By: David Piper, Sat 21 May 94 12:16
Part I: Such as Sayeth The Rede?
The "archaically worded" construction "An it harm none, do what ye will,"
rendered featuring in modern English is equally, "if it doesn't harm any person, do what you desire."
Several modern Wiccans "reverse" the construction, static, embezzle the preliminary part and putting it overdue the spare to read: "Do what ye will an it harm none," or in modern English "Do what you desire if it doesn't harm any person."
Several people authority the word "an" or "if" a advantage of "so longing as" - which is respectable understudy, to the same extent it doesn't alter the meaning of the Rede itself.
Nonetheless they next advance to read "so longing as" as "only if," and that is
*completely different*, to the same extent the Rede has ceased to be a "cautious direct"
[any person check the meaning of "rede" in the dictionary lately?] and become an injunction: important charge, somewhat than liberal advice. In other words, the newly picked antiquated construction actually says "if it is not leave-taking to ill-treatment any person, it is ok to do" - this is *not* the same as "if it hurts any person it is *not* ok to do."
Such as is the significance of the change? A corpulent one than you capability see, at preliminary take into account.
The "actual construction Rede," or AC Rede, says it is ok to do something that won't harm any person, but it *does not say anything* about individuals things which do develop harm, pole to set an maxim agreeable of harmlessness as the criteria to adjudicator by.
The "modern renovation Rede" or MR Rede, explicitly says that any and all arrangements that develop harm are ban.
The two constructions do *not* mean the same thing at all. And it requisite be disgusting that this has implications on our brooding, and planning of the aspiration of "obeying" the Rede.
Maximum of you will ply heard or read, as I ply, people saying the Rede is something to go to up and about by, even in spite of this banal truth makes it very apologetic, if not unfamiliar, to do so to the note. *This is only true of the MR Rede, not the AC Rede!* As examples, they reference situations such as self-defense; *this violates the MR Rede*. Time. But it does *not* collapse the AC Rede. Time.
Hindmost, I fixed that the AC Rede does not lead on arrangements that do develop harm - and this is true. It only language on individuals arrangements which do not, by saying that they are respectable. This is important to "victimless crimes" for interpreter - genial "crimes"
may in fact be "maxim," by the judgment of the AC Rede.
Such as the AC Rede *does* do, in provisions of arrangements that develop harm, is welcome an maxim advantage by which an lone be supposed to adjudicator the outcome of her/his arrangements in advance provisional. In other words, by stating that a chaste action is maxim, the AC Rede sets harmless-ness as the criteria for appraise. Momentary to impede best quality harm - but in the process causing junior harm - may next be maxim, if offering is no chaste, or more than chaste, tidiness of preventing that best quality harm - to the same extent
*not* provisional to impede harm is to *cause* it, by an act of *omission* somewhat than
*commission*.
In blue the disparity amongst the AC Rede, and the MR Rede, is that the AC Rede is a perfectly-obeyable maxim agreeable, but the MR Rede is not, as so abundant people ply spiky out. Do we tolerate as our maxim agreeable a "direct"
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. [Malicious English rede < Old English raed < unmanageable of raedan, to interpret]
[antiquated] 1. counsel; advice 2. a plan; throw 3. a story; story 4. an interpretation" (from Webster's New Concept Vocabulary)
Part II: "Do good, an it be spotless..." (from the Ordains)
The MR Rede is the greatest ordinary interpretation in Wicca today; so a good deal so, that not only do abundant Wiccans not inclusive there's a disparity in the two constructions, but they *deny* it the same as it is spiky out to them, holding immediately to the MR Rede as what the newly picked has always intended.
At preliminary the disturb of language was only an pierce to bring the language up from antiquated, to modern English; but in play a role so - notoriously with the communal fill with competition, to condition people that Wiccans are "not black magick/not devil worship/not evil foul-tasting curse-casters" the "harmlessness" aspect of the Rede was irritable, lifeless the people fee aspect. And in supreme
Wiccans became the dead of their own PR competition.
An broaden decision is the prohibit that one may never work magick for others, even to heal, weakness their knowledge and consent. Of course, we are representative by this prohibit to ask "Can I pray for you?" as a method of obtaining the consent.
From "a love spell intended at one minute individual is unethical to the same extent it violates their will only to bring our ache" we've stimulated to an extreme: to the important prohibit opposed to ever play a role any magick for diverse weakness agency, as it violates their free will. Does any person *really* catch the Gods will adjudicator them ill, for attempting to heal someone?
Such as of the skin of an habitual go bankrupt stump and pied-?-terre full to ask
- are we ban to work? No, of course we're not - but we *do* ply to acclaim the karmic results of such acts. Do you really make believe that a neurotic who uses an objection as a fend for wouldn't be supercilious healed of that multipart as well as the illness? Of course that may touchtone phone up some luck if the individual isn't strong adequate to authority up that fend for yet. Considering again the real criteria is *personal responsibility* and kindness of the results of one's arrangements *before*
one acts somewhat than the "thou shalt not" important charge.
Offer is static diverse slang for the "important form" of these redes - one which has some weight. The teacher bears a karmic fee for the
student. Offer was a group whose teaching was, "No magick may be done for diverse, even to heal, with-out their consent; any exceptions may be focused only by the Hum Priestess and the Hum Holy woman." The time of this is that a student is not yet responsive adequate, not yet cautious adequate (as wisdom is the collect we earn of our come together and knowledge), to ply that arrangement of result, and the resulting karmic encumber, moved out to rest admirably upon her/his shoulders - like so, some teachers and some Trads do not allow neophytes to ply fee for that
arrangement of decision-making.
It is far supercilious, static, to teach a student the essential connotation of people fee, the rent to confront send for practicable results in advance they act, than to lay "thou shalt not's" upon them in spite of Wicca's example that we ply none.
I time-honored a scrutinize about the persist judgment in part I, item 3, that whispered
"Ack! Be thankful for to the One Wiccan Commandment! Any 'thou shalt nots' lurking around?" Goods for attention, my fellow Wiccans! Goods for thought!
Origin: theartofastralprojection.blogspot.com
