|
Post by potia on Jan 28, 2010 11:27:44 GMT -1
Fascinating discussion this.
For my own part I really don't know if I have an ongoing reciprocal relationship with my ancestors (and for the purposes here I am talking about immediate family dead of the past few generations that I either have known or know more about than just a name). I'm not sure if they are still acting on my behalf from time to time but my monthly rite of sharing a cup of tea with them is perhaps more for me than them. If they can hear me, they will know that I am thinking of them, that I am remembering them and the times we shared. I believe that if they can act on my behalf then that will make such actions more likely but I gain a benefit anyway.
The benefit to me is that I spend time regualarly thinking about them and what I learnt from them. Sometimes this means thinking about issues in my life and what sort of things they might say or do about it if they were around. Sometimes it's simply dusting off memories and looking back from my current viewpoint on experiences of the past - learning different lessons from those situations in some cases too.
In local group rituals of the neo-pagan variety I join with others with showing respect to ancestors of blood, place and spiritual line. Those of place have shaped the land and culture I now live in. Those of spiritual line are those that have some connection to the spiritual path I am walking and includes recent dead as well as those I may not even have a name for but that have done something to add to the pool of knowledge from which I now draw. Again I am not sure that I have ever felt that any of these continue to act in any way on my behalf but surely by showing respect I increase the chances that they will if they can.
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Jan 28, 2010 12:36:14 GMT -1
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? Yes definitely a Difference - for all the reasons Heron described. The difference gives us clues as to what is internal or external. The cultural imagery, associations and stories - the "cultural baggage" - is part of the 'language' of interaction we have with the "other". It's how we interpret the emotional dialogue we have with the 'spirit' we encounter. I have an imagination and not all of what I think I might be experiencing is manifest anywhere beyond my own self's boundaries. To get to the 'real' - the essence - it's sometimes important to better understand any 'artifacts' that may arise in the communication / exchange because of one's own cultural baggage. Anticipation and expectation of how an experience might develop can sometimes colour the actual experience in ways that can lead to a misinterpretation of the actual 'contact'. I'm not part of a long tradition such that I have a teacher in whom I can place confidence in their interpretations of the experiences I might present to them. I need to interrogate my experiences to try and elucidate a model of my universe that is consistent. A way in which I can tackle this is to use a comparative approach - and so am interested in the dialogue those from other cultures have when in physically similar circumstances. So in answer to your question in my opinion of course there is a difference - how could there possibly not be? If a Hindu child experienced a bhuta and a child of old Lancastrian heritage experienced a boggart in the same dark forbidding tunnel, then we're offered clues about the essence of the experience - about what might actually exist (or not) externally and independently.
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Jan 28, 2010 13:41:00 GMT -1
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. Would you feel at all comfortable giving a sort of general example of the sort of "external opportunities" you feel they have presented for you? Not necessarily a specific personal example of something that has actually happened, just an example of the sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jan 28, 2010 15:08:56 GMT -1
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. Would you feel at all comfortable giving a sort of general example of the sort of "external opportunities" you feel they have presented for you? Not necessarily a specific personal example of something that has actually happened, just an example of the sort of thing. that is definately a toughie because we are certainly straying into areas of attribution and belief here. No single example would serve to demonstrate anything other than being in an inspired state granting the ability to seize and mould opportunity in new ways... though that would be in and of itself enough. But there is a continuity of such examples in my life Earliest would involve living with a step parent who would engineer circumstances in order to punish (hiding things, lying to other parent, that sort of thing)... I found I was able to get help to find 'lost' things, appeared to be able to hold off rain so as not get in trouble for getting home wet, that sort of thing. Later in life it was most marked when I was maneuvered out of a directorship by a devious partner, which left me without income almost overnight (I one, with the support of the ancestral presence, a case against him in court, but that didn't happen til many years later)... while my wife was terrified, I was supremely confident, determined and felt inspired by this external force... opportunities to work that were ideal to my circumstances presented themselves, for as long as they were needed and then new ones... opportunities that hadn't been there when I hadn't needed them... if that makes any sense. It was a kind of "Therefore do not worry, saying, "What shall we eat?' or "What shall we drink?' or "What shall we wear?' For after all these things the Gentiles seek. For your heavenly Father knows that you need all these things. But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you. Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble." kind of time, combined with a calm thirst for justice which eventually was won :-)
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Jan 28, 2010 18:57:27 GMT -1
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. I'm not sure we have the ability to isolate the "pure" without reference to the "inner" experience without it being demonstrated to us from without. Or am I just abdicating responsibility? RR
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Jan 28, 2010 19:17:02 GMT -1
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. I'm not sure we have the ability to isolate the "pure" without reference to the "inner" experience without it being demonstrated to us from without. Or am I just abdicating responsibility? RR hmmm... personally, I think that "objective reality" in this sense, is an abstraction... all we have is experience made available to us through these sense bodies... but it is certainly culturally important to us to approximate as far as possible that condition of objectivity. So I suspect that the effort is important, and important that it be gone about in a consistent and structured way that can itself be analysed for flaws. The alternative is a useless solipsism
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Jan 28, 2010 21:33:41 GMT -1
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. I'm not sure we have the ability to isolate the "pure" without reference to the "inner" experience without it being demonstrated to us from without. Or am I just abdicating responsibility? RR Certainly not abdicating responsibility. This is really the point. But if we can't have pure experience unaffected by what we already have in our head, cultural constructions are going to 'interpret' these for us. But on the other hand I've just watched a TV programme about the discovery of the periodic table of the chemical elements. How was this, or other new scientific insights, possible when people like Mendelayev were working completely in the dark. How could he dream up the idea of a table, and even leave spaces for as yet unknown elements, without having glimpsed something fundamental? I know that some of the work had been done by others, but starting from the 'cultural' idea of only 4 'elements' people just started thinking differently. That's going way off topic, but it does suggest that we can sometimes see things that all our conditioning should make us blind to.
|
|
|
Post by crowman on Dec 16, 2010 16:27:39 GMT -1
Have read through this thread a couple of times now trying to get a group perspective on ancestor veneration. Is it a general yes or is the consensus that its all a bit fluffy and should be avoided? For me personally i recognise my ancestors of blood and those of the area i associate with most (dobunni) but dont really feel anything for those who lived on the land where i now live. I dont really venerate them in the same way that i do to my personal deities and spirits of place. What do others think about ancestor veneration? Is it just close recently departed relatives, blood ancestors , tribal area ancestors and do people treat them like gods or simply as dead relatives?
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Dec 16, 2010 18:49:45 GMT -1
|
|