Hindu-ism? – A brief Observation

Defining Hinduism has been an issue of debate among friends since last few years. And even in this case, I am puzzled by the suffix ‘ism’ attached to it, as always I have when I see an effort to ‘mix ‘en match’ in very Indian concepts with those originated in some other part of the globe.

Remembering one of my Professors whom I found looking furious one day as he was sitting in our college staffroom. I was little shocked seeing the angry face of the usually calm person. I kind of poked him – “Sir, you told you would give us a lesson Vasa (a Sanskrit playwright from centuries back) and the professor burst! – “I am in no mood of teaching you anything! What are you students learning these days – go learn from your American Gurudevs! Anyway you will learn what you intend to learn!” I was at a loss, but knew there would be some interesting story behind. So I kept on waiting there. As expected, he continued after some time, “You know what they (some students union affiliated by particular political party, who used to run a magazine) have told me? They told me to write an article to prove that Ram was a historical character who was alive twenty thousand years back!.....”  That was my first lesson on how history is used to prove of disapprove things – how politicians use historical theories for political benefit….of course not all politicians are Ram-worshipers but almost everyone use one or other (mythical?) character to prove the sanctity of their politics. Here comes the scope of ‘ism’. To catch people’s attention, one needs to be a follower of some or other ‘ism’.

Does ‘ism’ go with the concept of ‘Hindu’? Is there any preacher who started preaching the ‘ism’ of Hindus on a particular day of a particular month or year? Is there any particular god or prophet whom one has to follow to become or remain a Hindu? The answer to all of these are no, no  and no.  Who tells what the core idea of the ‘ism’ is? – Answer is “many” and “none” – but the polytheistic concept is developed through thousands of years. Did those “many” speak of the same moral to be preached universally? Answer is “no” – but this a collection of different and sometimes contradictory ideas developed by many ‘sages’. (We define all our poets, philosophers, political theorists, playwrights, grammarians and even physicians and architects as “sages”. Bengali Ramayan refers even King Janak, father of Sita as “Sage”). Can there be any ‘ism’ without a universally accepted moral at the core? I did not get any reply from the “ism” preachers till date and still waiting.

Then came another group of ‘ism’ followers with an idea that what ‘The Vedas’ preach is Hinduism and what is not in Vedas  cannot be accepted as part of “Hinduism”.  I would humbly request these “followers” to go through Veda texts available - these are no preacher’s material like testament anyway! Yes, these include poems addressing many gods starting from Fire to Hiranyagarbha, (also the ‘Dice’-god!), but there is no reference of the gods called Ram or Krishna or Kali or Shiva – presumably none are part of ‘Hinduism”? Vedas speak of only “Yagna” – no reference to Puja.  Puja not allowed in Hinduism? The major chunk of Hindu festivals organized today will not get ‘approval’ from Vedas we see!

What is Hindu-ism then?

I would prefer the drop the suffix –“ism”.  There is no harm to do some brainstorming if the suffixes like “view” or “concept” seems inadequate.  But Hindu philosophy speaks of a concept which does not need the followers to visit a particular god’s temple or worship a particular god or listen to a particular prophet. Therefore different members in the same family enjoy the privilege of worshipping or not worshipping a god of own choice. This is a concept which does not impose dress-code on followers; neither imposes any restriction on food.  (Our Neo-Hindu friends perhaps do not have any idea that eggs and fish and chicken and mutton and beef are food for a number of Hindus, only thing is they are scattered in different parts of the country, instead of concentrating themselves in particular areas – in fact non-vegetarians outnumber vegetarians in ‘Hindustan’.). Well, you have a right to starve too, if you want to prove yourself to be pious in some regions. (remember how I found it amazing that people in some states have rice boiled with ghee as food on ‘day of fasting’, whereas ‘fasting’ in Eastern region of the country means going without food and water for at least twenty-four hours.!). As a whole, Hindu thought process celebrates inclusivity – includes all of monotheism, polytheism, atheism, violence, non-violence, heterosexuality, homosexuality, desire, abstinence, formed, formless and what not – one can follow any principle of own choice and still remain a ‘Hindu’.  In my opinion, its thought process that vouch for ‘liberty’; ‘Liberty’ that encourages followers to think and decide on their own.

Yagnabalkya took a method of “netibad” to explain the nature of Brahma in Brihadaranyak-upanishad. His answer to every question ending with “is that Brahman?” is “it is not.” (na- iti). This way, when every entity in the world fails to qualify as “Brahman” - what is left out of the scope is defined as “Brahman”. I think Hindu-view of life can be defined perfectly only by this method of Yagnabalkya’s. What do not come under the scope of any other religion or philosophic concept can be regarded as ‘Hindu” thought process, the incomparable one - Is the definition adequate?