Hindu modernism, also called Neo-Vedanta (the term "Neo-Vedanta" was coined by German Indologist Paul Hacker, in a pejorative way, to distinguish modern developments from "traditional" Advaita Vedanta) are terms to characterize interpretations of Hinduism that developed in the 19th century.Most scholars believe that Swami Vivekananda was the start of this movement. Vivekananda was influenced by western ideas such as Universalism. Vivekananda believed in a formless God and denounced idolatry/murti worship, and had a monotheistic theology strongly colored by a selective and modernistic reading of the Upanishads and of the Vedas. 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". 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. Neo-Vedanta is closer to Ramanuja's qualified non-dualism than it is to Shankara's Advaita Vedanta. 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. In neo-Vedanta, the status of sruti becomes secondary, and "personal experience" itself becomes the primary means to liberation. Also in neo-Vedanta, the practices of murti worship and other Hindu rituals are rejected as needed for liberation. It abolishes the varna system as it sees liberation available to both genders, all occupations and all castes. Because it believes the path is one and is universal.How has Hindu modernism effected the west?How has Hindu modernism effected India?Is it even Hinduism?
>>16535392>Vivekananda believed in a formless God and denounced idolatry/murti worship,That’s literally just Advaita. It is traditional Advaita teaching that the Absolute, Brahman, is formless or “nirguna” (attributeless). Brahman is also described as “nirakara” (meaning “without form”). The implication of this teaching is that no image, icon or idol can ever completely capture Brahman, they are all inadequate and fall short. >and had a monotheistic theology strongly colored by a selective and modernistic reading of the Upanishads and of the Vedas.Monotheism is not foreign to India. What most people think of as “God” is called Ishvara or Saguna Brahman in Advaita. There are not many Saguna Brahmans, there is just Saguna Brahman/Ishvara.>He propagated the idea that the divine, the absolute, exists within all human beings regardless of social status.Again, this is just another logical corollary of Advaitic teaching, even if none of the traditional gurus ever explicitly said so. All sentient beings have the same Atman, which is also Brahman, as their core true Self. There is no other. Social status/caste is conventional truth, not absolute truth. The early debates in Vedanta were about whether or not anyone of any social status was qualified to study the Upanishads/Vedanta, but that makes no difference as to whether or not they are truly Brahman.
>>16535392>Neo-Vedanta regards all religions to be equal paths to liberation, but also gives a special place to Hinduism, as the ultimate universal religion.This is perhaps the only real point you have. I don’t know if the implicit perennialism of Neo-Vedanta was present in any way in the historical Advaita tradition, but it is almost certainly compatible with it. I see no conflict. Advaita teaches that knowledge is the only way to liberation. This was in direct opposition to the earliest forms of Vedic religion which taught works, duties, and ritual (karma) were the way to liberation. The later Vedanta schools also reject this crude ritualism but they claim that liberation can only be attained by bhakti/devotion to a personal God who will grant you liberation. Advaita is not necessarily in conflict with either, but rather claims that both of these paths (karma and bhakti) are valid, inasmuch as they ultimately lead you to knowledge (jnana) of Brahman as the absolute nondual reality. As long as these are properly ordered, with jnana being supreme and the ultimate end of both karma and bhakti yoga, then you can practice both and still attain liberation.>Neo-Vedanta is closer to Ramanuja's qualified non-dualism than it is to Shankara's Advaita Vedanta.How so? The perennialism you recognize in Neo-Vedanta is not compatible with Ramanuja’s theology. It only works with an underlying Advaitic metaphysics.>Classical Advaita Vedanta is centered on the correct understanding of sruti, the sacred texts. In neo-Vedanta, the status of sruti becomes secondary, and "personal experience" itself becomes the primary means to liberation.Fair enough, this seems to be the most accurate criticism you’ve made so far.
>>16535392>Also in neo-Vedanta, the practices of murti worship and other Hindu rituals are rejected as needed for liberation. It abolishes the varna system as it sees liberation available to both genders, all occupations and all castes. Because it believes the path is one and is universal.Again, these just follow naturally from an Advaitic ontology/metaphysics. It doesn’t really matter if the early gurus or monks explicitly taught this, because the seeds were already present. Murti worship and the rituals of the ancient Vedic religion are not necessary for liberation, why would they be? In Advaita, the problem is ignorance, so the solution is knowledge. No amount of sacrificed horses or goofy rituals will save you from being wheeled around again for another lifetime in Samsara. These things can only serve as a stepping stone to assist you on your journey to Brahmavidya. In themselves, they are useless. Why would liberation only be attainable by a certain caste (presumably the Brahmins)? Again, this very notion is a relic from the early Vedic religion which completely revolves around ritual practice. If the reason you are in Samsara is because you are ignorant, then they key is knowledge. Brahmins might have been the only social group that could perform ritual sacrifices and such, but none of that superstitious bullshit matters in the end. If you can’t go beyond that level of crude spirituality, then you will not attain enlightenment. The Upanishads themselves ridicule those who ignorantly believe sacrifices or rituals will grant them liberation, comparing them to dogs, and rightfully so. Why should moksha be exclusive to men when women also have Atman and are Brahman itself just as much as you? This bigotry works in dualistic schools like Ramanuja’s or Madvha’s dualism, but it’s just retarded from the POV of an Advaita worldview. Funnily enough, Madvha was a huge fan of the caste/varna system, he was also a sexist Chud.
>>16535392>Vivekananda believed in a formless God and denounced idolatry/murti worship,He believe in God without attributes (Nirguna Brahman) which is the standard advaita position. He wasn't against murti worship, he just thought that meditation was a higher practice (also standard Vedanta). He was much more traditional than previous modernist reformers who I think you've confused him with. Ram Mohan Roy and Dayanand Saraswati both started monotheistic reform movements (Brahmo Samaj and Arya Samaj) which are much less popular that Vivekananda's Ramakrishna Mussion.He was a standard Advaita Vedantin, the only innovation he came up with was to add meditation as a fourth yoga alongside the traditional three (devotion, action, knowledge).
>>16535392> Neo-Vedanta regards all religions to be equal paths to liberationThis is a tacit admission of nihilism. Some religions could have elements that lead to liberation, but the ethical prescriptions of most major world religions have incredibly different rationales and implementations.This is without even forcing the speaker to identify a religion. For example, is Sikhism a religion? What about Satanism or Neo-Heathenry? If one is and the others aren’t, why is that?At this point you have to introduce qualifications that not just set of practices and beliefs calling itself a religion can qualify as a path to enlightenment, which refutes the claim.
>>16535483It doesn’t follow naturally, it’s a result of western/modern philosophy and ideasThis is like saying that the constitution of the united states follows naturally from the Bible. Religion changes over time and most people are only familiar with religious texts through cherry-picked passages that society decides are significant The type of Hinduism that is popular outside of India is different from the type of Hinduism that is practiced in rural India which is different from the type of Hinduism that was practiced 300 years ago which is different from the type of Hinduism that was practiced 3000 years ago
>>16535547>>16535483>>16535451>>16535430see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Vedanta
