When reading Oxtoby's chapter on the Hindu tradition, it was interesting to note that the word Hindu is not a word that people from India who practice this religion gave themselves. Rather, it was given to them by conquering Indo-Europeans, Greeks, and the British (2002). Additionally, I was surprised to learn that the "Hindu" religion is not necessarily governed by any "single holy book, dogma religious leader or authority for the entire Hindu tradition" (Oxtoby, 2002, p. 16). This seemed especially significant since, in my experience, there has usually been a very particular definition of someone's religion. For example, if someone is Catholic, they read the Catholic Bible and follow the precepts of the Pope in Rome, and those precepts and the type of worship is very specific. This seemed to be a very important difference between Eastern and Western traditional religions. In fact, according to Oxtoby, since Hindu is a pantheistic religious philosophy, those who may be considered Hindu may pick from one of several gods or goddesses to pay reverence to or to devote their prayers to (2002).
Another important point that Oxtoby made was that there are several sacred texts, from the Upanishads to the Vedas to the Gita to the Laws of the Manu as well as three paths to liberation. Although these may not contradict one another, they do seem to allow for differences in an individual's path to enlightenment or life path on earth. In addition, there are societal rules that govern the interaction of Hindus with one another, for example, the differences between the castes and classes influences who one marries and what career one may follow. However, as Oxtoby points out these rules and the precepts in the sacred texts are not necessarily hard and fast rules. He uses a large, wealthy and influential family of the servant caste as an example of some of the exceptions that occur. He also points out that someone who is simply a drumme...