I tried and tried, and it just doesn't work

[Jainarayan]

I put this in this section because I think it has a broad application to many Pagans who look to blend and syncretize.

What doesn't work, for me let me stress, is incorporating the Hindu deities into my practice, that is. I'm either Ásatrúar or I'm not, and I am definitely Ásatrúar. After a rather heated debate elsewhere about still having an affinity for the Hindu deities and somehow keeping them in my practice, albeit separate from the Aesir and Vanir, it's clear to me it won't work. It seems I've been forcing the issue.

The reason it doesn't work is several-fold:

I cannot accept that the Hindu deities are all different aspects of one God. Either they are Gods and Goddesses in their own right, or they are not. Hinduism says they are but aspects of Brahman, as are we.

• I cannot accept Hindu cosmology and theology. That is, advaita and its several flavors. I believe in wyrd and orlog, but not karma and reincarnation in the Hindu understanding of it.

• I do not believe in or am seeking moksha, liberation from the world of illusion. I don't believe that.

• I was told it's intellectual dishonesty (and I believe it is to a degree) to worship Gods who are part of a culture that puts a high value on vegetarianism, while I like a good horn of mead, ale, and a good rib steak, and holds beliefs I do not.

• Last, but probably most importantly, are my Gods and Goddesses not enough?

Now, in overthinking this it occurred to me... what of the literature? What of the books I have: the Mahabharata, the Bhagavad Gita, the Ramayana, even some Buddhist writings that are clearly not in line with my beliefs? I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, so I will probably just keep them on my bookshelves for their literary and entertainment value. And possibly for some universal truths I will find in them. But they would be no more than literature, not scriptures. As for the pretty statues I have, well they'll have to be packed away. I think to keep them on display would reduce them to being objets d'art. That may be an offense and affront to the culture and the deities themselves. I have thought about carefully packing them and sending them to the temple gift shop as donations.

 

[Nietzsche]

What's wrong with being art? I would argue that any manner of religious piece, be it a painting or statue or what have you, being 'changed' to "just art" is at worst a lateral move, not a step down.

 

[Maponos]

I basically don't accept any non-Western European cosmologies (minus Greek). Most of the time, the farther east you go, the more alien they get. Hindu, while supposedly descending from the Indo-European religion, is incredibly alien to me. I think it was heavily nativised (for lack of a better real word) there and lost most semblances to the old Indo-European religion that was brought to India.

The mythologies and cosmologies that are often closest to my Celtic ones are Roman and Greek. For some reason, I've had a strong pull to Greek deities like Hekate, Athena and Apollo and Roman deities like Venus and a little to Mars. Hekate and Apollo and be explained as being the same as two Celtic deities- Nicnevin (a mostly Scottish faerie 'witch goddess' strongly associated with many of the same things Hekate is) and Apollo who is the same as Maponos/Grannus.

 

[Jainarayan]

What's wrong with being art? I would argue that any manner of religious piece, be it a painting or statue or what have you, being 'changed' to "just art" is at worst a lateral move, not a step down.

Hmm... that's true. It's not like they were ever consecrated and are now being used for target practice, paper weights or door stops. They are pretty and represent a culture that contributed a lot to the world, and whose art, music and food I have a fondness for.

 

[Jainarayan]

Hindu, while supposedly descending from the Indo-European religion, is incredibly alien to me. I think it was heavily nativised (for lack of a better real word) there and lost most semblances to the old Indo-European religion that was brought to India.

That's something that often ran through my mind. I don't know why and how Indian and Hindu iconography developed as it did because it is so different. It is far easier for me to relate to the Norse deities because of their images as westerners in western settings.

Even if I do keep the statues displayed, they would be as art as @Nietzsche suggests. Keeping them in shrines, praying to them or making offerings to them just won't work. The theologies and cosmologies are just too different, and even contradictory.

 

[Quintessence]

I cannot accept that the Hindu deities are all different aspects of one God. Either they are Gods and Goddesses in their own right, or they are not. Hinduism says they are but aspects of Brahman, as are we.

Is Brahman really a god-concept, or is it something else? More like an energy or force that pervades within things, more akin to substance monism? Are there traditions within Hinduism that don't regard the multiplicity of deities as aspects of a singular deity? Perhaps not questions well-suited for this DIR, and I don't know the answer to them, but I've gotten the impression that theology in Hinduism is pluralistic (as in there are many different theological flavors within it).

