Things that came up in the Tarot thread.

Well I was hoping for a positive discussion about the things that we both brought up rather than a examination of who said what.

I thought I had answered your questions, but maybe because of tarot being the centre of the discussion one has to have a depth of knowledge of that subject to understand my answers.

However, If you want to know more about harmonics and generics of energies and how this relates to the spirit of something it is very easy to explain. Its a bit like totems and power animals and animal guides or spirits.

Let's take the Horse. How a totem or fetish can represent the whole Horse species and be generic giving the energy and essence of Horse when called on, or when one might contact an individual and specific Horse guide that is recognisable and reproducable of the same species and which would give that individual's own extra input of knowledge and experience of their own life. Thus adding a layer of extra harmonic energy to the generic and giving a deeper level.

Lets take an Amethyst crystal. Each Amethyst has the generic power of the crystal, but an individual piece that was mined by explosive with underpaid overworked and unsettled workers from Madagascar will have a different harmonic personality and energy to a piece that was found whilst walking on the beach in South England. They will almost feel like two different crystals rather than both Amethyst.
This then obviously affects the 'spirit' of each .

The questions that I was hoping for answers to were:

What are these ‘laws of shamanism’?

What do you mean by an 'abstract spirit'? Do you mean a spirit of an abstraction? If everything has a spirit, then so do abstract things. After all, much of shamanic healing concerns the spirits of illness.

What, for example, are my blanket rigid beliefs? What is the ‘true spirit of being a shaman’? (Since I don’t understand what you mean by ‘generic’ and ‘harmonic’.) Do I obviously have a ‘strict shamanism culture’?.

Which was post 700972? And when did I say I was a shaman? .

(Don’t worry about post 700972 - I found it.)
I hadn’t asked about the correlation of ‘those two particular card characters’. I asked:

Since everything has a spirit, does it matter if I speak to individual cards and you speak to archetypes (which is not a shamanic concept but which, nevertheless, must have a spirit)? I’m not sure about your term ‘spiritual characters’. Do you mean that in some way they are more spiritual than other characters? Why does once being a tree and having ink on it make something less spiritual? And what is a ‘true spirit’?
What do the inverted commas around spirit mean?

Okay – I don’t want a ‘who said what’ argument. But we use a lot of different language and I want to know what you mean, since you’ve clearly thought a lot about it. I wonder if we just have very differing views as to what shamanism is. How would you define it?

I hadn’t asked about the correlation of ‘those two particular card characters’. I asked: Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowan [url][/url]
Since everything has a spirit, does it matter if I speak to individual cards and you speak to archetypes (which is not a shamanic concept but which, nevertheless, must have a spirit)? I’m not sure about your term ‘spiritual characters’. Do you mean that in some way they are more spiritual than other characters? Why does once being a tree and having ink on it make something less spiritual?

I wrote with a specific example using the High Priestess and The Magician. So yes, I do mean that some cards are far more spiritual than others. Some card characters are entirely spiritual in essence, others are monetary or frugal or whatever the opposite of spiritual is lol that escapes me right now.

Are you saying you are not a shaman then?

It's just from your posts you imply that anyone can become a shaman now?

I wrote with a specific example using the High Priestess and The Magician. So yes, I do mean that some cards are far more spiritual than others. Some card characters are entirely spiritual in essence, others are monetary or frugal or whatever the opposite of spiritual is lol that escapes me right now.
Are you saying you are not a shaman then?
It's just from your posts you imply that anyone can become a shaman now?

I’m sorry, Cascara. I don’t know what to say. It seems that you read into my posts things that are not there – certainly not intended to be there. I can’t answer your question about am I a shaman – I don’t know yet what you mean by the term and if I say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ it will be interpreted without my knowing how. Anyone can become a shaman? I don’t believe that – what did you interpret as my implying that?
I’m beginning to think that we mean totally different things by the term ‘shamanism’ and, since you don’t tell me how you would define it, I don’t see how that can be resolved.

Some card characters are entirely spiritual in essence, others are monetary or frugal or whatever the opposite of spiritual is lol that escapes me right now.

