Page 1 of 9 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 88

Thread: What is Neo Hinduism?

  1. #1

    What is Neo Hinduism?

    I keep seeing this pointed out some places in the forums. What is Neo Hinduism and how does it differ from Traditional Hinduism in Philosophy and Scriptural Interpretations? Thanks
    For those who believe, no explanation is necessary. For those who do not, none will suffice. ~Joseph Dunninger

  2. #2

    Re: What is Neo Hinduism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spirit Seeker View Post
    I keep seeing this pointed out some places in the forums. What is Neo Hinduism and how does it differ from Traditional Hinduism in Philosophy and Scriptural Interpretations? Thanks
    Neo-Hinduism is a broad term that refers to religious groups under the Hinduism umbrella whose ideas and methodologies are mixed in with various foreign (Christian, Muslim, secular humanist) ideas. This includes things like nicely denouncing murthy-worship as being for primitive minds, claiming that there is only one deity in the Veda, denouncing varna-system and claiming people were all equal, claiming all religions are valid/equal/stepping stones to the same goal, etc etc.

    Some Neo-Hindus, in an attempt to suppress discussion on the subject, claim with false tears that it is a derogatory term. In fact, the term "Neo-Hinduism" (and other variations) has been used in academic circles also. Google it and see what you find. There has also been extensive discussion on at least 1-2 threads on this very forum.

    It's useful to distinguish traditional Hinduism from Neo-Hinduism because most of Hinduism's representation outside of India is through Neo-Hindu groups. Neo-Hindu groups often promote their beliefs as "Hinduism," and are very hostile when you point out the differences between their beliefs and what was traditionally known as Hinduism.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  3. #3
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Posts
    1,525
    Rep Power
    2741

    Re: What is Neo Hinduism?

    Namaste

    Now for some fun.

    Neo-Hinduism is a semi-ancient religious philosophy which has no founder, no religious head or pontiff, has many sects, and did not call itself Neo Hinduism. It was typically known as "Universalism" (as in the word university) and has roots to a number of outgrowths including the Order of Knights Templars, various French and British adherents who became Kings of Jerusalem such as from the family of Baldwin, links to European discovery of ancient Egyptian artifacts and "holy relics" from the "far east" while at the same time supposedly rejecting "relic worship", and had built a number of “temples” during the Middle Ages by adherents who, though primarily Christian in background but not necessarily, were to become considered heretics since their Universalist view incorporated all sorts of “mystery religions”, “treasures” and “plates with ancient writing on it” and such, often gathered from the Middle East, Israel, and the Far East.

    Today Neo-Hinduism is a means to start a huge jalpa or arguments among Hindus, sometimes resulting in suicide.

    Many adherents mostly whom were of European origin were later arrested, tortured or even massacred on battlefields by Royal armies under the flag of the Roman Catholic Church. Some were rather odd offshoots of “Protestantism” (e.g. protestors against the Pope), they had some influence in movements such as the Huguenots in France which generally is associated with John Calvin and the Calvinist movement but in fact goes back to Besancon Hugues of the early 1500’s who was a Neo-Hinduist (e.g. Universalist). Some Hugenots of the Neo-Hinduism wing fled to South Africa in the late 1600’s and to Florida in America in 1562 founding “Fort Caroline” (now Jacksonville, Florida).

    Some later examples of Neo-Hinduism adherents, or rather Universalism, of the 18th Century include George Washington and Benjamin Franklin and various lodges of the Masonic Order.

    Universalists, later given the term Neo-Hinduism in relation to various British adherents who tried to wedge themselves and their influence into Hinduism as part of what some later saw as “cultural genocide”, have been accredited with the invention of the sandwich, a form of “fast food” where mushed grapes or fruits, or sometime mutton, was stuffed between two pieces of “sliced” bread. Named after the Earl of Sandwich (who was also a Universalist or adherent of Neo-Hinduism) is where we derive the name “sandwich” from the 1700’s. The sandwich was convenient means of eating without disturbing the play of card games which were popular among those who were moneyed. However, the Earl actually got the idea from others who were already eating this “fast food” during card games so that they could continue to play without interruption.

    These cards were very expensive, so basically only the rich could afford them and actually played an element into the “Neo-Hindu” perspective of such “Masonic” or “Mystery” adherents of Universalism. The most desirable (and most expensive) of cards came from Persia and India and known as Ganjifa Cards. Some of these depicted Hindu Devatas, which adherents of Universalism (later known also as Neo-Hinduism in relation to attempts to influence or inroad into Hinduism with the Universalist “philosophy”) found fascinating and some even started a worship of sorts of Hindu Devas.



    Oddly, some adherents of Universalism are also Egyptians who go way back to the later times after Mary (the Mother of Jesus who was Jewish) retired in Egypt to live. Where she lived became sort of a cult-center, and later attracted a number of Egyptians who later also became influenced by left-overs from the Templars and other Christians.

    Universalism is basically the idea that all religions are “ok”. This is because the Templars and others of their sects were mixing in other religions with Christianity, or in some cases no longer really exampled traditional Christianity at all but became an idea of “The Kingdom of Heaven” or a place where all religions are Universally applied and everyone is “happy” (something like that). Oddly, because most of the early adherents were constantly at war with the Muslims, they didn’t much like Muslims in general.

    Even though the Templars were massacred in general by the Catholics, they still had various wealth and “artifacts” hidden away, and influence among “elites” and “intellectual types” (typically they were landed gents with money). This was particularly true in England. In the 1700’s, but especially in the 1800’s and even into the 1900’s, these British Universalists first targeted Christian and Jewish religious institutions for “conversion” to the “knowledge” (which came from the “East”). They in fact had some success, in both England, America and some other European countries, in break-away Protestant groups which became in part “Universalists”. They also had success with some few Jewish “elites”, oddly the name Baldwin returns in this perspective involving some “Jews” who were of the last name Baldwin but whom had no sematic or Jewish racial features. It is believed these Baldwins were in fact remnants of Baldwin family related to the “Kings of Jerusalem” from the times of the Templars who adopted some aspects of Judaism but were not actually Jews. Some of these later went “mainstream” into Judaism even though they were hated by the “Jewish Elders” and didn’t like what these “Baldwins” were saying about use of the “secrets of the Torah” and things like that.

    These same British elitists later tried to get a foot hold into Hinduism, and to twist some basics regarding Hinduism into a Universalist pretzel.
    They were basically total failures. However, some Indians did get a bad reputation by “hanging out” with these rich and rather snobby Brits. Later some, who like to use “Neo-Hinduism” as a form of name calling, would use the term to attach it to Indian religious leaders to give them a bad name. However, I am not aware of such Hindu leaders ever saying “Hi, my name is Swami so-and-so, and I am a Neo-Hindu”.

    In the total history of Neo-Hinduism over the last several thousands of years, Universalism (or Neo-Christianism, or Neo-Judaism, or Neo-Hinduism) has resulted in the death, murder, battlefields, massacres and mayhem of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. Neoists or Universalists have never achieved their goals, which actually were often rooted in money-making schemes regarding selling “ancient artifacts” as relics which have some “knowledge” or power if you will, again rather an odd business in that the Universalists theme was to often criticize “ritual” and “relic worshipping” as part of their attack on traditional Christianity and other religions. The only religion they never made any “headway” if you will at all was Muslim, though that is not entirely true. As the Universalists took on an interest in science in the very early days (in part due to the fact that some of the Universalist “leaders” or Kings or Hierophants if you will had become victims to leprosy found in Israel and the Middle East and turned to “science” and medicine to find a “mystery cure”), they also took on an interest in astronomy and astrology (and even took on a form of worship of stars). Some of this they acquired from Muslims, and there were a few Muslims who fell under the Universalist “sway” if you will.

    One generality you can make of most Universalists, or Neo-Hindus, is they are generally very “British” in outlook and do not have a great sense of humor. But some non-Neo’s also might have that same lack of humor and strongly react to anyone discussing the origins of Neo-Hinduism even if some of it is rather "odd ball" and even funny in nature.

    Om Namah Sivaya

  4. #4

    Re: What is Neo Hinduism?

    In short, Neo-Hinduism is a new age flavor of Hinduism tailored to be palatable to Westerners and people with a modern outlook on how a religion should be. It is also popularly known as "Sanatana Dharma".

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_revivalism
    With the rise of Hindu nationalism, several contemporary Indian movements, collectively termed Hindu reform movements, strive to introduce regeneration and reform to Hinduism. Most modern Hindu reform movements advocate a return to supposed ancient, egalitarian forms of Hinduism. Discrimination and the caste system are regarded as being corrupt results from colonialism and foreign influence. The Vedic traditions are being reinterpreted in a modern way, to support this egalitarianism.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Vedanta
    Neo-Vedanta, also called neo-Hinduism and Hindu Universalism, is a modern interpretation of Hinduism which developed in the 19th century in response to western colonialism and orientalism. It contributed to the Indian freedom struggle and India's identity as a modern, tolerant and independent nation. It presents Hinduism as a "homogenized ideal of Hinduism" with Advaita Vedanta as it's central doctrine.
    http://lokayata.info
    http://shivsomashekhar.wordpress.com/category/history/

  5. #5

    Re: What is Neo Hinduism?

    Philosoraptor's account is, in my opinion, basically correct, though given from the perspective of someone who sharply disagrees with Neo Hinduism.

    I am among the scholars that he mentions who have used this term (as well as the term Neo Vedanta). I have also been happy to characterize my own belief system and practice as Neo Hindu, and do not take it to be an offensive term. I do, however, find that the distinction between Neo Hinduism and Traditional Hinduism, though real, can be exaggerated, especially in polemical contexts such as these forums. (In other words, Neo Hinduism and Traditional Hinduism are more alike than might appear to be the case in the heat of an argument between adherents of the two.)

    The examples that Philosoraptor uses in his explanation of Neo Hindu rejections of murti puja and caste and Neo Hindu affirmations of universalism all provide good examples of what I mean.

    Regarding murti puja, I do not personally know a single Neo Hindu (and I know a whole, whole lot of Neo Hindus) who has any objection whatsoever to murti puja, and many Neo Hindus who regularly participate in it. My own spiritual life would be tragically incomplete without this way of expressing and cultivating bhakti. The Neo Hindu organizations that really object to murti puja are the Brahmo Samaj and the Arya Samaj. And I even know members of these organizations who are not particularly strict on this score, and happily participate in activities like Aarti at our local temple (in the US). Really rejecting or denigrating murti puja, I would be willing to guess, is mainly a nineteenth century phenomenon, and does not characterize very many of today's Neo Hindus (though perhaps my experiences, in both the US and India, are idiosyncratic).

    Regarding caste, most of the major Neo Hindu authors (e.g. Dayananda Saraswati, Swami Vivekananda, Gandhi) have interpreted scriptural references to caste (varṇa) as relating to an ideal social system based on personal qualities, as opposed to one based on birth (so, guṇa vs. jāti), and see the contemporary caste system as a corruption of this ancient Vedic system. Very few reject it utterly, root and branch (as did B.R. Ambedkar, which was his major difference with Gandhi). Most Neo Hindus that I know reject prejudice based on caste ("casteism"), but not necessarily the shastric ideal. They do affirm the equality of all persons, and indeed all jīvas, on a SPIRITUAL level (which is of course affirmed in the scriptures as well).

    Finally, universalism (my favorite topic) is also more nuanced than even many Neo Hindus seem to realize. It is most definitely not the view that all religions are "the same" (obviously empirically false). Nor is it logically incompatible with the view that some religions are in some ways superior to others. (Otherwise, why adhere to any particular religion at all?) A Hindu universalist may see some truth reflected in the teachings of other religions while believing this truth is expressed most perfectly and fully in the Vedas.

    So what is the basic difference between Neo Hinduism and Traditional Hinduism? It is in where one locates ultimate spiritual authority. For Neo Hinduism, authority ultimately rests with a direct experience (anubhāva) of realization, to which scripture is a guide (being the record of the experiences of those realized Sages who have gone before). For Traditional Hindus, authority rests with the Veda, the apauruṣeya basis of valid knowledge (pramāṇa).

    Here, too, however, the difference can be exaggerated; for the scriptures, too, aim to cultivate a direct experience of realization in those who study them, and Neo Hindus, no less than Traditional Hindus, revere the scriptures as guides to true knowledge. Even in the scriptures, one finds the affirmation that, once direct realization has arisen, the scriptures are no longer necessary. "As useful as a water tank is when there is flooding in all directions are the Vedas for one who has true insight" (Bhagavad Gītā 2.46). And every retreat I have ever attended in a Neo Hindu organization such as the Ramakrishna Mission has been centered around the close and serious study of Hindu scriptural texts and commentaries (and the Ramakrishna Order is unsurpassed in its production of scholarly translations of Hindu scriptures).

    I will probably receive a lot of hate mail and nasty posts after this, given the strong feelings that just about any substantive topic seems to evoke on this forum. So be it. Om Tat Sat!

  6. #6

    Re: What is Neo Hinduism?

    Quote Originally Posted by shiv.somashekhar View Post
    In short, Neo-Hinduism is a new age flavor of Hinduism tailored to be palatable to Westerners and people with a modern outlook on how a religion should be.
    This is also, I think, a fair characterization: not only palatable, but deeply compelling, especially compared with the Abrahamic traditions and secularism which tend to be the only options with which many of us Westerners are presented. And, all joking aside, it certainly has resonances with more marginalized and, for most of history, "underground" Western movements (such as Gnosticism). (I'm referring here to ShivaFan's amusing and informative posting!)

  7. #7
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: What is Neo Hinduism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Spirit Seeker View Post
    I keep seeing this pointed out some places in the forums. What is Neo Hinduism and how does it differ from Traditional Hinduism in Philosophy and Scriptural Interpretations? Thanks
    Let us give some examples.

    Manusmriti forbade Brahmins from crossing oceans.

    Manusmriti is "Traditional".

    So, any "Brahmin" posting on HDF pontificating on what other Hindus should be doing sitting in the USA/UK/Canada/Australia if he travelled to these places via air or sea is disqualified from being a Hindu, per Manusmriti. So, such a person is preaching to other Hindus on HDF a religion that he himself has quit. If such people persist in calling themselves Hindus, they would be the quintessential example of a "NeoHindu".

    Does this make sense? If unclear, please ask to further clarify any doubts!
    Last edited by wundermonk; 21 May 2013 at 05:00 PM.

  8. #8

    Re: What is Neo Hinduism?

    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    Let us give some examples.
    Wrong example, as the Manu Smriti does not recognize the concept of Hindu. Try again.
    http://lokayata.info
    http://shivsomashekhar.wordpress.com/category/history/

  9. #9
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Posts
    1,525
    Rep Power
    2741

    Re: What is Neo Hinduism?

    Namaste Jeffery - very engaging read and so full of context, thanks!
    Om Namah Sivaya

  10. #10
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Posts
    1,525
    Rep Power
    2741

    Re: What is Neo Hinduism?

    Quote Originally Posted by shiv.somashekhar View Post
    Wrong example, as the Manu Smriti does not recognize the concept of Hindu. Try again.
    Namaste I think both of you are correct, Manu doesn't recognize "Hindu" concept, and Wundermonk is on to something. I know I have run into this among "traditional" Hindus that if you leave your community to go to a foreign land, you lose your caste and especially true if you are a Brahmin... not the idea that you "fear" you might lose your jati because you might be influenced by foreigners to do something such as eat Mother Cow, but that simply leaving is abandoning your duty and thus simply leaving is the "violation".

    I have heard this in person from the mouths of some traditional Hindus in India.

    Now having said that, I want to point out that I do not subscribe to such a traditional point of view. For example, if Hanuman crossed the ocean into Lanka, what does that mean?

    It means nothing to me in regards to "caste", Hanuman is the worshipful no matter where He goes.


    I guess that might make me a Neo Hindu in some eyes, but I do not think in terms of Neo anything. As far as those who do retain their caste specifically Brahmin title, I don't care if an ocean or sky separates you from India to America, please come to America because if a temple wants to hire you and that temple will let me come and take darshan of Deva or Devi, please come fast, that means more temples, yes? Makes me happy.

    I think I am pretty much a conservative Hindu. Even if Manu doesn't subscribe to the concept of Hindu. But I do not consider the Laws of Manu sacred, but just a snapshot in time when there was high stress in the social stratus and the times where confused and competing religions moved across the landscape. I get bored reading the California DMV manual on the rules of the road, and driving laws. 100 years from now the DMV manual will be just a curiosity because we might not need what we think of as cars today.

    I don't carry the Laws of Manu around, I sort of put it in the category of the Jataka Tales. Now the Vedas are a different matter ... that matters. Ramayana is sacred text. New Age doesn't matter. I wouldn't even give New Age the honor of being called Neo Hindu.

    Om Namah Sivaya

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. khalsa rejects
    By GURSIKH in forum Sikhism
    Replies: 44
    Last Post: 26 March 2012, 02:28 PM
  2. A Need for a United Hindu Voice
    By Surya Deva in forum Politics - Current Issues
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 13 September 2010, 09:27 AM
  3. Neo-Hinduism
    By keshava in forum Hot Topics
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 25 March 2010, 10:25 PM
  4. Teaching others about Hinduism
    By Ramakrishna in forum I am a Hindu
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 27 February 2010, 10:35 PM
  5. Extrapolating Christianity--to What End?
    By saidevo in forum Christianity
    Replies: 178
    Last Post: 12 May 2008, 12:02 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •