| Part of a series on |
| Hinduism |
|---|
 |
| Part of a series on |
| Hindu politics |
|---|
|
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 andorientalism. 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,
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,
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 theBrahmo 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 IndologistPaul Hacker.[5] Halbfass wrote that the adoption of the terms
Indian Hindu writer Rajiv Malhotra has argued that there is a "myth of Neo-Hinduism".[12]:26 He argues that
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,
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
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
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]
Nicholas F. Gier also notes that neo-Vedanta differs from Shankara's Advaita:
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]
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]
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,
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]
Main articles: Swami Vivekananda and Ramakrishna Mission
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:
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 subalternresponse.[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,
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]
Main article: Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan
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 isCommunalism,[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
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]