Paganism and Indigenous Traditions

[Unveiled Artist]

Is there a difference between Paganism (collection of religions that fall under this category) and Indigenous traditions?

I am assuming many Indigenous/native traditions or customs are considered Pagan. As for being under paganism or neopagan, I don't think indigenous/native traditions are under those categories.

Edit

I was reading this article: http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3448400023/indigenous-religions.html and it says:

The word indigenous refers to anything that is native to a particular geographical region. This includes people, cultures, languages, or species of plants or animals. The Aborigines of Australia, for example, are an indigenous people, in contrast to the European settlers who arrived on the continent long after. Similarly, American Indians are the indigenous peoples of North America. A synonym often used for indigenous is "native," but the word native in connection with peoples and their cultures is potentially offensive. It could be considered a stereotype, suggesting that they are primitive or backward.​

If Paganism is religions that predate Christianity, even Judaism, then I'd assume in each respective country, America included, Pagans would be native/indigeneous.

This gives another perspective of what Paganism means. However, I'm more focused on the academic and objective definitions of the world instead of debating personal interpretations based on personal belief systems/religious practices.

Does this make sense?

 

[Aupmanyav]

I'm more focused on the academic and objective definitions of the world instead of debating personal interpretations based on personal belief systems/religious practices. Does this make sense?

No. The so-called academic and objective definitions too are personal interpretations.

As for the topic, I consider the term 'pagan' correct for all indigenous traditions including Hinduism, the largest and the happiest of all 'pagan' traditions.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

No. The so-called academic and objective definitions too are personal interpretations.

As for the topic, I consider the term 'pagan' correct for all indigenous traditions including Hinduism, the largest and the happiest of all 'pagan' traditions.

Thats basically how I defined Paganism as indigenous traditions too. When I read the definition itself, it kinda confirmed that.

What would be the boundry line where Hinduism is no longer a Pagan religion?

 

[Aupmanyav]

What would be the boundry line where Hinduism is no longer a Pagan religion?

I think appearance of some one like Zarathustra or Mohammad who will say there is only one God, break all other idols. There is only one book and one way.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think appearance of some one like Zarathustra or Mohammad who will say there is only one God, break all other idols. There is only one book and one way.

Zarathustra? Edit: oh. Looked it up. Wonder what got people to go with one religion?

Probably Moses? Was he an actually guy on earth?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Zarathrustra predated Moses.

 

[Corthos]

From my limited understanding, Zoroastrianism actually influenced Judaism and Christianity, both (though the former much more than the latter). It has ties to Hinduism. =)

Kind of odd to think that Abrahamic religions have ties ultimately to Hinduism, eh?

 

[allfoak]

Where does the religion of the indigenous cultures come from?
Who started it all and why?
Why are we still doing the religion thing millions of years later?

 

[Aupmanyav]

It comes from trying to understand the working of nature. The Neanderthals and the Danisovans had it. Don't know what earlier primates thought about it. It is not the same religion, we have changed it many times, fought many wars over it, killed and maimed many, raped and enslaved many. Now we might be in the process of abandoning it all.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

From my limited understanding, Zoroastrianism actually influenced Judaism and Christianity, both (though the former much more than the latter). It has ties to Hinduism. =)

Kind of odd to think that Abrahamic religions have ties ultimately to Hinduism, eh?

It's an eastern religion influenced by eastern concepts. Until it spread to Rome (which is west, right?)

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I think indigenous religions are rooted in the experience of, understandings about, and relationships with the specific people who live in a specific geographical and social space. Indigenous religions are most often most about day-to-day survival in the world--how to have health, success in the hunt and the harvest, children who survive to adulthood, food and comfort, good luck in the lottery, and suchlike.

Edit: Thus, most indigenous cultures religion is not separate from the rest of the living culture of the society. In this focus on practical living, indigenous "religions" are "pagan," but many modern pagan religions do not seem to have these kinds of roots; in my view, the world religions have become more concerned about transcendent ideas and activities, and not so much about the immanent experience of the world. I'm sure there are exceptions, of course...

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The word "pagan" comes from the Latin paganus which went through the senses "country-dweller" > "civilian, in army slang" > "layman, outsider, in civilian slang > "non-Christian, in Christian slang". Obviously the people called pagans were practitioners of indigenous religions and the term has been used for indigenous religions -- one with no claimed founder -- ever since.

One of the problems is with Neopaganism: founded religions which try to recapture European paganism (e.g. Druidry) or whose founders thought they were recovering such a religion (e.g. Wicca). Practitioners of Neopaganism often insist on calling themselves pagan, even though the beliefs of Wicca bear little relation to any previous paganism. As Margot Adler wrote, "The most authentic and hallowed Wiccan tradition [is] stealing from any source that didn't run away too fast." Personally, I draw the line at allowing them to hijack useful terminology!

Of course, you don't have to spend much time in places like this to see the frequency of the Humpty Dumpty doctrine: "When I use a word it means whatever I want it to." The result is that we end up talking past each other, as everyone feels entitled to use their own definitions.

 

[Quintessence]

I'll just say it's not uncommon for "Paganism" (proper case) to include indigenous religions. It's also not uncommon for prefixes to be applied, such as:

• Indigenous Paganisms
• Historical Paganisms
• Contemporary/modern Paganisms

I would suggest you read Michael York's "Pagan Theology" if you're really interested in this, Carlita.

 

[Quintessence]

David, I have to ask. Are you aware that the academic literature considers reconstructionists like you to fall within the header of contemporary/modern/neo Paganism?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I'll just say it's not uncommon for "Paganism" (proper case) to include indigenous religions. It's also not uncommon for prefixes to be applied, such as:

• Indigenous Paganisms
• Historical Paganisms
• Contemporary/modern Paganisms

I would suggest you read Michael York's "Pagan Theology" if you're really interested in this, Carlita.

Ima see if I can get it on my nook. I was thinking the two were hand in hand.

 

[Corthos]

It's an eastern religion influenced by eastern concepts. Until it spread to Rome (which is west, right?)

Errr... I'm going to assume you were referring to Zoroastrianism. XD

It was eastern in origin, but even in it's earliest days in the Achaemenid Empire, it was changing. Keep in mind that Zoroaster came to ancient Iran from elsewhere, and he came in long before the religion exploded like it did throughout the Persian Empire. As the religion took root, it began to become altered by local pagan beliefs and superstitions... This isn't unprecedented, since eastern religions were so different from the faiths practiced in the middle east (Iran), and people would naturally want to keep their traditions.

For example: In the original Gathas the good and evil concepts are strictly concepts of the mind. Angra Mainyu was the negative (bad thoughts/feelings), while Spenta Mainyu was the opposite (good thoughts/feelings). Later, as time went on, they had developed into ACTUAL figures. Angra Mainyu the evil force of darkness that opposes Ahura Mazda; Spenta Mainyu, the angel/spirit, and embodiment of one of the 7 aspects of Ahura Mazda.

Alternatively, Some aspects of Zoroastrianism rubbed off on the ancient Semites that they had liberated from the Babylonians...

Yahweh has 7 main attributes, but so did Ahura Mazda (the Amesha Spentas)
Yahweh was originally part of a pantheon of gods, but became a monotheistic deity with aspects very similar to Ahura Mazda...
Keep in mind, also, that the ancient Semitic peoples spent some time under the kingship of the Persians, and developed a close relationship with them. Hell, Cyrus the Great had even helped them build their temple, and in the Bible he is hailed as "annointed."

Of course, this is what my research has shown, and I could be wrong. I appreciate any corrections if my information isn't accurate. =)

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Are you aware that the academic literature considers reconstructionists like you to fall within the header of contemporary/modern/neo Paganism?

I tend to think this is correct, given that there isn't a coherent set of ancient Pagan religious texts to draw from, and and given that there aren't well-preserved lineages.

 

[Whiterain]

I'm working on academic resources... I don't know anything articulately but Animism - Polytheism - Monotheism..

Man was around before Animism but my knowledge there is even more vague.

So to my knowledge... Man worshipped or "revered" the great beasts.... Then some bad *** came along and changed that, or came along and slaughtered those beasts and fed them to the people.... Maybe this "Zeus" character.. Something happened to the Minoan Auroch.

The Leviathan is mentioned six times in the Tanakh, with Job 41:1–34 being dedicated to describing him in detail:[1]

1 Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope?
2 Can you put a cord through his nose or pierce his jaw with a hook?
3 Will he keep begging you for mercy? Will he speak to you with gentle words?
4 Will he make an agreement with you for you to take him as your slave for life?
5 Can you make a pet of him like a bird or put him on a leash for your girls?
6 Will traders barter for him? Will they divide him up among the merchants?
7 Can you fill his hide with harpoons or his head with fishing spears?
8 If you lay a hand on him, you will remember the struggle and never do it again!
9 Any hope of subduing him is false; the mere sight of him is overpowering.
10 No-one is fierce enough to rouse him. Who then is able to stand against me?
11 Who has a claim against me that I must pay? Everything under heaven belongs to me.
12 I will not fail to speak of his limbs, his strength and his graceful form.
13 Who can strip off his outer coat? Who would approach him with a bridle?
14 Who dares open the doors of his mouth, ringed about with his fearsome teeth?
15 His back has rows of shields tightly sealed together;
16 Each is so close to the next that no air can pass between.
17 They are joined fast to one another; they cling together and cannot be parted.
18 His snorting throws out flashes of light; his eyes are like the rays of dawn.
19 Firebrands stream from his mouth; sparks of fire shoot out.
20 Smoke pours from his nostrils as from a boiling pot over a fire of reeds.
21 His breath sets coals ablaze, and flames dart from his mouth.
22 Strength resides in his neck; dismay goes before him.
23 The folds of his flesh are tightly joined; they are firm and immovable.
24 His chest is hard as rock, hard as a lower millstone.
25 When he rises up, the mighty are terrified; they retreat before his thrashing.
26 The sword that reaches him has no effect, nor does the spear or the dart or the javelin.
27 Iron he treats like straw and bronze like rotten wood.
28 Arrows do not make him flee, sling stones are like chaff to him.
29 A club seems to him but a piece of straw, he laughs at the rattling of the lance.
30 His undersides are jagged potsherds, leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing-sledge.
31 He makes the depths churn like a boiling cauldron and stirs up the sea like a pot of ointment.
32 Behind him he leaves a glistening wake; one would think the deep had white hair.
33 Nothing on earth is his equal—a creature without fear.
34 He looks down on all that are haughty; he is king over all that are proud.
In Psalm 74 God is said to "break the heads of Leviathan in pieces" before giving his flesh to the people of the wilderness. In Psalm 104 God is praised for having made all things, including Leviathan; and in Isaiah 27:1 he is called the "wriggling serpent" who will be killed at the end of time.[2]

I love that poem.. Really.. I love it... I'm not an avid fan of Judaism but that's a masterpiece.

Then we (some) worshipped or revered Zeus.

Some have suggested Leviathan was Jörmungandr but it goes refuted... I've been told Leviathan was a giant fish or whale of some sort...

But that's insensitive to the rest of the kingdoms views... You can't say "Zeus", that's intrinsic to isolated peoples...


We're looking for the one true God.

The search for the one true God continues.

In myth all the great beasts are there... We may have worshipped them prior to contemporary polytheism...


If you want to learn more about European Paganism you have to look up the studies and books on the Indo-European migration...

 

[GoodbyeDave]

David, I have to ask. Are you aware that the academic literature considers reconstructionists like you to fall within the header of contemporary/modern/neo Paganism?

Yes, I know that some writers do. Just as I'm also aware of others who have abandoned the term "paganism" to the Wiccans and refer to ethnic and reconstructionist paganism as "polytheism" instead (e.g. Wendi Wilkerson).

My distinctions are based on the facts that

1. Paganism in the traditional sense evolves; neopaganism appeared the last century in the works of specific authors, just as Judaism appeared with the prophets during the divided monarchy.

2. Most neopagans practice magic, and in most forms of Wicca it's an integral component of the religion. But what's called magic in traditional societies is basically a form of ritual prayer, which is why classicists like Fritz Graf (ignorant of modern magic) define magic as socially suspect religious practice. I've still currently investigating, but I suspect the magic of the Western Magical Tradition is confined to Abrahamic religions.

3. Many neopagans have beliefs which are absent in traditional paganism, such as soft polytheism. Yes, some Hindus are soft polytheists (that's where Gardner got it from) but the Hinduism of the intellectuals (at least) has moved away from pure paganism, which is why Michael York doesn't consider modern Hinduism to be pagan.

PS On the question of magic, I've been checking the Chinese tradition today. In theory they recognise the possibility of magic powered by the magician and natural forces, but in practice all three traditions rely on divine aid.

 

[Quintessence]

I agree with many of your observations, @DavidMcCann. It's certainly something I've had to wrestle with myself in developing an internal classification system for Paganisms (of which I'd consider the contemporary varieties to be a somewhat distinct subset). All of that is probably a subject for another thread, though.