333

RELIGION: A SUBSET OF DHARMA

MOUSUMI SAHA
Introduction:
Religion has been central to human life since prehistoric times. A large
number of great and noble acts came to be performed under the inspiration of
religions. So it is undeniable that religions occupy a remarkable place in our society.
‘We should not be far wrong in saying with Max Müller that the true history of man
is the history of religion’ (Edwards, 1924 p. 9). We have many theories as to the
origin of religions, but what looks prominent among them is that religion is originated
by the man himself to content his own spiritual aspiration. But today’s society, under
the banner of religions, is going through many man-made tragedies that pull down
our mutual trust. Similarly, although dharma is the greatest and the most valuable
contribution of India to humanity, yet it is sometimes understood as merely a
theological category, a closed system of faiths composed of divinity and dogmatism.
Moreover, many people conflate religion with dharma and use the two in the same
sense. So, the following questions that come to our mind are quite natural: What is
dharma? What sense dharma is synonymous with religion? What basic differences are
there between dharma and religion? And how consistent is it to use ‘religion' as a
synonym of ‘dharma’? This article aims to seek answers to those questions so that we
can recognize dharma and religion in their true sense.

I
The Sanskrit term ‘dharma’ is so unique that no other term of any language
can render it. Of course, ‘dharma’ usually refers to many things, such as religion,
principle, and so on; but none of these terms can provide an adequate meaning of it.
However, we could recognize dharma in its true sense in the context of Hinduism
since it is inextricably engaged in the long tradition of Hinduism. Here, we need first
to expend few words about the origin of the word ‘Hindu’. As per its lexical meaning,
Hindu is ‘a native of Hindustan or India’. But as far as history is concerned, the word
‘Hindu’ was first used by the Persian king Darius-I to referring the people inhabiting
the entire land around both sides of the Indus river. Their lives did govern by a
particular way or principle, which got recognition as their dharma over time. And
later, this dharma came to be known gloriously as the Sanātanadharma since it has
been prevalent in Hindustan for a long time (Tiwari, 2009, p. xi). Now turn to the
 334

question: What is dharma? It is very challenging to provide an answer to it because

‘dharma’ has acquired a wide variety of meanings in its uses as in the sacred text of
Hinduism, the Ṛgveda. It has appeared in the hymns of the Ṛgveda either as an
adjective or a noun (in the form dharman) a minimum fifty-six times(Kane, 1930,
p.1). This indicates that the exact sense in which it is used is very difficult to be
grasped. However, by etymological explication, we can find ‘dharma’ deriving from
the Sanskrit root dhṛ, which means “to uphold, to support, to nourish” (p.1). And on
the basis of this root meaning, ‘dharma’ is found to be used in very few passages of
the Ṛgveda, such as Ṛg. I.187.1.62In this connection, even we may cite an exposition
from Mahābhāratathat seems to be quite adequate here. Therein Yudhisṭhira asked
Bhīsma to explain the meaning and scope of dharma, and Bhīsma replied:
It is most difficult to define Dharma. Dharma has been explained to be that
which helps the upliftment of living beings. Therefore, that which ensures
the welfare of living beings is surely dharma. The learned rishis have
declared that what sustains is Dharma.(Shanti Parva.109. 9-11)

So we can say that dharma is ‘that which upholds’ or ‘that without which nothing can
stand’, or ‘that which maintains the stability and harmony of the whole universe’.
Apart from this meaning, in the Ṛgveda, ‘dharma’ would mostly mean religious rites
or sacrifices (yajña)63 to gods that are instrumental to happiness and are enjoyed by
the Vedic adoration. Even the Vedas have accorded profound value on yajña for the
description of this world. “The world comes to be through yajña, is maintained by
yajña, and man's well-being in the world is ensured by yajña” (Koller, 1972, p. 134).
Consequently, during that period, people felt the obligation to performing rites to
attain their desired goals that Vedic injunctive passages indicate. Thus yajña came up
as people’s duties or dharma. Here yajña and dharma may be seemed identical, but it
is not the case. Because, yajña does merely mean the effects of yajña i.e. maintenance
of order, while dharma adds something more to its concept as it causes desired
change in the structure and sequence of the universe through conformation with the
highest law (ṛta) of the ultimate reality. That’s why we may understand the concept
of dharma more sharply with relation to ṛta.

