Nice article on those want to know about Hinduism.
I was born in a household which called itself ‘Gursikh’, a term which was used for people who believed in the Sikh holy book, Guru Granth Saheb, and the teachings of the ten Sikh gurus but did not adopt the five-Ks that are the distinguishing marks of every Sikh. Our father would get up at 4 O’Clockin the morning and, after taking a bath, would recite for three hours memorized portions of the holy scripture prescribed for devout Sikhs. As a child, I would wake up in the morning to the rich resonance of my father’s reciting the verses of that holy book. Our grandfather would visit the neighbourhood gurudwara every morning and bring daily ‘parshad’ for us. As a child, I was also made to memorise the Sikh “mool mantar” , which every Sikh knows as well as a Muslim knows his Kalma/Kalima.
And yet I knew that I was not a Sikh. There was no Singh at the end of my name. We never visited a Hindu mandir but celebrated all Hindu festivals, such as Dussehra, Diwali, Holi or Raakhi. My first encounter with the Hindu religion was not through a priest but a barber, who shorn me of my birth hair. And this was about it until I got married. The only other thing that I knew about the Hindu relgion were the stories from Ramayana and Mahabharat.
When I became a teenager, I got a bit curious about the religion with which my name identified me. Since then, I have read quite a bit about the Hindu relgion, but I am still not quite sure that I fully understand the relgion or what it stands for. But I have come to form a personal view of what this relgion stands for. This article is a description of that understanding.
When I think of Hinduism, the Sanskrit words “neti, neti” come to mind. In describing God, the Upanishadas do not refer to God in positive terms, but as “it’s not this, it’s not this (neither this nor that)”. The concept was much used by the famous Hindu sage, Sankara. “Thus, the Divine is not real as we are real, nor is it unreal. The divine is not living in the sense humans live, nor is it dead. The Divine is not compassionate as we use the term, nor is it uncompassionate. And so on. We can never truly define God in words. All we can do is say, it isn’t this, but also, it isn’t that either".
I feel the same way, when I try to describe Hinduism. Is it a Religion? The answer is that it’s not a Religion in the sense most people think of religions, yet, one cannot say that it is not a religion. Is it a philosophy? No, it is not a unique philosophy, yet it is full of rich philosophies? Does it have a Holy Scripture? No, it does not have The Scripture, but it has many scriptures which have a sacred status. Is it a Faith? No, it is not a Faith in the sense of a faith in a Holy Book or a Messenger of God, and yet, most Hindus do have a profound faith…and so on and so forth.
So, how does one define the Hindu relgion? I think that the best way to describe it is that it is a congregation or an umbrella of faiths or, as Atal Bihari Vajpayee once said, it is a commonwealth of religions, which existed on the Indian subcontinent when the people of this region first came into contact with outsiders. Another way of saying this is that it is an accumulation of spiritual doctrines/philosophies propounded by various sages on the Indian subcontinent. As is well-known, the word “Hindu” itself is given to us by outsiders. People from the other side of the river Sindh, or Sindhu, called the inhabitants of this region Hindus, as they pronounced “S” as “H”. The Rig-Veda describes the area as “Sapt-Sindhus” (seven rivers) and the old Zorastrian text mentions them as “Haft-Hindus”.
Does the concept of “Neti, neti” apply to this definition of Hinduism also? Yes, it does! When we talk of “umbrella of faiths”, we should realize that this umbrella also includes people without any faith. An important branch of Hinduism is “Sankhya”, founded by Sage Kapila. According to some Sankhya proponents, “There has no philosophical place for a creationist God in this system”. The Samkhyan’s argue that the existence of Ishvara cannot be proved and hence cannot be admitted to exist. This school also argues that an unchanging Ishvara as the cause cannot be the source of a changing world as the effect.
One of the great proponents of the Sankhya school was Charvak, a contemporary/adversary of Buddha. While traditional Hindu sages believed the universe to be made of five basic elements – earth, water, air, fire and sky (ether), Charvak accepted only the first four. He said that he would accept as truth only what could be perceived; since he could not touch, smell or feel sky, he could not consider it as a basic element. For the same reason, Charvak did not believe in soul (atman), nor did he believe in the caste system, as it depended upon the theory of reincarnation, but he did believe in the theory of Karma as a determinator of cause and consequence in this life. Incidentally, Buddha, too, was agnostic but, unlike Charvak, he did believe in reincarnation. Thus, Charvak’s Lokayukta philosophy should be considered less “Hindu” than Jainism, Buddhism or Sikhism, none of which challenged the Vedic philosophy of Karma and reincarnation.
Hindu Dharma
There is no word in the Indian native languages for Religion, or its Arabic equivalent, Madhab. It is commonly and erroneously translated as “Dharma”, which is better translated as the “right path” or ‘right way of living’, ‘proper conduct’, ‘duty’ or 'righteousness”. The closest name for Religion that comes to my mind is Panth, which is generally associated with a founder, such as the Sikh Panth, Budh Panth, Jain Panth or Kabir Panth.
The correct name for what is known as Hindu Religion is Sanatan Dharma, which roughly translates into “eternal law”. As was said earlier, it encompasses a wide variety of faiths. A Hindu can believe in one or more gods or no god at all. Most Hindus, however, do believe in the concept of Karma, reincarnation and Moksha. Hindus include believers in monotheism, monoism, pantheism and atheism. It would perhaps be accurate to say that most Hindus believe in One God while also accepting the existence of other gods.
Sacred Books
Shrutis
Hindu sacred books can be divided into two main categories –shrutis and smritis. Shrutis -that which is heard - are the four basic books of the Hindus, i.e., the Vedas and their ancillaries, the Upanishadas. They are called shrutis because they are not attributed to any humans and are considered as divine revelations by most Hindus. Their content is considered to be eternal and valid for all times and all places. There are four Vedas, namely Rig, Sam, Yajur and Athar. Of these, the oldest and the most important is Rigveda which consists of 10,589 verses in 1028 hymns in praise of various gods, such as Indra, Agni, Vayu and Rudra.
A sub-category of Vedas is Upanishads (meaning sitting down beside), which are also known as Vedanta. They primarily discuss philosophy, meditation and the nature of God. The Upanishadas were written after the Vedas and are generally considered to be a part of the Vedas. The exact number of Upanishadas is unknown – the Mughal Prince, Dara Shikoh, translated 50 Upanishadas into Persian in 1659; the Muktika Upanishad counts 108 Upanishadas; Max Mueller in 1879 was aware of 170 and there are other counts of more than 200 or even 300 Upanishadas.
Upanishadas, being non-ritualistic and more philosophical in nature, have played a more important role as the basis of the reformist Hindu movements led by such reformers as Swami Vivekananda and Swami Dayananda. “The Upanishadas hold information on basic Hindu beliefs, including belief in a world soul, a universal spirit, Brahman, and an individual soul, Atman. In Sanskrit, the word Brahman has two genders (masculine, Brahmâ, the creator-god or Brahmn, neuter, the Absolute). A variety of lesser gods are seen as aspects of this one divine ground, Brahman (different from Brahma). Brahman is the ultimate, both transcendent and immanent, the absolute infinite existence, the sum total of all that ever is, was, or ever shall be.” The word ‘aum’ also first appears in Upanishadas, as does the mantra of tranquility “aum, shanti aum”.
Smritis
Smritis are secondary to the Vedas in importance. Smriti means that which is remembered (as opposed to that which is heard). They are not considered divine or eternal and are relevant only for the time and age for which they were written. According to wikipedia, “classifying the Smriti has been a contentious issue, even the names of proposed categories are debated. One such taxonomy follows:
1.Dharmasastra or the laws. These are 18 books, each of which corresponds to an age of time.
2.Itihasa or the histories. These consist of 4 books, which include the Mahakavyas, or Epics Mahabharata and the Ramayana.
3.Purana or the writings. These are eighteen in number. They are secondary scriptures that mainly focus on Vishnu or Shiva as the preferred supreme Deity.
4.Vedanga. There are six constituents of vedas: the Shiksha, Vyakarana, Chandas, Nirukta, Jyotisha, & Kalpa.
5.Agama or the doctrines. These are three major divisions by doctrine: the Vaisnava, Saiva, and Sakta. Another way of grouping them is by Mantra, Tantra, and Yantra.
6.Darsana (aka Dyasana) or philosophies. This is represented by six schools of thought: Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Sankhya, Yoga, Purva Mimamsa, & Uttara Mimamsa (aka Vedanta).
One of the best known, and most controversial, smriti, is the Manu Smriti, which is in the category of Dharmasastras. When the British rulers decided to formulate laws for Indians according to their religious faiths, they chose Manu Smriti as a legal code for the Hindus. This was not really quite accurate, as Manu’s laws were meant for the Satyug; for the Kalyug, the appropriate dharmasastra is supposed to be by Parasara. The Dharmasastras are supposed to be updated to take into account the changing temporal needs; by this token, one might call The Hindu Code Bill, the modern dharmasastra by “Maharishi” Ambedkar.
Six Philosophical Schools
Most sources refer to six schools of theistic (astik) Hindu philosophy. There are in addition, non-theistic schools, such as Buddhism, Jainism and Lokayukta. I am not sure that I fully understand the subtle differences between the various schools, but they vary from the almost agnostic Sankhya to the bhakti flavour, which is part of the Yoga school. I have here reproduced a summary of these six schools from an Internet source, without any comment. [source: [The "Six Schools" of India, China, and Japan]]
S.ad.darshana, the “Six Schools” or “Six Doctrines” of “orthodox” Indian philosophy are the schools that accept the authority of the Vedas and thus religiously are considered part of Hinduism. Accepting the authority of the Vedas, however, does not mean actually using them. Mîmâm.sâ and Vedânta are specially the schools of interpretation of the Vedas; the other four are based on independent reasoning. “Heterodox” schools, which reject the authority of the Vedas, are found in separate religions, like Buddhism and Jainism, or with the rare, reviled “materialists,” whose own texts have all been lost. The treatment follows P. T. Raju’s The Philosophical Traditions of India [University of Pittsburgh Press, 1971, p. 35].
- Mîmâm.sâ, “Interpretation,” or Pûrva Mîmâm.sâ, “Prior Interpretation,” the School of Interpretation of the Karmakân.d.a, the “action part,” or first half, of the Vedas. Mîmâm.sâ originates fairly early, perhaps the 2nd century BC, since it is no more than an extension of the task of explaining the Vedas, a project that started in the Vedas themselves with the Brâhmanas. The doctrine of the eternity of the Vedas was argued by this school, and it mostly confined itself to promoting the sanctity and power of the Vedas. The school later was practically absorbed into Vedânta.
- Vedânta, “End of the Vedas,” or the Uttara Mîmâm.sâ, “Posterior Interpretation,” the School of Interpretation of the Jñanakân.d.a, the “knowledge part,” or second half, of the Vedas, i.e. the Forest Treatises and especially the Upanis.ads. Vedânta starts relatively late, since it picks up where the Upanis.ads leave off, and there may be Upanis.ads as late as 200 AD. Vedânta then sets down to interpret its fundamental texts, which include the Upanis.ads, the Bhagavad Gîta, and the Brahma Sûtras of Bâdarâyan.a, which were themselves written in the 1st or 2nd century AD and might be regarded as the first document of Vedânta itself. The variety of schools in Vedânta is indicated elsewhere, but it is worth noting that the influence of Buddhism still seems very strong in the classic expression of Advaita Vedânta in Shan.kara (c.788-820). Later forms of Vedânta became steadily more theistic and dualistic and thus approximated to Islâm rather than to Buddhism.
- Sânkhya, “Counting, Reckoning, Reasoning, Knowledge,” the School of Theoretical Knowledge. Sânkhya may well be the oldest school independent of the Vedas, growing up contemporaneously with the Upanis.ads themselves. It is argued by some that the Bhagavad Gîta was originally a popular exposition of the doctrine of the Sânkhya School, although the text is later dominated by theistic and devotionalistic additions. For our purposes, the salient features of Sânkhya doctrine are the theory of the gun.as, which was later accepted by all orthodox philosophy, and the principle that the self (or soul, the âtman or, in Sânkhya terminology, the purus.a) neither affects nor is affected by the world of nature (called prakr.ti in Sânkhya terminology). Sânkhya was originally atheistic, with an infinite number of souls, like Jainism. In the Gîta we see the role of Sânkhya changing from the theoretical counterpart to Yoga (in Chapter 2) to an independent yoga in its own right, jñanayoga (in Chapter 3). Jñanayoga in effect becomes simply Yoga, as follows; and historically the role of Sânkhya as the theoretical counterpart to Yoga is effectively taken over by Vedânta.
- Yoga, “Yoking, Vehicle, Equipment, Discipline,” the School of the Discipline of Achieving Liberation. The Yoga School is to be carefully distinguished from disciplines that are yogas in the general sense of the word yoga, which is any means of achieving salvation. Thus, there are the three yogas of the Bhagavad Gîta (jñânayoga, karmayoga, bhaktiyoga), which are meant as classifications of all yogas, and also various yogas that are usually part of some higher order yoga: dhyânayoga, meditation (mentioned in the Gîta); hat.hayoga, yogic exercises; prân.ayoga, yogic breathing; aus.adhayoga, taking drugs (not a common or esteemed method); mantrayoga, chanting sacred words or phrases; layayoga, the yoga of “dissolution”; etc. Tantrism employs sexual practices for yogic purposes. The method of the Yoga School in particular is sometimes called Râjayoga, the “royal yoga.” The Yoga School based its practice on the doctrine of the Sânkhya School, and the aim of its methods (hat.hayoga, etc.) was to quiet prakr.ti, nature as it exists in the body, so that, like a calm body of water, the body can reflect the true remote and detached nature of the purus.a, effecting liberation. The definitive and most famous statement of Yoga doctrine was in the Yoga Sûtras of Patañjali, perhaps in the 2nd century BC. Patañjali added a personal God to Sânkhya doctrine; but the system is not devotionalistic, and the God exists only as an exemplar of detachment, not as an active or creative Deity after the manner of Vis.n.u or Shiva.
- Nyâya, “Analysis,” the School of Logic, and
- Vaishes.ika, “Individual Characteristics,” the School of Pluralistic Metaphysics, are closely related minor schools. The relation of the doctrine of these schools to salvation is obscure and secondary. They concerned themselves much more with abstract issues of logic, epistemology, and metaphysics. Vaishes.ika in particular held that reality was an infinite number of atom-like entities, although these were then distinct from souls. This pluralism is similar to the teaching of two early schools of Buddhist philosophy, the Sautrântikas and Vaibhâs.ikas, who held that reality consists of an infinite number of momentary entities, the dharmas.”
Hinduism and Caste
The influence of caste is pervasive in the Hindu society and, indeed, transcends religion and affects even non-Hindu Indians, such as Sikhs, Muslims and Christians. This is a vast subject which deserves a separate discussion, but no exposition of Hinduism can be complete without a reference to it. I am restricting myself in this presentation to merely referring to the two popular sources of the caste system, also known as the Varna prasthithi or system.
We should first recognize the difference between Varna system and jaati (zaat in popular usage). The Varna system divides the society into four classes whereas jaati further subdivides people according to their occupation.
One of the popular sources for the varna system is found in the Rigveda. According to it, when Brahma decided to create humans, he took different parts of his body to create the human; from his head came the Brahmins, from his arm the Kshatriyas, from his thighs the Vaisyas and from his feet the Shudras; the hierarchy of a varna is associated with the part of Brahma from which it was created. This theory only explains the varnas but not the jaatis. It also does not explain the so-called untouchables who are outside the varna system altogether.
The second popular explanation of the caste system is socio-historical. According to this source, the caste system owes its origin to the conquest of North India by the Aryans (it should be noted that the theory of Aryan invasion has recently become highly controversial and is hotly contested by many who claim that Aryans did not come from the outside but were original inhabitants of North India). According to this theory, the Aryans came to India from South Europe and North Asia and were light skinned (varna means the colour of the skin in sanskrit, for example gaur varna for fair skin and shyam varna means dark skin) whereas the original inhabitants were Dravidians who were dark skinned. The Aryans divided themselves into three varnas, the twice-born (dwijyas) – namely, the Brahmins, the Kshatrias and the Vaisyas while the original inhabitants became peasants and artisans and were further classified according to their occupation. Many aboriginal inhabitants remained outside the varna system and became “untouchable”.
So, Who is a Hindu?
I will conclude by giving my own definition of a Hindu: In my understanding, a Hindu is someone who may believe in one or more gods or goddesses or not believe in any god at all, but he does not claim to have a monopoly over the Absolute Truth and is willing to give the same respect to the validity of others’ beliefs as to his own. In other words, Hinduism lacks the certitude of the three Abrahmic faiths, namely, Judaism, Christianity and Islam and, maybe, also of Sikhism.
