Dear Readers,
I have been following a discussion on an Aristasian web forum with quite an interest as one of my past posts here began to take a life of its own.
In this thread, a number of individuals discuss what I had written in the post here ("AMI: Aristasian-Hindu Connection?").
I'd like to raise a few points here, not in order to refute their arguments (which is never my intention) but simply to clarify my own spiritual progression during the past several years in ministry.
Miss Sakura writes:
"It is true that we are not in an established religious tradition. But we need to ask what is meant by a continuous tradition? The Tellurian West currently has a conception of the world so utterly different from any traditional view that we may wonder if their understanding of Christianity bears much relation to that of traditional Christians. Miss Iris as a priest and sometime Bishop of a rather wayward-seeming branch of the Catholic and Apostolic Church might well see the continuity lying in the validity of the Sacraments. Now various questions might be raised by other Christians
bout the validity of an Apostolic Succession so far from "Established" norms, and others may wish to question the validity of those "norms" themselves - having strayed so far from Tradition. By no means all would accept the validity of a female priesthood. So already we are in a quandary about who is "making up their religion". But even if we ignore all this and place our faith in the Sacraments, where does that leave all our non-Sacramental Protestants? Are they making up their religion? Or are they guaranteed by the Bible - despite an interpretation of it that
mediaeval Christians might scarcely recognize."
To me, apostolic succession is not something to be taken literally as though one can be a fundamentalist about it. Yet, I value apostolic succession for its symbolic and mystical value -- it is a "golden chain" that symbolizes continuity, tradition, and one's connection to the ancient root (well, it only goes as far back as St. Peter). Anyone who desires to make a claim against my succession will do so, and I find any of their arguments as irrelevant as the screeds of Bible-thumping fundamental Baptists' claim that theirs is the only true religion. In any case, the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodox churches will never recognize my succession (Anglican/Old Catholic) under any circumstance.
The point that I desire to raise is this: One cannot believe fully in what she sees as artificial or false (as Miss Alice Lucy Trent writes in her book The Feminine Universe). The sacraments provide for us with means to partake in the golden chain, and they are "outward expressions of the inward grace" in addition to being traditional rituals of historic value in and of themselves.
Yes, Miss Sakura is right in sense that Reformed churches -- presbyterians and congregationalists -- also claim the continuity without having a need for bishops or apostolic successions. But the basis of their continuity is primarily of creeds and doctrines. Fundamental Baptists (such as those members of the Baptist Bible Fellowship International) believe that there is a succession of a sort that passes down from one local church to another, as well.
(p.s. According to the sacramental traditions of the Church, once a bishop always a bishop even if one had retired or ceased to be an ordinary. As a rector of an independent mission, I still exercise a certain degree of episcopal authority by necessity though I may no longer be a diocesan or a vicar episcopal.)
Miss Sushuri writes:
"Now a lot here depends upon what is meant by the term "connection". Clearly Aristasian writers have used Hindu (and sometimes Christian and far-Eastern Tellurian) terms quite freely, and have used images from those traditions. We are not making any secret of that. But what, exactly, is our "connection" supposed to be? In truth, there have been some efforts to forge a certain degree of spiritual "linking" between Tellurian images and "streams" and our faith. This was in pursuit of the practice of "pontification"-- building bridges between our faith in Dea and its practice in Telluria, precisely so that we might have some spiritual "grounding" in Telluria. In this sense, and in this sense only, it might be correct to speak of some form of "connection", and we have certainly not tried to disclaim it. However we see "living tradition" solely as a conduit leading back to Our Mother God... Our perspective is very much Aristasian. We are not interested in "reforming" Telluria as a whole or any Tellurian tradition... Any credence we give to patriarchal traditions is because they are remnants of Universal Truth, not because they are patriarchal. Their patriarchal nature is only an obstacle placed before their Truth. It is only because of their Universality that they can have any value as pontifications." (Emphases mine.)
She is making my point without even knowing it. I bet she is attempting to rebut my supposed attempt at "reform" (which now I see as a bad choice of word), but in actuality she is defending my position rather unknowingly.
I think part of the problem here is that there has been a bit of misconception in regard to what I am up to. There is no attempt, express or implied, to reform the Aristasian religions -- and as to "reforming" the Church, I think it was a wrong word choice. I do not feel that the larger Christian Church need be necessarily reformed -- after all I would rather like to see a healthy, racinated, traditional patriarchal church than a New Age infested ultraliberal church that may try to be "non-patriarchal." I freely use the Anglican use liturgies, and I prefer the historic language of the Rite I liturgies over the 1970s Rite II language.
As to all this and apostolic succession, just because the chain has happened to have passed through a swamp of patriarchy and violence and evil, it does not mean that the chain is disconnected from the Source. For me at the very least, an Anglican Christianity provides for a means to connect to the tradition, and the Western Christianity appears to be the best way for someone who is in the culture of North America. For someone in India, China, or Japan, that would be a different story.
Perhaps my rather close alignment with the Aristasians had caused some serious confusion among the public. By far, they are the only group of people in the Western culture that upholds a feminine traditionalism untainted by the New Age or post-modern garbage. They do indeed produce excellent articles and books which without question I would recommend everyone to study. And in all honesty, personally speaking, I strongly view Aristasia as my heritage in a some inexplicably metaphysical sense. Miss Alice Trent's book in fact helped me regain my sanity and overcome a lot of confusions with I struggled. But I am not an escapist, nor "secessionist." I am aware of where I am, though it may be a less-than-a-perfect-place (or really a cesspool, the Pit). The truth is that I would cease to exist if not for the well-being of Telluria. A Hebrew prophet wrote to exiled Jews: "And seek the peace of the city whither I have caused you to be carried away captive, and pray unto Jehovah for it; for in the peace thereof shall ye have peace." (Jeremiah 29:7.) The holy Gospel calls us to be a light and salt of the world... following the model of the eternal saviour who voluntarily was exiled to this world and lived among us so that this world, through the holy incarnation, may be redeemed and purified.
As to this allegiance to Aristasia, let me put it this way: an Italian-American may see Italy as the source of her heritage, culture and tradition; she may speak Italian fluently and has a very close connection to Italy and its people; she may be a great Italian cook and own an Italian restaurant; her religious practice may mirror that of Italian nationals -- a Roman Catholic, most likely -- and perhaps even attend an Italian-speaking parish for an Italian mass; and she even celebrates various Italian festivities; but her allegiance is to the United States of America, not to the Republic of Italy or the European Union. Had she lived during the second world war, she may as well be fighting against Mussolini (alright, this is becoming a badly written analogy!) by joining in the war effort of the Allied Forces under the American flag.
And none of this invalidates or refutes the legitimacy of an Aristasian faith, Filianic or otherwise. Neither does it diminish in any form or shape my love for the Raihir Nevcaerelan.
I think the word "convergence" works better than a "reform" lately. I am taking this from the Charismatic Episcopal Church, which originally was a Pentecostal, Evangelical Church but now it follows an Anglican liturgical use and its sacramental traditions. CEC calls itself a convergence of Charismatic, Evangelical and Sacramental faith.
Likewise I as well see a convergence of a neo-Collyridian (or Philomarianite) stream alongside with the Anglican and Old Catholic streams of traditions. Granted all this is a very new concept, a thoroughly a product of the first decade of the 21st century. But this move to reconnect to the old tradition is happening throughout the church, perhaps as a reaction to the excess of the 1970s Jesus Movement, 1980s Church Growth fad and 1990s Megachurch craze (which are all anti-traditional).
If one thinks I am peddling a "pretty story" then so be it. This world can use a bit more of that prettiness.
-- Miss Iris.
Monday, June 2, 2008
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
AMI follow up discussion on "Aristasian-Hindu connection"
http://aristasia-central.com/fora/viewtopic.php?t=140
This is a thread based on the post http://askmissiris.blogspot.com/2008/04/ami-replay-aristasian-hindu-connection.html
This is a thread based on the post http://askmissiris.blogspot.com/2008/04/ami-replay-aristasian-hindu-connection.html
Friday, April 25, 2008
AMI: I can't deal with anger!
Dear Miss Iris: I get easily angry at people and things (especially computers and cars). I seem to have very little patience when things just don't go my way. These days road rage is all so common, and people in general "cuss" loudly in public, so it seems to be really socially acceptable for me to do so, too. Yet, one morning I realized how I had picked up the habits of those who were once considered to be the lowest strata of society (culturally speaking) and I was all of sudden disgusted at finding myself in that spot. In any case, I do not think anger is healthy and "cussing" really won't create "an outlet" for my anger but rather leads to an even greater level of frustration. What can I do to stop "cussing"? -- Amanda, Portland, Oregon.
Dear Miss Amanda: I have the same problem. As I work with a lot of people whose subcultures tolerate (or even encourage) frequent cussing and obscenities, I sometimes find myself unknowingly acculturating myself into this atmosphere in which open expressions of anger through obscene and explosive speeches are "the norm." While I am no expert in human psychology, I would like to relay what I learned from a Benedictine spiritual practice: whenever you feel like saying "f---" or "s---" say in your mind, something like, "O God, come to my help; Holy One, hasten to help me." Repeat this conscientiously for a few days and see if that would help. (It can be also a chant or a small prayer, such as Ave Maria, Memorare, Agnus Dei, Trisagion, or the Mary chant [or this one]. Or, if you are a Buddhist, you may want to try a nembutsu/nianho "Namo Amitabha" or a daimoku "Namu Myoho Renge Kyo.")
-- Miss Iris.
Dear Miss Amanda: I have the same problem. As I work with a lot of people whose subcultures tolerate (or even encourage) frequent cussing and obscenities, I sometimes find myself unknowingly acculturating myself into this atmosphere in which open expressions of anger through obscene and explosive speeches are "the norm." While I am no expert in human psychology, I would like to relay what I learned from a Benedictine spiritual practice: whenever you feel like saying "f---" or "s---" say in your mind, something like, "O God, come to my help; Holy One, hasten to help me." Repeat this conscientiously for a few days and see if that would help. (It can be also a chant or a small prayer, such as Ave Maria, Memorare, Agnus Dei, Trisagion, or the Mary chant [or this one]. Or, if you are a Buddhist, you may want to try a nembutsu/nianho "Namo Amitabha" or a daimoku "Namu Myoho Renge Kyo.")
-- Miss Iris.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
AMI replay: What's wrong with polygamy? (Original April 12)
Dear readers: I am combining my responses to two questions from opposing
viewpoints. This appears to be a timely topic due to the recent development
with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints
(FLDS, not to be confused with the Salt Lake City-based LDS):
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/p/polygamy/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier
Dear Miss Iris: This week I saw on TV a police raid on church that practiced
polygamy. I don't understand why such creeps exploit girls like this, and
how perverts like them are tolerated. As a feminist, I cannot stand
this epitome of patriarchy in which women are "collected" as though they are
trophies and exploited like house slaves. - Linda, Bend, Oregon.
Dear Miss Iris: I believe in polyamory and I think this recent assault on
the FLDS community unfairly attacks a family bonded by mutual covenant. It
is apparent to me that the husband of this household is at least wealthy
enough to take care of his wives and children. The government is
overreacting based solely on a complaint from the small minority of
disgruntled household members, in a sensationalistic and photo-op-seeking
way, and that's not fair to anyone. - Alice, Eugene, Oregon. (p.s.: I'm
married happily, unfortunately for legal purposes just to one spouse; the
other spouses I can't "marry" them even if I weren't married to him.)
Dear Mrs. Alice and Miss Linda: The problem underlying the recent case of
FLDS polygamy isn't really about whether they loved one another (a CNN
report mentioned they did love each other very much so) but is about how the
husband (and by extension his church, which espouses a highly patriarchal
belief system) exercised his absolute power over his spouses. Whether or not
this is a polygamy or a monogamy, there was a clear indication of domestic
abuse and violence, and I believe there is a world apart of difference
between this and what Mrs. Alice calls "polyamory."
I, for one, believe that
(1) For Christians especially for biblical literalists, there is no explicit
proscription against a marriage with multiple spouses, except perhaps for
presbyters and deacons -- and by extension for bishops, who are essentially
the "fullness of priesthood" -- (1 Tim 3:2,12; many churches, however, also
allow single men and women to become a presbyter or a deacon, although this
verse appears to require a monogamous marriage); indeed, King Solomon had
300 wives and 700 concubines (1 Kings 11; though some scholars believe this
is a rhetorical exaggeration --
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/Solomon.html ), and
Abraham had Ishmael through Hagar the concubine. On the other hand, both the
Hebrew scriptures (c.f. Malachi 2:16) and New Testament (Matthew
19:3-9) treat the topic of divorce in a very negative light. -- Also
see *Readings
in Social Problems*, by Albert Benedict Wolfe (Boston: Ginn & Company, 1916;
p. 599 - http://books.google.com/books?id=8dhAAAAAIAAJ ).
(2) An honest polyamory is far superior to a dishonest monogamy that
destroys a family and devastates children. In many cases, an "open" marriage
often helps people avoid the high degree of emotional dependency and
resulting psychological manipulation, and allows members of the household to
act more maturely and in a more transparent manner. Too many monogamous
relationships, married or unmarried, are caught up in abuse, control and
violence, and as such it is difficult to establish the alleged moral
superiority of monogamy over polyamory.
(3) The case against polygamy based on the allegation of "sexism" would hold
up only if the structure of one male and multiple females in a marriage.
It is also important to note that the concept of family and marriage today
is very different from that of centuries ago (much to the dismay of those
who call for a "traditional family values", which really dates back only as
far as the late 1940s). In the past marriage was primarily a civil contract,
and the idea of free marriage based on love, or church endorsement (and
officiation) of a marriage, are a relatively new phenomenon (c.f. *A History
of Matrimonial Institutions Chiefly in England and the United States* -
http://books.google.com/books?id=TAmxOMQdU9kC ).
viewpoints. This appears to be a timely topic due to the recent development
with the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter-Day Saints
(FLDS, not to be confused with the Salt Lake City-based LDS):
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/refer
Dear Miss Iris: This week I saw on TV a police raid on church that practiced
polygamy. I don't understand why such creeps exploit girls like this, and
how perverts like them are tolerated. As a feminist, I cannot stand
this epitome of patriarchy in which women are "collected" as though they are
trophies and exploited like house slaves. - Linda, Bend, Oregon.
Dear Miss Iris: I believe in polyamory and I think this recent assault on
the FLDS community unfairly attacks a family bonded by mutual covenant. It
is apparent to me that the husband of this household is at least wealthy
enough to take care of his wives and children. The government is
overreacting based solely on a complaint from the small minority of
disgruntled household members, in a sensationalistic and photo-op-seeking
way, and that's not fair to anyone. - Alice, Eugene, Oregon. (p.s.: I'm
married happily, unfortunately for legal purposes just to one spouse; the
other spouses I can't "marry" them even if I weren't married to him.)
Dear Mrs. Alice and Miss Linda: The problem underlying the recent case of
FLDS polygamy isn't really about whether they loved one another (a CNN
report mentioned they did love each other very much so) but is about how the
husband (and by extension his church, which espouses a highly patriarchal
belief system) exercised his absolute power over his spouses. Whether or not
this is a polygamy or a monogamy, there was a clear indication of domestic
abuse and violence, and I believe there is a world apart of difference
between this and what Mrs. Alice calls "polyamory."
I, for one, believe that
(1) For Christians especially for biblical literalists, there is no explicit
proscription against a marriage with multiple spouses, except perhaps for
presbyters and deacons -- and by extension for bishops, who are essentially
the "fullness of priesthood" -- (1 Tim 3:2,12; many churches, however, also
allow single men and women to become a presbyter or a deacon, although this
verse appears to require a monogamous marriage); indeed, King Solomon had
300 wives and 700 concubines (1 Kings 11; though some scholars believe this
is a rhetorical exaggeration --
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jso
Abraham had Ishmael through Hagar the concubine. On the other hand, both the
Hebrew scriptures (c.f. Malachi 2:16) and New Testament (Matthew
19:3-9) treat the topic of divorce in a very negative light. -- Also
see *Readings
in Social Problems*, by Albert Benedict Wolfe (Boston: Ginn & Company, 1916;
p. 599 - http://books.google.com/books?id=8dhAAA
(2) An honest polyamory is far superior to a dishonest monogamy that
destroys a family and devastates children. In many cases, an "open" marriage
often helps people avoid the high degree of emotional dependency and
resulting psychological manipulation, and allows members of the household to
act more maturely and in a more transparent manner. Too many monogamous
relationships, married or unmarried, are caught up in abuse, control and
violence, and as such it is difficult to establish the alleged moral
superiority of monogamy over polyamory.
(3) The case against polygamy based on the allegation of "sexism" would hold
up only if the structure of one male and multiple females in a marriage.
It is also important to note that the concept of family and marriage today
is very different from that of centuries ago (much to the dismay of those
who call for a "traditional family values", which really dates back only as
far as the late 1940s). In the past marriage was primarily a civil contract,
and the idea of free marriage based on love, or church endorsement (and
officiation) of a marriage, are a relatively new phenomenon (c.f. *A History
of Matrimonial Institutions Chiefly in England and the United States* -
http://books.google.com/books?id=TAmxOM
AMI replay: Exploring holy orders (original April 9)
Dear readers: Discerning God's calling for one's life is an important matter. It is not about "keeping up with the Joneses" nor is it about "getting ahead of the competition." One of the biggest mistakes one can make is to follow peer pressure or otherwise being misguided by the lack of accurate knowledge of what you are considering to pursue.
Dear Miss Iris: Like you, I have long thought that God has called me to serve the people and minister to the marginalized. Now the question is, should I pursue a path to become a priest? What are your recommendations? -- Annie, Gresham, Oregon.
Dear Miss Annie: In my rather old-fashioned theological and ecclesiological understanding of holy orders, there are three distinct roles and missions given to deacons, presbyters (priests, or elders) and bishops. In contemporary churches, diaconate is often made less that what it is supposed to be, as diaconate is usually used as a "stepping stone" for seminarians to eventually become priests (yes, there are so-called "permanent diaconate", but it is rare). According to the New Testament, roles of a priest is primarily of "word and prayer", that of sacerdotal (priestly) function and of teaching; on the other hand, deacons were responsible for what we may call "pastoral" works today. It makes a lot better sense for a deacon to be
a pastor, according to the traditional ecclesiology. So if your aim (and as you discern your God-given destiny for your life) is to "serve the people and minister to the marginalized" then your pursuit should
focus on diaconate as a goal.
This having said, 90 to 95 percent of what a church does (that is, outside the sacraments of the holy eucharist, etc.) can be done without any ordained person. Regular daily offices can be said by anyone, and outreach missions can of course be done by any non-ordained person.
I believe that God knows your heart, and I hope you know what is on your heart. Often holy orders is taken for all the wrong reasons and motives by people whose mentality is very little different from the secular "career-oriented" people. Holy orders is not about climbing up the church corporate ladder, nor about earning a longer style before your name (i.e., from "The Reverend" to "The Very Reverend" to "The Right Reverend" to "The Most Reverend"). If this is your driving motive and expectation, you will be disappointed and be frustrated.
It is my belief that if you are truly called by God to become a deacon, a priest, or a bishop, or to pursue a religious life (as a monastic or an oblate) then you are created to be one. It should come to you naturally to the depth of your heart. Part of the modern problem is that we have such a big presumption about "equality" in this "democratic" society so that anyone can be anything. I believe that each person is uniquely created with differing talents and temperaments, so that as a whole society has all the different ingredients for a vibrant community and common well-being.
If you are good at doing something else -- if you are a successful business owner, for example, then probably you should perfect that path for the glory of God and use the wealth and success to benefit
the poor and suffering.
+Sarah.
Dear Miss Iris: Like you, I have long thought that God has called me to serve the people and minister to the marginalized. Now the question is, should I pursue a path to become a priest? What are your recommendations? -- Annie, Gresham, Oregon.
