Dryghtyn blessing
Init8
following prayer, which I believe was included in Patricia Crowther's book,
'Witchblood!', as given to her by Gerald Gardner.
"In the name of Dryghtyn, the Ancient Providence,
Who was from the beginning and is for eternity,
Male and Female, the Original Source of all things;
all-knowing, all-pervading, all-powerful;
changeless, eternal.
"In the name of the Lady of the Moon,
and the Lord of Death and Resurrection.
"In the name of the Mighty Ones of the Four Quarters,
the Kings of the Elements.
"Blessed be this place, and this time,
and they who are now with us."
(I have also seen it on at least one American Wiccan web-site, so I assume
that it is still in use)
Init8
Delia
> "In the name of Dryghtyn, the Ancient Providence,
> Who was from the beginning and is for eternity,
> Male and Female, the Original Source of all things;
> all-knowing, all-pervading, all-powerful;
> changeless, eternal.
I think the Dryghtyn blessing prayer
is in the BOS of most Gardnerian lines;
and yes, it's still in wide use.
There have been various theories as
to its origin put forth on Gard lists.
I don't know that any of them is
provable or authoritative.
But I recall learning that the term
"Dryghtyn" was in use previously, as
a term for the godhead (ie, *impersonal*
deity/divinity), in a christian (!)
context. But today at least, the only
ones using it seem to be Wiccans.
One important thing to note is that
the prayer does *not* reflect monotheism,
but rather *monism*. That is, Dryghtyn
is an impersonal divine, like the Tao
of Taoism or the Brahman of Hinduism.
Dryghtyn is not a deity - that is, It
is not a divine person. (And when one
is speaking of an impersonal deity,
it's better not to use the word "god"
because that can be confusing.)
"Monism" is the term used to designate
a religious belief in an overarching
(or underlying) unity of all things -
an *impersonal* divine. (It's related to
pantheism in that regard, and pantheism
is often regarded as a type of monism.)
The word "monotheism," in contrast,
means specifically the belief that there
is one and only one god - that is, only
one *personal* deity. (From Greek "theos"
meaning a personal deity, a god/dess.)
Monotheism is incompatible with
polytheism, and also incompatible with
the duotheism of traditional Wicca,
in that we honor two personal deities,
both a Goddess and a Horned God.
(Although some forms of dianic
witchcraft may practice a type
of Goddess monotheism.)
But monism *is* compatible with polytheism,
and indeed, it often goes along with it.
(Hinduism being the most famous example.)
Another word that's useful to know is
"henotheism" - from Greek "henos" which
means "one." ("Monos" means "alone" or
"only.") Henotheism is the choice to
focus worship on one deity, while not
denying the reality or sacrality of
other gods and goddesses. Monotheism,
by contrast, actively *denies* the
existence of other gods.
For example, early Hebrew religion
may have been more henotheistic than
monotheistic. That seems more like the
sentiment reflected in the rule to
"have no other gods before me."
That doesn't deny that the other gods
exist; it just demands priority over
those other gods, or even exclusive
loyalty on the part of worshippers.
Sometimes henotheism can verge onto
monotheism in strange ways, though.
It's a common Hindu view that all
the gods can be regarded as aspects
of Shiva, by the worshippers of Shiva.
And all the gods can be regarded
as aspects of Vishnu/Krishna, by
the worshippers of Vishnu/Krishna.
So "all the gods are one god" is a
type of henotheism. And the traditional
duotheism of Wicca, which regards all
gods as aspects of the Wiccan Horned God,
and all goddesses as aspects of the
Wiccan Goddess, might be said to be a
type of "dual henotheism." (A clumsy
oxymoron, unfortunately; but I have
yet to hear a better term for it.)
Anyway, getting back on topic -
if you're interested in the history
of the Dryghtyn blessing prayer,
you might check the archives of
various Gardnerian discussion lists.
It pops up there from time to time.
It used to be at the top of the
home page for the New Wiccan Church,
which is an association of Gard/BTW
witches; but I see they recently
changed their format.
One interesting tangent to explore
with Dryghtyn being "both" male
and female - It sounds sort of like
the Tao having both yin and yang.
But then, I'd say that the Tao is
itself *neither* male nor female.
And, of course, Dryghtyn is not
a person, but a Divine Thing.
So, I prefer saying "neither and
both, female and male."
BB,
Delia
~~~~~~
(*Remove thermonuclear plasma spheroid to reply.)
Delia
Hmm, I just noticed something curious,
with respect to the monism/monotheism
issue. The blessing prayer as you
quoted it says "the Ancient Providence
*who* was..."
In my BOS and from Gard versions that
I'm familiar with, the prayer says:
"the Ancient Providence, *which* was..."
The latter (more traditional Gard?)
version obviously reflects an
*impersonal* divinity, consistent
with monism. The version with "who"
in it almost smacks of monotheism.
Huge difference, there. My understanding
of Dryghtyn has always been that It
is an impersonal divine, sort of like
the Tao, or Fate, or Wyrd.
Certainly the official website of
the New Wiccan Church, which can be
regarded as pretty authoritative
with respect to the BOS, had the
impersonal version with "which."
I googled on those terms, and
got referred to a past cache which
is no longer available; but I do
remember it well.
I find it very odd (and frankly
disturbing) that someone somewhere
changed the "which" to "who," thus
altering the entire scope of Wiccan
theology by trying to turn it into
some sort of monotheism.
I got curious and surfed the web,
and I noticed that both versions
are online. But the "who" version
seems to be spreading; possibly
due to some Wiccans having a
monotheistic bent? (Yikes.)
Anyway, I assume that the impersonal
version with "which" is the original,
as it's what my HP gave me, and it also
fits better with the traditional
duotheism of Wiccan theology, which
places no other "gods" above the
Goddess and the Horned God.
But I'd be curious as to where the
other one came from, especially if
Pat Crowther herself included that
version in her book.
BB,
Delia
~~~~~~~
Jani
"Delia" <delia...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:410094C1...@earthlink.net...
I was interested to see that the term appears in Gawain and the Green
Knight, where it's almost invariably translated as God or even Lord God, and
is specifically Christian. It's also very much a deity personified, there -
"as Dryghtyn biddes", for instance. But I'm no etymologist, and have no idea
where the term was derived from prior to its use by the Gawain poet.
Jani
Delia
Jani wrote:
> I was interested to see that the term
> appears in Gawain and the Green Knight,
> where it's almost invariably translated
> as God or even Lord God, and is specifically
> Christian.
Yes, I mentioned in my first post that
it seemed to appear previously in christian
contexts, meaning "Lord." But obviously
whoever inserted the Dryghtyn prayer into
the Wiccan Book of Shadows did *not* have
the christian deity in mind. But the question
is just *what* they did have in mind. I would
say that It is an impersonal deity, which
was reinforced by saying that It is "both
female and male." And the wording of
"which" instead of "who" also seems to
indicate an impersonal divinity.
> It's also very much a deity personified,
> there - "as Dryghtyn biddes", for instance.
