SOUTH ASIA SESSION 143

[ South Asia Sessions, Table of Contents ]

Session 143: Constructing Sanātana Dharma

Organizer and Chair: Diana Dimitrova, Michigan State University

Discussant: Tracy Pintchman, Loyola University Chicago

Keywords: South Asia, religion, Hinduism, Dharma.

Dharma is one of the central concepts of Hinduism, usually translated as "religious duty," "law," and "religion." In classical Hinduism, dharma is considered one of the four goals of life. "Sanātana dharma" means "eternal religion." Nowadays, most orthodox Hindus refer to their form of Hindu religion as sanātana dharma. In the 19th and 20th centuries, two great Hindu reformers with opposing views on the essence of Hinduism, Dayananda Saraswati and Mahatma Gandhi, both considered themselves adherents of sanātana dharma. Some Hindu temples in the North American Diaspora have the words "sanātana dharma" inscribed on their entrances, probably in order to point to the "eternal" form of orthodox Hinduism practiced in the religious abode. In the dining hall of these temples, people of different castes have meals together, often with non-Hindu guests. This is a new phenomenon and it is not characteristic of orthodox Hinduism.

What is "eternal" and what is "orthodox" about sanātana dharma?

This panel will examine the development of sanātana dharma from the classical period up to modern times. Special attention will be given to the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. What is sanātana dharma? How did the content of the term change in the past centuries? What occasioned the changes? Have kings, theologians, philosophers, colonizers, and reformers constructed the different meanings? What are the ideological and political implications of these doctrinal constructs in our times? All four presenters base their arguments on textual study of manuscripts and published primary sources in classical and modern Indian languages.

Homogenizing Vaishnava Religion in the Eighteenth Century

Monika Horstmann, University of Heidelberg

In the wake of the decline of the Mughal empire, the eighteenth century witnessed a growing self-assertion of regional Hindu kingdoms. One of these was that of Amer/Jaipur, at that time ruled by Jaisingh II (r. 1700–1743). Here the specifically Hindu character of kingship was emphasized in numerous ways. One of them was the recasting of sanātana dharma whose guardian was the king. Rather than emphasizing sectarian particularities, the king had religion presented as a doctrinal and ritual umbrella. This task was assigned to theologians and judges at his court who worked out a homogenized Vaishnavism and downplayed sectarian differences.

The paper addresses this issue which was doctrinally and politically of considerable consequence, partly immediate and partly suspended. The argument is based on manuscript sources and archival records, both in Sanskrit and in regional languages. By way of conclusion, the question of how this envisaged homogeneity differed from that proffered during the colonial period will be addressed.

Sanātana Dharma as the Twentieth Century Began

John S. Hawley, Columbia University

Many scholars have observed that in its formal articulation, at least, sanātana dharma is not as eternal as the term implies. The first systematic effort to produce textbooks on Hinduism (so designated) was undertaken by Annie Besant and her Theosophical Society Colleagues shortly after they established the Central Hindu College in Banaras in 1898. These "Sanātana Dharma Text-Books" have gone through several permutations in English and various Indian languages; some remain in print to this day. What occasioned this effort? What principles were adopted to structure it? And how, if at all, did it depend on earlier, less well-remembered curricular efforts in Hindi? One example deserving of closed study is Pundit Lālmanī’s Sanātanadharmamārttanda (Banaras, 1887), since a copy is preserved in the Theosophical Society’s central library at Adyar.

Ahimsā, Śānti, and Sanātana-Dharma: A Comparison of Some Classical and Modern Concepts

Katherine K. Young, McGill University

My paper will first examine the term sanātana-dharma as understood in early smrti genres—especially the dharmaśāstras and itihāsas—with special attention to their connection with the concepts of nonviolence (ahimsā) and peace (śānti). It will then extend this analysis to two modern figures—Mahatma Gandhi and Pujyasri Candrasekharenda Sarasvatisvami, a Sankaracharya of Kanchi whose essays have been collected in the book Hindu Dharma: The Universal Way of Life (2000). This comparison will shed light on how ahimsā and śānti are contested aspects of sanātana-dharma in both periods.

The Development of Sanātana-Dharma in the Twentieth Century

Diana Dimitrova, Michigan State University

In his Satyārtha Prakāśa, Swami Dayananda Saraswati (1824–1883) elaborated on the principles of his sanātana dharma, referring to Vedas, Upanisads, and the Manusmrti. Dayananda Saraswati rejected the epics, the Purānas, the Samhitās and the Āgamas, and thus did not include sectarian Vaishnavism and Shaivism in the scope of his sanātana dharma Hindu religion. Mahatma Gandhi also called himself a sanātani Hindu and emphasized the importance of the Vedas and of varnāśramadharma. However, Gandhi adopted a more tolerant approach toward different religious traditions and stressed love of god and service to humanity. His followers sought to overcome the hostility and exclusivity of the various religions. In contemporary Hinduism, we find attempts to broaden the meaning of sanātana dharma as the eternal Hindu religion, and to also embrace the religious traditions of the Jainas, Buddhists, Sikhs and all the sects of Hinduism.

My paper will deal with the development of the concept of sanātana dharma in the 20th century. I will examine a modern definition of sanātana dharma, as revealed in several annual reports issued in Hindi by the Sanātana Dharma Pratinidhi Sabhā. What do these texts say about the ideology of the members of the Sanātana Dharma Society? Do they adhere to Dayananda Saraswati’s ideas on Hinduism or do they represent a different viewpoint?