Neo-Hinduism and Traditional Hinduism

[MahaHrada]

The handful of brahmins from kerala do not hold a monopoly on traditional Hinduism. This is typical indological compartmentalisation. They have preserved a selection of yajnas and ritualistic lifestyle and that is wonderful, but the Vedic tradition has been preserved by traditional Hindus in many other forms all over India and abroad. I have watched Staal's documentary and I thought it was fascinating, you are merely attacking a strawman by bringing him up. I have indeed no respect for Witzel. Witzel together with other Harvard "South Asia" scholars like Diana Eck have played a role in removing Dr Subramanian Swami, an economy professor from Harvard, because of his article in DNA where he shared ideas to counteract Islamic terrorism in India. Similarly Dr. Koenraad Elst has been removed from the RISA list, because his pro Hindu political views didn't sit well with the indology bureaucrats. The anti-Hindu bigotry from indologists is not a conspiracy, but reality. You have no basis to deny this.

Yes there is a conspiracy, a conspiracy of fanatical political motivated Neo Hindus and their supporters like Eelst and Subramaniam against decent people like Doninger and Wietzel that have been subjected to an almost inhuman smear campaign and it is a relief that eventually there has been somewhat of a proper reaction, though in my opinion Wietzel and Doninger should have pressed legal charges against these thugs for libel. Similarly there is this hateful and disgusting smear campaign against western yoga practioners going on for awhile, all this does only show the ugly face of Neo- Hinduism and there absolutely nothing traditional about that.

[jignyAsu]

That position would make one a neo hindu.

The Hindus of today are those who were seen as "Asthikas" in those days, by the Acharyas. They saw all the Asthikas (in general) in essence having Vedas only as their basis. So, considering Vedas as a pramana for all Hindus (AsthikAs) doesn't make one a neo hindu.

If the Asthika groups held a variety of differing pramana(proofs other than Vedas) and if they had a significant influence on the society, our Acharyas would have bothered to engage in debating with them also.

And more importantly, why should he? We are not talking about Christianity or Islam where acceptance of the book is a primary requirement.

Every religion has its difference and this too should be considered

For e.g. a Buddhist does not require understanding of any particular universal scripture to be identified as a Buddhist.. The criteria to decide that is his "remote link to Buddha". There is quite a few difference within the Buddhists but still we have no problem identifying them.

Similarly in Hinduism, we don't not knowing Vedas as a reason for a common man to be identified as a non-Hindu.

If you can show me an attempt to unify all Indian religious beliefs under a single label with a common scripture by *any*
Indian prior to the British arrival in India, I will take my statement back.

They already saw unity in the AsthikAs as upholding the Vedas as their basis. So there was no need for unifying anyone. They only concentrated on establishing how their philosophy best represented the Vedas. If a large population out there never even considered Vedas as a basis, then there would have been no point in taking those efforts.

Considering the Veda is only for 4%, how does one (of the other 75%) claim belief in the Veda without having ever heard about it - much less gaining familiarity with its content

That the Veda is for 4% is not acceptable. Vedas is present in every Hindu temple that the common man visited or a marriage or birth ceremony or last rites etc. These were a part of all the daily lives of Hindus.

All the philosophical thoughts that influenced the vast majority of Hindus like rebirth, karma, dharma etc through the itihAsa Puranas also are finally rooted in the Vedas.

Aiyanar, for instance?

The Hindus identify the deviations in this instance or the one with Veerashaivas etc by looking into a basis only. That basis, again, is the Vedas.

[jignyAsu]

Literalism of puranas, antiquity of the word Hindu are all typical Neo hindu viewpoints.

Are you saying that the traditional Hindus thought that Lord Vishnu, Shiva etc.. Indra Loka, Atma etc - all as symbolic and didn't really believe in them?

Traditional Hindus also have no problem honouring western vedic scholars like Wietzel, Staal and others only Neo hindus have a problem with academics because they have a problem with reality.

And these are traditional, how? Consider a traditional philosopher from 10th centure or 12th. Give us an example on how someone told him that all that he believed are unreal and he has accepted it.

Yes there is a conspiracy, a conspiracy of fanatical political motivated Neo Hindus and their supporters like Eelst and Subramaniam against decent people like Doninger and Wietzel that have been subjected to an almost inhuman smear campaign.

All the pre British notable respected Acharyas were decent in their approach to only question the philosophy only instead of trying to slander a Guru's reputation without any basis.

[Sahasranama]

Yes there is a conspiracy, a conspiracy of fanatical political motivated Neo Hindus and their supporters like Eelst and Subramaniam against decent people like Doninger and Wietzel that have been subjected to an almost inhuman smear campaign and it is a relief that eventually there has been somewhat of a proper reaction, though in my opinion Wietzel and Doninger should have pressed legal charges against these thugs for libel.

You have a problem with reality. The South Asia professors of Harvard took the first opportunity to remove a pro Hindu politician from the university based on his political view. Dr Koenraad Elst wasn't removed from the RISA list because of any smear campaign either, but because he questioned the validity of a particular indologist's interpretations.

Similarly there is this hateful and disgusting smear campaign against western yoga practioners going on for awhile, all this does only show the ugly face of Neo- Hinduism and there absolutely nothing traditional about that.

This campaign was never started by Hindus. This has been going on in the yoga community for decades, one yoga group accusing the other of not practicing authentic yoga and this is still going on in western yoga. Smear campaigning western yoga is the main selling point of many western yoga teachers, ironically. At least finally Hindus have been assertive that yoga is a Hindu practice and that no matter how these yogis bend over backwards, it's not yoga unless done in a Hindu context.

In fact, neo-Hindus have brought yoga to the west.

[Hindu33]

It is not possible to either define traditional or neo hinduism because we can't come to a conclusion about the origin of hindu dharma. We do have sources explaining about the creation but then it will be in favour of one particular philosophy or sect. If one of the million philosophies really turns out to be true, still we'll never know because philosophies are all about faith. If we talk about hinduism in practice, it's almost dead. There is not a single man in india or anywhere in the world who can claim to be a traditional hindu.

[MahaHrada]

Are you saying that the traditional Hindus thought that Lord Vishnu, Shiva etc.. Indra Loka, Atma etc - all as symbolic and didn't really believe in them? And these are traditional, how? Consider a traditional philosopher from 10th centure or 12th. Give us an example on how someone told him that all that he believed are unreal and he has accepted it.All the pre British notable respected Acharyas were decent in their approach to only question the philosophy only instead of trying to slander a Guru's reputation without any basis.

What does real mean to you? Does it means that we have to belive everything written is meant literally? That the world is flat and rests on the back of elephants, who in turn rest on a tortoise, or belive such equally nonsensical revisonist and pseudo scientific garbage such as the antiquity of the word and concept of Hinduism, despite knowing it better, to be a traditional Hindu? Or for example is the Kundalini meant to be a real tiny snake that sleeps in the anal passage of a human being which is crawling upwards if agitated, enter inside a hole in the spine and move to the brain, or is it possible that there is rahasyam a secret meaning intended here? So you think it is necessary to be a fool and make all Hindus look foolish then feel free to belive that all interpretation has to be literal.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Jignyasu,

I am unable to understand some of your arguments and hence, am unable to respond to them.

Consider a traditional philosopher from 10th centure or 12th. Give us an example on how someone told him that all that he believed are unreal and he has accepted it.

Madhva told some Advaitins that Shankara was wrong and they would not gain Moksha if they followed his path - in fact, he told them they would go to hell. Some of them accepted his ideas and became Madhvas. Vaishnavas believed Shaivas were wrong and vice-versa.

An Indian of the 12th century did not know have access to a fraction of the knowledge that is available to an Indian of the 21st century. The 12th century dude was just as intelligent, but he just did not have access to information. He did not know Strawberries, he did not know Japan and he did not know the earth was round. But we do know all of this because of all the advancements that have happened since the 12th century.

In their defence, there have been Indians since ancient times who challenged religious ideas for lack of evidence.

[jignyAsu]

What does real mean to you? Does it means that we have to belive everything written is meant literally? That the world is flat and rests on the back of elephants, who in turn rest on a tortoise, or belive such equally nonsensical revisonist and pseudo scientific garbage such as the antiquity of the word and concept of Hinduism, despite knowing it better, to be a traditional Hindu? Or for example is the Kundalini meant to be a real tiny snake that sleeps in the anal passage of a human being which is crawling upwards if agitated, enter inside a hole in the spine and move to the brain, or is it possible that there is rahasyam a secret meaning intended here? So you think it is necessary to be a fool and make all Hindus look foolish then feel free to belive that all interpretation has to be literal.

For me understanding the Hindu cosmology is very difficult and I don't have enough understanding on many. But what makes my faith persist is because the scripture distinguishes itself by mentioning the world being billions of years old or saying that matter & energy has 1 origin etc... which cannot be brushed away as a lucky coincidence.

In any case, the topic is how a traditional Hindu would take these. Many did believe lots to be literal. Believing in the literal aspect of the scripture doesn't make one Neo.

[MahaHrada]

In any case, the topic is how a traditional Hindu would take these. Many did believe lots to be literal. Believing in the literal aspect of the scripture doesn't make one Neo.

Not necessarily, but putting written scriptures on a pedestal, without thinking twice, as if a holy book similarly to the likes of the Quran or Bible is containing absolute truth, instead of the oral instructions and traditions is Neo, one should not forget that shruti means that which is heard not that which is written.

[philosoraptor]

People, please. Stop posting frankly deceitful arguments and side-tracking this discussion.

Indology paradigms of Hindu scripture are very much at odds with traditional Hindu ones. This is because traditional paradigms usually accept the authorship of Vyaasa for most itihAsas/purANas and the unauthored nature of the shruti, both concepts which are not palatable to the typical, Western Indologist. Western Indologists also look at the philosophy from the Rig Veda through the Upanishads and the later smRitis as something that has been in continuous development, whereas traditional Vedaanta commentators tend to see them as unified in scope, barring some man-made interpolations in the latter.

It is fair to say that both traditional Hindus and Neo-Hindus object to many Indology theories. I have also noticed that some indologists like some traditional Hindu groups, and some indologists like some Neo-Hindu groups. Koenrad Elst, from my past discussions with him, seems to be quite enchanted with neo-advaita, yet is opposed to the idea of unauthoredness of shruti. Subramaniam Swamy, although an advocate for Hinduism, does not believe in hereditary varNAshrama and even claimed in a lecture I attended that it was never about birth. Many Neo-Hindus accept apaurusheyatva in theory, but some seem to tacitly acknowledge mundane authorship.

There is simply no consistent relationship like "opposition to indology equals belief in neo-hinduism."

Also, some have opined that taking the Vedas as the standard for Hinduism is something inherited from the likes of Max Muller, et. al. I must chime in with disagreement. It was clearly the standard for the commentators of the shad-darshanas to take the Vedas as an authority. The idea that this is for brahmins only, and not relevant to non-brahmins, is simply not convincing. Every ancient culture had a priestly class who was responsible for conducting the rituals and interpreting their scriptures. That there were many who did not do these things did not deny their shared faith in a certain set of teachings. I see this all the time in India even to this day, where people (both traditionalists and neos) will talk about greatness of vedas, bhagavad-gita, mahabharata, etc even though they have never studied these things. A shared faith in the authority of the vedas and itihAsa/purANa would seem like a very good starting point to define what it means to be a "Hindu," however much that faith may not be supported by direct study or might even be adulterated by later views.

What about people in villages who worshipped non-vedic, non-puranic deities since ages past. Are they Hindus? I confess that I don't know. I think it is fair to say that they are not Neo-Hindus, since their practices were not based on ideas inherited from the West. Some of these village deities are treated as forms of a vedic/puranic deity, but whether it was like that from the beginning or became so with time I really cannot say. We could probably say that the worship of non-vedic/non-puranic deities from ancient times probably constitutes a separate tradition, neither Hindu nor Neo-Hindu, but which due to proximity has probably been influenced by Hinduism.

There is too much diversion onto subjects like, how convincing one's interpretations are. These are not very relevant here. Whether you agree or disagree with Madhvacharya's interpretations, there should be little disagreement with the fact that he and his followers represent a form of traditional Hinduism. Why? Because their views are based on interpretations of canonical Hindu scriptures, they have a tradition of commentary and polemics on the same, they have upheld the primacy of shruti in determining right knowledge, and culturally have endorsed other practices characteristic of traditional Hinduism, like icon-worship, varNAshrama-dharma, and so on. The same is true of Shankaracharya. The same is not true of someone like Swami Vivekananda, who has no original commentary on the vedAnta to his credit, clearly objects to many traditional Hindu practices like icon-worship and varNAshrama, and borrows ideas from Christianity, Western humanism, Hindu nationalism. The basic reasoning process of Vivekananda is different from traditional commentators like Madhva, Shankara, et. al. While traditionalists will go through great pains to show that only their system of interpretation represents the intended meaning of the shruti, people like Vivekananda try to accept all different interpretations, and even the validity of many different religions. This is more of a political move rather than an intellectual one.