|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We encourage you to send us poetry, articles, etc.
|
||
In this issue: |
|
Okay, so I agree that Don Imus is an asshole. But he's always been an asshole. He gets paid to be an asshole. His purpose in life is to use words to shock and offend. Hell, it's in his job title, "Shock Jock." To fire someone for doing what he was hired to do is unfair, even if he is an asshole. So, are my panties all wrinkled over Imus losing his job? In a way, kinda. I personally hate the shock jock formula. I think that type of radio show is puerile and panders to the lowest human instincts. However, I also consider what the shock jocks do an art form that requires a quick wit, creativity and more than a little courage. I say courage because Imus and his ilk are the mouthpiece for our collective id. Part of their job is to speak what the rest of us only think, those things that we might say in private, but filter out of our public speech because kind of behavior can get you stoned to death. Am I calling Imus a free speech hero? In a way, kinda. In his blunderbuss spewing of unfiltered id speak, Imus demonstrates some important truths. First, words have power. Second, our superego is a mighty thin veneer over very powerful and ancient instincts. Third, we repress these instincts at our peril. Fourth, Art can change the world. Am I suggesting that Imus' uncouth epithet for the Rutger's women's basketball team was art? In a way, kinda. I'm not saying that it was good art, but it was art that just might change the world for the better a (tiny) little bit. When Marcel Duchamp's renowned "Nude Descending a Staircase," was first unveiled it caused a riot. Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring," likewise gave its first audience fits. Both these works, besides being deeply offensive to their premiere audiences, made people think and eventually to change their attitudes, not just to art, but to the world. Likewise, Imus has unwittingly become the catalyst for a new cultural self examination. White people who laughed at Imus' remarks are asking themselves whether the mere fact that they laughed is evidence of their repressed racism. In addition, the black community is looking at its complicity in perpetuating this racism through marketing similarly offensive rap lyrics to a predominantly white audience. Art has the power to precipitate change for a simple reason. Really great Art is a sucker punch. It hits us when we least expect it right in our weakest assumption and knocks the wind out of our carefully constructed illusion of the world. We are forced to reassess our beliefs and reconstruct our understanding or go mad, (which not a few of us have done). What frequently reinforces and strengthens this tsunami of change is politics. Politicians, eager to have their scandal du jour off the front page, attempt to use artistic controversy to make hay. The political backlash, and the attendant media brouhaha, drives the controversy into the attention of the general public, and voila! What about the women who were hurt by Imus' words? Even if it is art, can't Imus' show be hurtful? Yeah, kinda. Words have power, after all. But words only have the power that we grant to them. Eleanor Roosevelt said that no one can make you feel small without your consent. Who benefits by granting power to the words of the likes of Imus? And who is causing the harm if the words are relayed by a politician or a reporter like the play yard instigator who says, "you gonna take that?" If there are hurt feelings, who granted the pasty-faced blowhard the power to hurt with his words in the first place? I submit that offense is voluntarily taken. If there is no intent to offend, yet I take offense, who has caused the hurt? Am I not hurting my own feelings? What do I gain by taking offense? And what if I am not offended, but pretend to be because I am told that I should be offended? Who is the offender then? I see it as a question of power. Will I stand in my power and take responsibility for creating my world, or will I let someone else do it for me? For me, Art is a delineator of the boundaries of my imagination, an indicator of my provinciality. If I am shocked or take offense, I tell myself that my understanding of the world needs expanding. If Imus provokes me to self examination, he's an artist (kinda). And who you callin' a pasty-faced blowhard?
Back to Table of Contents In preparation for this year's witchcamp, I wanted to address two of the primary concerns (one that I happen to share) that have been discussed in private circles. I believe that an open conversation on these points, however, is warranted and will prove to be useful as we approach our time together. Much of the concern witches seem to have with the story of Krishna and the Gopis stems from the perspective that 1) the story paints a picture of the Gopis as exemplars of 'closeness with God' as they begin the process of abandoning families, responsibilities, and even their own selfish desires in the pursuit of Krishna; i.e., that they must give everything up to achieve a oneness with God. This point is further exacerbated by 2) a sense that we cannot 'Reclaim' this story and instead must follow a 'traditional' Hindu interpretation in order to avoid spiritual colonialization. I believe it is possible to avoid both problems. Here's how:
Renunciation or Retreat?I come from the perspective that we do not need to renounce our connection to the world to encounter the divine, but I do believe that periodic retreats from the world are helpful in reconnecting with divinity. As case in point, the very act of attending witchcamp is itself a retreat from our daily lives where we can focus on spiritual quests for the divine as the Gopis have done. Further still, as each camp comes to a close, we intentionally think about the ways that the mystical experiences of camp can live on during the rest of our year. And Reclaiming witches are not alone in approaching this topic figuratively. Even within the Eastern traditions of Hinduism and Buddhism, the issue of renunciation is not universal. Rather, the issue is a contested discourse in Hindu or Buddhist circles (as I remember a very spirited conversation about this with Oak and Silver at camp a few years past). Certainly, it is true that there are very traditional sects of Hinduism and Buddhism that believe only ascetic monks and nuns can achieve Nirvana or Buddhahood. As an example, Theravada Buddhism comes to mind. It is quite orthodox, and proudly so. I often refer to this approach to Hinduism/Buddhism, etc. as a 'romanticized' view of what a good Buddhist or Hindu looks like. But there is also a great deal of dissension around this. Many less orthodox Hindus and Buddhists (who, ironically, include the company of persons like Krishnamurti, Thich Nat Hahn and (arguably) the Dalai Lama) believe that it is not leaving the world that is the essence of Hindu or Buddhist teaching, but attachment to the world (and this next point is key) as the source of our happiness. In other words, it is not that the world is sinful, wrong, dead, etc. Rather, the world cannot (by design) sustain our happiness indefinitely, because the world is always in a state of impermanence. Thus, the problem is not with the world, but with our perception of the world. So if I take joy in a walk through the woods or in the sexual embrace of a lover, these Hindus, Buddhists and our story of Krishna urge us to strongly love the now-moment in which we experience that joy, because that moment will invariably end... and that is okay and natural. And if we are attached (addicted?) to the happiness these provide, then we are doomed to eventually be unhappy, because one day the forces of change will (not 'may') visit us. Thus, these voices ask us to enjoy the pleasures of the world, work for peaceful change, AND recognize that the only permanent thing is change. Because of this recognition, we are asked to consider finding a more sublime happiness within ourselves that, in turn, reaches out in joy to the world and people around us. And I find this perfectly in keeping with our values as Reclaiming witches. In the story, the Gopis (and I add the male 'Gopas,' because I detest heterosexism in a story with a Blue God) lose themselves in the single moment of bliss. They are not swept away forever, abandoning all their earthly joys and responsibilities. Recall that the story states they experience Krishna this way only on the full moon... I think this example helps us to be okay with the mundane beauty of the lives we actually lead, not the lives our imaginations and romantic stories tell us we are supposed to lead. The Anathema of FundamentalismI share the many concerns pagans have regarding spiritual colonialism, but I do not believe that we are approaching the story in this way. There are several reasons why I believe this to be true. First and foremost, we simply are not offering the story of Krishna and the Gopis as an 'authentic' Hindu experience. Claiming Hindu lineage or authenticity would be a form of appropriation, because we are not, and have never been, Hindu. In Reclaiming, the opposite is true. We seek to experience Krishna and explore the story in the only way that we can: as pagans. Discarding the label of authentic Hinduism frees us from having to follow fundamentalist (and decidedly sex-negative and elitist) interpretations of the story, so that we may instead examine the story from perspectives that are rooted in our own spirituality and political orientation. For example, the story is replete with sexist imagery (as are many of the other stories we have encountered in the past), but we mine it for kernels of perfection anyway. As a rule, I despise fundamentalism and will seek pagan truths within this story. And second, Krishna himself states that he is open to being interpreted in a variety of ways by a diversity of people and perspectives. In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna is quoted as saying the following to Arjuna, "However men try to reach me, I return their love with my love; whatever path they may travel, it leads to me in the end" (Stephen Mitchell, 2000, Chapter 4, Verse 11). The interpretation of this quote does not need to be tortured or twisted to resolve the problem of colonialism. Krishna is clear and unequivocal when he states that he will be with us, a spiritual pagan people who travel a different path from Hinduism, in the way that we need him at witchcamp. And so I offer these thoughts to you for your consideration as we approach our time together at Claymont. If you would like to converse with me further about these thoughts, I am happy to meet you in cyber space. Please email me at rook@spiralheart.org. Peace. Rook Back to Table of Contents There are many things about the mythos of Sri Krishna that stand out to my Pagan, Reclaiming eyes, especially these three:
Within Hinduism, there are many distinct ways of understanding Krishna. I have always considered Hinduism a sister tradition of the ancient religions of the Near East, North Africa, and Europe. I classify it as a "Pagan" religion that contains many variations, most of which still include earth-based and magical practices. An affinity for Hinduism eventually led me to Paganism. I feel that Paganism is reclaiming a cultural continuity that India never lost. The difference, for me, is that nature is more obviously central to "mainstream" Paganisms than to mainstream Hinduisms. Krishna is the blue flute-playing, dancing, androgynous, erotic cowherd God of the groves. He opened the door that led me back to sacred nature and to a kind of sensual, immanent mysticism that allows me to see the Divine in more and more things. The Divine disclosed to me by Hinduism and Paganism is neither monotheist nor hard polytheist. This Divine is simultaneously many and one, polyform and singular. Sri Krishna incarnates this rich reality in beautiful, playful ways. I love the symbolism of the "Universal Form" (which may just as well be called the "multiversal forms"). Several times in the story of Krishna's life, He opens His body to reveal universe upon universe, God/dess upon God/dess teeming within Him as independent entities bound together in essence and through relationship. He famously does this at a crucial point in the Bhagavad Gita to convince His bewildered friend Arjuna that He knows what He's talking about. My favorite instance is more intimate and less dramatic. It occurs when Krishna is very young and mischievous. His mother, Yashodana, challenges Him to prove that He has not been eating dirt. When she catches Him up and looks into His mouth, she is overwhelmed by a cosmic theophany: within the little boy's body, she sees infinity manifest-worlds upon worlds, universe upon universe, divine form upon divine form. The individual and the great cosmic whole exist simultaneously, each a part of one another, inhabiting the same space; the Divine is both personal and impersonal, many and one, alive at all levels and in all things at once. Traditions of Krishna in Bengal make reference to a related theological concept expressed in the phrase acintya bheda bheda tattva, that the soul is simultaneously one with and different from its Divine source(s). Individual existence filled with rich relationships and absorption in the infinitude of Godhead are not mutually exclusive experiences, but inhere simultaneously in the nature of Krishna's reality. rasa means 'savor' or 'taste'. The concept of rasa is central to many of the aesthetic and devotional systems of India. Much Indian art-music, poetry, visual arts, architecture, drama and ritual-is meant to create a mood or emotional arousal, a wave of feeling designed to carry one into an altered state of consciousness. Accentuated feelings of love or longing pervade devotional art, leading the soul by sympathy and sentiment into a depth of feeling that transcends otherness and awakens a perception of co-identity. It is a way of reaching to Spirit that is both passionate and personal, but which seeks to arrive at a state in which passion and dispassion exist simultaneously. It seeks to bring us into full possession of our faculties through aesthetic, emotional rapture rather than through physical yoga, intellectual analysis, or mind-stilling meditation. It strives to make us fully alive as individuals, and to link us through chains of relationship to an essentially personal, loving force at the core of all things. It is the "courtly love" tradition of medieval India. Lord Krishna is one Hindu God who, in the devotional and aesthetic paths, personifies this rasa-based worldview. His scriptures and traditions very often emphasis a way rooted in rasa. His stories and pictures aren't meant to be historical and their symbolism is secondary. They are meant, primarily, to awaken feelings that the devotee dives deeply into and becomes transformed by. Krishna is invoked by depth of feeling over all else, and that is why the chanting of His name can carry such power and longing. Indeed, the name is seen as another immanent form-as the literal incarnation of the Divine in the form of sound, an act of grace dancing upon the tongue-a presence to invoke and to savor. Rasa is depth of feeling cultivated in aesthetic-spiritual practice, and it's also interpersonal relationship. Abrahamic religions emphasize the servant role in relationships with God, but the Hinduisms of Lord Krishna acknowledge many more rasas one may dance with the Divine. There's the concept of ishta-devata or chosen deity-God/dess may be One, but there's not one God/dess for each and all-Krishna is but one face of a polyform Divine. The kinds of relationships Hinduism admits are usually derived from the types represented in scripture: servant, friend, lover, parent-even enemy. If contemplating Krishna's pastimes with His parents doesn't do it for you, then maybe His love relationships will-or worshipping Him as an infant, taking the role of His protective mother. Since enemies often have one-pointed focus on the objects of their hostility and silently repeat their names, theory says that even anger with Krishna can be an intense spiritual practice! In the mythos, many demons assail Krishna from the moment of His conception, and one of the reasons He incarnates is to grant them liberation, absorbing and neutralizing their animosity and reducing the burdens of negative energy borne by the Earth. In this role, Krishna frequently plays the sacred trickster. Krishna has many relationships, but most are loving friendships-and in each, He seeks to bestow boons of pleasure, grace and transformation. From my Pagan perspective, rasa is eros-the will to union expressed through passionate, embodied feeling (in ancient Greece, sexuality was but one expression of eros). Krishna is kin to other grove-dwelling, sexual God/desses, kin to other blue folk, kin to other androgynes. He takes on a body-He is worshiped in opulent temples, offered rich food that His devotees later share. He enjoins sharing with the poor, filling their bellies with food that has first been offered to Him, and His opulent temples are often centers of charity upon which hundreds or thousands of people depend. He is sung to, clothed, offered incense and rose water, offered plays and spectacles, toys and cakes and the energies of sexual acts-worshipped in so many embodied, body-centered ways. Krishna is also a great liberator. He accomplishes this in a heroic mode (doing it for others) and also by empowering others (to do it for themselves). He does this in very material, social terms and in spiritual terms. He is born in prison under a murderous, greedy tyrant, His prior siblings having been seized at birth and murdered. His "annunciation" is proclaimed by the warrior Goddess Durga, Mahadevi, slayer of demons. He repeatedly overcomes hardship or evil, often on behalf of large groups of people-such as when, as a child, He lifts Govardhan Hill to shelter the villagers from torrential rains. He also neutralizes the effects of negative magic, and I've often considered the possibility that the demons He encounters and slays are, in fact, powerful thoughtforms plaguing the human ns for millennia and unable to break them seek Him out-with a word or touch, or in struggle or a game of chance, Krishna frees them from bondage and opens doorways onto ever widening possibilities. As an incarnate God who is first cowherd, then king, Krishna stands for political, mental, and spiritual liberation. Though it is not emphasized in contemporary Hinduisms, it's also very clear that Krishna stands for sexual, erotic liberation. He overcomes rapacious, tyrannous forms of desire (represented by oppressive King Kamsa and the commercial cities) and replaces them with innocent, playful, consensual forms of desire (represented by His sexual pastimes in rural Vrindaban). He replaces the grey hopelessness of Kamsa's reign-burnt out, misdirected desire-with a buoyant, colorful, aesthetically informed joyful newness-with a reason to live that bubbles up from within, turning ruts into living rivers. It is this quality of joyful liberator that makes crowds shout the medieval rallying cry: Jaya Sri Krishna! Victory to Krishna! A little Pied Piper, a little Robin Hood, Krishna is a Godform striving to show us a possibility of freedom rooted in spiritual joy and immanent fulfillment, deep justice and the purity of natural motivation. Back to Table of Contents Please add to our community's richness! |
Back to Community Resources
|
|
|