Has Hinduism had the Longest Tradition of Continuous Religion?

Those who say that Hinduism is a label and not a Religion have a valid point. In my opinion, Religion as a concept itself is alien to the native ``religions`` and there is no word in Indic language that I can think of that corresponds to ``mazhab``.

There is no need for Hindus to be ashamed of this lack of ``Religion``, which is a uniquely Middle Eastern contribution to humanity. But this does not mean that people of the subcontinent do not have any continuous religion-type traditions. Indeed, what we call Hinduism may indeed be viewed as an umbrella of various faiths and traditions bound by some common rituals and concepts. These rituals have remained unchanged since the Vedic times, as pointed out by someone, and the chants and mantras used by the priests in Kanyakumari are the same as used by the priests in Amritsar. And the concepts of reincarnation, karma and a desire to acheive moksha, are also common to most faiths. Within this umbrella, there was tolerance for diverse and even contradictory hypotheses regarding the nature of the Beyond, which included monotheism, polytheism, agnosticism, atheism or even hedonism. We do not know how and when the term Hindu came into being. But the ``shoe`` fitted and the people started wearing it quite comfortably.

One more longish post:


Bhikhu Parekh may be Marxist in tendency and I might not agree with every word but this article contains a fair description of the general Hindu attitude to religion, wrt its tolerance and intolerance both :

http://www.india-seminar.com/2003/521/521%20bhikhu%20parekh.htm
Some reflections on the Hindu theory of tolerance

BHIKHU PAREKH

...
Hindu theory of tolerance is grounded in and overdetermined by the following four beliefs, which have played and continue to play an important part in Hindu thought. First, primacy of conduct. Hindus hold that the ethical quality of life and not a body of dogmas lies at the heart of religion, and matters most. Religion represents a way of life, and is to be judged by the kind of life it inspires.

Beliefs are not important in themselves but only insofar as they affect one’s ability to lead the good life, and are to be assessed not in terms of their cognitive validity but their moral effects. Hindus are therefore allowed a considerable freedom of religious belief including borrowing those of other religions provided that they lead what the wider society takes to be an acceptable way of life.

Second, a dharmic view of morality. The ethically acceptable life is one lived according to dharma or a set of moral duties. Dharma is divided into two types: sadharanadharma or universally binding duties such as telling the truth, non-injury to other living beings, non-stealing, purity, freedom from envy and control of passions, and varnashramadharma or the duties pertaining to one’s caste and stage in life. Unlike the former which is the same for all, the latter is relative to and varies with the individual’s caste and stage in life. Except in the case of the renunciates who step out of the social order altogether, the good life in the Hindu view is one that meets the demands of both, especially the latter.

This idea is also extended to non-Hindu societies, each believed to have its own view of dharma which it is entitled to follow. In the traditional Hindu society, such non-Hindu communities as existed were generally entitled to live by their traditional customs and practices. According to Dharmasastras, their dharma is an integral part of their communal identity and collective inheritance, and it is an act of sacrilege to violate it.

Third, individual uniqueness. For Hindus, every individual is the ultimate architect of his life and must work out his salvation himself. Salvation is not a gift or an undeserved act of grace, but a personal achievement based on one’s karma or deeds. While sharing the atman with others, every individual has a distinct self consisting of a unique set of psychological and moral dispositions (swabhava), that is a product of his karma in his previous life and which he can and should improve upon in this one.


Every human being goes through a cycle of births in the course of a journey all his own, and builds up a distinct personality or self. No two individuals are therefore ever like or have the same moral and spiritual needs. The mode of worship, the conception of god, and the form of moral and spiritual discipline that suit one individual do not necessarily suit another. Although they all have the same destination, namely liberation from the cycle of rebirth,their paths vary.

Fourth, religious pluralism. For the Hindus the ultimate reality is infinite and cannot by definition be grasped in its totality by the finite human mind. All religions grasp some aspects of it and miss out others. Like the blind men trying to imagine the size and shape of the elephant on the basis of one particular part of it, different religions represent different and inherently partial visions of the ultimate reality and contain both truth and error.2 Even though God incarnates Himself in history, He reveals Himself differently to different societies and epochs depending on their capacities and needs. Divine self-revelation is a continuous process, and no religion can claim to offer the final and exhaustive knowledge of God.



For Hindus, all religions are so many different ways of understanding and realising the ultimate reality or what may loosely be called God. As one of the Vedic maxims asserts, ‘Truth or Reality is one, though sages call it by different names.’3 In the Bhagvadgita, Krishna says that ‘whoever comes to me through whatever route, I reach out to him,’ and that ‘all paths in the end lead to me.’4 This raises the question whether some religions might not be wholly misguided or unworthy of respect.

The Hindu response is ambiguous. Some Hindu thinkers rule out this possibility. Some others hold that every religion has a self-correcting mechanism and that a wholly misguided one is bound eventually to collapse under the weight of its errors and false promises. Most, however, admit the possibility of a false or misguided religion, and argue that a religion that violates sadharanadharma or universal moral values and enjoins murder, deception, lying, and so on is inherently suspect. In their view certain values are so central to human life that they set limits to what constitutes a religion or one worthy of respect.

These four beliefs form the basis of the Hindu theory and practice of tolerance. Since religion is concerned with the quality of life and not with subscription to a particular body of dogmas, Hindus argue that all theological and religious disputes are pointless.5 The dharmic view of morality implies that different individuals and groups should lead different forms of life depending on their caste, psychological make up, traditions, and so on, and that inducing or coercing them to do otherwise violates their moral integrity and damages their wellbeing.