I cannot accept Hindu cosmology and theology. That is, advaita and its several flavors. I believe in wyrd and orlog, but not karma and reincarnation in the Hindu understanding of it.

I do not believe in or am seeking moksha, liberation from the world of illusion. I don't believe that.

This means you'd be a more Asatrú-grounded syncretist, then, correct? It's not atypical for the influence of one of the two blended paths to predominate, or for certain elements of one path or another to be discarded in the creation of a new path. Do you feel you would need to accept these things to be the sort of syncretist you want to be? If so, why do you feel that is?

I was told it's intellectual dishonesty (and I believe it is to a degree) to worship Gods who are part of a culture that puts a high value on vegetarianism, while I like a good horn of mead, ale, and a good rib steak, and holds beliefs I do not.

I'm going to confess that it drives me nuts how the term "intellectual dishonesty" is used within the Neopagan community. I think the term is misused and has been usurped to basically be a backhand and put-down by those who want to strut around all superior. I ignore it every time I see it, because I never see the term used properly in the community. That is, to describe issues of academic and scholastic ethics and integrity. You're not writing a research thesis here, you're constructing a personal religious practice. You're not trying to pass off your way of doing things as authentic in some sort of scholarly, citation-backed context. The term just doesn't apply.

Last, but probably most importantly, are my Gods and Goddesses not enough?

If the answer to that question is yes, then it's probably good to set the syncretism on the shelf for now. Maybe at a later date and later time, it'll come back into your life. Maybe it never will. I feel one of the benefits of contemporary Paganism is that it doesn't mire itself in a fixed way of doing things. Our paths are allowed to change as we do, right?

Now, in overthinking this it occurred to me... what of the literature? What of the books I have: the Mahabharata, the Bhagavad Gita, the Ramayana, even some Buddhist writings that are clearly not in line with my beliefs? I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water, so I will probably just keep them on my bookshelves for their literary and entertainment value. And possibly for some universal truths I will find in them. But they would be no more than literature, not scriptures. As for the pretty statues I have, well they'll have to be packed away. I think to keep them on display would reduce them to being objets d'art. That may be an offense and affront to the culture and the deities themselves. I have thought about carefully packing them and sending them to the temple gift shop as donations.

Pagans have scriptures? *laughs*

Pardon, I don't usually think of Paganisms as having scriptures. Or Hinduism, for that matter. Not in the same way that the Abrahamic religions regard scripture, at any rate. Seems we need a better word in the English language to use for that. Literature suffices, perhaps? And there is so much benefit to good stories! I'm a fan of letting stories carry you where they may. Sometimes, a story doesn't grab you. But when it does, cheerily run along with it. If they no longer serve, sure, you can think about passing them on to someone else who may be inspired by the stories!

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I cannot accept that the Hindu deities are all different aspects of one God. Either they are Gods and Goddesses in their own right, or they are not. Hinduism says they are but aspects of Brahman, as are we.

• I cannot accept Hindu cosmology and theology. That is, advaita and its several flavors. I believe in wyrd and orlog, but not karma and reincarnation in the Hindu understanding of it.

• I do not believe in or am seeking moksha, liberation from the world of illusion. I don't believe that.

• I was told it's intellectual dishonesty (and I believe it is to a degree) to worship Gods who are part of a culture that puts a high value on vegetarianism, while I like a good horn of mead, ale, and a good rib steak, and holds beliefs I do not.

• Last, but probably most importantly, are my Gods and Goddesses not enough?

Don't believe everything you hear about Hinduism.
1. Shankara's Advaita is a philosophy not a religion: confusing Advaita with Hinduism is like confusing Thomism with Christianity. It's popular with English-speaking, upper-class Indians and well known in the West, but for historical reasons. Most Hindus know nothing of Advaita and would reject it if they heard about it. The two other major Indian philosophers, Ramanuja and Madhva, both rejected the idea of all the gods being aspects of Brahman: they considered them as separate beings, souls like us.
2. The idea that the physical world is illusion is also a philosophical position. Shankara and Ramanuja accepted it (just like Hegel in the West), but Madhva rejected it.
3. Not all Hindus believe in reincarnation. The vast majority do, but the Lingayat sect don't.
4. Not all Hindus are vegetarian; a (very) few even eat beef.

