Of Hinduisms and their Gods

Cousin Ashutosh asked me whether the gods my family and his worshipped / prayed to were not personal gods and if so how was any personal god of Hinduism different from the Abrahamic personal God. He in fact suggested that I respond in the form of an entry. I agreed to do so, but realised that the query and its context was broader - how exactly is the Hindu God concept different the Abrahamic one? In any case, the question pre-supposes that there is a unitary Hindu God concept, which in turn pre-supposes that there is a unitary Hindu-ness (for lack of a better word) that sprouts a unitary Hindu God concept. This needs some elaboration and that can best be done in an entry.

An ambitious entry it is going to be because it will explore several interrelated but distinct themes. I hope I can write something which is not totally incomprehensible to my readers. However, since most readers of this diary have hitherto displayed a perseverant capacity for intellection, I can be audacious enough to believe that as long as I do not go over-board with unexplained Sanskrit terms, my readers will be able to wrap their considerable minds around this one.

At one level, the differences between 'Hinduism' and the Abrahamic religious traditions are so obvious as to make this entry trivially superfluous. Polytheistic idol worship as opposed to monotheism worship 'in the spirit'. The well ordered church ceremony of the mass as against the chaotic throngs at the temples and the river-ghats. This entry is unnecessary. My contention though is that these obvious surface level contrasts distract from some of the core historical points of divergence. For a start then, I will enumerate a few key sources of differences which I shall subsequently elaborate on.

1. Hinduism is not a 'religion' in the same sense that Judaism or Christianity or Mahayana is


2. Even if we concede that Hinduism is a 'religion' in a broad sense; it is not ONE religion, but a conglomerate of religious traditions


3. As far as I know, Hinduism is the only set of religions that has retained its pre-axial components in its post-axial theologies and liturgies


4. Over the 4000+ years of its existence, the religious traditions have undergone significant changes to the point that the Hinduism of today would be unrecognisable to the Vedic Aryan


5. All the above have resulted in a multifarious, multi faceted, multi layered, god concept which is prolific in its day to day manifestations and profusely even profoundly bewildering to outsiders

It is not a trivial fact that wide-spread self identification of 'Hindus' using the label 'Hindu' is a relatively very recent occurrence. It is common knowledge that the term 'Hindu' first came about as a geographic appellation. A Hindu is a native resident of 'al-Hind' the land beyond the river Indus (Sindhu). In pre-Islamic India, Hindus did not describe themselves as 'Hindu' as opposed to being Buddhist (Bauddha) or Jain (Jaina). He would most likely have described himself as Vaishnava and almost certainly would state his caste jāti. A straight forward question - "What is your religion?" would have been very perplexing to the average Hindu of 700 AD. More so, because the question would probably need to be phrased as "What is your dharma?" The puzzled Hindu in question would probably have hesitantly proffered some confused statements about his caste-obligations and ritual duties. Some vague word-concepts like sanātana dharma (eternal dharma) did exist - but no Hindu would probably give that as an answer to a question "What is your religion?". The other 'religions' of the period - Buddhism with its variants; Jainism were seen as heterodox (and to that extent heretical) philosophies or world-views (nāstika darshana). The idea of 'religion' constituting a sharp bordered group identity probably did not exist. The unit of group identity was the jāti, the caste. Buddhism was not juxtaposed with Hinduism - bhikkus (Buddhist monks) were juxtaposed with brāhmans (members of the priestly caste). Even with the advent of Islam in India the situation did not end up as a polarisation around 'religious' identities. Though it is possible that it was the Islamic invaders who commenced the use of the term 'Hindu' to describe the natives of their new conquest; it did not lead to self-identified concepts of 'we the Hindus' amongst the natives. It took a while for the Hindu collective self-identity to aggregate in polarisation set opposite to the mlechcha or the yavana (as the foreigners were called).

It was by late medieval times - in the Mughal and post Mughal periods that Hindu self-identity becomes apparent. But even then, it was inchoate and probably not labelled as such. When I think collective self-identity as 'Hindus' I imply the term across the geographic spread of India. When in Indian history did the idea of religious identity and commonality reach a stage where the Kashmiri Pundit, the Bihari Kayasth, the Maratha-Kunbi and the Canara Veerashaiva could collectively recognise themselves as possessing a shared religious identity. I would contend that this identity was not crystallised till the colonial era. I would contend that it was the 'Hindu Renaissance' (centred in Bengal and Bombay but later diffused into the Punjab and Madras as well) that led to the crystallisation of the collective Hindu self-identity.

It was around this time too that the religion of the Hindus came to be styled as an '-ism' as European Indologists (Max Muller, William Jones, Charles Princeps, et al) did their pioneering work. In their eyes 'Hinduism' was the religion of the remainder - all those native Indians who were not Muslims, Christian, Buddhist, Parsee, Sikh, Jewish or Jain were 'Hindus'. The early indologists were clearly used to monolithic creed based unitary religious groupings. Naturally, the bunched together most of the extant indigenous religious traditions of their colony under the convenient label 'Hinduism'. By what stretch of imagination can the beliefs and practices of a Tantric Kāpālika and a Brahmo-samaji be clubbed together under the single umbrella called 'Hinduism', I am unable to fathom.

The dictionary definition of religion (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion) cites several meanings of the noun of which the first two are what is pertinent to this discussion. As per this religion is:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Even a new student of Hinduism will be able to see that Hinduism does not answer specify the above definitions in a single unique manner. There are multiple 'theories' and doctrines regarding the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. And even then, having a cause, nature or purpose is not seen as the essence of a universe in the Hindu world-view. "The universe just is" is a perfectly valid assertion very compatible with Indic thought. The universe as 'creation' is also not a matter of important commonly held doctrine; multiple 'creation stories' and innumerable versions of each story have been in currency. An average Hindu of today would just as easily think of creation as Māyā. Ideas of the genre of Creationism and Intelligent Design would seem far fetched and irrelevant in this scheme of things. It is in the realm of devotional and ritual observances and codification of moral requirements that the fullest extent of the mind-boggling variety of religious artefacts of Hinduism are manifest. But a neutral observer can easily see that the various sets of beliefs and rituals that go together under the label 'Hinduism' are so diverse; that if one were to apply the same criteria of extent of differences in grouping religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam could very well be clubbed together as one religion. I would in which case proffer the nomen 'Abrahamism' for this purpose.

The concept of the axial age and the axial shift - supposedly developed by Karl Jaspers is a useful generic classificatory scheme in the objective study of religion. To recapitulate these ideas in brief - most early religions developed by mankind were concerned with maintenance of the cycle or balance of nature, the universe. The aim of religious observances was to secure man's place in the greater scheme by ensuring the benign ness (if not the benevolence) of deities by ensuring that natural rhythms - seasons, monsoons, river-floodings, etc, on which man so heavily depended - did not fluctuate erratically. Religion therefore had pragmatic goals - to ensure abundance of food, health and offspring and a normal healthful life. In the period known as the 'axial age' mankind first began to think about deeper questions bringing about a new consciousness almost simultaneously in different insulated geographies. The Socratic tradition of Greece, the post-Persian exile introspection of Judaism, the Upanishadic upheaval in religious thought on the banks of the Ganges, Confucian and Daoist thinking in China all around the same time. This new thinking of the axial age led to the axial shift in religious thinking. Religion turned to soteric concerns. ideas about the human soul and its ultimate goal became the central concerns of religion.

It is quite clear that ancient Vedic religion, druidic religions, Aztec / Inca religions, the religions of the early patriarchs were all pre-axial non soteric religions. It is also evident that Vedanta / Bhakti traditions, modern Abrahamism, Buddhism, etc., are post axial soteric religious traditions. Modern Hinduism, to the extent that some Vedic rituals co-exist with more recent beliefs is, to my mind the only major religion to have retained its pre and post axial components. To give an example, a very common ritual celebration in India today is the Satya Nārāyan Pûja, a special ritual worship carried out either to commemorate a special occasion or as a thanksgiving. These and other such pûja celebrations are very clearly a Puranic (later Hinduism) versions of the appropriate grayha sutra (domestic) rituals of the Vedic era which the householder was enjoined to perform. The phala shruti or schedule of benefits accruing to the host (yajamāna) at whose behest the priests carry out these ritual celebrations clearly indicate the pre-axial emphasis - the benefits include clearly 'this-worldly' benefits like prosperity, male off-spring, health and longevity to the host, etc. However practices like dhyāna (meditation) or various bhakti practices like the singing of bhajans or rosary telling have soteric objectives as their stated intent (to greater or lesser degrees).

