Sean Ciall

[angelak]

I would love nothing more than to post about FoL as soon as possible. But this post will have to wait, as something *ELSE* is deep on my mind RIGHT now.

I, like everyone else on or off the ritual team, has a unique and personal experience and story to tell. But right now--- it seems thwarted by a certain level of questioning that hit me directly after this weekend. It came from an outside source, and after all of the Saturday/energy/post ritual emotions....
....



Well, it’s really been the wrong time to ask my heart of hearts to explore some of these things. So many things to say, so little words to say them. So much hurt and discomfort I have felt in regards to any of this. Sean ciall itself, I still have faith in for regards of working magickal method--- it’s the publicity, the lousy web-page, the witchvox article, and documentation and connotation that has surrounded it. It all scares me now, because it’s all so close to my heart, the group, the methods, everything.

I had already thought to myself that I needed to re-write the way it was stated to something less wordy for web use. But now... I just don’t know if I want any of it on the web.

Criticism to me right now seemed impossible to bear and actually take it away logically. My head is so deep in the experience and the group that it is very hard to read the things I began reading last night.

Mostly--- a ton based off of THIS post.
Basically calling us a bunch of faking/cultists. Alright. So be it. I had personally agreed that none of it really was written in a way that most people could read and understand as truly OUR group. I don't feel that the writing out there, reflects sean ciall the way I think it should. It's not written with the feeling I get from our circle. The writing in all of Bobby’s documentation was kind of over the top. But there are now gaps on so many levels and disagreements from other people that seem to point towards lack of authenticity of some of the sean ciall claims. Suddenly our group is associated with a bunch of wanna-bes.
Joshua told me to take it as a grain of salt. My head wasn’t at a space where I could take much of anything as a “grain of salt.”
I want to bring these specific issues to the spell circle and discuss the specifics mentioned in these critiques. If a group can’t uphold scrutiny... where IS it’s validity?



While going through all this, a myriad of things went through me:
2 separate articles, opinionated editorials so to speak, I read one after the other, including this post, made me so angry, so hurt, so scared, and so confused, like I would have to lose my group because it was being associated with fools. Or that they were calling us fools.
I don’t know how I feel now. It’s a matter of sorting through all the crap and understanding my feelings. I wish I could talk with Cheryl.
*sighs*


Anybody offer any thoughts on this?
Where do we take these questions? How will people react to these questions?
How "ancient," is sean ciall?
Later I’ll post my ritual experiences.

I strongly recommend all sean ciall participants to read
THIS post.

-Angela

Comments

sean ciall

[herongrrrl.livejournal.com]

Hello all and sundry,

This is Bobby writing from herongrrrl's account, having first obtained permission from Angela to view this thread.

First off, as my wife said, having been in the public realm for many years now, we fully expect this sort of thing, and don't bother to worry about it. People who are doing the work don't have time to kvetch about the work other people are doing, those who have the time to kvetch aren't doing the work.

Regarding the four element thing, yes, we are well-aware that most books (correctly) attribute a 3, 7 or 9 element system to the Gaels, and fully expected our own four-element system to tweak the "authenticity buttons" of some Celtic traditionalists. This is why I specifically cited the Caith Maigh Tiureadh in that passage, which clearly supports it.

To the best of my knowledge, Sean Ciall is NOT an ancient system of magick. If even the pseudo-history that I myself learned is correct, it is only about 200 years old, and was a deliberate reconstruction. Whether a reconstruction is 2 centuries old or 2 weeks old (or for that matter 2 millenia old, every religion was started by somebody) is of very little relevance, save for the fact that this particular reconstruction has apparently well-withstood the test of time.

The idea that the tradition, or for that matter anything I've ever written about the tradition, has been influenced by Crowley and Wicca are of course absolutely correct. The idea of a coven structure (loosely though we use the term) and the term "skyclad" almost certainly came from Gardnerian Wicca, although the use of ritual nudity in the line is apparently older than that (and yes, it is used in the British Isles even to this day; Scotland's climate is very, very similar to Seattle's. Clearly the person writing had never actually been to the British Isles). But as for Crowley, one line in the ritual ("Than iomadachd dha...") is stolen directly from his Star Sapphire ritual, by me. It was damnably difficult to translate into Gaelic, as the Latin concept of "nihil" ("nothing") simply doesn't exist in the Celtic mindset. But it said what I wanted the ritual to say.

As far as there not being any other source material than my own currently available for the Sean Ciall tradtion, that is, sadly, absolutely true. It is my hope that my Witchvox article will flush out some from the woodwork, but until that time, the best "objective proof" (both words being utterly meaningless, which is why I put them in quotes) anyone besides myself has is that I myself created the whole thing whole-cloth. And was too modest to claim credit for my artistry (right). But, recognizing that as a criticism that might legitimately arise, I've waited many years before openly disseminating and teaching the material, to a time when outside of my Sean Ciall initiations I have at least 3rd° initiations in Wicca, OTO, Freemasonry and A.:A.:, so that if I were to create a new tradition out of thin air (which, essentially, we did with OLOTEAS, and which I may well do again) it would be accepted as legitimate based on the authority of my credentials and experience. And, more importantly, the experience of the participants. Because in the end, "legitimacy" in magick rests not with lineage but in efficacy, either it works or it doesn't; success, as Crowley said, is our only proof. Whether or not other "Celtic reconstructionist" groups have ever been as successful as Sean Ciall I don't know, I have yet to see any evidence of it. But, we wish them well on their Work, nonetheless.

Shade and sweet water,
Bobby

Re: sean ciall

[oceanor.livejournal.com]

Hear hear Bobby and all the posted... as a ritualist in FOL i can say as well there was no "fakeness" and that non of us were "Wanna bees" let ppl say that they don't know waht there talking about.. each person has there own experence...
Oceanor

Re: sean ciall

[ashley-y.livejournal.com]

But, recognizing that as a criticism that might legitimately arise, I've waited many years before openly disseminating and teaching the material, to a time when outside of my Sean Ciall initiations I have at least 3rd° initiations in Wicca, OTO, Freemasonry and A.:A.:, so that if I were to create a new tradition out of thin air (which, essentially, we did with OLOTEAS, and which I may well do again) it would be accepted as legitimate based on the authority of my credentials and experience. And, more importantly, the experience of the participants.

Bobby, if it does transpire that you yourself created the whole thing whole-cloth, I for one would not think any the less of you. Gerald Gardner did exactly the same thing, after all, and he had help.