BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Temple >

Buffy as modern Mythology?

  
  

Page: 1234(5)678910... 11

 
 
Ticker
13:49 / 30.01.09
Trouser:


But, I wonder, what do you think would happen if you - armed with the insights and understandings you now have - went back (as it were) to those mainstream pagan Deities, and rekindled your relationship with them? Would anything change? I'm posing a hypothetical question here - I realise that you in all likelyhood wouldn't want to - but what's your thoughts on this? And how do you view that earlier phase of your practice as opposed to what you do now?


is linked for me to this:

Each goddess can be approached as "seperate" to Lalita, and yet remains Lalita ultimately. Each Goddess may reveal Her own yantra, her own mystery - on and on in a potentially endless fractal-like recursiveness.

The last few years of work with my Deities I followed Them upstream and downstream, that's the only way I can describe it. Upstream finds Them with a multiplicity of names like individual creeks, streams, and overflowing vernal ponds. Each place is unique and with its own Personality and characteristics. But going downstream these separate waters mingle and I've watched trickles run into streams that run into rivers. I've experienced how the water is the same but changed as it moves from the one to the other and back again. Living on a tidal river in a water rich semi rural area I've found it's not futile to try and come to know a body of water but to realize what the cycle connects. There are similarities between types of bodies of water but on a more profound level all of the water is moving through the entire system globally.


Originally way back in high school (there's an embarrassing vhs tape to prove this) I tried the Goddess/God all-is-one model but didn't resonate with me. The individual Deities perceived as masks of the One (or Two if you like) didn't foster the relationship I ultimately wanted. I needed the personal interaction and the close comfort of the small place of understanding and I love my Genus Loci. I think I could go back to those other Deities now and see Them as both individual Persons and parts of the whole but it's not on an intellectual level but a deeper sense of grokking. I might never get to be an oceanographer but that's fine as I'm having a deeply fulfilling time where I'm at. It is teaching me about the totality one drop at a time.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
13:51 / 30.01.09
Just to make sure I grok your meaning: you suggest that one may contact a fictional character as an aspect of a divinity (which may seem more approachable to us) because the divinity itself may wish to reveal that aspect to you at that particular moment and that it's for the best that one should just go along with it?

I can buy that.

I don't know if I can buy into the fictional-character-as-divinity, but I have less issues with, say, Buffy being an immediatly approachable aspect of a divinity...

Would you think that this could be akin to working with Christian saints instead of approaching Christ directly, almost like an interface?
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
13:57 / 30.01.09
I was more caught up in doing stuff than in theorising it. It wasn't really, until I began to dig deeper into tantra - in other words, to go beyond the ritual manuals and seek to understand (and thereby incorporate into my practice) the theology underpinning that practice (which I'd hitherto avoided) as found in the works of the mighty Abhinavagupta that my practice shifted into high gear. In retrospect, I'd say I narrowed my focus in order to achieve a degree of intensity - but now, the seeming contradictions have collapsed, and I'm beginning to see the wider picture (again) and its implications for me.

If I may, again for my better understanding, your statement kind of reminded me of a Bruce Lee quote:

"Before I studied the art, a punch to me was just like a punch, a kick just like a kick. After I learned the art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick no longer a kick. Now that I've understood the art, a punch is just like a punch, a kick just like a kick."

Would you say that this quote could sum up or at least paraphrase how your practice became study became practice?
 
 
trouser the trouserian
15:01 / 30.01.09
freek

Just to make sure I grok your meaning: you suggest that one may contact a fictional character as an aspect of a divinity (which may seem more approachable to us) because the divinity itself may wish to reveal that aspect to you at that particular moment and that it's for the best that one should just go along with it?

Not quite. What I was trying to say was that - living out of the premise that everything is divine (and real) - and in seeking to remember that through the all different ways that I relate to other parts of the world (i.e. relating to people, trees, computers, whatever in fact, is in my immediate experiential field) then I do not compartmentalise one form of interchange from another - because to do so is to lessen my opportunities for joy and wonder - through which I experience the immediate presence of Lalita. Let me try and put it another way. I'm placing this post on Barbelith, the very act of which for me is joyful (actually, that doesn't even begin to describe my feelings at the moment) and in that joy, I feel the presence of Lalita - very close now. But hang on, you might say, you're only posting on an internet forum, that can't be considered an act of devotion, can it? Right now, I say it is. If I can find this wonder in a flower, a tree, a shared moment with a stranger on a train, I can find by it watching a telly program or talking with one of my many cuddly toys. If, in one moment, something unexpected emerges, I can of course take that emergence along with me. So if, as might happen, I am greeted by a tree on my way to work one morning, I may return to that tree, sensing the beginning of a relationship. The tree is part of the whole, yet is itself. Vive la difference! So, to try and recap. If I encounter something which wants to relate to me in some way, I may well pursue that relationship, not quite knowing where it may lead in the way it presented itself. What I am saying is that if something offers me the opportunity to do this, I don't care whether its a human being, a character in a book, or a deity.

it's for the best that one should just go along with it

For the best doesn't really come into it for me. It's what feels right to me at any one particular moment.
 
 
trouser the trouserian
15:34 / 30.01.09
freek

re: Bruce Lee quote. There's an element of that, certainly. And it could be read as a neat exposition of the core of pratyabhijna . The problem though, is that it's one thing to accept it as a statement on an intellectual level, but quite another to grasp it and live by it until it becomes as self-evident as the recognition that you are alive.

However, for me, theory and practice are not seperate from each other - they feed into each other - there's a reflective interdependency between the two. So, when I used to just practice without having any sense of a formal theory, it wasn't as if I was operating from some kind of pre-discursive core, but that I'd picked up a lot of stuff but was not concerned with "thinking it through" as it were, beyond a certain degree. In fact, I was to a large extent, incapable of doing so because I had not developed the kind of ontological toolset which would have enabled me to do so - and, at that point, it wasn't really an issue for me the way it might be now. I did question a lot of stuff, but not as far I might have done.

And in all fairness to myself, if I had read something like Abhinava's Tantraloka, I probably wouldn't have understood most of it because I didn't have the grounding in the practice to follow the connections and leaps that Abhinava makes. I wouldn't say that I did wholly now, mind, but there's a growing sense of what he saying.
 
 
darth daddy
22:52 / 31.01.09
For me, the freedom of chaos magick theory and practice is that Buffy worship is no different from Vajra worship or even Jesus worship. All are myths that either work or don't work in your current path. From my buddhist perspective all gods have similar ontologies to my own, ie voidness/existence....

Without trying to offend, the fun of chaos is the randomness of all such beliefs, and that you get to make a choice. I know many believe that "My God/Tradition is real because my Pope says its so" or "because I took a boatload of drugs and Papa Gheude kicked my ass".
Having been on the path of Kaśmir Śaivism, the fixed ontological reality is simply fucked. Ie: If buffy gets you off, go for it.
 
 
alex supertramp
00:45 / 01.02.09
"because I took a boatload of drugs and Papa Gheude kicked my ass"

heh.
 
 
alex supertramp
18:29 / 04.02.09
"For me, the freedom of chaos magick theory and practice is that Buffy worship is no different from Vajra worship or even Jesus worship. All are myths that either work or don't work in your current path. From my buddhist perspective all gods have similar ontologies to my own, ie voidness/existence....

Without trying to offend, the fun of chaos is the randomness of all such beliefs, and that you get to make a choice. I know many believe that "My God/Tradition is real because my Pope says its so" or "because I took a boatload of drugs and Papa Gheude kicked my ass".
Having been on the path of Kaśmir Śaivism, the fixed ontological reality is simply fucked. Ie: If buffy gets you off, go for it."

I think this post made all the annoyance of this thread worthwhile for me.

No comments, anyone?
 
 
Closed for Business Time
10:49 / 05.02.09
Apart from it being a load of self-contradictory codswallop?
 
 
alex supertramp
17:32 / 05.02.09
Care to comment on why you think its contradictory, instead of just snarking? I mean I'm all for snark, don't get me wrong.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
18:08 / 05.02.09
I think this post made all the annoyance of this thread worthwhile for me.

Maybe you should unpack and post why Darth Daddy's quote made the thread worthwhile for you first instead of fishing for comments.

Otherwise obvious troll is obvious.
 
 
alex supertramp
19:13 / 05.02.09
It made it worthwhile because I agree completely with the points he's making, and I thought the comment about Ghuede was funny.
 
 
alex supertramp
19:35 / 05.02.09
Not only that, but the other comments before this one have been great too, little disappointed they didn't keep coming.
 
 
ghadis
19:47 / 05.02.09
It made it worthwhile because I agree completely with the points he's making

I would say that that may be the opposite of worthwhile to be honest but i get your point. Affirmation of ones ideas can be a good thing but if thats the only thing you find worthwhile in a discussion then you might as well record yourself chatting away in the bath and play yourself back through headphones during the day. If you tried that ritual every day for one year then at the end i guarantee you will be King Of The World and even Yoda will kneel at your feet.
 
 
ghadis
19:50 / 05.02.09
Ah, missed your second comment. So you did find more of worth in the thread.
 
 
alex supertramp
21:03 / 05.02.09
"if thats the only thing you find worthwhile in a discussion then you might as well record yourself chatting away in the bath and play yourself back through headphones during the day"

Just when I thought there was no way someone could say something more amusing to me than "because I took a boatload of drugs and Papa Gheude kicked my ass", you make my day. Thank you sir. You are a gentleman and a scholar.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
21:53 / 05.02.09
I want to get back to this one, but I'm awfully busy at the moment, and it's rather out of step with the whole leaving Barbelith project, so will see what I can do. Probably not for a while, alas.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
07:17 / 06.02.09
"From my buddhist perspective all gods have similar ontologies to my own, ie voidness/existence....

Without trying to offend, the fun of chaos is the randomness of all such beliefs, and that you get to make a choice."

Seems like a self-contradiction to me.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
07:20 / 06.02.09
Sorry for the double-post. But.

The problem with choose-yer-own-pick'n-mix chaos paradigms, as I see it, is the same as with hardcore relativism: You end up sawing off the branch you're perching on. Which leads straight into nihilism, which again just cries out for absolute apathy and/or suicide. I mean, if there's no point, what's the point, eh?
 
 
darth daddy
15:25 / 06.02.09
Why does being free from dogma (faith?) lead necessarily to suicide and despair? I know the French existentialists, ie: Sartre, saw freedom as a kind of horror. But, of course, fuck the french. I do agree that a doctrinaire atheism does seem kind of miserable. However, as a monotheist one can accept that there is one god, but that god manifests in innumerable aspects. See the Trinity. It is but a small step from there to play in the pantheon of the Hindu Gods, Tantric Gods, or whatever else you see as a manifestation of God. When a tradition stops being relevatory, go to another tradition, or, invent your own. Religion is ever evolving, and acceptance of this evolution is not life denying, but life affirming.
 
 
alex supertramp
15:45 / 06.02.09
Right on brotherman.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
15:59 / 06.02.09
Why does being free from dogma (faith?) lead necessarily to suicide and despair?

I said no such thing, darth. I'll get back to you later, now I'm off to meet my cousin, drink beer and have some dinner.
 
 
alex supertramp
16:16 / 06.02.09
"The problem with choose-yer-own-pick'n-mix chaos paradigms, as I see it, is the same as with hardcore relativism: You end up sawing off the branch you're perching on. Which leads straight into nihilism, which again just cries out for absolute apathy and/or suicide."

I see being free from dogma as "choose-yer-own-pick'n-mix", instead of strictly adhering to one set of beliefs, believing that set is the one true set, more "real" or "valid". I don't think age or amount of followers over the generations denotes any more validity.

"Why does being free from dogma (faith?) lead necessarily to suicide and despair?"

Dogma and faith are kind of two separate things, but w/e. It doesn't necessarily lead to suicide and despair, that's what I think darth daddy was arguing. Closing time, YOU were saying that "being free from dogma" or "choose-yer-own-pick'n-mix" leads to suicide.
 
 
Eek! A Freek!
16:24 / 06.02.09
I know the French existentialists, ie: Sartre, saw freedom as a kind of horror. But, of course, fuck the french.

Such a winning arguement... If it's a joke, say it's a joke. If it's not, you're an idiot.

However, as a monotheist one can accept that there is one god, but that god manifests in innumerable aspects. See the Trinity. It is but a small step from there to play in the pantheon of the Hindu Gods, Tantric Gods, or whatever else you see as a manifestation of God. When a tradition stops being relevatory, go to another tradition, or, invent your own.

So in your mind being Christian is one small step from being Hindu? This, of course, must be an observation not based on experience, but one formed from looking in from the outside, am I right? I think that this can only be from the perspective as a detached observer. It's also contradictory: claiming monotheism and saying that all gods are one god so one is free to pick and choose what they want from any given tradition while ignoring what they don't like is insulting to the monotheists. Claiming that Jesus=Yahweh=Allah=Shiva=Bear=Odin=Lucifer=Ra=Legba is also insulting to the pantheists who take their beliefs seriously. Having respect for other peoples choices in their respective faiths is not the same as saying, "It's all the same shit, take what you need and fuck the rest."

Are you saying that any given tradition eventually will stop being relevatory? In the context of this thread's subject, will Buffy offer revelation that won't be found elsewhere?
 
 
alex supertramp
16:34 / 06.02.09
"If it's a joke, say it's a joke."

If you seriously say "I'm just joking", every time you tell a joke, then you're lame.

(I'm just joking.)

About the Buffy thing, I've wanted to start a new thread for a while more along the lines of "Pop Culture Entities VS. Traditional Entities". Maybe not the best title, any ideas?
 
 
My Mom Thinks I'm Cool
16:38 / 06.02.09
I don't think age or amount of followers over the generations denotes any more validity.

I don't think you've understood any of the discussion on these five pages if you still think that's what people are saying.

your return to this thread seemed a lot like coming back to poke a peaceful beehive with a stick. considering how much complaining you put on earlier, it seems a bit trolly.
 
 
alex supertramp
17:27 / 06.02.09
"I don't think you've understood any of the discussion on these five pages if you still think that's what people are saying.

your return to this thread seemed a lot like coming back to poke a peaceful beehive with a stick. considering how much complaining you put on earlier, it seems a bit trolly."

You must see how, from my perspective, it looks a lot more like you're poking me with a stick. Seeing as how you're saying I didn't understand any of these five pages. My comment wasn't really in reference to the last five pages, I was just saying my opinion. Anyways, I'm just peaceably commenting, not "poking a peaceful beehive with a stick". Your attempts to get a rise out of me will only make me laugh a bit harder than I already am.
 
 
Tuna Ghost: Pratt knot hero
18:56 / 06.02.09
My comment wasn't really in reference to the last five pages, I was just saying my opinion....

Really.

I don't think age or amount of followers over the generations denotes any more validity.

What was this in reference to, then?

Look, I'm sure you're pleased that someone has reaffirmed your ideas. But one of the reasons why the comments slowed was because no one wanted to have the same five page discussion all over again, especially since no one has offered any real arguments to move the discussion forward.

You must see how, from my perspective, it looks a lot more like you're poking me with a stick. Seeing as how you're saying I didn't understand any of these five pages.

Again, criticism is not an attack. No one wants to get a rise out of you. I doubt that would be amusing for anyone, if the last five pages are any evidence. Please stop framing criticism as a personal attack.
 
 
alex supertramp
20:19 / 06.02.09
? I'm not interested in arguing with you over petty things. Yes, I was saying that because its my opinion. GOD! Can we return to this discussion?
 
 
alex supertramp
20:25 / 06.02.09
"About the Buffy thing, I've wanted to start a new thread for a while more along the lines of "Pop Culture Entities VS. Traditional Entities". Maybe not the best title, any ideas?"

Maybe we could talk about this, instead of the agreed upon fact that you don't like me.
 
 
Closed for Business Time
12:23 / 07.02.09
Reading skills seem in short supply.... I did not say that nihilism leads to suicide, in the same way that driving leads to getting somewhere faster than walking. I said it cries out for it. And I said that because, if you choose to believe in nothing, you can't really have any long-term values (it's all the same rememember?) - and if you don't have any values you can either go feral or dig yourself a grave, CUZ WHAT'S THE FREAKING POINT?!
 
 
alex supertramp
16:28 / 07.02.09
"The problem with choose-yer-own-pick'n-mix chaos paradigms, as I see it, is the same as with hardcore relativism: You end up sawing off the branch you're perching on. Which leads straight into nihilism, which again just cries out for absolute apathy and/or suicide. I mean, if there's no point, what's the point, eh?"

No, I understood you Closing Time. I just disagree with your assumption that worshiping or evoking a modern entity/ies, "is the same as with hardcore relativism". Elaborate?
 
 
Closed for Business Time
11:12 / 08.02.09
Exactly as I did not say that nihilism leads to suicide, I also did nowhere assume that working with modern entities is the same as hardcore relativism. Read again please - darth was extolling the virtues of chaos magic and its flat ontology/epistemology, I was criticising that position and said nought about working with Buffy or what have you.
 
 
alex supertramp
15:17 / 08.02.09
"The problem with choose-yer-own-pick'n-mix chaos paradigms, as I see it, is the same as with hardcore relativism"
 
 
alex supertramp
15:17 / 08.02.09
how did you come to this conclusion?
 
  

Page: 1234(5)678910... 11

 
  
Add Your Reply