The principle of individual uniqueness implies that no religion suits all equally, that the idea of a single universal religion is fundamentally flawed, that each religion should grant its adherents the freedom to adapt its doctrines and practices to their unique spiritual needs, and that we should encourage tolerance not only of other religions but also within each of them. Finally, religious pluralism implies that since all religions lead to the same destination, mean much to their members, and contain both truth and error, they deserve equal respect. As Radhakrishnan once said, ‘tolerance is the homage the finite mind pays to the inexhaustibility of the infinite.’


The Hindu theory of tolerance approaches the question of tolerance from an angle very different to that of most of its European counterparts, and has its obvious strengths and limitations. Although it does not reduce religion to morality, it takes the latter to be central to religion, and makes little philosophical and emotional investment in religious beliefs. If an individual can lead the good life by holding one set of beliefs rather than another, he is left free to do so.

This partly explains why the Hindu religious tradition has generally been able to live with vast and deep doctrinal differences and avoid sectarian quarrels. Since it expects each individual and social group to lead their own appropriate way of life, it places tolerance at the centre of morality and religion, and avoids the all too familiar monistic disputes about which way of life is the best and should be imposed on others.``

...

The message here is not one of isolation of ``Brahminism`` from the folk traditions, even in language.
http://www.kannadasaahithya.com/eng/index.php?layout=main&cslot_1=48
Flowering of the backyard

U R Ananthamurthy

We have always lived in India in an ambience of languages. In the past Shankara who wrote in Sanskrit must have spoken Malayalam; and Madhwacharya in Udupi must have spoken Tulu and Kannada, but wrote in Sanskrit; and Ramanuja who must have been profoundly moved by the Alvar saints of Tamil also wrote in Sanskrit. Each of these great philosopher-saints, who propagated Advaita, Dvaita and Visishtadvaita philosophies travelled through the whole country and had disciples all over India. They also influenced, mystic poets in the regional languages of India through the centuries. The languages they spoke and the language they used for their learned discourse fulfilled specific functions in their lives. But the two did not remain apart. What was learned philosophical speculation based on the Vedas became myth and poetry in the bhashas of the common people. Also, a profound egalitarian impulse entered into the hegemonic structure of the Indian society. The Dasas of Karnataka, Chaitanya of Bengal and the Alvars of Tamil are products of such a process within the tradition.

Something else also happened in India. Goutama Buddha didn`t choose to write in Sanskrit. He questioned the authority of the Vedas and spoke the language of the unlearned masses. So too did the Jain philosophers. Later, in the medieval period (not the dark age here as in Europe), the saint poets of India didn`t use Sanskrit but the bhashas of India. They were mystics, their experience of God was immediate and not speculative. Basava, Tukaram, Kabir, Nanak and Chaitanya, by opting for the language of everyday speech for religious experience, empowered the languages of the masses. As a direct consequence of this option, their poetry empowered the women and people of low castes who spoke these languages. The spiritual insights and philosophical subtleties which marked Sanskrit, the language of the elite classes, became thus the possession of the Indian Bhashas. These Bhashas, ever since the medieval period, have always been the conduits of egalitarian passion working through the history of India. It is a continuous process of inclusion, and not negation of any language, either of Sanskrit ``the language of the Gods`` in the past, or of Persian or English, ``the languages of the powerful ruling classes`` later on. The most recent of these great saints, who can be described as the critical insiders of Indian civilization, is Mahatma Gandhi, who wrote in Gujarati, Hindustani and English.
...
A thousand years, ago, Pampa, a great Jain poet in my language, Kannada, wrote Mahabharata making Arjuna his hero. Thus he idealized the Hindu king who he served by comparing him to Arjuna. The Lord Krishna, who is the central figure for another great Hindu epic poet, Naranappa, could not have played the same divine function for Pampa in his recreation of the old epic. Pampa was profoundly Jain in his faith. It is amazing how in the past one could work within a tradition and yet strike a new path to suit his religious faith. it is a transcreation of the Mahabharata, which allowed him to remain true to his, Jain faith, while expressing his worldly loyalty to the king of another faith. This is truly a memorable example of creative secularism in India`s past, a thousand years ago.

Pampa`s worldly concern does not end with mere official loyalty to the king. He uses his lively sense of his times to make an ancient epic embody contemporary realities. Thus, in the poetic structuring of his work he manages to imbibe into the indigenous genius of his language what Vyasa and Kalidasa could offer him in Sanskrit. He is still a model as a writer to contempoary poets in Kannada. We have not only transferred experiences of one language into another in a continuous and spontaneous act of translation in the course of our daily lives, we have also knit India together through the ages in Pampa`s way. We have. freely used Ramayana and Mahabharata for this purpose. Therefore, it is possible to say, that, apart from all the innumerable languages of India, there are two more languages, metaphorically speaking. These are the great epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata. Most of us, I would dare say, have not read these two epics `for the first time`, as a European can be said to have read his Homer.

I remember here what A.K.Ramanujan, a creative translator of Indian literature once narrated. He was collecting oral Ramayanas in the Kannada language. There are thousands of them. These folk Ramayanas are narrated from memory by the non-literate rural people. In one of these Ramayanas, as in every one of them, Rama advises Sita that she should stay back in the palace and not accompany him to the forest to which only he has been exiled. Rama argues that Sita is a delicate princess and has never known suffering, and life in the forest is dangerous. Sita argues back that as his wife her dharma is to be by his side in joy and sorrow. The heated conversation is morally edifying to the listeners. What surprises is what follows. Rama comes up with very clever reasons for Sita to stay behind and serve his old and ailing mother. Then Sita demurs coyly, but firmly: ``In every Ramayana that I know of, Sita goes to the forest with her husband. How can you then say `no` to me?`` It is obvious that this rural Sita could not have read Valmiki; she needn`t read him either. Like everyone else through the whole land, whatever be her mother-tongue, she inherits Valmiki`s story. This is an excellent example of inter-textuality in Indian literary and cultural heritage...``

Re: # 272

``So many contradictions lead to just one conclusion that Hinduism is no religion at all but a hotchpotch of pagan rites..................``


Hate Pot alias CKP -

If you could not comprehend my original contention that the only commonality amongst all ``religions`` is the belief in Body-Spirit polarity, then you obviously need to pass a course on `Sociology of Religion` as well as ``Philosophy of Religion`` in order to find answers to your undergraduate level questions-

You are raising a question from a bigoted mullah view point that Pagan Religions like Hinduism are not like (Abrahmic) Religions and hence NOT (Abrahmic) ``religion`` ( and the Islamists` supressed underlying inference about his superiority!)

My view is that all religions share this belief in Body-Spirit polarity and the question of monotheism, monism, theism, polytheism are just a question of what metaphysics you develop on this polarity.

From what we can see Hinduism is a group of sub-religions like Buddhism etc which share metaphysical and ritualistic beliefs. Hinduism is obviously a Class , a Collective of similar sub-religions. To argue about its non-existnce is like saying that Abrahmic Religions have contradictory metaphysical views and hence does not exist. This is a laughable argument.


It is really amusing to see a politician argue!!!

An alternate view

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/later.html

POST-SANKARAN ADVAITINS - AN OVERVIEW
A large number of teachers and writers have left their impress upon the advaita tradition during the 12 centuries after SankarAcArya. This page mentions only the seminal figures in the history of post-Sankaran advaita. True to the advaita spirit of not identifying with the body, our writers rarely give any clues to personal details in their texts. Consequently, all dates mentioned here rely upon the academic research that has been done within the last two centuries. Traditional details are mentioned where necessary, and it is important to remember that some historical details are still being disputed in the literature.

A list of post-Sankaran authors in advaita will have to include both sannyAsins and householders. Moreover, some householder authors took the vows of sannyAsa at a later stage in their lives, which means that some authors are known by more than one name (e.g. janArdana - Anandagiri). A general rule of thumb is that an author whose last name is miSra, or a variant of upAdhyAya, or dIkshita is a householder, while the names of sannyAsins are indicated by daSanAmI suffixes. However, there are some early sannyAsin authors whose daSanAmI suffixes are not known, such as jnAnaghana (grand-disciple of sureSvara, and author of tattvaSuddhi), his disciple, jnAnottama (the author of vidyASrI), vimuktAtman, citsukha, sukhaprakASa, amalAnanda and others. In these cases, that they were sannyAsins is known by the terms muni, yati, yogi etc. used by later commentators. The sannyAsin authors were generally associated with the four maThas established by Sankara and the other maThas established later. Thus, jnAnaghana and jnAnottama are found on the succession list of the Sringeri maTha, and Anandagiri is found on the list of the Dvaraka maTha. Meanwhile,the householder scholars formed the communities in which the sannyAsins were born, and from which the maThAdhipatis were chosen.

The name of vAcaspati miSra (9th century CE) stands out among the early post-Sankaran authors in the advaita tradition. His commentary, named bhAmatI [1], on SankarAcArya`s brahmasUtra bhAshya, is celebrated, and has given birth to a sub-tradition within advaita, called the bhAmatI school. Many commentaries to bhAmatI have been written in the course of the centuries. vAcaspati miSra is said to have written a commentary named tattva samIkshA to maNDana miSra`s brahmasiddhi, which is now unfortunately lost to us. He is also well-known as a scholar who wrote authoritative treatises in various Indian philosophical traditions, including nyAya-vaiSeshika (nyAyasUcInibandha and tAtparyaTIkA), yoga (tattvavaiSAradI), mImAm.sA (nyAyakaNikA) and sAm.khya (tattvakaumudI), in addition to advaita vedAnta. His erudition made him famous as a sarvatantra-svatantra, a title of high respect in India.

The next important author from the 10th century CE is prakASAtman, who wrote the vivaraNa [2] to padmapAda`s pancapAdikA. This work has also received a long line of commentaries from later authors, and lends its name to the other important sub-tradition in advaita vedAnta, namely the vivaraNa school. prakASAtman also wrote the SabdanirNaya and the nyAyamuktAvalI, a commentary on the brahmasUtras. sarvajnAtman, the author of samkshepa-SArIraka, pancaprakriyA and pramANa-lakshaNa [3] is another notable 10th century author. sarvajnAtman salutes his guru deveSvara in his works. The name deveSvara is usually seen as a synonym of sureSvara, Sankara`s disciple, and on this basis, sarvajnAtman is sometimes identified with nityabodhaghana. However, in the pramANa-lakshaNa, sarvajnAtman mentions the name of deveSvara`s guru as devAnanda, whose guru was SreshThAnanda. Hence, there is some confusion over whether sarvAjnAtman was a direct disciple of sureSvara or not.

sarvajnAtman was probably a younger contemporary of vimuktAtman, the author of ishTasiddhi. [4] One author named jnAnottama, who lived in the 12th century CE, wrote the candrikA on sureSvara`s naishkarmyasiddhi, and a vivaraNa to the vimuktAtman`s ishTasiddhi. This jnAnottama lived in the region of Tanjavur in Tamil Nadu. His full name in the manuscripts is jnAnottama miSra mahopAdhyAya, which indicates that unlike the jnAnottama mentioned earlier, he was a householder scholar. There is some evidence from the last verse of the candrikA that this author later became a sannyAsin by name sarvajnASrama.

