{"collection":"bos","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/browse/bos/bos358.htm","path":"bos/bos358.htm","source_url":"https://sacred-texts.com/bos/bos358.htm","text":"Internet Book of Shadows, (Various Authors), [1999]\n \n \n \n \n By: Dan Holdgreiwe \n To: Adrienne \n Re: Dangers of Deity? \n ----------------------- \n \n \n In the presence of the Goddess, Adrienne said to Dan Holdgreiwe: \n \n PH> ...to suggest that the human psyche, confronted with the Divine PH> presence\n without being built up to sustain that impact, can frag ment. \n \n DH> I don't buy it, at least not in those terms. This sort of thing makes for\n impressive sermons, but it does not correspond to the Divine reality that I have\n experienced. \n \n Ae> Then you're lucky. I'm with Paul Hume on this one. \n \n Well, I've been rethinking this myself, mostly because I realized that in other\n contexts I make a big deal about the \"dangers\" of confronting the Divine. So why\n was I so critical of the dangers espoused by Paul and others? \n \n A major reason, I beleive is that I was taking their statements too literally. I\n can't take the image of God as a high voltage line seriously. For that matter, I\n find myself more and more disatisfied the the electrical metaphor that so permiates\n modern discussions of magic. Words such as \"charging,\" \"grounding,\" and \"energy\"\n capture only one side -- and not the most important side -- of ritual work. My over\n literal reading of their posts conjured up a ridiculous image in my mind, which I\n emphatically rejected. \n \n Let me say instead that the dangers of encounter with the Divine are not electrical,\n but rather are moral and intellectual. If one demands a relationship with Deity\n which exceeds one's moral maturity, one does indeed face serious risks. I suspect\n that most of these risks are related to self-deception and self-indulgence, but I\n suppose that in extreme cases the damage to the personality could be more rapid. \n All this, of course, presumes a basically healthy psyche. \n \n On the other hand, approaching Deity often feels much more dangerous than it is. We\n are likely to feel a great deal of fear as our pretensions and denials are stripped\n away by the appraoch of the Divine presence. This feeling of fear is necessary and\n good, but it is fear of change as much as fear of real danger. \n \n Ae> Traumatic not just for the unwilling. I recently had a pries tess of\n mine who did the Drawing Down for the first time and she was profoundly\n disturbed by it. Not in an unpleasant way, but she's well trained and she\n still found the whole experience hard to deal with on an emotional level.\n Some people can shrug it off, others find it hard to incorporate into\n themselves. Kinda like losing one's virginity... \n \n I wasn't thinking that \"emotionally hard to deal with\" was what Paul et al. meant by\n \"zapped\" or \"crispy.\" Certainly such experiences can be emotionally hard to deal\n with (although I have never found them so myself). \n \n Ae> To be blunt, bullsh*t. Sure it can. The Gods sometimes force us to\n prove our mettle, *especially* if we ask them to. If we are strong\n enough,fine. If not... \n \n Prove our mettle at what exactly? Lightning bolts at fifty paces? I probably agree\n with you, but I reject the idea that we are tested like transistors -- turn on the\n juice and throw away the ones that burn out. \n \n \n 1822\n \n \n \n Ae> Besides, the biggest danger isn't in the presence of the Divine. It's\n when the mage/priest *thinks* the Divine is there and is deluded. The\n unconscious mind will happily produce all sorts of fantasies if you ask. \n \n This I agree with 100% \n \n Ae> It isn't a case of how effective the participants are, rather, how\n ineffective. Delusion is a stock in trade for the occult arts. \n \n Here you seem to have come around to my side. Most dangers come not from the\n presence of the Gods, but rather from their absence. An imaginary power line isn't\n dangerous, but an imaginary like with God/dess is. \n \n Blessed Be \n Dan \n \n By: Paul Hume \n To: Dan Holdgreiwe \n Re: Re: Dangers of Deity? \n ---------------------------- \n \n Dan - \n \n The zapped or crispy metaphor (hmmm, more Divine Electricity imagery) could include\n \"emotional discomfort,\" though I find that to be so basic an element in dealing with\n Divine encounters (in my *vast* experience (g)), as the ego tries to relate to what\n has just happened, that I don't really consider it at issue. \n \n Someone who shrugs and mutters \"No big deal,\" whether they've Drawn Down a God for\n the first or five hundredth time has more of a problem, in my arrogant opinion, than\n someone who throws shrieking fits in the wake of the experience (assuming they get\n to stop screaming, eventually). \n \n Yes, the crispness of the unprepared is, in fact, a metaphor for psychological\n disintegration, an explosion of \"mundane consciousness\" in the wake of an experience\n which blows the underpinnings out from under it. In a not uncommon example,\n priesthood who begin to expect, to demand, the reverence shown them when they are\n vessels of the Divine be shown them when they are not exercising their theurgic\n office. Whether it is a Wiccan HPS or a Catholic monsignor (or \n what you will), this is a typical poison that can breed in the wake of the Divine\n invocation. \n \n \n \n 1823\n \n \n \n Psychically, the Gods ARE high-voltage lines, whether you accept them as \"real\" or\n \"mere archetypes,\" or whatever. They, by definition, function on a level of\n consciousness that is tremendously potent in the context of day-to-day awareness.\n And they may be as solicitous of humans as a human is when caring for a small and\n fragile animal, but They also do not exercise the same controls on humans that\n humans do on animals, and rarely force us to turn away from danger, though They try\n and protect us when we think to ask for it. \n \n The fact that humanity contains (in my view) Divine potential in its own right\n allows for humans to confront Deity on its own plane, even at the cost of the\n present incarnation. \n \n Paul \n \n By: Dan Holdgreiwe \n To: Paul Hume \n Re: Re: Dangers of Deity? \n -------------------------- \n \n In the presence of the Goddess, Paul Hume said to Dan Holdgreiwe: \n \n PH> The zapped or crispy metaphor (hmmm, more Divine Electricity \n imagery) could include \"emotional discomfort,\" though I find that to be so\n basic an element in dealing with Divine encounters (in my *vast* experience\n (g)), as the ego tries to relate to what has just happened, that I don't\n really consider it at issue. \n \n Really? My own experience has included more than a little emotional \n discomfort, but almost all of it was in those periods when I wasn't receiving\n palpable confirmation that the work was acomplishing anything. Breaking through to\n the Divine, on the other hand, is usually a joyful, ecstatic experience for me. \n \n Part of this may be training (I spent about 10 unpleasant but productive years under\n the disipline of a very demanding spiritual group) and part of it may be a matter of\n pre-stripping the ego in anticipation of contact with the Divine (a less than common\n practice among Pagans, who tend tobe suspicious of anything that smacks of humility-\n ). \n \n PH> Someone who shrugs and mutters \"No big deal,\" whether they've Drawn\n Down a God for the first or five hundredth time has more of a problem, in my\n arrogant opinion, than someone who throws shrieking fits in the wake of the\n experience (assuming they get to stop screaming, eventually). \n \n I would agree, but I find the more common reaction to be along the lines of \"Oh,\n wow!\" or even \"Mmmmmmmmmmm, yes!\" Perhaps this means I'm not \"plugged in\" to the\n high-amp Deities (like maybe Cthulu). <g> \n \n On a more serious note, I probably use an egregore that mediates the \n relationship with God/dess in ways that make screaming fits less likely -- thought I\n suppose it could be disputed whether this was good or bad. \n \n \n \n 1824\n \n \n \n PH> Yes, the crispness of the unprepared is, in fact, a metaphor for \n psychological disintegration, an explosion of \"mundane con sciousness\" in\n the wake of an experience which blows the under pinnings out from under it.\n In a not uncommon example, pries thood who begin to expect, to demand, the\n reverence shown them when they are vessels of the Divine be shown them when\n they are not exercising their theurgic office. Whether it is a Wiccan HPS \n or a Catholic monsignor (or what you will), this is a typical poison that\n can breed in the wake of the Divine invocation. \n \n Ah, this is where your metaphor confuses me. You speak of an \"explosion\" but your\n example is more akin to a cancer -- not a dramatic shattering of the personality,\n but a gradual corruption. The latter is a danger that I readily acknowledge. \n \n PH> Psychically, the Gods ARE high-voltage lines, whether you accept them as\n \"real\" or \"mere archetypes,\" or whatever. They, by definition, function on a\n level of consciousness that is treme ndously potent in the context of\n day-to-day awareness. \n \n PH> The fact that humanity contains (in my view) Divine potential in its own\n right allows for humans to confront Deity on its own plane, even at the cost\n of the present incarnation. \n \n The Lord and Lady are indeed potent, but their energy is wisely controlled. Each of\n us, hoever, is a high-voltage line in much less capable hands. I believe it is not\n God/dess, but our own Divine potential which will \"zap\" us if we are careless in its\n use. \n \n Blessed Be \n Dan \n \n \n \n 1825","title":"Internet Book of Shadows: Dangers of Deity? (a Conversation)","type":"page"}