HEMANT MAHAVER
ON THE TOPIC OF
HINDUISM
INDIAN MANAGEMENT TRAD AND PRACTICES
TY B.M.S
Introduction to Hinduism
One of the first things people want to know is what Hindus, or for that matter, Buddhists or Jains believe. It is important to recognize that belief and doctrine are extremely important for practitioners of Western religious traditions. This is not always the case with the traditions originated in India. Hindus not only believe many different and sometimes contradictory things, the importance that they assign to belief itself widely varies. When we assume that the central aspect of a religion is its doctrine or theology we are imposing our own ways of understanding our religious phenomena. There are ways of seeing the world and that they are largely determined by gender, ethnicity, nationality, class and social location. There is no way to escape this fact. However, we can at least recognize its potential hazards. As Westerners we interpret Hinduism through Western ways of understanding. These ways are often different from Hindu ways of knowing. Indian thought is based on different assumptions about the nature of life. It comprises a different kind of logic. For example, Hindus think about time very differently than Westerners do. The Hindu approach is to neglect chronology. In contrast, Id like to follow a historical scheme to see how different ideas and practices developed in time and context. This would not be a characteristic Hindu approach. Taking a Western approach to Hinduism is limited but it is not for that reason wrong. The insider knows things that the outsider will never know. The outsider knows things that the insider doesnt and perhaps cannot know. The outsider sees patterns within and among traditions in ways that those who practice the religion do not. How can one adequately describe and discuss the lived reality of nearly a billion people? We may deal with ideas and concepts, but Hinduism is so much more than that. To understand Hinduism it should not only be thought about but also it should be seen and felt.
most sacred scripture, the Vedas. We shall see in other articles that the Aryans contribution was much more than this.
The Indus Valley Civilization: About 150 years ago, a discovery was made that has caused scholars to revise their understanding of the early history of India. The Indus Valley civilization, as it is now known is considered one of the great cultures of the ancient world. Although Hindus would not regard the Indus Valley civilization as part of their sacred history, there is evidence that elements from this culture contributed to the great amalgam of Hinduism. The Indus Valley Seals: The excavation of the Indus Valley civilization has revealed many intriguing artifacts. The most interesting of these relics are seals used to stamp designs in soft clay. Anthropologists believe that these seals probably have deep religious significance. The Aryan Civilization: Who were these Aryans? Most historians believe that the Aryans related to people who migrated into Iran, Irak, Ireland and other parts of Europe. In many ways, the Aryans were different from what we know about the Indus Valley dwellers. It is clear that the Aryans brought with them to India different gods, different rituals and a different language. The Aryan language evolved into Sanskrit, the official language of the Hindu tradition. Hinduisms Holy Book: The Aryans gave Hinduism its priestly language, Sanskrit; and what could be called Hinduisms holy book: The Veda. The Veda is a rather unusual collection of literature. It is not narrative like the Bible. It tells no grand story of gods and humans. The Vedas are more like a liturgy manual.
What is Hinduism?
Hinduism is characterized as the dominant religion of India. You might think this is a simple and uncontroversial statement. About 85% of the over one billion persons living in India are known to the world as Hindus. This apparently simple factual statement is far more complex and problematic that it might seem on first glance. A Word Coined by Outsiders The difficulties arise when we carefully examine the meaning of the words "Hinduism" and "Hindu". Before we begin our exploration of Hinduism proper, it is wise to reflect on what exactly these terms mean. We must observe that these are not words from indigenous languages of India. These concepts are linguistic constructions that emerged from the vocabulary of people outside of that land. Often these outsiders sought to conquer and subdue the land and its inhabitants. The fact that these concepts arise from national powers with colonial interest may make them downright suspicious. What makes these concepts problematic is that each of them suggests a uniformity and consistency that is not applied to the reality they name. Consequently, these words may lead us to assume homogeneity and unity where there is not. When we begin to study Hinduism and religion in India, we must accustom ourselves to diversity. Applying these words assuming that they mean the same thing to Indians may prevent us from seeing something essential. What we call in the Western world Hinduism has not been called by this name for most of its history. It was only recently that Indians themselves began to use this word. The words Hindu and Hinduism are of Persian origin from around the 12th century of the current era. It was originally alien to India. The word Hindu originally meant Indian, it was not intended specifically to designate Indian religion.