But I do agree with your conclusion. Even if you believe all pagan religions are denominations of one Paganism, nevertheless each tradition is a whole. To be a Heathen-Hindu is a bit like trying to be a Baptist-Catholic! I have a great respect for Hinduism and by library contains the Upanishads, the Gita, Ramanuja's commentary on the Vedanta, etc, but I don't pick and mix -- I leave that to the Wiccans!

 

[Jainarayan]

To be a Heathen-Hindu is a bit like trying to be a Baptist-Catholic!

Haha I never looked at it that way.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

Incidentally, Hinduism does have scriptures (uniquely for a pagan religion). Because the Buddhists and Jains rejected the Vedas, regarding the Vedas as sacred became a touch-stone of orthodoxy; some even claim that they were created by Brahman. The Upanishads were later added, and the two together constitute the Shruti: "things heard". Later texts, the Smriti, are "sacred literature": the Epics and the Puranas, although many of the Vaishnava sect consider the Bhagavad Gita to be inspired, and many take the same view of the Puranas. Needless to say, philosophers have to jump through a lot of hoops to reconcile their radically different ideas to the texts of the Shruti, just like Christians and the Bible!

 

[Cassandra]

What doesn't work, for me let me stress, is incorporating the Hindu deities into my practice, that is. I'm either Ásatrúar or I'm not, and I am definitely Ásatrúar.

I cannot accept that the Hindu deities are all different aspects of one God. Either they are Gods and Goddesses in their own right, or they are not. Hinduism says they are but aspects of Brahman, as are we.

• I cannot accept Hindu cosmology and theology. That is, advaita and its several flavors. I believe in wyrd and orlog, but not karma and reincarnation in the Hindu understanding of it.

• I do not believe in or am seeking moksha, liberation from the world of illusion. I don't believe that.

Last, but probably most importantly, are my Gods and Goddesses not enough?

First, I think one may want to realize that Nature religions shared mythology (stories) as a way to understand nature. Much of that is gone as it belonged to the oral tradition, but it would have evolved anyway. At the same time reverence of the Spirits was highly practical and personal. You revered them for the benefit they gave you, there was no submissiveness. People would easily reject and abandon Spirits that were of no (longer) use to them. People however often did built a personal relation to one in particular in the same way that we have bosom friends. Pagans were never really concerned about where Spirits (Gods are prime spirits) came from, the effect itself counted. They did also however upheld reverence to important tribal Gods and ancestors, the tribal God(s) representing typical tribal aspects often related to ancestors and founding great Kings.

Nature religion is neither ideology nor philosophy, it is pragmatic. Things like advaita and seeking Mosksha/liberation are later developments at the courts of Kings and only part of many philosophies. The ancients did however strongly feel that all of Nature carries a certain spirit, and that Whole of Nature is living entity they are part off and that everything goes through natural cycles.

You should not make Nature religion into a belief thing, it was very practical. It was not strong on unbending moral rules like later monotheist religions, but right (spirited) conduct (virtues) was very important.

You may want to understand that though Pagan Gods are immortal they develop over time like us and have a time of rule, as everything in Nature goes through circular phases. The Hindu Gods now are different from those of Vedic times. If the Germanic culture would have continued their natural development the same would have happened here. We would not still worship the same Gods as our ancestors in the same way. Viking mythology foresees the end of the rule of Gods and it also refers to the Gods of the previous cycle. They were expecting change, something Christian converters used to their benefit.

So wanting revere Gods the same way as the ancients should not be a goal. It only turns living traditions in fossilized ones. Worship of the Gods is practical (also an experience) allowing you to abstract the right qualities allowing them to grow in you. In todays civilized society those are different than in an ancient warlike society. For instance warrior would invoke Wodan's spirit before battle to derive his wolf-like-qualities (all-around awareness) giving them superior oversight in battle. Vikings were often called beasts in battle, they would not mind, they actually sought these animal-like qualities in battle.

Our ancestors had no problem with integrating Gods from other cultures into the setup. (reinheidsgebot is Christian ) Nature religion is more like practical science, if it works, it works. It is not like we have to pray to the wrathful God otherwise we burn in hell. For that reason the Vikings rarely worshiped their Gods (prime spirits), they worshiped local spirits like Elves much more. Invoking the Gods, being big powers, is like something that brings risks with it. In the same way that if you have a problem you rather go to a colleague or direct chef than the CEO for his formidable power.

Nature religion is very different than later monotheist religion in which the all-powerfulness of God is constantly stressed and submission and constant worship is demanded not to fell victim to his wrath. In Nature religion you live in environment full of spirits/forces, you try to keep good relations with to preserve harmony and happiness. It changes with circumstances, it is flexible. That is one of the reasons pagans easily added the monotheist Gods to their pantheon, not realizing it is walking into a one way street that would disconnect them from their own heritage, customs, ancestors traditions. Making other people worship your God, your ancestors, your hero's, your values is a purposely cultural domination to make other people subservient and it is coupled with a kind of tax system.

Pure race ideas and pure God ideas are Christian. Generic research shows the the Vikings on Iceland overwhelmingly married non-Viking women. Pure white race ideas came up with the Spanish inquisition when one started to distrust converted Jews believing they would become a fifth column, a danger from within, because now they could marry into the highest ranks. Then the idea was formulated that non-white Europeans could never be the same good Christians.

 

[Jainarayan]

I am currently reading Patricia Lafayllve's A Practical Heathen's Guide to Asatru. In one chapter she talks about inangardh and utangardh, in simplest terms, one's inner circle and outer circle of acquaintances, friends and family. Everyone has multiple inangardh and utangardh because they overlap with other people's. She mentions Venn diagrams. The inangardh of a person who is my inangardh may be my utangardh not because of animosity or enmity but only because I don't know or work with those persons. It's the same with deities. The deities of our pantheons (this applies to ancestors and wights too) are our inangardh because they are very close kith and kin. There are even deities within our own pantheons we are not close to and don't work with, so they are technically utangardh... just not our inner circle, but there is no dislike or animosity. Some day I may get to know them, or not.

The inangardh of someone who worships the Egyptian, Hindu or Hellenic, etc. deities are my utangardh not because we have anything against each other, but because we simply don't know or work with each other. Or in my case with the Hindu deities, like all relationships, we've drifted apart. Think of old coworkers or high school or college friends you don't see anymore due to life's changes. It doesn't mean we don't like each other or have animosity; we still like and respect each other.

Sometimes we reestablish the connection, but most times we don't. Now I understand this is how it is with the Hindu deities. We simply have different circles of devotees, followers and in the case of me, different close personal deities. If I went to a Hindu or Buddhist temple I would pay my respects the deities deserve. In the same way I can keep pictures of people I don't see or know very well, I can keep statues or picture of other deities I respect though I don't worship.

 

[Cassandra]

Now I understand this is how it is with the Hindu deities. We simply have different circles of devotees, followers and in the case of me, different close personal deities. If I went to a Hindu or Buddhist temple I would pay my respects the deities deserve. In the same way I can keep pictures of people I don't see or know very well, I can keep statues or picture of other deities I respect though I don't worship.

This is true, and absolutely right at an individual level, which is what counts most for us.

But this was also one of the reasons of the success of Christianity. In the Roman empire Pagan religions tended to be local and did not reverberate with outsiders. People were moving in the Roman empire (40% was slaves often from somewhere else). A religion like Christianity that was not place dependent, but the same all over the empire had a distinct advantage. It filled a gap for many people cut from the roots. They cleverly copied the most popular practices of other traditions (like sharing a meal from the Mithras cult).

Todays society makes people even more on the move. Nowadays religion is no longer an aspect of culture but a separate thing people use to define themselves in. The more you want to define religion in local traditions, the harder it will be for them to sustain themselves. This is happening in India too, where new generations are moving out of their villages. If you want to revive Paganism as a shared experience you need a broader base. where people share similar feelings rather than ideas (the packaged form).

One of the clever/devious things of Adolf Hitler to revive the German soul is what others ridiculing called "kampf feuer romantiek". Sitting together at a fire at night in nature gave a deepened spiritual experience and created a strong connection among boys Hitler used to make them fight united to the death.

