(As you can see, I’m still playing catch up on a few articles in the Pagan Blog
Project that I neglected, forgot, or simply didn’t have time to write).
I’ve been writing quite a bit and talking quite a bit lately about the concept of nefas. This isn’t a term that most people are familiar with but more and more I’m coming to think that for devotional polytheists at least, it’s one that we should take closely and
firmly to heart. I first encountered the term nefas in my Latin studies. This word was integral to Roman religious values and observances and while a powerful concept, it represented something atrocious and horrible, something to be avoided at all costs. When I encounter it in a Latin text it stands out. It makes a statement. It burns a hole in the fabric of the narrative in a way that is not, for me at least, easily by -passed.
So what is nefas? The word actually lacks a perfect English analog. In Latin it’s a compound of fas, which means lawful (usually in a religious sense) and the negative particle ne. One can find the same compound occurring in the word for feast days. Fasti are lawful religious holidays while nefasti are days so ill-omened that no work might be done on them. Essentially,nefas is an act that is spiritually unlawful and unclean; it is an act that spiritually pollutes. Lewis and Short Latin Dictionary defines it as “something contrary to divine law, unlawful, execrable, abominable, criminal, an impious or wicked deed, a sin, a crime.” So atrocious was an act of nefas that the word came to imply a specifically unspeakable violation of divine law.
Such violations had (and have) massive consequences. They possess the potential to destroy one’s luck and maegen, to harm the mind, and (to resort for a moment to Theodish language) to make someone wretched in the eyes of the Holy Powers. That’s not the worst of it though. The worst part is that nefas is completely avoidable. Why? Because part of nefas is that we do it to ourselves.
At the core of nefas is choice, personal choice. It doesn’t just happen. There
is choice, conscious consideration, and conscious intent involved. There are no accidents with nefas, which is what makes it so truly abominable. To commit nefas,
a person really has to work at it. At its heart is the personal choice to spit in the face of the Divine Powers and ancestors, all They hold dear, and all one’s obligations to Them. It is beyond rendering oneself unclean. It is beyond generic ritual violation. Nefas is inextricably tied to a personal impiety on a massive scale, the type of thing
that corrodes the soul.
Now, we all make mistakes sometimes in life, in devotion, in ritual work. Sometimes our exhaustion, our anger, our disappointment, or other rough emotions get the better of us. That’s not nefas. It may lead to impiety that must later be corrected, but it’s not, in my opinion, nefas. I suppose that in time, left unchecked by any good sense or good counsel, it could lead to nefas, but that’s a different situation. So keep that in mind as you consider this concept. One really has to work at falling into nefas.
Over the past few months, this particular religious term has been cropping up now and again in the polytheistic circles wherein I roam. I’m probably partly to blame for that, but it’s a responsibility for which I’ll happily take the credit. This is a very important, perhaps vitally important concept. It’s something we should all understand, I think, and in our lives and devotional work, in our every day meanderings be vigilant against. Each and every one of us has the potential to fall into nefas. For just this reason, I’ve happily added this word to my religious lexicon. It’s a good word, a necessary one. Such infusions are occasionally necessary in this restoration of our indigenous traditions. Our religious worldview has been shaped by the very language we use, a language integrally impacted by 1500 plus years of monotheistic dominance. Even our orthographic conventions reflect this.(1) It’s a good and necessary thing to reclaim words for such important concepts, even if we have to look a little outside our own tradition to do so. Polytheism after all embraced such diversity. Do I think the Norse and Germanic tribes had a concept comparable to nefas, with the attendant vocabulary? Most certainly, but I don’t know what it was. So, in such a circumstance, the Latin nefas will do.
There’s a stark utilitarianism in the word too (it’s very Roman). Nefas is that which is not lawful. Period. So don’t do it. Be mindful. Be respectful. It’s not that difficult to avoid this taint. I think that being vigilant against falling into nefas, having it always at the back of one’s mind that there are some lines in our religious lives that ought not to be crossed out of respect for the Powers is a good thing. We can hone powerful personal characters on such awareness. Nefaswarns us to make good choices, healthy choices, positive choices. It warns us to take responsibility for our choices and our failings. It cautions against foisting the blame for our spiritual lives off on someone else. It teaches us to make the right choices within the web of devotions and obligations that are ours to maintain.
Some time ago in my Heathen Heretic column I wrote about a woman who had offended several Deities and whose life had fallen apart horribly as a result. That was nefas. (2) Our ancestors were not stupid. They knew that right relationship with the Powers was important and that it benefitted everyone/Everyone concerned. As
I write this, I was thinking “the Gods are there for us but there’s a limit to the crap They’ll put up with” but then I had to stop. That’s not it at all. That may or may not be true but it’s not nefas. The consequences of nefas aren’t punishments from on high, like the violation itself, they are that which we bring upon ourselves by our actions. That’s nefas, and that’s wyrd.
Of everything, the important thing to remember here is this: nefas is a choice.
It’s always a choice. I firmly believe we each have it within our capacity to make good choices. May the Gods and ancestors keep us all from nefas, now and always.
Note:
1. Note how even in scholarly works, only references to the monotheistic God are capitalized. While seemingly unimportant, it betrays a lack of respect for other Powers and I believe it has a subtle psychological impact on the reader. I make it a point to defy this convention for just that reason.
2. Someone just today asked me if the woman in that article had committed nefas, so I mention it here.
(I came in a week late into the Pagan Blog Project. I had been intending to hold off and just put my second ‘A’ post in my book, and to write about animism but, of course, that isn’t what happened).
Anger is a tremendous gift. It’s a sign, a signal, an omen that something is amiss in one’s world. When one is skilled in listening to its voice (instead of being swept away into ill considered action by its push) it can show you exactly where and how boundaries are being crossed and dignity violated. Anger is power. It is that well spring of force that allows men and women and sometimes even children to hold the line against opposition. It is what has the potential to overcome ennui, overcome fear and motivate one to push for necessary change. The medicine of anger has the power to change the world.
That’s one of the things that I learned from Sekhmet so long ago: Anger is natural and useful. The caveat of course is that one must choose wisely how one expresses that anger, finding useful and effective conduits rather than just yielding to blind destruction. It is possible to feel a thing and not act on it. It is possible to be ragingly
angry –justifiably so--and carefully calculate the best course of action, subsuming one’s anger to a long term goal, using it as an energy source, as fuel rather than allowing it free and unfettered reign (as satisfying as that might personally be at times). Anger is what happens when a person says ‘no more.’ The medicine of anger is what is present when someone looks at their world, sees the imbalance, the disease, the horror and starts a revolution to change it. Anger keeps resistance alive.
It’s also something with which our contemporary world is terribly uncomfortable. I blame this on the influence of Protestant Christianity – not the fire and brimstone Pentecostal type, but the white, uptight, middle class, don’t make waves type. That’s the dominant flavor of Christianity in the US and boy does it show. (1) The dominant cultural value system is one of white, middle class Protestantism and that’s not a cultural construct comfortable with difficult, messy, or unpleasant emotions. Don’t be angry. Don’t make a scene. Don’t talk back. Don’t allow yourself to feel fully any emotion, let alone anger, that might move you to question the status quo. Don’t ever consider that you might have not only the right (and perhaps obligation) but the ability to rise up and change that status quo. Don’t question the pabulum you’ve been told. Go to church on Sunday – but don’t be too religious, we don’t want any messy mysticism now. Be safe. Be placid. Avoid extremes; and live a life that isbarely worth living. There are our cultural messages: emotional mediocrity in a
nutshell.(2)
Why? I can posit a couple of reasons. If we ever realized what monotheism took from us and how far we have fallen as human beings in its grasp, if we ever realized the depth of the horrors some of our ancestors perpetrated on others, if we ever realized how truly damaged our world was and what it was doing to us and our children—truly saw, all at once, the depth of the filter---I think our collective rage would burn down the world. In fact, I think part of the stick-up-the-ass restraint of
white Protestantism is a collective cultural guilt. After all, if we pretend everything is the way it should be long enough, we’ll actually believe it. Right? Um..not so much. The cultural suppression of our anger, I believe, is a tool of the filter. It’s also made us numb and dumb to those times when we should rise up in protest. Instead of stepping back and listening for truth, we dismiss anger, rationalize it away, or condemn the person expressing it. We rarely look to see if there’s truth behind that expression.
I am going to tell you a story. It actually happened this morning (11/9/12) on the commuter train I take from Grand Central to my school. It was a little after 8am and I was sleepy, grumpy, and dozing. The train stopped at Harlem/125th St and stayed there, doors open for a long time. I knew something had to be up because that just doesn’t happen. Sure enough, the conductor had called the police to remove two students from the train. He claimed they were rude to him and making a disturbance. They were in the same car as I and I hadn’t heard any disturbance. At first, I was really annoyed. This was going to make me late. I had to teach a class this morning and I hate being late. I like to get in early and do prep work. Then I started listening to what was being said.
The two girls were really upset. They weren’t just angry, they were upset. Apparently, one of the girls had her legs on the seat (not her feet, her legs, with her feet hanging off the edge---something I’ve done on this train—which is never very full--, with this conductor many times without incident). The conductor had come by and shoved her legs off and said something rude. These girls protested. Now they weren’t eloquent. They were very rough and raw—street---in their delivery. Once he tried to force them off the train, they got very loud. No one was listening to them; no one was even considering that they might have a legitimate grievance. You know what? I’ve been on that train for a year now. It has the same conductor almost every day. That conductor is an ass. He’s very curt, very rude, and very disrespectful especially to women of color. The pieces didn’t really come into place for me until today. These girls had three strikes against them in this exchange: they were teen agers (maybe 16), they were women, and they were women of color. We discount the voice of anger…especially if it’s young, especially if it’s female, especially if it’s
a minority. We discount the voice of anger when we don’t want to hear its message. I started listening a bit more closely to the argument.
