PDA

View Full Version : Why Did Paganism Fail?



Blutwölfin
Saturday, January 21st, 2006, 07:08 PM
by Varg Vikernes

We can glorify our Pagan forefathers and their religion, culture and worldview as much as we want to, but all this sounds rather silly the moment somebody asks us the simply question: "If Paganism was such a marvelous religion, then why was it replaced by Christianity?" Christianity prevailed through treachery? Deceit and lies? Violent oppression? Sure, but that is not the main reason Christianity prevailed.

The Pagans of Southern Europe will probably not like to hear what I am about to say, but it is a fact that our European religion had become effete in Southern Europe as early as in the first couple of centuries before our time of reckoning. If we read some of the ancient literature we can see that even the ancient Greeks - including Homer - were puzzled by certain facts in their stories. They were not always familiar with the customs of the people they wrote about, because the ancient Greek society had already become decadent by then. The Pagan religion no longer worked like it was supposed to do in Southern Europe, and the explanation to this is actually population growth!

This point about population growth is very important, because the Pagan religion is a mystery religion, with complex rituals and a vast array of symbols and deities. Only the initiates really knew what was going on and understood the liturgy. The enlightenment achieved through participation in these mysteries was achieved step by step, over time. In a large congregation only a small percentage could be initiated, because only one person at the time could be initiated in each mystery. Further, this had to be done on a certain day of the week, month or year, when the candidate was at a certain age, and the uninitiated individuals of the congregation would then in effect remain outsiders or at best ignorant spectators not knowing what was going on even in the public religious rites. When the congregations grew into a huge crowd, like they did in Southern Europe because of population growth, the result was that eventually most of the people in the South-European communities would be ignorant to the purpose of the whole Pagan religion. Even in the early Iron Age the public rituals would serve only as theatre to most of them, as some sort of incomprehensible entertainment. "Nice music, spectacular show, but what is the purpose?" If the priests unveiled the secrets of the mysteries to the uninitiated, just to let them know what was going on and keep them interested, that would also ruin the whole experience for them, because the enlightenment only comes if the content of each mystery is unknown to the candidate beforehand. They had to keep it a secret, or else the mysteries would serve no purpose.

So unlike in the scarcely populated Northern Europe the Pagan religion only served a purpose to a small part of the populations of Southern Europe. There the ordinary man saw the religion as incomprehensible, the rites were too complex for him or her to understand them, and naturally it gave him or her no spiritual enlightenment. When the Romans a few centuries later created Christianity, a religion tailor-made for the mediocre masses left out by the Pagan cult, it was not very hard to gain supporters to this new religion in Southern Europe. Christianity offered one single symbol, one single deity and one single saviour, and was comprehensible to even the most intellectually inferior individuals. "Kneel in front of the cross, accept Jesus Christ as Your saviour and You are saved!" Why not? At the time the Pagan congregations only let the elite of the society into their cults, and the rest was basically left out, so why would the rest not join a cult - Christianity - where they too could be saved, and where they could even be saved instantly? A lot of people must have thought like that, because the next few hundred years Christianity spread out across Southern Europe. The villages in Southern Europe remained Pagan longer, though, obviously because the Pagan cults in the villages didn't have the problem with too large congregations - and I can add that that is apparently why we call the European religion Paganism in the first place, as paganus means "village dweller" in Latin. Christianity was first and foremost a religion for the uninitiated and ignorant crowds of the larger cities.

Western and Eastern Europe faced the same problem with population growth, and because of that offered little resistance to Christianity, but Northern Europe remained a scarcely populated area. In the Viking Age there were tens of millions of people living in Western, Central, Southern and Eastern Europe, but only about 250.000 people were living in all of Scandinavia. So while the rest of Europe was Christianized Scandinavia remained a Pagan society first and foremost because of the fact that people were still living in tiny communities, where everybody could participate and be included in the Pagan cult. Scandinavia had never become decadent and there was no vacuum to be filled by Christianity.

The result of this was, as we know, that Northern Europe defended itself against the cultural and religious imperialism of the Christians, with all the means they possessed. Superior ship technology and contempt for death was not enough, though, when 250.000 Scandinavians had to face the tens of millions of Christians in Europe. However, they burnt the few monasteries already built in Scandinavia, slew or threw out the few Christians already here, and fought courageously against the rest of Europe for about 250 years (!) before the resistance was broken and the Scandinavians finally agreed to pretend they accepted Christianity.

Paganism didn't fail as a religion. Paganism simply failed to remained the official religion because it is not a religion for the masses. It is a religion for healthy communities made up of a few individuals living in harmony with nature. It is a religion for the strong, the pure, the beautiful and the healthy, and to these people it is still the only religion worth practicing.

When the rest of the world goes down the drain because of consumerism, capitalism, internationalism and the Judeo-Christian religions it doesn't really matter, because the Pagans will remain uncorrupted and strong, living in their own healthy and self-sufficient societies in the countryside. Nobody and nothing can destroy our culture or race if even only a few of us remain true to our religion, and they cannot pollute our minds with their Asian filth either, if we live in communities where everybody are enlightened - by the Pagan mysteries. If we don't let them they cannot take us down with them when they fall into the abyss and their modern Sodom/Gomorrah destroys itself. The Pagans will survive the downfall of civilization because they don't participate and because of that remain pure.

Imperator X
Wednesday, February 8th, 2006, 01:36 AM
As much as I normally like his writing, this piece was not articulated as well as it could've been. For one thing he did not mention anything of the cults of the common people which were sanctioned by the state. The cult of Dionysus comes to mind. (the suppression of it later on not withstanding.) The common man played an integral role in religious functions, domestic and otherwise. Universal practices such as veneration of ancestors and the domestic spirits (Lares and Penates) flourished for example.

As for the fall of Paganism, in the 3rd century CE Paganism was, through the Mithraic cult in particular, beginning to develop a philosophy analogous to the Vedanta philosophy of the Hindus. The latter formulated a sort of all-inclusive 'monism' which is that all deities were but aspects of the One, called Brahman by the Hindus. This absolute was beyond human understanding (and could only be partially experienced by yogic initiates and skilled, disciplined ascetics.) This Absolute Reality was beyond all opposites and all human limitations, the phenomenon of maya, roughly translated as "illusion."

Paganism was developing a similar philosophy towards its decline in the third century CE. See "God Against the Gods" by Jonathan Kirsch. It did not sufficiently develop this before the "soldiers of Christ"commenced their usurpation of the Roman world.

All that was asked by the pagans was that the Christians sprinkle a few grains of incense upon the state altar in Rome, but they were to proud to do this. All other cults were tolerated by the Roman state (except perhaps the Galli castratos) as long as they sprinkled some incense upon the altar.

Who knows what would have happened if the Nomos (Gk. "Law, custom of the ancestors) had survived as long as the Dharma?

Oswiu
Wednesday, February 8th, 2006, 02:33 AM
Just one little comment for now,

Universal practices such as veneration of ancestors and the domestic spirits (Lares and Penates) flourished for example.
To adequately observe the practices of a household shrine, you would really need a comfortable householder with the time and leisure and inclination to do so. Perhaps there's a bit of a parallel with our own times where traditional rituals like making the Guy effigy for Guy Fawkes' Night are slipping into the past - because people are simply too busy and stressed to find the time to keep them up. Looking back at the Roman Empire, economic trends and the concentration of wealth must surely have ensured that the authentic domestic rituals became increasingly the preserve of the leisured elites, who themselves were falling increasingly prey to philosophical attitudes to religion, apathy, and exotic eastern cults. What common people could manage in the odd moment snatched here and there must have got increasingly perfunctory, eventually losing any meaning to the last few generations. No?

Imperator X
Saturday, February 11th, 2006, 07:46 PM
*Quote function inoperable, (slow load)*

Yes, I notice a real apathy, one could almost say antipathy? for anything that is an expression of either vital High Culture or pure, organic, natural folkish expressions of European culture, both Classical and Celtic/Germanic. People tend to scoff at any allusions to the glory of the past, and the ignorant masses denigrate it and relegate it to the realm of unnecessary intellectualism. I once told my aunt that I believe a requirement for graduating High School should be that the student be able to name the 12 Olympian gods and each of their functions/offices. A task which would not be at all difficult. (Except who knows with these illiterate students, some of whom have the IQ of a dog, no I am NOT exaggerating.)

My aunt posed the question "Now what would you say would be the point to study the Classics?" and my answer was to preserve antiquity, and true expressions of high culture. In the sense that there was a time when art, literature and poetry in Western Civilization were rife with influence from Pagan Greece and Rome. The foundation of Western Civ is what the ancients have passed on to us, and it is up to us to preserve that spirit.

In tenth century Japan (the Heian period) it was the UTMOST INSULT to be called an uncouth and unlearned person. Nowadays, it seems as if people take pride in being ignorant.

Sigrid
Tuesday, March 28th, 2006, 08:15 AM
I only happened on BW's post now and Varg has hit the nail on the head in more ways then one with this article. He has mentioned two things that break down folkish culture - unnaturally large populations and ignorance (which often go hand in hand with over-industrialization and can be witnessed through the artificially created "working class" of Europe and now of other countries where the factory system replaced the nuclear system of economic sustainability). Even in the ancient world overpopulation was a problem. It lead to conflict even in Scandinavia at the dawn of the Viking Age and deforestation through need for wood caused environmental damage and a need to obtain this resource elsewhere.

Life and evolution tend to be expansive if they exist as a system of supply and demand. And Varg has reached a central mystery in itself by isolating the control of fertility as a key to sustainability and the existence of healthy nuclear economies trading with others as the seed of later sovereign nation states.

I agree with his thesis entirely that the way to secure the existence of a group, a species or subspecies, a culture, belief system, etc is to isolate it from any mainstream and to practise it as a part of the functioning worldview of a particular community or group (or even nation as things evolve politically). Nation states are better than globalized communities because they offer the individual both the freedom to be himself in the most profound way possible as well as the security of blood and soil, in the ancient sense of this oath with the earth by mixing it with the blood of the tribe in a ritualistic connection of brotherhood and kinship.

There is a mass move toward the mega-city and a small migration of individuals back to the land. I agree with Varg that these individuals can be the seeds of the future and that they can, through careful management of their communities, keep something alive no matter how many are absorbed by the multicultural gathering of the masses in the parallel universe of supply and demand outside of the nuclear community's living space. And this "living space" for these small vibrant groups can be of a combination of aspects, in the contexts of economic, physical, geographic and spiritual.

There are a few things that must accompany such deliberate migrations into the old country of the folksoul, however, in our age, if these wish to be successful. To hold off Ragnarok when it threatens is often simply to prolong the agony of a dying system. Stepping aside and letting it fall is often a good way of encouraging renewal and the dawn of a new cycle.

Only a few will want to do this as it is much easier to live in the mega-city, participate in its evil and in its glory, obtain social security and have whatever you want whenever you want it. Cities are not in themselves evil they tend to be taken over by people who are. Eventually the system breaks down and there are too many people and demand escalates and utilitarianism is turned on its head and what was "the greatest happiness for the greatest number" becomes the greatest misery for the greatest number. Often this leads to civil unrest, rioting, crime and violence and the breakdown of the health and education systems as well as the corruption of the police force. The family unit is on its way out through the social system and its willingness to support people who have no right to claim its benefits and who are basically self-serving, who have become that way because socialism exists to prop up them up and encourage their inherent incapability and dependence. In such a situation politicians become just another commodity in a rapidly booming and crashing market of opportunism and the electorate stops bothering to vote them in or those who do vote do so because they are propping up the corruption that is killing them in the first place but cannot relinquish their dependence on it in the second place.

Which brings one to the subject of socialism that is implicit in Varg's thesis that overpopulation creates mass consciousness and mass consciousness neuters individual spiritual consciousness.

It is my own belief, and it always has been, that mass culture, mass consciousness and the State/Church as a controlling parent/deity will translate into the utter downfall of humanity where it lives in such mass groupings and under the dialectics of economic and historicist forces that classically motivate socialist ideology. It is no use adding in a racial factor, as Hitler tried to do, and then presenting the same horrible soup and control mechanism as "national socialism". (And here I shall be as unpopular as Varg believes he will be in suggesting something that has become woven into nationalism but that has no place in a healthy sovereign nation or group.) Socialism is simply Christianity without Christ and liberalism is its elitist intellectual aspect. And all these "isms" are merely solutions evolved by social engineers of one kind or another to control the ignorant masses and rake off the fruits of their labour for the exclusive benefit of an elite. All natural systems have elites but the way in which these become superior and the others subordinate are based on more realistic trials than the mere show of "caring" in a univeralist exhibition of genuine weakness dressed up as humanitarianism.

I am in agreement with Varg's claim that quantity isn't important and that it is motivation and quality of individuals and their ability to create viable, healthy groups that really matters. Vast hordes of illiterate, terrified, dependent, and finally angry and destructive urban peasants is not the solution to humanity's problems. Neither is the developement of brain dead flunkeys who salivate every time someone rings a bell.

Which brings one to the subject of science and its role in the maintenance of viable communities and the sustainability of these in congruence with nature and the availability and utility of resources.

Conspiracy theory mongering, superstition, ignorant rebellion and antagonism to true civilization will not solve the problem either. Anarchism is a worldview of the anti-authoritarian horde who want to do as they please with no exceptions and who uphold a completely irrational ideology of "responsibility" without the need for laws or restrictions. They are anti-everything and everyone. They are pathological rebels, adolescent in behaviour and naively Romantic in worldview. To these people science is a stranger and the reason for this is that science is a rival, a nasty truth telling rival, whose basic operation is validity testing and whose method is logic and who will ruin their fun with one horrible investigation after another until they are exposed as the charlatans that they are and their game will be over.

So conspiracy mongering (which is just a method these people employ of frightening the daylights out of the ignorant), anti-racist and anti-government posturing, libertine morality and anti-religious ranting are not what they seem. The "new free left" as they call themselves, are as hate filled and envious of group status and well functioning communities as the socialists ever were. They have just gone a few steps further and declared themselves free of law and order, moral injunction and most of all free of tradition. They hate tradition with a vengeance. Everything must, in true Marxist dialectical style, be transformed alchemically into its opposite. If doors are closed, open them, if they are open, close them. If the light is on switch it off, if it's off switch it on. Do this by rebellious instinct and not by intelligence. Try to be as annoying and radical and avant guard and juvenile as you can and you may join their gang. Initiation usually involves asking you to believe a raft of conspiracy theories about scientists and academics and leaders of all kinds to ensure that you will be gullible enough to want to refill your head with new theories that are opposite to all the ones that kept your ancestors safe and sane. Everything must be new. Out with the old and in with the bizarre is what happens when you take on their brave new world, governed by delinquent libertinism and a natural aversion to hard work. That's why they tend to bring in so many low grade immigrants. They are too lazy to do what they used to do and make the excuse that someone else needs a job. The truth is that they refuse to work and want to spend all day smoking pot and engaging in a kind of perma booze orgy so they need someone else to clean the toilets they spend a lot of time being sick into and someone to wash the grime off their neglected cities as they are far too busy having sex or tanking up at the pub to be concerned with the everyday chores that make community life viable for any group. They are no longer a "group", they have become a mass and they have no interest whatsoever in Varg's theory that their incessant indiscriminate breeding will cause the downfall of the ancient systems upon which they now perch like dung beetle kings resplendent in their citadels of compost.

Falling back into the trap of socialism, whether national or any other kind is like falling for the same old lie dressed up in different clothes. It means being sucked into another empire, with another Emperor and his elite guard, another mass of obedient workers building a citadel for their rulers and another series of wars to subdue anyone who tries to stop the unstoppable machinery of the will to power concentrated in the hands of a few opportunistic and usually excessively cruel overlords. It is the story of humanity and it is a tragic story and one sustained by the single aspect Varg has made the thesis of his argument - an inability to take control of destiny by sustaining the independence of the individual as opposed to the mass, the group as opposed to the horde, the nation as opposed to the globe.

Which brings one to the inevitable question: "What can be done to stop socialism, libertinism and globalisation from doing to people what Christianity did to them two thousand years ago in a jam packed Roman Empire with its burgeoning polyglottal multicultural population and its top heavy colonial extensions? (Haunted by the ghosts of Empires from Babylon to Egypt, Greece, Rome and Christendom and now expanded to include the Empire of America and the soon-to-be Empire of a resurgent China.) All groups that invade and consume other groups and see world domination, whether ideologically or theocratically, as their goal and their natural right and who worship the human propensity for violence will ultimately fail. Their scheme, although grand and to their minds noble because divinely dispensed, will contain the seeds of destruction right at the core and these seeds Varg has put on the table in his article in the shape of the crops that grew from them. They are the plantations of socialism, of mass culture, of exposure and of utilitarianism. And, most importantly, they are the children of the seeds of draconian control.

So it seems that the way to curb the dangers of these things would be to practice their opposites by planting other kinds of seeds: free enterprise, group culture, closure and conservation. Varg has stated that this is possible even if the number of people making up a group is very small in comparison to the masses of the mainstream prevailing culture and economy. He suggests the evolution of small groups of deliberate or "intentional" communities that will once again be capable of containing the "mysteries" (knowledge, science, technology, cultural equipment, spiritual world view, etc).

His idea has merit and in some ways, in certain places, among certain groups, this process has already begun to evolve. All over the world certain groups have agreed to step back from the mass, move away from the corrupting socialist mega-cities and start again, this time with an eye on the danger of growing too large, destroying the environment, killing the mysteries (to quote D.H. Lawrence this time) and breaking the web between creature and nature, between wight and world.

Personally, I see no hope if these groups are going to take with them the ignorance, the conspiracy theories, the mental baggage, remnants of religious beliefs and political ideologies they collected in their previous existence. If a clean break from these is not made the groups will ultimately fail. They must be built on sustainability, on resource management, on a system of learning that incorporates science as a study of nature and they must have some kind of spiritual understanding that is at least inclusive of their group and its relation to others and to the web of nature. If not, the young will leave the group. This happens often and happened to the kibbutzim in Israel. If they offer no future, no aspirations, no goal driven evolution both for the individual and for the group they will disintegrate by suffocating themselves to death. Besides which the factor of in-breeding must be addressed and the danger of over breeding must be constantly monitored in order for any group to sustain itself. One must view it all as though it were a pack of animals released into a wild life reserve. There is, realistically, only so much space and only so many resources. If any of these rules of supply and demand are overreached then the system will fail and the group will disintegrate and may even become extinct.

Varg's article is food for thought for anyone who genuinely believes that the present untenable situation can be overcome. But I agree with him that it will happen through the agency of the few rather than the many. It will also necessitate a chain of links between the groups so they can remain viable. And these links can be among differing groups in terms of trade and among similar groups in terms of sustainability of the group culture and bio pool. In other words, just like the maintenanace of any viable group in nature there will be interaction between the groups and between the groups and the system.

