FYI, my favourite point in my response is that if we can call the Vedics "Hindu" because Hinduism evolved from Vedism, then we can call Jews "Muslims".
I made a similar point, only I said that Judaism & Christianity would be the same & also pointed out that telling Vedics they had to follow Hindu practice would be like telling Irish Pagans they had to call on Jesus & ask Him to forgive them, since that's what the Irish do now.
I wouldn't necessarily pay nice, either. I'd just politely tell her she was wrong when the subject came up. ;-)
I'm on digest on DRUIDRY...just read last night's digest and, amusingly, was expecting some sort of ill-informed response to your post which it appears you got. Can't wait for this evening's installment...
Hinduism is to Vedic paganism as Zoroastrianism is to Persian paganism: They are reforms of the earlier tradition...meaning they represent (often conscious) attempts to "fix" them...they're rich sources of context for understanding the earlier traditions, but ultimately are different animals.
Oh, wait...everyone who reads your LJ already knows all that...
One would have difficulty with my LJ if finding contextual understanding in odd places were something they weren't keen on :)
And yes, the "evolutionary" forms of these religions (what a marvelously Frazerian concept) can be useful to the study of earlier forms: they do retain a lot and it's useful to look at what they do/did to determine what the earlier version may have done or not done.
(amusingly, I wrote initially that they "retrain a lot", and the sentence was probably just as, if not more, correct)
Fortunately, I have remained silent today on ADF-Druidry, so I still look cool and composed on-list. :) I'm rather very happy I sat on that post now.
Well, I have to go check this out now. And I have to say, I read your potential reply, and it was not as pretentiously academic as I thought it might be (the term 'scholarly bomb', to me, sort of inherently has a dose of pretension there).
I'm curious... what is Wendy Doniger's take on this topic? Presumably somewhat different from yours, but I don't know enough of her work to be sure. I took a class of hers a long time ago.
Comments 22
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I made a similar point, only I said that Judaism & Christianity would be the same & also pointed out that telling Vedics they had to follow Hindu practice would be like telling Irish Pagans they had to call on Jesus & ask Him to forgive them, since that's what the Irish do now.
I wouldn't necessarily pay nice, either. I'd just politely tell her she was wrong when the subject came up. ;-)
Reply
Hinduism is to Vedic paganism as Zoroastrianism is to Persian paganism: They are reforms of the earlier tradition...meaning they represent (often conscious) attempts to "fix" them...they're rich sources of context for understanding the earlier traditions, but ultimately are different animals.
Oh, wait...everyone who reads your LJ already knows all that...
Reply
And yes, the "evolutionary" forms of these religions (what a marvelously Frazerian concept) can be useful to the study of earlier forms: they do retain a lot and it's useful to look at what they do/did to determine what the earlier version may have done or not done.
(amusingly, I wrote initially that they "retrain a lot", and the sentence was probably just as, if not more, correct)
Fortunately, I have remained silent today on ADF-Druidry, so I still look cool and composed on-list. :) I'm rather very happy I sat on that post now.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
For what it's worth, I agree with you completely on the whole Vedic/Hindu conundrum.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment