Many questions were posted in Meta, regarding purging of Mythology tag. One Moderator explained here the efforts that are being made to purge this Mythology tag.


The tag was created by some members, targeting a group of members and to demean the ideas of particular category of members, especially advaitins.

So far 18 questions were posted under this tag.

Some of the members already made comments under some questions, expressing their disagreement in using this tag and subject content in the question concerned.

  1. Do the official Shankaracharya Peethams recognize the validity of Neo-Vedanta?

Again and again and again. Same question different clothing...'Neo-Vedanta' is a term given my Western scholars as a way to denigrate ALL Hindus...There are no sects or philosophies that identify themselves as Neo-Vedantists.... – Swami Vishwananda Jan 21 '19 at 14:14

  1. Does Neo-Vedanta reject Dharma Shastras? If so, why?

Again, there are no sects or groups that identify themselves as 'neo-Vedantins'. This term was invented by Western Christian orientalists to denigrate the Hindu religion. – Swami Vishwananda Jan 16 '19 at 12:08

This is not the site to denigrate particular sect or group of people. – Pandya♦ Jan 16 '19 at 12:19

Term "Neo-Vedanta" is not recognized by Hindus. Western Orientalists coined that word to denigrate Hinduism. Better if you avoid using that. Be respectful to all sects. – The Destroyer♦ Jan 16 '19 at 13:21

  1. Is Neo-Vedanta a modern modification of Hinduism?

Neo-Vedanta is just a term coined by someone and nothing else and not followed by anyone so the question of modification does not arise. – Pinakin Dec 9 '18 at 4:41

@ChinmaySarupria What would you call those set of beliefs then? – Ikshvaku Dec 9 '18 at 15:01

Which set of beliefs? There is no one in Hinduism who tried to westernize or modernize traditional Hinduism. – Pinakin Dec 9 '18 at 15:26

@ChinmaySarupria Vivekananda tried to do it. He himself admitted that many ancient Hindu rituals, like animal sacrifice, are barbaric. – Ikshvaku Dec 9 '18 at 15:39

Yes, animal sacrifice are barbaric because people didn't knew how to do it. Swami Vivekananda's guru Sri Ramakrishna also mentioned that only certain sacrifices done with proper procedure are good as they are beneficial for that particular animal. People with half knowledge were slaughtering animals so God incarnated in the form of Buddha and stopped the barbarism to a large extent. – Pinakin Dec 9 '18 at 16:22

@ChinmaySarupria Ok, then if that's the justification he used, then that's correct. – Ikshvaku Dec 9 '18 at 16:23

There's no thing called Neo Vedanta and it is just a word coined by westerners. All your questions assume there's a sect called neo Vedanta. – The Destroyer♦ Dec 10 '18 at 6:32

What @ChinmaySarupria said it correct. There are rules laid out in Sastras how to do certain Sacrifices. If Swami Vivekananda said something about them, then it must be there in some Sastras and It could not be just to entertain western principles. – The Destroyer♦ Dec 10 '18 at 6:46

Majority of the questions with this tag were floated by a single member Ikshvaku

Please purge this tag, which is one of the reasons for unwarranted debates in this site

