Hindus, Modern Pagans, and Indopaganism

[Unveiled Artist]

Hi, everyone! This a question primarily for Hindus and Neopagans: How do you feel about Indopaganism?

First time I heard of that. I think its fine as long as beliefs and practices of either are respected if one is to sync pagan and eastern practices together. Neopaga could go with just about anything.

 

[James Field]

Neo-Platonic religion is probably a good indicator. In other words, they would have reacted to Christianity by becoming highly syncretic and fusing a philosophical system to the outward forms of religious expression. They also would have come to consider themselves a single tradition with many facets, as opposed to a bunch of entirely independent, localized cults, becoming somewhat organized in the process. They probably also would have become more interested in humanistic pursuits and social justice and eventually moved away from the sacrificial model of practice. In other words, they would have imitated Christianity just far enough to really compete with it, while keeping their own diverse character.

Hellenic religion in the form of Neo-Platonism (which actually included religious traditions from Egypt, Syria, and other places, despite the name) became a pretty robust tradition by the end, but it was too little too late, and there was already heavy state oppression from the Theodosian period onward. All modern paganism is heavily influenced by the Neo-Platonic model, even if its practitioners don't consciously realize it. It was the very first neopagan movement, in a sense. The thing is, it didn't survive long enough to take traditions from Northern Europe under its wing, though it would have been happy to do so. As far as they were concerned, "Hellenism" was the native, non-Christian traditions of any peoples whatsoever. Basically, it took Christianity for the Greeks to suddenly realize that all the religious cultures around them were hella awesome and needed to be preserved against the oncoming storm.

I'll look more into Neo-Platonism, I've never really been very familiar with Hellenisitc thought or religion. Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Interesting. I never heard of the term "IndoPaganism" so I did a quckie search and found:

"The IndoPagan Project seeks to be a resource for, and to unite those in the NeoPagan community who feel a deepest resonance with the Vedic, Hindu, Buddhist or other path of Indo-origin, and whose ritual practice and pantheon choice is based heavily in one or more of those spiritualities."

I followed you and found that there is a lot, though I have to study it. I laud the aims of the project. Let the pagans of the world unite (against the machinations of monotheist religions).

 

[Aupmanyav]

Even if one were to offer the Aesir and Vanir only vegetarian items, it remains that they are not vegetarian and not non-violent. Pork, especially wild boar if it can be obtained, is highly prized as an offering to the Gods, ancestors and wights, and at a communal feast. Germanic Heathenry and Paganism does not proscribe or prohibit violence. In fact, it has traditionally encouraged and sanctioned it. And while we may not today go around smiting people, the principle is still there. And then we have the theology and nature of the Gods which are completely different, especially if one takes the traditional approaches of each religion.

Now, who said that Hindus have to be vegetarian? I am a Kashmiri brahmin and we relish non-vegetarian food. We offer non-veg. to Shiva and Mother Goddess during rituals (the offer to Mother Goddess has to be without use of knife, so my mother-in-law would make small pieces of the offering by tearing flesh by hand. We have no problem with smiting people who do not follow 'dharma'. That is what Krishna advised. I have not studied theology and nature of Norse Gods other than in a Penguin book and I did not find anything strange.

 

[Jainarayan]

Now, who said that Hindus have to be vegetarian? I am a Kashmiri brahmin and we relish non-vegetarian food. We offer non-veg. to Shiva and Mother Goddess during rituals (the offer to Mother Goddess has to be without use of knife, so my mother-in-law would make small pieces of the offering by tearing flesh). We have no problem with smiting people who do not follow 'dharma'. That is what Krishna advised. I have not studied theology and nature of Norse Gods other than in a Penguin book and I did not find anything strange.

That's interesting about the meat offerings, and the other points also.

The difference in theology I'm referring to is the general belief that Hindu gods are manifestations of Brahman. I know there are Hindus who are hard polytheists. Most Germanic Heathens are hard polytheists also. So I have no problem reconciling Hindu deities being as individual as you or I, and not manifestations. The only other problem I think might exist is the idea of enlightenment, self-realization, moksha. There is no overarching Supreme Being that created the universe, or that the universe springs from, or to return to. At least none that's recorded. The Northern Peoples didn't have much time to develop deep philosophies and theologies. There is no such analogy in Heathenism.

Heathenism doesn't even have a true concept of the future. There are only two states... that which has become, and that which is becoming. We call it wyrd (some pronounce it like 'weird', but I think it's more like 'wyird' in Old Norse, but anyway...). It's like karma in that it's part of something called orlog, the universal tapestry, law. But it can be affected and changed and worked around, that is the "is becoming".

Most focus is on this life, supporting the community, offering to the gods; reciprocation is extremely important. While everything has a divine spark, you could say Heathenism is pantheistic, not panentheistic. Given all that, it's quite possible that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. It may take a very healthy dose of upg, for which some Heathens I've encountered on the internet would have that person blood-eagled, but it's very possible that all those ideas and considerations could work together.

I'm re-thinking this.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Orlog: From Middle Dutch orloge, from Old Dutch*urlage. In this word, two Germanic words merged, both having the prefix ur- (modern Dutch oor and oer, with the former kept in compounds like oorzaak (“cause, driver”) and oorsprong (“origin”), and the latter borrowed from German). The first word was derived from Proto-Germanic *uzlagą meaning "fate, destiny", with *laga- related to modern Dutch leggen (“to lay”). The second word was derived from Proto-Germanic *uzleugō meaning "war", with *leug- meaning "oath". (Wiktionary)
I was looking for any linguistic relationship between Orlog and Rita (the Universal law)

Not all Hindus believe all Gods arising from Brahman. That is just one strand in Hinduism. The majority are plain polytheists. You are right about 'karma' and 're-incarnation'. Aryans too did not have any such view or avataras/manifestations, but indigenous thought/Hinduism has it. Aryan 'pitris' (ancestors) just blessed from their heavenly abode.

 

[Jainarayan]

Not all Hindus believe all Gods arising from Brahman. That is just one strand in Hinduism. The majority are plain polytheists. You are right about 'karma' and 're-incarnation'. Aryans too did not have any such view, but indigenous thought/Hinduism has it.

It seems that much of what is now 'Hinduism' has only vestiges of Proto-Indo-European beliefs. Maybe it did indeed evolve in a cultural vacuum, that is, separated from the rest of IE the cultures. South and east Asia seem to have lost the 'warrior culture' that the rest of Eurasia kept, giving rise to the dharmic religions in south and east Asia.

 

[Aupmanyav]

In Hinduism it is a mix of a living Aryan tradition (the only one in the world) and the indigenous thought bringing in Ahimsa, meditation, avataras, karma, rebirth, etc. The mix has survived and prospered in India in spite of all onslaughts on it.

 

[Jainarayan]

Yes it has survived, and I believe it will survive for a very long time yet, despite all the doom-and-gloom prophecies of people who see Hindu-haters and Hinduism-destroyers around every corner.

 

[James Field]

In Hinduism it is a mix of a living Aryan tradition (the only one in the world) and the indigenous thought bringing in Ahimsa, meditation, avataras, karma, rebirth, etc. The mix has survived and prospered in India in spite of all onslaughts on it.

I thought that Karma and meditation were Vedic concepts. What is it in Hinduism, then, which was a part of the Vedic religion ?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Thanks, Thorbjorn, for your good wishes. I wish the same to Druids and Pagans of Europe.
Indra's Vajra (Femur of a horse) - Aupmanyav's guess: Indra got it when Sage Dadhyanca turned himself into a horse, and Indra turned into a lion and ate it up. Indra would not kill Dadhyanca in the human form out of respect. With Vajra, Indra destroyed the demons and freed the Sun after a two-month long Arctic night in the original homeland of Aryans (according to Vedas).

 

[Aupmanyav]

I thought that Karma and meditation were Vedic concepts. What is it in Hinduism, then, which was a part of the Vedic religion ?

Yajna, the fire sacrfice; the chanting of Vedas. The guru in the second video is incidental. But after the two streams merged, it is very much a part of Hinduism.

 

[James Field]

i thought that Meditation and Moksha were Vedic teachings ?

 

[GoodbyeDave]

i thought that Meditation and Moksha were Vedic teachings ?

No, the Vedas teach heaven, where one joins the gods, and hell where the wicked receive punishment. That idea can still be found in the epics. The ideas of reincarnation and moksha first appear in the Upanishads (e.g. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, where they're presented as a esoteric teaching for the few).

I'm not sure of the earliest references to meditation. It was probably asociated with ascetic practices. There was a tradition in early India called Shramaṇa striving', which taught the use of asceticism. This was incorporated into the Jain and Buddhist faiths and also influenced Hinduism later: Clement of Alexandria distinguished two schools of India thinkers, Sarmanai (Shramaṇa) and Brachmanai (Brahmins), showing that the ascetic school was still not "orthodox" 2000 years ago.

 

[James Field]

No, the Vedas teach heaven, where one joins the gods, and hell where the wicked receive punishment. That idea can still be found in the epics. The ideas of reincarnation and moksha first appear in the Upanishads (e.g. Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, where they're presented as a esoteric teaching for the few).

I'm not sure of the earliest references to meditation. It was probably asociated with ascetic practices. There was a tradition in early India called Shramaṇa striving', which taught the use of asceticism. This was incorporated into the Jain and Buddhist faiths and also influenced Hinduism later: Clement of Alexandria distinguished two schools of India thinkers, Sarmanai (Shramaṇa) and Brachmanai (Brahmins), showing that the ascetic school was still not "orthodox" 2000 years ago.

But the Upanishads are a part of the Vedas, even if it wasn't a part of the Vedic religion for most people

 

[Poeticus]

As Hinduism of course has older philosophical traditions to other pagan faiths, as far as I'm aware, I can see Western pagans in some cases adopting forms of Hindu philosophical systems (Mimamsa, different subschools of Vedanta) alongside, or encapsulating, their beliefs in deities.

This is a misleading assertion born from an inadequate understanding of pUrvamImAMsA. I would like to state that I point this out not to discourage, but to highlight the intricate nature of this highly misunderstood Astika school of thought, which itself has historically diversified into three prominent sub-schools. The very svabhAva of pUrvamImAMsA makes it inherently hostile, very much so, to its adopting by members or groups outside the Astika fold. Without accepting the philosophical, analytical, and exegetical underpinnings of the apaurusheyatva doctrine, it would fail to be pUrvamImAMsA. The jaiminisUtra, shlokavArttika (esp. the codanAsUtra portion), and even Dharmakirti's pramANavArttika explain this characteristic of pUrvamImAMsA. Regarding other Hindu philosophical systems, I'm sure some compromises can be made to make their accommodation more pleasant and well transitioned.

Hi, everyone! This a question primarily for Hindus and Neopagans: How do you feel about Indopaganism?

If Indo-Pagan implies folkish variations, I would very much be an Indo-Pagan. In addition, being the only staunch Hindu polytheist, with hard inclinations, here on RF automatically makes me very much pagan to even other Hindus with pantheistic, monist, dualist, etc., bends. On the other hand, if Indo-Pagan implies amalgamatious or syncretic expressions of Europagans, African-pagans, Japanese folk-variants, Chinese folk-variants, and the rest of the whole shebang, coming together with village Hinduism, I feel it to be only natural that the worshipers of numerous gods and goddesses, each glorious and contextually important, find commonality and brotherhood amongst one another. In fact, I find more in common with, say, Japanese folk-variants than I do with orthodox Vaishnava-s, not to mention how Hindu gods have a unique, and "in a Japanese way", so to speak, presence in Japan.

However, what I, as a Hindu, would find concerning is the mis-attributing and/or misappropriation of Hindu, as well as other non-Hindu but Dharmic figureheads, concepts, and objects of prominence, by pagan circles which, as per my observations, have had the tendency to involve back-preaching (i.e., Hindus are practicing their religion incorrectly; Hindus should go back to the Vedas; the Vedas belong to us not modern-day Hindus, Hinduism is not vaidika; etc.). Where this tendency to articulate "true _______" came from, I'll never really know. However, the fact that it occurs is concerning, nonetheless. It isn't the job of any pagan practitioner, including Hindu polytheists, to urge that one is practicing their faith, which is highly socio-cultural in nature rather than theological, doctrinal, credal, and textualistic, in an incorrect manner in the hopes to return it to a construction ultimately imaginary and prone to conjecture. This isn't how most non-Abrahamic faiths operate, nor have operated historically. Socio-cultural realities and that of the bahudeva (Sanskrit for "many-gods") have often gone hand-in-hand. If I was in another country that has a sizable population practicing their faith in their own cultural manner, it would be disastrous, and a grave affront, for me to complain that they me be expressing their own socio-cultural realities and divine acknowledgement improperly. That is their own expression; as a guest, I would be highly honored to just even be invited and observe how my pagan comrades of that locality operate or function. Likewise, if I find myself in Norway, Sweden, China, Iceland, and/or Japan, and other related countries.

Paganism, in general, has functioned well on pluralist grounds with the automatic understanding that worshipers of many gods and goddesses have their own way of doing things. If I went back in time and found myself in Ancient Greece, it would do me no harm to offer acknowledge to the Hellenic gods under the guidance and assistance of a native practitioner. And if both the ancient Greek and the ancient Indian were to come together socio-politically, we would notice the happening of the same things that occurred in Gandhara: the incorporation of both Hellenic and Indic deities through amalgamatious expressions. Not really theological compromises, but rather socio-cultural compromises, and understandably and rightly so. As I have always said, I long to see the European resurgence of the intricate and unique pagan expressions regarding their ancestral gods and goddesses and of their folk-variants---I should interject by adding that I long to see similar resurgence elsewhere in the world, and hopefully in other countries that have had that history. Glorious Iceland has taken a wonderful step in acknowledging, quite outright, her pagan past through the recent creation of a temple. I hope other countries with a similar history follow suit, though naturally---and by naturally, I mean through an honest, internal drive to reconnect.

... Aryan ...

... Aryan ...

... Aryans ... Aryan ...

... Aryans ...

Aryans this and Aryans that. Aryan, Aryan, and Aryan. The problem with Aup-dada's involvement in such threads, a recalcitrance that occurs with Colonial-derived veracity, is that it indirectly, whether he means to or not, monopolizes the understanding of ancient Indian tribes and parcels about a view that is ultimately in a constant state of refinement, not to mention that the mere treating of such a term purely on racial and ethnic grounds, as he does, has long been discontinued. Furthermore, such participation is rather discouraging. While meaning well, it comes along Indologically, not Hinduaically. It would have been more beneficial if other, and more, Hindus participated in this thread; their lack in presence, however, illustrates how the OP's subject matter is something rarely ventured upon, unfortunately. And it's unfortunate because some of the greatest camaraderie the Hindu can find, apart from other Dharmics, is amongst pagans.

But the Upanishads are a part of the Vedas, even if it wasn't a part of the Vedic religion for most people

Well, it's most certainly true, as per orthodoxical, indigenous, and Indological narratives, that the upaniSad-s are part of shruti. They, along with their sectarian and/or sub-schools of thought commentaries, constitute the j~NAnakANDa of that which is shruti-derived; the Veda-s, along with their associated brAhmaNa-s, dharmasUtra-s, gRhyasUtra-s, shrautasUtra-s, etc., constitute the karmakANDa. In a simpler, as well as historical, usage, that which is declared Veda is well beyond just the Rg, sAma, and yajur (as well as atharva), incorporating various upaniSad-s in the process. Known as rahasyavid, they have always played a prominent role and today act as the theological underpinnings of much of modern day Hindu thought, the latter of which has highly been influenced by Vedantic understandings.

However, in regards to the "historical Vedic religion", I would like to express a few and brief thoughts on the matter. Such a classification of "Brahmanism", another classification which in and of itself is misleading, is conjecture at best, and born from the assumption that it was a widespread, mainstream occurrence once upon a time. If anything, the "historical Vedic religion" has never been mainstream, and understandably so. And it wasn't even a religion, per say. It was confined to a select few who were very much exclusively inclined. They could hardly be used to classify the karmakANDa as constituting an ancient Indian religion of some sort. Even the warriors, kings, and laypersons that sponsored their services in order to conduct contextually-relevant rituals had their own folkish inclinations. The "historical Vedic religion" is ultimately a construction, by observers far removed from both cultural and religious ties to the subcontinent, pedestaled to unnecessary heights, largely based on etymological assumptions, some of which do have merit, I'll concede, in order to understand both Indio-Iranian and early Indic society. While the gods such societies may have worshiped may have "Vedic" origins, the construction does very little in explaining non-Brahmanic realities outside both Astika (orthodox) and nAstika (heterodox) socio-political confinements.

 

[Kirran]

This is a misleading assertion born from an inadequate understanding of pUrvamImAMsA. I would like to state that I point this out not to discourage, but to highlight the intricate nature of this highly misunderstood Astika school of thought, which itself has historically diversified into three prominent sub-schools. The very svabhAva of pUrvamImAMsA makes it inherently hostile, very much so, to its adopting by members or groups outside the Astika fold. Without accepting the philosophical, analytical, and exegetical underpinnings of the apaurusheyatva doctrine, it would fail to be pUrvamImAMsA. The jaiminisUtra, shlokavArttika (esp. the codanAsUtra portion), and even Dharmakirti's pramANavArttika explain this characteristic of pUrvamImAMsA. Regarding other Hindu philosophical systems, I'm sure some compromises can be made to make their accommodation more pleasant and well transitioned.

I apologise. I know little about Purva Mimamsa, and shouldn't have just chucked the name in there without questioning whether what I was saying was really accurate.

Also, welcome back!

We must drink some tea.

 

[Jainarayan]

On the other hand, if Indo-Pagan implies amalgamatious or syncretic expressions of Europagans, African-pagans, Japanese folk-variants, Chinese folk-variants, and the rest of the whole shebang, coming together with village Hinduism, I feel it to be only natural that the worshipers of numerous gods and goddesses, each glorious and contextually important, find commonality and brotherhood amongst one another. In fact, I find more in common with, say, Japanese folk-variants than I do with orthodox Vaishnava-s, not to mention how Hindu gods have a unique, and "in a Japanese way", so to speak, presence in Japan.

I like your views. Let me ask though, because you've given this much thought, if one were to worship the Hellenic, Norse, and Hindu deities because s/he had an affinity for them, would you keep their worship separate? The example is the meat and alcohol thing... the Hellenic and Norse gods are traditionally offered alcohol in the form of wine, beer, mead, even hard liquor to Odin, but not so to the Hindu deities. What would be your approach there, separate shrines, separate rituals of worship? I think the answer would be yes, but I'm not entirely sure.

 

[Kirran]

I like your views. Let me ask though, because you've given this much thought, if one were to worship the Hellenic, Norse, and Hindu deities because s/he had an affinity for them, would you keep their worship separate? The example is the meat and alcohol thing... the Hellenic and Norse gods are traditionally offered alcohol in the form of wine, beer, mead, even hard liquor to Odin, but not so to the Hindu deities. What would be your approach there, separate shrines, separate rituals of worship? I think the answer would be yes, but I'm not entirely sure.

Keeping in mind that there some Hindus who'll happily offer up beef and alcohol to the deities. Pretty out there Tantric-influenced folk Hinduism, but still.

 

[Jainarayan]

Keeping in mind that there some Hindus who'll happily offer up beef and alcohol to the deities. Pretty out there Tantric-influenced folk Hinduism, but still.

D'oh! I forgot you did mention that. I'm thinking more of the "traditional" deities... Lakshmi, Hanuman, Krishna, Rama, Ganesha, Saraswati, et. al. and their preferences for offerings. At the end of the day, I'd say "when in Rome... ", i.e. offer the Hindu deities flowers, fruits, water, incense. Of course other deities like those too.