Dear Miss Annie: In my rather old-fashioned theological and ecclesiological understanding of holy orders, there are three distinct roles and missions given to deacons, presbyters (priests, or elders) and bishops. In contemporary churches, diaconate is often made less that what it is supposed to be, as diaconate is usually used as a "stepping stone" for seminarians to eventually become priests (yes, there are so-called "permanent diaconate", but it is rare). According to the New Testament
, roles of a priest is primarily of "word and prayer", that of sacerdotal (priestly) function and of teaching; on the other hand, deacons were responsible for what we may call "pastoral" works today. It makes a lot better sense for a deacon to bea pastor, according to the traditional ecclesiology. So if your aim (and as you discern your God-given destiny for your life) is to "serve the people and minister to the marginalized" then your pursuit should
focus on diaconate as a goal.
This having said, 90 to 95 percent of what a church does (that is, outside the sacraments of the holy eucharist, etc.) can be done without any ordained person. Regular daily offices can be said by anyone, and outreach missions can of course be done by any non-ordained person.
I believe that God knows your heart, and I hope you know what is on your heart. Often holy orders is taken for all the wrong reasons and motives by people whose mentality is very little different from the secular "career-oriented" people. Holy orders is not about climbing up the church corporate ladder, nor about earning a longer style before your name (i.e., from "The Reverend" to "The Very Reverend" to "The Right Reverend" to "The Most Reverend"). If this is your driving motive and expectation, you will be disappointed and be frustrated.
It is my belief that if you are truly called by God to become a deacon, a priest, or a bishop, or to pursue a religious life (as a monastic or an oblate) then you are created to be one. It should come to you naturally to the depth of your heart. Part of the modern problem is that we have such a big presumption about "equality" in this "democratic" society so that anyone can be anything. I believe that each person is uniquely created with differing talents and temperaments, so that as a whole society has all the different ingredients for a vibrant community and common well-being.
If you are good at doing something else -- if you are a successful business owner, for example, then probably you should perfect that path for the glory of God and use the wealth and success to benefit
the poor and suffering.
+Sarah.
AMI replay: Spare cigarettes? (original April 8)
Dear Miss Iris: Almost every day I encounter a street youth or a
homeless adult asking passers-by for a cigarette. After a while this
gets old. I am annoyed by this even more so than the sight of usual
beggars. I don't smoke, and nowadays most people I know do not,
either. Why should anyone expect or assume that the majority of the
general public shares their unhealthy behaviour? - Sinead, Tigard,
Oregon.
Dear Miss Sinead,
I hear your concerns. I do not think they should expect you to
subsidize their addictions. It is entirely up to them and is within
their responsibility if they wish to consume tobacco, but that should
be done at their own expense, with the money they have rightfully
earned.
- Miss Iris.
homeless adult asking passers-by for a cigarette. After a while this
gets old. I am annoyed by this even more so than the sight of usual
beggars. I don't smoke, and nowadays most people I know do not,
either. Why should anyone expect or assume that the majority of the
general public shares their unhealthy behaviour? - Sinead, Tigard,
Oregon.
Dear Miss Sinead,
I hear your concerns. I do not think they should expect you to
subsidize their addictions. It is entirely up to them and is within
their responsibility if they wish to consume tobacco, but that should
be done at their own expense, with the money they have rightfully
earned.
- Miss Iris.
AMI replay: Aristasian-Hindu connection? (original April 7)
Dear readers: Related to the previously published question ("AMI: Why stay in church?") I am also bringing up yet another of the most commonly heard questions.
Dear Miss Iris: Often you mention or reference materials written by the so-called "Aristasian" sect when you discuss certain spiritual or theological matters. I am at loss of words for this. When I visited one of the "Aristasian" websites I saw many pictures of Hindu goddesses and uses of Hindu or Sanskrit words everywhere. Are you attempting to introduce Hindu polytheist/pantheist beliefs into Christianity? What you are doing is abhorrent, and borders on cultic. -- Rachel, Washougal, Washington.
Dear Miss Rachel: I do not think the Aristasians are pleased by your characterization of them as a Hindu "cult." Neither is your understanding of Hinduism as a polytheism correct. I would like to refer to an Aristasian religion FAQ page, which states as thus:
Q: Aristasians in Telluria use images of Dea from Tellurian sources, such as Hindu Devis or even the Virgin Mary. Why is this?
Most simply, because we cannot import images from Aristasia Pura! But actually there is more to it than that. Such images — particularly the Hindu ones — go back in an unbroken line to the original worship of the Mother as Absolute Deity. In Christianity, only the image remains (but the image is still very faithful) while the worship of Dea has been "theologised" out of existence. In Hinduism, while patriarchal myths have been woven about, say Sri Lakshmi, there are many within the tradition who still worship Her as Supreme Deity. Thus these are images in which the direct spiritual influence is still living (the same might be said about Kwan Yin bodhisattva, or the Tibetan Tara). We could use reproductions of more ancient images from prehistoric matriarchal times, and while this is not forbidden, it is generally considered that it is better to use images that are still connected by a living thread to the earliest tradition.
This having said, would I recommend the use of Hindu religious imagery or language in support of a feminine traditionalist religion? Not within the context of the contemporary North America. It is important to note that what you call the "Aristasian sect" is largely a British phenomenon, and unlike Americans, there is a healthy respect for Indian culture there thanks to Britain's colonial past in India and also because of the large immigrant population there from India. This contrasts with our situation here in North America, in which anything that looks, sounds or smells Hindu are products of fringe cults or Westernized "new age" movements. Fortunately, America still remains to be the most religious nation on earth outside the Islamic theocracies, and religion plays an important role in our culture and social values. My opinion, therefore, is instead of looking elsewhere for a foreign religious tradition why not make the best of the heritage we already have in America, specifically Christianity (and to much extent, Judaism). This is why, unlike Aristasians, I refrain from borrowing much from Hinduism (I have no entitlement to exploit a religious tradition I know little about); instead you see me discussing in terms of Christian theology and hagiography.
This is another topic that may be of interest to those who are interested in Aristasian path (without any attempt at dissuading or discouraging anyone from so doing). In her comment to "Why stay in church," Miss Sushuri stated: "[I] have absolutely no sympathy or kindred-feeling with patriarchal traditions whatever. I can accept that they are right within their own "economy". I can accept that you are more fortunate and perhaps more "valid" than I in being able to come to terms with them... I have not an atom of warmth toward patriarchal tradition in general and have least warmth of all toward the Abrahamic traditions. While I fully accept the quotation from Guénon about the necessity of Christianity for Western Telluria, I have no interest in, or love for, Western Telluria, and on a purely personal level, do not care whether it stands or falls. I certainly do not feel myself to be a part of it or of any patriarchal tradition... Equally I feel no attraction whatever to any form of "feminist" pseudo-cultus, all of which are not only part of the Western patriarchal culture but represent it in its final degeneracy. They have all the faults of West-Tellurian patriarchy with none of its virtues."
Yet, it is impossible to fully liberate oneself from the "Tellurian traditions," patriarchal or otherwise. Unfortunately even Hindu in present form is a highly patriarchal faith (think of blatant misogyny in India, in which women are treated as mere chattels), and there really is no existent "living tradition" that is entirely free of patriarchy. Much of Aristasian spirituality and practices today are indeed product of many streams of Tellurian traditions and traditionalists, and as much as one may hope that it is "straight from Aristasia Pura" as though they were brought to them by an extraterrestrial on a space ship, the reality is that there are heavy borrowing from Hinduism, Buddhism, and so on. This, of course, is not "wrong" -- I believe that all traditions ultimately trace back to one single source, one single root, Tellurian or otherwise. But it would be dishonest to disclaim one's connection to the Tellurian traditions.
In this spirit, I am not going to throw out the entire crate of apples just because a few -- even the super-majority of it -- apples are rotten and infested with patriarchal bugs. I would at least like to make my best effort at salvaging what is left of the Christian heritage, and (being an optimist) reform what is in my hands. I am in no way a radical reformer of Anabaptist or Puritan kind; I am more of a reformer along the line of John+ Wesley and ++Thomas Cranmer. To me, any meaningful reformation requires a preservation of continuity and precedence, or I would be inventing a new religion out of thin air and that would be meaningless.
- Miss Iris.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
