A Study of Two Fundamentally Different Frameworks for the Relationship Between the Human and the Sacred
Abstract: The translation of dharma as religion is
among the most consequential and most misleading translations in the history of
cross-cultural philosophical encounter. The two concepts, dharma in the
Vedic-Sanskrit tradition and religion as it has developed in the Western
philosophical and theological tradition, share some overlap in their concerns
but differ fundamentally in their structure, their claims, and their
relationship to the individual. Understanding this difference is not merely an
academic exercise. It has immediate practical implications for how Sanatana
Dharma is understood and how it navigates the contemporary world. This article
explores the specific differences between dharma and religion as conceptual
frameworks, why the conflation of the two has produced consistent
misunderstandings in both directions, what dharma offers that the concept of
religion does not, and what the recognition of this difference suggests about
how the tradition should understand and present itself.
Keywords: Dharma, religion, distinction, Sanatana
Dharma, Western philosophy, creed, institution, cosmic order, individual
obligation, universal, comparative religion
Introduction
There is a moment in many cross-cultural conversations
when two people who think they are discussing the same thing discover that the
words they are using do not carry the same content. This is what happens when
dharma is translated as religion. The two words sound like equivalents, and in
some contexts they point at overlapping territory, but they are structured
differently enough that treating them as equivalents consistently distorts
both.
Religion, in the tradition in which the concept was developed,
typically involves several features: a specific creed or set of beliefs to
which adherence is expected, a specific institution that maintains and
transmits the creed, a specific founder or founding event that gave the
tradition its authoritative origin, and a specific community of the faithful
distinguished from those outside it. The great Abrahamic religions are the
clearest examples of this model, but the model has shaped how the concept of
religion is understood so thoroughly that it tends to be projected onto other
traditions even when they do not fit it.
What Dharma Is and Is Not
Dharma, as explored in the previous article, is the
principle of cosmic order: the set of conditions that holds things together,
that maintains the structure of existence, and within which genuine human
flourishing is possible. It is not a belief system in the creedal sense: the
tradition does not define dharma as the acceptance of specific propositions
about the nature of God, creation, or salvation. It is not an institution:
there is no Dharma Church, no central body that determines what dharma is or
who practices it correctly. It is not a community bounded by membership: dharma
is, in the tradition's own understanding, the principle that operates
throughout the cosmos and is available to every being regardless of their
cultural or religious affiliation.
धर्म एव हतो
हन्ति धर्मो
रक्षति रक्षितः।
तस्माद् धर्मो
न हन्तव्यो
मा नो
धर्मो हतोऽवधीत्॥
Dharma eva hato hanti dharmo
rakshati rakshitah, Tasmad dharmo na hantavyo ma no dharmo hato 'vadhit.
(Dharma, when struck down, strikes
down. Dharma, when protected, protects. Therefore dharma should not be struck
down, lest the struck-down dharma strike us down.)
Manusmriti, 8.15
Dharma strikes down when struck down. This is not the
language of creedal belief. It is the language of a cosmic principle that
operates with something like the impersonality and inevitability of a natural
law: you do not protect it because you believe in it as a doctrine but because
its protection is what makes your own existence, and the existence of the
community around you, sustainable. The parallel to the natural world is exact:
a person who does not maintain the conditions that keep the air breathable will
not breathe, regardless of what they believe about air. A person or community
that does not protect dharma will find the social and cosmic order that dharma
maintains beginning to collapse around them, regardless of what they believe
about dharma.
The Structural Differences
Several structural differences between dharma and
religion deserve explicit attention. Religion, in the Abrahamic model, is
fundamentally belief-centred: the core question is what one believes, and the
primary boundary between the religious community and those outside it is the boundary
of belief. Dharma is fundamentally practice-centred: the question is not
primarily what one believes but how one lives, whether one's conduct is in
alignment with the principles that hold the cosmic and social order together. A
person can have heterodox beliefs and still practice dharma. A person can have
orthodox beliefs and violate dharma in every aspect of their conduct.
Religion, in this model, is also exclusive: one is a
Christian or a Muslim, and the categories are mutually exclusive. Dharma is not
exclusive in this way. The tradition has never held that only those who
identify with a specific tradition can practice dharma. The concept of dharma
applies, in the tradition's understanding, to all beings in all conditions:
there is a dharma for kings and a dharma for merchants, a dharma for parents
and a dharma for students, a dharma in peace and a dharma in conflict. None of
these requires a specific religious identity. They require specific qualities
of conduct and character that the tradition associates with dharma regardless
of the specific cultural or religious context in which they appear.
अहिंसा परमो
धर्मः।
Ahimsa paramo dharmah.
(Non-harming is the highest
dharma.)
Mahabharata, Anushasana Parva,
115.1
Non-harming as the highest dharma. This principle is
not presented as a specifically Hindu belief. It is presented as a universal
principle: the quality of not causing harm to other conscious beings is the
highest expression of the dharmic order in individual conduct. It does not
belong to any specific religion or any specific cultural tradition. It is
available to anyone who understands it and has the character to live by it.
This universality is not an imperialistic claim that everyone must follow the
Hindu religion. It is the tradition's claim that certain principles of
righteous conduct are as universal as the principles of mathematics: they are
what they are regardless of who discovers them or who applies them.
Why the Distinction Matters Now
The distinction between dharma and religion matters particularly
in the contemporary world because the category of religion has acquired
specific legal and political meanings that significantly affect how traditions
are treated by modern secular states. In most contemporary legal frameworks,
religion is understood as a matter of personal belief, protected from state
interference but also constrained to the private sphere. If dharma is
translated as religion, it is immediately subject to these constraints: it
becomes a matter of private belief rather than a principle of public order, a
cultural preference rather than a universal claim, something that individuals
can choose or reject rather than something that holds regardless of individual
choice.
This misclassification has practical consequences. It
makes it difficult to articulate the tradition's claims about dharma on their
own terms, because the available vocabulary keeps pulling toward the religious
framework that does not fit. The tradition's claim that certain principles of
righteous conduct are universal and not merely culturally specific, that the
cosmos has an order that the individual's conduct participates in whether or
not the individual acknowledges it, that the dharma of the parent toward the
child or the ruler toward the ruled is not a matter of personal religious
preference but a dimension of the structure of the relationships themselves:
all of these claims are systematically distorted when they are channelled
through the concept of religion.
Conclusion
Dharma is not religion. The distinction is not
pedantic. It reflects a genuinely different understanding of what the
relationship between the human being and the sacred order of the cosmos is and
how it works. Religion, in the model that has shaped the concept in Western
thought, is a specific human institution: a creed, a community, a founder, a
set of practices defined by membership. Dharma is a universal principle of
cosmic order that precedes and underlies every human institution, that holds
regardless of whether any specific institution acknowledges it, and that is
available to every conscious being regardless of their cultural or religious
affiliation.
Understanding this distinction is important for those
within the tradition who want to understand what they are part of, and it is
important for those outside it who want to understand what they are
encountering. The tradition that calls itself Sanatana Dharma is not asking to
be treated as one religion among many. It is presenting itself as the
expression, in specific cultural and philosophical forms, of principles that
are not specifically its own: principles as universal as the nature of the
cosmos itself, to which it invites attention rather than adherence,
understanding rather than conversion, and living engagement rather than belief.
References and Suggested Reading
Manusmriti, Chapter 8
Mahabharata, Anushasana Parva
Swami Vivekananda, The Complete Works, Volume 2
S. Radhakrishnan, Eastern Religions and Western
Thought (1939)
Wendy Doniger, The Hindus: An Alternative History
(2009)
P.V. Kane, History of Dharmashastra, Volume 1
No comments:
Post a Comment