What is Hinduisim?
In the academic discussions of the International Affairs
Forum of Cornell University, very often the discourse gets boiled down to the
comparative study of various faiths. In many of these discussions Hinduism is
often studied and analyzed in comparative perspective vis-à-vis Islam and other
faiths. The investigative journey always ends in futile debates with no
conclusions. My idea in this essay is to end the quest for conclusion and set
out on an investigative journey purely on empirical means and see what comes
out.
What is Hinduism?
Is it a religion or an ideology? Is it an organized religion on the
pattern of judeo-christian faiths ? Is it a cult? Is it some kind of primitive
animistic religion? Is it a philosophical-metaphysical system deserving a serious
academic and philosophical investigation? Is it a social system enunciating
codes of social conduct? Or casually speaking (in order to avoid the above
complex categorizations) is it just a way of life?
Answering these
questions is a highly complicated task, especially if the investigative journey
is to find set structures, institutions and logically coherent systems. But the
answer could become more meaningful if one takes a post-modern approach and is
comfortable with open-ended explanations. The answer can become comprehensible
if one realizes the limits of language and provides a room for further inquiry
through the so-called spiritual and mental processes.
This essay proceeds to analyze all the above
categorizations in terms of the classical definitions provided by various
schools of metaphysics and the philosophy of religion.
1) Is
it a religion or an ideology?
The word religion originates from the Greek word
‘religare’ which means to bind. Something either in the form of set rules of
conduct or a source of faith like a church or a scripture, which binds a group
of people or the members of society should be addressed as religion according
to this definition. But in philosophy of religion the basic element which
differentiates a religion from and ideology is the presence of faith in some
form of supernatural or more appropriately transcendental being. For instance
in Buddhism the notion of ‘Nirwana’ is transcendental, so in spite of their
proclaimed denial of the existence of god or soul, Buddhism is a religion.
Hinduism, technically speaking is a religion because
all its different schools there is faith in transcendental entity. For instance
in Advait Vedanta, the ‘Brahman’ is transcendental, ‘Maya’ is transcendental.
In ‘Sankhya’ school the notions of ‘Purush’ and Prakriti’ are transcendental.
In ‘Mimamnsa’ the offerings are made to vedic heavenly deities through ‘Yajna’
sacrifices. In some more divergent strains like ‘Jainism’ there is faith in ‘
Kevalya’(ultimate knowledge) which is transcendental. In ‘Madhva Vedanta’ there
is a belief in heavens and souls. Hence it can be seen that broadly in all the
schools there some notion of liberation from this worldly joys and sorrows and
that state of consciousness is transcendental in all these schools. But there is
one exception i.e ‘Lokayatas’ or ‘Charvakas’. This school of thought does not
believe in any supernatural entities like ‘Atma’, ‘Moksha’(liberation) or any
heavenly god.
Hinduisim does have some authoritative scriptures like
four Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Bhagvada Gita. In addition to these there is
an array of different texts to please different deities like ‘Durga
saptashati’( to worship Goddess Durga), several Puranas, Smritis. Many of them
have common message and many of them have completely contradictory messages.
Many of them talk about metaphysics and many of them talk about social laws,
marriage laws (often giving them a religious and mythological coloring to
strengthen their legitimacy) . Thus unlike Abrhamic religions, Hinduisim does
not have a single text or scripture which provides all directives about
worship, rituals and social laws. In fact in Indian philosophical thought the
development was always dialectical. There was a notion of ‘Shastrartha’ in
which a thinker or a ‘Rishi’ tour the whole country and engage in philosophical
debates with different individuals of wisdom. Despite this diversity of texts,
the more important ones with a huge social base are ‘Ramayana’, Mahabharata’
and ‘Bhagawata Gita’
So the answer to the question is kind of ‘Yes’ or in
totality ‘Yes’ with all the exceptions and deviations from the standard definitions
intact. It has an academic and
ideological aspect but it is much more than that and at some stage it
transcends the barriers of an ideology. It becomes more of a social system with
which people have different types of connections ranging from rational, custom
driven to faith based.
Is it an organized religion on the pattern of judeo-christian
faiths ?
The organized religions Judaism, Christianity and
Islam have certain uniform features like a single book to guide them, an
organized hierarchical church and a notion of conversion. By all these
standards Hinduism is not an organized religion. Even the above mentioned
so-called organized religions have lot of deviations from these standard
features like Islam has the distinctions of Shia and Sunni. Even among Sunnis
there are several schools like wahabis, Deobandis and Barelvis. In Christianity
also there are several divisions like protestants, catholics, Syrian orthodox
church, Greek orthodox church, Coptic Christians but still there is a general
acceptance of Quran in Islam and Bible in Christanity. In Hinduisim there is no
such uniform text from which one can derive single, coherent set of
injunctions. Even the major scriptures like Ramayana, Mahabharata and Bhagwata
Gita have different versions. For instance Ramayana has several versions like
kambana Ramayana, Valmiki Ramayana, Jain Ramayana and Buddhist Ramayana. The
differences prevail in the basic narrative , for example in Jain Ramayana,
contrary to popular perception Sita has been showed as the sister of Rama. The
text was not compiled over a period of time with the final version coming in
1200 A.D. Besides these, there are several texts for different schools of
belief like Shaivites, Vaishnaivaites, Shaktas, Pashupatas etc. Some of these
sects have fought against each other for centuries. Their belief systems, modes
of worship and rituals have been very different. Secondly, there is no formal
notion of conversion. Although ‘Arya samajis’ did launch a‘Shuddhi’ movement,
which aimed at bringing people back into the fold of Hinduism from Islam and
Christanity but it was not a movement with mass popularity. Lastly, there is no
single church in Hinduism or single place of worship like ‘Kaba’. There are
several places of key importance for a religious hindu like 12 jyotirlingams (Shiva
temples) 52 shakti pithas( Durga temples). There are four main Mathas( monastic
religious establishments) viz. Shringeri, Dwarka, Govardhana and Sharda math.
Then there are Shri vaishnava mathas and
Dvaita mathas.
In addition to these there is another side of Hinduism
which rebels against the traditional forms of worship. They include Nirgun
movements which do not believe in idol worship. The movements like Radhaswami
etc do not fancy any form of worshipping stones, trees, rivers.
There have been extremely hedonistic and nihilistic
movements like tantric cults, Aghor panth (having their origins in religious
movements of Buddha’s age like Makkhali ghosala, Purana kassapa etc. These
cults practice group orgies, eat human dead bodies and human wastes etc.
These different cults and belief systems have evolved
over a long period of history, with factors ranging from political, economic,
social, and cultural to metaphysical contributing to their evolution and
growth. Going into those aspects of the history of Hinduism is beyond the scope
of this essay. All these different orders began with many differences but since
they evolved in the same cultural setting so they had plethora of similarities.
In course of time due to continuous interaction the differences became
redundant and all these emerged as loosely connected networks with a common
essence running underlying, but still elusive to capture in words.
All these diverse spiritual paths and their
enlightened spiritual leaders, with their presence in society cultivated a
collective spiritual psyche in an ordinary hindu’s mindset which enabled him to
perceive the essential unity of all the divergent paths to know ultimate
reality. This enabled them to disregard superficial differences and worship the
inner essentials. This could easily be seen in the popularity of sufi saints in
India. It’s very interesting to observe that an ordinary hindu would bow his
head in front of any place of worship, be it Islamic, Christian or Hindu.
Hindus in India often visit dargahs and churches for the cure of supernatural
ailments.
As far as being cult or primitive-animistic religion
is concerned Hinduism has always assimilated into its fold various tribal and
animistic modes of worship. For example the ‘Murugan’ god of south Indian
tribal groups was accepted as the form of ‘kartikeya’( son of Shiva). Acharya Chatur
Sen in his classic ‘Somnath’ refers to various cults which practiced human
sacrifices. They have been mentioned as orders of Hinduism. Historically their
origins are not in Aryan groups. They became part of Hinduism with the
expansion of Brahmanical religious systems across the subcontinent.
Is it a philosophical-metaphysical system deserving a
serious academic and philosophical investigation?
The answer to this question is an unqualified
‘Yes’. Right from the beginning the
various schools of Hinduism have attempted to define and know reality. They
developed the theory of reality and the epistemology (theory of knowledge).
Jainas have their own metaphysics based on plurality of the cosmos. Buddhists
have their own metaphysical theory based on the doctrine of impermanence, cycle
of causation. Advaita has its theory of reality based on non-dualism of the
ultimate reality viz. ‘Brahman’. Sankhya metaphysics is dualistic analyzing
reality in terms of ‘Prakriti’ and ‘Purusha’.
In addition to this all these schools of Hinduism have
theory of knowledge debating on the sources of
knowledge like perception, inference, postulation and transcendental
perception or Yogic perception. The Nyaya epistemology is highly advanced in
syllogism and logical reasoning.
