Contents | Previous | Next
Date: 07 Nov 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Arguments
Message-ID: <20001107154110.11939.00000213@ng-ft1.aol.com>
References: <8u91gn$d61$1@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com
Newsgroups: alt.religion.orisha
X-Admin: news@aol.com
>In our work both here and in West Africa, we receive them not only from
>the above mentioned traditions, but from all over Africa. We literally
>live in a separate world utterly distinct and differently defined from
>the academic, the average Western "practitioners" and others who spend
>countless hours "debating" imaginary differences and the nature of
>things they have no true personal knowledge of. Not only do we not
>ever "debate" these "imaginary" distinctions, it is conisdered [as
>Priest] offensive and taboo to do so.
This reminds me of the quote I have used before from One-Minute Wisdom:
The Master was exceedingly gracious
to University dons who visited him, but
he would never reply to their questions
or be drawn into their theological speculations.
To his disciples who marvelled at
this, he said: "Can one talk about
the ocean to a frog in a well--or about
the divine to people who are restricted
by their concepts?"
It is one of the reasons that I have such a low opinion of anthropology as a
science seeking to comprehend ATR. He who can do more can also do less, but he
who knows only less cannot necessarily do more. The adherent of ATR, should he
so choose, can rather easily master the child's play tools and concepts of
anthropology. But why should he? Why revert to a frog's well if you already
have dipped in the ocean? I'm not so sure however that the anthropologist can
so easily escape the well.
"Initiation" alone does not
>bestow the knowledge of the mysteries. There is so much more that (it
>is clear why) is never revealed.
>--
>Mamaissii Vivian
>http://www.mamiwata.com
>
Indeed.
Peace,
Grisso
--------------96C17798130109223219AEAB--
Contents | Previous | Next
Tips for your pocket: