Neo-Hinduism - What Is It?

[raghu]

This article was written by Dr. Frank Morales, an American convert to Hinduism. Please note that I am not a follower of Dr. Morales, but I do find the essay interesting. No one can deny that Neo-Hinduism exists and has largely replaced traditional or classical Hinduism in the eyes of practitioners and academics alike. I would like to begin a discussion on understanding and recognizing Neo-Hinduism. What are some other characteristics of Neo-Hindu thinkers? How do Neo-Hindu thinkers see themselves in relation to traditional Hindus? What influences Neo-Hindu thinkers to depart from traditional Hindu patterns of thinking?

 

For the purposes of this discussion, I am using "Hinduism" according to the conventional definition used historically, i.e. those religious traditions that flourished on the Indian subcontinent and owe their origins at least in theory to the Vedas and their adjunctive scriptures. Please, no holier-than-thou, ethnocentric diabtribes about how we are not Hindus, about how Hinduism just refers to the body, etc. I find it easier for the purposes of discussion to say "Hinduism" instead of saying "Vaishnavas, Shaivas, Shaktas, Advaitins, nyaya/vaiseshikas, karma-mimamsas, followers of Patanjali's yoga," etc.

 

---------------------

The Death of Traditional Hinduism

 

From Dr. Frank Morales

 

A tragic occurrence in the very long history of Hinduism was witnessed throughout the 19th century, the destructive magnitude of which Hindu leaders and scholars today are only beginning to adequately assess and address. This development both altered and weakened Hinduism to such a tremendous degree that Hinduism has not yet even begun to recover.

 

British Attack on Hinduism

The classical, traditional Hinduism that had been responsible for the continuous development of thousands of years of sophisticated culture, architecture, music, philosophy, ritual and theology came under devastating assault during the 19th century British colonial rule like at no other time in India's history.

 

Innovative Cultural Genocide

What the Hindu community experienced under British Christian domination, however, was an ominously innovative form of cultural genocide. What they experienced was not an attempt at the physical annihilation of their culture, but a deceivingly more subtle program of intellectual and spiritual annihilation. It is easy for a people to understand the urgent threat posed by an enemy that seeks to literary kill them. It is much harder, though, to understand the threat of an enemy who, while remaining just as deadly, claims to seek only to serve a subjugated people's best interests.

 

Anglicized Hindu Intellectuals

During this short span of time in the 19th century, the ancient grandeur and beauty of a classical Hinduism that had stood the test of thousands of years, came under direct ideological attack. What makes this period in Hindu history most especially tragic is that the main apparatus that the British used in their attempts to destroy traditional Hinduism were the British educated, spiritually co-opted sons and daughters of Hinduism itself. Seeing traditional Hinduism through the eyes of their British masters, a pandemic wave of 19th century Anglicized Hindu intellectuals saw it as their solemn duty to "Westernize" and "modernize" traditional Hinduism to make it more palatable to their new European overlords. One of the phenomena that occurred during this historic period was the fabrication of a new movement known as "neo-Hinduism".

 

What is Neo-Hinduism?

Neo-Hinduism was an artificial religious construct used as a paradigmatic juxtaposition to the legitimate traditional Hinduism that had been the religion and culture of the people for thousands of years. Neo-Hinduism was used as an effective weapon to replace authentic Hinduism with a British invented version designed to make a subjugated people easier to manage and control.

 

The Christian and British inspired neo-Hinduism movement attempted to execute several overlapping goals, and did so with great success:

a) The subtle Christianization of Hindu theology, which included concerted attacks on iconic imagery (archana, or murti), panentheism, and continued belief in the beloved gods and goddesses of traditional Hinduism.

b) The imposition of the Western scientific method, rationalism and skepticism on the study of Hinduism in order to show Hinduism's supposedly inferior grasp of reality.

c) Ongoing attacks against the ancient Hindu science of ritual in the name of simplification and democratization of worship.

d) The importation of Radical Universalism from liberal, Unitarian / Universalist Christianity as a device designed to severely water down traditional Hindu philosophy.

