Kim Knott

I have mixed feelings about this book. I came away from it much better educated than I had started off. And Knott makes a really important point right at the start:....”If you go into a library or bookstore with the intention of finding out about Hinduism, to which section do you go? To 'Sociology' for books on the social system of the Hindus? To 'Art and Architecture to learn about the fabulous temples, carvings, and paintings in which Hindu mythology is depicted? To 'Languages' for books show more on Sanskrit and other Indian languages?....To Anthropology' for information about village India, its society and culture? Although you would find useful sources in all these locations, you would probably go first to the 'Religion' section, because in western countries Hinduism is thought of as a religious system much like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism”.....And yes...that is exactly what I would do. But she makes the (apparently), very valid point that....one of the key issues for this short introduction is the extent to which this is true. Is Hinduism a religion like others, and what are its principal characteristics?....and my take on what she is saying is that you have to take it as a whole....the sociology the art, the languages, the scriptures, etc. to really grasp Hinduism. I certainly had no notion of this before reading this book

The first “orientalists” came with preconceived notions about religion. Their own experience was of western Christianity, a religion characterized by belief in God and his son Jesus, and in God's word revealed in the Bible. They expected the Hindu religion to be similar. So it is perhaps not surprising that they focused upon religious texts such as the Ris Veda and Bhagavad-gita, and the teachings and laws they contained. They were less interested in the rituals and worldly activities of the Hindus. Where they mentioned them, they often interpreted them critically, seeing them as later additions to what was originally a noble belief system....And that’s the way I would have approached the subject. So full marks to Knott for drawing attention to the error involved in this approach.
Some useful extracts from the book:
The Principal Hindu Scriptures.
Shruti
The importance of that which is 'revealed', shruti. This term refers to the manifestation of the divine in the world, particularly to the truths revealed to the early sages or rishis which were later brought together in the form of scriptures.
The Vedas and Upanishads constitute the shruti literature and are said to have been divinely revealed; the Epics, Puranas, and Sutras are said to have been taught by sages and remembered by their disciples (smriti). The Veda contains accounts of creation, information about ritual sacrifice, and prayers to the gods. The Rig Veda, the earliest of the Vedic texts, is a collection of hymns to the gods,
Upanishads: The word upanishad means 'sitting near' and implies that these texts were secret scriptures taught by a sage to a disciple. The principal Upanishads include Brihadaranyaka, Chandogya, Katha, Maitri, and Shvetashvatara.
Shruti scriptures are commonly dated by scholars between 1500 and 300 BCE. They were all composed in Sanskrit.
Most Hindus accept the status and authority of the Veda. Very few will have read it, although they will have heard parts of it chanted in Sanskrit during important ceremonies. The more popular texts, which are often known intimately by Hindus, are the Mahabharata and the Ramayana.
Smriti
Epics: The earliest scriptures identified as smriti are the Mahabharata-which includes the Bhagavad-gita-and the Ramayana, dated between 500 BCE and 100 CE. These are long poems which narrate episodes in the lives of great warriors....Krishna appears in the first....Rama has a central role in the second.
Sutras: In the same period, a number of texts about important subjects such as dharma, yoga, and vedanta were composed (see the glossary). They contained statements or aphorisms (sutra means 'thread'). An important text from this period was the Manusmriti, which dealt with Hindu law and conduct.
Puranas: Mythological texts known as Puranas followed in the period from 300 to 900 CE. They refer to earlier events, often telling the stories of the gods and goddesses. Principal texts include Markandeya Purana, Vishnu Purana, Vayu Purana, Shiva Purana, and Bhagavata Purana.
Other types of literature are important, too, and are given varying status by different groups of Hindus. The Tantras, texts from the 8th and 9th centuries acclaimed in Kashmir, Bengal, and Nepal, focus on spiritual discipline, ritual activity, and the attainment of magical powers. They often take the form of a dialogue between Shiva and the Goddess. They are significant for Tantric Hinduism, which has special doctrines and rituals that differ from those of the brahmins. Also popular is devotional or bhakti poetry, composed in local Indian dialects.
One thing that I found interesting with the plethora of holy literature was the fact that there appears to have been no attempt to impose a binding “canon” on any or all of it......as in the Christian church. Hindus’ can take what the like from it...and most seem to have done just that. Hence the mind-numbing versions of practice and belief. .......I’d just make the observation that if these versions contradict each other then they can’t all be right.
One other thing that seems to be missing from the discussion of the holy texts is an historical analysis or exegesis such as we have for the bible. Who wrote these texts and why should we give them credence (except, maybe, as great adventure stories/myths)?

Strictly speaking, class (varna) and caste (Jati) are different social institutions, though castes are often assumed to fit into the four varnas. Jati, which means 'birth', is a system of social divisions organized according to relative purity, with brahmins at one end of the spectrum, and low caste and 'untouchable or dalit people at the other......Indians acquire caste status by being born into a particular caste group..... In earlier times, castes were also occupational groups, though urbanization and industrialization have meant that many people are now working in quite different jobs to those with which they were traditionally associated. A Hindu friend of mine made the observation that the Muslims were very successful at converting the lower classes because the muslims didn’t have the concept of casts. ....Makes sense.

Knott goes to some lengths to describe the story of Devi......and Devi breaks the brahminical image of the woman as dutiful wife...She will not marry and cannot be controlled by male demons or gods. She is warlike and aggressive, not submissive and unassertive. She appears to be an ideal woman, being beautiful and amorous, but she drinks wine and is independent.
I was starting to get the distinct impression by this stage that I was reading a feminist tract and there is certainly this tone about the whole book. Ok I get it. There is a necessity to try and redress 250,000 years of evolution, testosterone and male dominance and reset the contribution of women. But I was also looking for balance and an even-handed presentation of how thing are ...not, necessarily, how they should be. I just wonder whether Knott is putting a feminist spin on most of the book (It’s not just in this spot).....am I getting a true picture with the rest of the material?
The images of the protective mother and the dutiful king have inspired loyalty and devotion in India. Both have been used in the modern period as symbols associated with the nation....Including by Narendra Modi in the current period.
A key figure in introducing Christianity to India was William Carey, a Baptist who went to India in 1793. With no official backing or sponsorship, he spent several years with his family in bitter poverty, travelling through Bengal before setting up the Serampore Mission with two other missionaries. He learnt Bengali and Sanskrit. I found it interesting that, as a proselytizer, he was largely unsuccessful, since very few Bengalis embraced Christianity. Elsewhere, where Hindus did convert, it was not the hoped-for brahmins, but the powerless and disenfranchized lower castes and untouchables who made the switch. (Same sort of idea with making a switch to Islam)
The focus on 'women's uplift' was one aspect of the trend by orientalists and Hindu reformers to reclaim the Aryan past. The argument rested upon acceptance of the idea of a former great civilization civilization which had gradually been eroded over the centuries by popular religious practices and social customs claimed by critics to be superstitious, idol-worship, 'polytheism', and 'caste abuse?.... It met with dissenters, however, who doubted the historical accuracy of the claim to an Aryan golden age and dismissed as divisive the favouring of Aryans above others......Many of the new Hindu initiatives of the 19th century were pervaded to some extent by the influence of western culture and Christian values.

Interesting issues are raised about the nature of Hinduism as a religion by the growth of the Hindu diaspora (by 2012 Hindus were resident in 101 countries). The concept of diaspora' referred originally to Jews living in exile outside Judaea. Today it is used more generally to mean those populations living outside their land of origin.... Hindu communities outside India have been composed of people with many different motives for leaving India, but generally they have retained a common religious consciousness which connects them with India, their families and places of origin.

However, there are no precise figures for the total number of Hindus living outside India. The major reason is that many countries do not keep statistics for religious adherence....I note that in her table on p94 she has not included the approx. (now) 700,000 Hindus living in Australia. And Australia clearly outranks many of the countries she has chosen to include...almost rivalling the UK. Australia is also the fastest growing in terms of numbers of Hindus. I also find the way she has presented the statistics is a shambles. At least she could order them by number of people...or alphabetical. Instead she seems to have chosen to group them very roughly by region (like African, Caribbean East Asian...Why?) .....she is certainly no scientist!).

The foundation of temples and the migration of brahmins able to carry out life-cycle rites, fire rituals (yajna), and puja have allowed Hindus to establish sacred spaces and perform the necessary religious activities outside India. Does this mean that the sacred territory of bharat has been extended, as we saw in the cases of Madho Singh and the early Brahmin migrants to south-east Asia?...I guess the answer by now is certainly “yes”.

In summing up, Knott comes back, more or less, to where she started, stating that: “Hinduism' defies peoples desire to define and categorize it. It is both a dynamic phenomenon of the modern world, evolving from the combined imaginations of many individuals and groups, Hindu and non-Hindu, and the sum of its many parts— its traditions, myths, institutions, rituals, and ideas — its many hinduisms. It has the power and diversity to capture the imaginations of Hindus and non-Hindus alike, and the capacity to challenge preconceived ideas about what a religion is”.

