Lecture 1

Introduction to Hinduism–History,
Text, Philosophy: Jul 2018
What is the Hindu Identity?

Let's Get Started

For this opening phase of the course, I want to raise the question of what is meant by
the 'Hindu identity' and explore how we define 'Hinduism' or 'Hindu dharma'.
Perhaps only then can we start to reach any sort of conclusions as to what it means
to be a Hindu. I am not going to offer any definite answers to these questions
(indeed it is doubtful whether there are any such answers), but rather suggest
different ideas that you might care to think about, and point out the questions that
need to be asked in attempting to understand the Hindu identity. Ultimately, it is for
individuals to decide on their own understanding of what Hinduism is, but I hope
that the discussion that follows here will be of assistance in reaching such
conclusions.

Here are some of the questions you might like to think about from the outset. Write
down your answers to these questions and then after you have finished working
through this opening session, see if your ideas have changed at all:

1. How can a person be identified as a Hindu? Is that identity based on birth, or is it

beliefs, lifestyle or religious practices?
2. If it is birth, does that mean one cannot become a Hindu by conversion or give up
being a Hindu by conversion to other faiths?
3. If it is by beliefs and practices, does that mean that any person of any background can
become a Hindu?

I think it is apparent even from these preliminary considerations that Hinduism is

rather different from other world religions. Religions typically gain most of their
followers by birth—by children being born into the families of believers and raised as
members of a particular faith community. However, with the possible exception of
Judaism, other religions also share an imperative towards mission, the need to
spread the word and bring new converts into the fold. We see this as a particularly
prominent feature of Islam, Christianity and Buddhism. Throughout its long history,
however, Hinduism has rarely displayed a missionary spirit although there have
been times when communities from outside of India have become Hindus (as, for
example, in Indonesia, Thailand and Cambodia). Because the convert to Hinduism is
such a rare phenomenon, Hindu identity is substantially dependent on birth and
many would still argue that this is the only criterion. Without birth as a Hindu, one
has no caste status and no access to the rituals and samskaras that form the
fundamental basis of the Hindu life. In more recent times, however, people from
other cultures have shown an interest in Hindu doctrines and many have
incorporated Hindu ideals into their lives and understanding of the world. If such
persons come to hold the beliefs taught by Hindu sacred texts, perform Hindu
religious practices and perhaps receive initiation from a Hindu guru, is it reasonable
to assert that they are not Hindus?

I would like you now to read the following passage, which forms the introduction to
John Brockington's excellent book on Hindu beliefs and sacred texts, entitled The
Sacred Thread (OUP, 1996). As you read through it, try to be aware of the points he
is making about the complexity and diversity of Hindu belief and practice and also
about the difficulties this leads to in trying to establish the true nature of the Hindu
identity:

Many people's image of India is dominated by the Taj Mahal—a monument of Islamic not
Hindu culture. Indeed the Mughal period (1525-1761) as a whole bulks larger in the popular
assessment of Indian culture than the entire preceding period, despite the fact that it was
basically as much of a foreign domination as the British Raj which followed it. Such an
attitude is understandable in America whose own history has evolved over a similar period;
but in Britain, where by popular stereotype history begins with the Norman Conquest in A.D
1066, it has no real excuse. In fact, Indian culture and Indian religion can be traced back in
some manner over five millennia. To survive and flourish over so long a period is a striking
testimony to Hinduism's ability to adapt itself to changing circumstances, an ability which is
often insufficiently appreciated because of the apparent domination of traditional attitudes
within the religion.

But what is Hinduism? The religion has an incredible variety of expressions, to the extent
that it has reasonably been suggested that it is not possible to characterise it as a religion in
the normal sense, since it is not a unitary concept nor a monolithic structure, but that it is
rather a totality of the Indian way of life. Certainly, there is no doctrine or ritual universal to
the whole of Hinduism and what is essential for one group need not be so for another.
Nevertheless, most people would accept that Hinduism is a definite, and definable, entity.
What is it then that we are looking for or at when we are considering Hinduism? Is it the
beliefs and practices of the uneducated villager or of the traditional intelligentsia? Are we
cataloguing the minutiae of the ritual? Are we enumerating the dogmas held by those we (or
their fellow Hindus) consider most orthodox? Or are we attempting to analyse the thought-
structures of the religion? Quite apart from other factors, the sheer volume of the different
ritual and other cultic practices makes it impossible to attempt an exhaustive description of
the religion. Clearly, our concern must be with what is distinctive about Hinduism and what
it is that sets it apart from the other great religions, while bearing in mind that to be too
selective is to deny the diversity which is part of the essence of Hinduism. However, in a
religion which manages very well without the cohesive effects of a common doctrine, a
hierarchy of authority or a historical founder, its distinctiveness is only intelligible in terms
of its history.

Nevertheless, attempts have been regularly made to lay down some criteria for Hinduism,
either from the outside as a means of definition or from the inside as a test of orthodoxy.
Views of Hinduism from the outside, especially at the popular level, tend very much to be
stereotypes. Typical ones are that Hindus are excessively obsessed with religion (a trait that
they are thought to share with much of Asia) and with the caste system, are vegetarian and
non-violent, worship the cow, and see the world as an illusion, and that the religion itself is
somehow conterminous with India. To take the last point first, although Hindu does
basically simply mean Indian, Hinduism cannot be equated with India, despite being
overwhelmingly found there. On the one hand other religions have originated within India
(Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism, to name only the major extant ones) and yet others have
entered (notably Islam, but also Judaism, Zoroastrianism and Christianity); on the other
hand Hinduism itself is to be found outside India, in Bali, as a result of cultural diffusion,
and in the West Indies and East Africa, as a result of more recent population movements,
not to mention certain bastard forms propagated by gurus capitalising on uncertainties and
malaise in Western society. Its spread to Bali was just part of a larger movement of
economic and cultural expansion which affected most of South East Asia and Hindu
elements are very apparent in the Buddhism of those countries. These extra-Indian
adaptations are beyond the scope of this book, but it is worth observing here that the caste
system is radically simplified and indeed in decline in these areas.

The question of religious fervour is also not as simple as it seems. To a Hindu, religion is all-
pervading, but that is not quite the same as being obsessively concerned about it, for Hindus
do not see religion as something extraneous to their lives, nor as a duty imposed upon them
from outside. Since life is an integrated whole with its various aspects interdependent,
religion cannot be pondered over as a separate problem. Indeed, Sanskrit has no word
which can simply be translated as 'religion'; dharma though often rendered thus for lack of a
more comprehensive term in English, covers a far wider span, incorporating not only
religious tradition but also social mores and the requirements of the law.

The very structure of Indian society in the caste system is widely felt to be part of the
religion. Indeed it is given a religious basis in the doctrine of karma, the belief that one's
present position in society is determined by the net effect of all one's previous actions in
past lives. To the extent that Hinduism is as much a social system as a religion, the caste
system has become integral to it. But we have already noted that in Hinduism outside India
caste is withering. More significantly, some elements in India would deny its validity; the
devotional movement in general tends towards the rejection of caste and the famous
Vaisnava theologian Ramanuja in the twelfth century A.D. coined for the untouchables the
name Tirukulattar, 'the family of Sri (Vishnu's consort)' which strikingly prefigures the
name popularised by Mahatma Gandhi of Harijan, 'people of Hari (=Vishnu)'. The
limitation on such attitudes to caste is that in general they were confined to the distinctly
religious field, but that only reinforces the point here being made that caste, though
intimately connected with Hinduism, is not necessary to it. Incidentally, the common
preconception that belief in karma is tantamount to fatalism rests on a misconception: one's
present state is determined by one's own past activities and one's future state is here and
now being determined by one's present actions, and so basically a man is what he has made
himself and can make himself what he chooses.

Similar over-simplification surrounds the issue of vegetarianism. It is standard practice of

the elite group, the Brahmans, but has never been a universal practice, except in so far as
many lower-caste Hindus can rarely afford meat. Its rationale lies in the theory of non-
violence (ahimsa) which has come to play an important role in the religion. In its most
extreme form this consists in a profound reluctance to kill any living being, though not
necessarily any positive concern for their well-being. But this can and does result in the use
of a threat to fast to death as a form of moral blackmail, which subverts the whole intention
of the concept, while the frequency of political murder in Calcutta a few years ago illustrates
how little influence it has often had.

Veneration of the cow probably also has connections with the doctrine of non-violence but
undoubtedly owes more to the economic importance of the cow at an early period as a
source of milk and related products, which made the slaughter of productive animals an
undesirable practice. However, belief in the sanctity of the cow, though a conspicuous aspect
of popular Hinduism, is too superficial a feature to be considered fundamental, especially
with this practical reason for its introduction. Similarly, many originally sensible hygienic
practices were given religious sanctions in order to enhance their observance. Thus, for
instance, that at first sight rather motiveless and even repugnant practice of using the urine
and dung of cows as a purificatory material has a practical as well as a religious aspect, for
there is a definite disinfectant value in its high ammonia content; indeed the ancient
Iranians also used cow's urine as a cleansing agent and so have a number of other peoples.
So too the rigid distinction between the right hand for eating and the left hand for cleaning
oneself after defecation is at least some safeguard against diseases like typhoid. The
problem is that such practices, once given religious sanction, tend to fossilise into
meaningless rituals.

