|
Post by Heron on Mar 18, 2012 9:26:11 GMT -1
Picking up on a side issue from another thread, I think it would be useful to have a debate about the limits and the usefulness of reconstruction as a way to the gods. I have just put a blog discussion on gorsedd-arberth.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/reconstructionism-and-celtic-studies.html on the use of Y Mabinogi looking at one aspect of this issue and arguing that we can find the gods in stories however much has happened to them since the stories were myths (perhaps even if they were not myths). What is the right balance to be achieved between the uses of archaeology, folklore studies and anthropology etc. , and our direct perceptions of what we find in art and literature as well as Nature and in our personal meditations, that is, in the world around us today? And what does that tell us about the gods?
|
|
|
Post by potia on Mar 18, 2012 18:56:07 GMT -1
Difficult questions to answer. To some extent I'm going to duck this a bit because I don't think there is a "right balance" that can be applicable to all of us, all of the time. I do think it is important to use all of the things you list in developing our understanding of our gods but I don't think we can or even should all have the same balance for these things. If we could then our studies would be easier in many ways. It would be nice to be able to say take one part folklore, mix with one part personal experience and one part archaeology and season with a pinch of anthropology and a dash of art and literature, brew for a minimum of three years and serve Life isn't like that though and I don't think our gods are either. Ultimately I believe that what we are doing is building our own relationships with our gods and as we are living in a very different world to that of those who worshipped these gods in the past then our relationships will be different too. We can learn some things from the stories of the past whether they are written in the bones in the land or in words on paper but we have to live our own stories. What does that tell me about my gods? That either they agree with me or they are waiting to give me one hell of a wake up kick
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Mar 20, 2012 9:54:56 GMT -1
I don't think you've 'ducked' this one Potia.
That seems to me a very sensible mix and one I think we would do well to promote in clarifying our approach to 'reconstructing' Brythonic religion(s).
|
|
|
Post by dreamguardian on Mar 20, 2012 16:11:59 GMT -1
A happy mix with the occassional spanner thrown in to shake everything about. This acts as a leveller and allows greater understanding. I find personally having a heavy folklore focus allows my imagination to stroke my ego and just simply act as self-indulgence and NOT spiritual development or understanding. OBOD type dribble - But thats just me!!
Academia keeps me grounded but again it too can become a hindrance if it is the sole or main focus as I simply get caught up in splitting factual hairs that really aren't that important.
Just getting on with my practice by making offerings or observances helps me get closer. This in itself can have the danger of just going through the motions and I can lose focus or sincerity.
For me it goes in stages, my focus maybe in one direction for a period and than certains things happen or they don't resulting in my focus being in another.
Not sure I've answered the question or made any sense
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2012 17:31:31 GMT -1
I've always thought it was obvious that the gods are in the natural world and we just need to tune in to them. Only lately, browsing forums to find out out gods and their names, have I realised that some people start from the history books and this doesn't make any sense to me. But I am beginning to come round to the idea that history can tell us something about the gods too.
Stories though are different. Heron's blog about gods in the Mabinogion touched a nerve with me because I remember I found them deep and mysterious when I read modern versions of them in Welsh at school.
So I would agree with the mix idea but always want to put nature first.
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Mar 21, 2012 15:29:08 GMT -1
Been tied up all week but now finally have a chance to reply to this. I think the mix is going to be very much tied to personality and as such, won't ever be entirely consistent for everyone though there is a commonality in the form of a starting point. I've been thinking about why reconstructionism has proved to be my best approach. I was reading an article by a certain Mr Oliver on the subject of the Celts. I know that the name and concept can make some baulk, but he said a very interesting thing. To paraphrase " It's more a way of thinking or behaving than belonging to a genetic group or bloodline. What is called the Celtic is, I think, more cultural than racial, a shared set of ideas, religion and artistic style." And it is this approach, one that until I read that, I didn't realize myself that I intrinsicly shared the same viewpoint, that has resulted in the approach I have used. I cannot divorce myself from the modern world as some in the neo-pagan scene seem to be able to. The world of physics interact and inform comprehensively with my spiritual connections and are progressively doing more so the more I learn about the latest theories. The idea that a person may be present in the past, the present and the future and that it is not going against the laws of nature to speculate that our sense of the "now" may not be as completely tied to reality as we take it to be, suggests to me that there may be mechanisms that may allow us to access these earlier or even later times. The idea of linear time, therefore, to me is being erroded. Time to me, therefore, is a marker as to where a person, human or not, was in a particular sequence. I am not the same person that I was yesterday or indeed, what I will be tomorrow. And if that is the case for myself, then it is reasonable to suggest that it is or was the same for other living entities. So what has this to do with reconstructionism and Brython in particular? Well, if we acccept the existence of the Gods and that we aim to share and develop our relationships with these Gods incorporating our ancestors ideas as well, then it seems only right and proper to use all the latest information the modern sciences can give us. This is in the form of data obtained from forensic and archaeological analysis amongst other things and the reason I would use such information would be to inform myself so as to create an accurate as possible scenario when dealing with these entities. There are some for whom the work of some gifted individuals create their framework and this is entirely a thing of individual choice. But myself, I cannot adopt this approach because, for want of a better phrase, I always have and probably always will, be a person who prefers to "do" rather than copy. There is also the issue of a "goal" used extensively by the major religions. I utterly and comprehensively reject that sort of framework. So to tie up this long post, for myself, I wish to use as many sources of information, preferaby tied to as much factual stuff as I can, to use for a starting point (which I would state as a Brythonic starting point) in an effort to nurter relationships. This starting point is what ties me to this place, it is the basis used to create these relationship(s) but because there is no "goal" tied to it (I do not wish to sit at Gods right hand or indulge with multiple virgins ) then I have the freedom to follow where this takes me. It also creates a framework that may resonate with other entities from periods in their (non or otherwise) existence, a commonality from which to start. Brython is the starting point, I know not where it will lead me. RR
|
|
|
Post by Heron on Mar 22, 2012 23:21:30 GMT -1
I've been thinking about why reconstructionism has proved to be my best approach. I was reading an article by a certain Mr Oliver on the subject of the Celts. I know that the name and concept can make some baulk, but he said a very interesting thing. To paraphrase " It's more a way of thinking or behaving than belonging to a genetic group or bloodline. What is called the Celtic is, I think, more cultural than racial, a shared set of ideas, religion and artistic style." And it is this approach, one that until I read that, I didn't realize myself that I intrinsicly shared the same viewpoint, that has resulted in the approach I have used. I certainly agree that it is more cultural than racial. Even in the Ancient World the Keltoi were not a defined racial group, and by today the genetic mix of peoples in Wales, Ireland etc is certainly mixed, although they might feel themselves to be 'Celts'. True. And 'reality is certainly not as clearly defined as the realists would have us believe. But there is an elusive truth here and I think it resides in the nature of 'now' which is, of course, eternal. Yes I think what divides most pagans from the followers of there so-called Abrahamic religions is that they are not trying to achieve an end or get to the end of a journey so much as live in the world with the gods in the here and now. My here and now happens to resonate with certain cultural strands that are identified as 'Celtic' and particularly with certain stories in which I recognise the gods that are in origin Brythonic. But I find them primarily in the natural world all around me too. The intersection of the two is what makes pantheons real rather than and 'reconstruction' in its own right, but the reconstruction certainly helps. Or as I said of the gods a while back, and someone quoted back at me more recently , 'in Nature they are presences; in Culture they have form'. We can reconstruct the form but must also not lose contact with with the presence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 24, 2012 11:39:46 GMT -1
Heron, I like what you said here;
"Or as I said of the gods a while back, and someone quoted back at me more recently , 'in Nature they are presences; in Culture they have form'. We can reconstruct the form but must also not lose contact with with the presence."
So neat , I don't know what else there is to say
|
|
|
Post by redraven on Mar 25, 2012 18:06:37 GMT -1
Heron, I like what you said here; "Or as I said of the gods a while back, and someone quoted back at me more recently , 'in Nature they are presences; in Culture they have form'. We can reconstruct the form but must also not lose contact with with the presence." So neat , I don't know what else there is to say Yes, I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. I think it is important that we have managed to define this in this way. RR
|
|