Duder
January 5th 2005, 06:10 PM
Justin -
I want to discuss some things you said in another thread:
Yes, there are some (not all, not even most) Native American cultures that have "Grandmother / Grandfather" archetypes, but these are not remotely the same "function" as within Wicca. The Lakotah do indeed have "Tunkasila and Maca," but these are not the central "spirits" in Lakotah worship. Lakotah tend towards pantheism, where each individual thing has its own spirit: while the Ancestors are important, it is these "individual spirits" that the pre-Christian Lakotah deal with on a daily basis.
Additionally, Wicca is not "Old Europe Paganism." Old World Paganism (henceforth OWP) was a discrete, tribal form of polytheism. The OWPs had varying numbers of Gods, and would either worship these Gods as their needs dictated, or would primarily worship one "patron," and honor the other Gods of that pantheon as the ritual circumstances dictate.
Wicca is a relatively modern movement (started sometime in 1947-1949). While early Wiccan authors claimed that the religion was a descendant of European Pan-Paganism, these historical claims have been almost entirely discarded by most Wiccans.
Are you saying that the central ideas of modern Wicca were cut from whole cloth by Gardener and a few other mid-20c 'founders'? I think it is better to see the 20c Wiccan rennaissance as a leap in the evolution of Old World Paganism - it is witchcraft updated and re-expressed in terms of contemporary insights - such as ecology, biology, Jungian psychology, general relativity, quantum physics and cosmology.
Since, as you've noted, Witchcraft has no sacred canon and no set of dogmatic pronouncements that must be naively and fundamentally believed, it is free to evolve and change with the times - to keep itself relevant in every age. And while it is true that a modern Wiccan would seem superficially different from an ancient European pagan, I think that is because the modern Witch has the benefit of recent scientific discoveries that give deeper meaning to the Old World mythologies.
Take as an example the ancient cult of Diana. Was She primarily an anthropomorphic figure that really was a hunter-goddess that roamed the cosmos - out of whose way you had better stay unless you were on very good terms with her? Or was she also understood in mythological terms - as represnting aspects and qualities of nature? The correct answer is, I think, both. But today the anthropomorphic image of Diana is less easy to sustain, except as a mental image that aids the Wiccan in dealing with Her. The mythological understanding of Diana has gained ascendancy over the anthropomorpic, but I think you cannot say that there is an absolutely clear and discrete demarkation between Diana's ancient and modern devotees. Her sect has simply evolved.
My favorite god in the Wiccan pantheon is Pan. I imagine that in ancient Greece, some simple folks thought Pan really was a great beast-man who patrolled in the pastoral countryside - and if your heart was bad, he would cause you to have a PANic attack and scare the begeezes out of you if he caught you anawares. But I think there were older and wiser folks who did not see Pan in this way at all. When they poured their libations or left their offerings to him, they were paying homage to a playful yet fiercely protective aspect of the land.
Every religion has a common and an esoteric side - Christianity included. Common Christianity has Yahweh as a benificent yet stern bearded old fellow, the Ancient of Days, seated upon a throne of glory, surrounded by a host of minstrels and ministers in the faraway domain of heaven. This kingly figure is constantly looking over your shoulder to see what you are doing, and invading your thoughts and emotions to test their propriety. Yet Christianity has its esoteric side, too - you find it in the Gnostics, the Christian mystics or in the philosophical insights of Paul Tillich. God is not really a bombastic old bore who posts rules and regulations, who rewards correct belief and correct behavior and who subjects miscreants to an eternity of horrors - rather, he is the very ground of our being. In the esoteric understanding, the images of God taken from the ancient neareastern tyranical model are understood not as 'factual', but in mythological terms.
Esoteric Christianity has been and remains underground. Possibly this is due to the militancy with which early medieval Christianity strove to convince people of its truth. It has become a set of historical facts and creeds to which one gives assent, rather than a mystical and experiential union with God.
I see the same popular/esoteric dichotomy in witchcraft. Today the more esoteric understanding has come to the fore in the Wicca movement, and the naive, fundamentalist understanding has become a mere caricarure of the craft (a panteon of anthropomorphic dieties, aviator hags on broomsticks, etc.). But the ascendancey of the former and the decline of the latter does not mean that what we have today is a new religion. It is a shift in what is stressed, but the ties to the ancient are not lost.
I have more to say about the Lakotas, the Wiccans, and which may be pantheistic or polytheistic, but I have been at the computer too long and I have to go.
I'll be back.
I want to discuss some things you said in another thread:
Yes, there are some (not all, not even most) Native American cultures that have "Grandmother / Grandfather" archetypes, but these are not remotely the same "function" as within Wicca. The Lakotah do indeed have "Tunkasila and Maca," but these are not the central "spirits" in Lakotah worship. Lakotah tend towards pantheism, where each individual thing has its own spirit: while the Ancestors are important, it is these "individual spirits" that the pre-Christian Lakotah deal with on a daily basis.
Additionally, Wicca is not "Old Europe Paganism." Old World Paganism (henceforth OWP) was a discrete, tribal form of polytheism. The OWPs had varying numbers of Gods, and would either worship these Gods as their needs dictated, or would primarily worship one "patron," and honor the other Gods of that pantheon as the ritual circumstances dictate.
Wicca is a relatively modern movement (started sometime in 1947-1949). While early Wiccan authors claimed that the religion was a descendant of European Pan-Paganism, these historical claims have been almost entirely discarded by most Wiccans.
Are you saying that the central ideas of modern Wicca were cut from whole cloth by Gardener and a few other mid-20c 'founders'? I think it is better to see the 20c Wiccan rennaissance as a leap in the evolution of Old World Paganism - it is witchcraft updated and re-expressed in terms of contemporary insights - such as ecology, biology, Jungian psychology, general relativity, quantum physics and cosmology.
Since, as you've noted, Witchcraft has no sacred canon and no set of dogmatic pronouncements that must be naively and fundamentally believed, it is free to evolve and change with the times - to keep itself relevant in every age. And while it is true that a modern Wiccan would seem superficially different from an ancient European pagan, I think that is because the modern Witch has the benefit of recent scientific discoveries that give deeper meaning to the Old World mythologies.
Take as an example the ancient cult of Diana. Was She primarily an anthropomorphic figure that really was a hunter-goddess that roamed the cosmos - out of whose way you had better stay unless you were on very good terms with her? Or was she also understood in mythological terms - as represnting aspects and qualities of nature? The correct answer is, I think, both. But today the anthropomorphic image of Diana is less easy to sustain, except as a mental image that aids the Wiccan in dealing with Her. The mythological understanding of Diana has gained ascendancy over the anthropomorpic, but I think you cannot say that there is an absolutely clear and discrete demarkation between Diana's ancient and modern devotees. Her sect has simply evolved.
My favorite god in the Wiccan pantheon is Pan. I imagine that in ancient Greece, some simple folks thought Pan really was a great beast-man who patrolled in the pastoral countryside - and if your heart was bad, he would cause you to have a PANic attack and scare the begeezes out of you if he caught you anawares. But I think there were older and wiser folks who did not see Pan in this way at all. When they poured their libations or left their offerings to him, they were paying homage to a playful yet fiercely protective aspect of the land.
Every religion has a common and an esoteric side - Christianity included. Common Christianity has Yahweh as a benificent yet stern bearded old fellow, the Ancient of Days, seated upon a throne of glory, surrounded by a host of minstrels and ministers in the faraway domain of heaven. This kingly figure is constantly looking over your shoulder to see what you are doing, and invading your thoughts and emotions to test their propriety. Yet Christianity has its esoteric side, too - you find it in the Gnostics, the Christian mystics or in the philosophical insights of Paul Tillich. God is not really a bombastic old bore who posts rules and regulations, who rewards correct belief and correct behavior and who subjects miscreants to an eternity of horrors - rather, he is the very ground of our being. In the esoteric understanding, the images of God taken from the ancient neareastern tyranical model are understood not as 'factual', but in mythological terms.
Esoteric Christianity has been and remains underground. Possibly this is due to the militancy with which early medieval Christianity strove to convince people of its truth. It has become a set of historical facts and creeds to which one gives assent, rather than a mystical and experiential union with God.
I see the same popular/esoteric dichotomy in witchcraft. Today the more esoteric understanding has come to the fore in the Wicca movement, and the naive, fundamentalist understanding has become a mere caricarure of the craft (a panteon of anthropomorphic dieties, aviator hags on broomsticks, etc.). But the ascendancey of the former and the decline of the latter does not mean that what we have today is a new religion. It is a shift in what is stressed, but the ties to the ancient are not lost.
I have more to say about the Lakotas, the Wiccans, and which may be pantheistic or polytheistic, but I have been at the computer too long and I have to go.
I'll be back.