Future of Brython and the Brython Site

[Lee]

2) There are all the magical animals, and pixies, (who are not the Victorian cuties). Animals act as guides, or as warning monsters. antagonists. The pwca and similar live in our families, part of everyday life.

As heron said, we will get to those in time, for now we are focussing on the gods and intend on having a discussion on things like the fae and ancestors. I dont think we intend to have a comprehensive encyclopaedia up straight away (if ever), and an integral part of what we do put up on the site is a mix of academic and personal experience.

I was left wondering about the almost overwhelming emphasis on deities as so much of Brythonic tradition is not deity centred.

what part of the Brythonic tradition are you thinking of here when you said the overwhelming empahsis isnt on gods?

[lorna]

@ Shan - thanks for jumping in and sharing your views

'Many people dislike the word 'religion' so using it right at the start is going to raise hackles.'

I personally feel quite strongly about Brythonic Polytheism being religious not spiritual - for me it is a religious practice. I've been involved in in-depth discussions about Druidry as a religion with the Druid Network. Phil Ryder got Druidry recognised as a religion and I'd say Brythonic Polytheism would class as a religion on similar grounds, albeit with a stronger emphasis on Brythonic traditions and deities: druidnetwork.org/files/about/constitutionrevnov2009.pdf
*I'd advice anyone who hasn't read this to do so as it's the best definition of pagan religion I've found anywhere and far superior to the Pagan Federation's and should perhaps be the standard we aim to meet.

'The term 'deities' is inclusive, where 'gods' though technically including goddesses, and the ungendered, intuitively does not.'

I'd agree here. Whilst I personally see gods as including goddesses and the ungendered most folk, especially newbies, will be used to associating gods with one masculine God. Deities may be preferable.

'Many people are averse to the term 'worship' as it has connotations of submission, kowtowing. This is alien to the Brythonic ethos which is much more like dealing with powerful friends and allies. So I think 'veneration' conveys more of that dignity.'

I'm totally happy with worship but maybe we need to explain what we mean 'worship' as to give worth rather than kowtow.

PS. The landscape, locality and beings such as fairies are really important to my practice too - we're aiming to add them to the definition.

[lorna]

In case anyone hasn't seen it there, in the Core Values section I suggested an alternative to re-writing the original Core Values as it was getting to the point where writing styles were jarring.

I suggested let's keep Core Values (2000) (or whatever year) beneath the newer definitions and have (Heron will let you choose whether to take on Shan's edits)

Brythonic Polytheism​

Brythonic Polytheism is a religious practice based on a devotional relationship with one or more of the gods worshipped by the Brythonic peoples inhabiting Britain and Gaul in the Ancient World. Brythonic polytheists recognise a range of goddesses and gods, some of whom are attested from records or sites of worship in Roman Britain and Gaul, some of whom survived in later stories and other writings, particularly in Welsh which were constructed from oral tales reflecting a continuity of reference from earlier times.


The Brythonic Deities

Polytheists recognise a number of gods and accept the presence of many more beyond their personal experience. But as polytheism is an experiential religion, individual polytheists may focus on only a small number of deities, or even a single deity, in their devotional practice. The appearance of deity is multi-faceted, but falls into two main categories:

- The perception of deity felt directly and experienced as a distinctive individual, bound up with a sense of belonging to the land and the deity's presence in the landscape.
- The parallel presence of deity as an identified individual in traditional tales, myths, images and celebrated in the cultural life of a people.

So Brythonic polytheists continue to experience the presence of deities in the lands of Britain and beyond and seek relationships with them through that experience. They also continue to celebrate them by reconstructing earlier representations of them and their appearances in later folklore, poetry, tales and other cultural forms and by shaping new cultural expressions for our own time based on individual insight and a shared social sense of their continuing presence for us. Devotional practice develops from this making them an important part of our lives as lived from day to day as well as on special occasions.


The Landscape

The Gods, the spirits of place and ourselves all arise from the landscape. We are products of it, we are shaped by it. It shapes how we see the world around us, it shapes our very language and lives and it shapes how we interact with and develop a relationship with the gods and ungods who form part of the great spiritual ecosystem we are all a part of.

Gods. People. Landscape; a trinity bound together with myth.

The gods we come to know and the relationship with them are guided and created by the landscape we encounter them in, having lived relationships with the gods inspires our connection to the landscape and can drive us to act - whether it's by defending our engodded landscapes (and underworlds) from fracking, sharing the stories of our deities in our communities or planting trees or holding rituals. When we engage with with the gods and landscape, it enriches and enlivens all three.


Spirits of Place

The Landscape is inhabited by a myriad spirits of that place; the genus locii as referred to by the Romans, to others; andedion, ungods, the fae or wights. These entities are distinct beings in their own right and our relationships with them are as individual as we are.

