Is Hinduism a Religion?

by Maria Wirth     


Occasionally I noticed that in western publications Hinduism was missing when religions were listed. Buddhism was there, without fail, but its mother so to speak was ignored. What could be the reason? About one billion human beings are Hindus. Hinduism is alive and vibrant. There is hardly another people who are as ‘religious’ and have so much faith in the Divine. Yet what they revere and hold dear is often considered ‘only’ a way of life.

However, the discussion is still on. Some argue, “Dharma”, as Hindus (and Buddhists) refer to their ‘religion’ cannot be translated as religion. It differs from western religions in many aspects; therefore Hinduism is not a religion. Others feel that since ‘religions’ are legally and socially greatly privileged in today’s world, it would be a big blunder to leave this field to Christianity and Islam who would triumphantly wade into that vacuum. They might claim (and are experts in unsubstantiated claims) that everyone has a right to religion: therefore, since Hindus don’t have a religion, they need to be blessed with the ‘true’ religion.

To get any further, let’s look at the definition of religion. Unfortunately, there is no clear cut definition. There is however an implicit understanding that religion is about the mysterious origin of our universe, about its creator, about God and about moral guidelines for our lives. The word ‘religion’ comes from re-ligare (Latin) which means to bind back. One could assume that it means to bind the human being back to his creator or God.

In that case, Hindu Dharma cannot be excluded; it is probably the original, most ancient religion. Many thousands of years ago, the Indian rishis enquired into the truth of this visible world. They postulated criteria for ‘truth’ and came to the conclusion that one invisible, conscious essence is the only true ‘thing’ permeating everything in this apparent universe and beyond. They called it Brahman (from big, expanding) or simply Tat (that) and postulated that it was eternal, infinite, unchanging, true, aware, blissful and the invisible basis of everything including our own person. So basically, we are that Brahman. Our essence is That. Only, we are born blind to this truth and the purpose of life is to realize it. Further, ancient Indian scriptures give many methods for achieving this Self- or God-realization.

Now, when western religions appeared on the scene, they limited this vast, all-pervading Brahman to a “god” who is personal, male, separate from his creation and with strong likes and dislikes. For example, this god, so is claimed, greatly dislikes any human being who does not acknowledge him as the only true god. In fact he even has decreed that any such human being will burn eternally in hell, unless he officially (through a small ritual) joins the ‘true religion’.

Now, how do these religions know what God is and what he wants? Because God/ Allah has revealed ‘the truth’ to two persons - to Jesus Christ some 2000 years ago and Prophet Mohammed some 1400 years ago, and these revelations have been handed down in two books, the Bible and the Quran. And what is the proof that all this is true? There is no proof, except for the words of those two persons who are, however, not ordinary persons: Jesus Christi is the only son of God and Prophet Mohammed Allah’s final prophet.

That is what Christianity and Islam claim as truth and they repeat this claim again and again so that it looks as if proven and nobody dares to question it.

We can see by now that there are indeed significant differences between the Abrahamic religions on one side, and Hinduism on the other. The Abrahamic religions come as a ‘belief system’, which means that blind belief is required in dogmas, which have no chance to be verified. Hindu Dharma on the other hand is based on a genuine enquiry into truth, which means that there is no need to accept any claim that does not make sense.

Now, religion is also defined as ‘belief system’. In that case, the Abrahamic religions easily qualify. However, there is a contradiction. On one hand, religions claim to tell us about the truth, and on the other hand we have two different, unverifiable ‘belief systems’ about this truth from Christianity and Islam. They can’t be both true and there is a chance that none of them is true, because they contradict human intelligence. It certainly does not make sense that the absolute, eternal truth is a story about a God who is heavily biased towards one group (which one?) of humanity.

So here again comes in Hindu Dharma. It is the best possible ‘belief system’ that is not based on dogmas but based on knowledge and direct experience.  It is open to scientific validation. It is possible to know that this manifold manifestation is permeated by one energy or awareness. So the Hindu claim that all including the human being is divine, because all is ultimately Brahman is in all likelihood true. “Tat tvam asi” (That art thou) is fiercely rejected as heresy by the Abrahamic religions. Mystics of Christianity and Islam who experienced this oneness and dared to proclaim it, were excommunicated or even killed.

So does it follow that these religions even resist the truth? Could re-ligare “bind back” be better interpreted as “holding the individual back from realizing his oneness with the Absolute”? This conclusion may actually not be off the mark, especially if one sees how much effort goes into denigrating Hinduism. Every school kid in the world is taught that Hinduism is weird. Not only school kids, at the university level, there is clearly an attempt by western academics (and that includes western oriented Indians) to badly despise Hinduism. “Invading the Sacred: An Analysis of Hinduism Studies in America” gives ample proof how outrageously Hinduism is portrayed and how benignly the ‘revealed’ religions.

Are people in the West so intellectually deficient to believe that an irrational dogma, like “everyone has to join the Church to be saved” has anything to do with truth? Or do they denigrate Hinduism as they know that it has the capacity to trump the western belief systems and undermine their power if only there were a genuine debate on what we can know about the truth?

However, running down Hinduism was for too long too crude and it has now backfired. Hindus realize that their tradition cannot possibly be as bad as it is made out to be. They reacted first in the US and got the syllabus in US schools and colleges changed. Slowly in India, too, the awareness that Hindu Dharma actually stands tall among religions is growing.

If religions are about the truth, Hindu Dharma (inc. Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism) is the best. But if religions are meant to prevent the individual from realizing the truth, then Hindu Dharma is not a religion.

But since Christianity and Islam claim to reveal the truth and will not acknowledge that they hinder their flock from knowing the real truth, Hindu Dharma needs to take its rightful place at the top of the pile. So far, the two big ‘belief systems’ have dominated the scene and each has declared itself as the ‘only true religion’, even called itself ‘universal’ for the sole reason that both storm all over the world trying to impose their dogmas. Hindu Dharma is actually ‘universal’ as everyone and all are included in Brahman.

Many in the west feel oppressed by mandatory belief in dogmas, and leave the Church. They opt for atheism as for them anything metaphysical is intrinsically connected with the Church. Some, mostly educated people, discover Buddhism. Hinduism is not an option for most as it is projected to be weird. Only few discover its value and stand by it, like Julia Roberts did.

If Hindus would be forthright about the profound insights of their rishis, Hindu Dharma would surely spread across the world, as it did in ancient times throughout Asia. Of course Hindus would need to know at least the basics of their dharma to be able to see that Hindu Dharma is indeed the best of faiths.

As an outsider, I would like to give Hindu Dharma the ‘religion’ tag only to protect it against denigration. For Hindus, the definition is too narrow, and I am aware of it.

User Comments

Good exposition. Being a marketer, I often relate this easy analogy, that would be between generic vs branded water.

Hinduism is just generic, plain, natural water. so its universal. All types of water come under this. No one really centrally controls it, which is one reason for it being under siege all the time.

Islam and Christianity are like Aquafina and Evian, a subscription business, which needs to add followers (customers) just as any business has to grow to survive. The very survival of the brands depend on their uniqueness (packaging, value prop, target market, segmentation and what not). Its also not practical to expect one brand to 'mutually respect'* the other brands. (*to quote Rajiv malhotra)

As with a brand, its messaging is centrally controlled (one book, one historical event, strictly believed), and protected fiercely, otherwise it will lose mindspace to its competitors (either other brands or the whole product segment could be wiped out - so Islam can lose out to christianity or both can be lost to atheism or Hinduism. Real atheism is a subset of hinduism anyway). The whole segment can go away as in Religion itself can go back to its real definition of 'going back to your source' which would essentially wipe out both islam and christianity as they 'hold back' for the sake of their subscription business.

The only way the brands can sell and remain relevant is by saying that the ordinary water is dirty or unclean or how its better than ordinary water AND other brands. Do you think Evian will have anything nice to say about Evian or ordinary water?

 Shyam


The last line should read

"Do you think Evian will have anything nice to say about Aquafina or ordinary water?"

instead of

"Do you think Evian will have anything nice to say about Evian or ordinary water?"
 
Shyam


Very clear and articulate about the nature of religions. In my opinion, there are as many 'Hinduisms' as their are practitioners / followers, as each one has the rights to determine their ways of life and face the consequences of their choices! It is this freedom of choice for action that distinguishes Hinduism from the rest!
 
Sumathi Shivakumar


I think the answer is much simpler - Hinduism and religion are not related by "is a" but by "has a" relation.

So when people enlist religions, it is unforgivable to not enlist Hindu religions or religions inside Hinduism. The word religion is mostly used for monotheistic faiths, hence Buddhism doesn't have difficulty figuring in there. But that is itself to be questioned by us instead of trying to fit the non-monotheistic Hindu traditions into the monotheistic frame by asserting Brahman. That will be a Procrustean attempt.

Hindu-Sikh-Jaina-Bauddha are not monotheistic religions, they are the loftiest surviving pluralistic traditions or rather umbrella of traditions. To downplay them is unacceptable.
 
Dwadasaksha


Very well written. However, I have exceptions to this - "So basically, we are that Brahman. Our essence is That. Only, we are born blind to this truth and the purpose of life is to realize it."
This is the Advaita Vedantic school of thought that says Brahman is formless and that formless One has become many. So we are that Brahman but we have forgotten that because of Maya.

Often, when it comes to describing Hinduism people tend to talk in the context of Advaita Vedanta. However, this thought has been challenged several times by many acharyas like Ramanuja, Madhwa, Vishnu Swami, Nimbarka, Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and their followers. The followers of these acharyas do not accept Shankara's Advaita Vedanta. They are Vaishnavas, or devotees of Vishnu/Krishna.

For the Vaishnavas, the Supreme has form, a very beautiful form indeed, beyond the three gunas (sattva, rajas and tamas). He has name, many names in fact. He has a abode but He also lives in the heart of His devotees. He is very much a person, the Purusha, ever youthful. Unlike the biased and hate filled God of Christianity and Islam, Krishna is impartial. He says this BhagavadGita. He does not impose His will on anyone although He is the seed giving father (bija-prada-pita from Gita) of all living entities. After telling BhagavadGita to Arjuna, He leaves it to Arjuna to accept His teachings or not. He does not burn non-believers in eternal hell. In fact, there is no eternal hell for any jivatma.

Of course, there are Shaivites, the Shaktas, the Tantriks, and so many more schools of thought who have different conception of the Supreme. We disagree with each other, we argue, we debate but we dont hate. We dont kill each others. This has been the parampara for thousands of years. This is certainly a unique quality of our tradition.

My point is, when trying to describe Hindu Dharma the authors should refrain from defining it in Advaitic context. This way you will respect the other prominent school of Vedantic thought.

Thank you

 Srinidhi

A good and enlightening article but I am always a bit puzzled that westerners in particular are loath to even mention Judaism when they analyse and critique its two "derivatives": Christianity and Islam. Yet most if not all the questionable features of these two religions are rooted in Judaism with its belief in a highly personalised, warlike and racially partisan God who incites his followers to kill and despoil other peoples that were allegedly not chosen by him. Christ was in many ways reacting to the exclusiveness and ethnic supremacism of Judaism which he condemned often and that apparently led to his own execution. He told his Jewish contemporaries that all men -including Samaritans - were their brethren, not only the other Jews.
 
Anon

I thank the author for writing a matured, matter of fact, kind of article. This is going to irritate the two cults.Expect noisy protests from " religion of peace" and " True religion JC".

 Rama


Religion as defined does not answer queries which are raised by all thinking people.
Answer will probably be clear once we know the answer to : why do we need religion?Do we need religion to understand self, realize God and achieve heaven? Or do we need to dominate and conquer others and consequent to these actions God has promised Heaven.

Hinduism mainly incorporates actions to achieve the former. Abrahamic faiths mainly stress on the latter.

Hence we need to define religion i.e. Is it confined to spiritual advancement and self knowledge or is it mainly oriented to securing power in the name of the faith called religion.

Since word religion is originated in the West, their understanding of religion must hold i.e capture political power through God's name. Hinduism must be named as "Sanatan Dharma".only. Term Religion must remain preserve of Abrahamic faiths.

Satish

 
Hinduism is actually a dubious one.. it is NOT an "ISM" at all.. it is a vague identity which arya samajis, RK mission and many other hindutva groups are breaking their heads against..

IT is time to throw away this dubious colonial idiotic identity and return to our original identities..

Saivam and vaishnavam are the two major movements that can qualify to the major religions..

Next to that, the jathis and their rituals & customs are minor religions.. Infact i call it as the primary religion for our people..

The westerners should adopt the original real religions like shaivam & vaishnavam and discard the pseudo and dubious hinduism..
 

senthil

Vedhanta and other six schools of thoughts doesnt constitue religion.. they are philosophies (thathvarthams) .. Vivekananda created "Hinduism" based on vedhanta, and that is only for american audience and NOT for indian people..

At the same time, arya samajis defined their own version of hinduism making vedas as biblical authority book..

and different people have different versions of hinduism.. the indian supreme court says hinduism is just a way of life..

the definition of hindu is given as the one who is NOT a muslim, not a christian, not a parsi and not a jew.. There is nothing but a Moronic definition which so called hindus shamelessly cling to..

The real identities are ethnic based jathi identity as primary identity, and the saivam, vaishnava, smartha as secondary ones..

I prefer to call myself as shaiva rather than a hindu.. i suggest everyone to do so..

An Excellant Article explaining the basic concept of Santana Dharma which in a limited way call as Hinduism in comparison to Abrahamic Religions.

By god's grace, I am able to access this beautiful article at a time when I felt the crying need for such a clear exposition. Thanks to the writer and Vijayvaani for offering such a solace to me in my most trying hour. As a humble person who has been able to follow the tenets of the philosophy explained in the article, I vouch for the experience mentioned and the bliss it endows upon me. How I wish those who are still skeptical and want to move away from such a sublime philosophy get the blessings of divinity and return back to the fold to which they rightfully belong. I wish to thank the author once again from the depth of my heart for such a timely article.

There are two things in this world that amazes me; one is Internet and other us rid.

Hindusim is "NOT" a religion.

It is a CULT.

Maoism in 21st Century killing innocent 23K people who just did not accept their saying is NEW RELIGION. right खर्पते ?
I think chirstianity is the only religion in Nepal, most politicial leader are getting green bills from them.