In India’s Sanatana tradition, knowledge holds the highest place. There are two kinds of knowledge: one is knowledge oriented toward life and society; the other is spiritual knowledge that seeks to understand the fundamental truth. In the pursuit of that understanding, dharma is essential. The sages called dharma the knowledge that enables one to understand all dimensions of individual and worldly existence, and to conduct oneself with an awareness of what is appropriate and inappropriate according to time, place, and circumstance.
Dharma is not a teaching that seeks to increase its numerical strength or membership like religions do; it is not about forming a group or sect. Dharma cannot have a historical founder or a set of universally binding commandments issued by such a founder. It is an understanding that evolves over time and is taught in accordance with circumstances. If we ask, “Who are the founders of knowledge?” what would the answer be? Likewise, dharma has no founder.
Confusion arises only when dharma and religion are assumed to be the same thing. Long ago, there was not even a name such as “Sanatana Dharma.” It was simply referred to as dharma. It emerged together with human awareness, knowledge, and a value-based civilization. It is as old as human civilization itself. Its nature has been analyzed by many people at different points in time. After the founders of various faiths gave rise to different religions, it became necessary to explain dharma separately from them. It was in that context that the term Sanatana Dharma first came into use. Later, the term Hindu Dharma came into use. Even so, dharma cannot be confined within the limited framework of names.
Today, when people hear so much about “religions” everywhere, it is hardly surprising if they come to think that dharma too is a religion. Nor is it surprising if they think that religion itself is also dharma! The nature of dharma is difficult to comprehend. How can something exist without a founder? That can be an extremely difficult idea for the modern mind to digest.
The word dharma applies to a knowledge system, a way of life, a set of values, and a body of principles that has no particular founder and that has continued to evolve over time. If there is a founder and a specific foundational scripture, it should be called a mata—a kind of religion. Even within Hindu civilization, there are many matas within the framework of the original dharma: Shaiva, Vaishnava, Madhva, Shakta, and so on. They cannot each be regarded as separate dharmas.
In scientific terminology, dharma is a generic term, in the same way that “science” is a generic term. Within science there are different branches—physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, and so forth—just as there are different matas within dharma.
There are, however, foundational texts associated with dharma as well. In the process of determining what constitutes dharma and what does not, it is natural that numerous texts should emerge. In the beginning, the Vedas came to light in the form of Shabda Brahman—the Absolute manifested as primordial sound. Fundamentally, both dharma and the Vedas represent a universal understanding that develops from within. That is precisely why they cannot have a particular supreme human authority or founder. Unlike religions, they cannot simply be imposed or enforced through legislation. They can only be interpreted according to circumstances.
Today, when people hear so much about “religions” everywhere, it is hardly surprising if they come to think that dharma too is a religion. Nor is it surprising if they think that religion itself is also dharma! The nature of dharma is difficult to comprehend. How can something exist without a founder? That can be an extremely difficult idea for the modern mind to digest.
Dharma, independent of the constraints of history, is the subtle discernment of principles that are beginningless. Because it is a beginningless subtlety, because it allows continuous organic development, and because it possesses a dimension of infinity, it cannot have a single “founder.”
Our children are not being properly taught such principles through schools. The same is true at home. The number of people who lack even a basic understanding of religious and spiritual matters is increasing. Wherever dharma exists merely at the level of ritual practice, it becomes difficult to say that it also exists at the level of understanding and awareness. Even among many elders today, few are familiar with the comparative differences between their own ideas and those of others.
Because the words dharma and religion are used interchangeably, we begin to assume that the two are essentially the same. Once that assumption takes hold, the question naturally arises: “If religions have founders, why does dharma have no founder?”
To say, “Dharma has no founder; nor can it have one,” is difficult for the modern liberal mind to comprehend. The reason is the confusion that has arisen between conscious awareness (prajna) and command (ajna).
My simple definition is this: “Dharma is based on awareness; religion is based on command.”
Religion is based on historical facts and historical personalities. Dharma, independent of the constraints of history, is the subtle discernment of principles that are beginningless. Because it is a beginningless subtlety, because it allows continuous organic development, and because it possesses a dimension of infinity, it cannot have a single “founder.”
Dharma is a process of natural evolution. The task of those who understand it is simply to continue comprehending its nature according to different times and circumstances. None of them is its founder. Everyone has an opportunity to inquire into its nature. There is room for discussion and analysis among the different experiences that become known at the level of consciousness.
Religion is not like this. It takes the form of rules and injunctions subject to the command of an ultimate authority. There is no scope there for inquiry into its nature or discussion based on changing circumstances. Since it asserts that “these rules are mandatory,” religion does not appear perpetually new. Thus it becomes a doctrine that operates within the framework of time, place, and the number of its followers, rather than being beginningless and infinite.