"Materialistic" is perhaps the word you're looking for. 😉

Yes, that's it, it is so annoying when a word escapes like that, thanks 🙂 umm Four of Pentacles springs to mind lol,

Crowan, surely you can say whether you are a shaman or not, without having to know what the other person considers that to be?

I'm sure practitioners of other faiths/beliefs/whatever don't feel they have to establish others' conception of that faith/belief/whatever before they will admit to it.

I'm sure practitioners of other faiths/beliefs/whatever don't feel they have to establish others' conception of that faith/belief/whatever before they will admit to it.

But perhaps they prefer to have some idea of "others" levels of knowledge and understanding, before they "admit" to anything? Some people have some very strange ideas about witchcraft for example :017:

x

Crowan, surely you can say whether you are a shaman or not, without having to know what the other person considers that to be?

I'm sure practitioners of other faiths/beliefs/whatever don't feel they have to establish others' conception of that faith/belief/whatever before they will admit to it.

The whole question of calling oneself 'shaman' and/or 'shamanic practitioner' is complicated. There are those (for example, 'Sacred Hoop Magazine') who will not accept anyone calling themselves 'shaman', on the basis that a shaman works on behalf of his/her community and no one in this part of the world has such a community. Others reckon that anyone who has ever 'done' shamanism (as in, having attended an introductory weekend) is a shaman.
For myself, my spirits call me 'shaman' when I am doing a shaman's work. The rest of the time (for example when I'm reading Healthy Pages) I consider myself a shamanic practitioner. I'd rather know in advance what other people mean by it, so I know what I'm saying 'yes' or 'no' to.

Fair enough, Crowan - that works for me! 🙂

Crowan - what do you think of the idea that shamans are 'called' by spirit to be such? I've read that some tribes/groups would only consider someone a shaman if they have undergone some sort of crisis which is considered to be their calling.

Crowan - what do you think of the idea that shamans are 'called' by spirit to be such? I've read that some tribes/groups would only consider someone a shaman if they have undergone some sort of crisis which is considered to be their calling.

Largely I’d agree. But who knows who the spirits have called? Pretty much we have to take a person’s word for it. Also, in my experience, although our own spirit teachers and helpers might be more circumspect, most spirits consider any ‘spirit-talker’ a shaman. For example, if a displaced land spirit finds you able to journey to speak to spirits, it isn’t going to find out about your training and authenticity before it asks for help.
Yes, some native cultures expect a crisis. Others don’t. Although many people here who find shamanism to be their ‘home’ will have had a crisis – possibly physical, often mental – and have come through it with the help of the spirits.
In almost all cultures, however, that first calling is followed by a lengthy training.

Hmmmm...thanks, that is interesting. It seems to be that, somehow, if you have the ability (or, maybe that is the wrong word, perhaps it is more 'predisposition'?) to communicate with spirits, something will pull you towards doing just that. Just thinking aloud really....:)

Hmmmm...thanks, that is interesting. It seems to be that, somehow, if you have the ability (or, maybe that is the wrong word, perhaps it is more 'predisposition'?) to communicate with spirits, something will pull you towards doing just that. Just thinking aloud really....

I have come across the idea that if you are called and refuse the call, then you will get seriously ill. I don’t know about that – again, how would an outsider know? But I do know of several people who have started on a serious shamanic path (‘serious’ in that it was more than a couple of weekend workshops. They had actually made commitments to the spirits) and who had then given it up. They have had problems (mainly health related) since. I don’t think this is their spirits ‘punishing’ them. Rather, I think, it is an inevitable consequence of not doing what your soul knows is right. And I think that is where the ‘predisposition’ comes in – that the decision to follow this path was made at a soul level and souls will often leave if they feel that we are not following our path.

Yes, I've come across that idea too. In cultures where shamanism is an integral part of life I guess an individual would be more likely to feel worried about refusing a call, it would be a serious matter, so it would be more likely that they would become ill.

I do think that if shamanism is for you it will keep coming up in some way, you might keep coming across books on it, or certain people or be hearing conversations etc. Perhaps you could say that these kind of happenings are a kind of 'call' in our culture.

I do think that if shamanism is for you it will keep coming up in some way, you might keep coming across books on it, or certain people or be hearing conversations etc. Perhaps you could say that these kind of happenings are a kind of 'call' in our culture.