Between the 9th and 13th centuries, SankarAcArya`s exposition of advaita came under attack by rival vedAntin teachers, such as bhAskara (bhedAbheda), rAmAnuja (viSishTAdvaita), nimbArka (dvaitAdvaita), and AnandatIrtha (dvaita). There was also a resurgence of nyAya-vaiSeshika philosophy around the same time, culminating in the fully developed navya-nyAya school of later times. After this period, all later authors in the advaita tradition concentrate on addressing issues raised by philosophers from nyAya, and rival schools of vedAnta. This is in contrast with the early authors whose major concerns were with the tenets of the sAm.khya, mahAyAna buddhists and the pUrva mImAm.sakas.

SrIharsha, who wrote the khaNDana-khaNDa-khAdya, [5] is an important author in the history of advaita vedAnta. He mainly addresses the nyAya school, and points out fallacies in their definitions of various concepts. Such criticisms lead to a later reworking of the nyAya system, which soon lost its earlier naive realism. After SrIharsha`s time, logical formalism took center stage, culminating in the highly formal logical system of the navya-nyAya (new logic) school. The khaNDana-khaNDa-khAdya was commented upon both by advaitins and naiyyAyikas. SrIharsha is also famous as the author of the naishAda-carita, which relates the purAnic story of nala and damayantI. He is known for using extremely difficult grammatical constructions in the sam.skRta language, and constructing sentences using words in such a way as to yield multiple meanings. For example, the word yAgeSvara can be split as yAgAnAm ISvara:, the lord of sacrifices, or as yA ageSvara:, the lord of mountains, and both meanings are significant in the same sentence. SrIharsha`s work has been commented upon by many later advaitins, and also by authors in the nyAya-vaiSeshika tradition.

citsukha, a disciple of jnAnottama, wrote a number of works, including commentaries on the khaNDana-khaNDakhAdya, brahmasiddhi and naishkarmyasiddhi. His tattvapradIpikA is more famously known as citsukhI. [6] Like SrIharsha before him, citsukha also makes effective use of the dialectical method seen in the works of nAgArjuna, the buddhist philosopher. Both acknowledge this fact, but criticize the madhyamaka school for not affirming the ultimate reality of brahman. Anandabodha, AnandAnubhava, akhaNDAnanda and anubhUtisvarUpAcArya are other important authors in the 13th century. sukhaprakASa, a disciple of citsukha, wrote commentaries on Anandabodha`s and anubhUtisvarUpa`s works. amalAnanda, a disciple of sukhaprakASa, wrote the vedAntakalpataru on the bhAmatI and also a pancapAdikA-darpaNa, thus forming an early link between the bhAmatI and vivaraNa schools.

Anandagiri (also known as AnandajnAna), a disciple of SuddhAnanda, is well-known as the author of a number of TIkAs and TippaNas on SankarAcArya`s upanishad bhAshyas. [7] anubhUtisvarUpa, mentioned earlier, was an important figure in the sArasvata grammatical tradition, and was probably another guru of Anandagiri`s. He wrote the prakaTArtha-vivaraNa on Sankara`s brahmasUtrabhAshya and a mANDUkya-kArikA-bhAshya. Both SuddhAnanda and Anandagiri are mentioned in the lineage of the Dvaraka maTha. Anandagiri is popularly known as the TIkAkAra. His tarka sangraha is a refutation of the vaiSeshika categories, and is a very popular text in the tradition. Anandagiri is probably identical with janArdana, the author of vedAntatattvAloka. Anandagiri is often mistakenly identified with toTakAcArya, an immediate disciple of SankarAcArya. The Sankara-vijaya of anantAnandagiri, a much later author, is also mistakenly attributed to Anandagiri. Needless to say, both identifications are erroneous.

By far the most important authors in the 14th century are SankarAnanda, bhAratI tIrtha and vidyAraNya. Together, the latter two wrote a number of definitive works, including the adhikaraNa ratnamAlA (also called vaiyAsika nyAyamAlA), pancadaSI, jIvanmuktiviveka, anubhUtiprakASa and vivaraNaprameyasangraha. [8] Both authors were from the Sringeri lineage, and were disciples of vidyAtIrtha (also called vidyAsankara), as attested by the evidence of the anubhUtiprakASa. vidyAraNya is traditionally known to be the guiding spirit behind the founders of the Vijayanagar empire in southern India. That vidyAraNya and bhAratI tIrtha wrote together is mentioned by their direct disciple, rAmakRshNa bhAratI, who wrote the pancadaSI-tAtparyabodhinI.

In the pancadaSI, vidyAraNya mentions SankarAnanda as another guru of his. This SankarAnanda was a disciple of AtmAnanda, and he wrote many dIpikAs on the upanishads belonging to the atharvaveda. He also wrote the AtmapurANa and the bhagavad-gItA-tAtparyabodhinI. He is said to have been a native of Tiruvidaimarudur in Tamil Nadu, and is also associated with the holy places Srisailam and Ahobilam in Andhra Pradesh. His name is also found in the lineages of a few branch maThas of the Sringeri and Puri maThas. [9] vidyAraNya is normally identified in modern literature with a mAdhava, but the identification remains controversial. The mAdhavIya Sankaravijaya is traditionally attributed to vidyAraNya. The sarvadarSana-sangraha, which is a compendium of Indian philosophical thought, presents the tenets of the major contemporary schools of thought in a hierarchical fashion, with advaita vedAnta as the ultimate truth.

