Rituals, Prayer and Philosophical Works
Moderator: Earthwoman
14 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Rituals, Prayer and Philosophical Works
by FallingLeaves » 12 Dec 2004, 09:42
Please post your rituals, prayers and philosophical works for the Imbolc/Lughnasadh Eisteddfod Competition here.
-
FallingLeaves - Posts: 547
- Joined: 27 Jan 2004, 10:46
- Location: New Zealand
Entry - Sounds of Silence, a philosophical rambling
by Caritas » 23 Dec 2004, 09:48
a discussion with a young composer friend regarding the importance of silence to music set off this ramble....I hope I got the links to come through properly.
Sounds of Silence – a philosophical rambling
It may be that there are many things contained in silence. There are many spiritual groups that believe that silence is the key to the inner self. Among these, the Buddhists and the Taoists stand out and are obvious choices. And, of course, there are those who insist that the visual arts speak only in silence and here’s a commercial example. The irony is that Christianity may be one of the spiritual paths that has the greatest reverence for the power of silence, for its impact, for what can be called its presence.
Various schools of thought, most notably that of theosophy, have attempted to use the “mysteries of the East” to explain this concept of inner silence and its importance to spiritual enlightenment. Silence is often related, perhaps equated, with death in the West. Some examples of this are the traditional view of burial or death and our reflection that those who are silenced are as if dead – they are excluded from the community. Exclusion, however, does not necessarily equal emptiness or dearth. We also tend to make a connection between silence and deception, in political termsin the West.
In the American historical sense, silence has often been associated with oppression and deceit. Both of these can be seen as gross betrayals of trust; hence, breaking silence usually connotes a positive, or honest, portrayal of facts. Silencing has been used as a technique to keep various groups within our society from women to slaves from disrupting the norm, the standards set by the dominant group within society. Silence is often also taken as a form of agreement, or lack of disagreement, a de facto consent.
In terms of science, silence seems almost as if it is a problem that requires resolution, a barrier that must be overcome. Being locked inside of one’s own silence, as in autism, is presented as a state bordering upon the horrific in modern society. The West has come to see the choosing of silence as a lack of ability or willingness to communicate, and therefore aberrant. And, of course, there is the innate psychological power of silence in terms of use in warfare.
That there is power in silence seems indisputable, an accepted, if generally unproven, fact. Some would view this as a possible means to power. Within the Christian tradition others view, or have viewed, silence as a requisite for feeling God’s presence. These latter folk believe that silence itself is necessary to “feel” God’s immanence. The Rule of St. Benedict has bound the Catholic cloistered religious to an appreciable level silence for centuries because talking invited sin into the lives of the monks and nuns.
It may be, or may have been, that silence itself is the only state in which we humans, with our endless delight in communication, can manage to become aware of and acknowledge the presence of God. In St. Denis’ Prayer from about the midpoint of the 14th century, the author wrote “…all God’s secret matters lie covered and hidden under darkness both profound and brilliant, silent and wise.” Silence is most often representative of a very strong spiritual and religious tradition in both the East and the West.
That is, of course, the tradition of mysticism. By their very natures, mystics do not comply with “known” patterns, laws, or assumptions. The anonymous author of The Cloud of Unknowing (written in the aftermath of the devastating plague we familiarly call the Black Death in the 14th century) discussed the silence of contemplation as a passive state, but not an empty one. The silence is full of communication between the contemplative and God – it exists in some other space than that inhabited by sound. According to this author, the contemplative should live in as close to a perfect state of silence as possible – prayer itself should be a “communication with God,” not words or sounds.
This would seem to be very close to the relationship of silence and music. A passive versus an active state – but definitely not empty or void seems to be the conclusion regarding the meaning of silence by Christian mystics. Thomas à Kempis, the author of The Imitation of Christ, a 15th-century guide to personal spiritualism that would allow the ordinary individual to bring the profundity of Christ’s life into their daily activities, believed that truth, God’s truth presumably, was only to be found in silence. The refrain in one of Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz’s poems from the 16th-century advised the reader to hush and be patient to hear news of God’s power – “esperen, aguarden, que yo lo diré.” In the course of Dante’s instruction in poetry, La Vita Nuova, it is clear that he believed that the rapture of love could not be felt in the noise of the world. Once again – silence is immanent – for Dante, with the power of love.
J.L. said: “White is the foundation of color. White so wishes to be seen, it accepts a form of limitation - the colors - to more fully enter into our world. Without the colors to shape & contain it, white is free. Quiet is the absence of sound - the absence of color; silence is the presence of silence - white is the presence of white ... fully tangible & immediately available (and always benevolent - waiting for us to invite it in).” (taken from a letter to the author)
Hhhhhuuum – well, regarding the visual comparison I would see “clear” – an obvious visual state – as the equivalent of quiet. Clear as an absence; quiet does not seem to qualify as absence. Quiet is more like muting. Silence is “absent” of sound – it is full of itself just as one could argue the idea that white is white – it is “absent” of colors. Is white a foundation of color? This appears a much more complicated idea, in actual physical terms. May silence be a foundation for sound?
And, finally, there is the matter of silence and music. Cage’s work is an example of silence as sound and though I am not persuaded by the manner in which he used silence, although some have been to a largely ridiculous extent. Does silence frame the sounds of music? Is it merely a setting, like a setting for a jewel, lovely but incomplete without the music or the jewel? I would argue against that. Silence is its own unique state of being. Not sound, but not empty. A thing unique to itself which is impossible to describe fully because it exists in that same dimension as total darkness, or purest light – an absolute we can only approximate in our world. After all, in the deepest silence we can achieve, we still hear ourselves, do we not?
In the end, though we know what silence is, it cannot be defined and remains a mystery – like life, or love, or hope….
Sounds of Silence – a philosophical rambling
It may be that there are many things contained in silence. There are many spiritual groups that believe that silence is the key to the inner self. Among these, the Buddhists and the Taoists stand out and are obvious choices. And, of course, there are those who insist that the visual arts speak only in silence and here’s a commercial example. The irony is that Christianity may be one of the spiritual paths that has the greatest reverence for the power of silence, for its impact, for what can be called its presence.
Various schools of thought, most notably that of theosophy, have attempted to use the “mysteries of the East” to explain this concept of inner silence and its importance to spiritual enlightenment. Silence is often related, perhaps equated, with death in the West. Some examples of this are the traditional view of burial or death and our reflection that those who are silenced are as if dead – they are excluded from the community. Exclusion, however, does not necessarily equal emptiness or dearth. We also tend to make a connection between silence and deception, in political termsin the West.
In the American historical sense, silence has often been associated with oppression and deceit. Both of these can be seen as gross betrayals of trust; hence, breaking silence usually connotes a positive, or honest, portrayal of facts. Silencing has been used as a technique to keep various groups within our society from women to slaves from disrupting the norm, the standards set by the dominant group within society. Silence is often also taken as a form of agreement, or lack of disagreement, a de facto consent.
In terms of science, silence seems almost as if it is a problem that requires resolution, a barrier that must be overcome. Being locked inside of one’s own silence, as in autism, is presented as a state bordering upon the horrific in modern society. The West has come to see the choosing of silence as a lack of ability or willingness to communicate, and therefore aberrant. And, of course, there is the innate psychological power of silence in terms of use in warfare.
That there is power in silence seems indisputable, an accepted, if generally unproven, fact. Some would view this as a possible means to power. Within the Christian tradition others view, or have viewed, silence as a requisite for feeling God’s presence. These latter folk believe that silence itself is necessary to “feel” God’s immanence. The Rule of St. Benedict has bound the Catholic cloistered religious to an appreciable level silence for centuries because talking invited sin into the lives of the monks and nuns.
