10-16-2004, 04:39 AM
The word Pagan has acquired unnecessary negative overtones, simply because the Christians had to overcome the Pagan practices in order to gain acceptance for the new religion. It is for the same reason that the Abrahamic religions feel so uncomfortable with the Sanatana Dharma. We have to do some head shaping here and educate the people of the west(and perhaps many Indics) that having millions( in Their description of the Dharma) of Gods is not evil by itself and that it is not inherently superior to believe and worship in one God.
Part of the problem is the use of language. In Sanskrit Devata (Deus in Latin )or ishtdevata (personal God) is not the same as Brahman or the cosmic consciousness or the supreme spirit. These devatas are simply evolved humans. so one can believe in as many as one wants, the more the merrier. The Indic is quick to elevate humans to deific levels (e.g the mahatma) but he does not confuse the same with Brahman or the supreme consciousness.
Explaining all this to some westerners iis like explaining a 3 D world to a flatlander. How do you explain Brahman to a person who does not even know his own real self.
The corollary of all this is a deep distrust of India simply(or in large part) because the Dhaarmik is pagan., the assumption being that a polytheistic belief necessarily means a less evolved human being. Just as Mohammad Ali (of Khilafat fame) said of Gandhi ( a prostitute is better than Gandhi, even though he may be the best that the Hindus have) the implication is very heavy that a jihadi is better than the best that the Hindus have. This has now been internalized by some of the denizens of the subcontinent and is now part of secularist dogma and pervades the discourse in secularist forums where the secularist make the automatic assumption that as a HIndu you are guilty unless proven innocent . When a HIndu kills a Muslim he is part of a pogrom, but when the Muslim killls a Hindu he is merely a militant. Not surprising that I was called a Child Killer apologist in one such forum without the slightest protest or reprimand from the moderators.
Part of the problem is the use of language. In Sanskrit Devata (Deus in Latin )or ishtdevata (personal God) is not the same as Brahman or the cosmic consciousness or the supreme spirit. These devatas are simply evolved humans. so one can believe in as many as one wants, the more the merrier. The Indic is quick to elevate humans to deific levels (e.g the mahatma) but he does not confuse the same with Brahman or the supreme consciousness.
Explaining all this to some westerners iis like explaining a 3 D world to a flatlander. How do you explain Brahman to a person who does not even know his own real self.
The corollary of all this is a deep distrust of India simply(or in large part) because the Dhaarmik is pagan., the assumption being that a polytheistic belief necessarily means a less evolved human being. Just as Mohammad Ali (of Khilafat fame) said of Gandhi ( a prostitute is better than Gandhi, even though he may be the best that the Hindus have) the implication is very heavy that a jihadi is better than the best that the Hindus have. This has now been internalized by some of the denizens of the subcontinent and is now part of secularist dogma and pervades the discourse in secularist forums where the secularist make the automatic assumption that as a HIndu you are guilty unless proven innocent . When a HIndu kills a Muslim he is part of a pogrom, but when the Muslim killls a Hindu he is merely a militant. Not surprising that I was called a Child Killer apologist in one such forum without the slightest protest or reprimand from the moderators.