Its meaning has changed profoundly over time as not all Indian are Hindu today. As strange as it may sound, most Hindus dont think of themselves as practicing something called Hinduism. The phrase that most closely applies to what Westerners call Hinduism is Sanatana Dharma, which might be translated as eternal religion. Even this translation isn't completely satisfying because the world religion is not an equivalent to the word Dharma. Really a Unified Religion? Indigenous languages of India lack a word for what Westerners call religion. Rather that viewing themselves of participants of a religion called Hinduism, most Hindus see themselves as devotees of a particular god or goddess. They also see themselves as members of a particular community dedicated to the devotion of a specific deity. Devotion to a specific god is symbolized by the forehead markings called Tilaks. They are one of the first things Westerners think of when they hear the name Hindu. For instance, persons who worship the god Shiva might indicate their allegiance with white horizontal stripes across the forehand. Devotees of Vishnu might make thin vertical markings to designate the object of their faith. It might be better to think of Hinduism not as a single religion, but as a family of religions. Then, why use the word Hindu or Hinduism at all? An Upsurge of Hinduism
In the last several years, some scholars have argued that there is absolutely not such thing as Hinduism. Because of the great complexity of religious practices in India many have wondered if there is anything as sufficient commonality for one to use the word Hinduism. Scholars have suggested that the term Hinduism is a Western construction reflecting colonial interest of imperialist nations and for that reason should be discarded. I think that the idea of Hinduism is a useful one. It should be kept for no
other reason than that many Hindus have now adopted the term and use it with increasing frequency. This often happens in the history of religions. Christians, for instance, did not coin that term to describe themselves. Eventually, as others outside the Christian movement increasingly used that name, those in the movement started to use it also. Today it would not be uncommon to enter a temple in India and see a sing proclaiming For Hindus Only. Not long ago, though, such a sign would have been unnecessary. In the last several decades even there has been an increase on the use of the word Hindutva, a word translated as Hinduness. We may call this a rise in Hindu consciousness. It has been accompanied by an upsurge of participation in Hindu festivals, rituals and pilgrimages.
Hinduism is the dominant religion of India, about 85% of the over one billion persons living in India are known to the world as Hindus. Hinduism is often thought of not as a single religion, but as a family of religions. About 95% of all Hindus in the world live in India. Most of the remaining five percent live in areas immediately adjacent to India. Approximately18 million Hindus live in the kingdom of Nepal, which is the only nation where Hinduism is the state religion. Although Indians are perhaps the most religious people on earth, India is officially a secular nation and it prides itself of being the worlds largest democracy. There are about 15 million Hindus living in the Muslim states of Pakistan and Bangladesh, which were part of India prior to its independence of Great Britain. At the end of 20th century, the Hindu population in the United States and Europe were estimated at 2 million. The vast majority of these were Indian immigrants.
These facts make apparent the importance of the Indian subcontinent for Hinduism. Unlike other great religions like Christianity, Islam and Buddhism; Hinduism has not as yet taken root in a natural way outside the land of its origins. These geographical immobility is due in part to Hinduisms decided lack of proselytizing impulses. In part is also due to the importance of India itself for the Hindu traditions.
Reincarnation
What is reincarnation? What meaning does it have in Hinduism? The belief in reincarnation or transmigration of the soul is a fundamental assumption of virtually all philosophical and religious perspectives that have originated in India. Although they tend to understand it differently; Hindu, Buddhists and Jains share the view that humans are reborn after they die. In Hinduism, this idea involves the actual rebirth of the soul in another physical form. We are not certain where the notion came from in Indian thought. Transmigration is not mentioned in the oldest parts of the Vedas, so an Aryan origin is doubtful. The concept may represent a reappearance of a belief from the subjugated Indus Valley civilization, but this too is uncertain. The notion of transmigration probably began as an esoteric doctrine propagated by small groups of wandering sages. It is striking that the concept of the souls rebirth developed in India at just about the same time it was being discussed and accepted by certain philosophers in Greece, such as Pythagoras, Socrates and Plato. Unlike India, however, the idea of reincarnation never gained popular acceptance in Greece and always remained a philosophers theory. In India, the concept of transmigration arose at a time of serious doubt about the traditional sacrifices and the rewards. Among those who accepted the Vedic idea of heaven, many began to question whether heaven itself was a permanent reward. Perhaps heaven was not everlasting bliss. Perhaps one went to heaven and then died again, only to be reborn once again in the earth. Perhaps even the gods themselves were subject to death. Reincarnation was not first known as rebirth, as it is called today, but as redeath. This accents these fears about dying. In a short period, the belief in transmigration was widely accepted. Today, this understanding of human destiny remains a fundamental assumption of Hinduism. On the more popular level the idea is practically self-evident. It is clear that the world undergoes a constant cycle of regeneration, so there is no reason to assume that the same is not true for our central selves. Even on the more philosophical levels sages usually find no need to argue the case. Philosophers discuss the modes and forms of transmigration rather than question its existence.