It may be, or may have been, that silence itself is the only state in which we humans, with our endless delight in communication, can manage to become aware of and acknowledge the presence of God. In St. Denis’ Prayer from about the midpoint of the 14th century, the author wrote “…all God’s secret matters lie covered and hidden under darkness both profound and brilliant, silent and wise.” Silence is most often representative of a very strong spiritual and religious tradition in both the East and the West.
That is, of course, the tradition of mysticism. By their very natures, mystics do not comply with “known” patterns, laws, or assumptions. The anonymous author of The Cloud of Unknowing (written in the aftermath of the devastating plague we familiarly call the Black Death in the 14th century) discussed the silence of contemplation as a passive state, but not an empty one. The silence is full of communication between the contemplative and God – it exists in some other space than that inhabited by sound. According to this author, the contemplative should live in as close to a perfect state of silence as possible – prayer itself should be a “communication with God,” not words or sounds.
This would seem to be very close to the relationship of silence and music. A passive versus an active state – but definitely not empty or void seems to be the conclusion regarding the meaning of silence by Christian mystics. Thomas à Kempis, the author of The Imitation of Christ, a 15th-century guide to personal spiritualism that would allow the ordinary individual to bring the profundity of Christ’s life into their daily activities, believed that truth, God’s truth presumably, was only to be found in silence. The refrain in one of Sor Juana Inés de la Cruz’s poems from the 16th-century advised the reader to hush and be patient to hear news of God’s power – “esperen, aguarden, que yo lo diré.” In the course of Dante’s instruction in poetry, La Vita Nuova, it is clear that he believed that the rapture of love could not be felt in the noise of the world. Once again – silence is immanent – for Dante, with the power of love.
J.L. said: “White is the foundation of color. White so wishes to be seen, it accepts a form of limitation - the colors - to more fully enter into our world. Without the colors to shape & contain it, white is free. Quiet is the absence of sound - the absence of color; silence is the presence of silence - white is the presence of white ... fully tangible & immediately available (and always benevolent - waiting for us to invite it in).” (taken from a letter to the author)
Hhhhhuuum – well, regarding the visual comparison I would see “clear” – an obvious visual state – as the equivalent of quiet. Clear as an absence; quiet does not seem to qualify as absence. Quiet is more like muting. Silence is “absent” of sound – it is full of itself just as one could argue the idea that white is white – it is “absent” of colors. Is white a foundation of color? This appears a much more complicated idea, in actual physical terms. May silence be a foundation for sound?
And, finally, there is the matter of silence and music. Cage’s work is an example of silence as sound and though I am not persuaded by the manner in which he used silence, although some have been to a largely ridiculous extent. Does silence frame the sounds of music? Is it merely a setting, like a setting for a jewel, lovely but incomplete without the music or the jewel? I would argue against that. Silence is its own unique state of being. Not sound, but not empty. A thing unique to itself which is impossible to describe fully because it exists in that same dimension as total darkness, or purest light – an absolute we can only approximate in our world. After all, in the deepest silence we can achieve, we still hear ourselves, do we not?
In the end, though we know what silence is, it cannot be defined and remains a mystery – like life, or love, or hope….
It is precisely because our present life is so inseparably linked with desire that we must make use of desire’s tremendous energy if we wish to transform our life into something transcendental. -Lama Thubten Yeshe
There are two ways to look at life. One is as though nothing is a miracle; the other is as though everything is. -Albert Einstein
There are two ways to look at life. One is as though nothing is a miracle; the other is as though everything is. -Albert Einstein
-
Caritas - Posts: 266
- Joined: 22 Aug 2004, 20:55
- Location: Northern Colorado, USA
by MorningStar » 25 Dec 2004, 22:22
Hi Hun,
Sorry it took me a while to reply to this wonderful piece on silence. i have to agree silence is one of those things that we will never be able to find the fully proper term to describe it's fullness and emptyness. It is many things to many people. It is one of those things that connects us to the oneness and unqueness of our selvs and the rest of exsistance.
Ask ten people what silence or love means to them and you will get simular but yet ten different answers to your question.
Very thought provoking piece of work....i enjoyed reading this very much Mee-gwitch for taking the time to do the study and the writing....and mee-gwitch for shareing this with us all.
Sorry it took me a while to reply to this wonderful piece on silence. i have to agree silence is one of those things that we will never be able to find the fully proper term to describe it's fullness and emptyness. It is many things to many people. It is one of those things that connects us to the oneness and unqueness of our selvs and the rest of exsistance.
Ask ten people what silence or love means to them and you will get simular but yet ten different answers to your question.
Very thought provoking piece of work....i enjoyed reading this very much Mee-gwitch for taking the time to do the study and the writing....and mee-gwitch for shareing this with us all.
-
MorningStar - Posts: 368
- Joined: 06 Nov 2004, 17:32
- Location: Wisconsin
by Caritas » 26 Dec 2004, 06:37
MorningStar - you are very kind indeed. Thank you
Blessings, Caritas
Blessings, Caritas
It is precisely because our present life is so inseparably linked with desire that we must make use of desire’s tremendous energy if we wish to transform our life into something transcendental. -Lama Thubten Yeshe
There are two ways to look at life. One is as though nothing is a miracle; the other is as though everything is. -Albert Einstein
There are two ways to look at life. One is as though nothing is a miracle; the other is as though everything is. -Albert Einstein
-
Caritas - Posts: 266
- Joined: 22 Aug 2004, 20:55
- Location: Northern Colorado, USA
by Azrienoch » 26 Dec 2004, 19:36
The Infant
I held a child today.
He was no more than three days old, and he fit neatly onto my forearm. His eyes were closed and he had that pure innocence that only a child of three days can have. I held him close, doing the "bounce," which is so dearly familiar to every mother. I kissed him on the forehead and found that I enjoyed it so much that I kissed him again on the cheek; His soft, warm, newborn-scented skin beneath my lips.
I brought my free hand up and let this new person grasp my finger. It didn't even fit all the way around. His fingernails were so small, they appeared at first to be nonexistent. I wonder if he even has a permanent set of fingerprints...
My hands used to be that small. I used to be that size.
A wave of sadness overcame me. What have I become? How could I have grown so quickly? Where did all my time go? One minute, this infant didn't exist, and the next, there he was. I did that once. I'll do the reverse someday. How quickly our lives come and go. How short a time we have to be alive.
What I wouldn't give to be that small once more, to start over, and do it all again. I want that innocence back. I want the world to be so large and incomprehensible that I don't even try to understand it. When I open my eyes, I want a group of smiling faces looking down at me. I don't want to hear anything but the high-pitched baby talk of my mother. I want to be wrapped tight in a blanket and held close, always secure with the knowledge that I am loved.
I look down at this dear, sweet baby in my arms, and I kiss his cheek once more.
Stay young, little one.
I held a child today.
He was no more than three days old, and he fit neatly onto my forearm. His eyes were closed and he had that pure innocence that only a child of three days can have. I held him close, doing the "bounce," which is so dearly familiar to every mother. I kissed him on the forehead and found that I enjoyed it so much that I kissed him again on the cheek; His soft, warm, newborn-scented skin beneath my lips.
I brought my free hand up and let this new person grasp my finger. It didn't even fit all the way around. His fingernails were so small, they appeared at first to be nonexistent. I wonder if he even has a permanent set of fingerprints...
My hands used to be that small. I used to be that size.
A wave of sadness overcame me. What have I become? How could I have grown so quickly? Where did all my time go? One minute, this infant didn't exist, and the next, there he was. I did that once. I'll do the reverse someday. How quickly our lives come and go. How short a time we have to be alive.
What I wouldn't give to be that small once more, to start over, and do it all again. I want that innocence back. I want the world to be so large and incomprehensible that I don't even try to understand it. When I open my eyes, I want a group of smiling faces looking down at me. I don't want to hear anything but the high-pitched baby talk of my mother. I want to be wrapped tight in a blanket and held close, always secure with the knowledge that I am loved.
I look down at this dear, sweet baby in my arms, and I kiss his cheek once more.
Stay young, little one.
-
Azrienoch - Posts: 1494
- Joined: 15 Dec 2003, 20:36
- Location: Twin Cities, MN
by Azrienoch » 26 Dec 2004, 20:54
Respect and the Golden Rule
Some say that to follow the Golden Rule is to respect. I disagree.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That's the Golden Rule. This rule assumes that the desired treatment of the user is also the desired treatment of the persons on which this rule is to be applied. Therefore, his rule actually has no intent to be considerate of the other person, and is instead focused on the user. This rule allows the user to embrace the misconception that their way is the best way. Now, the rule itself, at it's heart, is not a selfish rule, but because this rule is employed by the user, the outcome, ultimately, can only be one of self indulgence. Why? Because human consciousness is based upon self. The only thing that a human may experience is self, and so, whether it's intentional or not, because this rule allows for egomania, the instinct of selfishness will take the opportunity. For this rule to not yeild selfish results, the user would have to make a deliberate effort making use of resources found outside of the definition of the Golden Rule itself. The Golden Rule assumes that there is a common set of boundaries.
To respect, according to dictionary.com, comes in two parts. The first part is, "To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem." So, to respect is to treat something as it wants to be treated. Since this is the case, it is obvious that respect requires observation prior to engagement. Respect should then be a relatively hard thing to do for very many people, due to a lack of time to invest that would be required of proper respecting. Luckily, there is a second part to respect, which dictionary.com describes as, "To avoid violation of or interference with." Not only does this go for things like obeying laws, but it also it goes for avoiding a breach of privacy, or personal space. This is determined, usually, by law. If one goes to court saying that their privacy has been invaded by someone standing five miles away, who had no contact with the person who is suing in any direct or indirect way, the case will be dismissed. So law takes care of what is and is not a person's privacy to an extent. If law states the bounds of privacy, then anything within those bounds is up to the scrutiny of the individual who's privacy bounds are in question. This is what needs to be observed in order to properly respect someone. Law states, not assumes, what boundaries are, and the individual states what boundaries are within the boundaries of the law. We may not share a common set of morals, but we do share a common set of laws.
A proper engagement of respect, according to the first part, leaves no room for assumption, for assumption is disrespectful, according to the second part. Assumption can be a dangerous thing. It can easily lead to broken relationships, hurt feelings, and general offense. The Golden Rule is assumption-based, in its entirety, as it has been fully stated.
Some say that to follow the Golden Rule is to respect. I disagree.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That's the Golden Rule. This rule assumes that the desired treatment of the user is also the desired treatment of the persons on which this rule is to be applied. Therefore, his rule actually has no intent to be considerate of the other person, and is instead focused on the user. This rule allows the user to embrace the misconception that their way is the best way. Now, the rule itself, at it's heart, is not a selfish rule, but because this rule is employed by the user, the outcome, ultimately, can only be one of self indulgence. Why? Because human consciousness is based upon self. The only thing that a human may experience is self, and so, whether it's intentional or not, because this rule allows for egomania, the instinct of selfishness will take the opportunity. For this rule to not yeild selfish results, the user would have to make a deliberate effort making use of resources found outside of the definition of the Golden Rule itself. The Golden Rule assumes that there is a common set of boundaries.
To respect, according to dictionary.com, comes in two parts. The first part is, "To feel or show deferential regard for; esteem." So, to respect is to treat something as it wants to be treated. Since this is the case, it is obvious that respect requires observation prior to engagement. Respect should then be a relatively hard thing to do for very many people, due to a lack of time to invest that would be required of proper respecting. Luckily, there is a second part to respect, which dictionary.com describes as, "To avoid violation of or interference with." Not only does this go for things like obeying laws, but it also it goes for avoiding a breach of privacy, or personal space. This is determined, usually, by law. If one goes to court saying that their privacy has been invaded by someone standing five miles away, who had no contact with the person who is suing in any direct or indirect way, the case will be dismissed. So law takes care of what is and is not a person's privacy to an extent. If law states the bounds of privacy, then anything within those bounds is up to the scrutiny of the individual who's privacy bounds are in question. This is what needs to be observed in order to properly respect someone. Law states, not assumes, what boundaries are, and the individual states what boundaries are within the boundaries of the law. We may not share a common set of morals, but we do share a common set of laws.
A proper engagement of respect, according to the first part, leaves no room for assumption, for assumption is disrespectful, according to the second part. Assumption can be a dangerous thing. It can easily lead to broken relationships, hurt feelings, and general offense. The Golden Rule is assumption-based, in its entirety, as it has been fully stated.
-
Azrienoch - Posts: 1494
- Joined: 15 Dec 2003, 20:36
- Location: Twin Cities, MN
by MorningStar » 30 Dec 2004, 00:18
AZ i must say you did quite well once again. But must admit my motherly side like the "Infant" best. Very touching. Now all ya need do is have a baby of your own. The magic will last a life time. i look upon my daughter now who is 17 years old and think how blessed my life is with her in it. She is a constant source of pride.
Very well done Hun...very well done.
Very well done Hun...very well done.
-
MorningStar - Posts: 368
- Joined: 06 Nov 2004, 17:32
- Location: Wisconsin
by Branbeith » 30 Dec 2004, 14:25
Beautifully said, Azrienoch...
A poem thatmourns the loss of youth but even more so the lost of innocence. In an era where people are told to grow u so quickly, it is nice to be reminded what is left behind when we grow up.
A poem thatmourns the loss of youth but even more so the lost of innocence. In an era where people are told to grow u so quickly, it is nice to be reminded what is left behind when we grow up.
-
Branbeith - Posts: 263
- Joined: 06 Aug 2004, 16:43
- Location: Connecticut (Usa)
by Branbeith » 30 Dec 2004, 15:11
My Prophet Can Beat Up Your Prophet and Other Such Nonsense....
I am pagan. This does not imply that I view paganism as the one correct path nor does it imply that paganism is superior to any other path. It is simply my path. The one that is correct for me.
My views of the Divine is simple. The Divine is so far above human conception that different cultures have humanized it to allow the Divine to be understood. This humanization process had to fit the culture of the people! Case and point, look how the Christian god has changed over the years. In Puritan times, some saw HIM as a vengeful god as depicted in Jonathan Edwards "Sinners in a hand of an Angry God". Today, HE has mellowed into a "nice guy". One of my friends, a born again Christian, was listening to a hymn "My God is an Awesome God". The music was upbeat and about how much God loves and is loved back. Hardly the angry God of Edward's work that loaths his creation (us). So did God really wake up one day and decide to be nice? No, the culture changed so God changed to fit that culture.
If one removes all the "junk" from religion (and face it, all religions have Junk, even my beloved paganism), any positive path is comprised of three parts:
- Be a better person
- Get along with others
- Honor the Divine as you define it
Unfortunately, EGO often gets in the way of something so beautiful and simple. Have you notices the word EGO is in the word rEliGiOn? The beautiful messages of the different paths go unheard as people scream how their way is the one true way and if one does not believe as they do - the "unbelievers" are wrong and usually destined for a horrible fate. These same "enlightened" individuals see it as their divine call to jam their views down another's throat all in an attempt to "help" that person of course. There is no help in this course of action. It is merely a way to stroke their own personal egos.
Phillip saw all this and wisely proclaimed his approach to Druidry as a spiritual path rather than rEliGiOn. This way, many different beliefs can come together and travel together down the path that leads to the Divine.
So get the prophets out of the boxing ring ("In this corner, Jesus, in that corner, Mohammad") and back to teaching. Stop twisting their words of wisdom to furthur fluff up an already oversized ego. There is either room for the message or ego. Never should the message be
that of ego.
[/b]
I am pagan. This does not imply that I view paganism as the one correct path nor does it imply that paganism is superior to any other path. It is simply my path. The one that is correct for me.
My views of the Divine is simple. The Divine is so far above human conception that different cultures have humanized it to allow the Divine to be understood. This humanization process had to fit the culture of the people! Case and point, look how the Christian god has changed over the years. In Puritan times, some saw HIM as a vengeful god as depicted in Jonathan Edwards "Sinners in a hand of an Angry God". Today, HE has mellowed into a "nice guy". One of my friends, a born again Christian, was listening to a hymn "My God is an Awesome God". The music was upbeat and about how much God loves and is loved back. Hardly the angry God of Edward's work that loaths his creation (us). So did God really wake up one day and decide to be nice? No, the culture changed so God changed to fit that culture.
If one removes all the "junk" from religion (and face it, all religions have Junk, even my beloved paganism), any positive path is comprised of three parts:
- Be a better person
- Get along with others
- Honor the Divine as you define it
Unfortunately, EGO often gets in the way of something so beautiful and simple. Have you notices the word EGO is in the word rEliGiOn? The beautiful messages of the different paths go unheard as people scream how their way is the one true way and if one does not believe as they do - the "unbelievers" are wrong and usually destined for a horrible fate. These same "enlightened" individuals see it as their divine call to jam their views down another's throat all in an attempt to "help" that person of course. There is no help in this course of action. It is merely a way to stroke their own personal egos.
Phillip saw all this and wisely proclaimed his approach to Druidry as a spiritual path rather than rEliGiOn. This way, many different beliefs can come together and travel together down the path that leads to the Divine.
So get the prophets out of the boxing ring ("In this corner, Jesus, in that corner, Mohammad") and back to teaching. Stop twisting their words of wisdom to furthur fluff up an already oversized ego. There is either room for the message or ego. Never should the message be
that of ego.
[/b]
-
Branbeith - Posts: 263
- Joined: 06 Aug 2004, 16:43
- Location: Connecticut (Usa)
by MorningStar » 02 Jan 2005, 02:49
Very good Branbeith,
this is the very point that brought me into druidry when i was wrapped up in research. i seemed to have found my home of where one is not judged or ridiculed for their own personal beliefs. We all walk a differnt path. If we walked the same exact path that would mean we walk in someone elses shoes and after a spell i think two peole in one set of shoes.... well it would get rather ugly not to mention uncomfortable. LOL!
And you are right it is up to each one of us to respect each others views and paths, for all paths that are true lead to the same finnal destination. But it's the journey that counts and how we behaved on it. Did we teach a long the way? Did we learn and grow a long the way? Did we carry the message of Peace, Love and Hope or did we carry kaos and destruction?
OK i've been reading too much i'm stopping the rant right there LOL!
But Still Branbeith quite wonderfully spoken.
this is the very point that brought me into druidry when i was wrapped up in research. i seemed to have found my home of where one is not judged or ridiculed for their own personal beliefs. We all walk a differnt path. If we walked the same exact path that would mean we walk in someone elses shoes and after a spell i think two peole in one set of shoes.... well it would get rather ugly not to mention uncomfortable. LOL!
And you are right it is up to each one of us to respect each others views and paths, for all paths that are true lead to the same finnal destination. But it's the journey that counts and how we behaved on it. Did we teach a long the way? Did we learn and grow a long the way? Did we carry the message of Peace, Love and Hope or did we carry kaos and destruction?
OK i've been reading too much i'm stopping the rant right there LOL!
But Still Branbeith quite wonderfully spoken.
-
MorningStar - Posts: 368
- Joined: 06 Nov 2004, 17:32
- Location: Wisconsin
14 posts
• Page 1 of 1
Return to Historical Eisteddfod Gallery
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests