Re: Neo-Hinduism and Traditional Hinduism
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.
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
Bookmarks