Newsgroups: alt.pagan
From: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk (Leo Smith)
Subject: Re: curious
Reply-To: shaman@cix.compulink.co.uk
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 07:09:44 +0000

as7y+@andrew.cmu.edu (Andrew E. Switala) writes..

>I'm not pagan (at least not yet), and I have two questions that might
>help me decide if paganism is for me.

>First, is/are there any pagan religion(s) at all that place no
>emphasis whatsoever on sex, sex referring to both the quality and the
>act.

IF, by religion you mean the definition that I was given by a
(theologist?) off the 'net - which was "From religere - to re-link
with the [primal] experience of [God?][Life] and

IF by pagan you mean explicitly non Christian..

THEN I would say that ONLY modern Wicca and late modern Wicca at that
which by the above definition is almost not a religion at ALL has
ANYTHING to do with sex! (Sorry: There seems to be some sexual tones
in modern odinism as well I have _heard_ - cannot confirm)

There are sexual practices in the corners of other 'religions' - see
alt.magick for a current thread on Tantric sex practices, and also
Thelema has a tradition of sex magic.


Taoism, buddhism, Hindu meditational practices, shamanism,
traditional witchcraft - these have very little emphasis on sex.
Traditional Wicca is AFAIAC a celebration of the sexuality of BOTH
sexes in different roles. This seems to be going out of fashion
nowadays though.

>Second, are some, all, or none of the pagan religions considered to
>be organized religion?

Well I call myself 'shaman' because I have sympathy with those early
medicine men/women who braved the spirit world on their quest to
understand life. I am part of no organised group whatsoever, and have
never found one that I would consider joining. I am an explorer of
alternative realities, a philosopher trying to understand my place in
the scheme of things.

Part of my path is to seek that primal experience devoid of
interpretation that others (NOT me) have called "Union with God". In
that sense I am a re-ligious person. Personally I find it often a
better kick than sex :-) I don't think I represent a mainstream or
even a minor organization. Shamanism has always been a solitary
condition as far as I can tell. Anyway joining with others to form a
power base is not something I do in 'occult' life - it is something I
do in ordinary life!

I can't answer for alt.pagan. I can't talk about other organisations
I am not part of. For some of us - paganism is perhaps a mantle we
silently adopt, that really doesn't show, as we simply absorb the
information and traditions of the past, and try and use whatever
elements of them seem suitable to come to terms with whatever reality
we seem to find ourselves in. Or at least that - to me - is the
essence of the warrior's way. It isn't the only way, but it suits me,
because it is economical, and it assumes the minimum necessary to
function.


The essence of personal transcendence - which I believe to be the
only route to personal salvation, and I do not believe that the
problems of mankind are soluble 'en masse' - is to avoid getting
caught up in a relationship with reality that is not to your taste.
In this way you can exercise personal freedom in respect of your
attitude to life, whilst not impinging on the lives of your fellow
man. Only when mundane life is balanced to the extent that you can
face all of it with equanimity, can you attain any sort of spiritual
relationship of more than a temporary nature.


As an aside - this is also why I have responded to certain postings
about sexual politics in the way that I have. Personal transcendence
for me is more important than social politics, and I believe that
that is what this group should be about. If - as a poster has
recently declared - she finds that the attitude of men is offensive
to her, then in my philosophy she has only a few options. She might
avoid men, she might learn to see it all as childish stupidity, or
some attitude that nullifies the offensiveness of it, or she might
launch herself into a crusade against it if THAT IS WHAT WILL BRING
HER INTO PEACE WITH HERSELF. So I even accept radical sexual politics
if they are - in Thelemic terms - expressions of the true will.

I do not believe, however, that the are. They seem to be generally in
the realm of 'I don't like X about the world, and I feel that
(someone else) should change (something else) to make the world more
to my taste.

The warrior calls that indulgence. His/her attitude is to take the world
as he finds it - to first accept it in all its detail, the pain and
the suffering in his humility. S/He does not consider really that
his/hers is the place to judge, although he may appear judgemental if
S/he chooses. His/her sole concern is with the utterly selfish
business of personal transcendence, becasue S/he has realised that
without this, S/he is unable to even help him/herself, let alone
anyone else.

So. Speaking solely for myself, I would call myself a pagan, with a
very small 'p', I am part of no organised group whatsoever: What I
aspire to in my paganism is strictly religious, although I doubt
whether more than three people on the group would agree with me, and
sex has no more nor less a feature than anything else in the system.
Anything may be a vehicle for transcendence. What is important is the
attitude one has towards it.


I hope this has been of some interest.

Leo