 

The Death of Traditional Hinduism

The dignity, strength and beauty of traditional Hinduism was recognized as the foremost threat to Christian European rule in India. The invention of neo-Hinduism was the response. Had this colonialist program been carried out with a British face, it would not have met with as much success as it did. Therefore, an Indian face was used to impose neo-Hinduism upon the Hindu people. The resultant effects of the activities of Indian neo-Hindus were ruinous for traditional Hinduism.

 

The Dilemma

The primary dilemma with Hinduism as we find it today, in a nutshell, is precisely this problem of…

1) Not recognizing that there are really two distinct and conflicting Hinduisms today, Neo-Hindu and Traditionalist Hindu; and

2) With Traditionalists being the guardians of authentic Dharma philosophically and attitudinally, but not yet coming to full grips with the modern world, i.e., not yet having found a way of negotiating authentic Hindu Dharma with an ability to interface with modernity and communicate this unadulterated Hindu Dharma in a way that the modern mind can most appreciate it.

 

A Confused Existence

Hinduism will continue to be a religion mired in confusion about its own true meaning and value until traditionalist Hindus can assertively, professionally and intelligently communicate the reality of genuine Hinduism to the world.

[raghu]

I wanted to post a poll, but the forum rules apparently allow only one answer per question, which does not make much sense. :-)

[Haridasdasdas]

So Arya Samaj would be Neo Hinduism?

[sambya]

yes its true that neo hinduism does exist . but i dont think that it is as dangerous as is being said here . all religions are constantly changing and adding on new ideas ....this is more so in case of hinduism . so common sociological law indicates that newer interpretations of hinduism is bound to replace the older ones .

 

there have been some changes in its structure but that is not totally alien to hinduism . for example traditional hinduism was composed of distinct and seperate sects which generally did not believe in each other's pjilosophy . but modern hindusim is more open and accepts all sects as one . but this idea of onesness was already present in the hindu structure as is evident from panchopasana and similar practices.

 

just like sankaracharya introduced monistic philosophy in a big way , but it had existed even before that , which is evident when we see sankaracharya drawing references of earlier sutra-kaars . similarly ramanujacharya and the bhakti movement of middle ages changed the face of hinduism forever , but the essentials of bhakti were there long before them .

 

hinduism as a social way of life constantly adjusts and readjusts itself to the surroundings . think of the period of buddhism . with the state patronage and everything going towards the buddhists the hindu intellectuals restructured their religion to make it strong . the earlier insignificant ideas like reincarnation , karmic law etc were brought into prominence. buddha was cleverly incorporated as an avatar . this also changed hinduism forever , but for its own good .

 

personally i veiw this as a change in hinduism . an improvistaion of the existing ideas . but i dont agree with people derogating the idols etc. that type of hyper neo hinduism should be condemmed ( if it exists at all) . and i dont believe at all that hinduism is weakened by this . i dont think hindusim would collapse for such flimsy causes . the astounding spread of hinduism all over the west is a testimony to the fact that it is actually getting a rebirth .........who knows it might overtake the west as it once did with south east asia !!!

 

 

with due respect to dr morales i can think of another motive behind such a theory . it might be too speculative but possible .

 

many times we come across biased scientists and researchers ..........like the hindu shcolar who went to the extent of saying that aurangazeb demolished the kashi vishwanath temple to rescue a rajput princess , just to appease the islamic people . and beyond doubt they are scholars proper !! now if someone can prove that the most characteristic features seen in modern hinduism are nothing but reflections of western culture on the religion , he is succesfully finding a way to discredit the hinduism from the values for which it is currently prized for . and this , in the present state of decreasing influence of church and march of hinduism buddhism can create a check on its progress . and the best way to camouflage the real intentions would be to speak as a genuine well wisher of hinduism .

 

i know this is pure speculation .................just said it as a way of alternative thought . lets hope things are not so sinister !!!

[sambya]

in support of my above theory i quote the following from your original post :

 

 

 

The importation of Radical Universalism from liberal, Unitarian / Universalist Christianity ............

 

just see the praises being sung for christianity, liberal , unitarian , universalist .........

 

 

 

The dignity, strength and beauty of traditional Hinduism was recognized as the foremost threat to Christian European rule in India. The invention of neo-Hinduism was the response

 

 

 

fact is that british rulers for most of their time period of rule did not feel any significant threat from hinduism . at that time hinduism was a 'superstitious' pagan faith in their eyes and the faith in church was strong .

 

the real threat was from this 'neo-hinduism' and began to be felt from 1960's with the advent of secularism and fall of moral values in the west .

 

 

 

The Dilemma

The primary dilemma with Hinduism as we find it today, in a nutshell, is precisely this problem of…

1) Not recognizing that there are really two distinct and conflicting Hinduisms today, Neo-Hindu and Traditionalist Hindu;

 

if most hindus are not aware of this dilemma inspite of being educated(many are) and practically living in hinduism everyday , by what astonishing means does an westerner find out this invisible crisis of hinduism ??

 

 

Hinduism will continue to be a religion mired in confusion about its own true meaning and value ..................................

 

there has been a change in hinduism ...all right ! by why should it turn into a confused religion ? 99% of indian hindus would agree that there is no confusion at all . what big confusion is it ?

[raghu]

 

just see the praises being sung for christianity, liberal , unitarian , universalist .........

 

Are you and I reading the same essay? I thought it was quite obvious that the author had a thinly veiled, derisive tone towards Christianity.

 

 

fact is that british rulers for most of their time period of rule did not feel any significant threat from hinduism . at that time hinduism was a 'superstitious' pagan faith in their eyes and the faith in church was strong .

 

The historical facts do not bear this out. While it was true that they denounced Hinduism, it is also true that they invested quite a bit in scholarship to decipher and dissect Hinduism. This is not the action of someone who feels that your religion is a bunch of superstitious bunk that is beneath him.

 

 

the real threat was from this 'neo-hinduism' and began to be felt from 1960's with the advent of secularism and fall of moral values in the west .

 

 

Neo-Hinduism as defined by the author began in the 1800s.

 

 

there has been a change in hinduism ...all right ! by why should it turn into a confused religion ? 99% of indian hindus would agree that there is no confusion at all . what big confusion is it ?

 

Confused people often do not know that they are confused. An example of confused thinking is the idea that all religions, despite their differences, are actually the same. A confused person will state this as a maxim and ignore all evidence to the contrary. Similarly, a confused Hindu will talk about the greatness of Islam and Christianity as valid but different paths. But then again he will be very upset if his son or daughter converts to Islam. Similarly, there are those Hindus who uphold the greatness of other religions even when it is shown that those religions have hostility towards Hinduism built in to them.

 

Where Morales I think is incorrect is his view that Neo-Hinduism was enforced on the Indians by the British. I disagree. It appears that belief in Neo-Hinduism has always been a voluntary effort on the part of Hindus who were educated in the British secular educational system to recreate their religion in a way that makes it more appealing to secular minded individuals. Here is another example of confusion - they will refer to it as "sanatana dharma" even though they admit to changing it. So what is "sanatana" about it?

[raghu]

I found this by googling "Neo Hinduism." It is from an entry on Hinduism from the Internet Encyclopedia of Religion. I don't agree with everything the author says, but his review of Hinduism is surprisingly fair and free of derision for an academic. The excerpt below is his offering on Neo-Hinduism:

 

 

4. Stage Three: Neo-Hinduism

 

The term “Neo-Hinduism” refers to a conception of the Hindu religion formed by recent authors who were learned in traditional Indian philosophy, and English. Famous Neo-Hindus include Swami Vivekānanda (1863-1902) the famous disciple of the traditional Hindu saint Rāma-Krsna, and India’s first president, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888-1975) a professional philosopher who held academic posts at various universities in India and Oxford, in the UK.

A famous formulation of the doctrine of Neo-Hinduism is the simile that likens religions to rivers, and the oceans to God: as all rivers lead to the ocean so do all religions lead to God. Similarly, Swami Nirvenananda in his book Hinduism at a Glance writes:

 

All true religions of the world lead us alike to the same goal, namely, to perfection if, of course, they are followed faithfully. Each of them is a correct path to Divinity. The Hindus have been taught to regard religion in this light. (Nivernananda, p.20.)

 

Frequently, Neo-Hindu authors identify Hinduism with Vedānta in their elaboration of Neo-Hindu doctrine, and in this formulation we find another tenet of Neo-Hinduism: Hinduism is not simply another religion, but a meta-religion, or the philosophy of religion. Hence, we find Vivekānanda writes:

 

Ours is the universal religion. It is inclusive enough, it is broad enough to include all the ideals. All the ideals of religion that already exist in the world can be immediately included, and we can patiently wait for all the ideals that are to come in the future to be taken in the same fashion, embraced in the infinite arms of the religion of Vedānta. (Vivekānanda, vol. III p.251-2.)

 

Similarly, Radhakrishnan holds “[t]he Vedānta is not a religion, but religion itself in its most universal and deepest significance” (Radhakrishnan, 35).

The view identified as Neo-Hinduism here might be understood as a form of Universalism or liberal theology that attempts to ground religion itself in Hindu philosophy. Neo-Hinduism must be distinguished from another theological view that has a long history in India, which we might call Inclusivist Theology. According to Inclusivist Theology, there are elements in any number of religious practices that are consonant with the one true religion, and if a practitioner of a contrary religion holds fast to those elements in their religion that are correct, they will eventually attain the Ultimate. Often, this view finds expression in the widespread Hindu view that all the various deities are really lower manifestations of one true deity (for example, a Vaisnava who held an Inclusivist theology might interpret all deities, in so far as they are consonant with the qualities attributed to Visnu, to be lower manifestations of Visnu, and thus good first steps to conceptualizing the Ultimate). Neo-Hinduism, in contrast, makes no distinction between deities, religions, or elements within religions, for all religions operate at the level of the practical, while the Ultimate, ex hypothesi, is transcendent. There is no religion, or no portion of any religion, which is incorrect, on this view, for all are equally human efforts to strive for the Divine. Neo-Hindus do not typically regard themselves as forming a new philosophy or religion, though the doctrine expressed by Neo-Hinduism is characterized by theses and concerns not clearly expressed in classical Hindu philosophy. As a rule, Neo-Hinduism is a reformulation of Advaita Vedānta, which emphasizes the implicit liberal theological tendencies that follow from the two-fold account of Brahman.

Recall that on Śankara’s account a distinction is to be drawn between a lower and higher Brahman. Higher Brahman (nirguna Brahman) is impersonal and lacks much of what is normally attributed to God. In contrast, lower Brahman (saguna Brahman) has personal characteristics attributed to deities. While the higher Brahman is the eternally existing reality, lower Brahman is a result of the same creative error that results in the construction of normal integrated egos in bodies: superimposition. Neo-Hinduism takes note of the fact that this account of lower Brahman’s nature implies that the deities normally worshiped in a religious context are really natural artefacts, or projections of aesthetic concerns on the Ultimate: they are images of the Ultimate formulated for the sake of religious progress. Neo-Hinduism thus reasons that no one’s personal God is any more the real God than another religion’s personal God: rather, all are equally approximations of the one real, impersonal Brahman that transcends the domestic qualities attributed to it. While personal deities are considerably devalued on this account, the result is a liberal theology that is closed to no religious tradition, in principle, for any religion that personalizes God will be approaching the highest Brahman through the lens of superimposed characteristics of object-qualities on Brahman.

Critics of Neo-Hinduism have noted that while Neo-Hinduism aspires to shun the sectarianism that characterises the history of religion in the West through a spirit of Universalism, Neo-Hinduism itself engages in a sectarianism, in so far as it identifies Hinduism with the true perspective that understands the quality-less nature of the Ultimate (cf. Halbfass, Tradition and Reflection pp. 51-86). In defense of Neo-Hinduism, it could be argued that it is a genuine, modern attempt to re-understand the philosophical implications of earlier Hindu thought, and not an attempt to reconcile the various religions of the world. Critics might also argue that Neo-Hinduism is bad history: many philosophers that we today regard as Hindu (such as Rāmānuja or Madhva) would not accept the idea that all deities are equal, and that God is ultimately an impersonal entity. Moreover, Śankara, the commentator on the Brahma Sūtras did not argue for the type of Universalism characteristic of Neo-Hinduism, which regards all religious observance as equally valid (though this arguably is an implication of his philosophy). Neo-Hinduism, the critic might argue, is historical revisionism. In response, Neo-Hinduism might defend itself by insisting that it is not in the business of providing an account of the history of all of Hindu philosophy, but only a certain strand that it regards as the most important.

[sambya]

 

Are you and I reading the same essay? I thought it was quite obvious that the author had a thinly veiled, derisive tone towards Christianity.

 

 

yes were are reading the same essay ...........its just that i presented a different perspective !!

 

 

 

 

The historical facts do not bear this out. While it was true that they denounced Hinduism, it is also true that they invested quite a bit in scholarship to decipher and dissect Hinduism. This is not the action of someone who feels that your religion is a bunch of superstitious bunk that is beneath him.

 

 

the research and interest that was shown towards hindusim was only by a handfull of intellectuals and historians ........and that was mostly directed towards ancient hindu civilization, not contemporary hindu religion . but the masses of western world did not hold very high opinions regarding hindusim .

 

anyaways , this was just my personal belief about this matter ..........

[raghu]

Traditional or Classical Hinduism includes the sad-darshanas and the various schools of Vedanta like those of Ramanuja, Madhva, Sankara, etc. Now what is Neo-Hinduism and how is it different from Classical Hinduism?

 

These are some features that distinguish Neo-Hinduism from Classical or Traditional Hinduism.

 

1) Neo-Hinduism thinkers are generally less intellectual and less rigorous in their approach to scripture than are traditional Hindu thinkers. Ironically, Neo-Hinduism thinkers often think their approach is more intellectual, but the lack of rigor shows from even casual scrutiny of their philosophy.

 

2) Neo-Hinduism thinkers often assign totally new meanings to otherwise straightforward shlokas and mantras in order to bring them in line with their philosophy. Very often the meanings they impart to the texts often contradict what the texts themselves say.

 

3) As a justification for changing the meaning of texts, Neo-Hinduism thinkers often assert that their "interpretations" can be understood only by those who are on a "higher level" of sprititual understanding. In this way, they try to fool lay people into believing that they have a correct understanding of scripture, but they do not feel obligated to explain that meaning logically. This strategy appears to be loosely based on Sankara's paradigm of paramarthika and vyavaharika levels of understanding reality.

 

4) Neo-Hinduism thinkers emphasize the great variety of possible valid interpretations that a given text can have. THis is in contrast to traditional Hindu thinkers who generally go out of their way to show that *only* their understanding of a text is best. In this way, Neo-Hinduism thinkers set a precedent wherein anyone, regardless of whether he knows Sanskrit or has even read a particular text, can try to "interpret" the text (by which it is meant, assigning new meanings to a text that are not actually found in that scripture).

 

5) Note again that "interpretation" to most people refers to the process of explaining the correct meaning of something whose apparent meaning is not clear. For Neo-Hinduism thinkers, "interpretation" means to make up a meaning for a text whose actual meaning is not acceptable to them.

 

6) Neo-Hindus often to some form of Radical Universalism, the idea that all religions are the same, lead to the same path, or are at least compatible in some way. They will hold to such theories in spite of mounting contradictory evidence from the scriptures of those different religions. Indeed, they may even assert that the contradictions are only apparent, and that one has to have the "higher understanding" which they have to see how they are actually all one in purpose.

 

7) Neo-Hindus are almost all self-professed followers of Advaita, and generally they equate Advaita to Vedanta and will hardly admit to the existence of non-Advaitic systems of Vedanta unless pressed to do so.

 

8) Neo-Hindus generally use the language of Vedanta to lend intellectual credibility to their philosophies. Thus, they will often throw around words like "Brahman,vedanta,atman," etc with at most a superficial understanding of what these mean. Thus, Neo-Hindus could also be described as "Neo-Vedantists." I will use the terms interchangeably though I think they also have different shades of meaning.

 

9) Neo-Hindus are generally moral relativists. This follows from points #2-6. They may state that certain behaviors are good and virtuous, but will often refrain from condemning contrary behaviors. Thus, for a Neo-Hindu, vegetarianism is very good, but if someone chooses to eat meat, then that is not wrong. Often what is right or wrong is up to the individual person's opinion or "interpretation."

 

10) Neo-Hinduism thinkers are heavily influenced by attitudes which surfaced in India from the 1900's onwards, specifically by Judeo-Christian monotheism, liberal-secular-progressive humanism, and/or Indian nationalism. Thus, when they preach their own versions of "Hinduism," they often downplay the elements that would offend followers of Semitic religions (such as the paradigm of multiple devas) or progressive humanists (such as varnashrama or stri-dharma). For example, Neo-Hindus may on one hand officially accept that "idol worship" as a place in religious life, but on the other hand deride its importance in the sadhana of a "more advanced" practitioner.

 

11) This follows from point #10 - because Neo-Hindu thinkers have subconsciously imbibed Western biases about morality and ethics, they often see themselves as enlightened reformers whose views represent a more "evolved" form of Hinduism. As the British MacCaulyites had intended, Neo-Hindu thinkers actually believe that traditional Hinduism is riddled with social evils which they as "reformers" are in a position to change. They may even describe "idol worship" and "caste system" as being among these "social evils." Of course, they do not see crimes in the West as being social evils intrinsic to Western religions. Such was the success of the McCaulyite brainwashing.

 

12) This point also follows from point #10 - because Neo-Hinduism thinkers are often covered secular progressives, they emphasize the doing of welfare work as a type of sadhana, even to the point of excluding worship and study of scripture. Neo-Hinduism thinkers base their popular credibility on their financial support for the community (in the form of building hospitals, schools, etc) instead of on the strength of their philosophy. Predictably, lay Hindus who are also influenced by secular progressive ideas see nothing at all wrong with this and may even wonder why it is important to scrutinize philosophy as a means of determining validity.

 

13) Neo-Hinduism thinkers often represent their beliefs as "Hinduism" and will downplay or even ignore opposing Hindu schools of thought which are older and/or have greater foundation in scripture. Thus, Neo-Hinduism thinkers will shamelessly claim that in "Hinduism," all devas are different forms of the same supreme, that Brahman is formless, that liberation means to merge into Brahman, and that all religions are different but valid means at getting at this truth. They will not even accept that there are other schools of Hinduism which do not to such ideas, and if you press them on the subject, they will just say that those other schools are "fundamentalist," anachronistic, less enlightened, etc. They will do this in spite of having just said that those discordant schools are also valid in their own way. This Neo-Hinduism strategy is so successful that even non-religious Hindu civil-rights organizations like the Hindu Human Rights organization and the Hindu American Foundation repeat verbatim the ideas of Neo-Hinduism (formless God, multiplicity of valid paths, etc) as being defining features of Hinduism.

 

 

The above are all generalizations, of course, and one may find some or all of such attributes in any given sect of Hinduism. However, I think it can be said that the more of these attributes a given Hindu leader demonstrates, the more likely he is a Neo-Vedantist rather than a representative of a traditional Hindu school of thought.

[Haridasdasdas]

 

yes its true that neo hinduism does exist . but i dont think that it is as dangerous as is being said here . all religions are constantly changing and adding on new ideas ....this is more so in case of hinduism . so common sociological law indicates that newer interpretations of hinduism is bound to replace the older ones .

 

there have been some changes in its structure but that is not totally alien to hinduism . for example traditional hinduism was composed of distinct and seperate sects which generally did not believe in each other's pjilosophy . but modern hindusim is more open and accepts all sects as one . but this idea of onesness was already present in the hindu structure as is evident from panchopasana and similar practices.

 

just like sankaracharya introduced monistic philosophy in a big way , but it had existed even before that , which is evident when we see sankaracharya drawing references of earlier sutra-kaars . similarly ramanujacharya and the bhakti movement of middle ages changed the face of hinduism forever , but the essentials of bhakti were there long before them .

 

hinduism as a social way of life constantly adjusts and readjusts itself to the surroundings . think of the period of buddhism . with the state patronage and everything going towards the buddhists the hindu intellectuals restructured their religion to make it strong . the earlier insignificant ideas like reincarnation , karmic law etc were brought into prominence. buddha was cleverly incorporated as an avatar . this also changed hinduism forever , but for its own good .

 

personally i veiw this as a change in hinduism . an improvistaion of the existing ideas . but i dont agree with people derogating the idols etc. that type of hyper neo hinduism should be condemmed ( if it exists at all) . and i dont believe at all that hinduism is weakened by this . i dont think hindusim would collapse for such flimsy causes . the astounding spread of hinduism all over the west is a testimony to the fact that it is actually getting a rebirth .........who knows it might overtake the west as it once did with south east asia !!!

 

That's an intersting idea, that 'reform' is merely showing it in a different way.

 

I'll say one thing though. Catholics don't refer to statues of the virgin Mary as 'Idols'. Also, I cannot imagine any Christian referring to their beleifs as 'mythology'.

 

These are derogatary terms that have been forced into the english language of Indians, since as far as I am aware, before 1947 most English teachers in India were English.

 

I'd say these words don't help you in any way.

[sambya]

 

I'll say one thing though. Catholics don't refer to statues of the virgin Mary as 'Idols'. Also, I cannot imagine any Christian referring to their beleifs as 'mythology'.

 

These are derogatary terms that have been forced into the english language of Indians, since as far as I am aware, before 1947 most English teachers in India were English.

 

I'd say these words don't help you in any way.

 

yes thats true !! these words do have a subtle but prominent derogatory intention within them . maybe i shouldnt have used these words.........anyways my intention in using such words not similar to that of british though . we grew up in a city(calcutta) where the colonial influence still remains the strongest compared with the rest of india . and most older generations of educated bengali society speak in that colonial british english till date . naturally their way of speaking has influenced us unconciously right from the begining . maybe that is the reason i just used such a word . i believe in god with a form . not as inferior saguna brahman , but as a kind of parallel truth . god being infinite is sakaar and nirakaar simlutaneously .

[kaisersose]

 

i believe in god with a form . not as inferior saguna brahman , but as a kind of parallel truth . god being infinite is sakaar and nirakaar simlutaneously .

 

For the record, an "inferior" Saguna Brahman is not part of Advaita.

 

The concept of inferior and superior exist only in doctrines which posit a hierarchy of Gods.

 

Cheers

[sambya]

 

For the record, an "inferior" Saguna Brahman is not part of Advaita.

 

The concept of inferior and superior exist only in doctrines which posit a hierarchy of Gods.

 

Cheers

 

 

true !!

[sant]

 

believe in god with a form . not as inferior saguna brahman , but as a kind of parallel truth . god being infinite is sakaar and nirakaar simlutaneously

 

 

u mean sri krisna

[kaisersose]

 

u mean sri krisna

 

He may mean Shiva too..or Shakti, or Ganapathi, etc.

 

Cheers

[sant]

No the features he talks about relates to sri krisna only .

[kaisersose]

 

No the features he talks about relates to sri krisna only .

 

No..those features perfectly match up with Shiva. Krishna is only an avatar of Vishnu - like several others.

 

Educate yourself beyond Iskcon material.

 

Cheers

[primate]

 

For the record, an "inferior" Saguna Brahman is not part of Advaita.

 

The concept of inferior and superior exist only in doctrines which posit a hierarchy of Gods.

 

Cheers

A hierarchy of 'manifestations of Brahman' or 'gods' (including humans) is conceivable and logically tenable, as well as fully compatible with the philosophical framework of Advaita! Most notably, the existence of fractal (or hierarchical self-similar) structure in mathematical chaotic systems, provides good (scientific) evidence for such a reality. In a mathematical chaos analogy of reality, Nirguna Brahman is the fundamental mechanism of reality and Saguna Brahman is its emergent, hierarchical self-similar (fractal) structure or form. Ultimately, these are non-different..

<center><br />

<embed src="

" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object><br />

</center><br />

[sambya]

what a chaos !!

 

chaos theory here again ?!!

 

ha ha , just joking.......

[raghu]

Another trait of Neo-Hinduism schools is that they often do not credit their guru parampara. Rather, they often imply or openly state that they or their gurus are giving a "new interpretation" rather than claiming legitimacy on the basis of a guru parampara extending back to one of the original rishis or adi-gurus.

[Sonic Yogi]

"Neo-Hinduism" is a concocted term that is not found in any teachings of the acharyas or the shastras.

 

It is a newly manufactured term that someone invented to garner personal prestige and attention.

 

There is no such thing as "neo-Hinduism".

 

In fact, there is no such thing as Hinduism since the term was manufactured by the Persians in their attempts to lump all the Bharatiyas of India, who follow different scriptures of India, into one nice group of those that must be killed and exterminated.

[raghu]

So Neo-Hinduism basically refers to an approach to scripture and spirituality that is not intellectually rigorous, is influenced by secular progressive humanism, tend to be impersonalist in its presentation, and accepts some degree of radical universalism (i.e. all religions are equal/valid/same).

 

What are some examples of Neo-Hinduism? Does the above sound familiar?

 

Here are some obvious examples

 

Swami Vivekananda (Vivekananda Vedanta Society)

Ramakrishna (Ramakrishna Math)

Sai Baba

 

These individuals and their followers have a long history of obfuscating the otherwise straightforward meaning of certain scriptures to bring them in line with their own thinking. They do not care much for refuting contrary points of view, and in fact when confronted with the illogical nature of their own philosphies, they will often retreat into some form of moral relativism, i.e. all interpretations are ok, this is just my interpretation, etc etc. They all to varying degrees of radical universalism and they believe that spirituality and welfare work are more or less the same.

 

What are some other examples of Neo-Hinduism?

 

Someone had asked about the Arya-Samaj. I really do not know them well so I cannot comment on them.

 

The Internal Society of Divine Love definitely comes across as Neo-Hindu. This is the organization with the Indian sannyasi who surrounds himself with female "sannyasinis."

 

Swami Chinmayananda and his organization definitely has Neo-Vedantic tendencies.

 

Other possibilities may include Ramana Maharishi, Paramahamsa Yogananda, Brahma Kumaris, Divine Life Society. I cannot say one way or another since I do not know them well, but some of their followers I have met, and they come across as Neo-Hindu in their thinking.

 

Does anyone know of other people or organizations that are Neo-Vedantic or Neo-Hindu?

[sant]

Whats your aim raghu

[Kulapavana]

If you have a real hard science, like Mathematics, there is no possibility of neo-mathematics. But when you are talking about 'soft' science, culture, or art, you can use terms like Hinduism and Neo-hinduism to denote substantial revisions of prevailing way of thinking. There is neo-evolutionism as well.

[raghu]

 

If you have a real hard science, like Mathematics, there is no possibility of neo-mathematics. But when you are talking about 'soft' science, culture, or art, you can use terms like Hinduism and Neo-hinduism to denote substantial revisions of prevailing way of thinking. There is neo-evolutionism as well.

 

Precisely. Hinduism does not denote a single religion. The term "Hinduism" is not found in any "Hindu" scripture. To understand what "Hinduism" is, you must understand how the word has been historically used. Historically, "Hinduism" is an umbrella term used by foreigners and academics to describe the variety of religious traditions which flourished in ancient India and were supposedly based on the Vedas. That is all.

 

Despite the variety of traditionl Hindu doctrines, we know that they shared certain characteristics, such as a belief in and respect for the authority of the Vedas. However, today, what most people know about "Hinduism" comes not from traditional Hindu thinkers but rather from Neo-Hindu thinkers.

 

Why is this significant? The answer is very simple - Neo-Hindu thinkers differ substantially in their beliefs, their methods, and their attitudes from traditional Hindu thinkers. Yet, Neo-Hindu thinkers use language that gives the false impression that they represent "Hinduism." Examples include invoking the term "sanatana-dharma," giving lip service to the Vedas while fabricating beliefs not found therein, accepting and promoting Radical Universalism, etc.

 

Among scholarly circles there is now increasing awareness of the differences between Classical Hinduism and Neo Hinduism. Such awareness will only help those who believe in traditional Hindu religions. Now, for the first time in decades, there is a real possibility that traditional Hindus can have their beliefs understood and appreciated without having to specifically jettison the baggage foisted upon them by Neo-Hinduism thinkers. How many times have Vaishavas had to correct false impressions propagated by Neo-Hinduism thinkers? "Oh you're Hindu, that means you think all religions are the same, right?" Or "Oh you're HIndu, that means you think everything is one, right?"

 

The time has come for people to understand the differences between traditional/classical Hinduism and the new-age, watered down versions that have had the spotlight for the past 2 centuries.