Is Sanatana Dharma a religion, or is it a “way of life”? Is it, as some would ask, confined by limits of a religion? Or, as a “way of life”, is it an entire “view of life”? And then, some may ask, is it a religion, or is it a meta-religion, a super religion, or simply something grander than what they think religion is?
Alabama banned yoga in public schools in 1993 terming it to be a “Hindu” and “Religious” practice. The opponents invoked the separation of Church and State as the basis of banning “Hinduism” from schools. They argued that it would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. This clause places two limitations on the US Congress – it can not exert political control over religion, and at the same time religion cannot control the government. Government cannot ‘establish’ a religion or ‘favor’ one religion over the other. (The government can also not unduly prefer religion over non-religion, or vice-versa.) When encountered with a scenario like this, Sanatanees struggle to understand why Yoga would be considered religious? In the Alabama case, some even went to the extent of labeling sitting silently as hypnosis, and therefore satanic.
There is, however, a companion to the Establishment Clause – it the Free Exercise Clause. “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)”. It prohibits the government from exercising control over religious belief. (You are free to believe whatever you want, but the courts can control what you practice. You can believe in human sacrifice, but government can legislate your ability to practice human sacrifice.)
To any practitioner of Yoga, this scenario would be perplexing. Why would body stretches, breathing, mindfulness, and meditation be considered religious? Shouldn’t my practices of breathing, stretches, mindfulness be considered my “way of life”? How can the government exercise control over my “way of life”? Why would my breathing technique, my stretches, my mindfulness be labeled a religion?
So, you see what’s going on here? There is a “way of life”. Then, there are belief systems a.k.a. “religions”. And, in the mix are practices. In case of Alabama, they considered yoga practices satanic. The government can restrict the practices, but it cannot define/control a religion. And, the US constitution has no mention of “way of life”. That means, while religious freedom is guaranteed in the constitution of the US, there is no such guarantee for a “way of life” – no provisions either. Likewise, the constitution of the Republic of India provisions certain guarantees to “religions”. E.g. a religious place of worship enjoys certain protections. Hence, Hindu temples have constitutional rights, because Hinduism is defined as a religion.
Is, therefore, Santana Dharma (Hinduism) a “religion”, or a philosophical construct, a “way of life”. On some level this is an absurd question. “What is a religion without a way of life?“, asks Satguru Bodhinath Velanswami. (He points out how this question originated to being with, when the German Indologists misunderstood the term ‘mata’ (मत:) and got confused on encountering numerous ‘mata’s in Hinduism.)
I think it is both. There’s a philosophical answer to it, and there’s a pragmatic answer to it – depends on the context. In the current global context, to consider the “way of life” in Sanatana Dharma as a religion is a political necessity, just as it is a social necessity. Satguru says, “Vegetarianism is a way of life. Nonviolence is a way of life. But neither is a religion and neither will be invited to a parliament of the world’s religions, as Swami Vivekananda was back in 1893. He was invited and he spoke to the world from that Chicago podium precisely because he was a Hindu.” Treating Hinduism as a religion is a politically wise for Hindus, treating it as a “view of life” is existentially wise for the entire humanity.
But to understand why Sanatana Dharma is an all encompassing “view of life”, it is also important to understand the limitations of how a religion is defined. This is a recommended read: Ben Clements, Defining Religion in the First Amendment: A Functional Approach , 74 Cornell L. Rev. 532 (1989)
My personal preference is to not fall in the trap of looking at Sanatana Dharma in the “way of life” and religion duality. Rather, Sanatan Dharma is a religion. Albeit, it is so benevolent, respectful, universal, and life-honoring that by contrast it seems much bigger than what a typical religion is perceived to be, and therefore keeps the “way of life” idea alive.
And just when I think that I have formed my mind – of Sanatana Dharma as a religion – just then I get reminded that using the English language word religion to reflect the sentiment of dharma is a false equivalence.
धार्मिक छवियाँ 