Sanatana Dharma - when did it start?

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

I have come across many instances in this forum itself where statements are made to the effect that the word "Hinduism" was coined by foreigners and the whole of India that is Bharat was practising predominantly, one religion and it was known as "SANATANA DHARMA". I give below some extracts from a few ancient accounts about India and it will be found that none of these even mentions that there was one major religion nor is there any mention of "Sanatana Dharma".

I would like the comments and views on this point from our learned members. May I request that we do not get into acrimonious mode and try to discuss objectively. (I will give the source for these extracts later so that the discussions do not get diverted due to the acceptability and/or reliability of the source.)

"5.3 Arabs and 42 Indian Religions

In Old Persian `Hindwa' denoted only the `Region around the Indus River' and not the whole of India. In Pahlavi or Middle Persian this developed into `Hindustan' (The Land of the Indus) but still denoted only the region around the Indus river. It was later Sanskritised to `Hindusthan'. This meaning was later distorted to denote `Land of Hindus'. The term `Mughalstan' by contrast refers to the Indus-Ganges basin which contains a Muslim majority. In fact, one-third of all Muslims in the world inhabit this `Mughalstan', and a considerable Islamist separatist movement has garnered around this banner. In recent years the terms `Dravida Nadu' or `Dravidistan' and `Dalitstan' have been coined to denote the regions where Dravidoids and Dalits respectively are a majority. `Sudra Nadu' or `Sudrastan' has developed as an umbrella term for Dravidistan and Dalitstan. A full one-third of all Negroes in the world inhabit this Sudrastan, and Pan-Negroism has played a considerable role in the spread of this movement.

The Arabs adopted the Old Persian `Hindwa' as `Hind' (India) and `Hindwi' (Indian). Neither of these words were used as applying to any religion; they were purely geographical and national terms. None of the medieval Arab travellers was aware of one single monolithic faith being practiced. In fact, all the Arab travellers referred to the Indians as practicing 42 different religions :

" Ibn Khurdaba has described that in India there are 42 religions. Al Idrisi also observes that `Among the principal nations of India there are 42 sects. Some recognise the existence of a creator, but not of prophets, while others deny the existence of both. Some acknowledge the intercesory powers of graven stones, and others worship holy stones, on which butter and oil is poured. Some pay adoration to fire, and cast themselves into the flame. Others adore the sun and consider it the creator and director of the world. Some worship trees; others pay adoration to serpents, which they keep in stables, and feed as well as they can. deeming this to be a meritous work. Lastly, there are some who give themselves no trouble about any kind of devotion, and deny everything." '
-- [ Arab.p.57 ].


​

Al Idrisi's description of Indian religions given above presents a clear description of the many different faiths practiced in India. He has accurately described the existence of Sun-worshippers (Rajput Sauras) and Atheists (Carvakas) as separate religions. None of the Arab travellers was aware of there being only one religion in India. This proves that `Sanatana Dharma' did not exist at that time.
Some of the Arab travellers even increased the number of Indian religions to 48:

" The Jamiu-l Hikayat increases the number of religions in India to 48 "
-- [ Arab.57.n1 ]


​

An exhaustive treatment of the Indian religions is given later on. To summarize, in the words of the Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, " The word [ Hindu ] was never used in Indian literature or scriptures before the advent of Muslims to India " [ ERE.6.699 ], cf. also [ Tirtha.p.vii ]. If at all it was used in a racial sense, " the Muslim rulers used the term 'Hindu' [ correctly `Hindooi' ] to mean Indian non-Muslims only." [ Basic ] The traveller Qazwini has also described the various different religions prevalent in ancient India, clearly mentioning Brahmanism as a separate religion :

" Qazwini (1203 AD - 1280 AD) says that there are various sects among the people of Hind. Some believe in the creator, but not the propher. They are the Brahmans. There are some who believe in neither. There are some who worship idols, some the moon and some other, fire."
-- [ Nain.230 ]


​

Asokan inscriptions also contain the term `brahmana va sramana', indicating a fundamental distinction between the Brahminists, followers of the 6 orthodox schools of Brahmanism, and the Sramanas or `nastika' heretics. Qazwini correctly describes Brahmanism as accepting a creator - God, something which the Sramanas do not do. Qazwini's "there are some who believe in neither" almost definitely refers to these nastiks (Jains, Buddhists, Atheists). Yet another traveller Abul Faaj (988 AD) mentioned the sects of India, and was completely unaware of the existance of `One Religion':

• " al-Dinikitiya - These are worshippers of the Sun. They have an idol placed upon a cart supported by 4 horses. They believe that the Sun is the king of the angels deserving worship and adoration. They prosrate themselves before this idol, walk round it with incense, playing the lute and other musical instruments .. " [ Nain.228 ] < This refers to the Rajput (Indo-Scythic) Saura religion, which consists of a mixture of Zoroastrian and Iranic-Scythic fire cults >.
• " al-Jandrihkriya " [ Chandra + kranti ] " They are worshippers of the moon. They say that the moon is one of the angels deserving honour and adoration. Their custom is to set up an idol, to represent it, on a carrt drawn by 4 ducks. In the head of this idol is a gem called jandarkit" [ Nain.229 ] [ jandarkit is moonstone, "said to emit moisture when placed in the moonlight, and believed by some to be a congelation of the moon's rays." Nain.229.n3 ]
• " Anshaniyya " [ Sans. Anasana - fasting ] " those who abstain from food and drink " [ Nain.230 ] < The term is derived from sanniyasi. Abul Faaj refers here to one of the Buddhist, Jain or Vedic ascetic orders. >
• " Bakrantiniya are those who fetter their bodies with iron. Their practice is to shave off hair and beard and not to cover the body except for the private parts. It is not their custom to teach or speak with anyone apart from those of their religion." [ Nain.230 ]
• " Kangayatra [ Gangayatra ] " scattered throughout Hind. Their belief is that, if a man commits a grave sin, he must travel to the Ganges [ and ] ... wash [ in it ] " [ Nain.230 ]
• " Rahmarniyya [ Raja + Tam. manam = honour, self-respect; rajapimani = supporters of the king ] They say, "God, exalted be He, made them kings. If we are slain in the service of kings, we reach paradise." [ Nain.230 ]
• " There is another sect whose practice is to grow long hair." do not drink wine, ... temple on hill called hawran [ Nain.230 ]

Hence, there existed at the time of the Arabs several distinct religions. This is simply because `Hinduism' or `Sanatana Dharma' had not yet been invented by the Europeans. Like many aspects of early Indology, the concept of `Hinduism' was overly simplistic and utterly baseless.

According to Jawaharlal Nehru, the earliest reference to the word 'Hindu' can be traced to a Tantrik book of the eighth century C.E., where the word means a people, and not the followers of a particular religion. The use of the word 'Hindu' in connection with a particular religion is of a very late occurrence [ Nehru, p.74-75 ]."

 

[Nara]

Sangom sir,

The Tamil enthusiasts love to say, about the origins of Tamil, கல் தோன்றி மண் தோன்றா காலத்தே வாளோடு முன் தோன்றிய மூத்த குடி தமிழ் குடி. Is this Sanatana Dharma something like that?

The old Tamil epic Manimekalai has the protagonist, Manimekalai, going to Kanchi and encountering a variety of religious views, not all are vedic, all competing for attention and wooing adherents, in a peaceful setting. This was during the time of the much maligned time of Kalabhras dynasty.

After their annihilation, and the annihilation of most of the texts and records from that period, ushered in by the Bhakti movement, Tamil country was plunged into a state of Bhakti stupor that we are yet to completely come out of.

Even the overly reverential hagiographical accounts of venerated acharyas state the way the nastikas -- bouddhas and jainas -- were massacred. Yet, the present day Sanatana Dharmees love to claim Bouddham and Jainam are part of their Sanatana Dharma religion.

I will await your further contributions in this informative thread. I can only hope that the usual suspects do not invade it with their usual inanities.

Cheers!

 

[renuka]

Nara you wrote:

I can only hope that the usual suspects do not invade it with their usual inanities.

This line is so funny..I cant stop laughing.

 

[sangom]

Dear Shri Nara,

For quite some time I have been searching different scriptures and books on Indian Philosophy, to find out when and in which context the first available reference to the term "Sanatana Dharma" was made, but nothing concrete emerged from my attempt. The nearest I can say is the verse in BG "yadā yadā hi dharmasya...". Here also there is no specific mention that the dharma referred to was Sanatana, but it can be taken as what was prevalent when the BG was composed. Scholars opine that this could be around 500 B.C.E to the beginning of the C.E. Hence the three vedas - Rig, Yajur and Saama, collectively known as "trayī veda" and most of the braahmanas, aaranyakas, major upanishads, etc., should predate this so-called "dharma".

I expected our knowledgable members to enlighten us all on the validity of the usage of the term "Sanatana Dharma" when I stumbled on a particular web page which contained the extracts given in the OP.

 

[saidevo]

namaste everyone.

In the words of Nara in post #2, I might be a 'usual suspect' who 'invades it with the usual inanities', but anyway I would let Nara and Sangom decide on that.

• My point in trying to say something in this thread is that I would rather try to delve deeply beyond, behind and between the words of our own shAstras rather than take solace in the authenticity of the prima facie historic accounts of a foreigner, even if this means that I may not be able to find the term 'sanAtana dharma' in that combination in a Hindu text.

• What the Arabs have written about our Hindu dharma is only their impression--not understanding--of one social facet of our religion. If a Hindu tourist of today's Arabia tries to give a prima facie account of what he sees and feels as their religion, he might as well be inviting a fatwa for his head!

• Since dharma is an unequivocal term with which a religion, especially the India-born religions are referred to (for example, we say 'bauddha dharma, jaina dharma'),

‣ it would be better, IMO, to check if the religious and spiritual concepts and precepts of our Hindu dharma are truly sanAtana--universal, eternal, in character, that anyone can follow,

‣ rather than look for a specific name, especially because, as KAnchi ParamAchArya has elaborated in many of his speeches that there was no other dharma--religion, in the world in the ancient times when only our dharma prevailed, so our Hindu dharma did not have a name then.

*****

That said, we do have a reference to the kind of sanAtana dharma prescribed in our religion, in the text that many people here love to hate: manu smRti!

सत्यं ब्रूयात् प्रियं ब्रूयात् न ब्रूयात् सत्यं अप्रियं ।
प्रियं च न अनृतं ब्रूयात् एषः धर्मः सनातनः ॥

satyaM brUyAt priyaM brUyAt na brUyAt satyaM apriyaM |
priyaM cha na anRutaM brUyAt eShaH dharmaH sanAtanaH ||
--manu smRti 4.138

Speak truth in such a way that it should be pleasing to others. Never speak truth, which is unpleasant to others. Never speak untruth, which might be pleasant. This is the path of eternal morality, sanatana dharma.

• However, I also found a derogatory reference in the mahAbhArata to a then prevailing custom with these same words eShaH dharmaH sanAtanaH. I invite our friends Nara and Sangom to hunt it down, and I assure them that they would love it! (I can offer one clue: it's in a book by J.Muir).

Need more time to delve for the good and the bad about the term, so I stop here for now...

 

[Nara]

....In the words of Nara in post #2, I might be a 'usual suspect' who 'invades it with the usual inanities', but anyway I would let Nara and Sangom decide on that.

Hi Saidevo, you know me better than that, I most certainly did not have you in mind as one of the usual suspects, everybody knows who they are.

Cheers!

 

[sangom]

namaste everyone.

In the words of Nara in post #2, I might be a 'usual suspect' who 'invades it with the usual inanities', but anyway I would let Nara and Sangom decide on that.

• My point in trying to say something in this thread is that I would rather try to delve deeply beyond, behind and between the words of our own shAstras rather than take solace in the authenticity of the prima facie historic accounts of a foreigner, even if this means that I may not be able to find the term 'sanAtana dharma' in that combination in a Hindu text.

• What the Arabs have written about our Hindu dharma is only their impression--not understanding--of one social facet of our religion. If a Hindu tourist of today's Arabia tries to give a prima facie account of what he sees and feels as their religion, he might as well be inviting a fatwa for his head!

• Since dharma is an unequivocal term with which a religion, especially the India-born religions are referred to (for example, we say 'bauddha dharma, jaina dharma'),

‣ it would be better, IMO, to check if the religious and spiritual concepts and precepts of our Hindu dharma are truly sanAtana--universal, eternal, in character, that anyone can follow,

‣ rather than look for a specific name, especially because, as KAnchi ParamAchArya has elaborated in many of his speeches that there was no other dharma--religion, in the world in the ancient times when only our dharma prevailed, so our Hindu dharma did not have a name then.

*****

That said, we do have a reference to the kind of sanAtana dharma prescribed in our religion, in the text that many people here love to hate: manu smRti!

सत्यं ब्रूयात् प्रियं ब्रूयात् न ब्रूयात् सत्यं अप्रियं ।
प्रियं च न अनृतं ब्रूयात् एषः धर्मः सनातनः ॥

satyaM brUyAt priyaM brUyAt na brUyAt satyaM apriyaM |
priyaM cha na anRutaM brUyAt eShaH dharmaH sanAtanaH ||
--manu smRti 4.138

Speak truth in such a way that it should be pleasing to others. Never speak truth, which is unpleasant to others. Never speak untruth, which might be pleasant. This is the path of eternal morality, sanatana dharma.

• However, I also found a derogatory reference in the mahAbhArata to a then prevailing custom with these same words eShaH dharmaH sanAtanaH. I invite our friends Nara and Sangom to hunt it down, and I assure them that they would love it! (I can offer one clue: it's in a book by J.Muir).

Need more time to delve for the good and the bad about the term, so I stop here for now...

Dear Shri Saidevo,

Though we have clashed on more than one occasion in the past, I have to admit that your post above does not seem to be an "inanity". I thank you for the Manusmriti quote and admit that I did not look into it on the basis that it is unlikely to name the Dharma which it explains.

I shall try to hunt down the MB reference.

Once again, thank you.

 

[subbudu1]

Dear all,
Let us transport to the times when we used sanskrit for conversation. What would sanathana dharma mean then?

The answer is simple eternal law roughly translated. Now even in today's context anyone can try defining an eternal law. To a scientist the laws of physics is eternal law, to some other person it is something else. To someone it is none other than the regulation in Quran.

So we should not take these references to Sanathana Dharma to be anything more than an individual's view on what the eternal dharma. This does not prove that Sanathana Dharma had an exclusive usage for a certain way of life which never changed through history. So the so called Sanathana Dharmas may have been actually constantly changing dharmas in life. This is nothing less nothing more than a POV.

 

[Nara]

.... as KAnchi ParamAchArya has elaborated in many of his speeches that there was no other dharma--religion, in the world in the ancient times when only our dharma prevailed, so our Hindu dharma did not have a name then.

Saidevo, Earth is said to be about 4 billion years old. It is not clear how far back is the "ancient times" you are referring to.

You may argue that Shruti talks of endless cycles of pralayam and shrushti, and therefore this Sanatana Dharma existed for ever. But, Shruti got everything else about creation wrong. So, it is unreasonable to presume that it got anything right for sure.

Scientific evidence, the only kind that has to stand the intense heat of scrutiny, says the early humans were the African bushmen. So, if Sanatana Dharma was the ever present religion prevalent, then it must have been the religion they practiced, if any. Is there any evidence for this? Or, do we at least have some semblance of it among the present day bush people of Botswana?

Further, if the present day followers of Vedic Brahminism get to claim those Africans followed some sort of religion and that religion was Sanatana Dharma, then, the present day followers of Abrhamic religions can also claim, with equal force, that the religion they followed was actually the one of the God of Abraham.

Well, you can argue, like NN does, that Abraham is Brhmma or something like that, and his religion was also part of Sanatana Dharma. But I doubt that is something Kanchi Paramacharya would agree, you may clarify.

That said, we do have a reference to the kind of sanAtana dharma

The quest was to find the earliest reference to the term Sanatana Dharma. Unfortunately, both Manu and MB are lot later than the time of the bushmen of Botswana.

However, I also found a derogatory reference in the mahAbhArata to a then prevailing custom with these same words eShaH dharmaH sanAtanaH.

, this is teasing us. But you do give us sufficient incentive when you say, "derogatory reference" . I hope you are not sending us out on a fools errand.

Cheers!

 

[saidevo]

namaste Nara and others.

For all the scientific evidences you present in your post #9, has science established without ambiguity the type of religion practised by the primitives in Africa and elsewhere?

• KAnchi ParamAchArya's message is that our religion had no name since it had no founder, so it is sanAtana in the chronological sense;

‣ and that the earliest religious rituals around the ancient world had some things in common with the rites and rituals of Hinduism, so the religion that had no name is sanAtana in the geographical sense as well;

‣ and this situation prevailed until another religion was invented. The evidences that ParamAchArya presents can be read about here:
The Universal Religion from the Chapter "The Vedic Religion: Introductory", in Hindu Dharma : kamakoti.org:

You said:
The quest was to find the earliest reference to the term Sanatana Dharma. Unfortunately, both Manu and MB are lot later than the time of the bushmen of Botswana.

When I was going through the mahAsaMkalpam in yesterday's yajur veda upAkarma ceremony, I was amazed to notice the cosmologial, chronological and geographical range that precedes the usual saMkalpam that starts with dvitIya parardhe, shvetasvarAha kalpe.

Since much research is going on about the Hindu Cosmology and ancient geography, we cannot as yet, IMO, dismiss their details as figments of imagination in favour of the archaeological findings and carbon datings of science, obtained from surface diggings of the earth.

Some links of interest about the Hindu cosmology:
History of the Universe: sAikRShNa gajavelli
HOU-gajavelli.pdf
HISTORY OF UNIVERSE

Indic Cosmology: Indic Studies Foundation
http://www.indicstudies.us/Astronomy/Indic Cosmology.pdf

Vedic Planetarium
VEDA - Vedas and Vedic Knowledge Online - Vedic Encyclopedia, Bhakti-yoga in vedas, Library
http://www.prabhupadanugas.eu/?p=21672
Mayapur Chandrodaya Temple of the Vedic Planetarium HQ Video - YouTube

SUMS: New Methods v0.1
VEDA - Vedas and Vedic Knowledge Online - Vedic Encyclopedia, Bhakti-yoga in vedas, Library

 

[suraju06]

Sangom sir,

The Tamil enthusiasts love to say, .....................................

I will await your further contributions in this informative thread. I can only hope that the usual suspects do not invade it with their usual inanities.

Cheers!

We can be sure that there will be no invasion as long as the 'bovine feces' is not displayed in all its glory!!

Cheers.

 

[sangom]

http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/6994-doubts-about-hindu-religion-expressed-swamiji-making.html#post92024http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/general-discussions/6994-doubts-about-hindu-religion-expressed-swamiji-making.html#post92024Dear Shri Saidevo,

I find numerous places in MB where the words "एष धर्मः सनातनः (eṣa dharmaḥ sanātanaḥ)" occurs. I guess the specific occasion you refer to in your puzzle may be relating to the "niyoga" of Vyaasa to Ambikaa and Ambaalikaa, but am not sure. Or, may be the remark appears in the context of Draupadi's marriage to all the pāṇḍavas. I am not able to locate any book of J. Muir which might contain the reference.

Most of the statements in MB are like "eṣa dharmaḥ sanātanaḥ" meaning "this (has been) the custom (law) from the very ancient times" or "this is the eternal law (practice)", depending on the context. But we know that some of these practices which were qualified as ordained by the "dharmaḥ sanātanaḥ " or, sanātanadharmaḥ, have been forbidden by equally revered scriptures as "Kali varjya" and a full list of these Kali varjyas are stated to be given in the Aditya Purana. Now, the question arises, just as Swami Vivekananda got doubt about Madhuparka (pl. see here http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/genera...igion-expressed-swamiji-making.html#post92024). In the light of the fact that many practices which were current and even obligatory, like niyoga, according to the sanātanadharmaḥ, at one period of time, having been subsequently proclaimed as unworthy of practice in Kaliyuga by the scriptures themselves, the doubt naturally arises as "to what extent can one take this appellation of sanātanadharmaḥ at its literal meaning and value, and how far is its applicability, for example, today?

It is relevant to note that the usage of "eṣa dharmaḥ sanātanaḥ" (eds, for short) comes mostly in connection with customs, duties of an individual to the family, society, etc.; I could not find any place in which this eds is used to refer to or describe the religious or philosophical facets of life. Even in BG, the verse says —

यदा यदा धर्मस्य ग्ळानिर्भवति, अधर्मस्य अभ्युत्थानं (भवति) तदा अहम् आत्मानम् सृजामि ।
yadā yadā dharmasya gḷānirbhavati, adharmasya abhyutthānaṃ (bhavati), tadā aham ātmānam sṛjāmi |
Here also this answer does not come for a question specifically about religion, God, worship, philosophy, etc., but in reply to Arjuna's doubt about Krishna's claim that he as Vivasvān had earlier expounded the Karma-Yoga philosophy, the emphasis being Krishna's claim as His having been Vivasvān in an earlier birth.