pituṃ nu stoṣaṃ maho dharmāṇaṃ taviṣīm |

63
samidhānaḥsahasrajidagnedharmāṇipuṣyasi| (Ṛg. V.26.6.)
 335

Literally, ṛta means “the course of things”. But in the context of the Ṛgveda,
it means the highest, the immutable order of the highest reality which has issued this
manifest reality. In this sense, ṛta is ‘the actual coursing of the highest reality’, the
supreme order, concerning it any other order or rule is subordinate. Moreover, it is
not the subject of the violation; even devas abide by it. The whole universe is being
nourished, sustained, and ordered according to it. Not only that, but it also regulates
human conduct as a moral order. It illuminates the right way to move on from evil to
good. And this becomes evident in so prayer to Indra: “O Indra, lead us on the path of
ṛta on the right path over all evils”64. So, ṛta is regarded as the all-pervading cosmic
order which maintains harmony in the natural and moral world and society.

In connection to ṛta, dharma is the law of function for an individual to

participate in the highest reality of which it is a manifestation. This participation
becomes substantial through the essential property of things, without which things do
not sustain. Therefore, both the aspects of a thing –‘essential nature’ and ‘function of
participating’- may be considered dharma. For example, attraction is the essential
property of a magnet since a magnet cannot be a magnet without having the property
of attracting. Thus, this property becomes an upholder to its being. On such
understanding, we can say attraction is the dharma of a magnet through which it
participates in the ultimate reality. Now we can formulate a relation between yajña,
ṛta, and dharma. The effect of yajña is the desired change in the order of reality, the
function of yajña (dharma) is the changing of the order of reality, and ṛta is the
ultimate order of reality. So these are very closely related to each other and are
normative as well as ontological. The being (sat) of reality and its function (ṛta) do
not carry bear any difference. Sat or being is the manifestation of the highest reality,
while ṛta promotes the security and stability of the sat. Satya, ‘the principle of
conformity to the sat’ as an abstract substantive, is fundamental as a principle to the
reality (ṛta). These are treated identically in the Vedas and Upaniṣads.

64
vayam indra tvāyavaḥ sakhitvam ā rabhāmahe |
ṛtasya naḥ pathā nayāti viśvāni duritā nabhantām anyakeṣāṃ jyākā adhi dhanvasu ||
(Ṛg. X.133.6)
 336

Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad (I.4.14) has shown the identity between ṛta and dharma
thus: “That righteousness is verily truth. Therefore they say about a person speaking
of truth, ‘He speaks of righteousness’, or about a person speaking of righteousness,
‘He speaks of truth’, for both these are but righteousness” (Madhavānanda, 1950, p.
178).This discussion, to some extent, makes it decisive that the term ‘dharma’ is used
basically in the sense of duty, obligation, and righteousness.

Thereafter, some duties were imprinted in scriptures for people to maintain

social stability, harmony, and to sustain the structure of society. These duties are
divided into two heads: universal (sādhāraṇa) and specific (Varnāśrama). The
Universal duties comprise such “obligations which are binding on every one”
(Prasad,1981, p. 57). For example, faith in virtue, non-injury, devotion to the good of
all creatures, etc. And the specific duties are “obligations relative to one's caste and
stage of life” (p. 57). There are the four different castes or varṇas - Brāhmaṇa,
Kṣatriya, Vaiśya, and Śȗdra, and four different stages of life - Brahamacarya,
Gārhastha, Vānaprastha, and Sannyāsa in Indian traditional culture. So, the duties
prescribed for different stages of life of a man belonging to a particular caste are
called Varṇāśramadharma.