Maybe. I've done a lot of soul retrievals where the returning soul has stated that, as a condition of returning, the person should find a spiritual path. They hardly ever specify shamanism, unless the person has already made a commitment to shamanism. The ‘calls’ that you mention are good for alerting people to the fact that seeing a shamanic practitioner might help them, but the vast majority of people who attend an introductory workshop will never take it further. Even of those who do, for most it will not be a way of life but rather an add-on to other therapies which are less demanding.

Maybe. I've done a lot of soul retrievals where the returning soul has stated that, as a condition of returning, the person should find a spiritual path. They hardly ever specify shamanism, unless the person has already made a commitment to shamanism. The ‘calls’ that you mention are good for alerting people to the fact that seeing a shamanic practitioner might help them, but the vast majority of people who attend an introductory workshop will never take it further. Even of those who do, for most it will not be a way of life but rather an add-on to other therapies which are less demanding.

Yes, I see what you mean that people could be nudged towards shamanism in the way I've described, just to get that sort of help, not necessarily to actually become a shaman (or a shamanic practictioner).

I find it interesting that some people in our culture (which isn't a shamanic one) do take it further though. It just makes me wonder what makes them go further.

I find it interesting that some people in our culture (which isn't a shamanic one) do take it further though. It just makes me wonder what makes them go further.

For me, it was the sense of coming home. And that phrase crops up time and time again when I talk to other people who take it as far as they can. I would consider my spirit teachers as my dearest friends, and I trust my main spirit teacher more than I trust anyone in this reality. (This isn't an indictment of people in this reality – I trust many people, including my partner, who I know feels the same about her main spirit teacher.) I’d be very interested in other people’s reasons.

I don’t always explain myself well – I wonder if part of what put Kiga off was my failure to distinguish between those spirits who have chosen to help and teach us and who can be trusted implicitly, and those who are more general spirits (spirits of things) who are as complex in motivation as any other being and who can be damaged and therefore hostile.

For me, it was the sense of coming home. And that phrase crops up time and time again when I talk to other people who take it as far as they can. I would consider my spirit teachers as my dearest friends, and I trust my main spirit teacher more than I trust anyone in this reality. (This isn't an indictment of people in this reality – I trust many people, including my partner, who I know feels the same about her main spirit teacher.) I’d be very interested in other people’s reasons.

I can relate to that sense of coming home (although obviously at an inexperienced level) as I felt that the first time I attempted shamanic journeying and it went so well.

I don’t always explain myself well – I wonder if part of what put Kiga off was my failure to distinguish between those spirits who have chosen to help and teach us and who can be trusted implicitly, and those who are more general spirits (spirits of things) who are as complex in motivation as any other being and who can be damaged and therefore hostile.

Perhaps it is just about about words and how we use them? I would say that the word 'spirit' has quite a few connotations. It is used in so many ways it's not surprising that any particular usage has to be clarified when having a more involved discussion. For example there is an expression, 'spirit of place' - quite often when people use that they don't mean an actual sentient spirit that can be communicated with, they mean something a bit vague like the 'feel' of a place. Same as 'spirit of the age' etc. etc. If you replace the word 'spirit' with 'essence', when talking about spirits of things say, the discussion feels different. It is not changing the integrity of what you are saying as much as you might think, some people would regard the 'essence' of something to be very much alive, sentient even.

Perhaps it is just about about words and how we use them? I would say that the word 'spirit' has quite a few connotations. It is used in so many ways it's not surprising that any particular usage has to be clarified when having a more involved discussion. For example there is an expression, 'spirit of place' - quite often when people use that they don't mean an actual sentient spirit that can be communicated with, they mean something a bit vague like the 'feel' of a place. Same as 'spirit of the age' etc. etc. If you replace the word 'spirit' with 'essence', when talking about spirits of things say, the discussion feels different. It is not changing the integrity of what you are saying as much as you might think, some people would regard the 'essence' of something to be very much alive, sentient even.

I understand what you mean but, although some people do regard the essence of something to be alive, most don’t. The real problem with communicating with other about spirits seems to be that the notion of spirits as ‘people who were alive but have now passed over’ is very widespread.
There are several practitioners who have used other words than ‘spirits’ – mainly because ‘spirits’ scares so many. But also, the use of a word like ‘essence’ allows people to by-pass the idea of having a deep relationship with spirits. A bit like using the phrase ‘totem animal’ rather than ‘power animal’ – it seems to appeal to those who want a cipher whose meaning they can look up, rather than a spirit who is a close friend.
Also – ‘spirit’ is the word that we use, and also the word that the spirits use. Wouldn’t changing it so that outsiders can understand better be rather like changing the terms that are used (for example) in Reiki or in Christianity because I would be more comfortable with other words? Surely most people can cope with different meanings for a particular word?
Only my opinions, led by my experiences. Maybe others would disagree.

Crowan said:

I don’t always explain myself well – I wonder if part of what put Kiga off was my failure to distinguish between those spirits who have chosen to help and teach us and who can be trusted implicitly, and those who are more general spirits (spirits of things) who are as complex in motivation as any other being and who can be damaged and therefore hostile.

No, there was nothing wrong with your explanations, Crowan. In the end I just couldn't believe in a parallel universe containing good, bad and shape-shifting spirits, plus all the billions of spirits of individual blades of grass, grains of sand etc. etc. It reminded me too much of one of those video games where you have to keep outwitting the baddies and facing and overcoming dark forces.

I also have to wonder why, if it's all true and soul retrieval etc. works so well, that Shamanism hasn't been more universally acknowledged and embraced.

I understand what you mean but, although some people do regard the essence of something to be alive, most don’t. The real problem with communicating with other about spirits seems to be that the notion of spirits as ‘people who were alive but have now passed over’ is very widespread.
There are several practitioners who have used other words than ‘spirits’ – mainly because ‘spirits’ scares so many. But also, the use of a word like ‘essence’ allows people to by-pass the idea of having a deep relationship with spirits. A bit like using the phrase ‘totem animal’ rather than ‘power animal’ – it seems to appeal to those who want a cipher whose meaning they can look up, rather than a spirit who is a close friend.
Also – ‘spirit’ is the word that we use, and also the word that the spirits use. Wouldn’t changing it so that outsiders can understand better be rather like changing the terms that are used (for example) in Reiki or in Christianity because I would be more comfortable with other words? Surely most people can cope with different meanings for a particular word?
Only my opinions, led by my experiences. Maybe others would disagree.

Yep, fair enough. I don't think it's about coping with different meanings for words though, I think people automatically bring baggage with them, from their own experiences/opinions etc., it just happens.

No, there was nothing wrong with your explanations, Crowan. In the end I just couldn't believe in a parallel universe containing good, bad and shape-shifting spirits, plus all the billions of spirits of individual blades of grass, grains of sand etc. etc. It reminded me too much of one of those video games where you have to keep outwitting the baddies and facing and overcoming dark forces.

I also have to wonder why, if it's all true and soul retrieval etc. works so well, that Shamanism hasn't been more universally acknowledged and embraced.

I think that probably intertwines with what Crowan was saying about needing to know a persons definition of what they perceive a Shaman to be, before answering if one is a shaman or not. For example, In the book [url]The Big Book of Reiki Symbols[/url], Mark Hosak gives a wonderful history of Esoteric Buddhism, Taoism, Shintoism etc. in which the roots of the Reiki symbols and practices can be found, going back hundreds and hundreds of years. Part of the evolvement of the different forms of these philosophies/practices, is from the shamanic practitioners of the time, and some of these, such as Shintoism, more clearly has shamanic practices in it. So, just because they aren't labelled "shamanism", there is a strong background and evidence of shamanic practices within them... and these practices are more widely acknowledged and embraced under their own labels. Even in the West, we have spiritualists or other 'new age' practices, in which people practice connecting with spirits of things, and in their own way these are also shamanic practitioners, just not labelled as such. I can understand where Crowan was coming from when she said that she would say if she was a shaman or not if we could give a definition of what we understand to be a shaman first... as... to just say "yes I'm a shaman" could be interpreted differently by different people and thus the wrong assumptions made about what Crowan practices. 😉

All Love and Reiki Hugs

I also have to wonder why, if it's all true and soul retrieval etc. works so well, that Shamanism hasn't been more universally acknowledged and embraced.

But that isn’t the way it works, is it? (Although 400 million people around the world believing in it isn’t bad.) People would, on the whole, prefer to continue to believe what they already do, rather than try something else. Belief has nothing to do with evidence. After all, you are not going to try it, are you?

Even in the West, we have spiritualists or other 'new age' practices, in which people practice connecting with spirits of things, and in their own way these are also shamanic practitioners, just not labelled as such.

The definition of shamanism has to include the shamanic journey, undertaken at will and for the community, to the spirit worlds. This is not calling the spirits here. Nor is it connecting with spirits in any other way.
Spiritualists don’t connect with the spirits of things. They connect with the spirits of dead people. And they do it through mediumship rather than through the shamanic journey.
This is not my definition. It is the definition of those native people who practice shamanism, and of the anthropologists who have studied it worldwide.

Part of the evolvement of the different forms of these philosophies/practices, is from the shamanic practitioners of the time, and some of these, such as Shintoism, more clearly has shamanic practices in it. So, just because they aren't labelled "shamanism", there is a strong background and evidence of shamanic practices within them... and these practices are more widely acknowledged and embraced under their own labels.

This doesn’t however make them shamanism. We couldn’t say that Paganism was acknowledged and embraced because Christian practice incorporated evergreens at Christmas, could we? The people following these religions/practices are not practicing shamanism. Shinto has kept many ideas from shamanism, but not the practices.

Crowan said:

After all, you are not going to try it, are you?

I'll wait to hear whether mouse has been convinced after she's attended her Workshop. 🙂

I'll wait to hear whether mouse has been convinced after she's attended her Workshop. 🙂

No pressure, Mouse!;)

No pressure, Mouse!;)

Hee hee 🙂

I'm looking forward to the workshop and to discussing it with you both.

Kiga, I'm not sure I can believe in a "parallel universe containing good bad and shapeshifting spirits" either, but.... I have to jump in and see for myself! I've had just enough strange experiences to think that there are more things in heaven and earth etc. than we know...

Originally Posted by Energylz [url][/url]
Even in the West, we have spiritualists or other 'new age' practices, in which people practice connecting with spirits of things, and in their own way these are also shamanic practitioners, just not labelled as such.

The definition of shamanism has to include the shamanic journey, undertaken at will and for the community, to the spirit worlds. This is not calling the spirits here. Nor is it connecting with spirits in any other way.
Spiritualists don’t connect with the spirits of things. They connect with the spirits of dead people. And they do it through mediumship rather than through the shamanic journey.
This is not my definition. It is the definition of those native people who practice shamanism, and of the anthropologists who have studied it worldwide.

So what's the difference? Perhaps it's not shamanism in the specific sense you talk about, but it's still connecting with spirits through some sort of "journey". Unless you're (general you as in us, not you specifically) experienced in the other practices too, it's not possible to dismiss them as not being shamanic I would have thought.

Originally Posted by Energylz [url][/url]
Part of the evolvement of the different forms of these philosophies/practices, is from the shamanic practitioners of the time, and some of these, such as Shintoism, more clearly has shamanic practices in it. So, just because they aren't labelled "shamanism", there is a strong background and evidence of shamanic practices within them... and these practices are more widely acknowledged and embraced under their own labels.

This doesn’t however make them shamanism. We couldn’t say that Paganism was acknowledged and embraced because Christian practice incorporated evergreens at Christmas, could we? The people following these religions/practices are not practicing shamanism. Shinto has kept many ideas from shamanism, but not the practices.

Well, the book actually states that they are based on shamanic practices and that such practices are still a part of them, so I think we can say that they are shamanism in some respects even though they have incoporated other things too and given it a different label... which is what my point was... just because something isn't directly called shamanism, doesn't mean that it hasn't got shamanic practices in it. Of course, if you think differently I'll let you take that up with Mark himself as he's the expert who's done all the years of research and personal studying of these things in Japan and other countries.

Can I ask what the background is to the shamanic practices you do yourself? e.g. are they based on native american indian shamanic practices? or those of some other country and people?

All Love and Reiki Hugs