A basic outlook of what is contemporarily considered as Hinduism

In this part I will try to give some idea about the basic outline of what is generally considered as Hinduism and Hindu identity contemporarily.

The term Hindu, in contemporary parlance, includes people who accept themselves as culturally or ethnically Hindu rather than with a fixed set of religious beliefs within Hinduism. One need not be religious in the minimal sense, states Julius Lipner, to be accepted as Hindu by Hindus, or to describe oneself as Hindu.

Hinduism includes a diversity of ideas on spirituality and traditions, but has no ecclesiastical order, no unquestionable religious authorities, no governing body, no prophet(s), no theological uniformity nor any binding holy book; Hindus can choose to be polytheistic, pantheistic, panentheistic, pandeistic, henotheistic, kathenotheistic, monotheistic, monistic, agnostic, atheistic, naturalist, hedonistic or humanist. Ideas about all the major issues of faith and lifestyle including: vegetarianism, nonviolence, belief in rebirth, even caste, are subjects of debate, not dogma. Because of the wide range of traditions and ideas covered by the term Hinduism, arriving at a comprehensive definition is difficult. The religion “defies our desire to define and categorize it”. A Hindu may, by his or her choice, draw upon ideas of other Indian or non-Indian religious thought as a resource, follow or evolve his or her personal beliefs, and still identify as a Hindu.

Before continuing further, I suggest the readers to go through this link, and have a look at the list of the vaious hindu/Indian denominations, that I have compiled:- List of Different Hindu/Indian traditions

Although Hinduism contains a broad range of philosophies, Hindus share philosophical concepts, such as but not limiting to dharma, karma, Kāma, artha, Mokṣa and Saṃsāra, even if each subscribes to a diversity of views. Most traditions considered Hindu contemporarily revere a body of religious or sacred literature, the Vedas, although there are several exceptions; have a common ritual grammar (Saṃskāra (rite of passage)) such as rituals during a wedding or when a baby is born or cremation rituals. Some Hindus go on pilgrimage to shared sites they consider spiritually significant, practice one or more forms of bhakti or Pūjā , celebrate mythology and epics, major festivals, love and respect for guru and family, and other cultural traditions. A Hindu could:.

follow any of the Indian schools of philosophy, such as Nyāyá, Vaiśeṣika, Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Karma-Mīmāṃsā, Advaita, Viśiṣṭādvaita, Dvaita , Dvaitādvaita, Śuddhādvaita, Śaiva-Siddhānta,etc.
follow a tradition or denomination centred on any particular form of the Divine, such as Śaivism, Vaiṣṇavism, Śāktism, Gāṇapatya,Smārtism, Śrautism, Sourism, Kaumāram, etc. These denominations have various sects and sub sects within each of them.
follow Folk traditions & cults, based on local traditions and cults of local deities and extending back to prehistoric times, or at least prior to written Vedas; or any local saint, which is collectively called as the Sant Mat.
practice bhakti or puja for spiritual or other reasons, which may be directed to one’s guru or to a divine image. A visible public form of this practice is worship before an idol or statue. This practice may focus on a metal or stone statue, or a photographic image, or a Liṅga, or any object or tree or animal (cow) or tools of one’s profession, or sunrise or expression of nature or to nothing at all, and the practice may involve meditation, japa, offerings or songs; regular or occaisonal visits at the temple. I call these type as non-denominational hindus.
follow any esoteric , heterodox traditions , the Vāmamārgas; renunciate and join any monastic order from any sect of any denominations or may live an ascetic life without taking any formal initiation or joining any monastic order.
follow any neo hindu organizations or movements.

The four major forms of Hindu religiosity are the classical “Karma-Mārga (The path of rituals), Jñāna -Mārga(The path of knowledge or self realization), Bhakti-Mārga(The path of devotion) and Dhyāna-Mārga(The path of meditation). A hindu may follow either of these or a combination of either of these. Now many people confuse Karma-Mārga to be just the path of selfless actions/deeds, but that is Karma-Yoga, which is related of Bhakti-Mārga only, not to the Karma-Mārga.

Concept of God

As it is quite clearly stated above that contemporary hinduism doesnt have theological uniformity. The concept of God in Hinduism varies in its diverse traditions. There’s no exact literal equivalent for the english term God, in the context it is used in abrahamic religions, in Hinduism. I will not go into details of different terms used for God in India, because one can write up a whole book on just that, as many of those terms have totally different other meanings too. So for the sake of not making it even more complex, I will limit my discourse to the conceptions of God. In Hindu philosophy, there are many different schools. The non-theist traditions do not posit the existence of an almighty, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent God (monotheistic God), while the theistic ones posit a personal God left to the choice of the Hindu.

Sāṃkhya

Sāṃkhya is one of the several major atheistic schools. The concept of god is considered irrevalent in this school of thought. It accepts the notion of higher selves or perfected beings but rejects the notion of God. Classical Sāṃkhya argues against the existence of God on metaphysical grounds. Sāṃkhya theorists argue that an unchanging God cannot be the source of an ever-changing world and that God was only a necessary metaphysical assumption demanded by circumstances. Some of medieval commenteries of Sāṁkhyakārikā such as Sāṁkhyapravacana Sūtra in verse no. 1.92 directly states that existence of “Īśvara(God) is unproved” “ईश्वरासिद्धे:”. Hence there is no philosophical place for a creationist God in this system. It is also argued by commentators of this text that the existence of Īśvara cannot be proved and hence cannot be admitted to exist.

Yoga

The Yogasūtras of Patañjali, uses the term Īśvara in 11 verses: I.23 through I.29, II.1, II.2, II.32 and II.45. Patanjali defines Īśvara (Sanskrit: ईश्वर) in verse 24 of Book 1, as “a special Self (पुरुषविशेष, puruṣa-viśeṣa)”. This Sūtra adds the characteristics of Īśvara as that special Self which is unaffected (अपरामृष्ट, Aparāmṛṣṭa ) by one’s obstacles/hardships (क्लेश, Kleśa), one’s circumstances created by past or one’s current actions (कर्म, karma), one’s life fruits (विपाक, Vipāka), and one’s psychological dispositions/intentions (आशय, Āśaya). Ever since the Sūtra’s release, several scholars have debated and commented on who or what is Īśvara?. Several scholars from different schools have used this Sūtra to describe God as per their ideologies. These commentaries range from defining Īśvara from a “personal god” to “special self” to “anything that has spiritual significance to the individual”. It can aslo viewed as SBNR, as it doesnt name any diety specifically .
While Patañjali ‘s terse verses can be interpreted both as theistic or non-theistic, Patañjali ‘s concept of Īśvara in Yoga philosophy functions as a “transformative catalyst or guide for aiding the yogin on the path to spiritual emancipation”. Patañjali’s concept of Īśvara is neither a creator God nor the universal Absolute of Advaita school of Hinduism. Patañjali states it to be the Ādi-Guru of Yoga. It has been called as quasi-atheistic or quasi-theistic.

Vaiśeṣika

Vaiśeṣika school, neither required nor relied on God for its atomistic naturalism philosophy. To it, substances and paramāṇu (atoms) were eternal, they moved and interacted based on impersonal, eternal Adṛṣṭa (अदृष्ट, invisible) laws of nature. The concept of God , among others, entered into Vaiśeṣika school many centuries later in 1st millenium BCE. This evolution in ideas aimed to explain how and why its so-called “atoms” have a particular order and proportions. These later-age ancient Vaiśeṣika scholars retained their belief that substances are eternal, added Īśvara(God) as another eternal who is also omniscient and omnipresent (not omnipotent). God did not create the world, but He only created invisible laws that operate the world and then He becomes passive and lets those hidden universal laws do its thing. Vaiśeṣika’s God, can be understood as an eternal God who co-exists in the universe with eternal substances and atoms, but He “winds up the clock, and lets it run its course”. Kaṇāda, the founder of Vaiśeṣika was among the sages of ancient India who believed in man’s potential to understand existence and reach Mokṣa on his own, without God, a notion of ancient Indians summarized by Nietzsche as the belief that “with piety and knowledge of the Veda, nothing is impossible” Kaṇāda and early Vaiśeṣika scholars focused on the evolution of the universe by law , a view that was not unusual for his times since several major early versions of other Hindu philosophies, were similarly non-theistic.

Nyāyá

Early Nyāyá scholars considered the hypothesis of God as a creator God with the power to grant blessings, boons and fruits. However, the early Naiyyāyikas rejected this hypothesis, and were non-theistic or atheists. Later Naiyyāyikas reconsidered this question and offered counter arguments for what is God and various arguments to prove the existence of God. These later theistic Naiyyāyikas founded the “Navya-Nyāyá”(New-Nyāyá), a sub-school or offshoot of early Nyāyá, in the 13th century.

