| Author |
Offerings at stones |
MuddyMick
Joined:
12-05-2006
Messages: 1237
 OFF-Line
|  Posted 12-07-2007 at 13:16
Hi all,
I recently walked up to backstone circle (Ilkley moor) for the usual quiet contemplation and all that.
At the circle there had obviously been a small fire and a number of quartz crystals had been forced into the bases of some stones.
There was allso a very well made mandala of wood and wild flowers.
What do we think of this?
Are some offerings o.k?
Is a fire o.k if its away from the stones (no damage)?
Biodegradable yes?
non biodegradable no?
regards MM
 Profile
 Reply
|
Klingon
Joined:
08-08-2004
Messages: 758
from Germany
OFF-Line
|  Posted 12-07-2007 at 17:30
One year ago we've got a poll about this. Just take a look here.
Profile
Reply
|
bat400
Joined:
10-04-2006
Messages: 1331
from South Central Indiana, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-07-2007 at 17:40
See the poll. "Discrete" is sometimes in the eye of the beholder. And biodegrade is beside the point if masses of offerings are given.
I hesitate to think that, "Use good judgement," is always adequate.
Profile
Reply
|
Laughing_Ball
Joined:
13-08-2006
Messages: 888
from North West
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-07-2007 at 21:43
What I can't get my head around is why on earth would people leave crap like empty tin cans, cutlery, beer bottles etc at sights - particularly ones in out of the way places away from towns etc.
They've made the effort to go out into the countryside and visit a sight - why visit such places in the first place of you can't be arsed clearly up after yourself?
And yes a fire is acceptable if it contains the offerings and also the offerees a top it.
[ This message was edited by: Laughing_Ball on 2007-07-12 21:45 ]
Profile
Reply
|
Aluta
Joined:
06-04-2002
Messages: 1534
from PA, USA
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-07-2007 at 21:53
Best just to arrive humbly and silently offer your heart.
Profile
Reply
|
bat400
Joined:
10-04-2006
Messages: 1331
from South Central Indiana, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 12-07-2007 at 22:26
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-12 21:53, Aluta wrote:
Best just to arrive humbly and silently offer your heart.
|
|
Hear, hear.
Profile
Reply
|
James
Joined:
13-11-2002
Messages: 80
from High Desert
OFF-Line
| Posted 13-07-2007 at 06:56
Unwanted gifts are a desecration of hospitality.
Profile
Reply
|
MuddyMick
Joined:
12-05-2006
Messages: 1237
OFF-Line
| Posted 13-07-2007 at 08:24
HI all,
I personally cant comprehend the half wits that ruin the country side with their crap, but there again is it just because the crap in the country is more visible and jarring on the sight as opposed to the crap in the citys we have become almost blind to?
I personally think it is ok to leave offerings at sites (if they in no way damage the site or the enviroment) after all some sites have a history of offerings as do wells and even trees.
I am not sure how individuals get so 'het up' over a swastika, mandala or pentacle etc, yet happily drive (one per car) to sites guzzling petrol/diesel greedily destroying the whole enviroment, a tad hypocritical what?
As for the strange Idea that a gift (if given with a good heart) that damages nothing can be a desecration, well that confuses me?
To say that any gift at any site desecrates the said site would seem to suggest that all sites are homogeneous as are all gifts.
Just a couple of thoughts!
Regards
MM
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1600
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 13-07-2007 at 09:04
I like sites to be clear of any litter - this includes "offerings" (which is just someone's egotistic excrement as far as I'm concerned).
Profile
Reply
|
MuddyMick
Joined:
12-05-2006
Messages: 1237
OFF-Line
| Posted 13-07-2007 at 09:23
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-13 09:04, davidmorgan wrote:
I like sites to be clear of any litter - this includes "offerings" (which is just someone's egotistic excrement as far as I'm concerned).
|
|
'egotistic excrement'
Interesting phrase if a tad emotive.
Regards
MM
Profile
Reply
|
mikecroley
Joined:
27-10-2006
Messages: 1655
OFF-Line
| Posted 13-07-2007 at 10:33
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-13 08:24, MuddyMick wrote:
I am not sure how individuals get so 'het up' over a swastika, mandala or pentacle etc,
Regards
MM
|
|
Not everyone understands the occult Mick.
mike
Profile
Reply
|
davidmorgan
Joined:
23-11-2006
Messages: 1600
from The New Forest
OFF-Line
| Posted 13-07-2007 at 13:36
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-13 09:23, MuddyMick wrote:
'egotistic excrement'
Interesting phrase if a tad emotive.
Regards
MM |
|
If it emotivates people not to leave stuff, then good.
Profile
Reply
|
bat400
Joined:
10-04-2006
Messages: 1331
from South Central Indiana, US
OFF-Line
| Posted 13-07-2007 at 14:29
I can't speak to the European Stones.
But for those visiting American sites there is an issue at some sites in North America (and Hawaii) with Native Americans and ethnic Hawaiians who object to offerings left by "others" that do not conform with their tradition.
I say this generally, because the details vary enormously.
In Hawaii there is a modern "tradition" (or mythology) that a leaf wrapped stone is an appropriate offering at temple sites. I've read numerous protests by ethnic Hawaiians that this is pure drivel and results in stones being moved [out of place] and leaf litter building up that encourages saplings to grow out of walls and structures, damaging them.
Similar, but not identical issues exist on the mainland, with everything from approval to vehement protest that "others" even visit some sites. A non-traditional offering can be seen as a slap in the face.
Since most of these sites are either public or on land now in private ownership by "others" - the best bet if you are visiting American sites (and are not definitely part of traditional, local worship) is to leave nothing. (And at most locations, it is the law.)
Profile
Reply
|
brigantia
Joined:
13-01-2002
Messages: 804
from Yorkshire & Argyll
OFF-Line
| Posted 15-07-2007 at 21:48
HI there -
I think what Bat400 said here needs to be looked at in a much wider way - especially by those folk who don't want to see 'offerings' at ancient sites. To those people who think like that, howzabout this as a solution: sites where offerings have been made over many centuries and are still in use, should only be visited by those who still use them. There are several sites in the UK that I'm aware of with long histories of 'offerings', but should the 'tourist-types' or new law-mongerers come along and see what's left there, they'd call it a mess and want it stopped. It would be out of pure ignorance, of course, but then what should we do? Ban the folk who've been using such sites from doing what they're ancestors have been doing for god-knows-how-long?, or "allow" them to continue? The latter decision would be based on pure arrogance, instead of ignorance, but the very issue of offerings, without exploring the wider ingredients (some of which seem to be childishly ignored), is presumptious and narrow-minded. And in this day and age, even the use of such words is not easily endured: highlighting in an even greater degree that ignorance and arrogance, not learning, has become the social norm into wider spheres than I'd ever expected would happen.
But words such as these are best ignored, swept under the carpet, exemplifying what I say.
With respect - Paul
[ This message was edited by: brigantia on 2007-07-16 00:10 ]
Profile
 Email
Reply
|
MuddyMick
Joined:
12-05-2006
Messages: 1237
OFF-Line
| Posted 16-07-2007 at 07:50
HI all,
Working on the premise that we should leave nothing at 'sacred' sites, I have (on a number of occasions) traveled and stayed at Bodh Gaya ( the site of Lord Buddhas enlightenment) in India.
At the Maha Bodhi Stupa you will find all Varietys of Buddhists, Hindus,And even some Christian and new age tourists, now it is without doubt that the volume of visitors are causing serious decay of the site as a whole.
It is without doubt that nearly every visitor uses the site in a very different way than Lord Buddha did! or in fact the early Buddhists!
So they should not be allowed to enter the site? leave offerings? get on with their own version of........ (however ridiculous)?
Any Buddhist worth his/her salt should laugh at such self centered, egotistical, draconian rules.
Why?
Because they are indicative of someone wanting to 'own' a place/site and that by its very nature is ridiculous!
Regards
MM
p.s not only 'own' the site but 'Ownership of the spirit/paradigms' by which we interface with the site or its supposed import, therefore not just egotistical but fundamentally facist.
The nazis megal(thic)omaniacs.
The Taliban of archeology etc etc.
As Roy Harper says 'they know who they are'
[ This message was edited by: MuddyMick on 2007-07-16 08:33 ]
Profile
Reply
|
MuddyMick
Joined:
12-05-2006
Messages: 1237
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-07-2007 at 09:32
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-16 07:50, MuddyMick wrote:
HI all,
Working on the premise that we should leave nothing at 'sacred' sites, I have (on a number of occasions) traveled and stayed at Bodh Gaya ( the site of Lord Buddhas enlightenment) in India.
At the Maha Bodhi Stupa you will find all Varietys of Buddhists, Hindus,And even some Christian and new age tourists, now it is without doubt that the volume of visitors are causing serious decay of the site as a whole.
It is without doubt that nearly every visitor uses the site in a very different way than Lord Buddha did! or in fact the early Buddhists!
So they should not be allowed to enter the site? leave offerings? get on with their own version of........ (however ridiculous)?
Any Buddhist worth his/her salt should laugh at such self centered, egotistical, draconian rules.
Why?
Because they are indicative of someone wanting to 'own' a place/site and that by its very nature is ridiculous!
Regards
MM
p.s not only 'own' the site but 'Ownership of the spirit/paradigms' by which we interface with the site or its supposed import, therefore not just egotistical but fundamentally facist.
The nazis megal(thic)omaniacs.
The Taliban of archeology etc etc.
As Roy Harper says 'they know who they are'
[ This message was edited by: MuddyMick on 2007-07-16 08:33 ]
|
|
Hi
Again a Roy Harper quote 'they know exactly who they are' and that is why they are so glaringly absent from this discussion.
A small supposition...If this thread was on another web site where the 'glaringly absent' are 'vociferiously present'.
These arguments would be emotively shouted down on mass with the collusion of the editors.
If one was to continue in reasoned debate one could probably expect a ban ( for going against the consensual trance) again with the collusion of the editors.
Thank the heavens for the megalithic portal.
Regards
MM
Profile
Reply
|
brigantia
Joined:
13-01-2002
Messages: 804
from Yorkshire & Argyll
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-07-2007 at 10:46
Hi MIck -
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-17 09:32, MuddyMick wrote:
A small supposition...If this thread was on another web site where the 'glaringly absent' are 'vociferiously present'.
These arguments would be emotively shouted down on mass with the collusion of the editors. |
|
I think you'll find that the "glaringly absent" who you describe are simply scared - simple as that.
Cheers - Paul
Profile
Email
Reply
|
MuddyMick
Joined:
12-05-2006
Messages: 1237
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-07-2007 at 10:55
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-17 10:46, brigantia wrote:
Hi MIck -
[quote]
On 2007-07-17 09:32, MuddyMick wrote:
A small supposition...If this thread was on another web site where the 'glaringly absent' are 'vociferiously present'.
These arguments would be emotively shouted down on mass with the collusion of the editors. |
|
I think you'll find that the "glaringly absent" who you describe are simply scared - simple as that.
Cheers - Paul
HI Paul,
Would this suggest to you that 'they' only hunt in packs where the parameters of the conflict are dictated by their lackeys?
Snapping at the heels of mightier beasts only to slink away when confronted?
If cornered demanding the removal of their predator?
mmmmm
Regards
MM
[ This message was edited by: MuddyMick on 2007-07-17 11:09 ]
Profile
Reply
|
brigantia
Joined:
13-01-2002
Messages: 804
from Yorkshire & Argyll
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-07-2007 at 11:17
Quote:
|
On 2007-07-17 10:55, MuddyMick wrote:
[quote]
On 2007-07-17 10:46, brigantia wrote:
Hi MIck -
[quote]
On 2007-07-17 09:32, MuddyMick wrote:
A small supposition...If this thread was on another web site where the 'glaringly absent' are 'vociferiously present'.
These arguments would be emotively shouted down on mass with the collusion of the editors. |
|
I think you'll find that the "glaringly absent" who you describe are simply scared - simple as that.
Cheers - Paul
HI Paul,
Would this suggest to you that 'they' only hunt in packs where the parameters of the conflict are dictated by their lackeys?
Snapping at the heels of mightier beasts only to slink away when confronted?
If cornered demanding the removal of their predator?
[/quote]
Think you've hit the nail on the head mate! Oh well...onto healthier thoughts and things...
Cheers - Paul
Profile
Email
Reply
|
Laughing_Ball
Joined:
13-08-2006
Messages: 888
from North West
OFF-Line
| Posted 17-07-2007 at 14:19
I suspect most people are not overly concerened with biodegradable 'offering' left at sites and are more concerned that vandalism and destruction do not occur.
If you're looking at the matter from a buddhist perspective, I wouldn't have thought it mattered whether a site was demolished altogether.
Profile
Reply
|
Main News