Neo-Vedanta

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Neo-Vedanta, also called Hindu modernism,[1] neo-Hinduism,[2] Global Hinduism[3] and Hindu Universalism,[web 1] are terms that have been used by modern scholars, primarily western, to characterize interpretations of Hinduism that developed in the 19th century in response to western colonialism and orientalism. These modern interpretations of Hinduism contributed to the Indian freedom struggle and India's identity as a modern, tolerant and independent nation. These modern interpretations emphasize ideas, such as Advaita Vedanta, that are asserted as central or fundamental to Hindu culture.[4]

From their origin and through much of their history, and continuing in the present, many of these terms have also been used polemically by both westerners and Indians. When used polemically, the prefix "Neo" is sometimes intended to imply that these modern interpretations of Hinduism are "inauthentic" or in other ways problematic.[5]:587

Terms "Neo-Vedanta" and "Neo-Hindu"[edit]

The terms "Neo-Vedanta" and "Neo-Hindu" were initially used polemically by both Christian missionaries and traditional Hindus, and later also came to be used by many scholars.

The term "Neo-Vedanta" appears to have arisen in English in the 19th century.[6]:307 According to Halbfass the term 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).[6]:307 The term was also used by a Jesuit scholar resident in India, Robert Antoine (1914-1981), from whom it was borrowed by Paul Hacker, who used it extensively to criticize the ideas he used it to designate.[6]:307

To Halbfass,

"Neo-Vedanta" and "Neo-Hinduism"... are simply abbreviations for important developments and changes which took place in Indian thought since the period around 1800, i.e., the relatively unprepared opening to foreign, Western influences, the adoption of Western concepts and standards and the readiness to reinterpret traditional ideas in light of these new, imported and imposed modes of thought.[6]:307

Halbfass regards the terms "Neo-Vedanta" and "Neo-Hinduism" as "useful and legitimate as convenient labels",[6]:307 but has criticized Hacker for use that was "simplistic".[6]:307 Furthermore, he asks,

What is the significance and legitimacy of the "Neo" in expressions like "Neo-Hinduism and "Neo-Vedanta"? Could we speak of "Neo-Christianity" as well? In fact, I have used this term... and not all my Christian readers and reviewers were happy[7] about the term.[6]:307

Early in their usage, the terms "neo-Vedanta" and "neo-Hinduism" were used by Christian missionaries as well as traditional Hindus to criticize the emerging ideas of the Brahmo Samaj, a critical usage whose "polemical undertone... is obvious".[8] In the 21st century, the terms have been used to criticize "Hindu Universalism" by those advocating more "traditional" versions of Hinduism.[9] In the 20th century, the terms were used polemically, to criticize modern Hindu thinkers, by the German Indologist Paul Hacker.[5] Halbfass wrote that the adoption of the terms

"Neo-Hinduism" and "Neo-Vedanta".... by Western scholars reflects Christian and European claims and perspectives which continue to be an irritant to Indians today. For Hacker, the "Neo" in "Neo-Hinduism" implies a lack of authenticity, an apologetic accommodation to Western ideas, and a hybridization of the tradition.[5]:587–588[10]

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",[11]:324 but points out that "All religions, at various points in recent history and under varying circumstances, have adopted to the modern world and the accompanying intellectual trends of modernity. 'Hinduism' (or 'Neo-Hinduism') is not unique in this regard either; the Neo-Hindu movement shares many commonalties with developments in other religious traditions around the world over the past several hundred years. The study of religion is the study of traditions in constant change".[11]:325 Smith expressed concern that

scholars of religion do not exercise their authority to write about religion(s) in a vacuum.... One of the principal ramifications of the trend in Indology to deny the existence of a unified religion called 'Hinduism' is to delegitimize those in India who, in varying ways, have represented themselves as 'Hindus' and their religion as 'Hinduism.'.... This kind of indifference to indigenous conceptualizations of self-identity.... is especially problematic in an age where Western scholars often claim to be concerned to allow the 'natives to speak' and 'assume agency' over representational discourse.... Denying the legitimacy of any and all 'Hindu' representations of Hinduism can easily crossover into a Neo-Orientalism, whereby indigenous discourse is once again silenced or ignored as the product of a false consciousness delivered to it by outside forces or as simply irrelevant to the authoritative deliberations of Western Indologists.[11]:332–3

Indian Hindu writer Rajiv Malhotra has argued that there is a "myth of Neo-Hinduism".[12]:26 He argues that

the branding of contemporary Hinduism as a faux 'neo-Hinduism' is a gross mischaracterization of both traditional and contemporary Hinduism. I will use the term 'contemporary Hinduism' in a positive sense, and distinct from the dismissive 'neo-Hinduism', and show that contemporary Hinduism is a continuation of a dynamic tradition. It is not in any way less authentic or less 'Hindu' than what may be dubbed traditional Hinduism. There are negative connotations to the term 'neo' which imply something artificial, untrue, or unfaithful to the original. Other world religions have undergone similar adaptations in modern times, though there are no such references to 'neo-Christianity'... I resist the wide currency being gained for the term 'neo-Hinduism', because this fictional divide between 'neo' and 'original' Hinduism subverts Hinduism.[12]:30

Malhotra challenges "eight myths"[12]:28 of Neo-Hinduism, including that "colonial Indology's biases were turned into Hinduism" (Myth 2)[12]:31 and "Hinduism was manufactured and did not grow organically" (Myth 3).[12]:32 He claims that "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."[12]:42

History[edit]

Unifying Hinduism[edit]

