Wednesday, July 5, 2017

The Nature of the Gods


I recently picked up a new copy of Seed of Yggdrasil. I’ll share some thoughts about that another time (if you know me or my work, you know how much I enjoy the author’s work—and how much I loathe her publishing house).

Reading through it, I began to mull some new things into the Deep Thinky Thoughts I’d already been having about the nature of the Gods. I still need to do some more thinking, but this ties in a little to some of my Deep Thinky Thoughts about my own world view, i.e., that I realized rather recently that I am a very hard polytheist and definitely *not* a Wiccan.

In a nutshell, Kvilhaug views the myths as parables, stories with lessons to be learned—lessons have that have gotten because a) the translators didn’t bother to translate the names of the Gods, other beings, or places, and b) because we, as modern readers/listeners don’t understand the stories the way the mythmakers and their audiences did. At the same time, Kvilhaug seems to express belief in *some* of the Gods (while relegating others to realm of “made-up for the sake of good story-telling”). I don’t agree with this (and not just because my God didn’t “make the cut” to “proper Godhood”)—but I do think Kvilhaug is onto something with the idea that these stories were told with the intent of teaching something to the listener.

If you look at the myths and stories of other cultures, you’ll see the same idea: the myths are entertaining stories, yes—but there is always a lesson to be learned. Some of the lessons have been lost in translation (both in actual translation and in our ability to understand the stories and figures in them the way our ancestors did), but they are still there.

But what does that mean about the nature of the Gods? (And for the record, I’m putting the God of the Abrahamic faiths in with this one, too, because His stories are just as much about teaching lessons, albeit ones that got corrupted in many cases by humans—but I’m pretty sure we can say that about all powerful priesthoods. All power-hungry humans in general: they corrupt the message to suit their own desires.)

How can the Gods be at once literal, actual beings (that have existed before the stories were written down and have continued to exist—to have adventures to live Their lives quite happily on Their own), and yet so many of Their stories seem to be about teaching lessons to mankind? And how did we even discover Their stories to being with?

Deep Thinky Thoughts, indeed.

I think the first thing we need to wrap our heads around is that the Gods are Big. The kind of Big that we can’t begin to imagine except in terms that They set for us—faces They allow us to see. Faces They give to us so we can see them.

To (perhaps) put that into perspective, imagine that we’re a bunch of ants, scurrying around, doing our jobs, secure in our intelligence, our superiority even, to the natural world around us. We build our tunnels—our little cities with their skyscrapers—and we make more little ants to serve our countries, to build more magnificent anthills than the ones we have made. Then along comes something So Big, it can destroy our little world without even thinking—perhaps even accidently. And that Something Big isn’t even capable of feeling remorse because, well, we’re just ants.

But perhaps one of those Something Bigs is more empathetic than the rest. It lifts a few of us up and moves us out of harm’s way.

When our fellow ants ask “what was that?!” how do we explain what we’ve seen?

In that scenario, humans are the Somethings Big. We go on about our day, secure in our place in the Universe, hardly ever realizing that while we may be the kings of our little anthills, there are things out there that are Bigger, Stronger, Vaster, Older, and Smarter than us.

What are those Things?

We call them “Gods” and I believe that some of Them have our best interests at heart, if for no other reason than They are capable of empathy, of compassion (sometimes more-so than we ourselves are). They have seen something in us worthy of attention, so (occasionally), They move us out of harm’s way. They guide us in the right direction.

They try to teach us lessons by giving us stories our human minds are capable of understanding. But we have to listen. And we have to continue to be worthy of Their attention, because if the Gods exist then there undoubtedly are other Big Things out there too, Things without compassion (at least not for us) who could bulldoze over us without a second thought—without even noticing we are here.

Because in the grand scheme of things, we human beings are as significant to the Universe as the average ant colony is significant to you or I.

Sunday, June 25, 2017

Some thoughts on Polytheism…




When I was a wee little witchling, back in the very late 1980’s and early 1990’s, I primarily read books by Wiccans for Wiccans (or would-be Wiccans), so my experience of the Gods was very much colored by a Wiccan lens. Now, to be clear, I am not taking a swipe at Wicca or Wiccan beliefs. I believe there is room in this great big Universe for all kinds of beliefs and we are under no obligation to agree with one another. The only thing we are obliged to do is be kind and patient with one another—or at the very least to (as politely as possible) walk away from a discussion that is going nowhere and/or devolving into an argument.



Wicca has a particular view of Deity, which has, to one extent or another, been picked up by larger sections of the neo-Pagan community. That belief is expressed in the idea that “All Gods are One God, All Goddesses are One Goddess and Both come from the same Source.” In other words, even though we call Her Isis, Astarte, Melusine, Brigid, etc., we are really calling on a single Divine Feminine with many faces of facets. Likewise, when we call on Pan, Poseidon, Cernuous, Mithras, Loki, or Osiris, we are really calling on the same Divine Masculine. For that matter, it wouldn’t matter if we were calling on Osiris or Set, we would be invoking simply a different aspect of the same Divine Masculine.



Even back in my early days, I would never have done that; I didn’t know a lot about Egyptian mythology, but I knew enough to know that was a Very Bad Idea. Set is not actually the Universal Villain He is typically portrayed as, but He and Osiris are without a doubt rivals. Likewise, it always seemed unwise to me to “mix and match” pantheons, i.e., to call Deities from different pantheons and cultures into a single ritual (at least unless some very careful guidelines have been set up before hand, or unless it’s a special sort of ritual with where each person is encouraged to make contact with their Gods, regardless of those Gods’ origins—and in that case, the ritual team needs to be on its toes and there need to be a lot of safeguards in place, because there are some Gods and cultures who are known to not be overly fond of one another!)



So even though I had been told that All Gods are One God, etc., I don’t think I fully absorbed the idea, I simply didn’t question it until recently when it hit me that I am truly a hard polytheist. I genuinely believe that the Gods are separate from one another, and the each is as individual a being as you and I are individual beings (actually, I have another layer to that thought that I’m still mulling over).



A couple of weeks before FSG (the Freespirit Gather in Maryland), something came up in a conversation online that got me thinking about some other aspects of the Wiccan (and to a lesser extent neo-Pagan) mindset, but I was too busy to sit down and write about it.



I recall being taught (although I have not consciously believed this in some years) that the Gods need us. They depend on us for energy, for love, for worship, and that without those things, they fade and possibly even die. I’m not sure where this idea comes from, but it puts we humans in a very strange place of having power over the Gods. How could that possibly be? (A very good counter-argument was put forth that what the Gods actually “need” is to be remembered in this realm, that without us remembering Them, They fade from here—but They certain continue to exist and live out Their existences and might even come back to us if They feel like it. Otherwise, our little world is likely little more than a passing thought, an “oh yeah, I used to hang out in that neighborhood…wonder what they’re up to these days?” I’m sure a few of Them look at the mess we’ve made and are just as happy to not have worshippers here.)



I have no idea (in other words, I haven’t done the research and I’m not quite sure where I’d start anyway) where this idea that without us the Gods cease to exist (like truly cease to exist, not simply move on from our little rock), but it smacks of hubris. I can’t say with any absolute certainty what the nature of the Gods is, other than They are bigger than we are and that by all accounts, They are Eternal (at least in terms of being as old as our Universe; a few may even be older). They are tremendously powerful and yet for some reason, They do take an interest in us—and that is to our benefit, not Theirs. Perhaps They are, even the Gods most vilified in history, more generous than we give Them credit for (and yet, I do not think They are “perfect”; They can be capricious and even dangerous, but to Their followers, Their “people” or “tribe”, They can be amazingly loving. I do not think They are all-knowing, yet They know far more than we do, if for no other reason than They can perceive and understand so much more than we can.)



And so, I am a hard polytheist who believes in an invisible realm and powerful Beings beyond my comprehension, but whom I adore beyond words and feel loved by in return. For that, I am grateful.




Tuesday, April 18, 2017

Book Review: Playing with Fire

I recently read Playing With Fire by Dagulf Loptson. I'd been looking for something specifically about Loki, because while I am also working my way through (and quite enjoying) Raven Kaldera's Northern Shamanic books, I wanted a deeper exploration of this Guy whose been rata-tap-tapping on my head for the better part of the last year (although it's fair to say I've known Him for many years, we were simply never close before recently).

I read a number of articles and chapters in dusty old academic texts when I was working on my rune book, and as I turned back to the better of those for material about Loki, the conclusions about Him I found in them were...cliché? Loki is "Bad". Simply put, He was universally reviled by ancient Norsemen, therefore modern Norse reconstructionists should shun and revile him. That seems simple, but it has never sat right with me.

As someone who had already been working with Hela the past few years (who is also supposed to be reviled, I might add--or at the very least given a wide berth), I couldn't possibly have disagreed more with this absurd notion of that Loki was some kind of Heathen/Norse version of Satan. Didn't we leave our Christianity and it's notions about Good and Evil at the Church door when we left?

So off I went, in search of something that wasn't painfully obviously influenced by a religion not my own. And I found it.

Playing with Fire is the result of Loptson's two decades' or so worth of love, devotion, and study of Loki. It is broken down into ten chapters (plus some additional material at the end) that explore who Loki is, in the context of old Norse religion, His often complex relationships to the other Gods, how He may have been worshipped a thousand or more years ago, how He is worshipped today, and some ideas about getting to know Him better (with all of the warnings that should go along with that notion!--although for my part, it was "too late"; I've been getting to know Loki for quite some while now, and I seriously have no regreats). What impressed me the most in Playing with Fire is that Loptson neither regurgitated stale facts (and absurd fallacies), nor did he give an account of Loki based solely his personal gnosis. Rather, he finds that perfect, delicate balance between research and UPG and always makes it crystal clear which is which. Where he disagrees with academia's hasty conclusions (which is fairly frequently), Loptson gives solid reasons and ample evidence (pulled from academia); he sites his sources and despite the fact that Playing with Fire is well-researched, Loptson's writing is neither dry nor crunchy, making the book an absolute pleasure to read.

I don't necessarily personally agree 100% with Loptson's every conclusion (I have my own reasons for simply not being able to regard Loki as one of the Æsir), but Playing with Fire is an absolute must-read for Lokeans (devotees of Loki), or anyone else who  wants to look at the Norse Gods through a more balanced lens.

Playing with Fire can be purchased (for five bucks) directly from the publisher's website (they'll actually shuffle you off to Lulu to buy it as either a PDF or an epub), or is available in Kindle format (I think? It says "epub") from Amazon (slightly cheaper, but that price difference affects the author's royalty check--just sayin'). It is one of the very few books, as I begin the slow process of down-sizing my life (I want to move in 5 or 10 years into a much smaller dwelling), that I plan to acquire in physical format (I bought my initial copy in electronic format from the publisher/Lulu)--and I don't say that frequently of $20 books.

Monday, April 10, 2017

Wiccan, Pagan, Norse...?


I started writing something the other day with the sentence “Wicca is First and Foremost a Religion.” This is true—but the more I sat with it, the more it felt uncomfortable as my truth—that is to say, the more I saw with it, the less I felt the label Wiccan applied to me.



This is a very strange revelation, but it fits with the work I’ve been doing lately (a re-examining of my Self through the Tenants, a set of principles set to paper by Sybil Leek; I have worked through the Tenants once before, but I find myself at an odd place in life where lots of things no longer fit the way they used to, so I decided it was time to check back in with my Self and see where I am).



And so, here I am, not Wiccan. It feels a little weird.



I still believe in much of what Wicca has to teach about the universe. I believe that it is a good idea not to go about causing malicious harm without just cause—although “just cause” is a mighty subjective term. Still, I think a lot of things are universal. I certainly believe in Four Elemental system that acknowledges Earth, Air, Fire, and Water; I still prefer to work in a Circle, because it’s something I’ve done for nearly 30 years and it is part of my comfort zone. I still believe in reincarnation, although I never had a full grasp on it, or how to reconcile all the various beliefs about life after death (I have a better grasp now, I think). I believe in the importance of things like Ritual Bath, purifying the space, I still us an athame (ironically, the same athame made for me by an avowed Norseman—lookin’ at you, Artos!).



I still call myself a witch, although that title is hardly unique to Wicca.



So what changed?



#1:

After careful thought and consideration, mediation, pondering, contemplation, observation, practice, prayer, and thought, I am without a doubt a polytheist. I say that not to mean I don’t believe there isn’t room for other “eisms”; panentheism, atheism, monotheism, pantheism are all perfectly and absolutely valid. Just not for me. My experience of and relationships with the Gods is polytheistic. End-stop.  Isis is Isis. Hela is Hela. Loki is Loki. Osiris is Osiris. Hera is Hera. There may be some overlap between Isis and Hera or Hermes and Oðinn, but at the end of the day, that overlap is more like the overlap between one family’s fast-talking, gender-bendy cousin and another family’s fast-talking gender-bendy cousin. They share similar qualities, but just because you’re drinking buddies with one doesn’t mean the other one is going to like you or appreciate it if you call him up in the middle of the night, especially if you haven’t even been properly introduced! They are two different people—two different Gods.



And yes, of course, your mileage may vary. We’re talking about my mileage and why I can no longer use the word Wiccan to describe myself, because Wiccan philosophy holds that “All Gods are One God; All Goddesses are One Goddess; All come from the Same Source”.  



#2

I can no longer identify as Wiccan because while am a CIS female, I cannot identify with a strictly binary world-view. I’m not saying it’s wrong or bad or that every group doesn’t have the absolute sovereign right to worship the Gods they choose (or who choose them) as they see fit (you should have heard me yelling at the laptop as I watched the taped lecture of a person who wants to change Gardnerian Wicca to include the gender-queer and gender-fluid—those are NOT Gardnerian world- or Deity-views; if your world-view and Gods are absolutely non-binary, you should probably go and find a religion that fits; please do not try to make the religion you are in fit you). Oops. I think I might have digressed….let’s get back on track, shall we?



In recent years, the idea of binary gender has (rightly) been challenged; we, as human beings are more than simply “male” or “female”.  We are both. We are neither. We are fluid. We are questioning, questing, unsure, and happily exploring. Gender-identity is a brilliant rainbow and there are more expressions of sexual orientation than heterosexuality. That does not fit with the traditional Wiccan view which tells us:



A)     Godhead is one unique and transcendent wholeness, beyond any limitations or expressions; thus, it is beyond our human capacity to understand and identify with this principle of Cosmic Oneness, except as It is revealed to us in terms of Its attributes and operation.

B)      The most basic and meaningful attribute of the One that we, as humans, can relate to and understand, is that of polarity, of action and reaction; therefore Witches recognize the Oneness of the Divinity, but worship and relate to the Divine as the archetypal polarity of God and Goddess, the All-Father and the Great Mother of the universe.  The Beings are as near as we can approach to the One within our human limitations of understanding and expression, though it is possible to experience the divine Oneness through the practices of the Mysteries.



That view, while valid for those who believe in it, does not allow for the experiences of the Polytheist or for the experiences of the non-binary witch, the gender-fluid, gender-questioning, gender-queer, gender-non-conforming, the third-gender, or the asexual witch; it does little to address the experiences of the transgender witch, or the gay and lesbian witch, or even the bi- or pansexual witch. For while we do, indeed, all come from a sperm (male) and egg (female), the complexities of gender and sexuality are only yet being unraveled.



To say that the archetypal Goddess and God, the Mother and Father, are “the nearest we can approach to understanding Divinity” does not allow for the vast experiences and expressions of the human condition and seems (to me) an excuse to justify the (fictionally ancient) Religion of the Great Mother and Her Horned Consort.



Although let me say it again: it is within the right of the senior members of any given Tradition to choose their Tradition’s Gods and to specify the way in which They will be worshipped within the Tradition. Don’t join a Wiccan Coven and expect them to change to suit your world-view; in joining, you agree to accept theirs.



That’s it. There are only Two Things, but they are Very Big Things. I believe in doing my best to live my truth, walk my talk, and be myself. And after nearly 30 years of practice, that Self is no longer Wiccan.



For those who may still labor under the odd belief that Wicca is a willy-nilly sort of religion, here are the general principles that Wiccans subscribe to; though there is no High Authority, no Book, no (real) organization, once upon a time (back in the early 1970’s) a group of prominent Wiccans got together and hammered out what Wiccans believe. I think they did a pretty good job.



The 13 Principles of Wiccan Belief:

1.     We practice rites to attune ourselves with the natural rhythm of life forces marked by the phases of the Moon and the seasonal Quarters and Cross Quarters.

2.     We recognize that our intelligence gives us a unique responsibility toward our environment.  We seek to live in harmony with nature in ecological balance offering fulfillment to life and consciousness within an evolutionary concept.

3.     We acknowledge a depth of power far greater than that apparent to the average person.  Because it is far greater than ordinary it is sometimes called ‘supernatural’, but we see it as lying within that which is naturally potential to all.

4.     We conceive of the Creative Power in the universe as manifesting through polarity – as masculine and feminine – and that this same Creative Power lies in all people and functions through the interaction of the masculine and the feminine.  We value neither above the other knowing each to be supportive of the other.  We value sex as pleasure as the symbol and embodiment of life, and as one of the sources of energy used in magical practice and religious worship.

5.     We recognize both outer worlds and inner, or psychological worlds sometimes known as the Spiritual World, the Collective Unconsciousness, the Inner Planes etc – and we see in the interaction of these two dimensions the basis for paranormal phenomena and magical exercises.  We neglect neither dimension for the other, seeing both as necessary for our fulfillment.

6.     We do not recognize any authoritarian hierarchy, but do honor those who teach, respect those who share their greater knowledge and wisdom, and acknowledge those who have courageously given of themselves in leadership.

7.     We see religion, magick and wisdom in living as being united in the way one views the world and lives within it – a world view and philosophy of life which we identify as Witchcraft – the Wiccan Way.

8.     Calling oneself ‘Witch’ does not make a Witch – but neither does heredity itself, nor the collecting of titles, degrees and initiations.  A Witch seek to control the forces within her/himself that make life possible in order to live wisely and without harm to others and in harmony with nature.

9.     We believe in the affirmation and fulfillment of life in a continuation of evolution and development of consciousness giving meaning to the Universe we know and our personal role within it.

10.Our only animosity towards Christianity, or towards any other religion or philosophy of life, is to the extent that its institutions have claimed to be ‘the only way’ and have sought to deny freedom to others and to suppress other ways of religious practice and belief.

11. As American Witches, we are not threatened by debates on the history of the craft, the origins of various terms, the legitimacy of various aspects of different traditions.  We are concerned with our present and our future.

12.We do not accept the concept of absolute evil, nor do we worship any entity known as ‘Satan’ or ‘the Devil’ as defined by Christian tradition.  We do not seek power through the suffering of others, nor accept that personal benefit can be derived only by denial to another.

13.We believe that we should seek within Nature that which is contributory to our health and well-being.



There is a second set of Principles that mirrors and expands upon the first; this second set is actually what I learned first (both can be found at Sacred Texts.com)



BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE CRAFT

 
1.   The first principle is that of love, and it is expressed in the ethic, "DO AS YOU WILL, SO LONG AS YOU HARM NONE"
      a) love is not emotional in its essence, but is an attribute of the individual as expressed in relation to other beings;
      b) harming others can be by thought, word, or deed;
      c) it is to be understood the "none" includes oneself;
      d) the harm which is to be regarded as unethical is gratuitous harm; war, in general, is gratuitous harm, although it is ethical
          to defend oneself and one's liberty when threatened by real and present danger, such as defense against invasion.
 
2.   The Witch must recognize and harmonize with the forces of the universe, in accord with the Law of Polarity: everything is dual; everything has two poles; everything has it's opposite; for every action there is a reaction; all can be categorized as either active or reactive in relation to other things.
      a) Godhead is one unique and transcendant wholeness, beyond any limitations or expressions; thus, it is beyond our human capacity to understand and identify with this principle of Cosmic Oneness, except as It is revealed to us in terms of It's attributes and operation.
      b) The most basic and meaningful attribute of the One that we, as humans, can relate to and understand, is that of polarity, of action and reaction; therefore Witches recognize the Oneness of the Divinity, but worship and relate to the Divine as the archetypal polarity of God and Goddess, the All-Father and the Great Mother of the universe.  The Beings are as near as we can approach to the One within our human limitations of understanding and expression, though it is possible to experience the divine Oneness through the practices of the Mysteries.
      c) Harmony does not consist of the pretty and the nice, but the balanced, dynamic, poised co-operation and co-relation.
 
3.   The Witch must recognize, and operate within the framework of the Law of Cause and Effect; every action has it's reaction, and every effect has it's cause.  All things occur according to this law; nothing in the universe can occur outside this law, though we may not always appreciate the relation between a given effect and it's cause.  Subsidiary to this is the Law of Three, which states that whatever goes forth must return threefold, whether of good or ill; for our actions affect more than people generally realize, and the resulting reactions are also part of the harvest.
 
4.   As Above, So Below.  That which exists in the Macrocosm exists, on a smaller scale and to a lesser degree, in the Microcosm.  The powers of the universe exist also in the human, though in general instance they lie dormant.  The powers and abilities can be awakened and used if the proper techniques are practiced, and this is why initiates of the Mysteries are sworn to guard the secrets from the unworthy:  Much harm can be done by those who have power without responsibility, both to others and to themselves according to the Laws of Cause and Effect and of Threefold Return.
      a) Since our philosophy teaches that the universe is the physical manifestation of the Divine, there can be nothing in the universe which does not partake of the nature of the Divine; hence, the powers and attributes of the Divine exist also in the manifest, though to much smaller degree.
      b) These powers can be awakened through the various techniques of the Mysteries, and, although they are only capable of small effects in and of themselves, it is possible to use them in order to draw upon the forces of the universe.  Thus humanity can be the wielders of the power of the Gods, a channel for Godhead to act within It's own manifestation.


          This, then, is further reason for the oath of secrecy.


      c) Since the universe is the body of the One, possessing the same attributes as the One, it's Laws must be the principles through and by which the One operates.  By reasoning from the known to the unknown, one can learn of the Divine, and thus of oneself.  Thus the Craft is a natural religion, seeing in Nature the expression and revelation of Divinity.
 
5.   We know that everything in the universe is in movement or vibration and is a function of that vibration.  Everything vibrates; all things rise and fall in a tidal system that reflects the motion inherent in the universe and also in the atom.  Matter and energy are but two poles of one continuous phenomenon.  Therefore the Witch celebrates, harmonizes with, and makes use of the tides of the universe and of life as expressed through the cycle of the seasons and the motion of the solar system.  These ritual observances are the eight great Festivals of the Year, referred to as the Wheel of the Year.
      Further, the Witch works with the forces and tides of the Moon, for this body is the mediator of much energy to our planet Earth and thus to ourselves.
 
6.   Nothing is dead matter in the universe.  All things exist, therefore all things live, though perhaps in a different manner from that which we are used to calling life.  In view of this, the Witch knows that there is no true death, only change from one condition to another.  The universe is the body of Godhead, and therefore possesses one transcendant consciousness; all things partake of the consciousness, in varying levels of trance/awareness.
      a) Because of this principle, all things are sacred to the Witch, for all partake of the one Life.
      b) Therefore the Witch is a natural ecologist, for Nature is part of us as we are a part of Nature.
 
7.   Astrology can be useful in marking and interpreting the flow and ebb of  the tides of our solar system, and thus of  making use of those tides; astrology should not be debased into mere fortune-telling.
 
8.   Throughout the development of the human race, civilizations have seen and worshipped many and various attributes of the Divine.  These universal forces have been clothed in forms which were expressive to the worshipper of the attribute of the Godhead which they expressed.  Use of these symbolic representations of the natural and divine forces of the universe, or godforms, is a potent method for contacting and utilizing the forces they represent.  Thus the Gods are both natural and truely divine, and man-made in that the forms with which they are clothed are products of  humanity's striving to know the
Godhead.
      a) In keeping with the Law of Polarity, these god-forms are brought into harmony by the one great Law which states:  



All Gods are one God. 

All Goddesses are one Goddess. 

There is one Initiator. 



This law is an expression of our  understanding that all of the forces of the universe, by whatever ethnic god-form is chosen to clothe and relate to
whichever force, can be resolved into the fundamental polarity of the Godhead, the Great Mother and the All-Father.
      b) It is the use of differing godforms, of differing ethnic sources or periods, which is the basis of many of the differences between the various Traditions of the Craft.  Each Tradition uses the forms, and thus the names, which to that
Tradition best express and awaken an understanding of the force represented, according to the areas of emphasis of the Tradition.
      c) Because we know that differing names or representations are but expressions of the same divine principles and forces, we require our members to swear that they will never mock the names by which another honors the Divine, even though those names be different from and seemingly less expressive than the names and godforms used by our Tradition (for to the members of another Tradition, using it's names, ours may easily seem equally less expressive).
 