Apparently, the girls were on the train with a small group of students and their teacher. The police insisted the girls get off the train, and the teacher tried (as best she could) to calm them down so that they could speak in a manner the officer would hear. They got off the train, and I was still mulling all of this over, when I heard the cop say to the girls ‘don’t talk back.’ His tone was sneering, condescending and implied “to your betters.”It took me a moment to process that. I heard those words with utter disbelief and all the pieces fell into place. All of a sudden I thought about other exchanges I’d witnessed with this conductor, that I’d just chalked up to his rudeness.Then I was out of my seat. The doors closed just as I reached them and to my dismay I wasn’t able to go have words with the cop. “Don’t talk back.” To their credit, one of the girls responded “F—k you, you don’t even know what happened.”That was the last I heard (and I will, after writing this, be writing to the MTA).
“You don’t even know what happened.” Yet those girls had been telling us, clear as day. They were treated in a way that damaged their dignity as human beings. They had hands put on them. They had done nothing wrong and they were assaulted. No one would listen because the anger was clearly expressed. We as a culture would be so much stronger, so much richer, and we would have so much more integrity if we listened to the anger of those we most do not want to hear, those our culture allows us to get away with marginalizing. The anger—justified I now believe—was expressed clear as day. That was enough to render their argument invalid. I suspect, that even had they presented their case in posh, measured British public school tones, all things considered they’d still have been condemned. It’s a fucked up world we live in. This might seem insignificant---things like this happen every day---but that’s just the point: they happen every day and no one looks twice.
“Don’t talk back.” Talk back. I believe in discipline, duty, hierarchy, and respect. But those things are mutually beneficial relationships. In any hierarchical relationship there is mutual value. When you are in a situation where someone is doing something wrong to another human being, where the status quo is harming someone’s soul, where you see injustice being done: talk back. Talk back with all the force and skill you can muster. Talk back and keep talking. There is a saying: speak truth to power. In all ways, large and small, speak truth to power. Talk back until you make yourself heard, because there are those of us who are listening. Question the status quo and if you find, as I believe you will, that it is built on degradation, disease, oppression, racism, misogyny, and cultural genocide: the fruits of conquest:
tear it down piece by bloody piece. Talk back.
I decided to write this column because of the comments that I received here: http://witchesandpagans.com/Pagan-Paths-Blogs/desecration-of-a-pagan-shrine.html. I was actually rather glad that such an argument broke out: it really highlighted a measure of our cultural blindness, a blindness that the new age
movement has done nothing to correct. Too many people view anger as unilaterally‘bad’ or ‘wrong.’ They don’t know how to use it. Perhaps this is because it often twins with warrior medicine and we don’t know how to respect that either. Pop psychological, the New Age movement, and a thousand other expressions of the same construct all tell us from a very early age that anger is something to be suppressed. We should be angry. If you’re not angry, you’re not paying attention.
We should be holding onto our anger, letting it fuel our vigilance, letting it fuel our awareness because when shit like this isn't happening in your own backyard, it's very easy to grow placid. It's very easy to excuse things like this (or the destruction of a temple as I discuss in the link above) as a one-off. It's very easy not to care. At what point would you start to care? At what point should you get angry? There are responsibilities and duties greater than individual comfort, and greater even than a love of "peace.' Peace is not worth it if the price is closing our eyes to the desecration of our ancestral ways, or the desecration of human beings. Sometimes anger is an obligation too.
Anger is the medicine that tells you that while you may not see victory, you will die
having given those who come after you a better chance. You will have gained ground from which they can further take up the fight. I’m going to end this post with one of my favorite quotes, from a man i admire greatly, a man who knew how to channel his anger into necessary action:
“Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
--Frederick Douglass
Notes:
1. See “Love the Sin” by Ann Pellegrini and Janet Jakobsen.
2. The new age movement only contributed to this. It was spiritual fast food designed for the comfort of that WASP demographic. Illusion over substance.
I swore I wasn’t going to do this, write this article. I deal with this topic every single day in nearly every bit of work that I do and I really didn’t want the headache of having to compose my thoughts about it into an article here on my blog. Given recent conversations that I’ve had, both online and in person, I think it’s needed though so, as with my article on reparations, I’ll give it a shot always with the proviso that I’m still
pondering the best way to approach these issues. This is at best an introduction, and a rather down and dirty one at that.
My overriding goal as a priest and shaman is to broker the restoration of our indigenous traditions, our indigenous polytheisms as indigenous traditions, and in doing so to break down, fight back, and ultimately deal as much of a death blow as possible to the post-conquest filter that sprang from the bowels of monotheism. This is tradition building. This is the task to which the Gods have set me and many others like me. It’s an uphill battle.
Why? Because we as Heathens are dealing with a devastated tradition. The coming of Christianity to Northern Europe was a cultural and religious genocide and as if that wasn’t enough, that mindset, that disordered, disconnected almost nihilistic way of engaging with the world that bred colonialism and devastation wherever it touched has permeated our culture ever since. It is poison and it’s a poison we carry in our own hearts, minds, and even spirits. We have been so severed from our indigenous mindset and for so very long that we don’t know what a healthy, organic, authentic ancestral tradition looks like and too many of us when we find it, balk and try to stamp it out in favor of some sort of pseudo-polytheistic Protestantism which is more
comfortable because it reinforces the tropes with which we have been raised. We
accomplish nothing. We never challenge our own internal paradigms; and oh, they
need to be challenged.
I see this in so many ways within Heathenry: it’s not just that we’re dealing with restoring a broken tradition, it’s that we ourselves are damaged. We’ve grown up with our attitudes patterned by monotheism—and even for those raised in non-religious households, the dominant culture is itself a monotheistic one. That impacts everything from the way we think about religion, the words we use, orthographic conventions, attitudes toward indigenous peoples, the way we engage with the Powers, the way we treat each other, the values and goals we’re expected to have: everything. It makes it very hard, with no first hand experience, to truly realize how very different a polytheistic outlook is from a monotheistic one. Now I’ve talked before about how the curative for this is connecting to one’s ancestors and really engaging in ancestor work consistently, as well as restoring one’s own relationship with the Gods so I won’t go over that ground again here. I’ve many articles up on my blog that one can read. Suffice it to say, this disconnect comes out in numerous ways.
For instance, I recently had a discussion with several people about the lack of elders and mentors in our community. (I think we have them, but we’re so disconnected from any sense of our own tradition as a tradition that we discredit, attack, and burn them out). During the course of the discussion, someone actually said that she preferred a community where there were no elders, mentors, or teachers, where everyone was on his or her own. (I’ve seen this come up about half a dozen times over the past week, which is, in part, what moved me to write this).
Why? Is it fun to reinvent the wheel every generation? This obsession with rugged individualism is a perfect example of the disease of that post conquest filter. The conquest mind is rooted in false dichotomies. Individualism is raised to unhealthy levels. We are always in community, even if only a community of our ancestors and Gods. Even if we lack any other living human being, we’re still connected, and in fact, inter-connected. Even shamans, who occasionally go off, away from the community alone for some part of their work, some gathering of power are never, ever truly alone. There are the Gods, there are the ancestors, there are the elemental powers and assorted natural spirits. These are part of our community too. Then there is the reality of what life for our ancestors must have been like. Let’s not kid ourselves, that such rugged individualism was a boon to them. In a cold, hostile, frozen environment, the communities would be deeply interdependent. Why else was exile such a death sentence?
Within contemporary indigenous communities, there is still this inter-connectedness. It’s not that people can’t thrive and develop themselves, and work to better themselves…they can and in the end, such a thing benefits the whole. Rather, it’s that one does not do these things solely with only oneself in mind. One does not work for one’s own gain at the expense of one’s fellows. I remember taking an anthropology class years ago, wherein the professor was discussing the definition of ‘black magic’in certain indigenous cultures. In every case –and this crossed continents—black magic was magic done for one’s personal gain at the expense of everyone else. It was selfish magic. I find that very telling.
On facebook some time back, there was (as always) a meme going around. I don’t know if this story is true but I certainly hope it is because it perfectly illustrates what I mean by indigenous mindset vs. that of colonizer. As the story goes, an anthropologist was visiting a certain African tribe and got permission to do a harmless social experiment with some of the children. He took a huge basket of fruits and candy put it under a tree. Then he gathered up the children and bade them line up. He told them that they would have a race and the one who got to the tree first got all the goodies for himself. Then he gave the signal to start. The children all joined hands and ran as one to the tree. As they were later sitting around, all sharing out the basket of goodies, the anthropologist asked them why they did that, when one of them could have had everything. One boy answered and his answer is a powerful one: “how could I be happy knowing my friends had nothing?”
I met a colleague’s ancestor in the course of my ancestor work, a man who had been leader of his bronze age tribe. I often deal with other’s dead as a shaman and ancestor worker. He was horrified by our world. I ran this story by him in the course of a discussion and his response: ‘my job as leader was to ensure my people were happy, safe, and fed. So long as even one of them went hungry, I did not have the right to eat.’ This was a man who by his own account had no qualms about wiping out a neighboring tribe if it threatened his own. He was no pushover and his people thrived. Hell, some of us are probably descended from him. He got around. Yet, this “barbarian”grasped an essential truth of tradition and community that we’ve somehow lost.