Karma-Mīmāṃsā/Pūrva-Mīmāṃsā

Mīmāṃsā scholars questioned what is creator God? They used their epistemological tools to cross examine answers offered by other schools of Hinduism. For example, when Nyāyá scholars stated God is omnipotent, omniscient and infallible, that the world is the result of God’s creation which is proved by the presence of creatures, just like human work proves human existence, Mīmāṃsā scholars asked, why does this God create the world, for what reason? Further, they added, it cannot be because of God’s love to human beings because this world – if God created it – is imperfect and human souls are suffering in it. Mīmāṃsā scholars raised numerous objections to any definition of God along with its premises, deconstructed justifications offered, and considered God concept unnecessary for a consistent philosophy and soteriology. It also propounds a sort of Polytheistic system.

Brahma-Mīmāṃsā/Uttara-Mīmāṃsā/Jñāna-Mīmāṃsā

This school has various sub-school of thoughts. In this the God concept is discussed , explained most extensively in an organized way. In this the Brahman connotes the highest Universal Principle, the Ultimate Reality in the universe. It is the material, efficient, formal and final cause of all that exists. It is the pervasive, genderless, infinite, eternal truth and bliss which does not change, yet is the cause of all changes. Brahman as a metaphysical concept is the single binding unity behind the diversity in all that exists in the universe. Brahman is discussed with the concept of Ātman (Soul, Self), personal or Saguṇa-Brahman, impersonal or Para/Nirguṇa Brahman, or in various combinations of these qualities depending on the different philosophical schools.

Advaita

It espouses Pantheism , idealist monism and hence ultimately is termed as Non-theistic. Here Brahman is non-different with Atman(Soul) & Jagat(Cosmos,existence). Brahman is held to be the sole unchanging metaphysical reality and identical to the individual Ātman . The physical world, on the other hand, is always-changing empirical Māyā(Illusion). The absolute and infinite Ātman -Brahman is realized by a process of negating everything relative, finite, empirical and changing. The school accepts no duality, no limited individual souls (Ātman /Jīvātman), and no separate unlimited cosmic soul. All souls and their existence across space and time are considered to be the same oneness. Spiritual liberation in Advaita is the full comprehension and realization of oneness, that one’s unchanging Ātman (soul) is the same as the Ātman in everyone else, as well as being identical to Brahman. This is the only exclusively Jñāna -Mārga in the schools which talk about some sort of ultimate/supreme entity.

Other than the Uttara-Mīmāṃsā, there are certain Tantric and some other traditions which follow Advaita , but they accept the physical world to be real, not an illusion.

Viśiṣṭādvaita

It espouses Panentheism. This is a composite concept of dualism and non-dualism, or “non-dualism with differentiation”. It asserts that Ātman and Brahman are different, a difference that is never transcended. With this qualification, Its also affirmed monism by saying that there is unity of all souls and that the individual soul has the potential to realize identity with the Brahman. Viśiṣṭādvaita, like Advaita, is a non-dualistic school but, in a qualified way, and both begin by assuming that all souls can hope for and achieve the state of blissful liberation. On the relation between the Brahman and the world of matter , it states both are two different absolutes, both metaphysically true and real, neither is false or illusive, and that Saguṇa Brahman with attributes is also real. Acc to it Īśvara is Para-brahman with infinite superlative qualities, whose substantive nature imparts the existence to the modes; Jīvas(Souls) are Cita-brahman, sentient beings (which possess consciousness). They are the modes of Brahman which show consciousness; Jagat(Cosomos) is Acita-Brahman, matter/Universe (which are non-conscious). They are the mode of Brahman which are not conscious. Brahman is the composite whole of the triad consisting of Īśvara along with his modes i.e. Jīvas and Jagat

This has been the most influential theistic, creationist, devotional school of thoughts in India, with its influnce spanning over even non-vedic traditons , and several neo-hindu movements. There are several schools which subscribe to this theosophy, both within and outside the Uttara-Mīmāṃsā.

Śuddhādvaita

Śuddhādvaita (pure non-dualism) states that the entire universe is real and is subtly Brahman only in the form of Deity revered as supreme in the respective tradition. This philosophy, agrees with Advaita’s ontology, but emphasized that Prakṛti (empirical world, body) is not separate from the Brahman, but just another manifestation of the latter. Everything, everyone, everywhere—soul and body, living and non-living, jiva and matter—is the eternal Brahman. The Uttara-Mīmāṃsā sect which follows this ideology has its sotreiology through devotion (bhakti) rather than knowledge (Jñāna), unlike in Advaita.

Other than the Uttara-Mīmāṃsā , there is Kashmiri Śaivism and some Śaiva Siddhāṅta traditions which have similar theosophy to Śuddhādvaita, but they have Śiva as the ultimate reality and dont necessarily give that importance to Bhakti, their soteriology lies in ultimate self-realization.

Dvaita

This is the only school which espouses dualistic theism, like found in Monotheistic abrahamic religion. In this, the universe and Creator are two completely seperate entities. All souls are also seperate and dont share any sort of oneness whatsoever as propounded in monistic shools. Brahman is the creator here, unlike in the monistic schools where Brahman manifests as or becomes the Universe. In this Creator and Creation are always distinct. It has many concepts similar to abrahamic theology.

Bhēdābhēda/ Dvaitādvaita

It means “difference and non–difference” or “Differential Monism” and is more a tradition than a school of philosophy . The schools of this tradition emphasize that the individual selfs (Jīvatman) are both different and not different from Brahman. They are conceptualised as they are same in quality but different in quantity. It can be understood as Sea and its waves or sun and its radiance. So individual selfs and the cosmos is part of the infinite brahman. There are several schools which follow this :- Aupādhika-Bhēdābhēda of Bhāskara, Svābhābika-Dvaitādvaita of Nimbārka, Viśeṣādvaita/Dvaitādvaitābhidhāna/Bhedābhedātmaka of Śrīpati, Acintya-Bhēdābhēda of Gauḍīyas. This is the also the most influential devotional ideology and tradition in india.

There are several other schools of philsophy also like Trika, Nātha, Śaiva Siddhāṅta, Vārakarī, Utkaliyā etc. but overall they have similar conceptions of God, as the Uttara-Mīmāṃsā, varying from pantheism to panentheism, very few have theistic dualism. There is a Vaiṣṇava tradition originated in medieval Odisha, which conceptualized God as a Personified void, Śūnya Puruṣa/Śūnya Brahman, similarly many schools have varying conceptions of god.

All of these schools have various metaphysical concepts unique to each of them, but I’ve limited the discourse to their stance on god, because these concepts cannot be briefed into few paragraphs, that will require separate writeups dedicated to each of them.

Systems of Worship

Hinduism is not a monolithic faith and different sects may or may not posit or require such a belief. Religion is considered a personal belief in Hinduism and followers are free to choose the different interpretations within the framework of Karma and reincarnation. There are numerous systems of worship in Contemporary Hinduism, both organized-institutionalized and unorganized.

Śaivism is centred around Śiva and Śaiva pantheon(Śaiva-tattvas) as the supreme, and other dieties from the Indian Pantheon being subordinate to him.
Vaiṣṇavism is centred around Viṣṇu and the Vaiṣṇava Pantheon(Viṣṇu-tattvas) as the supreme being, other deities from the Indian Pantheon being subordinate to him. In some Vaiṣṇava sects Kṛṣṇa takes place of the supreme being, and in few Rāma. Certain Kṛṣṇaite traditions consider Rādhā-Kṛṣṇa as primary in a ditheistic sense, but are slightly inclined towards Kṛṣṇa only.
Śāktism revolves around Ādi Parāśakti(Devī) and Śākta pantheon (Śākti-tattvas) as supreme and other being subordinate to her.
In certain Tantric traditions there is a syncretism of Śaiva and Śāktaḥ beliefs. Outside the Tantra , also certain hindus worship Śiva and Śaktī as equals in a ditheistic sense, while other dieties being subordinate to them.
Gāṇapatyas worship Gaṇeśa as supreme and consider other dieties being subordinate to him.
Kaumāram considers Kārttikeya as prime, but it is now mainly a sub tradition within Śaivism.
In Śrautism, the vedic Pantheon is reverred in a polytheistic sense. Śrautas exclusively follow Karma-mārga. They perform various Vedic-rituals (yajñá/homa) regularly offering to various vedic deities for different purposes.
Sourism has Sūrya(Sun)as Supreme and Saura Pantheon (Solar dieties) as prime.
Smārtism accepts the Nirguṇa Brahman’, the pantheistic monistic infite entity of Advaita as ultimate. Another aspect of Brahman is the concept of Saguṇa Brahman, which is “Ultimate Reality assigned with attributes”. Saguṇa brahman is conceived in henotheist approach, where 5 deities(Pañcāyatana) from the hindu Pantheon (Śiva, Viṣṇu, Durgā(Devī), Gaṇeśa, Sūrya) as 5 manifestations of the ultimate brahman. A Smārta worships all 5 as equals, and generally have one of them as primary diety(Iṣṭa-devatā) whom he considers as the primary, and other dieties from the hindu pantheon subordinate to them. For more info on it, please see:- Ṣaṇmata
Dattātreya tradtions consider or worship Dattātreya as their preferred deity/prime teacher/teacher.
A large section of hindus is unorganized and not affiliated to any sect of any traditional denomination. They generally have a polytheistic, henotheistic approach. They either worship multiple deities in a polytheistic way, and don’t seem to care who is supreme creator or have a preferred diety or folk diety(Loka-devatā) or regional diety(Sthaladevatā) or village deity(Grāmadevatā) or Tutelar diety of family/caste/clan/community (Kuladevatā) as their personal god or favorite deity (Iṣṭa-devatā) whom they give more importance but also worship/revere/accept other deities. Many of these unaffliated Hindus consider the trinity of the Purāṇas, Brahmā(Creator), Viṣṇu(Sustainer), Śiva(Destroyer) as the supreme and equals, these dont necessarily worship or indulge in religious activities on a regular basis. I prefer to call them collectively as folk Hindus or non-denominational Hindus.
Many hindus have a preffered deity from the vast pantheon of dieties in India , and worship it as the supreme or personal god in an non-orthodox way , according to their conveinience, unlike the dogmatic worship in so called bonafide orthodox Vaiṣṇava, Śaiva sects or other hindu denominations. I prefer to call them as Non-Sectarian -“followed by with the name of the denomination whose supreme deity they have as their Iṣṭa”.
In Balinese / Indonesian hinduism, they have similar monistic beliefs like the Smārtas. In their theology , ‘acintya’ or “Sang Hyang Widhi Wasa” or “Sang Hyang Tunggal” as called in native language, takes the place of brahman. And all the other gods are considered manifestation of acintya. They have a similar Henotheistic, Pantheistic, Pantheistic approach like the Smārtas of India.