The form that one returns to after death can be almost anything: another human, an animal, perhaps a demon, perhaps a god. What determines ones status in the next life is simply the way one lives ones life here and now. The word for this concept has become a familiar one in the West, Karma. They cycle of transmigrations governed by the laws of karma is called Samsara. The word Samsara means literally wandering. That word intimate for us that Hindus do not regard Samsara as a happy or pleasant situation. It is indeed the essential problem of life. We are caught on a wheel of endless existences bound by our actions, wandering aimlessly from life time to life time.
Reincarnation
The Vedic World View Presenting the Vedic world to you I fear Ill be making it seem more systematic and coherent that actually was. The collection of Vedic writings is not systematic theology. It wasnt written with modern categories of thought in mind. There are passages whose entire meaning is totally obscure. We should remember also that because the Veda represents the perspective of the priestly cast in the Aryan society. We cannot be certain of how widespread these views were. Lower classes did not keep records or had anything comparable to the Veda. The Veda is divided into four Samhitas or collections, each concerned with a particular aspect of ritual. The oldest and most important of these is called the Rigveda. The Rigveda contains over a thousand hymns to various gods and goddesses. The word rig means praise, so this collection is aptly named. Some scholars have argued that the Rigveda may be over 30000 years old. Most of them, however, believe it to be of much more recent origin, between 2300 and 1200 B.C. The Rigveda contain Mantras or sacred words that are used during rituals. The other Samhitas include the Yajurveda, which contains instructions for sacrifices; the Samaveda, which contains melodies to be sung during sacrifices; and the Atharvaveda, which offers spells and incantations for rituals.
Mahatma Gandhi
The Bhagavad Gita is probably the work of Indian literature with which Westerners are most familiar. Gandhi referred to it as his eternal mother. Despite its message urging war, he found in it support for his practice of non-violence.
The Gita is essentially a dialog between Vishnu, in his avatara as Krishna, and a warrior named Arjuna. Their conversation takes place on the battlefield, just as two armies are about to go to war. The combatants are the kauravas and the pandavas. They are fighting over the right to rule a Northern Indian Kingdom. The kauravas and the pandavas are members of the same clan, and it is precisely because the enemy numbers include his uncles, cousins and teachers; that Arjuna aggrieved. When the battle is about to commence, Arjuna and Krishna, who serves as his driver, steer their chariot between the two armies and suddenly all the action is suspended. It is as if time has stopped, like a moment of eternity placed in the midst of time. Arjuna surveys the scene and begins to get melancholic and philosophical. When he sees his family members across the enemy lines, he drops his bow, having lost his will to fight. Arjuna tells Lord Krishna that he cannot go to war. He has no desire to fight members of his clan whom he reveres. Arjuna concludes that such a battle can only lead to chaos. The term he actually uses is adharma. He sees no value in gaining wealth or earthly pleasure if this entails destroying his own family. Fear of ruining the family remains a tremendous influence in individual behavior in India today. In South India, bottles of bear actually carry a warning label that frankly tells the purchaser: Drinking liquor will ruin the family. Rather surprisingly, Krishnas first response to Arjunas claims is to try to shame him. He taunts Arjuna and questions his masculinity, and commands him to get up and fight. Krishna tells Arjuna that fighting is his dharma. As kshatryia there is no greater honor or glory than to do battle. When Arjuna still refuses to fight, Krishna tries another tactic. He tells Arjuna to think what people would say. According to Krishna: People would tell of your undying shame. And for a man of honor, shame is worst than death. Arjuna does not respond to these appeals. He becomes much too thoughtful and philosophical to be bullied or shamed. Arjunas conflict is deep and genuine. His inner conflict is a familiar one. It is the dissonance that one feels when competing
