Devil’s Advocate – Hindus, Christians, Mormons and Aristasians Saturday, Aug 15 2009 

Miss Sakura begins by quoting a lengthy exchange:

I should like to set the scene by quoting a recent correspondence called “The Aristasian-Hindu Connection” on the “ask Miss Iris” pages:

Dear readers: Related to the previously published question (“AMI: Why stay in church?”) I am also bringing up yet another of the most commonly heard questions.

Dear Miss Iris: Often you mention or reference materials written by the so-called “Aristasian” sect when you discuss certain spiritual or theological matters. I am at loss of words for this. When I visited one of the “Aristasian” websites I saw many pictures of Hindu goddesses and uses of Hindu or Sanskrit words everywhere. Are you attempting to introduce Hindu polytheist/pantheist beliefs into Christianity? What you are doing is abhorrent, and borders on cultic. — Rachel, Washougal, Washington.

Dear Miss Rachel: I do not think the Aristasians are pleased by your characterization of them as a Hindu “cult.” Neither is your understanding of Hinduism as a polytheism correct. I would like to refer to an Aristasian religion FAQ page, which states as thus:
Q: Aristasians in Telluria use images of Dea from Tellurian sources, such as Hindu Devis or even the Virgin Mary. Why is this?

Most simply, because we cannot import images from Aristasia Pura! But actually there is more to it than that. Such images — particularly the Hindu ones — go back in an unbroken line to the original worship of the Mother as Absolute Deity. In Christianity, only the image remains (but the image is still very faithful) while the worship of Dea has been “theologised” out of existence. In Hinduism, while patriarchal myths have been woven about, say Sri Lakshmi, there are many within the tradition who still worship Her as Supreme Deity. Thus these are images in which the direct spiritual influence is still living (the same might be said about Kwan Yin bodhisattva, or the Tibetan Tara). We could use reproductions of more ancient images from prehistoric matriarchal times, and while this is not forbidden, it is generally considered that it is better to use images that are still connected by a living thread to the earliest tradition.

This having said, would I recommend the use of Hindu religious imagery or language in support of a feminine traditionalist religion? Not within the context of the contemporary North America. It is important to note that what you call the “Aristasian sect” is largely a British phenomenon, and unlike Americans, there is a healthy respect for Indian culture there thanks to Britain’s colonial past in India and also because of the large immigrant population there from India. This contrasts with our situation here in North America, in which anything that looks, sounds or smells Hindu are products of fringe cults or Westernized “new age” movements. Fortunately, America still remains to be the most religious nation on earth outside the Islamic theocracies, and religion plays an important role in our culture and social values. My opinion, therefore, is instead of looking elsewhere for a foreign religious tradition why not make the best of the heritage we already have in America, specifically Christianity (and to much extent, Judaism). This is why, unlike Aristasians, I refrain from borrowing much from Hinduism (I have no entitlement to exploit a religious tradition I know little about); instead you see me discussing in terms of Christian theology and hagiography.

This is another topic that may be of interest to those who are interested in Aristasian path (without any attempt at dissuading or discouraging anyone from so doing). In her comment to “Why stay in church,” Miss Sushuri stated:

“[I] have absolutely no sympathy or kindred-feeling with patriarchal traditions whatever. I can accept that they are right within their own “economy”. I can accept that you are more fortunate and perhaps more “valid” than I in being able to come to terms with them… I have not an atom of warmth toward patriarchal tradition in general and have least warmth of all toward the Abrahamic traditions. While I fully accept the quotation from Guénon about the necessity of Christianity for Western Telluria, I have no interest in, or love for, Western Telluria, and on a purely personal level, do not care whether it stands or falls. I certainly do not feel myself to be a part of it or of any patriarchal tradition… Equally I feel no attraction whatever to any form of “feminist” pseudo-cultus, all of which are not only part of the Western patriarchal culture but represent it in its final degeneracy. They have all the faults of West-Tellurian patriarchy with none of its virtues.”

Yet, it is impossible to fully liberate oneself from the “Tellurian traditions,” patriarchal or otherwise. Unfortunately even Hindu in present form is a highly patriarchal faith (think of blatant misogyny in India, in which women are treated as mere chattels), and there really is no existent “living tradition” that is entirely free of patriarchy. Much of Aristasian spirituality and practices today are indeed product of many streams of Tellurian traditions and traditionalists, and as much as one may hope that it is “straight from Aristasia Pura” as though they were brought to them by an extraterrestrial on a space ship, the reality is that there are heavy borrowing from Hinduism, Buddhism, and so on. This, of course, is not “wrong” — I believe that all traditions ultimately trace back to one single source, one single root, Tellurian or otherwise. But it would be dishonest to disclaim one’s connection to the Tellurian traditions.

In this spirit, I am not going to throw out the entire crate of apples just because a few — even the super-majority of it — apples are rotten and infested with patriarchal bugs. I would at least like to make my best effort at salvaging what is left of the Christian heritage, and (being an optimist) reform what is in my hands. I am in no way a radical reformer of Anabaptist or Puritan kind; I am more of a reformer along the line of John+ Wesley and ++Thomas Cranmer. To me, any meaningful reformation requires a preservation of continuity and precedence, or I would be inventing a new religion out of thin air and that would be meaningless.

– Miss Iris

Miss Sushuri said…


I think few comments need to be made here. As Miss Iris has said, Aristasia is not in any sense Hindu, neither is Aristasia (or Hinduism) polytheist or pantheist according to the Western understanding of those terms. It would be much truer to say that we are monotheists with a strong angelology. No orthodox tradition is polytheist in the sense of believing that there can be more than one Absolute, since this is a metaphysical and thealogical absurdity.

Miss Iris writes:

Yet, it is impossible to fully liberate oneself from the “Tellurian traditions,” patriarchal or otherwise. Unfortunately even Hindu in present form is a highly patriarchal faith (think of blatant misogyny in India, in which women are treated as mere chattels), and there really is no existent “living tradition” that is entirely free of patriarchy.

So many points are raised here! In the first place Aristasians have been the first to point out the patriarchal nature of the modern Hindu tradition. We see Hindu images of Dea as being images of the Universal, Primordial Mother God. We see (iconographically correct) Christian images of Our Lady Mary in the same way. The difference is that the Hindu images can come with a correct thealogical interpretation – that these are images of the One God. They can be doctrinally as well as iconographically sound, whereas (at least by the more usual understanding) Christian images cannot.

Christianity, while granting hyperdoulia to Our Lady Mary, denies Her latria because it denies that She is God. In this sense, Hinduism is capable of adopting a thealogically sound position (in Aristasian terms) whereas Christianity is not. This is to say nothing of the patriarchal nature of Hindu society. That is their affair. We are not Hindus.

Now Miss Iris says some rather strong words:

Much of Aristasian spirituality and practices today are indeed product of many streams of Tellurian traditions and traditionalists, and as much as one may hope that it is “straight from Aristasia Pura” as though they were brought to them by an extraterrestrial on a space ship, the reality is that there are heavy borrowing from Hinduism, Buddhism, and so on. This, of course, is not “wrong” — I believe that all traditions ultimately trace back to one single source, one single root, Tellurian or otherwise. But it would be dishonest to disclaim one’s connection to the Tellurian traditions.

Now a lot here depends upon what is meant by the term “connection”. Clearly Aristasian writers have used Hindu (and sometimes Christian and far-Eastern Tellurian) terms quite freely, and have used images from those traditions. We are not making any secret of that.

But what, exactly, is our “connection” supposed to be? In truth, there have been some efforts to forge a certain degree of spiritual “linking” between Tellurian images and “streams” and our faith. This was in pursuit of the practice of “pontification” – building bridges between our faith in Dea and its practice in Telluria, precisely so that we might have some spiritual “grounding” in Telluria.

In this sense, and in this sense only, it might be correct to speak of some form of “connection”, and we have certainly not tried to disclaim it. However we see “living tradition” solely as a conduit leading back to Our Mother God – we have no interest in the various patriarchal accretions which can only be obstacles between ourselves and Her.

Now if one wishes to see Aristasians purely as “Tellurian dissidents” that cannot be helped. It is a natural enough Outland view. But that is not how we see ourselves and it will give no clue as to why we are what we are and think as we do.

Our perspective is very much Aristasian. We are not interested in “reforming” Telluria as a whole or any Tellurian tradition. Our sole allegiance is to our Motherland and to Dea.

Any credence we give to patriarchal traditions is because they are remnants of Universal Truth, not because they are patriarchal. Their patriarchal nature is only an obstacle placed before their Truth. It is only because of their Universality that they can have any value as pontifications.

We are the first to admit that our approach is completely useless for anyone looking for Tellurian “reform”. We are not concerned with it and have no interest in it. Our aim is to love and serve Our Mother God within a feminine nation.

Miss Sakura then comments:

Well I don’t think my position is much of a secret. I am a Filyana and will die a Filyana.

But let’s play Devil’s Advocate for a minute. Princess Mushroom said it is good to play Devil’s Advocate because we can test our position against the hardest arguments.

So, you know, I think a lot about my religion and I understand about the Filianist Controversy and how it came about because of a desire not to be “inventing a religion out of thin air”, as Miss Iris puts it.

I believe that discussion is well resolved. There is very much Tellurian precedent and continuing practice of the worship of Dea as Supreme, Absolute, Sole and Almighty God.

If people want to see the Daughter Mythos as “poems” that enhance that traditional devotion, no Filyana has a problem with that.

It is true that we are not in an established religious tradition. But we need to ask what is meant by a continuous tradition? The Tellurian West currently has a conception of the world so utterly different from any traditional view that we may wonder if their understanding of Christianity bears much relation to that of traditional Christians.

Miss Iris as a priest and sometime Bishop of a rather wayward-seeming branch of the Catholic and Apostolic Church might well see the continuity lying in the validity of the Sacraments. Now various questions might be raised by other Christians about the validity of an Apostolic Succession so far from “Established” norms, and others may wish to question the validity of those “norms” themselves – having strayed so far from Tradition. By no means all would accept the validity of a female priesthood.

So already we are in a quandary about who is “making up their religion”.

But even if we ignore all this and place our faith in the Sacraments, where does that leave all our non-Sacramental Protestants? Are they making up their religion? Or are they guaranteed by the Bible – despite an interpretation of it that mediaeval Christians might scarcely recognize.

And our Mormon friends? Are they meaningless?

In their case I would be hard pressed not to say that much of their religion is not “made up”, but I certainly cannot discount their faith because of that, or believe that their God is no God (despite the fact that they do not see Her quite as I believe they should).

So do we have to accept any and everything that calls itself “religion”? I for one do not accept most “New Age” and “Pagan” constructions. But even there I cannot say that they are not approaching God somehow – however misguidedly. That is for Her to judge, not I.

Tests I would tend to apply are those of devotion, humility and purity (which much New Agism does not pass) and of authentic traditional understanding (which much modern Christianity – both “mainstream” [i.e. liberal] and fundamentalist – does not pass). Our Filyani faith does pass these tests. I am not saying others are “meaningless” if they don’t, but they seem like very important tests.

To take another approach – I saw a book by Marina Warner, called Alone of all Her Sex. This book is about Our Lady Mary as the Christians see Her. Honoured Miss Warner argues that the “deification” of Our Lady Mary only made things worse for women, because they were considered fallen and degraded and Mary was the only pure “woman”.

I don’t want to get into arguments about whether she is right or wrong. And that is the point. I don’t have to. It is not my concern as an Aristasian to get embroiled in all the pushing and pulling over faith and its effect on femini and the patriarchal nature of cultures that worship Dea and whether the half-worship of Dea in the West is even more patriarchal than man-god worship.

Am I being told that for the sake of the highly uncertain advantages conferred by a claimed continuity of patriarchal religion with its fundamental bases (bases, I might say, that if they are valid at all, are valid because they go back to our religion) – I am compelled to plunge back into the ugliness chaos of late Telluria?

Am I really being asked to allow myself to be dragged into the mess and cruelty of the patriarchal world – which I have otherwise rejected – for the sake of religion?

There are many people that want to drag me back to their grubby “reality” on a thousand different pretexts.

But to tell me that is what my Dea wants of me?


Sushuri Madonna wrote

Oh well said Sakura-chei!

I so appreciated this post and your last one about language and purity. You are so forthright and strong about our Faith, and I remember when you were a teensy new girl that used to ask me questions (pride).

I just wanted to explain that thing I said about not feeling warm toward Abrahamic religions, because I feel it might be misunderstood. It is true that I have no personal warmth and could not imagine following one. They seem very alien and somehow heavy with masculinity and materiality. I recently spent time in an art gallery showing pictures from several centuries of Christian history and I came away feeling almost weighted down by the huge accretion of beards, crucifixions and general heaviness. It felt like a black hole of super-gravity. It seemed to me like a (literal) carnival of masculinity and gross materiality.

But having said that I must state that I feel no hostility whatever toward the religion. I feel much more comfortable in the Southern States of America where there is a general atmosphere of faith than I ever did in the gray, brainless, irreligious emptiness of Western Europe.

It is not my faith, and I think even trying to make it mine would give me the bends. But I respect it in a way that I cannot ever respect the smirking stupidity of irreligion or the callow glibness of New Agery.

However high the fences that separate faiths, they are nothing compared to the oceans that separate us from the faithless.

To which Lady Aquila responds

Honoured Miss Sakura. Your reference to Mormons raises a perfectly fascinating point with regard to the question of “fantasy” in religion.

Mormonism contains, in my view, considerable elements of fantasy – not in the sense that vulgar atheists attribute the term to anything supernatural, but in the sense of wild imaginings of a purely human nature. Good old-fashioned balderdash. Taradiddles.

I have met Christians who see no distinction between this and Islam (which they see as being equally fabricated by the Prophet) and atheists who see no distinction between this and Christianity.

But I think most of us can see that there is a distinction between revelations of the Christian and Islamic order and the mid-romantic fancies of Mr. Smith Jr.

The question is, how far, if at all, does the fantastical nature of the origins of this teaching invalidate the devout faith of millions?

The question has become clouded to some extent by the emergence of a profoundly anti-traditional “New Age” movement which has led sensible people to even greater caution in these matters.

But I feel – and I believe many others will feel with me – that the oddities of the LDS Church, great as they may be, do not invalidate the path to God trodden by its sincere members. I am no expert on the Church, but I do not believe it incorporates fundamental spiritual flaws, such as the egoism, humanism, and snippets of half-digested and misplaced “scientism” inherent in New Agery.

I certainly do not place Filianism on a level with Mormonism. It does certainly not incorporate flights of pure fantasy. Some people see it as a sort of “feminised Christianity”, but that is mostly because they are unfamiliar with the tradition of the Sacrificial Saviour in its pre-Christian and feminine forms.

A direct Tellurian line of heritage does not exist for Filianism, and its modern doctrinal formulation is quite recent (about thirty years old, as far as we can tell).

As Miss Sakura says, no one is obliged to accept Filianism as Revealed Truth: at its “weakest” we may take it as a “poetic support” to Déanism – the simple worship of Our Mother God.

Filianism is by no means universal in the Motherland, and we do not know how things will fall out in Aristasia-in-Telluria. What we have found is that Filianism seems to work in Telluria. It provides a firm, yet flexible, thealogical structure; an emotionally satisfying and doctrinally lucid approach to Our Mother God.

As non-literalists, unaffected by the rationalist revolution (which profoundly influences almost all West Tellurian thinking and controversy about religion), we are less concerned with whether Filianism is the Sole Truth than with whether it is an adequate and proper way of seeing that Truth which can never be exhausted by any mythos or formulation.

And if to some people that reduces to “oh, it is just a pretty story then” – well, provided they truly believe in Dea, we don’t mind. The One Thing Needful is the belief and worship of Our Mother God, the Sole Absolute and Creatrix of earth and Heaven.

I believe in the Daughter as my Saviour. I do not think She is a “pretty story”, though I accept that there are other ways of seeing the same Truth, both Déanist and patriarchal, many of which do not specifically incorporate a Saviour (which is only to say that they formulate Her differently).

But taking the worst-case, devil’s-advocate scenario – that Filianism is pure fantasy – it is certainly no more fantasy than Mormonism and no less capable of being a haven and refuge for genuinely devout souls on their way home to Dea.

I don’t take that devil’s-advocate view at all. I think the love of the Saviour is Universal and despite our lack of continuous tradition, we are of Her congregation.

But it is worthwhile to consider that even if we are wrong, we are still calling upon the One Mother who has said:

“None shall call upon Me and be lost”.

Deanists and Filianists Wednesday, Jun 4 2008 

Caridwen asked:
I read: “The commonest “religious position” in Aristasia is that of Deanism – a broad worship of the mother. The Daughter-Mythos is debated. It is widely loved, but in most cases, the simple worship of the Mother is considered “safer” in the sense of being quite clearly founded [in Tellurian terms] and not an innovation that could be of human origin.”

Why is the Daughter-Mythos debated and considered to be possibly of human origin? I had thought, from reading the scriptures, that it was divinely given – is that not so?

Princess Mushroom answered:

As I understand it that is the core of the debate. The current text of the Daughter-Mythos is clearly [in Tellurian terms] of recent origin. It is about thirty years old.

