Sikh Quaker?
BfloPolska
most intriguing lines I've ever seen in a book:
"There are Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist and Sikh Quakers..."
The problem being that I'm a Sikh--a tradition teaching that, when all
other means have failed, it is righteous to draw the sword--and am
simultaneously drawn to the Quaker teachings and principles of
worship. How can one possibly reconcile the two?
Blessed be,
Baha
Timothy Travis
On 1/1/09 9:48 AM, in article
c24867ea-2c76-441f...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com,
"BfloPolska" <bflop...@gmail.com> wrote:
There is a Quaker "fable" about William Penn, a member of the English
aristocracy in the late 17th Century. He became a Quaker; a traitor to his
class and to its values, including the value that the aristocracy bore arms
as part of its duty to the King.
Penn is said to have asked George Fox whether he could be a Quaker and still
wear that sword. Fox's answer was (said to be) that Brother Penn should
wear the sword as long as he could--until the process of transformation
going on inside him forbade him to do so, any more. The essence of the
Quaker faith and practice, traditionally, has been about transformation of
individuals which has almost always been a very gradual change to conform to
the more or less universal image of holiness--simplicity, peace, integrity,
community and equality (in modern terms).
Many Friends, throughout history, have laid down non-violence in time of war
and signed up to fight. Upon return they have largely been welcomed back,
along with their brother who were jailed or otherwise suffered for holding
to conscientious objection. The community will sometimes (at least in the
past) "disown" the action but not exclude the person or require some kind of
repentance for them to return. Scott Simon, for example, the NPR
commentator, decided that in light of 911 he could not uphold the testimony
of peace. I don't think he left the Society and I know that notwithstanding
much talk among Friends that disagreed with his conclusion that talk never,
that I heard, ended in saying he should leave.
Many Quakers--and Quakers who consider themselves "aspiring" Quakers--have
problems around things that are decidedly "un Quarkerly"--at least in the
minds of some other Friends and Quaker tradition.
Most Quakers would say that it is not a benefit to the Society or to someone
aspiring to be a part of it to hold that until the process of "perfection"
(maturation, sanctification) is complete in that person they should not be
welcome to the fellowship.
If one "fits" in the community, if one is comfortable and edified living out
his or her spirituality among Friends, and that living is constructive or
both the individual and the community, then that person should be welcome.
So many people come and go through the Society of Friends--sometimes they
find that it's not about what they thought it was when they first came
through the door. But each person who comes has something for the community
and the community has something for that person. You may find yourself
laying that dagger down, at some point, and you might not. Even if you
leave the Society, however, it will leave its mark on you and you will
benefit from that. The same is true, the other way around.
A Sikh Quaker? Why not? There are lots of "Quakers" in this world who
don't know they are Quakers. There are also a remarkable number of people
who self identify as Quakers who are not, at least not yet, moving in the
right direction.
Timothy Travis
Bridge City Friends Meeting
Portland, Oregon
"In recent years Friends have treated these testimonies
as valuable in and of themselves, but to our spiritual
forebears this was not the case; they were the naturally
occurring outward signs that a more important change
had taken place in the individual."
Lloyd Lee Wilson
The Quaker Vision of Gospel Order
Yowie
news:c24867ea-2c76-441f...@a29g2000pra.googlegroups.com
Hi Baha! bet you didn't expect to see me here. LOL.
How to reconcile the two?: pray. Seek guidance from your 'inner light'.
There are some Quakers who would not object to using the minimum force
necessary if it was the last resort to defend oneself and those who need
defending. I'd be one of them (at least, if I were a member of RSOF, which
I'm not).
Does that help?
Purrs to you,
Yowie
--
If you're paddling upstream in a canoe and a wheel falls off, how many
pancakes can you fit in a doghouse? None, icecream doesn't have bones.
Bill Samuel
>
> The problem being that I'm a Sikh--a tradition teaching that, when all
> other means have failed, it is righteous to draw the sword--and am
> simultaneously drawn to the Quaker teachings and principles of
> worship. How can one possibly reconcile the two?
Quakers have tended to regard your direction as more important than
where you are. So to me, the question would you be open to moving in
the direction of the Quaker tradition in this area and in other areas?
Of course, many meetings today take the posture that anyone can be a
Quaker. This leads to being a Quaker meaning nothing. I don't
understand the merit in that.
Bill Samuel
BfloPolska
> Of course, many meetings today take the posture that anyone can be a
> Quaker. This leads to being a Quaker meaning nothing. I don't
> understand the merit in that.
Nor I. It is written that one cannot serve two masters. Yet I married
into a huge interfaith family where my Sikh sister-in-law sings in
Hebrew for Hanukkah as beautifully as her Jewish husband, and the same
husband brought their newborn child to the Sikh temple for an all-
Panjabi christening. In like manner my husband's married siblings, all
of whom wed outside the Sikh faith and Indian ethnicity, participate
with equal reverence and fervor in their spouses' respective
traditions. And as Sikhs belive in one solo God, the divinity of Jesus
is out of the question. Can the quote from the Pink Dandelion book
then be interpreted better if said, "There are Muslims, Hindus etc.,
who incorporate the meditative elements of Quaker worship into their
personal spiritual lives"? Otherwise the quote is misleading.
Blessed be,
Baha
Yowie
I don't know - guess it all depends on how one defines "Quaker" and "Sikh".
The underlying teaching of Quakerism, is, IMHO, that there is divinity in
all and we should recognise that. It means that even though you may be Sikh,
that doesn't mean you have any less access to the Divine than anyone else,
even if you happen to express it differently. Quakers have no creed which
they all have to spout or swear allegiance too. It also means that I -
without any interference from various 'religious' organisations have the
tools *necessary* to follow that Divinity by simply shutting up and
listening for that 'still small voice within'. (That doesn't mean of course
that there arent tools out there that are very helpful but I don't *need*
them to follow that which has been written on my heart).
I believe Quakerism is an attempt to cut through all the human invented
rituals and proceedures and get back to what is at the root of all
religious - trying to get back in touch with the Divine, trying to live
wholly within the Light.
Does this make any sense?
BfloPolska
> I believe Quakerism is an attempt to cut through all the human invented
> rituals and proceedures and get back to what is at the root of all
> religious - trying to get back in touch with the Divine, trying to live
> wholly within the Light.
>
> Does this make any sense?
It does. In many ways this is what Guru Nanak taught as well; he was
sorely against the ritualism and legalism that had turned the Hindu
religion into a nationwide master-slave relationship between the
castes, and above all sought devotional worship, full equality between
genders and a classless society.
My definition of "Sikh," BTW, is its pure original meaning: disciple
or student. By such logic one could call Jesus a Sikh in that he
sought God to learn of His (Her) teachings and will; but we are
getting dangerously close to hair-splitting! :-)
Blessed be,
Baha
Yowie
We have hair repair here, so split away ;-)
Dunno if you'd be interested, but there's a blog by a Quaker Wiccan here:
http://quakerpagan.blogspot.com/2006/07/beyond-w-word.html
I know next to nothing about Sikhism but it sounds somewhat like how
Qukaerism came about: a particularly spiritual individual - in the Quaker's
case George Fox - got so sick of the hypocrisy and empty ritualism of the
religions of the day (ie, in England) that he tried to make his own path the
best he knew by throwing all the legalism and what others said out and
starting 'from scratch' from whathe knew in his heart to be true. Of course,
Quakerism is a reaction to the state of Engish (and later American)
Christianity of the 17th century, but would at its core be strongly
influenced by that same Christianity that it was reacting against. I wonder
if that is how Sikhism came about? If so, I woudl suspect that Sikhism and
Quakerism has alot in common and much to discuss :-)
I for one would very much welcome such a discussion - if you'd be up for it.
You'd also know that I came to Quakerism through a strange path that
involved Wicca. Wicca in itself could nowadays be accused of having
'rituals' that could be 'empty', but of course thats not how the Wiccan sees
it :-). Anyway, if youwant to discuss spirituality feel free, or we could go
to RPCA and talk cats (spiritual ambassadors that they are)
Yowie
--
"because its more fun to be evil" - Jarppi, _The Dudesons_
uberg...@googlemail.com
> Of course, many meetings today take the posture that anyone can be a
> Quaker.
Who can't be a Quaker?
Ian
Yowie
news:0023e89e-5e4d-4721...@w24g2000prd.googlegroups.com
Now thats actually a good question!
What would naturally disqualify a subset of humanity from being a Quaker if
they sought membership?
BfloPolska
> >> Of course, many meetings today take the posture that anyone can be a
> >> Quaker.
>
> > Who can't be a Quaker?
>
> Now thats actually a good question!
>
> What would naturally disqualify a subset of humanity from being a Quaker if
> they sought membership?
Which is rather why I brought this up in the first place! The quote
from the original post has been obsessing me for months. Guru Nanak
was a peaceable, spiritual man, a lot like George Fox in many ways. It
wasn't for many years, and the succession of four more Gurus, that the
Indian Sikhs became very martial, largely in self-defense. To this day
the wearing of the kirpan or ceremonial dagger is symbolic of not
merely a willingness to stand up for your beliefs, but for the safety
and human rights of others. The ninth Guru, Tegh Bahadur, was martyred
for defending not the rights of his followers to freely worship, but
the rights of the conquered Hindu people after invaders attempted
forcible conversions; the Guru believed in freedom of conscience.
Where is a line to be drawn? There is a lot of bloodiness in Sikh
history and would prefer to reach out to my fellowbeings in the manner
of a true Friend, without feeling like I need to seek out conflict. Or
maybe I should just keep in mind the story of George Fox and William
Penn?
Blessed be,
Baha
BfloPolska
> I for one would very much welcome such a discussion - if you'd be up for it.
> You'd also know that I came to Quakerism through a strange path that
> involved Wicca. Wicca in itself could nowadays be accused of having
> 'rituals' that could be 'empty', but of course thats not how the Wiccan sees
> it :-). Anyway, if youwant to discuss spirituality feel free, or we could go
> to RPCA and talk cats (spiritual ambassadors that they are)
And the spirit of the Great Cat did move upon the face of His chosen
oracle, She who is called Roxie, who did succeed Fritzie in the Great
Work of the Fritzian Dispensation. And Roxie did say, "Lo, she who is
my Mother, called in the world Elizabeth, doth pull at her hair in
much frustration, for her Spirit is much vexed and crieth unto The
Boss that the Secret of Worship may be revealed. Yea, my Mother crieth
for such Words as shall fill her soul and give strength unto her heart
and mind, for desire to do her work well for The Boss is great, and
verily a Meeting of minds and hearts must needs be called. Let those
who share in much love of Faith gather in the place of those who also
love the Great Cat, that their needs be fulfilled."
Good idea. See you in RPCA!
Blessed be,
Baha
BfloPolska
> to RPCA and talk cats (spiritual ambassadors that they are)
Oh yeah. And here. Boy am I tired!
Yowie
Maybe:-)
The kirpan is surely a symbol of defence rather than agression. A
willingness, as you say, to stand up for yourself and others. This is in no
way a bad thing and is quite consistant with Quakerism.
Only when the kirpan becomes a symbol of violence does it "cross the line",
IMHO.
There is nothing wrong per se with *conflict*. Conflict - especially inner
conflict - is what changes the person and changes the world. it opens up
debates, discourse, learning. Its when people in conflict fail to recognise
the people they are in conflict with as fellow human beings but as 'others',
as opponants, as *enemies*, as not as fellow and equal human beings that
trouble follows. When the golden rule of "do unto others as they would have
them do unto you" is broken does conflict beome dangerous. But it can also
do great good as people change the world...
YMMV :-)
Yowie
These types of posts are my very favourite type from RPCA
(rec.pets.cats.anecdotes).
I miss my personal humility teacher (Shmoggleberry - every time he thought I
was getting uppity he'd bless me witha B*st*rd C*t Trick so that I would
learn my place!). I guess Da Boss figured I'd learnt that lesson, because
when Shmogg was called Home, I was blessed with three more teachers - but
none of them do B*st*rd C*t tricks. Instead, one (Pickle) teaches me about
love being patient and forgiving as he 'endures' being loved by our 4yo son
(The Yowlet), Suki I guess is teaching me that even the mindbogglingly
stupid have a right to live their lives as they see fit, and Shadow is once
again teaching me that love can overcome difficult relationships.
Fluffy, the dog, has recently left me questioning the dollar value of love
and life. How much am I willing to pay for those that I love?
I suspect I would not be learning these lessons if the teachers were not in
their current forms :-)
Yowie
LOL. Cats and their spiritual nature are more on topic that alot of the drek
that appears here :-)
Timothy Travis
On 1/6/09 10:06 PM, in article 6siv2sF...@mid.individual.net, "Yowie"
<yowie9644....@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> The kirpan is surely a symbol of defence rather than agression. A
> willingness, as you say, to stand up for yourself and others. This is in no
> way a bad thing and is quite consistant with Quakerism.
Traditionally Friends have not agreed with you on this one, Yowie. One
person's "defense" is another person's "offense" and the doctrine of
"just war" has, as I say, traditionally been characterized by Friends as
simply war.
You know that the reports were that the North Vietnamese attacked an
American ship in the Gulf of Tonkin--and that report of attack justified the
American "counter attack" that ended up becoming the War in Vietnam.
That attack was a ruse, of course, and yet many people who believe that war
in self defense were won over to supporting that war by the belief that the
US was attacked, first.
If, instead of saying that the fact of the North Vietnamese "attacked" the
US made it a "just war," people said "it's simply war" 55,000 Americans and
hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese would not have met such untimely ends.
The traditional Friends testimony has been a willingness to die for a lot of
things but kill for nothing--like Jesus.
If one is going to stand up for oneself or for others that is consistent
with Friends' testimony--but one need not have a knife to do that.
People who believe in violence to defend others come to meeting and consider
themselves to be Friends. Maybe they are. But they do not adhere to the
traditional Quaker testimony any more than a Quaker believing that men
should dominate and control women are living out their spirituality in the
manner of traditional Quakers.
Timothy Travis
Bridge City Friends Meeting
Portland, Oregon
"You make us want what we can't have and what you
give us is worth nothing and what you take is
everything and all there is left for us is the cold
hillside, and emptiness, and the laughter of the
elves."
-Esme Weatherwax
Yowie
> On 1/6/09 10:06 PM, in article 6siv2sF...@mid.individual.net,
> "Yowie" <yowie9644....@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> The kirpan is surely a symbol of defence rather than agression. A
>> willingness, as you say, to stand up for yourself and others. This
>> is in no way a bad thing and is quite consistant with Quakerism.
>
>
> Traditionally Friends have not agreed with you on this one, Yowie.
> One person's "defense" is another person's "offense" and the doctrine
> of "just war" has, as I say, traditionally been characterized by
> Friends as simply war.
Surely it is what the kirpan means to the individual holder? The usual size
of the kirpan that most Sikhs hold is tiny and wouldn't even count as a
butter knife in effectiveness.
> The traditional Friends testimony has been a willingness to die for a
> lot of things but kill for nothing--like Jesus.
Again, this could well be consistant with an individual Sikh's views.
> If one is going to stand up for oneself or for others that is
> consistent with Friends' testimony--but one need not have a knife to
> do that.
No. Nor do I need a cat pendant around my neck or a green earring in the
helix of my ear to remind me of how much I love and miss my now deceased
cat. But I do. They're *symbols* rather than the real thing (said dead cat
would be rather impractical to carry on a necklace around my neck!). The
usual kirpan that Sikhs hold is nothing more than a symbol of standing up
against those that wish to opress them, a symbol of defending their right to
exist. It is not a real dagger, it is a symbolic one.
(I would still kill if that was the last defence against an attacker,
particularly if the attacker was attacking my 4 yo son. He is incapable of
defending himself nor is he capable of making the sort of informed decision
where he can choose to die at the hands of an attacker rather than striking
back. If this disqualifies me as a Quaker, then so be it.)
> People who believe in violence to defend others come to meeting and
> consider themselves to be Friends. Maybe they are. But they do not
> adhere to the traditional Quaker testimony any more than a Quaker
> believing that men should dominate and control women are living out
> their spirituality in the manner of traditional Quakers.
