Eko eko azarak
calm...@my-deja.com
Does anybody know what actually does the formula "Eko eko Azarak /
Eko eko Amelak..." mean and what language is that?
Some people say that "eko" is in latin but my dictionary says it isn't.
Thanks in advance,
Calm Wolf <calm...@poczta.onet.pl>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Ventana
question. We used this in our circle to build energy. I was told the
answer once, but can't remember exactly. Hope we get some answers.
-V
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
After all that's said and done, more is said than done.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<calm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8pq80s$7kk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Francis Cameron
>Does anybody know what actually does the formula "Eko eko Azarak /
>Eko eko Amelak..." mean and what language is that?
>Some people say that "eko" is in latin but my dictionary says it isn't.
I suspect that the Latin origin is 'ecce' which means 'behold'. The
Italian would be 'ecco' which might have been spelt 'eko' before
regularisation. I take it that Asarak and the others are names of Angels
or similar.
There's a 'kyrie' later on IIRC.
--
francis freespirit
Lorne
Michael Harrison ISBN 0-8065-0444-7. The language is Basque,the meaning is
"Kill for the feast in November,Kill! I shall transport thee there
myself,and without the aid of a sieve,to scour the plates and dishes with
sand---" and a bit more, which is associated with "the Bagabe rune". FYI,
witches were said to be able to go to sea in a sieve-but the sea is the
realm of astral visions,and the method of using the sieve is to drum on it,
just as with a shamanic frame drum-I have seen a photo taken of a shaman in
Siberia actually USING A SIEVE as his drum for this purpose. Blessed be.
Lorne.
MysticGoat
Azarak /
> Eko eko Amelak..." mean and what language is that?
> Some people say that "eko" is in latin but my dictionary says
it isn't.
I just recently came across this while wading through Hutton...
Here it is:
Eko; Eko; Azarak
Eko; Eko; Zomelak.
Bagabi Lacha Bachabe
Lamac cahi achababe
Karrellyos
(Ronald Hutton, _The triumph of the moon_, p 232)
Hutton says that this was made by "cobbling together two equally
mysterious (or meaningless) chants found in different twentieth
century sources." He gives these sources on the cited page,
saying that while both claimed to be passing on ancient
knowledge, in each case the words are not in any known language--
that they are gibberish that sounds good on a stage or reads well
in a novel. The amalgamation was done by Gardner in "Ye Bok" (the
predecessor to his Book of Shadows) that he wrote in 1947 - 48.
So this string of phonemes is intellectually meaningless. However
the sounds are evocative and could be used to bring about a
certain state of mind in the sayer or listener-- while
meaningless, they might evoke meaning. There is of course no way
to know whether Gardner was putting us on or divinely inspired
(or both). The wyrd mixing of divine truth and charlatan fraud
that characterizes early Wicca seems strong in him. (Is it
Goddess or Horned One who has the twisty strange sense of humor?
Or the both of them??)
LLL
--mg
Lisa: DreaManiChicKuriouStarfire
<mysti...@BARF.iname.com> muttered cryptically:
<snip>
The Trickster archetype is mostly a male one, though there are a lot
of gender-benders involved, and a few female or androgynous figures.
See _Trickster Makes This World_ by Lewis Hyde. Personally, I've got
some interesting thoughts in my head about how females portray
trickster-themes differently than males. There's a half-formed
connection in my mind between Loki and Kali based on the difference
between the two figures -- the totality involved in Kali as opposed to
Loki's 'neither here nor there' nature? I still haven't figured it
all out.
--Lisa
entropic<at>cheerful.com
"We all are God, though most of us have just forgotten who we are." -Spiritus
Francis Cameron
<HERE...@prodigy.net> writes
>The answer to your question is in chapter 7 of "The Toots of Witchcraft" by
>Michael Harrison ISBN 0-8065-0444-7. The language is Basque,
I've read somewhere that it certainly is not Basque. That was somebody's
guess - or somebody's jest. Ronald Hutton says the words are in no known
language and seem to be gibberish designed to produce a mystifying
effect. I'm not sure I agree entirely. The last line is Karrellyos. To
me this is a variant form of Kyrieleison.
--
francis freespirit
Baird Stafford
wrote:
<snip>
> The Trickster archetype is mostly a male one, though there are a lot
> of gender-benders involved, and a few female or androgynous figures.
A strong case can be made, I think (at least speaking in terms of
cultural anthropology) for Trickster being "gay." I believe some slight
records may exist that his/her priests in several cultures were at least
cross-dressers and possibly what we might now call "transgendered."
In at least one case - that of Loki - Trickster/Changer while in a
female form actually gave birth (to Sliepnir). And the transformation
of Quan Yin from a Trickster figure into one of the forms of the Great
Mother is truly amazing....
<snip>
Blessed be,
Baird
--
Modkin for soc.religion.paganism,
Modstaff for alt.religion.wicca.moderated
Like science fiction and fantasy fiction? Read my reviews at
<http://www.bairdstafford.com>
Al
<fra...@topdeck.demon.co.uk> writes
I have to side with the Micheal Harrison Version of things, there is no
latin connection, and yes Basque is alien in structure, form etc to all
the other european languages, I think the only close approximation is
welsh (but that's just what I've been told, I don't speak welsh so
wouldn't know).
HOWEVER, I understand that Ron Hutton in his typically thorough and
tenacious way has probably disproved this. In that instance, I'd have
to go with his research, I don't however have the relevant details of
the publication he's released ( Anyone ??)
But then I have to ask why folks are using the Eko-Eko chant anyway,
beyond the usual trodden path argument and that its a chant that all
folks know etc etc , why arent people writing their own. It would after
all be more appropriate to a lot of workings to write your own material.
--
Al
Is it a hobby, or way of life.
Al
<mysti...@BARF.iname.com> writes
>
>I just recently came across this while wading through Hutton...
>Here it is:
>
> Eko; Eko; Azarak
> Eko; Eko; Zomelak.
> Bagabi Lacha Bachabe
> Lamac cahi achababe
> Karrellyos
>
>(Ronald Hutton, _The triumph of the moon_, p 232)
>
the tenacious sod, he doesn't give up until he finds the stuff he wants
(no doubt really upset a few of the fundies with his findings on "Old
Dorothy", )
Will have to have a look at the book.
>Hutton says that this was made by "cobbling together two equally
>mysterious (or meaningless) chants found in different twentieth
>century sources." He gives these sources on the cited page,
>saying that while both claimed to be passing on ancient
>knowledge, in each case the words are not in any known language--
>that they are gibberish that sounds good on a stage or reads well
>in a novel. The amalgamation was done by Gardner in "Ye Bok" (the
>predecessor to his Book of Shadows) that he wrote in 1947 - 48.
>
>So this string of phonemes is intellectually meaningless. However
>the sounds are evocative and could be used to bring about a
>certain state of mind in the sayer or listener-- while
>meaningless, they might evoke meaning. There is of course no way
>to know whether Gardner was putting us on or divinely inspired
>(or both). The wyrd mixing of divine truth and charlatan fraud
>that characterizes early Wicca seems strong in him. (Is it
>Goddess or Horned One who has the twisty strange sense of humor?
>Or the both of them??)
>
>LLL
>--mg
Al
DreaManiChicKuriouStarfire <entropic.S...@cheerful.com> writes
>
>The Trickster archetype is mostly a male one, though there are a lot
>of gender-benders involved, and a few female or androgynous figures.
>some interesting thoughts in my head about how females portray
>trickster-themes differently than males. There's a half-formed
>connection in my mind between Loki and Kali based on the difference
>between the two figures -- the totality involved in Kali as opposed to
>Loki's 'neither here nor there' nature? I still haven't figured it
>all out.
>
>--Lisa
>entropic<at>cheerful.com
>
>"We all are God, though most of us have just forgotten who we are." -Spiritus
>
did you go to as a kid ? ;->
--
Al
Oh no, not again.
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> But then I have to ask why folks are using the Eko-Eko chant anyway,
> beyond the usual trodden path argument and that its a chant that all
> folks know etc etc , why arent people writing their own. It would after
> all be more appropriate to a lot of workings to write your own material.
There is also the point that, in my definite opinion, Magic is no sphere
in which to use *anything* of which one knows neither its meaning, its
purpose nor its predictable result. To me, it doesn't matter even if a
teacher (no matter how eminent that teacher may be) says it's "all right
to use" unless *I* know what it does....
Blessed be,
Baird
who learnt that one the hard way....
Rowan
Al wrote in message ...
>...
>But then I have to ask why folks are using the Eko-Eko chant anyway,
>beyond the usual trodden path argument and that its a chant that all
>folks know etc etc , why arent people writing their own. It would after
>all be more appropriate to a lot of workings to write your own material.
>Al
I had a similar concern - people are using stuff that they don't know the
meaning of in magick? A common comment around here, which has always seemed
sensisble to me, is that for things to go the way you want you need to be
fairly specific. Spouting a bunch of stuff you don't know the meaning of, if
it DOES have a meaning, could knock specificity for a six.
BB
Rowan
Ventana
--
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
After all that's said and done, more is said than done.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Rowan <yj...@NOSPAM.student.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:8q0mtc$3he$1...@cantuc.canterbury.ac.nz...
It's funny you bring up this topic - spouting off words for which you do not
know the meaning. This was brought up more than once in the cirlce I was
involved with. We did the Eko Eko bit....but instead of the last three
lines, i.e. we said Eko, Eko Cernunnos, Eko, Eko Ceridwen. A couple of us
finally ask what the heck it meant. But, like I said, I don't really
remember the answer. I thought is came from ceremonial magic. It always
bothered me that I had no idea what I was saying.
Al's point about writing your own always made more sense to me, especially
if one practices solitary. I've always customized my own rituals down the
the details. I think this does require more thought and sometimes more
preparation. Maybe this is why some people take the easy way out. Maybe
this is why I do so few rituals. ;-)
-V
Leslie McEuen
Ventana wrote:
<snippage>
> Al's point about writing your own always made more sense to me, especially
> if one practices solitary. I've always customized my own rituals down the
> the details. I think this does require more thought and sometimes more
> preparation. Maybe this is why some people take the easy way out. Maybe
> this is why I do so few rituals. ;-)
I can understand the solitary view of ritual. One of the reasons my coven has a
'standard' ritual form is that it enables the group to know what is expected.
While we are free to create our own personal rituals, if we write a ritual to
share with the group, we are expected to use the 'standard,' or give a class
intro about the differences, so that no one in the coven is taken by surprise,
as it were.
Leslie
Francis Cameron
<A...@greycircle.demon.co.uk> writes
>Wehay!, Ronald's always good to come thru with the good stuff, and he's
>the tenacious sod, he doesn't give up until he finds the stuff he wants
>(no doubt really upset a few of the fundies with his findings on "Old
>Dorothy", )
I have a high regard for Hutton's scholarship and motive. Even so I am
not convinced that his making the Old Dorothy story part of the myths of
Wicca is entirely correct. It's worth giving careful thought to this one
before dismissing it completely.
--
francis freespirit
Francis Cameron
<A...@greycircle.demon.co.uk> writes
>
>I have to side with the Micheal Harrison Version of things, there is no
>latin connection, and yes Basque is alien in structure, form etc to all
>the other european languages, I think the only close approximation is
>welsh (but that's just what I've been told, I don't speak welsh so
>wouldn't know).
There is no connection between Basque and Welsh. Welsh is an Indo-
European language. Basque is not.
>
>
>HOWEVER, I understand that Ron Hutton in his typically thorough and
>tenacious way has probably disproved this. In that instance, I'd have
>to go with his research, I don't however have the relevant details of
>the publication he's released ( Anyone ??)
In that case let me recommend
Ronald HUTTON
The Triumph of the Moon
Oxford University Press
1999
It's a very careful and detailed study. Demolishes many myths. He gives
proper consideration to Eko Eko Azarak and comes to his own conclusions
on page 232 [Eko Eko is not indexed]. It is just possible that Hutton is
not aware of the Kyrie eleison hidden in the last line. Once this is
clear, the variant spelling of Ecco becomes apparent. I suspect that
lines 3 and 4 are garbled Hebrew.
--
francis freespirit
Al
<stil...@tlcnet.com> writes
goes totally to pot. You know the ones where you've learned all the
lines, you think you're the Mutts-Nutts for ritual, you start and your
mind goes blank........ you can hear the peanut gallery (them upstairs)
howling with laughter, as they've tripped you up, forcing you to go with
the flow, rather than whats in the book.
My point is this (If you haven't done this already, please give it a
try) If you go with a basic format that the team all can work with,
after a while it can get ..... stale, yes?, if you are working with God
forms, Spirits, elementals and the like, their very nature will force an
element of chaos, a spark of divinity into the circle. If they are
invoked correctly, if your relationship with the local spirits is
appropriately developed, then their insights will become yours.
Structured ritual beyond the basic format will fall to bits, and you'll
be left with only your wits about you, and the common purpose of the
coven. This is when it gets to be fantastic, the infinite variety, the
myriad of forms, and the beautiful poetry of thought, form, and action
that manifests is beyond words.
Structure is good, it helps form a group. But its not supposed to be
safe. Why are the christians so afraid of us..... because the way we
think is very unsafe to their quiet world, to their comfort zone. Like
nature it should be allowed to change constantly, evolve, and you evolve
with it.
This is of course my opinion, based on my experience.
Al
<j...@san.rr.com> writes
>
>It's funny you bring up this topic - spouting off words for which you do not
>know the meaning. This was brought up more than once in the cirlce I was
>involved with. We did the Eko Eko bit....but instead of the last three
>lines, i.e. we said Eko, Eko Cernunnos, Eko, Eko Ceridwen. A couple of us
>finally ask what the heck it meant. But, like I said, I don't really
>remember the answer. I thought is came from ceremonial magic. It always
>bothered me that I had no idea what I was saying.
>
>if one practices solitary. I've always customized my own rituals down the
>the details. I think this does require more thought and sometimes more
>preparation. Maybe this is why some people take the easy way out. Maybe
>this is why I do so few rituals. ;-)
>
>
Could I just drop an opinion in here. Basically the differance between
Craft and Ceremonial Magick. One tends to be Art, the other Science, if
we're finicky buggers like me, we tend to work from both schools. I
tend to use the Ceremonial school as a frame of referance, as its all
documented, and if you want a definition, you'll find one. Enochian or
Qabbalistic theory and practice generally has a pretty clear path of
cause and effect. Barborous Names etc are clearly defined, and used in
clearly defined situation.
The difficulty when we function on instinct, using what we know, but in
an undocumented format: ie "Winging it", only a "Feel" that comes from
years of this sort of work, will indicate the outcome. The prelude, and
action will at THAT POINT, determine in your guts the outcome. You just
know...... thats the stuff that can't be explained.
It reminds me of an experiment where we used the Star Trek Genre to do
magick, Kirk and Yoeman Rand were Lord and Lady etc etc.I think the
utter hilarity of it gave it the push. Point is, it worked, and proved
the point, that if you know what your doing, you understand the
fundamental principles of it, then writing your own stuff comes
naturally.
Practice, practice, practice. (And get out more, I sent far too much
time inside rummaging thru old tomes etc)
Al
<ba...@gate.net> writes
>Al <A...@greycircle.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> But then I have to ask why folks are using the Eko-Eko chant anyway,
>> beyond the usual trodden path argument and that its a chant that all
>> folks know etc etc , why arent people writing their own. It would after
>> all be more appropriate to a lot of workings to write your own material.
>
>in which to use *anything* of which one knows neither its meaning, its
>purpose nor its predictable result. To me, it doesn't matter even if a
>teacher (no matter how eminent that teacher may be) says it's "all right
>to use" unless *I* know what it does....
>
>Blessed be,
>Baird
>who learnt that one the hard way....
>
>
Sounds about right to me. How many times have we all been told to do
something just because it works, but without explanation: well we want
to know how, and why it works. An inability to explain to the student
may have its roots in that sense of the unknowable, and only personal
experience will teach that lesson, but other more practical hands on
material: I'm just one of the nosey/curious/pain in the arse types who
wants to know how it all ticks. I get ratty when I hit the "Gardenerian"
(cough huey!) mentality of "Why do you want to know" It generally means
they haven't got a clue, and have been telling lies for a while.
Tenacious little buggers like Ron Hutton: all respect to the man,
hopefully putting to death the pick-an-mix dogma that seems to be
forming within contemporary craft. That may upset the culture Vultures,
but it improves the stock.
Ventana
news:vKesdKAh...@greycircle.demon.co.uk...
> Craft and Ceremonial Magick. One tends to be Art, the other Science, if
> we're finicky buggers like me, we tend to work from both schools. I
> tend to use the Ceremonial school as a frame of referance, as its all
> documented, and if you want a definition, you'll find one. Enochian or
> Qabbalistic theory and practice generally has a pretty clear path of
> cause and effect. Barborous Names etc are clearly defined, and used in
> clearly defined situation.
I figured that was the difference between craft and CM. I never studied
much of the latter, but I think the reasons why I always had a problem with
CM is this:
1) The people I've met that were in involved with CM had huge egos (and
used the magic for selfish means) - please don't take this personally Al, I
am giving my generalize impression of others I have met.
2) I don't think structuring words and the exactness of execution
necessarily means other factors of energy that you are not aware of won't
interfer. I don't think the world - seen and unseen - is that not simple.
There are so many energy variations and levels in constant movement that I
think you would have to be the creator of the universe to actually be
effective. Maybe in a general sense the magic would be effective.
Al, you probably have a much different opinion that what I just wrote above
since you practice it. Granted, I have never studied CM in-depth, I am only
giving my opinion from past experience.
> The difficulty when we function on instinct, using what we know, but in
> an undocumented format: ie "Winging it", only a "Feel" that comes from
> years of this sort of work, will indicate the outcome. The prelude, and
> action will at THAT POINT, determine in your guts the outcome. You just
> know...... thats the stuff that can't be explained.
Definitely believe in this. I structure my rituals to take into account
variations and will change a step if I feel strong enough about it. But the
core intent stays intact. The few I have done have been extremely effective.
I also think besides the magical component, that just your investment of
time to create an effective ritual contributes the outcome. Sometimes
someone can practice magic for years without having a label on it (they
could be oh....Christian), So, even though someone could be new to a
structured magical system, they still could be very adept at magic.
> It reminds me of an experiment where we used the Star Trek Genre to do
> magick, Kirk and Yoeman Rand were Lord and Lady etc etc.I think the
> utter hilarity of it gave it the push. Point is, it worked, and proved
> the point, that if you know what your doing, you understand the
> fundamental principles of it, then writing your own stuff comes
> naturally.
IMO humor has a tremendously amount of magic.
> Practice, practice, practice. (And get out more, I sent far too much
> time inside rummaging thru old tomes etc)
Good point.about practicing - definitely expands your skill - and you can do
this anywhere at anytime. I think the most important components are
discipline and self-knowledge. I have never been much of a reader so I
definitely wouldn't be *rummaging*
-V
Ventana
news:39C458C2...@tlcnet.com...
I understand your point about group ritual form. I view group rituals more
as social and support group events and, viewed as such, can appreciate them.
Unless a group is small and VERY in tune with each other, I don't think the
magic is very effective - especially compared to a well-thought and executed
solitary ritual.
-V
Al
Historian. The eko-eko argument is still open in my mind, will be
watching this space.
silver
never heard Eko Eko, except as attatched to the Rune. Where has the
addition of it to the Bagahali come from?
Silv
--
http://sites.netscape.net/paganmoot/pubmoot
Lorne <HERE...@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:8prl04$78fk$1...@newssvr05-en0.news.prodigy.com...
> The answer to your question is in chapter 7 of "The Toots of
Witchcraft" by
Night Owl
time. In those 23 years, I found my self going back to the basics several
times, and I mean SEVERAL.
First, groups tend to only work and work well if there is chemistry from the
start. Imagine this, some of that energy is actually sexual tension between
the sexes! That is a good thing. That energy is what makes things happen. It
also helps when the people are there to worship, and not to put on a show or
are there just to be seen or get laid.
Second, how can someone write a ritual if they don't even know what the
basic principles of magic are or to what purpose the ritual is for? Not all
rituals have their purpose clearly stated in the Title! It was discovered a
long time ago, by men and women more educated than I, that certain words,
phrases, and gestures generate power. Lots of power. I notice no mention of
that significance in the "new age" books that are being pumped out by the
dozen.
Third, it is my opinion that Wicca has gotten to be over analyzed, and
rationalized. Why does everything have to be explained? It may be a product
of our trying to justify that Wicca is really an old religion packaged in a
new way, or it may be because some of us are busier trying to say we don't
want to just believe something just is. This is a religion. It is a raw
belief in something. Unfortunately, most are here cause it's "trendy", or
cause the faith they grew up in didn't support their lifestyle, or had rules
that they didn't think were right, or are looking for a quick fix to a life
that has gone down the crapper, or worse yet, to provide for their own
personal or political agenda's or fatten their coffers. It saddens me
greatly that this is the state that this has come to. I would rather see
only 1 join our ranks if they are truly sincere instead of 1000's who fall
into the categories above.
Lastly, lets talk about political agenda's for a moment. Wicca isn't about
political correctness. It isn't about equality. It isn't about anything but
magic and the worship of the God and Goddess. They are in balance with each
other. They are not equals. Neither would exist with out the other and the
support of each other. There are times I look to my Mother for support, and
there are times I look to my Father for support. Neither can provide for all
my needs but together they can provide to me all that I need.
I went slightly from topic to make some points. Chants are done to raise the
energy necessary to accomplish our goals. Some sound stupid, and seem dumb
to do in the beginning. Yea, they may not have a pleasant tune and want to
make you dance.I am suggesting that you actually give it a try, as a
solitary, or as a group, and I mean sincerely try it. Put your thought into
it, put your energy into it, put your heart and spirit into it. I think you
will be amazed and pleased with the results. Moreover, I think you'll find
yourself dancing in the ecstasy only known to a few in spite of yourself.
--
Never invoke the gods unless you really want them to appear.
It annoys them very much. --
Reverend Joseph Dobransky, "Night Owl"
Rockford, IL
"Ask a Witch" http://skeeter1.dyndns.org
Herbs, Oils, and More
AOL Instant Messenger: skeeter1jd
ICQ Number: 21228143
"Ventana" <j...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9Qax5.5491$3_5....@typhoon.san.rr.com...
> Leslie McEuen <stil...@tlcnet.com> wrote in message
> news:39C458C2...@tlcnet.com...
> >
> >
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> Third, it is my opinion that Wicca has gotten to be over analyzed, and
> rationalized. Why does everything have to be explained?
What some may regard as over-analysis and rationalization, others may
deem efforts to explain the workings of the religion both to enquiring
newbies and to skeptical outsiders.
Also, I wonder if any religion that does *not* incite theological
dissection has a chance to survive beyond the generation that originated
it. This thought is prompted only by the observation that I,
personally, can't think of any other surviving religion which has not
generated such theological heat within itself.
<snip>
> Unfortunately, most are here cause it's "trendy", or cause the faith they
> grew up in didn't support their lifestyle, or had rules that they didn't
> think were right, or are looking for a quick fix to a life that has gone
> down the crapper, or worse yet, to provide for their own personal or
> political agenda's or fatten their coffers. It saddens me greatly that
> this is the state that this has come to. I would rather see only 1 join
> our ranks if they are truly sincere instead of 1000's who fall into the
> categories above.
Er....I don't quite see how any of the "categories above" preclude the
possibility of sincere belief. To my mind it matters less *how* an
individual may have come to a religion than that he or she is here, now,
and is presumably offering his or her individual contributions to the
growth of Wicca.
Granted, I came originally to Paganism, some thirty-five years past,
because Christianity not only does not support but actively persecutes
my, er, "lifestyle" (an unfortunate choice of words, discussion of which
would not be on topic for this particular thread). I came to Wicca for
an even more "frivolous" reason a decade ago: because my Significant
Other is Wiccan, and wished to have a handfasting performed by his High
Priestess. I like to think, however, that I have returned at least as
much to Wicca as I've taken from it - and I, personally, can think of no
higher accolade to bestow upon any member of *any* religion.
<snip>
> I went slightly from topic to make some points. Chants are done to raise the
> energy necessary to accomplish our goals. Some sound stupid, and seem dumb
> to do in the beginning. Yea, they may not have a pleasant tune and want to
> make you dance.I am suggesting that you actually give it a try, as a
> solitary, or as a group, and I mean sincerely try it. Put your thought into
> it, put your energy into it, put your heart and spirit into it. I think you
> will be amazed and pleased with the results. Moreover, I think you'll find
> yourself dancing in the ecstasy only known to a few in spite of yourself.
And here, again, I must enter a caveat - also from personal experience:
that chants or other Magic of which one knows absolutely nothing *can*
turn around and bite one. Painfully. I would reiterate my advice that
unless one knows exactly what such an exercise is intended to accomplish
and how it's intended to accomplish it, one may well prefer not to
indulge.
Blessed be,
Baird
Leotine
>witches were said to be able to go to sea in a sieve-
And he's me thinking it was the Jumblies.
They did !
Went to sea in a sieve - they did.
Butthen Edward lear and I both have beards and say nonsense things -
we do !
Leotine
MysticGoat
MysticGoat <mysti...@BARF.iname.com> wrote in message news:...
Francis Cameron <fra...@topdeck.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:Xc0CoXA+...@topdeck.demon.co.uk...
Hutton offers a pretty good case that Gardner used Dorothy Clutterbuck's name to divert attention from the witch who *did* initiate him. From my reading of the section (page 212 and following of _Triumph of the moon_), Hutton had certainly learned the identity of this witch and may have communicated with her before her death. Hutton continues to protect her identity and she remains known only as "Dafo."
It could be that all Gardner said about "Old Dorothy" is true, except she was more his age or possibly younger, and that she had another name.
Gale
I'm answering your post mostly to manually reassemble it, as I
assume it played the same bizzarre formatting trick on everyone
else's computer that it did on mine -- no word wrap.
I had the same impression from Hutton --- that "Old Dorothy" was
quite real, but really wasn't Dorothy Clutterbuck.
Blessed Be,
Gale
http://www.capstonebeads.com/Magick.html (original
Tarot, poetry, fiction)
ga...@arwm.net
modstaff alt.religion.wicca.moderated
Francis Cameron
<mysti...@BARF.iname.com> writes
>Hutton offers a pretty good case that Gardner used Dorothy Clutterbuck's name to
>divert attention from the witch who *did* initiate him. From my reading of the
>section (page 212 and following of _Triumph of the moon_), Hutton had certainly
>learned the identity of this witch and may have communicated with her before her
>death. Hutton continues to protect her identity and she remains known only as
>"Dafo."
>
>It could be that all Gardner said about "Old Dorothy" is true, except she was
>more his age or possibly younger, and that she had another name.
Yes, Hutton makes a very good reading of the evidence. However, Patricia
Crowther, who was one of Gardner's initiates, writes in her foreword to
'High Magic's Aid':
'Now, when Gerald Gardner mentioned his thoughts for this book to his
High Priestess, Dorothy St Quintin Fordham, known to her friends as 'Old
Dorothy', she was against the whole idea .. .. Then, finally, in 1946,
his High Priestess relented, in as much as any information on the Craft
must be written purely as fiction.'
Dorothy, so Hutton tells us, was rich, a Tory and a supporter of her
local church. These qualifications, so I understand, are just those
which matched those of many people who were involved in ceremonial
magic; and while ceremonial magic is perceptibly different from
witchcraft, Gardner's book describes rituals carried out by a male
magician accompanied by a young female witch. This suggest to me that
there could be an overlap between ceremonial magic and witchcraft in
some circles. Maybe there is more to the 'myth' of Old Dorothy than
meets the eye.
--
francis freespirit
Lorne
For AZARAK he suggests the Basque "azarOac" -in English "(the)November"
For ZOMELAK he suggests the Basque "zAramat"-"I shall transport thee
thyself"
For BAGABI he suggests the Basque "bah`gabe" in English "without a sieve".
For LACHA he suggests the BASQUE "laxa" (pronounced lasha) in English "to
wash"
For BACHABI he suggests the Basque "bachera" in English "plates and dishes"
For KARELLYOS he suggests Basque"garallAz"(pronounced garalyAz) in English
"with sand" (the ablative of use,instrumental)
MysticGoat
BB
--mg
Gale <ga...@arwm.net> wrote in message news:39c6bb2d...@news.futuresouth.com...