  • 10
    I think currently your question is lacking proof of your claim i.e. "to demean the ideas of particular category of members, especially advaitins." Could you put some light on that part? As far as I know Dayanand Saraswati himself coined the term "Neo-Vedanta" in Satyarth Prakasha.
    – TheLittleNaruto Mod
    Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 11:09
  • 1
    @TheLittleNaruto: According to this article the term "Neo-Vedanta" was coined by Paul Hacker, in a pejorative way, to distinguish modern developments from "traditional" Advaita Vedanta, but not Dayananda Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 12:11
  • 5
    In any case, this tag makes sense, because the concept is bit different than traditional Vedanta. Read this answer: hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/30071
    – TheLittleNaruto Mod
    Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 13:52
  • 1
    It's your choice to accept the tag in question. My perception is different @TheLittleNaruto Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 13:57
  • 2
    Yeah! Exactly could you please clear that in your question body. Also please read my first comment.
    – TheLittleNaruto Mod
    Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 14:01
  • 1
    @TheLittleNaruto: I don't want to expand it because it gives rise to unwarranted arguments here. The moderators knew the issue very well. Let them take a decision Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 14:07
  • 4
    Meta is a platform where every individual can keep their opinion and ask questions. And after majority of users support, then only the decision can be taken. Moderators alone can't take decision. Hope you're aware of that. That's why I am asking to update your question body with supported proofs.
    – TheLittleNaruto Mod
    Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 14:24
  • 3
    Read Page number 160 of the book satyarth prakash: aryasamajjamnagar.org/download/satyarth_prakash_eng.pdf
    – TheLittleNaruto Mod
    Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 17:39
  • 1
    @TheLittleNaruto: My post is about purging of a particular Tag, which was created by certain group of members, with mala fide intentions. As I had observed above, it is for the moderators to decide, as I had flagged the issue. I will stop here. Thanks for your participation. Commented Jul 16, 2020 at 21:51
  • 4
    No! moderators can't decide alone in this matter. You should provide supported proofs for this statement of yours: "My post is about purging of a particular Tag, which was created by certain group of members, with mala fide intentions" simply saying that without any proof won't help. Please note I am trying to help you here.
    – TheLittleNaruto Mod
    Commented Jul 17, 2020 at 4:03
  • 1
    Any efforts are being made to purge this tag --- No because someone needs to propose it first. You seem to propose to purge the tag. Then you can re-frame your question on those lines. Right now, it is not looking like you are proposing to delete the tag. @srimannarayanakv
    – Rickross
    Commented Jul 17, 2020 at 6:08
  • 1
    For example, the title can be changed to -- Purge the neo-vedanta tag. And, then provide some reasons in the body of the question as to why the tag must be destroyed. Users can then decide and vote to derive a consensus. @srimannarayanakv I have upvoted it assuming that you are proposing to delete the tag.
    – Rickross
    Commented Jul 17, 2020 at 6:11
  • 1
    Thanks for adding supported proofs. That's all I wanted you to do. :-) Now this post can get proper response from all users.
    – TheLittleNaruto Mod
    Commented Jul 17, 2020 at 14:31
  • @SrimannarayanaKV I have updated my answer
    – Rickross
    Commented Aug 30, 2020 at 8:01
  • 1
    @ThePreserver: I do not understand as to what do you want to say in the statement - the name of the user who made the edits. Can you explain? Commented Sep 15, 2020 at 8:05

3 Answers 3


Your current question is "What are the Mods doing to delete the specified tag?" OR "What steps are being taken currently to purge the specified tag?".

Now, this is not the same as proposing "Purge the specified tag".

The answer to your current question is " No actions being taken as there has been no proposal of purging the tag yet".

If you are proposing to delete the tag, then you have to modify your question accordingly.

You should also give reasons due to which the tag must be purged.

And, then it's upto us (i.e. the community of users) to decide what to do with the proposal.

People who agree with the proposal will vote up and people who disagree will vote down

In that manner a consensus will be built, based on which, the decision of whether the tag should be deleted or not will be taken.


When I posted this answer, it was perfectly valid and answering the question. But after that the question was edited, as suggested in my answer, and it made my answer irrelevant. Now, I am not sure, whether there is rule which forces me to update my answer in such a case, but since one Mod has requested me to do so, I am updating my answer making it relevant with the current version of the question.

I agree with your proposal. Because:

  1. the term is not accepted by traditional Hindus, all Hindus. As pointed out in the quoted comments, no Hindu sects identify themselves as neo-vedantists. There is no Guru Paramapara for this sect and there is no traditional teachings related to the sect. Such a sect itself is thus non existent.

  2. The term itself also is apparently created by someone who is not even a Hindu.

  3. If you notice, although the term uses Vedanta (one of the six Darshanas) in it, the target sect (or followers) is only some modern day followers of Advaita. Now, Dvatins and Vishistadvaitins also proclaim to be followers of Vedanta but the tag is primarily used on the site only to target some followers of the sect Advaita. So, changing the tag name to neo-advaita is the ideal thing to do and then see how people respond to it's use.