If veneration of the cow is too superficial a feature, then the view of the world as illusory is
too limited a one. For this view has never been true of Hinduism as a whole, either of its
scriptures or of popular religion, but only of one school of philosophical thought. All the
orthodox philosophical systems except Advaita Vedanta are realist in outlook. The only
justification for the view is that in general Advaita Vedanta is the form of Indian thought
with which the West has become most familiar.

If external definitions are inadequate, do the internal criteria fare any better? The most
usual ones put forward are acceptance of the authority of the Veda, observance of caste rules
coupled with respect for Brahmans, and a belief in an eternal self (atman) undergoing a
continuous cycle of rebirth (samsara). While each of these has some validity, they are not
wholly satisfactory. From the remarks made earlier it will be clear that the caste system,
though closely integrated into the religion, is not essential to it. Certainly, non-conformity to
caste rules, rather than rejection of any particular doctrine or deviation from any particular
religious practice, has traditionally been regarded as a serious lapse for a Hindu. This may
entail the loss of one's caste status, but it does not necessarily involve the loss of one's
religion; outcasting is not precisely equivalent to excommunication. Equally, respect for
Brahmans is normal amongst the more pious but there are nonetheless several sects which
reject their claims to supremacy. Nor is it possible to find any sacraments that are obligatory
for all Hindus.

Doctrines regarding the eternal self and the cycle of rebirth have become nearly universal in
Hinduism. But this is too inclusive a criterion. The cycle of rebirth is also accepted not only
by Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs (who, it might argued, do not really count because they
developed out of Hinduism) but also sporadically in quite separate religious traditions, such
as Orphism and Neoplatonism, the Kabala and the Doukhobars. Conversely, there are a very
few groups usually reckoned Hindu who deny it; the Lingayats seem to reject the notion of
rebirth, at least for those of their community, while the Deva Samaj (founded in 1898 by
Shiv Narayan Agnihotri) rejects the pre-existence of the atman and declares that at death it
will either suffer extinction or go to a kind of heaven. Doctrines concerning atman and
samsara, karma and moksha (release from the cycle) may be regarded as axiomatic by most
schools of Hindu philosophy, but they are by no means universal or essential so far as its
religious aspect is concerned, for a person can claim to be a Hindu without believing in them
and acceptance of them does not in itself make one a Hindu. Hinduism has, after all, always
been noted for its ability to absorb potentially schismatic developments; indeed, one of the
prime functions of the caste system has been to assimilate various tribes and sects by
assigning them a place in the social hierarchy. Thus, Hindu society is divided horizontally
into castes and vertically into sects, although the vertical division is not as rigid or as
exclusive as the horizontal one.

Acceptance of the authority of the Veda is probably the most nearly universally valid
criterion, but this is precisely because it has least content, often amounting to no more than
a declaration that someone considers himself a Hindu. Certain Vedic hymns are still recited
at weddings and funerals, though without any understanding of their meaning. The Veda
has been considered in Hinduism as the sole source of true religion and rejection of its
authoritativeness was a major factor in turning Buddhism and Jainism into separate
religions. But, despite the fact that study of the Veda was made an absolute duty for men of
the three higher classes, an accurate knowledge of it was lost at an early date and the works
of mediaeval commentators give ample evidence of incomplete understanding. In particular,
the Rigveda, to us the most important of the Vedic texts, though faithfully handed down in
the schools of the reciters, remained unknown territory to most philosophers and religious
teachers. Even those schools which professed to study the Veda did so from an extremely
limited and one-sided point of view: the Mimamsa deals at length with the ritual
commands, ignoring the hymns and much else, and the Vedanta concentrates almost
entirely on the Upanishads, which have admittedly contributed most directly to the
development of later Hindu thought. The attachment of other philosophies to the Veda was
very perfunctory. Indeed, it is reasonable to say that India had a very inadequate and
incomplete knowledge of the Veda before it was discovered by European scholarship. Even
the profession of belief in the authority of the Veda is not essential; many of the devotional
trends in Hinduism tend to be critical of it, the various schools of Tantrism have at the least
a very ambivalent attitude towards it, and Basava, the founder of the Lingayats, definitely
rejected the authority of the Veda and the Brahmans along with much else.

