-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Hindus are all pagans
- Thread starter Pleroma
- Start date
My basic stance is that, while Hinduism is "technically" pagan, it's not quite accurate to refer to it as such nowadays, since the word is generally used to refer to European religions, not Asian ones.
So, the word is on a course to becoming the European equivalent of "Hindu." So Pagans will be to Europe as Hindus are to India.
But it hasn't quite reached that point, yet, so I'm not really going to dispute those who call Hinduism pagan.
So, the word is on a course to becoming the European equivalent of "Hindu." So Pagans will be to Europe as Hindus are to India.
But it hasn't quite reached that point, yet, so I'm not really going to dispute those who call Hinduism pagan.
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
I would use a more broader term - Sanātana Dharma and not Hinduism.
Considering the above definition of Pagan religions, I would say that India is the Land of Dharma. It is from here, religion has spread to the various different parts of the World.
Jesus took the teachings of Sanātana Dharma to western world - as Christianity.
Buddhist teachings have spread in the eastern countries.
Take an example of six blindfolded men. By blindfolded, it should be understood, that we all are blindfolded by our modes of material nature (goodness, passion & ignorance).
Hinduism (Sanātana Dharma) is like an elephant.
One blindfolded person, who touched the trunk of the elephant, went and taught it's people that elephant (Dharma) is like a python snake. So they started celebrating Sanātana Dharma in that way - their religion.
Another, who got the tail, taught his people that Dharma is like a rope. So they started celebrating Sanātana Dharma in that way - their religion.
One who got the leg, taught his people that Dharma is like a tree. So they started celebrating Sanātana Dharma in that way - their religion.
In this way, the different versions of one absolute religion (Dharma), spread in different parts of the world. Portions of them were being practised by different people as they understood this Sanātana Dharma. With the influence of time, some practices have been preserved, some altered, some have spread in different parts of the world as folklore, preaching, traditions, culture and other such practices. All have their root in this one complete Sanātana Dharma, which is self-effulgent like the sun.
The founder of Sanātana Dharma is Supreme Lord - Kṛṣṇa Himself.
So, logically, no religion qualifies as Pagan. Sanātana Dharma, being at the root, most certainly does not qualify as Pagan.
That is my take on the matter.
Last edited:
Jesus has no connection with the Sanatana Dharma, there is no evidence of that and India is definitely not the only country where religious and philosophical ideas were being discussed. When you compare Egypt, the city of Alexandria etc India stands no where with their knowledge. Your take on the matter is very narrow minded. Paganism is a much broader term than Sanatana Dharma.
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
That Jesus came to India is a well researched and established fact.
There is a 'blank period' (from age 12 to 30)in Jesus's life, when he is said to have visited India and learn Sanātana Dharma. This is confirmed here also: Lost years of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is further researched, documented and established by Nicolas Notovitch in his book: The Unknown Life of Christ. The Lost Years of Jesus: The Life of Saint Issa - Notovitch
Our scripture - Bhavishyā Purana also confirms this: Jesus Went To India
Our scriptures, independent research and life history of Jesus, all point towards the fact that Jesus came to India.
Well I really don't care where Jesus came from or what he taught to whom, what is important is the teaching in the scriptures and we actually don't know whether Jesus really taught those things or not so I am not really interested in these stories of individual persons like Jesus, Rama, Krishna etc. What is important is the knowledge from the scriptures and we need to concentrate less on the literal stories of these mythological persons. Who really cares whether they existed or not? Its not going to change anything.
There are as many different scholarly consensus on the life story of Jesus as there are biblical scholars so stating your theory as fact is a bit outrageous on your part. That no where changes the fact that yours is a narrow minded view. India is not the only country which is involved in religious and philosophical debates there were other countries to like the Egyptians, Greeks, Persians etc and their knowledge was even more brilliant than the knowledge portrayed in Sanatana Dharma. Stop being apologetic.
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
Remember? You made a comment on my post saying there is no evidence of what I am saying, and I have shown you evidence. So, you tell me you don't care...great!...and what makes you think I care for what you care for or what you think.
I have shown you evidence from history and scriptures. What you are saying is your mind/view. Personal views hold no water and are not important to me. Please read some scriptures and history. Why would I be apologetic?!!
EDIT: What I have given you is not my narrow mind, but wiki, scriptures and research work. You, on the other hand is presenting your mind as authority and proof! I see that as narrow mindedness.
Last edited:
...and what makes you think I care for what you care for or what you think.
The scholarly consensus among many scholars is that there is no evidence for a man named Jesus Christ, Moses, Solomon etc.
I have shown you evidence from history and scriptures. What you are saying is your mind/view. Personal views hold no water and are not important to me. Please read some scriptures and history. Why would I be apologetic?!!
EDIT: What I have given you is not my narrow mind, but wiki, scriptures and research work. You, on the other hand is presenting your mind as authority and proof! I see that as narrow mindedness.
Paul the Apostle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you had read the scholarly consensus on this one man and the different views of Christianity you wouldn't have charged me with narrow mindedness. Go and read it. You will understand who is having a narrow minded view on this topic. It doesn't change the fact that some of your views are very apologetic and stubborn.
Vrindavana Das
Active Member
So, Bible is a piece of fiction?!!!
There is nothing in the link you gave me. Does reading that make one broad-minded?
Seems like you are more interested in being personal and picking up quarrels, than to discuss religion.