Yeah, well, virtually all the stuff that
came through the middle ages is contaminated
by christian influence. It's just hard to
know what the pagan precursors would have been.
> But I'm no etymologist, and have no idea
> where the term was derived from prior to
> its use by the Gawain poet.
One fairly plausible explanation I've seen
is that the term 'Dryghtyn' derives from
the 'Drighten' in the Norse tradition --
where it refers to a chieftain or warlord.
- Delia
Init8
>
>I think the Dryghtyn blessing prayer
>is in the BOS of most Gardnerian lines;
>and yes, it's still in wide use.
>
>There have been various theories as
>to its origin put forth on Gard lists.
>I don't know that any of them is
>provable or authoritative.
>
>But I recall learning that the term
>"Dryghtyn" was in use previously, as
>a term for the godhead (ie, *impersonal*
>deity/divinity), in a christian (!)
>context. But today at least, the only
>ones using it seem to be Wiccans.
That was my understanding, going back to Anglo-Saxon Xtianity (spelled
dryhten or drihten - there is also 'dryht' meaning multitude or men), where
it is certainly used as one synonym (among others) for the Xtian God. But
not as a *specific* deity, just as another name, at least, in the Xtian
context. Before that, I wouldn't know, unless there are any cognates in
other non-Germanic Indo-European languages - possibly Celtic 'drui'??
>One important thing to note is that
>the prayer does *not* reflect monotheism,
>but rather *monism*. That is, Dryghtyn
>is an impersonal divine, like the Tao
>of Taoism or the Brahman of Hinduism.
>Dryghtyn is not a deity - that is, It
>is not a divine person. (And when one
>is speaking of an impersonal deity,
>it's better not to use the word "god"
>because that can be confusing.)
I would say that the prayer is open to different interpretation, one of
which is monism. But on the other hand, if this 'something' has all the
attributes of a god, then surely it is a god, and if it is a god, then now
you have three Wiccan deities, rather than two. :)
>"Monism" is the term used to designate
>a religious belief in an overarching
>(or underlying) unity of all things -
>an *impersonal* divine. (It's related to
>pantheism in that regard, and pantheism
>is often regarded as a type of monism.)
>
>The word "monotheism," in contrast,
>means specifically the belief that there
>is one and only one god - that is, only
>one *personal* deity. (From Greek "theos"
>meaning a personal deity, a god/dess.)
>
>Monotheism is incompatible with
>polytheism, and also incompatible with
>the duotheism of traditional Wicca,
>in that we honor two personal deities,
>both a Goddess and a Horned God.
>
>(Although some forms of dianic
>witchcraft may practice a type
>of Goddess monotheism.)
>
Yup, strict monotheism, such as Xtianity.
>But monism *is* compatible with polytheism,
>and indeed, it often goes along with it.
>(Hinduism being the most famous example.)
That is basically what I understand, however, I am suggesting that the DP
goes beyond monism per se, and tends to suggest more of a hierarchical or
layered model - on one level God and Goddess, but on a higher, more
encompassing level, the One God - possibly more compatible with something
like Golden Dawn cosmology, or Dion Fortune, but not really with
traditional Wicca - more like what you describe below as henotheism.
Well again, isn't this Dion Fortune, rather than Gerald Gardner? My
personal feeling would be that as soon as you try to complicate things and
account for extra gods and goddesses which weren't there in the first
place, that it changes the basic theology into something different from
simple duotheism. Or, to take the argument a stage further, is this not
going down the road of trying to turn Wicca into a all-encompassing
theological system which explains everything, (e.g. like some mainstream
religions) rather than a mystery religion with a simple, initiatory model,
which it is up to the practitioner to elaborate?
>Anyway, getting back on topic -
>if you're interested in the history
>of the Dryghtyn blessing prayer,
>you might check the archives of
>various Gardnerian discussion lists.
>It pops up there from time to time.
Well it came up originally on a non-Wiccan Trad Craft list, which I am
currently subscribed to, as proof that Gardner was originally a monotheist,
to which somebody (an American Gardnerian) retorted that it originally came
from Plant Bran, and was used by Crowther as a convenient substitute for
the real words, which she (understandably) didn't want to put into print -
it also apparently isn't in any other published work, e.g. Farrar and
Farrar. Thus it presumably got into one particular line's BOS, added by
somebody who happened to like it, or thought it was genuinely from Gardner,
which then stuck there as 'traditional' lore, at least, according to this
explanation.
I've also seen it called the '12th Century Blessing', but without any
further explanation.
>It used to be at the top of the
>home page for the New Wiccan Church,
>which is an association of Gard/BTW
>witches; but I see they recently
>changed their format.
>
>One interesting tangent to explore
>with Dryghtyn being "both" male
>and female - It sounds sort of like
>the Tao having both yin and yang.
>But then, I'd say that the Tao is
>itself *neither* male nor female.
>And, of course, Dryghtyn is not
>a person, but a Divine Thing.
>So, I prefer saying "neither and
>both, female and male."
I think it is an interesting concept to follow up, but possibly in a wider
pagan/magical context, rather than adding it onto Wicca; at least, that's
how I see it.
Init8
Init8
Well I don't have Pat Crowther's book to check up on, but this is the New
Wiccan Church's version, from their (old) web-site:
"In the name of Dryghtyn, the Ancient Providence,
which was from the beginning, and is for eternity,
male and female, the original source of all things;
all-knowing, all-pervading, all-powerful, changeless, eternal;
in the names of the Lady of the Moon
and the Lord of Death and Resurrection;
In the names of the Mighty Ones of the Four Quarters,
the Kings of the Elements;
in the names of the Mighty Dead,
blessed be this place and this time,
and they who are with us.
So mote it be."
which has one or two additional (minor?) changes from the version which I
originally quoted - here again for ref:
"In the name of Dryghtyn, the Ancient Providence,
Who was from the beginning and is for eternity,
Male and Female, the Original Source of all things;
all-knowing, all-pervading, all-powerful;
changeless, eternal.
"In the name of the Lady of the Moon,
and the Lord of Death and Resurrection.
"In the name of the Mighty Ones of the Four Quarters,
the Kings of the Elements.
"Blessed be this place, and this time,
and they who are now with us."
which I omitted to mention came from the IBOS on Sacred Texts:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/bos/bos320.htm
which also has some discussion about the prayer from a theological pov, but
without really answering the question of origin.
>I find it very odd (and frankly
>disturbing) that someone somewhere
>changed the "which" to "who," thus
>altering the entire scope of Wiccan
>theology by trying to turn it into
>some sort of monotheism.
It would I guess also be possible that the 'who' version was the original,
and someone decided to change it to 'which', maybe to bring it more into
line with Wiccan duotheism, or at least, make it sound less monotheistic,
but I'm not convinced myself that the difference is really significant - if
the Whatever is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent, then surely its a
moot point whether you have a 'Who' or a 'Which', except, possibly, if it's
a 'Who' then that implies a gender, at least, to some people. And in any
case, then that would effectively demote the Goddess and Horned God to
being something less than that.