The term ‘dharma’ is also used to refer to an object of human desire in the
Indian traditional concept of puruṣārtha, wherein dharma is the foremost puruṣārtha
and the ensuing two puruṣārthas, i.e. artha and kāma, are described to be enjoyed
under the surveillance of dharma. Even it was thought that the ultimate puruṣārtha,
viz. mokṣa remains unattainable if we fail to perform dharma. In this regard, T. M. P.
Mahadevan (1962) said: “While it is admitted that mokṣa, and not dharma,is the
supreme end, the sole intrinsic value, it is clearly and undoubtedly taught by all
Indian thinkers that, without dharma, mokṣa cannot be gained” (p. 479). So dharma is
not only the regulating principle of the remaining three puruṣārtha, but it has an
intrinsic value also. However, there is debate on the priority between dharma and
mokṣa. In Indian tradition, we find two types of theory concerning puruṣārthas,
namely, trivarga and caturvarga. The theory of caturvarga holds that the ultimate
end and the highest value of human life is mokṣa, and as the theory of trivarga has
skipped this truth it is unsystematic. As opposed to this, the theory of trivarga argues
 337

that mokṣa cannot be an object of desire since in that case it would be ceased to kāma;
thus incurring mokṣa in the concept of puruṣārthas does not make caturvarga really
systematic. In this regard, Prasad (1981) remarked that the theory of trivarga presents
a functional scheme of human values because it seems to have been inspired by an
insight that all puruṣārthas are meaningful only in relational human complex
“obligating them to perform various functions so that society and the individuals
composing it may live a life which they not only like to live but is also worth living”
(p. 56). Since mokṣa is not functional but an individualistic value, dharma may be
considered as the highest or supreme value of human life. So we can say the pursuit
of the trio (artha, kāma, and dharma) together is not only quantitatively richer but
qualitatively better than the quad (artha, kāma, and dharma, mokṣa) from the
perspective of social welfare and harmony.
II

Now, we should turn to see what the meaning of religion is to grasp the
relationship between dharma and religion. Throughout the ages, religion has been an
inspirational power in the life of many people. All religions, like Christianity,
Judaism, Islam, etc. that we find throughout the world are denotations of the word
‘religion’. But the question is, what makes all these traditions coming under the same
term ‘religion’? This question leads us to find the “essence” of all religions to
understand the connotation through which we can reach the heart of religion. But the
problem here is to identify one common characteristic feature for all religions.
Because the religions of Middle-East origin, like Christianity, Judaism, Islam have
faith in the existence of a single God, while so-called religions of Indian origin either
involve polytheism or are reluctant to believe in God, as are Buddhism and Jainism.
That there are differences regarding the acceptance and nature of Supreme Authority,
the rituals, the practices, and all that sort of things between every two religions as
well as groups of religion. That’s why it is very difficult to find any connotative
definition of ‘religion’. However, we can initiate our endeavour by undergoing its
etymological meaning. Etymologically the word ‘religion’ is derived from Latin
words, first ‘religio’ which means ‘respect for the sacred’ and, and
secondly,‘religãre’which means ‘to bind together’ in the sense of obligation. So,
from this origin, religion may be understood as a set of beliefs and practices that
 338

