Loved the entire essay but this sentence stood out: "Temples are traditionally conceived of as tirthas, or crossings, between the world of men and the world of the gods"
This is a wonderful essay covering the vast range of history, experiences, etc to define a core challenge based by Hindus - is there an essence of Hinduism? The problem statement has been defined very well here and I believe that this problem is a real one not just for Hindus living in USA but to all Hindus (since all are recipients of a relentless media onslaught on a daily basis).
However, if depiction of an "essence of Hinduism" has been a challenge, is there no essence at all and does the absence of a definition really create an impediment to engage with traditions in an authentic manner? Does absence of a sane definition reflect a failure of Hindu intellectuals or does no essence exist at all? This is the key question here.
When Edwin Bryant wrote a commentary on the Yogasutras, he chose to provide his commentaries using the Hindu commentaries on Yogasutra before the Brits came to India. If Hindu intellectuals make effort, if they move away from new lexicon imported in the last 200 years, construct of an essence should certainly be possible. If there was no essence at all, no one till date would have tried to provide a response to the British collectively (meaning our gut informed us that there is an essence despite us struggling to articulate this in modern language).
I made a rookie attempt for my own teenage kids around a year back (ten videos made with first four conveying the essence of Dharma as Satya, Shrishti, Niyama and Yoga and other six elaborating a few other ideas) - and it was possible to articulate an essence (by keeping away history, geography, personalities, names of Sampradayas, etc). Instead of rejecting the idea of an essence, a rethink on essence may be done (if a joker like me can do it, better experts can certainly do it if they apply their minds to it). All that is needed is to empty the nonsense of the last 200 years internalized by all Hindus. Sharing my rookie effort, if this helps
A question - How would you place Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda in the reformist vs. orthodox dichotomy of colonial-era Hinduism? My (limited) impression is that they were less radical than the reformists, since they did not ask people to abandon rituals and tradition. At the same time, they went to great efforts to apply concepts from Hindu traditions (in particular, Advaita Vedanta) to modernity - as exemplified by Vivekananda's famous travels to America and Europe. In contrast to the decline of reform movements that you described, I would say that the Ramakrishna Math/Mission continues to be a large and vibrant movement to this day, with a strong institutional structure of monks, a large group of lay supporters, and also broad cultural influence among Hindus/Indians, both in India and in the diaspora.
This brings up the question of how "Hinduism" should be perceived and practiced by contemporary Hindu Americans today. As an American-born Hindu whose parents are followers of the Ramakrishna/Vedanta Society, I found their approach quite appealing along the lines you discussed here. In their lectures/classes, the Swamis teach texts like the Gita and Upanishads, and try to make their messages applicable to the lives of householders in the United States. Generally, they don't speak much on issues such as Hindutva and caste, and avoid getting mired in public social/political debates. They do not ask their followers to "reform" in the sense of abandoning familial rites and rituals, while at the same time positing a specific interpretation of spiritual texts that are helpful in modern society. While the philosophical basis of the organization is Advaita Vedanta, there is a strong emphasis on Bhakti (which originates in the life story of Sri Ramakrishna), as well as an acknowledgement of the other philosophical traditions of India and the world.
Would you say that this kind of approach is along the lines of how you think Hindus in the diaspora can fruitfully engage with their diverse traditions?
Thanks for the comment. I think your impression is correct. Swami Vivekananda straddled the line between reform and the orthodoxy. The case of the Ramakrishna Mission is a curious one. The Vedanta Society achieved remarkable success in the years following its founding, but if you visit the SF Vedanta Society today, for example, you'll find empty pews and few elderly volunteers milling about, notwithstanding its strong presence in India. In some ways, perhaps you could argue that the Vedanta Society was a victim of its own success. It found traction among the American elite precisely because it was framed as a superior, rational alternative to mainline Christianity. In embracing such a framing, however, the Vedanta Society in American increasingly became indistinguishable from Unitarianism, and was then subject to the same forces of secularization that has led to rapidly diminishing church attendance, for example. One lesson IMO is that it is important to retain a strong Bhakti culture, or you risk turning the spiritual tradition into a philosophy lecture. You can see this in action with ISKCON, which continues to thrive both in India and the West.
