Talk:Neo-Vedanta

Merging with Hindu reform movements
Neo-Vedanta is not a clearly defined term and the definition in the lead is a politically charges assumption that relies on a single writer and it's not clear why that definition should include all meanings of the term Neo-Vedanta. Neo-Vedanta and Neo-Hinduism and Universalism are also not interchangeable terms.

The implication of the article is that Vivekanda, among others, is not an exponent of real Hinduism, which is a fringe POV and politically motivated. Those people considered themselves Hindus, and were and are considered by most people to be hindus. You can say they are 20th century Hindus or neo-Hindus,, but these designations does not mean they are not hindus, All of these writes can be rightfully disussed in the Hinduism or hindu reform movements page. All major sources identify Vivekanda as a Hindu.

Can you explain what you mean by the statement: Neo-Hinduism aims to present Hinduism as a "homogenized ideal of Hinduism"? And does that include the differences in opinions among "Neo-Hindus" like Swami Dayananda?

Another npov issue is that Malhotras work is criticzed, but his replies to the critics are not mentioned.

There are also too many quotations in this article. Vivekanda is just a modern writer and major exponent of Hinduism. Wikipedia also doesn't has articles like Neo-Christianity or Neo-Islam to write about modern religious writers. This article also violates NOR and reads like a personal essay.

--Trphierth (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Response by JJ:
 * Regarding the neutrality:
 * "Neo-Vedanta is not a clearly defined term" - it is used by several authors, as indicated by the references and sources; see also Google Books and Google Scholar;
 * "the definition in the lead is a politically charges assumption" - it's a defintion derived from a reilable source;
 * "that relies on a single writer" - two sources are being given;
 * "and it's not clear why that definition should include all meanings of the term Neo-Vedanta" - if there are others, you're welcome to add them;
 * "The implication of the article is that Vivekanda, among others, is not an exponent of real Hinduism, which is a fringe POV and politically motivated." - that's your conclusion. And what's "real Hinduism", according to whose standard?
 * "Those people considered themselves Hindus, and were and are considered by most people to be hindus. You can say they are 20th century Hindus or neo-Hindus,, but these designations does not mean they are not hindus," - who says they were not hindus?;
 * "Can you explain what you mean by the statement: Neo-Hinduism aims to present Hinduism as a "homogenized ideal of Hinduism"?" - see Neo-Vedanta;
 * "And does that include the differences in opinions among "Neo-Hindus" like Swami Dayananda?" - I have no idea; I've got one book from him, which I didn't read. I'd have to look it up via Google - something you're also able to do;
 * "Another npov issue is that Malhotras work is criticzed, but his replies to the critics are not mentioned." - they can be added, can't they?;
 * "Wikipedia also doesn't has articles like Neo-Christianity or Neo-Islam" - "neo-Christianity" 5.350 hits in Google-books; "neo-Islam" 505 hits in Google Books; I'd say, go ahead;
 * "This article also violates WP:NOR" - substantiate, please;
 * "reads like a personal essay" - substantiate, please.
 * Regarding the merger-proposal:
 * "All of these writes can be rightfully disussed in the Hinduism or hindu reform movements page." - well, they are, in short paragraphs, and they are more extensively dicussed in separate articles, like this one and the Brahmo Samaj;
 * Regarding style:
 * "There are also too many quotations in this article." - some of them might be paraphrased. However, letting the critics speak for themselves is clearest.
 * Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   19:54, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Trphierth - The talkpage indicates a lot of text was copied from other articles (Advatia Vedanata, Spritituality, Ramana Maharshi), and the rest of the text could easily be placed in Hindu reform movements, Hinduism, Vivekananda, advaita vedanta, orientalism, brahmo samaj, and criticism of Hinduism. In other words, wikipedia already covers most all the content of this article - which is meager - and the rest, the key message of the article, that some modern exponents of Hinduism present Hinduism with Advaita Vedanta as its most central doctrine, can be explained in a short paragraph in said articles.

There is also no coherent school of thought of neo-Hinduism, it is a loose term that can mean many different things. There are npov issues with generalizing statements about the neo-vedantists. Also, Neo-Vedanta and the other variants like Hindu-Universalism are neologisms that are much less common than the term dharma and dharmic, on which you and Yworo have launched a crusade against previously, and at one point you wanted to rename the more common neologism Dharmic writers with the neologism Neo-Hindu writers. The section on Malhotra is still not npov. I may try to add some of his replies, but you could have also done this when adding the extensive criticisms. --Trphierth (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply by JJ - It wasn't until recently that I became aware of the influence of Vivekananda and like-minded people like Radakrishnan on the modern perception of Hinduism. Not only in the west, but also in India. Probably most of us are not aware of that. Behind it is a "grand narrative" of a mutual cultural and religious exchange between western and Asian countries, which has been going on since the colonisation of Asia. It also involves Buddhism (McMahan's "The making of Buddhist modernism"), and western modern (popular) spirituality. It's an absolutely fascinating story, in which roles are reversed and re-reversed. I was already somewhat aware of this by studying Zen (see Zen Narratives), but it probably was David Chapman who made me aware of such a "grand narrative" in a series of blogs in 2011. It's really fascinating, and it deserves mentioning on a separate page. Vivekananda and his likes have been so immensely influential!
 * Notability - Wikipedia has a policy on WP:NOTE (notability), which describes WP:SIGCOV as "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." It gives a longer list of criteria; see there. Neo-Vedanta has received significant coverage; Richard King's "Orientalism and religion" is an example; is another example.
 * "There is also no coherent school of thought of neo-Hinduism, it is a loose term that can mean many different things" - that there are different strands of thoughts does not maan that there are no reliable sources which identify commeon themes, or influences.
 * "There are npov issues with generalizing statements about the neo-vedantists" - those statements are from reliable sources.
 * The term "dharmic" is not relevant here; that's another term than "neo-Vedanta".
 * I haven't read Malhotra's reply yet; I've got real-life obligations too. I read two or three article from this thematic journal on his book, which I picked out because they used the term "dharmic". Those articles happened to be very critical. But I think you're right, that Malhotra's reply should be included too. So, who's got some time left...
 * NPOV - Vivekananda and others of course also contributed to the independence of India. They did so, also, by taking over western concepts and ideas, and using them against the western colonisators. That's great! That's also being mentioned, and those mentions could be enlarged (this is not correct English, I know). But it also had consequences for the popular understanding of Hinduism, and that part of the story deserves attention too.
 * I can really recommend Richard King's "Orientalism and religion" to you. He gives a detailed analysis of those mutual influences, in which he also ctiticisises our western ntion of "religion", and gives an introduction to the changed meaning of the term "mystical", among other topics. It's easy available, also on the internet if you search a little bit.
 * Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   04:32, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Reply by Trphierth - You didn't say why the content cannot be added to the existing wikipedia articles like Advaita Vedanta or Vivekananda, instead of lumping all different "neo-Hindu" schools together in one article. Also the term dharmic is relevant here, because you and Yworo were trying to suppress this neologism from wikipedia, but here you are writing an article for a religo-political and much more uncommon neologism. --Trphierth (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Reply by JJ - Of course it can be "added", but that's not exactly what you mean, is it?- I mean, not in a too-literal sense. I guess you mean why there should be a separate article? I don't agree that "neo-Vedanta" is a "religo-political and much more uncommon neologism". It has been used since the 19th-century, and has broad acceptance and use in scholarly sources, so to call it a neologism is not really up-to-date. It's been used by a lot of authors to label the rise of a modern interpretation of Hinduism which has been, and still is, very influential. There are also sections on this topic at the Advaita Vedanta article and other articles, but the importance of this current in Indian thought warrants a separate article.
 * Greetings,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   20:03, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Integral Unity
I've started reading Malhotra's reply, but I'm puzzled about the term "Integral Unity", to which Larson replies. Quoting from Hitchhiker's Guide to Rajiv Malhotra's Discussion Forum: Apart from this being a gross generalisation, Larson seems to misrepresent Malhotra, when he writes that "an "integral unity" is underlying the various Dharma traditions". "Integral Unity" does not seem to imply that all Indian religions are the same, but that their metaphysics start with an "Integral Unity". That's also what Malhotra argues, so I wonder if Larson paraphrases Malhotra correctly. Unfortunately, I don't own the book, so I can't look up Malhotra's definition of "Integral Unity", and have to depend on other sources. For example, "A Sacred Subversion Against Science And Reason – Book Review" says (that is, a commentator): "2) The metaphysics of all these religions emphasize an interlinking of various elements (typically the Soul, God and Matter) that is referred to as ‘Integral Unity’ as opposed to Christian metaphysics where the three elements are conceived as totally separate from one another." NB: the review itself is very critical. Personally I'm stunned by such a gross generalisation, but alas, that's my personal opinion. Anyway, I've added info from Malhotra's reply.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   08:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * "Dharmic faiths = Integral Unity. Integral unity means ultimately ONLY the whole exists; the parts that make up the whole have but a RELATIVE existence. The whole is independent and indivisible."
 * "Abrahamic faiths = Synthetic Unity. Synthetic unity starts with parts that EXIST separately from one another."
 * His website includes some definitions, see for example http://beingdifferentbook.com/introduction.--Trphierth (talk) 15:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Criticism
I've added more info, which makes clear that there is a lot of criticism of neo-Advaita, but that there is also a lot of criticism on the term itself: it was coined by Europeans, with a Christian agenda. More criticism of this kind could be incorporated; I guess there's a lot more. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   10:14, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Definition + history of Term: section added, needs expansion
I have begun a section on the definition and history of the terms "neo-Vedanta" and "neo-Hinduism". These terms were used polemically in their early history, and I suspect they are still used polemically, though I have not searched for WP:RS for that. I have relied heavily on Halbfass for a definition and for history. I suspect we could find others who define the term, and include citations to them, too. Perhaps more of the history of the term, and its valences (pejorative, scholarly, what else?) can be found. Finally, I find it fascinating that a lot of Christians didn't like the term "neo-Christian", as Halbfass so helpfully documents. And the urban dictionary documents that the term "neo-Christian" is regarded as referring to someone who, essentially, is viewed as inauthentic - a bogus Christian. Thus, one might naturally wonder whether the prefix "Neo", regardless of scholarly intent, has a pejorative connotation built in. Frankly, there seem to me to be a lot of reasons for suspecting that polemics and POV may be intrinsically built into these terms, even though their scholarly usage means that they must be used here on WP to a certain extent. See my additional thoughts as recorded a couple of days ago on at Talk:Yoga

I doubt I will have much time to contribute to expanding this new section, so I hope others can pick up where I have left off. --Presearch (talk) 08:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Nice edits, well done. The Vivekananda-subsection could use some more info on the impact Vivekananda has had in India. King, "Orientalism and religion", although critical about "Neo-Hinduism", also has some nice, positive quotes on Vivekananda ("The real brilliance")(beware of decontextualization, though!) And for Radhakrishnan, maybe some more info could be used from the Wiki-article about him. Best regards,   Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   21:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words. Actually, what I wonder about the most is how the new "Definition and Terms" section might be expanded. Frankly, I suspect that there's been continuing polemical and pejorative usage of the term right along, and if that's the case, and a reliable source can be found, then it should be mentioned (has Malhotra weighed in on what he thinks is happening with the term? He'd certainly be a reliable source on his own perspective, which is relevant here, even if others disagree). For example, from Hobfass' writings, it seems that Paul Hacker was lodging very strong criticisms of many figures who he called Neo-Hindus or Neo-Vedantists - did he use the term pejoratively and/or polemically (I strongly suspect he did), and can we find a WP:RS to document that? Furthermore, has anyone (Malhotra?) commented about the tensions that may arise from the term being used both polemically and by scholars? This seems a recipe for risking subconscious (or conscious) cultural insensitivity (or worse). I think these facets of the page must be addressed in a conscientious fashion, or we risk being Neo-Wikipedians, or Neo-whatever-we-believe-in, if we believe in cultural sensitivity, and believe that scholarship and polemics should be kept separate. --Presearch (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2014 (UTC)


 * JJ: There was a quote on Hacker in the article:
 * ''"On the other hand, an author like Paul Hacker, who was critical of neo-Vedanta, has himself been criticised as being an advocate of the European tradition and Christian theology:(Halbfass 1995 p.9-10)
 * The historical analysis itself, in all its "objectivity", reflects but also conceals a very pronounced sense of religious and cultural identity and an uncompromising commitment to certain Christian and European premises and values.(Halbfass 1995 p.9-10)"
 * I removed it, when I shortened the "Criticism and appraisal" section.
 * Regarding Malhotra, I think you'll have to be carefull using him as a source. Better back it up with a secondary source who mentions him. Regarding the tensions, isn't this one of the main points in "post-colonialism"? Maybe King ("Orientalism and religion") also has got something to tell about that. I've read several contemporary scholars who emntion these tensions. Nicholson, "Unifying Hinduism"; and Samuel, "The Origins of Yoga and Tantra". There must be more; so much has been going on regarding (western) scholarly views and (modern) traditional views on Hinduism. But you probably know more about post-colonialism than I do.
 * Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)


