In the Western world we are used to associating the ideas of priesthood, hierarchy and dogma, mainly because they are united in the largest religious organization with which we are familiar, the Roman Catholic Church. But the combination is not necessary. Hinduism is intensely priestly but neither hierarchical nor dogmatic, Islam is dogmatic but neither priestly nor hierarchical, Buddhism is dogmatic and also somewhat hierarchical as it has to deal with bodies of men assembled in monasteries where discipline is necessary but except in its most corrupt form. forms is not priestly.
The absence of the hierarchical idea in Hinduism is striking. Not only is there no pope, but there is almost no office comparable to a bishop. The relationships recognized in the priesthood are those that spring from birth and the equally sacred ties that bind teacher and student. Thus, there is little to remind us of the organization of the Christian churches. We simply have teachers expounding their holy books to their scholars, with such a combination of tradition and originality as their idiosyncrasies might suggest, something akin to the theory of congregational churches. But that resemblance is almost destroyed by the fact that both teachers and students belong to clans, connected by descent and accepted by the people as a higher order of humanity. Even in the most modern sects, descendants of the founder are often given special reverence.
Although the Brahmins have no church discipline, they do not tolerate the interference of kings. Buddhist rulers have convened councils, but Hindu monarchs have not. They have built temples, paid priests to perform sacrifices, and have often been jealous of them, but for the past two thousand years they have made no attempt to control them within their own sphere or create a state Church.
And the Brahmins for their part have remained within their own province. It is true that they have managed to impose -or identify themselves with- a very demanding code of social, legal and religious prescriptions, but they have rarely claimed temporal power or claimed to be something more than viziers. They have, of course, supported pious kings and received support – especially donations – from them, and have enjoyed political influence as domestic chaplains to royal families, but they have not consented to any such relationship between religion and state.