a few weeks back, i wrote about the elusive balance and how it relates to the lightness/darkness polarity within pagan practice.  the problem with using light and dark as a metaphor for moral behavior is that it doesn’t quite give any concrete guideposts or criteria for what we aught to do vs. what we aught not to do.  there really is no way to determine, based on this polarity alone, what constitutes action that is ‘too lights’ or ‘too dark’.  the whole notion of lightness and darkness of action is too nebulous to be useful.  i have yet to find a terminology that i feel does any justice to the subject of ethical analysis (especially when it comes to magick). white/black is no good. good/evil is also out. dark/light is only marginally better. currently, i’m thinking in somewhat more mathematical terms with additive/subtractive, but i dislike the ‘clinical-ness’ of those words.

many pagan practices, while still employing lightness and darkness as descriptive terminology, have moved past this polarity and seek to base their moral outlook on something more unambiguous and quantifiable.  since it is difficult for typical human beings to measure and observe karmic interaction (none of us are buddhas…)  we need to look at the directly observable effects of our actions – the most visible being the ‘harm’ that results from them.

on the additive side, how far is person x willing to go to achieve their own goals, and how willing / to what degree will person x sacrifice person y’s goals in order to achieve their own. but on the subtractive side, to what degree will person x sacrifice their own goals in order to achieve person y’s. and when conflict occurs, at what point does the balance between sacrifice and achievement tip the moral scale, so to speak.

for now, all that is still a jumble of words floating around my head at the moment. but going back to the dark/light model, the important question is ‘uninfluenced by any other factors, how much potential harm are you willing to do to others in order to get what you want?’ – regardless of whether you actually act on that potential or not. the risk-tolerance toward others is what delineates dark from light in my mind.   and perhaps to a lesser degree, the willingness to either observe or abandon the norms of social etiquette.  within any magickal practice, you’re going to have both light and dark elements, so it is more useful to look for overlapping trends, as opposed to mutually exclusive dualistic extremes.  going back to the dark/light model, the farther from observing social etiquette your practice takes you the ‘darker’ your practice will be perceived by those observing it. go into a public park and ritually sacrifice a cat… vs. go into a public park and pray. its totally subjective based upon the beliefs of the observer, hence its of lesser importance – yet part of being ‘light’ or ‘dark’ is how one’s actions measure up to the standards of those who are judging them; so there must be some correlation between the action and how the action is perceived.

so how does all of this factor into paganism and what we ‘do’ as pagans?  well, on the wiccan side of things there’s that pesky little thing known as the rede that seems to cause quite a bit of controversy… often maligned, misunderstood, and usually taken completely out of context (by wiccans and non-wiccans alike…)  i’ll be taking a closer look at it in an upcoming post.

as always, comments and scathing criticism welcome.
-justin

one of the biggest concerns within the eclectic community is the idea that when it comes to our expressions of god, we’re just ‘making it all up’, or even worse, ‘stealing it’ from some other culture without any regard or sensitivity to the context from which those expressions come. the subtext to this argument is that our visions of god and our practices are somehow invalid or wrong because of their newness or their alleged ‘theft’. the question becomes, can any one individual or culture or nation or religion claim a sort of copyright on religious beliefs about god? can rituals and practices and prayers be trademarked?

i believe that the one quality which members of all religions and cultures share is our humanness; and that humanness secures us the right to experience and express our relationship with god in whatever way we determine is best for ourselves – even if the experience is similar to the experience from another culture or religious framework. i believe we have the right to adopt practices and beliefs that work for us, and to reject those that do not, regardless of the time period or tradition from which they originate. i believe we have the right to wear or discard the labels of our choosing, or to refuse to label ourselves or accept the labels imposed by others if that is our choice. ultimately, i believe in religious self-determinism… that we are beholden to no one but ourselves and our gods in developing our spiritual relationships.

but with this level of freedom comes a measure of responsibility. we must work very hard to maintain honesty and integrity within our practice. when we lay claim to a heritage that is not ours, or change elements of established traditions, we must have the fortitude to acknowledge that fact – even if it means that we will be criticized for those choices. just as we have the right to judge the practices and beliefs of others for possible inclusion in our own world-views, other people have the right to judge our actions and words in light of their world-views… and we must accept the fact that those judgments will not always be positive.

and we must be very careful not to misrepresent what we do in our practice as one and the same with the legitimate practices of another group, unless they actually are one and the same.  for example, there is nothing wrong with our practices being ‘inspired by native american shamanistic techniques’ but there is something very wrong with laying claim to practicing authentic native american shamanism if we are not native american (either by birth or by adoption).  there is nothing wrong with our version of eclectic wicca being ‘based on the published material of alexandrian wicca’, but there is something very wrong with claiming that our eclectic wicca is alexandrian wicca if we ourselves are not  alexandrian initiates.  with the freedom of religious self-determination comes the obligation to be scrupulously honest in regards to where our practices and beliefs come from.

but adapting beliefs and practices of others is only one way in which we flesh out our spiritual experience.  we also have the right to create our own expressions of god, and this process is one of direct divine inspiration into our personal lives.

we co-create because that is how godhead expresses itself through us – we create our gods the way our gods wish us to create them. painters paint. sculptors sculpt. desire and talent are gifts. our nature is to use them. reality is shaped by natural law, of which rules and limitations are a part – and we are all bound by such law, whether we acknowledge it or not. faith matters, but trappings are just that… traps. god comes to us, because god is us. but we aren’t the entirety of god, and we are subject to maya and limitations – so there is confusion, and ambiguity, and doubt. this results in searching which leads us back to creation.

i created god once. he is all the potential of mankind that hasn’t been tapped into yet. i named him Orion, after the constellation – because i like to stand under the stars and reach up to heaven while thinking of all the things i aspire to be. right here and now, he matters because *i* matter. but people have been standing under the stars reaching up for as long as there have been people and stars. if it wasn’t me then it would be somebody else; maybe someone a thousand years ago. so everything ‘new’ is ‘old’ again.

-justin

generally, i think that the ultimate end-game is the same for everyone. you know (cue scary music)… the ‘END GAME’… but neither death, nor the post-death experience, is that end-game. can people go to heaven? sure, if the factors and conditions for going to heaven are all present and accounted for. can people be reborn in the human realm for another shot at it? of course – if they desire. is going to hell (fiery or otherwise) an option? you bet. suffering builds character, as the saying goes. or rather, suffering gives the opportunity to accumulate merit.

in terms of suffering, though, i do not believe that there is a physical place of fire and brimstone presided over by the very worst that creation has to offer. but, i do believe that because of circumstance and personal choices, many spirits find their way to that experience.

is it all in the mind? yes. but only insofar as everything is all in the mind. and is suffering limited to the stereotypical ‘hell’ that our culture seems so hung up on? i’d have to say no. my fear of hell is boredom… i’ll cut-n-paste my own dante moment below.

but the thing is, hell is impermanent. the conditions that cause the experience burn off eventually (karma is fire) and new conditions flow in (karma is water). and the only constant between hells (whatever flavor one is ‘enjoying’ at the moment) is the illusion that we don’t have the ability to say ‘i’ve had enough. this ends now.’

its funny, though… the same could be said of heaven. a rest in the summerland, or a romp with the angels, or sitting at the feet of an enlightened being; it pauses your spiritual growth (albeit pleasantly), so it too can only be temporary. eventually you have to ‘get back to work’.

so neither heaven, nor hell, nor rebirth is eternal because even the longest lasting cycles have to ‘cycle round’ eventually. and when, finally, at long last we come to the collective decision to stop playing, then the cycle of cycles ends. and presumably a new game begins.

shades of boredom

the shades of boredom (of which there are five) are monochromatically grey. if you were to line them up, one next to another, you would just barely be able to make out a subtle difference in gradation between the first and the last. the leftmost tastes of ash, when you stand too close to a fire and the wind blows in your face. next is the fleeting memory that your conciousness just can’t quite hold onto; it is the malevolent rebellion of the part of your mind that wishes you harm. in the center are three voices, so achingly close to harmony that to listen would bring madness. rightward is the dream of a path, where the scenery never changes and the destination is never reached. and the farthest shade is overwhelming disappointment; knowing that same action brings same result, but being unwilling to break the cycle.

and then you move on. or you don’t. – world keeps spinning either way

-justin

in terms of being ‘taken seriously’, i think its more an internal affair then an external affair. within the pagan community there are a few things i would like to see happen as being representative of moving toward spiritual maturity:

1. education standardization and training opportunities for pagan clergy
2. establishment of higher education facilities and the means of financially supporting them focusing on pagan courses of study
3. emphasis on charitable works and creating real infrastructure that would allow for pagan based organizations that conduct direct-charity activities (not just fundraising).
4. common media presence and informational outlets
5. expansion of pagan culture in the form of art, literature, music, and performance that specializes in pagan interests and pagan values – in essence, moving pagan culture toward being able to stand independently with its own cultural identity.

i’m less concerned with how other people see us (provided our basic human rights and social privileges are being honored as with any other group) and more concerned with how we conduct ourselves, and what impact we, as a group, have upon our environment and communities.

The Heart Sutra

Avalokitesvara Bodhisattva, when deeply practicing prajna-paramita, clearly saw that the five skandas are all empty, and was saved from all suffering and distress.

Sariputra, form is no different to emptiness, emptiness no different to form. That which is form is emptiness, that which is emptiness, form.  Sensations, perceptions, impressions, and consciousness are also like this.

Sariputra, all things and phenomena are marked by emptiness; they are neither appearing nor disappearing, neither impure nor pure, neither increasing nor decreasing.  Therefore, in emptiness, no forms, no sensations, perceptions, impressions, or consciousness; no eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, mind; no sights, sounds, odors, tastes, objects of touch, objects of mind; no realm of sight and so on up to no realm of consciousness; no ignorance and no end of ignorance, and so on up to no aging and death, and no end of aging and death; no suffering, accumulation, cessation, or path; no wisdom and no attainment.

With nothing to attain, bodhisattvas rely on prajna-paramita, and their minds are without hindrance.  They are without hindrance, and therefore without fear.  Far apart from all confused dreams, they dwell in nirvana.  All buddhas of the past, present and future rely on prajna-paramita, and attain full, complete realization.  Therefore, know that prajna-paramita is the great transcendent mantra, the great bright mantra, the supreme mantra, the unequalled balanced mantra, that can eliminate all suffering, and is real, not false.

So proclaim the prajna-paramita mantra, proclaim the mantra that says:  ‘gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate, bodhi, svaha!’

just a few notes about heart sutra. the idea of emptiness isn’t exactly what we would consider ‘non-existence’ in the conventional sense. after all, its hard to argue that an object has no conventional existence when one can see, hear, smell, taste, touch, and conceptualize the object in question. however, the buddhist doctrine of conditionality, or dependent arising, shows that all phenomena exist as a direct result of certain causes and conditions – absent which, the phenomena cannot exist. because of this, no phenomena has inherent, independent existence… thus, all are inherently empty. the object that can be seen, heard, smelled, tasted, touched, or conceptualized (form) is dependent upon the causes and conditions necessary for that object to arise. since it has no inherent, independent existence, it is empty. yet, clearly something empty must have some sort of existence on some level lest we couldn’t interact or describe it – so when we can ‘go beyond’ this practical contradiction it becomes apparent that that which is empty and that which is formed are one and the same.

sariputra is a person. he is the one receiving the teaching (sutra). avalokiteshvara bodhisattva (pictured to the right) is the ‘hero’ of the story who, through the practice of prajnaparamita meditation, realizes that the five skandas (form, sensation, perception, impulse, and consciousness) are inherently empty.

prajnaparamita is roughly ‘the perfection of wisdom’ – the class of mahayana sutras to which the heart sutra and diamond sutra belong. prajnaparamita is also personified as a goddess in her own right. known as ‘the book who became a goddess’, she is the buddha of transcendental wisdom.

the mantra of prajnaparamita – gate, gate, paragate, parasamgate, bodhi svaha! – is commonly translated as ‘gone, gone, gone beyond, gone altogether beyond, o awakening svaha!. svaha is a ritual phrase used when making offerings into a fire. it has a similar connotation to ‘blessed be’ or ‘it is done’. like all mantra, the gate mantra is a ‘power-phrase’ that helps one connect to universal truth – in this case the perfection of wisdom. the sutra expounds upon what the essence of wisdom is (form [sensation, perception, impulse, and consciousness] is emptiness, emptiness form) and shows its relevance to the human condition (all buddhas attain complete realization through the perfection of wisdom). hence the sutra and the mantra are connected to awakening the buddhanature within.

-justin