Drudaosha: A Spiritual Framework for a Changing World

[Kindred Seer]

Hello friends,

Like many here, I grew up in the Christian tradition. There was much I valued... community, love, the sense of Spirit, but over time the dogma felt limiting. It no longer resonated with my experiences, and I started searching for something that spoke more personally and authentically.

I explored a number of different traditions, but always felt like an outsider, and again, this was typically due to the imposed dogmas, and also I felt that many different paths included both things I liked as well as things that I strongly disagreed with.

Thus, after decades of seeking, I finally accepted that I was eclectic, and that was okay... yet I still yearned for some sort of a defining, yet non-confining foundational structure.

I’ve always been drawn to the seven chakras, though I felt the Western approach often overemphasized transcendence. I also noticed that the mystical core of most spiritual paths shared more in common than all their cultural and dogmatic differences. That insight became the seed for weaving them together.

And so the idea came upon me to associate a different spiritual path with each of the seven chakras:

• The Root Chakra (Earth element, The Earth / Gaia) with Druidry: connection and grounding with the land and its seasons
• Sacral Chakra (Water Element, The Moon) with Daoism: balance, effortless action, living in harmony
• Solar Plexus (Fire Element, The Sun) with Amazonian Shamanism: transformation and purpose
• Heart Chakra (Air Element, Infinite Love) with Advaita Vedanta: unity, empathy, non-duality
• Throat Chakra (Spirit Element, Gratitude) with Invocation: ritual, communion with Spirit
• Third Eye (Intuition, Inner Vision) with Mysticism: sacred remembrance, revelation and seership
• The Crown Chakra (Presence, Mindfulness) with Zen: direct experience and integration in the here and now

I call this Drudaosha, (from Druidry, Daoism and Shamanism). It is meant to be only a non-dogmatic framework for one to use as a foundation for their own personal path, while honouring the sources of inspiration.

I'd love to hear your thoughts.

 

[BetteTheRed]

For the root chakra, I'd be inclined to go with Indigenous spirituality. Not that I have anything against Druids, but indigenous spirituality has a lot of nuance, due to it being practiced by a wide ethnic variety of tribes, missing perhaps in a religion from a more singular source.

 

[Mendalla]

I am also eclectic but my spirituality can be quite fluid so I can't see myself systematizing or naming it. It's just me, pure and simple. I have influences from Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Daoist, and Hellenistic Greek religious and philosophical traditions. Some of my spirituality comes from literature that is not specifically religious or philosophical, too. And science. Learning about the universe by studying science plays a big role in who I am spiritually.

I like what you've done with this, though, @Kindred Seer and I suspect there are others who can learn from it and get some ideas from looking at it.

For the root chakra, I'd be inclined to go with Indigenous spirituality. Not that I have anything against Druids, but indigenous spirituality has a lot of nuance, due to it being practiced by a wide ethnic variety of tribes, missing perhaps in a religion from a more singular source.

OTOH, if you're of Western European descent as most of us settlers are, aligning with the Druid path carries less risk of cultural misappropriation, esp. since modern Druidism is already pretty far removed from the indigenous Celtic/Gallic tradition of that name. It's mostly a creation of 19th and early 20th century English spiritualist and esoteric movements since we know very little about the actual ancient Druids.

 

[BetteTheRed]

Agreed re cultural appropriation. My home is a nightmare of it. Spirit catcher outside hanging next to a Kokopelli wall sculpture (sans penis). A concrete polynesian goddess in the front garden within reaching distance of a golden concrete lion. Ganesha at the front door and the big guy usually has a crucifix hanging somewhere visible, although I'm not sure where it is right now.

 

[WhyCzar]

In my opinion, Idealism and Mysticism have stood the test of time, and despite the prejudices of establishment naysayers, recent discoveries in neuroscience support their central tenets.

In my opinion, dogmatic religious thinking has done more damage to authentic Mysticism than science.

 

[BetteTheRed]

In my opinion, dogmatic religious thinking has done more damage to authentic Mysticism than science.

That's a wide net. What is "authentic Mysticism"? I mean, Islam, second largest religion in the world, has Sufism, there's a respected mystical tradition in Christianity and the Jews have Kabbalah. And that's just the Abrahamic religions.

 

[WhyCzar]

Authentic mysticism is often regarded as a universal phenomenon, transcending cultural and religious boundaries. It emphasizes the interconnectedness of all existence, suggesting that the Divine resides within the essence of the Universe. This perspective encourages a deeper understanding of the sacredness of life, which is a core aspect of genuine mysticism. Additionally, mysticism is recognized as a universal experience, with various cultures and religions sharing similar themes and practices.

The mystic is not seeking his or her own happiness, virtue, or well-being, though by surrendering self such blessings are often heaped upon him or her. The true mystic is not looking for peak experiences or altered states of consciousness. No, the genuine mystic is on a course of radical self-forgetting, self-surrendering, and self-transcending.

 

[WhyCzar]

I call this Drudaosha, (from Druidry, Daoism and Shamanism). It is meant to be only a non-dogmatic framework for one to use as a foundation for their own personal path, while honouring the sources of inspiration.

In your own bosom you bear your Heaven and Earth;
and all you behold, though it appears without, it is within – William Blake

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Kindred seer.
I see you're essentially creating a new religion by synthesizing existing traditions into your "Drudaosha" framework. While I understand your frustration with Christian dogma and appreciate the creative effort, I have fundamental concerns about this approach.

You're cherry-picking incompatible elements, Daoist effortless action conflicts with active Shamanic transformation, while Zen's direct experience differs significantly from Advaita's philosophical methods. These contradictions exist for good philosophical reasons that can't simply be resolved by mapping them onto chakras.

More importantly, from my perspective as you're constructing an elaborate belief system based on unfalsifiable claims about chakras, spiritual energy, and mystical experiences that cannot be empirically verified. There's no reliable evidence for any of these metaphysical concepts.

However here's the irony: (This did make me smile) after decades of rejecting Christian dogma, you've created your own dogmatic system with prescribed spiritual elements, chakra mappings, and mystical practices. You've essentially built the very kind of rigid framework you originally fled from, just with different terminology and sources.

The psychological benefits you're seeking, meaning, community, ethical guidance, connection with nature are readily available through secular means: scientific understanding of the world, philosophy, art, human relationships, and direct engagement with the natural environment.

Why construct another belief system when reality itself offers everything you're actually looking for without requiring faith in unverifiable claims? And dare I say no Dogma.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

In my opinion, Idealism and Mysticism have stood the test of time, and despite the prejudices of establishment naysayers, recent discoveries in neuroscience support their central tenets.

In my opinion, dogmatic religious thinking has done more damage to authentic Mysticism than science.

You're misrepresenting neuroscience findings. Research showing brain correlates of mystical experiences. Science actually supports the view that these are products of brain activity, not evidence for supernatural realms.
Finding neural correlates doesn't validate metaphysical claims any more than mapping brain areas during hallucinations proves hallucinations are real.
If anything, the ability to manipulate and predict these experiences through brain stimulation shows they're neurological phenomena, and not encounters with ultimate reality.
Standing the test of time, just means humans are consistently prone to these patterns.
Astrology has also 'stood the test of time' but still remains completely unfounded." As does any religion.

 

[Luce NDs]

Neuropsychic activity differ from physical matter as the latter is more stoic ... but not by much as all-there-is can even learn under adequate conditions ... often quite painful as experiencing life ... some believe they rule over it when there is something behind, or under it as understanding ...

The lack of understanding is a great mystery ... perhaps even formless ... blackwater? Metaphor of the night sky! Is there an end to it ... limited only by light!

 

[Luce NDs]

Key words: changing world! What the heck?

From biblical myth on visions of retribution:

• Is it stronger in the domain of physical wealth
• reversed in the domain of non-physical?

Upsetting to say the least as one drifts across the two dimensions of the mind/soul/psyche complex and thus hard on the simple emotions ...

Two dimensions? One positive and up (hyper) the alternate negative and one down due to unbalanced oppression in the success scheme.

These may be expressed as "II" and connected as π if reversed that U counter to I and my self ... causing civil unrest!

Get it together folk ... and remember the rules were made by some other process ... meant to divide and conquer the little peoples. In Hebrew that divided Judah from Samish and the Muels worked the hills ... Satyr?

Shadow descend over the land if the details are not equalized ... of course you cannot say such things in front of the dictation process so it enter the world of thought, myth and fantasy ... of how things could be!

Powers hate the stele and stealth of projection also ... chops into the mute silence ... a song? Good lowered that couldn't come down ..

 

[WhyCzar]

Standing the test of time, just means humans are consistently prone to these patterns.

Humanities metaphysical speculations are still wanting.

Doesn't mean we have to scrap what great men of the past said about reality.

Doesn't mean we have to abjure and replace philosophy.

Science concedes that it has been forced to "start again" many times.

Paradigms fall and get abandoned.

Let us negate the negation, and build a new thesis.

Long live the Dialectic!

 

[Kindred Seer]

For the root chakra, I'd be inclined to go with Indigenous spirituality. Not that I have anything against Druids, but indigenous spirituality has a lot of nuance, due to it being practiced by a wide ethnic variety of tribes, missing perhaps in a religion from a more singular source.

I selected Druidry because I have some far back Celtic ancestry, and modern Druidry is already eclectic to a degree. I do agree that Indigenous Spirituality is also a very good fit, but if it has no connection to your own culture, it could prove problematic. That said, there is no reason not to adopt philosophies inspired through Indigenous Spirituality.

 

[Kindred Seer]

I see you're essentially creating a new religion by synthesizing existing traditions into your "Drudaosha" framework. While I understand your frustration with Christian dogma and appreciate the creative effort, I have fundamental concerns about this approach.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply. I appreciate the time you took to lay out your concerns.

You're cherry-picking incompatible elements, Daoist effortless action conflicts with active Shamanic transformation, while Zen's direct experience differs significantly from Advaita's philosophical methods. These contradictions exist for good philosophical reasons that can't simply be resolved by mapping them onto chakras.

My intention here was to give different philosophies their own place so that they would not be in conflict. You do realize that these different spiritualities were not created in a vacuum. Buddhism grew out of a rejection of Vedic orthodoxy. The Dao and Brahman are very similar in concept, and eventually Taoism influenced and shaped Buddhism into Chan (Zen) Buddhism in such that Zen itself is also much like The Dao (and also Brahman). These paths have learned to get along over millennia.

As for Shamanism, perhaps you are not familiar with "Yellow Shamanism", which is an integration of Mongolian shamanism and Buddhism. There is also "Zen Shamanism". Also of note is that Taoism grew out of Wuism, which is considered to be shamanistic in nature, and referred to as "Chinese shamanism".

Now, the flavour of Shamanism I have selected for Drudaosha is Amazonian Shamanism, which is likely the epitome of a syncretic spirituality.

Rather than mix everything together, I have given each path its own space, aligned with one of the seven chakras -- a system already familiar to many.

More importantly, from my perspective as you're constructing an elaborate belief system based on unfalsifiable claims about chakras, spiritual energy, and mystical experiences that cannot be empirically verified. There's no reliable evidence for any of these metaphysical concepts.

I don’t personally think of chakras as physically existing in the body in any measurable sense. For me they’re more like symbolic focal points. Archetypes that help me organize different aspects of practice. By aligning each tradition with one chakra, I give each path its own space within a larger whole. Of course, these aspects aren’t really confined to those spaces... it’s just a framework that helps me hold things together without letting any one path dominate.

However here's the irony: (This did make me smile) after decades of rejecting Christian dogma, you've created your own dogmatic system with prescribed spiritual elements, chakra mappings, and mystical practices. You've essentially built the very kind of rigid framework you originally fled from, just with different terminology and sources.

I can see why it looks ironic on the surface, and I admit, you made me smile too.

The big difference for me is that I don’t hold Drudaosha as dogma. I don’t claim these chakra-path mappings are ‘the way things are,’ but rather a symbolic framework that helps me organize and balance the traditions I resonate with. Where dogma prescribes belief as truth, I see this as more of a tool or language. Something defining but not confining. If someone else finds it useful, great. If not, that’s fine too. For me, it’s about creating space for dialogue, not closing it.

The psychological benefits you're seeking, meaning, community, ethical guidance, connection with nature are readily available through secular means: scientific understanding of the world, philosophy, art, human relationships, and direct engagement with the natural environment.

Why construct another belief system when reality itself offers everything you're actually looking for without requiring faith in unverifiable claims? And dare I say no Dogma.

I hear what you’re saying, and I agree that science, philosophy, art, and nature already give us profound meaning.

At the same time, I don’t see a reason to close the door on possibilities beyond the purely material. Many of the wisest thinkers, (Einstein among them), were at least open-minded about mystery, wonder, and dimensions of reality beyond what we can currently explain.

For me, Drudaosha isn’t about creating dogma or demanding belief, but about giving myself a symbolic framework to hold together the existing traditions and experiences that resonate. It’s less about certainty, and more about remaining open to meaning wherever it shows itself.

 

[Mendalla]

For me, Drudaosha isn’t about creating dogma or demanding belief, but about giving myself a symbolic framework to hold together the existing traditions and experiences that resonate. It’s less about certainty, and more about remaining open to meaning wherever it shows itself.

Which is kind of how I read it myself, so I am not sure why Pavlos took it the way he did. Not sure what my framework would be. Never sat down and worked it out that way. Interesting approach, though. UU'ism (with which I most closely align) is pretty much the definition of eclectic (the fourth UU principle is "a free and responsible search for truth and meaning" so is open to almost anything) and doesn't really have a framework beyond the principles and sources, which are pretty broad and general. And American UUs officially demoted those to something optional, replacing them with something even more nebulous IMHO. So a framework for putting things together is something that makes sense to me, just not sure one makes sense for me right now. If that makes sense.

(this post is many things, but not sense-less, eh )

 

[Luce NDs]

Some of these types of information seeming fluffy and dreamy to the stoics requiring hard-hammered stuff ... have their own place as in an open mind ... to allow the circulation an open heart is required to mix in all that is required for metabolism (actually a kind of mulling like in a blender). The compositions cooked up are thus ideally complex and functional ... not dead domains but some exposes to the dead aspect may be required for stimulus!

The entire circle is not simple but twisted like Ꝏ that may be metaphorical to some long range vision of feelings beyond normal extreme empathy as in a spiritual sensation? This may be hidden sacredly in a myth of some odd type ... so the simple cannot extract it ... as they rejected the concept!

Do not attempt to explain this to those that didn't wish the knowledge (regardless; thus the blind aspect). One has to read such complex cautiously for adept purpose!

 

[Kindred Seer]

That's a wide net. What is "authentic Mysticism"? I mean, Islam, second largest religion in the world, has Sufism, there's a respected mystical tradition in Christianity and the Jews have Kabbalah. And that's just the Abrahamic religions.

Mainstream religions have usually had an uneasy relationship with their mystics: on one hand, they’ve drawn great depth and inspiration from them, and on the other, they’ve often viewed them with suspicion because mystics claim direct access to the divine outside institutional structures. In Catholicism, figures like Teresa of Ávila or John of the Cross were celebrated, but others such as Meister Eckhart or the Beguines were investigated or condemned when their visions seemed to bypass church authority. In Judaism, Kabbalah was long restricted to scholarly elites and often criticized by rationalists, and after messianic crises like Sabbatai Zevi, mainstream leaders tried to suppress or control it, though Hasidism later popularized mystical practice. In Islam, Sufism shaped poetry, art, and devotion across the Muslim world, but mystics like al-Hallaj were executed for heretical claims of union with God, and Sufism has been alternately embraced and persecuted depending on the region and the ruling orthodoxy. In all three traditions, mysticism has been tolerated when it reinforced the faith’s authority, but suppressed when it threatened institutional control.

