The Roots of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma

It starts with a river—the Sindhu, winding through the northwest of ancient India, its waters a lifeline in Sanskrit simply called “river.” Around the 6th century BCE, Persian invaders named the people beyond it “Hindu,” their “S” softening to an “H.” Was this the seed of a religion? Or something else? Centuries later, the British stretched “Hindu” into “Hinduism,” a tidy label for a tradition that spans Vedic hymns, yogic stillness, and devotion to countless gods. Yet another name whispers from within: Sanatana Dharma, the eternal order. Are they the same—two words for one truth? The roots tell a different tale: one’s a colonial graft, the other a timeless bloom.

“Hinduism”: A Word Without a Text

Flip through the sacred texts, and “Hinduism” vanishes. The Rigveda (c. 1500 BCE), with its hymns to Agni and Indra, seeks cosmic order (rita)—no “Hinduism” there. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (c. 800 BCE) asks, “What is that by knowing which all else is known?” (1.4.10)—no mention. The Bhagavad Gita (c. 200 BCE–200 CE) guides Arjuna through duty and devotion, silent on the term. The Puranas weave tales of Vishnu and Shiva, while Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras (c. 200 BCE–400 CE) chart samadhi’s path—none say “Hinduism.” The Shiva Samhita (15th–17th CE) promises liberation through yoga, not a named faith.

Why the silence? This tradition has no founder—no Moses, no Buddha—to christen it. It’s a chorus of sages, rishis across ages, seeking Brahman, the universal consciousness, or moksha, freedom from rebirth. The Vedic seers heard divine vibrations; Upanishadic thinkers declared “Tat Tvam Asi” (“Thou art That,” Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7); yogis stilled their minds. “Hinduism” isn’t their word—it’s a stranger’s, born far from these roots.

​

The Colonial Twist of “Hinduism”

“Hindu” wasn’t new—Persia gave us that—but “Hinduism” was forged in colonial fires. When the British arrived in the 18th century, they faced a land of dizzying ways: priests at fire altars, devotees chanting to Krishna, ascetics lost in meditation. To rule, they needed boxes. “Hindu” became “Hindus” in censuses, distinct from “Muslims”; courts shaped “Hindu law”; scholars like Monier-Williams, in his 1877 Hinduism, framed it as one religion. It stuck—a shorthand for India’s non-Abrahamic soul.
But before empire, no sage proclaimed, “This is Hinduism.” The Rigveda (10.129) wonders, “Who knows whence this creation arose?”—a mystery, not a system. The Katha Upanishad (1.2.23) says, “The self is not attained by instruction, but by one whom it chooses”—a journey, not a creed. The Gita (4.11) offers Krishna’s embrace: “In whatever way men approach me, I reach out”—diversity, not dogma. “Hinduism” is a colonial net, cast over roots it never grew from.

Moksha: The Deeper Root

What ties these paths? Moksha—liberation, the soul’s awakening beyond illusion. The Mandukya Upanishad (verse 7) calls it “neither waking nor dreaming… peace, bliss, non-dual.” The Gita (6.27) gifts “supreme bliss” to the yogi in samadhi. The Vishnu Purana (1.22) links devotion to freedom from cycles. Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras (1.2) define yoga as “the cessation of mind’s fluctuations,” aiming for kaivalya—truth alone. The Shiva Samhita (5.26) names liberation “the highest goal.”
This isn’t a “religion” boxed by “-ism”—it’s a dharma, an order transcending time. “Hinduism” pins it to a river’s edge; moksha lifts it to the eternal.

Sanatana Dharma: The True Seed

So, are “Hinduism” and Sanatana Dharma one? History says no—Sanatana Dharma is the root, “Hinduism” a late branch. Meaning “eternal order,” Sanatana Dharma hums in the tradition’s own voice. The Gita (4.7) has Krishna vow, “Whenever dharma declines, I arise”—a timeless pledge. The Padma Purana and sages like Adi Shankaracharya wielded it, naming a way older than empires. It cradles the Rigveda’s cosmic chants, the Mundaka Upanishad’s “truth is its bow” (2.2.4), the Bhagavata Purana’s love for Krishna, the Hatha Yoga Pradipika’s poses—all seeking moksha.
Unlike “Hinduism,” it’s not a colonial echo of “Hindu,” tied to a place. It spans Samkhya’s logic, Tantra’s energy, village rites—every thread in an eternal weave. Modern politics may clutch it, but its roots outrun such grasp.

To Believers in “Hinduism”

There is no mention  of  “Hinduism” in the Rigveda’s verses, the Gita’s wisdom, the Shiva Samhita’s breath. It’s not there—because it’s not theirs. Sages sought Brahman, a unity with the Universal consiousness. “Hinduism” is a gift from outsiders, a river’s name stretched too far. Sanatana Dharma is what they lived—the eternal way, unbound by maps or masters.

Conclusion: Roots Over Labels

“The Roots of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma”—the choice unfolds in history. One’s a colonial cloak, draped over a tradition it never named; the other’s the seed beneath, sprouting toward moksha. Let “Hinduism” fade with the empire that birthed it.  Sanatana Dharma stands—the eternal order, the truest call.