There are many ways to start talking about Hinduism, and obviously this depends on the age of pupils and any syllabus followed. Some textbooks take an historical approach and begin with the Indus Valley Civilisation, others see more relevance in starting with the life of a Hindu child of an age near to that of the pupils in the UK today. Others start with the concept of dharma or central beliefs about ultimate reality. Symbols such as yantras (including mandalas) as diagrammatic representations of ultimate reality, and even rangoli patterns might capture attention, and fit with the current fashion of colouring-in as a form of mindfulness. Artefacts can create interest such as the arti tray, or images of deities. Ganesh is a particular favourite with small children. Older children might respond to something concerning Hindus in the news, whether controversial such as the laying of the foundation stone of the new temple to Rama in Ayodhya or the worship of Coronadevi, to use two 2020 examples. The simple greeting ‘Namaste’ can open up a discussion of respecting the divine within all people.

This account will start by stressing diversity before looking at ‘matters of central importance’ which is where the National Entitlement starts, in order to avoid giving the impression of an ‘essence’ of Hinduism (but the main thing is to start).

Hinduism is diverse at every level, extending beyond the threefold division into Vaishnavism, Shaivism and Shaktism (centred on complexes of deities associated with Vishnu, Shiva and Shakti/Mahadevi/the Goddess respectively) to encompass a multitude of sects and cults, ranging from elite perspectives of monastic study and reflection to folk practices of ritual possession, alongside change over time including the profusion of modern and contemporary movements and the worship of innumerable village or guardian deities in specific localities. This leads some commentators to point to Hinduisms in the plural rather than Hinduism in the singular. Certainly, it is very difficult to suggest what unifies Hinduism.

As the standard of orthodoxy, acceptance of the authority of the Vedas, the most ancient sacred texts, has been proposed as a defining characteristic but acceptance may be merely nominal and some movements that are obviously Hindu, for example, the Virashaivas, reject it entirely. Another candidate for unifying Hinduism, closely connected to the Veda, is the role of brahmins (priests) as sacred specialists with ritual and textual expertise but there are other sacred specialists such as shamans, who provide necessary services like healing in folk traditions, and Hindu groups, like the reform movement founded by Narayana Guru from a Keralan dalit (outcast) community, that challenge brahmanic dominance. Others suggest that the concepts of karma (law of action), samsara (round of existence), punarjanma (reincarnation) and moksha (liberation) unite Hindus, but these are also found in other religions of Indian origin and also do not necessarily reflect everyday Hindu experience which may focus upon living this life well rather than seeking moksha.

Membership of castes (individual hereditary social groups called jatis frequently related to the general hierarchical principle of social organisation established by the four great classes or varnas) has been cited as crucial but caste in the sense of jati is observed in some form by non-Hindus too, while Hindus are divided on the subject with some actively opposing it in whole or part and others denying any association between Hinduism and caste at all. Reverence for India as the sacred motherland has also been suggested as unifying Hinduism but, in addition to the controversial nationalist aspects of the cult of Bharat Mata (Mother India), the growing generations of Hindus living in diaspora can come to understand their relationship with India in different ways and locate the sacred in spaces nearer at hand. These difficulties explain why reference is made more generally to a sense of shared heritage giving rise to a shared identity, though this does not really explain from where this sense originates.

An approach that has been adopted by some scholars, which gets away from the expectation that a common core and clear boundaries are required to define Hinduism, is to apply what is called the ‘family resemblance’ model. No one feature is shared by all Hindus, but a range of features are connected by a set of overlapping similarities that edge off into other religions. This captures the rich diversity of Hinduism within the broader context of Indian religions, and allows us to continue to use the term as a convenient shorthand while recognising its limitations.

Histories of Hinduism used to begin with the Aryans as the custodians of the Vedic texts, conceived as invaders who conquered the indigenous inhabitants of the subcontinent. However, in the 1920s, archaeological excavations revealed the existence of the Indus Valley Civilisation, a sophisticated literate urban culture, predating the postulated arrival of the Aryans to whom its destruction was initially attributed. The discoveries made were then seized upon as possible sources of later Hindu belief and practice such as Goddess worship and ritual purity and pollution that were without obvious Vedic origins. Many aspects of this account are questionable: the Aryan invasion thesis has been criticised as reflecting a colonial outlook (that the sacred texts and practices of Hindu tradition were brought in by invading lighter-skinned outsiders rather than originating with the darker-skinned indigenous people of India); the relationship between the Indus Valley Civilisation and Vedic culture has been redefined in terms of continuity rather than change (that the Indus Valley Civilisation was actually an earlier form of Vedic culture); and the speculative nature of the interpretation of artefacts (figures with exaggerated female characteristics, the Great Bath, etc.) without having deciphered the Indus Valley script has been underlined. Dating has also proved contentious but many scholars believe that the Indus Valley Civilisation was flourishing in the mid third millennium BCE with the Vedic period starting around the mid second millennium BCE.

