PAGAN POWER IN MODERN EUROPE - AND AN HINDU'S VIEW

[Tautalos]

rudra said:

tautalos said:

I can't see why would there be a need to agree about those issues in order to form a political-ethnic-spiritual alliance.

For a political allience, you don't need much, only a common enemy,

I think that such thought is dangerously wrong. Contrary to what many people believe, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my ally.
Many European nationalists, being anti-zionist, believe that the Muslims are good allies against the Jews. That's a deadly mistake.

Even Jews can make some kind of temporary alliance with hindus too. A jew and a euro-pagan would have the same chances, no discrimination is there between the two for hindus.

Well, for a start, much of the religious intolerance that exists in the world comes from Judaism. Today, Jews are religiously tolerant and yes, they can be allies against Islam; however, their God is, after all, the same of the Christians and the Muslims, while the Gods of the Europagans have a common root in common with the Hindus'.

Culturally(mainly because of islam) indians feel more closer to middle-eastern world-view than they do to an european pagan one.

I really doubt that.

As for a long lasting spiritual connection, you need to agree on or find similarities in some of these religious philosophies, because without it, we would only have a temporary allience. And both groups would go their own ways afterwards. You should remember, There is a spiritual understanding, a similar religious world between lets say a japanese Zen buddhist and lingayat hindu living in bangalore. The same can't be said for surviving european traditions and modern hinduism today.

Can you give examples of those spiritual connections?

[Tautalos]

rudra said:

The biggest problem I have with this indo-European union, is that in the process many of the non-indo-european traditions and contributions (IN EUROPE, INDIA AND the MIDDLE-EAST) gets forgotten or gets swept underneath the rug

Not necessarily. Some traditions would be more valued than others (AS ALWAYS) but that does not mean that the less valued would have to be forgotten. In a polytheistic system, the importance given to any religious aspect depends on each person.

[RUDRA]

tautalos said:

That means that the Aryan religious root was efective not only on a familiar level, but also on a national level.

Well if some Aryan religious root survived on a political level, so be it. But on a personal familiar level, well I haven't read anything to point any similarities between the Greco-roman worlds and the indo-irani faiths.

Not greater - abundant, but of secondary importance.

I think you got it the exact opposite, indo-European traditions are of secondary importance in Slavic religions.

The Kalash? Aren't they a pagan folk that dwells in a part of Pakistan?

Well I see the kalash as the last surviving pure northern Pakistani cultures, without the influence of Buddhism, Islam, gnostics, or modern Hinduism. Their religion is very similar to ancient Vedic and Persian people. They are oldest indo-Aryan peoples still around.

No, that is not known for sure. Nobody knows which is the «Indo-European gene», so to speak. Some theories point to a gene that is dominant in Ukraine, or in Poland.
Still, it is not well known yet.

You are right to say, that nobody knows which genes are Indo-European? But it safe to say the western Europeans is mostly the descendents of Ice-age hunters, who were the oldest people to come to Europe.

[RUDRA]

tautalos said:

I think that such thought is dangerously wrong. Contrary to what many people believe, the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my ally.
Many European nationalists, being anti-zionist, believe that the Muslims are good allies against the Jews. That's a deadly mistake.

well i am not talking about holy war, but maybe mutual support, till both can stand on their own.

Well, for a start, much of the religious intolerance that exists in the world comes from Judaism. Today, Jews are religiously tolerant and yes, they can be allies against Islam; however, their God is, after all, the same of the Christians and the Muslims.

Boy you europeans love to blaim the jews on everything, no wonder they left for israel. Look its not their fault that their religious intolerance spread around the world, blaim that on the christians.

The Some of the Anicent jews were what I call religious Elitests, at worst few could even be seen as religious snoobs. some jews felt they were better than everybody, that they were god's chosen people, and their religion was better than all others. We have a similar group of religious snoobs in hinduism, the brahmans.

But jews were never intolerant to pagans(never tryed to destory their faiths), they left the pagans alone, and kept to themselves.

however, their God is, after all, the same of the Christians and the Muslims, while the Gods of the Europagans have a common root in common with the Hindus'.

Hinduism is not purely monotheistic like in Judaism, but hinduism isn' t purely polytheistic nether, it is deeply a pantheistic/panentheistic religion. So we believe in one main god, apart from God there is nothing higher. Many hindus believe Allah and Elohim are just another name for Isvara

indians culturally feel closer to middle-east, I really doubt that.

