Category Archives: Indigenous Religion and Philosophy

Mi’Kmaq: A foundational disagreement

2024 Trip to Eastern Canada, Indigenous People After Contact, Indigenous Religion and Philosophy

 

Chief Donnacona was the Iroquois Chief of the village of Stadacona when Jacques Cartier arrived on his second trip to Canada as it is now called. It was located at the site of what became Quebec City, which Christiane and I passed by on our way to the east coast of Canada on our own personal voyage of discovery in 2024.

In 1536 Cartier arrived a little deeper into Canada.  He arrived with a ship and landed in Île d’ Orléans, an island in what we now call Quebec. 11 of his men were very sick. They were basically dying of scurvy.

While Cartier and his men were in Canada, Chief Donnacona and his people prepared  tea for the Frenchmen who had landed on their shores from the leaves of 2 conifers that were rich in vitamins. That cured the men and they survived.

As so often happened in Canadian history, the First Nations of North America helped these Europeans survive in the Western hemisphere. They helped because that is what they did. They did not ask for payments.  But they did expect that if they were in need some day the newcomers would help them out if they could. Reciprocity was an important value among the First Nations of North America. This is how civilized people act.

Cartier, on the other hand, concluded that second voyage by kidnapping Donnacona along with 9 other Iroquois captives, and brought them all the way to France as curiosities for the people of France to see. That act showed the true meaning of European arrival in the so-called “New World.” That is not how civilized people act.

In the CBC story Telling our Stories, Edna Manitowabi an Anishinabe woman from Wiikwemkoong said, “We helped them. We were kind to them. We were generous and yes we agreed to share. We will share but we didn’t give up. We agreed to share.”

Those words tell us a lot about Indigenous philosophy. It was a profound way of thinking. The actions of Cartier tell us a lot about European philosophy.  Their philosophy embodied “taking” rather than sharing.

According to the doctrine of discovery, initiated by the Roman Catholic Popes, anyone who was not a Christian was a savage. And savages had few rights. And their land could be taken from them.

But I ask, “Who were the savages? And who was civilized?’

However, this fundamental misunderstanding between Indigenous people and the new arrivals from Europe proved very costly. As a result of that misunderstanding, Canada has suffered through decades of discontent by their partners who resented being treated as people who had sold off their inheritance to Canada.  While indigenous people remained unable to successfully assert their rights the newcomers enjoyed nearly a century of apparent quiet possession of Canada, but this fundamental misunderstanding still meant the “root of title” to use a concept of the common law of England which became part of the common law of Canada after Confederation was in doubt.  In time, the Supreme Court of Canada has turned back Canada’s easy assumptions that all of Canada had been ceded to Canada by Indigenous people.

Eventually, the Canadian courts kiboshed this idea. That does not mean the Canadian courts have accepted everything that Indigenous people argued, but it confirmed that Indigenous people had a lot more rights than Canada had believed. The extent of those aboriginal rights which have not been ceded is still being worked out by Canada’s courts and this has made law in Canada such an interesting thing. It is one of the reasons that an old teacher of real estate law in Canada—me—has had so much enjoyment out of practicing law.

What was once certain has become shaky.

 

Creation Stories: The Story of Mesh

Evolution, Indigenous People before Contact, Indigenous Religion and Philosophy

 

First Nations have an abundance of creation stories. Many of them are ancient stories. They have been passed down for thousands of years in the form of oral stories. One of the most famous stories, is the story of Mesh.

Innu are a First Nation in eastern Canada. The Innu are the indigenous people found in much of what we now refer to as Labrador and Quebec. At one time, they were to as the Montagnais-Naskapi Indians. They are not the Inuit (or formerly  ‘Eskimo’) who live further north.

The Innu have a creation story of Mesh (pronounced and often written ‘Mee’ in Innu). That story has passed down orally through many generations.  According to that story, two which  prehistoric fish, one male and one female, came out of the water. Eventually they grew legs which of course were much more useful on land.  Legs are often quite useless in water. This made them look like lizards, and together they climbed a tree. When they came down from the tree their bodies were covered in hair and they could walk like humans today. Some people believe, not entirely without some justification that this story told by Eruoma Awashish/Terre Innu  in the CBC series shows that Indigenous people understood the concept of evolution. Evolution is the story of change caused by organisms adapting to changed circumstances. Like the two fish.

Religious Snobs

2024 Trip to Eastern Canada, Indigenous People before Contact, Indigenous Religion and Philosophy

Jacque Cartier and his men were impressed with this rock. Who could blame them? They were not so impressed with the people. That was white supremacist bias.

The Europeans who arrived in North America were also snobbish about religion. As Barbara Huck said in her book, “Europeans had a remarkable intolerance for other religions and a deep conviction that their particular brand of Christianity was the only true faith.” They were also often reluctant to acknowledge the help they had received from the inhabitants. As Huck explained, “

 

“By 1545, the difficult climate and hatred of the Iroquois (prompted by the barbarous treatment of the very people who had more than once saved French lives, convinced the French to end for a time at least—their first foray into the “new world.””

Of course, as we all know they came back. When they came back to eastern Canada, they were a little smarter. They realized the wealth on this continent was not so much in precious minerals but other treasures. As Huck said,

“When they returned, at the beginning of the 17th century, they were driven by the same motives—a search for glory, souls, and gold—but the gold was now recognized to lie not in glittering metal but in soft lustrous fur. By 1600 the trade in fur, particularly beaver fur for felting, by seasonal fishermen was so lucrative that many visited the coastal shores to fish for fur rather than cod and a succession of noble were petitioning the French crown for the right to participate—or better yet, monopolize—the trade in North America.”

 

But I think even Huck missed the real treasure. The real treasure was to be found in the remarkable people of North America, their astounding knowledge and understanding of the natural world around them, and the deep spiritual truths that knowledge triggered. That to my mind, was the real unappreciated treasure of North America. It is still under appreciated to this day.

Snobbery is hard to overcome. Even when it is irrational.

 

Indigenous People of the East Coast: territory and spirituality

2024 Trip to Eastern Canada, Indigenous People After Contact, Indigenous People before Contact, Indigenous Religion and Philosophy

 

 

In and around Rimouski we began our journey into Indigenous territory in eastern Canada. Before the trip to Eastern Canada started, I had been watching a television series on CBC Gem that I found very informative and interesting.  I came to appreciate, as I did not before, and certainly did not appreciate in 1967 when I traveled to Quebec with my buddies, that there are many interesting stories to tell about Indigenous peoples.   And until recently, they were not able to tell those stories themselves. Thanks to this series at least some of those stories have been told.

This film series begins with an admonishment that the stories of the indigenous people who live in eastern Canada, as it is now called, were not told by them but by others. They want us to hear their stories from themselves. Otherwise, we won’t hear the truth. So you will be hearing these stories second hand, from me, but you can go to the series and get the stories straight from them without my interpretation. I do not want to appropriate their stories, but as Niigaan Sinclair, a professor of Indigenous studies, and an Anishinaabe of Manitoba  once told me, I should consider telling my friends what I know because they are unlikely to listen to him or any other indigenous person. So that is what I am doing. But the key point is these are there stories which I have heard.

This series lets them tell those stories so we can understand who they are. And obviously, they wanted to tell their own stories. We should let them do that. We should not stand in their way.

They have been called, savages, Indians, aboriginal, indigenous, First Nations, First Peoples, native Americans, or native Canadians, but as one Innu man said, if you are not sure what to call them, the best thing to do is ask the person you are talking to what is the name of his or her group and he or she can tell you. Use that name.

The various Indigenous Peoples reflected in this CBC documentary are as follows: Innu, Atikamekw, Naskapi, Inuk, Kanien’kehákka, Abenaki, Wolastoqiyik, Anishinaabe, Wendat, Eeyou, and Mi’Kmaq.

The various territories of those people are called: Nadakina (for Abenaki), Mi’Kma’ki (for Mi’Kmaq), Innu (for Nutshimit) Nionwntsïo (for Wendat), Maliseet (for Wolastoqiyik), Nitaskimant (for Atikamekw), Nunavik (for Inuk), (for Kanien’kehákka), Eeyouistchee (for Eeyou), Wiikwemkoong (for the Anishinabe territory). I hope I got these names right.

As one Indigenous person on the series said, here is a fundamental fact:

 

“To understand who we are you need to understand our special relationship with the land. It is an intimate and powerful bond that we want to keep alive.”

 

As was said by the narrator, “Since the time of our ancestors we have always shared our territories between our different peoples.” That is important too. The Indigenous people were always willing to share. They were never militantly exclusive.

Added to that, the Indigenous people who were interviewed, said, “Our territory is our identity. It is impossible to survive without your territory.” As a rule, Indigenous people have an identity that is tied to the land. The people and the land cannot be severed from each other. I don’t think the rest of us can understand anything about the Indigenous People if we don’t understand this fundamental belief.

 

As Stanley Vollant, an Innu physician eloquently explained,

“My story and that of my nation are written within the territory. They are written with its rivers and the toponomy of its lakes. I am the territory and the territory is me. It is a sacred relationship. For us it’s impossible to be indigenous, Innu, without Nitassinan.”

 

As one indigenous young Wendat man, from Wendake, Brad Gros-Louis.  put it:

“At one time, First Nations people lived solely off of harvests. And the meats for which we hunted and fished. The territory served to feed you and your family. Today, for me, being indigenous means being a champion of nature, speaking in the name of animals, speaking in the name of the forest, being a guardian of the sacred, of the territory. What makes a good hunt, is that the moose you kill, the moose that you harvest, you will care for it as if it is your baby. Its meat is the priority. We use every part of the animal. When I go hunting and harvest an animal, I take the time to thank it, I take the time to treat it with respect, to do things properly. Everything around us is alive. Everything around us deserves respect.”

 

As Joséphine Bacon, an elegant Innu woman, from Pessamit said

“When I say Assi in Innu, I see the earth, but if I envision “Nutshimit” I see a lot mor than that. I see everything: the forest, the lakes, the rivers, moss, lichens, the horizon, and the animals that feed me. We do not own the land because Nutshimit takes care of us. It is where our identity lies, where our soul lies.”

 

I have heard others, like Chief Seattle say, “we do not own the land, the land owns us.”

 

Charles Api Bellefleur an Innu from Unamen-shipu said this:

 “the forest ensures our well-being. Look at how beautiful it is [he was standing in Innu territory]. It feels good to be here. I know the name of every tree, birch, aspen, white spruce. I know the legends of this land, the stories which have enfolded here, this is where I feel alive. Its where I still live today.”

 

 

As Matthew Mukash, Eeyou (Cree) from Whapmagoostui, said,

“Every valley, every part of the winding river has a name Every mountain, every hill, every hill has a name here, and those names are for reminding us how our ancestors survived so that we can have life today. The land tells the story of your ancestors.”

 

The connection between the land an ancestors is also considered sacred.

Fundamental Misunderstandings Lead to Fundamental Grief

2024 Trip to Eastern Canada, civilization, Colonialism, Indigenous People After Contact, Indigenous Religion and Philosophy

 

As I have been saying many of the problems between Indigenous Canadians and non-Indigenous Canadians are the result of misunderstandings in the past, and misunderstanding that have continued.

 

As a result of all of these misunderstandings, when many years later the Europeans approached the Indigenous people to make treaties, it was very difficult for their differing world views not to influence what they thought they were agreeing to. For example, Indigenous People thought they were agreeing to share the land while the newcomers thought the indigenous people were agreeing to cede or give up the land to the newcomers.  That very fundamental differing point of view has seriously disturbed relations between them ever since.

According to Barbara Huck,

“Though decision-making was by consensus, most North American cultures put great stock in individuals and lauded efforts on behalf of the community. Status was achieved not by owning property but by giving it away.  Religion permeated every aspect of their lives and was based on respect for the Earth and all living things.”

 

That did not mean all relations between Indigenous groups were peaches and cream. There were conflicts between groups. And those conflicts were real and sometimes vicious. Europeans did not have a monopoly on violence. Disputes between indigenous groups often turned violent and often escalated after that. Yet the overall attitudes of newcomers were radically different.

The world views of the Europeans were very different from that of Indigenous peoples.

As Huck said,

“The newcomers from Europe had a very different world view. Theirs was a class society, governed in an authoritarian way by men who viewed land and its resources as objects to be exploited. They greatly admired the accumulation of personal wealth and assigned positions of power to those who were particularly successful at amassing goods and money. Generosity was viewed as philanthropy, an act of charity, not necessity.”

