|
Post by Heron on Mar 27, 2011 22:07:56 GMT -1
I do have some experience of trying to create a cosmology. The Pagan Movement tried to do this in the 1970s and 80s. Much of it originally came from one creative and dominant personality and while that was so, others were happy to go along with it. But as soon as it began to become a group project, dissonances began to set in. One story was incompatible with another. Different people saw the god in different ways or wanted to introduce gods into the pantheon that others were not happy with. The basic pantheon was, in common with common pagan practice at the time a threefold goddess and twofold god. No re-constructionism, so made-up names based on certain linguistic principles ...
But the point is that it all fell apart as it began to be developed because too many people were contributing to something that, in the end, just didn't fit together.
I say this now not to discourage the project. I would passionately like us to develop a working cosmology that we can all subscribe to. But I think we need to be aware of the potential difficulties. In inherited cosmologies, inconsistencies are often explained away by theologians, or subtle interpretations come with the baggage of ritual observances. Even so major schisms have come about in some religions when these are questioned. But if it's being done from the ground up, things that don't fit, or things that some people are not comfortable with, are going to rankle, or cause some not to be completely on board. And things can fall apart before they even get established. I don't think that should prevent us from trying to develop a common cosmology. But I do think we should do it with an awareness of those potential difficulties.
|
|
|
Post by potia on Mar 28, 2011 7:33:21 GMT -1
A valid point Heron. I think if we can develop a framework that is detailed enough to help people share things yet also loose enough to allow for different ways of connecting with it and different visions then we will have achieved something very special.
I'd like to explore the different interpretations of the realm of the dead a bit more to see if we can develop a shared perspective on that. I think we have a reasonably good shared awareness of the otherworld as a place of and yet not of the physical world we inhabit with multiple ways of seeing into it or being in it.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Mar 28, 2011 8:06:10 GMT -1
I don't think that should prevent us from trying to develop a common cosmology. But I do think we should do it with an awareness of those potential difficulties. I for one am aware of a degree of rigidity... I like to understand the relationship between things through orderly models and need to make a conscious choice to tolerate ambiguity of meaning. I see the danger inherent in that (so I shall make a conscious choice to enjoy the ambiguities, as is the nature of things like the Otherworld anyway as far as I can tell ). The trick would seem to be to sort for similarity and to explore the differences Is it also important to understand the folkloric and literary descriptions of the Otherworld and the land of the Dead? I ask, because the two are often conflated. To me, what is referred to as the Otherworld is a world populated by non-human intelligences often described as "supernatural"... the Tylwyth Teg and so on. Do we regard this as distinct to the Land of The Dead?
|
|
|
Post by nellie on Mar 28, 2011 12:56:24 GMT -1
Heron - the point you raise makes a lot of sense. Maybe those that are seriously interested in contributing should raise their hands now so that they can collaborate closely? Is it worth setting up a seperateboard for discussing the current story/myth that is being collectively worked on at any given time so that every body is aware what is being worked on and offer up any UPG? If the members of brython are happy to have me I'd love to be part of something like this.
Personally I agree with Adam - I would say that I think the land of the dead and the otherworld are not the same. There are stories of crossing over to the otherworld that feel quite different to a descent into the land of dead. Is that a difference worth thinking about - crossing into one and descending into another? If we would like a new myth about the land of the dead maybe we should decide who the Lord of the dead is? Potia I believe said she used Lee's made-up name in her myth of Rhiannon's time in the land of the dead? I find Deiniol's thoughts on Sucellos convincing enough that I have come to think of Him as the Lord of the dead.
|
|
|
Post by Francis on Mar 28, 2011 13:59:45 GMT -1
I find Deiniol's thoughts on Sucellos convincing enough that I have come to think of Him as the Lord of the dead. But is there a 'Lord of the Dead' at all. What would he be, what would he do etc. etc. ...? My problem is that what my experience has led me to believe is what I believe. I'm wouldn't be being pig-headed but I couldn't compromise my view of the universe for the sake of fellowship! - however good your fellowship would be! Our life experiences (and despite the cheesemongering associated with the word) lifestyles are vastly different here- and that will always make it difficult for us to have a shared view of what it's all about. As a group we have a lot less in common in our daily activities, dreams and concerns than our ancestors would have had. Consequently our preoccupations and aspirations are equally different. We don't even all relate in a smiliar way to the very clear and immediate powers of Winter and Spring. Death and any putative 'Lord of the Dead' is significantly more culturally involved and subtle - how would we start weaving common threads? I'm fascinated by what it is we have in common - I can't put my finger on it, but there is something that motivates us all to be here. Anyone got any thoughts? What makes us this group?
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Mar 28, 2011 14:41:33 GMT -1
What makes us this group? A desire to avoid (my own potential) gullibility and fashion in the neo-pagan circuit? A love of the landscape populated by our Brythonic ancestors? A love of the myths and tales told by our Brythonic ancestors? An awareness of the spiritual significance of landscape? It would be interesting to come up with a list and then vote on them (I know, I know, bit like a corporate team building day )... but someway of making our core commonalities explicit
|
|
|
Post by nellie on Mar 28, 2011 16:20:48 GMT -1
I would second all of those points Adam. I would add that I have a desire to learn from others. A genuine desire to be corrected when wrong.
|
|
|
Post by nellie on Mar 28, 2011 16:32:27 GMT -1
Francis - that doesn't sound pig-headed at all. It sounds completely sensible My own approach is a little bit PIE so I take a lot from there, and I always loved stories from various mythologies growing up so that has had an influence on where I come from - the lord of the dead has been imbedded in my subconcious form an early age. I think it's entirely possible to identify with a group without believing everything that particular group does, but setting some outline has to be possible I would hope.
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Mar 28, 2011 17:52:50 GMT -1
.... To me, what is referred to as the Otherworld is a world populated by non-human intelligences often described as "supernatural"... the Tylwyth Teg and so on. Do we regard this as distinct to the Land of The Dead? I do.
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Mar 28, 2011 18:05:14 GMT -1
What makes us this group? A desire to avoid (my own potential) gullibility and fashion in the neo-pagan circuit? A love of the landscape populated by our Brythonic ancestors? A love of the myths and tales told by our Brythonic ancestors? An awareness of the spiritual significance of landscape? It would be interesting to come up with a list and then vote on them (I know, I know, bit like a corporate team building day )... but someway of making our core commonalities explicit They all seem pretty much on target, Adam. Francis, I know what you mean and would also like to be able to put my finger on exactly what it is. For me, finding others who recognise Rigantona>Rhiannon was what got me involved, but there is a deeper dimension that has bound me in more tightly. And a general feeling that people here are on the same wavelength as me in respect of significant things even where these aren't very specific.
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Mar 28, 2011 19:02:36 GMT -1
I'm fascinated by what it is we have in common - I can't put my finger on it, but there is something that motivates us all to be here. Anyone got any thoughts? What makes us this group? Our commonality I suspect, is the drive to develop our understanding of the otherworld realms that are expressed to us through the medium of the land and not specifically through the writings of a prophetic nature observed in other major faith cultures. Our "common denominator" is that for us, the land is the starting point, the origin of any and all subsequent interactions. The nature of those interactions are where we all differ, as we will be predisposed to, through various experiences and, dare I even mention it, genetic makeup, which are bound to result in different experiences of any and all interactions for individuals. Understanding of these different interactions using our shared common demoninator means that we should, realistically, all start off from the same base without, hopefully, meeting any agenda in order to further any materialistic ambitions offered through some of the other faiths. As to the matter of this cosmology, my immediate thought is that there has to be a difference between the land of the dead and the otherworld because, as far as I can see, without physical life, there could be no land of the dead. I don't see how the otherworld would have to be reliant on the physical world, whereas, I can't see how a land of the dead could exist without the physical world. Which suggests to me, a multilayered "reality" which blurs boundaries that our modern cultural and technological age tends to rely on. RR
|
|
|
Post by Adam on Mar 28, 2011 19:11:33 GMT -1
As to the matter of this cosmology, my immediate thought is that there has to be a difference between the land of the dead and the otherworld because, as far as I can see, without physical life, there could be no land of the dead. I don't see how the otherworld would have to be reliant on the physical world, whereas, I can't see how a land of the dead could exist without the physical world. Which suggests to me, a multilayered "reality" which blurs boundaries that our modern cultural and technological age tends to rely on. RR A couple of glasses of shiraz in, that makes perfect sense to me (should that set off warning bells? ;D) and that points me to another commonality... enquiry... the way people think... diverse methods, strategies, experiences etc, but a real sense that we value certain modes of enquiry and seek rigour where we can in those modes. I'm here because I value the way that the members think, both where it co-incides with my way and where it fills my gaps...
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Mar 28, 2011 20:14:26 GMT -1
Our commonality I suspect, is the drive to develop our understanding of the otherworld realms that are expressed to us through the medium of the land and not specifically through the writings of a prophetic nature observed in other major faith cultures. ..... Mmmm yes! Inescapable logic!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 31, 2011 21:23:22 GMT -1
My feeling on the issue of subjectivity is that if we're experiencing the same thing, there's only so much our mind can alter. I know someone that sees the Morrigan differently to me in terms of attire, but she looks the same and there's no mistaking that specific air when she's present. So, I guess it's a case of filtering out what are constructions of our expectations and what is the real stuff underneath. I don't think that's an impossible task, if we all approach it willing to accept that a portion of what we see or feel is generally filler, constructed by our minds to create a whole picture when what we experience is slightly ephemeral.
On the subject of the division between the underworld and the Otherworld, one thing I've always found difficult is that it ties specific levels of spirit/deity to one locale which, to me, seems at odds with the notion of a tradition which reveres the ancestors and seeks their guidance. The underworld is so often simply referred to as the land of the dead and described in ways that make me think of a graveyard, where the ancestors simply sit around doing what they've always done, basically stagnating. My experiences journeying in the underworld suggest to me that the ancestors are very much alive and growing, learning and developing. I often find myself wondering where we draw the line between ancestor and deity and whether if we go back far enough, they are one and the same and whether many of the ancestors are deities just waiting to be recognised as such by their descendants. So, for me, it would be important that any distinction didn't define the Underworld solely as the land of the dead in a way that implies the final end of personal/spiritual growth.
I've also found that some places in the Underworld (e.g. towers) involve a high ascent, maybe these serve as a way of entering the otherworld from there, just as descent takes us from this world to the Underworld. So, I would say, the up/down distinction is important. Whether that's a real boundary or one our minds need to locate themselves in those spaces, I couldn't say, but my feeling is either way, it serves a purpose.
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Jul 18, 2011 11:35:45 GMT -1
I'm currently exploring the Thomas the Rhymer backgrounds on my blog, and will do so over a number of posts. One thing that i hope to get to, but which might be worth airing here first, is the way he travels to the Otherworld. The well-known ballad alludes to travelling through water and through blood to the knee. But the earlier(?) tale, which I'm now examining, is quite specific about travelling through water [/i]for three days. Do others have thoughts about the medium of water as a way to the Otherworld?
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Jul 18, 2011 12:39:49 GMT -1
Do others have thoughts about the medium of water as a way to the Otherworld? Yes indeed, and from my perspective it's essential for certain aspects, the very edge of a body of water is where my most significant occurences have happened, followed by the higher places. I considered a long time ago the relationship of Mananaan Mac Lir, his Craneskin bag, the Crane itself and the water that connects them all. When I hear of the Crane stance of the Druids to me it's an attempt to mimic the crane and bring something back from the Otherworld.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 18, 2011 13:37:02 GMT -1
not cranes for me, but herons.
the association is getting stronger as i daily sees about a dozen at the waters edge from Kew Bridge.
herons, waters edge, crossing over.
|
|
|
Post by littleraven on Jul 18, 2011 14:29:01 GMT -1
not cranes for me, but herons. I should think the behaviour of both birds is similar enough for them to be interchangeable in this context. I recall recently catching the tail end of a piece about the reintroduction of Cranes into Britain, I think it may have been Norfolk but not sure.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Jul 18, 2011 14:31:05 GMT -1
I think Francis mentioned it somewhere, possibly at the recent getogether.
|
|