Dharmic religions

<h2 >"Dharmic religions"</h2>

<div class="hatnote boilerplate seealso" >See also: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffronization" title="Saffronization" >Saffronization</a></div>

Frawley and Malhotra use the term "Dharmic traditions" to highlight the similarities between the various Indian religions.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_religions#cite_note-FOOTNOTEFrawley199027-183" >[138]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_religions#cite_note-FOOTNOTEMalhotra2011-184" >[139]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_religions#cite_note-186" >[note 24]</a> According to Frawley, "all religions in India have been called the Dharma",<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_religions#cite_note-FOOTNOTEFrawley199027-183" >[138]</a> and can be

...put under the greater umbrella of "Dharmic traditions" which we can see as Hinduism or the spiritual traditions of India in the broadest sense.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_religions#cite_note-FOOTNOTEFrawley199027-183" >[138]</a>

</blockquote>

According to Paul Hacker, as described by Halbfass, the term "dharma"

...assumed a fundamentally new meaning and function in modern Indian thought, beginning with <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bankim_Chandra_Chattopadhyay" title="Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay" >Bankim Chandra Chatterjee</a> in the nineteenth century. This process, in which dharma was presented as an equivalent of, but also a response to, the western notion of "religion", reflects a fundamental change in the Hindu sense of identity and in the attitude toward other religious and cultural traditions. The foreign tools of "religion" and "nation" became tools of self-definition, and a new and precarious sense of the "unity of Hinduism" and of national as well as religious identity took root.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_religions#cite_note-FOOTNOTEHalbfass199510-187" >[141]</a>

</blockquote>

The emphasis on the similarities and integral unity of the dharmic faiths has been criticised for neglecting the vast differences between and even within the various Indian religions and traditions.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_religions#cite_note-FOOTNOTELarson2012313.E2.80.93314-170" >[126]</a><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_religions#cite_note-FOOTNOTEYelle2012338.E2.80.93339-171" >[127]</a> According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_E._King" title="Richard E. King" >Richard E. King</a> it is typical of the "inclusivist appropriation of other traditions"<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_religions#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKing1999-161" >[118]</a> of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Vedanta" title="Neo-Vedanta" >Neo-Vedanta</a>:

The inclusivist appropriation of other traditions, so characteristic of neo-Vedanta ideology, appears on three basic levels. First, it is apparent in the suggestion that the (Advaita) Vedanta philosophy of Sankara (c. eighth century CE) constitutes the central philosophy of Hinduism. Second, in an Indian context, neo-Vedanta philosophy subsumes Buddhist philosophies in terms of its own Vedantic ideology. The Buddha becomes a member of the Vedanta tradition, merely attempting to reform it from within. Finally, at a global level, neo-Vedanta colonizes the religious traditions of the world by arguing for the centrality of a non-dualistic position as the philosophia perennis underlying all cultural differences.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_religions#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKing1999-161" >[118]</a>

</blockquote>

Dharmic religions

Attachments