>I got curious and surfed the web,
>and I noticed that both versions
>are online. But the "who" version
>seems to be spreading; possibly
>due to some Wiccans having a
>monotheistic bent? (Yikes.)
>
>Anyway, I assume that the impersonal
>version with "which" is the original,
>as it's what my HP gave me, and it also
>fits better with the traditional
>duotheism of Wiccan theology, which
>places no other "gods" above the
>Goddess and the Horned God.
I would be inclined to agree that the pairing of the Goddess and the Horned
God *define* Wicca, in theological terms, but that would imply any concepts
of 'Source' above and beyond that are outside the scope of Wicca (not to
say that they are right or wrong in any absolute sense, just not Wicca),
which is one reason I am curious about the Dryghtyn Blessing - also, the
same caveat would maybe apply to the Starhawk/Dianic concept/creation myth
of the Mother Goddess as source.
>But I'd be curious as to where the
>other one came from, especially if
>Pat Crowther herself included that
>version in her book.
Init8
(Just out of interest, the distinction between 'which' and 'who' would
probably not have been made in the period of Middle English (or Old
English, for that matter) - ME would have used 'şat' (or earlier possibly
'şe' or 'şa') for both the personal and impersonal cases.)
Init8
>
>I was interested to see that the term appears in Gawain and the Green
>Knight, where it's almost invariably translated as God or even Lord God, and
>is specifically Christian. It's also very much a deity personified, there -
>"as Dryghtyn biddes", for instance. But I'm no etymologist, and have no idea
>where the term was derived from prior to its use by the Gawain poet.
>
usually translated as 'lord' or 'Lord', for example in Cædmon's Hymn:
....
"Þa middangeard monncynnes Weard,
ece Drihten, æfter teode
firum foldan, Frea ælmihtig."
which means something like:
"The middle-earth, the Guardian of mankind,
eternal Lord, afterwards adorned
the land with humans, Lord almighty",
(i.e. God then adorned the world with humans <g>)
but then that is, I believe, considered to be either a 'Christianized'
version of a much older Pagan poem, or at least a Christian poem written in
a decidedly Pagan style, like much OE verse.
Init8
Delia
>
> Delia wrote:
>>
>> One important thing to note is that
>> the prayer does *not* reflect monotheism,
>> but rather *monism*. That is, Dryghtyn
>> is an impersonal divine, like the Tao
>> of Taoism or the Brahman of Hinduism.
>> Dryghtyn is not a deity - that is, It
>> is not a divine person. (And when one
>> is speaking of an impersonal deity,
>> it's better not to use the word "god"
>> because that can be confusing.)
>
> I would say that the prayer is open
> to different interpretation, one of
> which is monism. But on the other hand,
> if this 'something' has all the
> attributes of a god, then surely it is a god,
But It does *not* have the attributes
of a god. (Unless, as I noted before,
one changes the "which" to a "who"
- and even in that case the 'personal'
quality is implied rather than stated.)
What attributes, exactly, seem to
remind you of a "god"?
> and if it is a god, then now you have
> three Wiccan deities, rather than two.
Right; which is why that 'personal'
interpretation cannot be correct.
Because nowhere else in the Book of
Shadows, or anywhere else in Gardner's
(or Valiente's) writings is there any
indication whatsoever of a third,
androgynous "deity."
So, taken alone the blessing prayer
might be open to that interpretation;
but placed within its proper context
of Wiccan theology as reflected in
Gardner's BOS, there is no room for
interpreting it in any other way
than as a reference to an *impersonal*
divinity - and hence, monism.
Of course, that does not stop anyone
who might prefer to put some sort of
androgynous deity over and above the
Goddess and the Horned God; they are
free to do that if they want. But such
a radical shift in the core theology
would mean that they have ceased to
practice Wicca, and are instead following
some *other* pagan religion. And in
that case, they should come up with
another name for it, so people don't
try to confuse it with Wicca.
>> "Monism" is the term used to designate
>> a religious belief in an overarching
>> (or underlying) unity of all things -
>> an *impersonal* divine. (It's related to
>> pantheism in that regard, and pantheism
>> is often regarded as a type of monism.)
>>
>> The word "monotheism," in contrast,
>> means specifically the belief that there
>> is one and only one god - that is, only
>> one *personal* deity. (From Greek "theos"
>> meaning a personal deity, a god/dess.)
>>
>> Monotheism is incompatible with
>> polytheism, and also incompatible with
>> the duotheism of traditional Wicca,
>> in that we honor two personal deities,
>> both a Goddess and a Horned God.
>>
>> (Although some forms of dianic
>> witchcraft may practice a type
>> of Goddess monotheism.)
>
> Yup, strict monotheism, such as Xtianity.
Actually, some would say that
christianity is not monotheistic,
what with the three persons of
the trinity. And I guess that might
compare to the Maiden, Mother, Crone
of some forms of Goddess religion.
>> But monism *is* compatible with polytheism,
>> and indeed, it often goes along with it.
>> (Hinduism being the most famous example.)
> I am suggesting that the DP goes
> beyond monism per se, and tends to
> suggest more of a hierarchical or
> layered model - on one level God and
> Goddess, but on a higher, more
> encompassing level, the One God -
And if you took the Dryghtyn prayer
totally out of context, that might
be a reasonable way to interpret it.
(Especially if you've got the "who"
version.) But of course, it does not
exist in a theological void or vacuum.
It needs to be taken in the larger
context of Wicca, which is clearly
a duotheistic religion with no other
instances of some 'androgynous deity.'
Put into its proper religious context,
that "three gods" interpretation does
not seem reasonable at all.
> possibly more compatible with something
> like Golden Dawn cosmology, or Dion Fortune,
Right; it smacks of Qabala -
Kether, Binah and Chokmah.
But then, one need not interpret
Kether as a "god" either. One
could interpret that as impersonal
as well. But frankly, I think that
trying to fit kabala and Wicca
together is like mating a porpoise
with a giraffe. Not really a good fit.
> but not really with traditional Wicca
Right. There's no trinity in Wicca,
except for the triune Goddess.
> more like what you describe below
> as henotheism.
Well, the "three gods" version
would be henotheism if all
worship of the Goddess and the
Horned God were re-interpreted
as worship of the androgynous
personoid. In that case, the
Goddess and the Horned God
would be regarded as the two
'aspects' of the one androgyn.
And that is obviously not Wicca.
Nowhere else in the BOS do we
find any reference to any sort
of androgynous (or hermaphrodite)
deity. Therefore, it does not
seem justified to interpret the
Dryghtyn prayer that way.
There is certainly the idea of
the union of the God and Goddess
into a greater whole - that's the
whole point of Wicca as a Mystery
religion, and the 3rd degree rite.
But that Unity that we thereby
access is not a deity, not a person.
It's a divine Thing/Process/Force.
It's the impersonal Mystery of
the cosmos - whether you want to
call it Nature, the Tao, Wyrd,
Fate, Orlog, Brahman or maybe
Ain Soph Aur. (I've always been
a bit unclear on where Kether
leaves off and that begins; I'm
just not real keen on kabala.)
>> So "all the gods are one god" is a
>> type of henotheism. And the traditional
>> duotheism of Wicca, which regards all
>> gods as aspects of the Wiccan Horned God,
>> and all goddesses as aspects of the
>> Wiccan Goddess, might be said to be a
>> type of "dual henotheism." (A clumsy
>> oxymoron, unfortunately; but I have
>> yet to hear a better term for it.)
>
> Well again, isn't this Dion Fortune,
> rather than Gerald Gardner?
Certainly Dion Fortune said that;
and certainly she was a big influence
on many occult paths. But in the
Charge of the Goddess, there are all
these Goddess names recited, and the
implication is that they are all faces
of the one Great Goddess. Similarly
for the Horned God and His many aspects.
What Wicca does *not* do is to go the
next step, and say that those Two Beings
are just 'aspects' of some larger deity.
If They are 'aspects' of anything,
it would be Nature Itself. And Nature
is not a person. It's a process/pattern,
it's the entirety of the cosmos itself,
in all its dimensions, visible and unseen.
It's the All That Is.
> My personal feeling would be that as
> soon as you try to complicate things and
> account for extra gods and goddesses
> which weren't there in the first place,
> that it changes the basic theology into
> something different from simple duotheism.
Well, I would also allow that one can
also be a polytheistic Wiccan. That is,
one can regard the Goddess and the Horned
God as the two main deities in a pantheon.
But the moment someone tries to go
'promoting' other deities above our
Lady and our Lord, then I'd have to
day that's no longer Wicca.
That is, the duotheism is the main
thing, but if you want to add other
deities *below* the duotheism, that's
fine. Just don't go trying to add
other deities over and above the
Goddess and the Horned God.
> Or, to take the argument a stage
> further, is this not going down the
> road of trying to turn Wicca into a
> all-encompassing theological system
> which explains everything,
Well, I don't think that one can
every have a pagan religion that
"explains everything" - just because
the Gods are too mysterious for that.
But certainly there is a core of
theology within Wicca, because it
is a theistic religion. I think that
if the focus is kept on duotheism,
with an option for polytheism as
a secondary, subsidiary layer of
theology, then that should provide
for plenty of flexibility.
> (e.g. like some mainstream religions)
> rather than a mystery religion with
> a simple, initiatory model, which it
> is up to the practitioner to elaborate?
I think you may be trying to sell
the Mystery religions a bit short here.
It's not that they had no theology;
some of them had very elaborate
theological schemes. (Orphism, for
example.) But what made them Mystery
religions was the direct experience
of union with the divine - in either
personal or impersonal form.
And I'd say that's also a theme
in Wicca. The rite of Drawing Down
the deity into a priest/ess should
provide some experience of merging
with the personal divine - with the
deity herself/himself 'shining
through' your mortal being.
And then the mystery of the Union,
the Hieros Gamos or sacred marriage
of opposites - that provides another
type of mystical experience, wherein
(my interpretation, anyway) the
personal divinity of God and Goddess
(or priest and priestess) is melted
away and one is left with the sublime
experience of Dryghtyn - the primordial
*impersonal* divinity of All That Is.
That is an even deeper experience
than the personal divinity of Goddess
or Horned God - It is the Tao, Wyrd,
Brahman, Nature, Orlog, or whatever
you want to call It.
> Well it came up originally on a
> non-Wiccan Trad Craft list, which
> I am currently subscribed to, as
> proof that Gardner was originally
> a monotheist,
Egads. Where *do* these folks come from??
One cannot reasonably take one little
prayer and divorce it from the context
of the entire body of Gardner's *other*
works on Wicca, and then claim that that
one little thing trumps and nullifies
everything *else* that the man ever did.
That's not reasonable, and it's not honest.
Yes, it's not clear where it came
from, or why. But *if* one were to
use it in a Wiccan context (and I do)
then it makes sense to interpret it
in such a way that it does not
outright contradict Wiccan theology.
> I think it is an interesting concept
> to follow up, but possibly in a wider
> pagan/magical context, rather than
> adding it onto Wicca; at least, that's
> how I see it.
I suppose it could be useful in some
other pagan context; but only with the
removal of the rest of the verses,
which are specifically about Wiccan
deities. And it's already in widespread
use in Gard Wicca; so it's too late
to stop that now. (Nor would I want to,
because I think it's a great prayer;
but only if understood as Dryghtyn
representing Impersonal divinity,
and only with the word "which" and
not "who.")
BB,
- Delia
~~~~~~~
Delia
Init8 wrote: <snip>
>
> Delia wrote:
>>
> Well I don't have Pat Crowther's book
> to check up on, but this is the
> New Wiccan Church's version, from
> their (old) web-site:
>
> "In the name of Dryghtyn,
> the Ancient Providence,
> which was from the beginning,
> and is for eternity,
> male and female, the original
> source of all things;
Yes. Like I said, that's the
"which" version - and that
implies an *impersonal* Dryghtyn.
> which has one or two additional
> (minor?) changes from the version
> which I originally quoted
Don't you mean "who has minor changes"?
;-)
(Point: 'which' vs 'who' is a big change.)
> here again for ref:
>
> "In the name of Dryghtyn,
> the Ancient Providence,
> Who was from the beginning < >
>
>> I find it very odd (and frankly
>> disturbing) that someone somewhere
>> changed the "which" to "who," thus
>> altering the entire scope of Wiccan
>> theology by trying to turn it into
>> some sort of monotheism.
> It would I guess also be possible that
> the 'who' version was the original,
That would be possible if the original
version were not Wiccan, sure. But the
prayer goes on to honor the Wiccan Gods.
> and someone decided to change it
> to 'which', maybe to bring it more
> into line with Wiccan duotheism,
That's possible; and if so, then that
modified version would be the one
compatible with Wicca. But I would
think that whoever added in the parts
about the Lady and the Lord would also
have used "which" and not "who" for
Dryghtyn.
> or at least, make it sound less
> monotheistic,
Hell, yeah. If the first version
I had come across were the "who"
version, I would have rejected
it without a thought.
> but I'm not convinced myself that
> the difference is really significant
Wow. I find that comment almost
impossible to fathom. There's a
huge difference between a *person*
- an individual conscious entity
with his/her own sense of "I" -
and an impersonal field or process
of boundless/amorphous/oceanic
consciousness with no sense of
Its own personal identity.
> if the Whatever is omniscient,
> omnipotent, and omnipresent,
> then surely its a moot point
> whether you have a 'Who' or a
> 'Which',
In the sense that "moot" means
"debatable" - yes, it's debatable.
And that's exactly what I'm debating.
There's a huge difference between
a personal *who* and an impersonal
*what* or "which" - and I'm not real
sure how that is unclear to anyone.
What I'm saying is that the
*impersonal* divinity of Dryghtyn
is like the Tao or Taoism, or the
Brahman of Hinduism, or the Orlog
of Asatru, or the Web of Wyrd.