I think most people today are no longer looking to share the same ideas (ideology). People are looking for personal experiences but at the same time want to share their feelings with others (Facebook, twitter, etc). Pagan practices have been revived in different forms. For instance the loose gathering of a pop concert is a similar experience to people spontaneously meeting in an open space in the forest to sing hymns together. By its very nature Paganism is both individualistic and collective in its spirituality where monotheism is more about invoking and sharing a predefined group spirit (Spirit of Christ). This under the direction of priests using it to imprint ideas.

 

[Cassandra]

I basically don't accept any non-Western European cosmologies (minus Greek). Most of the time, the farther east you go, the more alien they get. Hindu, while supposedly descending from the Indo-European religion, is incredibly alien to me. I think it was heavily nativised (for lack of a better real word) there and lost most semblances to the old Indo-European religion that was brought to India.

Hinduism is not a religion but an enormous collection of religious traditions with a common Pagan Vedic base: Dharm, hence also called Sanatan Dharm (eternal law). When coming into contact with Hinduism you are most likely to meet Vaishnavism that revolves around Krishna which was a savior person somewhat like Christ. Or the monist philosophy of Advaita, which is a lot like Buddhism and formulated as an answer to that. Shaivism on the other hand is older more about Dharm. Even older is Shaktism (worship of the mother Goddess) which is the oldest religion of human kind, closely connected to it is Tantra, which is something of the opposite of Advaita (This world is very real in stead of illusionary). And then there are still Brahmans performing millennial old sacrifices as described in the Vedas for the benefit of Human kind and care little about philosophies. And then there are numerous guru-movements big and small with a lot of charlatans.

Hindu traditions are not a creed like Christianity or Islam you can take on (except philosophical schools like Advaita and guru movements), they are more like Judaism deeply rooted in culture and societal structure, and therefor difficult to enter. But Hinduism as collective encompasses all religious ideas and practices of mankind and is an extremely rich source to benefit from, especially for Pagans that lost their connections with their ancestors traditions. For instance the Poetic Edda is written in much the same manner as the Vedas.

The Hellenistic tradition was also very broad, with all kinds of traditions. Problem with most Pagan traditions it that they were esoteric, higher knowledge was kept in an inner circle and not written down. The Greek also had many local polis cults, that were destroyed by Christianity, which also destroyed the strength of the polis. Christianity, Islam and Communism are sadly the big destroyers of peoples traditions for the sake of creating their new broader identities.

 

[SomeRandom]

I was told it's intellectual dishonesty (and I believe it is to a degree) to worship Gods who are part of a culture that puts a high value on vegetarianism, while I like a good horn of mead, ale, and a good rib steak, and holds beliefs I do not.

Lol I was raised Hindu and as an Aussie I'll tell ya, there's nothing better than a good Prime Rib Steak, especially on a Barbie. Ale and Mead puts hairs on your chest and I won't say no to either.
But yeah, if it's not working then it's just not working.

As has been explained Hinduism is more cultural than it is religious. So it's often hard for an outsider to enter and probably even harder to understand every single nuance. For example, although the concept of "apostasy" doesn't really exist within Hinduism, in some families it is considered one's duty to stay within the religion you were born into. This wasn't down to Religion or religious duty of any kind. This was probably born as a reaction to mass converting practices of the past (some NOT ALL tactics were very dishonest and shameful) and since Hinduism ties in closely with culture, this conversion probably felt like loosing culture and roots.
Of course, with the pluralistic nature of Hinduism, many consider it enough just to embrace the cultural aspects and then follow whatever other religion you please. Others have taken a more hardline approach.
Another reaction to mass conversions of the past is distrust. So you'll probably find some Hindus who are not only distrustful/suspicious of outsiders, they may even apply a specific set of rules for them. Ie, you shouldn't worship Krishna if you eat beef. Heard that one a few times. In actuality (insofar as my family tradition) you choose whatever you want to eat, no food automatically disqualifies you from worship (though if one is attending temple, one should abstain at least until you return home or finished worship.)

Many of my family on my mother's side converted to Catholicism (they had to or they wouldn't get an education.) They still attend Church Mass and are all baptized. They also go to Temple and worship Jesus alongside whatever other Hindu Deities they were raised to worship. My grandfather took umbrage with their baptism, but wanted his kids to get an education. Although in the end I think he was pleased that none "legitimately left" the religion they were raised in.

So I guess it's just what works for you and how you see things. I don't see much of a kerfuffle in attending a Mosque and then attending Temple. But that only reflects me and how I was raised.

By the by, did you know there are actually sects of Hindus who practice religious/ritual animal sacrifice? Not many mind you, but they exist.

 

[SomeRandom]

Is Brahman really a god-concept, or is it something else? More like an energy or force that pervades within things, more akin to substance monism? Are there traditions within Hinduism that don't regard the multiplicity of deities as aspects of a singular deity? Perhaps not questions well-suited for this DIR, and I don't know the answer to them, but I've gotten the impression that theology in Hinduism is pluralistic (as in there are many different theological flavors within it).

The answer to all of those questions is a "yes."
There are monotheists, atheists, monism, hard and soft polytheists and pretty much every "theist" and "ism" you can possibly think of, included under the term "Hindu."

Also judging by your post I suspect you and I agree on many aspects regarding religion and one's path.

 

[Jainarayan]

By the by, did you know there are actually sects of Hindus who practice religious/ritual animal sacrifice? Not many mind you, but they exist.

Yes, they are few and far between. I think mostly Bengali Shakti sects?

 

[SomeRandom]

Yes, they are few and far between. I think mostly Bengali Shakti sects?

Yeah I think so. Although it wouldn't surprise me if there were others floating around.

 

[Kalibhakta]

Yeah I think so. Although it wouldn't surprise me if there were others floating around.

All over Nepal too. Mother Kali and her view is not so alien from yours, although I am hardly going to preach. Tantra is world affirming, what binds you can be used to free you, with right knowledge. Bhakti is far more Earthy then Advaita. People have compared Odin to Lord Shiva more then a few times. I'm not going to lie to you and say it is fully compatible, but if you know where to look, it is their in the background.

 

[Jainarayan]

...Tantra is world affirming, what binds you can be used to free you, with right knowledge. Bhakti is far more Earthy then Advaita...

I can't speak for all (European) Pagan traditions, but Germanic Paganism/Heathenism is very this-world-oriented. There are discussions and beliefs of the afterlife, but the thinking is, live properly here and now, and you should have a good afterlife.

 

[De Li]

Hi Thorbjorn, I can very much relate to your thoughts... even though for me it's "the other way around": I come from a Wiccan-Pagan background, with my fingers and roots in the cultural-religious heritage of my native Germany; I then embarked simultaneously and alternately in Shakta- & Shaiva- Hinduism and Germanic Heathenry; before finding my place in Traditional Orphism and Neoplatonism, within the Graeco-Roman culture. I still most definitely consider myself to be a Hindu (a Shaiva Siddhantist to be specific) and I regard Neoplatonism and Shaivism to be two cultural expressions of the very same religion. However, as has been pointed out, culturally I am not Hindu, and I feel that as Westener I naturally find it easier to fit into the European Roman culture; the Hellenic culture I like especially as to me it feels like it straddles West and East.
For a while I also tried to sustain the 'Germanic path' together with the 'Hindu-Hellenic' path... But like you, I found myself at a crossroads to decide for one or the other. For me it was actually very easy -- I felt a natural shift towards committing myself to Orphic-Neoplatonism and to Graeco-Roman culture -- and the Germanic path just naturally declined and fell away. Germanic culture will remain part of me and of my life experience, and I don't feel in any way hostile towards it or it's followers -- we have just grown apart. I still have some books relating to Germanic Heathenry, which I know I'll never read, because I have more material to read for my chosen path; but I like having them here and occasionally dipping into them when following up a comparative thought.
I think donating your Hindu stuff to a temple is a splendid idea! (However, if you are like me and like having information to all sorts of philosophy available, I would hang on to them just for a while. Personally, I totally regret having given away books on Christianity and Judaism out of the notion of 'I don't want them as they are not about my religion'.)

I find that modern Asatru does not necessarily work easily with any of the established Hindu religions (Shaivism, Shaktism, Smartism, Vaishnavism); yet my conclusion and conviction, after years of passionate comparative study in that field, is that the historical Germanic paganism is the closest --more or less surviving-- off-shoot of the original Indo-Iranian religion.