| |
|
"Less than noble" purposes emerge from the individuals interaction with their chosen path, plus any number of other factors. As does direct contact with the Source and the meaning of that contact. Each Path carries that potential. The individual develops/utilizes that potential.
I would agree with this only partially. True, the variance of the individual produces radically different outcomes in the pursuit of any "path", still, that does not exclude the general influence of the system's symbology. The deity structure and general precepts of ant system are bound to influence the behavior of it's adherents, and their view of the cosmos. Christianity, for example, posits a god who is all-correct, who is pitted against a god,(yes, I know that Christians would argue that Satan is not a god, but if it looks like a god, walks like a god, and has super-natural powers like a god, it's probably a god), who represents absolute evil. Another precept of Christianity is that all other gods are false. The logic is inescapable here. If all other gods are false,i,e, illusion, and there is only God and Satan, then persons who worship other gods musty be actually worshiping Satan. Since Satan is supposedly all-evil, then he persons worshiping him must be affected by this. This particular viewpoint has had the effect of making it hard for Christianity to play well with others. This has been born out in their history, and although they are now heavily restricted through law, I would ask anyone here if they would desire a theocracy based upon that religion.
It's easy however, to pick on Christianity, particularly in an occult forum. It's obvious, however, that various magickal systems also influence the GENERAL behavior of their participants. I've spent a fair amount of time in the magickal community, and I find that systems do indeed influence their practitioners. Shamanism in the traditional sense, for example, has a strong warrior aspect. Many of these practitioners spend a lot of time retrieving soul fragments lost through attack, as well as battling various astral nasties on the part of their clients. My experience with them is that this frequently gives them a strong good versus evil paradigm, and this directly influnces their behavior and choices. Not all shamans have these characteristics, nor do all shamans act upon that structure. Still, the nature of what they do gives them a "tendency" to it, and their practice gives them a "feel" that is different from say, Wiccan practitioners. I'm not making a moral judgment on this, just observing the behavior. A traditional shaman will be willing to take actions different than a Wiccan, due to the belief structures. A traditional shaman does not observe the Rede, and does not believe in a three-fold law. Where a Wiccan may feel restricted to practicing a binding in response to an individual percived as undesirable, a shaman may have no problem with throwing an astral dart, a more destructive magickal technique. Not only that, the precepts of their religion influence who is percieved as undesirable. Their responses are directly influenced by the belief systems of their path.
It's been my experience that systems with strong paradigms of morality tend to make their practitioners more likely to judge others based on that morality, and it is undeniable that moral judgment is a powerful motivator. Systems with moral flexibility, by contrast, seem to produce a practitioner that will make judgments more based upon individual behavior than based upon adherence to a philosophy. It's one of the reasons, (I figure), that I've been moving toward moral relativism for some time. Obviously, all of the systems mentioned above are capable of taking one to "source", but I would argue that it is not the belief systems that do this, but the techniques that are practiced in them. Christianity has "prayer". Shamanism has shamanic trance generation, Wicca has ritual. These are things that are "done", not believed. It is the doing that leads one to source, but the belief will mold a particular type of individual. Even when witnessing the "mystery", we are, after all, unique. |
|
|
