On 7/31/07, Suresh Ramasubramanian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Charles Haynes [31/07/07 09:58 +0530]: > >FWIW it seems to me from admittedly casual observation that while > >Hinduism might have animistic elements, it clearly has worship of > >non-animist gods as an important, seemingly primary - even central > >element. > > Let us put it this way - hinduism is the sort of amalgam you get when you > get a huge country with widely different religions and cultures, all of > whom formed more or less a common religion, integrating elements from > smaller religions or cults that it superseded. > > There are strong elements of animism, phallic worship, worship of tree > spirits etc, just as much as there is arcane and mystic philosophy. > > Hinduism is kind of like saying "European" - a turk or a spaniard is rather > different from a swede, you'll grant.
That matches my casual observations... but if one assumes that Hinduism is a syncretism of the various indigenous religious beliefs then what does it mean to talk about Hinduism as a thing? Is it useful to use it as a shibboleth for defining some hypothetical pre-historic Indian homeland? It turns into yet another tail-chasing definition. Hinduism is the accretion of religions from this area, and this area is the lands where people practiced Hinduism. FWIW much more interesting to me is whether shrine Shinto is animism. I think there's a much stronger case there. -- Charles