Caste
System: One of my friend in Cornell, studying comparative religions asked me to
explain the metaphysical origins of caste system for her thesis. I was not only
shocked but amused too. The caste system in Hinduism has no metaphysical
origins. It is a system to regulate social existence of individual members of
the society. The description given in the 10th chapter of Rigveda
that Brahmins originated from the mouth of Prjapati, kshtriyas from the hands
of Prajapati, Vaishyas from the thighs and shudras from the feet to Prajapati,
is only symbolic in significance. The caste system, to begin with, not at all
based on birth. It was based on one’s occupation. Even in one family there
could be people with different castes. The Purusha Sukta of Rigveda says, “Rig Veda 9.112.3
—I am a bard, my father is a physician, my mother's
job is to grind the corn.
The later scriptures like Bhagvad gita and Manusmriti
say that four varnas were created by God. But then Gita also says that one’s
caste is determined by one’s personal qualities and Karma not by one’s birth.
There were various saints from lower varnas like Valmiki and Vedvyasa. Even in
Bhakti movement various saints came from lower orders like Kabir, Dhanna,
Namdev, Ravidas etc. Even now many hindu saints and jaina saints are from lower
orders like Raikas and Chamars.
The exploitative dimension of caste system has
socio-cultural and political origins more than religious.
The most amusing part is that in the sub continent
people converted to other faiths but caste system percolated into those faiths.
For instance in Islam there is a very strong caste system. In south India
higher caste Christian converts prohibited the entry of lower caste converts to
their churches. The Syrian Christians who converted from upper echelons of
society still look for bride in the caste from which they converted.
Many of my friends often debate about the tenets of
Hinduism and Islam. I want clarify that such comparisons are meaningless and
irrational. Hinduism with its assimilative strength created such joint
Hindu-Muslim faith and social systems which would be unimaginable in any other
part of Islamic world. For example in Rajasthan(India) there is a community
called Mev in Bharatpur district. They are, by faith Muslims but their profession
is reciting the Bhajans of Shiva. Their main text is Ramayana. The names which
they keep are even more interesting like Ram Khan, Lakshman Khan. They do not
marry with their cousins. Similarly the notorious cult of thugi included
members from both the faiths but they worshipped their patron goddess Kali with
equal zeal and fervor. So any comparison
of the two religions would be an exercise in vain.
There is no single muslim practice, performing which
can make you a non-hindu. For example the Kalma which says “ la Ilaha illaaha,
Muhammad rasullah” ( there is no god but Allah and Muhammad was the last
prophet) in no way violates any Hindu belief system. There is a big difference
between the notion of ‘Prophet’ and ‘Avtara’ or incarnation, The word ‘Prophet’
means messenger of God and avtara means a form or a manifestation of God.
Essentially speaking there is no difference between the god and Avtara. Lord
Rama was not the messenger of Vishnu but he was the incarnation of Vishnu, the
birth of Vishnu in human form. The only difference which I perceive is that in
Hinduism, broadly speaking there is no distinction between the god and mankind
(that too if we regard the advaita as the major and dominant force of
Hinduism). The ‘jeev’ or the individual soul is capable of becoming ‘Shiva’ or
god through a spiritual journey. This difference is also at a relative or
superficial level. All the realized souls in Hinduism like Rama Krishna
Paramhansa (who even converted to Islam), kabir, Gulvani Maharaj opine that in
the final or ultimate state there is no difference. They opine that the paths
are different but the destination is one.
Thus it can be observed that Hinduism cannot be put
into water tight compartments. In fact the study of Hinduism through
categorizations will just complicate things and present a distorted picture of
the reality. It is just a loosely united network of different philosophical,
systems, faith systems, social systems and cultural systems. Its present form
and structure is the result of long process of evolution shaped by the
political, cultural, social forces of history.
However there is an abiding and unifying essence in these different
schools and that is liberation or attainment of spiritually enlightened
consciousness through meditation and penance.
All attempts to redefine Hinduism and present it as some kind of
monolithic faith based on uniform communal identity are mere cultural and
spiritual distortions. So it’s rational to adopt a post-modern approach in
studying Hinduism and study or know it for its own sake without looking for
ends or structures. One just needs to take a deep breath and feel the pure
perception.
With a soothing smile on your face you can always say,
‘Oh Hinduism, haha, its just a way of
life’ and chill.