Has Hinduism in north india been influenced by islam? oh yes, very much. Many Hindus know of sufi poets, take part in islamic festivals, and even call God (isvara) Allah. The mystic Kabir and Shirdi Sai Baba both brought many muslim concepts and ideas into Hinduism. Because of islam, and even before that, middle-eastern culture played an important role in india.

[Tautalos]

rudra said:

tautalos said:

That means that the Aryan religious root was efective not only on a familiar level, but also on a national level.

Well if some Aryan religious root survived on a political level, so be it. But on a personal familiar level, well I haven't read anything to point any similarities between the Greco-roman worlds and the indo-irani faiths.

It's precisely on that familiar level that the similarities are greater. I have spoke about the crucial importance of the hearth's sacred fire in Rome and in Greece. Also take a look on Fustel de Coulanges «The Ancient City» where more details about that are given (even concerning the father's acceptance of the child and the ritual of name giving).

I think you got it the exact opposite, indo-European traditions are of secondary importance in Slavic religions.

No, they are crucial and determinant.

Well I see the kalash as the last surviving pure northern Pakistani cultures, without the influence of Buddhism, Islam, gnostics, or modern Hinduism. Their religion is very similar to ancient Vedic and Persian people. They are oldest indo-Aryan peoples still around.

Meanwhile, it is known that they were influenced by Hellenic civilization, including the religious aspect:
www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_3161729_08/04/2005_54956

You are right to say, that nobody knows which genes are Indo-European? But it safe to say the western Europeans is mostly the descendents of Ice-age hunters, who were the oldest people to come to Europe.

Perhaps. And who can be assured that those Ice-age hunters are not the first Indo-Europeans?

[Tautalos]

rudra said:

Boy you europeans love to blaim the jews on everything, no wonder they left for israel.

It's their right place, isn't it? Israel is for Jews, Jews are for Israel.

Look its not their fault that their religious intolerance spread around the world, blaim that on the christians.

I didn't say the contrary.

The Anicent jews were what I call religious Elites, or religious snoobs. They felt they were better than everybody, they were god's chosen people, and their religion was better than all others. We have a similar group of religious snoobs in hinduism, the brahmans.

However, the Brahmans did never considered the Deities of other folks as evil, did they?

Many hindus believe Allah and Elohim are just another name for Isvara

Yet, the Muslims and the Jews don't consider that Brama, Vishnu or Xiva can be other names for Allah or Jeovah, respectively...

indians culturally feel closer to middle-east, I really doubt that.

Has Hinduism in north india been influenced by islam? oh yes, very much. Many Hindus know of sufi poets, take part in islamic festivals, and even call God (isvara) Allah. The mystic Kabir and Shirdi Sai Baba both brought many muslim concepts and ideas into Hinduism. Because of islam, and even before that, middle-eastern culture played an important role in india. [/quote]

In that case, Europeans also feel culturally close to middle-east because of Christianity...
That's beside the point. Both nationalist Hindus and nationalist pagan Europeans refuse any connection to the Semitic middle-east and value above all their Aryan essence.

[RUDRA]

tautalos said:

Rudra, I will later answer to your messages.
For now, take a look at the similarities between Celtic and Vedic religions:
www.geocities.com/indianpaganism/celticvedic.html

Here are few similarities that I agree with the article:
+Celtic term for the Gods is 'Deuos' and the Vedic term is 'Devas'
+Goddess Danu as a river falling from heaven is similar to Ganga and Sarasvati.
+the battle between two supernatural forces are found in both cultures.
+the Celtic Danu and the Vedic Danu, mother of the seven Danvanas(Asura), could have the same origin in the distant past.

Everything else was common ideas that popped up without any contact with each other. Plus about The Stonehenge - A lost Vedic connection part? It seems like the author is trying too hard, to connect to historic India.

About Brahmans & Druids:
An organized priesthood doesn't mean they would have had a common origin. For all we know the La Tène culture (Iron Age) gave birth to the Druidism. Both Vedic Brahmins and the Celtic Druids should have come about at different places at different time-periods in history. Many indo-European groups in Europe didn't have such a complex priestly class like the Celtics, not even the Baltic peoples (who seem to keep the oldest indo-European roots in Europe).

Plus many peoples had a very complicated priesthood, from ancient Israeli to ancient Egyptians. If I really wanted to, I could find you some superficial similarities between say a Brahman and Levite, just like the article did on druids and Brahmans. You are comparing apples to oranges, and guess what they both are fruits!

Reincarnation:
The doctrine of Reincarnation is not found in many of indo-European faiths (Europe, Vedic India, or Iran). If ancient Celtics always had an idea of reincarnation, then they would have been the only odd man out of the group. Because Reincarnation was a new, non-Vedic idea to even ancient orthodox Brahmans (it wasn't talked about in the Vedas, brahmanas, or even the aranyakas).

Only later on in the Upanishads, was the concept (reincarnation) attributed to the sage Uddalaka Aruni, plus this sage is said to have learned of this idea from a warrior chief. I feel just like in India, the Celts borrowed the ideas from non-indo-Europeans peoples; it’s mostly likely the sun-worshipping Megalithic builders who passed on the idea of Reincarnation and complex priesthood to the Celts.

Yakshas & Fairies:
As for Fairies, they seem to be earthly spirits of nature, which both helped and played Tricks on mortals(had everyday dealings with mortals). Indian Yakshas or the Persian Yazatas seems to be heavenly Generals/soldiers who fought demons, and guarded holy items(Stayed away from mortals for the most).

[RUDRA]

Here something that I want you to read to understand what I am getting at: www.hinduism-today.com/archives/2001/9-10/54-55_pagans.shtml
*Personally I believe that a common Indo-European origins, even if it exists, its is now a weak anicent link. A bridge today can only be buide by a common spiritual philosophical understanding.
*PLus hindus are a very scriptural & who deeply influenced by monotheism, This is only two things that the article didn't mention rightly.

Also when the article warns of impure motives and degenerative trends, here is an examples:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savitri_Devi
A person like this would destroy the ideal, because its backed by all of the wrong motives.

[Tautalos]

rudra said:

tautalos said:

Rudra, I will later answer to your messages.
For now, take a look at the similarities between Celtic and Vedic religions:
www.geocities.com/indianpaganism/celticvedic.html

Here are few similarities that I agree with the article:
+Celtic term for the Gods is 'Deuos' and the Vedic term is 'Devas'
+Goddess Danu as a river falling from heaven is similar to Ganga and Sarasvati.
+the battle between two supernatural forces are found in both cultures.
+the Celtic Danu and the Vedic Danu, mother of the seven Danvanas(Asura), could have the same origin in the distant past.

Everything else was common ideas that popped up without any contact with each other. Plus about The Stonehenge - A lost Vedic connection part? It seems like the author is trying too hard, to connect to historic India.

And I think that the crucial aspects that even you recognize are good enough to indicate the existence of an ancient, essential and living connection.

About Brahmans & Druids:
An organized priesthood doesn't mean they would have had a common origin.

But, in this case, we know that they have a common origin (through linguistic studies in the first place). Therefore, it's quite probable that Druids and Brahmans, and Flamines (Latin) have the same root.

For all we know the La Tène culture (Iron Age) gave birth to the Druidism.

That does not mean that Druidism did not exist during the Hallstatt culture, or even before.

Both Vedic Brahmins and the Celtic Druids should have come about at different places at different time-periods in history.

[/i][/b] Many indo-European groups in Europe didn't have such a complex priestly class like the Celtics,[/quote]

That's because they probably lost it, while both Celts and Aryans preserved that priestly social order.

Plus many peoples had a very complicated priesthood, from ancient Israeli to ancient Egyptians.

But those are out of the subject, since they don't have Indo-European origins.

If I really wanted to, I could find you some superficial similarities between say a Brahman and Levite, just like the article did on druids and Brahmans. You are comparing apples to oranges, and guess what they both are fruits!

No. You did that just now, with that comparison between Brahmans and Levites.
I compared golden supremes to redstars and realize that they are both apples.

Only later on in the Upanishads, was the concept (reincarnation) attributed to the sage Uddalaka Aruni, plus this sage is said to have learned of this idea from a warrior chief. I feel just like in India, the Celts borrowed the ideas from non-indo-Europeans peoples; it’s mostly likely the sun-worshipping Megalithic builders who passed on the idea of Reincarnation and complex priesthood to the Celts.