And finally and most obviously is the sheer impact of the passage of time. Even if we discount the theories of the Harappan origins of Hinduism, the Vedic roots are in themselves very ancient. Modern Historians contend that the Rik Samhitā the oldest and the largest of the Vedic corpus was composed between 1800 and 1500 BCE. The liturgical texts (the brāhmanās) were completed by 1000 BCE and the philosophical "forest" treatises, the aranyakas sometime soon after. The oldest of the Upanishads which lay the foundation of Modern Hinduism were already finished by 800 BCE - the estimated date for the beginnings of the sāmkhya teachings which outlined the theoretical basis for the practice of meditation - yoga which by all estimates is a very ancient practice (some contend it to be a pre-Vedic Indus culture practice). And yet through these 1000 years of transition - the yajna - the fire sacrifice was the central and the cardinal religious activity. Circa 500 BCE the present consensus date for completion of the Bhagawat Gīta by which time the Upanishadic ideas of ātman-Brahman had become established, a shift away from the ritualised yajna is clearly visible. The Gīta often talks of the 'internal' yajna of the yogin. But most importantly, the personal God complete with all the trappings of omniscience, omnipotence and omni-benevolence has made his appearance - as very clearly seen in several passages of the Bhagawat Gīta. True, the Vedic gods Indra, Vāyu, Varuna, etc too might be called personal gods, but these had no real claims to being omni-anything. But the idea of this god-concept of all powerful omnipotent, omniscient, omni-benevolent personal Gods - Brahmadev, Vishnu, Mahesh, Devi, Ganesh et al was contemporaneous with if not pre-dated by the Upanishadic impersonal ātman-Brahman.

It is easy for us modern Hindus to underestimate or even ignore the stupendous importance of the yajna to the Vedic Aryans. Verily, the act of the yajna was for all practical purposes more salient than any god-concept of the Vedic era. Creation itself was not seen as an act of divine omnipotence - creation was a yajna like any other, where the Lord of Beings (Prajāpati) sacrificed himself to himself that beings (including the gods) may be. Idam yajnam bhuvaneshu nabhih (this yajna is the navel of the world) declared the officiator (the adhvaryu) of the yajna. The act of yajna itself, the very utterance of the hymns and mantras - chanted as oblations were poured into the sacred fires - were manifestations of a great power that actualised and sustained all creation (including Indra and the other gods of paradise). The ideation of this power was later crystallised as the Brahman in Vedantic thought. But more on that later. It is indicative of the sweeping change of emphasis that Hinduism has undergone that the yajna - a ritual of such all consuming importance in Vedic times - is rarely if ever performed today. Most present day Hindus can live a religious life without performing or even witnessing a single yajna. We have today a new pantheon, a new mythology, a new corpus of rituals. If you could time-teleport a Vedic Aryan priest to a 18th Century Hindu temple you would end up with a thoroughly bewildered man! Here is a quick comparison - the Vedic priest killed, cooked and consumed meat including beef (as part of the yajna) something which is an anathema to most modern Hindu Brahmins; the Vedic priest did not make and worship idols; the principal gods of Hinduism today were lesser known, minor or unknown deities in Vedic times; the most important sacred texts of today didn't exist in Vedic times. I could go on with the list, but I trust I have made my point. And yet, none of the old traditions were specifically or doctrinally discarded and all of them continue in some form or the other. The same applies to the god-concept. The old Vedic pantheon, the Lord of Beings, the new Puranic pantheon and running through these like a common thread the highly abstract god-concept articulated by Vedānta. Is it surprising that the god-concept that began as an idealised abstraction of this intensely ritualised act called the yajna is the very one which the leading proponents of the 19th Century Hindu renaissance turned to when they sought to resurrect and revitalise Hinduism in face of criticism from modern Abrahamism?

The above account is interspersed with examples of the various types of god concepts that have evolved over time and which continue to co-exist in Hinduism today. Can a religion with such multifarious and divergent god-concepts - from the nature gods of the Vedic times, to the Puranic personal Gods to the Vedāntin's impersonal 'God' - be effectively described as a single religion? Doesn't the idea of religion imply a common belief-set where the god-concept is concerned? And doesn't the lack of such a common belief set preclude a common nomenclature for the various religious traditions in question?

