Page:

The component of this article reflects, even if in a conscious, secularized form, two tendencies of Neo-Hinduism: inclination for intolerance towards its own people and ignoring the actual religious practice. As already mentioned, most of the so-called neo-Hindu interpretations grew out of the necessity to surmount the estrangement from their own tradition-just the educated Indians got into this estrangement with the introduction of a purely British educational system, for instance Aurobindo and Gandhi in the beginning got to know the Bhagavadgita only in its English translation and to find an up to date interpretation of Hinduism. In doing so, there were conflicts with different theories of Hinduism-in the earlier movements, however, as for instance in Brahma Samaj, the practice was simply condemned as idolatory, and later deliberately overlooked in most cases.       The works of Radhakrishnan, Vivekananda etc. express themselves so tolerant that one spoke of an “inclusivism”. They consider all world religions as manifestations of truths revealed at the optimum in Hinduism and allot them accordingly their place within a linearly progressive history of religions. By the dogmatising of these interpretations, however, the enormous liberalization towards foreign religious means at the same time a new narrowness and limitation for the Hinduism itself.       All that does not harmonize with this interpretation, can no longer be considered as real and true Hinduism. On these lines K.M. Das of Bhajayanagar College judges Mahima Dharma from the conception of a linear and rational development of religious and humanity.       “The days of antagonism between Religion and Philosophy are over and in an age of reason nothing is lost if we put a religion to rational investigation in which process to quote Vivekananda ‘all that is dogma will be taken off, and the essential part of the religion will emerge triumphantly out of the investigation.’ Mahima Svami attempted to cleanse this dross from Hinduism, but in the absence of a strong rational foundation, the brush became so coarse, that it destroyed so many finer aspects of this great religion.”       Significantly, the author barely enters into the rites which Mahima Svami has abolished, but on the contrary, reproaches him that he has introduced some, “which, though satisfying the requirements of a popular religion, is to my humble mind, a step in retrograde, which is prone to arrest much of the catholicity; broadmindedness and an incessant quest for truth, which as De Mal observes, has characterized Hinduism for the last five thousand years of its progress.”31       I have quoted this point of view somewhat in detail, because it is symptomatic of the attitude of the new orthodoxy towards a movement like Mahima Dharma. Here an entirely new understanding of religion imported from the west is evident. Practice and teachings deviating from the orthodoxy were for the traditional Hinduism, and are even today, as the example of Mahima Dharma shows, no cause for expulsion fro Hinduism. On the contrary, these become elements for its enrichment. Only the recognition of a definite interpretation as authoritative sets a limit to this typical process of constant assimilation and rejection of foreign or new elements. General religious philosophical interpretations can be assimilated in part, concrete new institutions or the actual practice of religions and with that also that of the Hinduism itself in part have no place any more in this interpretation.       Finally, it can be stated: the present dialogue between Mahima Dharma and the representatives of the orthodox tradition shows that an autochtonous reform movement of this type continues to work today on the one hand as well as earlier heterodox movements as corrective to the orthodox tradition, and is simultaneously rejected and assimilated by it. But today Mahima Dharma is placed in a new situation vis-a vis the neo-Hindu or enlightened orthodoxy becoming more and more powerful: this course, is no longer capable like the Hindu tradition of old stamping, of absorbing the practice of new movements and can accept their theoretical import if it corresponds to its own interpretation. 31 K.M.Das: “Mahima Dharma- The Mission Fulfillment”, Published in: D.Panda (ed), see f.n.13.

Page: