Our vastness

[Vinayaka]

I was browsing some Hinduism introductory sites, and noticed that many don't say much at all about how vast we are, but tend to use a singular POV to present an introduction to Hinduism.

In the contrary, if someones asks me about our faith, it's generally the first thing out of my mouth ... "Well, we're vast. There are many many styles of Hinduism."

Why is that? Is it because Hindus themselves don't realise it? Is it just an omission, purposeful, or otherwise? Are we doing ourselves a disservice, presenting only one side of the coin? Are we doing the newcomer a disservice?

In one way, this forum is great, as we do have as more rounded representation, I think.

Thoughts?

 

[shivsomashekhar]

I was browsing some Hinduism introductory sites, and noticed that many don't say much at all about how vast we are, but tend to use a singular POV to present an introduction to Hinduism.

In the contrary, if someones asks me about our faith, it's generally the first thing out of my mouth ... "Well, we're vast. There are many many styles of Hinduism."

Why is that? Is it because Hindus themselves don't realise it? Is it just an omission, purposeful, or otherwise? Are we doing ourselves a disservice, presenting only one side of the coin? Are we doing the newcomer a disservice?

In one way, this forum is great, as we do have as more rounded representation, I think.

Thoughts?

My thoughts - Because we consciously or unconsciously feel that we need to model our beliefs along the lines of the word religion as defined by the West. To that end, we tend to describe Hinduism as a homogeneous whole with a single God, founded on scriptures or even better, a common set of scriptures (Veda and the Gita), downplaying idol worship and any obvious variations in beliefs, highlighting vegetarianism and the quest for liberation. It is easier, this way.

If we want to put things as they are, then Hinduism will take on a very different shape from what the term religion represents. A lot more harder to comprehend and articulate.

 

[Fireside_Hindu]

I honestly think its because people dont understand religion in the way it is constructed in Hinduism. Religion has a very specific structure in most peoples minds and when something doesn't match that they think either, "That's not really religion." Or they are frightened by it. Diversity within one religion is too much to grasp for people not practicing so some feel the need to simplify it. I think for the honest searcher its fine as an intro but when you are making it a part of academic study or religion round table discussion I think it harms Hindus because it reinforces this idea that we shod be ashamed of the way we practice. And other religions will pounce on that insecurity. "See! They dont really think they have the right path."

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hinduism is vast and the variety is mind-boggling.

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm never surprised any more of how little Hindus know about each other. At one time I was. Now it's just expected. The surprise is when you run into someone that does know a lot about various regions of India. In my experience that generally happens if someone has had a type of job where they had to move around a lot.

 

[Vinayaka]

Hinduism is vast and the variety is mind-boggling.

Yes, Aup, but that's not what I'm asking for a discussion on. I think all the Hindus here on this forum get that, unless they're real newbies. I'm asking why this fact is omitted in introductory essays. Heck, you're more likely to hear about caste or 'the Trimurthi' than you are to hear about the variety.

 

[Shantanu]

I was browsing some Hinduism introductory sites, and noticed that many don't say much at all about how vast we are, but tend to use a singular POV to present an introduction to Hinduism.

In the contrary, if someones asks me about our faith, it's generally the first thing out of my mouth ... "Well, we're vast. There are many many styles of Hinduism."

Why is that? Is it because Hindus themselves don't realise it? Is it just an omission, purposeful, or otherwise? Are we doing ourselves a disservice, presenting only one side of the coin? Are we doing the newcomer a disservice?

In one way, this forum is great, as we do have as more rounded representation, I think.

Thoughts?

There is in Hinduism unity in diversity, meaning there is rationality in the conception of Hinduism as the way of life of a people. The diverse practices that people engage in fit into a narrative of what we Hindus are as a people and so what the homogeneity is composed of in terms of the unifying bonds between the different strands of practices. Hinduism is not 'a' particular way of life but diverse ways of life that recognise the different elements of Nature as perceived by the individual members of the group.

 

[Kalibhakta]

Most of the scholarly works I read place great stress on the diversity of Hinduism. Is it mostly sectarian works that are like this?

 

[Vinayaka]

Most of the scholarly works I read place great stress on the diversity of Hinduism. Is it mostly sectarian works that are like this?

Oh, I could be wrong. I browsed on 'introductory Hinduism' and only looked at a few. I've never read anything scholarly, because it doesn't interest me. But yes it would seem a scholarly article would almost have to notice the diversity. Otherwise it could be a very short book.

 

[Kirran]

Honestly, whenever people ask me 'What do Hindus believe?' or 'What is Hinduism?' or something similar, I come straight out with that it's incredibly variable, and explain how it goes from atheism through pantheism, panentheism etc to polytheism, and then try and describe some commonalities. I often struggle with that last part.

When presented in an introductory article for Hinduism, that kind of thing is just confusing for readers, I suppose, and so writers shirk from tackling the diversity, and just describe some major type of Hinduism.

I honestly feel it's possible that the majority of the world's religious diversity is contained within Hinduism alone.

 

[Vinayaka]

I honestly feel it's possible that the majority of the world's religious diversity is contained within Hinduism alone.

I think this is true, too. No analogy does it justice.

 

[Poeticus]

Why is that? Is it because Hindus themselves don't realise it? Is it just an omission, purposeful, or otherwise? Are we doing ourselves a disservice, presenting only one side of the coin? Are we doing the newcomer a disservice?

Thoughts?

We have mostly ourselves to blame, our tenacity to identity with the mainstream classifications of what constitutes "religion", and our irrational desire of being accepted by the adherents of the Omnimax Conglomerate.

Please read, for example, this recent article by The White Hindu: The Hindu Identity Crisis & The Mindy Project

Excerpt (emphasis is of the author, carried onto here to ensure the integrity of the original):

"This reminds me of a video I saw a while ago of young Muslims doing an outreach program at an American mall. They had a booth set up to put hijab on non-Muslim women and show them what they’d look like. You could see the enthusiasm and sense of identity radiating off the Muslim kids running the booth. Only one American of Indian heritage approached and when asked what religion she was she mumbled, “I guess I’m Hindu?”

I couldn’t help but wonder why there was such a sense of pride and enthusiasm from the Muslim young people and not a hint of it in the Hindu young person.

I have since learned that this is a common occurrence. A friend in academia told me that it is her Hindu students who feel the least amount of connection to their birth religion and culture. She suspects that it has to do with how Hinduism is taught in many American schools. Many young Hindus in America grow up with the message that their religion is “backwards” and “unsophisticated” and “oppressive.” Yet if anyone says those things about Islam those same young Hindus fight fiercely against stereotyping and show wonderful support for their Muslim friends and classmates."​

Therefore, there are social, economic, and political reasons as to why many Hindus, and not just various, supposedly, introductory books, either consciously or unconsciously omit the vastness of Dharma. Thus, in the process, only certain facets that may come across as socio-religiously "palatable" are expressed (in regards to presenting only "one side of the coin"). And ultimately, doing a big disservice to the inquirer, though the tenacity with which the inquirer asks also depends on the answerer (since a question that would be analogous to 1+1=2 asked by, say, an elementary-minded individual would not find much relevance in being provided with an answer that is akin to, say, a derivative [from calculus]).

Likewise, imagine you and I sitting on a bench and someone comes and asks us about Dharma or Hinduism in general. Your answers may be, when poached on the specifics, more about Lord Shri Shiva and the oneness of bliss (correct me if I'm wrong); I, on the other hand, would find it difficult to relay topics pertaining to intrinsic validity (e.g., apaurusheyatva) and knowledge-derived-from-origin as opposed to extrinsic validity (i.e., knowledge is independent of origin) in regards to Indian dialectics (not to mention the extreme juxtaposition that my bahudeva [many gods] inclined perspectives would provide to your answers). You see, the former answers are theological and sampradaya-based, something which most are at least somewhat familiar with in regards to what they expect to hear. They await a response about the many-armed gods and goddeses, the caste system, incarnations of Lord Shri Vishnu, and such. However, topics of adhikaraNa and pramANa are something they would not expect. Therefore, I have great difficulty in relaying the diversity of Dharma to BOTH, and inquisitive, Hindus and non-Hindus.

Another perspective worthy to pursue is the subsequent interaction of civic-duty minded practitioners of non-Abrahamic faiths and adherents of Abrahamic faiths due to both pre-Colonial and post-Colonial, globalistic world realities (which is what shiv-ji goes into). Without personally explaining what I mean by this perspective, allow me to quote De Roover to illustrate a tangential assertion:

"...early modern encounters between Europe and India present a striking fact: when Christian travelers, merchants and missionaries denounced the indigenous traditions as 'false religion' and preached conversion to 'true religion', non-Muslim and non-Christian Indians reacted with incomprehension. They failed to grasp how one religion could be true and others false, and how different religions could be considered as rivals. To charges of falsity and idolatry, they replied that their ancestral traditions were very old and could not therefore be false. Before the late eighteenth century, Hindus did not defend their traditions in terms of doctrinal truth or texts: the tendency to provide a foundation for ancestral practices in 'true' scriptures was largely absent...Influenced by Islam and his interaction with Christian missionaries, [Raja Ram Mohan] Roy* intended to revive the Hindu traditions by transforming them into a religion along the biblical model. In many of his texts, he spoke of the Vedas as though they were the Bible, of the Shastras as though they were church law, and of Manu as though he was Moses, the law giver of a people. He wanted to demonstrate that truth was to be found in Vedic religion, rather than in its rivals Islam or Christianity. Convinced that 'the whole body of the Hindoo Theology, Law, and Literature is contained in the Vedas', Roy denounced Hindu rituals as idolatrous fabrications and tried to convince his countrymen of the true meaning of their sacred books. He did all this 'for the purpose of diffusing Hindu scriptural knowledge among the adherents of that religion'..."

*and many others that are of the "fitting in" brigade​

My thoughts - Because we consciously or unconsciously feel that we need to model our beliefs along the lines of the word religion as defined by the West. To that end, we tend to describe Hinduism as a homogeneous whole with a single God, founded on scriptures or even better, a common set of scriptures (Veda and the Gita), downplaying idol worship and any obvious variations in beliefs, highlighting vegetarianism and the quest for liberation. It is easier, this way.

If we want to put things as they are, then Hinduism will take on a very different shape from what the term religion represents. A lot more harder to comprehend and articulate.

And it is precisely for the reasons shiv-ji has described that I strongly recommend reading Balagangadhara's The Heathen in His Blindness.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, Aup, but that's not what I'm asking for a discussion on.

I did not touch that part of the question, since I have not analysed it.

”Yet if anyone says those things about Islam those same young Hindus fight fiercely against stereotyping and show wonderful support for their Muslim friends and classmates."

Nice observation, they are defending diversity.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

I think it is largely due to attempts at presenting 'hindu-ism' as a homogenous religious doctrine, whereas, in fact, it is at best a meta-sociocultural category founded more on the basis of common geography and very few common belief systems (karma? reincarnation? puruṣārthas?). But then as @shivsomashekhar ji puts it there is certainly introjection of western categories in the minds of post-colonial authors who in their attempts to explain it, compromise the intrinsic diversity characteristic of each belief system within hindu traditions even. Unless traditional categories are used to present the views of hindu traditions, any portrayal will only be a vague replica. But i think this is too much to ask for in the age of masquerade-scholarship (this is not pseudo-scholarship, but one where scholarly endeavors are actually masks for other ulterior motives rarely disclosed). I think the heart of hindu traditions still beats in remotest folk-lands, often stereotyped as village-hindu, where the original values - the most common denominators of hindu traditions - are still practiced. The Indian education system too has played a role in corrupting the capabilities of Indians to think with unbounded rationality - the very fact that theories from the west is naturally seen as 'advanced'. I see most Indians, especially 'the self-proclaimed educated' succumbing to the onslaught of 'grand narratives' of 'enlightenment project' and 'progress' myth, that too without a fight and without even realizing it. Any connect to traditions is lampooned as 'regressive' and ironically, much of the resistance against this is championed by westerners themselves, amidst the cacophony of 'educated' Indians.

नारायणायेतिसमर्पयामि ।

 

[Aupmanyav]

Don't blame rationality. Each Hindu view is supremely rational. See the discussions involved in reaching each 'sampradaya' conclusion. A Hindu belief should/must be rational. How much Madhva or Sankara discuss to establish their view! Of course, Hinduism cannot be put in Western categories. Still thinking about it.

 

[तत्त्वप्रह्व]

I was suggesting unbounded rationality - that which is not bound to categories established externally - in evaluating and presenting perspectives. Its in the sense of forming constructs that can be traced to the very culture that is being analyzed or portrayed either descriptively or critically. Wonder how you understood it to imply irrationality or blaming rationality!?

श्रीकृष्णार्पणमस्तु ।

 

[Aupmanyav]

Tattva, can rationality be bound according to one's choice? But I think I am not sure about what we are talking about. Need to reflect on what you write. I will go and have my bath. Perhaps on my return, I would be of a clearer mind.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Yes, Aup, but that's not what I'm asking for a discussion on.

When presented in an introductory article for Hinduism, that kind of thing is just confusing for readers, I suppose, and so writers shirk from tackling the diversity, and just describe some major type of Hinduism.

I honestly feel it's possible that the majority of the world's religious diversity is contained within Hinduism alone.

IMHO, Kirran has effectively answered your question. Hinduism is just too diversified to be explained in an introductory article or book unless the book has at least 500 pages.

 

[Shantanu]

OK, I have made an attempt to bring together some ideas of what I think has been going on in India for thousands of years under what we call Hinduism, as a way of kick starting the discussion:


The Diversity of Hinduism

There is in Hinduism unity in diversity, meaning there is rationality in the conception of Hinduism as the way of life of a people. Nothing is ruled out, nothing is ruled in: reality can be anything. There is the freedom to search. This leads to diverse practices all of which are not just tolerated, but given respect for it is accepted that no one knows the truth for certain. People are entitled to their conceptions. The diverse practices that people engage in fit into a narrative of what Hindus are as a people and so what the homogeneity is composed of in terms of the unifying bonds between the different strands of practices. Hinduism is not ‘a’ particular way of life but the result of the practice of diverse ways of life based upon the recognition that there are different elements and facets to Nature and humans too are diverse in trying to relate to these from the limits of their perception with the majority focusing on particular aspects as it relates to their daily lives.

To address the issue of unity in diversity we need to ask why should there have been polytheism in Hinduism and it still persists in the 21st century. It persists because God does not try and change any of the conceptions that have been formed and are in the process of forming. Nature itself is diverse under one solar system. The relationships between different components of Nature are also varied yet unified into a system. Similarly, the human mind is diverse. We worship things that we need for our survival individually. From this train of thought we appreciate plurality and that there may well be gods for everything. There are also different ideas about reality. These are all formed by the human mind. They are attempts at fathoming reality. None are revelations from God. The only thing that God has ever done was to generate avatars who realised His existence and formulated various conceptions for society. God has let them do that because that is how He has created Nature to generate diversity within a whole. That is why Hinduism is so vast. In it we see the benefits of a pluralistic approach to the formation of society.

So how does it all fit together? When the full picture of Hinduism is not grasped the value that particular individuals place on their beliefs and accompanying practices will not be recognised by artificial scholars who look at superficialities instead of trying to understand how over thousands of years a people developed to become the Hindus of the world. Hinduism has everything in knowledge and devotional worship. Some sect exists with a conception of reality that is just right for its adherents. If you get fed up of it or just do not like it you go to some other sampradaya or parampara. They are all spiritual food for thought away from the mundane process of existing to live. People are striving for a spiritual existence above materialistic existence. And there is no animosity between the different conceptions because Hindus are freethinkers, each person having the right to work out what is true for himself. When you recognise different types of religions within Hinduism some formal and most informal, you can identify the adherents as being advaitists, vedantists, Shakta, Vaishnava, Shaiva, Smarta, or those who follow the teachings of particular Babas like Shiridi Sai Baba, Sri Sri Ravishankar, each carving out his or her own philosophy. Each person is going to a deity-based belief that meets his or her needs. One may have preferences for particular gods and beliefs but it is accepted that others may chose a different deity that gives them different types of strengths and comfort to cope with their lives. That is what society is about. Each person has a different character and strength (gunas) for which they are selecting the god that will best look after their needs which their minds will accept. There is room for no gods as atheists too. Every god-based belief is true in itself as they are derived from guna-consciousness energy created by God. So all paths are relevant and pertinent beyond criticism.

There is extensive literature on all the common sects for studies. There are astika or nastika lines of thoughts, that is those that take their authority from the Vedas and those that are independent of the Vedas. The Vedic verna-based caste system for the social stratification in society is also not universally adopted as seen in the existence of Dalits and the casteless. There was once widespread belief in astrology, which is nothing short than the worship of a god through another religion. The belief is now on its way out. There was also belief in karma that got transferred to new existences. That too is diminishing. Religions come and go.

The unifying theme in all spiritual practices is devotion. It is common to all of Hindu religions, that shows itself through worship, that is puja with or without idol worship; the striving of yoga and meditation. The method of yoga is also varies, one can be a jnana yogi as a householder, or one can become a renunciate as a sadhu on the banks of a river, or an Aghori baba. Society accepts these as legitimate pathways to determining truth. Each devotee chooses his own path and specific to the individual practices. They address different aspects of reality specific to the needs of the devotee.

Thus, no one forces anyone to be anything that they do not want to be. There are no holy books for all but sampradayas are free to compile their own literature that they will call scripture through a process of argumentation. That is the Hindu position which consequently evolves continuously and depending on the era and its level of scientific knowledge of Nature and the person doing the thinking and formulating it gets updated. Hindu society encourages free thinking and each person will therefore have his own ideas which will get a hearing. Some will be atheistic, others monotheistic or polytheistic etc. As time passes, old ideas may accordingly be completely dropped or modified and new ones formed. That is why we cannot tell what most of the gods currently represent. We can make them represent whatever we like and start a new religion. The unity in the diversity is given by the fact that the ideas exist side by side because they are propagated by individual adherents who will be at different stages of knowledge acquisition. The ideas are fostered by society so that people have a diverse range to consult and choose which one they adopt.

I too have an idealism that I have searched out during my truth-search phase. But I know that God has not sanctioned it as being God-approved. It is the best that I have come up from my years of almost constant communications with Him. I am not keen on getting it widely publicised for adoption. I have written my Blog about it and that is all that I will do. People have to do their own research into what I have written and formulate their own ideas on what reality consists of. That is how I wish to leave it.