The concept of a Supreme Creator diety , is not a major concern for most Hindus.

Like Śaivas, Vaiṣṇavas & Śāktas have their respective Upaniṣads, Purāṇas and Āgamas which emphasizes on the respective diety as supreme, similarly Gāṇapatyas, Souras also have their respective Upaniṣads, Purāṇas and Āgamas. While Vedas are the claimed epistemic authority by most , but these traditions emphasize on the sūktas dedicated to their respective supreme diety. Many Hindus down the centuries have either theorctically or practically repudiated or at least in varying degrees bypassed the Vedas or parts thereof in living their lives. Not all the Upaniṣads, Purāṇas and Āgamas of a particular denomination are accepted by all the adherents of that denomination as authentic or primary. These further have sectarian divisions, these sects interpret the Mukhya-Upaniṣads through Bhāṣyas(commentaries) written by various Acāryas of their respective tradition. Often these Bhāṣyas take more central role in propogating their theosophy/beliefs further than the original text. Almost entirety of present day Hindu worship and rituals is of Āgamic origin. There are certain Śaiva, Śākta, Tantric and folk Vaiṣṇava traditions which do not necessarily adhere vedas as the epistemic authority, but instead owe their origin to their own respective sectarian/folk/oral literature. Organized Sectarian Śaivism is almost entirely Āgamic & Saiddhāṅtika; Śaiva Purāṇas dont play a major role in them. Śaiva Purāṇas are mostly revered by folk Śaivas and Smārtas who have Śiva as their Iṣṭa.

There are multiple varying methods of worship within these aforementioned different denominations, amongst their different sects and traditions, ranging from Orthodox to heterodox to esoteric. Sometimes these practices are totally contrasting to each other. Like in certain Śaiva, Vaiṣṇava & Śākta traditions meat is an essential part of their life or rituals, but in some it’s prohibited. In Smārtism it is left to the preference of the adherent. There are some Smārtas who are staunch vegetarians, and even brutally criticize non-vegetarianism. At the same time, there are many non-vegetarian Smārtas as well, some of them even justify or defend it. So similarly there are many such differing things.

Most of Hinduism do not subscribe to or include the concept of an almighty that is separate from oneself i.e. there is no concept of God in the Christian or Islamic sense, but in practice there are certain organizations like ISKCON, Arya Samaj which are much closer to Abrahmic approach and conception of God

These traditions Śaivism, Vaiṣṇavism, Śāktism, Gāṇapatya,Smārtism, etc are independent and autonomous belief systems like different religions with each having own unique customs, traditions, rituals, lifestyle, key festivals, mythology tales; although within them there are varying conceptions of God and theosophies among different sects and subsects, but they are categorised and classified on the basis of their respective supreme diety/ultimate reality. There is a degree of interaction and reference between the “theoreticians and literary representatives” of each tradition which indicates the presence of “a wider sense of identity, a sense of coherence in a shared context and of inclusion in a common framework and horizon”.

From an outsider’s perspective It can be best understood as a polycentric system that leaves the choice of deity and ideas to the individual.

Read :Hindu Self-Identity & its position in Indian Religions