Hindu Self-Identity & its position in Indian Religions

In this part We will continue from where we left in the previous article on ‘Hindu Self Identity and ‘Is hinduism a single religion?’

Relation with Buddhism, Jainism & Sikhism

The early Sanskrit texts differentiate between Vaidika(Vedic), Vaiṣṇava, Śaiva, Śāktaḥ , Saura, Bauddha and Jaina traditions as seperate, independent and autonomous religious denominations. Scholars state that the custom of distinguishing between Hindus, Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs as seperate is a modern phenomenon. Overlaps in Jain-Hindu identities have included Jains worshipping Hindu deities, intermarriages between Jains and what is contemporarily considered Hindus, and medieval era Jain temples featuring Hindu religious icons and sculpture. Beyond India, on Java island of Indonesia, historical records attest to marriages between Hindus and Buddhists, medieval era temple architecture and sculptures that simultaneously incorporate Hindu and Buddhist themes, where Hinduism and Buddhism merged and functioned as “two separate paths within one overall system”, according to Ann Kenney and other scholars. Similarly, there is an organic relation of Sikhs to Hindus, states Zaehner, both in religious thought and their communities, and virtually all Sikhs’ ancestors were Hindus. Marriages between Sikhs and Hindus, particularly among Khatris, were frequent. Some Hindu families brought up a son as a Sikh, and some Hindus view Sikhism as a tradition within Hinduism

Distinguishing Indian traditions is a fairly recent practice, states Lipner, and is the result of “not only Western preconceptions about the nature of religion in general and of religion in India in particular, but also with the political awareness that has arisen in India” in its people and a result of Western influence during its colonial history.

The use of the English term “Hinduism” to describe a collection of practices and beliefs is a recent construction: it was first used by Ram Mohun Roy in 1816-17. The term “Hinduism” was coined in opposition to other religions. Before the British began to categorise communities strictly by religion, Indians generally did not define themselves exclusively through their religious beliefs; identities were segmented on the basis of locality, language, caste, occupation and sect . The term Hinduism was thus constructed for colonial studies of India. The various sub-divisions and separation of subgroup terms were assumed to be result of “communal conflict”, and Hindu was constructed by these orientalists to imply people who adhered to “ancient default oppressive religious substratum of India”, states Pennington. Followers of other Indian religions so identified were later referred Buddhists, Sikhs or Jains and distinguished from Hindus, in an antagonistic two-dimensional manner, with Hindus and Hinduism stereotyped as irrational traditional and others as rational reform religions. However, these mid-19th-century reports offered no indication of doctrinal or ritual differences between Hindu and Buddhist, or other newly constructed religious identities. These colonial studies, states Pennigton, “puzzled endlessly about the Hindus and intensely scrutinized them, but did not interrogate and avoided reporting the practices and religion of Mughal and Arabs in South Asia”, and often relied on Muslim scholars to characterise Hindus. One thing is to be noted this classification of Hinduism and Jain, Bauddha & Sikh as seperate from it was done by Colonial orientalists for their own convinience, not for the sake of Indians..

Lets see what are basis of separation of those traditions from Hindu.

Reverance to vedas

The most common misconception is everything about contemporary Hinduism is that it should be exculsively Vedic and those other religions are exclusively non-vedic. Well, its true that that Bauddha, Jaina & Sikh are unvedic, but so does the Nātha tradition, Vāmamārgas, Aghora and many folk traditions, but they are considered Hindu. And both Buddhism and Jainism incoroporated the Vedic dieties in their respective pantheon, adhering their divinity and also have their own conceptions about the origin of vedas in their respective mythological canon, like the different contemporary denominations have. One of the previous births of budda was as a Veda-Versed brahmin, similarly Jain literature also has a canonical history of vedas. Both Mahavira and Buddha are said to have rejected the Vedas contemporary to them, believing them to be corrupted. And if we see the contemporary Hindu customs, its almost entirely Āgamic. Vedic ritualistic presence is absolutely minimal in what we call as Hinduism at present. And Historically The ulimate counter to Vedic Ritualism came from the Upaniṣadic traditions & Bhakti movement, which led to the ultimate demise and complete eclipsing of Vedic Ritualism, not from Bauddhas as it is commonly considered. Buddhism was itself ritualized and Brahminized to the core. In practice The Bhakti traditions, both actively and passively, tend to discourage the vedic ritualism even more than the Bauddhas & Jainas. In Śaivism the Vedic dieties are subordinate to Śiva; In Vaiṣṇavism to Viṣṇu; In Śāktism to Devī; Similarly in Buddhism the vedic deities are subordinate to the Buddhas and in Jainism to Jinas.

In all of these traditions, the devas are ordinary beings who rose to Godhood based on their merit(Karma).

Brahminism vs Śramaṇism

Another popular arguement , which is given is that the Ascetic Reformism(Śramaṇa movement) happened as a social revolt to Brahminical Orthopraxy, as it is propogated. Now is Ascetism really Non-vedic in origin, and was the Śramaṇa movement some sort of social reform against, Vedic-Brahminical Orthodoxy?? This view is based on the flawed and incompelete study of Indian religions by early colonial orientalists and further appropriated by Ambedkarites, who themselves reject all forms of traditional buddhism because it is highly brahminical in nature. Some early colonial scholars stated that Jainism like Buddhism was, in part, a rejection of the caste system in Hinduism. Later scholars, such as Gombrich state that this notion is an error for which “mainly Western authors are responsible”. A caste system has been a historic part of Jain society. According to Vilas Adinath Sangave, “caste system is a universal feature of the Jaina community”, and the focus of Jainism has been the spiritual liberation of the individual rather than social reforms.

Richard Gombrich, an Indologist and a professor of Buddhist Studies, states that there is no evidence that the Buddha began or pursued social reforms or was against a caste system, rather his aim was at the salvation of those who joined his monastic order. Modernist interpreters of Buddhism, states Gombrich, keep picking up this “mistake from western authors”, a view that initially came into vogue during the colonial era.

Please see:- Brahminism in Buddhism

According to Blackburn,

“neither view of traditional Buddhism — as a social reform movement or as some other stable entity interpreted (or misinterpreted) from a social reform perspective — is historically accurate”

The Buddha himself didn’t repudiate or condemn the caste system. G.S. Ghurye in his book, Caste and Race in India, concludes….

In the opinion of the great majority of the monks, caste distinction had value even after persons had joined the brotherhood. Buddha does not countenance this view or practice. From these facts, we conclude that in the matter of caste-restrictions the preachings and actions of Buddha had only a general liberalizing effect. He does not seem to have started with the idea of abolishing caste-distinctions, nor do his actions, as described in the Jātaka stories, demonstrate an utter indifference towards the accident of birth ; much less do they evince any conscious effort to annihilate caste. Fick has rightly observed that it is wrong to look upon Buddha as a social reformer and Buddhism as a revolt against casteism. And Sir Charles Eliot has summed up his judgement in the words “though he (Buddha) denied that Brahmans were superior by birth to others he did not preach against easte.”

Buddha’s primary emphasis was on monasticism. He hardly gave anything for laymen. The lay folllwers of buddha continued to follow their native customs and practices while being worshippers of Buddha.

Sir W.W. Hunter even stated that:

“It would be a mistake to suppose that Buddhism and Jainism were directed from the outset consciously in opposition to the caste system. Caste, in fact, at the time of the rise of Buddhism was only beginning to develop; and in later days, when Buddhism commenced its missionary careers, it took caste with it into regions where upto that time the institution had not penetrated.”

The Jain Canonical literature also gives its own theory of the origin of the quadrapled Varṇa System. Both Buddhist & Jain scriptures recognised caste distinctions in the present life as the product of a man’s past karmas and not an accident of birth. The Śramaṇa movement was a spiritual reform movement, considered as in counter to vedic ritualism. Śramaṇa means ascetic. And to say Ascetism is exclusively Unvedic, is absolutely erroneous. The Vedic thought also started to develop ascetic concepts in the later vedic & Upaniṣadic period when new philosophies like Vaiśeṣika, Nyāyá, Sāṃkhya, Yoga, Advaita began to emerge, which had similar approach like the Bauddha & Jaina, but just claimed to accept the Vedic Epistemic Authority. The concept of Śramaṇa exists in the early “Brahmanical” literature. Vedic corpus mentions Muni, Vati, Parivrajakas, which are said to be Saṃnyāsī in later literature and also referred to as Avadhūtas.. They are described sages who lived a special way of life that the Vedic culture considered extraordinary. The term did not imply any opposition to either Brahmins or householders. In all likelihood states Olivelle, during the Vedic era, neither did the Śramaṇa concept refer to an identifiable class, nor to ascetic groups as it does in later Indian literature. Additionally, in the early texts, some pre-dating 3rd-century BCE ruler Ashoka, the Brahmin and Śramaṇa are neither distinct nor opposed. The distinction, according to Olivelle, in later Indian literature “may have been a later semantic development possibly influenced by the appropriation of the latter term [Śramaṇa] by Buddhism and Jainism”. But Most prominent people to join the Śramaṇa orders were brahmins only. The pioneers of Śramaṇa movement & almost all prominent thinkers, including the primary disciples of both Buddha & Mahāvīra, were upper caste only and mostly brahmins who developed their philosophy, concepts,metaphysics and propogated them further. Both Jainas and Bauddhas have concepts like Gotra, Kula, Yajñopavītam, Saṃskāras, dvija, etc. which are considered to be notabily brahminical. The Bauddha, Jaina & Sikh canonical literature also emphasizes on vaṃśa(lineages), just like the purāṇas. One of the prominent Jain Scholars, Pampa, who very proudly flaunted his Brahminical lineage, even went on to say that “Jainism is the most suitable religion for Brahmins to follow”. And in which category would Sikh & Cārvāka fall in this classification? Because they are neither ascetic nor vedic. Cārvāka is not even a spiritualist tradition. And there are certain Hindu denominations & traditions which are not at all brahminical and reject the traditional Varṇa system and casteism. What about them??

The differences and similarities between Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism & contemporarily what is considered Hinduism are not much more than the differences & similarities between Śaivism, Vaiṣṇavism, Śāktism, Gāṇapatya,Smārtism, etc. They all have a basic common outlook and framework, but in details they are very different. They have a similar cosmography, similar framework of Karma, Rebirth, Saṃsāra, mokṣa and various forms of Yoga. They all have different versions of the same mythological events in their respective canonical literature, which are as I said similar in basic structural outlook, but very different in details. All Indian religions share the similar Mt. Meru/Sumeru centric cosmographical description of the universe, with the concepts of 7 dvīpas, 7 sāgaras, Lokas, etc. also being present in them.
There exists different versions of tales of Rāma, Kṛṣṇa and other commonly known Hindu mythological characters & narratives, in the Jaina, Baudhha and Sikh canon as well. Similarly there exists different versions of tales of many mythological characters in Śaivism, Vaiṣṇavism, Śāktism, like the reason of Brahmā not being worshipped, etc. And also there are some things mentioned in the Śaiva lores which arent there in the Vaiṣṇava tales(like Śarabha destroying/pacifying Narasiṃha, Kṛṣṇa getting defeated by Bāṇāsura, etc.), which conflict and contradict to Vaiṣṇava narratives and also vice-versa (like Bhṛgu cursing all Śaivas). Similarly the case with Bauddha and Jaina legends with in regards to what is considered as Hindu.
In the Śaiva legends, Śiva takes the main central role, Viṣṇu in Vaiṣṇava, Devī in Śāktaḥ, Bodhisattvas in Bauddha, Tīrthaṃkaras in Jaina, Gaṇeśa in Gāṇapatya and other figures from the canon to be subordinate to the respective central personality. Rāma is a heroic figure, a perfect being in all of these religions. In Śaivism, Rāma&Kṛṣṇa, whom the Vaiṣṇava believe to be Viṣṇu-incarnate, is considered to be great Śaivas(devotees of Śiva); In Vaiṣṇavism Hanumāna(considered Śiva-incarnate) & Śiva himself are considered to be Parama-Vaiṣṇava; Similarly in Bauddha canon, Brahmā, Viṣṇu&Śiva become the subordinate dieties lower to buddha; In Jainism also Rāma&Kṛṣṇa become the followers of the Tīrthaṃkaras. In the Vaiṣṇava canon Ṛṣabhadeva, first Jaina Tīrthaṃkara, is a Viṣṇu-incarnate; his son Bharata and parents:Nābhi &Maru, are also co-opted into the Purāṇas. Śaiva literature also co-opts Ṛṣabha as a great Yogī. Jaina literature also co-opts various commonly considered Hindu figures like Paraśurāma, Nala-Damayantī, Yakṣas, etc. Buddha is Viṣṇu-incarnate in Vaiṣṇavism , similarly Bauddha literature also co-opts numerous Vedic and purāṇic figures as Yakṣas, Yidams, Dharmapālas, etc. The Sikh scriptures mention their version of 24 Avatāras of Viṣṇu(incorporating Both Mahāvīra&Buddha in them), Śiva, durgā, Dattātreya and the 23rd Jain Tīrthaṃkara, Pārśvanātha as well. The Sikh canonical literature, JanamSakhis, also mention , Guru Nanak scaling the Mount Meru and reaching Brahmaloka and meeting with GorakhaNātha and other siddhas & Bhaktas. The Sikh scriptures extensively mentions the pasttimes of Rāma&Kṛṣṇa, and the metaphorical message behind them.

The Bauddha canon claims , that Śākyamuni was born in Ikṣvāku dynasty, thus making him the descendant of Rāma, thus asserting his higher descent from a prominent lineage. The Jaina Canon also does the same with the 22 of their Tīrthaṃkaras, making Mahāvīra, a descendant of Rāma. The Sikh Canon, Dasam Granth, also mentions the Sikh Gurus to be descendant of Rāma. Although all of them have different respective versions of the scion of Ikṣvāku, but nevertheless they all tend to emphasize importance on Ikṣvāku dynasty, a characteristic very common in what we commonly as Hindu purāṇic literature.

Please see :-

Both Jainism & Buddhism also have different forms of religiousity(Bhakti, Karma, Dhyāna & Jñāna). Sikhism is primarirly Bhakti only. Sikhism is absolutely identical to Vedāntic-Bhakti hinduism, in its approach, theosophy, with concepts like Trī-Guṇas, Māyā, etc, and similar cosmogony. In theory, Sikhism rejects many major orthodox aspects of mainstream hinduism which are even accepted in Bauddha & Jaina(such as caste, reverence to cow, idolatory, etc.), but in practice it is not completely so. It cannot be said that the practice of caste hierarchy is absent within the adherents of Sikhism. The reason why Ambedkar rejected Sikhism as well was this only. Caste hierarchy is generally a social reality within the Indian subcontinent regardless of religious affiliation. Until 1905 idolatory was practiced in the Gurudwaras. Cow slaughter was a punishable offence in the Sikh Empire. There are several sects , which transcend the boundaries of what we call as Sikhism & Hinduism(I’ve listed them here:- Hindu denominations. In earlier times there was a tradition in, what we now call as, Hindu families of Punjab and Sind that the eldest son would take up the oath and join the khalsa and rest of the family would continue practice their traditional customs. The Khalsa army majorly consisted of Mohyal Brahmins. The 11 Bhatts who contributed in the composition of Guru Granth Sahib were all Saraswat Brahmins.

The Advaita Philosophy, which is considered a crown jewel of what is contemporarily considered as Hinduism is often termed as “quasi-buddhist” by its rivals, while certain schools of Buddhism were termed as “quasi-advaita”, because if any two philosophies which are closest to each other, they are Bauddha and Advaita. The major conflict between the two is the difference of claim. While the later claims to vedic, the former claims to reject vedas.

Common traits can also be observed in ritual. The head-anointing ritual of abhiśeka is of importance, except Sikhism and some denomination considered to be within hindu. Other noteworthy rituals are the worship(Ārti,Pūjā), fire rituals , cremation of the dead, the wearing of vermilion on the head by married women, and various marital & wedding rituals. These religions also have similar shared sacred symbollism, conceptions of iconographic features. Mahāyāna Buddhism is completely brahiminised and share common rites, with mainstream orthodox Hinduism, such as the purification rite of Homa, prayers for the ancestors and deceased. Bauddhas also believe in astrology and Iṣṭa-devatās.

An orthodox Vaiṣṇava laymen has more similarity and is more compatible with Jaina laymen, than other Hindu denominations. An average Jaina or Bauddha, does not differ from an average Hindu more than his sectarian brother. A sectarian follows certain special customs, but otherwise act according to the usual standards in the conduct of his life. In today’s date, there are a lot of common aspects in social and cultural life of so called Hindus and Jains. It is quite difficult to differentiate a lay Jain from a lay ‘Hindu’. The Jain code of conduct is quite similar to that which is found in Dharmaśāstras. The 5 Yamas of Yogasūtra, are mentioned as 5 Mahāvratas in Jaināgamas. Many Jains now worship Hindu gods and celebrate Hindu festivals. Jains also incorporate folk dieties into their fold. Those dieties are worshipped by mainstream Hindus as well. Jains also have Kula-devatā/devī, Many Jain communities have common Kula-devatā with the mainstream Hindu communities, implying that they are from the same ethno-cultural extended group. Similarities between Jainism & mainstream Hinduism

They also share the concept of mokṣa, liberation from the cycle of rebirth. They differ however on the exact nature of this liberation. They also have an eternalist cyclic view of time, KālaCakras(Cosmic Time-Cycles). All the Indian traditions, explain morality and the nature of existence through the karma and saṃsāra doctrines, including the theistic ones as well, not necessarily through God, like in abrahamics

Until the 19th century, adherents of Indian religions did not tend to label themselves as in opposition to each other, but “perceived themselves as belonging to the same extended cultural family.”. Julius Lipner states,

“these are modern developments in the search for Hindu and other identity. In pre- modern times it was not, and could not be so. In those times people we describe as Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, etc. today tended not to make distinctions among themselves on the grounds adopted currently. This is because the term ‘Hindu’ hadn’t developed in the way it is understood today. The’Hindus’, ‘Buddhists, ‘Jains’, even ‘Sikhs’ of today, all felt a common identity in pre-modern times that made them members of the same ethno-cutural Family in the context of which they grouped themselves around certain teachings and practices. They did not feel impelled to hive off in terms of ethnic, territorial and/or political criteria as is the case today. Followers of the Gods Viṣṇu and Śiva divided into denominations amongst themselves. and argued with worshippers of Goddess-religions, all of whom may have quarrelled wirh the adherents of one or other of the Buddhist or Jain traditions, but there was no attempt ro standardize belief and practice among those we call ‘Hindus’ today in terms of a generic identity.”

Lipner also writes,

let us return to the relationship between so-called Hinduism and other long-standing Indian religions such as Buddhism and Jainism. Today, it is customary to distinguish between the religion(s) of the Hindus (or less accurately. Hinduism) and those of the Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs (or Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism)…for reasons of convenience if not of scholarly propriety,……But this kind of distinction is a fairly recent one. bound up not only with western preconceptions about the nature of religion in general and of religion in India in particular, but also with the political awareness that has arisen in India in the aftermath of westernisation……….In pre-modern India, people whom we today describe as Hindus tended not to label themselves as such in opposition to those we call Buddhists, Jains, etc. This is because the term ‘Hindu’, in so far as it had currency, was essentially a racial-cultural expression, and Buddhists, Sikhs, Jains, and those we refer to as Hindus now, all shared the same multi-faceted ethnicity of the subcontinent. They perceived themselves as all belonging to the same extended cultural family. They argued among themselves religiously and doctrinally all the time, but not in terms of ethnocentric distinctions. Vaiṣṇava Advaitins argued with Vaiṣṇava Dvaitins, and Vaiṣṇavas argued with Śaivites, and Śaivites disputed with Buddhists (or Bauddhas, i.e. the followers of the Buddha), and Buddhists quarrelled with Logicians or Naiyāyikas, and so on, but there was little argument, if any, between Hindus as Hindus and Buddhists or Jains or Sikhs. The arguments were doctrinal, soteriological, religious, not ethnocentric or cultural in this sense. According to the current meaning of the term Hindu, either all or none of these groups were Hindus.”

I could go on and on on this topic, but I think What I want to convey is established, that the basis which is used to seperate Jain , Bauddha and Sikh from Hindu, can also be used to further separate hindu denominations, hence there is no strong basis of such rigid seperation. And I Have not even talked about the similarities and shared concepts in metaphysics of these traditions. There are no doubt major differnces too in them, but there are also similar major differences between the traditions/denominations/ philsophies that are considered Hindu. There are many metaphysical concepts that exist in Śaivism and are completely absent in Vaiṣṇavism and vice versa. The Dvaita school is the polar opposite of the philosophy of Advaita, they both completely contradict to each other on everything. But these are considered as part of one religious idenity. So as I said, the basis of seperation of those religions from Hindu is not strong enough, if we take a deeper look.

Relation with Buddhism, Jainism & Sikhism

2 replies on “Hindu Self-Identity & its position in Indian Religions”

Leave a Reply Cancel reply