-
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
Poeticus
| abhyAvartin |
"In the future"? We already do!
That is wonderful to know, Riverwolf.
It is interesting how words that were originally derogatory were later accepted as self-identifiers.
मैत्रावरुणिः;3502204 said:
Indeed.
I've heard it said that "Christian" was once used as a derogatory term by Romans (...okay, the Latin equivalent of Christian lol), to refer to... well, early Christians who, I would assume, had no unifying catch-all term for themselves.
I'm also reminded of something that a certain activist for certain groups of people said:
I abhor the term Native American. . . . We were enslaved as American Indians, we were colonized as American Indians, and we will gain our freedom as American Indians, and then we will call ourselves any damn thing we choose.
-Russell Means, founder of the American Indian Movement
Gotta say, I like that spirit. ^_^
Last edited:
Andal
resident hypnotist
मैत्रावरुणिः;3502035 said:
I completely agree Hindu is an outside term filled with all sorts of incorrect connotations. Therefore how do we want to refer to ourselves. Dharmis, Vaishnavas, Shaktas, Shaivas? Something different?
I do not have a problem referring to myself as a Hindu because it is something that at this point in history has been accepted by the vast majority of Hindus. With that said I do recognize it's origins and what has happened through history. Regardless, while I didn't have a choice about Hindu I do have a choice about pagan. Having gone through 12 years of catholic school labeled as a "pagan" I choose to no longer be labeled as such and I think it is an mistake to take that word on with any sense of pride.
When I was in public university in the deep south I had a communications professor who openly announced in front of the class that I and my PAGAN beliefs were backward and primitive. I choose to never go through that again.
Aum Hari Aum!
Last edited:
Nyingjé Tso
Dharma not drama
Vanakkam
Sanatana Dharma is not paganism. Paganism today is a religion, Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism or whatever is another. The great majority of pagans, neo, wicca I have seen and known have NOTHING in common with Hinduism. Just because hey, they are polytheists and us too ! Doesn't mean that it is the same way.
I mean no offence to pagans here and especially you Riverwolf, I have great respect for you. However in all my interactions with pagans, there was a urge ti classify Hinduism as a part of paganism. "Your religion is in truth OUR religion". Thus denying all history, all scriptures, all rituals,
we should then hand over all these and surrender Hinduism to them because "Hinduism is pagan"
Just no.
And most of them that told me that were either based on wikioedia articles and totally ignorants of Hinduism ("it have no scriptures"
) either they weren't feeling enough secure in their faith that they had the urge to get someone's else umbrella.
Call paganism and Hinduism sister, brother or whatever. But this is not to be mixed like this. I will not "hand over" my religion to give another an excuse to exist, to grow bigger, or to worship Kali with Isis and Jesus and having an excuse to call it a religion rather than a belief.
Sanatana Dharma is full on diversity, a thousand beliefs under one religion. This is our strenght and unity, under the shade of thousand years of history, under our scriptures, veda, tantra, all of this is our strenght and legacy. I will never allow it to go to waste or being deformed by people trying to appropriate another's religion. Paganism have their own references, own rituals, own diversity, some look like Hindu counterparts, many absolutely not.
Paganism is rich and does not need this attitude of spriritual colonialism to exist
Hinduism is rich and does not need to submit and hand over its spritual legacy to exist
Paganism is complete, Hinduism os complete.
To each his/her own.
EDIT: To avoid confusion, I am talking about mostly neo/wiccan(any) and eclectics pagans. Revivalists, hellenists, Romans, Norse, Celt, Druidics schools don't give a damn about Hinduism and are proud and practice their traditions and religion.
Sanatana Dharma is not paganism. Paganism today is a religion, Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism or whatever is another. The great majority of pagans, neo, wicca I have seen and known have NOTHING in common with Hinduism. Just because hey, they are polytheists and us too ! Doesn't mean that it is the same way.
