Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
Namaste & Greetings,
Dear Druid members of RF, this thread is to offer valid concerns that I, as an adherent of the Rig Vedic theological school of Shākalya Shākhā (a Rig Vedic school that is thousands of years old), have with something that I came across while venturing through articles about "Vedicism" (a misnomer in and of itself).
Articles of concern:
I attempted to send a similar concern-like rebuttal to A Druid Fellowship, but their email option would most likely have not resulted in a reply, nor did I felt it right to join their forums through paying a membership fee. Thus, instead, I thought it would be wonderful to make a thread here on RF where many experienced Neo-Pagans, Pagans, and Polytheistic-Reconstructionists are present expressing a concern with misappropriation by non-Vedic personas who seem to be attempting to "reconstruct" a "purified" form of the "early Rig Vedic Religion".
My first concern is an underlying tone, almost of rebuff and disregard, that I have noticed with many similar "pure Vedic" articles that are found on Neo-Pagan websites. The reason, it seems, is that they believe that Hinduism has become degraded from the "polytheistic Vedic religion" and they would like to reconstruct this once polytheistic religion of the Veda-s. However, there is nothing to reconstruct. Hinduism is not a monotheistic religion. It is a conglomeration of a myriad theological schools of thought that are derived from the Vedas. A few of these theological schools of thought are known as the Shrauta schools.
In other words, there is nothing more Vedic than the Shrauta schools, which have survived for thousands of years without any form of "reconstructing". In fact, the Nambudiri Brahmins of South India have kept alive the tradition of the Agnistoma for several thousand years, with such precision that it can be easily counted as one of the oldest continued rituals of the world. One can't get anymore "pure Vedic" than a Shrauta school.
I understand that the adoptee of the "Why Vedicism?" article wants to make "Vedicism" polytheistic once again, but it has always been polytheistic to begin with. More importantly, I feel as if the author of the article is integrating an Indic religion into the Indological "Indo-European" sphere to only dissect the Indic-ness of the Veda-s. This is proved by many of the author's statements in the "Why Vedicism?" article. But, I, as a polytheistic Vedicist myself who has been ordained and given Dikshā by Shākalya Shākhā Rig Vedic Gurus, am bound by the Law of Shruti (the most ancient Vedic Law [there really isn't anything more "pure Vedic" than the Law of Shruti]) to express that the Rig Veda and the other Vedas are not only polytheistic, but also monotheistic, pantheistic, and monist. This is because the theology (which I believe the author should apply instead of "create" his or her own, hence the misappropriation) of the Vedas allows the hymns/Sukta-s to be given the adequate power the reciter of the hymns wishes. If a certain Deity in a certain Vedic hymn is to be invoked, it is in that hymn that the Deity can be applied as Supreme. Instead of the author saying that the Vedas were polytheistic only to be "degraded" into kathenotheist, it would be well to remember that the term "kathenotheist" incorporates polytheism to begin with. "Kathenotheism" has been the theology of the Vedas since time immemorial.
The following are a few selected quotes from the above articles that I would like to address since they are incorrect:
The author of this article fails to understand that to be "purely Vedic" would entail no sculptures...no images nor Murtis...just a Mandap/fire altar. This post by the author of that article is ironic because the author seems to be trying to "reconstruct" the "pure Vedic religion of 2000-1500BCE India", but instead opts to making a sculpture, an asset of the very Hinduism many like-minded decry as "degradation".
The same author forgets that to be "pure Vedic" one cannot make a "Brahmin's thread" by one's own hand and wear it; it's very ironic and misappropriating because while the author is trying to "reconstruct" "pure Vedicism", the author is disregarding Vedic rules that have been in existence in the Indian Subcontinent since the advent of the Vedic theological schools. The "thread" is to be appointed by a Brahmin of a theological school, not to be self created; self creating the "thread" would go against the very "purity" the author is trying to "reconstruct".
This is even more ironic: in attempt to trying to "reconstruct" "pure Vedicism" [which by the way still exists in India], the Yagya is being added music??? This would go against every traditional Rig Vedic school that has ever existed and still continues to exist. Can you imagine me trying to do the Tandava Dance while people playing the harp in honor of Zeus?
In order to be "pure Vedic", the mantras cannot be uttered in English. I'm sorry. But, that's outright insane. They have to be uttered in the Vedic accent in ārshā bhāshā as per the very Vedas that the author wishes to "reconstruct" into "pure Vedicsim". As per the Law of Shruti, the very law that the author wishes to "reconstruct" when it still exists in Shrauta schools across India, these incantations would be voided asap. In fact, they would do more damage than good.
So, instead of abiding by the Vedic Shrauta literature, the author is trying to create a ritual and pass it off as "pure Vedicism". How appropriate.
"An Indo-European Deity?" Sure, I will grant that as per linguistics. But, as per linguistics, Durga and Kali are also Indo-European. But, since they are not "Vedic", the author authorizes what is Indic and what is not Indic. But, fails to give credit where it is due: that Ratri, as universal as this Mother of Night is, has her origins in the early Indic religion of the Subcontinent, not solidified in Europe.
There are many Vedic theologies. Like, my Rig Vedic school of thought is polytheistic, while in another area of India it will be monotheist or pantheist or monist. Instead of taking a purely Indological stance and conjecturing it into something spiritual, it would suit the author of that article to honor the very Vedas he/she adores and take a trip to these schools, regardless if he/she views them as "degraded" and un-pure, when in reality they are not.
Stuff like this is the reason why orthodox Vedicists of India and abroad find it hard to come to a similar platform of understanding and brotherhood with Neo-Pagan communities like A Druid Fellowship when our very Indic theologies of the Vedas are misappropriated and as an addition the other Indic theologies of modern day India are either ridiculed or referred to as degraded, when in fact, the very "reconstructionism" the author(s) of those articles are engaging in is anything but "pure Vedicism". I hope we can come to a common understanding, and please spread this post to other neo-pagan communities so they may take into gentle consideration the concerns orthodox Vedicist polytheists like me have with misappropriation by non-Vedicists that are trying to reconstruct a vivid religion that still exists.
ps - This is "pure Vedicism":
[youtube]2mYu_Ckh_K8[/youtube]
Dear Druid members of RF, this thread is to offer valid concerns that I, as an adherent of the Rig Vedic theological school of Shākalya Shākhā (a Rig Vedic school that is thousands of years old), have with something that I came across while venturing through articles about "Vedicism" (a misnomer in and of itself).
Articles of concern:
- https://www.adf.org/rituals/vedic/why-vedism.html
- https://www.adf.org/rituals/vedic/agnihotr.html
- https://www.adf.org/rituals/vedic/goodnight-sweet-child.html
- https://www.adf.org/articles/gods-and-spirits/vedic/ratri.html
I attempted to send a similar concern-like rebuttal to A Druid Fellowship, but their email option would most likely have not resulted in a reply, nor did I felt it right to join their forums through paying a membership fee. Thus, instead, I thought it would be wonderful to make a thread here on RF where many experienced Neo-Pagans, Pagans, and Polytheistic-Reconstructionists are present expressing a concern with misappropriation by non-Vedic personas who seem to be attempting to "reconstruct" a "purified" form of the "early Rig Vedic Religion".
My first concern is an underlying tone, almost of rebuff and disregard, that I have noticed with many similar "pure Vedic" articles that are found on Neo-Pagan websites. The reason, it seems, is that they believe that Hinduism has become degraded from the "polytheistic Vedic religion" and they would like to reconstruct this once polytheistic religion of the Veda-s. However, there is nothing to reconstruct. Hinduism is not a monotheistic religion. It is a conglomeration of a myriad theological schools of thought that are derived from the Vedas. A few of these theological schools of thought are known as the Shrauta schools.
In other words, there is nothing more Vedic than the Shrauta schools, which have survived for thousands of years without any form of "reconstructing". In fact, the Nambudiri Brahmins of South India have kept alive the tradition of the Agnistoma for several thousand years, with such precision that it can be easily counted as one of the oldest continued rituals of the world. One can't get anymore "pure Vedic" than a Shrauta school.
I understand that the adoptee of the "Why Vedicism?" article wants to make "Vedicism" polytheistic once again, but it has always been polytheistic to begin with. More importantly, I feel as if the author of the article is integrating an Indic religion into the Indological "Indo-European" sphere to only dissect the Indic-ness of the Veda-s. This is proved by many of the author's statements in the "Why Vedicism?" article. But, I, as a polytheistic Vedicist myself who has been ordained and given Dikshā by Shākalya Shākhā Rig Vedic Gurus, am bound by the Law of Shruti (the most ancient Vedic Law [there really isn't anything more "pure Vedic" than the Law of Shruti]) to express that the Rig Veda and the other Vedas are not only polytheistic, but also monotheistic, pantheistic, and monist. This is because the theology (which I believe the author should apply instead of "create" his or her own, hence the misappropriation) of the Vedas allows the hymns/Sukta-s to be given the adequate power the reciter of the hymns wishes. If a certain Deity in a certain Vedic hymn is to be invoked, it is in that hymn that the Deity can be applied as Supreme. Instead of the author saying that the Vedas were polytheistic only to be "degraded" into kathenotheist, it would be well to remember that the term "kathenotheist" incorporates polytheism to begin with. "Kathenotheism" has been the theology of the Vedas since time immemorial.
The following are a few selected quotes from the above articles that I would like to address since they are incorrect:
The author of this article fails to understand that to be "purely Vedic" would entail no sculptures...no images nor Murtis...just a Mandap/fire altar. This post by the author of that article is ironic because the author seems to be trying to "reconstruct" the "pure Vedic religion of 2000-1500BCE India", but instead opts to making a sculpture, an asset of the very Hinduism many like-minded decry as "degradation".
The same author forgets that to be "pure Vedic" one cannot make a "Brahmin's thread" by one's own hand and wear it; it's very ironic and misappropriating because while the author is trying to "reconstruct" "pure Vedicism", the author is disregarding Vedic rules that have been in existence in the Indian Subcontinent since the advent of the Vedic theological schools. The "thread" is to be appointed by a Brahmin of a theological school, not to be self created; self creating the "thread" would go against the very "purity" the author is trying to "reconstruct".
This is even more ironic: in attempt to trying to "reconstruct" "pure Vedicism" [which by the way still exists in India], the Yagya is being added music??? This would go against every traditional Rig Vedic school that has ever existed and still continues to exist. Can you imagine me trying to do the Tandava Dance while people playing the harp in honor of Zeus?
In order to be "pure Vedic", the mantras cannot be uttered in English. I'm sorry. But, that's outright insane. They have to be uttered in the Vedic accent in ārshā bhāshā as per the very Vedas that the author wishes to "reconstruct" into "pure Vedicsim". As per the Law of Shruti, the very law that the author wishes to "reconstruct" when it still exists in Shrauta schools across India, these incantations would be voided asap. In fact, they would do more damage than good.
So, instead of abiding by the Vedic Shrauta literature, the author is trying to create a ritual and pass it off as "pure Vedicism". How appropriate.
"An Indo-European Deity?" Sure, I will grant that as per linguistics. But, as per linguistics, Durga and Kali are also Indo-European. But, since they are not "Vedic", the author authorizes what is Indic and what is not Indic. But, fails to give credit where it is due: that Ratri, as universal as this Mother of Night is, has her origins in the early Indic religion of the Subcontinent, not solidified in Europe.
There are many Vedic theologies. Like, my Rig Vedic school of thought is polytheistic, while in another area of India it will be monotheist or pantheist or monist. Instead of taking a purely Indological stance and conjecturing it into something spiritual, it would suit the author of that article to honor the very Vedas he/she adores and take a trip to these schools, regardless if he/she views them as "degraded" and un-pure, when in reality they are not.
Stuff like this is the reason why orthodox Vedicists of India and abroad find it hard to come to a similar platform of understanding and brotherhood with Neo-Pagan communities like A Druid Fellowship when our very Indic theologies of the Vedas are misappropriated and as an addition the other Indic theologies of modern day India are either ridiculed or referred to as degraded, when in fact, the very "reconstructionism" the author(s) of those articles are engaging in is anything but "pure Vedicism". I hope we can come to a common understanding, and please spread this post to other neo-pagan communities so they may take into gentle consideration the concerns orthodox Vedicist polytheists like me have with misappropriation by non-Vedicists that are trying to reconstruct a vivid religion that still exists.
ps - This is "pure Vedicism":
[youtube]2mYu_Ckh_K8[/youtube]
Last edited:
