Sunday, October 13, 2013

Jungian spirituality and Pantheism.

There are valid ways to be Pantheist.  There are valid ways to use Jungian thought forms.  I personally find it bland and uninspiring but that's me.  Hell there are even valid ways to do Pop Culture spirituality, see many of the people who are doing Jedi.  Taylor Ellwood manages to do it.

I also find it a safe way to practice religion.  With a Jungian thought form, or pop culture icon, or even all Gods are One God and all Goddess are one Goddess, you aren't risking a Deity being mad at you, for not managing your relationship right.  Which is what us Polytheists have with our Deities, a relationship.

When all Gods are one God and all Goddesses are one Goddess(and why don't we just merge the two into some sort of Monotheism, I dunno) it leaves the door open for permission to culturally appropriate.  Why it's then perfectly ok to insert Kwan Yin(http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/deities/kuan_yin.htm) into the role of Goddess in a Wiccanesque ritual.  It is also then perfectly ok to insert Osiris into the role of God in that ritual.  (http://www.religionfacts.com/neopaganism/paths/kemetic.htm).  Likewise it is also ok to use Santa Muerte(http://witchrants.wordpress.com/tag/santa-muerte/) and Coyote.

These Deities, all have their own cultures that they are part of.  It is insulting to insert them into a Wiccanesque ritual, because you are too lazy to learn how they are worshiped where they are at.  It is insulting to pick them out of a Gods list and stick them in a ritual, because you like some of their shallow personality traits, or whatever power you think they hold over the universe.  It is also lazy.  The Gods, even thought forms aren't some plug and play device.

If you aren't sure about the Gods, then use neutral terms.  Use Lady or Lord or whatever Title seems appropriate.  Unknown God or Goddess, or sacred whosywhatsit, or Queen or what the role is, you think they should be.  But don't grab a God and stick them into that role, without doing some research, or even asking and really listening.  Would you want to be grabbed and instructed to give blessings on asphalt pot holes, when you are a doctor?

The roots of this are http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_White_Goddess and http://www.nostrajewellery.org/files/M-A-Murray-The-God-of-the-Witches.pdf.  The first is written by a poet, in the early 1900's.  The second by an anthropologist, also early in the 1900's.  Both were found out to be wrong.

Yeah it's beautiful writing.  It evokes beautiful metaphors.  It is also too clean and puts the poetic thing on a pedestal.  It is a painting of an idea, not a picture of the Deity. It is the writing of a troubadour, someone who reveres a lady, but from afar.  Sounds romantic, but the troubadour doesn't have to deal with the pms or the morning sickness either.

There are richer tales from where the White Goddess came from.  Look to the http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/celt/cft/, or the Eddas(granted colored in Christian theology).  Look to the tales of that land, not the prettied up stories told by later poets.  It's akin to reading and worshiping Mother Goose vs the real Grimms fairy tales.

I'll come back to this later tonight.  I'm starting to type in circles.








2 comments:

  1. I'm not sure how to treat the Gods as "thought forms". I get the whole "thought forms as a tool in Jungian spirituality", but even then, they're a TOOL-- a means to an end, and not the end itself. From what I know of Carl Jung, I think he even prescribed these "thought forms" as a way to come to a better understanding of G-d. (Using the Jewish spelling to connote an infinite Godhead, and hopefully to be inclusive of monotheistic, pantheistic, and even polytheistic belief.) Thus, "thought forms" are supposed to be training wheels.

    My $0.02, anyway. YMMV. Insert cliche disclaimers as appropriate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >> From what I know of Carl Jung, I think he even prescribed these
      >> "thought forms" as a way to come to a better understanding of G-d.
      >> (Using the Jewish spelling to connote an infinite Godhead, and
      >> hopefully to be inclusive of monotheistic, pantheistic, and even
      >> polytheistic belief.) Thus, "thought forms" are supposed to be training
      >> wheels.

      And that there is the reason an overwhelming majority of "Jungian polytheists" are neither Jungian nor polytheists.

      Delete