Nothing new at all.
1. While the following brief excerpt says several things, contained in there is also the Heathen Argument against "inculturation". Sole argument (all there is to say on the matter) -
"(Julian's) revulsion at (christians') efforts to assimilate (=inculturate on) the literary and philosophic heritage of the Greeks without accepting the religious values voiced in it. To Julian's mind, that seemed wreckage, not assimilation."
Speaks on *why* inculturation should be opposed by all heathenisms. The Why is the most important part of the correct objection.
"On this point Julian's stance was basic and closed to argument: 'Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.'"
Word for word.
And extends in equal measure to all "culture" thieves - of whatever hue. To the non-comprehending eye of the modern outer world looking in, religion manifests as "culture". But religio-culture - in ancient natural religio-traditions religion is the well-spring of what appears to others now as "culture" - is not some secular, generic (non-existent) "culture/civilisational values". E.g. considering the Dharmic religious tradition of the Hindoos, despite surface appearances, as Hindus know, there are profoundly religious reasons even behind why Hindus wear and apply certain things to their person. It isn't "culture". It's Hindu religion.
Moving on from inculturation, but still on this bit taken from the above. Julian - as others of his kind - repeatedly brings up the following matter (it's a very heathen view in general, a very important one). But people who have read him would be familiar with it by now. For others, then:
2. Thought I'd already posted this on IF some weeks ago. No matter, it can go here. For no other reason than that I merely want to put this bit up.
The following is (Roman Emperor) Julian again, here concluding his Oration to King Helios, the Sol. The rest of the text is significantly NP-specific, but bits of the next extract are very generally recognisable, since his personal views expressed herein are consistent with other traditional "heathenism" elsewhere.
Bold and colour highlighting, smileys and the title-casing of references to Divinity are mine, but italics were there in the original -
Typical. Just another heathen. Knows and loves his Gods, who mean Everything to him.
Quite like the Taoists, and well-reminiscent of the generation of elderly Hindoos (well, where I come from, anyway) plus all their predecessors, etc. They all sound similar in their expression - albeit in their own languages (or in their own translations of their views) - when explaining how they regard their Gods.
1. While the following brief excerpt says several things, contained in there is also the Heathen Argument against "inculturation". Sole argument (all there is to say on the matter) -
Quote:At root, what it (Julian's work "Contra Galilaeos"/"Against the Galilaeans") expressed was [...] a revulsion at (christians') efforts to assimilate the literary and philosophic heritage of the Greeks without accepting the religious values voiced in it. To Julian's mind, that seemed wreckage, not assimilation. And acceptance of those values was not for him just a process of thought. It demanded practice on the familiar principle of do ut des: 'We must maintain such rituals of the temples (ta en tois hierois) as ancestral custom prescribes, and we must perform neither more nor less than that to appease the gods the better.'81 On this point Julian's stance was basic and closed to argument: 'Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.'
"(Julian's) revulsion at (christians') efforts to assimilate (=inculturate on) the literary and philosophic heritage of the Greeks without accepting the religious values voiced in it. To Julian's mind, that seemed wreckage, not assimilation."
Speaks on *why* inculturation should be opposed by all heathenisms. The Why is the most important part of the correct objection.
"On this point Julian's stance was basic and closed to argument: 'Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring.'"
Word for word.
And extends in equal measure to all "culture" thieves - of whatever hue. To the non-comprehending eye of the modern outer world looking in, religion manifests as "culture". But religio-culture - in ancient natural religio-traditions religion is the well-spring of what appears to others now as "culture" - is not some secular, generic (non-existent) "culture/civilisational values". E.g. considering the Dharmic religious tradition of the Hindoos, despite surface appearances, as Hindus know, there are profoundly religious reasons even behind why Hindus wear and apply certain things to their person. It isn't "culture". It's Hindu religion.
Moving on from inculturation, but still on this bit taken from the above. Julian - as others of his kind - repeatedly brings up the following matter (it's a very heathen view in general, a very important one). But people who have read him would be familiar with it by now. For others, then:
Quote:And acceptance of those values was not for him just a process of thought. It demanded practice on the familiar principle of do ut des: 'We must maintain such rituals of the temples (ta en tois hierois) as ancestral custom prescribes, and we must perform neither more nor less than that to appease the gods the better.'81
2. Thought I'd already posted this on IF some weeks ago. No matter, it can go here. For no other reason than that I merely want to put this bit up.
The following is (Roman Emperor) Julian again, here concluding his Oration to King Helios, the Sol. The rest of the text is significantly NP-specific, but bits of the next extract are very generally recognisable, since his personal views expressed herein are consistent with other traditional "heathenism" elsewhere.
Bold and colour highlighting, smileys and the title-casing of references to Divinity are mine, but italics were there in the original -
Quote:And such, dear Sallust, is the oration, which, being mostly composed in the space of three nights, according to the triple administration of the God, and from the suggestions of memory at the time, I have dared to submit to your inspection; since a former piece of my composition on the Saturnalia, did not appear to you entirely foreign from the purpose, and undeserving your esteem. But if you are desirous of more perfect, and mystic discourses on this subject, by revolving the books of the divine Jamblichus, composed with the same design as the present oration, you will find the perfect consummation 1 of human wisdom. But may the mighty Sun, nevertheless, enable me to understand whatever pertains to His Divinity; and to impart my information to all men in common, and privately to those who are worthy of such instruction. In the mean time, till the God shall crown my desires in this respect with success, let us both venerate Jamblichus, the friend of this Divinity, from whom we have committed to writing a few particulars out of many which occurred to our recollection at the time: for I well know that no one can speak more perfectly on this subject than Jamblichus; though by the most vigorous contention, he should endeavour to add something of novelty to his discourse; for by such an attempt, as it is reasonable to suppose, he would deviate from true conceptions of the God.(His other hymn, the one to the Mother of the Gods, also ended on a similar note: he expressed his deep aspiration and desire to attain his Divine Mother - and indeed all his ancestral Gods, as was literally shown in another translation of the same piece - at the conclusion of his life.)
Indeed if I had composed the present oration merely for the sake of instructing others, the labour of writing on such a theme after Jamblichus would perhaps have been in vain: but since I had no other intention than to render thanks to this Divinity by a hymn, and considered my end accomplished in speaking of His essence to the utmost of my ability, I do not think that I have misspent my time by the present composition. For the admonition of Hesiod 1,
Perform, according to your utmost power,
Pure, sacred rites, to the immortal Gods. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />
is not only to be understood as necessary in sacrifices, but likewise in the praises of the Gods. <img src='http://www.india-forum.com/forums/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='
Typical. Just another heathen. Knows and loves his Gods, who mean Everything to him.
Quite like the Taoists, and well-reminiscent of the generation of elderly Hindoos (well, where I come from, anyway) plus all their predecessors, etc. They all sound similar in their expression - albeit in their own languages (or in their own translations of their views) - when explaining how they regard their Gods.