It's possible.

[Tautalos]

rudra said:

Here something that I want you to read to understand what I am getting at: www.hinduism-today.com/archives/2001/9-10/54-55_pagans.shtml

Good text. I already knew it.

*Personally I believe that a common Indo-European origins, even if it exists, its is now a weak anicent link. A bridge today can only be buide by a common spiritual philosophical understanding.

And I believe that that common Indo-European origin is still visible and of crucial relevance - for traditional folks, ancestry is absolutely fundamental (which is evident in the importance that the worship/relation to the dead ancestors have) at a religious level, and thus, it's a matter of coherence - glorifying the most ancient ethnic roots of our people will lead, naturally, to a valuation of the Indo-European links between the several branches of the great Indo-European tree.

[Tautalos]

As for genetic heritage, take a look at this map:



See how the gene defined in the map as hg1 is dominant in Western Europe and it also exists in the eastern areas where Indo-European languages are spoken, like Ossetia.


Anyway, what matters is, in my opinion, being caucasian and speaking an Indo-European language, since the Aryan folks of Antiquity were not all equal physically.

[RUDRA]

Sorry I that took so long to answer, I just been so busy this weekend.

tautalos said:

It's precisely on that familiar level that the similarities are greater. I have spoke about the crucial importance of the hearth's sacred fire in Rome and in Greece. Also take a look on Fustel de Coulanges «The Ancient City» where more details about that are given (even concerning the father's acceptance of the child and the ritual of name giving).

I guess I can't take this any further until I read this book «The Ancient City» by Fustel de Coulanges. So we'll leave this subject about ancient Greco-Romans for now

No, they are crucial and determinant.

Well you can compare Veda Slovena - a compilation of archaic Bulgarian ritual songs, with the Finnish national epic Kalevala. To see the similarities. You can even compare any Slavic deities to Finnish deities to see were I am getting at.

Meanwhile, it is known that they were influenced by Hellenic civilization, including the religious aspect:
www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_3161729_08/04/2005_54956

No! There is no proof that Alexander’s army (who weren't all Greek to begin with) left any impact in the Kalash people, or any northwest Indians to speak of. Again and again so many different Indian peoples have been credited to have been originated from his army by the later European powers. There are many different peoples and its quiet a big list; it includes the Coorgs (Kodava) in south India, Jatts in Punjab, the Kashmiris, the Hunza, the Gujjar, the Dards, and even the Afghan Pushtun. This bit about Alexander’s army is one big historical fiction that has no proof to back its self up.

After Alexander's death his empire was divided among his officers, the eastern most of the Hellenistic states was the Seleucid Empire in Asia. This was a Greek Persian state founded by Seleucus, one of his generals, who established his head-quarters in Babylon. So the greatest influence the Seleucid Empire had was in western Iran/Iraq region, not in north-west India. The Seleucid Empire would have made up of a Persian majority, backing up a small Greek and Persian Mixed elites group.

Seleucus who tried to invade India, but was defeated by Chandragupta Maurya’s army, and was forced to conclude an alliance and give him his daughter in marriage. Later when the Greco-Bactrians dynasty formed (which broke of from the Seleucid Empire), it established itself in Bactria (Tajikistan). These Greek kings were very much influenced by the Mauryan Empire and the Indian Buddhism of those times. One of the main reason they invaded India later on, was to the save the dying Mauryan dynasty and also save the Buddhist faith from being destroy by Hindu fanatics. If the Kalash got some of there cultural influence from the Greco-Bactrian kings then there would be a great amount of Buddhist influence in there culture, but there is none what so ever.

The kalash people are what I said they are, the purest north-indian(pakistani) culture, without the influence of greeks, islam, modern persians, Buddhist or modern hinduism. They are similar to anicent iranian and vedic people, but their religion is more Primitive in many levels.

Perhaps. And who can be assured that those Ice-age hunters are not the first Indo-Europeans?

Maybe, but because there remains a Basque-speaking peoples still in Europe today. There is this good chance that the many Europeans weren't always speaking an Indo-European languages.

[RUDRA]

tautalos said:

It's their right place, isn't it? Israel is for Jews, Jews are for Israel.

Well tell that to the Palestinians who feel that many jews are european fogieners. Plus I know few euros and americans who feel jews don't belong in israel.

I didn't say the contrary.

I don't recall you saying anything about the christians or muslims. If the religion of christ or islam were never born, many pagans faith in much of world who have remained the same. The jews wouldn't have done anything to pagan europeans.

However, the Brahmans did never considered the Deities of other folks as evil, did they?

Brahmans have been know to look down upon foreign unknown(non-vedic) deities, and they have Demonized deities and holy peoples of other faiths(mainly buddhist & jainism). Plus Brahmans were know for their Persecution of Buddhism and jainism in india. But because they are minority, they would most of the time keep quite, until they got the power, or were given power(by powerful kings). Hinduism isn't alway such a peaceful religion as many people believe, but compare it to christianity and islam, and it becames a saint.

Yet, the Muslims and the Jews don't consider that Brama, Vishnu or Xiva can be other names for Allah or Jeovah, respectively...

Outside of india, most people don't know much about hinduism. But indian jews(bombay jews) and moderate muslims though may have problems accepting deities like Brama, Vishnu or Siva(and the mythology behind them). Yet they don't have problem considering the God(Bhagavan/Isvara) of Upanishads and Vedantas the same as their G-D.

In that case, Europeans also feel culturally close to middle-east because of Christianity...

Bingo there you go, both indians and euros are closer to middle-east, than eachother. There is strong possiblity that indo-europeans orginated in the middle-east. Even before Christianity europeans were still culturally close to the middle-east, but after Christianity the flood-gates reached all the way to ireland.

That's beside the point. Both nationalist Hindus and nationalist pagan Europeans refuse any connection to the Semitic middle-east and value above all their Aryan essence.

That's true, but you should remember that modern abrahamic middle-east , is not the anicent Semitic middle-east that influneced both india & europe.

[RUDRA]

tautalos said:

And I think that the crucial aspects that even you recognize are good enough to indicate the existence of an ancient, essential and living connection.

Ofcourse there is a small living connections, but the crucial aspects of article I don't agree with: Druids/Brahman, faries in india, and aryan concept of reincarnation.

But, in this case, we know that they have a common origin (through linguistic studies in the first place). Therefore, it's quite probable that Druids and Brahmans, and Flamines (Latin) have the same root.

Linguistic connection don't prove there is an common shared priesthood. To say indo-european language had a common origin is one thing, but to say that priestly knowlege travel with it, is another story altogther.

Plus being an priest is pretty easy, all you have do is memorize rituals & cermony. There are priests allover the world, and even islam has a priestly tribe taking care of Kaaba in Mecca. The point is that the Druids and Flamines would have evolved in europe, and the Brahmans in north-west india, all after the expansion of the indo-europeans.

That does not mean that Druidism did not exist during the Hallstatt culture, or even before.

For sure the early spark of Druidism could go back to the Hallstatt culture, but why stop there when we go far as the pre-Celtic Urnfield culture. Some scholars feel these pre-Celtic(Urnfield) peoples marked the origin of the Celts people as a new and different indo-european peoples in europe. but all things aside Druidism most likely matured during the La Tène culture.

That's because they probably lost it, while both Celts and Aryans preserved that priestly social order.

But where is the proof that Celts and indians preserved the older priestly order. Even the kalash peoples(the only oldest surviving indo-europeans) don't even have an powerful priestly class, and they reach the spirit-world useing shamans and mediums. To say an migrating peoples would carry with them a complex priestly order in their long journey, sounds far-fetched.

But those are out of the subject, since they don't have Indo-European origins.

I used them, only to make a point that any cultures could have complex priestly order. If the anicent egyptians in their long history adopted an indo-european language, then what would stop a pagan from the future in saying their priesthood is also indo-european in origin.

No. You did that just now, with that comparison between Brahmans and Levites.

The problem is that if ancient israelis were indo-european speakers, I or anyone else could have gotten away with it.

It's possible.

The funny thing is that the concept of reincarnation, that both hindus and celts share. Has the power to unite both peoples religious world-views together, even if they both learned it from non-indo-european peoples.

[RUDRA]

tautalos said:

Good text. I already knew it.

yep its a Good text alright ;D
One of things I think the article implies is that this pagan european and hindu relationship is a work in process, not anything set in stone.