raghu

Intolerance in the Bible He that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.--John 3:36 Genesis God gives Abraham and his descendants all of the land of Canaan "forever". This promise is still used to justify the unending battles over the land in the Middle East. 13:14-15, 17:8 An uncircumcised boy is to be abandoned by his parents and community. 17:14 God kills everyone (men, women, children, infants, newborns) in Sodom and Gomorrah by raining "fire and brimstone from the Lord out of heaven." Well, almost everyone -- he spares the "just and righteous" Lot and his family.19:24 Lot's nameless wife looks back, and God turns her into a pillar of salt. 19:26 Abraham makes his servant swear that he won't let Isaac marry a Canaanite. 24:3 Isaac tells Jacob not to marry a Canaanite. 28:1 Jacob's sons can't stand the idea of their sister marrying someone who is uncircumcised. 34:14 "And Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the sight of the Lord; and the Lord slew him." What did Er do to elicit God's wrath? The Bible doesn't say. Maybe he picked up some sticks on Saturday. 38:7 After God killed Er, Judah tells Onan to "go in unto they brother's wife." But "Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and ... when he went in unto his brother's wife ... he spilled it on the ground.... And the thing which he did displeased the Lord; wherefore he slew him also." This lovely Bible story is seldom read in Sunday School. 38:8-10 After Judah pays Tamar for her services, he is told that she "played the harlot" and "is with child by whoredom." When Judah hears this, he says, "Bring her forth, and let her be burnt." 38:24 Exodus God decides to kill Moses because his son had not yet been circumcised. 4:24-26 God will kill the Egyptian children to show that he puts "a difference between the Egyptians and Israel." 11:7 After God has sufficiently hardened the Pharaoh's heart, he kills all the firstborn Egyptian children. When he was finished "there was not a house where there was not one dead." 12:29 No stranger, foreigner, or uncircumcised person can eat the Passover. 12:43, 45, 48 If you do what God says, he won't send his diseases on you (like he did to the Egyptians). But otherwise.... 15:26 When the people complain to Moses, he tells them they aren't complaining about him, but about God, making them apostates and heretics, and therefore deserve severe punishment. Religious leaders have used this tactic ever since. 16:8 Joshua, with God's approval, kills the Amalekites "with the edge of the sword." 17:13 The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." 17:14 "The Lord has sworn [God swears!] that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." 17:16 God favors Israelites "above all people." 19:5 The first commandment ("Thou shalt have no other gods before me.") condemns those who worship any other than the biblical god. 20:3 "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Thousands of innocent women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse. 22:18 "He who sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the Lord only, he shall be utterly destroyed." If this commandment is obeyed, then the four billion people who do not believe in the biblical god must be killed. 22:20 Don't even mention the names of the other gods. 23:13 Do not allow others to worship a different god. Conquer them and destroy their religious property. 23:24 God promises to "send his fear before the Israelites" and to kill everyone that they encounter when they enter the promised land. 23:27 Stay away from those who worship a different god. 23:32 Don't let any strangers attend your animal sacrifices. 29:33 Whoever puts holy oil on a stranger shall be "cut off from his people." 30:33 Those who break the Sabbath are to be executed. 31:14 Moses burned the golden calf, ground it into powder, and then forced it down the throats of all the people. 32:20 God orders the sons of Levi (Moses, Aaron, and the other members of their tribe that were "on the Lord's side") to kill "every man his neighbor.... And there fell of the people that day about 3000 men." 32:27-28 "Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book." 32:33 God drives out the pagan tribes and commands the Israelites to destroy their altars and places of worship. 34:11-14 God, "whose name is Jealous", will not tolerate the worship of any other god. 34:14 Whoever works, or even kindles a fire, on the Sabbath "shall be put to death." 35:2-3

That is merely your opinion. Some behaviors are so evil that to simply forget them means to allow them to continue. 1) Jesus was not a Hindu. You cannot extrapolate correct views of Hindu dharma from Jesus. 2) The mythological Jesus may indeed have "forgiven" his tormentors, but we have no idea what the historic Jesus did. The person of Jesus has been so extensively worked over by centuries of opportunistic Christian scholars that we really do not know much about the real Jesus and his teachings. No He didn't. Where did you read this? Please provide exact quotes in Sanskrit, chapter and verse. No, He directed Arjuna to fight in the war to free the kingdom from the rulership of a rapist and murderer. I'm having a hard time understanding why a Christian would object to a battle fought between soldiers with the purpose of removing a murderer from the throne. Especially since Christians in general have no problem glossing over all of the violence their religion historically perpetrated against innocent people (including women and children) in the name of Inquisitions, Crusades, etc. I'm not worried about the actual facts of the Mahabharata war. What worries me more is this trend of Christians coming here in the guise of "seekers" and posting thinly veiled criticisms of Hinduism disguised as questions. If you at least knew what you were talking about, it might be possible to actually have an intelligent conversation with you. But since you insist on misrepresenting the facts (i.e. your carefully chosen description of the battle as a "slaughter"), one can only conclude that you are incapable of exerting even a modicum of intellectual honesty. Does your religion not teach you that lying is a sin?

This is an excerpt from website run by followers of Advaita philosophy. In this series of essays, the Advaitin admirers take up the problem of Neo-Advaita. I post this only to show that Neo-Hinduism, Neo-Vedanta, etc is not singled out merely by certain sectarian groups. On the contrary, even Advaitins with their relatively "non-sectarian" outlook are very concerned about the legitimacy of Neo-Advaita and the way it has usurped all modern day dialog on Hinduism. from http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/trad_neo/neo_advaita.htm There are also two significant dangers regarding the Neo-Advaita ‘movement’. Firstly, there is the clear possibility of charlatans who, having read a little or heard the fundamental elements of ‘descriptions’ of reality, can devise a few ‘routines’ of their own and then advertise themselves on the circuit. Providing that they are good speakers/actors, it is certainly possible to make a living from deceiving ‘seekers’ in such a way, without ever giving away their true lack of knowledge or the fact that they are no nearer any ‘realisation’ than their disciples. Secondly, seekers themselves may be deluded into a belief that some specious realisation has been obtained when, in fact, all that has happened is that they have come to terms with some psychological problem that had been making life difficult. The ending of such suffering could well be seen as a ‘liberation’. Of course, such a thing would not be at all bad – it simply would have nothing to do with enlightenment. Indeed, such people might well go on to become teachers in their own right, not charlatans in the true sense of the word, since they genuinely believe that ‘realisation’ has taken place. The use of the language of non-duality (e.g. avoiding use of the word ‘I’) cannot be relied upon to mean that the ego of such a speaker is dead. Indeed, an ego can quite happily put up with non-reference to itself when it thinks it is ‘realised’ whilst everyone else is not! (And conversely, of course, there is no need or desire to avoid the use of the word ‘I’ in the absence of an ego.) This is not to say that these dangers do not also exist in traditional Advaita but it might at least be argued that someone who has spent many years studying scriptures, reading and attending classes etc. must at least not be in it just for the money! Also, several thousand years of traditional teachings have emphasised that preparation, in the form of acquiring knowledge of the truth, is of value. Such characteristics as renunciation, discrimination and self-restraint etc. are also advocated, topics which are most unlikely to be mentioned at the meetings with any Neo-Advaitin teacher. And is it surprising that many of the attendees of Neo-Advaita satsangs are simply not interested in any of this? Why bother to listen to all of the preparatory stuff when you can get the final message straight away? ‘Don’t bother telling me about arithmetic, I want to learn quantum mechanics!’

Soldiers fight and expect to risk dying. Fighting with voluntary combatants is not "mass murder." Why don't you try reading the entire Gita? Better yet, read the Mahabharata including all of the murderous plots of Duryodhana who had then usurped the throne. Then explain why a conspirer who encouraged murder and rape should have remained on the throne on the pretext that the Pandavas should not have fought with him due to familial relationship. When you realize how absurd that argument is, you will have your answer. regards, Raghu

The Non-Hindu Origins of Radical Universalism (by Frank Morales) Radical Universalism is neither traditional nor classical. Its origins can be traced back to the early 19th century. It is an idea not older than two centuries. Its intellectual roots are not even to be found in Hinduism itself, but rather are clearly traced back to Christian missionary attempts to alter the genuine teachings of authentic Hinduism. Radical Universalism was in vogue among 19th century British-educated Indians, most of who had little accurate information about their own Hindu intellectual and spiritual heritage. These Westernized Indians were often overly eager to gain acceptance and respectability for Indian culture from a Christian European audience who saw in Hinduism nothing more than the childish prattle of a brutish, colonized people. Many exaggerated stereotypes about Hinduism had been unsettling impressionable European minds for a century previous to their era. Rather than attempting to refute these many stereotypes about Hinduism by presenting Hinduism in its authentic and pristine form, however, many of these 19th-century Christianized Indians felt it was necessary to instead gut Hinduism of anything that might seem offensively exotic to the European mind. Radical Universalism seemed to be the perfect base notion upon which to artificially construct a "new " Hinduism that would give the Anglicized 19th-century Indian intelligentsia the acceptability they so yearned to be granted by their British masters. We encounter one of the first instances of the Radical Universalist infiltration of Hinduism in the syncretistic teachings of Ram Mohan Roy (1772-1833), the founder of the Brahmo Samaj. A highly controversial figure during his life, Roy was a Bengali intellectual who was heavily influenced by the teachings of the Unitarian Church, a heterodox denomination of Christianity. In addition to studying Christianity, Islam and Sanskrit, he studied Hebrew and Greek with the dream of translating the Bible into Bengali. A self-described Hindu "reformer, " he viewed Hinduism through a colonial Christian lens. The Christian missionaries had told Roy that traditional Hinduism was a barbaric religion that had led to oppression, superstition and ignorance of the Indian people. He believed them. More, Roy saw Biblical teachings, specifically, as holding the cherished key to altering traditional Hindu teachings to make them more acceptable to India's colonial masters. In his missionary zeal to Christianize Hinduism, he even wrote an anti-Hindu tract known as The Precepts of Jesus: The Guide to Peace and Happiness. It was directly from these Christian missionaries that Roy derived the bulk of his ideas, including the anti-Hindu notion of the radical equality of all religions. In addition to acquiring Radical Universalism from the Christian missionaries, Roy also felt it necessary to Christianize Hinduism by adopting many Biblical theological beliefs into his neo-Hindu "reform " movement. Some of these other non-intrinsic adaptations included a rejection of Hindu panentheism, to be substituted with a more Biblical notion of anthropomorphic monotheism; a rejection of all iconic worship ( "graven images " as the crypto-Christians of the Brahmo Samaj phrased it); and a repudiation of the doctrine of avataras, or the divine descent of God. Roy's immediate successors, Debendranath Tagore and Keshub Chandra Sen, attempted to incorporate even more Christian ideals into this neo-Hinduism invention. The Brahmo Samaj is today extinct as an organization, but the global Hindu community is still feeling the damaging effects of its pernicious influence. The next two neo-Hindu Radical Universalists that we witness in the history of 19th century Hinduism are Sri Ramakrishna (1836-1886) and Swami Vivekananda (1863-1902). Though Vivekananda was a disciple (shishya) of Ramakrishna, the two led very different lives. Ramakrishna was born into a Hindu family in Dakshineshwar. In his adult life, he was a Hindu temple priest and a fervently demonstrative devotee of the Divine Mother. His primary object of worship was the Goddess Kali, whom he worshiped with intense devotion all of his life. Despite his Hindu roots, however, many of Ramakrishna's ideas and practices were derived, not from the ancient wisdom of classical Hinduism, but from the non-Vedic religious outlooks of Islam and liberal Christianity. Though he saw himself as being primarily Hindu, Ramakrishna believed that all religions aimed at the same supreme destination. He experimented briefly with Muslim, Christian and a wide variety of Hindu practices, blending, mixing and matching practices and beliefs as they appealed to him at any given moment. In 1875, Ramakrishna met Keshub Chandra Sen, the then leader of the neo-Hindu Brahmo Samaj. Sen introduced Ramakrishna to the close-knit community of neo-Hindu activists who lived in Calcutta, and would in turn often bring these activists to Ramakrishna's satsangas. Ramakrishna ended up being one of the most widely popular of neo-Hindu Radical Universalists. Swami Vivekananda was arguably Ramakrishna's most capable disciple. An eloquent and charismatic speaker, Vivekananda will be forever honored by the Hindu community for his brilliant defense of Hinduism at the Parliament of World Religions in 1893. Likewise, Vivekananda contributed greatly to the revival of interest in the study of Hindu scriptures and philosophy in turn-of-the-century India. The positive contributions of Vivekananda toward Hinduism are numerous and great indeed. Notwithstanding his remarkable undertakings, however, Vivekananda found himself in a similarly difficult position as other neo-Hindu leaders of his day were. How to make sense of the ancient ways of Hinduism, and hopefully preserve Hinduism, in the face of the overwhelming onslaught of modernity? Despite many positive contributions by Vivekananda and other neo-Hindus in attempting to formulate a Hindu response to the challenge of modernity, that response was often made at the expense of authentic Hindu teachings. Vivekananda, along with the other leaders of the neo-Hindu movement, felt it was necessary to both water down the Hinduism of their ancestors, and to adopt such foreign ideas as Radical Universalism, with the hope of gaining the approval of the European masters they found ruling over them. While Ramakrishna led a contemplative life of relative isolation from the larger world, Swami Vivekananda was to become a celebrated figure on the world religion stage. Vivekananda frequently took a somewhat dismissive attitude to traditional Hinduism as it was practiced in his day, arguing (quite incorrectly) that Hinduism was too often irrational, overly mythologically oriented, and too divorced from the more practical need for social welfare work. He was not much interested in Ramakrishna's earlier emphasis on mystical devotion and ecstatic worship. Rather, Vivekananda laid stress on the centrality of his own idiosyncratic and universalistic approach to Vedanta, what later came to be known as "neo-Vedanta." Vivekananda differed slightly with Ramakrishna's version of Radical Universalism by attempting to superimpose a distinctly neo-Vedantic outlook on the idea of the unity of all religions. Vivekananda advocated a sort of hierarchical Radical Universalism that espoused the equality of all religions, while simultaneously claiming that all religions are really evolving from inferior notions of religiosity to a pinnacle mode. That pinnacle of all religious thought and practice was, for Vivekananda, of course, Hinduism. Though Vivekananda contributed a great deal toward helping European and American non-Hindus to understand the greatness of Hinduism, the Radical Universalist and neo-Hindu inaccuracies that he fostered have also done a great deal of harm as well. In order to fully experience Hinduism in its most spiritually evocative and philosophically compelling form, we must learn to recognize, and reject, the concocted influences of neo-Hinduism that have permeated the mass of Hindu thought today. It is time to rid ourselves of the liberal, Christian-inspired reformism that so deeply prejudiced such individuals as Ram Mohan Roy over a century ago. We must free ourselves from the anti-Hindu dogma of Radical Universalism that has so weakened Hinduism, and re-embrace a classical form of Hinduism that is rooted in the actual scriptures of Hinduism, that has been preserved for thousands of years by the various disciplic successions of legitimate acharyas, and that has stood the test of time. We must celebrate traditional Hinduism. The neo-Hindu importation of Radical Universalism may resonate with many on a purely emotional level, but it remains patently anti-Hindu in its origins, an indefensible proposition philosophically, and a highly destructive doctrine to the further development of Hinduism.

What specifically about the above makes him a Vaishnava?

It seems that most sampradayas have an "avatar" of someone. However, it is in the Neo-Hinduism schools in which the guru's "avatar" status is used as proof of his teachings, i.e. once he is declared an avatar by popular vote, his teachings do not need to be scrutinized according to teachings of shastra. Not "many people." These unscholarly assertions of Radical Universalism are characteristics of Neo-Hinduism. Ramakrishna Movement actually has little if anything to do with Vedanta. Certainly they invoke Vedantic concepts to lend their philosopy an air of legitimacy, but in the Ramakrishna Movement we do not find the rigorous tradition of Vedantic inquiry that is found in classical Vedanta schools. More to the point, the Ramakrishna people do not have their own commentary on Vedanta-sutra, which makes it hard to consider them as Vedantins. When it comes to Vedantic commentaries, they tend to publish commentaries of Sri Sankaracarya and to a lesser extent Sri Ramanuja, although they do not have a parampara link to either. I'm not exactly sure what this means. Scholars like Madhva and Ramanuja have based their philosopy on Upanishads, and have quoted from Puranas to the extent that they are consistent with shrutis. Even Sri Sankaracharya has done this. So far, I'm not really clear on who you are referring to by the term "Puranic Hinduism" beyond the general reference to "Shaivas, Shaktas, Vaishnavas." But there are Vaishnavas who do have a rigorous Vedantic tradition just as I am sure there are some Shaivas (Kashmir Vishishtadvaitic Shaivism?) who do as well. These thinkers have more right to call themselves followers of "Vedic Hinduism" than anyone here. It's easy to decry Puranas and "Puranic Hinduism" based on comments made in academic literature or by Neo-Vedantins, but when these pronouncements come from people who do not themselves study Vedanta/Vedas/etc it is hard to take them too seriously. regards, Raghu

I did discuss definitions of Classical or Traditional Hinduism in the earlier postings of this thread, especially as they differ from Neo-Hinduism. Perhaps you may wish to reread these. To quote from the very first posting on this thread, "For the purposes of this discussion, I am using "Hinduism" according to the conventional definition used historically, i.e. those religious traditions that flourished on the Indian subcontinent and owe their origins at least in theory to the Vedas and their adjunctive scriptures." As far as sambya is concerned, his feelings are hurt because his guru-hero is a Neo-Vedantist. Unfortunately, not much can be done about that. Now he wants to argue and know my sampradaya details. If I acquiesce to his requests, what will likely follow is a brainless harangue about how my sampradaya is full of intolerant people which is the only plausible explanation as to why I do not accept the contradictory ideas of his Neo-Vedantic heroes as Hindu gospel. I can't say for sure about Shaiva and Shakta thinkers. But as far as Vaishnava commentators are concerned, there is unambiguous criticism of Buddhism in their Vedanta commentaries, just as they have criticized everyone else including Advaita. Thus, your claims that "We do not see any Purana expert challenging Buddhism. Do we?" is wrong. Irrelevant. The issue you raised was whether or not they were opposed to Buddhism. Clearly they were, in spite of the "Buddha as avatar" concept.

