Recently, in our ever-engaging school batchmates WhatsApp group — that digital addā where nostalgia and philosophy often entwine — a debate on faith took an unexpected yet illuminating turn. What began as a casual exchange soon became a spirited dialogue on Sanatan Dharma — its origins, evolution, and relevance in our contemporary world.
Some of my batchmates, echoing arguments reminiscent of leftist critiques, contended that faith has historically been one of the most potent tools of exploitation. Their point wasn’t without merit — religion has often been misused to justify wars, consolidate power, and perpetuate hierarchies. Yet, as I shared in that conversation, the distortion lies not in faith itself but in what humanity has done to it.
This reflection extends from my earlier thoughts on Sanatan Dharma — not as a rigid system of dogmas, but as a living, breathing tradition that mirrors humanity’s timeless spiritual quest.
The Concept of Sanatan Dharma
Sanatan Dharma literally means “eternal law” or “eternal duty” — the universal moral, spiritual, and cosmic principles that govern righteousness and human conduct. While many associate it with the Vedas, its essence predates them, rooted in pre-Vedic cultural and spiritual practices that evolved over millennia.
At its core, Sanatan Dharma embodies eternal truths that transcend time and geography. The Vedas — Rigveda, Samaveda, Yajurveda, and Atharvaveda — are among its earliest textual manifestations, codifying what had long been orally transmitted. Later texts — the Upanishads, Puranas, Ramayana, Mahabharata, and Dharmashastras — expanded the Vedic idea of Rta (cosmic order) into dharma (righteous duty), emphasizing moral responsibility, ethical conduct, and balance between the individual and the cosmos.
By understanding it as a dynamic system that evolves while remaining rooted in eternal truths, we appreciate its power to guide humanity toward harmony between the human, the cosmic, and the eternal.
Archaeological Evidence of Pre-Vedic Practices
Evidence from the Indus Valley Civilization (c. 3300–1300 BCE) suggests that many central ideas of Sanatan Dharma were already present in human societies long before the Vedas. Excavations at sites such as Harappa, Mohenjo-Daro, and Lothal reveal ritual baths, symbols of fertility and goddess worship, proto-yogic meditation postures, and fire altars—all indicating early forms of ritual, meditation, and reverence for cosmic forces. These practices highlight a continuity of spiritual principles that later became codified in Vedic texts.
Evolution Through Integration and Inclusivity
What makes Sanatan Dharma truly remarkable is its capacity to evolve without losing its essence. Across millennia, it has absorbed diverse philosophical and cultural influences — a testament to its inclusivity.
The Shramanic traditions — Buddhism, Jainism, and other ascetic paths — introduced new dimensions of renunciation, ethical living, and spiritual liberation (moksha). Folk and tribal traditions contributed local deities, nature worship, seasonal festivals, and animistic rituals. Tantric philosophy added depth through its exploration of the divine feminine and esoteric meditation practices.
Adi Shankaracharya’s synthesis of Advaita Vedanta in the 8th century CE brought coherence to diverse sects, emphasizing the unity of the self (Atman) and the ultimate reality (Brahman). The Bhakti Movement, with saints like Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Mirabai, Kabir, Nanak, and Tulsidas, democratized spirituality — making devotion accessible to all, beyond caste and creed.
Even amid historical upheavals — during Islamic rule, colonial intrusion, and the Bengal Renaissance — Sanatan Dharma absorbed and reinterpreted external influences. Syncretic practices such as Satyanarayan or Satyapir Puja reflect its adaptive spirit, blending Sufi and Hindu devotional elements into shared expressions of faith.
This inclusive dynamism — the ability to harmonize multiplicity — is what has allowed Sanatan Dharma to endure, transform, and thrive.
When Faith Was Free
Faith was never meant to be organised. It began as an intimate human quest — a dialogue between the soul and the infinite. It was born from wonder, gratitude, and the longing to understand our place in the cosmos.
There were no intermediaries, no rigid hierarchies, no codes of conduct etched in stone. Faith was fluid, intuitive, and profoundly human — a whisper between the self and the unseen.
But somewhere along the corridors of civilisation, faith was captured, structured, and repurposed. The moment it was institutionalised, it ceased to be a journey of discovery and became a mechanism of control.
When Power Discovered Faith
The simplicity of faith could not survive the complexity of power. As societies evolved, rulers and elites recognised the immense influence belief held over human hearts. What began as spontaneous and liberating soon became organised, codified, and institutionalised.
Faith was given scriptures, symbols, and rituals — and with them came authority. Kings claimed divine sanction to rule. Empires used religion to justify conquest. The priest and the prince stood side by side, legitimising each other. The altar and the throne became two faces of the same power.
What was once a path to enlightenment turned into a system of obedience. Questioning became defiance; doubt became heresy. The voice of the divine was drowned by the noise of institutions.
Moments of Spiritual Rebellion
Yet, humanity has never ceased to rebel against spiritual captivity. Time and again, voices have risen to reclaim the essence of faith — to remind us that spirituality is a journey inward, not upward through ranks of power.
