Dandvats
I recently went to a talk by someone called Jay Lakhani claiming to represent Hinduism - I believe he is the director of Hindu council UK and from the Vivekananda centre.
The talk he gave was videoed and he has a slot on the astha channel.
This person was a prime example of a neo-hindu.
They tried to make out the hindu philosophy was an all encompassing one which explains all of hinduism. Although many schools of thought don't accept that school of thought let alone being an explanation of thier traditions.
They were dissmive of scripture pandering to superficial rationality of the west, telling students that they can 'scribble out' parts of vedas that don't agree with 'common' sense. (Using an out of context verse)
Telling Hindus they are pluralistic, they give the example that all people have their mothers so everyone should accept their mother as best but not impose on others. However apart from the obvious contridiction that imposing the idea of pluralism on everyone is also saying his mother is the best, they also negate truth claims eg one tradition may not believe in life after death and another may believe in re-incarnation. It means we shouldn't argue, one is true and the other is not (although I have heard them argue re-incarnation is true using sceintific eveidence).
They claim hinduism believes iconography etc is a medium to worship the self in different aspects which is unlimited (this is again one school of and not hinduism as whole which they claim to represent) yet has problem with other schools of thought accepting one to be supreme god and other lesser gods.
They claim Hindus can be atheists but has a problem with pantheism (because westerners critise Hinduism for that) or believing in one god and others as servants of this one god
They say vedas dont include bhagvat gita and the puranas (Again according to their school of thought, there are quotes to say otherwise)
The whole thing is full of contridictions telling people what is and what isnt hinduism what's acceptable and whats not acceptable. Before this artificial construct people just got on with their school of thought each with its own truth claims.
Its dishonest at best to teach Hinduism as a monolithic chunk better to distinguish major schools of thoughts rather than trying to merge them into one with a meta explanation.
The Death of Traditional Hinduismhttp://hinduism.about.com/od/history/a/neohinduism.htm
To those who will jump on the bandwagon regarding the word traditional- traditional meaning in the below context.
Anglicized Hindu Intellectuals
During this short span of time in the 19th century, the ancient grandeur and beauty of a classical Hinduism that had stood the test of thousands of years, came under direct ideological attack. What makes this period in Hindu history most especially tragic is that the main apparatus that the British used in their attempts to destroy traditional Hinduism were the British educated, spiritually co-opted sons and daughters of Hinduism itself. Seeing traditional Hinduism through the eyes of their British masters, a pandemic wave of 19th century Anglicized Hindu intellectuals saw it as their solemn duty to "Westernize" and "modernize" traditional Hinduism to make it more palatable to their new European overlords. One of the phenomena that occurred during this historic period was the fabrication of a new movement known as "neo-Hinduism".
If you look at Jay Lakhanis articles for example the killing of shambo or open air funerals he will agree with the killing justifying it through his so -called rational understanding of scripture so to appear rational to the western world. (E.g why spend so much money on curing a cow when you can save 500 somewhere else, pandering to western commoditised view of animals, (why save you're child under you're responsibility when you can save 500 children in africa))
Point a) is clear in most writings of neo-hindus they describe it as a lowly version of worship. And in this instance saying that hinduism doesnt believe in pantheism but only one god, and then saying hiduism can also be an atheist (pandering to western liberalism)What is Neo-Hinduism?
Neo-Hinduism was an artificial religious construct used as a paradigmatic juxtaposition to the legitimate traditional Hinduism that had been the religion and culture of the people for thousands of years. Neo-Hinduism was used as an effective weapon to replace authentic Hinduism with a British invented version designed to make a subjugated people easier to manage and control.
The Christian and British inspired neo-Hinduism movement attempted to execute several overlapping goals, and did so with great success:
a) The subtle Christianization of Hindu theology, which included concerted attacks on iconic imagery (archana, or murti), panentheism, and continued belief in the beloved gods and goddesses of traditional Hinduism.
b) The imposition of the Western scientific method, rationalism and skepticism on the study of Hinduism in order to show Hinduism's supposedly inferior grasp of reality.
c) Ongoing attacks against the ancient Hindu science of ritual in the name of simplification and democratization of worship.
d) The importation of Radical Universalism from liberal, Unitarian / Universalist Christianity as a device designed to severely water down traditional Hindu philosophy.
Point b) Most tradtitional hindus including sankaracrya would never dismiss Scripture even if it didnt agree with common sense, neither was he disparraging to the bhagavd gita he even wrote a commentry on it which these guys regard as inferior as it belong in the ithiasas (ignoring the verses where it is said they should be read in conjunction with each other).
Also the vedas were regarded as being written by vyasa - however they are now dated and accepted by many neo hindus according to the scientific method rather than what the scriptures claim themselevs.
Using scientific rationalitity eg, killing the cow rather than principles given in the scriptures themselves.
point d) Was eveident with their push on pluralism trying to make everything fit in their nice boxes so their can be one unifed explantion for hinduism. Ignoring the rich philosophical differences that exist between the different schools. This is a way of turning Hinduism in to one uniform religion just like the abrahamic religions. Again pandering to western concepts rather than accepting sanatan dharma for what it is.
The Death of Traditional Hinduism
The dignity, strength and beauty of traditional Hinduism was recognized as the foremost threat to Christian European rule in India. The invention of neo-Hinduism was the response. Had this colonialist program been carried out with a British face, it would not have met with as much success as it did. Therefore, an Indian face was used to impose neo-Hinduism upon the Hindu people. The resultant effects of the activities of Indian neo-Hindus were ruinous for traditional Hinduism.
The Dilemma
The primary dilemma with Hinduism as we find it today, in a nutshell, is precisely this problem of…
1) Not recognizing that there are really two distinct and conflicting Hinduisms today, Neo-Hindu and Traditionalist Hindu; and
2) With Traditionalists being the guardians of authentic Dharma philosophically and attitudinally, but not yet coming to full grips with the modern world, i.e., not yet having found a way of negotiating authentic Hindu Dharma with an ability to interface with modernity and communicate this unadulterated Hindu Dharma in a way that the modern mind can most appreciate it.
A Confused Existence
Hinduism will continue to be a religion mired in confusion about its own true meaning and value until traditionalist Hindus can assertively, professionally and intelligently communicate the reality of genuine Hinduism to the world.
Without a traditional basis (meaning reference to an underlying school of thought before anyone wants to jump down throats ) an explanation of Hinduism can be claimed to be anything
eg
Hindus can't convert
Hindus can be athiests
Hindus can't say one god is superior and others are servants (rules out vaishnvas shavites and saktas from Hinduism)
Hindus have to be indian.
Hinduism isn't a temple based religion (For some schools can be for others it may not)
Hindu's can eat meat (For some schools can be for others it may not be recommended)
Hindus dot have strict rules (For some schools especially under yogis there are others their may not be)
etc etc
This artificail identity without qualifying it properly actually waters down 'Hinduism' in to something very superficial
No - offence intended with this post - I felt strongly about this since my recent debates on this forums where I personally feel not understanding this distinction is dangerous for the long term well being of sanatan dharma. Short term there may be advantages but in the long term it encourages a watered down view of sanatan dharma which now tries to panders to western sensibilities and tries to give general answers rather than the deep thoughts developed over 1000s of years.
Bookmarks