Neo-Hinduism and Traditional Hinduism

[MahaHrada]

Yes. When one quotes the Rig-Veda or an Upanishad or the Gita (or any scripture) as the definitive Hindu position, that is Neo-Hinduism. There are countless non-Vedic beliefs (mostly without any scripture) in India and pretending they do not exist is incorrect - especially not when they form the bulk of the population.

From the time of Al-Beruni, and then Max Mueller and co, this has been the pattern. Christians and Muslims just could not take idol worship, polytheism and lack of scripture seriously. Therefore, they selected choice elements of Hinduism which mirrored their own ideas of a bonafide religion and described only this constructed version of Hinduism - leaving everything else out.

Vivekananda was a man on a mission. He had to take Hinduism to the west and he knew that if he talked out Ganesha, polytheism, etc, he would be dismissed as a pagan. He picked his own elements of choice - which he knew would work with foreigners and he created his own version of Hinduism.

Yes that the way it is, there is not a single person posting on this forum that is not a neo-hindu. o.k maybe 1 or 2 people At tamilbrahmins.com you can for instance find a few, traditionally Hindus stick to their own community and do not mess around with beliefs of others.

[Omkara]

A traditional shaiva would not quote from Vedas and Upanishads, but from agamas and tantras, i cannot remember a single quote from Agamas or Tantras in any of your postings only cartloads of vedic and vedantic sources.

Nonsense. See for instance Srikantha's commentary on the Brahma Sutras, Appaya Dikshitar's Sivadvaita Nirnaya, Arul Nandi Sivachariyar's Sivagnana Siddhiyar, Shripati Pandita's Srikara Bhasya etc. If you want to troll, at least choose your victims well.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Yes that the way it is, there is not a single person posting on this forum that is not a neo-hindu. o.k maybe 1 or 2 people At tamilbrahmins.com you can for instance find a few, traditionally Hindus stick to their own community and do not mess around with beliefs of others.

There was no such thing as a single religous group in India - not until muslims came in about a thousand years ago and then non-muslims became one single group named Hindu. Buddhists had pretty much disappeared from India by this time (Al Beruni says he could not find a single buddhist). This artificial grouping named Hindu was only relevant in the context of non-Hindus. Within the Hindu group, people did not call themselves hindus (No Sanatana dharma either). They were Vaishnava, Shaiva, etc. and many did not belong to any such group (true for millions as of today) - instead choosing to group themselves by caste, with each caste or sub-caste having its own set of traditions and practices. If I were to talk to a Goundar from Tamilnadu or a Nayar from Kerala about his scriptures, he will likely have no idea what I am talking about.

[MahaHrada]

Nonsense. See for instance Srikantha's commentary on the Brahma Sutras, Appaya Dikshitar's Sivadvaita Nirnaya, Arul Nandi Sivachariyar's Sivagnana Siddhiyar, Shripati Pandita's Srikara Bhasya etc. If ypu want to troll, at least choise your victims well.

You misunderstood me what i mean with this sentence is that if you reallly would be a traditional agamic or tantric shaiva how is it possible that you are solely quoting vedas and upanishads and never agamas and tantras?

The answer is simple you blow the importance of vedas and upanishads out of proportion like all the other neo hindus do.

.... and i am not trolling, i just cannot accept that you accuse others of what you are doing yourself, i am a bit allergic against that kind of mentality.

[Omkara]

Yes. When one quotes the Rig-Veda or an Upanishad or the Gita (or any scripture) as the definitive Hindu position, that is Neo-Hinduism. There are countless non-Vedic beliefs (mostly without any scripture) in India and pretending they do not exist is incorrect - especially not when they form the bulk of the population.

From the time of Al-Beruni, and then Max Mueller and co, this has been the pattern. Christians and Muslims just could not take idol worship, polytheism and lack of scripture seriously. Therefore, they selected choice elements of Hinduism which mirrored their own ideas of a bonafide religion and described only this constructed version of Hinduism - leaving everything else out.

Vivekananda was a man on a mission. He had to take Hinduism to the west and he knew that if he talked out Ganesha, polytheism, etc, he would be dismissed as a pagan. He picked his own elements of choice - which he knew would work with foreigners and he created his own version of Hinduism.

Theology is decided by the theologians, not the riff-raff. Or would you say that Christian theology does not condemn non Christians to hell, even though many christians do not beleice so?

[MahaHrada]

There was no such thing as a single religous group in India - not until muslims came in about a thousand years ago and then non-muslims became one single group named Hindu. Buddhists had pretty much disappeared from India by this time (Al Beruni says he could not find a single buddhist). This artificial grouping named Hindu was only relevant in the context of non-Hindus. Within the Hindu group, people did not call themselves hindus (No Sanatana dharma either). They were Vaishnava, Shaiva, etc. and many did not belong to any such group (true for millions as of today) - instead choosing to group themselves by caste, with each caste or sub-caste having its own set of traditions and practices. If I were to talk to a Goundar from Tamilnadu or a Nayar from Kerala about his scriptures, he will likely have no idea what I am talking about.

Yes, that is exactly what i mean when i say that the different communities stick to their own traditions, similar within sects or subsects, why discuss with others what is a custom in your own community, that was the rule. Contrasting neo hinduism with what is actually the cultural norm in india, one could say traditionally meddling in the affairs, customs and religion of another community, is frowned upon, making a set of scriptures that is valid only for the small vedic community a measuring stick for all other communities, something unheard of, until recent times.

[ShivaFan]

My definition- Neo-Hinduism is a set of doctrines conceived of in the late colonial era which did not exist in pre-British India.

My problem is more that neo-hindus do not accept that their beleifs are not in accordance with traditional hinduism and present their beleifs as 'Hindu' beleifs rather than their personal opinion.

Namaste

Now THERE'S a definition!

Full of answers, and to the point.

Om Namah Sivaya

[MahaHrada]

Originally Posted by Omkara
My definition- Neo-Hinduism is a set of doctrines conceived of in the late colonial era which did not exist in pre-British India.

My problem is more that neo-hindus do not accept that their beleifs are not in accordance with traditional hinduism and present their beleifs as 'Hindu' beleifs rather than their personal opinion.

Namaste

Now THERE'S a definition!

Full of answers, and to the point.

Om Namah Sivaya

One neo hindu agreeing with the other neo hindu, that all the others are neo hindus Full of answers and to the point!

[Omkara]

You misunderstood me what i mean with this sentence is that if you reallly would be a traditional agamic or tantric shaiva how is it possible that you are solely quoting vedas and upanishads and never agamas and tantras?

The answer is simple you blow the importance of vedas and upanishads out of proportion like all the other neo hindus do.

.... and i am not trolling, i just cannot accept that you accuse others of what you are doing yourself, i am a bit allergic against that kind of mentality.

Simply because it is pointless to cite the shaiva agamas to vaishnavas/advaitins, as they do not accept the validity of those texts. That is why all inter-sampradaya polemic is based on shruti.

[MahaHrada]

Simply because it is pointless to cite the shaiva agamas to vaishnavas/advaitins, as they do not accept the validity of those texts. That is why all inter-sampradaya polemic is based on shruti.

But when you try to do this, it should occur to you that the viewpoints of agamic and tantric shaivaism have no support in vedic shastras, and you have lost the debate before you have even begun an argument, thats why in general shaivas accept agamas as the decisive authority, not vedas and upanishads. Abhinavagupta for instance has therefore strictly forbidden his disciples to even discuss with vedantins.