Is Wicca still a mystery religion?

[David19]

Something that Cochrane style witch said got me thinking, they said that Wicca (and Cochrane witchcraft such as the 1734 tradition and Clan of Tubal Cain, etc) is a mystery religion and that to be a part of it, you have to be initated into it, it wasn't 'intolerant' to exclude people, and that Wicca (and Cochrane witchcraft) isn't for everyone, that people should find what they need, and basically leave the 'mysteries' to people who are want it and that it it 'fits' them. Do you think that this is a valid point, 'cause Gardner did create Wicca as a mystery religion, i don't think he intended for it to become anything else (same with Cochrane?) (i think, if anyone knows differently, feel free to say).

I'm not saying being a solitary wiccan is wrong either, since i'm not a wiccan, but it's something that got me thinking. Do you think Wicca is still a mystery religion, has it become 'less mysterious' now.

Whatever your opinions are, do you think Wicca should remain a 'mystery' religion or should come out into the public?.

Anyway, what are your thoughts?.

[SilverSeraphim]

Considering all the books that are available on the subject in today's market, I don't think Wicca is really such a "mystery" tradition anymore. :hehehehe:

The problem with "mystery traditions" is that they are indeed exclusionary. This can lead to a number of problems, such as a failure to spread and be accepted by the masses. One example is Mithraism, which lost out to Christianity in part because the cult of Mithras appealed to and primarily accepted those of a military bent, whereas Christianity was available to all.

Another problem is that when there are only a few on the inside, some of those on the outside start becoming suspicious of what they can't see. They begin imagining all sorts of "evil" things that must be going on and decide the group must be eradicated. A good example of this would be the Freemason incident in the late 1700's (?), when a former Mason was "disappeared" after attempting to publish Mason secrets. When it appeared to the common people that a massive cover-up of the situation was going on, Masons, who had enjoyed a good deal of influence, suddenly found themselves shunned, and several major lodges ended up dissolving.

As to whether Gardner meant for Wicca to be a mystery religion, it's hard to say, since he did publish a book on the subject, over the objections of the person who initiated him, IIRC.

Frankly, speaking as a solitary eclectic, I believe that the idea that one HAS to be initiated into a mystery cult in order to learn the "mysteries", or what have you, to be a load of hooey. I'm not saying one can't learn them that way, and for many people that is the ideal situation for them. But it is not for me, or a lot of other people. And I find the idea that I can't learn the mysteries without being intiated into some group to be a tad arrogant. Religious history is full of individuals who went off on their own and had many mysteries revealed to them.

[/end semi-coherent rambling] 8O

[AkashaW]

Something that Cochrane style witch said got me thinking, they said that Wicca (and Cochrane witchcraft such as the 1734 tradition and Clan of Tubal Cain, etc) is a mystery religion and that to be a part of it, you have to be initated into it, it wasn't 'intolerant' to exclude people, and that Wicca (and Cochrane witchcraft) isn't for everyone, that people should find what they need, and basically leave the 'mysteries' to people who are want it and that it it 'fits' them. Do you think that this is a valid point, 'cause Gardner did create Wicca as a mystery religion, i don't think he intended for it to become anything else (same with Cochrane?) (i think, if anyone knows differently, feel free to say).

I'm not saying being a solitary wiccan is wrong either, since i'm not a wiccan, but it's something that got me thinking. Do you think Wicca is still a mystery religion, has it become 'less mysterious' now.

Whatever your opinions are, do you think Wicca should remain a 'mystery' religion or should come out into the public?.

Anyway, what are your thoughts?.

Fisrt, may I assume that by "wicca" you mean the modern re-creation of the Old Religion first popularized in the twentieth century by GBG?

With that assumption, yes, it is a mystery religion, but that doesn't really mean it's "mysterious". Yes, it's not for everyone - anymore than is Judaism, Chrisitanity, Islam, Buddhism, Hindi, Native American, Voudon or any other form of religion/spirituality. It is a mystery religion requiring Initiation because its main focus is experiential, *not* because it is inherently 'mysterious' in the sense we use that term today. One can read all there is to read about it, but unless one experiences the rituals forms in the context in which they were meant to be experienced, one cannot really know what it is trying to teach. I can state it very simply - connection to the Divine, which is manifested in everything. But unless one has experienced this connection, it's a mystery. It is, in fact, a part of the Greater Mysteries.

Now obviously, there are many, many ways to experience this connection (and therefore many valid paths). Witchcraft (which I use to mean the Old Religion and its re-creations) uses particular methods and particular ideas to give that experience. These methods are the Lesser Mysteries, and they are meant to be kept among properly prepared Initiates because they are the keys to the understanding of the Greater Mysteries. I ancient times, there was no penalty for revealing the Greater Mysteries, precisely because these could be experienced from any religious/spiritual teachings. Revealing the Lesser Mysteries was an offense punishable by death. The biggest reason for this was that the Lesser Mysteries can be diluted and lose their effectiveness as a guide to the Greater Mysteries if given without a proper context.

The best example of this was one I heard from Joseph Campbell. He spoke of one of the rites of Initiation in Ancient Greece, where one of the culminating experiences was to have the candidate gaze into a curved brass bowl, in which s/he was to view his/her destiny. He told the story like this: "Now if the candidate were to be told beforehand, 'what's really gong to happen is that one of the priests is going to come up behind you and hold up a shriveled head so that it is reflected in the bowl,' - well, that wouldn't be much of an experience, would it? The experience was what happened *inside the candidate* at the sight of that face in the bowl."

This is the main reason why Witchcraft is oathbound. The experience is in *what happens within the individual* during the rituals, after the proper preparation. No amount of reading can match these experiential moments. And that is the true mystery.

It is also this reason that, IMO, while solitary practitioners can certainly find the Greater Mysteries, it is a much more difficult path. Unless they are fortunate enough to have an experience that allows for the kind of transformation that takes place during Initiation, they have no one to initiate it for them (hence the term "Initiation"). Also, they have no one to check their experiences or to balance their own ideas. This can lead to such things as unwarranted assumptions, single-mindedness, untested truisims, etc. And please note, this is meant in a general sense only and not pointed in any particular direction. It is only my experience of the inherent difficulties in solitary practice (which I did for many years before finding Gardnerianism).

[Sea-Witch]

Considering all the books that are available on the subject in today's market, I don't think Wicca is really such a "mystery" tradition anymore.

Most of the stuff out there is neo-Wicca. From my own reading, I find that many of the books just regurgitate the same old stuff over and over. If you've read one, you've read them all, and apart from very basic info, you don't really learn anything.

Of course, my bookstore has a VERY limited selection of Wicca and Witchcraft material. :lol:

As for actual Wicca, yes, I do believe it is still a mystery tradition. You must be initiated into a BTW coven in order to learn ... the information isn't out there for the general public.

[Morgandria]

Most of the stuff out there is neo-Wicca. From my own reading, I find that many of the books just regurgitate the same old stuff over and over. If you've read one, you've read them all, and apart from very basic info, you don't really learn anything.

As for actual Wicca, yes, I do believe it is still a mystery tradition. You must be initiated into a BTW coven in order to learn ... the information isn't out there for the general public.

Exactly. I studied on my own for nearly a decade, and the second half of those years I felt stymied by the lack of substance in the books available.
I can honestly say I have learned more in the last year I've spent with a BTW coven, than I did in 5 on my own - and I am not a slouch when it comes to acquiring knowledge and skills.


It is also this reason that, IMO, while solitary practitioners can certainly find the Greater Mysteries, it is a much more difficult path. Unless they are fortunate enough to have an experience that allows for the kind of transformation that takes place during Initiation, they have no one to initiate it for them (hence the term "Initiation"). Also, they have no one to check their experiences or to balance their own ideas. This can lead to such things as unwarranted assumptions, single-mindedness, untested truisims, etc.

Exactly!

The mysteries still await me. I know that the methods of training and the rituals I'm doing all have many years of ritual resonance accrued, and that even though they will open the doors, what I find behind the doors will still be different that it is for others who've come down that path before me. Those are the Mysteries. They're different for every person, and every tradition. Each will find their own, and each trad will open those ways differently than another.

I think I have touched the Greater Mysteries once or twice, on my own, as I hacked my own way through the bush. But I have no way of knowing. As I train with my coven, I have started to see some of the touchstones along the way, and recognize parts of my own experience in a clearer context.

[Ben Gruagach]

Since Wicca is not a single monolithic uniform religion but has lots of different denominations (even if we look at just the BTWiccan denominations) I think it's fair to say that there will always be some which carry on a mystery tradition regardless how that is defined.

Not all will be mystery religion paths of course, but they will be there for those who want to practice them.

[Kendrah]

I think it is a mystery religion, though some of this has been lost. What has been lost - and what can't be protrayed in the books - is the personal experience. I can show you all of my covens "mysteries", but they won't mean anything to you unless you've gone through the personal/ spiritual growth, worked deeply with the material, and come to a certain point. Without this, all they would be is cute sayings and fun poems. *shrugs*

The multi-level learning and growth that is taught within groups is what, I think, brings mysteries alive. Without the constant input, direction pointing, etc, a person is could spin there wheels wanting something more but not knowing how to get that the meat. I'm not saying it's impossible for solitaries. I think it is. But iit is harder.

That's my two cents, anyway.

[Lunacie]

To me the allegory of Wicca and Reiki is meaningful. May not be meaningful to anyone else.

For years I was using energies to heal myself and others, sometimes using my own energies, often drawing energy from the earth and the sky and the divine spirit. As time went on I considered doing that kind of work for a living and thought it would be beneficial to take a class and have an "official title", so I took a Reiki class.

Some people will tell you that you are using different energy when you use Reiki than when you do other kinds of energy work. I don't agree. I think the energy is the same, but the tools are different. At least, it feels the same to me.

I think that it doesn't really matter which tradition or path one follows to connect with the energies of the old gods and the four elements, or even if one doesn't join any tradition or path but works solitary. They may not learn some of the secrets and have some of the same experiences that they might get from working with a tradition, but the divine energy they are connecting with is still the same.

[jetpiston]

Do you think Wicca is still a mystery religion
Yes. I am a Gardnerian, a member of one of these 'mystery religions.' Prior to my initiation I read the popular books that are purported to contain the 'mysteries' of the Wica. They were not sufficient to pass on the Tradition.



has it become 'less mysterious' now
Regardless of what may or may not be known to the public about the mechanics of Traditional practice, the Tradition retains its mysteries. They cannot be written down, only passed directly from teacher to student, for they must be experienced to be comprehended.



Whatever your opinions are, do you think Wicca should remain a 'mystery' religion or should come out into the public?.
I think it should remain a 'mystery.' Without the 'mystery' it becomes something else. In addition, it is not concerned with the public. We serve the Gods.

[*Rasenna*]

Something that Cochrane style witch said got me thinking, they said that Wicca (and Cochrane witchcraft such as the 1734 tradition and Clan of Tubal Cain, etc) is a mystery religion and that to be a part of it, you have to be initated into it, it wasn't 'intolerant' to exclude people, and that Wicca (and Cochrane witchcraft) isn't for everyone, that people should find what they need, and basically leave the 'mysteries' to people who are want it and that it it 'fits' them.

I think what we have today is an outer and inner Wicca. One is comprised of initiates who share a lineage of initiators who were trained and experienced. The other Wicca is comprised of people who have read some books, practiced in accord with their understanding of the public material, and who have added their own spin (but have no lineage).


Do you think that this is a valid point, 'cause Gardner did create Wicca as a mystery religion, i don't think he intended for it to become anything else (same with Cochrane?) (i think, if anyone knows differently, feel free to say).

I don't think Gardner created Wicca (as a mystery tradition or otherwise) but I do believe he embellished upon what he received. That's the evolution of Wicca (not the establishment). But I do think Gardner wanted to continue in the Mystery Tradition line, and so we find the initiate degree system, oaths and so on.


Whatever your opinions are, do you think Wicca should remain a 'mystery' religion or should come out into the public?.

I think it should remain a mystery religion among those who maintain it as such. In Wicca today we are seeing the fate of inner traditions once they fall into the hands of the general population. So I think it's good that some people try and preserve the mystery tradition.


Considering all the books that are available on the subject in today's market, I don't think Wicca is really such a "mystery" tradition anymore.

Fortunately some traditions of it still exist, but you're right about the public systems. Consider that probably over 80% of the books on Wicca are written by people who essentially added stuff from their heads and mixed it with what others pulled from their *** before them, and it's easy to see that mainstream Wicca is not a mystery tradition.


Frankly, speaking as a solitary eclectic, I believe that the idea that one HAS to be initiated into a mystery cult in order to learn the "mysteries", or what have you, to be a load of hooey. I'm not saying one can't learn them that way, and for many people that is the ideal situation for them. But it is not for me, or a lot of other people. And I find the idea that I can't learn the mysteries without being initiated into some group to be a tad arrogant. Religious history is full of individuals who went off on their own and had many mysteries revealed to them.[/COLOR]

Indeed some things can be learned or even stumbled upon through self exploration. But that doesn't mean a person will find it all, or even understand it within the proper context. This is why mystery traditions exist in the first place. Some things need to be taught in a certain context in order to fully understand. What we're seeing in mainstream Wicca is what happens when initiators and their teachings are absent.

Whether this is a good thing or not is the real question.

[Elderbush]

I think that Wiccans fall over a wide spectrum with the main aim being a relationship with the gods, just different ways to get there, and to experience their gods. Some people will get there within a coven and some will get there without one. I think nearly everyone will feel that their way is best, and it is for them, but it is not the only way. Seeing as how there are so many traditions that split off because they disagreed or people who became solitaries because they disagreed, I think people have felt that for a long, long time. Over 50 years, at least.

Some people within traditions are naturally going to find their way superior, and superior as well to all the other traditions, but that doesn't mean that it actually is. It is just their opinion. I don't think that coven membership is a good gauge for who has the best relationship with their gods. That is what we are trying to measure, isn't it?

[jetpiston]

Some people within traditions are naturally going to find their way superior, and superior as well to all the other traditions, but that doesn't mean that it actually is. It is just their opinion.
Actually, that is exactly what it means. Their tradition is superior. For them. But not for those for whom a different tradition is superior.



I don't think that coven membership is a good gauge for who has the best relationship with their gods. That is what we are trying to measure, isn't it?
I would not presume to 'measure' how good someone's relationship with their Gods is. (That sounds a lot like Christian fundamentalism to me.)

[Elderbush]

Good! It was beginning to sound a lot like it to me, too. Tell me, do you think that members of covens make more powerful spells? Because otherwise, we are back to what you are saying - each of us thinks our way is the right way, for us.

[jetpiston]

I think that members of a Coven can, but don't necessarily, make more powerful spells than someone working alone, simply because there are several people combining their efforts. This depends on the group. If a group is cohesive and works well together they can effect a powerful result. But if they don't know each other or don't work well together then the results may be disappointing at best. I would suspect that a single, experienced Witch, working alone, can easily 'outperform' (if it can be described that way) a focus-less group of inexperienced beginners.

But that is kind of independent of whether one works in a particular Tradition or not. In this context, I would suspect that a member of a coven-based Tradition may have an advantage, simply because they have experienced teachers guiding their studies. But some people just don't feel comfortable working with a group and are forced to go it alone, or, if they're lucky, find a mentor. Then there is always the possibility that one may have a lot of natural ability and not really need that guidance.

[Jenett]

The example I always use for this is music, particularly singing.

Do solo singers make good music? They absolutely can. Can they do all the same music a group of singers can? No. Is one kind of music 'better' than the other? No. But there are some very clear practical differences. (Starting with basic harmony, and moving on to much more complex pieces.)

In the same way, a witch (or whoever) working with a group has options that someone working on their own doesn't have (and as said, not just in spell casting, but other teaching or training may be available.) How much those options matter to someone depends a lot on the person.

I think it also depends: group work tends to be most effective when everyone 'buys into' it about equally - this means it's not usually the best solution for individual person's very personal/specific needs (more major ones, like healing related to a major medical event, tends to be a better focus, or more general things that everyone can personalise a bit - charging something to help with prosperity, for example.)

[*Rasenna*]

Some people within traditions are naturally going to find their way superior, and superior as well to all the other traditions, but that doesn't mean that it actually is. It is just their opinion.

I think some people realize their tradition is more functional and integrating, but I don't think that automatically translates as an air of superiority. One can see the greater value in a tradition without looking down her or his nose at others.


...gauge for who has the best relationship with their gods. That is what we are trying to measure, isn't it?

I think Wicca, as a mystery tradition is not limited to rapport with deity. It's about magical and spiritual development (religion aside), and it's also about Otherworld connections, comprehending the "inner mechanism" of Nature, and realization of ones place in the scheme of things. Relationship with deity is only part of that process.

[Vigdisdotter]

The problem with "mystery traditions" is that they are indeed exclusionary.


I don't see that as a problem.


This can lead to a number of problems, such as a failure to spread and be accepted by the masses.


This sounds more like a Christian ideal then a Pagan one.



Another problem is that when there are only a few on the inside, some of those on the outside start becoming suspicious of what they can't see.

Such is human nature. It's not something I would lose sleep over.



Frankly, speaking as a solitary eclectic, I believe that the idea that one HAS to be initiated into a mystery cult in order to learn the "mysteries", or what have you, to be a load of hooey.

Why? How would you know what mysteries are part of what tradition any other way?

A mystery tradition has it's own mysteries and while some may be shared by other paths or even be discovered by those working on their own, a great deal of the tradition will NOT be known because such is the knowledge of initiates.


But it is not for me, or a lot of other people.

Fine, but why must you look down on something you admit you don't' want any part of?


And I find the idea that I can't learn the mysteries without being intiated into some group to be a tad arrogant.

Depends on what mysteries your talking about. If you're talking about Wiccan mysteries (remember, Wicca is a religion made by humans) then it's not arrogant, but logical. If you aren't initiated, then you won't have access to the information that initiates have.


history is full of individuals who went off on their own and had many mysteries revealed to them.

And the serious ones didn't claim to be something they are not. See, that's where the problems arise. You said it's arrogant to think that one must be initiated to learn the mysteries, I find it highly arrogant that some would claim the name of a religion they've never been initiated into and barely know anything about.

[Elderbush]

I am sorry that you find it arrogant for others to belong to Wicca who do not define the word or the religion of Wicca as you do. You must find a great many people arrogant in this world.

[Lunacie]

It's too bad that some people claim the title of Wiccan without taking the time and making the effort to learn what it means to be Wiccan. However, I don't believe that one must be initiated into a coven in order to be a Wiccan.

The best argument for joining a coven and being initiated is that someone is there to guide you and lead you to the mysteries. But is it necessary to experience the mysteries in order to claim the title of Wiccan? If so, how many of the mysteries must one experience before one can use the name?

[raven grimassi]

I think Wicca, as a mystery tradition is not limited to rapport with deity. It's about magical and spiritual development (religion aside), and it's also about Otherworld connections, comprehending the "inner mechanism" of Nature, and realization of ones place in the scheme of things. Relationship with deity is only part of that process.

This reminds me of the themes we find in ancient myth and legend. I refer to the tales of encountering an elderly woman who turns out to be a fairy woman. Or, encountering a fearsome giant who turns out to be a goddess. These tales address that appearances are deceptive, and that things are not as suggested by what resides on the outside or surface. This is the difference between "inner" and "outer" and here I agree that there is a difference between Wiccans who have been initiated by someone skilled in the Craft and those who have not. I am not judging the difference, I am just pointing out that one exists.

We can liken this to story-telling itself. On one level it is just a story, but on another level there is a message or a moral. One is the outer expression and the other is the inner meaning (non-initiate understanding versus initiate level understanding). These are two different experiences of the story, and yet it is the same story. The mysteries call us deepen within, and they require the challenge of setting aside the self in order to find meaning in the whole. I think in many ways neo-Wicca is about the self, and this makes it difficult to encounter the mysteries in their fullness.

Take for example the verse in the Charge that basically states if what you seek is not already within you, you cannot find it in an outer search. One popular interpretation of this is that it means we already possess the knowledge, and just need to discover it or bring it out by going within. One mystery tradition interpretation is that it means we are the divine spark generated from the great source of all things. Within our being resides this spark, and when we connect with it we also connect with the source from which it came. This is the point of interfacing, but it is only the beginning and not the goal itself. Here again is the outer and inner, the tale and the message.

I think Joseph Campbell said it well in these words:

"The problem of mankind today, therefore, is precisely the opposite to that of men in the comparatively stable periods of those great coordinating mythologies which are now known as lies. Then all meaning was in the group, in the great anonymous forms, none in the self-expressive individual; today no meaning is in the group - none in the world: all is in the individual. But there the meaning is absolutely unconscious. One does not know toward what one moves. One does not know by what one is propelled. The lines of communication between the conscious and the unconscious zones of the human psyche have all been cut, and we have been split in two." - The Hero With A Thousand Faces

[BlackMagicalCat]

Does a person have to belong to a coven to hear and be taught by the Goddess?Where does she fit in all this?

This is like a christian saying you have to be a member of a church to really learn the deep things of God,,as if God wasnt able to deal with a person on his own.

Is the Goddess moving through the covens,sorta like God moves and speaks through the churches?I guess it always helps to learn from those who are experienced,,,,but this sounds like the catholic priests telling the masses that they are the ones in touch with God and to learn the great mysteries they must be the ones to do it,because the common folk dont know any better.

So those who are not initiated members dont really count,nor do thier experiences count either.Because they didnt get the blessing from those who are higher up on the food chain.

[jetpiston]

Does a person have to belong to a coven to hear and be taught by the Goddess?
No. But a person has to belong to a coven to learn/experience certain types of Traditional Wica.


Where does she fit in all this?
Depends on the Tradition. Usually she's the one on the left. The other half, the God, is usually on the right.


This is like a christian saying you have to be a member of a church to really learn the deep things of God,,as if God wasnt able to deal with a person on his own.

Is the Goddess moving through the covens,sorta like God moves and speaks through the churches?I guess it always helps to learn from those who are experienced,,,,but this sounds like the catholic priests telling the masses that they are the ones in touch with God and to learn the great mysteries they must be the ones to do it,because the common folk dont know any better.
I don't know who you've been talking to, but no Traditional Wiccan that I have met has ever said anything like that.


So those who are not initiated members dont really count,nor do thier experiences count either.Because they didnt get the blessing from those who are higher up on the food chain.
You're completely missing the point. 'Blessings from those who are higher up on the food chain' don't matter. The experiences of those who are not initiated do count. They are precious to those who have experienced them. But they are also something different from the experiences of initiates of a Tradition. Not better or worse, just different.

[*Rasenna*]

Does a person have to belong to a coven to hear and be taught by the Goddess?Where does she fit in all this?

I think the discussion is being sidetracked by the focus on a coven. A person can be initiated and taught without a coven.


This is like a christian saying you have to be a member of a church to really learn the deep things of God,,as if God wasnt able to deal with a person on his own.

Using your analogy, it's more about saying that a person cannot know about a specific denomination as much as someone who is formally trained in it. I think it's a hardship to expect "God" to spend "his" time teaching someone what's already available. ;)

[Elderbush]

Azzeenasman, initiated members of a tradition are only higher on the food chain (the visual of Wiccan sharks makes me smile!) to others that are in that tradition. What we see once in a while is that some members of some traditions try to impose their tradition's (or their own personal) viewpoint on everyone else, as if they were the mmm....Wiccan Ruler of Mankind and the Outer Galaxy,.

Their tradition only holds for their tradition. They can say that everyone must be initiated to be in their tradition and it will be true. If they start saying that everyone has to be initiated into a tradition to be Wiccan, that's only their opinion, and it isn't shared by all Wiccans..

If they are rude or look down their noses at you, those are glaring personality flaws that they didn't outgrow in high school. Unfortunately being a Wiccan does not equate being socially adept. :)

[Lunacie]

Unfortunately being a Wiccan does not equate being socially adept. :)

Thank goodness, otherwise I'd never qualify. :lol:

Your post was very well expressed EB.


Rasenna, I agree that a person can be taught about Wicca and the Wiccan mysteries without joining a coven. But isn't the whole purpose of initiation to join a coven? What does being initiated signify if it doesn't signify becoming a member of a coven?

[jetpiston]

A person can be initiated and taught without a coven.
What Traditions do this? (I can't think of any...)

[Vinny Mirabella]

Here's a question I've been thinking on:

People who are initiated, at one time were not. So they know what that was all about, and now they also know what only an initiate knows. So if they know both sides, and still feel that initiation is essential, what do we logically make of that position?

Another question: How can we know that we don't need something, when we don't know what that something is?

[*Rasenna*]

What Traditions do this? (I can't think of any...)

Well, off the top of my head - the Pictish-Gaelic tradition and the Celtic Wiccan Traditionalist. I'm sure there are others as well. These trads do have covens but also solitary practitioners. Perhaps a check of trad entries on Witchvox will help reveal others.

[Lunacie]

Here's a question I've been thinking on:

People who are initiated, at one time were not. So they know what that was all about, and now they also know what only an initiate knows. So if they know both sides, and still feel that initiation is essential, what do we logically make of that position?

Another question: How can we know that we don't need something, when we don't know what that something is?

That brings to mind another question. How about the people who once were in a traditional coven and left and are now solitary?

[jetpiston]

Well, off the top of my head - the Pictish-Gaelic tradition and the Celtic Wiccan Traditionalist.
Thanks!

[Elderbush]

Here's a question I've been thinking on:

People who are initiated, at one time were not. So they know what that was all about, and now they also know what only an initiate knows. So if they know both sides, and still feel that initiation is essential, what do we logically make of that position?

Another question: How can we know that we don't need something, when we don't know what that something is?


Well, let's see there, Vinny. People who are initiated are initiated into ONE tradition, probably ONE coven that does a variation upon that ONE tradition. They know all about that ONE coven. So they think that it is essential to be initiated into that ONE coven because they know that's the only way anyone is going to get into that ONE coven.

There are a lot of covens and traditions. Being initiated into one does not mean that person knows more than diddily squat about all the rest. I'm wondering (from your question) how reasonable it is to assume that all traditions initiate exactly the same way and how reasonable it is to assume that all people either learn the same mysteries or even have a positive experience, given how many drop out of said traditions to become solitaries. Of course they may well drop out for other reasons.

We can know we don't need something when it doesn't feel right. I trust myself and my gods and therefore believe other people know what is best for themselves, too.

[Vinny Mirabella]

We can know we don't need something when it doesn't feel right.

But how can a person say it doesn't feel right when they don't know what "it" is to begin with? I'm just asking. I know we can say that certain things don't feel right without experiencing them (like robbing a bank) but I dont think it's the same situation we're talking about with initiate knowledge and training.


I'm wondering (from your question) how reasonable it is to assume that all traditions initiate exactly the same way and how reasonable it is to assume that all people either learn the same mysteries or even have a positive experience

I guess I'm assuming that "lineage" means a commonality. From what I've heard there is "a mystery tradition" from which these traditions are derived. If so, the various covens and traditions are individual expressions of that mystery tradition. But the inner tradition itself (or inner mysteries) at the center, is the same. It's probably hard to sort this out though, because I'm sure some traditions that claim the mystery tradition connection don't really have that lineage.

[Elderbush]

LOL Initiate knowledge....you don't think that some people haven't been taken advantage of during initiations? Don't you think it is a bit naive not to believe the stories about people who get raped or otherwise abused by their initiators? Not all covens are reputable. If it doesn't feel right, don't do it! I hope you will follow that policy.

Nope, there is no uniformity within Wicca, unless a tradition keeps a tight hold on the covens that are within it. Lineage means very little since a lot of Gardnerians split from that group to found their own traditions. Lineage then becomes tradition specific. Like the founders of my tradition were Gardnerians some 37 years ago but we really don't care about that because what is important to us is the lineage within our own tradition. We also don't much care what goes on in other traditions. That's their business, unless of course they are breaking the laws of the land.

[AkashaW]

LOL Initiate knowledge....you don't think that some people haven't been taken advantage of during initiations? Don't you think it is a bit naive not to believe the stories about people who get raped or otherwise abused by their initiators? Not all covens are reputable. If it doesn't feel right, don't do it! I hope you will follow that policy.

I certainly hope you're not implying that because there are abuses, the entire coven/tradition system is either a) wrong, or b) couldn't possibly hold any real knowledge or wisdom - or both. Abuses there may be, but that's true everywhere - doctors, teachers, bosses, parents. Abuses of a given paradigm do not invalidate the entire paradigm.


Nope, there is no uniformity within Wicca, unless a tradition keeps a tight hold on the covens that are within it. Lineage means very little since a lot of Gardnerians split from that group to found their own traditions. Lineage then becomes tradition specific. Like the founders of my tradition were Gardnerians some 37 years ago but we really don't care about that because what is important to us is the lineage within our own tradition. We also don't much care what goes on in other traditions. That's their business, unless of course they are breaking the laws of the land.

Lineage may mean very little to you, or to your Initiators, but it does have meaning. Again, simply because there are those who don't value the idea of lineage does not invalidate it as a paradigm. Lineage is much more than a list of names. It is a mystical connection passed from Initiator to Initiate. As a Gardnerian, the meaning of lineage is that it proves the spiritual connection of a coven back through the 'generations' to GBG - and to whatever magick and/or power and/or essence and/or wisdom was present within him due to *his* connection to *his* Initiators (and hence to what magick and/or power and/or essence and/or wisdom from the Old Religion still present within them), passed through adherence to the rituals and materials GBG used to forge just such a connection. That the connection can later be broken does not disprove its reality, just as divorce doesn't prove the people in question never loved each other. And, of course, sometimes that connection simply doesn't 'take' in the first place. Since it is a thing of spirituality, there will always be some people who aren't on the same wavelength who can't pass it between them. All this means is that the two are probably not a good fit for a teaching relationship - again, as people who are divorced were not a good fit for marriage to each other.

Of course, since Initiation IS a transformative thing, there is always the risk that the Initiate will change in some way that makes him/her unable to continue in the coven, or even in the Tradition. Again, that doesn't invalidate either that particular coven, nor that Tradition. It only means that what was once a good fit for that person no longer is. The only restriction Gardnerians place on those who wish to leave the Tradition is that the person leaving keep their oath. After all, one's oath is given to the Gods, and not to either the coven or the Tradition. And, of course, there's really no way for a Gardnerian to enforce that restriction - or else there wouldn't be all the published works claiming to reveal Gardnerian secrets.

BTW, I hope your Initiators are among the ethical ones who created a new Tradition without using Gardnerian rites and material to do it.

[*Rasenna*]

Nope, there is no uniformity within Wicca, unless a tradition keeps a tight hold on the covens that are within it.

I agree that in mainstream Wicca there isn't any uniformity. But among those traditions who maintain the old mystery tradition there does seem to be.


Lineage is much more than a list of names. It is a mystical connection passed from Initiator to Initiate. As a Gardnerian, the meaning of lineage is that it proves the spiritual connection of a coven back through the 'generations' to GBG - and to whatever magick and/or power and/or essence and/or wisdom was present within him due to *his* connection to *his* Initiators (and hence to what magick and/or power and/or essence and/or wisdom from the Old Religion still present within them), passed through adherence to the rituals and materials GBG used to forge just such a connection.

Exactly, and well said!

[Lunacie]

I'm certainly not speaking for Elderbush (she can speak for herself of course) but I didn't think she was "throwing the baby out with the bath water" - or questioning the importance of initiation or lineages.

I think she was saying (and I agree) that it can be naive to assume that getting initiated into a coven that claims to have an unbroken lineage is going to change your life, or that every coven that makes such claims is necessarily telling the whole truth and has the best of intentions for their members. Which is why I often refer people who are seeking a coven or group to Isaac Bonewit's Cult Danger Evaluation Form.

Initiation into a lineaged tradition isn't the only way to tap into that mystical connection (with the gods and the energies of the universe and anything else that is included in 'the mysteries'), but it is one way to do that. Gerald Gardner was an ordinary person who found a way to connect with the gods and the energies of the universe, just as all the people he initiated were ordinary people, and on down through the people who were initated later on.


BTW, I hope your Initiators are among the ethical ones who created a new Tradition without using Gardnerian rites and material to do it.

I thought the Alexandrians and nearly every other lineaged group based their traditions on the Gardnerian rites and material, no?

[raven grimassi]

I thought the Alexandrians and nearly every other lineaged group based their traditions on the Gardnerian rites and material, no?

No, there are several with no connections that I can see. But bear in mind that Gardner drew from various existing sources when he was elaborating on what was passed to him. So it is difficult to sort out the lineage, and certainly some of Gardner's material is based upon pre-existing Craft material (such as Leland's writings on Italian Witchcraft; the "Charge" is one example of borrowing elements from the Italian material).

So, I urge caution in viewing Gardner as the fount from which all drink.

[Elderbush]

I didn't, indeed, say that initiation isn't important to some people because of abuses that have, and continue to happen. I was warning him and others as well that abuse does happen and that if one's instincts are saying that something is very wrong, I would trust that.

Plus read Bonewit's essay of the dangers of cults. That presents very valuable advise.

LOL Yes, Lunacie you thought right.

[AkashaW]

Exactly, and well said!

Why thank you! :hahugh:

[Lunacie]

No, there are several with no connections that I can see. But bear in mind that Gardner drew from various existing sources when he was elaborating on what was passed to him. So it is difficult to sort out the lineage, and certainly some of Gardner's material is based upon pre-existing Craft material (such as Leland's writings on Italian Witchcraft; the "Charge" is one example of borrowing elements from the Italian material).

Hmm, then I really don't understand why some people are so annoyed by solitary practicioners calling themselves "Wiccan" without the offical stamp of traditional initiation? Why aren't they expending their energy on those traditions that call themselves "Wiccan" when they have very little in common with Gardner's traditions?


So, I urge caution in viewing Gardner as the fount from which all drink.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to convey in my post. Thanks for the confirmation.

[Vinny Mirabella]

Wow, this thread sure turned into some disjointed views. Too bad, this could have been a good discussion.

[Dawa Lhamo]

I don't know about disjointed views.... People disagree, sure, but I think it was a very nice discussion.

I think I very much agree with one of the first posters who said that what we have today is an inner and an outer Wicca. I think that was very accurate.

As far as exclusivity and superiority, it's not necessarily the case that something that is exclusive necessarily considers itself superior. Romantic relationships are exclusive... you wouldn't let your friends, neighbors, co-workers watch in your bedroom, would you? (Alright we're not thinking about exhibitionism here. ;) ) Romantic relationships are not really any *better* than other relationships, are they? They're just qualitatively different.

I think this can get into "the grass is greener" type mentality. People want what they don't have... they imagine it must be better than what they have. And if someone points out that they don't have it, then that person must be making fun of them or degrading them or feeling superior to them.

But simply saying that what I have is different than what you have is not making a qualitative comparison of which is better. It's simply saying that they're different.

[Eran]

Excelllent summary, Dawa Lhamo, and I agree with you completely. Not much to add to that.