What Is Hinduism?

[Utkarsha 0]

***the views are entirely personal and there is no intention to hurt any sentiments. the post is purely out of academic interest***

 

Hinduism is probably one of the most confused modern religions. Beginning with the tag of 'religion' and the name 'Hinduism'. For 'Hindu' is the Persian version of the name 'Sindhu', the grand river in north India on whose bank the ancient Indus valley civilization survived. For early Persians and most of the successive invaders and travelers, Hindus were the people who stayed on the banks of river Indus and beyond it.

 

If one studies Hinduism free from prejudices, it shows almost no signs of the existing trends of organized religion. It does not have a single prophet or saint. There is no single religious book like a Bible or Quran. Till date, no one has been able to assess the number of sects and cults that come under Hinduism. There is no way one can initiate oneself in to the Hinduism or no one can debar a person from practicing the religion.

 

After understanding the above points, it is hard to put Hinduism under the umbrella term of 'religion'.

 

As far as personal research guides me, the religion that we know today as Hinduism, has gone through the following stages of evolution-

 

- The pagan religion of Indus valley people.

Cult of Mother Goddess

Simple rituals of nature worship

 

-The amalgamation of the above with the Vedic religion.

Introduction of fire worship from Iran

worship of powerful, male Gods like Indra

Excess importance to sacrifices

 

- The Puranic religion of ancient age

Writing down of epics like Ramayan and Mahabharata

Deity-fication of religion.

Humanizing of deities

Idol worship

 

- Influence of Islam and Christianity throughout medieval period and Bhakti Cult

Need to stand out against the popularity of an organized, monotheistic religion of Islam

Increasing popularity of monotheistic sects of Vaishnav and Bhagwat

Redefining the idea of the tag of 'Hindu' with clear boundaries

 

 

Of course, Hinduism is not the only religion that has gone through a lot of transformation. But the fact worth pondering upon is that Hinduism is not a deliberate action, or an invention out of an idea. It can be compared to the stream, that flows through endless mountain ranges for an eternity, collecting everything in its stride, and turning itself in into a mighty river and quenching the thirst of millions. And a river is not a judge of what pollutes it and what adds to its beauty.

 

What amazes me is that the entire intellectual corpus of what is Hinduism, is based on a wafer thin assumption that it is a religion. In that way, it is much like India itself- something that survives solidly, based only on the assumption that it is actually a nation.

 

***Feel free to contradict me***

[Bikerman 2]

If not religion then what?Hinduism has a creation myth (well, several actually), a divine creator (Ishvara being one form) and a set of moral precepts (dharma/karma).Sounds like a religion to me......Thinking about it a bit more....you say that Hinduism is different because it has not developed 'according to an idea'. Presumably you think that other religions like Christianity and Judaism HAVE developed according to a central idea? I think that is a difficult thesis to hold together. Take Christianity (please take it! :-) ). What is the central idea? That Jesus was a manifestation of God? Nope, not really. At least one early Christian sect (the gnostics) believed he was mortal. The modern manifestation of Christianity would be totally unrecognisable to a 1st century Christian and the changes have not been part of some masterplan, following a central idea, they have, instead, been a series of pragmatic accomodations, forced moves and mistakes.I suppose you could try to make the case that Hinduism is unique in the way that it has 'absorbed' many intellectual/philosophical traditions, but again I think it would be difficult to maintain that it was unique in this. Christianity certainly absorbed other traditions - religious and philosophical. In fact most of the core of Christianity is found in earlier belief systems from North Africa, including ideas like the trinity, vigin birth, god sacrificing himself, rising from the dead....basically the whole shebang.

Edited April 27, 2012 by velma (see edit history)

[ritu 1]

@Utkarsha

One point that comes to my mind after reading your post is that religion is a concept which would be difficult to be backed by evidences.You are right in saying that religion should be organised enough to be imparting teachings to its followers. But being an indispensable part of civilization, religion has to undergo the process of adaptation,else it won't be of use to the people of changing ages.

Moreover, the assumptions themselves are results of human thoughts and so that the thoughts which get outdated,the religion via human efforts again, tries to upgrade itself.

Another thing that I would like to talk about is that one of your tags read

Religious Intolerance

I couldn't really get the point. As far as my experience goes every religion has its own fanatic followers, in fact in case of Hinduism the number is considerably low.

 

Well, having said all that, I will not take away from your opinion, religion's support pillar is after all is faith and that is completely individualistic.

[Okara KAmi 0]

You're defining the requirement for religion to be organized in the same way that Christianity/Islam/Judaism are. Why does there need to be a single prophet or a single religious book? Does the Bible not have an old and new testament through which the character of "god" undergoes some heavy mood shifts? Are these not, by their self definition, written in hugely different times? It is in the same way that Hinduism has the Ramayana and the Mahabhagvatha.As is the case with any polytheistic religion, the term "organization" gets thrown out of the window. Think Greek Myth. The Hindu religion integrates a rich text of mythology, wars between gods, demons, and humans fill the pages of the text. I don't see this as disorganization in the same way that Harry Potter isn't disorganized merely because there are so many Wizard battles. A story is told, and a pathos is extended from that story unto those who believe in it.---Now since we are attributing our opinions to the strength or validity of a religion, then would an evolving religion not be a more suitable one? Surely you know that the Bible has been interpreted in various and temporally convenient ways, along the ages. Think the crusades, hell-fire and brimstone, and modern day. The purpose of a religion is not disjoint from the intention of its people. A religion would not exist if it starkly contrasts the moral code of its followers. That is why Christians don't take their naughty children to the edge of town and stone them, even if it says to do so in the Bible. This is because the internal definition of the religion changed with its people, not different from how Hinduism does.In that aspect, i believe that a religion that has the ability to morph organically, is a much more powerful religion than one that preaches beliefs that are centuries outdated. So while that river may have twisted and turned through its path, and changed its color from when it once started, its ability to encompass change fluidly is what drives it forward. This is, of course, assuming your river analogy is apt at all. By your view, most religions are rivers, as I can point out adaptations and changes that each religion undergoes to adhere to the progress of the times.---I hope I've cleared up some of your mystification about the subjet, by providing the other side of the story.PS: "Religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods." -- GoogleThe definition you used for Religion isn't a definition of it at all, it's what a certain subset of religions are. Subsets do not define the superset.

[Bikerman 2]

An ability to evolve will inevitably produce what evolution always produces - new species. If you allow that all evolved versions of Hinduism are also Hinduism them I am forced to ask why you use the label Hinduism - what uniquely identifies a belief as Hindi and not some other type?

[fermin25 3]

Maybe you are rigth in some things but religion is all the practice who close the people with a superior power and hinduism make his part with this....Only because they don´t have a single god or have a lot of saints doesn´t mean that you have to use the afffirmation "is not a religion".Talk about religion is not a sign of education in the person because you never know who is gonna be hurt talking about religion that is my mon says.So I hope you change your mind...

[k_nitin_r 8]

Hinduism consists of a diverse set of philosophies, some of which may seem contradictory to people who have not been trained in understanding philosophy. It treats the spiritual and the materials entities as distinct and all spiritual entities are thought to have originated from a single larger entity.BTW, Hinduism does not deviate from the single-God ideology. However, it does recognise the presence of demigods who have acquired their abilities from God. The concept is different from that of multiple Gods.

[Bikerman 2]

I object to that, I have a reasonable training in, and understanding of, philosophy and I will not be patronised by theists of whatever religion.
Hinduism isn't actually well defined enough to stand much chance of being contradictory. As you will no doubt know, from philosophy, the chances for contradiction increase in proportion to the distinct assertions or propositions. Hinduism seems to me to make very few assertions and therefore stand little chance of being self-contradictory. That is not an argument necessarily in its favour. There are theist Hindus and there are atheist Hindus so I don't accept that it does not deviate from monotheism at all. This strikes me as either a particularly exclusive statement or an example of the 'no true scotsman' fallacy.

[ritu 1]

Being a practising Hindu, I have come across some of the religious sects which are opposed to idol worship for they feel it introduces a sense of difference between people worshiping different Gods, also the so called upper sections of the Hindu society would mislead people to fulfill their own interests, but how has that helped ? The main purpose of any religion,according to me should be the betterment of people, but it is absolutely shocking to know that some of the chosen leaders who were entitled to carry forward this task of upliftment of society, are making the worst use of their powers.

 

There had been an instance when I had happened to attend a religious gathering which was organized by a member of my family, we all, or lets say most of us were carrying the hope of getting our stress reduced in the path of spiritual enlightenment. A whole group of, I don't know what to call them, but they were "Vaishnav"s had turned up and our family follows the Vaishnavite teachings. One of them started to speak, he started by saying that we as humans should not be attached to our earthly lives, no dependence on the family and no place for emotions which was completely useless according to them. I am a believer in God but that no way makes me believe that our earthly life holds no importance,can't even imagine life without family and emotions are indispensable, I guess for every human being. What I would say I concluded from the speech is that let alone doing super good to the society, they were far from realising the basic traits of humanity.

 

I have put a lot of efforts to understand Hinduism and at times have found peace simply thinking about the fact that there is someone up there to take care of everything,yet it very often comes up with a new challenge that shakes my faith altogether. I hope one day I manage to truly understand what Hinduism is.

Edited May 23, 2012 by ritu (see edit history)

[Bikerman 2]

The main purpose of any religion,according to me should be the betterment of people,

Really? How odd...Why would religion have that purpose? Surely religion is about the truth of 'God(s)' or worldviews and, again, surely you would not change the truth in a utilitarian manner simply to better people would you?
let me pose an example.
You know your good friend is dying and only has weeks. He asks you directly what his prognosis is. The doctor has told you that telling him will almost certainly shorten his life. Do you tell?
My answer is yes, and I wouldn't agonise long over it either. The duty to truth is greater than the duty to perhaps contribute to a short extension of his life - and it would be, IMHO, even if telling him killed him on the spot.
Some people think that is wrong, and that a REAL friend would lie to extend his life. All I know is that I would find it hard to remain friends with anyone who I believed would do that to me......

[ritu 1]

With some sections deviating from mainstream Hinduism, the leaders of those sections claim that they want to shape religion for that purpose- for the betterment of the society, but I fail to see where their action stick to the words, like many such sections wanted the supremacy of the Brahmins to be done away with, but that particular section's leader ended up thinking about his own benefits, so the claim didn't hold meaning for the people who made it.Everyone has his own interpretation of friendship, I won't say that it is wrong if you render more importance to truth than your friendship, probably being truthful is being a true friend to you,but I would admit that would really be tough for me, something within me would stop me, I can't imagine losing my friend earlier by revealing the truth.