This will be my brief response to the Kelamuni.blogspot. All I am going to respond to is the Neo Vedanta thesis. According to this blog Neo Vedanta and Neo Hinduism was a kind of a reactionary affect to the then colonial rule which resulted in the present political movements. The main culprit is Vivekananda. This blog quotes Paul Hacker. However Paul Hacker was a Christian apologist who wanted to take all the good philosophies from Hinduism and later wanted to denigrate it. The fact that he was a Christian apologist was hidden when his works were published. This made others doubt Paul Hacker's own works. Hence Paul Hacker is not a good source to quote.
Coming to the Unification of Hinduism. This attempt was already done by Shankara and as a result 4 mathas were established in the 4 corners of India hence this is nothing new. The same attempt was done by Vijnanabhikshu through his writings. So in short we can say that Unified Hinduism was already present before colonial times. So Vivekananda would have done the unification of paths with reference to modern times he was influenced by Buddha and most probably by Sahajanand Swami, for Sevayoga and not necessarily by the Christian missionaries. He was merely reinterpreting the existent ideas in a modern light.
Another allegation is that there is a Neo Vedanta different from traditional Vedanta. This is not true since traditional Vedanta under went many changes after Shankara eg "Vivarana and Bhamati schools". Also the emphasis on the experience of Brahman is given in the Upanishads itself. Following is a quote " Tatra Veda aveda tatra tapa atapaha " there the Veda is no longer the Veda. This means the experiential aspect is given emphasis in the Upanishads themselves hence Vivekananda was not preaching anything new.It is very much inline with the Upanishads as well as traditional Vedanta. In later conversations of Vivekananda one gets to know that Vivekananda like Shankara claiming Jnana alone gives Moksha. His other statements must be taken as those which were done for a certain audience.
Also Debendranath Dutta looking for something to challenge the West does not seem very convincing. It is very likely that he was influenced by the teachings of Buddha and not Western science to get the basis for experiential knowledge.
Vivekananda's impetus to preach experiential knowledge came from Ramakrishna and not from Western influence of science. Further Ramakrishna got his impetus from the Bhakti movements and formally initiated by traditional teachers, an example is Totapuri. So Ramakrishna was not influenced by Western education or science in the least bit. It was he who influenced the Brahmo Samaj and not the other way around. This becomes very clear from the "Gospel of Ramakrishna". Hence to say that this has a Christian influence has no basis. This in short is a brief response to the Neo Vedanta thesis.
Coming to the Unification of Hinduism. This attempt was already done by Shankara and as a result 4 mathas were established in the 4 corners of India hence this is nothing new. The same attempt was done by Vijnanabhikshu through his writings. So in short we can say that Unified Hinduism was already present before colonial times. So Vivekananda would have done the unification of paths with reference to modern times he was influenced by Buddha and most probably by Sahajanand Swami, for Sevayoga and not necessarily by the Christian missionaries. He was merely reinterpreting the existent ideas in a modern light.
Another allegation is that there is a Neo Vedanta different from traditional Vedanta. This is not true since traditional Vedanta under went many changes after Shankara eg "Vivarana and Bhamati schools". Also the emphasis on the experience of Brahman is given in the Upanishads itself. Following is a quote " Tatra Veda aveda tatra tapa atapaha " there the Veda is no longer the Veda. This means the experiential aspect is given emphasis in the Upanishads themselves hence Vivekananda was not preaching anything new.It is very much inline with the Upanishads as well as traditional Vedanta. In later conversations of Vivekananda one gets to know that Vivekananda like Shankara claiming Jnana alone gives Moksha. His other statements must be taken as those which were done for a certain audience.
Also Debendranath Dutta looking for something to challenge the West does not seem very convincing. It is very likely that he was influenced by the teachings of Buddha and not Western science to get the basis for experiential knowledge.
Vivekananda's impetus to preach experiential knowledge came from Ramakrishna and not from Western influence of science. Further Ramakrishna got his impetus from the Bhakti movements and formally initiated by traditional teachers, an example is Totapuri. So Ramakrishna was not influenced by Western education or science in the least bit. It was he who influenced the Brahmo Samaj and not the other way around. This becomes very clear from the "Gospel of Ramakrishna". Hence to say that this has a Christian influence has no basis. This in short is a brief response to the Neo Vedanta thesis.
No comments:
Post a Comment