six0clocktea wrote:first accusation: the debate on the word "druid" i always saw it as oak wise/oak knower in the sense they were studying the natural patterns and such and i see dru and oak everywhere and have never seen it as meaning truth so i don't actually know what to say about that. The brigid thing i always knew as "st brigid" survived christianization like many religions do by hiding the old beliefs in the new ones and that her image was too strong to be kicked out otherwise christian belief wouldnt last in ireland and such. She did hold the oak sacred but because of the previous druids.
No-one knows the etymology of the word Druid, so any comment on it is supposition. I don't think anyone is saying Brigid wasn't both a Goddess and later a Saint.
2nd: ellen claims monroe to say anglesey as male druid and avalon as a female pagan/witch isle. Yes he does say that but what he doesnt say is that fe/males werent allowed on the opposite isle. They can travel to each isle. In fact in the stories merlyn and arthur go to avalon to see his mother die. What monroe says is that the druids were taught and sought refuge in anglesey while the women were taught on avalon. The big difference is in the idea of male/female mystery paths. The males taught the ways of the oak and of the sun a male symbol. and the women of avalon taught the female ways of the moon and the triple goddess. There are differences in the sexes and they knew that. so monroe is trying to express that with his male/female grouping. Also note that he states a very important idea that males and females are separate but equal. The sun has its own power and the moon has its own powers. Neither is better than the other not to mention ellen keeps trying to label monroes male associations with her own female associations... Honestly it seems like ellen is being a little close minded. You cant just look at the forwarding images and judge it as thus. In Lesson 14. The dragons isle they come to a dead tree sticking sideways from a cliff and merlyn asks arthur what it could mean and he basically says "nothing its a dead tree" merlyn calls him a turnip and points out the horn which calls the ferryman. Its the underlining images that can really show a hidden truth just like the horn.
The problem with all
Monroe's suppositions about male and female roles is that it is all b.s.. He stole most of it from Robert Graves (who made it up), and then
Monroe made it a bit more twisted reflecting presumably his own deep problems with women. There is no proof that Anglesey or Glastonbury were associated with any particular gender, in fact there is no proof that Glastonbury was an ancient cult centre. The sun was personified in both male and female forms by the Celts. They certainly didn't associate the moon with women and the sun with men, this is a Greco-Roman idea, put forward by Graves who was a classics scholar.
3rd. I think monroe speaks so much of the atlanteans cause he likes that idea. its his book. hes trying to hide druidic lessons in the stories just as the druids did especially the bards. Hes not expecting you to take it word for word as fact. He does state that he exaggerates a bit to make it more colorful.
Personally I hate Atlantis. One of many lost land legends, thats all. Has no bearing on Druidry whatsoever.
4th. Her supposed debunks on his claim that celibacy and the cross as a druidic symbol first is unresearched it seems because monroe talks about all civilizations being called on and true. He is trying to say that since the druids did use the cross as a symbol it probably was adapted when christianity struck its blows. He talks about how the druids revered the other civilizations and even used portals to travel to them through the trilithons not to mention the idea of natural philosophy. Monroe talks about how the druids first and foremost got their philosophies from nature herself. But didnt the laps and native americans also try to learn from nature and be close to it. Its a truth that is known to all people because its universal. If that helps explain my thoughts.
Since some historical Druids like Ailill Aulomon were married and had children
Monroe's claim that Ancient Druids were celibate seems to be b.s. like most of the rest of his book. I think it tells you about his own hangups, not anything about either history or the Western Mystery Tradition.
The cross is, as Ellen E-H says, a universal symbol found everywhere and in all times. Portals eh? Very Stargate

Where does he get this stuff from? A very vivid imagination is usually to be admired, but not when its results are passed of as teachings to be taken seriously.
5. I believe Monroe puts together the idea that the druids were celibate to become master druids. I think its because if females do in fact absorb energy just like the moon absorbs the suns rays or the female spider eats her male partner or the seed of man is taken by the woman which all seem to remark true then it would come to reason that not being sexually active aka not giving woman mans subtle energies the man would then harbor and gain more of this energy. He also says that this was usually only old men and young kids that do this and that the druids didnt try to force the novices, bards and ovates to do this. Why? because it is a natural thing. The sun always gives the moon his rays. I think that is justly so and that a man should out of love WANT to give a woman his energy and care. That might be a little disagreement i have with some thoughts that might be expressed at times in the lessons but nonetheless are usually misinterpreted (back to the dead tree and the horn) as for the vegetarian idea: I guess thats another case and point monroe trys to push onto the reader colorfully. I grew up in california for most of my childhood and in a druid order at that and i did notice that people not only of druidry in southern california but other faiths as well preach veganism and such for the belief that having a lifeforce rich diet (eating fruits and veggies and excluding any form of dead meat) you have a spiritually healthy diet. Monroe could have held that same ideals and thats why he puts that in.
See my comment about historical Druids above. This female as passive myth isn't even funny, it is just a bit sad. It reflects
Monroe's own sexism, and possibly misunderstandings of the Qabalah. I think Ellen does a good job of showing how there were female patron deities of many 'active' skills and forces among the Celts.
Monroe is an old fashioned sexist misogynist and there is nothing spiritual about his views on gender or sexuality. It reads in parts like a Catholic's fantasy about ancient Druidry.
With-holding orgasm has been practised by various people across the centuries (though it is mot thought of as an Oriental idea) but there is, again, absolutely no evidence that the Celts practised it.
Meat was very important to the ancient Celts, pork being considered the food of the Gods. There is evidence of huge meat based feasts at many ancient sites, so it seems that vegetarianism was unlikely. There is no evidence to support it. It seems
Monroe is again extrapolating from Oriental ideas.
6. Between points 5 and 6 its mostly her being feminist in my opinion with all her woman empowering ideals. Her last point about equality being in the american and british druid orders i do have to say i have never been in any of the other orders like adf and such so i cant comment but from a blind perspective it does seem as if ellen trys to preach females as being the more powerful of races.
Contemporary Neo-Paganism is founded on the principle of gender equality. If you don't like it I suggest you take up Catholicism!
In closing It damages ellens reputation with me now when i before enjoyed much of her published works. but now it seems like she was different than i thought. And the same goes for Phillip Carr-Gomm if he blindly thinks that the 21 lessons of merlyn is the worst book on druidry out there without seeing the deep messages within its lore. It should be him saying these things not me. Kind of disappoints me because from my exposure phil is the face of obod and i also thought of him in the image of the wise old druid head of his order. Not to mention some of the high ranking druids on this forum who also agree with ellen and say that monroe was smoking trees when he wrote the book is just wrong and disrespectful not like a druid at all.
On the otherhand my exposure to the druidcast is great dahm the bard expresses several times that he loves the old ways of bardic training through the use of storytelling (yes that means fiction too!) in my mind thats a model bard in fact a model druid as the obods ranking goes. Good for him.
That all being said the banner of this forum even states that the opinions expressed are not that of the order of bards ovates and druids but it does seem that it is the expressed opinion of obods members and it hasnt really given me a good impression of what this order is about if im defending a book on druidry to a druid order and teaching what bardic training is and its uses herein.
Well you won't find many (any?) contemporary Pagan writers who like this book, so that will limit your future reading somewhat.
Using (original) fiction as a teaching tool is problematic because it is important not to introduce imaginative ideas and present them as historical facts. Most successful historical fiction is very well researched and that is where this book fails, he made almost all of it up, there is very little evidence of any research, and what research there is (since he depends so heavily on Grave's discredited scholarship) is now wildly out of date.