What is Neo Hinduism?

[philosoraptor]

Nice to know that the trend towards knocking down strawmen remains alive and well on HDF.

[Believer]

Namaste,

May we be kind to animals and stop beating this dead horse, which has already been thrashed into a pulp!

Pranam.

[shiv.somashekhar]

*sigh* what nonsense. Nathamuni's works are quoted by Ramanuja and Desika and he is a sri vaishnava acharya, the grandfather of Sri Yamunacharya, whose works are available.

Dude, you are completely missing the point. I will keep it simple.

Did Nathamuni call himself a Sri Vaishnava or a Vishishtadvaitin? Yes or No?
Did any other author before Ramanuja write about Nathamuni or Vishishtadvaita? Yes or No?

Please be explicit. If the answer is yes to either of these two questions, I am wrong. If not, you are wrong - meaning that a formal tradition recognized as Vishishtadvaita is attributed to Ramanuja. This does not mean he created everything from first principles, just that he created the formal system by the name and not anyone before him. The same holds true for Madhva and Shankara.

[shiv.somashekhar]

Namaste,

May we be kind to animals and stop beating this dead horse, which has already been thrashed into a pulp!

Pranam.

Technically, beating a dead horse => nothing to do with kindness to animals. On the other hand, beating a live horse would be an act of unkindness. But since, you have admitted this horse is dead, we do not have a problem.

[philosoraptor]

Dude, you are completely missing the point. I will keep it simple.

Did Nathamuni call himself a Sri Vaishnava or a Vishishtadvaitin? Yes or No?
Did any other author before Ramanuja write about Nathamuni or Vishishtadvaita? Yes or No?

Please be explicit. If the answer is yes to either of these two questions, I am wrong. If not, you are wrong - meaning that a formal tradition recognized as Vishishtadvaita is attributed to Ramanuja. This does not mean he created everything from first principles, just that he created the formal system by the name and not anyone before him. The same holds true for Madhva and Shankara.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. As far as we are concerned, if it's the same philosophy, then what name it goes by is of no relevance. I don't know off hand if Nathamuni called himself a Sri Vaishnava or a Vishishtadvaitin. What is relevant is whether Nathamuni upheld the same, distinctive philosophical views of vishishtadvaita, which SV gave ample evidence of his doing.

[shiv.somashekhar]

We're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. As far as we are concerned, if it's the same philosophy, then what name it goes by is of no relevance. I don't know off hand if Nathamuni called himself a Sri Vaishnava or a Vishishtadvaitin. What is relevant is whether Nathamuni upheld the same, distinctive philosophical views of vishishtadvaita, which SV gave ample evidence of his doing.

Disagreement, it will have to be. If philosophical identity is all that is needed to retrofit names, then the same argument can be used to label Chaitanya an Iskconite and Badarayana an Advaitin - though Iskcon did not exist during Chaitanya's time nor Advaita during the time of Badarayana.

[philosoraptor]

Disagreement, it will have to be. If philosophical identity is all that is needed to retrofit names, then the same argument can be used to label Chaitanya an Iskconite and Badarayana an Advaitin - though Iskcon did not exist during Chaitanya's time nor Advaita during the time of Badarayana.

The same argument does not apply. Badarayana's sutras are terse and their meaning not obvious. Caitanya left no commentaries or writings other than the shikshaashtakam to illustrate his philosophical views. The same is not true of Nathamuni, who was known even by non-Vaishnava contemporaries of his time as epousing some of the cardinal principles of what would later be known as vishishtaadvaita, as SV pointed out. If you dispute this, then you should be able to show that Nathamuni had views that cannot be reconciled with vishishtaadvaita. Can you?

[Ra K Sankar]

Namaste

When we talk of "Relationless Non-dualism", we realize that
the Self is fullness without awareness of contents.
That leaves "individuality" and individuals as mere "appearance".
So, there is no way to deal adequately with the world or people.

In Neo-Vedanta, like that of Sri Ramakrishna-Vivekananda Order,
the Self is relationless, concretely relating to the world and God.
So, service to fellowmen and Love of God assumes significance.

Regards
Ra K Sankar