In a continuation of last week's post, I have further the pondered the significance of Yeshua ben Joseph and his impact on the world just by showing up on this planet and being who he was.
No less than several significant thoughts have floated around in my mind about this whole thing...I will share with you the two most prominent ones.
1) What's the deal with the belief of Yeshua supposedly "dying for our sins"?
Last I checked, Yeshua only died because the Sanhedrin got jealous of Yeshua's popularity with the people to the point of being really pissed off. The idea of him dying to "save us from our sins" didn't come along till the philosophical doctrine of "original sin" entered the world playing field. Now, you talk about us humans getting creative with our power dramas...you'd think we'd be smart enough at the first to see through the papal bullshit. But no. A good many of the Christian followers were illiterate, and the Church counted on this illiteracy to stay in power.
So because of this illiteracy, the idea kept getting perpetuated that we're no good unless we acknowledge Yeshua as some sort of almighty savior who's going to rescue us just by allowing himself to get whipped severely, nails put into his hands and feet and being left for dead until some devout followers (and still-observant Jews) come and have him cut down before sundown on the Sabbath.
Sounds like another "ghost story to scare the kiddies into behaving" type of thing. And then there's the whole "worthy is the lamb who was slain" thing. Yeah, Yeshua was a pretty upstanding dude...I mean, the most passionate of hippies--including my Druidic self--could get behind this fella. Not only did he have long hair and sandals, but he said some pretty deep, yet simple stuff like "Love thy neighbor," "Turn the other cheek," and "Take the plank out of your own eye before you remove the splinter in someone else's." But apart from some feelings of awe from his followers at his trippy tidings of joy (and believe me, I've felt that same awe at Jon Anderson's gorgeous, inspiring lyrics), I wanna know what qualifies Yeshua to be "worthy" of "being slain," which goes right into that whole "Lamb of God" thing.
The only remotely logical reason someone would create an ephithet like that is that waaay back when, animal sacrifices were made to God (or whatever deity the tribes decided was high enough--and therefore perhaps vindictive enough--to need regular appeasement) in order to be granted boons, favors or other special requests. The base of such requests was fear that the deity or deities in question would be angry at us humans for making some silly mistakes. Another fear-belief was that the deities supposedly had specific rituals that we were supposed to follow just for the sake of following the rituals, and if we did not do so on a regular basis, we'd be punished somehow.
Can you see how the concept of "if you are bad, God will punish you and send you to hell" might have gotten started? And of course, this extended into the whole "Santa Claus will give you coal if you are naughty" spiel parents often have given their children. Oh, the ideas we dream up to keep people under our petty tyrannies of fear and mind control.
As for Idea #2?
The part of me that continues to believe in Love, Peace and all that good stuff keeps telling me that what will 'save us' from our 'sins' is not the whole crucifixion thing Yeshua went through. That was a very violent result of what he came here to do, but that's not really what we should be focusing on...neither that or the supposed 'resurrection' thing. Yes, the 'resurrection' might have happened literally, but I think it was more shamanic than anything.
No, I think the key to Yeshua's purpose on earth was to be yet another embodiment of the kind of heavenly love that might make you regret the things you've done, but you'll still feel accepted by the Divine Presence despite all that...because heaven is Home. What is true Home but being accepted and loved despite your missteps and failings? THAT is what will help humanity get it together again...that is what will stop us going wrong.
Love...
So perhaps I can once again feel comfortable with the word "savior" being applied to Yeshua. It's a bit of a messianic, apocalyptic hyperbole of a word, IMO, but if we apply what Yeshua set out to teach us, along with what Buddha has given us as well, then we'll perhaps have helped fulfill whatever mission it was that Yeshua set out to accomplish. Maybe he wasn't meant to "save us" outright...but that he was to kickstart us on a different way of being.
I have yet to puzzle it all out...all I know is:
1) I still enjoy the Nativity story because it signals a new beginning for humanity (and considering this guy was born, like the rest of us, of a female, I relish the notion that the Divine Feminine part of the Force was behind Yeshua's arrival all along!)
2) Christmas is definitely more than just Rudolph and Frosty, and paired with the Winter Solstice (known as 'Alban Arthuan' in the Druidic parlance) that we Pagans celebrate, the holidays are that much more magickal when all blended together. (Remember, I have that 'Happy-Everything' Sagittarius ascendant kind of running the show in my chart)
3) As always, no matter what you believe, the Time is Now...the Word is Love...
Blessed Be,
Rev. Kat ^.^
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Somethin' About Yeshua...
Christmas fast approaches. And even though I consider myself a Druidic sort, the scholarly "Happy-Everything" Sagittarian in me can never quite resist going back and revisiting the topic of Yeshua, aka "Jesus." After all, his birth has been celebrated on December 25th for centuries now, starting around 354 CE, within the Roman Empire.
This date is approximate, given one particular fact: The Jewish calendar is lunar and so the attempt to calculate the day based on solar measurement places the date of Yeshua's birth around December 25th...or April 6th, depending on the source of info. In fact, there has not yet been a month in which scholars have NOT tried to place Yeshua's arrival, simply because he was truly born so long ago, we don't know precisely when his birth actually took place. For all we know, it could have been December 25th and no one would truly be the wiser.
Oh, sure, my fellow Pagans are keen to argue that the December 25th date is also the Roman festival of Saturnalia, which also falls on the week of the Winter Solstice, a scientifically provable solar event, whether or not you are a Pagan or any other spiritual path. :-P My fellow Pagans--particularly the more vociferous ones--also opine that the date of December 25th was chosen solely for the purpose of converting the pagans of the time to Christianity.
Upon researching further, I discovered a few interesting tidbits.
In the year 354, (the earliest time recorded for celebrating Yeshua's birthday on the 25th of December), Constantius II, one of the sons of Emperor Constantine I, was Rome's head cheese, the direct predecessor to Julian, another of Constantine's sons. Julian himself went back to being a Roman Pagan, and thus earned the title "Apostate." But that's a topic for another time.
Constantius II partly subscribed to the philosophy of Arianism, NOT to be confused with "Aryanism." A church priest named Arius posed the question "Is Jesus unbegotten?" The upshot of this challenge to the more popular trinitarian view of Yeshua (The whole Father-Son-Holy-Ghost schmere) was that Yeshua was created like any other human soul, and Arius backed up his hypothesis by referencing John 14:28, in which Yeshua says that the father "is greater than I", and John 17:20-26, where Yeshua requests of his disciples to "become one as we are one." Both scriptures indicated, at least as far as Arius was concerned, more of a oneness of will and thought, rather than ultimate unity within a Trinity.
End result? Arius was branded a heretic, but his ideas ended up becoming the longest-running controversy within the Church. (This tells me he was likely onto something, at least philosophically speaking, because if something challenges the political powers-that-be, that means their ideas are not very solid and they darn well know it.)
So, what about Yeshua, anyway? Begotten or not? After all, the word "begotten," in this sense meant that the Divine Essence had always existed, and theforefore Yeshua did, too...that is, if one believed that Yeshua was the "only begotten Son of God."
Whether or not Yeshua was "begotten" or "unbegotten" does not necessarily matter to me, personally. His intent was Love, and that is that, to my mind. Same thing with the whole "Messiah" deal. The concept of his being "begotten" and the idea that he was THE Messiah are long-intertwined, but as far as I am concerned, Yeshua was simply a good, loving man with some pretty extraordinary gifts for healing, if the Synoptic Gospels have any ring of historical truth to them, regardless of what time they were written.
That being said...
Such an apocalyptic view of someone--ANYone--anticipated to be a Messianic figure in the time of John (Yohannan) the Baptist and Jesus (Yeshua) was a popular one, given that the Israelites were under the harsh thumb of Rome at the time. I mean, if I were in that time cycle, in that tribe of people, having to deal with the way Roman emperors made such dictatorial--and often cruel--decisions about the populace, I'd kinda be a bit anxious for some relief, political or religious, or a bit of both.
And when you put that anxiety together with some pretty convincing prophecies by Micah, Nahum, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and a bunch of others, you have a recipe for the multitudinous cries of "Save us!"
Add a pinch of "original sin" doctrine of one type or another, and you have a religious mixture that lends very well to the well-entrenched belief and action of "taking Jesus as one's personal savior," and "Jesus is the reason for the season" holiday cards and lighted yard signs at this rather magical time of year.
Do I believe in original sin, as put forth by many religious scholars and priests? No. I do not. "Adam and Eve" to me are simply symbological names given to the evolutionary jump from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens. In evolutionary theory, there existed no such being as "the Devil," no matter what form such a being might take. "Sapiens" is loosely translated, according to my inferences of the phrase "sapiential eschatology," as 'human being with the ability to think or reason.' "Sapiential eschatology" in this sense, is the concept of using reason to act in a 'Godly' manner, thereby not requiring God to intervene as far as the concept of the "end of the world" is concerned. Perhaps it is a philosophical stretch between one 'tribe' and another, but I think the Hopis said it best: "We are the ones we have been waiting for."
Besides, I have personally come to the conclusion that we never really were "separated" from the Divine in the first place. Okay, so we lower our vibrations in order to manifest in, and "operate" a physical body...but does this mean we are somehow "faulted" or "weak" because we are embodied spirits and have been this way since humans first existed as a result of some sort of "temptation"? Not by my reckoning. The only "hell" that exists is within our minds and hearts, in our false assumptions about ourselves and others, in our illusions about human nature ("we behave badly therefore we are inherently bad").
My point, and I do have one, in all this meandering around from subtopic to subtopic is this...
In my readings about Yeshua and other topics (inside and outside of my college religion classes), I have come to understand three salient ideas:
1) Yeshua very likely existed; he was raised in the extant faith of the time, but seemed to develop some very controversial ideas that, in the minds of the Sanhedrin, posed a religious threat to their power as well as a threat to Rome, who might punish the Israelites for "aiding and abetting" someone who might advocate the beginnings of a revolt against the Empire.
2) Yeshua did not come here to purposefully BE a revolutionary, though his ideas of "love your enemy" and to be self-sacrificing on behalf of someone else who is in trouble were certainly eyebrow-raisers. This dude was more like Gandhi or Buddha and less like the "uber-warrior" that the politicos of the time thought he might be.
3) Ultimately, he came here and showed us a very beautiful way to live in the Divine Light of Love.
Is the fact that his approximate birth date, (at least according to the Jewish calendar day, which has been roughly translated into the solar day of December 25th), happens to fall during the week of both Winter Solstice (a scientifically observable occurrence) and the old Roman holiday of Saturnalia a coincidence? We have no real way of discerning the factual truth of it, considering Yeshua was alive and kicking a good 2.5 millenia ago.
So perhaps we may be allowed to put aside our scientific hats for a time, and put on a more meditative mystic's robe, and ponder a while the mystery of the healer and teacher so many have come to revere. Whether or not he is some sort of "savior," is doubtful to my reasoning mind (what a burden that ephithet must be!), but what I am never doubtful of is what he taught, and what he taught can be used by the rest of us reasoning members of Homo Sapiens to better ourselves in the hopes that swords CAN be made into plowshares, that we will one day taste the sweet juice of peace and never again the bitter flavor of war.
In the words of my Yes-brothers: "The Time is Now, the Word is Love."
Always Love...
Brightest Holiday Blessings,
Rev. Kat ^.^
This date is approximate, given one particular fact: The Jewish calendar is lunar and so the attempt to calculate the day based on solar measurement places the date of Yeshua's birth around December 25th...or April 6th, depending on the source of info. In fact, there has not yet been a month in which scholars have NOT tried to place Yeshua's arrival, simply because he was truly born so long ago, we don't know precisely when his birth actually took place. For all we know, it could have been December 25th and no one would truly be the wiser.
Oh, sure, my fellow Pagans are keen to argue that the December 25th date is also the Roman festival of Saturnalia, which also falls on the week of the Winter Solstice, a scientifically provable solar event, whether or not you are a Pagan or any other spiritual path. :-P My fellow Pagans--particularly the more vociferous ones--also opine that the date of December 25th was chosen solely for the purpose of converting the pagans of the time to Christianity.
Upon researching further, I discovered a few interesting tidbits.
In the year 354, (the earliest time recorded for celebrating Yeshua's birthday on the 25th of December), Constantius II, one of the sons of Emperor Constantine I, was Rome's head cheese, the direct predecessor to Julian, another of Constantine's sons. Julian himself went back to being a Roman Pagan, and thus earned the title "Apostate." But that's a topic for another time.
Constantius II partly subscribed to the philosophy of Arianism, NOT to be confused with "Aryanism." A church priest named Arius posed the question "Is Jesus unbegotten?" The upshot of this challenge to the more popular trinitarian view of Yeshua (The whole Father-Son-Holy-Ghost schmere) was that Yeshua was created like any other human soul, and Arius backed up his hypothesis by referencing John 14:28, in which Yeshua says that the father "is greater than I", and John 17:20-26, where Yeshua requests of his disciples to "become one as we are one." Both scriptures indicated, at least as far as Arius was concerned, more of a oneness of will and thought, rather than ultimate unity within a Trinity.
End result? Arius was branded a heretic, but his ideas ended up becoming the longest-running controversy within the Church. (This tells me he was likely onto something, at least philosophically speaking, because if something challenges the political powers-that-be, that means their ideas are not very solid and they darn well know it.)
So, what about Yeshua, anyway? Begotten or not? After all, the word "begotten," in this sense meant that the Divine Essence had always existed, and theforefore Yeshua did, too...that is, if one believed that Yeshua was the "only begotten Son of God."
Whether or not Yeshua was "begotten" or "unbegotten" does not necessarily matter to me, personally. His intent was Love, and that is that, to my mind. Same thing with the whole "Messiah" deal. The concept of his being "begotten" and the idea that he was THE Messiah are long-intertwined, but as far as I am concerned, Yeshua was simply a good, loving man with some pretty extraordinary gifts for healing, if the Synoptic Gospels have any ring of historical truth to them, regardless of what time they were written.
That being said...
Such an apocalyptic view of someone--ANYone--anticipated to be a Messianic figure in the time of John (Yohannan) the Baptist and Jesus (Yeshua) was a popular one, given that the Israelites were under the harsh thumb of Rome at the time. I mean, if I were in that time cycle, in that tribe of people, having to deal with the way Roman emperors made such dictatorial--and often cruel--decisions about the populace, I'd kinda be a bit anxious for some relief, political or religious, or a bit of both.
And when you put that anxiety together with some pretty convincing prophecies by Micah, Nahum, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and a bunch of others, you have a recipe for the multitudinous cries of "Save us!"
Add a pinch of "original sin" doctrine of one type or another, and you have a religious mixture that lends very well to the well-entrenched belief and action of "taking Jesus as one's personal savior," and "Jesus is the reason for the season" holiday cards and lighted yard signs at this rather magical time of year.
Do I believe in original sin, as put forth by many religious scholars and priests? No. I do not. "Adam and Eve" to me are simply symbological names given to the evolutionary jump from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens. In evolutionary theory, there existed no such being as "the Devil," no matter what form such a being might take. "Sapiens" is loosely translated, according to my inferences of the phrase "sapiential eschatology," as 'human being with the ability to think or reason.' "Sapiential eschatology" in this sense, is the concept of using reason to act in a 'Godly' manner, thereby not requiring God to intervene as far as the concept of the "end of the world" is concerned. Perhaps it is a philosophical stretch between one 'tribe' and another, but I think the Hopis said it best: "We are the ones we have been waiting for."
Besides, I have personally come to the conclusion that we never really were "separated" from the Divine in the first place. Okay, so we lower our vibrations in order to manifest in, and "operate" a physical body...but does this mean we are somehow "faulted" or "weak" because we are embodied spirits and have been this way since humans first existed as a result of some sort of "temptation"? Not by my reckoning. The only "hell" that exists is within our minds and hearts, in our false assumptions about ourselves and others, in our illusions about human nature ("we behave badly therefore we are inherently bad").
My point, and I do have one, in all this meandering around from subtopic to subtopic is this...
In my readings about Yeshua and other topics (inside and outside of my college religion classes), I have come to understand three salient ideas:
1) Yeshua very likely existed; he was raised in the extant faith of the time, but seemed to develop some very controversial ideas that, in the minds of the Sanhedrin, posed a religious threat to their power as well as a threat to Rome, who might punish the Israelites for "aiding and abetting" someone who might advocate the beginnings of a revolt against the Empire.
2) Yeshua did not come here to purposefully BE a revolutionary, though his ideas of "love your enemy" and to be self-sacrificing on behalf of someone else who is in trouble were certainly eyebrow-raisers. This dude was more like Gandhi or Buddha and less like the "uber-warrior" that the politicos of the time thought he might be.
3) Ultimately, he came here and showed us a very beautiful way to live in the Divine Light of Love.
Is the fact that his approximate birth date, (at least according to the Jewish calendar day, which has been roughly translated into the solar day of December 25th), happens to fall during the week of both Winter Solstice (a scientifically observable occurrence) and the old Roman holiday of Saturnalia a coincidence? We have no real way of discerning the factual truth of it, considering Yeshua was alive and kicking a good 2.5 millenia ago.
So perhaps we may be allowed to put aside our scientific hats for a time, and put on a more meditative mystic's robe, and ponder a while the mystery of the healer and teacher so many have come to revere. Whether or not he is some sort of "savior," is doubtful to my reasoning mind (what a burden that ephithet must be!), but what I am never doubtful of is what he taught, and what he taught can be used by the rest of us reasoning members of Homo Sapiens to better ourselves in the hopes that swords CAN be made into plowshares, that we will one day taste the sweet juice of peace and never again the bitter flavor of war.
In the words of my Yes-brothers: "The Time is Now, the Word is Love."
Always Love...
Brightest Holiday Blessings,
Rev. Kat ^.^
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Divine Fabulousness
I find it highly improbable that I would be referencing a book by a fashion maven in a blog that is supposedly devoted to "spiritual" things.
But I feel compelled to write anyway...
As I posted in my Foolbard blog, I just finished reading a book by gay fashion maven Simon Doonan. It's called "Eccentric Glamour: Creating an Insanely More Fabulous You."
And as I finished the last few delectably witty pages, chuckling till the end, I realized that in many ways, I could suggest this book be reviewed in "SageWoman." Okay, so SageWoman is not a fashion mag, but for me, the book he wrote was a nod from the Goddess Herself to be my own woman and not try to look like anyone else as far as how I use clothing and makeup to show my individuality. I am having difficulty finding the exact words to describe how I feel after getting this huge nudge from the Goddess-Force...
And how I would connect it to being more of what it might feel like to embody the myriad facets of the Goddess...Her Divine Fabulousness...that too is challenging my skills, and I think I'm a pretty decent writer.
Heh...unbidden, yet welcome, comes a line from a Jon-n-Vangelis song, into my head: "Be the Light you are." I think my Spirit Guide or Guides like to use the lines I like to bite me in the butt or hit me over the head if I'm talking or acting in a rather dense way. I, like other humans, can be a bit thick.
Anyhow, back to the book. Doonan writes that the allure inherent in being eccentrically glamourous is largely a state of mind. As a Witchy Woman, I can't argue with this. If we think we are not glamourous, we're not going to be...we're going to sit round the house all depressed and negative about ourselves. We especially do this if we're brought up to believe that glamour belongs to the wealthy and being wealthy is somehow bad...that old chestnut.
Yet, in magickal work, a 'glamoury' is nothing more than a mental charm, a spell cast to enhance what is already there, or even disguise a feature.
And what is the artful application of makeup, perfume and spiffy clothing that suits the wearer but a gigantic glamoury on not just others (think of a woman seeking out a date) but herself?
Scent alone has the unbelievable glamoury of either setting one's chakras spinning in sexual and even emotional arousal, or turning someone off completely because someone *else* wore that perfume or aftershave and that someone else broke hearts--perhaps including yours--like a squirrel breaks walnuts.
Okay, so I'm writing this to women, as a woman.
What about men who are eccentrically glamourous?
I can name a few...and it doesn't have anything to do with the clothing they wear or their orientation. Again, it's all about the allure...the mindset that they have about themselves that draws women--and even other men (gay or straight)--like bees to nectar.
Most people would call it charisma. But what is charisma but an enhanced glamoury--apart from being physically attractive?
It's sort of like 'Austin Powers' (Mike Myers) in the scene with the fembots in the first movie. They're all like, "You can't resist us, Mr. Powers." And Powers says, "Au contraire, baby! I think *you* can't resist *me*!" 'Austin' knows he's attractive, he knows he's got the mojo to get the ladies going in AND out of bed, so he figures he might as well live life to the fullest and enjoy the effect he has on women. Yet what really gives 'Austin' his allure is his UN-James-Bond-like sweetness and shyness...for instance, in the beginning credits for the first movie, one scene shows him hiding in a phone booth with a disguise on, hoping to outfox the ladies chasing after him...which is probably why they *are* chasing him to begin with...we ladies love a guy full of contradictions.
For us, that's what creates the allure a lot of the time.
Talk about your je-ne-sais-quoi and Divine Fabulousness! ;-)
Speaking of Divine Fabulousness, I seek to create some of that in my room later on, but I seriously need some of that fabulousness called 'shuteye.'
Blessed Be,
Rev. Kat ^.^
But I feel compelled to write anyway...
As I posted in my Foolbard blog, I just finished reading a book by gay fashion maven Simon Doonan. It's called "Eccentric Glamour: Creating an Insanely More Fabulous You."
And as I finished the last few delectably witty pages, chuckling till the end, I realized that in many ways, I could suggest this book be reviewed in "SageWoman." Okay, so SageWoman is not a fashion mag, but for me, the book he wrote was a nod from the Goddess Herself to be my own woman and not try to look like anyone else as far as how I use clothing and makeup to show my individuality. I am having difficulty finding the exact words to describe how I feel after getting this huge nudge from the Goddess-Force...
And how I would connect it to being more of what it might feel like to embody the myriad facets of the Goddess...Her Divine Fabulousness...that too is challenging my skills, and I think I'm a pretty decent writer.
Heh...unbidden, yet welcome, comes a line from a Jon-n-Vangelis song, into my head: "Be the Light you are." I think my Spirit Guide or Guides like to use the lines I like to bite me in the butt or hit me over the head if I'm talking or acting in a rather dense way. I, like other humans, can be a bit thick.
Anyhow, back to the book. Doonan writes that the allure inherent in being eccentrically glamourous is largely a state of mind. As a Witchy Woman, I can't argue with this. If we think we are not glamourous, we're not going to be...we're going to sit round the house all depressed and negative about ourselves. We especially do this if we're brought up to believe that glamour belongs to the wealthy and being wealthy is somehow bad...that old chestnut.
Yet, in magickal work, a 'glamoury' is nothing more than a mental charm, a spell cast to enhance what is already there, or even disguise a feature.
And what is the artful application of makeup, perfume and spiffy clothing that suits the wearer but a gigantic glamoury on not just others (think of a woman seeking out a date) but herself?
Scent alone has the unbelievable glamoury of either setting one's chakras spinning in sexual and even emotional arousal, or turning someone off completely because someone *else* wore that perfume or aftershave and that someone else broke hearts--perhaps including yours--like a squirrel breaks walnuts.
Okay, so I'm writing this to women, as a woman.
What about men who are eccentrically glamourous?
I can name a few...and it doesn't have anything to do with the clothing they wear or their orientation. Again, it's all about the allure...the mindset that they have about themselves that draws women--and even other men (gay or straight)--like bees to nectar.
Most people would call it charisma. But what is charisma but an enhanced glamoury--apart from being physically attractive?
It's sort of like 'Austin Powers' (Mike Myers) in the scene with the fembots in the first movie. They're all like, "You can't resist us, Mr. Powers." And Powers says, "Au contraire, baby! I think *you* can't resist *me*!" 'Austin' knows he's attractive, he knows he's got the mojo to get the ladies going in AND out of bed, so he figures he might as well live life to the fullest and enjoy the effect he has on women. Yet what really gives 'Austin' his allure is his UN-James-Bond-like sweetness and shyness...for instance, in the beginning credits for the first movie, one scene shows him hiding in a phone booth with a disguise on, hoping to outfox the ladies chasing after him...which is probably why they *are* chasing him to begin with...we ladies love a guy full of contradictions.
For us, that's what creates the allure a lot of the time.
Talk about your je-ne-sais-quoi and Divine Fabulousness! ;-)
Speaking of Divine Fabulousness, I seek to create some of that in my room later on, but I seriously need some of that fabulousness called 'shuteye.'
Blessed Be,
Rev. Kat ^.^
Monday, July 13, 2009
Learning Stuff...
I recently finished Joe Vitale's "Hypnotic Writing" book. I had been reading it at work, and whilst I was in the tail end of the book, one of my Native American co-workers, Melissa, saw what I was reading and seemed curious about it.
So I told her, thinking "Okay, here is another potential writer friend." I don't know if she truly wants to be a writer, or she is simply seeking knowledge for its own sake (which isn't all bad). But yesterday, she asked me if I'd finished reading the book and when I said yes, she asked if I'd learned anything.
On the surface, it seemed like a silly question. If I didn't want to learn from that book, I wouldn't have read it. However...I've been turning that question over and over in my head, in my usual Virgo-midheaven tactic of overanalyzing stuff (or at least the potential thereof), and wondering if I didn't go through the book too quickly.
See, I get this feeling that the two Natives who have been the most friendly to me so far in the manner of wanting to get to know me (without being like Miss Queen Bee) don't take knowledge and learning lightly...and I would love to spend more time with them, in order to confirm those hunches. And I would dearly love to know more about their particular traditions. Not so I can steal them. Not only would it be silly of me to try, as I don't look a thing like a Native American (for starters) but it would be very disrespectful of me.
It is an interesting experience being around the Meskwaki people just by working at the casino. And that's understating things. Perhaps I am romanticizing things a bit, but from day one of getting my first approval letter from the Sac & Fox Gaming Commission, I have not once taken this whole opportunity lightly.
My co-workers may view the casino as just a place to earn money, but for me this experience represents an extraordinary range of thoughts, feelings and chances to start fresh with my life.
And it's an opportunity to experience being around those whose ancestors were here before mine ever were. And the more I am around them, the more I feel so, so torn, and so elated at the same time.
I've felt that way just being around Quentin, even though he does not choose to practice the traditions of his own people.
And I think, what is it that the Native Americans have or know that my own race does not? Am I or other modern members of my race even allowed to have such knowledge? Should we be allowed to have it, since we have deprived many First Nations members of their rights as human beings? To give you a better idea of how torn I feel, here is an example:
My heart couldn't even get into the usual 4th of July celebrations because my mind was on my new friends' tradition of Proclamation Day, something that is specific to the Meskwaki--it is their own way of claiming their 'State of Independence,' because they got smart and bought their own big piece of land from the US government and instead of it being a "reservation," it is considered a 'Settlement.' They took control of their own tribal destiny and owned it fair and square...not unlike the American colonists who took their destiny into their own hands, and created a new nation for themselves just because George III of England was basically being a controlling jackass.
...yet...years later, the Native Americans were viewed as lower than the black slaves...and then not much later many tribes were made to live on government-sanctioned reservations (with the obvious exception of the Iowa branch of the Meskwaki)...we Caucasians repeated similar, controlling mistakes our English ancestors made, only towards another race--a race that wasn't even "imported" from another country, but had been there many hundreds of years before the Puritans--or the Spanish conquistadors, if you're attuned to the Mesoamerican 'vibe.'
We took their lands, their sources of food. And now it seems many modern spiritual seekers are drawn to Native culture too (I am not exempt from feeling drawn, either), and are all too willing to incorporate it into their own practice without considering the feelings of those from whom they are taking such beautiful traditions and watering them down to suit European sensibilities. Is it any wonder that many tribal elders are fearful, angry and feeling rightfully disrespected?
Yet not all seekers are like that...some are indeed very respectful, and would honor the Native ways deeply and mindfully, in an effort to heal many centuries of cultural conflict, to build bridges of friendship based on mutual honesty and trust--albeit hard-earned trust. Still, there is the matter of ancestry --and all that karmic buildup that resulted--to be resolved. Because of this matter, how far deep should we Caucasians go into learning Native ways without disrespecting the paths of the Elders?
I think the most fair and balanced answer to this dilemma is from this one Native elder who told Druid priest Philip Carr-Gomm and his wife Stephanie that the white folks "need to make peace with their own ancestors." Once they do, "then they can come to us." I honestly can't argue with that.
It is knowing and feeling the power of that statement churning in my soul that brings me back to Melissa's question of whether or not I learned anything from "Hypnotic Writing."
It does not have so much to do with the actual topic of that book. But rather that the Native American and the Caucasian worlds are far enough apart in geographical and traditional ancestry, let alone philosophy of thought, as well as feeling and sensibility, that the way the First Nation peoples--at least those who still get to practice their ways--might view learning and knowledge is vastly different from the way Caucasians see it: cautious, humble and soulful in stark contrast to our tendencies to get high-n-mighty and more than a good deal self-important as we glibly cogitate, regurgitate then graduate.
And yet, the two Meskwaki people who have truly gotten curious enough about me--in a genuine way--are open to learning more about the Caucasian members of the human family, instead of being like Miss Queen Bee and making fun.
One of them, named Edwin, used the jazz music of a car commercial on tv to break the ice further with me, and asked me what music I liked. I told him about Jon Anderson and Vangelis' influence on me, and told him about two of my favorite of Jon's songs: "Change We Must," and "Hurry Home." He even took out a notebook and wrote down the titles of the songs to look up on YouTube.
I think if there is any Meskwaki person I'd want to get to know better, it's Edwin. His energy is quiet and soulful. He does not take himself too seriously, I don't think, but he seems willing to deeply consider any new, incoming information that he thinks he might learn from. I did notice that he seems to be a deeply spiritual man...he was reading a book called "Welcome, Holy Spirit."Based on this one observation, I can probably assume that he is most likely a Christian, but given most well-known Native perceptions of what the Holy Spirit is like, I would be deeply interested to know and understand his take on the book he was reading.
He asked me what book I was reading, and I showed him my copy of "Way of the Peaceful Warrior," by Dan Millman. I told him that a movie had been made of the book and asked if he'd heard of it before. He said he hadn't. I wonder if he will ask me about it later or simply Google it.
And underneath all this mental chatter about my new friends, I am wondering if all my own searching within as a result of beginning work at the casino has attracted certain people within the tribe to begin to speak with me and be friends. I mean, I didn't necessarily ask the Universe specifically about becoming friends with at least some of the Meskwaki. But if we're talking specifics...why Melissa and Edwin and not others of the tribe? "Vibe" match, I suppose. :-P
I know...I am probably analyzing this experience into the ground, but still, wrapping my head and my heart around this whole thing has been one heck of a ride.
I have spent much time on this and not enough time in my Dreamwalking. I better go grab at least *some* semblance of shuteye. Perhaps Brother Lizard will guide me to deeper understanding through my dreams as to any underlying reasons or purposes why the Universe led me so quickly to a job at the casino.
Blessed Be,
Rev. Kat ^.^
So I told her, thinking "Okay, here is another potential writer friend." I don't know if she truly wants to be a writer, or she is simply seeking knowledge for its own sake (which isn't all bad). But yesterday, she asked me if I'd finished reading the book and when I said yes, she asked if I'd learned anything.
On the surface, it seemed like a silly question. If I didn't want to learn from that book, I wouldn't have read it. However...I've been turning that question over and over in my head, in my usual Virgo-midheaven tactic of overanalyzing stuff (or at least the potential thereof), and wondering if I didn't go through the book too quickly.
See, I get this feeling that the two Natives who have been the most friendly to me so far in the manner of wanting to get to know me (without being like Miss Queen Bee) don't take knowledge and learning lightly...and I would love to spend more time with them, in order to confirm those hunches. And I would dearly love to know more about their particular traditions. Not so I can steal them. Not only would it be silly of me to try, as I don't look a thing like a Native American (for starters) but it would be very disrespectful of me.
It is an interesting experience being around the Meskwaki people just by working at the casino. And that's understating things. Perhaps I am romanticizing things a bit, but from day one of getting my first approval letter from the Sac & Fox Gaming Commission, I have not once taken this whole opportunity lightly.
My co-workers may view the casino as just a place to earn money, but for me this experience represents an extraordinary range of thoughts, feelings and chances to start fresh with my life.
And it's an opportunity to experience being around those whose ancestors were here before mine ever were. And the more I am around them, the more I feel so, so torn, and so elated at the same time.
I've felt that way just being around Quentin, even though he does not choose to practice the traditions of his own people.
And I think, what is it that the Native Americans have or know that my own race does not? Am I or other modern members of my race even allowed to have such knowledge? Should we be allowed to have it, since we have deprived many First Nations members of their rights as human beings? To give you a better idea of how torn I feel, here is an example:
My heart couldn't even get into the usual 4th of July celebrations because my mind was on my new friends' tradition of Proclamation Day, something that is specific to the Meskwaki--it is their own way of claiming their 'State of Independence,' because they got smart and bought their own big piece of land from the US government and instead of it being a "reservation," it is considered a 'Settlement.' They took control of their own tribal destiny and owned it fair and square...not unlike the American colonists who took their destiny into their own hands, and created a new nation for themselves just because George III of England was basically being a controlling jackass.
...yet...years later, the Native Americans were viewed as lower than the black slaves...and then not much later many tribes were made to live on government-sanctioned reservations (with the obvious exception of the Iowa branch of the Meskwaki)...we Caucasians repeated similar, controlling mistakes our English ancestors made, only towards another race--a race that wasn't even "imported" from another country, but had been there many hundreds of years before the Puritans--or the Spanish conquistadors, if you're attuned to the Mesoamerican 'vibe.'
We took their lands, their sources of food. And now it seems many modern spiritual seekers are drawn to Native culture too (I am not exempt from feeling drawn, either), and are all too willing to incorporate it into their own practice without considering the feelings of those from whom they are taking such beautiful traditions and watering them down to suit European sensibilities. Is it any wonder that many tribal elders are fearful, angry and feeling rightfully disrespected?
Yet not all seekers are like that...some are indeed very respectful, and would honor the Native ways deeply and mindfully, in an effort to heal many centuries of cultural conflict, to build bridges of friendship based on mutual honesty and trust--albeit hard-earned trust. Still, there is the matter of ancestry --and all that karmic buildup that resulted--to be resolved. Because of this matter, how far deep should we Caucasians go into learning Native ways without disrespecting the paths of the Elders?
I think the most fair and balanced answer to this dilemma is from this one Native elder who told Druid priest Philip Carr-Gomm and his wife Stephanie that the white folks "need to make peace with their own ancestors." Once they do, "then they can come to us." I honestly can't argue with that.
It is knowing and feeling the power of that statement churning in my soul that brings me back to Melissa's question of whether or not I learned anything from "Hypnotic Writing."
It does not have so much to do with the actual topic of that book. But rather that the Native American and the Caucasian worlds are far enough apart in geographical and traditional ancestry, let alone philosophy of thought, as well as feeling and sensibility, that the way the First Nation peoples--at least those who still get to practice their ways--might view learning and knowledge is vastly different from the way Caucasians see it: cautious, humble and soulful in stark contrast to our tendencies to get high-n-mighty and more than a good deal self-important as we glibly cogitate, regurgitate then graduate.
And yet, the two Meskwaki people who have truly gotten curious enough about me--in a genuine way--are open to learning more about the Caucasian members of the human family, instead of being like Miss Queen Bee and making fun.
One of them, named Edwin, used the jazz music of a car commercial on tv to break the ice further with me, and asked me what music I liked. I told him about Jon Anderson and Vangelis' influence on me, and told him about two of my favorite of Jon's songs: "Change We Must," and "Hurry Home." He even took out a notebook and wrote down the titles of the songs to look up on YouTube.
I think if there is any Meskwaki person I'd want to get to know better, it's Edwin. His energy is quiet and soulful. He does not take himself too seriously, I don't think, but he seems willing to deeply consider any new, incoming information that he thinks he might learn from. I did notice that he seems to be a deeply spiritual man...he was reading a book called "Welcome, Holy Spirit."Based on this one observation, I can probably assume that he is most likely a Christian, but given most well-known Native perceptions of what the Holy Spirit is like, I would be deeply interested to know and understand his take on the book he was reading.
He asked me what book I was reading, and I showed him my copy of "Way of the Peaceful Warrior," by Dan Millman. I told him that a movie had been made of the book and asked if he'd heard of it before. He said he hadn't. I wonder if he will ask me about it later or simply Google it.
And underneath all this mental chatter about my new friends, I am wondering if all my own searching within as a result of beginning work at the casino has attracted certain people within the tribe to begin to speak with me and be friends. I mean, I didn't necessarily ask the Universe specifically about becoming friends with at least some of the Meskwaki. But if we're talking specifics...why Melissa and Edwin and not others of the tribe? "Vibe" match, I suppose. :-P
I know...I am probably analyzing this experience into the ground, but still, wrapping my head and my heart around this whole thing has been one heck of a ride.
I have spent much time on this and not enough time in my Dreamwalking. I better go grab at least *some* semblance of shuteye. Perhaps Brother Lizard will guide me to deeper understanding through my dreams as to any underlying reasons or purposes why the Universe led me so quickly to a job at the casino.
Blessed Be,
Rev. Kat ^.^
Monday, June 15, 2009
State of Independence for Jon and the Issue of Owning One's Power
Twice in a row.
Twice. That is how many times the rest of the Yes-boys have decided not to tour with Jon as their captain, leader and front man.
I found this out from Jon himself on his Facebook wall. I could tell he was disappointed by this, yet still hopeful for next year.
While this allows Jon a bit of extra recoup time to regain the strength to withstand the emotional and physical rigors of touring, they did not call up Jon to ask him whether or not he was up to touring with them. They decided on their own.
Or did Chris Squire pull another fast one and Steve and Alan, et. al just went along for the ride, taking that cheeky tribute-band upstart Benoit David along with them? I don't mind Oliver Wakeman being on keyboards, as he is Rick's son. That is not a big problem with me.
What I have a deep-down problem with, is behavior from Chris that has always seemed like near-mutiny ever since Jon got sick and Chris re-announced the tour after hiring Mssr. David. I am not the only one who feels this way. I have a friend over at MySpace who also does not get a very nice vibe from Chris. Our feelings were confirmed when one of us read how contentious Chris could be sometimes.
Well, he never did claim to be the truly spiritual sort.
It is, as many of us humans have discovered, far easier to get angry and stay that way, not forgiving easily. So for Jon to sit back, take it on the chin once more, yet forgive them all and still claim them as brothers and hope for a tour next year...that takes a seriously evolved soul, not to mention gobs of courage.
And you wonder why I admire him, beyond his sun-god voice and winning smile? ;-)
Yeah...his soul. He seems to have the strength to say, "Okay, I'm not touring with them. They want it like that for now. Maybe next year...so, in the meantime, perhaps I can do some touring and singing on my own."
It's not like he doesn't have a decent solo career anyway...still, I wonder how many times they will dis Jon and jeopardize the band's future before he sighs and says, "Enough is enough. I'm officially retiring from the band and doing my own thing...maybe get back with the School of Rock, or something."
If he does that, well, it will be a sad day for Yes fans who remember fondly the times they saw Jon with the others in concert umpteen years ago, because quite frankly, Jon IS the true heart and soul of Yes. And for that soul to permanently go away because Jon might finally get tired of the mutiny the other Yes-boys have committed would pretty much sound the final death knell for the group. Because as I've observed on MySpace and Facebook, there are not very many people who want to see the Yes-ship without Captain Jon Anderson at the helm.
But it might be a state of beautiful independence for this lovely man who has not once deserved the crap Chris has dealt him.
Sooo....Vangelis, Kitaro, Mike Oldfield, wherever you guys are, or whatever you're doing, if you have a mind to, you might want to give your old musical comrade Jon Anderson a call, and he'll set his Moorglade on a course your way...
And he'll just keep on pouring out the lovely vibrational beacon he's been sending out to people all these years, with or without the other Yes-dudes.
Because Jon is his own man...he plots his own course, Goddess bless him.
And therefore, whether or not he is with Yes, he is *my* captain as well, even though I'm not with the band.
Because he inspires me to own my own power, my own energy, and not let anyone else try to dictate my course of life. Of course, you might say, "Well, isn't allowing yourself to be inspired by others giving them your energy?"
Not necessarily, my friends. One can be inspired by someone one admires and still own one's own power. For instance, I never would have picked up the guitar again if I had allowed other people's ideas about my desire to purchase one of my own dictate whether or not I saved back the money for the instrument.
But I remembered how much I enjoyed learning the guitar back in college, despite the fact that the guitar I had was my dad's and it was too big for me. I was already feeling my oats about wanting to learn songwriting on the guitar just because it's far more portable than a baby grand piano.
On top of that, Jon's music just kept on feeding the fire inside my heart to get back to my own musical talents, and the more I heard his considerable skill on the guitar, I thought, "To heck with whatever anyone else says, even my own dad, because damn it, I can't not write music and sing."
Next thing I knew I was in a pawn shop, plucking the downtuned strings of a used Ibanez, and the sound-energy just snaked through me, causing me to vibrate and I said, "Guitar, you are SO mine!"
And now that lovely piece of carved, hollowed (hallowed?) wood is sitting in its beautiful burgundy-red-lined case (how appropriate a color for plumbing the cthonic depths of the soul!) against my east-facing wall.
"...my sun shall rise in the east...so shall my heart be at peace..."
With Jon as my Muse, keeping that peace in my heart is not very difficult...;-)
Here's to discovering your own source of inspiration, your own Muse, whoever that may be and may you drink long and heartily from it all the rest of your days.
BB and Namaste,
Rev. Kat ^.^
Twice. That is how many times the rest of the Yes-boys have decided not to tour with Jon as their captain, leader and front man.
I found this out from Jon himself on his Facebook wall. I could tell he was disappointed by this, yet still hopeful for next year.
While this allows Jon a bit of extra recoup time to regain the strength to withstand the emotional and physical rigors of touring, they did not call up Jon to ask him whether or not he was up to touring with them. They decided on their own.
Or did Chris Squire pull another fast one and Steve and Alan, et. al just went along for the ride, taking that cheeky tribute-band upstart Benoit David along with them? I don't mind Oliver Wakeman being on keyboards, as he is Rick's son. That is not a big problem with me.
What I have a deep-down problem with, is behavior from Chris that has always seemed like near-mutiny ever since Jon got sick and Chris re-announced the tour after hiring Mssr. David. I am not the only one who feels this way. I have a friend over at MySpace who also does not get a very nice vibe from Chris. Our feelings were confirmed when one of us read how contentious Chris could be sometimes.
Well, he never did claim to be the truly spiritual sort.
It is, as many of us humans have discovered, far easier to get angry and stay that way, not forgiving easily. So for Jon to sit back, take it on the chin once more, yet forgive them all and still claim them as brothers and hope for a tour next year...that takes a seriously evolved soul, not to mention gobs of courage.
And you wonder why I admire him, beyond his sun-god voice and winning smile? ;-)
Yeah...his soul. He seems to have the strength to say, "Okay, I'm not touring with them. They want it like that for now. Maybe next year...so, in the meantime, perhaps I can do some touring and singing on my own."
It's not like he doesn't have a decent solo career anyway...still, I wonder how many times they will dis Jon and jeopardize the band's future before he sighs and says, "Enough is enough. I'm officially retiring from the band and doing my own thing...maybe get back with the School of Rock, or something."
If he does that, well, it will be a sad day for Yes fans who remember fondly the times they saw Jon with the others in concert umpteen years ago, because quite frankly, Jon IS the true heart and soul of Yes. And for that soul to permanently go away because Jon might finally get tired of the mutiny the other Yes-boys have committed would pretty much sound the final death knell for the group. Because as I've observed on MySpace and Facebook, there are not very many people who want to see the Yes-ship without Captain Jon Anderson at the helm.
But it might be a state of beautiful independence for this lovely man who has not once deserved the crap Chris has dealt him.
Sooo....Vangelis, Kitaro, Mike Oldfield, wherever you guys are, or whatever you're doing, if you have a mind to, you might want to give your old musical comrade Jon Anderson a call, and he'll set his Moorglade on a course your way...
And he'll just keep on pouring out the lovely vibrational beacon he's been sending out to people all these years, with or without the other Yes-dudes.
Because Jon is his own man...he plots his own course, Goddess bless him.
And therefore, whether or not he is with Yes, he is *my* captain as well, even though I'm not with the band.
Because he inspires me to own my own power, my own energy, and not let anyone else try to dictate my course of life. Of course, you might say, "Well, isn't allowing yourself to be inspired by others giving them your energy?"
Not necessarily, my friends. One can be inspired by someone one admires and still own one's own power. For instance, I never would have picked up the guitar again if I had allowed other people's ideas about my desire to purchase one of my own dictate whether or not I saved back the money for the instrument.
But I remembered how much I enjoyed learning the guitar back in college, despite the fact that the guitar I had was my dad's and it was too big for me. I was already feeling my oats about wanting to learn songwriting on the guitar just because it's far more portable than a baby grand piano.
On top of that, Jon's music just kept on feeding the fire inside my heart to get back to my own musical talents, and the more I heard his considerable skill on the guitar, I thought, "To heck with whatever anyone else says, even my own dad, because damn it, I can't not write music and sing."
Next thing I knew I was in a pawn shop, plucking the downtuned strings of a used Ibanez, and the sound-energy just snaked through me, causing me to vibrate and I said, "Guitar, you are SO mine!"
And now that lovely piece of carved, hollowed (hallowed?) wood is sitting in its beautiful burgundy-red-lined case (how appropriate a color for plumbing the cthonic depths of the soul!) against my east-facing wall.
"...my sun shall rise in the east...so shall my heart be at peace..."
With Jon as my Muse, keeping that peace in my heart is not very difficult...;-)
Here's to discovering your own source of inspiration, your own Muse, whoever that may be and may you drink long and heartily from it all the rest of your days.
BB and Namaste,
Rev. Kat ^.^
Friday, June 12, 2009
Fear...
Okay, so I didn't wait THAT long to post about fear.
And it's a loaded topic, with so many twists and turns that it would take weeks and weeks of blogging to unravel it.
Science has its explanations of the physical changes that accompany the emotion of fear. But do the chemicals make the fear? Or does the emotion of fear spark the chemical response?
Fear, as it is understood in both psychology and anthropology, is survival-based. It has its roots in our hunter-gatherer origins. I know this statement is oversimplified, but I'm blogging before work and I need to make this brief.
Natural fear reactions, just as they are, are natural. We are here on this planet. We live, we breathe, we grow. We're animals, and we want to stay alive, perhaps for no other purpose than to experience being human and to pass on our human genetic code to future generations.
But if there is one thing I have noticed about humanity, is that along with our larger skulls, larger brains (and in the view of natural selection, the idea that larger genitalia make for better survival of the species), we seem to have also developed notions of:
Rank or class
Superiority/Privileges (or lack thereof) based on rank or class
Inferiority/Privilges (or lack thereof) based on rank or class
Granted, other species also have something of a hierarchy, but their associations seem to be based more on physical size rather than finances or expertise in one field or another.
We humans, however, seem to attach much emotion and meaning to the above notions of rank, class, privilege, inferiority/superiority. We manipulate and shove people around emotionally and mentally because of these attachments, creating fear in people where there was none, originally.
Why? What's the purpose? Is it ancient, primal survival tactics that are merely blended in with modern times and the development of currency?
If that's all it is, the notions of financial and educational equality have been achieved to great success in many parts of the world.
But what of religious fear and the use of power and cruel manipulation to make the "common people" do what the people in power want done, supposedly in the Divine Name?
That, my friends, I have never understood, and I am still trying to wrap my head round it.
I am on a high right now, listening to Jon Anderson's "Toltec" album, so I am not necessarily in a very "academic" mood. ;-)
BB and Namaste,
Rev. Kat ^.^
And it's a loaded topic, with so many twists and turns that it would take weeks and weeks of blogging to unravel it.
Science has its explanations of the physical changes that accompany the emotion of fear. But do the chemicals make the fear? Or does the emotion of fear spark the chemical response?
Fear, as it is understood in both psychology and anthropology, is survival-based. It has its roots in our hunter-gatherer origins. I know this statement is oversimplified, but I'm blogging before work and I need to make this brief.
Natural fear reactions, just as they are, are natural. We are here on this planet. We live, we breathe, we grow. We're animals, and we want to stay alive, perhaps for no other purpose than to experience being human and to pass on our human genetic code to future generations.
But if there is one thing I have noticed about humanity, is that along with our larger skulls, larger brains (and in the view of natural selection, the idea that larger genitalia make for better survival of the species), we seem to have also developed notions of:
Rank or class
Superiority/Privileges (or lack thereof) based on rank or class
Inferiority/Privilges (or lack thereof) based on rank or class
Granted, other species also have something of a hierarchy, but their associations seem to be based more on physical size rather than finances or expertise in one field or another.
We humans, however, seem to attach much emotion and meaning to the above notions of rank, class, privilege, inferiority/superiority. We manipulate and shove people around emotionally and mentally because of these attachments, creating fear in people where there was none, originally.
Why? What's the purpose? Is it ancient, primal survival tactics that are merely blended in with modern times and the development of currency?
If that's all it is, the notions of financial and educational equality have been achieved to great success in many parts of the world.
But what of religious fear and the use of power and cruel manipulation to make the "common people" do what the people in power want done, supposedly in the Divine Name?
That, my friends, I have never understood, and I am still trying to wrap my head round it.
I am on a high right now, listening to Jon Anderson's "Toltec" album, so I am not necessarily in a very "academic" mood. ;-)
BB and Namaste,
Rev. Kat ^.^
The Mystical and Concrete
I've come to a rather disturbing understanding of an aspect of myself.
For all my mysticism, I can be very concrete in my thinking at times.
And I wonder why. Where do I get these hardcore ideas and why do I attach so much meaning to them?
And do these ideas become hardcore BECAUSE I'm so attached to them?
Is it that part of me that is so zealot-like? I know I can be that way...having very limited ideas about the world, even if they are high-flight mystical notions that I tend to treasure like Gollum treasures the One Ring.
And then I turn around and gripe about the zealots whose ideas are opposite my own, that I feel are harmful to human freedom and free will on many levels.
To which do I object more: their harmful ideas, or their stubborn, childish hardheadedness that makes it impossible for other ideas to come into their minds and soften their position and thoughts?
I've a gut feeling that it's the stubbornness, the hardheaded attitude that causes the problems. Fear, I am sure, is the root. But there's part of me that says "Surely it is not as simple as that."
But what if it IS as simple as that? And why DO we fear in the first place?
That's another ponderance for another time.
For all my mysticism, I can be very concrete in my thinking at times.
And I wonder why. Where do I get these hardcore ideas and why do I attach so much meaning to them?
And do these ideas become hardcore BECAUSE I'm so attached to them?
Is it that part of me that is so zealot-like? I know I can be that way...having very limited ideas about the world, even if they are high-flight mystical notions that I tend to treasure like Gollum treasures the One Ring.
And then I turn around and gripe about the zealots whose ideas are opposite my own, that I feel are harmful to human freedom and free will on many levels.
To which do I object more: their harmful ideas, or their stubborn, childish hardheadedness that makes it impossible for other ideas to come into their minds and soften their position and thoughts?
I've a gut feeling that it's the stubbornness, the hardheaded attitude that causes the problems. Fear, I am sure, is the root. But there's part of me that says "Surely it is not as simple as that."
But what if it IS as simple as that? And why DO we fear in the first place?
That's another ponderance for another time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