I will ask for your opinion on my views when I think they are worth it. Please go and pick on someone your own size. I will not waste my time on you unless you have something to discuss on religion, outside of personal views and opinions.
I don't know and some think it is and some don't and I am not interested to know that.
Yes, it raises many questions as to who Jesus was and what he actually taught and what not. So how did you decide that he taught Sanatana Dharma in the west?
Your take on this matter was fundamentally flawed and this is a discussion forum not your personal blog so that you can preach anything you want and run away.
No, it contains fictional stories designed to help reinforce the ethical and cultural ideals of the place and times in which they were written. The Bible as a whole is not fiction because, as a whole, it's not a singular work: it's a collection of independent works from various time periods yet from a single evolving culture.
It's only because in some places it is used as a derogatory (insulting) term. Not all places see it this way. So it's just in words. Another such word that has this sort of double meaning is 'cult'. In the west it conjures up all kinds of adharmic ideas like brainwashing etc.
It's really hard to explain in print without using tone, but consider it like, 'Hindu' versus 'stupid Hindu'. One is just a fact, while the other holds a lot of emotion.
But personally I have no problem belonging to the cult of Murugan, or being called a pagan.
Kalicharan Tuvij
Ästika
There is no word "ism" applicable to Hinduism, that has been defined till date. So we may need a new word, if at all. I use "polytheism" as an antidote against some bad tendencies in Hinduism.
Max-Muller also tried with some neologism, though I don't remember the word. Needless to say, it is going to be decades, if not centuries, before someone is in a position to truly have a bird's eye view of Hinduism.
I also disagree with the views of Suryadeva in this thread on the Vedas. He doesn't know, simply put. But no point bringing this now.
More particularly, against the view that Hinduism is a bundle, a cacophony. This is missing the point. Everything is tightly coupled to everything else!
Max-Muller also tried with some neologism, though I don't remember the word. Needless to say, it is going to be decades, if not centuries, before someone is in a position to truly have a bird's eye view of Hinduism.
I also disagree with the views of Suryadeva in this thread on the Vedas. He doesn't know, simply put. But no point bringing this now.
More particularly, against the view that Hinduism is a bundle, a cacophony. This is missing the point. Everything is tightly coupled to everything else!
Philomath
Sadhaka
Andal
resident hypnotist
The problem with being labeled as pagan is it's another group of outsiders labeling us. Not only that but the terms isn't even used correctly. Pagan was used by the Catholic Church during the early days to refer to country beliefs. Pagan means backward, not cosmopolitan, ignorant. It has little to do with whether or not a religion is polytheistic.
It was only in recent times that pagan became adopted as the religious name of those people who are resurrecting ancient pre-christian European beliefs.
The use of the word pagan to describe Hindus is anti- intellectual and lazy.
Aum Hari Aum!
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
And, the problem with being labeled as Hindu is it's another group of outsiders that labelled us as "Hindus" in the first place.
Hindu at one time meant backwards, not cosmopolitan, ignorant, infidel (Kafiroon), and was one of the most popular terms for "slave" during 1000-1600 AD.
And, so is the word, "Hindu".
- - - - - - - - - - -
General Parvez: Let's just call all these people beyond the Sindhu River, "Hindus".
Captain Akbar: Why not, "Sindhus"?
General Parvez: Well, because, we can't pronounce the "S", thus, let's go with the "H".
Captain Akbar: Um, okay. But, why not, "Shaivites", "Vaishnavites", "Brahmanites", "Shaktas", "Tantricists", and all that other jazz?
General Parvez: 'Cuz, I said so.
Captain Akbar: But, it's surely going to create problems -
General Parvez: Are you arguing with me, boy!?!? I'm your superior!!
Captain Akbar: No, sir. Sorry. Sorry.
Last edited:
Yes, but the difference is as it is today. Hindu is the currently accepted word, whether historically correct or not, whether we like it or not. It also, as far as I know anyway, doesn't have the negative connotations pagan does. Of course any label of any group at all can be made negative with 'those damn ________!!!" But generally speaking, Hindu is the widely accepted term these days, as is Hinduism.
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
V,
It's all about a matter of time. The term "Hindu" had time to grow - and, it was convenient for outsiders. Overtime, it was accepted by Hindus, was it not? The term "Hindu" though has been problematic, just like the term "pagan", denotationally and connotation-wise.
I was just trying to remind Andal that at one time, the term Hindu meant something very bad and its application changed over time - and, like the term "pagan", it was applied first by non-practitioners to a wide-range of religious groups that were similar in origin but vibrantly different from one another, which was problematic then, and is problematic now.
Who knows? Maybe, in the future, "pagans" will accept the word "pagan" with pride and convenience as well. After all, it is all a matter of time.
It's all about a matter of time. The term "Hindu" had time to grow - and, it was convenient for outsiders. Overtime, it was accepted by Hindus, was it not? The term "Hindu" though has been problematic, just like the term "pagan", denotationally and connotation-wise.
I was just trying to remind Andal that at one time, the term Hindu meant something very bad and its application changed over time - and, like the term "pagan", it was applied first by non-practitioners to a wide-range of religious groups that were similar in origin but vibrantly different from one another, which was problematic then, and is problematic now.
Who knows? Maybe, in the future, "pagans" will accept the word "pagan" with pride and convenience as well. After all, it is all a matter of time.