Neo-Hinduism - What Is It?

[Sonic Yogi]

Maybe we could manufacture a term "Neo-Americanism" or "Neo-Muslim" or maybe "Neo-Rastafarianism".

 

At what point does something become "neo" as opposed to traditional?

If a custom follows the same idea as the tradition, then how can we call it "neo"?

 

Maybe "pseudo" is the word he was looking for instead of "neo".

 

If it is not "pseudo" and follows the same tradition, then there is no reason to label it as "neo".

 

I guess the next generation of old people could be called "neo-old people"?

[Kali_Upasaka]

Hinduism has always welcomed new ideas. It has grown by different interpretations of the Acharyas. Sankaracharya , Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya all gave their own interpretation of the Brahma Sutra. Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda and Srila Prabhu Pada has given their own interpretations.

 

Everyone who follows the teaching of an Acharya swears by his interpretation. Some of the followers also say that all the others are wrong. The article quoted comes under this.

 

But most of the theorists ignore the simple fact that In India the vast majority of Hindus worship all Gods/Goddesses. They worship the planetary Gods like Saniswara who is not even a Deva. Some of the Hindus may have a grouse against Christians or Muslims. But this is against the followers and not against Christianity or Islam.

 

This is Hinduism in India.

 

BTW What is classical Hinduism?

 

1. Vedic Hinduism of the Rig Veda? ( No Krishna or Kali. No idols. No temples and no Smiritis.)

 

2. Puranic Hinduism?

 

3. Hinduism before Sankara?

 

4. Hinduism before Ramanuja?

 

5. Hinduism before Madhva?

 

6. Hinduism before Chaitanya?

 

7. Hinduism before the Muslims invaded India?

 

8. Hinduism before the British invaded India?

 

You can choose one depending on your beliefs.

 

Of course some people say Hinduism does not exist. Unfortunately all the Hindus in the world are stuck with a non-existing religion.

 

Again if the religion does not exist how can any idea change it?

 

Treat every interpretation as a different religion.

 

Shaivism.

Sakthism.

Vaishnavism

Krishnaism

Narayanism

Ramakrishnaism

Sai Babaism. and so on.

 

May be that is what is happening now.

[raghu]

 

Hinduism has always welcomed new ideas.

 

This is historically incorrect. Even a casual perusal of the writings of the acharyas will reveal very aggressive refutation and denial of contradictory philosphies and religions.

 

It is correct to say that Hinduism has been *tolerant* of new religious philosphies. However, tolerance is not the same as acceptance. Neo-Hinduism thinkers often cannot fathom the difference between the two.

 

 

It has grown by different interpretations of the Acharyas. Sankaracharya , Ramanujacharya and Madhvacharya all gave their own interpretation of the Brahma Sutra. Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda and Srila Prabhu Pada has given their own interpretations.

 

This is another symptom of the diseased, Neo-Hinduism thinking. Ramakrishna and Vivekananda did NOT give their interpretations of Brahma Sutra. Ramakrishna had nothing to do with Vedanta and Vivekananda only invoked Vedantic concepts without even writing his own commentary. In fact, neither of these individual have demonstrated a thorough enough knowledge of Vedanta to actually write their own commentary. This is why in Ramakrishna Math you will only find Brahma Sutra commentaries of Sri Sankaracharya.

 

 

Everyone who follows the teaching of an Acharya swears by his interpretation. Some of the followers also say that all the others are wrong.

 

This noticeably contradicts your earlier statement about how Hinduism has always welcomed new ideas.

 

 

But most of the theorists ignore the simple fact that In India the vast majority of Hindus worship all Gods/Goddesses. They worship the planetary Gods like Saniswara who is not even a Deva.

 

This is because lay Hindus often do not follow any specific sampradaya. This may be due to the breakdown of brahminical authority in relatively recent times. Or it may be that there have always been lay Hindus who never aligned themselves with any specific system. Most likely it is a combination of both.

 

Certainly it is important to acknowledge lay folk Hinduism, but lay folk do not write philosphical treatises which define the religion's views. Also, many lay folk preferentially worship an ishta-devata. Even if, out of respect, they bow to other deities, this is not the same as accepting mleccha religions as valid. It would be very difficult if not impossible to show that traditional lay Hindus accepted some version of Radical Universalism. It is more likely that they would have inherited the same bias against foreign cultures which pervade the smritis.

 

 

BTW What is classical Hinduism?

 

This has already been defined earlier.

[sambya]

this so called neo hindusim is nothing more than a newer interpretation of hinduism . this has already happened innumerable times in its history .

 

can shankara's change in its structure be called neo-hinduism ? when chaitanya promoted loud chanting of otherwise guhya mantra wasnt that a deviation from the norms ? when brahmins accepted buddha as god doesnt that amount to a deviation ?

 

what are standard scriptures of hinduism ? in the sense what scriptures can be said to be of classical hinduism ? smritis changed hinduism of the shrutis , tantra changed the hinduism of the smritis , medieval literature like ramacharita manas changed the hinduism of middle ages . all thorughout the history of hinduism newer and newer scriptures have been written and the existing ones altered . this hasnt stopped for a single day . so which hinduism can be termed as authentic classical hinduism ??

 

the concepts that are presently attributed to neo hinduism were already there in the scriptures . maybe it was not so pronounced as before . but it was certainly not brrowed whole from some other cultures .

 

the principle of universality was already there in the psychology of the hindus . that is what made hinduism the most accomodating religion . buddha preached against vedas but he was not rejected or burnt at stake . grek yavanas were readily accpted as vaishnavas into indian territory . charvakas chose atheisim but was not rejected from hindu world . they were definately looked down upon but not rejected . zorastrianism came to india to find a shelter and they were happily incorporated into the society . islam came with its plunders but they were accepted and strong attempts made to unify them with us , as is evident from the stories of satyanarayan vishnu . the masses of hindus respected the sufi saints , pirs with equal reverence as any hindu saint . surely this happened before coming of british . all this ensured the existence of this noble faith and gave hinduism its strong assimilative character . 19th century philosophers merely developed this already existing thought .

 

 

belief in all gods being equal was also very much present . shakta shaiva ganapatyas all follwed advaita where each sakaara murti is held to be an expansion of the same truth . most brahmans practised panchopasana which also lay emphasis of equality of all gods . there is no scpecific derogation of any other faith systems in hindu texts . use of words like mleccha or yavana shows hatred towrds a race not a faith . instead the noble belief in universlity of dharma and the concept of swadharma automatically implied that dharma followed differs from place to place . belief in validity of all religions existed with the medival saints and thinkers also . numerous reconciliation attempts have been made to unify hindus and muslims by saints like surdas kabir . this again point out the fact that universal acceptance was already there in vast majority of hindus . of course there were exceptions like the vsiahnavs !!

 

the assumption that 'neo-hindus ' are less intellectual is purely an individuslistic speculation and not ascertained by any proper study or polls .

 

the accussitions that 'neohindus' assign completely new meanings and interpretations can be equally applicable to almost all sects of hindu thought . no sect ever gave the same meaning to any sloka . this is a bare fact for all to see . that the interpretations are radically different can amount to no accussition at all , for that has been the very nature of interpretations itself .

 

accusuitions have been made that Neo-Hinduism thinkers often assert their "interpretations" can be understood only by those who are on a "higher level" of sprititual understanding. this is also the case for all sects of traditional hinduism . for example orthodox vaishnavs would also claim that their interpretation of upanishads and vedic literature can be understood by a few lucky individuals with proper human intelligence . this is an old psychological trick used by all preachers to create a race among common masses to be included among that few priviledged intellectuals and thereby increase their follower count . its nothing new in the world ..........!!!

 

 

the accusition that they reject guru parampara is also baseless . forming new parampara and living without parampara have been always there . mira did not belong to any parampara . chaintanya created his own parampara .

 

next point accusses Neo-Hinduism thinkers to emphasize that a text can have a great variety of possible valid interpretations whereas traditional thinkers go for one single interpretation . this is true ................................................ but it is also a practical truth . dont we know that a text actually have a lot of interpretation ? acceptance of practical truth amounts to reform not deviation from hinduism .

 

 

the point made to show how Neo-Hindus generally use the language of Vedanta to lend intellectual credibility to their philosophies is purely individual speculation and is not acceptable . all leaders or all faiths in all of history have used flowery words to lend credibility to their movement . this amight be a psycological trick or resulting out of mere love for one's own belief . this is not something unique to 'neohindus' .

 

 

 

the next point states that Neo-Hindus are generally moral relativists. 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.

ibeacuse the 'N-H' are advaitins they go by the principle of shankara . vedantic "verse ahaarsuddhau satwa suddhau" has two interpretaions . according to ramanujacharya ahaar means food and shankaracharya believes ahaar is 'that which is taken in through senses' . so the shankara philosophy does not explicitely comment on food principles . in absence of direct command there is a natural freedom present in followers of shankaracharya . accepting the practical wisdom that it is not feasable for everyone on this world to turn vegetarian there is a degree of freedom allowed . this is not a deviation from the scriptures at all.

 

 

next accusitions mention that Neo-Hindu thinkers have subconsciously imbibed Western biases about morality and ethics and that they often see themselves as enlightened reformers whose views represent a more "evolved" form of Hinduism.

now isnt imbibing ideas have always been a key characteristical trait of hinduism . when hinduism elaborated the principles of dharma and karma after the buddhist reform , didnt it amount to imbibing ideas ?!! when hindu paintings of medival miniatures depict krishna in mughal jama pyjama then doesnt it amount to imbibing muslim ideas ? shirts or blouses never existed in traditional hinduism !!! if hindus have imbibed ideas from virtually evry culture it came in contact with , what is so sinister when it imbibes western ideas ? it is natural and inevitable and nothing new to hinduism !!

 

 

the next point shows Neo-Hindu thinkers to 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."

now there is no denying that social evils have crept in the society . when a middle aged purana says that " a sati shall remain as many years in heaven as there are hairs on her body " and numerous ladies were pushed into flames , it can amount to nothing less than social evil which denies human rights . when a hindu is not allowed to travel overseas in a progressive era of 19th century industrial revolutuion it is undoubtedly a severe setback to the economy . when masses of people are not allowed to use the same waterbody with the high caste it is also a social evil which destroys the integrity and unity of the land. the very fact that british occupied the entire subcontinent with so less opposition shows the intensity to which our society was riddled with evils . there is absolutely no way to deny that these social evils existed . and when the 'N-H' criticise the caste system it is to be understood that it is these damaging effects of caste rigidity that is being condemmed , not the varnashrama institution in its pure form ..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

thus it is shown that none of the concepts attributed to neohinduism are entirely new . it might be a slight elaboration of existing principles . morales writes :

"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."

but i fail to understand what is so diginified , strong and beautiful about a religion that does not believe in unversal values , does not believe in moral reform , does not conform to practical wisdom , is not democratic in worship , strictly adheres to caste untochablity , pushes widows to flames , rejects businessmen travelling overseas , rejects opposite philosohies of other sects within its fold . preaches exclusivity of any one particular god , doesnt like simple rituals , hates liberalism , dislikes rationalism , remains away from scientific methods !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ( beacuse according to dr morales all such things like democratic worship , radical universialism are result of CHRISTIAN or WESTERN influence on traditional hinduism ) .

 

secondly i fail to understand what is so condemmable about this so called neo hinduism ? if a change has occured at all it has occured keeeping in with the changing times . and now hinduism is spreading rapidly all over the world ........isnt this a happy news to celebrate ...... if changes in hinduism has been all along and continous then why make all this hype about this one ? if 19th an 20th century has seen the biggest changes and developements within the history of mankind , isnt it very obvious that hinduism would automtically get affected by this winds of change . change is all devouraing kala or time .....................can anyone escape that .

 

 

secondly we hindus have been brought up in hindu values and ethos right since the begining . but miraculously most of the hindus see no neo hinduism at all . they are happy contended and proud ( unknowingly confused according to dr. morales) to be hindus . now by what strange means does this mleccha born in distant lands and being western bred( now im being a traditional hindu !! ) so correctly assumes about neo hinduism ?

 

most importantly why am i going to listen to this man on what he says on basis of dry study , over my own hindu historians and hindu saints ? for believing in a non hindu mleccha scholar over a authentic hindu one would itself be a typically non - hindu behaviour and 'neo hinduist' attitude . there might be some isolated hindu historians out there supporting this theory but thats an exception . just as some hindus would take pride to shout about how tasty the beef was in order to depict his wannabe secularism . just like some hindu historians want to appease islamic world by distorting truth and saying that aurangazeb destroyed kashi temple to rescue a hindu princess hidden under viswanath grabhagriha ! ( not that im suppoting VHP to demolish gyan vapi mosque )

 

it is primarily because of this inablity to readjust and reassign itself to the changing world that both dinosaurs and pagan religions like that of greece rome and egypt died out . only our noble religion have mastered the art of survival ..........we are born into a world of living history . and this survival can be only attributed to its assimilative power ( again , does assimilative power come without being democratic , universal , rational ??? ) and unviversal acceptance . now it is up to us if we want to shut all doors to reform , practicality and modern wisdom and be enlisted among the extinction list . do we want to see our religion as a fossil in pages of history ???????????????????

[Kali_Upasaka]

Tell me why should a person who is a follower of Purva Mimansa and the Karma Kanda of the Vedas ( which pre dates all the Acharyas) and who recites ( with proper intonation as it has been recited for thousands of years by the Vedic Brahmins) all the Sukthas of the Vedas in praise of different Gods, follow any of the new doctrines like Advaita, Bhakti et al?

 

Purva Mimansa is very clear that you reap the benefits of your karmas. There is no supreme GOD who can do anything to change it.

 

This is classical Ancient Hinduism. The original stuff. Brahminical Authority. Brahminism it was called before they made it Hinduism.

 

http://www.indianetzone.com/9/purva_mimamsa_philosophy.htm

[chandu_69]

 

This is because lay Hindus often do not follow any specific sampradaya. This may be due to the breakdown of brahminical authority in relatively recent times

Raghu got more explicit now.While many of the things he wrote are true the spolier lies in the above quote.

 

Raghu, tell me how can a lay hindu trust "brahminical authority" which manufactured and doctored various puranas to tighten their hold on divinity.I can quote many examples like dadeechi,brigu etc.