Thus, although the Veda is regarded as the canonical scripture of Hinduism, in actual fact
this canon is not read by the vast majority of Hindus, most of whom—the lower castes and
all women—were in due course forbidden to read it. But this very inaccessibility has
facilitated an almost endless reinterpretation of doctrine, for an appeal to the authority of
the Veda may be used to lend respectability to any innovation. A particularly striking
manifestation of this flexibility of Hindu tradition can be seen in the way that it has
assimilated various heterodox movements; the concept of heresy in Hinduism is a relative
one. The Jains, who originated out of the Hindu environment, adopt a relativistic view of
reality and insist that we ought to preface any statement with a qualification like 'From this
angle . . . ', for any statement only has validity with reference to the particular standpoint
from which it is made, but pragmatically accept that we do not bother with such
qualifications in everyday conversation. Any study of Hinduism must involve many such
generalisations, valid for a majority of Hindus but always liable to exceptions. In a way, it is
a subconscious recognition of this diversity, which defies any simple definitions, that leads
Hindus to appeal to their perceived origins in the Veda; it is a recognition that the unifying
factor lies in their common history. The appeal to the Veda permits both an affirmation of
the supremacy of tradition and an implicit acceptance of the reality of adaptation.

Quite clearly, John Brockington is writing from an outsider's perspective and there
are certain parts of this passage that a practising Hindu might find unacceptable.
The relegation of the belief in the sanctity of the cow to a matter of economic and
agricultural exigency is a speculative view that reflects the bias towards Western
thought; likewise the rigid separation of Hinduism, Buddhism, Sikhism and Jainism
into discrete religious traditions is not in accord with Indian understandings and
does not precisely reflect the reality of the situation. Nonetheless, I think the
essential idea presented here is a sound one and is cogently argued. Try now to write
down in just one or two sentences what you think is the principal thesis, or main
idea, which is being argued in this passage and then make a list of the main points
that Brockington includes in his presentation. When you have done this, read
through the discussion below and see the extent to which your understanding
matches what is set out there.

Discussion
John Brockington is arguing that Hinduism is unique amongst the great religions of
the world because its diversity and flexibility mean that it is impossible to impose
upon it any sort of easy definition. Most of the passage is dedicated to looking at
potential defining characteristics and showing that none of them are really
appropriate or adequate for that function.

In looking for defining characteristics, Brockington divides his list into outsider and
insider perspectives. He suggests that outsiders typically understand Hinduism as
being:

1. The religion of India

2. A religion practised with obsessive fervour
3. A religion based on caste divisions
4. A religion that demands vegetarianism and non-violence
5. A religion that venerates the cow as a sacred animal
6. A religion that regards the world as an illusion

Taking each in turn he explains that whilst these might be significant features of
Hinduism, they are inadequate for the purpose of definition:

1. Most Hindus do live in India but they share the subcontinent with significant
communities of Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Parsis, Jains, and Buddhists. And there
are now substantial Hindu communities outside India.
2. The fervour of Hindu devotion is explained by the fact that religion is not
distinguished from other areas of life and hence becomes pervasive within the culture
(in any case, I would suggest that all religions can manifest extreme levels of
commitment, but that does not make them Hindu).
 3. The caste system is certainly a significant feature of Hindu society, but there have
been numerous Hindu teachers who have rejected caste barriers and today caste is
becoming less important without this leading to any inevitable decline in Hinduism.
4. Many Hindus are vegetarians and the doctrine of ahimsa is a significant feature of
Hindu ethics, but the majority of Hindus do eat meat and Hindu states, including
India today, have never eschewed the use of military force or violent means.
5. Most, though not all, Hindus refrain from eating beef and show respect for the cow,
but in Brockington's view this is too superficial a feature to be accepted as a
fundamental or defining principle.
6. It is only the Advaita Vedanta school that follows Shankaracharya in regarding this
world as an illusion. The majority of Hindus do not adhere to this doctrine.

