June 5th, 2007
|01:25 pm - Hinduism isn't Vedism, sorry|
Hmm. . . Do I send my post in response to "Vedic and Hindu is really the same thing" to the public list, or do I not?
Arg. I've spent an entire hour's lunch writing it, looking up source material, and putting it together. It's a good post, too, citing my translator when needed, and the book I got the information from. . . I dunno.
These are the issues with sitting down with the source material and seeing that the scholarship on it has more holes than the amateur work does.
I admit, I do worry about doing a "scholarship bomb" on the ADF lists. I figure asking for a source citation once is probably enough: I'm not trying to stomp out dissent, but I need a source citation in order to discuss this stuff intelligently. I know what a scholarship bomb will do, though, and that's shut people up or hurt them: I've seen it happen often.
(FYI, my favourite point in my response is that if we can call the Vedics "Hindu" because Hinduism evolved from Vedism, then we can call Jews "Muslims".)
I'm going to sit on this post a while longer.
One of these days, I expect that I'll meet Wendy Doniger and I'll have to play nice on this infernal topic. I'm not looking forward to that.
Edit: Thank you, Cei. Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Current Location: Southeast of Disorder
Current Mood: aggravated
Current Music: "A Mile High in Denver", -JB
I'm on digest on DRUIDRY...just read last night's digest and, amusingly, was expecting some sort of ill-informed response to your post which it appears you got. Can't wait for this evening's installment...
Hinduism is to Vedic paganism as Zoroastrianism is to Persian paganism: They are reforms of the earlier tradition...meaning they represent (often conscious) attempts to "fix" them...they're rich sources of context for understanding the earlier traditions, but ultimately are different animals.
Oh, wait...everyone who reads your LJ already knows all that...
One would have difficulty with my LJ if finding contextual understanding in odd places were something they weren't keen on :)
And yes, the "evolutionary" forms of these religions (what a marvelously Frazerian concept) can be useful to the study of earlier forms: they do retain a lot and it's useful to look at what they do/did to determine what the earlier version may have done or not done.
(amusingly, I wrote initially that they "retrain a lot", and the sentence was probably just as, if not more, correct)
Fortunately, I have remained silent today on ADF-Druidry, so I still look cool and composed on-list. :) I'm rather very happy I sat on that post now.
Hehe. I should take a moment to mention: your knowledge of things Gaulish is daunting to me :) I always appreciate a good correction from you if I post something in error :)
Your English is also better than mine. :)
*snickers* I hope one day to hear said accent. It sounds like fun :) Will there be wailing and gnashing of teeth?
I think that your work in Gaulish stuff probably detoured about the time mine did, but you have access to a lot more than I do, what with me being (functionally, so far as it matters in terms of academic work, at least) single-lingual. I'm working my way back into it slowly, but most of my work relies on new books coming out in English.
Besides, for the most part, I just like your ideas and thoughts on the subject. :)