Quote:Georgius Gemistus (Greek: ÃâõÎÃÂóùÿÃâ àûîøÃâ°Ã½ ÃâõüùÃÆÃâÃÅÃâ; ca. 1355ââ¬â1452/1454) ââ¬â later called Plethon or Pletho ââ¬â was a Greek scholar of Neoplatonic philosophy. He was one of the chief pioneers of the revival of Greek learning in Western Europe. In the dying years of the Byzantine Empire, he advocated a return to the Olympian gods of the ancient world.[1]I read about him - I think it was him. It wasn't much, but I'll get you an official translation of the relevant bit. It has to be tomorrow or the day after.
http://en.wikipedia....Gemistus_Pletho
Meanwhile, I wrote this in response to your post #59. It's on the topic of Why Certain Things Don't Go Here (I think I accidentally deleted what I'd written earlier when clearing stuff recently - clever me). It's so long and meanders terrifically - too bad, I can't be bothered shrinking it. At least I kept my promise/threat...
1/2
1. > In fact you had earlier posted a link to the derafsh-kaviyani site which is a modern monotheist influenced interpretation of Zoroastrianism as HH pointed out, no different than any neopagan site trying to rediscover some of their heritage.
Yes, I was wrong. (Though I thought Mazda Yasna has a single supreme God. Whether that always implies monotheist I don't know. The Amesha Spentas weren't Gods but Good Spirits I thought. IIRC, overseas/expatriat Indian Parsee sites say they have 1 God and Parsees aren't neopagan...)
I figured that Iranians leaving islamism in as large numbers as claimed at that site was a promising thing. Europe has been gradually dechristianising (at least externally and in some aspects), so for Europeans to begin to dabble in neopaganism is just unacceptable: they can do better. But I was of the view that people leaving *islam* in what remains a rigidly islamic society would be a good thing - disregarding their destination, as long as they weren't leaving it for related mindviruses.
Over time, I have changed my view: because made-up religion remains made-up religion and is ultimately self-deception and devoid of truth. The standards can't be one for Europe - for which I have had high expectations - and one for Iranians (for whom the situation is such that I have none). And any new ideology that they enter into - however new agey - is going to take another cycle for them to get out of and it further distances them from their original religion through the effects of time. (Besides, even Mazda Yasna isn't Iranians' original tradition; their original religion was replaced by Zoroastrianism.)
I now consider that what is called for is a return to people's original religion - or a nearby one that is intact: same expectation as for Europe.
I should warn that there may be other sites I link to on this thread that I might not wholly agree with, but the portions I excerpt - or any pages I recommend in entirety - are generally material I agree with, or at least find interesting enough. For instance, I haven't read all of the page let alone site from which I excerpted the text on Athena somewhere above. But the bit I *did* post looked to regurgitate what my sister used to tell me from her G/L related studies, so I was happy to C&P that. Also, I might not agree with all of the Julian-Society.org site, just the bits I posted here and there on IF - the linked pages. In this context, I could add that I wouldn't really recommend Vidal's "Julian", mainly because so much of the fundamental part of the novel is obviously fiction and very false to known history: his portrait of Julian's person is profoundly mistaken in many ways and equally wrong is his presentation of Hellenismos. But the lack of understanding and the extent of fictionalising to present his own view rather than the actual historical person's reasoning and the GR religion is understandable and expected, since Vidal was not a 'heathen': he was an avowed atheist. Though in his favour I would say he was of the rarer kind that publicly declared (the known) monotheisms as the greatest evil, ranked other religions higher - and atheism over them. In contrast, other atheists - even the more remarkable minds like McCabe, who is able to reason decently on other matters - declare it a given that monotheism was a natural evolution from "polytheism" and therefore preferable. But ultimately, neither kind ever understood - let alone knew - the traditional religions. They can't. For that one needs to be one. It requires a very different sort of person to accurately convey the 'heathen' - say traditional GrecoRoman - POV. The FAQ and other documents by the Hellenes at ysee.gr is a good example of what I mean.
