For Whom Does Hinduism Speak?

[Guest guest]

H.J. Resnick

For Whom Does Hinduism Speak?

In this essay H.J. Resnick explains where h3 term 'Hindu' originates

from. He asks for whom does the term 'Hindu' speak and who can speak

for the 'Hindus'. To which of the multitude of widely differing

worldviews does this term apply? What are the implications of

accepting 'Hindu' as a designation? Hrdayananda Dasa Goswami also

looks at the history of the word and discovers how and where it came

into common use by scholars and by the 'Hindus' themselves.

Introduction

In his remarkable work, India and Europe, Wilhelm Halbfass notes

that,

 

.... the critical, historical and often reductive work of Western

 

Indologists has met with passionate rejection by conservative

Hinduism and

 

been seen as part of a strategy of Western domination and

suppression.' (p.

 

259)

 

One consequence of the rising political, intellectual and religious

 

self-confidence and self-assertion of contemporary India, especially

its

 

Hindu majority, is the Indian attempt to reclaim from the Western

academy

 

the right to `objectively' and `authoritatively', if

not `scientifically',

 

explain itself and its history to the world. There is frequent

tension

 

between those who would defend with a learned voice Hinduism's

traditional,

 

scripture-based self-history, and those who seek to explain India by

the

 

standards of Western humanistic scholarship, under the various

rubrics of

 

Indology, South Asian Languages/Literatures/Civilisation,

Anthropology,

 

Hindu Studies, History of India, etc.

 

>From this dialectic tension arose the challenging and much debated

 

question: `Who speaks for Hinduism?' In English, `to speak for'

often means

 

to speak `on behalf of; as the agent of; on the part of.' In this

sense, we

 

may easily concede that Hindus, like members of any community, have

a right

 

to designate and authorise those who may speak `on behalf of,'

or `as the

 

agent of', their group.

 

On the other hand, `Who may speak about Hinduism?' is a more complex

 

question. In a legal context, within a free society, anyone may, as

long as

 

they do not commit slander, libel etc. However, the relevant

question, in

 

spirit, would seem to be, `Who can speak objectively,

authoritatively,

 

meaningfully about Hinduism?' Clearly, some scholars believe that

one who

 

speaks objectively about anything, truly speaks for that thing,

since such

 

fair, accurate speech best represents the truth of what a thing is.

In the

 

`hard sciences' rocks, rivers, and even reptiles hardly speak for

themselves

 

in the sense of learned discourse. Hence the scientist speaks for

them. To

 

the extent that scholars in the humanities have sought to ape

the `hard

 

sciences' (and the extent is not meagre), there has been a palpable

tendency

 

to speak for what are perceived as `pre-scientific' communities,

even as one

 

speaks about them. Of course, we are all aware that such a

philosophically

 

naive position has undergone much stimulating criticism in recent

decades.

 

So without dredging up the murky aspects of the Orientalist legacy,

suffice

 

it to say that many, though certainly not all, Western scholars have

 

believed and asserted their ability to speak more objectively, and

thus more

 

authoritatively, about Hinduism, than those recognised within the

Hindu

 

community as reliable spokespersons, and this has created quite a

ruckus

 

among Hindus both in India and abroad.

 

My point here is not simply that Western academic types are the

 

bogey-persons of Indian studies. Indeed, much Western scholarship

about

 

India, both now and in the past, has been excellent and invaluable.

Rather,

 

I wish to argue that many claiming to represent and speak for

Hinduism, from

 

within Hinduism, have themselves appropriated the voice of groups

within the

 

Hindu complex in a way that is analogous to the Orientalist

appropriation of

 

the Hindu voice. Thus in response to the question, `Who speaks for

Hinduism?

 

' I raise the question, `For whom does Hinduism speak?' I do so not

only as

 

a scholar of Vaisnavism, but also as one who has lived as a Gaudiya

Vaisnava

 

for about thirty years. (1)

 

I will argue below that in early Vaisnava, and indeed Vedic,

religious

 

discourse and polemics, the term and concept `Hindu' is unknown.

