Reconciling Multiple Spiritual Traditions

[Freomæg]

In my introduction thread (http://www.theapricity.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1049&page=2) I made some mention of how I reconcile Celtic and Germanic spiritual paths. A suggestion was made that I start a thread dedicated to that precise topic, so here it is.

I believe it's possible to collaborate most Pagan forms of spiritual practice into one legitimate path of your own (or your own folk, as with Britain) without undermining established traditions - particularly when connecting two such similar folkish strains as Celtic and Germanic Paganism. The pairing of, say, Native American with Germanic spirituality is possible even, to a certain extent - but not as compatible as two neighbouring, ethnically-similar spiritual traditions.

Here are my views on the the practicality of this. I'll concentrate mostly on the bonding of Celtic and Germanic tradition as it is the combination I am most familiar with.

I'll start by clarifying that all spirituality worldwide has a common conceptual origin. 40,000 years ago or so, what we now call 'Shamanism' came to exist. This occured at roughly the same time the world over. The idea of 'journeying' to an immaterial spirit-world took flight, often by the use of hallucinogenic drugs. Shamans obtained knowledge from the spirit-world to aid activities in this world such as healing, hunting and science. Soon the Shamans encountered recurring gods and spirits in the spirit-world, the importance of seasonal and astrological events, in spiritual matters, became significant and were marked by festival and ritual. Thus, Paganism is Shamanism in origin and all key elements of every Pagan tradition share the same key principals. In reconciling different forms of Paganism, it is these commonalities that should be focussed upon.

It is widely observed that the gods of different European pantheons have their counterparts elsewhere. Example: The Roman god of war Mars compares with the Germanic god of war Týr/Tīw. Indeed, in Occult texts, the major planets of our solar system are asigned to the major gods of the pantheons and the planet Mars is known as 'the warrior planet'. In the same texts, Mars is Tuesday's planet. Seeing as the word 'Tuesday' is synomynous with Tīw's Day, it becomes clear that both Týr/Tīw and Mars carry the same significance and are one another's counterpart. Similar comparisons are drawn throughout the major gods, planets and days of the week.

Possibly even before the gods, were the symbols.

http://tbn2.google.com/images?q=tbn:-k2uIkPrvtSoUM:http://www.medwaycropcircle.co.uk/fig%25201%2520Ouroboros.jpg

The snake or serpent devouring its own tail is among the most ancient of all symbols. Known as the Ouroboros (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ouroboros) to the Greeks, Jörmungandr or the Midgard Serpent to the Germanic, Aidophedo in West African traditions, Quetzalcoatl to the Aztecs, Adisesha in Hindu tradition - to name a few. It represents cyclicality, rebirth and immortality throughout and is an excellent example of how the serpent or snake was of foremost importance in all early forms of spirituality.

To focus more on the commonalities between Celtic and Germanic tradition, I'll use the examples of the Valknut and Celtic Trinity.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:k5eQ4gspkjCbbM:http://www.bthumbstudios.com/images/stick_valknut.gif
Valknut

http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:f9CRr2c82VVRFM:http://notesfromaroom.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/triquetra.gif
Celtic Trinity (or Triquetra)

Through my studies, it seems both essentially represent the three realms and their seamless connection (represented by the unicursal nature of the design).


The Valknut's three interlocking shapes and nine points suggest rebirth, pregnancy, and cycles of reincarnation. The nine points are also suggestive of the Nine Worlds (and the nine fates) of Norse mythology. Their interwoven shape suggests the belief of the interrelatedness of the three realms of earth, hel, and the heavens, and the nine domains they encompass. The Valknut is also an important symbol to many followers of the Odinist faith, who often wear it as a symbol of the faith.

Source (http://www.holynationofodin.org/education/sunwheel.html)

The Triquetra has similar connotations and is often used by Germanic Heathens in place of, or as well as the Valknut. Sources claiming that the Valknut belongs to Odin are not neccessarily incorrect, but I would contest that the core concepts of the spirit-world, the three realms and symbolism are probably older even than communication with the gods. My guess is that the Valknut would have been adopted by Odin at a later date.

Interesting to note that ancient Northern-European rock carvings (such as runes) are often very angular, whereas ancient British/Celtic carvings were more rounded and organic (such as Ogham).

http://www.yourirish.com/images/newgrange-celtic-carvings.jpg
Newgrange, Ireland

http://www.runewebvitki.com/KylverStone.GIF
Kylver Stone


In conclusion, my method of reconciling Celtic with Germanic spiritual traditions is to focus almost wholly upon the commonalities. This often involves emphasis of the earliest, most universal concepts, with the festivities and rituals of choice being the ones most strongly established in my land (usually Celtic). Britain IS a Celto-Germanic country and so it has been vital to find a way to converge the two paths into a single uniquely-British one. The gods are more difficult. You can either bring them all together, or focus more upon the nameless, archetypal characteristics of Tyr/Mars, Woden/Mercury, Thunor/Jupiter and Venus/Freya whilst opting not to commit to one name or another (I realise those are Roman, not Celtic gods, but they're easier to compare due to the Occultic synchronisation of gods with certain Roman-named planets).

Hope some of you made it to the end of that and if anyone has anything to add or correct, please do. I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this.

[Psychonaut]

I believe it's possible to collaborate most Pagan forms of spiritual practice into one legitimate path of your own (or your own folk, as with Britain) without undermining established traditions - particularly when connecting two such similar folkish strains as Celtic and Germanic Paganism.

I'm definitely starting to lean in this direction myself. While I certainly understand the merits of strict reconstructionism, I've lately found myself wondering why I was only concerned with reconstructing the religion of one group of my ancestors. For those of us whose ancestry lies in Germany, France, Switzerland or the Isles, chances are your ancestry is more Celtic than anything else (if the distributions of R1b1b2 mean what we think they do). My first thought when attempting to reconcile this was to go back to the common root of both Celtic and Germanic paganism: Proto-Indo-European polytheism. However, since that's entirely conjectural, it wouldn't make for a good religion at all.

What I've been doing of late is intentionally using ambiguous names that could refer to a Germanic God just as easily as it could a Celtic (or even *gasp* Latin). For example, when I step outside, I hail the Sun, Moon, Day, Night and Dawn, and I call them by those names. I hail the Spear God and the Queen of the Heavens. I hail the Lord and Lady of the Wood. And so on. I think it helps that I've never been too hung up on the Norse perspective and was always a lot more interested in Continental polytheism (since that's where my roots mostly lie). I still don't think I'd be OK with mentioning the specific names of deities from disparate pantheons in the same rite, but a certain level of ambiguity is certainly making me feel more at ease with my Gallic ancestors. :)


I'll start by clarifying that all spirituality worldwide has a common conceptual origin. 40,000 years ago or so, what we now call 'Shamanism' came to exist...

An excellent rundown of Shamanism. I've just got one thing to add. Some variety of ancestor veneration and funeral rites are observed in, I think, all Paleolithic cultures. We know that this definitely formed part of the core of Germanic religion and probably early Celtic as well. I think it's important to note that, due to the practice of ancestor worship, most Paleolithic and Neolithic religions probably would've been what we call Folkish nowadays. In any event, we know the Celts were, thanks to their 'protector of the folk' Toutatis. So, I think that the ethnic component should certainly go up as another commonality that Celtic and Germanic faiths shared, and I see no reason why the ideas can't be fused together into a Celto-Germanic identity.

[Jägerstaffel]

As someone of Germanic-British Isles blood, I have to agree with you both.
There doesn't have to be an incompatibility in the way we venerate our traditions or our ancestors.

I think it's very likely that both sides of my bloodline had a very similiar view of the world and our place in it and for me, as my Heathenism is more of a celebration of what I consider my ancestor's ideals - it makes it easier to reconcile the differences in the beliefs.

[Lyfing]

Shamanism was probably the first go at spirituality, but just because the mythologies of the planters and astrologers came after shamanism doesn't mean they are some sort of an evolution of it. In fact, they may very well do nothing but take away the individuality of the shamans in favor of a "holy society."

Joseph Campbell in his Primitive Mythology has explained this better than I can, so here is what he had to say..


The highest concern of all the mythologies, ceremonials, ethical
systems, and social organizations of the agriculturally based societies
has been that of suppressing the manifestations of individualism;
and this has been generally achieved by compelling or
persuading people to identify themselves not with their own interests,
intuitions, or modes of experience, but with the archetypes
of behavior and systems of sentiment developed and maintained in
the public domain. A world vision derived from the lesson of the
plants, representing the individual as a mere cell or moment in a
larger process that of the sib, the race, or, in larger terms, the
species so devaluates even the first signs of personal spontaneity
that every impulse to self-discovery is purged away. 'Truly, truly,
I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies,
it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit." n This noble
maxim represents the binding sentiment of the holy society that
is to say, the church militant, suffering, and triumphant of those
who do not wish to remain alone.

But, on the other hand, there have always been those who have
very much wished to remain alone, and have done so, achieving
sometimes, indeed, even that solitude in which the Great Spirit, the
Power, the Great Mystery that is hidden from the group in its
concerns is intuited with the inner impact of an immediate force.
And the endless round of the serpent's way, biting its tail, sloughing
its old skin, to come forth renewed and slough again, is then
itself cast away often with scorn for the supernormal experience
of an eternity beyond the beat of time. Like an eagle the spirit
then soars on its own wings. The dragon "Thou Shalt," as Nietzsche
terms the social fiction of the moral law, has been slain by the
lion of self-discovery; and the master roars as the Buddhists
phrase it the lion roar: the roar of the great Shaman of the mountain
peaks, of the void beyond all horizons, and of the bottomless
abyss.

Primitive Mythology, page 240

So, with the above in mind, we can see how the two world views differ to the point of being opposites. Hardly could have one came out of the other, even though they may spring from the same source, namely man-kind.

The conflict between these two world views can be seen in the mythologies of anywhere they came into contact. In our Teutonic mythology with the Jotuns, the binding of Loki, and maybe even the war between the Aesir and Vanir. Again I will let Campbell explain further..


I do not know of any myth that represents more clearly than
this the crisis that must have faced the societies of the Old World
when the neolithic order of the earth-bound villages began to make
its power felt in a gradual conquest of the most habitable portions
of the earth. The situation in Arizona and New Mexico at the
period of the discovery of America was, culturally, much like that
which must have prevailed in the Near and Middle East and in
Europe from the fourth to second millenniums B.C., when the rigid
patterns proper to an orderly settlement were being imposed on
peoples used to the freedom and vicissitudes of the hunt. And if
we turn our eyes to the mythologies of the Hindus, Persians,
Greeks, Celts, and Germans, we immediately recognize, in the
well-known, oft-recited tales of the conquest of the titans by the
gods, analogies to this legend of the subjugation of the shamans
by the Hactcin. The titans, dwarfs, and giants are represented as
the powers of an earlier mythological age crude and loutish, egoistic
and lawless, in contrast to the comely gods, whose reign of
heavenly order harmoniously governs the worlds of nature and
man. The giants were overthrown, pinned beneath mountains,
exiled to the rugged regions at the bounds of the earth, and as
long as the power of the gods can keep them there the people, the
animals, the birds, and all living things will know the blessings of
a world ruled by law.

Primitive Mythology, pages 238-239

Now, to go a bit further, we are living in a different world where the emphasis is once again on the individual, on making man-kind into gods.


The prophecy is the same as that of the Eddic Twilight of the
Gods, when Loki will lead forth the rugged hosts of Hel:

Then shall happen what seems great tidings: the Wolf
shall swallow the sun; and this shall seem to men a great
harm. Then the other wolf shall seize the moon, and he also
shall work great ruin; the stars shall vanish from the heavens.
Then shall come to pass these tidings also: all the earth shall
tremble so, and the crags, that trees shall be torn up from
the earth, and the crags fall to ruin; and all fetters and bonds
shall be broken and rent. . . . The Fenris-Wolf shall advance
with gaping mouth, and his lower jaw shall be against
the earth, but the upper against heaven, he would gape yet
more if there were room for it; fires blaze forth from his eyes
and nostrils. The Midgard Serpent shall blow venom so that
he shall sprinkle all the air and water; and he is very terrible,
and shall be on one side of the Wolf. . . . Then shall the
Ash of Yggdrasil tremble, and nothing then shall be without
fear in heaven or on earth.65

The binding of the shamans by the Hactcin, by the gods and
their priests, which commenced with the victory of the neolithic
over the paleolithic way of life, may perhaps be already terminating
--today--in this period of the irreversible transition of society
from an agricultural to industrial base, when not the piety of the
planter, bowing humbly before the will of the calendar and the
gods of rain and sun, but the magic of the laboratory, flying rocket
ships where the gods once sat, holds the promise of the boons of
the future.

"Could it be possible! This old saint in the forest has not heard
that God is dead!" 66

Nietzsche's word was the first pronouncement of the Promethean
Titan that is now coming unbound within us for the next world
age. And the priests of the chains of Zeus may well tremble; for
the bonds are disintegrating of themselves.

Primitive Mythology, page 281

And, again, further..


With this we come to the final hint of what the specific orientation
of the modern hero-task must be, and discover the real
cause for the disintegration of all of our inherited religious formulae.
The center of gravity, that is to say, of the realm of mystery and
danger has definitely shifted- Nor the primitive hunting peoples of
those remotest human millenniums when the sabertooth tiger,
the mammoth, and the lesser presences of the animal kingdom
were the primary manifestations of what was alien—the source
at once of danger, and of sustenance—the great human problem
was to become linked psychologically to the task of sharing the
wilderness with these beings. An unconscious identification took
place, and this was finally rendered conscious in the half-human,
half-animal, figures of the mythological totem-ancestors. The animals
became the tutors of humanity. Through acts of literal imitation—
such as today appear only on the children's playground
(or in the madhouse) —an effective annihilation of the human
ego was accomplished and society achieved a cohesive organization.
Similarly, the tribes supporting themselves on plant-food
became cathected to the plant; the life-rituals of planting and
reaping were identified with those of human procreation, birth,
and progress to maturity. Both the plant and the animal worlds,
however, were in the end brought under social control. Whereupon
the great field of instructive wonder shifted—to the skies—
and mankind enacted the great pantomime of the sacred moonking,
the sacred sun-king, the hieratic, planetary state, and the
symbolic festivals of the world-regulating spheres.

Today all of these mysteries have lost their force; their symbols
no longer interest our psyche. The notion of a cosmic law,
which all existence serves and to which man himself must bend,
has long since passed through the preliminary mystical stages
represented in the old astrology, and is now simply accepted
in mechanical terms as a matter of course. The descent of the Occidental
sciences from the heavens to the earth (from seventeenthcentury
astronomy to nineteenth-century biology), and their concentration
today, at last, on man himself (in twentieth-century
anthropology and psychology), mark the path of a prodigious
transfer of the focal point of human wonder. Not the animal
world, not the plant world, not the miracle of the spheres, but
man himself is now the crucial mystery. Man is that alien presence
with whom the forces of egoism must come to terms,
through whom the ego is to be crucified and resurrected, and in
whose image society is to be reformed. Man, understood however
not as "I" but as "Thou": for the ideals and temporal institutions
of no tribe, race, continent, social class, or century, can be
the measure of the inexhaustible and multifariously wonderful
divine existence that is the life in all of us.

The modern hero, the modern individual who dares to heed
the call and seek the mansion of that presence with whom it is
our whole destiny to be atoned, cannot, indeed must not, wait
for his community to cast off its slough of pride, fear, rationalized
avarice, and sanctified misunderstanding. "Live," Nietzsche
says, "as though the day were here." It is not society that is to
guide and save the creative hero, but precisely the reverse. And
so every one of us shares the supreme ordeal —carries the cross
of the redeemer—not in the bright moments of his tribe's great
victories, but in the silences of his personal despair.

The Hero with a Thousand Faces, pages 360-362

One last thing. I think this way of going about reconciling ourselves is wonderful, and I offer one last quote ( finally..:lightbul: ) from good 'ole Joseph Campbell..


The norms of myth, understood in the way rather of the "elementary ideas" than of the "ethnic", recognized, as in the Domitilla Ceiling (Figure 1), through an intelligent "making use" not of one mythology only but of all the dead and set-fast symbologies of the past, will enable the individual to anticipate and activate in himself the centers of his own creative imagination, out of which his own myth and life-building "Yes because" may then unfold. But in the end, as in the case of Parzival, the guide within will be his own noble heart alone, and the guide without, the image of beauty, the radiance of divinity, that wakes in his heart amor: the deepest, inmost seed of his nature, consubstantial with the process of the All, "thus come." And in this life-creative adventure the criterion of achievement will be, as in every one of the tales here reviewed, the courage to let go the past, with its truths, its goals, its dogmas of "meaning," and its gifts: to die to the world and to come to birth from within.

Creative Mythology, pages 677-678

Later,
-Lyfing

[Freomæg]

I certainly understand the merits of strict reconstructionism

Me too. And for a Scandinavian Germanic, southern Italian, or perhaps even a Welshman it would be most prudent to exercise a strict form of reconstructionism, because the ancestry is relatively singular. But for people like us it feels more wholesome and honest to acknowledge all of our significant ancestral ways.



I've lately found myself wondering why I was only concerned with reconstructing the religion of one group of my ancestors. For those of us whose ancestry lies in Germany, France, Switzerland or the Isles, chances are your ancestry is more Celtic than anything else

Yes and I think that in these places - particularly the Isles - Celto-Germanicism has become a group all of its own, rather than merely being a way to describe the mixture of two distinct groups. Here, we've had 1,500 years of Celto-Germanicism, and whilst most of that time lies within the jurasdiction of Christianity, it's still a lot of time during which pre-Christian Celtic and Germanic folklore and belief have become inextricable from one another. I've never felt right opting to acknowledge Germanicism at the neglect of Celticism, or vice versa.



I still don't think I'd be OK with mentioning the specific names of deities from disparate pantheons in the same rite, but a certain level of ambiguity is certainly making me feel more at ease with my Gallic ancestors. :)

That's something I'm not comfortable with either but the key, as you said, is ambiguity. The character, strength and significance of each god is what matters - not the name. My intuition tells me that the gods are comfortable with being recognised by multiple names, if need be. During meditation, I'm open to the possibilty of encountering Thunor, but that he might introduce himself to me by an unfamiliar name. I could then choose to use that name when referring to him. Thunor might only be named "Thunor" because one ancient Germanic encountered him and introduced the rest of his tribe to "Thunor". Had everyone in that tribe encountered that same god directly, who's to say they wouldn't each have returned with a completely different name for him. This ties in to the points Lyfing made.



I think that the ethnic component should certainly go up as another commonality that Celtic and Germanic faiths shared, and I see no reason why the ideas can't be fused together into a Celto-Germanic identity.
As with language, I'm certain Celtic and Germanic spiritualities are two adjacent branches on the same tree with a not-so-distant connection.



Shamanism was probably the first go at spirituality, but just because the mythologies of the planters and astrologers came after shamanism doesn't mean they are some sort of an evolution of it. In fact, they may very well do nothing but take away the individuality of the shamans in favor of a "holy society."

I see your point Lyfing and it harks back to that old critique of 'religion being a perversion of spirituality'. But in my opinion, rather than early religion being the antithesis of original spirituality (Shamanism), it is the 'perversion' or development-of, if you like. This in the sense that I don't believe religious-Paganism would exist had it not been for earlier, pre-religious contact with the spirit-world. But I take your point that they are in some contrast to one another. As I mentioned above in my reply to Psychonaut, religion (even non-oppressive forms of early Paganism) was based on the idea that a select group of people would relay their direct experience with the otherworld and its spirits, whilst the majority would take this as faith. One example being that Thunor is only called "Thunor" because one person was introduced to him by that name.



So, with the above in mind, we can see how the two world views differ to the point of being opposites. Hardly could have one came out of the other, even though they may spring from the same source, namely man-kind.

I respect your insightful opinion on the matter, but I can't see them as opposites. For me, the core of all pre-Abrahamic religion is belief in the spirit-world(s). Two systems which carry this same core have something vital in common, to my eyes.

[Psychonaut]

Me too. And for a Scandinavian Germanic, southern Italian, or perhaps even a Welshman it would be most prudent to exercise a strict form of reconstructionism, because the ancestry is relatively singular. But for people like us it feels more wholesome and honest to acknowledge all of our significant ancestral ways.

Exactly. Like I've said elsewhere, being French is a bit tricky when it comes to dealing with pre-Roman meta-ethnic labels, because none of them exactly fit. The only reason I've ever been concerned with any type of meta-ethnic label to begin with is because my particular ethnic group arose during the Christian era and has no pagan tradition of its own to reach back to. While I'm certainly more comfortable with the Germanic mythos, lately, ever since I uncovered some actual Gauls in my family tree, my Celtic roots just seem to have been calling.

Looking back I can see where I've wrongly tried to convince myself and others that I was more Germanic than Celtic when that may not be the case at all; I'm not really sure. The reason for that was certainly, what I see now, as a false "need" for a singularly Germanic religious expression. A lot of that probably stems from my utter hatred of those fluffy Wiccan types, but, regardless, it doesn't seem to have been the healthiest phase.


During meditation, I'm open to the possibilty of encountering Thunor, but that he might introduce himself to me by an unfamiliar name.

It may not be a wholly appropriate response, but upon reading this I was immediately reminded of a passage from Nietzsche's Antichrist that I'd been reading just today:


The fact that the strong races of northern Europe did not repudiate this Christian god does little credit to their gift for religion--and not much more to their taste. They ought to have been able to make an end of such a moribund and worn-out product of the decadence. A curse lies upon them because they were not equal to it; they made illness, decrepitude and contradiction a part of their instincts--and since then they have not managed to create any more gods. Two thousand years have come and gone--and not a single new god! Instead, there still exists, and as if by some intrinsic right,--as if he were the ultimatum and maximum of the power to create gods, of the creator spiritus in mankind--this pitiful god of Christian monotono-theism! This hybrid image of decay, conjured up out of emptiness, contradiction and vain imagining, in which all the instincts of decadence, all the cowardices and wearinesses of the soul find their sanction!--

I wonder if our "need" for religious singularity might not, in part at least, be an instinct leftover from Christianity. All of the evidence leads us to believe that our ancestors were truly pluralistic and had no problems adapting their faiths during times of migration or conquest. So, why should we, peoples forged from disparate groups, cling to the identity of only one of our ingredients? Is the sum not stronger than the parts?

I've also got one question for you, Cythraul. On a more practical note, how do you, personally, reconcile the seasonal festivals?

[Freomæg]

I've also got one question for you, Cythraul. On a more practical note, how do you, personally, reconcile the seasonal festivals?
I'm going to be completely honest and say that I don't pay great attention to the festivals. The Winter Solstice and Samhain are the ones I primarily celebrate. Firstly, I've never been keen on the concept of honouring certain deities at certain times because I feel they're available to me at all times; Secondly, my form of spiritual practice is less about gods and more about my own personal spirit allies.

If I put more sway in seasonal festivals, I'd reconcile them by acknowledging the ones most inextricably linked to the traditions of my ancestral land. For example, Beltane/May Day is paramount within British tradition. I'm less interested in whether this is Celtic, Germanic, Roman, Gaelic or Brythonic than I am in the fact that it is British. In other words, whichever Celtic and Germanic festivals have prevailed most in Britain are important to me. I'll let my country's tradition choose which ones I adopt.

[Psychonaut]

If I put more sway in seasonal festivals, I'd reconcile them by acknowledging the ones most inextricably linked to the traditions of my ancestral land.

Excellent. We've worked out a similar arrangement based on our American holidays. The Yuletide and Easter go without saying; then come November, we coincide our Harvest festival with Thanksgiving. I'm very keen on working pagan traditions back into the holidays that already exist in our cultural matrix rather than having my kids be the only ones in town who don't celebrate Yule on December 25th. We certainly don't have traditions that are as far reaching as you guys, but we're trying to made due with what we've got.

[Baron Samedi]

I accidentally posted in the "Celts and Germans" thread, but I will say again that I am ALL FOR codifying some "system" where Celtic and Germanic belief can be syncretic.

I think that the stigma of "dual trad", especially for two folk groups that were confused constantly anways, needs to end.

[Lyfing]

Could any of you all recommend some good things to read on about Celtic Mythology..??

I've always been just way off into the Germanic Sphere, and now, all of a sudden, I find myself wondering about just what it was these Celtic folk ( of which I am no doubt a part of ) were messing around with..??

About all I know of is Queen Meave, with her Mother Right ( as Campbell told me about ) with The Cattle Raid of Cooley. And, Cuchullin.

Cernunnus, the horned god, the images of him, always did something to me..

Tell me more..??

Later,
-Lyfing

[Brynhild]

Could any of you all recommend some good things to read on about Celtic Mythology..??

I've always been just way off into the Germanic Sphere, and now, all of a sudden, I find myself wondering about just what it was these Celtic folk ( of which I am no doubt a part of ) were messing around with..??

About all I know of is Queen Meave, with her Mother Right ( as Campbell told me about ) with The Cattle Raid of Cooley. And, Cuchullin.

Cernunnus, the horned god, the images of him, always did something to me..

Tell me more..??

Later,
-Lyfing

Rubs hands with glee! hehe May I acquaint you with the Morrigan, who is not unlike a Valkyrie in choosing the fallen on a battlefield. Cu Chulainn apparently rejected her advances - pretty much the end of him! We also have the Daghda, called the Good God or Father, because he has a cauldron of plenty, a magical harp and a club which destroys and heals. Shades of Thor? Lugh is the equal of Odin, he otherthrew Nuada after he lost his hand, like Odin over Tyr.

Currently, I only have 3 books to recommend, with the intent of accumulating more. They are:

1) Celtic Magic Tales by Liam MacUistin - the following four stories tell of The Quest for Aideen, The fabulous deeds of the Sons of Tuireann, Cu Chulainn and the feast of Bricrui and Deirdre and the Sons of Usnach
2) Celtic Mythology by Geddes and Grosset - outlining the origins, beliefs and development of the mythology of the Celts
3) Celtic Myth/Heroes of the Dawn distributed by Time Life - More about the individuals who helped shaped the myths and legends as we know them to be now.

It is time to acknowledge the fact that both Celtic and Norse traditions deserve to be side by side - with due respect given to their separate deities of course, as I never meld the two in my rituals.

[Psychonaut]

Rubs hands with glee! hehe May I acquaint you with the Morrigan, who is not unlike a Valkyrie in choosing the fallen on a battlefield. Cu Chulainn apparently rejected her advances - pretty much the end of him! We also have the Daghda, called the Good God or Father, because he has a cauldron of plenty, a magical harp and a club which destroys and heals. Shades of Thor? Lugh is the equal of Odin, he otherthrew Nuada after he lost his hand, like Odin over Tyr.

Lugus and Odin are certainly a pair. Both are associated with spears, ravens, wolves, magic, poetry and the world tree. Also, both are triple Gods, with Lugus regularly being depicted in Gaul with three faces, and Odin with his two "brothers" Vili and Ve.

For Thor, Taranis seems like the natural choice. Just like the Lithuanian Perkūnas and the Slavic Perun, Thor and Taranis are both regional forms of the Proto-Indo-European God *perkwunos.

The case for the Morrigan and Valkyries is equally strong, especially since, according to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morrigan):


The 8th century O'Mulconry's Glossary says that Macha is one of the three morrígna.[8] It therefore appears that at this time the name Morrígan was seen as referring to a class of beings rather than an individual.

Freyr seems, to me at least, connected to the Gallic God Esus. Esus (lit. "lord" just like Freyr) was a sort of divine woodsman and was, also like Freyr, associated with both agriculture and fertility.

With Dagda I think there's perhaps a stronger connection to Tyr. Dagda's original Proto-Celtic name was *dagos-deiwos, which stems from the same PIE root as Tyr's Proto-Germanic name, *teiwaz.

Anyone have anything to add, subtract, or any more correspondences?

[Skandi]

There were five warlike goddesses
Fea
Nemon
Badb
Macha
and over all Morrigu

They watched the battle from above.

Personally I think that mixing seperate panthinans is totally unacceptable. I'm of mixed Celtic and Norse ancestry but I would never consider honouring the Gods of both together, especialy not where they overlap in "coverage".

[Brynhild]

There were five warlike goddesses
Fea
Nemon
Badb
Macha
and over all Morrigu

They watched the battle from above.

Personally I think that mixing seperate panthinans is totally unacceptable. I'm of mixed Celtic and Norse ancestry but I would never consider honouring the Gods of both together, especialy not where they overlap in "coverage".

There seems to be a misunderstanding that I am nipping in the bud right now. I honour both my Celtic and Norse ancestry, and I practise both. That doesn't equate with merging the pantheons, more like to allow them to work side by side. I wouldn't be so disrespectful to have Odin work with Lugh, for example, in the same rite. It's more about honouring my heritage, and to ignore one over the other just doesn't cut it for me

[Skandi]

Hmm think I forgot that I had changed threads, sorry there

[Beorn]

Could any of you all recommend some good things to read on about Celtic Mythology..??

I've no idea to the validity of the Matthews reputation within the circles they move in, but as a child I did enjoy Caitlin Matthews (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Books/s?ie=UTF8&rh=n%3A266239%2Cp_27%3ACaitlin%20Matthews&field-author=Caitlin%20Matthews&page=1) books immensely.

This (http://www.amazon.co.uk/ELEMENTS-CELTIC-TRADITION-Caitlin-Matthews/dp/1852300752/ref=sr_1_71?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1232849162&sr=1-71)was the first ever book I read of hers.
It seems she has now branched out into children's books, which interests me to start buying her books again and to ask my parents to finally after years of begging, to bring all my books and stuff with them the next time they visit.

Some here may not need introductions, but here (http://www.hallowquest.org.uk/) is her website to acquaint yourself nonetheless.

[Mrs. Psychonaut]

Yee gods! I wish I had the time tonight to read all of your posts more thoroughly, and to respond more. I will have to come back to this as soon as I get a chance tomorrow, but I would just like to add my vote here. I know Mr. P and probably Hellasson already know I am in favor of finding a way to reconcile Germanic and Celtic traditions. I am, above anything else, Folkish in perspective, so it makes no sense at all for me to not honor the two freely. I mean the vast majority of my ancestry is from areas of Scotland considered to be Norse-Gaelic. HOWEVER, I too am NOT in favor of using specific deity names from different pantheons in ritual together. There is hardly anything more distasteful to me.

Perhaps what it would come down to is a discussion on how one views the idea of Deity. I personally have always had a very Jungian view of deities- meaning that while I do see them as separate, individual beings there are certain ones that tend to represent different aspects or facets of a greater Archetype- such as the Forest God, the Thunderer, the Battle Maidens, or even the Trickster. That may be a very controversial view, but oh well.

Anyway, I do think that our perspectives on the nature of Diety is a very important detail to discuss and hash out before moving much further as a group.

[woody]

I'm not completely opposed to the idea of honoring the traditions and ancestors and Gods of all our lineage. As for the local group that I'm involved with, we keep the "group" worship to the Norse Gods for Blót and with individual practice, we expand as we see fit. It just makes it simple. If someone has ancestry from somewhere like Italy or further south in Europe, and I have no Italian ancestry, it is difficult for me to make a connection for worship of those Gods. Odin, Thor, Frigga, Freyja, Frey, Ostara, Tyr...they are all Gods that were recognized over much of Northern Europe, though sometimes, Gods or Goddesses were sometimes viewed as the same (as in parts of Germany with Freyja, Frigga and Ostara). I just can't give true support to worship and practice of the Greek pantheon, since I have no real connection. I respect the idea of it for those that do have the relationship, but also ask for the respect for my decision not to honor them, though I will not dishonor those specific Gods. For me, and those that I practice with, we all have German/Celt/Nord blood, but there are too many Gods and Goddesses over that much region to give worship to them all. We have all agreed on the names of the Norse at our specific Blóts. If someone has an event aside from what we have organized and planned, we have no problems attending those events, given that the information, intentions, and announcements have been given prior to the event. Even at our Sumbel, those that are not Heathen (ie Asatru) are given a little leniency when toasting to the Gods in the first round. We treat Blót and Sumbel different, though both are equally important.

Overall, I like the idea of Germanic/Celtic worship. We should all honor our ancestry, wherever it has come from.

[Mrs. Psychonaut]

I wonder if our "need" for religious singularity might not, in part at least, be an instinct leftover from Christianity. All of the evidence leads us to believe that our ancestors were truly pluralistic and had no problems adapting their faiths during times of migration or conquest. So, why should we, peoples forged from disparate groups, cling to the identity of only one of our ingredients? Is the sum not stronger than the parts?



This is an excellent point!

[Mrs. Psychonaut]

If someone has ancestry from somewhere like Italy or further south in Europe, and I have no Italian ancestry, it is difficult for me to make a connection for worship of those Gods.


I just can't give true support to worship and practice of the Greek pantheon, since I have no real connection. I respect the idea of it for those that do have the relationship, but also ask for the respect for my decision not to honor them, though I will not dishonor those specific Gods.


I agree, and if you are of the Folkish persuasion it would make no sense to try to connect with something so foreign to your own blood. I would not even feel very comfortable in a ritual with someone else calling on a specific Greek/Roman/Slavic god with me present. But I believe we are ONLY suggesting the reconciliation of Celtic and Germanic here. That is certainly all I would agree to.

[Mrs. Psychonaut]

Some variety of ancestor veneration and funeral rites are observed in, I think, all Paleolithic cultures. We know that this definitely formed part of the core of Germanic religion and probably early Celtic as well. I think it's important to note that, due to the practice of ancestor worship, most Paleolithic and Neolithic religions probably would've been what we call Folkish nowadays. In any event, we know the Celts were, thanks to their 'protector of the folk' Toutatis. So, I think that the ethnic component should certainly go up as another commonality that Celtic and Germanic faiths shared, and I see no reason why the ideas can't be fused together into a Celto-Germanic identity.

A SUPERB observation, my love!

Indeed the veneration of the dead is perhaps the single most important evidence we have of Neolithic Europeans' spiritual views. There is a fascinating history of this in the book The Sacred History of Britain, by Martin Palmer. You should check it out. Its in our library, Honey. I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the development of the Sacred from ancient times in Western Europe.

[Lyfing]

The Celtic and the Germanic folk have long had close ties. They lived side by side and mixed with each other, and I and many others are no doubt because of that. But, they are both still ( well..really..used to be..and still are in places ) a separate folk. What is this reconciling..??

To honour this part and not that is a disgrace..

Like Mrs. Psychonaut was saying about taking divinity from a Jungian perspective..back to the good 'ole archetypes. I hold this same notion. But, it is a dangerous one. Because, it opens the door for everyone of any folk to come up with some eclectic something or another on the same grounds. Back to the good 'ole archetypes of humanity.

I've read that some hold there to be no saying of different names in the same ritual. What is up with that..?? Is that us holding on..?? How can we hold on if all of humanity has within them these archetypes..?? Is it respect or what..?? Any way of magic will work as long as one believes in it..??

I remember reading something of Jung where he said..in even those of purest negro stock he could find greek mythological themes..??

What I'm getting at, I suppose is that..

In doing all of this heralds in a new age. An age where it's pretty much figured out and gone for. Like Bill & Teds excellent adventure..

Later,
-Lyfing

[Psychonaut]

The Celtic and the Germanic folk have long had close ties. They lived side by side and mixed with each other, and I and many others are no doubt because of that. But, they are both still ( well..really..used to be..and still are in places ) a separate folk. What is this reconciling..??

For me, the reconciliation is between my folkish sentiments and the currents of reconstruction. Like you said, it's disgraceful to honor half of a whole, but the issue then becomes how to honor that which is Celtic and Germanic (for those of us who are of mixed stock). It is true that the were separate in Caesar's day and are still separate in extreme geographical regions (Norway, Ireland, etc.), but for those of British or Continental European descent, the reality is that of two (or more) parts that fused together. Since that has been the case for over a thousand years, it seems like there has to be some reconciliation when we're talking about reconstructive religions. After all, if you are of Celto-Germanic stock (as are many here), what sense is there in picking one set of deities and sticking with that? To do so is to deny the rest of your heritage. It just seems to me that there is a huge contradiction between a folkish approach to Heathenry and strict Germanic or strict Celtic reconstruction for a Celto-Germanic individual.

[Vargtand]

I feel by now you already know what I shall say...

But I'll say it anyways, one should be careful with mixing two different set's of gods, as the purpose of gods is that they are the ones you believe in, now to believe in two set's of gods that would ultimately fill the same roles just from some perspective of honouring your heritage.. well then I think you should question your right to be religious to begin with...

Mixing certain elements from two different cultures, sure it can work but one need to be certain that you won’t end up like new-agers or wiccans and pick and chose what you like and what you don't. Ultimately a religion is to bring explanation to the unexplained.. Now if you have two explanations for everything.. Won’t it be a bit confusing I argue?

Oh well I say go ahead do as you please, as long as it is kept over at the other side of the pound. ;)

[Psychonaut]

But I'll say it anyways, one should be careful with mixing two different set's of gods, as the purpose of gods is that they are the ones you believe in, now to believe in two set's of gods that would ultimately fill the same roles just from some perspective of honouring your heritage.. well then I think you should question your right to be religious to begin with...

This type of thing only really becomes an issue if you're going by the assumption that the Celtic and Germanic Gods are different entities. I'm not entirely convinced that Thor and Taranis, for instance, aren't the same thing. The way I see it, one of the dangers of polytheistic reconstruction is to view theological points as being necessarily true just because our ancestors may or may not have seen it that way. Just because our ancestors told stories about Thor that are different from those they told about Taranis doesn't mean that they aren't different names for the same deity. This is especially true with deities like those two that were originally one PIE deity. Why should we assume that just because the Celts began pronouncing his name one way and the Germanics another that the PIE god *Perkunos split into two distinct Gods? While I do think that we have a certain degree of influence on the Gods (just as they do on us) and that they are tied to our ethnicities, I don't think that shifts in pronunciation alone are enough to turn one God into two.


Mixing certain elements from two different cultures, sure it can work but one need to be certain that you won’t end up like new-agers or wiccans and pick and chose what you like and what you don't.

Definitely, that's exactly what I'm tying to avoid myself. :thumb001:

For me, at least, it's much less of picking and choosing and much more of viewing the whole of my heritage at once rather than in a fragmented manner.

[Vargtand]

This type of thing only really becomes an issue if you're going by the assumption that the Celtic and Germanic Gods are different entities. I'm not entirely convinced that Thor and Taranis, for instance, aren't the same thing. The way I see it, one of the dangers of polytheistic reconstruction is to view theological points as being necessarily true just because our ancestors may or may not have seen it that way. Just because our ancestors told stories about Thor that are different from those they told about Taranis doesn't mean that they aren't different names for the same deity. This is especially true with deities like those two that were originally one PIE deity. Why should we assume that just because the Celts began pronouncing his name one way and the Germanics another that the PIE god *Perkunos split into two distinct Gods? While I do think that we have a certain degree of influence on the Gods (just as they do on us) and that they are tied to our ethnicities, I don't think that shifts in pronunciation alone are enough to turn one God into two.

True, but on the other hand then you may as well go back to the roots of the proto-indo-Europeans and see from where those gods came to be, basically this can be drawn to absurdity where you could basically come to the conclusion that all gods are the same. Now from a cultural preservation standpoint I would find that highly undesirable.

I argue if we have two gods that are similar, then they fill the purpose for their people as the other does for his people, there is bound to be similar gods as the gods are in them self’s explanations of the unknown, and to be frank the unknown is the same unknown if you are in France as if you are in Sweden, although the French might be a bit more concerned of what the Germans are plotting...

Of course then there will be gods of similar characteristics, how ever the gods must be judged on their own and by the sagas that surrounds them, and from the knowledge we do have about the single gods in their own right. Sure as we are all Indo-Europeans we are bound to share a joint ancestry.

But to argue that that would imply they are the same, the gods may simply split into several beings and parts follow their respective people, it is really unimportant what happens, in truth maybe there is really only a set of a number of gods, that all indo Europeans speak about and reality maybe they are the same and there are different names for them, and perhaps we all celebrate the divine in it's entirety but in truth only a single or a few gods would dedicate them to a single group of people. Perhaps Tor, never was a part of our heroes, but only a Celtic god? Who we praise to no avail, perhaps Oden is the only one of the gods who are watching us north Germanic people...

One can argue back and forward but I think one needs to see the gods for who they are not the similarities they have to others.


Definitely, that's exactly what I'm tying to avoid myself. :thumb001:

For me, at least, it's much less of picking and choosing and much more of viewing the whole of my heritage at once rather than in a fragmented manner.

:) well that all good in my ears :)

[Liffrea]

I have considered this a fair bit over recent years and I’m still in two minds.

Obviously I acknowledge my Celtic ancestry, mine is recent (that I know for fact) and it wouldn’t be unlikely to have Celtic input from the mists of time as well.

However I still don’t really see it as me if you understand what I mean? I was brought back to this by the discussion I have been having with Osweo and the fact that Celtic myth doesn’t really resonate much with me, I can’t explain why that is, but I tend to view Celtic myth and history in the same dispassionate light I do any other branch. When I read Germanic myth or study Anglo-Saxon history I have a real sense of place and being that I don’t have otherwise. I wouldn’t say I’m pan-Germanic either, I recognise the shared cultural links with other Germanic derived nations but I tend to see England in a singular uniqueness, perhaps I’m just a traditional insular English xenophobe!

I have tried to develop an interest in that Celtic side but I never seem to break past the barrier that this just isn’t me, it’s not mine and I shouldn’t really have anything beyond academic attachment to it. Not that I’m against those that do, perhaps I’m slightly envious that they can develop that and good luck to them, but for me I think it will remain something just beyond what I consider to be my identity.

[Osweo]

I have considered this a fair bit over recent years and I’m still in two minds.
Maybe that's our fate. For me, it depends on my mood. Maybe we are doomed to a certain schizophrenia, and have to make the best out of it?

However I still don’t really see it as me if you understand what I mean? I was brought back to this by the discussion I have been having with Osweo and the fact that Celtic myth doesn’t really resonate much with me, I can’t explain why that is, but I tend to view Celtic myth and history in the same dispassionate light I do any other branch. When I read Germanic myth or study Anglo-Saxon history I have a real sense of place and being that I don’t have otherwise.
MAybe it's a landscape thing? You're on the other side of the watershed from me, after all. Maybe it's right and proper for you to look to the North Sea, and me to the Irish Sea world? (I hate that name of it, by the way. It's 'Middle Sea' in Irish, which makes more sense!)

I have no known Welsh ancestry (but living by Welsh-named Alt, Chadderton, Eccles, Rochdale, Rossendale, Pendleton, Werneth, Glodwick ad infinitum, it will be there a millenium ago), yet I can't help but look at the deeper things in my landscape and see the British that was there before Angles ever came. And I think it's as much pre-Celtic as Celtic, too.

And yet I only really speak English. And very formative influences came out of that side of my family too.

We're held in tension, and I don't think we should be trying to 'solve' it as such, but just following our instincts. One side will predominate in some people. Maybe they have more of that soul in them.

I have tried to develop an interest in that Celtic side but I never seem to break past the barrier that this just isn’t me, it’s not mine and I shouldn’t really have anything beyond academic attachment to it. Not that I’m against those that do, perhaps I’m slightly envious that they can develop that and good luck to them, but for me I think it will remain something just beyond what I consider to be my identity.
I've actually never found a satisfying explication of the Celtic spirituality in a book. I'm not sure if it's even possible with the materials that have survived. I've cobbled something together in my mind, but it's hard to articulate.

Though the Germanic and Celtic worlds have a common linguistic heritage, they DO have rather different substrata. And I feel completely different focuses and ethos to them.

[Óttar]

As a native English speaker whose maternal ancestors landed at Boston and Braintree in the 1600s, I have felt closer to the Germanic. German is my second language. The Celts always had strange sounding names. My paternal side is Irish, German and Welsh, but I can pronounce the Germanic gods' names.

Then again I prefer the pantheon and mythology of the Greeks and Romans the most. In this way, one could say I'm a romanized barbarian. :D

ISIDISDEAMATERDEVMMACTEESTO

[Liffrea]

Originally Posted by Osweo
MAybe it's a landscape thing? You're on the other side of the watershed from me, after all. Maybe it's right and proper for you to look to the North Sea, and me to the Irish Sea world? (I hate that name of it, by the way. It's 'Middle Sea' in Irish, which makes more sense!)

Hmmm Derby is about as far from either sea as you can get, I’m not sure it’s that. I see England as something unique that cannot be defined in terms of “Germanic” or “Celtic” (I generally see both terms in a modern context as largely meaningless anyway). I have travelled to countries like Holland and Germany and I don’t much perceive any kinship as such with them beyond a general European sense, I would count England as having far less in common with them or Scandinavia than it does with Scotland, Wales or Ireland, being insular obviously has a lot to do with that. Interestingly the Anglo-Saxons never forgot their origins but I get the impression that there was a sense of moving on and a fresh page in their outlook.


I have no known Welsh ancestry (but living by Welsh-named Alt, Chadderton, Eccles, Rochdale, Rossendale, Pendleton, Werneth, Glodwick ad infinitum, it will be there a millenium ago), yet I can't help but look at the deeper things in my landscape and see the British that was there before Angles ever came. And I think it's as much pre-Celtic as Celtic, too.

I have no Welsh ancestry that I know of either, just some Irish and Scottish.

On the historical perspective I generally lose interest in pre-Anglo-Saxon Britain and I have a very real sense of the doings of Boudicca, the Celts and the Romans as having pretty much nothing to do with my identity what so ever, even though, undoubtedly, much of my ancestry is pre-Anglo-Saxon. For me English pre-history is found in what is now Denmark, southern Sweden and the German and Dutch North Sea region.


We're held in tension, and I don't think we should be trying to 'solve' it as such, but just following our instincts. One side will predominate in some people. Maybe they have more of that soul in them.

If that’s true it’s definitely the Anglo-Saxon for me, when I think of roots I see them entirely in Old English terms, with a grudging nod to the Normans.


I've actually never found a satisfying explication of the Celtic spirituality in a book. I'm not sure if it's even possible with the materials that have survived. I've cobbled something together in my mind, but it's hard to articulate.

“I do know Celtic things (many in their original languages Irish and Welsh), and feel for them a certain distaste; largely for their fundamental unreason. They have bright colour but are like a broken stained glass window reassembled without design.”

“Of course there was and is all the Arthurian world, but powerful as it is, it is imperfectly naturalised, associated with the soil of Britain but not with English.”

J.R.R Tolkien

Tolkien was always quick to distinguish English from British:

“I am neither foolhardy nor German, whatever some remote ancestors may have been. They migrated to England more than 200 years ago, and became quickly intensely English (not British).”

I think his assessment of Celtic myth harsh, though I do agree with his analyses that much that is considered “Celtic” is nothing of the sort. I think as a result of the association with Germany and Nazism Germanic and Anglo-Saxon study have been fortunate to be ignored by much of the romanticism that afflicts “Celtic” culture. In a sense it is more “pure”.

I would also accept that there is a difference in mindset and philosophy. Old English literature really is brooding and fatalistic on many levels and this is only accentuated in Old Norse literature. I don’t have this sense with Celtic myth whether this is because it is more akin to faery and supposed unreason according to Tolkien I don’t know, Germanic lore does appear more empirical with a degree of rationalism, but maybe that assumes too much.


Though the Germanic and Celtic worlds have a common linguistic heritage, they DO have rather different substrata. And I feel completely different focuses and ethos to them.

I think, paradoxically, the commonality highlights the otherness of one to the other even more so.

[Belenus]

My European ancestry is Irish and highland Scottish, meaning that I am of British-Celtic stock. The Celts are an Indo-European folk, which means that I am entitled to practice the Aryan spiritual tradition in its primordial form should I will it and deem it possible. Except for some scant archaeological remnants and ancient scriptural allusions, the nature of the primordial Aryan tradition can only be known through intuition, gnostic realisation, and reconstruction via comparative studies. However, since the primordial tradition belongs to the highest epoch of the Aryan race—its prehistoric Golden Age—it is my sacred imperative to embrace only the most archaic ways of my ancestors, rejecting all degenerations and corruptions. The Celtic conception of the divine, of time, of the heroic, the ritual, and the good is a particular expression of the immortal Aryan race-soul, but it was not entirely pure during the Celtic era and it would be a mistake to embrace it as it was in such a polluted state. I feel that I must look further back in time to rediscover the original Aryan gnosis. In doing this I am justified in drawing on those aspects of other Aryan traditions outside the Celtic sphere which can be accurately regarded as belonging to the primordial tradition. Accordingly, there is much to be learned from the Vedic, Persian, Hellenic, Roman, Germanic, and Slavic traditions. Because I am not of any blood but Celtic, I dare not and will not practice the ancestral ways of the abovementioned traditions, however I can learn from their fundamental principles, their shared myths, and their most archaic mysteries, for these are wholly Aryan.

The archetypal trends of all Aryan traditions stem from Thule – the arctic Urheimat and spiritual centre of the race. The cyclical nature of time has led us from the primordial Golden Age to this, the present Iron Age, whose characteristic traits are telluric spiritual perversion, cultural dissonance, and the corruptive reign of quantity over quality. Though my Celtic ancestors were surely more connected to the primordial truth than any culture or religion of the modern world, their spirituality was nonetheless somewhat corroded by time and displacement, which leads me to look back beyond the Celts to their source. In order to perceive that source I must also extend my vision to other Indo-European traditions that were concurrent with—or better yet, older than—the Celtic tradition. They point the way to the essential, perennial philosophy of the Aryans in their pure state – at the height of their transcendental majesty.

This is my belief and why I feel it is not only acceptable, but also vital, to study and incorporate the essentially-Aryan and primordial concepts, rites, and myths of various Indo-European traditions, whether they come from Roman chroniclers, Vedic hymns, Nordic Eddas, or what have you. Only by uniting the core fundaments of these traditions can we gain a full picture of the true, original, and uncorrupted spirit of our most ancient ancestors’ worldview before their long descent into modern degeneracy began. Just as scholars have reconstructed the Proto-Indo-European language by studying its offshoots (and to some extent their mythology and religion), I believe it is possible to reconstruct their spiritual tradition sufficiently that it can be practiced again, perhaps reconceived in some aspects but nonetheless true to its original spirit and form. This dark period of the present cycle will soon end and give rise to a new Golden Age, which will be defined once again by a high spiritual order. Things must come full circle. In my opinion, mere paganism will not suffice as the gnostic doctrine of the coming dawn.

My main influence is probably Julius Evola, who highlights the polar, celestial, and patriarchal aspects of the primordial tradition. His evidence that matriarchal, telluric currents of religion have corrupted the pure Aryan tradition suffice to show that European brands of paganism with their earth mothers, infernal spirits, and other chthonic concepts were already degenerated, despite many of their great redeeming features. Christianity went a step further, and atheism/communism now leaves us teetering bleakly over the abyss. I suggest reading Evola’s Revolt against the Modern World to anyone who hasn’t already. It can be found on Amazon.com.

In conclusion, I feel that it is a most vital task to reconcile all Aryan traditions in the quest to do away with corruptions and rediscover the most primordial truths.

[Osweo]

My European ancestry is Irish and highland Scottish, meaning that I am of British-Celtic stock. The Celts are an Indo-European folk, which means that I am entitled to practice the Aryan spiritual tradition in its primordial form should I will it and deem it possible. Except for some scant archaeological remnants and ancient scriptural allusions, the nature of the primordial Aryan tradition can only be known through intuition, gnostic realisation, and reconstruction via comparative studies.
Linguistics comes under the latter, but its value means to my mind that it should deserve special mention. ;)


However, since the primordial tradition belongs to the highest epoch of the Aryan race—its prehistoric Golden Age—it is my sacred imperative to embrace only the most archaic ways of my ancestors, rejecting all degenerations and corruptions.
:eek:


The Celtic conception of the divine, of time, of the heroic, the ritual, and the good is a particular expression of the immortal Aryan race-soul, but it was not entirely pure during the Celtic era and it would be a mistake to embrace it as it was in such a polluted state.
:eek::eek:

WHERE to begin!!??

Okay... WHY do you think there was a magical wonderful Golden Age stage in this religious development, superior to points earlier and later in the history of it all?

AND, if the Celtic version of IE religion is 'polluted', then so are YOU. Why would a polluted PERSON be best served by a 'pure' religion?

To me, the main reason for getting involved in OUR old traditions is exactly because they grew WITH us, and thus might be supposed to be better SUITED to us.

Celtic religion was 'polluted' by the currents of thought and behaviour of the pre-Celtic peoples absorbed here in the far North-West. Genetics seems to indicate that we here owe probably MORE of our blood and bone to the older substrata, indeed. THerefore, your more intrinsically suitable religious expression must be sought exactly HERE, and if you're gunna go mad reconstructing a primordial thing, it would make as much sense if not MORE, to work out the PRE-Celtic religion, STRIPPING the IE accretions from it!


I feel that I must look further back in time to rediscover the original Aryan gnosis. In doing this I am justified in drawing on those aspects of other Aryan traditions outside the Celtic sphere which can be accurately regarded as belonging to the primordial tradition.
The steppe pastoralists who rode down into the Indian Subcontinent called themselves 'Arya'. So did their cousins who pushed southwest to border on the Mesopotamian hearth of civilisation. Those who stayed behind on the steppes kept the name, the passage of time and inexorable phonetic drift transforming it into 'Alan' in Classical times. The Alans came west and gave their name to a few scattered villages in France. Their cousins who stayed home were later pushed into the Caucasus, where 'Aryan' became 'Iron' - a part of the modern Osset ethnos.

A great and fascinating story, but piss all to do with us here in the west, save in the most indirect ways. I utterly reject the label of 'Aryan' being applied to my ancestors who were not Iranian speakers.


Accordingly, there is much to be learned from the Vedic, Persian, Hellenic, Roman, Germanic, and Slavic traditions. Because I am not of any blood but Celtic, I dare not and will not practice the ancestral ways of the abovementioned traditions, however I can learn from their fundamental principles, their shared myths, and their most archaic mysteries, for these are wholly Aryan.
I commend this line of study, but more as a scholarly endeavour for its own sake, and a means of supplementing one of the strands of the the tangled tree of European folks, where other research fails to satisfy.


The archetypal trends of all Aryan traditions stem from Thule – the arctic Urheimat and spiritual centre of the race.
I honestly do think that this 'Arctic' stuff is crazy nonsense. :D

If the 'Mountains of Glass' in Slavonic lore really ARE ice sheets, why should this tradition date from the time of PIE unity? Did not the PIEan speakers THEMSELVES have a history? There are possible echoes of mammoth hunts in some Russian folklore, but this is clearly from a time BEFORE the PIE stage. :shrug:


The cyclical nature of time has led us from the primordial Golden Age to this, the present Iron Age, whose characteristic traits are telluric spiritual perversion, cultural dissonance, and the corruptive reign of quantity over quality. Though my Celtic ancestors were surely more connected to the primordial truth than any culture or religion of the modern world, their spirituality was nonetheless somewhat corroded by time and displacement, which leads me to look back beyond the Celts to their source. In order to perceive that source I must also extend my vision to other Indo-European traditions that were concurrent with—or better yet, older than—the Celtic tradition. They point the way to the essential, perennial philosophy of the Aryans in their pure state – at the height of their transcendental majesty.
You are rejecting a historical reality for a pseudo-prehistorical fantasy. Why look at old European traditions AT ALL? Why not start from scratch, if you're after something 'more transcendental' than what your real ethnohistory provides you with?

It all just smacks of not having enough respect for your real ancestors, to me.


This is my belief and why I feel it is not only acceptable, but also vital, to study and incorporate the essentially-Aryan and primordial concepts, rites, and myths of various Indo-European traditions, whether they come from Roman chroniclers, Vedic hymns, Nordic Eddas, or what have you. Only by uniting the core fundaments of these traditions can we gain a full picture of the true, original, and uncorrupted spirit of our most ancient ancestors’ worldview before their long descent into modern degeneracy began. Just as scholars have reconstructed the Proto-Indo-European language by studying its offshoots (and to some extent their mythology and religion), I believe it is possible to reconstruct their spiritual tradition sufficiently that it can be practiced again, perhaps reconceived in some aspects but nonetheless true to its original spirit and form. This dark period of the present cycle will soon end and give rise to a new Golden Age, which will be defined once again by a high spiritual order. Things must come full circle. In my opinion, mere paganism will not suffice as the gnostic doctrine of the coming dawn.

My main influence is probably Julius Evola, who highlights the polar, celestial, and patriarchal aspects of the primordial tradition. His evidence that matriarchal, telluric currents of religion have corrupted the pure Aryan tradition suffice to show that European brands of paganism with their earth mothers, infernal spirits, and other chthonic concepts were already degenerated, despite many of their great redeeming features. Christianity went a step further, and atheism/communism now leaves us teetering bleakly over the abyss. I suggest reading Evola’s Revolt against the Modern World to anyone who hasn’t already. It can be found on Amazon.com.

In conclusion, I feel that it is a most vital task to reconcile all Aryan traditions in the quest to do away with corruptions and rediscover the most primordial truths.
Perhaps 'Aryan' IS the best word for what you're after, but your end result is a mere development OF the modern HINDU tradition.

Your 'reconstruction' would be more a new construction, and one that builds mostly on materials from but ONE branch of the IE tree. You're a new branch, NOT the trunk. :thumbs up

[Don]

With all my respects.
When I read in a text the word Aryan, I lose "magically" the interest in the message.

Perhaps this happens because the magic powers linked to this Mythic word!?

[Belenus]

Okay... WHY do you think there was a magical wonderful Golden Age stage in this religious development, superior to points earlier and later in the history of it all?

Others have explained this much better before me, but I'll just say that there is a universal recollection of an arctic homeland among Indo-European (a term I use somewhat interchangeably with 'Aryan') peoples, expressed similarly across many traditions. An excellent book, which explains at least some of this is ****** (http://www.amazon.com/******-Polar-Science-Symbolism-Survival/dp/0932813356/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301615296&sr=8-1) by Joscelyn Godwin. Julius Evola also goes into some depth about the matter in Revolt against the Modern World (http://www.amazon.com/Revolt-Against-Modern-World-Julius/dp/089281506X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301615354&sr=1-1). If you want primary sources, Celtic tradition makes reference to this divine Urheimat in The Second Battle of Mag Tuired (http://sacred-texts.com/neu/cmt/cmteng.htm). Before they arrived on the shores of Ireland, the Tuatha Dé Danann "were in the northern islands of the world, studying occult lore and sorcery, druidic arts and witchcraft and magical skill, until they surpassed the sages of the pagan arts". These northern islands are equivalent to the Greek Hyperborea and Thule. Vedic tradition also has many myths alluding to an age of plenty in an arctic homeland. The best source for learning more about this is Bal Gangadhar Tilak's The Arctic Home in the Vedas (of which I have a copy in PDF format for anyone who wishes to read it).

As for why the earliest epoch of the race was superior to all which came later, the answer is simple. Indo-European tradition is marked by a cyclical conception of time pretty much universally. The Nordic Ragnarok and subsequent revival under Baldr (who is Belenus in Celtic lore, Apollo in Greco-Roman myths, etc.) is one version of this cyclical perception. Perhaps best known is the Hindu division of time into yugas. In Europe the Greeks conceived of cyclical epochs named for the qualities of various metals. Hesiod, in his Works and Days (http://sacred-texts.com/cla/hesiod/works.htm), divides the Ages of Man into Golden, Silver, Bronze, Heroic (to reconcile the Homeric epics with the Aryan view of time), and Iron. Of course the Iron Age is the present one and is the least spiritually aware and most materialistic. In essence the belief in a Golden Age is a staple of all Indo-European traditions.


AND, if the Celtic version of IE religion is 'polluted', then so are YOU. Why would a polluted PERSON be best served by a 'pure' religion?

To me, the main reason for getting involved in OUR old traditions is exactly because they grew WITH us, and thus might be supposed to be better SUITED to us.

I am fully aware that I am tainted, polluted, impure, and utterly a lesser being than my most distant forebears, especially in the sense of spiritual power, presence, and awareness. But this is all due to the forces of decay which have been unleashed in ever greater force over the flow of time. However I do not believe in half-measures or compromise. I identify with the highest, noblest, most transcendental and heroic components of my being. Even if I have only a sliver of Aryan blood in me, I gladly choose to embrace and nourish it at the expense of whatever in me is chthonic and/or infernal.

To understand this I must first explain two things. First, that I consider there to be two esoteric forces at work throughout the cycles of time. The first is noble, celestial, transcendental, Olympian, and patriarchal. The second is plebeian, chthonic, materialistic, infernal, and matriarchal. The transition from the dominion of the former to the latter is the process by which time revolves. For a more scientific, less occult study of this phenomenon, Oswald Spengler's The Decline of the West (http://www.amazon.com/Decline-West-Abridged-Oswald-Spengler/dp/1400097002/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301617696&sr=8-1) is an excellent starting point. José Ortega y Gasset, in The Revolt of the Masses (http://www.amazon.com/Revolt-Masses-Jos%C3%A9-Ortega-Gasset/dp/0393310957/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301617755&sr=1-1), also approaches this theme, though in the very specific and profane context of European social degeneration. Finally, I believe the events acted out in Aeschylus's Oresteia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oresteia) are representative of the patriarchal principle's struggle with and triumph over the matriarchal order within the Indo-European worldview.

I also subscribe to Julius Evola's conception of race, in which there is not just the crude physical race of the profane body, but also the race of the mind/soul, and finally the race of the spirit. The latter two aspects of race have a higher value to me than the first, although the race of the body is obviously also important for all the reasons any 'profane' racialist of the modern world will tell you. According to Evola's system there is more than just the physical appearance involved in discerning races. The acts, behaviours, and manner of thinking must also come into play.

Since I was a small child awed by Arthurian legend and then later when I read The Iliad at the age of ten, I have felt a deep, inner resonance with the magical-heroic traditions of the Indo-Europeans. Sky Father, Thunderer, Sun God... these archetypes have inspired me as far back as I can remember. I have never felt any similar pull toward the chthonic gods or their related doctrines. My mind and soul are turned utterly heavenward.

My body may be polluted, but my mind and soul are strong and pure as can be in this age. My intuition is and always has been Olympian (in the sense that the Olympians were a celestial pantheon by contrast to the chthonic titans).


Celtic religion was 'polluted' by the currents of thought and behaviour of the pre-Celtic peoples absorbed here in the far North-West. Genetics seems to indicate that we here owe probably MORE of our blood and bone to the older substrata, indeed. THerefore, your more intrinsically suitable religious expression must be sought exactly HERE, and if you're gunna go mad reconstructing a primordial thing, it would make as much sense if not MORE, to work out the PRE-Celtic religion, STRIPPING the IE accretions from it!

Whatever my profane blood and bone have to say, my mind and spirit tell me otherwise. I choose to orientate myself toward the celestial and transcendental aspects of Indo-European tradition, which were greatest in their primordial state.


The steppe pastoralists who rode down into the Indian Subcontinent called themselves 'Arya'. So did their cousins who pushed southwest to border on the Mesopotamian hearth of civilisation. Those who stayed behind on the steppes kept the name, the passage of time and inexorable phonetic drift transforming it into 'Alan' in Classical times. The Alans came west and gave their name to a few scattered villages in France. Their cousins who stayed home were later pushed into the Caucasus, where 'Aryan' became 'Iron' - a part of the modern Osset ethnos.

A great and fascinating story, but piss all to do with us here in the west, save in the most indirect ways. I utterly reject the label of 'Aryan' being applied to my ancestors who were not Iranian speakers.

There are arguments which show that the root of the word Aryan, 'Ar', also entered Europe when Indo-European tribes spread through the continent. This is reflected in words like 'aristocracy', or even the nation of Ireland. It carries meanings like honour, nobility, etc.


I honestly do think that this 'Arctic' stuff is crazy nonsense. :D

Well it's an aspect of many Indo-European traditions, and as a pagan it's a pretty dangerous step to start declaring various ancient myths 'crazy nonsense'.


If the 'Mountains of Glass' in Slavonic lore really ARE ice sheets, why should this tradition date from the time of PIE unity? Did not the PIEan speakers THEMSELVES have a history? There are possible echoes of mammoth hunts in some Russian folklore, but this is clearly from a time BEFORE the PIE stage. :shrug:

I agree, the arctic homeland predates even the Proto-Indo-European steppe culture, probably by a long time. Nonetheless they never forgot it and for good reason.


You are rejecting a historical reality for a pseudo-prehistorical fantasy. Why look at old European traditions AT ALL? Why not start from scratch, if you're after something 'more transcendental' than what your real ethnohistory provides you with?

It all just smacks of not having enough respect for your real ancestors, to me.

My 'real' ancestors? Just because historians of the modern world don't know everything about prehistory and often refuse to accept the validity of myths and legends as being based firmly on true places and events doesn't mean my ancestors of that time aren't real. They surely existed and if I am to believe their descendants, they lived in a spiritual Golden Age.

And I don't need to start from scratch to find transcendentalism in Indo-European traditions. The Roman concept of numen (http://www.novaroma.org/nr/Numen) is everything I could ever want concerning transcendence. An excellent essay on numen in the archaic Roman religion can be found here (http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id69.html).


Perhaps 'Aryan' IS the best word for what you're after, but your end result is a mere development OF the modern HINDU tradition.

Your 'reconstruction' would be more a new construction, and one that builds mostly on materials from but ONE branch of the IE tree. You're a new branch, NOT the trunk. :thumbs up

Firstly Hinduism is a heavily degenerated form of the true Vedic tradition. The Aryan conquistadors in India attempted to protect their tradition and knowledge by means of a caste system, which certainly did preserve much of their wisdom and, for a long epoch, their bloodlines. However inevitably the decay of time led to miscegenation on a colossal scale and in the process local, indigenous cults were absorbed into the Vedic worldview, corrupting it thoroughly. The only books in the Hindu canon worth reading are the earliest Vedas, and even then one must maintain a discerning eye.

What I am proposing may be seen as a new branch, yes. But that's perfectly reasonable since it would be impossible to perfectly reconstruct the beliefs of long-lost Thule. In the Nordic tradition, Baldr was destined to preside over a new, golden age of light after the Ragnarok. His reign would obviously not be like Odin's, in fact it would likely be superior, for Baldr was the best of all the gods.

I, too, believe in aiming for a new, regenerated, solar metaphysic based on the noblest ideals of the last Golden Age, which can be perceived, if only dimly, through the most archaic traditions of the various Indo-European peoples.

[Osweo]

Ekh...... Couldn't you have kept it to generalities, so that we might get more easily at the kernel of matters?!? :tsk: :p

I haven't the time or the inclination here at 3AM to sort the wheat from the chaff in your ideas, which you've pasted here very thick. There are perhaps equal amounts of each. I may come back to specific parts another time.

But I'll say this, there's a poster here with a lot of the same flavour ideas as yourself, and who has been inspired by many of the same books that have caught your fancy - 'the Wagnerian' he calls himself - but who nevertheless finds all he needs in the Northern Tradition alone, feeling no necessity to get at some elusive ur-Aryan fantasy. Read up on some of his posts, and tell me why you differ from him, and have to go this step further.

That Indian writer on the Arctic matter does NOT impress me in the slightest, I will say too. I've gone into it all a thousand times, and have no desire to do so again tonight.

It dismays me how ready you are to dismiss the work of modern archaeology and history. I don't see how you compensate for this rejection of rigorous scientific investigation by recourse to fantasies that just 'ring true' to your own aesthetic sense of how matters 'ought to be'.

I fear that you only find the distinct traditions of the Germans and Celts unsatisfying from lack of trying to find the deeper stuff in them. Have you read O'Rahilly's Early Irish History and Mythology?

A lot of your notions are based on crude cosmological analyses of our mythos. A lot of this 'solar cult' and heaven/chthonic-world stuff is more a product of 19th and 20th century minds who were intent on systematising everything into rigid structures, than the ideas actually inspiring those who concocted the myths in ancient times.

I really have NO patience for those who would imply that the majority of their ancestors were spiritual dross, and that the only worthwhile part of them is that which swooped down out of some mythical Hyperborea to leaven their inert mass. The whole idea seems so psychologically unhealthy to me, and so out of kilter with the ethos of our actual heathen ancestor's traditions. So im-pious, too. :(

[Belenus]

Well, I won't get too deep into this matter, but I will say that the reason I don't limit myself exclusively to the Celtic and Germanic traditions when considering a primordial tradition is because the Proto-Indo-Europeans split up all over Eurasia and created several unique cultures, and I think it's fairly obvious that they all share similarities in myth and lore due to a common origin. Those similarities can then be assumed to predate any of the individual branches of the Indo-Europeans, thus constituting the archaic doctrine. India may be a third world racial calamity today, but at one point the Aryans there were Nordid, just as they were in Iran. They would have been difficult to tell apart from some contemporary European blonds. They were in fact the same people who swept through Europe, revolutionising the nature of religion everywhere. Their oldest doctrines and beliefs are worth studying, for they share a close bond with the roots of Olympian/Asgardian paganism.

Now, I will grant that, before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans in Europe there was obviously already a pagan religion, and perhaps some elements of it would have appealed to my celestial sense of spirituality. I once read about a stone age structure (Maeshowe of Orkney) that was specially constructed to align with venus every eight years or some such event. This attention to the heavens speaks well of whoever built the structure. It's possible that many indigenous European beliefs were perfectly in line with my inner sentiments, in which case I would just as readily embrace those ways as those of the Indo-Europeans.

I'm of the belief that a 'heavenward' spiritual orientation leads to a doctrine of liberation and transcendence, while an 'earthward' orientation tends to dwell on an underworld, reincarnation, and/or demonic forces. Essentially chthonic cults confine their believers' souls to the terrestrial plane, which I feel is not the acme of excellence in metaphysics. To transcend, to overcome - this is the highest accomplishment of humanity.

Now I do take issue with the claim that I despise my ancestors. I do not. I consider them in almost every sense to have been closer to 'the source' than I. Their culture was certainly superior to mine. But I don't think they were perfect either. They converted to Christianity after all. If we were to value ALL our ancestors' decisions and convictions, then we would find ourselves in a difficult position, since some were pagans, others were Christian converts, and others born Christians with a deep aversion to heathenry. I reject Christianity and in doing so, reject those of my ancestors who considered Christianity the one true faith. You can't please everyone. Somewhere along the lines of your ancestry, there are forefathers and foremothers who would greatly disapprove of any pagan revival at all. Nonetheless, to oust the alien faith from the spirit of our people is a great undertaking and I believe vital to our future.

All I can say in my defence at the end of the day is that I have always felt an affinity toward celestial gods, transcendental doctrines, and a warrior-heroic ethos. Earth mothers, underworlds, reincarnation - these never felt 'good' to my intuitive senses.

From a certain perspective, the cycle of time isn't even a process of degeneration. It is simply a gradual shift from one system of values to another. If you align yourself with the patriarchal principle, the shift to a matriarchal order will naturally appear as a degeneration. The same applies in reverse. It all depends on one's inner alignment and feeling. For some a balanced middle ground may be ideal. But I think everyone has their own sense of the divine and the spiritual for which they strive; I am perfectly entitled to strive for numinous transcendence by means of worshipping the Sky Father if I so choose.

[Psychonaut]

Evola's theology is interesting, because while he, in Revolt Against the Modern World explicitly claims that his ideas are rooted in Hinduism, Buddhism and Neoplatonism,[1] his particular brand of emanative cosmological descent which paints the lower hypostasis as feminine/base/material and the upper realms as masculine/spiritual/ethereal owes far more to St. Augustine than to any of these aforementioned theologies. In particular, this identification and wholly negative view of the feminine/cthonic is straight out of Augustine's early Manichaean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism) faith. For, the Neoplatonists like Plotinus and Porphry that Evola praises did not have a negative view of the emanations that descended from the One (τό ἕν). Neoplatonic cosmology treated the emanations as the the natural fulfillment of the One's nature. And since the One was identified by Plotinus with the Good, this precluded the Neoplatonists from identifying the lowest emanation, the Physical (Φύσις), with evil or negativity the way Evola does. Indeed, this Gnostic notion of matter's "wickedness, ugliness and imperfection" is something Plotinus himself wrote against in his criticism of the Gnostics.[2]

Notes:
1. Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, trans. Guido Stucco, (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International, 1995), 4-5
2. Pauliina Remes, Neoplatonism, (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008), 94.

[Belenus]

Evola's theology is interesting, because while he, in Revolt Against the Modern World explicitly claims that his ideas are rooted in Hinduism, Buddhism and Neoplatonism,[1] his particular brand of emanative cosmological descent which paints the lower hypostasis as feminine/base/material and the upper realms as masculine/spiritual/ethereal owes far more to St. Augustine than to any of these aforementioned theologies. In particular, this identification and wholly negative view of the feminine/cthonic is straight out of Augustine's early Manichaean (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manichaeism) faith. For, the Neoplatonists like Plotinus and Porphry that Evola praises did not have a negative view of the emanations that descended from the One (τό ἕν). Neoplatonic cosmology treated the emanations as the the natural fulfillment of the One's nature. And since the One was identified by Plotinus with the Good, this precluded the Neoplatonists from identifying the lowest emanation, the Physical (Φύσις), with evil or negativity the way Evola does. Indeed, this Gnostic notion of matter's "wickedness, ugliness and imperfection" is something Plotinus himself wrote against in his criticism of the Gnostics.[2]

Evola wasn't entirely against the lunar/feminine aspect. He had a great respect for René Guénon, whose writings were the inspiration for much of his own. And Guénon had a lunar alignment, promoting the Brahmin aspect of Vedic metaphysics. Evola also considered the Christian and other feminine traditions to be superior to anything of a solely profane nature (secular fascism, etc.). It's true that he thought it was a lower spiritual current than the solar-masculine, but mostly because of his own inner affilitation with the Kshatriya caste. I think he saw anything but the royal metaphysic as a 'slippery slope' leading toward materialistic dissonance. Rather than St. Augustine, I think his reasoning for believing in a demonic or evil nature of some feminine traditions in certain instances stems from mythic events like the Titanomachy or the treason of the Achaean queens after the sack of Troy. I don't recall him ever arguing for the existence of a demiurge as the source of evil in matter. In fact, Evola often gloried in matter. Physical vigor and action were, for him, means of spiritual attainment.

Of Evola's contemporaries, the one who despised the chthonic-feminine 'emanations' most of all was probably Alfred Rosenberg. In The Myth of the Twentieth Century, his vehement hatred of such cults is most pronounced in his account of the decline of Hellenic culture and of Etruscan spirituality in general.

[Psychonaut]

Evola wasn't entirely against the lunar/feminine aspect.

No? He claims that the intermingling of the Northern/Solar/Masculine tradition that reigned in the Golden Age with the Southern/Cthonic/Feminine during the Silver Age was responsible for that period's "degeneration."[1] He's not quite as negative about it as Augustine or some of the Gnostics, but it's no where near the kind of healthy balance between the feminine and masculine polarities that you find in most historical (as opposed to capitol 't' Traditional) accounts of Paganism.


Rather than St. Augustine, I think his reasoning for believing in a demonic or evil nature of some feminine traditions in certain instances stems from mythic events like the Titanomachy or the treason of the Achaean queens after the sack of Troy.

Well, it's hard to say for sure since he's somewhat disingenuous about his own sources, pretending that his hermeneutic of the Platonic Form (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms) of Tradition (which is really what Revolt is) was shared by either the Indians or Greek groups he specifically mentions. That it was shared by other groups like Manichaeans and Augustinians that he does not mention that we know Evola would have been exposed to as an educated Italian of his day just seems really odd to me.


Of Evola's contemporaries, the one who despised the chthonic-feminine 'emanations' most of all was probably Alfred Rosenberg. In The Myth of the Twentieth Century, his vehement hatred of such cults is most pronounced in his account of the decline of Hellenic culture and of Etruscan spirituality in general.

I've been meaning to read Rosenberg for a while not but my studies haven't yet freed up any time for that. :(

Notes:
1. Julius Evola, Revolt Against the Modern World, trans. Guido Stucco, (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions International, 1995), 204.

[Belenus]

Here (http://thompkins_cariou.tripod.com/id18.html) is an excellent essay by Evola dealing with his division of spirituality into two branches, solar-masculine and lunar-feminine, or as he here labels them: active and contemplative. Evola certainly did believe that feminine spirituality could function at a high level far above materialism and demonic influences. However he was skeptical of the contemplative metaphysic because he felt it had a tendency toward democratisation and other low features. Essentially he thought it open to corruption. Active metaphysics, in his opinion, forged the way upward via differentiation and elitism. By both means one could achieve transcendence, however Evola argued that the active path was superior, at least for people of a heroic disposition (whose numbers dwindle with the flow of time). Lastly, Evola's celebrated work, The Hermetic Tradition (http://www.amazon.com/Hermetic-Tradition-Symbols-Teachings-Royal/dp/0892814519), is not dismissive of the feminine 'half' of metaphysics, but rather sees it as reconcilable with the masculine only in its being overcome, conquered, or subjugated. He puts this into context with the lunar myth of the Original Sin, in which Adam and Eve sought the fruit from the Tree of Life (feminine symbol) and were subsequently punished by God, whose power they were unable to overcome. The masculine tradition of Odin stands in contrast to this, whereby Odin hanged himself on the World Tree to gain secret knowledge/divine authority, and succeeded. According to Evola, the virile Odin is an active archetype while Adam, the feeble cast-out, personifies the god-fearing, submissive, and contemplative archetype. What would Odin have amounted to if he had not survived the ordeal of his hanging? Nothing, or something pathetic. This is why Evola aspires to the heroic-active tradition and not the priestly-contemplative.

[Osweo]

thus constituting the archaic doctrine.
But PIE would never have been 'alone'. This was but one of probably several similar and related 'doctrines' (far to strict a term, really) knocking around at the time.

Now, I will grant that, before the arrival of the Indo-Europeans in Europe there was obviously already a pagan religion, and perhaps some elements of it would have appealed to my celestial sense of spirituality. I once read about a stone age structure (Maeshowe of Orkney) that was specially constructed to align with venus every eight years or some such event. This attention to the heavens speaks well of whoever built the structure. It's possible that many indigenous European beliefs were perfectly in line with my inner sentiments, in which case I would just as readily embrace those ways as those of the Indo-Europeans.
It is something of a relief to hear that. Such alignments were pretty much standard fare for our great megaliths, though.


I'm of the belief that a 'heavenward' spiritual orientation leads to a doctrine of liberation and transcendence, while an 'earthward' orientation tends to dwell on an underworld, reincarnation, and/or demonic forces. Essentially chthonic cults confine their believers' souls to the terrestrial plane, which I feel is not the acme of excellence in metaphysics. To transcend, to overcome - this is the highest accomplishment of humanity.
I suspect that this 'eyes upwards' idea ALSO is guilty of breeding rather antisocial attitudes. Disdaining our world and its affairs, some might forget that they nevertheless have to function in it, and rather than make the effort to accommodate themselves to the comfort of others we share the world with, they come up with haughty ideologies that ever so occasionally do get enshrined in actual political systems...


Now I do take issue with the claim that I despise my ancestors. I do not. I consider them in almost every sense to have been closer to 'the source' than I. Their culture was certainly superior to mine. But I don't think they were perfect either. They converted to Christianity after all. If we were to value ALL our ancestors' decisions and convictions, then we would find ourselves in a difficult position, since some were pagans, others were Christian converts, and others born Christians with a deep aversion to heathenry. I reject Christianity and in doing so, reject those of my ancestors who considered Christianity the one true faith. You can't please everyone. Somewhere along the lines of your ancestry, there are forefathers and foremothers who would greatly disapprove of any pagan revival at all. Nonetheless, to oust the alien faith from the spirit of our people is a great undertaking and I believe vital to our future.
Perhaps the Kings who oversaw the conversions in question ARE among your ancestors, but even so, they're hardly going to make up MUCH of a percentage of your origins. All the other buggers had to like it and lump it. We can even 'exonerate' the rulers, by pleading that it was a geopolitical and historical inevitability (a notion fitting very well with the macro/metahistorical things you've read and absorbed).


All I can say in my defence at the end of the day is that I have always felt an affinity toward celestial gods, transcendental doctrines, and a warrior-heroic ethos. Earth mothers, underworlds, reincarnation - these never felt 'good' to my intuitive senses.
You should always phrase your pronouncements on these matters with a subjectivity caveat, then. I have no such revulsion for the latter category, indeed.


From a certain perspective, the cycle of time isn't even a process of degeneration. It is simply a gradual shift from one system of values to another. If you align yourself with the patriarchal principle, the shift to a matriarchal order will naturally appear as a degeneration. The same applies in reverse.
Simplistic 'either/or' doesn't ring true with my perception of the nature of reality. :shrug:


It all depends on one's inner alignment and feeling. For some a balanced middle ground may be ideal. But I think everyone has their own sense of the divine and the spiritual for which they strive; I am perfectly entitled to strive for numinous transcendence by means of worshipping the Sky Father if I so choose.
Now, THAT makes more sense. You make your worldview crude and primitive by not taking the differing spiritual talents of others into account when building holistic all-encompassing notions behind it all, though.

ar the kind of healthy balance between the feminine and masculine polarities that you find in most historical (as opposed to capitol 't' Traditional) accounts of Paganism.
THIS.
Esoteric Traditionalism is always the fruit of the mind of prominent individuals. Charismatic, insightful and gifted they may be, but their offerings are always limited in comparison with the creations of entire peoples, wherein every nature, class, gender and talent put their own little oar in.

[Belenus]

Esoteric Traditionalism is always the fruit of the mind of prominent individuals. Charismatic, insightful and gifted they may be, but their offerings are always limited in comparison with the creations of entire peoples, wherein every nature, class, gender and talent put their own little oar in.

Having considered this point you made at length over the last few days, and having reconsidered some of Evola's metahistory (namely his dodgy belief in a lost Nordic-Atlantic continent AKA Atlantis), I will admit that I'd probably be better served by concentrating on Celtic paganism. I can always focus my worship on the more war-like and celestial gods of the Irish pantheon while I consider the issue of the chthonic/fertility deities in greater detail.

[Piparskeggr]

Quite the interesting thread here. :thumbs

Not being the scholarly type, I have come to understand Asatru as the Folkways of my Northern European Ancestors, particularly the Germanic and Nordic ones, where the beliefs and practices revolve around those Holy Powers and the Lore surrounding them. But also one can give honor to their cousins germane, such as the Celtic Beings of Power.

I have and will do this, each in their own time, as well as raising Horn to the Immortals honored by my Italic forebears.