Neo-Hinduism and Traditional Hinduism

[wundermonk]

Once again, we are not taking about darsanas. Darsanas are a miniscule portion of Hinduism - quite unlike what you have read in books. Most of themhave also been pretty dead for a while now. You will need to make a trip to India sometime soon.

Thanks for your advice. I am quite proficient in this regard since I DO live in India.

The relationship between the philosophy of the Darshanas and the religious practices of Indians is not as divergent as you make it out to be.

ETA:

(1)If Darsanas are a miniscule part of Hinduism, are they not traditional?

(2)Is the label "traditional Hinduism" in this thread just another way of referring to the common outward religious practices of people in India?

It appears to me that the answer to (2) is YES according to you and perhaps the OP'er may like to step in here if this is also his working definition. If not, THAT would indeed turn out to be a derail of this thread.

[satay]

Admin Note

namaste,

A baseless comment for now - as you have established that your knowledge of Hinduism is too meagre to have depth. It is time you start to look beyond the darsanas and in time you will be making meaningful comments, but until then....

Please soften down your tone.

[satay]

namaste,

I don't think your list is accurate. At least it is not in alignment with what I was thinking.

What I had in mind when thinking of 'traditional hinduism' was something along the lines of 'a tradition or vedic parampara passed down from guru to shisya, a tradition that is open to the qualified only and closed for outsiders of the tradition.' Something along the lines of what Maha has implied in some of his posts here.

My own impression of the 'traditional hinduism' is that it suggests that the 'truth is too delicate for the masses thus it can only be shared or known or experienced by the qualified and the rest (non-qualified) can continue to live their happy material lives in dark. no harm done to them that way.'

You may be a traditional Hindu if -

1. You accept Hinduism is not a religion such as Christianity and Islam, but is a convenient umbrella term grouping countless beliefs in the sub-continent.
2. You accept that these various beliefs are not based on a common scripture.
3. You accept that many of these beliefs are polytheistic and many of them have no scripture.
4. You accept that by tradition, Varna has always been by birth. An odd exception here or there, does not count.
5. You accept that Hindus are idolators (hundreds of thousands have been massacred for idolatory by lunatics such as Timur, etc.)
6. You accept that among philosophies, there was never a universal attitude of everyone is correct. Only one was held to be correct.
7. You accept that Sanatana Dharma was not the original name that grouped all religion in the sub-continent or even just the Vaidika dharma (There never was an umbrella term until Hindu).
8. You do not attemp to refine out a pristine version of vedic religion named Santana Dharma containing your choice elements from the "hodge-podge" of Hinduism, rejecting everything you dislike.
9. You do not have the urge to pander to the Western concept of a bonafide religion (monotheistic, no idol worship, etc.). In other words, you are not ashamed of idolatory and polytheism.

The list may require a couple of revisions - but is mostly correct.

[Twilightdance]

And here we go again! But to be fair, I did like your previous post on this thread on convergence.



This is exactly the ignorance I was referring to in the previous few posts. Your version of hinduism is vastly oversimplified to the point of being grossly incorrect. By beliefs, I am talking about the various religious groups in India such as the various shaiva groups such as veerashaivas, shakta groups, Vaishnava groups, and thousands of other nameless groups and sub-groups. They are not covered by Radhakrishnan, Max Mueller or Vivekananda and consequently you have no clue that they even exist.



Once again, we are not taking about darsanas. Darsanas are a miniscule portion of Hinduism - quite unlike what you have read in books. Most of them have also been pretty dead for a while now. You will need to make a trip to India sometime soon.



Common sense would by why. One bogus sanyasin does not invalidate the concept of Sanyasa.



A baseless comment for now - as you have established that your knowledge of Hinduism is too meagre to have depth. It is time you start to look beyond the darsanas and in time you will be making meaningful comments, but until then....

I thought he stays in india but instead of practicing any form of hinduism studies translations of darshanas.

But the bigger problem i see with neo hindus of this forum is the myopic and linear fashion jn which veda and vedanta gets quoted and interpreted solely motivated by polemics pioneered by the three acharyas or those inspired by them. Vedas dont mean anything to those who follow agamas except obligation to provide lip service for political reasons, but I think the vedic tradition deserves to be better repesented than polemics of the 3 acharyas.

[Twilightdance]

namaste,

What I had in mind when thinking of 'traditional hinduism' was something along the lines of 'a tradition or vedic parampara passed down from guru to shisya, a tradition that is open to the qualified only and closed for outsiders of the tradition.' Something along the lines of what Maha has implied in some of his posts here.

That would be few families of srauta ritualists among the namboodris living in a small neighbourhood of kerala.

Surely there are more hindus than a few 100?

But if one is willing to weaken the restriction of "vedic parampara" to just "paramparas", i agree with this definition. Without guru and sampradaya there is no hinduism, and most common people who dont have either a family tradition or a parampara guru are non traditional, though not neo-hindu.

[wundermonk]

I thought he stays in india but instead of practicing any form of hinduism studies translations of darshanas.

Relax sm78.

Satay: You edited sm78's previous post citing:

wow! singhi...does name calling of acharyas really suit your character?

I would like to reiterate that sm78's quote, reproduced below, directed at me:

I thought he stays in india but instead of practicing any form of hinduism studies translations of darshanas.

counts as "goading" on other boards for which infraction points are awarded. I might add that this is not his first time either!

Do you have a policy on "goading"? If not, I might suggest you need to bring that about. Otherwise, I am afraid, HDF will just degenerate to a fish market and will lose its way. Nobody likes to visit a board where there is goading/shouting/screaming all the freaking time!

Ciao!

[shiv.somashekhar]

namaste,
What I had in mind when thinking of 'traditional hinduism' was something along the lines of 'a tradition or vedic parampara passed down from guru to shisya, a tradition that is open to the qualified only and closed for outsiders of the tradition.' Something along the lines of what Maha has implied in some of his posts here.

That would actually be neo-Hindu. Your definition is only applicable to the Veda dharma of Brahmanas. As I said earlier, Brahmanas are about 4% of the population and that single belief set cannot be taken as definitive Hinduism and foisted upon the other 75% or so (leaving out Muslims and Christians).

Let us pick a random farmer in a random place - say Southern Andhra. He has no idea about the Veda or the Gita or any scripture - because he does not need to. His God is Govinda in Tirupathi and his religious practices are mainly what has been followed in his family for generations. He has no labels for his religious beliefs. Or take another person from another village who has a local God with a single temple atop a nearby hill. Only local people know this God and they have their own established practices. The count of such local Gods are in the thousands and their worshippers run into millions. Or other Hindus who almost exclusively worship Ganesha, Sai Baba, etc.

What unites all of them as Hindu? Nothing, other than the geographical reigion - just like there is little in common between the Keralite and the Manipuri, except that they belong to the same country.

This need to go back to the Veda as the foundation of all Hindus has a single cause - the western model of religion and nothing else.

[philosoraptor]

I thought he stays in india but instead of practicing any form of hinduism studies translations of darshanas.

But the bigger problem i see with neo hindus of this forum is the myopic and linear fashion jn which veda and vedanta gets quoted and interpreted solely motivated by polemics pioneered by the three acharyas or those inspired by them. Vedas dont mean anything to those who follow agamas except obligation to provide lip service for political reasons, but I think the vedic tradition deserves to be better repesented than polemics of the 3 acharyas.

Well, we have plenty of other minor schools, such as those of Nimbarka, Baladeva, Sridhar Swami, Vallabha just to name a few. Then there is the Kashmir Shaivism tradition, which I believe has its own vishishtAdvaitic commentary. There are also other schools no longer existing but whose writings were quoted by the big three. However, in the end, it is the systems of Madhva, Raamaanuja, and Shankara which seem to have taken hold in both intellectual and lay circles, and that's just the way it is.

I know, I know. You, like Maha, feel that the real Hinduism is something else, and that "medieval" commentators have put a totally different spin on it. I'm ready to be convinced of that, but I don't see much consistency emerging in these "pre-vedAntic" paradigms, and noticeably much confusion about the actual content of the shrutis from those making these claims.

[philosoraptor]

That would actually be neo-Hindu. Your definition is only applicable to the Veda dharma of Brahmanas. As I said earlier, Brahmanas are about 4% of the population and that single belief set cannot be taken as definitive Hinduism and foisted upon the other 75% or so (leaving out Muslims and Christians).

Let us pick a random farmer in a random place - say Southern Andhra. He has no idea about the Veda or the Gita or any scripture - because he does not need to. His God is Govinda in Tirupathi and his religious practices are mainly what has been followed in his family for generations. He has no labels for his religious beliefs. Or take another person from another village who has a local God with a single temple atop a nearby hill. Only local people know this God and they have their own established practices. The count of such local Gods are in the thousands and their worshippers run into millions. Or other Hindus who almost exclusively worship Ganesha, Sai Baba, etc.

What unites all of them as Hindu? Nothing, other than the geographical reigion - just like there is little in common between the Keralite and the Manipuri, except that they belong to the same country.

This need to go back to the Veda as the foundation of all Hindus has a single cause - the western model of religion and nothing else.

Without knowing anything else, I would characterize the farmer who worships Govinda as being more likely a traditional Hindu. He worships a deity from the canonical scriptures, and even though he does not study those scriptures, chances are good that he respects brahmin authority and the scriptures upon which they teach. You may see it as brahmins "foisting" their religion on others, but that doesn't seem to pan out. If the religion of the Vedas and Puranas is the religion of the brahmins, then somehow millions of non-Hindu brahmins are following it also, and not because anyone is putting a spear to their backs.

[Twilightdance]

Relax sm78.

Satay: You edited the previous post citing:



I would just like to reiterate that sm78's quote above counts as "goading" on other boards for which infraction points are awarded.

Do you have a policy on "goading"?

Relax! Nobody cares about points here too much reputation or other wise, they dont prove anything. Given my opposition to almost every opinions on this forum barring from 2 people, i am not surprzed if my point score is annoying you. Satay did the right thing to edit and not hyperventilate.

I am far too controlled on the "acharyas" in this forum, in other places where members are insiders and practionersnif either family or real traditions of mantravada, they get treated much less kindly. You need to understand hinduism doesnt start and end with them and constant blown out of proportion importance they receive here seems like infraction on hinduism discussion to me.