Later, in

 

contact with the Muslim rulers of India, Vaisnavas become `Hindu'

for the

 

outsider, the foreigner, but not for themselves, nor among

themselves.

 

Finally, in the last few centuries, the `modern' period of contact

with the

 

West, the term `Hindu' emerged as an all-embracing internal term

that, for

 

the first time, sought to define and contain followers of the Vedas,

for and

 

among themselves. I shall make the further claim that the attempt of

 

spokespersons of a modern, generic Hinduism to speak for the Vaisnava

 

tradition distorts that tradition and brings in its wake other kinds

of harm

 

to the ancient spiritual wisdom of India.

 

Although there are many ways in which one might classify the

development of

 

the term `Hindu' in South Asia, I will sketch that process in three

 

historical stages, as mentioned above. First, though, it is

necessary to

 

reveal a few essential facts about the word hindu.

 

 

 

`Hindu' is not found in the Hindu scriptures, the Vedas, which are

written in Sanskrit

 

Why is this important? Although the task of defining Hinduism has

proved

 

elusive, historically the acceptance of the Sanskrit Vedas as sacred

 

scripture has served as a bedrock standard for a true Hindu.

Buddhism and

 

Jainism, though born on Indian soil, are not included within the

endless

 

variety of Hindu doctrines and practices, chiefly because both these

 

traditions rejected the supreme authority of the Vedas. Indeed, in

the legal

 

definition of Hinduism, given by the Indian Supreme Court in 1966,

the first

 

criterion is `Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence as the highest

 

authority in religious and philosophic matters.' We thus have an

unusual

 

situation in which one becomes a Hindu by accepting the authority of

 

scriptures that do not recognise the word `Hindu'.

 

 

 

`Hindu' is not a Sanskrit word

 

 

 

It is of further significance that hindu is not a Sanskrit word.

Early

 

Vedic literature often uses the term Arya to designate the true and

noble

 

followers of Vedic culture. And as Halbfass points out:

 

` ... language is a central criterion for the definition of the

Aryan. It

 

is essential for preserving his ritual power and identity against the

 

mlecchas [foreigners, barbarians]. The continuity of the tradition,

the

 

identity and stability of the Aryan dharma, depends on its linguistic

 

vehicle, the Sanskrit language... . ' (p. 178)

 

Yet so totally absent is the word hindu from traditional Sanskrit

 

literature, that in his well-known work, A History of Sanskrit

Literature,

 

the great Oxford Sanskritist A.A. Macdonell mentioned the word hindu

only

 

once — and that was in order to give the standard, geographic

explanation of

 

the term's origin:

 

`The Sindhu (now Sindh), which in Sanskrit simply means the `river',

as the

 

western boundary of the Aryan settlements, suggested to the nations

of

 

antiquity which first came into contact with them in that quarter, a

name

 

for the whole peninsula. Adopted in the form of Indos, the word gave

rise to

 

the Greek appellation India as the country of the Indus. It was

borrowed by

 

the ancient Persians as hindu, which is used in the Avesta as a name

of the

 

country itself. More accurate is the modern Persian designation

Hindustan,

 

`Land of the Indus', a name properly applying only to that part of

the

 

peninsula which lies between the Himalaya and the Vindhya range

[roughly

 

North to Central India]' (Munshirama, 1972, p. 142).

 

 

 

The term `hindu' in historical krsna-bhakti

 

 

The earliest canonical expressions of krsna-bhakti, devotion to

Krsna, are

 

found in such literatures as the Mahabharata and its appendixed Hari-

vamsa,

 

and in the Visnu Purana and the Bhagavata Purana. The foundational

scripture

 

for devotion to the Lord as King Rama is Valmiki's Ramayana. In none

of

 

these texts do we find the word hindu. The language of all of the

above

 

texts is Sanskrit.

 

Even as late as the tenth and eleventh centuries of the common era,

we find

 

this term entirely absent in essential Vaisnava devotional,

philosophical

 

and apologetic writings. We shall illustrate this by briefly

considering the

 

works of two great acaryas (spiritual leaders/teachers) of the Sri

Vaisnava

 

tradition of Southeast India, surely one of the most historically

important

 

Vaisnava `denominations'.

 

Yamunacarya, born around 916 ce, `is the first Vaisnava acarya whose

works

 

are extant' (Narayanan 59). This important figure wrote a

philosophical

 

treatise called Agama-pramanyam, `a fierce defense of the agamic

literature'

 

(ibid. 60). Concerning the hard-fought debate of that time between

the Tamil

 

Vaisnavas and the Smarta-brahmanas, `Yamuna, our source', says the

late

 

Professor van Buitenen, referring to the Agama-pramanyam, `is an

 

unimpeachable authority. Here we have not a sectarian text speaking

in pious

 

and traditional platitudes about wicked adversaries, but a Bhagavata

with a

 

fine mind who seeks to enumerate, and subsequently to invalidate,

very

 

precisely the traditional arguments of the Smartas against the

 

less-than-respectable Bhagavatas.' (van Buitenen, pp. 26–27).

 

In this debate, neither the protagonist nor his theological

adversary ever

 

use the term `Hindu' or `Hinduism'. What is perhaps more remarkable

is that

 

in Dr Narayanan's authoritative history of the Sri Vaisnava

tradition, the

 

word `Hindu' or `Hinduism' does not even appear in her index. In

other

 

words, it is possible for a distinguished scholar to write the

history of an

 

important `Hindu' denomination without using the word `Hindu' in her

book.

 

In his own theological and philosophical struggles with the

Buddhists,

 

Sankara seeks, along with the Mimamsakas, to demonstrate the

authority of

 

the Vedas. And in his debates with the Mimamsakas, the rhetorical

goal is to

 

demonstrate that one's own community is vaidika, Vedic, and has best

 

understood the message of the Vedas. Later, the illustrious Ramanuja

made

 

powerful arguments against the teachings of Sankara in favour of a

personal

 

God. Again, the discourse aims to prove that one group is truly

vaidika, and

 

that the members of one's soteriological group will actually achieve

the

 

highest moksa, liberation. In all of these historically seminal,

 

intellectually sophisticated and religiously crucial debates, we do

not find

 

the term hindu.

 

The middle stage of `Hindu' discourse

 

As in earlier Sanskrit texts, so in the Gaudiya Vaisnava Sanskrit

texts of

 

the sixteenth to eighteenth centuries we do not find the

word `Hindu.' In

 

the Gaudiya-Vaisnava Bengali texts of the same period, `Hindu' does

appear

 

but only for, and usually by, the yavana-mleccha, i.e. the Muslim,

who is

 

outside the sacred culture of the Vedas. Joseph O'Connell introduces

his

 

article, The word `Hindu' in Gaudiya Vaisnava texts, as follows:

 

A survey of three Sanskrit and ten Bengali hagiographic texts from

early

 

sixteenth to late eighteenth centuries discloses nearly fifty

passages (all

 

in the Bengali texts) in which the word `Hindu' appears. Most

occurrences

 

are in episodes of strained relationships between Hindus and yavanas

or

 

mlecchas, as the Muslims are called. The strains are usually resolved

 

satisfactorily. The word `Hindu' never appears in a purely intra-

communal

 

Hindu context and has no significance in the central religious

concerns of

 

the texts, the expositions of bhakti. (emphasis mine) ... there is

to be

 

found no explicit discussion of what `Hindu' or `Hindu dharma' means

in any

 

of the texts surveyed. ... there is no example of an abstract term

which

 

might be translated as Hindu-ness or Hinduism (e.g. hindutva) ...

(pp. 340,

 

342)

 

`Furthermore, it is interesting to note how often it is in the mouth

of a

 

non-Hindu that the word `Hindu' is placed by the writers' (ibid. p.

341).

 

O'Connell further observes:

 

`It was over against a group of people or type of people considered

both

 

foreign and barbarous (and often violent, as expressions like kala-

jabana,

 

"Death-Yavana", indicate) that the self-awareness of the Vaisnavas

as Hindus

 

was fashioned' (p. 342).

 

About this same period and phenomenon, Halbfass writes, `In this

climate of

 

`sectarian' strife and search for identity (i.e. the Gaudiya

Vaisnava and

 

Vallabhiya `proselytising'), the word `Hindu', which so far had been

used by

 

foreigners, specifically Muslims, was first employed by the Hindus

 

themselves' (p. 192).

 

Thus whereas in the early period, `Hindu' is not a factor either

within

 

internal Vaisnava discourse, nor in discourse with the `other', we

find that

 

in the middle period, and specifically in tight contact with the

governing

 

Muslims, the Gaudiya Vaisnavas, and presumably other groups as well,

employ

 

the Muslim term `Hindu' self-referentially, but only in dialogue

with or

 

about the ruling, and dangerous, Muslims.

 

 

 

The late or modern stage of `Hindu' discourse

 

 

`The period around 1800, which saw the full establishment of

European power

 

and presence in India, also saw the beginnings of modern Indology,

i.e. the

 

scientific exploration and objectification of India's past. The

combination

 

of these two events, which is more than a temporal coincidence, had a

 

fundamental impact upon Indian attitudes towards themselves and

the "other".

 

' (Halbfass, p. 172)

 

One of the most striking and transparent changes in the `modern'

period

 

since around 1800, is the new use of `Hindu' as an internal

 

self-identification. Enthusiasm for this development was never

unanimous.

 

`The Arya Samaj tried to replace the word "Hindu" with the ancient

term

 

Arya.' R.N. Suryanarayana calls `Hindu' a `detestable term ... of

which we

 

should be ashamed' (Halbfass, p. 515, fn. 97).

 

As one might expect, others went to the opposite extreme: `Some

modern

 

Indian nationalists, most notably M.S. Golwalkar and V.D. Savarkar,

have

 

argued vehemently that the world `Hindu' was not at all adopted from

the

 

Muslims and was not originally used by non-Hindus. Instead they

claim that

 

it is a genuinely Indian term, reflecting `the unity, the sublimity,

and the

 

specialty' of the Indian people.' (Halbfass, p. 193)

 

P. Hacker has analysed modern Hinduism in terms of the overlapping

 

categories of `neo-Hinduism' and `surviving traditional Hinduism.'

Halbfass,

 

who uses these categories, does so with a caveat: `Hacker's two

categories

 

are not mutually exclusive and not always clearly

distinguishable. ... it is

 

also possible "that one and the same person combines elements of

both ways

 

of thinking."'(Halbfass, p. 220)

 

For our purpose here, I shall focus on a few of the most

distinguished

 

spokespersons of both neo-Hinduism and surviving traditional

Hinduism, and

 

show how in each case their idiosyncratic notions of a monolithic

Hinduism

 

create significant religious problems for the Vaisnava community,

which is,

 

after all, supposed to be a majority component of Hinduism. This

will lead

 

directly to consideration of my question, `For whom does Hinduism

speak?'

 

and more specifically to the question, `Can Hinduism speak for

Vaisnavas?'

 

P. Hacker calls Vivekananda `the most influential shaper and

propagandist

 

of the neo-Hindu spirit' (Halbfass 228). Halbfass sees him as `one

of the

 

leading figures of modern Hindu thought and self-awareness and an

exemplary

 

exponent of Hindu self-representation vis-a-vis the West.' It was

mentioned

 

earlier that the great Vaisnava theologians, Ramanuja and Madhva, in

their

 

Vedanta commentaries, fought against the monistic, advaita,

interpretation

 

of Sankara. But in the modern period, in the name of a

generic `Hinduism',

 

Vivekananda took up the banner of the advaita-vedanta:

 

`The sense of identity ... which [Vivekananda] tries to awaken in his

 

fellow Indians ... means, above all, the heritage of Advaita

Vedanta, the

 

tradition of Sankara. Ethics, self-confidence, and brotherly love

find their

 

true and binding foundation in Advaitic non-dualism' (Halbfass, p.

234).

 

Or, in Vivekananda's own words,

 

`That is what we want, and that can only be created, established and

 

strengthened by understanding and realising the ideal of the

Advaita, that

 

ideal of the oneness of all. ... to preach the Advaita aspect of the

Vedanta

 

is necessary to rouse up the hearts of men, to show them the glory

of their

 

souls. It is therefore, that I preach this Advaita ... ' (From

Vivekananda's

 

four lectures in London, titled `Practical Vedanta', III, 190f.,

quoted by

 

Halbfass, p. 234)

 

Halbfass adds in his footnote 75 to this quote: `Vivekananda often

 

encouraged his listeners to see themselves "as God."' Those familiar

with

 

Vaisnava thought will instantly understand that the claim to be God

is as

 

serious an offense to many Vaisnavas as it would be to many in the

Abrahamic

 

traditions.

 

But Vivekananda is not the only neo-Hindu superstar to promote

 

advaita-vedanta as the doctrine of Hinduism. Let us next consider the

 

eminent Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Oxford scholar and former

President of

 

India.

 

According to P. Hacker, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan `seems to be the

most

 

typical ... neo-Hindu thinker.'(2) Halbfass adds, ` ... it is

evident that

 

Radhakrishnan has been a most successful spokesman of neo-Hinduism

in the

 

West, and that he has produced some of the most memorable and

persuasive

 

formulations of neo-Vedantic thought.'

 

And what is Radhakrishnan's vision of applied `Hindu philosophy'?

 

`Radhakrishnan's very first articles ... already articulate two

fundamental

 

themes of his neo-Hindu apologetics: the importance of philosophy

for the

 

identity and self-affirmation of modern India, and the significance

and

 

potential application of Advaita Vedanta in the area of ethics and

social

 

practice.' (3)

 

Thus for a Vaisnava, to jump on the neo-Hindu bandwagon often means

in

 

practice to directly or indirectly be associated with, if not

endorse, a

 

sectarian theological position totally antithetical to Vaisnavism,

i.e. the

 

monistic doctrine of the absolute oneness of the soul with an

impersonal

 

God. The greatest Vaisnava acaryas, Ramanuja, Madhva, Caitanya

Mahaprabhu,

 

etc. dedicated significant portions of their lives to to opposing

this view.

 

It is thus deeply troubling to Vaisnavas that unity among `Hindus'

is often

 

sought under the monistic banner, while simultaneously minimising or

denying

 

the great theological divide which for centuries has separated those

seeking

 

to love, and those seeking to become, the Absolute Truth.

 

Having looked at two neo-Hindu thinkers, let us glance at some of the

 

prominent `surviving, traditional' Hindus. Halbfass calls Vasudeva

Sastrin

 

Abhyankara one `of the greatest traditional pandits' in the modern

age, a

 

learned man who used `the standards of the Dharmasastra', the sacred

 

law-book, in his Dharma-tattva-nirnaya. [Ascertaining the Truth of

Dharma].

 

(4) Essentially, this work stresses the birthright and the hereditary

 

aspects of Hinduism, with the author determining that Hinduism

cannot be

 

approached through mere `initiation' (diksa)(5). (Halbfass 260)

Similarly,

 

` ... The Dharmapradipa, written by Anantakrsna Sastrin, Sitarama

Sastrin,

 

and Srijiva Bhattacarya, three of the leading pandits of their time

(the

 

preface is dated December 15, 1937), also bears mention. In this

work,

 

questions of `purification' (suddhi) and rehabilitation of Hindus

who have

 

joined a `mleccha religion' (mleccha-dharma) or been coerced into

giving up

 

their ways of life and belief are discussed in great detail. The

conversion

 

of persons who were born into a foreign religion is not taken into

 

consideration at all.' (Halbfass 260)

 

The problems for Vaisnavas with these two versions of `traditional'

 

Hinduism are as follows:

 

Several great Vaisnava acaryas have historically fought for the

right of

 

any person to achieve salvation, and to acquire the status of a

spiritual

 

teacher, simply on the basis of bhakti, or devotion to God.(6)

Indeed, they

 

have fought precisely against the type of orthodox, smarta,

brahmanism

 

exemplified by the work of Vasudeva Sastrin Abhyankara.

