The Age of Wicca - It really is a young, new religion?

After leaving the cult of Iskcon back in the late 70's I investigated many other spiritual paths, paganism being one of them.
I normaly find myself drawn into the historical aspects of any tradition and and did the same with Wicca and New Paganisim.
I also spent a fair amount of time looking into ceremonial majic and the Golden Dawn Tradition. Since this topic has become a 'buzz' here on GD and we here normally are very much interested in 'Historical Traditions' I wanted to bring this up and perhaps get some feedback.
Tapati ..I of course wanted your feedback on this as you are a practioner of paganism.

So I post this short article to start the discussion;

The Age of Wicca

It really is a young, new religion?

I've noticed this can be a touchy subject among Wiccans and other Pagans: the history of the Wiccan religion. People (usually novices) often make statements about the ancient origins of Wicca, or how Wicca has been practiced for thousands of years.

Sorry folks, but this is simply not accurate.

The base of the confusion is that some people don't distinguish between something that exists today, and its historical roots. Ok, that's not very clear, is it? How about an example. The poodle was designated as a recognized breed in 1887. Dogs today (including the poodle) have evolved from ancient dog species that existed thousands of years ago. The historic past of the poodle isn't in question, but you can NOT say that the poodle is thousands of years old. Wicca follows this same idea.

In 1954, Gerald Gardner published the first book on Wicca as we know it today, called "Witchcraft Today" It's somewhat typical to date modern-day Wicca from this date, as this was the beginning of the spread of the religion to the masses. But many people today are unsure of Gardner's claim of discovering an existing Wiccan coven, and feel that his writings were more his own creations than true (and ancient) practices that had been handed down through generations. He claimed to have been initiated into the New Forest Coven in 1939, by Old Dorothy Clutterbuck. But further examination into this has had difficulty proving that Old Dorothy ever existed. Gardner's interests and knowledge of the occult would have given him plenty of raw material to work with. It's generally accepted that regardless of whether or not Gardner really found an existing witchcraft coven, he adulterated much of his work with Ceremonial magick concepts that appealed to him. So even though there may be ideas, concepts, practices, or beliefs in the Wicca we know today that are based in older knowledge, the collected whole as presented by Gardner really only came into existance in the 1950s.

In the grander scheme of things, so what if Wicca is a new religion? All religions had a beginning and they were all new at some point.

http://paganwiccan.about.com/od/historywic.../ageofwicca.htm

namaskar,

Pratap Bangli

I completely agree that Wicca is a new religion. We are trying to capture the spirit and some of the traditions from pre-Christian beliefs in the Britsh Isles, but we have only a spotty record of them. We are informed in large part by our modern sensibilities and needs. I myself am not into the ceremonial magic aspects and pretty much dispense with most of them in my practice.

It's a unique opportunity to see how a religion is formed, and it gives me some insight into how other religions may have come up with their scripture.

Consider Z. Budapest and her writings. She has more than one passage in her "Grandmother" series of books* that mention visions she's had of conversations with the Goddess. She did intentional rituals in order to have those visions or astral visits. In other places she represents things the Goddess might say about an issue as if the Goddess wrote it personally, in first person. She doesn't say the Goddess wrote these things, and I understand she's taking poetic license when I read them. I take it all with a grain of salt, because I have no way of knowing if she had some kind of true visit with a Goddess on another plane of existence or had a cool dream.

Now imagine it's 2000 years from now. Some Dianic Wiccan of the future is reading this to a group. They all may believe that Hera or Aphrodite personally appeared before Z. Budapest and that Z. Budapest was the Wiccan equivalent of a pure devotee. For all I know there may, by then, be some kind of succession similar to Parampara or the papal line.

Starhawk will be someone's matron saint. Luisah Teish will be in a picture on someone's altar.

Gosh, I should write a book so I can get in on the ground level and my words will be revealed scripture some day!

I have no way of really knowing how all religions get their "revealed" scriptures, but I have to wonder if it is very similar.

Ultimately, I think it doesn't matter if God comes down from on high and hands us stone tablets or simply moves us to write about how to get closer to Him (or Her). The point is that all the varied peoples and cultures of this Earth need culturally appropriate ways to get closer to God and each religion helps facilitate this. I am not interested in any "better than" debates anymore. All I want to know is, "does this help me get closer to God/dess or not?"

I am happy to try anything that does.

Thanks for starting this topic.

*Grandmother of Time, and Grandmother Moon.

I wonder why she picked a poodle.
If, on your speech on religion,
You are going to use dogs as analogy,
Why not pick the glorious Saint Bernard?

(Glorious is the religion that invites the dogs
To ride on with the caravan.)

Wonderments on the path:
Each of us individuals
Making our own religion, “following our own path” –
What exactly does that mean?

It seems it a matter of simple logic
That if I make my own individual path
It will be a path that will not go very far –
By logic, one’s own is a doomed religion.

A religion has to be made of
At least two exact alike aspirations.
Otherwise it will be never established,
And if religion, any religion,
Be a perpetual novelty,
Then where is the question of eternity?

So history, tradition/ritual,
How much of it can or should we make incept
As opposed to accept? Just wondering…

For me personallly I have a hard time with some of the pagan/wicca/ceremonial majic concepts and patchwork history which seems somewhat spurious, even by many of it's own practioners.

One of the most difficult for me is the Wiccan male aspect of God, i.e. the 'Green Man,' which is very vague in terms of a description of God as compared to the precise and detailed information we get from the Vedas, Srimad Bhagavatam and Gosvamis writings on Krishna and the means by which we can approach him.

I also find the concept of 'The Goddess' in the Wiccan religion somewhat vague as well. Maybe these were 'Nature Spirits' of some sort or perhaps some type of 'Astral Beings'/ 'DemiGod/Demigoddess', but to elevate them to the status of 'God and Goddess' as supreme does seem a bit of a stretch.

Many cultures all over the world have various lessor Gods and Goddesses they worship, but I don't believe they are on the level of The Supreme Radha/Krishna, Lakshmi/Vishnu.

My starting this topic is in no way an attack on Tapati or a challenge, or a 'mine is better than yours' debate, but my honest doubts about this path that I developed after I spent time years ago looking into the tradition.

I believe that a path to God is not something we can invent and we must find a path which is authentic and revealed by God and his direct associates without guessing. I most certainly don't agree with the 'whatever you believe is true' concept.

namaskar,

bangli

I welcome debate about such things, and I don' t really require that everyone agree with me about matters of spirituality or take it personally if they don't.

In my view, there is a Divine Presence that everyone in all the world's religions is trying to get closer to by their practices. This Person that Vaisnavas here will call Krsna and that Moslems will call Allah, etc., is the same Person regardless of how we are taught to picture Him/Her. There is an ultimate reality that exists and is not dependent on our image or idea, whether it is the one "correct" one or not.

Coming from a myriad of cultures, it is unlikely that the exact same rituals to feel more devotion to that Divine Person are going to work for everyone. Yes, chant the name--but that name differs and Srila Prabhupada often said if you worship Christ, then chant Christ.

I do want to mention that I still respect and love my spiritual master, ACBSP, and honor what he taught me. I still include a lot of his teachings in my spiritual life. I also believe that I must follow my own intuition and conscience about my practices and overall beliefs, and that while I take inspiration from many sources (including some here) the ultimate responsibility for my choices rests in me.

Alrighty then...

Any feedback on that 'Greenman'..?

Well, I haven't really paid much attention to the Greenman myself, coming at it from the Dianic Wicca angle which acknowledges the Male aspect but doesn't focus on it much. I will look into my sources for a more thorough explanation of the role of the male Deity in other pagan traditions and get back to you.

How's that?

I gather in some versions he can be something of a bad boy...but then so can Krsna (stealing the saris of the Gopis comes to mind).

Ok, here are a few Green Man links:

http://www.mikeharding.co.uk/greenman/greenindex.html

http://www.greenmanreview.com/index2.html

http://www.canterburygreenman.fsnet.co.uk/

http://www.indigogroup.co.uk/edge/greenmen.htm

http://www.stonecarver.com/greenman.html

See also links on The Horned God(s):

http://community-2.webtv.net/@HH!AA...C/TheHornedGod/

http://www.paganspath.com/magik/hornedgod.htm

But I don't know if your question will ever really be answered as the God is very mysterious in Pagan traditions. Perhaps deliberately so?

I did want to say something on behalf of those who claim to be following an ancient tradition handed down through their family. It may be impossible to evaluate the legitmacy of such claims, since there was no written tradition handed down in these cases, or not more than a generation or two worth. The native religions were ruthlessly supressed by the Church, and any practices would have been very secretive in nature.

So although people often scoff at the idea that any tradition was truly handed down, and certainly the widespread forms of Wicca were not, there might very well be some remnants of early religions that were handed down in families. We can neither prove or disprove them. Just because we can't prove their true origins, doesn't mean that they aren't authentic.

They are most likely very different from modern Wicca. In most cases they are simply referred to as the old religion.

Herstory has a different measure of time than History.

Why is a hairy man called hersuit? And why aren't men called histerical?

Personally I feel love is more (far more) important than lineage. I think its a male thing, this preponderance with lineage while the tradition of Grandmothers is that of love and healing.

Thank you Tapati for holding the Light

Blessed Be, Babu