The dominance of the Veda and its ritual worldview was challenged in the mid first millennium BCE by the shramanas, ascetics who renounced the world in search of spiritual insight and fulfilment. This included criticism of traditional values and practices such as ritual sacrifices and the importance of family life and having children, to be replaced by practices such as ascetic penances, yoga and meditation and following the new ideas of a variety of shramana teachers. Both what are now called Jainism and Buddhism emerged from this background, as did the Upanishads which embodied radical shramanic values in spite of becoming included in the Vedic texts. A concerted effort was required by the orthodox to counter the attraction of new movements and perspectives, for example, by accommodating renunciation as a vocation into traditional patterns rather than as a radical alternative. In the famous scheme of the Laws of Manu, renunciation was integrated into a series of life stages conditional on the individual having first performed the duties of a student of the Vedic texts and then the duties of a householder, ensuring that the three debts owed to the ancestors, sages and gods were discharged by fathering sons, completing Vedic studies and offering sacrifices. This ability to absorb new ideas and practices within existing traditions has enabled Hinduism to weave together change and continuity over the centuries and contain massive diversity within what can still be perceived as related.

Another significant development was the rise of the bhakti (devotion) movement in the mid first millennium CE, characterised by the personal relationship between deity and devotee and centred on major Gods and Goddesses of the post-Vedic pantheon such as Vishnu, Shiva and Mahadevi (the Goddess). Some bhakti groups retained a broadly orthodox stance though others were more radical. The Islamic presence on the subcontinent seems to have played some part in the emergence in medieval North India of a distinctive type of bhakti, nirguna bhakti (devotion to the formless divine), also known as the Sant tradition, with adherents from both Hindu and Muslim backgrounds. This type of devotion, rejecting the outer and institutionalised forms of religiosity of Hinduism and Islam alike and focussing upon direct experience of the divine through meditation on Name or Word, has been compared with the teachings of Guru Nanak as the context of early Sikhism.

British rule prompted further developments as numerous societies were formed with agendas of reform and revival such as the Brahmo Samaj and the Arya Samaj. Similar societies, concerned to achieve religious and social change and thereby defend the interests of the community, were founded by members of other religions. The interplay of these organisations, including the Singh Sabhas founded by leading Sikhs, contributed towards the process of defining religions and communities as separate, if not also antagonistic, and thus helped to reshape the religious landscape of India. This led to the growing insistence on Sikhism as separate from Hinduism at least at the level of formal or official discourse though the situation remains more fluid and ambiguous on the ground.

Contrasting trends in modern and contemporary Hinduism feature the advocacy of a universalist spirituality represented by the Ramakrishna Math and Mission/Vedanta Societies and the assertion of a Hindu nationalism represented by the Sangh Parivar/Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP). Exchange and encounter with the West have been important factors. The Theosophical Society, particularly under the leadership of Annie Besant (1847-1933), did much to promote Hindu beliefs and values in the West while advancing educational, social and political causes in India. ISKCON was established by Swami Bhaktivedanta in New York in 1966 at the height of the counterculture where his preaching of Chaitanya’s message of Krishna bhakti won over disaffected young Americans before spreading worldwide, attracting devotees from the Hindu community as well as those from other backgrounds.

The history of Hinduism is thus complex and multifaceted, with beliefs and practices old and new co-existing and interacting in a huge variety of ways, in relation to other religions and in response to changing circumstances. Its geographical spread has also been significant. Within the subcontinent, there are notable regional differences evident in the temple architecture of North (Nagara) and South (Dravida) India, while some tribal communities living in marginal areas have been subject to proselytization by Hindu missionaries. Hindus live in present-day Nepal, proclaimed ‘the world’s only Hindu state’ from 1962 to 2006 (whereas the contemporary Indian state is officially secular). Hindus also live in what is now Pakistan and Bangladesh after the subdivision of British India at Partition in 1947 and Bangladeshi independence from Pakistan in 1971. Hindus have lived in Sri Lanka for thousands of years though their numbers have been swelled by a series of migrations from South India, including the settlement of Tamils to work on plantations under British imperial rule.

Although, traditionally, leaving the Indian subcontinent (‘crossing the black waters’) was viewed negatively and meant losing status as a member of a Hindu caste, from ancient times, trade between India and other parts of Asia led to migration across the continent and the spread of Hindu and Buddhist ideas. As Buddhism was taken to other countries, it took with it much of the general Indian worldview, including what would now be labelled Hindu deities, customs and ideas. In the modern era, under British rule, Hindus travelled to other parts of the British Empire including other Asian countries such as Malaysia, Pacific islands such as Fiji, Caribbean islands such as Trinidad, and South and East Africa, often as indentured labourers though also as merchants and professionals. In the post-war and postcolonial period, there has been large-scale migration to the UK, and Hindus have also migrated to Australasia and North America, and in smaller numbers to continental European nations. The process of decolonisation meant that some Hindus have become ‘twice migrants’ as members of expatriate communities relocating for a second time, notably those who had lived in East Africa but were displaced by Africanisation policies, bringing with them the experience of practising Hinduism in a diasporic setting.

The variety of Hinduism is reproduced in the diaspora. For example, in the UK, the predominantly Shaivite nature of Sri Lankan Hinduism is reflected in the foundation of the Community of the Many Names of God/Skanda Vale, a multi-faith ashram in rural Wales, alongside many other groups such as the Swaminarayan Sampradaya which originated in Gujarat, the region with which the majority of British Hindus are associated. Living as minorities in countries outside India has involved Hindus in innovative solutions, such as Sanatan Dharma temple communities worshipping deities from a range of different Hindu traditions in the same temple (whereas in India temples tend to be dedicated to a particular deity or group of related deities), temples functioning as community centres as well as shrines for worship, and creative interactions with aspects of local non-Hindu culture.

It might be presumed that matters of central importance in any religious tradition or non-religious worldview would be the teaching about what tend to be thought of in RE as the ‘big questions’ or ‘ultimate questions’ (or perhaps ‘existential questions’ if thought of as how they affect you personally rather than as abstract philosophical debates): questions such as ‘Why are you here? What is the meaning of life? How can you attain liberation from a life of suffering? From where did the universe come? What happens when you die? What is the best way of spending your life? Indeed, most worldviews have ‘views’ on such issues, but the priorities may be different, and ‘religions’ are not best understood as alternative sets of intellectual answers to an agreed set list of ‘ultimate questions’. Many scholars have pointed out that, in common with some other non-Western traditions, the Hindu tradition is less about what you believe about such questions and more about what you do, an ‘orthopraxy’ rather than an ‘orthodoxy’, so that ritual and daily life take central stage.

It might also be said that in the Hindu tradition, what is of central importance depends somewhat on who you are. Some may prioritise ritual, some focus on experiential meditative and ascetic practices, others concern themselves with intellectual questions, ethical action or the everyday customs of family life.

Hindu reflection upon the nature of reality has been taking place for millennia since the ancient Vedas. The Upanishads, dating from the mid first millennium BCE (see Sacred texts) represent a period when the ‘big questions’ of the nature of reality, and of human existence and purpose, were much debated, particularly by the shramanas or renouncers who left ordinary family life to focus on finding liberation and truth. Since the eighteenth-century European Enlightenment, Western philosophy has tended to separate intellectual, cognitive reasoning from religious or spiritual matters, whereas in Indian thought philosophy is never for its own sake but profoundly tied in with the quest for personal liberation. The ideas in the Upanishads and classical accounts of Hindu philosophy were produced by people actively engaged in practices such as ascetism, yoga, meditation, and sometimes also ‘religious’ devotion to deity(ies), seeking meaning in life not just in theory but in practice. Thus, Indian philosophy includes much of what might now be labelled ‘psychology’ or ‘religion’ using Western categories.

Another fundamental difference when comparing Indian and Western views of truth or reality is that whereas now Western thought tends to the binary – things are either true or false, real or not real – Indian thought has room for levels of truth and reality. Things may not be so much true or false, but true, truer and truest, not so much real or unreal as conventionally real or ultimately real. This is particularly clear in Advaita Vedanta (see Hindu philosophies). Seeming contradictions may be all true in different ways, in different contexts and for different people.

When it comes to ultimate reality, most Hindu thought would agree that what is present to our senses and everyday experience is not the deepest understanding, which can be known, at least for the few, through direct mystical experience, and for others, to varying extents, through the teachings of gurus, sacred texts, involvement in ritual and devotional practices and living a righteous life.

Ultimate reality in most Hindu thought is divine or spiritual, rather than material, though Samkhya is a notable exception (see Hindu philosophies). The material may be viewed as real but of secondary importance, as dependent on the divine, or not ultimately real at all. Ultimate reality may be described in theistic terms as a personal God or Goddess (who may have a personal name such as Vishnu, Krishna, Shiva or Durga), or in more impersonal terms as the infinite, formless, pure life energy or consciousness within all things and all people, Brahman, not a being, but Being. These two ideas can be reconciled in a number of ways. They may be seen as two different ways of saying the same thing, sounding contradictory because of the limitations of the human mind and language. Applying the idea of levels of truth, one may be regarded as a lesser level of insight, so that the idea of a personal God may be considered as an easier way for less developed minds to think about Brahman, or the idea of Brahman understood as a step towards realising the supreme truth of God as personal. This attitude can be viewed as a positive way of approaching plurality and diversity, or as rather condescending if your own approach is relegated to the lesser level of truth. Further Hindu perspectives on ultimate reality may be found in the following sections. on Deities, gods, goddesses and God(dess, Hindu philosophies, The cosmos and the natural world and Human nature and destiny.

Not all, but probably most, Hindus are theists though the meaning of theism is different in Hinduism from that found in Abrahamic religions since to believe that ultimate reality is a God or Goddess does not entail a denial of the existence of other gods and goddesses. These secondary deities have some relationship to the supreme deity as assistants responsible for specific areas of activity such as Shri Lakshmi, goddess of fortune and prosperity, whose blessings are sought for financial success, associates such as Krishna’s elder brother, Balarama, who is renowned for his strength, and allies such as Hanuman, intermediary between Rama and his kidnapped wife Sita, who exemplifies loyalty and devotion. The statement that God is one and the reference to 330 million gods can thus be combined without contradiction though, of course, God/gods here include female deities as well as male, and both can transcend gender.

This is why the labels of polytheism and monotheism do not seem to apply. Hinduism is often described as polytheistic which it is insofar as there are many deities. However, some Hindus insist that they are monotheists. Part of the problem is that the one becomes the many and the many become the one. Perhaps the best known instance of the one becoming the many is Vishnu and his avatars (descent forms). The now standard list of ten avatars features Matsya (fish), Kurma (tortoise), Varaha (boar), Narasimha (man-lion), Vamana (dwarf), Parashurama (Rama with the axe), Buddha, Rama, Krishna and Kalki (the future avatar). Of these, Krishna, counsellor to the Pandavas and Arjuna’s charioteer who in the Bhagavad-Gita (4.8) declares the purpose of these manifestations as being to uphold dharma (duty, righteousness), and Rama, the divine king and moral paragon repeatedly hailed in the Ramayana as ‘the best of upholders of dharma’, are the most important and can be identified with Vishnu as full rather than partial manifestations. Indeed, Vishnu can be seen as a form of Krishna rather than the reverse. Another instance is the continuity between female deities as forms of Mahadevi (the Great Goddess). The warrior goddess Durga, created by the gods from their own female energies and bestowed by them with their own weapons in order to defeat the demon Mahisha invulnerable to attacks from males, manifests other yet fiercer goddesses in the heat of battle. Among these goddesses, Kali is the most prominent embodiment of Durga’s wrath, fighting with her to defeat demons, famously Raktabija whose ability to reproduce himself from every drop of blood shed renders Durga’s efforts counterproductive so that she requires Kali’s help to destroy him by sucking him dry of blood.

The one also becomes the many in a variety of ways, for example, in families of deities that unify a number of gods and goddesses, including marital relationships in which the goddess is the shakti (power) of the god. Shiva, despite being an ascetic and renouncer, is married to Parvati who won him as her husband through her own practice of austerities, their closeness represented in the Ardhanarishvara image of a figure that is male (Shiva) on the right and female (Parvati) on the left. The divine couple are the parents of the gods Ganesh, the elephant-headed remover of obstacles to whom prayers are offered before embarking on a new undertaking, and Skanda/Kartikkeya, the god of war who in the South is elevated to supremacy as Murukan/Subramanya. Parvati can be thought of as a consort goddess, Mrs Shiva, just as Shri Lakshmi is Mrs Vishnu and Sarasvati, goddess of learning and the arts, is Mrs Brahma.

The concept of the trimurti (three forms) of Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva as creator, preserver and destroyer respectively, often seen either as all three being expressions of the impersonal Brahman or illustrating how Vishnu or Shiva as supreme Deity takes the form of the other gods, may be the most familiar. However, its importance may have been exaggerated for a modern or Western audience by a supposed similarity with the Christian Trinity. Arguably more important is the orthodox category of the pancadevatas (five deities) who are Shiva, Vishnu, Mahadevi, Surya (the sun god of the Vedic pantheon) and Ganesh. In the final analysis, the distinction between the one becoming the many and the many becoming the one dissolves as is evident in the relationship between major all-India deities and local gods and goddesses which can be understood as the major deity taking numerous local forms or alternatively as those local forms coalescing into the major deity.

Possibly, then, whether there are many deities or only one (and whether the divine is best understood in personal or impersonal terms) is a matter of perspective. In ancient Vedic times there was a pantheon of deities, often personifications of natural forces such as sun, moon, wind, storm, fire, dawn, and with names which suggest some connection with other ancient Indo-European pantheons, including Greek and Roman. However, by the time of the Upanishads this was being questioned as being in one sense too many and in another sense too few. Some early scholars of Hinduism used terms such as ‘kathenotheism’, the worship of one god at a time, or ‘henotheism’, the worship of one god while not denying the existence of others (and also possibly seeing them as lesser gods, or alternative expressions of the same reality).

The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (3.9.1-9) records a dialogue in which the sage Yajnavalkya gives different answers to the question ‘how many gods are there?’. These range from 3306 to one, each of which is explained with, for example, 3306 related to the powers of the gods whereas ‘one’ is identified with Prana (Breath) and Brahman (ultimate reality). Other answers given, for instance, that there are 33, six or three gods reflect the membership of the Vedic pantheon and the Vedic cosmology that preceded those of classical Hinduism. Among the 33 gods, Yajnavalkya mentions Indra and Prajapati, the king of the gods associated with storms and the lord of creatures associated with sacrifice respectively, thereby highlighting two major themes which are the deification of natural forces and the significance of Vedic ritual. The six gods Yajnavalkya lists are features of nature and the universe, including Agni (Fire) and Prithivi (Earth), the former also closely connected to sacrifice as the priest who conveys offerings upwards to the gods and blessing downwards in return. The three gods are identified by Yajnavalkya as the three worlds of earth, sky or atmosphere and heaven, on the grounds that all the gods exist in them, notionally 11 aligned with each of the three worlds.

The gods of the ancient Vedic pantheon have not disappeared altogether but still feature in myths and stories told today, though their roles and importance have changed over time. For example, whereas Indra the god of thunder was originally king of the gods, one story from the Puranas demonstrates that Krishna is more powerful by telling how Krishna used a mountain as an umbrella to protect people from a rainstorm sent by Indra, angry at their worshipping Krishna instead of him.

Deities feature in the lives of Hindus in different capacities. Some deities are associated with the ancestors (kuladevatas) and some with a locality (gramadevatas) while an individual can choose their own deity (ishtadevata) to be the main focus of their worship. New deities may emerge in response to new situations, often new manifestations of existing ones. A popular goddess who features in the Puranas is Shitala, traditionally the smallpox goddess, who is also able to help with other infectious diseases, especially since the eradication of smallpox. In 2020, there are reports of people praying to the goddess Coronadevi, said to be a creation of Shitala, for protection from the Covid-19 virus. In any case, deities are only some of the supernatural beings that are believed to exist in a universe pervaded by the divine where the sacred is also revealed in animals, plants and other features of the natural world. Further, the human and the divine are located on a continuum that allows exceptional characters, be they teachers, saints or others who excel in qualities like wisdom and devotion, to acquire divine status. Accordingly, Shankara who was the most influential exponent of Advaita Vedanta (see Hindu Philosophies) has also been regarded as a form of Shiva, and Chaitanya who preached a message of devotion to Krishna has also been revered as a form of Krishna. This claim is less shocking than it might seem to a monotheist from an Abrahamic tradition when made against a background where the divine is honoured as dwelling in all people and all things – just more obviously in some than others.

If the complexity of deities is confusing, one simple way of making sense of how Hindus can simultaneously worship many gods and one God, often heard on school visits to Hindu temples, is to compare God to a diamond with many facets – each deity represents an aspect of God. Whereas this is something of an oversimplification in emphasising the one rather than the many, and is maybe aimed at audiences presumed to come from Abrahamic faiths, it does have the advantage of leaving open whether the one is best understood as personal or impersonal. Another analogy is that of many lamps but one light. A less fixed and more fluid (!) analogy might be that of water which can be contained in many different pots. These and other such may or may not help, but perhaps provide a place to start.

Hindu deities are also found beyond ‘Hinduism’, particularly in Buddhism and the countries to which Buddhism spread. For example, the Pali Canon tells us that after the Buddha’s enlightenment, the god Brahma persuaded the Buddha that it was worth trying to teach others, in spite of the difficulties of communicating his experience. The devaraja (god-king) cult was established in Cambodia forming part of a Hindu legacy in the royal courts of Southeast Asia. More generally, the story of Rama has been transmitted across Asia in various forms such as dance dramas and shadow puppet plays. As far away from India as Japan, the goddess Sarasvati has become Benzaiten, the goddess associated with rivers, music and knowledge.

The most common formulation of Hindu philosophy is the Shaddarshana or ‘six schools’ (or six visions, views or perspectives) which are Nyaya, Vaisheshika, Samkhya, Yoga, Mimamsa and Vedanta, considered as ‘orthodox’ (unlike Buddhist or Jain approaches) in that they acknowledge the authority of the Veda. However, as the indologist Wilhelm Halbfass demonstrates, there were many other schools and this list of six became fixed only comparatively recently. Notwithstanding the convention of six schools, there were debates and disagreements within them, with the school of Vedanta covering several different philosophies often treated as schools in their own right. Moreover, only two of the schools (Mimamsa and Vedanta) actually involved the interpretation of Vedic texts.

The schools are often presented in complementary pairs: Nyaya and Vaisheshika, Samkhya and Yoga and Mimamsa and Vedanta. Nyaya focuses on logic and the valid sources of knowledge, said to be perception, inference, comparison, and testimony. This complements Vaisheshika’s specialism in metaphysics and ontology which analyses reality into six or seven categories (substance, quality, action, generality, particularity, inherence and sometimes non-being). Samkhya distinguishes between active unconscious nature (Prakriti) and inactive conscious selves (Purusha), understanding the spiritual goal (Kaivalya or ‘isolation’) to be freeing the self from material nature. Yoga sets forth an eight-limbed spiritual discipline (Ashtanga Yoga) to achieve such liberation, encompassing positive and negative moral precepts, physical postures, breathing techniques, sense withdrawal, concentration, meditation and transcendence. Mimamsa and Vedanta share a stress on Vedic exegesis according to which Mimamsa is styled Purva Mimamsa, meaning Prior Investigation and referring to the earlier part of the Veda, the Samhitas and Brahmanas, and Vedanta is styled Uttara Mimamsa, meaning Final Investigation and referring to the later part of the Veda, the Upanishads or Vedanta (Veda + anta or end). Mimamsa seeks to uphold the performance of ritual and Vedanta to promote insight into truth or ultimate reality (Brahman).

Of all these philosophies, it is Vedanta, or to be more precise Advaita Vedanta in its recent neo-Vedantic form, that is probably most familiar. Advaita Vedanta, associated with the eighth/ninth-century thinker Shankara, gave a non-dual account of Vedanta, identifying the Self (Atman) with ultimate reality (Brahman) at the higher level of truth and relegating the plurality of selves and physical objects to the lower level of truth. In the modern era, Advaita Vedanta was reworked by Vivekananda (1863-1902) and popularised by Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888-1975), typically, involving an emphasis upon the empirical reality of the world and an appeal to the oneness of humanity that accorded greater significance to ethical action in the world rather than renunciation, monasticism and spiritual liberation. Neo-Vedanta promoted a positive image of Hinduism as tolerant and inclusive, defending it against allegations of confusion and incoherence arising out of the variety of its forms. This was accomplished by appeal to the principle of hierarchy as allowing Hinduism to accommodate a range of different beliefs and practices as a unity in diversity. For such reasons, Neo-Vedanta has proved hugely influential in modern Hinduism, endorsed by leading nationalists and reformers, and contributing towards the postcolonial project of forging a new Indian identity. It has also been attractive to Westerners who have been persuaded that Vedanta in this sense is central to Hinduism (if not also India).

However, other Vedanta schools are also very important and reveal major differences between Vedantic thinkers. Vishishtadvaita (non-dualism with distinctions), of which the twelfth-century thinker Ramanuja is the most famous exponent and Dvaita (dualism), following the teaching of the thirteenth-century Madhva, are theistic in contrast to Advaita’s relegation of a personal deity/deities to the lower level of truth. Similarly, Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita are realist about the material world in contrast to Advaita’s idealism that regards the world as ultimately illusory. Vishishtadvaita and Dvaita have been very influential in Hindu devotional traditions that prioritise the relationship of the devotee with a personal God. It was the need to reconcile Vedanta with Vaishnava bhakti (devotion) to a personal God that inspired Ramanuja to present an alternative to Advaita’s impersonal absolute, by retaining some distinction between God and individual souls, while Madhva taught a dualistic vision in which God and individual souls are separate entities. His teaching is followed by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) today.

Is philosophy the best label for the Saddarshanas? Some Western philosophers, drawing upon the distinction made between theology and philosophy in the European Enlightenment, might query whether the Shaddarshana qualify as philosophy, if philosophy is understood as the independent exercise of reason without deference to external authority such as that represented by religious traditions. However, the label ‘theology’ can also be queried. Although Nyaya proposes arguments for the existence of God that invite comparisons with the cosmological and teleological arguments of Christian philosophy of religion, Samkhya does not need a divine creator to explain the origin of the universe. Even where a deity or deities are featured, they may not correspond to the theistic idea of a Supreme God. Perhaps these schools could be seen as ‘psychology’, as the cultivation of mental discipline is central, not only in Yoga but more widely. Yet this also seems inadequate given the subjects addressed by the schools, some being neither religious nor psychological in scope or purpose, such as Vaisheshika’s proto-scientific investigations of the physical world. It is important to note that not all of the Saddarshana were originally primarily concerned with liberation, and that there is space for atheist and realist thinking within the huge scope of Hindu tradition. Even Mimamsa, arguably the most orthodox of the Saddarshana in its concern for interpretation of the Vedic texts and correct ritual, could be described in these terms.

Attempting to understand the Shaddarshana in terms of ‘philosophy’, ‘theology’, or ‘psychology’ illustrates the issues that arise when applying Western academic categories and classificatory systems to non-Western cultures. It may be worthwhile imagining what would happen if India determined global cultural and cognitive paradigms and these were applied to the Western history of ideas.

Prescientific Indian ideas about the cosmos were much more complex than prescientific ideas in the West. Hinduism has not just one creation story but a number of creation stories and even of creators. Moreover, the universe is not created only once, but over and over again. One creator is Brahma who is often portrayed as seated on a lotus flower growing from Vishnu’s navel as Vishnu rests on Shesha, the king of the Nagas (mythological snake-like beings) between acts of creation. There is also ‘the One’ who is described as the sole existent ‘breathing breathless’, though this account in the Rig-Veda (10.129) is speculative and hedged about with doubt and uncertainty – no one really knows how everything began, maybe not even the One. Among the creation stories is the Sacrifice of Primal Man, also in the Rig-Veda (10.90), whose dismemberment by the gods produces, among other things, the three Vedas and the three worlds (earth, sky and atmosphere and heaven) as well as human beings of the four varnas (classes). Another creation story is the Churning of the Ocean of Milk found in the Mahabharata and in both the Bhagavata and Vishnu Puranas, in which the gods and their rivals cooperate to retrieve the elixir of immortality (amrit) from the depths of the ocean, using Mount Mandana pivoted on Kurma, Vishnu’s tortoise avatar (descent form) with the Naga Vasuki as a rope to churn the ocean. This process yields goddesses such as Shri Lakshmi, sacred animals such as Kamadhenu, the wish-fulfilling cow, and treasures such as Parijata, the ever-blossoming tree, before Dhanvantari, the divine physician, appears cradling the elixir in his hands. The gods tricked the demons and kept the elixir of immortality for themselves. 

Creation is generally regarded not as creation out of nothing but as a specific shaping and structuring of the components of the universe. For example, in Samkhya, Prakriti (Nature) as cause is regarded as containing all effects in a potential state with three constituents, the gunas (qualities) of sattva (purity, goodness), rajas (passion, activity) and tamas (dullness, inactivity), that in different proportions manifest in the objects of the world, including people. Similarly, in Vaishesika, material substances are composed of atoms (in the ancient Greek sense of the smallest unit, not the modern scientific sense) that in varying combinations produce physical objects. While the building-blocks of the universe endure, the universe itself does not. An analogy here might be toy bricks that can be used to construct different things, first a car and then a rocket for instance, where the bricks remain but their configuration as vehicles differs. The concept of the four yugas (ages) of decline and degeneration from a state of perfection to one of chaos emphasises the cyclic pattern of periodic dissolution and recreation.

The Puranic (see Sacred texts) picture of the cosmos (e.g. Vishnu Purana 2.4) is complex with numerous realms contained within the shell of Brahmananda (World Egg). Horizontally, there are lands separated by oceans arranged in concentric circles, the innermost land being Jambudvipa (the land of the Roseapple Tree) of which India constitutes one-twelfth and the best part, centred on Mount Meru. Vertically, there are many worlds including heavens and hells with Bhurloka (Earth) in the middle as the region where work produces merit. The World Egg is situated within a still vaster universe of water enclosed by fire, enclosed by air, enclosed by ether, enclosed by the gross elements, enclosed by the first principle, enclosed by the limitless cause of all World Eggs. In spite of this complexity, as the Vedic concept of rita (law, truth) and its later counterpart dharma (duty, righteousness) indicate, the cosmos is ordered and harmonious.

Although the impression is sometimes given that all Hindus believe the world to be unreal, this is the analysis of Advaita Vedanta which considers it to be maya (illusory) and in general many Hindus, not least those who follow other versions of Vedanta, consider the world to be real, if not independently so. Theistic forms of Hinduism value the natural world as the glory and wonder of the divine nature is to be found in all things, on the other hand the physical world can be viewed as a product of divine playfulness (lila) rather than profound purpose. Although it can be argued that the world lacks ultimate importance because the highest goal, moksha (release, liberation), lies beyond it, it is also the object of divine care and protection as illustrated by the story of Varaha (the boar, an avatar of Vishnu) who rescues earth from the depths of the cosmic ocean where she had been cast by the demon Hiranyaksha.

The best-known account of human nature and destiny in Hinduism refers to the self (atman) as the eternal essence of the individual, distinguished from the body, that experiences reincarnation (punarjanma) within the round of existence (samsara) in accordance with the law of action (karma) unless or until it attains liberation (moksha). In the Bhagavad-Gita, where Krishna instructs Arjuna on such subjects, three paths to liberation have been identified. These are: jnana-yoga, the path of knowledge, often interpreted as insight into the distinction between the self and the body which is expressed in terms of the difference between Purusha (Person) and Prakriti (Nature) (13.23) and explained by comparing the relationship of the self with the body to that of the embodied self with clothes (2.22); bhakti-yoga, the path of devotion, in this context love and service of Krishna who declares that he will accept the simplest of offerings if made in that spirit (9.26) and hence a form of practice open to all irrespective of social status or gender or even religion (9.23,32); and karma-yoga, the path of action, the performance of duty in a selfless spirit, which unlike ordinary actions (whether bad or good) does not entail karmic consequences and so can lead to liberation from reincarnation. In Arjuna’s case, action means the warrior’s duty to fight (2.30).

