On your visit to India, you may have experienced the strange and beautiful phenomenon of the easy wisdom and deep spiritual insight of common people.
Like The Buddha helped Sonadanda arrive at the essential nature of the Brahmin, we will cut through the clutter to find the essential nature of the Hindu identity.
The following people might benefit from this work:
- Hindus who seek a unity of identity in their diversity.
- Hindus who wonder why Sanatan Dharma is not recognized as a religion or not given rights at par with religions in parts of Europe and the Middle East.
- Policy makers who seek to create a proud and healthy Hindu society of the future.
Opening Remarks
I know from direct experience that when discussing a complex topic like the identity of a billion people, things get muddy very quickly. Setting the stage for complicated discussions is vital to avoid talking past each other. But to set the stage, I still have to use words, which makes it a bit of a paradox. Words are quicksand; they trap you as soon as you disrespect them. Therefore, I will start gingerly and carefully define words as Socrates and Augustine did – as a process of naming ideas. I equate words with their etymology and the ideas they represent (from the earliest available record).
I have never experienced a word that is a valid generalization. Most words represent multiple ideas in different proportions. Thus it is more appropriate to think of most words as representing a particular idea, but not exclusively a single idea. For example, some things are blue, and some are red, although they both have a little bit of the other color (there is no such thing as a physically realizable perfect “red”). We experience them as red or blue – we understand their essential nature and allow for the possibility that the essential nature may have shades. Thus it is pointless to discredit any word in this conversation with counterexamples. As long as the theme remains consistent, I like to keep an open mind and follow the argument.
We’ll talk about identity throughout this paper. The identity of a thing is how it is known. The question “Who is a Hindu?” is an identification problem. As far as I am aware, there is no prior analysis of this type (you’ll have to read on to see what I mean). I’m puzzled by this gap, so if you know of similar work, please let me know.
Geographical Identity
Does the Hindu belong to South Asia or India?
Twenty-five hundred years ago, the Greeks formed a syncretic culture with the ancient people living under the shade of the Himalayas east of the Sindhu river. They mispronounced the river as Indus and called the people the Indoi. The Arabs picked that up, added the ‘H,’ and called the land Hindustan – the place (sthan, स्थान) of the Hindus. As late as 1260 AD in Tabaqat-I Nasiri, Juzjani describes the entire region’s population as Hindu, including Shaivite, Vaishnavite, Buddhist, Jain, and other schools of thought present at the time. British and European colonizers used this definition for about two hundred years in matters of legal and human rights until the partition of undivided India in 1947. While this definition is popular in some portions of nationalist discourse in India, many Hindus have migrated for education or employment. Practitioners of Bhakti Yoga (ISKCON) and Raja Yoga (Meditation, Mindfulness, etc.) have grown among all ethnicities. There are more than a hundred million now outside India. The internet and social media have also made geography irrelevant.
The geographic definition of the Hindu identity is not only exogenous, but it also has other characteristics that make it unsatisfactory. First, it is anachronistic – this identity is just fifteen hundred years old, and the prior geography of ‘Hindus’ was much more extensive. Second, it is not sympathetic to the demographic realities in the world today. Third, it is insular – it forces Hindus into a parochial box in an interconnected world. We don’t wish to snatch the Hindu identity from those who claim it based on geography alone, but we must expand the definition to fill these gaps.
The Religious Identity
Is a Hindu a follower of the Hindu religion?
A Hindu religious identity would imply that Hinduism, or the endonym, Sanatana Dharma, would become a type of religion, and some might equate the religion and dharma. We want to find out if this is a consistent position.
Warm-up - The Linguistic Argument
What are the essential words associated with a Hindu? The words ‘Hindu’ and ‘Hinduism’ are exonyms of recent vintage, so I will consider these of secondary importance for our identification problem. Hindus colloquially refer to their system as Dharma (धर्म), while the more specific term is Sanatan Dharma. The translation of Dharma (from the root ध्र) is that which supports – or – supporting order. Sanatan Dharma translates directly to The Eternal Foundation/Order (of existence, implied). The other important word is religion, which comes from the Latin religare. Servius, Lactantius, Augustine, and modern writers interpret religare as to bind fast. Cicero derived religare as re (again) + legere (read), i.e., to read (words) again. Religion is thus binding to the word (of someone or something), such as a book or a messenger. As with Hinduism, no indigenous word corresponds to religion in Sanskrit or any derived language (the adopted Persian/Arab ‘mazhab’ is not of Indian origin). Based on etymology alone, Dharma and Religion don’t appear to be equivalent. This, however, is not clinching evidence. We need more.
Abrahamic systems as canonical Religion
The inferences I draw in later arguments utilize facts about Abrahamic systems. Why do I use them as canonical religions in my analysis?
- Firstly, I can confidently say that when Hindus think of ‘Identity’ and ‘Religion’ in a sentence, they do not think of Kwanzaa, Shamanism, or Chinese folk religions. Islam and Christianity are of primary importance.
- Abrahamic systems take the meaning of the word ‘religion’ seriously and properly enforce binding to God’s revelation & testimony. They have a holy book, a messenger of God, authoritative witnesses, etc.
- They are objectively the most successful, having achieved the highest number of followers. As of 2010 (ref), excluding atheists (distinct from non-theists) from the total, ~65% of people worldwide followed Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, while Dharmic systems were owned by ~25%. The remaining long tail (~10%) was distributed across African, Chinese, European, Native American, and aboriginal faith systems. The numbers are expected to change to 70% and 23% by 2050 (i.e., the success will persist).
For the reasons above, I don’t address the remaining 10% of religions. If that disappoints you, I recommend understanding the crux of the arguments in the next few sections and then going to the faq to deal with this gap.
The Anti-Reductivist Argument
Repackaging Dharma as Religion glosses over the diversity of the former to maintain an artificial correspondence with the latter. While Religious sects usually differ in minor details, Dharmic schools of thought (Darshanas) are grounded in diametric philosophical foundations w.r.t. ontology (Satva – what exists) and enlightenment (moksha). Dharma can be non-theistic, materialistic, polytheistic, monistic, dualistic, and so on. The Charvaka (materialist) school says the purpose of humanity is to enjoy worldly pleasures, while Samkhya/Yoga says we must lose all desire for worldly pleasure. Advaita says that the first cause of existence is Nirguna Brahman, while Samkhya says that unmanifest matter (pradhana/ avyakta) evolves independently of Brahman. We don’t see this sort of diversity in religion, so this is another point of difference. We will see next that the diversity is due to the foundation of Dharma.
The Epistemological Argument (Experience vs. Revelation)
The foundation of all knowledge is epistemology, the theory of knowledge. It is the theory of how we know – a framework that explains the means of acquiring useful knowledge, the types of evidence used to validate it, and their relative importance. If you understand mathematics, you can think of epistemology as axiomatic – it determines the diversity of knowledge (theorems) that will evolve within the system.
Epistemology is also generally topical when there is a question of identity. The identity of a thing is the way it is known. To be sure of identity, we must base it on epistemology.
One finds different theories of epistemology between religion and dharma. As discussed earlier, religare is to bind to the word. The word is revelation and testimony – the disclosure of truth or knowledge to a prophet through communication with a deity or other supernatural entity. Revelation is the highest knowledge. The books of revelation such as the Bible or the Koran do not appeal to human reason or experience as proof of authenticity. They possess the requisite authority and render humanity accountable for responding to that authority (ref).
In Dharmic systems (including Buddhism, see faq), direct experience (pratyaksha pramana) and inference (anumana) are above testimony (sabda pramana). Only the Vedas or Vedanta (depending on the school) are considered stronger evidence than direct sensory experience or inference, but only in matters beyond normal human capabilities such as knowledge of Nirguna Brahman (the non-personal infinite Will). This difference in epistemology – the relative priority of revelation/ testimony – makes Dharma and Religion different at an axiomatic level, leaving aside any details of beliefs and specific practices.
Indeed, the diversity of dharmic societies results from this idea of experience over testimony. On the one hand, the diversity of direct experience has led to an explosion of practices and beliefs, which can be overwhelming to manage. On the other hand, mutability has helped Dharmic systems evolve and thrive in changing circumstances.
The Teleological argument
Besides the impact on diversity, the differences in epistemological priorities lead to a profound difference in how religious and dharmic organizations evolve their purpose.
