Meditation is not Dhyana, like religion is not Dharma. To distinguish religion from dharma.
Let me address the distinction between meditation and dhyana, in a separate write up. It follows, sooner than later.
However, I may reproduce the portion below with reference to religion vis vis dharma.
Religion vis-a-vis Dharma
The term Religion may substantially be defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
The term religion assumes significance in Indian context especially and more particularly in the present phase of the post independence era. The indian constitution is often cited as a double edged weapon, on the one hand professing secularism while,on the other, guaranteeing freedom of religion as a fundamental right. Secularism implies state's non-attachment towards any religion, akin to what communism patronises. On the other hand the freedom of religion guaranteed as fundamental right underlines the very same spirit though its context is expressed in the manner of a constitutional right for which remedy is also provided under Article 32.
The above discussion tends to focus on the absolutely indifferent plank in respect of religion on which the state (i.e India as a nation) is constitutionally liable to stand, treating religions as something unworthy of being reckoned.
What prompted the framers of the constitution to distance itself from the term religion is not of any relevance. What is relevant is the simple logic that may be construed from what might have been the said promptings. State and governance is supposed to be founded on a logic system, the rationale whereof may be interpreted and deciphered. A state action which fails to disclose its object and which object, even though reasoned out, fails to conform to the objectives that the constitution ratifies, falls through as ultra vires. So what would be the consequence of a state action that would have been inspired by mere faith or belief or something like that , using religious dictum of any denomination as its justification.
Nevertheless, while detesting and thus discarding the role of religion in any state action, an unwelcome confusion is generally entertained, confusing the term Dharma with Religion, the former wrongly deemed as latter's vernacular translation. Scholars of sanskrit and hindi literature would, however, testify to the fact that the term Dharma means righteous Karma (deed). Mulla, the authority on Hindu Law, in his treatise has taken great pains to codify the law as found in the Hindu Community, citing even vrihaspati , the sage (seer) as its source. The set of ideal human conduct which constituted righteous human conduct, is/was the law which ruled the society. Its disobedience would cause a defaulting subject to fall from grace and thus receive punishment. In that sense , the term Dharma stood defined as an abiding principle which were not any codified set of code of conduct in the ancient society, but were just a way of life. Its codification was facilitated in the present times due to the loss of the core concept as to what exactly Dharma means, inasmuch as this sacred term, called dharma got misunderstood as being the same as religion.
Sent from my iPhone
