|
|
Post by Adam on Jan 26, 2010 22:24:28 GMT -1
While there is a good reason to be appreciative of our ancestors, both our immediate genetic forebears and the generality of humans who have created the world, and the knowledge, we inherited, this is not at far as I can see, a reason to venerate them. So why would we venerate ancestors? If we do so is it not because we feel them to be, in some way, with the gods? This belief has been reported in tribes that engage in ancestor worship, but if pressed could we make any sense of it? Experientially, that feels rather bum over boob to me :-) Partly because I do not have any direct experience of the Gods in my life, but do have the direct experience of something I have come to intepret as ancestor... but I don't use the term spiritually to be defined by lineage (though that is part of it)... kinship is closer... but that which I experience is worth venerating because it intercedes in my life in positive and constructive ways... supporting me when I need it, opening the metaphoriical door when I need that. The way I make sense of it is that a.) not all lineage ancestors become spiritual ancestors... you have to be accepted by the community of ancestors (the criteria seem in part to do with how you live your life, but not entirely)... and b.) ancestorhood is not "life-after-death" but something different... while kinship remains (though may be extended beyond what modern living family thinks of by the term), the ancestor is not just a woowoo ghost version of the once living, but something more elemental and more powerful But welcome to the slightly loonier meanderings... |
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Jan 26, 2010 22:39:39 GMT -1
Experientially, that feels rather bum over boob to me :-) Partly because I do not have any direct experience of the Gods in my life, but do have the direct experience of something I have come to intepret as ancestor... but I don't use the term spiritually to be defined by lineage (though that is part of it)... kinship is closer... but that which I experience is worth venerating because it intercedes in my life in positive and constructive ways... supporting me when I need it, opening the metaphoriical door when I need that. The way I make sense of it is that a.) not all lineage ancestors become spiritual ancestors... you have to be accepted by the community of ancestors (the criteria seem in part to do with how you live your life, but not entirely)... and b.) ancestorhood is not "life-after-death" but something different... while kinship remains (though may be extended beyond what modern living family thinks of by the term), the ancestor is not just a woowoo ghost version of the once living, but something more elemental and more powerful But welcome to the slightly loonier meanderings... 'Bum over boob'  But yes, that makes emotional sense to me. The question here, though, is the distinction between what feels like direct apprehension of [gods]/ [ancestors] / [nature spirits] or just a general sense of kinship with the natural world, and the ways in which we might, culturally, make sense of that. Culture is problematic here, though, as it might be operating below the level of consciousness in determining how we experience things. Such experiences can feel 'culture free'. But are they? Are we talking nature or nurture here? My emphasis above was on culture. Mystics have often felt that they see through the cultural baggage and directly experience deity. But whether or not this is really possible remains problematic. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Jan 26, 2010 23:08:43 GMT -1
All of the above but much more. It's mainly because of them that I began many years ago to seek both my physical & spiritual connections to these lands. Whatever they did, I'm not ashamed Therefore, it is how they choose to interact with you now, as opposed to their actions from previous times, that define your relationship with them. Yes I agree |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jan 26, 2010 23:19:26 GMT -1
'Bum over boob' But yes, that makes emotional sense to me. The question here, though, is the distinction between what feels like direct apprehension of [gods]/ [ancestors] / [nature spirits] or just a general sense of kinship with the natural world, and the ways in which we might, culturally, make sense of that. Culture is problematic here, though, as it might be operating below the level of consciousness in determining how we experience things. Such experiences can feel 'culture free'. But are they? Are we talking nature or nurture here? My emphasis above was on culture. Mystics have often felt that they see through the cultural baggage and directly experience deity. But whether or not this is really possible remains problematic. OK, I get that, and agree. But I think an ancestor"ology" can have value independent of a God"ology" (he says, turning into Maureen Lipman) It is my instinct that the "communities of ancestors" are transcendent of culture and can relate to anyone from any culture, through their own filters... but that will remain firmly in the realm of UPG I guess. Certainly from my point of view, as a child I used to think of this presence as "God" in the innocent childhood Anglican sense that was available to me; my current interpretation may be no more than a more sophisticated version of the same. But in a very real sense I don't think it matters, as it is how I weave this part of the narrative into my story that counts... as long as I am aware that is what I am doing (and I think that this can be done critically, in a way that avoids fluff... experience *will* be made sense ofm but what matters is how)... and that is really the reason I introduced it here... both to see if anything could be contributed that may weave in to my own narrative and communally to see if anything is woven within the group that works for some of us through consensus and debate :-) |
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Jan 26, 2010 23:23:57 GMT -1
My relationship with my ancestors is rarely one based on veneration but one of acknowledgement of the cycle – remaining continually mindful of their part in shaping my ‘Present’, and consequently the far reaching effects of my actions and life choices on both my descendants and the land I live on. Perhaps part of the problem here comes from how little our present culture engages with or even acknowledges ancestors. Hence we have one word used to cover a vast number of very different sets/types of forebears and how they relate to us. I think the wooliness of the term and the wooliness of thinking that results when the only symbol you have to juggle in your head during thought on this subject is of such low resolution doesn’t help. To be fair many neo-pagans do make a distinction between so called ancestors of mud (geographic place) and ancestors of blood (genetic forebears). In large part our opposing views (Deiniol) might be a misunderstanding of my having a different approach to relationship and acknowledgement of the ancestors, as opposed to veneration – something I do not do of the ancestors. My experiences of having children and my concerns for their lives and anxieties for how things will be for their children are sufficiently powerful and innate that I don’t doubt my genetic ancestors thought the same way of their descendants yet to come. The greatest surprise to me as a bone fide ancestor is that I don’t feel any less hopeful for the lives of any potential great great grandchildren that I may have, and of course can’t expect to meet, than I do about any potential grand children whose paths I can more reasonably expect to cross mine. I imagine many of my own fellow country men at times of cultural desolation may have hoped and worked for better times for future generations however far into the future. Deiniol wrote; Or, let us cast it into analogy form. Last Sunday a customer found me in the bar after work and thanked me for the meal he'd just eaten. Now, would his thanks have been better directed towards Sylvain Bailly, the man who taught Antoine Carême to cook, who in turn first codified French cuisine into a form recognisable in what I studied at college? No not his thanks but his acknowledgment of the whole might enrich the experience- and surely you don’t imagine I’m always talking about some sort of supernatural personal dialogue type relationship in 'real time'? It might be different in these last capitalist centuries (I don’t know if the motives of the people you mentioned were cultural, altruism to have such food enjoyed by a wider audience or just the chance to make some money) but when I’m out lambing in the fields I’m surrounded by all those who have lambed in the same fields before me. My sheep holding some of the blood and stories of their sheep – (were some of their sheepey ancestors driven up into the hills al Llewellyn’s command when Edward I brought his army to Conwy?). The birds singing around me descendants of those whose songs were heard in long past springs by the shepherds who worked the same fields centuries and more before. Their building of stone field walls rather than the easier to put up wooden pales – making life easier for those to come. Planting pear and walnut trees whose fruit (before modern early fruiting root stocks) they wouldn’t taste. Planting field oaks that would provide summer shade for stock for the first time long after they have themselves died. All the way back to the different sort of ‘ancestors of place’ who first cleared and won those fields from the wild wood – not my genetic ancestors of course, but who knows perhaps just a drop of blood. Their actions, emotions and intentions surround and suffuse me - and that’s why I bow my head and plead guilty to most of the charges of being a neo-pagan!  |
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Jan 26, 2010 23:29:54 GMT -1
I've always been more of a leg man! The question here, though, is the distinction between what feels like direct apprehension of [gods]/ [ancestors] / [nature spirits] or just a general sense of kinship with the natural world, and the ways in which we might, culturally, make sense of that. Culture is problematic here, though, as it might be operating below the level of consciousness in determining how we experience things. Such experiences can feel 'culture free'. But are they? Are we talking nature or nurture here? My emphasis above was on culture. Mystics have often felt that they see through the cultural baggage and directly experience deity. But whether or not this is really possible remains problematic. Exactly! |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jan 27, 2010 0:02:26 GMT -1
