Confronted with such vastness, one can do little more than refer to Michael
Witzel’s work on Vedic religion, some of which is available online; Brian
Smith’s studies of Indian symbolism and classificatory systems; Frits Staal’s
research on ritual and science; Patrick Olivelle’s many publications on
renunciation; Wendy Doniger’s work on mythology; Ann Gold’s books on
pilgrimage; David Kinsley’s, Kathleen Erndl’s, Tracy Pintchman’s, and Rachel
McDermott’s work on the goddess tradition; Alf Hiltebeitel’s research on the
epics; Edward Dimock’s and June McDaniel’s work on Bengali traditions; John
Hawley’s and David Haberman’s studies of bhakti. Finally, the author looks
forward to reading Frederick Smith’s The Self Possessed: Deity and Spirit
Possession in South Asian Literature and Civilization(2006), a book that is
likely to provoke a lively controversy among Indologists.
Because of the interest in issues of definition, current discussions about the
validity of the concept of ‘Hinduism’ deserve special attention. In dealing with
this issue, we find that, as is the case with ‘religion’ itself, ‘Hinduism’ is
regarded by some scholars—such as Brian Smith in Reflections on Resemblance,
Ritual, and Religion(1989)—as a category imposed by outsiders. A necessary
corrective to this and similar views has been provided by David Lorenzen, a
scholar based at the Colegio de México, who, in addition to work in Spanish,
has made major English-language contributions to our knowledge of Âaivism—
The KÇpÇlikas and KÇlÇmukhas(1972)—and, as author, translator and editor,
to the study of the bhaktitradition, especially in its nirgun.¥variant: Bhakti
Religion in North India(1995), and Praises to a Formless God(1996). In ‘Who
invented Hinduism?’ (1999), Lorenzen argues that the beginning of Hinduism
can be traced back to the period of the early Puranas, between 300 and 600 CE.
More specifically, he shows that the beliefs, gods, and practices described during
the British colonial rule are already found in accounts written by Portuguese
missionaries since the early sixteenth century, and later in those written by
Spanish, Italian, British, and German ones. Already in 1973, in ‘The Word
‘Hindu’ in Gaudiya Vaisnava Texts’, an article not cited by Lorenzen, Joseph
O’Connell showed that Bengali devotees of Krishna saw themselves as ‘Hindus’,
as Gaudiya Vaisnava texts refer to ‘the Hindus’ (hindu-gana), ‘Hindu practices’
(hindura ÇcÇra), ‘god of the Hindu(s)’ (hindura debatÇra), ‘God of the Hindu(s)’
(hindura ¥Êvara), ‘Hindu scripture’ (hindu-ÊÇstra), ‘Hindu law (or custom)’
(hindu-dharma), among several others.
There was a time, not too long ago, when religious traditions, such as
Hinduism, could be discussed in the classroom without regard for the opinions
of those who considered themselves ‘Hindus’. Now it is likely that some students
in a course devoted to the religious traditions of South Asia were born in India
or come from families that migrated to North America in the last few decades.
The presence of such students frequently enriches the discussion, as they can
provide concrete examples about ritual practices—either their own or, more
frequently, their parents’ or grandparents’. On the other hand, because of the
1111
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1011
1
2
3111
4 5 6 7 8 9
20111
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
30111
1
2
3
4
35
6
7
8
9
40111
42222
3
411
NORTH AMERICA
259
