Talk:Rule of Three (Wicca)/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Rule of Three (Wicca). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Rule of four?

The rule of four link in the "See Also" section seems unrelated to me. If nobody disagrees with that, I'm going to remove the link from the See Also section soon. --dionyziz 00:54, 13 August 2005 (UTC).

Removed. --dionyziz 21:14, 16 August 2005 (UTC).

Fluctuations in the Law

Now, this is based off of information that I heard from a source I find to be personally reliable, but haven't read anywhere. 3 is the universal constant, however the Earth itself in recent years has upped the factor to 10 for beings on this planet as a defense mechanism. Is there any information on this out there, and if so can it be added in?

KV 06:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me speak as a witch briefly, rather than as a scholar. The three-fold law is very subjective, in a couple of different senses. First, it doesn't come from traditional Wicca, being Ray Buckland's subjective innovation. Second, the actual way this "pay-back" operates varies from person to person and situation to situation. The three-fold law is generally understood in a similar manner to the simplistic understanding of Karma, i.e. there's some cosmic bank-account or some force that reflects things back at the sender.

Now to understand this more realistically, lets forget for a minute any idea of a causal relationship between your actions and the things that happen to you. One does not cause the other. Yet there is a relationship between them. how so? It's simple: one's actions and one's experiences are both influenced by one's state of consciousness, level of understanding, self-delusions, etc. If you are self-deluded in a way that causes certain misbehaviour, this same self-delusion will attract various unpleasant occurrences to you. The forms that the bad behaviour and the unpleasant experiences take can often be ironically similar, since they stem from a single root cause. This means that if you sort things out at the root cause you won't necessarily have to "pay" for all your past infractions.

There are certain other factors in play here that can make the whole effect work a bit more like a straight "reflection": for instance, the psychological process of guilt can unconsciously help make the "payback" mirror the "action". Also when you're dealing with other people who might hold grudges, "payback" can become a much simpler concept.

The exact proportion of "payback" to "action" varies. For some people I would guess they get back less than they put out; however for witches and magicians the level of payback can be very large, well over 3 times, perhaps over 30 times in some situations. Just think: we devote our lives to developing power, and accumulating it around ourselves. This power needs to be volatile enough that we can cause dramatic changes to occur just by clicking our fingers. So if we have built up this volatile energy around ourselves and then misuse it, it can completely blow up in our faces.

Having said that, don't worry too much. If your intentions are good you should be fine. We all need to make a few mistakes :)

Anyway, this could have some bearing on the "3-fold" being upped to "10-fold". As we become more spiritually aware, and particularly as we become more technologically advanced, our ability to do ourselves major harm through misuse increases. (I hope this ramble of mine isn't a terrible abuse of the discussion page). Fuzzypeg 04:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The three fold law violates the law of Thermodynamics. Its a crock. I'm still awaiting for my cup of coffee to be three times hotter than it was after I boiled it!!!!!!

Did anyone say we were talking about a closed thermodynamic system? Fuzzypeg ☻ 04:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources for the term dharmic religions?

Where are the reliable sources that use the term dharmic religions in the context of this article? Dharmic religions is a now deleted obscure neologism and should not be used throughout Wikipedia. a good alternative is Indian religions. The number of google scholar results for "Indian religions"+"Indian religion" is (45.600 + 84.200) while it is only (492+475) for "dharmic religions" +"dharmic religion". See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_September_8. Andries 19:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 04:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Portishead "Third"

The third LP by the English electronic band Portishead (titled "Third") contains an intro in Portuguese that paraphrases the Rule of Three. The english translation of the intro is as follows:

"Be aware of the rules of 3. What you give will come back at you. This lesson you must learn. You only get what you deserve." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asstro (talk • contribs) 02:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Conservation of energy?

Three times? Simple parsimony would support a 1:1 relationship, but that left aside, what about conservation of energy?

Can anyone supply some empirical evidence?

This is not a forum for original research or engaging editors in their own personal thoughts on such issues. There are chat groups for that. Here we're interested only in theories published by reputable authors. Our own opinions are of little consequence. Fuzzypeg ★ 22:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

In that case, a citation to any of the numerous scientific journals confirming the conservation of energy and the addition of a criticism section isn't off base. Xurtio (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Strange grammatical inconsistency in quote

In the quote, "thou givest" shows standard early modern English (or "King James") pronoun use and verb inflection, while "thee gets" shows the special 19th-century Quaker usage. The juxtaposition of these two conflicting grammatical usages in one and the same sentence is quite bizarre! AnonMoos (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That quote's been unsourced for over a year, and sounds like just another of the countless modern doggerel versions of the Rule of Three. I've removed it. Fuzzypeg ★ 05:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Original quote VS quote used nowadays

The quote now used is the first one ever seen, it appears. That's okay, but isn't is better if you add the Rule of Three-rhyme that is more used nowadays? That being " Ever mind the rule of three, three times what thou gives returns to thee. This lesson well, thou must learn. Thy only gets what thou doest earn." This gives an explaination of the principle behind the Law, and also lets people know what the Wiccans hold on to nowadays. 83.83.65.199 (talk) 08:33, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Modernity?

"Some Wiccans believe that it is a modern innovation based on Christian morality."

More modern than what? Wicca, which was invented in the 1930s? That phrase should be excised. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.97.3 (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rule of Three (Wicca). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)