Contents | Previous | Next
Date: 26 Oct 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Subject: Re: "Hoodoo Chruches" (was: Re: Magical and Religious Terminology (was Spells and Rituals of Summoning ....)
Message-ID: <20001026173018.25189.00000009@ng-fw1.aol.com>
References:
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.orisha
X-Admin: news@aol.com
Subject: : Re: "Hoodoo Chruches" (was: Re: Magical and Religious Terminology
(was Spells and Rituals of Summoning ....)
> From: eballard@sas.upenn.edu (E. C. Ballard)
> Date: 10/26/00 6:50 AM EST
> Message-id:
>
> In article <20001026003841.02397.00000937@ng-cn1.aol.com>,
>
>
> > Not at all, underneath the distinctions you sought to make between who was
> > concerned with pie-in-the-sky and who was concerned with practical results
in
> > the here-and-now, is an unmistakeable suggestion that traditional African
> > religion was of the practical sort, and pie-in-the-sky questions of
"religion"
> > was a post-Christian defense-mechanism. I fully appreciate that this is not
an
> > either-or proposition. If you agree that it is rather a both-and
proposition,
> > and that moreover, Africa's concern with "religion" was not only an
original
> > invention, but a gift to the rest of the world, along with whatever it is
you
> > mean by sorcery, I would happily rest.
>
> By pie in the sky, I clearly meant that African religions are not
> interested in some distant redemption. In point of fact, not even your
> beloved Ifa is concerned with a non-imminant redemption. In case you
> hadn't noticed, spiritual development is not the same as what we were
> talking about. I was discussing the difference between a religious mindset
> that looks for solutions within the lifetime (and since in traditional
> Yoruban religion and for that matter Congo religion) reincarnation as the
> term is understood in western circles does not exist, and not being a
> redemptive, ressurrectionist cult as is Christianity, its follwers must be
> seeking their results in this life not in another.
Possibly I am not aware of what the term reincarnation "as the term is
understood in western circles" means. I do know however that the concept
of reincarnation is an original African invention. For your edification,
and that of the group, I am going to go ahead and post the article
"Ancient wisdom in Africa" by Patrick Bowen. I will post the entire
article separately, but I will quote the relevant part below (this is the
Zulu Master, Mandhlalanga, discoursing on Man and his destiny, as reported by
Bowen):
Man is on a journey, the goal of which is union
with the source of his being--the Itongo.
To reach that goal he must first pass through
all experiences the Cosmos affords, and must
shake off all accretions accumulated on his
descent from individualised Spiritual Mind
into grossest Matter. To do this, he is
_born and born again_, for his physical body
dies, as do his lower mental principles;
only his higher mental principles which are
akin with the Itongo survive individuality
bestowed upon them at its opening.
We thus see an ancient African teaching of reincarnation, of the necessity
for the soul to be "born and born again" as it continues on its journey of
return to the Itongo, or Prime Creator. Now, the notion of redemption here,
if indeed the term is appropriate, is assuredly not of the Christian sort.
For those who are not aware, the notion of reincarnation expounded upon by
the Zulu Mandhlalanga, as part of an unbroken tradition dating back at least
to the 4th dynasty Pharaoh Khufu, was a part of Christian teaching up until
the Nicaean conference of 325 AD, after which the books referencing this
doctrine were expunged from the Bible, and what was substituted was the
doctrine of salvation, which could be obtained exclusively through Christ
and the Church founded in his name, through resurrection in the after-life
promised only to the faithful -- that at least is the essence of the
salvific (redemptive) doctrine of the Church as I understood it; correct me
if I'm wromg. That is not the teaching of traditional African religion. But
neither is it the case, as is clear from Mandhlalanga's discourse, that
traditional African religion teaches that this life is all there is, and if
you're to get "it", you've got to get it in this life. Quite the contrary,
the African initiate is taught not to fear death, and it is a teaching
rooted precisely in the insight about the true nature of Man, his purpose,
and his journey of return to the Itongo, and that, whether he likes it or
not, he is "born and born again", as he continues on his journey. Indeed,
a major part of traditional African religion involves inquiry into the soul's
purpose in the present incarnation, which may involve divinational inquiry
as well into previous incarnations of the soul. Check out "Of water and the
spirit" by Malidoma Some ... according to his story, he is the reincarnation of
his grandfather, whose soul journey he continues. In the Yoruba context,
names such as Babatunde (father has returned) demonstrate clear familiarity
with the notion ... correction, the fact ... of reincarnation. As to the
understanding of this concept abroad in "western circles", and how it
differs from the Afican understanding just elucidated, I'm all ears.
But when you say, in reference to followers of traditional African religion,
that its followers, "must be seeking their results in this life not in
another",this is not so much wrong, as wrong-headed. As the soul continues its
journey in this life, it seeks fulfillment of its purpose in this life,
and it seeks through spiritual growth, to advance on its overall journey of
return to the Source. So, at one and the same time, one seeks to make the
best of one's life circumstance, in this life, AND, one can evince a certain
fatalism, rooted in the knowing that in the context of the Eternal, one
single lifetime is akin to a single drop of water in the ocean. This contrasts
with both peculiarly Western notions that date back to 325 AD, both
founded on the doctrine that one incarnation is all you get, that either
you must "get yours" in this life, or that suffering in this life might yet
still be rewarded in the "after-life". Both notions are alien to traditional
African religion.
