Please note that new user registrations disabled at this time.

Your personal beliefs/religion/ideology(no spam, spam tastes bad)

Anything goes... just keep it clean.
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

QuenGalad wrote:BTW, the protestants allow women priests, but only on the lowest level. :rolleyes:
You might want to check out this page, which details all the female bishops in the Methodist, Anglican, Presbyterian, and Lutheran/Evangelical churches. That's 23 from the Methodists. It's also a bit dated--since that list appeared, the first L/E female bishop from the US was appointed, about 45 minutes from where I live.

Does this represent equality? No, but it does more than represent tokenism, too. It's in fact more than a start. In the case of Methodism and Anglicanism, it's an acceptance at least on the part of some congregations and a significant part of the church hierarchy that the sex gene is irrelevant in the eyes of both their deity and their cultures.

In more than 40 years spent in the Craft (and 29 since initiation), I've known and known of quite a few female monotheistic and female-leaning pagan religious groups in the US, but I've never seen or heard of one that gave any hierarchal authority to a male. If you know of such, then I can only conclude Poland's pagans are ahead of the US in this respect. :)
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
Malta Soron
Posts: 526
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 3:21 pm
Location: Leiden
Contact:

Post by Malta Soron »

fable wrote:You might want to check out this page, which details all the female bishops in the Methodist, Anglican, Presbyterian, Presbyterian, and Lutheran/Evangelical churches. That's 23 from the Methodists. It's also a bit dated--since that list appeared, the first L/E female bishop from the US was appointed, about 45 minutes from where I live.

Does this represent equality? No, but it does more than represent tokenism, too. It's in fact more than a start. In the case of Methodism and Anglicanism, it's an acceptance at least on the part of some congregations and a significant part of the church hierarchy that the sex gene is irrelevant in the eyes of both their deity and their cultures.
In the Netherlands in the former Hervormde Kerk (not to be confused with the Gereformeerde kerk; both translate as 'Reformed Church', but the first is very liberal and the second very orthodox) there are (at least, I see) a lot of women in leading positions.
Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.
- George Santayana
User avatar
Tricky
Posts: 3562
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:21 pm
Location: Norway
Contact:

Post by Tricky »

As far as ideology goes, are there any Humanists around here? I've been reading up a bit on that lately, hence my curiousity. Just wondering if anyone has something meaningful to say from a personal perspective, because a lot of people who write about it seem content with explaining what it is not. :)
[INDENT]'..tolerance when fog rolls in clouds unfold your selfless wings feathers that float from arabesque pillows I sold to be consumed by the snow white cold if only the plaster could hold withstand the flam[url="http://bit.ly/foT0XQ"]e[/url] then this fountain torch would know no shame and be outstripped only by the sun that burns with the glory and honor of your..'[/INDENT]
User avatar
Claudius
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: Hyrule
Contact:

Post by Claudius »

I read a little on a website about Buddhism that talked about Boddhissatvas. Boddhissatvas are beings who are dedicated to help all beings unconditionally and they devise means to help them.

The part that excited me was that Boddhissatva was said to be a person who fulfilled certain attributes or certain realizations (actually theres 10 'levels') but that THEY DID NOT HAVE TO BE BUDDHISTS.

What I am trying to say is that I judge individuals and respect many religions and am not so worried about the advantages and disadvantages of one over another. I like the buddhist method but I have confidence that there are christian, wiccan, pagan, hindu, moslem, atheist, taoist, black, white, and disembodied (perhaps?) boddhissatvas. Even more have the potential.

Not that someone has to be a boddhissatva to be worthwhile but I find it is a noble thing and actually it is said to be a happy life.
Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
User avatar
Magrus
Posts: 16963
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 7:10 am
Location: NY
Contact:

Post by Magrus »

QuenGalad wrote:@Magrus, I don't want to sound too intolerant or something, but... well...
When I say "religion is only for men" you say "mine isn't". But further, you state that your religion is not going to spread, because you don't want it to, you want it to stay your personal thing. That's very wise IMO.
But it still makes your religion restricted for men only, or even one man - you. ;) So that's not a counter-argument for what I said. I belive you belive something I would see as wise, if I ever saw it. But I'm not going to see it, and no other woman will. So, all accessible by women religions still tend to be misogynic. BTW, the protestants allow women priests, but only on the lowest level. :rolleyes:
I meant that in the way that it..hmm, how to put this. It isn't biased against women in implementing the beliefs I hold. If that makes sense? I may not share it with everyone, although I tend to be open about my beliefs with the girls I have dated. I don't preach or spread it, but then again, I'm not saying "girls can't learn" and then teaching it to boys. So while girls aren't entering into my belief system, boys aren't either, and that puts them on even ground. Although, it occurs to me, that I could probably make a wicked profit like the Catholics have over the past centuries if I put out a book and preached all day. I'd feel dirty though I think.
"You can do whatever you want to me."
"Oh, so I can crate you and hide you in the warehouse at the end of Raiders?"
"So funny, kiss me funny boy!" / *Sprays mace* " I know, I know, bad for the ozone"
User avatar
kyle
Posts: 109
Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:37 am
Contact:

Post by kyle »

Pragmatic functionalist.

The truth is what solves problems, not what resembles reality, because we don't see reality, we see an interpretation of it based on our senses. Everything is what it does; you're not your component parts, you're what those parts allow you to do. We're not our thoughts or our words, we're our actions. Most philosophical problems are semantic, problems with the language, not problems in reality. There's no such thing as free will; it's okay if you believe there is, it's not like you can feel any other way about it. :P
"Wasteland will be Bard's Tale wtih gunz! :mad: " - some fanboy, ca. 1987

http://www.artimitatesart.com
User avatar
Claudius
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: Hyrule
Contact:

Post by Claudius »

Kyle I enjoyed your post and it made me think. I had heard a excerpt from a zen master saying that free will is illusory.

I think usually when asking if there is freewill that is loaded with a lot of pre-assumptions? Which seems to do with freewill if you ask me. However aside from this moments confusion what is it? You say an action. Where exactly is an action coming from? Isn't it coming from the thought ie I the action appears real due to your process of thought solidifying it.

Personally I time, self and other, expierience and experiencer are also appearances that may not be true. Just as an exercise in imagination consider how that relates to free will :)

Another point I'll make is that to appearances things are dependent upon causes. The present is also a cause and not just the 'past'. I think.

Edit: perhaps what we do ie the meaning we get is an interpretation based on our senses.
Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

Claudius wrote:Edit: perhaps what we do ie the meaning we get is an interpretation based on our senses.
And the senses are illusory.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
Claudius
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: Hyrule
Contact:

Post by Claudius »

I agree that they are illusory but that is the conventional reality to which we exist in. According to what I am learning...


ignorance <-> fabrication (karma formation) <-> consciousness <-> name and form <-> Six spheres (5 senses and mental) <-> contact (sense impression) <-> feeling (sensation) <-> craving (attachment) <-> clinging (grasping) <-> becoming (existence) <-> rebirth (birth) < Death (aging decay)

ultimate relatity is how things DO exist including the above, which you can find perhaps in the space of your mind and the concern of your heart here now and in the present.
Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

Claudius wrote:I agree that they are illusory but that is the conventional reality to which we exist in. According to what I am learning...
True. But it's important to remember that it's all a shadow show, even when you're very seriously being one of the shadows. Probably never more important than at that time.
ignorance <-> fabrication (karma formation) <-> consciousness <-> name and form <-> Six spheres (5 senses and mental) <-> contact (sense impression) <-> feeling (sensation) <-> craving (attachment) <-> clinging (grasping) <-> becoming (existence) <-> rebirth (birth) < Death (aging decay)

ultimate relatity is how things DO exist including the above, which you can find perhaps in the space of your mind and the concern of your heart here now and in the present.
I'm still trying to get over the absence of a present, which this very old kid showed me in a forest, once. He had a very large shadow, and he used blocks which he moved around like some sort of shyster playing a shell game. In his hands, time was not there and everywhere. Woke up, and had to keep stamping the floor to prove to myself that I was here.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
Lady Dragonfly
Posts: 1384
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 8:12 pm
Location: Dreamworld
Contact:

Post by Lady Dragonfly »

@Fable

If I may ask you a question or two... What exactly do you witches do and why?
Do you perform mysterious rituals at night, use magic spells and burn black candles? Do you believe the candles can produce anything else besides flame and smoke? Do you really believe in all this occultism, "way of the Ancestors" etc? No offense meant. :)

And why are you guys calling our senses "illusory"?

EDIT: Oh, and what was that about the shadows?
Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe.
-- Euripides
User avatar
Claudius
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: Hyrule
Contact:

Post by Claudius »

they are illusory because things are different from how they appear. We think things exist from their own side rather than merely impermanent, composed of parts, and merely labeled.

It is like if you saw the moon reflected in a pool and thought the moon was in the pool.

"What is the mind? It is a phenonmenon that is not body, not substantial, has no form, no shape, no color, but, like a mirror, can clearly reflect objects."
Lama Zopa Rinpoche

PERCEPTION AND OBJECTIVITY

When we perceive an object, we automatically tend to label it (like nice, bad, wet, dry, light, dark, etc.). As soon as our mind puts a label on an object, the label takes the place of the actual object in our mental processes. As our mental image or label can never represent all the different qualities and characteristics of any object, it is always just a simplified, usually exaggerated, subjective snap shot. However, our mind reacts on the basis of our own mental label of an object. No wonder we tend to react simplistic, exaggerated and subjective situations. All perceived objects are conditioned by our senses and our own mind. This leads to the dramatic conclusion that we are not and by definition can never be objective!

Or, as the famous physicist Werner Heisenberg said,

"What we observe is not nature itself, but nature exposed to our method of questioning"....

Anyhow thats from one of my happy hunting grounds. I hope it is helpful.
Buddhist Quotes

Also a more detailed article which you may find helpful.
Karma Triyana Dharmachakra -- Tibetan Buddhism -- Cultivating Insight into the Nature of Things as They Are -- The Experience of Shunyata: Reazlizing the True Nature of the Mind

For example from the above article:
"For example, when adults see a rainbow in the sky, they know what it is and understand that it is insubstantial. When a child sees a rainbow for the first time, he wants to catch it and make it his own. This is like the difference between enlightened beings and ordinary sentient beings. Realized beings, when they see anything, understand it as a reflection of the mind, and they get neither bored with it nor excited about it. Ordinary beings, thinking that what they see is real and permanent, run off with their perceptions and compulsively try to possess this and reject that. This is how confusion piles up. One of the highest experiences is to understand that reality is not fixed."

Candles can probably produce just as much as rainbows!!! Not to disrespect them just a lighthearted comment. I love candles.
Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

Lady Dragonfly wrote:@Fable

If I may ask you a question or two... What exactly do you witches do and why?
Do you perform mysterious rituals at night, use magic spells and burn black candles? Do you believe the candles can produce anything else besides flame and smoke? Do you really believe in all this occultism, "way of the Ancestors" etc? No offense meant. :)
None taken. :D Witches (not Wiccans or any other pagan brand) are folk culture-derived magic believers and users. If we're just speaking about witches, not about various neo-pagan religions, then we don't necessarily use any ritual tools, and we certainly don't burn black candles. We aren't by nature evil worshippers; and many people who follow "evil paths" think themselves good members in standing to mainstream religions. (Of course, there can be witches who like hurting others. I'm writing about dogma, not individual cases.) We can and sometimes do cast spells to influence things, but we also know that nothing can be accomplished without hard work in physical reality, too. We just want to put a bit of a spin on matters to get the result we want. In other words, we may be weird, but we're not completely out of touch with reality. ;)

(Serious witches also don't hold pride days, or give interviews to the press to drum up business. We're a private sort who recognize that it's nobody else's affair what we do, and who don't need interference from forms of life that insist we're demonic, lost, deranged, or a combination of the above.)

I should add that just because we're folk magic users doesn't mean we ignore other magics necessarily. I've used some ceremonial stuff that came from the Golden Dawn, an early 20th century British "club" of ceremonial magicians whose membership included some celebrated figures of the period.--for what little that's worth. It worked. But it's not something I do even semi-regularly.

You might also say that our single ritual tool is our minds. I'm not quite sure what "way of the Ancestors" means in your context, but some of us, including myself, do use trance states to travel--whether to inside or outside ourselves, isn't the point. We observe, ask questions, make friends, buy the teeshirts, etc. I really don't know whether I'm talking to that which is completely outside myself, to portions of myself that are normally locked away from view, or some combination of the two. Nor does it matter, because the senses I could use to analyze these experiences are not made for doing so, and have no reference points for consideration.

Afterwards, we note down what has taken place in detail, then study it--at least, that's my take on it. Then we eat something, or dance, or make love; something to bring the witch back fully into physical reality. Bleeding across levels isn't good, at all.

Some of this may involve contacting the "Ancestors," however you define that, but it also depends on the individual, their personal and cultural myths. (How very Jungian of me.) This is definitely not playacting, and it's something that takes many years of work to begin to get under control. Some feel you have to be part of a "lineage," trained by someone who was initiated by someone who was initiated by someone who was etc; that you just can't get this sort of thing out of books. I'm inclined to agree with this, but not because a lineage is somehow majestic or power-giving. It's because, IMO, a person who initiates you properly sets you up correctly over time for the jump to the other side, with all the preparatory work, observations of effort and corrections necessary to do things successfully. They help get you to the top of the cliff, and then you jump off, and fly.

Of course, there are always naturals, who end up needing guidance, or just become garden variety schizophrenics without it. Or are we all that? I suppose this sounds like a religious experience without the religion, but I assure you, some of the encounters definitely involve a strong element of spiritual exchange.
And why are you guys calling our senses "illusory"?
When I use the word "illusion," here, it shouldn't be taken too broadly. Denying sensory reality gets into Berkeley's idealism and Johnson's response, and we're no wiser for that. But the observation of reality, I think, creates an illusion of it in the self. The senses give us the assurance of reality: when we touch a window, we know it's solid and "there." But if we read about it, we discover that glass is actually a liquid; it's melting. Very slowly. So it's not really there--yet it is. Is this an exception? Science tells us that we aren't seeing stars, but where there were stars X time ago. Our senses are very valuable to us in interacting with the physical world, but that reality is one based on the senses' intepretation, too: so the tools are interfering with observation, contributing to that reality.
EDIT: Oh, and what was that about the shadows?
If a thing is small but casts a large shadow, and there's no sun, you have to start thinking that maybe something about it isn't quite as expected. When that happens in the context I described above, I figure some sort of trickster-teacher is around, and the shadow is a wink to me to be on the lookout and maybe, just maybe, learn.

Note: if all of this sounds very strange, please bear in mind that questions were asked. I would laugh loud and long if anybody asked me to "prove" my beliefs, since I don't think any of these matters can be subjected to scientific proof. You either believe, or you don't, and even explanations, such as this, convey at best a pale shade of all of the thought, feeling, and experiences that have led me down my path over the years, and have in turn resulted from that path, ever since.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
Lady Dragonfly
Posts: 1384
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 8:12 pm
Location: Dreamworld
Contact:

Post by Lady Dragonfly »

:) Quite fascinating.

Please let me address the illusory part first.
When we perceive an object, we automatically tend to label it (like nice, bad, wet, dry, light, dark, etc.). As soon as our mind puts a label on an object, the label takes the place of the actual object in our mental processes. As our mental image or label can never represent all the different qualities and characteristics of any object, it is always just a simplified, usually exaggerated, subjective snap shot. However, our mind reacts on the basis of our own mental label of an object. No wonder we tend to react simplistic, exaggerated and subjective situations. All perceived objects are conditioned by our senses and our own mind. This leads to the dramatic conclusion that we are not and by definition can never be objective!
The "senses" are the physiological means of perception. For example, the light (electromagnetic waves) reflected off an object travels through the eye and strikes the retina containing the light receptors AND neurons. Then the generated impulse travels back to the certain areas of the brain via the optic nerve and gets processed. An image of the object is created.
Now, you are talking about the interpretation of the image, cognitive perception. One and the same image can be interpreted differently depending on a person's experience and intelligence. (Damn, I don't believe I am saying that, but I almost wish CE was here at the moment to lecture us on the subject from her lofty perch. :D )
Anyway, the electromagnetic waves striking the retina exist outside our brain. They are real, not illusory. The image created is more or less true (generally speaking). The interpretation of this image is subjective, and Fable put it very nicely:
Our senses are very valuable to us in interacting with the physical world, but that reality is one based on the senses' interpretation, too: so the tools are interfering with observation, contributing to that reality.
However, you can't say "the senses are illusory" because senses just register the outside reality. If an object is misshapen by poor lighting, it may appear distorted and will be registered distorted; if a person have impaired vision, the image will be distorted, but that is pure physics.
Candles can probably produce just as much as rainbows!!!
Especially if one has a penchant for iambic pentameter. ;)

Now, about the Witchcraft. Thank you for the information. So, you practice trance?... How different is this trance from, say, Buddhist meditation?
We can and sometimes do cast spells to influence things, but we also know that nothing can be accomplished without hard work in physical reality, too.

I don't mean to pry... How do you actually cast spells? Do you combine ingredients, process them somehow, and then utter incantations? Whisper words? Are these words special and must be pronounced a specific way? What language do you use? Does an accent or a messed up syllable matter? (I've just recalled Army of Darkness movie... sorry. :o ). Or do you send a mental signal to influence things? I am really curious. Do you believe that a thought is material and can affect objects?
And, finally, if nothing can be accomplished without little help of physical reality, what is the worth of all these spells? Lots of questions, but I hope you would explain. :)
Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe.
-- Euripides
User avatar
Claudius
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: Hyrule
Contact:

Post by Claudius »

Lady Dragonfly,

If I follow you you are saying that there are changes in the body including chemicals and receptors etc. That has to do with the senses yes. Evidently there is something physical. That is called form in buddhism.

Look back at my post with links between ignorance up through death. The senses and mind (6 spheres also have a physical aspect)

Do you think that your thougts are caused by changes in form? That is interesting to me. In that paradigm we are very under the spell of what form is doing and naturally we are very curious about it. But wait a second. Why does form seem real? Is it because our thoughts have made it seem real. Is the rainbow real? Don't we have all kinds of labels as I mentioned regarding what molecules and neurons are?

I'm not saying that there is no existence, Lady dragonfly. That is nihilism. Buddhism is the middle path between saying our thoughts and truths are eternal and composed of self existent essence vs. nihilism in which thoughts would be kind of side effects of the ever dying realm of form.

The heart sutra says: "form is emptiness and emptiness is form" In other words form is insubstantial and dependent on causes and conditions. And that which is insubstantial and dependent on causes and conditions is also form.

Do you think that your self is your body? Does that seem right? But wait your body is always changing. How can you find it? It is dependent upon elements that are not your body (and composed of them). Also, YOUR BODY IS MERELY LABELED AS SUCH by heartmind.

That is why the diamond sutra says "a flower is not a flower. that is how it is a flower."

Is it meaningful to say whether form or thought is the ground condition? What is important? Is there a ground as such?

And tell me of iambic pentameter :) How are the molecules and structures responding to that? Perhaps the quarks are giggling and laughing at the synapses which are curious about atoms? (The meaning of that is when you try to find smaller and smaller pieces you get sawdust. Grasping mind was never the right tool I can tell you)

Enlightenment is beyond knowing and tears.
Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

Lady Dragonfly wrote:However, you can't say "the senses are illusory" because senses just register the outside reality. If an object is misshapen by poor lighting, it may appear distorted and will be registered distorted; if a person have impaired vision, the image will be distorted, but that is pure physics.
Quite right. I stand corrected; unless we agree that esse is percipi. But let's not. That way lies tautology. Or put another way: if Jacques Derrida falls in a forest, does anybody know that it is a forest?
Now, about the Witchcraft. Thank you for the information. So, you practice trance?... How different is this trance from, say, Buddhist meditation?
My understanding--and I'm sure Claudius can correct me if I'm wrong--is that in Buddhism, meditation is used to quiet the mind. Witches employ directed meditation, where the mind guides itself (or another acts as guide) along a path where certain features are known in advance. It could be called imagination being put at the service of the will, and some will say it is nothing but imagination. But then, if you're using it to gain more understanding of yourself, that really isn't a concern; though you need to monitor what's going on around you to make sure you stay on course. And if you're a witch, you either accept that at least a piece of what you're experiencing in your wake-sleep state has a level of reality, or you don't.
I don't mean to pry...
Sure you do! :) How often do you get to speak with a live, captive witch who isn't a self-aggrandizing salesperson in disguise, and has at least some tenuous contact with reality as we all know and love it? ;) I don't mind. I'd rather answer questions honestly and leave people to think what they will, they let them imagine what they can, and come out far from the mark.
How do you actually cast spells? Do you combine ingredients, process them somehow, and then utter incantations? Whisper words? Are these words special and must be pronounced a specific way? What language do you use? Does an accent or a messed up syllable matter? (I've just recalled Army of Darkness movie... sorry. :o ). Or do you send a mental signal to influence things? I am really curious. Do you believe that a thought is material and can affect objects?
Yes, I occasionally cast spells. I don't do it often, and I'm sure some of what I do will simply be described as giving a supernatural tinge to science. For instance, I've regularly used some form of mental displacement to reduce pain for over forty-five years, since childhood, and my early attempts to deal with chronic asthma. I see it as a spell. Psychiatrists I'm sure would have a very different explanation. The point is, it works; and it fits the definition of magic that Aleister Crowley once famously gave: "Magic is the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with the will." Rather broad, I think you'll agree, but I suspect that was his point. What appears as science to some is magic to others. And it may be that what we consider magic and spellmaking today will at some point be recognized as legittimate mental practices--or wish fulfillment fantasies. Perhaps something of both?

There are different ways to cast spells, dating back through recorded history to Ancient Greece: prayer (not that prayer=spell, but that some forms of prayer are spells), talismans, candle work, sex, aromas (which were once regarded as a form of magic), etc. Some magical systems employ a raft of tools to facilitate spellcasting, such as those used by ceremonial magicians in the Golden Dawn, and subsequently carried over into modern witchcraft by the first witch to go public, Gerald Gardner. Some folk magic depends on the so-called laws of contagion and similarity, the point being, not that this censor filled with incense can truly dispel evil spirits, as some priests might say, but that it could trigger sufficient power of belief to change reality in accordance with these views. There are also tales from many religions of holy miracle workers, Christian and Buddhist saints, Jewish tzaddikim, etc, who simply changed reality by willing it at once.

Does it work? Up to each person to decide, isn't it? The spells I've performed have worked, at least, as I've seen it, and I worked hard at them. It could be said that reality would have continued anyway along the path it merrily trundled, whether I had interfered, or not. That's fine if someone believes this. I'm not asking anybody to accept my version of reality as theirs. The spells gave me results, or so it seemed, and I have no way of establishing a control subject for an experiment.

As for languages, colored candles, incense type, etc, there are two schools of thought. One is that you use it all because it's right and proper, with a special affinity for the "work" you are trying to achieve, and makes results more likely to occur. The second is that it's all intended to aid the witch's imagination. Much the same dichotomy has dogged the Roman Catholic Church in arguments over translating the bible or holding the Mass in local vernaculars. Is it possible to consecrate a marriage in the middle of a rain forest with only a branch from a tree, if the priest/ess be true? I follow the second theory, in any case, and I rarely use tools.

I don't mentally influence things, unless I'm trying to work on my body, or to heal pain in another. Then what I mentally influence is more than likely not the thing itself, but a representation of it in my mind, upon which I work.
And, finally, if nothing can be accomplished without little help of physical reality, what is the worth of all these spells?
If I want a certain job, I may have a fantastic resume, but why shouldn't I also help matters along by dressing up a bit for the first interview? I may think I'm a young, muscular Adonis so a first date will go very well, indeed, but wouldn't it help if I let it slip that I owned three major department store chains? It never hurts to find the means of making your chances better.

And in some cases, where physical efforts are impossible, spells can provide an alternative. There, you're playing against the unknown, since you have no way of influencing the outcome physically. You can only believe that what you're doing will make a difference, and if you've had successes before, it certainly helps.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
Lady Dragonfly
Posts: 1384
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 8:12 pm
Location: Dreamworld
Contact:

Post by Lady Dragonfly »

Do you think that your thougts are caused by changes in form?
I haven't had many thoughts lately, but those few I entertained were rather abstract. :)
Is the rainbow real? Don't we have all kinds of labels as I mentioned regarding what molecules and neurons are?
The rainbow effect is produced by refraction. It does not matter whether you understand the rainbow physics or firmly believe it is the Covenant between you and God. In both cases you will see the same image. Rainbow exists outside your interpretation. If you see a Buddhist Temple, your eyes will register an image of a building. If you recognize the image, your brain will make available a host of information associated with it (content is dependent on your personal experience etc). If you are not familiar with the image and have a limited education, your brain would indeed label it as just a weird house. But the image in your brain would be practically the same. The visual info would be delivered via optical nerve to the occipital lobe of your brain (visual center) connected to so-called association areas (Broka's and Wernicke's).
You would experience a certain pattern of interneuronal connections referred to as a thought.
The heart sutra says: "form is emptiness and emptiness is form" In other words form is insubstantial and dependent on causes and conditions. And that which is insubstantial and dependent on causes and conditions is also form.
If I understand correctly, it is about abstract and concrete objects (abstractum and concretum), right?
Do you think that your self is your body? Does that seem right? But wait your body is always changing. How can you find it? It is dependent upon elements that are not your body (and composed of them). Also, YOUR BODY IS MERELY LABELED AS SUCH by heartmind.

That is why the diamond sutra says "a flower is not a flower. that is how it is a flower."

Is it meaningful to say whether form or thought is the ground condition? What is important? Is there a ground as such?
I am embarassed... I don't quite understand what you are talking about.
And tell me of iambic pentameter :) How are the molecules and structures responding to that? Perhaps the quarks are giggling and laughing at the synapses which are curious about atoms? (The meaning of that is when you try to find smaller and smaller pieces you get sawdust. Grasping mind was never the right tool I can tell you)
LOL, my molecules and structures are giggling at that! :laugh: I don’t mind sawdust.

All things are mysterious up until explained (and the process is indefinite). After a certain explanation is given (the nature of the explanation is irrelevant), a person may either become even more interested and ask more questions, or get bored.
I find human beliefs interesting to study. I will read more about Buddhism. My knowledge of it is extremely limited.

EDIT:
Sure you do! How often do you get to speak with a live, captive witch who isn't a self-aggrandizing salesperson in disguise, and has at least some tenuous contact with reality as we all know and love it? I don't mind. I'd rather answer questions honestly and leave people to think what they will, they let them imagine what they can, and come out far from the mark.
LOL! I have to go now, but I will answer later.
Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe.
-- Euripides
User avatar
Claudius
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: Hyrule
Contact:

Post by Claudius »

The distinction concrete and abstract is created by mind. The point isn't that science is not true the point is how we think. When we see something we believe our perceptions are permanent, self existent, and we think reality should fit our mental constructs. It doesn't, it changes, and there is nothing to find - we get sawdust. This is true of form. Emptiness is not like an empty gas tank in this sense. It is a very poor english word for a sublime meditative realization. What it means is that objects are NOT pervaded by independent existence. IT TAKES AGES TO WEAR DOWN THIS HABIT. Instead we pursue pleasure/pain, gain/loss, praise/blame, fame/infamy although in light of emptiness this is quite funny.

The diamond sutra says "a flower is not a flower. that is why it is a flower." This means that a real flower is much greater than just your ideas about it which seem to think there is a boundary to a flower. Actually the flower includes, light, rain, wind, earth, insects, gardiners, their parents, war, education, poverty, notions of beauty, wedding ceremonies, funerals. It includes the whole universe. A unity is meant in this case and not a oneness (oneness would just be a notion impermanent, dependent, and unsatisfactory).

There is also the ultimate aspect of reality which is pure, permanent, and bliss. After getting used to emptiness meditators usually cling to that idea and need methods to overcome that. The self-nature of ultimate reality is debated I think between Rangtong and Shentong within Tibetan Buddhism. And Buddhism is vast there are also Therevada, Zen, Nichiren, Pureland, and no doubt other schools who have a different flavor. Because Buddha knew that there were many types of people he had to give more than just one flavor of teaching.

What is the purpose of this? To end the suffering. We feel great pain when we expect things to be other than they are. Also we suffer from attraction, aversion, and ignorance. The goal to become a buddha is not to learn an elaborate and impressive philosophy, but rather to stop suffering, help others, and tame the mind. Kindness is a good word to point toward that.

Regarding Meditation:

Shamatha meditation had been discovered for ages in India. Various methods of quieting the mind. Buddha was not satisfied even with very sublime states. He knew there was something missing. After starving himself for years (and practicing) he wondered if he should sit like he did as a boy and took some milk from a farmers daughter to regain his strength. That is when he attained enlightenment. The method is Vipasshyana (sic?) also known as insight meditation. I haven't started this practice yet. I think your insight is used to examine the nature of your mind. As mental obscurations are removed the buddha nature - clarity, openness, and sensitivity are uncovered. You have to prepare your mind by ethics (so you are not distracted), concentration (same), and wisdom (what you are doing meditating...starts conceptual later non-conceptual). When obscurations are removed because the buddha nature is luminous it can understand reality and you are omniscient (which might be different from my ideas of how a theoretical creator God is...I don't know). Due to this you can help beings.
Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
User avatar
fable
Posts: 30676
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2001 12:00 pm
Location: The sun, the moon, and the stars.
Contact:

Post by fable »

My understanding--and I'm sure Claudius can correct me if I'm wrong--is that in Buddhism, meditation is used to quiet the mind. Witches employ directed meditation, where the mind guides itself (or another acts as guide) along a path where certain features are known in advance. It could be called imagination being put at the service of the will, and some will say it is nothing but imagination. But then, if you're using it to gain more understanding of yourself, that really isn't a concern; though you need to monitor what's going on around you to make sure you stay on course. And if you're a witch, you either accept that at least a piece of what you're experiencing in your wake-sleep state has a level of reality, or you don't.
I should have explained in this that it isn't accomplished in full consciousness. It's not completely unlike a form of self-hynopsis: a part of the mind must be awake to act as Virgil, guiding you along the path and protecting where nececssary, while the sensate you is pulling a Dante and experiencing. It's a bit more complicated than that, because Dante in this case is actually creating the journey as it happens, while Viirgil is giving the suggestions that lead to its creation. And many witches would say it isn't an act of creation at all, but a link-up to something that has existed for a very long time, and just needs to be contacted in the right way.
What is the purpose of this? To end the suffering. We feel great pain when we expect things to be other than they are. Also we suffer from attraction, aversion, and ignorance. The goal to become a buddha is not to learn an elaborate and impressive philosophy, but rather to stop suffering, help others, and tame the mind. Kindness is a good word to point toward that.
Do attraction, aversion, and ignorance lead to suffering? I've heard this many times over the years, but what if you want something you can't have: does that create suffering, or wisdom? Take the person who is born into a very wealthy family and can have whatever they want, and someone who must strive to get what they want. The first may not experience this kind of suffering that comes from unfulfilled attraction, but are they the wiser for it?

If aversion causes suffering, doesn't it sometimes lead to the redress of wrongs? If some people of all colors, mainly black, hadn't marched and spoken out and died to fight for equality in the US back in the 1960s, blacks would likely still be slaves in all but name, here. They hated that condition, and they did something about it. Aversion, a sense of wrong that creates indignation and results in change, can do many good things--and has.

As for ignorance: a severely handicapped person can go two ways, in life: they can either go down the path of self-pity and bitterness, or become more compassionate to others. Are the suffering they've been through and the lessons they've learned not worth the experience?

I know you'll realize I'm not attacking you or your beliefs. I'm seeking to better understand them. The books I've read on Buddhism provide lip service answers drawn from scriptures, but I've yet to hear these questions answered directly. Or possibly, just possibly, I'm too thick to hear properly.
To the Righteous belong the fruits of violent victory. The rest of us will have to settle for warm friends, warm lovers, and a wink from a quietly supportive universe.
User avatar
Claudius
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 12:48 pm
Location: Hyrule
Contact:

Post by Claudius »

Do attraction, aversion, and ignorance lead to suffering? I've heard this many times over the years, but what if you want something you can't have: does that create suffering, or wisdom? Take the person who is born into a very wealthy family and can have whatever they want, and someone who must strive to get what they want. The first may not experience this kind of suffering that comes from unfulfilled attraction, but are they the wiser for it?
Sensitivity is an aspect of buddha nature. We can tell when something is wrong. But when our views are wrong: time, self and other, experiencer and experienced...we often view something distressing as foreign and try to make it go away. That can harden into hatred. Or we can simply make our world smaller and view that as outside ourselves dulling...ignorance. When we find something heartwarming we might want to possess that object, greed. All because we don't understand. It takes a considerable amount of time to correct habits. And various methods. A teacher helps who has the wisdom and wish to help.

The end of slavery had many causes (not just one). Did anger cause slavery to end? If I kill someone and give the money to the United Negro College Fund is that good? Or bad? Of course they need the money but that good done from the money has many causes. In other words is anger resulting in agression the only route that can lead to positive change. Seems like a bargain with the devil as war begets war.

The handicapped persons suffering and experiences are the manure for their practice. Just as my experience is my manure. Suffering is one of the reasons that humans have an advantage. They can become free from samsara. A god is very delighted in heaven (think metaphorically if you will). Untill the good deeds leading to ending in that realm are exhausted. Their attendants leave, their raiment fades, and they begin to age....fully knowing that they could be reborn in any karmic realm: pride, anger, jealousy, ignorance, attachment, greed; form and formless.

PS - I feel I should give a better answer but perhaps my insight is lacking. Could be good stimulations for forming good questions in my mind. Thanks.
Right Speech has four aspects: 1. Not lying, but speaking the truth, 2. Avoiding rude and coarse words, but using gentle speech beneficial to the listener, 3. Not slandering, but promoting friendliness and unity, 4. Avoiding frivolous speech, but saying only what is appropriate and beneficial.
Post Reply