This idea that we can have any type of community without mutual interconnectedness and respect is deeply misguided. I’ll tell you where it comes from though: Christianity. Christianity teaches that salvation is an individual thing. (I’ll leave the question of whether any such ‘salvation’is even necessary for another article). It teaches that each person must strive toward salvation on his or her own, and nothing can be done to help one’s relatives, friends, or community members. I’m reminded of Radbod of Frisia who, as he was about to be baptized had the forethought to ask the priest whether he would, upon his death, be with his ancestors. The priest told him that his ancestors were heathens and were burning in hell but he had found salvation and would go to heaven. Radbod then earned a place in many a Heathen’s heart by his terse reply: “I would rather roast in hell with my ancestors than feast in heaven with a pacel of beggars.” There it is.
This idea that we are alone in the world, cut off from even our dead is diametrically opposed to any type of indigenous mindset. It’s also diametrically opposed, simply from a historical perspective, to any type of life our tribal ancestors led. The biggest victory for the monotheistic machine is that we’ve come to believe the self-absorbed, disconnected, spiritually dead state of being that we’ve grown up with, is normal, or worse, something to be sought, valued, and emulated. Simply put, our values are twisted.
There’s also this idea percolating in the community that the Gods don’t want to have anything to do with us, that They’re not interested in our individual lives. It’s utter nonsense. This idea that there is some great divide between the sacred and the mundane is again, part of that twisted dichotomy that we’ve inherited from monotheism. In practically every other indigenous tradition the world over, the Gods are there for Their people. They are intimately involved in the minutiae of one’s life. The sacred and mundane aren’t separate, they touch, they are the same and the Gods flow into every part of our lives (or They can when we let Them). We’ve forgotten this though, just like we’ve forgotten the crucial importance of honoring the dead. This has led to the idea that we oughtn’t make appropriate offerings. Our Christian conquerors must be laughing in their graves.
In fact, I’ll go so far as to say that we Heathens as a group are stingy bastards. We use a quote from the Havamal, taken out of context (the original quote referred specifically to negotiating with the runes) to justify it too: “better not to give than to give too much for a gift demands a gift.” We ourselves are crippling the process of restoration every bit as much as any resistance we might face from the filter. Our ancestors had ancient contracts with the Powers, maintained to mutual benefit through the offering process. When we make offerings to the Gods, we empower Them to act on our benefit; we “pay into” to a reservoir of power, of odhr, of ashe
that in the end, fuels the rebuilding of our traditions. If we don’t nourish the Gods, how can They nourish us in turn? It is impossible to give too much. We are nowhere near giving anything remotely enough. The Norse Gods are rebuilding a devastated tradition; They have little energy to spare. The least we can do is step up to the plate and help Them by making and maintaining an ongoing flow of offerings. Yet something else our ancestors understood – minus the rebuilding part.
Back to the question of mentorship and then I’m going to close what has turned into something of a rant. Mentorship, teaching, having elders isn’t about putting everyone into one particular mold, it’s about allowing each person to develop in a way so that they grow and are able to consciously and cohesively access the tradition. Elders are culture keepers, they are the ones guarding and maintaining the tradition. That’s why there’s a saying in Yoruba: when an elder dies, an entire world dies with him or her. Cutting one off from mentors and elders not only means that we do not develop our individual spirituality in any connected, organic fashion, it means we’re cut off from a tradition. It is the living equivalent of cutting us off from our ancestors. Tradition involves lineage. Lineage involves knowledge, culture, ceremonies, values, and awareness being passed from elder to neophyte, teacher to student, mentor to mentee inter-generationally. In the end, it is our elders who are the backbone of this
restoration but only if first, we root ourselves in our indigeny, in the knowledge of precisely what that restoration is going to take. We have an obligation not only to ourselves, but to our Gods, to our ancestors, to our children to get this right. That, my readers, is an ongoing and uphill process.
 I support the right to veil. I never realized what a controversial statement that was until quite recently when the topic came up in a workshop that I was teaching and all hell broke loose. I suppose I should have known. When I was doing my first MA, it seemed like hardly a class went by without the subject of veiling coming up. France was at that time debating whether or not to make wearing a veil in public institutions illegal (a law that country actually passed last year) and the wearing of the veil was growing increasingly more politicized in Turkey and given that my field was Religious Studies, all of this made ample fodder for class discussions.
The debate about the veil generally centers around the issue of personal agency. One side of the equation condemns the practice as a sign of women’s subjugation to men, a sign of their enforced ownership by men, or lack of personal freedom; the other side argues that veiling is a matter of personal choice and a woman may choose to veil for any number of reasons. Side A often argues in response that if a woman chooses to veil, she is oppressed but simply doesn’t realize it. To me, this latter position sounds like a facile way of saying that the woman is using her personal agency to make a decision that one is simply not comfortable with and….that really is the heart of the matter: if one has agency than sooner or later one is going to do something with that agency that others find uncomfortable. I do not believe that anyone should be pressured or forced to veil or to go uncovered. I believe this is a matter of personal choice, with either choice being equally valid provided there is no coercion. Moreover, I believe we should be listening to what those who make the choice to veil have to say about the matter themselves instead of projecting our own prejudices or discomforts onto the issue.
This article isn’t about that debate however, salient to the topic though it may be. I present it merely for background information. No, this article is a brief introduction to this practice once quite common to our ancestors (both male and female, I might add) and the ways in which it is being restored to common use by a growing number of polytheists today. Many of us veil.(2) Perhaps I shouldn’t include myself in that number: I cover my head for ancestor rituals and workings and occasionally during rites and ceremonies for the Gods. I don’t generally veil at other times. Some Pagans do, however.
There’s an unfortunate knee-jerk reaction to the whole thing too, that cuts across community lines. I find it ironic that we will often look at an orthodox Jewish woman with a head-covering, or a Catholic nun and put that in the mental box of “devout,” but a veiled Muslim woman or a random woman that might or might not be Muslim, but who doesn’t fit any other known religious category is demonized. I have heard of covered Pagan women being spat upon and verbally harassed because those they encountered assumed they were Muslim. This is not ok. This would not be ok if they had been Muslim.
I am perhaps overly sensitive to the issue of freedom of dress and expression for
religious grounds. I’m a shaman. I’ve been asked to mark my body in certain ways. While I don’t have a lot of clothing taboos, that’s only luck of the draw. I could. Some shamans and spiritworkers do. If Odin asked me to veil every day, I would. If my ancestors demanded it, I would. I‘m well aware that I could easily be the one facing public hostility and harassment solely because of my manner of dress. I could be the one faced with a decision to obey my Gods or go to work. (If I were in France, I couldn’t work in a government office or attend university and veil, for instance—at least those were the parameters of the original law. I’m not sure if that has changed). No one should feel intimidated because they choose to cover their heads out of respect for their Gods and/or ancestors. No one should have to stress about making such a decision. That is a debate for another article, however. I want to discuss some of the reasons that polytheists choose to take the veil, either partially like I do, or on a full time basis.
For most of us, the reason is simple: it is pleasing to our Gods and our ancestors. Now I cover my head (usually with a scarf worn turban style) because it is how I was taught when I learned how to do ancestor work. For me, it’s a matter both of piety and practicality. On a practical level, it dampens psychic sensitivity just taking the edge off and more to the point is a sign to the ancestors that my head is not open for possession. It really helps dampen down some of the often intense energies of ancestor rituals too, though this is by no means full-proof. It’s also protection.
Sometimes my ancestors will instruct me to keep my head covered for a day or so even after a particularly intense ritual. It protects from a certain type of miasma. It also provides some protection when one’s head has been blasted open in ritual or when one is spiritually vulnerable. More to the point, covering one’s head shows
proper preparation and respect. I cover my head for the same reason that I don’t hesitate to prostrate myself before the Gods and dead: out of respect. It is a sign that I am engaging in something sacred, that I have stepped into holy space and I am separating myself from mundane time and place. It demarcates me and serves as a reminder that I am standing before the Powers. These are good things of which to be reminded. That which is sacred is also that which is dangerous. We should prepare ourselves before entering into holy places, before engaging in holy tasks. It is a matter of respect. For some, veiling all the time is a potent reminder to be mindful of the Gods and ancestors all the time, that it isn’t a matter of just going to ritual once a week, or whenever, but of living in a particular way, a way that expresses one’s devotion, every single day.
We gender wearing a head covering, but I don’t think that’s how our ancestors would have seen it, not our Pagan ones anyway. Now, as a Classicist in training, I’m going to default for a moment to referencing Rome. In the ancient Greco-Roman world, both men and women would veil whilst performing or engaging in ritual. It was not something that was solely a female act –there are numerous images and bas-reliefs of Roman men covering their heads during ritual and we know from written accounts (Pliny and Cicero for instance) that modesty during religious rites was very important. Now I’ve written about modesty before.(3) It is a way of showing respect for oneself , a way of interacting appropriately with the world. To the ancient mind, modesty and piety were indisputably linked for both genders. Ritual modesty was all about discretion and respect. It was a non-verbal way of demonstrating to the Powers that care has been taken in preparation for the ritual, that we are aware this is important and holy, that we are marking ourselves for the time that we must engage. Modesty was equivalent to good behavior.
Now obviously what constitutes ‘good’ behavior is, to some degree, culturally determined; but what constitutes good behavior in the every day world, does not necessarily translate into proper ritual etiquette. I think we could all use some reminders that we are in sacred space and should behave with appropriate decorum. For our ancestors, covering the head could serve that purpose. It is the same with contemporary polytheists.
Now, I can only really speak from my own experience here, but I talk and network with a lot of Pagans. I like to find out what people are doing and why and to compare notes and experiences. In this way, our overall practices can be enhanced. Sharing does not diminish them. We have a lot to learn from each other. The upshot of this is that I talk to a lot of people who choose to veil all the time. They are polytheists and they choose to veil. These are very brave women (most of them, at this point, are women). They are also very committed to their Gods.