There are many authors from the 14th and 15th centuries CE. The growth of the Vijayanagar empire and its vassal states in southern India was a crucial factor in the preservation and transmission of all Indian religious and philosophical traditions. Beginning with the sons of sangama, the founders of the Vijayanagar empire, the kings of the first dynasty identified closely with advaita vedAnta and regarded the SankarAcAryas of the Sringeri maTha as their gurus. A brahmasUtravRtti is even attributed to prauDhadevarAya, one of the early Vijayanagar kings. The later dynasties which ruled the Vijayanagar empire were predominantly Vaishnava, but the kings encouraged and patronized teachers from all sects and faiths, including Muslims. All aspects of traditional Indian culture found patronage in the empire. Among the texts written in the 15th century, the vedAntasAra of sadAnanda yogIndra [10] enjoys great popularity. It is often used as an introductory text in the advaita tradition. sadAnanda also wrote the vedAntasiddhAnta-sArasangraha, bhavaprakASa on the gItA and the brahmasUtra-tAtparyaprakASa.

In the 16th century, prakASAnanda sarasvatI`s vedAntasiddhAnta-muktAvalI, [11] and siddhAntadIpa, a commentary on this work by nAnA dIkshita, represent a move away from the influential bhAmatI and vivaraNa sub-schools. These two authors argue for the dRshTi-sRshTi vAda, but not many other works are found along this line. prakASAnanda also wrote a few works in the SAkta tradition, such as tArAbhakti tarangiNI. This work is also not very widely known, although the worship of saguNa brahman in the form of the Goddess has been intimately connected with the advaita vedAnta tradition, since ancient times. The SrIvidyA tradition, in particular, has been largely assimilated into advaita communities, especially in southern India.

In philosophy, the vivaraNa sub-school continued to be very important, as represented by nRsimhASrama (disciple of jagannAthASrama), who was an extremely influential teacher in the 16th century. His bhedadhikkAra [12] is an early example of the polemical debate between dvaita and advaita philosophers. He also wrote advaitadIpikA, tattvaviveka, vedAntaratnakoSa, a commentary on padmapAda`s pancapAdikA, tattvabodhinI on sarvajnAtman`s samkshepasArIraka and bhAvaprakASikA on prakASAtman`s vivaraNa. He and his disciples, nArAyaNASrama, rAmASrama and others flourished in the south and wrote many texts. One of the most famous disciples of nRsimhASrama was dharmarAja adhvarIndra, whose vedAnta paribhAshA is immensely popular. [13] All these authors of the vivaraNa school pay a lot of attention to epistemological issues, and dharmarAja systematizes the pramANas (source of valid knowledge) in pUrva mImAm.sA and advaita vedAnta.

In the 16th-17th centuries, a number of south Indian householder scholars, surnamed dIkshita, rose to prominence in the advaita tradition. The name dIkshita is used only for those who have performed certain Vedic sacrifices. Chief among them was appayya dIkshita, whose most famous work was the siddhAntaleSasangraha. [14] He also wrote the parimala on amalAnanda`s kalpataru, thus representing the bhAmatI sub-school. However, appayya dIkshita points out that the differences between the vivaraNa and bhAmatI schools are not because of philosophical disagreement on fundamental principles, but a result of differing technique and the emphasis on different issues, such as epistemology in one and ontology in the other. Like vAcaspati miSra, appayya dIkshita has also written many texts on nyAya-vaiSeshika, pUrva mImAm.sA and other schools. He also wrote the madhva-tantra-mukha-mardanam, attacking the dvaita school, and an autocommentary to it, called vidhvamsana. Many descendents of appayya dIkshita were great scholars and authors in various fields of traditional learning well into recent times, including tyAgarAja makhin of the 19th century. Popularly known as Raju Sastrigal, this scholar wrote the sadvidyAvilAsa on the famous uddAlaka-Svetaketu dialogue of the chAndogya upanishad. swAmI SivAnanda, who founded the Divine Life Society, was another descendent of appayya dIkshita.

Tradition records that appayya was initially a follower of the SivAdvaita school of the 13th century teacher, SrIkaNTha. appayya wrote the SivArkamaNidIpikA on SrIkaNTha`s brahmasUtrabhAshya. In the SivAdvaitanirNaya and the Sivatattvaviveka, appayya dIkshita tries to accommodate SrIkaNTha`s thought within Sankaran advaita vedAnta. He represents the close connections between Saivas and the followers of SankarAcArya during this period in southern India. narasimha bhAratI, who was an AcArya in the Sringeri line, and a contemporary of appayya dIkshita, wrote a commentary to the SivagItA. An earlier example of this synthesis is mallanArAdhya, who wrote the advaitaratna, to which nRsimhASrama wrote a commentary called tattvadIpana. mallanArAdhya`s name indicates that he belonged to the ArAdhya group of brAhmaNas, who greatly respected the vIraSaiva leader basavaNNa, but unlike the vIraSaivas, did not reject the authority of the vedas. A great motivating factor for this was surely the fact that south Indian vaishNava religion had given birth to two schools of vedAnta, namely the viSishTAdvaita of rAmAnuja and the dvaita of AnandatIrtha. Meanwhile, advaitins and Saivas found common cause in various social, religious and political issues, which is reflected in appayya`s works. This understanding must have been helped by the religious customs of most traditional advaitins. For example, a Sivalinga is consecrated at the site where a sannyAsin of the advaita order is buried, and advaitins themselves worship Siva and vishNu as equally valid forms of saguNa brahman. However, appayya dIkshita was no narrow sectarian. He is known to have composed a commentary on the yAdavAbhyudaya, a work of vedAnta deSika, a vaishNava leader. The inclusivistic and non-sectarian nature of the followers of Sankara is also seen from other customs and texts dating from this period.

bhaTTojI dIkshita, the great grammarian scholar from the north was a disciple of appayya dIkshita. bhaTTojI`s brother, rangojI bhaTTa, wrote advaita works such as advaitacintAmaNi and attacked the dvaita school of AnandatIrtha in his madhva-siddhAnta-bhanjanI. bhaTTojI wrote advaitakaustubha, a dIpana on nRsimhASrama`s tattvaviveka, and the madhvamata-vidhvamsana against dvaita. rangoji`s grandson, lakshmInRsimha, wrote the well-known Abhoga commentary in the bhAmatI line.

madhusUdana sarasvatI, disciple of viSveSvara sarasvatI and mAdhava sarasvatI, is the most celebrated name in the annals of the great dvaita-advaita debate. He also flourished in the 16th century. His advaitasiddhi [15] is a classic work, and most advaita teachers maintain that all the logical issues raised by the dvaita school of AnandatIrtha have been more than sufficiently answered by madhusUdana. His gUDhArthadIpikA on the bhagavadgItA is another well-known treatise. In addition, he wrote the ISvarapratipatti-prakASa, vedAntakalpalatikA, sArasangraha on sarvajnAtman`s samkshepa-SArIraka, and the justly famous siddhAntabindu on SankarAcArya`s daSaSlokI. madhusUdana sarasvatI was a great devotee of Lord kRshNa. Just like appayya dIkshita, who integrated SivAdvaita into advaita vedAnta, madhusUdana bridged the sAtvata school of pAncarAtra vaishNavism and advaita vedAnta philosophy. It is also interesting to note that madhusUdana boldly differs from Sankara in some of his interpretations of the brahmasUtras and the gItA, although he salutes Sankara and sureSvara in the most reverential terms.

madhusUdana sarasvatI is popularly reported to have been a contemporary of the Mughal emperor Akbar. It is said that on Akbar`s suggestion, madhusUdana initiated large numbers of sannyAsins from kshatriya and vaiSya communities to the daSanAmI orders, in order to form a group of martially trained ascetics to protect the people. This most probably reflects historical fact. Armed nAga sannyAsin warriors, tracing their origins to madhusUdana sarasvatI, and affiliated with the daSanAmI akhADas, were a component of almost every Rajput army in northern India, till fairly recent times. Tradition also recounts that viTThaleSa, the son of vallabhAcArya of the SuddhAdvaita pushTimArga school, studied under madhusUdana sarasvatI, who thus forms a crucial link between advaita vedAnta and many vaishNava sects in the north.

In the 18th century, sadASiva brahmendra and upanishad brahmendra were very important teachers in southern India. sadASiva brahmendra was a disciple of paramaSivendra sarasvatI (author of Siva gItA vyAkhyA and dahara vidyA prakASikA) and grand-disciple of abhinava nArAyaNendra sarasvatI, who wrote many upanishad dIpikAs. sadASiva wrote AtmavidyAvilAsa, advaitarasamanjarI and other popular works. [16] Numerous legends are reported about his saintliness, the miracles he worked and the height of his brahman realization. His simple kIrtanas are meant to teach advaita values to even the most illiterate person, and are very popular in Carnatic music today. He passed away in Nerur in Tamil Nadu, where annual ArAdhanas are held at his samAdhi-sthala. The sannyAsins in sadASiva brahmendra`s lineage lived and taught in the extreme south of India, and were widely known, but their maTha affiliations, if any, are not known.

rAmacandrendra sarasvatI, disciple of vAsudevendra sarasvatI, was popularly called upanishad brahmendra. He was the first author in the advaita tradition to write commentaries on all the 108 upanishads listed in the muktikopanishad. His commentaries are considered to be authoritative, and are quite popular among sannyAsin communities in the south. In the tradition of samanvaya used in the brahmasUtras, he harmonizes the various doctrines found in these texts, and weaves their extensive religious lore into the consistent philosophical framework of Sankaran advaita. upanishad brahmendra lived and taught in Kancipuram in the south. He established hiw own maTha at Kanci, which continues to this day, under the leadership of illustrious sannyAsins. Tyagaraja, the great composer in Carnatic music, was a disciple of upanishad brahmendra.

The 20th century.In the 20th century, there has been an enormous amount of activity....
..
This brief survey of post-Sankaran authors in the advaita tradition attests to its basic continuity irrespective of India`s numerous historical upheavals. A large number of the teachers in the tradition have remained anonymous, as they taught only select students, and did not write commentarial texts. Great teachers and authors are found from all over India, but the scholastic tradition has always been stronger in the south. The sannyAsins travelled far and wide all over India, preaching basic religious values to the masses and teaching philosophy to competent students. These teachers often lived and taught side by side with Saiva siddhAntins, viSishTAdvaitins, dvaitins, bhedAbhedavAdins, leaders of various bhakti movements, Jains, Muslims and others. As no human being lives in a vacuum, the rapid changes in India`s social, political and religious landscape made their presence felt in the personal lives of the post-Sankaran teachers in advaita. We see teachers of the stature of appayya dIkshita, madhusUdana sarasvatI and prakASAnanda sarasvatI bringing various Saiva, vaishNava and SAkta religious groups, with their own legacies, within the fold of the orthodox advaita vedAnta tradition. The leadership of teachers of advaita vedAnta contributed immensely to the inclusivistic nature of Hinduism, and encouraged a tolerant attitude towards diverse religious practices, that is so essential to a pluralistic society. However, through it all, the basic ``Great Equation`` of advaita vedAnta (Atman = brahman) has been firmly adhered to. The tradition continues to this day, and possesses an enormous amount of resilience to continue well into the future.

a very useful read.

Baig

A good article indeed. I could not rad the interacts but had always been intrigued how soft and pluralistic Indian civilization, culture or religion could survive against the onslaught of the religion like Islam with its `Islamofascism`?

#289
If people provide basis for what they say, I think it makes for a healthy debate even though I don`t understand some people`s obsession about whether Hinduism is a religion or not nor why is it is so important to them one way or the other? What I can`t stand is people`s inconsistency or selective view of history. If historians choose to root for the underdog, good for them, but then they should be consistent about it, not becomes liars reduced to denying history to uphold their theories.

My understanding is that Buddhist monastries were equivalent of feudal lords in Tibet in the past and Commies attacked many of them and destroyed them. I wonder how Indian Marxist historian worldview deals with both these uncomfortable facts which don`t fit their general narrative - that Buddhist religious establishment can be feudals served by serfs and that their egalitarian Commie brothers in arms destroyed Buddhist monastries on a large scale in modern times

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Examples_of_feudalism#Tibet_.2813th_century_until_1959.29
Tibet (13th century until 1959)

``In 1264 the feudal lordship over Tibet was given to Drogön Chögyal Phagpa, fifth leader of the Sakya school of Tibetan Buddhism by the Mongolian emperor, Kublai Khan.

In 1953, the greater part of the rural population--some 700,000 of an estimated total population of 1,250,000--were serfs. Tied to the land, they were allotted only a small parcel to grow their own food. Serfs and other peasants generally went without schooling or medical care. They spent most of their time laboring for the monasteries and individual high-ranking lamas, or for a secular aristocracy that numbered not more than 200 families. In effect, they were owned by their masters who told them what crops to grow and what animals to raise. They could not get married without the consent of their lord or lama. A serf might easily be separated from his family should the owner send him to work in a distant location. Serfs could be sold by their masters, or subjected to torture and death.

Along with the upper clergy, secular leaders did well. A notable example was the commander-in-chief of the Tibetan army, who owned 4,000 square kilometers of land and 3,500 serfs. He also was a member of the Dalai Lama`s lay Cabinet.``


Another uncomfortable fact is that the Indian Marxist historians` great liberating Muslims from other lands who dealt God`s(or Marxism`s) just wrath on Brahminism happily traded in Indian (predominantly Hindu) slave labor right from their first forays in whichever A.D through the Sultanates and the early and latter Mughals until the advent of the British.

http://vepa.us/dir8/ScottLevi.htm

`Hindus Beyond the Hindu Kush, Indians in the Central Asian Slave Trade`

I wonder how the Indian Marxist historian world view (``Hinduism=exploitation of underclass, Buddhism and Islam=liberators of serfs from Brahminism``) deals with that uncomfortable reality as well


I suspect Indian Marxist historians deal with these facts of history by curling up into a foetal position and crying mommy or alternately putting their fingers in their ears and shouting `nananananana`.

#288 sadna

Here is how it works: political-religous formations coming from arabia copy 50% judaism + 50% christianity, hence they are a religion! Combine that with 1000 years of sunni imperialism, and you have the current situation in middle-east and western south asia.

Asian systems of thought, whether taoist, buddhist, hindu, jain etc. have a completely different orientation. Indic traditions take self-restraint as the basic starting point, it is completely different from the abrahamic traditions. Doesnt mean that there arent bad hindus or murderous buddhists, it is just that we are comparing apples to fish here.

Here is the emperor Ashoka on religion in 300BCE:

[quote]
Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all religions should reside everywhere, for all of them desire self-control and purity of heart.[14] But people have various desires and various passions, and they may practice all of what they should or only a part of it. But one who receives great gifts yet is lacking in self-control, purity of heart, gratitude and firm devotion, such a person is mean.

Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, honors both ascetics and the householders of all religions, and he honors them with gifts and honors of various kinds.[22] But Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, does not value gifts and honors as much as he values this -- that there should be growth in the essentials of all religions.[23] Growth in essentials can be done in different ways, but all of them have as their root restraint in speech, that is, not praising one`s own religion, or condemning the religion of others without good cause. And if there is cause for criticism, it should be done in a mild way. But it is better to honor other religions for this reason. By so doing, one`s own religion benefits, and so do other religions, while doing otherwise harms one`s own religion and the religions of others. Whoever praises his own religion, due to excessive devotion, and condemns others with the thought ``Let me glorify my own religion,`` only harms his own religion. Therefore contact (between religions) is good.[24] One should listen to and respect the doctrines professed by others. Beloved-of-the-Gods, King Piyadasi, desires that all should be well-learned in the good doctrines of other religions.

[quote]

The belief that hinduism was invented in the 19th century etc. is a staple of our left-wing intellectuals and other critics. Presumably, as nationhood is also a western invention, there never was (and never should be) a country called india! This sort of silly stuff goes on and on and barely deserves a response. It reminds me of the poor guy in peshawar who was lynched because he said mo`s parents were not muslims !

#285
OK. I said what I thought of his wilful misinterpretation of my post.

PPS #281
While using Buddhism as the pivot in their class conflict view of Hinduism, I would really like to know what Indian Marxist historians make of Sri Lankan Buddhist religious establishments` strong hold over that country`s politics for the last 70-80 years. Hindutva-ideologues are quite anti-intellectual and not really learned in their delineation of the Hindutva philosophy(in my view). In great contrast the similar modern political ideology of purist Buddhism in Sri Lanka and their recasting of theircomposite history has been provided deep intellectual roots by their entrenched, wealthy and influential Buddhist religious establishment, and is therefore much more difficult to unseat or contest on that basis.

I wonder do Indian Marxist historians in their kneejerk fashion place the Sri Lankan Hindu plantation workers in the exploitative villians` chair there too and call the powerful Buddhist religious establishment the champions of the underdog there?

#285 by swarrier

Your post has lots of merit and I generally agree with that. I picked a line just for reference, as I see no point in coping pasting the whole paragraph.

I have not disagreed that some ideas and beliefs were floating around for a long time but the point that I was trying to make was that the present Hindu religion is named after a group of people who just a millennium ago were named Hindu. So the current Hindu religion started out as a political entity. Before that, perhaps many faiths or belief systems existed and were lumped in to one Hindu religion for identity sake.

#281 by sadna

Going back to the routine....Abusing people w/o a cause and then come back and pull the victim card.
I have no intention to respond in the same language and generalize to call every hindu a bigot or an RSS agent. Even though you are RSS and I have proven it many times to the extent of showing when you copied stuff right out of the RSS web site.

After three long posts still no answer to post #279...

``The issue is whether any religion called “Hindu” existed say 2500 years ago? ``

Re: # 281
Sadna, some of HP`s questions are valid. And he`s called me some animal only once a longish time ago.-)) We have always been relatively civil to each other.

Re: #279

HP

You`ve picked the shortest and the first sentence of my previous post to question? You should read the rest of it. -) I have given adequate information to indicate that a common religious thought form existed in various parts of India modeled on the Vedas and Upanishads.

I do not have any answer as to what was present in India 2,500 years ago. However linguistic and literary data seem to date the Rigveda around 1500BCE. Now whether this religion was in use all over India is unknown but it certainly is a form of Hinduism and therefore did exist. Who knows what India was like then? Probably the plains of Central India would still have been heavily forested. Until the clearing of these forests started human inhabitation would have been fairly sparse. But to say this form of religious thought did not exist then would be to say that Judaism did not exist because a few villages followed Yahweh or Islam did not exist during the time of Muhammad because only a few Arab tribes were converts.

As to your second question, the answer is in the negative. The fact that the temples that Shankaracharya established in various parts of India should be proof that Hinduism or whatever you wished to call it existed long before Roy or anybody else coined a term. I`m not even bothering to back in time to Jaina and Buddhist ideas that borrowed very heavily from the contemporary religious thoughts that existed then.

The fact is that this particular article has some merits and a lot of speculation in it. It reads like an essay written after a few visits to the library.

If the religious establishment/center of Buddhism (and Jainism to some extent)existed in mainly their monastries or viharas, then when these were destroyed by incoming invaders and the monks/scholars killed in large numbers, Buddhism got decapitated. Since these and temples which were also attacked were also Hindu religious centers, Hinduism also got decapitated by such destruction. But in spite of such decapitation Hinduism remained alive in the folk traditions, in the village temples and the village priests, of which there were few if any Buddhist equivalents. So it was prob. for good reason that Hindu ritualism and popular tradition survived in better shape than the Hindu schools of philosophy.

I interpret the post Buddhist period of Hinduism as a sort of escapism from the horrific things and turmoil going on that time. In one way I am proud that there appears to be little discernable bitterness in most of the bhakti traditions - a number of other peoples who retained memories of being similarly devastated have created the Balkans, for example.

PS#281
Incidentally, I am quite amused by the dilemma into which the Shankaracharya`s contentions would put those, obedient to their ideology, who try to delineate class conflict in the history of Hinduism. A lot of stuff they attribute to India`s period of Buddhism/Jainism forms the entire Marxist school`s major basis for affirming their class conflict view of Hinduism`s history - their `Hinduism has been nothing but exploitative exclusivist Brahminism` view.

If, as the Shankarcharya said, Buddhists taught the Hindu sastras of philosophy, religion and learning in schools and universities alongside teaching Buddhist ones in the peak of Buddhist power in India, in order to be consistent with `Hinduism= Brahminism exclusivism`, now Marxists will have to assert that such teaching in Buddhist universities was restricted to Brahmins and barred to everyone else. Horror of horrors, Marxist historians many now be forced to say that Buddhists were casteist!!!

The Marxists` dilemma may best be solved by denying Buddhists ever touched Hindu shastras with a 10 foot pole or claimed any knowledge of them (though Buddhism took off from the many Hindu philosophical schools and Buddha himself studied in university before becoming the Buddha). For that Marxists have to deny the continuing existence of many treatises in Hinduism and Buddhism which were written explicitly to disprove each other`s philosophies following the well laid out (post Vedic/Mimansa?)scriptural rules of logic, inference etc in argumentation. Destroy the evidence, Marx can`t be wrong.

You have to admit, the bind Marxists often find themselves in is very amusing, in their ideology-dictated quest to delineate class conflict in Hinduism`s history.

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts