u/Effective_Gur1003

I just got started with Franz Brandon and tried to do the first part of the exercise where you observe your train of thought. I was expecting a cacophony of thoughts to observe but once I sat down and observed them my mind was almost completely silent. I did get faint whispers of thoughts not in my control that faded away quickly but I never got bombarded with chaotic trains of thoughts of everyday life that the book implied. I waited 22 minutes but nothing chaotic happened. I then tried chanting the name of an object while holding the image of it in my mind and was able to do this for 10 minutes.

My question is am I done with this section already (watching train of thoughts and holding an image for 10 minutes)?

I know how important this is to master and I don't want to accidently trick myself into thinking I have thought control when I don't. Has this ever happened to you guys?

Does anyone have a list of what the dies atri/ black days/ inauspoucius days are? I have read that Janus and Jupiter cannot be worshiped on these days but I have not been able to find a list of when these days are.

I thought of a new way to make khernips that's easy and quick. I make offerings randomly thought the day and having to whip up a bowl of khernips every time is a huge pain.

What if I pour sea salt into my hand and then add water, using the salt as a grit to clean my hands with water (creating sea water). Now I don't have to clean a bowl out multiple times a day, I can just make the sea water in my hands. What do you guys think?

I'm not on of those who thinks burning twigs is required, khernips just means handwashing, preferably with sea water.

I have noticed a disturbing trend of people thinking the Gods don't want them, or they need signs to worship, or asking "does Athena accept me"? It demonstrates a fundamental lack of understanding and research done on part of the querent. To combat this ignorance I have assembled a list of primary ancient sources that should help to quell any insecurity on part of newbies. These are all direct quotes from ancient authors telling you that, yes, you are allowed to worship any Gods you want.

>Artemidorus’ Oneirocritica (Book 1, CH6) “...So the universal customs are these; to worship and honor the Gods (no race of men are without Gods, just as none are without a ruler: different people worship different Gods, but all have the same point of reference)…

All people, no matter who you are, have Gods to worship. Thanks to Interpretatio Graeca, all foreign gods can be equated with Hellenic Gods. Because of this, a foreigner can worship Athena and not only is this allowed, it would be impious (asebeia) for you to refuse to honor the Gods. It is eusebeia ("right conduct in regard to the gods") for all people from all nations to worship their Gods.

You can read more about asebeia and eusebeia here: https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/classics/warwickclassicsnetwork/events/cc23/teacherresources/bowden_impiety.pdf

>Cicero, De Natura Deorum "You said that the fact of men of all races and nations being of that opinion (that Gods exist) was sufficiently good evidence to warrant us in acknowledging the existence of the gods, but the plea is not only trivial in itself, but also untrue. For in the first place how do you know that nations do hold that belief? I think myself that there are many races so barbarously savage as to be without any conception of such beings. And did not Diagoras, who was called ἄθεος, and after him Theodorus, openly do away with the idea of a divine nature?" (Book I, CH XXIII)

Cicero admits that most all known races of men worship the Gods but only some atheists and so called “barbarously savage” races might have no conception of the Gods and therefore choose to not worship them. It is not believed that some races or people are not allowed to worship the Gods.

>*“*It remains, therefore, to conclude that the movement of the stars is voluntary, and the man who should look upon them would be acting impiously as well as foolishly, if he denied the existence of the gods. Whether he does that, or deprives them of all superintendence and action, makes, indeed, little difference, for a being who does nothing does not seem to me to exist at all. That the gods, then, do exist is so evident that I should scarcely regard the man who denied it as being of sound mind.” (Book II, CH XV)

According to Cicero it is both impious and foolish to deny the existence of the Gods and it is perhaps a lack of sound mind that would lead someone to choose not to worship.

>*“*The voices of the Fauns have often been heard, and the forms of the gods been seen, forcing the man who was neither destitute of perception, nor impious, to acknowledge the presence of divinity.” (Book II, CH III)

More acknowledgment from Cicero that the existence of the Gods is evident and that all are to worship them.

I was reading Hesiod's "Works and Days" and came across this section:

>[737] "Never cross the sweet-flowing water of ever-rolling rivers afoot until you have prayed, gazing into the soft flood, and washed your hands in the clear, lovely water. Whoever crosses a river with hands unwashed of wickedness, the gods are angry with him and bring trouble upon him afterwards."

What do you guys do while driving around town and crossing rivers on bridges? Do you always stop and walk down to the river to wash your hands first? Why are the Gods going to be angry with me and what are they going to do to me if I cross a river without washing my hands first? You can't just wash your hands, you must wash your hands in the river's water before you can cross it.

I'm worried because I can cross multiple steams and rivers when driving around town and I never stop at any of them.

https://preview.redd.it/7841oog6rfdh1.jpg?width=1800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f1c7d76be484892c4f818a9868975c39b2087789

Sarapis is the older Greek name, Serapis came about during Roman times.

I choose lepidolite because it's purple (associated with royalty), it is soft so is easily carved, and has aventurescence (glittery stones can be associated with wealth). This historical artifact was my inspiration:

https://preview.redd.it/909jqt59rfdh1.jpg?width=842&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ab62642c93d22e4eb72b7dfdb758cb23a18a1efb

https://preview.redd.it/yijybm0wgcyg1.jpg?width=4000&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e30897e348269b57aae5879741dae5f2290d36b5

I found this plant last night and carefully dug it out of the ground with gloves. It's very young and was only a rosette, no purple coloration, I tossed it into the trash but I wanted to be sure that it was hemlock and not queen ann's lace for future identification. I know the saying "the queen has hairy legs" but I have seen sources claiming that very young poison hemlock has hairy stems.

E.g. on Figure 5: https://www.uaex.uada.edu/publications/pdf/FSA2203.pdf

I took a picture of it and if you zoom in you can see that not only are the stems hairy but the leaves are hairy as well. So if young hemlock does have hairy stems, does it also have hairy leaves? I live in the PNW.