You will agree that several of the practices enjoined by the sanātanadharmaḥ, on brahmins, have been almost completely discarded during the last one or two hundred years, though no scripture has expressly told that these are Kali varjya. (Example: vedādhyayana under gurukulavāsa, for the three higher castes.)

We thus see that sanātanadharmaḥ in relation to religion and philosophy, if at all there was one before the advent of advaita, has no great relevance today. The next point to consider is, whether the whole of Bharat (some say the whole humanity across the continents also were governed by these sanātanadharmaḥ, probably millennia ago!) practised a uniform sanātanadharmaḥ. The accounts of the foreign travellers given in the OP gives the impression that, even if the social life and external customs were uniform throughout the Indian sub-continent, there were many different religious sects in this land and there is of course, no evidence to show that there was an underlying religion or philosophy for or beneath all these varied practices. It looks like different groups had each their own God or Gods, and different (and probably peculiar too) methods of worship. The extract (reproduced below) clearly indicate the fundamental differences in the different belief systems then prevalent in Bharat

"Some recognise the existence of a creator, but not of prophets, while others deny the existence of both. Some acknowledge the intercesory powers of graven stones, and others worship holy stones, on which butter and oil is poured. Some pay adoration to fire, and cast themselves into the flame. Others adore the sun and consider it the creator and director of the world. Some worship trees; others pay adoration to serpents, which they keep in stables, and feed as well as they can. deeming this to be a meritous work. Lastly, there are some who give themselves no trouble about any kind of devotion, and deny everything."—Ibn Khurdaba

Hence the only argument to support the theory of a sanātanadharma is the one you have advanced, namely “What the Arabs have written about our Hindu dharma is only their impression--not understanding”. But as stated above, we do not seem to have much support for the existence of sanātanadharma in our own shAstras or scriptures. Even Manu’s dictat you refer to is at best about manner of talking and has nothing to do with religion or philosophy.

In the light of the above, I feel there is no strong ground to conclude that there was something like the sanātanadharma which is nowadays spoken of as a unified religion and/or philosophy which prevailed in the whole of Bharat or the Indian sub-continent, nor even within the āryāvarta, which is the area covered by Manusmriti.

 

[Nara]

...For all the scientific evidences you present in your post #9, has science established without ambiguity the type of religion practised by the primitives in Africa and elsewhere?

Saidevo, I have no idea what religion, if any, they practiced, or whether science has anything to say about it. But I do believe if we are to get any idea as to what that might be, it can come only from scientific process of careful study, analysis, and independent and critical verification.

Anyway, the point of my earlier post was not to figure out what religion the bushmen may have followed, but only to explore the veracity of the following statement you made.

"....there was no other dharma--religion, in the world in the ancient times when only our dharma prevailed, ..."

​

The question is, what evidence do we have to make this claim? In response you have provided links to several web sites.

I read through the web page link you provided from kamakoti.org. I am really sorry to see speculation after speculation in this web page -- for example, "Kapilaranya changed to California" and in Mexico, "Wherever the earth is dug up images of Ganapati are discovered" -- given as evidence that there was one common religion or dharma throughout and it was Vedic.

If all you have is the web site references you have provided, then I am afraid your statement above cannot be taken seriously.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

We can be sure that there will be no invasion as long as the 'bovine feces' is not displayed in all its glory!!

Raju, some or most of what we present may seem BF to you, and that is fine, but rest assured we don't see it that way. I do wish you well to someday overcome your unhealthy attraction to what you think of as BF.

Cheers!

 

[suraju06]

Raju, some or most of what we present may seem BF to you, and that is fine, but rest assured we don't see it that way. I do wish you well to someday overcome your unhealthy attraction to what you think of as BF.

Cheers!

Viola!! I never knew BF can mean different things to different people. I must get a dictionary used by the north american truck drivers to be sure as to what is meant here by users of that word.

Cheers!!

 

[Nara]

Viola!! I never knew BF can mean different things to different people.

Raju, it is not literal BF we are talking about. My criticism of Brahminism etc., is what you consider as BF -- if I got you wrong I am sure you will correct me. This criticism is BF to you, but not to me. So, yes, as long as we are not talking about literal BF, different things may be equivalent to BF for different people. IMO, this is not a very complicated concept to understand.

I must get a dictionary used by the north american truck drivers to be sure as to what is meant here by users of that word.

I don't understand why you bring in north american truck drivers. They actually are good people, making an honest living.

Cheers!

 

[Yamaka]

Dear Sangom Sir:

I read your posts on the history of Sanathana Dharma very carefully. For a history buff, this is very useful.

Before this, I really wanted to know what exactly SD is? I asked my wife who is an Agno-Theist, a TB from Trichy (she is not ritualistic, although she goes to Temple very occasionally to earn some Punniyam!).

