? for practicing pagans

[HS Mom in NC]

I'm not sure how to classify and explain the term paganism.  Let me show you a parallel so you can see where my confusion is. 

Evangelicalism is a subset of Protestantism

Protestantism is a sub set of Christianity
Christianity is a sub set of Monotheism
Monotheism is a sub set of Theism
Theism is a sub set of Religion

Religion is a sub set of Spirituality

Where would the term pagan go if all that was charted out?  Does pagan have multiple meanings with a more generic definition and a more specific definition? What are examples of subsets of paganism? If I were going to explain to my 11 year old child what paganism means as we were reading along in typical classical materials, what can I say that would be generally true of most pagans but still simple enough that we don't have to study paganism in depth?

For example, I would say Christianity is a religion that teaches the reconciliation of  a person to God by the atonement for sin through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. I think that would cover the most essential characteristic or core belief of most self-labeled Christians in a very simple way. 

How would a pagan explain their core belief(s) in a concise way?  It doesn't have to be one sentence, but how would you explain it if it came up in a read aloud or assigned reading and the kid needed some very basic knowledge in order to follow along?

[Ravin]

Ask any five pagans those questions and you'll get 27 answers, lol.

 

Let me see if I can break it down, though.

 

1. If all that was charted out, "Paganism" would definitely fall under "Spirituality", and mostly under "religion", but not all Pagans are Theists (though many are), and while many are pantheists or polytheists, many are also monotheists (ex: seeing various gods as different aspects of a unitary Divine).

 

 

It might make more sense to see religion/spirituality as a tree. Your list is a branch with smaller branches coming off of it, with Christianity's acknowledged and traditional roots in common with Judaism and Islam in the middle east.

 

Paganism is a modern movement of reviving/reconstructing/reinventing religion based on ideas not rooted with Christianity/Judaism/Islam, but rather in the beliefs and practices of the cultures which now practice these religions before monotheism took over, often mixed with ideas borrowed from other cultures where such a break in culture/religion did not take place.

 

Within that, you have a VERY wide swathe of different core beliefs and practices.

 

Some pagans will try to include Traditional Religions (Native American Traditional Religion, African Traditional Religion) or Hinduism, etc. under the "Pagan" umbrella, but I don't think that's accurate, because paganism (such that individuals would actually call themselves pagans) is mostly Western phenomenon. I would, however,  include Heathenry/reconstructionist religions under this umbrella even though quite a few Heathens prefer not to be called Pagans.

 

2. The major branches you see are Reconstructionists of various cultural rootings (Celtic recon/Druidry, Hellenismos, Germanic, etc.), Wicca and other western witchcraft (a label that is decidedly different from the label as used by anthropologists or most Christians) practitioners could be considered another branch. 

 

And there's probably more I'm leaving out because I'm not as familiar with them.

 

3. If you are talking of pagans in classical materials, then you are talking about pre-Christian European religions for the most part. These, like Traditional Religions around the world today in various places, varied from one culture to another and sometimes from one village to another even when other aspects of culture were shared. Some were organized, with temples and priesthoods, etc., and others were the spiritual/religious beliefs of tribal/hearth cultures. Often they coexisted peacefully, as in the Roman Empire, where the official state religion left plenty of room for whatever worship/practices people wanted, so long as they also paid proper homage to Caesar.

 

There are people today who have revived some of these beliefs and practices as best we can, and that is where modern Pagans come from.

 

Those beliefs were greatly varied, and for the most part classical paganism was probably more orthopraxic than orthdox--and to the extent that they had orthodoxy, what the beliefs were for the most part died out, or survived as 'cultural knowledge' not acknowledged as being religious or pagan by the Christian generations who followed. 

 

 

Edited September 16, 2016 by Ravin

[Rosie_0801]

The easiest way to deal with this is to borrow https://www.amazon.com/Paganism-Introduction-Earth-Centered-Religions/dp/0738702226 from your library. It's no in depth study, but a quick flick through would answer your questions well.

 

Paganism is a far broader umbrella than Christianity, so "how would a pagan describe their beliefs" doesn't have a simple answer.

 

Not sure if orthopraxy v orthodoxy makes sense in a DIY religion, but I don't belong to a denomination so I'm probably not the right person to comment.

 

There's this old thread too, if that's any help.

[Rosie_0801]

Hang on, I found my copy of the Higgenbotham's book.

 

Principals of Paganism:

Apparently most pagans agree with most of these, and if they don't, perhaps they'll show up here and say why not. :p

 

1. You are responsible for the beliefs you choose to adopt.

2. You are responsible for your own actions, and your spiritual and personal development.

3. You are responsible for who or what deity is for you, and developing a relationship with that deity.

4. Everything contains the spark of intelligence.

5. Everything is sacred.

6. Each part of the universe can communicate with each other part, and these parts often cooperate for specific ends.

7. Consciousness survives death.

 

In short, you're not the only one in the world and you ought to take responsibility for your own shiz. 

Actually, that is exactly what my Christian mother used to say to me when I was growing up.  :laugh:

[Ravin]

Hmm..

 

I would agree with

 

1, 2, and 3 (except sometimes deities pick you; you're still responsible for answering the call, and in writing that out I'd have said deity or deities rather than leaving it singular)

4, I don't think I would use the term "spark of intelligence." I would say "spirit" or "spiritual existence"

5 and 6 sound good as far as they go, but I know pagans who don't hold with 7 (although I would agree with it myself.)

[Rosie_0801]

Yeah, 4 is a bit funny. The closest I can get to that is everything is either either matter or energy and there is more intelligence around than we species-centric critters can properly wrap our heads around.

 

I appear not to believe in anti-matter, but I possibly would if I knew how. :p

 

 

I think the Higgenbothams use "Deity" as the closest they can get to a neutral term. I don't think they really use it as a singular noun.

[mamaraby]

Aren't there also sometimes pagans that are also atheists. I've often seen them self-identifiy as a Sagan Pagan. As well as pagans who identify as pantheist or panentheist? Although some of the items in Rosie's list do contain shades of pantheism/panentheism.

 

(Not actually pagan, just spent time amongst pagans and in pagan communities)

[Guest]

I'm enjoying reading the responses! I've been confused, like the OP, on how broadly to draw the lines since it seems to vary so much in practice and even source material. A practicing pagan in a Northern European religion is going to look different than one in a South American tradition, for example. And individual adherence and application also seems super broad.

 

Reading along thoughtfully here!

[Rosie_0801]

Yeah, there are a few atheist pagans around.

 

I was told once that pagans can't be atheists. I said I was doing a good job of it, would she like to know how? But she said no. :lol: Silly person.

 

 

I read a blog post years ago about an atheist pagan who was claimed by a goddess and was very cross about it. :lol: I would be cross too, if that was me. :lol:

[Rosie_0801]

I'm enjoying reading the responses! I've been confused, like the OP, on how broadly to draw the lines since it seems to vary so much in practice and even source material. A practicing pagan in a Northern European religion is going to look different than one in a South American tradition, for example. And individual adherence and application also seems super broad.

 

Reading along thoughtfully here!

 

Why try?

 

I mean, I *am* pagan and it still doesn't come up in conversation much. :lol:

[KarenNC]

I agree with Ravin and Rosie in general regarding Modern Pagans/Neopagans, but I read your question as asking about ancient religions, yes? While some Neopagan belief systems are inspired by or rooted in ancient religions, there's not really an unbroken chain of practice in most, and a lot of influence from other religious practices.

 

To answer in terms of ancient religions, I would say that most of the religions you will encounter in classical Western history studies (Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Germanic, Celtic, Norse, etc) would fall under polytheism as a subset of theism, and then have their own branches under that, as they may each have their own approaches to polytheism and were not subsets of each other or really even related to each other in a large way. They did often intermingle, assimilating practices and even deities from each other, so there's a great deal of Greek religion in Roman religion but they are not identical and their understandings of the Gods are different in ways much deeper than merely different names. Egyptian deities, particular Isis, were integrated in Greek and Roman, Germanic and Celtic mixed with Roman in conquered areas, etc.

 

Polytheism does not tend to have some of the aspects Christians tend to expect as hallmarks of religion. I am most familiar with the Greeks. There is not necessarily a single authoritative version of any particular Greek myth. What we have is an amalgam of the stories and artwork that has survived, often in the form of plays and other creative works, fragmentary works, or from what was written by the people (and the religion of the people) who conquered/fought them, and so had a vested interest in showing the superiority of the conquerors. We have more from Greek, Roman, and Egyptian simply because more of their writings survived. There was no concept of imitatio dei in Greek culture, in fact the surviving myths that would be hubris and very, very dangerous. Worship was primarily community-based, not individual---your Gods were typically your Gods based on where you were born, and if you moved, you might incorporate the worship of the local Gods in with your own. Your community might primarily worship Athena as patron, for instance, while another would primarily honor Demeter or Poseidon. It was also more important that you fulfilled the rituals correctly for the health of the community than what you "believed" about or whether you "believed" in the particular God. The Gods typically also had their own spheres of influence, so a Greek soldier might perform rituals for Ares but a Greek merchant to Hermes, for instance. This aspect also changed over the centuries, and as different influences came in.

[KarenNC]

I'm enjoying reading the responses! I've been confused, like the OP, on how broadly to draw the lines since it seems to vary so much in practice and even source material. A practicing pagan in a Northern European religion is going to look different than one in a South American tradition, for example. And individual adherence and application also seems super broad.

 

Reading along thoughtfully here!

 

That would be because they are practicing entirely different religions, not denominations of a larger religion called "Paganism" (which doesn't really exist as a source culture or tradition in the way Christianity does for its denominations). Various religions typically grouped under the umbrella term "Pagan" in modern Western culture are likely to be more different from each other than Christianity and Hinduism and Shinto, much less Christianity and Islam (which share both monotheism and Abrahamic source material), or a Roman Catholic and a Southern Baptist or Seventh Day Adventist (which share even more common background and source material).

Edited September 16, 2016 by KarenNC

[KarenNC]

Yeah, there are a few atheist pagans around.

 

I was told once that pagans can't be atheists. I said I was doing a good job of it, would she like to know how? But she said no. :lol: Silly person.

 

 

I read a blog post years ago about an atheist pagan who was claimed by a goddess and was very cross about it. :lol: I would be cross too, if that was me. :lol:

 

"I could have gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling Deities!"  :)

[KarenNC]

Aren't there also sometimes pagans that are also atheists. I've often seen them self-identifiy as a Sagan Pagan. As well as pagans who identify as pantheist or panentheist? Although some of the items in Rosie's list do contain shades of pantheism/panentheism.

 

(Not actually pagan, just spent time amongst pagans and in pagan communities)

 

There are people who identify as Pagan/Neopagan who (at least in my experience):

• are atheists
• are agnostics
• follow a pantheon or Deity in a way as closely as they can to what we know of ancient practices for that pantheon
• follow a pantheon or Deity in a totally modern or idiosyncratic way, which may be inspired by or totally unrelated to ancient practices or understandings of that pantheon or Deity
• are monotheistic
• are duotheistic
• are "soft" polytheists (all Gods are aspects of variously a single God/Force, of a dual God/Goddess, of some form of energy, etc)
• are "hard" polytheists (the Gods are distinct individual beings)
• are pantheists
• are panentheists
• are henotheists
• practice some form of "magick" (either informal or ceremonial)
• have nothing to do with practices labeled "magick"
• are very involved with their religion
• are not very involved with their religion
• overlap with New Age practices
• avoid any hints of New Age practices like the plague
• etc

And that list, btw, may all be within a single religion that identifies under the umbrella term "Pagan" and the items are, for the most part, not mutually exclusive. 

[HS Mom in NC]

Thank you all for your thoughtful responses.  I appreciate all the time and detail you put into them.  I suppose, because we're in the ancients, that I really did want to know about both modern and historical aspects. 

 

[JumpyTheFrog]

I read a blog post years ago about an atheist pagan who was claimed by a goddess and was very cross about it.

What does this mean?

[JumpyTheFrog]

So would an atheist pagan believe in some sort of non-conscious spiritual force rather than a deity with awareness?

[Rosie_0801]

So would an atheist pagan believe in some sort of non-conscious spiritual force rather than a deity with awareness?

 

I expect it depends on the atheist.

 

Have a look through the Ask a Pagan thread I linked. I'm pretty sure there were a few answers in there.

 

I organise this idea by thinking of the Tao, the sort of flow of nature. I saw a great photo once, taken below a loosely woven tapestry. I like to think of it that way and figure "the Tao" must be made from life-forces, instinct, the laws of physics, laws of universe creation and stuff. 

[Rosie_0801]

What does this mean?

 

Something to the effect of "Look here, Oh Human, pay attention," I guess.

 

Not having a personal acquaintance with any gods, I have no personal experience to relate. If the Abrahamic god can demand people worship him, I suppose other deities can too. From the little bit I've heard from people having these sorts of experiences, pagan gods seem to be a bit less "worship me" than "you will study under me." But like I said, I have no personal experience. I've had precisely one dream involving a deity and she didn't feel like identifying herself.

 

I'm sure Karen can provide a better answer.

[Guest]

What does this mean?

 

I think it's probably like when someone is like "I'm d-o-n-e with men!" then promply meets the love of their life.

 

Starring JLo and Will Smith

 

The analogy only goes so far, obviously.

[Rosie_0801]

I think it's probably like when someone is like "I'm d-o-n-e with men!" then promply meets the love of their life.

 

Starring JLo and Will Smith

 

The analogy only goes so far, obviously.

 

:lol:

[KarenNC]

Something to the effect of "Look here, Oh Human, pay attention," I guess.

 

Not having a personal acquaintance with any gods, I have no personal experience to relate. If the Abrahamic god can demand people worship him, I suppose other deities can too. From the little bit I've heard from people having these sorts of experiences, pagan gods seem to be a bit less "worship me" than "you will study under me." But like I said, I have no personal experience. I've had precisely one dream involving a deity and she didn't feel like identifying herself.

 

I'm sure Karen can provide a better answer.

 

I don't know that I have any better answer. I can't say I have been "claimed" by any Deity. I've definitely not had a "Road to Damascus" experience with any, including with Christianity in the 3 decades or so I identified as Christian (though it was an increasing struggle to do so from the age of 10 at the latest--I was never a good monotheist). I've also never been an atheist. An a-monotheist, I suppose, but not an atheist.

 

The best I can say is that the Greek pantheon "resonates," for lack of a more precise term, with me and my experience of spiritual reality far more than any other. Is that because those Deities "claimed" me, because I have more familiarity with Their stories than with those of other polytheistic systems, because of cultural heritage, or because of something entirely different? I don't know. My ethnic background would suggest either Germanic or Celtic would be more natural, but I feel no connection, no pull there despite trying and having a strong interest in Celtic culture.

 

We do have distinct influences in our religious practices and understanding from Shinto, Buddhism, liberal Christianity, and Reform Judaism, and much of our understanding of the Greeks is as their stories have come to us filtered through Western history (with a splash of personal gnosis ;) ), so we are far from strict Reconstructionists (those who try to replicate ancient worship practices as closely as possible). I don't have a particular Deity that I consider I have personal relationship with. That rings true with what we know of the ancient myths---the average Greek wasn't looking for or expecting a "personal relationship" with any of the Gods and likely tried to fly under the radar in that respect as much as possible to avoid trouble :) (if you look at the myths, frequently, when people came to the notice of the Gods, bad things happened to them), but there are those we turn to more regularly. We have various shrines in the house and on the property, and periodically make offerings to various ones depending on the situation. I have to admit we are not terribly regularly observant, but, as my husband points out, we don't just make these offerings when we want something.

Edited September 18, 2016 by KarenNC

[Rosie_0801]

The best I can say is that the Greek pantheon "resonates," for lack of a more precise term, with me and my experience of spiritual reality far more than any other. Is that because those Deities "claimed" me, because I have more familiarity with Their stories than with those of other polytheistic systems, because of cultural heritage, or because of something entirely different? I don't know. My ethnic background would suggest either Germanic or Celtic would be more natural, but I feel no connection, no pull there despite trying and having a strong interest in Celtic culture.

 

It's long surprised me that the Ancient Egyptian gods take such interest in Anglo-Australians, but I guess deities have to occupy themselves too.

[HS Mom in NC]

How does one operate as a re-constructionist, particularly within ancient paganism? Are there sacred texts (or whatever term is applicable in the situation) in ancient and/or early medieval paganism?

I just finished Bernard Cornwell's King Arthur Trilogy.  He's considered quite the historian by whomever it is that makes such declarations.  He writes in the preface that he made a serious effort to give the reader an accurate sense of time that some speculate the real Arthur, if there was a real Arthur, lived, which some say is c. 500 in Wales.  Merlin is, of course, a druid and in the book he considers himself to be absent quite a lot of Druidic knowledge that was traditionally passed down orally. 

How would a modern pagan in a similar situation make decisions about how to proceed with whatever practices they participate in when there's a gap in knowledge?

I find it very interesting that there seems to be a divide among pagans about an individual choosing a deity and a deity choosing an individual just like there is the Arminian camp where an individual chooses Jesus and the Calvinist camp where Jesus chooses an individual. 

I recently read an article about some African-Americans choosing ancestral religious practices in part as a connection to their ethnic heritages more so than out of a conviction of the "rightness" or "trueness" of the teachings and practices.  (I don't know the lingo so please tolerate my limited vocabulary on the topic.) Would most practicing pagans say this is a common element across paganism or is this a unique response to a particular subculture at this particular time and place in our history?

[Rosie_0801]

I find it very interesting that there seems to be a divide among pagans about an individual choosing a deity and a deity choosing an individual just like there is the Arminian camp where an individual chooses Jesus and the Calvinist camp where Jesus chooses an individual. 

 

I don't know that there is a "divide." People experience whichever they experience, or perhaps they experience both or neither. If anyone wants to get their knickers in a twist over that, they ought to learn to mind their business. Maybe that kind of dogma exists within pagan "denominations?" I know there are several branches of Wicca, but not much about the reasons for the splits. I assumed it was personality politics.

 

 

 

I recently read an article about some African-Americans choosing ancestral religious practices in part as a connection to their ethnic heritages more so than out of a conviction of the "rightness" or "trueness" of the teachings and practices.  (I don't know the lingo so please tolerate my limited vocabulary on the topic.) Would most practicing pagans say this is a common element across paganism or is this a unique response to a particular subculture at this particular time and place in our history?

 

 

That is a form of rightness and trueness (for those individuals) isn't it?

[HS Mom in NC]

I don't know that there is a "divide." People experience whichever they experience, or perhaps they experience both or neither. If anyone wants to get their knickers in a twist over that, they ought to learn to mind their business. Maybe that kind of dogma exists within pagan "denominations?" I know there are several branches of Wicca, but not much about the reasons for the splits. I assumed it was personality politics.

 

I didn't mean a divide in the combative sense, I just meant a divide as in distinctly different experiences.

 

 

 

That is a form of rightness and trueness (for those individuals) isn't it?

 

I suppose it could be.

 

 

 

[Bluegoat]

So would an atheist pagan believe in some sort of non-conscious spiritual force rather than a deity with awareness?

 

THat seems like a tricky question to me, what does "spiritual" mean in that context?

 

Plenty of ancient pagans believe in a non-conscious god or spiritual force, but didn't consider themselves atheists.  Deity with awareness isn't especially common in religion generally.

 

ETA: for ancient religion it's also more fraught than some think to decide if a religion is polytheistic or not.  Most think of the Greeks as polytheistic, and they are in poetic sources and it seems so in practice.  OTOH, they aren't really philosophically.  So - what does that mean so far as classification?  It really depends on why you are doing it.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Bluegoat

[KarenNC]

I recently read an article about some African-Americans choosing ancestral religious practices in part as a connection to their ethnic heritages more so than out of a conviction of the "rightness" or "trueness" of the teachings and practices.  (I don't know the lingo so please tolerate my limited vocabulary on the topic.) Would most practicing pagans say this is a common element across paganism or is this a unique response to a particular subculture at this particular time and place in our history?

 

I'd love to read the article if you can remember where you saw it.

 

Personally, I can't see most people in modern Western culture, with our emphasis on individuality in religion rather than a communal focus, persisting in active religious practices they don't consider to be "right" or "true" on at least some level, regardless of whether those practices were some flavor of Neopagan or Christian or Jewish or Buddhist or whatever. That's one reason I have not been a practicing Christian for about 20 years, even in the very liberal/non-fundamentalist/rather unorthodox way I was at the end, despite the fact that it was the ancestral religious practice of my direct ancestors and of my ethnic heritage for the last several hundred years. Much as I love the liturgy and music, particularly of the Episcopal Church, I could just no longer convince myself that they were an accurate reflection of my experience. I do think that when people go searching for something, connecting to their ethnic ancestry is a common place to start looking, and maybe to stay if it seems "right" or "true." My ethnic heritage is Celtic, Germanic, and Anglo-Saxon, so, yes, I did explore what is known about those ancient practices (among many other, ancient and modern), but I didn't stay with them as I felt no connection. It's the practices of my Western cultural ancestry (which is strongly rooted in Classical cultures) that seems most "right" and "true." Those are the sacred stories I've heard all my life, the depictions I've seen throughout my culture in art/architecture/literature. Had I grown up in a different culture, that might have been different, I suppose. Note that I use little-t "true" as in it is the best fit with my personal experiences of spiritual reality that still allows for others' experiences to be equally true as in accurately reflecting their experiences with spiritual reality, not in the sense of big-T "True" as is used in monotheism to indicate that all others have to be totally wrong for my experience to be valid. I see that as a key difference between polytheism and monotheism.

 

It's worth re-emphasizing that defining terms is important so that we are talking about the same thing. Indigenous or ethnic polytheistic religions that have a pretty unbroken history don't usually fall under the modern Western term of "Pagan/Neopagan." Most folks use "pagan" (little p) to indicate the ancient practices or to serve as the general term that means "non-Abrahamic." So when someone is talking about Pagan religions (big P) it's typically the modern revival of ancient pre-Christian European or Mediterranean religions like Greek, Roman, Norse, Germanic, Egyptian, Celtic, etc where there have been centuries of break in practice, or totally modern new religions like Wicca. So the term is, IME, typically not applied to Hinduism, Buddhism, Shinto, Voudoun, or the beliefs and practices of various groups First Nation, Native American, or other indigenous peoples. It's why I tend to use "Neopagan," as I think the meaning and intent is clearer.

 

So, to answer another part of the question, I think the various religious practices loosely grouped under Neopaganism are themselves a unique response to particular subcultures at this particular time and place in our history. To take one example, there's a really interesting book by the British historian, Ronald Hutton, named "Triumph of the Moon: a history of modern Pagan Witchcraft,"  that examines the history of the origin of Wicca in Britain, its move to America where it became intertwined with feminism, and then was imported back to Britain. He spends the first half of the book examining the larger social and cultural developments of the 18th and 19th century that set the stage for it to emerge (along with many over movements), then the second half is a detailed account of how the religion evolved from its Gardnerian origins as factions split, merged, etc. I find it fascinating to study the evolution of a new religion, and see a lot of parallels to first century Palestine and the rapid changes, alignments, re-alignments, and interpretations happened in early Christianity. What became accepted as orthodox and who got to decide that, etc? Being able to see it because we have so many surviving records can give some insight into those in which we don't have those records. There's also the influence of having those records in a written, static form rather than existing only as oral tradition that can radically change the course of that evolution. Fascinating stuff! :)

[Ravin]

How does one operate as a re-constructionist, particularly within ancient paganism? Are there sacred texts (or whatever term is applicable in the situation) in ancient and/or early medieval paganism?

 

I just finished Bernard Cornwell's King Arthur Trilogy.  He's considered quite the historian by whomever it is that makes such declarations.  He writes in the preface that he made a serious effort to give the reader an accurate sense of time that some speculate the real Arthur, if there was a real Arthur, lived, which some say is c. 500 in Wales.  Merlin is, of course, a druid and in the book he considers himself to be absent quite a lot of Druidic knowledge that was traditionally passed down orally. 

 

How would a modern pagan in a similar situation make decisions about how to proceed with whatever practices they participate in when there's a gap in knowledge?

 

I find it very interesting that there seems to be a divide among pagans about an individual choosing a deity and a deity choosing an individual just like there is the Arminian camp where an individual chooses Jesus and the Calvinist camp where Jesus chooses an individual. 

 

I recently read an article about some African-Americans choosing ancestral religious practices in part as a connection to their ethnic heritages more so than out of a conviction of the "rightness" or "trueness" of the teachings and practices.  (I don't know the lingo so please tolerate my limited vocabulary on the topic.) Would most practicing pagans say this is a common element across paganism or is this a unique response to a particular subculture at this particular time and place in our history?

 

Even the most "hard core" reconstructionists know full well they cannot really replicate everything their ancestors did. A great deal of religious and spiritual knowledge was orally and experentially transmitted, and when the stories were written down by monks, often generations after conversion, they had been altered and their sacred meanings forgotten.

 

So, what do we do? We use the tools of literature analysis and anthropology. We look at archaeology for clues. When there are gaps, we look to contemporary Traditional Religions for what might be similar to help fill in the gaps. We experiment. We argue. We experience what is called Unsubstantiated Personal Gnosis (you come to analytical conclusions, or have a dream about something, get good experimental results, or whatever). Individuals in community compare their UPG; when they find commonalities, that becomes Shared Personal Gnosis. When they don't, they occasionally tell each other to go pack sand with varying degrees of politeness, and argue some more. If the Shared Personal Gnosis is adopted and persists, it will eventually be tradition in that community.

[HS Mom in NC]

Even the most "hard core" reconstructionists know full well they cannot really replicate everything their ancestors did. A great deal of religious and spiritual knowledge was orally and experentially transmitted, and when the stories were written down by monks, often generations after conversion, they had been altered and their sacred meanings forgotten.

 

So, what do we do? We use the tools of literature analysis and anthropology. We look at archaeology for clues. When there are gaps, we look to contemporary Traditional Religions for what might be similar to help fill in the gaps. We experiment. We argue. We experience what is called Unsubstantiated Personal Gnosis (you come to analytical conclusions, or have a dream about something, get good experimental results, or whatever). Individuals in community compare their UPG; when they find commonalities, that becomes Shared Personal Gnosis. When they don't, they occasionally tell each other to go pack sand with varying degrees of politeness, and argue some more. If the Shared Personal Gnosis is adopted and persists, it will eventually be tradition in that community.

 

Thank you.  That helps clear it up.