Why I Am a Sanatani?
- Jun 3
- 29 min read
Updated: Jul 2
A Philosophical Exploration Across World Traditions
The declaration “Ahaṁ Sanātanī asmi” is far more than a mere affirmation of religious affiliation — it is a conscious articulation of a darśana (philosophical vision), a framework to anubhūyate (experience), vivecayati (discern), and niścayena gacchati (aspire with resolve) towards the parama-puruṣārtha (highest purpose) of life. This exploration is an inner journey into such a personal śraddhā (deep conviction), examining its core tenets through the rich and diverse landscape of global philosophical and spiritual traditions.
The intent here is not to sāmyavādaḥ (equate all) or to sādhāraṇīkaraṇaṁ (generalize) this uniquely Sanātana-darśana, but to illuminate its viśeṣa-rūpa (distinct form), its sūkṣma-svarūpa (subtle nature), and its yogadānaṁ (contribution) to the timeless human pursuit of satya (truth) and arthavattā (meaning).
The Sanātanī-dṛṣṭi (worldview of a Sanātanī) rests upon pañca-mūla-niścayāḥ (five foundational convictions):
Parama-Tattva-Niṣṭhā (Conviction in an Absolute Reality Beyond Relativities)
A steadfast niṣṭhā (abiding conviction) in the existence of a parama-tattva (Absolute Reality) — a foundational, ultimate truth that transcends both the bāhya (objective) and āntara (subjective), the nāma (name) and rūpa (form). Whether conceived as advitīya (non-dual), dvaita (dual), or anirvacanīya (beyond description), this Reality is held to be the ground of all that is — not merely as a metaphysical postulate but as a profound existential truth. It is the mūla-svarūpa (root essence) underlying the flux of appearances, beyond mental constructs, and independent of perception.
Svatantra-Mārga-Sammatiḥ (Freedom to Choose One’s Own Path to the Truth)
A profound sammatiḥ (affirmation) of each individual’s svatantratā (freedom) to pursue their own adhyātmika-mārgaḥ (spiritual or philosophical path) — to read whichever śāstra (scripture), granthāḥ (texts), or darśanāni (worldviews) resonate with their buddhi (intellect) and hṛdaya (heart), and to follow any matam (religious or non-religious belief system) that nurtures their journey toward the paramārtha (ultimate meaning). Whether one walks the path of jñāna, bhakti, karma, yoga, or any other sampradāya (tradition) or innovation, all are respected as valid expressions of the human quest for truth. This is the spirit of mārga-ānurūpa-sammānaḥ — honoring the diversity of means without imposing uniformity of ends.
Svatantra-Vicāra-Prayogaḥ (Commitment to Free Inquiry and Rational Testing)
A dedication to svatantra-vicāra (free and independent thought), grounded in tarka (logical reasoning), anubhava (personal experience), and even parīkṣaṇa (critical examination) — transcending kaṭhina-dogmāḥ (rigid dogmas). This conviction honors both pramāṇa-vādaḥ (epistemic methods) and apavādaḥ (falsifiability), encouraging an ever-evolving engagement with truth.
Sampūrṇa-Puruṣārtha-Pariśīlanaṁ (Pursuit of Holistic Life Purpose)
A belief in a life purpose that transcends mere jīvita-sthiti (survival) and aims toward sampūrṇatā (wholeness), guided by Sanātana-Dharma (eternal order), niyamāḥ (ethical disciplines), maryādāḥ (social codes), and the harmonious cultivation of the catuṣṭaya-puruṣārtha (fourfold aims of life): Dharma (righteous living), Artha (material well-being), Kāma (legitimate desires) and Mokṣa (liberation from bondage)
Anugraha-bhāvitam Bhaviṣyat (Empowering Future Generations)
A deep sense of kārya-bhāraḥ (responsibility) to nurture and empower anujāḥ (future generations), enabling them to continue this holistic, adhyātma-pathaḥ (spiritual journey), armed with wisdom, viveka (discernment), and sāmarthya (capacity).
This article will navigate each of these niścayāḥ (convictions), drawing samāna-bindavaḥ (convergences) and viśeṣa-bhedāḥ (distinctions) with diverse world traditions — from the tattva-jñāna (metaphysics) of the East and West to the contemplative and existential insights of modern thought. Sanātana Dharma, often rendered as “eternal order” or “universal law,” serves as a resonant framework for this inquiry — one that embraces the nityatā (timelessness) and sarvavyāpitā (universality) of principles that have guided manuṣyajāti (humankind) for millennia in its search for jñāna, śānti, and mukti.
I. Adṛṣṭa-Sūtraḥ — Parama-Tattva-Niṣṭhā (Conviction in an Absolute Ground of Reality)
Ekaḥ paratvaṁ bhuvanasya mūlaṁ, nāma-rūpa-vyavahāra-bāhyam |
yenaiva sarvaṁ pratibhāti loke, taṁ satyam avyaktam anantam īḍe ||
Translation:
One Absolute, the root of all the worlds,
Beyond all dealings in name and form;
By which alone all things appear in life —
That unseen, boundless Truth I praise.
The first stambhaḥ (pillar) of this Sanātanī-dṛṣṭi (worldview) is a niścitā niṣṭhā (firm conviction) in a parama-tattva (supreme, ultimate reality) — a mūla-ādhāraḥ (fundamental ground) from which all existence emerges. This truth transcends bāhya-āntara-bhedaḥ (outer and inner distinctions), and whether one conceives it as advitīya (non-dual), dvaita (dual), or anirvacanīya (indescribable), it remains the adhikaraṇa (locus) of all satya (truth).
In Bhāratiya-darśana, this tattva finds its most potent expression as Brahman — described in the Taittirīya Upaniṣad as satyaṁ jñānaṁ anantaṁ brahma (truth, knowledge, and infinity) (TU 2.1.1), and in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad as the ungraspable, infinite basis of all being (BU 3.8.8). Brahman is both upādāna-kāraṇa (material cause) and nimitta-kāraṇa (intelligent cause), as declared in the Brahma Sūtra: janmādy asya yataḥ (BS 1.1.2), and elaborated upon in Śaṅkara’s Bhāṣya. While Advaita Vedānta asserts the non-dual identity of Ātman and Brahman, other schools like Viśiṣṭādvaita (Rāmānuja) and Dvaita (Madhva) maintain nuanced distinctions — all while affirming the primacy of a singular parama-sattā (supreme reality).
A parallel articulation emerges in Taoism, where the Dao is presented in the Dao De Jing as the anirdeśya-niyati (inexpressible natural order): “The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao” (Dao De Jing, Ch.1)
This anāmā tattva (nameless principle), as interpreted by Ames and Hall (2003), is the svabhāvika-vyavasthā (spontaneous order) underlying the laukika-vicitrāṇi (worldly diversities), realized not through abstraction but through jīvana-anubhava (embodied experience).