It is worth noting here that the philosophical concepts of the beginningless (anadi) and the infinite (ananta) originated only in Bharat (India). Later, these ideas also entered the realm of science. The reason is the inherent sense of infinity within the religious-philosophical framework. Had the spiritual foundation of India not possessed this inner sense of infinity, it is unlikely that the extraordinary vision of infinity would have emerged here.
Dharma is not a direct command from Bhagvan (God). It is the contextual understanding of life and discernment in living that arises, from time to time, from the foundational spiritual awareness. Therefore, even among sattvic people who do not worship God, there remains an attachment to, connection with, and awareness of dharma.
Sanatana does not mean a religion or sect. It is a distinctive word that reflects truth, essence, greatness, permanence, antiquity, perpetual renewal, and imperishability. Thus, everything that is regarded with an intimate sense of the Sanatana—in the present context, Bharat—is itself regarded as imperishable. It is in this sense that the ancients spoke of the immortality of the rashtra.
To perform the actions of life in accordance with the dharma of life is the natural and straightforward path. A simple life is also a peaceful life, a contented life, and a virtuous life. In such a life, artha and kama—material well-being and legitimate desires—can naturally harmonize with dharma, producing a spontaneous joy.
The beauty and richness of life are like the Ganga, which does not run dry however much one draws from it. The dharma and karma of life are a hidden stream that shapes inner beauty. Care and responsibility in life are a purifying force that cleanses both the inner and outer dimensions of existence.
The universe is still expanding. Time, which came into existence along with the universe, is also appears to be moving forward. Hindu scriptures say, “This is how Brahma’s day is: the movement of time proceeds forward within it.” But there is an indication that during Brahma’s night, this process may move in reverse. The word laya describes this process. Laya can also mean “taking back” or “withdrawing.” It is like a whip that has been swung forward and then returns backward.
Modern physics too contains the reasoning that the expanding universe could, at some point, stop expanding and begin moving in the opposite direction. This is the cyclical nature of time: time moves forward, backward, forward, backward, and so on. According to the words of the Vedic sages, once the process of laya is complete, Brahma’s day begins again and the process of srishti begins anew.
Nor can time be said to relate merely to a single universe. The Vedic texts contain the concept of countless millions of universes. There is an understanding that the time, space, and conditions of each universe may differ. Whether each universe has its own creator, Brahma, or whether there is a single Brahma for all the infinite universes is not extensively discussed in the Puranic framework. However, Puranic literature praises Mahavishnu as the Lord of countless universes.
It is difficult enough for us to understand the mystery of a single universe. Therefore, it is natural that the idea of multiple universes should appear merely as an enormous imagination. Yet modern science too is advancing theories of the multiverse, along with the concept of hyperspace.
Ultimately, time is an extraordinarily complex mystery. We do not know whether there exists a single fundamental and most subtle “real time” applicable to all universes. The Bhagavad Gita speaks of a timeless state, described as avyakta, the unmanifest. Beyond avyakta is akshara, the imperishable; beyond that is the Supreme Self, or Paramatma. The Gita also contains the philosophical idea that both Purusha and Prakriti are beginningless. Who truly knows the mystery of life?
The foundation of our civilization is samskriti. One may conceive of many forms and sub-forms of it, but fundamentally samskriti means “a reflection of the Supreme Truth.” What constitutes the Supreme Truth is itself a subject of inquiry. Thus, in India, samskriti has taken the form of a quest for truth.
In fact, this is the world’s only culture of self-directed truth-seeking.
The attempts to seek truth, and the descriptions of the results arising from those attempts, constitute our darshanas and philosophies. Therefore, when we speak of “Indian culture,” we are speaking of a social culture that incorporates freedom in the pursuit of truth and freedom in describing and expressing the truth one discovers.
It is against this background that our rashtra, or nation, has emerged. It is not the product of a monarchy or an empire; therefore, it is not dependent upon them. Nor is it bound by the need for precisely defined borders. The Western concept of the nation-state and the Indian concept of rashtra are not the same.
Because rashtra rests upon the foundation of civilization, and through civilization upon culture, it becomes a permanent value. (Samskriti does not mean “culture” in the ordinary sense of the English word; incorrect translations are obscuring the original perspective.)
Although the boundaries of the states—administrative units—within the nation have changed from time to time, the fundamental national principle has remained intact and indestructible, and has therefore come to be regarded as Sanatana, eternal.
Sanatana does not mean a religion or sect. It is a distinctive word that reflects truth, essence, greatness, permanence, antiquity, perpetual renewal, and imperishability. Thus, everything that is regarded with an intimate sense of the Sanatana—in the present context, Bharat—is itself regarded as imperishable. It is in this sense that the ancients spoke of the immortality of the rashtra.
These matters may appear complex when viewed superficially, but the deeper one descends into the ocean of philosophy, the clearer they become. This is because the inner eye has no defect of vision. It does not need spectacles. We only need to open it.
Once it is opened, everything becomes clear and accessible through experience.
But turning from outer vision to inner vision is the greatest challenge in the world.