Neo-Hinduism and Traditional Hinduism

[philosoraptor]

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.

[Hindu33]

Hinduism is like an umbrella which incorporates monotheism, polytheism, panentheism, pantheism, monism, and also atheism. From the available sources we can deduce that a particular sect enjoyed patronage by the reigning kings who were influenced by a particular sect. But after Shankaracharya, vedanta became popular and so many different sects dissappeared. But as stated by shiv somshekar, vedanta is probably impractical for non-sanyasis and thus evidently hinduism is now only limited to books and stacks of books. Because, hinduism like any other pagan religion is ritualistic. There are certain people who believe that hinduism is more adaptable, in the sense, there are a lot of alternatives and time and again it takes on a new form. This is evident too(the four yugas). But in the present situation, hinduism is perhaps not completely dead but invisible, meaning, it still has the potential to come into existence. But I am not sure where exactly Neo-hinduism would fit in. This is a new term for me and I had never heard of it before. If Neo-hinduism refers to the new-age movements, then there are plenty of such movements and their leaders. Some are vague and some take very strong stands. But we can't classify this as neo-hinduism because it'll be bad for hinduism itself in general and secondly it invariably falls under hinduism in a broader sense. So i feel, this term is in a way, derogatory and better to not define or give it a shape.

[philosoraptor]

Here is a definition of "Neo-Hinduism" from the Oxford Reference online. Just FYI, the Oxford Reference is not written by Vaishnavas. Again, this is just to reveal the fact that non-Hindus have correctly noted the existence of "Neo-Hinduism" and its differences from the Hinduism that preceded it.

http://www.oxfordreference.com/view/...10803100228285

A term applied by Western scholars to the forms in which some Hindu thinkers and reformers (such as Vivekānanda, Gāndhī, and Aurobindo Ghose), and institutional movements (such as the Brahmo Samāj) responded to the influence and challenges of Christianity and Western thought in a period stretching from the early 19th century until Independence (1947). The main ‘Neo-Hindu’ stance was derived from the redefinition of Hindu dharma as an essentially universal, ethical ‘religion’ (sādhāraṇa dharma), based on principles of non-violence (ahiṃsā) and compassion, as opposed to the traditional, particularistic or sva-dharmic stance of varṇāśrama dharma. This in turn led to the advocacy of various social reforms, especially in relation to the caste system.

[philosoraptor]

Another perspective on "Neo-Hinduism" on the web:

http://what-when-how.com/religious-m...ious-movement/

The term ‘Neo-Hinduism’ has been used to describe the worldviews of various Hindu thinkers associated with the Hindu or Indian Renaissance and the organizations they created. It thus refers to a distinct expression of Hinduism that co-exists with other forms of contemporary Hinduism.

The Hindu Renaissance conventionally is regarded as embracing developments within Hinduism from c. 1830 until Indian Independence in 1947, although historians have debated whether the achievements of this period did constitute a ‘renaissance’. Some commentators have placed it more narrowly between c. the 1870s and the end of the independence movement, distinguishing between the ‘revivalism’ of this later period and the ‘reformist’ concerns and lack of overt Indian nationalism said to characterize the period c. 1830-1870s. Hindu thinkers responsible for this Renaissance would include Raja Rammohun Roy (c. 1772-1833) who founded the Brahmo Samaj, if the earlier period is included, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay (Chatterjee) (1838-94), Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902) (see Vivekananda, Swami) who organized the Ramakrishna Mission, Sri Aurobindo Ghosh (1872-1950) (see Aurobindo, Sri) in whose name Auroville was created, Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948), and Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888-1975). Many of these figures have been revered for contributing to the revival of Hindu self-confidence that fed the nationalist movement or providing political as well as spiritual leadership for the Hindu wing of the nationalist movement. The identification of common elements in the experiences, ideas and strategies of these and other thinkers has prompted their categorization as proponents of ‘Neo-Hinduism’. ‘Renaissance Hinduism’, ‘reform Hinduism’, and ‘modern Hinduism’ have been used as overlapping terms. Similarly, some Neo-Hindu thinkers have been described as Neo-Vedantins because of their extensive re-working of ideas taken from the Advaita Vedanta philosophical tradition.

The term Neo-Hinduism has been increasingly used in scholarly writing since the 1950s. The label ‘Neo-Hindu’, however, was in circulation in India at least by the last decade of the nineteenth century and had pejorative overtones. For example, in 1893 critics of Swami Vivekananda questioned his fidelity to earlier Hindu tradition by placing him with ‘Neo-Hindus’, those attempting to reform Hinduism on the basis of criteria adopted from European and specifically Christian criticisms. In recent scholarly writing, the term Neo-Hinduism is generally used to describe Hindu thinkers who typically:

(a) have been concerned with the relationship between religion and nationalism;

(b) have been exposed to western ideas and education, and have confessed to having undergone a crisis of confidence in the value of Hinduism;

(c) have voiced a critical attitude to the worship of images;

(d) have placed a heightened reliance upon the Bhagavadgita, in spite of its traditional classification as a text of lesser importance than the Veda, the ultimate scriptural authority;

(e) have been willing to re-interpret concepts and traditional philosophies, particularly Advaita Vedanta, in the light of new circumstances and influences external to Hinduism;

(f) have been committed to organized, practical service to humanity.

Drawing selectively on earlier Hindu traditions and western learning, including Christianity, Neo-Hindu thinkers have extended existing understandings of concepts such as karma (action) and dharma (law, duty, general morality). In seeking more general and flexible interpretations of these principles, they have tended to enhance the role of personal conscience, rather than emphasizing traditional authorities and responsibilities. Their insistence upon the need for social activism frequently has been supported by a social ethic derived from Advaita Vedanta philosophy. The movements they developed, influenced by their encounter with European and American Christian groups, have been marked by modern organizational features and philanthropic activity. While working on behalf of women and low-caste groups, Neo-Hindu groups have tended to attract more members from higher castes and generally have been led by men. Both the Ramakrishna Mission and Sri Aurobindo have attracted western followers.

It is not uncommon to find scholars who use the term Neo-Hinduism, or synonymous labels, claiming that this style of Hinduism is peripheral or even inauthentic, when compared with ‘traditional’ Hinduism, and that its influence has been exaggerated. Although Neo-Hindu thinkers and the organizations they created have not attracted large numerical followings in India, and some have significantly diminished in influence since the nineteenth century, their indirect influence has been considerable. This was most apparent in the promotion of social activism and the shaping of new Hindu ideologies during the campaign for Indian Independence. It is evident today in many of the practices and beliefs popularized by more recent Hindu sectarian movements both in India and the Hindu diaspora.

[philosoraptor]

And here is a blog by Neo-Hindus for Neo-Hindus:

http://neohinduismtemples.blogspot.com/

The caption on the blog reads, "If we want we can give a fresh new face to the best religion of world." So, they admit to it...

[Viraja]

I do not view Neo Hinduism to be a threat to Hindus in India. Whereas, I consider that the main threat to Hindus is that offsprings of our religion who are brought up in the West, due to lack of and incorrect exposure to Hinduism, might become neo-Hindus and might lose, atleast at 'n'th generation, to Westerners/other civilizations and might become one of them. This is what bothers me the most.

While it is certainly beneficial from a financial point of view to have moved to the West, have we done bad for the children who are orphaned from our great culture in India?

[Eastern Mind]

While it is certainly beneficial from a financial point of view to have moved to the West, have we done bad for the children who are orphaned from our great culture in India?

Vannakkam: From observation, I think so. There are karmic repercussions to the move. It's not just the children, but also the individuals themselves. When financial POV is put ahead of spiritual progress, what can you expect? Many years ago I interviewed an Indian palmist for a news article. He gave me a free reading. He asked me what I wanted to know, and after I inquired about spiritual progress, he confided it may have been the first time anyone had asked him that, as the topic was generally money, occasionally love.

As for the topic. I am curious how people view the term 'Liberal Hinduism'? or is it the same as Neo-Hinduism?

Aum Namasivaya

[shiv.somashekhar]

While it is certainly beneficial from a financial point of view to have moved to the West, have we done bad for the children who are orphaned from our great culture in India?

Culture is a whole other topic.

But out of curiosity, can you please explain what you mean by great culture and how that may be better than the culture you are raising your kids in?

[shiv.somashekhar]

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."

Agree. I have seen western Hindus argue that Hindus are not idolators. In their minds polytheism and idol worship are bad (a legacy they inherited from Christianity and Islam) and it is important to them to distance their religion from these concepts. They also like to see themselves as Brahmanas and hence argue strongly against varna by birth.

[philosoraptor]

Agree. I have seen western Hindus argue that Hindus are not idolators. In their minds polytheism and idol worship are bad (a legacy they inherited from Christianity and Islam) and it is important to them to distance their religion from these concepts. They also like to see themselves as Brahmanas and hence argue strongly against varna by birth.

I have tended to observe the opposite: the Indian diaspora do NOT want to see themselves as brahmanas, because to do so would be to invite guilt over their materialistic lifestyles. Thus, they argue that varNa has nothing to do with birth, which effectively frees them from the responsibility of trying to maintain a brahminical lifestyle.

I usually use the term "icon worship" to describe the concept of the archa-vigraha. An "idol," according to English usage, refers to a false deity, and it sends a wrong impression to those who know its English connotations. Unfortunately, many Indians use the term innocently, just like the word "cult" (which also has negative connotations, but mostly due to contemporary culture).