From: altheimm@nextnet.csus.edu (Murray Altheim)
Newsgroups: alt.pagan
Subject: Snapshots or Movies?
Keywords: Polytheism, Shamanism, Chocolate Milkshake
Date: 24 Jul 92 17:29:55 GMT
Organization: California State University: Sacramento


(I apologize for the length:  I tried to leave the message and the context
of those I quoted as much as I could...)

There has been so much high-spirited talk in the past few days, with
a great deal of anger in some threads, and others being very productive.
I agree with Wolfe -- we've all ignored some of the most interesting 
threads.

The definition of P/pagan and P/paganism has always been a hot topic,
as well as a tendency to narrowly define terms as if there could be an
agreement among all; as if we even agreed on a priori assumptions, which
few seem to at this stage of our development as a heterogenous people.

In article <12367@inews.intel.com> (Paul Harvey) writes:
billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
>Monotheistic religions have been around for at least 8000 years, probably
> >longer. They certainly have been around as long as writing has existed. 
> 
> It is not so easy to define what monotheism is. For example, Christianity
> is often defined as monotheistic, yet there is the Holy Trinity of the
> Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Hinduism also has a trinity of Brahma, Vishnu
> and Shiva, but these three are considered to be manifestations of a
> single transcendent. Yet Hinduism is called polytheistic. Christianity is
> defined by belief that Jesus was a personification of the single 
> transcendent. Hinduism is defined by belief that Krishna was a personifica-
> tion of the single transcendent. Monotheism/Polytheism, a pair of opposites,
> maybe not so different as one would first perceive.
[...]
> >We have no idea what "Pagan" viewpoints were like - at least, if you are
> >referring to the "old religions" that may have existed before written
> >history. All we can do is make elaborate guesses based on insufficient
> >evidence.

I am puzzled by the tendency for almost everybody to ignore the traditions 
we DO have a lot of information about;  as if the roots of modern pagan
beliefs were obliterated entirely since the Christian era, and we had nothing
but prehistoric fragments to go on.  Then _suddenly_ this century's flourish
creates Neo-Paganism?  What about all the uninterrupted worldwide flux
of religious ideas that still are available as current traditions, or as whole
or fragmentary documents of extinct cultures?  Not "primitive" peoples (I 
really hate that term), but fully developed, complex cultures with intricate
belief systems.

> There are paleolithic, pre-literal, tribes surviving to this day. There
> may still be a few tribes in Amazonia that have avoided contact with us
> moderns, thus still undiscovered by us. There are tribes in Amazonia that
> have only been seen a few times and thus are known to exist, but nothing
> else is known of them. There are also many cultures that have retained the 
> ancient beliefs. We call these people hunter-gatherers or stone-age or
> tribal people. They have many stories to tell, if anyone cares to listen.
> From these people, we have learned a great deal about paleolithic people,
> something we would know almost nothing about if all we had to rely on was
> archeological evidence. Unfortunately, it is not clear for how much longer
> we will allow these people to continue their ancient traditions.

We must all remember that we are in a unique stage in history.  Never
before have we had the ability and access as individuals to the wealth
and variety of religious materials as we do today.  I can read the beliefs
of the Mandeans, Taoists, Essenes, Maidu, Celts, Egyptians, Aztecs...
the list seems endless.  Archaeologists, historians, and others have 
unearthed an immense store of religious artifacts and texts, the roots of
which probe into prehistory.  Even given the errors and inaccuracies of
historical inquiry, from a practical standpoint the individual has an 
opportunity and freedom to learn like never before.  The scholarship in 
almost ANY field of religious study is astounding.
And yes, it is not always in English. :-)

Not to nitpick much about an otherwise fine post, but I wanted to add:

In article <memo.536009@cix.compulink.co.uk> (Leo Smith) writes:
> 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.

Actually, there was a tradition of Taoist sexual practice that grew along-
side the development of the Taoist religion.  Many don't know or make
the differentiation between philosophical and religious Taoism.  
Tantric ritual and Tantric sex magick are developments of the Buddhist
religion, and most of us have heard of the Kundalini energy of Hinduism.
I would not speculate wildly about shamanism, except that it hardly
seems that shamans are asexual -- if anything they live(d) rather healthy
lives within their tribal communities.  Urban shaman?  No comment on
their sexuality, as I doubt it is very homogenous.  Also, the native
people of the North American continent are hardly alone (or necessarily
the first) in practicing shamanism.  Look to Mircea Eliade et al. for
sources of Asian, African, Polynesian, South American (ie., worldwide)
shamanism.

> I hope this has been of some interest.

> Leo

I enjoyed it. Thanks. 

In article <1992Jul20.180607.18622@lmt.mn.org> (Ciaran Benson) writes:
> Come on, folks, focus -- don't exclude.
>
>  B.A. Davis-Howe says (in extreme summary);
> 
> >"...  If pagan is one religion, then I am not pagan--period."
> 
>   Fine.  For you Paganism is not one religion.
> 
>   For some people it is.

A little Chuang-Tzu:
"Suppose you and I have an argument.  If you have beaten me instead of my
beating you, then are you necessarily right and am I necessarily wrong?  If I
have beaten you instead of your beating me, then am I necessarily right and you
are necessarily wrong?  Is one of us right and the other wrong?  Are both of us
right or are both of us wrong?  If you and I don't know the answer, then other
people are bound to be even more in the dark.  Whom shall we get to decide what
is right?  Shall we someone who agrees with you to decide?  But if he already
agrees with you, how can he decide fairly?  Shall we get someone who already
agrees with me?  But if he already agrees with me, how can he decide?  Shall we
get someone who disagrees with both of us? But if he already disagrees with
both of us, how can he decide?  Shall we get someone who agrees with both of
us?  But if he already agrees with both of us, how can he decide?  Obviously,
then neither you nor I nor anyone else can decide for each other.  Shall we
wait for yet another person?"

> Why can't we both be right -- it's not like this is an argument about
> "revealed truth".  All I've seen so far is people defending their right to
> call themselves whatever they want to.  Why is that so threatening?  Let
> people be what they want to be, ok?  And don't think that because someone you don't like > calls themselves a "human" that you have to stop being one.
[...]
>   Really, I have no problem with you calling yourself and Paganism anything
> you want to.

>   I do have a real problem when you keep telling me that I am WRONG when
> I say that I am a Pagan, and when you keep telling me that my Paganism
> is not a religion.

>   I'm amazed that you need us all to accept one truth or the other.  Whatever
> happened to plurality?  Whatever happened to tolerance of opposing views?

>   Loosen up, man -- let some of us be wrong.  Ok?
[...]
>   If it's any help, I believe that for you, you are right. I support your
> right to believe whatever you want to believe, and don't think you should
> take my opinion of your beliefs as any measure of the validity of your
> beliefs.  What you say is right for you, is right for you.

>   It's just not right for me -- but there's no reason why it should be, or
> why my saying that should deny you the right to say what is right for you.

> ...there's no hierophaunt of Paganism telling us who's right and who's wrong
> (thank the Goddess!) so we're just going to have to get along, play nice,
> and be tollerant of each other's views.  Ok?

>   Anyway, if it's any consolation, I'm sure you'd be equally enraged by my
> definition of "Wicca".

>   So, just let me be wrong and happy.

>   Blessed be,  Ciaran Benson.

In article <1992Jul22.163101.1272@lmt.mn.org> (Ciaran Benson) writes:
B.A. Davis-Howe writes;

>>"Maybe it was someone else who said this, but *someone* said that everyone
>>who is P/pagan is part of the same religion.  This is what I am riled about.

>>I hope this clears things up."

>  Actually, yes.  Quite a bit.
[...]
> I agree with you -- no one can speak for Paganism or all Pagans, and there is
>certainly no such thing as One True Pagan Religion. I think all the hoopla over
> the Universal Pagan Whatzit kinda illustrates the diversity within the tribes.
> I never meant for my calling myself a Pagan to be interpreted as a declaration
> of establishment of dogma or universality.

> But to whomever it was that said that Paganism is not a religion, I think you're
> cutting the line too fine.  Paganism is a form of worship which is empowering 
> many people today, and is being accepted in all of its diversity as a rational
> and sacred alternative to the majority religions of the day.
> There are many organized religions which also fall under the header "Pagan",
> but each one of them speaks for themselves,
> and is no more and no less right for its adherents than my nameless
> Paganism is for me.  Not everyone who is a Pagan is comfortable with the
> definitions or structures of the recognised Pagan faiths.  Still, we have a
> right to call ourselves "Pagan", and to have our form of worship respected.

Another quote from the Chuang-Tzu:    (I'm in the mood...)
"A road is made by people walking on it; things are so because they are called
so.  What makes them so?  Making them so makes them so.  What makes them not
so? Making them not so makes them not so..."

It seems we are mixing up the difference between paganism as the broad category
covering not only those belief systems as defined in the WASP dictionaries (and
also those people whose beliefs are a mixture of various pagan beliefs) with
the idea of a singular religion called Paganism.  Now anyone can call anything
anything they want in my book, but you must remember that the communication of
ideas is based on common usage, and it only confuses the issue to claiming that 
_a_ religion is paganism, when the common usage and understanding is that
"paganism" refers to the broad category.

I refuse to pretend the etymology (L: peasant) is the meaning.  The Random House
Dictionary defines its most common meanings:

pagan, n. 1. one of a people or community professing a polytheistic religion.
2. a person who is not a Christian, Jew, or Muslim.

               and,

paganism, n. 1. pagan spirit or attitude in religious or moral questions. 2. the
beliefs or practices of pagans.  3. the state of being a pagan.

Now nobody needs to flame-ola me for quoting the dictionary... I know, I know.
I tire of disclaiming and exclaiming sometimes what would not be necessary in
conversation, but here we are.   I don't even agree with the dictionary, as in
its exclusivity in paganism being only polytheistic.  I suspect that the writers
have a poor understanding of polytheism.

Yes, I did notice the absence of upper case P's.  What we in the Pagan community
seem to be trying to do is find a NEW definition of Pagan and Paganism,
upper-cased.  Where paganism might still be used to describe a religious
category, we all seem to be searching for definitions of an extremely mixed
group of people - mixed by current definition and practice.

>   I'm pleased to see that the intensity in this thread is continuing, and that
> everyone is trying to respect each other's feelings and beliefs.  I don't
> think I've said anything intolerant, but if it seems I have, please ask for a 
> clarification -- I may have just mispoke or mistyped.
> 
>   Blessed Be,  Ciaran.

Despite some of the unnecessary flames, I agree...

In article <2A6E0D7A.16731@noiro.acs.uci.edu> (Janis Maria Cortese) writes:
> billn@hpcvaac.cv.hp.com (bill nelson) writes:
> >As I have posted before. There are many Pagans who are atheists or agnostics.
> >Since they have no religion, it is hard to say that Paganism is a religion.
> 
> You are assuming that religion is synonymous (in part) with belief in a
> personalized deity.  Is this to say that Buddhism is not a religion?
> When you try to define hazy terms like this, you invariably end up
> eating your tail.  I wish I still had that long post about "spirituality
> doesn't depend on the name you use for yourself."  Oh, well.  

The Chuang Chou guy again:
"Words are not just wind.  Words have something to say.  But if what they have
to say is not fixed, then do they really say something?  Or do they say nothing?
People suppose that words are different from the peeps of baby birds, but is
there any difference, or isn't there?"

IMHO it seems that a great number of "pagan" beliefs are derived from
"folk" beliefs. That is, the religious/spiritual beliefs of communities before
or in loose organization.  The roots of Taoism are primarily shamanic
and "folk" (unorganized), as are the beliefs of most native peoples.  In some
cases these "folk" beliefs have coalesced into a fixed doctrine, in others
they remain individualistic or tribalistic and dynamic.  Try to formalize
and condense something that changes constantly -- you only get a snapshot.

In summary (if that is possible), I feel we should be grateful and challenged
to live in an age of not only global crises, but a never-before opportunity
for global learning and communication.  We have a lot of obstacles in our
way (which many have been discussing lately) and our responsibility (as
our knowledge) is never before greater.

Not that I wouldn't support a Wiccan forum, but I think it in some ways
misses the point of alt.pagan (if there is a point):  this is a forum for
people who identify themselves as P/pagans (as well as those interested)
to discuss how we ALL need to stick together, begin cleaning the mess
of the past, live fully in the present, and teach our children to survive
into the future. (IMHO of course) Moving us all en masse to a
soc.religion.pagan newsgroup (as has been suggested) would be a good thing
and legitimize the forum.  I would support that.

The discussion between Eshin-Fun and Daniel B. Holzman on Akhenaten, Aten,
etc. in <1992Jul22.025723.908@ddsw1.mcs.com> Re: Monothiesm in pagan
cultures was very healthy and informative. Thank-you both.

Also, my thanks to Richard Darsie (in article <15397@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu>) for
taking the time to post the anger meditation from "Peace is Every Step" by 
Thich Nhat Hanh. There seems to be such polarity here over so many issues,
I appreciate those here who make the effort to bring us together rather than
pick us apart.

And Ciaran Benson, I think I'm starting to have a bit of a crush on you.  :/*
Even in the short time I've been reading your posts, I've found your humor and
compassion endearing.  Blessings to you from all my Gods, especially the
"Goddess of Supreme Suffering and Icky Things."  (%   (I'm working on the
faces things, OK?)

-- Murray

-- 
Murray M. Altheim      "Ils ont l'orteil de Bouc, & d'un Chevreil l'oreille,
Instructional Consultant    La corne d'un Chamois, & la face vermeille
CSU, Sacramento          Comme un rouge Croissant: & dancent toute nuict
altheimm@csus.edu       Dedans un carrefour, ou pres d'une eau qui bruict."
Newsgroups: alt.pagan