Though, personally, I feel that she is giving far too much attention to Hinduism which is outside India as demonstrated in the following passage” “Hindus in India and beyond continue to find ways to respond to the new demands arising from ethical issues, technological innovation, migration, social change and exposure to other religions and cultures. Increasingly, they are required to do so in a global context where 'religion' is often pitted against other systems, ideologies, and customary practices, and where it has to be publicly explained and justified. After all, some 94% of all Hindus are in India and if you add in the adjoining countries of Bangladesh, Nepal, and Pakistan, it rises to 98.5%. Yes, I guess the adaptations that have been made to accommodate traditions when people have moved to new countries are interesting but they don’t seem to have added any more variety than exists between regions in the “home” countries.
So what’s my overall take on the book? As I suggested at the start, I have mixed feelings. Knott is not a hindu herself. In a way that’s good because somebody from outside the religion can presumably be a bit more objective. But I found myself getting mildly miffed when the feminist card kept getting rolled out time and again. Or was this truly an objective picture? It certainly didn’t seem like it. And, as mentioned briefly above, Knott seems more fascinated with varieties of Hinduism that have developed in new countries. Ok this is interesting but is there an over-emphasis on the diaspora? It seems that way to me ...especially when that seems to be the main sort of focus of Knotts academic work.
But, on the positive side, I did learn a lot ...so on balance I give it four stars. show less

It's becoming really obvious to me that the OVSI series is handicapped a bit by the general academic climate: here's a well-written, sympathetic and reasonably objective book about Hinduism. Knott is perfectly transparent about her approach, which is to discuss Hinduism for the most part as it exists today, rather than dealing with the history. Fair enough. I prefer a more historical approach, but I understand that you can't do everything in a book that is so Very Short. Generally she does a show more good job.

But... as with a lot of these VSIs, a kind of knee-jerk liberalism intrudes on otherwise admirable work. I have absolutely *no* doubts that traditional Hindu social structures are repulsive and need to be destroyed; I have nothing but sympathy for the women/dalits/otherwise oppressed members of Hindu communities who want to fight against aspects of their own tradition. But this is a VSI, and what I really wanted was to better understand the actually existing social structures, the traditions and the theologies of Hinduism. After this book I feel like I have a much better understanding of post-1960s academic interpretations of British colonialism and Hindu social movements. But I still can't give good reasons for my own knee-jerk beliefs about India and Nepal's social structures, because I still can't name more than four Hindu gods, don't really get how the caste system works, and don't know why such a thing exists in the first place. That's a bit disappointing. show less

Besides being a rather dated (1998) and poorly illustrated book, this "introduction" to Hinduism is sadly disappointing to the beginner. It fails to address the main subject by spending too much time treating its context. The author does indeed a great job in explaining why defining "Hinduism" itself is a tricky question, and takes alle the necessary precautions to avoid oversimplification and reduce judeo-christian biases. But she goes too far in what should by essence be a "simplification" show more and leaves the reader clueless about the main facts. On the contrary, prior knowledge of key concepts is regularly implied so that even readers with some basic knowledge about Hinduism will feel frustrated.
In definitive, this is rather an "Introduction to how we should discuss Hinduism" as a real introduction to Hinduism per se. show less

I like this series to give me a starting point on big subjects, but this isn't the best entry in the series. It may be because Hinduism is so decentralized so the author couldn't really find an area to center on. The whole thing feels a little bit like a ramble. Nevertheless, it did make some good points that were useful to my understanding.

She intentionally didn't focus on the historical development of Hinduism, which was my main interest, so she could discuss Hinduism today. She discussed show more the Hindu scriptures, with the Upanishads being the core and the Vedas coming later. Most Hindus have never read these, but have memorized the key passages through recitation in religious services. Also, the parts of the scriptures that you choose to emphasize can be widely different.

She ties this to the caste system, where the priests are supposed to read and interpret the scriptures for the masses. Modern times have seen a decline in the caste system which has paralleled a more populist view towards access to the scriptures. She also discusses untouchables as those with no caste and therefore unclean. They appear to have started outside of the caste system but it became a caste unto itself over centuries. This attitude has also sharply declined in the last century.

She puts a particular emphasis on women's roles, which were severely subordinate to men. That include the obligation for upper class women to commit sati when their husbands die. This has also declined in recent times but Hinduism in India still has a strong streak of male-domination.

She finishes by asking if Hinduism is a universal religion. It was originally just in India and surrounding countries, but now Indians are dispersing around the world. Can it become a world religion instead of a regional one? It doesn't seek conversions and is so tightly tied to India society that expanding it beyond Indians will be difficult, but the recent Indian diaspora may hasten it spread.

Overall, this was an interesting book that provided some insight into Hinduism but was too scattered to be very insightful. I hope there is a better introduction to Hinduism out there. show less