Post 4/
In the same section on "false problems" Elst brings up another topic. It actually wouldn't have interested me, except he just *made* it important: he's turned a false problem into a real problem. But this is going to take time to explain.
First though. He admits that rituals are not remotely Hindu religion's negative point, regardless of what aliens and alienated who don't know the religion may say about rituals being "empty". This just confirms what a few US ex-catholic ex-christians have also said: that they still choose to attend their former church for the "rituals".
However, the fact that he chooses to draw a parallel between the two, as seen in the following, shows that he thinks that *heathen* rituals are no more than similarly "quaint" - presumably (useful) for social bonding or positive emotional response or whatever:
Buddhism doesn't believe in - and specifically didn't approve of existing - rituals, going so far as to condemn them among native heathens at various times, yet it still adopted rituals from pre-existing religions in competition and then learnt to live with it. This lack of seriousness concerning the real meaning of rituals in heathenism - the same view as is apparent from Elst's own comments on the matter, see below - continues to be seen in how Buddhism was again recently advised to (literally!) "evolve rituals" in India, specifically in order to acquire more converts - i.e. among the Hindus. This was IIRC from an article in the international Buddhist site buddha.tv something.)
Back to Elst's statements and why they're important - but not in the sense he may have intended:
The problem with Elst thinking heathen rituals are 'quaint and useful', particularly in an article on Hindu survival, is that he's influencing his readers into thinking that's what Hindu (and generally heathen) rituals are. But this is a matter he knows nothing of so can't comment on. He is moreover teaching his ever-eager Hindu audience - who can't differentiate between his sensible statements and where he is so obviously out of his depth - that heathen rituals are therefore replaceable: essentially, he tells them "if you lose your rituals, you can always just make them up" a la what neo-paganism does. This is seen most clearly in this dangerous statement of his:
I.e. he imagines that genuine rituals get "reborn easily". No they don't.*
It gives Hindus a false sense of what they stand to lose. Like it's "not much" when you lose these things.
Oh but it's *everything*. Your rituals allow you to see the Hindu Gods. Do it wrong (and with an unheathen or otherwise wrong mindset/view) - or do fake/invented rituals - and nothing happens or will ever happen. That is, it won't work for you. People may as well sign up for neo-paganism then.
* That's exactly what is preventing many western "reconstructionists" from getting their ancestral Gods back. Christianism destroyed knowledge of their ancestors' authentic heathen rituals (plus oryanist/dabbling and "neo-pagan" reconstructionist movements have the wrong views on their ancestors' heathen religion and have destroyed proper perception even more.) Heathen rituals establish direct bonds between heathens and their Gods. It's consequently also the means by which a heathen religion is proved. No use dwelling on the point as people either get what I just said or not. But lose these authentic rituals (that work!) and future generations will have no means by which to commune with the Gods. You *can't* pluck them back out of the air.
Focussing on the Hindu case, it needs to be stressed that Hindoo rituals and the right view of the Gods are very important for Hindus to maintain their bonds with their Gods. (If Hindus lose their Gods, they cease to be heathens.)
Anyone who listens to Elst and takes him seriously in this matter is only going to get subverted out of a terribly important facet of Hindoo religion. If anyone *cares* about their religion - most notably cares about the Gods - do NOT take your rituals as lightly as Elst in his ignorance wants Hindus to take them. His own dismissal of the meaning of Hindu rituals, through which he may convince Hindus of the same - and he *is* influential among angelsk-speaking Hindus, who then parrot his words onwards - is no different from the christo-dismissal of Hindus' rituals as "empty" (even though he criticised this). Accepting the former is no less a subversion than the latter: because both is to perceive your rituals incorrectly (their meaning and proven efficacy) and consequently devalue them. If people who are meant to be heathens end up with the wrong views, nothing will work for them and they may as well be Aliens.
Repeat. On Hindu rituals, its other practises and the religion in general: Hindu religion *works* and proves itself. And rituals and other practises are exactly the means by which the religion proves itself. ("Tragically" for inculturators: Hindoo rituals don't transfer to other religions by means of inculturation, as Hindoo rituals are directly related to the Gods - qua identity even. As usual: I'm not the one who's saying this.)
