Why Is Sanatan Dharma Needed at All?
Questioner: How is ‘Sanatana Dharma’ related to Hindutva? What is the relationship between Sanatana Dharma and Hinduism or Hindutva Ideology?
Acharya Prashant: See, ‘Sanatana Dharma’ really is the authentic thing. Let alone Hindutva, even Hinduism does not really come close to or stand representative to ‘Sanatan Dharma.’ It’s just that when you want to move to the ‘Sanatana Truth,’ then you do it in your own contemporary way.
So, ‘Sanatan Dharma’ needs to have a timely, topical, contemporary face today; that face can be given any name. What matters however is, that the face must be truthfully of the Sanatan. Just as we talk of the Nirgun and the Sagun, the Sagun appears as somewhat of a representative to the Nirgun. Similarly in every age, in every time depending on the place, the conditions, a lot of things; history, geography, everything, there will be a need to realize what the right action, what the right code of living for these situations these circumstances is. So, that needs to be meditated over, thought out and practiced and that will change from time to time.
Questioner: Now there are two questions which are coming in the same flow; one is by Narpat Singh Gaur, he asks, “Does any other Dharma exists which has similar fundamentals,” and the other question is by Swami Atmosanatan, is that when civilizations are evolving do we need Sanatan Dharma?
Acharya Prashant: I will take the first one first, you see Vedanta is very austere, very direct. It does not dabble in belief. It starts with something that is indisputable and that is the sufferer exists, the experiencer exists; beyond that I do not know anything. And if I am suffering, if I am the experiencer of my misery, then how credible can I be because I am the suffering mind. If I am the suffering mind, how do I take the contents or suggestions of the suffering mind as reliable or authentic? I will not.
So, Vedanta has zero respect for what we think or what we believe in. Vedanta has acknowledgment only for our de facto condition. It’s like this, a patient goes to the doctor and the patient is having mental problems, some kind of neurosis, some malfunctioning in the brain or in the mental system. This much is clear that the patient can neither think, nor talk, nor experience correctly, authentically; this much is clear. Now if this is clear, will the doctor pay any attention to what the patient is saying?
No, the doctor will acknowledge the patient’s condition but will not respect the patient’s words or beliefs. Please get the situation and that is the best that a loving physician or doctor can do for this patient.
The Rishis were very loving people they operated from a centre of compassion and therefore they gave zero respect to what we think of. So, this fellow has come and he’s practically a mad man as we all are. And he is saying, “Doctor, this is what is happening to me, this is what I dream of, this is what I believe in, this is what I say, this is what the tradition in my tribe is,” and the doctor will say, “Keep all that aside I don’t want to hear that. I just see that you’re not all right and I’ll go into your condition not into your beliefs.”
So, look at all these religious streams that you’re referring to. Do they operate in beliefs and if they operate in beliefs then they are not taking you to the Sanatan.
If a scripture opens by saying that unless you believe in such and such thing, then you are not a true follower, then what that scripture is saying is that you know, you first of all take the words of the mad man seriously. Is the doctor to treat the patient according to the patient’s fancies? Would be a very bad doctor, no?
So, when you say, “Are there other religious streams that take you to the Truth?” I do not know. I’m asking you to find out for yourself and that is the Vedantic way. Find out for yourself. You have a book in your hand or if you have a preacher in front of you who wants to convert you or who wants to impress you with his cult, with his religion or whatever; you ask him these fundamental questions — “Are you coming from a belief? Is there something that you are totally committed to without ever having any direct proof of it.”
And if somebody is committed to something without having a very direct proof of it, then he is actually committed to his own ego rather than the Truth and that is not Dharma, that is Adharma. What else is Adharma? To be committed to Ahankar; Ahankar says something and you start venerating that as a gospel, as Truth, as spiritual or religious. So, that is not Sanatan, that is not even Dharma. Allegiance, loyalty, devotion to what you have been practicing, what you have seen happening all around you, what a majority of people believe in, that is not Dharma, because Dharma is supposed to take you to a point beyond yourself and instead of going to a point beyond yourself, you’re committing yourself to objects within your own mental Universe, thoughts, feelings, this, that, that is not Dharma, right?