She says, " I don't know really exactly what it means to tell you the Godless Communist, LOL!.... it is the Eternal Truth.. Eternal Duty of human beings... this is the Essence of Brahminism and/or Hinduism....Of course, "Eternal" "Duty" or "Truth" all varies with time to time, place to place and people to people.... I don't know more than this..... leave me alone".

She also says, " You don't need to follow any God or Religion - without all that you ARE doing just fine as a husband, father, scientist, citizen and a good Samaritan.... For YOU nothing is needed.... Don't change a thing.....he he he""

Sir,

Then, what exactly SD is, in your mind?

Thanks.

 

[saidevo]

namaste shrI Sangom, Sara and others.

I don't feel a need to agree or disagree with people (like Nara and Sangom) who dispute the application of the term sanAtana in sanAtana dharma in the geographical sense of being 'universal', as applied and practised all over the world.

I wouldn't also seek to defend against the perception that our Hindu religion has not been sanAtana in the chronological sense too, since there never has been only ONE religion even throughout India in the past.

• My personal opinion on the geographical sense of the word is that the precepts of dharma in life and the concepts of mokSha--liberation, through a graded level of advancement, as spelled out in our religion is not found in any other religion; yet anyone can follow them irrespective of their religious/social/personal affiliations and attain the purpose of birth and life, so, in this sense our religion is sanAtana dharma--universal religion.

• All traditions and sects of the Hindu religion have the Vedas as their base with the strong belief that the Vedas are sanAtana, anAdi--eternal, and apauruSheya--not of human origin. In this chronoligical sense, sanAtana stands as an adjective to describe the eternal nature of our religion.

Beyond this, I agree that there is most likely no usage of the term sanAtana dharma in that combination to refer to a single religion, in our shAstras. At the same time, it is also a fact that we cannot wish away the term which is today used universally to refer to our religion! Some of us might mourn this state of affairs, some of us might even take cudgels of active propaganda against it, but I don't think it is likely to change that name of our religion.

*****

The incident in the mahAbhArata I had in mind is one that relates to the sages UddAlaka and his son Shvetaketu, which is quoted in J.Muir's book about Ancient India from Sanskrit texts
http://www.archive.org/download/originalsanskrit01muir/originalsanskrit01muir.pdf

To quote him from pp 418-419 of the first volume:

212 This incident is alluded to in the Adip., section 122. It is there stated that in the olden time women were subject to no restraint, and incurred no blame for abandoning their husbands and cohabiting with anyone they pleased ... A stop was, however, put to this practice by Uddalaka Shvetaketu, whose indignation was on one occasion aroused by a Brahman taking his mother by the hand, and inviting her to go away with him, although his father, in whose presence this occurred, informed him that there was no reason for his displeasure, as the custom was one which had prevailed from time immemorial.

The verse in question occurs as follows in the ITX transliteration at:
ITRANS Text

mahAbhArata, Adi parva 114.13:
kruddha.n taM tu pitA dR^iShTvA shvetaketumuvAcha ha |
mA tAta kopa.n kArShIstvameSha dharmaH sanAtanaH || 13 ||

Kisari Mohan Ganguli's translation of the verses in context:
Translation of Mahabharata of Vyasa by Kisari Mohan Ganguli , Stories and Characters from Mahabharata, Mahabharatam in Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, Hindi..

"One day, in the presence of Swetaketu's father a Brahmana came and catching Swetaketu's mother by the hand, told her, 'Let us go.' Beholding his mother seized by the hand and taken away apparently by force, the son was greatly moved by wrath. Seeing his son indignant, Uddalaka addressed him and said, 'Be not angry. O son! This is the practice sanctioned by antiquity. The women of all orders in this world are free, O son; men in this matter, as regards their respective orders, act as kine.' The Rishi's son, Swetaketu, however, disapproved of the usage and established in the world the present practice as regards men and women."

Some brAhmaNa and strI indeed! I am reminded of the promiscuity shown (and proabably exhorted) in the TV serial 'Two and Half Men'.

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom Sir:

I read your posts on the history of Sanathana Dharma very carefully. For a history buff, this is very useful.

Before this, I really wanted to know what exactly SD is? I asked my wife who is an Agno-Theist, a TB from Trichy (she is not ritualistic, although she goes to Temple very occasionally to earn some Punniyam!).

She says, " I don't know really exactly what it means to tell you the Godless Communist, LOL!.... it is the Eternal Truth.. Eternal Duty of human beings... this is the Essence of Brahminism and/or Hinduism....Of course, "Eternal" "Duty" or "Truth" all varies with time to time, place to place and people to people.... I don't know more than this..... leave me alone".

She also says, " You don't need to follow any God or Religion - without all that you ARE doing just fine as a husband, father, scientist, citizen and a good Samaritan.... For YOU nothing is needed.... Don't change a thing.....he he he""

Sir,

Then, what exactly SD is, in your mind?

Thanks.

Shri Yamaka,

I am myself ignorant of the actual extent or ramifications of this word "sanātana dharma". That is why I started this thread. As of now it appears to me that this word and the statement "eṣa dharmaḥ sanātanaḥ", used in several places in MB, may mean "this has been the age-old custom or practice". That possibly is the reason for its usage to refer to social customs and mores, as also to certain tenets like the one in Manu smṛti, which Shri Saidevo has cited. (It talks about speaking good words, and eschewing unpalatable truths, even if truths they be.)

ādi śaṃkara, in his bhagavadgītā bhāṣya, explains, w.r.t. BG IV.6, that the word "dharma" means as follows:—

धर्मस्य ग्ळानिः हानिः वर्णाश्रमादिलक्षणस्य प्राणिनां अभ्युदय निः श्रॆयससाधनस्य भवति भारत |
(dharmasya gḷāniḥ hāniḥ varṇāśramādilakṣaṇasya prāṇināṃ abhyudaya niḥ śreyasasādhanasya bhavati bhārata).

It thus looks that "dharma" means "the principles, like the varṇāśramā system, which are the means to the well-being and liberation of beings.

If we consider śaṃkara's definition as settled, it creates the difficulty that there was no varṇā system before the puruṣasūktaṃ and today, a government of this kaliyuga has been able to prohibit the varna system and lay down that all people are equal. So, it appears as though Krishna's assurance was not operative before the time of the puruṣasūktaṃ (there is Rig Veda IX.112.03 which shows the father a physician, mother a grinder of corn and the composer as a bard; thus the Varna system was probably not known then.) and is not operating now (because almost all the "brahmins" of today are "śūdras" if we go by their occupation; some may be vaiśyas or kṣatriyas, at best, but real brāhmaṇas will be very insignificant in number.) Hence the most important example given by śaṃkara for "Dharma" is not being observed now.

I, therefore, feel that we do not have a case for saying that sanātana dharma is in operation as of now.

 

[sangom]

namaste shrI Sangom, Sara and others.

I don't feel a need to agree or disagree with people (like Nara and Sangom) who dispute the application of the term sanAtana in sanAtana dharma in the geographical sense of being 'universal', as applied and practised all over the world.

I wouldn't also seek to defend against the perception that our Hindu religion has not been sanAtana in the chronological sense too, since there never has been only ONE religion even throughout India in the past.

• My personal opinion on the geographical sense of the word is that the precepts of dharma in life and the concepts of mokSha--liberation, through a graded level of advancement, as spelled out in our religion is not found in any other religion; yet anyone can follow them irrespective of their religious/social/personal affiliations and attain the purpose of birth and life, so, in this sense our religion is sanAtana dharma--universal religion.

• All traditions and sects of the Hindu religion have the Vedas as their base with the strong belief that the Vedas are sanAtana, anAdi--eternal, and apauruSheya--not of human origin. In this chronoligical sense, sanAtana stands as an adjective to describe the eternal nature of our religion.

Beyond this, I agree that there is most likely no usage of the term sanAtana dharma in that combination to refer to a single religion, in our shAstras. At the same time, it is also a fact that we cannot wish away the term which is today used universally to refer to our religion! Some of us might mourn this state of affairs, some of us might even take cudgels of active propaganda against it, but I don't think it is likely to change that name of our religion.

*****

The incident in the mahAbhArata I had in mind is one that relates to the sages UddAlaka and his son Shvetaketu, which is quoted in J.Muir's book about Ancient India from Sanskrit texts
http://www.archive.org/download/originalsanskrit01muir/originalsanskrit01muir.pdf

To quote him from pp 418-419 of the first volume:

212 This incident is alluded to in the Adip., section 122. It is there stated that in the olden time women were subject to no restraint, and incurred no blame for abandoning their husbands and cohabiting with anyone they pleased ... A stop was, however, put to this practice by Uddalaka Shvetaketu, whose indignation was on one occasion aroused by a Brahman taking his mother by the hand, and inviting her to go away with him, although his father, in whose presence this occurred, informed him that there was no reason for his displeasure, as the custom was one which had prevailed from time immemorial.

The verse in question occurs as follows in the ITX transliteration at:
ITRANS Text

mahAbhArata, Adi parva 114.13:
kruddha.n taM tu pitA dR^iShTvA shvetaketumuvAcha ha |
mA tAta kopa.n kArShIstvameSha dharmaH sanAtanaH || 13 ||

Kisari Mohan Ganguli's translation of the verses in context:
Translation of Mahabharata of Vyasa by Kisari Mohan Ganguli , Stories and Characters from Mahabharata, Mahabharatam in Telugu, Tamil, Kannada, Hindi..

"One day, in the presence of Swetaketu's father a Brahmana came and catching Swetaketu's mother by the hand, told her, 'Let us go.' Beholding his mother seized by the hand and taken away apparently by force, the son was greatly moved by wrath. Seeing his son indignant, Uddalaka addressed him and said, 'Be not angry. O son! This is the practice sanctioned by antiquity. The women of all orders in this world are free, O son; men in this matter, as regards their respective orders, act as kine.' The Rishi's son, Swetaketu, however, disapproved of the usage and established in the world the present practice as regards men and women."

Some brAhmaNa and strI indeed! I am reminded of the promiscuity shown (and proabably exhorted) in the TV serial 'Two and Half Men'.

Shri Saidevo,

I am thankful to you for the clarification. I have a doubt though, about your statement "anyone can follow them irrespective of their religious/social/personal affiliations and attain the purpose of birth and life, so, in this sense our religion is sanAtana dharma--universal religion." In the context of our very Shastras and scriptures expressly forbidding Shudras from even hearing the vedas, the practice of untouchability towards the lower caste/s and their isolation from the mainstream religion available (which was mandatory for the three dwija categories), can we say that "anyone can follow...and attain the purpose of birth and life, etc. I acknowledge that my knowledge may be incomplete, but what were the avenues open to a Shudra to achieve "jeevanmukti" according to Sankara's advaita or the vedas and Shastras? Kindly elaborate.

 

[suraju06]

Mr. Nara,

My criticism of Brahminism etc., is what you consider as BF(Bovine Feces) -- if I got you wrong I am sure you will correct me.

No. You got it wrong. I do not consider any thing said in this forum as BF. Using that term is against my basic grain. BF is a metamorphosed form of BS (Bull Sh..) and this term is a part of the lingo of North American Long Distance Truck Divers(NALDTD) (they may be good or bad that is not material to the point here). This is a term not used in conversation in decent circles-I believe we all want to keep TB.com a decent place to meet and discuss various subjects and even fight over some of them. When it was used in a conversation here in another thread (first time by you) I felt offended and expressed my criticism of its use. However, you went on to defend it's use with a 'strawman argument' saying NALDTDs are very humanitarian in their outlook -- as if it is enough justification for using bad language here.

Again in this thread when you said people will invade this thread with their usual inanities I came to say that there will be no invasion as long as the mother of all inanity (using offensive language like BF)is not brought on the discussion table. Hope the position is clear now.

This criticism is BF to you, but not to me.

Nothing is BF to me here. In fact I would like to forget the term (BF) completely and move on. You can live in peace with yourself with this point cleared.

I don't understand why you bring in north american truck drivers. They actually are good people, making an honest living.

I think with the above clarification the matter is clear to you. They may be good or bad and that is not material to the point here.They may be making a honest or dishonest living that too is irrelevant here.

Cheers!

 

[Nara]

.... This is a term not used in conversation in decent circles-I believe we all want to keep TB.com a decent place

Raju, for all your protestation about decent language and concern to keep TB.com a decent place, it was you who introduced this term in this thread. Here is what you said:

"We can be sure that there will be no invasion as long as the 'bovine feces' is not displayed in all its glory!!"

​

If the literal usage of the term in question is what you object to, then you are as guilty of the charge as anyone else.

It looks like you have an unhealthy attraction to the term.

, you went on to defend it's use with a 'strawman argument' saying NALDTDs are very humanitarian in their outlook -- as if it is enough justification for using bad language here.

I was unable to understand why you singled out NALDTD. Use of foul language is not more or less common among them compared to other groups. For instance, many boys and girls of middle-class TB families casually use the term "s&#t" as if no sentence is complete without it.

The language among older people is much worse, they use Tamil equivalents of curse words that can be found in many rap music lyrics. This is not very uncommon even in SV institutions. I have head even Acharyas using such language in anger, much revered acharyas.

This is why I was puzzled about you singling out NALDTD. From your repeated reference to that group I thought you are singling them out as though they are the embodiment of pottymouth. That is the reason why I pointed out that they are good people no less or no more than any other group, do not deserve to be singled out.

Cheers!

 

[suraju06]

Mr. Nara, your post #22 above:

Raju, for all your protestation about decent language and concern to keep TB.com a decent place, it was you who introduced this term in this thread. Here is what you said:"We can be sure that there will be no invasion as long as the 'bovine feces' is not displayed in all its glory!!"If the literal usage of the term in question is what you object to, then you are as guilty of the charge as anyone else.

Your argument is quite strange. It is you who introduced the members of this forum to the term Bovine F.... first in another thread .I would rather say that you , in your anger, inflicted it on the unsuspecting members here. And you owe an explanation for that indiscretion on your part. If the forum is not making an issue of it to demand an apology from you and is still dealing with you, it shows the magnanimity of the members and not your righteousness or innocence. In this thread I have only subtly warned you again when you came with your 'inanity' posting(which appeared to me as an ominous foreboding) to be careful not to bring in your pet term Bovine F.... into this thread also. I had to repeat that "obnoxious" offending term only as a reference. I disown any ownership of that term. It is, in all its ' deleterious glory', a personal property of you reflective of your maturity. I am not talking about the literal meaning of that term. I am talking about in whatever sense it was intended and used by you when you introduced it to the members first and all members here understand what you meant.

It looks like you have an unhealthy attraction to the term.

Come on, try something else. That sounds quite familiar. I remember having said that about you very recently.

...For instance, many boys and girls of middle-class TB families casually use the term "s&#t" as if no sentence is complete without it.

That may be your experience. But we here would say that it is a rare occurrence among TB families here in India.

And I do not want to continue this argument any further. If you want you can have the satisfaction of saying the final word.

Cheers!

 

[arunshanker]

HISTORY OF UNIVERSE

This is retrofitting

 

[Yamaka]

That may be your experience. But we here would say that it is a rare occurrence among TB families here in India.

Cheers!

Dear Raju:

Sorry to come in here...

Our kids here in Houston don't use all "those words" at home, although we know they use it regularly outside!

My wife said, "My brother's kids in Bombay and sister's kids in Chennai use it to me and their parents, as though they mean nothing!"

I guess this is the practice in most cosmopolitan centers in India and elsewhere!

Cheers.

ps. On a serious note, what exactly is SanAtana Dharma in your mind, as practiced by a typical Brahmin or a Hindu today? Thanks.