While Advaita Vedanta in Hinduism, Zen in Buddhism, and Taoism in China are all revered today as profound mystical philosophies of non-duality, it’s striking that those within their respective mainstream institutions are often less familiar with them than those outside. Everyday Hindu practice revolves more around ritual and devotion than Advaita’s formless unity, most traditional Buddhist schools emphasize gradual cultivation over Zen’s direct experience, and Taoism as practiced institutionally has often leaned toward ritual, alchemy, or folk religion rather than Laozi’s ineffable Dao. Ironically, seekers from outside these traditions -- whether Western philosophers, mystics, or spiritual explorers -- often engage more directly with Advaita, Zen, and Taoism as living doorways into non-dual realization, while insiders may encounter them only as specialized teachings on the margins of their mainstream faith.

From my own experience, it seems that most religious movements are born from the spark of mystical encounter -- direct experience of the divine, oneness, or the ineffable mystery -- but as they grow, they almost inevitably become layered with cultural norms, institutional hierarchies, and rigid doctrines. These structures may help preserve identity and continuity, but they also constrain the living flame that inspired the tradition in the first place. Over time, the mystical core is pushed to the margins, often hidden or repressed, while the dogmatic shell becomes dominant. What remains accessible to the seeker, then, is less the original transformative vision and more the institutional framework built to contain it.

 

[Luce NDs]

Thus the real core of this illumination sinks to the core forming at least a 3D axis which is difficult to construe for one settling into a straight dash without substance. Thus the story or myth has to be fattened up by some metaphorical means ... something described but not defined ... because like the elephant the flea cannot observe the entire thing from where it is attached ... like Hannibal on his mountainous transit!

The human limbic system has similar parallels ... messing with intelligence, emotions and memory all at once as the mysterious thing passes through time and space virtually unseen! People often speak of their failed search ... expect the object to be a bit cheeky if it isn't respected with considerable onus ... as it descends! Some folk refer to it as a gob and others hate knowledge as crap! It inhibits the business edge ...

 

[WhyCzar]

What remains accessible to the seeker, then, is less the original transformative vision and more the institutional framework built to contain it.

Deconstruction requires considerable reverence for the past, and the recognition of the legacy of great sages who labored throughout the centuries to counter materialist demagoguery.

While the dogmas of organized religion and scientific materialism depend on each other for their identities -eminent thinkers such as Hegel, Schelling, Goethe, Steiner, Whitehead, etc taught that parts contain wholes, that the greater exists within the lesser.

They also knew the difference between ethics and morality, conscience and law, shame and guilt.

There is a pervasive malignant psychic condition which Blake referred to as the “Mind-Forged Manacles.”

From this toxic psychological condition come the imperious institutions of conformity and indoctrination.

From these hives of group-think come the high priests of Scientific Materialism, programming the minds and hearts of those under their tutelage.

The works of the sages of old is heavily plagiarized and disfigured, or consigned to the academic dustbin.

In place of it we are assured that the brain is nothing more than a programmable machine, and that the universe is also a mechanism to be understood by intellect alone.

Throwing off this nonsense, and questioning every part of it is nigh on impossible today.

It takes too much time, time best spent having fun.

It requires reading and profound contemplation, and that’s poison today.

We prefer that other people ask the deep questions.

We look to the “expert” to explain mysteries that puzzle and disturb us.

As professor Allan Bloom and other social critics long ago realized and warned, the navigators who seized the helm of western education are steering headlong toward a precipice from which there is no return. It was apparent to Bloom that their interest isn’t education at all, but indoctrination.

I think he was right.

Personally I do not find it is an inconsequential pastime to examine the principles of Mysticism to see if they remain firm and true. I love mining through the works of these most eminent thinkers and abstracting that which makes most sense to me as a present-day seeker.