Ordgeþanc

Seeing, Feeling, and Thinking

2011-12-04T10:44:00.001-06:00

It has been said that small-minded people talk about things, the mediocre talk about people, and the intelligent talk about ideas. I think that approaches to religion, to the gods, can be divided in the same way. Such a division need not imply a hierarchy of ways of approaching the gods going from lesser to greater, although that hierarchy is often implied, which I want to get back to later.

First, there are the “things” of religion: cult objects, “fetishes”, idols, visual symbols, descriptions and iconography of the gods' apearances, parts of the physical world that are associated with specific gods such as mountains, rivers, and forests, and also living things such as specific animals or birds; in short, all of those ways in which divinity is approached through the senses.

Second, there are the “personalites”: specifically, the personalities of gods as we know them from myths, and with whom we identify, or whom we identify against; these are the ways that the gods are approached through the emotions.

Third, there are the “ideas”: theologies, mysticisms, or the web of concepts that might be associated with a particular god, and that form lines of conjunction and relation between gods; these are the ways that the gods are approached through the intellect.

Sensory experience being basic to our interaction with the world, the sensory part of religion is the first experience of the gods for most people: for instance, one might see lightening, hear thunder, see an oak tree, see the famous bronze figure of Þórr from Iceland and think “This is Þórr”.

Later on in the development of one's religious understanding, one might identify the figure of Þórr in the myths as the reality of the god, and reject the reality of what is available to the senses, as if to say “That was merely a symbol or a reflection of the reality, but this is the real Þórr.” This is where most people stop.

Some people might go further, and come to a theological understanding of Þórr, wherein “Þórr” seems to be a concept or a web of concepts, e.g. Force, Protection, Warriorhood, etc. one might then reject the mythological “person” of Þórr as likewise a symbol of the reality of Þórr, which are these concepts; the idea of Þórr is seen as the ultimate reality, of which the sensory and emotive elements are mere shadows and reflections.

It seems to me that this progression from sensory to emotive to conceptual is not enough, and there must be another level of understanding that very few these days have reached.

For one thing, the rejection of the visible, audible, and tactile apprehension of the holy for the emotional apprehension, and the rejection of the emotional apprehension for the conceptual apprehension, seems to privilege ever greater abstraction. If a linear progression of further abstraction is the key to understanding the Holy, then we might say that each god, even taken as an abstract web of concepts, is symbolic of some other thing, something beyond gods, and that we may as well then disense with the idea of gods altogether, and give idols, myths and theologies little or no credit for being about anything real. There exist such schools of thought today, and I think that that ground has been well-trodden, to the point that I have no interest in it as a direction of thought. I think there is another way, a more interesting way that does not result in the intellectual rejection of everything about our religion.

This is not to say that abstraction or intellectual understandings of our gods are going in the wrong direction; merely that they are incomplete. The problem lies in the rejection of the sensory for the emotive, the emotive for the conceptual. One who has reached the level of understanding gods as concepts must then make the full circle, and see that coming to know a god through the senses, through the emotions, and through the mind are all important: the idol, the mountain, the thunderstorm; the Þórr of the myths; the ideas and concepts associated with Þórr; all of these partake of the being of the god. Someone who has this insight can come back to the beginning, and see the idol, hear the myth, and know the concepts like they are new, and experience the presence of the god in all of these ways simultaneously.

There will always remain something of a god that is beyond knowledge, beyond human understanding, but exeriencing gods in things, in personalities, and in ideas, all together and at the same time, gives a broader and deeper understanding than any one of these singly.

Brief Thoughts on Ram Swarup

2011-05-09T13:08:00.004-05:00

"Pagan renaissance is overdue. It is necessary for Europe to heal its psyche. Under Christianity, Europe learned to reject its ancestors, its past, which cannot be good for its future also. Europe became sick because it tore apart from its own heritage, it had to deny its very roots. If Europe is to be healed spiritually, it must recover its spiritual past--at least, it should not hold it in such dishonor.

"There is a lot for European thinkers to do. The task won't be easy, and it will require decades of fervent dedication and a lot of introspection as well. Europe has been subjected for centuries to a systematic spiritual Semitization. It will be no small task to change this situation. Europe shall have to rediscover its ancient sensibilities about its people, environment, animals, nature. Earlier, the European Renaissance of the 17th century was incomplete. It was revival of Greek and Roman literature and art-forms without Greek and Roman gods. If the Renaissance had taken its full course, it would also have become aware of its Eastern, its Hindu, links, but it was soon aborted. In fact, an opposite movement started, an anti-renaissance movement, in the shape of Protestantism, a movement of 'back to the Bible,' 'back to the Apostles.'

"I hope that the Neopagan movement will understand the importance and the immensity of the task. In certain Western milieux, Paganism has been welcomed because it was supposed to usher in sensuality and hedonism, sexual freedom. But those Pagans must understand that the ancient Pagan philosophers were great mystics and great moralists, and the European Pagan movement will have to understand Paganism in this way.

"I believe that Hinduism has a very important role in the religious self-recovery of humanity, particularly of Europe. The reason is simple. Hinduism represents the most ancient tradition which is still alive. It has preserved in its bosom the whole spiritual past of humanity. For self-recovery, these countries have to revive their old gods. But this is a task which cannot be done mechanically. They have to recapture the consciousness which expressed itself in the language of many gods. Here, India can help them with its tradition of yoga. In my book, The Word as Revelation: Names of Gods, I spoke of a new kind of pilgrimage: a return to the time of the Gods. Meanwhile, European scholars can do a lot. They should write a history of Europe from the Pagan point of view, which would show how profoundly persecuted Paganism was. They should compile a directory of Pagan temples destroyed, Pagan groves and sacred spots desecrated. European Pagans should also revive some of these sites as their places of pilgrimage."

-Antaios, June 1996

The most boring sort of post is one in which the author agrees fervently with a position without having much to add. This may be one of those boring posts.

Years before I read this, I had mused on the idea of cooperation between Hindus and Pagans of various stripes (although, being me, the musing was primarily about Hindus and Reconstructionists). When I read the above interview about a year or so ago my jaw dropped. Here was someone who got it, who understood. The last two sentences about Pagan holy places spoke directly to work I was doing at the time (a work which is still underway), the compilation of an atlas of Germanic holy places.

