(no subject)
22 September 2019 08:19![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
haptalaonIn part, I think the individualism of the modern world and the dispersal of magical knowledge kinda acts against the traditional role of a group leader. In the old days of the craft, things like hereditary knowledge and positions which passed down information had a certain purpose. but here, if you take a student too slowly or try ad impart your tradition in a way they don't want to go, they can do it themselves or find something else. Is this good? I think it's good broadly, but it does work against things like community and heredity and commitment, making us all rather spiritual dilettantes tempted by a buffet table of supernatural click bait. We've all got magical FOMO, where committing and strengthening something over time has its own power and one we seem to find it hard nowadays.
I've been readiing a lot of comparative religion atm, thinking specifically about deficiencies which I find in Paganism and how other religions cope with them. I'm currently reading the book by the Hare Krishnas, which is about bakhti yoga. The guru writing the book explains thst finding a mentor is essential essential. He also says you can tell a real guru from a false one because real gurus transmit information, not adding anything to it, being part of a long and ancient line. Which sounds pretty cool and kinda like Gardener tried to do except that broke within Gardeners own life time because it's in human nature to tinker. Or perhaps, in Western nature to tinker.
I suppose this is the problem with hierarchical systems. You have to believe in the hierarchy, have some supernatural almost faith vested in it. Like monarchy. The Queen ia just this lady, but because people believe she is the Queen, she is. And what we have in Paganism is few paths which are truly ancient enough to command that respect, and few personalities who are both powerful and deserving enough of it. I can't imagine us ever having such a system as the Hare Krishnas do, where the role of a guru ia to transmit information without adding their own change. Paganism is profoundly individualstic, and this is perhaps our strength - but it works against such thugs as hierarchy and community.
I've been readiing a lot of comparative religion atm, thinking specifically about deficiencies which I find in Paganism and how other religions cope with them. I'm currently reading the book by the Hare Krishnas, which is about bakhti yoga. The guru writing the book explains thst finding a mentor is essential essential. He also says you can tell a real guru from a false one because real gurus transmit information, not adding anything to it, being part of a long and ancient line. Which sounds pretty cool and kinda like Gardener tried to do except that broke within Gardeners own life time because it's in human nature to tinker. Or perhaps, in Western nature to tinker.
I suppose this is the problem with hierarchical systems. You have to believe in the hierarchy, have some supernatural almost faith vested in it. Like monarchy. The Queen ia just this lady, but because people believe she is the Queen, she is. And what we have in Paganism is few paths which are truly ancient enough to command that respect, and few personalities who are both powerful and deserving enough of it. I can't imagine us ever having such a system as the Hare Krishnas do, where the role of a guru ia to transmit information without adding their own change. Paganism is profoundly individualstic, and this is perhaps our strength - but it works against such thugs as hierarchy and community.