Thanks for the response! I think that the Vedanta Societies in the U.S. have responded over the years to the changing demographics of their followers, who are increasingly Indian-Americans, rather than the (white) American elites/intellectuals/oddballs of the twentieth century. While programming varies from center to center, major centers today host large-scale events for festivals like Durga Puja, which are well-attended by the local Indian community. It's also common to have weekly kirtans for Rama and Shiva. To your point, this reflects the role of Bhakti in keeping the community engaged in these organizations.
Don’t you think though, that Hindu Americans today face pretty much the same political challenge that traditionalist Hindus did back in the day, and are badly in need of political unity?
From what I can see, the tradeoff between a more individualized approach to Hinduism, and the capacity to act as one politically, is still strong and salient.
Yes, I think there are deep parallels between our current situation and the one Indians faced during colonial period. The continuity between the arguments forwarded by the orthodox factions during the 19th/early 20th centuries and contemporary advocacy organizations is one such parallel. I intend to explore this further in future installments.
Great essay and I liked the bibliography. Many of the points you make are similar to ones Wendy Doniger makes in her book “The Hindus” - which the Hindutva right hates (I thinks it’s a pretty well written history but don’t agree with everything she writes).
AK Ramanujan has a good essay on multiplicity in Indian culture and Hinduism too:
Yes, there is a parallel argument made by the academic left in this regard, but with a critical difference: the secular-left variation of this argument is typically deployed to attack contemporary claims of Hindu political agency. My argument is that we need to come to terms with the deficiencies of "Hinduism" as a conceptual structure to more effectively exercise political power. I don't see the multiplicity in "Hinduism" as normative, but as a reflection of a particular socio-cultural structure that giving way to the homogenizing effect of modernity, globalization, etc.
A very thoughtful essay Vishal. Look forward to reading more. Section 4 echoes thoughts I had expressed almost two decades ago in an essay I called Hinduism 2.0, a link to which is attached. Your treatment is more encompassing and comprehensive. I lacked the knowledge and historical perspective then to make sense of the dichotomy between the universalist and traditionalist views that you brilliantly bring out. I do not however agree that we have to give up the name - in fact the same name can and does have multiple meanings. Keep writing! https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S2GcA0GhKCoDDxA8uJastuuL7w7Bz95q/view?usp=sharing
A very interesting article Vishal. I would love to speak with you. Do get in touch when you have time. I have entered the same question (sort of) you are dealing with through a slightly different route but also using Balagangadhara’s work. Please have a read and if you can do feedback. https://aryalegal.substack.com/p/does-hinduism-exist
“It has no founder, no singular sacred text, no creed, and no church. One Hindu might be a strict theist who regularly goes to temple and participates in Vedic rituals, while another might be a philosophical monist who rejects temple ritual in favor of meditation and contemplation of the all-pervading Brahman.”
Except it does have a sacred scripture, the Vedas. Traditions of philosophical monism/jnana yoga are built of traditions out of the Vedas, as are the ritualistic schools of Mimamsa.
The importance of the Vedas to Hindu tradition is largely symbolic. How many self-identified Hindus actually read them, or trace their ethical or theological commitments to them? Many of the basic metaphysical foundations of what we now call Hinduism (e.g., cyclical notion of time, karma and rebirth) don't even have a solid basis in the Vedic texts, not to mention the contemporary Hindu pantheon. While the Vedas might be particularly important for particular traditions (e.g., Mimamsa), this is distinct from the claim that they are the preeminent sacred text of the religion of "Hinduism".
What about the contemporary Hindu pantheon? Are you assuming that Hinduism is against the expansion of its own pantheon? Are you aware Vishnu, Shiva, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Surya, and other such deities are Vedic deities?
I'm saying that, notwithstanding the cultural and philosophical similarities between the variegated Hindu traditions, conceiving them of as a unified religion of "Hinduism" is counterproductive and is in fact an impediment to a vital engagement with tradition from a modern perspective.
You could make the same case for Buddhism, with its various traditions/schools and its many deities/bodhisattvas. Is it counterproductive for Buddhists to label themselves as Buddhist? The reason for the lack of proper engagement with Hindu traditions comes from those who are too ignorant to understand Hindu traditions in the first place. You don’t blame Buddhists for ignorant westerners not understanding the difference between Vajrayana or Theravada. I bet the average Indian can’t differentiate Protestant schools either or its difference feom Catholicism, but a Protestant & Catholic will still call themselves “Christian”.
Also the problem is rather Hindus who aren’t really Hindu or understanding of Vedantic thought claiming their beliefs are “Hindu”. So called “atheist Hindus” and the like who generally can’t defend their beliefs because they don’t know what they believe, or whose beliefs are sourced by a wikipedia page.
Yes you could, and people do. "Buddhism" arose via the same process that "Hinduism" did during the colonial encounter. The difference is that even prior to the Orientalist identification as Buddhism as a sort of Protestant reaction to Hinduism, the Buddhist tradition was far more centralized than Hinduism, insofar as it had a founder, a body of teachings, and even an established ecclesiastical structure. Placing the blame on individual Hindus who are "too ignorant to understand Hindu traditions in the first place" is a common attitude, and one that I find condescending and myopic. It is precisely this view-- grounded in an arrogance about the supposed pristine nature of Hindu tradition-- that distracts from the need for reform.
How was the Buddhist tradition more “centralized”? It was spanned across more nations and in places far from where it originated. It lacked a priestly structure, what are you talking about? Thats one of its major differences to Hinduism. It was far more de-centralized compared to Hinduism. And so what if Buddhism had a sole founder? The Vedic rishis developed the Vedas in conjunction, they had a sole corpus.
Again, I don’t see why you’re implying Hinduism lacks a body of teachings, thats completely unfounded and false.
Sorry but Hindus who don’t fully study or comprehend Hindu philosophy shouldn’t call for reform for something they don’t understand & Hinduism being a philosophical religion doesn’t need reform, if you don’t find your views aligning with Vedic philosophy go find another viewset, Ancient India was home to plenty of non-Vedic philosophies, not people pretending to be followers of the Vedic faith while corrupting its character. This isn’t like Catholicism with its Church authority where reform was predicated on the Church’s behavior, this is a philosophical religion.
It is not “symbolic”. Have you heard of Vedanta? How could you say Hindus don’t get their theological commitments from the Vedas when the whole concept of Brahman is embedded within them? The Puranas/Agamas and practically ever later scripture is embedded with Vedantic thought. The Brahma Sutras and the entire philosophy of Vedanta is based on a line of tradition of commentary to the Upanishads. The entire philosophy contained within the Bhagavad Gita is related to Vedanta.
Why would a Hindu necessarily need to read the Vedas? Have you read any Agamas either? They’re primarily ritualistic scriptures, intended for ritual use. Hindus have priests/ family priests who do practice & study ritualism. Hinduism is a religion with a system of priests, you should know that. And Hindu rituals do place a large importance in Hindu life, theres samskaras for major life events, theres daily mantras people recite such as the Gayatri.
Hindu philosophy isn’t based on karma or rebirth. The religion isn’t about reincarnation. In fact the term Samsara doesn’t even necessarily translate into reincarnation. That is hardly the defining feature of Vedantic or Mimamsa philosophy whatsoever.
What is “Hinduism” if not for the Vedas and its related philosophies? How is it differentiated from Buddhism, or Jainism? Are you using Hinduism as a blanket term for anything culturally “Indian”? Or are you referring to a line of beliefs and philosophies. Because if its the former then we might as well argue Hinduism doesn’t exist.
