![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lwoodRecent Musings on and Explorations into Buddhism (say WHAT?):
Isn't my life complicated enough?
Well, this was in response to both my ongoing question, "Why do I see several deep-minded heathens turn Buddhist?" and the fact that Kuan Yin has been popping up in a ridiculous number of places around my local community--including in my head. In response to one of my standing rules on such--that is, it's right poor hospitality to kick a person (or Person) out on his or her ear for Failing at Heathenry--I've made an admittedly cursory study into Buddhism.
Thus far, I've nosed through some online stuff and purchased a couple books--The Complete Idiot's Guide to Buddhism and Why You're NOT a Buddhist. They play off on each other well: the Idiot's Guide (normally I avoid these, but how better to approach in an open-minded way?) preaches inclusivity:
Contrariwise, we have Why You're NOT a Buddhist, written by a self-admitted "fanatical Tibetan Buddhist". He would like to congenially agree and disagree with the foregoing, and in rather fewer pages too:
Well, okay, that last, especially if I look at it in the delicate spot between the two books, appears as yet another instance of Waggoner's Theorem--to wit:
And there, I feel right at home, only heathens are more likely to be thin-skinned asshats when you disagree with them, whereas in Buddhism that would be unequivocally Doing It Wrong--not off to the side, not "let's maintain the frith", but actively agin' the things that you're supposed to have bought into at the start.
I've chewed on illusion and not-illusion for awhile, really--between all my sundry doings, "Is This Real?" is a regular guest at my table. Having several strong recent interactions with perhaps the loudest/most active bodhisattva of the bunch has inclined me to look deeper.
To be clear, she doesn't seem to particularly care what I call whatever-I'm-doing, as long as it's coming from a compassionate place and cultivating that same awareness in others.
Similarly, Odin doesn't seem to care what I call whatever-I'm-doing as long as I'm learning, thinking, and experiencing as fully as I might--and cultivating this same mindfulness in others.
This--as long as I'm chewing on things apt to cause Greater Heathenry (whoever that is) to want to exile me to a plot just up the road from Cauldron Farm--smacks of Lewis in The Last Battle. Here, I mean the bit where Aslan points out to the Calormene that good things done in the name of an evil god were still good things. They still counted, if you will, on the Big Scoreboard.
Chewing on Lewis's actual Christian writings is something I've been considering for awhile--one of my reasons not to is that I'm afraid it'll tease me back into Christianity.
But it is also poor hospitality to, when someone has come to your house and given you a gift, not to attempt one in return--so I have been poking at Buddhism.
The real rub, though: heathenry as such doesn't seem to have much place for compassion. If my approach to Buddhism is grounded in "oooh, Kuan Yin is shiny", then this is the logical place to look for connection--or lack thereof. Heathenry definitely has a nuanced understanding of reciprocity and consequences...but compassion as an enshrined linchpin of a religion (or similar) seems to arise in reaction to cultures with the economic infrastructure to support kinship that goes further than self, family, clan, and tribe. Hospitality comes perhaps nearest of that arbitrary list of nine things a biker gang once thought were cool (it's good to remember your roots). Indeed, complete compassion would seem to run right against heathenry, starting with Havamál: the High One counsels us to repay lies with lies and treat not with enemies, but a sufficiently enlightened compassion gently suggests that no, even these are worthy of loving kindness, and moreover, not doing so is to wound yourself.
It encourages this, in the way that a seedling will encourage a cleft in grim stone.
I don't have a good--or any--answer for this.
Heathenry suggests that there will always be enemies.
Buddhism suggests that this need not be so.
Heathenry remains dubious--and Buddhism remains gently, persistently optimistic, grounded in a reality you can't--quite--glimpse but in can apprehend for shining, timeless moments.
Still, Odin and Buddha alike had some pretty deep truths to learn from a Tree, and I would do well to remember that.
Dear Kuan Yin: I'm Not Buddhist, but We Can Still Be Friends
This last is in response to someone coming through the latest round of Quest for Identity. She's tried on several, rejected each (well, she's still fond of Julian of Norwich), and is, once more, returning to a center that involves cultivation of art. My reply to her latest was thus--written before I wrote the long musing above:
So far, in my explorations, I've found places where my self exist, doesn't exist, will cease to be when they plant me, will go on radiantly afterward, where I am a god in potential, an enlightened being who has forgotten his/her enlightenment, a vessel for light, a horse for riding, a hand for s/he who hears the cries of the world. I am food for ravens, I am a raven, I am betimes a Lord of Ravens. I am listener to the silicon web, I am seer of fate's threads, strider of its weave--and none of these things, as I am a corner of All-That-Is that decided to amuse itself by thinking itself separate as a thought experiment. Or none of these, because really I'm a Roman Catholic who's wandered far from her confirmation vows.
I think the truth--whatever it is--is stranger than we can imagine. We're all groping the elephant.
If the illusion of a table holds up the illusion of a glass, which itself contains the illusion of water--to accept them as illusion and deny their reality, would that not itself be denying the middle way? More than one reality may be real: if one wishes to discard dualism, why should one stop at only once?
The illusion of self can only deny the illusion of the body, and the attachment/longing of its needs for so long.
Eventually, you really do have to take a leak. Even Siddartha had to pee.
Remembering the underlying reality that neither I, the table, the water, nor the glass have independent reality from each other is good--that the physical atoms of each were born in the heart of a thousand stars is an exhilarating thought and spiritually and physically true: no conflict there. There is some fragment of that original, undying, secret fire in each of these things, myself neither most nor least (for most, I might bet on the water, it loses its separate identity with the least effort of all these things save the dancing air)--this, too, I agree with.
But I respectfully disagree that physical reality isn't.
Really, I see no reason not to believe it all simultaneously real and not-real: real lets me experience, mindfully, a drink of cool, clear water. Not-real allows me to step back from water I perceive as foul--not-real also informs me that the sweet water is fleeting, and that the foul water, given time and application of some compassionate-to-me, suffering-to-microbes boiling and filtration, would be sweet.
I am, thou art, we is all spirit--okay, I actually do accept that.
But not that there are, in reality, no butterflies.
Also, all indications to date point to All-That-Is being an efficient, tidy, everything--it would tend to go against that for so much of itself to be invested in illusion.
So.
I am not a Buddhist--I would make a ridiculously poor Buddhist. I have also spent barely enough time to obtain a cursory understanding of everything I have, above, likely gleefully misapplied. It is no matter, I think, as long as I keep going.
I can see where the Noble Truths, the Wheel, and so on work amiably with what I'm working out for myself--and where I must genially part company with it.
In the meantime, I shall continue to accept the invitation of All-That-Is to continue pretending I'm apart from it that this portion may better understand the whole.
-- Lorrie
Isn't my life complicated enough?
Well, this was in response to both my ongoing question, "Why do I see several deep-minded heathens turn Buddhist?" and the fact that Kuan Yin has been popping up in a ridiculous number of places around my local community--including in my head. In response to one of my standing rules on such--that is, it's right poor hospitality to kick a person (or Person) out on his or her ear for Failing at Heathenry--I've made an admittedly cursory study into Buddhism.
Thus far, I've nosed through some online stuff and purchased a couple books--The Complete Idiot's Guide to Buddhism and Why You're NOT a Buddhist. They play off on each other well: the Idiot's Guide (normally I avoid these, but how better to approach in an open-minded way?) preaches inclusivity:
- Buddhism can be said to share a lot of features with these aspects of those other religions
- Buddha politely refused to answer any questions about gods, afterlives, or anything else that would keep Buddhism from cheerily interpenetrating just about every religion in Asia.
- Here is a flyover view of several schools of Buddhist thought, and some exercises applying to each. Aren't they shiny?
- Buddhism goes with everything. Animism, polytheism, atheism, monotheism--all of these can work, each of itself neither helps nor hinders. It's the Little Black Dress of religions and philosophies. Take refuge today!
Contrariwise, we have Why You're NOT a Buddhist, written by a self-admitted "fanatical Tibetan Buddhist". He would like to congenially agree and disagree with the foregoing, and in rather fewer pages too:
- Look. There are Four Noble Truths. We may hash out how they translate from the Sanskrit, but if you don't agree with all four of them, you're not a Buddhist.
- Contrariwise: you can eat meat, worship Paris Hilton, and shop at the mall as long as you're proceeding from the above. But are you?
- While some aspects of Buddhism may look like some points in other faiths, well, that's nice for them. It's the worldview that makes it Buddhism or not-so.
- The Buddhist metaculture enjoys a great deal of genial disagreement among its members. That's more than "just how we roll", it's a built-in feature. However, if you're not coming from the right worldview, you're not Buddhist.
Well, okay, that last, especially if I look at it in the delicate spot between the two books, appears as yet another instance of Waggoner's Theorem--to wit:
- You're Not the Boss of Me
- You're Doing It Wrong
And there, I feel right at home, only heathens are more likely to be thin-skinned asshats when you disagree with them, whereas in Buddhism that would be unequivocally Doing It Wrong--not off to the side, not "let's maintain the frith", but actively agin' the things that you're supposed to have bought into at the start.
I've chewed on illusion and not-illusion for awhile, really--between all my sundry doings, "Is This Real?" is a regular guest at my table. Having several strong recent interactions with perhaps the loudest/most active bodhisattva of the bunch has inclined me to look deeper.
To be clear, she doesn't seem to particularly care what I call whatever-I'm-doing, as long as it's coming from a compassionate place and cultivating that same awareness in others.
Similarly, Odin doesn't seem to care what I call whatever-I'm-doing as long as I'm learning, thinking, and experiencing as fully as I might--and cultivating this same mindfulness in others.
This--as long as I'm chewing on things apt to cause Greater Heathenry (whoever that is) to want to exile me to a plot just up the road from Cauldron Farm--smacks of Lewis in The Last Battle. Here, I mean the bit where Aslan points out to the Calormene that good things done in the name of an evil god were still good things. They still counted, if you will, on the Big Scoreboard.
Chewing on Lewis's actual Christian writings is something I've been considering for awhile--one of my reasons not to is that I'm afraid it'll tease me back into Christianity.
But it is also poor hospitality to, when someone has come to your house and given you a gift, not to attempt one in return--so I have been poking at Buddhism.
The real rub, though: heathenry as such doesn't seem to have much place for compassion. If my approach to Buddhism is grounded in "oooh, Kuan Yin is shiny", then this is the logical place to look for connection--or lack thereof. Heathenry definitely has a nuanced understanding of reciprocity and consequences...but compassion as an enshrined linchpin of a religion (or similar) seems to arise in reaction to cultures with the economic infrastructure to support kinship that goes further than self, family, clan, and tribe. Hospitality comes perhaps nearest of that arbitrary list of nine things a biker gang once thought were cool (it's good to remember your roots). Indeed, complete compassion would seem to run right against heathenry, starting with Havamál: the High One counsels us to repay lies with lies and treat not with enemies, but a sufficiently enlightened compassion gently suggests that no, even these are worthy of loving kindness, and moreover, not doing so is to wound yourself.
It encourages this, in the way that a seedling will encourage a cleft in grim stone.
I don't have a good--or any--answer for this.
Heathenry suggests that there will always be enemies.
Buddhism suggests that this need not be so.
Heathenry remains dubious--and Buddhism remains gently, persistently optimistic, grounded in a reality you can't--quite--glimpse but in can apprehend for shining, timeless moments.
Still, Odin and Buddha alike had some pretty deep truths to learn from a Tree, and I would do well to remember that.
Dear Kuan Yin: I'm Not Buddhist, but We Can Still Be Friends
This last is in response to someone coming through the latest round of Quest for Identity. She's tried on several, rejected each (well, she's still fond of Julian of Norwich), and is, once more, returning to a center that involves cultivation of art. My reply to her latest was thus--written before I wrote the long musing above:
So far, in my explorations, I've found places where my self exist, doesn't exist, will cease to be when they plant me, will go on radiantly afterward, where I am a god in potential, an enlightened being who has forgotten his/her enlightenment, a vessel for light, a horse for riding, a hand for s/he who hears the cries of the world. I am food for ravens, I am a raven, I am betimes a Lord of Ravens. I am listener to the silicon web, I am seer of fate's threads, strider of its weave--and none of these things, as I am a corner of All-That-Is that decided to amuse itself by thinking itself separate as a thought experiment. Or none of these, because really I'm a Roman Catholic who's wandered far from her confirmation vows.
I think the truth--whatever it is--is stranger than we can imagine. We're all groping the elephant.
If the illusion of a table holds up the illusion of a glass, which itself contains the illusion of water--to accept them as illusion and deny their reality, would that not itself be denying the middle way? More than one reality may be real: if one wishes to discard dualism, why should one stop at only once?
The illusion of self can only deny the illusion of the body, and the attachment/longing of its needs for so long.
Eventually, you really do have to take a leak. Even Siddartha had to pee.
Remembering the underlying reality that neither I, the table, the water, nor the glass have independent reality from each other is good--that the physical atoms of each were born in the heart of a thousand stars is an exhilarating thought and spiritually and physically true: no conflict there. There is some fragment of that original, undying, secret fire in each of these things, myself neither most nor least (for most, I might bet on the water, it loses its separate identity with the least effort of all these things save the dancing air)--this, too, I agree with.
But I respectfully disagree that physical reality isn't.
Really, I see no reason not to believe it all simultaneously real and not-real: real lets me experience, mindfully, a drink of cool, clear water. Not-real allows me to step back from water I perceive as foul--not-real also informs me that the sweet water is fleeting, and that the foul water, given time and application of some compassionate-to-me, suffering-to-microbes boiling and filtration, would be sweet.
I am, thou art, we is all spirit--okay, I actually do accept that.
But not that there are, in reality, no butterflies.
Also, all indications to date point to All-That-Is being an efficient, tidy, everything--it would tend to go against that for so much of itself to be invested in illusion.
So.
I am not a Buddhist--I would make a ridiculously poor Buddhist. I have also spent barely enough time to obtain a cursory understanding of everything I have, above, likely gleefully misapplied. It is no matter, I think, as long as I keep going.
I can see where the Noble Truths, the Wheel, and so on work amiably with what I'm working out for myself--and where I must genially part company with it.
In the meantime, I shall continue to accept the invitation of All-That-Is to continue pretending I'm apart from it that this portion may better understand the whole.
-- Lorrie
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-08-27 09:03 pm (UTC)The real rub, though: heathenry as such doesn't seem to have much place for compassion.
A sad, but pertinent, insight, alas.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-27 09:11 pm (UTC)One may even conceive that it's a good idea to be so toward neutral parties, because they might become allies--again, that's straightforward. It's tribal ethics + enlightened self-interest.
Compassion for one's enemies--whyever should one do that? That's what Christians do!
Well, okay, if one's actually been arsed to study anything more than what one grew up with, then "Christianity" expands to some list that still works out to "not MY tribe, bunky".
You can get there--sorta--by thinking that acting compassionately towards enemies might incline them towards you, but that's still "enlightened self-interest", whereas from the least-practical parts of the Buddhist worldview, any self-interest whatsoever is inherently Doing It Wrong.
-- Lorrie, Still Not Buddhist. 8-)
no subject
Date: 2008-08-27 09:14 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-27 09:20 pm (UTC)One is, of course, gently encouraged to consider that definition to be broad enough to include all beings...one has yet to succeed at this, of course.
Heathenry cares about the Fehu you get as the Return on your Ingwaz.
Buddhism asks wouldn't the world be nicer if we chose not to care about that?
Heathenry points out that that doesn't get the crops in, without which, you were planning to eat how, exactly?
Buddhism is, I think, still Working on That.
-- Lorrie
no subject
Date: 2008-08-27 09:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-27 09:36 pm (UTC)As you know, that trick never works, so Siddharta came to know suffering and started wandering around, trying to get his head around how to fix suffering.
Most notably, he tried hanging out with real ascetics, starved himself, then realized that that was acting in just as much denial as being in the palace had been, so chucked it, eventually working out that there really ought to be a Middle Way.
Where, apparently, you have to still live here while accepting that here isn't real.
Heathenry points out that if I can put the mead in a horn and the horn on a table, then bloody Hel pour me another horn, it's getting deep out here.
-- Lorrie
no subject
Date: 2008-08-27 09:39 pm (UTC)I think she might have problems with the nonattachment stuff, though. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-08-27 09:40 pm (UTC)Even a hay-flake has the Buddha nature.
-- L
no subject
Date: 2008-08-29 12:42 am (UTC)Heathenism accepts the world. Buddhism rejects it.
I'm going with a world-accepting faith, hands down. Sorry. Spent too long in the "world-rejecting" frame Catholicism raises a person with it, and I just can't see how rejecting the world around us for an amorphous, unattainable "heaven" (or "Nirvana," whichever) works. But then, that's me.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-29 05:10 am (UTC)Now--that said--*holds up a pair of raven hand puppets* Misters Hugin and Munin here would remind you that their names are "Thoughtful" and "Mindful", and mindfulness doesn't exactly go out of style when you cross a continent, and when we talk about "right relationship", and other right things--that's lovely and it alliterates and stuff, but it was a spoke on this Eight-Fold Wheel over here first, and I'm not paraphrasing the term used to translate this into English, either.
I don't know that, at its base, Buddhism (or Buddhists) reject the world. The ideal is to reject the attachments and cravings that cause suffering, and as one continues and elaborates, even things that appear pleasant on the surface have these roots.
This, I don't cotton to.
But I'm not a Buddhist, so nobody's expecting me to. ;)
As usual, I've stuck my nose into something I'm not familiar with, gave it a good sniff, and am reporting my findings. The personal spiritual angle was, I admit, an engraved invitation to do so, but here in California--this is not weirdo furrin stuff, that's the neighbors and it's been here since we brought in Chinese by the boatload in the Gold Rush.
-- Lorrie
no subject
Date: 2008-08-27 09:32 pm (UTC)Kuan Yin and I have been friends for some time now. I'm not Buddhist, but I give her respect and thanks, which is her just due.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 05:42 am (UTC)Fun!
-- Lorrie
no subject
Date: 2008-08-27 10:33 pm (UTC)Compassion for your enemies. Well, I read a thing written by an Odinsman one time about how even your enemies teach you something, make you stronger, challenge you, etc., so you should show some compassion to them since you owe them for that.
And then there's the whole everything's connected through Wyrd thing. Though I'm not sure if I am Doing It Wrong by using Wyrd to mean some kind of monistic ultimate reality.
The main problem I have with Buddhism is the existence = suffering bit. I like heathenry because it encourages you to grab life by the horns rather than trying to escape it into Nirvana/Heaven/Whatever. In that way I take something more akin to the Jewish model that humans were created to enjoy life and the afterlife isn't really that important.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 05:19 am (UTC)I don't know if I'd call that compassion in the same way as a proper Buddhist would mean lovingkindness, though. While respect for a worthy adversary and the lessons and betterment you may both bring each other is something a samurai might respect through bushido (she guessed wildly), selfless compassion comes from a different place: properly, it's done for its own sake, not for that you'll get. Indeed, it's best if nobody knows you did it and you never take credit (from my limited understanding).
This makes no bloody sense whatsoever in heathenry.
And then there's the whole everything's connected through Wyrd thing. Though I'm not sure if I am Doing It Wrong by using Wyrd to mean some kind of monistic ultimate reality.
I shy away from monistic ultimate realities as a rule. While we're all part of the same multiverse, it doesn't much do to think about it often from that angle. It is, in fact, detrimental to your understanding of it to attempt to understand it, 'cos it's Bigger Than That.
BUT, that said--well, I know a man who would charitably discuss your apparently-compatible-with-his view for quite awhile over good food and wine, and he's an excellently deep-minded fellow.
The main problem I have with Buddhism is the existence = suffering bit. I like heathenry because it encourages you to grab life by the horns rather than trying to escape it into Nirvana/Heaven/Whatever. In that way I take something more akin to the Jewish model that humans were created to enjoy life and the afterlife isn't really that important.
Yup. That's another problem. I like sucking the marrow out of the good bits (without clinging too much to that) and trying not to get too stuck on the bad parts.
This Is Not a Dress Rehearsal!
-- Lorrie
-- Lorrie
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 04:56 pm (UTC)True, but the problem with morality is that any time anyone asks why you're supposed to be nice, it seems to me that no matter what religious or philosophical tradition the person you're asking comes from, they always come up with some way it will benefit YOU, either through some sort of rule of reciprocity, or that it will make your God or gods happy (so They will reward you), or it will help you achieve enlightenment faster, or something like that.
It's like everyone knows being a Good Person is a Good Idea, but nobody is quite sure why, so everyone comes up with different reasons that sound good.
Now, in a book by the Dalai Lama I read, he says that being compassionate just plain makes your life happier (another benefit for YOU), even if you don't get direct benefit from those you're nice to, and he seems to put forth some good evidence for that without even going into the whys. He might be onto something there.
But there eventually comes a point in a discussion on morality where I throw up my hands and say I don't care, it's just the right thing to do, and I'll leave it at that.
BUT, that said--well, I know a man who would charitably discuss your apparently-compatible-with-his view for quite awhile over good food and wine, and he's an excellently deep-minded fellow.
That sounds nice, since I do enjoy good food and wine, especially mixed with good conversation, though I do get your point that it's best not to think of monism too much. It can get paralyzing if you do, so I just keep it tucked away at the back of my mind.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-29 05:13 am (UTC)Well, just so. One acts with honor and integrity even when no-one else is around because it's how you can look at yourself in the mirror in the morning. One can then go forth, not on the praise of the crowd (I mean, it's nice, but fleeting), but on the knowledge that you know you did the right thing, even if no-one else ever knows.
This is a hallmark of Good Character.
That sounds nice, since I do enjoy good food and wine, especially mixed with good conversation, though I do get your point that it's best not to think of monism too much. It can get paralyzing if you do, so I just keep it tucked away at the back of my mind.
He's off in Albuquerque and more likely to come my way than yours, alas. Fine man, though.
But yes--there's a Great Big Bigness, but in the meantime, there's laundry, and more practically, god-shaped gods are just more useful.
-- Lorrie
no subject
Date: 2008-08-27 11:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 05:25 am (UTC)It's not that I'm not all right with Jesus, and really, my memetic immune system is doing pretty well by now. It's just an old reflex. As you know, I've got Narnia on my shelf in a proud place, in hardcover, deliberately arranged in the Right Proper and Correct order (LWW first!)--no, silly publisher, we do not start with the creation of the world, we start with the discovery of the numinous, that the creation may be better understood.
-- Lorrie
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 04:57 pm (UTC)DAMN STRAIGHT!
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 05:59 pm (UTC)I don't find Lewis' books 'converting' at all. He had too many ideas which deviated from the traditional churches, and a lot of them don't agree with each other, so I just find them stimulating (OK, I argue with them sometimes but that is also stimulating).
no subject
Date: 2008-08-29 05:28 am (UTC)The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe
Prince Caspian
The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
The Silver Chair
The Horse and His Boy
The Magician's Nephew
The Last Battle
LWW introduces the reader, through the Pevensies, to the numinous and Narnia. Internal chronology bobbles along well enough to get you through to HaHB, but textual clues in that and MN tell you that these were written later--once you're enough invested in Narnia that trips to other places and times make sense. You see the wardrobe in LWW, and then have many adventures, but only in MN do you find out exactly how the wardrobe could have such a fascinating feature, and how Uncle Diggory happened to know a thing or two about a thing or two.
Then it passes, as all things must, in The Last Battle.
There are a lot of people who liked Narnia as a story on its own merits when they were young--then come back to it when their own spirituality has passed beyond Christianity and re-read it, thinking they're coming back to an old friend--but are instead very angry at what they view as "ham-handed allegory" and "syrupy treacle" and other words that are a lot less nice.
Then, hopefully, one comes back a bit later and realizes that well, okay, so Aslan is Jesus with a mane on, but as a product of his time, Lewis was doing well to put Bacchus in Prince Caspian, and while Aslan does rather a few Jesus-y things, there are also places where Lewis waves his arms and says, "the mystery is bigger than this; this is just all I can frame with words". The end of Voyage of the Dawn Treader springs to mind as an example of this.
It's overall quite a pity that the maintainer of A Window in the Garden Wall (http://yourdailycslewis.blogspot.com/) has largely retired: those were nice, chewable snippets.
-- Lorrie
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 12:30 am (UTC)I had a period in the mid-90s where I was fairly seriously practicing Zazen and striving toward a Buddhist path. It worked for a while but eventually People came a-calling. Your post and comments with
I'll leave it here for now and see what happens later.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 05:29 am (UTC)It seems--from my limited understanding--less a detachment from it than a recognition of profound interbeing with I, thee, and all other things, as fundamentally there is no difference between us (I was with me until that last clause, there).
