Astral Cup Meditation (432)

Astral Cup Meditation - Spoken Word Only (273)

Astral Tower Meditation (328)

Cerridwen's Cauldron (345)

Night Ride On A Broomstick (445)

(The numbers after the name of each download link indicate how many times the file has been downloaded since it was posted here.)

Some explain these dream figures as parts of ourselves that manifest through our subconscious when we are asleep. Others believe that these figures have their own independent existence. Perhaps they are the astral forms of living people. Maybe they are discorporate spirits or ghosts, angels or demons, perhaps even Gods and Goddesses. It doesn’t really matter how we explain their existence. There are things we can learn from them regardless how we explain their presence.

Dream characters have fluid forms. They can take all manner of shapes and appearances. Just because they appear to us as family, friends, or people we recognize it doesn’t mean they really are those people. A dream figure might appear as one of your parents in one dream and then come back to you in another dream in the guise of a well-known celebrity, or as a stranger. They might appear as humans, animals, mythical creatures, or even as inanimate objects. Sometimes we might recognize a dream character as being familiar to us even though it has taken a new form. Sometimes we don’t realize that a dream figure has appeared to us before in another form.

Some people are lucky enough to be able to remember most of their dreams and can even choose to go back into a particular dream and continue it. More often, though, we only remember bits and pieces of our dreams and not the whole narrative. Remembering a whole dream, let alone going back into a particular dream, can be difficult. There are other ways though we can reach into our dreams and draw meaning from them.

Think about dreams that you do remember regardless how much of the dream comes to mind or whether any of it makes any sense to your logical mind. Are there any people in your dreams, human or animal, that feel important to you? Were there any that you felt particularly drawn to, or conversely felt were scary? Strong emotion, whether it is positive or negative, can indicate that a particular dream figure is important for you.

Perhaps there is a particular dream figure you find intriguing. Was there someone you wanted to spend more time with in your dreams? Someone you thought might be a good friend if you gave the relationship a chance? Perhaps there was someone who might have information that can help you with a particular problem. Maybe that dream figure is antagonistic towards you but you can still gain valuable information by talking with them, even if you know they might be lying.

Dream figures are often most helpful if we treat them like they are real people with their own opinions, desires, and emotions. Don’t assume that they will always tell you the truth, or even if they are telling the truth, that they are telling you the whole story. Ask them for their opinions but take what they say and balance it against your own better judgment. Just because a dream character appears to you in the form of close friend does not mean that they are who they appear to be. They might not be able to tell you things that their real-life counterpart would know. Treat them like you would any stranger until you really have established a solid relationship with them. As you start to establish a relationship with them, ask them questions that you can easily confirm so you can try to guarantee the dream figure’s identity and the value of their information.

It’s wise to start your dream figure dialogs with some ritual designed to protect you. You wouldn’t just throw your front door wide open and invite any random stranger to come into your home to talk with you. Spiritualists recite the Lord’s Prayer or other prayers requesting protection before attempting to contact spirits. Ceremonial magicians attempting to summon spirits often use carefully constructed magick circles and triangles of manifestation. Wiccans usually cast a circle, or at the very least recite some protective prayers to the Divine, and maybe light some protective incense or sprinkle blessed water to cleanse and protect. Do whatever makes sense to you so that you feel grounded, centered, and safe before you start.

Once you feel ready, calm your mind and take a few deep breaths, then think about the dream figure you wish to contact. Think about how they appeared in your dream, what they looked like, and how they sounded if they spoke. Remember as many details as you can about them. If they used a particular name in the dream, think of that name and repeat it to yourself either silently or out loud.

Some people are able to visualize the dream character well enough that they can start to interact with it immediately. Others might find it more helpful to use props to aid in the communication – perhaps gazing into a crystal ball, a bowl of water, or a skrying mirror. Some find they have great luck using a pendulum. Personally, I find that using the tarot works really well.

When you feel that you’ve made contact with a dream figure, start with simple yes and no questions. Shuffle the deck, think of a particular question, and then turn over a card at random when it feels right. The card that is turned over gives a basic answer: an even numbered card means yes, an odd numbered card means no, and a court card means the dream figure doesn’t know or can’t answer that particular question right now. Once you’ve got an answer, put the card back in the deck and shuffle some more and ask the next question. Sometimes a question needs to be asked a number of times, worded slightly different ways, to turn up a solid response. As always, treat the answers as just this dream figure’s opinion and not necessarily as proven fact.

Often simple yes and no questions are not enough and you want to move on to a more sophisticated discussion. The tarot is perfect for this sort of communication too. There are many different layouts that you can use which can focus on different types of information.

A simple layout I often use is a basic four-card spread. I’ll ask the dream figure a question, and then turn up four cards. The first card represents the dream figure’s way of explaining the key part of the question I asked. The second card represents positive aspects of the question. The third card represents negative aspects of the question. Finally, the fourth card tells me what the dream figure suggests as a possible way to resolve the question.

Four cards just aren’t enough sometimes. In those cases, lay out further cards for specific aspects of the four-card reading. Ask, “What else can you say about this part?” for a particular position you need clarified and then lay out a new card along with the card that is already turned up for that position. Interpret the new card as modifying or adding on to the card that is already there. This can go on for a while with lots more information turning up. Of course, other more complex tarot layouts can be used as well if the basic four-card spread isn’t satisfying.

When you communicate with a dream figure treat them like real people. Show them respect, and accept that they might not want to tell you what you are asking. Ask them to talk about themselves, listen to what they have to say. When your discussion is over be sure to thank them for talking with you. You might find you are rewarded with a new friend!

Further Reading

http://www.aeclectic.net/tarot/links/spreads.shtml Links to explanations of different tarot layouts or spreads.

Raymond Buckland “Buckland’s Book of Spirit Communication ” (Llewellyn: 2004.) A good overview of spirit communication methods that also work when communicating with dream figures.

Dr. Ann Faraday “Dream Power ” (Berkeley Books: 1972.) A small paperback that discusses dreams, dream interpretation, and some ways to explore dreams by interacting with dream figures.

Strephon Kaplan-Williams “The Jungian-Senoi Dreamwork Manual ” (Journey Press: 1988.) An excellent collection of dreamwork techniques. Unfortunately this book is out of print and tends to be hard to find.

The Roman Catholic Church has an office within its organization called the Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith. In previous times this office had another name: the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Despite the name change the office’s role has remained the same. It is responsible for keeping doctrinal discipline and confronting and eliminating deviations in doctrinal thought. It’s all about maintaining the authority of the Vatican and the Pope and ensuring that all Roman Catholics are following the same religion and respecting the established hierarchy.

Wicca is a religion based on autonomy. It draws its basis from Pagan religions of the past but primarily from lore about Witches and Witchcraft. Most today consider Wicca to trace back directly or indirectly to a single man, Gerald Gardner, who promoted the religion starting in the 1940s or early 1950s in Britain. Gardner described Wicca as based on covens with each coven being autonomous. If there was dissent within a coven the rules as Gardner presented them allowed for the dissenting parties to separate and form new covens. This way of dealing with conflict resulted in encouraging diversity within Wicca and reinforced the idea that there was no central authority which would dictate that one coven was wrong and another right on matters of philosophy or practice.

Gardner also insisted that there were other Wiccans out there that he did not know about who had been practicing before he was initiated. He did this partially to promote the debatable claim that he was merely passing on an intact ancient religion. One consequence of this is that it left the door open for others to come forward and claim they were Witches or Wiccans too from a common mythical ancestry and Gardner could not really insist they were wrong. Even if these other Wiccans practiced things differently, Gardner’s “old laws” clearly made it acceptable for variety in the way covens and practitioners did things. He might not have intended to do so but Gardner’s decisions regarding how to handle things in his own group had set the stage for Wicca to become much more than just his own teachings in his own groups.

The result of all this was that Gardner essentially gave away the right to exclusive ownership over the label Wicca for his groups and those directly descended from them. He might not have anticipated this possibility but in any case it is what happened. Many groups, sometimes with conflicting philosophies and ways of doing things, have come forward under the banner of Wicca. New groups have been created and old ones have splintered into other quite distinct groups. Autonomy was there so of course it was exercised!

Not everyone has been happy about this. Some of Gardner’s direct spiritual descendants have argued that only they and a few select groups that they approve of should have the right to call themselves Wiccan. However the autonomous structure had already been set up and no one group has the authority to dictate to the rest of the community. Wicca did not have a central authority structure in the past and it does not have one now. It is highly unlikely at this point that a central authority could be established which the majority of Wiccans would respect.

There have been attempts to seize power and establish a central Wiccan authority but these have all failed. One example is when Alex Sanders proclaimed himself the King of the Witches but it was quickly pointed out, particularly by Gardnerian Wiccans, that he did not have any authority outside of Alexandrian Wiccan covens. Another example is when in 1974 at the Witchmeet gathering in Minnesota, Lady Sheba (a.k.a. Jessie Wicker Bell) declared herself the leader of American Witches and demanded that everyone hand over their Books of Shadows to her so that she could combine their contents and then establish a single authoritative Book of Shadows which all American Witches would be expected to follow. She was laughed at and needless to say was not successful in establishing the central authority she sought.

It was at that same 1974 Witchmeet where we had probably the closest thing to a central Wiccan authority created in the declaration of the Principles of Wiccan Belief. This set of thirteen principles attempted to outline in a very general way the basic foundation of Wiccan philosophy. The concept of autonomy of both groups and individuals is clear in the document. It also specified that lineage or membership in specific groups was not a requirement in order to be Wiccan. Many Wiccans, both as groups and individually, consider the Principles to be the foundation of their spiritual path. However, true to the autonomy inherent in Wicca, there are some Wiccans who do not consider the Principles to be part of their individual or group philosophy.

Some are not satisfied with how things are in the Wiccan community and actively work to establish a central authority with their own particular outlook of course identified as the One True and Only Way. They are not satisfied with the fact that the autonomy they personally enjoy in Wicca also means that other Wiccans are free to follow their own different paths. These are the Wiccan fundamentalists who see variety as heresy. As far as they are concerned, if you’re not practicing things the way they personally do, and don’t believe things exactly the way they personally do, then you must be wrong and should either correct your ways or else stop calling yourself a Wiccan.

Perhaps these attitudes are carried over from previous religious education where the idea of One True Way was key, such as in many varieties of monotheism, particularly the evangelical and literalist varieties. Often the Wiccan manifestation of the One True Way idea comes through as a literal and absolute belief in the truth of a particular teacher’s work. Most often the teacher elevated to the status of never-to-be-questioned guru is Gerald Gardner since he was the one who began the Wiccan movement in the middle of the twentieth century. In the mind of many Wiccan fundamentalists, if Gardner taught it then it must be absolutely true!

Unfortunately for the literalists Gardner has turned out to be a mere human being just like the rest of us. Some things he got right and some things he got wrong. The history of Wicca that Gardner presented, especially the part that explains what came before Gardner was initiated, has proven to be largely speculation with very little evidence to support many of its major claims. Historians aren’t completely ignorant of what happened prior to the 1950s in England. We have enough evidence to know that Gardner’s historical claims were not completely accurate nor were they completely supported by the evidence.

A religion’s value does not depend on the literal truth of its historical claims. Many millions of people find Christianity to be meaningful despite the fact its history is not absolutely settled. Buddhists seem to still find their religion to be valuable despite the questions regarding the provable history of the religion’s founders. Wicca too is a precious treasure for those who practice it even if they don’t believe one hundred percent of the historical claims made by Gardner.

Some religions do consider blind obedience to authority to be a virtue the faithful are expected to cultivate in themselves. Wicca though cherishes autonomy and this is in direct conflict with blind obedience. Wiccans who value blind obedience are welcome to make that a part of their religious practice but they are out of line in expecting others to abide by their dictates. Wicca does not have an Office of the Holy Inquisition and many Wiccans will actively fight against the establishment of such. And that is to be expected.

Wiccans who play the fundamentalist mind-game of proclaiming that those who do not agree with them are not “true Wiccans” deserve the same reaction that Lady Sheba got back in 1974 when she declared herself Witch Queen of America – they should be laughed at and then ignored. Wicca is not a One True Way religion and never has been. Those who would make it over into one are in for a long hard struggle that they will likely never win. Is it really worth it for them? After all, if they wanted a One True Way religion there are plenty of those out there for them to join.

Wicca is for those of us who are free-thinkers, rebels, nature-worshippers, who laugh and love and dance in the name of our Gods and Goddesses in spite of what the stiff-shirt self-declared authorities around us tell us is right and proper. Others can try to co-opt our religion and turn it into yet another fossilized dogma of right and wrong to be blindly followed on pain of excommunication or threats of torment in other lives. The Witch’s cat is already out of the bag and has been for some time now, and we’re all enjoying the nighttime revels and the daytime ignoring of arbitrary conventions too much to just follow what someone else tells us is the One True Way.

Footnotes
Bonewits, Isaac. “Witchcraft: A Concise Guide.” (Earth Religions Press, 2001.)
Heselton, Philip. “Gerald Gardner and the Cauldron of Inspiration.” (Capall Bann Publishing, 2003.)
Hutton, Ronald. “The Triumph of the Moon.” (Oxford University Press, 1999.)
Lamond, Frederic. “Fifty Years of Wicca.” (Green Magic, 2004.)
Valiente, Doreen. “The Rebirth of Witchcraft.” (Phoenix Publishing, 1989.)

Sannion begins by saying that those who challenge Reconstructionism are “fluffy.” It must be pointed out that Neopagans who are not following specifically Reconstructionist paths are not necessarily “fluffy” by default. The term “fluffy” has come to mean Neopagan practitioners who are largely ignorant of their own religion’s history, sources, and often core issues. “Fluffy” Neopagans are thought to be involved in alternative religions for shock value or as a fashion statement rather than out of a desire for spiritual understanding and discipline. “Fluffy” Neopagans are those who accept any claim at face value — apparently lacking critical skills to distinguish objective reality from fantasy. “Fluffy” Neopagans generally lack credibility except amongst other “Fluffy” Neopagans, because they often can’t provide any evidence to support their claims. By clarifying what “fluffy” Neopagans are, it’s easier to recognize that there are indeed Neopagans who aren’t Reconstructionists who are also not “fluffy.” Doreen Valiente, Janet Fararr, Vivianne Crowley, Margot Adler, Starhawk — are these Neopagans “fluffy” because they aren’t specifically Reconstructionists? They are all Wiccans, and Wicca is outside the Reconstructionist category by most determinations.

There are undoubtedly some individuals who are new to Reconstructionist traditions who pick up a single book and then declare themselves “experts,” which easily puts them firmly within the “fluffy” category. And likewise, there are Neopagans who do not belong to Reconstructionist traditions who are thorough scholars, who are realists, who can provide extensive evidence to support claims they make. Being a Reconstructionist does not make you immune from being “fluffy,” and not being a Reconstructionist does not make you “fluffy” automatically either.

Let’s clarify the issue more by making clear distinctions between the two groups that Sannion describes as being at odds, and give them general labels: Reconstructionists and Eclectics. Reconstructionists are those who are basing their religions as closely as possible on a specific historical model. Eclectics are those who do not limit themselves to one specific historical model, but are apt to select influences from a wide range of cultures and historical periods. Eclectics are also just as likely to invent new concepts or practices for inclusion as they are to draw from established systems.

Sannion presented five main objections that Reconstructionist Neopagans hear from Eclectic Neopagans, and attempted to refute each of these. Let’s start by looking at those five objections and Sannion’s arguments and see where they take us.

1. “All Reconstructionists do is study; they don’t actually live the religion.”
Sannion argues that Reconstructionists do tend to be predominantly book-based, but this doesn’t mean they don’t pray to their deities or perform rituals or devotions.

The argument comes across as based on a rather shallow taunt — “my religion is better than yours because we do more ritual than you do.” It also misses the perhaps more subtle point — that a religion is a way of life, a living and breathing part of existence that isn’t experienced primarily through the study of the written word. Study of mythology and history can help us get a better understanding of our ancestors, and hopefully will shed light on ourselves. Eclectics acknowledge that things change, that the things written down in the history books are just the start of the story. The present and the future are just as important as the past. Perhaps the Eclectic complaint is that Reconstructionists are not focusing enough on the present, on their individual and current relationships with the Divine, in favor of focusing almost exclusively on what people did long ago.

It doesn’t really matter who is doing more ritual or more devotions as part of their religion. It doesn’t really matter if the religious practices are strictly individual and private, or public and communal. It does matter if you are living in the present or sacrificing the present for a mythical idealized past.

2. “Reconstructionism is too restrictive and doesn’t allow for personal expression.”
Sannion argues that Eclectic Neopagans are uncritical, that they accept everything without distinguishing good from bad. It is also pointed out that within specific Reconstructionist traditions (for example Greek paganism) there is a lot of room for creativity: Greek Reconstructionism includes Minoan, Myceneaean, Homeric, Classical, Hellenistic, and Roman periods spanning roughly from 1500 BCE through 400 CE. “And yet [Eclectic] Neopagans still want more freedom,” Sannion says.

Eclectic Neopagans mostly work under the idea that they use what works for them. It’s something that varies from group to group, and often from individual to individual. If something doesn’t work for an individual or group, they’ll drop it or ignore it. That does not mean that individuals or groups are not selective, that they do not hold some standards against which philosophies or practices are measured. Eclectic Neopagans, individually and as working groups, can be just as critical as any Reconstructionist. The standards might be different, but different does not mean one standard is necessarily better or worse than another.

Eclectic Neopagans as an entire group can be said to accept everything, because if you look you’ll surely find an Eclectic Neopagan who does believe whatever specific idea is brought forth. The same can be said of Reconstructionists as a whole — pick an idea, and you’re sure to find a Reconstructionist somewhere who believes that particular idea.

The selection of a specific culture and period in history as the basis for a religion is itself artifical and forced. For example, the Celtic peoples were varied and far from homogenous, yet Reconstructionists will just as happily blend different clan or regional deities, myths, and practices. Ancient Greece, as another example, was a land made up of very independent city-states, each with its own set of deities and religious practices. Rome, on the other hand, did its best to institute a “state religion” or collection of religions, and to do this it consciously absorbed and adopted various tribal religions from Italy, Greece, Egypt, and elsewhere. The idea of a “pure culture,” “pure religion,” or “pure ethnic group” is very artificial and arbitrary. Cultures adopt ideas and mythology from each other all the time. To pretend that a religion or culture is “pure” is rather naive.

Many Eclectic Neopagans (although not all, of course) also work under the philosophy that “all gods are one God, all goddesses are one Goddess,” and often also believe that God and Goddess are merely two gender aspects of a single, all-pervasive Divine that is beyond human understanding as a whole. They believe that we approach and interact with the Divine through distinct “aspects” that appear to human perception as independent individuals. To expect an Eclectic Neopagan who believes “all gods are one God” to limit themselves to an arbitrary group of deities (whether selected by geographic region, historical period, or whatever criteria) is an artificial and unnecessary limitation. Eclectics allow themselves the right to decide how to approach the Divine, which names they feel most comfortable using when speaking with Them, and usually assume the same right to others whether they are Eclectic or not.

Sannion presented an analogy of two musicians to reinforce the idea that limiting study to one cultural and historical period is best. Of course, there are other analogies that can be presented to argue to opposite.

Imagine that there are two chefs. One chef limits herself to just twelve ingredients, selected because they were native to one geographic area and period in history. She also combines and prepares those ingredients only in ways that are historically supported for the time period and location selected. She becomes highly proficient and is satisfied with her achievements in the kitchen. Perhaps she becomes famous for a particular “speciality” dish.

The second chef, however, does not limit herself to a specific set of ingredients, methods of combining, or methods of preparing those ingredients. She feels free to explore other cultures, try new dishes, and incorporate what she likes best into her own familiar menu. Because she is able to explore and test, she invents some new dishes and methods of preparing ingredients that become new delicacies. Those experiments that didn’t work out are discarded in favor of those that succeeded. She learns from her mistakes and sees exposure to new ingredients and methods as a starting place, not the final destination in her culinary life.

Reconstructionists probably do see themselves in the analogy of the two musicians — they are the ones who apply themselves to learning one instrument, immerse themselves in the established understanding of that instrument, and strive to master it. Eclectics, however, probably see themselves in the analogy of the two chefs — they are the ones who allow themselves the freedom to explore, borrow, and invent, and strive to contribute something vibrant and new.

Is one right and the other wrong? Or are they just different approaches for different kinds of people?

3. “Reconstructionists are mean.”
Sannion argues that Neopagans who are not part of Reconstructionist traditions are not critical. “And they [non-Reconstructionist Neopagans] tend to believe that everything is subjective and just a matter of opinion.”

Religion is a subjective thing — it’s far from objective in any sense. Reconstructionist traditions are working from historical opinions that are based on interpretations of archaeological and textual evidence. Religion, like history, is always open to interpretation. New evidence is always being discovered, new circumstances arise which force us to re-evaluate and reconsider.

We humans can rarely agree about absolute determinations of “what really happened” in current events, so what makes us think we can do so for past history where we are often working from fragmented evidence?

There does appear to be a larger emphasis on scholarly standards within the Reconstructionist traditions than in the Eclectic community at large. This does not mean, however, that there are no Eclectic scholars, and that statements made by Eclectics are never critically examined. Religions that are more popular will invariably have more “fluffy” followers. There is a growing push within the Eclectic community as well towards critical scholarship such as the growing attention given to Ronald Hutton’s work, among others. To label a whole group “uncritical” while ignoring the increasingly more prominent critical elements within that group seems premature.

4. “Reconstructionists are too focused on the past.”
Sannion argues that Reconstructionists are not Luddites. They base their traditions on the best from their chosen cultural group and time period, ignoring elements such as slavery and animal or human sacrifice which are incompatible with modern values.

This is one of the strongest arguments for Eclecticism, as it acknowledges that it is impractical and likely impossible to recreate exactly what the ancients did. The difference is that Reconstructionists have chosen to limit their inspiration upon an arbitrary cultural group and time period (which may or may not be accurate in its modern assumptions of homogeneity of that cultural group and time period). This is the gist of this particular argument against Reconstructionism — that the limitation to one group at one time period for the basis of a modern tradition is arbitrary. One group’s or individual’s choice in no way invalidates the choices of others to limit themselves or not in similar fashion.

If Reconstructionists admit, as Sannion does, “…we aren’t pretending to be ancient people… [w]e are moderns, and gladly accept the positive things about modern culture” then why do they condemn Eclectic Neopagans because they aren’t pretending to be ancient people either? If an Eclectic Neopagan isn’t claiming to be carrying on an unchanged tradition from a specific cultural group at a specific time period, then why should a Reconstructionist be concerned? Many Neopagans do not feel drawn to Christianity, Judaism, or Islam specifically because they feel there is no such thing as a “One True Way” for all people. Why should Reconstructionists object when other Neopagans choose to follow their religions with different cultural or historical sources of inspiration?

5. “Reconstructionists are just making it up.”
This argument is the weakest. Sannion attributes this complaint against Reconstructionists to the “fluffiest” of non-Reconstructionist Neopagans — those who claim to carry on a tradition when the historical evidence does not back them up. It becomes an attack on the poor scholarship of the “fluffy” non-Reconstructionist instead of an argument addressing the charge that Reconstructionists aren’t really following an undisturbed ancient tradition, either.

Sannion admitted that Reconstructionists are in fact eclectic in their careful selection of what to include and what to exclude as part of their traditions. They include modern ideas and values, where often the original culture and time period used as the basis for the tradition would have differed. Even the original cultures and historical periods selected are not “pure,” as ancient cultures borrowed, adopted, and changed myth and philosophy from their neighbors the same way modern people do. Some cultures, like the Roman empire, were quite openly eclectic. It is puzzling that today’s Neopagans, especially ones who pride themselves on their thorough scholarship such as Reconstructionists, should try and insist eclecticism should be sneered at. If the ancients did it, and the ways of the ancients are clearly good enough for the Reconstructionists to emulate, then eclecticism should certainly be acceptable for all Neopagans.

The entire argument appears to really be about scholarship within the Neopagan community — what constitutes credibility, and how credible are we to outsiders. There is certainly a problem with what has been termed “fluffy” behavior, where practitioners exhibit little or no attempt to critically examine claims. This is not solely found within the Eclectic Neopagan community despite what some Reconstructionists would claim. We should be encouraging critical thought regardless of the tradition (or lack of one) among all Neopagans. This means that Reconstructionists as well must critically examine their own assumptions and challenge their own beliefs that Eclecticism is suspect.

The modern Pagan community is diverse and growing. Decades ago, there were a few distinct majority segments: Wiccans, Druids, and Asatruers. At the start of the 21st century there is an ever-growing number of non-Wiccan Witches, assorted Pagan groups, and Reconstructionist Pagans who are working to revive ancient Pagan religions.

With growth comes friction between factions, sometimes escalating into conflict. Minority groups sometimes feel offended when they are lumped in with other groups. Individuals are annoyed when others assume that some idea or philosophy might be common among the majority of Pagan groups.

Instead of strengthening one’s group identity by clarifying core ideas, it is common for a group to instead spend a lot of energy saying what it’s not about. Sarah M. Pike explored this in some depth in her book “Earthly Bodies, Magical Selves: Contemporary Pagans and the Search for Community.” Wiccan groups have worked hard to insist that they are not Satanists. Non-Wiccan Witches insist that they are not at all like Wiccans. Reconstructionist Pagans insist that they are not Wiccans or Satanists, and often insist they are not following “Earth-based” religions as Wiccans do. Within the Wiccan community, there is an insistence by many that they are not “fluffy bunny” Wiccans which they clearly consider to be a perversion of their religion.

It is becoming quite common, at least on the internet, for these attempts to differentiate the “not-me” through what can only be described as bashing. Instead of discussing the issues and sharing different points of view and theories, those who hold whatever idea is not politically correct for the majority in the discussion become the target for personal insult and antagonistic behavior. In other forums, when a participant purposefully misinterprets another’s postings and writes to antagonize, the behaviour would be labeled “trolling” and would be dealt with appropriately. Within many Pagan forums, however, “trolling” appears to be encouraged providing you are politically correct about it and agree with the majority philosophy.

It has become politically correct in many Pagan forums to bash those they label “fluffy bunnies.” The term itself is intended to be insulting — it implies that some people are air-headed idiots more at home in a Walt Disney cartoon than in the Pagan community. Often the label is applied to any group one happens to disagree with. The implication is usually that the “fluffy bunny” hasn’t thought through their religious philosophy, that they are really just concerned about shock value or fashion rather than living a religious philosophy. It is also usually assumed that a “fluffy bunny” has little idea about the historical past and physical reality and accepts any claim that is made at face value.

Some groups, such as Reconstructionist Pagans, strive to match their religions as closely as possible to a specific chosen historical model. They feel that they are therefore immune to being labeled “fluffy,” because they hold scholarly rigor in such high esteem. It also happens sometimes within Reconstructionist discussions that other groups such as Wiccans are labeled automatically as “fluffy” because of specific discredited historical theories. The problem with these blanket labels is that they are not always accurate. Within the Wiccan community, for instance, there is a surge of scholarly historical research which has thrown new light on the origins of the religion. Many resisted this change at the start, but it is quickly changing so that now it is quite common to find Wiccans who freely incorporate the new ideas about the past into their philosophies. To insist that Wicca is “fluffy” is to ignore many scholarly Wiccans.

Similarly, while there is certainly encouragement within the Reconstructionist community towards scholarly rigor, it does happen that blanket statements are made and assumptions proven false. Like any pet theory, it is often hard to give up even when the evidence starts to mount that it might not be correct. The claim that Reconstructionists are “more scholarly” than other Pagans has lead to a growing arrogance by Reconstructionists towards other Pagans. And as so often happens, with arrogance frequently comes sloppy and uncritical thinking, essentially “resting on one’s laurels” from past accomplishments as a substitute for continuing critical work.

It seems rather hypocritical that a community made up of self-professed polytheists (whether “hard polytheists” or not) should be so intolerant of others who have different ideas. It’s not just acknowledging that others have different ideas, or accepting that the historical landscape is evolving. The problem is that some are being disrespectful of others and are actively antagonistic in forums where the stated goal is purportedly to share information and debate ideas in a civilized fashion. Bashing is not debating. Debating involves sharing ideas and evidence and discussing the merits of the different points of view. Debating allows disagreements, but does not allow disrespect. When a discussion transforms into personal insults against select participants, or “bashing fluffy bunnies” as some gleefully call it, it is no longer debate but shameful ego assaults.

Perhaps the conflict is a carry-over from the dominant Judeo-Christian-Islamic culture, where it is common for religions to work under the assumption that there is a “One True Way” that is correct while all others are inherently wrong. When there is a “One True Way,” individual religions are in jeopardy whenever alternatives are present. If an alternative proves to be reasonable, it implies that others must be inherently incorrect. When there is “One True Way,” there can truly be only one. All others must be discredited and eliminated.

Polytheists purportedly accept the idea that there are multiple deities. “Hard polytheists” believe that the deities are all distinct, that the Greek Hermes is most definitely not the same thing as the Egyptian Thoth. Today there are many Pagans, commonly Wiccans, who are not “hard polytheists” but instead accept multiple deities as being aspects or faces of a larger deity and often as one ultimate deity. This point of view is often expressed as “all gods are one God, all goddesses are one Goddess.” Dion Fortune popularized this idea in her works in the first half of the twentieth century. Many early Wiccans, who admired Fortune’s work, adopted this idea into their Wiccan philosophy.

It is rather odd, then, that with the vast majority of Pagans claiming some version of polytheism as the basis of their religious philosophy, that they would also hold onto the idea that there is such a thing as “One True Way.” Some polytheists insist that they do not believe there is “One True Way,” yet when they start talking about other groups or philosophies within the Pagan community they act as if they are all pretenders while their own philosophy is the only “correct” one. The most obvious and frequent example of this is the so-called “fluffy bunny bashing” that occurs. Behavior in this case belies the denials.

Debate is healthy and to be encouraged. Discussion that involves personal attack and antagonism should be discouraged. There is a difference between debates of historical theory or the usefulness of different ideas, and discussion that becomes a reinforcement of disrespect. The Pagan community is varied and changing. No one group has exclusive ownership over the labels “Pagan,” “Witch,” or even “Wiccan.” Arguments over who has the right to those labels within our community are just like the arguments within the Christian community over who is a “real Christian.” The arguments are divisive and destructive. As a self-proclaimed polytheist community, we should be above these sorts of petty concerns.

Let’s resist the shameful bashing that we are committing against each other. Let’s encourage and participate in respectful, honest debate and discussion where we allow our evidence and theories to speak for themselves without allowing over-inflated egos to taint the forums. Let’s act like real polytheists, respecting others’ choices of deities and philosophies. Let’s leave the “One True Way” attitudes and behaviour out of our discussions. Those who are “bashing fluffy bunnies” are not winning the hearts, minds, and souls of the Pagan community — they are defeating the very ideals of polytheism that allow for a multitude of philosophies, deities, and unique paths within our community.

It’s time we grew past pointless infighting and arguments over who is “witchier than thou.” We need to retire the phrase “fluffy bunny” and other terms meant to demean others in our communities. Issues should be raised, discussed, and debated — but without insults and trolling. Scholarly criticism should be encouraged if we are to truly grow. Instead of focusing on what we aren’t, let’s focus on what we are, and respect the diversity that exists within our own community.

Photo copyright Eylon

It has been said by some Wiccan authors that mixing mythological pantheons is bad and should be avoided at all costs. The usual argument given for this admonishment is that each pantheon, indeed each deity, has very specific features and should be treated individually. To equate one goddess with a similar goddess from another pantheon is seen as disrespectful. Each deity, it is argued, deserves to be treated as an individual. Bringing together deities and elements of worship from different pantheons is confusing and results in muddled worship and ritual. ¹

This argument appears, at least on the surface, difficult to refute if we want to honor the deities as vibrant, powerful, and alive.

However, it seems the deities themselves are not so hard and fast about the distinctions between individual deities, not as unforgiving when worshippers use different names for them, as we simplistic modern humans would make them out to be. There is a long history of mixing pantheons that goes back to the dawn of human reverence of the divine. There are gods and goddesses that we take for granted today as being individual which are actually composite deities amalgamated in the distant past from more than one source deity. Why should modern reverence of ancient deities force them to fossilize when they were clearly organic and changeable in the past?

Ancient Egypt, one of the oldest recorded civilizations in human record, developed from various groups into the Upper and Lower Kingdoms prior to their unification around 3100 BCE under the rule of the first pharaoh, Menes. This bringing together of peoples into one nation encouraged religious practices to come together, helping to establish ever greater temples and religious dynasties. Deities were merged, which resulted in combined names in many cases. Amon-Re (or Amun-Ra), Ptah-Nu, and Re-Atum are a few examples.²

The merging of local deities into a larger national deity and the incorporation of foreign deities into a specific pantheon were not limited to Egypt. They happened all around the world any time two groups of people with different deities met. In Mesopotamia, lesser goddesses merged into the great Inanna, who under the Babylonians was known by the name Ishtar.³ The spread of Greek culture, largely due to the conquests of Alexander the Great around the fourth century BCE, resulted in the ‘Hellenizing’ of many cultures and religions — that is, making the local religions and cultures more Greek-like.⁴ With the rise of the Roman Empire, the Greek Artemis became the Roman Diana. Even Christian mythology adopted Pagan deities in a roundabout way, with goddesses like Brigid becoming Saint Brigit.⁵ Imagine that — a Semitic desert religion adopting a fierce Pagan goddess from the Green Isle!

Walter Burkert describes how ancient Greek society included foreign deities: ‘The Greek pantheon is not immutable. Only a small number of the Mycenaean gods are Indo-European, and Apollo and Aphrodite probably arrived only later. The fact that a fixed group of Greek Gods was established at all is due not least to epic art… [for example] The cult of the dying god Adonis is already found fully developed in Sappho’s circle of young girls on Lesbos… For the Greeks it was well known that he was an immigrant from the Semitic world, and his origins were traced to Byblos and Cyprus.’⁶

Today, Wiccan practices most commonly draw upon mythology from the British Isles. Despite the geographical separation from mainland Europe, there has been plenty of opportunity for incorporation of foreign deities. John and Caitlin Matthews wrote: ‘As successive waves of influence have dashed against our shores, so has the existing coastline of the mythic dimension been modified and moulded. Yet the persistent retention of certain characters, archetypes and themes is remarkable, revealing the true nature of British myth. Indigenous features, like our weather (which the Irish call ‘soft’ but which tourists find plain wet), form the prevailing climate of our belief. Sleeping kings who will come again, hags who become gift-bestowing maidens, wild men with staves and other-world women with cups, are all part of our composite tradition. Whatever gods and beliefs have been brought to Britain, they have a way of settling in so that the sharp definition of their origins is gradually blunted until it blends into the ambience of the new homeland.’⁷

Deities from different pantheons were mixed together in more than just the merging of lesser deities into greater deities, or the recognition and often integration of foreign deities into a local or national pantheon. Magickal practices, such as those recorded in the Greek magickal papyri dating back to the second century BCE draw clearly from such diverse sources as Egyptian, Greek, Babylonian, and Jewish mythology to achieve their ends⁸ Witches, wizards, magickians, priestesses, and priests did not shy away from communing with whatever deities they felt would be most effective as each situation warranted.

For example, a love spell includes the following invocation: ‘I entrust this binding spell to you, chthonic gods, Hyesemigadon and Kore Persephone Ereschigal and Adonis the Barbaritha, infernal Hermes Thoouth Phokentazepseu Aerchtathoumi / Sonktai Kalbanachambre and to mighty Anubis Psirinth… ‘⁹ Within this one incantation, we find Kore (Greek), Adonis (Greek, adopted from Semitic), Ereshkigal (Assyro-Babylonian), and Anubis (Egyptian) along with others. The ancient magickian who wrote this spell obviously didn’t think it was a bad idea to mix pantheons!

Modern Wicca continues this tradition of eclecticism at its very root. One of the foundation ritual pieces, the Charge of the Goddess, makes this point clear. It starts:

‘Listen to the words of the Great Mother; she who of old was also called among men Artemis, Astarte, Athene, Dione, Melusine, Aphrodite, Cerridwen, Cybele, Arianrhod, Isis, Dana, Bride and by many other names.’ Again, we see within a single ritual passage the presentation of goddesses from various different pantheons all together: Artemis (Greek), Astarte (Canaanite version of Ishtar, also adopted under this name in Greek culture), Athene (Greek), Dione (Phoenician/Greek), Melusine (Irish/Scottish/French, possibly Scythian), Aphrodite (Greek), Cerridwen (Welsh), Cybele (Phrygian/Greek, eventually merged with Rhea), Arianrhod (Welsh)… you get the picture.¹⁰

Getting to know a particular deity or small group of deities thoroughly through the study of their myths is a good way to get started on an intimate relationship with these particular expressions of the Divine. We should be careful to not allow our focused studies to blind us to the larger picture, though, of how our revered deities and pantheons connect with the rest of the mythological world. As the Greco-Egyptian god Hermes Trismegistus put it succinctly, ‘As above, so below.’ The ecology of myth is the same as the ecology of life on Earth: everything is connected.

References:

(1.) ‘Deity’ chapter, Ellen Cannon Reed’s The Heart of Wicca, Weiser: 2000.

(2.) Introduction to Chic and Sandra Tabatha Cicero’s The Magical Pantheons, Llewellyn: 1998.

(3.) ‘Inanna’s Family Tree, ‘ page ix, Diane Wolkstein and Samuel Noah Kramer’s Inanna: Queen of Heaven and Earth, Harper & Row: 1983.

(4.) Entries on ‘Hellenism’ and ‘Hellenize, ‘ Webster’s Encyclopedic Dictionary, Lexicon Publications: 1988.

(5.) Entry on ‘Brigit/Brigid/Bride, ‘ John and Caitlin Matthews’ The Aquarian Guide to British and Irish Mythology.

(6.) Pages 176-179, Walter Burkert’s Greek Religion, Harvard University Press: English translation 1985.

(7.) Introductory section, pages 12 and 13, John and Caitlin Matthews’ The Aquarian Guide to British and Irish Mythology, Aquarian Press: 1988.

(8.) Introduction to editor Hans Dieter Betz’s The Greek Magical Papyri In Translation, University of Chicago Press: 1992.

(9.) Page 44, lines 335 to 345, editor Hans Dieter Betz’s The Greek Magical Papyri In Translation, University of Chicago Press: 1992.

(10.) See individual entries for each goddess in Janet and Stewart Farrar’s The Witches’ Goddess, Phoenix Publishing Co.: 1987.