Why ‘Religion’ is necessary ?

There never was a religion in ancient India because “Sanatan Dharma” , the cultural ethos of India never prescribed one.

“Sanatan Dharma”, a way of life, represents six schools of philosophy— “Purva Mimamsa”, “Vedanta”, “Sankhya-Yog” and “Nyaya-Vaisheshika”. These six are alike because they consider “The Vedas” as the ultimate authority. “Vedanta” prescribes to the philosophical aspect of the Vedas, ie “The Upanishads”, while only “Purva Mimamsa”, out of the six, prescribes the observance of Vedic rituals. So “Purva Mimamsa” is on one end of the spectrum and “Vedanta” on the other.

Additionally, “Sanatan Dharma” also comprises five major heterodox (ie “Nastika”) schools because they do away with “The Vedas”. These are “Jainism”, “Buddhism”, “Ajivika”, “Ajñana”, and “Charvaka”.

So it is obvious that “Sanatan Dharma” has a range of tools to cater to differing mind-sets — idol-worship for the simple minded, who is encouraged to worship the divine energy by giving it a form and qualities (gunas) known as the “Saguna Brahman” form of worship ; And, a plethora of literature, as listed above, for the cerebral-minded to choose from as one’s life’s ideology, in the hope of being able to comprehend better the ‘formless nature ie “Nirguna Brahman” of the very same divine energy.

On the other hand, Christians only have ‘The Bible’ to bank upon, and Islamists “The Quoran” and “Hadith”.

So why is “Sanatan Dharma” seen only from the prism of idol worship and rituals , leaving aside a vast ocean of philosophical knowledge which, in truth, forms its core.

This is because comparisons are always made using similar parameters. And, Abrahamic religions (Christianity and Islam), as such, are not centred around dialectical philosophical discussions. Islam, for instance, is specific about the modus operandi of ‘How to pray to God’ as one of its core points. This is why the constant comparison to idol worship plays out, over and over again. Such a comparison is parochial because it misses on the wholistic nature of “Sanatan Dharma” .

The approach of Abrahamic religions to generating knowledge has been dogmatic. All knowledge is offered as the ‘Final Word’. Both religions, in their evolution, have lacked the idea of nurturing differing philosophical schools. Such schools would have encouraged healthy discussions before concluding upon eternal questions that have puzzled mankind from times immemorial – ‘Does God exist’ ? , ‘How did the World Start’ ? ‘What happens post death’ ? So the concept of generating knowledge using healthy philosophical discussions is missing altogether.

And, that is why Christanity and Islam are ‘Religions’ in the true sense. They were born in their respective birthplace to guide the societies thereon on ‘How to maintain the moral social code’ , ‘How to be a good human’ but all within the scope of the non-negotiable ‘Final Word’ ! On the contrary, Sanatan Dharma represents a ‘Way of Life’, and hence a ‘Culture’.

But remember religions are necessary. They probably maintain a ‘moral social order’ better than ‘Culture’ does. Culture tends to be too fluid and generous because it is acceptant of varying opinions, without necessarily reaching a definite conclusion – more as a ‘reference guide’ than the ‘Final Word’.

Infact, it is possible that “Sanatan Dharma” would have had a more fruitful historical trajectory if only it had a dogmatic religion to prescribe to, one that would have ensured its rise instead of having to lose followers to Abrahamic religions by way of proselytizing.

But it does not, and hence is a perfect candidate to be a ‘Cultural umbrella’ for any nation, especially for its birthplace, an umbrella that would seamlessly accomodate multiple religions underneath it.

So, what are the similarities that “Sanatan Dharma” shares with the Abrahmic Religions ?

“Puranas”, one of the literatures of “Sanatan Dharma”, and ‘The Bible’ are somewhat akin to each other. Both impart guidance and a moral order using legends and traditonal folklore .

Finally, it would not be incorrect to say that “Islam” and “Advaita” (branch of the “Vedanta” school of “Sanatan Dharma”) share a similar core in their belief of ‘The Absolute One’ but with a key difference — as a singular entity with qualities in Islam ie “Merciful Allah” ; And, as an indivisible energy ie ‘The Consciousness’ which has no characteristics or qualities (“Gunas”) as believes “Advaita”.

AUM NAMAH SHIVAYA