This is a stupid question but I'm going to ask anyway thread

[Recursive Paradox]

@Maze

That thing you described seems similar to some of the results I've gotten using the Water Aspect to try to formulate a healing system within Etherism.

Can't say if they're related though. Just that the effects sound similar.  

[Nines19]

Ultramarine Violet

Nines19

Anyone know where the stuff about "self-initiation" originated?

I know SRW spoke against it and Cunningham said that his trad was one without initiation at all, so I'm thinking it was someone else.
(I can provide citations on this, if requested.)

Actually, from what I've read, Cunningham seemed more to suggest that initiation was not a matter of formal ritual - casting circles, ritual contact of any particular form (I'm mostly thinking of the Five-Fold Kiss, here), any specific words or movements - but rather, that 'initiation' was a gradual, internal process gained from introspection and true dedication in the simplest sense. I'd have to go home and get my books to be certain, but I think he then followed with the assertion that such initiation was deeply personal, not to be taken lightly, and that ritual initiation was only important in the eyes of those who judge by the initiate's lineaged status or lack thereof.

Though it was almost certainly not Cunningham's idea first, I think that in lieu of more concrete data, we might consider the suggestion that the idea of gradual, indepenedent growth and opening toward a dedicated state, fully immersed in belief and awareness and so on, is the deep-buried root of the practice of self-initiation. That only you, yourself, can 'truly know' when you are sufficiently within a religion for it to be touching your life in a profound way seems like an idea that Fluffs would want to latch on to and signify through some elaborate ritual confirmation.

This is, of course, for lack of any evidence of factual history to be had from my limited mind. Please take with a huge grain of salt.

I've been sitting here mulling over the back cover and preface and intro of his "Wicca A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner" for about a week and a half now, meaning to re-read it completely...
I think now I'm going to have to, lol. Maybe tomorrow or Monday... sometime in the next week for sure.

In the intro, he says specifically, "No initiations are required [for his tradition]," but he may indeed mean that in the context of actual initiation rituals. Either way that was where I was getting that from.  

[too2sweet]

It's been so long since I read that I'm not really sure either. I do know that quite a few people get it from looking at Janet Farrar's site...

Quote:

Self-Initiation:
We do not believe there truly is such a thing as 'self-initiation', as we believe initiation comes from spirit (see above). Therefore, if you perform an initiation by yourself and deity comes through, how can it be self-initiation' when it is deity that initiates you?! Saying this, we do not believe you can self-initiate into traditions such as Gardnerian or Alexandrian as they require lineage (apostolic succession). You must abide by the rules of those traditions.

While they mention Gardnerian and Alexandrian specifically, they don't say anything about Wicca in general - which seem to imply that it's only those 2 trads that are the exception.  

[Ultramarine Violet]

Nines19

Ultramarine Violet

Actually, from what I've read, Cunningham seemed more to suggest that initiation was not a matter of formal ritual - casting circles, ritual contact of any particular form (I'm mostly thinking of the Five-Fold Kiss, here), any specific words or movements - but rather, that 'initiation' was a gradual, internal process gained from introspection and true dedication in the simplest sense. I'd have to go home and get my books to be certain, but I think he then followed with the assertion that such initiation was deeply personal, not to be taken lightly, and that ritual initiation was only important in the eyes of those who judge by the initiate's lineaged status or lack thereof.

Though it was almost certainly not Cunningham's idea first, I think that in lieu of more concrete data, we might consider the suggestion that the idea of gradual, independent growth and opening toward a dedicated state, fully immersed in belief and awareness and so on, is the deep-buried root of the practice of self-initiation. That only you, yourself, can 'truly know' when you are sufficiently within a religion for it to be touching your life in a profound way seems like an idea that Fluffs would want to latch on to and signify through some elaborate ritual confirmation.

This is, of course, for lack of any evidence of factual history to be had from my limited mind. Please take with a huge grain of salt.

I've been sitting here mulling over the back cover and preface and intro of his "Wicca A Guide for the Solitary Practitioner" for about a week and a half now, meaning to re-read it completely...
I think now I'm going to have to, lol. Maybe tomorrow or Monday... sometime in the next week for sure.

In the intro, he says specifically, "No initiations are required [for his tradition]," but he may indeed mean that in the context of actual initiation rituals. Either way that was where I was getting that from.

Well, like I said - that was the impression I got while reading his works, but I've suffered from reading comprehension fail before. I'll try to let you know if I can find a relevant passage that's sufficiently detailed to tell one way or the other.  

[too2sweet]

The relevant passage is on page 80. While it doesn't say that you can self-initiate, it states that you can be an initiate without actually being conscious of it. That it's more of a process of becoming attuned to the God and Goddess.

Which of course one would have to argue, how does one become attuned to deities that one really knows nothing about (much less their actual names).

Edit... Actually a couple of pages later he says you can self-initiate if you really feel the need to.  

[Nines19]

too2sweet

Edit... Actually a couple of pages later he says you can self-initiate if you really feel the need to.

Ah, ok. I think where I'm getting confused is that the ritual he talks about in that bit as being a "self-initiation" ritual, he calls a "self-dedication" later on (in the actual ritual).

...or I may have a different/later/altered version from the one you're looking at.  

[too2sweet]

It's the 1989 Black and Green covered one, but on page 95 it talks about "self-dedication" ritual, so I'm guessing he may have been using the terms interchangeably.

Like you, I may have to just go back and read the book again - I'd say the last time I read it was about 10 years ago. sweatdrop  

[Ultramarine Violet]

too2sweet

The relevant passage is on page 80. While it doesn't say that you can self-initiate, it states that you can be an initiate without actually being conscious of it. That it's more of a process of becoming attuned to the God and Goddess.

Which of course one would have to argue, how does one become attuned to deities that one really knows nothing about (much less their actual names).

Edit... Actually a couple of pages later he says you can self-initiate if you really feel the need to.

Thanks, too2sweet.

As far as becoming attuned to deities one knows nothing about... Ouch. Have a care, eh? Regardless of what the book claims, it's been pretty well established that the Standing Stones witchcult path is not true Wicca (or Wica... Is there a difference? Help!) - at least not as it can be understood from Cunningham's published works. Further, I think that Cunningham meant it more as the gradual realization of a personal resonance with nature- and fertility-based deities/religious feelings/cheesecakes. Though I guess that's a lot more personal interperetation on my part... I've really got to learn to stop presenting that as fact or logic. *bops self*  

[too2sweet]

We know that... but the average reader takes what Cunningham says literally, and what he says is...

Quote:

Rest assured, it's quite possible to experience a true Wiccan initiation without ever meeting another soul involved with the religion

(bolded by me)

He then goes on to say that

Quote:

initiation is a process, gradual or instantaneous of the individuals attunement with the God and Goddess.

Now since most information about the Wiccan Gods (including their names) is oathbound information, how likely is it that one would become attuned to them, when one knows next to nothing about them. (I'm not saying it's impossible, but highly unlikely).

Interestingly enough, in The Truth About Witchcraft Today on page 105, Cunningham states...

Quote:

This circle casting is from a tradition I wrote called "The Standing Stones Tradition". Since I wrote this purely for publication in the above mentioned book, it isn't a "living" tradition.

which seems to indicate that the tradition was created only for the purposes of his book.  

[Maze]

TeaDidikai

Maze

I think I know someone who knows Reiki.. Been a while since I talked to her. Reiki uses symbols that I can ask really annoying questions about, I think! That'll be fun. :3

Remember to check lineage. And if you're hitting SummerStar, I'll be there. wink

Summerstar is in July.. *ponders* Maybe if I move my trip a month later, I can make it under my Visa Waiver Form.. *puzzles at her trip*

@recursive:
It's been a while since I read your Etherism Pathway, but now's as good a time as any to go catch up on it again. :3

Work's been consuming me lately, and sometimes, it's like I've forgotten a whole lot that I used to know, even as posted in this guild. Which is kind of bad, I suppose.. XD;  

[Recursive Paradox]

Maze

@recursive:
It's been a while since I read your Etherism Pathway, but now's as good a time as any to go catch up on it again. :3

It's been a while since I updated it too. XD  

[Aino Ailill]

What exactly does a blessing entail that it is offensive for another person to say 'Blessed be?'  

[Collowrath]

Aino Ailill

What exactly does a blessing entail that it is offensive for another person to say 'Blessed be?'

If I remember correctly, it lies in the etymology of the word "bless" and the ritual use of "blessed be," in particular. Apparently, within Wicca, there is a specific usage and context that isn't available sans initiation. It's not so much offensive as nonsensical.  

[Aino Ailill]

Collowrath

Aino Ailill

What exactly does a blessing entail that it is offensive for another person to say 'Blessed be?'

If I remember correctly, it lies in the etymology of the word "bless" and the ritual use of "blessed be," in particular. Apparently, within Wicca, there is a specific usage and context that isn't available sans initiation. It's not so much offensive as nonsensical.

So if another person used this wording, and did not use it in the context of Wicca, it would be permissible?  

[Collowrath]

Aino Ailill

Collowrath

Aino Ailill

What exactly does a blessing entail that it is offensive for another person to say 'Blessed be?'

If I remember correctly, it lies in the etymology of the word "bless" and the ritual use of "blessed be," in particular. Apparently, within Wicca, there is a specific usage and context that isn't available sans initiation. It's not so much offensive as nonsensical.

So if another person used this wording, and did not use it in the context of Wicca, it would be permissible?

Permissible, but still silly/pretentious depending on other factors of their behavior, such as calling themselves Wiccan when they aren't.