It must be borne in mind that these groups do not necessarily all have to be outside the city. Some can grow inside it and link to the others and these links can span the globe.

Aupmanyav
Friday, September 8th, 2006, 07:14 PM
Did it fail? At least not in India. We are happily pagan, and polytheist, some 850 million. India has preserved the worship of ancestors (pitris/manes - worshipped twice in a year for a fortnight), various Gods (the elephant-faced Ganesha who is the Lord of Auspicious Beginnings; the monkey-faced Hanuman who is the Lord of body-builders, wrestlers, and celebates; the liquor-drinking Bhairava). Many of us are animists and shamanists also. We are populating fast, hope to surpass China by 2050, we are progressing well in education and economy. Belief in hinduism is a very personal thing and nobody can question it. For family and society, we are governed by 'dharma' (the concept of duty and right action). We have preserved both, the indigenous hindu traditions as well as the adopted Aryan traditions.

fms panzerfaust
Friday, September 8th, 2006, 07:33 PM
As for the fall of Paganism, in the 3rd century CE Paganism was, through the Mithraic cult in particular, beginning to develop a philosophy analogous to the Vedanta philosophy of the Hindus. The latter formulated a sort of all-inclusive 'monism' which is that all deities were but aspects of the One, called Brahman by the Hindus. This absolute was beyond human understanding (and could only be partially experienced by yogic initiates and skilled, disciplined ascetics.) This Absolute Reality was beyond all opposites and all human limitations, the phenomenon of maya, roughly translated as "illusion."


Before mithraism started to spread in the west there was the phytagoric theology, who teach about a principle called Aíon, in some aspects similar to the Brahman of the hindus.
Through the concept of emanation the universe was thought to be made (instead of linear time), with Kronos and Rhea being created from Aíon. In this concept, Kronos is the monad, and Rhea the indefinite dyad. The dance between the two created the universe, or, perhaps is more right to say, are always creating the universe, since is an emanation, and not linear, or even cyclic, time.

Aupmanyav
Tuesday, September 12th, 2006, 06:48 AM
What common people could manage in the odd moment snatched here and there must have got increasingly perfunctory, eventually losing any meaning to the last few generations. No?Common (poor) people in India take ancestor worship quite seriously. Brides in punjab are first taken for blessings to the Waderas (ancestors' shrine, a miniature temple in the corner of the family agricultural field). Villagers in Rajasthan make long costly journeys (for them) to Gaya and Hardwar to propitiate their ancestors. The 'soldiers of christ' have come, but they are not as successul in India.

sheriff skullface
Tuesday, September 12th, 2006, 03:40 PM
I must say that unlike many of the new age/wiccan versions of history this article has alot of truth to it, the pagan cults people believed in thousands of years ago only had an aristocracy and people of the villiage being iniated into them, as yes when this modernist/universialist world comes crashing down, the pagans who have keep themselves pure will survive it(just like the article says)

Draupnir
Tuesday, September 12th, 2006, 09:10 PM
The spiritual path of liberation by Asatru is open

I agree with the fact that Christians brought something new, more easy,
the message: Kneel in front of the cross, accept Jezus Christ as your saviour and you are saved ( and otherwise you will burn in Hell).

Just one book, written down, instead of an unclear oral tradition.
The Christian priests had direct power, were connected with the wordly power of the king. They had there own taxes, they owned monasteries and churches were like small castles.
Europe was ocupied by the Romans, and when emperor Constantine converted himself to christianity he obliged the rest of the roman empire to do also.

The proud free pagans, not bound by any lord or losely bound had as opponents the well organised and trained romans. Hundreds of years later the pope still conected all the Christians and let them fight against anyone who wasn't Christian.

Christians could write, developed money. This was a big advantage over an oral culture.

Still paganism today can play a role. There is also a spiritual side on paganism, and specificaly I mean Odinism, Asatru. Odin was hanging 9 days on the worldtree Yggdrasill and in this way discovered the 9 spiritual worlds for us. It is possible to read the stories and to follow this path. Pagan priests can help with it.

Odinism had roughly said two kind of priests. The white priest like I will call them, and the black priests. The white priest were like the catholic priests. They adore the higher spiritual energies (the upper 4 chakras of the human body).
The black priest engaged themselves more with the earthly energies, like the sjamans. They occupied themselves with the 3 lower chakras. This spiritual voyage is more difficult, because it is more magic. One has to protect himself againt dark influences. Traditionally you seek out an protection animal, for example a wolf or eagle. And the animal will bring you down to the roots of the tree Yggdrasil, down to the underworld. Help of already deceased ancestors is normal on this path.
There you try to find out what is blocking the happiness in the village or why your ancestors are still bound to stay on this earth, and are not yet in Walhalla. With the help of magic tools, other ancestors, gods, protection animals you can free yourself of what is making you ill, or you can free the soul of one of your ancestors.

The 'black' method still exists and it is still possible for everyone to use it personally. The path is only more difficult, because you need to protect yourself against dark influences. Sjamanists have a difficult life.
For example hinduism still has both kind of priests: the white and the black ones. And that's just a name. Better is maybe to call them the priests of the upper chakras and the priests of the lower chakras.

Spiritual paganism is still a source of inspiration, and can still be used to spiritually liberate yourself. Odin has been hanging on the worldtree for us, and has opened the path. There are only very few Asatru priests who teach this path. Paganism is in europe most used as a factor to bind political groups.
The spiritual factor hardly ever comes out. Such a pity. The Asatru spiritual path is in it's core very inspiring and liberating.

As you can see I am a spiritual devotie of Asatru-religion. For worldly reasons the soldiers of Christ have gotten the wordly power. Nevertheless the spiritual Asatru path is still open to all who desires.

Hail to Odin, Freya, Thor

Gentilis
Tuesday, September 12th, 2006, 09:34 PM
by Varg Vikernes

We can glorify our Pagan forefathers and their religion, culture and worldview as much as we want to, but all this sounds rather silly the moment somebody asks us the simply question: "If Paganism was such a marvelous religion, then why was it replaced by Christianity."

Paganism wasn't replaced by Christianity in any pure sense of the word... rather, it was assimilated by Christianity.

The term judeo-christianity is a misleading load of crap given the fact there are more elements of paganism in christianity than judaism.

Moody
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 01:44 PM
Paganism wasn't replaced by Christianity in any pure sense of the word... rather, it was assimilated by Christianity.

And some have said that Christianity was rather assimilated by Paganism!

See the thread Nietzschean Christianity for more on this;
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=66109

nätdeutsch
Wednesday, September 13th, 2006, 10:44 PM
Paganism wasn't replaced by Christianity in any pure sense of the word... rather, it was assimilated by Christianity.

The term judeo-christianity is a misleading load of crap given the fact there are more elements of paganism in christianity than judaism.

the basic elements are derived from judaeism, such as doctrine, tradition, texts etc.

the customs are largely adopted from paganism, but still it is mostly judeo, i dont think its so misleading, just doesnt give paganism as much credit.

none of the basic beliefs are derived from paganism, just customs which we now refer to as christian.

Aupmanyav
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 11:12 AM
The real credit for Abrahamic religions should go to Egyptians.

Moody
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 12:36 PM
the basic elements are derived from judaeism, such as doctrine, tradition, texts etc.
the customs are largely adopted from paganism, but still it is mostly judeo, i dont think its so misleading, just doesnt give paganism as much credit.
none of the basic beliefs are derived from paganism, just customs which we now refer to as christian.

The real credit for Abrahamic religions should go to Egyptians.

The Ten Commandments are pretty 'basic' elements - they could even be the crux; they are certainly 'doctrinal', 'traditional', 'textual' etc., etc.,

Take the following Commandment;

Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
[OT: Exodus 20:4]

Clearly, Christianity has always broken this Commandment whereas the other so-called 'Abrahamic' religions haven't.

If Christianity was really "basically" Judaic, then we would never have had a Durer, a Michelangelo or a Leonardo.

Spjabork
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 02:41 PM
The real credit for Abrahamic religions should go to Egyptians.Well, the Arabic, Hebrew (but also Greek) script-characters ultimately stem from the Egyptian demotic derivates of the hieroglyphs. But the religion as such? It is true, one Jew has written a book in which he stated, that the future world-race would be outwardly similar to the "Ancient Egyptian race"...

Which features of "Abrahamic" religions do you see inherent in Egyptian religion? Is Egyptian Religion really a "desert-faith"?

In my view, the relation between Hinduism and Buddhism is "structurally" (Spengler would say "morphologically") the same as between Judaism and Christianity. And not only this, the similarity also shows itself in the same historical course of events: Buddhism was rejected by the Hindus; so was Christianity by the Jews.

In this scheme, Egyptian religion would remain outside, lest you assume a proto-Judaic system, as you might consider a proto-Vedic (Dravidian) system, too.

But as I understand it - correct me, if I'm mistaken -, you equal, implicitly, the Egyptian influences upon Judaism with the ground Hinduism has laid for Buddhism. And this is due to the rather "abstract", or "synthetic" character of both Judaism and Buddhism, which are lucking "organicity".

Gentilis
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 03:04 PM
the basic elements are derived from judaeism, such as doctrine, tradition, texts etc.

the customs are largely adopted from paganism, but still it is mostly judeo, i dont think its so misleading, just doesnt give paganism as much credit.

none of the basic beliefs are derived from paganism, just customs which we now refer to as christian.

Let's challenge those assumptions...

I live a secular existence with no particular attachment to christianity, although I am very cognisant of the important role it has played in the development of Western civilization. Its fair to say, as a Western man, christianism is part of who I am regardless of whether I want it or not.

Having said this, the same holds true for paganism. I celebrate Christmas, Easter and Halloween in their secular forms; Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Ghouls and Goblins-- and I've been known to call upon the tooth fairy for my kids.

I have been known to shop on Sundays. I don't subscribe to any institutional dogma or rituals. I don't have any dietary restrictions and thankfully my penis has not been mutilated.

What aspect of my secular existence would you say has been influenced by judaism? In what way has the Talmud contributed to my identity as a Western man?

The term judeo-christian is a fraud. Its like saying we are all africans because homonids originated in Africa... Sure christianity started with a Jew, but it has evolved into something which is antithetical to judaism.

Gundahar
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 03:35 PM
Well, for me are Christianity, Judaism and Islam not religions at all. They have taken the garment of religions, but in reality they are political systems. Systems to control and suppress the population, systems to make it easier for a small elite to govern masses that outnumber them heavily. There is one red line that goes through all these three abrahamic religions, it is total self-surrender to god and his executive organs, the clerics/mullahs/rabbis. The former pagan rulers, who converted to Christianity did it not because they really believed what the bible or the manipulators, called priests, said. They did it because they realized that this religion is a powerful instrument to keep the minions in line. Feudalism as we know it in Europe, wouldnt have been possible without a religion like Christianity. Christianity as we know it today started in the year 325, at the 1. Councile at Nicaea, staged by Constantine The Great, Imperator Romani Imperii. He certainly knew, what he was doing. After that, the Christians created a monpol of belief and of "wisdom" through destoying ancient libraries, like the one in Alexandria, shutting down the ancient philosophy schools and eliminating heathen priests and priestesses. They even were a reason for the downfall of the Imperium Romanum. Their pseudo-pacifistic ideology transformed the once mighty Romans, the masters of war into wimps. Centuries past, the Romans could always raise themselves up to great deeds during times of greatest danger. After the Christianisation had taken place, they werent able anymore. So Europe fell into an age of darkness. The last strongholds of ancient wisdom, were now destroyed by germanic hordes and the huns, so that at the end of this "age of darkness" the catholic church came out as the last refuge of knowledge and of spiritual wisdom. Later they used the germanic people, whose leaders converted to Christianity because of the same reasons I stated above, to eradicate the last remnants of pagan cults that still existed. Until this century, Christianity was and is a big factor in politics, although they are split up into various branches. In fact the realm of darkness, of which the christian sheep (not the high clerics, they know whats going on) are so afraid of in the future when Satan will rule, is not to come, it allready exists since over 1500 years. They are the evil of which the christian sheep are so afraid of and until it is not broken and all churches in ruins, same goes for mosques and synagoges, there will neither be justice nor freedom of spirit and mind in this world.

Spjabork
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 05:41 PM
Well, for me are Christianity, Judaism and Islam not religions at all. They have taken the garment of religions, but in reality they are political systems.There is a structural difference between non-written, orally transmitted "mythological", and the so-called book-religions, which rely on a script (characters) and "scriptures". The former tend to be autochthone, tribalic, defensive; the latter "global", "international", offensive. And the latter always follow upon the former - never vice versa.

Systems to control and suppress the population, systems to make it easier for a small elite to govern masses that outnumber them heavily. There is one red line that goes through all these three abrahamic religions, it is total self-surrender to god and his executive organs, the clerics/mullahs/rabbis.A caste of priests you also find in Hinduism/Buddhism, and with the systems of Aztecs, Mayas, Inkas in Amerika, far away from the Middle East.

The former pagan rulers, who converted to Christianity did it not because they really believed what the bible or the manipulators, called priests, said. They did it because they realized that this religion is a powerful instrument to keep the minions in line.According to historiography, the first Germanic "pagan ruler" who was to convert to Catholic Christianity, Chlodovech the Frank, did it because at the climax of a decisive battle against the Alemanns, when it seemed he would be annihilated, a burning cross appeared in the sky above and he vowed to turn himself and his folk to Christ. So he won the battle. God helped him. :) It was a deal. Later on, until the French Revolution, the Kings of France always said the were the most ancient, therefore the most honorable monarchs in Christendom.

Feudalism as we know it in Europe, wouldnt have been possible without a religion like Christianity.Despite some differences, a feudal system also can be recognized in pre-Meiji Japan. As for medieval Europe, it is commonly believed, that feudalism emerged because the free men - the mass of the folk - could or did not want to bear any longer the big burden of compulsory militia-like military service. So they exchanged exemtion for (alimentary) "tax", or their rights against conveniance. The tax, which was originally due to the King, by time and chance was transferred to his vassals, the feudal Lords. In this standard explanation, Christianity plays only a minor, if any role.

Christianity as we know it today started in the year 325, at the 1. Councile at Nicaea, staged by Constantine The Great, Imperator Romani Imperii. He certainly knew, what he was doing.Spengler remarked on that: "Tiberius was the last Roman Emperor, who wanted and tried to continue Roman history, who tried to save the Romans for history. But as he couldn't succeed - for it was all over -, his sadness turned into cruelty." Also from Marc Anton's τα εις εαυτον you can get the message: the "Romans" are merely a heap of rubble.

They even were a reason for the downfall of the Imperium Romanum. Their pseudo-pacifistic ideology transformed the once mighty Romans, the masters of war into wimps.From all we know it is clear that the decline of the Roman Empire had begun much earlier. Around the birth of Christ already the Roman legions were full of Germanic mercenaries. The "pure" Romans alone were no longer able to sustain the 50 or so legions needed to uphold and monitor the vast, "overstretched" empire. Christianity may well have delivered the coupe de grace. But you cannot blame the Christians - many of them slaves or proletarii - for the weakness of a rotten regime.

Centuries past, the Romans could always raise themselves up to great deeds during times of greatest danger. After the Christianisation had taken place, they werent able anymore.Yes, centuries past. But these centuries had past. The lifetime of "Antique Culture" had run out, was over anyway. You know a man of 70 will sigh: "When I was 20, I could catch up easily with any boy... But now - alas!" The life-span of a man measures decades, Cultures measure centuries...

So Europe fell into an age of darkness. The last strongholds of ancient wisdom, were now destroyed by germanic hordes and the hunsWhy, then, you adhere to Germanic Heathenry??

Aupmanyav
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 06:23 PM
as you might consider a proto-Vedic (Dravidian) system, too.Proto-Vedic would mean two things, the belief of Aryans before they came to India. Two things stand out, 1. They ate beef. 2. They buried their dead. As for the the other, the indigenous belief (which you call Dravidian, though there were many people in India at that time apart from the Dravids, only the people in south-western and south India were known to us as Dravids). This belief is very much alive (actually it is the dominent belief) and forms the other half of hindu religion. Shiva, Shakti, and Vishnu are its representatives. As for Buddhism, there was hardly anything new, all its beliefs were already present in Hinduism and Gautama was only the seventh Buddha, six historical buddhas are accepted even by the Buddhists. I respect Buddha and Buddhism very much, my own religious development carries the effect of his teachings, but something new, I don't find it.

Why I gave a reference of Egyptians is because of a passage from Wikipedia (Alternative Theories) which I have quoted in the forum 'Religion and Sprirituality', topic 'Do you believe in God'. (http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=536784#post536784)

Spjabork
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 07:09 PM
Proto-Vedic would mean two things, the belief of Aryans before they came to India.Yes: this ominous Aryan mythological religion, about which we know so little. It should be identical with that belief which was brought to Northern Europe. The Proto-Vedic Aryan gods should be matched by the Proto-Germanic "A(n)sas".

As for the the other, the indigenous belief (which you call Dravidian, though there were many people in India at that time apart from the Dravids, only the people in western and south India were known to us as Dravids). This belief is very much alive (actually it is dominent) and forms the other half of hindu religion. Shiva, Shakti, and Vishnu are its representatives.The Proto-Germanic "Wanas" are parallel to them. They were the gods of the Pre-Germanic, the Nordish people.

As for Buddhism, there was hardly anything new, all its beliefs were already present in Hinduism and Gautama was only the seventh Buddha, six historical buddhas are accepted even by the Buddhists. I respect Buddha and Buddhism very much, my own religious development carries the effect of his teachings, but something new, I don't find it.Well, would you really accept me as Hindu? :) No, you wouldn't. Maybe the system as such (or as you perceive it) shows hardly anything new - but mankind (outside India) does feel something new, even if it weren't really there. Everybody can become Buddhist, but nobody (i.e. outside the Hindu ethnicity) can nor wants to become Hindu. Luckily, the Hindu ethnicity is huge and can live on its own. By sheer number.

And there exists no parallel for Buddhism in the North. What follows Germanic mythological religion is - Christianity. That's why so many "Christians" in Europe - especially higher educated ones - are lured by Buddhism: they feel Buddhism is "structurally" filling a void which follows upon ancient, "barbarian" belief. Buddhism is, or should be en lieu of that post-mythological Germanic belief, which never evolved, was cut off by aggressive Christianity.

And they (i.e. a faction of course) feel, that Christianity is not fitting them, is strange to their race soul (to put it somehow).

Osmaegen
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 07:38 PM
Paganism's failure??? Well, I would say tolerance of other belief systems. Had our ancient Heathen ancestors been intolerant of other beliefs, or at least taken Penda's view that hypocrites must die, we would all still be some form of Germanic pagan or other pagan faith today.