In Yavana-darśana (Greek philosophy), Plotinus describes “The One” in the Enneads (5.1–5.4) as a nirguṇa-ekam (attributeless unity), the source from which all reality emanates (prohodos). Gerson (1994) emphasizes its avikalpa-svarūpa (undivided nature), aligning with the nirvikalpa-brahman of Vedānta. In contrast, Parmenides, through his fragments (esp. Fragment 8), posits Being as a niścalam ekam sat (unchanging, singular reality), arguing that change and plurality are mere illusions. Though his ontological rigidity contrasts with Brahman’s dynamic potency, both articulate a metaphysical eka-tattva behind appearance.
Jewish mysticism offers Ein Sof — “the Infinite” — as the divine anantatva (limitlessness) in its most primordial state. As Gershom Scholem details in Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, Ein Sof remains transcendent, with all engagement with creation mediated through Sefirot, akin to the saguṇa aspect of Brahman manifesting via māyā or śakti.
In Bauddha-darśana, especially in Mādhyamika, Nāgārjuna asserts in the Mūlamadhyamakakārikā (MMK 24:18): “All dharmas are without svabhāva (inherent nature).”
Here, śūnyatā is not abhāva (non-being), but niḥsvabhāva-sattā (being devoid of independent essence). Likewise, nirvāṇa is described as the asaṁskṛta-dhātu (unconditioned realm), beyond conceptual grasp. Jay Garfield’s translation of MMK and Rahula’s interpretation make clear that although Buddhism refrains from positing a substantive Absolute, its metaphysical ground — whether as śūnyatā or nirvāṇa — aligns with the Sanātanī principle of a parama-nisṛtiḥ (supreme release) from conditioned existence.
In ādhunika-darśana, Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time reframes Sein (Being) as the prakāśaka-tattva (disclosing principle), not an entity, but the niyāmaka (enabler) of beings’ appearance. Heidegger’s ontological difference (between Being and beings) echoes Vedānta’s brahma-jagat-bheda-vicāra, and Caputo (1978) explores its mystical undertones, affirming Being as ever-withdrawn, non-objectifiable, and thus, ineffable.
African traditional philosophies, too, articulate a parama-īśvaraḥ. According to Mbiti (1969) and Idowu (1962), deities like Olodumare (Yoruba), Chukwu (Igbo), and Nyame (Akan) represent sarvavyāpī-śaktiḥ (all-pervading power), often mediated through ancestral or natural divinities — echoing the devatā-prakriyā (divine hierarchy) in Bhāratiya dharma.
Lastly, Process Philosophy, through Alfred North Whitehead’s Process and Reality (1929), introduces a dynamic absolute. Whitehead’s dipolar God, explored further by Cobb and Griffin (1976), is primordial yet responsive, participating in world-becoming. This pravāha-satya (truth as flux) contrasts the kūṭastha-nityatā (immutable stillness) of classical Brahman but still affirms a supreme ordering principle.
Amid these diverse articulations, a sādhāraṇa-sūtraḥ (unifying thread) is evident — the avācya-tā (ineffability) of the Absolute. Be it Brahman, Dao, The One, Ein Sof, or Śūnyatā, each is described as beyond all predication — transcending buddhi-vyāpāra (intellect), vāc-sāmarthya (language), and saṅkalpa-vikalpa (conceptual dichotomies). This shared insight fosters jñāna-vinayaḥ (epistemic humility) and an openness to multiple symbolic expressions of satya (truth), naturally guiding us to the second Sanātanī conviction: the embrace of plural mārga-s (paths) without contradiction.
Thus, the Sanātanī commitment to parama-tattva-niṣṭhā is not a doctrinal rigidity, but a jijñāsā-bhāvaḥ (spirit of inquiry) into the eka-sattā (singular reality) — flexible enough to encompass both substance metaphysics and process ontologies, both personal and impersonal Absolutes, all within the vast yoga-kṣema (spectrum) of human comprehension and transcendence.
II. Bahavaḥ Nadyaḥ Ekaṁ Sāgaraṁ: Nāna-Mārga-Sammatiḥ (Acceptance of Diverse Paths)
anekamārgeṣu sadekamārgaḥ, vicitrajāle’pi ca tattvabodhaḥ |
yasyaiva mūlaṁ satataṁ sanātnaṁ, sa mārga-bhedān api bibhrati ekaḥ ||
Translation:
Though the paths are many, the aim remains one;
Even amidst diverse webs, the truth shines through.
He who is rooted in the eternal foundation,
Embraces the manifold, yet abides as one.
The second niścayaḥ (conviction) of the Sanātanī-darśana affirms that nānā-pramāṇya-mārgaḥ (many valid paths) may lead to the bodha (understanding) and anubhava (realization) of the parama-tattva (Absolute Reality). This is not merely a stance of tolerance, but a dṛḍha-darśana (deep philosophical insight) into the nature of satya (truth) itself — its complexity, its cultural shaping, and its infinite approachability.
This principle finds one of its earliest and most enduring expressions in the Ṛgveda: “Ekaṁ sat viprā bahudhā vadanti” (ṚV 1.164.46) —“Truth is one; the wise speak of it in many ways.”
This mantra is the foundational mahāvākya of Hindu pluralism, asserting that satya is eka (singular) but the vāṇī (voices) describing it are manifold. Complementing this is the doctrine of adhikāra-bhedaḥ, which teaches that different individuals possess varying adhikāraḥ (eligibility or capacity) to approach truth. As the Mīmāṁsakas and Vedāntins have long held, jñāna must be yathādhikāraṁ (in accordance with one’s temperament, karma, and inner evolution). Therefore, Sanātana Dharma recognizes nānā-panthaḥ — innumerable valid paths — as śreyas (beneficial) and sambhāvya (possible), suited to the bhāva (disposition) of the sādhaka (seeker).
The Perennial Philosophy, revived in modern times by thinkers such as Aldous Huxley (The Perennial Philosophy, 1945) and Huston Smith (The World’s Religions, 1958), affirms a strikingly similar stance: that a single metaphysical Reality underlies all genuine religious traditions. Huxley articulates a “Minimum Working Hypothesis” stating that (1) there is a Ground of Being both transcendent and immanent, (2) human beings can directly experience this Reality, and (3) such realization is the telos of life. This view mirrors the Vedāntic puruṣārtha (aim of human life), especially mokṣa, as the culmination of spiritual realization, irrespective of the mārga.
Philosopher John Hick further refines this pluralism by introducing the concept of the “Real an sich”, borrowing from Kantian epistemology (An Interpretation of Religion, 1989). He suggests that different religions are culturally mediated responses to the same transcendent noumenon — the Real — interpreted through distinct language-games and mythic-symbolic structures. Thus, the differences in dogma (e.g., personal God, impersonal Brahman, Nirvāṇa) are not contradictions of essence but variations in upādhi (conditioned expression). This aligns with the Sanātanī view that nāma-rūpa-vividhatvam (diversity of names and forms) does not negate ekatvaṁ (unity of essence).
This vision of universal spiritual convergence is also deeply woven into the fabrics of several other traditions:
In the Bahāʼī Faith, the idea of progressive revelation teaches that Divine Manifestations — from Abraham, Zarathustra, Krishna, Buddha, Christ, Muḥammad, to Bahāʼu’lláh — arise in different ages, suited to their kāla-deśa (time and place). This is adhikāra-bheda universalized.
Sufism, particularly in the thought of Jalāluddīn Rūmī and Ibn ‘Arabī, affirms Wahdat al-Wujūd — the Unity of Being. All forms are seen as tajallī (manifestations) of the Divine Essence. Rūmī’s verses echo the Vedic pluralism:
“The lamps may be different, but the Light is the same.” This parallels Chāndogya Upaniṣad’s assertion: sarvaṁ khalvidaṁ brahma (All this is verily Brahman, CU 3.14.1).
Jainism’s doctrine of Anekāntavāda (non-one-sidedness) articulates the epistemic humility that no single viewpoint can fully capture the truth. According to the Syādvāda principle, each assertion is context-dependent — a principle that aligns closely with the Sanātanī respect for partial truths (yathābhūta-jñānam).
Unitarian Universalism, a modern syncretic spiritual path, openly encourages seekers to draw from multiple traditions and philosophies, embodying the vividhābhiṣekaḥ (multi-sourced consecration) approach of the Ṛṣi-paramparā.
The Sanātanī-dṛṣṭi, thus, stands in contrast to religious exclusivism, which often posits that salvation or truth is possible only through a singular revelation or textual orthodoxy. Such assertions — as found in John 14:6 (“No one comes to the Father except through me”) or in the Islamic Qur’an 3:85 (“Whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him”) — reflect niyamita-mārgatva-vādaḥ (belief in a fixed salvific path). These are valid within their own traditions, but the Sanātanī approach offers a jagat-darśana (cosmic perspective) that recognizes the upa-paryāya-satyatā (multi-referential truthfulness) of all genuine spiritual striving.
If the parama-tattva is truly avācya (inexpressible), as established in the prior section, then it follows naturally that human attempts to access it will be many, mānasika-vibhinnatvā (due to diversity of minds), and all asambhāvyaika-nayaḥ (unlikely to be exclusive). As Hick maintains, different conceptual lenses (cultural, linguistic, philosophical) yield different yet genuinely revelatory experiences of the Real — just as different prismatic filters reveal different facets of the same light.
The Ekaṁ Sat principle is not merely theological — it is epistemological. It invites aneka-pratibhāsāḥ (multiple appearances) without rejecting ekatva (unity). It implies that orthopraxy (right action and realization) may be more essential than orthodoxy (doctrinal correctness). Even within Hinduism, the multiplicity of darśanāni (schools of thought), from Sāṅkhya to Vedānta, and diversity of devatā-upāsanā (deity worship), affirms this yathā-yogyatā-samādhānaḥ — the resolution of the Absolute in a way appropriate to each seeker.
Thus, the Sanātanī sammatiḥ (acceptance) of diverse paths is a reflection not of adharma-sahishnutā (indifference to right and wrong), but of paramārtha-jñāna-bhedaḥ (recognition of graded spiritual insights). It critiques niṣṭhura-ekavāditā (rigid dogmatism) while honoring sādhanā-vaiśvarūpyaṁ (diversity of practices), yāvat-jñāna-samarthyaṁ (as long as they lead toward realization).
III. Nirbandha-Cetāḥ: Svatantra-Vicāra-Niṣṭhā (Commitment to Free Thought and Critical Inquiry)
vicāra-śīlatā yatra, muktir yatra vivekinām |
na tatra bandhanaṁ nāma, nāpi vādopajīvitaḥ ||
Translation:
Where thought is free and inquiry deep,
There thrives the wise one’s path to peace.
No dogma binds, nor blind dispute—
But reason’s light makes truth complete.
The third niścayaḥ (core conviction) of the Sanātanī-dṛṣṭi is a bold affirmation of manasaḥ svātantryam — the sovereignty of the human intellect. This principle asserts: “I champion free inquiry and critical thinking. I strive to transcend rigid dogmas by encouraging an open exploration of truth, including approaches that involve verification and falsification.”
This is not mere modernism — it is a continuation of a pūrvapara-pravāhaḥ (continuous tradition) that runs through the heart of Bhāratiya-darśana. Far from blind submission, Sanātana Dharma has, at its core, celebrated vicāra (critical inquiry), tarka (reasoning), and pramāṇa-anusandhāna (epistemological investigation).
One of the most illustrious expressions of this is found in the Nyāya-darśana — the classical school of anvīkṣikī (logical analysis). Gautama Muni, the founder of the Nyāya-sūtras, lays out a systematic approach to knowledge acquisition using four pramāṇas (means of valid knowledge): pratyakṣa (perception), anumāna (inference), upamāna (analogy), and śabda (verbal testimony). The goal of Nyāya is not belief but pramā — well-grounded knowledge, attained through scrutiny and nirṇaya (discernment). The Nyāya-sūtra begins with an enumeration of the logical process: “pramāṇa-prameya-saṁśaya-prayojana-dṛṣṭānta-siddhānta…” (NS 1.1.1) A system devoted not to revelation alone, but to rational appraisal of reality.
Parallel to this, Bauddha-tarkaśāstra (Buddhist logic) flourished under Nāgārjuna, Dignāga, and Dharmakīrti. Dignāga and Dharmakīrti refined the analysis of pratyakṣa and anumāna, constructing a powerful epistemological realism grounded in experience and inference. Nāgārjuna, the founder of Mādhyamika, employed the method of prasaṅga (reductio ad absurdum), deconstructing essentialist metaphysics to reveal the śūnyatā (emptiness) of all svabhāva (inherent existence). This was not nihilism but a radical anti-dogmatic inquiry, exposing how all views — including Buddhist ones — are tools, not truths.
The Śāstrārtha-paramparā — the Vedic tradition of structured philosophical debate — further exemplifies this spirit. Scholars engaged in vāda-kathā (collaborative truth-seeking) or jalpa-kathā (contestatory debate), not merely for victory, but to samīkṣā (critically examine) divergent views. In these sabha-sadas (public assemblies), knowledge was not imposed but earned through śāstra-siddhi (scriptural and rational consistency). The presence of multiple darśanas — Sāṅkhya, Vedānta, Mīmāṁsā, Vaiśeṣika, and more — demonstrates a polycentric philosophical culture rooted in critical pluralism.
The Mīmāṁsakas, particularly Kumārila Bhaṭṭa, built intricate theories of śabda-pramāṇa (verbal testimony) grounded in rigorous tarka-vicāra. Their work on epistemology, hermeneutics, and semantics shows how even the exegesis of śruti (revelation) was subjected to systematic analysis, never blindly accepted.
Outside India, similar traditions flourished. The Socratic method, formulated by Socrates and recorded in the dialogues of Plato, emphasized elenchus — dialectical questioning to expose contradictions and refine understanding. Socrates did not provide answers; he midwifed them from his interlocutors. This mirrors the Sanātani emphasis on self-inquiry (ātma-vicāra) rather than doctrinal imposition.
The European Enlightenment brought forth thinkers like Pierre Bayle and David Hume, who questioned ecclesiastical authority and championed empirical skepticism. Bayle’s notion of the incomprehensibility of reality (acatalepsia) resonates with Vedāntic avācyatva — the ineffability of Brahman. Hume’s insistence on evidence over belief parallels the pramāṇa-based traditions of Nyāya and Mīmāṁsā.
The explicit reference to verification and falsification in the Sanātanī credo recalls modern scientific epistemology:
Verificationism, advocated by A. J. Ayer and Logical Positivists, insists that statements are only meaningful if they can be empirically verified or are tautologically true.
Karl Popper’s falsificationism, by contrast, declares that a claim is scientific if it can be potentially refuted by evidence. This criterion has become central to how modern science distinguishes itself from pseudo-science and untestable assertions.
While Sanātana Dharma does not reduce satya to the merely empirical, it does encourage anubhava-parīkṣaṇam — experiential testing. For instance, Rāja Yoga invites the seeker to verify its claims of inner transformation through pratyakṣa, while Jñāna Yoga relies on vichāra and nirvikalpaka-pratyaya (non-conceptual cognition) to validate higher states of awareness.
This openness naturally rejects dogmatism — understood here as niyamitam āgama-paratantratvam (unquestioned dependence on scripture or authority). Empiricism, both in ancient India and Enlightenment Europe, rose as a response to such śabda-pramāṇa-absolutism, and in so doing, revitalized the spirit of jignāsā (active inquiry).
Indeed, the very existence of multiple darśanas, each internally coherent yet mutually contesting, reflects a deep-rooted intellectual pluralism in Indic thought. As science evolved through falsifiability, so too did Indian philosophy through prasaṅga-vāda, tarka-samīkṣā, and śāstra-pramāṇa-samanvayaḥ (harmonization of scripture and reason).
That said, the application of verification/falsification in adhyātmika-viṣaya (spiritual domains) is subtle. Metaphysical claims — such as the nature of karma, mokṣa, or ātman — may not be amenable to parīkṣā via external instrumentation. However, as in Vedānta or Yoga, experiential verification through sustained sādhanā (practice) serves as the appropriate pramāṇa. Beliefs that fail ethical, rational, or experiential coherence may be subject to tarka-nirākṛtiḥ (critical rejection), echoing Popper’s falsification in a spiritual context.
The Nyāya-sūtras, for instance, accommodate śabda (testimony) and anumāna (inference) alongside pratyakṣa — a model that prefigures layered epistemology. This flexibility allows for a rational-metaphysical interface: not a rejection of the sacred, but a refusal to treat the apauruṣeya (impersonal revelation) as ayuktam (beyond reason).
Thus, a contemporary Sanātanī, engaging with the insights of Popper, Hume, and Sankara, is not merely reviving tradition — they are reinterpreting it dynamically, subjecting it to jñāna-parīkṣā, while respecting adhikāra-bheda (contextual eligibility). Their śraddhā is not blind but jñāna-siddhā — grounded in inquiry, experience, and reflective assimilation.
IV. Sattā-Saṅgītaḥ — Dharma-Mukta-Jīvana-Lakṣyaḥ (The Symphony of Existence: Holistic Purpose Guided by Dharma and Self-Liberation)
The caturtha-niścayaḥ (fourth foundational conviction) of the Sanātanī-dṛṣṭi affirms that life’s puruṣārtha (purpose) extends far beyond jīvita-pariṇāma (mere survival) and pratisaṁtānaḥ (reproduction). Instead, it points to a saṅgīta-rūpaṁ jīvanam — a symphony of harmonious living, guided by Dharma (righteousness), Niyama (ethical observance), and Maryādā (moral restraint), directed toward the realization of Jñāna (wisdom), Artha (material well-being), Kāma (legitimate pleasures), and culminating in Mokṣa (liberation of the will and being).
A. Nīti-Dhruvaḥ Mārgaḥ — Dharma, Niyama, Maryādā (The Ethical Compass)
dharmaḥ sanātanaḥ śuddhaḥ, niyamaiḥ saṁyataḥ śuciḥ |
maryādā-rakṣitaṁ jīvitaṁ, muktaye śreya āśrayet ||
Translation:
Dharma eternal, pure and bright,
With niyamas brings inward light.
A life within bounds, by virtue led,
Finds liberation’s path ahead.
The dhārmika-niveśaḥ that steers this purposeful life is rooted in the timeless principles of Sanātana Dharma, the inner disciplines of Niyama, and the dignified restraints of Maryādā.
Sanātana-Dharmaḥ: The Eternal Law
Sanātana Dharma refers not to sectarian religion but to nitya-niyama-kramaḥ — the eternal and universal principles that govern righteous living and cosmic harmony. Rooted in texts such as the Manusmṛti (6.92), which lists ahiṁsā satyam asteyaṁ śaucaṁ indriya-nigrahaḥ (non-violence, truth, non-stealing, purity, control of the senses), Sanātana Dharma encompasses sāmānya-dharmāḥ (universal virtues) like dayā (compassion), kṣamā (forbearance), dāna (charity), and śama-dama-tapas-saumya-lakṣaṇam (serenity, self-restraint, austerity, and gentleness). It is a cosmic-normative framework, not bound to historical events or revelations, but svarūpa-lakṣaṇaḥ — a self-revealed ideal.
Niyamāḥ: The Inner Disciplines
The Niyamāḥ (positive ethical observances) of Patañjali’s Yoga Sūtras (YS 2.32) articulate the inner foundations of a śuddha-jīvana-mārgaḥ (pure way of life):
Śauca — physical and mental purity
Santoṣa — contentment and gratitude
Tapas — disciplined austerity and transformation
Svādhyāya — scriptural self-study
Īśvarapraṇidhāna — surrender to or contemplation of the Īśvara (Supreme or the Highest Principle)
Together with the Yamāḥ — ahiṁsā (non-violence), satya (truth), asteya (non-stealing), brahmacarya (continence or right energy use), and aparigraha (non-hoarding) — these form the daśa-śīla-mūlaṁ (tenfold moral root) for ethical embodiment. These are not mere moral injunctions, but tools for inner citta-śuddhiḥ (purification of the mind), leading toward adhyātma-bodhaḥ (spiritual insight).
Maryādā: The Culture of Restraint and Propriety
Maryādā, etymologically rooted in māra + yā (to restrain, to move within bounds), denotes the dhārmika-sīmārekhāḥ (ethical boundaries) that structure personal behavior and societal order. It embodies the svadharma-niṣṭhā (integrity to one’s personal dharma), combining sadācāraḥ (good conduct) with maryādā-pālanaṁ (observance of appropriate limits) for collective harmony. As seen in Rāmāyaṇa, Śrī Rāma is revered as maryādā-puruṣottamaḥ — the embodiment of dharmic restraint and propriety.
Cross-Cultural Resonance
This Sanātanī nīti-darśanaḥ (ethical vision) finds profound echoes in several world traditions, each converging toward a life of virtue and liberation:
Aristotelian Virtue Ethics emphasizes aretē (excellence/virtue) and the cultivation of character to achieve eudaimonia (human flourishing). Phronesis (practical wisdom) guides action, much like viveka in Indian darśanas. As Aristotle posits in Nicomachean Ethics, virtue is hexis (a stable disposition), cultivated by repetition — a notion resonating with the abhyāsa of yama-niyamas.
Kantian Deontology holds duty (Pflicht) as the supreme moral principle. The Categorical Imperative — Act only on that maxim which you can will as a universal law — mirrors the sāmānya-dharma (universal ethical obligation) of Sanātana Dharma. Though Kant grounds this in pure reason, whereas Dharma invokes ṛta (cosmic order), both value nitya-kratuḥ (duty for its own sake).
Confucian Ethics upholds virtues like Rén (仁 — humaneness), Yì (義 — righteousness), and Lǐ (禮 — ritual propriety). The cultivation of self in relation to others and the emphasis on filial piety, social decorum, and wisdom closely parallels the triad of Dharma–Maryādā–Jñāna.
Bauddha-Śīla (Buddhist ethics), especially the pañca-śīlāni (Five Precepts), align with the Yamas: no killing (ahiṁsā), no stealing (asteya), no false speech (satya), no sexual misconduct (brahmacarya), and no intoxication (citta-saṁyamābhāva). The Aṣṭāṅga-mārga (Eightfold Path) further complements this via samyak-vāk, karmānta, and ājīva (Right Speech, Action, and Livelihood).
Islāmīya Ācāra-śāstra, grounded in Tawḥīd (unity), ‘Adl (justice), and Iḥsān (doing the beautiful), offers a holistic ethical code through Sharīʿah (divine law). The concept of Ādāb — manners and social propriety — mirrors maryādā, while the Maqāṣid al-Sharīʿah (objectives of law) — protection of dīn, nafs, ‘aql, nasl, māl (faith, life, intellect, lineage, and property) — converge with Dharma’s concern for cosmic and social balance.
In Yahūdīya-nīti-darśana (Jewish ethics), Halakhah provides a structured moral law akin to Dharmashāstra. Concepts like Tzedakah (righteousness/charity), Gemilut Ḥasadim (acts of lovingkindness), and Tikkun Olam (repairing the world) reveal shared dhārmic motifs — especially dāna, dayā, and loka-saṅgraha (world welfare).
Thus, the Sanātanī lakṣyaḥ is not isolated spiritual escape, but a śāśvata-jīvana-racanā — an eternal architecture of living in alignment with one’s svabhāva, svadharma, and parama-lakṣya (supreme aim). The pursuit of Artha and Kāma is not shunned but niyataḥ (regulated), channeled through Dharma, and oriented toward Mokṣa — not as negation of life, but its most refined culmination.
This is the symphony of existence envisioned in the Sanātanī path: where ethical cultivation, self-restraint, and compassionate engagement form the foundational chords, and liberation is the soaring note that transcends all fleeting desires and fears.
B. The Purusharthas: A Quadripartite Aim of Life
The Sanatani framework further elaborates life’s purpose through the four Purusharthas (aims of human life): Dharma (already discussed), Artha (wealth and well-being), Kama (legitimate pleasures), and Moksha (ultimate liberation). This structure provides a balanced approach to human existence, acknowledging diverse needs and aspirations.
1. Jnana (Knowledge and Wisdom)
The dedicated pursuit of Jnana signifies a profound commitment to understanding. In the Sanatani context, Jnana Yoga is the “path of knowledge” or “self-realization,” involving inquiry into fundamental questions like ‘Who am I?’ to discern the nature of the Self (Atman) and its relationship to the ultimate reality, Brahman. This path aims to discriminate between truth and non-truth, reality and illusion (maya).
This quest for liberating knowledge is a universal theme:
Buddhist Prajñā (Pali: Paññā) refers to wisdom or insight into the true nature of phenomena — specifically, their impermanence (anicca), inherent unsatisfactoriness (dukkha), lack of a permanent self (anattā), and emptiness (śūnyatā). Like Jnana, Prajñā is cultivated through a combination of learning (suta-maya-paññā), reflection (cinta-maya-paññā), and meditative or experiential realization (bhāvanā-maya-paññā). While both Jnana and Prajñā are transformative wisdom leading to liberation, the specific content of that wisdom (e.g., Atman-Brahman unity in Advaita Vedanta versus Anatta/Sunyata in Buddhism) presents crucial philosophical distinctions.
Confucian Learning places great emphasis on acquiring knowledge, not merely for its own sake, but for moral development and guiding knowledgeable action. Learning is seen as the vital medium that connects knowledge with virtuous conduct. While the focus is perhaps more on ethical and societal wisdom than on metaphysical realization in the Indic sense, the high value accorded to knowledge and its transformative potential is shared.
Western Epistemology, from Plato’s theory of Forms as objects of true knowledge to contemporary philosophical debates, has long grappled with the nature, sources, and limits of human knowledge. The Sanatani pursuit of Jnana represents a specific kind of epistemological quest — one aimed at ultimate, liberating insight into the nature of reality and the self.
2. Artha (Wealth and Well-being)
The “responsible generation and utilization of Artha” acknowledges the importance of material and social well-being. Artha encompasses career, skills, health, wealth, prosperity, and the means necessary for a fulfilling life. Crucially, in Hindu philosophy, the pursuit of Artha must always be regulated by Dharma (righteousness).
Other traditions also address the ethical pursuit of livelihood and well-being:
Buddhist Right Livelihood (Samma-ajiva), one of the components of the Noble Eightfold Path, advocates earning a living in a way that does not cause harm to oneself or others. This involves avoiding occupations such as dealing in weapons, intoxicants, or those that involve killing or exploitation. The emphasis is on ethical means and the overall well-being of humans and nature, aligning with the Sanatani concept of Artha guided by Dharma, though perhaps with less explicit focus on “prosperity” as a goal in itself and more on sustainability and non-harming.
The Confucian view on wealth is nuanced. While wealth itself is not considered the primary pursuit, it is acceptable and even necessary if rightfully attained. Confucius taught that the needs of the common people are paramount, and the accumulation of wealth can be a premise for self-cultivation and the construction of social harmony. This shares with the Sanatani view the ethical constraint on wealth acquisition, ensuring it serves broader individual and societal well-being.
Western economic philosophies present a wide spectrum, from capitalist models emphasizing wealth creation to various critiques of materialism and consumerism. The Sanatani concept of Artha offers a balanced perspective, advocating for well-being and prosperity but firmly embedding this pursuit within an overarching ethical and spiritual framework.
3. Kama (Legitimate Pleasures)
The “mindful indulgence in Kama” refers to legitimate pleasures that do not cause harm to oneself or others in thought, word, or deed. Kama signifies desire, wish, passion, pleasure, and the enjoyment of life, including sensory experiences, emotional connections, aesthetic appreciation, affection, and love. It is considered a proper and necessary goal of human life, to be pursued without violating Dharma and Artha.
The pursuit of pleasure and its ethical boundaries are explored in many philosophies:
Epicureanism, founded by the Greek philosopher Epicurus, posits pleasure as the sole intrinsic goal of life. However, this is not advocating for unbridled hedonism. Epicurus defined the highest pleasure as ataraxia (tranquility and freedom from fear) and aponia (the absence of bodily pain), achieved through modest, sustainable pleasures and the limitation of desires. This shares with the Sanatani Kama a valuation of pleasure, but Epicureanism elevates it to the primary goal, whereas Kama is one of four, balanced by Dharma. Both philosophies, however, emphasize moderation.
Stoicism, in contrast, regards virtue as the only true good. External things like pleasure are considered adiaphora (indifferent) — neither good nor bad in themselves, but rather material upon which virtue can act. Stoics advocated self-control to overcome destructive emotions. While this contrasts with Kama’s explicit inclusion as a life goal, the Stoic acceptance of “good feelings” (eupatheiai) like joy (chara) that arise from virtuous living could be seen as a refined form of permissible pleasure.
The Buddhist perspective on pleasure is rooted in the understanding of non-attachment. Attachment to pleasure (and aversion to pain) is identified as a primary cause of suffering (dukkha), largely because all conditioned experiences, including pleasure, are impermanent (anicca).104 The Middle Way, a core Buddhist teaching, advocates avoiding the extremes of sensual indulgence and severe asceticism.104 This offers a cautionary approach to Kama, emphasizing mindfulness and non-clinging rather than an outright rejection of pleasure, encouraging a wise and balanced engagement with life’s joys.
The Confucian view on pleasure and propriety affirms that happiness can derive from moral cultivation and virtue, while also acknowledging basic human material needs and desires (such as food and sex).106 However, these desires should be guided and restrained by the rules of propriety (Li) and the principle of moderation, being “joyous but not indecent, mournful but not distressing”.106 This approach is remarkably similar to the Sanatani concept of Kama pursued within the boundaries of Dharma and Maryada, emphasizing ethical and moderate enjoyment.
4. Moksha (Ultimate Liberation)
The ultimate aim described is Moksha: “the ultimate liberation of my will from the modifications of the mind — which include innate tendencies, acquired conditioning, and the imprints of past karmas.” In Hinduism, Moksha (also known as Mukti or Nirvana in some contexts) signifies liberation from samsara, the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth, which is fueled by karma (actions and their consequences) and ignorance (avidya).108 It involves self-realization — the understanding of one’s true Self (Atman) — and often, in theistic schools, union with God or Brahman.108 This liberation is typically pursued through one or more of the Yogas: Jnana Yoga (path of knowledge), Karma Yoga (path of selfless action), Bhakti Yoga (path of devotion), and Dhyana/Raja Yoga (path of meditation).108 Achieving Moksha entails overcoming the binding effects of karma, transcending mental conditioning and innate tendencies (vasanas and samskaras), and piercing the veil of illusion (maya).108
The aspiration for ultimate liberation or a transformed state of being is a central theme in many spiritual and philosophical traditions worldwide:
Buddhist Nirvana similarly signifies liberation from samsara and the cessation of dukkha (suffering). This is achieved by extinguishing the “fires” of craving, aversion, and ignorance, primarily through understanding the Four Noble Truths and practicing the Noble Eightfold Path.109 While both Moksha and Nirvana aim for release from cyclical existence and suffering, key doctrinal differences persist, most notably the Hindu concept of an eternal Self (Atman) versus the Buddhist doctrine of no-self (Anatta).
Jain Moksha also involves the liberation of the soul (jiva) from karmic bondage. Upon exhausting all karmas, the soul attains its pure, pristine nature, characterized by omniscience (Kevala Jnana), infinite perception, infinite power, and eternal bliss, residing in a state of perfection at the apex of the universe (Siddhashila). This is achieved through the “Three Jewels”: Right Faith (Samyak Darshana), Right Knowledge (Samyak Jnana), and Right Conduct (Samyak Charitra), which includes adherence to strict vows of non-violence and non-attachment.
Abrahamic Salvation (e.g., in Christianity and Islam) generally refers to deliverance from sin and its consequences, and reconciliation with a personal God, leading to eternal life in God’s presence (Heaven/Paradise) and avoidance of eternal damnation (Hell). In Christianity, salvation is primarily understood as achieved through the grace of God, by faith in the person and atoning work of Jesus Christ (his death and resurrection). In Islam, salvation (Najat or Falah) is attained through submission to Allah (God), faith (Iman) in His oneness and the prophethood of Muhammad, performing righteous deeds (Amal Salih), repentance (Tawbah), and through Allah’s divine mercy (Rahmah). The fundamental difference from Indic liberation concepts lies in the focus on a personal God, sin as the primary human problem, and divine grace/revelation as the primary means, rather than liberation from a karmic cycle through self-effort and wisdom.
Sufism (Islamic Mysticism) offers concepts like Fana (annihilation of the self in God) and Baqa (subsistence or abiding in God). This mystical path describes a process of spiritual liberation involving the transcendence of the individual ego to achieve a state of union or direct experiential awareness of the Divine. This experiential union offers a closer parallel to some aspects of Moksha, particularly in Bhakti and Advaitic traditions.
Taoism pursues spiritual goals such as achieving longevity or even immortality (hsien) and, more profoundly, becoming one with the Tao — the ultimate principle of the universe. These are sought through practices like meditation, internal alchemy (Neidan), Qigong (energy cultivation), and living in accordance with Wu Wei (effortless action) and Ziran (naturalness). While the focus on harmony with the cosmic principle and transformation is shared, the specific aims (like physical immortality in some interpretations) and the karmic framework differ from Indic Moksha.
Gnosticism, an ancient religio-philosophical movement, taught that liberation or salvation comes through gnosis — a special, esoteric knowledge of one’s divine spark and its origin in a transcendent, true God, distinct from the flawed material world created by an inferior deity (the Demiurge). Escape from the material prison and reunification with the divine Pleroma (Fullness) is the goal. This shares with some Sanatani paths (like Jnana Yoga) the theme of liberation through knowledge and transcending a limited state of being, but its cosmology is distinctly dualistic.
Shamanistic traditions worldwide involve spiritual journeys where the shaman mediates between the human world and spirit realms, often through trance states and soul-flight. They heal, divine, and escort souls of the dead. This represents a form of liberation from ordinary physical constraints and allows for direct interaction with spiritual realities, focusing on power, healing, and cosmic navigation rather than release from a cycle of rebirth in the Indic sense.
Stoic philosophy in ancient Greece aimed for Apatheia (freedom from disturbing passions) and Ataraxia (tranquility of mind). These states of inner liberation were to be achieved through the cultivation of virtue, the use of reason, and living in accordance with Nature (the rational order of the cosmos). This philosophical ideal of liberation, focused on inner peace and resilience in the face of external circumstances, bears resemblance to the state of a jivanmukta (one who is liberated while living) in Hindu thought.
Abraham Maslow’s concept of Self-Actualization, from humanistic psychology, describes the process of realizing one’s full potential, achieving self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth, and experiencing “peak experiences”. While a secular psychological concept, it shares with spiritual liberation traditions the theme of striving for the highest state of human development and fulfillment.
The Sanatani framework, by integrating ethical living (Dharma, Yamas, Niyamas) as foundational to the pursuit of ultimate liberation (Moksha), reflects a widespread understanding found in many profound philosophies: how one lives in the world is inextricably linked to one’s ultimate spiritual destiny. True liberation is not merely an escape but a profound transformation that begins with and is sustained by ethical living.
Furthermore, the Purusharthas (Artha and Kama alongside Dharma and Moksha) represent a sophisticated structure for balancing worldly engagement (pravrtti) with the path of spiritual liberation (nivrtti). This addresses a fundamental human tension — how to live fully in the world while aspiring for transcendence — a challenge that various philosophies tackle differently, from Epicurean moderated pleasure to Stoic indifference, or from Confucian worldly harmony to traditional Buddhist monastic renunciation. The Sanatani model offers an integrated vision, affirming the legitimacy of human needs for well-being and pleasure, provided they are pursued ethically (within Dharma) and do not obscure the ultimate aim of Moksha. This balanced and holistic approach is a key strength of the Sanatani worldview.
Finally, while many traditions speak of “liberation” or “salvation,” the specific nature of this state — what one is liberated from and what one is liberated to — varies significantly, reflecting different core diagnoses of the human condition and different conceptions of the ultimate goal. The Sanatani understanding of Moksha, as liberation of the will from the “modifications of the mind,” including innate tendencies, acquired conditioning, and the imprints of past karmas, is a psychologically astute definition deeply rooted in the Indic philosophical framework of karma, rebirth, and the pivotal role of mind and consciousness in shaping experience and bondage.108 While sharing the universal human aspiration for transcendence, its specific articulation and the delineated paths to it are distinctively Indic, often emphasizing introspective, meditative, and wisdom-based practices.
V. The Unbroken Chain: Empowering Future Generations
The final conviction expressed is a profound commitment to “empowering future generations to continue this holistic and purposeful journey.” This highlights the importance of legacy, the transmission of values and wisdom, and a deep sense of intergenerational responsibility.
Hindu philosophical traditions place significant emphasis on intergenerational duties and the transmission of Dharma and cultural values:
The concept of Rina (ऋण), or debt, is central. This includes Pitri Rina, the debt owed to ancestors, which is discharged by honoring them, continuing the family lineage, upholding family values, and performing rituals like shraddha and tarpana. This fosters a sense of gratitude for heritage and implies a duty to pass it on.
Rishi Rina (or Brahma Rina/Yajna) is the debt owed to the sages and teachers who preserved and transmitted sacred knowledge. This debt is repaid through the study (svādhyāya) and teaching (pravachana) of sacred texts like the Vedas, thus ensuring the continuity of wisdom and Dharma for future generations. The “Duty of teaching” is considered a moral obligation.
Pancha Maha Yajnas (five great daily sacrifices) are duties that include Deva Yajna (to gods), Pitru Yajna (to ancestors), Brahma/Rishi Yajna (to sages/scriptures), Manushya Yajna (to fellow humans), and Bhuta Yajna (to other living beings). Pitru Yajna and Brahma Yajna specifically symbolize the transfer of family and Vedic cultural values to future generations, ensuring their preservation.
Samskaras are rites of passage that mark significant life stages from conception to death. They serve to purify and sanctify the individual, guide them towards spiritual growth and the fulfillment of Dharma, and inculcate Hindu values from an early age, thereby transmitting traditions across generations.
Traditional education, often through the Guru-Shishya Parampara (teacher-disciple lineage), has been a cornerstone of transmitting both spiritual and practical knowledge. Vedic teachings also emphasize the duty of parents to nurture and guide their children in Dharma.
Buddhist traditions also have robust mechanisms for Dharma transmission:
The Sangha (monastic community) plays an essential role in the continuity of the Dharma. Monasteries serve as centers for learning, practice, and ordination, with monastics offering teachings and spiritual guidance.
Lineage (kechimyaku in Zen) is crucial, representing an unbroken chain of teachers and disciples theoretically traced back to the Buddha himself. Dharma transmission is a formal acknowledgment by a qualified teacher that a disciple has realized the teachings and is capable of transmitting them authentically.
The preservation and study of scriptures (such as the Tripitaka) are vital for maintaining the integrity of the teachings.
The cultivation and embodiment of practices like mindfulness and compassion by teachers serve as living examples that inspire and guide future practitioners on the path to enlightenment.
Confucianism strongly emphasizes intergenerational responsibility:
Filial piety (xiao) is a foundational virtue, entailing respect, obedience, and care for parents and elders, as well as honoring ancestors. This duty of care and respect extends reciprocally, as parents are responsible for nurturing and educating their children. This creates a strong bond across generations, ensuring the transmission of values.
Education is paramount for moral development and the transmission of cultural and ethical values like Ren (benevolence) and Li (propriety) from the wisdom of the past.
The family is the primary unit for cultivating these virtues, which are then expected to extend to the broader society and state, ensuring social harmony and continuity.
Islamic tradition highlights Tarbiyah for the upbringing and education of future generations:
Tarbiyah refers to a comprehensive process of education, nurturing, and character formation based on the Quran and Hadith.
Its aim is to develop holistic personalities with strong moral and spiritual foundations, instilling Islamic values such as honesty, justice, compassion, and critical thinking to prepare future generations to be responsible Muslims and contribute positively to society.
In Judaism, the concept of L’dor V’dor (“from generation to generation”) underscores the profound importance of transmitting tradition, values, collective memory, and heritage. This is achieved through:
Family life: Parents play a crucial role, for example, in naming children after relatives to carry on their legacy and stories.
Religious education: Formal study, such as preparation for Bet Mitzvah, and the lifelong study of Torah are central.
Ritual observance: Participation in rituals and communal life embeds values and strengthens Jewish identity across generations. The Mesorah (tradition) is faithfully and meticulously transmitted.
Broader philosophical perspectives on intergenerational ethics also inform this commitment. The concept of intergenerational equity emphasizes fairness and justice between generations concerning resources, opportunities, and overall well-being, viewing the present generation as custodians for the future. Education is widely recognized as a primary vehicle through which cultural norms, knowledge, and spiritual values are passed from one generation to the next, shaping attitudes, thoughts, behavior, and instilling high social, moral, and spiritual principles. The idea of legacy involves conscious reflection on what values, conditions (environmental, cultural, spiritual), and wisdom the present generation wishes to bequeath to those who follow.
A deeper examination reveals a reciprocal nature of intergenerational duty embedded in many of these traditions. The Sanatani commitment to empowering the future is not enacted in a vacuum; it is deeply rooted in honoring the past — ancestors, sages, foundational texts, and traditions. Confucian filial piety extends both upwards to ancestors and downwards to descendants. Buddhist lineage emphasizes an unbroken chain of transmission from the past, and Jewish L’dor V’dor involves teaching children about the legacies they inherit. This honoring of the past provides the very substance — the cultural, spiritual, and ethical capital — that is then preserved, enriched, and transmitted to the future. The “holistic and purposeful journey” is thus understood not as something created anew by each generation, but as a sacred inheritance to be faithfully continued and thoughtfully adapted. This provides stability, depth, and a sense of profound connection to the ongoing human endeavor.
Furthermore, across these diverse traditions, the transmission of values to future generations is consistently viewed as a process of moral and spiritual formation, extending far beyond mere information transfer. Hindu Samskaras are designed to purify, sanctify, and guide spiritual growth. Buddhist Sangha training involves rigorous ethical conduct, meditation, and the cultivation of wisdom and compassion. Confucian education is explicitly aimed at moral development. Islamic Tarbiyah focuses on forming Islamic morals, spirituality, and character. Jewish religious education seeks to inspire students to find meaning and live a rich Jewish life. Philosophical perspectives on education also affirm its role in shaping attitudes, thoughts, behavior, and instilling high moral and spiritual values. The Sanatani vision of empowering future generations, therefore, likely involves a holistic educational approach that nurtures ethical character, spiritual insight, and practical wisdom, enabling them not just to know about the purposeful journey but to live it. This aligns with the understanding that Dharma is not merely a set of doctrines to be learned, but a way of life to be embodied.
Finally, the effective transmission of these deep values often relies on ritual and community alongside formal education. Hindu Samskaras and daily Yajnas embed values in lived experience. The Buddhist Sangha provides a communal context for practice and learning. Confucianism emphasizes the role of Li (ritual propriety) in family and state affairs. Jewish tradition is rich in family rituals (like Shabbat dinners and Passover Seders) and communal observance of Mitzvot. Islamic practices such as communal prayer, fasting during Ramadan, and the Hajj pilgrimage reinforce shared values and collective identity. For the Sanatani, empowering future generations would thus naturally involve not just intellectual instruction but also active participation in rituals, family traditions, and community life where Dharma, Niyamas, and Maryada are embodied and experienced, transforming abstract principles into a living heritage. The “holistic journey” is thus sustained and transmitted through holistic means.
Conclusion: Why I Am a Sanatani — An Echo in the Halls of Global Wisdom
The journey through these five core convictions — belief in an Absolute Reality, acceptance of diverse spiritual paths, commitment to free inquiry, a holistic life purpose encompassing Dharma and the Purusharthas culminating in Moksha, and the dedication to empowering future generations — reveals a Sanatani perspective that is both deeply personal and remarkably resonant with the grand tapestry of global philosophical and spiritual thought.
The conviction in a singular, ultimate Absolute Reality finds echoes in concepts as diverse as Hinduism’s Brahman, Taoism’s Tao, Neoplatonism’s The One, and the Supreme Beings of many indigenous traditions. The shared acknowledgment of this Reality’s ineffability across cultures underscores a universal human intuition about the limits of conceptual thought in grasping the Ultimate. The Sanatani acceptance of diverse paths to this Reality is mirrored in the Perennial Philosophy, the sophisticated pluralism of thinkers like John Hick, and the inclusive tenets of faiths like the Baháʼí tradition and Jain Anekantavada. This openness is philosophically grounded in the very nature of an ineffable Absolute, suggesting that varied approaches are natural and valid expressions of the human quest.
The championing of free thought and critical inquiry, including the embrace of verification and falsification, aligns the Sanatani spirit with the rigorous logical traditions of India like Nyaya and Buddhist epistemology, the questioning ethos of the Socratic method, the rational skepticism of the Enlightenment, and the empirical spirit of the scientific method. This commitment suggests a dynamic and examined faith, one that values both ancient wisdom and ongoing critical engagement.
The holistic vision of life’s purpose — integrating ethical living through Dharma, Niyamas, and Maryada with the pursuit of knowledge (Jnana), well-being (Artha), legitimate pleasure (Kama), and ultimate liberation (Moksha) — offers a comprehensive framework for human flourishing. This intricate balance between worldly engagement and spiritual aspiration, and the intrinsic link between ethical conduct and ultimate liberation, finds parallels and illuminating contrasts in Aristotelian virtue ethics, Buddhist teachings on the Noble Eightfold Path, Confucian ideals of social harmony and moral cultivation, and the diverse soteriologies of world religions. The Sanatani understanding of Moksha, specifically as liberation from karmic imprints and mental conditioning, highlights a profound psychological and spiritual depth rooted in Indic thought.
Finally, the commitment to empowering future generations to continue this purposeful journey connects the Sanatani ethos with universal principles of intergenerational responsibility, the sacred duty of transmitting cultural and spiritual heritage found in traditions like Jewish L’dor V’dor and Islamic Tarbiyah, and the profound role of education in shaping moral character and ensuring the continuity of wisdom. This is not merely a hope for the future but an active engagement in preserving and enriching a legacy, rooted in gratitude for the past.
To declare “I am a Sanatani,” from this explored perspective, is to affirm a worldview that is at once ancient and strikingly relevant. It is to stand within a tradition that seeks the ultimate ground of existence while honoring the myriad ways humanity reaches for it; a tradition that values critical reason as much as intuitive wisdom; a tradition that embraces the fullness of life’s aims while never losing sight of spiritual liberation; and a tradition that sees itself as part of an unbroken chain, receiving from the past and giving to the future. This Sanatani identity, therefore, is not an insular stance but one that resonates profoundly with the collective wisdom and enduring spiritual aspirations of humankind.
Love it