 

Some of us may be surprised to find that Indigenous people were more democratic than the new comers.

There was another very important difference between the two groups. The Indigenous People saw themselves as part of the natural world, particularly identified with the land in which they lived. They had a deeply spiritual relationship to that natural world as a result. The Europeans saw the natural world as something to own individually and exploit.  Barbara Huck explained the European attitudes this way:

“Their primary allegiance was to the concept of the nation-state and national identity was closely tied to language, religion, and race. They believed implicitly in European superiority and felt compelled to try persuade other cultures to embrace their world view. Yet with few exceptions, Europeans proved woefully unprepared for survival in North America. The first 250 years of European contact were fraught with disorientation, disaster, and privation. Native North Americans provided guiding services, information, interpretation, clothing, medicine and food., as well as wives and extended families. All this was in addition to the furs that were the primary objects of early French and later British interest. And time after time, they rescued the newcomers from starvation. Yet Europeans never did comprehend that this spontaneous, culturally entrenched generosity required  reciprocity. Instead, native North Americans in need were termed beggars.”

 

To the natives of North America, reciprocity was not just a cardinal virtue, it was a religious principle. The newcomers did not catch on. They were prepared to accept gifts from the natives, but often failed to reciprocate when the opportunity arose.  Who is the more civilized? These differing attitudes prepared the ground for misunderstandings and eventually conflicts.  As Huck said in her book on the fur trade of North America,

“This climate of misunderstanding colored the fur trade and the progress of Europeans across the continent. From the 16th century St. Lawrence Valley to the Pacific Coast 300 years later, the pattern was repeated again and again. Recognizing it is fundamental to appreciating the profound changes that took place in North America, between 1550 and 1860, and perhaps just as important in understanding today’s attempts to rectify some of the mistakes of the past.”

 

This is where learning comes in. To learn from our mistakes is important. But to do that our mistakes must be honestly confronted. How else can we get better? Unfortunately, people are often reluctant to admit mistakes, and that makes matters worse. Not better.

 

European Savages

2024 Trip to Eastern Canada, civilization, Colonialism, History, Indigenous People After Contact, Indigenous Religion and Philosophy

On our trip across eastern Canada I had many opportunities to consider Canadian history.

The Indigenous people encountered by Europeans were definitely not savages.  They were members of sophisticated societies that all too often the Europeans did not well understand. Many of the Europeans were blinded by prejudice thinking that they could bring civilization and God to the barbarians and heathens. This was nonsense that the Europeans believed and passed on to their descendants and was largely responsible for the creation of white male supremacy favoured by their clans, but clearly absurd.  The indigenous people were civilized people and had a lot to teach the European newcomers while they were prepared to learn a lot from them as well. That is a wise attitude isn’t it?

It certainly was not true, as many Europeans thought, that this new land was empty of people. England, for example adopted the concept of terra nullius, a Latin phrase meaning “nobody’s land,” to justify their bloody claims. According to this theory, terra nullius included territory without a European recognized sovereign, where no one who counted lived.  Again, this was nonsense.

Contrary to such barbaric unfounded prejudices there were people all over the entire western hemisphere when Europeans arrived and these people mattered just as much as the visitors. The Europeans had no monopoly on civilization. In fact, often they revealed a startling lack of civilization. As Barbara Huck said in her book,

“Parts of North and Central America were among the most densely populated places on Earth. Some anthropologists have estimated the total population of the continent 500 years ago, including Mexico and Central America, at between 112 and 140 million. Mexico, the spectacular Aztec capital, was one of the three largest cities in the world when the Spaniards first laid eyes on it.

Much of Canada and the United States was considerably less populated than that—estimates put the total population of both between nine and 12 million—but North America was not, as some have imagined it, terra nullius, a land without people. And many societies, such as the Iroquoians, were healthier, more prosperous and less class-bound than their European counterparts of the same period.”

 

If first contact was indeed a case of civilization meeting barbarity, it is likely that the Europeans were the barbarians!  

It is also noteworthy, the Indigenous people who first encountered these Europeans in many ways did not share European attitudes and values. As Huck said,

“…the Americas were literally a world apart and North American values and beliefs were very different –in some ways almost directly contrary to the perspectives of the strangers who began to arrive on their shores in the early 1500s, the beginning of the contact period.”

 

For example, I have pointed out elsewhere that indigenous people of North American had views that were by no means all the same. They had many diverse views, just like Europeans.  The spiritual beliefs of indigenous people, for example, were very different from the newcomers, and in my view often preferable. We are of course, each entitled to our own views on that and I intend to continue commenting on those differences.

 

They also had very different views about how societies should be organized and how they should be governed and how wealth should be produced and shared. I find the differences profoundly interesting.  Barbara Huck in her book also commented on them:

 

“Indeed, it’s hard to imagine two more conflicting world views. Whether farmers or hunters, the vast majority of the people of what are now Canada and the United States lived communally in groups of varying sizes. The territories they inhabited were not owned, as we recognize land ownership, but rather commonly acknowledged  to be theirs to use. They governed by consensus, valued generosity and self-reliance, and loathed acquisitiveness and coercion. Stinginess and miserly behavior were strongly condemned. Almost everywhere it was considered immoral to allow anyone to go hungry if food was available.”

 

Not a bad way to live. Maybe the Europeans were the savages.

 

A Fundamental Misunderstanding

2024 Trip to Eastern Canada, civilization, Indigenous People After Contact, Indigenous Religion and Philosophy

 

When Europeans arrived in what they called, wrongly, “The New World,” they quickly encountered the people who already lived here. In fact, they had lived here for thousands of years and had done rather well at that.

The  indigenous people were shocked at how these newcomers from Europe were not as healthy as the people who lived here. The Europeans were shorter than the North Americans and much less healthy lives.  Added to that, the Indigenous People were shocked at the great inequality between the different newcomers. There were classes of people that did extremely  poorly while the elite lived extravagantly well.  The Indigenous people did not understand this. They thought this meant the newcomers were not really civilized. I think they were right.

The Indigenous People realized the newcomers had some good ideas. They had amazing technologies.  Guns, big ships, and horses to name a few. But the Europeans also had a lot to learn from the inhabitants.  They were not able to survive here without help from the native North Americans. At first, they learned quickly and well. In time the Europeans forgot how they needed help.

The indigenous people of North America knew how to live well in North America. Even though the continent had incredibly variable environments and circumstances, from freezing northern terrains, to lush forests, great plains, amazing deserts, and everything in between, the inhabitants new how to thrive. Not just survive. But thrive!

Barbara Huck in her wonderful book, Exploring the Fur Trade Routes of North America, which I have been reading on this trip described it this way:

“Europeans adopted a number of North American technologies such as snowshoes…toboggans, birchbark canoes, and pemmican, but largely misunderstood the continent’s cultures.”

 

And that misunderstanding has made all the difference. It has wreaked havoc. It has destroyed lives, including the lives of many young and vulnerable children. But, in my view at least, it is not too late to do better. We can do better. We must do better.

Indigenous People are talking a lot about land-based education. I like that idea. The land can teach us a lot. But only if we listen and learn. We must pay attention.

Inukshuk

2024 Trip to Eastern Canada, Affinity, art, Indigenous Religion and Philosophy

 

At Dixie Lake, not far past Kenora I stopped the car at a rest stop and strolled in the south side of the highway about a ¼ km along the highway shoulder. I noticed a proudly installed Inukshuk on the north side of the highway at the top of a granite wall created by blasting the top part to of the Canadian Shield.  For generations young boys and other miscreants have been painting information no one is interested in, onto the rocks beside the road. Things like their initials and the initials of their current girlfriends. They used to mar the countryside. Lately, government employees diligently try to paint over these markings as soon as possible. And they do a pretty good job.  Frankly, I consider the messages a desecration. Rarely do we see the graffiti anymore.

 

Building an Inukshut is an entirely other matter. I appreciate everyone of them I see. These I think honour the history of Canada and the places in which they are found. They are respectful. They don’t mar the countryside like painted initials.

But I like them for another reason. A more philosophical reason.

The word “inukshuk” means “in the likeness of a human.” For generations, Inuit have been creating these impressive stone markers on the immense Arctic and sub-Arctic landscapes of Canada to show others where they have been and sometimes to let others know where emergency food can be found. Inukshuks really serve more than one function. They are used to guide fellow travellers sort of like a modern GPS is used. Some warn strangers of dangers. Some help assisting hunters and other to mark sacred places.

Sometimes they show how the people are part of the land and the land is part of the people. Even rocks. After all, as Carl Sagan said, “we are all stardust.”

Humans were created out of the dust of ancient stars. Whenever I think of life that way I am in awe. Imagine that each one of us is created by dust sent into the atmosphere by the big bang billions of years ago.

Inukshuts are really just piles of rocks. Nothing more. But they are places where people show reverence to nature.   They show us how we are all connected. I consider them holy messages. The opposite of desecrations. They are spiritual manifestations created by artists to suggest those connections that are the essence of religion.

Missa Gai/Earth Mass

Buddhism, Indigenous Religion and Philosophy, New Attitude to Nature

 

Professor Moriarty tended his lecture by talking about an   album of music released by Paul Winter in 1982 called “Missa Gaia/Earth Mass”.  The title actually refers to two languages, Latin for the word missa which means mass (the religious service)  and gaia from the Greek which refers to Mother nature. The earth in others words. So Missa Gaia is a mass for the earth.

 

Winter became artist in residence at the Cathedral of St. John Divine in New York City which Moriarty referred to as “a great ship wreck of a Church.” It was one of the largest churches in the world, which naturally did not impress Professor Moriarty. “It may be the biggest but it’s not the most beautiful he said. The mass has been referred to as “an environmental liturgy of contemporary music.” It is performed annually at that church. The calls of wolves, whales and other animals are weaved into the pieces of music sometimes used as melody.

 

Moriarty also said it was exclesias down there. Where God has come down to earth. This comes from the Greek word Ekklēsia (gathering of those summoned).  It was where people gathered. Like the Greek agora, that I remember from my very first day in Athens many years ago  led by a wonderful woman—Maria. She pointed out the agora to us. The word exclesias also makes us think of the Carol “Gloria, in excelsis Deo!”

 

In the music the voices of whales are heard and the alt sax that is used imitates the voice of the whale. And the voice of the loon and the voice of the wolf. When you hear this, Moriarty says, everything is brought in from the cold. You hear whales and wolves singing parts of the mass. It is an earth mass. It is a mass for the earth. It makes the entire earth sacred. And when you hear a mass for the earth how could you ravage it. It is sacred after all.

The Missa Gaia, according to Moriarty, is also the place where the Buddha found enlightenment. Apparently, there is now a temple there where the people have built a temple and called it Buddgaya or Bodh Gaya which is a village in the north east Indian state of Bihar.  It is considered one of  the most important Buddhist pilgrimage sites and houses at an ancient Mahabodhi Temple Complex, that was built to commemorate the place where the Buddha attained enlightenment underneath a sacred Bodhi Tree.

 

The mass includes as text the Kyrie and the Agnus Dei. The mass is an environmental liturgy of contemporary music.  The “Kyrie” is derived from the call of a wolf, the “Sanctus” from the songs of humpback whales. Man literally learns how to sing from animals. Missa Gaia  is not just ecological it is also ecumenical. It wants to contain and include all voices of the earth. Many musical traditions are embraced by the Missa Gaia such as Gregorian chants  from the Middle Ages, Protestant hymns, Romantic organ music, African instruments, Latin American rhythms, elements of Gospel music, and even rock music.

The name “Missa Gaia” refers to the  “Gaia hypothesis” proposed by scientists Jame Lovelock and Lynn Margulis which provides that “the entire range of living matter on Earth, from whales to viruses, and from oaks to algae, could be regarded as constituting a single living entity, capable of manipulating the Earth’s atmosphere to suit its overall needs and endowed with faculties and power far beyond its constituent parts”.

 The Mass had been performed annually at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine at The Feast of St. Francis which is the blessing of the animals.

 

When St. Francis of Assisi referred to brother sun and sister moon he is really saying, says Moriarty, “I am the little brother.”  He is saying they are the great brother or sister.  He is not saying I am the great conqueror! He is not saying I am the ruler of the earth. He is saying we are kin! That brings us right back to the ideas of Chief Seattle and the indigenous people of North America and elsewhere. Now that is really a profound new attitude to the earth!

Moriarty asked a very pertinent question: “Why don’t we call the earth Buddgaya?” That it is an enlightened earth?” At least that the earth will one day be enlightened. Of course, he is really suggesting that it is not enlightened now. I think the reason that has not been done is that we need a completely new transformative attitude to nature. Only when we do that can we consider ourselves, or the earth we inhabit, enlightened. We have not yet earned the right to call us or the earth enlightened. Not yet.

If we can do that Moriarty says on Christmas night when he goes to the stable, he won’t have to say humans are alone in the earth. “I won’t be experiencing the awful desolation of us and them.” Until we are enlightened, we will be experiencing the awful alienation of us from the earth. “Maybe our mass has to become a Missa Gaia. When we walk the earth we must realize we are walking in Buddgaya.

Then finally we will be walking beautifully upon the sacred earth.

 

 

An Irish Stream

Indigenous Religion and Philosophy, New Attitude to Nature

 

Professor Moriarty  told a story about a man in Dingle in the south west of Kerry on a lovely gorgeous evening when the mountains were almost heart-breakingly lovely and blue on a silent, silent evening. The only sound was the sound of a stream tumbling down the mountainside. An old man said, “It is calling us down into eternity out of which it is itself coming.” According to Moriarty this eternity is not behind time it is an eternity that is right there in front. It is right in front of you. It is unhidden.

It is the same eternity that Wordsworth talked about in the intimations of Immortality and that Traherne talked about. So the corn is the orient and immortal wheat.

Moriarty contrasts that with the end of the 19th century when white people were scattering around the American continent  in pursuit of Manifest Destiny. They came upon the holy sacred mountains of the Sioux Indians. As Moriarty said, “an old life, a sacred life was being destroyed there.” Of course, the same thing was happening everywhere across this great continent.  Non-indigenous people were destroying nature in pursuit of economic advantage.

In California a man rose up to the heavens during an eclipse where he learned a sacred dance that later came to be called the Ghost dance. The dancers would fall into a sort of trance. It was an apocalyptic dance, according to Moriarty. They were dancing in circles. According to Moriarty. And they were dong it everywhere.

As Moriarty said,

“they were going to roll up the whole white world that we had brought with us in the way you would roll up a carpet, from the Chicagos  and New Yorks and then the North American continent would return to the way it originally was. We know Europeans who treat corn as an economic commodity  and have to undertake a ghost dance ourselves. Ghost dance was what Wordsworth called their light of common day out of our eyes. Ghost dance is what Traherne called the dirty devices of the world. The philosophical assumptions and axioms. Ghost dance the Medusa mind set, the European mind set out of our eyes.”

 

 

Moriarty wants us to walk “enfranchised on an enfranchised earth.”  We need to be liberated. Then we can be in a paradise that is not “out there”, but down here where we are. All we have to do is “ghost dance the dirty devices out of our world.”

Moriarty believes this could bring about a new and reborn agriculture.  It would no longer be just an economic thing. According to him, “our eyes have become economic tumours.” When we look at things in that way, we are committing a sin Moriarty says. That is why we must comb them out just the way Takana Kapsalut’s hair had to be combed out of the sins of the people. We need the ghost dance in Europe.

 

Moriarty railed against the ancient and long-standing tendency of humans to try to shape nature, rather than allowing nature to shape us. “Sometimes,” Moriarty said, “I think we have gone the wrong way. We have gone the disastrous way and the world is paying a terrible price for that.”  This is exactly what I have been saying. We desperately need a new attitude to nature. It is like Prometheus who stole technological fire from heaven. The whales and dolphins instead went into the water where there was no fire. They did not want to go the technological way. As Professor Moriarty said, “They did not go the way of technological domination of the earth. They said to the world shape us.”

 

Moriarty says he has problems with the idea of the transcendence of God and domination of the earth. It often seems that this is now impossible. No one can go the way of the whales and dolphins anymore, though Moriarty hopes that some people can still do this. We believe that somehow, we have given permission to do to the earth what we are doing. Moriarty has problems with that view. He too wants a new attitude to nature.