As for to whom Christianity owes its origins. Both Judaism and Xianism owe much to Zoroastrianism, a noble religion in its own respects. During the period Persia dominated the Middle East, Judaism borrowed much from Zoroastrianism such as duality, and this survived into Christianity. Mithraism, I understand also contributed to Christianity, as did other faiths. I do not think Christianity's origins are so important, as was its usage by the Roman Empire. The Roman Catholic Church was nothing more than a way to continue the Empire without the Empire. Converted peoples would be less likely to object to rule from Rome, while those that refused conversion such as Penda and Radbod would fight to the death. My two cents on it.

Gundahar
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 09:47 PM
There is a structural difference between non-written, orally transmitted "mythological", and the so-called book-religions, which rely on a script (characters) and "scriptures". The former tend to be autochthone, tribalic, defensive; the latter "global", "international", offensive. And the latter always follow upon the former - never vice versa.

That doesnt say anything if they are not evil or that they are even religions.



A caste of priests you also find in Hinduism/Buddhism, and with the systems of Aztecs, Mayas, Inkas in Amerika, far away from the Middle East.


Same thing, same evil.



According to historiography, the first Germanic "pagan ruler" who was to convert to Catholic Christianity, Chlodovech the Frank, did it because at the climax of a decisive battle against the Alemanns, when it seemed he would be annihilated, a burning cross appeared in the sky above and he vowed to turn himself and his folk to Christ. So he won the battle. God helped him. :) It was a deal. Later on, until the French Revolution, the Kings of France always said the were the most ancient, therefore the most honorable monarchs in Christendom.


Yea, according to historigraphy...I dont believe anything what they say and of course not what Chlodovech says. But thats just me.



Despite some differences, a feudal system also can be recognized in pre-Meiji Japan. As for medieval Europe, it is commonly believed, that feudalism emerged because the free men - the mass of the folk - could or did not want to bear any longer the big burden of compulsory militia-like military service. So they exchanged exemtion for (alimentary) "tax", or their rights against conveniance. The tax, which was originally due to the King, by time and chance was transferred to his vassals, the feudal Lords. In this standard explanation, Christianity plays only a minor, if any role.


So you say there is a difference in religious belief but no difference in the political system? I wouldnt say that. They worshipped their Emperor, the Tenno, of whome they thought to be a god. The Tenno appointed a general, the shogun, first of all daimyos, with the command of all military forces. So it is similar to european feudalism, because it uses the same "pseudo-religious" legimitation to rule.



From all we know it is clear that the decline of the Roman Empire had begun much earlier. Around the birth of Christ already the Roman legions were full of Germanic mercenaries. The "pure" Romans alone were no longer able to sustain the 50 or so legions needed to uphold and monitor the vast, "overstretched" empire.

True, but this was during the 3rd and 4th century, and at this time Christianity was allready religion of state. But during the 1st and 2nd century Rome was still strong, and pagan.



Yes, centuries past. But these centuries had past. The lifetime of "Antique Culture" had run out, was over anyway. You know a man of 70 will sigh: "When I was 20, I could catch up easily with any boy... But now - alas!" The life-span of a man measures decades, Cultures measure centuries...
Why, then, you adhere to Germanic Heathenry??

Thats your personal opinion. For me the ancient period was the period with the highest culture that mankind has ever brought forward. Christianity did destroy it all instead of further improving it. The Germanics destroyed the centres of wisdom of the romano- and greco-pagan cults, but not intentionally. Thats just what happens in times of great wars and chaos. Later their own culture and wisdom got destroyed by Christianity.


Paganism's failure??? Well, I would say tolerance of other belief systems. Had our ancient Heathen ancestors been intolerant of other beliefs, or at least taken Penda's view that hypocrites must die, we would all still be some form of Germanic pagan or other pagan faith today.


Yes, thats a good statement. But why would our ancestors have been intolerant? They saw Christianity just as another cult like the many others. There was not such a thing as religious intolerance during the ancient times. An exception are the Jews, because they were dangerous and intolerant so they got suppressed and were observed. Guess from what "religion" Christianity did emerge...

Jäger
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 11:25 PM
But why would our ancestors have been intolerant?
They were intolerant, many missionaries came back dead. It was just the might of the Franks :)

Gundahar
Thursday, September 14th, 2006, 11:28 PM
They were intolerant, many missionaries came back dead. It was just the might of the Franks :)

Yea, but why did they kill them? Maybe because they were agressive, burned their pagan sanctuaries, murdered some of their brothers and sisters and tried to force a foreign ideology upon them. But they were not intolerant from the start on.

nätdeutsch
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 02:11 AM
its still intollerance, even if there is a reason.

Aupmanyav
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 12:39 PM
Spjabork:

Why should you call Aryan religion 'ominous'? I see no reason for that, actually Aryans were a peaceful people. It is not correct to say that we do not know about Aryan religion. It survives in India in Hinduism. It surprises me again and again to see the similarities between language and religion in India and in Northern Europe. Today's finds: 'domoz' (justice, law) and its closeness to 'dharma' (Wikipedia). Also Kankles, from Qan (IERoot - to sing, sound, Sanskrit - Karna (ear), Kan (Modern Hindi) (http://aidenis.mch.mii.lt/Kankles). Three names of sites of Narva culture that sound very familiar: Riigi-kula (House of Rishis, wise), Kudrukula (House of Kadru, mother of humanity, another meaning, horse, Kudre), Vaikula (The House) (http://ethesis.helsinki.fi/julkaisut/hum/kultt/vk/kriiska/tekstid/04.html). The similarity between Aesir, Ansus, and Ahur, Asur also is very striking.

I believe in 'Arctic Homes in Vedas' (B.G.Tilak), where there was a seven-month day, a three-month night, dawns and dusks extending to one month, as described in RigVeda. There are two candidates, Siberia or Northern Europe. Were it the 'corded ware people' or the 'comb ceremic people'? I would like to hear what you may say about it. Perhaps there is no problem till the Kurgan culture, but what before that? The period immediately pre-glacial 15000 years ago to 5000 years ago is not chartered.

