Hinduism: A Short History Read Free

understand Hinduism. That point can also be proven by examining attempts to write histories of Hinduism. A history of Hinduism does not work as a history of Christianity or even a history of Buddhism works for understanding the content of these traditions. In Hinduism the momentous event of a foundation at one point in time, the initial splash in the water, from which concentric circles expand to cover an ever-wider part of the total surface, is absent. The waves that carried Hinduism to a great many shores are not connected to a central historic fact nor to a common historic movement.
    The idea of a “History of Hinduism,” short or long, is almost a contradiction in terms. Hindus call their tradition
sanātana dharma
, the eternal law, and everything of religious importance is termed
anādi
, beginningless. Hinduism has never consciously given up anything of its large heritage that accumulated over the centuries. It appropriated many ideas and practices from many quarters, brought forth many creative minds, developed a large number of traditions that differ from each other in many respects but which collectively form what became known as “Hinduism.”
    Given all the discussion about “Hinduism” and the fact that the word “Hindu” has become a loaded term in today’s India as well as in Indological writing, a clarification may be appropriate before setting out to introduce the reader to this short history of Hinduism. The term Hinduism has been fully accepted by today’s “Hindus” and is hardly replaceable by any other designation to describe the religious culture of the majority of the inhabitants of India. The acceptance of the term Hindu by the adherents of this tradition makes it advisable to apply it when dealing with their beliefs and customs. While an extension of the term Hinduism to the earliest sources of the Hindu tradition is clearly an extrapolation, it appears justifiable. There are, after all, historical parallels that have been accepted unquestioningly by scholars and the general public alike. 9
    There is little justification for the divisions found in much western scholarly writing between “Vedism,” “Brahmanism,” and “Hinduism.” If the term “Hinduism” is found problematic in connection with the Vedas and the Brāhmaṇas, which certainly do not use the term, it is equally problematic in its application to the Epics and the Purāṇas, who do not use it either. Inversely, today’s Hindus call their living religious traditions “vedic,” defining “Hinduism” as
vaidika dharma
, and making acceptance of the Veda as scripture the criterion of “orthodoxy.” It would hardly find the approval of those who are critical of the term “Hinduism” to replace it by “Vedic Religion.”
    In this book “Hinduism” is used as an umbrella designation for all traditions that declare allegiance to the Veda, however tenuous the actual connection with that body of writing might be, and however old or recent the particular branch might be. While speaking of “Hinduism,” without qualifying the term each time by a hundred caveats, it will also be made quite clear that Hinduism is not one homogeneous “religion” (in the biblical sense) but a “family of religions,” a vast and heterogenous tradition without a common leader, a common center or a common body of teachings. 10
    Hinduism has continually been developing new expressions. It has aptly been compared to a Banyan tree that constantly sends forth new shoots that develop into trunks from which other roots originate to form other trunks, and so forth. The Banyan tree simile not only illustrates the diversity but also the interconnectedness of the countless forms under which “Hinduism” appears. While Hinduism may be lacking a definable doctrinal unity or uniformity in worship and ritual, it surely has a distinct shape of its own when set over against Islām or Christianity.
    PROBLEMS IN CONSTRUCTING A HISTORIC SCHEMA OF