What is Hinduism? A Personal View

Mantolives#54:

Thanks for your appreciation.

Naqshbandi#51:
"where does the whole caste system come into it? How is Manu related to Hinduism? These are serious qs."

Thanks for your kind remarks.

I did touch upon the possible sources of caste system in my write-up. Do you have a specific question? As regards Manu, he is supposed to be the author of a dharmashastra, a treatise which describes the laws applicable to a particular time. Manu's smriti is supposed to be for Sat Yuga and not for the current period, which the Hindus call Kal Yuga, which is supposed to have started with the end of the Mahabharata phase.

hamidm#39:

I googled under 'hinduism for dummies' and got several entries, including this one from amazon.com entitled "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hinduism' by Linda Johnson. Here is the editorial comment from Amazon.com:
"Hinduism is such a vast, complex, and exotic topic that to boil it down to a few hundred pages--and make it fun--must be the work of a true avatar, in this case Linda Johnsen. In The Complete Idiot's Guide to Hinduism, Johnsen covers the history, philosophy, devotions, gods, and traditions of this timeless religion. She takes pains to not only make the material easy to read and understand but to get inside the minds of Hindus, themselves, to make sense of what they believe and why. This sympathetic view is balanced by objective and concrete reporting. For example, she presents discussions of the Aryan Invasion theory, whether Jesus visited India, and a well-documented case of modern-day reincarnation. In addition to introducing each of the different strains of Hinduism and their beliefs, she also gives an overview of the classic Hindu myths. Exotic, yes, but Johnsen succeeds in bringing Hinduism closer to home. --Brian Bruya "

I would avoid heavy books by Hindu writers, such as Radha Krishnan, which are standard university texts. In my opinion, Hindu reformists, starting with Raja Ram Mohan Roy, were awed by the monotheism of Christianity and tried to search for the same in their religion and ignored other streams of thoughts/practices in their belief system.

eklavya#34:

As I said to laddu, I am trying to differentiate between the certitude of an individual and the certitude that comes from the faith-system. Maybe this is a wrong distinction but that's what I have in mind.

eklavya#34:

As I said to laddu, I am trying to differentiate between the certitude of an individual and the certitude that comes from the faith-system. Maybe this is a wrong distinction but that's what I have in mind.

#93masanamuthu NO. Earliest known reference of atheistic current goes back to 9th century BC by Vrahaspati. The period of 4th BC till 6th AD saw birth of most of the major currents of philosophies in India.

Some great nastik (kind of atheistic) philosophers such as Kumar Giri left a very strong impact. As you rightly said in your last sentence, such people were always attacked by those who may lose their living. There were many attempts on Kumar Giri’s life. When he walked away after being thrown from a cliff, his detractors attributed it to divine protection and qualities in him. While he himself steadfastly ridiculed such crdulous attempts.

mohar11#33:

If I am creating a strawman, could you please tell us if there is a Hindi/Sanskrit equivalent of Mazhab?

laddu#31,35:

You are not alone; many Hindus do have the certitude that you have; I was talking here about the belief system. Are there any bounds that a Hindu cannot cross without crossing the boundaries of his or her faith?

As regards scenic hillspots of temples, I was in fact admiring the aesthetics of Hindus and did not mean to mock the religion

Maharana#30

Thanks for your kind words and pointing out the difference between Bhagwat Gita and Puran. I am not a scholar of Hinduism and cannot answer your question. Hopefully, someone else can.

Dost Mittar,

Who are we kidding? The only reason Islam didnt spread all over India is because Punjabi muslims (and Sindhi Muslims) didnt have the missionary zeal to spread the religion eastwards. Typically Islam was spread by each newly converted group taking the message to their neighbors and the chain continuing forward e.g. Arabs to Persians, Persians and Arabs to Turks, Turks to Afghans and East Europeans, Afghans to Punjabis etc. This is understandable because people dont usually care about people who are far removed geographically.

Somehow this daisy chain halted at Punjabis and Sindhis. The latter converted in large numbers but didnt bother to spread it further. In fact, I dont beleive there is even one instance of a Punjabi or Sindhi mullah going to the rest of India to convert people. Whatever conversions happened in rest of North India were done by Turk and Mughals, and they were interested in power rather than conversions. I dont know why Punjabis and Sindhi muslims didnt have the missionary zeal. Maybe they were reluctant converts at first? In any case, it is only after 1947 that some of them have caught the jihadi bug, especially in Punjab. However, for 1000 years, they didnt care which is why Islam never spread in the rest of India.

dost Mittar Saheb did a great service of explaining Hinduism. This is to supplement what he rightly pointed out - lack of information on Indian atheistic philosophies: Charvak or Lokayat. Reasons are twofold.
1. As freethinking individuals, they could not come together as a school. They also did not attack/hate others belief systems as they considered it part of individual liberty. As always attacks and battles are remembered and not logical explanantions.
2. Whatever information we have on atheistic current are from their objectors – pundits of cults, who made a living as Kings or Priests. They tried to destroy all philosophical treatises and generate such a psychosis that nobody dares calling himself an atheist. This is true to this day.

However some of what atheists said has survived as an example of ‘Don’t do’s’ in theistic literature. Only one text seems to have come down as authentic writing by Charvaks themselves. Tatvopaplavasimha questions severely all theistic schools of Indian thought. Please sample
“If a beast slain in the Jyothishtoma rite will itself go to heaven, Why then does not the sacrificer (yajamana) forthwith offers his own father?”

A treatise on all schools of thought- Sarvadarsanasamgraha also elaborates Charvak thoughts as reference. However the best manifestations are allegoric in nature in dramas of several authors. One example is Prabodha-candrodaya – Knowledge of Rising moon.

Charvaks propounded that theistic thought and concept of God became Maïa (illusion or Saitan) themselves. They misled in investigation of truth by creating ‘faith’ diversions.

khurram#28:

"I was talking about millions who are not 'true believers' in anything. They are often referred to as 'seculars' , 'humanists', 'free-lance monotheists' or some such term. What has that got to do with hinduism? yet they would fit your definition."

That's a valid observation. My answer is that a Hindu does not need any such label, it is built into the system (not necessarily 'humanist'). It has often been said by Hindu nationalists and even the Christian Sonia Gandhi that India is secular because it is Hindu. Another cliche often used is the sanskrit expression "sarva dharma sambhav" roughly meaning that all religions are the same.

slyder#24:

"Hingboos are the last remaining major pagan"

The question you should ask is, why? India is not an obscure corner of the world which was undiscovered by people of so-called enlightened religions. There was no dearth of zealot Muslim rulers or equally zealot Christian missionaries who tried to redeem these souls from their "jahaliat". Even today, there are television channels beaming messages from Christian missionaries and Maulanas on Indian Television, alongwith several others beaming Hindu and Sikh preachings. Why was this pagan religion able to withstand the onslaught of these two prosleytising religions, which overwhelmed other pagan and even non-pagan religions?

One reason, of course, is that all of us are brainwashed into our belief systems before we are able to think for ourselves. Another is that there are substantial psychic and social costs of leaving one's family and community which are tied to one's religious faith. But that reason would have applied equally to other pagan religions which were overwhelmed by proselytising religions.

I think that the answer lies in the bewildering complexity and variety of this belief system. Whatever these other religions brought, the natives could find the seeds of it in the smorgsbord of their own scriptures and sacred books.

To the extent conversions took place, they were for reasons other than the theological attractions of the newer religions. Some coverted to curry favour with the religion of the new rulers and hoped to gain from joining the ruling class by doing so; others joined because the message of the sufis which was tailored to the needs of the locals to such an extent that to some it became indistinguishable from their own bhakti cults and they did not think that they were embracing a new faith; yet others converted to escape the opression faced by them by the religiously sanctioned rigid social hierarchy from which they did not see escape either for themselves or their progeny without moving out of that social order altogether. But others who were not at the bottom of the social order did not and do not find any attraction in other religions and stayed put.

Before Amartya sen wrote about this, I'm sure no on knew about Charvaka or his atheistic philosophy. And now there are attempts to Hinduise atheism.

It is a safe guess to assume that people 2000 years back had the same doubt and beliefs the people have now.

There are religious nutcases / atheists / agnostics / prophet lovers etc.. even then and even now.

it is better not to define Hinduism as a religion or any such dogma lest that people start killing the blasphemers. :-)

Re: # 75

Sindhu sharma ji,

During partition there were a number of reversions back to hinduism - many of them adapted Brahminhood - and there were hardly any issues. Any one is free to take a Brahmin name- you do not require a certificate from me or any one else.

Re: # 57

"Hinduism does not need statues at all... God is Omnipresent... you don't need statues in temples or mosques... Some people want to have idols which is fine too..."

Mohar Bhai,

We survived despite demolition of thousands of our temples. We survived depite all those lootings, beheadings and rapes. We survived despite taking our family members, women and little children as slaves back to Arabic lands. We survived because the resilience the spirituality of our faith in our literature, music and language. It would even survive the modern times by merging and adapting with modern cultural practices of Yoga Studios and Art of living. They broke our temples and idols , but they could never destroy our spiritual heritage!!!