SHAMANISM

What is shamanism?

The word shaman derives from the Evenk people of Central Asia and refers to a type of religious specialist who has a lot of different responsibilities in the community, many of which revolve around mediating good relations between the living humans in the community and other forces and beings (e.g., ancestors, spirits of nature, spirits of weather). When Russian, German, and other anthropologist types began spending time with different indigenous communities they noticed that lots of people had similar types of religious specialists or mediators and so the anthropologists started calling them all shamans. This started a process of using the term shaman outside its original Central Asian context; a process which has grown and which continues today.

Partly this happened because European and Euro-American people no longer had good English (or German or Russian) synonyms for "shaman". The fact that the word got adopted and spread reveals just how removed the cultures of the anthropologists had become from relating with Spirit or the spirits in ways like the Evenk or other indigenous folks still do. However, a problem with a term like "shamanism" is that it can imply there is one essential, core, or universal shamanism; there is not.  Better to speak of shamanisms in the plural if using the word at all.

So, is there even enough common ground to justify using a word like shamanism? I believe there is, and most but not all people who write about these things tend to (cautiously) agree. For me, the working definition of a shaman is someone who engages in long-term, intimate relationships with other-than-living-human beings (e.g., ancestors, spirits of the earth, elements) and leverages those relationships for the well-being of the human community as a sort of mediator, diplomat, or advocate who can communicate effectively and wisely with different beings and dimensions. A master of relationships.

This is a complex topic. If the question has energy for you, I recommend Graham Harvey's 2006 text Animism: Respecting the Living World. I also recommend having an appreciation for how deep the feelings run on this question and how they include issues like: genocide of Native peoples, cultural appropriation, wounding in modern Western psyche around loss of connection to the land, and our collective dilemma of ongoing ecological disaster. This question is more like a doorway to dialogue than a question that arrives at a rigid, correct answer. Try to avoid forming rigid opinions about shamanism that shut down constructive dialogue.

So, is that like Native American religion?

First of all, it's Native American religions, plural. No, really, there are hundreds of tribal nations on this continent and while there may be some values that tend to be shared, there is tremendous diversity in beliefs and practices. Second, many Native Americans do not follow traditional ways, and in that sense one could say that Native American religion includes, for example, Christianity or the Mormon faith. In other words, it's important to not assume that because someone is Native by blood ancestry that he or she sees the world in a certain way. Native American Mormons are no less Native because of their faith.

That being said, yes, there are many shared values between traditional, indigenous religions on the North American continent and traditional, indigenous religions in other parts of the world. For example, a tendency to emphasize interconnectedness and the importance of living in harmony with other beings. An affirmation that humans may enjoy meaningful relationships and communications with other types of beings. A fundamental respect for the land and the relations that we share this earth with. A tendency to root spirituality in everyday life, conduct, and relationships. When Native elders meet with traditional, indigenous elders from other parts of the world there is an impression that certain core values are shared, so in that sense, yes, most traditional Native American religions do seem to share core values with traditional, indigenous Central Asian religions that some refer to as shamanism.

The problem with calling Native American religion "shamanism" is that Native folks already have perfectly good ways of referring to their ways of life, always have. Many Native folks bristle at terms like "Native American shaman" because of the power dynamics of an outsider to their community defining, in outsider terms, their spiritual leaders or traditions. For anyone even remotely acquainted with the last five hundred years of North American history, it's easy to understand why Native folks might be sensitive to a power-over dynamic. In short, the best way to engage with the diverse spiritual traditions of Native North America is on their own terms, through their living representatives, and with a healthy dose of humility.

Aren't shamans like wanna-be Indians? Isn't this cultural appropriation?  Stealing?

I can't speak for others, but I would say that all humans have a capacity to communicate with other types of beings like ancestors, animals, etc. Some people, through being born with gifts or through developing them, are good enough at this that they can be useful to others.  In traditional, indigenous communities these folks are typically encouraged to hone their skills in service to others. This phenomenon occurs among people of all nations, races, creeds, etc. meaning that there are shamans or mediums or spiritual healers or whatever you prefer to call them among all cultures.

Complications can arise when these people make claims about lineage and tradition. For example, I state clearly that I do not represent any given traditional, indigenous lineage (besides that of my ancestors with whom I am in relationship and who help to guide my work). It is possible that in the future I would be entrusted by the elders of one tradition or another to represent that lineage, but that has not yet occured, and therefore, in my case, I am not pretending or claiming to be anything other than myself.  For those who do claim to represent a certain lineage or tradition, it is important to be discerning and to be curious about their elders, teachers, story, reputation, etc. Some make legitimate claims, others do not, and it's not always clear from outside appearance. Furthermore, someone may have a perfectly legitimate claim to represent traditional knowledge and still behave like an idiot. As with anything, the trust implicit in representing a tradition is only as good as the people wielding it.

If these questions have energy for you I recommend Michael's Hull's book Sundancing.  He is a white Texas lawyer entrusted by Lakota elder and medicine person Leonard Crow Dog to lead sun dance ceremonies. His story speaks to some of the complexities. Also, Stephen Buhner's text One Spirit Many Peoples explores these topics at length.  There are many Native folks willing to share their ceremonial ways with people who are sincere and reverent, so don't let fears of being disrespectful paralyze you and prevent you from honoring a calling to engage with earth spirituality in general or Native traditions in particular.

So, are you a shaman?

This question makes me cringe but people do ask it. I personally think of myself more as a ceremonialist or perhaps a priest in training. Insofar as I do work in partnership with my ancestors and guides and this at times yields beneficial results for others, that is how traditional shamans work, generally speaking. I also believe that most people are capable of working in that way to some degree if they really want develop the skills. Another answer is that I don't have a strong opinion on whether I'm a shaman or not; I'm doing my best to work with my ancestors and guides to fulfill my destiny, and I try to stay focused on that.

I've heard that you shouldn't trust anyone who calls themselves a shaman.  Is that true?

I know a lot of people say that but I actually disagree.  Why? Because my former teacher and friend (deceased) Sarangerel Odigan was a shaman and she called herself that. She was half Buryat Mongol by blood ancestry and devoutly studied, learned, and came to represent those traditional ways. She was a Mongolian shaman, had the classic near-death experience, went through various initiations, and fully inhabited that role. From what I could see, it was just the role that happened to be her destiny. There's no problem if the pope calls himself a pope or a psychic calls herself a psychic, so if some people really are shamans and they're willing to wear it, by all means.

Having said that, sure, a lot of folks throw the title around lightly and can use it as a way to puff themselves up which is sad and potentially harmful. I personally try to steer clear of that and don't represent myself as a shaman, partly because there is so much fuss about the word. But not all people who do represent themselves as shamans are ego-maniacs; some are just shamans going about their business. And just because someone doesn't call him or herself a shaman is no guarantee they're not an egomaniac. There is no way to avoid the need to use your own discernment about people.

If shamanism is such a problematic word, why do you still use it?

Believe me, I'd love to find an alternative.  I try to use the word only as much as is useful.  I'm open to suggestions.  Earth spirituality is the closest alternative I've come up with and it's a bit vague and not totally accurate as shamanism is also sun, moon, and stars spirituality. The word traditional can quickly create more problems than it solves, and the word indigenous is too linked in with questions of blood ancestry and Native peoples for it to make sense to use as a descriptor. Paganism implies only European traditions which is great but it's not my only influence. The word animism is actually more accurate than shamanism but it's too tied to academia, at least at this point in history, and it triggers memories of how it has been misused in the past (or just a confused reaction). So, I seem stuck for the time being with shamanism unless I figure out a better way to talk about what I'm doing.

Is there a good book I can read about all this?

When I teach the one-day foundations course I recommend Hillary Webb's Travelling Between the Worlds because it consists of interviews with lots of different people so the reader gets a feel for how much diversity there is. I still find Sarangerel's books valuable and useful in a practical way, but I'm biased having spent time with her.  Again, Harvey's book Animism is great.  Abram's The Spell of the Sensuous.  For those interested in the intersection of shamanic ways with psychology, Ann Drake's Healing of the Soul is a good start.

SHAMANISM AND OTHER TRADITIONS

Why are people into shamanism always talking about spirits?  Is it like, spirit-worship or something?

This physically observable world is only part of the picture.  We're swimming in a soup of all kinds of different vibrations and beings, some of which have physical bodies, some of which don't. Some of these other beings are nice, some are nasty, and most could care less about us. The universe is a really big, happenin' place and it doesn't revolve around humans.

If you accept that basic proposition (which can be a lot for those raised in rational, materialist cultures), the logical next step is to try to be in good relationship with the other beings, at least the ones that have a strong impact on your everyday survival and happiness. So, shamans and those who listen to them tend to go on about the spirits because their worldview is relational and they're always in a process of recalibrating our relationships with different beings and forces. Also, careful to not assume that spirits mean "non-physical". Sometimes it can mean that, but the physical/non-physical split is not so sharp in most indigenous ways of seeing the world. The spirit of Hawk or just Hawk may appear in a dream, in a waking vision, through another human, in a news story about hawks, and in a physical hawk in the sky. One hawk body.

And, in general, folks don't tend to worship the spirits or different forces of nature or reality; it's more about establishing respectful relations.  If someone is your elder you relate with him or her with reverence and respect and it looks different than relating with a friend or equal; there is a tangible power differential.  The way this power differential is expressed with elders like Fire or Mount Shasta may look a little different that how you would relate with a human elder, but the principle is the same. People who are masterful about relationships tend to be attuned to power differentials and in relation to some energies it is appropriate to bow in respect or at times to simply kiss ass, if for no other reason than your own safety.

Is all the spirit stuff really necessary? Why not just work with God directly?

A lot of the bells and whistles of shamanism aren't exactly necessary. A lot of what's done pertains to folks who have a particular calling to work in some way as mediators and bridges between human and other-than-human beings. The fact that there are spirits doesn't mean any given person has to spend much time engaging with them. In many traditional cultures the shaman-types are the ones who spend a lot of time with these things and most people in the community just go about their lives, maybe coming together for festivals or healing or to share a dream every so often.  In other cultures, everyday folks also spend more time relating with the spirits.  Just depends. 

Islam, perhaps the most adamantly monotheistic major tradition sees it as a major problem to engage in shirk, often translated as idol worship and meaning to associate other beings with Allah/God/Source. And yet in the Qur'an there is an entire sura (chapter/section) where God specifically addresses the jinn (spirits as a general category). From an Islamic perspective the spirits, like humans, are capable of choice (wise or unwise) and so it makes sense to be both discerning with the spirits and when possible to be helpful to them (spirits need love too!).  Also at times they may be in a position to help us. There is no incompatability with relating at times with other kinds of beings and still honoring one's direct and immediate relationship with Source. Again, shamans don't worship the spirits, they try to relate with them in ways that are skillful and respectful and in ways that are also helpful for the living human community.

This topic is actually a doorway to a huge theological and mystical terrain. The only other thing I would say in this context is to see the invitation to know God/dess or Spirit or Source in relationship, through form, in and as the world. To assert that God is only beyond form or unknownable or ineffable is its own kind of dualism or, if you will, idol worship. I remember someone asking Sensei Ross at the Chicago Zen Center about God and Zen, and I think my jaw dropped as he quipped, "There's no God in Zen, we're not into idol worship." Or in Rilke's words (Stephen Mitchell's translation) "...instead of possession one learns relationship, and there arises a namelessness that must arise once more in our relations with God if we are to be complete and without evasion".

Do I have to declare my belief in something to study shamanism? Do I have to renounce my belief in something else?

If you do I'm in trouble. Seriously though, indigenous traditions and contemporary shamanic practitioner people rarely get into heavy dogma about what a person has to believe. If there is a core belief it's something like "interconnectedness" which is a relatively benign form of dogma.  Shamanism can refer to a complete way of life and be it's own sort of path (often but not always in the form of a specific traditional indigenous way of life) *or* it can refer to a kind of orientation that folks within major organized religions adopt, almost like a vocation or cross-cultural guild.  For example, there are Muslim "shamans" or bomoh in Malaysia, Buddhist shamans in S.E. Asia, Christian shamans or spiritist types in many parts of the world, Hindu shamans, etc. Once we see past the word shaman and get at the underlying phenomena, there are folks all over who maintain relations with different types of beings in order to be helpful to their communities. So, no, there is no need for any kind of declaration to become more skillful at relating with other kinds of beings and there is no need to renounce any other system you are already working within.

I've heard that shamans are like sorcerers, witches (the nasty kind), brujos, and people who generally abuse power. True?

This is an important topic. Some folks define shamans as categorically good and helpful and reserve words like "sorcerer" for self-serving magician types.  Some use the word witch in a disparaging way and others use the word in a positive light, reclaiming it from centuries or persecution and discrimination. So, there is the first level of answer which has to do with the terminology. If we get hung up on the terminology here; declaring that shamans are always nice and helpful and sorcerers are always naughty and selfish avoids the underlying questions about right use of power.

Some people feel squeamish about power because they associate power with misuse of power.  Indeed, power is value neutral and can be used for healing and good or it can be used to harm and for selfish purposes. The classic metaphor of the blade that can be used to protect or to kill. To get much done, shamans have to access spiritual power.  This may derive from relating with powerful beings, working with natural places of power, tapping into various types of divine or subtle energy, etc. Other beings run the full gamut from naughty to nice, weak to powerful. There are spirits that would enjoy taking human sacrifices and encourage wars.  Shamans who have good sense do not spend a great deal of time focusing on these spirits, but it is an option.

So, yes, it is always always an option to abuse power by failing to consider one's impact on others, failing to be loving and wise.  This is not unique to shamanism of course.  Do shamans have the capacity to make bigger than average messes by virtue of their knowledge about reality and the unseen worlds.  Yeah, they do.  Do folks who know about the unseen worlds exhibit consistently less love and wisdom than average people?  Probably not.  I would guess that shamans, on the whole, are about as unpredictable, unconscious, and self-serving as the average person in the surrounding culture with a small handful being super reliable and worked out and a small handful being especially deluded and self-serving. In other words, I don't think shamans, as a group, abuse power more or less than the average politician, school teacher, doctor, or parent.

What happened to getting enlightened? What would the Buddha think about all this rattling and singing?

Hey enlightenment is cool, and probably best to ask the Buddha directly about his take on shamanism. From my relatively limited experience with Buddhist practice (maybe 7 or 8 week-long retreats, all in the U.S., mostly Zen but a little Tibetan and Vipassana), I have yet to detect any real incompatabilities with indigenous/shamanic perspectives.  I joke that indigenous traditions seem like Sangha Sangha Sangha whereas in Buddhism it's: Buddha, Dharma, Sangha.  

Another way to think of this is on the level of intention or motivation.  If you have a Boddhisatva motivation to awaken/help out all beings (human or otherwise) then shamanism just becomes a question of skillful means.  If you know the ceremonies, songs, and medicines to get better results in helping others, fantastic.  Insofar as Buddhism emphasizes service, indigenous traditions would just underscore the importance of not limiting this service to only living human beings. Also shamanic ways tend to dive into all the wacky energetic, interdimension spirit phenomenon that Buddhist folks are often suspcious or wary of.

When I asked John Tarrant (Pacific Zen Institute) if he felt there was any contradiction between Zen and shamanic ways he said that there will always be people in any tradition who interpret things narrowly but that they are never the most interesting.  I've felt supported in my ceremonial interests and work by John and other PZI teachers and pretty much any other Buddhist teacher I've spent any time with or brought the subject up with.  Beyond that it's a question of emphasis, what speaks to your heart, and where you are called to deepen in your journey.

I've heard that there's no hell in shamanism.  What do you believe?

There's not just one shamanism, so I will give my take for whatever that's worth.  I agree with Jung that it was problematic when Protestant and later secular culture lost a framework for grappling with evil and "the devil".  By whatever name, there are energies that are self-aware and still choose to be nasty and hateful.  I didn't really get exposed to them as a kid so I've had to learn about this as an adult. Knowing how to deal with these ones is critical if you want to do shaman kinds of work. I'm not talking about evil in the moralistic Christian sense although it's not *so* different.  If a coyote rips apart a child's new favorite kitten it's not evil, it's just a coyote enjoying lunch and super upsetting for the child (not to mention the kitten).  And if you're the child it sure might *feel* evil. Now let's say it's another person possessed by a really troubled ghost or something worse and now they're ripping apart another person, one that you know and love, or even you. Now one could say that it's just demons and sociopaths having a good time.  Well, that's true from the demonic or sociopathic perspective (and you had best not interrupt them unless you're ready for a fight), and yet, we have to draw the line somewhere and choose which values and visions for our world are worth risking our lives to defend.  Sometimes it's a good idea to interrupt the demons, even if we risk our lives to do so. Sometimes the odds are so stacked against us, it makes more sense to survive and choose our battles more wisely. Recognizing there are smart, destructive, and powerful beings does not necessarily require a dualistic good/evil worldview but it does give rise to questions around core values, courage, and wisdom.

As for hell, in a way my answer is above. There are worlds which are states of consciousness which are spirit places which are actual places, worlds where there is tremendous non-stop suffering. The Buddhist teachings on the six worlds or lokas speaks to this. There is also considerable traffic between the worlds, and one can changes places/states. If you don't believe in hell, I would suggest studying more closely modern warfare or the effects of early childhood trauma or any number of other ways in which moment to moment reality may come to be dominated by deeply entrenched misery and anguish.  Some humans live in hell worlds; if you doubt it, try studying serious mental illness.  No need to buy a plane ticket to visit hell.  The unseen or non-physical worlds mirror our world.  Anything we can imagine exists and then some.  So, yes, I would say there are hells, plural, and that there is no bottom to the hell-worlds. The world is bigger than us and there is more suffering in the world than any given being can possibly wrap his or her mind around. To try to see all the suffering at once would probably fry our nervous system. Same answer for the complementary question on heaven.  

LINEAGE AND TRADITION

What lineage do you represent?

I do not currently represent a formal lineage of any sort.  If you feel that is something you need for yourself, I'm not the best person to work with.  If you feel that is something that all teachers must have, you are of course free to try to persuade other people to not interact with me.  Really, some people feel strongly about that issue.  If you need to work within an established tradition, I'm not going to be that helpful for you.

Having said that, I recognize that I have been influenced by different teachers who do represent to different degrees a traditional lineage.  I'm conversant with different established traditions and participate in some traditional kinds of ceremonies, but make no claims to represent those traditions.

So, if you don't represent a certain lineage, why should I trust you? What gives you the right to teach?

No particular need to trust me any more than the next person.  If you think I have something useful to share I'd recommend coming to a drop-in event or having a conversation with me to determine if you feel some resonance.  If you notice that you don't trust any teachers, you might look at that more closely.  If you notice that you just don't feel a resonance with me, then trust that. Someone does not have to be perfect to learn useful things from them. And also, some people just don't work well together for whatever reasons.

As for the question about teaching, there are things I can teach and things I can't because I don't know them well enough myself.  Mostly I teach the basics and mostly I find few people who are really solid with the basics.  Also, most of the basics transfer into other traditions.  Also, I'm not setting myself up as some sort of guru (although that kind of teacher-student relationship can also work for some people), so it depends on what standards you have for teachers.  If you expect perfection (like I used to) you'll find me disappointing. 

Part of why I teach is because we are in serious trouble on the planet.  In the S.F. Bay Area for example there are 7 million people, maybe 3/4 of whom are not in conscious, spiritual/reciprocal relationship with the land here and probably half or more of whom are not in a good way with their family or ancestors.  Many of those people want to get more plugged in but are not sure how.  I am able to be helpful with those things and so that's what I'm up to.  All hands on deck.  My ceremonial work is one way I am attempting to respond constructively to the state of affairs here.

Who are your elders? Who supports you?

It's a good question.  As for who supports me, I am blessed to have loving friends and family around me who I'm always bouncing ideas and experiences off of, so that's fantastic and critical for my wellness. I also have a half dozen different practitioners and elders in different traditions I could go to in a pinch and am always trying to develop this network more.  In general, doing what I love leads to feeling in balance. 

And it's been a challenging journey at times with my own teachers.  My most recent teacher in shamanic ways, Sarangerel Odigan, died suddenly in 2006. Before that I learned a great deal from Phillip Scott and from my first teachers in Ohio, Bekki and Crow of the Church of Earth Healing, and ultimately went my own way for different reasons.  I've done workshops with people like Sandra Ingerman, Brant Secunda, and Carol Proudfoot Edgar but it would be inaccurate to describe them as teachers I've really worked with at any level of depth.

Since 2002 I've done maybe 6-8 week-long Buddhist meditation retreats and worked a little with different teachers (mostly Pacific Zen Institute and a tiny bit at Upaya, Spirit Rock, and Vajrapani).  In general, the meditation practice has been tremendously helpful, empowering, opening, but I'm not presuming to teach meditation, just to name it as a helpful influence.  Also on and off psychotherapy over the last 8 years has been super useful in my own healing and growth.

I'm currently involved with orisha/Ifa tradition through Ile Orunmila Oshun; however, I am very new to the tradition and so don't presume to represent or draw on that in my work here.  And it's nice to begin learning from those elders and priests.  I've found that wise, accessible elders are a precious rarity and something I'd like more of in my life.

Isn't it necessary to work within a partcular lineage?

No it's not necessary, but in most cases the advantages outweigh the challenges.  Despite not representing a traditional lineage, I've actually worked within different traditions or lineages a fair amount and continue to do so.  If you are blessed to have a tradition that speaks to your heart with accessible elders willing to guide you, I say go for it! 

MONEY

I've heard that anyone who charges money for ceremony is an exploitative charlatan and thief.  What's your take?

Whatever.  People get so bent out of shape about this issue.  Money is just another form of energy (albeit an often misused one).  Traditional ceremonialists, priests, medicine people, healers, they are traditionally taken care of like other people in the community.  They worked hard and, if their offerings were useful, they were compensated.  Sure, maybe it was with food, labor, or other items of necessity instead of currency, but same idea.  If I invited folks to leave groceries instead of U.S. dollars after monthly circles it would get silly and besides, my rent and student loans are not paid off in yogurt and chickens. So, it is traditional to compensate people for the work they do, including the spiritual work, and money is our culture's most common unit of exchange.

Having said that there is a relevant issue of accessibility. Regarding accessability, I have yet to turn someone away for a training, a ceremony, or an individual healing session due to an inability to pay.  I make some distinction between community ceremonies which are drop-in and by donation (a.k.a. you can come even if you are completely broke) and individual sessions and trainings where I need to get paid something more substantial for my time.  The expectation that spirituality is somehow tainted by the energetic exchange of money or that spiritual teacher people must live in poverty is not a philosophy I ascribe to. Money is value neutral.  Open communication seems to resolve money questions.

Come on now, aren't the trainings and individual sessions still ceremonies? Aren't you charging money for ceremony?

Yes.  I charge money for some ceremonies, some are by donation.  If you are one of the people who think that is just awful and unethical, best to avoid me.  Seriously, it's a rigid view.  I have to find ways to support myself if I'm to continue to be available to others on a basic time/energy level.  Devaluing the work of priests and teachers is a sure way to have fewer priests and teachers.

FOUNDATIONS

So, what are the key elements of what you're up to?  Like, what do you teach or do?

In brief, I see my public offerings revolving around three basic themes: work with the land, work with the ancestors, and work to clarify life purpose/destiny.  The first theme is reflected in the "earth medicine" offerings and emphasis right relationship with the earth, the elements, the animals, plants, minerals, nature spirits, human ancestral spirits of the land, and Earth in general.  Learning how to live right again, in balance, with respect. In shamanic jargon this corresponds to the below worlds, the "lower world", what is beneath our feet, chakras 1-3.

The ancestor work is about coming into right relationship with our particular families, cultures, biological ancestors, and life stories.  Work with the ancestors is about learning how to be an upright, loving, and wholesome human being.  The ancestors offer human wisdom and perspective.  Ancestor work also prepares us to become a helpful ancestor.  In the three worlds map this corresponds to the heart chakra, to the middle world, to the human experience.  Humans are the children of Heaven and Earth.  Ancestors lived as humans.

The third of three themes around life purpose or destiny, is most addressed with the Shasta wilderness fast we do in the summers, but there are many ways to knock on the door of one's destiny.  This is about being who we uniquely are without apology and it's not always as straightforward as it sounds.  Gradually (or sometimes dramatically and fast) shedding layers of identity and story to stand in direct conversation with our own destiny, our personal configuration of stars, energy, and consciousness.  To become who we are.  These kinds of questions for me correspond more to the above worlds, the heavens, the patterns in the stars, our cosmic star selves.

I hold the ideal that we can embody more and more our earthiness (balanced with other earth beings here), our full sloppy wonderful humanity, and our unique destiny as weird old star beings come to earth.  Balance along the vertical axis and balance with the elemental energies.  Those are some of the ideals and patternings that inform what I offer by way of trainings and circles and what someone who studied with me would expect to focus on in a general structural sense.

What about reincarnation?  I was told by a psychic that I was a Native American chief in a past life.

I don't personally focus on reincarnation much although I suppose it works like that.  Partly it's because I rarely hear people say, "God, I was a real alcoholic, abusive loser in a past life." To be more direct, I've seen folks bypass their own work with their ancestors and families often enough to be suspicious of the way the whole past-life topic can come up.  I figure whatever patternings in consciousness may derive from before-this-life experiences, they'll need to be resolved in this life so best to have a pragmatic approach as too much self-story can create more of a mess than it resolves.  Finally, I would say that if it's really important to you that you were a Native chief in a past life, probably best to not bring that up to many Native chiefs in this lifetime unless you've done the work to earn their respect first as you may not like the response you would get.  Ultimately it's in the moment awareness, conduct, and heart that matters most.

Why all the emphasis on ancestors?  No, really, you have never met my family, trust me.

Isn't working with the elements a little simplistic?

What's all this talk about our life purpose/destiny? Aren't we just here to be loving, good people?

Daniel Foor   (650) 248-8917   danielfoor@yahoo.com