The seventh worldwide Gathering of the Elders

 

 

The seventh worldwide Gathering of the Elders

 

 

On 20-21 February 2021, the 7th international Gathering of the Elders was held. This is the world conference organized every 3rd year since 2003 by the International Center for Cultural Studies, hitherto always in an Indian city: Mumbai, Ujjain, Hardwar, Maisuru, Mumbai; Till now this event was always held in an Indian city, more or less coinciding with the start of the triannual Hindu mega-festival Kumbha Mela. The choice for India has strongly been supported by participants worldwide, but this was the first time that it was in the form of an unlocated teleconference, in sessions coinciding with late morning in respectively Asia/Pacific, Africa/Europe and the Americas.

This organization is headquartered in Washington DC, and was started at the initiative of Yashwant Pathak, professor of Pharmacy and RSS office-bearer (pracharak). As a known critic of the Hindu-nationalist movement RSS, I acknowledge that unlike their performance at the political level, their local workers' initiatives at the ground level can be very commendable. Indeed, the idea of building bridges with the world’s remaining pre-Christian and pre-Islamic traditions was a stroke of genius.

     But the show was still entirely run by Hindus, for Europe mostly the British National Hindu Students' Forum. The footage of the annual One Tree gatherings between British Hindus and Druids that filled the time between events was quite inspiring.

To those who have preserved their traditions (even through a difficult period of Christian domination), from Maoris to Mayas, this may be a very different world, where ex-Christian set out to rediscover their roots. They have to reconstruct what to hereditary Pagans is automatic, and thereby risk some artificiality,

     In the 1980s I had worked in a New Age bookshop and got to know the whole spiritualist scene, both the native and Oriental schools and movements. But I only decided to involve myself after I had gotten to know the Hindu philosopher Ram Swarup. In his book Names of Gods, he calls on Christian-born Westerners to make a pilgrimage back in time to the religion of their ancestors.

     In particular, I used to stress that the ethnic self-centredness of quite a few neo-Heathen groups was only seemingly based on the traditions of the ancestors. Of course their geographical horizon had been more limited, but they did not reject foreign inputs on principle. Indeed, a consciousness that different “religions” (to use a term appropriated by Christianity and wrongly given the connotation of discrete doctrinal boxes) were essentially a single continuum was already present. This was seen e.g. in the interpretatio Romana, the tendency to “translate” the gods of one people into those of another, as still seen in the names of the weekdays: Wednesday = Woden’s day = Mercurii dies = Budh-war.    

     Also, the oft-heard critique that Christianity had to be rejected because it was a “foreign imposition” and a “desert religion” made no sense. The desert is one of the landscapes to which human communities have had to adapt, and it is just as legitimate as the lush vegetation in our own environment. As for impositions, they are a pity, but not really because of their foreign origin. If the Christian message had been true, as it claims to be, then the foreign intrusion and the violation of the native cultures could be taken in stride for the greater good; the problem with the new religion was that it failed to live up to this promise. Maybe, with hindsight, some reforms were welcome in the ancestral cultures, but even then there was no need of the Christian novelty, and certainly no need for the native religionists to “burn what they had worshipped” (as demanded of the Frankish king Clovis upon his baptism in 496).

     This problem of nationalist appropriation of the native religion and obsession with its ancestral purity was gradually solved, not so much by my own interventions, but because the founder made it clear that the group’s purpose was religious, so that more political people lost interest. I don’t usually bring it up, and the new generation of Traditie members doesn’t even know about our debates in the early years; good for them. It is not really important, and unlike what journalists might think, it is not that significant for the European neo-Pagan scene, which is essentially a matter of post-Christians in search of something to fill the “God-shaped hole” left behind by the passing of a mighty religion. But it should not be denied or disowned either. A Sanskrit word for the lotus flower is panka-ja, which means “born from the mud”: let us own up the juvenile mistakes from which we have had to wrestle ourselves free in order to rise to the light.