values clash. The most poignant dilemmas are not those between good and evil, which are relatively easy to solve. The problems in life arise when we must choose between the lesser of two evils, or the greater of two goods. For Arjuna, the values he must negotiate are these: to refuse to fight and hence disobey his dharma as a warrior; or to go to war thereby inviting the negative consequences of karma, including family ruins, social chaos and continuous rebirth. Arjuna wisely asks Krishna to be his guru. When such a moment of confusion arises one knows that a great opportunity of breakthrough has occurred. The student is prepared for insight. Krishnas first lesson recalls the teaching of the Upanishads. Indeed, Krishna essentially paraphrases a famous Upanishadic passage. Krishnas point is simply the logical conclusion of a philosophy based on the immortality of the soul. Life and death are ultimately meaningless. Arjuna pressures further. He is concerned with another matter now: the problem of karma. Perhaps it is true that one cannot kill the soul, but killing the body still is action and all action generates karma. How does one avoid the negative karmic consequences. Arjunas was schooled in the idea that karma of any sort cannot bring one to ultimate salvation. Krishna now responds with another lesson. Krishna says: It is not possible not to act. But it is possible to act without creating karma. One does this by performing all action without hatred or desire. Be intent on action, not on the fruits of action. Avoid attraction to the fruits and attachment to inaction. Perform actions forming discipline, relinquishing attachment. Be impartial to failure and success. These equanimity is called discipline or yoga. Krishna maintains that the true effects of karma conform to the will and the heart, not the action itself. Thus, an equanimous disposition frees one from bondage to karma. Krishna says: Action imprisons the world unless it is done as a sacrifice. Free from attachment, Arjuna, perform action as a sacrifice.
When Arjuna asks how one may learn to perform karmaless action, Krishna tells him that it takes discipline and proceeds to discuss over the span of many chapters the entire panorama of Hindu practices. Krishna discusses the value of asceticism, renunciation, study of the sacred Vedas, the sacrifices of the Brahmins, fasting, prayer, meditation. One can get a comprehensive view of the entire Hindu world just by reading the Gita. The discussion continues. Arjuna makes objections and Krishna responds. At one point Arjuna becomes terribly confused and frustrated, and he plied to Krishna: You can fuse my understanding with a maze of words. Speak one truth so I may achieve what is good. Like all of us, Arjuna longs for clarity and simplicity. He just wants to know what to do. Simplicity, however, is not forthcoming. Krishna continues to spend many words as rich and as complex as Hinduism itself. I think that this richness and this lack of clarity is one of the reason for the Gitas vast appeal. Every Hindu finds something of value here. They find some wisdom that pertains to his or her place in life. The Brahmins find their sacrifices on it. The sannyasis see the renunciation and asceticism value. The warriors have their dharma affirmed. All ways of genuine spirituality are embraced and accepted. As the dialog proceeds, Krishnas lessons begin to focus more and more on himself. Now the teaching becomes increasingly characteristic of the path of devotion. Krishna encourages Arjuna to focus his mind, will and heart on God, and to let all else go. Men who worship me, thinking solely of me, always disciplined; win the reward I secure. The leaf, the fruit, the flower or the flower that he offers with devotion, I take from the man and respond to his devotion. Whatever you do, whatever you take, whatever you offer, whatever penances you perform, do it offering it to me. You will be freed from the bonds of action, from the fruit of fortune and misfortune. Armed with discipline, you will join me. For Bhakti practice what is done is not as important as how it is done. All that matters is that one does all things with faith and devotion to the god. It doesnt
even matter whether or not one is devoted to the god Krishna by name. One can worship other gods as long as they do so with fidelity. The tradition has come a long way from Vedic times, when the priest insisted that the mantras of sacrifice had to be pronounced at just the right pitch. As the teaching started to center more and more on the path of devotion, Arjuna feels his doubt melts away. In a climatic moment he asks Krishna to grant him the ability to see him in his full glory as god. Krishna gives Arjuna a divine eye with which to gaze on the gods form. The passages that describe this great vision are fascinating and memorable. The narrator tells us: The light of a thousand suns would arise in the sky at once. That would be like the light of that great spirit. Arjuna saw all the universe in its many ways and parts, standing as one in the body of the gods of gods. Fulfilled with amazement, his hair bruising on his flesh, Arjuna bows his head to the god and joins his hands in homage. The Director of the Manhattan Project said that when he saw the atomic bomb detonated in the desert of New Mexico he immediately recalled the first two lines of this passage, comparing the light of Krishna to a thousand suns rising at once in the sky. Arjunas response to this awesome vision is characteristic of such experiences as recorded in the history of religions. Ruddolf Otto called such events experiences of the holy. Otto said the experience of the holy is marked by a highly ambivalent reaction, just as we observe in Arjuna. Arjuna is both terrified and fascinated with the sight. What Arjuna sees accents the absolute utterness of divinity. I see no beginning, or middle or end to you. Only boundless stream in your endless arms. The moon and the sun in your eyes, your mouths of consuming flames. You alone fill the space between heaven and earth. Seeing the many mouths, eyes and your great form, the world trembles, and so do I. Now Krishna speaks: I am time grown old, creating world destruction, setting in motion, to annihilate the worlds. Even without you, all these warriors raide in
hostile ranks will cease to exist. Therefore, arise and win glory. Conquer your foes and fulfill your kingship. They already are killed by me. Be just my instrument, the archer at my side. After this vision Arjuna arises and goes to battle, claiming that his doubts have been dispelled. We should try to get clear what precisely resolves his misgivings. Has he been persuaded by Krishnas arguments or by the vision of Krishna and his manifest form? Is he convinced by seeing that Krishna embraces all things in life and death? What about Arjunas first uncertainty about fighting against his own clan? Im not the first to thing that much in the Gita is left unsettled despite the fact that Arjuna himself seems to have gained clarity. The battle commences and Arjuna and his brothers, the pandavas, ultimately win. Significantly, the Gita itself ends before we know the battles outcome. The question of who wins and who looses is not the issue in the Gita. Nor does the Gita really solved the problem of war. The two sides are not identified as good or as bad. There is no clear favorites here. War is, by almost any standard, tragic, according to the Gita. And yet, the context of war is significant in the Gita because the battlefield is really a metaphor for the soul itself, the mind and its struggle. Ordinary Hindus restling with the issues of dharma is a much more present reality than the subjects of the Vedas or even the Upanishads. As a metaphor for the self and its eternal struggles, perhaps the Gita is a reminder that often there are no clear avenues of choice. Our decisions must be made in ambiguity and uncertainty.
Hinduism Today
Here we will reflect on modern life and Hinduisms responses to it. If there is a dominant theme that characterizes Hinduism during this period is the matter of its relationship with the non-Hindu world. The modern era has brought great challenges to Hinduism through the advent of Islam and western culture. Both incursions into India have left profound and lasting effects on Hinduism. In many ways, 21st century Hindus continue to struggle with issues associated with Islam and westernization.
British Imperialism in India: In many ways, the British imperialism in India was far more significant than the presence of Muslims, although the British directly ruled India for only 90 years. The British brought with them western folk ways and culture. Many Indians sought to imitate them by speaking English, playing cricket and having afternoon tea. Yet the effects the British brought were deeper and more complicated than just this.
The Philosophy of Gandhi and Hinduism: I mentioned in another article that India was a western idea before it was an Indian idea. Christianity itself would lend to national Indians some of the ideas they would use to achieve independence. Gandhi was greatly impressed by Jesus Sermon on the Mount and the writings of Leo Tolstoy. It may very well be that the British unwillingly implanted the very seeds of the independence movement within the soul of India. Hinduism Today and Its Incursion in the Modern World: Weve discussed the incursion of the West in Hindu life in India. Lets turn to discuss the reciprocal reaction: the movement of Hindus and Hinduism into the West. The history of this movement is far briefer than the other. By the late 19th century, the main vehicle for the transport of Hinduism to the West was literary. Some of the most important Hindu scriptures had been translated into European languages in the 18th century and were available to intellectuals in the West.