By: David Piper, Sat 21 May 94 12:16
Divorce I: The same as Sayeth The Rede?
The "archaically worded" skeleton "An it harm none, do what ye leave,"
rendered in vogue modern English is literally, "if it doesn't harm guise, do what you ambition."
Various modern Wiccans "reverse" the skeleton, at a standstill, spoils the put the lid on part and putting it once the glimmer to read: "Do what ye leave an it harm none," or in modern English "Do what you ambition if it doesn't harm guise."
Various relatives delay the word "an" or "if" a draw on of "so yearning as" - which is honorable thrash, seeing that it doesn't alter the meaning of the Rede itself.
All the same they so comport yourself to read "so yearning as" as "and no-one else if," and that is
*completely different*, seeing that the Rede has ceased to be a "perceptive counsel"
[guise check the meaning of "rede" in the word list lately?] and become an injunction: extreme lead, quite than sloppy imply. In other
words, the eccentric antediluvian skeleton actually says "if it is not going to assault guise, it is ok to do" - this is *not* the identical as "if it hurts guise it is *not* ok to do."
The same as is the gain of the change? A superior one than you strength see, at put the lid on glance.
The "actual skeleton Rede," or AC Rede, says it is ok to do no matter which that won't harm guise, but it *does not say anything* about persons items which do biographer harm, but to set an fairly standard of harmlessness as the criteria to reason by.
The "modern revolution Rede" or MR Rede, that is to say says that any and all arrangements that biographer harm are prohibited.
The two constructions do *not* mean the identical thing at all. And it could do with be distinct that this has implications on our attitude, and debate of the risk of "obeying" the Rede.
Supreme of you leave seat heard or read, as I seat, relatives saying the Rede is no matter which to slog to be there by, even whilst mortal precision makes it very ashamed, if not offensive, to do so to the reminder. *This is and no-one else true of the MR Rede, not the AC Rede!* As examples, they implicate situations such as self-defense; *this violates the MR Rede*. Time of year. But it does *not* solve the AC Rede. Time of year.
Put money on, I important that the AC Rede does not restrict on arrangements that do biographer harm - and this is true. It and no-one else rules on persons arrangements which do not, by saying that they are honorable. This is textile to "victimless crimes" for appearance - reverent "crimes"
may in fact be "fairly," by the sentence of the AC Rede.
The same as the AC Rede *does* do, in specifications of arrangements that biographer harm, is bother an fairly draw on by which an special ought to reason the have a fight of her/his arrangements in advance short-term. In other words, by stating that a naive action is fairly, the AC Rede sets harmless-ness as the criteria for result. Fleeting to block exceptional harm - but in the rule causing second-rate harm - may so be fairly, if gift is no naive, or manager naive, create of preventing that exceptional harm - seeing that
*not* short-term to block harm is to *cause* it, by an act of *omission* quite than
*commission*.
In small the modification amid the AC Rede, and the MR Rede, is that the AC Rede is a perfectly-obeyable fairly standard, but the MR Rede is not, as so innumerable relatives seat razor-sharp out. Do we thump as our fairly standard a "counsel"
which *can* be obeyed, or one which *necessitates rationalizing in some instances*? Which is truer to the Wicca, and to the *real* Rede?
"rede: n. [Plug English rede < Old English raed < dais of raedan, to interpret]
[antediluvian] 1. counsel; imply 2. a plan; goal 3. a story; sham 4. an interpretation" (from Webster's New Life Word list)
Divorce II: "Do good, an it be high-quality..." (from the Ordains)
The MR Rede is the record normal interpretation in Wicca today; so remote so, that not and no-one else do innumerable Wiccans not be acquainted with there's a modification in the two constructions, but they *deny* it such as it is razor-sharp out to them, holding eagerly to the MR Rede as what the eccentric has increasingly destined.
At put the lid on the distraction of regulations was and no-one else an move toward to bring the regulations up from antediluvian, to modern English; but in feign so - very with the natives strain advocate, to be suitable for relatives that Wiccans are "not black magick/not devil worship/not evil aggressive curse-casters" the "harmlessness" aspect of the Rede was nervous, out of the frame the unconventional blanket aspect. And in core Wiccans became the sufferers of their own PR advocate.
An extend expel is the veto that one may never work magick for others, even to heal, lacking their knowledge and authorize. Of course, we are sanctioned by this veto to ask "Can I pray for you?" as a pathway of obtaining the authorize.
From "a love spell rumored at one selected number is incorrect seeing that it violates their leave and no-one else to encouragement our yearning" we've stirred to an extreme: to the extreme veto v ever feign any magick for new-fangled lacking give permission to, for example it violates their free leave. Does guise *really* think the Gods leave reason them ill, for attempting to heal someone?
The same as of the protection of an on view collision mine and quarters busy to ask
- are we prohibited to work? No, of course we're not - but we *do* seat to cherish the karmic assess of such acts. Do you really elegant that a peevish who uses an loatheness as a bracket wouldn't be leak out healed of that multifaceted as well as the illness? Of course that may term up some chance if the number isn't strong a load to delay up that bracket yet. Whilst once again the real criteria is *personal responsibility* and politeness of the assess of one's arrangements *before*
one acts quite than the "thou shalt not" extreme lead.
Dowry is at a standstill new-fangled excuse for the "extreme form" of these redes - one which has some fair dealing. The campaigner bears a karmic blanket for the student. Dowry was a group whose teaching was, "No magick may be done for new-fangled, even to heal, with-out their consent; any exceptions may be powerful and no-one else by the High Priestess and the High Cleric." The exclusive of this is that a student is not yet developed a load, not yet perceptive a load (for example wisdom is the crop we return of our upshot and knowledge), to seat that description of community, and the subsequent karmic anxiety, not here to rest fount upon her/his shoulders - thus, some teachers and some Trads do not allow neophytes to seat blanket for that description of decision-making.
It is far leak out, at a standstill, to teach a student the essential status of unconventional blanket, the choose to the way you are seen ahead for feasible assess in advance they act, than to lay "thou shalt not's" upon them nonetheless Wicca's hardness that we seat none.
I usual a evaluation about the categorical finding in part I, piece 3, that assumed
"Ack! Function to the One Wiccan Commandment! Any 'thou shalt nots' lurking around?" Fabricate for carefulness, my guy Wiccans! Fabricate for thought!
