Neo-Hinduism and Traditional Hinduism

[shiv.somashekhar]

Some quick comments -

It would be useful to

1. Provide specific definitions/charactererstics of traditional Hinduism and neo-hinduism. Defining traditional Hinduism may be quite a task. For instance, some young western Hindus who consider themselves experts on the topic, who obviously only know the Vivekananda version of Hinduism believe all of Hinduism is based on the Veda and consequently considered Veerashaivas, Ayannar worshippers, etc. as fringe groups! They also had trouble categorizing Carvakas, atheistic Sankhya and a number of other such groups. Not surprising because they have never been to India and are in no position to know the truth.

2. Describe how Neo-Hinduism is a bad thing (if that is the case). Religion in India has evolved over time with rise in idol worship, old Gods falling out of favor with new gods taking their place, etc. So one would have to show how all those changes were OK, but the recent neo wave is bad.

3. How does one categorize Iskcon? Prabhupada - for personal reasons - alienated his group from Hinduism. The result is confusion, with some iskcon followers considering themselves Hindu and some others not. So is Iskcon part of traditional hinduism or neo hinduism or is it something else?

[philosoraptor]

Good thoughts in the above. My responses.

1) I gave a working definition of the terms "Neo Hinduism" and "Traditional Hinduism" in my first post, but I did not intend to give a definitive definition of either. This is because, like defining the term "Hinduism," any definition may ultimately meet with some limitations. For example, it is tempting to define "Traditional Hinduism" as being based on shAstra, but this needlessly excludes "traditional" practices carried out by Hindus who may not themselves be familiar with shAstra. A case in point - the smArthas who perform satyanArAyaNa puja - certainly a traditional practice for centuries with a basis in purANa. I would certainly invite feedback from members to help refine the definitions above, which I have deliberately left very broad so as to be useful.

2) Showing that Neo-Hinduism is "bad" is not really the point of this thread. "Goodness" and "badness" are based on the individual values of the members. What is "bad" is the tendency to obfuscate the differences between Neo-Hinduism and traditional Hinduism, as I am sure may would agree that it is "bad" to misrepresent anything and "good" to always tell the truth. That being said, when people have a clear idea of what traditional Hinduism is and what Neo-Hinduism is, they can draw their own conclusions about their respective "goodness" and "badness" if any.

3) I was going to touch on this issue later, but since you brought it up... I tend to think of organizations like ISKCON as straddling the line between neo-hinduism and traditional Hinduism. This brings me to a point I wanted to make, which is that while we can recognize these as distinct entities, sometimes people or groups don't neatly fall within either category. Another example of this is the smArtha who performs satyanArAyaNa puja (a traditional practice), yet for philosophy reads Swami Vivekananda (clearly the archetypical Neo-Hindu).

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Philosoraptor

You have a behavior of taking selective out takes, and frankly by doing so also does not give me any faith that you are an authority on such matters and again you are not considering the diverse family of Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma.


I clearly said, quote "I understand that you might be saying that whatever some school expresses as a ranking may vary but all have a ranking nevertheless, there is truth in that but even then I have heard that wandering Munis of the very historical events you speak of from Vedas or the hoary past actually do not fully agree with you".


So you are totally misquoting me selectively which you often do to others. But that does not matter to me, none of this changes my observation of attempts through the use of terms such as Neo-Hinduism to box in other authorized and ancient Sampradayas as being so. You seem to be so reactive, and often so, that it is difficult even to connect your reactions in alignment with the points of others posting. Such attitudes come from all different schools, sometimes someone who thinks they are the all and be all spokesperson for Saivisim does it, sometimes a Vaishnava or Shakta, but the message is to be considerate of the audience. You make such ridiculous statements such as I (or for that matter any other which you seem to take the wrong way) claim an "assert that recognition of Neo-Hinduism is somehow a Vaishnava phenomenon", which was not stated at all.


However, you do have a tendency from your Vaishnava view, to state things as if you are an authority, with a tone that is as if a "teacher with a whip in hand scolding children". You can quote any scripture, it still does not speak to you being the authority, and the tone is never one that would convey a result you intend.


I stand by everything I said.


