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

most forms of paganism involve some aspect of circlecraft, whether it be for personal spellwork or for ritual use.   one of the most common elements of circlecraft is acknowledging and working with cartesian compass directions that usually have elemental correspondences.  we divide our circle into quarters, corners, and quadrangles and associate qualities and energies with them.  but how does each ‘quarter’ relate to its supposed element?  and why do we place spiritual entities (that may or may not have anything to do with elemental qualities) within these quarters?   superficially, this doesn’t make much sense… these divisions seem to have little relation to the geometry of a physical circle and would be relative to (not to mention subject to change by) the position of the practitioner. but spiritually, there is a deeper purpose to such an organizational schema – and its origins lie in the ceremonial western mystery tradition.

in the physical realm, we can generally figure out which direction is which by knowing our position relative to the earth, but we can’t really pinpoint the boundaries of the three dimensional space that make up ‘east’, for example.   euclidean geometry is incapable of taking the third dimension into account which is problematic since we all live on a giant, fully 3D oblate spheroid known as the earth.  and even though our ‘circles’ tend to be visualized as 2D geometric shapes, we’re still using language and terminology that applies to rectangles and squares, rather then the somewhat more mathematically complex terminology that would apply to curving bodies.

if we look at it more from a spiritual perspective, however,  it begins to make a little more sense.  the nature of reality of the spiritual realm is much different then that of the physical realm – on the field of potential phenomena (the ‘emptiness’ that embodies all reality – physical, mental, spiritual, transcendent, and beyond) the causes and conditions that give rise to the very rigid and deterministic natural laws that govern the physical realm are  different then those that give rise to spiritual realm.  consequently, different ‘models’ of reality can arise and dissolve simultaneously within the spiritual realm, where only one object can reside in a particular point in spacetime within the physical realm.  this allows for our mental consciousness to conceptualize spiritual reality in multiple ways at the same time.  our ‘circles’ can can also be ‘spheres’, and yet can also have points, and corners, and quarters as if they were rectangles all at the same time.  the effect of this seemingly spiritual chaos is that back on the physical plane, even though we don’t know where exactly ‘east’ ends and ‘south’ begins, we will have general regions whose energetic effects match our intentions and can produce real work within the circle.

but before we figure out what element goes where and why, i think its important to look at why we call elemental energy into our circle to begin with.  what is the point of having earth, air, fire, and water energy within our circle?  we’ve already got our physical reminders of the elements, so isn’t that enough?  short answer is no.  there are actually two reasons why we call in elemental energy into our circle.  the first reason is practical – all things have a mixture of spiritual energies, physical manifestations, mental consciousness, and divine qualities that make up their inherent natures in differing proportions.  the more ‘physical’ a thing is, the lower its vibratory rate.  vibratory rate increases as it becomes more mental – then spiritual – and finally, divine.  with a higher vibratory rate, things become progressively more pure until, ultimately, at the apex of creation, a thing is completely divine, and therefore completely pure.  defilement, on the other hand, tends to spread from the more impure to the less impure, but something remarkable happens between the divide of ‘mental’ and ‘spiritual’ vibratory rates.  the nature of defilement is lower-order energy; it comes in the physical and mental varieties.  but when defilement encounters spiritual energy, the higher-order nature (more specifically, the higher-order methods) of that spiritual energy acts to transform the defilement into a higher-order manifestation of its natural self – thereby purifying the defilement into an undefiled state.  this purifying and transformative effect is a natural quality of spiritual energy.

so how does this relate to the circle?  when we call in elemental energy, we are really calling in the essence of each element.  that essence is the spiritual expression of the element, anchored to the circle by the physical manifestation of the element within (for example, we ‘call in’ the spiritual essence of fire which can manifest in the physical realm because we have actual, physical fire somewhere within the circle).  that spiritual essence of fire embodies all of the purifying qualities of physical fire, but in more concentrated, higher-order form.  because it is spiritual energy, when it encounters defilement (that would be us…) it acts to purify what is defiled into its non-defiled state.  so each of the ‘spiritual’ elements purifies the circle and its inhabitants by raising the vibratory rates of everything within the circle.

the second purpose of quarter calling is devotional in nature.  usually, calling in elemental energy is a prelude to calling in divine energy.  when we work with the gods in circle, we are inviting them into a temple outside of spacetime.  just as with guests in our home, we want to make the temple as inviting, pure, clean, and filled with the things they like as we possibly can.  it is an act of worship to strive to emulate the creative works of the gods – and by presenting the gods with the spiritual ‘building blocks’ from which they themselves created the universe, we are emulating the desire to create in their image; we are presenting the gods the ‘work of their hand’ as it were.  ultimately, quarter calling is an offering to god.

next part is going to look at where we put each element within the circle, and why we do it that way.  any questions or thoughts, leave a comment.

-justin

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

so i’ve been thinking about oathbound traditions and the nature of secrecy in craft knowledge.

for those who have taken oaths, what are the boundaries of your tradition’s particular oaths? what is acceptable to speak about and what constitutes ‘oathbound’ material? when dialoguing about your practice, how closely do you find yourself coming to that dividing line, and do you find that level of secrecy to unduly limit your communication? also, how do you react to or handle conversations that begin to wander into oathbound territory?

for the non-oathbound (disclaimer: i fit into this category), what are your thoughts when someone brings up ‘sorry, oathbound’ as part of a conversation? in your practice, do you commonly encounter situations where you are limited by others secrecy? and is your status as non-oathbound ethical in nature (ie, do you object to the whole idea of ‘oathbound’ craft itself) or due to circumstances (ie, you simply have not had the opportunity to be a part of an oathbound sect)?

and finally, for both oathbound and non, what value do you place on craft secrecy in general? do you find it to be useful and appropriate, or do you think it to be an outdated model?

if you answer as an oathbound, please mention what trad you belong to as i’m interested in seeing the differences between traditions as to what constitutes secret knowledge.

as someone who is, for all intents and purposes, completely open about my spirituality and my practice, i think the etiquette of interacting with other pagans concerning oathbound material is not something that is usually brought up or thought about. for example, if someone were to ask me what my specific quarter call for north is, i would tell them… it would never occur to me that someone else might be offended that they were asked to discuss what, to them, is obviously something that should not be talked about.

i would hope that someone who is oathbound would realize that i, as a nontrad, am not being pushy or ‘begging for secrets’ when i bring that sort of stuff up for discussion, but…  people are funny that way – and tend to take offense when none is offered.

for me personally, the matter of oathbound material and craft secrecy is an issue of trust.  depending upon how much trust i have with the group in question, i would be hesitant to start along the path as an initiate without knowing what the basic expectations are for later levels. in the back of my mind i would be wondering ‘well… if you’re unwilling to discuss what you actually do at third degree; who you call upon, what your ritual actions are, what the expected behavior is… could it be that i might find those things inappropriate or have some moral conflict with them?’ there’s a whole aspect of trickery that comes with secrecy. examples would include the use of sex magic in ritual, drug use, and calling upon external forces and god-forms.

in terms of secrecy of practice, i think its important to infuse your words and actions with your own meaning – so i can understand why some would be loathe to share that process, however, i would be the first to admit that i am very much influenced by the practices of others. everything from why i perform ritual in the first place, to the exact placement of objects to specific hand gestures and chants is directly influenced by the words, deeds, and thoughts of others who have taught me directly, or even indirectly through their own example or through books. i don’t think our practices spring forth from a vacuum (if they did, in my case, there would be a lot less emphasis on reverence of nature, and a lot more on killing my boss…)

another consideration is the perceived ‘value’ of teachings and practices that are widely shared, versus those that are closely guarded and kept hidden.  can spiritual truth lose its truthfulness just because its well known? do the properties of energy change or diminish when they become more fully understood? at what point does general awareness begin to decrease the inherent value of the information or validity of the practice? and if there is a decrease in ‘value’, wouldn’t that counteract the augmenting effects of egregore (see my post concerning egregore here)?  for example, ceremonialists try to tap into the communal ambient energy associated with the constant repetition of certain rituals (i’m thinking lbrp and star ruby), so wouldn’t a more widely spread understanding of these specific practices benefit all practitioners by strengthening the communal energy of these rites?

when all is said and done, though, my ire at spiritual secrecy isn’t so much directed at things such as protecting participants’ identities or keeping private journals, rather at those who use secrecy for image enhancement or those who feel that they are the protectors of knowledge that they have deemed others just can’t handle.  i don’t feel that such ego-work is beneficial to the craft as a whole, or to the individual who uses it as a crutch.

-justin

i’ve been thinking lately about  expectations of spiritual protection from physical hardship in ritual and meditation.  specifically how people, in essence, turn their practice into a spiritual exchange – where prayer and worship are bartered for tangible benefit.

i can think of a parallel in my own practice.  i carry a lucky charm of chenrezig bodhisattva with me at all times.  its mostly for devotion and serves as a reminder that i can always get in a few rounds of mani mantra every time i put my hand in my pocket.

but, it has another purpose as well, and that is protection from eight different physical afflictions as well as eight corresponding spiritual afflictions, and i would be lying if i said that that side perk isn’t one of the reasons i keep it with me.  on the one hand i think to myself, ‘oh that’s terrible.  you should be motivated purely by devotion.’ but on the other hand, that is how such charms are ‘marketed’ by the spiritual communities within buddhist cultures.

so in a larger perspective, should people have a right to expect certain real world benefits in exchange for belief, or does that cheapen the spiritual experience?  and what if religious leaders themselves condone such practices?  and what happens when one side doesn’t uphold their end of the bargain and calamity strikes?  do people then have reasonable cause to feel disenchanted or betrayed?

i think most of us would agree that the outmoded catholic practice of selling indulgences was a negative abuse of spiritual authority, but aren’t things like lucky charms, or even prayer wheels, along a similar line?  or is there some threshold where utility and practicality outweigh spiritual purity?

-justin