The answer is no - we are by and large justified in using the common label 'Hinduism' to describe these religious traditions precisely because 'Hinduism' represents an identity which is by no means a mere religion. As I have said before, it is not without reason or justification that the Supreme Court of India itself has ruled Hinduism to be a 'way of life' rather than a religion. A shared doctrinal belief-set for all its adherents is not a requirement for 'a way of life'. In this schema, Hinduism becomes a cultural identity that subsumes a range of religious persuasions. And yet there are shared features that almost all belief-sets that are grouped together under Hinduism possess.

1. Acceptance of the 'authority' of the Veda (at least in name)


2. Belief in the doctrine of Karma and reincarnation


3. Acceptance of the possibility of achieving the soteric goal of Moksha or liberation


4. The need to be born into a jāti (caste) in order to 'be' a Hindu (belong to a Hindu community)

It must be noted that these are all observed features that most people / groups that can nominally be called Hindu and which are nominally accepted as Hindu by other Hindu people/groups have. These are not beliefs which when accepted make a person Hindu. It is not a trivial observation that NONE of these pertain to a god-concept. It is not necessary to hold belief in a god-concept to be a Hindu.

Also, it must be noted that acceptance of the authority of the Veda is in no way comparable to the acceptance of the Bible in Christianity. No statement is made regarding the 'literal truth' of the Veda the way claims of this sort are made with respect to the Bible. In fact asking a Hindu "Do you think the Veda is the literal truth?", is a good way to baffle the poor fellow. Similarly the idea of there being 'Veda thumpers' is patently absurd. 'Veda' means 'knowledge'. The Rig-Veda is simply knowledge (in the form of the) Rik chants. The Vedas, unlike the Bible, is not a book. It has no narrative thread. The Vedas consist of four kinds of scripture - a compendium of hymns known as the samhitā, liturgical texts known as the brāhmanās, speculations on the meanings of the hymns and liturgies called the aranyakas, and finally philosophical treatise the Upanishads. The Veda was / are not meant to be 'read' - unlike the Bible. The Veda also unlike the Bible was not even written down until quite recently. The hymns of the Vedic samhitās were basically chants (udgīta) sung by a group of chanters (the udgatrs) to be used in yajna. The sequence in which to utter these chants, the ritual ceremonies and actions to accompany the chanting is described in great detail in the liturgical texts the brāhmanās; the liturgies often require specific verses from different hymns to be sung - so it was possible that an entire hymn never needed to be sung. It is obvious that the hymns of the samhitā were based on a detailed mythology involving the Vedic gods. However, this mythology is now lost to us because it was never written down or remembered unlike the Vedas themselves which were memorised and transmitted from generation to generation - teacher to disciple. In fact so accurate was the transmission of the Vedas over more than 2000 years that in the late medieval ages when the Vedas were finally committed to writing down the written versions of particular rescensions compiled from different groups of Brahmins in different parts of India were identical syllable for syllable. In any case, the point is that a fundamentalist or literal interpretation of the Veda is a meaningless idea.

This then concludes my belaboured exploration of the salient features that differentiate the god-concept and the 'religious' traditions of Hinduism from these ideas in Abrahamic monotheism.

God-ness Gracious Me!!

In “Marriage of Cadmus and Harmony” Roberto Calasso retells and reinterprets the tales of Greek Mythology? the deeds of the Gods and Heroes as apprehended by the imaginations and recorded in the literature of the Ancient (and classical) Greeks. The pantheon of the Olympians; which succeeded the pantheon of the Titans; which succeeded the pantheon of chaos. Zeus usurps the throne of Chronos, who in turn had usurped the throne of Uranus. Then in the closing years of the Roman Empire the anointed one usurped the throne of Zeus. The God of Mount Sinai replaced the Gods of Olympus.