[Kali_Upasaka]

Sampradhayas are a much later addition. We have only Gotras. And Pranava Rishis. Bhargava, Shynavana, Aurva etc. etc. Not Acharyas. All Brahmins follow only these rules. Vedas are attributed to Rishis not Acharyas. If you want to go to the fundamentals this is it.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Vedic_religion

 

There was a movement some years back to rename Hinduism as Vedism.

 

 

[sambya]

 

It is correct to say that Hinduism has been *tolerant* of new religious philosphies. However, tolerance is not the same as acceptance. Neo-Hinduism thinkers often cannot fathom the difference between the two.

 

yes tolerance and acceptance are not same terms . but in this context (history of hinduism) initial tolerance have led to gradual acceptance . tolerance is a mild form of indirect acceptance .

 

 

 

Ramakrishna and Vivekananda did NOT give their interpretations of Brahma Sutra. Ramakrishna had nothing to do with Vedanta and Vivekananda only invoked Vedantic concepts without even writing his own commentary.

 

 

well , interpretations doesnt necessarily amount to writing a scriptural bhasya or commentary . interpretation can also be done as regular speeches and writings .

 

that ramamkrishna had nothing to do with vedanta is completely wrong ( i hope you arte using vedanta = advaita here ) . he did practise vedanta both in its dualistic and monistic interpretations .

 

 

In fact, neither of these individual have demonstrated a thorough enough knowledge of Vedanta to actually write their own commentary.

 

 

thats your mental speculation and vast majority of hindu scholars and commoners would beg to differ . vivekananda directly studied both the branches of vedanta . the fact that ramakrishna was semi-literate doesnt imply that he was not knowledgable enough to write a commentary . knowledge of vedanta , as prescribed in scriptures itself , comes from experience not merely by studying it .

[sambya]

 

This is because lay Hindus often do not follow any specific sampradaya. This may be due to the breakdown of brahminical authority in relatively recent times. Or it may be that there have always been lay Hindus who never aligned themselves with any specific system. Most likely it is a combination of both.

 

 

this 'lay' people constituted the bulk of hinduism . obviously hinduism as percieved by anyone outside hinduism would be based on what majority follows . not by what some sampradayas practice .

 

secondly which 'classical' sampradaya are you talking of ? dashanami sampradaya ? sri vaishnava ? madhva ? gaudiya ? kalikula tantra ? srikula tantra ? kashmiri sahivas ? tridandi sannyasa ?

 

are'nt they themselves neo sampradayas ? they are not vedic !!!

[kaisersose]

 

Raghu got more explicit now.While many of the things he wrote are true the spolier lies in the above quote.

 

Raghu, tell me how can a lay hindu trust "brahminical authority" which manufactured and doctored various puranas to tighten their hold on divinity.I can quote many examples like dadeechi,brigu etc.

 

If you choose not to believe in Brahmins, then you should be consistent and reject the 4 vedas, puranas and itihasas, for all of them are from Brahmins. Your argument does not amount to much if you selectively pick and choose what you like and reject everything else as fabrication.

 

Western hare Krishnas think they know Christianity better then Christians. They selectively pick Bible material which favor their way of thinking and reject everything else as "man made". Such an approach is useless.

 

Cheers

[kaisersose]

 

There was a movement some years back to rename Hinduism as Vedism.

 

 

 

Outside the Brahmana fold, hardly any Hindus have any ties to the Vedas. Even among Brahmanas, most of their present day practices are not Vedic. Hindus primarily worship Gods like Ganapathi, Krishna, Shiva, Rama and Hanuman who are not from the Vedas. The mode of worship is always idol worship combined with Bhajans and the like, which is also not Vedic. Renaming Hinduism as Vedism is completely inappropriate.

 

Some people renamed Hinduism as Sanatana Dharma during the 18th century and that has caught the vote of a section of Hindus. But most of them, including some popular Gurus of the 20th century, have been misled into believing that Sanatana Dharma is an ancient and original name.

 

Cheers

[chandu_69]

 

If you choose not to believe in Brahmins,

 

All brahmins are not the same.I have a problem with the power hungry brahmins who think they are proprietors of dharma and not mere custodians.

 

 

then you should be consistent and reject the 4 vedas, puranas and itihasas, for all of them are from Brahmins.

 

Consistency is the virtue of donkeys don't you know:P

 

 

Your argument does not amount to much if you selectively pick and choose what you like and reject everything else as fabrication.

 

i can pick and choose because there is no single author behind the scriptures.

[raghu]

 

this so called neo hindusim is nothing more than a newer interpretation of hinduism .

 

No, it is a new "construction" in the name of Hinduism. An "interpretation" is when a commentator gives an explanation of something whose meaning is not clear. And then he provides a logical rationale including quoting supporting evidence as to why his interpretation correctly represents the source material. Neo-Hinduism rarely bothers with true interpretations. You will not find scholarly explanations of scripture from the Neo-Hinduism likes of Vivekananda, Sai Baba, etc.

 

 

can shankara's change in its structure be called neo-hinduism ?

 

"Change" by itself does not denote Neo-Hinduism. Obviously in Classical Hinduism each school distinguished itself from the previous ones by some new philosphical point or even practice.

 

As explained very clearly in the previous postings, it is the overall approach to religion and scripture which distinguishes Neo-Hinduism from Classical Hinduism, such as the non-rigorous approach to scripture, the acceptance of moral relativism and Radical Universalism, etc. Please reread the previous postings.

 

 

what are standard scriptures of hinduism ? in the sense what scriptures can be said to be of classical hinduism ?

 

The answer lies in the definition of Hinduism. As previously stated, Hinduism has historically been used to describe the traditions which derive their authority from the Vedas and their adjunctive literatures. Whether smriti "changes" shruti and so on is irrelevant. The point is that when invaders found India there was already a tradition of Sanskrit texts which themselves invoked the authority of the Vedas. Whether or not it is all consistent vs representing multiple different writers and ideas is also besides the point. Hinduism is a term of convenience and not a theological term. But regardless of whether you are talking about Vedantic Hinduism or Karma-Mimamsa or Advaita or Vaishnavism, there are certain features that we see time and again about classical Hinduism - specifically the tendency (which is noticeably absent in later Neo-Hinduism) to take the scriptures more seriously.

 

 

the concepts that are presently attributed to neo hinduism were already there in the scriptures .

 

Concepts of Radical Universalism, moral relativism, etc are not present in the scriptures. Concepts of decrying "idol worship" is also not present in the scriptures.

 

 

maybe it was not so pronounced as before . but it was certainly not brrowed whole from some other cultures .

 

On the contrary, Vivekananda's condescending attitudes towards icon worship in Hinduism are *clearly* based on the exposure to Christian culture. We do not find the same downplaying of icon-worship prior to the Colonialist period.

 

 

the principle of universality was already there in the psychology of the hindus . that is what made hinduism the most accomodating religion . buddha preached against vedas but he was not rejected or burnt at stake .

 

 

Again, you are confusing tolerance with acceptance. Buddhists were never persecuted, but Classical Hindu thinkers wrote many arguments against Buddhist ideas as you can see if you had ever read a single Vedanta-sutra commentary. Not only this but Vedantic thinkers tried to refute conflicting ideas from each other's schools.

 

Whether it was Carvaka followers, Buddhists, Sufi mystics, Jews, Jains, etc none of these groups found difficulty living in Hindu India because of the tolerant Hindu psyche. But none of these religious traditions were accepted as being on par with Hinduism, and saying otherwise is just blatant intellectual dishonesty.

 

 

belief in all gods being equal was also very much present.

 

Belief in "all gods being equal" was NOT a uniform feature of classical Hinduism schools or even of Hindu scriptures. None of the Vaishnava Vedanta schools accepted such an idea. Even Sri Sankaracharya seemed ambiguous on the issue when taking all of his statements together. The Aitareya Brahmana 1.1.1 states that Vishnu is the highest and Agni the lowest. Throughout the Puranas we see that one deity or another is elevated to the topmost position while others are specifically deemed to be lesser deities.

 

You may say that "all gods are equal" is your belief. It may even be the belief of some Classical Hindu schools. But you cannot honestly say it was a distinguishing feature of Classical Hinduism as a whole or even of Hindu scriptures.

 

 

most brahmans practised panchopasana which also lay emphasis of equality of all gods .

 

No, this is a practice of smartha brahmanas only.

 

 

there is no scpecific derogation of any other faith systems in hindu texts . use of words like mleccha or yavana shows hatred towrds a race not a faith .

 

So on one hand, ancient Hindus did not disagree with any other religion, but on the other hand they were racist.

 

Your logic is truly astounding.

 

(standard Neo-Hinduism propaganda deleted for brevity)

 

 

belief in validity of all religions existed with the medival saints and thinkers also

 

Beliefs of a handful of Muslim medieval saints who converted to Hinduism are hardly representative of "medieval saints and thinkers" of Hinduism. These individuals probably deserve to be put into a separate category for the purposes of explaining Hinduism.

 

 

. numerous reconciliation attempts have been made to unify hindus and muslims by saints like surdas kabir . this again point out the fact that universal acceptance was already there in vast majority of hindus . of course there were exceptions like the vsiahnavs !!

 

Here is another tactic of Neo-Hinduism followers. When their incorrect generalizations of what Hinduism supposedly is are confronted with facts, they fall back on singling out Vaishnavas as being somehow unorthodox, idiosyncratic, fanatical, etc.

 

It is a bizarre trend that on one hand Neo-Hinduism thinkers try to propagate belief in universal truth of all religions, except and save for those religions which do not believe in universal truth of all religions! Christianity is truth in a different form, but those trouble-making Vaishnavas are a different story!

 

This kind of thinking only makes sense to Neo-Hinduism followers but not to anyone who can think logically.

 

The fact of the matter is that Neo-Hinduism thinkers can only preach about Radical Universalism in other religions when members of those other religions are not around to set the record straight about their religions.

 

 

the assumption that 'neo-hindus ' are less intellectual is purely an individuslistic speculation and not ascertained by any proper study or polls .

 

Neo-Hinduism thinkers are factually less scholarly in their approach to scripture as can be easily ascertained by even a casual perusal of their writings. Their proofs are far less rigorous than their classical Hindu counterparts.

 

As far as the generally non-intellectual approach to religion among Neo-Hinduism followers, one need only look at their postings on this forum to get a flavor for that!

 

 

the accussitions that 'neohindus' assign completely new meanings and interpretations can be equally applicable to almost all sects of hindu thought . no sect ever gave the same meaning to any sloka . this is a bare fact for all to see . that the interpretations are radically different can amount to no accussition at all , for that has been the very nature of interpretations itself .

 

Here is an example of a Neo-Hindu assigning a completely new meaning to a Biblical verse in order to make it more compatible with his version of Hinduism. On another forum, it is pointed out that Bible quotes Jesus as saying, "I am the way the truth and the life, no one reaches the Father but by me."

 

The Neo-Hinduism follower replies by saying, "Om is the way the truth and the life, no one reaches Father by but Om."

 

 

accusuitions have been made that Neo-Hinduism thinkers often assert their "interpretations" can be understood only by those who are on a "higher level" of sprititual understanding.

 

Here is an example of a Neo-Hinduism thinker using the "you have to be on my level to understand my interpretation" argument in order to avoid being confronted with logical doubts. Specifically, when I pointed out that the Neo-H thinker had changed the Bible verse to suit him, he wrote:

 

"If you were pure enough to meditate beneath names and forms only then you would comprehend."

 

By contrast, you do not see such tactics in the commentaries of Classical HInduism thinkers. Obviously not, since the purpose of a commentary is to explain the meaning according that sampradaya's philosophy. Can you convince someone by claiming in your commentary that your explanation is true and the reader just has to trust that you are on a higher level? Obviously not.

 

Now, it is true that lay followers of an otherwise traditional school of thinking can exhibit Neo-Vedantic tendencies. Gaudiya Vaishnavism, at least in its traditional form, has more in common with Classical Hinduism ways of doing things than it does with Neo-Hinduism. Yet iskcon followers, like you, frequently fall back on Neo-Hinduism modes of argument in order to justify their views. I'm sure you have heard the familiar refrain, "This is true because my guru said it, an he is a pure devotee." This is just another version of the "you have to be on my level to understand this othewise illogical position of mine" tactic which is common to Neo-Hinduism.

 

 

the accusition that they reject guru parampara is also baseless . forming new parampara and living without parampara have been always there . mira did not belong to any parampara . chaintanya created his own parampara .

 

Mirabhai's sampradaya status is not known and she was not an acharya, so her example is not useful here. Caitanya did not "create his own parampara," it was his followers who wrote of his parampara details. However, the point remains that they at least credited a parampara. Now in contrast to this, we see that in Ramakrishna Math there is very little discussion about Ramakrishna's parampara or even about his guru. Same with Sai Baba. Same with Ramana Maharshi.

 

 

next point accusses Neo-Hinduism thinkers to emphasize that a text can have a great variety of possible valid interpretations whereas traditional thinkers go for one single interpretation . this is true ................................................ but it is also a practical truth . dont we know that a text actually have a lot of interpretation ? acceptance of practical truth amounts to reform not deviation from hinduism .

 

And that is another feature of Neo-Hinduism thinkers - the idea that the scriptures are full of flaws and need to be "reformed."

 

If scriptures did not have an exact meaning, then their purpose as scriptures would be lost. The problem with Neo-Hinduism thinkers is that they often make up their own meanings and then pass them off as "intepretations." And when one shows how illogical their interpretation is, their response is usually indignation at the idea that any interpretation of theirs can be shown to be untrue, since after all, aren't all intepretations valid, even when they contradict each other?

 

And of course, we all know that although all interpretations are valid, we still have problems with those inconvenient Vaishnavas and *their* interpretations, which though valid, are still to be ridiculed, cast away, deemed as intolerant, etc.

 

 

the point made to show how Neo-Hindus generally use the language of Vedanta to lend intellectual credibility to their philosophies is purely individual speculation and is not acceptable . all leaders or all faiths in all of history have used flowery words to lend credibility to their movement .

 

Criminals always imagine that everyone else is as dishonest as they are.

 

 

the next point states that Neo-Hindus are generally moral relativists. 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.

ibeacuse the 'N-H' are advaitins they go by the principle of shankara . vedantic "verse ahaarsuddhau satwa suddhau" has two interpretaions . according to ramanujacharya ahaar means food and shankaracharya believes ahaar is 'that which is taken in through senses' . so the shankara philosophy does not explicitely comment on food principles . in absence of direct command there is a natural freedom present in followers of shankaracharya . accepting the practical wisdom that it is not feasable for everyone on this world to turn vegetarian there is a degree of freedom allowed .

 

In other words, a long and verbose justification of the idea that ultimately, you can do whatever you want. Hence, moral relativism!

 

 

next accusitions mention that Neo-Hindu thinkers have subconsciously imbibed Western biases about morality and ethics and that they often see themselves as enlightened reformers whose views represent a more "evolved" form of Hinduism.

now isnt imbibing ideas have always been a key characteristical trait of hinduism . when hinduism elaborated the principles of dharma and karma after the buddhist reform , didnt it amount to imbibing ideas ?!! when hindu paintings of medival miniatures depict krishna in mughal jama pyjama then doesnt it amount to imbibing muslim ideas ? shirts or blouses never existed in traditional hinduism !!! if hindus have imbibed ideas from virtually evry culture it came in contact with , what is so sinister when it imbibes western ideas ? it is natural and inevitable and nothing new to hinduism !!

 

So on one hand, Hinduism is "sanatana-dharma," and yet on the other hand it is ok for Hinduism to be "reformed" according to ideas borrowed from other religions. So even though it changes, it is still eternal. Behold the Neo-Hinduism logic!

 

 

the next point shows Neo-Hindu thinkers to 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."

now there is no denying that social evils have crept in the society . when a middle aged purana says that " a sati shall remain as many years in heaven as there are hairs on her body " and numerous ladies were pushed into flames , it can amount to nothing less than social evil which denies human rights .

 

The problem is that you Neo-Hindus have fallen hook, line, and sinker for British brainwashing, and you confuse crimes that occur in India with Hinduism. In America, no one confuses wife-beating or alcoholism with Christianity. It is only in the land of foreigners that the imperialist masters are prone to framing criminal behavior in the context of culture. And being the good little Neo-Hindu that you are, ever ashamed of your culture and desperately seeking acknowledgement from your Western peers, you assert that religion is inherently fluid and that Hinduism is great because we can overcome all those social evils which our backward scriptures supposedly taught us.

 

Now, as if my arguments were not strong enough, you do the job for me by writing:

 

 

but i fail to understand what is so diginified , strong and beautiful about a religion that does not believe in unversal values , does not believe in moral reform , does not conform to practical wisdom , is not democratic in worship , strictly adheres to caste untochablity , pushes widows to flames , rejects businessmen travelling overseas , rejects opposite philosohies of other sects within its fold . preaches exclusivity of any one particular god , doesnt like simple rituals , hates liberalism , dislikes rationalism , remains away from scientific methods !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The above paragraph reveals perfectly the attitude of the brainwashed, neo-Hindu. We should all take note of it.

 

He attributes India's social evils to Hinduism and misrepresents other Hindu social institutions. He wrongly thinks that Radical Universalism is a virtue. He places a premium on "democratic values" (by which he means that everyone should have an opinion on religion in contrast to the traditional method of learning religious philosophy from a qualified guru).

 

Thus it can be seen that the Neo-Hinduism follower is merely a confused puppet of imperialist scholars whose opinions on Hindus are based on propaganda force-fed to him through the eyes of foreign media.

 

Is it any wonder why the conceptions of such people must be distinguished and set apart from traditional Hinduism?

[bhaktajan]

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

 

Here, in these Postings, everyone seems to be defining Hinduism according to philosophical postulations, suppositions, hypothesis, conjectures, notions, theories, best guesses, assumptions, ideas, deductions, speculations, inferences & theories . . . of the latest 'pop-culture' 'in-Vogue' 'jet-set' 'revolutionary' crowd.

 

Whereas, Hinduism by any other name still is defined by 'Action' & 'Behavior' & 'Discipline' & 'Meditation'.

 

Hinduism is thought as pacifist and otherworldly --yet it still sets the standard that all the world pursues.

 

Whether it was . . . or Buddhists, Sufi mystics, Jews, Jains, etc

none of these groups found difficulty living in Hindu India

because of the tolerant Hindu psyche.

 

But none of these religious traditions were accepted as being on par with Hinduism, and saying otherwise is just blatant intellectual dishonesty.

 

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

 

Religion without philosophy = sentiment (or sometimes fanaticism)--

while philosophy without religion = mental speculation.

 

<!-- / message -->"otherwise is just blatant intellectual dishonesty."

[sambya]

well , to begin with i accept the theories what you call neo hinduism and so you might call me a neo hindu !! the second half of your previous post had less to do with providing logic but had more of personal attacks . i thought its a poll and a discussion that you wanted . whats the need of being so violent and agressive so as to use the words 'criminal' 'puppet' ?

 

first i would like you to ask what to you intend to show by proving that neo-H actually exists ? why are you so angered at this 'N-H' ?

 

Secondly what belief or sampradaya do you personally follow ? yes , it is much to my concern , since you are a genuine classical hindu spiritual seeker who hates non-sampradayic N-H .

 

 

. An "interpretation" is when a commentator gives an explanation of something whose meaning is not clear. And then he provides a logical rationale including quoting supporting evidence as to why his interpretation correctly represents the source material.

because many texts within hinduism are indeed shrouded in dual or multiple meanings and there is plenty of abstract ideas and extensive usage of metaphors there cannot be direct interpretations always . some interpretations have to be in the nature of extended interpretations and modifications -- otherwise things such as bhasyas wouldnt have existed at all !!

 

 

"Change" by itself does not denote Neo-Hinduism. Obviously in Classical Hinduism each school distinguished itself from the previous ones by some new philosphical point or even practice.

understood !!

 

but if each school distinguished itself then where are you getting this classical hinduism ? at which point in history was hinduism classical . which period in history can be said to be a period of classical hinduism, if it has been in a continuos change ??

 

 

As explained very clearly in the previous postings, it is the overall approach to religion and scripture which distinguishes Neo-Hinduism from Classical Hinduism, such as the non-rigorous approach to scripture, the acceptance of moral relativism and Radical Universalism, etc. Please reread the previous postings.

 

so you are naming this overall change in approach as N-H .

but such change in approach has occured many times before ....do you get my point? woudnt those also be neo-hinduism ?

 

 

The answer lies in the definition of Hinduism. As previously stated, Hinduism has historically been used to describe the traditions which derive their authority from the Vedas and their adjunctive literatures. Whether smriti "changes" shruti and so on is irrelevant. The point is that when invaders found India there was already a tradition of Sanskrit texts which themselves invoked the authority of the Vedas. Whether or not it is all consistent vs representing multiple different writers and ideas is also besides the point. Hinduism is a term of convenience and not a theological term. But regardless of whether you are talking about Vedantic Hinduism or Karma-Mimamsa or Advaita or Vaishnavism, there are certain features that we see time and again about classical Hinduism - specifically the tendency (which is noticeably absent in later Neo-Hinduism) to take the scriptures more seriously.

 

if classical hinduism exists then its scriptures must also exist . i want a few examples of classical scriptures .

i think the point whether'shrutis were changed by smritis' is very relevent . if smrits have actually changed the hinduism of srutis then thats a complete change in appraoch again . when puranas reject ashwamedha gomedha it is a drastic and sacrilegeous change in approach .

 

 

Concepts of Radical Universalism, moral relativism, etc are not present in the scriptures. Concepts of decrying "idol worship" is also not present in the scriptures.

except brahmo samaj i cant remember any other neo hindus deriding idol-worship . then again brahmos were not considered hindu by the mainstream hindus .

 

 

On the contrary, Vivekananda's condescending attitudes towards icon worship in Hinduism are *clearly* based on the exposure to Christian culture. We do not find the same downplaying of icon-worship prior to the Colonialist period.

 

vivekanada acknowledged icon worship . but yes, it was , to him a form of saguna brahman worship which comes just below nirguna brahman worship . this he has explained innumerable times . and this is nothing borrowed form west . it is essentially the philosophy of advaita vedanta of shankaracharya.

 

 

Again, you are confusing tolerance with acceptance. Buddhists were never persecuted, but Classical Hindu thinkers wrote many arguments against Buddhist ideas as you can see if you had ever read a single Vedanta-sutra commentary. Not only this but Vedantic thinkers tried to refute conflicting ideas from each other's schools.

 

i have already said in a previous post that tolerance ultimately gave way to acceptance for most of the cases ! read it

 

 

Even Sri Sankaracharya seemed ambiguous on the issue when taking all of his statements together. The Aitareya Brahmana 1.1.1 states that Vishnu is the highest and Agni the lowest. Throughout the Puranas we see that one deity or another is elevated to the topmost position while others are specifically deemed to be lesser deities.

so if all puranas glorify one particular diety which one do we follow ? what is the way to determine the true one ? who is actually the 'one' accroding to you ????

 

 

 

You may say that "all gods are equal" is your belief. It may even be the belief of some Classical Hindu schools. But you cannot honestly say it was a distinguishing feature of Classical Hinduism as a whole or even of Hindu scriptures.

 

repeating this beacuse i dont think you understood my point . i never said that it was the most prominent feature of hinduism . i have specifically stated that it was there already in hinduism only to be elaborated upon in 19th century . remember im not saying change did not occur . im merely sying that the contents of this change ( in approach, as you say) was already there in its scriptures . it was not something totally new .

 

 

So on one hand, ancient Hindus did not disagree with any other religion, but on the other hand they were racist.

Your logic is truly astounding.

genrally they didnt comment much negetive about other faiths . but words like mleccha came into existence when muslims poured in the hindu lands with all sorts of violence . this genrated an ill feeling . it was not racism proper as used in modern sense of term.

 

 

It is a bizarre trend that on one hand Neo-Hinduism thinkers try to propagate belief in universal truth of all religions, except and save for those religions which do not believe in universal truth of all religions! Christianity is truth in a different form, but those trouble-making Vaishnavas are a different story!

you fail to get the point . neo hindus belive in validity of all paths including vaishnvas . they dont deride vaishnava doctrines as being false or unworthy !

but they dont hesitate to say clearly what history has revelaed to them . for ex-check out shakta texts you shall find songs combining krishna and kali . archana paddhatis of gopal and krishna . but check out vaishnav texts you can never find a writing of glory towards any shakti deities . its fact !!

 

 

Neo-Hinduism thinkers are factually less scholarly in their approach to scripture as can be easily ascertained by even a casual perusal of their writings. Their proofs are far less rigorous than their classical Hindu counterparts.

 

As far as the generally non-intellectual approach to religion among Neo-Hinduism followers, one need only look at their postings on this forum to get a flavor for that!

 

thats what you think ! me along with many others here think just the opposite . yes yes , i know that its in the psycology of neo hindus to think themselves as intelllectually advanced bla bla ! but hey , im an neo hindu . im proud to be one after meeting with a clssical hindu such as you !! thanks a lot !!

 

 

Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> accusuitions have been made that Neo-Hinduism thinkers often assert their "interpretations" can be understood only by those who are on a "higher level" of sprititual understanding. </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Here is an example of a Neo-Hinduism thinker using the "you have to be on my level to understand my interpretation" argument in order to avoid being confronted with logical doubts. Specifically, when I pointed out that the Neo-H thinker had changed the Bible verse to suit him, he wrote:

 

what are you speaking about ?? you are deliberately twisting my words by qoutn small portions of the entire text . here is what i actuall said---

"

accusuitions have been made that Neo-Hinduism thinkers often assert their "interpretations" can be understood only by those who are on a "higher level" of sprititual understanding. this is also the case for all sects of traditional hinduism . for example orthodox vaishnavs would also claim that their interpretation of upanishads and vedic literature can be understood by a few lucky individuals with proper human intelligence . this is an old psychological trick used by all preachers to create a race among common masses to be included among that few priviledged intellectuals and thereby increase their follower count . its nothing new in the world ..........!!! "

 

now reply properly

 

 

Caitanya did not "create his own parampara," it was his followers who wrote of his parampara details. However, the point remains that they at least credited a parampara. Now in contrast to this, we see that in Ramakrishna Math there is very little discussion about Ramakrishna's parampara or even about his guru. Same with Sai Baba. Same with Ramana Maharshi.

 

wrong again . there are clear discussion in ramakrishna movement about his gurus . his vedantic guru was called totapuri who even has photographs. his tantric guru was a brahmin lady called bahiravi brahmani .

what ramakrishna vivekanada literature have you read ......i doubt if any !!

 

and all through your posts its your brilliant intolerance for ramakrishna vivekanada that shines through , rather than a dislike for neo hindus.

 

 

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> the point made to show how Neo-Hindus generally use the language of Vedanta to lend intellectual credibility to their philosophies is purely individual speculation and is not acceptable . all leaders or all faiths in all of history have used flowery words to lend credibility to their movement . </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

Criminals always imagine that everyone else is as dishonest as they are.

from here begins your bogus answers ....

thats a personal attack and a rude one ! its not a proper and scholarly answer to the logic i forwarded !

 

 

Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> the next point states that Neo-Hindus are generally moral relativists. 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.

ibeacuse the 'N-H' are advaitins they go by the principle of shankara . vedantic "verse ahaarsuddhau satwa suddhau" has two interpretaions . according to ramanujacharya ahaar means food and shankaracharya believes ahaar is 'that which is taken in through senses' . so the shankara philosophy does not explicitely comment on food principles . in absence of direct command there is a natural freedom present in followers of shankaracharya . accepting the practical wisdom that it is not feasable for everyone on this world to turn vegetarian there is a degree of freedom allowed . </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

In other words, a long and verbose justification of the idea that ultimately, you can do whatever you want. Hence, moral relativism!

 

not a logical answer at all .

yes its a justification of my point thorugh which i have made it clear that the point that you have made about meat eating was not valid. just are you are busy justifying your stand on neo hinduism .

 

 

 

So on one hand, Hinduism is "sanatana-dharma," and yet on the other hand it is ok for Hinduism to be "reformed" according to ideas borrowed from other religions. So even though it changes, it is still eternal. Behold the Neo-Hinduism logic!

 

you are angered to such an extent so as to speak illogically ! all neo hindu philosophers would accept that hindu religion is in constant change and the word sanatana dharma is used to mean the eternal principles lying embedded within its scriptures .........the eternal moral and ethical values and science of spirit which remains unchangable throughout time and place . and as hinduism is supposed to carry these hidden truths it is roughly named sanatana dharma .

 

 

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

Quote:

<table border="0" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0" width="100%"> <tbody><tr> <td style="border: 1px solid rgb(102, 102, 102); padding-left: 3ex; padding-right: 3ex;" bgcolor="#e0e0e0"> the next point shows Neo-Hindu thinkers to 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."

now there is no denying that social evils have crept in the society . when a middle aged purana says that " a sati shall remain as many years in heaven as there are hairs on her body " and numerous ladies were pushed into flames , it can amount to nothing less than social evil which denies human rights . </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

The problem is that you Neo-Hindus have fallen hook, line, and sinker for British brainwashing, and you confuse crimes that occur in India with Hinduism. In America, no one confuses wife-beating or alcoholism with Christianity. It is only in the land of foreigners that the imperialist masters are prone to framing criminal behavior in the context of culture.

 

no , i never equated crimes with hinudism . try and think properly with a open mind . a crime or a vice can never be attributed to the religion proper . but when hindu texts are chosen as a medium to perform crimes of propagate vices it is condemmable . although it does not arise out of hindusim proper it does relate back to its corrupt version . acknwledging that such vices had actuallu crept in is not bad at all .

 

 

The above paragraph reveals perfectly the attitude of the brainwashed, neo-Hindu. We should all take note of it.

 

He attributes India's social evils to Hinduism and misrepresents other Hindu social institutions. He wrongly thinks that Radical Universalism is a virtue. He places a premium on "democratic values" (by which he means that everyone should have an opinion on religion in contrast to the traditional method of learning religious philosophy from a qualified guru).

you are making personal sarcasms and assuming things.

i do not atrribute evils to hinduism . they arose in the minds of some criminal minded individuals and found its way into hinduism . but after a few years when these evils principles are firmly established within hinduism it appears that they arise out of hinduism .

 

and i do not belive that evryone has a right to be a guru . having a opinion on religion and acting as guru are not the same thing . you are assuming things because your vision is tainted with the unidimensional approach of neo-hinduism hatred. no matter how hard you try , you are mixing things up in light of your previously aqquired knowledge and biases . clean your mind and think rationally .

 

waiting to know what faith do you follow !!

 

that you are against neo hinduism is completely your belief and i dont accuse you of anything . because i feel that you have studied quite a deal about hinduism and then chose to believe in whatever you believe !! good !

 

i love what you called neo hinduism after doing my bit of reasearch on hinduism . im happy and contended . dont get into personal attacks while discussing .

[raghu]

 

well , to begin with i accept the theories what you call neo hinduism

 

Really? I had no idea....

 

 

and so you might call me a neo hindu !!

 

Well, if you admit you accept tenets of Neo-Hinduism, then what else is one to call you?

 

 

the second half of your previous post had less to do with providing logic but had more of personal attacks . i thought its a poll and a discussion that you wanted . whats the need of being so violent and agressive so as to use the words 'criminal' 'puppet' ?

 

There were no personal attacks. The unfortunate problem with Neo-Hinduism followers is that they can only engage in sustained conversation if they attack critics of their views with fabricated accusations of intolerance, hatred, etc. This is nothing new.

 

Remember friends, the Neo-Hindu follower is not interested in truth, whether it be scriptural truth or historical truth. It is of no concern to the Neo-Hindu what Hinduism has historically been, even when the Neo-Hindu is lecturing us all on what Hinduism is supposedly about.

 

The most important priority for the Neo-Hindu is that his views should be appreciated as progressive, enlightened, open-minded, and democratic, even when they are illogical, inconsistent, unfounded, and untenable. Since logic is never on their side, the Neos lives in a fantasy "Us vs Them" world in which people are divided into those who (because they cannot or will not think for themselves) accept their permissive, all-accepting, quasi-advaitic and borderline atheistic views and those who are evil, bigoted, and hateful. Bigotry and hatred being defined as those who disagree with Neo-Hinduism ideas of moral relativism and radical universalism. In this way, Neo-Hindus see themselves as being on a crusade to rid the world of sectarian differences, armed not with knowledge or honesty but rather with charges of religious hatred.

 

Left to their own devices, Neo-Hindus will redefine all other religions so as to make them seem more compatible with their own. In this way, it is seen that Neo-Hinduism does not respect differences in belief systems, but rather denies them entirely.

 

Ultimately when it comes to dispassionate analysis of the facts, it is clear that Neo-Hinduism cannot prop itself up on the foundation that has been laid out by traditional Hinduism schools. Neo-Hinduism is not the real thing. But if that is ok with you, then so be it.

 

Having said that, I want to thank you, sambya. For if you had not posted all of your objections here, I would not have been able to point to your specific examples as illustrations of the reasoning process of Neo-Hinduism followers. Thank you again for helping me to make my points so clearly.

 

In my next few postings, I will discuss the case of specific Hindu organizations and the ways in which they do or do not adhere to Neo-Hinduism ideas.

[sambya]

BTW , you have not yet answered which sampradaya do you follow .

 

which is the supreme god in hinduism according to you and what is the process of determining this supremacy ?

 

who is your guru ?

 

all these things are very important for me to know , in order to have a better understanding of what you labell 'classical hinduism '

 

secondly you did not answer which time period in history can be conclusively said as the time of classical hinduism .

 

thirdly what are the main scriptures of 'classical hinduism ' ?

 

 

 

 

 

and most importantly what to you intend to show with your posts about neo-hinduism ? i mean , people here already know what neo hinduism is all about . what next ? what do you intend them to understand or follow after this ? what is your ultimate advice or motive ?

[Kali_Upasaka]

This thread is about one principle. Sectarian Vs non-sectarian Hinduism. There was no reply to my posting on Purva Mimansa. Paramahamsa Yogananda is accused of neo Hinduism. His works are based on Yoga which is an old philosophy. Hatha Yoga and Raja Yoga.

 

So in this discussion Purva Mimansa and Yoga are not accepted as classical Hinduism.

 

Except for using the term Veda often there is hardly any quotes from the Vedas. The sectarian Hinduism owes its origin mainly to the Agamas/Tantras. Agamic Vaishnavism and Agamic Saivism even claim to be older than the Vedas. There are many scholars who have gone to the extent of saying that Agamas are anti-Vedic. The same accusation is made about Tantras also.

 

Idol worship, temples and other connected rituals came from the Agamas/Tantras and not the Vedas.

 

I would request any member to quote from the Vedas to prove the image worship existed in the Vedic times.

 

Please do not quote the name of the Vedas to justify practices which did not exist in the Vedic times.

 

Non sectarian Hinduism has a very old origin. A sculpture of Harihara dating back to early Hindu period has been discovered.

 

Many westerners would like Hinduism to be categorized into different sects. Like they have denominations in Christianity, they would like Hinduism to have sects.

 

Some of the Hindus living in the West would like to project Hinduism as Monotheistic and consisting of sects. They do not like to answer question about different Gods/Goddesses and are embarrassed by deities like Kali. Their answer is to project Hinduism as a monotheistic religion with only one GOD.

 

It is these people who are the Neo-Hindus. The attack on non-sectarian Hinduism is an attack by these Neo-Hindus on traditional and Upanashidic Hinduism.

 

I can provide examples and web pages about how these groups want to create a new Monotheistic Hinduism discarding every scripture except those of their own sect.

 

But have we not had enough? Have we not learnt from painful moments in history? Like the long and violent struggle between the followers of Chaintanya Maha Prabhu and Vallabacharya over the control of the temples of Brindavan.

 

Om Namo Bagavate Vaasudevayaa !!!

[sambya]

 

There was no reply to my posting on Purva Mimansa.

 

same for my posts .

 

some of the key points which i made were either not answered or tactfully avoided by saying things like " criminal thinks entire world to be the same " " this a long justification.................." and other craps .

 

and the questions like what is classical hinduism , what are its scriptures , what is raghu's worshippable god and sampradaya was totally left aside .

 

lets see if he answers those .....................!!

[sant]

 

Their answer is to project Hinduism as a monotheistic religion with only one GOD.

 

may i ask is this true.according to you.

as youve read vedas.

 

There are many scholars who have gone to the extent of saying that Agamas are anti-Vedic. The same accusation is made about Tantras also.

 

its true isnt it.

calling tantras vedic is a trick to give it shruti status.

 

 

I would request any member to quote from the Vedas to prove the image worship existed in the Vedic times.

 

 

what do you mean by vedic times.

How long .

[kaisersose]

 

what do you mean by vedic times.

How long .

 

When religion was about performing Yajnas (fire-sacrifice), sacrificing ghee and animals to the Gods of the Rig-Veda for a better life and/or heaven. Those were the good ol' Vedic times. No Rama or Krishna back then. It was Indra, Vishnu, Agni. Varuna etc., who ranked foremost.

 

Then Upanishad style contemplation came in, which was still Vedic, but it was no longer as fashionable. And then there was a fusion of local beliefs (Pancharatas, Bhagavatas, Pashupathas, Ganapathi worshippers, Krishna worshippers, Rama worshippers, etc) with Brahmanical Vedic religion and Hinduism - as we know it - was formed with its idol worship, reincarnation and Bhakti concepts. Non-Vedic Rama and Krishna were mapped to Vedic Vishnu, Non-Vedic Shiva was mapped to Rudra, etc. Some even attempted to map Buddha to Vishnu with limited success. If you visit local villages in India, many of them have their own Gods, but they are generally mapped to one of the more popular Gods and there will be a local story of how Vishnu or Shiva appeared in that form to solve a certain problem.

 

I am with Kali-Upasaka on this one.

 

Cheers

[sant]

 

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

When religion was about performing Yajnas (fire-sacrifice), sacrificing ghee and animals to the Gods of the Rig-Veda for a better life and/or heaven. Those were the good ol' Vedic times. No Rama or Krishna back then. It was Indra, Vishnu, Agni. Varuna etc., who ranked foremost.

 

Then Upanishad style contemplation came in, which was still Vedic, but it was no longer as fashionable. And then there was a fusion of local beliefs (Pancharatas, Bhagavatas, Pashupathas, Ganapathi worshippers, Krishna worshippers, Rama worshippers, etc) with Brahmanical Vedic religion and Hinduism - as we know it - was formed with its idol worship, reincarnation and Bhakti concepts. Non-Vedic Rama and Krishna were mapped to Vedic Vishnu, Non-Vedic Shiva was mapped to Rudra, etc. Some even attempted to map Buddha to Vishnu with limited success. If you visit local villages in India, many of them have their own Gods, but they are generally mapped to one of the more popular Gods and there will be a local story of how Vishnu or Shiva appeared in that form to solve a certain problem.

 

I am with Kali-Upasaka on this one.

 

Cheers

 

I think we have only 20% of vedas with us.

yajna s etc were to be performed by brahamnas.

So what would the other 3 class do.

I suppose you dont rmemeber why buddha was born,one reason was because people in kali yog were unfit to perform yajanas and to protect innocent creatures to go in the fire.

puraans are vedik especiallty bhagwat.

Texts like tantra etc are the one which are non vedic and people are trying to give call them vedik.

What do you go with kali upasak on.

Do you remember history it ws taught how unfit brahmans were surpressing other classes.

[kaisersose]

 

I suppose you dont rmemeber why buddha was born,one reason was because people in kali yog were unfit to perform yajanas and to protect innocent creatures to go in the fire.

 

That is a story circulated among Hindus. No Buddhist source says this and Buddhist texts have all shown that their interest in the Vedic religion was very minimal.

 

 

puraans are vedik especiallty bhagwat.

 

That is pure sentiment and nothing else. It is not part of the four Vedas and is a highly sectarian text which can only be acceptable to people of that sect. There are other books which are held in similar high regard among other sects, sentiment being the sole factor in all cases.

 

I see many people (especially Hare Krishnas) believe the "Vedic" tag is very important in Hinduism. The fact is, it has little or nothing to do with Hinduism. The majority of Hindus have absolutely no exposure to any of the Vedas and that does not make them any lesser as Hindus. I have a problem with labeling anything and everything we like as Vedic.

 

 

Do you remember history it ws taught how unfit brahmans were surpressing other classes.

 

I grew up in India and I am not aware of that history. Do you have any legitimate sources illustrating this for a fact? If you mean untouchability, then you should know it was practised by all classes. Non-Brahmanas (higher in numbers than Brahmanas) were/are also highly caste-conscious and practised untouchability. There is no evidence to show that this concept was introduced by Brahmanas.

 

Other than this, I fail to see how a Brahmana could have oppressed anyone. He had his own problems in life and he had no power to oppress as some appear to believe.

 

Cheers

[Kali_Upasaka]

 

may i ask is this true.according to you.

as youve read vedas.

 

its true isnt it.

calling tantras vedic is a trick to give it shruti status.

 

 

what do you mean by vedic times.

How long .

The Vedas praise all Gods/Goddesses many of whom the Hindus no longer worship.

 

Some of the Vedic Sukthams illustrate this.

 

1. Sri Suktham.

 

2. Devi Suktham.

 

3. Medha Suktham.

 

4. Purusha Suktham.

 

5. Ratri Suktham.

 

6. Agni Suktham.

 

Then you have Aruna Prasna, Rudra prasna.

 

and so on.

 

I had given a link to the wikipedia article of the Vedic religion.

 

Agamas and Tantras fall in the same category. Agamas are Tantras. Both these are supposed to be from the Karma Kanda portion of the Vedas.

 

Puranas are not Shruti. There are only four Vedas. In fact there are people who even do not consider Atharva Veda as a full Veda because of the non-spiritual material like Ayur Veda included in it. Veda Traiyi.

 

kaisersose has given a clear answer.

 

You are now talking about other classes and their suppression etc. This was clearly defined by raghu as neo-hindu thought.

 

My post crossed that of kaisersose.

[sant]

 

I grew up in India and I am not aware of that history. Do you have any legitimate sources illustrating this for a fact? If you mean untouchability, then you should know it was practised by all classes. Non-Brahmanas (higher in numbers than Brahmanas) were/are also highly caste-conscious and practised untouchability. There is no evidence to show that this concept was introduced by Brahmanas.

 

 

 

iv been reading this since 6th class ,this is what is taught in indian school history.