I would say the single most common reason given to me for one’s choosing to take up the veil is devotion to the Gods. Nine times out of ten, a woman will say that she felt pushed by her Deities to cover. Not everyone covers via Islamic style hijab. Some wear turbans, some tichels, some caps: styles and personal choices vary. The common denominator is devotion and piety. I applaud that. Our communities need more devotion and piety. Am I saying every single Heathen and Pagan should veil: no. Not at all. I think this is a personal choice. I’m saying that it should be respected within our communities as a valuable and viable option both in ritual and without.(4)
Now I will admit, when I read about Christian fundamentalists who push head-coverings on their women in compliance with biblical injunction, every fiber of my being rebels. I would sooner run through the streets naked than comply with their obscene philosophies. Too many of my ancestors died fighting to preserve their sacred traditions for me to embrace such a travesty of piety. Yet, I have to step back from that deeply emotional response and think about the reasons I choose to cover my head. Just because it makes me uncomfortable, is it my right to deny these Christian women the right to cover? No, it isn’t. This helped me realize that for me, the problem there isn’t the veiling, it’s the meaning with which that particular community invests it. That’s something to keep in mind as more and more polytheists choose to veil. Moreover, I may not agree with the fundamentalist Christian woman’s reasons for covering, but I’ll defend her right to do so. What I agree with, is the right of each of us to express our religious devotion in the ways that we feel called to do so. I believe our communities can be strengthened by this.
In the workshop I gave last weekend to which I refer in my opening paragraph, wherein the heated discussion about veiling occurred, one of the comments made by a participant who was adamantly against a woman’s right to veil was that she ‘didn’t want to have to look at that.” Ironically, she was expressing a very classical idea: that by witnessing something, by looking at it, through the power of the gaze we become participants. By looking at a veiled woman, the observer becomes complicit in the veiling. I don’t, by the way, believe this but it was a theme in classical literature. This is, ironically, one of the arguments raised against marriage equality: I don’t want to have to look at that. It makes me uncomfortable. How do I explain that to my children? Well, figure it out--because this cuts to the heart of personal liberty and personal sovereignty.(5) My choices about what to wear (or whom to marry since I brought up marriage equality) impact no one but myself.
When I cover my head before an ancestor ritual, that signifies to me that it’s time to
shift the focus of my awareness. The very act of smoothing out a scarf and wrapping my head is an act of transition into ritual space. As I garb myself (and generally, that means putting on a headwrap because I don’t usually indulge in much ritual regalia) I slip into ritual headspace. I am preparing myself for engagement with the Gods and ancestors. I am preparing myself to spend time with those I love. I am preparing myself, all of myself, to step into the holy. I can well see why some would choose to carry that sense of the sacred with them every moment of every day.
I would love to hear from those of you who choose to veil and from those of you who oppose the practice. This is one time where I will open my blog for discussion and debate. Why do you cover? Why do you not cover? Is there a way that you physically show your respect and preparation for ritual? Is there something that your own ancestors have requested you do or not do? I think discussions of our varying practices are important for the growth and development of our traditions. Come, let us reason together.
Notes:
1. I am so far behind the PBP due to my crazy school schedule, that I’ve decided to skip the second week of S through U. Those articles will go in my book. Several people have asked me to publish these articles when the series is finished and I’ve decided to do that, so at least there will be a few new things that can’t be found on my blog, in that completed text. JThat’s my excuse anyway lol).
2. I am using “veil” in a rather multi-faceted manner: by veiling I include covering one’s head not just with Muslim style hijab, but also with caps, tichels, turbans, or any other manner consciously for religious religions.
3.http://krasskova.weebly.com/1/post/2012/06/pagan-blog-project-m-is-for-modesty.html 4. I find it ironic that in many Pagan spaces a woman can choose to display herself and her charms in ways that border on the pornographic and generally no one objects. Let a woman veil however, and it’s quite a different story. This has become controversial even within Pagan circles.
5. I admit I’m not too sympathetic with this position. What another person chooses to wear, or whom he or she chooses to marry simply doesn’t affect me. It’s not my business. If I am concerned about acquiring miasma through visual gaze, I can discipline my eyes and avert them.
The image used with this article is a common domain image courtesy of google.
Well, since I wrote about Loki and Odin already, I thought that for this particular PBP post, I’d also write about Sigyn. She is one of my favorite Goddesses and I consider it one of the most blessed gifts of my life that I have been able not just to develop a devotional relationship to Her, but that I had as an adopted mother someone who was damn near the living
incarnation of Her. Perhaps that is hyperbole but I shall let it stand and trust that the Gods know that I mean no disrespect or impiety. My adopted mom was one of the most devout people that
I have ever met and probably will ever meet. She was devoted to Sigyn and every day this Goddess’s blessings and
presence shone forth through her every action. I learned more about honoring the Gods and being a decent human being from this Sigyn’s woman that I ever thought possible, and I learned more about Sigyn’s mysteries—yes, She has them.
Sigyn all too often gets ‘bum deal’ in the community. Whether this is because A) there’s not much written about Her in the lore, B) She is Loki’s wife and remained loyal to Him even in the cave, or C) Her domain is the unexciting one of quiet things, of hearth and home and tending space I’m not sure. I do know that I’ve seen Her dismissed as ‘the epitome of the abused wife’ by Heathens who ought to know better and I’ve ever heard Her called a nithling because of Her very loyalty and steadfastness that in any other case would be lauded as virtues.
Fortunately, this is not always the case. I taught a workshop on Sigyn last Sunday and I was delighted by the number of attendees. It’s odd to feel so protective of one of our Holy Powers – They’re Powers for Heaven’s sake!—yet I do where Sigyn is concerned. I admit this with some self-deprecating amusement. She is such an amazing Goddess: gentle yet fierce in defense of those She loves, compassionate, loving, tremendously gracious. I wish everyone could experience Her blessings. Anyway, obviously I’m digressing so I’ll try to rein myself in here.
Years ago when I was discussing religion with a Christian friend, she asked me –not in challenge but honestly perplexed—where is love in your religion. I don’t’recall what I responded at the time, but were I to be asked that question now, I would point to Sigyn. There, there is a Goddess Whose overwhelming nature is rooted in love, fidelity, integrity, and honor. There is our Goddess of compassion.
I’ll tell you something else that I learned from my adopted mom about Her too: that compassion, that loving nature, that gentleness is a choice. It’s a choice Sigyn makes and makes again every single moment. It’s not that Sigyn lacks the ferocity of our more well known Goddesses; She is every bit as powerful as They. She makes a choice about when and how to express it. She is defined not by Her nature, not by Her power, but by Her choices and thus by Her integrity. That, my friends, is the epitome not of the abused wife, but of a woman in full control and ownership of Her personal agency.
Many of us who honor Her have had, independently of each other, similar UPG: that She was a foundling taking in by Njord, that Her earliest years until the Vanir
Father found her, were filled with neglect and possibly abuse. Yet She does not allow this to define Her. She defines Herself. That, to me, is tremendously powerful and a tremendously empowering gift to give to those who seek Her out. She is the Goddess Who very quietly does what needs to be done, without fanfare, without bragging. She looks at the necessities that need to be endured and does so. There is no question of “I can’t do this.” She will make the choice and do so. She teaches first and foremost not just that duty is sacred (there are many Gods and Goddesses who hold that lesson dear) but that duty is a choice and it’s a choice that every single person has the potential and power to make for themselves. Perhaps that’s why I, so drawn to warrior Gods and warriorcraft, who speaks for the warrior dead, feel such a compelling devotional connection to Her. She has a strength many warriors would envy. (there I go again, speaking about Her as though She were a human
being---again, I mean no disrespect but am only trying with the paltry power of words to describe something of what I have gleaned from years of honoring Her).
As a Goddess, Her presence can be so quiet and unassuming that one may not immediately realize how profound Her mysteries are. (This is not to say that She can’t throw down and be as blazingly commanding a presence as Freya – She can—but I’m talking general, regular, customary interaction). I find that Sigyn tends to show Herself to people in one of two ways –and I will qualify this by saying this is *my* experience and observation, not the be all and end all of any exploration of this Being—either as a child or as a mature wife. As a childlike presence, I’ve often referred to Her as the Goddess of the inner child and I think that one of Her gifts here is the ability to teach a person to accept and appreciate joy, to heal, to learn to laugh and love and play again. As a mature wife, Her mystery is two fold.
Firstly, in the Northern Tradition we have two Goddesses Who know what it is to lose a child, Who have experienced that grief and Who can be called upon by parents in this horrible, wrenching situation: Frigga (Who lost Her son Baldr) and Sigyn (Who lost Narvi and, in a way, Vali too). I ‘m not blind to the irony of this pairing either. Sigyn had one son enchanted (Vali) and forced to slaughter the other (Narvi), an act
which drove Him mad. This, She endured. Then, Her second mystery is Loki’s ordeal in the cave. Slipping for a moment into ordeal master headspace, I’m going to say that Sigyn doesn’t have ordeals Herself –not like Odin who sought out Yggdrasil—no, Her ordeal is far worse. Her ordeal is standing witness to the ordeals of those She loves. Her ordeal was watching Her children die and remaining with Loki in the cave. Her ordeal was watching His anguish day after day, eon after eon and not turning away, not taking the easy way out but staying there and doing what She could do in order to alleviate His pain, even at cost to Herself. (1) Moreover, She did all of this and still chose, consciously chose not to let it embitter Her. That is valor and this is a Goddess of valor and as I write this I wonder if that perhaps isn’t the true meaning of Her name: Victory Woman.
I could see Her being a powerful Presence for a parent dealing with a child’s death or a parent dealing with a child’s mental illness. I could see Her being a powerful guide for a spouse dealing with their partner’s terminal illness. I could see Her being a powerful guide for anyone faced with a situation of necessity and commitment and doubting their own ability to endure. Hers is the quiet voice in the depths of the heart that reminds us endurance is a choice and it’s a choice that can be made from many
places: anger, vengeance (and there’s nothing wrong with choosing from these places in our tradition), but also fidelity and most of all love. Sigyn chooses
endurance out of love. She will build something greater than the pain that She
has endured.
This is why so many of us call Her the Goddess of the staying power, a Goddess of endurance, a Goddess of strength. When Sigyn has made a decision, all of Asgard could not move Her from it.
People often ask me how to best honor Sigyn and I have found that first and foremost over the years, She likes to have Her family honored. If you love Sigyn, do not speak badly of Loki. If you love Sigyn, make offerings to Her boys. If you love Sigyn, respect Her friends (many of us have the UPG that She and Nanna are particularly good friends). If you want to honor Sigyn, mourn for Her children. There is a lovely shrine here:
http://www.northernpaganism.org/shrines/sigyn/welcome.html
where folks can go to learn more about Her and there are suggestions for places to which one might donate as an offering to Her.
On a purely mundane level, I often put old keys on Her altar…I see them as symbols of Her. I often associate ladybugs with Her child aspect and in that particular aspect She gets many offerings of dolls, toys, beads, flowers, and pretty things. As an adult wife, I give Her food and drink. I ‘ve known many a Sigyn’s woman who swears She likes macaroni and cheese, bread and butter—staples that fill the belly and nourish. It’s funny but I always have trouble giving Her wine. She first came to me as in Her child aspect and I’m afraid that’s stuck. I actually feel guilty giving a Goddess wine! I do it, mind you, but there’s an internal battle (and yes, y’all can laugh at me for this). I often give milk and cookies, candies, pastries for Her to share with Her children and sometimes I will bring toys for Them to Her altar. If you want to honor Sigyn, honor Her boys.
One of the most profound meditations that I was ever given came from my adopted mom and since she first wrote about it (in “Feeding the Flame”), many other Sigyn devotees have begun doing this. Hold the bowl. What do I mean by that? Well, one of Her primary mysteries is that She remained in the cave with Loki holding a bowl over His face to protect Him and capture the poison dripping from a virulent snake that Skadhi had positioned above Him. Think about that. Think about how heavy that bowl would become and how quickly. Think about the pain of having the venom splash onto one’s hands. Think about how hungry one might be or thirsty and yet be unable to take a break without bringing agony to a loved one. Think about the need to endure with no end in sight. It’s one thing for an ordeal worker to go into a planned ordeal. We know that no matter how difficult or challenging or painful the ordeal might be, it has an end. It’s going to end and we’ll be taken up and fed and warmed up and cared for and brought back to normal head and heart space. Sigyn had no such surety in the cave. This was an ordeal with no end in sight. This was an ordeal with two choices: give up and leave or endure. She chose not to abandon Her family. She endured.
So, many devotees do a meditation in which they symbolically hold Her bowl. One chooses a regular bowl—I use a wooden salad bowl because it’s got a good size to it. My adopted mom used a hand fired ceramic bowl.—and goes before one’s altar, lights a candle, prayers to Sigyn offering to exchange places with Her for five or ten minutes. Then the devotee takes up the bowl and while meditating on Sigyn holding the bowl over Loki in the cave, he or she holds that bowl up. I would recommend setting a timer actually because that bowl becomes very heavy very quickly. The idea is that for however long one is able to hold the bowl, Sigyn is given relief. It is an offering of time, heart, and physical endurance. This, as simple as it sounds, is one of the most profound, profoundly moving and profoundly difficult meditations I have ever done.
Beyond that, Sigyn has the grace of making the everyday sacred. She tends space and maintains a hallowed home. She often teaches Her devotees to do the same. My adopted mom would clean her house twice a day and found it a meditative act which she strongly connected to Sigyn. As a magus, a vitki, I shield my home. My adopted mom once said to me: I don’t shield. My home is so clean that nothing impure, nothing malignant, nothing nefascan find purchase.(2) THAT is Sigyn’s magic. Sigyn is about feeling the anguish of those She loves, about being acutely aware of the pain of the world and then rolling up Her sleeves and getting to work to make a difference, in whatever way She can. Honor Her.
Notes:
1. Many of us have gotten images of Sigyn starving in the cave, of Her
hands burned by splash-back from the poison.
2.‘nefas’is a Latin term for something that is so absolutely wrong,
criminal, spiritually awful, polluted, and full of miasma that it is
unspeakable. There’s no direct English equivalent.
The image of Sigyn here is by artist Grace Palmer. It was my adopted mom’s absolute favorite image of Sigyn and one that stood on her altar for many years. Thank you, Grace!
This isn’t an article per se, so much as a very brief post about a topic that has come up in discussion quite a bit over the last week. I’m keeping this brief in part because there are many, many other people far more qualified than I to comment on this and in part because it’s something I think about a lot and it’s something that I’m still pondering. My ancestors, however, are insistent that I write this now. I’m talking about the idea of reparation for damages done. In talking about the effects of conquest on indigenous peoples, I’ve been told that bringing up the idea of making reparation to indigenous communities that have been decimated by the white largely Christian machine is equivalent to stepping on the third rail. It should not, however, be so controversial. Why? Because in
order to be right with ourselves and our dead it’s a necessity.
For me, this issue comes up when I engage in certain types of ancestor work. Many of my dead are angry, very angry. Why? Well, long before Europeans engaged in the slave trade and long before our ancestors did their best to wipe out tribe after tribe of Native Americans, we ourselves were subjected to a cultural and religious genocide. Christianity came to Europe and it came at the end of a sword. Our people, our own ancestral tribes (and we all had tribes if you go back far enough) were forcibly converted and let me tell you, our ancestors did not go gently into that dark and horrific night. They fought. They sacrificed. They died. They remember this, even if we don’t.
When one engages in ancestor work, at a certain level there are two ancestral wounds those of us from {in my case Northern] European heritage will eventually encounter: the first is that our indigenous traditions, our ancestral ways were destroyed by the spread of monotheism. The second is this: after we were forcibly converted, our ancestors drank the poison of our conquerors and became monsters. We became the people that crossed the ocean and did unto others what had been done to us. We became the destroyer of nations. I do not believe we will ever be right either with our ancestors or with humanity and the world as a whole until we acknowledge and address this damage. THIS lies at the root of the terrible imbalances our dead are calling upon us to redress.
Apparently, this is a hard pill to swallow. Last weekend I taught three days of workshops at a conference in MD. Most of the workshops were on how to begin honoring one’s ancestors, how to engage with the dead, how to fix ancestral hurt, issues that might arise etc. This issue came up in more than one workshop. I’m not the only ancestor worker to notice that our dead are angry, very angry. They have in no way forgotten the harm that was done to them and the harm their descendants did to others in this terrible, horrific cycle of cultural and inter-generational abuse. At the end of one workshop, on Heathenry as an indigenous tradition, an attendee made a comment to my co-presenter. This person said that we ought to do rituals to provide psycho-therapy to those ancestors who were still angry and demanding reparation, so that they would forgive and learn to be peaceful.
Yes, you read that correctly.
I have never heard anything more redolent of white privilege, new age nonsense, and utter, unadulterated horse shit. Our ancestors have every bloody right to be angry. They have every right to demand what is their due. They have every right, those who lived and died for the integrity of their
traditions and the soul of their people to demand that we, their descendants get our collective heads out of our asses and do whatever is possible (and then some) to make this right.
This is an ancestral debt. Anyone who comprehends the idea of wyrd, of causality, consequence, an inherited obligation knows that such debts do not simply disappear. We are responsible for cleaning up the mess and the damage our ancestors did. I have said before in other articles on ancestor that
the dead are crying out to be heard, that it is going to take both sides of the equation, living and dead, to right the terrible imbalances of our world. This is part of that curative.
It may not be comfortable. What was done to so many peoples by our damaged dead wasn’t comfortable for those people either. It’s not as if the consequences of conquest aren’t with us daily. This isn’t something that happened long ago that can be swept under the rug and forgotten. We live with the results of our ancestors’actions every single day. It’s the ramparts upon which our current society revolves. Those ramparts need to come down. We need to pay homage to our dead. We need to look at the harm those dead who were raised in a culture poisoned by their own ancestors’ conquest perpetrated, the results of which have defined our existence.“I didn’t personally do it” is not an excuse. This isn’t a white problem. It isn’t a black problem. It isn’t a native problem. This is a
human problem. It’s a human problem that demands to be addressed.
How? Where to begin? I don’t know. Bringing it out into the open and talking about it would be a good place. A public, nation wide apology to the descendants of those sold into slavery would be a good place. Honoring some of the treaties we made with various Native tribes would be a good place. Tearing down the bloody Vatican stone by bloody stone and using their wealth to pay reparation to all the people whose ancestors were decimated in the name of monotheism would be a very good place. I’d just love to see a Bantu woman wearing the pope’s red Prada shoes.
Too many people seem to think that ‘reparation’ is equivalent to ‘vengeance,’ but it’s not. It’s a righting, a restoring of the balance of things. There is not and can be no forgiveness or peace without reparation. It’s a necessary curative. It is the restoration of frith.(1)
We as Heathens talk a lot about the Nine Noble virtues. We talk about courage and honor and valor and discipline and doing what’s right. THIS is a right and necessary thing. It may not be easy. There may be no definitive conclusion or consensus right away. But we need to engage. We need to try. This is an ancestral debt. We will never be right with our dead (and thus we will never be right with those who come after us) if we do not attend to the damage they caused, damage bred from their own ancestral devastation. Our world is spinning out of control into the chasm of its own destruction and it’s going to take both sides of the equation, living and dead to right that balance. Our dead are crying out for justice. The least we can do is listen.
Notes:
1.
‘Frith’
means ‘right order’ though it’s often translated as ‘peace.’
 In the very first class that I attended for my MA in Religion, we engaged in a spirited discussion about what the actual definition of ‘religion’ might be. We were asked to determine if it was actually possible to craft a definition of religion that would encompass such disparate faiths as Christianity, Buddhism, Heathenry, Shinto, Taoism, and others—all other religions. It’s not as easy as one might think though certainly generations of scholars have tried. During the course of this class, certain favorite definitions emerged. Most of us, with no small degree of ambivalence, grumbled but grudgingly agreed with the definition of Emile Durkheim, the father of sociology:
…”a unified set of beliefs and practices relative to sacred things, that is to say, things set apart and forbidden, - beliefs and practices which unite [into] one single moral community, all those who adhere to them.” (1)
Still, we had to admit that even this, as vague and universal as it might be, was insufficient for every religion that might exist. This definition after all, might even qualify atheism to be included under the rubric of ‘religion,’ a definition to which I’d warrant many atheists might object!
Moreover, most modern definitions, attempted to define religion through the lens A) of a presumed superiority of monotheistic thought and B) of social structures and organizations. Religion was a means by which a community of people engaged with their idea of the sacred; or it was a means whereby the behavior of a community was ordered. While the idea of religion as a social trope might be true on one level, it’s not the whole story and there was (and is within academia) very little, if any, acceptance of the idea that Gods and spirits might actually exist—which to my mind would certainly bias any attempted analysis, if only through the inherent disregard of a community’s own definitions of why they engage in specific practices. In the end, as a class, we came to the conclusion that it was impossible to reach consensus on a definition of religion that would fit every single religion. There was always a ‘but,’ always an ‘exception.” Qualifying religion apparently is a dangerously nebulous pursuit.
Of course our ancestors likely suffered from no such difficulties in the matter of religion and religious identity. While my own religion is Norse, I’m going to turn to ancient Rome for a moment, another great polytheistic culture (I find that there are more commonalities of approach in various polytheisms than there will ever be between polytheism and any monotheism) and moreover one that left us quite a few written records of their beliefs, prayers, practices, and philosophies. The word ‘religion,’ according to Cicero, is derived from the Latin word ‘religio,’ which in turn is derived from ‘religere,’ which means ‘to retrace’ or ‘reread’. (2). Richard King in his work Orientalism and Religion posits that this understanding of ‘religion,’ meant that it was inextricably bound up with the idea of ‘traditio,’ or ‘tradition.’ It not only meant paying homage to the Gods of one’s ancestors but retracing again the very practices by which one’s ancestors engaged with those Gods.(3) This gave Cicero’s Roman polytheism a remarkable tolerance and flexibility with regard to the religious practices of others. Such acceptance of spiritual diversity is one of the hallmarks of polytheism. It’s also the logical outcome of a definition of religion that ties the very idea of religion indisputably in with one’s own ancestors: there is room for endless variation in personal practice.(4)
I like this definition of religion. It’s fluid, flexible. While there are rules and protocols, a right and wrong way to do things, these ideological lines are not determined by a holy book, or the dubious authority of any one religious leader. Rather, they’re determined by one’s own understanding of the ways of one’s ancestors. Religion becomes then, the consistent and ongoing restoration and renewal of one’s ancestral practices, the ‘language’ of the holy lived by one’s forebears. Our practices are then a means of constant communication, interpretation and translation making them valid and vital to our modern lives as they were to the lives of our ancestors. The unifying nature of such religious practices doesn’t lie in any one definition, but rather in the idea that we are constantly engaged in reweaving the living lore of our forebears, into our own lives, and carrying that wisdom into our communities.(5)
It’s worth thinking about because all of this changed with conversion to Christianity. Then personal belief became a battlefield and religion ceased to be about tradition and instead became invested with a moral imperative that would force everyone to believe the same things in the same way. Freud posited that the beginning of specifically religious intolerance lay with the advent of monotheism and I’m afraid I have to concur.(6) The very idea that there is only one approach, one belief, one way of doing things, one God is inherently divisive. It’s inherently hostile; and it’s inherently unnatural. The world itself is full of a mind-blowing array of contradictory and often conflicting diversity. Polytheism has the potential to teach us not only to embrace that diversity but to revel in it. Why? Because the ways of our ancestors, all of our ancestors who spread out across the globe thousands of years ago, who came from the cradle of Africa and the strength of the woman known as mitochondrial Eve, are every bit as varied, textured, and diverse as anything found in living nature. I want a definition of religion mediated by our ancestors, mediated by our Gods, a definition that allows for such abundant complexity and wonder.(7) This is our birthright. It is inherent in our polytheistic traditions. It is from this that those traditions can blossom.
Notes:
1. Durkheim, Emile, (2008). Elementary Forms of Religious Life. NY: Oxford University Press.
2. King, Richard, (1999). Orientalism and Religion. NY: Routledge, p. 35
3. Ibid
4. None of which excludes the idea of standardized public rites and community rituals. One aspect of ‘religion’ doesn’t necessarily exclude any other.
5. It’s worth noting that polytheistic cultures generally did not draw their moral and ethical codes from their religions. They drew these things from philosophy and from their society and culture.
6. See Kirsch, Jonathan, (2005). God Against the Gods. NY: Penguin Publishing.
7. Did our ancestors wage war? Did they battle and conquer each other? Of course. But you don’t find that being done in the name of one God. You don’t find that being done in the name of any religious imperative …until monotheism.
well, those questions have been rolling in since I last posted on the subject and I'm delighted by this. Again, for this week's (belated) Pagan Blog Project post, I've decided to take a couple of the most recent and tackle them here.
1.What beginner's resources on Heathenry would you recommend beyond books on lore?
My answer here is going to be two fold. Firstly, I think that in addition to reading, there are a few steps that a newcomer ought to take straight out of the gate, as the saying goes. Firstly, he or she ought to (in my opinion) set up an ancestor altar and start getting one's ancestral House in order, start getting into right relationship with one's dead. That is, of course, an ongoing, lifetime project of maintenance, respect, and tending but one cannot begin too soon. Secondly, I'd suggest setting up an altar to whatever Gods or Goddesses first attracted you to Heathenry. (If you have no interest in honoring the Gods and Goddesses, why are you here? I've never understood people coming into a religion but having no connection to or interest in the Deities of that religion). Get down to the basics of praying, meditating, and making offerings. Get those relationships started—especially with the ancestors-- because in the end, it's not about what one reads; it's about what one does and how well we incorporate the sacred into our lives, and how well we tend and nourish our relationships with our dead and with the Powers. In the end, it comes down to praxis.
After that, in terms of beginner’s books, I'd suggest starting with the following:
"Exploring the Northern Tradition"
(my own book, which I wrote as an intro--why wouldn't I recommend it ^_^)
"Northern Tradition for the Solitary Practitioner" (also mine, with R. Kaldera)
Our Troth vol. 1 and 2 edited by K. Gundarsson
"Weaving Memory" by L. Patsouris (addresses ancestor work).
"Dealing with Deities" by R. Kaldera (not Heathen specific but a very good intro to the protocols of polytheism).
“Dwelling at the Threshold” by Sara Istra Kate Winter (not Heathen but a good intro to devotional polytheism).
“The Deities are Many”by Jordan Paper (generic polytheism)
I’d also suggest (and this is a brief, lazy list):
The Poetic and Prose Eddas (several translations if you can't read the original Norse)
The Icelandic Sagas
HR Ellis Davidson "Gods and Myths of Northern Europe"
Kevin Crossley-Holland " Norse Myths" (sort of the Cliff Notes to Norse
Cosmology)
P. Bauschatz "The Well and the Tree"
Hr Ellis Davidson "The Road to Hel"
Turville-Petre "Myth and Religion of the North"
Simek's "Dictionary of Northern Mythology" (this book is really invaluable. There *are* one or two errors, but still, it’s probably one of the most used resources in my house).
and...not being home, I don't have my books in front of me so your best bet after this would be perusing the bibliographies in the books I mention above for further reading. I include biblios in most of my books that can help you get started and there are certainly extensive bibliographies in the academic texts I note above.
2. What is berserkergang and does it have any place in contemporary Heathenry for one dedicated to Odin?
Berserkergang was and is a type of battle fury wherein the person becomes filled to overflowing with wod. Traditionally this was believed to render warriors frenzied, furious fighters in battle, heedless of pain, impervious to injury, and tremendously powerful. Berserkergang is a type of warrior medicine, for lack of a better term. It is a gift of Odin that temporarily renders a warrior invulnerable in battle. That is how I would understand it at least.
There is some association with shapeshifting (wolves and bears – ulfhednar meant wolf-skin and berserk meant bear skin) and Berserkergang, likely given the penchant according to lore for berserks to rush into battle either naked or wearing animal skins (of the aforementioned animals). I would posit, and this is purely my speculation, that perhaps specific warrior cultus in which berserkergang was favored, valued, and trained held certain animalssacred in a totemic way, calling upon their power as part of the experience of shifting into the raging, berserk headspace.
Interestingly enough, some scholars, most notably Rudolf Simek draw a connection between Odin as God not only of warriors and ecstatic fury, but also of cultic ecstasy and maintain that there might possibly be some connection between states of furious ecstasy like the berserkergang and shamanic trance work. (Simek, Dictionary of Northern Mythology, p. 35).
While we no longer have established warrior cultus to accommodate berserkergang, or many (if any) socially acceptable ways of honing, training, and utilizing this, I do believe it is still a gift that the Gods, particularly Odin may bestow. It is a mark of the disconnection and dis-ease of our society that we no longer allow for proper, healthy expression of warrior medicine at all, let alone berserkergang in particular. The question to be asked isn’t “does berserkergang have a place in modern Heathenry?” I think it is naïve to think that the Gods would suddenly cease to work through a medium that at least some of Them have historically favored solely to accommodate our social stupidity. Rather, the question to ask is “how can we best accommodate berserkergang (when it shows up)
in such a way that the community is strengthened?” The answer to that may not be as simple as one might think.
It seems apparent from surviving accounts, that berserks were removed from the community to small warrior bands where they could be supported and trained and given proper outlets for their skills. They served the community by protecting the community (or, if Simek is correct, they served as war-shamans, again protecting the community but perhaps not solely on a physical level. I suspect, as with so many things, there were vast differences in application given the nature, talents, and inclinations of each individual berserk—just as not every warrior would specialize in the sword, some might prefer knife, spear, etc.).
Our military structure is different today. It leaves little room for this type of warrior medicine. Civilian society leaves even less room for any warrior medicine at all. For all our advances in technology, our culture is hardly healthy. I believe we tend to demonize both warrior medicine and those who carry it, so learning to set aside our contemporary blindness and reclaim our ancestral attitudes toward such things may take some doing. This is complicated by the nature of the berserk state.
At its core, this state is rooted in rage, an impersonal, primal rage. For anyone who carries berserkergang today, I believe it’s of utmost importance to accept and engage with that rage. Denying it won’t help. Being afraid of it won’t help. It is a berserker’s natural state. It is that which enables the berserk to function and ride that state of ecstatic fury. Any purpose, any good that might come out of this state cannot even be considered until the man or woman in question has mastered his or her own emotional volatility, emotions that run – on a normal day—to extremes well beyond those found in neurotypical individuals. This emotional structure lends energy, power, and endurance, but only when it is mastered. That can take some doing. I believe it’s also important to find an outlet for one’s violence because anyone with a berserk nature will also have a violent nature. That’s not something that can be erased. Like the rage, it’s essential to the berserk state. It must be honed so that it can be applied appropriately and not in a way that threatens the individual or his/her family, loved ones, and community. I suppose a huge step forward would be recognizing it as a gift.
Either way, like many things there’s no easy or comfortable answer. It’s one of those things that , like being god-claimed, is often uncomfortable for moderns but happening anyway. The Gods don’t really bow to our comfort after all. In my opinion, acknowledging berskerks is part and parcel of reclaiming the power of warrior medicine for our tradition. We have to acknowledge that before we have any hope of finding a way to honor and integrate such things into our contemporary restoration. It can be done though and I believe strongly that for our tradition to be healthy and whole, it has to be.
3. Do you do Native American rituals or run sweat lodges?
No. nothing I do is Native American. I am not Native American. The work I do is drawn from my own indigenous traditions, namely Northern European. Where information on those traditions is lacking, I draw directly from inspiration of the Gods and ancestors or I research and make the most educated guess (or a combination thereof). If I have issues or questions that can’t otherwise be answered in my practice or how to practice, I go to my ancestors. (I’ve been getting this question or variations of it quite a lot the past couple of weeks).
That’s it for the questions this week. Feel free to keep them coming and I’ll answer them as I am able. Next week’s article (though I suspect I’ll probably be a bit late with it) will be on the nature of religion, a la Cicero.
Well, this isn't going to be your usual type of PBP article. This is, rather, my attempt to kill two birds with one stone. My computer having recently died, (I'm working off a laptop whilst contemplating replacements for my desktop--and leaning heavily toward an IMAC this time) I'm way, way behind in answering emails. Normally this wouldn't be a problem but lately a lot of folks have been emailing me with various questions. While I don't have time to answer each one individually right now, this being an extremely hectic time at school, I'm going to answer a few of them here all at once, and in doing so, beg the indulgence of my correspondents. I'll start with the three or four most recent questions that I've received.
1. I have a question that has been bugging me for a long time and I was wondering if you could answer it :
Ragnarok. Has it happened? Will it happen? I just don't get the whole war of the Gods thing. And most importantly : how can one serve/worship both Loki and Odin when They are on two different sides? Since they take a stand during Ragnarok, wouldn't They want their followers to chose Their side? Please understand I have nothing but respect for you, it's just that I'm really very confused about this whole Ragnarok thing.
My answer is going to be multi-part, because my understanding of Ragnarok is influenced not only by my faith and devotional practices, my relationship with the Gods, but also my work as an academic. I"ll try to give you the short version.
Personally, I think the whole Ragnarok myth is one of the best red herrings Christian writers ever spun. Medievalists have long realized that the Eddas in general and the Ragnarok tale in particular have been strongly impacted by Christian eschatology. This makes sense, given that the majority of what remains of Heathen "lore" was written down by Christians long after conversion. I have even heard it posited --convincingly I might add--that "Ragnarok" was the coming of Christianity to the Northlands, a systematic progression that amounted to forced conversion, the destruction of indigenous ways, and, in a word, religious genocide. I think that contemporary Heathens tend to obsess over Ragnarok because most of us were raised Christian and this type of nihilistic eschatology is deeply ingrained in many branches of Christianity. Even conversion to a new faith isn't enough to thoroughly scour it out of our minds and psyches. It's quite analogous to the endless Christian obsession with "salvation."
My own understanding of Ragnarok based on my devotional work, is that --at worst--it's nothing more than a war game in which all the Gods take part. I believe should something so horrendous ever come, something approximating Ragnarok, Surt and Odin, Loki and Tyr, et Al, will be fighting on the same side. Even were that not true, however, I don't think it is our place to become involved in the politics of the Gods. Firstly, sacred stories are allegories, and only the fundamentalist mind things to interpret them literally; secondly, our portion is to love, honor, and pour out offerings to the Gods, not muck about in politics about which we know nothing. Our perspective is simply too limited. If Odin wants me to have an opinion on the matter, so to speak, He can directly tell me what opinion He wishes me to have. I have always found Loki and Odin to work hand in hand particularly with Their followers. Again, personally (having had a devotion to both Loki and Odin for the better part of 20 years), I think it far more likely that the two of Them are playing both sides together against the center than that They're actually opposed. But that's solely my rather sarcastic opinion on the matter.
Beyond that, I also think that the cycles of creation and destruction to the animist and polytheist are far, far different and far more positive things than to the monotheistic mind. From such a perspective, Ragnarok would be a period of renewal and restoration, not destruction.
In the end, I think our job is to love and honor the Gods, all of Them. They can sort Their own politics out and our place in it. There's enough in our restoration for us to fret about, this shouldn't be one of those things.
2. What are your hobbies?
Seriously, I get asked this question at least a handful of times a month: what are my hobbies, what do i do on my free time (free time…you should hear me laughing at that. I hear free time is one of those mythical things like sleep that some lucky folks get to have..lol Hey, does sleep count as a hobby? ). Well, since it's such a curiosity for people, I figured i'd throw this one into the mix here. I suppose when you have a bevy of ignorant sods in the community spreading idiotic rumors that I assault people randomly and hold (I kid you not) "Evil (™) botox parties" that one does wonder. Well, the truth is nothing quite so exciting, folks.
Beyond hanging out with friends, antiquing, reading, cooking, learning about wine (when I'm done my PhD, I want to do the three year master of wine course) etc., when I can get to the studio, which isn't often this semester, I study glass-blowing. You can see some of my creations on the "marketplace" part of my website. I can do simple things like bowls, flowers, cups, etc. and i enjoy it immensely, particularly as an aspect of my fire work. My technique hasn't improved of late, but that's largely because I've been so entrenched in grad school I haven't been able to get to the studio to practice.
I also play a mean game of chess. My dad played in tournaments when he was in the military and he taught me to play when I was small. It had been maybe twenty years since i'd played when i recently had this obsession kindled again. i'm not a bad player but a bit predictable. If i get tired, I make stupid errors. I'm taking lessons though, playing as much as possible, studying some aggressive and truly horrifying openings, and hoping to become good enough to compete. Why chess? Well, as I told a colleague: I play chess because I don't have an army with which to devastate small countries. Make of that what you will.
Beyond that, I like opera and go whenever I am able, watch a little BBC now and again (british television has ruined me lol), and in whatever spare time I am able to scrounge up, I work on my languages. I need Latin, Greek, German, and French for my graduate program, and I want to get my Russian back up to par (I studied it in high school but have lost a lot). Over the summer, I intend to teach myself Spanish. Next year, I'll be getting to Icelandic. After ancient Greek, it should be a breeze.
3. In addition to being asked about my hobbies, I'm also (at least once a week) asked what i'm currently reading.
I will be kind to my readers and exclude the Latin and Greek texts and overly academic works that I"m reading for various classes. Mostly now, for pleasure, i'm reading books on chess. "The Immortal Game" by Schenk, "Birth of the Chess Queen" by Yalom (I am not a fan of feminist scholarship and that perspective detracted greatly from this work, especially given that it turned out to be less about chess and more about the influence of powerful female monarchs during the medieval period), a ton of chess theory books, which involves setting up a board and studying variations more than reading, and then a handful of books not about chess: Winston Groom's "A Storm in Flanders: the Ypres Salient, 1914-1918", "Quiet: the power of introverts in a world that can't stop talking" by S. Cain (excellent book, especially its brief evaluation of the American school system and its deficits), and a biography of poet Gerard Manly Hopkins. I tend to have several books running at once.