There have been different views on which, if any, path is the most important. Traditionally, many commentators opted for either knowledge or devotion though modern figures such as Gandhi (1869-1948) have advocated action, for him non-violent, in order to satisfy the standard of selflessness, whereas Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856-1920), his fellow nationalist who also prioritised action, adopted an innovative approach towards duty by extending the duty of the warrior to fight in a just war to the Indian people as a whole to fight colonial oppression. There has also been a marked tendency to see the paths as interdependent and therefore impossible to disentangle or as equally valid and therefore suited to different temperaments.

However, there are multiple perspectives on human nature and destiny and consequently the religious discipline to be adopted. For example, while many schools of thought and forms of Hinduism maintain that there are many selves, Advaita Vedanta appeals to levels of truth to establish that these many selves only exist at the lower level of empirical or consensus reality whereas at the higher level there is only one Self which is equated with ultimate reality understood as an impersonal absolute (Brahman-Atman). So the ultimate goal is to realise your essential unity with Brahman and the main path is study and meditation. The illusion of reincarnation will then not reoccur. In Dvaita Vedanta thought, the individual self is distinct from both God and other selves, so the goal is to free the true self within in order to devote oneself to God in this life and eventually reach God’s presence after death rather than being reincarnated. Vishishtadvaita Vedanta has an understanding between complete unity with God and complete separateness, in that selves are completely dependent on God, but the unity is one of relationship with a personal God. The goal is to dwell in this eternal relationship rather than be reincarnated. Both Dvaita and Vishishtadvaita Vedanta tend to prioritise the path of bhakti or loving devotion to God as the way to reach God.

Samkhya refers to the self as Purusha (Person) and Prakriti (Nature) as two ultimate or eternal realities. There are many eternal selves that confuse their true nature as conscious subjects with the products of nature, not just the physical body but also intellect, individuality, the mind and the senses, in a relationship likened to that of a spectator (Purusha) watching a dancer (Prakriti) and becoming so caught up in the dance that it forgets it is just watching rather than dancing. The goal is kaivalya (isolation) in which each self is free of its association with nature though in fact the self and nature were really always distinct. Thus the ultimate goal is to set yourself free from the false sense of entanglement/identification with the material world, and the main path is renunciation and meditation. It should be noted that there is no necessity here for the concept of God, so Samkhya is to all intents and purposes atheistic. Where Samkhya thought has been combined with the philosophy of Yoga, the deity can be looked to as an example of a purusha who has never been trapped in the material world.

In Shakta Tantra the human being is an incarnation of the male (Shiva) and female (Shakti) principles with a mystical physiology of nadis (channels) and centres (chakras) as a microcosm of the universe. The practitioner seeks to raise Shakti in the form of Kundalini (the coiled serpent power) up the central channel through successive centres until it reaches the thousand-petalled lotus above the head. In order to achieve this unification of Shiva and Shakti and thereby transcend all oppositions, the practitioner employs different bodily postures and physical and mental exercises (see Meditation and yoga). Rather than seeking to free yourself from the material body, this esoteric form of Hindu practice makes use of the physical body to realise the divine female-male unity within this life here and now.

Nevertheless, many Hindus may be more concerned, at least immediately, with this-worldly matters such as health, happiness and prosperity and also with acquiring merit in order to achieve a favourable incarnation in the next life rather than focusing on any ultimate eternal destiny. These aims are associated with other practices, among them vows (vrats) for personal well-being, marital harmony and family success and doing good deeds of various kinds including acts of generosity and hospitality. Living an ethical life, doing your duty and being kind to all are the priorities in this context.

Most contemporary Hindus find no conflict between Hindu teachings and modern science, and indeed may claim that many of the findings of recent science can be found in ancient Hindu texts, philosophies and traditions, from submarines and space rockets to quantum physics. It is true that the immense timescales, universe, and sun-centred planetary system of Hindu tradition fit better with modern science than some other traditional cosmologies. Some of the accounts of creation in Hindu sacred texts seem to describe a gradual evolution of life from simplicity to complexity, and the Hindu idea of recurrent creation and destruction of the universe can be compared to theories of ‘big bangs’ and ‘big crunches’. The concept of atoms in Vaishesika philosophy can be seen as a forerunner of modern atomic theory. India has indeed made great contributions to science and mathematics since ancient times, such as the concepts of zero and infinity. However, it has to be said that concepts that sound similar do not have quite the same meaning nor were arrived at by scientific methods in the sense used today. Some contemporary scientists might query the empirical evidence for the existence of deities, eternal selves, reincarnation, karma, moksha and other basic elements of the Hindu tradition, but the rich diversity of the tradition provides much scope for flexible interpretations that can reconcile the claims of science and religion.