I don't "believe in violence" so much as recognise it as the last resort in
a long line of defensive measures.
here is the hierachy of defence as taught by my Sensei:
1) Don't get yourself into a situation where violence could occur
2) If you find yourself in such a situation, leave ASAP
3) If you can't leave, then talk (or do other things like offer your wallet)
until such time as you can leave ASAP
4) If talking fails, then block blows / dodge until such time as you can do
any of the previous points
5) If blocking blows fail, then use the least of blows that will allow you
to do any of the previous points
6) Do not pound them into the ground: that is not self defence, nor is it
honourable. Use only the minimum force necessary to lower the potential
danger. Its about keeping you & yours safe, it is not about 'punishing' the
other person.
7) As soon as your & yours are safe, report the incident to the police.
Pounding the crap out of someone who threatens me is agression. Using my
skills to get me & mine out of the situation with the least amount violence
is defence. It is a fine line, but I am not going to let a bully victimise
me if I can help it. I lived for far too many years the victim of various
bullies and if I had only realised much earlier that standing up and saying
*enough* is a far more effective way of stopping the bullying and
victimisation than 'turning the other cheek' and passively allowing it to
continue. That doesn't necessarily I have to use violence to defend myself,
all I have to do is convince them that their bullying of me is no longer in
their interest
BfloPolska
> On 1/6/09 10:06 PM, in article 6siv2sF68me...@mid.individual.net, "Yowie"
>
> <yowie9644.DIESPAM...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > The kirpan is surely a symbol of defence rather than agression. A
> > willingness, as you say, to stand up for yourself and others. This is in no
> > way a bad thing and is quite consistant with Quakerism.
>
> Traditionally Friends have not agreed with you on this one, Yowie. One
> person's "defense" is another person's "offense" and the doctrine of
> "just war" has, as I say, traditionally been characterized by Friends as
> simply war.
You and Yowie both make some really excellent points.
How would this relate the story of William Penn being told to wear his
sword as long as he could or needed? It seems to me that this sword
was Penn's "kirpan" as well.
Do you figure as well that it may stand for "the sword" that is
figuratively the Word of God?
Blessed be,
Baha
Yowie
"The kirpan has both a physical function, as a defensive weapon, as well as
a symbolic function. Physically it is an instrument of "Ahimsa" or
non-violence. The principle of ahimsa is to actively prevent violence, not
to simply stand by idly whilst violence is being done. To that end, the
kirpan is a tool to be used to prevent violence from being done to a
defenseless person when all other means to do so have failed. Symbolically,
the kirpan represents the power of truth to cut through untruth. It is the
cutting edge of the enlightened mind."
The problem for the Sikh in Quakerism, as far as I can tell, is that Quakers
would have that there is no human ritual that is necessary for or that can
bring about salvation - that it is all about one's own personal realtionship
with Deity, whereas in Sikhism, it is a requirement that the baptised Sikh
keeps the Kakar (Or 5 K's) which are:
1. Kesh Long peice of cloth wraped around their head which is also a
spiritual crown.
2. Kanga Wooden comb for hygiene and maintenance of the Kesh.
3. Kara Iron bracelet: - Physical reminder that a Sikh is bound to the Guru.
4. Kachera Specially designed cotton underwear:- Naturally comfortable and
dignified attire reflective of modesty and high moral character.
5. Kirpan Strapped sword: - Worn to defend one's faith and protect the weak,
reminding one of his or her duty as a Khalsa. It is worn to show bravery,
not a mere weapon.
A Quaker would hold that there is no such requirement - any person
regardless of what they have or haven't got, or what rituals they perform
(or don't perform) can reach salvation, there are no special 'requirements'
that have to be aquired / acheived before salvation can be had. For a Quaker
(or at least, my understanding of Quakerism), its all about that inner
journey to walk in the Light. What actions are taken stem from that walk,
actions (or 'stuff') don't dictate that walk.
Please correect me if I"ve misunderstood something.
Yowie
BfloPolska
> From Wikipedia:
>
> "The kirpan has both a physical function, as a defensive weapon, as well as
> a symbolic function. Physically it is an instrument of "Ahimsa" or
> non-violence.
Bravo!!! Now if I could get Louie to understand this. He's a little
more in-your-face with it than I.
> It is the
> cutting edge of the enlightened mind."
Which is the principal way I see it. I think on my tarot, that the
suit of swords represents the mind and intellect, and that very often
in scripture the Word of God is described as being a sword. When I was
a kid going to Baptist Camp (Catholic kid with Quakerly leanings
believing in a Goddess and going to Baptist Camp. I kid you not.) we
had this exercise we called "Sword drill." The preacher would call
"Swords up!" which meant we were supposed to hold aloft our Bibles;
then he would read a verse and we were supposed to be the first to
stand with the page and verse at the ready. The idea, I figure, being
that the Word is the sword that can cut through all evils and
adversity.
>
> The problem for the Sikh in Quakerism, as far as I can tell, is that Quakers
> would have that there is no human ritual that is necessary for or that can
> bring about salvation - that it is all about one's own personal realtionship
> with Deity, whereas in Sikhism, it is a requirement that the baptised Sikh
> keeps the Kakar (Or 5 K's) which are:
>
> 1. Kesh Long peice of cloth wraped around their head which is also a
> spiritual crown.
The kesh is the hair, not the covering. For men the turban is
considered a necessity, although a lot of American Sikhs of Indian
descent either go unturbaned (as do my brothers-in-law) or cut the
hair outright but cover head in gurudwara or temple. There is an
"American Sikhism" called Sikh Dharma founded by an Indian yogi, and
in this small movement the women are also required to wear the turban.
>
> 2. Kanga Wooden comb for hygiene and maintenance of the Kesh.
> 3. Kara Iron bracelet: - Physical reminder that a Sikh is bound to the Guru.
> 4. Kachera Specially designed cotton underwear:- Naturally comfortable and
> dignified attire reflective of modesty and high moral character.
> 5. Kirpan Strapped sword: - Worn to defend one's faith and protect the weak,
> reminding one of his or her duty as a Khalsa. It is worn to show bravery,
> not a mere weapon.
I have a little confession to make: I am not as "orthodox" as Sikh as
my husband, though I've come to accept and practice the faith. to a
point. My Friend-ly leanings are stonger than ever; the silent worship
has been a great blessing for me, as I cannot understand a word of the
Punjabi language used in the temple. My hair is very long, over three
feet; but I do get it trimmed every other month or so to avoid damage.
I do not wear the kachere or breeches; I understand why they were
instituted as one of the Kakkars--the sense of modesty and self-
respect--but I feel that my modest clothing covers this. (My wardrobe
has been referred to as "plain modern" on such sites as
Quakerjane.com, and i had to laugh: I was heading there without
thinking of it!) Also as regards the breeches, these came into being
when the main mode of transport in the Punjab was still a horse; For
the comfort of the rider, and to make sure his bits weren't displayed
to all and sundry, the kachere were practical. I do wear the Kara, as
it does symbolize to me the union with God as a wedding ring does to a
married person. As for the kirpan, I now only wear it on holy days.
First, in post 9/11 America, it gets one into too much trouble.
Second, I no longer feel a need to wear it on a continual basis. As it
is symbolic to me of the Word being the Sword that cuts through the
darkness, it is a reminder, especially when I am in a temple where I
can't understand whats going on around me. There will perhaps come a
time when I will chuck it entirely. It seems to be an ongoing pattern
in my existence.
> For a Quaker
> (or at least, my understanding of Quakerism), its all about that inner
> journey to walk in the Light. What actions are taken stem from that walk,
> actions (or 'stuff') don't dictate that walk.
I will never hold that physical trappings are necessary to my
salvation. Maybe this is because I began worshiping as a Sikh with my
own ideas that came from before I met Louie, I don't know; and he has
his own road to walk, and i respect that. I'd never make him cut his
hair. Unlike many of the Indian immigrants in temple, I'll also not
judge a man if he does take a haircut. he may be moving on to Heaven
long before I get any hope of getting up close and personal with the
Creator. I just really hate the hypocrisy sometimes: the kids with
short hair giving speeches on how great Guru Gobind Singh was for
giving the Sikhs the Kakkars, not out of genuine conviction but
because they want a medal and trophy to butter up their parents and
get a new Nintendo. (yes, this happens twice a year. On those days, I
find another church; God is God and has a lot of mansions on a lot of
real estate.)
Blessed be,
Baha
Yowie
Baha, you sound as Quaker-like as any other Quaker that has posted here, in
fact more so than quite a few. Even Quakers (I think) would hold that one
doesn't have to be a member of the RSoF to either be Quakerly or to gain
salvation.
Quakers don't seem to hold to a "one true way". Although oddly, it seems
that those qho are futher along 'the path' seem to act in a noticably a way
Quakers would call "Quakerly", regardless of their religious affiliations.
Ian Davis
Yowie <yowie9644....@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
>>> The problem for the Sikh in Quakerism, as far as I can tell, is that
>>> Quakers would have that there is no human ritual that is necessary
>>> for or that can bring about salvation - that it is all about one's
>>> own personal realtionship with Deity, whereas in Sikhism, it is a
>>> requirement that the baptised Sikh keeps the Kakar (Or 5 K's) which
>>> are:
>>>
>>> 1. Kesh Long peice of cloth wraped around their head which is also a
>>> spiritual crown.
>>> 3. Kara Iron bracelet: - Physical reminder that a Sikh is bound to
>>> the Guru.
>>> 4. Kachera Specially designed cotton underwear:- Naturally
>>> comfortable and dignified attire reflective of modesty and high
>>> moral character.
>>> 5. Kirpan Strapped sword: - Worn to defend one's faith and protect
>>> the weak, reminding one of his or her duty as a Khalsa. It is worn
>>> to show bravery, not a mere weapon.
It should be stressed that while collectively Quakers tend towards thinking
outward forms are either vacuous or redundant, depending on whether the inner
light is present or absent, Quakers have a long history of tolerating
difference. For example, while Quakers collectively do not attach value
to baptism, they would not hold it against another Quaker if that Quaker
wished as a Quaker to be baptised, carry a sword, or wear a turban.
"When William Penn was convinced of the principles of Friends, and became a
frequent attendant at their meetings, he did not immediately relinquish his
gay apparel; it is even said that he wore a sword, as was then customary
among men of rank and fashion . Being one day in company with George Fox,
he asked his advice concerning it, saying that he might, perhaps, appear
singular among Friends, but his sword had once been the means of saving his
life without injuring his antagonist, and moreover, that Christ has said,
"he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one." George Fox
answered, "I advise thee to wear it as long as thou canst." Not long after
this they met again, when William had no sword, and George said to him,
"William, where is thy sword?" "Oh!" said he, I have taken thy advice;
I wore it as long as I could." This anecdote, derived from reliable
tradition,* seems to be characteristic of the men and the times. It shows
that the primitive Friends preferred that their proselytes should be led by
the principle of divine truth in their own minds, rather than follow the
opinions of others without sufficient evidence."
http://www.qhpress.org/quakerpages/qwhp/pennswor.htm
Ian Davis
Marshall Price
I think you're both going overboard. To draw the sword when "all
other means have failed" might mean different things to different
people. So many people are likely to jump to the wrong conclusion, the
drawing of the sword, that to me, the whole policy is dangerous.
On the other hand, "anyone can be a Quaker", to my way of thinking,
is not the same as "being a Quaker meaning nothing".
The merit in permitting people to become Quakers is that it enables
the Society of Friends to survive and thrive. There is no reason to
suppose that only Christians, or intellectuals, or intelligent people,
or English-speakers, can join in following the leadings of what God has
to tell them, or to tell them to tell other similarly-minded worshipers.
I'm sort of a person who's disinclined to join anything, but if I
were to join anything, it would be The Society of Friends, but I'm
pretty sure I wouldn't meet others' expectations of what a Christian is,
because I'm more a Christian by practice than by creed, at least if that
creed is the "Apostle's Creed".
I'm not ready to abandon Christian morality and worship, but I can't
honestly recite the creed, and I have a feeling that leaves me out, as
far as most Quakers are concerned, even though they say believing in the
Creed isn't necessary.
I'm a Quaker in sympathies, but not a member, and I'm semi-satisfied
with that, just as I'm semi-convinced about Thiering. Who knows what
the future holds for me? It seems I'm doomed to a precarious religion,
and an anonymous one. But at least I can say I'm being honest and I
haven't stopped seeking The Truth.
--
Marshall Price of Miami
marsha...@att.net
http://marshallprice.wordpress.com
Marshall Price
we humans aren't all God. Not that that's what I believe, but Jesus
said (I think) that we're all able to become sons of God. And he often
referred to himself as the son of man.
When I think of the ancient transition in religion from polytheism to
monotheism, I consider that polytheism may have grown out of monotheism,
and that both are simply facets of religion, and that everybody
possesses religion, whether they think of it as such or not.
Religion and God are separate concepts. I think of God as a being,
and religion as a force in my life, and perhaps in the lives of other
beings, at least human beings, and probably many kinds of beings, not
only throughout the Universe, but also here on Earth. Gorillas have
religion, I think. Do worms? I don't know.
But imagine growing up in a polytheist environment. Wouldn't all
gods share something in common, and wouldn't that thing unite them into
a single entity? Doesn't monotheism simply combine Divinity into a
single entity? They aren't opposites, but different only in point of view.
Marshall Price
I miss the rituals, the music, the festivals, the sacraments, and the
celebrations of some religions. I think of Japan, and how the Japanese
seem to like Christian-style weddings, Buddhist-style funerals, and
Shinto-style festivals. I like Confucian ideas and wonder about
Pentecostal speaking-in-tongues. I wonder what it would be like to
believe in snake-handling or the Mormon concept of family-building to be
a requirement of all believers. (I'm single and childless, and I
believe it's not only good to be a virgin, but also to be chaste if one
isn't a virgin.) There are so many religions I respect, but there seems
to be none I follow. The only one I can follow is my own internal,
nameless one. My father, though I didn't subscribe to his beliefs,
which, as far as I know were confined to The Golden Rule, was like me.
He was born of Jewish parents (my mother wasn't Jewish, nor descended
from Jews), but didn't consider himself Jewish. Yet he felt linked,
somehow, to Jews, and he gave money to Zionists, though he was against
Zionism, as am I.
There's a lot I miss.
Marshall Price
It sure makes sense to me, and it makes me feel good, too! :)
Marshall Price
I've never met a Sikh I didn't like -- so far!
And I think of Guru Nanak somewhat the way I think of Mohammed. They
were great reformers, besides being religious leaders. Muslims probably
don't think of Guru Nanak as a prophet, but that's a matter of
nomenclature, not nature. It's the doctrine and the inflexibility of
religions that makes them incompatible, I guess.
Marshall Price
> We have hair repair here, so split away ;-)
<snip>
> ...Sikhism and Quakerism has
(You asked for it! :)
> I for one would very much welcome such a discussion - if you'd be up for it.
> You'd also know that I came to Quakerism through a strange path that
> involved Wicca. Wicca in itself could nowadays be accused of having
> 'rituals' that could be 'empty', but of course thats not how the Wiccan sees
> it :-). Anyway, if youwant to discuss spirituality feel free, or we could go
> to RPCA and talk cats (spiritual ambassadors that they are)
I was apprenticed to a great lapidary (stonecutter, of precious and
semi-precious stones), but always felt kind of uninterested in stones.
Several people have given me stones, some beautiful, some rare, some
very peculiar, or exotic, etc., but they always seemed kind of inert to
me. It's not that I can't appreciate jewelry, whether on a man or a
woman, but I'm not inclined to put any on myself, and I was never able
to hang onto those amethysts and lapis lazulis and emeralds and things.
I'd put them in my pocket, but they'd always get lost somehow, and I
never even bothered to fiddle with them, or gaze at them, or whatever I
was expected to do.
I don't understand the appeal of ancient customs, as things to be
revived or practiced by myself or in my own time.
I don't know what to do with a broom, or what to make one out of, or
how to handle it, except to sweep a floor.
There's nothing about pentacles or five-sided anything, or six-sided
figures, or anything geometrical, that turns me on, or impresses me as
having power, or energy, or even meaning.
Energy, to me, is something to be measured in ergs, Joules,
watt-hours, or gallons of gas.
I'm not afraid of or fond of warlocks, though I supposed I could be
impressed by them.
Here in Miami, Florida, we have many Haitian immigrants. It's funny
how some of them still believe women can turn into cats and there are
people who can cast spells and turn other people into zombies, the
walking dead. Yet they can also put all that out of their minds and
eventually forget it. I don't understand how they can get something
like that out of their minds and lives, but most of them do, eventually.
I once met one of the world's greatest magicians, the father of the
magicians' society, The Great Blackstone. Both the father (whom I met)
and the son (who is the magicians' magician today) were known as The
Great Blackstone. He tied my shoelace, explaining that sometimes the
end of the bow gets into the loop and sticks through it, and sometimes
you pull it without realizing that's happened, and as he explained it,
he demonstrated it by tying a bow and putting one end through a loop.
Then he used a magic incantation to solve the problem, and sure enough,
when he pulled the misplaced ends, the bow came undone, just as if there
was nothing wrong with the bow. This was at The Lambs Club, at the bar
when there were only a few members around, and there was nobody else to
witness it, which I thought was a shame, but you should have seen it; it
was very impressive. Then he made spots move on a tongue depressor,
also by magic. Then he made a cocktail stirrer into a tie clip, also by
magic, this time involving fire.
That's all I know about Wicca. :)
Marshall Price
I'm reminded of a famous children's book I picked up a few months
ago, and which entertained me for the first couple stories, but which I
soon came to think of as just an exercise in coining curious names and
words, much as I regard the Harry Potter books. I used to understand
their appeal, but now I don't. Aside from the arcane connotations of
the words, the plots are simple and the adventures unlikely.
How stale, flat, and unprofitable. Have I lost the zest of life?
Once, when I was evicted from my home, I was taken in by an Episcopal
priest who took care of me completely. I can't begin to express his
generosity. But I wanted him to tell me the secret of life, the inner
crux of Christianity, the spark that inspired him to rise to great
heights in the priesthood, as indeed he had, founding twenty churches
and four hospitals, and impressing people by the thousand.
Eventually, after the better part of a year, I decided it was time to
leave and fend for myself, and I did. I came to love him very dearly,
but I resented his not giving me what I wanted from him.
There's a lesson in that. There, for me, is a similar lesson in my
leaning towards The Society of Friends. I hope I'm never so rash as to
pull away simply because my expectations are wrong. I hope I'll stop
expecting and start bending to reality.
He was a lover of cats. Years afterwards, when I was deep in
depression, I sent him a letter, looking for consolation or
enlightenment or just friendship. He did write back, a marvelously
entertaining and delightful letter, mostly about his cats and how they
behaved and what they were up to, each of them with its curious name and
habits. And he said if I wanted to receive letters, I should send letters.
I never did. And now he's dead. Soon he'll probably be forgotten.
And so will his cats.
So will we all, except for the ones who make it into Who's Who and
the better novelists and scientists, etc.
I wonder not what makes life worthwhile, but whether having worth has
meaning. The superiority of one person over another has no meaning.
The superiority of one life over another has no meaning. Only to us
does "cat" have meaning. Maybe Noam Chomsky has the answers, or the
Dalai Lama. The pope can't have the answers, because one of them
declared his own infallibility, which is obviously wrong.
Only the leadings of the spirit are of any value at all.
Marshall Price
> "BfloPolska" <bflop...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:547bd2b4-f690-4dbe...@i20g2000prf.googlegroups.com
<snip>
>> And the spirit of the Great Cat did move upon the face of His chosen
>> oracle, She who is called Roxie, who did succeed Fritzie in the Great
>> Work of the Fritzian Dispensation. And Roxie did say, "Lo, she who is
>> my Mother, called in the world Elizabeth, doth pull at her hair in
>> much frustration, for her Spirit is much vexed and crieth unto The
>> Boss that the Secret of Worship may be revealed. Yea, my Mother crieth
>> for such Words as shall fill her soul and give strength unto her heart
>> and mind, for desire to do her work well for The Boss is great, and
>> verily a Meeting of minds and hearts must needs be called. Let those
>> who share in much love of Faith gather in the place of those who also
>> love the Great Cat, that their needs be fulfilled."
Baba wrote that. Yowie wrote:
> These types of posts are my very favourite type from RPCA
> (rec.pets.cats.anecdotes).
>
> I miss my personal humility teacher (Shmoggleberry - every time he thought I
> was getting uppity he'd bless me witha B*st*rd C*t Trick so that I would
> learn my place!). I guess Da Boss figured I'd learnt that lesson, because
> when Shmogg was called Home, I was blessed with three more teachers - but
> none of them do B*st*rd C*t tricks. Instead, one (Pickle) teaches me about
> love being patient and forgiving as he 'endures' being loved by our 4yo son
> (The Yowlet), Suki I guess is teaching me that even the mindbogglingly
> stupid have a right to live their lives as they see fit, and Shadow is once
> again teaching me that love can overcome difficult relationships.
>
> Fluffy, the dog, has recently left me questioning the dollar value of love
> and life. How much am I willing to pay for those that I love?
>
> I suspect I would not be learning these lessons if the teachers were not in
> their current forms :-)
>
> Yowie
I'm going to subscribe to RPCA. Maybe it'll do me good.
Yowie
news:HIOdnefAK81wrqrX...@earthlink.com
A general precept in Wicca (although Wiccans are a diverse bunch and not all
would agree) is that all deities are aspects of The Great Unknowable. Some
go as far as to say that specific deities are just as humans trying to
anthropomomorhise the Great Unknowable so we can comprehend. There is even a
small section of Wicca that is utterly agnsotic, only acknowledging the
'Goddess and God' as human archetypes rather than actually existing beings.
Yowie
Marshall,
I'm less likely to recommend RPCA these days. Its less and less about cat
anecdotes and more and more about emotionally needy people crying out for
attention and sympathy (and their situations are dire and they do deserve
support... but thats not what the NG was originally for, it was for sharing
anecdotes about cats). After 15 years of being a very active member of the
group, I recently decided I'd be better off lurking there rather than
continuing to participate and therefore tacitly support what seems (in my
opinion) to have turned into something akin to a cult. I can appreciate the
reasons as to perhaps why folks are behaving like that, but I am not them,
and I cannot go along with something I don't think is right.
That being said, there are two archives of cat anecdotes and stories which
may be be of interest to you, if RPCA doesn't satisfy your desire for cat
related anecdotes. One is David Stevenson's Cat Page:
http://www.blakjak.demon.co.uk/sty_menu.htm
But the 'ultimate' in web pages about cats, IMHO, is Flippy's Cat Page:
http://www.flippyscatpage.com/
My stories & anecdotes feature on both those sites (as do many others - many
of whom I know through RPCA)
If you do post to RPCA, when you introduce yourself, say that I "Yowie"
mentioned RPCA to you.
Yowie
> Yowie wrote:
>> We have hair repair here, so split away ;-)
>
> <snip>
>
>> ...Sikhism and Quakerism has
>
> (You asked for it! :)
>
>> I for one would very much welcome such a discussion - if you'd be up
>> for it. You'd also know that I came to Quakerism through a strange
>> path that involved Wicca. Wicca in itself could nowadays be accused
>> of having 'rituals' that could be 'empty', but of course thats not
>> how the Wiccan sees it :-). Anyway, if youwant to discuss
>> spirituality feel free, or we could go to RPCA and talk cats
>> (spiritual ambassadors that they are)
>
> I was apprenticed to a great lapidary (stonecutter, of precious and
> semi-precious stones), but always felt kind of uninterested in stones.
> Several people have given me stones, some beautiful, some rare, some
> very peculiar, or exotic, etc., but they always seemed kind of inert
> to me. It's not that I can't appreciate jewelry, whether on a man or
> a woman, but I'm not inclined to put any on myself, and I was never
> able to hang onto those amethysts and lapis lazulis and emeralds and
> things. I'd put them in my pocket, but they'd always get lost
> somehow, and I never even bothered to fiddle with them, or gaze at
> them, or whatever I was expected to do.
I have always loved stones, particularly nicely polished ones. I don't tend
to subscribe to the idea that they have any special magical powers, except
for the fact that if you like them and they bring joy to you, you'll feel
happier having something that brings joy to you around you. I also find
fiddling with stones aong the line sof a 'rosary' very soothing,
particularly the sound they make when the gently connect.
Very peaceful.
> I don't understand the appeal of ancient customs, as things to be
> revived or practiced by myself or in my own time.
Again, if they appeal to aperson,they appeal to aperson,and if they dont
htey don't.
Some folks believe that walking down well worn metaphysical paths makes
getting to the goal easier, and they refer to this effect as 'egrore' (I
think I've spelt that right). The other factor is that rituals that have
survived the test of time tends to suggest to me that they are successful
and provoking the right feelings amongst enough people who try said rituals
that they survive and get passedon (meme theory).
> I don't know what to do with a broom, or what to make one out of, or
> how to handle it, except to sweep a floor.
Brooms are brooms, but to a Wiccan, they can also be a besom, which is the
same thing used in a different context (much the same way a butter knife is
abutter knife until its used as a screw driver :-) )
> There's nothing about pentacles or five-sided anything, or six-sided
> figures, or anything geometrical, that turns me on, or impresses me as
> having power, or energy, or even meaning.
Again, its symbology. If you put meaning onto a particular sort of
arrangement of squiggles, then it has meaning for you. If you think its a
random series of squiggles, then its a random series of squiggles (I find
sanksrit a verry pretty lookig script, but I cannot put any meaning onto it,
its jsut looks 'pretty', for example)
> Energy, to me, is something to be measured in ergs, Joules,
> watt-hours, or gallons of gas.
Can't agree entirely there. There is the energy you talk about, but there's
'energy' in terms of feelings and moods. Some days I feel like I've got alot
more energy than other days, but my calorific output and potential calorific
output are probably the same on both days. Ditto with - for example - the
'energy' of heavy metal comapred ot the 'energy' of a soppy love ballad. One
is agressive, angry, 'up' energy, whereas the soppy love ballad is soothing,
calm 'down' energy. This is not energy in terms of e=mc^2, but in terms of
human emotion and how things feel. That is the tehr sort of energy that
folks often talk about in metaphysical way.
> I'm not afraid of or fond of warlocks, though I supposed I could be
> impressed by them.
A great curse-breaker is laughter. Laughing at an allegedly powerful warlock
(which means 'oath breaker', by the way) is a traditional way of dealing
with those who take themselves far to seriously.
> Here in Miami, Florida, we have many Haitian immigrants. It's funny
> how some of them still believe women can turn into cats and there are
> people who can cast spells and turn other people into zombies, the
> walking dead. Yet they can also put all that out of their minds and
> eventually forget it. I don't understand how they can get something
> like that out of their minds and lives, but most of them do,
> eventually.
Terry Pratchett's witches talk of 'headology'. Many Wiccans and neo-pagans
agree.
> I once met one of the world's greatest magicians, the father of the
> magicians' society, The Great Blackstone. Both the father (whom I
> met) and the son (who is the magicians' magician today) were known as
> The Great Blackstone. He tied my shoelace, explaining that sometimes
> the end of the bow gets into the loop and sticks through it, and
> sometimes you pull it without realizing that's happened, and as he
> explained it, he demonstrated it by tying a bow and putting one end
> through a loop. Then he used a magic incantation to solve the
> problem, and sure enough, when he pulled the misplaced ends, the bow
> came undone, just as if there was nothing wrong with the bow. This
> was at The Lambs Club, at the bar when there were only a few members
> around, and there was nobody else to witness it, which I thought was
> a shame, but you should have seen it; it was very impressive. Then
> he made spots move on a tongue depressor, also by magic. Then he
> made a cocktail stirrer into a tie clip, also by magic, this time
> involving fire.
Stage magicians are great to watch - they're amazing!
> That's all I know about Wicca. :)
if you want to know more, feel free to ask. I'll answer if I can but keep in
mind I"m not Wiccan, but find it useful as another compartive religion to
learn from.
Ian Davis
Marshall Price <d021...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>Bill Samuel wrote:
> I'm not ready to abandon Christian morality and worship, but I can't
>honestly recite the creed, and I have a feeling that leaves me out, as
>far as most Quakers are concerned, even though they say believing in the
>Creed isn't necessary.
>
Very much doubt this. Try the following; find a meeting to attend, and
then do a poll on the number that think the apostles creed important,
and from that subset, the number who can actually recite any part of
it.
It might be in the US Quakers are pro christians and anti all else. The
US tends to be a society where being an atheist would ensure one never
got to be president. But the US here is very much out of step with
nations such as Canada, UK, Australia etc, and I am sure that in Canada
Quakers would not have any expectation that being christian was a
necessary precursor to being Quaker. Quakerism here is more a way
of seeing things, than a practice of faith in any one thing.
> I'm a Quaker in sympathies, but not a member, and I'm semi-satisfied
>with that, just as I'm semi-convinced about Thiering. Who knows what
>the future holds for me? It seems I'm doomed to a precarious religion,
>and an anonymous one. But at least I can say I'm being honest and I
>haven't stopped seeking The Truth.
>
I've known Quakers call themselves seekers. It is better to travel hopeful
than to arrive according to Seneca.
Ian.
Ian Davis
Marshall Price <d021...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> I never did. And now he's dead. Soon he'll probably be forgotten.
>
> And so will his cats.
>
> So will we all, except for the ones who make it into Who's Who and
>the better novelists and scientists, etc.
>
> I wonder not what makes life worthwhile, but whether having worth has
>meaning. The superiority of one person over another has no meaning.
>The superiority of one life over another has no meaning. Only to us
>does "cat" have meaning. Maybe Noam Chomsky has the answers, or the
>Dalai Lama. The pope can't have the answers, because one of them
>declared his own infallibility, which is obviously wrong.
>
> Only the leadings of the spirit are of any value at all.
>
Personally, I think we mostly completely misunderstand what it is we are
doing. We think we move from past to future, and so imagine the past
eventually getting forgotten. We then ruefully lament why is so much
of value consigned to the dump we label past.
A radically different perspective (which probably has more support from
physics than the lay perspective) is that it is not time that moves but
we who in being what we were then what we are then what we will be exist
in a dimension called time, just as real as any spacial dimension. At
each moment the us at that moment has memories of all moments before
but none of after. But for this universe there is no special now
moment, and all moments are equally to be valued. Within this perspective
the past is not forgotten as much as simply unreachable by any but the
we who existed at that past time.
http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/living-on-oxford-time/index.html
http://uk.geocities.com/fr...@btinternet.com/time/thankgoodness.htm
http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2544
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
Ian
Marshall Price
I noticed that RPCA had a lot of off-topic messages. I suspect it's
because people aren't subscribing to many newsgroups any more, so they
just post whatever's on their minds to their favorite groups.
I used to be really into cats, and had a couple myself, but now I'm less
fascinated by them. There are three around here, two of which are
stand-offish, and the other mainly seeks comfort, but also stroking.
Towards the end of her life, my mother had a marvelous cat, but that's a
long and delightful story, one I'm not up to relating myself, and not
for this newsgroup.
I read RPCA for a few hours and unsubscribed.
Marshall Price
> I have always loved stones, particularly nicely polished ones. I don't tend
> to subscribe to the idea that they have any special magical powers, except
> for the fact that if you like them and they bring joy to you, you'll feel
> happier having something that brings joy to you around you. I also find
> fiddling with stones aong the line sof a 'rosary' very soothing,
> particularly the sound they make when the gently connect.
>
> Very peaceful.
Pretty, round, polished, tumbled stones can be bought for a dollar a
bag. Even similar semi-precious stones are available cheap. You can
get raw emeralds for a dime a caret. What I don't get is spending large
fortunes on things like diamond tiaras.
When I was a lapidary apprentice, I worked about 20 feet away from a
very highly skilled jeweler. He was a master of silver, gold, and
platinum smithing. I was amazed, not only by his workings, but his
work, as well. But I wouldn't amass it.
Once my parents took the family to visit Sailing (That was his name!)
Baruch, one of the richest men in America. He lived with his wife on a
houseboat on the bay between Miami and Miami Beach. I was warned
beforehand not to admire anything in the house, because they had a
tradition of giving things to anybody who admired them.
We were there all day, and as we were leaving, I mentioned that a
stuffed hummingbird under a bell jar on the mantelpiece was the most
beautiful thing I'd ever seen (and it was).
They forced it upon us; we tried, but couldn't, refuse. We took it
home, where the cat attacked it within a few days and destroyed it. We
never saw the Baruchs again; I don't know why.
That's the sort of thing I might want to have and gaze at, not a
ten-caret diamond!
> "Marshall Price" <d021...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:cMednfTHIboMoqrX...@earthlink.com
>> I don't know what to do with a broom, or what to make one out of, or
>> how to handle it, except to sweep a floor.
>
> Brooms are brooms, but to a Wiccan, they can also be a besom, which is the
> same thing used in a different context (much the same way a butter knife is
> abutter knife until its used as a screw driver :-) )
I thought besoms were very distinctive, and made from a certain
material. They're associated with Spring somehow, aren't they?
>> Energy, to me, is something to be measured in ergs, Joules,
>> watt-hours, or gallons of gas.
>
> Can't agree entirely there. There is the energy you talk about, but there's
> 'energy' in terms of feelings and moods. Some days I feel like I've got alot
> more energy than other days, but my calorific output and potential calorific
> output are probably the same on both days. Ditto with - for example - the
> 'energy' of heavy metal comapred ot the 'energy' of a soppy love ballad. One
> is agressive, angry, 'up' energy, whereas the soppy love ballad is soothing,
> calm 'down' energy. This is not energy in terms of e=mc^2, but in terms of
> human emotion and how things feel. That is the tehr sort of energy that
> folks often talk about in metaphysical way.
Ah, yes, but shouldn't we have words for such concepts? Sometimes,
when you feel energetic, it's real energy, in the form of calories of
glucose in your bloodstream, and sometimes it's a feeling coming from
somewhere in your brain. There oughta be a word!
And the musical energy you refer to, "up" and "down" aren't
particularly meaningful; shouldn't we have more words? A much fuller,
more expressive, and precise vocabulary?
I'm sure there are words for the metaphysical things people are
talking about when they use "energy", but "energy" is so often used to
avoid the more precise term.
Oops! Gotta run!
--
Marshall Price
> In article <ubadnaScgfedrKrX...@earthlink.com>,
> Marshall Price <d021...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> Bill Samuel wrote:
>
>> I'm not ready to abandon Christian morality and worship, but I can't
>> honestly recite the creed, and I have a feeling that leaves me out, as
>> far as most Quakers are concerned, even though they say believing in the
>> Creed isn't necessary.
>>
>
> Very much doubt this. Try the following; find a meeting to attend, and
> then do a poll on the number that think the apostles creed important,
> and from that subset, the number who can actually recite any part of
> it.
I think you snipped what I was replying to, Bill Samuel's expression
of a desire for more Quakers to be Christians and fewer non-Christians
to be Quakers.
Marshall Price
That's simply irrelevant.
(But you must admit our memories exist in the present, and aren't
perfect.)
Whether something or somebody exists on a plane overseeing all time
isn't relevant to historians. Events that go unrecorded won't make it
into history books. Lives forgotten will forever be forgotten. If
nobody says anything about my dear friend Father Fox while memories
linger on, they will surely forget him when the present generation dies.
Ian Davis
Marshall Price <d021...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>Ian Davis wrote:
>>
>> http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/features/living-on-oxford-time/index.html
>> http://uk.geocities.com/fr...@btinternet.com/time/thankgoodness.htm
>> http://www.rochester.edu/news/show.php?id=2544
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_choice_quantum_eraser
>
> That's simply irrelevant.
>
> (But you must admit our memories exist in the present, and aren't
>perfect.)
>
> Whether something or somebody exists on a plane overseeing all time
>isn't relevant to historians. Events that go unrecorded won't make it
>into history books. Lives forgotten will forever be forgotten. If
>nobody says anything about my dear friend Father Fox while memories
>linger on, they will surely forget him when the present generation dies.
>
Future human beings might not know all of past history, but it is not
clear to me if that counts as tragedy. I've no idea what Julius Caesar
did on his 15th birthday. But unlike most I think the date of his
15th birthday no less significant a day than today, or a day 1,000
years hence. Within my chosen mental framework, the notion of a special
now is a false notion. And within my mental framework, Father Fox has
an existance no less concrete than mine or yours. His death robs
your future self of the ability to continue interacting with him, in
precisely the same way as might happen if he'd been sent to Australia
in the penal colony times. But it robs him of nothing. That he
existed in this universe in a positive, and his death subtracts nothing
from that positive. If you had the freedom to travel in time as you
can in space, you would see lifetimes more as they actually are and
less as you perceive them to be.
Ian
Yowie
> Yowie wrote:
>> I have always loved stones, particularly nicely polished ones. I
>> don't tend to subscribe to the idea that they have any special
>> magical powers, except for the fact that if you like them and they
>> bring joy to you, you'll feel happier having something that brings
>> joy to you around you. I also find fiddling with stones aong the
>> line sof a 'rosary' very soothing, particularly the sound they make
>> when the gently connect. Very peaceful.
>
> Pretty, round, polished, tumbled stones can be bought for a dollar a
> bag. Even similar semi-precious stones are available cheap. You can
> get raw emeralds for a dime a caret. What I don't get is spending
> large fortunes on things like diamond tiaras.
We agree - I don't 'get' the desire for diamond tiaras either. Well, not at
the price tag they have. They are *pretty*, and therefore have some value I
guess, but so is silver plate and cubic zirconias.
> When I was a lapidary apprentice, I worked about 20 feet away from a
> very highly skilled jeweler. He was a master of silver, gold, and
> platinum smithing. I was amazed, not only by his workings, but his
> work, as well. But I wouldn't amass it.
Oh, I love looking and pretty things, and in particular well made jewellry.
But have no great urge to have it. I can look at it just as well in the shop
as I can at home (in fact, it looks better in the shop as it is clean and
polished and under the right lights. At home it would get dirty and
scratched and the light is never as good)
*snip*
>>> I don't know what to do with a broom, or what to make one out of,
>>> or how to handle it, except to sweep a floor.
>>
>> Brooms are brooms, but to a Wiccan, they can also be a besom, which
>> is the same thing used in a different context (much the same way a
>> butter knife is abutter knife until its used as a screw driver :-) )
>
> I thought besoms were very distinctive, and made from a certain
> material. They're associated with Spring somehow, aren't they?
Besoms *can* be. The utterly traditional Besom is made with birch twigs and
an ash handle (See <http://www.briar-rose.org/Besom.asp> ) but the modern
Wiccan could just as well use a regular broom. The reason why they'd be
associated with spring is only because of hte birch twigs being the most
young & supple in spring, but otherwise they are generally symbolic of
'cleaning out bad spirits'. Mostly, they'd be more associated with Samhain
or Halloween in the Northern Hemisphere.
There's also Scottish tradition of jumping over the besom as part of the
marriage ceremony.
Wicca tends to be a religion of symbols, IMHO. A very traditional Wiccan
would insist on a proper, made-by them, ash & birch besom to 'sweep' the
circle area. A less traditional Wiccan might just use a purchased ash &
birch besom. Another might be content with any old broom that has been made
with natural fibres. Another might use just a regular synthetic broom,
another again a vaccum cleaner. Som Wiccans might simply imagine the bad
spirits being 'swept away' and not use any sort of cleaning implement at
all. They're all doing the same thing, IMHO, its just a matter of how they
perceive the tools they are doing it with.
>>> Energy, to me, is something to be measured in ergs, Joules,
>>> watt-hours, or gallons of gas.
>>
>> Can't agree entirely there. There is the energy you talk about, but
>> there's 'energy' in terms of feelings and moods. Some days I feel
>> like I've got alot more energy than other days, but my calorific
>> output and potential calorific output are probably the same on both
>> days. Ditto with - for example - the 'energy' of heavy metal
>> comapred ot the 'energy' of a soppy love ballad. One is agressive,
>> angry, 'up' energy, whereas the soppy love ballad is soothing, calm
>> 'down' energy. This is not energy in terms of e=mc^2, but in terms
>> of human emotion and how things feel. That is the tehr sort of
>> energy that folks often talk about in metaphysical way.
>
> Ah, yes, but shouldn't we have words for such concepts? Sometimes,
> when you feel energetic, it's real energy, in the form of calories of
> glucose in your bloodstream, and sometimes it's a feeling coming from
> somewhere in your brain. There oughta be a word!
>
> And the musical energy you refer to, "up" and "down" aren't
> particularly meaningful; shouldn't we have more words? A much fuller,
> more expressive, and precise vocabulary?
>
> I'm sure there are words for the metaphysical things people are
> talking about when they use "energy", but "energy" is so often used to
> avoid the more precise term.
I so agree. Unfortunatley we dont' have words for such things (yet) and
hence we use metaphore, simile, symbolism, analogy. You knew what I was
talking about (I think) when I used the words 'up' and 'down' even if
*literally* they made no sense.
*snip*
Marshall Price
> His death robs
> your future self of the ability to continue interacting with him, in
> precisely the same way as might happen if he'd been sent to Australia
> in the penal colony times. But it robs him of nothing. That he
> existed in this universe in a positive, and his death subtracts nothing
> from that positive. If you had the freedom to travel in time as you
> can in space, you would see lifetimes more as they actually are and
> less as you perceive them to be.
He was one of the most remarkable people I've ever known, and his
passing in obscurity affects me.
To expostulate on "what if there were time machines" is pointless.
Marshall Price
> Besoms *can* be. The utterly traditional Besom is made with birch twigs and
What are the stang and cauldron for?
Yowie
> Yowie wrote:
>> Besoms *can* be. The utterly traditional Besom is made with birch
>> twigs and an ash handle (See <http://www.briar-rose.org/Besom.asp> )
>> ...
>
> What are the stang and cauldron for?
Again, its sorta symbology.
You'll need a quick background in Wicca and Neo-Paganism. Witches are the
largest group of people in Neo-Paganism, Wiccans are the largest group of
Witches of Neo-Paganism. The relations of Wicca-Witches-NeoPaganism is
analogous to Episcopalian-Protestants-Christians
Generally, Neo-Paganism is an attempt to re-claim the Pagan traditions of
Western & Northern Europe. Witches tend towards the sort of 'magic' the
'wisewoman' of the village did, Wicca also throws in some New Age and
Masonic-like ideas. I won't go into the details (it will take more time than
I have in this life time) but the upshot is that almost all neo-Pagan groups
have a strong sense of the feminine Deity, the 'Great Mother', Gaia. The
Goddess, being the one that provides and sustains life (the mother), tends
to be the more honoured one, but most Pagans also recognise the duality of
Male & Female, and thus fertility rites are quite important (as they were to
Pagans in the past) although tend to be symbolic rather than actual these
days (at least, in public anyway).
A coven is a group of Wiccans (or closely aligned NeoPagans). Some stick to
being 13 in number, some are quite happy being whatever number works for
them.
A circle has two related meanings. First, it is the 'sacred space' a Wiccan
defines using a ritual to make the area holy. A circle then also refers to
the rituals, worship, prayer and spells that are create, occur in, and then
close, that circle.
I have to mention this otherwise the rest won't make alot of sense.
A stang is a Y-shaped staff. It can be said to be symbolic of the 'world
tree' or Irminsul which was a sacred tree in German Paganisn & Nordic
religions. Having the 'Y' also suggests the shape of pubic area of a woman,
and therefore the Goddess to some. Generally used by the High Priestess to
cast the circle and then indicate where the attention of those attending the
cicle should be. In the end its a big stick that can be used in whatever way
seems to make sense and bring about the most sense of 'deity' within the
group using it.
The cauldron is more traditionally "witchy" so to speak. Again, being round
and hollow, its symbolic of the nicely fertile female belly. Back in the
day, it was of cast iron and was the only cooking pot of the poor (and very
much a thing that belonged to women rather than men). Again, its more used
in a group setting rather than as an individualworshipping tool, but things
are placed into it and are often burnt as a form of magic. I would hazard to
suggest that the 'great rite' (ie sex) is symbolised in the briar-rose group
by thrusting their stave into their couldron at the "height" of the ritual.
In more common (and private) Wiccan circles, the stang is replaced by the
athame (black handled knife) and the cauldron replaced with the chalice but
its pretty much /whatever works for you/. A small athame and small chalice
simply wouldn't work particularly well in a large and public circle
because - like most group rituals - its as much about the performance of the
person leading the group as the personal beliefs of the individual, and a
small knife and small cup simply won't make a good *show*
Hope that explains things without confusing you more.
Ian Davis
Marshall Price <d021...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>Ian Davis wrote:
>> His death robs
>> your future self of the ability to continue interacting with him, in
>> precisely the same way as might happen if he'd been sent to Australia
>> in the penal colony times. But it robs him of nothing. That he
>> existed in this universe in a positive, and his death subtracts nothing
>> from that positive. If you had the freedom to travel in time as you
>> can in space, you would see lifetimes more as they actually are and
>> less as you perceive them to be.
>
> He was one of the most remarkable people I've ever known, and his
>passing in obscurity affects me.
>
> To expostulate on "what if there were time machines" is pointless.
>
Certainly the losses time inflict on us affect us. Certainly we can
lament the passing of a great person into obscurity. But I think that
one has it backwards in seeing things that way round. You have arrived
at an age where you lament something, because you have arrived at an
age where it appropriate to lament that thing. There may well be
things in your future which will trouble you which currently don't.
But to my mind what troubles you when the issue is one of ones own
position in time, is that one has arrived at that position in time.
The absolute notion people give to the significant divide between
present past and future, while entirely understandable as a person,
is I think misguided.
The issue is not really one of time machines. The issue really is what
type of universe do we live in. Is it one in which down to plank scales
of time (which are incredibly tiny intervals) the past simply ceases
to have any existance whatsoever, or is it one in which the past continues
to have existance, albeit one we are only permitted to interact with in
the simultaneous time period of our lives.
As fish in a current ever sweeping us onwards, should we lament that
every passing moment puts us at a new point in the river, with the
old point as if it never was, or should be rather perceive ourselves
as being swept past a landscape that does not cease to exist merely
because we can no longer see it.
It seems to me very existential to say, if I can't see it or reach it,
it cannot exist. There are parts of this universe I cannot see and
will never reach. Should I likewise argue they don't exists. There
is a future 100 years hence which I'll never see and never reach.
Should I argue that ergo times > 100 years ahead do not exist.
We perceive past and future very differently, but if you and I were to pass
at high speeds, at the moment of passing events that to you were in the your
past might still to me be in my future. Past and future are subjective things,
rather than objective realities.
Ian
Ian.
Marshall Price
But I think you're mistaken when you bring existential philosophy
into my feelings of sorrow over Father Fox's passing in relative
obscurity. Only today my best friend cited a famous author's expression
of the main problem of growing old being the loss of one's friends.
It's perfectly normal. I miss him, that's all.
Ian Davis
Marshall Price <d021...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
If I didn't agree with you here, I'd be standing in opposition to arguments
I've made elsewhere about not being able to presume I can see things from
the point of view of others.
I misunderstood. My arguments might have helped more if your sorrow had
been at how Father Fox's death harmed Father Fox. It is a very long shot
but back in 1974 I worked at the old first reformed church in Philadelphia.
The minister in charge of that church at that time was named Fox too. I
presume these were not one and the same person.
Ian
Marshall Price
It may have been; I don't know. I knew him a few years later. He
told me he was a prominent parish priest in the Dallas diocese, which
was the largest in America at the time. He was selected to be the next
bishop, but got "cold feet" and ran away. He'd started about 20
churches and four hospitals around Dallas.
He moved to Philadelphia, where he lived in a house on Society Hill
which was protected by historical protections laws, and he had to use
paint made according to centuries-old formulae, and have windows
especially hand made.
Then he moved to Lambertville, NJ, and later across the Delaware to
New Hope, PA. I knew him when he lived in Lambertville, and later
visited him for a day in New Hope, when I happened to meet his brother
and sister.
He sometimes filled in for rectors in various parishes, but he may
have served as a rector in Philadelphia; I don't know. I do remember
him officiating one Sunday at St. Clement's Church in Philadelphia,
where I was a choir member.