THE |
|
a cache of usenet and other text files pertaining
to occult, mystical, and spiritual subjects. |
To: alt.magick.tyagi,talk.religion.newage,alt.fan.kali.astarte.inanna,alt.mythology,talk.religion.misc,alt.christnet.demonology,alt.magick.goetia,alt.pagan From: boboroshi@satanservice.org (SOD of the CoE) Subject: Global Religion and Terminology (was Call for Demon Lists) Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 21:27:14 GMT 50000328 IVom Hail Satan! sri catyananda (cat@luckymojo.com): >>If anyone can supply further URLs connected with this topic -- >>particularly demon-lists which contain specific, scholarly reference >>citations and/or linguistic and cultural notations -- we'd be very >>grateful. I left this so that newcomers may be apprised of the call for information. however, below I will wish to focus more on the ambiguity of categories in religious terminology and what this means in terms of sociology. >>I am especially interested in obtaining the names of Hebrew, Sumerian, >>Babylonian, and Greek demons -- as opposed to what i call "wrathful or >>disease gods of other cultures who can be called 'demons' to pad out an >>illustrated book." the way that the term 'demon' has come to be used by Christian culture, it seems to be applied to spirits and gods other than Jehovah and his retinue of angels. the rest are classified as 'devils', 'demons', or, in Muslim culture, djinn, efreet, etc., and dismissed as of a lesser category with respect to the cosmological framework which has their chosen god (usually a cosmic originator) as its central focus. those outside Christian culture whose origins or relationship is of a similar comparable history (e.g. Muslims) will use similar names to explain their cosmological identification of xenogenetic spiritual entities (those arising outside one's cultural or subcultural paradigm). this appears to have parallels all over the world. Indians and Avestan religious, for example, invert the nomenclature in the description but not character of the hierarchies they describe, one promoting 'devas', one 'asuras', over the other. this religious contention has been directly compared with the history of Greek religion (or at least mythology) with its titanic and deity stratifications (the new generation killing or displacing the previous in a temporal struggle for primacy). there appears to be a common human experience of developing one's cosmological knowledge system with a radial and home-centered bias. in Asia, Westerners have been occasionally identified as 'white- eyed devils' (as interpreted by Westerners). this has its correlate in Western culture where Asians and others have been depicted in demonic and/or theriomorphic ways. >>In other words, my objective is to avoid being party to the creation of >>"pseudo-demons" -- something that has been done extensively since the >>19th century by Westerners who are openly disrespectful to religions >>which worship or propitiate "negative aspect" deities. I think your objective is valiant, but not specifically related to the time and culture with which you are identifying it. most religious will construct a paradigm which supports their historical descriptions of insular cosmological and theocratic structure, even those which seem, ostensibly, to be inclusive and accepting. these differences are not possible to reconcile except through accepting the pole of the insular origination (what you are properly identifying as cultural antagonism) or transcending cultural insularism through a kind of fragmented anthropological survey (something which students of religion might find important). this latter "solution" does not fulfill the needs of the world's religious, which is evidenced by very many Euro-American identifications of Greek and Roman religion as "mythology" as compared to the "scripture" of many other (usually considered to be contrastingly modern) religions. a good example here is how Jesus is seen by many Indians (Hindus, Buddhists, etc.). by many he is accepted as "an incarnation of Visnu", and this exact interpretive displacement is ascribed by scholars (however reliable, I am not sure of prevailing winds of explanation on this issue) to the disappearance of Buddhism from India, since Gotama was regarded as just such a Vaisnavite 'avatara'. to the religious who regard Jesus Christ as the sole child of the only Cosmic Creator (not the local space-time 'demiurgos' Brahma who may be one of billions generated by the chosen god, whether this be Siva, Sakti, Kali, Visnu, etc.). the characterization of Jesus or their Creator God in this way is an egregious disrespect, and yet this is not INTENDED to be such a disrespectful act. it is the way that the devoted, regionally- insular religious have learned to integrate xenogenetic data into their knowledge-base. what you do not appear to be taking into consideration here, however, is that there is a THIRD contingent developing, one which is GLOBAL in its perspective, uses scholastic and artistic collage to construct their own *personal* coherent narrative in a knowledge-base of design relevant to the individual. in some cases this is also POLITICALLY-BASED, intentionally reinterpreting xenophobic and xeno-displatial language and iconography so as to generate an environment where a spectrum of spiritual entities may be described and appreciated for ALL of their qualities (what I'd call the Neopagan dream). while not all modern religious do this, some do in fact identify 'demons' as the rough equivalent of 'spirits which are considered objectionable to the cultures which have traditionally described them', and have accepted them as worthy of, in some cases, worship. >>When such writers >>attempt to force wrathful deities into the role of "demons" in a >>Judeo-Isalmic-Christian monotheistic / racist framework, the result is >>often ridiculous and hateful: Prime examples of the "creation of >>pseduo-demons" occur in the works of Anton LaVey, who equated the Hindu >>god Siva with the Jewish demon Satan, and Victoria Hyatt, who referenced >>the Hindu goddess Kali as a "demon" because she is a wrathful deity. there is no such thing as a "wrathful deity" outside the angry Jehovah to the Judeochristislamic fundamentalist. we aren't going to change that by converting them to a transcultural cosmological framework, and to describe EVERY instance of these interpretations as 'disrespectful' or 'culturally appropriative' is plainly an exaggeration. it is one thing to consider a religious who is NOT imbued in hir religious culture and understands the differential she is making when she marginalizes another culture's gods and religion as of a degraded or evil character in comparison to hir own. it is quite another to consider someone who is fundamentally (pun intended) wedded to a restricted and limiting perspective on the cosmos and who describes their understanding of the universe unambiguousedly biased toward their perceptual preferences. AND it is another thing altogether to consider an eclectic religious from a largely fragmented and solitary spiritual pursuit attempting the sometimes impossible task of trying to be respectful of insulary knowledge- based religious frameworks while constructing a meaningful theological and cosmological symbolism to use in ritual, worship, and philosophic communications out of what is becoming more and more a local environment (the planet). these three 'poles' of religious construction and expostulation are complicated by the ambiguity in terminology throughout the spectrum of cosmological speculation. terms in English such as 'ghost', 'spirit', 'demon', 'angel', 'archangel', 'demigod', 'god' and even 'God' are frequently confused and overlap in their categorical usage. this is not facilitated by the fact that most of these words have etymological origins that are in some cases quite different than their modern developments, and the inclusive (appropriative?) quality of languages LIKE English make it more and more common as communication tools and techniques develop for what were originally foreign words to be accepted without translation (examples being the slightly ambiguous 'devas' and 'asuras', the more interesting 'djinn', the fabulous 'dragons', 'nagas', and stratified transcendental human heros or demigods such as 'arhats', 'bodhisattvas', and the Taoist 'shih'). it is no wonder that we have writers like Anton LaVey (whose work is far from expert, but which has achieved significant notoriety by virtue of the cultural trappings it wears) taking the descriptions of Christislamic culture and accepting them as COMPLIMENTS, effectively inverting the xenophobic language for the purpose of creative eclecticism. writers with New Age biases have been doing something like it (albeit without the inversion) for decades if not centuries (converting all the world's religious instructors and pioneers into a cosmic university of spirituality, all gods aspects of a single god, etc.). the inversion is just one more step in the direction of cultural syncretism, though with the controversial choice to retain the originally condemnatory linguistic modifiers as EXALTATIONS so as to contrast the original cosmological presumption (LaVey disputes the cosmology of Christianity and in many instances borders on atheism). while on the surface this may come off as participating in a fundamentalist framework, it is actually commandeering the fundamentalism toward more liberal standards). I don't think the solution to this complex picture is to try to institute a single language which may be used to describe the complicated sociocultural exchange and dispute that is part of a long and important maturation of the human species. nor do I think that the promotion of multiculturalism and some kind of post-modern anthropologizing (this time the pun is not intended but it is relevant) without any place for insular and primary religious cosmological origination is a reasonable and laudable objective. instead my preference is to allow the diversity of thought and language which the sincere and devoted make known, oppose the first 'pole' that I mentioned of obvious, openly antagonistic disrespect to which the insular and xenophobic may become prone, and let the various participants and observers describe their experiences or empirical data in the manner they feel comfortable, neither blaming them for their lack of participation, on the one hand, nor for their participation in an exclusive or confusing (because new and global) enterprise. the result of not trying to control or filter these vying sociological forces will in all likelihood be the proliferation of religious traditions that incorporate ALL of the respectful aspects into themselves in an integrous fashion without displacing their perceived competitors or condemning well-meaning religious from other regions of the world. what happened and continues to happen in India with its clans and diversity and attempted transcendentalism will likely be played out in a larger arena as a global coalescence and exploration. "John B": >I will never forget the look on a friend of mine's face when I had a >discussion about Kali with her. My only knowledge came from Muller and his >disciples' vision of Indian mythology. My friend lived in Pakistan for most >of her life, and she just couldn't understand my perspective on Kali... She >later ( after some research) note that we are truly discussing different types and sources of knowledge here: one is anthropological, another is religious and directly experiential. one is objective, the other is subjective. because the objective is sometimes considered to be of greater relevance to modern scientists, this does not mean that it is of greater truth value to modern religious. in fact, in many cases this is strongly disputed (as amongst those who support the value of individual revelation and relationship to the divine -- examples here include Anabaptists and some Unitarian Universalists in the West, some Buddhist and Hindu syncretists in the East). >explained to me the difference between the >public/devotional conception of Kali ( mother goddess), from the priestly >conception ( wrathful/dangerous goddess) and the tantric understanding > destructive/creative feminine aspect) To this day I can hardly believe this >way I had over simplified this figure for the sake of my own >preconceptions... even the above categories are way too general. too general to be anthropologically sound, this is very true. I would like to speak out here for those whose aims may not be to speak from a objective but from a SUBJECTIVE bias. the categories cannot ever be legislated into a simplified knowledge-base and it would be disrespectful of the religious themselves to attempt to convince them that their cosmology was "wrong" merely because it doesn't lead to an objective picture. the best we can do is to point out where evidence to the contrary does seem to conflict with their cosmological view. an example would be when the conservative Christian describes Kali as a bloodthirsty demon who only wants evil in the world we may point out that Kali is described by worshippers and in scriptures in numerous ways, often DEVOURING demons in protection of gods as the religious understand them. explaining that the worshippers of these entities perceive them differently is truly as far as we are able to go, since the fervent will begin to describe the 'reality behind the appearance' and justify this with scripture and religious sources of authority that cannot be rationally disputed in what would be considered by them to be a convincing manner. I hope to be seen as a voice in favour of TOLERANCE (even of intolerance as a temporary facet of complex societal developments). blessed beast! boboroshi@satanservice.org (SOD of the CoE) -- mailto:nagasiva@luckymojo.com ; http://www.luckymojo.com/nagasiva.html mailto:boboroshi@satanservice.org ; http://www.satanservice.org/ emailed replies may be posted; cc replies if response desired
The Arcane Archive is copyright by the authors cited.
Send comments to the Arcane Archivist: tyaginator@arcane-archive.org. |
Did you like what you read here? Find it useful?
Then please click on the Paypal Secure Server logo and make a small donation to the site maintainer for the creation and upkeep of this site. |
The ARCANE ARCHIVE is a large domain,
organized into a number of sub-directories, each dealing with a different branch of religion, mysticism, occultism, or esoteric knowledge. Here are the major ARCANE ARCHIVE directories you can visit: |
|
interdisciplinary:
geometry, natural proportion, ratio, archaeoastronomy
mysticism: enlightenment, self-realization, trance, meditation, consciousness occultism: divination, hermeticism, amulets, sigils, magick, witchcraft, spells religion: buddhism, christianity, hinduism, islam, judaism, taoism, wicca, voodoo societies and fraternal orders: freemasonry, golden dawn, rosicrucians, etc. |
SEARCH THE ARCANE ARCHIVE
There are thousands of web pages at the ARCANE ARCHIVE. You can use ATOMZ.COM
to search for a single word (like witchcraft, hoodoo, pagan, or magic) or an
exact phrase (like Kwan Yin, golden ratio, or book of shadows):
OTHER ESOTERIC AND OCCULT SITES OF INTEREST
Southern
Spirits: 19th and 20th century accounts of hoodoo,
including slave narratives & interviews
|