My conclusion is it is a redundant tag and we can perfectly live without it.

  • 1
    My question has since been updated please Commented Jul 17, 2020 at 7:22
  • Yes, that's what I meant you should do @srimannarayanakv
    – Rickross
    Commented Jul 17, 2020 at 7:23
  • 1
    Though I don't know who the mod was, who suggested for updating the answer, still I will not persist for revealing the name, since you preferred to remain silent on the issue. As far as I am concerned, my stand remains the same. The tag in question should be purged and black-listed. By the way, can you define neo-advaita? @Rickross Commented Aug 30, 2020 at 9:08
  • The Mod is Pandya. You can see his comment above asking me to update the answer. I think someone flagged my answer to be removed and that's why the Mod got involved. Neo-advaita is new age advaita the same as neo-vedanta. The word vedanta in the tag name is misleading because if you see they only talk about few followers of Advaita when they use the tag and not followers of Dvaita or that other sect. The user Ikshvaku who used the tag the most is also a follower of Vedanta but he has no problems using the tag coz he is targeting Advaitins only and not his sect followers.@SrimannarayanaKV
    – Rickross
    Commented Aug 30, 2020 at 9:13
  • @SrimannarayanaKV I also support the purging of the tag. IMO it is redundant .. there is no real need for it.
    – Rickross
    Commented Aug 30, 2020 at 9:14
  • For e.g. this answer quotes the view of Ramakrishna Paramhamsa and Vivekananda as views of neo-vedanta but if you ask the user where do they proclaim themselves to be neo-vedantists -- they can not give any answers. So, the term is vague, not needed in Hinduism, not traditionally accepted and thus the tag is redundant. So there will be NO problems if we delete it @SrimannarayanaKV
    – Rickross
    Commented Aug 30, 2020 at 9:23
  • There is a discussion about the topic in the Moderation room. You can also join if you want: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/message/…
    – Rickross
    Commented Aug 30, 2020 at 9:41

Well, though the tag was created while posting questions denigrating the beliefs of certain personalities associated with Vedanta of modern period, that tag may be useful for questions like What are the principal differences on siddhanta basics, and details, between tradional vedantists and neo-vedantists?.

I remember that this term is also used by Swami Dayananda Saraswati (founder of Arya Samaj) in his popular work Satyarth Prakash. Quoting from English Translation of Satyarth Prakash:

Beliefs of the Neo-Vedantists.

The beliefs of the Neo-Vedantists are discussed below in the form of questions and answers:

By the way, the use of tag should be restricted to the questions dealing with philosophy explicitly belonging to it and should not be used just with every questions of modern interpretation of Vedanta school.

So, I think we don't need to purge the tag, we may just need to keep the usage restriction in mind.

Thanks for your clarification. So I will await for a few days, and start implementing my own agenda, as a group of members implenting theirs own. @sv. - srimannarayana k v

This site should not be used for taking revenge or implementing personal agendas. I suggest to avoid such practice.