There's a reason Elst would be naturally inclined to say the following:
This is typical of non-heathen would-be sympathizers in general (invariably makes for subversionists). That he's not a heathen in any sense - possibly just an apostate, definitely new age - he already made clear long ago, as seen below. And this is why on heathen matters, Hindus should really not be looking to Elst for authority or knowledge (he *couldn't* know):
koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2009/10/finding-religion-in-asdonk.html
+ It's documented in several heathen religions - and perhaps one can make a generalisation to that of Elst's ancestors - that the names of the Gods are very important. Anyway, Hindus already know the value of the names of their own ancestral Gods (they're regarded as identical to the Hindu Gods and often recognised as literal mantrams in themselves). And as the ancient GrecoRomans made known repeatedly, among Hellenes the names of the Gods were ever held sacred. And of Julian too, the matter is confirmed. At this point, do I need to mention other heathens? (RSmith did a nice defence of this, I thought. But I will parrot from his words on Julian and Hellenismos regarding this in the next post.)
+ Not sure why Elst's group is calling themselves "pagan revivalists" (or even neo-pagans for that matter)? They are not reviving their ancestors' religion, nor have any interest to, nor do they have anything in common with them: even minimising and ridiculing their ancestors' Gods, imagining these have turned into "corpses" merely because the locals stopped "believing" in them and that they are no more than "comic characters". But why then do these people pretend they are the natural continuation of their ancestors' religion in the present age? That is, why pretend to be a so-called "paganism", when there's specifically nothing "pagan" about them (only new age)?
Guess this is the next phase then, in Europe's constant trending within the sphere of christianism and its repercussions...
The Gods are "comic characters" to Elst (and to his "pagan revivalist" friends, going by his statement) and religion is "nonsense", while ritual is important not because it works but because it makes people feel better/gives them something to do.
He's not a heathen. And as he's not a heathen, when he says stuff about "religion being nonsense but ritual is important" (in a social sense), etc, Hindoos - being heathens - cannot consider him an authority. He doesn't know the Gods - not even those of his ancestors', forget those of Hindus. So his remarks on heathenisms can be discarded.
When Elst says that ritualism is "valuable but replaceable" - in the way agnostic would-be sympathisers naturally do, since that is as far as they can bring themselves (note the difference with RSmith, who never reveals his view except through insisting to present the Ancient Hellenes' view) - hopefully Hindus among Elst's readership would have the good sense to reject his Mere Opinion. Demonstrably false, but Hindoos will need to demonstrate this for yourself: that's what your heathen rituals are for. Since you are an ethnic Hindoo, if you have a heathen view, and you practice them aright and with diligence, they are guaranteed to work, as many many others continue to verify for themselves.
:GRRRrrrr:
koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2009/10/finding-religion-in-asdonk.html
Bij Donar, da's gewoon onzin...
In the same section on "false problems" Elst brings up another topic. It actually wouldn't have interested me, except he just *made* it important: he's turned a false problem into a real problem. But this is going to take time to explain.
First though. He admits that rituals are not remotely Hindu religion's negative point, regardless of what aliens and alienated who don't know the religion may say about rituals being "empty". This just confirms what a few US ex-catholic ex-christians have also said: that they still choose to attend their former church for the "rituals".
However, the fact that he chooses to draw a parallel between the two, as seen in the following, shows that he thinks that *heathen* rituals are no more than similarly "quaint" - presumably (useful) for social bonding or positive emotional response or whatever:
Quote:Of course, the Jesuits know the value of ritual and also practice it, but to Hindu pupils they teach about its emptiness.
Buddhism doesn't believe in - and specifically didn't approve of existing - rituals, going so far as to condemn them among native heathens at various times, yet it still adopted rituals from pre-existing religions in competition and then learnt to live with it. This lack of seriousness concerning the real meaning of rituals in heathenism - the same view as is apparent from Elst's own comments on the matter, see below - continues to be seen in how Buddhism was again recently advised to (literally!) "evolve rituals" in India, specifically in order to acquire more converts - i.e. among the Hindus. This was IIRC from an article in the international Buddhist site buddha.tv something.)
Back to Elst's statements and why they're important - but not in the sense he may have intended:
The problem with Elst thinking heathen rituals are 'quaint and useful', particularly in an article on Hindu survival, is that he's influencing his readers into thinking that's what Hindu (and generally heathen) rituals are. But this is a matter he knows nothing of so can't comment on. He is moreover teaching his ever-eager Hindu audience - who can't differentiate between his sensible statements and where he is so obviously out of his depth - that heathen rituals are therefore replaceable: essentially, he tells them "if you lose your rituals, you can always just make them up" a la what neo-paganism does. This is seen most clearly in this dangerous statement of his:
Quote:Ritual will take care of itself, it gets reborn easily, but some matters are more serious when they are made into problems.
I.e. he imagines that genuine rituals get "reborn easily". No they don't.*
It gives Hindus a false sense of what they stand to lose. Like it's "not much" when you lose these things.
Oh but it's *everything*. Your rituals allow you to see the Hindu Gods. Do it wrong (and with an unheathen or otherwise wrong mindset/view) - or do fake/invented rituals - and nothing happens or will ever happen. That is, it won't work for you. People may as well sign up for neo-paganism then.
* That's exactly what is preventing many western "reconstructionists" from getting their ancestral Gods back. Christianism destroyed knowledge of their ancestors' authentic heathen rituals (plus oryanist/dabbling and "neo-pagan" reconstructionist movements have the wrong views on their ancestors' heathen religion and have destroyed proper perception even more.) Heathen rituals establish direct bonds between heathens and their Gods. It's consequently also the means by which a heathen religion is proved. No use dwelling on the point as people either get what I just said or not. But lose these authentic rituals (that work!) and future generations will have no means by which to commune with the Gods. You *can't* pluck them back out of the air.
Focussing on the Hindu case, it needs to be stressed that Hindoo rituals and the right view of the Gods are very important for Hindus to maintain their bonds with their Gods. (If Hindus lose their Gods, they cease to be heathens.)
Anyone who listens to Elst and takes him seriously in this matter is only going to get subverted out of a terribly important facet of Hindoo religion. If anyone *cares* about their religion - most notably cares about the Gods - do NOT take your rituals as lightly as Elst in his ignorance wants Hindus to take them. His own dismissal of the meaning of Hindu rituals, through which he may convince Hindus of the same - and he *is* influential among angelsk-speaking Hindus, who then parrot his words onwards - is no different from the christo-dismissal of Hindus' rituals as "empty" (even though he criticised this). Accepting the former is no less a subversion than the latter: because both is to perceive your rituals incorrectly (their meaning and proven efficacy) and consequently devalue them. If people who are meant to be heathens end up with the wrong views, nothing will work for them and they may as well be Aliens.
Repeat. On Hindu rituals, its other practises and the religion in general: Hindu religion *works* and proves itself. And rituals and other practises are exactly the means by which the religion proves itself. ("Tragically" for inculturators: Hindoo rituals don't transfer to other religions by means of inculturation, as Hindoo rituals are directly related to the Gods - qua identity even. As usual: I'm not the one who's saying this.)
There's a reason Elst would be naturally inclined to say the following:
Quote:Religion may be nonsense, but ritual is very important.
This is typical of non-heathen would-be sympathizers in general (invariably makes for subversionists). That he's not a heathen in any sense - possibly just an apostate, definitely new age - he already made clear long ago, as seen below. And this is why on heathen matters, Hindus should really not be looking to Elst for authority or knowledge (he *couldn't* know):
koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2009/10/finding-religion-in-asdonk.html
Quote:What I like about Stefaan's view of religion is that he doesn't try to revive corpses of gods, ancient beliefs which mostly are known only in distorted and incomplete form. He starts from reality, and from modern man. We have an inborn sense of the sacred as much as our ancestors did. We only need to remove the cobwebs that have covered this sensitivity in years of not paying attention.
[...]
There were, if I recall well, sixteen of us. Most were members of a neo-Pagan society on which I will write later this week. At the last station of the walk, its new chairman ritually opened the group's working year and gave a brief speech. Brief means two or three sentences, he's called Herman the Taciturn for a reason.
I was apprehensive there was going to be an invocation of some gods -- what else would you expect of Pagan revivalists? But no god or similar creature (oops, Creator) was mentioned. The universe is enough. It means something to us moderns, whereas the gods, of any pantheon, are comic characters to us, at best name-tags for the different cornerstones of the cosmos. Just as the old gods didn't need to be depicted, today they don't need to be named. Now that Christians rarely take God seriously anymore ("God, if You exist, save my soul, if I have one"), even the Pagans are doing without Him/them.
+ It's documented in several heathen religions - and perhaps one can make a generalisation to that of Elst's ancestors - that the names of the Gods are very important. Anyway, Hindus already know the value of the names of their own ancestral Gods (they're regarded as identical to the Hindu Gods and often recognised as literal mantrams in themselves). And as the ancient GrecoRomans made known repeatedly, among Hellenes the names of the Gods were ever held sacred. And of Julian too, the matter is confirmed. At this point, do I need to mention other heathens? (RSmith did a nice defence of this, I thought. But I will parrot from his words on Julian and Hellenismos regarding this in the next post.)
+ Not sure why Elst's group is calling themselves "pagan revivalists" (or even neo-pagans for that matter)? They are not reviving their ancestors' religion, nor have any interest to, nor do they have anything in common with them: even minimising and ridiculing their ancestors' Gods, imagining these have turned into "corpses" merely because the locals stopped "believing" in them and that they are no more than "comic characters". But why then do these people pretend they are the natural continuation of their ancestors' religion in the present age? That is, why pretend to be a so-called "paganism", when there's specifically nothing "pagan" about them (only new age)?
Guess this is the next phase then, in Europe's constant trending within the sphere of christianism and its repercussions...
The Gods are "comic characters" to Elst (and to his "pagan revivalist" friends, going by his statement) and religion is "nonsense", while ritual is important not because it works but because it makes people feel better/gives them something to do.
He's not a heathen. And as he's not a heathen, when he says stuff about "religion being nonsense but ritual is important" (in a social sense), etc, Hindoos - being heathens - cannot consider him an authority. He doesn't know the Gods - not even those of his ancestors', forget those of Hindus. So his remarks on heathenisms can be discarded.
When Elst says that ritualism is "valuable but replaceable" - in the way agnostic would-be sympathisers naturally do, since that is as far as they can bring themselves (note the difference with RSmith, who never reveals his view except through insisting to present the Ancient Hellenes' view) - hopefully Hindus among Elst's readership would have the good sense to reject his Mere Opinion. Demonstrably false, but Hindoos will need to demonstrate this for yourself: that's what your heathen rituals are for. Since you are an ethnic Hindoo, if you have a heathen view, and you practice them aright and with diligence, they are guaranteed to work, as many many others continue to verify for themselves.
:GRRRrrrr:
koenraadelst.blogspot.com/2009/10/finding-religion-in-asdonk.html
Quote:The old religion was not centred on gods or beliefs, but on practices. One traditional practice that [...]What does he mean the old religion of NW Europe was not centred on the Gods, the Asen en de Vanen (and more)? So all them heathens calling Odin/Wodan the "Al-Vader" (All-Father, Father of the All) thought he actually had no real relevance to them? "It was all just pretty words, a nice sentiment, poetry if you will"? And worshipping the World Tree I suppose was just for the "traditional practice" of it rather than about the sacredness of that specific Tree? To think I was convinced of how Them Heathens were heart-broken when the christos vindictively hacked it down. It's a comfort to know that it turns out De Heidenen could just gather around some other tree at random to continue "the practice", as there was no special so-called "belief" attached to the particular Tree in question.
Bij Donar, da's gewoon onzin...
Death to traitors.