<\/p>\n
Our discussion of <\/p>\n There are a Another would be Finally, there is <\/span>Deity incorporation is the practice that It is also one of Incorporation in Western history<\/b><\/p>\n Most people do …this duty, as I say, has been enjoined In addition, I am moved by certain divine and In the Phaedrus,<\/i> Socrates’ great speech on love was apparently made What counted for It is ironic that Why Not So Much Today?<\/b><\/p>\n I have long been The first reason But there is more When writing with I believe for Another off shoot This denial of As a kind of Relatively closed Where else but The West’s I think the rise Seeing and Feeling Energy and I was intrigued From years of In the Brazilian In a Wiccan Incorporation and Spiritual As a person for In addition, I am Openness to There is no The spirit Experiencing It for Yourself<\/b><\/p>\n If I had to I will repeat my Many years ago, The As the ritual The leaders As I stood My feet started I continued to Probably most If a group Once this It is all very <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Our discussion of Pagan atheism prompted me to write something on Paganism’s theistic side. Speaking for myself, no argument convinced me to follow a Pagan path, it was concrete experiences that did: encounters with a Pagan deity. Not surprisingly, if Spirit is immanent, existing within the world, it is more accessible than a purely transcendent…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":9,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[105,108],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-630","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-pagan-spirituality","category-spirituality"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nPagan atheism prompted me to write something on Paganism’s theistic side. <\/span>Speaking for myself, no argument
\nconvinced me to follow a Pagan path, it was concrete experiences that did:
\nencounters with a Pagan deity. <\/span>Not
\nsurprisingly, if Spirit is immanent, existing within the world, it is more
\naccessible than a purely transcendent entity. It seems to be accessible in a
\nnumber of ways, from the pantheistic perception that includes some calling themselves
\natheists to direct encounters in many different forms and under a wide variety
\nof circumstances, from complete sobriety to employing entheogens. This does not
\nmean that every spirit or force encountered is divine, but some are. <\/span>I hope others who have had encounters
\nwill share them in the discussion I hope this post provokes.<\/p>\n
\n<\/p>\n
\nvariety of dimensions to Pagan theism.
\n<\/span>Some I have experienced personally, others not. My initiatory deity
\nexperience involved encountering a deity experienced as on the outside. <\/span>This happened at the first Midsummer I
\never attended, and is why I am a Pagan today. <\/span>I wrote about it in Pagans and Christians<\/a> <\/span>(shameless plug). Another kind of event would be visitations
\nin dreams. <\/span>With one exception,
\nwhich I would not consider a deity <\/i>event,
\nI have not had those experiences – not that I remember anyway. Perhaps someone
\nelse can describe such a dream that happened to them. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nactually seeing an entity or deity.
\n<\/span>I have seen entities but so far as I know, no deities. <\/span>Again, perhaps a reader can describe
\nsuch an event. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nwhen a deity or other entity enters into our bodies and provides information or
\nactions that would not otherwise have happened. Exploring this latter is the
\npurpose of the remainder of this post.<\/p>\n
\nmore than any other separates Gardnerian Wicca and similar Pagan traditions
\nfrom the West’s traditional idea of spirituality and religion. In Wicca we call
\nthis experience Drawing Down the Moon when the Goddess or some aspect of Her,
\nenters into the high priestess, or Drawing Down the Sun when the God or an
\naspect of Him, enters into the high priest. <\/span>Again, this is not the only kind of encounter with spirits
\nand deities that Wiccans can have, but it is a profoundly meaningful one. <\/span>This kind of experience is hardly
\nunique to Wicca.<\/p>\n
\nthe greatest experiences within many other Pagan practices world-wide, where
\nyour body is entered into or even temporarily “borrowed” by another
\nentity. <\/span>This usually occurs within
\nritual space or when explicitly invited.
\n<\/span>In contrast to possessory or other invasive phenomena, the beings leave
\nwhen requested, or earlier, if they have finished what they came to do.<\/p>\n
\nnot know how important a role this kind of communication from the spirit world
\nhas played in our history. <\/span>To give
\none example, Socrates began his civilization-changing mission in response to a
\nmessage from the Delphic Oracle, given to him by a Priestess in trance. <\/span>Her message was followed by other more
\ndirect communications to Socrates himself from the Gods and other spiritual
\nsources. <\/span>As he described it<\/a> <\/span><\/p>\n
\nme by the deity, by oracles, by dreams, and by every mode by which any other
\ndivine decree has ever enjoined anything to man to do.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nSocrates testified he had a daimon<\/a><\/i> that would warn him when he would begin to make a serious mistake. In the <\/a><\/span>Apology<\/a><\/i> he said<\/span><\/p>\n
\nspiritual influence . . . This began with me from childhood, being a kind of
\nvoice which, when present, always diverts me from what I am about to do, but
\nnever urges me on. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nwhile in a state of incorporation.
\n<\/span>As is obvious from Plato’s descriptions, these kinds of events were not
\nconsidered particularly unusual in Greece at the time. <\/span>Certainly those with him when these
\nthings happened were not amazed at the events. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n
\nmost Greeks was the quality of the spirit involved, not whether or not it was
\nreal. <\/span>Just because an entity spoke
\nthrough a human intermediary did not mean it was wise or helpful. <\/span>So far a I know, this has been the case
\nin all traditions that make use of this practice.<\/p>\n
\nPlato and Socrates, the two men most responsible for the Western philosophical
\ntradition, took spirit incorporation as a fact of life. <\/span>As I myself have come to do. The broad
\nphilosophical traditions these men initiated now universally <\/span>deny the reality of such phenomena, and
\nmostly ignore its reported role in their own origins. They also ignore its
\nappearance world wide, for thousands of years, probably since the dawn of
\nhumanity, if not before. <\/span><\/p>\n
\ncurious as to why some people experience spirit incorporation relatively
\neasily, and others do not. <\/span>I have
\nconcluded that Western culture is probably the most closed to such experiences
\nof any major culture, worldwide.
\n<\/span>Why?<\/p>\n
\nis pretty certainly our Christian heritage. <\/span>In its various forms the church has universally denounced
\nspirit communication as the deceitful work of demons. <\/span>Nothing should be an authority except for scripture properly
\ninterpreted, and a church hierarch.
\n<\/span>No one should ever depend on his or her own insight, with or without
\nspirit help, even if the spiritual source appears orthodox. <\/span>The somewhat similar practices of Pentacostalists
\nand charismatics have been controversial and distrusted within most
\ninstitutionalized churches although, interestingly, their numbers have recently
\ngrown substantially across denominations.
\n<\/span>But except for charismatics and Pentacostals, and then mostly in
\nChristian services, many people are terrified of experiences such as Socrates
\nand other Greeks had. <\/span>Fear create
\na barrier.<\/p>\n
\nto the matter than this, and these other reasons may explain its not being more
\ncommon among NeoPagans. <\/span>The West
\nhas long identified itself as universally individualistic. <\/span>Protestant Christianity is usually
\ncredited with strengthening this individualism with its emphasis on the sole
\nimportance of the individual’s relationship to God. <\/span>At its extremes other people were seen as potential
\nimpediments to this primary focus. Western individualism seems unique in so
\noften denying connection with others as essential part of what it is to be a
\nhuman being. <\/span>This attitude colors
\nmuch more than our approach to the Sacred.<\/p>\n
\nmy political scientist’s hat on, I have argued one place where this sense of
\nthe isolated individual manifests very destructively is in our conception of
\nownership. <\/span>The West usually
\nconceives the relation of ownership as despotic power over a thing: I can do
\nanything I want with what is mine. The conception of freedom that shakes out is
\nof a gaggle of despots each of whom completely respects one another’s realm of
\nabsolute domination. Such a perspective has a hard time seeing any inequality
\nof power between workers and bosses or consumers and corporations. <\/span>All despots are equal within their own
\nrealm and so long as realms are respected, the relative size of their domains
\nis irrelevant. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nreasons both historical and logical that a more accurate view of the matter is
\nthat property rights are the rights to enter into certain relationships with
\nwhat is owned and with others.
\n<\/span>What is central for my discussion here is the distinction between a
\ndespot’s concern with secure boundaries compared to the sense of permeable
\nboundaries when ownership arises out of relationships. <\/span>Such ownership facilitates connection.<\/p>\n
\nof Western individualism relevant to this post is its view of knowledge. The
\nscientific ideal of knowledge fits this individual as isolated and autonomous
\nbeing image. <\/span>Reality is what we
\ncan measure, experiment upon, and predict. <\/span>To the degree we can so manipulate it, reality is at least
\npotentially under our control. I as a sovereign individual am surrounded by a
\nworld of things, of objects, which I and similarly sovereign individuals
\nappropriate and exchange.
\n<\/span>Expanding knowledge increases human power.<\/p>\n
\nrelationship, and therefore of intrinsic value in another, is why scientific
\nmethods are controversial when applied to human beings. <\/span>It is all too easy to step from saying
\nthis is a good way of finding some knowledge out about people to saying this is
\nthe best way to find knowledge as such out about people.<\/p>\n
\ncorollary, subjective knowledge, such as we have of the character of our
\nfriends and loved ones, is devalued.
\n<\/span>It is personally important, but not “really” real because it cannot be
\ndemonstrated objectively. <\/span>To the
\ndegree we buy in to this model, our sense of personal isolation increases. <\/span>Our dominant conception of knowledge is
\na poor approach to connecting with what can only be understood within a
\nrelationship. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nboundaries for the self not only close us off to other people, they also close us off to more subtle energies in our environment. <\/span>Western individualism is an extreme expression of this attitude,
\nand on balance American society is an extreme expression of Western
\nindividualism. <\/span>In what other
\ncountry is such a disturbed view of human relations as expressed by Ayn Rand<\/a>
\ntaken as an ideal by many adults? <\/span> <\/span>Remember Rand’s supporters in earlier comments on this blog
\nwho argued it was fine to despoil the Indians because they were not “using”
\ntheir land in the way Randians found appropriate? (See my discussion with her
\ndevotees, starting with my 1:16 comment<\/a>. ) l<\/a> <\/span> <\/span>They did so while praising voluntary cooperation among
\n‘rational’ people, without any awareness of the gaping <\/span>and quite irrational hole in their
\nreasoning. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nAmerica is a serious argument made that empathy is a disqualifying capacity <\/a>for
\nbeing a judge? <\/span> <\/span>Clinically, a person without empathy is regarded as a
\nmentally defective<\/a> human being. <\/span>But then, this is a society where a
\ncorporation, the very incarnation of sociopathy, is regarded as a person in the
\neyes of the law. There is something deeply disturbed about American
\n‘individualism’ when empathy is derided and a corporation is called a person
\nand given more access to political decision making than a human being.<\/p>\n
\nrelative closedness to the outside except when it is in control, and therefore
\nclosedness to this kind of spiritual encounter, is not simply “being modern.”
\nOther modern societies manage quite well without this attitude. <\/span>Modern Korea<\/a> <\/span>and Taiwan have strong traditions of
\nmediumship and shamanism, and family mediumship traditions are rapidly
\nreappearing<\/a> in modern China. <\/p>\n
\nof possessory\/incorporative traditions in the modern West, and perhaps the
\ngrowth of charismatics within Christianity, is a sign of deeply profound
\ncultural changes taking place. The feminizing of our culture, so long overdue,
\nis making the openness required for these kinds of experiences more acceptable,
\nfirst among women for whom openness is initially more acceptable, and then
\namong men. But our individualistic concern with impregnable boundaries remains
\na barrier to contact.<\/p>\n
\nBoundaries<\/b><\/p>\n
\nthat when I wrote my blog posts on how to see<\/a> <\/span>and feel<\/a> <\/span> <\/span>energy fields I received no comments at all. <\/span>None. <\/span>Not positive.
\n<\/span>Not negative. <\/span>Perhaps it
\nwas because most of my readers already knew this. <\/span>Perhaps many people did not want to see for themselves
\nwhether or not our boundaries interpenetrate with those of others, comprising a
\nfield rather than a collection of independent objects. Perhaps some readers
\nwent off to try these suggestions, and never reported whether they worked or
\nnot. Perhaps there were other reasons.
\n<\/span>I do not know. <\/span>But I do
\nknow that when you can see and feel the continual interpenetration of our
\nselves with the rest of the world, the West’s extreme individualism is
\nobviously<\/i> a mental error and a perceptual
\nshortcoming.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nexperience casting circles and working with energy I know a strong sense of
\nself-containment puts up barriers that screen out harmful and beneficial forces
\nalike. <\/span>Is it a better or worse way
\nto live than not doing so? There are times when shields are a good idea, and times
\nwhen their costs outweigh their benefits. But on balance, if we deliberately
\nclose ourselves off from connection with the world, we are usually the poorer
\nfor it. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nhealing group of which I was a member for six years (and in groups I have
\noccasionally conducted independently for nearly 20 more) many members had to
\nparticipate for years before the stronger incorporative experiences happened to
\nthem. <\/span>And they were hardly a
\nrandom group. <\/span>Other participants
\nentered into these relationships very quickly. <\/span>There were many degrees of trance attained, from a slight
\nalternation of perspective not altogether different experientially from being
\nstoned, to full blown incorporation, where the person was either taken over
\nbriefly by the entity or allowed the entity in to do things the person could
\nnot do. (Some scholars argue the distinction between mediumship and shamanism
\nis precisely this degree of control, with the shaman actively involved, the
\nmedium more passive.)<\/p>\n
\ncontext Drawing Down the Moon or the Sun also varies in intensity, but I
\nbelieve normally grows in ease of access and power of connection with
\nexperience. <\/span>Such has been my
\nexperience, anyway. But NeoPagan traditions are new at developing practices
\nthat largely died out in the West millennia ago. <\/span>Many have learned and benefited from experience with African
\ndiasporic traditions they have attended.<\/p>\n
\nwisdom<\/b><\/p>\n
\nwhom this kind of encounter came relatively easily, I once wondered whether it
\nwas evidence of “spiritual maturity” or “accomplishment.” <\/span>I no longer think it is anything of the
\nkind. Some spiritually aware and committed people enter into these
\nrelationships relatively easily, others do not. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nnot convinced that being “spiritually advanced” is even necessary for entering
\ninto such a relationship.
\n<\/span>Certainly when it first happened to me, and many times thereafter, I
\nwould not have called myself “spiritually advanced.” <\/span>Though I believe (and certainly hope) I’ve made some
\nprogress since then, I still would not use that term today. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nspirit incorporation is a talent that like other talents seems unevenly
\ndistributed across our species. Some people have this capacity to a far greater
\ndegree than I do, and some have it less. <\/span>It can be valuable in some spiritual traditions and
\nvery disruptive in others, but it is particularly useful in spiritual
\ntraditions emphasizing sacred immanence: that Spirit is everywhere.
\nImportantly, it is an ability that can be developed <\/span><\/p>\n
\ncertain formula. <\/span>These experiences
\ndo not appear to be brought on by a particular musical rhythm or external
\nenvironment that triggers changes in brain states, although ritual space seems
\nmore conducive to incorporation than mundane space. <\/span>To be sure, in some African diasporic traditions particular
\nrhythms played within particular ritual spaces do seem connected to particular
\nentities. <\/span>Even so, incorporation
\nand trance can also happen quite unexpectedly and far from ritual or music. <\/span>On the other hand, the same rhythm or
\nritual or frame of mind or mental state can have no impact at all, with
\nincorporation not happening.
\n<\/span>Friends of mine describe an experience when visiting Brazil, where one of
\nthe leaders of a temple there had always wanted to experience incorporation,
\nand never had. <\/span>They were
\nthere when, after years of work and service, she finally experienced her first
\n“close encounter of the fourth kind.”
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\nchooses to come or not, for whatever reason. <\/span>Even those for whom these experiences are common report
\ntheir intensity can vary dramatically.
\n<\/span>There are no guarantees.<\/p>\n
\nadvance a tentative overview of these issues for someone seeking such an
\nencounter, I would make the following suggestions. <\/span>First, the degree to which someone is open to other peoples’
\nfeelings is probably usually correlated with their capacity to enter into these
\nrelationships. <\/span>Second, the more
\nexposure someone has within contexts where these things happen, the greater
\ntheir likelihood of entering into such a relationship. <\/span>Go to rituals and celebrations where
\nthe Gods and spirits are invoked, and come. <\/span>Repeatedly expose yourself to those ‘energy fields.’ <\/span><\/p>\n
\ndescription of my first such experience in a passage I wrote Joshua in an
\nearlier discussion. <\/p>\n
\nin the 1980s, I was invited to a Brazilian style Umbanda drumming
\nceremony. <\/span>Never having been to one
\nand knowing almost nothing about it, I sat on a chair in the back of the room. <\/span>I was dressed in white because all who
\ncame were asked to do so.<\/p>\n
\nleader\/shaman began the ceremony and went into trance with a “caboclo” spirit –
\na kind of South American Indian spirit.
\n<\/span><\/p>\n
\ncontinued I noticed some twitching in my body. <\/span>I tried to sit still, so as not to be disruptive to those
\naround me, but it was getting difficult.
\n<\/span>The twitching was getting stronger, though I was still sitting in my
\nchair.<\/p>\n
\nnoticed me, signaled to stop the drumming, and wordlessly motioned for me to
\ncome forward. <\/span>I did so, fully
\nexpecting to be expelled from the ceremony for being disruptive. <\/span>My ignorance of this sort of thing was
\nabout 100%.<\/p>\n
\nbefore him, the center of very unwanted attention, he touched me briefly in the
\nforehead and base of the skull (or the other way around) and signaled for the
\ndrumming to resume. <\/span><\/p>\n
\nto dance, and I was not doing it.
\n<\/span>No one else had entered into this kind of trance at the ritual, nor had
\nI ever seen this kind of thing. <\/span>I
\nhad read about it, and decided that the entranced people were either faking it,
\nor simply carried away by their enthusiasm. <\/span>Now it was happening to me. <\/span>I remember thinking something like “My god, this is real!”<\/p>\n
\ndance\/be danced alone in front of a bunch of strangers for quite some time.
\n(Anyone who knows me knows this is unheard of behavior on my part, before or
\nsince, unless I am being “ridden” as the term goes.) <\/span>In time a few others entered into trance and did the same. <\/span>At a certain point the leader signaled,
\nthe drumming shifted, the spirits were asked to depart, and my feet stopped
\ndancing.<\/p>\n
\nimportantly, incorporation is a two way street, and the entities involved, from
\nspirits to what I call “high beings” or deities have their own agendas. <\/span>Their agenda may or may not involve
\nworking with you, and even if it does it may or may not involve doing a lot of
\nsuch work. <\/span>I would guess that the
\nmore fervently a person seeks to go into trance the more ego and power motives
\nare involved, and all else being the same, the more that ego and power, the ‘I
\nwant!’ is involved, the less likely incorporation will happen. <\/span>So when putting yourself in contexts
\nwhere this kind of thing might happen patience, humility and good sense are
\nalways wise ideas. <\/span>Invite, be
\navailable, and don’t demand at any level.
\n<\/span>(Notice – when we demand we separate ourselves out from that which we
\ndesire we create or strengthen boundaries. And we have a sense of our own
\npower, which I think is a mistake in these contexts.) <\/span><\/p>\n
\npractices entity incorporation, and you are not impressed with their openness
\nof heart and personal and group integrity, don’t go there<\/i>. <\/span>Just
\nas with dealing with people, not all ritual trance and other contact is
\nbeneficial. <\/span>Just because an entity
\nclaims to be wise does not mean it is.
\n<\/span>In the <\/span>Phaedrus <\/i>Socrates
\nmakes just such distinctions. <\/span>Like
\npeople, entities can initially be evaluated by the kind of company they
\nkeep. <\/span>It’s a good first step,
\nespecially for wise beginners, to “run with a good crowd.”<\/span><\/p>\n
\nexperience happens, the more you do it the easier it gets. <\/span>It is as if we get ‘tuned.’ <\/span>But developing this capacity is not
\nsomething to take lightly. <\/span>Even
\nafter initial connection, it can take years before the person has a smooth meld
\nwith the spirit energies. <\/span>In the
\nAfrican diasporic traditions these experiences come with sometimes substantial responsibilities.
\nWicca is less demanding, but the experiences are usually<\/i> less powerful.
\n<\/span>I am not sure of all the reasons for this, but the relatively lighter
\ncommitment by the practitioner is likely a part of it. <\/span>This makes sense if we are seeking a
\nrelationship, rather than responding to some physiological or psychological
\ncue.<\/span><\/p>\n
\nconfusing if we try and put these kinds of experiences into logical boxes
\ngiving us a means of rational control or reduce them to some kind of
\nreductionist scientific analysis.
\n<\/span>Committed aggressive atheists deal with these phenomena most often by
\nnot discussing them. <\/span>When pushed
\nthey will say somehow those who have such experiences are either faking or are
\nmentally unsound, unlike themselves.
\n<\/span>On the other hand, this kind of experience is not so confusing if we
\ngrant that there is will, care, intelligence, and even love and compassion on
\nboth sides of the veil.<\/p>\n