 

In his article on the Bhagavata Purana, perhaps the single most

important

 

scripture of the Vaisnavas, Thomas Hopkins points out that one of

the main

 

points in `the religion of the Bhagavata [is] the absence of the

 

qualifications based on birth and status that restricted

participation in

 

orthodox ceremonies.' (Hopkins, pp. 11-12)

 

Hopkins goes on to say,

 

`The Bhagavata ... also repeatedly stresses the independence of

bhakti from

 

all alternative means of salvation. Criticism of orthodoxy does not

stop at

 

the theological level. ... Here the primary objective is to refute

the idea

 

that a person's birth, social status, or caste membership is of any

 

significance with respect to salvation by means of devotion.'

 

Equally troubling for Vaisnavas is the Dharmapradipa's indifference

to the

 

issue of persons born in other religions that wish to take up Hindu-

dharma.

 

Gaudiya-Vaisnava movements such as ISKCON are mainly composed of

devotees

 

born outside of Hindu families. Much earlier, Sri Caitanya himself

installed

 

as His namacarya, the `teacher of the Name', the Muslim-born

Haridasa. It is

 

not clear how the Dharmapradipa would deal with such conversions.

Halbfass

 

is aware of this problem:

 

`The commitment to the hereditary caste system may be less rigid in

the

 

sects than in mainstream `orthodoxy.' This affects their xenological

 

attitudes. The chosen membership in the religious or soteriological

 

community can be more significant than the hereditary caste

membership. Such

 

openness and flexibility is occasionally extended beyond the

confines of the

 

Indian world, and even the mlecchas are at times recognised as

potential

 

members of the soteriological community.' (Halbfass, p. 193)

 

 

 

Conclusion

 

 

I have argued that the modern transformation of the term `Hindu'

into an

 

internal, monistically tilted self-definition for the followers of

the

 

Vedas, is problematic for Vaisnavas, and that `Hinduism' cannot in

all

 

respects speak for Vaisnavism.

 

In her comparative study, Veda and Torah [1], Barbara Holdredge

notes:

 

The categories `Hinduism' and `Judaism' are themselves problematic

 

.... , for, like the category `religion', they represent theoretical

 

constructs that attempt to impose unity on a myriad of different

 

religious systems. The complex amalgam termed `Hinduism' encompasses

a

 

variety of `Hinduisms'. Beginning in the Vedic period and throughout

 

Indian history the orthodox brahminical tradition has been

continually

 

challenged by competing traditions and movements — local village

 

traditions, ascetic groups, devotional (bhakti) sects, tantric

 

movements, and more recently, modern reform movements. While the

 

centripetal force of brahminical power structures has sought to

absorb

 

and domesticate competing currents, the centrifugal force of these

 

countervailing centers of power has persisted, giving rise to that

 

uneasy conglomerate of heterogeneous tendencies which Western

scholars

 

term `Hinduism' (Holdredge, p. 1).

 

Questions instantly arise:

 

(1) Who speaks for this `uneasy conglomerate of heterogeneous

tendencies?'

 

(2) For whom does this `uneasy conglomerate of heterogeneous

tendencies'

 

speak?

 

Where shall we find a simple `Hindu' who is neither a Vaisnava, nor a

 

Saiva, nor a Sakta, nor a Tantrika, nor a member of a `local village

 

tradition', nor a smarta-brahmana, etc.? If our `Hindu' agrees not

to speak

 

for her or his own tradition, and rather speak for `Hinduism' as a

whole,

 

what will the person say?

 

And yet, we saw that Caitanya himself, the founder of the Gaudiya-

Vaisnava

 

movement, did accept the term `Hindu' for ordinary dealings with the

Muslim

 

rulers. We must keep in mind here the common, contrasting Sanskrit

 

philosophical terms: vyavaharika, `relating to ordinary or mundane

affairs,

 

usage or practice' and paramarthika, `relating to a spiritual

object, or to

 

supreme, essential truth.' It seems fair to say that according to

O'Connell'

 

s survey of sixteenth to eighteen century Gaudiya Vaisnava

literature, the

 

Vaisnava devotees considered themselves Hindu in a vyavaharika

sense, but

 

never in a paramarthika sense. Indeed, from the paramarthika

viewpoint,

 

`Hindu' is simply another upadhi, or worldly de-signation. After

all, a

 

Hindu may convert to another religion, but on the spiritual

platform, the

 

pure soul, atman, can never become anything else in an ontological

sense,

 

though the soul may forget its true identity.

 

Thus two highly revered and canonical works of the Gaudiya

Vaisnavas — Rupa

 

Gosvami's Bhakti-rasamrta-sindhu (1.1.12) and Krsndasa Kaviraja's Sri

 

Caitanya-caritamrta (2.19.170) — cite the following verse from the

 

Narada-pancaratra(7) :

 

`Bhakti (devotion) is said to be service, with the senses, to the

Lord of

 

the senses (Hrsikesa, Krsna), which is freed of all "designations"

(upadhi),

 

and immaculate through dedication to Him.'

 

Monier-Williams gives these relevant meanings for upadhi: `that

which is

 

put in the place of another thing, a substitute ...; anything which

may be

 

taken for or has the mere name or appearance of another thing ... ,

phantom,

 

disguise.' The sense in which the upadhi, `Hindu', is a vyavaharika

identity

 

for one engaged in self-realisation along Vedantic lines, should be

clear

 

upon reflection. Thus the progressive growth of `Hindu' as a total

identity

 

can be understood as the overwhelming of the paramarthika, the

ultimate

 

spiritual, identity by the worldly, conventional identity. For the

 

spiritualist, this is a problem.

 

Perhaps one evidence that the term `Hindu' is vyavaharika, an upadhi

of

 

this world, and of the present body, is that it has often been

invoked and

 

engaged to foster communal, even ethnic consciousness and at times

communal

 

violence. Thus `Hindu' transforms itself into an ethnic, even a

racial,

 

marker, an engine for national pride, in a way that one would not

expect

 

from an eternal, spiritual science that, according to the Bhagavad-

gita,

 

would apply equally to all living beings.

 

A historical example may serve to illumine this point. When Gaudiya

 

Vaisnavism was taken seriously in Bengal, it tended to counteract the

 

tendency toward communal conflict, as O'Connell has observed:

 

` ... the Vaisnavas in Bengal did not place their religious

commitment in

 

the solidarity of the Hindu people, nor in the sacred ideals, if

there were

 

such, common to Hindus. Their religious faith was in Krishna, a mode

of

 

faith that in principle a non-Hindu could share ... it would seem,

then,

 

either that religiously motivated Hindu communalism is a relatively

recent

 

development in Bengal or that the Gaudiya Vaisnavas are atypical. My

own

 

opinion is that so long as the Gaudiya Vaisnavas remained the pace-

setting

 

religious and literary group in Bengal, i.e. to the turn of the

nineteenth

 

century, their point of view prevailed in Bengal well beyond their

own

 

movement. With the partial breakdown of Gaudiya-Vaisnava faith,

 

self-assurance and influence in the nineteenth century, due in part

to the

 

criticisms by reformers, this Vaisnava resistance to religiously

motivated

 

communal consciousness by Hindus was eroded.' (JOC, p. 342)

 

Among the minimum beliefs one must have to be a legal Hindu in

India, the

 

Supreme Court includes `Acceptance of great world rhythm — vast

periods of

 

creation, maintenance and dissolution follow each other in endless

 

succession — by all six systems of Hindu philosophy.'

 

It is fair to say that within the `vast periods of creation,

maintenance

 

and dissolution', the existence of the term `Hindu' occupies but a

geo-blip

 

of time. Missing altogether in Vedic discourse, as well as in later

Sanskrit

 

epic, Puranic, and Vedantic disquisitions, the term comes to be used

 

self-referentially in more recent times in vernacular literatures.

Even that

 

limited use is further limited to discourse with or for a

hostile `other'.

 

Finally, in modern times, in contact with the West, `Hindu'

and `Hinduism',

 

in their various neo- and conservative shapes, emerge as quasi-

ethnic,

 

exclusivistic self-references, with and for those believing that the

Vedic

 

literature is sacred and authoritative.

 

This dramatic shift is troubling for those Vaisnavas who take

seriously the

 

traditional teachings of the Bhagavad-gita, the Bhagavata Purana and

the

 

devotional version of Vedanta, to the effect that every living being

is

 

ultimately an eternal servant of a supreme personal God. Vaisnavas

are even

 

more unhappy with the constant neo-Hindu subordination of Krsna's

personal

 

form to the impersonal, nirguna ideal of advaita-vedanta. On

paramarthika

 

issues, a serious Vaisnava would not dream of appointing a

generic `Hindu'

 

as a spokesperson. Thus, in a purely spiritual context, for whom does

 

Hinduism speak?

 

 

 

Notes

(1) In general, Vaisnavas are those who worship Visnu, in His many

forms as

 

either Rama, Krsna, Narayana, etc. as the supreme personal God.

Scholars

 

regularly estimate that at least two-thirds of `Hindus' are

Vaisnavas. The

 

Gaudiya-Vaisnavasha, which has been a significant religious force in

North

 

India, accept Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who appeared in West Bengal

about 500

 

years ago as Krsna Himself.

 

(2) Kl. Schr., p. 599.

 

(3) These very first articles, which he published in 1908, were

taken from

 

his master's thesis, with its `programmatic' title: The Ethics of

Vedanta

 

and Its Metaphysical Presuppositions.

 

(4) Poona, 1929 (ASS, vol. 98)

 

(5) Dharma-tattva-nirnaya, 39

 

(6) One exception to this liberal ethos is the Vaikhanasa community

of

 

Southeast India.

 

(7) Medieval Vaisnava authors, including Madhvacarya and many

 

Gaudiya-Vaisnava scholars, often quote verses from extant works whose

 

surviving recensions no longer show those verses. This can be seen in

 

citations from Narada-pancaratra, Manu-samhita, various Puranas,

etc. Many

 

scholars feel that the extant Narada-pancaratra is quite corrupt,

and I have

 

not personally checked to see if the verse that Rupa and Krsnadasa

cite here

 

is found there.

 

 

 

Bibliography

Halbfass, Wilhelm. India and Europe. SUNY Press, 1988.

 

Holdrege, Barbara A. Veda and Torah. SUNY Press, 1996.

 

Hopkins, Thomas J. The Social Teachings of the Bhagavata Purana, pp.

3–22, in Krishna, Myths, Rites and Attitudes, Edited by Singer, M.,

U. of Chicago Press, 1966.

 

Macdonell, Arthur A. A History of Sanskrit Literature. Munshirama

Manoharlal, New Delhi, 1972.

 

Monier-Williams, M. A Sanskrit Dictionary. Motilal Banarsidass,

Delhi, 1997.

 

Narayanan, Vasudha. The Way and the Goal. Institute for Vaishnava

Studies,

 

Washington D.C. and Center for the Study of World Religions, Harvard

University, Cambridge, 1987.

 

O'Connell, Joseph T. The word `Hindu' in Gaudiya Vaishnava texts.

JAOS 93.3 (1973), pp. 340–343.

 

van Buitenen, J.A.B. On the Archaism of the Bhagavata Purana, pp. 23–

40, in Krishna, Myths, Rites and Attitudes, Edited by Singer, M., U.

of Chicago Press, 1966.

http://www.philosophy.ru/library/asiatica/indica/authors/hdg/hind.htm

l