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2000 18:56:15 CST, "MysticGoat"
> <mysti...@BARF.iname.com> wrote:
>
> >[ This is a repeat post as it appears my first sending was diverted to the bit bucket. Apologies in advance if the first one did actually get through, and you are now seeing double :-) ]
> >
> >MysticGoat <mysti...@BARF.iname.com> wrote in message news:...
> >Francis Cameron <fra...@topdeck.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:Xc0CoXA+...@topdeck.demon.co.uk...
> >> In article <sBvcPKAi...@greycircle.demon.co.uk>, Al
> >> <A...@greycircle.demon.co.uk> writes
> >> >Wehay!, Ronald's always good to come thru with the good stuff, and he's
> >> >the tenacious sod, he doesn't give up until he finds the stuff he wants
> >> >(no doubt really upset a few of the fundies with his findings on "Old
> >> >Dorothy", )
> >>
> >> I have a high regard for Hutton's scholarship and motive. Even so I am
> >> not convinced that his making the Old Dorothy story part of the myths of
> >> Wicca is entirely correct. It's worth giving careful thought to this one
> >> before dismissing it completely.
> >> --
> >> francis freespirit
> >>
> >
> >Hutton offers a pretty good case that Gardner used Dorothy Clutterbuck's name
> >to divert attention from the witch who *did* initiate him. From my reading of the
> >section (page 212 and following of _Triumph of the moon_), Hutton had certainly
> >learned the identity of this witch and may have communicated with her before
> >her death. Hutton continues to protect her identity and she remains known only
> >as "Dafo."
> >
> >It could be that all Gardner said about "Old Dorothy" is true, except
> >she was more his age or possibly younger, and that she had
> >another name.
> >
>
MysticGoat
> >divert attention from the witch who *did* initiate him. From my reading of the
> >section (page 212 and following of _Triumph of the moon_), Hutton had certainly
> >learned the identity of this witch and may have communicated with her before her
> >death. Hutton continues to protect her identity and she remains known only as
> >"Dafo."
> >
> >It could be that all Gardner said about "Old Dorothy" is true, except she was
> >more his age or possibly younger, and that she had another name.
>
> Crowther, who was one of Gardner's initiates, writes in her foreword to
> 'High Magic's Aid':
>
> 'Now, when Gerald Gardner mentioned his thoughts for this book to his
> High Priestess, Dorothy St Quintin Fordham, known to her friends as 'Old
> Dorothy', she was against the whole idea .. .. Then, finally, in 1946,
> his High Priestess relented, in as much as any information on the Craft
> must be written purely as fiction.'
>
> Dorothy, so Hutton tells us, was rich, a Tory and a supporter of her
> local church. These qualifications, so I understand, are just those
> which matched those of many people who were involved in ceremonial
> magic; and while ceremonial magic is perceptibly different from
> witchcraft, Gardner's book describes rituals carried out by a male
> magician accompanied by a young female witch. This suggest to me that
> there could be an overlap between ceremonial magic and witchcraft in
> some circles. Maybe there is more to the 'myth' of Old Dorothy than
> meets the eye.
> --
> francis freespirit
>
What you write is certainly possible. It is also very likely that any attempt to keep Dafo safe in her broom closet would have involved a conspiracy between Gardner and his initiates. I rather prefer to believe that Clutterbuck was an inspired choice to protect Dafo. I rather like the thought that Gardner has used misdirection to protect the witch who initiated him from being outed-- and that his magic in this effort continues to be effective today. :^)
LLL
--mg
Ventana
Night Owl <highp...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:EGpx5.49617$Qx4.1...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
> I don't know how long you folks have been at this. I been at it quite some
> time. In those 23 years, I found my self going back to the basics several
> times, and I mean SEVERAL.
It depends on what you mean by "been at this." Some people have naturally
practiced magic for years without be fully aware of it. I have met people
who have been in Wicca awhile and newbies as well. The latter sometimes,
IMO are more in tune with magic and how it works.
> First, groups tend to only work and work well if there is chemistry from
the
> start. Imagine this, some of that energy is actually sexual tension
between
> the sexes! That is a good thing. That energy is what makes things happen.
It
> also helps when the people are there to worship, and not to put on a show
or
> are there just to be seen or get laid.
Definitely agree and double agree about intent - not for ego trips, not for
show or to get laid. I run across so many of Wiccans in these categories
and this is one reason why I don't join another coven. I think the thing I
respected about the circle I was involved with was the HPs highly screened
people and even though my life was different than most other members, they
still were very balanced and serious practitioners. But I think there is
room for everyone in Wicca. Some people are not seriously committed because
they want to test the waters or don't want to be involved on a deep level.
Others know immediately and are seriously committed.
> Second, how can someone write a ritual if they don't even know what the
> basic principles of magic are or to what purpose the ritual is for? Not
all
> rituals have their purpose clearly stated in the Title!
>
It was discovered a long time ago, by men and women more educated than I,
that certain words,
> phrases, and gestures generate power. Lots of power. I notice no mention
of
> that significance in the "new age" books that are being pumped out by the
> dozen.
I have yet to see evidence of this - i.e. just uttering words creating a
powerful effect. Maybe I'm wrong and I need to study more about these
things but, IMO the words don't have the power without the intent of the
speaker. For example, say you have two angry people and they both say the
exact curse words. One is a little angry and the other is a raging maniac.
Which cursing is going to have the most power behind it. The words are the
same, but the energy behind them is what gives them the power.
> Third, it is my opinion that Wicca has gotten to be over analyzed, and
> rationalized. Why does everything have to be explained?
Some explanation - some personal experience. Over *anal*ying can kill the
flow of energy. In the end it is really all about our personal experience.
Sometimes explaining it a way of venting our own experience.
It may be a product
> of our trying to justify that Wicca is really an old religion packaged in
a
> new way, or it may be because some of us are busier trying to say we don't
> want to just believe something just is. This is a religion. It is a raw
> belief in something. Unfortunately, most are here cause it's "trendy", or
> cause the faith they grew up in didn't support their lifestyle, or had
rules
> that they didn't think were right, or are looking for a quick fix to a
life
> that has gone down the crapper, or worse yet, to provide for their own
> personal or political agenda's or fatten their coffers.
A trend is nothing but an emergence of something new. It eventually evolves
and gains depth and balance as time passes. Some people may be involved for
not what you would judge to be *valid* reasons, but this is where their
journey begins. Time will tell whether or not they will continue. And if
they don't, that's fine too. Not everyone needs to be within the confines
of a religion. Some draw from the best parts (or the ones that resonate
with them) of all belief systems to assist at different points in their
journey.
It saddens me
> greatly that this is the state that this has come to. I would rather see
> only 1 join our ranks if they are truly sincere instead of 1000's who fall
> into the categories above.
I understand your frustration. I get like that at times and this is one
reason why I am solitary. However, throughout the years I've learned to
accept people where they are at in their lives. This doesn't necessarily
mean I need to be where they are at too. Compassion is an under-rated
virtue that, IMO actually has immense power.
> Lastly, lets talk about political agenda's for a moment. Wicca isn't about
> political correctness. It isn't about equality. It isn't about anything
but
> magic and the worship of the God and Goddess. They are in balance with
each
> other. They are not equals. Neither would exist with out the other and the
> support of each other. There are times I look to my Mother for support,
and
> there are times I look to my Father for support. Neither can provide for
all
> my needs but together they can provide to me all that I need.
>
> I went slightly from topic to make some points. Chants are done to raise
the
> energy necessary to accomplish our goals. Some sound stupid, and seem dumb
> to do in the beginning. Yea, they may not have a pleasant tune and want to
> make you dance.I am suggesting that you actually give it a try, as a
> solitary, or as a group, and I mean sincerely try it. Put your thought
into
> it, put your energy into it, put your heart and spirit into it. I think
you
> will be amazed and pleased with the results. Moreover, I think you'll find
> yourself dancing in the ecstasy only known to a few in spite of yourself.
I think all forms of music or chanting can raise energy. It really is about
what resonates with you. I personally have had a tremendous, life altering
healing through music. No Wiccan magic, no magic of any kind used. Just
music. Still mistifies me to this day...Magic is really all around us, not
necessarily behind an altar.
-V
Al
<highp...@crosswinds.net> writes
>I don't know how long you folks have been at this. I been at it quite some
>time. In those 23 years, I found my self going back to the basics several
>times, and I mean SEVERAL.
But don't we all. People Poo-Poo the basics, but we always learn from
them. (students tend to trip us up, bless'em)
>
>First, groups tend to only work and work well if there is chemistry from the
>start. Imagine this, some of that energy is actually sexual tension between
>the sexes! That is a good thing. That energy is what makes things happen. It
>also helps when the people are there to worship, and not to put on a show or
>are there just to be seen or get laid.
Do you think that long time mates, colleagues, etc, people whom have a
professional respect for each other make the work happen. I think
initially the tension aids in the work, but later, when you really know
who you can rely on in a mess, that really does it, and each
individual's autonomy becomes manifest. By the time people reach
acceptance and certainly authority, the group dynamic is very different.
The sexual tension, the hassles of the world etc aren't remotely an
issue anymore.
>
>Second, how can someone write a ritual if they don't even know what the
>basic principles of magic are or to what purpose the ritual is for? Not all
>rituals have their purpose clearly stated in the Title! It was discovered a
>long time ago, by men and women more educated than I, that certain words,
>phrases, and gestures generate power. Lots of power. I notice no mention of
>that significance in the "new age" books that are being pumped out by the
>dozen.
Joe, how on earth are you going to put barborous names into a wiccan
ritual: you'll kill someone!. This sort of magick does not tune itself
to the individual the way most craft magick does, its either put up or
shut up. If the level of development in the seeker is not manifest, then
such work will cause problems (consider the tenth Aethyr)
>
>Third, it is my opinion that Wicca has gotten to be over analyzed, and
>rationalized.
<respectful snipage>
Enter such esteemed authors such as V******* C****** (not her real name)
Just as an example, with no consideration for the damage they do, and
the overall bollocks they portray to be actual craft. Utter pshycobabble
(but then I could be waffling 'cos I've just sunk too much cider)
In case anyone asks, yes I have worked with her, and yes her attitude is
utterly indefensible: make a buck!. All this freudian nonsense,
transference drivel etc etc, kind of misses the whole point: it's beyond
words and explanation.
>
>Lastly, lets talk about political agenda's for a moment. Wicca isn't about
>political correctness. It isn't about equality. It isn't about anything but
>magic and the worship of the God and Goddess. They are in balance with each
>other. They are not equals. Neither would exist with out the other and the
>support of each other. There are times I look to my Mother for support, and
>there are times I look to my Father for support. Neither can provide for all
>my needs but together they can provide to me all that I need.
Respectfully I have to disagree. Some facets of wicca seem to me as a
means for angst ridden teenage minded individuals to either be victims
or be victimised by some weird post sexual revolutionary self scourging.
Where the hell else did the Dianics come from. As for being equal:
couldn't disagree more.... why the bleedin'ell would a woman want to be
like a man, they've already got one up on life span, pain threshold,
metabolism etc etc etc. When women are at their hormonal worst, is the
same hormonal balance men have all the time: go figure (think I'll go
start a war somewhere)
Granted there is a liberating aspect that now gives people a reason to
actually start treating people with respect for a change (hmm, didn't
xtianity do that....... some one said "lets be nice people for a change"
and they nailed him to a tree, ah well maybe not)
To me (opinion only) craft could be a celebration of what it is to be
male (an I don't mean that namby-pamby wussy lentil eating nonce type
pagan male either) and be able to in the same manner for women to be
women. We are not equal, why would we want to be. As such between males
and females, the magick is completely different. Even down to the paths
we take. As a male I'm damned if I want to be a midwife: SOD THAT!, I'll
stick to my forge thankyou very much. And having Kids........
>
>I went slightly from topic to make some points. Chants are done to raise the
>energy necessary to accomplish our goals. Some sound stupid, and seem dumb
>to do in the beginning. Yea, they may not have a pleasant tune and want to
>make you dance.I am suggesting that you actually give it a try, as a
>solitary, or as a group, and I mean sincerely try it. Put your thought into
>it, put your energy into it, put your heart and spirit into it. I think you
>will be amazed and pleased with the results. Moreover, I think you'll find
>yourself dancing in the ecstasy only known to a few in spite of yourself.
>
:)
>--
>Never invoke the gods unless you really want them to appear.
>It annoys them very much. --
>
But surely they're harmless Joe........ (Muttley snigger)
Francis Cameron
<HERE...@prodigy.net> writes
>Harrison suggests the Basque "eho" for EKO-in English "kill,grind,digest"
All very interesting, thank you. I'm not familiar with this Harrison.
Would you give us more details, please.
--
francis freespirit
Daniel Cohen
> In article <sBvcPKAi...@greycircle.demon.co.uk>, Al
> <A...@greycircle.demon.co.uk> writes
> >Wehay!, Ronald's always good to come thru with the good stuff, and he's
> >the tenacious sod, he doesn't give up until he finds the stuff he wants
> >(no doubt really upset a few of the fundies with his findings on "Old
> >Dorothy", )
>
> I have a high regard for Hutton's scholarship and motive. Even so I am
> not convinced that his making the Old Dorothy story part of the myths of
> Wicca is entirely correct. It's worth giving careful thought to this one
> before dismissing it completely.
There's a book due out soon, by Philip Heselton if my memory is
accurate, which comes to a different conclusion and is based on detailed
research. Of course I don't yet know anything about the quality of the
research!
Hutton is always worth reading, but shouldn't be taken as the last word.
I find that when he is most definite (he's usually cautious) he is quite
likely to be wrong. His view of leland is questionable (se the recent
version of 'Aradia"0, for one.
--
Remove "nospam" and "please" and "invalid" for a correct address
Tall Sword
illegal in the UK and to out Dorothy could have had her prosecuted. Here in
the US it there were still laws against Witchcraft till 1959.
Many of the craft supported their local church when we were still an illegal
quantity, how else do you avoid drawing attention in smaller communities?
You want to blend in, be nonthreatening.
One point is all the references to Gerald an what he wrote, since the only
reference to the Ecco chant that I know of is from Janet and Stewart Farar,
Alexsandrians and not Gardnarians. I could be wrong but Alex didn't study
or was initiated by Gerald was he? He was a different lineage and does
differ from Gerald in some ways.
Tall Sword
MysticGoat <mysti...@BARF.iname.com> wrote in message
news:39c6...@news.rb.wizzards.net...
Night Owl
shadows, as early as 1946. With out going into too much detail, it was part
of a longer song or chant in a foreign language. Origins unknown, it may be
basque, it may be latin, or just the ramblings of an old man. Who's to say,
however, I can assure you that it is in the Gardner BOS.
--
Never invoke the gods unless you really want them to appear.
It annoys them very much. --
Reverend Joseph Dobransky, "Night Owl"
Rockford, IL
"Ask a Witch" http://skeeter1.dyndns.org
Herbs, Oils, and More
AOL Instant Messenger: skeeter1jd
ICQ Number: 21228143
"Tall Sword" <t_s...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:5iKx5.1072$eX6.2...@nnrp2.sbc.net...
> Just my $.02. When Gerald wrote his first book being a witch was still
> illegal in the UK and to out Dorothy could have had her prosecuted. Here
in
> the US it there were still laws against Witchcraft till 1959.
>
> Many of the craft supported their local church when we were still an
illegal
> quantity, how else do you avoid drawing attention in smaller communities?
> You want to blend in, be nonthreatening.
>
> One point is all the references to Gerald an what he wrote, since the only
> reference to the Ecco chant that I know of is from Janet and Stewart
Farar,
> Alexsandrians and not Gardnarians. I could be wrong but Alex didn't study
> or was initiated by Gerald was he? He was a different lineage and does
> differ from Gerald in some ways.
>
> Tall Sword
>
> MysticGoat <mysti...@BARF.iname.com> wrote in message
> news:39c6...@news.rb.wizzards.net...
Francis Cameron
lid>, Daniel Cohen <d.e....@qmw.nospam.ac.please.uk.invalid> writes
>There's a book due out soon, by Philip Heselton if my memory is
>accurate, which comes to a different conclusion and is based on detailed
>research. Of course I don't yet know anything about the quality of the
>research!
>
>Hutton is always worth reading, but shouldn't be taken as the last word.
>I find that when he is most definite (he's usually cautious) he is quite
>likely to be wrong. His view of leland is questionable (se the recent
>version of 'Aradia"0, for one.
I am so glad to read your words. I agree with so much. Please keep us
informed about the new book.
--
francis freespirit
Shez
>bucket. Apologies in advance if the first one did actually get through, and you
>are now seeing double :-) ]
>
>Ew...@topdeck.demon.co.uk...
>> In article <sBvcPKAi...@greycircle.demon.co.uk>, Al
>> <A...@greycircle.demon.co.uk> writes
>> >Wehay!, Ronald's always good to come thru with the good stuff, and he's
>> >the tenacious sod, he doesn't give up until he finds the stuff he wants
>> >(no doubt really upset a few of the fundies with his findings on "Old
>> >Dorothy", )
>>
>> I have a high regard for Hutton's scholarship and motive. Even so I am
>> not convinced that his making the Old Dorothy story part of the myths of
>> Wicca is entirely correct. It's worth giving careful thought to this one
>> before dismissing it completely.
>> francis freespirit
>>
>
>Hutton offers a pretty good case that Gardner used Dorothy Clutterbuck's name
>to
>divert attention from the witch who *did* initiate him. From my reading of the
>section (page 212 and following of _Triumph of the moon_), Hutton had certainly
>learned the identity of this witch and may have communicated with her before
>her
>death. Hutton continues to protect her identity and she remains known only as
>"Dafo."
>
>It could be that all Gardner said about "Old Dorothy" is true, except she was
>more his age or possibly younger, and that she had another name.
>
>
>
local woman called Dorothy Clutterbuck,Fordham, Fordham was her married
name. Clutterbuck her maiden name, or old Dorothy.
Their is in one of the villages their with a shop with her portrait
inside that sells extremely expensive so called pagan gifts.
She looks very thirties twin set and pearls,
Dorothy was however very well off, and very middle class, she started
the local group as their was a huge interest in the occult and
spiritualism. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century,
Their are documents around, and Dorothy was well known in the area for
supporting the church and other good causes.
Had she been less middle class and wealthy, she might have found that
their were several local groups or solitary's who could have taught her
a lot more than she ever learned, but they were working class people and
natives to the area, at that time Socially however she would not have
noticed or talked to them, they would probably have been agricultural
workers or local herbalists.
They knew the local herbs, the local centres of power, the workings that
were used and had been used in that area for centuries.
Their are birth and death certificates, local newspaper cuttings, and a
few pamphlets and privately published materials. It just takes time to
piece it all together.
--
Shez sh...@oldcity.demon.co.uk
The 'Old Craft' lady http://www.oldcity.demon.co.uk/shez/
Tall Sword
latina and my on going flirtation with the language.
Tall Sword
Night Owl <highp...@crosswinds.net> wrote in message
news:hnNx5.53398$Qx4.1...@news1.rdc1.il.home.com...
> > MysticGoat <mysti...@BARF.iname.com> wrote in message
> > news:39c6...@news.rb.wizzards.net...
April Rayne
> Dorothy was however very well off, and very middle class, she started
> the local group as their was a huge interest in the occult and
> spiritualism. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century,
Which doesn't seem to tie in with witchcraft being illegal at this time or
that her craft secrets were only put into print to save the craft from
extinction.
> Their are documents around, and Dorothy was well known in the area for
> supporting the church and other good causes.
> Had she been less middle class and wealthy, she might have found that
> their were several local groups or solitary's who could have taught her
> a lot more than she ever learned, but they were working class people and
> natives to the area,
Fair do's Shez, the locals would no more have gone knocking on a neighbours
door asking if they were witches than Dorothy could have done. Each station
knew it's place, that was how it was in her day and that was how the working
class *liked* to keep it. Do we know where her own craft knowledge came
from? As she was born in India and her father remained with the British Raj
it's likely she spent all her formative years out there.
> They knew the local herbs, the local centres of power, the workings that
> were used and had been used in that area for centuries.
But *they* would not have divulged any of this to outsiders. Gerald has
been credited with taking the lid off the secrets jar from which the Wiccan
movement sprang. He learned from old Dorothy, who was taught / initiated by
goodness knows whom. You have many times said how pleased you are to see so
much interest being shown in Wicca today, yet you seem also to disparage the
very person who made it all possible. I don't doubt the old craft ways
continue much as they always have, unfussed by modern day concepts;-)
> Their are birth and death certificates, local newspaper cuttings, and a
> few pamphlets and privately published materials. It just takes time to
> piece it all together.
How much time can it take<g> I marvel that nobody's taken copies of or even
photographed these few precious documents and writings for publication or to
share with the community on the web. Any one of us in the UK could apply for
a copy of her death certificate and her last will and testament. But don't
lets forget when Doreen Valiente actually set herself the task of tracking
down this allusive old Dorothy, armed with all the clues Gerald had given
her, she didn't find what she and others expected.
April R
Yowie
<snip>
> My point is this (If you haven't done this already, please give it a
> try) If you go with a basic format that the team all can work with,
> after a while it can get ..... stale, yes?
Even from a Christian perspective, I understand. The Anglican Book Of
Prayers should be taken out and shot (or burned - all the same to me) Since
about 1930 the same approximately 10 pages (pp30 - 40) are recited over and
over each Sunday, morning and night.
Hardly inspirational stuff.
> Structure is good, it helps form a group. But its not supposed to be
> safe. Why are the christians so afraid of us..... because the way we
> think is very unsafe to their quiet world, to their comfort zone. Like
> nature it should be allowed to change constantly, evolve, and you evolve
> with it.
Ahh, just to compare with the Anglican church, there was this little church
up my old road with no particular affiliation. The pastor guy only made
rough notes for the evening's service (there was no morning service). He
said that although he roughly planned out the service, it was really up to
God what happened in the service. He never wanted to become so arrogant as
to think his notes and plans were more important than God's will. I remember
one night a woman burst into the church about half way through the service.
She just sort of dropped to the floor and started crying. The service
stopped, we gathered around and just talked to her, hugging the complete
stranger when we felt moved to do so. Apparantly she was going to "a job"
(we didn't ask what her proffesion was but her makeup and clothes suggested
that she was an "escort") and felt a huge desire to just come into the
church, so she did. And her life changed that very night. The pastor of the
church said it was one of the best services he had never planned.
I know thats Christian, but I am hoping that this is the sort of thing that
you are talking about, Al - to listen and act upon the spirit rather than
some old stuffy thing that you learn by rote. When acting on the spirit
rather than just going on by habit is when the real magic happens. The
ritual that is performed must personally meaningful to the person doing it,
or they may as well do nothing at all.
Yowie
Yowie
> Baird Stafford> <ba...@gate.net> writes
> >Al <A...@greycircle.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> ><snip>
> >
> >> But then I have to ask why folks are using the Eko-Eko chant anyway,
> >> beyond the usual trodden path argument and that its a chant that all
> >> folks know etc etc , why arent people writing their own. It would after
> >> all be more appropriate to a lot of workings to write your own
material.
> >
> >There is also the point that, in my definite opinion, Magic is no sphere
> >in which to use *anything* of which one knows neither its meaning, its
> >purpose nor its predictable result. To me, it doesn't matter even if a
> >teacher (no matter how eminent that teacher may be) says it's "all right
> >to use" unless *I* know what it does....
<snip>
> Sounds about right to me. How many times have we all been told to do
> something just because it works, but without explanation: well we want
> to know how, and why it works. An inability to explain to the student
> may have its roots in that sense of the unknowable, and only personal
> experience will teach that lesson, but other more practical hands on
> material: I'm just one of the nosey/curious/pain in the arse types who
> wants to know how it all ticks. I get ratty when I hit the "Gardenerian"
> (cough huey!) mentality of "Why do you want to know" It generally means
> they haven't got a clue, and have been telling lies for a while.
Must be the scientist in me, but for the life of me I need to know *why*
something is supposed to work before I want to try it. One "witchcraft" book
I came across said that to protect your vehicle from theft, accidents, and
tickets, you should put a cat whisker in the glove box. No explanation
offered. I have no possible idea about how that was supposed to work, and
was left with the thought: Am I supposed to take that on *faith*?. Oh, the
irony.
> Tenacious little buggers like Ron Hutton: all respect to the man,
> hopefully putting to death the pick-an-mix dogma that seems to be
> forming within contemporary craft. That may upset the culture Vultures,
> but it improves the stock.
Ah, I am all for the pick-n-mix *if it makes sense* and *it works*. Guess it
must be that scientist in me again - the one that steals medicines that work
from all sorts of cultures, and doesn't worry about the bits that were
purely "for show".
Yowie
Shez
<tau...@clara.net> writes
>Shez you say
>
>> Dorothy was however very well off, and very middle class, she started
>> the local group as their was a huge interest in the occult and
>> spiritualism. In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century,
>
>Which doesn't seem to tie in with witchcraft being illegal at this time or
>that her craft secrets were only put into print to save the craft from
>extinction.
She was a well known personality, She supported the church, and she just
happened to have an interest in the occult and ran her group,
Spiritualist or occult groups were not Illegal, In fact they were very
popular, though generally frowned on by the church, they would often
turn a blind eye if a generous rich and well known local held meetings
in her home.
As for her craft secrets being put into print, Their were plenty of
craft people around at that time, their was no danger of it dying out.
Having read High Magic's aid, and his other books, and researched his
life, I am well aware that he studied British folk lore after his
retirement from the civil service in Ceylon,
He belonged to the National folk lore society even providing them with
articles, in his application to the society he claimed to be a MA. and
Ph.D he later was listed in the Writers who's who, as having a Ph,D.D
Litt
As far as any research goes, not just mine but many other researchers,
he never went to school, never went to any University, and their is no
University in this country who lays claim to him as an ex student.
The folk Lore society did not publish his obituary, even though he was a
member, One of the society's best known members commented that Gardener
was a strange man, a very curious personality and he did not inspire
confidence .
Their had been moves apparently to have him removed from membership, The
folk lore society generally found him it seemed, to be a problem. His
research had several times been called into question.
Researches of Gardener found him to be very derivative, he borrowed from
the works of Mcgregor Mathers, Levi and Crowley, plus from the
Anthroplogist Margaret Murray.
His rituals were in fact based very heavily on Sex, rather than
knowledge, and some researchers have pointed out that his sexual whims
were in fact well catered for by his religion.
Plus he introduced Skyclad, or nudity, which has never been part of the
old religion in England, for a very good reason, its to cold.
Flagellation and nakedness, and the five fold kiss, were not part of
the old religions except in the myths of the Christian church.
He studied far Eastern Magick, and religions while he was a civil
servant, and I find that a great deal of wicca is in fact based on Far
Eastern spirituality, including rebirth, its a patchwork, of folk tales,
Far eastern mysticism, Golden Dawn, and late 19th century spiritualism
and occult groups, he was also rumoured to be a mason, which is
possible, the English tend to take their clubs and society's abroad.
Gardener had a very bad upbringing, he was sent abroad when he was about
seven when most boys of his status would be starting public school, His
father was a wealthy timber merchant, who apparently didn't like him,
He spent a lot of time with his Irish Nanny, and from her got a love of
folk tales, and ritual, She was Catholic.
Until he retired in the nineteen thirties, he in fact spent very little
time in England, only a few months in all, on various leaves.
Unfortunately he was also found to have given several Scholarly
disertions that in fact turned out to be cobbled together pieces of
other peoples work, in Scholarly circles he was roundly condemned for
this.
Researching Gardner was an eye opener. Old Dorothy was not difficult to
find or research there is a painting of her in a local witch craft shop,
In the new forest. and plenty of tall tales, But very little more,
research showed she was in fact brought up Abroad, was used to the best,
and lots of servants, came to the New forest after her marriage, and
lived in pretty much the lap of luxury for that time, however it must
have been difficult for a woman who had done a great deal of travelling
and spent years in Military circles to make life seem interesting in a
new forest village.
I have no doubt she discovered Spiritualism and the occult and that
filled some of her life.
When Gardener joined I suspect she also found sex, many women in her
social position were very sexually frustrated. And Gardner was known to
be a very sexual man.
>
>> Their are documents around, and Dorothy was well known in the area for
>> supporting the church and other good causes.
>> Had she been less middle class and wealthy, she might have found that
>> their were several local groups or solitary's who could have taught her
>> a lot more than she ever learned, but they were working class people and
>> natives to the area,
>
>Fair do's Shez, the locals would no more have gone knocking on a neighbours
>door asking if they were witches than Dorothy could have done. Each station
>knew it's place, that was how it was in her day and that was how the working
>class *liked* to keep it. Do we know where her own craft knowledge came
>from? As she was born in India and her father remained with the British Raj
>it's likely she spent all her formative years out there.
>From Local research I think that her group was not so much a local
witchcraft group, but an occult and spiritualist group, with a few
rather well known rituals thrown in, folk law in other words.
Certainly people then would know their place, but I don't think Dorothy
was interested in local magick or folk law, as much as she was
interested in Spiritualism, which was very fashionable at that time
As Gardner had spent the major part of his life in India and Ceylon,
Columbia and other such places, they must have found an instant rapport.
He was the son of a wealthy man, and he apparently spoke well, and had
the right accent its possible they might even have met in their younger
days, though that is simply an idea.
The British Raj, had very strict social circles, civil servants and high
up military would have met socially.
>> They knew the local herbs, the local centres of power, the workings that
>> were used and had been used in that area for centuries.
>
>But *they* would not have divulged any of this to outsiders. Gerald has
>been credited with taking the lid off the secrets jar from which the Wiccan
>movement sprang. He learned from old Dorothy, who was taught / initiated by
>goodness knows whom. You have many times said how pleased you are to see so
>much interest being shown in Wicca today, yet you seem also to disparage the
>very person who made it all possible. I don't doubt the old craft ways
>continue much as they always have, unfussed by modern day concepts;-)
I am delighted to have seen Wicca grow and flourish, because it became a
bridge between Christianity and paganism, and its become a strong and
ethical spiritual path. But that had little to do with Gardner his form
of wicca has been superseded over the years. Wicca today is nothing like
Wicca in Gardner's time.
Gerald Gardner has the honour to have started a great spiritual path,
The fact that he was a not very nice person, that he was caught out in
lies and that wicca was very sexually orientated towards his sexual
fantasies doesn't mean that modern Wicca itself should be tarnished by
that.
In this modern world, feet of clay are accepted even from those we
consider heroes, Kennedy was a hero of mine, he is no less a hero
because he had feet of clay, What he did is important, not what he was
in his personal life.
I also admire Ghandi for his peaceful take-over of India, and his
strong leadership, but Ghandi was a cruel man to his family and
servants, he was a bully and a fanatic.
Yet I admire Ghandi.
I admire Queen Elizabeth the first, yet she was ruthless, You don't make
a country like England Great, by being nice. She ran one of the best
secret services ever known,
Its the same with Wicca. Making Gardner into a saint wont help, to many
people can see the clay feet. What he did however in bringing wicca into
the mainstream is important, the fact that he was not what he claimed to
be, isn't.
It would probably be more politic to smile and let the usual rumour and
make believe about Gardener continue, I am simply not the sort of person
who can do that.
I think research is important, and that accepting who and what Gardner
was is also important, The fact he created wicca, and its grown far
beyond its roots is what is really important to me.
I am myself pagan as you noted, and Paganism also changes with time,
nothing stands still, if it doesn't move on it dies,
Modern paganism has changed, you change or you die, and this century has
perhaps seen more change in Paganism than any other century.
If a spiritual path is based on lies, or on attempts to claim its as old
as man, then eventually it will die, simply because people will look at
it and see the truth, These days you cant ignore the origins of such
paths, and those origins will become important. The media will jump on
fantasy's and lies, as will the Christian church, and others who are
fanatical about destroying wicca.
Gardner was a man who founded a new way of looking at life and
spirituality, he should be honoured for that,
His personal life however was a mess, and he was a very fractured
personality, not surprisingly any child who was sent away by its parent
because the parent couldn't bear to have him around, is bound to have
huge problems later in life.
However if his father had been loving, then Gardner would have been a
different man, and their would be no wicca.
Great things often come from people who are fractured personality's of
some sort, and have unhappy childhood's.
>
>> Their are birth and death certificates, local newspaper cuttings, and a
>> few pamphlets and privately published materials. It just takes time to
>> piece it all together.
>
>How much time can it take<g> I marvel that nobody's taken copies of or even
>photographed these few precious documents and writings for publication or to
>share with the community on the web. Any one of us in the UK could apply for
>a copy of her death certificate and her last will and testament. But don't
>lets forget when Doreen Valiente actually set herself the task of tracking
>down this allusive old Dorothy, armed with all the clues Gerald had given
>her, she didn't find what she and others expected.
Its unlikely she would have, Doreen was looking for something tied to
the old pagan ways. I was not,
I didn't care if old Dorothy was a witch or a Society woman with
occultism as a hobby.
I simply wanted to find out the who what and were. I found people there
who did remember her, and her occult society, and people who remembered
Gardner, he was thought to have the evil eye.
We stayed several weeks in a trailer, and its not difficult to find the
local pub and put a question or two, all innocent like, about the
painting of Dorothy in the local shop
The reaction was one of a good joke on the rest of the world, By that
time me and hubby had been their a few nights, We were asked if we spent
any of our hard earned cash in the joke shop, We didn't put on airs, and
we were working people, , so we were acceptable, especially if we didn't
fall for their jokes, and could give a good answer back. :)
Humour and a good joke, can get you almost anywhere.
You spend a few weeks going to a local regularly and you find out a lot
about local people, local history and whether it was taken as serious or
silly. Its often a great way to find out enough to take your research
into different channels,
In fact I found one of the locals had a grand mum who had worked in the
big house, and he enjoyed talking about the old woman and her strange
goings on. ;) Mostly rumour but occasionally interesting,
Fascinating study, but for my benefit April, I was intrigued, and I am
very curious. :) I don't stand out in a crowd unless I want to, and my
sense of humour opens a lot of doors that would stay firmly shut
otherwise. ;)
I also was blessed with a face that people trust, its sort of
comfortable and lived in these days but it helps, the research I did was
to satisfy my own personal curiosity.
I don't know everything, nowhere near, but I do know more than most
people who have never put any time into researching the subject.
My conclusions are mine, I don't believe Gerald Gardner ever found an
old coven of witches in the new Forest. I don't believe that old Dorothy
was a witch or anything more than a wealthy bored woman.
I know that a lot of people will disagree with me, That's fine, everyone
has their own take on the matter. No one likes their heroes to have clay
feet.
But I am entitled to my opinion to April, and it is based on far more
research than is normally done by the majority of wiccans. I do wish
more wiccans would in fact research the history of their path. I think
it might lead them as it led me to feel that Wicca arrived at just the
right time, it was a spiritual path waiting to happen.
That its antecedents are very modern is not a threat to wicca, its
simply where it started. Modern Wicca is a very different kettle of fish
from that proposed by Gardner. Its more ethical, and more spiritual, and
has wide appeal.
>
>April R
Leslie McEuen
Ventana wrote:
>
> Leslie McEuen <stil...@tlcnet.com> wrote in message
> news:39C458C2...@tlcnet.com...
<snip>
> > I can understand the solitary view of ritual. One of the reasons my coven
> has a
> > 'standard' ritual form is that it enables the group to know what is
> expected.
> > While we are free to create our own personal rituals, if we write a ritual
> to
> > share with the group, we are expected to use the 'standard,' or give a
> class
> > intro about the differences, so that no one in the coven is taken by
> surprise,
> > as it were.
>
> I understand your point about group ritual form. I view group rituals more
> as social and support group events and, viewed as such, can appreciate them.
> Unless a group is small and VERY in tune with each other, I don't think the
> magic is very effective - especially compared to a well-thought and executed
> solitary ritual.
I would say that the coven I attend is more than just a "social and support"
event. I've seen large groups do very effective magic. It does tend to depend
on the group composition. I have experienced highly effective magic with a
group of 25 to 30 or more. Groups work for me, perhaps they don't others, YMMV.
Leslie
Ventana
I am sure others that were in my circle viewed it differently than me. This
is how, in retropect, I view it. I enjoyed some of the classes though.
-V
April Rayne
> life, I am well aware that he studied British folk lore after his
> retirement from the civil service in Ceylon, > He belonged to the National
folk lore society even providing them with articles, in his application to
the society he claimed to be a MA. and Ph.D he later was listed in the
Writers who's who, as having a Ph,D.D
> Litt
Thank you Shez, that was more than I could possibly have hoped for, two
great potted histories for the price of one<g>
>I don't know everything, nowhere near, but I do know more than most people
who have >never put any time into researching the subject.
We know this Shez which is why we like to get you talking, one of your posts
gives me more pondering material than I can shake a stick at. If I hadn't
been nosing around for myself I wouldn't have come across D V's findings on
old Dorothy's place of birth. Whilst I can match you (well almost) in age,
Britishness, class and tenacity I'm sadly lacking in pub-ability skills<bg>
I'm tee total, detest the smell of beer and am allergic to cigarette smoke.
I know, I know, how pitiful can one get ?;-)
Can I just mention when I said
>> You have many times said how pleased you are to see so
>>much interest being shown in Wicca today, yet you seem also to disparage
>>the very person who made it all possible
I was still alluding to old Dorothy and not Gardner, as *allegedly* without
her help he would never have got his show on the road.
April R
Al
<yowi...@my-deja.com> writes
>I know thats Christian, but I am hoping that this is the sort of thing that
>you are talking about, Al - to listen and act upon the spirit rather than
>some old stuffy thing that you learn by rote. When acting on the spirit
>rather than just going on by habit is when the real magic happens. The
>ritual that is performed must personally meaningful to the person doing it,
>or they may as well do nothing at all.
>
>Yowie
>
>
That's about it. That sort of thing tends to really irritate the
dogmatic types though. It forces them to think for a change.
Rebecca Austin
wrote:
>My point is this (If you haven't done this already, please give it a
>try) If you go with a basic format that the team all can work with,
I disagree. If it were the exact same in detail every time, I could
see it getting stale, but we're talking about more an outline. For
example, most of us cleanse the area, cast the circle, invoke/invite
the elements, call the Dieties, do the seasonal celebration, do
magick, do the cakes and ale/Great Rite, thank the Dieties, thank the
Elements, close the circle. That's an outline. Of course, its going
to be slightly different from once circle to the next, be it Sabbat or
Esbat, or what time of year it is.
The question I have is does it matter where Gardner got the Eko chant,
or what it originally meant? I would guess that those of you who
learned it in a coven setting were given SOME type of meaning for it,
even if it wasn't a transation. Even in day to day speech, our words
don't mean what they always have, spend some time with an Oxford
English Dictionary (OED) if you don't know what I mean.
The meanings of some of these things is what makes Wicca an initiatory
and experiential religion, rather than one based off of a book.
Rebecca
Turtle
>I would say that the coven I attend is more than just a "social and support"
>event. I've seen large groups do very effective magic. It does tend to
>depend
>on the group composition. I have experienced highly effective magic with a
>group of 25 to 30 or more. Groups work for me, perhaps they don't others,
>YMMV.
Groups work for me when they are composed of members many or most of whom have
consistently worked together for some time and who have the basics down very
well. I have experienced *very* effective magick in a group which varies in
size from about a dozen to 30 or more. And it's a very satisfying experience.
With such a group it matters very little what the actual chants, etc., are or
if there is even a chant with words. It's the being able to connect with one
another and sense and amplify the energies...hard to explain if you haven't
experienced it!
Turtle
--
I'm not telling any Pagans or Witches how to vote, but do you want a President
who can say, "I don't think Wicca is a real religion"? (Georgie Dubya said
it). (OK, he said Witchcraft, but they were discussing Wicca).
Mind the spam trap.
Al
<fra...@topdeck.demon.co.uk> writes
>Dorothy, so Hutton tells us, was rich, a Tory and a supporter of her
>local church. These qualifications, so I understand, are just those
>which matched those of many people who were involved in ceremonial
>magic; and while ceremonial magic is perceptibly different from
>witchcraft, Gardner's book describes rituals carried out by a male
>magician accompanied by a young female witch. This suggest to me that
>there could be an overlap between ceremonial magic and witchcraft in
>meets the eye.
I've read letters to and from our lot, from before I was born. It's
hilarious stuff, they're all so bloody middle class! It seems that
everyone was working with everyone else there for a bit, and the
"polite" society was nothing of the sort underneath. I doubt the working
classes had a look in. Peoples politics, lifestyle and habits were very
conservative (tory), and not being part of the community including the
church was a definite no-no. This is all only 30-40 years ago.
Boy oh boy, things change.
Al
<t_s...@swbell.net> writes
>Just my $.02. When Gerald wrote his first book being a witch was still
>illegal in the UK and to out Dorothy could have had her prosecuted. Here in
>the US it there were still laws against Witchcraft till 1959.
>
>Many of the craft supported their local church when we were still an illegal
>quantity, how else do you avoid drawing attention in smaller communities?
>You want to blend in, be nonthreatening.
>
>One point is all the references to Gerald an what he wrote, since the only
>reference to the Ecco chant that I know of is from Janet and Stewart Farar,
>Alexsandrians and not Gardnarians. I could be wrong but Alex didn't study
>or was initiated by Gerald was he? He was a different lineage and does
>differ from Gerald in some ways.
>
inevitably locks the north door in the church( thinks he's god's right
hand or something): they either wake up and play along, or they don't
last long......
Besides vicars are good practice ;->
Al
<rena...@bellsouth.net> writes
>or what it originally meant? I would guess that those of you who
>learned it in a coven setting were given SOME type of meaning for it,
>even if it wasn't a transation. Even in day to day speech, our words
>don't mean what they always have, spend some time with an Oxford
>English Dictionary (OED) if you don't know what I mean.
>
>The meanings of some of these things is what makes Wicca an initiatory
>and experiential religion, rather than one based off of a book.
>
>Rebecca
>
Bare with me on this.
Ummm <scratches head> by this logic then, it would be ok to use a
rendition of "'Ere we go, 'Ere we go" to raise power. If the intent is
there, then it should raise power regardless of the words. However
getting some reasonable understanding of the words would help the focus,
rather than just making sounds. What do you think ?
The other issue, as I've experienced when I've asked Gardenerians what
the translation was, the reply was inevitable "Why do you want to know"
(W**kers!!) which inevitably really meant "I haven't a clue, but I'll
BullS*** you for a bit and make out like I do".
That sort of nonsense is gonna stop. If folks don't know, they damn well
should have the common decency to admit it, instead of playing "The Wise
One" What do the xtians say: "Pride cometh before a fall"
Turtle
>>or what it originally meant? I would guess that those of you who
>>learned it in a coven setting were given SOME type of meaning for it,
>>even if it wasn't a transation. Even in day to day speech, our words
>>don't mean what they always have, spend some time with an Oxford
>>English Dictionary (OED) if you don't know what I mean.
>>
>>The meanings of some of these things is what makes Wicca an initiatory
>>and experiential religion, rather than one based off of a book.
>>
>>Rebecca
>>
>Bare with me on this.
*Bare* with you? A little cheeky, innit?
>Ummm <scratches head> by this logic then, it would be ok to use a
>rendition of "'Ere we go, 'Ere we go" to raise power. If the intent is
>there, then it should raise power regardless of the words.
<snip>
I think that'd make a perfectly fine chant. Think I'll try it.
For some reason, I keep hearing the echoes from Alice in Wonderland: "When I
use a word, it means exactly what I want it to mean." Or something like that!
>That sort of nonsense is gonna stop. If folks don't know, they damn well
>should have the common decency to admit it, instead of playing "The Wise
>One" What do the xtians say: "Pride cometh before a fall"
>
And what do Pagans say? Oh, you did say it-->(W**kers!!)
At least that's what they say your side of the puddle. <G>
Lisa: DreaManiChicKuriouStarfire
muttered cryptically:
>Respectfully I have to disagree. Some facets of wicca seem to me as a
>means for angst ridden teenage minded individuals to either be victims
>or be victimised by some weird post sexual revolutionary self scourging.
>Where the hell else did the Dianics come from. As for being equal:
>couldn't disagree more.... why the bleedin'ell would a woman want to be
>like a man, they've already got one up on life span, pain threshold,
>metabolism etc etc etc. When women are at their hormonal worst, is the
>same hormonal balance men have all the time: go figure (think I'll go
>start a war somewhere)
<grins> For all I generally disagree with parts of what you say and
how you say it, this observation has been made more than once by me
and my fellow female roleplayers . . .
MUDs (online multiplayer games mostly devoted to killing imaginary
beasties, rather than roleplaying) seem attractive to men for long
periods of time . . . but us girls tend to pop in, hack and slash for
two or three days, and disappear, never to be seen until next month.
At least I've done that several times.
BB,
--Lisa
entropic<at>cheerful.com
"We all are God, though most of us have just forgotten who we are." -Spiritus
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> Groups work for me when they are composed of members many or most of whom have
> consistently worked together for some time and who have the basics down very
> well.
A *great* deal of power can also be raised in a meeting of people even
from different Trads who are gathered together for a common purpose.
When the Church of Iron Oak in Palm Bay, Florida, was having their
difficulties with the Zoning Department of that city, I attended at
least two and perhaps more gatherings in their support that generated
enormous amounts of energy, all of which was generated for precisely the
same purpose.
I didn't know many of the out-of-towners in those Circles and have never
seen 'em again, so I can't claim that they and I have Worked together
save on those occasions for any time at all...but the energies raised
were none the less among the most potent I've ever experienced.
Blessed be,
Baird
--
Modkin for soc.religion.paganism,
Modstaff for alt.religion.wicca.moderated
Like science fiction and fantasy fiction? Read my reviews at
<http://www.bairdstafford.com>
Shez
<tau...@clara.net> writes
>> Having read High Magic's aid, and his other books, and researched his
>> life, I am well aware that he studied British folk lore after his
>> retirement from the civil service in Ceylon, > He belonged to the National
>folk lore society even providing them with articles, in his application to
>the society he claimed to be a MA. and Ph.D he later was listed in the
>Writers who's who, as having a Ph,D.D
>> Litt
>
>Thank you Shez, that was more than I could possibly have hoped for, two
>great potted histories for the price of one<g>
>
>who have >never put any time into researching the subject.
>
>gives me more pondering material than I can shake a stick at. If I hadn't
>been nosing around for myself I wouldn't have come across D V's findings on
>old Dorothy's place of birth. Whilst I can match you (well almost) in age,
>Britishness, class and tenacity I'm sadly lacking in pub-ability skills<bg>
>I'm tee total, detest the smell of beer and am allergic to cigarette smoke.
>I know, I know, how pitiful can one get ?;-)
Your a wicked woman, I have just been had (grin)
I am used to pubs, even worked in one or two when the children were
young when Ken worked days and I worked nights.
I don't actually like alcohol, but I could manage a couple of lager and
limes, not to alcoholic.
Not everyone enjoys the atmosphere of a pub, but as the night goes on
and if you keep your wits about you, people do talk, and say things they
wouldn't when they are sober.
>
>Can I just mention when I said
>
>>> You have many times said how pleased you are to see so
>>>much interest being shown in Wicca today, yet you seem also to disparage
>>>the very person who made it all possible
>
>I was still alluding to old Dorothy and not Gardner, as *allegedly* without
>her help he would never have got his show on the road.
True, certainly she would have given him a place in the sort of society
he wanted to belong to, and introduced him to the right sort of people,
I think still that Gardner used a double bluff in alluding to Old
Dorothy.
As I said, everyone must make their own decisions, I enjoyed my
research, loved the New forest area, and hope to visit it again one day,
If your a woman, British and tenacious, then you also have the curiosity
of a cat .... Fun isn't it, (grin)
Turtle
>from different Trads who are gathered together for a common purpose.
>When the Church of Iron Oak in Palm Bay, Florida, was having their
>difficulties with the Zoning Department of that city, I attended at
>least two and perhaps more gatherings in their support that generated
>enormous amounts of energy, all of which was generated for precisely the
>same purpose.
>
>I didn't know many of the out-of-towners in those Circles and have never
>seen 'em again, so I can't claim that they and I have Worked together
>save on those occasions for any time at all...but the energies raised
>were none the less among the most potent I've ever experienced.
>
>Blessed be,
>Baird
>
I'll bet there was still a "core" of experienced energy-raisers who knew what
to expect and what to do with it.
Warren Grant
was a Pagan chant reviled by the Church and popularized in a medieval play
of some sort. It's meaning is unknown to the best of my knowledge, and its
words do not appear to have any relationship to surviving European
languages - it certainly does not appear to be Romance or Germanic in any
way. It might owe its origins to bastardized Basque or Breton but I would
not want to bet on it.
If you are referring to the common mix of the "Eko, Eko" chant with the
"Bagabe Lache" chant, I believe they are unrelated but have been associated
together by modern Pagans. The first time I encountered this set of chants
was in Paul Huson's "Mastering Witchcraft" back in 1973, but I am sure he
got it from an older source (probably Gardnerian or Alexandrian, not sure of
Huson's origins).
Hope that helps,
Atho
Omphalos - The Search Engine and Directory for Witchcraft & Paganism.
http://www.omphalos.net
<calm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8pq80s$7kk$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> Merry meet!
> Does anybody know what actually does the formula "Eko eko Azarak /
> Eko eko Amelak..." mean and what language is that?
> Some people say that "eko" is in latin but my dictionary says it isn't.
> Thanks in advance,
> Calm Wolf <calm...@poczta.onet.pl>
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
>
Rebecca Austin
wrote:
>Bare with me on this.
>
>rendition of "'Ere we go, 'Ere we go" to raise power. If the intent is
>getting some reasonable understanding of the words would help the focus,
>rather than just making sounds. What do you think ?
Yes and no. While 'Ere we go, 'Ere we go, could be used to raise
energy because the intent is a big part, my point was about
entymological definitions versus traditional definitions. I don't
think using a chant that has no meaning to you is appropriate, but I
also don't think that a definition used by a tradtion rather than a
literal translation is invalid. For example, those who know Hebrew
pronounce words used in Ceremonial Magick differently than those who
don't know the language. This doesn't mean that those words don't
work, just that they are using a pronounciation that is traditional
for their system, though not of the language.
>The other issue, as I've experienced when I've asked Gardenerians what
>the translation was, the reply was inevitable "Why do you want to know"
>(W**kers!!) which inevitably really meant "I haven't a clue, but I'll
>BullS*** you for a bit and make out like I do".
In my case (Alexandrian, btw) I might ask "Why do you want to know?"
because of the oaths I took before learning particular information.
While I know that most of modern Wiccans are not bound by oaths about
material, I am. For me, it doesn't matter if its also available in a
book, nor will I say that the person who wrote a book did something
wrong because I don't know what oaths, if any, they took. In
traditionalist groups, there's a tendancy to neither confirm nor deny,
because saying "that's oathbound" is admitting that whatever you asked
is part of the tradition.
I think that those oaths, and the attitudes that many people exhibit
(as above) is why you don't see many traditionalist on open forums.
We're here, we're just tired of defending our Craft, and our Oaths,
without breaking them.
Rebecca
Al
<rena...@bellsouth.net> writes
>On Thu, 21 Sep 2000 16:51:41 CST, Al <A...@greycircle.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>>Bare with me on this.
>>
>
>energy because the intent is a big part, my point was about
>entymological definitions versus traditional definitions. I don't
>think using a chant that has no meaning to you is appropriate, but I
>also don't think that a definition used by a tradtion rather than a
>literal translation is invalid. For example, those who know Hebrew
>pronounce words used in Ceremonial Magick differently than those who
>don't know the language. This doesn't mean that those words don't
>work, just that they are using a pronounciation that is traditional
>for their system, though not of the language.
Thats a fair cop, fun all the same neh?
>
>>The other issue, as I've experienced when I've asked Gardenerians what
>>the translation was, the reply was inevitable "Why do you want to know"
>>(W**kers!!) which inevitably really meant "I haven't a clue, but I'll
>>BullS*** you for a bit and make out like I do".
>
>In my case (Alexandrian, btw) I might ask "Why do you want to know?"
>because of the oaths I took before learning particular information.
Respectfully I think you've shot yourself in the foot here. I've had a
look these oaths: and they are specific about not revealing the material
EXcept to someone properly vouched for in a circle etc etc..... beyond
that, any other circumstances would just need a "NO! go away" rather
than the usual excuse.
Perhaps I've not been clear, but I've asked Gardenerians and
Alexandrians in the circle, and being properly vouched for I still get
the same answer: not because they're worried about oaths, not because
they're worried for my safety, but because they simply DON'T KNOW!. Yet
they still try it on, that sorry lot are beyond belief.
At least the trads say "This is what I did, and this is why I didn't get
my hands blown off, now you figure out the rest for yourself" At least
the have the character and self respect to be up front, instead of
trying to be all mystical.
Now as for "Oath Bound" there's nothing in the GBOS, or ABOS that isn't
in the public domain. However the quintessence of the craft is
invariably where the questions lie, how it all ties together, and shows
without a doubt that the dogmatic and frightened geeks that set
themselves up as HP/HP's to train people are incapable of seeing it thru
because they simply haven't done the work. Evasion, excuses, of any sort
are an instant indication they simply haven't got a clue. The rest whom
are aware, whom HAVE walked the walk, wont evade, won't make excuses,
but Will answer questions, or point you in a direction that will enable
you to answer it yourself.
The rest are just cannon fodder
>While I know that most of modern Wiccans are not bound by oaths about
>material, I am. For me, it doesn't matter if its also available in a
>book, nor will I say that the person who wrote a book did something
>wrong because I don't know what oaths, if any, they took. In
>traditionalist groups, there's a tendancy to neither confirm nor deny,
>because saying "that's oathbound" is admitting that whatever you asked
>is part of the tradition.
As I said, I find it doubtful that anything in contemporary craft is out
of the public domain. How it is actuated is another thing altogether.
Furthermore, a lack of knowledge is no excuse, as most crafters will
have a very broad range of techniques, or at least understandings of
what goes on.
Its a bit like a neophyte looking for parallels in the CAtholic Mass to
a closed circle, then being told "Thats oath bound" because they don't
want to confirm or deny any parallels: <shakes head in disbelief>
>
>I think that those oaths, and the attitudes that many people exhibit
>(as above) is why you don't see many traditionalist on open forums.
>We're here, we're just tired of defending our Craft, and our Oaths,
>without breaking them.
>
Perhaps this is another thread, but again it may be worth looking at why
the oaths are there in the first place. As you've said it, Dogmatic
tradition requires you keep you gob shut, but ask why (and don't say
that it's oath bound)
A silent witch, without the need to tell the world, is an effective
witch. THAT'S IT!
Can you tell me why ?
>Rebecca
>
Al
manra...@my-deja.com
> In my case (Alexandrian, btw) I might ask "Why do you want to know?"
> because of the oaths I took before learning particular information.
> While I know that most of modern Wiccans are not bound by oaths about
> material, I am. For me, it doesn't matter if its also available in a
> book, nor will I say that the person who wrote a book did something
> wrong because I don't know what oaths, if any, they took. In
> traditionalist groups, there's a tendancy to neither confirm nor deny,
> because saying "that's oathbound" is admitting that whatever you asked
> is part of the tradition.
>
> I think that those oaths, and the attitudes that many people exhibit
> (as above) is why you don't see many traditionalist on open forums.
> We're here, we're just tired of defending our Craft, and our Oaths,
> without breaking them.
>
> Rebecca
Oh good, an Alexanderian. I've been wanting to ask someone from your
trad if they were familiar with the claims made by some of Alex
Sander's students that Alex is still about, visiting circles and
showing up at initiations. Have you heard or experienced this yourself?
Don't think the info's oathbound, it was posted in Pagan Contacts
couple months back. Yes the point was made that Alex is deceased.
~Blessed be,
Ariel
manra...@my-deja.com
> Merry meet!
> Does anybody know what actually does the formula "Eko eko Azarak /
> Eko eko Amelak..." mean and what language is that?
> Some people say that "eko" is in latin but my dictionary says it
isn't.
> Thanks in advance,
> Calm Wolf <calm...@poczta.onet.pl>
A man with a dictionary, a bow of deference in your general direction,
sir.
A photo in "The Withces Way", shows this text as it appears in the 13th
century troubador Rutebeuf's MS,housed at the Bibliotheque Nationale in
Paris. Perhaps Gale might be able to add something to this.
In "Witchcraft Majick and Alchemy" by Grillot de Givry, pg109, the
same text is reproduced almost verbatim as in The Grimoire of Lady
Sheba, with minor spelling revisions. This is what the author sez of
it,"During the Middle Ages these and similar formulas enjoyed a repute
they have possibly not quite lost even to-day. Others like them are
found in Le Miracle de Theophile, by the celebrated thirteenth-century
trouvere Ruteboeuf, where we find the sorcerer Salatin conjuring the
Devil in terms not belonging to any known language:
Bagabi laca Bachabe
Lamac cahi achababe
Karrelyos
Lamac alamec Bachalyas
Cabahagy sabalyos
Baryolos
Lagoz atha cabyolas
Samahac et famyolas
Harrahya"
Unfortuantly I could not find a reference to Ruteboeuf,however the
story for the text itself is interesting. It recounts the tale of
Theophilus and may be the earliest know pact with the Devil.
Theophilus, bursar of the church of Adana, in 538 being deprived by his
Bishop of his office, sells his soul to the devil in order to recover
his former post. This legend was in wide circulation preceeding
Ruteboeufs interpretation of it.
Well interesting no, never did trust that chant much.
~Blessed be ya'll,
Al
Well you could say he is, after a fashion, I'd be happy to sell you his
email address.
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
>
Al
Rebecca Austin
>Sander's students that Alex is still about, visiting circles and
>showing up at initiations. Have you heard or experienced this yourself?
>Don't think the info's oathbound, it was posted in Pagan Contacts
I notice you say his students, rather than those of the tradition,
well, I never so much as met the man, which is only obvious
considering I was initiated the year after he died. <G> I haven't had
that experience, though I don't doubt the possibility.
Rebecca
Shez
<A...@greycircle.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <8qrp1j$m6$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>, manra...@my-deja.com writes
>>
>>
>>> In my case (Alexandrian, btw) I might ask "Why do you want to know?"
>>> because of the oaths I took before learning particular information.
>>> While I know that most of modern Wiccans are not bound by oaths about
>>> material, I am. For me, it doesn't matter if its also available in a
>>> book, nor will I say that the person who wrote a book did something
>>> wrong because I don't know what oaths, if any, they took. In
>>> traditionalist groups, there's a tendancy to neither confirm nor deny,
>>> because saying "that's oathbound" is admitting that whatever you asked
>>> is part of the tradition.
>>>
>>> I think that those oaths, and the attitudes that many people exhibit
>>> (as above) is why you don't see many traditionalist on open forums.
>>> We're here, we're just tired of defending our Craft, and our Oaths,
>>> without breaking them.
>>>
>>> Rebecca
>> Oh good, an Alexanderian. I've been wanting to ask someone from your
>>trad if they were familiar with the claims made by some of Alex
>>showing up at initiations. Have you heard or experienced this yourself?
>>Don't think the info's oathbound, it was posted in Pagan Contacts
>>~Blessed be,
>> Ariel
>>
>
>Well you could say he is, after a fashion, I'd be happy to sell you his
>email address.
>>
>>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>>Before you buy.
>>
>
>
>Al
>
>
slippers would it, Dear old Alex, he was a hoot, I should imagine he is
laughing himself silly by now, He was a great showman, and he loved to
be in the limelight.
I met him several times years ago, and he never took himself seriously,
The king of the witches was simply a publicity stunt, their is no King
of the witches in Britain, never has been :)
Richard Ballard
>OK which bits of him are floating around, it wouldn't be those golden
>slippers would it, Dear old Alex, he was a hoot, I should imagine he is
>laughing himself silly by now, He was a great showman, and he loved to
>be in the limelight.
>I met him several times years ago, and he never took himself seriously,
>The king of the witches was simply a publicity stunt, their is no King
>of the witches in Britain, never has been :)
On pg. 124 of "Mastering Witchcraft: A Practical Guide for Witches,
Warlocks & Covens" Paul Huson presents the "Eko eko azarak"
chant under the title "Invocation To The Horned One". Mr. Huson
identifies The Horned One as Lord Cernunnos, god of the witches
and consort to Habondia, the witches' Lady of Delight. On the same
page Mr. Huson states that One may visualize Lord Cernunnos "as
that figure from Elizabethan romance, Robin Goodfellow, or Puck."
Mr. Huson speaks nowhere of Wicca, but his discussion of Habondia
and Lord Cernunnos bears much similarity to the Wiccan Goddess
and God.
My opinions.
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging, and security
Listed as rjballard under "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
Richard Ballard
>The meanings of some of these things is what makes Wicca an
>initiatory and experiential religion, rather than one based off of
>a book.
I don't understand the meaning of "initiatory and experiential religion".
How can One make a commitment to a religion that is not formally
defined?
Richard Ballard
>One point is all the references to Gerald an what he wrote, since
>the only reference to the Ecco chant that I know of is from Janet
>and Stewart Farar, Alexsandrians and not Gardnarians.
On pg. 124 of "Mastering Witchcraft: A Practical Guide for Witches,
Warlocks & Covens" Paul Huson presents the "Eko eko azarak"
chant under the title "Invocation To The Horned One". Mr. Huson
identifies The Horned One as Lord Cernunnos, god of the witches
and consort to Habondia, the witches' Lady of Delight.
Mr. Huson speaks nowhere of Wicca, but his discussion of Habondia
and Lord Cernunnos bears much similarity to the Wiccan Goddess
and God. The one distinguishing factor is that the role and personality
of Lord Cernunnos is much better defined than the discussions I have
seen of the Wiccan God's role and personality.
My opinions.
MysticGoat
Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20001013224830...@nso-fu.aol.com...
> rena...@bellsouth.net (Rebecca Austin) writes:
>
> >The meanings of some of these things is what makes Wicca an
> >initiatory and experiential religion, rather than one based off of
> >a book.
>
> I don't understand the meaning of "initiatory and experiential religion".
> How can One make a commitment to a religion that is not formally
> defined?
>
Nanna
>
> >One point is all the references to Gerald an what he wrote, since
> >the only reference to the Ecco chant that I know of is from Janet
> >and Stewart Farar, Alexsandrians and not Gardnarians.
>
> On pg. 124 of "Mastering Witchcraft: A Practical Guide for Witches,
> Warlocks & Covens" Paul Huson
Paul was initiated in the Alexsandrian 'tradition' also, by Alex Sanders
himself.
Nanna
MysticGoat
* experiential religious Truth vis a vis revealed religious Truth, between
* the initiatory experience v.a v. the experience of conversion, and I think between
* the private religious experience that is common to all men everywhere v.a v. the public religious
experience that is available only to those who have received the Word of God
and that discussion should give us some adequate conceptual tools for handling the original question (as I recall, how to define Wicca in a way that provides meaningful differentiation from similar paths without starting too many cat fights among us wiccans).
I know the language exists for this-- I've both read it and heard it spoken. But I don't know the language.
Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20001013224830...@nso-fu.aol.com...
> rena...@bellsouth.net (Rebecca Austin) writes:
>
> >The meanings of some of these things is what makes Wicca an
> >initiatory and experiential religion, rather than one based off of
> >a book.
>
> I don't understand the meaning of "initiatory and experiential religion".
> How can One make a commitment to a religion that is not formally
> defined?
>
> Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
> Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging, and security
> Listed as rjballard under "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
BB,
--mg
Richard Ballard
principal question: Some Wiccan Traditions include *binding
commitments* during initiation rituals. How can One make a
commitment to a religion (or Tradition) that is not formally
defined, documented, and discussed? I believe that "perfect
love and trust" must be based upon advanced knowledge of the
required commitment.
"MysticGoat" <mysti...@BARF.iname.com> writes:
My opinion.
MysticGoat
The same way two make a binding commitment in marriage or handfasting, without living with each for their entire lives first. Commit, then learn and grow
Not everything is rational and capable of being known. Much of being human is not that way at all.
Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20001014125829...@nso-fq.aol.com...
> The points you raise are important, but they do not address my
> principal question: Some Wiccan Traditions include *binding
> commitments* during initiation rituals. How can One make a
> commitment to a religion (or Tradition) that is not formally
> defined, documented, and discussed? I believe that "perfect
> love and trust" must be based upon advanced knowledge of the
> required commitment.
>
> "MysticGoat" <mysti...@BARF.iname.com> writes:
>
<snip>
> Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
> Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging, and security
> Listed as rjballard under "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
>
Blessed be,
--mg
Richard Ballard
I could not marry someone that I did not know well, or who I felt
had goals incompatible with my own goals. I would require a
certain level of familiarity and comfort prior to committing to
marriage. Learn and grow with my marriage partner; yes. Enter
marriage blindly; no.
I feel the same way about promises. I seldom make promises
because I am very serious when I make a promise. I do not make
"open-ended" promises that I might be unable to fulfill. That is my
way.
I might be unable to fulfill secret vows contained within a binding
initiation ritual. As a result I am unwilling to participate in
secret, closed rituals.
"MysticGoat" <mysti...@BARF.iname.com> writes:
>Oh. If that's the question, it's easy.
>
>The same way two make a binding commitment in marriage
>or handfasting, without living with each for their entire lives first.
>Commit, then learn and grow
>
>Not everything is rational and capable of being known. Much of
>being human is not that way at all.
>
>Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20001014125829...@nso-fq.aol.com...
>> The points you raise are important, but they do not address my
>> principal question: Some Wiccan Traditions include *binding
>> commitments* during initiation rituals. How can One make a
>> commitment to a religion (or Tradition) that is not formally
>> defined, documented, and discussed? I believe that "perfect
>> love and trust" must be based upon advanced knowledge of the
>> required commitment.
My opinions.
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging, and security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
MysticGoat
But then, if it were any other way, it would not be the human experience.
Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20001014211055...@nso-fv.aol.com...
Blessed be
--mg
Francis Cameron
<mysti...@BARF.iname.com> writes
>I am really hoping that some of our Christian members who've been through
>seminary or other formal schooling will chime in here. We could use some
>discussion about the differences between
>
> * experiential religious Truth vis a vis revealed religious Truth,
I'd very much like to be part of this exploration. I can offer fifty or
more years of Christianity (including two years with the Greek of the
New Testament) as my background before I finally decided my eclectic
witchery must take precedence. (Am I am Wiccan? I don't know. I describe
myself as a Priest of the Craft.)
As to 'experiential' contrasted with 'revealed' I think I would have to
ask for a few words of definition so we start from the same beginning.
>between
> * the initiatory experience v.a v. the experience of conversion,
I experienced conversion to the Roman Catholic faith - a very real
experience. I'm not sure what is meant by 'initiatory experience'
> and I think
>between
> * the private religious experience that is common to all men everywhere v.a
>v. the public religious
> experience that is available only to those who have received the Word of
>God
As one schooled in anthropology I would have to say there is no
religious experience common to all men everywhere. That is why it is so
difficult to arrive at a commonly accepted definition of 'religion'.
I have met and conversed with some of those who have 'received the Word
of God'. So far I have never been able to get a coherent answer to my
question 'How do you know it is the Word of God?'
>
>and that discussion should give us some adequate conceptual tools for handling
>the original question (as I recall, how to define Wicca in a way that provides
>meaningful differentiation from similar paths without starting too many cat
>fights among us wiccans).
I suggest we could begin by identifying those diverse 'entities' which
were present in the early days with Gerald Gardner and his coveners i.e.
the practice of witchcraft; the practice of ceremonial magic; something
of the mystery religions; observance of the pagan seasonal festivals;
naked dancing and chanting into a state of ecstasy. How's that for
starters?
Then we could go on to identify some of the various discrete strands
which have come into being since then.
At the end of all this I would hope we could arrive at an identification
of that special something which is the essence of Wicca and which is
present in all its current manifestations. (But we may find there is no
such 'entity'.)
--
francis freespirit
Oxford, England
Francis Cameron
Ballard <rball...@aol.com> writes
>On pg. 124 of "Mastering Witchcraft: A Practical Guide for Witches,
>chant under the title "Invocation To The Horned One". Mr. Huson
>identifies The Horned One as Lord Cernunnos, god of the witches
>page Mr. Huson states that One may visualize Lord Cernunnos "as
>that figure from Elizabethan romance, Robin Goodfellow, or Puck."
>
>and Lord Cernunnos bears much similarity to the Wiccan Goddess
>and God.
With great respect, Richard, this does seem to be on the wrong track. In
my experience Cernunnos is considered to be a representation of the
Horned God and the figure on the Gundestrup Bowl is frequently
identified as such.
Neither Robin Goodfellow nor Puck are horned beings.
Francis Cameron
Ballard <rball...@aol.com> writes
>How can One make a commitment to a religion that is not formally
>defined?
May I suggest there are many varieties of the Christian religion which
are not - and perhaps cannot be - formally defined, yet they attract
considerable commitment.
As for formal definitions of Wicca, I suspect these have to be implicit
in the devotee rather than explicit statements of credo.
Francis Cameron
<na...@mangans.clara.co.uk> writes
>> >the only reference to the Ecco chant that I know of is from Janet
>> >and Stewart Farar, Alexsandrians and not Gardnarians.
True that both Stewart and Janet were initiated into the Alexandrian
mode in the 1970s, but by the 1980s they were collaborating with Doreen
Valiente in scrutinising the oldest versions of Gardner's Book of
Shadows to learn as much as possible of the original rituals. And
nowadays the differences between the two strands of the Craft do seem to
have been minimised in practice, witness Vivianne Crowley who has been
initiated into both 'denominations'.
Francis Cameron
>Warlocks & Covens" Paul Huson presents the "Eko eko azarak"
>chant under the title "Invocation To The Horned One".
Do you have a date for Paul Huson's book, please?
There is a good discussion of Eko; Eko; Azarak in Ronald Hutton's
'Triumph of the Moon' [1990] page 232 where he identifies the original
sources of this chant. I'd be glad to hear of any other references.
Francis Cameron
Ballard <rball...@aol.com> writes
>The points you raise are important, but they do not address my
>principal question: Some Wiccan Traditions include *binding
>commitments* during initiation rituals. How can One make a
>commitment to a religion (or Tradition) that is not formally
>defined, documented, and discussed?
I wonder whether there is the possibility of a misunderstanding here.
The binding commitments of which I am aware are not specifically
commitments to a religion. There is, for example, a commitment 'to keep
secret those things which ought to be kept secret' but this is not
necessarily or specifically related to religious beliefs.
Richard Ballard
>>On pg. 124 of "Mastering Witchcraft: A Practical Guide for Witches,
>>Warlocks & Covens" Paul Huson presents the "Eko eko azarak"
>>chant under the title "Invocation To The Horned One". Mr. Huson
>>identifies The Horned One as Lord Cernunnos, god of the witches
>>and consort to Habondia, the witches' Lady of Delight. On the same
>>page Mr. Huson states that One may visualize Lord Cernunnos "as
>>that figure from Elizabethan romance, Robin Goodfellow, or Puck."
<snip>
>Neither Robin Goodfellow nor Puck are horned beings.
You must discuss that issue with Mr. Huson. As my original
punctuation indicates, I provided a direct quotation from his book.
Best wishes.
Richard Ballard
>Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> writes
>>On pg. 124 of "Mastering Witchcraft: A Practical Guide for Witches,
>>Warlocks & Covens" Paul Huson presents the "Eko eko azarak"
>>chant under the title "Invocation To The Horned One".
>
>Do you have a date for Paul Huson's book, please?
Copyright 1970 by Paul Huson. A Perigee Book, Published by
The Berkley Publishing Group, a member of Penguin Putnam Inc.
First Perigee Edition 1980. ISBN 0-399-50442-7; LCC 79-111530.
Paperback; MSRP 14.95 $US.
>There is a good discussion of Eko; Eko; Azarak in Ronald Hutton's
>'Triumph of the Moon' [1990] page 232 where he identifies the original
>sources of this chant. I'd be glad to hear of any other references.
Best wishes.
Richard Ballard
>>The points you raise are important, but they do not address my
>>principal question: Some Wiccan Traditions include *binding
>>commitments* during initiation rituals. How can One make a
>>commitment to a religion (or Tradition) that is not formally
>>defined, documented, and discussed?
>
>I wonder whether there is the possibility of a misunderstanding here.
>The binding commitments of which I am aware are not specifically
>commitments to a religion. There is, for example, a commitment
>'to keep secret those things which ought to be kept secret' but this
>is not necessarily or specifically related to religious beliefs.
A vow of secrecy is a commitment to obey authority. Is the
commitment tempered by ethics, or is the commitment absolute?
I believe that my question is sufficiently clear that a hypothetical
example is not required.
Closed and secret initiation rituals prevent potential initiates from
"reading the fine print" and learning the scope of their required
commitments. Ethics prevent me from participating in closed
and secret initiation rituals.
My opinions.
Gale
<fra...@topdeck.demon.co.uk> wrote:
(snip)
>
>I have met and conversed with some of those who have 'received the Word
>of God'. So far I have never been able to get a coherent answer to my
>question 'How do you know it is the Word of God?'
>>(snip)
Because it *feels* like it is. There, coherent --- and also
subject to almost every imaginable philosophical objection.
;-)
I know of nothing offhand that would lead a person to skepticism
more thoroughly than an attempt to separate revelation /
illusion / delusion as it exists in the mind of those who have
"seen" (myself included).
Blessed Be,
Gale
http://www.capstonebeads.com/Magick.html (original
Tarot, poetry, fiction)
ga...@arwm.net
modstaff alt.religion.wicca.moderated
Al
>
>The same way two make a binding commitment in marriage or handfasting, without
>living with each for their entire lives first. Commit, then learn and grow
>
>Not everything is rational and capable of being known. Much of being human is
>not that way at all.
>
Beyond that, the commitment is to yourself, not a religion. Just the
specific path that you will follow. This in of itself will change day by
day, what a gas!
>
>Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> wrote in message news:20001014125829.06181.
>0000...@nso-fq.aol.com...
>> The points you raise are important, but they do not address my
>> principal question: Some Wiccan Traditions include *binding
>> commitments* during initiation rituals. How can One make a
>> commitment to a religion (or Tradition) that is not formally
>> defined, documented, and discussed? I believe that "perfect
>> love and trust" must be based upon advanced knowledge of the
>> required commitment.
>>
>> "MysticGoat" <mysti...@BARF.iname.com> writes:
>>
>
><snip>
>
>> Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
>> Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging, and security
>> Listed as rjballard under "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
>>
>
>Blessed be,
>--mg
>
>
Al
Nolite Cum Magis Fossere
Francis Cameron
Ballard <rball...@aol.com> writes
>A vow of secrecy is a commitment to obey authority.
The vow I quoted 'to keep secret those things that are to be kept
secret' does not, in my understanding, represent a commitment to obey
authority. It is simply an undertaking to respect the privacy of the
circle.
> Is the
>commitment tempered by ethics, or is the commitment absolute?
>I believe that my question is sufficiently clear that a hypothetical
>example is not required.
Perhaps I'm not feeling very bright at the moment, but I confess I do
not really understand the question.
>
>Closed and secret initiation rituals prevent potential initiates from
>"reading the fine print" and learning the scope of their required
>commitments.
Do you speak from personal experience? or does your information come
from some other source?
Francis Cameron
Ballard <rball...@aol.com> writes
>Francis Cameron <fra...@topdeck.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>>Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> writes
>>>On pg. 124 of "Mastering Witchcraft: A Practical Guide for Witches,
>>>Warlocks & Covens" Paul Huson presents the "Eko eko azarak"
>>>chant under the title "Invocation To The Horned One".
>>
>>Do you have a date for Paul Huson's book, please?
>
>Copyright 1970 by Paul Huson. A Perigee Book, Published by
>The Berkley Publishing Group, a member of Penguin Putnam Inc.
>First Perigee Edition 1980. ISBN 0-399-50442-7; LCC 79-111530.
>Paperback; MSRP 14.95 $US.
Thank you for this, Richard. Maybe the information in Ronald Hutton's
book now supersedes the earlier volume.
Francis Cameron
<ga...@arwm.net> writes
>>I have met and conversed with some of those who have 'received the Word
>>of God'. So far I have never been able to get a coherent answer to my
>>question 'How do you know it is the Word of God?'
>>>(snip)
>
>Because it *feels* like it is. There, coherent --- and also
>subject to almost every imaginable philosophical objection.
That's as good an answer as I have ever had from anyone I've asked.
Problems then arise in my mind when we move on to talk about someone
else who has been led to a different persuasion (or path or tradition)
by 'receiving the Word of God'. Then my first interlocutor tells me this
someone else is suffering from self-delusion. This suggests that only a
privileged few receive the authentic Word and that others receive an
invalid communication.
Francis Cameron
Ballard <rball...@aol.com> writes
>Mr. Huson
>>>identifies The Horned One as Lord Cernunnos, god of the witches
>>>and consort to Habondia, the witches' Lady of Delight. On the same
>>>page Mr. Huson states that One may visualize Lord Cernunnos "as
>>>that figure from Elizabethan romance, Robin Goodfellow, or Puck."
>
> <snip>
>
>>Neither Robin Goodfellow nor Puck are horned beings.
>
>You must discuss that issue with Mr. Huson. As my original
>punctuation indicates, I provided a direct quotation from his book.
That I do not deny, but do we now agree that Mr Huson's statement is
open to being questioned?
Al
Ballard <rball...@aol.com> writes
>rena...@bellsouth.net (Rebecca Austin) writes:
>
>>The meanings of some of these things is what makes Wicca an
>>initiatory and experiential religion, rather than one based off of
>>a book.
>
>I don't understand the meaning of "initiatory and experiential religion".
>defined?
>
You become a religion of one.
A culture of one.
Experiential (IMHO) means you get to do it, rather than hear about it
from some nonce vicar/priest every sunday.
But then it ceases to be religion, because faith has disappeared out the
door only to be replaced by the fact/knowledge and understanding of what
is actually going on.
(Yeah yeah, folks will bleat on about not knowing the unknowable, but it
doesn't stop you from getting a good glimpse of it)
>Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
>Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging, and security
>Listed as rjballard under "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
>
Rebecca Austin
On Fri, 13 Oct 2000 22:45:50 CST, rball...@aol.com (Richard Ballard)
wrote:
>rena...@bellsouth.net (Rebecca Austin) writes:
>>The meanings of some of these things is what makes Wicca an
>>initiatory and experiential religion, rather than one based off of
>>a book.
>I don't understand the meaning of "initiatory and experiential religion".
>How can One make a commitment to a religion that is not formally
>defined?
Its hard to explain. Wicca, as I was taught it, is a mystery
tradition. Those mysteries aren't ones you can understand by turning
to the last page and going, ahh, the butcher did it! but ones that you
build toward through group or solitary practice and wake up in the
middle of the night (sit up in the middle of the day, choke at dinner,
whenever <G>) and go "Oh! I understand" its the Aha experience. We
can talk and talk about any of the core beliefs of most Wiccan
tradtions, be it Magick, or reincarnation, or the Dieties. . . . but
its the experience of those things that make the religion.
That's not to say it isn't formally defined, just not defined in the
way that most religions are. I think that those who seek a religion
tend to be those who have a very spiritual bent anyway, but have
realized that the religion they were taught as a child, whatever that
religion is, is not the Path they are meant to be walking. How many
people in the Craft have you heard say, "I found this book, and I
realized they were talking about what I believe:!"? (is that
punctuated right?)
I don't know if this helps. . . .
Rebecca
Richard Ballard
to be a *permanent* commitment. In my view, that commitment
will *not* change daily. As a result, I will not make ill-defined or
open-ended commitments that I cannot fulfill.
Al <A...@greycircle.demon.co.uk> writes:
>>Oh. If that's the question, it's easy.
>>
>>The same way two make a binding commitment in marriage or
>>handfasting, without living with each for their entire lives first.
>>Commit, then learn and grow
>>
>>Not everything is rational and capable of being known. Much of
>>being human is not that way at all.
>
>Beyond that, the commitment is to yourself, not a religion. Just
>the specific path that you will follow. This in of itself will change
>day by day, what a gas!
>>
>>Richard Ballard <rball...@aol.com> wrote ...
>>> The points you raise are important, but they do not address my
>>> principal question: Some Wiccan Traditions include *binding
>>> commitments* during initiation rituals. How can One make a
>>> commitment to a religion (or Tradition) that is not formally
>>> defined, documented, and discussed? I believe that "perfect
>>> love and trust" must be based upon advanced knowledge of the
>>> required commitment.
Best wishes.
Richard Ballard MSEE CNA4 KD0AZ
Consultant specializing in computer networks, imaging, and security
Listed as rjballard in "Friends & Favorites" at www.amazon.com
MysticGoat
Al <A...@greycircle.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:2VOaaKAN...@greycircle.demon.co.uk...> <mysti...@BARF.iname.com> writes
> >Oh. If that's the question, it's easy.
> >
> >The same way two make a binding commitment in marriage or handfasting, without
> >living with each for their entire lives first. Commit, then learn and grow
> >
> >Not everything is rational and capable of being known. Much of being human is
> >not that way at all.
> >
>
> Beyond that, the commitment is to yourself, not a religion. Just the
> specific path that you will follow. This in of itself will change day by
> day, what a gas!
Good point.
<snip>
> Al
>
> Nolite Cum Magis Fossere
>
BB,
--mg
Baird Stafford
<snip>
> That's as good an answer as I have ever had from anyone I've asked.
> Problems then arise in my mind when we move on to talk about someone
> else who has been led to a different persuasion (or path or tradition)
> by 'receiving the Word of God'. Then my first interlocutor tells me this
> someone else is suffering from self-delusion. This suggests that only a
> privileged few receive the authentic Word and that others receive an
> invalid communication.
Not my answer (like Gale, I've talked to 'em). My answer is, "You and I
are different people. Why should the Powers *not* tell you one thing
and me another?"
I tend to use the same answer, or a variant, when someone claims to be
speaking "for the Goddess." "I know that She tells me what *I* need to
know: who am I to tell Her She can't tell you what *you* need to know?"
I'm pretty certain it's an infuriating answer in religious debate - but
it not only allows me to continue serenely in my own beliefs, it extends
the same courtesy to others.
Blessed be,
Baird
--
Modkin for soc.religion.paganism,
Modstaff for alt.religion.wicca.moderated
Like science fiction and fantasy fiction? Read my reviews at
<http://www.bairdstafford.com>
Richard Ballard
>>>'How do you know it is the Word of God?'
>>
>>>>(snip)
>>
>>Because it *feels* like it is. There, coherent --- and also
>>subject to almost every imaginable philosophical objection.
>
>That's as good an answer as I have ever had from anyone I've
>asked. Problems then arise in my mind when we move on to
>talk about someone else who has been led to a different
>persuasion (or path or tradition) by 'receiving the Word of God'.
>Then my first interlocutor tells me this someone else is suffering
>from self-delusion. This suggests that only a privileged few
>receive the authentic Word and that others receive an
>invalid communication.
Based upon my life experience, it is hard to justify a statement
like "This suggests that only a privileged few receive the authentic
Word and that others receive an invalid communication."
I do not remember the original Latin but a sentence originating
in Julius Caesar's time was "Who shall guard the Guardians?"
I do not believe this was answered satisfactorily.
I would hate to be given the task of verifying the source of
potentially-divine messages.
Richard Ballard
>>A vow of secrecy is a commitment to obey authority.
>
>The vow I quoted 'to keep secret those things that are to be kept
>secret' does not, in my understanding, represent a commitment to
>obey authority. It is simply an undertaking to respect the privacy
>of the circle.
Authority defines what (if anything) is to be kept secret. For
example, authority can say "Do not disclose to anyone outside
the circle that you are a Wiccan." You might disagree with the
need for this secrecy, but your vow of secrecy (a binding
commitment) requires that you obey authority.
>>Is the commitment tempered by ethics, or is the commitment
>>absolute? I believe that my question is sufficiently clear that a
>>hypothetical example is not required.
>
>Perhaps I'm not feeling very bright at the moment, but I confess I
>do not really understand the question.
Imagine a circumstance where you are tasked to help prepare
a philter (potion) for an initiation. Your vow of secrecy prevents
you from disclosing the philter's ingredients to initiates. Your
knowledge of herbs, spices, and botanicals tells you that several
of the philter's ingredients are highly allergenic. Do you keep
your vow of silence concerning the philter's ingredients, or do
ethics force you to disclose (how much?) information about the
philter to the prospective initiates?