Prasad 1

Kaustubh Prasad

Professor Elder

Political Science 252

7 December 2001

Hinduism: The religion of all religions?

Sri Aurobindo, one of the most famous philosophers of modern India, once said,

“That which we call the Hindu religion is really the eternal religion because it embraces

all others.” (qtd. in Freke 56). Sri Aurobindo’s statement is a reflection of the true nature

of Hinduism. Religion has always played an extremely vital role in shaping social and

cultural practices and values. Over time, several new religions have emerged and

branched into various sects, each with a different set of beliefs. But, Hinduism, the oldest

existing religion, has been able to resist, and even incorporate, the change that has

accompanied the emergence of new religions. It has been able to do so mainly because of

its flexibility and freedom of thought. Louis Renou (17) says in his book Hinduism,

“Hinduism is indeed a complex and rich religion. No founder’s initiative, no dogma, no

reform have imposed restrictions on its domain; on the contrary, the contributions of the

centuries have been superimposed without ever wearing out the previous layers of

development.” Ronald B. Inden (86) summarizes the universal aspect of Hinduism when

he says, “The unity underlying the obvious diversity of India may be summed up in the

word ‘Hinduism’.”

Hinduism is probably one of the most complex religions in the world. The very

fact that scholars still debate its validity as a religion contributes to the difficulties in

understanding it. The history of Hinduism is still unclear. In fact, the words “Hinduism”
 Prasad 2

and “Hindu” did not even exist till centuries after the “religion” that we are talking about

started being practiced. That fact represents the greatest challenge in studying Hinduism.

The truth is that there is no one way to define Hinduism. Definitions vary from scholar to

scholar, and a lot of scholars differ on some of the basic aspects of Hinduism, such as its

origin. The best way to understand Hinduism would be to not restrict it within the

boundaries of definition, and to try and understand its “essence.” We can say that the

essence of Hinduism is the Hindu “dharma.” Dr. Ram Prasad Mishr (1) writes on the

difference between Dharm (dharma) and religion:

Religion is dogmatic: Rely upon it or hell; Dharm is virtue-oriented, ready

to embrace anything which is humane. Religion fears changes. Dharm
welcomes changes. Religion or mazahab [Urdu for religion] enchains (a
particular prophet and a particular book), Dharm frees (no bondage at all).
Hindu Dharm is not a religion or mazahab. It is not an ‘ism’ which
represents temporary reaction, is born today and dies tomorrow.

It would be difficult to compare Hinduism with a religion like Christianity or

Islam because of the conceptual difference between Hinduism and most other major

religions. To understand the differences better, it is necessary to come up with a formal

definition of religion. The American Heritage Dictionary defines religion as the “belief in

and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the

universe” or “a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual

leader.” The second definition is one of the most important differences between Hinduism

and the other major religions in the world today. Hinduism does not have any identifiable

spiritual leader or founder. So, the classification of Hinduism as a religion in the

traditional sense is dubitable.

In this paper, I will try to present the concept of Hinduism and also examine the

significance and more importantly, the propriety, of labeling Hinduism as a religion in the
 Prasad 3

modern sense. This can be done by tracing the history of what is now known as

Hinduism, and trying to understand its origins. Basically, to evaluate the significance and

meaning of the word “Hinduism,” we need to understand the purpose or intent behind the

formation of the concept that has been given the label of Hinduism or the Hindu religion.

The question that I have tried to answer in this paper is, “Can we call Hinduism

the religion of all religions?” The meaning of the phrase “religion of all religions” has to

be understood in order to answer that question. A religion that can be referred to as “the

religion of all religions” is basically a set of ideas or values that encompasses the entire

set of ideas and beliefs that other religions represent. It is able to incorporate the

teachings of other religions without compromising any of its own values. The concept of

“a religion of all religions” is difficult to understand and can only be understood by a

complete analysis of a religion that satisfies the criteria put forward.

For a deeper understanding of the history of Hinduism, it is important to

comprehend the origin of the word “Hindu,” and form a meaning for the word

“Hinduism.” In today’s world, the followers of Hinduism are called “Hindus.” However,

the word Hindu originated as a geographic term, rather than a religious one. According to

W. C. Smith (5):

The term hindu, and its dialectical alternative sindhu, are the Indo-Aryan
word for “river”, and, as a proper noun, for the great river of the northwest
of the sub-continent, still known locally as the Sindh and in the West
through the Greek transliteration as “Indus.” As a designation for the
territory around that river (that is, meaning roughly, “India”) the word was
used by foreigners but not internally, and indeed it (and the Persian
counterpart “Hindustan,” introduced and used by Muslims) is still
primarily an outsiders name for the country (the Indian name for India is
Bharat). “India” (Hindu’ush) is first found in two monument inscriptions
of Darius in Iran.
 Prasad 4

Thus, the term was used for the inhabitants of the area around the river Indus. If we apply

the original meaning of the word “Hindu” to the modern world, the people of the Indian

subcontinent (which includes India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) would be called Hindus

irrespective of their religious beliefs. However, it is also widely believed that Hinduism is

the religion dependent on the Vedas and practiced by the Aryan race. We conclude that

the term Hindu initially had a geographical connotation, but it eventually acquired

religious implications.

The word “Hindu” eventually lost its geographical meaning and is now used to

describe the followers of the religion that is officially called Hinduism. The word

“Hinduism” is relatively new, and was coined in the early nineteenth century by

“orientalist scholars to signify the religion of the ‘Hindoos’.” (Knott 113) In his book

“Tradition And Reflection,” Wilhelm Halbfass says that post-nineteenth century Indian

authors “have tried to define the ‘essence’ of Hinduism not in terms of a specific religion,

but as a more comprehensive and inclusive constellation of religious thought and life, and

as a potentially universal framework for religious plurality.” (Halbfass 8) “Hinduism, a

relatively new term that first appeared in the nineteenth century, has come to define not

only the religious values and ritual practices of the majority community but also the

social relations and structures and the substance of traditional Indian polity.” (Vohra 21)

Heinrich von Stietencron poses a challenging question when he asks, “Why is

‘Hinduism’ so difficult to define?” He goes on to try and answer it by saying, “It is

because we always try to see it as one ‘religion’. Our problems would vanish if we took

‘Hinduism’ to denote a socio-cultural unit or civilization which contains a plurality of

distinct religions.” (qtd. in Sontheimer and Kulke 11)

 Prasad 5

Hinduism is based on the principle of “Sanatana Dharma.” In Sanskrit, the word

“Sanatana” means everlasting or eternal, and the crude translation of “Dharma” is

religion (Chakrabarti 87). Hindus refer to their religion as Sanatana Dharma, or eternal

religion. The existence or non-existence of other religions does not matter to Hinduism.

Unlike most other religions, Hinduism does not restrict its followers from following some

other religion. According to Hinduism, all religious paths lead to the same goal. This is

probably one of the most peculiar characteristics of Hinduism. In a way, Hinduism

provides its followers with the freedom of religion, something that no other major

religion can offer. However, it is this very aspect of Hinduism that makes it hard to

classify Hindus as only those people who officially practice the religion known as

Hinduism. According to Pranab Bandyopadhyay (146):

Every religion has three important features: the philosophy, the mythology
and the ritual. These three features can never be common in all religions.
Hence there is the difference in conception and practice of them. In order
to remove such differences one has to think that religion is not a bundle of
ideas or doctrines, or an intellectual confirmation of any opinion or
attitude, but it is simply realization.

He goes on to say:

Hinduism has its own philosophy, own mythology and own rituals, but it
accepts others with a feeling of brotherhood, as it believes in one God,
from whatever angle and from whatever land he is seen. [According to
Hinduism] He is God alone, who shines with all his divinity beyond all
doctrines, rituals, doubts and fear.

In a broader sense, a person could be practicing any religion, and still be Hindu.

“Hindu Vedas proclaim, ‘Ekam Sat, Viprah Bahudha Vadanti’ (There is one truth, only

men describe it in different ways). So a Christian, a Hindu, a Muslim and a Jew are all

one and the same.” (Viswanathan 1). It is mainly this fact that makes Hinduism “the

religion of all religions.” Halbfass says:

 Prasad 6

Hinduism as the Sanatana Dharma is not a religion among religions; it is

said to be the “eternal religion,” religion in or behind all religions, a kind
of “metareligion,” a structure potentially ready to comprise and reconcile
within itself all the religions of the world, just as it contains and reconciles
the so-called Hindu sects, such as Saivism or Vaisnavism and their
subordinate “sectarian” formations. (Halbfass 51)

That is a really interesting thought considering the developments that have taken

place during the last century. In today’s world, most of the social and political conflicts

and rivalries can be either directly or indirectly attributed to religion, or more

appropriately, the presence of several different religions whose followers have been

“competing” with each other to increase the popularity of their religion or to justify the

beliefs of their religion, even if they contradict those of another. The phrase “contrasting

beliefs and the desire to establish religious supremacy” aptly summarizes the cause of

most religious conflicts since the origin of organized religion. Since Hinduism does not

distinguish between the followers of other religions, there is no room for conflict with

other religions. This does not imply that Hinduism has never entered into conflicts with

other religions. One of the main features of Britain’s colonization of India was how the

British were able to create a rift between the Hindus and Muslims in India. However, it

can be said that it is not the Hindu religion that serves as a source of conflict between

itself and other religions, but it is actually some groups of people “practicing” (or

claiming to practice) Hinduism who have participated in religious conflicts.

An important point to note is that the Hindu dharma does not call itself a religion.

“In fact, there is no Hindu term corresponding to what we call ‘religion’. There are

‘approaches’ to the spiritual life; and there is dharma, or ‘maintenance’ (in the right path,

which is at once norm or law, virtue and meritorious action, the order of things

transformed into moral obligation.” (Renou 18). So, we can conclude that “according to
 Prasad 7

Hinduism,” it is not a religion. Hindu religious texts present Hinduism as a philosophy or

a way of life rather than a religion in the proper sense of the word. Kim Knott (112), in

her book Hinduism, says:

One modern Hindu philosopher, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, declared

Hinduism to be “a way of life.” By doing so, he made the point that it was
not something separate from society and politics, from making money,
sex, and love, and getting an education. And, like other modern Hindus, he
suggested that the closest term to be found within Indian thought and
practice was Hindu dharma, the law, order, truth, and duties of the Hindu
people.

Being the oldest existing religion, the history of Hinduism cannot be summarized

with certainty, especially since several scholars have challenged the existence of

“Hinduism” as a concept with the meaning it has acquired today. However, for the

purpose of this paper, Hinduism is assumed to be the concept, or “religion,” that was

associated with the people who lived in the Indian subcontinent, and that was gradually

modified, or transformed itself, into a single religion with a distinct set of practices and

beliefs, and that was independent of geographic location.

There are two ways to study the history of the concept of Hinduism. The first

method is to study it from the historian’s point of view. It involves an “external” analysis

of the socio-cultural events that accompanied the evolution of the religion that we call

Hinduism. “External” analysis here means an analysis that is not influenced by the

“internal” components of the religion itself. The second method is to study the religion

from the theologian’s point of view. It involves the study of the “internal” components of

the concept of Hinduism. However, this method also makes use of the mythological ideas

and beliefs of Hinduism. For example, the theory of creation proposed by Hinduism

(through the teachings of Hindu saints and philosophers) is included in the second
 Prasad 8

method. The definition of Hinduism that we form depends on the method of analysis that

we adopt- historical or theological. I believe that a historical analysis of Hinduism leads

to a better understanding of the socio-cultural aspects concerning its evolution into the

religion that it has become today. However, a theological analysis represents more clearly

“Hinduism’s own views.” It would be inappropriate to analyze a religion without taking

into account its values and beliefs (theological aspect), and just concentrating on their

socio-cultural causes and effects (historical aspect). So, a proper study of Hinduism

should include both historical as well as theological aspects.

It is particularly difficult to determine with certainty the history of what is now

known as the religion of Hinduism because of two main reasons. Firstly, as mentioned

earlier, the history of the concept of Hinduism goes back to several centuries before the

birth of Christ, and secondly, due to the fact that books and articles on the history of

Hinduism point in several different directions. In fact, the only sources of knowledge

about Hinduism’s history are the opinions of scholars. What makes the task of studying

its history even more difficult is that the opinions of Hindu scholars and “holy figures”

are generally more biased towards asserting the superiority of the concept of Hinduism.

For example, Dr. Ram Prasad Mishr (1) writes in his book Hindu Dharm, “All religions

of the world were founded by man, but Hindu Dharm was founded by God himself

(Schopenhauer accepts it) as it has no individual founder, as it is not tied with one book,

like God it is limitless, timeless, beginningless, endless.” It would be incorrect to say that

Dr. Mishr’s argument is baseless. However, it is a clear example of exaggeration when he

says that “Hindu Dharm was founded by God himself.” While it is true that the “Hindu

Dharm” does not have an identifiable founder, it cannot be assumed that it implies that it
 Prasad 9

was founded by God. In fact, if we refer to any religion, we would find that every religion

claims to be “God’s own religion.” This is just one of numerous examples of biased

representations of the Hindu religion. It is important to analyze the history of Hinduism

more objectively, and to remove all biases that might exist in its analysis.

How did Hinduism, the religion or the concept associated with it, originate? The

concept of Sanatana Dharma (eternal religion) implies that the roots of Hinduism “lie

beyond human history, and its truths have been divinely revealed (shruti) and passed

down through the ages to the present day in the most ancient of the world’s scriptures, the

Veda.” (Knott 5-6). According to Pranab Bandyopadhyay (19), “The Vedas and the

Upanishads are the ancient scriptures of the civilized Aryans who came to be known as

‘Hindus’ in later years.” But, Wilhelm Halbfass (1) argues, “The Vedic texts contain no

Hindu dogma, no basis for a ‘creed’ of Hinduism, no clear guidelines for the ‘Hindu way

of life.’ They offer only vague and questionable analogues to those ideas and ways of

orientation that have become basic presuppositions of later Hinduism.” If Halfbass’

argument is true, then it would be incorrect to give Hinduism the label of the religion in

the Vedas. However, it can be said that the concept of Hinduism is derived from the Vedic

texts.

I will present objective analyses of the history of Hinduism by two scholars of

Hinduism, namely Louis Renou (16-17) and Ed Viswanathan (21-25). Louis Renou says

that Hinduism’s foundation is partly of Indo-European origin. He says that the Aryan

invasion of India during the second millennium before the Common Era brought with it

“a body of religious belief” that was organized and was able to survive in classical

Hinduism, but only with several modifications. He calls this “body of religious belief”
 Prasad 10

the “Aryan” religion. According to Renou, this religion (the Indo-European religion in the

Indian subcontinent) “had already been sifted out during the so-called Indo-Iranian

intermediary period,” and the end of this period resulted in a separation between the

original religion of Iran (pre-Zoroastrian) and the religion that would become the Vedic

religion in the northwestern region of the Indian subcontinent. However, as Renou points

out, “a succession of influences” was added to the original religion, and this transformed

the original religion into one that was “quite different from that of the Aryan invaders.”

Renou says further that the main stages of these new developments (the

transformation of the “Aryan” religion into the religion that is now known as Hinduism)

were “the appearance of great philosophical speculations and the fixation of the Smrti (at

the beginning of the Christian era), the first fragmentation into sects (first and second

centuries A.D.), the appearance of bhakti (ca. 600-800 A.D.), and Tantrism (since 800

A.D.).” He points out that the outline of these movements did exist as early as the Vedic

period.

Renou (18-19) states that “Hinduism began at the time when the original activity

of the Vedic ritual came to an end, when the old Vedic framework was lost.” This,

according to him, occurred between the sixth and fourth centuries B.C. He concludes by

saying that Vedism (or the Vedic religion) could be considered to be the most ancient

form of Hinduism.

Viswanathan (21-25) presents his views on the history of Hinduism in his book

“Am I A Hindu?” He says that original name of Hinduism was “Sanatana Dharma,”

meaning “righteousness forever” of “that which has no beginning or end.” Viswanathan

says that according to Hindu myth, “Hinduism is trillions of years old.” He presents Max
 Prasad 11

Muller’s point of view on the birth of Hinduism. He says that Max Muller’s theory

indicates that Hinduism was born during the third millennium before the Common Era.

According to Viswanathan, Muller’s theory says that the “nomad tribes of Euopean

descent” (the Aryans- “Noble Ones”) who settled on the banks of the three great rivers of

North India (Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra) “started a ‘thinking process’ which was

later known as Hinduism.”

However, Viswanathan points out that it is not actually known if this “thinking

process” was started by the Aryans or by the Dravidians, who were present in India

before the arrival of the Aryans. He says that according to many theologians, the Aryans

“mixed their knowledge” with that of the “dark-colored people of South India (the

Dravidians)” and this process gave birth to Hinduism. Viswanathan argues that it is

possible that the Dravidians started the “thinking process,” and that it may have been

influenced later by Aryan, Mayan, Egyptian and Greek civilizations.

Talking about the significance of Hindu scriptures in studying the history of

Hinduism, Viswanathan says that according to Hindu scriptures, Hinduism started with

“Sruti,” or “that which is heard.” He says that the scientists, or “Rishis,” in ancient India,

“who had perfected themselves by meditation are said to have heard in their hearts eternal

truths, and these truths were taught to their disciples telepathically.” He also says that the

Vedas and the Upanishads were not written for a long time, and they were preserved in

the form of “Sruti” by these “Rishis.” Viswanathan says, “In fact the word Upanishad

means Upa (near), Ni (down), Shad (sit). It means the teachings of the Upanishads are

conveyed from Guru to disciple when the disciple sits very close to the Guru.” But, how

did this “Sruti” originate? Viswanathan answers this question by saying, “According to
 Prasad 12

the Mimamsa school of thought, all Sruti existed all through eternity in the form of

sounds.” Viswanathan concludes by saying that “by the name Sanatana Dharma,

Hinduism is proclaiming to the world that eternal truths are forever, and [Hindu] Rishis

happened to be the first to tap into them.”

After studying the thoughts of the two scholars mentioned above, we can say that

most scholars agree that the religion or concept of Hinduism has been derived from the

Vedic texts, if not directly based on them. However, it is still not known with certainty as

to how the religion or its practice actually started. The confusion is because of the gradual

change in the socio-cultural atmosphere of the Indian subcontinent that resulted in the

transformation of religious beliefs and practices, and also because of the antiquity of the

events that accompanied this change. Scholars agree on the fact that Hinduism does not

have an individual founder or one that can be identified. They also agree with the idea

that the concept of Hinduism leads to religious tolerance and acceptance. But, there is

still disagreement between scholars on whether it would be correct to classify Hinduism

as a religion. According to me, Hinduism could be called a religion if we consider it to be

the “religion of all religions,” or the religion that includes every other religion in itself.

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, also known as the Mahatma, once said:

The beauty of Hinduism lies in its all-embracing character. What the

divine author of the Mahabharata said of his great creation is equally true
of Hinduism. What of substance is contained in any other religion is
always to be found in Hinduism. There is in Hinduism room enough for
Jesus, as there is for Mohammed, Zoroaster and Moses. (Qtd. in Bannerjee
11)

I conclude with a translation of a verse from the Srimad Bhagavatam in Ed

Viswanathan’s “Am I A Hindu?” that, according to me, symbolizes the essence of what

we call Hinduism- to encompass all religions and emerge as the way of life for all human
 Prasad 13

beings, irrespective of race or religion: “Like a honey bee gathering trickles of honey

from different flowers, the wise man accepts the essence of different scriptures and sees

only the good in all religions.”

 Prasad 14

Works Cited

Bandyopadhyay, Pranab. The Hindus: A Noble Race. Calcutta: United Writers, 1993.

Bannerjee, M. Invitation to Hinduism. New Delhi: Arnold-Heinemann, 1978.

Chakrabarti, Dilip K. Colonial Indology: Sociopolitics of the Ancient Indian Past.

New Delhi: Munshiram Manoharlal Publishers, 1997.

Freke, Timothy. The Wisdom of Hindu Gurus. Boston: Journey Editions, 1998.

Halfbfass, Wilhelm. Tradition and Reflection. Albany:

State University of New York Press, 1991.

Inden, Ronald B. Imagining India. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990.

Knott, Kim. Hinduism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.

Mishr, Ram Prasad. Hindu Dharm, Faith of Freedom and Way of Life: An Outline of the

History of Hindu Dharm. New Delhi: Vikalp Prakashan, 1991.

“Religion.” The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language. 4th ed.

Houghton Mifflin Company, 2000.

Renou, Louis. Hinduism. New York: George Braziller, 1961.

Smith, W.C. The meaning and end of religion; a new approach to the religious traditions

of mankind. New York: Macmillan, 1963.

Sontheimer, Gunther D., and Hermann Kulke. Hinduism Reconsidered. New Delhi:

Manohar Publications, 1989.

Viswanathan, Ed. Am I a Hindu? San Francisco: Halo Books, 1992.

Vohra, Ranbir. The Making Of India. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, 1997.