I mean no offence to pagans here and especially you Riverwolf, I have great respect for you. However in all my interactions with pagans, there was a urge ti classify Hinduism as a part of paganism. "Your religion is in truth OUR religion". Thus denying all history, all scriptures, all rituals,
we should then hand over all these and surrender Hinduism to them because "Hinduism is pagan"
Just no.
And most of them that told me that were either based on wikioedia articles and totally ignorants of Hinduism ("it have no scriptures"
) either they weren't feeling enough secure in their faith that they had the urge to get someone's else umbrella.Call paganism and Hinduism sister, brother or whatever. But this is not to be mixed like this. I will not "hand over" my religion to give another an excuse to exist, to grow bigger, or to worship Kali with Isis and Jesus and having an excuse to call it a religion rather than a belief.
Sanatana Dharma is full on diversity, a thousand beliefs under one religion. This is our strenght and unity, under the shade of thousand years of history, under our scriptures, veda, tantra, all of this is our strenght and legacy. I will never allow it to go to waste or being deformed by people trying to appropriate another's religion. Paganism have their own references, own rituals, own diversity, some look like Hindu counterparts, many absolutely not.
Paganism is rich and does not need this attitude of spriritual colonialism to exist
Hinduism is rich and does not need to submit and hand over its spritual legacy to exist
Paganism is complete, Hinduism os complete.
To each his/her own.
EDIT: To avoid confusion, I am talking about mostly neo/wiccan(any) and eclectics pagans. Revivalists, hellenists, Romans, Norse, Celt, Druidics schools don't give a damn about Hinduism and are proud and practice their traditions and religion.
Last edited:
Vanakkam
Sanatana Dharma is not paganism. Paganism today is a religion, Sanatana Dharma or Hinduism or whatever is another. The great majority of pagans, neo, wicca I have seen and known have NOTHING in common with Hinduism. Just because hey, they are polytheists and us too ! Doesn't mean that it is the same way.
I mean no offence to pagans here and especially you Riverwolf, I have great respect for you. However in all my interactions with pagans, there was a urge ti classify Hinduism as a part of paganism. "Your religion is in truth OUR religion". Thus denying all history, all scriptures, all rituals,
we should then hand over all these and surrender Hinduism to them because "Hinduism is pagan"
Just no.
And most of them that told me that were either based on wikioedia articles and totally ignorants of Hinduism ("it have no scriptures"
Call paganism and Hinduism sister, brother or whatever. But this is not to be mixed like this. I will not "hand over" my religion to give another an excuse to exist, to grow bigger, or to worship Kali with Isis and Jesus and having an excuse to call it a religion rather than a belief.
Sanatana Dharma is full on diversity, a thousand beliefs under one religion. This is our strenght and unity, under the shade of thousand years of history, under our scriptures, veda, tantra, all of this is our strenght and legacy. I will never allow it to go to waste or being deformed by people trying to appropriate another's religion. Paganism have their own references, own rituals, own diversity, some look like Hindu counterparts, many absolutely not.
To each his/her own.
Trust me: no offense taken.
Thing is, Paganism isn't a single religion. It's less of a single religion than Hinduism is. Kemeticism is NOT Asatru. Hellenism is NOT Wicca (...at freaking all.) Religio Romano is NOT Druidry. (Though someone who practices a mix of the two would certainly be the very manifestation of irony.) But they're all Neopaganism, which is one form of Paganism.
I don't see Hinduism as being "really our way"; I see it as the last survivor of the Old Ways, and what our ways might have looked like if Christianity hadn't taken over Europe.
EDIT EDIT: Gotcha. I can DEFINITELY relate to that frustration. (...but I give a darn about the religion I practiced for two years...
)
Last edited:
Nyingjé Tso
Dharma not drama
I am really happy and relived that you didn't took it as an offense or agressive message, truly it wasn't. I was and still am involved into many different pagans communauty and even initiated to some things. So trust me I respect pagans and allways, but I believe also that none of the two shoukd step on the others toe.
EDIT EDIT: Gotcha. I can DEFINITELY relate to that frustration. (...but I give a darn about the religion I practiced for two years...
What I was saying is no that it's innapropriate for a pagan to worship or have interest in Hindu and vice versa (you and me are the proof of the contrary) but there is among the groups I cited (wiccan/neo/ecclectics, which are in cgarge/spokepersons of almost all pagans communauties) there is very disturbing attitude spreading that is the total full rejection of dogmas and organised structures of beliefs (this I don't care) AND an attitude of colonisation, appropriation of others religion. I have been told straight more tgan one time that my religion never existed, that it was their religion all along and tgat I am not a Hindu but a pagan and should think and worship according to their ways, and they should be free to pick up what they wanted in Hinduism and do what they want with it while discarding Vedas and all because all books and scriptures are lies.
Tjus attitude is spreading in Europe among those groups, and it is not a healthy one....
Oh, wow. I haven't come across that, but then I don't live in Europe.
What I see in the States is a severe misunderstanding of Hindu ideas, and then applying that misunderstanding to very shallow paths that are more about selling sensational books with flowery language than actual seeking of truth.
Fireside_Hindu
Jai Lakshmi Maa
This.
I have been to many brick and mortar New Age stores that lump many different religions into the same family. I don't have a problem with this per say, but it's not Hinduism. I get nervous around people who talk about talking to angels once they have their chakras balanced - whatever that means. I mean, if they're happy, great, but unfortunately they go out into the world not understanding the origin of what they are practicing and soon nobody knows what Hinduism is.
:camp:
Branding something as 'not hinduism' is difficult, because it allows freedom of thought like no other religion. You can even eat beef( the beef ban is no longer practical as it used to be). I am disappointed that the monotheistic thoughts of hinduism are tepresentative of hinduism in the west, though. The need by hindus to convince them that we arent idol worshipping polytheistic people is ridiculous. Pagan refers to the polytheists, and that is what hindus are.
Vayasya
Åiva Devotee
Not all Hindus are polytheistic.
ratikala
Istha gosthi
namaskaram riverwoof ji :namaste
same is happening here especialy amongst what I assume are the neopagans , to the point that they are simply attatching to one aspect of a divinity and writing it in to their practice , this eclecticism scares me , however I do know a welsh pagan family , the elder of which was heart broken that young pagens wernt interested in local traditions and prefered to concoct a paganism of their own . we have had many long and interesting conversations where I find that he understands many so called 'hindu' principles and understands the nature of many of our gods and goddesses but without the need to combine them with his own practice , he could allways give me the pagan equivalent, we both could respect and appreciate eachothers traditions without the need to surcome to eclecticism as we both realised that this simply muddies the waters , having been taught in one tradition he saw the need to preserve that tradition complete without addition or subtraction .
this is something I feel is equaly true from the side of any hindu tradition , each has its place and should not be confused . this does not mean however , ...that we should not get on and support one another . :namaste
same is happening here especialy amongst what I assume are the neopagans , to the point that they are simply attatching to one aspect of a divinity and writing it in to their practice , this eclecticism scares me , however I do know a welsh pagan family , the elder of which was heart broken that young pagens wernt interested in local traditions and prefered to concoct a paganism of their own . we have had many long and interesting conversations where I find that he understands many so called 'hindu' principles and understands the nature of many of our gods and goddesses but without the need to combine them with his own practice , he could allways give me the pagan equivalent, we both could respect and appreciate eachothers traditions without the need to surcome to eclecticism as we both realised that this simply muddies the waters , having been taught in one tradition he saw the need to preserve that tradition complete without addition or subtraction .
this is something I feel is equaly true from the side of any hindu tradition , each has its place and should not be confused . this does not mean however , ...that we should not get on and support one another . :namaste
Most are. But the monotheistic view gets preference in the western world simply because it is monotheistic. You wouldnt want to misrepresent yournreligion would you?
Vayasya
Åiva Devotee
I disagree that most are, as if I remember correctly the majority of Hindus are Vaishnavas, who are monotheistic.
Monotheism existed in India before the Western influence.
What am I misinterpreting? Some of our key scriptures proclaim monotheism.
Really, I cannot recall any Christian calling me a pagan. I know that as it spread into Ireland and parts of the Germanic areas in the middle to late middle ages, it was common to call those Euros of the "old religion" as pagan, but I don't think the word was as we think today, nor as in how Islamists use the word today as an insult.
Now there may be some Christians who call Hindus "devil worshippers", and THAT is certainly an insult, but oddly no one has said such to my face. Maybe they are scared of me, I don't know.
So since I do not hear the term pagan in reference to my Hinduism, this is sort of a non-issue with me and I don't care one way or the other. I can say, there are more than a couple of Hindus who work where I do, and if anyone started calling another in an insulting manner to their religion, such a person would be fired from their job about 10 to 15 minutes later.
Om Namah Sivaya
Now there may be some Christians who call Hindus "devil worshippers", and THAT is certainly an insult, but oddly no one has said such to my face. Maybe they are scared of me, I don't know.
So since I do not hear the term pagan in reference to my Hinduism, this is sort of a non-issue with me and I don't care one way or the other. I can say, there are more than a couple of Hindus who work where I do, and if anyone started calling another in an insulting manner to their religion, such a person would be fired from their job about 10 to 15 minutes later.
Om Namah Sivaya
Last edited:
Philomath
Sadhaka
If that's the definition of Pagan you want to use then ok but once again all Hindu's are not Polytheistic.
Vayasya
Åiva Devotee
Namaste
Actually, Philomath is absolutely right. There are Hindus who are not Polytheistic.
There are all sorts of Hindus.
There are Hindus who strongly object if you call them a Hindu.
It's a long story, and I am too tired right now to tell about all the different Hindus. It would be sort of like trying to worship all the Gods, but there are too many of them to do that, you would run out of lamp oil and incense before that so for convenience some might say they are "all Brahman" and thus, bingo, you worship Brahman and you got all 330 million.
Of course that is not the same as some Hindus who worship the "Supreme Brahman" as a force or all being.
But there is one sort of Hindu I might mention, even though I am too tired right now to talk about all the different types of Hindus since I will die before I would finish talking, I will mention them just to give you an idea of the diversity.
There is a sect found in South India. They are small in number compared to other sects, but very well organized. I discovered them a little over a year ago.
They have a saint who as a child worshipped Muruga, and then had a Hindu transformation which started this sect in the previous century.
They do not worship the Devatas, nor one Deva or Devi, nor Brahman, nor even their saint even though they believe the saint has become deathless, which is not the same as forever (it's too complicated to explain right now).
Instead, they worship jyoti or Light. Not light in the sense of the abstract, as in "see the day! the sun!"... No. They worship light as in the shine that comes from a candle or a lamp. The Light itself is their Murti in their temple.
I have been thinking of writing a posting on them in a forum, but yet I am hesitant since I feel they are vunerable to persecution, they are very peaceful and do not strike back. So I may or may not.
Hinduism, it is a foreign word of sorts. As a Western Hindu, I need to be careful about words. But today, it is the only word that can be representative of a huge, diverse family which has many, many, many names. Just as some Hindus say God has many Names.
Some Hindus are atheists.
If you ask me what I am, I will say I am a Hindu. But I won't be able to explain it in a single "presentation". I cannot do it so much in words. I can only take you along for the ride, show things, it is an experience. You can go on that ride without me, too.
Om Namah Sivaya
Actually, Philomath is absolutely right. There are Hindus who are not Polytheistic.
There are all sorts of Hindus.
There are Hindus who strongly object if you call them a Hindu.
It's a long story, and I am too tired right now to tell about all the different Hindus. It would be sort of like trying to worship all the Gods, but there are too many of them to do that, you would run out of lamp oil and incense before that so for convenience some might say they are "all Brahman" and thus, bingo, you worship Brahman and you got all 330 million.
Of course that is not the same as some Hindus who worship the "Supreme Brahman" as a force or all being.
But there is one sort of Hindu I might mention, even though I am too tired right now to talk about all the different types of Hindus since I will die before I would finish talking, I will mention them just to give you an idea of the diversity.
There is a sect found in South India. They are small in number compared to other sects, but very well organized. I discovered them a little over a year ago.
They have a saint who as a child worshipped Muruga, and then had a Hindu transformation which started this sect in the previous century.
They do not worship the Devatas, nor one Deva or Devi, nor Brahman, nor even their saint even though they believe the saint has become deathless, which is not the same as forever (it's too complicated to explain right now).
Instead, they worship jyoti or Light. Not light in the sense of the abstract, as in "see the day! the sun!"... No. They worship light as in the shine that comes from a candle or a lamp. The Light itself is their Murti in their temple.
I have been thinking of writing a posting on them in a forum, but yet I am hesitant since I feel they are vunerable to persecution, they are very peaceful and do not strike back. So I may or may not.
Hinduism, it is a foreign word of sorts. As a Western Hindu, I need to be careful about words. But today, it is the only word that can be representative of a huge, diverse family which has many, many, many names. Just as some Hindus say God has many Names.
Some Hindus are atheists.
If you ask me what I am, I will say I am a Hindu. But I won't be able to explain it in a single "presentation". I cannot do it so much in words. I can only take you along for the ride, show things, it is an experience. You can go on that ride without me, too.
Om Namah Sivaya
Namase
... in fact, to add a bit to this question, there has been notable and interesting collaboration between Hindu leadership and priests of diverse traditions and Sampradayas, conferences and commissions if you will, and one of the many focuses has been to encourage new temples which are setting up temple websites on the internet (and with many such new Hindu temples being established in the West and outside of India with a hope to mitagate confusion by non-Hindus regarding viewing a plethora of Gods), that such temple websites make a common practice to:
* identfy clearly which Devata (e.g. Shiva, Vishnu, Surya, Muruga, Kali, so on...) or Devatas (Shiva - Muruga, Vishnu - Ram - Krishna, Durga - Kali, Muruga and consorts, Shiva - Ganesha - Hanuman, Narasingha - Devi, many other examples) is/are the "primary resident" (primary may not be the preferred word) and which "sect" the temple predominately reflects (e.g. Vaishnav, Saiva, Shakta, Vedic, etc.).
* include verbige such as "God (or Divine, or Deva or Devi) who is worshipped by many Names" ... "God has many Names" or "(name of Deva or Devi) who has many Names", etc...
Obviously not all temples feel comfortable with this, it is only be encouraged but has had some success. I watched a video this morning which mentioned this agenda.
interesting....
Om Namah Sivaya
... in fact, to add a bit to this question, there has been notable and interesting collaboration between Hindu leadership and priests of diverse traditions and Sampradayas, conferences and commissions if you will, and one of the many focuses has been to encourage new temples which are setting up temple websites on the internet (and with many such new Hindu temples being established in the West and outside of India with a hope to mitagate confusion by non-Hindus regarding viewing a plethora of Gods), that such temple websites make a common practice to:
* identfy clearly which Devata (e.g. Shiva, Vishnu, Surya, Muruga, Kali, so on...) or Devatas (Shiva - Muruga, Vishnu - Ram - Krishna, Durga - Kali, Muruga and consorts, Shiva - Ganesha - Hanuman, Narasingha - Devi, many other examples) is/are the "primary resident" (primary may not be the preferred word) and which "sect" the temple predominately reflects (e.g. Vaishnav, Saiva, Shakta, Vedic, etc.).
* include verbige such as "God (or Divine, or Deva or Devi) who is worshipped by many Names" ... "God has many Names" or "(name of Deva or Devi) who has many Names", etc...
Obviously not all temples feel comfortable with this, it is only be encouraged but has had some success. I watched a video this morning which mentioned this agenda.
interesting....
Om Namah Sivaya
Last edited: