DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
The Three Staves
HTML https://3staves.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Druidism
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3--------------------------------------------------
Leaders?
DIR By: Green Band Druid
Date: March 4, 2012, 5:16 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
In a recent twitter discussion I argued the point that druidism
(and paganism) should have no leaders. It is my strong belief
that people dictating at the top are dangerous for the
well-being of those who follow the religion. Instead of looking
to mortal men to lead I feel it would be better to have
ambassadors that represent us to the world community. Positive
role models who can expose the world to our culture and beliefs
but have no say in fundemental beliefs of the individual
practitioner.
What are your views?
[glow=green,2,300]GBD[/glow]
#Post#: 4--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leaders?
DIR By: Phoenix Grove
Date: March 4, 2012, 5:30 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
"We" need neither leaders nor ambassadors. Both are simply
magnets for ambitious people. I say, stick to your own grove
(of trees; using the original definition - and a stick on the
altar doesn't count as a tree), and if your neighbors in the
physical world dig it, then great. If there aren't so many
druids running around that their groves are butting up against
one another, why should they require ambassadors beyond
themselves? There are far too many people in the "community"
and far too few trees.
#Post#: 5--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leaders?
DIR By: Green Band Druid
Date: March 5, 2012, 11:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I like what you're saying. Each to their own, but what about
representation? We are part of the community and the ancestors
were once viewed highly as law makers. They had active roles in
society and I think we should as well. We should be guiding our
neighbours to make positive decsions about the 'groves' and that
kind of lobbying requires representatives. What do you think?
[glow=green,2,300]GBD[/glow]
#Post#: 6--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leaders?
DIR By: Phoenix Grove
Date: March 5, 2012, 12:53 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Representation is entirely unnecessary. I am my own
representative, whether I'm in a democracy or a republic or an
empire. As a druid, I am an extension of the tree, whether that
is to the neighboring property owners, the sheriff, the state,
or the fungus or deer tribes, and as I am ready and willing to
work and die in the service of the nemeton, there is little that
requires any network at all, much less a leader or
representative who doesn't even help plant or weed. In the old
days, it would have been really nice to have that network of
expertise, but I can find out far more about galls online in
five minutes than any druid alive could tell me, even if I could
find one that was an expert. We don't need the akashic records
here...we have the internet.
I'm a believer in apprenticeship. If somebody likes what I'm
doing, and finds holy what I find holy, I'm glad to let them
join me in work and learning. If they're young, they'll take
over when I'm gone, for as long as the tree stands. If they
don't like what I do, it matters not one iota to me...my tree is
my only judge, and it does not lie. Seriously, look around at
the "community". Do you really think that the modern world is
going to turn around and make these outcasts their leaders? Can
you even name a single self-professed druid who IS in that role
within the greater community? It is wayyyy too early to be
thinking of ruling others.
Furthermore, the first druids were viewed highly not because
they were part of the communities, but because they weren't.
They didn't live in the village, safe from bears and wolves.
They lived in the forest, eating acorn meal and wild honey.
They didn't write their stuff down like the rest of humanity did
(when the rest of humanity could write). They kept it in
silence. They lived where others feared to live. They kept
alive knowledge that others forgot. It's a thoroughly modern
invention to imagine that they were simply politicians in white
robes, living in the big house. That was and is the
king's/senator's/mayor's job. The druids are there to poke the
king (or anybody else) when necessary, and what is necessary is
what is required by natural law. All the nonsense about gods is
simply a variety of sticks to poke with, as are curses (which
apparently didn't work so well against the Romans, even in the
holy of holies), and charms (the story of the druid's egg being
the perfect example).
The problem with most of the modern orders is that they're top
down, and the top is seldom more than 6' above (or below) the
surface of the earth. Everybody just doesn't want to be what
their culture indicates is proper - a Christian in a church -
and so they just changed the words and considered the thing
different - druid in a "grove"...that meets in the Unitarian
church. RDNA is the poster child for this, and all their
offshoots, while some attempt to grow back towards the light,
are still rooted in the mocking of a different religion rather
than the strengthening of their own spirituality. The real
answer is to strip away all the neo-druid crap (which is just
recycled, but still synthetic, wiccan crap), all the revival
druid crap (which is just masonic crap), all of the medieval
crap (CR's this is for you - that is just Greco-Roman-Catholic
crap)...hell, I even strip away the classical period, which was
already degenerate. Go back to the oak. Be content in its
shade. Natural selection will determine whether you are worthy
of the title, which druids are worthy of being replicated in the
form of apprentices or schools, and whether those lineages
become worthy of respect.
Frankly, I find the whole subject to arise from disgusting
weakness. We want to effect changes in the broader world by the
power of the gods! but we're too timid to work alone. Today's
WildHunt is a perfect example. Here is a non-Santerian getting
upset that a Christian doesn't want to meet with a
representative of the Santerians and saying that therefore, "we"
all live in the Catholic basement. WHO CARES!? It's the pope's
prerogative to meet with whoever he likes, and either way, both
Santerians and Catholics are irrelevant to me. They don't live
in my grove, either. The problem with representatives is that
they represent you right into problems with people who have
different representatives.
Be an ambassador of the oak. Be a leader by example.
#Post#: 7--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leaders?
DIR By: Green Band Druid
Date: March 5, 2012, 1:12 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Interesting, thank you for such a detailed reply. When reading
your words I had several questions, thoughts etc pop into my
mind and I was hoping you could expand on them.
"Representation is entirely unnecessary. I am my own
representative, whether I'm in a democracy or a republic or an
empire." No you are not. To be a part of any of these things
means you have given your representation to an elected or placed
official.
"but I can find out far more about galls online in five minutes
than any druid alive could tell me, even if I could find one
that was an expert. We don't need the akashic records here...we
have the internet." words on a page offer information not
learning. collaboration leads to understanding.
"Do you really think that the modern world is going to turn
around and make these outcasts their leaders? Can you even name
a single self-professed druid who IS in that role within the
greater community? It is wayyyy too early to be thinking of
ruling others." my suggestion was that we should be voices in
society not rulers. it depends on where you live. I live in the
south west of England, and a local councillor and figure head is
a pagan.
"Furthermore, the first druids were viewed highly not because
they were part of the communities, but because they weren't.
They didn't live in the village, safe from bears and wolves.
They lived in the forest, eating acorn meal and wild honey.
They didn't write their stuff down like the rest of humanity did
(when the rest of humanity could write). They kept it in
silence." because they didn't want others to worship the words
but to learn from their teachers.
"The real answer is to strip away all the neo-druid crap (which
is just recycled, but still synthetic, wiccan crap), all the
revival druid crap (which is just masonic crap), all of the
medieval crap (CR's this is for you - that is just
Greco-Roman-Catholic crap)...hell, I even strip away the
classical period, which was already degenerate. Go back to the
oak. Be content in its shade. Natural selection will determine
whether you are worthy of the title, which druids are worthy of
being replicated in the form of apprentices or schools, and
whether those lineages become worthy of respect. " If you strip
away to the point of bare bones then why refer to yourself as a
druid. these are just labels after all and are used to identify
ones self to the community around us. If you have no reasons or
wants to do this then why claim to be a druid?
"Santerians and Catholics are irrelevant to me. They don't live
in my grove, either. The problem with representatives is that
they represent you right into problems with people who have
different representatives." When you say 'they don't live in my
grove', do you mean that you refuse to have concern over
anything that is not on your doorstep?
thanks for putting across your view!
[glow=green,2,300]GBD[/glow]
#Post#: 8--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leaders?
DIR By: Phoenix Grove
Date: March 5, 2012, 3:36 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I disagree with your restrictive view of learning. I am
perfectly able to read the words written by others when not in
their presence, to interpret their meaning (with recourse to a
dictionary if necessary), to corroborate anything in them, and
to apply them. I've learned more about my friend the oak from a
single textbook than from dozens of rituals with other people,
or from conversations and interactions with either druids or
tree planters, at least some of whom one would expect might know
something about this revered being.
If we are to be but voices, we are more effective as individuals
than as the silent many saying "ditto" under our breaths to the
"representative". Certainly this is so in a democratic nation.
I recently heard someone suggest that the difference between the
hierarchical religions and "paganism" was that pagans encourage
everyone to be a leader, capable of fulfilling all aspects of
the work. Ambassadors or leaders by any other name are quite
antithetical to this.
As for your reason why they kept it quiet, I can also offer
made-up theories about why. I would typically go with, "because
spiritual experience cannot be reduced to words." Caesar went
with training of the mind, and keeping it from commoners. You
say that they didn't want people to worship the words, and to
learn from teachers, but this mitigates your original premise
that we do not need leaders. A teacher is naught but a leader
of a class, and if it was the way to go, we would all be under
our gurus by now, when in fact, we are further disintegrating
the sources of knowledge into the 'wisdom of crowds'.
Your next point is really an entirely different issue, so I'll
address that in another thread.
No, I do not concern myself with things that do not affect me or
the grove. The oak in the grove does not attempt to influence
the oak two counties over. Why should I? I am a libertarian
because I give to every man the right and responsibility to live
according to his conscience insofar as it does not affect
others. Furthermore, when it does affect others, THEY should be
the ones to set things back in balance. I speak out here
because those who consider themselves druids need poking back to
the tree, and because I am hopeful that they will make that one
little step that could be so profitable. I speak out in other
venues because some problems (e.g. climate change) that affect
my tree are being caused at a distance the oak alone cannot
reach. Should I be concerned that the Christians don't want to
meet with the Santerians? Neither is my enemy, nor is either my
friend, as neither is in contact with my tree. To assume your
argument leads naturally to proselytism, and acorns are not
carried far from their parent, by any means.
#Post#: 10--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leaders?
DIR By: Green Band Druid
Date: March 5, 2012, 4:52 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
My view on one aspect of learning is not the restrictive stance
in this discussion. I very much enjoyed your attempt at winding
me up by referring to made up theories, especially when we are
discussing religious matters which are... made up theories.
Traditional stories point to this as being one possability, I
cannot argue that it is truth or fiction I simply mentioned that
your points had raised some thoughts.
I have to completely disagree with your definition of a teacher.
In a school setting yes, they are leaders, however teachers in
life are found not inforced. As you mentioned an apprentice
seeking you out... does that make you someone else's leader if
they seek your guidance on matters? No, it does not. It makes
you a teacher to that person, imparting your knowledge and
allowing them to do with it as they wish. A leader enforces a
matter they wish you to do.
I can see your reasons for comparing yourself to tree but you
must realise that you are not a tree. You are a monkey from that
tree. A monkey is an animal that moves and explores it's
environment to learn. A tree cannot move, that is why it is a
plant and not an animal. You limit yourself to learning and
moving on from this life and into the next steps by avoiding
experiences out there at your fingertips. Be an animal, respect
the tree...
Please do not find offence in anything I say, I am simply trying
to encourage discussion.
I will check out your new topic in the morning.
[glow=green,2,300]GBD[/glow]
#Post#: 11--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leaders?
DIR By: Phoenix Grove
Date: March 6, 2012, 1:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It simply addresses the point that physical presence is not
required for ANY kind of learning, unless one believes in an
initiatory laying on of hands. Neither is the communication, or
understanding, which rests far more in the intelligence of the
reader than in the text. Religious matters are not, however,
generally believed to be made up by the people who practice
them. A christian believes absolutely that the literal creator
of the universe had a literal son, who lived in Israel, died at
the hands of Romans, and was literally resurrected from the
dead. They did not sit down one day, look at a bunch of stories
that had resurrection themes, decide that they were all the
same, and start chanting the names of those who were in the
stories. This, however, is exactly what most of the modern
orders did. They did not start out with an epiphany or divine
revelation of any sort. That is the difference. I say, start
at the oak, and you will have that, not based on aesthetics or
politics or culture, but based on the real world that your real
body, containing your real mind, is in.
Yes, I would very damned well be the leader of an apprentice,
though in that case the proper term would be master. I would
enforce every single bit of the rule I live by. That is how
oral transmission actually happens. Each generation does not
just hear some stories and decide for themselves what is
important. That is called "Telephone" here in the states,
though I don't know if the children's game is known over there.
If they don't like it, they don't have to be there. Once an
apprentice is approved and given standing, then they can be
trusted to not mess with the essentials even as they add life to
the practice. But do I turn around and say that I want to be
the master of all druidry? Rubbish. If each would simply keep
to his own grove, and share information honestly, it would soon
become apparent what works and what doesn't.
Frankly, I've been referred to as a tree on many occasions, long
before I associated myself with them, and by people who knew me
better than you. Of course, my flesh is not part of a tree, but
my will is. Do you really think that just because you're an
animal you should ignore what the plant kingdom has to say? I
would say that that is the avoidance of experience. Those who
need to go on silly quests just to be able to sleep through the
night...by all means, go. To assume that this is the proper and
virtuous life, however, is nonsense. It flies in the face of
the existence of spirits of place. No animal on earth needs
such ceaseless motion and experience but unsatisfied man.
Inevitably, they die or realize that what was sought was always
within them. I can put my resume up there with anybody on the
basis of variety and experience, but never was any of it
necessary. Being able to stand rooted, whether to person, place
or thing, is the mark of maturity in any sphere.
But this is again going off topic. If you can present (1) any
de facto difference between an "ambassador" of practitioners of
druidry and (I guess) those who aren't druids, and the leader
that you don't want to see (under any name); and (2) can present
a way His Excellency would be chosen and continue to be a true
ambassador of every member of the community equally (for we must
assume that he will not represent one more than another), when
the community itself can't even agree on what defines a druid,
then I'll concede the point.
#Post#: 12--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leaders?
DIR By: Green Band Druid
Date: March 6, 2012, 2:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I think the point has very much dissapeared from this specific
discussion. I am in understanding of your views and opinions and
how you wish to lead your life but to deny simple scientific,
cognitive and educational fact is no way to argue a point.
Perhaps it is best we close this argument until somebody else
can add their viewpoint.
#Post#: 13--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leaders?
DIR By: Phoenix Grove
Date: March 6, 2012, 4:24 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I responded to all of your thoughts and points, and yet you
decline to offer a premise in support of your argument? Fine,
wait for others to speak for you.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page