Page 6 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456789 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 88

Thread: What is Neo Hinduism?

  1. #51
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: What is Neo Hinduism?

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    Manu smriti is relevant and authentic, as evidenced by the fact that it is quoted or alluded to in the Ramayana of Valmiki, the Vishnu Purana, and the Bhagavata Purana. This is not the same thing as saying that everything we have in today's editions of Manu is the same as what was spoken by Manu in the original edition.
    Ok. How do you know which parts of the currently extant Manusmriti are authentic and which are interpolation?

    Similarly, we all say that the Puranas are fifth Veda, based on evidence in shruti. But being that they have not been so carefully preserved, we don't accept everything in the Puranas that we have today as true.
    Who is this "we" you are referring to? Neo? Traditional?

    Not really. I've always verbalized my doubts about the authenticity of some parts of Manu, even as I've pointed out that the scriptures acknowledge the existence of an authentic Manu-samhita.
    Ok. How do you know which parts of the currently extant Manusmriti are authentic and which are interpolation?

    1) The fact that traditional scholars have been crossing the ocean for the last several decades to give discourses in the West. Not that this proves the verse is interpolated; i suppose it could also be that those scholars are just violating shAstra in spite of their erudition and other conservative views.
    Putting the cart before the horse.

    We need to clear up multiple things before we get to this:

    Is Manusmriti (unadulterated version) "traditional"? Yes or no?

    If yes, then we need to clear up whether the verse in question is an interpolation or not. Explain how you intend to clarify this.

    If you can not prove that it is interpolated, then you have no choice but to concede that any "Brahmin" scholar who crossed the ocean to give discourses in the West (b.t.w. who are these scholars...can you name some?) is not traditional.

    2) The fact that "crossing the ocean" does not, itself, seem to have any specific spiritual significance, unless the issue is one of prohibiting people to visit mleccha/non-Vedic civilizations for fear that they will take up the bad habits of those people. However, this lead to...
    Traditional scripture to back this up. Else, this reasoning will be condemned as "Neo".

    3) The fact that the purANic conception of the world was one in which Vedic civilization was spread everywhere, which begs the question of why specific areas of the world would be prohibited in a scripture that was of that period. There are references to sages visiting higher (and sometimes lower) worlds, for example, yet parts of Earth are completely forbidden?
    No idea. Provide traditional scripture to make your point. Else, this reasoning will be condemned as "Neo".

    4) The fact that the smRiti acknowledges the visiting of far-flung corners of the globe by great twice-born persons. For example, King Vishvaamitra was said to have travelled the entire world before visiting the sage Vasishtha in his hermitage (this is in Ramayana) and King Parikshit was said to have done the same (as per the Bhagavata). Hanumaan crossed the ocean to visit Lanka, which at that time was well known to be a civilization of meat-eaters, cannibals, and drunks (again, as per Ramayana). In none of these situations do we see any expression of doubt that travelling to distant parts might be forbidden because of a stricture in Manu. This is in contrast to, say, the duties of a wife to a husband in which Manu is quoted or alluded to in the Ramayana in order to arrive at a conclusion about what is to be done. So, again, why would it be wrong now and not back then? Note that it's a doubt, not a definitive pronouncement, but I think a carefully considered one. I have similar doubts about the authenticity of other pronouncements of Manu which also seem to contradict other scriptures.
    Well, there you go. If you have reached a contradiction between "traditional" scriptures themselves, how do you intend to resolve it?

    No
    You have not answered my previous question. Why? I repeat again...are you a "Brahmin"? Also, please clarify whether you yourself are a Hindu, firstly. Next, please clarify whether you are a "traditional" or a "Neo" one.

    The reason why I intend to push you on this issue is that you tend to pontificate on HDF. It smacks of hypocrisy and shows a lack of the principle of charity. If I were to troll a Muslim website, I would conceal my identity and quote scripture from the Hadiths and the Quran that justify 9/11 or the recent killing of the British soldier. If you are neither a Neo Hindu nor a traditional Hindu...in fact, if you are not a Hindu at all then you should not continue to help us interpret our scripture. That is bad manners.

    The same reason you can still be a traditional Hindu even if you do not accept the authority of each and every statement in the mahAbhArata and the purANa-s, as is the case with all traditional vedAnta schools.
    Same point as before. It would help if you clearly clarify who exactly is a traditional Hindu and what amount and % of scripture from the Mahabharatha and Puranas a traditional Hindu is allowed to accept and to reject.

  2. #52
    Join Date
    April 2013
    Location
    Eugene, OR
    Age
    77
    Posts
    86
    Rep Power
    190

    Re: What is Neo Hinduism?

    Namaskaram to all.

    What about Lingayats? Are they Traditional Hindus or Neo-Hindus?

    Satyameva jayate

    Mahadeva Smaranam OM namah shivaya
    Mrtyunjayaya rudraya neelakanthaya shambhave
    Amrteshaya sarvaya mahadevaya te namah

  3. #53

    Re: What is Neo Hinduism?

    Quote Originally Posted by TrikonaBindu View Post
    Namaskaram to all.

    What about Lingayats? Are they Traditional Hindus or Neo-Hindus?

    Satyameva jayate
    As stated in the wikipedia articles posted earlier, neo-Hindu captures some specific changes to Hindu beliefs during the 19th century (and later) to adapt to Western thought. By this definition, Lingayat is a traditional Hindu belief system.

    However, not everyone agrees that a non-vedic system like Lingayat can be Hindu - a discussion that happened at length on these forums a few months ago. The general idea is Hindu => Vedic & Monotheist. If these two conditions are not met (they do not, for many people who are born-Hindus), some people on this forum are unclear on how to categorize them. It appears, the the existence of such Hindus is by itself unknown to some.
    http://lokayata.info
    http://shivsomashekhar.wordpress.com/category/history/

  4. #54
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: What is Neo Hinduism?

    Quote Originally Posted by TrikonaBindu View Post
    Namaskaram to all.

    What about Lingayats? Are they Traditional Hindus or Neo-Hindus?

    Satyameva jayate
    This entire dichotomy of "traditional" vs "Neo" is illfounded. For this to be well founded, at the very least, the following should happen.

    An exhaustive list of "traditional" scripture should be mentioned. In general, scripture contains injunctions and "facts". A "traditional" is someone who believes in all the "facts" and performs all specified injunctions in all "traditional scripture" without fail. Anyone who does these is a traditional Hindu. Anyone else who continues to call himself Hindu would be a neo. You can not get to pick and choose scripture that suits you and discard others - the "traditionalist" would say.

    Now, for Hindus, the only "traditional" scripture acceptable to all would be the Vedas. Unfortunately, the Vedas themselves admit of multiple contradictory interpretations - for e.g. Nyaya/Vaiseshikas versus Vedantins and within the Vedantins themselves - between Advaita, Dvaita, etc.

    So, according to Naiyayikas the Dvaitins are Neos. According to the Dvaitins the Advaitins are Neos, etc. Also, keep in mind that many of these schools are believed to have been well established via the Sutra literature at a specific point in time. For e.g. For Naiyayikas the defining sutra literature would be the Nyaya sutras of Gotama (circa 600 BCE). For Advaita, the defining sutra literature would be the works of Shankara, et al. circa 700 C.E. So, Naiyayikas around 700 C.E. would have called the Advaitins circa 700 C.E as neos. The typical response of each school of thought, however, is that they are not founding any new system but merely interpreting correctly what is already in the Vedas since beginningless time. Now, however, in this thread some people mention stuff like "traditional" Advaita, "traditional" Dvaita, etc. all of which at one point in time were considered "Neo". This is certainly bizarre to say the least.

    So, there is no objective way to evaluate who is a traditionalist and who is a Neo Hindu.

  5. #55

    Re: What is Neo Hinduism?

    Quote Originally Posted by shiv.somashekhar View Post
    As stated in the wikipedia articles posted earlier, neo-Hindu captures some specific changes to Hindu beliefs during the 19th century (and later) to adapt to Western thought. By this definition, Lingayat is a traditional Hindu belief system.

    However, not everyone agrees that a non-vedic system like Lingayat can be Hindu - a discussion that happened at length on these forums a few months ago. The general idea is Hindu => Vedic & Monotheist. If these two conditions are not met (they do not, for many people who are born-Hindus), some people on this forum are unclear on how to categorize them. It appears, the the existence of such Hindus is by itself unknown to some.
    I would characterize Lingayats as traditional.

    Also, it is not necessarily the case that Hindu = Vedic & Monotheist. Hindus have at least a theoretical reverence for the Veda, whether they truly study the Veda or not. This is not the same thing as saying they are Vedic, if by "Vedic," you mean those who directly comment on and follow practices found in the Vedas. As far as monotheism, I am inclined to believe based on straight-forward readings of shruti that they do postulate the existence of a single, Supreme Being. However, I would never argue that being Hindu implies being a monotheist.
    Philosoraptor

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

  6. #56

    Re: What is Neo Hinduism?

    Pranams,

    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    Ok. How do you know which parts of the currently extant Manusmriti are authentic and which are interpolation?
    I never stated that I "know" which parts are authentic and which are interpolation. Please don't put words in my mouth in an attempt to score debate points. I simply expressed my doubts about the authenticity of certain portions which might be interpolated, and I gave my reasons in that case.

    Who is this "we" you are referring to? Neo? Traditional?
    There is no need to belabor the obvious. Practically all Hindus who quote from smRiti will only accept the authenticity of certain portions. This includes traditional schools (Adi Shankara, et. al.) as well as Neo-s (Vivekananda, etc). There is no school of thinking that accepts everything in every extant smRiti as authoritative, and I never claimed otherwise.

    Ok. How do you know which parts of the currently extant Manusmriti are authentic and which are interpolation?
    I don't, and I never claimed to "know." I suggested that some portions might be interpolated for reasons mentioned previously. I am certainly open to an argument explaining why the portions in question should be considered authentic.

    If you can not prove that it is interpolated, then you have no choice but to concede that any "Brahmin" scholar who crossed the ocean to give discourses in the West (b.t.w. who are these scholars...can you name some?) is not traditional.
    I need not concede that, because I never claimed that traditionalists followed all smRiti texts, and I never claimed that manu-dharma-shAstra was shruti.

    I'm not clear on who it is you think you are arguing with, but it obviously isn't me. Either that, or you are deliberately manufacturing strawmen so you can knock them down and declare victory. I understand that that is important for some people, but it isn't for me. Discussion is useful for me to scrutinize my views and the views of others, in an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. I'm sorry that you can only ascribe impure motivations for my participation here. Suffice it to say that I will let you have the last word here so long as you have nothing else relevant to bring up. Feel free to flame away.

    regards,
    Philosoraptor

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

  7. #57
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Posts
    1,525
    Rep Power
    2741

    Re: What is Neo Hinduism?

    Namaste Easter Mind.

    Thank you for that very interesting dialog on "And so it goes". Indeed how true it is. Of course, a dialog between two, even when reduced to name calling and labels is one thing. But then, when one side of the opinion ever actually tried to physically enforce their will by torture for example, that's an entirely different matter and subject to the police, royal or republican authority, courts or world courts to bring charges of kidnapping, torture, terrorism and or genocide against such persons. I have no patience for Spanish Inquisitioners and other lunatics.

    However such dialogs as you example can be, well, amusing. Typically you (or at least I do) look back on it and start laughing. For sure, these dialogs never change the world, never result in a "winner", in fact usually the one who thinks themself the "winner" actually ends up physically and mentally abusing themselves with ulcers, paranoia, or worse over time since they never stop and think the one who simply says "don't care" and walks away is the loser, when actually the "loser" is simply either bored, has better things to do, or realizes nothing changes one way or another so "don't care".

    Om Namah Sivaya

    Namaste Philosoraptor.

    I don't care that a respected Swami, beloved by millions of Hindus, called his path or method "New Hindus". In fact, there is an element of flatery in such a positive term. There are new Hindus everyday. But Neo to me means "partial" or "less than" a Hindu. Did this Swami ever call himself a Neo Hindu? Can someone quote the Swami saying this specific term as a moniker?

    In regards to "Idol Worship", I have no idea the Swami said this, but that has nothing to do with whether I would label another Hindu as such.

    I would not.

    I will not ever call myself a Neo Hindu. I might be a Modern Hindu (e.g. as from the Middle Ages and the Hindu revivalism of that time to counter Jain, Buddhist and later Muslim power structure), this is a positive term. If you want to call yourself a Neo Hindu, or Traditional, you follow your Sampradaya and teachers. I am not taught to call myself a Neo Hindu. I am a Hindu.

    Om Namah Sivaya

  8. #58

    Re: What is Neo Hinduism?

    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    This entire dichotomy of "traditional" vs "Neo" is illfounded. For this to be well founded, at the very least, the following should happen.

    An exhaustive list of "traditional" scripture should be mentioned. In general, scripture contains injunctions and "facts". A "traditional" is someone who believes in all the "facts" and performs all specified injunctions in all "traditional scripture" without fail. Anyone who does these is a traditional Hindu. Anyone else who continues to call himself Hindu would be a neo. You can not get to pick and choose scripture that suits you and discard others - the "traditionalist" would say.

    Now, for Hindus, the only "traditional" scripture acceptable to all would be the Vedas. Unfortunately, the Vedas themselves admit of multiple contradictory interpretations - for e.g. Nyaya/Vaiseshikas versus Vedantins and within the Vedantins themselves - between Advaita, Dvaita, etc.

    So, according to Naiyayikas the Dvaitins are Neos. According to the Dvaitins the Advaitins are Neos, etc. Also, keep in mind that many of these schools are believed to have been well established via the Sutra literature at a specific point in time. For e.g. For Naiyayikas the defining sutra literature would be the Nyaya sutras of Gotama (circa 600 BCE). For Advaita, the defining sutra literature would be the works of Shankara, et al. circa 700 C.E. So, Naiyayikas around 700 C.E. would have called the Advaitins circa 700 C.E as neos. The typical response of each school of thought, however, is that they are not founding any new system but merely interpreting correctly what is already in the Vedas since beginningless time. Now, however, in this thread some people mention stuff like "traditional" Advaita, "traditional" Dvaita, etc. all of which at one point in time were considered "Neo". This is certainly bizarre to say the least.

    So, there is no objective way to evaluate who is a traditionalist and who is a Neo Hindu.
    It would have helped, if you had taken some time to read the thread through. As the sources cited make it clear that neo refers to a specific set of innovations during the 19th century and also explains why, your entire argument is baseless and incorrect.
    http://lokayata.info
    http://shivsomashekhar.wordpress.com/category/history/

  9. #59
    Join Date
    November 2010
    Posts
    1,278
    Rep Power
    1651

    Re: What is Neo Hinduism?

    All I have to go by are two wiki articles which are prefaced with "article needs additional citation for verification" and "neutrality of this article is disputed". So much for definition of "Neo"Hinduism.

    If people do not want to define terms and yet wax eloquent based on some need to grind axe against other types of Hindus I believe HDF may not be the appropriate place.

    Now, if one is a non-Hindu, then he/she has no place in this thread. Since this purported "traditional" vs "Neo" Hinduism dichotomy is mostly irrelevant in their lives, such people should maintain a dignified silence and watch, perhaps curiously, from the sidelines. In real life, I doubt you would go to visit a host and then trash the belief system of the host or bait the host in the host's home itself. I see no reason why that principle should not be followed in online message boards.

