Religion?

Source of the problem

  • The Hindu ID is quite ancient.
  • Hinduism is not a single fully consistent theological system. Rather, it is a set of coexisting systems which acknowledge each others’ deities and lore in various ways.
  • Conceptually, but not at a social/ higher level, it is wrong to bring Hinduism to the level of Christianity/ Islam etc..
    • Abrahamist diseases more easily map to subclasses of Hindu darshana-s
      • A view / darshana in the hindu context talks about these 5 issues: 1] jagat (world) 2] jIva (the individual) 3] Ishvara (God) 4] bandha (bondage) 5] moxa (liberation).
    • mata-s such as advaita vedanta, dvaita-vedAnta + vaiShNavism, dvaita vedAnta + shaivism, bauddha-matas, Tao etc.. may be called darshana-s.
    • darshana-s may have certain dogma-s (although it may be more profitable to think of them as therapy). So, they share some commonality with religions.

Conversion argument

If Hinduism is not a religion, what does it mean to “convert” from Hinduism to Islam or Christianity? Why did so many people prefer to die rather than do that?

Similar questions elsewhere

  • Is Confucianism a religion? Is Taoism a religion?
  • Japan (“the most religious atheist nation” - gaijinpot), where a family of overlapping ritual performances that share ideas about reciprocity, self-sacrifice, and dependency pervade every level of society.

“Shinto is more than just a religion - it’s no more or less than the Japanese way of looking at the world. Because ritual rather than belief is at the heart of Shinto, Japanese people don’t usually think of Shinto specifically as a religion - it’s simply an aspect of Japanese life. … "
“Today many Japanese mix Buddhism and Shinto in their lives; something that can’t be done with more exclusive religions like Christianity or Islam.” - BBC on shintoism (here)

Is the hindu ethos a religion?

  • At this social level, it can be considered a “religion” with many subsects.
  • In that Hinduism and Abrahamisms are fundamentally mutually exclusive, the practical and strategic answer is YES.

Benefits of saying “hinduism is a religion”

  • Legal protections (in a world whose polity is heavily influenced by Abrahamisms) apply.
  • It would make it easier to study and understand the conflict between hinduism and the abrahamisms.
  • Some people question identities such as “hindu atheism” [N_09], and are keen to separate the notion of hinduism from the classical Indian cultural ethos. This is problematic.
  • It would emphasize the notion of polycentrism (and therefore polytheism) juxtaposed against “monotheism”.
  • It negates the dangers of NOT saying that “hinduism” is a religion
    • “A “cultural ethos” will not be regarded as continuous over changes of lifestyle, and inevitably will be regarded as leaving space for a “proper” religion atop its welter of mere customs and folkways.” - EB

Dangers of saying “hinduism is a religion”

  • A flawed understanding results in flawed solutions.
    • The problem of rioting muslims and hindu retaliation, if considered a conflict between religions, will lead to flawed solutions like “more secularism”, “let’s weaken hinduism in government and public culture” etc.. Abrahamistic rioting should be considered as a battle between a religion and a religious ecosystem.
    • Balagangadhara has made a similar case.
  • A false sense of ownership across traditions comes to being.
    • For example, just because someone who calls himself a hindu likes providing equal access to women, he should not be able to force some other tradition (say based on its own Agama-s) to provide such access in opposition to its own ritual lore.
  • Various protective and aesthetic benefits of the hindu label will not apply to those who exit whatever strict dogma defines the hindu religion in their minds (carrying over mores from atheists leaving Abrahamistic religions).
    • A hindu atheist may still not want to step on a book, and may like to do aayudha pUjA, while a simple atheist may reject all this as a consequence of de-hinduized identity. Creating an artificial barrier will make our lives drier, duller and less refined.
    • The hindu label (one which admits atheism quite easily) is such a booster for those wanting to cross sectarian boundaries to learn beautiful and beneficent cultural artifacts. (An example of such positive reinforcement- “Are you a hindu? You must be good at yoga!”)

Counter-religion inclusion

Ground cohesiveness

Indian buddhists (overwhelmingly) never thought of themselves as separate from hindu neighbors (newaris led by varjrachArya-s are a good contemporary placeholder). Ditto with (contemporary and ancient) jainas. They were just part of the periphery.