The following article appeared in the Candlemas 1992 issue of The Rune. Copyright (c) Rune Publishing 1992. All rights reserved, including the right to publish this article, or portions thereof, in any form whatsoever. For information contact Rune Publishing Co., 4550 Main Street, Suite 225, Kansas City, Missouri 64111. The Rune is published quarterly, with an annual subscription available for a price of $12.00. ================================================================= Warrior Spirit: a conversation with Laneowyn Misraelia: The copy deadline for the Candlemas issue of The Rune was fast approaching when Frater Arjuna and I had an inspiration. We had both been impressed by a Gnosis article panning the New Age concept of the peaceful warrior. It was a topic we wished to address further in our own way. The Gnosis article ("No Peaceful Warriors!", issue #21) discussed the New Age idea that one can approach life as a spiritual warrior, but that spiritual warriors must never commit physical violence or aggression. This is white-light thinking at its lightest, in our estimation. The writer of a letter to Gnosis in response to this article seemed to have agreed with us: "When a few denizens of the Pit who have chosen to manifest through human bodies are standing there chortling gleefully at the cone of white light with which you habitually surround yourself, and you have no physical self-defense skills, you'd better hope there is a warrior -- a real warrior -- close enough to save your posterior." We would have addressed this issue, ourselves, in The Rune, but neither of us felt qualified, by virtue of the fact that neither of us is a warrior. Oh, Frater Arjuna may have participated in a few fist fights at the fraternity house in college, and Misraelia has had her run-ins with violence, mostly of the domestic variety. However, of all the people among our acquaintance, the person we thought would be best equipped to address this issue (by virtue of his life experiences as a warrior and as a pagan), is Laneowyn. He served in the U.S. Army from 1971 to 1972, with the 1/64th Armored, the 82nd Airborne, and the 504th Combat Support. However, when we electronic mailed him a request for an article, and asked if he could have it done in a week, his response was, well, see for yourself ... Laneowyn: You want it WHEN? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Sounds intriguing, but I can barely take the time for personal hygiene, let alone be creative. The planetary rules dictate that every creature lives by the death of other creatures, directly or indirectly, so it would follow that it is permissible to defend one's self from predation -- all other of our fellow organisms do so. The logical extension of this line of thought is that harming others in self defense is more ethical than allowing them to maliciously harm you. If you want to sacrifice yourself as food for another creature(s), it would seem a nice thing to do, but allowing a monster like Hitler to step on you is a crime to all victims after you. "If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem." I was a warrior, and am no longer. But I would most vigorously breach the peace to defend myself or my loved ones from ANY danger, regardless of the cost to those causing it. Killing for defense is totally different than killing for food, but just as obligatory -- it just depends on motive. It is as natural for Man to become Warrior as it is for snakes to bite -- perhaps more so, as snakes rarely find it necessary to bite other snakes. There I go again, rambling off into the ether. (I'd rather have Helium.) Anyway, I doubt I'll have time, but what length are you asking about? Misraelia: I like your rambling better than I like some of the too-carefully written articles I've read. And I know what you mean about barely having time for personal hygiene. Would it be okay if we not worry about pages or any sort of officially written article, and just correspond back and forth via electronic mail for a few days? We could publish the conversation ... I agree with you that it's sometimes necessary to be a warrior. Once upon a time (when I was rather younger than I am now), I thought I was a total pacifist. I thought I would never contribute to the cycle of violence by violently resisting it, even if I or someone close to me were threatened. Then one night I woke up to find a strange man standing over me in my bedroom. All I could think of was, "Where is the nearest weapon?" and "I am going to stab this man over and over again until he stops moving." In the end, I managed to fend him off without either of us getting hurt, but I no longer believe in total pacifism. Don't the New Agers have a point, though? Does it take greater strength to be a spiritual warrior than to be a physical warrior? Or do you have to be willing to be a physical warrior to be strong in spirit? And do pagans have any special obligations to be spiritual and/or physical warriors? Laneowyn: I believe we need to do both. Your spiritual character is theoretically separate from your physical being, BUT you are what you do, not what you think or say. What you do is what you tend to become. Amerind rites of passage usually involved some rigorous physical aspects, partly to purge the body and spirit, and partly to give a clear-cut separation between the new and old person. Physical duress releases many different chemicals into the bloodstream that alter behavior, perception, etc. The very ACT of doing something contributes to your attitude toward the act. There is no question of being a physical warrior without being a spiritual warrior also. Whether the converse is true may depend more on the situation than on the intent of the person involved. Historically, many of the greatest warriors were not warriors by choice -- Sgt. York in WWI was a good example. Besides, the choice of NOT acting in a given situation is an act in itself. As long as there exists a physical threat, there must be a physical defense or response to that threat. A spiritual warrior standing against a tank is at the mercy of the driver of that tank, who may or may not feel reluctance to run him over. The best warriors are specialists. If you are an accomplished Magician, your time may be better spent in using YOUR talents, rather than tying yourself to a tree in the logger's path. Pagans have the same obligation to the welfare of the planet as all other inhabitants -- perhaps more so because they are more aware of the issues involved. The day of physical confrontation may be nearing an end, except for designated forces such as armies, but the need for spiritual confrontation with unhealthy forces will be with us for as long as humans possess free will. I suspect that the difference between spiritual and physical action may well be unimportant -- if a "spiritual warrior" has the intent of thwarting the undesirable actions of another, that means the interference with free will. I can see no ethical difference between wishing a person would not hurt me and physically prevent him from doing so -- either way, the onus of wrongful interference is on the aggressor, not the defender. (Obviously, there is no moral difference between spiritual harm and physical harm, and the response to either should be just as supportable. Misraelia: Do you really believe the day of physical confrontation may be nearing an end? Our wars with other nations may be fought with professional forces ... but what about smaller wars ... on the streets and in our homes? I don't mean smaller in the sense of unimportant -- because such violence is very important to the people it affects. What I mean is "smaller" in that it is violence on the personal level. For example, in our last issue, Fiona Firefall wrote about the kind of violence that occurs in alcoholic families. What about the violence that occurs when women (and men, for that matter) are afraid to go outside their homes at night? Or when people of one race are afraid to visit neighborhoods inhabited mostly by people of another race? What role does the warrior -- peaceful or otherwise -- have to play in all this? Laneowyn: That is precisely where the problem is. When I said nearing an end, I didn't mean THIS year, or decade wither. There are some rough times ahead, but in a hundred years, there won't be the kind of international problems we have now. There will be a growing world identity and interdependence that will make wars even more stupid than they are now. The domestic violence will always be with us, at least until we start managing mental health from conception. I am afraid we will always have mental defectives, unless we are able to make some breakthroughs, like prosecuting TV evangelists for fraud, libel, and inciting criminal activity. The major focus of spiritual work may well be to increase tolerance of others and decrease the effect of dogma and bigotry. The most important concept for peaceful coexistence is tolerance, coupled with the idea that everyone is responsible for their own actions. Not the State, not God, not your parents, not your neighborhood, your peer group, political party, or demons in your head -- YOU! If every person on earth refrained from hurting anyone else .... Anyway, working to educate everyone that Christian Doctrine of someone else dying for your sins does not license irresponsible behavior is going to be extremely difficult, but is the key to instilling ethics in our society. That and the concept that everything worldly is wicked and disgusting. No wonder so many evangelists go bonkers. I'm hungry -- Can't write at all when I'm hungry. Hashbrowns and Gravy! 'Bye.