Personally, "monopolytheism" is a troubling topic in general and only the christoconditioned pre-occupy themselves with it. Repeat: one can see how well the Hellenes at ysee.gr deal with it in their FAQ when they answer the typical christoquestion of "Are you polytheists". No traditional religion preoccupies itself with the number of their Gods which is numerous and undefined.
IIRC, they explain that the dichotomy itself - the dichotomous view of mono- and polytheism itself - is christian. *How* they answer this insidious christian (christianising) question is sheer brilliance. To the christianisms (islamism included), The Count is everything: it underpins doctrine. It is one of the few things the sheepish ummah can know definitely about their gawd, the gawd who is not even imaged and may not be. And the wrong count is assured of damnation.
To the traditionalists of the natural religions, count is irrelevant: they know of the indivisibility of Divinity - which says nothing about number - as well as the cohesion and individuality of their Gods. Christian-conditioned (which includes more than christians) would classify the NA native Americans' Grand Spirit as being evidence of their 'monotheism', due to it being singular. However, that Grand Spirit is the entire Kosmos - in fact, it is All There Is. (And just to indicate that those fond of counting need more than one finger: IIRC the Sun and Earth are also Gods as per the lore of some NA native American communities.)
2. > There are no Seneca's & Julians today to speak for themselves as there are Shintoists and Taoists which means that the only *contemporary* spokespersons left are the modern day neopagans or surviving and culturally related "heathens" known as Hindus.
For Hellenismos, why do we need contemporary spokespersons? (Of course, it is still good they exist today, but that is another matter.) Some words and even works of the ancient GrecoRomans *survive*, and enough literature on Hellenismos does too. Therefore, to learn somewhat of traditional Hellenismos, Hindus don't *need* modern practitioners of Hellenismos (the way one needs Shintos and Taoists since their stuff is not really for public viewing/learning): there are sufficient materials from the past that give us insights into the GR religion, first-hand accounts remaining that convey an idea of what it meant to and how it was understood by traditional followers. Enough for other traditionalists who are similar in their way of thinking about Gods to gain at least some understanding.
(It is the European traditions with less expansive literature/little remaining that were largely blacked out. Hellenismos is just fine and does not need reconstruction. It only required a revival which is what is happening.)
And as it so happens, there are very accurate followers of Hellenismos in the Mediterranean area/of Mediterranean origin today. There was (is?) good online content by a Portuguese man who had made his way back to his Hellenismos. And of course there is ysee.gr with very articulate and intelligent Hellenes - going by those who wrote ysee's FAQ and a more recent brilliant document. Also, ysee links directly to Sallust's Of the Gods and the Cosmos as an introduction to visitors and those interested (which they also quote in their FAQ). I take that as a recognition on their part that their religion is merely a continuation of the earlier Hellenismos.
Because of the materials that remain of GrecoRoman religion, one can tell when *neopagans* claiming to be Hellenes and making claims about the Olympic Gods/religion are in the wrong, versus when modern Hellenes following their ancestral Gods are in tune with the ancestral tradition. ysee.gr is specifically not neopaganism (and they identify neopaganism/'paganism' as inimical and have written *several* statements to the effect of finding it an insidious danger.)
3. Tangentially:
IMO, the online presentation of Religio Roma is too strained in trying to distance itself from the Greeks of Hellenismos in order to thereby create their own unique distinct identity. For instance, they refer to Numa Pompilius' institution of temple worship and how this did not involve worship in front of Vigrahas. Be that as it may, it had for a long time been the practise of Romans to worship Vigrahas of their Gods in the temples and in their private pooja rooms (where catholicism apparently stole the prayer alcove from). It was not merely something restricted to the Greek worshippers of the Olympic Gods. Julian was certainly not the only one nor the first Roman to worship in front of vigrahas: his Roman ancestors had been doing the same for a long time.
The Greek and Roman religion are intrinsically linked: GrecoRoman religion is ultimately one, even if the local expressions may vary. Their main Gods include the Gods of Olympus, even if the Romans also had additional local Gods in their Pantheon. Religio Roma also tries to delink the identification that the ancient (and traditional) GrecoRomans made between the Roman Pantheon and the Greek Gods of Olympus. It is a futile attempt, as the ancients of the region had already established this identification. Hindus should accept the view of the *traditionals* rather than the reconstructionists.
The fact remains that well before the late time of Julian, Romans considered themselves as part of the larger religio-culture that they shared with the Greeks: it was seen as part of one continuum. They therefore could easily call themselves Hellenes as their religion was Hellenismos. Their history was regarded as one with that of the Greeks: the Greek heroes and philosophers were the heroes and philosophers that the Romans would recognise as their own too. And with right.
And you can see the same going the other way: the traditional Greeks then (and still) do not merely admire Julian but claim him as one of their own. He was a Hellene. That connected him to them beyond any other ethnic and national considerations. He regarded his population as one for being Hellenes, for belonging to his Gods. Even today you can see the Hellenes of ysee.gr refer to Sallust's Of the Gods and the Cosmos - a work by IIRC a Roman (a work whose production, I imagine I remember reading, Julian encouraged for guiding his people). But Sallust was not just defined by his being Roman, he was a Hellene. This means he too belongs to traditional Romans as well as traditional Greeks. Again, this is because their religion (Gods) were the same and recognised as such. Nationally they may have admitted there was some distinction - though the empire eventually comprised Greek regions also - and ethnically there was a branching off from what they recognised was a shared/related ancestry, but the religion is what bound them.
4. Neopaganism is a headache. With their
- dabbling in everything (includes appropriation) as if it's all one religion;
- or trying to 'revive' "witchcraft": consider Stregaria (or something) movements in Italy/thereabouts etc, even while the same people still mystifyingly claim to be practising traditional Roman/Olympic Religion - though it's documented how the traditional Roman state and society was quite against stregaria ('black magic');
- or bad reconstructionism;
- and speaking of "Paganism" and at times - possibly worse - claiming to be "Hellenes" when they are *not* ... It's all just too much. Neopaganism comes in various shades and to various degrees.
There is a reason why IIRC the Hellenes at ysee.gr suspect (neo)"paganism" of being a subversion mechanism of the mindvirus ideologies.
About that masmaiorum website that was posted here before. Certain pages looked a little sensible - like their intention of considering their religion as their ancestors had done, not as christianism has been doing. But then the same website had a whole page mentioning "Paganism".
The term Pagan(ism) - the way they use it: in English, and as referring to the religions of all natural traditionalists - is itself *christianism*'s calculated projection onto Hellenismos, the religion of the Roman empire. The site Masmaiorum might make sensible points in instances, but surely one of the important aspects of any return to ancestral religions is to avoid the wrong terms - especially loaded words like 'Pagan' - and instead work to have the right words available, like the traditional Greeks have predictably started doing.
There is a problem with the terminology "paganism" (let alone "neopaganism"). I use it, as I use the more frequent "Hindoos", "heathen/ism" and "kaffir(iness)", when I'm being sarcastic or as a shortcut: since I know people here understand what I really mean (English affords so little vocabulary).
Of course, in my mind - instead of the inappropriate "paganism" - I tend to think rather of the True Religions and True Gods versus the Religion/Ideology Of Untruth and its False Gawd. (Christianism did a pre-emptive inversion with its 'true religion/gawd' language, knowing that the overly tolerant and universalist 'heathens' would never take such an initiative.)
A textbook explained the meaning of "paganus" rather well and I will present what I imagined I understood of it.
Originally and traditionally, to the Romans, "paganus" meant "offspring of the Roman soil". I.e. indigenous, of the particular Roman locale (with which the original regions of the empire were meant: the western populations of the Mediterranean). Though it also means "peasant" - and you can see how the meanings could be related - Roman aristocrats were also recognised as pagani for their being indigenous. Indigenous automatically meant of the indigenous (Roman traditional) religion. The differentiation became more explicit when christianism appeared, which for long remained visibly the religion of aliens/foreigners (Syrians, Armenians, etc.): non-Romans, hence non-pagani. (Although Hellenismos and Hellene were used by Romans for their larger religious identity.)