In Abrahamic religions, the degree of ‘binding’ to the ‘word’ – measured as individual loyalty/ faithfulness to revelation and the number of adherents – is a metric of success (with the exception being Judaism). The doctrines of the last judgment (Yawm ad-din) and the eternal hellfire (jahannam) give this metric a sympathetic flavor (it is about saving Humanity from hellfire). The need for conversion is thus entirely intuitive and sympathetic – a powerful idea. Preserving the number of followers is equally critical. Apostasy and blasphemy laws are a natural protection against any new idea, prophet, or prophecy that creates competition. I will not cite examples of group conflict to preserve or increase numbers (Jihad, Crusades, Reformation, Antisemitism, roughly in chronological order starting with the 7th century CE). Finally, a clerical organization eventually evolves with the following natural functions:
- Develop and teach Apologetics to defend revelation (1, 2)
- Spread revelation through proselytization (1, 2)
- Discourage questioning (apostasy and blasphemy laws)
- Remove unwanted innovators (ex-communication; example 1, 2), and
- Organize politically to help protect the organization to continue its function, e.g., through recognition as an official state religion or preferred religion, and a religious role of heads of state.
In contrast, Dharmic epistemology dictates that modes of evidence like direct experience and analysis have a higher value in knowledge validation than testimony (sabda), particularly where knowledge of material existence is concerned. Since direct experience is a private activity, there is nothing to bind to except the source of that experience (atman or anatta, depending on the school). Common Hindus instinctively prefer not to force ideas on themselves or others if they conflict with personal subjective experience, direct objective experience (such as scientific measurement), or logical reasoning. Since conversion is also a matter of direct experience, any procedure to convert would have to be tailored to the individual. Therefore, there is no procedure for conversion. People start calling themselves Hindu or Dharmic when they feel it. There is consequently no need for an organized clergy to perform baptisms, conversions, missions, etc. Hindu pujaris, for instance, are limited to maintaining temples and performing rituals (e.g., puja). Ritual worship is performed by all private citizens in their homes and local temples without official representation.
Innovation and Violence
If we restrict ourselves to verifiable history, there is no evidence of systematic violence due to differences between Dharmic philosophies, such as Mimamsa and Vedanta, or Buddha and Nyaya. In a Dharmic setting, there is no utility in preventing debate. Understanding something as ambitious as Sanatan Dharma, the ‘Eternal Order,’ demands an equally ambitious and patient effort consisting of a lineup of innovators and many innovations. Diversity of experience becomes essential to expand the search space. As diversity expands, sharing of experiences (debate) among the proponents of different viewpoints (darshanas) helps refine understanding for all, and identify dead ends. Even if the Truth is found, innovation is still necessary to explain it to new generations in time and across geographies. As evidence of this process, we find a long historical record of the state encouraging peaceful discussion between different Dharmic schools of thought. The Chinese monk Xuanzang described the Buddhists, Samkhyas, Vaishnavites, and Jains studying and engaging in ‘public debate’ in the great Temple Universities of Nalanda, Champa, and Taxila in the 7th century AD when he traveled across for seventeen years through a dozen different kingdoms spanning India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. In the 8th century, the young Advaita Vedanta master Adi Shankara won a public debate with a much older and respected Mandana, a proponent of Purva Mimamsa. In his biography, Shankara notes how the two rivals agreed before the debate that the loser would become a disciple of the winner. A thousand years earlier, the Brhadaranyaka Upanishad (before 600 BCE) describes the debates organized by King Janaka between sages (including women rishikas like Gargi). Today one finds traces of this attitude in the thriving democracy of India and its spirited TV debates and in the temples in Thailand and Indonesia, where The Buddha and other deities like Ganesha, Vishnu, and Saraswati are worshipped under the same roof.
There were, of course, instances of conflict. Emphasis on sabda pramana (word or testimony) arose after a long and fruitful run of the Purva Mimamsa school. This school considers the Vedas to be authorless (Apurusheya) knowledge that is the foundation for all other knowledge. This led to an overemphasis on rituals and sacrifices. The Charvaka Dharma, Vedanta, and Buddha Dharma were innovations in reaction to this imbalance. Another example was the social division propagated by the educated class (Brahmins) based on birth (a misinterpretation of the Varna system) in the Indian subcontinent. This led to serious conflict and weakness, the impact of which was magnified over the colonial period. In the past seventy years, this conflict has been resolved by the willingness of the same oppressors to write and enforce a new temporal constitution that corrects this imbalance. There was no Dharmic orthodoxy to oppose the change. Provided that freedom of expression and discussion are protected, Dharma can avoid violence through innovation. A necessary condition to preserve this property is that you must maintain the open-source license of Dharma – violence is not allowed to prevent innovation.
Can religion also evolve and innovate? Yes, and no. The adherents certainly can. After full contact between predominantly Christian societies and Eastern cultures in the mid-17th century, the foundational doctrine of supernatural revelation started facing skepticism. The development of rationalism, materialism, mercantilism, colonialism, the industrial revolution, atheism, and marxism followed. The innovations of (mostly avowed Christian) philosophers like Descartes, Paine, Kant, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Derrida, Saussure, and Sartre moved us through the soft rejection of divine revelation (deism) to Utilitarianism, Will, and its representations, and Existentialism. Unfortunately, none of these innovations could be integrated into Christianity or as proper branches. In sum, denying direct experience results in a reduction, not a synthesis of understanding.
Given this reasoning, I have convinced myself that the purpose and evolution of religious and dharmic systems are different, or at least, they have evolved into distinct concepts due to their diametrical epistemological foundations. If words and language matter, equating dharma and religion or subclassing one to the other would be like pretending that red and blue are the same color or that blue is a kind of red. This is not a revolutionary assertion (1, 2).
The Spiritual Identity of the Hindu
This is the end game, and the definition of the word identity is critical to the logic of the final arguments. Here it is again – the identity of a thing is how it is known.
We have one more word to clarify – Spirituality. I promise this is the last one. The word spirit comes from the Latin spiritus (breath), from spirare (breathe). The spirit of a thing is the essential idea of a thing – its life-breath. Most people associate the spirit with consciousness or, in religious terms, a soul. I will use this general working definition.
In toto, the Spiritual Identity of the Hindu is how the Hindu is known to connect with consciousness. Dharma requires that one place direct experience (which is just conscious experience) above all else, so one can conclude that Dharma is indeed the method by which the Hindu is spiritual. In other words, the spiritual identity of the Hindu is the dharmic identity.
So far, we’ve been deriving the constituent parts of the dharmic identity of the Hindu. Now let us summarize:
- The Principal Purpose of the Hindu is to discover the Eternal Order (Sanatan Dharma). This is the quest for enlightenment (moksha, nirvana).
- The Principal Method is direct experience (pratyaksha pramana). Inference (anumana) and testimony (sabda) are of secondary importance, especially for the advanced practitioner. Exceptions are made only to accommodate written accounts of the direct experience of extra-sensory ideas like the infinite Brahman of Vedanta or Sunyata in Buddha Dharma.
- The Principal Values of the Hindu are derived from the need to preserve Dharma’s purpose and epistemological foundation. Since the Eternal Order (Truth) is vast, Dharma values new ideas (validated by contemplation and debate) that shed new light on the Truth. Two values are immediately apparent – (a) freedom of individual expression and (b) freedom to debate all ideas.
Epilogue
Who is a Hindu? What defines the Hindu? Is it geography, religion, or the spirit? At its core, I am convinced that the Hindu identity is a Dharmic identity. The Hindu is, above all, a freethinker and a seeker. In an open-source system of dharma, you don’t get to deny anyone’s truth. This work is meant to engage in a debate that may lead to implications for public policy, such as the outlawing of blasphemy laws, recognition of Dharma distinct from religion worldwide, allocation of state resources to establish Dharmic debate societies, and the highest punishment available under the law for those who threaten physical violence to suppress freedom of expression.
To close, I would like to say that Sanatan Dharma has evolved in harmonious splendor for millennia through the contemplation and cooperation of philosopher-sages. This will be the eternal inheritance and legacy of the Hindu, the Sanatani, and the defender of Dharma.
सत्यमेव जयते नानृतं सत्येन पन्था विततो देवयानः ।
येनाक्रमन्त्यृषयो ह्याप्तकामा यत्र तत् सत्यस्य परमं निधानम् ॥
Truth (सत्) alone will be victorious, not falsehood. The Truth is revealed on a great path.
Seekers on this path who have given up all (other) desires reach the ultimate destination (enlightenment)
FAQ
Q. How do animism, pre-Christian faith systems, nature worship, etc., fit into the binary of religion and dharma?
Q. Quakers have no “organized clergy” to “mediate innovation” or otherwise. Suomenusko (and other neo-pagan religions) have no revealed scripture. Are they religions?
I already laid out in this section why I have focused on Abrahamic Religion. Simply put, it is topical to the question of Hindu identity. Furthermore, my thesis is that epistemology is the primary distinction between Abrahamic Religion and dharma. If a faith system puts holy books or prophecy above experience, I prefer to classify it as Religion. Systems that don’t bind you to testimony may be incorrectly called religion in common parlance (as has often been the case with Dharma). A useful framework to classify the long tail of faith systems is to look at their epistemology. Some may not have any epistemology, placing them in an entirely different category. Therefore, I leave the analysis of specific systems like Quakerism and Suomenusko to someone who understands them.
Q. How do direct (pratyaksha) experience, inference (anumana), and testimony (sabda) interact in dharmic systems to produce knowledge?
This is best explained by an example. Consider a crime scene – the detectives first look for material evidence. This is direct experience at work.
Once the evidence has been collected, they return to the station to assess the data and perform thought experiments to find motives. Theories of the crime are put forth and challenged using logic and reason. This is all anumana.
Finally, witnesses are interviewed and their statements recorded. The testimony is graded based on consistency and is used to narrow down the theory of the crime until a prosecutable arrest can be made.
Hard (direct) evidence found at the scene cannot be overridden by theories of the crime (inference) or witness testimony.
In dharma, valid knowledge (pramā) is defined as yathāvasthita vyavahāra anuguṇa jñānam pramā. This means that valid knowledge reveals a relationship between an object and its cognition and has practical value. Thus valid knowledge must be demonstrable and must lead to successful outcomes. For example, Quantum Physics is valid because it is demonstrable via experiment and has useful applications.
Q. I disagree with your definition of religion. I define it as a way of life <or insert some other definition>.
As mentioned earlier, I don’t experience words arbitrarily or as popular generalizations. I experience them as ideas and use etymology and epistemology to understand them. Calling religion or dharma “a way of life” melts both down into puddles of indistinguishable goo. Any set of habits is a way of life; thus, any set of habits can be called a religion. Or dharma. Should it? Not if we want to have a nuanced conversation. Indiscriminate attachment of words to meanings leads to a collapse of ideas.
Q. If we can’t translate ‘religion’ into Sanskrit or other languages, how do we represent the idea of religion?
We should look to the English language for one possible solution. Some words like schadenfreude cannot be translated to English, just as religion cannot be translated to Sanskrit. It is certainly ok for an Englishman to exhibit tendencies of schadenfreude, but schadenfreude still remains a German concept. It is ok for a Hindu to exhibit religious tendencies, but religion is not dharma.
Q. You point out that direct experience is the most important thing to the Hindu, not the testimony of prophets. While revelation (the Torah, Bible, and Quran) are central in the Abrahamic religions, the writings of Adi Shankara or the Dasbodh are to various Hindus. What’s the difference?
In Dharma, direct experience is not the most important thing at all times, but it is the source of complete knowledge. The Sutras and commentaries of philosopher sages like Adi Shankara (a proponent of Advaita Vedanta) are certainly read as guidance. But Shankara says in his foundational Tatvabodha that direct experience is the source of complete knowledge. Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras (1.7), the foundational text for the Yoga/Vaisheshika school, restate the same epistemology.
Men like Shankara who can relate their experiences to inspire others are valued in Dharma. As to prophets, there can be none. The words of the prophet of God are the will of God. Unless God is a deceiver, a Prophet’s words must be authoritative because revelation/testimony is supreme. This is against the epistemology of Dharma. While a few people are called ‘godmen’ by the western and middle-eastern press and their eastern cohorts, they are outside Dharma if they claim prophethood. The most they can claim is enlightenment (moksha).
Q. What justifies the presentation of Buddha Dharma and Sanatan Dharma as part of a common tradition?
There are linguistic reasons (they are both an instance of Dharma), epistemological similarities (direct experience and inference over testimony), and a common geographical origin. Buddha Dharma’s disbelief in the content of the Vedas is in the same category as Charvaka Dharma (which predates Buddhism) and Jain Dharma. Advaita Vedanta, which coevolved with Buddhism, also considers the majority of the claims in the Vedas as secondary and elevates the Upanishads (the philosophical summaries of the Vedas). Early Buddhism shares many doctrines with the Upanishads (karma, rebirth, nirvana/liberation through insight).
Q. How do cults fit into this scheme?
The word ‘cult’ is borderline offensive, but the issue goes beyond protecting sensibilities or political correctness. Words have meanings – they are names for ideas, and sometimes we lose sight of that over time. The case of “cult” seems to fall into this category. The Latin root colere means “to grow, tend, care for.” When you cultivate, you get human culture, agriculture, and horticulture.
The word ‘cult’ takes on a universally negative meaning in closed systems (e.g., religion) where testimony is above direct experience. Any unsanctioned innovation, i.e., any outgrowth, is frowned upon. In open systems, direct experience is above testimony, so every individual who can experience reality can be a society of one. Those few who share an experience are equally in the right. If an innovation or offshoot of Dharma breaks the basic precept of dharmic epistemology and demotes pratyaksha pramana from the top spot, it is certainly not dharmic. If someone were upset about that, they may be justified in calling it a cult, although I think that too would be against Dharma. The guardians of Dharma must ensure that the purpose, method, and values of Dharma remain strong, including the ability to debate any viewpoint.
Q. How does science fit in with your notion of open and closed systems?
Dharma values direct experience & rationality over testimony/revelation when determining the validity of knowledge. Religion does the opposite. Science puts rational argument above all else most of the time. These three form a triumvirate of dominant systems of knowledge.
Science is an interesting case. Statistically aggregating the hard evidence from the direct experience of groups can lead to innovation in medicine, psychology, and social sciences. Rational inference (including mathematical formulations) drives many of the routine scientific innovations in the fundamental sciences (e.g., Physics). Still, the direct experience of individuals may be at the root of groundbreaking developments. There is no way to be certain. Did Einstein discover General Relativity by inference? Did Bohr, Planck, and Schrodinger discover Quantum Mechanics with thought experiments alone?
Q. What does religious conversion mean to a Hindu?
To the layperson easily influenced by politics, religious conversion outside a dharmic tradition increase the number of individuals “in the other camp.” People fail to understand that it is not about numbers. Someone stops being a Hindu (Dharmic) when their epistemology (the mental rules they follow in determining the truth) changes from one where pratyaksha pramana (direct experience) is at the top to one where sabda pramana (testimony) is at the top. As I explained earlier, this small epistemological shift has profound implications for the purpose and evolution of societies.
Citations
Juzjani, Uthman ibn Siraj al-Din. Tabaqat-I Nasiri. Edited by W. Nassau Lees, Gorgias Press, LLC, 2019. Accessed 28 May 2022.
Sankaran, A. V. “Saraswati – The ancient river lost in the desert.” Journal of Indian Water Works Association, vol. 32, 2000.
Munson, H. Christianity, Antisemitism, and the Holocaust. Religions 2018, 9, 26. (link)
Phillips, Stephen, “Epistemology in Classical Indian Philosophy,” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) (link)
Iyengar, Varadacharya, “Sri Bhashya Transation” (link)
Mohan Lal Sandal, “Mimamsa Sutra of Jaimini” (link)
Enstedt, D., Larsson, G., & T. Mantsinen, T. (Eds.). (07 Oct. 2019). Handbook of Leaving Religion. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. doi: https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004331471
Wagner W. A Comparison of Christian Missions and Islamic Da’wah. Missiology. 2003;31(3):339-347. doi:10.1177/009182960303100306
Pew Report about The Global Religious Landscape in 2010 (link)
Pew Report about The Global Religious Landscape in 2050 (link)
Wilson, H. H. (Horace Hayman), -,Cowell, Edward Byles, -,Webster, William Frederick, Rig-veda Sanhitá : a collection of ancient Hindu hymns a collection of ancient Hindu hymns Volume 2 1854
Dr. Christopher Cone – Epistemological Foundations for a Biblical Theology, 2014 Chafer Theological Seminary Pastors’ Conference. March 12, 2014