Perhaps part of the problem here comes from how little our present culture engages with or even acknowledges ancestors. Hence we have one word used to cover a vast number of very different sets/types of forebears and how they relate to us. I think the wooliness of the term and the wooliness of thinking that results when the only symbol you have to juggle in your head during thought on this subject is of such low resolution doesn’t help. Abso-bloody-lutely My other main reason for starting the thread is that I sometimes feel like a man gazing at a painting with many hues of red, and only one word... clearer and more useful distinction, better acuity, is needed... edited to add: and in the cold clear light of morning, one such distinction is between ancestors as cool folk who made all this possible and for whom one can acknowledge a general feeling of gratitude, and ancestors as a spiritual force to (collaboratively) work with and act in a very concrete sense as intercessors in various aspects of ones life. the former I wouldn't acknowledge in ritual... that does feel vacuous and is pretty much most of what I want to get away from... I acknowledge in thought and activity, because the acknowledgement is really addressed to me the latter I want to find ways of working with... if ritual be appropriate, then so be it |
|
|
|
Post by deiniol on Jan 27, 2010 0:41:40 GMT -1
In large part our opposing views (Deiniol) might be a misunderstanding of my having a different approach to relationship and acknowledgement of the ancestors, as opposed to veneration – something I do not do of the ancestors. I think you've hit the nail right on the head here. For me, the ancestors are objects of veneration: I pray to them and I make them offerings. I can jive with acknowledging the cycle in which my genetic (and polycultural) ancestors have participated, certainly, but for actual veneration I need more "connection", as it were. This is also one reason why my interaction with "spirits of place" tends to be focused. I refuse to invoke generic spirits, for example, instead I venerate the guardian spirit of the doorway to my flat, or the guardian spirit of the storecupboards and so on. |
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Jan 27, 2010 0:46:30 GMT -1
My relationship with my ancestors is rarely one based on veneration but one of acknowledgement ... I totally agree. I agree also & why I think we're kinda all thinking the same but expressing it differently. Thats how I sincerely feel too but fear this will be seen as the same mantra often used by neo-pagans. Having met you, Stephen - Trust me, You definately ain't guilty of THAT!! |
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jan 27, 2010 16:01:24 GMT -1
On reflection, I think perhaps our personal definition of what 'venerate' means that possibly needs to be made clearer or explored because I think we're all thinking & feeling the same kinda way. I think this is at the crux of this thread and the different interpretations that may be held. A brief internet scan of the possible meanings threw up a wide variety of interpretations. The first one I came across stated simply " to look upon with feelings of deep respect". Reading these posts again and the views expressed therein, this particular description, to me, suggests somewhat of a passive role. The rituals mentioned by Adam responsible for creating the generic term ancestor, referring to the mass of unknowns, rather makes the person involved, somewhat passive in their own role and some of the group rituals I have observed tend to reinforce this. With respect Francis, and I know you'll probably disagree with my interpretation here, but your descriptive posts about your own experiences show a great deal of considered respect that may fit the term using that first interpretation (though I hasten to add that I don't consider you to be passive in your interactions). The fact that you consider them not to be an act of veneration is probably because your own definition of the term is not the same as that stated? It is interesting to try to define how people relate to this and the thing that has struck me is that we all are unwilling to assume that passive role mentioned. I suspect that we all would rather be an active participant than a passive observer, and it is in this act of active participant that we slightly differ. From Deiniol's slightly shamanic viewpoint (fair description?) to the actual physical retracing through shared activities mentioned by both DG and Francis, I think it would be fair to state that (probably) most of us try to form our relationships with ancestors through actual physical activities as opposed to abdicating it to theological viewpoints. Which makes me wonder if this is what is being encouraged from said ancestors? RR |
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Jan 27, 2010 18:25:28 GMT -1
Which makes me wonder if this is what is being encouraged from said ancestors? RR What, they won't leave you alone either? |
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Jan 27, 2010 19:02:10 GMT -1
With respect Francis, and I know you'll probably disagree with my interpretation here, but your descriptive posts about your own experiences show a great deal of considered respect that may fit the term [venerate] using that first interpretation Fair enough RR I suppose I use the term 'venerate' in a probably mistakenly narrow sense - usually when I use the word I have in mind something similar to the Catholic relationship with the Saints (i.e. blessed ancestors). I was trying to make the distinction between my relationship with certain Spirits of Place (and specific Nature Spirits) as opposed to the different experience I have of the continued presence of Ancestors. My path doesn't include approaching the Ancestors for any sort of intercession, deferent petitioning or 'bargaining' under any name or guise. In my limited experience they can manifest change in the physical present (as part of my relationship with them) only through the power of 'inspiration'. They can 'inspire' me to effect more change through the physicality of my own body and actions than I would be able to achieve without my relationship with them. This is more profound and less limited than that makes it sound! Of course you could very reasonably reply pointing out our differing understandings of the scope of the words Spirit and Inspiration. By inspiration I mean something dramatically more significant than Cheryl Cole turning up to give a hand at a fundraising jumble sale. By Spirit I don't mean anything a Cartesian Dualist would agree with! |
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Jan 27, 2010 19:13:13 GMT -1
The question here, though, is the distinction between what feels like direct apprehension of [gods]/ [ancestors] / [nature spirits] or just a general sense of kinship with the natural world, and the ways in which we might, culturally, make sense of that. Culture is problematic here, though, as it might be operating below the level of consciousness in determining how we experience things. Such experiences can feel 'culture free'. But are they? Are we talking nature or nurture here? My emphasis above was on culture. Mystics have often felt that they see through the cultural baggage and directly experience deity. But whether or not this is really possible remains problematic. This is really the most important veil to recognise (in my opinion). Our whole understanding of the game we're playing internal/external rest with it. Are the long dark canal tunnels of the North West of England still home to boggarts or do the children in Lancashire playing 'dares' in them now more often than not feel the presence of Bhuta? |
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jan 27, 2010 19:45:32 GMT -1
Fair enough RR I suppose I use the term 'venerate' in a probably mistakenly narrow sense - usually when I use the word I have in mind something similar to the Catholic relationship with the Saints (i.e. blessed ancestors). Yes, I read the definition of the veneration of the saints, which appears to me to place the individual in the position of worshiping the supernatural attributes of these religious figures, which I think would represent anathema to most of us here. My path doesn't include approaching the Ancestors for any sort of intercession, deferent petitioning or 'bargaining' under any name or guise. In my limited experience they can manifest change in the physical present (as part of my relationship with them) only through the power of 'inspiration'. They can 'inspire' me to effect more change through the physicality of my own body and actions than I would be able to achieve without my relationship with them. This is more profound and less limited than that makes it sound! Actually, from where I'm sat, that sounds impressive enough. The ability to manifest change in another entity both in a physical and mental form has to be impressive, how could you not be impressed with that? Of course you could very reasonably reply pointing out our differing understandings of the scope of the words Spirit and Inspiration. By inspiration I mean something dramatically more significant than Cheryl Cole turning up to give a hand at a fundraising jumble sale. By Spirit I don't mean anything a Cartesian Dualist would agree with! We're not a million miles apart in our understanding there!  RR |
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jan 27, 2010 19:53:45 GMT -1
Which makes me wonder if this is what is being encouraged from said ancestors? RR What, they won't leave you alone either? Much like Francis's manifested inspiration, I tend to find myself "directed" in thoughts and actions for periods of times. I can't be a very good student though, because I feel sometimes like a man trying to find his way around a darkened room wearing a blindfold whilst a smoke machine adds to the complexity! RR |
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jan 27, 2010 20:00:39 GMT -1
The question here, though, is the distinction between what feels like direct apprehension of [gods]/ [ancestors] / [nature spirits] or just a general sense of kinship with the natural world, and the ways in which we might, culturally, make sense of that. I'm interested in your use of the word apprehension here, Heron. Are you using it to describe the emotions behind a supernatural type of definition of deity or is this something used from a personal perspective (without appearing to pry here!)? RR |
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Jan 27, 2010 21:53:36 GMT -1
The question here, though, is the distinction between what feels like direct apprehension of [gods]/ [ancestors] / [nature spirits] or just a general sense of kinship with the natural world, and the ways in which we might, culturally, make sense of that. I'm interested in your use of the word apprehension here, Heron. Are you using it to describe the emotions behind a supernatural type of definition of deity or is this something used from a personal perspective (without appearing to pry here!)? RR By apprehension I just meant 'perception' or 'experience of ...' the things referred to. No more really in this context than getting a sense that something is there. But the wider point was certainly to ask if this was 'pure' experience of objective reality or whether this was affected by 'inner' experience of some kind. I didn't mean emotions (though these could come into play) so much as social/cultural influences including those that we may not be fully aware of. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jan 28, 2010 10:47:17 GMT -1
The question here, though, is the distinction between what feels like direct apprehension of [gods]/ [ancestors] / [nature spirits] or just a general sense of kinship with the natural world, and the ways in which we might, culturally, make sense of that. Culture is problematic here, though, as it might be operating below the level of consciousness in determining how we experience things. Such experiences can feel 'culture free'. But are they? Are we talking nature or nurture here? My emphasis above was on culture. Mystics have often felt that they see through the cultural baggage and directly experience deity. But whether or not this is really possible remains problematic. This is really the most important veil to recognise (in my opinion). Our whole understanding of the game we're playing internal/external rest with it. Are the long dark canal tunnels of the North West of England still home to boggarts or do the children in Lancashire playing 'dares' in them now more often than not feel the presence of Bhuta? Would you regard there as being a difference? |
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jan 28, 2010 10:59:51 GMT -1
Fair enough RR I suppose I use the term 'venerate' in a probably mistakenly narrow sense - usually when I use the word I have in mind something similar to the Catholic relationship with the Saints (i.e. blessed ancestors). If I may jump in... the word veneration was used in the title of the thread because I wanted to include reference to any academic understanding of historic and existing practice related to relating to "ancestors" and my understanding is that such practices can be characterised by placing said ancestors in a position of "honour" or "respect" and behaving in such a way as to acknowledge this My path doesn't include approaching the Ancestors for any sort of intercession, deferent petitioning or 'bargaining' under any name or guise. In my limited experience they can manifest change in the physical present (as part of my relationship with them) only through the power of 'inspiration'. They can 'inspire' me to effect more change through the physicality of my own body and actions than I would be able to achieve without my relationship with them. This is more profound and less limited than that makes it sound! I do and have approached the presence I acknowledge as ancestral for intercession, since childhood... my interpretation has always been to good effect too, if that which was requested was consistent with what a protective kin might choose to do... however, in adulthood, this has always involved far more of a casual conversational approach. That is, however, quite rare these days (though as a child they were damned useful allies in a psychologically abusive set family set up... I have to acknowledge that if I was to take a psychodynamic approach to the nature of the presence I would have to look for clues there) Normally, they provide an inspirational effect, particular when I or my family are threatened in anyway, though there is also the presentation of external opportunities to utilise that inspiration to resolve whatever the crisis may have been. So, personally, this presence has done so much for me in real terms all my life that veneration is not to strong a word or practice, and this is why I am seeking ways of doing so that involve a continued and direct connection without any sense of "playacting"... I've tried approaching the presence in other ways in the past, and if they are not congruent, this is generally made known to me ;D |
|
