Neither Arms Nor Name Part One: Remember Who You're Dealing With

Much has been made of Arianrhod's atrocious manners as a mother and her cruel treatment of Llew. I'm here to set the record straight. (As per orders my Lady!)

Some scholars will tell you that at the historical period involved, it was a mother's right to name her son, to give him arms and perhaps even to choose his wife. This is probably true, but has little to do with the actual point. (Of this particular post, anyway.) The problem here is that they often suggest that she denied Llew these things out of pique or embarassment, rather than out of more wholesome or lofty motives. The motives of a Goddess.

When we study these myths we're dealing not with the historical actions of a human woman (though who knows, there may have been a woman who inspired some of these stories) but with the tales of a Goddess. Like all mythic tales, we need to guess at the changes that have been made since the story was first told (many potentially made by priests who neither understood nor believed in the religion that the story originally came from).

Moreover we need to understand the story in the context of the gods that the tale is about.

As I've said before, Arianrhod is a goddess of reincarnation, karma, and testing. She is the weaver of fate and the maker of dooms.

Even the word "doom" needs to be considered. In ancient understanding, doom is not a "curse" or "something bad that will happen to you". Doom is fate, what will happen. Sometimes what needs to happen.

I would suggest that "doom" is closer to the concept of dharma. Dharma is "that which upholds, supports or maintains the regulatory order of the universe." It is the law of Nature and of the nature of the Universe, the essential function or nature of a thing.

Arianrhod is very much a "tester" goddess, setting challenges for her children, not to harm them, but to help ensure that they fulfill their nature.

My tradition has belief in "that which makes you stronger." If we are never confronted with challenges, then we never have to adapt to them and overcome them. Sure, life might be "easier" without challenges, but would we become as strong, solid in our understanding of Self or learn to grow our inner power without them?

In nature, evolution is a result of competition for resources and adaptation. Spiritual evolution often requires adaptation to the forces that the universe throws at us, and overcoming those challenges.

It's notable that few if any heros or enlightened ones come to us without a story of their struggles. Whether we're talking about Jesus and his temptation, the Buddha and his years embracing poverty. or more recently, Mahatma Ghandi enduring prison, inner strength doesn't seem to come easy.

Why then, would you expect Arianrhod to go easy on her son? Especially if doing so would contribute to him being weaker or less ready for the challenges he needed to face?