9.   A Witch refuses to allow her/himself to be corrupted by the great guilt neuroses which have been foisted on humanity in the name of the Divine, thus freeing the self of the slavery of the mind.  The Witch expresses responsibility for her/his actions, and accepts the consequences of them; guilt is rejected as inhibiting to one's self-actualization, and replaced by the efforts of the Witch to obey the teachings of harmlessness, responsibility for the consequences of one's actions, and the goal of  actualizing the full powers of the individual.
      a) We refuse to believe that a human being is born innately sinful, and recognize the the concepts of sin and guilt are tremendously inhibiting to the human potential; the consequences of the Law of Cause and Effect, called karma by some, are not punishment, but the recurrences of situations and their effects because the individual as not gained the Wisdom needed to handle or avoid such situations.
      b) There is no heaven except that which we ourselves make of our life on Earth, and likewise there is no hell except the effects of our unwise actions.  Death is not followed by punishment or reward, but by life and the continuing evolution of the human potential.
      c) One cannot damn the divine in oneself; one can, however, cut oneself off from it through the rejection of wisdom and a refusal to strive for self-realization.  This cutting off does not lead to personal suffering in "hell", for there is no Self to suffer if the tie to one's own divinity has been severed; what remains is merely an empty shell, a "personality" or thought-form devoid of it's ensouling Spark of the Divine Fire.
 
10.  We know of the existence of the life-force which ensouls all living things, that is, all that exists.  We know that a spark of this Divine Fire is within each and every thing that exists, and that it does not die; only the form of it's existence changes. We know that this spark of  the life-force returns to manifestation again and again in order to fully  realize and actualize it's potential, evolving finally to the peak and essence of existence which is pure be-ing.  In this process of  reincarnation each form returns in the same type of form, though it's ever-increasing actualization may lead to higher levels of existence of  that form.  Man returns as man, cat as feline, mineral as mineral, each class of form evolving as the individual forms of that class evolve.
 
11.  This process of evolution through successive incarnations in manifest form works through the utilizations of wisdom gained, the essence of the life-experience.  This essence of experience, or Wisdom, is an attribute of the spark of life itself, one and inseparable (see 9a).
 
12.  We must care for the body, for it is the vehicle of the spark of life, the form by which we attain.  Thus we must heal the body of it's ills and keep it a tuned and perfected tool; so must we heal others (both physicaly and psychologically) as far as it is within our power to do so.  However, we cannot interfere with the life of another, even to heal, except at their request or with their express permission; unless such non-interference would be inhibiting to our own, ethical existence and development -- and  even then the responsibilities and consequences must be understood and accepted.  This, then, is one of the important reasons for the communal life the Witches under the guidance of the Priesthood:  That the group  may be guided by wisdom and experience, with the aid and support of one's peers; and that one's actions may be guided by the influence of the ethical life of the group as a whole.

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Loki


Most people I know (and to be fair, it’s a small segment of a small pool of people) associate Loki with Coyote-energy (at least those that I’ve spoken to on the subject, which is a slightly smaller segment of a small segment of a small pool of people—in other words, this is far from a scientific observation). Some of the reading I have done has suggested an extremely tentative connection between Loki and Spider. (There’s some etymology involved.) My personal experiences bear this out, but that likely has to do with a very special Loki-guy and his affinity for spiders.

I’ve never really felt the Coyote connection, although I understand where it comes from. Coyote is the trickster of many Native American cultures. I have a *lot* of problems with most “totem” animal guide books. (I have a HUGE problem with the word “totem”; a totem is a tribal spirit ally that comes with a whole host of societal obligations and taboos. Individual people have allies—or not, depending on your path and practices—tribes, families, or clans have totems. Clear? And just to be extra clear, those totems come with serious obligations and rules about what the tribe can and cannot do if it wants to stay on the good side of their totem.) Ahem. As I was saying. I don’t like most guides; if you want to know something about your allies, you should ask them. But that said, there is some wisdom in seeking out the experiences of others, particularly in the case of “common” or well-known Spirits.

Coyote is popularly written up along these lines:



You are being reminded to laugh at yourself. Things have been entirely too serious of late and you simply need to let loose and get on with it. Stop dwelling on your worries and stresses and let them go. You have asked for the help you need so just let go and allow your spirit helpers to do what they need to do. Do something that gives you pleasure and joy and focus on the positive for a change. (http://www.spirit-animals.com/)



If you are truly called by Coyote, you should not only talk to him to see what he has to say of himself, but you should look up reliable re-tellings of North American myths regarding Coyote.

But as I was saying, I can very easily see why so many people connect Coyote and Loki.

Loki is very good at laughing at Himself.

I think He does actually take life seriously…but maybe not too seriously.

Loki is very good at having a good time.

And of course, He is a well-known trickster who gets into and out of trouble on a regular basis.



Last year, I started working with Loki. He came to me (although He’d probably always been there in the background, since I was doing so much work with His daughter, Hela). I was having a problem and He offered to help. It seemed completely out of his purview. I know the Gods are more than “oh, Thor is the God of Thunder” and “Odin is the God of warriors”—They are complex Beings with personalities all their own, not square and triangular shaped blocks to be plugged into appropriately shaped holes in our rituals. But still. My problem seemed very far outside Loki’s general sphere of influence.

He assured me He was more than willing to help and could take care of the problem. I was smart enough to ask “okay, what’s this gonna cost me?” before saying yes. If you’ve followed this blog at all, you already saw the picture I did of Hel. Loki’s price was to “make something beautiful” for Him. I floundered for a while trying to figure out what that something beautiful might be, but then I painted Her, and He seemed quite pleased.  I’m pretty pleased too; it came out *really* well.

Since then, my relationship with Loki has grown and He’s started manifesting here and there, so naturally, I’ve been thinking about Him a lot more these days. As you’ve probably already gathered, I’m a Shamanic practitioner. (I draw a very solid line between a Shaman and a Shamanic practitioner; think of me as someone who took a first aid class and got pretty good at it, so I’m comfortable showing other people how to bind a broken toe, something most people don’t go to the doctor’s for anyway, because there’s not much that can be done except bind it. I would never dream of performing open-heart surgery, but I’ll be happy to help you stop the bleeding if you cut your finger in the kitchen and will dial 911 and sit with you while we wait for the ambulance if I think the cut needs stitches.)

So. I was doing some journey work and there was Loki…and a fox. I’m not one of those people who wants to mix up multiple systems, so I wasn’t looking for “what animal is connected to Loki?” – but there it was. Fox. And it felt so stunningly correct. Coyote is a trickster, but Fox is sly. He’s small and cunning and fleet-footed.





But here’s what the same website has to say about Fox:

The solution to a problem is at hand. The Fox spirit is the grand problem solver. She will guide you to solitude and silence until the way out is shown. A healthy combination of persistence and patience will strike a balance that picks apart a problem until it is solved.

Alternatively, are you having trouble adjusting to a new living situation or job? Do you feel like you’re barely scraping by? When sly Fox crosses your path it can be a signal to open your eyes, so that you can see the situation for what it is – not as you wish it to be.

When a situation or environment is difficult allow yourself to be fluid and adaptable. You have all the tools and resources you need to turn money, career, or living difficulties around.



Loki is a problem-solver—never mind that He is frequently responsible for His problems. He takes responsibility for His problems and fixes them. Other sources comment about Fox’s ability to camouflage and fit into any environment; Loki is not only a well-known shape-shifter, but moved through various circles/realms in the tales. And we all know that Loki is sly.

And of course while not all foxes are red, we are (at least in North America) mostly familiar with the red fox and Loki is most certainly a red-head! (A quick Google search tells me that the same red fox is a native of Scandinavia as well). I also tend to picture Him as slight of build and more toward the androgynous side, yet at the same time brimming with lovely sexual energy that is at once definitely masculine, but not in the same way that Thor is kinda Mr. Testosterone. It’s the difference between a fox, which is truly a predator and perfectly capable of taking care of itself, and a bear (all teeth and claws).
I've been using Jamie Sams' (how funny, I'm acquainted with a very different author named Jaime Samms!) Medicine Cards for readings and the accompanying book (with perhaps a small grain of salt here and there) for insight. Much of what she has to say about Fox not only jives with what I feel about Loki (mainly on a deep gut level, but also from looking at what other people have observed), but it jives with what I've been feeling about where I am in my life (given the way Fox has come up in readings).

I’m curious if anyone else has made the same connection between Fox and Loki and what other spirit-workers Loki-children’s take is on my observations. (And again, I don’t generally go blending systems; I’m not suggesting any historical connection or any hard and fast Shamanic connection, just recording my own observations and curious about others’ thoughts.)












Wednesday, February 15, 2017

Maureen Halsall in Paperback!

While preparing my notes for Runes and Runology, my presentation at ConVocation, I discovered that Maureen Halsall's book The Old English Rune Poem: a critical edition is now available in paperback for thirty bucks!

Buy it now. Seriously. This is one of the very best academic books on the OERP ever written.



While on the subject of books, it appears that Maria Kvilhaug's excellently written but poorly produced (i.e., blame the publisher) book, Seed of Yggdrasil, is now available as an ebook. For $50. For shame, Whyte Tracks Books, for absolute shame.

They gave us delay after delay on the original book and when it finally came out, the printing is *awful* (looks almost like dot-matrix in some places, images are pale and grainy), the binding is second-rate (at best) and *now* they're offering a bloody ebook for the same $50 I paid for the hardcover (which has now jumped up to $75)! I would rather give my money directly to the author than give these asshats another cent. (And you can! She's self-published a number of wonderful fiction stories as well as some of her translations, which you can find on her website http://freya.theladyofthelabyrinth.com/). I hope that eventually she gets the rights back to Seed of Yggdrasil and self-publishers it. I would buy it from her directly in a heartbeat (even for another $50)--but I cannot justify giving her publisher any more money. When I contacted them to complain, all I got were lame apologies and an attempt to blame Amazon, from whom I'd purchased the book.

Sunday, February 5, 2017

Anglo-Saxon Rune Book


Anglo-Saxon Runes is officially available for sale

Here's a sample of what you'll find inside:
:


Introduction




Welcome!

This book is my attempt at bridging the gap between the esoteric study of runes and academic runology. I anticipate that the majority of you who pick it up are mainly interested in the runes as tools for magic and divination, that you are Pagans, Heathens, Shamans, rune-workers (or would-be rune-workers), and/or Spiritualists. I wrote it, in large part, because I feel as if most of the books aimed at us don’t offer enough in the way of history or academics. Without those, we don’t get a complete picture of the runes. We need to understand the problems inherent in our primary source-material, the rune poems. We need to know how the translators of those poems came up with their translations. We need to know where the runes came from, who made them, and why. Understanding these things doesn’t diminish the magic of the runes; it makes us better rune-readers.

I give my students the following formula:



40% Solid Academic Research

40% UPG (Unsubstantiated Personal Gnosis)

20% Common Sense

Good solid academic research gives us a firm grounding in the facts. History. Culture. Religious beliefs.

But we are still witches, rune-workers, Pagans, Heathens, Shamans, and Spiritualists. We rely on our intuition, our gut instincts, to guide us through life. We should rely on our instincts, our Unsubstantiated Personal Gnosis or UPG. (We also need to remember that our personal gnosis may not be the same as others’ personal gnosis, and that’s okay too. That’s what makes it personal.)

Working with the runes isn’t like learning multiplication tables in elementary school. It’s not about rote memorization. Divination works best when you learn everything you can about the meaning behind the symbols, when you open yourself up, when you meditate and allow those symbols—in this case the runes—to speak to you.

That doesn’t mean to throw common sense out the window. It’s easy to see what we want to in divination, to interpret the runes the way we want them to read. Objectivity is difficult, and these days, it seems as if common sense is going the way of the dodo. So please remember to use your head as well as your heart.

In the introduction of his book Runica Manuscripta, René Derolez wisely advised that the runologist must also be a philologher, a paleographer, an historian, an art historian, and a detective. I would add that you should also be part folklorist, part anthropologist, and part theologian as well.



My Journey with the Runes


I discovered the Norse Gods in the sixth grade. Or, rather, that’s when I discovered the authentic version of Them. I was already familiar with Marvel’s version (of which I’m still a huge fan!)—but when I hit the sixth grade and was finally granted access to the entire library of my elementary school, I came across D’Aulaires’ Book of Norse Myths and was immediately hooked. It would take a few more years before I found my way onto the Pagan path, but the groundwork was being lain.

I was nineteen in 1988 when I found a copy of Scott Cunningham’s Earth Power in a local book store. Just a few months later, on Imbolc of 1989, I made my solitary dedication to the Pagan Gods—to Mother Earth and Her Horned Consort/Son. The moon was full and the air was freezing; I shivered as I sat out on my apartment’s little balcony (overlooking the parking lot, but under a beautiful starry sky) and performed a ritual I had cobbled together from the three or four books I’d read. Shortly thereafter, I discovered the runes—but nothing quite “clicked” for me, so I went off and studied tarot, other mythologies, and a little bit about astrology, and Qabala.

Then, in 2002/2003, the runes crossed my path again. I don’t recall what I was researching when I happened across Maria Kvilhaug’s Youtube channel[1] but listening to her take on the Norse myths rekindled my interest in the Norse Gods and along with them, the runes. I went out and purchased a couple of books and this time, things started to “click.”

Mostly.

It was like almost everything in a particular book made perfect sense—there were just one or two rune-interpretations that didn’t quite feel “right[2].” So I looked at a different book—but the same thing happened. Over and over, I found books where almost everything was “perfect,” but there were just one or two interpretations that felt off. In some cases, it was a matter of liking this person’s interpretation of a particular rune over that person’s interpretation of it (because some of those interpretations are wildly different from one another). In a couple of instances, no one’s interpretation felt “right.” p (*pertho/peorð) and I (*eiwaz/eoh) in particular never seemed to mean what the books said they should.

Frustrated, I decided to use my own formula and went back to the source material. For the runes, that’s the rune poems. There are three, and you will find them all quoted in most esoteric rune texts—but the rune poems don’t always agree with one another about the meanings of the runes. The rune ur (u) is probably the best example. In the Anglo-Saxon Rune Poem, we are told that ur means aurochs, an extinct bovine with very big horns and a stubborn temperament. In the Icelandic Rune Poem, we are told that ur is sleet or icy drizzle. In the Norwegian Rune Poem, we are told that ur is slag or dross.

Which is correct?

More confused than ever, I decided it would be better to stick with one source to start, and since there are only sixteen stanzas in the Icelandic and Norwegian Rune Poems (and twenty-four runes in the Elder Futhark), I decided that source would be the Anglo-Saxon Rune Poem (also called the Old English Rune Poem, or OERP).

The first thing I noticed when I looked it up was that it is twenty-nine stanzas long and has twenty-nine runes. I’d seen a few of them before but never given them much thought since none of the rune books I’d read had much (if anything at all) to say about them. But being the girl who always wanted the biggest box of crayons (you know, the one with the most colors!), I was instantly intrigued. I started hunting out books that dealt specifically with these “extra” runes as well as continuing to look at the OERP.

That’s when I clued in on something else: every single book I picked up had a slightly different translation of the rune poems. Sometimes the differences were subtle—a word choice, the order of a sentence. Other times, the differences were substantial enough to change the reading of a stanza significantly. And since my last real exposure to Old English literature had been reading Beowulf in high school, I had no idea which translation was “right.” The only solution I could think of was to translate the OERP for myself—so that’s what I did.

My drawing of a runic inscription found on Kingigtorssuaq Island, Greenland. It dates from approximately 1250-1330 CE, and exemplifies many of the challenges we face when trying to understand the runes. Several runes appear to be written backwards; others appear in variant forms. There are symbols here that are not runes, but we have no idea if they were purely decorative or if they meant something significant to the person who carved them.



[2] “Right” is incredibly subjective when it comes to the interpretation of the runes. Dates, places, history—those are things we can be right or wrong about (or we may simply not know because we don’t have enough evidence). Intuition is something that only feels right or wrong. In short, I am not saying my way of interpreting the runes is the “right way”; my way is a “right way”. There are many others.

What are Runes?

Runes are letters, just like the letters used to make up this sentence. The words “futhark” and “futhorc” are like the word “alphabet,” which takes its name from its first two letters, A and B, or alpha and beta—only instead of the first two letters, the futhark and futhorc take their names from their first six letters. The first column below shows the first six runes/letters of the Elder Futhark; the second shows the first six runes/letters of the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc.
       *fehu (F, f)
*uruz (U, u)
*þurs (Th, T)
*ansuz (A, A)
*raido (R, r)
*kenaz (K, k)

feoh (F, f)
ur (U, u)
þorn (Th, T)
ós (O, o)
rad (R, r)
cen (C, c)


These are only two of the futharks/futhorcs known to us. The three most common are pictured below. Each is divided into groups or “families” called ætts. Even when the number of runes in the futharks/futhorcs changed, the ætts retained their order, always beginning with the same three runes (f, h, and t). I’ve divided them below using slashes (/).
Elder Futhark (in use from the 2nd-8th centuries, CE):

fuTarkgw /  hnijIpzs  / tbemlNdo

Younger Futhark (in use from the 8th-12th centuries CE):

fuTarS /  jnis  /  tbzlk

Anglo-Saxon Futhorc (in use from the 5th-10th centuries, CE):
fuTorcgw /  hniIpzs  /  tbemlNod  /  aAyjqSG [1]

Because the development and writing of the runes wasn’t governed by any political body, school, or religious group, you will find differences in the way runes are written even within a single futhark/futhorc. Some of these variations are simply the difference between one person’s handwriting and another’s; some are regional differences; others are copyists’ errors.


What’s in a name?

While many contemporary authors, both academic and occult alike, tell us the word “rune” derives from words meaning “mystery,” “private council,” or “secret knowledge[1].” (Sheffield, p. 11; Elliott, p. 1; Looijenga, p. 8; Kemble, p. 2[2]), the truth is that it’s not nearly so simple.
Linguist Richard Morris, following seventeenth century scholar Aylett Sammes (who himself was following after the Danish runologist Ole Worm), suggests that the word “rune” comes from ren, meaning a cut or channel for water and/or ryn the furrow left behind in the wake of a plough in the field, because the runes are “ploughed out” into stone or wood, or with a pen on parchment in much the same way furrows are ploughed into the field. (Morris’s book Runic and Mediterranean Epigraphy is an interesting, if dense, read.)
Both runologists R.I. Page (in Runes and Runic Inscriptions)
and Ralph Elliott (in Runes) give us some cognates for the word
“rune” (you will see these repeated by other authors as well):
· Old Irish run, meaning “secret” or occasionally “cryptic text”
· Middle Welsh rhin, meaning “magic charm”
· Finnish runo, meaning “song, perhaps originally incantation”
Others tell us that the word “rune” may be related to verbs such as OE runian, Old Saxon runon, and Old High German rûnen, which all mean “to whisper.”
Maureen Halsall[3] and Christine Fell[4] both tell us that “rune” has been glossed with the Latin mysterium and Greek μννστήριον, words meaning “mystery,” but that these “mysteries” are understood as “Divine Christian Mysteries,” not Pagan magic[5]. 
The Bosworth-Toller Old English Dictionary (online edition) tells us the word “rune” means:
1.     A whisper; speech not intended to be overheard, confidence, council, consultation
2.     A mystery c.f. geryne
3.     A secret
4.     Of that which is written with the idea of mystery or magic
5.     A rune, a letter
But in her paper, “Runes and Semantics,” Christine Fell picks apart Bosworth-Toller’s definition with merciless tenacity, examining each entry with care and citing multiple examples to support her view that “to whisper” is the only accurate gloss or definition for the word “rune[6].” One of her central arguments is that our modern English word “rune” is not a survival from Old English or even Middle English, but rather a “reintroduction into the language from Scandinavian through the medium of Latin authors,” and that “there is no period of Modern history where the serious study of Old English runic material has not been influenced by Latinized Old Norse[7] (Fell, p. 205).
She tells us that “our English historians and poets were not initially familiar with any Old Norse” (Fell, p. 202) and believes that we “impose error and encourage delusion about magic and paganism” when we apply the meanings of “secret” and “mystery” to the word “rune.” Further, if there was a connection in the Anglo-Saxon mind-set between “rune” and “secret” or “mystery,” “it is only because “the sixteenth century absorbed the belief that runes were linked with magic and paganism…” [emphasis mine] (p. 215).
While I find Fell’s arguments both thoughtful and thought-provoking (and recommend her paper highly[8]), I personally believe that the very nature of the runes is mystery. Not some unknowable secret, but rather that which has yet to be revealed simply because we have not yet learned how to read the signs. The Eddas tell us that the runes were carved into the very fabric of the cosmos where they were later discovered by Oðinn in an episode that can only be described as a Shamanic ordeal. That means they are knowable, we simply have to unlock their mysteries.
Before moving onto the next topic, I would like to give you two final thoughts regarding the word “rune.” The first concerns the Finnish word runo, meaning “song.” The idea of connecting the runes to “song” puts me immediately in mind of the seiðkona[9], whose magic requires that her (or sometimes his) “audience” sings the correct songs necessary to sustain her trance/journey work.
The second comes from Christine Fell. It has nothing to do with history or semantics, magic or Paganism, but everything to do with this present study of the runes:

It [the word runcofa] is used in the metres of Boethius in a passage explaining that no person, however depraved, if she looks into her own heart or runcofa will not find for herself the stirrings of righwisness, right thinking or possibly conscience. (Fell, p. 214)

Fell’s point here is that run cannot possibly have any dubious connotations (as suggested by some of her resources) if it was being used as stated above. My point is that a kenning for “heart” is runcofa, i.e. “rune coffer” or “rune container”—and that’s an image I rather like.


[1] Examples include OE run, Old High German rûna, Old Icelandic rúnar, and Gothic gar­uni.

[2] Quoting Grimm, but quite firm in his own definition of the word “rune”: “It’s original meaning is strictly mysterium, a mystery…” but then he follows up with: “And so the verb rŷnan, which is derived directly from it, means to whisper, to tell secrets…” (Kemble, p. 2)

[3] In her book The Old English Rune Poem, A Critical Edition.

[4] In her paper “Runes and Semantics,” which can be found on pp. 195-229 of the monograph Old English Runes and Their Continental Background, edited by Alfred Bammesberger.

[5] Fell, in particular, goes into great depth, citing that “it is important to bear in mind that though Anglo-Saxon homilists refer often enough to pagan beliefs and practices, they do not use the words run or geryne when they do so.” (Fell, p. 198.) [emphasis mine]. She cites multiple examples from Latin glosses and translations of the Christian Bible, where the word “mystery” (as in the “mysteries of God” or “mystery of the Cross”) is translated to “rune.” Examples include Bishop Wulfila’s—also known as St. Ulfilas (ca. 311-383)—fourth-century translation of the Bible into Gothic (which, in fact, is our only surviving Gothic-language text).
[6] She goes into great depth, citing that “it is important to bear in mind that though Anglo-Saxon homilists refer often enough to pagan beliefs and practices, they do not use the words run or geryne when they do so.” (Fell, p. 198) [emphasis mine].

[7]Fell quotes from several prominent works, including Leeds Studies of English Language and The Wars of Alexander to add weight to her thesis.

[8] I feel that all too often we simply accept whatever definition or meaning an author gives us without examining their sources or, better still, reading their opposition. I may not agree with Fell’s definition of the word “rune” (at least not in principle, for with her scholarship I can find no fault), but I found her arguments invaluable. Her paper is a dense read, but if you can find a copy of Old English Runes and Their Continental Background in your local library, I highly recommend reading it for yourself. (Worldcat.org is an excellent resource for tracking down books in libraries. Many libraries participate in Inter-Library Loan programs, allowing you to have a book sent directly to your local library, rather than having to trek across the state.)

[9] A seiðkona (sometimes called spaekona or spae-wife) is a practioner of seiðr, a type of trancework, the aim of which is to deliver prophesies for the audience or clients, often by means of communing with the dead or spirits of the land. It is said that the Goddess Freya taught seiðr to Oðinn, although it is considered a strictly “feminine magic” and therefore a completely “inappropriate” (ergi) activity for any God—or human male for that matter—to be engaging in.  (In a nutshell, any activity which was considered “passive” or “receptive,” as in receiving the spirits of the dead or the land into one’s self, was considered “feminine.”) But apparently Oðinn wasn’t one to let a little social taboo stand in His way when it came to the acquisition of wisdom!  (However it is important to note that accusing someone of ergi was one of the more vile insults a person could hurl in Norse/Germanic culture—the kind of insult that could lead to bloodshed. In our modern world, we see things differently—and it’s important to remember that.)




[1] In nearly all academic texts, q is the shape of both the runes ear and cweorð. In occult texts cweorð is invariably drawn . Likewise, in occult texts we find the j-rune appearing only as in the Anglo-Saxon Futhorc, with no mention of the fact that is found only in late-period manuscripts. The usual shape of the j-rune from later Anglo-Saxon epigraphical sources is j; in older inscriptions, it takes the form of j from the Elder Futhark.