Fast-forward to when christianism gained power. As usual, it perverted and subverted the traditional meaning when it officially instituted "pagan" as a term of abuse to mark all traditionalists of the empire - native Roman or no, whether self-designated as such or no. Not only did the traditional Romans not use it as a term of abuse, nor use it all that frequently or even universally as the sole way to designate their religion, but now christianism stuck the word on *Greeks* too, for example. Knowing full-well that traditional Greeks called themselves Hellenes (which again has a double meaning: native of the Greek soil, of Hellas, which naturally also came to denote their religious affiliation - its overriding meaning).
Fast-forward again: christianism, through English and other modern European languages, stuck "pagan" - i.e. the christian, biblical meaning of "polytheistic idolator" that it had earlier foisted on the Roman empire - onto all non-christians. (Most especially "polytheistic idolators", since that is the box which Greeks and Romans - who had been among the first to be hit with the newly-institutionalised christian label - fit in the christian categorisation scheme).
Outside of historical works concerned with Rome in antiquity, in English, the meaning of "pagan" and "paganism" remains biblical: it is the term for the #1 enemy of christianism's non-existent gawd. Like infidel (~kaffir) means "unfaithful to non-existent islamic allah" - whereas ummah means The Faithful, with IIRC mohammed labelled as "Commander of the Faithful" in translations of the islamic text - and no sane natural traditionalist person would seriously refer to themselves as "kaffir", "pagan" in English also defines a meaning in relation to the *christian* gawd. It means the person thus designated is worshipping "false Gods" - and to make matters worse, worshipping these through (graven) images - and thus defying (two major commandments of) his Non-Existence, the christian gawd.
Note that those innocently using "pagan" in English do not intend to use it in the vanilla-ised "peasant" sense, let alone to mean the indigenous Roman (traditionalist). Oblivious to its inextricable christian connotations, they wish to use it in the universal sense that they think English affords them - in the same universalist sense that christianism has been imposing it on the globe's populations: "polytheistic idolators = those who are a thorn in the sight of the terrorist gawd".
Hindus (like Greeks and all other non-Roman traditionalists) are not "pagan" in any sense of the word: they are not Roman (indigenous to the Italic countryside), not Roman traditionalists, not Roman peasantry. That's if you use the Latin word paganus/pagana/pagani - i.e. in its original sense.
And the English term is even more inappropriate: the traditionalist peoples certainly have nothing to do with the christian biblically-imposed worldview of the "christians and pagans" - "the faithful and infidels", "dar-ul-islams and dar-ul-harbs", "heaven/pardees and hell/jahannah" (and monopolytheism ultimately fits in this continuum since it derives from enforced views). Natural Traditionalists are not part of the christian world (incl. its views of humanity's place in it, etc.), they don't believe in jeebusjehovallah, don't subscribe to the bible, don't end up in hell (or christoislamic heaven - same thing) no matter how hard the christoislamics believe.
That's not to say that these vituperative terms are not referring to actually existing groups: the terms were designed to. The point is, these populations have names for themselves - legitimate names, self-references they identify with. Ones that explain to ourselves who we are - views that exist entirely independent of the bible, its judgements/commandments, or its non-existent demonic character jeebusjehovallah. (The way "AD and BC" are not anyone's dating system but christists'.)
The matter of "pagan" is as with the term "idolatry". In the original Greek sense the latter was harmless and reasonable in meaning (worship of images of Gods); in English and later European languages it literally means "the worship of images of *false* Gods" which is a *biblical* definition and connotation.
Something to remember: the connotation is inescapable. And also: any self-address must bear this in mind. No one writing seriously (outside of relevant - localised historical - context) would use it. That is why the traditional Greeks at ysee.gr reject the term. (They also avoid those religious movements who use the term, and moreso when "paganism" is prefixed with "neo-").
There are some *individuals* who use "Pagan" and who mean well - usually those who seem to have a genuine interest in Hellenismos - and who are merely latching on to the only term christianism has allowed them (made visible to them). Still, their application of the term remains regrettable, even if I may approve of them and their endeavour.
But the modern organised religious movements who use "pagan" to designate self (and others) are a different matter. IMO, it gives cause for caution at least.