Neo-Hinduism?

[Believer]

Namaste,

The thread started with something from Jagadguru Kripalu Maharaj, morphed into discussion about Xitianity and ended up with Wendy's defense and statements disparaging the Bhagwad Gita because it justifies good/just wars.

The long held American position on wars had so eloquently been summarized by the words on the office wall of a fine American, Chuck Colson, http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charles_Colson

Unfortunately, the action suggested deals only with adversarial males.

Pranam.

[Sriram257]

Namaste All,

I wanted to say that the very concept of Neo Hinduism is a threat to our own Hindu Dharma

Following is the summary of the Neo Hinduism argument

Neo-Hinduism, according to the West which is modern Hinduism is:

• An artificial construction done by Vivekananda
• Is incompatible with vedanta
• Was done by Vivekananda because of his inferiority complex from the West
• This modern Hinduism is based on appropriating critical elements from Christianity
• Hence it is more properly called Neo-Hinduism.

The major promoter of this thesis today is Anantanand Rambacchan.

This thesis was promoted by a notorious Christian Apologist named Paul Hacker and every one else has followed suit.

Even Wendy Doniger supports this camp.

[deafAncient]

Namaskār Sriram257,

I looked up the name, Anantanand Rambacchan, and saw this piece of information in the book, "Brahman: The Many Forms of the Formless God." It so happens that I saw your post this morning just as I was about to read this section:

--------------------
“The Hindu acceptance of the arcavatara concept has to be understood in the context of
its prevalent views about the nature of God and His relationship to the world. According
to Ramanuja, God is the only reality. There is no existence outside or independent of
God. God, however, contains within Himself the world of individual souls and material
objects. Within the all‐inclusive God exist unconscious matter and finite spirits.
Ramanuja uses the analogy of the body and soul for clarifying the relationship between
the Lord and the universe. Matter and souls are conceived of as constituting the body of
God. God, as the soul of the entire universe, pervades, controls, guides and uses it as an
instrument. For the Advaita philosopher Sankara, the entire universe is an inexplicable
appearance of God who is both its intelligent and material cause. In either view, the
universe as a whole and all its particular forms are pervaded by God. All forms belong to
God and each can serve as a medium for appreciating and worshipping Him. The fact
that the axis of the universe literally runs through everything, grants to all objects the
potential for revealing God.

The persistent equation of the arcavatara concept with idolatry ought also to be
examined in the light of the clear and strong affirmation of divine transcendence in
Hinduism….in Vaisnava theology, the arca form is only one of the five ways in which the
Lord is understood to manifest Himself. The Hindu concept of God as both immanent in
the world and transcendent over it is expressed figuratively in the Vedas in the view that
God pervades the world by a fourth of his being, while three‐fourths of him remain
beyond it. The Bhagavadgita similarly affirms that while the entire universe owes its
being to God, the forms of the universe do not contain or express him fully (9:4‐5). It is
clearly recognized that no finite process or form can ever finally express the absolute.
Ultimately, however, we appreciate the limitations of all our concepts and forms of
worship…”
----------------------

Please explain what is neo-hindu about this.

Praṇāma

[Sriram257]

Namaste Deaf Ancient,

I am glad you have asked this question there is nothing Neo Hindu about that. But what I was talking about was the unnecessary dichotomy he created between Shruti and Anubhava of Advaita Vedanta. He uses Shankara to shoot down Vivekananda and his ideas of Seva.

His ideas are clearly covered in what I believe his magnum opus "THE ATTAINMENT OF MOKSHA ACCORDING TO SHANKARA

AND VIVEKANANDA WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO THE


SIGNIFICANCE OF SCRIPTURE (SRUTI) AND


EXPERIENCE (ANUBHAVA )"

Let me show you a few quotes from this, this is what has made him get his Ph.d following quote shows that he supports there is a Neo Hinduism, but actually speaking there is no Neo Hinduism it was a Notorious term invented by a person named Paul Hacker,

"My first encounter with Advaita Vedanta and the
literature of neo-Hinduism was through the writings of Swami
Vivekananda (1863-1902)"

Also he tries to shoot down Vivekananda below with the following

"Unlike Vivekananda, who presented the affirmations of
s ruti as having only a hypothetical or provisional validity
and needing the verification which only anubhava could provide,
8
Shankara argued for sruti as the unique and self-valid
source of brahmajnäna"

He goes through great lengths to support that Shankara did not believe in validating Vedanta experientially.

But infact in the Bhashya of the Brihadaranyaka Shankara while asked about Prajapati points out that Prajapati got to know Brahmic knowledge experientially.

There was no one in particular to instruct him. This is what I call as supporting Neo Hinduism.


He also blames Vivekananda for saying that Sruti is not a conclusive source of knowledge where as Vivekananda clearly says that Sruti is a conclusive source of knowledge following is the quote

"From the nature of sruti as the record of mystic ortranscendental experiences, and the derivation of its
authority from the self-certifying nature of the same,
comes another important proposition of current opinion.
This is the conclusion that for one who is in search of
Self-knowledge, the declarations of the sruti have only
a provisional validity. Sruti is not itself a definitive
or conclusive source of knowledge."

This is what I call as supporting Neo Hinduism thesis.

I am not saying that Mr Rambachan preaches Neo Hinduism I am only saying that he supports it that is the difference.