[Sca-cooks] Paganism was RE: A new twist!

[lilinah at earthlink.net]

>In a message dated 12/17/02 5:56:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>lilinah at earthlink.net writes:
>  > And many of these Paganisms continue to exist, such as
>  > Hinduism.
>
>Hate to chime in and correct people but Hinduism is technically not a pagan
>religion. The definition of paganism is a belief system which has multiple,
>INDEPENDENT gods, such as the Greeks, Romans, Sumerians, etc etc. Hinduism
>believes that there are multiple deities, but they are all dependent or a
>part of one Supreme Essence or existance.

I totally, thoroughly, and completely disagree with this analysis of
Hinduism. It is only one way of looking at Hinduism, although
certainly an easier way to sell Hinduism to monotheists. To some
extent this view is revisionist.

I've been studying Hinduism off and on for about 35 years, but i have
no pretensions to authority. I began in the mid-1960s, starting when
i studied and rejected monotheism, but didn't yet realize that there
were non-monothisms still in practice.

Hinduism is rather a giant blanket religion.

While there may ultimately be one single divine essence, the actual
practices of most Hindus is not identical with the theory.

Many people who consider themselves Hindus are henotheists - that
means they worship primarily one deity, although they acknowledge the
existence of others - Thou shalt have no god before me... but i'm not
counting those that are lined up behind me...

Additionally, some of them say that *their deity* is the primary
manifestation of the great cosmic essence, and all other deities are
forms of this primary deity. Those who follow Shiva and those who
follow Vishnu have actually warred with each other for primacy,
because the followers felt so strongly that their deity was the
essential one and the other was not.

In fact, the development of Hinduism was somewhat political, a way to
bring together the many and varied regional deities from all over the
huge subcontinent of South Asia. It is then politically expedient
when trying to unify a continent (and this happened long before the
19th c.) to say that everyone's very different deity is really part
of some larger single whole. This is good for political unity - it is
good for king making.

Hinduism may be monist, or sometimes even monotheist, in theology,
but in practice it is polytheistic. If a Hindu truly believes that
all gods and goddesses are one, then it shouldn't matter which one
you worship... but in reality, who you worship is very very
important. For different needs or goals, one make offerings and says
prayers to different deities. You don't give to Kali for the same
reasons you give to Ganesha.

Many of the well known deities have had other regional deities
agglomerated to them. So while now these individual deities can be
considered as forms of a particular "more important" deity, this was
not always the case, and this accretion is recent - going back
perhaps only a few hundred years.

In a way Hinduism is sort of a Borg of religion, in its continuing
assimilation of many individual deities.

Thus, many local and regional deities have either been wiped out, or
have come to be considered related to a more popular, more commonly
known deity. But there were originally thousands of different
deities, and many still are.

Indeed, many many forms of Paganism and neoPaganism around the world
acknowledge some single essence in the Universe, some single source
of all creation, but actual worship by humans takes on a wide variety
of forms.

I stand by my statement that Hinduism is a form of polytheism and a
form of Paganism - two things which are not identical - since not all
Pagans are pure polytheists. Some Hindus are very definitely
polytheists, some are henotheists, some are monotheists, some are
monists.

>Question for those who are Pagan/Wiccan:
>What is the difference between plain Wicca/Pagan religion and the
>NeoPagan/NeoWiccan?
>Is it difference in practice or difference in the followings of
>writings (As in maybe the NeoWiccans
>follow Aleister Crowley's rules, etc. I'm not too fluent in Paganism and
>Witchcraft in the whole, even though I do have Pagan/Wiccan friends)

Paganism is a really big, huge, large blanket term that covers an
enormous variety of human beliefs and practices all over the globe
and throughout time. It is a generalization, a term of lumping (as
opposed to splitting :-)

neoPagan is a much smaller blanket, covering many different sets of
beliefs and practices. Some are based on or inspired by old dead
Paganisms - ones that have not been practiced for centuries. Some are
sets of beliefs and practices that have been recently invented (i
have no problem with the invention or creation of a new religion -
they are not necessarily less valid than old ones).

Wicca is a very specific set of beliefs and practices that was pretty
much invented by Englishman Gerald Gardner in the 1940s. There are a
number of closely related Wiccan traditions besides Gardnerian Wicca.
As far as i know, from sitting in on the discussions of Wiccan
historians, they are all English in origin. There are specific books
about Gardnerianism you can read to find out what Wicca means.

neoWicca is a term i am not alone in using. It is what one finds
simply called Wicca on the internet most of the time and in many many
books - often by people who are quite unaware of the history of
Paganism, neoPaganism, Wicca, and whatever they're practicing.
NeoWicca generally borrows some of the outer trappings of Gardnerian
Wicca, but does not have the same organizational structure, teaching
structure, advancement structure, the same "Book" - which includes
all the rites, rituals, and information you're allowed to have at the
specific level you've achieved. It also includes nifty stuff borrowed
from many other religious practices. "Celtic" has been quite
fashionable for about 20 years, although most "Celtic" borrowings
into neoWicca are quite superficial.

Alester Crowley to a large extent created the OTO (Ordo Templo
Orientis) - he rewrote and invented a lot when he took it over, from
near defunctness. He like to be thought of as evil and considered
experiments with all kinds of sex and drugs to be a part of his
religious practice, to the point of formalizing certain specific
behaviors into the system of advancement in the Order, which are
still carried out today among those who are in the OTO.

NeoWiccans for the most part don't really do much that is Crowleian.
And most Crowleians utterly reject any association with Wiccans or
neoWiccans. In fact, they tend to have great antipathy for each other.

Witchcraft is not always a religion. Some neoPagans consider it to be
a religion, but some consider it to be practical and separate from
religion - religion honors/acknowledges the divine - witchcraft
achieves results in the daily world.

I really really don't want to get into the details here, not because
i can't, but this discussion really doesn't belong here.

Surf the net, you'll find many answers.

Anahita