 * JJ: Flood (1996) p.19 mentions Ronald Inden, Imagining India. Flood also has a chapter on "Hinduism and the modern world." He gives info on Vivekananda etc., but also continues with "Hindu political nationalism" and "Global Hinduism." That's interesting; maybe "Neo-Vedanta" belongs to the 19th and first half of the 20th century, as a response to western colonialization and hegemony. After the Independence, discourses have developed further, with "Hindu political nationalism" "[constructing] a Hindu identity, which is very modern in being closely associated with the idea of the nation-state, and which projects this identity into the past" (Flood 1996 p.262), and "Global Hinduism", which "lays emphasis on what it regards as universal spiritual values such as social justice, peace and the spiritual transformation of humanity" (Flood 1996 p.265). I don't know if we can put this straightaway in the article; as I've written it down now, it's my present understanding; and it could also be that this belongs in another article. Anyway, it's interesting, and provides opportunities to transcend the narrow, or pejorative, use/understanding of "Neo-Vedanta."  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   16:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Is "Neo-" (as in "Neo-Vedanta") pejorative?
Copied from Talk:Yoga Question to all: Is the prefix "Neo-", as in "Neo-Vedanta", a value-neutral prefix? It seems to be one that western scholars use, and that Joshua Jonathan has on that basis inserted into many Wikipedia articles. But I don't hear the words "Neo-Christian" or "Neo-Jewish" used much on WP, and I wonder whether modern-day Christians and Jews would feel comfortable being described with such a phrase. In fact, my suspicion that they wouldn't like those terms was just now this moment confirmed : The urban dictionary defines a neo-Christian as "An individual who calls himself a christian, yet fails to act in accordance with the teachings of Jesus." In other words, a fake Christian.

Furthermore, although others may feel differently, my ear tells me that "Neo-Vedanta", which is defined in the 4th word of its WP article lede as synonymous with "Neo-Hinduism", has negative connotations built in. It seems to connote the idea that modern Hindus such as Swami Vivekananda are not in a direct line with a millennial tradition. To my ear, it makes them sound a bit like amateurs in their own tradition. Now I lack the time to delve in detail into the writings of the scholars (e.g., White) that Joshua Jonathan cites. But I know enough about scholarship to know that many scholars of religion/spirituality can miss the boat: They can focus on externals but miss the inner coherence. This is true of scholars of many religious traditions, but my perception is that the problem has been especially acute in scholarship on Hinduism.

Furthermore, there are scholars such as Julius Lipner -- e.g., Religious Studies, 32(1), 109-126 - that emphasize the dynamic, evolving nature of Hinduism, portraying it as constantly putting down new roots, and sending up new branches, but all in a coherent relation (connection) with earlier manifestations. To designate some of the more recent variations of that process as "Neo-" is a rhetorical move that has a lot of potential implications, not all of them free of POV. I think WP should take a careful look at whether this "Neo-" designator may in fact be somewhat malodorously paternalistic (or worse) in its connotations, despite its recent usage and perhaps origin in a scholarly context. If it is malodorous to a lot of ears (or should I say noses?) then I suppose Wikipedia may not have a totally free hand in how it seeks to redress the situation, since WP must still rely on reliable sources, which most commonly means scholarship, but sometimes can mean other things. At least we'd have identified a problem that needs to be addressed. And - if the term is indeed determined to have POV connotations - perhaps we can be much more careful in balancing it with other perspectives that balance out the hidden pejorative message the term contains. More generally, we could (if the term is found to be pejorative) try to identify appropriate resources and approaches to rebalance any text where the term is used. If this issue is real and we were to totally neglect it, then I fear we risk being "neo-Wikipedians", or "neo-" whatever we are, in a pejorative sense parallel to "neo-Christian" as defined above by the urban dictionary.

I am adding this to the Yoga page since it was catalyzed by conversations on the Yoga page. But please feel free to copy it to the neo-Vedanta page. Best regards to all.-- Presearch (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Very good points you're raising here. Insightfull.
 * To me, "Neo-Hinduism" has a different "sound" than "Neo-Vedanta". I understand your association of "Neo-Hinduism" with "Neo-Christian". "Neo-Vedanta", to me, sounds more like 'a further development of Vedanta', which is itself of course a tradition of interpretation. So a 'new interpretation', atuned to the present times, sounds (seems) logically to me.
 * Many more scholars have noticed this "evolving nature". Axel Michaels (2004) calls it "the identificatory habit". And scholars like Hiltebeitel (2003), Nicholson (2010) and Samuel (2010 (2008)) have described this ongoing development in detail.
 * As my personal understanding is developing, I'm becoming more appreciative of the efforts of man like Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan. They lived in an oppressive, colonial system, and/but used the narratives of this system on Hinduism against this system. That's almost brilliant. And they were fighting a just fight. This context should be mentioned.
 * But (sorry, here's also another side) this does not change the fact that people like Vivekananda and Radhakrishnan have also been criticized for their approach, especially for 'blurring together' a broad range of traditions. Of course, their view can be seen as a further development of Hinduism. But it can also be seen as a "veiling" of the differences within the Hindu tradition (see also Flood 1996, last chapter (sorry, I haven't got the book at hand right now; it's lying besides my bed, and my wife is sleeping; I don't want to wake her up. My apologies)), and as a 'simplification'. I suspect that this is also a reason for the strong reactions in the west: some people here want to know the details, the differences, and get frustrated about this "identificatory habitus". But that's my personal thought.
 * Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

it is not right to use the word "inauthentic" (111.92.22.12 (talk) 17:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC))

What are sources for Gandhi as Neo-Vedantin?
What are sources for Gandhi as a "Neo-Vedantin" or "Neo-Hindu"? He was profoundly involved in the day-to-day activities of improving the country - a man of action who repeatedly rejected the label of a philosopher - so to call him a "proponent" of a philosophy has a certain absurdity about it. Perhaps if done carefully such a characterization could be valid. But I notice that almost the entire Gandhi section is cited to a Dutch book by Panicker. Searches within that book show that the number of usages of the terms "Neo-Vedanta" and "Neo-Hindu" are very few and can be counted on one's fingers. Can we find any scholar who gives a careful rationale for why Gandhi should be listed as a "proponent" of a philosophy, rather than as someone whose ideas merely had certain points of overlap? (If merely overlapping was sufficient criterion, why not call Gandhi a proponent of Christianity, or a proponent of Islam, or Buddhism, or just about anything he overlapped with? These are the problems that this page invites on itself because these "Neo" terms are 99.9% etic rather than emic).

More broadly, it would be desirable to have a good solid separate section that uses WP:RS to establish a list of commonly cited major so-called "proponents", and the commonly-cited rationales for including each on this list. If such a list cannot be established, perhaps the page should be radically shortened (eliminating material about "proponents"), which might be appropriate if the term in fact lacks precision or has not been developed and employed in a manner that has generated such a minimum of scholarly consensus. --Presearch (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Reply by Joshua Jonathan. Hi Presearch. Thanks for your question. Some sources:
 * [G.R. Sharma (2003), Trends In Contemporary Indian Philosophy Of Education A Critical Evaluation, Atlantic Publishers & Dist] p.179
 * [Robin Rinehart (2004), Contemporary Hinduism: Ritual, Culture, and Practice, ABC-CLIO] (also) p.179
 * [Richard King (2013), Orientalism and Religion: Post-Colonial Theory, India and "The Mystic East" (Google eBoek), Routledge] no page-number (e-book)
 * [Jeffrey D. Long, Truth, Diversity, and the Unfinished Project of Modern Hinduism], cited in Rita DasGupta Sherma, Arvind Sharma (ed)(2008), Hermeneutics and Hindu Thought: Toward a Fusion of Horizons, Springer, p.16-17

At the other hand: Vedantist, and at p. 44 cites D.K. Bedekar, who "suggests that Gandhi attempted to escape "the unbreakable spell" of Vedanta"
 * [Margaret Chatterjee (2005), Gandhi and the Challenge of Religious Diversity: Religious Pluralism Revisited, Bibliophile South Asia] p.46 ff, also questions why Gandhi is included
 * [Nicholas F. Gier (2004), The Virtue of Nonviolence: From Gautama to Gandhi, SUNY press] p.43, calls Gandhi a

Regarding "He was profoundly involved in the day-to-day activities of improving the country - a man of action who repeatedly rejected the label of a philosopher", that is not a valid argument to exclude him. [Andrew O. Fort (1998), Jivanmukti in Transformation: Embodied Liberation in Advaita and Neo-Vedanta, SUNY Press] p.230 note 17: ''"In fact, Paul Hacker argues that Vivekananda propagates neo-Vedanta views largely for nation-building purposes, to bring pride and unify India around "Hinduism" broadly and Vedanta in particular".

Panicker's "Gandhi on Pluralism and Communalism" is an Indian book. Some info on Panicker:
 * "Rev. Dr. P. L. John Panicker is the son of Mylamoottil Puthenveettil late Mr. Lukose Panicker and Mrs Mariamma. His home Parish is All Saints Marthoma Church, Kampamcode, Kottarakkara. After securing a B. Sc. Degree from the Kerala University he did his B.D course from the Leonard Thelogical College, Jabalpur under the Serampore University. He took his M.Th from the United Theological College, Bangalore. He was awarded the Doctor of Philosophy by the Mahatma Gandhi University, Kottayam."

The "minimum of scholarly consensus" is your personal observation, I'm afraid; Ram Mohan Roy, Vivekananda, Aurobindo, Gandhi and Radhakrishnan are very often mentioned as neo-Vedantins, in WP:RS.

Best regards,  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   05:21, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
 * PS: I share your feeling that Gandhi is of a different order. I know very little about him (I saw the movie recently, and read a little bit about him), but what I know gives me the feeling that he was a truly extraordinary man, someone who inspires to follow the truth and do your best to make this world a better place.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Malhotra
I've reverted this edit, because the quote is undue, the source is unreliable, and the statements are incorrect: Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   13:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Malhotra is an activist who's publications are far removed from crdential scholarship. His publications are not WP:RS. At best his publications can be used as references for his own opinions (and even as such, they probably can't be trusted);
 * To give such a prominent place to his opinions is WP:UNDUE;
 * Malhotra does not "refute"; he gives an overview of his own reading of sources, followed by his personal vison and interpretation. As such, it may be relevant, but not a this place in the article, and not without providing a context based on reliable sources.
 * I've re-inserted it, but in a new section on Rajiv Malhotra, and shortened it.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   14:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Neo-Vedanta and modernity
I've removed part of this insertion:
 * "Some scholars argue that these modern interpretations incorporate western ideas into traditional Indian religions, especially Advaita Vedanta while others have a contrary opinion, "

"Some scholars argue that" is okay, but "while others have a contrary opinion" is not okay; does Mukerji argue that neo-Vedanta does not incorporate western ideas, or does she notice that other authors argue so? Without pagenumbers, this can't be clarified. Also, if it's only her opinion, than "others" is incorrect. And she doesn't seem to argue that neo-Vedanta does not incorporate western ides; see here for the full text. And, last point, putting this statement in the lead, without further elaboration in the article, looks more like developing an argument than summarizing info. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   11:34, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

What Mukerji criticises is the presentation of Indian ideas in western terminology:

This reads more like a criticism of neo-Advaita, doesn't it? Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   14:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Religion for a Secular Age
Thomas J. Green (2016), Religion for a Secular Age: Max Müller, Swami Vivekananda and Vedānta, Routledge, seems to be an interesting source. See p.7 on the terms "neo-Vedanta" and "neo-Hinduism," arguing that the prejadory connotations are misplaced. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!   09:16, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Neo-Vedanta. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131113092719/http://hinduism.iskcon.org/tradition/1204.htm to http://hinduism.iskcon.org/tradition/1204.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://bharatabharati.wordpress.com/2012/02/15/neo-vedanta-the-problem-with-hindu-universalism-frank-gaetano-morales/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111210001152/http://secure.pdcnet.org/ipq to http://secure.pdcnet.org/ipq

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:06, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Rethinking Neo-Vedanta
James Madaio (2017), Rethinking Neo-Vedānta: Swami Vivekananda and the Selective Historiography of Advaita Vedānta, Religions 2017, 8(6), 101; https://doi.org/10.3390/rel8060101, argues that the criticism of Neo-Vedanta neglects the fact that Vivekananda was well-educated in the medieaval development of Advaita Vedanta, which incorporated (aspects of) other traditions into the Advaita vedanta tradition. The focus on Shankara's classical AV neglects these developments; they should be described too. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk!  06:41, 24 June 2018 (UTC)