Neo-Hinduism and Traditional Hinduism

[philosoraptor]

But that was part of an organised smear campaign coming from self declared defenders of "true Hinduism", and we have heard insults such as the like of "filthy jewish bitch" etc. and worse here on HDF already countless times, though not in this thread.

Precisely, "not in this thread." Can we keep this focused, please?

[MahaHrada]

Can we keep this focused, please?

You can try your best to not derail the thread, i cannot estimate if you have enough of the required self control for that. I don´t know you good enough to be certain

[Seeker]

Namaste,

I find it quiet distasteful that how those who consider themselves as 'traditional hindu' mention 'neo hindu' with scornful tone and demeanor. Label someone with 'neo' , 'universalist' , 'bootlicker' etc.. ,and add insulting adjectives ad hominem , voila - you have a 'traditionalist'.

From this discussion , I am drawing a conclusion that a combination of brahminism and Manu's laws along with select interpretations of scriptures is what constitutes 'traditionalism'.

[Eastern Mind]

Namaste,

I find it quiet distasteful that how those who consider themselves as 'traditional hindu' mention 'neo hindu' with scornful tone and demeanor. Label someone with 'neo' , 'universalist' , 'bootlicker' etc.. ,and add insulting adjectives ad hominem , voila - you have a 'traditionalist'.

From this discussion , I am drawing a conclusion that a combination of brahminism and Manu's laws along with select interpretations of scriptures is what constitutes 'traditionalism'.

Vannakkam: Discussions like this don't take place in real life much, just on internet forums, so I wouldn't be too worried. At temples and satsangs or streets in Hindu countries, you're more likely to hear discussions about food than you are about philosophy of definitions.

Then again, folks can get condescending tone about food too.

Aum Namasivaya

[philosoraptor]

Namaste,

I find it quiet distasteful that how those who consider themselves as 'traditional hindu' mention 'neo hindu' with scornful tone and demeanor. Label someone with 'neo' , 'universalist' , 'bootlicker' etc.. ,and add insulting adjectives ad hominem , voila - you have a 'traditionalist'.

From this discussion , I am drawing a conclusion that a combination of brahminism and Manu's laws along with select interpretations of scriptures is what constitutes 'traditionalism'.

Many thoughtful people find it distasteful the way Neo-Hindus criticize traditional varNAshrama, equate bhakti with sentimentalism or fanaticism, claim that icon worship is for spiritually undeveloped minds, and give equal respect to non-Hindu scriptures like Bible and Koran.

[Eastern Mind]

Many thoughtful people find it distasteful the way Neo-Hindus criticize traditional varNAshrama, equate bhakti with sentimentalism or fanaticism, claim that icon worship is for spiritually undeveloped minds, and give equal respect to non-Hindu scriptures like Bible and Koran.

Vannakkam: Yes indeed it (condescending tone) can go both ways, but for the most part it remains civil, and even the condescending tone itself may be open to interpretation. Sometimes an individual word may have different connotations. Certainly I've been told murthy worship is for stupid people.

Aum Namasivaya

[Viraja]

Many thoughtful people find it distasteful the way Neo-Hindus criticize traditional varNAshrama, equate bhakti with sentimentalism or fanaticism, claim that icon worship is for spiritually undeveloped minds, and give equal respect to non-Hindu scriptures like Bible and Koran.

I do not know if what I am saying here will amount to "Neo-Hinduism" but traditional Hinduism which practiced Varnashrama had the major defect of 'untouchability system' which took ages to be abolished.

And I do not know whether the age-old 'Sati system' had any implication in the scriptures... 200 yrs ago in India, people would have vouched Sati system was scripturally based and sanctioned. Modern Hindus abolished it.

[philosoraptor]

I do not know if what I am saying here will amount to "Neo-Hinduism" but traditional Hinduism which practiced Varnashrama had the major defect of 'untouchability system' which took ages to be abolished.

And I do not know whether the age-old 'Sati system' had any implication in the scriptures... 200 yrs ago in India, people would have vouched Sati system was scripturally based and sanctioned. Modern Hindus abolished it.

Please substantiate your allegations that:

1) varNAshrama-dharma had an "untouchability system" and
2) traditional Hinduism had a "Sati system" (by which I assume you are referring a system in which widows were coerced into immolating themselves).

[Viraja]

Please substantiate your allegations that:

1) varNAshrama-dharma had an "untouchability system" and
2) traditional Hinduism had a "Sati system" (by which I assume you are referring a system in which widows were coerced into immolating themselves).

I do not know if they were part and parcel of traditional Hinduism. Many Orthodox Hindus of olden ages practiced them, that's all I know about it. The reason I raised this question is to precisely know what you are asking me for, to be able to say if they belonged to traditional Hinduism or not. (I would be the happiest to know they aren't any part of traditional Hinduism and secondly, if possible, how they came to be practiced...).

[philosoraptor]

I do not know if they were part and parcel of traditional Hinduism. Many Orthodox Hindus of olden ages practiced them, that's all I know about it. The reason I raised this question is to precisely know what you are asking me for, to be able to say if they belonged to traditional Hinduism or not. (I would be the happiest to know they aren't any part of traditional Hinduism and secondly, if possible, how they came to be practiced...).

First of all, being a "part" of "traditional Hinduism" does not guarantee something legitimacy. "Traditional" versus "Neo-Hinduism" are broad categories which we are acknowledging in order to have a general framework to discuss the differences in pre- and post-colonial Hinduism.

That being said, I have not read anything, anywhere, to suggest that coercing women into immolating themselves after widowhood is in any way an accepted practice. If we say that this is "traditional Hinduism," then we should acknowledge that traditional Hindu scriptures do not provide any directives for such disgusting behavior.

The same goes for "untouchability." By this, I assume you are referring to the Dalit problem. In Vedic and pauraNic literature, there is no such thing as "Dalit" caste. Castes are four only, with a general "other" for those not living within the varNAshrama culture. As a general principle, I have seen verses describing more casual interaction between people of different varNas which one might not predict based on stereotyped teachings regarding caste system. So again, if we say that "untouchability" is part of traditional Hindu culture, then we might want to qualify that by pointing out that it does not appear to be a part of traditional Hindu canon.