helps humans to have an experience of kinship under some sort of sacred or spiritual
integrity amidst a human group. However, historically the word ‘religion’ carries
multiple meanings according to the different stages religion has passed through. At
the primitive age, it was identified with magic which was something mystical
performance did to control unexplained natural phenomena, such as lightning, rain,
floods, and the like. During that period people who had denied the power of magic
were called ‘irreligious’. At the next stage, it was understood as a divine power that
causes all those phenomena, and rituals, practices, etc. were arranged to have the
intervention of that power to control the phenomena. After then, that divine power
gradually came to be known as gods, or the God, and the concept of religion involves
faith in many goddesses or a single God, worship, salvation, morality, etc. In
consonance with this history, the Oxford Dictionary holds that religion involves ‘the
belief in the worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or
gods’. We experience that Abrahamic religions, viz. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam
are predominately accepted here as organized religions and by finding out their
common characteristics religion is defined for general. These religions share the
common characteristics of “belief in one God (Yahweh/God/Allah), one prophet
(Moses/Jesus/Mohammad), one scripture (the Torah/the Bible/ the Quran), one Day
of Judgement (Yom HaDin/al-Qiyāmah)” (Paranjpe, 2013, p. 9) and a unified method
of worship. So the conception of religion involves “a belief in God as the creator of
the universe, a central revelation of God, a messenger of that revelation, a central
book containing the life and the sayings of that messenger of God, a central code of
commandments” (Chaturvedi, 1993, p. 39). There are many interpretations regarding
religion on which the prevalence of those common characteristics is noticeable at the
academic level. We can say, for instance, of James Martineau (1889) who thinks
religion is the “belief in an Ever-living God, that is, a Divine Mind and Will ruling
the Universe and holding Moral relations with mankind”(p. 1). Religion, in E.B.
Tylor’s words cited in Encyclopaedia of Religion & Ethics (1919), is “the belief in
spiritual beings”(p. 663).For Emile Durkheim (1912/2001), “a religion is a unified
system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart
and surrounded by prohibitions-beliefs and practices that unite its adherents in a
single moral community called a Church” (p. 46). Well, such interpretations give us
an idea of religion, which is identified with a form of belief either in God, in sacred
 339

things, or in spiritual beings. Now we step onto our next section to understand the
relationship between dharma and religion.
III

To understand the relationship between religion and dharma accurately, it is

important to know the differences between them. But we first need to know the
particular sense of dharma being used as a synonym of religion. In this regard, I like
to recall the view of K.N. Tiwari. In his book Comparative Religion, he said that
every traditional religion has two essential features- (1) each one carries certain
specific convictions or beliefs concerning the world-and-life situation as a whole, and
(2) under these convictions, each one ascertains a specific way of life for its
adherents. We have already noticed that even dharma fulfils these two basic
conditions of religion while discussing the first section of this article. A like
accredited religions, dharma also asks for a way of life based on some specific,
spiritualistic convictions for the sake of setting the world and life in unison for a
meaning. In this specific sense, dharma can be understood as a synonym of religion.
But this does not mean that dharma is equivalent to religion. Actually, all the
apparent similarities we think and perceive between dharma and religion are just the
tip of the iceberg; a huge dissimilarity remains unperceived between them just like
the unperceived mass beneath the surface of the water. Let’s see what differences are
there between them.

1) Almost every religion of the world has a specific history of origin with a
specific founder. But dharma came down to people through eternity. It has no
specific date of origin. Although it is associated with the names of many
sages and saints, none of them is regarded as the founder of it. Actually, all
they have done is just trying to make the whole thing apprehensible to all in
their own particular ways. Thus, they have added their contribution to the
evolution of dharma. Similarly, most religions have a definite text such as the
Bible for Christian, the Quran for Islam. But dharma emerges from many
different kinds of literature, such as the Vedas, the Upaniṣadas, the
Dharmaśȗtras, Dharmaśāstras, etc., none of which can claim the exclusive
authority of dharma.
 340

