal is just spiritual snobbery in the garb of fancy words with no actual depth in their meaning.

As mentioned previously, It is often used to boast or justify the validity of some Hindu customs or ritual or religiosity, but the fact is hardly anything in Hindu History remained perennial. The Hindu religiosity just from a century ago is sharply different from that of today, let alone calling it eternally relevant.

The fact is There is no “original” Hinduism. Hinduism is an evolution of faiths, traditons. Vedas were themselves evolved. One can see the slow movement away from Indra and nature gods in Ṛg Veda to the Śiva/Viṣṇu in Yajur Veda. And by Mahābhārata, Kṛṣṇa deliberately asks you to skip Indra/vedic rituals and worship only Him(Viṣṇu). Hinduism has changed and evolved throughout the history as per the needs of the era.

‘Eternals’ in Hinduism

Upaniṣadika/dārśnika Hinduism can be termed eternal in the sense that the teachings therein are perennially relevant but then, they aren’t god-oriented & don’t preach god, religiosity or divinity in an overt manner but spread awareness & enlightenment. In that sense, Hindu can be called sanātana. But associating it with any form of religiosity, belief system, rituals, customs, shibboleths, totems and superstitions, sounds jarring and out of place.

A relatively sensible usage of this term I found is based on the ‘unchanging’ nature of the ātman(self), as described in the Hindu philsophy, later appropriated by the bhakti cults as well. Since the primary tenet of Hindu spirituality is ‘ātma-vidyā’(knowledge of self), so this term is used in this particular context as well by many. But dharma is ipso facto ‘sanātana’ in above contexts, so emphasizing on it seperately, seems redundant, but not that problematic either.

‘Sanātana dharma’ terminology can be used for all Indian traditions as well.

As already aforementioned, the term ‘sanātana dharma’ is there in both Jain & Bauddh texts, used in varying contexts. The reasons commonly given for what’s commonly considered as Hinduism for being ‘sanātana dharma’ are found in all of Indian Religions, since entire Indian religiosity has the similar eternalist cosmology.

Jainism, Sikhism also have the unchanging conception of ātman. In his quest for truth, the king Ajātaśatru met a philosopher, Kakuda Kātyāyana, whose very philosophy was literally called as ‘śāśvata-dṛṣṭi’, literally meaning eternalism.

If any denomination has the most profound claim on the name ‘Sanātana dharma’ just on the basis of the beliefs they espouse, its Jainism and Kakuda’s school, as they believe in eternalism in the most outright manner, even more than what’s commonly considered as Hindu, which propose a cyclic form of eternalism. But most Sanātanī hindus use this identification to distinguish what they consider as Hinduism, from all other denominations.

In conclusion I’d say that Indian/Hindu way of thinking has certainly been accommodative & all-encompassing as it allowed all sorts of beliefs to flourish & thrive. But thinking that its religiosity is as old as time itself is wrong.