HINDUISM -A RELIGION OR A WAY OF LIFE?

INTRODUCTION

Research question: Is hinduism a religion or a way of life?

Hinduism is one of the oldest religions in the world. Or so has been the idea that most people have held. However, this interpretation of Hinduism being a religion is not shared by the law, or those who interpret the law, i.e, the courts. The idea of Hinduism being a way of life was popularised by the Manohar Joshi V Nitin Bhaurao Patil Supreme court verdict, in 1995. This ruling is popularly known as the Hindutva verdict, not only because it equated Hinduism with Hindutva, but also because of this landmark part of the judgement- “Hindutva/Hinduism is a way of life of the people in the sub-continent; it represents the culture of India, and of all people of India, whether Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs, Christians, etc.; and ‘is a state of mind” and added that Hinduism was more “indicative more of a way of life of the Indian people and is not confined merely to describe persons practising the Hindu religion as a faith”.

This has led to all those who do not practice or believe in Islam, Christianity, Jainism, Buddhism, Zoroastrianism, and Sikhism to be identified as Hindus by law. This brings a few questions to mind- Is Hinduism a religion, or a way of life? And if it is not a religion, then what makes it a way of life? Also, how are ‘religion’ and ‘way of life’ different from each other?

My hypothesis is that Hinduism is a religion. I also believe that the vastness of Hinduism has been mistaken for it being a way of life and not a religion. Instead, I take that vastness as a space which allows for Hindus to be less or more ritualistic, based on their preference, and does not indicate a lack of rituals and dogmas. Thus, in this project, I am not only trying to find an answer to the research question, but also trying to better understand the diverse and vast nature, and characteristics, of Hinduism.

RATIONALE

Having grown up in a Hindu family, I have had, perhaps the good fortune, of being able to see the different extents of religiosity of a Hindu. I am an atheist, who loves going to religious places to marvel at the architecture. My parents are believers, but are not ritualistic in their faith. My grandparents are believers, and are a little more ritualistic. None of them have ever, however, stopped me from being an atheist. My extended family are far more ritualistic, as well as dogmatic in their understanding of the religion. Having seen these various combinations of religiosity, I am able to discern that Hinduism is not just one set of rules and regulations set by one god. However, I have certain reservations about calling it a way of life. For one, my way of living, or my parents' way of living, is not at all the way of living prescribed by my extended family. However, all of them identify as Hindus. So how can it be called a way of life? Furthermore, this characteristic has been assigned to Hinduism, and has been adopted by the rule of law. This gives me an atheist, no identity of my own. Why is it that if I do not prescribe to a religion, I automatically prescribe to this “way of life”? Secondly, how is it that all those who do not prescribe to the religions stated in the law, alternately prescribe to a way of life, and not another religion, since the basis of assigning an identity, in this case, is religion? All these questions baffled me, and I decided to study more about it to understand for myself, whether it is a religion or a way of life.

PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS

Hinduism is extremely vast, with different variations of it found in different parts of the country. It can be said that it is broadly made up of 5 components, as described by J.A.B van Buitenen, which are “doctrine, practice, society, story, and devotion” . These are also referred to as strands of Hinduism, because these are understood to be interwoven into a braid, the braid being the metaphor for Hinduism.

The doctrine of hinduism has been theorised in multiple ancient texts, collectively known as the Vedas. It is concerned with understanding one’s karma and dharma (actions and duties), moksha ( divine deliverance from this physical world), and better understanding of the connections between the physical and divine worlds. The contents of Vedic texts have mostly been understood, interpreted, and belonged to the Brahmin sect in society, as they are the varna who are responsible for collecting knowledge.

The second strand is practice. The plurality within the religion does mean that various practices exist, and are practised by Hindus in different degrees. While certain interpretations do explain about Hindu belief of god being in oneself, idol worship is a part of the practices of hinduism. A puja or ritualistic worship is performed on the murti or pratima (deity) by a sadhu, or a priest with the knowledge of the holy texts. The worship is also called archana- worship of the archa or idol. Then, prasada is received by the worshipper. The prasada is usually the remains of the food offered to the god during the worship. It is believed that post the ritual, the offering has been suffused with the blessings of the gods. The significance of eating only a portion of the offering is that it is the worshipper accepting his or her inferior status to the god by consuming leftovers. Other practices include meditation and yoga. Both are means of connecting with the divine power within oneself. Through these practices, worshippers therefore feel connected to the divine.

The third component of Hinduism is stories. Stories have bound Hindus into a single community. The teachings of Hindu doctrines, as well as the deities who are instrumental to Hindu practices- all of these feature in these stories. The most important stories are Ramayana and Mahabharata. The holy text Bhagavad Gita is a portion of the story of Mahabharata that is expanded into another holy text, but falls under the larger umbrella of the Mahabharata. What is important to understand is that while these two are the most important stories in hinduism, there are simply too many versions of these two stories alone, coming from different parts of the country. In his book, ‘Three Hundred Ramayanas’, A. K. Ramanujan portrays five broad versions of the Ramayana, while trying to point out the diversity within the religion.

The fourth component of Hinduism is the society, or social stratification as prescribed by it. Hindu society is divided into four classes, known as Varnas. As has been theorised both in the Vedas, and later in the Manusmriti, the Varnas were a way to ensure that all duties within society were performed. These duties were but into various categories, and so were the people who executed them. The Brahmin was in charge of studying the ancient texts. The Kshatriyas were in charge of holding administrative positions and protecting the land ,i.e, they were kings and soldiers. The Vaishyas were the trading community, responsible for the majority of the economic activities in society, and Shudras were responsible for undertaking duties of servitude. This system was initially fluid in nature, with people being given the freedom to decide what they were interested in doing as a job, based on which they would belong to any four of these Varnas. What began happening, however, was that the children of those in a particular trade began having an aptitude for what their parents did. This led to the king’s son being a king, a brahmin’s son being a brahmin, a business man’s son inheriting his father’s trade, and a servant's son becoming a servant. It is not very clear as to when exactly the shift became such that varna became an identity that was ascribed at birth, nor is it particularly understood when the Varnas were placed into a hierarchical system, rather than a horizontal division. While some, like Shashi Tharoor, in his book ‘Why I am A Hindu’, say that the rigidity of the caste system came after the British started using caste as a method of understanding and categorising the various communities in the Indian society, the existence of the Bhakti Movement, and the emergence of Buddhism and Jainism before that, provide reasons to believe otherwise.

The final strand of hinduism is devotion, or bhakti. The idea of bhakti was first alluded to in the Upanishad, a text that is said to have come about in the later Vedic period. However, the idea further gained traction during the bhakti movement; the first wave was between the 4th and 11th century. In south India, various suspects of Hinduism emerged, like the Nayanars and the Alvars of Tamil Nadu. The basis of the bhakti as followed in the bhakti movement was the expression of devotion to god through music and poetry. The movement was also triggered by the caste system, and the lack of access to the divine for lower classes. Bhakti did not require rituals; it simply required love for God in one’s heart. This allowed people of all castes to participate, and have ways of connecting with the supernatural.

Buddhism and Jainism are both separate religions born out of a larger movement against the brahmanical ways of the society and traditional content of the vedas, between 550 and 450 BCE. The movement towards asceticism, which was the main component of Buddhism and Jainism, along with the fact that both these religions’ teachings were accessible to the masses, were the reasons why there was a movement toward, and spread of, Buddhism and Jainism. The religious heads of Hinduism, however, realised losing followership may mean the decline of the religion as a whole, and so they improvised. The Hindu religious leaders not only succeeded in bringing the two into the folds of Hinduism calling it sub-parts of hinduism, and dubbing Gautum Buddha and Mahavira, founders of Buddhism and Jainism respectively, incarnations of vishnu. They also theorised the ‘four ashramas’ during this time, as a way to keep up with the rising popularity of ascetic life.

We have now established a comprehensive idea of what Hinduism entails.

In order to make sense of whether hinduism is a religion or not, we first need to draw out the various interpretations of what a religion constitutes, in order to form an ideal type.

Many sociologists have been fascinated by the idea of religion. One of them was Max Weber. He proposed multiple ideal types that could fit various religions, and for one of them, he specifically alluded to Brahminism. Pawel Zaleski writes “ Above all, Buddhism and Brahmanism should be mentioned in this context. According to Weber, their followers use meditation as a means to achieve a special mystic enlightenment, that is perfect cognition, to which a way leads through ever higher states of consciousness. “ He called this type of religiousness the World-Flying Mysticism. T.N. Madan, who is also a celebrated anthropologist, had written. “ “All Hindus”, Weber wrote, “accept two basic principles: the samsara belief in the transmigration of souls and the related karman doctrine of compensation. These alone are truly ‘dogmatic’ doctrines of hinduism” ''.

These two quotes show that Weber not only considered parts of hinduism to fit into a certain ideal type of religiousness that he had theorised, he also found two dogmatic doctrines within hinduism. The reason why this is significant, is because dogma is more of a characteristic of religion, than it is of a way of life.

This is supported by Emile Durkheim’s theory of the most primitive religion, which can be used to understand the basic characteristics that a religion must have. According to Durkheim, religion is a "unified system of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden -- beliefs and practices which unite into one single moral community called a Church, all those who adhere to them.” He theorised the most primitive religion, which he called Totemism. A totem is a sacred plant or animal that carries a symbolic significance to the clan, or society. It is, thus, a sacred object, regarded with veneration and surrounded by various practices. It stands for the values central to the clan. Hence, he argued that the totem was two things- it was both a symbol of divine power, and the symbol of those who worshipped the divine power. He added that a religion involves the coming together of people to celebrate events, like birth, marriage, and death, which involve rituals.

When compared to Durkheim’s definition of religion, we see that hinduism does not have a unified system of beliefs and practices that are related to one particular sacred thing, and nothing that is set is forbidden throughout the practice of hinduism; it has an expansive set of beliefs that can be summarised by the pursuit of dharma, karma, and moksha, but are not unified because they are practised in various degrees, and there is no set of prescribed rules to attaining it. We also see that there are practices that unite the community under what we call Hinduism. Hence, the definition Durkheim provides is only partly satisfied by Hinduism. While hinduism does not necessarily have a totem, one of the most important totems is the cow. As is practised today, hinduism regards the cow with veneration, and there are strict taboos and other beliefs and practices that surround it. Hence, once again, hinduism partly falls under the structure laid out by Durkheim.

The clue to recognising hinduism as a religion or a way of life could be found in MN Srinivas’s work. In the foreword of his book, Religion and Society Among the Coorgs of South India, renowned sociologist A.R. Radcliffe-Brown wrote, “ For the social anthropologist the religion of people presents itself in the first instance not as a body of doctrine, but as what we call ‘religious’ behaviour as a part of social life.” In the books, Srinivas looks at the karmakanda of the brahmin family as a behaviouristic trait. In this sense, it can be understood that religion entails not just a body of doctrines, but more of a religious behaviour within society.

In another part of T N Madan’s work, he describes various sociologists’ understanding of religion, one of which is Fustel de Coulanges, who was a mentor to Durkheim and held a similar belief. Another was William Robertson Smith. Madan writes, “William Robertson Smith in his classic Religion of the Semites (1894), stated that ‘ antique religions had for the most part no creed; they consisted entirely of institutions and practices’”. In this sense, Hinduism did consist of a well structured society, that was placed hierarchically, while also consisting of institutions and practices. So this definition does not fit Hinduism.

Another way to approach this is to look at the functions of hinduism, and contrast them with the functional theories of Religion. The two most popular theories are Radcliffe Brown’s and Malinowski’s. Bronisław Malinowski, in a nutshell, theorised that religion was mainly a cathartic force, and helped the individual bring about peace and stability to their minds and ease their stress. He also believed that such societies considered Religion as sacred and Science as profane. Radcliffe-Brown on the other hand believed society used the anxiety felt at an individual level, and through religion, society was able to exercise social control. This was because the ultimate aim of every society is social survival, and not individual. He also theorised that since totemic beliefs passed on from generation to generation, the generations to come followed the beliefs because of their sentimental value, but in turn, this sentiment allowed for social control to continue. While I am not able to pin-point the intent of hinduism, there are certain functions it does carry out. Hinduism has proven cathartic to many, but it has not always considered science profane. On the other hand, the continuance of the varna system, and its assimilation into the societal structures of other religions operating within India is one of the ways hinduism has been able to exercise social control.

CONCLUSION

Through the paper, I have explored the various facets of Hinduism in the quest of trying to identify it as a religion or a way of life. Before identifying it as either, since I have elaborated on the various definitions of religion, I would first like to expand on what I think is a way of life. To me, a way of life would constitute a set lifestyle, and practices and beliefs that come along with that lifestyle. A prime example of a way of life would have to do with class, by this definition. The class one belongs to affords that person a ‘way of life’ . This means that anybody, from any religion, can have similar ways of living, which is exclusive from their religion, but involves their religion. By this, I mean that in our lives, in this postmodern world, while religion plays an important part in the lives of some, it has become something more personal and unique to each individual’s capacity to be religious. For that matter, my own religious following of atheism has a part to play in my life, but my atheism does not subscribe to a way of living. While most religions do subscribe to a way of living, it might be less or more dogmatic in its approach of laying out a so-called ‘way of life’. Hence, if all religions in their own capacity offer to their followers a way of living, then by that argument, Hinduism is also a religion, by being a way of life.

However, beyond that as well, as has been seen in the analysis, there are certain aspects of hinduism that are dogmatic, and fit the various definitions and theories that we are used as metrics. In this way too, Hinduism can be considered a religion.

Bibliography

• https://www.britannica.com/topic/Hinduism

• Madan, T.N 2006.The Sociology of Hinduism: Reading 'Backwards' from Srinivas to Weber.Sociological Bulletin.55(2)

• Doniger, Wendy 1991.Hinduism by Any Other Name.The Wilson Quarterly (1976-). 15(3)

• ZAÅÄSKI, PAWEL 2010.Ideal Types in Max Weber's Sociology of Religion: Some Theoretical Inspirations for a Study of the Religious Field. 171(319-325).Sociological Review.

• “Conclusion.” The Emergence of Modern Hinduism: Religion on the Margins of Colonialism, by Richard S. Weiss, 1st ed., University of California Press, Oakland, California, 2019, pp. 148–154. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctvr7fcbm.12. Accessed 1 Sept. 2020.