Re: Neo-Hinduism and Traditional Hinduism
Originally Posted by
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.
I might quibble with #5, as I think it depends on which books. I think there is a world of difference between a seeker who reads about Advaita from the books of Adi Shankara while waiting to one day travel to India to meet and learn from genuine Hindus, and a Neo-Hindu whose only book exposure to Advaita is Swami Vivekananda, in spite of living in India and going to temples there.
You also forgot #6: You might be a Neo-Hindu if you don't acknowledge the very existence of Neo-Hinduism. :-)
But in all seriousness, I think there are several more points that are missing from this working definition. Here are a few core points as I see them.
Neo-Hindus tend to consciously or unconsciously "Westernize" Hinduism, by rationalizing beliefs which make it more compatible with Western mindset and which have no basis in scripture. One obvious example is the attempt to downplay heredity-based social hierarchy. Yet another is the attempt to downplay the significance of icon worship. Swami Vivekananda famously said that "idol worship" was merely for the spiritually undeveloped mind, and that the more spiritually "advanced" person actually directs his worship elsewhere. This is an obvious attempt to appease those who are bothered by Christian missionaries who denounce "idol worship."
Neo-Hindus value intepretations of scripture for their own sake. In other words, the mere fact that you have an "interpretation" is ipso facto evidence of its credibility, regardless of how far-fetched or out-of-context it may be. Traditional scholars will try to argue that their interpretation actually represents the intended meaning of the text. Scholars like Madhva, Ramanuja, Shankara, et. al. usually claim at least implicitly to represent systems of thinking that predated them. This is in contrast to people like Vivekananda who brazenly admit to giving new ideas.
Neo-Hindus are also frequently historical revisionists. They will claim, for example, that Hindus never convert, that they never try to refute each other's beliefs, and so on, even when presented with evidence to the contrary.
The reason I said that ISKCON straddles the line between Neo-Hinduism and traditional Hinduism is because it has clear features of both. Gaudiya Vaishnavism I think can be classified as "traditional," albeit a very different tradition than the classical schools of Vedanta. They have their own scriptures, their own system of interpretation, a standard of worship authenticated in smRiti texts, etc. Then again, ISKCON, while inheriting most of these features, has embraced some clearly foreign ideas. This includes objecting to birth-based varNAshrama, claiming that Jesus and Mohammed are "pure devotees" of Krishna, and so forth. Some ISKCON followers try to make a philosophy out of weakness, like for example claiming that homosexuality is compatible with the lifestyle they preach. Then again, there are other ISKCON devotees who have a more traditional mindset, and who deplore the above ideas. Hence, my impression is that ISKCON straddles the fence between traditionalism and neo-Hinduism.
Last edited by philosoraptor; 04 March 2013 at 03:42 PM.
Philosoraptor
"Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato
Bookmarks