With the onset of Islamic rule, hierarchical classifications of the various orthodox schools were developed to defend Hinduism agains Islamic influences.[13] According to Nicholson, already between the twelfth and the sixteenth century,

... certain thinkers began to treat as a single whole the diverse philosophical teachings of the Upanishads, epics, Puranas, and the schools known retrospectively as the "six systems" (saddarsana) of mainstream Hindu philosophy.[14]

The tendency of "a blurring of philosophical distinctions" has also been noted by Burley.[15] Lorenzen locates the origins of a distinct Hindu identity in the interaction between Muslims and Hindus,[16] and a process of "mutual self-definition with a contrasting Muslim other",[17] which started well before 1800.[18] Both the Indian and the European thinkers who developed the term "Hinduism" in the 19th century were influenced by these philosophers.[14]

Within these socalled doxologies Advaita Vedanta was given the highest position, since it was regarded to be most inclusive system.[13] Vijnanabhiksu, a 16th-century philosopher and writer, is still an influential representant 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.[13]

Colonialism and modernism[edit]

With the colonisation of India by the British a new era in the history of India began. In contrast to the Muslim rulers, the British had a great impact on Indian society, actively engaging in developing the country economically and socially.[19] They introduced, nurtured and helped in spread of western religions and thoughts in society and education system, thus impacting the future thought leaders.[20] In response to the British rule and cultural dominance, Hindu reform movements developed,[19] propagating societal and religious reforms, exemplyfying what Spear has called

... the 'solution of synthesis'—the effort to adapt to the newcomers, in the process of which innovation and assimilation gradually occur, alongside an ongoing agenda to preserve the unique values of the many traditions of Hinduism (and other religious traditions as well).[21][note 1]

Reinterpreting Hinduism[edit]

See also: Sanskritization

Neo-Vedanta, also called "neo-Hinduism"[2][note 2] is a central theme in these reform-movements.[4] Neo-Vedanta aims to present Hinduism as a "homogenized ideal of Hinduism"[23] with Advaita Vedanta as its central doctrine.[4] It presents

... an imagined "integral unity" that was probably little more than an "imagined" view of the religious life that pertained only to a cultural elite and that empirically speaking had very little reality “on the ground,” as it were, throughout the centuries of cultural development in the South Asian region.[24]

Neo-Vedanta was influenced by Oriental scholarship, which portrayed Hinduism as a "single world religion",[4] and denigrated the heterogeneousity of Hindu beliefs and practices as 'distortions' of the basic teachings of Vedanta.[25][note 3][note 4]

Philosophy[edit]

According to Anil Sooklal, Vivekananda's neo-Advaita "reconciles Dvaita or dualism and Advaita or non-dualism":[29]

Sankara's Vedanta is known as Advaita or non-dualism, pure and simple. Hence it is sometimes referred to as Kevala-Advaita or unqualified monism. It may also be called abstract monism in so far as Brahman, the Ultimate Reality, is, according to it, devoid of all qualities and distinctions, nirguna and nirvisesa [...] The Neo-Vedanta is also Advaitic inasmuch as it holds that Brahman, the Ultimate Reality, is one without a second, ekamevadvitiyam. But as distinguished from the traditional Advaita of Sankara, it is a synthetic Vedanta which reconciles Dvaita or dualism and Advaita or non-dualism and also other theories of reality. In this sense it may also be called concrete monism in so far as it holds that Brahman is both qualified, saguna, and qualityless, nirguna (Chatterjee, 1963 : 260).[29]

Nicholas F. Gier also notes that neo-Vedanta differs from Shankara's Advaita:

Ramakrsna, Svami Vivekananda, and Aurobindo (I also include M.K. Gandhi) have been labeled "neo-Vedantists," a philosophy that rejects the Advaitins' claim that the world is illusory. Aurobindo, in his The Life Divine, declares that he has moved from Sankara's "universal illusionism" to his own "universal realism" (2005: 432), defined as metaphysical realism in the European philosophical sense of the term.[30]

Gandhi endorsed the Jain concept of Anekantavada,[31] 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.[32][33] This concept embraces the perspectives of both Vedānta which, according to Jainism, "recognizes substances 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).[34]

Smarta Tradition[edit]

Main article: Smarta Tradition

Neo-Vedanta seems to be connected to the Smarta Tradition. The majority of members of Smarta community follow the Advaita Vedanta philosophy of Shankara.[web 2] Smarta and Advaita have become almost synonymous, though not all Advaitins are Smartas.[web 2] Shankara was a Smarta,[web 2] just like Radhakrishnan.[35][36] Vivekananda is also mentioned as being a Smarta.[web 3][note 5]

Vaitheespara notes adherence of Smartha Brahmans to "the pan-Indian Sanskrit-Brahmanical tradition":[37]

The emerging pan-Indian nationalism was clearly founded upon a number of cultural movements that, for the most part, reimagined an 'Aryo-centric', neo-brahmanical vision of India, which provided the 'ideology' for this hegemonic project. In the Tamil region, such a vision and ideology was closely associated with the Tamil Brahmans and, especially, the Smartha Brahmans who were considered the strongest adherents of the pan-Indian Sanskrit-Brahmanical tradition.[37]

Smartas believe in the essential oneness of five (panchadeva) or six (Shanmata deities as personifications of the Supreme.[citation needed] According to Smartism, supreme reality, Brahman, transcends all of the various forms of personal deity.[38] God is both Saguna and Nirguna:[web 4]

As Saguna, God exhibits qualities such as an infinite nature and a number of characteristics such as compassion, love, and justice. As Nirguna, God is understood as pure consciousness that is not connected with matter as experienced by humanity. Because of the holistic nature of God, these are simply two forms or names that are expressions of Nirguna Brahman, or the Ultimate Reality.[web 4]

In modern times Smarta-views have been highly influential in both the Indian[web 5] and western[web 6] understanding of Hinduism. According to iskcon.org,

Many Hindus may not strictly identify themselves as Smartas but, by adhering to Advaita Vedanta as a foundation for non-sectarianism, are indirect followers.[web 5]

Major proponents[edit]

Neo-vedanta's main proponents are the leaders of the Brahmo Samaj, especially Ram Mohan Roy.,[39] while Vivekananda, Gandhi, Aurobindo and Radhakrishnan are the main proponents of neo-Hinduism.[22]

Ram Mohan Roy and the Brahmo Samaj[edit]

The Brahmo Samaj was the first of the 19th century reform movements. Its founder, Ram Mohan Roy (1772-1833), rejected Hindu mythology, but also the Christian trinity.[40] He found that Unitarianism came closest to true Christianity,[40] and had a strong sympathy for the Unitarians.[41] He founded a missionary committee in Calcutta, and in 1828 asked for support for missionary activities from the American Unitarians.[42] By 1829, Roy had abandoned the Unitarian Committee,[43] but after Roy's death, the Brahmo Samaj kept close ties to the Unitarian Church,[44] who strived towards a rational faith, social reform, and the joining of these two in a renewed religion.[41] The Unitarians were closely connected to the Transcendentalists, who were interested in and influenced by Indian religions early on.[45]

Its theology was called "neo-Vedanta" by Christian commentators,[46][47] who "partly admired [the Brahmos] 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".[47] Critics accused classical Vedanta of being "cosmic self-infatuation" and "ethical nihilism".[47] 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,[47] incorporating "notions of democracy and worldly improvement".[48]

Vivekananda (1863-1902)[edit]

According to Gavin Flood, Vivekananda (1863-1902)[49] "is a figure of great importance in the development of a modern Hindu self-understanding and in formulating the West's view of Hinduism."[49] He played a major role in the revival of Hinduism,[50] and the spread of Advaita Vedanta to the west via the Ramakrishna Mission.[note 6] He propagated the idea that the divine, the absolute, exists within all human beings regardless of social status.[1] According to Vivekananda, seeing the divine as the essence of others will promote love and social harmony.[1]

Vivekananda saw samadhi as a means to attain liberation.[52] According to Rambacharan, Vivekananda emphasised anubhava ("personal experience"[53]) over scriptural authority,[53] but in his interpretation of Shankara, deviated from Shankara, who saw knowledge and understanding of the scriptures as the primary means to moksha.[54] According to Comans, the emphasis on samadhi also is not to be found in the Upanishads nor with Shankara.[55] For Shankara, meditation and Nirvikalpa Samadhi are means to gain knowledge of the already existing unity of Brahman and Atman.[52]

Vivekenanda's modernisation has been criticised:

Without calling into question the right of any philosopher to interpret Advaita according to his own understanding of it, [...] the process of Westernization has obscured the core of this school of thought. The basic correlation of renunciation and Bliss has been lost sight of in the attempts to underscore the cognitive structure and the realistic structure which according to Samkaracarya should both belong to, and indeed constitute the realm of māyā.[51]

Gandhi[edit]

Main article: Mahatma 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.[56][note 7] Gandhi saw religion as an uniting force, confessing the equality of all religions.[58] He synthesized the Astika, Nastika and Semitic religions, promoting an inclusive culture for peaceful living.[58] Gandhi plead 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".[58]

The orthodox Advaita Vedanta, and the heterodox Jain concept Anekantavada provided him concepts for an "integral approach to religious pluralism".[58] He regarded Advaita as a universal religion ("dharma"[59]) which could unite both the orthodox and nationalistic religious interpretations, as the subaltern alternatives.[59] Hereby Gandhi offers an interpretation of Hindutva which is basically different from the Sangh Parivar-interpretation.[59] The concept of anekantavada offered Gandhi an axiom that "truth is many-sided and relative".[59] It is "a methodology to counter exclusivism or absolutism propounded by many religious interpretations."[59] It has the capability of synthesizing different percpetions of reality.[59] In Gandhi's view,

...the spirit of 'Synthesis' essentially dominated Indian civilization. This spirit is absorption, assimilation, co-existence and synthesis.[59]

Anekantavada also gives room to an organic understanding of "spatio-temporal process",[59] that is, the daily world and its continues change.[note 8] The doctrine of anekantavada is a plea for samvada, "dialogue", and an objection against proselytizing activities.[59]

Sarvepalli Radhakrisnan[edit]

Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan was a major force in the further popularization of Neo-Vedanta.[61] 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."[22] He was educated by Christian missionaries, and wrote a master thesis on Vedanta and ethics.[62] In later life, he became vice-president and president of India.[62] According to Rinehart, he presented his view of Hinduism as the view of Hinduism.[62] Central in his presentation was the claim that religion is fundamentally a kind of experience,[62] anubhava,[web 7] reducing religion "to the core experience of reality in its fundamental unity."[62][note 9] For Radhakrishnan, Vedanta was the essence and bedrock of religion.[66]

Influence[edit]

Neo-Vedanta was popularised in the 20th century in both India and the west by Vivekananda,[67][4] Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan,[4] and western orientalists who regarded Vedanta to be the "central theology of Hinduism".[4]

Appraisal[edit]

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".[68] Spear voices appraisal of this "solution of synthesis",[note 10][note 11] while G.R. Sharma emphasises the humanism of neo-Vedanta.[69][note 12]

Vedanticization[edit]

Neo-Vedanta has become a broad current in Indian culture,[4][70] 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.[71]

An example of this "Vedanticization" is Ramana Maharshi, who is regarded as one of the greatest Hindu-saints of modern times,[note 13], 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".[72] Although Sharma admits that Ramana was not acquainted with Advaita Vedanta before his personal experience of liberation,[73] and Ramana never received initiation into the Dashanami Sampradaya or any other sampradaya,[web 8] Sharma nevertheless sees Ramana's answers to questions by devotees as being within an Advaita Vedanta framework.[74][note 14]

Diversity and pluralism[edit]

In response to the British dominance and the British critique of Hinduism, various visions on Indian diversity and unity have been developed within the nationalistic and reform movements.[81][54]

The Brahmo Samaj strived towards mono-theism, while no longer regarding the Vedas as sole religious authority.[54] The Brahmo Samaj had a strong influence on the Neo-Vedanta of Vivekananda,[54] Aurobindo, Radhakrishnan and Gandhi,[81] who strived toward a modernized, humanistic Hinduism with an open eye for societal problems and needs.[81] Other groups, like the Arya Samaj, strived toward a revival of Vedic authority.[82][note 15] In this context, various responses toward India's diversity developed.

Hindu inclusivism - Hindutva and "Dharmic religions"[edit]

In modern times, the orthodox measure of the primacy of the Vedas has been has been joint with the 'grand narrative' of Vedic origins of Hinduism. The exclusion of Jainism and Buddhism excludes a substantial part of India's cultural and religious history from the asserttion 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 dhamma as a common denominator, which also includes Jainism and Buddhism.[84]

According to Larson, Malhotra's notion of "the so-called "Dharma” traditions"[85] and their "integral unity" is another example of "neo-Hindu discourse".[85] Malhotra, in his Being Different, uses the term "Dharmic tradition" or "dharmic systems", "referring to all the Hindu, Buddhist, Jaina and Sikh traditions".[24] He proposes that those traditions, despite their differences, share common features, the most important being "Dharma".[note 16] 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",[web 9] as opposed to "Synthetic Unity", which "starts with parts that exist separately from one another."[web 9][note 17] Malhotra has received strong criticism of his ideas, for 'glossing over'[88] the differences between and even within the various traditions of India.[89][90]

In a 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.[91][note 18].

Inclusivism and communalism[edit]

According to Rinehart, neo-Vedanta is "a theological scheme for subsuming religious difference under the aegis of Vedantic truth".[93][note 19] According to Rinehart, the consequence of this line of reasoning is Communalism,[93] 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."[web 10] Communalism has become a growing force in Indian politics, presenting several threats to India, hindring its nation-building[94] and threatening "the secular, democratic character of the Indian state".Template:Panicker

Rinehart notes that Hindu religiosity plays an important role in the nationalist movement,[93] and that "the neo-Hindu discource is the unintended consequence of the initial moves made by thinkers like Rammohan Roy and Vivekananda."[93] But Rinehart also points out that it is

...clear that there isn't a neat line of causation that leads from the philosophies of Rammohan Roy, Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan to the agenda of [...] militant Hindus.[95][note 20]

Influence on western spirituality[edit]

Main articles: Hinduism in the West and Nondualism

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.[26] In 1785 appeared the first western translation of a Sanskrit-text.[98] It marked the growing interest in the Indian culture and languages.[99] The first translation of Upanishads appeared in in two parts in 1801 and 1802,[99] which influenced Arthur Schopenhauer, who called them "the consolation of my life".[100][note 21] Early translations also appeared in other European languages.[101]

A major force in the mutual influence of eastern and western ideas and religiosity was the Theosophical Society.[102][70] It searched for ancient wisdom in the east, spreading eastern religious ideas in the west.[103] One of its salient features was the belief in "Masters of Wisdom"[104][note 22], "beings, human or once human, who have transcended the normal frontiers of knowledge, and who make their wisdom available to others".[104] 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.[26][note 23] Another major influence was Vivekananda,[109][67] who popularised his modernised interpretation[54] of Advaita Vedanta in the 19th and early 20th century in both India and the west,[67] emphasising anubhava ("personal experience")[53] over scriptural authority.[53]

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ Percival Spear (1958), India, Pakistan and the West, pp 177–91. In :[21] "Spear develops a typology of behavioral responses that appeared among the people of India with the coming of the British. This typology is to some degree still relevant for formulating how Indic religion and philosophy may begin to play an innovative role in the intellectual discourses of our time. Spear identifies five types of distinctive responses:

    (1) a “military” or openly hostile response—taking up arms against the intruders;

    (2) a “reactionary” response—the attempt to reconstitute the older political order, for example, the North Indian Rebellion (formerly called the “mutiny”) in 1857–58;

    (3) a “westernizing” response—assimilating to the new values;

    (4) an “orthodox” response—maintenance of the older religion with appropriate reform; and

    (5) the “solution of synthesis”—the effort to adapt to the newcomers, in the process of which innovation and assimilation gradually occur, alongside an ongoing agenda to preserve the unique values of the many traditions of Hinduism (and other religious traditions as well)."

  2. ^ Rinehart, quoting Hacker: "The Neo-Hindu's prime concern is nationalism".[22]
  3. ^ The same tendency to prefer an essential core teaching has been prevalent in western scholarship of Theravada Buddhism,[26] and has also been constructed by D.T. Suzuki in his presentation of Zen-Buddhism to the west.[26][27]
  4. ^ David Gordon White notes: "Many Western indologists and historians of religion specializing in Hinduism never leave the unalterable worlds of the scriptures they interpret to investigate the changing real-world contexts out of which those texts emerged". He argues for "an increased emphasis on non-scriptural sources and a focus on regional traditions".[28]
  5. ^ The Smārtas perspective dominates the view of Hinduism in the West because of the influence of eminent Smārtins like Swami Vivekananda.[web 3]
  6. ^ His interpretation of Advaita Vedanta has been called "Neo-Vedanta".[51]
  7. ^ "Subaltern" is the social group who is socially, politically, and geographically outside of the hegemonic power structure of a country. In the Indian colonial and post-colonial context this entails the hegemony of upper-class visions on Indian history, such as the Vedic origins of Hinduism, and the alternative visions[57] such as Dravidian nationalism and the Dalit Buddhist movement.
  8. ^ Compare Gier (2012), who pleads for a process-philosophy instead of a substance-philosophy.[60]
  9. ^ The notion of "religious experience" can be traced back to William James, who used the term "religious experience" in his book, The Varieties of Religious Experience.[63] Wayne Proudfoot traces the roots of the notion of "religious experience" further back to the German theologian Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768–1834), who argued that religion is based on a feeling of the infinite. The notion of "religious experience" was used by Schleiermacher to defend religion against the growing scientific and secular citique.[64] The term was popularised by the Transcendentalists, and exported to Asia via missionaries.[20] It was adopted by many scholars of religion, of which William James was the most influential.[65]
  10. ^ [S]uch willingness to achieve a synthesis that is neither fearful of the new nor dismissive of the old is 'the ideological secret of modern India'.
  11. ^ Spear 1958, page 187, in [68]
  12. ^ Sri Aurobindo, Vivekananda, Rabindranath, Gandhi and Dayananda have presented Neo-Vedannta Philosophy according to contemporary conditions in India and in the context of the development of thought in the West and East. All these philosophers, with minor differences among them, have maintained what can be called integral humanism. This integral humanism is the philosophy of our age. It alone can supply the philosophical framework for the understanding of the problems of our society.[69]
  13. ^ A comparable change of reception can be seen in the status of Meister Eckhart, who has come to be celebrated a the most noted western mystic.
  14. ^ Ramana himself observed religious practices connected to Tamil Shaivism, such as Pradakshina, walking around the mountain, a practice which was often performed by Ramana.[75] Ramana considered Arunachala to be his Guru.[75][76] Asked about the special sanctity of Arunachala, Ramana said that Arunachala is Shiva himself.[77]In his later years, Ramana said it was the spiritual power of Arunachala which had brought about his Self-realisation.[78] He composed the Five Hymns to Arunachala as devotional song.[75] In later life, Ramana himself came to be regarded as Dakshinamurthy,[79][80] an aspect of Shiva as a guru.
  15. ^ The Arya Samaj "teaches that the Vedic religion is the only true religion revealed by God for all."[83] The Arya Samaj was founded by Dayanand Saraswati (1824-1883), who "was the solitary champion of Vedic authority and infallibility".[82]
  16. ^ According to Paul Hacker, as described by Halbfass, the term "dharma" "assumed a fundamentally new meaning and function in modern Indian thought, beginning with Bankim Chandra Chatterjee in the nienteenth century. This process, in which dharma was presented as an equivalent of, but also a response to, the western notion of "religion", reflects a fundamental change in the Hindu sense of identity and in the attitude toward other religious and cultural tarditions. The foreign tools of "religion" and "nation" became tolls of self-definition, and a new and precarious sense of the "unity of Hinduism" and of national as well as religious identity took root".[86]
  17. ^ According to Malhotra, "the four Dharma systems also share these general presuppositions":[87]
    • "They all lead to the transcendent principle expressed variously as brahman, nirvana and kevala";[87]
    • "They facilitate the attainment of an extraordinary and direct experience (such as the highest yogic samadhi), leading to the realization of the transcendent principle at the personal level (sometimes even at the embodied level as jivanamukta or avalokateçvara);[87]
    • "They facilitate a harmonious relation between the phenomenal and material mode of life (samsara) with the goal of spiritual liberation (paramartha) variously";[87]
    • "They all share praxis, including symbols, foods, customs, social values, sacred geography, family values, festivals and so on."[87]
  18. ^ According to Larson,

    Malhotra would have the reader believe that there is an "integral unity" underlying the various Dharma traditions, but, in fact, the very term "dharma" signals fascinating differences."[24]

    And according to Yelle,

    The idea of "dharmic traditions" represents a choice to gloss over, whether for ideological or strategic reasons, the vast differences that exist among and even within the various traditions of India [...] These differences are invoked occasionally in order to buttress Malhotra’s argument for the pluralism of Indian culture, only to be erased as he presents as universal to dharmic traditions what is, in fact, easily recognizable as a thoroughly modern and homogenized ideal of Hinduism drawn from certain aspects of Vedanta philosophy and Yoga.[88]

    In a response, Malhotra explains that some of his critics confused "integral unity" with "homogeneity", and that all those traditions are essentially the same, but that they share the assertion of an "integral unity":[91]

    Yelle is right when he says that, “Every tradition is in fact an amalgam, and retains the traces of its composite origins.” But he is wrong when he argues against my use of common features such as integral unity and embodied knowing, calling these “a thoroughly modern and homogenized ideal of Hinduism drawn from certain aspects of Vedånta philosophy and

    Yoga.” His concern about homogenization would have been legitimate if Being Different had proposed an integration of all Dharma traditions into a single new tradition. This is simply not my goal. Looking for commonality as a standpoint from which to gaze at a different family does not require us to relinquish the internal distinctiveness among the members of either family.[92]

  19. ^ Though neo-Hindu authors prefer the idiom of tolerance to that of inclusivism, it is clear that what is advocated is less a secular view of toleration than a theological scheme for subsuming religious difference under the aegis of Vedantic truth. Thus Radhakrishnan's view of experience as the core of religious truth effectively leads to harmony only when and if other religions are willing to assume a position under the umbrella of Vedanta. We might even say that the theme of neo-Hindu tolerance provided the Hindu not simply with a means to claiming the right to stand alongside the other world religions, but with a strategy for promoting Hinduism as the ultimate form of religion itself.[93]
  20. ^ Neither is Radhakrishnan's "use" of religion in the defense of Asian culture and society against colonialism unique for his person, or India in general. The complexities of Asian nationalism are to be seen and understood in the context of colonialism, modernization and nation-building. See, for example, Anagarika Dharmapala, for the role of Theravada Buddhism in Sri Lankese struggle for independence,[26] and D.T. Suzuki, who conjuncted Zen to Japanese nationalism and militarism, in defense against both western hegemony and the pressure on Japanese Zen during the Meiji Restoration to conform to Shinbutsu Bunri.[96][97]
  21. ^ And called his poodle "Atman".[100]
  22. ^ See also Ascended Master Teachings
  23. ^ The Theosophical Society had a major influence on Buddhist modernism[26] and Hindu reform movements,[70] and the spread of those modernised versions in the west.[26] The Theosophical Society and the Arya Samaj were united from 1878 to 1882, as the Theosophical Society of the Arya Samaj.[105] Along with H. S. Olcott and Anagarika Dharmapala, Blavatsky was instrumental in the Western transmission and revival of Theravada Buddhism.[106][107][108]

References[edit]

  1. ^ a b c Flood 1996, p. 258.
  2. ^ a b King 2002, p. 93.
  3. ^ Flood 1996, p. 265.
  4. ^ a b c d e f g h King 2002, p. 135.
  5. ^ a b c Wilhelm Halbfass (2007). "Research and reflection: Responses to my respondents / v. Developments and attitudes in Neo-Hinduism; Indian religion, past and present (Responses to Chapters 4 and 5)" (pp. 587-). In Franco, Eli; Preisendanz, Karin (2007). Beyond Orientalism: the work of Wilhelm Halbfass and its impact on Indian and cross-cultural studies (1st Indian ed. ed.). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. ISBN 8120831101. 
  6. ^ a b c d e f g Wilhelm Halbfass (2007). "Research and reflection: Responses to my respondents / iii. Issues of comparative philosophy" (pp. 297-314). In Franco, Eli; Preisendanz, Karin (2007). Beyond Orientalism: the work of Wilhelm Halbfass and its impact on Indian and cross-cultural studies (1st Indian ed. ed.). Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publishers. ISBN 8120831101. 
  7. ^ The urban dictionary defines a "neo-Christian" as "An individual who calls himself a christian, yet fails to act in accordance with the teachings of Jesus." (accessed 26 January 2014)
  8. ^ Halbfass 1995, p. 9,21(n33).
  9. ^ Frank Morales (2013, Feb. 15). "Neo-Vedanta: The Problem with Hindu Universalism" (original link) at website "Bharata Bharati" (http://bharatabharati.wordpress.com/) (accessed 8 February 2014).
  10. ^ Halbfass (p. 588) adds that "I have tried... to argue that Hacker's radical critique reflects above all a typically Christian and European obsession with the concept of the individual person."
  11. ^ a b c Smith, Brian K. (December 1998). "Questioning authority: Constructions and deconstructions of Hinduism". International Journal of Hindu Studies 2 (3): 313–339. doi:10.1007/s11407-998-0001-9. 
  12. ^ a b c d e f Rajiv Malhotra (2014). Indra's Net: Defending Hinduism's Philosophical Unity (see article). HarperCollins Publishers India. ISBN 9351362442, ISBN 9789351362449, OCLC 871215576 (website)
  13. ^ a b c Nicholson 2010.
  14. ^ a b Nicholson 2010, p. 2.
  15. ^ Burley 2007, p. 34.
  16. ^ Lorenzen 2006, p. 24-33.
  17. ^ Lorenzen 2006, p. 27.
  18. ^ Lorenzen 2006, p. 26-27.
  19. ^ a b Michaels 2004.
  20. ^ a b King 2002.
  21. ^ a b Larson 2012, p. 319-320.
  22. ^ a b c Rinehart 2004, p. 194.
  23. ^ Yelle 2012, p. 338.
  24. ^ a b c Larson 2012, p. 313.
  25. ^ King 1999, p. 135.
  26. ^ a b c d e f g McMahan 2008.
  27. ^ McRae 2003.
  28. ^ White 2006, p. 104.
  29. ^ a b Sooklal 1993, p. 33.
  30. ^ Gier 2012, p. 268-269.
  31. ^ Panicker 2006, p. 190-191.
  32. ^ Dundas 2004, p. 123–136.
  33. ^ Koller 2004, p. 400–407.
  34. ^ Burch 1964, p. 68–93.
  35. ^ Fort 1998, p. 179.
  36. ^ Minor 1987, p. 3.
  37. ^ a b Vaitheespara 2010, p. 91.
  38. ^ Espin 2007, p. 563.
  39. ^ Rinehart 2004, p. 190-192.
  40. ^ a b Harris 2009, p. 268.
  41. ^ a b Kipf 1979, p. 3.
  42. ^ Kipf 1979, p. 7-8.
  43. ^ Kipf 1979, p. 15.
  44. ^ Harris 2009, p. 268-269.
  45. ^ Versluis 1993.
  46. ^ Halbfass 1995, p. 9.
  47. ^ a b c d Rinehart 2004, p. 192.
  48. ^ Rinehart 2004, p. 193.
  49. ^ a b Flood 1996, p. 257.
  50. ^ Dense 1999, p. 191.
  51. ^ a b Mukerji 1983.
  52. ^ a b Comans 1993.
  53. ^ a b c d Rambachan 1994, p. 1.
  54. ^ a b c d e Rambachan 1994.
  55. ^ Comans 2000, p. 307.
  56. ^ Panicker 2004, p. 8-10.
  57. ^ Panicker 2004, p. 9.
  58. ^ a b c d Panicker 2004, p. 10.
  59. ^ a b c d e f g h i Panicker 2004, p. 11.
  60. ^ Gier 2012.
  61. ^ Rinehart 2004, p. 194-196.
  62. ^ a b c d e Rinehart 2004, p. 195.
  63. ^ Hori 1999, p. 47.
  64. ^ Sharf 2000.
  65. ^ Sharf 2000, p. 271.
  66. ^ Rinehart 2004, p. 196.
  67. ^ a b c Michaelson 2009, p. 79-81.
  68. ^ a b Larson 2012, p. 320.
  69. ^ a b Sharma 2003, p. 179.
  70. ^ a b c Sinari 2000.
  71. ^ King 2011, p. 69.
  72. ^ Sharma 2005, p. 208.
  73. ^ Sharma 2005, p. 213.
  74. ^ Sharma 2005.
  75. ^ a b c Cornille 1992, p. 83.
  76. ^ Poonja 2000, p. 59.
  77. ^ Venkataramiah 1936, p. Talk 143.
  78. ^ Godman 1985, p. 2.
  79. ^ Frawley 1996, p. 92-93.
  80. ^ Paranjape 2009, p. 57-58.
  81. ^ a b c King 2001.
  82. ^ a b Rambachan 1994, p. 38.
  83. ^ Panicker 2006, p. 39.
  84. ^ Springer 2012.
  85. ^ a b Larson 2012, p. 314.
  86. ^ Halbfass 1995, p. 10.
  87. ^ a b c d e Malhotra 2013, p. 382-383.
  88. ^ a b Yelle 2012, p. 338-339.
  89. ^ Larson 2012.
  90. ^ Yelle 2012.
  91. ^ a b Malhotra 2013.
  92. ^ Malhotra 2013, p. 375-376.
  93. ^ a b c d e Rinehart 2004, p. 196-197.
  94. ^ Panicker 2004, p. 3.
  95. ^ Rinehart 2004, p. 198.
  96. ^ Sharf 1993.
  97. ^ Sharf 1995-A.
  98. ^ Renard 2010, p. 176.
  99. ^ a b Renard 2010, p. 177.
  100. ^ a b Renard 2010, p. 178.
  101. ^ Renard 2010, p. 183-184.
  102. ^ Renard 2010, p. 185-188.
  103. ^ Lavoie 2012.
  104. ^ a b Gilchrist 1996, p. 32.
  105. ^ Johnson 1994, p. 107.
  106. ^ McMahan 2008, p. 98.
  107. ^ Gombrich 1996, p. 185-188.
  108. ^ Fields 1992, p. 83-118.
  109. ^ Renard 2010, p. 189-193.

Sources[edit]

Published sources[edit]

  • Burch, George Bosworth (1964), "Seven-Valued Logic in Jain Philosophy", International Philosophical Quarterly (Bronx, NY) IV (1): 68–93, ISSN 0019-0365 
  • Burley, Mikel (2007), Classical Samkhya and Yoga: An Indian Metaphysics of Experience, Taylor & Francis 
  • Cornille, Catherine (1992), The Guru in Indian Catholicism: Ambiguity Or Opportunity of Inculturation, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing 
  • Comans, Michael (1993), The Question of the Importance of Samadhi in Modern and Classical Advaita Vedanta. In: Philosophy East and West Vol. 43, No. 1 (Jan. 1993), pp. 19-38. 
  • Comans, Michael (2000), The Method of Early Advaita Vedānta: A Study of Gauḍapāda, Śaṅkara, Sureśvara, and Padmapāda, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass 
  • Daniel, P.S. (2000), Hindu Response to Religious Pluralism, Kant Publications, ISBN 8186218106 
  • Dense, Christian D. Von (1999), Philosophers and Religious Leaders, Greenwood Publishing Group 
  • Dundas, Paul (2004), (ed.) Tara Sethia, ed., Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jaininsm, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publ, ISBN 81-208-2036-3 
  • Fields, Rick (1992), How the Swans Came to the Lake. A Narrative History of Buddhism in America, Boston & London: Shambhala 
  • Flood, Gavin D. (1996), An Introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press 
  • Frawley, David (1996), Tantric Yoga and the Wisdom Goddesses: Spiritual Secrets of Ayurveda, Motilal Banarsidass Publ. 
  • Gier, Nicholas F. (2012), "Overreaching to be different: A critique of Rajiv Malhotra's Being Different", International Journal of Hindu Studies (Springer Netherlands) 16 (3): 259–285, doi:10.1007/s11407-012-9127-x, ISSN 1022-4556 
  • Gilchrist, Cherry (1996), Theosophy. The Wisdom of the Ages, HarperSanFrancisco 
  • Godman, David (1985), Be As You Are, Penguin, ISBN 0-14-019062-7 
  • Gombrich, Richard F. (1996), Theravāda Buddhism. A Social History from Ancient Benares to Modern Colombo, London and New York: Routledge 
  • Halbfass, Wilhelm (1995), Philology and Confrontation: Paul Hacker on Traditional and Modern Vedānta, SUNY Press 
  • Harris, Mark W. (2009), The A to Z of Unitarian Universalism, Scarecrow Press 
  • Hori, Victor Sogen (1999), Translating the Zen Phrase Book. In: Nanzan Bulletin 23 (1999) 
  • Johnson, K. Paul (1994), The masters revealed: Madam Blavatsky and the myth of the Great White Lodge, SUNY Press, ISBN 0-7914-2063-9 
  • King, Richard (2002), Orientalism and Religion: Post-Colonial Theory, India and "The Mystic East", Routledge 
  • Kipf, David (1979), The Brahmo Samaj and the shaping of the modern Indian mind, Atlantic Publishers & Distri 
  • Koller, John (2004), (ed.) Tara Sethia, ed., Ahimsā, Anekānta, and Jaininsm, Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass Publ, ISBN 81-208-2036-3 
  • Larson, gerald James (2012), "The Issue of Not Being Different Enough: Some Reflections on Rajiv Malhotra’s Being Different", International Journal of Hindu Studies, Volume 16, Issue 3, December 2012, pp 311-322 
  • Lavoie, Jeffrey D. (2012), The Theosophical Society: The History of a Spiritualist Movement, Universal-Publishers 
  • Lorenzen, David N. (2006), Who Invented Hinduism: Essays on Religion in History, Yoda Press 
  • Malhotra, Rajiv (2013), "Author’s Response: The Question of Dharmic Coherence", International Journal of Hindu Studies 16, 3: 369–408 
  • McMahan, David L. (2008), The Making of Buddhist Modernism, Oxford University Press, ISBN 9780195183276 
  • McRae, John (2003), Seeing Through Zen. Encounter, Transformation, and Genealogy in Chinese Chan Buddhism, The University Press Group Ltd, ISBN 9780520237988 
  • Michaels, Axel (2004), Hinduism. Past and present, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press 
  • Michaelson, Jay (2009), Everything Is God: The Radical Path of Nondual Judaism, Shambhala 
  • Mukerji, Mādhava Bithika (1983), Neo-Vedanta and Modernity, Ashutosh Prakashan Sansthan 
  • Nicholson, Andrew J. (2010), Unifying Hinduism: Philosophy and Identity in Indian Intellectual History, Columbia University Press 
  • Panicker, P.L. John (2006), Gandhi on Pluralism and Communalism, ISPCK 
  • Paranjape, Makarand R. (2009), Another Canon: Indian Texts and Traditions in English, Anthem Press 
  • Poonja, Sri H. W. L. (2000), The Truth Is, Weiser Books 
  • Rambachan, Anatanand (1994), The Limits of Scripture: Vivekananda's Reinterpretation of the Vedas, University of Hawaii Press 
  • Renard, Philip (2010), Non-Dualisme. De directe bevrijdingsweg, Cothen: Uitgeverij Juwelenschip 
  • Rinehart, Robin (2004), Contemporary Hinduism: ritual, culture, and practice, ABC-CLIO 
  • Sharf, Robert H. (1993), "The Zen of Japanese Nationalism", History of Religions, Vol. 33, No. 1. (Aug., 1993), pp. 1-43. 
  • Sharf, Robert H. (1995-A), Whose Zen? Zen Nationalism Revisited 
  • Sharf, Robert H. (1998), Experience. In: Mark C. Taylor (editor), "Critical Terms for Religious Studies", University of Chicago Press 
  • Sharf, Robert H. (2000), The Rhetoric of Experience and the Study of Religion. In: Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7, No. 11-12, 2000, pp. 267-87 
  • Sharma, G.R. (2003), Trends In Contemporary Indian Philosophy Of Education A Critical Evaluation, Atlantic Publishers & Dist 
  • Sharma, Arvind (2005), "Jivanmukti in Neo-Hinduism: The Case of Ramana Maharshi", Asian Philosophy, Vol.15, No.3, November 2005, pp. 207-220 
  • Sinari, Ramakant (2000), Advaita and Contemporary Indian Philosophy. In: Chattopadhyana (gen.ed.), "History of Science, Philosophy and Culture in Indian Civilization. Volume II Part 2: Advaita Vedanta", Delhi: Centre for Studies in Civilizations 
  • Sooklal, Anil (1993), "The Neo-Vedanta Philosophy of Swami Vivekananda", Nidan, 5, 1993 
  • Vaitheespara, Ravi (2010), Forging a Tamil caste: Maraimalai Adigal (1876-1950) and the discourcse of caste and ritual in colonial Tamilnadu. In: Bergunder e.a. (editors), "Ritual, Caste, and Religion in Colonial South India", Otto Harrassowitz Verlag 
  • Venkataramiah, Munagala (1936), Talks with Sri Ramana Maharshi, Tiruvannamalai: Sri Ramanasramam 
  • Versluis, Arthur (1993), American Transcendentalism and Asian Religions, Oxford University Press 
  • White, David Gordon (2006), "Digging wells while houses burn? Writing histories of Hinduism in a time of identity politics", History and Theory, Theme Issue 45 (December 2006), pp. 104-131 
  • Yelle, Robert A. (2012), "Comparative Religion as Cultural Combat: Occidentalism and Relativism in Rajiv Malhotra’s Being Different", International Journal of Hindu Studies, Volume 16, Issue 3, December 2012, pp 335-348 

Web-sources[edit]

Further reading[edit]

External links[edit]

History

Criticism