Some people regard it as Divinely-inspired and as a revelation of the fullness of Deanic faith in a form suited to the current world-era. These are the people we call Filianists.

Others – a greater number – regard these stories as beautiful and valuable and as revealing the Mother in Her aspect of transmitting light to the world.

Others again would accept the Daughter-aspect of Dea in such figures as Kuan-Yin, the Regarder of the Cries of the World, but would not see the Daughter-Mythos as having the same authority as a clearly Divinely-established tradition such as that of Kuan-Yin.

The story of the Daughter’s death and Her rescue from the Nether Regions by Her Mother has been regarded by some people as the most powerful and moving Resurrection story available in this world-era, and would take the view that whether or not it is Divinely inspired, it gives us a powerful experience of the true pre-patriarchal death-and-resurrection.

The differences between the various approaches are relatively subtle, since all of us love the same Mother.

Lady Aquila continued:
Her highness puts the matter very clearly. If we wish to speak of “Theological positions” I would identify broadly two:

1: The pure Filianist who takes the Daughter-mythos to be divinely inspired and a sort of revelation for our times.

2: The pure Deanist who rejects the sacrificial element and sees the Mother as pure joy, or else finds the Daughter-mythos too uncertain to place faith in.

However, most Aristasians, in my experience, do not feel the need for such strong “positions”. We place our certainty and trust in our Mother; we feel, both from tradition and in our hearts the validity of the Daughter Principle, and we feel that the Daughter Mythos expresses this very beautifully.

Like most traditional people who accept the Golden Legends of the saints or the “myths” associated with the Buddha (so much derided by the suburban rationalism of the modernist scholar), our primary reactions are loving and devotional rather than “critical” in the modern Western sense.

For we who call ourselves Deanists, the Mother will always be the centre of our faith and our hearts, but the drawing of doctrinal Lines of Exclusion is of no importance to us.

Let us leave that to the sectarianising and combative spirit of late Patriarchy (whether manifested in conflicting sects or scholarly scepticism). Surely it is all part of the unbalanced Vikhelic tendency with its continual urge to discord and separation.

Let us be united as sisters in the love of the Mother who created us all.

See also:

An Oasis Tuesday, Apr 15 2008 

Miss Carola wrote:
I got a vision of a beautiful place in Elektraspace, with gorgeous and sentimental pictures of Dea. A place where Devotional practices like chanting are explained and also a basic and easy to understand philosophy. It is so beautiful and created with so much love, that the hearts of the visitors rejoice. Can we make this possible? I believe many travellers in this dry and hostile desert of the pit, will be glad to rest and refresh in such an oasis.

Miss Annalinde replied:
Interestingly, we have been thinking about just such a place. I think there should be a “library” there for the more serious philosophy as we have been discussing it. But for most people it is not necessary to go into such depth. As you say, the philosophy should be expressed as simply as possible, with the facility for any one who wishes to go more deeply into it.

Devotion should be the main theme of the site, and as you say, it should be an oasis for the thirsty soul, with beautiful pictures of Dea and simply-explained devotional practices, as well, perhaps, as some important texts.

I hope our discussions here are preparing us and leading up to the creation of such a place.

This discussion occurred about three years ago at the Aristasian Spirtuality Group, and may have contributed to the eventual creation of the Chapel of Our Mother God last year.

The Sucrishi Way Wednesday, Mar 26 2008 

One way to Dea is the path of love, in contrast to the path of light (of knowledge or intellectual contemplation). There are certain groups in the motherland called the Sucrishi who lay much emphasis on chanting and a child-like simplicity in devotion.

Cuivahya wrote:
Do you know the word Sucrishi? It is an Aristasian word. It means “following the path of love”. It is like the Hindu bhakti. In the Motherland there are many approaches to Dea. There are great and complicated rituals. There are  studies and meditations and austerities. But the simplest way of all is the Sucrishi way, the Way of Love. And that way is open to everyone, no matter how far she may be from the Golden Temple of Rayapurh.

The Mother cannot resist your love, because no mother can resist the love of her child. Love is the straight way, the direct way, the perfect way to Dea.

So, perhaps you will say: “I do not know if I love Dea. I do not even know Her.”

Oh, yes, you know Her. She is your Mother. She made you. She is the deepest thing that you know. When all else is blown aside by the winds of time and impermanence, She is the thing that remains.

Ask the Mother to come to you as a perfect love for Her. For it is by Her Power that you will love Her. It is Her Love with which you will love Her, for She is the source of all love. Just ask Her, and She will come, for a mother never refuses her child’s cry. You may feel Her or you may not. Something very instant and obvious may happen, or it may take a long time – even years. But if you have asked Her, She has come. She has come now. How She comes, She will decide, and Her decision will be right.

On Sentimental Religious Art Tuesday, Mar 11 2008 

Miss Annya Miralene wrote:

In many Catholic religious pictures and statues, as well as many modern Hindu pictures, we see a sentimentality that is absent from earlier iconographic works. These have been criticised as “sentimental” both by traditionalists who deplore their lack of intellectual content and by modern “realistic” rationalists who dislike “prettiness” and prefer the dark and stark as part of their inverted aesthetic. Once again we see the Law of Tamasic Inversion — both the Sattwic and the Tamasic mentality attack Rajasic sentimentality, one from above and the other from below.

Now clearly the traditionalists are right and the modernists are wrong. But what we must reply to the traditionalists is simply that this is the latter end of Kali Yuga. The majority of people are ruled by sentiments and it is important to direct those sentiments upward rather than downward.

To say that sentimental religious pictures are devoid of intellectuality is true on one level. But one must also remember that it is intellectuality that discriminates, intellectuality that decides whether to direct our sentimentality toward images of Dea or (as almost every modern women’s magazine seems to do) toward images of sexuality and impure thoughts.

In my view, as a modern, sentimental person, I find sentimental religious art attractive. I like to see pictures of my loving Mother looking sweet and beautiful. I have on my shrine a very pretty picture of Sri Lakshmi that even has little bits of glitter. I also have more traditional icons. I understand that some people genuinely do not like the more sentimental pictures for reasons that are traditional or artistic rather than modernist and cynical. They have more sophisticated tastes than I have. That is quite all right.

What should be remembered is that such sentimental images, for those who do appreciate them, serve only good purposes. They are there to direct the heart upwards, toward Dea. In short, they are Good.

Hail Holy Mother Thursday, Mar 6 2008 

What is the right way for we who love Our Lady? Who understand the value of tradition and the wrongfulness of the Pit, and yet cannot cease to love the Mother? Outside the West there are countless millions who know Her and love Her. In the West even the most traditional are holding to tradition only by the slenderest thread.

They say that in this Kali Yuga, chanting the name of Dea is the best way. Some say one should be initiated to do so, but I have heard that there are certain mantras that everyone may use. One for those who love the mother is


This means “OM Hail Holy Mother”. OM is the primordial syllable that contains all things. It goes as near as we can go to the root of sacred language – to the unheard Word from whence all words proceed.

So let us set up a picture or statue to Her. Let us light candles and incense to Her. Let us chant:


Let us simply offer prayers and incense to the Mother and chant Her mantra, and in our very simple way (for we are very humble children in a very low and foolish age) are we not one with the Ladies of Jerusalem who offered honey-cakes to the Queen of Heaven? With the Collyridians who offered cakes or bread to Her? With Her ancient worshippers through the millennia that are not written down? With the millions who love Her still in the East?

All of us may be united in the love of Dea, the pure and perfect heart of our tradition, which is the oldest tradition of all.


Many Devotions Sunday, Mar 2 2008 

In Aristasia Pura, one will find many devotions. One will find temples to Sai Raya, the supreme Spiritual Sun, to the Divine Love, known in many places as Sai Sushuri, to the Divine Wisdom, known as Sai Mati. To the pure and consuming Fire of the Spirit, known as Sai Annya, to Dea as the Great Ruler of the Cosmos and the Sacred Harmony of being, known as Sai Thamë. One will find maids devoted to the Path of Pure Love and others to the Path of Intellect and contemplation. Others to the path of ritual and works. One will find whole peoples devoted primarily to the Sacrificial Daughter and others who seem only to know the Mother.

Now none of these are “different religions” in the Western sense, or even opposing sects. They are simply different Ways.

Do they all agree on anything? Yes. They all agree that there is one supreme Spirit, our Mother, who is everywhere called Dea (or Dia). And furthermore — and this is important — they disagree (in the Western way) on nothing. No one disputes that the other Ways are Ways. No one “disbelieves” in another’s view of Dea.

The concept of “religion” in the Western sense comes closest to being realised in Western Aristasia Pura where the worship of the Mother in some places and of the Mother and Daughter in others (the latter being the closest Aristasian parallel to Christianity — though the superficial similarities are in some ways deceptive) takes place in “churches” organised with some similarity to those of Western Tellurian religions. Even here, though, the exclusivism of Tellurian religion is unknown. The most dedicated follower is aware that hers is one Way among others (even if she considers it the Greatest Way).

From The ‘Religion’ of Aristasia

Moura Bhajan Friday, Feb 29 2008 

Miss Carola Strub wrote:

In Moura season it is appropriate to examine the heart and become aware of ones kears and shortcomings, the thorns that keep us from complete union with the Divine Mother.

Such an examination is a humbling experience, at least for me, because there are a lot of thorns in my heart. To know that there is nobody to blame for this but myself is even more humilating. But strangely enough being humilated such, my mind becomes peaceful. There is no need anymore for hankering after this or complaining over that, for I have earned every hardship that I experience and even worse, if Dea by Her grace would not have taken a part of it away. Yes, the kears of pride, envy, hatred, ingratitude, disrespect etc are there in my heart and at times I even enjoyed them. I am weak willed and would have no hope for deliverance, if Our Saviour the Divine Daughter had not travelled to the heart of darkness and by Her sacrifice drawn the Mother to break the doors of hell.

On my knees, my pride humbled, my eyes wet with tears of remorse I repeat the name of my Lady. I pray to the Mother not to allow me to develop pride again, because in a humble mood I am able to progress on the path of love for my Lady, for Her creatures and for my true self.

The Jewel in the Lotus Wednesday, Feb 27 2008 

Pendant with Om Mani Padma Hum inscribed on the petals of a lotus
Miss Miggles asked why Aristasians sometimes use Sanskrit mantras such as Om Mani Padme Hum (which may be translated as “The Jewel in the Lotus”).

Lady Aquila answered:
Mantras are very special words, because Dea is immanent in Her names. In pronouncing them, we are – through Her grace – literally in-voking Her.

It must be borne in mind that our connexion with Aristasia Pura is an aethyric one. While conversations are “translated” into words, they are not actually verbal, which is why, for example, we cannot say whether Westrenne closely resembles English in a “literal” sense or only symbolically.

It must also be understood that, both in Telluria and Pura there are Sacred Languages and languages that are not sacred. Sanskrit, Chinese, Hebrew and Arabic are sacred languages. Latin, although it is an Ecclesiastical language is not a sacred language. And neither are any modern languages.

What this means is that a Sacred Language has a more direct connexion to “the first, the Mother-language” and its words are more closely related to the metaphysical actuality of the things they speak. In the original Angelic Tongue, each word would be the precise sound-analogue of an Archetype. In the Sacred Languages that have survived into the Age of Iron this, of course is very far from the case, but they have, especially in sacred contexts, a sufficient remnant of the Angelic Tongue to be effective for Divine Invocation.

In Aristasia Pura, Westrenne is not a Sacred Language and true Raihiralan Cairen is: so words of sacred efficacy will be retained from older languages.

There is further the case of certain very special special syllables, notably OM and HRIM (HREEM) which are directly analogous to the Primordial Word (OM in the pure, beyond-form aspect, HRIM as the Supernal Mother). These are transmitted from the earliest Tellurian times and are as near to the Primordial Universal Language as we can possibly come. It should be noted that even in the Far East these Mantras are unchanged from their “Indo-European” forms: and we place “Indo-European” in inverted commas precisely because we have here to do with something that far transcends and predates any surviving (even if “dead”) Tellurian language.

Great and Terrible Dea Sunday, Feb 24 2008 

Thou art both gross and subtle,
Thou art terrible and a great power,
Thou removest all great sins,
O Mahalakshmi obeisance to Thee.

Both gross and subtle indicates that Dea manifests herself in both “gross” (bodily) form and in Her subtle (formless) state. She rules both the material world and all the subtle degrees of manifestation.

The word terrible (perhaps confusing because of its colloquial usage) is also applied to the Christian vision of Deity. It indicates the “holy terror” felt by lesser beings when confronted with the awesome majesty of supreme Deity. The Devi Gita describes the awe and terror felt by the angels when faced with Dea in Her unmodified majesty; whereupon She graciously showed Herself in Her beautiful feminine form in order to reassure and comfort them.

For the full hymn and commentary:
The Great Hymn to Mahalakshmi

Next Page »