I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Swarup's position that the rejection of the native religions of Europe damaged the psyche of European cultures, an idea that I think should be further examined. In fact, I've long been of the opinion that certain aberrations or pathologies of behavior in the history of Europeans are related to the rootlessness, anomie, and consequent desperation caused by the conversion.

At some point, I'd like to go to the Hindu temple near my town, and see if I can strike up a conversation with a brahman on Ram Swarup, Reconstructionism in general, and Theodism in particular. Also, I'd just like to see the temple up close: the pictures I've seen look impressive.

A Harvest Hymn

2010-12-13T12:42:00.008-06:00

This is a few months late, but I wanted to show that I haven't been entirely idle. When I have time and fewer distractions, I want to find a way to post sound files of myself singing these hymns to the lyre, which will hopefully give you more of a feeling for them as works of art, rather than works of academic experimentation.

Wî hugiath ûta alde · êdere tîdum

eldiûre mêre, · êdilena rîmar:

wî goda hêrdon · grâtere mechte,

enste gôdere · tô offrerum:

urjetath wî ne · grâtena dêda,

nerendum wî thankiath · fora nêdhelpe.

Kumath mith Hâga · hêrlike Êse,

Êsinna alle · ethele mith Frîa!

Bakkenes brâdes · brêdera hlêva,

biâres brewenes · blîthmôdiges,

bêthera ondfâth · barmhertiga,

langlîvige · lof âk froude!

Herefedre wî singath, · hâgesta âk ferista,

warlde skeppre · âk weifara,

the landa lane · ûrlange geng

tô finda âk ofnima · fîand-handum

wîsdôm urstilen · efter wîch-grithe.

Geng sâ Baluwirza · bivia linda

ekkrum rîpe · Etenalandes,

mêdum brôthres · meda hôderes.

Nigun ther sturvun · in nîthslachta,

wrise thâ warth nû · wimmerelâs;

wimmede nigunfalde · nêta gêres,

mēde sumurlang · jēn mededranke

berge in, of breide · bergade, junge.

Slanga bilîke · smûgede hî binna,

upward hî flâch · ernlîke thana,

mede hî brochte · mêna Êsa;

breide thoch lâvde · bittere târar.

Thû heven-kening · fon hâchêdum siuchst

hwet biskiath elle · and thû skâwast dene;

in ûsere feldum · stath fôder gôd

fora hungerich hars; · kum Hâga tô ûs,

thi lest allra skôva · lêvath wî thî,

wesa walkumen · Wêda hâchsta

âka ik lof jâta · the ût lippum rinnth;

hî môd frîath · hî mênhêde stêrth,

fon thîne medejefte · sē mîn mûth â full!

Jef gôd âr jâ · jefst thû ûs êr

thâ jef thes eft · jêrum efter!

Folde wî singath · feste onstallde

môder gomena · âk môder goda,

full bist thû waxen · fethmes Êses;

thû erthe brâd · âk alberand,

ûseren sang hêr thû · onsiuch ûs hîr

unwrêthe âgum, · enstlike môde!

Jef gôd âr jâ · jefst thû ûs êr

thâ jef thes eft · jêrum efter!

Thunere wî singath · thrûthiga kampa

hwâm mith fîr-wurpna · fioriga hamre

bergiath thâ feld, · bringeth rîpe

geldene âre · gerstakornes,

hwît-berdades · hwêtekornes,

râd-geldenes · roggakornes,

gêt-fêdandes, · god-fêdanes havra,

ellik kornes · allera felda.

Mechtich ist sîn wald · mann tô helpa!

Thuner Ellemechtich · ûsere thankar hêr!

Loviath wî tô himle · hlûden dôm

wîheftiges · Wêdnes suna,

almechtiges · Erthe suna!

Jef gôd âr jâ · jefst thû ûs êr

thâ jef thes eft · jêrum efter!

Inge wî singath · ever-bald kampa,

waldande hêra · weinrîdande,

fretho thû bringst · froude mith and hêle

skiprîdere · âk skôfberand

the wela bringeth gôd, · walnissa alle,

rîza and sunde, · rein hâlsumen.

Under thînre walde · waxe thâ feld,

korn wal grôwe, · thet kind ekkra!

Under thînre walde · waxe swêga,

hrîtherfiâ grôwe · hôvedes kennes!

Under thînre walde · waxe thet folk,

wer-kind âk wîf-kind · wammum ûtberne,

megar and megitha, · mann uppa erthe,

thrûthige liôde, · thiâd ûrmechtich!

Jef gôd âr jâ · jefst thû ûs êr

thâ jef thes eft · jêrum efter!

Hrôpath wî ji hâga · hêrlika, ethela,

hêrath âk siath ûs, · hugiath wî ji âmmêr,

enst wî biâdath · edilena goda,

jerne wî offrath · grâtum êsum!

Translation:

We remember out of old, early times

very precious tales, ancestors' tales:

we heard of the gods' great might,

of good favor to sacrificers:

we do not forget the great ones' deeds,

we thank the saving ones for help in need.

Come with the High One, lordly gods,

all noble (beautiful) goddesses with Frige!

Of broad loaves of baked bread,

of blithe-mooded brewed beer,

receive both Gracious Ones,

long-living praise and joy!

To Army-father we sing, highest and first,

world's maker and wayfarer

who walked the over-long road of lands

to find and take from enemy hands

wisdom stolen after battle-truce.

The shaker of shields walked as Bale-Worker

to the ripe acres of the land of giants,

to the meadows of the mead-warden's brother.

Nine died there in hate-slaughter,

the giant then became reaper-less;

nine-fold reaped the user of the spear,

a summer-long payment for a mead-drink

in the mountain, guarded by a young bride.

Like a snake he crept therein,

upward he flew, eagle-like, from there,

mead he brought to the gathering of gods;

though he left behind bitter tears for the bride.

Thou heaven-king, from the heights thou seest

all that happens when thou lookest down;

in our fields stands good fodder

for a hungry horse; come High One to us,

the last of all sheaves we leave to thee,

be welcome, highest Wóden

as I pour praise that runs out of lips;

he frees the mind, he destroys falsehood,

may my mouth be ever full of thy mead-gift!

If ever before thou gavest us good harvest

then give thus again in years after!

To Earth we sing, firmly placed

mother of men and mother of gods,

full art thou grown of a god's embrace;

thou broad and all-bearing earth,

hear thou our song, look upon us here

(with) unwroth eyes, favorable mood!

If ever before thou gavest us good harvest

then give thus again in years after!

To Thuner we sing, powerful fighter

whom with far-thrown, fiery hammer

protects the fields, brings the ripe

golden ears of barley-corn,

of white-bearded wheat-corn,

of red-golden rye-corn,

of goat-feeding, god-feeding oats,

every corn of all fields.

Mighty is his power to help men!

Thunor Almighty, hear our thanks!

We praise to heaven the loud fame

of the hallowed son of Wóden,

of the almighty son of Earth!

If ever before thou gavest us good harvest

then give thus again in years after!

To Ing we sing, boar-bold fighter,

ruling lord, wagon-riding,

thou bringest frith with joy and hail,

ship-rider and sheaf-bearing

who brings good wealth, all of wellnesses,

riches and health, wholesome rain.

Under thy power may the fields wax,

grain grow well, the child of fields!

Under thy power may the herds wax,

cattle grow of the hoofed kin!

Under thy power may the folk grow,

man-child and woman-child born out of wombs,

youths and maidens, men upon the earth,

a powerful people, a greatly mighty tribe!

If ever before thou gavest us good harvest

then give thus again in years after!

We call you high ones, lordly ones, noble ones,

hear and see us, we remember you always,

we wish for good favor of ancestors' gods,

eagerly we sacrifice to the great gods!

Change and Continuity

2010-09-07T10:29:00.001-05:00

These days, one finds everywhere the notion that change has overtaken the world in the last few centuries. From the scientific advances beginning in the Renaissance and the erosion of faith in the dominant Christianity that accompanied them, on to the technological advances that enabled the Industrial Revolution and its attendant upheaval of societies’ means and aims of production to this day, change has been the byword of existence for quite some time. This change has been accompanied everywhere by philosophical trends that first lauded the dawn of the Age of Reason and the unshackling of human labor and intellect, but which have since gone to describing with horror the Age of the Titans, of Technology without Purpose, of the Machine.

These philosophers and their criticisms of the modern world deserve to be taken seriously, and the upheavals that occur with the greater changes in society are keenly felt when and where they happen; I’m thinking mainly (but not solely) of the change from primarily rural agricultural societies – and hunter/gather societies in many places – to primarily urban factory/technology/market societies that started with the Industrial Revolution and has continued until today, and all of the other changes that that greater change entails. It occurs to me as I write that this great change, whatever it might be, is not finished, and might never be finished until human life is snuffed out by the excesses and imbalances set in motion by this change. Suffice it to say that we have not yet entirely “changed over” into the mode of life that would seem to be the logical end of this particular centuries-long trend, and I’m not sure that we really ever entirely can (regardless of how much we might damage, in the meantime, by trying).

So, this is our “changed world”. One of the early victims of this “changed world” has been the authority of Christianity, a result that a Heathen like myself might well praise. However, it hasn’t been merely Christianity’s authority that has suffered, but the authority of religion itself in Western culture (Christianity itself having uprooted the authority of other religions). That result is, I think, less than praiseworthy, and has resulted in a number of unforeseen consequences which I won’t elaborate on here; I think that religion is, on the whole, a good thing (despite some highly pervasive bad examples of it), and that its loss is the loss of something ineffably valuable.

Many people disagree, of course, both on the worthiness of religion itself and, in a perhaps softer disagreement, on the role that religion ought to play in this “changed world”. People who, like me, pursue the practice of ancient religions and cultures often have to deal with the question of these religions’ and cultures’ relevance in the modern “changed world”; this is true for “mainstream” religions as well, for instance Catholicism, which has an uninterrupted history of practice going back to the Roman Empire. The question of relevance is ostensibly even more serious for religions like mine, which do not have such an uninterrupted history. For instance, people can (and do) question to what extent early Germanic culture, even only Germanic religion (as though the two were separable), should or could be brought into the modern “changed” world. Others argue that there is no place in this “changed” world for old religions like ours, which are better forgotten.

This whole line of thinking raises some questions for me. I think that there are many criticisms that could be raised about this point of view, not the least of which being that it is based upon a linear notion of progress that is ultimately derived from a specifically Judeo-Christian view of time. That is, the notion that things change over time generally for the better, and that one neither can nor should want to “go back” or “turn back the clock” is not a matter of objective fact so much as one of a worldview that is strongly pervasive in Western culture, but by no means universal or necessarily correct. One could simply (though certainly not easily) change how one views the world, and the criticism from the notion of “progress” loses all meaning.

In general, I see the role of religions like mine as having the same relevance in the modern world as a vaccine in a diseased body. If we are not a product of the main trends of the last few centuries, it is because these trends represent overall decay of a body that was, I think, already sick; Western Culture – seen as a whole – invited its own decline by its excesses and its poor foundations. Our goal is not to revive Western Culture; this goal is taken up by other radicals than us. No: we, and people like us, are here to revive the cultures that preceded Western Culture and which were, to greater or lesser extents, incorporated into that Borg-like collective. We are rebuilding cultures that were once viable and able to survive vast changes, because we think that they can be that viable and hardy now. Also, importantly, we revive these cultures because they are ours: they belong to us as an inheritance from our beginnings, and conversely, we belong to them as well.

Or, from another perspective: we are – to whatever in Western Culture remains of the organic cultures that preceded and were incorporated into it – something like an immune response, a reaction from within Western Culture to break free of this artificial thing and to return to a kind of culture more natural to us, more in line with our own manners of being. From this point of view it can be seen that the movement towards religions like ours has its roots in the Romanticism of the 19th century, which was a reaction against the industrialization and urbanization of the time. Romanticism, which inspired great art, also inspired a great deal of scholarship; it began the scholarly interest in pre-Christian European religions, in native European religious and cultural identities. Romanticism’s art and scholarship inspired the interest among some people to go back to practicing pre-Christian European religions. We, therefore are part of that same current of reaction against, rejection of, modernism and its tendencies to dehumanize and denature.

So, now that I have attempted to establish our roots and our place in and relation to the modern world, does this reaction against the changes of “modernity”, changes that now seem to define the everyday existence of many people, have any hope of success?

To answer that question with a question: has the world really changed that much, and are the evident changes fundamental, or merely on the surface of things? To many, these will seem like ridiculous questions. It seems obvious that the world has changed, doesn’t it? One might point to all the technology we have, and what it allows us to do, as evidence of the world’s fundamental difference from how it was a century ago, much less a millenium. I am uncertain whether technology is capable of changing existence in a fundamental fashion (or even the fundamentals of our experience of it), but technology certainly seems to have changed things: more powerful scientific tools give us a greater knowledge of physical existence; communications networks allow us to know what is happening around the world in an instant; weapons technologies allow us (at least in part) to wage war from afar; agricultural technology “liberates” the vast majority of people from having to grow food for a living (although I am by no means convinced that this is a good thing). All this is so, but I don’t know that any of these things really “change” the nature of the world in any fundamental sense. If anything, I think that technology gives an appearance of change that is ultimately a distraction from the underlying continuity of things, and thus from an interaction with - and understanding of - the underlying and eternal things about reality.

Nor do find much evidence that human nature has changed. People still have the same instincts and emotions, and largely want the same things as they always have. The change that people feel in the world is, I think, rather in their understanding of and relationship to the world. As an example, there is the notion that things are reducible to material, mere matter with no other meaning or existence than as objects to be shaped and transformed by human will. This kind of thinking enabled the Industrial Revolution, and the results of that revolution continue to lead to that kind of thinking.

This kind of sea-change in people’s understanding of and approach to the world leads, I think, to the flourishing of many lines of thought that would have been clearly absurd, if not unthinkable, in previous eras. I find that many people these days have a number of ideas that they seem to hold precisely because they are at odds with old wisdom. Of course, such a thing only makes sense from the point of view that states that things are fundamentally different now than they ever were before. If that isn’t true, though – and I think it’s not – if things haven’t really changed all that much, then old wisdom is still useful, especially in circumstances where the seeming newness of things has apparently deprived people of any wisdom whatsoever.

And that, when it comes down to it, is what religions like ours really are: old, traditional wisdom, ways of understanding and interacting with the world and with existence that we firmly believe have a great deal of value in the modern world; and this not despite the fact that these ways are old and from another time, but because of that very fact. Part of how people like us serve as an antidote to modernity is by questioning the modern rejection of traditional wisdom. Religious projects like ours are predicated on the belief that the world has not changed so much that traditional wisdom is useless, and that traditional wisdom helps to remedy the alienation from the world that is part of modernity.

In another essay, I hope to look at the implications the ideas in this essay have for how people these days approach the practice of ancient religions. Specifically, I would like to look at the fear of or disdain for tradition that I’ve seen among some Heathens and other Reconstructionists, and how that is contradictory and ultimately self-defeating.

New Song for Ing

2010-06-30T16:30:00.005-05:00

Nû ik wille êria · thet ethelike god,
felamechtigen frô, · felajeftigen,
êrstera keninga · aldera tîda.
Thû liâchtich Ing, · lofsang ik biâda,
sêlich forsta, · singe ik thî!
Hweder bist ferne jeftha nēi, · frethojeftich hêra
hweder on himle · hâge thû wenast,
hweder on erthe · enstiga thû ferist,
jeftha on sêwēge · salta overwegist,
hêr âk harka · holda sange,
frô, kum thû hîr · froude tô winna!
Jevejern thû bist · âk jeftfrôlik
gold thû strewast · sâ gerstenkorn,
selover thû siest · tô sunum manna,
walichêd dêlest · tô wera bernum!
Heleth hreddande, · hars thēra sunne,
skînande widze · âk skîrefax,
stîflik stôdhengst, · stêpa manna,
âr twifaldich, · everbald wîgand,
skôf op skilda, · thîn skip oppa sê,
heleth hêlende, · oppa himle thîn skip.
Walda skettes · âk warlda god,
rein thû sendest · riuchta tîde,
sunnanskîn skikkest, · sôthige therve,
full waxith folde · in fethme godes
wellena wechsta · wera tô nette;
thruch mecht thîne · mēda waxe,
enstlike ekkrar · âra kornes,
grēdland brêde · fora gersande fiâr,
thet ûs werthe nôgede · nâta âk berna,
êtes âk metes, · ele sterkere,
biâres âk brâdes · efter bē endath;
twerfôta âke, · twistinge misgâ,
fiûwerfôte âke, · furga fulle beren,
rîze âke · unriûre, sinich;
sunde ûs selle, · sumures heleth,
lîfdegar lange, · lustelike jēr,
fretho ûs fremma · Felajeftiga,
wesa ûs jevajernich · thet wî mugath jevajern wesa,
frîhand mith friôndum, · frôlik mang kenne,
thet wî mugath thanklik wesa · thî âk thâm godum;
fora jevene jeva · wî jefta witherdwâth,
thet twiska ûs friôndskip, · frô Ing, stande!

Translation:
Now I want to honor that noble god
a greatly mighty lord, generous,
of the first kings of old times.
Thou shining Ing, I offer a song of praise,
blessed prince, I sing of thee!
Whether thou art far or near, frith-giving lord,
whether thou dwellest in high heaven,
whether thou farest on gracious earth,
or crossest on salty sea-wave,
hear and hearken to a gracious song,
lord, come thou hear to win joy!
Generous thou art, and gift-joyful,
strewest thou gold as barleycorns,
silver though sowest to sons of men,
dealest wellness to men’s children!
A saving hero, horse of the sun,
a shining horse and bright-maned,
a resolute stallion, a helper of men,
a two-fold ear, a boar-bold fighter,
a sheaf on a shield, thy ship upon the sea,
a healing hero, upon heaven thy ship.
Ruler of treasure and world’s god,
rain thou sendest at the right time,
sunshine sendest, a true need,
the earth grows full in a god’s embrace
with desired growth for the use of men;
through thy might may meadows grow,
gracious fields of ears of grain,
broad grasslands for grazing cattle,
that we may have enough of cattle and children,
of food and meat, of strong ale,
of beer and bread after harvest ends;
may the two-footed increase, may discord diminish,
may the four-footed increase, may furrows bear full,
may wealth increase, intransitory, lasting;
give us health, summer’s hero,
long life-days, pleasant years,
grant us peace, Generous One,
be generous to us that we may be generous,
free-handed with friends, happy among kin,
that we may be thankful to thee and the gods;
for gifts given we give gifts in return,
that between us friendship, lord Ing, may stand!

For the Rising Sun

2010-06-21T09:17:00.003-05:00

This is an older piece of mine, a hymn to the rising sun. The language is Anglo-Saxon.

Be éast-oren · ðæs ealwréondan
rodores randes · rótu Éastre
séo lustbǽre brýd · liehteð dimnes
ádrífð deorcnes · séo déore mægð;
swiftlíce fylgieð · séo swanhwíte
séo glǽmes fréo · glædu and scíenu
þéos meneglæde wíf · méaras twégen
on wáðe drífð · wicg scínendu
swíðe in þæm brídlum · ond ðone swift-hwéoldan
útfúsan wægn · eohhas forðtéonað.
Þǽre fréowe fæger · fulleð þone heofon
híere glædlicu gleomu · graman ácwelleð
on stede sticieð · on stáne gecíerð
nihtgangande egesan · ond níðgæstas.
Swanhwítu fréo · sunne scíenu
ádríf fram ús · séo dimme niht
ádríf fram ús · drǽdlicu égnes
wearma for ús · wídu eorðe
wes þú tó ús · wilcume ǽfre!

Translation:

At the eastern edge of the all-covering
sky’s shield, glad Easter,
the desirable bride, lightens the dimness,
the dear maiden drives off the darkness;
swiftly follows the swan-white one,
the lady of splendor, glad and beautiful,
this necklace-glad woman drives
two horses on the track, shining horses
mighty in the bridles, and the horses drag forth
the swift-wheeled eager wagon.
The lady’s fairness fills the sky,
her joyful splendor destroys enemies,
pierces in place, turns to stone
night-walking terrors and hostile demons.
Swan-white lady, beautiful sun,
drive off from us the dim night,
drive off from us the dreadful terror,
warm for us the wide earth,
be thou to us always welcome!

New Song for Þunor

2010-06-10T19:25:00.005-05:00

Tellinga ik hêrde · triûwe, alde
umbe fîrkûthen heleth · felekreftigen,
mechtigen kampa · mēga Wêdnes,
fêra blixna · fêring jelik.
Wîthuner hlesta! · Warldwara harka!
Tô êkwaldum hêr, · Erthe sunu,
ernum himles, · ekkrum wolkna,
tô hovum Êsa, · hâgum bergum,
alinga weinfarene · wolkenstrête!
Fon thîna êrdôme, · Elmechtiga,
jerne ik singe, · gâslêker mâsta!
Sîjera besta · singe ik thî!
Welkumen wesa · wîganda sterksta!
Harkiath alle · hû herde hî slôch
wither nêdre kopp · oppa nêdkalda sê,
hâved wermes · mith hamre stêt,
wundade stîthe · walden slanga,
hwan bana hî warth · thes baluwermes,
nêdrewinna · hine nitha warp thâ,
kêne kampa! · Zetel hî brôchte
elewarste Êsa, · ellemechtich Thuner,
dôm unlîttik! · Sîn drêden hamer,
waldliken wêpen, · thisse weindrîva
jēn etenhâvdum · ofta wirpith,
quâddiâr quelleth · mith kreftslachtum,
weldegeth hî over · in wîga elk,
â winneth sî · ênstrîda skîre;
hêrath alle · sînen hlûden dôm
over tham bergum, · bôgingum manna,
waldum diâpum, · wêga brêde,
over tham feldum · fulle mith wexma.
Ellemechtich god! · Êsa kampa!
Weindrîvere! · Walda blixnes!
Bukka drochten · âk bûra friônd!
Wara ûser thiâde · wither thâm wanfîande,
wither thâm wanriuchte, · wither thēra wandêde;
with wanweder wara · wâgar âk hrôf,
skardinge âk kornfeld · âk skip oppa sê;
Wîthuner, wîa · wathemar ûsre!
Warldwara, wesa thû · welkumen âmmêr!

Translation:

I heard true, old tales
of a far-known, greatly strong hero,
a mighty fighter of Wóden’s kin,
a bull-like wielder of lightenings.
Hallow-Thunor listen! World-protector hearken!
Hear in oak-woods, Earth’s son,
heaven’s houses, fields of clouds,
in gods’ courts, high mountains,
along the wagon-travelled cloud-road!
Of thy honor, Almighty,
I eagerly sing, greatest sudden-striker!
Best of victors, I sing of thee!
Be welcome, strongest of fighters!
Hearken all how he struck hard
against adder’s head upon the woefully cold sea,
hit with hammer the worm’s head,
wounded harshly the violent snake,
when he became the bane of the evil worm
adder-conqueror threw him down then,
bold fighter! He brought a kettle
to the gods’ ale-feast, almighty Thuner,
unlittle fame! His dread hammer,
a forceful weapon, this wagon-driver
often throws against giant-heads,
kills evil things with strength-blows,
he overpowers in each fight,
the shining single fighter always wins victory;
all hear his loud fame
over the mountains, dwellings of men,
deep woods, broad water,
over the fields full with growth.
Almighty god! Gods’ champion!
Wagon-driver! Ruler of lightening!
Lord of goats and farmers’ friend!
Ward our tribe against the evil enemy,
against the injustice, against the evil deed;
against bad weather ward walls and roofs,
yard-fence and grain-field and ships upon the sea;
Hallow-Thuner, hallow our holy places!
World-protector, be thou welcome always!

New Song for Wóden

2010-06-03T09:03:00.004-05:00

Continuing on from my last post on art and its relationship to religion, one of the ways that I seek to add to my religion is through making art, primarily in the form of poetry. Theodish groups use poetry in early Germanic languages for ritual purposes, and so there is a need for new poetry in the ancient style where the corpus of old poetry might not fill those ritual needs. The following is my latest contribution. This is one of the projects I've been working on over the last several weeks, and the main reason for my long hiatus; it is one of the compositions I am working on for the Midsummer ritual. The language is Old Frisian, which is used as a liturgical language by Axenthof Thiâd, the Theodish group I belong to. The attested vocabulary for Old Frisian is somewhat limited by the nature of the extant Old Frisian texts (mostly law-codices), so I have had to "reconstruct" a few terms (e.g. eten, 'giant') as I think they would have appeared in Old Frisian.

Hrôpe ik ût · over himilbrêde,
over wêdenblâw · over wolkengrê,
over thēt wîde · weinpath thēra sunne:
Hlesta thû Wêda, harka thû Wêda
wîsange hâgum, · wordum holdum!
Hêr thû on himle, · hêr thû on erthe,
hêr thû on saltum · hâstum flôdsê!
Hêr thû, Hâchsta, · ûser hrênen sang,
kum thû âk hlesta · krîga hîr froude.
Allfederis êre · âmmêr ik mêne
nâ urjete nâmmêr; · ik ûtjâte sîne lof!
Evenhâch in aldrum · êristum skôp
thene unlenda sê · hwan mith orde hî slôch
jēn ergen eten · thene overgrâta,
bandēde from! · hwan thet blôd ût rann;
âk grât erthe · grēna mith wexma,
thene brêda grund · hû berith alle;
âk himil hâgen, · hâren, wîden,
thene hêliga hrôf · hêrlikstra goda.
Sêle stulten · Sôtha upstôth
hâch tô halda · himiles wîde,
êwatrē erthfest · âmmêrgrēne
bâm âk burna · fora blîthe god,
âstede in êwe · alderlangre.
Etenar bibenn · jonda ûtrosta sê,
Bêlâge skôp · bolwerk stôklich,
mechtigen tûn · middelgarda umbe,
wathem hî worchte · Wêda hêlich.
Hine wî loviath! · Hine wî êriath!
Hangade Hâga · hâch on bâme,
Wêda sellde · Wêdne selve
Wêda sâ offer · wîjefte sum,
blôtere, blôt, · âk blôt-nimere,
dâgole kunda · ût diunkernisse feng.
Hine wî loviath! · Hine wî êriath!
Skînanda skeppre · unskînanda âk,
aldfeder thēra goda · aldfeder manna
âk keninga feder · kenna allra,
thî wî loviath! · Thî wî êriath!
Wêda, hlesta · wîsange hâgum!
Wêda, harka · wordum holdum!
Nâwet sunder thî · kumith sî tô mann;
Sîfeder Wêda, · sî jef thû ûs!
Nâwet bihalva thî · kumith hêrskip tô mann;
himilesk hêra, · hêrskip ûs fremme!
Ône walde thîn · kumith nên wîsdôm tô mann;
Wittich Wêda, · wîsdôm ûs selle!
Gêrwerpere, · grimm Sîdgrano,
herdmôdich hêra, · hêl sē thû âmmêr!
Folkfêra hildes, · fêdere wolva,
thî wî loviath! · Thî wî êriath!

Translation:

I call out over heaven-breadths,
over woad-blue, over cloud-grey,
over the wide wagon-path of the Sun:
Listen thou Wóden, hark thou Wóden
to a high holy song, to gracious words!
Hear thou in heaven, hear thou on earth,
hear thou on the salty, forceful flood-sea!
Hear thou, Highest, our pure song,
come thou and listen, receive here joy.
Of Allfather’s honor always I think
nor forget never, I pour out his praises!
Just-As-High in earliest ages shaped
the deep sea when he struck with point
against the overly huge, wicked giant,
a doughty killing! when the blood ran out;
and the great earth, green with growth,
the broad ground that bears all;
and heaven high, lofty, wide,
the holy roof of the most glorious gods.
The True One stood up a proud pillar
to hold high heaven’s expanse,
a law-tree, earth-fast, evergreen,
tree and well for blithe gods,
a law-stead in age-long eternity.
He banished the giants beyond the outermost sea,
Bale-Eye shaped a stiff bulwark,
a mighty fence around the middle garth,
he wrought a sacred place, holy Wóden.
Him we praise! Him we honor!
High-One hanged high on the tree,
Wóden gave to Wóden himself
Wóden as sacrifice, some sacred gift,
sacrificer, sacrifice, and sacrifice-taker,
took secret knowledge out of darkness.
Him we praise! Him we honor!
Creator of the seen and the unseen,
ancestor of the gods, ancestor of men
and father of kings of all kins,
thee we praise! Thee we honor!
Wóden, listen to a high sacred song!
Wóden, hearken to gracious words!
Not without thee comes victory to men;
Victory-father Wóden, give thou victory to us!
Not without thee comes good rule to men;
heavenly lord, give us good rule!
Without thy power comes no wisdom to men;
Wise Wóden, give us wisdom!
Spear-thrower, grim Widebeard,
hard-minded lord, hail be thou always!
Folk-leader of war, feeder of wolves,
thee we praise! Thee we honor!

Some Thoughts on Art

2010-06-01T20:43:00.010-05:00

First, I want to apologize for the hiatus, which was longer than I intended. I have not been idle, though, and have been working on projects that I will post here soon. Hopefully, they will have been worth the wait for you to read. Before that, though, I wanted to share some thoughts that I had in the midst of my projects.

I have often heard artists express the idea that they are conduits of their art, rather than sources. I have heard this from painters, sculptors, and musicians, and I feel the same to hold true in the poetry I write (at least in the few best pieces). The ultimate sources of art are mysterious, but have to do with truth and meaning, and thus (as I understand it) with the Holy.

Joseph Beuys sometimes talked about art in terms of transmitters, transmissions, and receivers. In this model, the mysterious source is the first transmitter, that transmits a signal (the inspiration) to the artist, the receiver. The artist must then translate that signal into art in order to retransmit the original signal, in some perceptible, understandable medium, to the artist’s audience; the audience consists of those people who are (hopefully) receptive to the inspiration within the artwork. The artist thus fills an important role by bringing flashes of vision and insight from the realms of truth and meaning (from the world of the gods, in my terms) to the greater number of people, who might have no other means for receiving those insights.

Seen in this light, the artist is an important religious functionary, an intercessor between this world and the other like the shaman and the priest. The idea of art as a religious matter is by no means new: the roles of poet and priest coincide in the rsis and kavis of early Indic religion, who composed the hymns of the Vedas; and that’s only one example out of many possible ones.

A few things present themselves as important when looking at art in this way. The first is the importance of vision, the initial inspiration without which art is an empty exercise. Not everyone has access to such inspiration; everyone can try to make art (and perhaps everyone who is moved to try, should try), but not everyone will get inspiration or be able to convey that inspiration to an audience. Those that succeed should be recognized.

Also important is the role of artistic training. Inspiration is uncontrollable, unpredictable; training and skill, though, are things an artist can control. If something is neccesarily lost in the translation from artistic inspiration to artwork, a high degree of skill in the artist’s chosen medium can help to ensure that as much of the original vision is retained as is possible.

The interdependent relationship between artists and their audience is also important. If an audience is dependent upon an artist for the glimpses of meaning and truth that the artist provides, the artist is also dependent on an audience; both materially (in the case of patronage) and in order to make the artist’s function meaningful. That dependence of the artist upon the audience makes it necessary that the artist finds (and, possibly, makes) an audience receptive to the artwork, and also makes the artwork accessible to the audience, if that can be done in line with the artwork’s original vision.

In a secular society, the link between art and religion is tenuous at best. In a more organic society, though, the artistic impulse and the religious impulse are, in fact, the same thing: both are the motivation to have contact with truth and meaning, to understand and convey understanding of great and eternal things. Art is absolutely vital for religion, and it is through art that the glimpses of the other world, of gods, myths, truths, are made perceptible to the faithful. The song of a god’s deeds, the image of a god’s face, the dance that relates a myth, these convey truth and meaning far better, and more directly, than volumes of theology.

One or Many

2010-04-26T14:56:00.006-05:00

A topic that’s interested me for a while is the theology of polytheism, and specifically theological defenses of polytheism. Over the centuries, Christianity has provided numerous defenses of monotheism, and Atheism has provided numerous counter-arguments in the centuries since the Enlightenment. Arguments for the validity of polytheism seem to have lagged a bit, although there do seem to be a few interesting beginnings. I admit that I haven’t read all of these, so I can’t say whether their ideas are worth pursuing or not. However, it seems to me that one reason that there isn’t a body of theological arguments for polytheism already is that, in a certain fashion, it has generally been readily obvious to people across the world, from the beginnings of human religiosity, that the world of the divine is populated by many gods.

Some of the defenses of polytheism that I have read have insisted that polytheism is just a way of understanding what is, essentially, a single thing: in essence, approaching a single god by relating to the god’s many facets or “masks”. This strikes me as wrong-headed, as it accepts that monotheism is somehow “truer” and ascribes the “truth” of monotheism to polytheism as well, without clearly showing the advantages of polytheism.

Yesterday, while out driving, I had a thought: that, even if the Holy is “one” on some level or in some sense (which I am not convinced of, at least not in the way usually posited), that level is one pretty far removed from the actual experience of most people. In seeing the Holy as multiple (and here, I’m starting to think that “the Holy”, a singular term, is awkward for my purposes), people seem to rely on their direct experience, which sees holiness in many things, and perceives many kinds of holiness; the obvious explanation for this is that there are many gods, each of which has a kind of holiness different from, but related to, others of the same kind. This is how people naturally approach the Holy, which is why, I believe, that most religions throughout history have been polytheistic.

Monotheism or monism, on the other hand, is an abstraction, the result of a cerebral exercise; or else it comes from a rarefied sort of mystical experience, the intuition of the underlying oneness of all things, that is far removed from the ordinary experiences of the common man. It seems to me that the insistence on the worship of and understanding of the Holy as singular has a damaging effect on religion in a general sense: it weakens and attenuates the experience of the Holy available to most of humanity, who have always naturally understood the Holy as comprising multiple gods.

I see it like this: From a distance, something can look like a simple, unitary thing; but when one looks at it from up close, one can see that it is a number of individual things in a complex interrelation. Just so with the Holy; if one insists that the Holy is one, that there is one god, or that all gods are aspects or “masks” of a single god, that requires one to look at it, as it were, from a distance. The main (Abrahamic) monotheistic traditions exacerbate this “distancing” of the Holy by insisting that the Holy is separate from the world, i.e. transcendent and not immanent. Polytheistic religions, conversely, tend to see the gods as both immanent and transcendent, and don’t insist on keeping them at arms length, so to speak. By relating to gods as different personalities (or, one might say, different "centers" or "sources" of holiness), that are present in the world as well as existing beyond it, it seems to me that polytheists enter into a much closer, more direct relationship with the Holy.

This line of thought suggests to me that the right sort of defense of polytheism would start from the sorts of ideas being developed by Alvin Plantinga, which are along the lines that a belief in God is “properly basic,” that is, the belief is true because the existence of God is able to be directly experienced. The belief in many gods seems even more “properly basic” than a belief in only one, based on the overwhelming number of polytheistic religions in history as opposed to monotheistic ones.

The Holy, part I: Basic Definitions

2010-04-09T19:32:00.005-05:00

Any understanding of religion has to start with an understanding of holiness. Ideally, such an endeavor would begin with an explanation of "holy" to those who are completely unfamiliar with it, starting from a discussion of sensations like wonder and awe. I may get to such an explanation at some point, but for now, I’d like to start a bit further on.

In the theoretical framework of Mircea Eliade (which I find quite compelling), something is holy if it presents a break with the normal structure of time and space; that is, if it seems to belong to another, different kind of reality. This “different reality” is what I refer to as “the Holy” (borrowing Rudolf Otto’s term “das Heilige”), and is what I aim to discuss, along with that reality’s interaction with this one.

“The Holy” is an intentionally vague term: it has to be so when discussing general aspects of religion, because different religions define it differently. To Abrahamic monotheists, it is the god of Abraham. To polytheists such as myself, it is: the gods, the “world” (or “plane of existence”) in which they live and have their origin; and the “time” in which they live and in which their myths occur (Eliade’s ‘in illo tempore’).

From this, it seems that “the Holy” has a temporal and a spatial aspect. This is important, because it provides a clue to two unversal religious ideas: the concepts of “Sacred Time” and “Sacred Space”. Eliade discusses these concepts at length in The Sacred and the Profane, and I rely on those concepts in my explanations.

It’s easier for me to explain “Sacred Space” first. “Normal” or “profane” space is undifferentiated , chaotic, without “place” or orientation. It is only when there is a break in profane space, an eruption into it of the “other world” of the Holy, that it becomes differentiated as a place, and oriented with other places; only then is there a “there” there. Hallowing a space can create this breaking-through, and the holy space is thereafter a source of orientation, of a sense of place and meaning: “thereness.”

In the eras before the modern decline into a purely materialistic understanding of the universe (and Cartesian concepts of the nature of space), every house, temple, and village was founded by such a sanctification of space. Furthermore, houses, temples, and villages were built to reflect a people’s understanding of the structure of the universe; to found and build a house, temple, or village was to reenact, actually to re-experience, the creation of the universe. To re-experience that creation was to be in the time that it occurred, the time of that myth.

Sacred time, in a similar way, was a breaking through of the “then” of myth, of the Holy, into profane, undifferentiated time; i.e. into time as mere meaningless duration. Such a breaking-through gives meaning to time. The time of any ritual (such as the sort of foundation-ritual alluded to above) was held to be a breaking-through of the time of a myth into “profane time,” thus sanctifying it and giving it meaning. The time of a seasonal holiday, for instance, was the regularly recurring eruption of the time of a mythic event into the time of our existence. To give an example: end-of-year holidays, like the Germanic holiday Yule, coincided in many cultures with the time of the eschatological myth: end-of-year is equivalent to end-of-world (albeit, perhaps, in microcosm). This relates to many other things, such as the importance of retelling myths as a way of bringing the time of those myths into the present (making it “present,” literally); but the one thing I wanted to mention now is that the time of myth, sacred time, does not “wear out” like profane time. The time of any myth can be re-experienced however often, and it is always the same; unlike profane time which, once experienced, is gone forever.

One quality shared in common by sacred time and sacred space is the ability to give meaning. This, I think, is a quality of that “other world;” that it is a source of meaning, and gives its meaning to this world. Thus, the meaning, even the “reality” of this world is conditional, dependent upon the meaning and reality of the “other world,” which are absolute. Such a statement is likely to be confusing to someone who defines “reality” in terms of what is perceptible to the senses: isn’t “this world” real because it can be perceived, whereas some “other world” of myths and gods must be less real because of its relative imperceptability?

The difference lies in what has meaning. In most pre-modern cultures, only that which has meaning is perceived as being fully “real.” Typically, that which has meaning is that which shows a breaking-through of the events, figures, and time of myth, including natural phenomena and parts of the natural world that relate to myths and gods. One could say that anything that has meaning is, by definition, sacred in itself or in relation to some source of sacrality, i.e. to “the Holy.”

A short conversation on religion

2010-04-02T18:36:00.003-05:00

The other day, I had a chat about religion and my views on it with an old friend of mine, D. D has known about my religious inclinations for about fifteen years, but we'd never discussed in in any great depth. D. describes herself as an "Insouciant Agnostic Theist." The following is our conversation, edited somewhat for clarity. I expect to touch upon many of these themes in more depth in the near future.

D.: I am really curious about your beliefs. And what "believe" means to you. Do you believe in your religion literally? Is it just the most right "shape" for your beliefs and needs to take?

me: Well, there's what I believe, and there's what I believe about what I believe.

D.: It's a weird thing for me to get my head around, as I just don't think anybody can know. Me, you could boil it down to, "I believe in wonder."

me: That's beautiful. And very important.

Where to begin?

From the beginnings of humanity, people have had religions, which I'll define as "a relationship with the Sacred." "The Sacred" is harder to define; you can feel it, though.

D.: Sure. wonder.

me: Yes, and awe. So, as people have changed and migrated and diversified, their understanding of that whatever-it-is has changed, too. So have their expressions of that relationship. "The Sacred" is big and ineffable, and permits of numerous interpretations, but cannot be exhausted by any of them. There's no final definition. Each people has it's own history of interpretation of and relationship to it, which is appropriate to that people.

That sort of regional diversity is a good thing, I think: Regional diversity in the understanding of the Sacred, and in the relationship to it, is a good thing: it tends towards seeing sacrality in what is familiar; experiencing the transcendent through the immanent, if you will. That sort of situation leads, among other things, to an intimate relationship with one's surroundings: seeing oneself as part of an environment, as opposed to seeing one's environment as material to be used.

That sort of overall religious diversity is good because it is also a diversity of worldviews. Too many people thinking the same way leads to a situation where one's interpretation of reality can be mistaken for reality itself, because there are no opposing interpretations.

So, religiously, I'm doing my part to reinstate that sort of regional diversity. I'm learning and doing my best to practice the religion that my ancestors practiced, and trying to understand and incorporate their worldview. At the same time, I'm interested in religion as an overall phenomenon.

As for the literality of my beliefs... I think gods are real; the way we think of them, in terms of images and myths and such, must be understood as both art and metaphor. Thunor (aka Thor) is said to have a red beard. This isn't just a brute fact: that would make it meaningless, and nothing about myth is meaningless. His red beard has to be understood as being metaphorical, symbolic of something, but there's not necessarily any straightforward answer or concordance as to what each detail means.

The entire picture and character and deeds of Thunor, as well as his relationship to the rest of the pantheon, and to people, and to others, and to certain plants, animals, birds, symbols, weather, etc. is all part of a big, mysterious bundle of meaning. That bundle of meaning is the core of a cultural heritage. That cultural heritage is important, I think, and I want to pass it down to following generations.

It's also interesting that I can see my gods in the gods of other religions, particularly those that sprang from a common source: Thunor is the same, in a sense, as the Lithuanian god Perkunas, the Russian Perun, the Gaulish Taranis, the Roman Mars, the Indian Indra; there are one-to-one correspondences between other of my gods and the gods of these pantheons, too. There are also some differences: not all of these religions interact with and understand the same gods in the same way, nor do they represent them through the same metaphorical imagery. In the Vedas, for instance, Indra is covered all over with eyes. There might be other correspondences outside of that family of religions and mythologies, that are harder to see. What it underlines is that the gods can be real, and yet interpreted in very different ways by different peoples. And that's a good and right thing. And those "interpretations" are real in their own way as well.

The difference in interpretation between "many" and "one", however, is a bit problematic for me. I tend to dislike the "there is one, and only one, and all others are false" sorts of interpretations.

Opening

2010-04-02T09:28:00.002-05:00

Welcome to my blog. To start with, I thought I'd write a bit about what you can expect to read here. Largely, this is where I plan to write the sorts of things that I talk people's ears off about until they tell me that I should write a book. I do plan to write a book or two, and this blog will hopefully serve to get my thoughts in order for that project.

I'll be writing about: Theodism, including Theodish history, thinking, and critiques of Theodish scholarship; Heathenry and other ethnic religious revivals; the problematic nature of Abrahamic monotheism; comparative religion and mythology; and the art, music, poetry and books that inspire me.

I hope you find what you read here interesting, and hopefully challenging. I welcome comments, and I regard discussion as a necessary part of this blog; conversation fuels my thinking, which results in more posts.