A friend told me recently that she thought I am 'orthodox'. She didn't
know why she said it, it sort of came out. And it was interesting for
me, because I often find myself debating on Facebook against what seem
to be collectively established viewpoints. And if I'm around
conventionally-minded people for too long, I start to feel bored. But as
I thought about it, I realised, or I remembered, that I have a strong
sense of tradition, that is where my loyalties lie, and that is where,
at bottom, I discuss/debate from.
In my youthful Buddhist days, I had a hunger for the doctrines of Buddhism, I knew them well, thought about them, and based the way I saw the world around them. I still value many of those ideas. But 25 years ago I started to move on to Shamanism in quite a dramatic way.
And it was particularly after a traditionally trained Chippewa Cree guy started to come and stay with me that I started to clarify my thinking around Shamanism. Shamanism isn't really a thinking thing for many of us, it's more about direct experience. Not that thought doesn't sometimes lead to direct experience, it does.
But this Chippewa Cree guy was very much a thinking type, though he wasn't at all lacking as a ceremonial leader and story teller and teacher. And he very much helped shape the way I thought about things. And since then I have encountered a great book, The Circle of Life by James David Audlin, which is a first hand, and very long, account of traditional ways of seeing the world, and being in it, in North America. So that has been like having a traditional teacher to hand again.
As I say, thinking is one of my stronger
functions, and ideas come to me, and I write about them. And thinking in
a way that is in accordance with what I have come to understand as
traditional indigenous ways of seeing the world, is very important to
me. I have a deep faith that the natural indigenous way is the universal
and the best way, even the correct way, of seeing the world and of being in it. I am very
traditional in this sense, it is at the bottom of who I am. But it is
not in a superficial way, like knowing the correct forms of things, like
whether a skin drum is the right way to go, or exactly how to run a
Pipe Ceremony or knowing Lakota songs. It is about a way of seeing the
world and relating to it and to ourselves.
So when, for example, I argue against Evolution as a scientific theory, I do so not to be contrary, but because if a Creation Myth does not have a sacred origin to life, I am deeply troubled by that. It seems very wrong, arguing from a traditional perspective, in which life is sacred. I am very happy to incorporate sacredness into Evolution, but then it is no longer a scientific theory. And I think these distinctions really matter, so that we know exactly what we are buying into.
From the point of view of the modern way of seeing the world, I may appear radical and rebellious. But from a traditional point of view, the modern way we see the world and the modern way we live are deeply out of balance with a natural way of living. This is not Utopian, I do not have an idealised past in mind. I just seem to have a natural connection with indigenous, particularly North American, ways of seeing the world, and a lot of faith, based on experience, that this is the best way to be human.
NB Please note the Free Email Subscribe button, top right of the page 😼
In my youthful Buddhist days, I had a hunger for the doctrines of Buddhism, I knew them well, thought about them, and based the way I saw the world around them. I still value many of those ideas. But 25 years ago I started to move on to Shamanism in quite a dramatic way.
And it was particularly after a traditionally trained Chippewa Cree guy started to come and stay with me that I started to clarify my thinking around Shamanism. Shamanism isn't really a thinking thing for many of us, it's more about direct experience. Not that thought doesn't sometimes lead to direct experience, it does.
But this Chippewa Cree guy was very much a thinking type, though he wasn't at all lacking as a ceremonial leader and story teller and teacher. And he very much helped shape the way I thought about things. And since then I have encountered a great book, The Circle of Life by James David Audlin, which is a first hand, and very long, account of traditional ways of seeing the world, and being in it, in North America. So that has been like having a traditional teacher to hand again.
So when, for example, I argue against Evolution as a scientific theory, I do so not to be contrary, but because if a Creation Myth does not have a sacred origin to life, I am deeply troubled by that. It seems very wrong, arguing from a traditional perspective, in which life is sacred. I am very happy to incorporate sacredness into Evolution, but then it is no longer a scientific theory. And I think these distinctions really matter, so that we know exactly what we are buying into.
From the point of view of the modern way of seeing the world, I may appear radical and rebellious. But from a traditional point of view, the modern way we see the world and the modern way we live are deeply out of balance with a natural way of living. This is not Utopian, I do not have an idealised past in mind. I just seem to have a natural connection with indigenous, particularly North American, ways of seeing the world, and a lot of faith, based on experience, that this is the best way to be human.
--------------------
I offer skype/FB video astrology
readings, by donation. Contact: BWGoddard1
(at)aol.co.uk
---------------------
No comments:
Post a Comment