What exactly is the Hindu Identity?

I will conclude what is discoursed in the previous articles and also add some of my insights and perspectives to this issue.

Are Jainism, Buddhism & Sikhism offshoots?

Many hindus tend to classify these traditions as mere offshoots, branches or subtraditions of what they call as Hinduism. Now this is a completely unjust categorization to all four (Hindu, Jaina, Bauddha & Sikh). First of all to be an offshoot , there need to be existing a systemic central tradition from which the offshoot is supposed branch out. But there was no systemic & organized Hinduism at the first place. If we see the historical and actual implications of the term Hindu, then Jainism , Buddhism & Sikhism are independent , autonomous religions in their own right, which developed organically just like Śaivism, Vaiṣṇavism, Śāktism, Gāṇapatya, Smārtism, Sourism, etc. So these all are different, independent, autonomous religions with each having uniqueness and distinctness of their own, within the common framework and umbrella of Hindu. And NO! JAINISM, BUDDHISM and SIKHISM are NOT MERE OFFSHOOTS or Branched-Out traditions.

Why Buddhism, Jainism & Sikhism separated?

Now as I have already stated in previous part, that this seperate identification is a very recent phenomenon and caused by 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.

Their understanding of hindu was as such that 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.

The problem is throughout the History mostly whoever had tried to understand the Hindus as a unit in whole have mostly standardized them as per their limited perspective. Muslims standardized Hindus as idolator Kaffirs, Christians as Pagan Polytheistic infidels, Marxists as brutal, regressive animal & nature worshippers. When such standardization happen of a heterogenous group like Hindu, the individuality of its different traditions start to get subsumed by the standardizations. But what i have observed that contributed the most in seperatist thought getting instilled in the minds of the adherents of those traditions is the standardizations that happened from within what we call Hinduism. With the influence of Western Concept of an uniformed religious identity & emergence of Neo-Vedanta, so called revivalists and organizations like Arya Samaj, ISKCON,etc which are absolutely Narrow Minded and have a very limited perspective , these organization started to impose their sectarian view on the Hindu identity , which often rejected the existence of diversity outrightly, because of which Bauddha ,Jaina & Sikh are often either limited to mere branches/offshoots or corrupted branched off traditions or completely get subsumed. So naturally they will tend to establish their individual unique identity.

Another reason is political reconginition. In India being a minority comes with several perks and benefits sanctioned by the Constitution, which are not given to the majority. The Indian State, although acknowledging the plurality & diversity within Hinduism, but still recognizes Hindu as a One pan-religious identity. So naturally it becomes a matter of individual identity crisis, due to the standardizations that happen because of that. Infact once even the RamKrishna Mission applied for seperate Minority religion status, the same RamKrishna Mission whose founder represented Hinduism at the Parliament of World’s Religions at Chicago in 1893.

The Indian administration is in the peculiar situation that the Supreme Court has repeatedly been called upon to define “Hinduism” because the Constitution, while it prohibits “discrimination of any citizen” on grounds of religion in article 15, article 30 foresees special rights for “All minorities, whether based on religion or language”. As a consequence, religious groups have an interest in being recognised as distinct from the Hindu majority in order to qualify as a “religious minority”. Thus, the Supreme Court was forced to consider the question whether Jainism is part of Hinduism in 2005 and 2006, which was ultimately declared a national minority in 2014. It is the failure of Indian Governments that had continued to imposed Colonial era understandings of Indian traditions. But when it comes to personal laws, as provisioned by the Constitution, all indian religions are categorized under Hindu and covered under Hindu Code Bills only
So this seperation is a result of identity politics triggered by various factors, not because of any significant doctrinal conflict or schism.

“Way of Life”

Now this ‘Self-identification’ is something that is very prevalent amongst Hindus. That Hinduism is not a religion, but a way of life. But Calling Hinduism a way of life doesn’t give one a very much meaning. At the end of it if we analyze it is actually a meaningless, very superficial & rudimentary way of thinking about it, because effectively it doesn’t say anything. What exactly does ‘a way of life’ mean? Any religion is a way of life for its followers. Sunnat is the way of life for Muslims. Rehat Maryada is the way of life of Sikhs. Similarly Christianity, Vaiṣṇavism, Yoga, etc. can also be said a way of life of their respective followers. Islam literally has minute to minute details/instructions on how one should live.

Calling Hinduism ‘a way of life’ only gives it a religious connotations. An Aghora way of life is drastically different from laymen’s way of life. A Gujarati Vaiṣṇava has a totally different way of life from a Bengali Śākta. An Assamese Tantric has a different way of life from a Tamil Śaiva. A Yogic way of life is different from a Karma-Kāṇḍī. A Jaina way of life is very identical to orthodox Vaiṣṇava way of life. And also different caste groups have their own different way of life. In certain traditions meat eating is allowed, and in certain it is strictly prohibited. There is No Uniform conception of a good ideal life. A Hindu can claim adherence to a religion without an established church/institution or priestly papacy, He is free to free to reject the rituals and customs. How can all these contrasting ways of life be just termed as “a way of life”. So this phrase may sound very intellectual , but it is actually the quite opposite. Its an oxymoron, as any religion is a way of life for its followers, as that’s what the purpose of a religion is in practicality, to dictate on how one should live ideally.

Sanātana Dharma

This is something that is widely appropriated as the “original name” of Hindu, based on the misconception that Hindu was imposed by muslim invaders. That misconception has already been addressed in the previous articles. Now coming to the term. This term was popularized by Gandhi in the 1920s. The term was used during the Hindu revivalist movements in order to avoid having to use the term “Hindu” which is of non-native origin and as a traditionalist response to reform movements. The users of this terminology propose that original name of Hinduism is Sanātana dharma and they often tend percieve it as something infalliable. There is absolutely zero evidence of the term being used historically for the purpose it is contemporarily. The term is indeed present in the Hindu literature but not for the purpose it is used presently but in a sense akin to cosmic order or eternal law. The term Sanātana dharma in the literature does not refer to any religious identity, group or theological belief at all, like its used now. Even Jains & Buddhists claim to be Sanātana dharma. The concept of Sanātana is inherent with Dharma, and Dharma is not religion, but the contemporary usage of these term only gives religious connotations to it, even though it is based on the premise of denying it. The users of this term , propose it as something eternalist way of life, perfect, advanced, unchangeable, infalliable in response to reform movements, closing all doors for innovation and reforms and it has also resulted in several standardizations of Hinduism as a homogenous unit. It implies that Hinduism cannot & shouldn’t undergo change. This terminology and its usage is absolutely erroneous. This approach is very abrahamic in nature. These people tend to reject anything non-orthodox or modern , accepting only what they believe to be the original and eternal divine truth. This is a highly contentious implication. The fact is There is no “original” Hinduism. Hinduism is an evolution of faiths, traditons. Vedas were themselves evolved. One can see the slow movement away from Indra and nature gods in Ṛg Veda to the Śiva/Viṣṇu in Yajur Veda. And by Mahābhārata, Kṛṣṇa deliberately asks you to skip Indra/vedic rituals and worship only Him. Hinduism has changed and evolved throughout the history as per the needs of the era. This dynamism is what makes Hinduism so special and unconventional. A Sanātanī is more prescriptive than descriptive. It is is chiefly to say what one believes Hinduism should be rather than what Hinduism is. These folk also posit that it is not a religion, but a way of life, but if we look closely the nature of their self identification it is absolutely similar to a conventional religion. So I suggest fellow seekers, if you want to understand Hinduism, then This Sanātanī mindset should be absolutely avoided.

One absolutely stupid and idiotic misconception related to this term that I have seen on the Internet is, that Hinduism, Jainism, Buddhism and Sikhism are all branches/offshoots of Sanātana Dharma. Now as I have already addressed both the branch/offshoot thing previously and also the Sanātana Dharma, that there was never any group that self identified as Sanātana Dharma, historically like it happens contemporarily. Please read: What is Sanātana Dharma?

Similar Comments apply to the description of Hinduism as “Vedic(Vaidika) Dharma”, i.e. a way of life based on Vedas. This description implies that Hinduism is necessarily religious. But one can be a Hindu without being religious in any obvious sense of the term. To be a Hindu is to be culturally, not necessarily religiously, marked in some way. Although there are hints to some sort of complex Vedic self identity in the literature, but if we look deeply that is not translatable to what corresponds as Hinduism at present. The term Vaidika dharma means a code of practice that is “based on the Vedas”, but it is unclear what “based on the Vedas” really implies, states Julius Lipner. The Mīmāṃsakas considered the Āgamas such as the Pāñcarātra to be invalid because it did not conform to the Vedas. But Āgamic rituals are the most dominant form of orthodox worship at present within Hinduism. Another example is the Nātha tradition, which is nonvedic and completely heterodox & esoteric. It has an extensive literature of its own, where the Nātha gurus take the primary role and the Indian pantheon becomes subordinate to them,which is drastically contrasting to the mainstream hindu or Śaiva literature. But Nātha community is considered hindu and this sect is one of the biggest proponents of hindutva at present. The Mīmāṃsakas also rejected the Upaniṣads saying them to be later texts, but the later Uttara-Mīmāṃsakas or the so called “Vedānta” traditions, upheld the Upaniṣads as primary portion of Vedas while undermining the Karma-Kāṇḍa or the Vedic Saṃhitās , even rejecting them at instances, but it was upheld by Karma-Mīmāṃsakas as primary. And even within the different schools of Vedānta there’s a debate of which Upaniṣad is Śruti and which isn’t. For e.g. the Śrī Vaiṣṇava or Viśiṣṭādvaita of rāmānuja accepts Mahānārāyaṇa Upaniṣad as a Primary Upaniṣad, while not giving preference to the Upaniṣads like Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, which are accepted by Śaivas & Smārtas as primary. Similarly, Śaivas uphold their Āgamas and Siddhānta texts, which are only acceptable in their denomination, as what one would call “Vedānta”. While Smārtas reject the Āgamas altogether, but which as aforementioned are considered as the essence of Vedas by other denominations. Iskcon(Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇavism) consider the Kali-Saṇṭāraṇa Upaniṣad as veda, which is not even accepted by other Vaiṣṇava sects, and Bhāgavatam & Caitanya-caritāmṛta as “pancam veda” and their sectarian commentaries & Brahma-Saṃhitā as Vedic literature propagate it all as the “Vedic knowledge” , a thing which is opposed by every other sect or denomination. Then there are the Arya Samajis, as per whom the vedas only contain their reformist views, they outrightly reject whatever doesn’t suit to their views calling it nonvedic.

So what I mean is there’s no objective definition of being vedic or accepting veda other than the claiming it.
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. Some Kashmiri scholars rejected the esoteric tantric traditions to be a part of Vaidika dharma. The followers of Tantra were often branded as Nāstika by the political proponents of the Vedic tradition. The Atimārga Śaivism ascetic tradition, challenged the Vaidika frame and insisted that their Agamas and practices were not only valid, they were superior than those of the Vaidikas. Similarly Assamese Vaiṣṇavism openly rejects/discourages Vedic ritualism, not just them but almost entirety of hinduism contemporarily undermines Vedic Karma-Kāṇḍa. And as I’ve already stated in previous part-3 B that Bhakti & Ascetic traditions both actively and passively tend to discourage the Vedic ritualism. Even when different traditions professed allegiance to the Vedas, their allegiance did little to fetter the freedom of their speculative ventures. On the contrary, the acceptance of the authority of the Vedas was a convenient way for the respective sect’s views to become acceptable to the orthodox, even if the sect introduced a wholly new idea. Thus, the Vedas could be cited to corroborate a wide diversity of views; they were used by the Vaiśeṣika thinkers (i.e., those who believe in ultimate particulars, both individual souls and atoms) and Dvaitins as much as by the Advaitins. Many Hindus are and have been quite unfamiliar with these sacred utterances. Many religious Hindus implicitly acknowledge the authority of the Vedas, this acknowledgment is often “no more than a declaration that someone considers himself [or herself] a Hindu.” Some Hindus challenge the authority of the Vedas, thereby implicitly acknowledging its importance to the history of Hinduism, states Lipner. Vedas aren’t “single source” books, which contain everything about hinduism, like quran does for islam. Vedas are merely ritualistic texts, containing enchantments to be recited during fire rituals. But as stated earlier, Vedic ritualism has almost gone extinct contemporarily , and just limited to certain occasions. And almost entirety of present day hinduism is based on texts which undermines or rejects the vedic ritualism, calling it to be materialistic, degrading the prominent Vedic gods. So, Vedic Dharma is an inaccurate identification and in present context is another example of standardization of Hinduism from within, which further alienates non-vedic traditions from Hinduism.

There was never a necessary prescriptive theological basis in Hindu identity, like in other world denominations like Islam, christianity, Zoroastrianism, Mithraism, etc. Even if we take “being Vedic” as the common basis of being hindu, then also there isn’t any theological basis. As vedas themselves don’t provide any uniform theology. The most prominent gods of the early vedic literature and their worship are now lost into antiquity. Different denominations and sects draw their own respective theologies/theosophies from what they consider Vedic respectively or from their respective preferred portions of Vedic Corpus. And then there are the Non-theistic/atheistic schools also which are based on Vedas.

I have seen many people identifying them as Vaiṣṇava-Hindu/Hindu-Vaiṣṇava, Śaiva-Hindu/Hindu-Śaiva and so on. This is the most appropriate self identification I have noticed by far. It acknowledges both the collective Hindu identity as well as the individual theological distinction of their belief system. I have also seen certain Jains & Sikhs identifying themselves as Hindu-Jains & Hindu-Sikhs , respectively.

Polytheism?

Many people tend to classify Hinduism as Paganistic Polytheistic. Some hindus out of shame avoid the polytheistic features of hinduism, and tend more towards monochromatic Monotheistic approach. But Hindu is neither Polytheistic nor Monotheistic exclusively. Within Hinduism, there exist polytheistic, monotheistic, henotheistic, Pantheistic, Panentheistic, Monistic, Henotheistic, Atheistic, Agnostic, humanist, etc thoughts, but neither of them can be called the exclusive view of Hindu. Hindu can be best explained as Polycentric.

What exactly is Hinduism?

Encyclopaedia Britannica states that “Hinduism” is a blanket term covering several religions and does not refer to a single religion. “In principle, Hinduism incorporates all forms of belief and worship without necessitating the selection or elimination of any. The Hindu is inclined to revere the divinity in every manifestation, whatever it may be, and is doctrinally tolerant … Hinduism is, then, both a civilization and a conglomeration of religions, with neither a be- ginning, a founder, nor a central authority, hierarchy, or organization. It is the glorious catholicity of Hinduism that one can be a believer in one God, or multiplicity of Gods or even none at all. Hinduism does not expel much less crucify alleged non believers. Every attempt at a specific definition of Hinduism has proved unsatisfactory in one way or another. …Hinduism is not a revealed religion and, therefore, has neither a founder nor definite teachings or common system of doctrines … It has no organisation, no dogma or accepted creeds. There is no authority with recognised jurisdiction. A man, therefore, could neglect any one of the prescribed duties of his group and still be regarded as a good Hindu.”

But that all has already been stated multiple times by now.

Hindu is a geography! Because the hindu literature extensively self indentifies with land of Indian Subcontinent or South Asia. The Hindu literature is aware about its geo-political domain. It knows its geographical limits. It mentions other lands as well, but also distincts them as foreign , religio-culturally different from the domain of the Āryas, i.e. Bhārata. Hindus have Loka-devatā, Sthala-devatā, Grāma-devatā, Kṣetra-Pālas, Tīrthas which further emphasize the importance of the sacred geography of Indian Subcontinent. No other religious literature (for the lack of a better word) has the concept of a Sacred Geography, like Hinduism does, except for maybe Judaism. The primary goals of Hindu Nationalism is the Geo-Political-cultural Unity of Indian Subcontinent or South Asia. That’s why critics tend to draw parallels between Hindutva and Zionism.

Hindu is ethnicity!! Because Hindus have concepts like Gotra, Pravara, Kula, Kuladevatā, Kuladevī, KulaGurus. Endogamy and exogamy are serious issues in a Hindus life. Caste based rituals. Hereditary passing of certain customs. The Canonical literature extensively identifies the characters with the lineage they are born in. The literature distinguishes other people on ethno-cultural grounds. I am not endorsing caste or any such, but it is an undeniable reality in india irrespective of religion or theological beliefs.

No vedic ritual can be completed before the complete recital of one’s gotra(lineage) and geography. In Some rituals Kuladevatā and Kulaguru names are also recited. These type of stuff only a person born hindu can do. All of this is descriptive not prescriptive.

But this doesn’t mean that Hindu is exclusively geo-ethnic, the theosophies and philosophies can be followed by anyone, but there are many things which people not born to hindu parents cannot do!!

Hindu is a culture or civilization! The vast chunk of what we call as Hindu Literature deals with issued related to various fields of academics, science, humanities and different aspects of life. The Hindu literature includes works on various topics, such as Medicine, Surgery, Logic, Philology, Linguistics, Astronomy, Physics, Alchemy, Mettallurgy, Botany, Agriculture, Mathemetics, Architecture, Grammar, Musicology, Performing Arts, Economics, Geography, Statescraft, Jewel-testing, Ship-building, Poetics, Lexicography, drammaturgy, Hippology, Sexology, epistemology, etc., which have nothing neccessarily to do with the metaphysics of Dharma.

Speaking of the metaphysics of dharma, if one still need to posit some sort of collective religious identity for Hindus, then I suggest, “Dharmic Religions”, “Dharmism”, Dharmist.

David Frawley and Rajiv Malhotra use the term “Dharmic traditions” to highlight the similarities & integral unity between the various Indian religions. According to Frawley, “all religions in India have been called the Dharma” and can be

…put under the greater umbrella of “Dharmic traditions” which we can see as Hinduism or the spiritual traditions of India in the broadest sense

This identification is also all inclusive and acknowledging the diversity. Because not all Hindu traditions deal with Dharma, such as Cārvāka. The term is mentioned in every religious Hindu literature. But here we have to understand one thing, that Dharmic or Dharmism can be considered a religious identification, but it is not necessarily a belief or faith, it may contain within it many beliefs and faiths, but as a whole is not a belief or faith, as it should be obviously clear by now, but it is a religious identity in the sense, like a conventional religion, it thinks about the meaning of Human existence, morality, where we came from & where we are going and how should one conduct oneself ideally. These are issues common to all religions, but what is unique about the religious identification I suggested, is that it doesnt give you a single answer, instead it gives a way of thinking about things and in many ways one is allowed to draw his own conclusions, within the common framework of Karma, Saṃsāra, mokṣa, etc. The thing that gives it some unity, is not the answers one arrive at, is the questions that are being asked. So while Hindu is the geo-ethno-socio-cultural identity of India, “Dharmic” can be considered as the exclusively inclusive religious & Spiritual Collective identity of Indian Religions, within the cultural fold of Hindu. A Hindu is not necessarily needed to be a Dharmic, but dharma is not mutually exclusive with hindu.

Now what if in future a mormon like phenomenon happens in India? Will that be considered hindu?

First of all to be religiously or spiritually hindu, they have to be dharmic, and to be dharmic , abrahamics would have to leave everything abrahamic in them. Now coming on the other aspects, as long as they continue to owe or claim their origin from the semitic cults of the Levant, they can never be hindu. That’s why ahmeddiyas are not hindu, even after Incorporating Rāma, Kṛṣṇa and Buddha into their canon and originating from the Subcontinent.

The conclusion is Indian traditions cannot be understood conventionally like Abrahamic ones. If one does, he will always end up confused or forming standardized & generalized understanding of it. One has to maintain a balance between the extreme diversity and the simaltaneous shared framework that exists in the Hindu Civilization.

Hindu dharma

Now many people prefer this term an alternative or translation for Hinduism. But this term is also a little problematic, as the term Dharma and its conceptualization ,both are ambiguous. And not everything in Hinduism is necessarily about Dharma. I prefer the word ‘Hinduvāda’ (हिंदूवाद) instead. It is the literal translation of the word ‘Hinduism’.

Thus, ends my attempt at presenting the basic outlook of Hindu, Hinduism and Hindu Identity. I hope this will clear a lot of doubts and misconceptions.