How do modern "pagans" classify the Hindu religion?

Question

Do modern-day pagans (aka "neopagans") consider religions such as Hindu religion or Shinto to also be in their "circle"--that is, are they also "pagan" according to the Western industrial neopagan? I've seen several neopagans give a definition of "paganism" that essentially would exclude Hindu beliefs and practices, for example.

For folks who don't understand: There are a bunch of people running around in Western countries these days who call themselves "pagan". They adhere to religions that were usually created in the 20th century as "revivals" or "new expressions" of some sort of "nature-centred" belief or doctrine. Do these people, these "neopagans", also consider religions such as Hindu religion or Shinto to ALSO be pagan. Note to the dim: I did NOT ask if they also considered them to be "neopagan" but if they considered them to be "pagan".

So, then, basically, the neos have decided that they have exclusive ownership over the word "pagan"--who gets to be in the "pagan club", as it were...

Answer 1

It's complex.

Technically the word Pagan means any religion except Judaism,Christianity and Islam.So under that description Hindu's are Pagans.

However most Hindu's do not consider themselves as Pagan and most of us do not consider them that way either.

It doesn't really matter though-there are so many Pagan religions that 1 or more less falling under the blanket term doesn't make much difference.

Answer 2

First of all pagan is really more of an adjective than a noun. It is at least an adjectival noun. It is a word I use to describe a mind-set about the world and religion rather than any religion in particular. Loosely translated Pagan means the same as Heathen, both being defined as country people, earth people, mostly farmers, rednecks, hillbillies etc.

Paganism most often refers to older, European religions, whether continuous or revived because it is a Latin-based word which was used to refer to the rural people who often still worshipped elder gods.

I tend to view paganism as more of a continuum than something with a hard set definition. I know some Christians whom I consider to be "paganish." In that case I do consider Hinduism more of a pagan religion than anything else. If I understand Hinduism properly, they tend to believe that all religions are Hindu religions so this should not be any sort of problem.

It is true that most modern pagan religions are revivals or reconstructions. There are also a lot of people calling themselves Christians today who are practicing a religion vastly different than the practices and beliefs of the earliest Christians who were exterminated by Rome.

It is unfortunate that a lot of neo-pagans, mostly of the Wiccan variety are trying to claim a monopoly on the word Pagan, as if they have any right to do so. They do not have that right for any reason. There are many pagan religions. There are a lot of people who are pagans but do not call themselves such. There are also a lot of people who are 'accused' of being pagans who are not. The truth is "Pagan" means something a little bit different to each of us.

The best way to find out if a Hindu is a pagan is to ask a Hindu.

Answer 3

I am a Pagan, I don't classify anyone as being a Pagan - if they want to call themselves Pagan and they fit the definition, got for it. The Hindu religion does fit the Pagan definition due to the worship of many gods and goddess and by not being a Abrahamic religion, but the people that are Hindu have not claimed the label of Pagan for themselves. They still generally find the label offensive and would rather consider themselves as just Hindu.

SO, it is not us "Pagans" that determine who gets called what, the people of that religion does that! Just as we Heathens have decided to take on that title and no longer see it as an insult, the Hindu people will take on what title they want or not. Besides, considering they are one of the oldest continuing religions, they can call themselves whatever they want to.

Answer 4

They are the dictionary definition of "pagan." However, as a Neopagan (or Pagan, but lets just use the first term to avoid confusion), I do not consider them part of our "circle." The reasons are simple: Hindus generally do not consider themselves to be part of our community, and many even take offence when Neopagans say otherwise. Telling people they belong to certain groups or are associated with certain beliefs despite their objections is incredibly rude and smacks of imperialism.

Hindus also, incidentally, often object to the term "pagan" in general, because of its negative connotations, coupled with the fact that it defines them by what they are not (not Abramhamic) instead of what they are (Hindu).

Answer 5

Namaastay
I've never met a Hindu that was personally concerned about whether or not they were classified as pagan. They do not consider any other religion to be 'in their circle'. So why should other people try to make it so?

Hailsa
I follow the Old Way/Northern and I don't give a rip what it's called or classified. My ancestors did not call themselves pagan, so why all the fuss?

Answer 6

For the sake of definitions, I am what is called a reconstructionist pagan, that is to say, I am attempting to practice a religion that died out utterly to the best of my ability, given archeological and textual evidence. I don't even call myself neopagan, since my world outlook differs so greatly from that of say, a wiccan or a neodruid. I know people who are doing this with the religions of the Aztecs, the Greeks, the Romans, the Norse, various kinds of Celts, Egyptians, and Sumerians. Certainly not all of us would call our religions "nature based", especially the Aztecs and the Sumerians whose religions, and particularly the festivals, were based upon city living. Therefore, I know a lot of neopagans who don't even count us. (and don't get them started on Satanists, even though there's some pretty good evidence that Satan derives from a totally decent, if tricksy, Canaanite sun god.)

The word pagan comes from the Latin pagus, which means essentially "of the country", meaning anyone who didn't practice the religion of the state. It was a bit of an insult- kind of like calling someone a hick. This accurately describes most western fringe religions, to my mind, since most of them aren't even acknowledged by the state. (mine included) But I wouldn't personally want to apply it to Shinto or Hinduism, nor do they want me to. Most of the practitioners of either religion that i have met don't want the label. They do, however, fit the definition of pagan as most people see it though, so whether I used the term to apply it to them would probably depend on the person I was addressing.

I do not feel that I do them a disservice by hesitating to call them pagan, since I don't want the term, either. I think it is inappropriate in a lot of ways to be referring to myself with a Roman insult. But attemps to start using other words have failed. The point of words is lost if nobody knows what you're talking about.

Answer 7

I'm pretty sure they don't want to be in with us.

But no, I generally don't include them. Pagan these days has changed in meaning to center more around European revivalist movements and nature-centric religions.

Edit: Well, remember it WAS supposed to be an insult. If the Hindus and Shintoists want to be called pagan, they're welcome to. But so far, none of them has shown any interest in doing so, and it would only confuse the issue. And honestly, they don't have much in common with the modern pagan religions. I think they prefer to be called Hindus and Shintoists instead of getting grouped with religions that aren't related to them.

The meanings of words change. And that particular word has subtly changed to reflect the people who have adopted it and used it on themselves.

Answer 8

According to the original classification they are lumped in as pagan, whether they like it or not.
I consider it 'pagan' by that standard.
Pagan is just a term to identify with. I feel it is a matter of personal preference as to whether or not they wish to be called pagan or identify themselves in that way.
I also do not think that it is necessary to use the term, even if you are 'pagan'.

Answer 9

Typically, they're not considered neo-Paganism, due to their age. I believe, however, that they're technically, from an academic standpoint, meso-Pagan.

That said, in common use, Paganism is normally referencing neo-Paganism. Likewise, in my experience, practicioners of the Eastern religions tend to not self-identify as Pagans. Most of us neo-Pagans aren't averse to them being part of the club, but certainly aren't going to force them.

From an Abrahamic standpoint, they definitely are, since they're non-Abrahamic, but I think that might be outside the bounds of your question.

Answer 10

To be perfectly correct, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, etc are pagan religions.

The rest of us are Neo-pagans.

But if we're just talking in general terms about "pagans" yah, I put us under the same big *** umbrella.