Product Code Database
Neo-Vedanta, also called neo-Hinduism, Hindu modernism, Global Hinduism and Hindu Universalism, are terms to characterize interpretations of Hinduism that developed in the 19th century. The term "Neo-Vedanta" was coined by German Indologist Paul Hacker, in a pejorative way, to distinguish modern developments from "traditional" Advaita Vedanta.
Scholars have repeatedly argued that these modern interpretations incorporate Western world ideas into traditional Indian religions, especially Advaita Vedanta, which is asserted as central or fundamental to Hindu culture. Other scholars have described a Greater Advaita Vedānta, which developed since the medieval period. Drawing on this broad pool of sources, after Muslims rule in India was replaced by that of the East India Company, Hindu religious and political leaders and thinkers responded to Western colonialism and orientalism, contributing to the Indian independence movement and the modern national and religious identity of in the Republic of India. This societal aspect is covered under the term of Hindu reform movements.
Among the main proponents of such modern interpretations of Hinduism were Vivekananda, Aurobindo and Radhakrishnan, who to some extent also contributed to the emergence of Neo-Hindu movements in the West.
Neo-Vedanta has been influential in the perception of Hinduism, both in the west and in the higher educated classes in India. It has received appraisal for its "solution of synthesis", but has also been criticised for its Universalism. The terms "Neo-Hindu" or "Neo-Vedanta" themselves have also been criticised for its polemical usage, the prefix "Neo-" then intended to imply that these modern interpretations of Hinduism are "inauthentic" or in other ways problematic.
The term "Neo-Vedanta" appears to have arisen in Bengal in the 19th century, where it was used by both Indians and Europeans. Brian Hatcher wrote that "the term neo-Vedanta was first coined by Christian commentators, some of whom were firsthand observers of developments in Brahmo theology... engaged in open, sometimes acrimonious debates with the Brahmo Samaj, whom they partly admired for their courage in abandoning traditions of polytheism and image worship but whom they also scorned for having proffered to other Hindus a viable alternative to conversion". Wilhelm Halbfass wrote that "it seems likely" that the term "Neo-Hinduism" was invented by a Bengali, Brajendra Nath Seal (1864–1938), who used the term to characterise the literary work of Bankim Chandra Chatterjee (1838–1894).
The term "neo-Vedanta" was used by Christian missionaries as well as Hindu traditionalists to criticize the emerging ideas of the Brahmo Samaj, a critical usage whose "polemical undertone ... is obvious".
Ayon Maharaj, also known as Swami Medhananda regards the continued scholarly use of the term "Neo-Vedanta" as only a "seemingly benign practice". Maharaj asserts that the term Neo-Vedanta "is misleading and unhelpful for three main reasons":
The term "neo-Hinduism" was used by a Jesuit scholar resident in India, Robert Antoine (1914–1981), from whom it was borrowed by Paul Hacker, who used it to demarcate these modernist ideas from "surviving traditional Hinduism," and treating the Neo-Advaitins as "dialogue partners with a broken identity who cannot truly and authentically speak for themselves and for the Indian tradition". Hacker made a distinction between "Neo-Vedanta" and "neo-Hinduism", seeing nationalism as a prime concern of "neo-Hinduism".
The tendency of "a blurring of philosophical distinctions" has also been noted by Mikel Burley. Lorenzen locates the origins of a distinct Hindu identity in the interaction between Muslims and Hindus, and a process of "mutual self-definition with a contrasting Muslim other", which started well before 1800. Both the Indian and the European thinkers who developed the term "Hinduism" in the 19th century were influenced by these philosophers.
Within these so-called Doxology Advaita Vedanta was given the highest position, since it was regarded to be most inclusive system. Vijnanabhiksu, a 16th-century philosopher and writer, is still an influential proponent of these doxologies. He's been a prime influence on 19th century Hindu modernists like Vivekananda, who also tried to integrate various strands of Hindu thought, taking Advaita Vedanta as its most representative specimen.
Neo-Vedanta, also called "neo-Hinduism" is a central theme in these reform-movements. The earliest of these reform-movements was Ram Mohan Roy's Brahmo Samaj, who strived toward a purified and monotheistic Hinduism.