Many of the beings we regard as gods are derived from spirits of place, as reflected by the localisation within the overall landscape.

In some cases the terms ‘god’ and ‘spirit of place’ may be used interchangeably depending on the perception of those interacting with the god/spirit of place.


Ancestors

Ancestors are the dead, our predecessors who have gone before us and shaped the world we live in now. These include:

Ancestors of Blood: the ancestors of our bloodline and genetic heritage. Their stories are passed from generation to generation. We work to trace our family trees and share our histories whilst acknowledging kinship in the river of blood that unites us all.

Ancestors of the Land: the ancestors who lived in the landscape before us. Those whose bones rest in burial mounds and graveyards, whose work can be see in field lines and factories, heard echoing in local songs and traditions. We also acknowledge the many whose deaths are unmarked, their lives unknown but to the land's deep memory.

Ancestors of Spirit: the ancestors of our spiritual paths and vocations. Predecessors who have venerated the Brythonic deities and walked the paths to Annwn. Those how have shaped Brythonic tradition through storytelling, poetry and scholarship. Those who have stood for the land, its people and our heritage. Those who inspire us in our current vocations.


Core Values (2000)

Original text

[Heron]

Jan 22, 2016 10:32:33 GMT -1 lorna said:

In case anyone hasn't seen it there, in the Core Values section I suggested an alternative to re-writing the original Core Values as it was getting to the point where writing styles were jarring.

I suggested let's keep Core Values (2000) (or whatever year) beneath the newer definitions and have (Heron will let you choose whether to take on Shan's edits)

I'm not sure that I think it's a good idea to have two versions.

My feeling is that either we should go with the original (revised?) version or we should write something new.

Keeping a version that had been superseded might just confuse people.

[mabinogishan]

Jan 21, 2016 22:34:21 GMT -1 Lee said:

Am i missing something, what are the 'x' representing here?

It's edit speak for deletion.

[mabinogishan]

Thank you for accepting my comments which were quite critical. I meant them in friendship but would not have been surprised if it was misunderstood to all the more to your credit.

Hmmm. On the pesky word 'religion' firstly I myself am not bothered by it. But decades of writing intro stuff for people has taught me not to underestimate how contaminated a word it is. It virtually translates as 'the Church' with all the deadening puritanism, and stuffy hierarchy that can entail.
My main objection was to having it in the very first line. It can be explained, but explaining something we're using to explain something else gets complicated. Also that 'dirty' meaning is so-o-o-o powerful that trying to present an alternative needs months of patient work. A first introductory statement is a matter of minutes and really needs to work with people as they are, how they see things from there.

Heron said 'we might be in danger of diffusing it into unfocused spirituality.'
I personally distinguish between religion, as simply an organised, structured way of handling spirituality in groups ie even a forum like this is a gentle kind of religious group. Spirituality is the personal feeling, idea, or activity which someone has independently. (It may derive a lot from religious groupings, usually does.)
A great many people don't see themselves as religious at all, but they do see themselves as spiritual. At least that is what surveys show here in the UK maybe the USA is different as organised religion is much more important and accepted in America. The UK is predominantly secular in spite of its trappings of ceremonial at government level. So maybe the view of 'religion' is less hostile for Americans.

I agree spirituality can be 'unfocused' in the sense that it may not need precise words or images. But that doesn't make it completely shapeless either. Someone who finds their spirituality in the feel of awen guiding them as they write, or finds their deepest peace beside a local pool, is not unfocused in the sense of  a vague drifting fuzziness. It can be intensely focused, and even carry messages of guidance, just not shaped as a deity or myth.

Over all spirituality is the idea that the greatest number of people seem to find comfortable and welcoming. Religion is fine for those who have moved away from the monotheist forms, or never suffered from them. But that means a great many new people still under the influence of that stuff who will see any suggestion of religion as another attempt to convert, control. even frighten and cow. That this is not true will not at first be obvious. Again - it's better to work with where people are, when they arrive as visitors, later perhaps helping them use words differently. Not at first.

[mabinogishan]

Jan 22, 2016 9:10:53 GMT -1 lorna said:

I personally feel quite strongly about Brythonic Polytheism being religious not spiritual - for me it is a religious practice. I've been involved in in-depth discussions about Druidry as a religion with the Druid Network. Phil Ryder got Druidry recognised as a religion and I'd say Brythonic Polytheism would class as a religion on similar grounds, albeit with a stronger emphasis on Brythonic traditions and deities: druidnetwork.org/files/about/constitutionrevnov2009.pdf
...
I'm totally happy with worship but maybe we need to explain what we mean 'worship' as to give worth rather than kowtow.

Thank you for the link to the pdf. I can see it has much which is worthwhile.

But I was very unhappy with how it started! "Druidry was the native spiritual tradition of the peoples who inhabited the islands of
Britain and Ireland ..."

This is one of those unjustified claimings of superiority and authority I really dislike. Druidry was only one among other spiritualities of Britain (I can't speak of Ireland with as much confidence, but I doubt it's much different.)
# What we know of Druidry makes it clear that it was a well organised scholarly system, based on long years of training. That immediately makes it an elite group practice. The majority of people would not be able to devote 7 - 18 years of their lives to such a training. The whole organisation would require a lot of money to support lives which were not economically productive. That money come from the governing elite. The same syatem was there in the Middle Ages, as patronage of the Beirdd/ Bards.
# We also know the Druids hobnobbed with kings and princes, as judges of the Law, so they are again shown as part of the social elite, not the common folk. Like the Pagan Federation would like Wicca to be they no doubt saw themselves as 'leaders of the people.' That doesn't mean the people saw them that way any more than people now see the Church that way.
# While there is always a conventional sector of the lower classes who prefer to align with an elite leadership, there are also always other groups who do not. The idea that British people had only one religion is preposterous on basic political analysis.
# The massacre reported by Tacitus on Mon mentions a group of cursing women who were present on the Celtic side. The language is not clear whether they were female druids or a separate religious group, but it is certainly enough to question the Druids being THE religion of the Britons.
# Druids are only mentioned in connection with some regions, not at all universally. So it's very possible that other kinds of religion and spirituality existed where druids did not. Brythonic society was structured against centralism e.g. inheritance law, and we know there were definite regional differences of culture, which shows in the different law codes. It doesn't make sense to claim that such a decentralised people had a strict, centralised, unified religion.
# Local practices, unless they made stone figures with recognisable symbols, or a building with a recognisable pattern of eg post holes, do not leave hardly anything in the archaeological record. People gathering in the woods, by a stream, in a house for a wedding feast, leave no trace of spiritual aspects. Leather, grass weaves, woods, all rot away, and don't often have a religious sign on them anyway. A plain wooden cup or leather bag can be used in a spiritual way as much as a decorated one. Some mediaeval poetry picks up on the spirituality of nature, or the spirituality of erotic love. But it makes no connection with druids.

I think there is still too much emphasis in Pagan Druidry (though not in Welsh Druidry) on Iolo Morgannwg's cocaine fuelled forgeries. I love Iolo, he was a total genius, and the key architect of the Welsh Renaissaince. But his descriptions of druid orders were a personal vision, a great, powerful dream, which he cleverly inserted in the Welsh national narrative. I love it, and seeing his Gorsedd ceremony happening was one of the great experiences of my life. But he and the great edifice of modern Druidryhas to be recognised as a construction not an 'ancient tradition.' (It is also worth noting out of respect, that he and his fellow founders saw Druids as part of Christianity.)

[Heron]

Seeing as we seem to have revised the original Core Values to death, and seeing as we can't agree on whether we have a version which includes different voices or is the product of one voice, should we split it up into separate pieces written by different people (something like Lorna suggested a while back)?

If so, do we identify each author (suggesting that we are different people with different views) or leave it anonymous (suggesting that it reflects a range of views which we are collectively happy to identify with)?

[lorna]

@ Heron - I'm wondering if we should just have your basic definition as a starting point:

Brythonic Polytheism is a religious practice based on a devotional relationship with one or more of the gods worshipped by the Brythonic peoples inhabiting Britain and Gaul in the Ancient World. Brythonic polytheists recognise a range of goddesses and gods, some of whom are attested from records or sites of worship in Roman Britain and Gaul, some of whom survived in later stories and other writings, particularly in Welsh which were constructed from oral tales reflecting a continuity of reference from earlier times.

And then say views differ between the group and each add our personal definitions. That way RR's still stands and you've written yours (unless you want to add to it). That would mean Lee, Francis, Shan (if you'd like to) and myself adding ours at some point.

One way round this problem anyhow!

@ Shan - Similarly I agreed with most of what Phil said, except to what he refers to as being Druidry rather than a British form of animism with strong ties in our cultural heritage. I also struggle with the priestly connotations and also the ceremonial background. Eventually I was led to the term 'awenydd' as a fitting label for my path. I'd agree Iolo was inspired but don't connect with Christianity.

[Lee]

Ok, as has been mentioned we have been going round and around on this. I have done an update which has the bare bones for now. On one hand having each of us submit out view on each subject might work but it will end up becoming very long and unwieldy and a very long read indeed.

We can come back to each section (landscape, SoP and Ancestors) and perhaps review them in the future.

[mabinogishan]

Please please please please knock out the use of 'religious' at least in the first 5 words!
It is such an inflammatory word and destroys interest right at the start. People just instantly translate it as the oppressive structures of the Church. That's their mistake, and ironically, part of the oppression. But if they are to be educated (led out of) the mistake, they need to be welcomed and not turned off in the initial statement.
Also the second sentence is too long. A great many people do not have trained reading skills to handle long complex sentences.

Brythonic Polytheism is a religious spiritual practice based on a devotional relationship with one or more of the gods worshipped by the Brythonic peoples inhabiting Britain and Gaul in the Ancient World. Brythonic polytheists recognise a range of goddesses and gods. CUT Some of these deities  are attested from records or sites of worship in Roman Britain and Gaul, some survived in later stories and other writings. CUT They are particularly found in Welsh tales which were constructed from oral traditions reflecting a continuity of reference from earlier times.

I think the point about Welsh sources, for a Brythonic group after all, is so important, that it deserves its own sentence as a gentle emphasis. There is a worrying trend to transfer the Welsh sources to an English-American mishmash. Of course most of us can only reach the tales in translation but we can still maintain the courtesy of acknowledgement and I am so glad this opening paragraph does just that.

[redraven]

Some of us don't have a problem with the word "religious" as you apparently do Mabinogishan.

[mabinogishan]

Jan 27, 2016 6:06:01 GMT -1 redraven said:

Some of us don't have a problem with the word "religious" as you apparently do Mabinogishan.

Of course many like you who have the privilege and honour to belong to a healthy religion don't have discomfort about the word.
 I have already stated in this discussion I do not have a problem personally with the word.

But over the last 35 years of my work of explaining Pagan, and more specifically (Welsh) Celtic traditions to newcomers, I have found it is a word that kicks up very strong reactions. We just can't talk to newcomers as if they are well used to Pagan ideas, that is, decontaminated from associations of Churchy oppressions. If they were familiar and comfortable with our ideas they wouldn't be reading an introductory statement.

Of course some 'newcomers' to specifically Brythonic tradition will have decontaminated via other avenues - Buddhism, Hinduism, Shamanism, the Craft, Heathenism, Druidry etc. But even among polytheists and Pagans of quite long standing many still express strong dislike of the word 'religion.' What the Church has built up as the default idea of 'religion' over centuries, is not easy or instant to dislodge.

Religion to me is just about the organised aspect, how we run a group or organisation to do with a spirituality. But I was a very lucky child and did not grow up with any Christianity in my background. Plus I've been a Pagan for more than 40 years as an adult, which helps.

We have to be considerate and talk to people where they are at. Talking to newcomers means talking to Guests and Guests are highly honoured in Celtic culture. Just as in my part of Wales it's considered very rude to talk Welsh in front of someone who doesn't speak it, it's not kind to thrust words at people that hurt and anger them when they make new contact seeking knowledge.

There's time later to help them shed the uncomfortable associations with 'religion.' That's part of our work as teachers.

[Lee]

Religion to me is about the shared belief and practice.

I am also in favour of using it rather than 'spirituality' which has increasingly become wishy washy and nigh in impossible to define in any coherant or meaningful way

[mabinogishan]

It depends really on who the statement is aimed at.

If it's aimed at an inner circle of people who are known to have similar ideas and reactions to yours - a friendship network perhaps - then it's fine. For example a briefing for new members who have already been through an induction process.

Alternatively if it's aimed at a wider readership of strangers where there are much more varied reactions, it's best to stay on the safe side of offending people's sensitivities. In that case, better sounding a bit fluffy right at the start than put people's hackles up and set them against you right at the start. Setting up distrust right at the start is not a good beginning.
I think you make it very clear indeed with the rest of what you say that this is far from being a wishy washy project. It comes across as strongly organised and deeply thought. You REALLY don't need to worry about not being taken seriously. It's more that you need to unbend and be considerate of others' feelings. People can feel quite vulnerable when opening up to spiritual matters.

[Heron]

Jan 26, 2016 21:53:45 GMT -1 Lee said:

Ok, as has been mentioned we have been going round and around on this. I have done an update which has the bare bones for now. On one hand having each of us submit out view on each subject might work but it will end up becoming very long and unwieldy and a very long read indeed.

We can come back to each section (landscape, SoP and Ancestors) and perhaps review them in the future.

Looks good to me Lee. I agree that it's better to be concise for now and see how we go.

[Lee]

It occurred to me that if we want to represent several views on those subjects, each could get a full treatment and its own page under the essay section in time and link to each of them from that main summary page.

We ask for sumission of a few hundred words on each and compile into a single article

[lorna]

Thanks for making a decision, Lee, we were going round and round!

Following some recent thoughts I'm presently feeling a bit niggly about the use of 'religion' but for slightly different reasons than Shan. Will open a fresh debate in another thread. Also, now the definition is drafted I think we could do to change the front page a little too due to similarly niggly things. Will give that its own thread.