> This is not to say that
> their actions in this life are without impact upon their life in the next
> world. However, that is aboutwhere the similarities between Western and
> African notions cease. African religions almost exclusively, apart from
> African forms of Christianity do not view one's actions as the basis for
> admission to paradise per se. In fact, the Christian notion of heaven is
> foreign to African religion.
I do not disagree, for reasons I have elucidated above.
> > This is false as a matter of fact. In Haiti the distinction between
> houngan and bokor is clear. In Trinidad, where I'm from, there is a clear
> distinction
> > between orisha-worship and the practice of obeah..."
>
> I never said that socially devient behavior was not condemned. What I was
> talking about, and I don't think that I was either unclear or that the
> concept is so difficult to grasp, is that a distinction between these two
> modes of operation is not made. In fact, a babalawo can and does perform
> so-called "sorcery" to affect results for clients. It is a stock in trade.
> And the brujo/sorcerer/ndoki does do magic to heal people. The distinction
> you are trying to establish exists not in the function nor in the process
> used by the individual but whether his or her actions are in the interest
> of the well-being of society or contrary to the good of the community. It
> is recognized that the witchfinder in most, indeed virtually all, African
> socieities where he or she exists has the same powers and knowledge as the
> ones he hunts. In the case of Kongo society, when the ndoki is not engaged
> in antisocial behavior their picadillos, however great are largely
> forgotten and forgiven. The kind of spiritual vengence that condemns all
> "sorcery" and makes it a field apart from religion is only made in
> religions such as Christianity. Even then it has not always been a
> universally accepted tenet.
Every healer knows that the same substance that may cure, may also hurt. It
depends on how it's used. So, believe it or not, I agree with you here.
At the same time, there is a difference between a mere sorcerer, and a
priest. And I would continue to resist any attempt to conflate the two,
as you repeatedly seek to do, on the slender basis that the methods used
by the former to hurt, are similar to those used by the latter to heal.
As to condemnation, African societies can be brutal in their condemnation
of sorcerers, who often pay with their lives. Death by stoning is not
unknown, still today. However, I quite agree that actions taken, by priests,
in the name of justice or healing, may sometimes appear indistinguishable
from those taken, by sorcerers, in the name of vengeance or malice.
Furthermore, I quite agree that African societies have a great
capacity for forgiveness, perhaps because, since no person is perfect, we
are all in need of forgiveness at one time or another. I think the crucial
question is where lies the course of healing. Just as with the physical body,
the course of healing sometimes requires that a limb be amputated, so with
the social body: sometimes the proper course is amputation of the offending
member; at other times, the offending member may be rehabilitated and
reintegrated with the whole. Somewhere in there is a delineation of the
difference between justice and vengeance, especially as it applies to the
treatment of sorcerers. At any rate, I have to re-emphasize that African
society is very clear in these distinctions, and I would continue to resist
any attempt to form an equation between priest and sorcerer in the context
of traditional African religion.
> My point was and remains that sorcery as a technique, as a practice is
> part and parcel of religious practice in many, indeed in most African
> religious traditions. The distinction you are striving to use to separate
> them applies only to motive and not to the practice. Ultimately, the
> distinction between Hongoun and Bokour, between Babalawo and "witch",
> between Orisha priest and Obeah, exists not on the level of practice,
> technique or method, but of intent. That is a very important point.
Perhaps so. Even among priests, there are priests and there are priests.
Some are mere clinicians, and so spend their time doing things that are
indistinguishable in process from what sorcerers do -- working energy
in all its various forms seeking to affect outcomes of one form or another
in the physical plane. One heals, the other hurts. Sometimes, in a punitive
or protective mode, the one heals _and_ hurts. No question about that.
However, there is in addition a category of priest, with whom you apparently
have little contact, that is more than mere clinician. It is the category
of priest who is concerned with mastery, with the reclamation of the
divine spark within. As you will see from a reading of "Ancient wisdom in
Africa", there are those of whom "it is not permitted to speak save to
say that they have attained consciousness on the Plane of the Real Self" --
a level that might be termed that of Ascended Master. This is a quest that
is as much part of traditional African religion, as it is that of the
religions of the East, which in fact are derivative of the African. Whenever
you form an equation between priest and sorcerer in traditional African
religion, you degrade it, and further, you stray from the objective truth.
I of course recognize that if your interest is in sorcery, that what you will
meet are sorcerers. I am also mindful that Western academicians --
anthropologists and the like -- engaged in a "study" of traditional African
religion, often embrace initiation as a form of research technique, to
obtain access to that from which they otherwise would remain excluded. The
obligatory book then predictably follows, and the researcher thinks he knows
all there is to know. Watch it. In traditional African religion, one finds that
those who are insincere or deceitful, finds "teachers" who likewise are
insincere and deceitful. So the books and exposes of Western scholarship
may contain useful facts here and there, but to think that these form a basis
on which to sit in the Academy making ex cathedra pronouncements is a
delusion. At any rate, it is clear to me that while some of what you say
is true, there is so much that is wrong that it must be because you take
that which you have been privileged to see, limited as it clearly is, and
mistakenly think that it is representative of the whole.
> Eoghan
>
Peace,
Grisso
"Can one talk about the ocean to a frog in a well -- or about the divine
to people who are restricted by their concepts?" -- From One-Minute Wisdom
To a traveller who asked how he could tell a true Master from a false one,
the Master said shortly, "If you are not yourself deceitful you will not be
deceived." -- From One-Minute Wisdom
--------------403D407508CC447877965BD1--
Contents | Previous | Next
Tips for your pocket: