I’m writing this article because I see the term sanātana-dharma being misused by nationalist media propaganda. Such misuse is not only harmful to the image of sanātana-dharma - an idea deeply beneficial to people of all traditions - it is also harmful to the Hindus who righteously misrepresent what they proclaim is the glory of their own tradition.

In this article I want to introduce the depth of the term sanātana-dharma, defined philosophically and theologically, and to point out its naïve reduction in polemical media outlets to Hindu-nationalist propaganda.

Sanātanī vs. Sanātana

In recent nationalist media presentations, Hindus often proudly declare that they are “Sanātanīs.” What does it mean to be a Sanātanī?

I’ve identified a few key characteristics of how the term is used in today’s media:

  • They claim that, unlike Islam, Christianity, Buddhism, and so on - traditions said to begin with a founder or prophet - Hinduism has no such beginning and is thus eternally existing.
  • It is treated as an endonym (a self-chosen name) for “Hindu,” which is ultimately a foreign imposition (an exonym) on people whose spirituality is informed by Vedic and Purāṇic texts.
  • It is meant to cover all the diverse practitioners of Vedic and Vedāntic religions, such as Śāktas, Vaiṣṇavas, Śaivas, and so on.
  • Most puzzlingly, the same speakers also draw internal contrasts - for instance between Vaiṣṇavas and Sanātanīs - implying that a Vaiṣṇava differs in how they accept divinity, whereas a Sanātanī accepts all divinities, while remaining distinct from Christians, Muslims, and others.

The word “Sanātanī” is also highly politically charged. It is sometimes used to assert Hinduism’s superiority over other religions: that Hinduism never began while others did; that Hinduism accepts other religions while they do not; and so on.

The Sanskrit word sanātana means “that which has neither beginning nor end” - eternal. On its own, it does not denote a religion, identity, culture, nationality, or political ideology.

“Sanātanī” is a derivative of sanātana meaning roughly “one related to” or “a follower of” “sanātana”. But “follower of eternality” makes little sense by itself. And if we reverse-engineer a definition of sanātana from the popular uses of “Sanātanī” above, the result leaves a lot to be desired in the way of accuracy, depth, and faithful representation of classical Vedic and Purāṇic philosophy.

Before we move on, I want to note that historically the word may have been used to refer to practitioners more ancient than the Ārya Samāj. I’m not using the word Sanātanī in that sense.

Dharma vs. Religion

Dharma is not simply a faith, belief system, or “religion” in the modern sense of the word.

The average person often defines religion along simplistic lines - for example, by the name of a specific God or prophet.

These definitions are frequently rooted in populist assumptions common among adherents of Abrahamic religions: “If your God has the same qualities as mine, but has a different name or prophet, we belong to different religions.”

While this is a widespread popular understanding, it does not necessarily reflect how those religious traditions - or their deeper sub-traditions - officially categorise divisions of faith.

By contrast, the Vedic and Purāṇic traditions often take a more philosophical approach to categorising orders of spiritual practice, and on that basis can be highly inclusive.

If two spiritual practices worship a God with the same underlying qualities, with the same intent, and through rituals of a similar nature (for example, sātvik or rājasik), then both paths may be considered fundamentally identical in kind.

Thus, Vedic analysis categorises different “religions” based on internal quality rather than external labels.

From this perspective, a Hindu who worships Viṣṇu for a beautiful wife belongs in the same category of practice as a Muslim who worships Allah for a beautiful wife. Similarly, a Hindu who worships Viṣṇu for relief from suffering is no different from a Christian or Muslim who prays for the same relief.

Therefore, while the average person today - including the average self-described Sanātanī - views Hinduism and Islam as entirely separate religions, someone trained in this Vedic mode of analysis would see many identical religions within both traditions.

Quoting Bhaktivedanta Swami (a renowned saint and scholar from the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava Vedāntic tradition) in his Introduction to the Bhagavad-gītā:

The English word religion is a little different from sanātana-dharma. Religion conveys the idea of faith, and faith may change. One may have faith in a particular process, and he may change this faith and adopt another…

Dharma

The word dharma comes from the Sanskrit root √dhṛ, which means “to hold together” or “to sustain.”

Dharma has two fundamental senses which, when extended, yield much of the mainstream understanding of the word:

  1. That which creates harmony;
  2. The inseparable, intrinsic quality of something - such as wetness to water, or heat and light to fire.

In ancient times, people maintained harmony within society by carrying out their harmony-creating duties, also known as prescribed duties. These duties were designed to foster both internal and external harmony.

For instance, varṇa-dharma - the dharma of one’s social vocation - consisted of moral and ethical codes of behaviour and mindset that allowed for harmony within a professional field. A ruler or politician was expected to view their subjects as people to protect and benefit. A physician was expected to use knowledge and expertise for the betterment of others. Similarly, family dharma, or kula-dharma, involved duties within the household. It was the duty of parents to raise their children carefully so they could find their place in society and contribute positively to it. This meant providing proper spiritual, emotional, and physical care, and nurturing them to live meaningful and fulfilling lives. On a dhārmic level, children were seen as a family’s contribution to the broader societal fabric. Therefore, raising and maintaining a harmonious family (kula-dharma) was considered one of the greatest forms of philanthropy.

The specific codes of behaviour under each of these dharmas are shaped by time, place, and circumstance (deśa, kāla, pātra). While good parenting and professional ethics are timeless ideals, the exact rules and applications shift with the eras.

A natural question arises: what happens if these different levels of dharma conflict? This is exactly the dilemma Arjuna presents to Śrī Kṛṣṇa in the Bhagavad-gītā (2.7), describing himself as dharma-sammūḍha-cetāḥ - one whose mind is bewildered about duty. Arjuna’s kula-dharma (protecting his family) was at direct odds with his varṇa-dharma as a warrior (punishing wrongdoers for their evil deeds, even if those wrongdoers happened to be his own kin).

What is the dharma of the living entity?

In the Bhagavad-gītā, Śrī Kṛṣṇa describes the living entity as spiritual, beyond matter. It inhabits multiple physical bodies over time and acquires various experiences in doing so. What, then, is the relevance of all these dhārmic codes, which are ultimately tied to temporary roles - wife, husband, father, singer, doctor, and so on?

If the living entity really is the ātmā - eternal, beyond matter, conscious, and seeking bliss - then what is the unchanging, inherent nature of that ātmā? And what actions can the ātmā perform such that it acts in harmony with itself and with the world around it?

The great saint Bhaktivedanta Swami writes the following in his Introduction to the Bhagavad-gītā:

If we analyze this statement of Lord Caitanya’s, we can easily see that every living being is constantly engaged in rendering service to another living being. A living being serves other living beings in various capacities. By doing so, the living entity enjoys life. The lower animals serve human beings as servants serve their master. A serves B master, B serves C master, and C serves D master and so on. Under these circumstances, we can see that one friend serves another friend, the mother serves the son, the wife serves the husband, the husband serves the wife and so on. If we go on searching in this spirit, it will be seen that there is no exception in the society of living beings to the activity of service. The politician presents his manifesto for the public to convince them of his capacity for service. The voters therefore give the politician their valuable votes, thinking that he will render valuable service to society. The shopkeeper serves the customer, and the artisan serves the capitalist. The capitalist serves the family, and the family serves the state in the terms of the eternal capacity of the eternal living being. In this way we can see that no living being is exempt from rendering service to other living beings, and therefore we can safely conclude that service is the constant companion of the living being and that the rendering of service is the eternal religion of the living being.

Anyone who has performed some or all of the acts of service mentioned above knows the incomparable flow-state they can bring. In today’s hyper-individualistic society, psychologists often encourage those suffering from loneliness to serve others through mentorship and philanthropy.

In a related vein, the great saint Śrīpāda Rāmānujācārya teaches that the living entity’s constitutional position is that of a servant (śeṣa) of the Lord - and that love finds its natural expression in service. From another angle, Vaiṣṇava thought often observes that the living entity seeks relationships of belonging - “I” and “mine” - and that this longing is fulfilled only in a relationship of love enacted through service.

So it is reasonable to say that the dharma of the soul (or ātmā) is to serve.

What is our sanātana-dharma?

As discussed earlier, the word sanātana means “that which has neither beginning nor end.” What, then, is the sanātana-dharma of the soul? What is the eternal occupation of the living entity?

In other words: what kind of service can the eternal soul engage in eternally that fulfills not only its search for “I and mine,” but in doing so also creates harmony?

To quote Bhaktivedanta Swami again:

When Sanātana Gosvāmī asked Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu about the svarūpa of every living being, the Lord replied that the svarūpa, or constitutional position, of the living being is the rendering of service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

All beings, fundamentally, seek to love, to be loved, and to exchange mellows of emotion in that love - which entails being completely understood, and seeking to completely understand. In the definition of sanātana-dharma above, we can see, at least theoretically, the fulfilment of this longing. Śrī Kṛṣṇa is described as the personification of the mellows of love. Only in a tangible, real relationship with Śrī Kṛṣṇa can we find the eternal love we are truly seeking.

Thus the sanātana-dharma of the soul is to be engaged in loving service of the Supreme Lord for the purpose of establishing a loving relationship with Him.

How can this relationship be realised?

This is an enormous topic, and it has inspired hundreds of beautiful books - among them the Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu by Rūpa Gosvāmī. In short, however, a real relationship with Śrī Kṛṣṇa can be entered into through the process of bhakti-yoga. I aim to write further articles on the natural questions this raises: Kṛṣṇa seems invisible to the senses - is that just a convenient claim? How do we know any of this is real? These questions have satisfying answers. If you cannot wait and want to discuss this with me immediately, join our Discord channel.

Can Muslims, Christians, and people of other faiths be practitioners of sanātana-dharma?

Yes - provided they are worshipping the Supreme Lord in order to be in a loving relationship with Him. Any other motivation, such as material gain, no longer constitutes sanātana-dharma.

When are Hindus NOT following sanātana-dharma?

Hindus are not following sanātana-dharma when they are not worshipping the Supreme Lord for the sake of a relationship with Him. For example:

  1. Worship of Viṣṇu, Sarasvatī, Kālī, Śiva, or any deity for the sake of material gain is not sanātana-dharma, because this is a selfishly oriented attitude of worship.
  2. Worship of Viṣṇu for mokṣa is not sanātana-dharma, because the desire for mokṣa is still a desire for personal gain.
  3. Worship of rivers such as Gaṅgā, and so on, for any purpose other than tadīya-sevā (which is an authorised part of uttama-bhakti, and thus falls under sanātana-dharma).

I want to point out that the worship outlined above is by no means unacceptable or incorrect. I simply want to make a distinction between practices performed by Hindus and sanātana-dharma.

Conclusion

In conclusion, modern media often trivialises the term sanātana-dharma by reducing it to a kind of faith similar to Christianity and Islam, with only token and inaccurate “advantages.” For instance, Muslims do not typically believe that Islam began simply with the Prophet Muhammad; they hold that the call to surrender (islām) is primordial, and that earlier prophets also taught that submission to God.

Instead, sanātana-dharma is a deep, fundamental, and beautiful observation about the nature and deepest desires of the living entity - and about how those desires can be fulfilled in connection with Kṛṣṇa.