Also, it is timely here to refute the popular notion, that all religions take you towards the same end. No, that’s not the truth at all, no. Religion that begins in just belief will ultimately make you a big store house of beliefs.
And you know, who is a person who lives too much in beliefs? As we said, a mad man. What differentiates an insane person from a healthy one? The insane person has a lot of beliefs. He will say, “I believe that I have six legs. I believe that I am the richest person in the world.” And he is totally convinced of what he’s saying. This is what you can also call as bigotry. This is bigotry, I am convinced of what I am saying, why? Because the fellow who indoctrinated me was convinced of what he was saying. So, this way this is a chain of very insane kind of foundationless confidence, baseless assertion of one’s thoughts.
Questioner: So, the next question was regarding evolution of a civilization and then when a civilization evolves do we need Sanatan Dharma?
Acharya Prashant: So, what is the basis of the question first of all? Why do we need civilization and why will a civilization evolve at all, you see? We could have as well continued to live in the jungle, right? We came out of the jungle and we built these houses, these roads, these schools, these institutions, that’s what we call as civilization, right? And then we taught our children a few things and we said, “There has to be a certain way of life, there has to be a way you address your juniors, your seniors, there has to be a certain decorum in relationships,” and we said, “That is culture.”
Why do we need civilization and culture? We need civilization and culture because we want peace, otherwise the jungle is sufficient. Jungle is our Prakratic habitat. So, civilization is just an imperative of Dharma. Our Dharma is to move towards liberation; therefore, we need civilization of the kind that assists our movement towards liberation.
Civilization is not an end in itself. Civilization is a means towards fulfilling your Dharma. We do not just need broader roads and taller buildings to amplify our ego. If we need broader roads at all, then we need them to be relatively peaceful to engage ourselves in deeper pursuits. Otherwise, a two-hour journey takes eight hours and all the time these eight hours you are worrying about an impending accident. Obviously, that will not allow you to be meditative or attentive towards any deep thing in life.
When we were in the jungle, we didn’t have houses. So, there were bugs and mosquitoes pestering us all the time. So, in such a situation it became very difficult to concentrate, let alone meditate. Can you imagine, you’re sitting on the ground and there are insects around and some insect is biting on your thigh and the odd mosquito and really big one, is sitting on your nose and you want to think about life and death, how will you do that? Instead of life and death, you are thinking about flies and mosquitoes.
So, to move from flies to life, we came to the cities and that has to be remembered. We didn’t come to the cities so that we could consume more or ingratiate ourselves more. We did not come to the cities so that we could please our ego all the more, that was not at all the objective, though that’s what we might be doing today. The objective was to have more peace in our external space, so that we can devote ourselves to higher pursuits in life.
That’s why we build these houses, these communities, these roads, these schools, these hospitals. Otherwise, you know, how will you really think and discuss with people? You want a company of like-minded people, people of high consciousness and as you are sitting with them to discuss and deliberate on something, you are also worrying about the hyenas and the jackals and some beast growls in the distance and all your meditation is gone. So, that’s the reason why civilization is needed.
Similarly, culture, we do not need culture to boast of a rich tradition; as we do these days. We keep saying, “We have a rich tradition, we have a very ancient tradition.” Life itself is so small. What will you do with things ancient? Tomorrow you too will become ancient like everybody who is gone and done and dusted. So, neither civilization nor culture carry any importance by themselves. Their means towards the ultimate end of life and the ultimate end of life is Mukti, liberation, realization, whatever you want to call it.
So, I just do not know, I’m still wondering over the question, how one can say that since we are very civilized now; hence we do not need Dharma. It’s like saying that, since I have a Mercedes now therefore, I do not need a steering. I mean fine, civilization is the material thing like the Mercedes; the steering denotes the consciousness that drives the material thing. So, what will you do with the steering if you have a Mercedes? What do I say about it?