Om Namah Sivaya

[philosoraptor]

Unfortunately Shivafan, much of what you said remains inaccurate. Attacking a person's character and perceived motivations is not a substitute for having a discussion based on facts. And again, I note that you have largely ignored what I posted before and started off by ramming through with your personal opinions and indignation that anyone could possibly disagree with them. My suggestion is that you either withdraw from this thread, or at least restrain your urge to respond until you have carefully gone through the source materials posted previously.

My postings are not for those who are looking for flattery, agreement, or reinforcement of their pre-conceived biases. This is not what education is. We cannot stop discussing facts and truth simply because some people entrenched in their sectarian ideas cannot tolerate any discussion of alternate points of view. I have no interest in being the object of another flame-war. Please find a way to contribute in an intellectual way or withdraw to a safe distance while others can discuss freely.

thanks,

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Philosoraptor

Anyone who has read my postings overall know that the last thing I am is a Hindu entrenched in sectarian bias. Those who know my past also testify to my deep love for Vaishnavas, and especially for Gaudiyas and of Bhakti Yoga.

I take exception to your incorrect characterization of me in that regard.

You noted the name of member Omkara in the discussion. I will testify right here, and anyone who has read my postings will know, my respect for Omkara is immense. Especially his sense of sharing knowledge.

Jai Mata Di

Om Namah Sivaya

[shiv.somashekhar]

For a succinct description, you may be a neo-Hindu if

1. You believe all or most of Hinduism is monotheistic.
2. You believe all or most of Hinduism is based on scripture - specifically the Veda and the Bhagavad Gita
3. Your version of Hinduism is the "mother lode" world religion and is all-inclusive.
4. You believe varna is not by birth; either because you are unaware of tradition or because you choose to disagree with it.
5. Your knowledge of Hinduism comes primarily from books and you have had little or no interaction with different groups of practising Hindus in India.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Philosoraptor

You noted in your statement "I tend to think of organizations like ISKCON as straddling the line between neo-hinduism and traditional Hinduism".

Sampradaya is the bestower, and also presenter, of the path given as authority through structure that gives strength to what some call Hinduism, or more traditionally Sanatana Dharma.

ISKCON as bestowed and presented by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad is an authorized living stream of tradition within this larger family called Hinduism, and within Sanatana Dharma, with an established lineage and passage of truths to shishya and to disciples, and to the general population of devotees who ascribe to the Bhakti Yoga path, as exemplified by Lord Chaitanya, and devotion to Krishna.

To say it is perhaps “somewhere between Hinduism and Neo-Hinduism” is such a broad stretch that it would put most of the entire Sampradayas and traditions of the diverse family into the same, frankly purposely demeaning, category.

I am a Saiva, but though I do not ascribe to everything as is within the authorized tradition of the ISKCON lineage, nevertheless I would never use such terminology. In fact, it would be typical of those who would, that perhaps their own standing despite their own tradition perhaps has some serious issues.

Some of the oldest Saiva Sampradayas that exist today have traditions in Nandinatha and Adinatha (as from Maharishi Nandinatha, Adinatha, Matsyendranatha and Gorakshanatha of Siddha Siddhanta Saivism). The doctrines of this school encompass several of the points that were made as to the claim of justification for being categorized as “Neo-Hindu” but they existed before Europe discovered India.

ISKCON as a Society was founded in 1966. That is simply the founding date of a Society, not a tradition. The Guru, who was given the title “Bhaktivedanta”, came from India to many other countries on the instruction of his Spiritual Master Bhatisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur. Acting on instruction, the founder of ISKCON as a society (International Society for Krishna Consciousness), mostly popularly known as Prabhupad, translated with commentaries major works such as the Bhagavad Gita, and many commentaries and translations related to the life and teachings of the Saint Lord Chaitanya (Caitanya). There are many other Vaishnava traditions which have some disagreements with the type of Bhakti traditions of Caitanya, and some competing traditions have very strong objections. This is very typical, but there is no question about the contributions of such movements during the middle ages when popular “Hinduism” of many traditions, both Vaishnava and Saiva, and Shakta, rose up to stand strong after a period of time when Buddhism had prevailed over large populations and royal lineages in Bharat, and many of such Bhakti or devotional saints and mystics from many “Hindu” traditions risked their own lives in face of Islamic totalitarianism and oppression.

It may be the case when many of us will soon also, once again, be facing the oppression of Islamic Jihad - I have no doubt that it will be the bravery of those such as ISKCON who will give their own lives while chanting the names of their Lord, before they are taken, and to be put to death. I know also, many Saivas will stand with them.

I publically state that, though I am a Saiva, it is my consideration that ISKCON is not only foundationally rooted in Traditional Hinduism (of which “Hinduism” is actually a Western, but now adopted terminology for Sanatana Dharma, but widely accepted as it has become a moniker for the diversity in the large family of traditions in composite), to say it is somewhere in between “Traditional Hinduism” and “Neo-Hinduism” is not only inaccurate, it feeds the largely Western Academia and British and colonial agenda of creating divisions where they do not occur through Western terms as a means of divide and rule. Not only is ISKCON rooted in, and reveals, traditions of long standing which predate British attempts to divide and rule, and of current attempts by some in academia for various sundry of reason not the least of which is to promote Socialism and in some cases Communism, ISKCON will be one of the leaders in the future that will continue such understanding and endowment of such traditions all over the world despite attack and criticism of others. I do not ascribe ISKCON as my tradition being a Saiva, but nor do I ascribe such attacks which is a form of malfeasance against long honored traditions within the large family of “Hinduism”, even if I am not an initiate of that tradition of Vaishnavism.

There is no question that some so-called “Hindu” groups are actually “new age” agendas. I say, woe onto them, but they will never prevail. As for "new age" agendas, ISKCON is not one of these.

Om Namah Sivaya

[Twilightdance]

For a succinct description, you may be a neo-Hindu if

1. You believe all or most of Hinduism is monotheistic.
2. You believe all or most of Hinduism is based on scripture - specifically the Veda and the Bhagavad Gita
3. Your version of Hinduism is the "mother lode" world religion and is all-inclusive.
4. You believe varna is not by birth; either because you are unaware of tradition or because you choose to disagree with it.
5. Your knowledge of Hinduism comes primarily from books and you have had little or no interaction with different groups of practicing Hindus in India.

Nice summary list of neo hindu criteria. Deleted the rest of the post as it does not make sense to make the same points again and again.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Namaste Philosoraptor

ISKCON as bestowed and presented by A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad is an authorized living stream of tradition within this larger family called Hinduism, and within Sanatana Dharma, with an established lineage and passage of truths to shishya and to disciples, and to the general population of devotees who ascribe to the Bhakti Yoga path, as exemplified by Lord Chaitanya, and devotion to Krishna.

To say it is perhaps “somewhere between Hinduism and Neo-Hinduism” is such a broad stretch that it would put most of the entire Sampradayas and traditions of the diverse family into the same, frankly purposely demeaning, category.

Are you familiar with Prabhupada's position on this subject? He would disagree with you as he explicitly disconnected his organization from Hinduism. In his own words -

There is a misconception that the Krishna consciousness movement represents the Hindu religion. Sometimes Indians both inside and outside of India think that we are preaching the Hindu religion, but actually we are not.

The Krishna consciousness movement has nothing to do with the Hindu religion or any system of religion....

http://www.rickross.com/reference/krishna/krishna8.html

Hopefully, this clears it up.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste All

I am going to step out from this thread to avoid any misconceptions or misunderstandings.

Just real quick, yes SS, I have heard something about that, viz Prabhupad saying he is not a "Hindu", but though I am not an expert on all of its context, the way I look at it, Hindu is a Westernized term, I have been told directly the same thing even recently in a temple by a Brahmin priest, he said "I am not a Hindu". So while i, as a Westerner, may have adopted the term, many Indians, and I noticed espcially conservatives, reject the term. So I apologized to the priest for using the term. In general, I need to use more Sanskrit and Tamil terms and less Western terms.

Hope everyone has a peaceful day! Apologies if anyones feelings or good intentions were disturbed. Like I once revealed in another post, a wise master once gave me the instruction (perhaps marching orders) "Do not disturb others". He must have saw something in me. I live in a world of action and adventure, less, probably a lot less, philosophy.

Om Namah Sivaya