Druids and Pagans
Don Kean
being labeled. However this label gives an understanding of why Druid law
over Europe ended in ethnic cleansing. The Roman emperor Claudius described
Druids as "country witch doctors" and approved of putting them to death
without trial.
An alleged crucifixion took place around that time in the Middle East and a
big deal is still made about it, but didn't even rate a mention by Roman
occupation in the area let alone by their top banana, so Druid persecution
has to deserve more of a hearing.
The Druid holocaust story is where top representatives of Europe were hung
out to dry under the fascist motto of 'if you can't convert them to our
gods then kill them', fair enough if you are not one of those being killed.
To look at the European side their teachers trained for a lifetime to serve
the land in ways unknown or unappreciated by close-minded "cities of god".
What did those on the land do? Same as they do now. They grew and
exported prime quality crops and cattle.
Regardless of any modern meaning "pagan" did mean "of the country" where
bumpkins of rural background were often told how they fell outside of
behavior expected of urban dwellers. The groups who made this distinction
are what they have always been, accepting only what they want and
badmouthing anyone or anything that appears different.
Another sense of the word shows ancient rural beliefs lacked the gloss of
establishment beliefs - or had ways with to explain natural world events
without resort to unworldly explanations. Present day atheists celebrate
pagan festivals for the latter reason and "neo-pagans" for the former. What
a conundrum! Can they both be right in the way they grab handfuls of the
pagan cake?
There can never be any outcome of note when all are encouraged to go
different directions. This "let's break it up into little pieces" approach
makes me wary of the motives of those who seem to somehow claim
ownership of the now prize title.
Elenos
Kevin Jones
news:aj798k$ouo$1...@possum.melbpc.org.au...
> Many who study the Druids never write to "pagan" groups for they object to
> being labeled. However this label gives an understanding of why Druid law
> over Europe ended in ethnic cleansing.
It didn't. the Celts, whether Romanised or not, are there throughout the
empire. There is no ethnic cleansing - and druids are not an ethnic group.
>The Roman emperor Claudius described Druids as "country witch doctors"
> and approved of putting them to death without trial.
His edict only applied to Gaul - not to Britain (which wasn't part of the
empire), or to the other Celtic areas that were within the empire. It could
never apply to those areas that remained outside the empire, such as
Ireland.
> The Druid holocaust story is where top representatives of Europe were hung
> out to dry under the fascist motto of 'if you can't convert them to our
> gods then kill them', fair enough if you are not one of those being
killed.
Firstly, there wasn't a holocaust. Secondly, the principal idea of the
Romans was that people should continue to worship their ancestral gods -
they weren't into conversion, which is why the empire included deities from
Britain to Asia Minor. The Romans were happily importing foreign deities
even back in the Republic - look at Cybele. Given the plethora of deities
within the empire, which gods would they get someone to convert to? And in
any case one Celtic deity, Epona, was adopted by the Roman cavalry. Looks
like a section of the Roman army was converted to Celtic religion, rather
than the other way around.
Anyway, the Roman state did not function anything like a modern state -
you'd be better off regarding it as (in modern terms) a banana republic not
quite as big, but comparable to the continental USA in size, with no police
force, and an army which was probably about the size of the national guard
of one or two states, most of which was on the borders or concentrated in
troublespots. Many places did not see a soldier from one year's end to the
next.
The empire under the emperor Domitian was considerably more centralised, and
had considerably more power to impose its will on subjects. However,
Domitian couldn't make his edicts on maximum prices stick and couldn't even
get people in the empire to dig up vineyards, even if they lived within ten
miles of Rome. Emperors could decree whatever they liked - getting it
carried out was entirely a different matter. Matters were governed entirely
by rules made up and enforced by local communities - unless, of course, you
could get a written appeal to the governor or emperor.
Consequently Roman law and imperial edicts did not run thoughout the empire.
Roman law, and the enforcement of Roman law only existed in practice as a
function of the direct proximity of the governor or the army. No governor or
no army in your proximity - then no Roman law, except in theory, and the
Roman army itself was often a source of disorder, banditry and protection
rackets. There was no police force to enforce laws, a several month delay in
finding out what the latest edict was, and in any case, governors wouldn't
enforce even a direct instruction from the emperor if it meant causing
trouble in the province. One governor was instructed by Caligula to erect a
statue of the emperor in the Temple in Jerusalem. The governor, knowing that
this would result in an uprising, ignored the imperial decree. Caligula died
shortly afterward. Now druids were members of aristocratic Celtic families.
Quite a few Gaulish families were pro-Roman, and Rome depenmded upon them
staying loyal. How long would they have stayed loyal if Rome had started
killing their relatives? A governor would have to carry the can for any
disorder intheir province, even if it was the emperor's fault. Far easier to
ignore the emperor and hope he never asks about it again. And in fact
emperors rarely knew what was happening in the province - they relied on the
governor and senior officials for reports. You could lie through your teeth
to a direct inquiry from the emperor, and he'd never know the difference
(and that did in fact happen).
This, BTW, leads to another aspect of Roman law and custom; if the new
emperor did not individually confirm the decrees of the old emperor, they
lapsed and had no force of law. Claudius' edict against the druids - which
seems to have been primarily to avoid an uprising in Gaul while he was
invading Britain - seems never to have been confirmed by his successor. It
would have therefore had no force after Claudius' death. Shortly after that,
the Romans had more things than druids to worry about - like a civil war.
There were in any case whole areas where Roman law never ran - like forests
and mountains. Gaul had a fair number of forests. Claudius' edict would not
have had any affect there unless he had decided to send in the army into
every forest to find every druid. Now, he had better uses for the army, such
as invading Britain. In any case, the Roman army of this period did not have
the manpower to do this, and no emperor in his right mind would have
diverted the army from its rightful duty - defending the borders - to do
this, even in peacetime. You might get that happening in the very late
empire (e.g. Theodosius), but that's a very different world.
As for Britain, it wasn't a druid army that Paulinus faced at Anglesey.
Tacitus is often misquoted - what he says is that the enemy stood on the
shore; close by sttod the druids, and to their left stood the women. In fact
it was a standard Celtic army of the period. Chances are that it only
consisted of local tribes such as the Deceangli.
So we have an edict that, at the most, was only in effect for 20 years, only
applied to one province, and which would have had no effect in at least 50%
of that province, and which was almost certainly unenforceable. On top of
that, we have definite evidence of the continued existence of druids in the
later empire, by which time they were considered to be very respectable -
Vespasian is reputed to have known one, Domitian (I think) sacrificed on one
occasion to a Celtic god at a Celtic sacred place, and Ausonius mentions
them in connection with the professors at Bordeaux. We also have definite
archaeological evidence of continuity - remarkable continuity - at many
Celtic religious sites within the empire, which you would not get if a whole
stratum of religious functionaries or specialists had been killed off. Roman
technology and art forms may be used - e.g the Jupiter-Giant columns - but
the religious message conveyed by the iconography owes nothing to
Graeco-Roman influences. It is very alien and non-Classical. On the whole,
we can be reasonably sure that Claudius' edict probably had damn all effect,
and that any druid killed under it was probably very unlucky.
You know, I've written this so many times that maybe it should be put in the
FAQ! :-)
Kevin
Don Kean
"Kevin Jones" <1006...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:aj9d3t$rkm$2...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...
Kevin, write your FAQ for all the good it will never do. I could answer your
post point by point for it abounds with errors. I tried before and others
ganged up with you to put pressure on me, only one person, with one voice
and drove me away. The old schoolyard bully approach works in holding back
how the Druids did have a suppressed religion that will remain unknown with
that holier than thou attitude. If that strikes fear in any heart then a
change of heart is needed.
Thinking outside the established square means having no hidden agendas, like
trawling the net looking for people to sign up for a “school” like some here
do. Satisfying the whims of others means the coming of a kind of subversive
mass conformity with no room for individual expression.
How could Druids worship eastern gods, included in Wicca, the very ones to
attack the Druids without mercy? Teaching a “Druid” school means keeping
your mouth shut about glaring inconsistencies or losing valuable customers.
You bring up some minor points, but as you say we have heard them all before
and are we satisfied? No! You keep on about the Irish, and that would never
include the Northern Irish (to be sure). The South are Catholic and the
Roman Catholic Church has paraded this ragbag of unconvincing excuses and
justifications about Irish Celtic heritage as gospel truth for donkey’s
ages.
I am not knocking any spiritual teachings this church may have, but a
hierarchy built on holding an empire of earthly wealth is way out of line
with modern thinking. The age of empires is over and even the Southern Irish
begin to doubt. They are the jewel in the crown of Catholicism because they
are Celts, rather misguided for who among their priests has been made pope?
The term “roman” catholic still exists because of a hidden belief one day
“the holy Rome” will rise again and take its place as the true city of god!
Telling about crimes against mankind committed by Ancient Romans undercuts
the present high moral ground where at least some can spend their days
dressed in silk surrounded by great treasures.
The church can polish up their act, yet major reforms came from those
wanting a voice in their spirituality. The power still rests in the hands of
a few males that eat spaghetti and forget having women at that table, except
to wear black and do the serving.
Karl Marx talked of the “hundred families of Rome” how a greedy few could
bring untold misery to the many. From that arose the word “capitalist” for
“the families” (cosa nostra) controlled all the wealth and had false
histories written, but truth will out. What about the Roman games, how many
millions of Celts died in the gore of blood soaked arenas?
Rome fell because a gang of thugs and criminals ran it and had an ancestor
worshipping church set up long before Jesus. That name became its salvation
when overrun by armies of pissed off Celts claiming back their heritage, but
were still tricked.
Today we want to know our true heritage with no more “historical” excuses.
What rubbish to say we have not been screwed!
Elenos
Noinden Tain
<don...@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
There is only one thing that annoys me more about wiccans who talk
about the so called "burning times" beign a war on witch craft. Celtic
Pagan Spiritualists (aka Druids) who talk of a "haulocaust".
BAH
There was no such thing. Druidry existed even after the advent of
Christianity. It grew old and died (as much as an idea can). The
closest thing to a wipingout of "druids" was a certain incident during
a british "uprising" involving a rather feisty queen ... you know the
one bub!
"Druidry" (in that the station of the Druid) as with other paleopagan
religions was usurped reasonably bloodlessly by christianity. The bards
remained (de paganised).
Beirn
> include the Northern Irish (to be sure).
Which Northern Irish? "to be sure"? The indigenous population of Irish
or the descendents of the scottish undertakers? The scottish who are
descended from teh Irish settlers in scotland int eh early middle ages
or the scottish who predate them?
The South are Catholic
The south is alsos Protestant, Jewish, Islamic, Atheist, Pagan and
Indifferent: the next ill considered generalisation about my country
will rpovoke me to scream.
and the
> Roman Catholic Church has paraded this ragbag of unconvincing excuses
and
> justifications about Irish Celtic heritage as gospel truth for
donkey's
> ages.
ARGGHHHHHHHHHHH!
In point of fact if you knew anything about the development of Irish
national identity you would know that the re-invention of Irish celtic
heritage was the act of ninteenth and early twenthieth century
ascendency protestant anglo-irish, including the elder Wildes, lady
augusta gregory, WB yeats and AE.
> I am not knocking any spiritual teachings this church may have, but a
> hierarchy built on holding an empire of earthly wealth is way out of
line
> with modern thinking. The age of empires is over and even the Southern
Irish
> begin to doubt.They are the jewel in the crown of Catholicism because
they
> are Celts, rather misguided for who among their priests has been made
pope?
What are you talking about? Ireland in the 1950s? the version of
catholic ireland you learnt from "The Quiet Man"? Some manual called
"stereotyping for beginners?"
> The term "roman" catholic still exists because of a hidden belief one
day
> "the holy Rome" will rise again and take its place as the true city of
god!
> Telling about crimes against mankind committed by Ancient Romans
undercuts
> the present high moral ground where at least some can spend their days
> dressed in silk surrounded by great treasures.
> The church can polish up their act, yet major reforms came from those
> wanting a voice in their spirituality. The power still rests in the
hands of
> a few males that eat spaghetti and forget having women at that table,
except
> to wear black and do the serving.
Well I'm glad it's not just Ireland you know nothing about!:)
Beirn
David Monks
emphasis on Irish history and culture. There is no tradition of a
"holocaust of druids". Nor am I aware of such a tradition in the other
Celtic lands. Mind you, the Romans mauled them a bit in Ynis Mon (The
island of Anglesea), Wales, but they still continued on, if on a lesser
level. But a holocaust? I don't think so.
David
"Noinden Tain" <sla...@orcon.net.nz> wrote in message
news:130820022136370662%sla...@orcon.net.nz...
Wade
Did they have big sticks or were they armed with projectile
weapons? Since history's obviously not your cup of tea, have
you ever considered the stage?
--
Wade
> > "Kevin Jones" wrote:
> > You know, I've written this so many times that maybe it should be put
> > in the FAQ!
David Monks
it, so I am having to pick it up on Google.
I am truly amazed at the welter of misunderstanding here..
Firtsly, Tacitus refers to a certain crucifixion in Judea, and Suetonius
also refers to a certain "Chrestus" who was stirring up the Jews.
Kevin rightly points out that the Romans weren't interesed in converting
anyone. They were mainly concerned with religion as a contract with the
gods - we offer X, and the gods deliver Y. There was no ethical content in
Roman religion. The legalistic aspect was such that if an officiant
stumbled over a word, or got a gesture wrong, the contract demanded that the
ritual be commenced again right from the start.
As to the South (Do you mean the Republic of Ireland? It's most northern
point is to the north of any point in Northern Ireland), as Beirn so rightly
points out, is not monlithically Roman Catholic. And as to not including
the Northern Irish in anything, it may have escaped your notice that in 1923
the Northern Irish excluded themselves from the rest of the island (pace
Nationalists). That act of self exclusion has finally been honoured in the
Republic - and about time too. We have wasted too much energy on it both
north and south for far too long. And by the bye, although I am Irish, I'm
not Roman Catholic, although I live in the Republic of Ireland. But it is a
land that that I serve through its public service - and I am honoured and
proud to do so.
Who are these mysterious Southern Irish? that you keep harping on about. If
you mean the citizens of the Republic, then say so. At least get the
nomenclature right.
And what has eating spaghetti got to do with anything? The Italians are the
most anti-clerical people I know (se e' vestito di nero fucililo - if it's
dressed in black - shoot it!). they eat far more spaghetti than anyone in
the Island of Ireland.
As for the Roman Games, the numbers of Celts you mention is way too high.
Millions would not have been possible - the population levels throughout
Europe were low. In Ireland of 2000 years ago there were probably about
200,000 people at most. In the 400 years of the Games, I doubt if anything
like 200,000 people were butchered in the arena. There wern't that many
arenas, and the Romans were mainly interested in Gladiatorial combat with
trained swordsmen - not the butchery of prisoners. Besides, the Roman state
had nothing to do with Christianity until the time of Constantine circa 330
CE. And finally, Rome fell to the Turk in 1452 when the Emperor Constantine
XIII died on the walls of Constantinople defending his city and Empire. The
Empire in the West, however, fell in 476 CE when Germanic peoples deposed
the Emperor Romulus Augustulus. The Celts had nothing to do with it.
Rahter, the Celts of Gaul (mod. France) considered themselves citizens of
Roma and suffered as much as anyone in Italy at the hands of the Germanic
invaders.
It would be as well to make sure which side the Celts were on in the fall of
the Western Roman Empire before making wild statement.
Beirn, what do you say we share a bottle of Holy Ballygowan - sparkling, of
course???
David
"Beirn" <buibh...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:qH469.188$uq3....@news.iol.ie...
M. Bruno
> How wonderfully dramatic... drove you away indeed <LOL>
> Did they have big sticks or were they armed with projectile
> weapons? Since history's obviously not your cup of tea, have
> you ever considered the stage?
>
I think it was those "black robed women with disheveled hair like Furies,
brandishing torches" while the men were "raising their hands to heaven and
screaming dreadful curses." That would do it for me.
MB
Noinden
> I am an Irishman, living in Ireland, educated here too, with a strong
> emphasis on Irish history and culture. There is no tradition of a
> "holocaust of druids". Nor am I aware of such a tradition in the other
> Celtic lands. Mind you, the Romans mauled them a bit in Ynis Mon (The
> island of Anglesea), Wales, but they still continued on, if on a lesser
> level. But a holocaust? I don't think so.
>
> David
EXACTLY
The Gaels don't have that mentality about their prechristian roots.
It is a modern neopagan affection to want to feel as hard done by as
the Jews.
It pisses me off something cronic! AND it lessons the actual things
the church did (to women,muslims, jews, the wrong type of christian
etc)
Mike Quint
"the masquerade"...we learned to blend in with whatever was the prevailing
religion at the time, and practice druidry in secret. When the Christians came,
we just sent our young men off to their monasteries to become priests, so that
when they came back, they would appear to "convert" everyone in their
respective home towns. In other words, we "hid in plain sight"---thus avoiding
confrontations and complications.
I was told by my Archdruid that we survived and were rarely bothered. Druid
holocaust? Not that I have heard of in my Order..
Warm blessings,
Kathryn
Kevin Jones
>
> "Kevin Jones" <1006...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> news:aj9d3t$rkm$2...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...
> > "Don Kean" <don...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
> > news:aj798k$ouo$1...@possum.melbpc.org.au...
> >
> > You know, I've written this so many times that maybe it should be put
> >in the FAQ! : Kevin
>
> Kevin, write your FAQ for all the good it will never do. I could answer
your
> post point by point for it abounds with errors.
Hardly. It may be rather brief, compared to academic essays I've had to do,
but it's a fairly succinct summation of historical realities. I'm familiar
enough with the subject at academic level - I've just spent 4 years doing a
degree in the subject and am now tackling an MA. Perhaps you should so as
well.
>I tried before and others ganged up with you to put pressure on me, only
one
> person, with one voice and drove me away.
Oh poor you, to be so intimidated by the ravening hosts of ard! :-)
However, others did not 'gang up with me' - I've never asked anyone to
support my arguments or opinions in any posting. If they do, that's their
choice - but then we do have quite a few people here who are well versed in
history.
> The old schoolyard bully approach works in holding back
> how the Druids did have a suppressed religion that will remain unknown
with
> that holier than thou attitude.
So if I agree with you (regardless of what the sources and the evidence
says), I'm OK, if I don't, I'm a bully. If the sources and the
archaeological evidence disagree with you, they're wrong and it's all
excuses. Very scholarly! You presumably are the only true druid here.
As for a suppressed religion, Ausonius (tutor to the emperor Gratian)
remarks that some of the professors at Bordeaux (one of the foremost Roman
universities) were proud of their descent from Amorican druids. It was very
public and very honoured. One can be fairly sure that Gratian read Ausonius'
works. So much for a suppressed religion.
> Thinking outside the established square means having no hidden agendas,
I don't have an agenda, hidden or otherwise, and I'm pretty well known for
taking issue with anyone, no matter how well established they are
academically, if I reckon their argument is wrong. Gave my old tutor an
interesting 4 years. :-)
> Satisfying the whims of others means the coming of a kind of subversive
> mass conformity with no room for individual expression.
I don't bother much about satisfying anybody else's opinions or whim, and I
don't bother overmuch with conformity.
> How could Druids worship eastern gods, included in Wicca, the very ones
> to attack the Druids without mercy?
So what has wicca or eastern gods to do with druidism? And which eastern
gods were used to attack the druids. Cybele? No way. The various Egyptian
gods? Certainly not. I'd be glad of some references on this.
> You bring up some minor points,
They are hardly minor - they contradict your argument from start to finish.
Unlike your argument, they can be academically referenced.
> but as you say we have heard them all before and are we satisfied? No!
Then perhaps you should learn some history. Take a degree then, if your
opinions are unchanged, you can do a dissertation on why everyone is wrong.
Perhaps you could even take this further as a PhD topic - if your argument
stands up to rigorous academic questioning, I for one would like to read it.
> You keep on about the Irish, and that would never include the Northern
Irish (to be sure).
Er, which ones? The descendants of the original Irish population, or the
later Scots who were settled there by the English government?
> The South are Catholic and the Roman Catholic Church has paraded this
> ragbag of unconvincing excuses and justifications about Irish Celtic
heritage
> as gospel truth for donkey's ages.
Err - expand on this bit. With references.
> The term "roman" catholic still exists because of a hidden belief one day
> "the holy Rome" will rise again and take its place as the true city of
god!
> Telling about crimes against mankind committed by Ancient Romans
> undercuts the present high moral ground where at least some can spend
their
> days dressed in silk surrounded by great treasures.
Errm! I'm puzzled. Your original contention was that the druids underwent a
holocaust at the hands of the *pagan* Romans. Now as far as I'm aware - and
I must admit I've had little to do with Churches of any denomination - no
Christian church bases any claim to a moral high ground on the actions of
the *pagan* Romans. Your argument would seem to be lacking in clarity and
coherence here.
> What about the Roman games, how many millions of Celts died in the gore
>of blood soaked arenas?
Nothing like 'millions of Celts' died in the arena - I doubt if the whole
Celtic population within the empire ran into those sort of numbers. In any
case, most of the people in the arena were professionals. They were drawn
from all over the empire - Greek, Roman, Syrian, you name it.
> Rome fell because a gang of thugs and criminals ran it
Well, that's a subjective analysis. Can't have been too inefficient though -
the western empire lasted in one form or another for 500-600 years. The
eastern empire lasted untilt he sack of Constantinople by the Turks in the
15th century.
As for 'falling' well, that's an academically contentious point. In a lot of
cases 'barbarians' were settled within the empire. Occasionally matters were
devolved to them, as long as they kicked back taxes to Rome and acknowledged
Rome's position. One might in fact say that the western empire ceased to
exist when people no longer fought to rule all of it, at which point
Constantinople became the centre of the Roman world. Even then, it had a
profound influence on the west, and continued the same sort of policies;
Xeno authorised Theoderic to move into Italy and rule it as his magister
militum.
>and had an ancestor worshipping church set up long before Jesus.
Errm! Like lots of peoples everywhere, the Romans religiously honoured their
ancestors. However, this was largely the province of family religion, and it
certainly did not constitute a church.In fact the Roman priesthoods had no
jurisdiction over family religion.
As for Jesus being an ancestor - well, as far as I recall that's impossible,
since he didn't have any children, and therefore had no descendants. Having
descendants is the first requirement of an ancestor.
> That name became its salvation when overrun by armies of pissed off Celts
> claiming back their heritage,
Now that is complete and total toffee - unless you want to lump in, for
example, the likes of Attila, Alaric, sundry Vandals, Goths and Arabs (to
name but a few) as 'Celts'.
> Today we want to know our true heritage with no more "historical" excuses.
Well, you're not going to do it with the fantasy that you've constructed -
it shows such little acquaintance with historical fact that you're unlikely
to get anything true out of it, much less anything concerning heritage.
Kevin
M. Bruno
>
> The Gaels don't have that mentality about their prechristian roots.
>
> It is a modern neopagan affection to want to feel as hard done by as
> the Jews.
>
> It pisses me off something cronic! AND it lessons the actual things
> the church did (to women,muslims, jews, the wrong type of christian
> etc)
Not to mention the actual things that were done *to* Christian men, women, and children by
"pagans," Jews, Muslims, and "the wrong type of christian etc)." We humans are an interesting
lot.
MB
Beirn
> Beirn, what do you say we share a bottle of Holy Ballygowan -
sparkling, of
> course???
>
>
<sfx: "swheeeesh" of bottle of clear sparkling ballygowan opening>
"ahhh, the power of purity:)"
<snigger>
Beirn
<who owes her liver at LEAST three years of ballygowan drinking:)>
Don Kean
From: "Kevin Jones" <1006...@compuserve.com>
Newsgroups: alt.religion.druid
Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2002 10:50 AM
Subject: Re: Druids and Pagans
> "Don Kean" <don...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
> news:ajafaj$q3$1...@possum.melbpc.org.au...
> >
> > "Kevin Jones" <1006...@compuserve.com> wrote in message
> > news:aj9d3t$rkm$2...@nntp-m01.news.aol.com...
> > > "Don Kean" <don...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
> > > news:aj798k$ouo$1...@possum.melbpc.org.au...
> > >
Kevin wrote;
snip
> However, others did not 'gang up with me' - I've never asked anyone
>to support my arguments or opinions in any posting. If they do, that's
>their choice - but then we do have quite a few people here who are
>well versed in history.
Tell us, what is your connection with Summerlands? I see you have
given lectures there. To claim being an individual with no collective base
of support has to be untrue in that case. Is this the inner group?
>> The old schoolyard bully approach works in holding back
>> how the Druids did have a suppressed religion that will remain
>>unknown with that holier than thou attitude.
>
> So if I agree with you (regardless of what the sources and the
>evidence says), I'm OK, if I don't, I'm a bully. If the sources and the
> archaeological evidence disagree with you, they're wrong and it's all
> excuses. Very scholarly! You presumably are the only true druid
>here.
Do I claim to be a Druid? Not in this lifetime, Whoops! Am I allowed
to say that? What references can I give? There are many books but
I contact what is in myself for I believe in my own experience.
I thought this group was about inner self.
I use a Druid name because I am writing to a Druid group and go by
the FAQ, which I read, thankyou very much. By the way you are still
taking the holier than attitude. Your argument runs we cannot appeal
to any authority for you are the authority. How Roman! How scholarly!
snip
> I don't have an agenda, hidden or otherwise, and I'm pretty well
>known for taking issue with anyone, no matter how well established
>they are academically, if I reckon their argument is wrong. Gave my
>old tutor an interesting 4 years. :-)
>
>>Satisfying the whims of others means the coming of a kind of
>>subversive mass conformity with no room for individual expression.
> I don't bother much about satisfying anybody else's opinions or
>whim, and I don't bother overmuch with conformity.
If you say so.
snip
>>How could Druids worship eastern gods, included in Wicca, the
>>very ones to attack the Druids without mercy?
>
> So what has wicca or eastern gods to do with druidism? And which
>eastern gods were used to attack the druids. Cybele? No way. The
>various Egyptiangods? Certainly not. I'd be glad of some references
>on this.
Wicca does claim links with Druids. The movement started in England.
Haven't you read their posts in your forays into other newsgroups?
The Romans included a stew of eastern gods in their pantheon and
brought their worship into Europe when invading. Also, are you the
Kevin Jones that also writes to alt.pagan and alt.witchcraft to show
intellectual prowess?
snip
> Perhaps you could even take this further as a PhD topic - if your
>argument stands up to rigorous academic questioning, I for one
>would like to read it.
I react to a bad attitude but never consider anybody to be totally
wrong, a good story is a good story,whether right or wrong is of
secondary importance. I have folk tales from my travels over the
world, but for those who want to hear. You indicate you are not
fond of stories. Just the facts, man, just the facts! What exactly
are your Druid beliefs beyond the known facts?
Perhaps we should leave our life to those with degrees. I saw the
recent Enron affair on TV. Who can forget that pompous prick
before the American Congress. When asked of his education
he replied, "I have a PhD in business from Harvard!" The whole
Congress burst into spontaneous laughter.
Your opinions would be better phrased as your opinions, not
what everybody should think. You could consider giving people
a chance to develop a theme before jumping in to put them
down, or not put them down at all.
Snip
> Er, which ones? The descendants of the original Irish population, or
>the later Scots who were settled there by the English government?
Are you American? Er, which one? the descendants settled by the
Spanish government, the French government, the English government,
a woop-woop government? Ireland's problem is time seems to heal
nothing and ancient wrongs carry through new generations.
Modern Ireland makes great steps forward. In Australia we have daily
news of Ireland, with many pubs and weekly Irish newspapers.
Australian rules football evolved from Irish football and they beat
us last time in the battle of the codes.
My motives for mentioning Ireland were to wind you up and nobody else.
You refused to answer my question the other year, what does Ireland
got to do with Druidic spirituality? Now I have my answer. I would much
rather see that weird side of you.
It was also a wind up to say North and South Ireland, for I know nothing
more likely to inflame an Irish republican. To all the Irish posters, relax!
I can't possibly answer all your letters, which I would love to do and
apologize if any offence was given. Be it said one of my neighbors is an
Irishman with English as a second language.
I was hoping for response when I said "holocaust" and used it loosely,
but no more than any other people or groups. The other week I heard
Billy Connelly refer to the "Irish holocaust" in "Billy Connelly's world
tour" Republican fans gave him a standing ovation. That really was in
the back of my mind when I used the word.
snip
> As for Jesus being an ancestor - well, as far as I recall that's
>impossible, since he didn't have any children, and therefore had no
>descendants. Having descendants is the first requirement of an
>ancestor.
What are you waffling about this time? I didn't put Jesus as ancestor
of anything. I did distinguish the original religion from the later
establishment like most do. Alternative stories about Celtic Jesus are
kicking around, but none dare tell them with you as self-appointed
censor. You have 29 current posts going preaching an opinion on
everything. Please, try to give us lesser mortals a chance.
Elenos
M. Bruno
Don Kean wrote:<snip>
>
> What are you waffling about this time? I didn't put Jesus as ancestorof
> anything. I did distinguish the original religion from the later
> establishment like most do. Alternative stories about Celtic Jesus are
> kicking around, but none dare tell them with you as self-appointed
> censor. You have 29 current posts going preaching an opinion on
> everything. Please, try to give us lesser mortals a chance.
>
>
Yes, I agree. No one should post an opinion on anything. Then I could
concentrate on those important get rich quick schemes and sex ads that
otherwise grace this, and any, newsgroup.
Of course, my agreement is merely an opinion, so please disregard it.
MB
Beirn
"M. Bruno" <mbr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3D5A6FAC...@hvc.rr.com...
>
>
> Don Kean wrote:<snip>
>
> >
> > What are you waffling about this time? I didn't put Jesus as
ancestorof
> > anything. I did distinguish the original religion from the later
> > establishment like most do. Alternative stories about Celtic Jesus
are
> > kicking around, but none dare tell them with you as self-appointed
> > censor. You have 29 current posts going preaching an opinion on
> > everything. Please, try to give us lesser mortals a chance.
> >
> >
>
> Yes, I agree. No one should post an opinion on anything. Then I could
> concentrate on those important get rich quick schemes and sex ads that
> otherwise grace this, and any, newsgroup.
LOL:) brilliant!
(thanks for that.needed a laugh before I went home!)
Beirn
--
family motto: we came, we saw, we laughed like drains!
Beirn
>
> What are you waffling about this time? I didn't put Jesus as ancestor
> of anything. I did distinguish the original religion from the later
> establishment like most do. Alternative stories about Celtic Jesus are
> kicking around, but none dare tell them with you as self-appointed
> censor. You have 29 current posts going preaching an opinion on
> everything. Please, try to give us lesser mortals a chance.
>
> Elenos
>
knowledge with those of us who enjoy informed debate and erudite opinion
on this druidic newsgroup....oh, wait , that doesn't make much sense,
does it? but it sounded so right in my head.......
Searles O'Dubhain
> ----- Original Message -----
<snip>
>
> Tell us, what is your connection with Summerlands? I see you have
> given lectures there. To claim being an individual with no collective
base
> of support has to be untrue in that case. Is this the inner group?
>
Kevin is not a member of the Summerlands nor has he given lectures
within it. I just happened to like his thesis A CONSIDERATION OF THE
ICONOGRAPHY OF ROMANO-CELTIC RELIGION WITH RESPECT TO ARCHAIC ELEMENTS
OF CELTIC MYTHOLOGY. I asked his permission to post it in our library,
which he graciously gave to us. It can be read at:
http://www.summerlands.com/crossroads/library/kevin_dissertation.html
Searles
C. Leigh Nic Fhionghaile
other's work in various fields are considered to be collaborating against
everyone else on some sort of grand falsehood to lead the populace astray?
Paranoia at its finest...
Leigh
"Searles O'Dubhain" <odub...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:JKv69.145021$6Z1.6...@bin6.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
Searles O'Dubhain
"C. Leigh Nic Fhionghaile" <topa...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:JPv69.27469$vg.74...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Isn't it strange how those of us who know history and appreciate
each
> other's work in various fields are considered to be collaborating
against
> everyone else on some sort of grand falsehood to lead the populace
astray?
>
> Paranoia at its finest...
>
> Leigh
I get similar responses from people who learn that they have to study
years to even start to be called a Druid. Clearing out such attitudes
from even the hardest and closed of minds is an act of the highest
Dichetal Do Chennaibh.
Searles
David Monks
:-)
David
"Beirn" <buibh...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:fyp69.36$cP3...@news.iol.ie...
Wade
--
Wade
> "C. Leigh Nic Fhionghaile" wrote in message
Noinden Tain
O'Dubhain <odub...@comcast.net> wrote:
That is because your modern "neopagan" wants to read one book (and see
a episode of charmed) to be called a 'witch' or 'Druid' or 'Shaman' etc
While someone who has a true calling and love for a subject is willing
to spend years (decades even) trying to learn just a fraction of what
you need.
It goes in fads. Late 90's it was wicca, of late it is "traditional
witch" (because wicca is so old and parse and "made up"). Next year it
could be druidry or Asatru or they might all go back to Christianity
Noinden Tain
Fhionghaile <topa...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> Isn't it strange how those of us who know history and appreciate each
> other's work in various fields are considered to be collaborating against
> everyone else on some sort of grand falsehood to lead the populace astray?
>
> Paranoia at its finest...
>
> Leigh
These paranoid lot obviously never have seen a achademic publication
... you HAVE cite sources that do and do not back up ideas.
Noinden
It's only there (like the "burning times) if you want to be all high
and mighty to a Christian who asks hard questions like "are you a
satanist" (no I am not a christian), "Did'nt all the Druids die out?"
(yes but we got better) and "What do you do?" (what do we not do?)
Jim
> While someone who has a true calling and love for a subject is willing to
spend years (decades even) trying to learn just a fraction of what you need.
I often find myself wondering what I "need". I think at the end of the
day it comes down to your intentions and personality. If you want to know
all there is to know then yes, I suppose that's a lot of books, lectures,
beers around the camp fire. But there's also the idea of specialising.
I've given up trying to be 'all knowing' because, frankly, I'm crap at
it. Memory like a sieve. There are people here who are far more suited to
knowing all the historical stuff and I thank them for it. I see them as
people (types of druids) who I can go to for advice and details. Why should
we all spend a live time trying to know everything and setting ourselves up
for a fall? Isn't it better that we work as a community and stick to what
we're good at?? Strikes me we'd get more done if we all recognised each
other's gifts and see them as interconnected - part of the same thing.
There must have been all manner of druids (my wild speculation of
course!) across the lands who probably had varying takes and angles on all
sorts of stuff - stuff I expect that was relevant to their local communities
and livelihoods. Stuff that would have lead to arguments, no doubt. And it
would be lovely to think that they had a dislike for writing their knowledge
down because the druid in the next village could pull them up for a bad
reference and expose them as the Buffies they really were! However, I'm
sure that wasn't the case :^)
Jim.
1X2 Willows
> years to even start to be called a Druid.
Amongst the ones whom I would call Druids, I have not encountered
a single person who wouldn't have had to study many years to even
start to be called a Druid.
> Clearing out such attitudes from even the hardest and closed of
> minds is an act of the highest Dichetal Do Chennaibh.
This is obviously not a pan-celtic but an Irish term for a practice of the
Irish Filidh, who - according to your opinion - are interchangeable with
Irish Druids and you accredit the "Book of Ollamhan" with descriptions of
what "Dichetal Do Chennaibh" really is and how it is performed.
Would you mind to deliver a source on that one?
Who wrote the "Book of Ollamhan"?
Dan
Kevin Jones
news:JPv69.27469$vg.74...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Isn't it strange how those of us who know history and appreciate each
> other's work in various fields are considered to be collaborating against
> everyone else on some sort of grand falsehood to lead the populace astray?
>
> Paranoia at its finest...
Even dafter if you consider that one of the functions of a druid was to
remember the history of the people accurately, and that their principle
motivation in druidism was Truth. You can imagine how they'd react if
someone tried bending what they knew as history.
Personally, I've always seen my study of history and archaeology as an
extension of my beliefs - but it's not at the expense of traditional
knowledge and stories. In fact those were at the heart of the dissertation,
which could, in one sense, actually be regarded as traditional knowledge
given an outwardly respectable academic form.
Kevin
C. Leigh Nic Fhionghaile
I wrote an article about this very concept, of Druids as a "knowledge
network," in 1997. It might interest you.You can find it at:
http://home.twcny.rr.com/topazowl/druidism.htm.
Leigh
"Jim" <gr...@fish49.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ajeosd$n3u$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
<snip>
> But there's also the idea of specialising.
> I've given up trying to be 'all knowing' because, frankly, I'm crap at
> it. Memory like a sieve. There are people here who are far more suited
to
> knowing all the historical stuff and I thank them for it. I see them as
> people (types of druids) who I can go to for advice and details. Why
should
> we all spend a live time trying to know everything and setting ourselves
up
> for a fall? Isn't it better that we work as a community and stick to what
> we're good at?? Strikes me we'd get more done if we all recognised each
> other's gifts and see them as interconnected - part of the same thing.
> There must have been all manner of druids (my wild speculation of
> course!) across the lands who probably had varying takes and angles on all
> sorts of stuff - stuff I expect that was relevant to their local
communities
> and livelihoods.
<snip>
Kevin Jones
> Tell us, what is your connection with Summerlands? I see you have
> given lectures there. To claim being an individual with no collective base
> of support has to be untrue in that case. Is this the inner group?
You're misinformed - I haven't given lectures there, though Searles did
discuss itonce. However, I haven't even physically met Searles - or come to
that anyone else currently on this group except Mark, during a trip to
Chicago. In fact it would be rather difficult, since I'm on the wrong side
of the Atlantic, and I'm not exactly made of money. As for connections with
Summerlands - none, other than the occasional e-mail chat with Searles, and
I haven't had one of those for a fair while. I'm not even sure who belongs
to Summerlands and who doesn't. It's not something that I worry about much,
and I've never bothered to find out.
> By the way you are still taking the holier than attitude. Your argument
runs
> we cannot appeal to any authority for you are the authority. How Roman!
> How scholarly!
Not in the least. You come up with a cogent, reasoned argument that shows
some connection with historical and archaeological data and there's no
problem - then we can have a debate, just I have had with other posters
here. What you've proposed so far isn't it, and anyone reasonably au fait
with the subject would tell you so.
> > I don't bother much about satisfying anybody else's opinions or
> >whim, and I don't bother overmuch with conformity.
>
> If you say so.
<shrug!>
> Wicca does claim links with Druids.
Well, that's entirely up to the wiccans. There's more than a few - myself
included - who would disagree with that.
> Haven't you read their posts in your forays into other newsgroups?
Sure - doesn't mean that I have to accept their argument.
> The Romans included a stew of eastern gods in their pantheon and
> brought their worship into Europe when invading.
True - but they weren't using eastern gods to destroy Celtic religion, and
they weren't on a conversion kick.
> are you the Kevin Jones that also writes to alt.pagan and alt.witchcraft
to show
> intellectual prowess?
I've posted to alt.pagan in the past - if I ever posted to alt.witchcraft,
it was a very long time ago, unless it was a cross-posting. I've been around
for a very long time, on a lot of ngs dealing with paganism and magic, which
is why I know people like Nagasiva. Mind you, you'll also find that I've
contributed in the past to an ng on herbal medicine, which isn't too
surprising since I've been practicing it now for 34 years.
As for your interpretation of why I post - <chuckle!> - well, that's your
interpretation. In my own opinion some of my past posts were just plain
dumb, and one or two even embarassing. BTW, hope your research took in the
wingdings.
> I react to a bad attitude but never consider anybody to be totally
> wrong, a good story is a good story,whether right or wrong is of
> secondary importance. I have folk tales from my travels over the
> world, but for those who want to hear. You indicate you are not
> fond of stories.
He don't know me very well! <nibbles carrot!>
> Just the facts, man, just the facts!
If you are going to make declarations purporting to be facts, then you
shouldn't be too surprised when someone takes issue with the correctness of
those facts.
One might note that a cardinal druidic belief was firenne - Truth. That
which accorded with Truth would last. Great store was also set on
remembering the history of a people word-perfectly, so that it recorded
Truth.
Just the facts, man, just the facts!
> What exactly are your Druid beliefs beyond the known facts?
Well, they are there in many of my posts, though they are implicit, rather
than explicit. More - interesting - things are found in the gaps and in what
is unsaid, but there, than in any explicit statement. In fact explicit
statements are probably far too limiting.
The nearest I ever got to being explicit was a philosophical question I
posed to ard some years ago. Now answer that question and you'll have an
idea.
> Your opinions would be better phrased as your opinions, not
> what everybody should think. You could consider giving people
> a chance to develop a theme before jumping in to put them
> down, or not put them down at all.
If you stick to what are recognised as known facts, and deductions of known
facts, then there's no problem. OTOH, on your logic I could, for example,
develop a cosmology based on the moon being made out of green cheese, or
that the sun goes round the earth, but I shouldn't be too surprised if an
astronomer disagreed with me. Of course, I could argue that the astronomer
should shut up until I've completely developed my theme - however, that
still wouldn't stop my argument being a load of crap since it would be
totally based on a false premise.
> > Er, which ones? The descendants of the original Irish population, or
> >the later Scots who were settled there by the English government?
>
> Are you American?
No.
> Ireland's problem is time seems to heal nothing and ancient wrongs carry
> through new generations.
Depends where you are. The situation in the north is not peculiar to
Ireland - you see an equal amount of monstrous stupidity going on in the
Middle East. It's also been seen in the Balkans and in Africa. Dragging up
the past to justify present actions isn't peculiar to Ireland - it's a human
trait.
> My motives for mentioning Ireland were to wind you up and nobody else.
Well, to judge from the posts, you wound up a lot of other people before I
got round to thinking of doing a reply.
> You refused to answer my question the other year, what does Ireland
> got to do with Druidic spirituality?
I thought other matters were more important to address. as it happens, a
lot. Have a look at the Irish texts - and bear in mind that they weren't
about to be explicit either.
> It was also a wind up to say North and South Ireland, for I know nothing
> more likely to inflame an Irish republican.
It would also inflame a Loyalist. I've heard Loyalists deny that they were
in any way Irish - they're Ulstermen.
> > As for Jesus being an ancestor - well, as far as I recall that's
> >impossible, since he didn't have any children, and therefore had no
> >descendants. Having descendants is the first requirement of an
> >ancestor.
>
> What are you waffling about this time? I didn't put Jesus as ancestor
> of anything.
"Rome fell because a gang of thugs and criminals ran it and had an ancestor
worshipping church set up long before Jesus." Which implies that
Christianity is an ancestor worshipping church. If that wasn't your
intention, then perhaps your words should have been clearer.
> Alternative stories about Celtic Jesus are kicking around, but none dare
tell
> them with you as self-appointed censor. You have 29 current posts going
> preaching an opinion on everything. Please, try to give us lesser mortals
a
> chance.
Well, it looks as if some other contributors don't agree with you. As for
'preaching opinions' - I'm not sure how my account of building a pond, and
the improvements I'm trying to make in the local environment fits into that.
Then again, I have a wide variety of gifts and skills, some earned by
serious hard work, tough times, and even some considerable hard knocks and
large amounts of shit. Am I then supposed to shut up *because* I have those
gifts and skills? Does the possession of knowledge and ability debar someone
from contributing in their field? Now that argument would certainly not be
in keeping with ancient Celtic ideas. Would it not be better for everyone to
strive to attain a great degree of knowledge and skill, and to contribute
according to that knowledge and skill?
Kevin
Kevin Jones
> Hi Jim,
>
> I wrote an article about this very concept, of Druids as a "knowledge
> network," in 1997. It might interest you.You can find it at:
> http://home.twcny.rr.com/topazowl/druidism.htm.
A very good article. Congratulations.
Kevin
Don Kean
>I often find myself wondering what I "need". I think at the end of
>the day it comes down to your intentions and personality. If you
>want to knowall there is to know then yes, I suppose that's a lot of
>books, lectures,beers around the camp fire. But there's also the idea
>of specialising.
>I've given up trying to be 'all knowing' because, frankly, I'm crap at
>it. Memory like a sieve. There are people here who are far more
>suited to knowing all the historical stuff and I thank them for it. I see
>them as people (types of druids) who I can go to for advice and
>details. Why should we all spend a live time trying to know
>everything and setting ourselves up for a fall? Isn't it better that we
>work as a community and stick to what we're good at?? Strikes me
>we'd get more done if we al lrecognised each other's gifts and see
>them as interconnected - part of the same thing.
>There must have been all manner of druids (my wild speculation of
>course!) across the lands who probably had varying takes and angles
>on allsorts of stuff - stuff I expect that was relevant to their local
>communities and livelihoods. Stuff that would have lead to
>arguments, no doubt. And it would be lovely to think that they had a
>dislike for writing their knowledge down because the druid in the
>next village could pull them up for a bad reference and expose them
>as the Buffies they really were! However, I'm sure that wasn't the
>case :^)
>
>Jim.
Jim, you are too modest of your abilities. I would listen to your kind
at any time and share a beer if you are ever in Australia. You have
the second sight of everyday issues, now and in the past. It is right
about Buffies. A false Druid was tarred, feathered, carried out on a
pole and dumped in the middle of nowhere.
Like you say all manner of Druids did what was relevant for the
environment they were in. Many traveled around in a circuit, and
would say one thing in one area and something else in another.
Life is a paradox and the Druids went with it, they knew no one
could know everything.
They became called opponents of ancient cities that looked for
consistencies to eventually exploit. The Druids cared for land and
people on it regardless of what other religious schemes believed,
taught or forced upon others.
From their point of view the disease of foreign superstitions could
infect the country with unnatural ideas of how to grow crops or
even milk a cow.Their way has been long destroyed - although
the mother faith of every major religion in today's world.
They seemed to snub literacy, yet only banned religious writings
and practices irrelevant to a natural way of life. This decision put
them in the"bad books" of those who profit by fear raised with
false accounts and mindless narratives.
Rich media spin-doctors still grub a living by putting a false slant on
the world. Fine words can cover many a dirty deed. This was true
of smooth-talking Celtic enemies from overcrowded cities that said
they wanted peace and understanding but brought war and
destruction in their wake.
Old books give the ultimate literary spin of all times and are still
waved around by lesser scholars. How much they don't know!
Real secrets of the earth are never fully expressed despite the
books called sacred, holy, or everlasting truth.
The story is of self-seeking bastards running short of resources
through land mismanagement and then writing artificial "religious"
accounts to look noble while helping themselves to everybody
else's property!
Modern research shows environments must have major upheavals
at times, yet to say fancy philosophies of now or long ago tells
why they happen misses the point. Druids got down to earth
and observed the basic interactions. They never said this was
one world. but a world of many parts.
Regardless what beliefs they may or may not had, they rose
as supreme gardeners of people and lands tending a people's
religion that needed nothing else. Other ways of "religion"
stil cause fighting over lands and wealth, not to mention beliefs
preached about but impossible to practice.
Druids were true peacemakers who supported the earth in
productive ways.Tell me nothing else, to me greater love has
no man than this; they made every land of early Europe
flourish while "advanced" countries turned into desert.
Elenos
Searles O'Dubhain
"1X2 Willows" <wil...@euro-celts.com> wrote in message
news:tPB69.2270$LO1.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
<snip>
>
> This is obviously not a pan-celtic but an Irish term for a practice of
the
> Irish Filidh, who - according to your opinion - are interchangeable
with
> Irish Druids
It's not just my opinion but itis also the opinion of many noted Celtic
scholars such as Myles Dillon, D. A. Binchey and even Damian McManus.
> and you accredit the "Book of Ollamhan" with descriptions of
> what "Dichetal Do Chennaibh" really is and how it is performed.
>
> Would you mind to deliver a source on that one?
"The Book of Ollamhand" or "Leabhar Ollamhan" is a text (and a group of
articles of the schools, studies and techniques of the Filidh) that
survives within the folios of _The Book of Ballymote_. This reference
work (BB) is actually an edition or anthology in much the same way that
Lebor na h-Uidre is the _Book of the Dun Cow_ yet it is also a
collection of other works, books and folios.
> Who wrote the "Book of Ollamhan"?
It's title is self-explanatory. "The Book of the Ollamhan" was written
by a collection of Filidh of the order of Ollamhs. One such Ollamh is
called Dithirné. Another is Cenn Faeladh. Another is Amergin. Yet
another is Ferchertne.You can find a reference to the book in O'Curry's
_Manners and Customs of the Ancient Irish_, Volume 2, pages 171-175. It
is called "Cín Ollaman" on page xxvii of George Calder's edition of
_Auraicept na n-Éces_.
Searles
Beirn
>
> Jim, you are too modest of your abilities.
I would listen to your kind
> at any time and share a beer if you are ever in Australia.
Ah.
>You have
> the second sight of everyday issues, now and in the past. It is right
> about Buffies. A false Druid was tarred, feathered, carried out on a
> pole and dumped in the middle of nowhere.
source please?
> Like you say all manner of Druids did what was relevant for the
> environment they were in. Many traveled around in a circuit, and
> would say one thing in one area and something else in another.
source please?
not being funny but really interested in where you read that.
> Life is a paradox and the Druids went with it, they knew no one
> could know everything.
> They became called opponents of ancient cities that looked for
> consistencies to eventually exploit. The Druids cared for land and
> people on it regardless of what other religious schemes believed,
> taught or forced upon others.
> From their point of view the disease of foreign superstitions could
> infect the country with unnatural ideas of how to grow crops or
> even milk a cow.Their way has been long destroyed - although
> the mother faith of every major religion in today's world.
how can they be the Mother faith of religions that predate them?
> They seemed to snub literacy, yet only banned religious writings
> and practices irrelevant to a natural way of life. This decision put
> them in the"bad books" of those who profit by fear raised with
> false accounts and mindless narratives.
<snippeth bits too long>Tell me nothing else, to me greater love has
> no man than this; they made every land of early Europe
> flourish while "advanced" countries turned into desert.
WHere do you get this stuff:)? in fact the celts are famous for having
decimated the forests of Europe! I would also point you towards little
events such as the sacking of greece.
Noone is saying the druids weren't great in their own way, but you do
them no favours by attributing to them acts beliefs and abilities they
never claimed to have for themselves. If you love the celtic heritage as
you seem to, wouldn't you prefer to love it for what it really was not
what you think it should have been? History and academia are
complementary pillars in the home of Truth, along with intuition and
imagination.
You are helping to destroy and corrupt the very order and knowledge you
seem to revere. I think that is sad beyond words.
Beirn
>
> Elenos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
C. Leigh Nic Fhionghaile
> A very good article. Congratulations.
>
> Kevin
Thanks, Kevin. :-)
Leigh
M. Bruno
Jim
less copied your whole site to read on a journey tomorrow as there's lots to
chew over. Found some links I hadn't found before too. Loved the
Heartsease site : )
Jim
"C. Leigh Nic Fhionghaile" <topa...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:iTC69.136047$8M1.27...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Wade
--
Wade
"C. Leigh Nic Fhionghaile" <topa...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:iTC69.136047$8M1.27...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
Kevin Jones
news:7_T69.14272$Fw3.7...@bin2.nnrp.aus1.giganews.com...
> "C. Leigh Nic Fhionghaile" <topa...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:iTC69.136047$8M1.27...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> > news:ajeosd$n3u$1...@newsg1.svr.pol.co.uk...
'all
> > > knowing' because, frankly, I'm crap at it. Memory like a sieve.
There
> > > are people here who are far more suited to knowing all the historical
> > > stuff and I thank them for it. I see them as people (types of druids)
who
> > > I can go to for advice and details.
> >
> > I wrote an article about this very concept, of Druids as a
"knowledge
> > network," in 1997. It might interest you.You can find it at:
> > http://home.twcny.rr.com/topazowl/druidism.htm.
> >
There was an interesting article in one of our serious newspapers to the
same effect - that there seemed to be a rapidly developing gulf between the
rich and the rest of society. An increasingly large amount of wealth is
apparently being held by fewer and fewer people, while the standard of
living at the lower end is apparently slipping. The middle classes seem to
be finding it increasingly difficult to maintain their position. Of course,
access to higher education is increasingly more open to the wealthier end of
society - we used to have student grants, which opened up higher education
for every one (first time I went to university we had ex-miners studying
there, for example). Now we have student grants (on which you are supposed
to live and buy books) which have to be repaid - and many young people from
lower income families feel that they can't take on that sort of debt.
Consequently it is increasingly people from wealthier families who go to
university. So you get a developing gap in opportunities of the sort that
was last seen prior to the Second World War. If it continues unchecked, the
gap between rich and poor could also be a gap in education.
Now I'm not sure how the American education system compares to ours - my
wife has had more than a few critical remarks to make of the American
education system though, and to judge from her comments, ours might work a
bit better. That said, in my opinion it's probably not as good as it was
when I went to school - there was at least an emphasis on being able to
think, as well as pass exams.
Now, on the one hand, there is a politically-driven mania for a school's
success being indicated solely by exam results and endless testing. On the
other quite a few of the good schools have been trashed or closed over the
last two or three decades because political dogma stated that you shouldn't
have schools or individual classes catering for different abilities - you
could only put the gifted and the least able together in the same class, so
that the less able would have access to the same level of tuition and
flower. In practice what usually happened is the lessons went at the pace of
the slowest pupil, thus boring the pants off the brighter students. In some
schools disruption by students who were bored or who didn't want to be there
became a problem - the only option the school had was to suspend the pupil,
who therefore didn't get educated. Our present Glorious Leader has been
suggesting the bright idea of raising the school leaving age from 16 to 18,
which I can see potentially exacerbating disruption. After all, if someone
doesn't want to be there, making them stay for another two years isn't going
to change their mind, and they're going to resent it like buggery.
Yes, it is probably a good idea to stay on - you won't get much of a job
without A levels - but some folks just don't want to be there. Another one
of his bright ideas is to fine parents whose children won't go to school, in
order to force the kids back - where they quickly find out that if they are
as disruptive and violent as they can be, the school will permanently
suspend them, and they won't have to go to school. So some kick and kick and
kick until they are finally permanently excluded, disrupting the education
of others in the meantime. Of course, since there is this mania for exam
results league tables, it's in the school's interests to exclude
low-achieving, disruptive pupils fairly quickly. Damned if I know what the
answer to all this is though.
This is a rather gloomy view, and in practice a fair number of schools
potter on adequately. There is however a way out of this for parents. You
either move to an area that has an excellent school (they're more common in
wealthier areas), or you pay for private education. Either option takes
money - so again a gap in education opens up between rich and poor.
Basically there's been far too much fart-arsing around with our education
system in the name of political dogma and political point-scoring, none of
which has improved it one jot. It's often done the exact opposite, even as
the politicians were claiming that the Promised Land was just over the next
hill.
Kevin
Kevin Jones
> >You have
> > the second sight of everyday issues, now and in the past. It is right
> > about Buffies. A false Druid was tarred, feathered, carried out on a
> > pole and dumped in the middle of nowhere.
> source please?
I must admit I've never heard of this either. And it occurs to me that
there's the problem of getting tar - it would have had to have been
imported, and therefore expensive, unless we're talking of birch tar. In any
case, I though tarring and feathering came very much later - the first
example I can think of is American.
In any case, how do you define a 'false druid'? If the gentleman had been
taught a sufficient depth of knowledge by a druid, he was a druid - it was
just a matter of deciding where in the pecking order he stood. The Colloquy
of the Two Sages is an example of that. Of course it was always possibe that
they might exhibit a lack of Truth somehow. Well, people who did that
generally wound up dead - Nede mac Aidne's uncalled-for satire comes to
mind.
> > They became called opponents of ancient cities that looked for
> > consistencies to eventually exploit.
One might wonder, if that was the case, why the Gauls, who certainly had
druids, built the proto-urban oppida long before the Romans. Given enough
time on their own and they would have devloped into cities. Or why they
studied in Massillia, or why druids visited Republican Rome on a friendly
basis.
> > From their point of view the disease of foreign superstitions could
> > infect the country with unnatural ideas of how to grow crops or
> > even milk a cow.
There aren't too many succesful ways to milk cows or grow crops, and I'm not
aware that any religions in antiquity had a position on such subjects. Nor
is there evidence that they regarded other people's religion as foreign
superstitions or even a disease. After all, Patrick was granted permission
to preach Christianity from the extremely pagan brehons. Celts in the
Hellenic period may have thought that the Greek representation of gods was
childish, but that was about it.
> Their way has been long destroyed - although
> > the mother faith of every major religion in today's world.
>
> how can they be the Mother faith of religions that predate them?
>
I was thinking myself that there is no evidence that druidism is the
ancestral religion to any other religion, other than the Romano-Celtic
religions. Graeco-Roman religion, Vedic religion and druidism may have
sprung from a common stock, but that doesn't mean that the other two
depended in any way from druisism. As for the Middle Eastern religions -
forget it.
> > They seemed to snub literacy, yet only banned religious writings
> > and practices irrelevant to a natural way of life. This decision put
> > them in the"bad books" of those who profit by fear raised with
> > false accounts and mindless narratives.