This is getting off topic. The thread is about Classical Hinduism vs Neo-Hinduism. If you want to discuss further the differences between different features of Classical Hinduism such as "Vedic" Hinduism and "Puranic" Hinduism, may I respectfully suggest that you start another thread so that our attention-deficit disorder readers will not get sidetracked? What do you mean by "Purana expert?" Is this a tongue in cheek reference to Vaishnava sampradayas? Because even Vaishnava commentators have specifically taken issue with Buddhist ideas in their Vedanta commentaries. The fact that Buddha is considered a Vishnu-avatar is not a ringing endorsement of Buddhism. Indeed, I have yet to see in the Puranas any endorsement of Buddhism. Please try not to obfuscate the issues just to give yourself reasons to be argumentative. regards, Raghu

Sambya, when you ask questions that are relevant to the thread and intelligent enough to dignify with a response, I will certainly answer them. Raghu

I did not reply to your posting because it was tangential and missed the point. The point is not about "sectarian vs non-sectarian Hinduism." As far as traditional Hindu schools go, there is no such thing as "non-sectarian Hinduism" since each of them set out to prove that their explanations were better than all of the others. One need only be motivated by the desire to tell truth to decry the long-held myth, foisted upon us by Neo-Hinduism, of a fictitious Hindu utopia where Vedantists and rishis wrote volumes and volumes of commentaries only to acknowledge that their rivals' differences of opinion were "different but valid" interpretations. Nor did I accuse Paramahamsa Yogananda of anything. I believe I did say that I was not all that familiar with him. Who said this? Not me. I would say that the sad-darshanas and Vedanta schools definitely fall in the classical Hinduism category. Please note, for those of you who have difficulty understanding English, that this is not to say that these schools agree with each other on basic ideas of worldview and liberation. They most certainly do not! Multiple misconceptions here, which can be answered by my repeating what I have stated before, namely that Classical Hinduism is based on the Vedas and/or adjunctive literatures which also invoke the authority of the Vedas. Of course, you can further divide classical Hindu traditions into those that are strictly Vedic vs those which are more Puranic, Agamic, etc. Feel free to start a new thread if you wish to discuss that. The purpose of this thread is to delineate the differences between the broad categories of classical/traditional vs neo-Hinduism. What does this have to do with "non sectarian" Hinduism? What is "sectarian" to you? What is "non-sectarian" to you? Well, Hinduism does have sampradayas, which I suppose could be translated as "sects." However, the difference between Hindu sampradayas and Christian sects is that the latter all branched off from the original Christianity, usually based on reform-minded thinkers who objected to the corrupt policies of the Catholic leaders. Hindu sampradayas, by contrast, are usually the result of a commentator who considers his explanations of scripture to be superior to those who previously came before him. I would be very careful about referring to different "sects" of Hinduism. The "sectarian" differences between different Hindu thinkers have a different origin than of those in Christianity. I agree with this analysis, spot-on. I do not understand what you mean by this. Excuse me? What evidence have you over a "long and violent struggle" between these two groups? This is the first I have ever heard of such a thing.

Really? I had no idea.... Well, if you admit you accept tenets of Neo-Hinduism, then what else is one to call you? There were no personal attacks. The unfortunate problem with Neo-Hinduism followers is that they can only engage in sustained conversation if they attack critics of their views with fabricated accusations of intolerance, hatred, etc. This is nothing new. Remember friends, the Neo-Hindu follower is not interested in truth, whether it be scriptural truth or historical truth. It is of no concern to the Neo-Hindu what Hinduism has historically been, even when the Neo-Hindu is lecturing us all on what Hinduism is supposedly about. The most important priority for the Neo-Hindu is that his views should be appreciated as progressive, enlightened, open-minded, and democratic, even when they are illogical, inconsistent, unfounded, and untenable. Since logic is never on their side, the Neos lives in a fantasy "Us vs Them" world in which people are divided into those who (because they cannot or will not think for themselves) accept their permissive, all-accepting, quasi-advaitic and borderline atheistic views and those who are evil, bigoted, and hateful. Bigotry and hatred being defined as those who disagree with Neo-Hinduism ideas of moral relativism and radical universalism. In this way, Neo-Hindus see themselves as being on a crusade to rid the world of sectarian differences, armed not with knowledge or honesty but rather with charges of religious hatred. Left to their own devices, Neo-Hindus will redefine all other religions so as to make them seem more compatible with their own. In this way, it is seen that Neo-Hinduism does not respect differences in belief systems, but rather denies them entirely. Ultimately when it comes to dispassionate analysis of the facts, it is clear that Neo-Hinduism cannot prop itself up on the foundation that has been laid out by traditional Hinduism schools. Neo-Hinduism is not the real thing. But if that is ok with you, then so be it. Having said that, I want to thank you, sambya. For if you had not posted all of your objections here, I would not have been able to point to your specific examples as illustrations of the reasoning process of Neo-Hinduism followers. Thank you again for helping me to make my points so clearly. In my next few postings, I will discuss the case of specific Hindu organizations and the ways in which they do or do not adhere to Neo-Hinduism ideas.