    If one is a Hindu, however, one should identify whether he himself is a traditional Hindu or a Neo Hindu (assuming these are mutually exclusive and collectively exhaustive) especially if you have an axe to grind against "Neo"Hinduism. Refusal to identify oneself in generic terms atleast (whether one is a Brahmin, whether one crossed the ocean against the injunction of traditional Manu smriti, etc.) is unfortunate but then that smacks of "do as I say, not as I do" mentality. That is just plain hypocrisy.
    Last edited by satay; 24 May 2013 at 03:36 PM. Reason: removed comments that belonged to a mod.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    February 2011
    Location
    st louis, usa
    Posts
    695
    Rep Power
    1519

    Re: What is Neo Hinduism?

    Quote Originally Posted by wundermonk View Post
    This entire dichotomy of "traditional" vs "Neo" is illfounded. For this to be well founded, at the very least, the following should happen.

    An exhaustive list of "traditional" scripture should be mentioned. In general, scripture contains injunctions and "facts". A "traditional" is someone who believes in all the "facts" and performs all specified injunctions in all "traditional scripture" without fail. Anyone who does these is a traditional Hindu. Anyone else who continues to call himself Hindu would be a neo. You can not get to pick and choose scripture that suits you and discard others - the "traditionalist" would say.

    Now, for Hindus, the only "traditional" scripture acceptable to all would be the Vedas. Unfortunately, the Vedas themselves admit of multiple contradictory interpretations - for e.g. Nyaya/Vaiseshikas versus Vedantins and within the Vedantins themselves - between Advaita, Dvaita, etc.

    So, according to Naiyayikas the Dvaitins are Neos. According to the Dvaitins the Advaitins are Neos, etc. Also, keep in mind that many of these schools are believed to have been well established via the Sutra literature at a specific point in time. For e.g. For Naiyayikas the defining sutra literature would be the Nyaya sutras of Gotama (circa 600 BCE). For Advaita, the defining sutra literature would be the works of Shankara, et al. circa 700 C.E. So, Naiyayikas around 700 C.E. would have called the Advaitins circa 700 C.E as neos. The typical response of each school of thought, however, is that they are not founding any new system but merely interpreting correctly what is already in the Vedas since beginningless time. Now, however, in this thread some people mention stuff like "traditional" Advaita, "traditional" Dvaita, etc. all of which at one point in time were considered "Neo". This is certainly bizarre to say the least.

    So, there is no objective way to evaluate who is a traditionalist and who is a Neo Hindu.
    That was my first response as well when I read the title a few days ago. I couldn’t have articulated any better. I would go a bit further though. Hinduism had remained Neo right from the vedic era itself. Hinduism viewed orthodoxy (better term than traditional IMO) with suspicion all along. For the orthodoxy creates cracks in the hindu unity and compels few aggrieved to leave the faith altogether..Measures were put in place right in Rigveda itself by cautioning against going sectarian and divisive and against picking rows with fellow hindus as to who is better hindu. I hate to bring up the most used (and abused) RigVedic verse yet again to substantiate my case.

    Indram Mitram varuna magnima ahuratho divyah sa suparno garuthmaan Yekham sad vipra bahudha vadantyagnim Yamam maata rishwanama ahuh- Rigveda 1.64.46

    In a diverse faith like Hinduism, one man’s tradition becomes another man’s neo, one century’s neo turns into next century’s tradition and so forth, essentially erasing all depth and meaning of tradition. If you take an important practice of meat eating, you will have an idea of what Im talking about, in one corner of hindu land one gets to see the priest class eating fish and in another area the same community eating frankly meat even. Kshatriyas by and large are overwhelmingly non vegetarians, contrary to what some on this forum claim, and ALL hindus had served their pleasure for many centuries. Also while we are talking about kings, many hindus have accepted the rule by Krishna deva raya, a shudra, during 16th century. His vast empire in the south was a popular and admired one at that. Is it a tradition or is it Neo that a shudra rules over millions of hindus, thus we can draw that he was Kshatriya by gunas and prarabda karma, birth clearly remained irrelevant. The neo and traditional hindu classification lacks any substance, since there lies no tradition that is universally accepted. Neo and tradition lived side by side since Rigveda days.This classification lacks any historical justification whatsoever in it. Namaste.
    Last edited by charitra; 24 May 2013 at 08:00 AM.

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
  •