Sanatan Dharma: The Root Wisdom That Buddha, Nagarjuna, Ambedkar, and Osho Could Not Fully Grasp
Sanatan Dharma is not just a religion; it is the eternal way, the timeless rhythm of existence. It is the ocean from which countless rivers of philosophies, practices, and spiritual quests have emerged. The Vedas, Upanishads, and other dharmic scriptures are not limited to rituals but extend to the deepest truths of the cosmos, consciousness, and liberation. While many seekers across ages, such as Gautam Buddha, Nagarjuna, and even in more recent times Ambedkar and Osho, engaged with aspects of Sanatan wisdom, they did so with partial comprehension. The reason was often not the absence of sincerity, but the absence of linguistic and scriptural access, particularly the Sanskrit language, which is the very womb of the Vedas and Upanishads.
“Truth is not hidden from us, it is only misinterpreted when seen through a half-lit lamp of ignorance.” ~ Adarsh Singh
The Vastness of Sanatan Dharma
Sanatan Dharma, literally meaning “eternal order,” is not bound by one book, prophet, or dogma. It embraces multiplicity, Karma (action), Bhakti (devotion), Jnana (knowledge), and Dhyana (meditation), as four paths to liberation (Moksha). The Vedas and Upanishads speak not only of rituals but of profound metaphysics: Brahman (ultimate reality), Atman (self), and their non-duality.
This supreme vastness meant that many later thinkers, whether they accepted it, modified it, or rejected it, were ultimately standing in its shadow.
“Sanatan Dharma is like the SUN; other philosophies may shine like lamps, but their light is borrowed.” ~ Adarsh Singh
Gautam Buddha and His Path
Gautam Buddha arose in a time when ritualism had become mechanical, when people focused more on outer ceremonies than inner realization. His path of the Middle Way, the Four Noble Truths, and the Eightfold Path provided a simpler, practical way for common people to seek freedom from suffering. Yet one must ask: Why did Buddha reject the authority of the Vedas and the Upanishads?
The answer lies partly in language. Buddha was not proficient in Sanskrit, the language of the Vedas, the Upanishads, and the philosophical systems of Sanatan Dharma. Instead, he spoke in Magadhi Prakrit and Pali, the languages of the masses. While this helped him reach ordinary people, it distanced him from the original scriptural treasures.
This limitation meant Buddha interpreted spirituality not through the prism of Vedic wisdom but through his own realizations. His silence on Brahman or Atman was not necessarily denial, but perhaps an avoidance due to lack of direct scriptural engagement. Thus, while Buddha was a reformer, his reform was not the whole truth but a selective path.
“Without Sanskrit, the river of Vedic wisdom cannot be fully navigated, it becomes a sea shore is seen from afar, but never reached.” ~ Adarsh Singh
Nagarjuna and the Philosophy of Shunyata
Centuries later, Nagarjuna, the great Buddhist philosopher, emerged with his doctrine of Shunyata (emptiness). He argued that all phenomena are empty of inherent existence and arise dependent on conditions. His Madhyamaka school became a cornerstone of Mahayana Buddhism.
Yet, Shunyata bears striking resemblance to concepts already explored in the Upanishads. The Vedantic notion of Maya (illusion) and Brahman’s transcendence over all names and forms anticipates Nagarjuna’s insights. But here too, the divergence lies in terminology and perspective. Where Vedanta speaks of Brahman beyond attributes, Nagarjuna speaks of emptiness beyond concepts.
Was Nagarjuna original? In spirit, yes; in foundation, he was standing on Vedic soil. His interpretations could not have existed without the backdrop of Sanatan Dharma. He renamed, rephrased, and reinterpreted, but the essence remained deeply dharmic.
“New names do not change eternal truths; they only decorate them differently.” ~ Adarsh Singh
Ambedkar and Osho: Modern Critics with Ancient Echoes
In modern times, two figures stand out as critics of Sanatan Dharma, B.R. Ambedkar and Rajneesh Osho. Both, in their own ways, challenged rituals, caste practices, and what they saw as man-made distortions. But when we look deeper, we find a striking similarity between their limitations and that of Buddha himself: the absence of Sanskrit.
Ambedkar, though an intellectual giant, approached Sanatan Dharma largely through translations and interpretations colored by colonial and modernist filters. He did not have direct engagement with the Sanskrit originals of the Vedas or the Upanishads. Without Sanskrit, his critique targeted the social distortions but overlooked the philosophical vastness of Sanatan Dharma.
Osho, though a mystical orator, often relied on simplified versions of scriptures. He admitted to drawing more from translations and personal interpretations than rigorous study of Sanskrit texts. Thus, his rejection of certain rituals and traditions was based not on original comprehension but on second-hand access.
Both Ambedkar and Osho, like Buddha, critiqued the visible forms of Sanatan Dharma but could not fully grasp its inner depths encoded in Sanskrit. Their brilliance was undeniable, but brilliance without full access can still lead to partial truths.
“When one does not know the language of truth, one mistakes the silence of wisdom for emptiness, and the depth of Dharma for rituals.” ~ Adarsh Singh
The Supremacy of Sanatan Dharma
Sanatan Dharma’s supremacy does not lie in rejecting others but in integrating them. Every spiritual movement that arose in Bharatvarsha, be it Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bhakti, or modern reformist paths, emerged from its womb. Even when they criticized it, they could not escape its soil.
Why? Because Sanatan Dharma is not man-made. It is revealed (Shruti), eternal, cosmic. It does not depend on one teacher or one book but flows like an infinite river. Those who understood Sanskrit, like Adi Shankaracharya, could dive into its depth and proclaim Advaita Vedanta, a vision of oneness that remains unparalleled. Those who lacked that access, like Buddha, Nagarjuna, Ambedkar, and Osho, touched parts of the truth but not the whole.
“The root of Dharma is one. To deny it because of not knowing its language is like denying the sun because clouds hide it.” ~ Adarsh Singh
The Eternal Dialogue
The dialogue between Sanatan Dharma and its interpreters is not a story of conflict but of expansion. Buddha brought compassion, Nagarjuna brought sharp logic, Ambedkar brought social justice concerns, and Osho brought psychological insights. Yet, their contributions, while valuable, are not replacements for Sanatan Dharma but branches of it.
The eternal tree of Sanatan Dharma continues to stand firm. Its roots are the Vedas, its trunk the Upanishads, its branches the Darshanas, and its fruits liberation (Moksha). The critics, reformers, and philosophers are like birds who sit on its branches, sing their songs, and then fly away, but the tree remains, nourishing all.
“Sanatan Dharma is not a chapter in history, it is the very book of existence.” ~ Adarsh Singh
Sanatan Dharma is supreme because it is whole. Buddha, Nagarjuna, Ambedkar, and Osho are respected seekers, yet their partial comprehension shows the necessity of Sanskrit and direct scriptural engagement. Without this, one may address symptoms but miss the essence.
Sanatan Dharma is eternal not because it resists change, but because it absorbs, transcends, and remains timeless.
“In the end, rivers of thought may flow in different directions, but the ocean of Sanatan Dharma alone embraces them all.” ~ Adarsh Singh
Tue Sep 9, 2025
Launch your Graphy