Did you read the essay? The entire point is that thinking of "Hinduism" as a religion implies a certain conceptual coherence that does not actually exist. You are making a series of descriptive observations about Hindu tradition, but these do not cohere into an integrated religious system. Is someone still a Hindu if they don't engage in these rituals that mark major life events? What about if they don't recite the mantras? You are also making a number of subjective assertions (e.g., "Hindu philosophy is not based on karma or rebirth") and passing them off as truth.
On the prominence of Vedanta throughout the Hindu textual corpus, that is certainly one way to look at it, but it does not represent a "standard" view. For example, ISKCON would disagree with your assertion that the Gita is a Vedantic text. In my view, the description of "Hinduism" you propose-- namely that it encompasses the Vedas and its related philosophies-- is largely meaningless from the perspective of establishing religious identity.
No they simply are a Hindu in name. Not different to someone identifying as Christian and not having faith in their religion or believing in it.
Vedic philosophy as Purva/Uttara Mimamsa are not solely based on reincarnation or karma, that is not the ultimate point of either of those philosophies. Thats not subjective, its an observation of Hindu philosophy its self.
ISKCON follows Gaudiya Vaishanavism which is a Vedantic tradition. Seriously what are you on about, they obviously believe the Gita teaches a Vedantic view point. You truly seem unaware of the fact that Agamic traditions are influenced deeply by Vedanta. The fact you don’t is why you so easily brush off the commonality of Hindu traditions and its shared philosophical influences and lines of traditions dating to the Vedas.
What does one need to believe to be considered a "Hindu"? What does one need to do? Who defines these obligations? You are continuing to miss the point, so I will make this reply my last one. I am NOT denying the commonality of Hindu traditions and its shared philosophical influences. Again, if you actually read the essay, this would be clear to you. What I am rejecting is the notion that these variegated traditions comprise a religion of "Hinduism". Take ISKCON for example. If by Vedantic you mean that ISKCON believes the Gita is continuous with the Vedas, you are correct. My argument was simply that they go to great lengths to distinguish their theology from non-dual Advaita Vedanta, which illustrates the point: the various traditions within the Hindu fold, despite the fact that they draw from the same cultural and spiritual well, have dramatically different theological views. Cramping all of these traditions into an artificially imposed conceptual structure flattens them, and impedes the ability of individual traditions to adapt to modernity on their own terms.
A Hindu needs to believe In the conception of Brahman. That is the defining point of Vedanta.
A Hindu’s obligations is to Dharma. Those obligations are defined in the Shastras and Vedas.
Sure, there is no sole path to Dharma, (there is Karma or Jnana Yoga for example) but the basis for Dharma (ethics or ritual) is predicated on the belief of Brahman. But again that is not unique to Hinduism. Buddhism for example has different Dharmic paths among Mahayanists or Theravadins (with the same ultimate goal in mind). Likewise Christians have different ethical paths such as ascetism or salvation through works. I don’t think that itself would constitute some separate religion.
By Vedantic I mean ISKCON not only believes its a continuation of the Gita but also a scripture on the theology of Brahman and Dharma.
There are many schools of Vedanta, I’m not denying that, and yes you’re right that Gaudiya Vaishnavism is not Advaita Vedanta. But it should be understood all Vedantins agree on the concept of Brahman, it is the nature of a jiva that they disagree on (which fairly can bring about different theological considerations). If thats enough to constitute separate religions to you, then fine, but I could also make the opposite point in that its not that seriously divergent in beliefs. And in fact most Hindus do the latter.
I don’t think thats a disservice to these beliefs though, its a given Hindus of various philosophical outlooks have to stay united in their shared cultural upbringing and realize they share more in common than in difference because Abrahamic religions are militant towards Hindus of all sects and Hindus can’t really afford to be divisive.
Loved the entire essay but this sentence stood out: "Temples are traditionally conceived of as tirthas, or crossings, between the world of men and the world of the gods"
great essay
realized reading it that this may be the more serious point behind my feeling here https://x.com/krrishd/status/1875782693998452773?s=46
This is a wonderful essay covering the vast range of history, experiences, etc to define a core challenge based by Hindus - is there an essence of Hinduism? The problem statement has been defined very well here and I believe that this problem is a real one not just for Hindus living in USA but to all Hindus (since all are recipients of a relentless media onslaught on a daily basis).
However, if depiction of an "essence of Hinduism" has been a challenge, is there no essence at all and does the absence of a definition really create an impediment to engage with traditions in an authentic manner? Does absence of a sane definition reflect a failure of Hindu intellectuals or does no essence exist at all? This is the key question here.
When Edwin Bryant wrote a commentary on the Yogasutras, he chose to provide his commentaries using the Hindu commentaries on Yogasutra before the Brits came to India. If Hindu intellectuals make effort, if they move away from new lexicon imported in the last 200 years, construct of an essence should certainly be possible. If there was no essence at all, no one till date would have tried to provide a response to the British collectively (meaning our gut informed us that there is an essence despite us struggling to articulate this in modern language).
I made a rookie attempt for my own teenage kids around a year back (ten videos made with first four conveying the essence of Dharma as Satya, Shrishti, Niyama and Yoga and other six elaborating a few other ideas) - and it was possible to articulate an essence (by keeping away history, geography, personalities, names of Sampradayas, etc). Instead of rejecting the idea of an essence, a rethink on essence may be done (if a joker like me can do it, better experts can certainly do it if they apply their minds to it). All that is needed is to empty the nonsense of the last 200 years internalized by all Hindus. Sharing my rookie effort, if this helps
https://adhyatmawritings.com/2023/11/18/defining-hinduism-precisely/
Great essay!
A question - How would you place Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda in the reformist vs. orthodox dichotomy of colonial-era Hinduism? My (limited) impression is that they were less radical than the reformists, since they did not ask people to abandon rituals and tradition. At the same time, they went to great efforts to apply concepts from Hindu traditions (in particular, Advaita Vedanta) to modernity - as exemplified by Vivekananda's famous travels to America and Europe. In contrast to the decline of reform movements that you described, I would say that the Ramakrishna Math/Mission continues to be a large and vibrant movement to this day, with a strong institutional structure of monks, a large group of lay supporters, and also broad cultural influence among Hindus/Indians, both in India and in the diaspora.
This brings up the question of how "Hinduism" should be perceived and practiced by contemporary Hindu Americans today. As an American-born Hindu whose parents are followers of the Ramakrishna/Vedanta Society, I found their approach quite appealing along the lines you discussed here. In their lectures/classes, the Swamis teach texts like the Gita and Upanishads, and try to make their messages applicable to the lives of householders in the United States. Generally, they don't speak much on issues such as Hindutva and caste, and avoid getting mired in public social/political debates. They do not ask their followers to "reform" in the sense of abandoning familial rites and rituals, while at the same time positing a specific interpretation of spiritual texts that are helpful in modern society. While the philosophical basis of the organization is Advaita Vedanta, there is a strong emphasis on Bhakti (which originates in the life story of Sri Ramakrishna), as well as an acknowledgement of the other philosophical traditions of India and the world.
Would you say that this kind of approach is along the lines of how you think Hindus in the diaspora can fruitfully engage with their diverse traditions?
Thanks for the comment. I think your impression is correct. Swami Vivekananda straddled the line between reform and the orthodoxy. The case of the Ramakrishna Mission is a curious one. The Vedanta Society achieved remarkable success in the years following its founding, but if you visit the SF Vedanta Society today, for example, you'll find empty pews and few elderly volunteers milling about, notwithstanding its strong presence in India. In some ways, perhaps you could argue that the Vedanta Society was a victim of its own success. It found traction among the American elite precisely because it was framed as a superior, rational alternative to mainline Christianity. In embracing such a framing, however, the Vedanta Society in American increasingly became indistinguishable from Unitarianism, and was then subject to the same forces of secularization that has led to rapidly diminishing church attendance, for example. One lesson IMO is that it is important to retain a strong Bhakti culture, or you risk turning the spiritual tradition into a philosophy lecture. You can see this in action with ISKCON, which continues to thrive both in India and the West.
Thanks for the response! I think that the Vedanta Societies in the U.S. have responded over the years to the changing demographics of their followers, who are increasingly Indian-Americans, rather than the (white) American elites/intellectuals/oddballs of the twentieth century. While programming varies from center to center, major centers today host large-scale events for festivals like Durga Puja, which are well-attended by the local Indian community. It's also common to have weekly kirtans for Rama and Shiva. To your point, this reflects the role of Bhakti in keeping the community engaged in these organizations.
Thanks for writing this, was an enjoyable read.
Don’t you think though, that Hindu Americans today face pretty much the same political challenge that traditionalist Hindus did back in the day, and are badly in need of political unity?
From what I can see, the tradeoff between a more individualized approach to Hinduism, and the capacity to act as one politically, is still strong and salient.
Yes, I think there are deep parallels between our current situation and the one Indians faced during colonial period. The continuity between the arguments forwarded by the orthodox factions during the 19th/early 20th centuries and contemporary advocacy organizations is one such parallel. I intend to explore this further in future installments.
Awesome. Looking forward!
Great essay and I liked the bibliography. Many of the points you make are similar to ones Wendy Doniger makes in her book “The Hindus” - which the Hindutva right hates (I thinks it’s a pretty well written history but don’t agree with everything she writes).
AK Ramanujan has a good essay on multiplicity in Indian culture and Hinduism too:
https://www.trans-techresearch.net/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/three-hundred-Ramayanas-A-K-Ramanujan.pdf
Yes, there is a parallel argument made by the academic left in this regard, but with a critical difference: the secular-left variation of this argument is typically deployed to attack contemporary claims of Hindu political agency. My argument is that we need to come to terms with the deficiencies of "Hinduism" as a conceptual structure to more effectively exercise political power. I don't see the multiplicity in "Hinduism" as normative, but as a reflection of a particular socio-cultural structure that giving way to the homogenizing effect of modernity, globalization, etc.
Brilliant! We need more such articles to share the story and nuances.
A very thoughtful essay Vishal. Look forward to reading more. Section 4 echoes thoughts I had expressed almost two decades ago in an essay I called Hinduism 2.0, a link to which is attached. Your treatment is more encompassing and comprehensive. I lacked the knowledge and historical perspective then to make sense of the dichotomy between the universalist and traditionalist views that you brilliantly bring out. I do not however agree that we have to give up the name - in fact the same name can and does have multiple meanings. Keep writing! https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S2GcA0GhKCoDDxA8uJastuuL7w7Bz95q/view?usp=sharing
A very interesting article Vishal. I would love to speak with you. Do get in touch when you have time. I have entered the same question (sort of) you are dealing with through a slightly different route but also using Balagangadhara’s work. Please have a read and if you can do feedback. https://aryalegal.substack.com/p/does-hinduism-exist
“It has no founder, no singular sacred text, no creed, and no church. One Hindu might be a strict theist who regularly goes to temple and participates in Vedic rituals, while another might be a philosophical monist who rejects temple ritual in favor of meditation and contemplation of the all-pervading Brahman.”
Except it does have a sacred scripture, the Vedas. Traditions of philosophical monism/jnana yoga are built of traditions out of the Vedas, as are the ritualistic schools of Mimamsa.
The importance of the Vedas to Hindu tradition is largely symbolic. How many self-identified Hindus actually read them, or trace their ethical or theological commitments to them? Many of the basic metaphysical foundations of what we now call Hinduism (e.g., cyclical notion of time, karma and rebirth) don't even have a solid basis in the Vedic texts, not to mention the contemporary Hindu pantheon. While the Vedas might be particularly important for particular traditions (e.g., Mimamsa), this is distinct from the claim that they are the preeminent sacred text of the religion of "Hinduism".
What about the contemporary Hindu pantheon? Are you assuming that Hinduism is against the expansion of its own pantheon? Are you aware Vishnu, Shiva, Lakshmi, Saraswati, Surya, and other such deities are Vedic deities?
I'm saying that, notwithstanding the cultural and philosophical similarities between the variegated Hindu traditions, conceiving them of as a unified religion of "Hinduism" is counterproductive and is in fact an impediment to a vital engagement with tradition from a modern perspective.
You could make the same case for Buddhism, with its various traditions/schools and its many deities/bodhisattvas. Is it counterproductive for Buddhists to label themselves as Buddhist? The reason for the lack of proper engagement with Hindu traditions comes from those who are too ignorant to understand Hindu traditions in the first place. You don’t blame Buddhists for ignorant westerners not understanding the difference between Vajrayana or Theravada. I bet the average Indian can’t differentiate Protestant schools either or its difference feom Catholicism, but a Protestant & Catholic will still call themselves “Christian”.
Also the problem is rather Hindus who aren’t really Hindu or understanding of Vedantic thought claiming their beliefs are “Hindu”. So called “atheist Hindus” and the like who generally can’t defend their beliefs because they don’t know what they believe, or whose beliefs are sourced by a wikipedia page.
Yes you could, and people do. "Buddhism" arose via the same process that "Hinduism" did during the colonial encounter. The difference is that even prior to the Orientalist identification as Buddhism as a sort of Protestant reaction to Hinduism, the Buddhist tradition was far more centralized than Hinduism, insofar as it had a founder, a body of teachings, and even an established ecclesiastical structure. Placing the blame on individual Hindus who are "too ignorant to understand Hindu traditions in the first place" is a common attitude, and one that I find condescending and myopic. It is precisely this view-- grounded in an arrogance about the supposed pristine nature of Hindu tradition-- that distracts from the need for reform.
How was the Buddhist tradition more “centralized”? It was spanned across more nations and in places far from where it originated. It lacked a priestly structure, what are you talking about? Thats one of its major differences to Hinduism. It was far more de-centralized compared to Hinduism. And so what if Buddhism had a sole founder? The Vedic rishis developed the Vedas in conjunction, they had a sole corpus.
Again, I don’t see why you’re implying Hinduism lacks a body of teachings, thats completely unfounded and false.
Sorry but Hindus who don’t fully study or comprehend Hindu philosophy shouldn’t call for reform for something they don’t understand & Hinduism being a philosophical religion doesn’t need reform, if you don’t find your views aligning with Vedic philosophy go find another viewset, Ancient India was home to plenty of non-Vedic philosophies, not people pretending to be followers of the Vedic faith while corrupting its character. This isn’t like Catholicism with its Church authority where reform was predicated on the Church’s behavior, this is a philosophical religion.
It is not “symbolic”. Have you heard of Vedanta? How could you say Hindus don’t get their theological commitments from the Vedas when the whole concept of Brahman is embedded within them? The Puranas/Agamas and practically ever later scripture is embedded with Vedantic thought. The Brahma Sutras and the entire philosophy of Vedanta is based on a line of tradition of commentary to the Upanishads. The entire philosophy contained within the Bhagavad Gita is related to Vedanta.
Why would a Hindu necessarily need to read the Vedas? Have you read any Agamas either? They’re primarily ritualistic scriptures, intended for ritual use. Hindus have priests/ family priests who do practice & study ritualism. Hinduism is a religion with a system of priests, you should know that. And Hindu rituals do place a large importance in Hindu life, theres samskaras for major life events, theres daily mantras people recite such as the Gayatri.
Hindu philosophy isn’t based on karma or rebirth. The religion isn’t about reincarnation. In fact the term Samsara doesn’t even necessarily translate into reincarnation. That is hardly the defining feature of Vedantic or Mimamsa philosophy whatsoever.
What is “Hinduism” if not for the Vedas and its related philosophies? How is it differentiated from Buddhism, or Jainism? Are you using Hinduism as a blanket term for anything culturally “Indian”? Or are you referring to a line of beliefs and philosophies. Because if its the former then we might as well argue Hinduism doesn’t exist.
Did you read the essay? The entire point is that thinking of "Hinduism" as a religion implies a certain conceptual coherence that does not actually exist. You are making a series of descriptive observations about Hindu tradition, but these do not cohere into an integrated religious system. Is someone still a Hindu if they don't engage in these rituals that mark major life events? What about if they don't recite the mantras? You are also making a number of subjective assertions (e.g., "Hindu philosophy is not based on karma or rebirth") and passing them off as truth.
On the prominence of Vedanta throughout the Hindu textual corpus, that is certainly one way to look at it, but it does not represent a "standard" view. For example, ISKCON would disagree with your assertion that the Gita is a Vedantic text. In my view, the description of "Hinduism" you propose-- namely that it encompasses the Vedas and its related philosophies-- is largely meaningless from the perspective of establishing religious identity.
No they simply are a Hindu in name. Not different to someone identifying as Christian and not having faith in their religion or believing in it.
Vedic philosophy as Purva/Uttara Mimamsa are not solely based on reincarnation or karma, that is not the ultimate point of either of those philosophies. Thats not subjective, its an observation of Hindu philosophy its self.
ISKCON follows Gaudiya Vaishanavism which is a Vedantic tradition. Seriously what are you on about, they obviously believe the Gita teaches a Vedantic view point. You truly seem unaware of the fact that Agamic traditions are influenced deeply by Vedanta. The fact you don’t is why you so easily brush off the commonality of Hindu traditions and its shared philosophical influences and lines of traditions dating to the Vedas.
What does one need to believe to be considered a "Hindu"? What does one need to do? Who defines these obligations? You are continuing to miss the point, so I will make this reply my last one. I am NOT denying the commonality of Hindu traditions and its shared philosophical influences. Again, if you actually read the essay, this would be clear to you. What I am rejecting is the notion that these variegated traditions comprise a religion of "Hinduism". Take ISKCON for example. If by Vedantic you mean that ISKCON believes the Gita is continuous with the Vedas, you are correct. My argument was simply that they go to great lengths to distinguish their theology from non-dual Advaita Vedanta, which illustrates the point: the various traditions within the Hindu fold, despite the fact that they draw from the same cultural and spiritual well, have dramatically different theological views. Cramping all of these traditions into an artificially imposed conceptual structure flattens them, and impedes the ability of individual traditions to adapt to modernity on their own terms.
A Hindu needs to believe In the conception of Brahman. That is the defining point of Vedanta.
A Hindu’s obligations is to Dharma. Those obligations are defined in the Shastras and Vedas.
Sure, there is no sole path to Dharma, (there is Karma or Jnana Yoga for example) but the basis for Dharma (ethics or ritual) is predicated on the belief of Brahman. But again that is not unique to Hinduism. Buddhism for example has different Dharmic paths among Mahayanists or Theravadins (with the same ultimate goal in mind). Likewise Christians have different ethical paths such as ascetism or salvation through works. I don’t think that itself would constitute some separate religion.
By Vedantic I mean ISKCON not only believes its a continuation of the Gita but also a scripture on the theology of Brahman and Dharma.
There are many schools of Vedanta, I’m not denying that, and yes you’re right that Gaudiya Vaishnavism is not Advaita Vedanta. But it should be understood all Vedantins agree on the concept of Brahman, it is the nature of a jiva that they disagree on (which fairly can bring about different theological considerations). If thats enough to constitute separate religions to you, then fine, but I could also make the opposite point in that its not that seriously divergent in beliefs. And in fact most Hindus do the latter.
I don’t think thats a disservice to these beliefs though, its a given Hindus of various philosophical outlooks have to stay united in their shared cultural upbringing and realize they share more in common than in difference because Abrahamic religions are militant towards Hindus of all sects and Hindus can’t really afford to be divisive.