Brockington then lists criteria that Hindus themselves might put forward as defining
characteristics for their own tradition. Here he suggests:

1. Belief in the eternal self (atman) and the doctrine of rebirth

2. Observance of caste rules
3. Respect for Brahmanas as religious leaders
4. Acceptance of the Veda as authority

And he again he demonstrates that none of these is really adequate for the purpose
of defining what Hinduism actually is:

1. Belief in rebirth is almost universal amongst Hindus (I think his view on the Lingayats
is not quite appropriate) but it is a belief shared by non-Hindus as well: Buddhists,
Sikhs and Jains in the East but also notable Western schools of esoteric thought.
2. Caste rules are important for the lives of many Hindus, but this emphasis is now in
decline and there are many Hindu teachers, ancient and modern, who utterly reject
rigid caste distinctions.
3. Similarly, many Hindus reject the religious authority of the Brahmanas and one can
point to many anti-brahmanical tendencies within Hinduism, as well as sects that
refuse to acknowledge brahmanical leadership.
4. Whilst most Hindus will nominally accept the authoritative status of the Vedas, these
texts are no longer important scriptures for practising Hindus and very few have any
knowledge of their contents. In effect the Vedic religion is no longer central to Hindu
belief and practice, and hence to define Hinduism in terms of the Veda gives a false
representation of the tradition.
Therefore we may be able to describe and understand significant features of
Hinduism, but what we are unable to do is to impose upon the tradition any form of
adequate definition. It is simply too diverse and too flexible to permit any such
simple description and this is a factor that makes Hinduism unique amongst the
world's major religions. I would not deny that diversity exists within all religions, but
not to the extent that it does in Hinduism.

In reinforcing this point, I would make the following observations:

1. The names of religions typically offer a significant insight into their core beliefs.
Christianity, Buddhism and Jainism are all named after their founders and main
teachers. Islam and Sikhism are named according to a principal belief, submission to
God or following the teachings of the Guru. But Hinduism is merely a geographical
term given by outsiders, which means nothing more than 'the religion of India'. This is
surely because Hinduism has no single personality, doctrine or practice that can be
used as its defining feature.
2. Most world religions (and again Judaism is an exception) have a historically
identifiable foundation event accepted by all adherents. Islam was founded in AD 620
with the migration of the community to Medina, Christianity around AD 30 with the
preaching of Jesus, Buddhism and Jainism around 500 BC when their leaders
attained the state of enlightenment. Each of these religions has a particular
foundation event and a form of revelation in which spiritual truth is made known to
those who follow. Hinduism has no single foundation event and no single revelation;
rather it has many such events and innumerable prophets and seers in a process that
continues down to the present day.
3. Although all religions manifest a diversity of belief, with the exception of Hinduism
they all share a common defining central creed. For Christians this is the idea of
salvation through the descent of Christ, for Muslims it is the revelation contained in
the Qur'an, and for Buddhists it is the dhamma of the Buddha. The range and
diversity of the belief systems of Hinduism, however, cannot be matched by any other
religion. Some Hindus adhere to the doctrine of Advaita-vada and regard the Supreme
as the unknowable Brahman present in all beings, but others venerate God as a
Supreme Deity, a benign God who responds to our prayers and worship. And even
amongst the theists there are divisions between those who worship Vishnu, Shiva or
the Goddess. Religious practice is equally diverse. Hinduism possesses an enormous
repertoire of ritual acts that ensure the support of a variety of gods, spirits and
supernatural beings; it also has prayers, bhajans and the ritual worship of sacred
 images for those who believe in one Supreme Deity; and for those who believe that the
divine is within one's own being, yoga practices are offered to enable inner perception.
All these and more are somehow included under the single heading of Hinduism and,
moreover, manage to coexist quite easily without there being major tensions,
persecutions or excommunications.
4. In contrast to most other religions, Hinduism has no formal institution or leadership,
although these do exist within Hindu sects. The significant point is that leaders of
sects have authority for the followers of that group but for the Hindu community as a
whole they are just one religious leader amongst many whose teachings may be
listened to but not necessarily accepted. Religious guidance may be given by the
Brahmana or the sadhu but we must note the distinction that exists in Hinduism
between the ritualist and the spiritual guide. In many traditions these two roles are
identical, as with the Christian clergy, but in Hinduism the Brahmanas are primarily
consulted on ritual matters whilst spiritual guidance is sought from the sadhu, who
may or may not be a Brahmana but is recognised as possessing spiritual attributes.
There is, however, no single institution that more than a tiny minority of Hindus
would accept as having authoritative status.
5. Most religions are also defined in terms of the scriptures they regard as sacred.
Traditionally, however, Hinduism has not been a text-based religion and scripture
does not have the same status or role as it does in Islam, Judaism or Christianity. Of
course Hinduism does have sacred texts and these are important in the defining of
belief systems. However, Hinduism has so many scriptures that it is impossible to
follow all of them and hence different individuals and groups will tend to regard
different texts as the most authoritative and will tend to ignore those not directly
related to the form of Hinduism they practise or are familiar with. Hence, despite the
theoretically absolute status of the Veda, there is no single body of sacred texts that
can be taken as defining Hinduism.

The above discussion raises more questions about the Hindu identity than it
answers, but of course that is the point. In truth, there is no single Hindu identity
but rather a wide diversity of different spiritualities drawn into a loose association
under the single non-defining label of 'Hinduism'. As you proceed through this
course, it will become increasingly apparent that diversity is probably the single
defining characteristic of Hinduism. And if that is a little unsatisfactory, it might be
worth bearing in mind that tolerance of diversity is one of the great strengths of the
Hindu tradition. Hinduism tolerates diversity of belief and practice within its own
domain and hence it is a relatively easy step to extend that tolerance to others who
do not define themselves as Hindu. Just as there are different religious doctrines
taught by the great Hindu teachers such as Shankara, Ramanuja, Basava, Madhva
and Vallabha and all of these are accepted and included, why should the same
principle not be extended to Mohammed, Jesus, the Buddha or Nanak? Perhaps this
then is the true Hindu identity, one which excludes no religious path but accepts
every form of religion and every expression of spirituality as a part of a single
universal quest for that higher realisation.

The Academic Study of Hinduism

The previous discussion may have given rise to thoughts about the difficulties
involved in the academic study of Hinduism. There are a number of excellent studies
of the Hindu tradition that are widely used in Western universities, but the problem
with these is that they tend to be overly focused on textual sources and do not have a
lot to say about the lived tradition of Hinduism. To some extent this is natural as it is
far easier to gain access to textual sources than it is to achieve an insight into what is
going on within particular communities. Moreover, it is possible to gain a fair degree
of understanding of the nature of religions such as Christianity or Islam from a study
of sacred texts and it is therefore not surprising that Western academic scholars
should seek to employ the same method of approach in relation to Hinduism.

There is, however, a serious issue here and it is fair to say that most of the academic
texts typically used in universities for the study of Hinduism, at least at an
introductory level, are capable of rendering at best only a partial insight into the
lived tradition. And of course one might reasonably point out that Hinduism is
primarily the religion that Hindus practise, however inconvenient that fact might be
from a scholarly perspective. Hence one of the main tests of the value of an academic
text on Hinduism will be the extent to which members of the community see within
it an accurate reflection of their own religious lives, and it has to be admitted that
this has not usually been the case. The problem is that despite the vast number of
sacred texts that Hinduism possesses and reveres, it is not a text-based tradition and
the vast majority of Hindus have never read the Upanishads, Bhagavad-gita or
Mahabharata (although they will have seen films and heard the stories) and have
virtually no knowledge of the contents of the Vedas. Hence it is virtually inevitable
that a study of Hinduism that relies excessively on such sources is going to be
deficient in terms of its ability to convey an accurate understanding of the tradition.

As an academic scholar of Hinduism, I have spent years going through an enormous

range of primary and secondary writings in the field, but if I am honest I would have
to say that I have learned more about my subject from sitting in people's houses
drinking tea or from leisurely chats in India than I have from the academic
literature. I often have the sense that it is only through these informal conversations
about daily life that you get a real understanding of what is actually going on. A clear
illustration of this point arises where studies turn to a consideration of social
Hinduism and in particular the issues of caste and gender. Invariably the academic
texts will refer to the ancient dharma-shastras such as the Manu-smriti and base
their assertions on the statements of these works. In my experience, however, most
Hindus have never heard of these texts, virtually none have ever read them and none
at all refer to them in making judgements on social issues. Hence in a discussion of
social Hinduism such literature is virtually irrelevant, except perhaps from a
historical perspective, and yet it takes pride of place in most chapters on the topic.

Having made this point, we must also acknowledge that to adopt a radically different
approach is rather difficult for a course of this type. We will be making considerable
use of academic studies of Hinduism as well as considering areas of doctrine and
practice derived from primary sources. My main purpose here is to draw your
attention to the potential for misunderstanding if we fail to appreciate the
importance of the Hindu community itself, the oral traditions in which it is steeped
and also the salience of folk practices within the lived tradition. And whenever it is
possible I will attempt to make reference to the lived tradition and point out the
manner in which the Hindu community itself interacts with the form of belief or
practice we are considering. I do not claim that this can resolve what is a problematic
issue, but it would certainly be remiss not to draw attention to it and make what
efforts we can to confront the question of authenticity.