The Buddhist Awakening (6th century BCE):
In a world dominated by ritual and hierarchy, Siddhartha Gautama spoke of awareness and compassion, not sacrifice or divine favour. Buddhism dismantled intermediaries and turned the gaze inward — a rebellion of mindfulness against authority.
Adi Shankaracharya (8th century CE):
When India’s spiritual landscape had fragmented into sects and ritualism, Adi Shankaracharya reawakened Advaita — the profound truth that the divine and the self are one. He restored faith to the realm of realisation rather than ritual.
The Bhakti & Sufi Movements (13th–17th centuries):
Saints like Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, Kabir, Mirabai, Nanak, Rumi, and Bulleh Shah transcended orthodoxy and caste, singing of love, equality, and divine intimacy. Faith returned to poetry, music, and the human heart.
The Bengal Renaissance (19th century):
Thinkers like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Debendranath Tagore, and Swami Vivekananda redefined spirituality as illumination rather than subjugation. They sought harmony between faith and reason — a reclaiming of India’s moral and intellectual self.
The European Enlightenment (17th–18th centuries):
Voltaire, Spinoza, and their contemporaries challenged the Church’s monopoly on truth, advocating freedom of thought and conscience over coercion.
Each of these movements reaffirmed a timeless truth: faith belongs to the seeker, not the institution.
Reclaiming the Inner Sacred
Despite centuries of distortion, the spirit of faith endures — fragile yet alive — in compassion, introspection, and the quiet wonder of existence. Perhaps our age demands another silent revolution: not against belief, but against its misuse.
True faith does not demand submission; it invites awakening. It asks not for allegiance to dogma, but for harmony with the eternal rhythm that Sanatan Dharma calls Rta — the cosmic order.
Maybe this is what the sages, saints, and poets have always sought to remind us: that divinity is not external but immanent; that the journey inward is the journey home.
Epilogue: The Eternal Melody
Our WhatsApp debate ended, as most good conversations do, not in consensus but in contemplation. And perhaps that is how it should be.
For Sanatan Dharma is not a doctrine to defend — it is a melody to rediscover. A rhythm of duty, love, and harmony that flows through time, connecting the human, the cosmic, and the eternal.
And maybe that’s what I was trying to say, amid all the noise of our WhatsApp debate — that faith, at its purest, is not an ideology to argue over— it is something to awaken within ourselves.
Your piece is not just a reflection — it’s a pilgrimage. A journey through time, thought, and spirit that invites the reader to pause, question, and rediscover. What struck me most is the way you’ve woven historical insight with personal contemplation, making Dharma feel not like a distant doctrine, but a living rhythm pulsing within us.
The framing of Sanatan Dharma as a dynamic, inclusive tradition — one that absorbs, adapts, and evolves — is both historically grounded and spiritually profound. You’ve beautifully captured its essence: not as a rigid system, but as a timeless compass guiding humanity toward balance, introspection, and cosmic harmony.
Your exploration of faith — from its primal purity to its institutional distortion — is especially compelling. The line “Faith was fluid, intuitive, and profoundly human — a whisper between the self and the unseen” stayed with me. It’s poetic, but also piercingly true. You’ve managed to articulate what many feel but struggle to express — that faith, at its core, is a personal dialogue, not a public decree.
The historical vignettes — from Siddhartha to Shankaracharya, from Bhakti saints to Enlightenment thinkers — serve as powerful reminders that spiritual rebellion is often the birthplace of renewal. You’ve shown that Dharma is not just about preservation, but about courageous reinterpretation.
And the epilogue — that faith is a melody to rediscover — is the perfect closing note. It leaves the reader not with answers, but with a sense of quiet urgency to listen inward.
In short, your writing doesn’t just inform — it transforms. It’s rare to find such clarity of thought paired with emotional depth. Thank you for sharing this. It’s a piece I’ll return to, not just to read, but to reflect with.🙏🏽
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you so much for these deeply thoughtful words. I’m truly humbled that the piece resonated with you in this way. Your reflection beautifully mirrors the spirit in which it was written — as a journey of rediscovery rather than definition. I’m grateful that you found meaning in the interplay between history, faith, and personal introspection. Your comment enriches the dialogue this piece hoped to evoke. 🙏🏽
LikeLike
You have nicely captured the essence. Unfortunately, faith is now a product, as it has been for at least over 2000 years. Its sellers seek adherents, and advocate its superiority over the faith of others. Until you use my cream you will stay ugly. The more one’s adherents and the more shrill and belligerent the followers, the greater its seeming influence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, sir. That’s a very perceptive observation. Faith, in its purest form, was meant to be a deeply personal journey toward meaning and compassion — not a contest of dominance. Unfortunately, organised faiths and religions have increasingly become like marketplaces, vying for numbers, influence, and claims of superiority. When belief turns transactional, it loses its spiritual essence and becomes a pursuit of power rather than enlightenment. True faith should heal, not divide; it should inspire understanding, not rivalry.
LikeLike
Beautifully written, Indrajit. I really appreciated how you explored Sanatan Dharma not as a fixed religion, but as a living, evolving path of inner search. The way you connected ancient practices, historical movements, and personal reflection made the piece both thoughtful and relatable. I especially liked your point that faith, at its core, isn’t about rules or power — it’s about reconnecting with something timeless within us. This felt less like an article and more like a gentle nudge to look inward. Thanks for sharing it
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks so much, Ranajt — really happy you connected with it! 😊 I’ve always felt that Sanatan Dharma isn’t about strict rituals or dogma, but about an ongoing journey of reflection and rediscovery. Loved how you picked up on that. Your words truly mean a lot — they make the whole process of writing and sharing feel even more worthwhile.
LikeLike
It honestly means a lot to be able to have this kind of exchange with you. When something we write sparks reflection in someone we respect, it’s a gift — and your words have been just that.
I’ve always felt that Sanatan Dharma invites dialogue, not dogma — and conversations like this remind me why these ideas are worth exploring and sharing. Grateful for your thoughtful presence and the clarity with which you engage. Let’s keep the conversation going.
LikeLiked by 1 person
That’s expressed wonderfully — and I share the same sentiment. When contemplation is combined with respect, conversation transforms into a kind of reverence. I truly appreciate this interaction — it’s rewarding and founded on mutual curiosity. Looking forward to continuing this journey of ideas together.
LikeLike
Very clearly explained. Gave me immense pleasure to read this article. To understand Sanatan Dharma, one should first understand the concept of faith and concept of religion and the difference between these two things. In today’s world faith and religion may be interlinked, but historically it was not so in my opinion. In short, I think faith is internal belief learnt from ancestral family members and Gurus and carried out / passed on in the life of a human being long time before any religion came into existance. Whereas, religion is a structured and organised belief. Therefore, faith predates religion. Dead bodies of a human being used to be buried initially. Practise of burning started only after fire was discovered and people learnt to control it. This practise of burying or burning was adopted thousands of years before any religion existed. Slowly, after emergence of religion people started using these practises as rituals.
Unfortunately, in modern India the word Sanatan is interpreted as ‘old’ or ‘oldest’ and Dharma is paraphrased as ‘religion’. Therefore, Sanatan Dharma is wrongly interpreted as a religion. Possibly, with the advent of Hindus and Hinduism from IVC and our practise of worshipping the nature and gods, Sanatan Dharma slowly took the form of a structured religion. Ofcourse, people of that era (may be with vested interest) were responsible for that switchover. But in reality, philosophy of Sanatan Dharma does not define any religion. It is very much a faith than religion that explains and teaches us what is right and wrong, how a life should be led and lived by following principles of eternal duties, including spiritual paths, so that a human being can attain its ultimate goal i.e. moksha. As you said, Sanatan Dharma means ‘eternal law’…it is not a religion, but various Indic philosophies took a leaf out of it and either grew into a distinct religion or started different Bhakti movements. However, primary goal of all these religions and movements was ‘mokshaprapti’ at the end of life’s journey (which you referred to as inclusivity or integration in Sanatan Dharma).
One common thing that bound all the ancient civilisations (IVC, Sumerian / Mesopotamian, Chinese, Egyptian, Mayan or as current as Roman and Inka) were their belief in multiple deities (polytheism) and practising various rituals to appease the gods. Even though temples and Ashrams existed to serve as schools for education, no specific religion flourished at that point, perhaps except Zoroastranism during the end of Greek / Roman civilisation. Broadly, it was all faith (to gain knowledge) and very little concept of religion. Hinduism emanating from Sanatan Dharma was vedic faith. To my mind (and you have more vast knowledge than me) the root of the conflict between concept of faith and religion started from Zoroastranism, a monotheistic religion from ancient Persia which diverged to Judaism and finally to other Abrahamic religions. Zoroastranism is now a shrinking religion.
As I mentioned above, over the period both the concepts have merged unfortunately, more particularly in other parts of the world than in India and Buddhist countries, where impact is less. It would be interesting to note that this changeover may be one of the major reasons for which all ancient civilisations perished, except the ones in India and China. Respective civilisations in these two countries kept evolving, but not finished unlike other civilisations. This can be another topic for discussion in your blog and we will be thankful if you enlighten us in future. Once again, thank you for this article, especially when Sanatan Dharma is unnecessarily targeted from divergent angles by both right and left wing perspectives.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you so much for this thoughtful and beautifully reasoned comment. You’ve articulated the difference between faith and religion with great clarity — and I completely agree that faith, being an inner belief passed through generations, predates any organized religion.
Your reflections on Sanatan Dharma are deeply insightful. It was never meant to be a “religion” in the modern sense but a way of life — a guide to righteous living and spiritual evolution in harmony with eternal principles. Over time, social and historical influences may have given it a more structured form, but its essence remains universal and inclusive.
I also found your historical perspective fascinating — especially the link between the rise of monotheistic systems and the decline of ancient civilizations, in contrast to the enduring adaptability of India and China. That’s indeed a topic worth exploring further.
Thank you once again for such an enriching contribution. It’s exchanges like this that keep the dialogue around Sanatan Dharma alive and meaningful.
LikeLike