  • What is the guarantee that the use of the tag neo-vedanta will be restricted to the questions dealing with philosophy explicitly belonging to it , by the group of members, whose purpose is to denigrate other sects? Sorry, I don't believe your words and I am firm in my demand that the tag neo-vedanta should be purged and be blacklisted in this site. Commented Jul 26, 2020 at 8:34
  • 1
    @srimannarayanakv Guarantee comes from users of the site. :)
    – TheLittleNaruto Mod
    Commented Jul 26, 2020 at 9:12
  • Sorry. I am firm in my demand that the tag neo-vedanta should be purged and be blacklisted in this site. @TheLittleNaruto Commented Jul 26, 2020 at 9:41
  • 1
    @sriman That's good to request for some change. But for that to happen, one should get majority support, which we fail to see now.
    – TheLittleNaruto Mod
    Commented Jul 26, 2020 at 10:11
  • It's not the question of majority but the question of will power. The moderators knowing fully well that there is a justification in my request are remaining silent due to their biased nature. Let me see what I can do now Commented Jul 26, 2020 at 10:17
  • @TheLittleNaruto: 2 out of 3 moderators expressed their displeasure against the tag in question, which was already mentioned in the question content by me. Now, they're dithering. Disgusting Commented Jul 26, 2020 at 10:53
  • 1
    @sriman Again moderators are just users with some extra privileges. So they can't alone decided something.
    – TheLittleNaruto Mod
    Commented Jul 26, 2020 at 11:16
  • 2
    If you don't agree with the opinions posted in an answer the way of showing it is by downvoting it. Complaining/arguing in comments is absolutely of no use. You have not downvoted so far in meta (checked from your profile). That's not good at all. In a democracy if you decide not to vote you shud not expect to change a system. Similarly here we can not arrive at a consensus unless you vote up or down. Downvoting is not a crime.Just see how many users have downvoted your proposal. That does not mean they are hating you. They are just showing disagreement. You should do the same@srimannarayanakv
    – Rickross
    Commented Jul 26, 2020 at 13:02
  • Thanks for the suggestion @Rickross Commented Jul 26, 2020 at 13:39
  • 2
    No problem. We have earned this privilege (of downvoting) so we should use it judiciously otherwise what is the use of having it? During my early years on this site I too thought that downvoting was not ok but later realized that I was not doing a saintly task by not downvoting. And, moreover on meta downvote shows disagreement. @srimannarayanakv
    – Rickross
    Commented Jul 26, 2020 at 14:01
  • Thanks once again @Rickross Commented Jul 26, 2020 at 14:07
  • When all the posts about this tag are only related to very few followers of advaita then why to use a misleading term neo-vedanta? Vedanta is not only Advaita. Then why not change it to what it actually is i.e. neo-advaita?
    – Rickross
    Commented Aug 30, 2020 at 9:33
  • Pandya why don't you clear my "no longer needed" flags at least. That must be easy to do. I can see that you're coming online.
    – Rickross
    Commented Dec 31, 2020 at 7:44

I have used the tag/term myself on Who coined the term "neo-vedanta?" and not in the way you describe in your post ("demean...particular category of members, especially advaitins"), so, I don't support purging of this tag.

Besides, even if you delete the tag, users can still use 'Neo-Vedanta' in posts and comments, because, merely using the word doesn't break the CoC - it's the intent that matters. If someone uses the term and then follows it up with needless criticism of a sect because of the sect's liberal interpretation of scripture, then you can flag the post or comment as 'rude or abusive'.

Also, a quick survey of Prabuddha Bharata ('Awakened India'), the monthly journal of the Ramakrishna Order started by Swami Vivekananda, shows that it places no restriction on its contributors w.r.t the term's usage. E.g., in the January 2010 edition, different authors writing on the topic, 'Perspectives on Vedanta', have used 'Neo-Vedanta' (and 'Neo-Hinduism') in different ways. Some like Swami Atmapriyananda and Javier Ruiz Calderón have actually adopted and used it in a positive sense. So, I see no reason why this site should restrict users from using the term as a tag or in posts and comments.

Neo-Vedanta and the New World Order (Swami Atmapriyananda)

Three Principles of Neo-Vedanta

One of the latest acharyas to have interpreted and infused new life into Vedanta texts was Swami Vivekananda—who was naught but 'his Master's voice'. His interpretation of Vedanta is in effect a rejuvenation of the ancient texts, and is often called the 'Neo-Vedanta of Ramakrishna-Vivekananda'. We need to examine this phrase to find out what, if anything, is new in this 'Neo-Vedanta'. In order to do this, we need to ask: What exactly did Swami Vivekananda teach? He himself said: 'I have a message, and I will give it after my own fashion.' What was the message he gave?

Swami Vivekananda's message of Vedanta is based on the following foundational principles:

  1. divinity of the human being;
  2. unity of all existence, solidarity of the universe; and as a corollary to these
  3. the essential spirituality of life.


What Is New in Neo-Vedanta?

Although the term 'neo-Vedanta' has gained currency, there are not scholars wanting who question the use of the prefix 'neo-' before Vedanta. Their point of view is that 'neo-' smacks of a departure from the Vedanta tradition per se, a tradition handed down over the millennia via an army of illumined acharyas. They argue that it is perhaps better to say that Sri Ramakrishna and Swami Vivekananda reinterpreted, rejuvenated, and revitalized the eternal message of Vedanta, making it a living force in the modern world. The adoption of the prefix 'neo-' is perhaps misleading, for it would mean that Ramakrishna-Vivekananda added something new to the eternal Vedanta. The question now is: Is it true that they did? And if so, can this claim be justified?


Advaita Vedanta and Philosophy of Religion (Javier Ruiz Calderón)

From this critical religiosity, there is not only one true religion, but many true religious traditions in the pragmatic sense that they can lead humans to holiness. For each one, her or his own tradition and the symbols it includes are the best; but one must not think dogmatically that what is best for me is best for everyone. In fact, we should not only tolerate other traditions but we should be open to learning from them.

In this respect, Hinduism has been a pioneering tradition. Sri Ramakrishna experienced in himself that the different ideas of the Divine are different names for the same experience and that all spiritual paths lead to the same goal. And Swami Vivekananda proclaimed this message to the world, boldly stating in the 1893 World's Parliament of Religions held at Chicago that all religions are true. I believe that this humanistic and universalist neo-Hinduism or neo-Vedanta has become, despite the opposition of the more conservative, orthodox, and dogmatic sections of Hinduism, the most pluralistic, dialogic, and open religious tradition, and fortunately this attitude is also gradually entering into other religions.

Advaita Vedanta: Its Vision and Possibilities (Swami Satyamayananda)

The religion of Vedanta in all its philosophical phases, called Hinduism, has moulded every aspect of Indian life—its spirituality, ethos, language, culture, and so on. Vedanta is not a closed philosophical system, and so great sages and saints come, verify, and push Vedanta to newer grounds. The fundamentals are sacrosanct but its approaches and applications are reinterpreted accordingly to new circumstances and expansion of secular or relative knowledge. The latest to do that is Swamiji. He saw Advaita Vedanta as a panacea for all individual and social problems and preached it as such. There is a tendency in some scholars to call it neo-Vedanta but it is not really so. Swamiji made Vedanta practical.

Swami Vivekananda on Advaita Vedanta (Jeffery D Long)


Over the course of the last few decades, academic scholarship on Advaita Vedanta has had a tendency to affirm a sharp distinction between 'classical Advaita', essentially the Advaita taught by Acharya Shankara, and 'neo-Advaita' or 'neo-Vedanta', which is either traced to Swamiji or to the reformers of the Brahmo Samaj who influenced him in his early years. Often, this divide and the prefix 'neo' in front of 'Advaita' or 'Vedanta' is taken to imply some inauthenticity, as if the Vedanta of the modern period is not the 'real' Vedanta. The assumption is that the only 'real' Advaita Vedanta is that of Acharya Shankara.


The term 'neo-Vedanta' was coined by a Roman Catholic Indologist named Paul Hacker (1913–79). Hacker, as James Madaio states, 'influentially argued that Neo-Vedanta was a nationalistic movement dependent on the "assimilation" of Western ideals. The category "Neo-Vedanta", in that way, entered mainstream academic discourse as a pejorative term—indiscriminately used in reference to a number of different Hindu thinkers who held variant theological views—and connoting a sense of inauthenticity because "continuity with the past has been broken".'

Hacker's dichotomy between 'neo' and 'authentic' Vedanta depends on viewing Acharya Shankara's expression of Advaita Vedanta as definitive of authentic Vedanta, thus rendering all other thinkers' expressions of this philosophy inauthentic. If a scholar were to make an analogous move with regard to Hacker's own Roman Catholic tradition, it would render all Roman Catholic thought since Thomas Aquinas 'neoCatholicism.' Catholic thinkers of the modern period, like Hans Urs von Balthasar and Karl Rahner, not to mention Paul Hacker himself, would thereby become 'neo-Catholic'.

  • What the editorial board of Prabuddha Bharata think is their problem. I am talking about this site, where I am a member in. Thanks for expressing your opinion. Commented Jul 22, 2020 at 23:59
  • Shall I infer from your answer that members of this site can create tags of their choice and start posting questions and answers, demeaning the sentiments of other sects? Shall I start my own agenda, as a group of members implenting theirs own? @sv. Commented Jul 23, 2020 at 0:44
  • 1
    I think you are mixing the two. 'demeaning the sentiments of other sects' - CoC doesn't allow this. 'create tags of their choice' - Anyone can create tags as long as it's relevant to the topic of the post. As I've explained, you won't achieve anything simply by purging a controversial tag as users can continue using the term freely elsewhere (comments, questions and answers). CoC violations need to be addressed separately, not by purging tags. Both are separate things. @srimannarayanakv Commented Jul 23, 2020 at 1:18
  • Thanks for your clarification. So I will await for a few days, and start implementing my own agenda, as a group of members implenting theirs own. @sv. Commented Jul 23, 2020 at 1:28
  • 1. I have used the tag myself -- hence it shouldn't be deleted. 2. Even if the tag is deleted users can still use the term in comments and posts --- hence it shouldn't be deleted. 3. Some magazine does not have any problems with using the term --- hence it shouldn't be deleted. Sorry none of the arguments are working with me.@sv.
    – Rickross
    Commented Jul 26, 2020 at 13:21
  • 2
    @Rickross I'm surprised you read thru the whole answer before downvoting. 'Some magazine' - lol, it was started by Vivekananda himself. I find it funny when his disciples don't have a problem with the term, this site's users are overly concerned. Commented Jul 27, 2020 at 0:18
  • I have not gone thru the entire answer as always. Have not read the biggish blockquote that forms the larger part of the answer. I am also amazed to see the kind of respect you have got for Vivekananda, his disciples and the journal that he has started Lol .. hope you have the same amount of respect for everything he did or said. @sv.
    – Rickross
    Commented Jul 27, 2020 at 6:13
  • 2
    'amazed to see the kind of respect you have got for Vivekananda' - lol, why do I need to respect Vivekananda and his disciples on everything they did/said and where did you get the idea that I'm a blind follower of Vivekananda?! I'm only saying when some of Vivekananda's disciples don't care about the term, why are the so-called followers/defenders of Vivekananda on this site are overly concerned about it. The citations from 'Prabuddha Bharata' are only meant to highlight this. Nothing more. @Rickross Commented Jul 28, 2020 at 0:17
  • 1
    I'm only saying when some of Vivekananda's disciples don't care about the term -- what difference does it make? If some disciples of Vivekananda did not have problem with something how can we assume that all users of this site won't have problems with it? Just like you don't blindly follow Vivekananda, everyone else can have a similar stance. Many users may not have any faith on Vivekananda even. So, how does "Vivekananda's journal does not object using the term" becomes an argument of any value when it comes to deciding whether the tag shud be deleted or not on this site. @sv.
    – Rickross
    Commented Jul 28, 2020 at 6:38
  • 2
    "how does Vivekananda's journal does not object using the term becomes an argument of any value" - it is of value for those claiming to represent Vivekananda and his followers. OP cited several comments of those that appear to follow Vivekananda and are hurt whenever they see this term. The references from the journal are relevant because they represent different followers of Vivekananda more accurately than the few 'hurt' users of this site. @Rickross Commented Jul 29, 2020 at 0:25
  • 1
    "how can we assume that all users of this site won't have problems with it?" - when did I say some users are not hurt or shouldn't be hurt by the use of 'neo-vedanta'? As the votes here show not everyone is hurt by the word. As I explained, removing the tag doesn't achieve much because it seems like OP wants to ban the usage of the word altogether on the site. This line of thinking usually ends with asking for the impossible: also remove the word from the dictionary, vocabulary, Wikipedia, Internet, etc. @Rickross Commented Jul 29, 2020 at 0:33
  • 1
    Same as 'mythology', removing the tag doesn't stop users from using the word in title, comments and posts. It's not a curse word to ban site-wide. @Rickross Commented Jul 29, 2020 at 0:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .