More on African Monotheism, Lwa, Orisha and Gods

In response to my earlier post on Orisha, Lwa, Gods, Monotheism, Polytheism and Morality, Tesla Quoyle asked:

Is it possible (I have no idea) that African beliefs concerning Olodumare, Mbomba, Nzambi, and presumably other distant Prime Movers, were influenced towards call it "Absentee Monotheism" during the period AD 800-1700? Does evidence exist that Absentee Monotheism was part of African religions prior to the earlier date?

I realize this could prove a touchy subject, but I ask this question even as I feel great respect toward many monotheists and polytheists, both ancient and contemporary. And neither do I believe Africans were incapable of discovering or inventing monotheism quite on their own, nor do I believe either "mono-" or "poly-" morally superior to the other. I see no cause for such feelings of religious superiority, neither on the parts of latter-day monotheists or polytheists, when I read any history of the Ancient World. 

If I'm not mistaken, the Arabic slave trade in Africa began around AD 700 or 800, and by (roughly) AD 1700 the European slave trade was peaking or slowing down. By that end date, a very large bilingual, bi-cultural Creole population had existed in Kongo itself --- (much larger than present-day Congo) for up to two centuries, and many African religions had experienced much European influence.

Before that, Islam had been gaining ground in parts of Africa for a millennium. (Not to mention possible Jewish influences long before that.) Does that evidence for what I just termed the Absentee G-d in African religions exist prior to the earlier date, i.e., approx. AD 800?

Please bear in mind also that absence of evidence does not suggest evidence of absence: if no such evidence survives from those ancient times, it proves nothing. Whereas if the evidence does exist for an ancient and wholly African monotheistic G-d, it would be (to me at least) extremely fascinating.

In search of an answer, I turned to Eoghan Ballard, a scholar of Kongo and Bantu history and culture and an initiate in several of Las Reglas de Congo.  Eoghan replied:

There are a couple of things to note in responding. First, it is impossible to know what religion was being practiced in much of Africa in 800 ce. We have records and more cultural detail for parts of Eastern Africa at that time. Christianity and it is assumed, Judaism were established in Africa before that time. Western and sub Saharan Africa is an unknown. We can speculate, but it is wild speculation. What we can say is that by the time the Portuguese made contact with the Bakongo in the 1490s, a dios otioso was a clearly defined aspect of Kongo religion, and it could be and was classified, apparently by both the Kongo and the Europeans as monotheism. Europeans noted the monotheism of the Bakongo because they were in equal measure pleased and surprised to encounter it. Of course, to me, the more fascinating issue is how many modern Neopagans are really monotheists without realizing it.

And while Ian Phanes found my post "fascinating:"

However, it wasn't really what I was asking about. The people I'm discussing this with are usually pagans, and most of us have read about the role of an ultimate creator above the orisa/lwa, so the God vs. gods issue isn't a problem for us. 

What we find ourselves discussing is whether the orisa/lwa fit into our usual European-derived categories, or if they need to be classed separately.

For example, I typically honor the holy powers as three kindreds: nature spirits who inhabit the living world (the Land); ancestors who inhabit the spirit world (the Sea); and gods who inhabit the shining world (the Sky). The basic tripartite cosmology underlies all of the Indo-European traditions, though this specific formulation is modern. 

I can make arguments for the orisa belonging to each of those three categories. If Osun is the Osun river, is she a nature spirit? If Sango was a human king and became an orisa, is he an ancestor? If the creator made Esu in heaven, is he a god?

What I was hoping you would talk about is your experiences of the lwa and the gods, especially with ritual possession of yourself and those around you. You've met these holy powers face-to-face. You have served as a medium for some of them. Does it feel to you that there is more difference between the lwas and the gods, or within the lwas and within the gods?

In my experience, these classifications are largely human constructs which are set up for our convenience.  This is not a bad thing: we regularly place things in categories so we can work with them more efficiently.  The division between land-sea-sky (inspired by Georges Dumézil and devotees of his tripartite division of Indo-European gods and cultural roles) is certainly workable and has many followers.  But in the end it is a human classification, created by humans for humans.  While one could classify gods according to this system, one could as easily classify them as gods of love, agriculture, warfare, etc. or as Hellenic, Germanic, African, etc. gods.

The problem arises when we begin to assume that these categories are something other than a convenient shorthand.  Instead of becoming a means by which we can begin to study an unfamiliar spirit, they can become pigeon-holes which limit our understanding.   Figures separated by time and distance are all conflated into "love goddess" or "fertility god" roles: instead of dealing with them in their full contradiction and complexity, we distill them down to a single purpose.

You can call Osun a nature spirit if you wish and you won't be wrong - but she is far more than that.  You can call Sango a deified ancestor or a god: the lines between these categories have alwasy been blurry.  And whatever you call Esu, he's certain to come up with some counterexample that will prove you completely wrong.   If you are using these classifications to understand the lwa or orisha more closely - if, for example, you want to explore the history of various honored warrior-kings in order to better understand Sango or if you want to meditate at a river in order to understand that aspect of Osun - there's no problem. But when you start trying to squeeze them into convenient categories, you'll only find yourself growing more frustrated as they refuse to fit into your classifications.

I've found that treating the gods with the same reverence and respect one shows for the lwa or orisha has great benefits and can help you grow closer to them.  I do not know where they all stand on the cosmic hierarchy.  (The closest I've received to an answer is watching Loki and Legba get drunk together and argue about which one was an aspect of the other... ).  In the end, I'm not sure it's important for my purposes.  What's important is establishing contact with the spirits and working with them for the healing of ourselves and our world.

More on Monotheism Ethical and Otherwise II: for Dennis Prager

I | II | III | IV

Speaking out against the horrors of nature veneration, Dennis Prager says: 

It is not possible for God to be part of nature for two reasons.

First, nature is finite and God is infinite. If God were within nature, He would be limited, and God, who is not physical, has no limits (I use the pronoun "He"" not because I believe God is a male, but because the neuter pronoun "It" depersonalizes God. You cannot talk to, relate to, love, or obey an "It.").

Who says God is 'infinite'? That assertion is unique to the Abrahamic faiths: what's more, it sets up a number of philosophical conundrums.  Some are interesting logical puzzles i.e. "Can God make a rock so heavy He can't lift it?" Others are more troubling, particularly the Problem of Suffering.  Sometimes it is worded in childlike terms: "If God loves us, why did He let my puppy get hit by a car?" A more sophisticated version of this question is posed by the Catholic philosopher St. Thomas Aquinas:

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore,God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

****

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

When we strip away the fancy wording, we find that Aquinas has given us the same answer we got when we were standing over our deceased dog: "God has a plan, and sometimes we can't understand it. We just have to trust in His infinite wisdom, power and mercy." It does nothing to explain exactly what good comes out of the numerous ills which torment our world. It does not assuage the suffering of the sick, the starving, and the victims of injustice: neither does it bring Fido back from the dead.

Some blame Adam and Eve for their disobedience in the Garden of Eden.  But was their sin so great that an all-powerful and all-loving God felt it necessary to respond with the Black Death, the Holocaust and the Mongol invasions?  Others take refuge in a coming "Day of Judgment" wherein the good shall be rewarded and the evil punished.  This does nothing to explain why evil had to exist in the first place, nor does it provide any immediate comfort to those suffering in the here and now.  And some redefine "good" to mean "God's Word and God's Will," while "evil" is "that which goes against God's Word and God's Will." This may work for the faithful, but it doesn't hold up well under rational scrutiny. A moral code which says "genocide is wrong unless God orders you to do it" is hardly an improvement over "genocide is wrong unless the Führer orders you to do it."

This is far less an issue for a polytheist.  Polytheism sees the Gods as possessing great power and great wisdom, but acknowledges that even They have limits.  They are capable of error like we are; They share in our joys and our sorrows. Indeed, we might look to Their myths and to our history and conclude that suffering is the price we pay for sentience. To be a living and thinking being is to respond to stimuli positive and negative: a life free of discontentment and desire is a life free of meaning and purpose.   This world, with all its flaws, is what we have.  If we are unhappy with the way things are, it is up to us to change them.

More on Monotheism Ethical and Otherwise I: for Dennis Prager

I | II | III | IV

When I referenced Dennis Prager's essay on "Ethical Monotheism," I didn't expect so much interest in the topic. While I disagree with Mr. Prager (who, contrary to my original assertion, appears to be a scholar of Russian and Jewish history but not an ordained Rabbi) on theology, politics and just about everything else, I think he has done a great service with this essay.  He has laid bare many of the preconceptions and prejudices of Monotheism in a clear and concise manner.

From the opening of that essay:

Ethical monotheism means two things:

1. There is one God from whom emanates one morality for all humanity.

2. God's primary demand of people is that they act decently toward one another.

From the start we see that Prager believes morality emanates from one God. Compare and contrast this with the definition given by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

The term “morality” can be used either 

1.   descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
      a.  some other group, such as a religion, or
      b.  accepted by an individual for her own behavior or

2.   normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

According to these G-dless philosophers, morality is a code of conduct which may be social or religious in nature but which should also be subject to rational scrutiny. Prager's first definition fits 1a and most people would say that his second fits 2, with the usual quibbling about what constitutes decent behavior.

But is "decent behavior" the primary demand of Prager's God? More from that essay:

A third characteristic of God is goodness. If God weren't moral, ethical monotheism would be an oxymoron: A God who is not good cannot demand goodness. Unlike all other gods believed in prior to monotheism, the biblical God rules by moral standards. 

From 1 Samuel 15:2-3

2 This is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. 

3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’

From Deuteronomy 22:13-21

13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 

14 And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: 

15 Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: 

16 And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 

17 And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. 

18 And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him; 

19 And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 

20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 

21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

The Roman destruction of Carthage at the end of the Third Punic War was as bloody - and successful - as the Hebrew campaign against the Amalekites.  A 7,000 year-old grave recently excavated in Talheim, Germany revealed the massacred skeletons of 18 adult males and six children: archaeologists speculate the women were carried away as booty.  A Vestal Virgin who violated her oath of chastity could be buried alive in the Campus Sceleratus.  I do not wish to single out the God of the Hebrews for particular scorn. But neither do I see any evidence that His primary concern is that people "act decently" toward each other - at least not according to any useful definition of "decent behavior."

Orishas, Lwa, Gods, Monotheism, Polytheism and Morality

In a private message, Ianphanes asked:

It occurred to me yesterday that you are one person who could speak with some authority on a question that has floated around the more experienced practitioners in the Central Illinois pagan/magical community for some time:

Are the orisa/loas properly classified as gods, or are they different?

This is a hotly-debated topic in many circles. Many Haitian Vodouisants identify as Roman Catholics and see their Vodou activities as an adjunct to their faith. They believe the world was created by Bondye ("Bon Dieu," or "Good God"), who then turned its daily workings over to les mistés (the Mysteries) - the angels, saints, and lwa.  While some think this is a European corruption, things are more complicated than that.  Many African stories feature a Creator who sets things in motion, then withdraws.  Olodumare, Mbomba, Nsambi - all are credited with being the First Cause and the Prime Mover. Yet they receive far less attention and worship than their children, who are among the most magnificent of all Creations.

Is this Monotheism? While these Creator Gods bear a passing resemblance to Allah or G-d, they are not seen as omnipotent, omnipresent or omniscient. Their knowledge and power may be far greater than ours, but they are limited: these limitations are generally used to explain the world's many imperfections. Still, they are seen as being greater than their servants: they may be absentee rulers, but they are rulers nonetheless. There certainly is none of what Rabbi and conservative pundit Dennis Prager has hailed as "ethical Monotheism."

The oneness of God is an indispensable component of ethical monotheism. Only if there is one God is there one morality. Two or more gods mean two or more divine wills, and therefore two or more moral codes. That is why ethical polytheism is unlikely. Once God told Abraham that human sacrifice is wrong, it was wrong. There was no competing god to teach otherwise.

The African Diaspora model generally treats the mysteries like the saints, angels and intercessors in the Catholic faith. They are venerated and honored, but not worshipped: worship is reserved for the Triune God.  (In theory at least: as with most strains of folk Catholicism, it can be difficult to tell where hagiography and veneration end and worship begins - a controversy which still plays out in the Catholic/Protestant split). Working within this framework offers the consolation of tradition and puts one squarely within a living faith. But it may not be satisfying for those who do not feel a particular affinity for Catholicism or who do not believe in One God, the Father, the Almighty.

The Orishas and the lwa (and the gods of most polytheistic pantheons) regularly struggle amongst themselves. There is no transcendent morality there: they, like humankind, are capable of great evil and of tremendous kindness. There are few universals: each spirit and each person must make their way as best they can, guided by tradition and by their own sense of good and evil.  It's an imperfect process - but so too is Prager's ethical monotheism.  (The ancient Amalekites and contemporary Palestinians might have something to say about the superiority of morality by YHVH's fiat...).

If you reject the tenets of Abrahamic Monotheism in favor of a polytheistic worldview, the spirits of African Traditional Religion certainly qualify as gods.  Chango and Ogun are definitely fitting company for Thor, Ares, and other warrior gods: Exu, Loki and Coyote could all be classified as Trickster Gods.  But this brings us to another question: do we worship a God in the same way we worship the One God? And if not, what are appropriate models for honoring and serving the Gods?   And that is a question which has only rarely been asked, and even more rarely answered.

The Magic of Melancholy III: The Power of Melancholy

Part I | Part II | Part III

Much modern "New Age" thinking is based on the idea we create our own reality. Any problems we have are problems which we have made for ourselves: if we are sad, it is because we have chosen that sadness. All we need do is accept that and we can become one of the shiny happy people living in a brave new world.

Taking responsibility for your life is generally more useful and productive than blaming the world for all your problems. But it can also become a dangerous trap. Telling a rape survivor "no one can harm you without your permission," or asking a cancer patient what he did to create that experience is not empowering but profoundly insensitive and hurtful. It is important to take control of your life, yes – but it is also important to recognize the things which are beyond your control.

There is a clinical condition called depression. There is also situational sadness. Grieving over a lost child or an irredeemably broken relationship is not necessarily a sign of self-indulgence, weakness or pathology. Rather, it is a lamentation and a recognition of loss. There may be lessons to be learned from this experience, but right now there is pain. Give yourself permission to feel that pain right now, and don't let yourself feel guilty because some smug, self-righteous guru thinks you should be smiling instead.

And for Goddess' sake, don't be that smug, self-righteous guru. Psychotherapist Julia Ingram has talked about "New Age bullies" -- those who push their beliefs on others in an overbearing, dogmatic manner, even when their advice is well-intentioned. Telling a depressed person to "cheer up" or chiding them for "holding on to negativity" is just another version of "blaming and shaming" the victim. It tells them that their suffering is their fault, and their failure to overcome depression is a sign of their weakness.

You may well have accepted that there are no victims, that everything happens for a reason, that all your problems are just karma working itself out. If that belief works for you, then you should by all means hold onto it. But not everyone else has come to that conclusion. Trying to force those ideas down a suffering person's throat is as rude and reprehensible as pushing any other religious belief or cherished dogma. If you feel tempted to preach, ask yourself "How would I feel if this person started haranguing me about her beliefs?" Then do unto them as you would have them do unto you.

The Power of Melancholy

By turning depression into a medical condition, we have made enormous advances toward curing some of its most pernicious and lethal manifestations. Many people who might otherwise have spent their days in anguish now live productive and fulfilling lives thanks to medication and therapy. But in doing so we have identified depression – and, in many cases, melancholy – with madness, something which is not fit to be part of a polite and rational society. By this standard a gloomy disposition is a sign of a flaw which needs to be medicated, and those who refuse treatment, or who are not responsive to it, are to be treated as "sick."

By contrast, we should consider the historical view of melancholia. They believed melancholia was ruled by Saturn. We've come to see Saturn as "the greater malefic," a planet which brings burdens and troubles whenever it appears in our chart. By contrast, Renaissance astrologer William Lilly believed someone ruled by a well-aspected Saturn was "profound in Imagination, in his Acts severe, in words reserved, in speaking and giving very spare, in labour patient, in arguing or disputing grave, in obtaining the goods of this life studious and solicitous, in all manner of actions austere.

Saturn is the planet of restriction – and melancholics are keenly aware of the restrictions we must deal with in this incarnation. This can cause them to lapse into inactivity and hopelessness. But it can also inspire them to work against and ultimately overcome those restrictions. And as the gatekeeper between the inner and outer planets (Uranus, Neptune and Pluto), Saturn can also help us to transcend the limitations of our earthly viewpoint and lead us to the heavenly kingdoms. Because melancholics feel pleasure less intensely than others, they are less likely to be distracted by the things of this world. This makes it easier for them to control the senses and passions and concentrate on intellectual and spiritual affairs.

This, again, is not intended to minimize the very real illness which is clinical depression. There is no "lesson to be learned" from an untreated disease; refusing to get help when you need it is a sign of folly, not strength. Depression is as real as cancer and can be every bit as deadly. If you are currently on antidepressants, don't stop taking them because this article has convinced you that you don't need them. I am not a psychiatrist – and if I were I wouldn't be giving out diagnoses on a blog! These questions should be discussed with your therapist: abrupt cessation of antidepressants can have consequences ranging from depressive episodes to physical withdrawal symptoms.

But if you are one of those people who don't see why everyone is always so damn happy, or who prefers solitude to parties, you may not be as "sick" as some might believe. You may not need cheery slogans or happy pills. Instead of trying to change the way you feel, you might want to accept yourself with all your strengths and weaknesses. I end this with an affirmation which is sure to offend some but which may give you comfort nonetheless: you don't have to cheer up.

The Magic of Melancholy II: the Art of Melancholy

Part I | Part II | Part III

In 1774 Europe's literary world was taken by storm by Die Leiden des jungen Werthers (The Sorrows of Young Werther), a slim volume by the young German poet Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. The novel describes, in extensive detail, Werther's unfulfilled love for young Lotte and the sufferings engendered thereby. Too sensitive to face the demands of daily life and unable to bear the heartbreak of Lotte's engagement to another man, Werther ultimately shoots himself.

Werther made its 23-year old author the first literary superstar: translations into various languages soon followed, while fans emulated Werther's style of dress. (No eyeliner or frilly black shirts, alas – young Werther was famous for his yellow leather waistcoat and blue coat with tin buttons). Then Werther was banned in many cities, as authorities began receiving reports of a sudden increase in young men following Werther's lead. Goethe, who had written the novel to purge himself of his own suicidal impulses, became convinced that his tale was responsible for a continental wave of suicides, complaining 'My friends were confusing themselves by believing that they had to turn poetry into reality, enact the novel and shoot themselves!"

(In the 1970s a psychiatrist named David Phillips gave a name to this phenomenon: the Werther Effect. He found that massive media attention and retelling of the specific details of a suicide could increase the number of suicides. In the month after Marilyn Monroe's 1962 suicide, 197 individuals committed suicide in a manner which suggested they had used the star's death as a model for their own: throughout the US, the suicide rate for that month increased by 12%.)

Since young Werther's untimely death and subsequent rise to fame, many performers and artists have taken on his mantle of misery. The "Goth" and "Emo" movements have inspired a whole new generation to share their sadness with their black-clad community. While there is a great deal of camp and tongue-in-cheek role-playing involved in these scenes, there is also a recognition of the powers of darkness. In a world of positive thinking, where everything can be solved with a smile and an affirmation, Goths and Emos recognize that there are wounds which cannot be healed and injustices which go unpunished. Their artifice points to uncomfortable realities which many would rather ignore. It seeks to transmute ugliness into beauty and, like art and religion, gives meaning to suffering.

Instead of emulating Marilyn Monroe, Kurt Cobain or other self-destructive stars, try following the example of musicians like Frank Sinatra and Robert Smith. Sad songs and a good wallow in self-pity can be great therapy, so long as it's followed by dusting yourself off, picking yourself up, and starting all over again. Millions of country music fans can't be wrong: sometimes you need to cry before you can laugh again.

The Magic of Melancholy I: The History of Melancholy

Part I | Part II | Part III

An old PanGaia column which I thought some readers might find interesting.

****

In 2007 total US sales of antidepressant medication totaled $11.9 billion. In the third quarter of 2008 Wyeth Laboratories sold $982 million worth of its popular antidepressant Effexor™. Today antidepressants are prescribed more often than medications used to treat high blood pressure, high cholesterol or asthma. Some say this reflects a growing awareness of depression as a treatable condition, while others point to heavy pharmaceutical marketing aimed at physicians and prospective consumers.

When we aren't medicating our chemical imbalances, we're talking about them. In 1994 Elizabeth Wurtzel's Prozac Nation was one of the year's most popular books: in 2003 Australian psychologist Dorothy Rowe found her way to worldwide bestseller lists with Depression: The Way Out of Your Prison. Among the celebrities who have spoken publicly about their struggles with the disease are Brooke Shields, Jim Carrey, Larry King and Spice Girl Mel C. Depression is not just a major health issue – it's big business.

This is not to trivialize the agony of depression. No one who has ever been bitten by what Winston Churchill (a lifelong sufferer) called "the black dog" would withhold medicine from those in need. Neither would we deny that many people have been helped by modern therapeutic procedures. But in our quest to heal, are we overlooking the very real magical power contained within melancholia?

The History of Melancholy

Following the lead of Hippocrates, the Greco-Roman physician Galen (131-200) believed in a doctrine of "humours" and temperaments. " While a predominance of blood produced a cheerful, energetic "sanguine" person (from the Latin sanguis, blood), a preponderance of black bile (in Greek, melas kholé) produced "fear and depression, discontent with life and hatred of all people."

One might expect the father of modern medicine saw depression as an illness. On the contrary, he (and most of his contemporaries) saw it as a reasonable response to the world. They sought not happiness so much as sophrosyne, self-knowledge which included knowledge of one's shortcomings and limitations. Some writers personified Sophrosyne as a demigoddess, responsible for self-control, restraint, and discretion: the Romans honored her as Continentia and Sobrietas, ruler over continence, moderation, temperance and sobriety. Given human mortality and frailty, excessive good cheer was folly at best and blasphemy at worst.

Centuries later Robert Burton, a 17th-century English vicar, dedicated the greater part of his life to a book entitled The Anatomy of Melancholy. This lengthy tome (over 900 pages in the first edition, with material added to each of the four subsequent editions) was hardly a paean to positive thinking. Burton, who suffered from depression himself, said of the life of mankind:

for a pint of honey thou shalt here likely find a gallon of gall, for a dram of pleasure a pound of pain, for an inch of mirth an ell of moan; as ivy doth an oak, these miseries encompass our life. And it is most absurd and ridiculous for any mortal man to look for a perpetual tenure of happiness in his life. Nothing so prosperous and pleasant, but it hath some bitterness in it, some complaining, some grudging 

Nor is this an exclusively Greek or European phenomenon. Consider the first noble truth of Buddhism – that consciousness interacting with the universe invariably leads to dukkha (suffering, pain, frustration and dissatisfaction). A modern psychiatrist might prescribe medicine for someone who felt that life was hopeless and there was no chance for lasting joy: to a Buddhist, this realization would be the first step toward enlightenment. In Japan Motoori Norinaga (1730-1801) described mono no aware, sometimes translated as “the persistent sadness that inheres in all things,” as an integral part of the Japanese soul.

If you find yourself dealing with persistent sadness and dissatisfaction, you may find it worthwhile to explore those feelings. Instead of meditating on godforms, archetypes, or symbols try concentrating on those "negative" emotions. Don't try to suppress them, or make them go away. Just let yourself feel them. If there are lessons to be learned from them, they will come in due course. For now you are not looking for excuses, reasons, or rationalizations for your emotions. You are simply letting them be. If that process brings tears, let it bring tears: if it brings anger, let it bring anger. But understand that you are not those tears and you are not that anger. Much as ripples come and go on a pond, let those waves go through you and out of you and, in time, fade to nothing.

(If you are a survivor of abuse and/or have a history of self-injury, be VERY careful with this one. Accepting your emotions is one thing: letting them lead you into harm is another).