Morning Musings

[bookofmirrors]

First things first - for technomom and shadowkatt



You don't have toe fuzz, you have cat fur!
*scritches the kitty's ears* Yay! A fellow
kitty!


What kind of toe fuzz should you have?
brought to you by Quizilla





So, I woke up this morning with Linda Rondstadt's "Love is a Rose" running through my head. What's up with that???

Anyway.....



Was talking with elorie briefly yesterday (had to go somewhere) about viewpoints on gods and such. It has occurred to me that I have a vastly different view of deities in general that most other pagans I've encountered. I think I always knew this - it's just that it became suddenly so very OBVIOUS.

Here's the deal.

I don't believe in deity transcendant. I just don't. If I've ever given anyone the impression that I do, I apologize. It was sheer laziness on my part. Sometimes it's easier for me to remove Deity from Self in order to have a clearer picture of it. Of course, there's also the issue of being afraid of my own power. If deity is self, and you don't consider yourself to be powerful, then deity, by definition, isn't going to be that powerful, either. This is a temporary flaw in my beliefs. Not a dogmatic flaw (for lack of a better word), 'cause I think this idea is just as valid as any other, but an inconvenient flaw that keeps deity from being particularly helpful to me. Unless I buy into the self-created illusion that deity is separate (and therefore better, more powerful, etc.) than myself. Which isn't as scary, but doesn't feel true to me.

Keep in mind, of course, I'm not knocking the idea that some people view deity as outside themselves. I'm not knocking that. Believe and do whatever works for you.

So, here's how this creates a potential rift.

With this in mind, that deity is self, and I can create self in whatever image I desire, I can turn "conventional" definitions of deity on their ass, if I so choose. If I want Quan Yin to have the aspects generally attributed to Shiva, and I want (throwing bulwerk a bone) Odin to have the attributes of Loki, I can do that. By definition.

By extension of that definition, I can worship each deity however I like. If I decide that Yemanja suddenly has a taste for dog and feel like sacrificing one to her (all thoughts on sacrifice aside), then I can do that, and it will be right.

So, then, does that make the more conventional views of deity wrong? Just because I say so, should everyone start offering red palm oil to Obatala and invoking Bacchus at AA meetings?

Of course not. The more established images of gods have power. They have power because countless generations have been giving them power, in the prescribed ways. Even if you subscribe more to the idea of archetypes than actual deities (Aphrodite/Osun/Freya/Hathor all being the same basic goddess, for instance), they are universal symbols, and all have power. But they have power because we've given it to them. In fact, I would say that these deities DO exist, in their conventionally-accepted forms. They exist because we've said they do. They exist how we say they do. And, in that light, invoking Bacchus at an AA meeting will bring either tragic or hilarious results, depending on your point of view, and offering dog to Yemanja is gonna get your ass kicked.

OK, so how can I believe these apparently contradictory things? To some extent, I'm gonna have to just chalk it up to being a Libra. **insert subliminal message here** my birthday is Thursday, lavish all good things upon me! **insert subliminal message here**

Seriously, though, in my little world, these apparent paradoxes live happily side by side. (Actually, lots of happy little paradoxes exist in my head... This probably explains much to some of you...)

For one thing, I'm certainly not going to go out of my way to completely turn established shit on its ear. For one thing, it's just too much work. Why fuck with what's worked, for the most part? Why reinvent the wheel? And if you don't like the wheel, what's the purpose of pissing the wheel people off, when you can just invent the boat instead? Archetypes and even stereotypes certainly have their place in society. Of course, this place isn't always a good one, and often it needs to be challenged, especially in the case of stereotypes. But the point is, conventionality, even in an unconventional belief system, isn't always a bad thing. The spirit of Odin that's been created by the mental and emotional energy of millions of people through long periods of time will certainly respond better, no doubt, to the usual invocations and rituals. He's been programmed to do so. The Oracle at Delphi isn't going to grant wisdom to someone not willing to make the prescribed arduous journey to the top.

And yet, to me, it's still a matter of choice. I (or anyone else) can choose to believe that Baron Samedi is a prude, and treat him as such. There's a trick to this, though. A couple of tricks, actually. First of all, I think it would be unwise to just go against established norms because you can. Sure, I can invoke the spirit of a rapist at a Dianic ritual, but why would I want to? What would be the purpose? (Well, actually, I can think of a few appropriate ones, but that's another subject...) The point being, I see no reason to fuck with archetypes just 'case one CAN. If you have a vision where Aphrodite comes to you as a hag and says she wants to be honored by you rolling in garbage... well... I'd seriously evaluate that. But, if after careful evaluation, you truly feel your vision to be right for you, then, by all means, go out and roll in some garbage.

I guess the key here is to look closely into your heart. If you truly don't see a problem with seeing any particular deity in a certain way, or worshipping them in a certain way, even if it's against what's established, then there shouldn't be a problem with that. But, don't go telling an Asatru that Thor's decided to be the patron saint of bunny rabbits and neopagans. Even if your version of Thor is doing exactly that.

It's a matter of two things. Respect for self and respect for others.

Respect yourself enough to not dismiss your own personal views of deity, no matter now far from the norm they may be. Respect yourself enough to examine your motives if an unconventional interpretation comes along. Some stuff is fear talking, or old issues. Make sure that it truly speaks to you, and isn't just something to keep you from looking further. Make sure you're not being rebellious for rebellion's sake.

Respect others enough to know what it is you're seeing differently. If Sekhmet comes to you in a vision, and you know very little about her, go look it up. Compare and contrast how your vision differs from the conventional one, if it does at all. If you choose to disagree with the usual vision of her, know what you're disagreeing with. Know why. Know how that ties in, and take some guesses as to why your vision differs from what's out there, and how that serves you. And most of all, don't set yourself up as the newly enlightened guru of what's suddenly right about God/dess XYZ, and why the rest of the world is wrong. Just 'cause it's right for you doesn't make it right for anyone else, nor does it make either of you better than the other.

And don't do it half-assed. If you have any doubts that serving Athena by getting a labotomy is a great idea, then it's probably not. KNOW what you're doing is right. Guessing is just plain dangerous. If you don't have a truly established and confident view that human sacrifice is a great way to worship Jehovah, you're probably in for a world of hurt. If you don't have a fully-self-established god-form to replace the Jehovah that's not into that sort of thing, you're gonna be left dealing with the one who has a Big Problem with that. Not likely to be pretty.



OK, rant over. I've thrown myself to the wolves. Start biting. *wicked leer*

Comments

[lupaloo.livejournal.com]

I don't know about all the other pagans, but this is exactly what I believe about diety. It is within, and without and of our own creating and part of the universal conciousness too.

We create our reality in conjunction with all of the other reality creators out there. We can shift our reality, but going against the universal mind is a bit like swimming against the tide.

[elorie.livejournal.com]

What makes you think that Self is separate from the universe? That is an illusion.

The more I work with certain deities, the less I am able to believe that they are merely a projection or portion of my own psyche. And I started out believing that they were. My experience, especially with the Orishas, leads me to believe otherwise. Maybe we are projections of theirs. Unity with the divine does not necessarily mean that you are totally in control of the interaction; it's prone to mean the exact opposite, with some considerations. It is paradoxical, but that doesn't mean "anything goes". Paradox to me means something like the dilemma of Schroedinger's Cat. It is or isn't, or maybe both, but there's not suddenly a hamster in there.

Anyway, my response to all that is that I gave you the warning I felt intuitively prompted to give. It's up to you to determine how much credence you put in my intuitive perceptions...but, well, the rest is more fit for private discussion.

[mister-bitters.livejournal.com]

First and foremost, I have to comment on the idea that gods exist because we say they do. That is a horribly arrogant statement. It speaks of the hubris man has developed because of the distance we have put between ourselves and the gods. Secondly, it speaks of an idea that we are able to kill a god by simply no longer believing in them. It would be more true to say that man forgets and loses the ability to speak with a god because we turn our back to that god. By nature, a god is a being beyond our comprehension in power.

Now, while I'm very good at knocking New Age ideas of faith (I've had lots of practice, and the stuff sickens me for it's arrogance), I'll try to be gentle. The idea that we are god is simply rediculous. Gods need not be transcendant, but by definition are not part of us. Gods are seperate entities in their own right. This is something many people have simply forgotten. They are no more a part of me than you are, and vice versa. Nor are they necessarily above us or more perfect than us. Such an idea is, frankly, left over Christian bullshit. New Age mysticism is simply a redfining of a Christian paradigm, not the reestablishment of a pagan one. (This is, frankly, the problem with most parts of Neo-paganism.) While it has developed in different ways, and I'm not going to say any of the new ways are right or wrong, pagan religions had certain traits. One of them is polytheism. Secondly, the idea that the gods were more powerful than us, but not perfect beings. They were also friends of man, and man strove to stand next to their gods. The gods were approachable, but definately different than we.

In the end, our beliefs about the gods only effected our practices, not what they were. Certain facts about individual gods arose as a result of experimentation to see what that god found acceptable. If a god turned away an offering of horse flesh, there was obviously a reason. If an offering of dog meat consistantly resulted in destruction, obviously such an offering was considered highly offensive. As it is, these standards exist not because we said so, but because they said so. Convention exists for a reason, and to ignore convention or to break taboo is to not only cause things to go wrong, but to invite disaster. This is not to say that there is not room for UPG, but that you need to do some serious thinking and reading before you decide that your experience is valid, not just your own issues being expressed.

[bookofmirrors.livejournal.com]

It was an arrogant statement. I don't apologize for that. I have trouble understanding, though, how saying man and deity are one is a result of a rift between the two. Seems to me like it would be just the opposite.

I agree that man cannot kill the gods. Certainly, they can turn their backs on them, stick their fingers in their ears and sing lalalala, but that doesn't kill the gods. Perhaps there are some gods that will die if this happens, according to conventional lore, but I'm not aware of any, and would have to disagree if such lore existed.

My view doesn't dispute that the gods can be different than we are. I am a different person at work, at home, at BorderPagans, while visiting my parents, et cetera, but I am still me. I have many hidden facets that I hide from most people, even myself. Some of these facets are god. All of them are, really. I just don't express them well. I show different facets of god than someone else does, but we're all part of the same jewel. (This does make you me and me you in my worldview. Hee.)

I totally agree with you about examining one's personal experiences for Truth (such as we can perceive it in this form) before acting on them. I hesitate to use your term "valid", because I feel all experiences are valid.

Your comment about how certain offerings came to be preferred and some taboo fits only loosely into my schema. I may have to work on that one. :)

Anyway, thanks for replying. Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you. I'm rarely in this mindset, and once I posted the original, I was completely out of it.

[bookofmirrors.livejournal.com]

I get all that. Self isn't seperate from the Universe isn't separate from God. I may have misspoken if you got the impression I saw a separation there.

Interesting that you mention that we may be a projection of theirs, rather than they being a projection of ours. The same applies, really. All one, just a matter of perception.

And warning well taken. Private discussion has already taken place. :)

*going off in search of a closed box full o' hamsters*