-- Lorrie
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 04:58 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-08-29 05:29 am (UTC)-- Lorrie
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 04:42 am (UTC)Must be Wednesday. :>
***
I can consider myself a heterodox of catholic (def. 2) tastes, with taoist and Zen leanings, an appreciator of the teachings of the Buddha and the Christ and definitely journeying willingly on a vector toward which my best understanding states their teachings are pointing, but none of those terms accurately or completely defines my praxis nor can I embrace the full culture or dogma of any of the adjectives as Capitalized Labels, nor become a card-carrying member of the proper-nouns' official fanclubs.
And in and through and around it all, and as much as I feel kinship toward the Celts and South/Eastern Woodlands aboriginal people (quite literally, ancestorally, even), I still find, some days to my dismay, some to my great surprise, that I am heathen -- even if the fundamentalists don't like that very much. There are already so many reasons they'd quite likely not like me on principle *anyway* that a few more couldn't hurt ;>.
(I could and would be a card-carrying Unitarian Universalist... if my church gave out membership cards.)
And I know that given all that, my personal service is ultimately bounden [gack, what a pretentious word, but no other is a right-er one at the moment] to That-Which-Is, the big, overarching All of the Above (and Below, and Within, and Without, Suffusing and Surrounding) through the emulation of, devotion to and with the cooperation and (in the)support of the Powers that Be, especially that subset known affectionately as Team Norse (and especially specially certain ones of those). To Whom/What do the Gods make sacrifice? I can inkle. (Which, if I have my theology terms right, would make me a monist, as well as a pan[en]theist for all that I'm also a relatively firm polytheist.)
***
On compassion:
I have some completely unverified personal gnosis concerning compassion (that was led into via an ...attempted?... involvement with Kwan Yin, funnily enough), in which a certain Bright Bairn it's been respectfully requested folks Leave Alone, Plsthxbai, featured (as in, "You *do* have This One Guy." "Oh, blessed hi, it's You. *does what needs done* Thank you. *leaves Him in peace* Exeunt
**
A note I wrote myself after one particularly kerfuffley online heeeeethun kerfuffle [I'm amused to note that my spellchecker recognizes "kerfuffle"], I think, is relevant here:
"If our theology doesn't have the language to discuss $concept, it's time to develop a bigger theology."
***
This is surely quite enough for one comment, I'm sure. Lots more to ponder. Like "Why?" And "What now?" And "How?"
(edited to close tag and unbork formatting thereby. with apologies.)
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 05:36 am (UTC)I am deeply amused that not only does Tibetan Buddhism has (this word is a placeholder) gods in, but also that these gods ought to only be approached by an initiate in their mysteries teaching you the signs and transmitting the current to you, plugging you in--because should you happen to stumble on it yourself, why, it'll knock you on your ass if it's even possible.
(my paraphrase of the Idiot's Guide summary)
This has much light to reflect on what we've seen when people find devotional relationships with, e.g., Odin: it's better if you've got someone to learn on, and really good if someone can model that where it may be observed and emulated. Plugging in wholly solo can, in fact, have the ass-over-teakettle effect (so can otherwise, but at least it comes with help).
[Before/After enlightenment: Chop wood, carry water.]
Yes--which reminds me, it's likely time to re-read After the Ecstasy, the Laundry.
Must be Wednesday. :>
It's Odin's Day! Time to pole the boat deep in the tules, and meditate on the notion that skullsplitting is not, in fact, best done with an axe. ;)
[deep in the tules: off into an indeterminately swampy backbeyond, populated with reeds over your head. Not unlike the bayou, the forest, and anyplace else beyond the fields you know. Given the givens, alcohol is likely involved.]
-- L
no subject
Date: 2008-08-30 03:01 am (UTC)Something, being largely a self-taught solitary personage, I take rather srsly and do frequent "am I a complete nutter (on this topic)?" checks, and my progress has been fairly slow, contrasted with where things could be if I had a firmly woven safety net/support network in place.
On considering it, my coming 'round the backward, sidewise way, edge on from the backstage entrance, as it were, may have been a way of gentling the learning curve a bit [?]
And/but I feel I'd like my version of a sangha plsthx, to borrow more Buddhist concepts. ( and not always a virtual one.)
It's Odin's Day! Time to pole the boat deep in the tules, and meditate on the notion that skullsplitting is not, in fact, best done with an axe. ;)
And on Frija's day, I happen to find a wonderfully fetching hat, wide-brimmed yet not too wide-brimmed, floppy yet not-floppy, that would oh so wonderfully be set off by a hand-card-woven silk hatband a certain Someone was promised. It comes in 'natural' and black.
"The black does look better, dear, but I can see why, [for practical reasons, for 'stealth' mode], you might want the tan... on which you might change the hatband a little more easily for [the newly suggested/needful/of course you realize with the one, you need the other] green and gold."
I've got promises to keep, and many miles before I sleep, at least figuratively.
Tules. Good word, familiar/not-familiar good place.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-30 09:22 am (UTC)And, really, that's a Smart Thing; don't think otherwise.
And/but I feel I'd like my version of a sangha plsthx, to borrow more Buddhist concepts. ( and not always a virtual one.)
I'faith, I do, with cheer, take refuge in my community of belief--but it's not a sangha, so that is so not neither one of the Three Jewels. *grin*
And on Frija's day, I happen to find a wonderfully fetching hat, wide-brimmed yet not too wide-brimmed, floppy yet not-floppy, that would oh so wonderfully be set off by a hand-card-woven silk hatband a certain Someone was promised. It comes in 'natural' and black.
ooh!
"The black does look better, dear, but I can see why, [for practical reasons, for 'stealth' mode], you might want the tan... on which you might change the hatband a little more easily for [the newly suggested/needful/of course you realize with the one, you need the other] green and gold."
Bah! Black hats are fetching. I have a straw one that I wear frequently in the summertime--as you can imagine, yes, it can be a emergency backup hat of That Sort, although I've a wool felt one I prefer when possible. Still, I get complimented on the black one whenever I wear it, but rarely the toast-colored one.
Tules. Good word, familiar/not-familiar good place.
FYI, it's pronounced "toolies". The tule itself is a reed (sedges have edges; reeds are round) that grows throughout the California deltas and wetlands whenever permitted to do so. Insofar as the local indigenous folks are/were concerned, it's excellent building/thatching/basketry material.
I mean, they made boats out of these things.
So "out in the tules" is a California version of "out in the sticks". The other way you'll hear "tule" used is in "tule fog": a real pea-soup ground effect fog you'll find in the inland valleys, especially in autumn and winter. When you hear news about a ZOMG multi-dozen-car pileup in California, you may safely assume tule fog Was Involved--it's the scariest stuff I've ever driven in, not excepting snowstorms.
This, too, is the tules. ;)
-- Lorrie
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 05:54 am (UTC)Well, you know...often names and labels cause more trouble than they're worth.
And in and through and around it all, and as much as I feel kinship toward the Celts and South/Eastern Woodlands aboriginal people (quite literally, ancestorally, even), I still find, some days to my dismay, some to my great surprise, that I am heathen -- even if the fundamentalists don't like that very much. There are already so many reasons they'd quite likely not like me on principle *anyway* that a few more couldn't hurt ;>.
And so, also, do I return, like Himself from his wanderings. This--IMO--is what saves me from being pathetically eclectic. Even when I'm chasing after orixa, Kuan Yin, or whomeverelse, it's coming from a heathen context, and done because I truly feel it's what the guy in the black hat would prefer: never stop thinking, never stop learning, never stop hungering for more wisdom.
(I could and would be a card-carrying Unitarian Universalist... if my church gave out membership cards.)
Mneeeeeehhh...I find that UU focuses too much on the samenesses, not the differences. I want respect (which is ever so much more than tolerance) for both. "Here is the places where we draw near; here are places where we do not, but there can be great value in talking about the parallax between our views. Discuss!"
That, and they're more interested in oddball corners of political activism than I can really deal with.
And I know that given all that, my personal service is ultimately bounden [gack, what a pretentious word, but no other is a right-er one at the moment] to That-Which-Is, the big, overarching All of the Above (and Below, and Within, and Without, Suffusing and Surrounding) through the emulation of, devotion to and with the cooperation and (in the)support of the Powers that Be, especially that subset known affectionately as Team Norse (and especially specially certain ones of those). To Whom/What do the Gods make sacrifice? I can inkle. (Which, if I have my theology terms right, would make me a monist, as well as a pan[en]theist for all that I'm also a relatively firm polytheist.)
I'm Lorrie Wood, and I approve this message. *stamp*
But see other comments: to me, it doesn't do to talk about The Is. If you've put a name on it, you're confining your perception, and The Is is, necessarily, beyond all that (or it wouldn't be What It Is). Necessarily, it must include evil, good, and...everything.
Which, as I'm sure you know...does not fit. It's like telling your computer that 0=1, at which point it all dissolves into bright confetti...
Overall, while I may be a pan(en)theist when we're out in the Wednesday tules, day-to-day I am animist and polytheist, and reconstructionist besides. How might it have been done? How can I adapt that best? Let's talk to this olive tree in its own person--while it's true that the olive tree and I are kin, it is rarely practical to proceed from this, although it's very often comforting...
But in general, yes: if Odin is an ergi god, to what is he receptive?
Look! It's a heathen koan!
-- L
no subject
Date: 2008-08-29 03:13 pm (UTC)Exactally. And the Vanadis, in her way, and a couple other 'especially especially' folks in theirs.
on UU:Mneeeeeehhh...
I like what this group was doing with musicstuff last time I poked my head in, and miss that, but the place-as-I-last-encountered-it doesn't really feed the soul (beyond the making-of-beautiful-noise aspects), which is why I've not been a very active personage there. That this year is the religious education department's 'Bible Story year' gives me another reason to just skip it and realize that I'll most probably only have conversations and overlaps and not-overlaps like I do with online folks like your lovely self, online.
But see other comments: to me, it doesn't do to talk about The Is. If you've put a name on it, you're confining your perception, and The Is is, necessarily, beyond all that (or it wouldn't be What It Is). Necessarily, it must include evil, good, and...everything.
Sensemaking. Which is why, in my cross-cultural reading/understanding of it, the Orisha folks don't deal directly with Oludumare.
Overall, while I may be a pan(en)theist when we're out in the Wednesday tules, day-to-day I am animist and polytheist, and reconstructionist besides. How might it have been done? How can I adapt that best? Let's talk to this olive tree in its own person--while it's true that the olive tree and I are kin, it is rarely practical to proceed from this, although it's very often comforting...
We're on similar pages, save I don't/hadn't considered myself a reconstructionist. The difference between my reconnection-ing and someone else's reconstruction-ing is quite possibly only a matter of semantics and my wish to avoid the entire issue of "yer doin' it wrong!" from folks presuming that I subscribe or hold valid their brand/s of American Heathen Fundamentalism (which I realize is not going to work, so why worry?)
But in general, yes: if Odin is an ergi god, to what is he receptive?
Look! It's a heathen koan!
Mrowr. The world needs more heathen koans.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-30 09:14 am (UTC)Ayuh!
doesn't really feed the soul
That goes from "meh" to outright "blurgh", but not quite to "bletch". If it doesn't fill the belly of your spirit, doesn't plug you in to something larger than yourself...life's too short, find something that does, and I see you did. 8-)
I'll most probably only have conversations and overlaps and not-overlaps like I do with online folks like your lovely self, online.
Which while I certainly appreciate and cherish your kind words, I also am very sorry you cannot find that particular and peculiar nourishment where you're currently planted.
Sensemaking. Which is why, in my cross-cultural reading/understanding of it, the Orisha folks don't deal directly with Oludumare.
Yes; just so. In that line of my practice, the group that I work with is primarily made up of pagans, who cheerfully call the orixa "gods", with the understanding that they're approaching this from a polytheist definition of god, but this fairly sloppy thinking. In the patakis, Olodumare is always spoken of as--to pluck from a context you and I share--being beyond the circles of the world, hanging out with Eru Ilúvatar. The closest to him who is still reachable is Obatala/Oxala.
We're on similar pages, save I don't/hadn't considered myself a reconstructionist.
Ah, well, I've decided they're stuck with me. *grin*
-- Lorrie
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 06:13 am (UTC)*cough* Yeah. Uh. I...
...
*uncomfortable squirm*
...can't get past the mudroom of the hall where he's being kept. Never met him there, the requisites and dangers are high, don't wanna. I mean, if there were bollocks-all other choice, I could manage it, but there nearly always is.
My speculations on reasons and so forth aren't for consumption in a public post.
That aside, though, I'm leery of the Prose Edda version, which clearly gives the boy a very Jesus-y flavor (mmm fishflakes!). Saxo's telling is older and less incandescent, although it's SNorri's that gets all the airtime in modern heathenry. That said, while I know some that might agree with you, I wouldn't've put that guy in that spot even if I did (could?) deal with him.
However, I happen to be in the way of knowing that some attribute compassion to Sif with good results, and to avoid a certain amount of drama, that's where I'd go first.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-30 02:50 am (UTC)On actual outside consideration, and not going directly to Miss Nice Lady without passing"Go" or the local information desk --a devotee recommended Her to me -- there are a few Others to Whom I could have turned with this issue (I can think of three Ladies and a Gentleman right off the bat, two of Whom have counseled me in the past, to much good effect, and Whom I love.) (I don't know Sif that well at all, but hear She's a very nice Lady, and do send my regards.)
no subject
Date: 2008-08-30 09:01 am (UTC)Yeeeeah. Just so.
Re: Compassionate Norse gods
Funnily, I have found compassion from Odin--which would being about the last place one might expect, I suppose, but there you are. To amble wholly off into subjective experience, though, Kuan Yin seems to be serving up more or less pure agape when I get tear stains on her pretty silk stole, whereas when I sob into Odin's cloak, it's a braid of all four loves (as per Lewis, as I just reviewed that today): eros, philos, agape, and storge--shot through with very Odin-flavored stuff which is ecstatic in a completely different way.
-- Lorrie
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 06:16 am (UTC)"If our theology doesn't have the language to discuss $concept, it's time to develop a bigger theology."
Or, indeed, any theology, but that might also come close to (ack!) dogma.
-- Lorrie
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 05:36 am (UTC)I really appreciate the philosophy of "All respectful requests for invitations to tea will be honored."
I has assorted religion.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 05:59 am (UTC)Humans, dear heart, humans--don't make me come over there and have an argument about inappropriate attachment to the illusory and impermanent ideal of beauty.
*snickers, and dodges flying shoes*
I really appreciate the philosophy of "All respectful requests for invitations to tea will be honored."
That's how I roll, though--you know that. Well, you know, if by "tea" I mean "mead", but bottom line is: if you can be a good guest in the hall (my underlying heathen context, let me show you it), then come let us sumble together, yes, even with tea. ;)
I has assorted religion.
And I love how it looks on you! *smooch!*
-- Lorrie
Flying shoes?
Date: 2008-08-28 06:04 am (UTC)*snickers back*
And now off topic:
I saw a knit dress in the window of Crush on Piedmont, minus the pockets it would be adorable!
What's wrong with knitted dresses again?
Re: Flying shoes?
Date: 2008-08-28 06:15 am (UTC)In sad knitting news, I am out of bulky purple yarn and not done with your cape. Lamentation! Despair!
--although that did clear space for me to finish that white silk devotional thing for A Nice Lady.
-- Lorrie
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 06:45 am (UTC)FWIW I have a soft spot for Kuan Yin as well and I still have a beautiful china statue of her living with me. Some days she reminds me a little of Frigga although they're definitely different personalities! And I would never consider the Buddhist practice of compassion the 'soft' notion that us Westerners think of it as.
no subject
Date: 2008-08-29 05:51 am (UTC)Just so. As a valknut-carryin' Odin-lover, I'd be remiss if I rejected something just for being foreign--but foolish if I accepted it without critical examination.
I'll give it a listen when
FWIW I have a soft spot for Kuan Yin as well and I still have a beautiful china statue of her living with me. Some days she reminds me a little of Frigga although they're definitely different personalities!
Like I said: she really doesn't appear to give a toss about someone's faith as long as they're willing to get in there and do something about the suffering of others--or if there is a sorrow that she hears to which she may give comfort, for which you are willing/able to receive comfort.
In that, she's pushy on a scale I've only heretofore seen with *cough* Odin.
ANYWAY, considering his/her progress through cultures that make the French, English, and Germans look like drinking buddies, America--at least the West Coast--is not much of a stretch.
As for her and Frigga...one can readily imagine the two of them Having Tea.
And I would never consider the Buddhist practice of compassion the 'soft' notion that us Westerners think of it as.
Yep. Compassion isn't always a kind word and a warm hug.
Sometimes it's a cautery knife.
-- Lorrie
no subject
Date: 2008-08-29 10:08 pm (UTC)It has a transcript. (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2008/2324447.htm)
-- Lorrie
no subject
Date: 2008-08-28 01:12 pm (UTC)I'm totally not a Buddhist, but I sit zazen fairly regularly for the mindfulness. Fortunately for me, Buddhists generally consider this a welcome and good thing, and not some sort of ripe-for-conversion opportunity. [grin]
no subject
Date: 2008-08-29 05:57 am (UTC)-- Lorrie
no subject
Date: 2008-08-29 02:53 pm (UTC)I've likewise been doing some reading on the subject as a result of observing the same phenomenon in your ongoing question - WB was out here 2 years ago, demoing some of the stuff he's been working on, and a good friend of mine in Germany has gone back to the Buddhism he started in before detouring through Heathenry for several years. So far, I think there are still some fundamental differences between Buddhist viewpoints and Heathen viewpoints - but there are certainly things we can learn from each other. Plus, it's another World Religion we're going to have to have some kind of dialog with, in order to both figure out areas of congruence and areas of divergence.
Patty's comment, for example, is a gross oversimplification (as I'm sure she'd admit). It's not the world per se that's rejected by Buddhists - it's attachment to the world that is rejected as a source of much suffering. It's a subtle distinction, and from a practical standpoint, the difference may not make that much difference. The question, though, arises - if we're a "world-affirming" religion, what exactly does that mean, and what are the implications for Heathens? I'd love to see Heathenry produce a theologian or two who could go toe-to-toe with the Dalai Lama, the Pope, or Reinhold Niebuhr... and we're not going to get there necessarily if we don't at least read the other teams' playbooks...
no subject
Date: 2008-08-29 10:43 pm (UTC)WB was one of the gents I was thinking of, yes.
I've yet to be on a list where anyone has argued "Why do we even need Interfaith anyhow?"--perhaps because there haven't been enough heathens poking at Interfaith in a way to rile up the ones who'd be agin' it. Recall, if you will, how easy it can be to stir up "Heathens Don't Need No Clergy" debates in many online fora. ;)
Patty's comment, for example, is a gross oversimplification (as I'm sure she'd admit). It's not the world per se that's rejected by Buddhists - it's attachment to the world that is rejected as a source of much suffering. It's a subtle distinction, and from a practical standpoint, the difference may not make that much difference.
Right--and even apparently pleasant things may have craving/attachment stuck to them. My enjoyment of ice cream will be much hampered if I recall my lactose intolerance--as a very basic example.
The question, though, arises - if we're a "world-affirming" religion, what exactly does that mean, and what are the implications for Heathens?
Right--we make a lot of jokes about the heathen recovery program being one step: "Suck it up!" How serious is that, really? It's uncomplicated--but does it have to be less simple than that? Does it need to be more complicated in a world grown both larger in population and smaller in distance and time?
I'd love to see Heathenry produce a theologian or two who could go toe-to-toe with the Dalai Lama, the Pope, or Reinhold Niebuhr... and we're not going to get there necessarily if we don't at least read the other teams' playbooks...
That does rather bring us back around to "does heathenry need clergy?" and "does heathenry, if it needs clergy, need interfaith?". To my mind, the answer to both of these is yes--but this is based in no small part from seeing it arising naturally among heathens, so...clearly there's something to respond to.
-- Lorrie
no subject
Date: 2008-09-04 12:24 am (UTC)I think my main attraction to Buddhism is that I just see it (and Taoism as well) as having a really ruthless view of Truth... and tools to get at it, if that's what you're into (which I understand a lot of folks aren't). One way Buddhism deals with the real/not real problem is to employ the views of absolute truth (nothing is real) vs relative truth (hungry, must eat). This way of looking at things appeals to me greatly because I find parallels in science (yes, leftbrainer here) - like the phenomenon of light having both properties of a particle (real) and of a wave (not quite as "real"), or that physicists tell you stuff like, we know there are electrons but we can never tell you exactly where they are at any given moment, only a probability. (sounds like woo to me!). So I think one reason Heathens might not be into the Buddhist thing is that Heathenry looks at life from the point of view of relative truth. But for me, I'm also interested in the absolute truth, and the mysteries betwixt and between.
But I can't seem to fit myself into the Buddhist category either, mostly for cultural reasons... I'm an American North European mutt, and I feel a great affinity for the places and cultures and languages of my roots. Any religion as old as Buddhism comes with cultural trappings, which, any way you slice it, just don't quite fit. The closest fit I've found is the Tibetan Bön tradition, which was the indigenous Tibetan religion before Buddhism was introduced from India, so it is the most "pagan" of the Buddhisms I've come across.
You might be interested to know about this: http://www.celticbuddhism.org/ John Riley Perks was a student of Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche (Tibetan) and started his own form of Buddhism where he has started incorporating Celtic cosmology into Tibetan Buddhism, apparently for this same reason - a more culturally aligned Buddhism. Anyway, I've read his biography (which is more about his life with Trungpa)... it's hard to know what he's up to without meeting him in person, but in his book he talks about meeting the goddess Brighid, which was part of his inspiration.
On the topic of compassion in Heathenry... I guess I will forever mourn the fact that the Heathen tradition got so whacked by the mass conversion to Christianity, because I suspect that compassion was part of the culture, but we just don't have the information. I would like to think that hospitality as a value is linked to compassion, or one-ness. Also the Tibetans have all these wrathful and semi-wrathful (yes, they actually categorize them that way) dieties - you know, the really angry-looking ones - who have no problem being ruthless when a situation calls for it.
Well, I really enjoyed this thread, thanks for letting me jump in.
no subject
Date: 2008-09-10 06:31 pm (UTC)I have two problems with Buddhism, personally. One is its atheism. I'm told there is "believing Buddhism" or whatever they call it, but then I am adamantly told again that Buddhism is atheist. The other is that it's a terrible degradation of Hinduism, which is a wonderful religion and all someone who sees attachment as a cause of suffering could possibly want. They're similar gripes--Buddhists are nasty to their gods and nasty to the Brahmanists the Buddha rejected.
So it's not one of my favorite world religions. But it's not really my business, as someone who finds the whole obsession with suffering and getting beyond illusion simply irrelevant. It's not a game I'm into.
I think the compassion thing comes from that. From my POV heathenry has a more nuanced and usable moral and interpersonal philosophy, because it's not all about morality and whether one is being selfish and peeling back layers of motivation and examining yourself. I think it's a mistake to see heathenry as uncompassionate--as you say in one of your comments, compassion can involve wielding the cauterizing knife. And this is different from frith how? - in its underlying assumptions about right and wrong and what the focus/purpose of a religion should be. Heathens simply do compassion. They don't make it a pillar or an item on a checklist or an admonition to be selfless or a turn the other cheek.
The only heathen with Buddhist leanings I've run up against is Winifred--and then only in her curriculum for the late lamented Háligwærstow, where she was much influenced by Buddhist meditation, to the detriment of the program since many heathens cannot meditate and it is by no means the only technique that can be used. It was not only sad but very regrettable that she was away on sick leave the entire time I was involved in the AE so we could not talk about this. It did teach me wariness about using techniques derived from other worldviews; they don't necessarily transfer as well as those steeped in those worldviews think.
As to theologians . . . we have several in the pipeline, but it's hard for them to get through both the defensiveness you rightly remark on on lists and the extremely narrow definitions of "mysticism" and such . . . and I think it's also important for me to put my finger on your apparent assumption that they have to be priests. In my experience, heathen theologians tend not to be priests precisely because the clergy don't have a central role in heathenry.
Some fast thoughts. On compassion, I probably should write my own essay, but some of it will be covered in my upcoming thing on death rites. Which is what I really should be doing now rather than LJ'ing!
Frith,
M