Eternal, Continuous And Convergent

Hindus have mutated, moved, grown and changed over millennia, and yet there is an underlying unity and continuity in Sanatana Dharma that can neither be denied by foreigners nor be glossed over by superficial domestic commentary.

Hinduism is a misnomer that has come to be the name for the dharma followed by a majority of the people of the Indian subcontinent; it should more correctly called Sanatana Dharma for reasons I will elaborate on below.

Is it that Sanatana Dharma has no unifying features, no unity, no continuity? Is it a loose agglomeration of different practices and, therefore, those who follow other religions but live in India may also be called Hindus? An article recently published in this magazine answers this in the affirmative; I answer it emphatically in the negative.

I do not agree either that there is any advantage to calling all those who live in India as Hindus no matter what their religion.I would not conflate religion with nation. As long as the loyalty of any person following any religion in India is to India this question to me is merely inflammatory and not useful. A Hindu does not have any patent on being a nationalist.

Sanatana Dharma is arguably the oldest religion continuously practiced in human history. Again, in contradistinction to the above-mentioned article, I will posit the following; the roots of Sanatana Dharma lie in the Mehrgarh and the Indus Valley Civilisation or Saraswati Sindhu Civilization; from this root came forth the tree with many branches and leaves which is Sanatana Dharma. The underlying unity/continuity of Sanatana Dharma will be explained with reference to both the roots as well as a simplified version of the way Sanatana Dharma has mutated, moved, grown and changed over millennia. The Vedic corpus is the main trunk around which the different branches of this tree entwine themselves; either in agreement or opposition.

En passant, there are some obvious errors in the article mentioned above which further vitiate its thesis, It was Chandragupta Maurya and not Ashoka who united the sub-continent, the inscriptions of the Persian Emperor, Darius (550-486 BCE) where the term Hindu is first found written down, has been ignored. Persians are mentioned as thinking of the entire subcontinent as ‘Hindu’ while they were aware mainly of north-western India. There is a also contradictory and strange hypothesis that India was defined only in opposition to Central Asia for which there is no historical or textual support. The hypothesis that the roots of Sanatana Dharma lie in the Indus Valley Civilisation has been completely ignored, the fact that the Rig Veda is composed in a language which includes many non-Sanskrit source-words has not been adequately understood, the Aryan Migration Theory which now on its way to being discredited has been accepted as true, and last but not the least, the Western Christian narrative on ‘Hindooism’ has been internalized instead of being critiqued for its obvious problems. The last deserves a separate rejoinder but is out of the limited scope of this article.

Should Hinduism be called Sanatana Dharma?

The Bhagawat Geeta which is often scornfully called a book full of contradictions from which anyone can derive sanction for anything is, in my view, a great example of the Indian genius for synthesis and reconciliation of the otherwise irreconcilable so as to maintain harmony in society and give each view its due. It is a good place to look for many, even most, Hindu concepts (although of course there are major absences such as the Shakta and the Tantra tradition.).

I will mainly rely on BG Tilak’s two volume commentary on the Bhagawat Geeta, Geeta Rahasya in agreeing with Sanatana Dharma as an appropriate name for Hinduism.

Chapter 4 of the Bhagawat Geeta (Verse 1 to 3) describes the timelessness and hoary antiquity of this religion which appears in this world and disappears again to be re-established in each kalpa. (4 yugas make a mahayuga and a thousand mahayugas make one day of Brahma, which is one kalpa of earthly beings, Ch 8 verse 17.)

Brahma’s day gives birth to creation and all its manifestations, which then merge into the formless (avyakt) at the end of the day, which is the night of Brahma. (Chapter 8, Verse 18)

At the beginning of another day of Brahma when all is created afresh, knowledge of dharma is given again to mortals.

The knowledge of this religion is therefore timeless, emerges and merges with the creation and destruction of srishti. That is why it is sanatana (eternal) in nature.

Chapter 7 Verse 10 of the Bhagawat Geeta also uses the word Sanatana in describing Parmeshwar; he is the Sanatana Beej of everything.

Given the religious philosophy and explication of this religion I therefore feel that it would be correct for believers to call it Sanatana Dharma.

The roots of Sanatana Dharma in the Indus Valley Civilisation (Saraswati Sindhu Sabhyata)

Did Sanatana Dharma begin in the cradle of the Sindhu and the now dried-up Saraswati rivers? Is there any evidence to link elements of the remains, symbols, art, sculpture etc. of the Indus Valley Civilisation with Sanatana Dharma? Does this have any bearing on the unity and continuity of Sanatana Dharma? Is there a common root to which Sanatana Dharma may perhaps be traced? The answer is an unambiguous and resounding yes.

The Indus Valley Civilisation has been dated to the period from 3300 to 1300 bce. Before this, the Mehrgarh civilization, which shows definite continuities with the Indus Valley Civilisation, probably existed from about 7000 to 3300 BCE, which is from about 9000 years ago. The Indus Valley Civilisation gave way to the Iron Age or the Northern Black Painted Ware period, which is squarely in the Indo-Gangetic tradition.

There is a wealth of archaeological evidence to analyze because of the discovery of remains of villages and cities with a plethora of artifacts. The script has not yet been definitively deciphered which limits the extent to which we can understand the remains. However, to compensate for that there is a cornucopia of other information from the physical archaeological ruins left behind from millennia ago.This indicates very strongly that the religion followed here was, at the very least, proto-Hinduism.

Consider the following:

– The seals and emblems found which point to a Shiva-like deity, a proto Shiva as he is called. (See for example analyses of Seal Nos 420, 222, and 235 found at Mohenjo-Daro)

– The cult of Shakti or the Mother Goddess again found in the seals and symbols

– Religious symbols revered by the Hindus to this day such as the Pipal (both the leaf and the tree used as motifs), the conch shell, the Ksheer Sagar, etc.)

– Small conical objects interpreted a proto Shiva lingas

– Aspects of art forms; especially the so-called animal style, which bears a striking resemblance to and appeared on Ashokan pillars millennia later.

– The Great Bath as the precursor of the bathing tanks of Hindu temples. The modern ‘Ghat’ echoes the steps of the Great Bath.

– The roots of Yoga have also been traced to the Indus Valley Civilisation. (Yan Y. Dhyansky, Artibus Asiae, Vol. 48, No. 1/2 (1987), pp. 89-108)

– The Arthashastra written around Mauryan times has reflections from the Indus Valley Civilisation; the weights and measures for instance as well the organization of cities show interesting similarities. Sanitation and waterworks within cities as set down in the Arthashastra show some definite co-relations with cities of the Indus Valley Civilisation.

A couple of quotes:

It is useful to distinguish hindsight from fast-forwarding. Hindsight often misreads an earlier phenomenon by assuming that it meant then the same thing that it meant later….But at times the atavism, the modern traces of ancient phenomena are so striking that it would be perverse to ignore them…For the resemblance between some aspects of the Indus Valley Civilisation and later Hinduism are simply too stunning to ignore. (The Hindus by Wendy Doniger, pp 82-83, emphasis mine)

 

The other significant conclusion which arises from the above discussion is the presence of overwhelming evidence of the continuity of Indian culture and religion from the days of Mohenjo-Daro to the present. (Yan Y Dhyansky, as cited above)

In actual fact, pick up works by any historian who writes on ancient India, and you will find these facts I am dealing with briefly because of their very ubiquity. You can profitably read about this for instance in DD Kosambi’s The Culture and Civilisation of Ancient India in Historical Outline. The collection of his articles published in 2002; DD Kosambi: Combined Methods in Indology and Other Writings — Compiled, edited and introduced by Brajadulal Chattopadhyaya (Oxford University Press, New Delhi) has a number of references to the Indus Valley Civilisation and the web of connections between later Hinduism and the Indus Valley Civilisation.

Romila Thapar’s Early India, DN Jha’s Ancient India… Indeed, any historian of ancient India will provide the same insights. In Search of the Cradle of Civilization by Feuerstein, Kak and Frawley is a must read. Others I may mention are John Marshall and Asko Parpola. This is merely an indicative and not exhaustive list of books and authors including those who belong to the left and to the right.

In passing I may mention that those who claim to have deciphered the script such as Parpola are even more certain of the roots of Hinduism lying here.

The point being made is that in the context of the question of the thick strand of unity of Sanatana Dharma with the Saraswati Sindhu Sabhyata/Indus Valley Civilisation provides valuable insights. It points to a common root for what we know today as Hinduism/Sanatana Dharma

Underlying Unity and Continuity of Sanatana Dharma

If the roots of Sanatana Dharma lay in the Indus Valley Civilisation, what about its later development? The following section is an attempt to take a comprehensive view of Sanatana Dharma.

Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma is a dharma with a hoary antiquity and an ability to be of different colors at different times while remaining essentially the same.

The fountainhead or srota of this journey is the desire to know the source, the heart of the unknowable, the parambrahma and perhaps within this may lie the essential unity of this entire paradigm.

The evolution of Sanatana Dharma with its roots in the Indus Valley Civilisation as discussed above, can be traced as follows

– The most original aspect of Vedic religion is Yagya Pradhan, which is based on ritual sacrifice. ‘Yagyayaag’ and ‘Karma’ are the basic characteristics (This set of practices was later given the name Mimansa because Jaimini’s ‘Mimansasutras’ provided an organized exposition).

– Further evolution had two aspects. While engaged in ritual sacrifices, the question arose as to how only practices of Yajnayaag, which are outward in nature, would lead to knowledge of Parameshwara, which needs an internal focus on jnana. This reflection and deliberation on the nature of Parameshwara and Parambrahma was done both by the Jnana Marg, and the Samkhya Marg.

The Jnana Marg is reflected in the Upanishads (especially the Chandogya Upanishad) and was later called Vedanta. This is Advaita in character. Kapil Samkhya on the other hand, is dvaita in character. Both Vedanta and Samkhya arose as an answer to the exploring the question of the nature of Paramabrahma and are opposed to just the practice of ritual sacrifice.

It is clear from this that both of these were not satisfied with only the Yajnayaag method of devotion and advocated something more; jnana.

There was another issue to be dealt with at this stage, how to reconcile karma and jnana? Some of the Upanishads (Brihadaranyak) said that the two cannot be reconciled and karma has to be given up for attaining jnana, which is also the stand of Samkhya. Other Upanishads (Isopanishad) advocated that the two should move together, Karma should never be given up for jnana. This is the Jnanakarma-sammuchchaya Marg and from this later arose the Yoga and the Bhakti paths.

In some of the Upanishads, including the Chandogya, it has been said that it is necessary to meditate on Brahm to achieve knowledge of Parameshwara or Parambrahma; for this it is necessary to achieve shanti and concentration, to focus the mind a saguna symbol is necessary. The focusing of the mind developed into the yoga marga and the saguna symbol into the bhakti marga.

The Bhakti Marg started with visualizing the Yajna and its parts as exemplified in some Upanishadic sutras. Then gods akin to Vedic gods such as Vishnu, Rudra etc were visualized. Then, using the concept of avatars as a tool of unification and assimilation of different deities and their local conceptions, Narasimha, Varaha, Rama, Krishna, Narayana etc were visualized apart from different Devi swaroopas. There is not enough space here to go into the details of this complex, complicated and multifaceted process which still goes on which is why you find new deities being added even today( witness the English Goddess of the Dalits).

It is however the basis of the cultural and religious unity of the country. ( Separate note is needed on this in case anyone is interested. As an example, I can expand on a piece on Lord Krishna). To repeat and emphasize, there is a mélange of Vedic, pre-Vedic and non- Vedic practices within the religion.

The basic wholeness of all the different religious practices and thought are evidenced by their common source and have been understood not only in abstract philosophical terms but also by the general Hindu unconcerned with detailed philosophical fights. For instance read Sant Gyaneshwar’s wonderful Marathi exposition of this unity right at the beginning of the Gyaneshwari which is a simple commentary for the common man on the Geeta. (Can be accessed in any copy of the Gyaneshwari; in my Hindi translation it is on Page 34). All the schools of thought are explained as parts of the divine Lord Ganesh.

The centrality of the Vedas in this scheme is that all systems are defined in relation to it, whether in agreement or negation. Whether it is Tulasidasa or Kabir or the Agamas or the Bengali Vaishnavas or the Kashmir Shaivites they can be understood within the same framework.

The impact of the rise of different cults from within Hinduism which achieved different levels of success, ranging from Buddhism which is growing at a healthy clip in modern times to the Ajivikas which gave the Buddhists a run for their money but finally died out in the 14th century, was felt by the parent religion. As I have mentioned above the impact of Islam and Christianity have also been felt. This does not take away from the continuity of the religion but merely explains changes within it. Again a vast subject very ably dealt with by Dinkar. [I would strongly recommend reading Sanskriti Ke Chaar Adhyaay by Ramdhari Singh ‘Dinkar’ whose understanding as a historian (he studied history formally) and literary genius (which he was through his writings) is unparalleled.]

Dharma does not mean religion and cannot be conflated and confused with it. Dharma comes from ‘dhri’, that which upholds the world, very different from the Monier William’s Christian understanding of “customary observance or prescribed conduct”. Therein lies the danger of forcing Indian categories into a Christian understanding.

It is also not a static concept; it can be individual, collective or abstract and metaphysical. For the individual it is dharma defined by his/her own situation which dictates karma, including enjoyment of artha and kama and the desire for moksha. To give an oft-quoted example, a courtesan who follows her own dharma is more likely to attain swarga/moksha than a Brahmin who does not follow his.

In the earthly realm, Sanatana Dharma has a long and ancient history and shows elements from every part of the Indian sub-continent and even beyond.

As far as changes in practices are concerned, over the millennia religious practices have definitely evolved and changed, as they should. The urban, sophisticated Indus Valley Civilisation dwellers, those who described their lives in Vedic literature and built cities in the Later Vedic age, the merchants and city dwellers of the second wave of urbanization in about the 6th century BCE who also embraced the paths of Buddha, Mahavira, Makkali Gosala etc, the advent of the Muslims and then the Western Europeans have all had an impact on this religion.

Why or how would it not? There is, however, a bedrock of unity and continuity, a pattern which can be discerned amid the apparent change as I have tried to explain above.

Although the Vedas are revered as the holiest books of the Hindus, there is more to Sanatana Dharma than just the Vedas. This is a seminal issue around which the understanding of the Vedas as contributors and a pivot of belief, but not sole owners of the religion, revolves. There are pre Vedic and non- Vedic sources for much of Sanatana Dharma that are not found or only peripherally found in the Vedas e.g. the worship of Shiva and Shakti is absent. Sanatana Dharma is a mélange of Vedic and non-Vedic practices. To compound issues further, the Vedas themselves, in terms of language and influence, are anything but pristine. Social, cultural and linguistic analysis throws up evidence of an assimilation of many cultural and linguistic sources.

The coalescing of the stories and worship of Vedic and non-Vedic gods aided the assimilation of a large complex and variegated society into a unit. A spectrum of religious beliefs and practices was knit into a pattern. At one end is the highly sophisticated and abstract philosophy of the unified godhead, Paramatma, and the individual Atman, which forms the subject matter of the Vedas, Upanishads and the Geeta.

As we move slowly along the spectrum we encounter the manifestations of the Godhead as the sacred trinity of the creator, Brahma, the preserver, Vishnu and the destroyer, Shiva with the flowering of millions of local traditions and rituals relating to the worship and further manifestations of these primary deities. The mother goddesses have been incorporated by the creation of divine family units with their own offspring of minor gods and their own worship. The Shakta and Tantra tradition give central importance to mother goddesses.

This particular evolution reached its apogee in the mid first millennium of the Common Era and the basic structure set down by it is still alive and vibrant in India.

It must be noted that this give-and-take has meant that different ways of worship and belief within this complex have all borrowed from each other and a glance into the luminous face of Lakshmi will also show you a reflection of Tara; the Ramayana is Vishnu-centric but Lord Rama offered his eyes to the Goddess while praying for victory. The Devi Bhagawat narrates some of the same stories as the Shiva Purana or the Vishnu Purana but from a radically different point of view — that of the Goddess.

Not for nothing are the chaar dhaams at four corners of the country and stories from the Ramayana and Mahabharata found in the folk, sculpture, music and art tradition of all parts of the country, there is a geographic, emotional, cultural and religious unity in the diversity that is Sanatana Dharma.