From: tyagi mordred nagasiva
Subject: Neopaganism and Newage Writers
Date: Kali Yuga 49941211
Who can blame the newage and neopagan writers for attempting to appeal to the history-worshipping academic-minded readers in American and European culture?...if we use a little imagination we can see that what they are implying has some truth -- that the 'place' where all these things come from is 'the earth' and what we see as 'a particular religion' can be seen as a form of religious expression, a particular instance of a global phenomenon.
Consider that every one of these 'social traditions' derived from a number of geographical areas, individuals that developed practices who, in their humility, were not referenced as the innovators. Within one geographical environment (say, Ireland), many successive individuals, generations, contributed to what they knew to be 'sincere living' (religion), and only when compared to the lifestyle of others in their dedication (as a result of urbanization) did they begin to see it as peculiar or 'religious' in the now conventional sense.
So while we may easily turn up our nose at the 'flittingness' of neopagan attempts to conceptually condense the world through metaphor and theoretic (even if historically unfounded), I think there is something toward which they are pointing which we may miss in doing this -- globalist religious ecumenism.
...The history of the term 'pagan' is such
at is MEANS 'non-Christian'. The modern religious are simply using this against the Christian establishment and this sometimes leads to a greater projection of syncretism-in-experiment than actually exists. Of course many are attempting to take the (largely judgemental) language from the establishment and use it to its own ends -- in short, they are using the tools of oppression against the oppressors. This is why I consider the original Neopagans to be Satanists -- they are resisting coersion and the co-optive nature of 'education'.
Subject: Academics
Date: Kali Yuga 49941217
We have been trained by our
cultures (USA/Euro) to regard that which is promulgated by the academics in relation to 'history' as 'more true' and 'more worthwhile' than the ravings of prophets or fantasy-authors. Who can blame the Neopagans for attempting to capitalize on this 'academia-worship' by attempting to portray themselves as a part of this (biased) establishment?
Instead of treating
books on the basis of their contents and attempting to understand them from a variety of perspectives, academics only provide accolades for those whose works are 'approved' and 'authorized as authoritative' (i.e. traditional).
Rather than critique the Neopagans on the basis of a variety of tacks, rather than come to see the very beautiful fantasy-myth which they are spinning (when this is indeed the case), we set up the value-scale as 'historical-top' and
'fantasy-bottom', requiring a strict delineation between these two (which is fallacious at the start) and assuming that our knowledge amounts to more than an ostrich's ignorance.
In all, I'd say that what we're comparing here is the social-taste (often sifted and extrapolated over time through a consensus of like-MINDED people)
with individual taste, which is sometimes the best barometer of value when we are assessing spiritual or mystical literature upon which to lay our attentions.
There are many complaints about books which aspire to APPEAL to
history-worshippers and initiates (cf. 'degrees' in masonic and pseudo- masonic orgs as well as the academic crowd) of scholasticism without actually containing the type of text that satisfies this biased audience.
The problem is that we are CONDITIONED to regard certain types of books as 'intelligent', namely those which derive of stuffy professors with lots of initials after their names and hordes of bibliographical reference to boot. That's fine for that type of writing, but that same conditioning biases us AGAINST such things as the Book of Shadows or Magical Record, which is promoted by occult teachers as one of the most important tomes on the basis of its ability to MIRROR US.
It also biases us against regarding such things as myth and poetry as containers for great truths. As such, this conditioning is detrimental to our spiritual health, and the Neopagan (and other religious) sometimes attempt to use this against the less indoctrinated reader as bait.
The point I'm trying to make is that the PROBLEM is the notion of 'pseudo- historicity', since it betrays a very real dogmatism (often promoted by materialists and scholars) which is prevalent in our society. By 'rigorous'
I presume you mean at least that they do not display the sources which inspire the text. Many magical grimoires (even many by Crowley, who is purported to be one of the foremost mages in history) do not contain such references, and so this is a specious criticism except in display of bias.
What makes a tome 'capable of saying really meaningful things'? I suggest that it is less to do with the text itself (though this surely has some influence upon the event) and more to do with the PERSON WHO READS IT.
This is the reason that some find to be the veritable Word of
God, whereas some consider it to be an important mystical tome and still others figure it as an outdated piece of trash.
In several instances I've heard 'scholars' critiquing magical tomes.
They were simply not of my experience and could not appreciate
the depth and approach of the authors of whom I've studied. I've seen the EXACT SAME REACTION among those whom I considered 'smugly ignorant', in that they judged the entirety of religious, mystical and philosophical texts by their inability to comprehend their beauty. Theirs was the
'cold and realistic' perspective, informed by their special experience and deeper perception, no doubt.
My point is that taste in art is essentially relative even while we may be able to ascribe certain constants within the mass which is produced by human artists (since they speak to common and important experiences). I have a hard time saying, for this reason, what is 'trash' as compared to what is 'the best' (the latter which I'll happily recommend based upon my own particular tastes and common social discover).
It is very similar to Popper's thesis in science that we cannot PROVE a theory, only disprove it. By the same reasoning we cannot come to a clear conception of what is 'worthless art', only that which is aesthetically valuable to human beings.
When we are describing the inner landscape, why not make it all
up as we go along? I see the value in rational (careful) citations when the subject at hand is the movement of bits of matter over time. When it becomes in the least way theoretical, especially that dealing with magick or mysticism, then the mythos speaks more to me than any 'history' does.
Why listen to the scholars, the academes, regarding a process which is predominantly mystical and magical itself? Perhaps we overly identify the act of research and citation with the magical process, in that we think that merely by reading about a subject such as this we may come to an understanding of it. This leads to a devolution of the art, founded on a lack of serious EXPLORATION AND EXPERIMENT on the part of those who write about the subject.
I think that this kind of over-emphasis on scholasticism is precisely what gave rise in China to Zen Buddhism (as it moved to Japan). The adherents of these valiant traditions are stridently opposed (in the more central and informative of the teachers) to such specialization (academia). They went so far as to eschew all expressions of the Way as fundamental and castigate those dwellers of Ivory Towers to whom you make reference.
It was the Christian classification of 'pagan=non-Christian' that brought about the consolidation of all non-Christian faiths in the eyes of those who are/were brought up in this culture. The Christian religious are directly responsible for this ignorant usage, not the Neopagans themselves, who grew up in backgrounds largely blindered by conservative Christians.
I think the method here is 'use-the-tool-of-the-Oppressor-upon-the- Oppressor'. It is a type of Judo, and it may prove quite effective
in stemming the puritanical and judgement-laden ignorance that
pretends to be spirituality.
...the element of religion that remains the same with them all...
I'll name that element, which I think is exemplified within the Gospels, at least in part: LOVE. God is love. If love is not contained within a religion, then as I see it, it is devoid of spirituality. Along the perihelion of love shall I make my way among the religious of the world and bring to them the truth of Christ, Aum. If this isn't the Great Work I don't know what is.
Love cannot be commanded. It needs no justification. It is self-evidently God to my perceptions.