Rammohan Roy's ideas were "altered ... considerably" by Debendranath Tagore, who had a Romanticism approach to the development of these new doctrines, and questioned central Hindu beliefs like reincarnation and karma, and rejected the authority of the Vedas. Tagore also brought this "neo-Hinduism" closer in line with Western esotericism, a development which was furthered by Keshubchandra Sen. Sen was influenced by Transcendentalism, an American philosophical-religious movement strongly connected with Unitarianism, which emphasized personal religious experience over mere reasoning and theology. Sen strived to "an accessible, non-renunciatory, everyman type of spirituality", introducing "lay systems of spiritual practice" which can be regarded as prototypes of the kind of Yoga-exercises which Vivekananda populurized in the west.
The theology of the Brahmo Samaj was called "neo-Vedanta" by Christian commentators, who "partly admired the for their courage in abandoning traditions of polytheism and image worship, but whom they also scorned for having proffered to other Hindus a viable alternative to conversion". Critics accused classical Vedanta of being "cosmic self-infatuation" and "ethical nihilism". Brahmo Samaj leaders responded to such attacks by redefining the Hindu path to liberation, making the Hindu path available to both genders and all castes, incorporating "notions of democracy and worldly improvement".
In 1880 Vivekananda joined Keshub Chandra Sen's Nava Vidhan, which was established by Sen after meeting Ramakrishna and reconverting from Christianity to Hinduism. Narendranath (a.k.a. Narendra) became a member of a Freemasonry lodge "at some point before 1884" and of the Sadharan Brahmo Samaj in his twenties, a breakaway faction of the Brahmo Samaj led by Keshub Chandra Sen and Debendranath Tagore. From 1881 to 1884 he was also active in Sen's Band of Hope, which tried to discourage the youth from smoking and drinking. It was in this milieu that Narendra became acquainted with Western esotericism. His initial beliefs were shaped by Brahmo concepts, which included belief in a formless God and the deprecation of idolatry, and a "streamlined, rationalized, monotheistic theology strongly coloured by a selective and modernistic reading of the Upanisads and of the Vedanta". He propagated the idea that "the divine, the absolute, exists within all human beings regardless of social status", and that "seeing the divine as the essence of others will promote love and social harmony".
During this period, he came in contact with Ramakrishna, who eventually became his guru. Maharaj has argued that Ramakrishna gradually brought Narendra to a Vedanta-based worldview that "provides the ontological basis for [review of Unifying Hinduism, by Andrew Nicholson] śivajñāne jīver sevā[review of Unifying Hinduism, by Andrew Nicholson], the spiritual practice of serving human beings as actual manifestations of God."
Maharaj describes how, "on one occasion in 1884, Sri Ramakrishna was explaining... that one of the main religious practices of Vaishnavism is 'showing compassion to all beings' ( sarva jīve dayā)", and that Ramakrishna then asserted "It must not be compassion, but service to all. Serve them, knowing that they are all manifestations of God śivajñāne". According to Maharaj, Ramakrishna teachings that day "affected the young Naren so deeply that he took his friends aside afterward and explained its profound ethical significance to them", stating
Vivekananda popularized the notion of involution, a term which he probably took from western Theosophy, notably Helena Blavatsky, in addition to Darwin's notion of evolution, and possibly referring to the Samkhya term Satkaryavada. According to Meera Nanda, "Vivekananda uses the word involution exactly how it appears in Theosophy: the descent, or the involvement, of divine cosnciousness into matter." With spirit, Vivekananda refers to prana or purusha, derived ("with some original twists") from Samkhya and classical yoga as presented by Patanjali in the Yoga sutras.
Vivekananda's acquaintance with Western esotericism made him very successful in Western esoteric circles, beginning with his speech in 1893 at the Parliament of Religions. Vivekananda adapted traditional Hindu ideas and religiosity to suit the needs and understandings of his Western audiences, who were especially attracted by and familiar with Western esoteric traditions and movements like Transcendentalism and New thought. An important element in his adaptation of Hindu religiosity was the introduction of his four yoga's model, which includes Raja yoga, his interpretation of Patanjali's Yoga sutras, which offered a practical means to realize the divine force within which is central to modern Western esotericism. In 1896 his book Raja Yoga was published, which became an instant success and was highly influential in the Western understanding of yoga.
In line with Advaita Vedanta texts like Dŗg-Dŗśya-Viveka (14th century) and Vedantasara (of Sadananda) (15th century), Vivekananda saw samadhi as a means to attain liberation.
The orthodox Advaita Vedanta, and the heterodox Jain concept Anekantavada provided him concepts for an "integral approach to religious pluralism". He regarded Advaita as a universal religion ("dharma") which could unite both the orthodox and nationalistic religious interpretations, as the subaltern alternatives. Hereby Gandhi offers an interpretation of Hindutva which is basically different from the Sangh Parivar-interpretation. The concept of anekantavada offered Gandhi an axiom that "truth is many-sided and relative". It is "a methodology to counter exclusivism or absolutism propounded by many religious interpretations". It has the capability of synthesizing different percpetions of reality. In Gandhi's view,
Anekantavada also gives room to an organic understanding of "spatio-temporal process", that is, the daily world and its continued change. The doctrine of anekantavada is a plea for samvada, "dialogue", and an objection against proselytizing activities.
Neo-Vedanta was influenced by Oriental scholarship, which portrayed Hinduism as a "single world religion", and denigrated the heterogeneity of Hindu beliefs and practices as 'distortions' of the basic teachings of Vedanta.
Radhakrishnan acknowledged the reality and diversity of the world of experience, which he saw as grounded in and supported by the absolute or Brahman. Radhakrishnan also reinterpreted Shankara's notion of maya. According to Radhakrishnan, maya is not a strict absolute idealism, but "a subjective misperception of the world as ultimately real".
Gandhi endorsed the Jain concept of Anekantavada, the notion that truth and reality are perceived differently from diverse points of view, and that no single point of view is the complete truth. This concept embraces the perspectives of both Vedānta which, according to Jainism, "recognizes Substance theory but not process", and Buddhism, which "recognizes process but not substance". Jainism, on the other hand, pays equal attention to both substance ( dravya) and process ( paryaya).
According to Michael Taft, Ramakrishna reconciled the dualism of formless and form. Ramakrishna regarded the Supreme Being to be both Personal and Impersonal, active and inactive. According to Sarma, who stands in the tradition of Nisargadatta Maharaj, Advaitavāda means "spiritual non-dualism or absolutism", in which opposites are manifestations of the Absolute, which itself is immanent and transcendent.
Vaitheespara notes adherence of Smartha Brahmans to "the pan-Indian Sanskrit-Brahmanical tradition":
The majority of members of Smarta community follow the Advaita Vedanta philosophy of Shankara. Smarta and Advaita have become almost synonymous, though not all Advaitins are Smartas. Adi Shankara was a Smarta, just like Radhakrishnan. Smartas believe in the essential oneness of five (panchadeva) or six (Shanmata) deities as personifications of the Supreme. According to Smartism, supreme reality, Brahman, transcends all of the various forms of personal deity. God is both Saguna brahman and Nirguna Brahman:
Lola Williamson further notes that "what is called Vedic in the smarta tradition, and in much of Hinduism, is essentially Tantric in its range of deities and liturgical forms."
An example of this "Vedanticization" is Ramana Maharshi, who is regarded as one of the greatest Hindu-saints of modern times,, of whom Sharma notes that "among all the major figures of modern Hinduism he is the one person who is widely regarded as a jivanmukti". Although Sharma admits that Ramana was not acquainted with Advaita Vedanta before his personal experience of liberation, and Ramana never received Diksha into the Dashanami Sampradaya or any other sampradaya, Sharma nevertheless sees Ramana's answers to questions by devotees as being within an Advaita Vedanta framework.
The Brahmo Samaj strived towards monotheism, while no longer regarding the Vedas as sole religious authority. The Brahmo Samaj had a strong influence on the Neo-Vedanta of Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Radhakrishnan and Gandhi, who strived toward a modernized, humanistic Hinduism with an open eye for societal problems and needs. Other groups, like the Arya Samaj, strived toward a revival of Vedic authority. In this context, various responses toward India's diversity developed.
According to Larson, Malhotra's notion of "the so-called "Dharma” traditions" and their "integral unity" is another example of "neo-Hindu discourse". Malhotra, in his Being Different, uses the term "Dharmic tradition" or "dharmic systems", "referring to all the Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina and Sikh traditions". He proposes that those traditions, despite their differences, share common features, the most important being "Dharma". They are also characterised by the notion of "Integral Unity", which means that "ultimately only the whole exists; the parts that make up the whole have but a relative existence. The whole is independent and indivisible", as opposed to "Synthetic Unity", which "starts with parts that exist separately from one another". Malhotra has received strong criticism of his ideas, for 'glossing over' the differences between and even within the various traditions of India.
In response, Malhotra explains that some of his critics confused "integral unity" with "homogeneity", thinking that Malhotra said all those traditions are essentially the same, when he actually wrote that Dharmic traditions share a sense of an "integral unity" despite differences.
Rinehart notes that Hindu religiosity plays an important role in the nationalist movement, and that "the neo-Hindu discource is the unintended consequence of the initial moves made by thinkers like Rammohan Roy and Vivekananda." But Rinehart also points out that it is
A major force in the mutual influence of eastern and Western ideas and religiosity was the Theosophical Society. It searched for ancient wisdom in the east, spreading eastern religious ideas in the west. One of its salient features was the belief in "Masters of Wisdom", "beings, human or once human, who have transcended the normal frontiers of knowledge, and who make their wisdom available to others". The Theosophical Society also spread western ideas in the east, aiding a modernisation of eastern traditions, and contributing to a growing nationalism in the Asian colonies. Another major influence was Vivekananda, who popularised his modernised interpretation of Advaita Vedanta in the 19th and early 20th century in both India and the west, emphasising anubhava ("personal experience") over scriptural authority.
According to Anantanand Rambachan, Vivekananda emphasised anubhava ("personal experience") over scriptural authority, but in his interpretation of Shankara, deviated from Shankara, who saw knowledge and understanding of the scriptures as the primary means to moksha. According to Comans, the emphasis on samadhi also is not to be found in the Upanishads nor with Shankara. For Shankara, meditation and Nirvikalpa are means to gain knowledge of the already existing unity of Brahman and Atman.
In the 21st century, Neo-Vedanta has been criticized by Hindu traditionalists for the influence of "Radical Universalism", arguing that it leads to a "self-defeating philosophical relativism," and has weakened the status and strength of Hinduism.Frank Morales (February 15, 2013). "Neo-Vedanta: The Problem with Hindu Universalism" (original link) at website "Bharata Bharati" (http://bharatabharati.wordpress.com/ ) (accessed 8 February 2014).
Halbfass wrote that the adoption of the terms
Bagchee and Adluri argue that German Indology, including Hacker, was merely "a barely disguised form of religious evangelism".
According to Malhotra, an Indian-American Hindu writer, it was Paul Hacker who popularized the term 'neo-Hinduism' in the 1950s, "to refer to the modernization of Hinduism brought about by many Indian thinkers, the most prominent being Swami Vivekananda." In Malhotra's view, "Hacker charged that 'neo-Hindus', most notably Vivekananda, have disingenuously adopted Western ideas and expressed them using Sanskrit." Malhotra also notes that Hacker was a biased Christian apologist:
According to David Smith, Hacker's belief was that the ethical values of 'neo-Hinduism" came from Western philosophy and Christianity, just in Hindu terms. Hacker also believed that Hinduism began in the 1870s. He saw Bankin Chattopadhyaya, Aurobindo, Gandhi, and Radhakishnan as its most famous proponents.
According to Madaio, the notion that Vivekananda and other Hindu modernists deviate from orthodox, classical Advaita Vedanta, neglects the fact that considerable developments took place in Indian religious thinking, including Advaita Vedanta.
According to Malhotra, the 'myth of neo-Hinduism' "is used to fragment Hindu society by pitting its spiritual giants against one another and distorting their subtle and deeply intricate viewpoints." Also according to him, "the definition of neo-Hinduism has been contrived and ... gained authenticity, in part because it suits certain academic and political agendas, and in part because it has been reiterated extensively without adequate critical response."
History
Criticism
Gandhi
Gandhi (1869–1948) has become a worldwide hero of tolerance and striving toward freedom. In his own time, he objected to the growing forces of Indian nationalism, communalism and the subaltern response. Gandhi saw religion as a uniting force, confessing the equality of all religions. He synthesized the Astika, Nastika and Semitic religions, promoting an inclusive culture for peaceful living. Gandhi pled for a new hermeneutics of Indian scriptures and philosophy, observing that "there are ample religious literature both in Astika and Nastika religions supporting for a pluralistic approach to religious and cultural diversity".
Sarvepalli Radhakrisnan
Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was a major force in the further popularization of Neo-Vedanta. As a schoolboy, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was inspired by Vivekananda's lectures, in which he found "an ennobling vision of truth and harmony as well as a message of Indian pride". He was educated by Christian missionaries, and wrote a master thesis on Vedanta and ethics. In later life, he became vice-president and president of India. According to Rinehart, he presented his view of Hinduism as the view of Hinduism. Central in his presentation was the claim that religion is fundamentally a kind of experience, anubhava, Michael Hawley, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan reducing religion "to the core experience of reality in its fundamental unity". For Radhakrishnan, Vedanta was the essence and bedrock of religion.
Philosophy
Politics
Nationalism
Vivekananda "occupies a very important place" in the development of Indian nationalism The theory of nationalism by Swami Vivekananda , The New Indian Express, 16 November 2013 (first published in Vedanta Kesari, Ramakrishna Math, Chennai). as well as Hindu nationalism, and has been called "the prophet of nationalism", pleading for a "Hindu regeneration". According to S.N. Sen, his motto "Arise, Awake and do not stop until the goal is reached" had a strong appeal for millions of Indians. According to Bijoy Misra, a private blogger,
Social activism
According to Bijoy Misra, a private blogger,
Religion
Unity of Hinduism
Neo-Vedanta aims to present Hinduism as a "homogenized ideal of Hinduism" with Advaita Vedanta as its central doctrine. It presents
Universalism
Following Ramakrishna, neo-Vedanta regards all religions to be equal paths to liberation, but also gives a special place to Hinduism, as the ultimate universal religion. The various religious faiths of the world are regarded to help people to attain God-realization, the experience of God or the Ultimate. According to some authors, this is expressed in the Rig Veda, Rig Veda Samhita 1.164.46 , Wiki Source "Truth is Ekam; only It is called by different names,"Gospel of Ramakrishna, page 423 The Ramakrishna/Vivekananda movement has these concepts to popular awareness in India and the West. An example is Aldous Huxley's book, The Perennial Philosophy, in which are gathered quotes from the religions of the world that express, for him, the universality of religion by showing the same fundamental Truths are found in each of the world's religions.
Vedanta and (qualified) nondualism
While aligning with Advaita Vedanta, neo-Vedanta modifies core tenets of that tradition. According to Benavides, neo-Vedanta is actually closer to Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita than it is to Shankara Advaita Vedanta. Anil Sooklal also notes that Vivekananda's neo-Advaita "reconciles Dvaita or dualism and Advaita or non-dualism". Nicholas F. Gier notes that neo-Vedanta does not regard the world to be illusionary, in contrast to Shankara's Advaita.
Sruti versus "experience"
A central concern in Neo-Vedanta is the role of sruti, sacred texts, versus (personal) experience. Classical Advaita Vedanta is centered on the correct understanding of sruti, the sacred texts. Correct understanding of the sruti is a pramana, a means of knowledge to attain liberation. It takes years of preparation and study to accomplish this task, and includes the mastery of Sanskrit, the memorisation of texts, and the meditation over the interpretation of those texts. Understanding is called anubhava, knowledge or understanding derived from (personal) experience. V.S.Apte, The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary Anubhava removes Avidya, ignorance, regarding Brahman and Atman, and leads to moksha, liberation. In neo-Vedanta, the status of sruti becomes secondary, and "personal experience" itself becomes the primary means to liberation.
Smarta tradition
According to Ninian Smart, Neo-Vedanta is "largely a smarta account." In modern times Smarta-views have been highly influential in both the Indian iskcon.org, Heart of Hinduism: The Smarta Tradition and Western understanding of Hinduism. According to iskcon.org,
Influence
Neo-Vedanta was popularised in the 20th century in both India and the west by Vivekananda, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, and Western Oriental studies who regarded Vedanta to be the "central theology of Hinduism".
Vedanticization
Neo-Vedanta has become a broad current in Indian culture, extending far beyond the Dashanami Sampradaya, the Advaita Vedanta Sampradaya founded by Adi Shankara. The influence of Neo-Vedanta on Indian culture has been called "Vedanticization" by Richard King.
Diversity and pluralism
In response to the developments in India during the colonial era and Western critiques of Hinduism, various visions on Indian diversity and unity have been developed within the nationalistic and reform movements.
Hindu inclusivism – Hindutva and "Dharmic religions"
In modern times, the orthodox measure of the primacy of the Vedas has been joined with the 'grand narrative' of the Vedic origins of Hinduism. The exclusion of Jainism and Buddhism excludes a substantial part of India's cultural and religious history from the assertion of a strong and positive Hindu identity. Hindutva-ideology solves this problem by taking recourse to the notion of Hindutva, "Hinduness", which includes Jainism and Buddhism. A recent strategy, exemplified by Rajiv Malhotra, is the use of the term dharma as a common denominator, which also includes Jainism and Buddhism.
Inclusivism and communalism
According to Rinehart, neo-Vedanta is "a theological scheme for subsuming religious difference under the aegis of Vedantic truth". According to Rinehart, the consequence of this line of reasoning is Communalism, the idea that "all people belonging to one religion have common economic, social and political interests and these interests are contrary to the interests of those belonging to another religion." Communalism has become a growing force in Indian politics, presenting several threats to India, hindring its nation-building and threatening "the secular, democratic character of the Indian state".
Influence on Western spirituality
Neo-Vedanta has been influenced by Western ideas, but has also had a reverse influence on Western spirituality. Due to the colonisation of Asia by the Western world, since the late 18th century an exchange of ideas has been taking place between the Western world and Asia, which also influenced Western religiosity. In 1785 appeared the first Western translation of a Sanskrit-text. It marked the growing interest in the Indian culture and languages. The first translation of Upanishads appeared in two parts in 1801 and 1802, which influenced Arthur Schopenhauer, who called them "the consolation of my life". Early translations also appeared in other European languages.
Appraisal and criticism
Appraisal
According to Larson, the "solution of synthesis" prevailed in the work of Rammohun Roy, Sayyid Ahmed Khan, Rabindranath Tagore, Swami Vivekananda, M.K. Gandhi, Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Muhammad Iqbal, V.D. Savarkar, Jawaharlal Nehru, "and many others". Spear voices appraisal of this "solution of synthesis", while G.R. Sharma emphasises the humanism of neo-Vedanta.
Criticism
Vivekenanda's presentation of Advaita Vedanta has been criticised for its misinterpretation of this tradition:
Criticism of neo-Hinduism label
Criticism of Paul Hacker
In the 20th century the German Indologist Paul Hacker used the terms "Neo-Vedanta" and "Neo-Hinduism" polemically, to criticize modern Hindu thinkers. Halbfass regards the terms "Neo-Vedanta" and "Neo-Hinduism" as "useful and legitimate as convenient labels", but has criticized Hacker for use that was "simplistic". Furthermore, he asks,
(2016). 9780415858816, Linda Woodhead. ISBN 9780415858816
Neglect of inherent development of religions
Brian K. Smith notes that "The Neo-Hindu indigenous authorities are often dismissed as 'inauthentic,' their claims to legitimacy compromised by their encounters with modernity", which influenced their worldview and religious positions, but points out that
The "myth of Neo-Hinduism"
Rajiv Malhotra, in his book Indra's Net, has stated that there is a "myth of Neo-Hinduism". According to him, there are "eight myths" of Neo-Hinduism such as "colonial Indology's biases were turned into Hinduism" (Myth 2) and "Hinduism was manufactured and did not grow organically" (Myth 3). Malhotra denies that "Vivekananda manufactured Hinduism", or that `neo-Vedanta' suppressed "the traditions of the Indian masses." According to Malhotra, there is "an integrated, unified spiritual substratum in ancient India," and argues that
See also
Notes
Sources
Printed sources
Web-sources
Further reading
External links
|
|