2) Dharma is more liberal and less rigid compared to religions. Any person can
follow the way of dharma: a polytheist, as well as a monotheist, a believer in
a personal God, or a non-believer; all may lead their lives somehow on the
way of dharma. Dharma is understood to unite every being of this universe
with a universal principle, while religion can hardly avoid making some
differences between sects as per their own beliefs and practices.
3) Religion is different from dharma in view of salvation too. Every religion has
some definite rules and practices regarding salvation, and each believer must
follow the instructions of his own religion for salvation. But dharma does not
prescribe only one means for moksha. There are several ways of salvation, in
our understanding of dharma, and one can choose according to his belief,
temperament, and inherent quality. That is to say, we say, the persons who
are pursuer of knowledge follow the jñānmārga for salvation, while those
who are industrious and always energetic in performing actions and they have
the quality of achievement may follow the karmamārga. And those whose
heart contains devotion to God may follow bhaktimārga etc.
Conclusion:
The differences between dharma and religion we noted above are no doubt
significant, but these differential chords do not always imply that they are
contradictory as such. One is deeply connected with the other in terms of our
spiritual development. Dharma aims at establishing society on a profound moral
basis, and religions, too, aim at performing the same end. But many people fail to
grasp the true meanings of these two, and as a result, we often experience moral
decay in our society. For example, if we look at Varṇāśramadharma, we would see
that it was maintained duly on the basis of merit and deeds at the Vedic age; but its
glory got faded when it had passed aside of its original goal somewhere in its long
journey due to perhaps socio-economic and political changes and came to be admitted
on the basis of birth. And from all this, casteism (jāti-prathā) has evolved and started
indulging people towards the idea of caste segregation, which we are sometimes
experiencing with so insensitivity. However, if we encourage the meaning dharma is
as an inherent human quality, we may bring all humans under one fold with the sense
of humanity irrespective of caste, class, gender, and all that, and declare “Vasudhaiva
Kutumbakam”. Hence, following Rabindranath Tagore, we may say that worshiping
 341

in the temple, lightening the candles, or praying five times in a mosque is not
something that dharma is. Dharma is the quality or attribute of something that holds
the thing and being in all its aspects. And, if the dharma of fire is burn, if the dharma
of the sword is sharpness, then the dharma of all humans is humanity. Hence the
scope of dharma is much wider than that of religion, and it is inaccurate to say that
dharma and religion are synonymous rather religion may be considered as a subset of
dharma.

References
1. Chaturvedi, B. (1993). Dharma, India and the World Order. United Kingdom: Phal-
Rugenstein and Saint Andrew Press.
2. Dasgupta, S. (1961). Development of Moral Philosophy in India. Bombay: Orient Longmans.
3. Durkheim, E. (©2001). The Elementary Forms of Religious Life. Carol Cosman (Trans.). New
York: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1912)
4. Edwards. D. Miall. (1924). The Philosophy of Religion. New York: George H. Doran
5. Hastings, J.(Ed.). (1919). Encyclopaedia of Religion & Ethics (Vol. X.). New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons.
6. Kane, P. V. (1930). History of Dharmasastra (Vol. I.). Poona: Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute Press.
7. Koller, J. M. (1972). Dharma: An expression of Universal order. Philosophy East and West, 22
(2), 131-144.
8. Madhavananda Swami (Trans.). (1950). The BṛhadāraṇyakaUpaniṣad. Almora:
AdvaitaAshrama.
9. Mahadevan, T. M. P. (1962) Indian ethics and social practice. In C.A. Moore (Ed.),Philosophy
and culture East and West (Reprint, 1968). U.S.A.: The University of Hawaii Press.
10. Martineau, J. (1889). A Study of Religion (Vol. I., 2nd ed., Revised). Oxford: The Clarendon
Press.
11. Paranjpe, A. C. (©2013). The Concept of Dharma: Classical Meaning, Common
Misconceptions and Implications for Psychology. Psychology and Developing Societies, 25 (1)
1-20.
12. Prasad, R. (1981). The Theory of Puruṣārthas: Revaluation and Reconstruction. Journal of
Indian Philosophy, 9 (1), 49-76.
13. Tiwari, K. N. (2009). Comparative Religion (2nd ed., Reprint, 2014). Delhi:
MotilalBanarasidass.