     Another problem that the undersigned troublemaker rose up against, was more doctrinal. The group’s name was Traditie, not just a general reference to what has been passed on from the ancestors, but specifically to the “Traditionalist” movement. This was started in the interbellum by the French mathematician René Guénon, who believed in a past Revelation that held the truth, that we could at best only preserve, and from which no progress was possible. No wonder he converted to Islam, the very model of a static religion that claimed to be revealed and that tried to preserve the entire body of doctrine and commandments given at its outset. It seemed to me that this was at variance with the very idea of Paganism.

     Both the words “Pagan” and “Heathen” mean “rustic”, and refer to the European situation in the mid-1^st millennium, when the cities were being Christianized while the countryside still preserved its ancestral ways. It had a connotation of “backward” but was at once very revealing for a genuine distinction. Christianity was a “religion of the Book”, an artificial construct that preachers in the population centres had to tell you about, whereas the ancestral religion was based on nature. Wherever there is reality, Pagan religion has to come up, inevitably. You can start from scratch and it will develop. Our ancestors too had developed it from scratch. No presumed revelation was needed, nor any frantic attempt to preserve this revealed religion intact and impose it on the next generations. If ever we forget all about it, we can rediscover it for it is ever-present all around us.

     Yes, there is a lot of antiquarian interest in the Pagan Revivalist scene, with re-enactments of epic battles and breathing new life into old arts and crafts, but this is not a matter of principle. Not far from here, there is a place where our ancestors brought human sacrifices, with the victims all dressed up and painted for the occasion, possibly even honoured that they had been chosen for the role; I do not have the impression that anyone feels bound to revive such practices. Our sensibilities have evolved, and we start from who we really are, not from reaching back to an idealized past that fundamentalists might dream of. At heart neo-Paganism is a contemporary religion. I don’t think that the Maoris, Mayas and Hindus present would deny that their religion, though old, is very much a contemporary religion.

     Over the years, we increasingly focused on the variegated Heathen lore as it really exists (or as is easy to bring to the surface). Initially this closely followed in the footsteps of the Scandinavian movement Ásatrú, “being true to the gods”, which can base itself on a large transmitted corpus of documents, inscriptions and sculptures. This remains a source of inspiration, but the emphasis today is more on existing practices and rituals of which the profound source waits for rediscovery. This largely ties in with a broader social phenomenon in our post-Christian society: even religiously uninformed people try to create rituals to accompany the turning-points in their lives. A typical funeral nowadays does not take place in church anymore, but in a secular crematorium (burials are on their way out), where a relative or friend of the deceased person chooses or writes appropriate texts and music and devises his own appropriate ritual. One of our board members is professionally involved with this tendency, which is the most visible dimension of the repaganization of Western society.

     An element of this “back to reality” is the reclaiming of Christian lore that long ago was “inculturated” from Pagan sources. Thus, my sons recently walked in a procession for the Virgin Mary, which originally was devoted to a local river-goddess. Much of this lore fits in purely local traditions, not in a Pagan religion that might be construed as rivalling Christianity. For instance, there is a revival of the Celtic cult of the sea-goddess Nehalennia in nearby Zealand, hardly noticed in books about Celtic religion. Traditie has chapters in the provinces with a very distinct identity. 

  

Some feedback

     Now, a brief comment on all that I hear being said here. No one can fail to observe the attention given to environmental issues. This is commendable and necessary, but I am inclined to restore the balance a bit. Care for nature satisfies the Christian stereotype that Pagans are rustic, at best Noble Savages. Of course environmentalism, solving the energy scarcity without hurting it, controlling the climate sufficiently etc., is important, but religion has more to offer. What has Paganism to say to urban dwellers? As I have learned here from Druid spokesmen: their congregations out in the forest or in Stonehenge suffer the same seeming loss of interest as the churches and as most volunteer societies nowadays do; but they are a great success on the internet, where the younger generation feels more at home.

     An example of what should be another legitimate concern: the disappearance of the family in Western society. So far it is only the Evangelicals who address this issue and provide an (albeit old) alternative, whereas Pagans over here count as old hippies, dissolute and fully part of the individualistic and hedonistic society that we now live in. I would like to see a more articulate Heathen solution for the broken family. To be sure, on such topics, harder choices will have to be made, whereas environmentalism is a safe concern which no one really questions.

     Within the ecological discourse, I discern a pessimistic tone. More civilized variations on angry-faced Greta Thunberg’s dramatization of the present situation: “How dare you?!” Global warming, overpopulation, plastic pollution and the energy crisis (at least if you insist on going nuclear-free) seem to drive some speakers into a panic. While those topics are not my specialty, I know enough about the world to recognize these problems are but new variations on past problems that seemed formidable but proved eminently solvable. Who remembers “acid rain” or “the hole in the Ozone layer”? They were solved by human ingenuity, and I am confident that the problems presently before us can likewise be solved.

If the religious dimension that we are exploring here can contribute anything, it is confidence. For ages, religious people have faced hardships but relied on the basic trust that “God will provide”. The divisions in society too can be relativized, lightened, by looking at the transcendent dimension. Let us overcome all despondency and focus on the difference we can make. Let us ennoble the world!

Read more!

Hindus are Tribals, Hindus are Pagans

 

At the 5th Gathering of the Elders (Mysore, 1-4 February 2015), I was originally only present as an observer. But when a Hindu lady speaker had addressed the social philosophy of the Gond tribe, I felt it necessary to give a fitting reply, as it was contrary to the whole aim and spirit of the conference. To my good fortune, the next speaker failed to show up, so the chair asked me if I could improvise a lecture.

How deep the Christian missionary influence has penetrated the Hindu psyche, was shown by this rendering of their worldview. The first aim of the missionaries is to convince the tribals that they are not Hindus. (After that, they will tell them that their religion is very close to Christianity, that their self-acknowledgment as Hindus would constitute a “conversion” while their baptism would only constitute a “fulfilment” of their natural religion.) So, the lecture on the Gonds taught us that their religion is the very opposite of Hinduism because:

·         1. they worship Barâ Dev while Hindus worship Ishwar;

·         2. They consider the North auspicious; Hindus, the South;

·         3. They bury their dead; Hindus cremate them;

·         4. They believe in service to others (“jai seva!”), Hindus only in their own Liberation;

·         5. They believe the world is real, Hindus believe it is Maya (illusion).

·         6. They are divided in 12 exogamous phratries, Hindus in endogamous castes.

Against this, we notice that:

·         1. Barâ Dev, “great god”, is modern Indo-Aryan for Sanskrit Mahadeva, same meaning and a name for Shiva (“the benefactor”, which itself is a flattering name for the fearsome god Rudra, “furious”), for whom another name is Ishwar (“lord”). Within Hinduism, it is perfectly normal for a god to have different names, and for different divine personalities to overlap. There is simply no opposition between Barâ Dev and Mahadeva.

·         2. In Vastu Shatra, a front-door should not be built in the south, as it is deemed inauspicious, which is the same valuation of the south as among the Gonds. (For now, I take the speaker’s word for what exactly constitutes Gondi culture.) Even if it was different, it wouldn’t constitute a meaningful contrast: in China, the local habitat edology (fengshui) holds the south as positive and as the correct location of the front-door, due to a different climate: I the cold Yellow River valley, warmth was welcome, so the sunny south was good, whereas in hot India, men shield themselves against the sun. Yet, nobody derives therefrom a meaningful contrast between Indian and Chinese traditions, least of all the missionaries. Whether Chanakya or Confucius, all non-Christians are going to hell.

·         3. Hindus since Vedic times have known both cremation and burial. Infants and saints are still buried. In some corners, Hindu burials persist, e.g. among the Gonds.

·         4. Hindu society has always believed in social responsibility (Dharma, ca. “taking up your role as a specific part of the whole”), including the need for Seva, “service”, a genuine and ancient Sanskrit word (in contrast with Adivasi, “aboriginal”, which is a neologism devised by the missionaries in the colonial period). This was not put in the centre, and rightly so, but it was fully accepted. This duty was not discharged by clerics, as in Christianity, where hospitals were traditionally manned by nuns, but by laymen, mostly in the extended family. Ascetics, by contrast, were freed from social duty because they had taken up another duty, viz. pursuing Liberation, which to the laymen is mostly but a theoretical goal which they don’t actively pursue. Liberation is not “selfish” but impersonal, and requires a great deal of self-abnegation, even more than Seva.

