Thread by @shrikanth_krish

The degree of "reform" in Hinduism in 19th century is hardly comparable to the makeover Christianity received in 15th / 16th cen Europe

Hindu practice had no discontinuous break from the past - barring greater democratization - an inevitable outcome of urbanization and modernity

https://twitter.com/kaeshour/status/1155448878226972672

The aspect in which "reform" was most marked was perhaps Temple entry

Even that materialized not as much in 19th century but in the 20th century

But in terms of the nature of ritual on the ground, or the forms of religious practice, there was hardly much attenuation or change

Christianity in contrast changed doctrinally in the 15th/16th cen

And saw the emergence of new sects, new theologians, with altogether new doctrines

Puritanism
Calvinism
Lutheranism
....
Later Methodism
Mormonism

Not to mention the Counter-reformation movements like Jesuits

In India, the "reform" sects were few and far in between

Sure we had -

Brahma Samaj
Arya Samaj
Later Ramakrishna Mission..

But they carry very little weight or popular support today with the sole exception of Arya Samaj to a limited extent in North West India

The sects that are going strong today in India are not the ones founded or developed in 19th century

But sects that go way back in time - in many cases over 1000 years

Be it the Smarthas of Shankara MaThas (8th cen)
Sri-Vaishnavas (12th cen)
Madhvas (13th cen)

The scriptural texts honored by most of the major sects in the country are by no means "new"

Be it the Shruti texts, Brahma Sutras, Bhagavad Gita, the ItihAsas, PuraNas

Or for that matter the major Tantra / Agama texts which remain influential in South Indian temple procedurals

So unlike in the case of Christianity where most of the "acharyas" (be it Calvin or Luther) were creatures of the Reformation, the sects of Hinduism have an institutional continuity of about a 1000 years, and an ideological / theological continuity of 2000+ years

This is not to discount the efforts of men like Vivekananda, or Dayananda Saraswati - major 19th cen figures

But with all due respect to Vivekananda, his appeal remains in large measure among the yuppie Hindu middle classes

At least relative to the traditional acharyas

We talked about how so very few texts written in the 19th cen are a part of Hindu practice today

The two most commonly recited compositions by devotees in India are

Hanuman Chalisa (16th cen)
Vishnu Sahasranama (about 2000 years old)

Both have youtube hits in tens of millions

This is in sharp contrast to Christianity where hardly anybody, I repeat, nobody really reads the Bible in Koine Greek or Hebrew

Sure. A handful do, in every town I am sure
But it's a rare thing

The scriptures that people follow are the ones authored in the aftermath of the Reformation

The most famous one being the King James Bible from early 17th century

In India it is not just the Sanskrit texts that are recited in the original

Even the vernacular religious texts have considerable antiquity

We briefly mentioned Hanuman Chalisa (authored in Avadhi - a northern Prakrit). That's 16th cen

But there are other vernacular traditions that are much older

E.g. The Azhwar Pasurams recited in Old Tamil by Sri-Vaishnavas dates conservatively to 8th/9th cen CE

Even when it comes to temple ritual -

The Agama-governed practices are not of 19th century provenance

But even by the most conservative estimates are at the very least several hundred years old if not more

The Pancharatra and Vaikhanasa texts leveraged in temple ritual in the Vaishnavite temples of Southern India were not authored in 19th century. No sir

The texts are at least 1000-1500 years old. But that's me. Most traditionalists would argue they are much much older than that

Now why are we citing all this?

The point one is making is - it is simply wrong to equate the "reformation" in Christianity circa 16th century with the so-called "reform" in Hinduism

There was no fundamental "reform" in 19th cen Hinduism

But merely an adjustment to the realities of modernity

In contrast, Christianity DID have a "reformation" which altered the religion. Fundamentally

In fact it is worthwhile to note that the supposedly new-age Hindu sect that has gained traction in the West - "ISKCON" is not from 19th or 20th century either

But is a branch of the much older GauDiya Vaishnava movement from the 15th century

Perhaps the only major Hindu movement that can be traced to 19th century and which does admittedly command a great deal of followership today is "Shirdi Sai Baba" worship

But no one would ever say that Sai Baba had anything to do with 19th cen "reformation" - so that's just a tidbit, not relevant to the rest of the thread :)

Post-script : This thread by the way is not an argument against "reformation" in Hinduism

All one is saying is - Hinduism today in large measure is NOT a new 19th century makeover religion

Having said that, some may legitimately argue that we need more reformation - particularly institutional reform. And that we have had too little of that in the past 200 years

They may have a point

While others may say "reform" has gone too far

I am not getting into that debate, but merely arguing against the popular notion among many that much reform happened in 19th century

That misconception exists because many confuse "social reform" with "religious reformation"

There was much "social reform" in 19th/20th centuries but the religion itself was not re-made or radically tinkered with