I would have no hesitation in accepting you as a hindu if you knew about hindu philosophy and believed in it. Basically you should be ready to say that what you think is not the only correct thing, what others say may also have a grain of truth. What Hindus particularly abhor is the one God/one book/one explanation theory. I am sure you know about the RigVedic verse, 'Eko Sat, Vipra Bahudha Vadanti' (truth is one, good people describe it variously).

Hinduism has changed all the time. It is not an abrahamic system limited by a book. I am an atheist, believe in a non-sentient non-interfering universal substrate (Brahman) constituting time, space and substance in the universe. I consider it to be like a quantum field. Hinduism has no conflicts with science and would change with it. If people want to be Buddhists, I have no problem with that. Perhaps they would also come back. Buddhism does not fill any void, it only side-steps. I returned back because of what they said about samsara being sorrow, and their explanations about karma, reincarnation, and nirvana. Yes, the Hindu ethnicity is large enough and can live on its own by its sheer numbers.

Spjabork
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 01:10 PM
I believe in 'Arctic Homes in Vedas' (B.G.Tilak), where there was a seven-month day, a three-month night, dawns and dusks extending to one month, as described in RigVeda. There are two candidates, Siberia or Northern Europe.
A few days ago, here in this forum a German (liberalist leftwinger) claimed, the oldest scripts of Hinduism, forming its "basis", were the Vasudeva, and in them it were stated, the Aryans were people of "short stature with brown skin". I asked him to verify this by delivering the original passages from these Vasudeva, but he only said, this would be "common knowledge". Can you comment on that?

Aupmanyav
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 03:46 PM
Aryans were people of "short stature with brown skin". I asked him to verify this by delivering the original passages from these Vasudeva, but he only said, this would be "common knowledge". Can you comment on that?He must be a 'Hare Krishna' devotee, a monotheist philosophy in Hinduism. Devotees of Vishnu (of whom there are nine avataras) are known as Vaishnavas. For 'Hare Krishna' people a particular avatara of Vishnu, Krishna is the God all-mighty, though they worship other Gods in hindu pantheon. I consider Vishnu and Krishna indigenous Indian Gods, though Vishnu finds a peripheral mention in the Vedas which probably is a later interpolation. Aryans were certainly not short and brown, but just the opposite, fair and tall, originally from sub-polar regions, stayed for many millenia in higher lattitudes, were nomadic, hardy, raised cattle; milk, curd, whey, butter, cheese, and barley were probably their mainstay (no nutritional problem). Though they might have been raising reindeer in their homeland (not Sami, whose language is not derived from PIE). Actually the Aryans called all quadrupeds as 'gawah' (cows).

Spjabork
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 04:03 PM
He must be a 'Hare Krishna' devotee, a monotheist philosophy in Hinduism. Devotees of Vishnu (of whom there are nine avataras) are known as Vaishnavas. For 'Hare Krishna' people a particular avatara of Vishnu, Krishna is the God all-mighty, though they worship other Gods in hindu pantheon. I consider Vishnu and Krishna indigenous Indian Gods, though Vishnu finds a peripheral mention in the Vedas which probably is a later interpolation.A certain Srila Brabhupada tried in the 70ies to spread "Hare Krishna" in USA. He was rather short and his skin indeed was dark brown.

He wasn't very successful, but for a time he made big news in the whole West. I must admit, I was always frightened - as child - when I saw him in the magazines or on TV. His books are still being distributed in Germany, I read some of them and I am sure that he at least did have problems with Western science. He was a fierce opponent of it.

Aryans were certainly not short and brown, but just the opposite, fair and tall, originally from sub-polar regions, stayed for many millenia in higher lattitudes, were nomadic, hardy, raised cattle; milk, curd, whey, butter, cheese, and barley were probably their mainstay (no nutritional problem). Though they might have been raising reindeer in their homelandIs this explicitly stated in the Vedas (or some other ancient writings)? I feel, the written sources are contradictious to a certain degree.

Aupmanyav
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 05:42 PM
Hare Krishna's are doing farely well in India and abroad. Actually the ideology comes from a revered saint in Hinduism, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, which maintains that 'the world and souls depend on God, though they are separate and distinct from Him. They are neither one with God nor different from Him. There is an incomprehensible difference-non-difference (Achintya Bhedabheda).' It is true that they have problems with science just like any other monotheist philosophy. Hare Krishna's are but a small part of a larger following in India.

What I said about their sub-polar origin is clearly mentioned in the Vedas. That Aryans were nomads and herders also cannot be doubted with the importance of cows in their life. Brahmins who are supposed to be their descendants carry their geneological name which is known as 'gotra'. Gotra is an enclosure in which cows are kept. Probably all people who kept their cows in a particular enclosure were known by the headman's name or perhaps people from one family kept their cows in one enclosure, 'he is from X gotra'. My family's gotra name is Upamanyu. He has one verse in his name in RigVeda. In ceremonies and marriages 'gotra' must be mentioned, a brahmin who does not know his 'gotra' is hardly a brahmin, marriage of the boys and girls from the same 'gotra' is not permitted. In the fire-sacrifices hindus use barley grains, so probably that was the main grain of Aryans, rice is not mentioned at all. Many of the Vedic seers have the name of Central Asian places attached to their names, for example, X seer was Valhiki (hailed from Balkh) or Y was a Kamboja (probably from Turkmenistan).

I am no historian (though my grandfather was one), but I hope what I have written helps.

Aupmanyav
Friday, September 15th, 2006, 07:32 PM
'The late Mr. Kynpham Singh in his book The Times and Works of U Rash Mohon Roy wrote thus: "One year, one girl student of K.J.P. Synod School now (formerly known as Welsh Mission Girls High School), who was of the Khasi Religion, applied for a leave of absence to go and witness the dance at Sohra, but Miss Jones, who was the Headmistress at that time, did not grant her the leave asked for. She also sent a letter to the family of the student in which she wrote thus: "I repeat what I said yesterday, that I cannot permit even on student of the Christian Mission School to have any part in heathen festivities. When I say something, I really mean it, and after a deep thought and an intense prayer I have arrived at the above decision. this School stands as an example of things which glorify the Christian religion."

Kynpham Singh also wrote: "The Christians are strictly prohibited even to witness the dance. The punishment meted out was excommunication. When converted to Christianity, they sold away their dancing ornaments or broke them into pieces or pounded them in a mortar wit a pestle and made necklaces and earrings with exotic designs.' (http://www.khasi.ws/letter_1.htm)

Perhaps that is what happened in Europe also.