the idea of tolerance that develops with modern Hinduism or the idea of modern,
inclusivist interpreters of Hinduism that all paths lead to a common goal. At this
period we have rigor of debate and the aggressive defense of the truth of one’s
tradition against rival philosophical and theological claims.
One response to the question “who speaks for Hinduism?” would therefore be
that we should listen to the theologians and religious experts who have discussed
questions of the text, of practice, and of metaphysics in a sustained way over
centuries. The foremost object of the historian of religion, as some scholars have
argued, is its theological articulation, particularly focusing on a tradition’s
canon and its exegesis (Smith 2000: 744–5; Smith 1982: 43; Olivelle 1993:
7–8). In studying Hinduism we are studying textual traditions with high degrees
of reflexivity, traditions, as Alexander Piatigorsky has observed, which have
already studied themselves (Piatigorsky 1985). But while there may have been
a shared language and terminology, because of the diversity of these philo-
sophical accounts of the world, it is clearly not doctrine that could define
Hinduism. The unity provided by textual exegesis in commentary is not a unity
of content but a unity of genre, a common reference point in the Veda, and a
unity of shared metaphysical concerns.
Ritual
Alongside this shared discourse practiced over the centuries by the high-caste,
literate minority, we have popular ritual that has served to provide some coher-
ence to the diversity. Traditionally, ritual has constrained a Hindu’s life from birth
through marriage to death in the life-cycle rites (sam.ska ̄ra) and ritual orders
social relationships and relationships with divine, embodied beings, the gods of
temple and shrine. Ritual is passed through the generations from teacher to
student and from mother to child, and while ritual changes, it does so at a much
slower rate than other social forms. The relationship between ritual and social
history is difficult to assess. All ritual forms have originated at a particular his-
torical period, some have died out, but others have persisted with great tenacity
and resistance to change over time. Vedic ritual, such as the elaborate S ́rauta
transformations of the sacrifice, still persists (Staal 1983). While there has been
erosion of tradition with modernity, especially in an urban context, this detra-
ditionalization has also been accompanied by a retradtionalization and tradi-
tions reinventing themselves and reconstituting ritual forms. We can see this, for
example, with tantric traditions in Kerala and Tamilnadu where a temple priest
might perform an old ritual enjoined in the tantric texts in a temple with no pre-
vious history of the rite.
The English word “ritual” covers a wide range of human behaviors from elab-
orate offerings to simple gestures, whereas Sanskrit analogues have more spe-
cific reference. In a Hindu context, the central structure of the rite known as pu ̄ja ̄
is modeled on the gift; the gesture of making an offering to a deity or esteemed
6 gavin flood