Jnaneshwar

"The Nectar of Self Awareness"


I honor the God and the Goddess

The eternal parents of the universe.

The lover, out of boundless love,

takes the form of the Beloved.

What Beauty!

Both are made of the same nectar

and share the same food.

Out of supreme love

they swallow each other up.

But separate again

for the joy of being two.



They are not completely the same

but neither are they different.

None can tell exactly what they are.

How intense is their longing

to be with each other.

This is their greatest bliss.

Never, even in jest,

Do they allow their unity

to be disturbed.



They are so averse to separation

That even though they have become

this entire world,

Never, for a moment, do they let a difference

come between them.



Even though they see

all that is animate and inanimate,

as arising from within themselves,

Never do they recognize a third



They sit together

in the same place,

both wearing a garment of light.

From the beginning of time

they have been together,

Reveling in their own Supreme love.



The difference they created

to enjoy this world

Had one glimpse of their intimacy

And could not help

but merge back into the bliss

found in their union.



Without God ,

there is no Goddess

Without Goddess,

there is no God.

How sweet is their love!

The entire universe

is too small to contain them

Yet they live happily

in the tiniest particle...



Embracing each other

they merge into One,

As darkness merges with the light,

At the breaking of dawn.



When we discover their Unity

All words and all thoughts

dissolve into silence

Just a when the Universal deluge comes.

the waters of the ocean, and of the Ganges,

will merge into one...



A reflected image disappears

When the mirror is removed,

Ripples merge back into the water

when the wind becomes still.

When sleep comes to an end

a man returns to his own senses.

Now my individuality has come to an end,

and I have returned to Shiva and Shakti.



Salt gives up its salty taste

to become one with the ocean;

I gave up my individual self

and became Shiva and Shakti



When the covering is removed

the air inside a plantain tree

merges with the air outside.

and this is how I honor Shiva and Shakti---

By removing all separation and

Becoming one with them.



-----Jnaneshwar

Matthews' Mabon

Juliette Wood on Caitlin Matthew's Mabon and the Mysteries of Britain (Folklore, 99 (1988), p. 262.)

* * *

The rather charming illustration to the preface to this book is entitled 'Into the Other World'. Another world it certainly is, though one created in the author's imagination, and definitely not to be found in the collection of stroies known since their translation in the nineteenth century as the Mabinogion.

The author's argument, that the Mabinogion contains the remnants of a British Mystery Tradition centering around the figure of Mabon, who includes all the young heroes mentioned in the tales, as son of a divine mother, a figure who includes all the female characters in the tales, is not really sustainable. It is remiscent of Jessie Weston's view of the Grail romances as a literary expression of the cult of the dying god, and suffers from much the same fallacy. There really is no concrete evidence for such a cult, and lacking this, it is difficult to see how complex literature written at a comparatively late period could contain remnants of one. While one would not deny the existence of many of the themes singled out by the author, such as the search for a magic otherworld object, or the quest on which the questor himself undergoes change, it is difficult to see how these are linked to any religious ritual outside, and prior to, the texts themselves. Without doubt, similar themes appear in many stories. This is one of the most striking and intriguing features of comparative literature, but it does not follow that an original story (or in this instance, a religious myth) can be reconstructed by putting all the elements together.

The author does show awareness of the critical background to the Mabinogion,
at least that which has appeared in English, and provides the reader with footnotes and an extensive bibliography. Unfortunately, however, she relies on translations rather than the Welsh texts. This is particularly difficult when she deals with the poetry related to the Mabinogion, such as Preiddeu Annwn for which she uses Loomis' outdated and far from correct translation, and the Hanes Taliesin poetry which was printed by Lady Charlotte Guest and contains numerous errors. Miss Matthews' argument is at its weakest when she departs from her secondary sources and ventures into linguistic speculation herself. For example, 'Culhwch' as a compound of cu in Irish and Llwch as a Welsh pronunciation of the name Lugh (p. 106), or 'Mabonograin' as 'son of the sun' from mabon, son in Welsh, and grian, sun in Irish (p. 156), are too fanciful; they are typical of numerous errors in the book stemming from the author's reliance on translations and secondary sources.

One does not wish to be too dismissive of the book, however. The author is not claiming to be writing serious criticism, but rather to enable the general reader to gain a better understandfing of the stories. Unfortunately, presenting the Mabinogion as a 'treasure trove' of symbols for rather dubious British Mysteries can hardly be said to contribute much to an understanding of the tales for any reader. Nevertheless, the book is an enjoyable example of the kind of amiable dottiness that characterises the Celtic Fringe.

Nimue Goibniu Gryffynne and the Scholar

This is a mirror of a hilarious final exchange on Celtic-L between Raimund Karl, Lecturer in Celtic Archaeology at Bangor (who must have the patience of a saint) and the insane Nimue Goibniu Gryffynne. Dr Karl's comments are not indented and are in bold, thouse of Gryffyne are preceded by >'s at the left hand margin. I have mirrorred it her because to have linked to a closed list would reveal Nimue's real name.

* * *

Hi Nimue, hi everyone,

well, Nimue, you summarized, and so will I.

Nimue Goibniu Gryffynne schrieb:
>
> To summarise, I must admit that I had naively thought that abuse,
> put-downs and insults were the hallmark of unscholarliness, and
> resorted to by people compensating for a lack of knowledge, not
> by people confident of it, so after getting a load of it from
> everyone who answered my first email (in which I made three sound
> points and one mistake, which I acknowledged as soon as it was
> (rudely) pointed out to me), I began by believing myself among
> other amateurs, so I offered my own contributions confident that
> after many years of wide and enthusiastic albeit incomplete and
> highly selective reading, I had at least as much to say and as
> legitimate a case for saying it as anyone else.

Well, in fact, everyone responded quite kindly to your first mail, and
tried to point out the errors in your theory and the huge gaps in your
knowledge, and all first responses tried to point you to better
evidence, asked you to get a more complete picture, and only then start
to theorize. Only your stubbornness to accept better judgement, by
people a lot more knowledgeable than you, led to responses that became
less patient and more direct. You are able to check this in the
archives, should you have forgotten.

> Discerning later that these claim to be and in some instances at
> least are upheld as experts, I was stunned.

Well, in fact several of the people that responded to your mails, including me, are actual experts. That you are not willing to accept
this is your problem, not ours. In fact, your abusive way to treat
evidence, your way of summarily dismissing everything that doesn't fit
with your pet theory, is quite telling.

> I expected a degree of enlightenment from scholars, assuming them
> to be people so assured of their knowledge that they would have no
> need to dump on a newcomer with extra-hegemonic views.

No one dumped on you, everyone at first tried to help you and kindly pointed you towards better evidence. It was your neglectance of that
advice, and your stubborn refusal to accept ANY advivce that had people
loose their temper, and in fact, you were the one who started the abuse
by accusing people of intentionally trying to suppress your theory,
allegedly because of it's unorthodox approach, which actually no one did
- everyone, in the beginning, just pointed out obvious ERRORS in your
theory, which resulted from your lack of knowledge. Even the idea that
anyone would feel urged to suppress your theories because they feel
threatened by it is ridiculous and preposterous, and is quite typical
for someone too concvinced of her own ideas and much too willing to
discard every other opinion as oppressive, summarily irrelevant and
contra-factual, even though that person has no actual knowledge of the
amount of available evidence.

You from the very beginning argued that one had to accept a different
paradigm. I tried that, but your paradigm immediately failed, as it only
explains a very limited, selective part of the evidence, and that in a
non-systematic manner. This is, and I have numerously pointed that out,
non-scholarly, and as such, such a paradigm has no chance of replacing
an existing one. In fact, your paradigm rests on belief, not on facts.
It rests on the assumption that we have NO SOURCES at all, not only on
the assumption that our sources are unreliable and thus have to be
treated carefully and, to do that, thouroughly be embedded in its
spatio-temporal context. In fact, your paradigm completely ignores any
spatio-temporal context, as your method is based on context-free
association of postulated non-regular spellings/pronouncations of
idolated words. This is a classic beginner's error, and you have been
referred to literature that points out the structure that underlies such
errors, which you, however, chose to ignore, as you ignored every other
well-meant advice. Again, this is your problem, not ours. When you
continued to propose your unfounded explanations as quasi-factual
explanations, the Echo you received was less kind, but you are
responsible for that.
Dismissal of your ideas is not based on power-relationships or any kind
of agenda at the level this discussion had, but simply on the fact that
your explanation fails to refer to the evidence. It is, in this sense,
wrong under any scholarly paradigm, as scholarship is defined by
explanation of evidence, not creation of contra-evidential single event
"could be" situations.

> I freely acknowledges gaps in my knowledge, indeed was rudely
> required to expose my entire library and life history as a scholar.
> In shock, I complied.

Which should be no problem, as I am willing, at any time, to give you my full credentials as well as give you an estimate of my private library. I only refreined from doing so as it would doubtlessly have been
interpreted as being patronizing. If you are interested, I can produce
them at any time you want.

> Why, if you all thought me so stupidly harmlessly wrong, did you
> all spend so many hours writing so many such savage, threatening,
> hate-filled words of reply to everything I said?

Being stupidly wrong not necessarily is the same as being harmlessly wrong. In fact, theories like yours can, especially on a list which many people think of as a reliable source of factual information on
Celtic Culture, your views can severely compromise any attempt of
someone really interested in learning about the Celts (in contrast to
putting forth one's own pet theory, even when shown to be in error) to
get factual information. This is a public list, and many people can and
do get information from here which they take as quasi-factual. As you
presented several of your ideas as quasi-factual, you are disseminating
contra-factual information to such interested lay readers, which might
take your word. Thereby, you help to keep fictional ideas about the
Celts, which are not at all based on any existing evidence, alive and
kicking. Or, more simply said, you are confusing people with idle
speculations.

> Were you afraid that some intelligent young students, not yet
> supplied with the hegemonic blinkers and headset, might not see
> without your invective against me to guide them how stupidly
> harmlessly wrong I am to be regarded by them as being?

This very much shows your worldview is severely compromised and confused. Not even radical postmodernist authors, who have criticised
orthodoxy in the academic community, ever have claimed that such a
practice takes place. In fact, neither Foucault, nor Derrida, nor Kuhn
or Feyerabend ever have claimed that students are generally
indoctrinated in the way you propose here. Also, the very statement is
one of the worst insults one can put forward, if you can't provide
evidence for it (which you can't, as you would need to know a lot more
about the people you criticise than you actually do): You insult
everyone on this list who has dared to oppose your theory as being
either completely stupid (as she/he hasn't realised that he/she has been
indoctrinated and is indoctrinating others) or is intentionally trying
to indoctrinate others (which of course is nonsense, as this list is
completely irrelevant for any academic politics - I do not get more
money or a more influential position because I write mails to this list
- I do get such things for publishing in wellreknown journals and
books). As such, this very statement says, in simpler words: Ray, you're
a stupid idiot! (you can replace my name with that of anyone else who
responded)

> I can only deduce that you found me very convincing and felt
> threatened.

Well, this deduction can be shown to be a wrong deduction. And, again,
it constitutes an insult, as you are accusing us of having some kind of
hidden agenda when opposing your theory. We are the evil
world-dominating secret mafia, obviously. This, of course, is nonsense.


> This led me to doubt your integrity, individually and collectively,
> and I eventually said so.

No, you started out with saying so. You started, as the first responses that told you that your theories were not supported by the evidence arrived, to accuse people of trying to suppress your theories because
there were heretical and anti-dogmatic. As such, you immediately started
to tell respected scholars that they either are stupid or are deliberate
manipulators of other people. This was not a deduction, this was a
reflex to opposition, based on misunderstood postmodernist philosophy,
which you seem to interpret as showing a world conspiracy of scholars
that tries to oppress irrelevant opinions as yours. Read Kuhn, as I
said, to see that this is not at all the case.

> Many have pointed out that I needed to read more and learn more,
> and this I have gladly acknowledged. After all it is why I joined
> this list. I had hoped to locate new resources and encounter other
> trains of thought.

You have been refered to numerous sources, all you immediately dismissed as irrelevant or wrong. This indicates that you are not really interested in learning; rather, it indicates that you are interested in
locating support for your pet theory. This is also evident by the way you use postmodernist arguments, btw, in a way that clearly shows that you either have not read or have not understood the works of those postmodernist authors which have, in parts very correctly, criticised academic peer policy. You, in this case as in
others, ignore the context: Were academic peer policy, and thus
orthodoxy, which was at stake here, I, as the academic peer on this
list, would simply have blocked you from proposing your views - had I
really any fears that your view could be dangerous to a paradigm under
which I am working, I would simply have shut you out, rather than
engaged in any discussion with you. The very fact that I did shows that
you misread the (valid) argument that academic peer policy blocks out
heretical views for the (invalid) argument that opposition to your
theory is suppression of it.

> Diversity is normally considered a very healthy thing.

Diversity is a healthy thing, but anything goes as an approach to
material does not indicate that everything is equally valid or even
valid at all. You had your possibility to state your opinion, it was
refuted because it has no connection to the facts.

> But I found the 'experts' promoting themselves and each other as
> almost infallible,

Nonsense, no one ever said this. All that was said is that your theories are in no way as likely as those proposed by experts, and not because they are experts and you are not, but because theirs explain the
existing evidence a lot more thoroughly and a lot better than yours do.
Again, you misread the (valid) argument that every approach should be
allowed for the (invalid) argument that every approach is equally valid.
As I said more than once, go get the basics.

> and some preached that I should shut up and listen and not offer
> opinions at all,

Those who did only did after repeatedly refuting your arguments with referneces to evidence, which you completely ignored. Only after you had reiterated your pet theory over and over again, and still claimed that it
provided near-factual results and at least was as well-considered and
had at least as much explanatory power as those of recognised experts
with much more knowledge of the available evidence that yours, you were
asked to get a clue before making unfounded claims.

> which is fine for a formal academic list but a bit strange for an
> informal list that amateurs are welcome to join.

Not at all. Amateurs are welcome to do anything on this list, which is why it is unmoderated. Your opinions are not supressed. But they are questioned and critizised where they lack documentation or explanatory
power, which is a totally acceptable for any kind of discussion, be it
academic or not.

> And while I must produce 'evidence' for everything I say, you
> experts are indignant that I would want to be 'spoon-fed facts' if
> I ask for the same from you. I find you unconvincing.

You have been referred to evidence repeatedly, something which you, yourself, have not done in a single case. This might be due to the fact that you have not understood what the term evidence means, or that you
have not understood what the term reference means, but don't whine that
you have not been given evidence and that you did. This point again is
ridiculous, as you are pretending that you have been willing to provide
documentation while you haven't and that others have not been willing to
do so, while they actually have.

> So to recapitulate.
>
> The main points I've made and been savagely attacked for making, have been:
> 1. That the comment from Caesar that it is shameful for Gaulish boys to be
> seen in public by their fathers is unlikely to be because of fosterage,
> because they wouldn't have been able accidentally to be seen, being reared
> away from their own parents. I offered a guess that was not a wit the wilder
> than the two I was responding to.

You have not been attacked at all for making that assumptions, I only explained to you why your monster-theory was unfounded, as it was
contra-factual, based on your bad understanding of english translations
of original material that you do not know. Even though you were pointed
to the evidence that directly contradicts your ideas as meaningless, you
insisted that your interpretation was at least as valuable as anyone
else's (which indicates that, in fact, you are thinking that your theory
is a lot more valuable than anyone else's). Even more, the very idea
that the fosterage practice cannot explain the Caesar quote is based on
your undocumented assumption that, had children been educated away from
their parents, a son could not be seen with his father in public at all
(which tells that you have not understood the original point that it was
considered shameful to be unable to find foster-parents for one's kid,
and thus not those who had their kids with foster-parents would be
shamed, but only those who hadn't, which means that those kids could
accidentially be seen with ther parents).

> I do need to read more, but not to know this much.


Well, you think you do, but all you demonstrate is your inability to
grasp the original point.

> 2. That Boadicea/Boudicca can and probably should be translated not as a
> woman's name, but as a Goidelic plural form of the word Bard. Ferocious as
> the 'scholarly' replies were, they abated and were finally discontinued and
> whoever it was stopped declaring with ridicule that it is a known fact that
> only P-Celtic was ever spoken on British soil. Ray seems to have grudging
> and ungraciously conceded that it is at least as possible as other
> explanations, though he closed his mind to me soon after and will no doubt
> deny it now.

No, I have never conceded that it is at least as possible as other
explanations, I have agreed that it is, in principle, possible, but only
very unlikely and not supported by any evidence. Read the archives if
you want to see my comments on this. As such, I do not deny the
possibility, only the likelihood.

> I don't need to read more to assert this.

You do need to read more.

> 3. That Iceni can and probably should be translated as part of a phrase
> meaning something like 'she is the queen' taking the word to be three
> Goidelic words, /i, ceann and /i.
>
> I have read quite enough to assert that.

Not at all, as has been demonstrated over and over again!

> 3. That Vercingetorix can and probably should be translated as Head Man of
> the Hunt After the first blast of rage, no one had much to say about this
> that wasn't deeply embedded in ridicule and hate.
>
> I have read enough to make that assertion.

As there is no necessity to say more on that. This was refuted as thoroughly as everything else you wrote, only that you didn't insist on keeping this subthread alive.

> 4. That VIROS can be translated into appropriate Latin more readily and with
> less guesswork than into hypothetical Gaulish that anyway makes no sense
> when you get there.

Again, not at all. It can also be translated into Latin, but would constitute the only known coin legend where a singular term is written on it Latin in accusative plural, while there are numerous Gaulish coins
that contain terms in Gaulish in nominative singular (the Vercingetorix
coins, for instance, are but one example for such a nominative singular
term, in this case, the name of a known historical person).

As such, claiming that the Gaulish explanation makes no sense only shows
that you consistently try to ignore reality, rather than argueing in a
sensible way. You have not been willing to look up any of the sources
mentioned, and have not accepted any other idea than your own, which can
be, again, shown to be highly unlikely, as it again is an assumption
based on a singular event rather than a repeated structured pattern of
events.

> 5. And that Caesar lied, an opinion I know is shared by many authors. From
> the menacing tone of this list I suppose it's a kind of blasphemy to say
> that NOT EVERYONE BELIEVES EVERY WORD THAT CAESAR SAYS. But there, I've
> said it.

No, as I have pointed out frequently, I do not believe any word that Caesar said, but that doesn't mean that he can be summarily dismissed like you do. Caesar's text needs to be analysed carefully, not by either
summary dismissal or uncritical acception at face value. There is not a
single case where Caesar can be shown to have actively lied in his de
Bello Gallico, but there are numerous cases where it can be shown very
well that he misrepresented things to further his own political and
other agenda. A critical examination of his text, as such, is a
necessary condition to it's use, but it is equally necessary to use his
account rather than igore it as "lie" where it does not fit with ones
theory without documenting by critical examination that the very
specific passage one refers to as a lie actually is documentably wrong.

> 6. That Catholic and Goidelic are by soundly logical etymology very
> possibly cognate. I know enough to assert this.

Well, you think so, in spite that it can be shown that Catholic is derived from a Greek term that is attested long before the first Irish text, and that can in no structured way be derived from Goidelic as an
etymological cognate in the first place.

> I have claimed no more that. I have backed it up as well as I
> could


Which is not well at all, which is what we have constantly been trying
to tell you.

> and been opposed with so much hatred that I could barely make out
> the logical or even pseudo-logical threads I was offered.


Well, this must be a problem of your logic, then. I at least could
follow all without any problems.

> Ray even suggested it couldn't be considered because you would have
> to rethink a lot of theorising about the Gauls.

No, I said that accepting your paradigm would require to dump all
scholarship since it's very beginning. I try to formulate this in easier
terms: If you are right, everyone that has ever studied the past was
completely wrong (not only partially wrong, but totally). This is
something I can hardly imagine, that every scholar for the last several
hundred years of study did not have the slightest clue about the past.
Your theory requires us to forget everything we ever thought to have
learned about the past. In that, it not requires a paradigmatic change,
but it would require a leap of faith. And I see no reason to make that
leap of faith, as the current historic paradigm is well able to explain
the past in a viable way - while yours shows little promise in this
regard.

> Maybe you just needed someone to hate.

Maybe we do, but maybe we simply opposed your theory because it is
contra-factual, and only responded in the same manner that you
approached us. Ever considered that as a possibility?

> Or maybe, the one theme that runs through all this, is that I don't
> exalt Caesar exaggeratedly as you do.

Nonsense. Not only have I repeatedly said that I don't take Caesar at
face value, let alone exalt him, the very theory you originally opposed
was one that was based on the argument that Caesar was wrong in his
interpretation of the Gaulish custom as he described it. It only did not
fit with your pet theory, but never claimed that Caesar was correct! To
interpret this as exalting Caesar and seeing him as infallible is as
obviously a delusion as any can be! Had you actually read what I
originally wrote when I proposed that Caesar might have misunderstood a
practice like fosterage when saying that the Gauls consider it shameful
when a man is seen with his non-adult son in public, you never could
have argued that I take Caesar as infallible! But obviously, you did not
read it, or have utterly failed to understand what I wrote - which might
be due to my bad English, but I doubt that.
I rather would propose that you came here in the first place to let your
theory loose and be hailed as the saviour of Celtic Studies for it. When
you did get a different response than you expected, you were
disappointed, and tried to convince us, and now that this has failed as
well (and I just want to state that this is not because we feel
threatened by your theory, but because it is contra-factual), you are
frustrated.

> But surely that much hate and rage against the suggestion that he
> might have erred or even lied is neurotic. You need to examine
> yourselves.

You are in the process of creating a deluded reality here again. No one
hates you, and especially not because you suggest that Caesar might have
erred. As said above, no one, even before you started flooding the list
with your mails, ever said that Caesar was infallible, or that he even
could be taken at face value. As I explained above, the whole argument,
even before you jumped in on it, was based on the very assumption that
CAESAR GOT IT WRONG, not that he had got it right.


> Where's your scholarly investigation of this
> possibility? It's made much of out there in the literature.

There is no reason at all to do anything we are not doing already. As
explained in detail above, we DID start out with an investigation of
this possibility and came to the conclusion that IT ACTUALLY APPLIED. It
is simply your interpretation, and your summarily dismissing Caesar as
containing NO VALUABLE EVIDENCE AT ALL, that was criticised by me and
others. That CAESAR DID ERR is beyond any doubt. It is the way in which
he erred, however, which is interesting, and which needs to be examined
in detail, and not by gross, generalising statements about his general
fallibility.

> I need to read more and thank you, I will. I don't need to be verbally
> abused more, so I'm leaving the list.


Good bye.

RAY