Hindus are all pagans

[Quintessence]

Get in here, this is the Hindu DIR. It's a lot more... easygoing.

Okay, since a staff member has given a green light...

It probably goes without saying that the comparison hinges on how the two terms are defined. It's not my place to speak to defining Hinduism, but I can speak to defining Paganism. Defining Paganism is something every contemporary Pagan struggles with at some point. I came up with a description based on reading academics' take on the subject, so I'll just copy & paste part of that file I wrote down here:

When defining religions, we need to bear in mind that the process of capturing a vast territory with a single word can obscure underlying depth and breadth. I use a single word - Paganism - to describe a group of religious practices that vary significantly beneath that broad label. The list below represents an overview of qualities and characteristics typically seen in Pagan religions. They degree of weight given to each will vary, but each is present to some degree. Each of these will be explained in more detail further on.

• Locality-oriented. Pagan practices are an expression of the surrounding local environment.
• Nature-centered. Pagans conceive of the sacred in a way that is inexorably tied to the natural world.
• Pluralistic. Pagans are tolerant of diverse god-concepts as they themselves have diverse god-concepts.
• Immanent. Pagans see the divine as primarily manifest within the world rather than separate from it.
• Experiential. Pagan practices are rooted in experience and living mythology rather than dogma.
• Hedonistic. Pagans accept self-satisfaction, worldliness, and pleasure as essential human experiences.

Pagan religions, unlike the other world religions, rarely have a founder. Instead, they are stories and practices that emerge from a relationship with the world (both this-world and the otherworlds). Because Paganism is rooted in the here and now, it adapts itself readily to change and is often syncretic. The idea of exclusivism, or that there is only one true path or religion, is foreign to Paganism. Similarly, dualism is either absent or weak in Pagan religions, whether it be the good-vs-evil dualism or spirit-matter dualism.

As stated in the excerpt, I wrote more detail on these later on in the essay, but this probably can serve as a starting point. How well does Hinduism fit this basic description?

I've tended to use Hinduism as an example of Paganism (in fact I mention it by name as an example in a paragraph preceding this excerpt), but it'd be interesting to get their perspectives on this. It's my feeling that if a religious group has it's own name for itself, I will use that before I call it Paganism; but in my head at least I still may regard the path as falling under that umbrella.

 

[Pleroma]

As stated in the excerpt, I wrote more detail on these later on in the essay, but this probably can serve as a starting point. How well does Hinduism fit this basic description?

Hinduism does fit with that basic description, word to word. One of the basic features of Hinduism and Paganism is that they don't like proselytising people.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

The fallacy of a false balance:

The balance fallacy, also known as false balance,[2] occurs when two sides of an argument are assumed to have equal value regardless of their respective merits.

Balance fallacy - RationalWiki

Quoting a fallacy out of context is a fallacy. We can trade fallacy links like broadsides all day, won't do anything. There's a name for every rhetorical device some half-baked logician doesn't like - and more often than not, like this case, they're misapplied.

Christianity is not as divided as Hinduism is, because Christians do have universal tenets and doctrines like Jesus is Christ, the son of god and lord and saviour; that Christianity was founded by Jesus Christ and the Bible is the word of God and supreme authority and the authority of the Church. Christianity consists of various sects, which have their own Churches and which are separated on minor political agreements and disagreements, for example the Protestants do not accept the authority of the Pope.

Again, you are missing the point rather epically. Christianity may be doctrinally more similar in its various forms than Hinduism is in its, but Christian sects are more divided against one another than Hindu sects. It is the attitude of division or unity that differs, as you are exemplar of an attitude of division, Hindus in general are perhaps the world's foremost flagbearers of unity in a religious sense, despite doctrinal differences. This is why we are happy living under the umbrella of "Hinduism," whereas Jews, Muslims and Christians couldn't possibly, and don't, abide under Abrahamism, despite their singular god and use of the same source text. They can't even abide under their own sub-umbrella of Christianity, etc.. How many different sects are there? What manner of ridiculous things have they argued, and spilled blood, over? How many of them think the others are not "True Christians" or "True Muslims," and thus going to hell, with only their sect, or a few closely allied ones, having the privilege of heaven?

Thinking someone else is going to hell, or a group of others, is a powerful poison in one's dealings with them.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I came up with a description based on reading academics' take on the subject, so I'll just copy & paste part of that file I wrote down here:

I really, really like your definitions here. Shows both a broad mind and penetrating insight.

However, I don't like the word paganism itself. I feel like it's something people have tried to reclaim as how black people in America have tried to reclaim '******' - with less-than-spectacular results.

Paganism is, to me, a smear-word applied by Christians - analogous to the Islamic appellation: kafir. We might refer to ourselves as that out of a sense of rebellion/resistance, or to reclaim it, but I don't think we had claim to this word to begin with, and should instead use more local words. For example, the Norse Asatru is perhaps more appropriate, though claimed by various ... socially-undesirable groups.

I would wholeheartedly agree with all of your definitions, but see the want - and need - for another word to be used as the label as an umbrella comprising the variety of local, or newly emergent, personal, syncretic and ecclectic belief systems that nonetheless share all or most of these attributes.

I'd also be very interested in reading your entire essay/book.

How well does Hinduism fit this basic description?

Very well. It's as if you've captured its essence, with the possible exception of hedonistic - this is where you'll find sectarian divisions, with some sects completely rejecting involvement in the material world and the gross senses, and others embracing it like the arms of god, observing that drawing a distinction between the material world and the transcendental world is itself a bondage to the material world.

I've tended to use Hinduism as an example of Paganism (in fact I mention it by name as an example in a paragraph preceding this excerpt), but it'd be interesting to get their perspectives on this. It's my feeling that if a religious group has it's own name for itself, I will use that before I call it Paganism; but in my head at least I still may regard the path as falling under that umbrella.

We're pagans as defined by Christians, or as defined by you - and I love your definition - but I would not use the word myself for the reasons outlined above.

 

[Pleroma]

The Christians are more divided than Hindus. All Hindus unanimously accept Vedas and the Upanishads as the highest authority and yoga provides a means to testify its claims. Which religion in this 21st century world provide testable methods to testify its claims.

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is none more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory in itself, than this thing called Christianity. Too absurd for belief, too impossible to convince, and too inconsistent for practice, it renders the heart torpid, or produces only atheists and fanatics."

- Thomas Paine

The only thing that the current orthodox religions of the world seem to be producing is atheists and fanatics and religion does need a revival. The world has rather become a scary place to live with atheists showing intolerance towards religions and comparing God with Flying Spaghetti Monsters and Unicorns, I'm sure Christianity is not the only one to blame for this.

 

[Surya Deva]

Locality-oriented. Pagan practices are an expression of the surrounding local environment.

This is not true if we take the actual Sanskrit name for Hinduism Santana Dharma, which was coined by Swami Vivekananda and accepted by many Hindu thinkers, recognizing that the foreign term was problematic and did not accurately represent Hindu thought. Santana dharma is the opposite of local, it means the the religion of the eternal/universal laws and principles. This notion of eternal laws and principles actually is as old as the Rig Veda, where we find the idea of "Rta" meaning cosmic laws and principles that govern life and the world. This "Rta" then becomes 'dharma'

The idea is no different to the modern ideas of laws of nature and laws of nature are universal and not locally bound. So Hinduism is not a locally orientated religion.

Nature-centered. Pagans conceive of the sacred in a way that is inexorably tied to the natural world.

It really depends by what you mean by natural world. Yes, there is a strong attitude in Hinduism that everything is essentially divine and there is very strong reverence for nature, for Hinduism begins as a nature worshiping religion(like other IE cultures) However, by the time of the Upanishads(Vedanta) Gnostic theories develop like the theory of Maya, which sort of gives nature an inferior ontological status, by regarding it as illusory or something to be conquered or transcended in favour of the true reality of Brahman. Hence we see in thought of Yoga, Buddhism and Jainism a strong aversion to nature as something to be tamed/controlled or negated. The attitude is quite similar to how Gnostics consider the Demiurge to be evil. In reaction to this anti-natural attitude of Hindu Gnostic thought, the tradition of Tantra develops in the late middle ages which is pro-natural, consider mother nature as a deity of worship, another aspect of the Shiva consciousness, and all her children must first worship the mother to win to get to the Father as Shiva. In Tantra thought the body itself becomes an object of worship and the divine mother Shakti is seen to reside in the body in the form of Kundalini.

So Hinduism being nature-centric is inconclusive. It's 50/50.

Pluralistic. Pagans are tolerant of diverse god-concepts as they themselves have diverse god-concepts.

Religious pluralism is basically a postmodern attitude which has been falsely attributed to Hinduism. The history of Hinduism shows that none of the various schools and traditions that formed it were pluralistic, they each considered their way to be right way. Thus the history of Hinduism is one characterized by intense debate between these schools, much verbal violence and very occasional and sporadic physical violence.

Therefore I would say no, Hinduism is not pluralistic.

Immanent. Pagans see the divine as primarily manifest within the world rather than separate from it.

This really depends on which school of thought in Hinduism you look at it: Hindu Dualists, who in number are majority, think God, souls and the word are all onto logically separate from one another. They do not subscribe to pantheistic theology that God is everything. Instead they subscribe to Abrahamic-like theology, that everything belongs to God, God creates everything and God is the supreme soverign and ruler of this world and all happens by his will.

Hindu non-dualists consider this entire reality to be an emanation from one absolute reality of pure consciousness. However, the emanated aspect is sort of like a bad and fuzzy hologram, an illusion of the essential reality of pure consciousness. But it would not be accurate to call this 'God' Non-dualists do not really believe in God. Non-dualists are monistic idealist atheists.

So I would say no there is no God that is immanent.

Experiential. Pagan practices are rooted in experience and living mythology rather than dogma.

It really depends how you define experiential. Hinduism is very strongly rooted in the idea that we experience the absolute reality either as God or as pure absolute reality or as self-realization. However, it is unlike Paganism in that we must "live mythology" Actually, that sounds pretty confusing, what does it mean by "living mythology" ?

Hedonistic. Pagans accept self-satisfaction, worldliness, and pleasure as essential human experiences.

On this point Hinduism is radically opposite. All schools of Hinduism, with possibly the exception of Tantra consider sense-pleasure to be sinful, wrong or inferior. Sense pleasures defile and pollute our mind/soul, preventing us from realizing God or realizing the absolute reality. Although Hinduism recognizes sense pleasure(kama) as a legitimate pursuit of life, it sees sense pleasure as an obstacle to liberation(moksha) Like all other Dharmic religions, desire/pleasure etc are seen as hindrances which one must overcome.
Tantra, is slightly different because it recognizes the importance of ritual indulgence in sense-pleasures like sex, alcohol, but only as a means to ultimately transcend it altogether.

Pagan hedonism has more in common with a heretical atheist Indian tradition called Charvaka, also known as Lokyata, literally meaning the philosophy of wordly people. They were very unpopular with Dharmic religions.

In summary given your definition of paganism, Hinduism is not paganism.

I am also quite skeptical of paganism in modern times. I understand that pagan religions like Druidism, Wicca etc are reconstructions and modern reinterpretations and adaptions of old pagan religions. I have many Pagan friends and the kind of beliefs they have tend to be a combination of some pagan myths, modern Western occultism, new-age and dharmic beliefs like law of karma and reincarnation. So it would not surprise me that there are certain common characteristics with Dharmic religions like Hinduism. Are there any authentic Pagan traditions which go back to old pagan religions?

 

[Jainarayan]

Now you can probably appreciate what I mean about how divided Hinduism is, how Hindus will actually tell people stuff like in the above quote and pass it off as Hindu belief. Such views, unfortunately are held by many Hindu nationalists, among whom "Mein Kampf" Hitelr's book is a bestseller and considered a classic.

I don't think it's an indictment of Hindu belief as a whole, but only the beliefs of one individual. The same thing occurs in any group. Hindu nationalists are no different than the right wing Christian fundamentalist groups in the US. They don't represent all of Christianity or the US, but they have the loudest voices.

It's simply not feasible to bring everyone's thoughts in line with one doctrine. That's bordering on George Orwell's 1984. Or the 1500 years attempt of the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Hinduism is absolutely nature-centric, our original gods - the gods of the Vedas - are God's partitite manifestations in nature - the sky is deified, the earth is deified, the various herbs and and plantlife are deified, the animals are deified - especially as aspects of human instinctual experience - a rather totemistic view, as well as more psychological and sociological abstracts being deified, which when all together resolved in a nondual alchemy - the mandala/yantra, brings realization of that which is unmanifest, beyond nature, yet one with nature in the most intimate way. This is the meaning of the sun, the moon, and the fire. Surya, soma, agni as Tryambakam Rudra.

As far as locality, the embodied being is herself seen as the microcosm of the external environment - local and cosmic, and the rites for him are most fundamentally antaryajna - the inward sacrifice and pilgrimage. And even the external rites are very, very closely associated with the surrounding environment, its sanctity, and its continued abundance.

Living mythology means actual, personal experience of the divine as various aspects of nature and the psyche, empowered as partially or fully conscious representatives which the practitioner unifies, or communions, with.

Even Hindu dualism is far less dualistic than what is meant by dualism in the Western sense, which I understood that definition to be involving.

I understand your personal bone you've unburied to chew on is the "falsity of pluralism," but the worship of different gods and different doctrines has coexisted not only peacefully, but synergistically, with a great deal of cross-pollenization, in Bharat for thousands of years.

 

[Surya Deva]

Quoting a fallacy out of context is a fallacy. We can trade fallacy links like broadsides all day, won't do anything. There's a name for every rhetorical device some half-baked logician doesn't like - and more often than not, like this case, they're misapplied.

Nah, you were using the fallacy of false balance, just as you were using the fallacy of no true scotsman earlier on. I am not going to debate this with you in this thread. Your statement was a fallacy of false balance because you automatically assume that Hinduism and Christianity is equally as divided and equally comparable to one another, without actually accessing them individually. From the link

Avoiding the balance fallacy requires objective criteria for assessing arguments, and cannot rely on just giving all arguments equal exposure for the sake of fairness. Arguments must be assessed using criteria such as formal logic, scholarly consensus and empirical evidence to see if a legitimate controversy exists between two viewpoints.

'Christianity' refers to the religion founded by Jesus Christ and it has hundreds of sects and sub-sects, but which all are based on the holy bible and the central doctrine that Jesus is the Son of God and is the lord and saviour. Hinduism refers to a collection of religions in India, which are loosely based on the Vedas(or in the case of tribal/folk Hinduism not based on the Vedas) where the authority of the Vedas is not binding and there are no central doctrines.

This is why we are happy living under the umbrella of "Hinduism,"

Yes, very much like your previous example of the kindness, love and compassion in obscure vilages in India I am too rational to allow people to white-wash issues for me. Are Hindu untouchables living happily together with the rest of the castes? Are Hindu widows living happily together? Are the Vaishnava and Shaiva ahkaras(who slaughtered each other in mass numbers several times) living happily together?

This is going to turn into a debate. If you want to debate this with me please start a thread in the debate forum or continue it in the "The fallacy of Hinduism" thread.

 

[Pleroma]

All Hindus are Pagans but not all Pagans are Hindus.

 

[Surya Deva]

Hinduism is absolutely nature-centric, our original gods - the gods of the Vedas - are God's partitite manifestations in nature - the sky is deified, the earth is deified, the various herbs and and plantlife are deified, the animals are deified - especially as aspects of human instinctual experience - a rather totemistic view, as well as more psychological and sociological abstracts being deified, which when all together resolved in a nondual alchemy - the mandala/yantra, brings realization of that which is unmanifest, beyond nature, yet one with nature in the most intimate way. This is the meaning of the sun, the moon, and the fire. Surya, soma, agni as Tryambakam Rudra.

This is a modern theological post-hoc reading of the Vedas and not supported by the actual scholarship. The original Vedic people were polytheistic, they worshiped many nature gods with sacrifices, including animal and even human sacrifice, to appease them and win material benefits from them like cattle, rain, sons, like virtually all primitive cultures in the world.

 

[Pleroma]

This is a modern theological post-hoc reading of the Vedas and not supported by the actual scholarship. The original Vedic people were polytheistic, they worshiped many nature gods with sacrifices, including animal and even human sacrifice, to appease them and win material benefits from them like cattle, rain, sons, like virtually all primitive cultures in the world.

And how many times I have to tell you that the western scholarly consensus is wrong about the Vedas and the Upanishads. Your western scholars cannot beat our traditional scholars because the methodology to study the Vedas is not linguistic or based on historical sciences. The western scholarly consensus is wrong and that's the main reason why this world is still in ignorance.

 

[Surya Deva]

And how many times I have to tell you that the western scholarly consensus is wrong about the Vedas and the Upanishads.

I said scholarship. Scholarship is not Western, Indian or Chinese, it is a secular body of research done by researchers from all backgrounds and countries. Scholarship is evidence based. We have clear evidence that the original Vedic people were polytheistic people and worshiped nature gods and performed animal and human sacrifices(the Druids also performed animal and human sacrifices) Animal and human sacrifices were common across all IE cultures and early Semitic culture, in fact pretty much every primitive culture in the world. Why would the Vedic people be any different? We have very clear descriptions within the Vedas, especially in the Brahmanas of ritual sacrifice of animals. Animal sacrifice was considered, one of the highest sacrifices and human sacrifice was obviously even better.

If animal and human sacrifice was not part of the history of Hinduism, then tell me why is animal and human sacrifice still practiced to this very day by some Shaiva and Shakta groups?

 

[Surya Deva]

Btw you certainly are right if Pagans are seen as the European religions such as Druidism or the old Persian religion, then the early Vedic people were certainly Pagans. They shared the same language family, same gods, same myths and same practices.

However, Vedic tradition has now evolved way beyond this early primitive period.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

I'll agree with this, only if we re-arrange your paragraph to read:

The original Vedic people were polytheistic, they worshiped many nature gods with sacrifices, including animal and even human sacrifice, to appease them and win material benefits from them like cattle, rain, sons, like virtually all primitive cultures in the world.

And then say about the above:

This is a modern theological post-hoc reading of the Vedas and not supported by the actual scholarship.

Please at least read the upanishads so you can understand the Vedas. Try, for instance, the very beginning of the Brihadaranyaka which opens the door to the true meaning of the ashvamedha.

Sacrifices were of 3 kinds: sattvik, performed internally. Rajasic, performed externally with substitutes - herbs pulped and mixed with water, or Tamasic - actual animal sacrifices. Only in the proto-mimamsa period did it really degrade to out-and-out animal sacrifice.

Mods, I request that since this thread has degenerated into debate anyway that this thread be moved to the same faith debate forums, like so many other threads receiving the gentle ministrations of ... well, it's apparent who it is.

 

[Pleroma]

I said scholarship. Scholarship is not Western, Indian or Chinese, it is a secular body of research done by researchers from all backgrounds and countries. Scholarship is evidence based. We have clear evidence that the original Vedic people were polytheistic people and worshiped nature gods and performed animal and human sacrifices(the Druids also performed animal and human sacrifices) Animal and human sacrifices were common across all IE cultures and early Semitic culture, in fact pretty much every primitive culture in the world. Why would the Vedic people be any different? We have very clear descriptions within the Vedas, especially in the Brahmanas of ritual sacrifice of animals. Animal sacrifice was considered, one of the highest sacrifices and human sacrifice was obviously even better.

As I said that scholarship is wrong because all the Vedic deities exists and our traditions provide specific methods to see those gods and even describe how each one appears, the western academic scholars are most deluded of them all who think that the Vedic people only worshipped the outer manifestation as Gods without realising the fact that these gods are real and they do exist.

Our seers were not so dumb that they could not differentiate the manifested outer empirical world and the world of gods existing in each one of us.

If animal and human sacrifice was not part of the history of Hinduism, then tell me why is animal and human sacrifice still practiced to this very day by some Shaiva and Shakta groups?

Sacrifices in the Vedas doesn't imply human or animal sacrifices, the Vedic Gods are satisfied by mere recital of the suktas corresponding to respective dieties, for example: Usha devi is satisfied by reciting the Usha sukta of the Rig Veda. You have been seriously misinformed about the Vedas and the Upanishads.

Just as there is Brahma vidya, there is shudra vidya, again Hinduism is pluralistic and we tolerate all modes of worship, there is nothing wrong in that.

 

[Riverwolf]

This is going to turn into a debate.

Too late.

 

[Jainarayan]

 

[Vinayaka]

Too late.

Oh well ... life goes on. "If you don't bother them, they won't bother you." ... from The Gods Must be Crazy

 

[Gaura Priya]

I disagree of using the appellation 'pagan' to describe my religious ideals.

Essentially I am a Vaishnava. By term of convenience, I will use Hindu, which originally is a geographical and cultural term long before it became the name of the Eternal Religion - Sanatana Dharma - whatever that in itself means to the adherent.

Even Arya is fine, because Sanatana Dharma is Arya Dharma; by following the principles of virtue and Vedic sense of morality, we ourselves become noble and righteous, or Arya.

However, Pagan, in this day and age, has come to refer to Neo-Paganism and its branches. The biggest thing to me that separates Neo-Paganism from Hinduism is that the former usually derives its wisdom through one's personal intuition. Although one's Elders are to be respected, it is not the same as in Hinduism where we have the utmost respect for the guru-shishya system, the acharyas, and various saints and sages listed in our Vedic culture.

Alo, Hinduism seems to have a strong connection with its Scriptures, both smritis and shrutis. Neo-Pagans do not have the concept of shastra in the same way.

There are some similarities, but the Neo-Pagan movements, as far as I know, are quite different from what we know as Hinduism, personally.