Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Neo-Hinduism

  1. #1

    Neo-Hinduism

    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))



    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 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)

    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.

  2. #2

    Re: Neo-Hinduism

    Dandvats -
    Please note after a few discussions on this board I have noticed people have a tendancy to attack ones school of thought/institution and also assume my thoughts and intentions etc if you have a problem with what school of thought I come from or think i'm implying something then you're welcome to open up another thread. I'd appreciate any agreements and disagreements related to the above post only if possible. Thank you.
    Last edited by keshava; 17 March 2010 at 06:50 AM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    September 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    70
    Posts
    7,191
    Rep Power
    5038

    Re: Neo-Hinduism

    Vannakam keshava:

    Teaching Hinduism to the western media, or presenting it anywhere has got to be a very tough job. I respect anyone who is attempting it. Clearly it is Hindu religions, not Hindu religion. As you know, this forum has a ton of different answers to the same basic questions. So its hard to compile answers representative of the whole, and even harder to compile all the answers from the 4 major sects.

    I certainly don't know the answer. One person's 'tradition' is another's neo. But yes, I too, don't like it when the media has their 'Hindu contact' in their particular community and always goes to that same guy for any response on any issue. (Rajan Zed comes to mind) .

    I've considered putting myself 'out there' as a contact person for high schools and the like for interfaith discussion or religion classes. I hesitate though as I know full well that I couldn't speak for all of Hinduism. Still I believe I would do better that their own teacher who would refer them to the encyclopedia, which we all know isn't a very good source, although its becoming better.

    Aum Namasivaya
    Last edited by Eastern Mind; 17 March 2010 at 10:46 AM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    March 2010
    Location
    A bone-littered nest in the bottom of a pit deep in the jungles of Amesbury, Massachusetts.
    Posts
    216
    Rep Power
    45

    Re: Neo-Hinduism

    The problem, Keshava, is clearly that you're a Swaminarayan Satsangi and not a Saivite- All joking aside (I actually like the Swaminarayan sect, I'm just making a joke about your last post) I've seen this pattern too. For example, in the second version of the Ramayana I ever read (the first was a novelization by some white dude who took out all of the "supernatural" or divine elements, made Rama a wuss, left out hanuman, had the miracle that proved her purity be faked, and prolly worst of all had Sita sleep with Ravana; I try not to think about how tragic it is that it was the first version I read) the introduction says that the Ramayana is "an important epic often regarded as scripture in the hindu (also called "vaishnava" in sanskrit) faith". I think the problem with this is immedately aparent.

    I try to think of neo-hinduism as a new sect that will probably die out and fail to replace more traditional sects.
    Last edited by Ashvati; 17 March 2010 at 09:50 AM. Reason: noticed it was his last post, not last paragraph of his first post, that I meant to make a reference to

  5. #5

    Cool Re: Neo-Hinduism

    Namaste,

    I think one sect of Hinduism should not attack another sect
    and important is that Hinduism is 'Dharm' not religion

  6. #6

    Re: Neo-Hinduism

    Quote Originally Posted by Eastern Mind View Post
    Vannakam keshava:

    Teaching Hinduism to the western media, or presenting it anywhere has got to be a very tough job. I respect anyone who is attempting it. Clearly it is Hindu religions, not Hindu religion. As you know, this forum has a ton of different answers to the same basic questions. So its hard to compile answers representative of the whole, and even harder to compile all the answers from the 4 major sects.

    I certainly don't know the answer. One person's 'tradition' is another's neo. But yes, I too, don't like it when the media has their 'Hindu contact' in their particular community and always goes to that same guy for any response on any issue. (Rajan Zed comes to mind) .

    I've considered putting myself 'out there' as a contact person for high schools and the like for interfaith discussion or religion classes. I hesitate though as I know full well that I couldn't speak for all of Hinduism. Still I believe I would do better that their own teacher who would refer them to the encyclopedia, which we all know isn't6 a very good source, although its becoming better.

    Aum Namasivaya
    Dandvats EM

    You're right that its Hindu religion's' rather than religion.


    One person's 'tradition' is another's neo.
    I wouldnt mind if he presented or qualified that its his tradtition/own theory that says this, but to present it as some all encompassing truth formula, under the term Hindu is what I have a issue with. He's pluralism = Hinduism is not only imposed on all of Hinduism he propogates for other religions to adopt his theory too.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    September 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Age
    70
    Posts
    7,191
    Rep Power
    5038

    Re: Neo-Hinduism

    Keshava: I think what bothers me is the generalisation thing. I'm from Alberta, so people think I'm some sort of beer drinking cowboy yokel.

    I know when I do have the opportunity to 'teach' a newcomer, I certainly preface the whole thing with "Hinduism is very vast. I can't speak for all Hindus.' But I see some not even making the effort to find out a bit about other Hindu points of view. That's why discussion boards like this are good. I've actually learned some stuff about ISKCON on here, for eample.

    Aum Namasivaya

  8. #8

    Re: Neo-Hinduism

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashvati View Post
    The problem, Keshava, is clearly that you're a Swaminarayan Satsangi and not a Saivite- All joking aside (I actually like the Swaminarayan sect, I'm just making a joke about your last post) I've seen this pattern too. For example, in the second version of the Ramayana I ever read (the first was a novelization by some white dude who took out all of the "supernatural" or divine elements, made Rama a wuss, left out hanuman, had the miracle that proved her purity be faked, and prolly worst of all had Sita sleep with Ravana; I try not to think about how tragic it is that it was the first version I read) the introduction says that the Ramayana is "an important epic often regarded as scripture in the hindu (also called "vaishnava" in sanskrit) faith". I think the problem with this is immedately aparent.

    I try to think of neo-hinduism as a new sect that will probably die out and fail to replace more traditional sects.
    Yea I also read a ramayan by a hindu dude, who was explaining that rama wasnt actually god in the introduction and gave his theories of how this came about, but the translation wasn't as bad as what you described.

  9. #9

    Re: Neo-Hinduism

    Quote Originally Posted by Eastern Mind View Post
    Keshava: I think what bothers me is the generalisation thing. I'm from Alberta, so people think I'm some sort of beer drinking cowboy yokel.

    I know when I do have the opportunity to 'teach' a newcomer, I certainly preface the whole thing with "Hinduism is very vast. I can't speak for all Hindus.' But I see some not even making the effort to find out a bit about other Hindu points of view. That's why discussion boards like this are good. I've actually learned some stuff about ISKCON on here, for eample.

    Aum Namasivaya
    Dandvats,
    I agree the preface is important when claiming to speak on behalf of Hinduism

    I dont neccessarily consider it important to make an effort to find out about just other Hindu points of view. I generally have quite alot of contact with people who practice bhakti yoga and are new who are not indian and like Bhakti yoga and not nessecaliy want to learn about hinduism as a whole, so i speak on behalf of bhaktiyoga. They are more interetsed in finding out different points of views from other world religions or bhudism etc.

    whereas indians I am in contact with generally want to know about other points of views in Hinduism more.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    January 2008
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    741
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Neo-Hinduism

    Namaste,

    Although I can see your point of being frustrated by these "global Hindus" as Sandhya Jain puts it, there is a particular reason why this happens. The person speaking belongs to a particular sect that is not in accordance with yours. Hence, they seem to generalize various principles and don't represent the totality of Hinduism. That simply can't be done; it is too vast and varied for people to understand, especially westerners. They think only in terms of opposites so they cannot grasp multi-dimensionality at all.

    I agree with your assertion that a humble and honest preface has to be given. Not many people are aware of that unfortunately.

    Namaskar.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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
  •