Re: Lakota question -- Talking Circle Alternative

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, [10] ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Fri, 11/29/02 10:30pm
Author: tash"ana
Subject: Re: Lakota question
In reply to: john mohdom 's message, "Re: Lakota question" on Fri, 11/22/02 5:37pm

>>As far as the "coloured cloth" theory binding red,
>>black, white and yellow together, presumably some
>>people have put their own slant on ancient ceremonies,
>>with the benefit of modern day knowledge and
>>experience. It sounds like one of those rather "new
>>agey" interpretations. My knowledge of Lakota
>>ceremonies is non existent, but I don't see how any
>>ancient ceremony could include that reference to the
>>races of the world.

I'm not saying the interpretation is correct, rather I am addressing the part about 'how could any ancient ceremony include that reference to the races of the world.'

If you assume that ceremonies are given by the Creator, it would also be safe to assume that the Creator would know about all the races of the world. Would Creator choose to give a ceremony at a certain time, containing references to something that is not known to the people at that time.... it sounds possible to me. It may not be so in this case, and it may indeed be a case of new-agey spin put onto something that has different meaning. Just saying that I don't think you can rule something out on the basis of "the people had no knowledge of the other races" unless you are making the case that all ceremonies are made up by the people and not given by spirit.

The New Agers have a lot to answer for in terms of taking things and twisting them, though in most cases they didn't deliberately intend to corrupt things, most new agey people I have met are.... I guess unthinkingly sincere. And yes, when something has a new-agey sound, it's worth looking at it closely. But it's good to remember that new agers take established things and change their interpretation, they don't generally make things up out of completely nothing. At the root of most of the new age practices is something of substance, you just have to go back to the original culture it was lifted out of, to get the truth. I'm not saying their interpretation of the different races was based in truth; I don't know on that one. I guess what I'm saying here is its good to be careful, but letting the new agers push you over into total cynicism so that you only look at things with a scientific view -- well, then you have thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Yes the ceremonies get twisted when they are re-interpretated by people outside of the culture. But they are still spiritual ceremonies, so discounting an interpretation because it would reflect something the people would have no experiential knowledge of.... to my mind, stepping into that kind of thinking is just another kind of damage.

Dunno if this made sense - some things are hard to put a finger on, and even harder to explain in words.

Anyway I just thought it was interesting.... another kind of collateral damage done by the new age movement.

I be quiet now. LOLOLOL ;-)

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Lakota question -- Steve Russell, Fri, 11/29/02 10:51pm
- Re: Lakota question -- john mohdom, Sat, 11/30/02 9:08pm
  - Re: Lakota question -- Steve Russell, Sat, 11/30/02 9:22pm
    - Re: Lakota question -- john mohdom, Sat, 11/30/02 10:43pm