All of those are regarded as
all-pervading; and can also be
regarded as all-powerful and
even all-knowing. But there is
*nobody* home there - there is
no "who" to experience Itself
as Somebody. No person: just
an infinite amorphous field of
consciousness/energy/process/pattern.
The Ultimate Reality of all that is.
It is possible for a human to
have that experience, and so
to know something of what It
is like. Indeed, that's what the
meditative traditions of the East
aim at, union with That Thing -
whether it's Tao, Brahman, etc.
And when one has that experience,
one ceases to experience oneself
as a person - one simply expands
into that vast Somethingness.
There's no *you* left there.
Which is why Taoism speaks of
union with the Tao as "losing
oneself" or "forgetting oneself."
And Buddhism goes further, and
declares that there simply *is*
no self at all - it's an illusion.
And that is very different from
almost any other sort of conscious
experience we have, because in
every other state of awareness,
there is at least a "you" there.
Even while dreaming, trance, etc.
That experience is called "samadhi"
in the yogic tradition, and is also
referred to as a state of "nondual"
awareness, or awareness without any
attributes at all. Because the only
thing left is just pure awareness -
no thoughts, images, emotions, etc.
And no 'person' left to have them.
Just pure awareness of oceanic Being.
The usual mental division of self
versus object of thought/perception
is just gone. Only awareness remains,
as the ultimate and enduring Reality.
I suppose some people might find
that idea frightening, if they've
never experienced it; it's a little
bit like the death of the self/ego,
and maybe it's similar in that way
to the ecstasy of orgasm, which has
been called "le petit mort" (the
little death). So some people might
pull back from that at the last
moment, out of fear. But I've also
run into people who insist that one
could simply not be aware without
having something to be aware of.
All I can say is, plenty of people
have had that experience.
So my guess here is that maybe that
was the reason behind the shift from
"what" to "who" - that maybe someone
had never had an experience of the
impersonal divine, and so it made no
sense to them to speak of It as
being the all-pervading Source, etc.
- unless it were a personal being
like a god or goddess.
But if you do that, then it seems to
me that one is missing the whole point
here, which is about transcendence to
the deepest Mystery, which is impersonal.
One needs to have the direct experience
of what it's like to be conscious without
being an individual person/entity.
And maybe what that points to
(excuse me while I pull out one
of my favorite soap boxes here)
is the woeful dearth of really
deep meditative methods among
Wiccans and other neo-pagans.
I first learned to meditate via
TM (Transcendental Meditation),
which is based on the yogic tradition,
and which is an incredibly effortless,
pleasant and powerful meditation method.
And that was what ignited my spiritual
awakening, and eventually led me to Wicca.
But I've been to lots of Wiccan rituals
where what passes for "meditation" is just
some simplistic visualization exercises.
Wiccans need to be willing to open up
and reach out to the eastern traditions
in this one regard, even if it is the only
way in which they open to eastern practices.
Because Asian religions and philosophies
have immensely more history and experience
with really deep meditation methods.
That sort of thing seems to have been
utterly lost in the west; either that,
or it was never discovered to begin with.
Because in my experience eastern
meditative practices are a lot more
powerful than anything I've encountered
in Wiccan contexts; and the profundity
of eastern metaphysics puts the whole
"western tradition" to shame. (YMMV, etc.)
(And let me recommend Mircea Eliade's
book: Yoga, Immortality and Freedom.
Eliade saw Yoga as the ultimate refinement
of shamanic techniques for trance and etc.)
> except, possibly, if it's a 'Who'
> then that implies a gender, at least,
> to some people.
Well, even if one were to allow for
an androgynous personoid (sorry),
that would be *very* different from
an impersonal Force/Process/Field/Thing.
And 'person' does not imply human,
of course. I regard my cat as a person,
because she has an identity, some sort
of self-awareness, a sense of herself
as an entity separate from others.
And that is exactly what the Impersonal
Divinity (or Impersonal Absolute Being)
does not have.
> And in any case, then that would
> effectively demote the Goddess and
> Horned God to being something less
> than that.
Right; and that's the problem of
theological compatibility. So one
cannot really try to fit another
*personal* deity into Wicca, over
and above the Goddess and God.
But an *Impersonal Source* -
certainly that fits with Wicca.
Nature, the Web of Wyrd, Fate, etc.
Or you could think of It as the
Cauldron of Transformation, that
Vessel or Empty Void which alone
endures all the changes that
continually churn within it.
> I would be inclined to agree
> that the pairing of the Goddess
> and the Horned God *define* Wicca,
> in theological terms, but that
> would imply any concepts of 'Source'
> above and beyond that are outside
> the scope of Wicca
Not if the Source is *Impersonal*.
Look, that idea of an impersonal
source shows up in a lot of religions,
and it is compatible with the Gods.
Monism and polytheism are a good fit.
As it says in Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu
(I forget which; both are Taoist texts):
"The Tao gives the Gods their being."
In Greek religion, even Zeus was subject
to the decrees of Fate, as the Norse gods
are constrained by Orlog. (And it's also
true that Fate or the Fates are sometimes
personified as goddess/es, or aspects
of the Goddess, who weaves the Web; but
then, every religion has some paradox.
Paradox is fine; but contradiction is
a problem. The cauldron is also a symbol
for the Womb of the Goddess, which is
perhaps another paradox.)
> (not to say that they are right or wrong
> in any absolute sense, just not Wicca),
Yes, that's the issue here.
I take that for granted, but I guess
it bears repeating, that this is
ultimately a sort of semantic argument
over the meaning of Wicca.
> which is one reason I am curious
> about the Dryghtyn Blessing - also,
> the same caveat would maybe apply to
> the Starhawk/Dianic concept/creation
> myth of the Mother Goddess as source.
Yes, there are two popular versions
of 'Creation Myth' in Wicca. One has
it that there is an ultimate Source
from which both the Goddess and the
Horned God are expressed as equal
and opposite aspects. The other version
has it that the Goddess alone endures
eternally, and the Horned God is born
from Her womb again and again, at
every creation of the worlds. (But
He was planted there, of course, by
his own seed in a previous cycle.)
I like both versions, and I regard
both of them as expressing some
ineffable aspect of Truth. One
could maybe regard the Goddess,
pregnant with the seed of the God,
as having "both male and female"
aspects. Or one might regard all
things as emanating from the cosmic
Cauldron of Transformation - including
not only stars and galaxies and
universes, but even the Gods themselves.
Even if the Cauldron is the womb
of the Goddess. A paradox on a riddle.
Here the rational mind must yield
to that part of us that can intuit
meaning from myth, metaphor, and poetry.
Because the Gods are ultimately
Mysterious, and shrouded hints are
all that They are going to give us.
> (Just out of interest, the distinction
> between 'which' and 'who' would probably
> not have been made in the period of
> Middle English (or Old English, for
> that matter) - ME would have used 'şat'
> (or earlier possibly 'şe' or 'şa') for
> both the personal and impersonal cases.)
That's a perceptive point. But then,
I'm not sure the prayer goes back
that far. Either way, whoever
(or should I say "whatever"...?)
decided to add it to the Book of Shadows
should have been alert and aware enough
to figure out "which" from "who" - and
how to fit it in with Wiccan theology.
- Delia
~~~~~~~~
Tarabithia
> was used by Crowther as a convenient substitute for
> the real words, which she (understandably) didn't want to put into print -
> it also apparently isn't in any other published work, e.g. Farrar and
> Farrar. Thus it presumably got into one particular line's BOS, added by
> somebody who happened to like it, or thought it was genuinely from
Gardner,
> which then stuck there as 'traditional' lore, at least, according to this
> explanation.
The Dryghtyn piece appears in Central Valley Wicca (or at least Kingstone
tradition; I never studied with any other), a group of traditions from the
central valley of California which are thought to be not directly descended
from Gardner, but rather siblings, having a common ancestor (per a history
workshop given by Allyn Wolfe of the NWC at the last Pantheacon, and also
coven study-group presentation by him). Then again, it is possible it was
added after the fact as it is not prohibited to add material (so long as you
pass down where/when/why), but merely to subtract.
--
* woods keep you * stars hold you * waters bear you *
* mstie #31731 * hail the horned one * enchanted be *
Someday we'll look back on this moment and plow into a parked car.
Tarabithia
> same caveat would maybe apply to the Starhawk/Dianic concept/creation myth
> of the Mother Goddess as source.
The Star Goddess creating another and desiring her-cum-him etc in a kind of
"lemniscate" format (if you plot the maiden-mother-crone and corresponding
three god-figures) actually comes from Feri, is how I have learned it.
Init8
>Init8 wrote: <snip>
> >
> > I would say that the prayer is open
> > to different interpretation, one of
> > which is monism. But on the other hand,
> > if this 'something' has all the
> > attributes of a god, then surely it is a god,
>
>But It does *not* have the attributes
>of a god. (Unless, as I noted before,
>one changes the "which" to a "who"
>- and even in that case the 'personal'
>quality is implied rather than stated.)
>
>What attributes, exactly, seem to
>remind you of a "god"?
OK, from the NWC version:
"In the name of Dryghtyn, the Ancient Providence,
which was from the beginning, and is for eternity,
male and female, the original source of all things;
all-knowing, all-pervading, all-powerful, changeless, eternal;"
Firstly, 'it' is addressed as 'Lord'; secondly, it is named as Ancient
Providence, which I would see as the highest aspect of the God[dess] Fate,
thirdly, it possesses the divine attributes of omniscience, omnipresence,
and omnipotence; fourthly, it is described as changeless and eternal,
therefore belonging to the non-temporal divine realm.
What attributes are missing? Or, rather, why do you not regard 'it' as a
god?
> > and if it is a god, then now you have
> > three Wiccan deities, rather than two.
>
>Right; which is why that 'personal'
>interpretation cannot be correct.
>Because nowhere else in the Book of
>Shadows, or anywhere else in Gardner's
>(or Valiente's) writings is there any
>indication whatsoever of a third,
>androgynous "deity."
>
>So, taken alone the blessing prayer
>might be open to that interpretation;
>but placed within its proper context
>of Wiccan theology as reflected in
>Gardner's BOS, there is no room for
>interpreting it in any other way
>than as a reference to an *impersonal*
>divinity - and hence, monism.
Agreed, but only it that were an obvious interpretation of the prayer. If
there is a serious question of doubt (regardless of the rights or wrongs),
then it must have the potential of weakening rather than strengthening the
core theology.
>Of course, that does not stop anyone
>who might prefer to put some sort of
>androgynous deity over and above the
>Goddess and the Horned God; they are
>free to do that if they want. But such
>a radical shift in the core theology
>would mean that they have ceased to
>practice Wicca, and are instead following
>some *other* pagan religion. And in
>that case, they should come up with
>another name for it, so people don't
>try to confuse it with Wicca.
I agree, in theory, but in practice hasn't that already happened with
Starhawk? And is it really confusing in practice - don't people then
qualify their use of the term 'Wicca', just as with 'pagan' or 'witch' -
otherwise, you just end up having endless territorial wars about who 'owns'
which term.
>Actually, some would say that
>christianity is not monotheistic,
>what with the three persons of
>the trinity. And I guess that might
>compare to the Maiden, Mother, Crone
>of some forms of Goddess religion.
Trinitarian, strictly speaking, I believe - a sort of three-in-one godhead,
but still just the one god (I think) - I wouldn't be confident equating
that with Maiden, Mother, Crone, I don't think, except in that it is an
expression of the Mystery of Three, possibly from a different viewpoint.
[snip]
>Put into its proper religious context,
>that "three gods" interpretation does
>not seem reasonable at all.
>
> > possibly more compatible with something
> > like Golden Dawn cosmology, or Dion Fortune,
>
>Right; it smacks of Qabala -
>Kether, Binah and Chokmah.
>
>But then, one need not interpret
>Kether as a "god" either. One
>could interpret that as impersonal
>as well. But frankly, I think that
>trying to fit kabala and Wicca
>together is like mating a porpoise
>with a giraffe. Not really a good fit.
Agreed - I would see them as belonging to the same tradition, but different
(but parallel) views or models of the cosmos, rather than as parts of the
same model. I.e you can study Wicca, and you can study Qabala, but possibly
not explain the one in terms of the other. At least, it probably isn't a
particularly productive intellectual exercise. :)
[snip]
>What Wicca does *not* do is to go the
>next step, and say that those Two Beings
>are just 'aspects' of some larger deity.
>If They are 'aspects' of anything,
>it would be Nature Itself. And Nature
>is not a person. It's a process/pattern,
>it's the entirety of the cosmos itself,
>in all its dimensions, visible and unseen.
>It's the All That Is.
I would say it was just not defined.
[snip]
>And then the mystery of the Union,
>the Hieros Gamos or sacred marriage
>of opposites - that provides another
>type of mystical experience, wherein
>(my interpretation, anyway) the
>personal divinity of God and Goddess
>(or priest and priestess) is melted
>away and one is left with the sublime
>experience of Dryghtyn - the primordial
>*impersonal* divinity of All That Is.
>That is an even deeper experience
>than the personal divinity of Goddess
>or Horned God - It is the Tao, Wyrd,
>Brahman, Nature, Orlog, or whatever
>you want to call It.
Yup, OK, but if your interpretation of the Dryghtyn Prayer is contingent on
your interpretation of the Mystery of Union, then you are on shaky ground
if somebody has a different interpretation - for example, I might see
something as self-evident, and factor that in, which you don't, and
vice-versa.
[snip]
Init8
Init8
Originally from Hawaiian Huna tradition, I believe.
Init8
Init8
>Init8 wrote:
[snip]
> > but I'm not convinced myself that
> > the difference is really significant
>
>Wow. I find that comment almost
>impossible to fathom. There's a
>huge difference between a *person*
>- an individual conscious entity
>with his/her own sense of "I" -
>and an impersonal field or process
>of boundless/amorphous/oceanic
>consciousness with no sense of
>Its own personal identity.
If, that is, you can have consciousness without sense of identity, i.e.
without self-consciousness, which I seriously doubt. Or, to put it another
way, I don't accept that you can equate consciousness with individuation,
therefore, once you have consciousness, you have sense of identity, whether
that is at the level of a human being, or at the level of a god, or at the
level of unity. Therefore, whether you refer to some 'thing' as a 'which',
or whether you personify it as a 'who' isn't really all that important, in
the greater scheme of things. I.e. 'things' aren't intrinsically personal
or impersonal; making a 'god' personal is a human attempt at understanding
its nature by anthropomorphizing it, but you could just as easily regard it
as an impersonal (but self-conscious) force-field, and it would still be
the same in itself.
Anyway, that is why I made the comment (whether or not you agree with it
<g>).
> > if the Whatever is omniscient,
> > omnipotent, and omnipresent,
> > then surely its a moot point
> > whether you have a 'Who' or a
> > 'Which',
>
>In the sense that "moot" means
>"debatable" - yes, it's debatable.
>And that's exactly what I'm debating.
My fault, I meant 'moot' as 'not important', which probably wasn't a good
choice of words. :(
>There's a huge difference between
>a personal *who* and an impersonal
>*what* or "which" - and I'm not real
>sure how that is unclear to anyone.
See above, also the other thing regarding the divine attributes is that
they are, if you like, the very highest expressions of the three attributes
of mind, viz. will, intellect, and consciousness, so again, this argues for
a difference in scale, rather than a difference in basic substance.
>What I'm saying is that the
>*impersonal* divinity of Dryghtyn
>is like the Tao or Taoism, or the
>Brahman of Hinduism, or the Orlog
>of Asatru, or the Web of Wyrd.
>
>All of those are regarded as
>all-pervading; and can also be
>regarded as all-powerful and
>even all-knowing. But there is
>*nobody* home there - there is
>no "who" to experience Itself
>as Somebody. No person: just
>an infinite amorphous field of
>consciousness/energy/process/pattern.
>The Ultimate Reality of all that is.
>
>It is possible for a human to
>have that experience, and so
>to know something of what It
>is like. Indeed, that's what the
>meditative traditions of the East
>aim at, union with That Thing -
>whether it's Tao, Brahman, etc.
Whoa there, you are introducing Eastern religious concepts, and mixing them
with Western religious concepts, and Western science and equating mangoes
with apples, in best New-Age eclectic fashion, at least, IMHO <g>. I'm not
saying that you are wrong, I am just saying that I'd prefer to stick within
one tradition, or group of traditions.
OK, I am not questioning your experience, but you are giving an Eastern
interpretation of the experience, while somebody from a Western mystical
tradition would describe it in different terms, within a different overall
context and cosmology, and come up with something totally different, at
least at the level of language. I just don't think it is a good idea to mix
the two up, or explain one in terms of the other.
>I suppose some people might find
>that idea frightening, if they've
>never experienced it; it's a little
>bit like the death of the self/ego,
>and maybe it's similar in that way
>to the ecstasy of orgasm, which has
>been called "le petit mort" (the
>little death). So some people might
>pull back from that at the last
>moment, out of fear. But I've also
>run into people who insist that one
>could simply not be aware without
>having something to be aware of.
>All I can say is, plenty of people
>have had that experience.
Sure, they all have the experience, but do they all interpret it the same
way?
>So my guess here is that maybe that
>was the reason behind the shift from
>"what" to "who" - that maybe someone
>had never had an experience of the
>impersonal divine, and so it made no
>sense to them to speak of It as
>being the all-pervading Source, etc.
>- unless it were a personal being
>like a god or goddess.
>
>But if you do that, then it seems to
>me that one is missing the whole point
>here, which is about transcendence to
>the deepest Mystery, which is impersonal.
>One needs to have the direct experience
>of what it's like to be conscious without
>being an individual person/entity.
I'd say that it sounds like it came from a pre-Wiccan (English) craft or
magical source, and the 'who' was intentional and correct within their
belief system - it just doesn't fit Wicca (or at least, DorGard Wicca <g>),
without serious compromises, even with the 'which' substitution, at least,
that's my view, and we'll probably have to disagree about that. :)
[snip]
>Here the rational mind must yield
>to that part of us that can intuit
>meaning from myth, metaphor, and poetry.
>Because the Gods are ultimately
>Mysterious, and shrouded hints are
>all that They are going to give us.
Can't disagree with that. :)
Init8
'Thenie
By logic, that would make sense, but that is the problem with
logic trying to make sense in in area outside its expertise.
Awareness is a matter of knowing stuff is going on, not knowing if
one is causing or enduring the change. Identity begins at the
point of being invested in change or not-change; identity begins
with "I" wanting or rejecting something. Awareness is taking in
what is around and what is in the present. Identity is having a
preference in how things should be. There is consciousness and
there is self-consciousness.
A baby responds to mother's coos, to the smell of milk on mother's
breast, to the presence of discomfort or cold or hunger or the
like. A baby has awareness of its environment, but it takes a
while to get to the point of having preference, of having a sense
of *I* am cold, *I* am in pain, *I* am hungry.
Consciousness and awareness is the faculty of being able to
identify those states, but without any awareness of an
'identifier' of these states; those states just 'are'. In the
absense of an identifier, there is no anger, no frustration,
because there is no ego, no *I*. Babies do not differentiate
themselves from mother or father or anything else in their
environment. That comes later.
Awareness and consciousness *does* exist without ego, without
self, without an *I*.
> Therefore, whether you refer to some 'thing' as a 'which',
> or whether you personify it as a 'who' isn't really all that
important, in
> the greater scheme of things. I.e. 'things' aren't intrinsically
personal
> or impersonal; making a 'god' personal is a human attempt at
understanding
> its nature by anthropomorphizing it, but you could just as
easily regard it
> as an impersonal (but self-conscious) force-field, and it would
still be
> the same in itself.
I disagree. Firstly, because I don't think you can make a blanket
statement about a field that we all are, by definition, unable to
grasp entirely. Secondly, you cannot speak for an experience that
others have had unless you were them and could analyse what they
experienced.
>From what you say, you cannot speak for the experience(s) that I
have had, because my experience says you are missing too much of
what I have experienced. I don't have an answer, a final
assessment, but I know what you say is not it. And logic and
words fail in the attempt to express what I have experienced of
$Deity.
> Anyway, that is why I made the comment (whether or not you agree
with it
> <g>).
>
> > > if the Whatever is omniscient,
> > > omnipotent, and omnipresent,
> > > then surely its a moot point
> > > whether you have a 'Who' or a
> > > 'Which',
> >
> >In the sense that "moot" means
> >"debatable" - yes, it's debatable.
> >And that's exactly what I'm debating.
>
> My fault, I meant 'moot' as 'not important', which probably
wasn't a good
> choice of words. :(
I think it's a good choice of word, but then I would interpret
'moot' to mean that quibbling will not reveal any further truth,
that both 'Who' or 'Which' will work and there is argument for
each and nothing decisive against either. I've never seen 'moot'
to indicate any use for further debate.
So, no point drawing comparisons to universal concepts or the
possibility that such states of 'nobody home' may be available in
any part of the world?
You want to understand whether it's a 'Who' or a 'What', but not
by accepting already existing concepts?
It seems to me to be a fairly human drive, and a universal one at
that, to strive for union (or reunion) with $Deity. It doesn't
seem to be something solely eastern. It doesn't seem to be a
matter of *equating* mangoes with apples, but in *comparing* them.
There are functional similarities and underlying equation, surface
appearances notwithstanding.
The thing to remember is that eastern practices have a vocabulary
and a history of exploring what is a universal experience. It
won't be exactly the same thing, eastern experience and western,
but it does proved the tools to explore the western experience.
If there's anything to it, it will be translatable to either
tradition, east or west.
> >I suppose some people might find
> >that idea frightening, if they've
> >never experienced it; it's a little
> >bit like the death of the self/ego,
> >and maybe it's similar in that way
> >to the ecstasy of orgasm, which has
> >been called "le petit mort" (the
> >little death). So some people might
> >pull back from that at the last
> >moment, out of fear. But I've also
> >run into people who insist that one
> >could simply not be aware without
> >having something to be aware of.
> >All I can say is, plenty of people
> >have had that experience.
>
> Sure, they all have the experience, but do they all interpret it
the same
> way?
A good question, better than the statement that it's not relevent.
Baird Stafford
<snip>
The use of the neuter gender does not, _ipso_facto_, imply the absence
of personal identity. It denies only sexual differentiation. If
asexuality exists in tiny creatures such as amoebae, I can see no reason
not to assume that it may also exist in a vast, universal Consciousness.
<snip>
Blessed be,
Baird
who can see no pressing reason why it it should be assumed that it
*must* exist in such a form, either....
Init8
>"Init8" wrote
OK, but I'm not sure that I'd agree with any of that. <g> Maybe some of it;
not with equating awareness and consciousness; certainly not the last point
- you can have awareness without language, but that's a different thing,
surely.
Anyway, I'm not really trying to put forward a grand theory of
consciousness - all I'm doing is trying to explain why I'm not personally
comfortable with the notion of an impersonal, conscious field of energy,
and why I don't see as important the personal/impersonal distinction.
In other words, I am saying that to accept Delia's interpretation of the
Dryghtyn prayer is contingent on accepting a certain set of philosophical
underpinnings, which I would suggest are not entirely obvious or
universally accepted.
>> Therefore, whether you refer to some 'thing' as a 'which',
>> or whether you personify it as a 'who' isn't really all that
>important, in
>> the greater scheme of things. I.e. 'things' aren't intrinsically
>personal
>> or impersonal; making a 'god' personal is a human attempt at
>understanding
>> its nature by anthropomorphizing it, but you could just as
>easily regard it
>> as an impersonal (but self-conscious) force-field, and it would
>still be
>> the same in itself.
>
>I disagree. Firstly, because I don't think you can make a blanket
>statement about a field that we all are, by definition, unable to
>grasp entirely.
Which was precisely what Delia was doing - I'm just raising some doubts,
and putting forward an alternative view - surely you can put forward some
propositions about the nature of the gods, even if you know you can never
fully understand them?
>Secondly, you cannot speak for an experience that
>others have had unless you were them and could analyse what they
>experienced.
Well I was making a statement about the *nature* of the gods, an
ontological statement, and suggesting that their nature is not dependant on
how we describe them.
>>From what you say, you cannot speak for the experience(s) that I
>have had, because my experience says you are missing too much of
>what I have experienced. I don't have an answer, a final
>assessment, but I know what you say is not it. And logic and
>words fail in the attempt to express what I have experienced of
>$Deity.
Well I hope I wasn't trying to. <g> However I do reserve the right to make
general theological and philosophical statements, and to make working
definitions and hypotheses, even if they are wrong most of the time. OK,
you've had certain experiences which tells you that you *know* that I'm
wrong, but then I'm assuming that I'm probably wrong anyway - that doesn't
really help just having someone confirming that - but you seem to be saying
that because of that I shouldn't really be saying anything, which I don't
accept. :)
>
>> Anyway, that is why I made the comment (whether or not you agree
>with it
>> <g>).
>>
>> > > if the Whatever is omniscient,
>> > > omnipotent, and omnipresent,
>> > > then surely its a moot point
>> > > whether you have a 'Who' or a
>> > > 'Which',
>> >
>> >In the sense that "moot" means
>> >"debatable" - yes, it's debatable.
>> >And that's exactly what I'm debating.
>>
>> My fault, I meant 'moot' as 'not important', which probably
>wasn't a good
>> choice of words. :(
>
>I think it's a good choice of word, but then I would interpret
>'moot' to mean that quibbling will not reveal any further truth,
>that both 'Who' or 'Which' will work and there is argument for
>each and nothing decisive against either. I've never seen 'moot'
>to indicate any use for further debate.
That was my original thought - if A applies, then whether either B or C
apply is not significant. (Of course, if A doesn't apply, then it may well
be significant).
[snip]
>So, no point drawing comparisons to universal concepts or the
>possibility that such states of 'nobody home' may be available in
>any part of the world?
>
>You want to understand whether it's a 'Who' or a 'What', but not
>by accepting already existing concepts?
>
>It seems to me to be a fairly human drive, and a universal one at
>that, to strive for union (or reunion) with $Deity. It doesn't
>seem to be something solely eastern. It doesn't seem to be a
>matter of *equating* mangoes with apples, but in *comparing* them.
>There are functional similarities and underlying equation, surface
>appearances notwithstanding.
>
>The thing to remember is that eastern practices have a vocabulary
>and a history of exploring what is a universal experience. It
>won't be exactly the same thing, eastern experience and western,
>but it does proved the tools to explore the western experience.
Well, to all those points, possibly, and possibly not; certainly not
unproblematically so. Is it possible to say for sure that all cultures have
had the same range of mystical experiences, for example? Do all cultures
have a sufficient number of words to describe every variety of religious
experience? If a culture has twenty words for 'spirit', then how do you
translate that into English? Is it a valid, living tradition, or is it a
rigid dogma (or even a load of superstitious bollocks)?
If you decide to study in an eastern tradition, then that's one thing; if
you then try to take the eastern concepts and apply them out of their
original context to western experience, then that's another thing. If you
mix them up with quantum mechanics and western mythology, then I would
submit that you are on shaky ground. In any case, even if you were an
expert in eastern philosophy, then you would still have the problem that
I'm not, and most westerners aren't, so then what is the point of
introducing eastern concepts that most of us can't properly understand,
except at a superficial, 'new-age' level?
If you want to explain something to somebody who doesn't understand it,
surely it is better to use as analogy something which they *do* understand
- for example, if you were an expert in Buddhism, you might try to explain
that to a Wiccan using terms and concepts from Wicca - what wouldn't make
sense is to try to explain Wicca to the Wiccan using Buddhist terminology.
[snip]
Init8