What do these divinities have in common? What similarity is there between Kristos Pantocrator and the Mighty Thunderer? Is there any similarity at all? This question is deceptively simple to answer. One part of the deception is wrought by the faith one might or might not have in either of these illustrious personages. The other part of the deception is brought on by the bewitchment of words. The theogonic terms in use most often tend to be attributive instead of definitive. In part the second deception is a derivative of the first one. Descriptions of divinities are often in the forms of faith generated praises that enumerate and or extol the qualities of divinity. It is considered presumptuous and irreverent to try to examine descriptions in terms of the necessary and sufficient features of divinity. Rarely does one attempt to define the idea of God. Rarely does one attempt to build a propositional construct of the form:

Iff A has the features P, Q, R, S,…
then A ≡ God.

The way I see it, the general solution to the above God-equation would be the realm of the Philosophy of Religion. Each religious tradition would have one or more particular solutions to the equation. It is a peculiar feature of the God-equation that the particular solutions to the same equation are deemed mutually ‘heretical’ by many of the religious traditions that developed the particular solution(s). A peculiar feature of the term heretical – which means “a (usually religious) opinion or doctrine (which is) at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine” - is that the etymology of heresy derives from the Greek word hairesis - (the) act of choosing. Inherent in the idea of heresy then is the denial of choice; many particular solutions to the God-equation have navigated a path involving rejection of heresies (other divergent particular solutions) - i.e., suppression of choice.

So what features necessary and sufficient features could we enumerate? One approach would be to list the attributes of the various divinities encountered in a survey of human cultures and use this ‘master list’ to pick the definitive features. In theory, the least common denominator of features should be the super-set of the required necessary and sufficient conditions to define God. Unfortunately this approach is not workable – some of the attributes – especially one’s drawn from different particular solutions tend to be mutually exclusive. Eliminating such mutually exclusive attributes as unnecessary would leave us with too small a set of features. Only two to my mind: immortality and the possession of super-natural powers. But this extremely stripped down version would not suffice – it would lump a whole class of mythical beings as Gods. So the common features of Allah, Zeus, Christ and Anubis – for instance do not yield a working definition of a God.

The other approach, I would call the God/god approach. Since religious traditions can usually be grouped into monotheistic and polytheistic – we might postulate two definitions; one for the monotheistic God and another for the polytheistic gods. As any text on Philosophy of Religion would declaim, God has the following attributes:
1. Simplicity – One and indivisible without parts (though how a Trinitarian God can also be one and indivisible is a question which no Christian has been able to explain to me so I could understand)
2. Omnipotence – condition of all powerful
3. Omniscience – condition of being all knowing, possessing complete knowledge
4. Eternal, everlasting and timeless
5. Immutable – unchanging, absolute
6. Perfectly Good and incapable of Sin

This arrangement might seem satisfactory for it is plain that the Olympian divinities do not possess these attributes. But this cannot be generalized to all polytheistic religions. The extravagantly polytheistic Hindu family of religions has several deities who are said to possess these attributes. The mighty Triad – the Trimurti for instance, as well as the Devi the Mother Goddess. The classificatory approach also seems to be headed nowhere.

Peculiar problems are posed by the abstract ‘deities’ (if they can even be called deities) of the Indic tradition. How can the eternal Dharmakaya or the ineffable Brahman be characterized on the above scale. A definition by generating the necessary and sufficient features or conditions of God-ness is unworkable for conceptions of Deity that are by definition unconditioned and atrributeless.

The only feasible definition then is one based on human response, a God is a being possessed with supernatural powers or attributes, and is believed in and worshiped by a people. To rephrase as a propositional construct:

An entity is a God if and only if it
is a being
is possessed with supernatural powers or attributes
is believed in by a people and
is worshipped by the people who believe in it.

I am not too happy with this definition – I mean if David Copperfield were to be believed in and worshipped by a people he would be a God?

Cooking the World


"Cooking the World" by Charles Malamoud – is a collection of essays by the French scholar on Ritual and Thought in Ancient India. The book is part of a series titled French Studies in South Asian Culture published by the Oxford University Press, New Delhi. David White has translated from the original French.

At about 350 off pages (including extensive notes) it is not a big fat tome even though it has 15 essays. But each essay is packed with researches with startlingly original viewpoints, and explicated with detailed references to both original Vedic texts and interpretations of other scholars. Most importantly, Malamoud's researches are detailed and factual. He is not a starry eyed Indologist dazzled by the exotic mysticism of Indian religions nor is he a Victorian prude whose only aim in studying scripture of other religions is to belittle and disparage them. Nor is he an ideologue of science scoffing at all that is outside the purview of inducto-deductive investigation (a coinage I am resorting to because of the baggage associated with the term 'scientific method').

The title Malamoud has chosen for the work - "Cooking the World" itself indicates his desire to probe beyond the conventional 'meanings' of Sanskrit words. This is a specific problem for interpreting Sanskrit words because their etymological descendants in modern Indian languages have often coalesced around a one or few out of a range of meanings ascribed to the Sanskrit original. This can at times misguide the Indologist (Indian as well as foreigner) who does not take the pains to refer back to the numerous original Vedic scriptures where the word is used to deduce the closest meaning(s) through an appreciative interpretation of their contexts.

The term in question here is Lokapakti - which is stated in the Śatapatha Brāhmana as one of the duties enjoined on the Brahmin. Both the words in the above compound lend to different meanings. The first term Lok, which can mean ‘world’ as well as its denizens i.e. ‘people’, is the less problematic of the two. The second term pakti (a verbal noun) deriving from the root pak has cooking or ‘to cook’ as its primary (and literal meaning). But the term is also used to mean maturation, ripening or perfecting – and the modern Hindi pakka more often employed in the later senses. And most if not all translators seem to prefer the later. Malamoud however expounds on the role of Brahmins as officiators in sacrifice (yajña) which, he explains with numerous references, involves offering of cooked oblations, and is in itself a ‘cooking’ process since the oblations are offered into the sacrificial fire. Thus a literal interpretation of the term Lokapakti defines and describes the role and function of a Brahmin as a cooker of the world through sacrifice (yajña). And since the sacrifice was the sum, substance and structure of almost all Vedic thought and ritual, this becomes an apt and enlightening title for the book.

The book is a rich and learned work and, along with being a useful sourcebook, its detailed bibliography is an excellent pointer for further detailed readings.

Fear of God . . .

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." (Prov. 1:7). A fellow blogger on another blog I write on happened to mention this quote from the Holy Bible.

I have heard this phrase before. Perhaps, in the context in which it is quoted it means something different - but as a standalone statement (which it should be given that it is a 'proverb') I find its apparent meaning very distasteful.

Of course, I approach the statement with an inherent theistic assumption. Hang on, let me qualify that - given that 'theistic' most commonly tends to get interpreted in reference to the context of the Abrahmic deity. So I should perhaps say 'deitiestic' assumption - meaning a generic assumption of the existence of deities, (Zeus or Amaterasu as much as Yahweh or Shiva).

Depending upon the particular translation Prov. 1:7 is also sometimes quoted as "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." Makes me wonder what the original Hebrew word was and what it meant. But it makes me think of the Sanskrit word Jnana. Which is also translated as both knowledge or wisdom. In either case, it is not the knowledge part but the 'Fear' part of statement that I find distasteful; unless that too has been mistranslated and the original Hebrew word means something different.

It is difficult to envisage 'fear' being a vehicle of knowledge acquisition. Perception, cognition, cogitation, intuition - the common modes of acquisition of knowledge are not principally triggered by fear. While one could argue that the adrenaline surge triggered by fear may enhance mental activity in these spheres leading to heightened acquisition of knowledge, that would still be only a 'side' effect of fear. We know more efficient ways of acquiring knowledge.

The only way this makes sense is to think of knowledge / wisdom as one of the result of the 'life morally lived'; 'fear' of God being the stick that makes people live the moral life. And yet, this may not always be the case. There would be many simpletons who live morally enough and fear God mortally enough and yet seem to possess little knowledge and / or wisdom.

Perhaps the whole problem is that I am the 'outsider' approaching a Biblical statement. may be it would be simpler to just ask a Christian and see if his/her response makes any sense.

On the Nature of Deity

Almost every human culture on the planet has developed ideas of the spiritual and coalesced these into some form of religion. In India, the family of religions called Hinduism has evolved by braiding together threads from many sources some stretching back to the hoary past. Certain current beliefs and practices can be traced back with fair certainty to as far back as 2500-2000 BCE.

Hinduism as we know it today seems to have evolved out of the synthesis of the ancient Vedic faith of the Aryans, intermingling with the beliefs of the Harappans, Dravidans and other cultures extant in India prior to the arrival of the Aryans. Owing to this syncretic beginning, Hinduism has developed an inherent capacity for diversification without schism; a capacity to withstand, accommodate and ultimately absorb alien modes of thought – just add another thread to the braid. It is said that no religious idea in India ever dies or is annulled — it is merely combined with the new ideas and concepts arising from internal change and external infusion. As a result Hinduism today includes a great variety of often contradictory beliefs, doctrines, cults, religious practices and rituals. A Hindu, however, is not bothered by the apparent tension between these various ‘sets’ of beliefs and can operate comfortably and sincerely in more than one of these seemingly irreconcilable frameworks without feelings of anxiety. This can be extremely confusing to non-Hindus.

Partly owing to its multiple roots, Hinduism has neither a beginning or founder, nor a central authority, hierarchy, or organization. It has no prophets, no set creeds or dogma. It’s evolution has been both synthetic and syncretic, and it is more commonly described as ‘the way of life’ of the people of India, the Hindus, than as a religion. A very significant consequence of this syncretic braiding is are multifarious concepts of Deity encountered.

Hinduism can be more accurately described as a ‘mutually tolerant confederation of religions’ each having its own Deit(y/ies), rather than a single faith. These Deities, Gods and Goddesses, together constitute a rather large pantheon. In every day routine Hinduism is frankly polytheistic and practices idol worship opulently. The belief that there are infinite deities is expressed in Hindu scriptures where the number is given sometimes as 33, sometimes as 33,333 and sometimes as 33 crores (330 million). Hinduism’s tradition of tolerance and assimilation is largely responsible for this rather over-populated Hindu heaven. Along with assimilating foreign ideas, Hinduism has also added foreign deities to its pantheon. Historians believe, that local indigenous and aboriginal deities of pre-Aryan India were Aryanised and admitted to the Hindu pantheon, as aspects or avatars of the Great pan-Hindu Gods, as the Aryans spread across the country.

This vast pantheon, verily Hinduism’s tolerance itself, is made possible by a seminal idea that the philosopher of religion, Ninian Smart, describes as ‘trans-polytheism’. Hinduism believes in the ‘Brahman’ the single eternal absolute impersonal supreme reality, the primal source and ultimate goal of all existence, which is attribute-less and beyond all literal expression and comprehension. This super-abstraction of Deity is encountered in other religions of Indic origin as well – notably Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism.

The Gods and Goddesses of the Hindu pantheon are seen as manifestations of the Brahman; a form of mythical and spiritual symbolism. The concept of the Brahman makes it possible for a Hindu to believe in one or more or all of atheism, non-theism, monotheism, polytheism, pantheism, henotheism, and any other -ism he can imagine. The core of religion does not depend on the existence or non-existence of God or on whether there is one god or many. Because religious truth is said to transcend all verbal definition, it is not conceived in dogmatic terms. Moreover, the tendency of Hindus to distinguish themselves from others on the basis of practice (orthopraxy) rather than doctrine (orthodoxy) further de-emphasizes doctrinal differences. It is a paradox to see such a high degree of freedom of religious thought in a religion that otherwise adheres to such rigid (at times even repressive) social and ritual traditions.

Popular Hinduism is polytheistic. We have many Gods and Goddesses. These are believed to be manifestations of the attributeless (Nir-guna, no-qualities) Brahman. Idols of these Gods and Goddesses are worshipped ritually in temples, big and small. Most Hindu homes have a separate ‘mini-temple’ if not a separate temple-room, where small stone or metal idols and pictures of the family’s Gods and Goddesses are placed and worshipped daily. The Sanskrit word for an idol is ‘murti’ - ‘that which shows the form’. A ‘murti’ of the Deity, thus depicts the form of the Deity, its various aspects depicted symbolically. Linking the abstract attributeless Nirguna Brahman to the ‘murti’ of the village Goddess is the step-wise process of de-abstraction (vigraha). This entire spectrum is what essentially constitutes the ‘concept of Deity’ in Hinduism.

At one end of the spectrum is the Nirguna Brahman is abstract, absolute, attributeless, impersonal. Personality is a limitation. The Nirguna Brahman is devoid of personality and hence of gender. Hindu scriptures often refer to the Nirguna Brahman using the neuter Sanskrit pronoun ‘tat’ – its rough English counterpart being ‘That’. The Nirguna Brahman transcends space, hence is Infinite. It transcends time, hence is Eternal, it is not muted by causation hence It is changeless and absolute. An attribute or a quality is a factor of separation, the Brahman is One and Indivisible, One without a Second, hence It is attributeless, free from all qualities. The Brahman cannot be described by our words and or comprehended by our thoughts. Vedic statements averring to the Brahman as ‘Sat-Chid-Anandam’ (Ultimate Reality, Pure Consciousness, Perfect Bliss), are seen as mere ‘hints’ about the nature of the Brahman.

When we think of the Brahman in human terms we attribute to It a human like personality, project on It human characteristics, human emotions. The veil of space, time and causation through which we look at the Nirguna Brahman causes us to experience It as the Brahman with qualities (Saguna Brahman), as Eeshwara (Lord). Eeshwara is the personal God. The creator of the Universe, Eeshwara is omnipotent, omniscient and all pervading. Frequently, Eeshwara is described in pantheistic terms. The Universe is part of Eeshwara, and Eeshwara is ‘immanent’ in the universe, in every atom there is. It is this concept of Eeshwara, the de-abstracted personalised Brahman, which is similar to the idea of the Deity of the monotheistic religions (Yahweh, God, Allah).

Hinduism interprets the cosmos in cyclical terms. The Universe is created, sustained and dissolved repeatedly in infinite cycles. The aspects of Eeshwara that are associated with the functions or roles of Creation, Preservation and Dissolution, are the Hindu Trinity – Trimurti. These three great Gods are Brahma or Brahmadev, the Creator (not to be confused with the impersonal Brahman), Vishnu, the sustainer, the preserver, and Shiva, the destroyer. Each of these great Gods, has a consort, His ‘shakti’ or power. The consort of Brahma the creator, is Saraswati, the Goddess of knowledge, learning, speech, music and art. The consort of Vishnu, the preserver, is Lakshmi, the Goddess of wealth, prosperity, abundance. The consort of Shiva, the destroyer is the Parvati, the Goddess who personifies cosmic energy, the ‘Mother Goddess’. Shiva has two sons Ganesha, the elephant headed Lord of Wisdom, arts and crafts, remover of obstacles; and Skanda, the Warlord. All of these deities are worshipped. The old Vedic deities representing the forces of nature, (Indra, Varuna, Agni, Vayu, etc) are the ‘lesser’ Gods of the Hindu pantheon. An important part of the Hindu pantheon is the avatars, incarnations of the Great Gods, particularly of Vishnu. As the preserver of the Universe, Lord Vishnu incarnates upon the earth to protect the good, to vanquish the wicked and to uphold the cosmic order. Two of the most popular incarnations of Vishnu are Lord Rama and Lord Krishna. Numerous local deities in various parts of India are identified with one of these great pan-Hindu Gods. This process of Sanskritisation – the transformation of local & regional Deities into avatars or aspects of the Great Gods was part of the syncretisation that evolved Hinduism from the confluence of the Aryan and pre-Aryan treads.

The chain of de-abstraction spans from Nirguna Brahman, to Eeshwara, to the Great Gods, to the lesser Gods, to the local deities. The central idea is that each individual needs to adopt a spiritual practice depending upon his or her intellectual, emotional and spiritual capacity, and gradually progress to increasingly abstract ideas. It is not uncommon for a Hindu's spiritual practice to include more than one of these ‘levels’. A Hindu may start the day by worshipping the Great Gods in the shrine in his house, pray to the local deity in the temple dedicated to it on his way to work, and in the evening spend his time meditating, contemplating upon the abstract Brahman.

A rough parallel of such syncretism in other cultures, by way example, could be the mixed practices of the Hebrews settled in Canaan in the eighth and ninth centuries BCE where most tended to ‘worship’ both the abstract Yahweh and the de-abstracted local Canaanite Baal – a practice that was strongly denounced and on occasions brutally repressed by the Old Testament prophets.

That such a range of concepts of deity can exist within a unified religious super-structure is one of the strengths of Hinduism.