·         5. Only a small percentage of the Hindus even know about Mayavad, the doctrine that the world is a fata morgana created by the magic power of the gods. It is a specific philosophy of Shankara, conditioned by his struggle against Buddhist idealism (Shunyavad, “doctrine of Emptiness”), which in turn is also not the whole of Buddhism (indeed, the Buddha himself would not have recognized it as his own teaching). Shankara is widely appreciated as a great debater and as the founder of the ascetic Dashanami order, but his philosophy has few takers. Gonds too are free to follow Mayavad, nothing prohibits that, but they too would by and large accept the world as real. And anyway, even if there were a difference in worldview pitting all Gonds against all Hindus, that would not save them: as long as they don’t believe in Jesus, they are all going to hell.

·         6. The Gonds are, like most tribes, an endogamous group, and this group is internally divided in twelve exogamous groups, which anthropologists have called phratries. Hindu castes are by definition endogamous groups, Jati-s or “castes”, and are divided in exogamous groups called Gotra-s. If you consider each caste separately, you could, by this logic, start saying that they “don’t have caste”, because internally they are not divided in endogamous groups, only in exogamous groups. So, the situation among the Gonds is exactly like in Hindu castes. Tribals are just as endogamy-conscious as Hindus. When a Flemish Jesuit in Chotanagpur ca. 1890 wanted to put his converts to the test, he had them sit together across tribal lines for a joint meal, a very small matter compared to intermarriage, and even this they found scandalous, so that most invitees did not show up and 7000 converts in the region defected. It is one of the many myths professed by the secularists to spite the Hindus that tribals are “noble savages” practising Ur-communism and not afflicted by social divides like caste.

The whole discourse on tribals is warped by the Aryan invasion theory. As a consequence of the hypothesis that speakers of proto-Sanskrit entered India ca. 1500 BC, the American situation is projected onto India: in both cases, a European population came to dominate the natives. Then, just like the European conquerors of America were considered civilized and Christian, while the Amerindians counted as tribal and Pagan, this cultural equation was projected onto India: the Vedic conquerors were non-tribal and non-Pagan, while the natives count as tribal and Pagan. So, working inside this paradigm, the missionaries tell the scheduled tribes to maximize their differences with the Vedic backbone of Hinduism, and the secularists have written a few times that Hindus cannot count as Pagans and that tribals who get “sanskritized” into the Vedic mainstream are “converts to Hinduism”.

The picture becomes very different when, as all evidence indicates, the Vedic Aryans were native to India. This implies that there simply were different tribes, including the Veda-composing Paurava tribe, some of which became more “civilized” than others, e.g. some became literate, others only later, yet others not until the modern state foisted literacy upon them; or some developed business acumen while others remained economically naïve. This is a normal development found on all inhabited continents.  

That is why many features deemed tribal and contrasting with the image a foreigner gets of Hinduism when the taxi brings him from the airport to his hotel in the metropolis, also appear in Vedic tradition when you go and see it in the countryside, or when you study how it was in the past. Thus, worship in the open air is not a tribal feature contrasting with Hindu temple worship: in Vedic society, worship was equally in the open air. The tribal feature of aniconic nature worship, always contrasted with the Hindu worship of idols, was just as much in evidence in Vedic society and is still seen in the “primitive” layers of Hinduism, where you fing snake worship, tree worship, sun worship, etc.

Yet, even if  there had been an Aryan invasion, that would not have made the Vedic Hindus any less demonic.  We have heard here testimonies from Latvian and Lithuanian Pagans, who take pride in their language being closely akin to Sanskrit. They are not Indian, yet they are just as much Pagan. If the Vedic Aryans had contrasted with the native Indian tribals, if they had been different in all objects and practical details of worship and of mores, that would still not have saved either the one or the other from hellfire. For that is ultimately the criterion for being Pagan or not, regardless of all the distinctions invented to confuse matters. You are a Pagan if you do not partake of Christian salvation, i.e. if you go to hell. And that is where they belong: being to a smaller or larger extent fire-worshippers, Pagans must feel most at home in the endless fires of hell.

(HHR, 4 Feb. 2015)

Read more!