This author — going by his surname name, Sumit Paul — seems to be Christian and has gone about making sweeping pronouncements on Sanatana Dharma in his Op-Ed piece below. It only exposes his ignorance, naïveté or inadequate understanding of Hindu Dharma and religion.
https://www.freepressjournal.in/analysis/how-hinduism-has-suddenly-become-sanatan-dharm
Free press journal
QUOTE: “Upanishadic Hinduism can call itself eternal in the sense that the teachings therein are perennially relevant but then, Upanishads aren’t god-oriented. They don’t preach god, religiosity or divinity in an overt manner but spread awareness and enlightenment. In that sense, eastern way of life can be called eternal. But don’t associate it with any religion or religiosity. When acute awareness is tied to a host of gods and deities, it gets relegated to religion. The same has happened to Hinduism. Whether Sanatan or Hinduism, the labelling remains along with a whole paraphernalia of rituals, customs, shibboleths, totems and superstitions.” UNQUOTE
Sumit Paul doesn’t understand that Sanatana Dharma is a holistic and organic system of thought (gnyaana yoga), practices (karma yoga) and attitudinal beliefs (bhakthi yoga).
The typically Western way of looking at this system of Sanatana Dharma is to subject it to “chemical analysis” and break it down into discrete, individual elements and attribute to each constituent a set of characteristics, properties and a convenient label … such as “awareness” “teachings” and “superstitions”. Now, that’s like being blind to the woods and remaining short-sighted on the tree. It’s also like being the seventh one amongst the proverbial 6 other blind men trying to define an elephant by equating it to its individual anatomical parts …
Sanatana Dharma can be likened to a magnificent edifice or mansion, complete and whole and fully furnished. Every great mansion is defined or described — not analysed — as the organic whole of three parts viz. the foundation, the structure and the interior dwelling.
A mansion is not fit to be occupied for living in without all three parts getting erected . You can’t live huddled on a foundation , nor can you live camping inside within the bare structurals of bricks, steel and mortar. You need also well designed interiors with walls, rooms and balconies inside the mansion to be able to proudly call it real living space and habitable comfortable home. All three are needed.
Likewise , a system of thought and faith —such as Sanatana Dharma — has Philosophy as its foundation (gnyaana yoga) . This is the Upanishadic dimension the author talks about. This is the bedrock and cornerstone.
Then there is the structural monolith which is the Theology of Sanatana Dharma … i.e. it is all that encompasses the varieties of conceptions of gods and deities and temples etc. (karma yoga) which the author condescendingly implies is somehow inferior, secondary or unimportant to the Upanishadic spirit and ideal . This may sound profound perhaps but it’s actually trite … it’s like saying that the function of the superstructure of a mansion is inferior to that served by its solid foundation.
Finally, there is what the author contemptuously calls “paraphernalia of rituals, customs, shibboleths, totems and superstitions.” This is the so-called “religiousity” of Sanatana Dharma which Sumit Paul wants Hindus to throw out of their lives, lock, stock and barrel … “Learn to live without god, religion or any label”! Paul thunders! In other words , absurd as it certainly is to say so, the author wants we Hindus all to live our lives on the bare substructural foundation of a system of faith— without a roof over our heads , without rooms, windows, doors, closets, alcoves, balconies, patios and staircases…
What a wretchedly misrepresentative view this is indeed of an ancient civilisational system of thought, beliefs and practices called Sanatana Dharma!
Sudarshan Madabushi