4. I have been trying to respond to the following question via email for some time but my emails to this particular correspondent have not been going through so I'm particularly eager to answer this question here in the hopes he/she will see it:
"I am, perhaps, unsure of... What to do. I feel as if Loki still desires something from me, but if it is not an oath, then I do not know what it would be. I am also unsure on what my position with Hel is... She has requested something from me (something that is not hard nor out of my comfort, and not something I'm entirely comfortable with speaking of candidly), but in my questing to know my position between these two, during meditation and dreaming, I met with a seer (in my dreams), who said that my ancestral line, since the beginning, has always worked with "Death", and she said that "in sense, your Mahakali."
It is not unheard of for a family, an ancestral line to have a connection through service to a specific Deity. I would suggest setting up divination with a competent diviner, preferably someone with connections to the Goddess Hel. I would also suggest setting up altars to the two Deities in question and starting a regular process of honoring Them. Because of your connection to Hela (and because it's good foundational work anyway), i would also strongly suggest starting a practice of honoring your ancestors. There are lots of articles on my blog about how to get started in that and I recommend the book "Weaving Memory" by Laura Patsouris. It's entirely possible, since there seems to be this ancestral obligation, that your disir or other ancestors -- those far enough back to have been consciously ensconced in this service--will come forward to teach you.
There you go, folks: two theological, two personal. That's going to have to complete this week's PBP article. For those who are waiting on answers to their emails, poke me again. I try to answer everything but as the semester progresses I do tend to be slow. In the meantime, give some thought to the Autumnal Equinox, which is only a week away. I'm still trying to decide which Deities to celebrate in the House ritual (I"m torn between Thor and Sif, or Mani and Sunna primarily, maybe Gefion…i might honor Them all - the beauty of being a polytheist), and keep those questions coming.
(This week's catch-up PBP post is a more or less guest post written mostly by my friend and colleague S. Reicher. She wrote it, I mostly snarked my way through a discussion on the topic while she was writing. lol No way i could convince her to jump into the entire PBP series, but I'm happy to have collaborated on this particular piece here, something that she quickly crafted out of a discussion we had recently. Check out her blog http://sreicher.weebly.com for a couple of her articles on esoteric topics. She doesn't post often, but when she does, it's almost always worth reading).
I wasn't planning on writing about protection at all this week, but there's a discussion on a yahoogroup that I sometimes follow currently talking about what I like to call 'psychic hygiene' and the topic of shielding came up. As inevitably happens, the concept of 'surrounding oneself with white light' was proffered and since I'm rather allergic to foolishness I had to jump in. After a long discussion with my friend GK, this rant, er…article is the result. You see, I hear the whole white light spiel quite a bit in esoteric circles, particularly from new agers who couldn't magic themselves out of a paperbag. It's a nice catch all. It's easy. It's comforting. It requires little thought. It's a panacea for the masses. There's only one problem: it doesn't work.
Learning to properly shield takes a bit more effort than simply surrounding oneself with white light. Despite what many new age philosophies might tell you, white light is not a cure all and (also contrary to what many new age philosophies might say) the universe isn't there for our convenience and yes, Virginia, there are things out there that can and will do us harm, given half a chance. Anyone engaged in serious esoteric work, healing work, spirit work, devotional work, or strongly energetically sensitive (and this can be developed by any and all of the above) needs to learn to shield. I would actually go one step further and say it's a life skill that would benefit anyone and everyone. It's exactly the same as covering your mouth when you yawn, or your nose when you sneeze. It's as much about keeping your own crap in as keeping anything externally problematic, dangerous, or negative out.
Competent shielding takes practice. First one needs to master grounding and centering. Only then can one begin working on developing a shield matrix. How complex this needs to be depends on the individual. The average joe, probably doesn't need to do more than ground, center, and lightly filter. A spirit-worker or magus may have to maintain something much, much more complex and multi-layered. That's the thing with shielding: it's polyvalent and flexible. The process is fluid and adaptable to one's individual needs. I go into dozens of variations on shielding in my book "Spiritual Protection" and I'm not going to repeat myself here. I'm more interested in talking a little about why shielding is so important.
Shielding is about developing strong, flexible boundaries. I find that the people who have trouble maintaining good boundaries in other areas of their lives usually suck at shielding. They're also the ones who could benefit the most from it and who resist it the most fervently. I've had clients and students come to me who are all over the place energetically. They're usually all over the place emotionally too (and one has to ask how much of this is a conscious --and poor--choice on the part of the client). They are, as a friend of mine likes to call it, utterly emotionally incontinent, they've no boundaries, and they wonder why their lives are absolute messes and yet when one suggests that maybe learning to ground, center, and shield would help, (because shielding is about boundaries, thus learning to shield often helps one become more aware of boundaries and the need for them in other areas of one's life) the response is (as my friend GK recently told me, having dealt with a particularly un-saavy client) quite often along the lines of: "I don't want to learn to shield. I want to be one with the universe. " To again, quote my friend: "yeah, sweetheart. the universe is going to crush you like an empty bear can. Sit the f*ck down and shield."
Why is this so vexing to me? Well, it's simple: because in the end, people like this become someone else's problem. They create issues for the people who have to interact with them. They waste time, effort, and energy never their own. They allow themselves to become burdens for those in their life who have a greater sense of moral responsibility. Or they try to. People with good boundaries usually have no trouble saying "no." The problem then becomes cleaning up the mess people like this leave in their wake; and it's sad. Boundaries, including esoteric shielding, are there to help us live better, more competent, more fulfilling lives. They're life skills. When someone doesn't have adequate life skills that person suffers and that is terribly sad. It's also a tremendous waste.
There's a lot in our culture that tells us (particularly us women) that we cannot be strong. There's a lot that encourages us to remain weak, to cultivate it like an artform, abrogating every ounce of responsibility for our own adulthood on the altar of femininity and social acceptance. There's a lot of bullshit floating about. I've even had colleagues who would use this cultural deficit to excuse [usually female] clients, who would use it as an excuse for every manner of weakness and poor life choice on the part of the clients, never demanding that they grow the hell up. I've had colleagues who simply didn't believe that their female clients could, which is in itself, tremendously dis-empowering. (I've taught martial arts for a number of years and I find that holding high standards for my students encourages them to meet those standards. It sends the unconscious message that I believe they are capable of doing so. The same holds true in other areas, including counseling). In reality, part of becoming an adult is taking responsibility for oneself, despite the paucity of factors in our culture that would encourage this. Part of growing up is fumbling into independence, and learning from one's mistakes, and by doing so, developing the skills of strength and some small modicum of courage that help us become functional adults. It's what responsible people do. It's a personal choice, and there's no excuse for not making it. (We've both, by the way, also been accused of not being 'soft' enough, of needing to develop more softness so we could empathize more with our female clients. You'll excuse me whilst I cry bullshit. I empathize plenty. I don't excuse, and my "softness" is for my intimate companions only. It is not a thing for public consumption. That's a difficult concept for those -- especially men--who have unconscious issues with strong women --or deeply ingrained ideas about women--to fathom). All of this may seem far afield from the question of how best to energetically shield, but I believe they lie at the heart of the problems many people have with this technique. If you can't maintain good boundaries in other areas of your life; if you can't take responsibility for yourself and your decisions (good and bad, triumph and failure), if you don't want to do this, you're not going to be able to shield. Why? Because shielding is setting a boundary. It's drawing a line in the sand. It's a dominant act. It's an act of conscious will.
The same people who refuse to make these choices are quite often the same ones who promulgate white light nonsense. I personally think two things are going on here:
1). either it gives some of these people carte blanche (in their own psyches) to whine and abrogate responsibility when bad things happen. It reinforces their chosen sense of helplessness and plays into the expectations of a victim culture; or
2). It feeds into a certain type of histrionic and self-absorbed character. After all, they *were* shielding (with white light) so if something energetically bad happens to them, it must be because they're such big and important special snowflakes. Look at how psychically powerful they are that they drew such attacks. It never occurs to them, that white light is a piss poor shield and their own lack of discipline and love of drama is bringing attendant chaos and mess on themselves (or making it up). I'll add that these are usually people who have been given the proper techniques more than once, but who find them 'negative' (because they acknowledge the role responsibility plays in life), "difficult" (because they take practice), or "violent" (because the idea of shields and boundaries are viewed as negative).
Most problems in shielding could be fixed by people choosing to grow up. That, however, is another rant. (GK and I have had that rant but neither of us wrote it down.*sarcasm*).
My interest in shielding is a matter of professional standards. I am a magician, an occultist. This is my craft and my art and I take pride in doing it well. It concerns me when I see base level standards completely lacking. I've never been very gracious either about cleaning up someone else's mess and yet, for the good of my community, I sometimes find myself in such a position. This makes me irritable. So before I get too annoyed with all of this, I"m going to recap quickly and then wrap up. White light is not an effective shield because inherently it isn't strong. Those who promulgate this type of shield, don't put much effort into shielding. They depend on the idea of white light rather than on skill, trained technique, and will. They're taught that one need only imagine white light around one to be safe. They are not taught or choose not to equate shielding with the maintenance of good boundaries. There is a tendency here not to hold proper boundaries in other areas too. As far as imagining white light being effective, that's not the case. Imagining white light doesn't do anything. Shielding is an act of will, not imagination. Calling up and shaping energy as white light only makes one a target: white light, people, is bright. It draws attention. It is not subtle. Nor is this type of shield particularly effective in warding against any focused attack. It's very easily broken.
I think people like this type of shield because it's bright, it's pleasant, it feels good, (white light tends to feel very clean and cleansing), it doesn't challenge the senses overmuch. It's bright, white, light, and airy. It's part of the 'nothing can harm me if I don't believe in it school' and, as any remotely competent practitioner knows, that's utter nonsense. I don't have to believe in a bullet for that bullet to do me harm, after all. Magic is much the same.
|
RSS Feed