> <snippeth bits too long>Tell me nothing else, to me greater love has
> > no man than this; they made every land of early Europe
> > flourish while "advanced" countries turned into desert.
>
> WHere do you get this stuff:)? in fact the celts are famous for having
> decimated the forests of Europe! I would also point you towards little
> events such as the sacking of greece.
I'm equally puzzled. In fact the level of agricultural production went up in
Roman Britain, due to the invention of a plough which could turn the
previously unuseable heavy clay soils. And the imperial Roman attitude to
druids was based on the latter's ability to cause problems for Rome, rather
than anything else. Prior to that, they were admired by prominent Romans
such as Cicero.
> Noone is saying the druids weren't great in their own way, but you do
> them no favours by attributing to them acts beliefs and abilities they
> never claimed to have for themselves. If you love the celtic heritage as
> you seem to, wouldn't you prefer to love it for what it really was not
> what you think it should have been? History and academia are
> complementary pillars in the home of Truth, along with intuition and
> imagination.
Additionally, if something isn't rooted in Truth, it won't last long. Long,
of course, in the terms of Truth, is a bit variable - a lifetime, a
generation, a century - but the basic flaws will eventually flatten it.
> You are helping to destroy and corrupt the very order and knowledge you
> seem to revere. I think that is sad beyond words.
His view of the Celts in general and the druids in particular seems to be
very - individual.
Kevin
Don Kean
>WHere do you get this stuff:)? in fact the celts are famous for having
>d}ecimated the forests of Europe! I would also point you towards little
>events such as the sacking of greece.
>Noone is saying the druids weren't great in their own way, but you do
>them no favours by attributing to them acts beliefs and abilities they
>never claimed to have for themselves. If you love the celtic heritage as
>you seem to, wouldn't you prefer to love it for what it really was not
>what you think it should have been? History and academia are
>complementary pillars in the home of Truth, along with intuition and
>imagination.
>
>You are helping to destroy and corrupt the very order and knowledge you
>seem to revere. I think that is sad beyond words.
>
>Beirn
The Celts were land destructive? Ouch! They were no greenies but, when
under the lost ways of the Druids had methods of managing land and
growing crops not bettered until the late Middle Ages. I could give
references, but first learn why fools give reasons and wise men never try.
Your questionable feelings allow you to use a “c” for Celtic. Glad I am
beyond words for you fail to use yours in a respectful way. Say what you
like about me, everybody else does, but try not to hurt the group with
verbal ignorance that allows you to put a capitol for your name, but not for
those you claim to support.
What are your beliefs about what Druids did, or are you like these drones
weak enough to let others answer instead of being able to talk for
themselves?
You have flown in on the loud farts of rhetoric around here. I challenge
you to start a thread of your own, with sound evidence about Celtic land
destruction and see how you go.
Please, as compared to whom else at that time? You don’t know do you?
You are just saying that as a cheap shot. It is great to attack others and
think you are winning when in a pack, but it takes more guts than you have
to stand up as lone voice. Please, everybody else, let him answer my
challenge of publishing his thread before passing any more judgements
around here. Hear yourselves talking.
The Delphic Oracle said “know thyself” but you lot of donkeys would
stand before the sacred well braying “Give me your references for that.”
Talk about spoiling the moment!
Every novice knows the Celts attacked Delphi on their way over to Turkey,
but with a lot more to it for the advanced. Why did they did they go to
the trouble of cutting off arms and heads of marble statues and bury them?
None who knows could share with those having covert disrespect. In the
story of Arthur only the true of heart can drink from the Grail.
The Greeks were not unknown for sacking cities and slaughtering every
inhabitant. On comparison the Celts had no taste for it. Where is evidence
to say they did? The sack of Rome where again they moved on and let the
people survive? They had a quality of mercy not shown here.
Elenos
Beirn
normally because they don't have the answer......
> Your questionable feelings allow you to use a "c" for Celtic.
that is because I am A) Irish, and B) celtic.I can use celtic, celtic,
celtic, any way I want:) you don't have to use a capital c for celtic,
it's not a sign of anything including respect or disrespect. unshackle
thyself from the tyranny of spellcheck, celtic people wrote celtic with
a small c long before computors were invented, hell before the first
electric typewriter even.
Glad I am
> beyond words for you fail to use yours in a respectful way. Say what
you
> like about me, everybody else does, but try not to hurt the group with
> verbal ignorance that allows you to put a capitol for your name, but
not for
> those you claim to support.
that is not a reasoned or sensible response.
> What are your beliefs about what Druids did, or are you like these
drones
> weak enough to let others answer instead of being able to talk for
> themselves?
> You have flown in on the loud farts of rhetoric around here. I
challenge
> you to start a thread of your own, with sound evidence about Celtic
land
> destruction and see how you go.
> Please, as compared to whom else at that time? You don't know do you?
> You are just saying that as a cheap shot. It is great to attack others
and
> think you are winning when in a pack, but it takes more guts than you
have
> to stand up as lone voice. Please, everybody else, let him answer my
> challenge of publishing his thread before passing any more judgements
> around here. Hear yourselves talking.
Beirn, irish name, female.
and if you google you'll find that I have often started threads. but
that's not really what this is about is it? if you had references for
your remarks and sources you would have given them. So you didn't like
being challenged on your ideas? why post in usenet? You can, indeed you
should, post anything that you feel is relevant but don't expect
everyone to agree with you.
You are also taking the word celtic, and the entire issue of Druids as
being somehow a personal issue, as if questioning the statements you
make from a historical or reference pov denotes somehow blasphemy or
wanton cruelty aimed specifically at you.
> The Delphic Oracle said "know thyself" but you lot of donkeys would
> stand before the sacred well braying "Give me your references for
that."
> Talk about spoiling the moment!
> Every novice knows the Celts attacked Delphi on their way over to
Turkey,
> but with a lot more to it for the advanced. Why did they did they go
to
> the trouble of cutting off arms and heads of marble statues and bury
them?
> None who knows could share with those having covert disrespect. In the
> story of Arthur only the true of heart can drink from the Grail.
what has a middle age romance got to do with druidic orders or celtic
society?
> The Greeks were not unknown for sacking cities and slaughtering every
> inhabitant. On comparison the Celts had no taste for it. Where is
evidence
> to say they did? The sack of Rome where again they moved on and let
the
> people survive? They had a quality of mercy not shown here.
Look, I am as fond of my ancestors as the next person but I have no
illusions about them being better than their peers. The search for a
utopian society is a very common human ideal, but you won't find it in
deltic societies...like almost every other human group they got some
right some wrong. they messed up sometimes, just as every other society
has at times.
And I don't like having my culture and heritage misrepresented.
I know I recommend this at every hands turn but I'm going to give into
instinct and do it again! Prof Ronald Hutton "pagan religions in the
ancient british isles" is an excellent book and outlines clearly what is
known, as opposed to surmised
or "reconstructed" about the druids, among other groups. and you should
read Kevin's thesis which I think is available online, I sure osmeone
here can give the link. If you did I would be interested to see you
come back and give your revised opinions?
til then, slan leat
beirn:)
>
> Elenos
>
>
>
Beirn
seems excellent, thanks,
B
--
family motto: we came, we saw, we laughed like drains!
"C. Leigh Nic Fhionghaile" <topa...@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:iTC69.136047$8M1.27...@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
1X2 Willows
> scholars such as Myles Dillon, D. A. Binchey and even Damian McManus.
Looks like I'm going to have to read up on what Dillon, Binchy and McManus
had to say themselves. It's this 1:1 equation of Druids (as always, I read:
pan-celtic Druids) with the Irish Filidh in the 17th/18th century which
seems ... unfitting? to me. Then again - it might seem so, because I'm
comparing the product of at least 1000 years of local evolution in Ireland
to remnants of another body of principles from which it had evolved.
Medieval renderings of Elephants with Mammoth scraps, so to speak... :)
> [....] "The Book of the Ollamhan" was written
> by a collection of Filidh of the order of Ollamhs.
Was there ever such a thing as an "order of Ollamhs"?
> One such Ollamh is called Dithirné. Another is Cenn Faeladh.
> Another is Amergin. Yet another is Ferchertne.
> You can find a reference to the book in O'Curry's
> _Manners and Customs of the Ancient Irish_, Volume 2, pages 171-175. It
> is called "Cín Ollaman" on page xxvii of George Calder's edition of
> _Auraicept na n-Éces_.
However - any comparison of these names and works with modern advanced
scholarship yields notable results concerning credibility. We all know today
that 19th and early 20th century scholarship was suffering from its own
known agendas.
Dan
1X2 Willows
> [....]
> And it would be lovely to think that they had a dislike for writing their
> knowledge down because the druid in the next village could pull them
> up for a bad reference and expose them as the Buffies they really were!
> However, I'm sure that wasn't the case :^)
Why not? Have you ever seen "Asterix and the Soothsayer"?
Prophetic... :)
Dan
Wade
<SNIPPED>
> You have flown in on the loud farts of rhetoric around here. I challenge
> you to start a thread of your own, with sound evidence about Celtic land
> destruction and see how you go.
Geeze... Don... think about it. The ancient Celts reached their zenith
during the Iron Age. Smelting iron takes heat, heat came from fires,
fires require fuel... get the picture. Metalworking also requires mining,
generally regarded as an environmentally unsound undertaking. Besided,
the sources for her (yes that's right - her) statement are plentyful... it's
not our job to do your learning for you. When you've grown a bit come
on back and try again. Until then:
May your verbal flatulance ignite the lump on your shoulders.
May it explode in a fragrant bouquet of understanding.
---
Wade
M. Bruno
> >beirn said -
>
> >WHere do you get this stuff:)? in fact the celts are famous for having
> >d}ecimated the forests of Europe! I would also point you towards little
> >events such as the sacking of greece.
>
> >Noone is saying the druids weren't great in their own way, but you do
> >them no favours by attributing to them acts beliefs and abilities they
> >never claimed to have for themselves. If you love the celtic heritage as
> >you seem to, wouldn't you prefer to love it for what it really was not
> >what you think it should have been? History and academia are
> >complementary pillars in the home of Truth, along with intuition and
> >imagination.
> >
> >You are helping to destroy and corrupt the very order and knowledge you
> >seem to revere. I think that is sad beyond words.
> >
> >Beirn
>
> The Celts were land destructive? Ouch! They were no greenies but, when
> under the lost ways of the Druids had methods of managing land and
> growing crops not bettered until the late Middle Ages. I could give
> references, but first learn why fools give reasons and wise men never try.
> Your questionable feelings allow you to use a “c” for Celtic. Glad I am
> beyond words for you fail to use yours in a respectful way. Say what you
> like about me, everybody else does, but try not to hurt the group with
> verbal ignorance that allows you to put a capitol for your name, but not for
> those you claim to support.
My, my. This thread is truly soaring to the heights of...something. Piling on,
then ... in your criticism of Beirn's spelling, you accuse her of putting "a
capitol for your name, but not for those you claim to support." Yet I do not
see the building used by the U.S. Congress in Washington, D.C., nor any other
legislative building in her text. By the way, "Capitol" is always spelled with
a capital "C." In the future, please try to be more respectful of the
governmental architecture.
If your use of "capitol" is simply reflective of British usage, then I
apologize for my criticism and will continue to hope for the more sensible
evolution of the British lexicon.
-MB
Searles O'Dubhain
> "Searles O'Dubhain" <odub...@comcast.net> wrote
> >
> > It's not just my opinion but it is also the opinion of many noted
Celtic
> > scholars such as Myles Dillon, D. A. Binchey and even Damian
McManus.
>
> Looks like I'm going to have to read up on what Dillon, Binchy and
McManus
> had to say themselves. It's this 1:1 equation of Druids (as always, I
read:
> pan-celtic Druids) with the Irish Filidh in the 17th/18th century
which
> seems ... unfitting? to me. Then again - it might seem so, because I'm
> comparing the product of at least 1000 years of local evolution in
Ireland
> to remnants of another body of principles from which it had evolved.
> Medieval renderings of Elephants with Mammoth scraps, so to speak...
:)
>
The fFilidh are the direct link to the Druids over more than a thousand
years. Of course, their ways changed. Even in their changingthey are
worthy of study and honor.
> > [....] "The Book of the Ollamhan" was written
> > by a collection of Filidh of the order of Ollamhs.
>
> Was there ever such a thing as an "order of Ollamhs"?
>
Not in the way you probably mean it. There absolutely *was* and *is* an
order of Ollamhan. The title and rank of Ollamh was the highest order of
the learned among the Irish. It is still the highest order of learning
in Ireland.
> > One such Ollamh is called Dithirné. Another is Cenn Faeladh.
> > Another is Amergin. Yet another is Ferchertne.
> > You can find a reference to the book in O'Curry's
> > _Manners and Customs of the Ancient Irish_, Volume 2, pages 171-175.
It
> > is called "Cín Ollaman" on page xxvii of George Calder's edition of
> > _Auraicept na n-Éces_.
>
> However - any comparison of these names and works with modern advanced
> scholarship yields notable results concerning credibility. We all know
today
> that 19th and early 20th century scholarship was suffering from its
own
> known agendas.
>
The scholarship being mentioned here is a 14th century scribing of a 7th
century rendering of knowledge that was (in some cases) considered to be
a thousand years older than that time (1700 BCE). It's not 19th or 20th
century scholarship other than the translations from Old and Middle
Irish into English.
It's very ancient, dating to the times of the ancient Druids.
Searles
Beirn
> legislative building in her text. By the way, "Capitol" is always
spelled with
> a capital "C." In the future, please try to be more respectful of the
> governmental architecture.
ok that took me a minute but very funny:)
--
family motto: we came, we saw, we laughed like drains!
>
David Monks
Actually, I was debating on taking up this point, but more from the European
standpoint. I had visions of the temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus on top
of the Capitol Hill in Rome! (Mother of all Capitols!!!)
Those Celts nearly got it - 'cept (mind my spelling) for those damned geese!
David
"M. Bruno" <mbr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3D5D96CB...@hvc.rr.com...
> Don Kean wrote:
>
> > >beirn said -
> >
SNIPPED
1X2 Willows
> years.
Well, that's the nativist argument, e.g. Binchy and Dillon.
There's certainly 'a' link, in my own opinion.
> Of course, their ways changed.
Taken to the extreme, that would be the antinativist argument.
- not a clear winner either, in my own opinion.
> Even in their changing they are worthy of study and honor.
The first - fine. The second - well... either praise or condemnation
of a whole group without looking at single individuals is risky business
and not very objective.
> > Was there ever such a thing as an "order of Ollamhs"?
>
> Not in the way you probably mean it.
How do you think I mean it?
> There absolutely *was*
> and *is* an order of Ollamhan. The title and rank of Ollamh was
> the highest order of the learned among the Irish. It is still the
> highest order of learning in Ireland.
- which is another perfect example (along with the Gorsedd use of 'Druid')
how titles and ranks are being recycled by a changing society, while that
alone can hardly be seen as evidence for any non secular correspondence
between any two of the same name form different eras.
> > > One such Ollamh is called Dithirné. Another is Cenn Faeladh.
> > > Another is Amergin. Yet another is Ferchertne.
I found that Calder says in the introduction to his work on the Auraicept,
that those four traditionally count as the authors of the Auraicept itself.
Then however, he goes on to say:
"While the ascription of the Book of Cenn Faelad is probably genuine, the
same cannot be said of the Books of Ferchertne, Amergen, and Fenius. The
quotations may be from writitngs approximately of the time of Cenn Faelad,
but of unknown authorship."
Here, with the exception of Cenn Faelad who seems to have died in 679CE,
we're confronted with mythological figures and the only way to accept
alleged quotations for more than they are is to *believe*. For me, this
would come suspicously close to belief in gospel and revelation.
> The scholarship being mentioned here is a 14th century scribing of a 7th
> century rendering of knowledge that was (in some cases) considered to be
> a thousand years older than that time (1700 BCE). It's not 19th or 20th
> century scholarship other than the translations from Old and Middle
> Irish into English.
The introductions, translations, commentaries and conclusions by those 19th
and 20th century scholars you referenced in order to prove your point are
very well 19th and 20th scholarship. Assuming that any 7th century rendering
even from Ireland is a documentary of untainted druidic principles is a road
that I wouldn't follow. The quest for- and claims to archaic truth are no
invention of modern man.
> It's very ancient, dating to the times of the ancient Druids.
The ultra nativist argument again. Fact remains that someone said that
someone said that someone believes that someone's claim is
not unfounded that it could be ... or something :)
Dan
Wade
against the Irish material. One day you might actually
trip over a convincing argument.
--
Wade
"1X2 Willows" <wil...@euro-celts.com> wrote in message
news:3nA79.9579$LO1.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Searles O'Dubhain
<snip>
>
> The ultra nativist argument again. Fact remains that someone said that
> someone said that someone believes that someone's claim is
> not unfounded that it could be ... or something :)
>
Dan,
It's called a tradition. We're lucky that Ireland retained so much of
its traditional knowledge to allow modern Druids the chance to follow
the ancient pathways. Of course, there are new places to see and new
knowledge to illuminate us all. It's there for those who know what to do
or how to look.
Searles
Searles O'Dubhain
> It's been interesting watching you refine your rhetoric
> against the Irish material. One day you might actually
> trip over a convincing argument.
> --
Druidic knowledge without tradition to compliment experience and inquiry
is completely out of balance and wanders all over the place. The same
could be said for any attempt at finding wisdom and knowledge that
leaves out one of its three parts. A wise person supports and honors all
three ways of discovering knowledge.
Searles
1X2 Willows
>
> It's been interesting watching you refine your rhetoric
> against the Irish material. One day you might actually
> trip over a convincing argument.
Thanks Wade - I take that as a compliment, even from you. ｦ-)
In refining my use of a foreign language in academic debate and - much more
importantly - refining sound scholarship about the Celts themselves, I hope
to accomplish a few things indeed. Just to make sure...
That's: The Celts with a capital 'T' instead of the spelling most popular on
a.r.d. - the one which consists of 100% 'i's.
My contributions do however not include any efforts "against the Irish
material". I'd consider that a waste of time and of no benefit to anybody
truly interested in what we sometimes call the Druid way. If they do for you
anyhow, I suggest a reality check. Make sure it didn't bounce.
The Irish materials are written by Irish (okay, granted... sometimes
German and other monks), document an Irish take on celtic things, describe
Irish mythology, Irish history and Irish genealogy and all in all, they're
here to be explored by everybody who's interested in the contents
- and that includes me too.
I'm just not going any further in my claims, assumptions and
*cough* religious beliefs than that.
Dan
1X2 Willows
> its traditional knowledge to allow modern Druids the chance to follow
> the ancient pathways.
I think you should be thankful for the hints and glimpses that
Irish tradition has to offer to all of us into parts of the
knowledge that the ancient pathways once were based on.
I know I am. Thankful, that is...
> Of course, there are new places to see and new
> knowledge to illuminate us all. It's there for those who know what to do
> or how to look.
Oh... and I'm not one of the latter in your opinion, I take it.
I am unworthy...
*grovel grovel grovel*
Care to get back to sound argumentation outside of bombastic sermons
that do nothing else but clutter the real issue and cater to the vulnerable?
I presented mine. Where's yours?
You can call me an antinativist and rest assured that neither my cronies
will chime in to defend me nor would I be at a loss of words in order to
explain why I'm certainly not.
How's that? ｦ-)
Dan
Searles O'Dubhain
<snip>
> I think you should be thankful for the hints and glimpses that
> Irish tradition has to offer to all of us into parts of the
> knowledge that the ancient pathways once were based on.
> I know I am. Thankful, that is...
>
I'm very thankful and honoring of my ancestors that they preserved so
much of their traditional ways.
> > Of course, there are new places to see and new
> > knowledge to illuminate us all. It's there for those who know what
to do
> > or how to look.
>
> Oh... and I'm not one of the latter in your opinion, I take it.
> I am unworthy...
> *grovel grovel grovel*
You just seem determined to ignore or negate anything that has a
religion associated with it. Druidism is a religion that has both a
philosophy and a tradition. I can see that you think I have a low
opinion of you. I didn't say that in my newsgroup posting however. That
does seem to be what you're identifying for yourself in my remarks. If
the shoe fits wear it.
>
> Care to get back to sound argumentation outside of bombastic sermons
> that do nothing else but clutter the real issue and cater to the
vulnerable?
> I presented mine. Where's yours?
I've been engaging in sound *discussion* I've also presented the facts
as they are know. "Bombast" is a word that seem destructive of
discussion or ideas. I'm trying to have a positive discussion of Druids
and Pagans. What are you trying to do?
> You can call me an antinativist and rest assured that neither my
cronies
> will chime in to defend me nor would I be at a loss of words in order
to
> explain why I'm certainly not.
I haven't called you anything though you certainly tried to put "labels"
on some ideas I had presented. Of course, that doesn't make them true or
even accurate.
> How's that? ｦ-)
How's what?
Searles
>
>
Wade
Please remember that my heritage is German, Scottish,
Irish, Welsh, Anglo Saxon, and Norman. I work with the
Irish material because it's there. If there was good
material to work with elsewhere I'd be all for it. Never
quite understood your resistance... such is life.
I wish you well in finding more European roots.
--
Wade
"1X2 Willows" <wil...@euro-celts.com> wrote in message
news:2%C79.9878$LO1.7...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
1X2 Willows
> Sorry Dan, your post rubbed me the wrong way.
S'okay Wade, I noticed that.
> Please remember that my heritage is German, Scottish,
> Irish, Welsh, Anglo Saxon, and Norman. I work with the
> Irish material because it's there. If there was good
> material to work with elsewhere I'd be all for it. Never
> quite understood your resistance... such is life.
I resist generalizations about *the* Celts and *the* Druids.
We're able to extrapolate intertribal information from some of
the Irish material, from some we can't. Some of the Irish material
is obviously and heavily tainted by christian influence, some less,
some doesn't appear to be at all. Just trying to retain an objective
outlook here. My posts are usually challenges to the mindset:
"It must be true, for it is written."
> I wish you well in finding more European roots.
Sometimes tedious but also very interesting work and I enjoy it.
Thank you.
Dan
1X2 Willows
> You just seem determined to ignore or negate anything that has a
> religion associated with it. Druidism is a religion that has both a
> philosophy and a tradition.
Let's just say I dare to disagree for other reasons than belief.
> I can see that you think I have a low
> opinion of you. I didn't say that in my newsgroup posting however. That
> does seem to be what you're identifying for yourself in my remarks. If
> the shoe fits wear it.
Smoke.
If you wouldn't want anybody to read it this way
you wouldn't write it this way.
> I've been engaging in sound *discussion* I've also presented the facts
> as they are know. "Bombast" is a word that seem destructive of
> discussion or ideas. I'm trying to have a positive discussion of Druids
> and Pagans. What are you trying to do?
Argument and critique are nothing negative. Some of those facts are known to
be facts, some are known to be outdated assumptions, some are known to be
subject of ongoing discussions between modern reputable scholars in Celtic
studies for several years now and their verdict is still not in. I'm also
trying to have a positive discussion of Druids and Pagans - all of them.
> I haven't called you anything though you certainly tried to put "labels"
> on some ideas I had presented. Of course, that doesn't make them true or
> even accurate.
Labels? Those are fairly official schools of thought, like 'creationist' and
'darvinist' are somewhere else. Are they also labels that mean nothing? The
titles of your posts, chosen references and quotes, commentaries and
generalizations document nicely what is known to be the nativist argument.
I simply mentioned that.
Dan
Searles O'Dubhain
> "Searles O'Dubhain" <odub...@comcast.net> wrote
> > <snip>
> > You just seem determined to ignore or negate anything that has a
> > religion associated with it. Druidism is a religion that has both a
> > philosophy and a tradition.
>
> Let's just say I dare to disagree for other reasons than belief.
>
What might those reasons be?
> > I can see that you think I have a low
> > opinion of you. I didn't say that in my newsgroup posting however. That
> > does seem to be what you're identifying for yourself in my remarks. If
> > the shoe fits wear it.
>
> Smoke.
> If you wouldn't want anybody to read it this way
> you wouldn't write it this way.
>
Very convenient.
> > I've been engaging in sound *discussion* I've also presented the facts
> > as they are know. "Bombast" is a word that seem destructive of
> > discussion or ideas. I'm trying to have a positive discussion of Druids
> > and Pagans. What are you trying to do?
>
> Argument and critique are nothing negative. Some of those facts are known
to
> be facts, some are known to be outdated assumptions, some are known to be
> subject of ongoing discussions between modern reputable scholars in Celtic
> studies for several years now and their verdict is still not in. I'm also
> trying to have a positive discussion of Druids and Pagans - all of them.
>
Let's have a few details about this.
> > I haven't called you anything though you certainly tried to put "labels"
> > on some ideas I had presented. Of course, that doesn't make them true or
> > even accurate.
>
> Labels? Those are fairly official schools of thought, like 'creationist'
and
> 'darvinist' are somewhere else. Are they also labels that mean nothing?
The
> titles of your posts, chosen references and quotes, commentaries and
> generalizations document nicely what is known to be the nativist argument.
> I simply mentioned that.
An what approach would an Irish Druid take if it was not the Irish way?
Searles
Kevin Jones
> "Searles O'Dubhain" <odub...@comcast.net> wrote
> >
> > It's not just my opinion but it is also the opinion of many noted Celtic
> > scholars such as Myles Dillon, D. A. Binchey and even Damian McManus.
>
> Looks like I'm going to have to read up on what Dillon, Binchy and McManus
> had to say themselves. It's this 1:1 equation of Druids (as always, I
read:
> pan-celtic Druids) with the Irish Filidh in the 17th/18th century which
> seems ... unfitting? to me.
Actually I'd agree with the general idea that the druids evolved into the
filidh - with the emphasis on *evolved*. It's supported by the sources - and
in fact the idea that there was no link between the two only dates from the
18th century. In practical support of it, some families I've known who are
descendants of filidh, and still take the old traditions seriously, have
some of the most pagan mindsets and traditions I've run across. Not invented
stuff either - it has no connection with the 18th century revivalist stuff,
but a fair bit that makes sense in terms of the archeological material. I am
told, by one guy who did a degree (forget which one) that dealt with the
development of modes of thought, that the ideas involved do not, in
mainstream European thought, postdate the middle medieval period and are
more likley to be early medieval or earlier. They were well known in
antiquity, which was there floruit. Later societies just didn't think like
that.
> > [....] "The Book of the Ollamhan" was written
> > by a collection of Filidh of the order of Ollamhs.
>
> Was there ever such a thing as an "order of Ollamhs"?
Nope - an ollamh was the highest grade of the filidh. If you look at them
functionally, they are fulfilling the same function as a druid in earlier
periods.
> However - any comparison of these names and works with modern advanced
> scholarship yields notable results concerning credibility. We all know
today
> that 19th and early 20th century scholarship was suffering from its own
> known agendas.
Aye - and I have taken issue with the agendas of modern scholarship.
Kevin
Kevin Jones
> "Searles O'Dubhain" <odub...@comcast.net> wrote
> >
> > The Filidh are the direct link to the Druids over more than a thousand
> > years.
>
> Well, that's the nativist argument, e.g. Binchy and Dillon.
> There's certainly 'a' link, in my own opinion.
Ah well - you wait for the MA dissertation. I have a go at the antinativist
and Celtosceptic arguments as simplistic.
> > Of course, their ways changed.
>
> Taken to the extreme, that would be the antinativist argument.
> - not a clear winner either, in my own opinion.
But then all societies and their institutions change with time . One of the
topics when I did BA concerned continuity and change - what stayed the same,
what changed, and what mechanisms were involved in change.
Kevin
Kevin Jones
> Sorry Dan, your post rubbed me the wrong way.
Well, he's doing a very good job of forcing people to define arguments - a
sort of devil's advocate, not for being stroppy, but more on the academic
line of querying things. We probably need people like Dan to refine things,
and not take them for granted. He's a good goad.
Kevin
1X2 Willows
> > > <snip>
> > > You just seem determined to ignore or negate anything that has a
> > > religion associated with it. Druidism is a religion that has both a
> > > philosophy and a tradition.
> >
> > Let's just say I dare to disagree for other reasons than belief.
> >
>
> What might those reasons be?
For a start - modern dictionary definitions of 'religion'. This is a very
complex one and hard for me to reference off the top of my head, especially
because faith has nothing to do with it. I wish I had more time right now to
dig around in my references and stuff but - apologies - I don't. A lot of
those reasons have been explained in contributions to a.r.d. by Kevin (and
his Diss) about Romano-Celtic times, how religious principles were defined
and applied and what authority they had over whom and to what extent.
Other reasons can be found in the lack of material traces which religions
usually leave in the wake of a people, even if the people move on to other
lands or other beliefs.
> > Argument and critique are nothing negative. Some of those facts are
> > known to be facts, some are known to be outdated assumptions,
> > some are known to be subject of ongoing discussions between
> > modern reputable scholars in Celtic studies for several years now
> > and their verdict is still not in. I'm also trying to have a positive
> > discussion of Druids and Pagans - all of them.
>
> Let's have a few details about this.
The Book of Cenn Faelad was written by a historical person named Cenn
Faelad, lots of O'Curry's 'Manners and Customs' count as surpassed by works
of deeper inquiry and the discussion of I2T (alleged writings of an Ollamh
named Ferchertne being a dependable source?) began November 2000 on
Old-Irish-L and is still going strong.
> > [....] known to be the nativist argument.
> > I simply mentioned that.
>
> An what approach would an Irish Druid take if it was not the Irish way?
I don't blame you for nothing, Searles, nor anybody else for following the
Irish tradition, as long as nobody loses their humour, as long as some
customs, practices and principles outlined in Irish scriptures are valued as
being distinctively Irish or part of Draiocht instead of celtic or Druidry
and as long as it's done in a truly Irish context. There's nothing
traditional to lose by doing so; just a whole lot of untapped insight to
gain.
Dan
Searles O'Dubhain
<snip>
>
> The Book of Cenn Faelad was written by a historical person named Cenn
> Faelad, lots of O'Curry's 'Manners and Customs' count as surpassed by
works
> of deeper inquiry and the discussion of I2T (alleged writings of an Ollamh
> named Ferchertne being a dependable source?) began November 2000 on
> Old-Irish-L and is still going strong.
>
Moses probably wasn't a real person either but a lot of works were
attributed to him. Some of these works even have merit. The same can be said
for people in Irish tradition who are mythical. Perhaps they were real and
perhaps not but what is said about them and the things they teach in the
tales are very important to an understanding of the ways of Irish Druids and
Irish Celtic tradition. after all, these tales were maintained and retold by
the Filidh, who were the inheritors of the Druids. When Druids tell me a
story or a tradition, I listen.The writings of and about Ferchertne are an
insight into what Druids did and how they did it. Pardon me while I don't
throw the Fili out with the uisce fholctha.
Searles
1X2 Willows
> "Wade" <xremove...@comcast.net> wrote
> > Sorry Dan, your post rubbed me the wrong way.
>
> Well, he's doing a very good job of forcing people to define arguments - a
> sort of devil's advocate, not for being stroppy, but more on the academic
> line of querying things. We probably need people like Dan to refine
> things, and not take them for granted. He's a good goad.
Thanks for awarding me the cattle prod, Kevin... appreciate it. :o)
I do what I do and my foremost responsibility in doing so is to be able to
withstand academic inquiry of the nastiest kind, *especially* because so
little is known and proven about the Gauls. I call 'em Gauls here for
brevity but I know you know that it gets far more complicated from here on.
Now if I ever were to claim anything to be an appropriate, reasonable
assumption about the Gauls - especially in terms of what they might have
believed in - I better have more to show for than a reference to the Irish
Celts taken from Irish scriptures. There might be a whole lot of candidates
for such an endeavour in those manuscripts but only the ones which first
withstand the hardest of scrutiny in an internal (Irish) context could stand
a chance to be even considered for serving as an 'overlay' on the knowledge
about other Celts.
Well, the Irish are a peculiar hard headed stubborn earthy grumpy hagglin'
and nay sayin' bunch and in that already a perfect match to all the
worthwhile traditional country folk that I've ever encountered about the
Continental Western European landscape and elsewhere. I know all this
work of mine would be much easier and more pleasurable for all parties
involved, if we could meet either down at the pub or at the live stock faire
or somethin' and toss a couple of ideas around, but... this is Usenet and
we're limited to black letters on a white background. Not very sensuous
and no wonder a lot of hostility is born from frustration over this
medium's limitations...
Anyway...
Blessings!
Dan
David Monks
>
SNIPPED
> Well, the Irish are a peculiar hard headed stubborn earthy grumpy hagglin'
> and nay sayin' bunch
Really, Dan? The whole world knows that we are the most patient, kindly,
balanced, deep-thinking, charitable, agreeable, amenable, responsive,
tolerant, welcoming, charming AND modest souls on the face of the planet!
Abd being Irish, I should know! ;-) And I'm sure that Beirn agrees with
me. (Are you there Beirn????)
David
1X2 Willows
>
> "1X2 Willows" <wil...@euro-celts.com> wrote
> >
> SNIPPED
>
> > Well, the Irish are a peculiar hard headed stubborn earthy grumpy
hagglin'
> > and nay sayin' bunch
>
> Really, Dan? The whole world knows that we are the most patient, kindly,
> balanced, deep-thinking, charitable, agreeable, amenable, responsive,
> tolerant, welcoming, charming AND modest souls on the face of the planet!
> Abd being Irish, I should know! ;-) And I'm sure that Beirn agrees with
> me. (Are you there Beirn????)
Oh - how could I forget to mention that the Irish are also the inventors
of-, and global leaders in political correctness.
Apologies, apologies, apologies
<grinnnnn>
Dan
1X2 Willows
> attributed to him. Some of these works even have merit.
Glad you are the one to make this association because I was tempted to
do the same in the course of this discussion but decided to do not go there,
so as not to step on any toes around here.
Myth is always an attempt to enrich fiction with a face and personality;
turning the beliefs of an individual or group into a dynamic being of its
own. Myth has grown from honoring the ancestors or even ancestral worship
(the nonfictional part) but goes one significant step further: Myth has an
agenda. One of integral intentions maybe, designed to unify a people under a
common codex of mundane ethics and therefore support peace and harmony
in a society of human beings.
However, such ancient codes are frequently said to have originated from the
behaviour of divine forces themselves or they're said to have been received
by ethnic ways of communication with those divine forces. This does two
things in exchange for the unifying factor: It divides the society within,
in that it helps legitimize a priestly class who claims to have the monopoly
on spiritual matters in peoples' everyday lives and it divides the society
without - from other societies - on the assumption that a specific myth or
codex is fact and another is not.
Myth is an interesting mix of genealogy, poetry, pure fiction and history in
combination with the oldest attempts to religious-political propaganda known
to man. As for merit - Chances are that we find good advice for desirable
human behaviour in all kinds of stories of myth and fiction from around the
globe. Seen that way - heck - even the Powerpuff Girls have merit. :)
[....]
> Pardon me while I don't throw the Fili out with the uisce fholctha.
Scho guät. Would that be the bath water? :-)
Dan
Searles O'Dubhain
> "Searles O'Dubhain" <odub...@comcast.net> wrote
> >
> > Moses probably wasn't a real person either but a lot of works were
> > attributed to him. Some of these works even have merit.
>
> Glad you are the one to make this association because I was tempted to
> do the same in the course of this discussion but decided to do not go
there,
> so as not to step on any toes around here.
>
> Myth is always an attempt to enrich fiction with a face and personality;
Myth is an attempt to describe in allegory what can't be easily described
in objective terms. Just because it's a myth doesn't mean that it's not
based on an experience or an occurrence.
> turning the beliefs of an individual or group into a dynamic being of its
> own. Myth has grown from honoring the ancestors or even ancestral worship
> (the nonfictional part) but goes one significant step further: Myth has an
> agenda. One of integral intentions maybe, designed to unify a people under
a
> common codex of mundane ethics and therefore support peace and harmony
> in a society of human beings.
The agenda of myth is to explain the unexplainable in simple terms.
> However, such ancient codes are frequently said to have originated from
the
> behaviour of divine forces themselves or they're said to have been
received
> by ethnic ways of communication with those divine forces. This does two
Someone somewhere had an experience of the divine, the Otherworld or
something else equally difficult to explain.
> things in exchange for the unifying factor: It divides the society within,
> in that it helps legitimize a priestly class who claims to have the
monopoly
> on spiritual matters in peoples' everyday lives and it divides the society
> without - from other societies - on the assumption that a specific myth or
> codex is fact and another is not.
I don't think myth divides society at all. In fact, I think myths unify a
culture's understanding to a kind of common ground or common knowledge. What
separates a priesthood from everyday lives is going being the ordinary
experience into non-ordinary experience *and* being able to produce
practical results from that in terms of deeds, techniques, counseling and/or
advice. That's what a priesthood does.
>
> Myth is an interesting mix of genealogy, poetry, pure fiction and history
in
> combination with the oldest attempts to religious-political propaganda
known
> to man.
Myth is also a description of the most powerful experiences known to a
culture or a religion.
> As for merit - Chances are that we find good advice for desirable
> human behaviour in all kinds of stories of myth and fiction from around
the
> globe. Seen that way - heck - even the Powerpuff Girls have merit. :)
>
Everything with truth in it has merit.
> [....]
> > Pardon me while I don't throw the Fili out with the uisce fholctha.
>
> Scho guät. Would that be the bath water? :-)
That's right.
Searles
David Monks
I'm not sure I can go along with your definition of myth. as:
"... always an attempt to enrich fiction with a face and personality ..."
There may well be an element of this in the development of myth, but
ultimately it is so much more. Myth is not just fascinating tales of gods
and heroes. In my view it is the matrix which contains the inner
character/oversoul of a group, people or nation. By means of myth one can
approach the essence of what makes a people or nation different from any
other. It is therefore a passepartout into the psychology of such groups,
and its manipulation can place power into the hands of whomever can
successfully work a nation's myth.
Joseph Campbell, when writing about Oriental Mythology gives a definition
which I think goes to the heart of the matter. He says: "The supreme aim of
Oriental mythology, consequently, is not to establish as substantial any of
its divinities or associated rites, but to render by means of these an
experience that goes beyond: of identity with the Being of beings which is
both immanent and transcendent; yet neither is not is not."
I don't want to get into the argument as to whether there may/may not be a
Being, immanent or transcendent because I'm not sure at this stage of
development of my thought that a Being is necessarily germane to the
debate. Rather I am contented to keep to the level of myth that relates to
the nature and character of a nation or national grouping.
The key to the psychology of such groupings is in their mythos. I believe
that the mythos both shapes and is shaped by the group; an appeal to this
mythos can evoke a powerful response in the group/nation. This begs the
question as to whether a myth can be "taken over" or hijacked. I would say
it most certainly can. The thing that amazes me is that it has not happened
here in Ireland given its troubled recent history. I know that there was an
attempt in Northern Ireland to appropriate (for tribal purposed) the
Cúchulainn myth. It seemed to be apt because it idealised Ulster and the
Ulsterman as in conflict with the rest of Ireland. But it didn't work
because ultimately it could not be successfully divorced from the concept of
a unitary Irish culture which, despite political fragmentation, was a clear
and undeniable reality. Hence it could not in the end satisfy the aims of
those who sought to use it.
A point worth bearing in mind is that myth is not static. It grows and
develops. I would venture that America is currently developing some
powerful myths of its own. The Alamo has long since left the realm of
humdrum history. American Comics since the 1930s have been developing the
myth of the American Hero. The American villain too is worthy of mention.
Al Capone and Usama ibn Ladin will one day take their place in American
mythology's hall of infamy.
Celtic myth too has developed. One example should be ample to illustrate
the point. The Morrigan has passed through a process of being a Battle
Goddess (we don't tend to have many battles in Ireland nowadays) to being
the Bean Sidhe - the Woman of the Tuatha Dé Danaan, the Banshee - who
laments the passing of the dying. Her emblem is the comb with which she
arranges her long hair, keeing the while. The combing of the hair was/is an
integral part of mourning the dead. (Something very Spartan about this, I
always think.) But we are now arrived at the line which divides myth from
folklore. Folklore, although on a lower level than high myth, is also
worthy of attention, and it is probably true to say that it is both the
incubator of fresh myth and the receptor of decayed myth.
Incidentally, a very late development in the Bean Sidhe folklore is that she
may use her comb as a kind of Celtic boomerang, throwing it at anyone
(un)lucky enough to come across her as she keens. If it strikes, the person
so struck will die within the year..... A story told in my own family
relates how my father's grandfather (my greatgrandfather) and some friends
were returning from a business meeting to central Dublin by carriage late
one night in the 1860s. As they passed a certain point they heard the
keeing of the Bean Sidhe, and one of them claimed to have actually seen her
throwing her comb, and to having been struck by it. Needless to say, in
keeping with the folklore, he was dead within the year. Whether this is
true or not is beside the point. The needs of the folklore of the Bean
Sidhe were satisfied, and another layer added in the building up of what
will ultimately become new myth.
Of course, the modern age is cynical and fairly godless. This inevitably
slows down the development of myth, but pendulums tend to swing. Not all
the *uisce* gets thrown out when the *folctha* is being emptied. [Yes,
Dan - it's the bath water! :-) ]
David
"1X2 Willows" <wil...@euro-celts.com> wrote in message
news:lsc89.13162$I6.11...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
M. Bruno
>
> The agenda of myth is to explain the unexplainable in simple terms.
>
> I don't think myth divides society at all. In fact, I think myths unify a
> culture's understanding to a kind of common ground or common knowledge. What
> separates a priesthood from everyday lives is going being the ordinary
> experience into non-ordinary experience *and* being able to produce
> practical results from that in terms of deeds, techniques, counseling and/or
> advice. That's what a priesthood does.
>
> Myth is also a description of the most powerful experiences known to a
> culture or a religion.
>
A problem arises when one equates "myth" with "fiction." They are not
interchangeable terms. I have the feeling that the difficulty emerges in
childhood when the scriptures or oral tradition of a foreign (often, though not
exclusively, read "pagan") culture is introduced in schools. So, Greek and
Roman "mythology" is seen as equal to fiction in a Judeo-Christian culture. I
know a refugee from China who relates that virtually all non-Chinese religious
culture is taught to children as "myth," meaning "fiction."
Ultimately, the value of "myth" resides in the faith of the individual who is a
child of his/her culture. An understanding of the concept of faith is essential
for one to understand myth/religion as anything other than a fictional
endeavor, or a widespread role-play. I can't begin to imagine the folly of one
who would claim as his or her religion a set of fictional tales which are
especially liked from an intellectual or even emotional viewpoint. To me, that
person would be acting a role, like a spiritual re-enacter. Of course, to do so
by choice would not be folly, it just wouldn't be belief. There's nothing wrong
with studying religion as an academic pursuit. Study and practice, in this
case, are two different things.
Your last statement quoted above points to the fact that "culture" itself is
founded on the common religious beliefs (myths) of a people. It is the "cult"
in "culture."
MB
Beirn
"David Monks" <dm...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:zIa89.10255$zX3....@news.indigo.ie...
sorry David was off saving the world, redeeming mankind and generally
being a charming, patient, welcoming, tolerant, balanced, deepthinking,
amenable, reponsive (did I miss any?) lovely Irish Girl.....hard headed?
stubborn? MOI?
what could you be thinking, Dan?
--
family motto: we came, we saw, we laughed like drains!
>
> David
>
>
>
Beirn
>
> Oh - how could I forget to mention that the Irish are also the
inventors
> of-, and global leaders in political correctness.
>
> Apologies, apologies, apologies
> <grinnnnn>
we invented everything. Everywhere. All the time. Apology accepted !!!
< running away very fast and taking the drink with me before I get
hit!:)>
B
--
family motto: we came, we saw, we laughed like drains!
> Dan
>
>
Searles O'Dubhain
"M. Bruno" <mbr...@hvc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3D61AAE6...@hvc.rr.com...
<snip>
Mauro,
Your message and David's response really puts things in perspective for me.
I visited the Old-Irish-L and the Celtic-L list to see what they were
discussing. I found a lot of very good scholarship and an objective
understanding of words, tradition and studies. All of this is very good
information but what was lacking was the subjectivity of being immersed in
an experience, living it as a part of life. In academia, one stands back
away from a concept to maintain objectivity. In life, one dives in and
becomes a part of the experience. It's the difference between the performers
and the audience, or even those who sing and those who listen. In terms of
culture, it is the difference between those who live and those who analyze.
Academic works are forbidden to become a part of the subject that they
study. Even anthropologists must maintain that objective inner detachment
while going through the motions of living within a culture. Similarly, in
religion, one can study at arms length or one can become immersed in the
experience. Study is admirable but study and involvement is both admirable
and creative. I think that's why one of the Cauldrons of Being is called
"Formation" or "Devotion" (Goriath), while the second is called "Motion" or
even "Vocation" (Érma). Of course, the third cauldron is called
"Celebration" and/or "Wisdom" (Áiged, Soís). To truly become a part of
being, one must become dedicated to the task, work in their devotion to the
experience, and finally so at one with it that they are overcome by an
ecstasy of celebration which leads to wisdom.
Myths are formed to explain this process as a teaching tool and as a
framework for learning. They exist with many levels of meaning and
knowledge embedded within them. The study of most religious stories or
"myths" contain three or more levels in Indo-European and Western
traditions. I think this goes back to the three ways of being which are also
a reflection of our physical, mental and spiritual states. In myth there is
an outward form, the tale its self. There is an inner meaning , which is
there for initiates and those who are devoted. There is meaning with a life
and experience of its own unique to each person, yet common to all, that
transcends the ordinary and leads on to even greater understanding.
To know the meanings of the words is one part of learning a language. To use
the words in grammatically correct sentences is a second part of learning a
language. To dream and think in the language is the transcendental moment
when one becomes fluent and creative with the language. Religion is a
language of the spirit and is learned, practiced and celebrated in much the
same way as languages, cultures and states of being. We can study a
religion's customs, traditions and (even its) myths. We can embrace then as
a part of our lives. When we interact with our many levels of reality as a
native (a completely aware person on every level), that is when we are a
priest and a member of its priesthood. That is when we can say that we are
"twice born."
Searles
1X2 Willows
>
> Actually I'd agree with the general idea that the druids evolved into the
> filidh - with the emphasis on *evolved*.
Sometimes I wish we had about 100 different names for them at our disposal;
or at least one for each century since 500 BCE. It would sure be interesting
to debate who was motivated to change which aspect when, to what extent,
for what reason and which locale(s) the change would have applied to.
> [....] Later societies just didn't think like that.
Good one... 'Mode of thought'
The key to many of the 'secrets' which might only be hidden from plain sight
when approached by an outside mode of thought.
> Aye - and I have taken issue with the agendas of modern scholarship.
I'm so glad somebody does that, too.
It supplies dynamic and prevents stagnation.
Go, Kevin! :)
Dan
1X2 Willows
>
> A problem arises when one equates "myth" with "fiction."
A much more severe problem arises when one equates
myth with fact on the basis of faith or belief alone.
Does the term 'holy war' ring a bell?
> They are not interchangeable terms. I have the feeling that the
> difficulty emerges in childhood when the scriptures or oral tradition
> of a foreign (often, though not exclusively, read "pagan") culture is
> introduced in schools. So, Greek and Roman "mythology" is seen as
> equal to fiction in a Judeo-Christian culture. I know a refugee from
> China who relates that virtually all non-Chinese religious
> culture is taught to children as "myth," meaning "fiction."
My point. Myth can foster unnecessary division by way of promotion and
legitimization of opposing beliefs. Better to call it all fiction, be done
with it and concentrate in this day and age on inter-spiritual material
which unifies.
> Ultimately, the value of "myth" resides in the faith of the individual who
> is a child of his/her culture.
Exactly. For better or worse...
> An understanding of the concept of faith is essential
> for one to understand myth/religion as anything other than a fictional
> endeavor, or a widespread role-play. I can't begin to imagine the folly of
> one who would claim as his or her religion a set of fictional tales
> which are especially liked from an intellectual or even emotional
> viewpoint. To me, that person would be acting a role, like a
> spiritual re-enacter. Of course, to do so by choice would not be folly,
> it just wouldn't be belief. There's nothing wrong
> with studying religion as an academic pursuit. Study and practice, in this
> case, are two different things.
- just as knowledge and faith/belief are two different things,
even if the matter is pursued in a very spiritual way.
Dan
1X2 Willows
> Dan,
>
> I'm not sure I can go along with your definition of myth. as:
> "... always an attempt to enrich fiction with a face and personality ..."
Tanks for your input, David
- and to everybody else as well, in this place.
No differentiated response doesn't mean no insight found.
Dan
1X2 Willows
> >
> we invented everything. Everywhere. All the time. Apology accepted !!!
One exception, maybe: Hornussen (hornet-ing)
[getting reminded of Hurleys and whizzing Sliotars here]
Specs for the modern version:
10 foot carbon-fiber 'bats'
Compound 'hornet' (playing disk)
300km/h / 180mph projectile speed
Close to 1/4 mile reach
Score:
2 points for a hit to the opponent's head
1 1/2 points for a hit to any other part of the body
Traditional prize for the champion: An Oak leaf 'coronet'.
> < running away very fast and taking the drink with me before I get
> hit!:)>
For accepting my apology, you're granted a head start of 10 minutes.
<aiming>
:o)
Dan
Kevin Jones
> Dan,
>
> I'm not sure I can go along with your definition of myth. as:
> "... always an attempt to enrich fiction with a face and personality ..."
>
> There may well be an element of this in the development of myth, but
> ultimately it is so much more. Myth is not just fascinating tales of gods
> and heroes. In my view it is the matrix which contains the inner
> character/oversoul of a group, people or nation. By means of myth one can
> approach the essence of what makes a people or nation different from any
> other. It is therefore a passepartout into the psychology of such groups,
> and its manipulation can place power into the hands of whomever can
> successfully work a nation's myth.
Terry Pratchett, in 'The Science of Discworld: The Globe' called it part of
the 'Make A Human Kit' - myths and stories teach people about their society,
its values, and its way of perceiving the world.
Kevin
M. Bruno
After a little more thought on the subject, it dawned on me that I do indeed know
many people who do this (role-play). So far, I can divide them into two camps: the
eclectics and the skeptics. What they seem to hold in common, to me, is the
practice of non-belief. The eclectic, in believing everything, believes nothing.
The skeptic is merely the intolerant version of this phenomenon. Together, these
form the modern movement in "religion" that seeks to water down the roots of
culture for the sake of some amorphous "unity," trumpeting a false dichotomy
between "religion" and "spirituality." However, I suspect that, in reality, I
personally know neither type of individual in fact, since both camps often betray
themselves as actors in the play of frustrated human desire for the light of the
metaphysical. But, then, so do we all, at one time or another.
Another thought: beware the one who practices his "religion" as merely an
intellectual exercise, claiming to do so or not. I believe that history has shown
that it is the simple who are, more often than not, the saints, and that the pure
academics face too many demons alone to prevail.
>
> Your last statement quoted above points to the fact that "culture" itself is
> founded on the common religious beliefs (myths) of a people. It is the "cult"
> in "culture."
>
--which is yet another reason why I don't believe that "multi*cult*uralism" can be
taught as a school subject in a society that sees the "separation of church and
state" as more anti-church than anti-state.
MB
M. Bruno
Searles O'Dubhain wrote:
> Your message and David's response really puts things in perspective for me.
> I visited the Old-Irish-L and the Celtic-L list to see what they were
> discussing. I found a lot of very good scholarship and an objective
> understanding of words, tradition and studies. All of this is very good
> information but what was lacking was the subjectivity of being immersed in
> an experience, living it as a part of life. In academia, one stands back
> away from a concept to maintain objectivity. In life, one dives in and
> becomes a part of the experience. It's the difference between the performers
> and the audience, or even those who sing and those who listen. In terms of
> culture, it is the difference between those who live and those who analyze.
As a theologian, myself, I have often wondered if this newsgroup should be
alt.theology.druid. For the most part, I think it is correctly named. It's when
confusion about this arises that the discussions sometime get distasteful. Then
things get said in certain ways by people who would otherwise fear to
innocently catch someone's eye on public transportation!
>
> Academic works are forbidden to become a part of the subject that they
> study. Even anthropologists must maintain that objective inner detachment
> while going through the motions of living within a culture. Similarly, in
> religion, one can study at arms length or one can become immersed in the
> experience. Study is admirable but study and involvement is both admirable
> and creative. I think that's why one of the Cauldrons of Being is called
> "Formation" or "Devotion" (Goriath), while the second is called "Motion" or
> even "Vocation" (Érma). Of course, the third cauldron is called
> "Celebration" and/or "Wisdom" (Áiged, Soís). To truly become a part of
> being, one must become dedicated to the task, work in their devotion to the
> experience, and finally so at one with it that they are overcome by an
> ecstasy of celebration which leads to wisdom.
I see them as "Learning" and "Believing," "Acting" and "Serving," "Accepting"
and "Reflecting." Would I be far off the mark?
>
> Myths are formed to explain this process as a teaching tool and as a
> framework for learning. They exist with many levels of meaning and
> knowledge embedded within them. The study of most religious stories or
> "myths" contain three or more levels in Indo-European and Western
> traditions. I think this goes back to the three ways of being which are also
> a reflection of our physical, mental and spiritual states. In myth there is
> an outward form, the tale its self. There is an inner meaning , which is
> there for initiates and those who are devoted. There is meaning with a life
> and experience of its own unique to each person, yet common to all, that
> transcends the ordinary and leads on to even greater understanding.
>
> To know the meanings of the words is one part of learning a language. To use
> the words in grammatically correct sentences is a second part of learning a
> language. To dream and think in the language is the transcendental moment
> when one becomes fluent and creative with the language. Religion is a
> language of the spirit and is learned, practiced and celebrated in much the
> same way as languages, cultures and states of being. We can study a
> religion's customs, traditions and (even its) myths. We can embrace then as
> a part of our lives.
And there's the step from study to belief.
> When we interact with our many levels of reality as a
> native (a completely aware person on every level), that is when we are a
> priest and a member of its priesthood. That is when we can say that we are
> "twice born."
I like that. I have often been confused about the desire of some to make the
experience of the individual the ultimate human expression. We do everything
communally. I can't see how we're supposed to take on the most important things
about human life all alone. Perhaps it's a self-esteem problem ... we think
we're God!
MB
Beirn
<stops running once out of sight..>
now, where did I put that hefty, ash, king-sized hurley...
...only two points for hitting the head?
<evil snigger>
Beirn
--
family motto: we came, we saw, we laughed like drains!
> :o)
> Dan
>
>
1X2 Willows
>
> <stops running once out of sight..>
>
> now, where did I put that hefty, ash, king-sized hurley...
> ...only two points for hitting the head?
> <evil snigger>
<gulp>
I'm willing to back off...
Tell you what... Let's try to make sliotar and hornet hit each other
in mid air instead, and then go celebrate the event over a fine sip
of Clontarf or Knappogue Castle. If you're in a daring mood,
I could also bring some Chrüüter or Träsch. I bet after a night of
all those hits to the head, we'll lose track of any kind of points...
;-)
Dan
David Monks
Beware. I don't like the cound fo Chrueueter (how do I get umlauts on this
keyboard!!!???) combined with Clontarf. I suspect you are dealing with a
crypto-Viking here! :-)
David
"1X2 Willows" <wil...@euro-celts.com> wrote in message
news:XvP89.883$HJ1....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "Beirn" <buibh...@icqmail.com> wrote
> >
> > <stops running once out of sight..>
> >
> > now, where did I put that hefty, ash, king-sized hurley...
> > ...only two points for hitting the head?
> > <evil snigger>
>
1X2 Willows
>
> Beware. I don't like the cound fo Chrueueter (how do I get umlauts on
> this keyboard!!!???) combined with Clontarf. I suspect you are dealing
> with a crypto-Viking here! :-)
>
> David
>
ROFL!
Spoiler!!!
Dan
BTW:
Alt+0228 = ä
Alt+0246 = ö
Alt+0252 = ü
Beirn
sliothar off the hornet but once I get that hurley in hand ...I'll start
thinking, "two points for head shots"....still, tell you what, you stand
there and I'll give it my best shot:) honest...........
Then again, a bribe of alcohol.........ah, who am I kidding? Alcohol
wins:D
Beirn
--
family motto: we came, we saw, we laughed like drains!
"1X2 Willows" <wil...@euro-celts.com> wrote in message
news:XvP89.883$HJ1....@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> "Beirn" <buibh...@icqmail.com> wrote
> >
> > <stops running once out of sight..>
> >
> > now, where did I put that hefty, ash, king-sized hurley...
> > ...only two points for hitting the head?
> > <evil snigger>
>
Beirn
and today's spray of tea across the keyboard and choking fit of laughter
was sponsered by David!
--
family motto: we came, we saw, we laughed like drains!
"David Monks" <dm...@indigo.ie> wrote in message
news:dgQ89.10702$zX3....@news.indigo.ie...
David Monks
<David hastily hiding his horned helmet and longboat with Raven-Sail>
"Beirn" <buibh...@icqmail.com> wrote in message
news:Q7499.989$cP3....@news.iol.ie...