No, it is a new "construction" in the name of Hinduism. An "interpretation" is when a commentator gives an explanation of something whose meaning is not clear. And then he provides a logical rationale including quoting supporting evidence as to why his interpretation correctly represents the source material. Neo-Hinduism rarely bothers with true interpretations. You will not find scholarly explanations of scripture from the Neo-Hinduism likes of Vivekananda, Sai Baba, etc. "Change" by itself does not denote Neo-Hinduism. Obviously in Classical Hinduism each school distinguished itself from the previous ones by some new philosphical point or even practice. As explained very clearly in the previous postings, it is the overall approach to religion and scripture which distinguishes Neo-Hinduism from Classical Hinduism, such as the non-rigorous approach to scripture, the acceptance of moral relativism and Radical Universalism, etc. Please reread the previous postings. The answer lies in the definition of Hinduism. As previously stated, Hinduism has historically been used to describe the traditions which derive their authority from the Vedas and their adjunctive literatures. Whether smriti "changes" shruti and so on is irrelevant. The point is that when invaders found India there was already a tradition of Sanskrit texts which themselves invoked the authority of the Vedas. Whether or not it is all consistent vs representing multiple different writers and ideas is also besides the point. Hinduism is a term of convenience and not a theological term. But regardless of whether you are talking about Vedantic Hinduism or Karma-Mimamsa or Advaita or Vaishnavism, there are certain features that we see time and again about classical Hinduism - specifically the tendency (which is noticeably absent in later Neo-Hinduism) to take the scriptures more seriously. Concepts of Radical Universalism, moral relativism, etc are not present in the scriptures. Concepts of decrying "idol worship" is also not present in the scriptures. On the contrary, Vivekananda's condescending attitudes towards icon worship in Hinduism are *clearly* based on the exposure to Christian culture. We do not find the same downplaying of icon-worship prior to the Colonialist period. Again, you are confusing tolerance with acceptance. Buddhists were never persecuted, but Classical Hindu thinkers wrote many arguments against Buddhist ideas as you can see if you had ever read a single Vedanta-sutra commentary. Not only this but Vedantic thinkers tried to refute conflicting ideas from each other's schools. Whether it was Carvaka followers, Buddhists, Sufi mystics, Jews, Jains, etc none of these groups found difficulty living in Hindu India because of the tolerant Hindu psyche. But none of these religious traditions were accepted as being on par with Hinduism, and saying otherwise is just blatant intellectual dishonesty. Belief in "all gods being equal" was NOT a uniform feature of classical Hinduism schools or even of Hindu scriptures. None of the Vaishnava Vedanta schools accepted such an idea. Even Sri Sankaracharya seemed ambiguous on the issue when taking all of his statements together. The Aitareya Brahmana 1.1.1 states that Vishnu is the highest and Agni the lowest. Throughout the Puranas we see that one deity or another is elevated to the topmost position while others are specifically deemed to be lesser deities. You may say that "all gods are equal" is your belief. It may even be the belief of some Classical Hindu schools. But you cannot honestly say it was a distinguishing feature of Classical Hinduism as a whole or even of Hindu scriptures. No, this is a practice of smartha brahmanas only. So on one hand, ancient Hindus did not disagree with any other religion, but on the other hand they were racist. Your logic is truly astounding. (standard Neo-Hinduism propaganda deleted for brevity) Beliefs of a handful of Muslim medieval saints who converted to Hinduism are hardly representative of "medieval saints and thinkers" of Hinduism. These individuals probably deserve to be put into a separate category for the purposes of explaining Hinduism. Here is another tactic of Neo-Hinduism followers. When their incorrect generalizations of what Hinduism supposedly is are confronted with facts, they fall back on singling out Vaishnavas as being somehow unorthodox, idiosyncratic, fanatical, etc. It is a bizarre trend that on one hand Neo-Hinduism thinkers try to propagate belief in universal truth of all religions, except and save for those religions which do not believe in universal truth of all religions! Christianity is truth in a different form, but those trouble-making Vaishnavas are a different story! This kind of thinking only makes sense to Neo-Hinduism followers but not to anyone who can think logically. The fact of the matter is that Neo-Hinduism thinkers can only preach about Radical Universalism in other religions when members of those other religions are not around to set the record straight about their religions. Neo-Hinduism thinkers are factually less scholarly in their approach to scripture as can be easily ascertained by even a casual perusal of their writings. Their proofs are far less rigorous than their classical Hindu counterparts. As far as the generally non-intellectual approach to religion among Neo-Hinduism followers, one need only look at their postings on this forum to get a flavor for that! Here is an example of a Neo-Hindu assigning a completely new meaning to a Biblical verse in order to make it more compatible with his version of Hinduism. On another forum, it is pointed out that Bible quotes Jesus as saying, "I am the way the truth and the life, no one reaches the Father but by me." The Neo-Hinduism follower replies by saying, "Om is the way the truth and the life, no one reaches Father by but Om." Here is an example of a Neo-Hinduism thinker using the "you have to be on my level to understand my interpretation" argument in order to avoid being confronted with logical doubts. Specifically, when I pointed out that the Neo-H thinker had changed the Bible verse to suit him, he wrote: "If you were pure enough to meditate beneath names and forms only then you would comprehend." By contrast, you do not see such tactics in the commentaries of Classical HInduism thinkers. Obviously not, since the purpose of a commentary is to explain the meaning according that sampradaya's philosophy. Can you convince someone by claiming in your commentary that your explanation is true and the reader just has to trust that you are on a higher level? Obviously not. Now, it is true that lay followers of an otherwise traditional school of thinking can exhibit Neo-Vedantic tendencies. Gaudiya Vaishnavism, at least in its traditional form, has more in common with Classical Hinduism ways of doing things than it does with Neo-Hinduism. Yet iskcon followers, like you, frequently fall back on Neo-Hinduism modes of argument in order to justify their views. I'm sure you have heard the familiar refrain, "This is true because my guru said it, an he is a pure devotee." This is just another version of the "you have to be on my level to understand this othewise illogical position of mine" tactic which is common to Neo-Hinduism. Mirabhai's sampradaya status is not known and she was not an acharya, so her example is not useful here. Caitanya did not "create his own parampara," it was his followers who wrote of his parampara details. However, the point remains that they at least credited a parampara. Now in contrast to this, we see that in Ramakrishna Math there is very little discussion about Ramakrishna's parampara or even about his guru. Same with Sai Baba. Same with Ramana Maharshi. And that is another feature of Neo-Hinduism thinkers - the idea that the scriptures are full of flaws and need to be "reformed." If scriptures did not have an exact meaning, then their purpose as scriptures would be lost. The problem with Neo-Hinduism thinkers is that they often make up their own meanings and then pass them off as "intepretations." And when one shows how illogical their interpretation is, their response is usually indignation at the idea that any interpretation of theirs can be shown to be untrue, since after all, aren't all intepretations valid, even when they contradict each other? And of course, we all know that although all interpretations are valid, we still have problems with those inconvenient Vaishnavas and *their* interpretations, which though valid, are still to be ridiculed, cast away, deemed as intolerant, etc. Criminals always imagine that everyone else is as dishonest as they are. In other words, a long and verbose justification of the idea that ultimately, you can do whatever you want. Hence, moral relativism! So on one hand, Hinduism is "sanatana-dharma," and yet on the other hand it is ok for Hinduism to be "reformed" according to ideas borrowed from other religions. So even though it changes, it is still eternal. Behold the Neo-Hinduism logic! The problem is that you Neo-Hindus have fallen hook, line, and sinker for British brainwashing, and you confuse crimes that occur in India with Hinduism. In America, no one confuses wife-beating or alcoholism with Christianity. It is only in the land of foreigners that the imperialist masters are prone to framing criminal behavior in the context of culture. And being the good little Neo-Hindu that you are, ever ashamed of your culture and desperately seeking acknowledgement from your Western peers, you assert that religion is inherently fluid and that Hinduism is great because we can overcome all those social evils which our backward scriptures supposedly taught us. Now, as if my arguments were not strong enough, you do the job for me by writing: The above paragraph reveals perfectly the attitude of the brainwashed, neo-Hindu. We should all take note of it. He attributes India's social evils to Hinduism and misrepresents other Hindu social institutions. He wrongly thinks that Radical Universalism is a virtue. He places a premium on "democratic values" (by which he means that everyone should have an opinion on religion in contrast to the traditional method of learning religious philosophy from a qualified guru). Thus it can be seen that the Neo-Hinduism follower is merely a confused puppet of imperialist scholars whose opinions on Hindus are based on propaganda force-fed to him through the eyes of foreign media. Is it any wonder why the conceptions of such people must be distinguished and set apart from traditional Hinduism?

But, as you yourself have indicated earlier, you are not a genuine representative of the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya, and we should not listen to your opinions if we wish to learn about Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

This is historically incorrect. Even a casual perusal of the writings of the acharyas will reveal very aggressive refutation and denial of contradictory philosphies and religions. It is correct to say that Hinduism has been *tolerant* of new religious philosphies. However, tolerance is not the same as acceptance. Neo-Hinduism thinkers often cannot fathom the difference between the two. This is another symptom of the diseased, Neo-Hinduism thinking. Ramakrishna and Vivekananda did NOT give their interpretations of Brahma Sutra. Ramakrishna had nothing to do with Vedanta and Vivekananda only invoked Vedantic concepts without even writing his own commentary. In fact, neither of these individual have demonstrated a thorough enough knowledge of Vedanta to actually write their own commentary. This is why in Ramakrishna Math you will only find Brahma Sutra commentaries of Sri Sankaracharya. This noticeably contradicts your earlier statement about how Hinduism has always welcomed new ideas. This is because lay Hindus often do not follow any specific sampradaya. This may be due to the breakdown of brahminical authority in relatively recent times. Or it may be that there have always been lay Hindus who never aligned themselves with any specific system. Most likely it is a combination of both. Certainly it is important to acknowledge lay folk Hinduism, but lay folk do not write philosphical treatises which define the religion's views. Also, many lay folk preferentially worship an ishta-devata. Even if, out of respect, they bow to other deities, this is not the same as accepting mleccha religions as valid. It would be very difficult if not impossible to show that traditional lay Hindus accepted some version of Radical Universalism. It is more likely that they would have inherited the same bias against foreign cultures which pervade the smritis. This has already been defined earlier.

Precisely. Hinduism does not denote a single religion. The term "Hinduism" is not found in any "Hindu" scripture. To understand what "Hinduism" is, you must understand how the word has been historically used. Historically, "Hinduism" is an umbrella term used by foreigners and academics to describe the variety of religious traditions which flourished in ancient India and were supposedly based on the Vedas. That is all. Despite the variety of traditionl Hindu doctrines, we know that they shared certain characteristics, such as a belief in and respect for the authority of the Vedas. However, today, what most people know about "Hinduism" comes not from traditional Hindu thinkers but rather from Neo-Hindu thinkers. Why is this significant? The answer is very simple - Neo-Hindu thinkers differ substantially in their beliefs, their methods, and their attitudes from traditional Hindu thinkers. Yet, Neo-Hindu thinkers use language that gives the false impression that they represent "Hinduism." Examples include invoking the term "sanatana-dharma," giving lip service to the Vedas while fabricating beliefs not found therein, accepting and promoting Radical Universalism, etc. Among scholarly circles there is now increasing awareness of the differences between Classical Hinduism and Neo Hinduism. Such awareness will only help those who believe in traditional Hindu religions. Now, for the first time in decades, there is a real possibility that traditional Hindus can have their beliefs understood and appreciated without having to specifically jettison the baggage foisted upon them by Neo-Hinduism thinkers. How many times have Vaishavas had to correct false impressions propagated by Neo-Hinduism thinkers? "Oh you're Hindu, that means you think all religions are the same, right?" Or "Oh you're HIndu, that means you think everything is one, right?" The time has come for people to understand the differences between traditional/classical Hinduism and the new-age, watered down versions that have had the spotlight for the past 2 centuries.

So are you saying that you are not a good representative of the Saraswata Gaudiya Sampradaya? Because up until now your aggressive tone would lead us to think that you believe otherwise. When people profess to be Vaishnavas and yet make bigoted remarks about "caste-brahmins" in India, including "caste-brahmins" in Vaishnava sampradayas, it does make one wonder. Am I to assume then, that you are not a Gaudiya Vaishnava? So in other words, are you now basically telling me to ignore you, Kyros, and others who have been speaking like this? Can I quote you on this?

This was not my question. The question is why do iskcon/gaudiyas automatically assume that a person who is born a brahmana is not a brahmana? Even if that person is raised as a Vaishnava and was born into a brahman family, automatically you assert that he belongs to a corrupt tradition and is unqualified. I have repeatedly seen you people making these assertions on this forum, and I wonder why? Being born a brahmana gives one the best chance to learn to become a brahman. But to you this is despicable, and that really does not make much sense.

That is strange. Your own Kavi Karnapur and Baladeva Vidyabhushana claimed such a link. Yet Rahalkar claims that "Gaurangaauthorized" the Brahma-Madhva-Gaudiya sampradaya. This was what I questioned earlier. What is worse - admitting you have no sampradaya and being labeled as an obvious Neo-Vedantist, or pretending you have one in order to have an air of legitimacy? Wow. What an admission! No unfair generalizations there, I am sure. No doubt you have made a thorough study of the subject and have a basis for making such claims. By the way, which sampradaya is "the most popular one?" I'm curious. Why does only respecting Gauranga matter? Why not only respecting Madhva? Or only respecting Ramanuja? Or only respecting Sri Krishna? Or better yet, why not just respect them all? What does respect have to do with legitimacy?

This is not my tradition obviously, but I have a question. Why do iskcon/gaudiya-saraswata devotees associate "heredity" with corruption? As in, if one is born into a brahmin family, raised as a brahmin, and takes up the duties of a brahmin, then just by the very fact of his hereditary brahmana status he is somehow illegitimate and not qualified to be a guru? I find this attitude very strange. I would rather have a qualified guru who was raised as a brahmin from birth, rather than a guru who spent his whole life eating meat and chasing women, and then just in the past 2 years suddenly found his calling and "became" a brahmin. Sure he may seem "qualified" to you, but who knows what will happen in another year or so? His old tastes and bad habits may resume, and then what becomes of his "guru" status? It's very strange that on one hand, iskcon people emphasize that a guru must be very qualified, and yet on the other hand they criticize the one tradition that historically created very qualified gurus in the past, namely the varnasharma culture (which was very much related to birth). And that's not to say that there are not corrupt brahmins today - clearly there are - but they are also easy to identify in most cases. How easy is it to identify a "qualified" guru from the reformed and inexperienced mlecchas that join iskcon? And how many times has someone thought, "oh, this is a pure devotee guru" only to have to look for another guru years later because his pure guru left the standard?

So Neo-Hinduism basically refers to an approach to scripture and spirituality that is not intellectually rigorous, is influenced by secular progressive humanism, tend to be impersonalist in its presentation, and accepts some degree of radical universalism (i.e. all religions are equal/valid/same). What are some examples of Neo-Hinduism? Does the above sound familiar? Here are some obvious examples Swami Vivekananda (Vivekananda Vedanta Society) Ramakrishna (Ramakrishna Math) Sai Baba These individuals and their followers have a long history of obfuscating the otherwise straightforward meaning of certain scriptures to bring them in line with their own thinking. They do not care much for refuting contrary points of view, and in fact when confronted with the illogical nature of their own philosphies, they will often retreat into some form of moral relativism, i.e. all interpretations are ok, this is just my interpretation, etc etc. They all to varying degrees of radical universalism and they believe that spirituality and welfare work are more or less the same. What are some other examples of Neo-Hinduism? Someone had asked about the Arya-Samaj. I really do not know them well so I cannot comment on them. The Internal Society of Divine Love definitely comes across as Neo-Hindu. This is the organization with the Indian sannyasi who surrounds himself with female "sannyasinis." Swami Chinmayananda and his organization definitely has Neo-Vedantic tendencies. Other possibilities may include Ramana Maharishi, Paramahamsa Yogananda, Brahma Kumaris, Divine Life Society. I cannot say one way or another since I do not know them well, but some of their followers I have met, and they come across as Neo-Hindu in their thinking. Does anyone know of other people or organizations that are Neo-Vedantic or Neo-Hindu?

Another trait of Neo-Hinduism schools is that they often do not credit their guru parampara. Rather, they often imply or openly state that they or their gurus are giving a "new interpretation" rather than claiming legitimacy on the basis of a guru parampara extending back to one of the original rishis or adi-gurus.

Ranjeet, How can I locate those quotes without verse numbers? If you want me to believe those are real quotes that I need some means by which to locate them. I have the Puranas you quoted in their original Sanskrit. regards, Raghu

Traditional or Classical Hinduism includes the sad-darshanas and the various schools of Vedanta like those of Ramanuja, Madhva, Sankara, etc. Now what is Neo-Hinduism and how is it different from Classical Hinduism? These are some features that distinguish Neo-Hinduism from Classical or Traditional Hinduism. 1) Neo-Hinduism thinkers are generally less intellectual and less rigorous in their approach to scripture than are traditional Hindu thinkers. Ironically, Neo-Hinduism thinkers often think their approach is more intellectual, but the lack of rigor shows from even casual scrutiny of their philosophy. 2) Neo-Hinduism thinkers often assign totally new meanings to otherwise straightforward shlokas and mantras in order to bring them in line with their philosophy. Very often the meanings they impart to the texts often contradict what the texts themselves say. 3) As a justification for changing the meaning of texts, Neo-Hinduism thinkers often assert that their "interpretations" can be understood only by those who are on a "higher level" of sprititual understanding. In this way, they try to fool lay people into believing that they have a correct understanding of scripture, but they do not feel obligated to explain that meaning logically. This strategy appears to be loosely based on Sankara's paradigm of paramarthika and vyavaharika levels of understanding reality. 4) Neo-Hinduism thinkers emphasize the great variety of possible valid interpretations that a given text can have. THis is in contrast to traditional Hindu thinkers who generally go out of their way to show that *only* their understanding of a text is best. In this way, Neo-Hinduism thinkers set a precedent wherein anyone, regardless of whether he knows Sanskrit or has even read a particular text, can try to "interpret" the text (by which it is meant, assigning new meanings to a text that are not actually found in that scripture). 5) Note again that "interpretation" to most people refers to the process of explaining the correct meaning of something whose apparent meaning is not clear. For Neo-Hinduism thinkers, "interpretation" means to make up a meaning for a text whose actual meaning is not acceptable to them. 6) Neo-Hindus often to some form of Radical Universalism, the idea that all religions are the same, lead to the same path, or are at least compatible in some way. They will hold to such theories in spite of mounting contradictory evidence from the scriptures of those different religions. Indeed, they may even assert that the contradictions are only apparent, and that one has to have the "higher understanding" which they have to see how they are actually all one in purpose. 7) Neo-Hindus are almost all self-professed followers of Advaita, and generally they equate Advaita to Vedanta and will hardly admit to the existence of non-Advaitic systems of Vedanta unless pressed to do so. 8) Neo-Hindus generally use the language of Vedanta to lend intellectual credibility to their philosophies. Thus, they will often throw around words like "Brahman,vedanta,atman," etc with at most a superficial understanding of what these mean. Thus, Neo-Hindus could also be described as "Neo-Vedantists." I will use the terms interchangeably though I think they also have different shades of meaning. 9) Neo-Hindus are generally moral relativists. This follows from points #2-6. They may state that certain behaviors are good and virtuous, but will often refrain from condemning contrary behaviors. Thus, for a Neo-Hindu, vegetarianism is very good, but if someone chooses to eat meat, then that is not wrong. Often what is right or wrong is up to the individual person's opinion or "interpretation." 10) Neo-Hinduism thinkers are heavily influenced by attitudes which surfaced in India from the 1900's onwards, specifically by Judeo-Christian monotheism, liberal-secular-progressive humanism, and/or Indian nationalism. Thus, when they preach their own versions of "Hinduism," they often downplay the elements that would offend followers of Semitic religions (such as the paradigm of multiple devas) or progressive humanists (such as varnashrama or stri-dharma). For example, Neo-Hindus may on one hand officially accept that "idol worship" as a place in religious life, but on the other hand deride its importance in the sadhana of a "more advanced" practitioner. 11) This follows from point #10 - because Neo-Hindu thinkers have subconsciously imbibed Western biases about morality and ethics, they often see themselves as enlightened reformers whose views represent a more "evolved" form of Hinduism. As the British MacCaulyites had intended, Neo-Hindu thinkers actually believe that traditional Hinduism is riddled with social evils which they as "reformers" are in a position to change. They may even describe "idol worship" and "caste system" as being among these "social evils." Of course, they do not see crimes in the West as being social evils intrinsic to Western religions. Such was the success of the McCaulyite brainwashing. 12) This point also follows from point #10 - because Neo-Hinduism thinkers are often covered secular progressives, they emphasize the doing of welfare work as a type of sadhana, even to the point of excluding worship and study of scripture. Neo-Hinduism thinkers base their popular credibility on their financial support for the community (in the form of building hospitals, schools, etc) instead of on the strength of their philosophy. Predictably, lay Hindus who are also influenced by secular progressive ideas see nothing at all wrong with this and may even wonder why it is important to scrutinize philosophy as a means of determining validity. 13) Neo-Hinduism thinkers often represent their beliefs as "Hinduism" and will downplay or even ignore opposing Hindu schools of thought which are older and/or have greater foundation in scripture. Thus, Neo-Hinduism thinkers will shamelessly claim that in "Hinduism," all devas are different forms of the same supreme, that Brahman is formless, that liberation means to merge into Brahman, and that all religions are different but valid means at getting at this truth. They will not even accept that there are other schools of Hinduism which do not to such ideas, and if you press them on the subject, they will just say that those other schools are "fundamentalist," anachronistic, less enlightened, etc. They will do this in spite of having just said that those discordant schools are also valid in their own way. This Neo-Hinduism strategy is so successful that even non-religious Hindu civil-rights organizations like the Hindu Human Rights organization and the Hindu American Foundation repeat verbatim the ideas of Neo-Hinduism (formless God, multiplicity of valid paths, etc) as being defining features of Hinduism. The above are all generalizations, of course, and one may find some or all of such attributes in any given sect of Hinduism. However, I think it can be said that the more of these attributes a given Hindu leader demonstrates, the more likely he is a Neo-Vedantist rather than a representative of a traditional Hindu school of thought.

I found this by googling "Neo Hinduism." It is from an entry on Hinduism from the Internet Encyclopedia of Religion. I don't agree with everything the author says, but his review of Hinduism is surprisingly fair and free of derision for an academic. The excerpt below is his offering on Neo-Hinduism: 4. Stage Three: Neo-Hinduism The term “Neo-Hinduism” refers to a conception of the Hindu religion formed by recent authors who were learned in traditional Indian philosophy, and English. Famous Neo-Hindus include Swami Vivekānanda (1863-1902) the famous disciple of the traditional Hindu saint Rāma-Krsna, and India’s first president, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888-1975) a professional philosopher who held academic posts at various universities in India and Oxford, in the UK. A famous formulation of the doctrine of Neo-Hinduism is the simile that likens religions to rivers, and the oceans to God: as all rivers lead to the ocean so do all religions lead to God. Similarly, Swami Nirvenananda in his book Hinduism at a Glance writes: All true religions of the world lead us alike to the same goal, namely, to perfection if, of course, they are followed faithfully. Each of them is a correct path to Divinity. The Hindus have been taught to regard religion in this light. (Nivernananda, p.20.) Frequently, Neo-Hindu authors identify Hinduism with Vedānta in their elaboration of Neo-Hindu doctrine, and in this formulation we find another tenet of Neo-Hinduism: Hinduism is not simply another religion, but a meta-religion, or the philosophy of religion. Hence, we find Vivekānanda writes: Ours is the universal religion. It is inclusive enough, it is broad enough to include all the ideals. All the ideals of religion that already exist in the world can be immediately included, and we can patiently wait for all the ideals that are to come in the future to be taken in the same fashion, embraced in the infinite arms of the religion of Vedānta. (Vivekānanda, vol. III p.251-2.) Similarly, Radhakrishnan holds “[t]he Vedānta is not a religion, but religion itself in its most universal and deepest significance” (Radhakrishnan, 35). The view identified as Neo-Hinduism here might be understood as a form of Universalism or liberal theology that attempts to ground religion itself in Hindu philosophy. Neo-Hinduism must be distinguished from another theological view that has a long history in India, which we might call Inclusivist Theology. According to Inclusivist Theology, there are elements in any number of religious practices that are consonant with the one true religion, and if a practitioner of a contrary religion holds fast to those elements in their religion that are correct, they will eventually attain the Ultimate. Often, this view finds expression in the widespread Hindu view that all the various deities are really lower manifestations of one true deity (for example, a Vaisnava who held an Inclusivist theology might interpret all deities, in so far as they are consonant with the qualities attributed to Visnu, to be lower manifestations of Visnu, and thus good first steps to conceptualizing the Ultimate). Neo-Hinduism, in contrast, makes no distinction between deities, religions, or elements within religions, for all religions operate at the level of the practical, while the Ultimate, ex hypothesi, is transcendent. There is no religion, or no portion of any religion, which is incorrect, on this view, for all are equally human efforts to strive for the Divine. Neo-Hindus do not typically regard themselves as forming a new philosophy or religion, though the doctrine expressed by Neo-Hinduism is characterized by theses and concerns not clearly expressed in classical Hindu philosophy. As a rule, Neo-Hinduism is a reformulation of Advaita Vedānta, which emphasizes the implicit liberal theological tendencies that follow from the two-fold account of Brahman. Recall that on Śankara’s account a distinction is to be drawn between a lower and higher Brahman. Higher Brahman (nirguna Brahman) is impersonal and lacks much of what is normally attributed to God. In contrast, lower Brahman (saguna Brahman) has personal characteristics attributed to deities. While the higher Brahman is the eternally existing reality, lower Brahman is a result of the same creative error that results in the construction of normal integrated egos in bodies: superimposition. Neo-Hinduism takes note of the fact that this account of lower Brahman’s nature implies that the deities normally worshiped in a religious context are really natural artefacts, or projections of aesthetic concerns on the Ultimate: they are images of the Ultimate formulated for the sake of religious progress. Neo-Hinduism thus reasons that no one’s personal God is any more the real God than another religion’s personal God: rather, all are equally approximations of the one real, impersonal Brahman that transcends the domestic qualities attributed to it. While personal deities are considerably devalued on this account, the result is a liberal theology that is closed to no religious tradition, in principle, for any religion that personalizes God will be approaching the highest Brahman through the lens of superimposed characteristics of object-qualities on Brahman. Critics of Neo-Hinduism have noted that while Neo-Hinduism aspires to shun the sectarianism that characterises the history of religion in the West through a spirit of Universalism, Neo-Hinduism itself engages in a sectarianism, in so far as it identifies Hinduism with the true perspective that understands the quality-less nature of the Ultimate (cf. Halbfass, Tradition and Reflection pp. 51-86). In defense of Neo-Hinduism, it could be argued that it is a genuine, modern attempt to re-understand the philosophical implications of earlier Hindu thought, and not an attempt to reconcile the various religions of the world. Critics might also argue that Neo-Hinduism is bad history: many philosophers that we today regard as Hindu (such as Rāmānuja or Madhva) would not accept the idea that all deities are equal, and that God is ultimately an impersonal entity. Moreover, Śankara, the commentator on the Brahma Sūtras did not argue for the type of Universalism characteristic of Neo-Hinduism, which regards all religious observance as equally valid (though this arguably is an implication of his philosophy). Neo-Hinduism, the critic might argue, is historical revisionism. In response, Neo-Hinduism might defend itself by insisting that it is not in the business of providing an account of the history of all of Hindu philosophy, but only a certain strand that it regards as the most important.