For Whom Does Hinduism Speak?
In this essay H.J. Resnick explains where the 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.
 
      Карта сайта
      Библиотека - Арабская философия
      Библиотека - Буддийская философия
      Библиотека - Индийская философия
      Библиотека - Китайская философия
      Библиотека - Онтология и эпистемология
      Библиотека - Философия языка, сознания, науки
      Библиотека - Социальная философия
      Библиотека - Антропология и культурология
      Библиотека - Этика и эстетика
      Хроника
      Философские ресурсы
      Философские центры
      Personalia