What is Neo Hinduism?

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

Actually, there are many so-called "Westerners" who do not adhere to what is called "Neo-Hindu", and that includes me.

I am not a Neo-Hindu. I am a Saiva Siddhantan (Shaiva) and proud of it. Those who teach me, are authorized and from the most ancient traditions and Sampradaya. Those who teach me, proclaim that "caste" is NOT something locked into "birth-based", and those who try to claim that those who teach me are thus "Neo-(anything)" are no more than faceless souls who are very confused and live in a lot of frustration.

I will never be called a "Neo-(anything)". I am a Hindu. I am a Saiva. I am a Saiva Siddhantan. Our teachers, our saints, and yes our scriptures are very central to what we are. We are the living presence of Sanatana Dharma.

Om Namah Sivaya

[Jeffery D. Long]

Namaste ShivaFan!

Yes, of course. "Many" does not mean "all," and whether one currently inhabits an Indian body or a body of another nationality or ethnicity will not determine if one is what we are here calling "Neo" or not. It is a question of where one locates the ultimate source of authority in determining one's beliefs.

I do think the term "Neo" has a pejorative sense for many. It was first coined by Indologist Paul Hacker, a devout Christian who saw the popularity of Swami Vivekananda's brand of Vedanta as a threat to Western civilization. It has since been used to cast modern Hindu movements as somehow inauthentic (and been picked up by traditional Hindus for the same purpose). I use it in a purely neutral sense to refer to the shift to the paradigm of the authority of experience and reason in contrast with the paradigm of the authority of text and tradition, with no opprobrium attached either way.

And I am as devoted to my saṃpradāya as you are to yours. Jananim Saradam Devim Ramakrishnam Jagadgurum, Padapadme tayoh sritva pranamami muhurmuhuh!

[satay]

Namaste,

This discussion is quite civil considering the topic at hand. I am impressed.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Namaste

Actually, there are many so-called "Westerners" who do not adhere to what is called "Neo-Hindu", and that includes me.

I am not a Neo-Hindu. I am a Saiva Siddhantan (Shaiva) and proud of it. Those who teach me, are authorized and from the most ancient traditions and Sampradaya. Those who teach me, proclaim that "caste" is NOT something locked into "birth-based", and those who try to claim that those who teach me are thus "Neo-(anything)" are no more than faceless souls who are very confused and live in a lot of frustration.

Unfortunately, you are wrong. If you are being taught that Varna and caste are not by birth, then your teachers have already deviated from tradition and do have to be classified as neo-Hindus (which you appear to have a problem with). Your case is no different from that of ISKCON where they claim to be traditional and yet consider Varna as not birth based, thus contradicting themselves.

In general, this is the case with all Hindu beliefs that have Western disciples - they have to distance themselves from certain elements of Hinduism, for obvious reasons.

Neo-Hindu is not a bad thing as Shiva-fan, et al., mistakenly believe. It should be recognized as new and different in certain aspects. Religion evolves with time and what one would call traditional Hinduism has seen many changes over time.

[Jeffery D. Long]

Neo-Hindu is not a bad thing... It should be recognized as new and different in certain aspects. Religion evolves with time and what one would call traditional Hinduism has seen many changes over time.

This is my understanding as well, put more clearly and succinctly than I have done in this thread.

[ShivaFan]

Namaste SS.

Completely false. My teachers are not Neo anything, and it means nothing to true Hindus as myself what a sectarian or an extermist or an caste-centric ideolog or what could even be racists say.

You can use the "you are wrong" all your life, and you will change nothing regarding the course of Dharma.

Om Namah Sivaya

[ShivaFan]

Namaste All

Let me make something very clear. I will not, nor never take any label such as "Neo-Hindu", those who teach me do not accept such a label, I will not, never, accept a label given to those who teach me Sanatana Dharma as being "Neo-Hindu".

They do not accept, so I do not accept it.

As far as personal opinion regarding the term, I consider it name calling if someone calls such a term. That is a personal opinion, I have not been told by those who teach me that it is a form name calling, but I will not be pigeoned holed into such categories which do not apply to me.

If some other Sampradaya wants to be called Neo-Hindu, that is their choice. If some other Sampradaya has different Hindu teachings or focus than what I have learned, then you follow your teachings, I will follow mine. I am not telling anyone to change their beliefs or contest what their teachers are instructing them. I will not contest what my authorized teachers are teaching me.

Om Namah Sivaya

[Jeffery D. Long]

Namaste ShivaFan,

I will never call you a Neo anything, and in fact I will only call you a wonderful, generous, and good-humored soul! And of course a sincere bhakta of Lord Shiva.

People in my tradition are not fond of the "Neo" label either, though many of us are content to accept it with the provision that it is a purely descriptive "academic" term with the meaning I have been using in this thread, with no implication of inauthenticity. Because "Neo" itself catches many, many modern Hindu schools of thought, and so is not even all that descriptive beyond a highly general level, we tend to use terms like Ramakrishna Vedānta, Integral Vedānta (analogous and not unrelated to Sri Aurobindo's Integral Yoga), or Vijñāna Vedānta. For decades, we simply said, "Vedānta," but that raises the ire of adherents of other forms of Vedānta (including on this forum) for perfectly legitimate reasons, so some of us are backing off from this now. I personally like the term "Spiritual Humanism," but no one knows what it means, so I don't use it very much either.

With warmest regards.

[Twilightdance]

Unfortunately, you are wrong. If you are being taught that Varna and caste are not by birth, then your teachers have already deviated from tradition and do have to be classified as neo-Hindus (which you appear to have a problem with). Your case is no different from that of ISKCON where they claim to be traditional and yet consider Varna as not birth based, thus contradicting themselves.

In general, this is the case with all Hindu beliefs that have Western disciples - they have to distance themselves from certain elements of Hinduism, for obvious reasons.

Neo-Hindu is not a bad thing as Shiva-fan, et al., mistakenly believe. It should be recognized as new and different in certain aspects. Religion evolves with time and what one would call traditional Hinduism has seen many changes over time.

For someone who doesn't even believe there is any consistent meaning or basis to the terms Hindu and Sanatana Dharma, your views on what constitutes "traditional" vis a vis "neo" hindus is surprizingly crystalized. But a bull is a bull and so are these claims of traditional vs neo. Discarding caste by birth is not something only 18th 19th century philosophers invented, on contrary how much of any of the brahminical rules were ever effective in the society outside their own circles in history of India is seriously doubtful. Have you changed your thoughts or just being sarcastic?

[shiv.somashekhar]

For someone who doesn't even believe there is any consistent meaning or basis to the terms Hindu and Sanatana Dharma, your views on what constitutes "traditional" vis a vis "neo" hindus is surprizingly crystalized. But a bull is a bull and so are these claims of traditional vs neo. Discarding caste by birth is not something only 18th 19th century philosophers invented, on contrary how much of any of the brahminical rules were ever effective in the society outside their own circles in history of India is seriously doubtful. Have you changed your thoughts or just being sarcastic?

Neither. You have missed my earlier posts on this thread.

Reposting again. It should be clear that I am not pulling this out of my hat. And one more time...It is not the case that Hindusim remained unchanged for thousands of years and we suddenly now have a new flavor. Beliefs have evolved constantly and neo-Hindu (as can be seen in the wikipedia pages) is specifically applied to changes that came about to cater to a Western mindset. Hopefully, this make the difference between neo and traditional clear.

===

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.